Hypothesis

Expressions researched:
"hypotheses" |"hypothesis" |"hypothesize" |"hypothesized" |"hypothesy" |"hypothetical" |"hypothetically"

SB Canto 2

SB 2.2.35, Translation:

The Personality of Godhead Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa is in every living being along with the individual soul. And this fact is perceived and hypothesized in our acts of seeing and taking help from the intelligence.

SB Cantos 10.14 to 12 (Translations Only)

SB 11.21.42, Translation:

In the entire world no one but Me actually understands the confidential purpose of Vedic knowledge. Thus people do not know what the Vedas are actually prescribing in the ritualistic injunctions of karma-kāṇḍa, or what object is actually being indicated in the formulas of worship found in the upāsanā-kāṇḍa, or that which is elaborately discussed through various hypotheses in the jñāna-kāṇḍa section of the Vedas.

SB 11.21.43, Translation:

I am the ritualistic sacrifice enjoined by the Vedas, and I am the worshipable Deity. It is I who am presented as various philosophical hypotheses, and it is I alone who am then refuted by philosophical analysis. The transcendental sound vibration thus establishes Me as the essential meaning of all Vedic knowledge. The Vedas, elaborately analyzing all material duality as nothing but My illusory potency, ultimately completely negate this duality and achieve their own satisfaction.

SB 11.23.53, Translation:

And if we examine the hypothesis that the planets are the immediate cause of suffering and happiness, then also where is the relationship with the soul, who is eternal? After all, the effect of the planets applies only to things that have taken birth. Expert astrologers have moreover explained how the planets are only causing pain to each other. Therefore, since the living entity is distinct from these planets and from the material body, against whom should he vent his anger?

CC Adi-lila

CC Adi 6.14-15, Purport:

In the Sāṅkhya philosophy the puruṣa is described to be always indifferent to the activities of prakṛti.

"The Sāṅkhya philosopher accepts three kinds of evidences, namely direct perception, hypothesis and traditional authority. When such evidence is complete, everything is perfect. The process of comparison is within such perfection. Beyond such evidence there is no proof. There is not much controversy regarding direct perceptional evidence or authorized traditional evidence. The Sāṅkhya system of philosophy identifies three kinds of procedures—namely, pariṇāmāt (transformation), samanvayāt (adjustment) and śaktitaḥ (performance of energies)—as the causes of the cosmic manifestation."

CC Adi 16.83, Translation:

"The real glory of mother Ganges is that she has grown from the lotus feet of Lord Viṣṇu. Such a hypothesis is another ornament, called anumāna."

CC Madhya-lila

CC Madhya 6.81, Translation and Purport:

The disciples of the Bhaṭṭācārya said, "We derive knowledge of the Absolute Truth by logical hypothesis." Gopīnātha Ācārya replied, "One cannot attain real knowledge of the Supreme Personality of Godhead by such logical hypothesis and argument."

The Māyāvādī philosophers in particular make certain hypotheses about the Absolute Truth. They reason that in the material world we experience that everything is created. If we trace the history of anything, we find a creator. Therefore there must be a creator of this huge cosmic manifestation. By such reasoning they come to the conclusion that a higher power has created this cosmic manifestation. The Māyāvādīs do not accept this great power to be a person.

CC Madhya 6.81, Purport:

Māyāvādī philosophers study the Vedic literature, but they do not understand that in the last stage of realization the Absolute Truth is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa. They do accept the fact that there is a creator of this cosmic manifestation, but that is anumāna (hypothesis). The Māyāvādī philosophers' logic is something like seeing smoke on a hill and concluding that there is a fire. When there is a forest fire on a high hill, smoke is first of all visible. Since it is known that smoke is created when there is fire, from seeing the smoke on the hill one can conclude that a fire is burning there. Similarly, from seeing this cosmic manifestation the Māyāvādī philosophers conclude that there must be a creator.

CC Madhya 6.82, Translation:

Gopīnātha Ācārya continued, "One can understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead only by His mercy, not by guesswork or hypothesis."

CC Madhya 6.135, Purport:

In his book Sarva-saṁvādinī, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī has noted that although there are ten kinds of evidence—direct perception, the Vedic version, historical reference, hypothesis and so on—and although they are all generally accepted as evidence, the person presenting a hypothesis, reading the Vedic version, perceiving or interpreting by his experience is certain to be imperfect in four ways. That is, he is subject to committing mistakes, to becoming illusioned, to cheating and to having imperfect senses. Although the evidence may be correct, the person himself is in danger of being misled due to his material defects. Apart from the direct presentation, there is a chance that an interpretation may not be perfect. Therefore the conclusion is that only a direct presentation can be considered evidence. An interpretation cannot be accepted as evidence, but may be considered proof of evidence.

CC Madhya 6.137, Purport:

Out of four main types of evidence—direct perception, hypothesis, historical reference and the Vedas—Vedic evidence is accepted as the foremost. If we want to interpret the Vedic version, we must imagine an interpretation according to what we want to do. First of all, we set forth such an interpretation as a suggestion or hypothesis. As such, it is not actually true, and the self-evident proof is lost.

CC Madhya 7.66, Purport:

A Vaiṣṇava never agrees with the speculative system of the jñānīs. Both the jñānīs and karmīs depend on direct sense perception for their imperfect knowledge. The karmīs never agree to accept anything not directly perceived, and the jñānīs put forth only hypotheses. However, the Vaiṣṇavas, the unalloyed devotees of the Lord, do not follow the process of acquiring knowledge by direct sense perception or mental speculation. Because they are servants of the Supreme Lord, devotees receive knowledge directly from the Supreme Personality of Godhead as He speaks it in the Bhagavad-gītā, or sometimes as He imparts it from within as the caittya-guru.

CC Madhya 9.362, Purport:

In Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (11.19.17), it is said:

śrutiḥ pratyakṣam aitihyam anumānaṁ catuṣṭayam

pramāṇeṣv anavasthānād vikalpāt sa virajyate

"Vedic literature, direct perception, history and hypothesis are the four kinds of evidential proofs. Everyone should stick to these principles for the realization of the Absolute Truth."

Teachings of Lord Caitanya

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 24:

Lord Caitanya protested against misinterpretations of the Upaniṣads, and He rejected any explanation which did not give the direct meaning of the Upaniṣads. The direct interpretation is called abhidhā-vṛtti, whereas the indirect interpretation is called lakṣanā-vṛtti, The indirect interpretation serves no purpose. There are four kinds of understanding, called: (1) direct understanding (pratyakṣa), (2) hypothetical understanding (anumāna), (3) historical understanding (aitihya) and (4) understanding through sound (śabda). Of these four, understanding from the Vedic scriptures (which are the sound representations of the Absolute Truth) is the best method. The traditional Vedic students accept understanding through sound to be the best.

Sri Isopanisad

Sri Isopanisad Introduction:

There are three kinds of evidence: pratyakṣa, anumāna and śabda. Pratyakṣa means "direct evidence." Direct evidence is not very good because our senses are not perfect. We are seeing the sun daily, and it appears to us just like a small disc, but it is actually far, far larger than many planets. Of what value is this seeing? Therefore we have to read books; then we can understand about the sun. So direct experience is not perfect. Then there is anumāna, inductive knowledge: "It may be like this"—hypothesis. For instance, Darwin's theory says it may be like this, it may be like that. But that is not science. That is a suggestion, and it is also not perfect. But if you receive the knowledge from the authoritative sources, that is perfect. If you receive a program guide from the radio station authorities, you accept it. You don't deny it; you don't have to make an experiment, because it is received from the authoritative sources.

Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures

Lecture on BG 2.8-12 -- Los Angeles, November 27, 1968:

There are three kinds of evidences accepted by the learned scholars in Vedic culture. One evidence is pratyakṣa. Pratyakṣa means direct perception. Just like I am seeing you, you are seeing me. I am present, you are present. This is direct perception. And there is another evidence which is called anumāna. Suppose in that room, and I am coming just now, I do not know whether any person there is or not. But there is some sound, I can imagine, "Oh, there is somebody." This is called anumāna. In logic it is called hypothesis. That is also evidence. If by my bona fide suggestions I can give evidence, that is also accepted. So direct evidence, and, what is called, hypothesis or suggestion evidence. But the strong evidence is śabda-pramāṇa. Śabda, śabda-brahman. That means Vedas. If one can give evidence from the quotation of the Vedas, then it has to be accepted.

Lecture on BG 2.20-25 -- Seattle, October 14, 1968:

There are three kinds of evidences. Pratyakṣa, direct sense perception, and śabda-pramāṇa, evidence from the Vedic statement, and anumāna, aitihya, historical or hypothesis. So out of all evidences, the evidence which is called, derived from Vedic statement, that is accepted as most authoritative. Therefore Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad and Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad, they are Vedas. There is statement that two birds are sitting on the same tree. The tree is compared, the body is compared with the tree. And two birds, namely the Supersoul, Kṛṣṇa, and the living entity, individual soul, they are sitting together. And one is eating the fruit of the tree and the other is simply witnessing. This is our position.

Lecture on BG 2.46-47 -- New York, March 28, 1966:

Just like in India... Of course, I heard this story from my professor when I was a student of logic in my I.A. class. And this example was given by my professor, Dr. Purnachandra Sena. I still remember that when first railway was started from Howrah to Burdwan, about sixty-four miles, during British period, say, about two hundred years before, now the cultivators on both sides of the line, they were seeing the railway engine going with wonder: "Oh!" So somebody... This story was cited in connection with chapter of hypothesis. In logic there is a chapter of hypothesis. So somebody suggested that "There must be horse within the engine. Otherwise it cannot go." Because they have got experience that without horse nothing can be pulled on. It is horseless, so the hypothesis was that "There must be horses within the engine. Otherwise it cannot go." So similarly, the machine, the machine, however wonderful it may be, so if not horse, at least if there is no driver it cannot move. It cannot move.

Lecture on BG 4.3-6 -- New York, July 18, 1966:

Neither, I mean to say, imagination or hypothesis nor direct. Direct perception is always imperfect, especially in the conditioned stage of life. Just like direct perception—with our eyes we see the sun just like a disc, not more than your plate on which you take your meals. But from authority, aitihya, we understand the sun is so many millions times greater than this earth. So which of them is right? By seeing your direct perception, sun just like a disc—is it right? Or you take it from authority that sun is such and such times bigger than the earth? Which one of them you'll accept? But you are not going to prove it that the sun is so great. You do not know. You accept from some scientist, from some astronomer, from some authority, that sun is so great. But you have no capacity to see yourself whether the sun is so great or not. Therefore the knowledge received from authority actually we are accustomed and we are accepting this type of knowledge in every field of our activities.

Lecture on BG 7.2 -- London, March 10, 1975:

Asaṁśayam, without any doubt. If we speculate about God, that will never be sufficient. Not even we can touch the precincts of the knowledge. If we want knowledge without any doubt, asaṁśayam, samagram, and complete, then we must hear from God Himself. This is very easy to understand. By hypothesis, by speculation, you cannot understand anything. It must be known scientifically, and this science can be understood if a person knows the science. So who can know God better than God Himself?

Lecture on BG 13.1-2 -- Bombay, September 25, 1973:

So in the modern world every knowledge is speculative, hypothetical. There is no perfect knowledge. So if you want to be perfectly in knowledge, then you have to take knowledge from the Supreme Personality of Godhead. That is here delivered by the Supreme Personality of Godhead Kṛṣṇa in the form of Bhagavad-gītā. Therefore Arjuna is asking this question so that people may receive the perfect knowledge from Kṛṣṇa and their life may be perfect in that way.

Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures

Lecture on SB 1.5.14 -- New Vrindaban, June 18, 1969:

So there are three kinds of processes to receive knowledge: pratyakṣa, aitihya and śabda. Pratyakṣa means by direct perception, experimental knowledge. And aitihya, or anumāna. Anumāna, hypothesis, "It may be like this," "Perhaps like this." Just like modern scientists say, "Perhaps it is like this." That is called anumāna, hypothesis. And another process is śabda-pramāṇa. Śruti-pramāṇa. Śabda means sound vibration, and śruti means aural reception. So out of three processes, the śabda-pramāṇa, or receiving vibration, sound vibration from authorities by aural reception, that is considered to be the perfect.

Lecture on SB 1.7.45-46 -- Vrndavana, October 5, 1976:

Pramāṇi-grantha means śabda-pramāṇa. Śabda-pramāṇa, anumāna pramāṇa, and anumāna... Just like a sound is going on. One who knows, that's all right. But we can... Hypothesis. We can think that some machine is running on. We may not know what is that machine. So this is anumāna. I'm not seeing the machine, what kind of machine is running, but I can think of, imagine that it may be some machine is running on. That is also another pramāṇa. Hypothesis, inductive, deductive. They are also... Analogy. There are so many processes.

Lecture on SB 6.1.3 -- Melbourne, May 22, 1975:

Can you give any example, "Here is a machine which is working without operator"? So how do you think that the nature machine is working without the supreme operator, God's instruction. How do you think it? This is not very reasonable. We have to judge. There are different evidences. One of the evidence is hypothesis. That hypothesis is that "Because we see that no machine works without operator, therefore we should conclude it, even though we do not know what is God, what is the nature, we must conclude it that the nature is working under some supreme operator. That is God." It is not necessary to see the operator, but we can guess that there must be operator. So human life is meant for finding out who is there to operate.

Lecture on SB 6.1.46 -- San Diego, July 27, 1975:

Anumīyate. Anumīyate means hypothesis. This is also an evidence. Pratyakṣa, anumāna, and śruta. According to Vedic principles, there are three different types of evidences. Everything must be proved by evidence. So these are primarily three evidences. Pratyakṣa, direct perception, pratyakṣa; anumāna; and śruti. Anumāna means I cannot see directly, but by the symptoms I can imagine. That is anumāna.

1972 Conversations and Morning Walks

Conversation with Bajaj and Bhusan -- September 11, 1972, Arlington, Texas, At Their Home:

Guest (2): You are saying that man shouldn't have bondage?

Prabhupāda: Yes. Everyone is under bondage, good or bad.

Guest (2): But is good bondage good?

Prabhupāda: Good bondage, but it is bondage, after all. If you are prisoner, first-class prisoner or third-class prisoner, you are prisoner.

Guest (2): But doesn't bondage give the incentive to live?

Prabhupāda: No, bondage gives bondage. If you do not know how to get out of the bondage, then you will be more and more in bondage.

Guest (2): But if you don't have any bondage, then...

Prabhupāda: No, everyone is in bondage.

Guest (2): No, I mean, suppose idealistically...

Prabhupāda: What idealistic?

Guest (2): Hypothetical case that...

Prabhupāda: No, nothing hypothetical. Your bondage... Bondage means that birth, death, old age and disease. This is bondage.

Morning Walk Conversation -- September 28, 1972, Los Angeles:

Jayatīrtha: In logic, if the hypothesis is wrong then the conclusion is wrong.

Prabhupāda: The hypothesis is always wrong.

Svarūpa Dāmodara: If the starting point is wrong, then there is nothing...

Prabhupāda: Then there cannot be any perfect knowledge. So the modern so-called scientists, philosophers, their starting point is wrong.

1973 Conversations and Morning Walks

Discussion about Guru Maharaji -- August 13, 1973, Paris:

Prabhupāda: Sometimes we say that there is a creator because everything, just we say, everything, whatever we have got in our experience, it is created. So this gigantic universe or one or many, there must be one creator. This is one hypothesis. So that creator, if I accept this man, whether he can create something, such wonderful? Has he done so? In this way, you have to make propaganda. So far our position is, we accept God, Kṛṣṇa, on the authority, as well as by the action, both. We, we make hypothesis that there must be a creator. Vedānta says: "Yes, there is a creator." And Kṛṣṇa says, He says: "I am the creator of everything." And when He was at, on this planet, He did so many wonderful things. And He is accepted by big, big stalwarts.

Discussion about Guru Maharaji -- August 13, 1973, Paris:

Prabhupāda: Anumāna, hypothesy, and pramāṇa, śāstra-pramāṇa. Śruti-pramāṇa. evidences from the Vedas. Evidences from authorized persons. And anumāna also. That is not good evidence. But even if you take anumāna, that if I make... This table is created by somebody. It is all right. But to find out that somebody is still further progress. Similarly, we have to accept that this gigantic universe... As I say that what is the purpose? If there is purpose, whose purpose? Who is acting? In this way, we have to make progress.

1975 Conversations and Morning Walks

Room Conversation with Woman Sanskrit Professor -- February 13, 1975, Mexico:

Professor: But according to Śaṅkara it is not only way that you can approach truth. You can also approach through deduction.

Prabhupāda: There are many ways. Just like hypothesis. Hypothesis. Yes. History, history. Hypothesis, history. Then direct perception. There are many. But of all these, śabda-pramāṇa is taken as best. Śabda-pramāṇa, evidence through the sound. That is the best.

Room Conversation with Carol Cameron -- May 9, 1975, Perth:

Prabhupāda: You say, but those who are the followers of the authorities, they do not say. You are outsider. You say it may be. It may not be, but you have no authority. You are simply taking a hypothesis, "it may be." But those who actually are following, they do not say. What about this? Whose version is more important? Your or theirs? You are outsider. You are simply suggesting because you had a bad experience. But one who has no such experience, why should he follow your advice?

Room Conversation with Ganesa dasa's Mother and Sister -- May 14, 1975, Perth:

Sister: This is similar to many views of psychologists who believe in self-actualization.

Prabhupāda: Belief is different thing and fact is one thing.

Sister: Philosophi..., or, say, hypothesize that you can reach self-actualization.

Prabhupāda: Belief is no good. I believe. You may believe something wrong. That is not... You must know the fact. That is wanted.

Morning Walk -- May 16, 1975, Perth:

Prabhupāda: ...next life, supposing hypothetically I am going to be a dog, then what is this civilization? But that you cannot say, "No, I am not going to be dog," because you do not know. You are under the, completely under the grip of material nature.

Morning Walk -- May 23, 1975, Melbourne:

Amogha: On an earlier walk you were saying there are three kinds of Vedic evidence. Śruti, itihāsa, and anumāna, was it? I didn't understand what anumāna was.

Prabhupāda: Hypothesis. Hypothesis. Just like yesterday I was explaining that as soon as there is a machine, there is an operator. This is hypothesis. You cannot expect machine going on without operator. Similarly, this material nature is a machine and the operator is God. This is hypothesis. Even though you do not see God we can make this suggestion. That is human reasoning, logic.

Morning Walk -- July 11, 1975, Chicago:

Harikeśa: He started his speculation from the creation of life. He didn't...

Prabhupāda: Anywhere, speculation is not science nor philosophy. We don't admit. No hypothesis.

Morning Walk -- July 11, 1975, Chicago:

Prabhupāda: ...logic also it is admitted that inductive logic is imperfect; deductive logic is perfect. (break) ...logic means śrota-panthā, paramparā, śruti, Vedic language, śruti. Śruti pramāṇa. Pramāṇa means evidence, and śruti means Veda. Pratyakṣa, anumāna, śruti. Pratyakṣa means direct, direct evidence, and anumāna, hypothesis. That is Darwin's theory, something like that. And śruti, Vedic. So out of these three kinds of evidences, śruti-pramāṇa is accepted as supreme, neither anumāna nor pratyakṣa. Pratyakṣa, you are seeing the sky, but you cannot say the length and breadth. You cannot say. You are seeing daily. If you say, "I have got this telescope," so that is an imperfect. and how you can see with your eyes directly, direct sense perception? Hypothesis, anumāna, guessing, that is also not perfect. And śruti, we take śruti from the perfect person, Kṛṣṇa. He says, aham evāsam agre: "Before the creation I was there." We take simply.

Morning Walk -- November 11, 1975, Bombay:

Dr. Patel: Because their main hypothesis is... That is near the mind. (?)

Prabhupāda: Yes. So evaṁ manasa-gocaraḥ. You cannot have it. śruti-pramāṇam. You have to hear from the authority. Jaya. So if you want to waste your time in that way, you can do that. And next birth, you become a dog. That's all.

1976 Conversations and Morning Walks

Room Conversation -- January 8, 1976, Nellore:

Gopāla Kṛṣṇa: It's always a hypothesis.

Prabhupāda: If some children discuss some serious subject matter, what is the value? And they are all children in the cradle of nature, that's all. Prakṛteḥ kriya.... Therefore it is word, prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni (BG 3.27). Just like children—"Ha! Sit down here"—he has to sit down. Then where is his freedom to discuss? Prakṛti says that "You sit down here. Don't go there." He has to accept. Then what is the value of discussion?