Avidya is put an end to by true Knowledge.
Other texts declare that this Nescience comes to an end through the
cognition of the essential unity of the Self with Brahman which is
nothing but non-differenced intelligence. 'He does not again go to death;'
'He sees this as one;' 'He who sees this does not see death' (Ch. Up.
VI, 27); 'When he finds freedom from fear and rest in that which is
invisible, incorporeal, undefined, unsupported, then he has obtained the
fearless' (Taitt. Up. II, 7); 'The fetter of the heart is broken, all
doubts are solved and all his works perish when he has been beheld who
is high and low' (Mu. Up. II, 2, 8); 'He knows Brahman, he becomes
Brahman only' (Mu. Up. III, 2, 9); 'Knowing him only a man passes over
death; there is no other path to go' (Svet. Up. III, 8). In these and
similar passages, the term 'death' denotes Nescience; analogously to the
use of the term in the following words of Sanatsujata, 'Delusion I call
death; and freedom from delusion I call immortality' (Sanatsuj. II, 5).
The knowledge again of the essential unity and non-difference of Brahman--
which is ascertained from decisive texts such as 'The True, knowledge,
the Infinite is Brahman' (Taitt. Up. II, 1); 'Knowledge, bliss is
Brahman' (Bri. Up. III, 9, 28)--is confirmed by other passages, such as
'Now if a man meditates on another deity, thinking the deity is one and
he another, he does not know' (Bri. Up. I, 4, 10); 'Let men meditate
upon him as the Self (Bri. Up. I, 4, 7); 'Thou art that' (Ch. Up. VI, 8,
7); 'Am I thou, O holy deity? and art thou me, O holy deity?'; 'What I
am that is he; what he is that am I.'--This the Sutrakara himself will
declare 'But as the Self (scriptural texts) acknowledge and make us
apprehend (the Lord)' (Ve. Su. IV, 1, 3). Thus the Vakyakara also, 'It
is the Self--thus one should apprehend (everything), for everything is
effected by that.' And to hold that by such cognition of the oneness of
Brahman essentially false bondage, together with its cause, comes to an
end, is only reasonable.
Scripture is of greater force than Perception
But, an objection is raised--how can knowledge, springing from the
sacred texts, bring about a cessation of the view of difference, in
manifest opposition to the evidence of Perception?--How then, we rejoin,
can the knowledge that this thing is a rope and not a snake bring about,
in opposition to actual perception, the cessation of the (idea of the)
snake?--You will perhaps reply that in this latter case there is a
conflict between two forms of perception, while in the case under
discussion the conflict is between direct perception and Scripture which
is based on perception. But against this we would ask the question how,
in the case of a conflict between two equal cognitions, we decide as to
which of the two is refuted (sublated) by the other. If--as is to be
expected--you reply that what makes the difference between the two is
that one of them is due to a defective cause while the other is not: we
point out that this distinction holds good also in the case of Scripture
and perception being in conflict. It is not considerations as to the
equality of conflicting cognitions, as to their being dependent or
independent, and so on, that determine which of the two sublates the
other; if that were the case, the perception which presents to us the
flame of the lamp as one only would not be sublated by the cognition
arrived at by inference that there is a succession of different flames.
Wherever there is a conflict between cognitions based on two different
means of knowledge we assign the position of the 'sublated one' to that
which admits of being accounted for in some other way; while that
cognition which affords no opening for being held unauthoritative and
cannot be accounted for in another way, is the 'sublating one [FOOTNOTE
25:1].' This is the principle on which the relation between 'what
sublates' and 'what is sublated' is decided everywhere. Now apprehension
of Brahman--which is mere intelligence, eternal, pure, free,
self-luminous--is effected by Scripture which rests on endless unbroken
tradition, cannot therefore be suspected of any, even the least,
imperfection, and hence cannot be non-authoritative; the state of
bondage, on the other hand, with its manifold distinctions is proved by
Perception, Inference, and so on, which are capable of imperfections and
therefore may be non-authoritative. It is therefore reasonable to
conclude that the state of bondage is put an end to by the apprehension
of Brahman. And that imperfection of which Perception--through which we
apprehend a world of manifold distinctions--may be assumed to be
capable, is so-called Nescience, which consists in the beginningless
wrong imagination of difference.--Well then--a further objection is
raised--let us admit that Scripture is perfect because resting on an
endless unbroken tradition; but must we then not admit that texts
evidently presupposing the view of duality, as e.g. 'Let him who desires
the heavenly world offer the Jyotishtoma-sacrifice'--are liable to
refutation?--True, we reply. As in the case of the Udgatri and
Pratihartri breaking the chain (not at the same time, but) in
succession [FOOTNOTE 26:1], so here also the earlier texts (which refer
to duality and transitory rewards) are sublated by the later texts which
teach final release, and are not themselves sublated by anything else.
The texts which represent Brahman as devoid of qualities have greater
force
The same reasoning applies to those passages in the Vedanta-texts which
inculcate meditation on the qualified Brahman, since the highest Brahman
is without any qualities.--But consider such passages as 'He who
cognises all, who knows all' (Mu. Up. I, 1, 9); 'His high power is
revealed as manifold, as essential, acting as force and knowledge' (Svet.
Up. VI, 8); 'He whose wishes are true, whose purposes are true' (Ch. Up.
VIII, 1, 5); how can these passages, which clearly aim at defining the
nature of Brahman, be liable to refutation?--Owing to the greater weight,
we reply, of those texts which set forth Brahman as devoid of qualities.
'It is not coarse, not fine, not short, not long' (Bri. Up. III, 8, 8);
'The True, knowledge, infinite is Brahman' (Taitt. Up. II, 1); 'That
which is free from qualities,' 'that which is free from stain'--these
and similar texts convey the notion of Brahman being changeless, eternal
intelligence devoid of all difference; while the other texts--quoted
before--teach the qualified Brahman. And there being a conflict between
the two sets of passages, we--according to the Mimamsa principle
referred to above--decide that the texts referring to Brahman as devoid
of qualities are of greater force, because they are later in order
[FOOTNOTE 27:1] than those which speak of Brahman as having qualities.
Thus everything is settled. The text Taitt. Up. II, 1 refers to Brahman
as devoid of qualities.
But--an objection is raised--even the passage 'The True, knowledge,
infinite is Brahman' intimates certain qualities of Brahman, viz. true
being, knowledge, infinity!--Not so, we reply. From the circumstance
that all the terms of the sentence stand in co-ordination, it follows
that they convey the idea of one matter (sense) only. If against this
you urge that the sentence may convey the idea of one matter only, even
if directly expressing a thing distinguished by several qualities; we
must remark that you display an ignorance of the meaning of language
which appears to point to some weakmindedness on your part. A sentence
conveys the idea of one matter (sense) only when all its constitutive
words denote one and the same thing; if, on the other hand, it expresses
a thing possessing several attributes, the difference of these
attributes necessarily leads to a difference in meaning on the part of
the individual words, and then the oneness of meaning of the sentence is
lost.--But from your view of the passage it would follow that the
several words are mere synonyms!--Give us your attention, we reply, and
learn that several words may convey one meaning without being idle
synonyms. From the determination of the unity of purport of the whole
sentence [FOOTNOTE 27:2] we conclude that the several words, applied to
one thing, aim at expressing what is opposite in nature to whatever is
contrary to the meanings of the several words, and that thus they have
meaning and unity of meaning and yet are not mere synonyms. The details
are as follows. Brahman is to be defined as what is contrary in nature
to all other things. Now whatever is opposed to Brahman is virtually set
aside by the three words (constituting the definition of Brahman in the
Taittiriya-text). The word 'true' (or 'truly being') has the purport of
distinguishing Brahman from whatever things have no truth, as being the
abodes of change; the word 'knowledge' distinguishes Brahman from all
non-sentient things whose light depends on something else (which are not
self-luminous); and the word 'infinite' distinguishes it from whatever
is limited in time or space or nature. Nor is this 'distinction' some
positive or negative attribute of Brahman, it rather is just Brahman
itself as opposed to everything else; just as the distinction of white
colour from black and other colours is just the true nature of white,
not an attribute of it. The three words constituting the text thus _have_
a meaning, have _one_ meaning, and are non-synonymous, in so far as they
convey the essential distinction of one thing, viz. Brahman from
everything else. The text thus declares the one Brahman which is
self-luminous and free from all difference. On this interpretation of
the text we discern its oneness in purport with other texts, such as
'Being only this was in the beginning, one only, without a second.'
Texts such as 'That from whence these beings are born' (Taitt. Up. III,
1); 'Being only this was in the beginning' (Ch. Up. VI, 2, 1); 'Self
alone was this in the beginning' (Bri. Up. I, 4, 1), &c., describe
Brahman as the cause of the world; and of this Brahman the Taittiriya
passage 'The True, knowledge, infinite is Brahman' gives the strict
definition.
In agreement with the principle that all sakhas teach the same doctrine
we have to understand that, in all the texts which speak of Brahman as
cause, Brahman must be taken as being 'without a second', i.e. without
any other being of the same or a different kind; and the text which aims
at defining Brahman has then to be interpreted in accordance with this
characteristic of Brahman, viz. its being without a second. The
statement of the Chandogya as to Brahman being without a second must
also be taken to imply that Brahman is non-dual as far as qualities are
concerned; otherwise it would conflict with those passages which speak
of Brahman as being without qualities and without stain. We therefore
conclude that the defining Taittiriya-text teaches Brahman to be an
absolutely homogeneous substance.
But, the above explanation of the passage being accepted, it follows
that the words 'true being,' 'knowledge,' &c., have to be viewed as
abandoning their direct sense, and merely suggesting a thing distinct in
nature from all that is opposite (to what the three words directly
denote), and this means that we resort to so-called implication (implied
meaning, lakshana)!--What objection is there to such a proceeding? we
reply. The force of the general purport of a sentence is greater than
that of the direct denotative power of the simple terms, and it is
generally admitted that the purport of grammatical co-ordination is
oneness (of the matter denoted by the terms co-ordinated).--But we never
observe that all words of a sentence are to be understood in an implied
sense!--Is it then not observed, we reply, that _one_ word is to be
taken in its implied meaning if otherwise it would contradict the
purport of the whole sentence? And if the purport of the sentence, which
is nothing but an aggregate of words employed together, has once been
ascertained, why should we not take two or three or all words in an
implied sense--just as we had taken one--and thus make them fit in with
the general purport? In agreement herewith those scholars who explain to
us the sense of imperative sentences, teach that in imperative sentences
belonging to ordinary speech all words have an implied meaning only (not
their directly denotative meaning). For, they maintain, imperative forms
have their primary meaning only in (Vedic) sentences which enjoin
something not established by other means; and hence in ordinary speech
the effect of the action is conveyed by implication only. The other
words also, which form part of those imperative sentences and denote
matters connected with the action, have their primary meaning only if
connected with an action not established by other means; while if
connected with an ordinary action they have a secondary, implied,
meaning only [FOOTNOTE 30:1]. Perception reveals to us non-differenced
substance only
We have so far shown that in the case of a conflict between Scripture
and Perception and the other instruments of knowledge, Scripture is of
greater force. The fact, however, is that no such conflict is observed
to exist, since Perception itself gives rise to the apprehension of a
non-differenced Brahman whose nature is pure Being.--But how can it be
said that Perception, which has for its object things of various kinds--
and accordingly expresses itself in judgments such as 'Here is a jar,'
'There is a piece of cloth'--causes the apprehension of mere Being? If
there were no apprehension of difference, all cognitions would have one
and the same object, and therefore would give rise to one judgment only--
as takes place when one unbroken perceptional cognition is continued for
some time.--True. We therefore have to enquire in what way, in the
judgment 'here is a jar,' an assertion is made about being as well as
some special form of being. These implied judgments cannot both be
founded on perception, for they are the results of acts of cognition
occupying different moments of time, while the perceptional cognition
takes place in one moment (is instantaneous). We therefore must decide
whether it is the essential nature of the jar, or its difference from
other things, that is the object of perception. And we must adopt the
former alternative, because the apprehension of difference presupposes
the apprehension of the essential nature of the thing, and, in addition,
the remembrance of its counterentities (i.e. the things from which the
given thing differs). Hence difference is not apprehended by Perception;
and all judgments and propositions relative to difference are founded on
error only.
Difference--bheda--does not admit of logical definition
The Logicians, moreover, are unable to give a definition of such a thing
as 'difference.' Difference cannot in the first place be the essential
nature (of that which differs); for from that it would follow that on
the apprehension of the essential nature of a thing there would at once
arise not only the judgment as to that essential nature but also
judgments as to its difference from everything else.--But, it may be
objected to this, even when the essential nature of a thing is
apprehended, the judgment 'this thing is different from other things'
depends on the remembrance of its counterentities, and as long as this
remembrance does not take place so long the judgment of difference is
not formed!--Such reasoning, we reply, is inadmissible. He who maintains
that 'difference' is nothing but 'essential nature' has no right to
assume a dependence on counterentities since, according to him,
essential nature and difference are the same, i.e. nothing but essential
nature: the judgment of difference can, on his view, depend on
counterentities no more than the judgment of essential nature does. His
view really implies that the two words 'the jar' and 'different' (in the
judgment 'the jar is different') are synonymous, just as the words
'hasta' and 'kara' are (both of which mean 'hand').
Nor, in the second place, can 'difference' be held to be an attribute
(dharma). For if it were that, we should have to assume that
'difference' possesses difference (i.e. is different) from essential
nature; for otherwise it would be the same as the latter. And this
latter difference would have to be viewed as an attribute of the first
difference, and this would lead us on to a third difference, and so in
infinitum. And the view of 'difference' being an attribute would further
imply that difference is apprehended on the apprehension of a thing
distinguished by attributes such as generic character and so on, and at
the same time that the thing thus distinguished is apprehended on the
apprehension of difference; and this would constitute a logical seesaw.--
'Difference' thus showing itself incapable of logical definition, we are
confirmed in our view that perception reveals mere 'Being' only.
Moreover, it appears that in states of consciousness such as 'Here is a
jar,' 'There is a piece of cloth,' 'The jar is perceived,' 'The piece of
cloth is perceived,' that which constitutes the things is Being
(existence; satta) and perception (or 'consciousness'; anubhuti). And we
observe that it is pure Being only which persists in all states of
cognition: this pure Being alone, therefore, is _real_. The differences,
on the other hand, which do not persist, are unreal. The case is
analogous to that of the snake-rope. The rope which persists as a
substrate is real, while the non-continuous things (which by wrong
imagination are superimposed on the rope) such as a snake, a cleft in
the ground, a watercourse, and so on, are unreal.
But--our adversary objects--the instance is not truly analogous. In the
case of the snake-rope the non-reality of the snake results from the
snake's being sublated (badhita) by the cognition of the true nature of
the substrate 'This is a rope, not a snake'; it does not result from the
non-continuousness of the snake. In the same way the reality of the rope
does not follow from its persistence, but from the fact of its being not
sublated (by another cognition). But what, we ask, establishes the
non-reality of jars and pieces of cloth?--All are agreed, we reply, that
we observe, in jars and similar things, individual difference
(vyavritti, literally 'separation,' 'distinction'). The point to decide
is of what nature such difference is. Does it not mean that the judgment
'This is a jar' implies the negation of pieces of cloth and other
things? But this means that by this judgment pieces of cloth and other
things are sublated (badhita). Individual difference (vyavritti) thus
means the cessation (or absence), due to sublation, of certain objects
of cognition, and it proves the non-reality of whatever has
non-continuous existence; while on the other hand, pure Being, like the
rope, persists non-sublated. Hence everything that is additional to pure
Being is non-real.--This admits of being expressed in technical form.
'Being' is real because it persists, as proved by the case of the rope
in the snake-rope; jars and similar things are non-real because they are
non-continuous, as proved by the case of the snake that has the rope for
its substrate.
From all this it follows that persisting consciousness only has real
being; it alone is.
Being and consciousness are one. Consciousness is svayamprakasa.
But, our adversary objects, as mere Being is the object of consciousness,
it is different therefrom (and thus there exists after all 'difference'
or 'plurality').--Not so, we reply. That there is no such thing as
'difference,' we have already shown above on the grounds that it is not
the object of perception, and moreover incapable of definition. It
cannot therefore be proved that 'Being' is the object of consciousness.
Hence Consciousness itself is 'Being'--that which is.--This
consciousness is self-proved, just because it is consciousness. Were it
proved through something else, it would follow that like jars and
similar things it is not consciousness. Nor can there be assumed, for
consciousness, the need of another act of consciousness (through which
its knowledge would be established); for it shines forth (prakasate)
through its own being. While it exists, consciousness--differing therein
from jars and the like--is never observed not to shine forth, and it
cannot therefore be held to depend, in its shining forth, on something
else.--You (who object to the above reasoning) perhaps hold the
following view:--even when consciousness has arisen, it is the object
only which shines forth--a fact expressed in sentences such as: the jar
is perceived. When a person forms the judgment 'This is a jar,' he is
not at the time conscious of a consciousness which is not an object and
is not of a definite character. Hence the existence of consciousness is
the reason which brings about the 'shining forth' of jars and other
objects, and thus has a similar office as the approximation of the
object to the eye or the other organs of sense (which is another
condition of perceptive consciousness). After this the existence of
consciousness is inferred on the ground that the shining forth of the
object is (not permanent, but) occasional only [FOOTNOTE 34:1]. And
should this argumentation be objected to on the ground of its implying
that consciousness--which is essentially of the nature of intelligence--
is something non-intelligent like material things, we ask you to define
this negation of non-intelligence (which you declare to be
characteristic of consciousness). Have we, perhaps, to understand by it
the invariable concomitance of existence and shining forth? If so, we
point out that this invariable concomitance is also found in the case of
pleasure and similar affections; for when pleasure and so on exist at
all, they never are non-perceived (i.e. they exist in so far only as we
are conscious of them). It is thus clear that we have no consciousness
of consciousness itself--just as the tip of a finger, although touching
other things, is incapable of touching itself.
All this reasoning, we reply, is entirely spun out of your own fancy,
without any due consideration of the power of consciousness. The fact is,
that in perceiving colour and other qualities of things, we are not
aware of a 'shining forth' as an attribute of those things, and as
something different from consciousness; nor can the assumption of an
attribute of things called 'light,' or 'shining forth,' be proved in any
way, since the entire empirical world itself can be proved only through
consciousness, the existence of which we both admit. Consciousness,
therefore, is not something which is inferred or proved through some
other act of knowledge; but while proving everything else it is proved
by itself. This may be expressed in technical form as follows--
Consciousness is, with regard to its attributes and to the empirical
judgments concerning it, independent of any other thing, because through
its connexion with other things it is the cause of their attributes and
the empirical judgments concerning them. For it is a general principle
that of two things that which through its connexion with the other is
the cause of the attributes of--and the empirical judgments about--the
latter, is itself independent of that other as to those two points. We
see e.g. that colour, through its conjunction with earth and the like,
produces in them the quality of visibility, but does not itself depend
for its visibility on conjunction with colour. Hence consciousness is
itself the cause of its own 'shining forth,' as well as of the
empirically observed shining forth of objects such as jars and the like.
Consciousness is eternal and incapable of change.
This self-luminous consciousness, further, is eternal, for it is not
capable of any form of non-existence--whether so--called antecedent
non-existence or any other form. This follows from its being
self-established. For the antecedent non-existence of self-established
consciousness cannot be apprehended either through consciousness or
anything else. If consciousness itself gave rise to the apprehension of
its own non-existence, it could not do so in so far as 'being,' for that
would contradict its being; if it is, i.e. if its non-existence is not,
how can it give rise to the idea of its non-existence? Nor can it do so
if not being; for if consciousness itself is not, how can it furnish a
proof for its own non-existence? Nor can the non-existence of
consciousness be apprehended through anything else; for consciousness
cannot be the object of anything else. Any instrument of knowledge
proving the non-existence of consciousness, could do so only by making
consciousness its object--'this is consciousness'; but consciousness, as
being self-established, does not admit of that objectivation which is
implied in the word 'this,' and hence its previous non-existence cannot
be proved by anything lying outside itself.
As consciousness thus does not admit of antecedent non-existence, it
further cannot be held to originate, and hence also all those other
states of being which depend on origination cannot be predicated of it.
As consciousness is beginningless, it further does not admit of any
plurality within itself; for we observe in this case the presence of
something which is contrary to what invariably accompanies plurality
(this something being 'beginninglessness' which is contrary to the
quality of having a beginning--which quality invariably accompanies
plurality). For we never observe a thing characterised by plurality to
be without a beginning.--And moreover difference, origination, &c., are
objects of consciousness, like colour and other qualities, and hence
cannot be attributes of consciousness. Therefore, consciousness being
essentially consciousness only, nothing else that is an object of
consciousness can be its attribute. The conclusion is that consciousness
is free from difference of any kind.
The apparent difference between Consciousness and the conscious subject
is due to the unreal ahamkara.
From this it further follows that there is no substrate of
consciousness--different from consciousness itself--such as people
ordinarily mean when speaking of a 'knower.' It is self-luminous
consciousness itself which constitutes the so-called 'knower.' This
follows therefrom also that consciousness is not non-intelligent (jada);
for non-intelligence invariably accompanies absence of Selfhood
(anatmatva); hence, non-intelligence being absent in consciousness,
consciousness is not non-Self, that means, it is the Self.
But, our adversary again objects, the consciousness which expresses
itself in the judgment 'I know,' proves that the quality of being a
'knower' belongs to consciousness!--By no means, we reply. The
attribution to consciousness of this quality rests on error, no less
than the attribution, to the shell, of the quality of being silver.
Consciousness cannot stand in the relation of an agent toward itself:
the attribute of being a knowing agent is erroneously imputed to it--an
error analogous to that expressed in the judgment 'I am a man,' which
identifies the Self of a person with the outward aggregate of matter
that bears the external characteristics of humanity. To be a 'knower'
means to be the agent in the action of knowing; and this is something
essentially changeful and non-intelligent (jada), having its abode in
the ahamkara, which is itself a thing subject to change. How, on the
other hand, could such agency possibly belong to the changeless
'witness' (of all change, i.e. consciousness) whose nature is pure Being?
That agency cannot be an attribute of the Self follows therefrom also
that, like colour and other qualities, agency depends, for its own proof,
on seeing, i.e. consciousness.
That the Self does not fall within the sphere (is not an object of), the
idea of 'I' is proved thereby also that in deep sleep, swoon, and
similar states, the idea of the 'I' is absent, while the consciousness
of the Self persists. Moreover, if the Self were admitted to be an agent
and an object of the idea of 'I,' it would be difficult to avoid the
conclusion that like the body it is non-intelligent, something merely
outward ('being for others only, not for itself') and destitute of
Selfhood. That from the body, which is the object of the idea of 'I,'
and known to be an agent, there is different that Self which enjoys the
results of the body's actions, viz. the heavenly word, and so on, is
acknowledged by all who admit the validity of the instruments of
knowledge; analogously, therefore, we must admit that different from the
knower whom we understand by the term 'I,' is the 'witnessing' inward
Self. The non-intelligent ahamkara thus merely serves to manifest the
nature of non-changing consciousness, and it effects this by being its
abode; for it is the proper quality of manifesting agents to manifest
the objects manifested, in so far as the latter abide in them. A mirror,
e.g., or a sheet of water, or a certain mass of matter, manifests a face
or the disc of the moon (reflected in the mirror or water) or the
generic character of a cow (impressed on the mass of matter) in so far
as all those things abide in them.--In this way, then, there arises the
erroneous view that finds expression in the judgment 'I know.'--Nor must
you, in the way of objection, raise the question how self-luminous
consciousness is to be manifested by the non-intelligent ahamkara, which
rather is itself manifested by consciousness; for we observe that the
surface of the hand, which itself is manifested by the rays of sunlight
falling on it, at the same time manifests those rays. This is clearly
seen in the case of rays passing through the interstices of network; the
light of those rays is intensified by the hand on which they fall, and
which at the same time is itself manifested by the rays.
It thus appears that the 'knowing agent,' who is denoted by the 'I,' in
the judgment 'I know,' constitutes no real attribute of the Self, the
nature of which is pure intelligence. This is also the reason why the
consciousness of Egoity does not persist in the states of deep sleep and
final release: in those states this special form of consciousness passes
away, and the Self appears in its true nature, i.e. as pure
consciousness. Hence a person who has risen from deep, dreamless sleep
reflects, 'Just now I was unconscious of myself.'
Summing up of the purvapaksha view.
As the outcome of all this, we sum up our view as follows.--Eternal,
absolutely non-changing consciousness, whose nature is pure
non-differenced intelligence, free from all distinction whatever, owing
to error illusorily manifests itself (vivarttate) as broken up into
manifold distinctions--knowing subjects, objects of knowledge, acts of
knowledge. And the purpose for which we enter on the consideration of
the Vedanta-texts is utterly to destroy what is the root of that error,
i.e. Nescience, and thus to obtain a firm knowledge of the oneness of
Brahman, whose nature is mere intelligence--free, pure, eternal.
[FOOTNOTE 22:1. In agreement with the use made of this passage by the
Purvapakshin, vijnana must here be understood in the sense of avidya.
Vijnanasabdena vividham jnayate-neneti karanavyutpattya-vidya-bhidhiyate.
Sru. Pra.]
[FOOTNOTE 25:1. The distinction is illustrated by the different views
Perception and Inference cause us to take of the nature of the flame of
the lamp. To Perception the flame, as long as it burns, seems one and
the same: but on the ground of the observation that the different
particles of the wick and the oil are consumed in succession, we infer
that there are many distinct flames succeeding one another. And we
accept the Inference as valid, and as sublating or refuting the
immediate perception, because the perceived oneness of the flame admits
of being accounted for 'otherwise,' viz. on the ground of the many
distinct flames originating in such rapid succession that the eye
mistakes them for one. The inference on the other hand does not admit of
being explained in another way.]
[FOOTNOTE 26:1. The reference is to the point discussed Pu. Mi. Su. VI,
5, 54 (Jaim. Nya. Mala Vistara, p. 285).]
[FOOTNOTE 27:1. The texts which deny all qualities of Brahman are later
in order than the texts which refer to Brahman as qualified, because
denial presupposes that which is to be denied.]
[FOOTNOTE 27:2. The unity of purport of the sentence is inferred from
its constituent words having the same case-ending.]
[FOOTNOTE 30:1. The theory here referred to is held by some of the
Mimamsakas. The imperative forms of the verb have their primary meaning,
i.e. the power of originating action, only in Vedic sentences which
enjoin the performance of certain actions for the bringing about of
certain ends: no other means of knowledge but the Veda informing us that
such ends can be accomplished by such actions. Nobody, e.g. would offer
a soma sacrifice in order to obtain the heavenly world, were he not told
by the Veda to do so. In ordinary life, on the other hand, no imperative
possesses this entirely unique originative force, since any action which
may be performed in consequence of a command may be prompted by other
motives as well: it is, in technical Indian language, established
already, apart from the command, by other means of knowledge. The man
who, e.g. is told to milk a cow might have proceeded to do so, apart
from the command, for reasons of his own. Imperatives in ordinary speech
are therefore held not to have their primary meaning, and this
conclusion is extended, somewhat unwarrantably one should say, to all
the words entering into an imperative clause.]
[FOOTNOTE 34:1. Being not permanent but occasional, it is an effect only,
and as such must have a cause.]
THE GREAT SIDDHANTA.
This entire theory rests on a fictitious foundation of altogether hollow
and vicious arguments, incapable of being stated in definite logical
alternatives, and devised by men who are destitute of those particular
qualities which cause individuals to be chosen by the Supreme Person
revealed in the Upanishads; whose intellects are darkened by the
impression of beginningless evil; and who thus have no insight into the
nature of words and sentences, into the real purport conveyed by them,
and into the procedure of sound argumentation, with all its methods
depending on perception and the other instruments of right knowledge.
The theory therefore must needs be rejected by all those who, through
texts, perception and the other means of knowledge--assisted by sound
reasoning--have an insight into the true nature of things.
There is no proof of non-differenced substance.
To enter into details.--Those who maintain the doctrine of a substance
devoid of all difference have no right to assert that this or that is a
proof of such a substance; for all means of right knowledge have for
their object things affected with difference.--Should any one taking his
stand on the received views of his sect, assert that the theory of a
substance free from all difference (does not require any further means
of proof but) is immediately established by one's own consciousness; we
reply that he also is refuted by the fact, warranted by the witness of
the Self, that all consciousness implies difference: all states of
consciousness have for their object something that is marked by some
difference, as appears in the case of judgments like 'I saw this.' And
should a state of consciousness--although directly apprehended as
implying difference--be determined by some fallacious reasoning to be
devoid of difference, this determination could be effected only by means
of some special attributes additional to the quality of mere Being; and
owing to these special qualities on which the determination depends,
that state of consciousness would clearly again be characterised by
difference. The meaning of the mentioned determination could thus only
be that of a thing affected with certain differences some other
differences are denied; but manifestly this would not prove the
existence of a thing free from all difference. To thought there at any
rate belongs the quality of being thought and self-illuminatedness, for
the knowing principle is observed to have for its essential nature the
illumining (making to shine forth) of objects. And that also in the
states of deep sleep, swoon, &c., consciousness is affected with
difference we shall prove, in its proper place, in greater detail.
Moreover you yourself admit that to consciousness there actually belong
different attributes such as permanency (oneness, self-luminousness, &c.
), and of these it cannot be shown that they are only Being in general.
And even if the latter point were admitted, we observe that there takes
place a discussion of different views, and you yourself attempt to prove
your theory by means of the differences between those views and your own.
It therefore must be admitted that reality is affected with difference
well established by valid means of proof.
Sabda proves difference.
As to sound (speech; sabda) it is specially apparent that it possesses
the power of denoting only such things as are affected with difference.
Speech operates with words and sentences. Now a word (pada) originates
from the combination of a radical element and a suffix, and as these two
elements have different meanings it necessarily follows that the word
itself can convey only a sense affected with difference. And further,
the plurality of words is based on plurality of meanings; the sentence
therefore which is an aggregate of words expresses some special
combination of things (meanings of words), and hence has no power to
denote a thing devoid of all difference.--The conclusion is that sound
cannot be a means of knowledge for a thing devoid of all difference.
Pratyaksha--even of the nirvikalpaka kind--proves difference.
Perception in the next place--with its two subdivisions of
non-determinate (nirvikalpaka) and determinate (savikalpaka)
perception--also cannot be a means of knowledge for things devoid of
difference. Determinate perception clearly has for its object things
affected with difference; for it relates to that which is distinguished
by generic difference and so on. But also non-determinate perception has
for its object only what is marked with difference; for it is on the
basis of non-determinate perception that the object distinguished by
generic character and so on is recognised in the act of determinate
perception. Non-determinate perception is the apprehension of the object
in so far as destitute of some differences but not of all difference.
Apprehension of the latter kind is in the first place not observed ever
to take place, and is in the second place impossible: for all
apprehension by consciousness takes place by means of some distinction
'This is such and such.' Nothing can be apprehended apart from some
special feature of make or structure, as e.g. the triangularly shaped
dewlap in the case of cows. The true distinction between non-determinate
and determinate perception is that the former is the apprehension of the
first individual among a number of things belonging to the same class,
while the latter is the apprehension of the second, third, and so on,
individuals. On the apprehension of the first individual cow the
perceiving person is not conscious of the fact that the special shape
which constitutes the generic character of the class 'cows' extends to
the present individual also; while this special consciousness arises in
the case of the perception of the second and third cow. The perception
of the second individual thus is 'determinate' in so far as it is
determined by a special attribute, viz. the extension, to the
perception, of the generic character of a class--manifested in a certain
outward shape--which connects this act of perception with the earlier
perception (of the first individual); such determination being
ascertained only on the apprehension of the second individual. Such
extension or continuance of a certain generic character is, on the other
hand, not apprehended on the apprehension of the first individual, and
perception of the latter kind thence is 'non-determinate.' That it is
such is not due to non-apprehension of structure, colour, generic
character and so on, for all these attributes are equally objects of
sensuous perception (and hence perceived as belonging to the first
individual also). Moreover that which possesses structure cannot be
perceived apart from the structure, and hence in the case of the
apprehension of the first individual there is already perception of
structure, giving rise to the judgment 'The thing is such and such.' In
the case of the second, third, &c., individuals, on the other hand, we
apprehend, in addition to the thing possessing structure and to the
structure itself, the special attribute of the persistence of the
generic character, and hence the perception is 'determinate.' From all
this it follows that perception never has for its object that which is
devoid of all difference.
The bhedabheda view is untenable.
The same arguments tend to refute the view that there is difference and
absence of difference at the same time (the so-called bhedabheda view).
Take the judgment 'This is such and such'; how can we realise here the
non-difference of 'being this' and 'being such and such'? The 'such and
such' denotes a peculiar make characterised, e.g. by a dewlap, the
'this' denotes the thing distinguished by that peculiar make; the
non-difference of these two is thus contradicted by immediate
consciousness. At the outset the thing perceived is perceived as
separate from all other things, and this separation is founded on the
fact that the thing is distinguished by a special constitution, let us
say the generic characteristics of a cow, expressed by the term 'such
and such.' In general, wherever we cognise the relation of
distinguishing attribute and thing distinguished thereby, the two
clearly present themselves to our mind as absolutely different.
Somethings--e.g. staffs and bracelets--appear sometimes as having a
separate, independent existence of their own; at other times they
present themselves as distinguishing attributes of other things or
beings (i.e. of the persons carrying staffs or wearing bracelets). Other
entities--e.g. the generic character of cows--have a being only in so
far as they constitute the form of substances, and thus always present
themselves as distinguishing attributes of those substances. In both
cases there is the same relation of distinguishing attribute and thing
distinguished thereby, and these two are apprehended as absolutely
different. The difference between the two classes of entities is only
that staffs, bracelets, and similar things are capable of being
apprehended in separation from other things, while the generic
characteristics of a species are absolutely incapable thereof. The
assertion, therefore, that the difference of things is refuted by
immediate consciousness, is based on the plain denial of a certain form
of consciousness, the one namely--admitted by every one--which is
expressed in the judgment 'This thing is such and such.'--This same
point is clearly expounded by the Sutrakara in II, 2, 33.
Inference also teaches difference.
Perception thus having for its object only what is marked by difference,
inference also is in the same case; for its object is only what is
distinguished by connexion with things known through perception and
other means of knowledge. And thus, even in the case of disagreement as
to the number of the different instruments of knowledge, a thing devoid
of difference could not be established by any of them since the
instruments of knowledge acknowledged by all have only one and the same
object, viz. what is marked by difference. And a person who maintains
the existence of a thing devoid of difference on the ground of
differences affecting that very thing simply contradicts himself without
knowing what he does; he is in fact no better than a man who asserts
that his own mother never had any children.
Perception does not reveal mere being.
In reply to the assertion that perception causes the apprehension of
pure Being only, and therefore cannot have difference for its object;
and that 'difference' cannot be defined because it does not admit of
being set forth in definite alternatives; we point out that these
charges are completely refuted by the fact that the only objects of
perception are things distinguished by generic character and so on, and
that generic character and so on--as being relative things--give at once
rise to the judgment as to the distinction between themselves and the
things in which they inhere. You yourself admit that in the case of
knowledge and in that of colour and other qualities this relation holds
good, viz. that something which gives rise to a judgment about another
thing at the same time gives rise to a judgment about itself; the same
may therefore be admitted with regard to difference [FOOTNOTE 44:1].
For this reason the charge of a regressus in infinitum and a logical
seesaw (see above, p. 32) cannot be upheld. For even if perceptive
cognition takes place within one moment, we apprehend within that moment
the generic character which constitutes on the one hand the difference
of the thing from others, and on the other hand the peculiar character
of the thing itself; and thus there remains nothing to be apprehended in
a second moment.
Moreover, if perception made us apprehend only pure Being judgments
clearly referring to different objects--such as 'Here is a jar,' 'There
is a piece of cloth'--would be devoid of all meaning. And if through
perception we did not apprehend difference--as marked by generic
character, &c., constituting the structure or make of a thing, why
should a man searching for a horse not be satisfied with finding a
buffalo? And if mere Being only were the object of all our cognitions,
why should we not remember, in the case of each particular cognition,
all the words which are connected with all our cognitions? And further,
if the cognition of a horse and that of an elephant had one object only,
the later cognition would cause us to apprehend only what was
apprehended before, and there being thus no difference (of object of
cognition) there would be nothing to distinguish the later state of
cognition from remembrance. If on the other hand a difference is
admitted for each state of consciousness, we admit thereby that
perception has for its objects things affected with difference.
If all acts of cognition had one and the same object only, everything
would be apprehended by one act of cognition; and from this it would
follow that there are no persons either deaf or blind!
Nor does, as a matter of fact, the eye apprehend mere Being only; for
what it does apprehend is colour and the coloured thing, and those other
qualities (viz. extension, &c.), which inhere in the thing together with
colour. Nor does feeling do so; for it has for its objects things
palpable. Nor have the ear and the other senses mere Being for their
object; but they relate to what is distinguished by a special sound or
taste or smell. Hence there is not any source of knowledge causing us to
apprehend mere Being. If moreover the senses had for their object mere
Being free from all difference, it would follow that Scripture which has
the same object would (not be originative of knowledge but) perform the
function of a mere anuvada, i.e. it would merely make statements about
something, the knowledge of which is already established by some other
means. And further, according to your own doctrine, mere Being, i.e.
Brahman, would hold the position of an object with regard to the
instruments of knowledge; and thus there would cling to it all the
imperfections indicated by yourself--non-intelligent nature,
perishableness and so on.--From all this we conclude that perception has
for its object only what is distinguished by difference manifesting
itself in generic character and so on, which constitute the make or
structure of a thing. (That the generic character of a thing is nothing
else but its particular structure follows) from the fact that we do not
perceive anything, different from structure, which could be claimed as
constituting the object of the cognition that several individuals
possess one and the same general form. And as our theory sufficiently
accounts for the ordinary notions as to generic character, and as
moreover even those who hold generic character to be something different
from structure admit that there is such a thing as (common) structure,
we adhere to the conclusion that generic character is nothing but
structure. By 'structure' we understand special or distinctive form; and
we acknowledge different forms of that kind according to the different
classes of things. And as the current judgments as to things being
different from one another can be explained on the basis of the
apprehension of generic character, and as no additional entity is
observed to exist, and as even those who maintain the existence of such
an additional thing admit the existence of generic character, we further
conclude that difference (bheda) is nothing but generic character (jati).--
But if this were so, the judgment as to difference would immediately
follow from the judgment as to generic character, as soon as the latter
is apprehended! Quite true, we reply. As a matter of fact the judgment
of difference is immediately formulated on the basis of the judgment as
to generic character. For 'the generic character' of a cow, e.g., means
just the exclusion of everything else: as soon as that character is
apprehended all thought and speech referring to other creatures
belonging to the same wider genus (which includes buffaloes and so on
also) come to an end. It is through the apprehension of difference only
that the idea of non-difference comes to an end.
[FOOTNOTE 44:1. Colour reveals itself as well as the thing that has colour; knowledge reveals itself as well as the object known; so difference manifests itself as well as the things that differ.] |
|
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기