Reading section 48

The Mîmâ@msist Prabhâkara agreed with Nyâya in general as regards the way in which the objective world and sense contact

416

induced knowledge in us. But it regarded knowledge as a unique phenomenon which at once revealed itself, the knower and the known. We are not concerned with physical collocations, for whatever these may be it is knowledge which reveals things--the direct apprehension that should be called the pramâ@na. Pramâ@na in this sense is the same as pramiti or pramâ, the phenomenon of apprehension. Pramâ@na may also indeed mean the collocations so far as they induce the pramâ. For pramâ or right knowledge is never produced, it always exists, but it manifests itself differently under different circumstances. The validity of knowledge means the conviction or the specific attitude that is generated in us with reference to the objective world. This validity is manifested with the rise of knowledge, and it does not await the verdict of any later experience in the objective field (_sa@mvâdin_). Knowledge as nirvikalpa (indeterminate) means the whole knowledge of the object and not merely a non-sensible hypothetical indeterminate class-notion as Nyâya holds. The savikalpa (determinate) knowledge only re-establishes the knowledge thus formed by relating it with other objects as represented by memory [Footnote ref 1].

Prabhâkara rejected the Sâ@mkhya conception of a dual element in consciousness as involving a transcendent intelligence (_cit_) and a material part, the buddhi; but it regarded consciousness as an unique thing which by itself in one flash represented both the knower and the known. The validity of knowledge did not depend upon its faithfulness in reproducing or indicating (_pradars'akatva_) external objects, but upon the force that all direct apprehension (_anubhûti_) has of prompting us to action in the external world; knowledge is thus a complete and independent unit in all its self-revealing aspects. But what the knowledge was in itself apart from its self-revealing character Prabhâkara did not enquire.

Kumârila declared that jñâna (knowledge) was a movement brought about by the activity of the self which resulted in producing consciousness (_jñâtatâ_) of objective things. Jñâna itself cannot be perceived, but can only be inferred as the movement necessary for producing the jñâtatâ or consciousness of things. Movement with Kumârila was not a mere atomic vibration, but was a non-sensuous transcendent operation of which vibration

__________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Sâ@mkhya considered nirvikalpa as the dim knowledge of the first moment of consciousness, which, when it became clear at the next moment, was called savikalpa.]

417

was sometimes the result. Jñâna was a movement and not the result of causal operation as Nyâya supposed. Nyâya would not also admit any movement on the part of the self, but it would hold that when the self is possessed of certain qualities, such as desire, etc., it becomes an instrument for the accomplishment of a physical movement. Kumârila accords the same self-validity to knowledge that Prabhâkara gives. Later knowledge by experience is not endowed with any special quality which should decide as to the validity of the knowledge of the previous movement. For what is called sa@mvâdi or later testimony of experience is but later knowledge and nothing more [Footnote ref 1]. The self is not revealed in the knowledge of external objects, but we can know it by a mental perception of self-consciousness. It is the movement of this self in presence of certain collocating circumstances leading to cognition of things that is called jñâna [Footnote ref 2]. Here Kumârila distinguishes knowledge as movement from knowledge as objective consciousness. Knowledge as movement was beyond sense perception and could only be inferred.

The idealistic tendency of Vijñânavâda Buddhism, Sâ@mkhya, and Mîmâ@msâ was manifest in its attempt at establishing the unique character of knowledge as being that with which alone we are in touch. But Vijñânavâda denied the external world, and thereby did violence to the testimony of knowledge. Sâ@mkhya admitted the external world but created a gulf between the content of knowledge and pure intelligence; Prabhâkara ignored this difference, and was satisfied with the introspective assertion that knowledge was such a unique thing that it revealed with itself, the knower and the known, Kumârila however admitted a transcendent element of movement as being the cause of our objective consciousness, but regarded this as being separate from self. But the question remained unsolved as to why, in spite of the unique character of knowledge, knowledge could relate itself to the world of objects, how far the world of external objects or of knowledge could be regarded as absolutely true. Hitherto judgments were only relative, either referring to one's being prompted to the objective world, to the faithfulness of the representation of objects, the suitability of fulfilling our requirements, or to verification by later

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See _Nyâyaratnamâla_, svata@h-prâmâ@nya-nir@naya.]

[Footnote 2: See _Nyâyamañjari_ on Pramâ@na, _S'lokavârttika_ on Pratyak@sa, and Gâgâ Bha@t@ta's _Bha@t@tâcintama@ni_ on Pratyak@sa.]

418

uncontradicted experience. But no enquiry was made whether any absolute judgments about the ultimate truth of knowledge and matter could be made at all. That which appeared was regarded as the real. But the question was not asked, whether there was anything which could be regarded as absolute truth, the basis of all appearance, and the unchangeable, reality. This philosophical enquiry had the most wonderful charm for the Hindu mind.

Vedânta Literature.

It is difficult to ascertain the time when the _Brahma-sûtras_ were written, but since they contain a refutation of almost all the other Indian systems, even of the S'ûnyavâda Buddhism (of course according to S'a@nkara's interpretation), they cannot have been written very early. I think it may not be far from the truth in supposing that they were written some time in the second century B.C. About the period 780 A.D. Gau@dapâda revived the monistic teaching of the Upani@sads by his commentary on the Mâ@n@dûkya Upani@sad in verse called _Mâ@n@dûkyakârikâ_. His disciple Govinda was the teacher of S'a@nkara (788--820 A.D.). S'a@nkara's commentary on the _Brahma-sûtras_ is the root from which sprang forth a host of commentaries and studies on Vedântism of great originality, vigour, and philosophic insight. Thus Ânandagiri, a disciple of S'a@nkara, wrote a commentary called _Nyâyanir@naya_, and Govindânanda wrote another commentary named _Ratna-prabhâ_. Vâcaspati Mis'ra, who flourished about 841 A.D., wrote another commentary on it called the _Bhâmati._ Amalânanda (1247--1260 A.D.) wrote his _Kalpataru_ on it, and Apyayadik@sita (1550 A.D.) son of Ra@ngarâjadhvarîndra of Kâñcî wrote his _Kalpataruparimala_ on the _Kalpataru._ Another disciple of S'a@nkara, Padmapâda, also called Sanandana, wrote a commentary on it known as _Pañcapâdikâ_. From the manner in which the book is begun one would expect that it was to be a running commentary on the whole of S'a@nkara's bhâsya, but it ends abruptly at the end of the fourth sûtra. Mâdhava (1350), in his _S'a@nkaravijaya,_ recites an interesting story about it. He says that Sures'vara received S'a@nkara's permission to write a vârttika on the bhâsya. But other pupils objected to S'a@nkara that since Sures'vara was formerly a great Mîmâ@msist (Ma@n@dana Misra was called Sures'vara after his conversion to Vedântism) he was not competent to write

419

a good _vârttika_ on the bhâ@sya. Sures'vara, disappointed, wrote a treatise called _Nai@skarmyasiddhi._ Padmapâda wrote a @tîkâ but this was burnt in his uncle's house. S'a@nkara, who had once seen it, recited it from memory and Padmapâda wrote it down. Prakâs'âtman (1200) wrote a commentary on Padmapâda's _Pañcapâdikâ_ known as _Pañcapâdikâvivara@na. _Akha@n@dânanda wrote his _Tattvadîpana,_ and the famous N@rsi@mhâs'rama Muni (1500) wrote his _Vivara@nabhâvaprakâs'ikâ_ on it. Amalânanda and Vidyasâgara also wrote commentaries on _Pañcapâdikâ,_ named _Pañcapâdikâdarpa@na_ and _Pañcapâdikâ@tîkâ_ respectively, but the _Pañcapâdikâvivara@na_ had by far the greatest reputation. Vidyâra@nya who is generally identified by some with Mâdhava (1350) wrote his famous work _Vivara@naprameyasa@mgraha_ [Footnote ref 1], elaborating the ideas of _Pañcapâdikâvivara@na_; Vidyâra@nya wrote also another excellent work named _Jîvanmuktiviveka_ on the Vedânta doctrine of emancipation. Sures'vara's (800 A.D.) excellent work _Nai@skarmyasiddhi_ is probably the earliest independent treatise on S'a@nkara's philosophy as expressed in his bhâ@sya. It has been commented upon by Jñânottama Mis'ra. Vidyâra@nya also wrote another work of great merit known as _Pañcadas'î,_ which is a very popular and illuminating treatise in verse on Vedânta. Another important work written in verse on the main teachings of S'a@nkara's bhâ@sya is _Sa@mk@sepas'arîraka_, written by Sarvajñâtma Muni (900 A.D.). This has also been commented upon by Râmatîrtha. S'rîhar@sa (1190 A.D.) wrote his _Kha@n@danakha@n@dakhâdya_, the most celebrated work on the Vedânta dialectic. Citsukha, who probably flourished shortly after S'rîhar@sa, wrote a commentary on it, and also wrote an independent work on Vedânta dialectic known as _Tattvadîpikâ_ which has also a commentary called _Nayanaprasâdinî_ written by Pratyagrûpa. S'a@nkara Mis'ra and Raghunâtha also wrote commentaries on _Kha@n@danakha@n@dakhâdya._ A work on Vedânta epistemology and the principal topics of Vedânta of great originality and merit known as _Vedântaparibhâ@sâ_ was written by Dharmarâjâdhvarîndra (about 155OA.D.). His son Râmak@r@snâdhvarin wrote his _S'ikhâma@ni_ on it and Amaradâsa his _Ma@niprabhâ._ The _Vedântaparibhâ@sâ_ with these two commentaries forms an excellent exposition of some of the fundamental principles of Vedânta. Another work of supreme importance

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See Narasi@mhâcârya's article in the _Indian Antiquary_, 1916.]

420

(though probably the last great work on Vedânta) is the _Advaitasiddhi_ of Madhusûdana Sarasvatî who followed Dharmarâjâdhvarîndra. This has three commentaries known as _Gau@dabrahmânandî_, _Vi@t@thales'opadhyâyî_ and _Siddhivyâkhyâ_. Sadânanda Vyâsa wrote also a summary of it known as _Advaitasiddhisiddhântasâra_. Sadânanda wrote also an excellent elementary work named _Vedântasâra_ which has also two commentaries _Subodhinî_ and _Vidvanmanorañjinî_. The _Advaitabrahmasiddhi_ of Sadânanda Yati though much inferior to _Advaitasiddhi_ is important, as it touches on many points of Vedânta interest which are not dealt with in other Vedânta works. The _Nyâyamakaranda_ of Ânandabodha Bha@t@târakâcâryya treats of the doctrines of illusion very well, as also some other important points of Vedânta interest. _Vedântasiddhântamuktâvalî_ of Prakâs'ânanda discusses many of the subtle points regarding the nature of ajñâna and its relations to cit, the doctrine of _d@r@stis@r@stivâda_, etc., with great clearness. _Siddhântales'a by Apyayadîk@sita is very important as a summary of the divergent views of different writers on many points of interest. _Vedântatattvadîpikâ_ and _Siddhântatattva_ are also good as well as deep in their general summary of the Vedânta system. _Bhedadhikkâra_ of Nrsi@mhâs'rama Muni also is to be regarded as an important work on the Vedânta dialectic.

The above is only a list of some of the most important Vedânta works on which the present chapter has been based.

Vedânta in Gau@dapâda.

It is useless I think to attempt to bring out the meaning of the Vedânta thought as contained in the _Brahma-sûtras_ without making any reference to the commentary of S'a@nkara or any other commentator. There is reason to believe that the _Brahma-sûtras_ were first commented upon by some Vai@s@nava writers who held some form of modified dualism [Footnote ref 1]. There have been more than a half dozen Vai@s@nava commentators of the _Brahma-sûtras_ who not only differed from S'a@nkara's interpretation, but also differed largely amongst themselves in accordance with the different degrees of stress they laid on the different aspects of their dualistic creeds. Every one of them claimed that his interpretation was the only one that was faithful to the sûtras and to

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: This point will be dealt with in the 2nd volume, when I shall deal with the systems expounded by the Vai@s@nava commentators of the _Brahma-sûtras_.]

421

the Upani@sads. Should I attempt to give an interpretation myself and claim that to be the right one, it would be only just one additional view. But however that may be, I am myself inclined to believe that the dualistic interpretations of the _Brahma-sûtras_ were probably more faithful to the sûtras than the interpretations of S'añkara.

The _S'rîmadbhagavadgîtâ_, which itself was a work of the Ekânti (singularistic) Vai@s@navas, mentions the _Brahma-sûtras_ as having the same purport as its own, giving cogent reasons [Footnote ref 1]. Professor Jacobi in discussing the date of the philosophical sûtras of the Hindus has shown that the references to Buddhism found in the _Brahma-sûtras_ are not with regard to the Vijñâna-vada of Vasubandhu, but with regard to the S'ûnyavâda, but he regards the composition of the _Brahma-sûtras_ to be later than Nâgârjuna. I agree with the late Dr S.C. Vidyâbhû@shana in holding that both the Yogâcâra system and the system of Nâgârjuna evolved from the _Prajñâpâramitâ_ [Footnote ref 2]. Nâgârjuna's merit consisted in the dialectical form of his arguments in support of S'unyavâda; but so far as the essentials of S'unyavâda are concerned I believe that the Tathatâ philosophy of As'vagho@sa and the philosophy of the _Prajñâpâramitâ_ contained no less. There is no reason to suppose that the works of Nâgârjuna were better known to the Hindu writers than the _Mahâyâna sûtras_. Even in such later times as that of Vâcaspati Mis'ra, we find him quoting a passage of the _S'âlistambha sûtra_ to give an account of the Buddhist doctrine of pratîtyasamutpâda [Footnote ref 3]. We could interpret any reference to S'ûnyavâda as pointing to Nâgârjuna only if his special phraseology or dialectical methods were referred to in any way. On the other hand, the reference in the _Bhagavadgîtâ_ to the _Brahma-sûtras_ clearly points out a date prior to that of Nâgârjuna; though we may be slow to believe such an early date as has been assigned to the _Bhagavadgîtâ_ by Telang, yet I suppose that its date could safely be placed so far back as the first half of the first century B.C. or the last part of the second century B.C. The _Brahma-sûtras_ could thus be placed slightly earlier than the date of the _Bhagavadgîtâ_.

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: "Brahmasûtrapadais'caiva hetumadbhirvinis'cita@h" _Bhagavadgîtâ_. The proofs in support of the view that the _Bhagavadgîtâ_ is a Vai@s@nava work will be discussed in the 2nd volume of the present work in the section on _Bhagavadgîtâ_ and its philosophy.]

[Footnote 2: _Indian Antiquary_, 1915.]

[Footnote 3: See Vâcaspati Mis'ra's _Bhâmatî_ on S'a@nkara's bhâsya on _Brahma-sûtra_, II. ii.]

422

I do not know of any evidence that would come in conflict with this supposition. The fact that we do not know of any Hindu writer who held such monistic views as Gau@dapâda or S'a@nkara, and who interpreted the _Brahma-sûtras_ in accordance with those monistic ideas, when combined with the fact that the dualists had been writing commentaries on the _Brahma-sûtras_, goes to show that the _Brahma-sûtras_ were originally regarded as an authoritative work of the dualists. This also explains the fact that the _Bhagavadgîtâ_, the canonical work of the Ekânti Vai@s@navas, should refer to it. I do not know of any Hindu writer previous to Gau@dapâda who attempted to give an exposition of the monistic doctrine (apart from the Upani@sads), either by writing a commentary as did S'a@nkara, or by writing an independent work as did Gau@dapâda. I am inclined to think therefore that as the pure monism of the Upani@sads was not worked out in a coherent manner for the formation of a monistic system, it was dealt with by people who had sympathies with some form of dualism which was already developing in the later days of the Upani@sads, as evidenced by the dualistic tendencies of such Upani@sads as the S'vetâs'vatara, and the like. The epic S'a@mkhya was also the result of this dualistic development.

It seems that Bâdarâya@na, the writer of the _Brahma-sûtras_, was probably more a theist, than an absolutist like his commentator S'a@nkara. Gau@dapâda seems to be the most important man, after the Upani@sad sages, who revived the monistic tendencies of the Upani@sads in a bold and clear form and tried to formulate them in a systematic manner. It seems very significant that no other kârikâs on the Upani@sads were interpreted, except the _Mân@dûkyakârikâ_ by Gau@dapâda, who did not himself make any reference to any other writer of the monistic school, not even Bâdarâya@na. S'a@nkara himself makes the confession that the absolutist (_advaita_) creed was recovered from the Vedas by Gau@dapâda. Thus at the conclusion of his commentary on Gau@dapâda's kârikâ, he says that "he adores by falling at the feet of that great guru (teacher) the adored of his adored, who on finding all the people sinking in the ocean made dreadful by the crocodiles of rebirth, out of kindness for all people, by churning the great ocean of the Veda by his great churning rod of wisdom recovered what lay deep in the heart of the Veda, and is hardly attainable even by the immortal

423

gods [Footnote ref l]." It seems particularly significant that S'a@nkara should credit Gau@dapâda and not Bâdarâya@na with recovering the Upani@sad creed. Gau@dapâda was the teacher of Govinda, the teacher of S'a@nkara; but he was probably living when S'a@nkara was a student, for S'a@nkara says that he was directly influenced by his great wisdom, and also speaks of the learning, self-control and modesty of the other pupils of Gau@dapâda [Footnote ref 2]. There is some dispute about the date of S'a@nkara, but accepting the date proposed by Bha@n@darkar, Pa@thak and Deussen, we may consider it to be 788 A.D. [Footnote ref 3], and suppose that in order to be able to teach S'a@nkara, Gau@dapâda must have been living till at least 800 A.D.

Gau@dapâda thus flourished after all the great Buddhist teachers As'vagho@sa, Nâgârjuna, Asa@nga and Vasubandhu; and I believe that there is sufficient evidence in his kârikâs for thinking that he was possibly himself a Buddhist, and considered that the teachings of the Upani@sads tallied with those of Buddha. Thus at the beginning of the fourth chapter of his kârikâs he says that he adores that great man (_dvipadâm varam_) who by knowledge as wide as the sky realized (_sambuddha_) that all appearances (_dharma_) were like the vacuous sky (_gaganopamam_ [Footnote ref 4]. He then goes on to say that he adores him who has dictated (_des'ita_) that the touch of untouch (_aspars'ayoga_--probably referring to Nirvâ@na) was the good that produced happiness to all beings, and that he was neither in disagreement with this doctrine nor found any contradiction in it (_avivâda@h aviruddhas'ca_). Some disputants hold that coming into being is of existents, whereas others quarrelling with them hold that being (_jâta_) is of non-existents (_abhûtasya_); there are others who quarrel with them and say that neither the existents nor non-existents are liable to being and there is one non-coming-into-being (_advayamajâtim_). He agrees with those who hold that there is no coming into being [Footnote ref 5]. In IV. 19 of his kârikâ he again says that the Buddhas have shown that there was no coming into being in any way (_sarvathâ Buddhairajâti@h paridîpita@h_).

__________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: S'a@nkara's bhâ@sya on Gau@dapâda's kârikâ, Anandâs'rama edition, p. 214.]

[Footnote 2: Anandâs'rama edition of S'a@nkara's bhâ@sya on Gau@dapâda's kârikâ, p. 21.]

[Footnote 3: Telang wishes to put S'a@nkara's date somewhere in the 8th century, and Ve@nkates'vara would have him in 805 A.D.-897 A.D., as he did not believe that S'a@nkara could have lived only for 32 years. _J.R.A.S._ 1916.]

[Footnote 4: Compare _Lankâvatâra_, p. 29, _Katha@m ca gaganopamam_.]

[Footnote 5: Gau@dapâda's kârikâ, IV. 2, 4.]

424

Again, in IV. 42 he says that it was for those realists (_vastuvâdi_), who since they found things and could deal with them and were afraid of non-being, that the Buddhas had spoken of origination (_jâti_). In IV. 90 he refers to _agrayâna_ which we know to be a name of _Mahâyâna_. Again, in IV. 98 and 99 he says that all appearances are pure and vacuous by nature. These the Buddhas, the emancipated one (_mukta_) and the leaders know first. It was not said by the Buddha that all appearances (_dharma_) were knowledge. He then closes the kârikâs with an adoration which in all probability also refers to the Buddha [Footnote ref 1].

Gau@dapâda's work is divided into four chapters: (i) Âgama (scripture), (2) Vaitathya (unreality), (3) Advaita (unity), (4) Alâtas'ânti (the extinction of the burning coal). The first chapter is more in the way of explaining the Mâ@n@dûkya Upani@sad by virtue of which the entire work is known as _Mâ@n@dûkyakârikâ_. The second, third, and fourth chapters are the constructive parts of Gau@dapâda's work, not particularly connected with the Mâ@n@dûkya Upani@sad.

In the first chapter Gau@dapâda begins with the three apparent manifestations of the self: (1) as the experiencer of the external world while we are awake (_vis'va_ or _vais'vânara âtmâ_), (2) as the experiencer in the dream state (_taijasa âtmâ_), (3) as the experiencer in deep sleep (_su@supti_), called the _prâjña_ when there is no determinate knowledge, but pure consciousness and pure bliss (_ânanda_). He who knows these three as one is never attached to his experiences. Gau@dapâda then enumerates some theories of creation: some think that the world has proceeded as a creation from the prâ@na (vital activity), others consider creation as an expansion (_vibhûti_) of that cause from which it has proceeded; others imagine that creation is like dream (_svapna_) and magic (_mâyâ_); others, that creation proceeds simply by the will of the Lord; others that it proceeds from time; others that it is for the enjoyment of the Lord (_bhogârtham_) or for his play only (_kri@dârtham_), for such is the nature (_svabhâva_) of the Lord, that he creates, but he cannot have any longing, as all his desires are in a state of fulfilment.

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Gau@dapâda's kârikâ IV. 100. In my translation I have not followed S'a@nkara, for he has I think tried his level best to explain away even the most obvious references to Buddha and Buddhism in Gau@dapâda's kârikâ. I have, therefore, drawn my meaning directly as Gau@dapâda's kârikâs seemed to indicate. I have followed the same principle in giving the short exposition of Gau@dapâda's philosophy below.]

425

Gau@dapâda does not indicate his preference one way or the other, but describes the fourth state of the self as unseen (_ad@r@s@ta_), unrelationable (_avyavahâryam_), ungraspable (_agrâhyam_), indefinable (_alak@sa@na_), unthinkable (_acintyam_), unspeakable (_avyapades'ya_), the essence as oneness with the self (_ekâtmapratyayasâra_), as the extinction of the appearance (_prapañcopas'ama_), the quiescent (_s'ântam_), the good (_s'ivam_), the one (_advaita_) [Footnote ref 1]. The world-appearance (_prapañca_) would have ceased if it had existed, but all this duality is mere mâyâ (magic or illusion), the one is the ultimately real (_paramârthata@h_). In the second chapter Gau@dapâda says that what is meant by calling the world a dream is that all existence is unreal. That which neither exists in the beginning nor in the end cannot be said to exist in the present. Being like unreal it appears as real. The appearance has a beginning and an end and is therefore false. In dreams things are imagined internally, and in the experience that we have when we are awake things are imagined as if existing outside, but both of them are but illusory creations of the self. What is perceived in the mind is perceived as existing at the moment of perception only; external objects are supposed to have two moments of existence (namely before they are perceived, and when they begin to be perceived), but this is all mere imagination. That which is unmanifested in the mind and that which appears as distinct and manifest outside are all imaginary productions in association with the sense faculties. There is first the imagination of a perceiver or soul (_jîva_) and then along with it the imaginary creations of diverse inner states and the external world. Just as in darkness the rope is imagined to be a snake, so the self is also imagined by its own illusion in diverse forms. There is neither any production nor any destruction (_na nirodho, na cotpatti@h_), there is no one who is enchained, no one who is striving, no one who wants to be released [Footnote ref 2]. Imagination finds itself realized in the non-existent existents and also in the sense