Reading section 53

465

The earliest beginnings of this method of subtle analysis and dialectic in Indian philosophy are found in the opening chapters of _Kathâvatthu_. In the great _Mahâbha@sya_ on Pâ@nini by Patañjali also we find some traces of it. But Nâgârjuna was the man who took it up in right earnest and systematically cultivated it in all its subtle and abstruse issues and counter-issues in order to prove that everything that appeared as a fixed order or system was non-existent, for all were unspeakable, indescribable and self-contradictory, and thus everything being discarded there was only the void (_s'ûnya_). S'a@nkara partially utilized this method in his refutations of Nyâya and the Buddhist systems; but S'rîhar@sa again revived and developed it in a striking manner, and after having criticized the most important notions and concepts of our everyday life, which are often backed by the Nyâya system, sought to prove that nothing in the world can be defined, and that we cannot ascertain whether a thing is or is not. The refutations of all possible definitions that the Nyâya could give necessarily led to the conclusion that the things sought to be defined did not exist though they appeared to do so; the Vedântic contention was that this is exactly as it should be, for the indefinite ajñâna produces only appearances which when exposed to reason show that no consistent notions of them can be formed, or in other words the world-appearance, the phenomena of mâyâ or ajñâna, are indefinable or anirvacanîya. This great work of S'rîhar@sa was followed by _Tattvadîpikâ_ of Citsukha, in which he generally followed S'rîhar@sa and sometimes supplemented him with the addition of criticisms of certain new concepts. The method of Vedânta thus followed on one side the method of S'ûnyavâda in annulling all the concepts of world-appearance and on the other Vijñânavâda Buddhism in proving the self-illuminating character of knowledge and ultimately established the self as the only self-luminous ultimate reality.

The Theory of Causation.

The Vedânta philosophy looked at the constantly changing phenomena of the world-appearance and sought to discover the root whence proceeded the endless series of events and effects. The theory that effects were altogether new productions caused by the invariable unconditional and immediately preceding antecedents, as well as the theory that it was the cause which evolved

466

and by its transformations produced the effect, are considered insufficient to explain the problem which the Vedãnta had before it. Certain collocations invariably and unconditionally preceded certain effects, but this cannot explain how the previous set of phenomena could be regarded as producing the succeeding set. In fact the concept of causation and production had in it something quite undefinable and inexplicable. Our enquiry after the cause is an enquiry after a more fundamental and primary form of the truth of a thing than what appears at the present moment when we wished to know what was the cause of the jug, what we sought was a simpler form of which the effect was only a more complex form of manifestation, what is the ground, the root, out of which the effect has come forth? If apart from such an enquiry we take the pictorial representation of the causal phenomena in which some collocations being invariably present at an antecedent point of time, the effect springs forth into being, we find that we are just where we were before, and are unable to penetrate into the logic of the affair. The Nyãya definition of cause and effect may be of use to us in a general way in associating certain groups of things of a particular kind with certain other phenomena happening at a succeeding moment as being relevant pairs of which one being present the other also has a probability of being present, but can do nothing more than this. It does not answer our question as to the nature of cause. Antecedence in time is regarded in this view as an indispensable condition for the cause. But time, according to Nyãya, is one continuous entity; succession of time can only be conceived as antecedence and consequence of phenomena, and these again involve succession; thus the notions of succession of time and of the antecedence and consequence of time being mutually dependent upon each other (_anyonyâs'raya_) neither of these can be conceived independently. Another important condition is invariability. But what does that mean? If it means invariable antecedence, then even an ass which is invariably present as an antecedent to the smoke rising from the washerman's house, must be regarded as the cause of the smoke [Footnote ref 1]. If it means such an antecedence as contributes to the happening of the effect, it becomes again difficult to understand anything about its contributing

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Asses are used in carrying soiled linen in India. Asses are always present when water is boiled for washing in the laundry.]

467

to the effect, for the only intelligible thing is the antecedence and nothing more. If invariability means the existence of that at the presence of which the effect comes into being, then also it fails, for there may be the seed but no shoot, for the mere presence of the seed will not suffice to produce the effect, the shoot. If it is said that a cause can produce an effect only when it is associated with its accessory factors, then also the question remains the same, for we have not understood what is meant by cause. Again when the same effect is often seen to be produced by a plurality of causes, the cause cannot be defined as that which happening the effect happens and failing the effect fails. It cannot also be said that in spite of the plurality of causes, each particular cause is so associated with its own particular kind of effect that from a special kind of cause we can without fail get a special kind of effect (cf. Vâtsyâyana and _Nyâyamañjarî_), for out of the same clay different effects come forth namely the jug, the plate, etc. Again if cause is defined as the collocation of factors, then the question arises as to what is meant by this collocation; does it mean the factors themselves or something else above them? On the former supposition the scattered factors being always present in the universe there should always be the effect; if it means something else above the specific factors, then that something always existing, there should always be the effect. Nor can collocation (_sâmagrî_) be defined as the last movement of the causes immediately succeeding which the effect comes into being, for the relation of movement with the collocating cause is incomprehensible. Moreover if movement is defined as that which produces the effect, the very conception of causation which was required to be proved is taken for granted. The idea of necessity involved in the causal conception that a cause is that which must produce its effect is also equally undefinable, inexplicable, and logically inconceivable. Thus in whatsoever way we may seek to find out the real nature of the causal principle from the interminable series of cause-effect phenomena we fail. All the characteristics of the effects are indescribable and indefinable ajñâna of mâyâ, and in whatever way we may try to conceive these phenomena in themselves or in relation to one another we fail, for they are all carved out of the indefinite and are illogical and illusory, and some day will vanish for ever. The true cause is thus the pure being, the reality which is unshakable in itself, the ground upon

468

which all appearances being imposed they appear as real. The true cause is thus the unchangeable being which persists through all experience, and the effect-phenomena are but impositions upon it of ajñâna or avidyâ. It is thus the clay, the permanent, that is regarded as the cause of all clay-phenomena as jug, plates, etc. All the various modes in which the clay appears are mere appearances, unreal, indefinable and so illusory. The one truth is the clay. So in all world-phenomena the one truth is being, the Brahman, and all the phenomena that are being imposed on it are but illusory forms and names. This is what is called the _satkâryavâda_ or more properly the _satkâra@navâda_ of the Vedânta, that the cause alone is true and ever existing, and phenomena in themselves are false. There is only this much truth in them, that all are imposed on the reality or being which alone is true. This appearance of the one cause the being, as the unreal many of the phenomena is what is called the _vivarttavâda_ as distinguished from the _sâ@mkhyayogapari@nâmavâda_, in which the effect is regarded as the real development of the cause in its potential state. When the effect has a different kind of being from the cause it is called _vivartta_ but when the effect has the same kind of being as the cause it is called _pari@nâma (kâra@nasvalak@sa@nânyathâbhâva@h pari@nâma@h tadvilak@sa@no vivartta@h_ or _vastunastatsamattâko'nyathâbhâva@h pari@nâma@h tadvi@samasattâka@h vivartta@h)_. Vedânta has as much to object against the Nyâya as against the pari@nâma theory of causation of the Sâ@mkhya; for movement, development, form, potentiality, and actuality--all these are indefinable and inconceivable in the light of reason; they cannot explain causation but only restate things and phenomena as they appear in the world. In reality however though phenomena are not identical with the cause, they can never be defined except in terms of the cause (_Tadabhedam vinaiva tadvyatireke@na durvacam kâryyam vivartta@h)_.

This being the relation of cause and effect or Brahman and the world, the different followers of S'a@nkara Vedânta in explaining the cause of the world-appearance sometimes lay stress on the mâyâ, ajñâna or avidyâ, sometimes on the Brahman, and sometimes on them both. Thus Sarvaj@nâtmamuni, the writer of _Sa@nk@sepa-s'ârîraka_ and his followers think that the pure Brahman should be regarded as the causal substance (_upâdâna_) of the world-appearance, whereas Prakâs'âtman Akhan@dânanda, and

469

Mâdhava hold that Brahman in association with mâyâ, i.e. the mâyâ-reflected form of Brahman as Îs'vara should be regarded as the cause of the world-appearance. The world-appearance is an evolution or pari@nâma of the mâyâ as located in Îs'vara, whereas Îs'vara (God) is the vivartta causal matter. Others however make a distinction between mâyâ as the cosmical factor of illusion and avidyâ as the manifestation of the same entity in the individual or jîva. They hold that though the world-appearance may be said to be produced by the mâyâ yet the mind etc. associated with the individual are produced by the avidyâ with the jîva or the individual as the causal matter (_upâdâna_). Others hold that since it is the individual to whom both Îs'vara and the world-appearance are manifested, it is better rather to think that these are all manifestations of the jîva in association with his avidyâ or ajñâna. Others however hold that since in the world-appearance we find in one aspect pure being and in another materiality etc., both Brahman and mâyâ are to be regarded as the cause, Brahman as the permanent causal matter, upâdâna and mâyâ as the entity evolving in pari@nâma. Vâcaspati Mis'ra thinks that Brahman is the permanent cause of the world-appearance through mâyâ as associated with jîva. Mâyâ is thus only a sahakâri or instrument as it were, by which the one Brahman appears in the eye of the jîva as the manifold world of appearance. Prakâs'ânanda holds however in his _Siddhânta Muktâvalî_ that Brahman itself is pure and absolutely unaffected even as illusory appearance, and is not even the causal matter of the world-appearance. Everything that we see in the phenomenal world, the whole field of world-appearance, is the product of mâyâ, which is both the instrumental and the upâdâna (causal matter) of the world-illusion. But whatever these divergences of view may be, it is clear that they do not in any way affect the principal Vedânta text that the only unchangeable cause is the Brahman, whereas all else, the effect-phenomena, have only a temporary existence as indefinable illusion. The word mâyâ was used in the @Rg-Veda in the sense of supernatural power and wonderful skill, and the idea of an inherent mystery underlying it was gradually emphasized in the Atharva Veda, and it began to be used in the sense of magic or illusion. In the B@rhadâra@nyaka, Pras'na, and Svetâs'vatara Upani@sads the word means magic. It is not out of place here to mention that in the older Upani@sads

470

the word mâyâ occurs only once in the B@rhadâra@nyaka and once only in the Pras'na. In early Pâli Buddhist writings it occurs only in the sense of deception or deceitful conduct. Buddhagho@sa uses it in the sense of magical power. In Nâgârjuna and the _Lankâvatâra_ it has acquired the sense of illusion. In S'a@nkara the word mâyâ is used in the sense of illusion, both as a principle of creation as a s'akti (power) or accessory cause, and as the phenomenal creation itself, as the illusion of world-appearance.

It may also be mentioned here that Gau@dapâda the teacher of S'a@nkara's teacher Govinda worked out a system with the help of the mâyâ doctrine. The Upani@sads are permeated with the spirit of an earnest enquiry after absolute truth. They do not pay any attention towards explaining the world-appearance or enquiring into its relations with absolute truth. Gau@dapâda asserts clearly and probably for the first time among Hindu thinkers, that the world does not exist in reality, that it is mâyâ, and not reality. When the highest truth is realized mâyâ is not removed, for it is not a thing, but the whole world-illusion is dissolved into its own airy nothing never to recur again. It was Gau@dapâda who compared the world-appearance with dream appearances, and held that objects seen in the waking world are unreal, because they are capable of being seen like objects seen in a dream, which are false and unreal. The âtman says Gau@dapâda is at once the cognizer and the cognized, the world subsists in the âtman through mâyâ. As âtman alone is real and all duality an illusion, it necessarily follows that all experience is also illusory. S'a@nkara expounded this doctrine in his elaborate commentaries on the Upani@sads and the Brahma-sûtra, but he seems to me to have done little more than making explicit the doctrine of mâyâ. Some of his followers however examined and thought over the concept of mâyâ and brought out in bold relief its character as the indefinable thereby substantially contributing to the development of the Vedânta philosophy.

Vedânta theory of Perception and Inference [Footnote ref 1].

Pramâ@na is the means that leads to right knowledge. If memory is intended to be excluded from the definition then

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Dharmarâjâdhvarîndra and his son Râmak@r@s@na worked out a complete scheme of the theory of Vedântic perception and inference. This is in complete agreement with the general Vedânta metaphysics. The early Vedântists were more interested in demonstrating the illusory nature of the world of appearance, and did not work out a logical theory. It may be incidentally mentioned that in the theory of inference as worked out by Dharmarâjâdhvarîndra he was largely indebted to the Mîmâm@sâ school of thought. In recognizing arthapatti, upamâna s'abda and anupalabdhi also Dharmarâjâdhvarîndra accepted the Mîmâm@sâ view. The Vedantins, previous to Dharmarâjâdhvarîndra, had also tacitly followed the Mîmâm@sâ in these matters.]

471

pramâ@na is to be defined as the means that leads to such right knowledge as has not already been acquired. Right knowledge (_pramâ_) in Vedânta is the knowledge of an object which has not been found contradicted (_abâdhitârthavi@sayajñânatva_). Except when specially expressed otherwise, pramâ is generally considered as being excludent of memory and applies to previously unacquired (_anadhigata_) and uncontradicted knowledge. Objections are sometimes raised that when we are looking at a thing for a few minutes, the perception of the thing in all the successive moments after the first refers to the image of the thing acquired in the previous moments. To this the reply is that the Vedânta considers that so long as a different mental state does not arise, any mental state is not to be considered as momentary but as remaining ever the same. So long as we continue to perceive one thing there is no reason to suppose that there has been a series of mental states. So there is no question as to the knowledge of the succeeding moments being referred to the knowledge of the preceding moments, for so long as any mental state has any one thing for its object it is to be considered as having remained unchanged all through the series of moments. There is of course this difference between the same percept of a previous and a later moment following in succession, that fresh elements of time are being perceived as prior and later, though the content of the mental state so far as the object is concerned remains unchanged. This time element is perceived by the senses though the content of the mental state may remain undisturbed. When I see the same book for two seconds, my mental state representing the book is not changed every second, and hence there can be no _such supposition_ that I am having separate mental states in succession each of which is a repetition of the previous one, for so long as the general content of the mental state remains the same there is no reason for supposing that there has been any change in the mental state. The mental state thus remains the same so long as the content is not changed, but though it remains the same it can note the change in the time elements as extraneous

472

addition. All our uncontradicted knowledge of the objects of the external world should be regarded as right knowledge until the absolute is realized.

When the anta@hkara@na (mind) comes in contact with the external objects through the senses and becomes transformed as it were into their forms, it is said that the anta@hkara@na has been transformed into a state (_v@rtti_) [Footnote 1]. As soon as the anta@hkara@na has assumed the shape or form of the object of its knowledge, the ignorance (_ajñâna_) with reference to that object is removed, and thereupon the steady light of the pure consciousness (_cit_) shows the object which was so long hidden by ignorance. The appearance or the perception of an object is thus the self-shining of the cit through a v@rtti of a form resembling an object of knowledge. This therefore pre-supposes that by the action of ajñâna, pure consciousness or being is in a state of diverse kinds of modifications. In spite of the cit underlying all this diversified objective world which is but the transformation of ignorance (ajñâna), the former cannot manifest itself by itself, for the creations being of ignorance they are but sustained by modifications of ignorance. The diversified objects of the world are but transformations of the principle of ajñâna which is neither real nor unreal. It is the nature of ajñâna that it veils its own creations. Thus on each of the objects created by the ajñâna by its creating (_vik@sepa_) capacity there is a veil by its veiling (âvara@na) capacity. But when any object comes in direct touch with anta@hkara@na through the senses the anta@hkara@na becomes transformed into the form of the object, and this leads to the removal of the veil on that particular ajñâna form--the object, and as the self-shining cit is shining through the particular ajñâna state, we have what is called the perception of the thing. Though there is in reality no such distinction as the inner and the outer yet the ajñâna has created such illusory distinctions as individual souls and the external world of objects the distinctions of time, space,

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Vedânta does not regard manas (mind) as a sense (indriya). The same anta@hkara@na, according to its diverse functions, is called mânâs, buddhi, aha@mkâra, and citta. In its functions as doubt it is called mânâs, as originating definite cognitions it is called buddhi. As presenting the notion of an ego in consciousness aha@mkâra, and as producing memory citta. These four represent the different modifications or states (v@rtti) of the same entity (which in itself is but a special kind of modification of ajñâna as anta@hkara@na).]

473

etc. and veiled these forms. Perception leads to the temporary and the partial breaking of the veil over specific ajñâna forms so that there is a temporary union of the cit as underlying the subject and the object through the broken veil. Perception on the subjective side is thus defined as the union or undifferentiation (_abheda_) of the subjective consciousness with the objective consciousness comprehending the sensible objects through the specific mental states (_tattadindriyayogyavi@sayâvacchinnacaitanyâbhinnatvam tattadâkâravi@sayâvacchinnajñânasya tattadams'e pratyak@satvam_). This union in perception means that the objective has at that moment no separate existence from the subjective consciousness of the perceiver. The consciousness manifesting through the anta@hkara@na is called jîvasâk@si.

Inference (_anumâna_), according to Vedânta, is made by our notion of concomitance (_vyâptijñâna_) between two things, acting through specific past impressions (_sa@mskâra_). Thus when I see smoke on a hill, my previous notion of the concomitance of smoke with fire becomes roused as a subconscious impression, and I infer that there is fire on the hill. My knowledge of the hill and the smoke is by direct perception. The notion of concomitance revived in the subconscious only establishes the connection between the smoke and the fire. The notion of concomitance is generated by the perception of two things together, when no case of the failure of concomitance is known (_vyabhicârâjñâna_) regarding the subject. The notion of concomitance being altogether subjective, the Vedântist does not emphasize the necessity of perceiving the concomitance in a large number of cases (_bhûyodars'anam sak@rddars'anam veti vis'e@so nâdara@nîya@h_). Vedânta is not anxious to establish any material validity for the inference, but only subjective and formal validity. A single perception of concomitance may in certain cases generate the notion of the concomitance of one thing with another when no contradictory instance is known. It is immaterial with the Vedânta whether this concomitance is experienced in one case or in hundreds of cases. The method of agreement in presence is the only form of concomitance (_anvayavyâpti_) that the Vedânta allows. So the Vedânta discards all the other kinds of inference that Nyâya supported, viz. _anvayavyatireki_ (by joining agreement in presence with agreement in absence), _kevalânvayi_ (by universal agreement where no test could be applied of agreement in absence) and

474

_kevalavyatireki_ (by universal agreement in absence). Vedânta advocates three premisses, viz. (1) _pratijña_ (the hill is fiery); (2) _hetu_ (because it has smoke) and (3) _d@rs@tânta_ (as in the kitchen) instead of the five propositions that Nyâya maintained [Footnote ref 1]. Since one case of concomitance is regarded by Vedânta as being sufficient for making an inference it holds that seeing the one case of appearance (silver in the conch-shell) to be false, we can infer that all things (except Brahman) are false (_Brahmabhinnam sarvam mithyâ Brahmabhinnatvât yedevam tadevam yathâ s'uktirûpyam_). First premiss (_pratijñâ_) all else excepting Brahman is false; second premiss (_hetu_) since all is different from Brahman; third premiss (_dr@s@tânta_) whatever is so is so as the silver in the conch [Footnote ref 2].

Âtman, Jîva, Îs'vara, Ekajîvavâda and D@r@s@tis@r@s@tivâda.