Let us look at other means of knowledge, called inference and reasoning. The inference is called ‘anumana’ and reasoning or logic is called ‘tarka’. Can somebody know Brahman through inference or reasoning? An example of inference is – there is smoke on top of the mountain, and by that, we infer that there is fire there. Similarly, because this world is there, can somebody infer that there is Brahman? It is not possible. Brahman cannot be known through inference. Inference or anumana, is limited to the objects which are perceivable by senses. Brahman cannot be perceived by the senses. Smoke and fire are both perceivable by the sense organs. That is why it can be inferred. There is a logical relationship there. But you can’t logically infer something that cannot be perceived by the senses that it is there. Brahman is beyond anumana. You cannot know Brahman through inference or anumana.
What about logic or reasoning? This is tarka. There are people with a very well developed sense of logic or tarka. But all logic is in the domain of experience. You cannot have a logical inference or reasoning for whatever is beyond the domain of experience. You cannot attain that through reasoning. Tarka goes slightly beyond anumana. Anumana has a relationship between two objects, but Tarka or reasoning can go beyond anumana, to some extent. But, by and large, they are similar; though, in both cases, it requires a relation between two entities, which are in the domain of experience. For all that are not in the domain of experience, you cannot reason. There is no way you can obtain it through reason.
One example of reasoning is – there are time-to-time rains, and because there are rains, there is Brahman. You cannot infer like that. ‘There is a world which you can see, and because of the world which you can see, there is Brahman.’ You cannot infer like that.
So, both tarka and anumana, or reasoning and inference, fail to reach Brahman.