The
Six Systems of Vedic Philosophy compiled by Suhotra Dasa Tapovanachari
Table
of contents:
1.
Introduction
................................................................................
1
2.
Nyaya: The Philosophy of Logic and Reasoning .............................. 5
3.
Vaisesika: Vedic Atomic Theory
................................................... 23
4.
Sankhya: Nontheistic Dualism
..................................................... 32
5.
Yoga: Self-Discipline for Self-Realization
....................................... 45
6.
Karma-mimamsa: Elevation Through the Performance of Duty .......58 7. Vedanta:
The Conclusion of the Vedic Revelation........................... 65
1.
Introduction
The word veda means "knowledge." In the
modern world, we use the term "science" to identify the kind of
authoritative knowledge upon which human progress is based. To the ancient
people of Bharatavarsha (Greater India), the word veda had an even more profound
import that the word science has for us today. That is because in those days
scientific inquiry was not restricted to the world perceived by the physical
senses. And the definition of human progress was not restricted to massive
technological exploitation of material nature. In Vedic times, the primary
focus of science was the eternal, not the temporary; human progress meant the
advancement of spiritual awareness yielding the soul's release from the
entrapment of material nature, which is temporary and full of ignorance and
suffering. Vedic knowledge is called apauruseya, which means it is not
knowledge of human invention. Vedic knowledge appeared at the dawn of the
cosmos within the heart of Brahma, the lotusborn demigod of creation from whom
all the species of life within the universe descend. Brahma imparted this
knowledge in the form of sabda (spiritual sound) to his immediate sons, who are
great sages of higher planetary systems like the Satyaloka, Janaloka and
Tapaloka. These sages transmitted the Vedic sabda to disciples all over the
universe, including wise men of earth in ancient times. Five thousand years ago
the great Vedic authority Krishna Dvaipayana Vyasa compiled the sabda into
Sanskrit scripture (sastra) which collectively is known today as the Vedas. In
the India of old, the study of the Vedas was the special prerogative of the
brahmanas (the priestly and intellectual class). There were four degrees of
education in Vedic knowledge that corresponded to the four ashramas of
brahminical culture (the brahmacari or student ashrama, the grhastha or
householder ashrama, the vanaprastha or retired ashrama and the sannyasa or
renounced ashrama). The first degree of learning was the memorization of the
Vedic Samhita, which consists of 20,000 mantras (verses) divided into four
sections -- Rg, Sama, Yajur and Atharva -- that are chanted by priests in
glorification of various aspects of the Supreme Being during sacrificial
rituals. The second degree was the mastery of the Brahmana portion of the Vedas,
which teaches rituals for fulfillment of duties to family, society, demigods,
sages, other living entities and the Supreme Lord. The third degree was the
mastery of the Aranyaka portion, which prepares the retired householder for
complete renunciation. The fourth degree was the mastery of the Upanisads,
which present the philosophy of the Absolute Truth to ~ 2 ~ persons seeking
liberation from birth and death. The texts studied in the four stages of formal
Vedic education are collectively called sruti-sastra, "scripture that is
to be heard" by the brahmanas. But sruti-sastra is not all there is to the
Vedic literature. Chandogya Upanisad 7.1.2 declares that the Puranas and
Itihasas comprise the fifth division of Vedic study. The Puranas and Itihasa
teach the same knowledge as the four Vedas, but it is illustrated with
extensive historical narrations. The fifth Veda is known as smrti-sastra
("scripture that must be remembered"). Smrti-sastra study was
permitted to non-brahmanas. Traditionally, six schools of thought propagated
Vedic wisdom, each from a different philosophical perspective. Each of these
perspectives or darshanas is associated with a famous sage who is the author of
a sutra (code) expressing the essence of his darshana. Vyasa's Vedanta-sutra, which
carefully examines and judges the six systems of Vedic philosophy (as well as
other philosophies), forms the third great body of Vedic literature after the
sruti-sastra and smrti-sastra. This is known as the nyaya-sastra,
"scripture of philosophical disputation." The sad-darshana (six
philosophical views) are nyaya (logic), vaisesika (atomic theory), sankhya
(analysis of matter and spirit), yoga (the discipline of self-realization),
karma-mimamsa (science of fruitive work) and vedanta (science of God realization).
The sad-darshanas are termed astika philosophies (from asti, or "it is
so"), because they all acknowledge the Veda as authoritative, as opposed
to the nastika philosophies of the Carvakas, Buddhists and Jains (nasti,
"it is not so"), who reject the Vedas. Beginning with nyaya, each of
the sad-darshanas in their own turn presents a more developed and comprehensive
explanation of the aspects of Vedic knowledge. Nyaya sets up the rules of
philosophical debate and identifies the basic subjects under discussion: the
physical world, the soul, God and liberation. Vaisesika engages the method of
nyaya or logic in a deeper analysis of the predicament of material existence by
showing that the visible material forms to which we are all so attached
ultimately break down into invisible atoms. Sankhya develops this analytical
process further to help the soul become aloof to matter. Through yoga, the soul
awakens its innate spiritual vision to see itself beyond the body.
Karma-mimamsa directs the soul to the goals of Vedic ritualism. Vedanta focuses
on the supreme spiritual goal taught in the Upanisads. Originally, the six
darshanas were departments of study in a unified understanding of the Veda,
comparable to the faculties of a modern university. But with the onset of
Kali-yuga (the Age of Quarrel), the scholars of the darshanas became divided
and contentious. Some even misrepresented Vedic philosophy for their own
selfish ends. For instance, karma-mimamsa (which by 500 BC had become the
foremost philosophy of the brahmana class) was misused by bloodthirsty priests
to justify their mass slaughter of animals in Vedic sacrifices. But the
unexpected rise of a novel non-Vedic religion challenged the power of
karma-mimamsa. This new religion was Buddhism. By 250 BC, the influence of
karma-mimamsa and other darshanas had weakened considerably. When King Ashoka
instituted the Buddha's doctrine as the state philosophy of his empire, many
brahmanas abandoned Vedic scholarship to learn and teach nastika concepts of
ahimsa (nonviolence) and sunyata (voidism). Buddhism in its turn was eclipsed
by the teachings of the Vedantist Shankara, who revived the Vedic culture all
over India in the seventh century after Christ. But Shankara's special
formulation of Vedanta was itself influenced by Buddhism and is not truly
representative of the original vedanta-darshana taught by Vyasa (the last
chapter will take this up in greater detail). After Shankara, vedanta was
refined by the schools of great teachers (acaryas) like Ramanuja ~ 3 ~ and
Madhva. Having shed the baggage of Shankara's crypto-Buddhism, Vedanta
philosophers soared to heights of dialectical sophistication that has been much
appreciated by many Western intellectuals. It is through the dialectics of the
major schools (sampradayas) of Vedanta that students can best observe the six
systems of Vedic philosophy "in action." In dialectical Vedanta,
arguments are taken from nyaya, vaisesika, etc. to 1) demonstrate that Vedanta
is the most comprehensive of all the darshanas, and 2) to clarify the points of
controversy that arise between the different schools of Vedanta itself.
Vedantic dialectics are represented in the bhasyas (commentaries) of the
acaryas and the tikas (subcommentaries) of their disciples. All possible
philosophical positions, including some bearing remarkable resemblance to the
ideas of European philosophers, are therein proposed, analyzed and refuted. The
study of the six systems of Vedic philosophy is itself a form of yoga:
jnana-yoga, the yoga of theoretical knowledge. But from jnana one must come to
vijnana, practical realization of the ultimate truth. The sad-darshana are six
branches of theoretical dialectics (sastratha) that twist and turn from thesis
(purvapaksa) to antithesis (uttarapaksa) to synthesis (siddhanta) like the
gnarled branches of a tree. But the ways of philosophical disputation do not
themselves add up to the Absolute Truth. The Absolute Truth, being
transcendental, is only indirectly framed in the branches of jnana, like the
rising full moon may be framed by the branches of a tree. A friend who wishes
us to see the moon may first draw our attention to that tree. This may be
compared to the indirect or theoretical stage of knowledge. Seeing the moon is
vijnana. There is a straightforward path to vijnana. It is explained in the
Mahabharata, Vana-parva 313.117: "Dry arguments are inconclusive.
Philosophers are known for their differences of opinion. Study of the branches
of the Vedas will not bring one to the correct understanding of dharma. The
truth is hidden in the heart of a self-realized person. Therefore one should
follow the path of such great souls." The Sanskrit word acarya is derived
from acara, "behavior." The great teachers of Vedanta, the acaryas,
were much more than just theoreticians: by their exemplary God-conscious
behavior they marked out the path of practical transcendental realization. This
is the path from jnana to vijnana. In India, the sampradayas (schools of
Vedanta) established by the great acaryas are bastions of sadacara, spiritual
life. Students who enter these schools cultivate divine qualities --
cleanliness, austerity, truthfulness and mercy -- without which divine
knowledge cannot manifest. Cleanliness is destroyed by illicit sex, austerity
is destroyed by intoxication, truthfulness is destroyed by gambling and mercy
is destroyed by meat-eating; one who cannot restrain himself from these bad
habits has no business calling himself a Vedantist or a yogi. There is much
enthusiasm today for theoretical yoga and mysticism, but until one follows the
path of sadacara set down by the acaryas, one's inquiry into Indian
spirituality will be like like licking the glass of a sealed jar of honey: the
higher taste (param drstva) will be missed. The Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya
Sampradaya first introduced genuine Vedanta theory and practice in the Western
world in 1966, when acarya Sri Srimad A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada
opened the first branch of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness
(ISKCON) in New York. ISKCON now has centers world-wide. This work is but an
introduction to Vedic philosophy; those who wish to practice this philosophy
and realize the goal of Vedanta -- the Form of the Supreme Eternal Being –
should contact ISKCON. Common Features of the Six Systems of Vedic Philosophy ~
4 ~ It has already been explained that the sad-darshana accept the authority of
the Vedas, and thus they are classified as astika philosophies. Each darshana
was codified by a great Vedic sage -- nyaya by Gautama, vaisesika by Kanada,
sankhya by Kapila, yoga by Patanjali, karmamimamsa by Jaimini and vedanta by
Vyasa. Because the sages drew their arguments from the same source -- the Vedic
sastra -- their darshanas share many of the same basic philosophical
principles, for instance: the self is understood to be an individual spiritual
being of the nature of eternal consciousness; the self acquires a succession of
physical bodies through reincarnation under the law of karma; the self suffers
because of its contact with matter; the end of suffering is the goal of
philosophy. A person who adheres to any one of the six systems observes the
same sadhana as the followers of other systems. Sadhana consists of the basic
practices of purification and self-control that is the foundation of
brahminical culture. The major philosophical differences among the systems will
be summed up in the final chapter on Vedanta.
2.
Nyaya:
The Philosophy of Logic and Reasoning The nyaya system
of philosophy was established by the sage Gautama. As he was also known as Aksapada,
this system is also sometimes referred to as the aksapada system. Nyaya
philosophy is primarily concerned with the conditions of correct knowledge and
the means of receiving this knowledge. Nyaya is predominantly based on
reasoning and logic and therefore is also known as Nyaya Vidya or Tarka Sastra
-- "the science of logic and reasoning." Because this system analyzes
the nature and source of knowledge and its validity and nonvalidity, it is also
referred to as anviksiki, which means "the science of critical
study." Using systematic reasoning, this school of philosophy attempts to
discriminate valid knowledge from invalid knowledge. This philosophy asserts
that obtaining valid knowledge of the external world and its relationship with
the mind and self is the only way to attain liberation. If one masters the
logical techniques of reasoning and assiduously applies these in his daily
life, he will rid himself of all suffering. Thus, the methods and conditions of
determining true knowledge are not the final goal of nyaya philosophy; logical
criticism is viewed only as an instrument that enables one to discriminate
valid from invalid knowledge. The ultimate goal of nyaya philosophy, like that
of the other systems of Indian philosophy, is liberation -- the absolute
cessation of pain and suffering. Nyaya is a philosophy of life, even though it
is mainly concerned with the study of logic and epistemology. All six schools
of Vedic philosophy aim to describe the nature of the external world and its
relationship to the individual, to go beyond the world of appearances to
ultimate Reality, and to describe the goal of life and the means for attaining
this goal. In this attempt, the six philosophies divide their course of study
into two major categories: the study of unmanifested reality, and the study of
manifest reality. In nyaya philosophy, both aspects of reality are divided into
sixteen major divisions, called padarthas (see chart below). These sixteen
philosophical divisions are: pramana, the sources of knowledge; prameya, the
object of knowledge; samsaya, doubt or the state of uncertainty; prayojana, the
aim; drstanta, example; siddhanta, doctrine; ayayava, the constituents of
inference; tarka, hypothetical argument; nirnaya, conclusion; badha,
discussion; jalpa, wrangling; vitanda, irrational argument; hetvabhasa,
specious reasoning; chala, unfair reply; jati, generality based on a false
analogy; and nigrahsthana, the grounds for defeat. The subjects discussed under
pramana, the source of knowledge, are the most important and the most
thoroughly and profoundly expounded of all the divisions. For this reason,
pramana will be explained in detail after the other fifteen divisions of
studying reality have been described. Nyaya's Sixteen Divisions (Padarthas) of
Studying Reality · I. Pramana, four sources of valid knowledge (prama): o 1.
Perception (pratyaksa) § Ordinary (laukika) § Indeterminate (nirvikalpa) §
Extraordinary (alaukika) § Classes (samanyalaksana) § Association
(jnanalaksana) ~ 6 ~ § Intuition (yogaja) o 2. Inference (anumana) § Statements
(pratijna) § Reason (hetu) § Example (udaharana) § Universal proposition
(upanaya) § Conclusion (nigamana) o 3. Comparison (upamana) o 4. Testimony
(sabda) · II. Prameya, twelve objects of knowledge: o Atman o The body o The
five senses o The objects of the senses o Cognition o Mind o Activity o Mental
defects (attachment, hatred, and infatuation) o Rebirth o Results o Suffering o
Freedom from suffering. · III. Doubt (samsaya) · IV. Aim (prayojana) · V.
Example (drstanta) · VI. Doctrine (siddhanta) · VII.Constituents of inference
(five avayavas) · VIII. Hypothetical argument (tarka) · IX. Conclusion
(nirnaya) · X. Discussion (badha) · XI. Wrangling (jalpa) · XII. Irrational
reasoning (vitanda) · XIII. Specious reasoning (hetvabhasa) · XIV. Unfair reply
(chala) ~ 7 ~ · XV. Generality based on a false analogy (jati) · XVI. Grounds
for defeat (nigrahasthana) The Object of Knowledge. Prameya may be translated
as "that which is knowable," or "the object of true knowledge."
That which is the object of cognition is prameya, and whatever is comprehended
or cognized by buddhi is categorized into the twelve objects of cognition known
as the prameyas. These twelve divisions are: atman, the self; sarira, the body
-- the abode of the experience of pain and pleasure that is the seat of all
organic activities; indriyas, the five senses -- smell, taste, sight, touch and
hearing -- which contact external objects and transmit the experience to the
mind; artha, the objects of the senses; buddhi, cognition; manas, the mind --
the internal sense that is concerned with the perception of pleasure, pain, and
all other internal experiences and that, according to nyaya, limits cognition
to time and space. The mind is compared to an atom (not the atom of modern
physics; see vaisesika philosophy) because it is minute, everlasting,
individual, and all-pervading; pravrtti, activity -- vocal, mental, and
physical; dosa, mental defects that include attachment (raga), hatred (dvesa),
and infatuation or delusion (moha); pretyabhava, rebirth or life after death;
phala, the fruits or results of actions experienced as pain or pleasure; dukha,
suffering -- the bitter or undesired experiences of mind; and apavarga,
liberation or complete cessation of all suffering without any possibility of
its reappearance. According to nyaya philosophy the goal of life is to
understand these twelve aspects of reality, the prameyas, as they actually are.
Bondage is born of the isunderstanding of these twelve knowable objects, and one
obtains freedom from bondage when he attains the correct know ledge of these
twelve aspects of reality. Most of the time, however, this knowledge remains
incomplete, and the means for attaining an integral comprehension of reality is
not learned, so defective or invalid knowledge is maintained. In order to cast
off this invalid knowledge, nyaya provides a profound method for determining
valid knowledge. This is studies under the category of pramana, which will be
discussed following brief descriptions of the other fourteen components in the
nyaya process for attaining valid knowledge. Doubt. Samsaya means
"doubt." It is the state in which the mind wavers between conflicting
views regarding a single object. In a state of doubt, there are at least two
alternative views, neither of which can be determined to lead to a state of
certainty. Samsaya is not certain knowledge; neither is it a mere reflection of
knowledge; nor is it invalid knowledge. It is a positive state of cognition,
but the cognition is split in two and does not provide any definite
conclusions. For example, in the dark of the night a person may be looking at a
plant, but because he cannot see clearly he does not recognize the p]ant for
what it is and falsely perceives it as a man. However, if it would be logically
impossible for a man to be present at that place, then the mind does not accept
that the figure is a man. The mind becomes confused at that moment, questions
whether it is a man or a plant, and cannot come to a decision about what it actually
is. Thus, doubt is a product of a confused state of mind that is not able to
perceive with clarity. Aim. The word prayojana means "aim." Without
an aim or a target, no one can perform any action. It does not matter whether
that aim is fully understood or just presumed. One acts either to achieve
desirable objects or to get rid of undesirable ones; these desirable and
undesirable objects that motivate one's activities are known as prayojana.
Example. Drstanta is the use of an example to illustrate a common fact and
establish an argument. This is a very important aspect of reasoning, for
frequently a useful example can be ~ 8 ~ accepted by both parties involved in a
discussion without any disputation or difference of opinion. For instance, when
one argues that there must be fire because there is smoke, he may use the
example of smoke in the kitchen to confirm the permanent relationship between
fire and smoke. The relationship between fire and smoke in the kitchen is a
common occurrence and may be readily accepted by both parties. Therefore, the
example of the kitchen for confirming the existence of fire inferred from the
presence of smoke is potentially very helpful. Doctrine. Siddhanta means
"doctrine." It is an axiomatic postulate that is accepted as the undisputed
truth and that serves as the foundation for the entire theory of a particular
system of philosophy. This accepted truth might be derived either from direct
experience or from reasoning and logic. For example, it is the doctrine of
nyaya philosophy that there is a God (nimitta karana) who is the operative
cause of the universe and who organizes and regulates the atoms. Constituents
of inference. The term avayaya literally means "constituents" or
"parts," and in this context it refers to the constituents of
inference. This is an important topic in nyaya philosophy because nyaya
strongly emphasizes describing the minute complexities of the pramanas, the
sources or methods of receiving correct knowledge. Among these methods,
inference is the most important source of correct knowledge, and nyaya
therefore provides a technical method to test the validity of inference. If an
inference contains five necessary constituents, then it can give correct know
ledge. These five requisite components of inference are pratijna (statements);
hetu (reason); udaharana (example); upanaya (universal proposition); and
nigamana (conclusion). These are discussed later in this chapter in the section
on inference. Hypothetical argument. Tarka may be translated as "hypothetical
argument." All the systems of Indian philosophy agree that it is simply
the mind's jabbering that creates confusion and misunderstanding within and
without. Because the mind is clouded by its own modifications, it is very
important to wash out these confusions before attempting to understand
something solely through the mind. For this purpose, nyaya philosophy discusses
the possible problems of the mind and clarifies its confusions, using such
processes as tarka. Tarka is the process of questioning and cross-questioning
that leads to a particular conclusion. It is a form of supposition that can be
used as an aid to the attainment of valid knowledge. Tarka can become a great
instrument for analyzing a common statement and for discriminating valid
knowledge from invalid knowledge. Conclusion. Nirnaya, conclusion, is certain
knowledge that is attained by using legitimate means. If the mind has doubts
concerning the correctness or validity of a conclusion it has drawn, then
employing the process of tarka (hypothetical argument) can help to resolve
those doubts. But it is not always necessary for a conclusion to pass through a
doubtful state. It may be indubitably perceived, either through direct
perception, inference, testimony, or intuition. Nirnaya is this ascertainment
of assured truth about something that is attained by means of recognized and
legitimate sources of knowledge. Discussion. Badha, discussion, is a kind of
debate between two parties -- the exponent and the opponent -- on a particular
subject. Each party tries to establish its own position and to refute that of
the other, arguing against any theory propounded by the other. Both, however,
are trying to arrive at the truth by applying the methods of reasoning and
logic. This is an effective and efficient way to reach valid knowledge if both
parties are honest and free from prejudices. ~ 9 ~ Wrangling. Jalpa, or
wrangling, is the process by which the exponent and opponent both try to attain
victory over the other without making an honest attempt to come to the truth;
there is an involvement of ego instead of a search for knowledge. Jalpa
contains all the characteristics of a valid debate except that of aiming to
discover truth. It is that type of discussion in which each party has a
prejudice for his own view and thus tries to gather all possible arguments in
his own favor. Lawyers sometimes apply this method to win their cases in court.
Irrational reasoning. Vitanda is irrational reasoning. Specifically, it is
argumentation that is aimed exclusively at refuting or destroying an
antagonist's position and that is not at all concerned with establishing or
defending one's own position. It is mere destructive criticism of the views of
one's opponent. Whereas in wrangling both the exponent and opponent try to establish
their own position, in irrational reasoning either or both tries to refute the
other's position instead of establishing his own. This usually occurs when one
or both parties realize that his own case is weak and that he cannot defend his
point of view. Consequently, he irrationally attacks the other's case with
destructive intent. Specious reasoning. Hetvabhasa means "irrational
argument." It is reasoning that appears to be valid but is really
unfounded. This specious reasoning is a fallacy of inference, and it is
therefore discussed later in this chapter in the section on inference. Unfair
reply. Chala means "unfair reply." Here it is used to designate a
statement that is meant to cheat or to fool someone. In unfair reply one takes
a word or phrase that has been used in a particular sense, pretends to
understand it in a sense other than that which was intended, and then denies
the truth of this deliberate misinterpretation of the original speaker's words.
For example, suppose someone's name is Bizarre, and in referring to this
person, someone says, "He is Bizarre." If the listener knowingly
misconstrues this statement and replies, "He is not bizarre; he is just a
common ordinary man," then that person is using chala. Generality based on
a false analogy. Jati means generality, but as used here,it is a technical term
used to describe a debate in which an unfair reply or conclusion is based on a
false analogy. Suppose, for example, that someone is arguing that sound is
noneternal because it is an effect of a certain cause, just as a pot is
produced from clay. But another argues that sound must be eternal because it is
nonmaterial, like the sky. This counter argument of trying to prove the
eternity of sound by comparing it with the nonmaterial sky is fallacious,
because there is not necessarily a universal relationship between the
nonmaterial and the eternal. (In the nyaya system itself, sound is considered
to he a noneternal quality because it is produced and can be destroyed. Some
other systems, however, do not agree with this view.) Grounds for defeat.
Nigrahasthana may be translated as "the grounds on which a person is
defeated in his argument." When a proponent misunderstands his own or his
opponent's premises and their implications, then he becomes helpless and must
eventually admit his defeat in the debate. The point at which he accepts his
defeat is called nigrahasthana. Pramana -- The Sources of Valid Knowledge
Pramana is that through which or by which the prama (valid knowledge) is
received. It is the last of nyaya's philosophical divisions to be discussed.
There are four distinct fountains of correct knowledge. These four pramanas
are: perception (pratyaksa); inference (anumana); comparison (upamana); and
testimony (sabda). Before discussing these sources of knowledge, the nature or
definition of knowledge should first be examined and the method for ~ 10 ~
distinguishing correct knowledge from false knowledge should be determined. In
nyaya philosophy, knowledge is divided into two major categories, anubhava
(experiential knowledge) and smrti (memory). Experiential knowledge is received
through the four pramanas mentioned above -- perception, inference, comparison,
and testimony. The second type of knowledge, that which is based on memory, is
derived from the storehouse of one's own mind, but ultimately these memories
also depend on experiential knowledge because no one can remember something
that he has not experienced. During the process of remembering, a memory is
called up from its storehouse and is then received as knowledge of an object.
These two major categories of knowledge can be divided into two parts: valid
and invalid. In the language of nyaya philosophy, valid experiential know]edge
is called prama, and nonvalid experiential knowledge is called aprama. Prama
can be received through perception, inference, comparison, and testimony;
therefore there are four types of valid knowledge based on these four means.
Aprama is divided into doubt (samsaya), faulty cognition (bhrama or viparyaya),
and hypothetical argument (tarka). Certain and unerring cognition (such as the
visual perception of a chair) is valid knowledge because the knowledge is
presented directly to the senses as it really is. Memory is not original
knowledge because it is not experiential; it is a mere reproduction of
experiential knowledge. Knowledge based on memory may be either valid or
invalid, depending on the correctness of the recollection of the experiential
knowledge that occurred in the past. A doubtful cognition cannot be called
valid (prama) because it is not definite knowledge. Faulty cognition likewise
cannot be pramana because it is not true to the nature of its object. Tarka
(hypothetical argument) cannot be called prama because in itself it is not
knowledge. Although it may help in drawing some conclusions about a fact, it is
only a means of attaining knowledge. According to nyaya philosophy true
knowledge is that which corresponds to the nature of its object; otherwise the
knowledge is false. To perceive a thing in its true nature is true knowledge.
For example, the knowledge of a red rose is true if the rose is really red, but
the knowledge of a red rose as white is not true because the rose is not white.
How can one know if the rose is truly red and not white? How is it possible to
prove the validity or falsity of knowledge? Nyaya philosophy says that the
validity or invalidity of knowledge depends on its correspondence or
non-correspondence to the facts. For example, if one wants to have correct
knowledge of sugar, one tastes it. If there is some powdery white crystal in
the kitchen and one puts a pinch of it in his mouth thinking that it is sugar,
he will be surprised and disappointed if he finds that it is salty and not
sweet. But he will have certain knowledge that what he had thought to be sugar
is instead salt. True knowledge leads a person to successful practical
activity. while false knowledge makes one helpless and leads to failure and
disappointment. Perception As mentioned earlier, according to nyaya there are four
sources of valid experiential knowledge or prama -- perception, inference,
comparison, and testimony -- among which perception is foremost. Most people
believe that whatever is experienced through perception must be true, and they
do not further test the data that are received via the senses. Nyaya
philosophy, however, is very critical in this respect and makes a thorough
examination of perception. Perception is knowledge produced by the contact of
the senses with the objects of the world. For example, one has perceptual
knowledge of a table when a table comes in contact with the eyes. To be
considered valid, the contact of the senses with their objects must be clear
and ~ 11 ~ doubtless. The perception of something a long distance away as being
either a bush or a bear is a doubtful and indefinite cognition and is,
therefore, not true perception. Mistakenly perceiving a rope as a snake may be
neither doubtful nor indefinite, but it is a false and therefore invalid
perception. Nyaya philosophy has several different systems of classification of
perception. According to the first kind of classification, there are two types
of perceptions: laukika (ordinary) and alaukika (extraordinary). When a
perception is derived from direct contact with a sense object, that is ordinary
perception. When the object is not directly present to the senses but is
conveyed to the senses through unusual modes, then that perception is called
alaukika -- extraordinary. Modes of perception are either external (bahya) or
internal (manasa). In external perception, any or all of the faculties of
sight, hearing. touch, taste, and smell are involved in bringing the object to
the mind. Thus, there are five kinds of external perceptions (bahya): visual,
auditory, tactile, gustatory, and olfactory. The five senses of hearing.
touching, seeing, tasting, and smelling are all gross senses. while mind is the
subtle sixth sense. Mind is the internal faculty that perceives the qualities
of soul such as desire, aversion, pleasure, pain, and cognition. In nyaya
philosophy, ordinary perception (laukika) is either indeterminate (nirvikalpa)
or determinate (savikalpa). Indeterminate perception is the primary cognition
of a thing before judgment is used to specify diverse characteristics. For
example, in the first glance at a table, one perceives the mere existence of
the table without comprehending its color, shape, and other specific
characteristics; one perceives only a general appearance without details. Only
upon further inspection does one recognize that it is, say, a round wooden
table with a drop leaf. This determinate perception is the cognition of an
object that registers some definite characteristics about it. Determinate
perception is always preceded by indeterminate perception, and determinate perception
is always valid knowledge because it is definite and explicit. Nyaya claims
that there are three kinds of extraordinary (alaukika) perceptions: perception
of classes (samanya laksana); perception based on association (jnana laksana);
and intuitive perception (yogaja). The realization that all people are mortal
is an instance of the external perception of classes (samanya laksana). How
does one know that all people are mortal? One cannot come to this realization
by ordinary perception because the mortality of all people in all times cannot
be physically perceived by the senses. But because a person is never perceived
without his personhood -- that is, the class essence or universality all human
beings share -- then a conclusion can be made based on that essence. A person
is known as a person because of the presence of person hood in him. This direct
perception of personhood is the medium through which all people, or the class
of people, are perceived. To perceive personhood means to perceive all people
as individuals in which this characteristic resides. The perception of all
people is due to the perception of the universality of humanity in all people.
Therefore, this type of knowledge is called the extraordinary perception of
classes. A different type of extraordinary perception -- jnana laksana
(association) -- is involved when one says that something looks delicious, or
that a block of ice looks cold, or that a stone looks hard. These assertions
imply that the taste of food, the coldness of ice, and the hardness of stone
can be perceived by the eyes. But how can the eyes perceive the qualities of
taste and touch? Nyaya says that the past experience of touch and taste are so
closely associated with the visual appearance of the causative agents of those
experiences that whenever these sources come in contact with the eyes they
bring about the perception of taste and touch ~ 12 ~ simultaneously with that
of their color. This present perception of taste and touch due to the revived
past knowledge of the color of the food, ice, or stone is called jnana laksana
-- perception based on association. This type of know]edge is extraordinary
because it is conveyed by a sense organ that ordinarily is not capable of
perceiving that type of knowledge. Because the mind incorporates previously
associated experiences, it is able to perceive such knowledge. The third kind
of extraordinary perception is called yogaja, the knowledge born of yoga
practices. It is intuitive knowledge that never depends on sense-object contact
and is never false; it is perceived after the mind is cleansed through yogic
practices. This knowledge from within is divided into two categories, depending
on the degree of perfection of yogi attainments. Those who have completed their
inward journey and have attained spiritual perfection, who perceive intuitive
knowledge of all objects constantly and spontaneously, are called yukta yogins.
Those who are still on the path of the spiritual journey, for whom
concentration and other auxiliary conditions are required to attain an
intuitive knowledge, are called yunjan yogins. Inference Nyaya philosophy
provides a detailed and systematic description of inference. Inference is the
process of knowing something not by means of contact between the senses and the
objects of the world and not by observation but rather through the medium of a
sign, or linga, that is invariably related to it. Inference involves the
process of analyzing memories, correlations, and uncontaminated arguments.
There is a systematic method for testing the validity of inferential knowledge,
for there are always some inseparable constituents to an inference, and if any
of these parts are missing or if there is any defect in the parts, then the
knowledge inferred is invalid. The Sanskrit word for inference is anumana, and
may be defined as "the cognition or knowledge that follows from some other
knowledge." Two examples are: "The hill is on fire because there is
smoke on the hill, and where there is smoke there is fire," and "John
is mortal because he is a man, and all men are mortal." In the first
example, we perceive smoke on the hill and arrive at the knowledge of the
existence of fire on the hill on the basis of our previous knowledge of the
universal relationship between smoke and fire. In the second example, we begin
with the perception of a man, John. which inspires the knowledge of the
mortality of John based on our previous knowledge of the universal relationship
between men and mortality. Thus, it is apparent that inference is a process of
reasoning in which one passes through certain necessary stages to reach a
conclusion, which is called inferential knowledge. The necessary stages are the
conditions for a valid inference. In the process of inference, one reaches a
conclusion regarding a particular fact through the knowledge of a sign and of
the sign's universal relationship to the conclusion. In the example of the
inference of fire on a hill, one ascertains the presence of the unperceived
fire on the hill through the perception of the smoke on the hill, because one
a]ready has the knowledge of the universal relationship between smoke and fire.
A primary condition of this inference is the knowledge of smoke on the hill;
this part of the inferential process is called linga, or sign. Next arises the
awareness of the universal relationship between smoke and fire based on past
observations; this is known as vyapti. As a result of this, knowledge of the
existence of the unperceived fire on the hill arises. This stage is called
nirnaya or conclusion. In ~ 13 ~ the terminology of logic, the hill is the
minor term paksa) in this inference because the hill is the subject under
consideration. Fire is the major term (sadhya) because this is what we want to
prove in relation to the hill. The presence of smoke on the hill is the middle
term (linga) because it is the sign that indicates the presence of fire. This
middle term is also called hetu or sadhana, meaning "the reason or grounds
for inference." Three parts of inference. Thus, an inference contains three
parts: the minor term (paksa), the major term (sadhya), and the middle term
(hetu or linga). In the process of inference, the first step is the
apprehension of smoke (hetu) on the hill (paksa); the second step is the
recollection of the universal relationship between smoke and fire (hetu and
sadhya); and the third step is the cognition of fire (sadhya). When used as a
formal statement or verbal expression designed to convince others, however, the
structure of inference is changed. In stating an inferential verbal expression
for others, the first step will be the predication of the major term in
relation to the minor term: "There is fire on the hill." The second
step will be the formation of the middle term in relation to the minor term: "There
is visible smoke on the hill." The third step will be the formation of the
middle term in its universal or invariable relationship with the major term:
"Where there's smoke, there's fire." In this last step it is
sometimes helpful to use a specific example to confirm the relationship between
the middle term and major term. For instance, "Where there's smoke there's
fire, as in the kitchen." Thus, inference may be said to be a syllogism
consisting of at least three categorical premises. But when one is analyzing
the whole process of an inference, and especially when one is using inference
to prove or demonstrate something, then it is necessary to state the inference
in a systematic and comprehensive chain of arguments. One must then state a
syllogism in the form of five premises. These five premises (avayavas) that
constitute a valid inference are pratijjna (fact); hetu (reasons); udaharana
(example); upanaya (application); and nigamana (conclusion). Here is an
example: (1) John is mortal (fact); (2) Because he is a man (reason); (3) All
men are mortal -- for example, Napoleon, Lincoln, Socrates, and so on
(example); (4) John is a man (application); (5) Therefore John is mortal
(conclusion). The first premise states a positive fact. The second premise
states the reason for this assertion. The third premise then confirms the
relationship between the reason for the assertion and the asserted fact itself
as supported by a well-known example. The fourth constituent of the syllogism
represents the application of the universal proposition to the present case.
The fifth part, or conclusion, is drawn from the preceding four parts. To gain
a proper understanding of the workings of logic, it is necessary to examine
more closely how a systematic syllogism functions. For this purpose, the
following example may be reanalyzed. "There is fire on the hill because
there is smoke, and where there is smoke, there is fire." As was
previously discussed, fire is the major term, hill is the minor term, and smoke
is the middle term. The middle term (smoke) is so-called because, on the one
hand, it is connected to the minor term (hill), and, on the other hand, it is
universally related to the major term (fire). This middle term is also called
reason or grounds since it is because of its perception that the major term is
inferred. Thus, an inference has two conditions: the knowledge of the middle
term must exist in the minor term; and a relationship must exist between the
middle and the major terms. It is not possible to realize the existence of fire
on the hill as a conclusion based on inferential reasoning if the invariable
concomitance between the middle and major terms is not established. This
invariable concomitance between these two terms of an inference is called
vyapti, the logical ground for inference. Concomitance guarantees the validity
of the conclusion; the validity or invalidity of an inference depends on ~ 14 ~
the validity or invalidity of vyapti. Therefore, nyaya philosophy goes into
great detail concerning the nature of concomitance and the fallacies related to
it. Logical ground for inference. Vyapti, meaning "the state of
pervasiveness," implies both that which pervades and that which is
pervaded. For example, in the inference of fire and smoke, smoke is the
pervaded and fire is the pervader. Here smoke is always accompanied by fire --
wherever there is smoke, there will also be fire. The reverse, however, is not
necessarily true: it is possible to have fire without smoke -- for example, a
Bunsen burner. But there are examples in which both the pervader and the
pervaded coexist permanently -- for example, fire and heat. There are,
therefore, two kinds of concomitance: equivalent and nonequivalent.
Nonequivalent concomitance (asamavyapti) is an invariable concomitance between
two unequal entities (such as smoke and fire). It has already been shown that
in this type of concomitance, one entity may be inferred from the other, but
not vice versa. Equivalent vyapti (samuvyapti) is an invariable concomitance
between two coexistent terms, either of which can be inferred from the other.
For example, a chair is a nameable thing because a chair is knowable, and
whatever is knowable, is nameable. Here nameable and knowable can both be
inferred from each other. Concomitance denotes a relationship of coexistence
(sahacarla). But not every instance of coexistence is an example of
concomitance. Fire, for example, often coexists with smoke, yet it may exist
without smoke. The coexistent relationship of fire and smoke depends on certain
conditions -- temperature and wetness, for instance. The condition on which the
relation of coexistence depends is called upadhi, and for an inference to be
valid, the relation between the middle and major terms of a syllogism must be
independent of any and all conditions. In other words, a valid concomitance
represents an invariable and unconditional concomitant relation (nitya
anaupadika sambandha) between the middle and major terms of a syllogism. But
how does one know that a relation is invariable and unconditional? Vedantins
reply that concomitance is established by the uncontradicted experiences of the
relationships between two things. But according to nyaya, concomitance is
established through the perception of classes (samanya laksana perception),
which has been discussed earlier in this chapter in the section on
extraordinary perceptions. Actually, the nyaya method of inference uses
inductive reasoning; that is, it draws a particular conclusion on the grounds
of a general and universally known truth. The universal truth is considered to
fall within the range of vyapti. In nyaya, there are three types of inductive
analysis, or generalization. The first is anvaya, or uniform agreement in
presence. This type of inductive process arises from observing a relationship
in which if one constituent is present, then in every instance the other
constituent is also present -- for example, wherever there is smoke there is
fire. The second type of inductive analysis is the obverse of the first, and is
called uniform agreement in absence (vyatireka). In this method, a negative
universal relationship or invariable concomitance is observed -- for example,
wherever there is no fire, there is no smoke. The third kind of inductive
process is a combination of the first and second methods. In this method, known
as uniform agreement in both presence and absence (anvaya-vyatireka or
vyabhicaragraha), both constituents of a relationship are always found
together; neither is ever present without the other. From this, it is induced
that there must exist a natural relationship of invariable concomitance between
them. These three methods of generalization demonstrate a systematic technique
for inductive reasoning. The most crucial concern, however, in any systematic
inference is how to make certain that concomitance, the logical basis for the
inference, is valid -- that is, free from limiting conditions (upadhis). This
process of insuring that vyaptis are free from all vitiating ~ 15 ~ conditions
is called upadhinirasa. One way of insuring this is by the repeated observation
of both constituents of a relationship under all possible circumstances to make
certain that the relationship is in fact invariable. Another way is to employ
hypothetical critical argumentation or tarka. But nyaya places the greatest
emphasis on samanya laksana -- the perception of classes -- as the major means
for insuring the validity of vyaptis. Classifications of inference. Nyaya
provides three general classification systems for inference. The first
classification system is based on psychological grounds; the second is based on
the nature of vyapti or the universal relationship between the middle and major
terms; and the third is based on the logical construction of the inference.
According to the first system of classification, there are two kinds of
inference: svartha, meaning "for oneself," and parartha, meaning
"for others." In svartha, the purpose of the inference is for one to
gain correct knowledge by oneself and for himself. In this kind of inference, the
whole process of reasoning is internal -- one employs systematic logical
reasoning to protect oneself from confusion and doubt and to arrive at correct
inferential knowledge. In parartha, on the other hand, the inference is meant
for others. Here someone is trying to prove the truth of his view. For
instance, a man who is convinced of the existence of fire on a hill would use
parartha when attempting to convince others of the fire's existence. The second
classification system divides inferences into three categories: purvavat,
sesavat, and samanyatodrsta. Both purvavat and sesavat inferences display
causal uniformity between the middle and major terms, while samanyatodrsta
inferences exhibit non-causal uniformity of the middle and major terms. Here
the term cause refers to an invariable and unconditional antecedent of an
effect, and effect refers to an invariable and unconditional consequence of a
cause. When an unperceived effect is inferred from a perceived cause, that
inference is deemed a purvavat inference. For example: "It will rain
because there are dark heavy clouds in the sky, and whenever there are dark
heavy clouds, it rains." Here the future rain (effect) is inferred from
the appearance of dark heavy clouds (cause). Sesavat is the reverse type of
reasoning, in which an unperceived cause is inferred from a perceived effect.
For instance: "It has rained recently because there is a swift muddy
current in the river, and whenever there is a swift muddy current in the river,
it has recently rained." Here we infer the cause (the past rain) from the
effect (the swift muddy current). And finally, in samanyatodrsta, the third
type of inference in this system of classification, the invariable concomitance
between the middle term and the major term does not depend on a causal uniformity.
One term is not inferred from the other because they are uniformly related. In
this kind of reasoning, conclusions are based on direct experience and on
generally known truths. An example of this sort of inference is the movement of
the moon which is inferred on the basis of its changing position in the sky,
although the movement of the moon is not perceived directly by the senses. The
last general classification system is based on the nature of induction, by
which one obtains the knowledge of the invariable concomitance between the
middle and the major terms of an inference. This system distinguishes among
three types of inference. In the first, kevalanvayi, the middle term is only
positively related to the major term. For example: "All knowable objects
are nameable." In the second, kevalavyatireka, the middle term is only
negatively related to the major term. For example: "Whoever is dead has no
pulse: this person has a pulse; therefore he is not dead." In the last
category, anvayatireki, the middle term is both positively and negatively
related to the major term. This is the joint method of both anvaya and
vyatireka. For example: "All smoky objects are on fire: the hill is smoky;
therefore, the hill is on fire. No nonfiery object ~ 16 ~ is smoky; the hill is
smoky; therefore the hill is on fire." The fallacies of inference. In the
nyaya system, fallacies of inference are called hetvabhasa. This term literally
means "a reason (hetu) that appears to be valid but is not really
so." There are five kinds of fallacies, called sabyabhicara, viruddha,
satpratipaksa, asiddha, and badhita. The first, sabyabhicara, means
"irregular middle." In a correct inference, the middle term is
uniformly and without exception related to the major term. An irregular middle
term is destructive to an inference because it can lead to a wrong conclusion.
For example: "All Himalayan beings are saints; tigers are Himalayan
beings; therefore, tigers are saints." The conclusion of this inference
cannot be said to be correct, because the middle term, Himalayan beings, is not
invariably related to the major term, saints. Himalayan beings come in many
different varieties. Instead of leading to one single valid conclusion, such an
irregular middle term leads to varied opposite conclusions. Viruddha, the
second kind of fallacy, means "contradictory middle." A contradictory
middle is one that dismisses the very proposition it is meant to prove. For
example: "Sound is eternal, because it is caused." Whatever has a
cause is noneternal, and so here the middle term, caused, does not prove the
eternity of sound but rather confirms its non eternity. The distinction between
an irregular middle and a contradictory middle is that while the irregular
middle fails to prove its conclusion, the contradictory middle proves the
opposite of what is intended. The third type, satpratipaksa, means
"inferentially contradictory middle." This type of fallacy arises
when the middle term of an inference is contradicted by the middle term of
another inference that proves a completely opposite fact about the major term.
For example, the argument "Sound is eternal because it is audible" is
contradicted by the inference "Sound is noneternal because it is produced,
as a pot is produced." The distinction between a contradictory middle and
an inferentially contradictory middle is that in the former, the middle term
itself proves the contradiction of its conclusion, while in the latter, the
contradiction of the conclusion is proved by another inference. The fourth type
of fallacy is asiddha, an unproved middle. In this type of fallacy, the middle
term is not an established fact but is an unproved assumption. For example:
"The sky-lotus is fragrant because it has lotusness like a natural
lotus." Here the middle term, lotusness, does not have any substantial
existence because such a thing as a sky-lotus actually does not exist. The
fifth is badhita, a noninferentially contradicted middle. Here the middle term
is contradicted by some other source of knowledge. Examples are: "Fire is
cold because it is a substance," and "Sugar is sour because it
produces acidity." Here "cold" and "sour" are the
major terms and "substance" and "acidity" are the middle
terms. The existence of heat in the fire and sweetness in sugar is directly
perceived by the senses, so one has to consider substance and acidity as
contradictory middle terms. Therefore, the inference is fallacious. Comparison
According to nyaya, comparison is the third valid source of experiential
knowledge. This kind of knowledge comes when one perceives the similarity
between the description of an unfamiliar object and its actual appearance
before one's senses. For example, suppose that a trustworthy person has told
you that there is such a thing as a crabapple that looks like a regular red
apple but is smaller and has a longer stem. One day in the woods you come upon
a tree bearing fruit ~ 17 ~ that you have never seen before but that reminds
you of apples. You then remember your friend's description of crabapples, and
you come to the conclusion that this must be a crabapple tree. This source of
knowledge, upamana, is not recognized as valid in many of the other systems of
Indian philosophy. The carvaka system of philosophy, for instance, does not
accept this as a source of know]edge, because this system maintains that
perception is the sole source of valid knowledge. The Buddhist system of
philosophy recognizes upamana as a valid source of knowledge but regards it as
a mere compound of perception and testimony. The vaisesika and sankhya systems
explain upamana as simply a form of inference, and the Jain system maintains
that it is merely a kind of recognition. The mimamsa and vedanta systems agree
with nyaya in considering upamana as an independent source of knowledge, but
they explain it in a different way, which will be discussed in the chapter on
mimamsa. Testimony Sabda or testimony literally means "words"; it is
the knowledge of objects derived from words or sentences, and is, according to
nyaya, the fourth and final source of valid experiential knowledge. Not all
verbal knowledge, however, is valid. In nyaya philosophy, sabda is defined as
the statement of an apta, a person who speaks and acts the way he thinks. Such
a person's mind, action, and speech are in perfect harmony, and he is therefore
accepted as an authority. Thus his verbal or written statement is considered to
be a valid source of knowledge. The Veda is considered to be the expression of
certain venerable aptas, great sages who realized the truth within and who
transmitted their experiences into words. The validity of the Veda is derived
from the authority of these aptas. The validity of verbal knowledge depends
upon two conditions: first, the meaning of the statement must be perfectly
understood, and, second, the statement must be the expression of a trustworthy
person, that is, an apta. There are two main ways of classifying sabda, or
testimony. The first method of classification divides testimonial knowledge
into two categories based on the nature of the object of the knowledge. The
first category consists of the trustworthy assertions of ordinary persons,
saints, sages, and scriptures on matters related to the perceptible objects of
the world. Examples are the evidence given by expert witnesses in court, the
statements of reliable physicians about physiology, and scriptural declarations
concerning the performance of certain rites. The second type of testimony
consists of the trustworthy assertions of persons, saints, sages, and
scriptures on matters concerning the supersensible realities. Examples are a
physicist's assertions about atoms, a nutritionist's statements regarding
vitamins, a prophet's instructions on virtue, and scriptural statements about
God and immortality. The second way of classifying sabda is based on the nature
of the source of the knowledge. This method categorizes all testimony as being
either scriptural or secular. Here the word scriptural refers only to the
sacred writings related to the Veda and to the Veda its]f. The words of
scriptural testimony are considered to be perfect and infallible. Secular sabda
is the testimony of fallible human beings and therefore may be either true or
false; secular testimony that comes from a trustworthy person is valid, but the
rest is not. The nyaya system gives a detailed description of the nature of
sabda because testimony is considered to be a valid source of knowledge and
should therefore be analyzed thoroughly. In a scripture or a testimony, words
and sentences are used -- but what is a sentence, what is a word, and what is
the nature of their construction? Here, a sentence may be viewed as a group ~
18 ~ of words arranged in a certain manner, and a word as a group of letters or
phonemes arranged in a specific order. The essential nature of any word lies in
its meaning, and there must be specific rules governing the arrangement of
words in the formation of sentences. Without such rules, the words spoken even
by a trustworthy person -- an apta -- could be reordered to convey a different
meaning from the one intended or could mislead a common person because of their
lack of clarity of meaning. The Potency of Words The nyaya system states that
all words are significant symbols and that all words have the capacity to
designate their respective objects. This capacity of words is called shakti,
potency, and in the nyaya system, potency is said to be the will of God. The
words used in a sentence have certain meanings because of the potencies within
them, and that is why they express certain meanings in a particular context. So
the ordering of words in a sentence is very important. In addition, nyaya
maintains that there are four other factors that are essential in the proper
functioning of sentences, and without the fulfillment of these four conditions
a sentence cannot express the intended meaning These conditions are: akamksa
(expectancy), yogyata (fitness), sannidhi (proximity), and tatparya
(intention). Akamksa, the first condition, means "expectancy."
Akamksa is the quality by which all the words of a sentence imply or expect one
another; it is the need that each word has for the other words in that
sentence. According to the nyaya system. a word is not in itself capable of
conveying a complete meaning; it must be brought into relationship with other
words in order to express the full meaning intended. For example, when someone
hears the word "bring," he asks or he thinks about what to bring. It
could be a jar, a book, a pencil, a doughnut, or anything else. Thus,
expectancy is the interdependence of the words in a sentence for expressing a
complete meaning. Yogyata, the second condition, means "fitness." It
refers to the appropriateness of the words in a sentence, to the absence of
contradiction in its terms. For example, sentences like "Moisten with fire,",
or "He is frustrated because of his inner peace," make no sense
because there is a contradiction between fire and moistening, between
frustration and peace. Fire has no ability to moisten anything, and inner peace
cannot engender frustration. Therefore, although these sentences may be
grammatically correct, they do not express valid knowledge. Sannidhi, the third
condition, means "proximity." It is very important for words to be
used within the limits of an appropriate time and space. If the duration of
their use is prolonged, then words no longer have the capacity to give the
desired meaning. For example, if someone who desires to make a statement speaks
one word today, another word tomorrow, and a third the day after, his efforts
at effective communication are certain to fail. The same holds true for the
written word. If someone writes one word on page one, another on page three,
one more on page five, and another on page ten, then his meaning will not be
communicated effectively. Continuity of time and space is therefore essential
for a sentence to convey meaning. Tatparya, the fourth condition, means
"intention", and it refers to the meaning one intends a sentence to
convey. A word may have various meanings depending on its context, so one has
to be careful to determine the real intention of the person who uses the word.
This is also the case with scriptural testimony -- even the greatest scholars
have disagreements concerning some passages because they do not understand the
original intention of those sentences. A very simple illustration is this:
Suppose someone tells you to bring him a bat; you have no way ~ 19 ~ of knowing
whether you are being asked to provide a particular type of flying mammal or a
wooden club. To understand the real intention of a sentence, one has to
comprehend accurately the context in which the words are used. Because of the
unique nature of the Sanskrit language and its symbolic usages, the Veda and
related ancient religio-philosophical scriptures are full of this kind of
complexity and indeterminability of intention. In order to clarify this and
understand the Vedic testimony properly, nyaya recommends that one study the
mimamsa philosophy because it provides systematized rules and interpretations
for understanding the real meaning of the Veda. The Nature of the Physical
World As mentioned previously, the nyaya system groups all the objects of the
world into twelve major categories: soul, body, senses, objects of the senses,
cognition (buddhi), mind (manas), activity, mental modifications, rebirth,
feelings, suffering, and absolute freedom from all sufferings. Not all these
objects of knowledge are found in the physical world because the physical world
is composed only of the four gross elements -- earth, water, fire, and air.
Although the soul and the mind are involved in the physical world, they are not
physical elements. Likewise, time and space are completely nonmaterial, but
they nonetheless belong to the physical world. Akasa (space or ether) is
considered to be a physical substance, but it is not considered to be a
productive cause of anything In fact, the ultimate constituents of earth, air,
fire, and water are eternal and unchanging atoms. Ether and time and space are
also eternal] and infinite substances, each being one single whole. All in all,
the nyaya theory of the physical world is very similar to that of the vaisesika
school, and a more detailed discussion of this world view will be provided in
the next chapter. The Concept of the Individual Soul There are many apparently
different concepts of the soul among the various schools of Indian philosophy.
The carvaka system states that the soul consists of the living physical body
and its attributes. According to Buddhist philosophy, there is no soul.
Buddhism teaches that the stream of ever-changing thoughts and feelings is the
ultimate reality. This may be termed soul, but it is not considered to be a
permanent entity, as is maintained by other philosophies. According to the
concept of soul held by the nyaya and vaisesika systems, the soul is a unique
substance, of which all desires, aversions, pleasures, pains, and cognition are
qualities. There are different souls in different bodies. The soul is
indestructible and eternal, and its attribute is consciousness. Because it is
not limited by time and space, the soul is also seen as infinite or
all-pervading. There are many souls, because one person's experiences do not
overlap those of another person; one's, experience is completely distinct from
any other's. Nyaya gives numerous arguments to prove the existence of the soul.
It first argues that the body is not the soul because immaterial consciousness
cannot be said to be an attribute of the material body, which in itself is
unconscious and unintelligent. Neither can the functioning of the senses
explain the process of imagination, memory, and ideation -- none of these
functions depends on any external sense. The mind can also not be the soul
because the mind is considered to be an imperceptible substance. Nor can the
soul, as the Buddhists maintain, be identified as the ever- changing series of
cognition. The soul cannot be said to be an eternal and self-effulgent
consciousness because consciousness cannot subsist without a certain locus. At
the same time, the soul is not mere consciousness or knowledge but is the
knower of ~ 20 ~ knowledge and the enjoyed of objects. In sum, the soul is not
consciousness but is a substance having consciousness as its attribute. The
soul experiences the external world through the mind and senses. All the cognition
and conscious states arise in the soul when the soul is related to the mind,
the mind to the senses, and the senses to external objects. It is because of
this sequential contact or relationship that the whole process actuates;
otherwise there would be no consciousness in the soul. In its disembodied or
disintegrated state, the soul has no knowledge or consciousness. How then can
one know whether there is such a thing as an individual soul? The nyaya system
answers that the soul is not known by sensory perception but rather by
inference or testimony. The existence of the soul is inferred from the
functions of desire, aversion, and volition, from the sensations of pain and
pleasure, and from memories of these. These memories cannot be explained unless
one admits a permanent soul that has experienced pain and pleasure in relation
to certain objects in the past. The process of knowledge based on memory
requires to}e existence of a permanent self that desires to know something and
then desires to attain certain knowledge about it. Desire, volition, pain, and
pleasure cannot be explained by the body, senses, or mind. Just as the
experiences of one person cannot be remembered by another person, the present
states of the body or the senses or the mind cannot remember their past states.
The phenomenon of memory must depend upon a permanent entity -- the soul. One's
own soul can be known through mental perception, but someone else's soul in
another body can only be inferred. The Concept of Liberation Like all the other
systems of Indian philosophy, the nyaya system maintains that the ultimate goal
of human life is to attain liberation. By liberation is meant absolute freedom
from all pain and misery. This implies a state in which the soul is completely
released from all bondage and from its connection with the body. It is
impossible for the soul to attain the state of complete freedom from pain and
misery unless the soul is totally disconnected from the body and senses. In
liberation, the soul is unconditionally and absolutely freed from all shackles
forever. To attain the state of liberation, one has to acquire true knowledge
of the soul and of all the objects of experience. This knowledge is called
tattva-jnana, which means "to know reality as completely distinct from unreality."
Nyaya philosophy prescribes a three-stage path for reaching the goal of
liberating knowledge. The first step is sravana, the study of the scriptures.
One has to study the spiritual scriptures and listen to authoritative persons
and saints. Following this, one must use his own reasoning powers to ponder
over what he has learned. This process of rumination is called manana. Finally,
one must contemplate on the soul, confirm his knowledge, and practice that
truth in his life. This is called nididhyasana. Through the practice of
sravana, manana, and nididhyasana, a person realizes the true nature of the
soul as being totally distinct from the body, mind, senses, and all other
objects of the world. The truth realized within dispels the darkness of self-identification
and misunderstanding (mithya-jnana) concerning "Iness" and
"Thy-ness." When this happens, a person ceases to be moved by his
passions and impulses and begins to perform his duties selflessly without
having any desire to reap the fruits of these actions. The fire of true
knowledge roasts one's past karma like seeds, thereby making them unable to
germinate. Thus, true knowledge leads a person to the state where there is no
cycle of birth and death. This state is called liberation. ~ 21 ~ The Concept
of God According to nyaya, God is considered to be the operative cause of
creation, maintenance, and destruction of the universe. God does not create the
world out of nothing or out of himself but rather out of the eternal atoms of
space, time, mind, and soul. The creation of the universe refers to the
ordering of these eternal entities, which are in coexistence with God, into a
mortal world. Thus God, as the first operative cause of the universal forces,
is the creator of the world. And God is also the preserver, as he causes the
atoms to hold together and continue their existence in a particular order that
maintains the physical universe. God is also called the destroyer of the
universe, because he lets loose the forces of destruction when the energies of
the mortal world require it. God is one, infinite, and eternal, and the
universe of space and time, of mind and soul, does not limit him. God is said
to possess six perfections: infinite glory, absolute sovereignty, unqualified
virtue, supreme beauty, perfect knowledge, and complete detachment. Nyaya
provides a few arguments to establish the theory of God. The first is the
causal argument. According to this line of reasoning, the entire universe is
formed by the combination of atoms. Mountains, fields, rivers, and so on must
have a cause, for they are made up of parts, possess limited dimensions, and
are not intelligent. This being so, they cannot be the cause of themselves;
they require the guidance of an intelligent cause. That intelligent cause must
have direct knowledge of all matter and of the atoms that underlie all matter.
He must be omnipresent and omniscient. This intelligent entity cannot be the
individual soul because the knowledge of the soul is limited -- a soul, for
instance, does not have the knowledge of other souls. Therefore, there must he
an ultimate intelligent entity, which is termed God. The second argument is
based on adrsta, which means "the unseen" or "the unknown,"
and may be translated as providence or fate. The philosophers of the nyaya
system inquire as to why some people are happy and others are not, why some are
wise and others ignorant. One cannot say that there is no cause, because every
event has a cause. The causes of pain and pleasure must therefore be one's own
actions in this life or in previous lives. People enjoy or suffer according to
the merits or demerits produced by their past good or bad actions. This law of
karma, which governs the life of every individual soul, requires that every
human being must reap the fruits of his own actions. There is often a long
interval of time between an action and its effect, however, and many pleasures
and sorrows cannot be traced to any action performed in this life. Likewise,
many actions performed in this life do not produce fruits immediately. The
subtle impressions of all one's actions persist long after the actions
themselves and are collected in the soul in the form of credits or merits
(punya) and deficiencies or demerits (papa). The sum total of all merits and
demerits that are accrued from good or bad actions is called adrsta, fate, and
this produces present pain and pleasure. Adrsta is not an intelligent
principle, however, and it cannot inspire its own fructification. It must
therefore be guided or directed by some intelligent agent to produce the proper
consequences. The individual soul cannot be said to be the director or
controller of adrsta because souls do not know anything about their adrsta.
Thus, the almighty intelligent agent who guides or directs adrsta through the
proper channels to produce the proper consequences is the eternal, omnipotent,
and omnipresent supreme being termed God. A third nyaya argument for the
existence of God is based on scriptural testimony. According to this reasoning,
the Vedas, Upanisads, and all other authoritative scriptures state the
existence of God. These scriptures were not written by common people but were
formulated by great ~ 22 ~ sages who experienced truth from within. Thus, the
authority of testimony depends on direct experience, which is the only source
of knowledge about any and all facts. The fact of the existence of God is
experienced directly by individual souls, and some of these individuals have
expressed their God-realizations. The Veda expresses such direct experiences of
God. Therefore, God exists. ~ 23 ~
3.
Vaisesika:
Vedic Atomic Theory An Analysis of the Aspects of
Reality The founder of vaisesika philosophy is the sage Kanada, who was also
known as Uluka. So this system is sometimes called aulukya. Kanada wrote the
first systematic work of this philosophy, Vaisesika-sutra. This work is divided
into ten cantos, each canto containing two sections. Prasastapada wrote a
commentary on this sutra entitled Svartha Dharma Samgraha that is so famous
that it is called bhasya, which means simply "commentary." In Indian
philosophical discourse, whenever the word bhasya is used by itself without
further specification, it is understood to refer to this commentary. Two
well-known explications of Prasastapada's work are Udayana's Kirana-vali and
Sridhara's Nyayakandali. The significant feature of this system is the
introduction of a special category of reality called uniqueness (visesa). Thus,
this system is known as vaisesika. Vaisesika is allied to the nyaya system of
philosophy. Both systems accept the liberation of the individual self as the
end goal; both view ignorance as the root cause of all pain and misery; and
both believe that liberation is attained only through right knowledge of
reality. There are, however, two major differences between nyaya and vaisesika.
First, nyaya philosophy accepts four independent sources of knowledge --
perception, inference, comparison, and testimony -- but vaisesika accepts only
two -- perception and inference. Second, nyaya maintain s that all of reality
is comprehended by sixteen categories (padarthas), whereas vaisesika recognizes
only seven categories of reality (see chart below). These are: dravya
(substance), guna (quality), karma (action), samanya (generality), visesa
(uniqueness), samavaya (inherence), and abhava (nonexistence). The term
padartha means "the object denoted by a word," and according to
vaisesika philosophy all objects denoted by words can be broadly divided into
two main classes -- that which exists, and that which does not exist. Six of
the seven padarthas are in the first class, that which exists. In the second
class, that which does not exist, there is only one padartha, abhava, which
stands for all negative facts such as the nonexistence of things. The first two
categories of reality -- substance and quality -- are treated in greater detail
in the following discussion than are the remaining five. Vaisesika's Seven
Categories (Padirthas) of Reality · Substance (nine dravyas) o Earth o Water o
Fire o Air o Space or ether o Time o Direction o Soul o Mind · Quality
(twenty-four gunas) ~ 24 ~ o Color o taste o smell o touch o sound o number o
magnitude o distinctness o union o separation o remoteness o nearness o
cognition o pleasure o pain o desire o aversion o effort o heaviness o fluidity
o viscidity o tendency o virtue o nonvirtue · Action (karma) · Generality
(samanya) · Uniqueness (visesa) · Inherence (samavaya) · Nonexistence (abhava)
The Category of Substance -- Nine Dravyas Dravya, substance, is that in which a
quality or an action can exist but which in itself is different from both
quality and action. Without substance, there cannot be a quality or an action
because substance is the substratum of quality and action, and it is also the
material cause of the composite things produced from it. A cloth, for example,
is formed by the combination of a number threads of certain colors. The threads
are the material or constitutive causes of the ~ 25 ~ cloth because it is made
of the threads that subsist in the cloth. There are nine kinds of substances:
earth, water, fire, air, ether, time, direction, soul, and mind. The first five
of these are called physical elements because each of them possesses a specific
quality that can be perceived by an external sense faculty. Each of the senses
is composed of elements, whose distinguishing qualities are registered by
specific sensory receptors. For example, smell is the particular property of
the earth, and it is apprehended by the nostrils. Taste is the particular
property of water, which is perceived by the tongue. Color is the particular
property of fire or light, and it is discerned by the eyes. Touch is the
particular property of air, which is experienced by the skin. And sound is the
particular property of akasa (ether), which is received by the ears. Paramanu
-- the smallest particle of earth, water, fire, and air. In vaisesika the
smallest indivisible part of matter is called paramanu, or atom. This is not to
be confused with the modern scientific term atom because an atom as described
in nuclear physics is itself composed of many parts. The vaisesika usage of the
word is different. It simply refers to the most minute indivisible state of
matter. The atoms of earth, water, fire, and air are eternal because an atom is
partless and cannot be produced or destroyed. The common elements of earth,
water, fire, and air, however, are noneternal because they are produced by
combinations of atoms and therefore can disintegrate or change. The existence
of atoms is proved by inference -- not by perception -- in the following way.
All the composite objects of the world are made up of parts. In separating the
parts of a composite object, one passes from the larger to the smaller, and
then from the smaller to the smallest part. But when one comes to the smallest
part that cannot be further divided in any way, then the process of separation
has to stop. That indivisible and minutes part in vaisesika is called the atom.
If one does not accept the concept of indivisibility, then he will commit the
fallacy of infinite regression. Because it has no parts, the atom cannot be
said to be produced. and it cannot be destroyed because destruction means to
break a thing down into its parts, and in an atom there are no parts. Atoms,
therefore, can be neither produced nor destroyed; they are eternal. Akasa --
ether. There are four kinds of atoms -- atoms of earth, atoms of water, atoms
of fire, and atoms of air -- each having its own peculiar qualities. Akasa
(ether), the fifth substance, is the substratum of the quality of sound; it is
not made up of atoms. Akasa is also translated as space. Sound can be
perceived, but akasa cannot be perceived because it lacks two conditions
necessary for the perception of an object: perceptible dimension and manifest
color. Akasa is unlimited, so it does not have a perceptible dimension, and it
is formless, so does not have any color. Therefore, Akasa cannot be perceived,
but it can be inferred from the perception of the quality of sound which it
contains. It cannot be said that sound is the quality of time, direction, soul,
or mind because these exist even when there is no sound to qualify them.
Therefore, there must be some other substance that has the quality of sound in
it; that substance is called akasa. Akasa is one and eternal because it is not
made up of parts and does not depend on any other substance for its existence.
It is all-pervading in the sense that it has an unlimited dimension and that
its quality (sound) is perceived everywhere. Direction and time. Direction and
time are also imperceptible substances and they are likewise single, eternal,
and all pervading . Direction is inferred on the basis of such concepts as
here, there, near, far, on this side, by that way, and so on. Time is inferred
from the concepts now, today, tomorrow, past, present, future, older, younger,
and so forth. Although space, direction, and time are singular and
all-pervading, indivisible and partless, they are spoken of as ~ 26 ~ many
because of certain limiting conditions, known as upadhis. For example, when the
allpervading, indivisible space is limited by the walls of a jar, that space is
known as the space of the jar (ghatakasa). In the same way, direction and time
are also thought of as multiple because of the notions of variety and specificity
expressed as east, west, one hour, two hours, and so on. Soul. The eighth kind
of substance, the soul or atman, is also considered to be eternal and
allpervading and is the substratum of the phenomenon of consciousness.
According to vaisesika philosophy, there are two kinds of souls: individual and
supreme. Individual souls are known as jivatman. and the Supreme Soul is known
as paramatman, or isvara. The Supreme Soul is inferred to be the creator of the
world in the same manner as has been explained in the discussion of nyaya
philosophy. In contrast to the Supreme Soul, the individual soul is perceived
as possessing mental qualities, such as "I'm happy, I'm sorry" and so
forth. Individual souls do not perceive other individual souls, but they do
infer their existence in the manner described in the nyaya section. Mind. The
mind is considered to be the ninth kind of substance. It is the eternal sense
faculty of the individual soul and the soul's qualities, such as pleasure and
pain. Like the soul, the mind is atomic and indivisible -- there is one in each
body. The existence of the mind is not perceived but is inferred from the
following propositions. First, it is apparent that external sense faculties are
necessary for the perception of external objects of the world. Likewise, an
internal sense faculty is required for the perception of internal objects, such
as soul, cognition, feeling, pleasure, pain, and so on. The mind is this
internal sense faculty. Second, it is apparent that the five external senses may
all be in contact with their respective objects simultaneously, but not all of
these perceptions are received at the same time. This demonstrates that there
must be some other agent besides the external senses that both limits the
number of received perceptions to one perception at a time and that orders the
perceptions in sequential succession. In other words, although two or more
external senses may be simultaneously receiving data, only that which is being
attended to is actually perceived. Attention therefore represents the
coordination of the mind with the senses, and every perception requires the
contact of the mind with an object by means of the senses. We must, therefore,
admit the existence of mind as an internal sense faculty. Additionally, if the
mind were not a partless entity, then there would be simultaneous contact of
many parts of the mind with many senses, and many perceptions would
subsequently appear at one time. The fact that this never happens proves that
the mind is a partless, atomic, and internal sense faculty of perception. The
Category of Quality -- Twenty-four Gunas Guna, quality, the second of the seven
categories of reality, cannot exist by itself but exists only in a substance. *
It cannot, therefore, be the constituent or material cause of anything's
existence. It may be considered a nonmaterial cause of things, however, because
it determines the nature of a thing. It differs * In vaisesika "guna"
refers to quality, whereas in sankhya this term is used to denote an essential
feature of prakrti, nature. from both substance and action in that it is an
unmoving property. There are twenty-four kinds of qualities: rupa (color), rasa
(taste), gandha (smell), sparsa (touch), sabda (sound), sankhya (number),
parimana (magnitudes), prthaktva (distinctness), samyoga (conjunction or
unions), bibhaga (separation), paratva (remoteness), aparatva (nearness), ~ 27
~ buddhi (cognition), sukha (pleasure), dukha (pain), iccha (desire), dvesa
(aversion), prayatna (effort), gurutva (heaviness), dravatva (fluidity), sneha
(viscidity), samskara (tendency), dharma (merit or virtues), and adharma
(demerit or nonvirtue). A brief description of these follows. According to
vaisesika there are six colors -- white, black, red, blue, yellow, and green --
and there are also six tastes -- sweet, sour, bitter, pungent, astringent, and
salty. Smell is divided into two categories -- good and bad -- and touch is
divided into three -- hot, cold, and neither hot nor cold. There are two kinds
of sound: dhvani (inarticulated) and varna (articulated). Number is that
quality by virtue of which a thing can be counted. Many numbers starting from
one and stretching out beyond the imagination are used, but actually there is
only one number which is used as many. Magnitude is the quality by which things
are distinguished as big or small. There are four orders of magnitude:
extremely small (the atom), extremely big, small, and large. Distinctness is
the quality by which one knows that one thing is different from another. Conjunction,
or union, is the quality by which one knows the existence of two or more things
at one place or in one time, such as a book being on a table at noon.
Disjunction, or disunion, is that quality by which a substance is perceived as
being either remote or near in time or space. Older, younger, before, and after
are temporal examples; far, near, here, and there are spatial examples. Buddhi,
a quality of the self, means "knowledge" or "cognition" in
vaisesika and should not be confused with the concept of buddhi that is
explained in sankhya philosophy as "intellect." Pleasure is a
favorable experience of mind, and pain is an unfavorable experience of mind.
Effort is the quality by virtue of which a substance is capable of changing its
position. There are three kinds of effort: striving toward something
(pravrtti); striving against something (nivrtti); and vital functioning
(jivanayoni). Heaviness is that quality by virtue of which a substance is
capable of falling, while fluidity is the quality by virtue of which it flow.
Viscidity is the quality -- belonging exclusively to the element of water -- by
which different particles of matter can be absorbed and formed into particular
shapes. Samskaras are innate tendencies; they can be of anything, not just the
mind. There are three kinds of samskaras in a substance: activity, which keeps
a thing in motion (vega); elasticity, which makes a thing tend toward
equilibrium when it is disturbed (sthitisthapakatva); and mental impressions,
which enable one to remember and recognize a thing (bhavana). This last
category is exclusive to the mind. Dharma and adharma mean. respectively, that
which is in accordance with conscience, and that which is not in accordance
with conscience. Dharma leads to happiness, and adharma leads to pain and
misery. The remaining five categories of reality are only briefly described.
The Category of Action -- Karma Karma, action, is viewed in the vaisesika
school as being physical movement, but the term physical here refers to more
than just bodily movements because in vaisesika mind is also considered to be a
kind of substance. Just like quality, the second category of reality, action
also exists only in a substance and cannot exist by itself. It is, however,
completely different from both quality and substance. The substance of a thing
supports both quality and action. Quality is the static character of things,
and action is their dynamic character, which is regarded as the independent
cause of their union and disunion. Action or movement is always dependent on
substances -- earth, water, fire, air, and mind. It is impossible to find
action in the intangible ~ 28 ~ substances -- space, time, direction, and soul
-- because each is an all-pervading substance, whose position cannot be
changed. There are five kinds of action: upward, downward, inward, outward, and
linear. The action of perceptible substances like earth, water, fire, and air
can be perceived by the five senses, but not all of the actions of tangible
substances can be perceived. The movement of the Earth, for example, cannot be
perceived; it can only be inferred. The Category of Generality -- Samanya
Generality. Samanya, refers to an abstract characteristic that is singular and
eternal (nitya) and yet pervades many. For example, leadership is a single
characteristic, but it resides in many individuals. Leadership is also eternal
because it was already in existence before the first leader emerged, and it
will continue to exist even if there are no more leaders. All the things of a
certain class -- such as men, or cows, or puppies, or horses -- share common
name because of the common nature they possess. Samanya, generality, is the
essence of the common characteristic that unites different entities into one
class. Hence, modern scholars sometimes translate samanya as
"universality." Vaisesika recognizes three levels of generality or
universality: highest, lowest, and intermediate. The highest kind of generality
is existence itself (satta). Beingness or the state of being is the highest
generality because all other universals are subsumed under it; it is
all-pervading, and nothing is excluded from it. The lowest kind of generality
has the most limited referents (such as American-ness, Indian-ness, pot-ness,
and chair-ness, which are the generalities present in all Americans, Indians,
pots, and chairs, respectively). Concepts such as substantiality (having the
nature of substances) represent the intermediate level of generality because
they do not include many other categories of reality like quality, actions and
so on. The Category of Uniqueness -- Visesa Visesa, or uniqueness, is that
characteristic of a thing by virtue of which it is distinguished from all other
things. Like the imperceptible substances of space, time, direction, soul, and
mind, visesa is abstract and is therefore eternal. Everything in the world,
regardless of whether it is existent or nonexistent, is accompanied by
uniqueness. Generality (samanya) and uniqueness (visesa) are opposite concepts.
The Category of Inherence -- Samavaya There are two kinds of relationships
between things: conjunction (samyoga), and inherence (samavaya). Conjunction is
one of the twenty-four qualities (gunas) of vaisesika, but inherence is one of
the seven categories of reality described in this system. Conjunction is a
temporary, noneternal relationship between two things that may be separated at
any time. In this kind of relationship, two or more things exist together, but
each remains essentially unaffected by the other(s). For example, when a chair
and a table are conjoined together, this does not change the existence of the
chair or table. Thus, conjunction is an external relationship existing as an
accidental quality of the substances related to it. Inherence on the other
hand, is a permanent relation between two entities, one of which inheres in the
other, as for example in the relation of the whole in its parts, a quality in
its substance, or the universal in the individual. A conjunctional relation is
temporary and is produced by the action of either or both of the things related
to it. For example, the relation between a man and a chair on which he is
sitting is ~ 29 ~ temporary. An inherent relation, in contrast, is not
temporary and is not produced. The relation that exists between a whole and its
parts, for instance, is not produced because the whole is always related to its
parts. As long as the whole is not broken up, it must exist in the parts. Thus
inherence is an eternal or permanent relation between two entities, one at
which depends for its existence upon the other (the whole cannot exist separate
from its parts). Two terms within an inherent relationship cannot be reversed,
as can those that are related by conjunction. For example, in order for there
to be a conjunctional relation of hand and pen, pen and hand must both be in
some kind of contact with each other, but in an inherent relation this is not
necessary. A quality or action is in a substance, but the substance is not in
the quality or action; there is color in cloth, but no cloth in color; there is
action in a fan but no fan in the action. The Category of Nonexistence --
Abhava Abhava, nonexistence, the seventh and last category of reality is
negative in contrast to the first six categories, which are positive.
Nonexistence is not found in any of the six positive categories, and yet
according to vaisesika philosophy nonexistence exists, just as, for instance,
space and direction do. To illustrate: How does one know that there is no chair
in a room? Looking into the room, one can feel as sure of the nonexistence of
the chair as of the existence of the carpet or of the people. Therefore,
nonexistence also exists as such. There are two kinds of nonexistence: the
absence of something in something else (samsargabhava), and mutual nonexistence
(anyonyabhava). The absence of something in something else is of three kinds:
antecedent nonexistence (pragbhava), the nonexistence of a thing after its
destruction (pradhvamsabhava), and absolute nonexistence (atyantabhava).
Antecedent nonexistence refers to the nonexistence of a thing prior to its
creation. For example, in the sentence, "A book will be written using this
paper," the book is nonexistent in the paper. This type of nonexistence
does not have a beginning, but it does have an end. The book never existed
before it was written; therefore, there is a beginningless nonexistence of the
book. But when it does come to be written, its previous nonexistence will come
to an end. In direct contrast to antecedent nonexistence, the nonexistence of a
thing after its destruction has a beginning but does not have an end. For
instance, when a jar is broken into pieces, then there is nonexistence of that
jar. The nonexistence of the jar begins with its destruction, but this
nonexistence cannot be ended in any way, because the same jar cannot be brought
back into existence. The type of nonexistence that does not belong to a
particular time and space but is in all times is called absolute nonexistence.
This type of nonexistence is neither subject to origin nor to end. It is both
beginning less and endless. Examples are the nonexistence of the son of a
barren couple or the nonexistence of color in the air. Mutual nonexistence
(anyonyabhava), the second of the two major divisions of nonexistence, is the
difference of one thing from another. When one thing is different from another,
they mutually exclude each other, and there is the nonexistence of either as
the other. For example, a pen is different from a book, so there is
nonexistence of the book in the pen and of the pen in the book. The Concept of
the Creation and Annihilation of the World ~ 30 ~ Vaisesika holds to the atomic
theory of existence, according to which the entire universe is composed of
eternal atoms. But at the same time, vaisesika does not ignore the moral and
spiritual laws that govern the process of union and separation of atoms. In
this way, the atomic theory of vaisesika is different from the atomic theory of
modern science. Modern science's theory proposes a materialistic philosophy; it
explains the laws of the universe as mechanical, as being the result of the
motions of atoms in infinite time, space, and direction. According to this
view, the operation of the atoms is governed bye mechanical laws, but according
to vaisesika the functioning of atoms is guided or directed by the creative or
destructive will of the Supreme being. The will of the Supreme Being directs
the operation of atoms according to the past samskaras of individual beings.
Vaisesika states that the universe has two aspects, one eternal and one
noneternal. The eternal constituents of the universe are the four kinds of
atoms (earth, water, fire, and air) and the five substances (space, time,
direction, mind, and self). These are not subject to change, and they can be
neither created nor destroyed. Another part of the universe is noneternal, that
is, subject to creation and destruction in a particular time and spaces In the
beginning of creation two atoms are united into a dyad, which is noneternal
because it can be divided again into two. The dyads and atoms cannot be
perceived but are known through inference. The combination of three dyads is
called a triad (tryanuka), which is the smallest perceptible object. It is from
these triads that other larger compounds develop. Thus the common elements
comprised of eternal atoms are noneternal because they can be broken down into
smaller units. The entire universe is a systematic arrangement of physical
things and living beings that interact with one another in time, space, and
direction. Living beings are the souls of the selves who enjoy or suffer in
this world, depending on their meritorious or nonmeritorious past impressions.
Thus, according to vaisesika philosophy, the world is a moral stage on which
the life and destiny of all individual beings is governed, not only by the
physical laws of time and space but also by the moral law of karma. In the
performance of present karma, an individual is free and is thus the creator of
his own destiny, but the starting and ending point of the universe depends on
the creative or destructive will of the Supreme Being, God. The universal law
(adrsta) of the process of creation and annihilation influences the individual
selves to function or to be active in the direction of the creative will.
Directed by this unknown force of adrsta, the soul makes contact with an atom
of air; thus, the primeval motion comes into being. That primeval activity in
air atoms creates dyads, triads, and all the rest of the gross physical
manifestations of air elements (mahabhutas). In a similar manner, there arises
motion in the atoms of fire, water, and earth, which then compose the gross
elements of fire, water, and earth. In this way the vast expansion of the
physical world comes into existence. The Supreme Lord is endowed with perfect
wisdom, detachment, and excellence (jnana, vairagya and aisvarya). He releases
the adrsta related to individual beings, which guides the individuals in their
flow through the currents of life. At the end of life, the process of
dissolution and annihilation also depends on the will of God. He inspires the
adrsta corresponding to the individuals or to the universe, and then a
destructive motion in the atoms of the body and senses or in the cosmos starts
vibrating. On account of this destructive motion, there arises the process of
disjunction and disintegration of the body and senses or of the universe.
Compound things break down into simpler and simpler components, finally
devolving into the state of triads and dads and ultimately into atoms. In this
manner the physical elements of earth, water, fire, and air, and the related
sense organs, are disintegrated. After the dissolution of the manifest
universe, there remain the four kinds of atoms of earth, water, fire, and air
as well as ~ 31 ~ the eternal substances of space, time, direction, mind, and
soul, with their attendant meritorious and non-meritorious samskaras. Thus,
according to the vaisesika system of philosophy, there is no creation or
annihilation but rather an orderly and morally systematized composition and
decomposition of compounds. An individual self or soul is involved in the
universe because of adrsta. The karma of each soul is its own earnings,
deposited in the safe of the Supreme Being, which come back to the self with
interest. The vaisesika concepts of God, of the liberation of the soul, and of
the path to liberation are all basically the same as the nyaya concepts, which
have already been discussed in the preceding chapter. ~ 32 ~
4.
Sankhya:
Nontheistic Dualism Sankhya philosophy, considered by
some to be the oldest of all the philosophical schools, was systematized by an
ancient thinker named Kapila (different from the Devahuti-putra Kapila of the
Srimad-Bhagavatam whose sankhya system does not exclude God). The first work of
nontheistic sankhya, the Sankhya-sutra, is traditionally attributed to Kapila,
but in its present form it is not his original work. So the Sankhya-karika of
Isvarakrishna is actually the earliest available sankhya text. Among its more
well-known commentaries are Gaudapada's bhasya, Vacaspati Misra's
Tattva-kaumudi, Vijnanabhiksu's Sankhya-pravacanbhasya, and Mathara's
Matharavrtti. Topics traditionally emphasized by Kapila, Isvarakrishna, and
other sankhya commentators are the theory of causation, the concept of prakrti
(the unconscious principle) and purusa (the conscious principle), the evolution
of the world, the concept of liberation, and the theory of knowledge. The
special feature of sankhya is its summing up of all of the nyaya and vaisesika
constituents of reality -- with the exception of isvara, God, Who is simply
excluded from the system -- into two fundamental principles: purusa and
prakrti. Nirisvara sankhya (nontheistic sankhya) is therefore a dualistic
philosophy. The Sankhya Theory of Cause and Effect All Indian philosophies base
their explanation of the evolution or manifestation of the universe on two
fundamental views of cause and effect: satkaryavada and asatkaryavada.
According to satkaryavada, the effect exists in its cause prior to its production
or manifestation, but the asatkaryavada position maintains that the effect does
not exist in its cause prior to manifestation. This latter theory is also
called arambhavada, which means "the doctrine of the origin of the
effect." All other theories related to cause and effect are based on one
or the other of these two fundamental positions. Sankhya philosophy accepts the
satkaryavada view of causation. Regarding satkaryavada, there are two schools
of thought: vivartavada and parinamavada. The first is accepted by Advaita
vedantins, who hold that the change of a cause into an effect is merely
apparent. For example, when one sees a snake in a rope, it is not true that the
rope is really transformed into a snake; it simply appears to be that way. This
theory serves as the basis for the Advaitist explanation of God, the universe
and the individual soul. Sankhya philosophy upholds the view of parinamavada,
according to which there is a real transformation of the cause into the effect,
as in wood being transformed into a chair, or milk into yogurt. Sankhya
philosophy developed elaborate explanations to argue the parinamavada version
of satkaryavada that a cause actually changes into its effect. These
explanations are central to the whole sankhya system, which proceeds from the
premise that the effect exists in its material cause even before the effect is
produced. There are five basic arguments for this premise. The first,
asadakaranat, states that the effect exists in its material cause before its
production because no one can produce an effect from a material cause in which
that effect does not exist. For example, no one can turn the color blue into
the color yellow, nor can anyone produce milk from a chair, because yellow does
not exist in blue and a chair does not exist in milk. The second argument is
upadanagrahanat, which states that because there is an invariable relationship
between cause and effect, material cause can produce only that effect with
which it is causally related. Only milk can produce a yogurt because milk alone
is materially related to yogurt. If an effect does not exist in any way before
its production, then it is impossible for an effect to be related to its cause.
Therefore, an effect must already exist in its cause before it is ~ 33 ~ produced.
The third argument, sarvasambhavabhavat, states that there is a fixed rule for
the production or manifestation of things. A certain thing can be produced only
by a certain other thing; it cannot be produced from just anything or anywhere.
This impossibility proves that all the effects exist within their particular
causes. The fourth argument, saktasya-sakya-karanat, states that an effect
exists in its cause in an unmanifested form before it is produced. This is the
case because only a potent cause can produce a desired effect, and the effect
must therefore be potentially contained in the cause. The potentiality of cause
cannot, however, be related to an effect if the effect does not exist in that
particular cause in some form. The fifth argument, karanabhavat, states that if
the effect does not exist in the cause, then that which was non-existent would
be coming into existence out of nothing. This is as absurd as saying that the
son of a barren woman once built an empire, or that people decorate their homes
with flowers of the sky. Such statements have no logical correspondence to
reality. By means of these arguments, the sankhya philosophers established the
theory of parinamvada or manifestation, according to which an effect is already
existent in unmanifested form in its cause. The process of producing an effect
from the cause or the process of manifestation and annihilation can be
clarified with the analogy of the tortoise, which extends its limbs from its
shell. The tortoise does not create its limbs; it merely brings that which was
hidden into view. Sankhya philosophers hold that, similarly, no one can convert
nonexistence into existence; nor can that which exists be entirely destroyed. A
tortoise is not different from its limbs, which are subject to appearance or
disappearance, just as golden ornaments such as rings and earrings are not
different from the gold used to make them. The theory of manifestation is
essential to sankhya philosophy and indeed serves as the basic foundation upon
which all its other theories are constructed. Prakrti -- The Unconscious
Principle The sankhya system holds that the entire world -- including the body,
mind, and senses -- is dependent upon, limited by, and produced by the
combination of certain effects. Various other schools of philosophy -- such as
Carvaka, Buddhism, Jainism, Nyaya, and Vaisesika -- maintain that atoms of
earth, water, fire, and air are the material causes of the world. but according
to the sankhya system, material atoms cannot produce the subtler products of
nature, such as mind, intellect, and ego. Therefore, one has to seek elsewhere
for that cause from which gross objects and their subtler aspects are derived.
If one examines nature, it becomes obvious that a cause is subtler than its
associated effect and that a cause pervades its effect. For example, when a
seed develops into a tree, whatever latent quality the seed contains will be
found in the tree. The ultimate cause of the world must also be a latent
principle of potential, and it must be uncaused, eternal, and all-pervading. It
must be more subtle than the mind and intellect, and at the same time it must
contain all the characteristics of the external objects as well as of the
senses, mind, and intellect. In sankhya philosophy this ultimate cause is
called prakrti. To prove its existence, sankhya offers the following five
arguments. First, it is accepted that all the objects of the world are limited
and dependent on something else, so there must be an unlimited and independent
cause for their existence. That cause is prakrti. Second, all the objects of
the world possess a common characteristic: they are capable of producing
pleasure, pain, or indifference. Therefore, something must exist as the cause
of the universe that possesses the characteristics of pleasure, pain, and
indifference. That is prakrti. Third, all the objects of the world have a
potential to produce something else or to convert themselves into something
else. Therefore, their cause must also have the same potential, which implicitly
~ 34 ~ contains the entire universe. That is prakrti. Fourth, in the process of
evolution an effect arises from its cause, and in dissolution it is reabsorbed
or dissolved into its origin. The particular objects of experience must
therefore arise from a certain cause, which must in turn have arisen from a
certain cause. and so on until one reaches the primal cause of the creative
process itself. A similar process takes place in involution or annihilation.
Here, physical elements are broken down into atoms, atoms are dissolved into
gross energies, and gross energies into finer ones until all of these dissolve
into the unmanifested One. That unmanifested One is called prakrti -- the
primordial nature. Fifth, if one attempts to go further and imagine the cause
of this ultimate cause, he will land himself in the fallacy of infinite
regression. Ultimately one has to stop somewhere and identify a cause as the
first cause of the universe. In sankhya philosophy that supreme root cause of
the world is called prakrti. The Gunas Prakrti is not to be comprehended as
merely the atomic substance of matter. Nor can it be taken as a conscious
principle behind the material substance. And it is not a hypothetical construct
of the mind (a creation of philosophy and nothing more). Prakrti means
literally "exceptional ability;" it is the wonderful nature out of
which the vast material world in all of its levels of intricate permutation
takes shape. Prakrti is characterized by the three gunas of sattva, rajas, and
tamas. The word guna may be translated as "a quality or attribute of
prakrti," but it is important to note that the three gunas are not to be
taken merely as surface aspects of material nature. They are, rather, the
intrinsic nature of prakrti. The balanced combination of sattva, rajas, and
tamas is prakrti, and thus they cannot be prakrti's external attributes or
qualities. They are called gunas (that is, "ropes") because they are
intertwined like three strands of a rope that bind the soul to the world. One
can say that a rope is the name for three intertwined strands, but if one
analyzes the strands separately, he does not see the rope. In a similar way, if
he analyzes the gunas separately, one will not apprehend prakrti, since it is a
balanced state of the three gunas. According to sankhya philosophy, sattva,
rajas, and tamas are the underlying qualities from which the universe we
perceive is derived. These gunas can be inferred from the fact that all
features of the material world -- external and internal, both the physical
elements and the mind -- are found to possess the capability of producing
pleasure, pain, or indifference. The same object may be pleasing to one person,
painful to another, and of no concern to a third. The same beautiful girl is
pleasing to her boyfriend, painful to another girl who is attracted to the same
boy, and of no concern to many other people not involved. These qualities of
the girl, appearing in relation to other people around her, arise from the
gunas that underlie the manifested world. This example can help one see how the
cause of all phenomena, prakrti, contains all the characteristics found in
worldly objects. Sankhya philosophy posits that the whole universe is evolved
from the gunas. The state in which they are in their natural equilibrium is
called prakrti, and when their balance is disturbed they are said to be in
vikrti, the heterogeneous state. The three gunas are said by the nontheistic
sankhya philosophers to be the ultimate cause of all creation. Sattva is
weightlessness and light (laghu); rajas is motion or activity (calam); and
tamas is heaviness, darkness, inertia, or concealment (guru and avarana). The
gunas are formless and omnipresent when in a state of equilibrium, having
completely given up their specific characteristics when thus submerged in each
other. In a state of imbalance, however, rajas is said to be in the ~ 35 ~
center of sattva and tamas, and this results in creation because manifestation
in itself is an action. Action depends on motion, the force of activity that is
the very nature of rajas, and so sattva and tamas are dependent on rajas to
manifest themselves and thus produce pairs of opposites. Rajas also depends on
sattva and tamas, however, because activity cannot be accomplished without the
object or medium through which it becomes activated. In the state of
manifestation, one guna dominates the other two, but they are never completely
apart from each other or completely absent because they are continually
reacting with one another. By the force of rajas, sattvic energy evolves with
great speed and its unitary energy becomes divided into numerous parts. At a
certain stage, however, their velocity decreases, and they start to come closer
and closer together. With this contraction in sattvic energy, tamas is
naturally manifested, but at the same time another push of the active force
(rajas) occurs also on tamas, and within the contraction a quick expansion
occurs. Thus do the gunas constantly change their predominance over one
another. The predomination of sattva over tamas and of tamas over sattva is
always simultaneously in process; the conversion of each of them into one
another is taking place at every moment. Sattva and tamas have the appearance
of being in opposition to each other because one is light and weightless and
the other is dark and heavy. But these pairs actually cooperate in the process
of manifestation and dissolution as things move from subtle to gross and from
gross to subtle. The expansion of power stores up energy in some relatively subtle
form, from which it manifests to form a new equilibrium. These points of
relative equilibrium constitute certain stages in the evolutionary process. It
might at first seem that there is constant conflict among the gunas, but this
is not the case. They are in perfect cooperation during the process of
manifestation because it is through their constant interaction that the flow of
cosmic and individual life continues. They are essentially different from but
interrelated with one another. Just as the oil, wick, and flame of a lamp work
together to produce light, so the different gunas cooperate to produce the
objects of the world. The gunas play the same role in one's body and mind as
they do in the universe as a whole. An individual's physical appearance is simply
a manifestation of the gunas that has been brought about by consciousness. This
intention of consciousness to cause prakrti to manifest disturbs the state of
equilibrium in prakrti, thus causing the gunas to interact and manifest the
universe. The gunas are always changing or transforming into one another. This
occurs in two ways: virupaparinama, "change into a heterogeneous
state," and svarupaparinama, "change into a homogeneous state."
Svarupaparinama, the first kind of transformation, takes place when one of the
gunas dominates the other two and begins the process of manifestation of a
particular objects. This type of transformation or interaction of the gun as
with each other is responsible for the manifestation of the world.
Svarupaparinama, the other kind of transformation of the gunas, refers to that
state in which the gunas change internally without disturbing each other. In
this state, the gunas cannot produce anything because they neither oppose nor
cooperate with one another. This type of change occurs in the balanced state of
prakrti. In describing the process of involution, sankhya states that all gross
elements dissolve into subtle elements and finally they all dissolve into their
origin -- sattva, rajas and tamas. Ultimately these three gunas also come to a
state of perfect balance called prakrti. Then there remains no weight of tamas,
no weightlessness of sattva, and no activity of rajas because the gunas no
longer have a separate existence in the sense of predominance of any single
attribute. This state -- prakrti -- cannot be perceived by one's ordinary
perception; it can only be inferred. One can only imagine a state in which all
of nature is balanced and there is no levity, no motion, no heaviness; no ~ 36
~ light, no darkness, no opposing forces; in which the imagination itself,
being a product of the mind, is dissolved. Sankhya philosophers describe this
state as uncaused, unmanifested, eternal, all-pervading, devoid of
effect-producing actions, without a second, independent, and partless. Purusa
-- Consciousness As was previously stated, sankhya is a dualistic philosophy
that acknowledges two aspects of reality: the unconscious principal (prakrti)
and consciousness (purusa or the self). Each body contains a self, but the self
is different from the body, senses, mind, and intellect. It is a conscious
spirit, at once both the subject of knowledge and the object of knowledge. It
is not merely a substance with the attribute of consciousness, but it is rather
pure consciousness itself -- a self-illumined, unchanging, uncaused,
all-pervading, eternal reality. Whatever is produced or is subject to change,
death, and decay belongs to prakrti or its evolutes, not to the self. It is
ignorance to think of the self as body, senses, mind, or intellect, and it is
through such ignorance that purusa confuses itself with the objects of the
world. Then it becomes caught up in the ever flowing stream of changes and
feels itself to be subject to pain and pleasure. Sankhya offers five arguments
to prove the existence of purusa. First, all the objects of the world are meant
to be utilized by and for someone other than themselves. All things that exist
serve simply as the means for the ends of other beings. (A chair is not made
for the chair itself, nor is a house made for the house itself.) Therefore,
there must be something quite different and distinct from such objects. Objects
cannot enjoy their own existence, nor can one material object be utilized and
enjoyed by another material object; therefore, there must be some other enjoyed
of the objects. That enjoyed who utilizes the objects of the world is
consciousness, purusa. Second, it cannot be said that all objects are meant for
prakrti because prakrti is unconscious and is the material cause of all
objects. It is the balance of the gunas, of which all the objects of the world
are composed. Prakrti is thus the potential or essence of all pain, pleasure,
and neutral states and cannot therefore be the enjoyer of itself, just as even
the greatest of men cannot sit on his own shoulders. The proprietor or utilizer
of all worldly objects must consequently be a conscious being who does not
possess the three gunas and who is completely different from them in both their
balanced and heterogeneous states. That transcendent Reality is purusa. Third,
all the objects of the external world -- including the mind, senses, and
intellect -- are in themselves unconscious. They cannot function without
guidance from some intelligent principle, and they must be controlled and
directed by it in order to achieve anything or realize any end. That conscious
self who guides the operation of prakrti and its manifestations is purusa.
Fourth, nonintelligent prakrti and all its evolutes, which are by nature
pleasurable, painful, or neutral, have no meaning if they are not experienced
by some intelligent force. That experience is purusa. Fifth, every human being
wants to attain liberation and be free from pain and misery, but whatever is
derived from prakrti brings pain and misery. If there is nothing different from
prakrti and its evolutes, then how is liberation attainable? If there were only
prakrti, then the concept of liberation and the will to liberate or to be
liberated, which is found in all human beings, in the sayings of sages, and in the
scriptures, would be meaningless. Therefore, there must be some conscious
principle that strives for liberation. That principle is the self, purusa. ~ 37
~ Proof of the Existence of Many Selves According to sankhya, there are many
selves or conscious principles -- one in each living being. If there were only
one self related to all bodies, then when one individual died, all individuals
would simultaneously die, but this is not the case. The birth or death of one
individual does not cause all other individuals to be born or to die; blindness
or deafness in one man does not imply the same for all men. If there were only
one self pervading all beings, then if one person were active, all the selves
would be active; if one were sleeping, then all would sleep. But this does not
happen, and there is therefore not one self but many selves. Secondly, human
beings are different from God and from animal and vegetable life as well. But
this distinction could not be true if God, human beings, animals, birds,
insects, and plants all possessed the same self. Therefore there must be a
plurality of selves that are eternal and intelligent. Thus it becomes clear
that there are two realities: prakrti, the one all-pervading (unconscious)
material cause of the universe, and purusa, the many pure conscious intelligent
entities who are not subject to change. It is from the interaction of these two
principles that evolution occurs. The Process of the Evolution of the Universe
According to sankhya, the entire world evolves from the interaction of prakrti
with purusa. This interaction does not refer to any kind of orderly
conjunction, as in the contact of two finite male and female material
substances. It is rather a sort of effective relationship through which prakrti
is influenced by the mere presence of purusa, just as sometimes one's body is
influenced or moved by the presence of a thought. Evolution cannot occur by the
self (purusa) alone because the self is inactive; nor can it be initiated only
by prakrti because prakrti is not conscious. The activity of prakrti must be
guided by the intelligence of purusa; this cooperation between them is
essential to the evolution of the universe. Given this, two questions yet
arise: how can two such different and opposing principles cooperate, and what
is the interest that inspires them to interact with one another? Sankhya
replies that just as a blind man and a lame man can cooperate with each other
in order to get out of a forest -- by the lame man's guiding while the blind
man carries him -- so do nonintelligent prakrti and inactive purusa combine
with each other and cooperate to serve their purpose. What is their purpose?
Prakrti requires the presence of purusa in order to be known or appreciated,
and purusa requires the help of prakrti in order to distinguish itself from
prakrti and thereby realize liberation. Thus, according to sankhya philosophy,
the goal of the manifestation of the universe is to attain liberation. Through
the interaction of purusa and prakrti, a great disturbance arises in the
equilibrium in which the gunas are held prior to manifestation. In this
process, raja, the active force, first becomes irritated, and through this, the
two other gunas begin to vibrate. This primeval vibration releases a tremendous
energy within prakrti, and the "dance" of these three energies
becomes more and more dense, thus manifesting the universe in various grades
and degrees. The process of manifestation originates from the unmanifested
unity and completes its cycle in twenty-four stages. The process of
manifestation begins with the infusion of purusa (consciousness) into prakrti
(the material cause of the universe). Metaphorically it is said that prakrti is
the mother principle, and purusa is the father principle. The mother is
fertilized by the father; prakrti is the soil in which consciousness can take
root. Thus prakrti, the material cause of all existence, embodies
consciousness. ~ 38 ~ Sankhya's Twenty-three Evolutes of Prakrti Mahat or
Buddha. The first evolute of prakrti is mahat or buddhi, the intellect. This is
the great seed of the vast universe -- therefore the name, mahat, which means
"great one." This is the state of union of purusa and prakrti. Though
prakrti is unconscious material substance, it seems to be conscious and realizes
itself as conscious because of the presence of the conscious self. Mahat is the
state in which prakrti receives light from purusa, the fountain of light, and
sees itself; and this process of seeing is the beginning of the manifestation
of the universe. The individual counterpart of this cosmic state, mahat, is
called buddhi, the intellect, the finest aspect of a human being that has the
capacity to know the entire personality in its full purity. Buddhi is the
immediate effect of prakrti resulting from the guidance of purusa; therefore
buddhi is the evolute closest to purusa. Buddhi is manifested from the sattvic
aspect of prakrti because the nature of sattva -- weightlessness, clarity, and
light -- is affected sooner by the active force of manifestation than would be
the heavy and unclear nature of tamas. Because of the sattvic quality of
buddhi, the light of the self reflects in the intellect similarly to the way an
external object reflects in the clear surface of a mirror. The self, seeing its
reflection in the mirror of buddhi, identifies itself with the reflected image
and forgets its true nature. Thus the feeling of "I-ness" is
transmitted to buddhi. In this way the unconscious buddhi starts functioning as
a conscious principle. According to the sankhya system, buddhi possesses the
following eight qualities: virtue (dharma); knowledge (jnana); detachment
(vairagya); excellence (aisvarya); nonvirtue (adharma); ignorance (ajnana);
attachment (avairagya); and imperfection or incompetency (anaisvarya). The first
four are sattvic forms of buddhi, while the last four are overpowered by
inertia (tamas). All of its attributes except knowledge bind prakrti and
involve the self in buddhi, thereby entangling it in worldly concerns and
miseries. The pure self falsely identifies with buddhi and thereby thinks it is
experiencing what buddhi is experiencing. But through the use of the buddhi's
eighth attribute, knowledge, it reflects pure and well-filtered knowledge onto
purusa from its mirror, and purusa comes to realize its false identification
with buddhi's objects and to recognize its transcendent nature in all its
purity. Thus buddhi, the discriminating or decision-making function, stands
nearest to the self and functions directly for the self, enabling it to
discriminate between itself and prakrti and thereby achieve realization of its
liberated nature. Ahankara: The Sense of "I" Ahankara is a derivative
of mahat or buddhi; it is the mundane property of individuation that generates
a material boundary of "I-ness." This false sense of identity
separates one's self from all others and focuses it upon matter, leading a
person to think, "I am this body, this is mine, and this is for me."
There are three categories of ahankara -- sattvika, rajasa and tamasa -- determined
by which of the three gunas is predominant in ahankara. Eleven senses arise
from the sattvika ahankara: the five senses of perception (hearing, touching,
seeing, tasting, and smelling), the five senses of action (verbalization,
apprehension, locomotion, excretion, and procreation), and the mind (manas).
The five tanmatras or subtle elements (sound, touch, color, taste, and smell)
are derived from the tamasa ahankara. The function of the rajasa ahankara is to
motivate the other two gunas, and thus it is the cause of both aspects of
creation: the eleven senses and the five tanmatras. This explanation of the
manifestation of ahankara is based on the Sankhya-karika, the major ~ 39 ~ text
of sankhya philosophy (see chart above). The commentators of this text hold various
views. Some state that the mind is the only sense derived from the sattvika
ahankara, that the other ten senses are derived from the rajasa ahankara, and
that the five subtle elements are derived from the tamasa ahankara.
Irrespective of the origin of the senses, all the scholars view the nostrils,
tongue, eyes, skin, and ears as the physical organs that are the sheaths of the
cognitive senses. Likewise, the mouth, arms, legs, and the organs of excretion
and reproduction correspond to the five senses of action -- verbalization,
apprehension, locomotion, excretion, and procreation. These physical organs are
not the senses; rather, they are given power by the senses. Thus the senses
cannot be perceived but can only be inferred from the actions of the physical
organs powered by them. The mind, the ego, and the intellect are called the
internal senses, while the five cognitive senses and five senses of action are
called external. The mind is master of all the external senses, and without its
direction and guidance, they could not function. The mind is a very subtle
sense indeed, but it also has many aspects, and it therefore comes into contact
with several senses at the same time. According to sankhya philosophy, the mind
is neither atomic nor eternal, but it is rather a product of prakrti and is
therefore subject to origin and dissolution. The cognitive senses contact their
objects and supply their experiences to the mind, which then interprets the
data as desirable or undesirable perceptions. In turn, ahankara attaches itself
to the objects of perception, identifying itself with the desirable ones and
resenting the undesirable ones. The intellect then decides how to deal with
those external objects. The five tanmatras of sound, touch, color, taste, and
smell are the subtle counterparts to the gross elements; they can be inferred
but not perceived. They evolve after the ten senses have come into being and
they are the cause of the five gross elements, which are derived in a gradual
step-by-step process. First to evolve is the tanmatra that is the essence of
sound (sabda), from which in turn ether (akasa), the space element, is derived.
Therefore, the space element contains the quality of sound, which is perceived
by the ear. The air element is the derivation of the essence of touch (sparsa
tanmatra), which combines with that of sound. Therefore, the air element
contains the attributes of sound and touch, although touch is the special
quality of air and is sensed by the skin. The fire element is derived from the
essence of color (rupa tanmatra). It combines the qualities of sound, touch,
and co]or, and its special property is sight, which is sensed by the eyes. The
water element is derived from the essence of taste (rasa tanmatra). All three
preceding qualities -- sound, touch, and color -- are found in it, as well as
its special quality, taste, which is sensed by the tongue. The essence of smell
(gandha tanmatra) produces the earth element, whose special property is odor,
which is sensed by the nostrils. This grossest element contains all of the four
previous qualities. Thus the course of evolution takes place in twenty-four
stages. It starts from the root cause, prakrti, and it ends with the earth
element, the grossest manifestation. This process is broken down into two major
categories: the development of prakrti as buddhi, ahankara, and the eleven
senses, and the evolution of the five subtle elements and five gross elements.
The first category is divided again into two parts: the internal senses
(antahkarana) and the external senses (bahyakarana), which are the five
cognitive and five active senses, respectively. The second category is also
divided into two main parts: nonspecific qualities (avisesa) and specific
qualities (visesa). The five tanmatras, or subtle elements are said to be
nonspecific because they cannot be perceived and enjoyed by ordinary beings.
But the five gross elements are said to be specific because whey possess
specific characteristics of being pleasurable, painful, or stupefying. These
specific manifestations can be categorized into two major parts: ~ 40 ~ the
external gross elements, and the three bodies -- physical, subtle, and causal.
The Sources of Valid Knowledge Sankhya philosophy accepts only three
independent sources of valid knowledge: perception, inference, and testimony.
Included within these three are other sources of knowledge such as comparison,
postulation, and non cognition, which are therefore not recognized as separate
sources of knowledge. According to sankhya, there are three factors present in
all valid knowledge: pramata, the subject; prameya, the object and pramana, the
medium. Pramata is a conscious principle that receives and recognizes
knowledge. It is none other than the self, pure consciousness. Prameya is the
object of knowledge that is presented to the self. Pramana is the modification
of the intellect through which the self comes to know an object; thus it is the
source or the medium of knowledge. Valid knowledge is therefore the reflection
of the self in the intellect which is modified into the form of an object. The
sankhya concept of perception (pratyaksa) as a source of valid knowledge is
different from those posited by other systems of Vedic philosophy. In sankhya,
valid knowledge means a definite and unerring cognition that is illuminated or
made known by the self through its reflected light in buddhi. The mind,
intellect, and senses are unconscious material entities and therefore cannot
perceive or experience any object. For perception or experience, consciousness
is needed, and consciousness belongs only to the self. But the self cannot
directly apprehend the objects of the world because the self is niskriya,
meaning "motionless" or "without action," and without
motion or activity apprehension is not possible. If consciousness alone could
apprehend the objects of the world, then, because the self is infinite and
ever-present, one would know all the objects of the world. But this is not the
case. The self knows objects only through the mind, intellect, and senses. True
knowledge of an external object is attained when the impression of the object
is perceived through the senses and reworded in the intellect, which then
reflects the light of consciousness onto those objects. Perception is the
direst cognition of an object through the contact of the senses. When an
object, such as a hair, comes within the range of vision, there is contact
between the chair and the eyes. The impression of the chair is produced in the
eyes, and that impression is then analyzed and synthesized by the mind. Through
the activity of the mind, the intellect then becomes modified and transformed
into the form of the chair. The predominance of sattva in the intellect enables
it to reflect the modification of the chair in the self. It is then reflected
back to the intellect. Thus the unconscious intellect, which is modified by the
object chair, becomes illumined into a conscious state in which perception is
possible. Just as a mirror reflects the light of a lamp and therefore
illuminates other objects, so the intellect, an unconscious principle, reflects
the consciousness of the self and recognizes objects. Two major proponents of
the sankhya theory of reflectionism -- Vijnanabhiksu and Vacaspati Misra --
hold differing views. According to Vijnanabhiksu, the knowledge of an object
takes place when there is a reciprocal reflection of the self in the intellect
(the intellect having been modified into the form of the object) and of the
intellect in the self. The senses contact the object and supply the impression
of it to the mind, which transmits this impression to the intellect. The
intellect then becomes modified by the object, but because the intellect is
unconscious substance, it cannot analyze the experience of the object by
itself. Its predominance by sattva guna, however, enables the intellect to be
reflected in the self, and the self is in turn also reflected in the mirror of
the intellect, which contains the modification of the ~ 41 ~ object. In this
way, the intellect then experiences the object. This theory of reflectionism is
also accepted by Vyasa in his commentary on the Yoga-sutras. According to the
second view, held by Vacaspati Misra, perception is a process of one-sided
reflection: There is a reflection of the self in the intellect, but there is no
reflection of the intellect back into the self. He maintains that an object
comes into contact with the senses, that its impression reaches the mind, that
it is transmitted to the intellect, and that the intellect then becomes
modified into the form of that object. It is at this stage that the
ever-radiating light of the self illuminates the clean sattvic mirror of the
intellect, which reflects the same light onto the object. The intellect then
experiences the object as if the intellect were a conscious being. The
intellect is just like a mirror that reflects the light of a lamp and itself
becomes capable of illuminating other objects as well. This means that the
intellect, but not the self, experiences the pain, pleasure, or neutrality of
worldly objects, while according to Vijnanabhiksu, the pleasure, pain, and
indifference are experienced by the self because the self and the intellect are
reflecting each other. Both of these views are possible within the major theory
of reflectionism because the self's experience of external objects, or pain and
pleasure, depends on the intensity of its identification with the intellect.
One-sided reflection and reciprocal reflection are both valid views because
whatever comes to the intellect is experienced by the self. A self-created
state of oneness between the self and the intellect exists, but if the
identification is loosened a bit, then the consciousness radiating from the
self allows the intellect to appear as though it were conscious, and thus the
intellect experiences the external object. The more the identification is
loosened, the more the intellect experiences and the more the self watches the
experiencing intellect as a witness. Sankhya recognizes two kinds of
perception: indeterminate and determinate. The first is called alocana, which
means "merely seeing the object." It arises at the moment of contact
between the senses and the object and is antecedent to all mental analyses and
syntheses of sensory data. In this state there is recognition of the object as
a mere "something" without any recognition of it as a specific
object. Determinate perception, in contrast, is the result of the analysis,
synthesis, and interpretation of sensory data by the mind. This type of
perception is called vivecana, meaning "interpretation of the
object," because it is the determinate cognition of an object as a
particular identifiable thing. Inference Knowledge derived through the
universal or invariable relationship between two things is called anumana
(inference). The sankhya concept of inference is slightly different from that
held by nyaya philosophy. In sankhya, inference is of two kinds: vita and
avita. Vita is based on a universal affirmative proposition and avita is based
on a universal negative proposition. Vita, positive inference is of two types:
purvavat and samanyatodrsta. Purvavat inference is based on previously observed
uniform concomitance between two things. For example, one can infer the
existence of fire from the existence of smoke because one has already observed
that smoke is always accompanied by fire. Samanyatodrsta inference is not based
on any previously observed concomitance between the middle and major terms (see
the nyaya chapter for an explanation of the terms of inference). This type of
inference does, however, require facts that are uniformly related to the middle
and major terms. For example, how can we know that we have senses? One cannot
perceive his senses because they are beyond their own reach, so one must ~ 42 ~
accept the existence of the senses by inference. Their existence can be
inferred in the following way: for all action, some kind of instrument is
needed; seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and touching are actions that must
have their corresponding instruments; the senses are these instruments.
Negative inference, avita, is explained in the nyaya system as sesavat, in
which an inference results by the elimination of all other possible
alternatives. For example, a certain whole number is inferred to be two because
it has been determined that it is not three or more, nor is it one or less. Yet
it is a certain positive integer; therefore, it is two. Testimony Testimony
(sabda) is the third source of valid knowledge. Sankhya holds the same view of
sabda as nyaya, and so the reader is referred to the discussion of this subject
in the chapter on nyaya. The Concept of Liberation According to sankhya
philosophy, the universe is full of pain and misery, and even what is thought
of as pleasure is mingled with sorrow because all pleasures ultimately end in
disappointment, which is the basis of misery. It is the natural inclination of
all living beings to rid themselves of pain and misery, but sankhya states that
this can be achieved only through the correct discriminative knowledge of
reality. The entire external world and all internal phenomena belong to
prakrti, but pure consciousness, purusa, is free from the limitations of space,
time, and causation. All activity, change, thought, feeling, pain, and pleasure
belong to the body/mind organism, not to the self. The self is pure
ever-illumined consciousness that transcends the entire phenomenal world,
including the body / mind complex. The self has a body, but the body is not the
self. In the same way, the self has a mind, ego, and intellect, but it is quite
distinct from all of these. Pleasure and pain, virtue and vice, merit and
demerit do not color the pure self; they color the intellect as it becomes
involved with its surroundings. All the experiences of the phenomenal world are
received by purusa because of its false identification with the mind,
intellect, and ego. The intellect is responsible for all experiences, but
whenever purusa ignorantly identifies itself with the intellect, it thinks it
experiences as the intellect does, even though purusa is actually always and
forever beyond the evolutes of prakrti. The manifestation of the universe into
the twenty-three evolutes of prakrti is not meant to create bondage for purusa
but rather to help purusa realize that it is free and distinct from prakrti.
Although it may seem that external objects are meant for physical, mental, or
internal enjoyment, that is not really the case because the mind, ego, and
intellect do not function for themselves; they exist to provide experiences to
purusa. Feelings of pain and misery are experienced because purusa falsely
identifies with rajas and tamas and forgets its capacity to see through its
false identification. Thus, also, purusa fails to use prakrti's sattvic
manifestations as efficient instruments for discriminating the self from the
non-self. The predominance of rajas and tamas in the mind, ego, and intellect
does not allow these instruments to filter external experiences properly, so
purusa receives unfiltered, contaminated experiences and ignorantly thinks it
is suffering the pain and misery reflected by the intellect. Sankhya views
prakrti as a compassionate mother that provides everything to purusa that he ~
43 ~ needs to understand his true nature distinct from prakrti in her
manifested and unmanifested states. Prakrti manifests herself out of compassion
for purusa, just as a mother's milk is produced out of compassion for her
child. Unless it is somehow contaminated, the milk from the mother's breast is
always healthful to the child, and likewise the evolutes of prakrti are
healthful to purusa unless they are contaminated by the predominance of rajas
and tamas, false identification, selfish action, possessiveness, or lack of
discrimination. Both prakrti and purusa are infinite and eternal, and when prakrti
is in her unmanifested state, she is so intermingled with purusa that he
becomes anxious to realize his own true nature. purusa's anxiety allows him to
come even closer to prakrti, and it is this move or intention toward her that
inspires the latent forces in prakrti to function. Thus purusa initiates the
manifestation of the universe, and thus prakrti helps purusa realize himself as
distinct from her. But when through ignorance purusa forgets his purpose in
coming closer to prakrti, then instead of discriminating himself from the
unconscious principle, he entangles himself with it. The moment he remembers
his purpose and discriminates himself from this manifest world and from its
cause, he realizes his true nature and recognizes his freedom. Just as a chef
continues cooking until the food is cooked and stops the moment it is ready, so
purusa continues to flow in the current of life until his purpose is fulfilled.
The moment the highest goal of life -- realization -- is attained, he stops
flowing in that current. Likewise, a dancer performing to entertain her
audience continues to dance until the audience is satisfied. The moment the
course of dance (which depends on the audience's duration of enjoyment) is
fulfilled, the dancer stops her dance. In the same way, the great dancer
prakrti continues her dance until her discriminating function is accomplished.
The moment she accomplishes her job she withdraws herself back into her
unmanifested state. The purpose of the manifestation of prakrti is to show
herself to purusa so he can realize that he is distinct from her. The moment
purusa realizes that he is not the external objects, then the entire
manifestation is withdrawn. In actuality, pure consciousness, purusa, is
subject neither to bondage nor to liberation, because he is never really in
bondage. The concepts of bondage and liberation, pain and suffering, are the
result of ignorance or false understanding. Prakrti binds herself with the rope
of her own manifestation, and when purusa recognizes her as distinct from him,
she liberates herself. As has previously been stated, there are eight
attributes of mahat or buddhi (the intellect), which is the prime evolute of
prakrti. These eight are attachment and detachment, vice and virtue,
nonmeritorious and meritorious actions, and ignorance and knowledge. Prakrti
binds herself with the first seven attributes and liberates herself with the
eighth -- the light of knowledge. Thus bondage and liberation are both concepts
of the intellect. Through the practice of the yoga of discrimination -- that
is, the repeated affirmation of nonidentification with the body, senses, or
mind (such as, for instance, "I am not the experiencer, I am not the doer;
whatever is going on is in prakrti") -- one polishes one's intellect and
becomes more consciously aware of one's true nature. This type of knowledge or
understanding leads one to the state of freedom from all confusions and false
identifications, and thus one attains the knowledge of the true self. After the
self realizes its true nature, all anxieties are dissolved. Then the self
becomes disinterested in seeing prakrti, and prakrti becomes disinterested in
showing herself, because she has seen and her purpose has been fulfilled.
Prakrti and purusa are both infinite and all-pervading and are therefore
eternally together, like two sides of the same coin, but when their purpose is
fulfilled the process of manifestation ceases. In the sankhya philosophy, there
are two kinds of liberation: jivana mukti and videha mukti. The liberation attained
in one's lifetime is called jivana mukti. In this kind of liberation, a person
~ 44 ~ continues his existence on this platform as a liberated being. He lives
in this world and enjoys the worldly objects until he casts off his body. He
continues his journey through worldly life just as a fan continues to revolve,
due to its previously generated speed, for a short while after it has been
switched off. When all the samskaras -- the impressions of past actions -- are
finished, then he casts off his body and is said to enter into videha mukti,
which is liberation after death. The Concept of God The earliest available text
of Nirisvara sankhya, the Sankhya-karika, does not discuss the existence of God
at all. The absence of any reference to God led the proponents of this system
to conclude that the early sankhya philosophers did not accept the existence of
God. They argued that because the entire universe is a system of cause and
effect, it could not be caused by God because by definition God is eternal and immutable.
That which is unchanging cannot be the active cause of anything, so the
ultimate cause of the universe is eternal but everchanging. That cause is
prakrti, the eternal and ever-changing unconscious material principle. In reply
to this, one could argue that prakrti is not intelligent and must, therefore,
be controlled and directed by some intelligent principle in order to produce
the universe. But because there are many purusas, they cannot guide and lead
the infinite, all-pervading prakrti, so one must therefore conclude that there
is a God. But this is not possible, the proponents of nontheistic sankhya
reply, because the act of controlling or guiding prakrti means to do something
or to be active. In addition, if God controls prakrti, then what inspires God
to make her create a world full of pain and misery? Moreover, one cannot say
that God has desires because desire implies imperfection, which is a quality
God cannot have. Therefore, there is no such thing as God. purusa is sufficient
to inspire the unconscious prakrti to manifest herself in the form of the
universe. Later, a section of sankhya philosophers were persuaded to accept the
existence of God. In debates with theistic opponents they found it very
difficult to explain the creation without including a Supreme Being in their
system. One logical weakness of Nirisvara sankhya that was attacked by theists
is the belief in many purusas but only one prakrti. Was it one purusa or all
the purusas together that inspired prakrti to manifest? If only one, then
creation occurred against the wish of the other purusas. Why did the desire of
only one soul implicate all others in birth and death? If all the purusas
together inspired prakrti to create, then there must be some communication and
agreement among the purusas. But there is no record of a cosmic conference of
all the purusas to make such a decision. Therefore, there must be one Supreme
Being who guides prakrti independently. ~ 45 ~
5.
Yoga:
Self-Discipline for Self-Realization The word yoga is
derived from the Sanskrit root yuj, which means "to unite." The yoga
system provides a methodology for linking up individual consciousness with the
Supreme Consciousness. There are various schools of yoga, among which
bhakti-yoga, jnana-yoga, karma-yoga, and kundalini-yoga are especially well
known. The yoga system that is counted as one of the six systems of Vedic
philosophy is the patanjala-yoga system, which will be reviewed here. This
school of yoga, also known as astanga-yoga (the yoga of eight parts), is closely
allied to sankhya philosophy. Indeed, astanga-yoga is the practical application
of sankhya philosophy for the attainment of liberation. It is called
patanjala-yoga because it was systematized by the sage Patanjali. His work is
known as Patanjala-yoga-sutra. There are various commentaries on this text,
Vyasa's being the most ancient and profound. This yoga system attempts to
explain the nature of mind, its modifications, impediments to growth,
afflictions, and the method for attaining what is described as the highest goal
of life: kaivalya (absoluteness). The Yogic View of Mind According to
Patanjali, yoga is the control of the modifications of the subtle mental body.
He proposes that the mental body leads a person to bondage or to liberation,
that most human problems are mental, and that the only remedy to solve them is
mental discipline. Among all human instruments that serves one in attaining
one's goals, the mental body is the finest. The mental body is also the link
between consciousness and the gross physical body. For these reasons, Patanjali
places great emphasis on the study of the mental body. His yoga system attempts
to provide all possible means to control the mental body's modifications and
unfold its great power for higher attainment. Theoretically, the yoga system is
based on the same tenets as sankhya philosophy, and it also incorporates some
of the teachings of Vedanta. In sankhya philosophy, the mental body is defined
in terms of three functions or parts (mind, intelligence and false ego), but in
vedanta philosophy the mental body is divided into four parts (mind,
intelligence, false ego and citta or conditioned consciousness, the storehouse
of memories). In yoga, however, the mental body is equated with the mind, and
the intelligence and false ego are considered to be aspects of that mind. Citta
denotes all the fluctuating and changing phenomena of the mind. According to
yoga, the mind is like a vast lake, on the surface of which arise many
different kinds of waves. Deep within, the mind is always calm and tranquil.
But one's thought patterns stir it into activity and prevent it from realizing
its own true nature. These thought patterns are the waves appearing and
disappearing on the surface of the lake of the mind. Depending on the size, strength,
and speed of the waves, the inner state of the lake is obscured to a greater or
lesser degree. The more one is able to calm one's thought patterns, the more
the inner state of the mind is unveiled. It is not very difficult to calm down
the waves of thought patterns on the surface of the lake of mind, but it is
very difficult to calm down those unrhythmic and destructive waves of thought
patterns that arise from the bottom. Memories are like time bombs buried in the
lake bed of mind that explode at certain times and disturb the entire lake.
There are two main sources for the arising waves of thoughts: sense perceptions
and memories. When the waves of a lake are stilled and the water is clear, one
can look deep down and see the bottom of the lake. Likewise when one's thought
patterns are quieted, one can see one's innermost potentials hidden deep within
the mind. Because the mind is an evolute of prakrti (see the previous chapter
on sankhya philosophy), it is composed of the elements of ~ 46 ~ sattva, rajas,
and tamas. The relative proportions of these three qualities determine the
different states of citta, conditioned consciousness. The turmoil caused by the
interaction of the gunas is responsible for the arising thought patterns in the
mind. Five Stages of Mind The mind is described in five stages, depending on
the degree of its transparency: disturbed (ksipta); stupefied (mudha); restless
(viksipta); one-pointed (ekagra); and well-controlled (niruddha). The
predominance of rajas and tamas causes the mind to be disturbed (ksipta).
Because of the predominance of rajas, the mind becomes hyperactive; because of
the predominance of tamas, it loses its quality of discrimination. Thus it
flits from one object to another without resting on any. It is constantly
disturbed by external stimuli, but it does not know how to discriminate what is
beneficial from that which is useless. In the second stage (mudha), the mind is
dominated by tamas, which is characterized by inertia, vice, ignorance,
lethargy, and sleep. In this state, mind is so sluggish that it loses its
capability to think proper]y and becomes negative and dull. In the restless
stage (viksipta), there is a predominance of rajas. In this state, the mind
runs from one object to another but never stays anywhere consistently. This is
an advanced stage of the disturbed mind. These first three stages of mind are
negative and act as impediments in the path of growth and exploration. At this
level, one experiences pain and misery and all kinds of unpleasant emotions,
but the next two stages are more calm and peaceful. All the modifications are
found in the earlier three stages. In the one pointed and well-controlled
states there are no modifications at all. In the one-pointed state of mind
(ekagra), there is a predominance of sattva, the light aspect of prakrti. This
is a tranquil state near to complete stillness in which the real nature of
things is revealed. This fourth state is conducive to concentration, and the
aim of the yoga system is to develop or to maintain this state of mind for as
long and as consistently as possible. In the well-controlled state of mind
(niruddha), there is no disturbance at all but a pure manifestation of sattvic
energy. In this state, consciousness reflects its purity and entirety in the
mirror of mind, and one becomes capable of exploring one's true nature. Only
the last two states of mind are positive and helpful for meditation, and many
yogic practices are designed to help one attain these states. When all the
modifications cease and the state of stillness is acquired, then purusa (pure
consciousness) sees its real nature reflecting from the screen of the mind. The
Modifications of the Mind The yoga system categorizes the modifications of mind
into five classes: valid cognition, invalid cognition, verbal cognition, sleep,
and memory. All thoughts, emotions, and mental behaviors fall into one of these
five categories, which are further divided into two major types: those that
cause afflictions (klista) and those that do not cause afflictions (aklista).
False cognition, verbal cognition and sleep always cause afflictions and are in
themselves afflictions: they are harmful modifications. Valid cognition and
memories (depending on their nature) are not considered to be causes of affliction
and are not harmful for meditation. The sources of valid cognition are
perception, inference, and authoritative testimony, which have already been
described in detail in the sankhya chapter. False cognition is ignorance
(avidya). Ignorance is mistaking the non-eternal for the eternal, the impure
for the pure, misery for happiness, and the non self for the Self. It is the
modification of mind that is the mother of ~ 47 ~ the klesas, or afflictions.
Ignorance has four offshoots: asmita, which is generally defined as Iam-ness;
raga, attachment or addiction, which is the desire to prolong or repeat
pleasurable experiences; dvesa, hatred or aversion, which is the desire to
avoid unpleasurable experiences; and abhinivesa, fear of death, which is the
urge of self-preservation. Verbal cognition is the attempt to grasp something
that actually does not exist but is one's own projection. An example of such a
projection is the fantasy of marrying a gossamer-winged fairy and together
flying through the empyrean to the most wondrous paradise. All such fantasies
are mere verbal cognition that do not correspond to facts and only cause the
mind to fluctuate. Sleep is a modification of mind in which one's relationship
with the external world is cut off. One might ask: If sleep is a modification
of mind, aren't the dreaming and waking states also accepted as modifications?
The answer would be no; the dreaming state is occupied with verbal cognition,
and the waking state is occupied mainly with valid cognition and invalid cognition.
Memory, the fifth and final mental modification, is the recall of impressions
stored in the mind. Overcoming the Modifications The modifications of the mind
are caused by nine conditions or impediments, namely sickness, incompetence,
doubt, delusion, sloth, nonabstention, confusion, nonattainment of the desired
state, and instability in an attained state. These impediments disturb the mind
and produce sorrow, dejection, restlessness, and an unrhythmic breathing
pattern. Yoga provides a method for overcoming these problems and controlling
the modifications of the mind. Patanjali states that the mind and its
modifications can be controlled through practice (abhyasa) and detachment
(vairagya). The mind is said to be like a river that flows between two banks.
One bank is positive and is the basis for liberation, while the other bank is
negative and is the basis for indiscrimination and infatuations with sense
objects. When the current of the river is controlled by practice and
detachment, it tends to flow toward the side of liberation. Abhyasa, practice,
means a particular type of effort or technique through which the mind maintains
stillness. Practice does not mean engaging in mental gymnastics; it is, rather,
sincere effort for maintaining steadiness of the mind. Perfection in practice
is attained through sincerity and persistence. Methods of practice will be
discussed in conjunction with the discussion of the eight limbs of yoga.
Vairagya, detachment or dispassion, does not mean to renounce the world or to withdraw
oneself from one's environment; rather it means to have no expectations from
external objects. Detachment means to eliminate identification with the
evolutes of nature and to understand oneself as pure self, as a
self-illuminating conscious being. Patanjali also describes another method,
called kriya-yoga, to help students attain a higher state of consciousness
while dealing with a restless mind. Kriya-yoga, which means the yoga of
purification, is a threefold discipline composed of the practice of austerity,
study of the scriptures, and surrender to God. By practicing the path of
kriya-yoga, students learn to perform their duties skillfully and selflessly
while dedicating the fruits of their actions to the Supreme. The Eightfold Path
of Yoga The eight components (asta-anga) of this yoga system (see chart below)
are: restraints (yamas); observances (niyamas); posture (asana); breath control
(pranayama); sense withdrawal (pratyahara); concentration (dharana); meditation
(dhyana); and spiritual absorption (samadhi). ~ 48 ~ The Eight Limbs of
Patanjala Yoga · Yamas (five restraints) o nonhurting (ahimsa) o nonlying
(satya) o nonstealing (asteya) o sensory control (brahmacarya) o
nonpossessiveness (aparigraha) · Niyamas (five observances) [austerity, study,
surrender = kriya-yoga] o purity (sauca) o contentment (santosa) o austerity
(tapas) o study (svadhyaya) o surrender (isvara pranidhana) · Asana (yoga
postures) · Pranayama (control of vital force: prana, apana, samana, udana,
vyana) [From yamas to pranayama = hatha-yoga] · Pratyahara (withdrawal of the
senses) · Dharana (concentration) · Dhyana (meditation) [dharana, dhyana,
samadhi = samyama] · Samadhi (spiritual absorption) Success in yoga requires a
one-pointed and well-controlled mind free from all worldly desires. Attachment
to worldly objects is the main cause of and is the direct evolute of ignorance,
which produces all the modifications of the mind. According to patanjala-yoga,
attachment to world objects is the archenemy of the individual who wants to
understand his inner self. The necessary qualities and conditions for reaching
the subtler levels of consciousness include will power, discrimination, full
control of the mind, conscious direction of one's potentials toward the desired
end, a firm resolution to turn away from all worldly attachments, determination
to obliterate the ego, control over all inharmonious processes, and constant
awareness of the ultimate goal. Yama -- Restraints To fulfill the above
conditions, patanjala-yoga begins by prescribing an ethical code designed to
calm one's relationship with oneself and others. The first two limbs of
patanjala-yoga -- the yamas and niyamas -- consist of ten commitments that
constitute this code. The five yamas (restraints) are nonviolence (ahimsa),
truthfulness (satya), nonstealing (asteya), celibacy (brahmacarya), and
nonpossessiveness (aparigraha). They replace animalistic urges with saintly ~
49 ~ virtues and thus break the four legs of adharma (sinful life), which
stands on meat-eating (counteracted by ahimsa), illicit sex (counteracted by
celibacy outside of procreation within marriage), gambling (counteracted by
truthfulness) and intoxication (counteracted by selfrestraint). Ahimsa. Ahimsa
literally means "non injury" or "non-violence." Generally,
one thinks of nonviolence as merely restraining from the physical act of
violence, but in yoga scriptures nonviolence is to be practiced in thought,
speech, and action. Satya. According to patanjala-yoga, one should be truthful
to oneself and to others in thought, speech, and action. The yoga student is
taught to speak what he thinks and to do what he says. Sometimes one lies
without awareness or sometimes just for fun or for the sake of creating gossip.
These simple lies are like seeds that create habits that will one day become
one's nature. Thus one cannot even trust in himself because of his untruthful
nature. The day a person becomes totally truthful, his whole life becomes
successful and whatever he says or thinks comes true. He gains inner strength
through which he overcomes all fear in his life. Asteya. Asteya, nonstealing
provides a great opportunity for the practice of nonattachment and
nonpossessiveness. Actually, nonstealing is a negative explanation of
contentment, because when one is self-satisfied he is not tempted to desire
others' things. Such a person considers whatever he has as sufficient and he
does not allow himself to be enslaved by lust and greediness in order to attain
desired objects by illegitimate means. The yoga system advises that nonstealing
be practiced mentally, verbally, and physically. An honest author writes
original thoughts, and if some material is borrowed from others, the author
honestly and respectfully gives references. That is an example of nonstealing
at the thought level. In the same way, nonstealing practiced at every level of
the personality helps maintain purity of life, and purity of life allows one to
shine and grow in all dimensions. Brahmacarya. Brahmacarya literally means
"to act in brahman." One whose life's actions are always executed in
the consciousness of "I am not the body" is called a brahmacari. The
word brahmacarya is commonly translated as "sexual abstinence," but
celibacy is only a partial explanation of this word. Sexual continence in
itself is not the goal; the goal is to control the senses in order to achieve
deeper levels of inner awareness. Patanjala-yoga takes brahmacarya in a wider
sense to mean selectively performing only those activities that are helpful in
achieving the highest goal of life. Brahmacarya is possible only when the mind
is free from all sensuous desires, especially the sexual urge, which is the
most powerful and which can be most destructive if not directed and channeled
properly. Illicit sexual activity dissipates vital energy that is to be
utilized for the attainment of higher consciousness. For achieving this goal,
the yoga system advises one to organize all his sensory forces and to utilize
them in a proper and beneficial way. It teaches control of sensual cravings in order
to attain that inner peace and happiness that is greater than all transient
bodily pleasures. Uncontrolled senses weaken the mind, and a weakened mind has
no capacity to concentrate in one direction or on one object. A person with a
mind weakened by lust fails to think properly, to speak properly, or to act
properly. For higher attainment, one therefore has to withdraw his energies
from the petty charms and temptations of sensory objects and convert the flow
of the life force toward higher consciousness. Aparigraha. Aparigraha,
nonpossessiveness, is generally misunderstood to mean denying oneself all
material possessions, but the word actually indicates an inward attitude rather
than an outward behavior. The feeling of possessiveness is an expression of
dissatisfaction, ~ 50 ~ insecurity, attachment, and greed. One who strives his
whole life to gain more and more worldly objects is never satisfied because
that desire can never be quenched. One who is constantly greedy for more
forgets that it is impossible to eat more than the stomach can holds to sleep
on more ground than the body covers, or to wear more clothes than the body
requires. Whatever one possesses that exceeds the essential requirements
becomes a burden, and instead of enjoying it one suffers in watching and taking
care of it. A person who desires more than that which is required is like a
thief who covets that which belongs to others. Nonpossessiveness does not mean
that one should not plan for the future or that one should give away all one's
money; it simply means that one should not be attached to what he has. An
attitude of possessiveness excludes one from all that one does not have, but
the practice of non possessiveness expands one's personality, and one acquires
more than he has mentally renounced. Niyamas -- Observances The five niyamas
regulate one's habits and organize the personality. They consist of purity
(sauca), contentment (santosa), austerity (tapas), self-study (svadhyaya), and
surrender to the Supreme Being (isvara pranidhana). These observances allow a
person to be strong physically, mentally, and spiritually. Sauca. In the
context of yoga science, sauca refers to both physical and mental purity.
Physical purity protects the body from diseases. and mental purity presents mental
energy from being dissipated. Physical purity can be achieved easily, but one
has to pay close attention to purity of mind, which depends on spiritual
thinking, mindfulness, and discrimination. The yoga system places great
emphasis on developing purity of the mind because concentration and inward
exploration are impossible without it and because psychosomatic disease and
emotional disturbance result from its absence. Santosa. Santosa, contentment,
is a mental state in which even a beggar can live like a king. It is one's own
desires that make one a mental beggar and keep one from being tranquil within.
Contentment does not mean one should be passive or inactive, for practice of
contentment must be coordinated with selfless action. Tapas. The word tapas literally
means the generation of heat. A yogi who burns with the zeal for austerity is
able to generate heat from within his body that keeps him warm and fit even in
the icy wastes of the Himalayas. Therefore tapas is not to be understood as
self-torture. The Bhagavad-gita clearly states that yoga is not for one who
indulges the flesh nor for one who tortures it. One who is a real yogi
enthusiastically takes up a life of healthy asceticism. He may thus gradually
unlock mystical powers within himself. By these powers, the yogi is able to
easily withstand intense cold or to go for long periods of time without eating,
drinking or even breathing. But until such powers are unlocked, it is useless
to try to imitate the accomplishments of tapas. Actually, supernatural powers
are not the goal of tapas. The real goal is the development of a sincere
enthusiasm for a life of austerity. Svadhyaya. Svadyaya includes studying the
scriptures, hearing from saints and sages, and observing the lessons of
experience through the eyes of spiritual revelation. Proper svadyaya requires
discrimination, which means neither blind acceptance nor critical analysis of
the sources of knowledge. One should glean the essence of the transcendental
teachings and utilize this essence for practical advancement. Without
discrimination, one may become confused by the apparent contradictions among
different teachings from various scriptures and authorities. ~ 51 ~ Therefore
proper study is a skill that must be learned from one who has mastered the scriptures.
Isvara pranidhana. Isvara pranidhana, surrender to the Supreme Being, is the
best method for protecting oneself from the dangers of attachment, false
identification, and the idea of "I am the doer". Surrender is
possible through cultivation of faith and devotion to the Lord within the
heart. Asana -- Posture Asanas, physical postures, ensure physical health and
mental harmony. They are used in conjunction with the yamas and niyamas and the
other limbs of patanjala-yoga, for without the other elements of the system,
mere physical exercise cannot provide the desired benefits. Nowadays, because
many so-called students of yoga do not understand the importance of mastering
the yamas and niyamas before attempting the asanas, the yogic postures have largely
degenerated into mere physical culture. The yoga asanas are not means of
improving physical beauty but are important prerequisites for the attainment of
the higher goals of this yoga system. The highest aim of yoga is to attain
samadhi. The meditative postures enable one to sit comfortably and steadily for
a long time with the head, neck, and trunk properly aligned so that breathing
may be regulated, the mind may be withdrawn from the senses, the mind may be
concentrated within, and samadhi (unbroken trance) may at last be attained. The
postures are broadly divided into two major categories: postures for physical
well-being and postures for meditation. The commentators on Patanjali's sutras
mention only a few postures that are helpful in meditation, but later yoga
scriptures describe a complete science of postures for physical and mental
well-being. There are eighty-four classical postures, but only four of these
are suggested for the practice of meditation. These are sukhasana (the easy
pose), svastikasana (the auspicious pose), padmasana (the lotus pose), and
siddhasana (the accomplished pose). In all meditative postures, the emphasis is
on keeping the head, neck, and trunk straight. The spine being thus aligned
provides steadiness and comfort in the posture and minimizes the consumption of
oxygen. Pranayama -- Control of the Vital Force After practicing physical
exercises, the student becomes aware of a deeper level of personality - -
prana, the life force -- functioning in the body. The word prana is derived
from the Sanskrit root ana and the prefix pra. Ana means "to animate or
vibrate," and pra means "first unit." Thus the word prana means
"the first unit of energy." Whatever animates or moves is an
expression of prana -- the life force. All the forces in the world, including
individual beings. are different manifestations or expressions of this life
force. This vital force animates all the energies involved in the physical and
mental processes, and thus it is prana that sustains and activates the body and
mind. Prana is the basic principle underlying all biophysical functions. Later
writings of yoga explain a highly advanced science of prana, which yogis claim
establishes the link between body and mind and vitalizes both. Because the
breath is the grossest manifestation of this vital function, the science of
prana is also called the science of breath. Continuous regulation of the breath
strengthens the nervous system and harmonizes all mental activities. Yoga texts
say that prana is the creator of all substances and the basis of all functions.
The ~ 52 ~ Brhadaranyaka Upanisad says that the thread of prana (vayu) runs
through and holds together the whole universe. This thread is the cause of the
creation, sustenance, and destruction of all substances in the world. The same
life force on which humankind depends also sustains the animal and vegetable
kingdoms. Prana sustains bodily functions as the subtle airs, which are
energies of the subtle body that are controlled by the devas (demigods). Thus
prana is the link between human beings and the controllers of the universe. The
breath is the thread through which prana travels from the cosmos to the
individual and from the individual to the cosmos. Depending on its function in
different organs, prana is divided into ten types of subtle airs. The ten
pranas are prana, upana, samana, udana, vyana, naga, kurma, krkala, devadatta,
and dhananjaya. Of these ten, the first five are of most importance to the
practice of patanjalayoga. Prana. Prana here is used to designate a specific
type of prana, the vital force of inspiration. In this context the word prana
(pra + ana) means "that which draws in or takes in." The life force
that receives the fresh cosmic vitality from the atmosphere activating the
diaphragm, lungs, and nostrils, is called prana. The head, mouth, nostrils,
chest (heart and lungs), navel, and big toes are said to be the main centers of
prana. This important vital force resides in the brain and governs the
functions of the senses and the process of thinking. Certain physical
activities -- such as the ability of the cerebrum to receive the sensations of
smell, sound, taste, touch, and vision, the function of the cranial nerves, and
the power that governs all mental activities -- are the functions of prana. Primitive
instincts, emotions, intelligence, self-control, memory, concentration, and the
power of judgment or discrimination are manifestations of prana. As long as
prana is in its normal state, all the organs function properly. Bodily toxins,
intoxicants, malnutrition, the aging process, frustration, fatigue,
restlessness, and physical and mental shocks disturb the vital force. When the
vitality of the mind starts to decay due to such conditions, then higher
abilities such as intelligence, memory, concentration, discrimination, and
patience start to diminish, and the lower instincts or emotions become
predominant. In the cosmos and in the body there is a continuous flow of solar
and lunar energy, also referred to in yoga texts as positive and negative energy,
as pitta and kappa, bile and phlegm, fire and water, light and darkness, male
and female, and so on. When prana is predominated by solar energy, it is active
and the right nostril is open. But when lunar energy predominates, it is
passive and the left nostril is open. The flow of prana through the right or
the left nostril provides specific conditions and changes in mood and behavior.
Apana. Apana is the excretory vital force. Expulsive movements occurring in the
bowels, bladder, uterus, seminal glands, and pores during defecation,
urination, menstruation, ejaculation, perspiration, and all other kinds of
excretions are due to the function of apana. The reproductive organs, anus,
thighs, ribs, root of the navel, and the abdomen are said to be the abode of apana.
When the excretory vital force, which functions through the thoracic and
abdominal muscles, is disturbed, then symptoms such as sneezing, asthma, croup,
or hiccups are observed. Samana. Samana is the digestive and assimilating force
that makes food suitable for absorption and then assimilates it. This vital
force is seen in the entire body, not just in the digestive system. Because of
samana's presence in the skin, vitamin D can be absorbed from the ultraviolet
rays of the sun. The region between the heart and the navel center is
predominantly involved in the absorption and digestion of food, and this part
of the body is therefore considered to be the main center of this vital force.
This vital force is responsible for ~ 53 ~ growth and nourishment. Abnormalities
of the assimilating vital force result in nervous diarrhea, dyspepsia (impaired
digestion), intestinal colic, spasmodic or nervous retention of urine,
constipation, and the like. Udana. Udana means "energy that uplifts."
It is the force that causes contraction in the thoracic muscles, thereby
pushing air out through the vocal cords. It is, therefore, the main cause of
the production of sound. All physical activities that require effort and
strength depend on this vital force. It is said to be situated in the larynx,
the upper part of the pelvis, all the joints, and the feet and hands. Vyana.
Vyana is the contractile vital force. All rhythmic or nonrhythmic contractions
take place because of this vital force. It pervades the whole body and governs
the process of relaxing and contracting the voluntary and involuntary muscles.
This force also governs movements of the ligaments and sends sensory and motor
impulses through the nervous tissues. It is involved in the opening and closing
of the eyes as well as the opening and closing of the glottis. The ears, eyes,
neck, ankles, nose, and throat are said to be the main centers of this vital
force in the body. Fibrosis, sclerosis, atrophy, and pain in muscular and
nervous tissues are the result of abnormalities in the contractile vital force.
Food and breath are the main vehicles through which prana enters the body. Food
contains a grosser quality of prana than does the breath; one can live for a
few days without food, but without breath one cannot function normally for even
a minute. This is the reason that the yoga system places so much importance on
the science of breath. The regulation of the movement of the lungs is the most
effective process for cleansing and vitalizing the human system. It purifies and
strengthens the nervous system, which coordinates all the other systems in the
body. Yogis have developed a most intricate and deep science related to the
nervous and circulatory systems, but this science goes beyond the mere study of
nerves, veins, and arteries. The science of breath is related to subtle energy
channels called nadis. According to yogis, the body is essentially a field of
energy, but only a very small part of that energy is utilized, and so a great
part of it remains dormant. With the help of pranayama (the science of prana),
however, a student of yoga can unveil that energy field, expand it, and channel
it to explore higher states of consciousness. Yogi texts say, "One who
knows prana knows the Veda's highest knowledge," and one of the Upanisads
proclaims that prana is brahman. The science of prana and the science of breath
are thus of central importance in the yoga system. According to Patanjali,
pranayama means to refine and regulate the flow of inhalation and exhalation.
When one can breathe deeply and noiselessly without jerks or pauses, one can
allow one's prana to expand and to be awakened for higher attainments.
Patanjali does not advise the practice of pranayama until one has achieved a
still and comfortable posture. Postures that remove physical tension and
provide stillness are therefore the prerequisites to pranayama. Patanjali lists
four kinds of pranayama: external (bahya vrtti), in which the flow of prank is
controlled during the exhalation; internal (abhyantara vrtti), in which the
flow of prana is controlled during inhalation; and intermediate
(bahya-bhyantara-visayaksepi) in which the other two pranayamas are refined,
and the fourth (caturtha), in which pranayama is transcended. The first three
pranayamas must be regulated within space and time, but the fourth pranayama is
highly advanced and transcends these limitations. When the external and
internal pranayamas become very subtle, then, because of intense concentration
in a perfect, relayed state, one loses awareness of time and space, and thus
the fourth pranayama happens automatically. In this pranayama, the breath
becomes so fine and subtle that an ordinary ~ 54 ~ breathing movement cannot be
observed. Without practical instruction from a competent teacher, it is not possible
to understand and apply this method of pranayama successfully. The practice of
pranayama prepares fertile ground for concentration. The first four stages of
yoga discussed thus far -- that is, yama, niyama, asana, and pranayama -- are
sometimes collectively known as hatha-yoga. Pratyahara -- Withdrawal of the
Senses The fifth limb of yoga is pratyahara, the withdrawal or control of the
senses. In outward activities the mind contacts external objects through the
five senses of sight, hearing touch, taste, and smell. The interaction of the
senses with their objects is like the blowing wind that disturbs the surface of
the lake of mind and causes waves to arise. Withdrawal of the senses is a
technique through which a student acquires the ability to voluntarily draw his
attention inward and keep his mind from distractions. Patanjali defines
pratyahara as the withdrawal of the senses from their objects and their
establishment in the mind. The senses are constant]y wandering from one object
to another, and the mind also wanders with them, although the mind is more
subtle than the senses. The senses are the vehicles of the mind as it travels
on its journey, but the mind is master of the senses because without it, the
senses could not contact or experience any objects. Wherever there is contact
of the senses with their objects, the mind is necessarily involved, so
withdrawal of the senses actually means withdrawal of the mind. Vyasa, the
Yoga-sutras' commentator, therefore says that when the senses are disconnected
from their objects, they dwell in or dissolve into the mind. Once the
modifications of the mind are controlled, it is not necessary to make any extra
effort to control the senses. When the queen bee (mind) flies, all the bees
(senses) fly, and when she sits, all the bees sit around her. Relaxation is
actually the practice of pratyahara. When one wants to relax a limb of his
body, he simply disconnects the communication of the mind and the senses to
that particular limb. This is called releasing tension, and when one has
mastered voluntary relaxation in this way, he attains perfect control over the
senses and mind and enters a state of concentration. The process of withdrawing
the senses and the mind is actually the process of recollecting the scattered
forces of the senses and mind. When these forces are no longer dissipated,
concentration naturally takes place. Dharana -- Concentration Having withdrawn
the senses and the mind from external objects, the mind must then carry a
single thought pattern in a desired direction. Concentration, the sixth limb of
yoga, is a process through which one withdraws the mind from all directions and
focuses its powers for further journey inward. To facilitate this process, one
selects a suitable object for concentration such as a mantra, a form, or a
center in the body, to name a few. In a relaxed state, past impressions
accumulated in the mind rise to the surface, disturbing the mind's ability to
stay on one thought pattern. In daily life, one unconsciously and involuntarily
concentrates in many ways. In extreme happiness or sorrow, for example, the
mind becomes concentrated on one single thought pattern. But such external
concentration is motivated by emotion, instinct, or impulse and is therefore
not considered to be yogi concentration. According to Patanjali, concentration
is an internal process that takes place in the mind and is volition ally
directed by the will. ~ 55 ~ There are five factors that are helpful in
bringing the mind to a state of concentration. One cannot focus the mind unless
one has interest in the object on which one wants to concentrate, so developing
interest is the first step. With interest, attention can then be developed.
Voluntary focusing based on interest and directed by will power and strengthened
by determination results in paying full attention to an object. Practice is the
next requisite. Regular repetition of techniques that help the mind to flow
spontaneously without a break helps form the habit of concentration. For
example, setting a specific practice time, choosing a favorable environment,
keeping a proper diet, and regulating sleep make it easier to concentrate the
mind. Next, using the same straight, steady, and comfortable seated posture
every time one practices and using a smooth, deep, and regular diaphragmatic
breathing pattern help one keep the mind and body calm, yet alert. Finally, a
calm mind is necessary because an emotionally disturbed mind cannot
concentrate. An attitude of detachment from external objects and of witnessing
one's own physical and mental activity calms the mind and develops emotional
maturity. When the student practices concentration, he is advised not to exert
undue effort because effort leads to tension, and tension dissipates or
disturbs the nervous system and senses as well as the mind. There are various
kinds of concentration: gross and subtle, outer and inner, subjective and
objective, and so on. According to Vyasa's commentary on the Yoga-sutras, one
can concentrate internally on some point within the body, such as the cardiac
center, the base of the bridge between the nostrils, or the tip of the tongue;
or one can concentrate externally on any selected object. If the object of
concentration is pleasant, beautiful, and interesting, then it is easy for the
mind to focus on it for a long time. Using a mantra or the breath for the
object of concentration is considered to be the best method for learning to
focus the mind onepointedly in preparation for attaining a meditative state.
Dhyana -- Mediation The seventh step in the practice of yoga is meditation.
Meditation is an advanced state of concentration in which one single object of
concentration flows without interruption. In this state, the mind becomes fully
one- pointed, and by one-pointedness the yogi can approach the Supersoul. The
process of withdrawal of the senses, concentration, and meditation can be
compared to a river that originates when many small streams gather and merge
into one large flow of water. The river then flows through hills and valleys without
being stopped by bushes and rocks, and it then finds the plains, where it flows
smoothly and harmoniously, passing through forests and villages until it
reaches its final destination and merges with the sea. So it is with the
process of meditation. At the initial stage, the senses and mind are withdrawn
and made one-pointed. Then that one-pointed mind flows constantly toward one
object without being distracted by petty emotions, thoughts, memories, and
anxieties. Then it enters into the smooth, uninterrupted flow of the meditative
state in which, siddhis (supernatural powers) are experienced. These are
analogous to the villages through which the river flows undistractedly. At last
the mind ultimately enters samadhi and connects with the consciousness of the
Supreme Soul. Samadhi -- Spiritual Absorption The word samadhi is closely
related to the word samahitam, which means "the state in which all
questions are answered," or "the state in which one is established in
one's true nature." Out ~ 56 ~ of curiosity regarding the basic questions
that the mind wants to solve, the mind flits from one thought to another and
becomes restless. But the moment the mind resolves its curiosity, it has no
reason to wander here and there, and thus it naturally establishes itself in
its true nature. Then the mind is in a state beyond the concept of language in
which it is accustomed to think or produce modifications. Samadhi is a state
beyond thinking and feeling in which the individual soul is linked with the
Supreme Soul. In samadhi one casts away all limitations and causations and
enjoys eternal bliss and happiness. It is not a state of the dissolution of
individuality. Yogis know samadhi as a mystical fulfillment of individuality.
In different yoga traditions this state is called soundless sound, the state of
silence, or the highest state of peace and happiness. There are two stages of
samadhi: sabija and nirbija. Sabija samadhi means samadhi "with
seeds." In this state, the sense of individual interest separate from the
Supersoul is retained and the seeds of desire and attachment still remain in
latent form. In the state of nirbija or seedless samadhi, however, the
individual consciousness is completely united with the Supreme Soul. This may
understood in two ways. If the yogi surrenders all separate interests and
serves only the interests of the paramatma, he becomes a pure devotee of God
and by the Lord's mercy gains entry into the eternal spiritual realm
(Vaikuntha). But if the yogi identifies with the paramatma as his own self, he
is absorbed into the body of the Lord. This is called isvara-sayuja (merging
into the Supreme Lord Vishnu). The first is a devotional union with God, the
second is nondevotional. Generally the followers of the patanjala-yoga system
aspire for the second kind of union. Samyama Patanjali uses the term samyama to
describe the combined state of concentration, meditation, and samadhi.
According to Patanjali, one can achieve whatever one wants to through the
practice of samyama because it expands human potentials and allows one to
explore higher and higher states of consciousness. Through the practice of
samyama it is said that one can develop supernatural powers or perfections,
called siddhis, which are described in the third chapter of the Yoga-sutras. Because
the body is a miniature presentation of the cosmos, whatever exists in the
cosmos is present in the body. Microcosm and macrocosm being one, an individual
can thus have access to the powers of the universe. The practice of samyama
upon any object brings perfection regarding that object. By practicing samyama
on latent mental impressions (samskaras), for example, one can realize their
content and achieve knowledge of previous births. By the practice of samyama on
the navel center, one can understand one's entire physiology. By the practice
of samyama on the throat center one can eliminate hunger and thirst. By the
practice of samyama on the distinction between purusa and prakrti, one can
attain knowledge of purusa, the Supreme Consciousness. Many other kinds of
supernatural powers, such as enhanced powers of sight, sound, smell, touch,
taste, and the powers of minuteness, lightness, greatness, and lordship also
mentioned. One who attains these partial perfections still has to go beyond
their charms and temptations to establish himself in the state of perfect
samadhi. The Concept of God Patanjali accepts the existence of God (isvara).
According to him God is the perfect supreme being who is eternal,
all-pervading, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. God is that particular
purusa who is unaffected by the afflictions of ignorance, egoism, desire,
aversion, and ~ 57 ~ fear of death. He is also free from all karma actions),
from the results of action, and from all latent impressions. Patanjali says that
the individual has the same essence as God, but because of the limitations
produced by afflictions and karma, one separates oneself from Godconsciousness
and becomes a victim of the material world. There is only one God. It is
ignorance that creates duality from the one single reality called God. When
ignorance is dissolved into the light of knowledge, all dualities are dissolved
and full union is achieved. When one overcomes ignorance, duality dissolves and
he merges with the perfect single Being. That perfect single Being always
remains perfect and one. There is no change in the ocean no matter how many
rivers flow into it, and unchangeability is the basic condition of perfection.
~ 58 ~
6.
Karma-mimamsa:
Elevation Through the Performance of Duty The word karma
refers to any action that results in a reaction, whether it be good or bad. The
word Mimamsa means to analyze and understand thoroughly. The philosophical
systems of karma-mimamsa and vedanta are closely related to each other and are
in some ways complimentary. Karma-mimamsa may be understood as a stepping stone
to vedanta. It examines the teachings of the Veda in the light of karma-kanda
rituals, whereas vedanta examines the same teachings in the light of
transcendental knowledge. The karma-mimamsa system is called purva-mimamsa,
which means the earlier study of the Veda, and vedanta is called
uttara-mimamsa, which means the later study of the Veda. Karma-mimamsa is to be
taken up by householders, and vedanta is reserved for wise men who have graduated
from household life and taken up the renounced order (sannyasa). The main goal
of the karma-mimamsa philosophy is to provide a practical methodology for the
utilization of the Vedic religion (dharma) for the satisfaction of the urges
for wealth (artha) and sensual pleasure (kama). In so doing, karma-mimamsa
provides a materialistic explanation of the Vedic rituals for persons whose
material desires have blinded them to spiritual understanding. In the Veda,
numerous gods and goddesses are invoked. The karma-mimamsa system interprets
these deities and their worship in terms of a highly "human-centered"
rather than "God-centered" rationale. The karma-mimamsa system also
discusses the science of sound and the science of mantra, but the major concern
of this system is to combine the self-discipline established by the yoga system
(discussed previously) with the ritualistic portion of the Vedas. The aim of
all this is to situate the selfish and skeptical human being in a mode of
dutiful subordination to the Vedic injunctions in order to prepare him for
further advancement as taught in the vedanta system. Therefore karma-mimamsa
presents the Vedic religion as a science of mechanistic principles, and not as
a faith of adoration of divinities aimed at receiving benedictions from on
high. The Vedic dharma is justified to materialists as being "useful to
humanity" in that it can satisfy human worldly desires in this life and in
the next when properly executed. And proper execution of Vedic dharma requires
karma-yoga, or selfless adherence to duty. The first systematic work on this
school of Vedic thought is the Mimamsa-sutra of Jaimini, which is divided into
twelve chapters. Sabara Swami wrote a major commentary on the Mimamsasutra, and
many other commentaries and independent works on this philosophy exist.
Kumarila Bhatta and Prabhakara, the revivalists of this system in post-Buddhist
India, founded two branches of karma-mimamsa (the major teachings of these
branches are the same). The Concept of Duty Many people are very concerned
about their rights but little aware of their duties. Unless one knows what
one's duties are, he cannot understand what his rights are. Demanding rights
without accepting duty leads to many problems, as is evinced by today's chaotic
global society. Duty may be defined as a tradition of responsibility incumbent
upon human beings everywhere that ultimately has divine origin. It is because
of the law of duty that the family, society, the nation, and the entire
universe continue to exist. The execution of duty handed down by higher
authority is the path of honor in all human cultures; conversely, the path of
dishonor is the neglect of duty for the satisfaction of animal urges. History
teaches that when the family, society, and nation fail to fulfill traditional
duties and instead follow the whims of lust as their ~ 59 ~ only value system,
they are soon destroyed. The term dharma is variously translated as
"virtue," "duty," "morality,"
"righteousness," or "religion," but no single English word
conveys the whole meaning of dharma. According to the karma-mimamsa system,
dharma is the intrinsic nature of rta, the breath of cosmic life. One who wants
to breathe and live properly is not supposed to disturb the breath of cosmic
life. Disturbing other living beings disturbs the rhythm of the cosmic breath,
and that is called adharma. The performing of dharma establishes peace and
harmony in the breath of cosmic life. All those activities that coordinate
one's individual life with universal life constitute one's duty or dharma.
These activities are prescribed in the Vedic scriptures. There is always a
hierarchy in one's duties. Everywhere and at every moment a human being is
faced with some kind of duty, and one has to be very discriminating to
understand the appropriate duty that is to be performed at a particular time
and place. One's scripturally authorized role in life provides the key to
knowing one's primary duty. For example, under the codes of Vedic dharma it is
the highest duty of a mother to take care of her child. The highest duty of a
teacher is to teach, that of a student is to study, and that of a doctor is to
take care of his patients. Karma-mimamsa proclaims that the Vedic rituals are
the highest duties a brahmana has to perform. The science of Vedic rituals is
handed down by ancient sages, who hid its methodology in arcane language that
is understandable only to the initiate. The efficacy of this science is
determined by the subtleties of the time, place and circumstance of the
performance of the rituals, and especially by the brahminical qualifications of
the performer of the rituals. Therefore entrance into the practice science
depends completely upon the sanction of higher authorities. Ritual Duty and
Philosophy Most people lack a positive attitude of inspiration toward their
daily duties, performing them only to earn money or status. Ritualism illumined
by philosophy gives one awareness of the deep significance of the even the
small duties of life. Everyone has a morning routine composed of various steps.
For example, a working man awakens early, goes to the toilet, brushes his
teeth, washes his face, shaves, takes a shower, dresses, and finally eats
breakfast. He does none of this with any sense of consecration -- his actions
have no higher end or aim than simply to reach the office at exactly nine
o'clock. As a result he does not experience any particular fulfillment from the
activities he performs from bathroom through breakfast. His whole life rotates
through a mechanical framework because of his mundane view of existence. But
viewing the daily, unexceptional routines of life as rituals linked to the
cycles of the cosmos helps expand the consciousness beyond the shallowness of
workaday life. In short, a ritual is a meditation. When a brahmana makes
breakfast as an offering or oblation to the fire of digestion within,
remembering that the same cosmic principle of fiery energy burns within the
bellies of all creatures and within the sun and electricity and the sacrificial
fire, then the whole process is transformed, although the activities are the
same as always. In the karma-mimamsa concept, rituals are performed not to
worship or please any deity but rather simply because the Veda commands one to
perform them. Thus, rituals are practiced for the sake of duty. Food is cooked
and through the use of mantras, the Cosmic Deity (mahapurusa) in whom the
demigods and all beings dwell is invited to partake of the food and grant
blessings in return. But the offering is not made as an act of devotion.
Rather, the karmamimamsaka believes the mahapurusa is obliged by the ritual to
accept the offering and give ~ 60 ~ benedictions. Mastery of the ritual is
mastery over the powers of the universe. By proper execution of ritual, the
performer expects to enjoy prosperity on earth and be promoted to heaven
(higher planets within this universe where the standard of sensual happiness is
much superior to earth). The karma-mimamsa system teaches that one can cut
one's own poisonous plant of past bad karma with the powerful ax of present
good karma in the form of the performance of Vedic rituals. The Karma-mimamsa
Analysis of the Veda Just as in English there are various types of sentences --
interrogatory, declarative, imperative, exclamatory -- so too the Veda is
composed of various types of sentences. These include vidhi (imperative),
nisedha (negative), and stuti, which are the devotional sentences of praise.
Just as any language can be analyzed and understood by the nature and structure
of its sentences, karma-mimamsa studies the Veda according to the nature of its
sentences. Having analyzed them, it declares that imperative statements are
more valid than devotional sentences. The teachings of imperative sentences can
therefore be accepted and practiced, but the teachings of devotional sentences
must be further analyzed to determine their implied core meanings. The system
for interpreting Vedic texts is laid down in such works as the
Mimamsaanukramanika of Mandana Misra. The Science of Mantra The generic term
for all Vedic verses and sentences is mantra. The Veda is the embodiment of
knowledge expressed in the form of sound and symbolically represented in
script. Karmamimamsa accepts sound (sabda) as eternal. It places greater
emphasis on mantras than it does on gods and goddesses because it only believes
in the validity of the science of sound on which the science of mantra is
based. This belief accounts for karma-mimamsa's trust in the efficacy of
systematic rituals. Karma-mimamsa states that the Vedic rites are grounded in empirical
science rather than religious faith; it does not view the performance of
rituals as a means for imploring favors from deities. Karma-mimamsa does not
study sound only at its articulated level but explores the subtle levels of
sound by delving into its origin and realizing its various vibrational
patterns. Sound is called vak in Sanskrit, but this word cannot be translated
merely as "sound", or "speech." Vak refers to both thought
and expression, while speech is the communication of thoughts and feelings
through spoken words. Vak shakti, the power of speech, is actually a law of
communication that is responsible for conveying thoughts and concepts, both
individually and collectively. When one talks with someone else, the law of
communication (vak shakti) is already present before one speaks and after one
has spoken. Vak shakti is the force flowing from a higher level of
consciousness through the articulated level of speech, which is its gross
expression. Karmamimamsa categorizes vak shakti at four levels: para,
(transcendent), pasyanti (concentrated thought pattern), madhyama (formulated
through thought patterns ready for expression), and vaikhari (expression with
the help of words). According to karma-mimamsa there are two universally
intertwined factors in manifestation: sabda, the sound; and artha, the object
denoted by that sound. One signifies the name, and the other signifies the
form. They are inseparably associated; there can be no sabda without artha, no
artha without sabda. Together, they are the self-existent reality which is not
subject to change, death, and decay. As they manifest, a double line of
creation -- words and objects -- ~ 61 ~ is formed. External sound, sensed by
hearing, is of two types: sound with meaning and sound without meaning. Sound
with meaning consists of the phonemes and words that make up language, but
sound without meaning is not formulated into words and is not recognized as an
element of communication. According to karma-mimamsa, external sound is
transient, but it is also a manifestation of the eternal sound in akasa
(ether). The nyaya school does not accept the mimamsa theory of sound; it holds
that words are transitory in every regard. Karma-mimamsa counters that the
perception of sound that begins when vibrating air contacts the ear drums must
be distinguished from the sound itself. For sound to exist, one object must
contact another and that is an external event. But the karma-mimamsa theory of
sound with meaning goes beyond this, including also the internal mental
movement of ideas that seeks outward expression through audible sound in
phonemes, letters, words, and sentences. Thus the perception of sound is
transient, but sound itself is eternal. The moment at which sound can be
perceived is not the same moment at which it is produced; sound is manifested
prior to being audible. The finest state of sound, called para vak, is perfect.
The karma-mimamsa philosophy holds the eternal para vak to be the cause of all
causes. [In Gaudiya Vaisnava philosophy, this para vak is the sound of Maha
Vishnu's breathing, which precedes the appearance of the universe.] Any
vibration that can be perceived by physical instruments such as the ears is
only a gross manifestation; physical sound is inadequate for attainment of the
ultimate state of consciousness signified by para vak. The next phase of sound
is called pasyanti vak. There is only a slight difference between the state of
para and that of pasyanti. Both are transcendental, but in pasyanti, the subtle
form of the universe is "seen" within sound as the primeval artha, or
object of desire. The word pasyanti means "one who sees." [Note:
prior to his act of creation, Lord Brahma sees the subtle universal form after
meditating upon the divine sound "tapa tapa."] In this state the power
of desire still remains dormant, but it is nonetheless the direct cause of the
universe, which will be manifested as both idea and speech. This language of
silence is a universal language; it is the source of all language and speech.
The third state of vak is called madhyama, meaning "that which is
intermediate." This state of speech is neither transcendent, as in
pasyanti, nor completely manifest, as is vaikhari (the grossest state of
sound); it is between these two stages. Finally, the fourth state of speech is
completely manifest and audible. At this stage, a sound that belongs to a
specific language can be perceived through the sense of hearing. This state of
sound is always accompanied by geographical, cultural and social diversities
and distinctions that form different languages composed of articulated and
distinguishable sounds. The origin of speech is transcendent and eternal, and
the flow of pasyanti, madhyama and vaikhari from the state of para is also the
flow of the forceful stream of energy from vak shakti. Like a river hidden in
the mountains that comes gurgling forth as it rushes to the valleys where
streams merge with it and the flows on to the plains before dissolving its
identity into the ocean, similarly similarly speech emerges from its hidden
source in the state of silence (para), flows downward into more and more
manifested stages, and then at last dissolves into infinity, its origin. This
is the process of the unfoldment and enfoldment of vak shakti. All speech that
passes through the human mind becomes contaminated with the limitations of
time, space, and causation. The ultimate truth is therefore veiled in everyday
speech, but this is not the case with mantras. Mantras are not mere words but
are specific sound vibrations that ~ 62 ~ have been experienced by sages in the
deepest state of meditation. They are said to be the sound-bodies of certain
aspects of the cosmic forces. A mantra is therefore referred to as a setu, a
bridge, that the student can use to cross over the mire of delusion and reach
the other shore of the Absolute Truth. Mantras are capable of lighting in every
human heart the eternal lamp of knowledge that does not flicker with the severe
winds of worldly charms and temptations. The potential of a mantra lies in a
dormant state until it is awakened. The secret of awakening and utilizing
mantras lies in the rhythmic vibrations in which the mantra is meant to be
pronounced and repeated. The proper use of mantras, with their prescribed
rituals, is designed to lead one to experience the bliss and happiness
contained within the mantra itself. The power of mantra and its awakening can
be explained by the following analogy: In the rainy season in some tropical
countries the humidity may be one hundred percent, but one cannot quench his
thirst with atmospheric water alone because it is not concentrated in usable
form. Likewise the great potential of mantras is hidden and diffuse. One must
therefore learn how to awaken, concentrate, and utilize their potential. The
Karma-mimamsa Concept of Gods and Goddesses Modern scientists have developed
mathematical equations and scientific laws to describe the order and lawfulness
of the universe and thereby increase man's power and control over its
phenomena. Likewise, the Vedic sages developed immense powers of knowledge of
the underlying order, lawfulness, structure, and dynamics of the phenomenal
world. According to the karma-mimamsa system, the universal controllers who
wield cosmic power and maintain the universal order are to be scientifically
comprehended through the sound of mantras. The deities or gods are the
personified forms of principles that correspond to the vibrating sound patterns
of mantras. For an uneducated person, the equation E=MC2 is just a meaningless
arrangement of lines on a piece of paper. But for those with a sufficient
understanding of physics, this formula can help one to comprehend the nature
and dynamics of the universe. The karmamimamsakas have a similar conception of
Vedic mantras as do physicists of their formulas. Some critics of karma-mimamsa
philosophy accuse the system of promoting polytheism. But there is an
underlying unity. The mimamsakas believe in an all-pervading consciousness that
manifests itself in different stages, each of which has a different form (deity)
and sound vibration (mantra). Thus exists the apparent diversity of deities and
mantras to represent the unitary consciousness. The process of manifestation
begins with the emergence of the most subtle forms, from which the grosser or
more delineated forms are then manifested. This process has been described and
in various ways in different scriptures. In the Vedic tradition, prototypic
entities are invoked as deities -- demigods and demigoddesses -- each
characterized by a particular set of superhuman qualities. The Vedic demigods
radiate from the source of energy that generates all forms and names.
Karma-mimamsakas see them as thought-forms that represent the cosmic powers.
Karma-mimamsa philosophy does not conceive of the demigods as being identical
to particular physical forms. If they were physically embodied, it would not be
possibly for a single deity to be present at many different rituals being
performed in different places at the same time. Yet it would not be correct to
conclude that karmamimamsakas think the forms of the demigods are imaginary. In
this philosophy the deities emerge as primal forms and sound-bodies (mantras)
endowed with perfect bliss and happiness beyond all mundane experiences. Though
it seems that deity and mantra are two distinct ~ 63 ~ principles operating on
two different levels, in reality they are one and the same. A deity is a gross
physical form of a mantra, and a mantra is a subtle form of a deity. When the
sequence of vibration of a mantra is materialized into a particular form or
shape, that is called a deity. Likewise, a materialized form can be
dematerialized and reduced to certain frequencies of vibration that will be
heard as a mantra. There are certain rules by which a mantra converts into a
deity and a deity converts into mantra. Both deities and mantras operate on a
principle similar to the conversion of energy into matter and matter into
energy in physics. Wherever a particular ritual is performed with the proper
utilization of mantras, the deity related to those mantras is present because
when the vibration is concentrated, the materialized form of the deity appears.
According to the karmamimamsa system, the vision of a deity does not therefore
depend on the grace of that deity. Rather, the deity, or form, is manifested
wherever the mantra related to it is pronounced in a prescribed manner, and it
then has to yield the desired objects that are believed to be provided by it.
The karma-mimamsa system does not rely on the grace of God for attaining
worldly things or achieving liberation. Adepts of karma-mimamsa philosophy have
full confidence that the cosmic powers can be utilized at will by proper
execution of ritual. Karma-mimamsa identifies two purposes of ritual: to attain
and expand one's own inner potential and unite it with the cosmic force, and to
pay respect and show gratitude to the cosmic forces that are constantly
supplying light and life to all sentient beings. This is considered to be one
of the foremost duties of human beings and should be an inseparable part of
everyone's life. The Physical is Divine Karma-mimamsa applies a theory of the
all-pervading presence of divinity by providing specific practices designed to
remind the student of this truth. For example, the use of common objects such
as water, fruit, incense, grass, stones, and fire in rituals links the mundane
with the divine. There is a prescribed way for gathering these items for the
ritual and for handling and using them during the ceremony. For instance,
before a blade of grass is uprooted, one is to recite a specific mantra to
revere and glorify the divinity within the grass and to ask permission to
uproot the grass and use it in the ceremony. When the grass is uprooted one
recites another mantra, explaining the process in the following sense: "I
am uprooting my negativities symbolized by the grass. Even within negativities,
there is divinity. I am uprooting it for use in the ritual, in which the real
nature of divinity is going to be unveiled." Thus a pantheistic conception
of God is encouraged in karma-mimamsa for those who are unable to conceive of
the divine in any other way. The idea of seeing everything as divine is to
check the mind from being overcome by hatred, jealousy, anger, greed, and all
other negative attitudes. This practice helps one to arrive at the impersonal
realization expressed in such Vedic statements as "The whole universe is
Brahman" and "Thou art That." The Sources of Valid Knowledge
Mimamsa, like many other philosophical systems, places great importance on the
study of nature and the sources of valid knowledge (pramanas). According to
mimamsa there are six different sources of valid knowledge: perception,
inference, comparison, testimony, postulation, and non perception.
(Nonperception is recognized as a source only by the school of Kumarila Bhatta
and not by that of Prabhakara). Karma-mimamsa emphasizes testimony as a source
of knowledge because it believes exclusively in the authority of the Veda. The
karma-mimamsa ~ 64 ~ theories of perception and inference are very similar to
those of the nyaya system, but the karma-mimamsa theory of comparison is quite
different from that of nyaya, although both ultimately base their theories on
the similarity of two things, of which one is already known. Postulation
(arthhapatti) is the necessary supposition of an unperceived fact to explain
some apparently conflicting phenomena. For example, a person who does not eat
during the day but constantly grows fat can be suspected of eating at night.
One cannot solve the contradiction between fasting and growing fat unless he
assumes that the person eats at night. Knowledge of the person eating at night
cannot come under the category of perception or inference, nor can it be
reduced to testimony or comparison. Nonperception (anupalabdhi) is the source
of one's immediate cognition of nonexisting things. One can know the
nonexistence of a thing by the absence of its cognition, that is, if it is not
present in the senses and it cannot be understood by any other source of valid
knowledge. For instance, one can feel the absence of a jar that does not exist
because it is not perceived by the senses, but one cannot say that the
nonexistence of a jar is inferred by its nonperception, because an inference is
based on the universals relationship between middle and major terms. And in
this case there is no universal relationship between nonperception (middle
term) and the nonexistence of a jar (major term). Therefore direct knowledge of
the nonexistence of a jar can be explained only if non perception is recognized
as a separate and independent source of knowledge. The Concept of Soul
Karma-mimamsa does not pursue metaphysics but instead emphasizes the practical
approach of karma-yoga, the yoga of action. Rituals have three components: the
performer, the object of the action, and the process of performing it. The main
doctrine of karma-yoga is: "As you sow, so shall you reap."
Accordingly, one is the master of his own destiny and is free to enjoy his
karma as either master or slave. Karma-mimamsa considers the soul to be an
eternal, infinite substance with the capacity for consciousness. Implicit in
the karma-mimamsa philosophy is the belief that the soul is meant to enjoy
matter. The soul's perfection is attained through perfectly following the karma-kanda
process by which all enjoyable things within this universe may be realized. ~
65 ~
7.
Vedanta:
The Conclusion of the Vedic Revelation In the
introduction of this book it was explained that the Upanisads are the subject
of the fourth and final degree of Vedic scholarship. Therefore the Upanisads
are known as vedanta, "the conclusion of the Veda." Karma-mimamsa
philosophy arose from the earlier study of the ritualistic portions of the
Vedas, and so it is also known as purva-mimamsa, "the prior deliberation."
Vedanta is called uttara-mimamsa, "the higher deliberation", and also
as brahmamimamsa, "deliberation on Brahman, the Absolute Truth." The
word upanisad means "that which is learned by sitting close to the
teacher." The texts of the Upanisads are extremely difficult to fathom;
they are to be understood only under the close guidance of a spiritual master
(guru). Because the Upanisads contain many apparently contradictory statements,
the great sage Vyasadeva (also known as Vedavyasa, Badarayana and Dvaipayana)
systematized the Upanisadic teachings in the Vedanta-sutra or Brahma-sutra. The
Vedanta-sutra is divided into four chapters: Samanvaya, which explains the
unity of the philosophy of the Upanisads; Avirodha, which dispels apparent
contradictions; Sadhana, which describes the means to attain the Supreme; and
Phala, which indicates the goal. Vyasa's sutras are very terse. Without a
fuller explanation, their meaning is difficult to grasp. In India there are
five main schools of vedanta, each established by an acarya who explained the
sutras in a bhasya (commentary). Of the five schools or sampradayas, one,
namely Shankara's, is impersonalist. This means that the Supreme Being is
explained in impersonal terms as being nameless, formless and without characteristics.
The schools of Ramanuja, Madhva, Nimbarka and Vishnusvami explain God in
personal terms; these acaryas and their followers have very exactingly
formulated a philosophy that dispels the sense of mundane limitation associated
with the word "person" and establishes transcendental personalism in
terms of eternity, endless knowledge, complete bliss, absolute all-attractive
form and all-encompassing love. Each of the five Vedantist sampradayas is known
for its siddhanta or "essential conclusion" about the relationships
between God and the soul, the soul and matter, matter and matter, matter and
God, and the soul and souls. Shankara's siddhanta is advaita,
"nondifference" (i.e. everything is one, therefore these five
relationships are unreal). All the other siddhantas support the reality of
these relationships from various points of view. Ramanuja's siddhanta is
visistadvaita, "qualified nondifference." Madhva's siddhanta is
dvaita, "difference." Vishnusvami's siddhanta is suddhadvaita,
"purified nondifference." And Nimbarka's siddhanta is dvaita-advaita,
"difference-and-identity." The Bengali branch of Madhva's sampradaya
is known as the Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya Sampradaya, or the Caitanya Sampradaya.
In the 1700's this school presented Indian philosophers with a commentary on
Vedanta-sutra written by Baladeva Vidyabhusana that argued yet another
siddhanta. It is known as acintya-bedhabheda-tattva, which means
"simultaneous inconceivable oneness and difference." In recent years
this siddhanta has become known to people from all over the world due to the
popularity of the books of Sri Srimad A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.
Shankara and Buddhism Sometimes Shankara's advaita vedanta commentary is
presented in books about Hinduism as if it is the original and only vedanta
philosophy. But a closer look at the advaita doctrine shows it ~ 66 ~ to be in
opposition to many of the fundamental tenets of the Vedanta-sutra. In his
landmark work "The Brahmasutras and Their Principal Commentaries" the
eminent Indian scholar B.N.K. Sharma chronicles how Shankara and his followers
go so far as to "openly rebuff" Vyasadeva for his wording of the
original text of the Vedanta-sutra. The advaitists are not shy about
overturning the original sense of the text in order to push through their own
impersonal philosophy. That Shankara's philosophy is more akin to Buddhism than
vedanta is widely acknowledged. A Japanese Buddhist professor of Sanskrit,
Hajime Nakamura, has presented strong historical evidence that the ancient
pre-Shankara Vedantists were purusa-vadins (purusa = "person", vadin
= "philosopher"). Purusavadins understood the goal of vedanta
philosophy to be personal and termed God the mahapurusa (Greatest Person).
Bhavya, an Indian Buddhist author who lived centuries before Shankara, wrote in
the Madhyamika-hrdaya-karika that the Vedantists of his time were adherents of
the doctrine of bhedabheda (simultaneous oneness and difference), which is
personalistic. Another Indian Buddhist writer, Bhartrhari, who lived at the
same time as Shankara, stated that although Shankara was a brahmana scholar of
the Vedas, his impersonal teachings resembled Buddhism. This is admitted by the
followers of Shankara themselves. Professor Dr. Rajmani Tigunait of the
Himalayan Institute of Yoga is a present-day exponent of advaita vedanta; he
writes that the ideas of the Buddhist sunyavada (voidist) philosophers are
"very close" to Shankara's. Sunyavada is one of four important
schools of Buddhism that developed in India before Shankara's time. The word
sunya (void) refers to the impersonal emptiness that the Buddhists believe
pervades all things. When one attains the Buddhaconsciousness, the forms of the
world fade away like dreams and only emptiness remains. In his Vedanta
commentary, Shankara maintained the same idea of ultimate emptiness,
substituting the Upanisadic word brahman (the Absolute) for sunya. Because
Shankara argued that all names, forms, qualities, activities and relationships
are maya (illusion), even divine names and forms, his philosophy is called
mayavada (the doctrine of illusion). But it is not that Shankara himself is
utterly disrespected by the Vedantists of other sampradayas. Shankara's purpose
was to revive an interest in vedanta philosophy in an India that had largely
rejected the Vedas in favor of Buddhism. This task he accomplished brilliantly,
albeit by artificially incorporating Buddhist ideas into his commentary so as
to make it acceptable to the intellectuals of his time. It became the task of
later Vedantists in other sampradayas to rid vedanta philosophy of the last
vestiges of Buddhism. Though they attacked the mayavadi conception as
non-Vedic, they owed Shankara a debt for having brought vedanta to the
forefront of Indian philosophical discussion. The nature of God in Vedanta
philosophy If, as the mayavadis argue, God is an impersonal absolute that is
indifferent to its worshipers, then God cannot be the goal of the Vedic
religion. And if knowledge of God cannot be expressed in words, then God cannot
be the goal of the texts of the Upanisads either. Thus the mayavadi conception
of God undermines the very purpose of the Vedas. The Vedantists of the four
personalist schools therefore set out to establish a truly Vedic theology. The
first code of the Vedanta-sutra (athato brahma-jijnasa, which means "Now,
therefore, let us inquire into Brahman, the Absolute"), is Vyasa's
directive to brahmanas who have tired of the Vedic kamyakarmas (the rituals
aimed at material benefits) which yield only limited and temporary fruits. Brahma-jijnasa
(inquiry into Brahman) is Vedic metaphysics (meta = beyond, ~ 67 ~ physic =
matter). The term jijnana (inquiry) indicates that God is not a being so
radically divorced from sensory experience that He can only be known in terms
of what He is not (the "via negativa" of European theology, which is
the method the mayavadis call neti-neti, "not this, not this"). Quite
to the contrary, God may be positively understood by a human being who properly
uses his senses and mind to inquire about His positive existence beyond matter.
God as the object of positive inquiry is defined in the second code of
Vedanta-sutra: janmadyasya-yatah, "He, from whom proceeds the creation,
maintenance and dissolution of this universe, is Brahman." The universe is
full of qualities that emanate from God -- hence God Himself must be full of
qualities. Mayavadi philosophy denies the reality of the qualities of the
universe. This in turn denies the very definition the Vedanta-sutra gives for
God, for if the universe is unreal, then the God who is said to be the source
of the universe must also be unreal. By what authority can we be sure that the
universe is real and that God is the source of it? The third code of
Vedanta-sutra answers, sastra-yonitvat, "It is revealed in the Vedic scriptures."
The universe has form; if God is the origin of the universe, then He must
Himself possess form. But the Vedic scriptures declare that this form is not
limited and imperfect like the forms of the material creation. From the
Upanisads we learn that God's qualities are satyam jnanam anantam sundaram
anandamayam amalam: "eternity, knowledge, endlessness, beauty, bliss,
perfection." This means that God's form is one of infinite and
all-pervasive sublime consciousness. A materialistic thinker may object that
"all-pervasive form" is a contradiction of terms. The answer is that
it is not, once the spiritual substance of God's form is accepted. Spirit is
the most subtle energy; even in our experience of subtle material energy, we
see there is no contradiction between pervasiveness and form. For instance, the
pervasiveness of sound is not impeded when sound is given form (as in the form
of beautiful music). God's form is one, but is understood differently from
difference angles of vision, just as a mountain is seen differently by a person
as he approaches it from a great distance and climbs to the top. From the great
distance of theoretical speculation, God is known as brahman, a vague and
impersonal being. A closer look at God is made possible by yoga, by which He is
perceived as paramatma, the Supersoul who dwells within the heart of every
living being and who inspires the soul with knowledge, remembrance and
forgetfulness. And finally, from the perspective of bhakti (pure devotion), one
may know God in His feature of personal perfection called bhagavan.
Vedanta-sutra 1.1.12 states, anandamaya-bhyasat: "The para brahman
(highest God) is anandamaya." Anandamaya means "of the nature of pure
bliss." This is a clear reference to God's bhagavan feature, which is
all-blissful due to its being the reservoir of unlimited positive
transcendental attributes such as beauty, wealth, fame, strength, knowledge and
renunciation. The mayavadis take anandamaya to mean merely "absence of
sorrow", but as Baladeva Vidyabhusana writes in the Govinda-bhasya,
"The affix mayat indicates "abundance" (an abundance of ananda
or bliss). The sun is called jyotirmaya, "of the nature of abundant
light" (and not merely "of the nature of the absence of darkness").
Similarly anandamaya means "He whose essential nature is abundant
bliss"." The Taittiriya Upanisad (2.7.1) states, raso vai sah,
"He is of the nature of sweetness; the soul who realizes Him attains to
that divine sweetness." Relation of God to the world In our study of the
other systems of Vedic philosophy we have seen various explanations of the ~ 68
~ existence of the world. In nyaya, God is the operative cause of the world,
but atoms are the material cause. (Note: in philosophy there are four ways to
explain causation, as in this example of the causation of a house: the
construction company is the "operative cause", the bricks, cement and
other building materials are the "material cause", the original type
of house upon which this house is modelled is the "formal cause", and
the purpose of the house, i.e. that someone wants to live in it, is the
"final cause".) In sankhya, creation is regarded as the spontaneous
result of the contact between prakrti and purusa. The sankhya philosopher says
"there is no need for God" in his system, but he fails to explain
what governs the coming together of prakrti and purusa in the first place.
Patanjali says God is the Supreme Self distinguished from other selves, and He
is the intelligent governor of prakrti and purusa. But Patanjali nonetheless accepts
the sankhya view that prakrti and purusa have no origin. God as creator plays
no essential role in the mimamsaka system, which believes that the world as a
whole is eternal, though its gross manifestations may come and go. Discounting
all these theories, Vedanta-sutra defines God as He among all beings who alone
is simultaneously the operative, material, formal and final causes of the
cosmos. As the intelligence behind creation, He is the operative cause; as the
source of prakrti and purusa, He is the material cause; as the original
transcendental form of which the world is but a shadow, He is the formal cause;
as the purpose behind the world, He is the final cause. Mayavadi philosophy
avoids the issue of causation by claiming that the world, though empirically
real, is ultimately a dream. But since even dreams have a cause, the mayavadi
"explanation" explains nothing. In the visistadvaita explanation, the
material world is the body of God, the Supreme Soul. But the dvaita school does
not agree that matter is connected to God as body is to soul, because God is
transcendental to matter. The world of matter is full of misery, but since
vedanta defines God as anandamaya, how can nonblissful matter be said to be His
body? The truth according to the dvaita school is that matter is ever separate
from God but yet is eternally dependent upon God; by God's will, says the
dvaita school, matter becomes the material cause of the world. The suddhadvaita
school cannot agree with the dvaita school that matter is the material cause
because matter has no independent origin apart from God. Matter is actually not
different from God in the same way an effect is not different from its cause,
although there is an appearance of difference. The dvaitadvaita school agrees
that God is both the cause and effect, but is dissatisfied with the
suddhadvaita school's proposition that the difference between God and the world
is only illusory. The dvaitadvaita school says that God is neither one with nor
different from the world -- He is both. A snake, the dvaitadvaita school
argues, can neither be said to have a coiled form or a straight form. It has
both forms. Similarly, God's "coiled form" is His transcendental
non-material aspect, and His "straight form" is His mundane aspect.
But this explanation is not without its problems. If God's personal nature is
eternity, knowledge and bliss, how can the material world, which is temporary,
full of ignorance and miserable, be said to be just another form of God? The
Caitanya school reconciles these seemingly disparate views of God's
relationship to the world by arguing that the Vedic scriptures testify to God's
acintya-shakti, "inconceivable powers." God is simultaneously the
cause of the world in every sense and yet distinct from and transcendental to
the world. The example given is of a spider and its web. The material of the
web comes from the spider's body, so in a sense the spider may be taken as the
material cause of the web. Yet again the spider and the web are always separate
and distinct entities. While the spider never "is" the web, at the
same time because the spider's body is the source of the web, the web is not
different from the spider. ~ 69 ~ In terms of vedanta, the substance of the web
is God's maya-shakti (power of illusion), which is manifest from the real but
is not real itself. "Not real" simply means that the features of maya
(the tri-guna, or three modes of material nature -- goodness, passion and
ignorance) are temporary. Reality is that which is eternal: God and God's
svarupa-shakti (spiritual energy). The temporary features of the material world
are manifestations of the maya-shakti, not of God Himself. These features
bewilder the souls of this world just as flies are caught in the spider's web.
But they cannot bewilder God. The Christian view of creation compared with
Vedanta Christian theologians have not attempted to explain their doctrine of
the relationship of God to the world in the rigorous philosophical fashion as
have India's Vedantists. Augustine's doctrine is called creation ex nihilo,
"creation out of nothing." In this view, God is eternal and
transcendental and creation had a beginning in point of time. But God created
the world out of nothing. Augustine argued that if God created the world out of
some pre-existent substance, this substance would either be God Himself or
something other than God. Since God is immutable, the substance could not be
Him. And it could not be a substance other than God, for in the beginning only
God existed. So Augustine's conclusion is that the world arose out of nothing
at all by the will of God. Thus God is the operative cause of the world but
there is no material cause whatsoever. This attitude is a statement of faith,
but hardly meets the needs of philosophy. A Vedantist would reply, "If it
is the nature of reality that something arises from nothing, then this process
should be visible today. But we see that all effects must have a material
cause. Furthermore, if something can come out of nothing, then it would
logically follow that anything could come out of anything -- a human being
could hatch from a hen's egg or a woman could give birth to a chicken. But we
observe that creation follows the rule known in Vedic logic as satkaryavada:
like cause, like effect. By this rule, nothing must come from nothing, and
something must come from something. This rule is not a limitation of God's
supreme power, rather it is a statement of His power, because it is given by
God Himself." What about the final cause i.e. the purpose of creation? According
to Augustine, God does not create to attain something, for He is infinitely
perfect. He was not compelled to create, but His love inclined Him to create as
an expression of His goodness. All creatures represent and participate in
divine goodness. This doctrine has given rise to "the problem of
evil" that has bedeviled European philosophers for centuries: if God is
good and the creation is good, why is there evil? The Christian answer is that
God did not create evil but permitted it to oblige man to choose between good
and bad. By choosing good, man becomes more exalted that he could be in a world
that was all-good. The Vedanta-sutra takes up the question of the purpose of
creation and the problem of evil in the second chapter, part one, codes 32-37.
First it is established that God has no need to fulfill in creating the
material world. The motive is lila, "play" -- not the play of a man
who is bored or otherwise in need of recreation, but the play of exuberance of
spirit. This lila is natural to God, because He is full of self-bliss. But how
can causing suffering to others by placing them in a world of birth, old age,
disease and death be the sport of God? The answer is that the jivas (individual
souls) who fall into the material world have their own motive for entering the
creation; this motive is distinct from lila. Their motive is karma, action
meant to fulfill material desires left over in the subconscious mind from
actions in previous lifetimes. Karma is beginningless. It extends into the past
even beyond the beginning of the universe to a previous ~ 70 ~ universe, now
destroyed, and universes before that one ad infinitum. Due to karma, some
living entities are born into enjoyment and others into suffering. God is
responsible for neither good nor evil, which are the fruits of the jivas' own
work. Indeed, good and evil are merely dualities of material sense perception
which, being temporary, are ultimately unreal. This duality arises from the
souls' being divided from God. From the purely spiritual point of view, any
condition in material existence is evil because it is the condition of the
soul's selfish forgetfulness of God. The absolute good is love of God. God
favors his devotees with His absolute goodness by delivering them from material
realm of duality and endless karma and situating them in the spiritual realm of
eternal loving service. Relation of God to the individual soul Indian
philosophy abounds with speculations about the self, or soul. The doctrine of
Carvaka, an ancient thinker who opposed the Vedic teachings, is thoroughly
materialistic. He thought the body itself to be the soul and consciousness to
be a product of material combination. There is no God, and the purpose of life
is to gratify the senses. Carvaka philosophy was strongly opposed by Buddhism
which is yet no less materialistic in its outlook on the soul. Buddhism says
that soul does not exist. The very concept of "selfness" is false.
The body is but a wave in a stream of events. There is no purpose to existence,
not even the purpose of sense gratification. There is no God. The only truth is
emptiness. These two philosophies represent the extremes of human materialistic
mentality: Carvaka is a "sankalpa doctrine" arising from the mental
phase of accepting (sankalpa) the material world for enjoyment, and Buddhism is
a "vikalpa doctrine", arising from the mental phase of rejecting
(vikalpa) the world in frustration. Sankalpa and vikalpa are mere dualities of
the mind which inevitably bewilder one who has no knowledge of what is beyond
matter, i.e. spirit. The six darshanas of the Vedic scriptures all confirm that
the individual self is non-material and eternal. The goal of existence is
liberation, and each darshana proposes a means by which the soul may be
liberated from material existence. In vedanta, there are two basic explanations
of the soul, one given by the mayavadis and the other given by the four
personalist schools. Mayavadis say that there is only one soul -- the Supreme
Soul, God. The the conception of a plurality of individual souls is an
illusion. Personalists refute the mayavadi view by pointing out that if it were
true that God is the only soul, then that would mean that illusion is more
powerful than God -- because the so-called One Soul fell under the spell of
maya and became the unlimited living entities subject to repeated birth and
death. This is tantamount to saying that there is no Supreme Being at all. The
personalists' version is that although God and the souls share the same
spiritual qualities (sat-cid-ananda vigraha, "formed of eternity,
knowledge and bliss"), still a difference remains between them. God is
vibhu (all-pervading) whereas the souls are anu (infinitesimal). The exact
relationship between soul and God is described differently by each of the four
personalist schools. These viewpoints are synthesized by the Caitanya school,
which gives an example of the sun and sunshine to show how God and the souls
share the same qualities in oneness and difference simultaneously. Just as the
sunshine is the marginal energy of the sun, so the souls are the marginal
(tatastha) shakti of God. As sunshine is made up of unlimited photons
(infinitesimal particles of light), God's tatastha-shakti is made up of
unlimited infinitesimal spiritual particles, each one an individually conscious
personal being. The soul is called ksetrajna (ksetra = field, jna = knower),
because each soul is conscious of his particular field of awareness, i.e. his
own body and mind. The soul is like a candle-flame, the limit of his
luminescence being the limit of his field of awareness. God is ~ 71 ~ called
vyasti-kstrajna and samasti-ksetrajna. As vyasti-ksetrajna, God knows
everything about each individual soul's individual existence (i.e. He knows
unlimitedly more about the soul than does the soul himself -- for instance, God
knows all of the past incarnations of each soul). And as samasti-ksetrajna, God
is the knower of all souls at once in their totality. Because the soul is
infinitely small, its power of knowledge can be obscured by maya, just as a ray
of the sun can be blocked by a cloud. But clouds are created and destroyed by
the influence of the sun on the earth's atmosphere. Similarly, maya is always
subordinate to God. The individual souls may come under the control of maya,
but maya is always under the control of God. The Caitanya school of vedanta
teaches that the soul has an eternal function which is to serve God. This
service may be rendered directly or indirectly. In direct service, the ecstasy
(bhava) of spiritual love shared by soul and God is fully manifest in a
transcendental personal relationship called rasa (sweet exchange). In indirect
service, the soul serves God under the illusion of forgetfulness. Under maya,
the soul is attracted by forms of matter instead of forms of spirit. He is
overwhelmed by emotions such as lust, anger, greed, madness, illusion and envy
which are nothing but perverted reflections of spiritual emotions. These
emotions impel him to try to control and exploit the material world as if it
belonged to him. The result of the soul's false lordship over matter is endless
entanglement in samsara, the cycle of repeated birth and death. The soul is
meant to love God, but God grants the soul a minute independence of choice
whether to love God or not. Love is voluntary. If God forced the souls to love
Him, then "love" as we understand it would have no meaning. By loving
God the soul automatically attains mukti (liberation); conversely, by not
loving God the soul comes under the maya-shakti. There are two kinds of
liberation -- jivanmukti and videhamukti. Jivanmukti is attained even before
the demise of the physical body. When the embodied soul dedicates all his
activities to God as an offering of love, he is freed from the bondage of
karma. After death he attains videhamukti, an eternal situation of devotional
service within the realm of svarupa-shakti, the divine energy. Videhamukti is
described in Chandogya Upanisad 8.12.3: "Thus does that serene being,
arising from his last body, appear his own form, having come to the highest
light by the grace of Supreme Person. The liberated soul moves about there
laughing, playing and rejoicing, in the company of women, vehicles and other
liberated souls." As Baladeva Vidyabhusana explains in his Govinda-bhasya
commentary on Vedanta-sutra, the liberated souls are in threefold union with
the Lord: 1) they are in the spiritual realm of God, which is not different
from God Himself; 2) by their constant meditation upon Him, God is ever-within
their souls, and 3) they are in union of love with the personal form of God
that appears before them. From this state, the concluding code of Vedanta-sutra
declares, anavrittih sabdat, anavrittih sabdat, "There is no return (to
the material world). Verily there is no return, for the Vedas so declare."
The spiritual form of God Vedanta-sutra 3.2.23 states, tat avyaktam aha:
"The form of brahman is unmanifest, so the scriptures say." The next
code adds, api samradhane pratyaksa anumanabhyam: "But even the form of
brahman becomes directly visible to one who worships devoutly -- so teach the
scriptures" (api = but, samradhane = intense worship, pratyaksa = as
directly visible, anumanabhyam = as inferred from scripture). The mayavadis
hold that the form of God is a material symbol imagined by the devotee as a meditational
aid. When the devotee attains liberation he realizes that God is formless. But
this idea is contradicted by Vedanta-sutra 3.2.16, ~ 72 ~ aha ca tanmatram:
"The scriptures declare that the form of the Supreme consists of the very
essence of His Self." And furthermore Vedanta-sutra 3.3.36 asserts that
within the realm of brahman the devotees see other divine manifestations which
appear even as physical objects in a city (antara bhuta gramavat svatmanah:
antara = inside, bhuta = physical, gramavat = like a city, svatmanah =to His
own, i.e. to His devotees). The personalist schools of vedanta identify the
personal form of God indicated here as the transcendental form of Vishnu or
Krishna. The brahma-pura (city within brahman) is identified as the divine
realm of Vishnu known as Vaikuntha. This conclusion is corroborated by the
Srimad-Bhagavatam, written by Vyasa as his own "natural commentary"
on Vedanta-sutra. The first verse of Srimad-Bhagavatam begins with the phrase
om namo bhagavate vasudevaya janmadyasya yatah, which means "I offer my
respectful obeisances to Bhagavan Vasudeva (Krishna), the source of
everything." Vyasa employs the words janmadyasya yatah, which comprise the
second sutra of the Vedanta-sutra, in the first verse of the Srimad-Bhagavatam
to establish that Krishna is brahman, the Absolute Truth. This is clear
testimony of the author's own conclusion about the ultimate goal of all Vedic
knowledge. Vedanta-sutra 4.1.6. states, adityadi matayah ca angopapatteh:
"Reason dictates that the sun and other cosmic manifestations be thought
of as originating from the limbs of the Lord." The "reason"
referred to here may be termed (in Western philosophical language) "the
argument of design": that because the cosmos is arrayed as if according to
design, it is logical to seek a designer as its cause. Scripture explains that
the design of the universe (the visvarupa, "universal form") is based
upon the eternal transcendental form of Krishna. The sun and the moon are said
to be the eyes of the universal form; they derive their splendor from the
spiritual eyes of Krishna. In turn, the eyes of all creatures are derived from
the eyes of the visvarupa. Krishna is the original designer. He draws the
design of the material universe from His personal nonmaterial form, which is
the source of everything. The form of the Lord may be meditated upon in this
way as long as the soul is embodied in matter. As mentioned, the mayavadis
believe that meditation upon the form of the Lord is to be given up when the
soul is at last freed of matter. But Vedanta-sutra 4.1.12 states, aprayanat
tatrapi hi drstam: "scripture reveals that worship of the form of the Lord
should be done up to liberation (aprayanat) and even thereafter
(tatrapi)." Baladeva Vidyabhusana writes in his commentary, "The
liberated souls are irresistibly drawn to worship the Lord because He is so
beautiful and attractive. The force of His beauty compels adoration. A person
suffering from jaundice is cured by eating sugar; but he continues eating sugar
even after the the cure -- not because he has any disease, but because the
sugar is sweet. So also is the case of liberated souls and worship of the form
of the Lord." Refutation of other systems of Vedic philosophy The systems
of nyaya, sankhya, yoga, etc. all apparently accept the Veda as authority, and
each system puts forward the claim of being the most meaningful formulation of
that which is to be learned from the Veda. The second and third chapters of
Vedanta-sutra go to considerable length in pointing out the fallacies and
shortcomings of these competing philosophies. Nyaya. The followers of Gautama
(i.e. the nyaya philosophers) are rejected as being aparigrahah, "they who
do not accept the Veda," because they rely on logic rather than on scriptural
testimony in defending their theories. Unaided logic has no power to describe
the ~ 73 ~ beginning of all things, which is the purpose of vedanta. Where the
senses fail in perceiving the source, logic must resort to guesswork. This in
turn gives rise to contradictory speculations even within the camps of the
nyayas and other logicians, such as the vaisesikas and the Buddhists. Some say
atoms are the eternal and only material cause of the universe. Others say the
atoms are ultimately temporary and unreal. Others say the atoms are ultimately
thoughts. Others say that the void behind the atoms is the only reality. Others
say the atoms are simultaneously real and unreal. Vedanta says that the Supreme
Personality of Godhead is the material cause. Logicians attempt to defeat this
by arguing, "This position makes out the potent (the Lord) and His potency
(spirit and matter, which together are the ingredients of creation) to be
identical. Thus vedanta, when examined logically, is shown to hold that the
individual soul and God are one and the same. But this contradicts the evidence
of the Veda, for instance Svetasvatara Upanisad 4.6-7, wherein the body is
compared to a tree and the soul and Supersoul are compared to two birds within
the tree. So how can Vedanta philosophy be said to be based upon the statements
of the Veda? Nyaya upholds the distinction of God, the souls and matter which
is asserted by the Vedic scriptures. Therefore this system is truly Vedic,
whereas vedanta is anti-Vedic." The Vedic scriptures assert acintya-bhedabheda-tattva,
not the erroneous notions of nyaya. A man may hold a stick. The stick is his
potency. In one sense, he and the stick are one; but then again they are also
different. In the same way the Lord is one and different from His potencies. So
while the Lord is the material cause of creation -- because the ingredients of
creation have their source in Him and are not utterly separate co-existing
entities that have no source -- the Lord is simultaneously distinct from his
energies. Some Vedic statements assert the oneness of the Lord and His energies
and others assert the difference. The validity of both viewpoints must be
accepted, understood and explained by a true Vedic philosopher. Logicians
accept only the Vedic statements of difference, which is like accepting only
half a hen. In fact nyaya philosophers do not accept the Veda at all.
Vaisesika. This philosophy may be briefly restated as follows. Atoms are
eternal and indivisible, possess form and other qualities, and are spherical.
There are four kinds of atoms. During the cosmic dissolution, before the
creation, they are dormant. At the time of creation, impelled by the invisible
fate (adrsta-karma) of the souls, the atoms begin to vibrate and then combine
into dyads (molecules of two atoms each). Three dyads combine into triads, and
four triads combine into quaternary molecules. In this way larger and larger
molecular structures are formed that comprise the stuff of the manifest
universe. Atoms, therefore, are the immediate material cause of creation; their
initial movement and combination into dyads is the remote material cause. The
operative cause is adrsta-karma. The Lord is the destroyer of the material
manifestation. He nullifies the connecting force that joins the atoms and thus
dissolves the cosmic creation. Vedanta philosophy asserts that the Lord and He
alone is the cause of creation. The adrstakarma theory will not suffice as an
explanation for the combination of the atoms, for vaisesika states that during
dissolution, the souls lie dormant without possessing any intelligence. So how
can their innate karma influence the atoms? The dormant souls, being inert, are
in no way superior to the atoms. Though the vaisesikas do say that the will of
the Lord is the starting point of creation because He awakens the
adrsta-karmas, this still does not explain the motion of the atoms and their
subsequent combination. Another failing of the vaisesika philosophy is its
reliance upon the samavaya theory to explain ~ 74 ~ why the single atoms form
dyads. Samavaya (the theory of intrinsic relationship) is a category of
fundamental reality that determines atomic conjunction and the qualities,
actions and distinctions inseparably associated with material elements. The
vaisesikas speak of samavaya as eternal and inherent, whereas other
relationships (samyoga) such as seen between functionally connected objects
(table and chair or automobile and road) are temporary and external. But in a
universe that itself is temporary, as the material world is admitted to be also
by the vaisesikas themselves, this appeal to "eternal and inherent"
material relationships as the determining factor in the combination of atoms is
contradictory. Another weakness is the assignment of qualities such as form,
taste, aroma and touch to the atoms. Experience demonstrates that material
objects possessing these qualities are temporary; when these objects cease to
exist, the qualities associated with them also cease. Since, at the time of the
dissolution of the universe, all material qualities cease to exist, it follows
that the atoms themselves cease to exist. But in vaisesika, atoms are held to
be eternal. If the vaisesika philosopher adjusts his doctrine by saying that
atoms actually possess no qualities, then he is at a loss to explain the origin
of the qualities perceived in the elements the atoms make up. Sankhya. The
sankhya philosophers say, "The Upanisads directly glorify our Kapila with
the words rsim prasutam kapilam, "He was the great sage Kapila." He
spoke the Sankhya-smrti as a commentary on the jnana-kanda portion of the Veda,
and he firmly approved of the agnihotrayajnas and other rituals described in
the karma-kanda portion. Kapila explained that insentient prakrti is the
independent creator of the material universes, just as milk spontaneously
creates cheese. If the Vedantists argue that the Supreme Personality of Godhead
is the material, operative, formal and final cause of everything, they
contradict Kapila, the great Vedic sage. Therefore to truly uphold Vedic
tradition, Vedantists should interpret the Vedic texts in such a way that they
do not contradict his writings. But the explanation of prakrti as the cause of
creation is not supported by the statements of great sages like Manu and
Parasara found in other smrti-sastras. They declare that the material world was
manifested from Lord Vishnu. The Kapila whom the sankhya philosophers follow is
not a Vedic sage at all. The Padma Purana says, "One Kapila Muni, who was
named Vasudeva, taught the sankhya doctrine fully supported by Vedic evidence
to the demigods Brahma and others and the sages Brghu, Asuri and others. But
another person named Kapila taught a form of sankhya that contradicts the Veda.
He also had a disciple named Asuri, but this was a different Asuri. This
sankhya is full of false reasoning and bad arguments." The statement, rsim
prasutam kapilam (from Svetasvatara Upanisad 5.2), refers to Vasudeva Kapila
who appeared as the son of Kardama Muni and Devahuti. The other Kapila, whom
the atheistic sankhya philosophers revere, is an imposter. The atheistic
sankhya system is to be completely rejected as non-Vedic, not only because of
its doctrine of "prakrti as the cause," but also because it holds
that 1) the individual souls are allpervading consciousness and no more than
that; 2) the souls are bound or liberated by the arrangement of prakrti alone
-- indeed, liberation and bondage are simply features of material existence; 3)
there is no being who is the Supreme Soul, the Lord of all; 4) time is not
eternal; 5) the five pranas are identical with the five senses. The atheistic
Kapila tried to prove with logic that prakrti is both the material and
operative cause of creation. Yet his position is illogical and inconsistent. If
prakrti is both the material and operative cause, then nothing apart from
prakrti has the power to make prakrti act or stop it from acting because it is
both the prime mover and first ingredient. But when the logic that "a ~ 75
~ cause will continue to be seen in its effect" is rigorously pursued,
this premise breaks down. If it were so that prakrti is both the material and
operative cause, then in the effect (the material creation), the same principle
should be observed: that ingredients (e.g. the building materials of a house)
spontaneously assemble themselves. Belief in the spontaneous assembly of
complex material structures is universally deemed illogical. Moreover, this
belief is inconsistent with other statements of the pseudo-Kapila. Prakrti is
said elsewhere in the Sankhya-smrti to only become creative when spirit comes
near it. Then how is inert matter alone the only cause? This gives rise to a
new problem: at the time of devastation, spirit and matter are also near to one
another. Why doesn't creation continue at the time of devastation? The sankhya
philosophers may say, "During devastation, the karma of the living
entities is not awakened," but there is no provision within their system
that prevents it from awakening. Sankhya philosophers give many examples to
illustrate how prakrti alone creates, but none are valid. They say, "Just
as milk spontaneously becomes yogurt, rainwater spontaneously becomes both
bitter and sweet fruits, grass spontaneously becomes milk in the belly of a
cow, and a pile of rice spontaneously gives birth to little scorpions, so inert
prakrti alone generates all varieties of creation." In each of these
examples, the factors of the living force (spirit soul) and the superior
direction of the Supreme Soul have been excluded. Thus the arguments of the
sankhya philosophers are unintelligent to the point of silliness. The atheist
Kapila claimed prakrti to be the final cause (the very purpose) of creation:
"First, the living entity enjoys prakrti, then after experiencing her many
defects he renounces her and attains liberation." In other words, souls
are conditioned only because of experiencing the attractions of matter, and
they are liberated only because of experiencing the defects of matter. Thus it
would appear that the soul is a helpless pawn in the grip of matter, subject to
bondage or release at her whims. Kapila tried to depict matter's purpose as
beneficial because in the end the soul is released by her. But if both bondage
and release are up to matter, then a soul so "liberated" may be bound
by matter again at any time. Sankhya theory states that prakrti is the
equilibrium of the three modes of nature. When the modes compete for dominance
over one another, the process of creation begins. But how this upset in the
balance of the modes begins is not explained. God does not set it into motion,
because God plays no role in sankhya philosophy (isvarasiddheh, "God has
not been proved," said the pseudo-Kapila). Even time cannot be the reason,
because Kapila said, dik-kalav akasadibhyah: "space and time are manifested
from ether", i.e. time is a much later effect of a creation already set
into motion. The spirit souls also play no part, because they are neutral and
aloof from prakrti. There are many more strange contradictions in the
statements of the pseudo-Kapila. In one place he is quoted as saying,
"spirit is conscious, for it is different from matter." In another
place he says, "Because it has no qualities at all, the spirit soul must
be devoid of consciousness." He asserts that the souls who understand they
are different from matter are liberated and those who do not understand this
are conditioned. But elsewhere he says that material bondage occurs whenever
matter approaches the spirit soul, who then becomes pasuvat, "just like a
helpless animal." Yoga. The adherents of patanjala-yoga cite passages from
the Upanisads that praise the practice of yoga to support their claim that the
vedanta can be grasped through the Yoga-smrti (the Patanjala Yoga-sutra and
allied writings). But they hold that in order to use Patanjali's philosophy as
the key for unlocking the highest meaning of the Veda, the Vedic scriptures ~
76 ~ should not be interpreted in a literal sense. This is because the
Yoga-smrti: 1) depicts the individual souls and the Supreme Soul as being only
all-pervading consciousness, with no further characteristics; 2) says that
prakrti is the original independent cause of all causes; 3) says that
liberation is simply the cessation of pain, obtainable only through the
Patanjala system; 4) presents theories of sensory perception and the workings
of the mind that are different from the explanations given in the Veda.
Therefore, whenever contradictions are seen between the Yoga-smrti and the Veda
on these points, the Patanjalas argue that the Vedic version must give way to
the version of yoga. Vedanta-sutra 2.1.3 replies, etena yoga-prayuktah:
"As sankhya was refuted, so also is yoga." Sankhya and yoga are
closely allied systems. As they share the same philosophy of purusa and
prakrti, they share the same philosophical defects in their understanding of
the origin of the universe. Though the Upanisads do employ the terms
"sankhya" and "yoga," it is wrong to assume that the
speculations of pseudo-Kapila and Patanjali are being praised. sankhya simply
means knowledge, and yoga simply means meditation. There is no possible harmony
between yoga and vedanta on the subject of liberation, which yoga claims is
attained only through discrimination of spirit from matter. Vedanta teaches
that liberation is attainable only by knowledge of the Supreme Lord and by His
Divine Grace. Though the Yoga-smrti is not atheistic in that it admits the
existence of God in several sutras, these theistic sutras are not essential to
the system as a whole, which is mostly based upon principles imported from
atheistic sankhya philosophy. Karma-mimamsa. Vedanta-sutra 3.2.41 cites the
viewpoint of Jaimini (the author of the karma-mimamsa philosophy) on the fruits
of karma. He thinks that karma alone awards fruits to the performer of Vedic
rituals, because after an act is completed, it leaves behind a force called
apurva. After a lapse of time, this apurva force gives the reward that is
consistent with the karma to the performer of the ritual. Where there is good
karma, there is good fruit. Where there is no good karma, there is no good
fruit. Jaimini concludes that it is wrong to think that karma is rewarded by
God. Dharma comes from the Lord, karma comes from the Lord, but the fruit comes
from karma itself. Badarayana Vyasa gives his reply to this in Vedanta-sutra
3.2.42: purvam tu badarayanah hetu vyapadesat, "But Badarayana holds that
the Supreme Lord is the bestower of rewards, because that is the version of the
Vedic scriptures." The Lord is proclaimed in the scriptures as the cause
of all causes. Therefore it is unintelligent to isolate apurva -- an
unintelligent material principle without any force of its own -- as the cause
of fruitive rewards. Apurva is given no such credit in the scriptures. If it is
argued that the demigods are the givers of karmic fruits, and therefore the
Lord Himself need not be dragged down to their level of being a mere
order-supplier, the reply is that the Lord is the indwelling ruler of all these
inferior demigods. They punish or reward only as He impels them to do within.
Vedanta-sutra 3.4.2-7 cites sage Jaimini's objection to the cultivation of
brahma-vidya (knowledge of brahman) as recommended in the Upanisads. He says
that vidya is subordinate to karma. Indeed, whatever glory is given to vidya
(purification, elevation and liberation) is really the result of performance of
Vedic karma-kanda rituals. Worship of Vishnu is also accomplished only by
karma. The passages in the Veda recommending renunciation (sannyasa) apply only
the enfeebled, blind and crippled persons who are unable to perform rituals. It
is seen in the sastra that the best among the learned and wise men of old used
to perform karma. In fact, there are direct sastric statements declaring that
vidya is but an aspect of karma. The ~ 77 ~ Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad 4.4.2. says
that when a man dies, his vidya and karma take hold of him and carry him to his
next destination -- therefore, since vidya cooperates with karma to yield
results, it is subordinate. Sastra directs persons having vidya to perform
karma -- therefore also vidya is subordinate to karma. There is also an
injunction directing a person to perform scripturally authorized karma through
his whole life. Therefore vidya is to be cultivated through karma, not that
karma is to be renounced so that vidya may be cultivated. Sage Badarayana
Vyasadeva begins his rebuttal of Jaimini's karma-mimamsa arguments with
Vedanta-sutra 3.4.8. It is true that vidya is cultivated by karma, but it is
not true that therefore karma is greater than vidya. Vidya is the goal of
karma. When the end is accomplished, the means is no longer required. Some
authorities like Janaka continued karma after attaining vidya solely for the
benefit of mankind. But many great sages (Yajnavalkya and the Kavaseyas)
abandoned karma and retired to the forest to devote themselves to vidya alone.
Regarding Vedic statements that vidya is just an aspect of karma, these do not
refer to brahma-vidya but to specific vidyas related to specific rituals (e.g.
the udgitha-vidya, the science of chanting Vedic hymns). Regarding statements
that vidya and karma cooperate to yield results, these are like the statement,
"I sold a cow and a goat and received 100 coins." This means that 90
coins were received for the valuable cow and only 10 coins were received for
the not-so-valuable goat. Similarly, though both the fruits of vidya and karma
accrue at the time of death, they are not the same fruit, not are they two
fruits of equal value. The value of vidya is much greater. The statement (from
Taittiriya Upanisad) that directs one in knowledge to perform karma is
addressed to the brahmanistha, he who is well-versed in the Veda. But a
brahmanistha is merely a sabda-jnanin, a knower of words. He is not a
brahmavit, a knower of brahman (God). A brahmavit is an upasaka (enlightened
devotee), and his vidya is anubhava (consciousness of intense joy). The
difference between a brahmanistha and a brahmavit is like the difference
between one who says "honey is sweet" and one who tastes honey. The
brahmavit is a naiskarmi (he does not perform rituals). He engages in
transcendental acts of pure devotion to Lord Vishnu. The claim that puja to
Lord Vishnu is merely karma is hereby refuted. The statement directing a person
to perform karma throughout his life is a nonspecific recommendation. It does
not apply to everyone. And even when it does apply, it is meant as a
glorification of vidya, because by vidya a person is saved from the binding
effects of karma, even though he continues to perform karma through his whole
life. For example, a saintly devotee retains his body (the vehicle of active or
prarabha-karma) to spread the glories of the Lord throughout the world. But in
this embodied activity, he is liberated. In Vedanta-sutra 2.3.15, the science
of the potency of sound is explained. The words which in ordinary use are the
names of things movable and immovable are really all names of God. All things
get their particular names because He abides within all things. All words have
power of denotation (tad-bhava) because they are nothing else than names of
God, although common men do not know this. Only one who understands Vedanta
understands that every word is really the name of the Supreme Lord. The
karma-mimamsa theory of sabda, which holds that the personal God is but a
visual manifestation of impersonal sound, is hereby refuted. There are other
refutations of karma-mimamsa misconceptions in the Vedanta-sutra, but as they
are of a more specific or technical nature, they will not be mentioned here.
Besides the five other systems of Vedic philosophy, Vedanta-sutra refutes four
systems of Buddhist thought, the theories of the Jains and the pasupata and
shakti schools.
