The
Systems
of
Indian
Philosophy
By
V. R. Gandhi, B.A., M.R.A.S.
Barrister-at-Law
Edited By
Dr. K. K. Dixit
Research
Officer
L. D. Institute
of Indology
Ahemdabad
Shri
Mahavira Jaina Vidyalaya
Bombay 400 036
PUBLISHER'S
NOTE
It was really a happy coincidence that a
manuscript of a hitherto unpublished wok of Shri Virchand Raghavji Gandhi was
discovered in his birth‑ place, Mahuva (Saurashtra), and that too in his
centenary year. In his centenary your 1964, Shri Chandulal Vardhman Shah, one
of us and Shri Kantilal Dahyabhai Kora, Registrar of Shri Mahavir Jaina Vidyalaya along with a past student Shri
Pannalal R. Shah visited Mahuva. Their
intention behind the visit was to collect from his birth‑ place the
available material that can evoke the sacred memory of that eminent scholar and
effective speaker. And we should say that the visit proved to be a pilgrimage.
There they discovered and obtained certificates, writing, a silver casket and a
gold medal along with two note‑books containing the present lectures in
his own hand‑writing. It is really fortunate for us that these two note‑
books have been saved from destruction during a rather long period of 63 years
even after the death of that scholar.
We handed over the note‑ books for
perusal to Pt. Shri Dalsukhbhai Malavania, Director of Shri Lalbhai Dalpatbhai
Bharatiya Sanskriti Vidyamandir and one of General Editors of Jains Agama
Series along with Pujya Shri Punyavijayji Maharaj. While reading them, he found
that they contained Shri V. R. Gandhi's illuminating lectures on the systems of
Indian Philosophy. It is these lectures which Shri V. R. Gandhi delivered
before American audience in attractive and popular style. Fearless and frank
presentation of the subject‑ matter is the special feature of these
lectures. Thus the present work containing them is really invaluable and the
first of its kind. Hence we are very happy that it is published by our
Institution.
It was very difficult to edit them
critically on the basis of a handwritten manuscript and to print them in their
pristine form. But the cooperation extended by Shri Lalbhai Dalpatbhai
Bharatiya Sanskriti Vidyamandir, Ahmedabad, made our task very easy.
Vidyamandir allotted the work of editing the lectures to Dr. K. K. Dixit, a
scholar of many subjects and especially of philosophy. Dr. Dixit has taken great pains in carrying
out the work successfully. We express our gratitude to the management of
Vidyamandir for extending active cooperation. And we heartily thank Dr. Dixit
for critically editing these lectures and for writing an elaborate thought‑provoking
introduction to the present work.
The evaluation of the present work, and
its author has been made by Dr. Dixit in his impartial and scholarly
introduction as also by Dr. Pt. Sukhlaji in his `Something About Late Shri V.
R. Gandhi.' We know that one of the
Factors that inspired him to write it, is his admiration for Shri V. R.
Gandhi's academic activities. The original Gujarati
of this English note is included in this work in order that the reader can have
the benefit of reading Panditji's thoughts in his own words.
The late Shri Umedchand Dolatchand
Barodia, a close associate of Shri Mahavira Jaina Vidyalaya for over 40 years, had assigned to the Institution his
endowment paid‑up insurance policy of Rs. 2,000/‑ in 1963 with a
request to utilize the amount when realized for publications activities, as may
be suggested by his two sons, Shri Shantibhai and Shri Kantibhai. On his death
three years later, the two devoted sons who are past students of this
Institution suggested that the insurance money may be utilized in the
publication of the present book, whose author, Shri V. R. Gandhi was held in
high esteem by their father as an outstanding representative of India at the
Congress of World Religions in America and for his learned lectures in America
and Europe. This suggestion coincided well with the devotion in which he held
knowledge and religion.
Shri Umedchandbhai was born in Chuda,
Saurashtra, in 1883 A.D. and was brought up in a atmosphere of education and
culture. His father Shri Dolatchandbhai was one of the first Arts Graduates of
the Bombay University and was the author of a number of books. Having such a
laudable legacy of culture and knowledge, Shri Umedchandbhai had a
distinguished career both at school and college. He won a University prize,
besides being a Dakshina Fellow at Gujarat College, Ahmedabad. He started his
early career as a school- teacher, which he continued with zeal and admiration
for nearly twenty years. After leaving the sphere of education, he became the
Assistant Secretary of the Bombay Stock Exchange, which he continued till 1940,
when he felt an urge to retire and have a spiritual solace. Later, he spent
some years in religious studies and meditation at Shrimad Rajchandra Ashram,
Agas along with his wife, who was a source of great inspiration in all his
activities. After the death of his wife, he left Agas and returned to Bombay at
the persuasion of his sons, a proposition, which he never cherished. He died at
Bombay at the age of 83 on 11th February 1969.
During his stay in Bombay, Shri
Umedchandbhai held in high esteem Acharya Shri Vijiyavallabhsuri, Whose
Services to the cause of education, social welfare and Jainism has but few
parallels in our history. This ideal brought him closer to Shri Mahavira Jaina Vidyalaya. Besides being a religious
teacher and examiner of the students of Vidyalaya,
he was member of managing Committee for many years. Vidyalaya remained his life‑long interest and the progress of
Vidyalaya was always near and dear to
his heart.
The outstanding feature of his life was
that he was a deeply religious man and was a devoted student of Jaina history,
philosophy and literature. Education, devotion to duty, social service and spiritual
practice were the strong attachments sustaining his life. He was the author of
some books including the History and Literature of Jainism, besides
contributing various articles to various journals. He edited also `Tarun Jain'
and `Jain Herald' for some time.
The spontaneous help received from such a
religious person in the publication of the present valuable work on philosophy
is specially noteworthy and commendable.
Dr. N. J. Shah has corrected the proofs.
And again it is he who has prepared the three useful indices. We express our
sincere thanks to him. At last, our thanks are due to the Mouj Printing Bureau
for the excellent printing.
August Kranti Marg CHANDULAL VARDHMAN SHAH
(Gowalia Tank Road) JAYANTILAL
RATANCHAND SHAH
Bombay‑ 26
BALCHAND G. DOSHI
14‑1‑1970.
Hon. Secretaries.
SOMETHING ABOUT LATE
SHRI V. R. GANDHI
`The Systems of Indian Philosophy' is
published here for the first time. It contains lectures which late V. R. Gandhi
delivered before American audience of the common people, while he was on his
journey to attend the World Congress of Religions held for the first time in
the United States of America in 1893 A.D.
The manuscript of the work, written in
the author's own handwriting, remained unknown for very long. And fortunately
it was discovered just in his centenary year. It is really a matter of happy co‑incidence
that Dr. K. K. Dixit, who himself is a sincere student of Indian and Western
philosophy as well as a proficient scholar of ancient Indian language‑Sanskrit,
Prakrit, Pali, etc., has carefully edited the present work. It is an
outstanding characteristic of Dr. Dixit that whatever he writes, he writes
after mature consideration, without any partiality or exaggeration.
Dr. Dixit has written an elaborate
introduction to this work. Any sensible Enquirer, who sincerely tries to
understand it, will find no difficulty in properly evaluating these lectures.
When I think on this line I feel that there remains nothing particular for me
to write. But because I hold Gandhi in high esteem and because I have good
faith in Shri Mahavira Jaina Vidyalaya,
the Institute that publishes the present work, I am inspired to say few words.
For the last so many years, I have been
hearing one harping note. It is this that the Jaina tradition should engage
scholars to produce works on the cultural subjects like Religion, Philosophy,
Literature, Art, etc. This note has originated from our special contact with
the Western culture. But the Jaina tradition has formed the tendency that
whatever the scholars write by themselves or whatever they write at the
instance of others should all be published or got published in English. All the
cultured Jainas who have got Western education uniformly, it has been noticed,
desire that all the material pertaining to all the cultural aspects of the
Jaina tradition should be made available in English. The desire is no doubt
noble. But it has arisen mainly from the blind imitation of others and mental
temperament devoid of deep understanding regarding publications in English
language.
On the one hand, everywhere is evinced
this noble desire for publishing or getting published the works in English,
while on the had indifference is noticed towards the reading and study of the
published English works which are capable of satisfying the thirst for
knowledge, not only of the common people but also of the eminent scholars: if
this contradiction is found among the business‑minded Jaina laymen, there
is no special cause of our getting disheartened; but if this defect is seen
even among Jains ascetics who have pledged to devote themselves to the
acquisition of knowledge, then we cannot but say that there is something wrong
with the order of Jaina monks.
There are four sects of Jaina tradition.
We may take consolation in thinking that there is no cause for complaining much
against the three sects other than the idol‑worshipping Svetambara one.
But it is this idol worshipping Svetambara sect that sent Shri Gandhi to
America as a representative of the entire Jaina tradition. And about 75 years
before, he successfully fulfilled this mission there. Moreover, he wrote such
works in English relating to Jaina tradition as is written by no other Indian ‑
especially Jaina‑scholar even to this day. But alas! Rarely do we find
the deserving English‑knowing persons who read and study these works.
Gandhi's works pertaining to the three
subjects related to Jain tradition have been published before many years; and
the standard of these works is so high that no author, as far as I understand,
has reached that standard in producing works pertaining to those subjects.
Jaina Yoga (mysticism), Jaina Philosophy and Jaina Karma doctrine are the three subjects, which Gandhi presented in
English with depth and clarity. If at least some solitary ascetic or monk had
studied these works, then he would have made a considerable contribution to the
fund of knowledge in possession of the Jainas, would have translated or got
translated them into Hindi, Gujarati and other Indian languages and thus would
have finally helped us in giving a new mould to the curriculum of the Pathasalas (institutions conduction
classes of Religion and Philosophy) conducted by Jaina tradition.
Were I to tell my own story, I should say
that I heard the name of Shri V. R. Gandhi from no Pannyasa, no scholar and no Acarya
except the late Vijayavallabhsuriji, who belonged to idol‑worshipping
Svetambara tradition. When they knew not even the name of Shri V. R. Gandhi
then what to talk of his works!
Today this narrow‑mindedness has
almost disappeared. So first I suggest that the faithful translation of all the
three works into Hindi, Gujarati and other Indian languages should be published
without delay. And they should be included in the curriculum of the classes of
Religion and Philosophy, conducted by the Jaina tradition. Only then the mind
of the new generation would become broad‑based instead of becoming
narrow, as also the student of the neglected Pathasalas will assume some luster resulting from this knowledge.
This publication embodying a collection
of lectures on six systems of Indian Philosophy is really important not only
for the Jaina scholars but also for other Indian and non-Indian scholars. It is
important for three reasons: first, they were addressed to the educated common
people of America, by a representative of Jaina tradition, who was above all
sectarian spirit. Secondly they reveal the author's deep and extensive study of
the subject; and their presentation is natural. Thirdly, English language in
which they are written is pure and pristine to such extent that even the
learned editor has found no scope for any correction.
These lectures on the systems of Indian
philosophy should be translated into Hindi as early as possible so that the
students of different levels can understand them. In short, then only the
students can avail of the faithful presentation of the subject, which they need
most. Moreover, the study of these lectures will prove fruitful to them for the
further study of the voluminous works on the subject.
On the auspicious occasion of the birth‑day
celebration of Venerable Vijayanandasurishvaraji (Venerable Atmaramji Maharaj),
revered Vijayavallabhasuri often praised Gandhi in glowing terms spontaneously
coming from his own personal experience.
He used to say that wonderful were the grasping power and politeness of
Gandhiji. And it is on that account that he learnt what was essential from
Venerable Atmaramaji Maharaj within a short time. And he duly utilized in
America the knowledge thus acquired. But from the talks of revered
Vijayavallabhasuri about Gandhi, it emerges that he had no knowledge of these
six lectures. He talked only about the above‑mentioned three works
pertaining to Jaina tradition. Now that we are celebrating the centenaries of
Gandhi and Acarya ji, Shri Mahavira
Jaina Vidyalaya should carry out all
this work remaining incomplete or untouched. This is what is desired.
Lastly, it is necessary to note some
characteristics of Gandhi. First, he was a good scholar of Sanskrit. This is
the reason, why he could properly understand all the systems of Indian
philosophy, and this is again the reason why he rightly and fearlessly
suggested the Christians of America, to ponder over the question as to, whether
the missionaries or priests they sent to India conduct their proselytizing
activities adopting any method and means or with proper understanding of Indian
culture. Really speaking those missionaries sent to India, says Gandhi, should
learn Sanskrit; otherwise they will not properly understand Indian culture and
hence they will present the Indian culture in a distorted form. Here we are reminded
of Mahatma Gandhi ji's fearless advice to the Christian missionaries about
their proselytizing activities. His second characteristics is that he read,
with full concentration, the writings of mature Indological scholars of
different countries, Germany, etc. And in the preparation of his lectures he
fully utilized their writings. This is the reason why his lectures are
impartial and faithful. The third thing, which is noteworthy, is his
association with Mahatma Gandhiji. On the one hand Mahatma ji started the study
of Law and on the other he commenced his experiments on food. As is referred to
by Mahatma ji in his autobiography ( Pt. II chapter 3, p.56) Shri V. R. Gandhi
joined him in his experiments on food in those days. If Mahatma ji had not
referred to this story, we would have remained in complete darkness about the
personal relationship between the two Gandhis of Saurashtra. Lastly, I should
refer to Shri V.R.Gandhi's courageous spirit as also in his vision of the
future. At that time in one of his lectures addressed to the American public he
declared: "You know, my brothers and sisters, that we are not an
independent nation, we are subjects of her Gracious Majesty, Queen Victoria,
the 'Defender of the Faith'. But if we were a nation in all that that name
implies, with our government and our own rulers, with our laws and institutions
controlled by us free and independent, I affirm that we should seek to
establish and for ever maintain peaceful relations with all nations of the
world. "The prophetic words are as if echoed in the thoughts of Mahatma
ji.
Sarit Kunj,Ahmedabad 9 SUKHLAL 24- 12- 1969
SANGHAVI
CONTENTS
Publisher's Note
Something About Late Shri V. R. Gandhi
Pt. Dr. Sukhalalji
Abbreviations
Introduction
The
Sankhya Philosophy
1. Introductory
2. An end of the threefold miseries aimed
at (Comparison with Spinoza).
3. How a philosophical tenet like this
originates (the Indian situation contrasted with the Western)
4. The threefold misery result forms the
properties of prakriti while prakriti is eternal and co‑existent
with purusa.
5. Kapila's
is theory of evolution (i.e. a denial of something coming out of nothing)
incidental refutation of the theory that the world is an illusory appearance
6. How is Prakriti a `mere name
7. Prakriti
defined and the 25 elements (including purusa)
enumerated; the course of prakriti's
evolution traced
8. Proofs for the existence of soul and
delineation of the nature of soul; incidental refutation of the `one soul'
doctrine of Vedanta
9. Not real but only apparent bondage and
emancipation of purusa
10. Theism rejected
11. A critical remark on the Sankhya notion of the purpose of prakriti's evolution
12. Some further details concerning prakriti's evolution
13. The doctrine of a gross and a subtle
body
14. The means of moksa
15. The nature of moksa
16. The advocacy of the idea of nature
working under fixed laws
17. The advocacy of the idea of
`liberation of all'
18. Three points of criticism by way of
conclusion
II
The Yoga Philosophy
1. Introductory; the mutual relationship
between the physical, psychological, moral and spiritual planes (in Yoga and in
the other systems of Indian philosophy)
2. The concept of mind (citta) introduced
3. Various views as to the nature of mind
enumerated and the Sankhya concept of
sattvapatti, Moksa or kaivalya explained
4. Yoga
Posits God over and above the Sankhya
philosophy's 25 elements
5. As contrasted to Sankhya yoga is highly
practical in character
6. Yoga understood as citta ‑vrtti ‑ nirodha
7. The five types of citta ‑vrtti ‑nirodha
8. Vairagya
and abhyasa the means of citta
9. Incidental criticism of those denying
the possibility of extra ‑sensory knowledge
10. As a result of yoga soul controls the mind rather than vice versa
11. The two types of samadhi and the eight stages that lead thereto
12. (a) Five yams
(b) Five Niyam
13. (a) The results of five yams
(b) The results of five Niyam
14. Asanas
15. Pranayam
16. Pratyahara
17. Dhahran
18. Dhyana
19. Samadhi
20. The mutual relationship between Dhahran, Dhyana and Samadhi
(collectively called Samyama)
21. The mutual relationship between the
five yoga‑ bahirangas, the three yoga‑
Antaranga and the final samadhi
22. The precise nature of the citta‑prename occurring during the stage of final samadhi
23. The general concepts of Dharma ‑Parinaama, laksana‑
Parinaama and avastha‑ Parinaama
24. The result of the Samyama with the three fold Parinaama for its object
25. The result of the Samyama with word etc. for its object
26. The result of the Samyama with mental impressions for its
object
27. The result of the Samyama with sign etc. for its object
28. The result of the Samyama with the form of one's body for
its object
29. The result of the Samyama with Karma for its object
30. The result of the Samyama with maitri, karana, upeksa for its object
31. The result of the Samyama with the elephant, the Satva ‑parkas, the sun, the moon, the polar star for its object
32. The result of the Samyama with the bodily parts (i.e. Nabhi ‑cakra etc.) for its object
33. The result of the Samyama with purusa for its object
34. The result of the Samyama with pranas (i.e. udana etc.)
for its object
35. The result of the Samyama with the ether ear relationship
and the ether‑body relationship for its object
36. Non‑attachment to the above
miraculous powers is the ideal
37. How the yogin assumes different
bodies (incidentally, how a being's act yield result)
38. How the yogin attains kaivalya
III
The Naya philosophy
1. Introductory; the precise relationship
between the Naya and Vaisesika
2. The Naya notion of uddesa, laksana and pariksa
3. The sixteen Naya topics explained
4. Transition to the Vaisesika
5. The seven Vaisesika Categories enumerated
6. The seven Vaisesika Categories further elaborated:
7. The Vaisesika Categories further elaborated:
(a) The Dravyas that are both eternal and non‑eternal
(b) The Dravyas that are eternal
IV
Mimamsa
1.To be neglected inasmuch as it is not
system of philosophy but rather a system of ritualism
V
Vedanta Philosophy
1. The Upanisadic basis of the Vedanta
philosophy laid bare with the help of the Uddalaka‑
Svetaketu dialogue of the Chhandogya Upanisad
2. The mutual relationship between Mimamsa and Vedanta
3. A summary account of Sankara's version of Vedanta:
(a) The nature of Brahma, Maya and Jagat (both Jan.
and Chaitan) (b) The nature of bondage
(c) The nature of moksa
4. A summary account of Ramanuj's version
of Vedanta:
(a) The nature of Brahma and Jagat (both Jan. and Chaitana)
(b) The nature of bondage and moksa
5. Sankara and Ramanuja compared and
contrasted
6. Further elaboration of Sankara's view:
(a) Sankar
on Brahma's causality of the world
(b) The gradual development of Sankara's
philosophy out of the old Upanisads
(c) Brahma and Brahma
(d) For Sankara the jiva is Brahma (not Brahma) and it is Brahma (not becomes Brahma)
(e) Sankara's view contrasted with that
of Yoga
(f) Sankara explains away‑and with
ease the Upanisadic passage where they speak as if the jiva and Jagat too are
independent realities (like Brahma)
(g) Vedanta‑lie all idealism‑goes
against commonsense
(h) Vedanta accepts the idea of God and
of His worship‑from a practical stand‑ point
(i) The knowledge had from the practical
standpoint is supplanted by that had from the ultimate standpoint.
(j) Only Sata, Chaitan and Ananda can be attributed to the highest
Brahma (that can be known only as subject but never as an object)
(k) But the creation of the world on the
part of Brahma, an individual's individuality, the worship of Brahma on the
part of individual are all `practical truths not falsehoods
(l) Various analogies to explain Brahma's
causality of the world ultimately replaced by Sankara's doctrine of vivarta
(m) Brahma's causality of the world is
case of Avidya (i.e. a case of
appearance caused by ignorance)
(n) Bharatitratha on the mechanism of
removing Avidya
VI
Buddhism
1. Introductory; the Indian scene as
Buddha found it
2.Some biographical details relating to
Buddha
3. The doctrine of Buddha
(a) Northern Buddhism
(b) Southern Buddhism
(c) The three Pitakas of Southern Buddhism
(d‑e) The four `noble truths':
(d) The first `noble truth': (incidental
account of five skandhas and a
refutation of the doctrine of soul)
(e) The second, third and fourth `noble
truths'
(f) Recapitulation of the Buddhist system of morality under seven
heads
(g) Nirvana‑
the ultimate result of `Self‑culture'
(h) Buddha's agnosticism as to what
happens after death to him who has attained nirvana
(i) Buddha's acceptance of the `doctrine
of Karma' by way of explaining as to
what happens after death to him who has not attained nirvana
(j) Buddha on Brahmanical gods
(k) Buddha on Case‑system
(l) Buddha on Vedic ritualism
(m) Buddha on philosophical discussion
(and the rise of a Buddhist
philosophy)
(n) The early form of Buddhist worship
(o) The history of Buddhism after Buddha
VII
Jainism
1. The poser of four questions that are
basic to all investigation into a philosophical system
2. Jainism on the nature of universe
3. Jainism on the nature of God
4. (a) Jainism on the nature of soul
(b) Jainism on the destiny of soul
5. Jainism on the doctrine of Karma
ABBREVIATIONS
SS ‑ Sankhya Sutras
SK ‑
Sankhya Karika
Ani. ‑ Aniruddha's Commentary on SS
Vijn. ‑ Vijnanabhiksu's Commentary on SS
YS ‑ Yoga Sutras
Vy. ‑ Vyas's commentary on YS
HP‑ Hatha‑yoga‑pradipika
NS‑ Naya Sutras
VS ‑ Vedanta Sutras
INTRODUCTION
Here we have a lecture series dealing
with the systems of Indian Philosophy and delivered by V. R. Gandhi in 1894 at
Chicago. These lectures are important as much because they deal with the
systems of Indian Philosophy as because V. R. Gandhi delivered them. For V. R.
Gandhi (who was born in 1864 and died young in 1901) was one of the
extraordinary Indians of his time. He was a born Jaina and (what is more
noteworthy) a convinced Jaina, and it was as representative of the Jaina sect
that he took part in the Parliament of Religions held at Chicago in 1893
(better known to most of us on account of Swami Vivekananda's participation in
it). But few Jainas before and after him would equal him in their capacity to
make the Jaina positions comprehensible to a non‑Jaina audience and in
their capacity to adopt a most non‑sectarian approach while dealing with
a problem. Gandhi's many lectures meant to undertake an exposition of the
various aspects of Jainism (and his article "Philosophy and Psychology of
the Jains" published in Mind Vol. I, No. 4)‑most of them available
to us in the collection published under the title "The Jaina
Philosophy"‑ can well form for those who know English a best
introduction to this branch of studies in Indian culture. Particularly
noteworthy in this connection are the lectures (delivered in England) dealing
with the Jaina doctrine of Karma. The
verbatim notes of these lectures‑ which were in possession of H. Warren
and were probably taken down by himself‑ were later on published under
the title "The Karma
Philosophy". V. Glasenapp, the recognized Western authority on Jainism in
general and the Jaina doctrine of Karma
in particular, duly acknowledges his indebtedness to these lectures of Gandhi
which even today remain an independent source of enlightenment on the subject
in spite of the Gedrman scholar's doctoral dissertation devoted to the same.
The "doctrine of Karma",
subscribed to by the Vedicists, Buddhists,
Jainas and numerous other religious sects of India, holds a crucial importance
in the development of the characteristic ethical notions of the ancient
Indians, and the Jaina version of it is illuminating in more ways than one. It
is really a pity that even so lucid an exposition of the Jaina doctrine of Karma as was undertaken by Gandhi
remains unread even by those who otherwise evince sincere and serious interest
in the problems of Indian ethics.
Of course, in order to derive best
advantage out of Gandhi's writings things will have to be looked from Gandhi's
standpoint. There are times when Gandhi speaks as a Jaina, times when he speaks
as a Hindu, times when he speaks as an Indian, and times when he speaks as a
plain man. While speaking as a Jaina, a Hindu, or an Indian, Gandhi is in most
cases positive in his assertions, that is, he mostly brings to the fore the
merits of the case he is advocating; but occasionally he is forced to come out
sometimes sharply enough against what he considers to be a gross
misunderstanding of his case on somebody's part. He is bitterest in his
condemnation of the Christian missionaries, come to India from abroad to
propagate their cult. But his motives in doing so are extremely mixed. Gandhi
is against the Christian missionaries because the latter consider the Hindu to
be ethically degraded. Now Gandhi would not answer this slander by talking ill
of Christians en masse, not only because he had nothing, but praise for what he
considered to be Christ's true teaching, but also because he had come to
cultivate warm friendship with a vast number of noble‑minded Christians
both in England and in America. Gandhi therefore took care to distinguish
between the ordinary Christian residing in England or America and the Christian
missionaries who come to India from abroad; in his lectures like "India's
Message to America" and "Impressions of America" he paid
handsome tributes to the former, in those like "Have Christian Missions to
India been Successful?" he cursed the latter. As an Indian Gandhi was
painfully conscious of his country's dependent status as also of the economic
exploitation this country was subjected to, but his observations on these
matters are mostly in the form of obiter dicta. For example, in the course of
his "India's Message to America" he makes bold to say: "You
know, my brothers and sisters, that we are not an independent nation; we are
subjects of Her Gracious Majesty Queen Victoria, the 'defender of the faith',
but if we were a nation in all that that name implies, with our own government
and our own rulers, with our laws and institutions controlled by us free and
independent, I affirm that we should seek to establish and for ever maintain
peaceful relations with all the nations of the world" (The Jaina
Philosophy, p. 264). A still more revealing passage‑occurring in
"Have Christian Missions to India been Successful?"‑ runs as follows: "Ladies and gentlemen, you
have heard all yours lives from your missionaries who claim to be the
messengers of God how ugly, wretched, immoral, and vile the heathen Indians are;
. . . but did you ever hear from these missionaries‑the messengers of
love to all mankind‑of the tyrannies that are perpetrated over the Hindus
in India? Government has abolished duties on fine dry goods from Liverpool and
Manchester for the purpose of finding a good market in India and has levied a
200 per cent tax on the manufacture of salt in India to maintain a costly
government. Did they ever tell you about all such things? If they have not,
whose messengers you will call these people, who always side with tyranny, who
throw their cloak of hypocritical religion over murderers and all sorts of
criminals who happen to belong to their religion or to their country?"
(The Jaina Philosophy, pp. 85‑86). Thus Gandhi dreamt of an India
politically and economically independent but he was intelligent enough to see
that there was no immediate prospect of his dream coming true. On the other
hand, what might be called India's "religious independence" was a
glowing reality before Gandhi's eyes and he was extremely anxious lest this too
should gradually become extinct. Hence his tirade against the Christian
missionaries. Let us however not forget that Gandhi's chief weapon in the
struggle for what was in his eyes his country's "religious survival"
was positive rather than negative. That is to say, Gandhi was interested not so
much in saying things against the Christian missionaries as in saying things in
favor of India's cultural heritage, a heritage to which his own Jaina community
had made no mean contribution.
This background to Gandhi's activities
explains, why he always spoke with the zeal of a missionary. But significantly
enough, in Gandhi's mental make‑up there was also a scholarly side and
the best literary specimens, where he comes out as a beautiful blend of the
missionary, and the scholar are his lectures pertaining to Jainism‑particularly
those related to the Jaina doctrine of Karma.
A specimen belonging to the same group is his present lecture‑series
dealing with the systems of Indian philosophy. However, this series has certain
specific features of its own, and it is to these that we turn our attention
next.
The task of interpreting the systems of
Indian Philosophy is beset with two sets of problems, one having to do with the
nature of the subject‑matter in question and the other with what happens
to be the general standpoint of the interpreter concerned. To take the two sets
one by one. The major part of India's philosophical literature is in Sanskrit,
some in Prakrit and some in Pali; and almost no texts that claim attention in
this connection are a modern composition. Thus a student of Indian philosophy
has not only to master a language like Sanskrit (preferably, Prakrit and Pali
as well) but he has also to learn the art of placing himself in the position of
an ancient or a medieval Indian. It is only after fulfilling these two rather
irksome requirements that one would find it possible to rightly understand what
a particular system of Indian philosophy says on this or that problem it has
cared to investigate. And then comes the question of offering interpretations
to what has been taught by a system of Indian Philosophy, interpretations that
are bound to differ in case they happen to be offered by students whose own
ideological affiliations are mutually different. Of course, the ideological
affiliation of an interpreter of Indian Philosophy (for that matter, of any
philosophy whatsoever) need not bear a recognized 'label' but it should be
something precisely definable nevertheless. For example, the general standpoint
of Radhakrishnan (and of those numerous prominent Indian authors who have
followed his lead) can rightly be called Advaita
Vedantic, but it will be somewhat difficult to give a name to the general
standpoint of a Max Muller or a Deussen. But both Max Muller and Deussen were
good Christians deeply in sympathy with Kant, and the fact is largely
responsible for the way they have handled the problems of Indian Philosophy.
Certainly, a Western movement for the study of Indian Philosophy headed by persons
like Max Muller and Deussen, could not but present the Advaita Vedanta of
Sankara in the most favorable light, and judge each and every other systems of
Indian Philosophy on the basis of the distance that separates it from this
Advaita Vedanta, a procedure essentially the same as was subsequently followed
by Radhakrishnan and others in India. This circumstance is a good deal
responsible for the somewhat lop‑sided development of the studies related
to Indian Philosophy that have been conducted in the West and in India in the
course of past hundred years or so. Gandhi's keen eyes could see the danger
inherent in the situation, as should be evident from the following comment he
made (in his article published in Mind) by way of taking mild exception to a
statement occurring in the Prospectus of the newly founded journal that was to
acquire a big name afterwards: "This statement seems to whisper in my ears
that Hindu metaphysics has not been able to offer the right solution of the
various intricate problems of life that are staring in the face of the Western
thinkers. By "Hindu" is meant, of course, the special phase of
Vedanta philosophy that has been presented to the people of West during the
last four years. I am glad that the truth in Vedanta has come to the shores of
this country. It would have been much better if the whole truth lying back of
the different sectarian systems of India had been presented, so that a complete
instead of a partial view of India's wisdom might have satisfied the craving of
deep students." (The Jaina Philosophy, p. 14). Be that as it may, the
systems of Indian Philosophy can be fruitfully studied also from a Western
standpoint different from that of Kant and from an Indian standpoint different
form that of Sankara. Nay, it is doubtless desirable that these systems be
studied from the various standpoints that dominate the Western philosophical
scene as also from those that dominate the Indian philosophical scene. Gandhi's
present lectures on the systems of Indian Philosophy are important inasmuch as
they give us an idea of how a liberal Jaina looks at‑and places before an
American audience‑the philosophical heritage of his motherland.
Gandhi well realized that grounding in
Sanskrit is indispensable for one seeking to know something of India's past
glory. That is why he once argues: "The many learned missionary gentlemen
who have written or who have exhausted their oratory power in denouncing India,
can only prove their claim to be an authority when they show their knowledge of
the Hindu religion, and this can only be proven by their knowledge of Sanskrit.
When they can converse with me in this language I Shal consider their words
worthy of consideration and not before". ("Have Christian Missions,
etc.", The Jaina Philosophy, p. 86) Of course, Gandhi was not only not
blind to the existence of Western Sanskritists but was himself a personal
friend of good many of them; (what he was there criticizing was the ignorant
debunking of things Indian on the part of the Christian missionaries come from
abroad). Not only that, he actually made best use of the English translations
done by Western scholars of the Sanskrit, Prakrit and Pali texts, though when
need arose, he would prepare his own English version of an Indian text passage
that was in no way inferior to that of the best translators of those days. As a
matter of fact, Gandhi's general mastery over English language was strikingly
perfect. However, a thorough grounding in Sanskrit and a good command over
English would not have sufficed for Gandhi's need; what he above all required
was a capacity to grasp the spirit of the teaching imparted by an ancient
Indian text, he took up for study. And with this capacity too Gandhi was
endowed in good measure. A ringing confirmation of this comes from his present
lectures on the systems of Indian Philosophy, where we find him taking great
pains to tell us just, what a Sankhya Philosopher, a Yoga Philosopher, a Naya‑Vaisesika Philosopher, a Vedanta Philosopher or a Buddhist Philosopher has to say on this
or that question. Of course, the very fact that Gandhi chooses to discuss
certain topics and not others in the course of his treatment of a particular
system of Indian Philosophy betrays his own likes and dislikes; the more so is
the case with the critical remarks he now and then passes against a non‑Jaina
system. But that has to be the feature of all principled exposition of the
tenets of Indian Philosophy (for that matter, of any philosophy whatsoever);
and Gandhi was certainly a man of principles. What we are emphasizing is that
Gandhi's own ideological affiliation did no prevent him from making maximum
effort to get at the heart of the various positions developed by the various
non Jaina systems of Indian Philosophy. In his lecture on Jainism‑which
is the last lecture in the present series‑ Gandhi enumerates what he
considers to be the four questions basic to all philosophical investigation;
they are:
(i) What is the nature of the universe?
(ii) What is the nature of God?
(iii) What is the nature and what the
destiny of soul?
(iv) What are the laws of the soul's
life?
[the questions (iii) and (iv) are closely
related, the former inquiring about the general nature of a soul, its bondage
and its liberation, the later inquiring
about the functioning of the "law of Karma"].
And his exposition of Jainism is in the form of a discussion of the Jaina
answer to these four questions. In the case of the rest of the systems there is
no ordered treatment of these questions, but there too Gandhi is always taking
up one or another from among these very questions (which is but to be expected
in view of Gandhi's understanding of what constitutes a philosophical
investigation being what it is ). And it should not be difficult for an
intelligent reader to make out for himself how this or that system differs from
Jainism on this or that question. But Gandhi, almost totally unmindful of this
difference, continues his painstaking works of exposition. As for the points of
criticism occasionally raised against a non‑Jaina system they seem to
have been balanced by an occasionally showered praise. In any case, Gandhi is
not obsessed by the fact that each of the non‑Jaina systems considered by
him differs from Jainism more or less sharply on some questions or others.
Let us now take critical note of the
facts about Indian Philosophy that Gandhi thought fit to convey to his American
audience and of his manner of doing so Gandhi has taken up for consideration
the following systems: Sankhya, Yoga,
Naya (and Vaisesika). Mimamsa, Vedanta,
Buddhism and Jainism. And it will be convenient and useful for us to discuss his
treatment of these systems one by one.
1.
SANKHYA
Gandhi bases his account of the Sankhya
system on the version of it that we find in the Sankhya Sutras (a version not essentially different from that found in the
Sankhya Karika and one entitled to be treated as 'Classical Sankhya'). Students
of Indian Philosophy attach importance to the Sankhya system for diverse‑nay,
mutually opposite‑reasons. Those inclined to favor idealism (if the
Advaita Vedanta type, say) emphasize the fact that according to Sankhya the
world of day‑to‑day experience (in it capacity as an evolute of Prakrit) is real to a soul‑in‑bondage
(i.e. a soul‑under‑ignorance) but unreal to an emancipated (i.e an
enlightened) soul; those inclined to favor realism emphasize the fact that
according to Sankhya prakriti, the
root‑cause of the world of day‑to‑day experience, is a
reality co‑eternal with the multiplicity of souls.
As a matter of fact, the Sankhya philosopher's
position on the question is considerably obscure, it being really difficult to
make out as to what he precisely means by his thesis that prakriti evolves itself in the form of the world of day‑to‑day
experience for a soul that is in bondage while it ceases to do so for a soul
that is emancipated. With this obscurity in the background we can easily follow
Gandhi's account of the Sankhya system. Gandhi gives prominence to the Sankhya
philosopher's contention that the world of day‑to‑day experience
evolved out of prakriti is not an
illusory appearance and that the souls are many in number, a contention
directed against two fundamental theses of Advaita Vedanta. But he raises
pointed objection against the Sankhya position that Buddhi ('intellect' in Gandhi's translation) is a product of prakriti (which in turn is a physical
entity) while ahankara ('self‑consciousness'
in Gandhi ji's translation) is a product of Buddhi.
The functions that the Sankhya philosopher assigns to Buddhi and ahankara will
be assigned to soul by Gandhi (rather by the Jaina philosopher) and the latter
must have noted that the former's way of speaking paves the way for the Advaita
Vedantist's dismissal of a soul's individuality as an illusory appearance. For Buddhi and ahankara represent the essence of an individual's individuality, and if they have nothing to
do with soul the conclusion certainly follows that soul has nothing to do with
an individual's individuality; and this conclusion couple with the thesis that
all physical phenomena whatsoever are illusory naturally leads to the Advaita
Vedanta position that the sole existing reality is one soul. Of course, Gandhi
must have also realized that the functions attributed by the Sankhya philosopher to Buddhi and ahankara cannot be the functions of a physical entity (as Buddhi and ahankara allegedly are), for to concede that possibility will mean
embracing materialism. Be that as it may, Gandhi made an honest attempt to
place before his audience the picture of an Indian system of philosophy that is
partly idealist, partly realist, partly materialist. And if it is the realistic
aspects of the Sankhya teaching that chiefly received Gandhi's attention it is
not because Gandhi was himself a realist but because the 'classical Sankhya' is
actually a realistic system of philosophy on the whole. One more point. Gandhi
well observed that in an Indian system of philosophy the metaphysical and ethic
‑religious matters invariably go hand in hand, but he also knew that the
importance attached to these two in different systems is differently
proportioned. And consequently in his exposition of a system of Indian
Philosophy Gandhi would endeavor to remain loyal to the spirit of the original
in this respect. Thus he treated Sankhya as a philosophical system chiefly
devoted to theoretical problems while touching upon the problems of practice as
well; (on the contrary, he treated the Yoga
of Patanjali as a philosophical
system chiefly devoted to practical problems while touching upon the problems
of theory as well). That is why Gandhi begins his lecture on Sankhya by telling
us that the Sankhya philosopher aims at a cessation of the threefold miseries
while in the course of his exposition he incidentally tells us as to what
according to the Sankhya philosopher is the nature of moksa and what the means of attaining it, for the rest his concern
is with the metaphysical tenets of the Sankhya system.
2.
YOGA
Gandhi rightly noted that the Yoga system of philosophy‑ more
properly, the system of philosophy propounded by Pantanjali in his Yoga Sutras‑ differs but little from
Sankhya so far as theoretical questions are concerned; what distinguishes Yoga
is its over‑all preoccupation with practical matters. Hence we find
Gandhi too almost exclusively discussing practical matters throughout his
lecture on Yoga. But the practical matters taken into consideration by the Yoga
system are of a somewhat peculiar nature. The Yoga philosopher (rather the Yoga
adept) aims at developing the capacity to concentrate his mind on one subject
of the exclusion of everything else‑and ultimately to concentrate it on
`nothing'. A rough equivalent for `concentration of mind' is `cessation of
mental modifications (Skt. Citta vrtti‑
nirodha)' and whatever theoretical problems interest a Yoga philosopher
mostly arise in the course of his inquiry into the precise nature of citta, citta‑vrtti and citta‑vrtti‑nirodha. For
the rest he is busy discussing the practical measures to be devised in order to
develop the capacity for `concentration of mind' (or discussing the miraculous
capacities that a practicing yogi
allegedly comes to acquire). Gandhi's exposition of Yoga therefore begins with a brief account of citta, citta‑vrtti and
citta‑vrtti‑nirodha; then is considers the nature of the eight yogangas (or `means of yoga'‑
i.e., means for developing the capacity for concentration of mind), and lastly
the miraculous capacities that one allegedly comes to acquire as a result of
concentrating one's mind on this object or that. Now the first two yogangas happen to be yam and niYams (in Gandhi's translation `forbearances' and `observances')
and the various sub‑species of them happen to be various virtues of
character. Thus the five yams are
`abstaining from killing (ahimsa)',
`abstaining from falsehood (satya)',
`abstaining from theft (asteya)',
`austerity (tapas)', `study (svadhyaya)'
and `resignation to God (Isvarapranidhana)'.
Hence the consideration of these two yogangas
provided Gandhi a good opportunity to express his views on a number of ethical
questions. Of course, in his exposition Gandhi did not want to deviate from
what was actually said or implied in the Yoga
writings; but when he found that a particular position adopted by the Yoga philosopher was not worth dilating
upon he simply mentioned it and passed on. This attitude becomes particularly
striking in the later parts of his exposition‑ that is, in the course of
his exposition of the remaining six yogangas
and of the miraculous capacities allegedly acquired by a practicing yogin. In these parts we are able to
know a good deal as to what the Yoga philosopher has to say on the questions
under consideration but pretty little as to what Gandhi himself feels about the
matter. But one thing is certain. In his own way Gandhi was thoroughly convinced
that as a result of controlled `concentration of mind' (and the allied yoga
exercises) one can come to acquire supra‑normal capacities of body and
mind; this becomes clear not only from the occasional comments made by him in
the course of his present lecture on Yoga philosophy but also from his numerous
other lectures on the subject of yoga which were later on published under the
title `The Yoga Philosophy'. Perhaps, Gandhi would not therefore endorse the
following stricture passed by Max Muller against that part of the Yoga Sutras where the miraculous powers
allegedly acquired by a practicing yogi
are enumerated: ``... we get more and more into superstitions, by no means
without parallels in other countries, but for all that, superstitions which
have little claim on the attention of the philosopher, however interesting they
may appear to pathologist", (The six systems of Indian philosophy, p.
351). But then Max Muller had himself gone on to add; ``These matters, though
trivial, could not be passed over, whether we accept them as hallucinations to
which, as we know, our thinking organ (organs?) are liable, or whether we try
essential part on yoga philosophy and
it is certainly noteworthy even from a philosophical point of view, that we
find such vague and incredible statements side by side with the specimens of
the most exact reasoning and careful observation'' (Ibid., p. 352) Moreover,
the acquisition of miraculous capacities was not considered even by Gandhi to
be the true aim of yoga practice; for in his eyes this aim was `self‑culture'
as he understood it.
3.
NAYA (AND VAISESIKA)
For reasons partly technical and partly
ideological the Naya‑Vaisesika system yet remains `under‑studied'
by the students of Indian Philosophy‑Indian as well as Western. On account
of their logical rigor‑ as also on account of their highly evolved
technical terminology ‑even the elementary Naya‑Vaisesika
texts are tough enough to scare the novice. Another reason for the comparative
neglect of the system lies in the content of its teaching. The Naya‑Vaisesika philosophy is a type of empirical realism and as such it
is opposed to the transcendental idealism of Advaita Vedanta‑ the system
patronized by a majority of scholars working the field of Indian philosophy.
Max Muller's attitude was typical. "While in the systems hitherto
examined," he says, "particularly in the Vedanta, Sankhya and Yoga, there runs a strong religious and
even poetical vein, we now come to two systems, Naya and Vaisesika, which
are very dry and unimaginative, ... businesslike exposition of what can be
known, either of the world which surrounds us or of the world within..."
(The Six Systems, p. 362). Gandhi, who was himself a man of deeply religious
temperament, and who must have been alive to the fact that the Naya‑Vaisesika system pays scant heed to the problems of ethics and
religion, could not ditto Max Muller's sweeping condemnation of the system, not
only because the condemnation was so sweeping but also because Gandhi's own
general philosophical standpoint was realistic rather than idealistic. But as
things stood, Gandhi did not think it worthwhile to say much (maybe he had not
think it worthwhile to say much (maybe he had not much to say) about the
philosophical teachings of the Naya‑Vaisesika system, and what we have from
his pen is a barest outline of the
sixteen topics (technically called Padarthas)
whose consideration exhausts what may be called the Naya philosophy and of the seven categories (again, technically
called Padarthas) whose consideration
exhausts what may be called a Vaisesika
philosophy.
4.
MIMAMSA
Gandhi did not consider Mimamsa to be a system of philosophy but
a system of ritualism, and that is why he just takes note of it and then passes
on to the system to be taken up next. As a matter of fact, Mimamsa is both a system of philosophy and a system of ritualism.
But the philosophical literature emanating from the Mimamsa school belongs to the same broad category (and broadly
presents the same type of difficulties before a student) as does that emanating
from the Naya‑Vaisesika school. Nay, a serious study
of the Naya‑Vaisesika philosophy is impossible
without a serious study of the Mimamsa
philosophy (just as it is impossible without a serious study of the Buddhist philosophy as expounded by the
school of Dinnaga and Dharmakirti). Be that as it may, we too take leave of Mimamsa and proceed on the Vedanta.
5.
VEDANTA
Gandhi's account of the Vedanta
philosophy is most illuminating and for various reasons. Neither in the case of
Sankhya‑Yoga, nor in that of
Naya‑Vaisesika (nor in that of Mimamsa) did Gandhi encounter strong
contemporary champions, but a good part of India's Hindu populace happens to be the adherent of one Vedanta sect or another (and a majority
of scholars working in the field of Indian philosophy happen to be the
sympathizers of Advaita Vedanta). Gandhi therefore thought it
necessary to carefully analyze the respective philosophical standpoints of
Sankar‑ the chief advocate of Advaita
Vedanta‑ and Ramanuja‑
the chief advocate of Visistadvaita Vedanta‑, devoting relatively much
greater attention to the former. And by way of introducing his subject he
quoted long passages from the famous Chandogya
Upanisad dialogue between Uddalaka
Aruni and his son Svetaketu. We are thus enabled to work out for ourselves of
comparative estimate of the old‑Upanisadic
teaching, Sankara's teaching and Ramanuja's teaching on the fundamental
questions of philosophy. In the course of his exposition of Sankara's
philosophy Gandhi explicitly touches upon the problem of the relation in which
this philosophy stands to the teaching contained in the old Upanisads. He rightly points out that
Sankara's followers with their distinction between `lower' and `higher' truths
find no difficulty in both accepting and repudiating the teaching of old Upanishads which seldom lend clear
support to the idealist‑ illusionist philosophy of Sankara. As a matter
of fact, in Gandhi's present lecture‑series most of such remarks as can
be construed as critical‑remarks that are certainly few and far between‑
are concentrated in the part concerned with the exposition of Sankara's
philosophy.
6. BUDDHISM
The last non‑Jaina system of
philosophy considered by Gandhi is Buddhism.
But here the exposition of the Buddhist
philosophy is preceded by a summary narration of Budda's life‑story. The
decision of include the biographical portion seems to have been a result of
second thoughts but it has been well executed; for we are thereby assisted in
forming a graphic idea of what it was in Buddha's life‑activities that
Gandhi admired most. In his exposition of the Buddhist philosophy Gandhi confines himself to Southern Buddhism (i.e., the Theravada branch of Hinayana
Buddhism). Now in the philosophical
literature of Southern Buddhism much
attention has been devoted to the ethico‑religious problems and
comparatively little to the metaphysical ones. The same is the case with
Gandhi's account of the Buddhist
philosophy. For we are here given an account of the fourfold `noble truths',
fthe seven `jewels' of the Buddhist law, the Buddhist
notion of nirvana, the Buddhist
understanding of the `law of Karma',
and such other ethico‑religious topics, but the doctrine of `five skandhas (along with its corollary, the
doctrine of `no soul') ‑ the only
metaphysical doctrine considered‑is introduced as a sort of side‑issue
while dealing with the first `noble truth'. The only place where Gandhi
pointedly raises objection against a Buddhist
position is revealing. For he feels that Buddha's acceptance of the `law of Karma' is incompatible with the latter's
denial of `soul'. Now irrespective of whether this objection of Gandhi is valid
or not it is definitely indicative of his repeatedly asserted conviction that
an ethics in order to be sound must be based on a sound metaphysics.
7.
JAINISM
Last of all Gandhi takes up the Jains
system of philosophy, a system he himself espouses. As noted earlier, it is in
this connection that Gandhi enumerates
the four questions regarded by him as basic to all philosophical investigation.
The questions are:
(1) What is the nature of the universe?
(2) What is the nature of God?
(3) What is the nature and what the
destiny of soul?
(4) What are the laws of the soul's life?
Gandhi's account of the Jaina answer to
these four questions is worthy of most serious consideration. For here we have
a fine illustration of Gandhi's inexhaustible capacity to make the Jaina
positions comprehensible to a non‑Jaina audience‑and a non‑Jaina
Western audience at that). Gandhi's `four questions' clearly prove that his
understanding of what constitutes a philosophical investigation was truly all‑
comprehensive. Thus he would expect a philosophical system to touch upon the
problems of metaphysics, psychology, ethics, as well as religion. Of course,
Gandhi knew (and the present lecture‑series is an evidence thereof) that
not all-philosophical systems are equally interested in discussing these
various generic types of problems, but he was convinced‑perhaps, rightly
that neglect of any of these types of problems on the part of a philosophical
findings.
It is hoped that this preliminary
introduction to Gandhi's lecture‑series on the systems of Indian
Philosophy will help the reader in viewing it in a proper perspective.
The present edition of Gandhi's lecture‑series
is prepared on the basis of his own manuscript of it that is in the possession
of Shri Mahavir Jain Vidyalaya,
Bombay. However, this manuscript does not contain anything on Jainism. But the
lecture (with the title `Jainism') published on pp. 41‑60 of The Jaina
Philosophy begins by mentioning that it is the last lecture of some lecture
series; from this we have surmised that here is the lecture on Jainism that
belongs to our lecture‑series (which too need in the form of its last
member a lecture on Jainism). Maybe our surmise is wrong but most probably it
is not. Again, we learn from The Universalist Messenger, Chicago, February 10,
1984 (quoted at the end of the `Selected Speeches of Shri Virchand Raghavji
Gandhi' published in May 1964 in the form of `Shri Vallabhsuri Jaina Literature
Series, No. 10') : "The series of lectures on Oriental philosophy given by
Mr. Virchand R. Gandhi every Monday evening at the residence of Mr. Chas.
Howard, 6558 Stewart Boulevard, are growing more and more interesting. The
subject philosophy." This (along with the fact that the first blank page
of our manuscript carries the address `6558, Stewart Avenue, Englewood III)' is
the basis of our surmising that our lecture‑series was delivered at
Chicago in 1984. Here again our surmise might possibly be wrong but most
probably it is not.
Mistakes occurring in the manuscript that
are obviously the slips of pen have been corrected by us without making mention
of the fact, but the places where a mistake is just suspected or where the
manuscript is not legible have been duly noted. The division of a lecture into
sections and of a section into paragraphs (as also the titling of sections) has
been undertaken by as with view to facilitating the reader's comprehension and
Yoga Gandhi closely follows certain texts of the systems; hence at appropriate
places a precise reference to the relevant passages from these texts has been
made by us in the form of footnotes. In the case of Buddhism, similar reference has been made to a few passages from
the Abhidhammathasangaho‑ a
standard philosophical manual of Theravada
Buddhism‑; but this does not
amount to claiming that it is this text that has been used by Gandhi. (The
lectures on Naya and Vedanta are a
few independent footnotes of our which seek either to elucidate of to complete
or to criticize a remark made by Gandhi; (These are not footnotes given by
Gandhi himself).
Following Gandhi's practice, no
diacritical marks have been used in the Roman version of Indian proper names.
However, since the technical terms of Indian philosophy, when written in Roman
without diacritical marks, are likely to be misunderstood they have been given
in Devanagari; (this too is in most
cases a practice also of Gandhi‑who however uses for the purpose the
Gujarati script rather than Devanagri).
L. D. INSTITUTE OF INDOLOGY K. K. DIXIT
Ahmedabad‑9.
I
THE
SANKHYA PHILOSOPHY
1.
We begin this evening with the Sankhya
philosophy. Kapila, the reputed author of this philosophy was probably a
Brahmin, Though nothing is known about him. He is the supposed author of two
works‑ the original Sankhya Sutras called (Sankhya Pravachan) and a shorter work called (Tatvsmas). The Sankhya
philosophy together with Yoga, Naya,
Vaisheshika, Mimamsa and Vedanta nominally accepts Veda as its guide. It is the Philosophy of (Sankhya), i.e. enumeration or analysis of the Universe. Sir Monier
Williams calls it by the name of synthetic enumeration. Sir William Jones calls
it the Numeral Philosophy. It has been partly compared with the metaphysics of
Pythagoras, partly in its Yoga with
the system of Zeno. Others compare it with that of Berkeley.
2.
It starts with the proposition that the world is full of miseries of
three kinds‑ the three kinds of miseries:
(1) (Adhyatmic)
due to one's self,
(2) (Adhibhotic
) due to the products of elements and
(3) (Adhidaevic
) due to supernatural causes‑and that the complete cessation of pain of
theses three kinds is the complete end and object of man. (Trividhasya adhyatmic Adhibhotic, Adhidaevic, roopsay, dukhsay,
atyantnivriti atyantPurushrth.)1
This doctrine of Sankhya is similar to the tenets held by the Buddhists whose main
doctrine is that the world is full of miseries. This is also the starting point
of Spinoza. In his work `The
Improvement of the Understanding' he says: "After experience had taught me
that all the usual surroundings of social life are vain and facile seeing that
none of the objects of my fears contain in themselves anything either good or
bad, except in so far as the mind is affected by them, I finally resolved to
inquire whether there might be some real good which the discovery and
attainment would enable me to enjoy continuous, supreme and un‑ending
happiness." That is his starting point, just the starting point where the Sankhya starts. He goes on to say:
" I thus perceived that I was in a state of peril and I compelled myself
to seek with all my strength for a remedy, however uncertain it might be, as a
sick man struggling with a deadly disease when he sees that death will surely
be upon him unless a remedy be found, is compelled to seek such a remedy with
all his strength, in as much as his whole hope lies therein. All the objects
pursued by the multitude not only bring no remedy that tends to preserve our being,
but even act as hindrance, causing the death not seldom of those who are
possessed by them." He continues: "All these evils seem to have
arisen from the fact that our happiness or unhappiness has been made the mere
creature of the thing that we happen to be loving. When a thing is not loved,
no envy if another bears it away, no fear, no hate; yes, in a world no tumult
of soul. These things all come from loving that which perishes, such as the
objects of which I have spoken. But love towards a thing eternal feasts the
mind with joy alone, nor hath sadness any part therein. Hence this is to be
prized above all and to be sought for with all our might."
3.
How was such a theory invented? In the West it has always been the case
that the peculiar circumstances of the philosopher's life lead him into a
peculiar belief, in the East the calm and quiet scenery and bountiful nature
lead him to patiently inquire into the mysteries of the universe. Their
contemporaries judge them from a false vantage ground. Spinoza in his owns age
was denounced as a atheist, profane person, monster. Long afterwards however
his works were re‑discovered, greedily read, and admired by great poets
like Goethe and by ardent and even romantic philosophers like Schelling. The Sankhya system too was considered by its
commentators atheistic. But the present generation looks charitably upon it and
tries to see some if not all-eternal truths in it.
4.
I told you in the beginning that the Sankhya
starts with the proposition that the world is full of miseries of three kinds.
These are the results of the properties of matter (Prakriti) and not of its correlate intelligence of consciousness (Purush)2. Matter is eternal
and co‑existent with spirit. It was never in a state of non‑being
but always in a state of constant change, it is subtle and insentient.
According to this view, Prakriti
existed before the evolution of the universe and will continue so to exist for
ever, but with time it has so much been changed that the unemancipated (Atma) (soul) is but ill able to
comprehend its nature. It has lost its original state and has become earthy. In
other words, Prakriti has assumed
diverse shapes both gross and subtle3.
5.
Kapila's theory is strictly a theory of evolution. He says: (Navstuno vstusidhi) ‑‑ A
thing is not made out of nothings.4 Avastunobhavat vastusidhirbhavotpatirnav sambhavti It is not possible that out of nothing,
i.e. an entity should arise. (Yadyabhavat
bhavotpatistarhi karan rupan karyai drishyat iti jagtopyavastusvanlllll ) ‑‑
If an entity were to arise out of a non‑entity, then since the character
of a cause is visible in its product the world also will be unreal5.
When the Vedantist ‑the monist
or the idealist‑tell Kapila, `Let the world too be unreal, what harm is
that to us?', he replies : Abadhat
adushtkaran.janyatvach navstuutvama‑ The world is not
unreal because these is no fact contradictory to its reality and because it is
not the false result of depraved causes (leading to a belief in what ought not
to be believed)6. (Ahuktao
rajatmiti gyanai naidan rajatmiti gyanat
naidan rajatbadh na chatr naidan bbhavroopan jagditi ksyapi gyanan yain
bhavroopbadh syat) When there is
the notion in regard to a shell of a pearl‑oyster (which sometimes
glitters like silver) that it is silver, its being silver is contradicted by
the subsequent and more correct cognition that this is not silver. But in the case in question‑that of the world
regarded as a reality, no one ever has the cognition "this world is not in
the shape of an entity", by which cognition if any one ever really had
such its being an entity might be opposed7. (Dushtkaran.janyatvach mithyaityavgamyatai yatha
kamladidoshat peetshankhgyanan ksyachit, atr cha jagatgyanasya sarvaishan
srvada stvann doshosti)‑ And it is held that that is false which is
the result of a depraved cause, e.g. someone's cognition of a white conch‑shell
as yellow, through such a fault as the jaundice which depraves his eye‑sight.
But in the case in question‑that of the world regarded as a reality, there
is no such temporary or occasional depravation of the sense because all at all
times cognize the world as a reality. Therefore the world is not an unreality8.
Again he says: Nasdutpado nrinshrigavt ‑ The production of that which does
not already exist potentially is impossible like the horn of a man.9
Upadananiymat ‑ Because there
must of necessity be a material out of which a product is developed.10 Srvatr srvada srvasanbhvat- Because everything
is not possible everywhere and always (which might be the case if materials
could be dispensed with).11 The meaning is this : Srvatr srvasmin Daiichi srvada srvasmin
kalai srvanutpatairlokdrshanat ‑ In the world we see that everything is not possible everywhere and at
all times. And Shaktasy shakyekaran.at
‑ Because anything possible must be produced from something competent to
produce it.12
In short, the Hindu philosopher's belief
in the eternity of the world's substance arises from the fixed article `Ex nihilo nihil fit,' nothing
is produced out of anything. All the ancient philosophers of Greece‑ who
are believed to have borrowed their theories from India‑seem to have
agreed upon this point. Lucretius starts with laying down the same principal.
He says: "It things proceed from nothing, everything might spring from
everything and nothing would require a seed. Men might arise first from sea,
and fish and birds from earth, and flocks and herds break into being from sky;
every kind of beast might be produced at random in cultivated places or
deserts. The same
fruits would not grow on the same trees
but would be changed. All things would be able to produce all things."
6.
Sankhya philosophy then starts
with an original primordial tattva or
eternally existing essence called Prakriti‑
a word means that which evolves or produces everything else. Some philosophers
translate this Prakriti by nature.
Certainly, nature is anything but a good equivalent for Prakriti, which donates something very different from matter or
even germ of mere material substances. It is an intensely subtle original
essence, wholly distinct from soul yet capable of evolving out of itself
consciousness and mind as well as the whole visible world.13 In my
opinion it is not even the name for anything which ever existed by itself. For
Kapila himself in his work says: Parnparyaipaikatr
parinishthaiti sangyamatram
In the manifestation of objects there
must be a succession of causes without any end; and in Hindu logic the ruling
idea is that you must suppose a point to exist where you should halt and Prakriti is only a halting point;
therefore, it is in Kapila's words only a sangyamatram,
i.e. merely a name given to the point in question, a mere sign to donate the
cause which is the root which must be assumed rootless, merely to conform to
the rule of Hindu logic.14
7.
Let us now see how Kapila defines this Prakriti. It is Satvrajstamasan
‑ Prakriti is the state of
equipoise of Satv, Rajas, Tames goodness
or passivity, passion, energy or activity and darkness or grossness.15
These three qualities passivity, activity and grossness‑ are not
qualities in the ordinary sense. Qualities in the ordinary sense are attributes
of Prakriti, they are rather the
cords which when in a state of equipoise constitute Prakriti. On account of the disturbance of this state of
equilibrium the whole world comes out. Kapila says: Prakritairmhan mahatohankar ahankarat panchtanmatran.i
ubhyamindrayam tanmatraibhye sthoolbhootani Purush iti panchvinshtirgan. From
Prakriti proceeds Mind mehat, from Mind self‑consciousness,
from self‑consciousness the five subtle elements Sthoolbhotani16 and two sets of organs Indriyas external and internal, and from
subtle elements gross elements sthoolbhootani
16. Thus Prakriti is the
first basic primordial essence, and second principal evolved out of it is Mind,
from Mind come out the third principal Ahankara,
self‑consciousness or individuality, from individuality come our five
subtle elements and two sets of organs. These five subtle elements are Shabd, Sparsh, Roop Ras Gandha‑
sound, tangibility, form or color, taste and smell or odour17. The
two sets of organs are external organs and internal organs. The external organs
are again organs of sense and organs of action. The organs of sense are ear,
skin, eye, nose, tongue; the organs of action are larynx, hand, foot, and the
excretory and generative organs. These ten are external organs. The eleventh is
the mind‑ the internal organ18. From the five subtle elements
are produced five gross elements‑ Akash
(ether), Vayu (air), Taijas (fire or light), Apas (water), Prithvi (earth)19. The twenty-fifth is the Purush ‑ the Soul, which is neither producer nor produced but eternal like Prakriti. It is quite distinct from the
producing or produced elements and creation of the phenomenal world, though
liable to be brought into connection with them.
8.
The
arguments which Kapila brings forward for the existence of soul as a separate
entity, distinct from Prakriti, are
these; First, Sanhatprarthatvat that which combined and is therefore
discreditable is finally for the sake of some other which is not discerptible20.
The second argument Trigun.adivipryat
Soul is something else than Prakriti
because there is in Soul the reverse of the three qualities passivity, activity
and grossness21. The third argument is Adhishthanach -Soul is not material because of its superintendence
over Prakriti (and a superintendent
is an intelligent being while Prakriti
is unintelligent)22. The fourth argument is Bhoktribhavat - Soul is not material because of its being the
experiencer23. It is the Prakriti
that is experienced, the experiencer is soul.
What then is the nature of soul? Kapila
answers: Jadprkashayogat parkas Since light does not pertain to the
unintelligent, light is the essence of soul24. The followers of the
Vaisheshika system think that intelligence is only an attribute of soul; really
it is without quality25. It is essentially intelligent. If soul be
unintelligent, it would not be a witness of its own comfort in profound and
dreamless sleep26. He does not agree with the Vedantists when they say that soul is one only for it is eternal,
omnipresent, changeless, void of blemish; on the contrary, he says that from
the fact [that] when one person is born another dies and a third one becomes
old at the same time [it follows that] there is a multiplicity of souls27.
If soul were one only, when one is born all must be born28. Both the
Vedantists and the Sankhya are followers of the Veda and in the Veda there are passages like Aikamaivadviteeyan
brahm (chhandogyopanishad 6.2.1), naih nanasti kinchan (Vrihadan.ykopnishad 4.4.19)
mritio sa mritiomapnoti ye eh nanaiv
pashyati (kathopnishad 2.1.10) ‑ Brahma is one without a second;
there is nothing here diverse; death after death does he, the deluded man
obtain who here sees as if it were a multiplicity. Kapila gives an ingenious
interpretation to these passages. He says that his view of the multiplicity of
souls is not opposed to the above passages of the Upanisads because those texts
refer to the genus of all souls, i.e. to the fact that all souls are of the
same nature29. On the contrary he says in the Puranas we find passages to the effect that Vamadeva has been liberated, Shuck
has been liberated. If soul were one, since the liberation of all would take
place on the liberation of one the mention of diverse liberation's would be
self‑contradictory30.
9.
The soul is not considered by the Sankhya
bound to matter. It is not bound, nor is it liberated. It is free. It has a
delusive semblance of being bound. The nature of the soul is constant freedom
and indifference to pleasure and pain alike31.
10.
These are the basic principals of the Sankhya philosophy. In short, according to its doctrines Prakriti and Purush are enough in themselves to and the idea of a creator is
looked upon by the Sankhya as a mere
redundant phantom of philosophy32.
11.
We may now enter into the details of this philosophy. In the first place
let us ask Kapila what the motive is for the creation of the universe. He
mentions two motives; they might have appeared satisfactory to him but to me
his reply is not rational. He says that Prakriti
created the universe for the emancipation of the soul which is really though
not apparently emancipated or, secondly, for the removal of itself, i.e. for
the sake of removing the actually real pain which consists of itself, as his
commentator explains it33. It the soul is essentially free and
essentially light, there was no necessity for Prakriti to interfere with the soul's infinite bliss.
That soul is really though not apparently
emancipated means that it is really emancipated but appears to be not so.
Gandhi's interpretation of the phrase seems to be somewhat far‑fetched,
but he is apparently following some commentator. The more natural
interpretation of the phrase should be: "Or we may say that Prakriti created the universe for the
sake of itself , that is, for the sake of the removal of pain that really
belongs to itself."As we have noted, in the Sankhya philosopher's eyes pain is a phenomenon belongsing to Prakriti rather than to Purush.
12.
Let us examine the other stages of creation. I told you in the beginning
that from Prakriti sprang the Great
Mind. What is this Great Mind? Kapila says: It is intellect and judgement or
ascertainment is its peculiar modification; and Dharma, gyan, Vairagya, Aeshvarya i.e. merit, knowledge, dispassion
and supernatural power arise out of it when there is in it a superlative degree
of the first if the three qualities, i.e. Satv,
purity or passivity. But demerit, ignorance, non‑dispassion and want of
supernatural power arise out of it when there is in it a preponderance of the
other two qualities34. From the great principal ‑the Greet
Mind, we were told, is produced Ahankara
i.e. self‑consciousness. It is what makes the Ego. It is the same as Antakaran i.e. the internal instrument35.
We were also told that the eleven organs and five subtle elements are produced
from self‑consciousness. But there is this distinction that the eleventh
organ, the mind proceeds from self‑consciousness in which the first
quality Satv, purity or passivity‑
preponderates, while the other ten organs proceed from self‑consciousness
in which the second quality‑activity or passion‑predominates, and
the five subtle elements proceed from self‑consciousness in which the third
quality‑darkness or grossness‑ predominates36. I have
already enumerated the eleven organs. The popular opinion is that the organs
are formed of gross elements. But the Sankhya
doctrine is that is not so because the Veda
does not support that view and we know that Kapila could not assume an attitude
of direct opposition to the Vedas37.
There was another popular opinion about this mind‑organ. It was that it
is eternal, but Kapila says that none of the
organs is eternal because the Vedas
say so and because we see that they are destroyed.38 Further he says
that mind is the leading organ while the other ten are kinds of powers.39
All these organs are mere instruments. As a king even without himself taking an
active part becomes a warrior simply by employing an army, so does the soul,
although quiescent, through the different organs, become a seer, a speaker, a
judge and the like, merely by reason of its proximity with these organs40.
There are some special properties
belonging to the Great Intellect, self‑consciousness and the mind.
Attention or thought is the special property of the Intellect, conceit of
personality is the property of self‑consciousness, and decision and doubt
of the mind41, while the five airs‑ known as Pran etc. ‑ are the common
properties of all of them42. The modifications of the organs are Prman. Vipreya, Vikalp, Nidra,
Smriti, evidence, chimera, sleep
and memory. Some of them are painful, and others not painful43. When
these modifications cease to exist the soul comes to a state of self‑quiet44.
The Yoga philosophy has the same
doctrine. The very word Yoga means
concentration and is defined as the suppression of the modifications of the
thinking principal45.
13.
We will go
still deeper into Kapila's philosophy. We have enumerated in the beginning the
25 principals commencing with Prakriti
and ending with Purusa. Prakriti as Prakriti in a state of equilibrium is unable to produce anything.
It is only when equilibrium is disturbed that the creation follows. Purush‑the soul‑itself is
neither the producer nor the produced. Whence is the human body created
according to this philosophy? Kapila says that out of the remaining twenty‑three
principals a pair of bodies sthool shreer and Sooksham shreer gross
body and subtle body originates.46 In fact the twenty‑three
principals act as the seed. out of which the body is produced and the fact that
the soul becomes conditioned by the 23 principals is the cause of its going
from one body to another in fact the cause of all mundane existence47,
and this mundane existence continues for each soul so long as it does not
discriminate the difference between soul and Prakriti48. It should be noted how ‑ever that
according to Kapila's theory the soul is not really fettered by matter, it only
has a wrong impression that it is fettered. Really it is quite free. Only it
does not realize this fact so long as it is in mundane existence. We come again
to the pair of bodies‑ the gross body and the subtle body. The gross body
usually though not always arises from father and mother, while the subtle body
is a creation out of the principals49. Pleasure and pain belong to
the subtle
Body, not to the gross body50.
In the beginning of the creation there was but one subtle body which consisted
of the collection of seventeen elements‑eleven organs, five subtle
elements and the Buddhi, i.e. the
great intellect the understanding51. But through the diversity of
actions later on the one subtle body became differentiated into many52.
The subtle body does not exist independently, It has its tabernacle‑ the
gross body for residing therein. As a shadow or a picture does not stand
without a support, so the subtle body at death leaves one gross body and passes
into another53. It cannot in fact exist independently because its
essence is Satvprakash pure light and
all luminous ether is seen only as associated with earthy substance.54
The gross body is a composition of the five gross elements.55
14.
What aims then are accomplished by the subtle body transmigrating from
one gross body to another? Kapila says Gyananmukti. From knowledge (acquired
through mundane existence) comes the liberation, i.e. the discrimination
between soul and non‑soul.56 Bondage is also one of the aims
of this transmigration but it arises on account of misconception57.
Kapila altogether discards the theory of the efficacy of works as a means of
salvation. To him only knowledge is the sole means of libertaion.58 Even
meditation is not the direct cause of liberation, though it is useful as
secondary cause, for it removes desire, which really hinders knowledge59.
So it is worth practicing, which can be done by stopping all modifications of
the Mind60. This is done by dharna
asan and Svkarm restrain, posture
and the fulfillment of duties.61 By restrain I mean the restrain of
breath by means of expulsion and retention under certain rules.62 By
posture is meant the peculiar position in sitting gives pleasure,63
and by the fulfillment of the duties is meant by the performance of actions
prescribed for one's religious order.64 This meditation can be
acquired only through Vairagya and abhyasa
dispassion and constant practice.65 Through meditation knowledge is
acquired. But if misconception interferes, bondage will be the result. What is
this misconception? It is fivefold Avidya
Asmat, Rag, Dvaish and Abhinivaish
ignorance, egoism, attachment, aversion and fear of dissolution.66
Why should this misconception play its part at all? Simply because the powers
called Tushti and Siddhi are impeded and hence arises the
disability which cause misconception. Much can be said with reference to these
powers of Tushti and Siddhi. But our time will not permit us
to go into any details.67 We shall come to some of them when we
shall talk on the Yoga philosophy.
15.
There is however one point to which, I should draw your attention. I
mean the nature of the Sankhya Mukti the liberation of the soul. His
theory is not, as misunderstood by Western orientalists, the theory of
absorption. The soul on liberation does not merge into the Universal Spirit or
into the Absolute, for in his system there is no such thing as the Supreme
Spirit or the Absolute. Not only does he not propound such a theory as the
final object but on the contrary he refutes it.68 He thinks that by
merging into the primordial original essence, the Prakriti, the souls will have to rise again and pass through
different mundane existence.69 It is only when the right
discrimination of soul and non‑soul takes place that there will be the
final emancipation of the soul.70
16.
There is another point to which I should like to draw your attention.
The Sankhya philosophy in a large
measure supports the nature working under fixed laws without any interference
on the part of an extra‑cosmic being.
17. But of all his theories, one that has
struck me to be the most liberal is the universal salvation theory. He does not
restrict the liberation only to the few followers of his philosophy but to
others also.71
18.
So far we have tried to understand the meaning of Kapila's theory. Let
us now see if it is consistent and appeals to our reason. In the first place,
he says that Prakriti was in the
beginning in a state of equilibrium. The three qualities, passivity, activity
and grossness, were balanced. What then caused a disturbance in this state of
equilibrium? Without external‑causes,
Prakriti cannot be disturbed. Pursha the soul is action-less,
changeless, without any qualities or attributes.
Secondly, the Great Mind and self‑consciousness
are considered by Kapila to be different form each other. According to him one
is the product of the other. And both of them are the outcome of Prakriti, which is really material. Now
the Great Mind or Buddhi or intellect
is nothing but a phase of consciousness. Self‑consciousness‑'I am
happy ','I am unhappy'‑ is only a particular instance illustrating that
phase and both of them imply knowledge and are but the characters of the soul
but can never be the products of primordial material essence.
With regard to subtle elements Kapila
says that gross elements are produced from these subtle elements; e.g., from
odor comes out earth, from taste water, from color fire, from touch wind and
from sound ether. If he means that the gross elements, which we see outside the
human or any other gross organic body, are the products of these subtle
elements, there is no reason to support it. The external elements we see are as
eternal as anything else.
REFERENCES:
1.
SS 1.1; SK 1
2. Since Purush (i.e. Soul) is here
conceived in the from of pure consciousness (rather than a conscious substance)
all properties whether physical or mental are somehow or other traced to Prakriti (i.e. matter). But how mental
properties‑the threefold miseries, for example‑can characterize
matter is one of the obscurest point of the system.
3. Here is the Sankhya doctrine that it is only in the eyes of un unenlightened
soul that Prakriti assumes the form
of the world of day‑to‑day experience (while an enlightened soul
views Prakriti in its pristine form).
4. SS 1.78
5. Ani. 1.78
6. SS 1.79
7. Ani. 11.79
8. Ibid
9. SS 1.114; SK 9
10. SS 1.115
11. SS 1.116
12. SS 1.117
13. Gandhi has himself earlier talked as
it Prakriti is identical with mater,
but now that he notes that Prakriti
produces even consciousness he finds difficulty in accepting that position.
14. SS1.68. The Sankhya philosopher's idea seems to be that the physical world must
have a root (or we must be faced with an infinite regress) but that it is
immaterial whether this cause is given the name `Prakriti' or any other, However, in view of the basic obscurity of
the Sankhya position on the question
there is also sense in the way Gandhi interprets the present Sankhya aphorism.
15. SS 1.61
16. SS 1.61 SK 22
17. Ani. 1.61
18. Ibid
19. Ibid
20. SS 1.140; SK17
21. SS 1.141
22. SS 1.142
23. SS 1.143
24. SS 1.145
25. SS 1.146
26. SS 1.148
27. SS 1.149; SK 18; Gandhi's sentence
needs some correction of the type here suggested.
28. Ani. 1.149
29. SS 1.154
30. SS 1.157
31. SS 1.162; SK 62
32. SS 1.92
33. SS 2.1; SK 56; That soul is really
though not apparently emancipated means that it is really emancipated but
appears to be not so. Gandhi's interpretation of the phrase Svarth seems to be somewhat far‑fetched,
but he is apparently following some commentator. The more natural
interpretation of the phrase should be: "Or we may say that Prakriti created the universe for the
sake of itself, that is, for the sake of the removal of pain that really
belongs to itself." As we have noted, in the Sankhya philosopher's eyes pain is a phenomenon belonging to Prakriti rather than to Purush.
34.
SS 2.13‑15; Vijn.2.13‑15; SK 23; Both Aniruddha and SK maintain that demerit etc. arise out of Prakriti when there is in it a
preponderance of Tames (rather than
of Rajas and Tames).
35.
In Sankhya philosophy Ant Karen is the name usually given to the collection of Manas, Ahamkar and Buddhi alone‑but
seldom to ahankara. See Aniruddha on SS 2.38 (also SK 33) for
the triple composition of Anskaran
and SS 2.38 1.64 for the identification of Antakaran
with Buddhi.
36. SS 2.17- 18; SK 24-25
37. SS 2.20
38. SS 2.22
39. SS 2.27; Vijn. 2.27
40. SS 2.29; Vijn. 2.39
41. SS 2.30; Vijn. 2.30
42. SS 2.31
43. SS 2.33; Ani. 2.33
44. SS 2.34
45. YS 1.2
46. SS 3.2; Vijn. 3.2
47. SS 3.3
48. SS 3.4
49. SS 3.7; SK39
50. SS 3.8
51. SS 3.9; In fact, Ahamkar is the eighteenth constituent‑element
of the subtle body but as Vijnanabhikshu
says it is here treated as included in Buddhi.
Aniruddha, on the other hand,
interprets the aphorism itself to mean that the subtle body is made up on
eighteen elements.
52. SS 3.10
53. SS 3.12; SK 41
54. SS 3.13; Vijn. 3.13
55. SS 3.17
56. SS 3.23
57. SS 3.24
58. SS 3.25
59. SS 3.30
60. SS 3.31
61. SS 3.32
62. SS 3.33
63. SS 3.34
64. SS 3.35
65. SS 3.36
66. SS 3.37
67. SS 3.38‑45; SK 45‑51
68. SS 5.2‑12;SK 57
69. SS 3.54
70. SS 3.63
71. It has not been possible to trace the
original text that forms the basis of Gandhi's present contention
II
THE YOGA PHILOSOPHY
1.
Much has been written and said on the mystic philosophy of ancient
nations of the Egyptians, Greeks and Hindus. But I doubt whether it has been
rightly understood. The advocates of modern science, some of them base the
science of ethics on expediency, others on utility, while there are many to
whom moral code is a commandment from a superior to an inferior. Thou shalt
commit no murder. Why? The theologian would say‑Because that is the
commandment of God. The materialists will say‑ because that is the
command of the ruling authority of the state. But why should God and the
sovereign issue commands? There is no rational reply. A system of ethics not
based on the rational demonstration of the universe is of no practical value.
It is only a system of the ethics of individual opinions and individual
convenience. It has no solidity and therefore no strength. The aim of human
existence is happiness, progress; and all ethics teach how to attain one and
achieve the other. The question however remains‑What is happiness and
what is progress? Those are issues not yet solved in any satisfactory manner in
the West by the known systems of ethics. The reason is not far to seek. The
modern tendency is to separate ethics from physics or rational demonstration of
the universe and thus make it a science resting on nothing but the irregular
whims and caprices of individuals and nations.
In India ethics has ever been associated
with religion. Religion has ever been an attempt to solve the mystery of
nature. Every religion has its philosophical as well as ethical aspect and the
latter without the former has in India at least no meaning. If every religion
has its physical and ethical side, it has its psychological side as well. There
is no possibility of establishing a relation between physics and ethics but
through psychology. Psychology enlarges the conclusions of physics and confirms
the idea of morality.
The Yoga
philosophy then is based on the idea that if man wants at all to understand his
place in nature and to be happy and progressing he must aim at that physical,
psychological and moral development which can enable him to pry into the depths
of nature. He must observe, think and act, he must live, love and progress. His
development must be simultaneous on all the three planes. The law of
correspondence, according to this philosophy, rules supreme in nature and the
physical corresponds as much to the mental as both in their turn correspond to
the moral. Unless man arrives at this stage of corresponding and simultaneous
development on the three planes he is not able to understand the meaning of his
existence or existence in general, nor even to grasp the idea of happiness or
progress. To that man of high aim whose body, mind and soul act in
correspondence the higher, nay, even all, secrets of nature become revealed. He
feels within himself as everywhere that Universal Life wherein there is no
distinction, no sense of separateness, but therefore all bliss, unity and
peace.
Lest I may be misunderstood as
subscribing to the doctrine of Yoga
philosophy except Jainism, I should tell you beforehand that what I am saying
here is merely the doctrine of the Yoga
Philosophy. In my theory in the highest spiritual plane, physical form is not a
necessity for the realization of the highest truth. Form is only required in
the infant state of development.
The peace of Universal Life then is
according to the Yoga philosophy the
peace of spiritual bliss Moksh. The
course of nature never ceases, action always compels even the peaceful to act;
but the individual being already lost in the All there is nothing unpleasant to
disturb. The peace of spiritual development is indescribable and so are its
powers indescribably vast. As you go on forgetting yourself, just in the same
proportion do spiritual peace and spiritual powers flow towards you. When one
consciously suppresses individuality by proper physical, mental moral and
spiritual development he becomes part and parcel of the immutable course of
nature and never suffers. This fourfold development and spiritual peace have
been considered the end of philosophy. In India there have been six such schools
of thought. Each starts with a more or less rational demonstration of the
universe and ends with a sublime code of ethics. There are first the atomic Vaisheshika and the dialectic Naya schools seeking mental peace in
devotion to the ruler of the universe. Then there are the materialist Sankhya and the practical Yoga schools teaching mental peace by
proper analysis and practical training. Lastly there are the orthodox Mimamsa and the Unitarian Advaita schools, placing spiritual bliss
in strict observance of Vedic
injunction and in realizing the unity of the Cosmos. It will thus be seen that Yoga is a complement of the Sankhya.
2.
I told you last time when we met that the Sankhya philosophy starts with the proposition that the world is
full of miseries of three kinds physical, supernatural and corporeal and that
these are the results of the properties of matter and not of its correlate
intelligence of consciousness, that out of the primordial essence Prakriti comes out the whole universe,
by reason of the predominance of one or other of the three qualities of Sativa, Rajas and Tams passivity, activity, all grossness, darkness, ignorance of Tams, all pleasure, passivity,
knowledge, peace of Sativa. The mind
is a result of Rajas _ and it is Sativa alone which by its light
illumines it and enables it at times to catch glimpses of the blissful Purush ever near to the Sativa 2. As mind or the
thinking principal plays an important part in the Sankhya and more so in the Yoga
philosophy, for its chief article is 'Stop the transformation of the thinking
principal and you will realize the Self', we will come to a consideration of
the mind.
3.
With the philosophers of the West, mind and soul are synonyms. The
popular definition is‑ mind is the intellectual power in man. In the East
there is a difference of opinion on this subject among the several
philosophers. The followers of the Naya
philosophy hold that all bodies having a form are impermanent but the mind
being formless is permanent; it has special attributes and is likewise subtle;
hence it is unable to grasp two objects at the same time. The Sankhya philosophy however of which Yoga is the complement considers the
mind to be a derivative product. Till the Purush‑soul‑is
emancipated from Prakriti the mind
continues in a state of integrity. Its span of duration is limited to a Mahapralaya ‑ the great Deluges
when it disintegrates to be taken up by Prakriti.
The seat of the mind has been the subject of an able discussion amongst the
ancient philosophers. The followers of the Puranas
and the Tantrums fix it in the
forehead near the junction of the two eye‑ brows. The anatomical
description would incline us to look upon the optic thalamus as the center of
the mind. The Vedanta's hold the mind
to be situated in the heart, for they say when an individual thinks of a
subject he keeps it next to his heart as in the act of worshipping. There are
some philosophers who identify the mind with the soul but Kapila refutes their
views. He says: If mind and soul were one and the same, one would say 'I am the
mind' instead of 'my mind, my hands'. According to him all experience consists
of mental representation, the Satva
being clouded, obscured or entirely covered over by the nature or property of
representation. This is the root of
evil. The act of the mind cognizing objects or, technically, taking the shape
of objects presented to it is called Verity
or transformation. It is the Verity
which being colored by the presentation imparts the same color by
representation to Satva and causes
evil, misery, ignorance and the like.
All objects are made of three Gun.
or qualities and when the Verity or
the transformation of the thinking principal sees everywhere nothing but the Sativa to the exclusion of the other two, presentation and representation
become purely Satvik passive and the
internal Sativa of the cognize
realizes itself everywhere and in everything. In the clear mirror of the Sativa is reflected the bright and
blissful image of the ever present Purush
who is beyond change, and supreme bliss follows. This state is called Sativapati or Moksa or Kevalya4.
For every Purush who has thus
realized itself Prakriti has ceased
to exist, in other words, has ceased to cause disturbance and misery. The
course of nature never ceases but one who receives knowledge remains happy
throughout by understanding the truth. The Sankhya
tries to arrive at this result by a strict mode of life accompanied with
analysis and contemplation.
This state of peace besides being
conducive to eternal calm and happiness is most favorable to the apprehension
of the truths of nature. That intuitive knowledge, which is called Tarka, puts the students in possession
of almost every kind of knowledge he applies himself to. It is indeed this fact
on which the so‑called powers of Yoga
are based.
4.
The Yoga philosophy subscribes
to this Sankhya theory in toto. It
however appears to hold that Purush‑
Soul‑by himself cannot easily acquire that Satvik development which leads to knowledge and bliss. A particular
kind of Eashwar or Supreme God is
therefore added for the purposes of contemplation etc. to the twenty‑five
categories of the Sankhya. This
circumstance has obtained for Yoga
the name of Saishvar Sankhya or theistic Sankhya as the Sankhya
proper is called nireashwar Sankhya or atheistic Sankhya.
5.
The second and really important improvement on the Sankhya consists in the highly practical character of the rules
laid down for acquiring eternal bliss and knowledge. The end proposed by the Yoga philosophy is Samadhi leading to kaivalya.
Yoga and Samadhi are convertible terms, either meaning Vritinirodh or
suspension of the transformations of the thinking principal.5
6.
With this introduction we will enter into the details of this
philosophy. We have defined Yoga to be the suppression of the
transformation of the thinking principal. What is the thinking principal and
what are its transformations and what results are achieved by the practice of Yoga? As
to its power it teaches that the powers of electricity and magnetism are but a
drop in the ocean compared with those of the soul, when they are fully
developed by the practice of Yoga.
But this is no part of true Yoga,
although the lower form of Yoga does
teach, how to develop these powers.6 The scope of true Yoga lies in the realization of the
immortal part of man and the keynote of this self‑realization lies in the
suppression of the transformation of the thinking principal.
The thinking principal is a comprehensive expression equal to the Sanskrit word Antakaran., which is divided into four parts‑(I Manas or mind, the principal which
cognizes generally; (ii) Chit or
individualizing, the idea which fixes itself upon a point and makes the object
its own by making it an individual; (iii) Ahamkar
or egoism, the persuasion which connects the individual with the self; and (iv)
Buddhi or reasons, the light that
determines one way or another.7 Knowledge or perception is a kind of
transformation Parin.am of
the thinking principal into anything which is the subject of external or
internal presentation, through one or other of these four. All knowledge is of
the kind of the transformation of the thinking principal. Even the will, which
is the very first essential of Yoga,
is a kind of such transformation. Yoga
is a complete suppression of the tendency of the thinking principal to
transform itself into objects, thoughts etc. It is possible that there should
be degrees among these transformations and the higher ones may assist to check
the lower ones, but Yoga is acquired
only when there is complete cessation of the one or the other. It should
distinctly be borne in mind that the thinking principal in this philosophy is
not the soul who is the source of all consciousness and knowledge. The
suppression of the transformations of the thinking principal does not therefore
mean that the yogi‑ the practitioner of the Yoga‑is enjoined to become all, which is certainly
impossible. The thinking principal has three-property passivity, activity and
grossness. When the action of the last two is checked the mind stands steady
like the jet of a lamp in a place protected from the least breeze. When all the
transformation of the thinking principal are suppressed there remains only the
never changing eternal soul‑the Purush‑in
the perfect Sata passivity. Otherwise
when the thinking principal transforms itself into objective and subjective
phenomena the Purush is for the time
obscured by it or which is the same thing assimilated into it. It is only when
the state of Yoga is reached that the
consciousness becomes quite pure and ready to receive all knowledge and all
impressions from any source whatever. If this state is to be acquired by
suppressing the transformations of the thinking principal, let us see what
these transformations are.
7.
In Yoga philosophy the thinking principal is modified in five ways.
First when there comes to it the right knowledge, second when there comes to it
false knowledge, third when it is simply put into complex imagination or fancy,
fourth when we are sleeping and fifth when we are exercising the faculty of
memory.10 Let us examine each condition. The theory as to how the
external world is cognized is a complicated one, but in order to explain it in
the simplest way it will do to say [the following]. When organs of sense are
put in contact with external objects they are put in to a state of vibration
and cause a similar vibration on he mind‑substance. This charge in the
mind‑substance is called direct cognition. It is only one kind of right
knowledge. The mind is also transformed when it infers or draws conclusions and
also when it receives knowledge from words of authority‑trust worthy
authority. These three kinds of knowledge are collectively known as right
knowledge. When the mind cognizes in any of the three ways there is a
corresponding motion or change produced in it.
That is one way in which mind becomes subject to transformation. The
second way in which it is modified is false knowledge. This is when a false
conception is entertained of a thing whose real form does not correspond to
that conception, for instance, when a mother of pearl is mistaken for silver or
a post mistaken for a man. The third way in which the mind is modified is by
having fancied notions, i.e. notions called into being by mere words having
nothing to answer to them in reality. The fourth way in which the mind is
transformed is sleep and the fifth way is the exercise of memory, i.e. by
recollection impressions of past experience. It may be remarked that of these
five kinds of transformations of the mind, right knowledge, false knowledge and
fancy belong to the waking state. When any of these becomes perceptible in
sleep it is dream. Sleep itself has no cognition. Memory may be (may depend
on?) any of them.
8.
Now the suppression of these transformations is the Yoga, which leads to the realization of the Self. What are the
means of suppressing them? The author of the Yoga Sutras says that
complete suppression of the transformation of the mind is secured only by
sustained application and non‑attachment.11 Application is of
course steady sustained effort to reach that state and non‑attachment is
the consciousness of having mastered every desire for any object. And further
rules are given for the purpose of rising to that high state of self‑knowledge.
9.
But in the meantime I will draw your attention to the fact that some
scholars like Monier Williams and others have thought that this system of Yoga is nothing but a mere contrivance
of getting rid of all thought and that it is a strange compound of mental and
bodily exercises, consisting in unnatural restraint, forced and painful
postures, twisting and contortions of the limbs, suppression of the breath and
utter absence of mind. In the opinion of such scholars it is not possible that
a man should actually know any thing transcending his sensual perception unless
it is told to him by some supposed authority. In their opinion the power of
intuition cannot be developed to such an extent as to become actual knowledge
without any possibility of error and we shall always be doomed to depend upon
hearsay and opinions. To them extra‑ordinary powers of the soul are mere
dreams. The author of the 'Modern Science and Modern Thought' says:
"Almost the entire world of the supernatural fades away of itself with an
extension of our knowledge of the laws of nature, as surely as the mists melt
from the valley before the rays of the morning sun. We have seen how throughout
the wide domains of space, time and matter, law uniform, universal and
inexorable reigns supreme, and there is absolutely no room for the interference
of any outside personal agency to suspend its agency (Hindus have never said
so). The last remnant of supernaturalism therefore, apart from Christian
Miracles which we shall presently consider, has sunk into that doubtful and
shady borderland of ghosts, spiritualism and mesmerism, where vision and fact
and partly real partly imaginary effects of abnormal nervous conditions are
mixed up in a nebulous haze with a large dose of imposture and credulity."
These are the words of a famous English writer. Let us hear then what the
neighbor of the John Bull says in regard to the claim of the modern scientist.
Dr. Heinrich Hensoldt of Germany says: "Apart from the material progress
or mere outward development which the Hindoos had already attained in times
which we are apt to call pre‑historic as evinced by the splendor of their
buildings and the luxuries and refinements of their civilization in general, it
would seem as if this greatest and most subtle of Aryan races had developed an
inner life even more strange and wonderful. Let those who are imbued with the
prevalent modern conceit that we Westerners have reached the highest pinnacle
of intellectual culture, go to India. Let them go to the land of mystery, which
was ancient, when the Great Alexander crossed the Indus with his warriors,
ancient, when Abraham roamed the plains of Chaldea with his cattle, ancient
when the first pyramid was built, and if after a careful study of Hindoo life,
religion and philosophy, the inquirer is still of opinion that the palm of
intellectual advancement belongs to the Western world‑let him lose no
time in having his own cranium examined by a competent physician." These
are the words of Dr. Hensoldt.
10.
Without caring much what the foreigners have to say in reference to the
religions and philosophies of India we will come to our own subject. We have
said before that Yoga is the
suppression of the manifestations of the mind. The source of the positive power
therefore lies in the soul. In the very wording of the definition of Yoga is involved the supposition of the
existence of a power which can control and suppress the manifestations of the
mind. This power is the power of the soul‑otherwise familiar to us as
freedom of the will. So long as the soul is subject to the mind it is tossed
this way or that in obedience to the mental changes. Instead of the soul being
tossed by the mental changes, the mind should vibrate in obedience to the soul‑vibrations.
When once the soul becomes the master of the mind, it can produce any
manifestations it likes. The ancient Chaldeons and the modern monks of India,
Japan and China teach the same doctrine. It was by the aid of this Yoga science that the ancients made many
discoveries in chemistry and medicine.
11.
We will now come to our point. The suppression of all mental
modification produces the state called Yoga
or Samadhi. This Samadhi is of two kinds Svikalp
and nirvikalpa. The first is that in
which the mind is at rest only for the time, the other is that in which through
supreme universal non‑attachment it is centered in (passivity) Satva and realizes Satva everywhere for all time. The mind being as it were
annihilated Purush‑the soul‑alone
shines in native bliss.12 This is called Kaivalya. This is the end view. This is the summum onum, the end
and aim of philosophy. Between this end and the first stage of mental
suppression there are several stage. The author of the Yoga aphorisms mentions eight stage; they are Yam, Niyam, Aasan, Pran.am, Pratyahar, Dharn.a,
Dhyan, Smaddhi This leads us to the practical part of Yoga.
12.
(a)The first stage is Yam.
What a student of Yoga is required to
do in the first stage is forbearance or control over mind, body and speech and
it consists in abstaining from killing, falsehood, theft, incontinence and
greediness.14 (i) The first of these is killing‑Hinsa in Sanskrit. It is difficult to give the full meaning of this word Hinsa. It means wishing evil to any
being by word, act or thought and abstinence of this kind of killing is the
first requirement of a student of Yoga.
It obviously implies abstinence from animal food in as much as it is never
procurable without direct or indirect Hinsa
of some kind. Not with standing the sanction given by the Vedas to the system of sacrificing animals to gods, the Hindu
scriptures are very strong on this point when they treat of the practical part
of the Yoga philosophy. Manu, the
great law‑ maker of the Hindus, says:
Anuyanta
vishsita nihanta kryavikryee
Sanskatee
chopharta cha khadkshchaitee ghatak
[One who indirectly gives permission to kill animals, one who
separates the several parts of an animal after it is killed, one who actually
kills the animal, one who sells meat, one who cooks meat, one who serves meat
at the table and one who eats it are all considered killers of the animal.]
Akritva
pran.inan hinsan mansan notpadyatai kachit
Na
cha pran,ivdhat svarg tsmanmansan vivrjyait
[You cannot get meat unless an animal is killed, killing of
animals can never lead to a higher state, therefore abstain from meat
altogether.] The avoidance from animal food from another point of view is
strongly recommended, as it always leads to the complete obscuration and even
annihilation of intuition and spirituality. It is to secure this condition of
being ever with nature and never against it or, in other words, being in love
with nature that all other restrictions are prescribed. (ii) The next
requirement is abstaining from falsehood, i.e. from telling what we do not know
or believe to be the exact state of things. (iii) The third thing to be avoided
includes, besides actual illegal appropriation, even the thought for any such
gain. (iv) So also does incontinence, the fourth danger in the path of success,
include, besides physical enjoyment, even talking to, looking at or thinking of
the other sex, with lustful intention. And here we come to the very important
point of view of celibacy. We know that even doctors of eminence talk about the
dictates of nature‑as if animosity and brutality are natural parts of
man. They may talk about sexual needs, imperious necessities, and
uncontrollable passion. But when we come to the actual state of facts, we will
realize the truth. We know that the trainer of a pugilist denies his man all
sexual indulgence whatever, the trainer on a boat's crew would abandon all hope
of victory if he knew that his men visited women even once a week. Indeed so
jealous is he that he will not permit his wards even to talk much with the
other sex, lest some erotic fancy should affect the condition of their nerves.
An eminent doctor of the United States says: "All eminent physiologists
who have written on this point agree that the most precious atoms of the blood
enter into the composition of the semen. A healthy man may occasionally
discharge his seed with impunity, but if he chooses‑ with reference as in
the pedestrian, boat‑racer, prize‑fighter or explorer or with
reference to great intellectual and moral work as in the apostle Paul, Sir
Isaac Newton and a thousand other instances‑ to refrain from sexual
pleasure, nature well knows what to do with those precious atoms. She finds use
for them in building up a keener brain and more vital and enduring nerves and
muscles." The chief monk of my community Muni Atmaramji was once asked by
a Hindu gentleman, how it was that in running contrary to the course of nature‑
i.e. not obeying the urgent demands of natural instincts in such nature‑
he could build up his constitution which could well defy the attacks of an
athlete or a stalwart. The monk in reply simply recited a verse:
Sinho
balee dvirdashookrmansjeevee
Sanvtsrain.
Ratimaiti kilaekvaram
Paravat
kharshilakan.matrjeevee
Kamee
bhavtynudinan vad kotr haitu
[The lion eats the flesh of elephants and
hogs and is the strongest of all animals, still he enjoys sexual intercourse
only once in a year, while doves and pigeons that live on dirt and sorts of
refuse are lustful every day.] (v) The last of the five forbearances is
greediness. It consists not only in coveting more that necessary but also in
keeping in possession anything beyond the very necessaries of life. Some
practitioners are known to carry this requirement to the extent of even not
accepting anything whatever from others. We thus finish the list of five kinds
of forbearances; that is the first stage through which a student of Yoga has to pass.
(b) The second stage is Niyam, i.e. observances. They are also
five, purity, contentment, austerity, study and resignation to Eashwar, ‑ the Lord15.
The five kinds of forbearances, which we mentioned before, were negative
injunctions, the five kinds of observances, which we are now describing, are
positive commands. (i) The first in purity, i.e. purity bodily and mental which
latter consists in universal love and equanimity. (ii) The second is
contentment‑ being satisfied with one's lot. (iii) The third is
austerities, i.e. fasts, penances, observances etc. mentioned in the Hindu
Dharma Shastras. (iv) Study‑the fourth‑ is the repetition of the
sacred mystic word OM or any other holy incantation. (v) Resignation to Eashwar the fifth observance‑
means that the practitioner should so abandon himself to the will of the
Supreme that he must move about only to fulfil his benign wish, not to
accomplish this or that result. He must bear all good, bad or indifferent,
simple as an act of his grace in carrying which he only pleases him. The five
kinds of forbearances and the five kinds of observances make ten.
13.
(a) (i) The first forbearance was abstinence from killing. What is its
result? When one has acquired that confirmed frame of mind‑ the positive
feeling of universal love for all living creatures, even natural antipathy is
held in abeyance in his presence;16 needless to add that no one
harms or injures him. All beings, men, animals, birds approach him without
reserve. In an extended description of the religious rites, monastic life and
superstitions of the Siamese dela loubete cites among other things the
wonderful power over wild beasts possessed by the Talapoin (the monks or the
holy men of Buddha whose first injunction was protection of all living beings).
"The Talapoin of Siam", he says, "will pass whole weeks in the
dense woods under a small awning of branches and palm leaves and never make a
fire in the night to scare away the wild beasts, as all other people do who
travel through the woods of this country. The people consider it a miracle that
no Talapoin is ever devoured. The tigers, elephants and rhinoceroses‑
with which the neighborhood abounds‑ respect him and travelers placed in
secure ambuscade have often seen these wild beasts lick the hands and feet of
the sleeping Talapoin." The Jaina history also testifies to the same fact.
Mahavira‑ The twenty-fourth prophet of the Jainas who lived 600 years
before Christ‑ is reported to have attracted, by the sweetness of his
musical sermons in parks, wild beasts and animals who stood before him in
perfect peace and harmony. Even in the present times no wild beast is known to
have devoured a Jaina in India whose first principal is the protection of life ‑even
of the tiniest insect. Strange to say that the Western powers and nations
attempt to restore peace and harmony among people by the sharpest swords, huge
man‑killing machines and animal‑food.
(ii) The second forbearance of the five
we mentioned before is truthfulness. What is the result? When entire and
unswerving truthfulness is fully established, all thoughts and words become
immediately effective.17 What others get by act such as sacrifice to
deities etc. He gets by mere thought or word. Emperor Marcus Aurelius says:
"He who acts unjustly acts impiously, for since the universal nature has
made rational animals for the sake of one another, to help one another
according to their deserts, but in no way
to injure one another, he who
transgresses his will is clearly guilty of impiety towards the
highest divinity. And he too that lies is
guilty of impiety to the same divinity, from the universal nature of all things
that are; and all things that are have a relation to all things that come into
existence. And future this universal nature is named Truth and is the prime
cause of all things that are true. He then who lies intentionally is guilty of
impiety in as much as he acts impiously by deceiving and he also who lies
unintentionally in as much as he is at variance with the universal nature, and
in as much as he disturbs the order by fighting against the nature of the
world; for he fights against it, who is moved of himself to that which is
contrary to truth, for he has revived powers from nature, through the neglect
of which he is not able now to distinguish falsehood from truth. And indeed he
who pursues pleasure as good and avoids pain as evil is guilty of
impiety."
What is true of individuals is true of
nations. We know that Spain, Greece and Turkey are dishonored in the commercial
world. His riches killed Spain. The gold which came pouring into Spain from her
vanquished colonies in South America depraved the people, and rendered them
indolent and lazy. Now a day, Spaniards would blush to work. He will not blush
to beg. The same has been the case with Greece also. She has repudiated her
debts for many years. Like Turkey she has nothing to pay. All the works of
industry in those countries, are done by foreigners.
Much better things might have been hoped
from Pennsylvania and other American states, which repudiated their debts many
years ago. They were rich states and the money borrowed from abroad made them
richer, by opening roads and constructing canals for the benefit and privation"
it was he who was the congress at Washington which he afterwards published
"The Americans", he said, "who boast to have improved the
institutions of the old world have at least equaled its crimes. A great nation
after trampling under foot all earthly tyranny has been guilty of a fraud as
enormous as ever disgraced the worst king of the most degraded nation of
Europe."
But the state of Illinois acted nobly
though it was poor. It had borrowed money like Pennsylvania, for the purpose of
carrying out internal improvements. When the inhabitants of rich Pennsylvania
set the example of repudiating their footsteps. As every householder had a vote
it was easy, if they were dishonest, to repudiate their debts.
A Convention met at Springfield and the
repudiation ordinance was offered to the meeting. It was about to be adopted,
when an honest man stopped it. Stephen A. Douglas was being sick at his hotel,
when he desired to be taken to the Convention. He was carried on a mattress,
for he was too ill to walk. Lying on his back he wrote the following
resolution, which he offered as a substitute for the repudiation ordinance:
"Resolved that Illinois will be
honest although she never pays a cent."
The resolution touched the honest
sentiment of every member of the Convention. It was adopted with enthusiasm. It
dealt a deathblow to the system of repudiation. The canal bonds immediately
rose, capital and emigration flowed into the state and Illinois is now one of
the most prosperous states. She has more miles of railway than any of other
states. Her broad prairies are one great grain field and are dotted about with
hundreds of thousands of peaceful happy homes. This is what truthfulness does.
It this is true in the science of nations how much more is it true in the highest
known science‑ the Yoga?
(iii) [The last time we
left our subject with the result, which can be, worked out from the second kind
of forbearance the truthfulness. We will proceed with the rest of them.] The
third kind of forbearance is abstinence from self‑love and desire of
misappropriation. To him who has given up this, all jewels and wealth stumble
at his feet even without seeking them.18
(iv) The fourth kind of forbearance is
continence. On this subject we dwelt at some length the last time. The point
settled in this Yoga philosophy is
that it is a physiological law that the creative essence in man is closely
connected with the intellect and spirituality. Waste of this spiritual element
means waste of bodily and mental powers. Preservation of this elements means
the acquisition of (?) powers of the brain and body.19 No Yoga is ever reported successful without
the observance of this rule as an essential preliminary.
(v) The fifth kind of forbearance is
abstinence from greediness. The Yoga philosophy
teaches that when desire is destroyed, when in fact even the last and subtle
but unconquerable desire for life too is given up, there arises knowledge of
the why and wherefore of existence.20
(b) We mentioned last time five forms of
observances. They are purity, bodily and mental, contentment, austerities,
study and resignation to Eashwar. (i)
It is needless to say that mental purity leads to passivity, pleasantness, fix
attention, subjugation of the senses and fitness for communion with soul.21
(ii) The second observance is contentment. Superlative happiness is the result
of contentment.22 (iii) As for the austerities, the Yoga philosophy claims that miraculous
powers of the body and the senses arise therefrom;23 the inner sense
becomes more developed in proportion to the mortification of the flesh and
various methods more or less severe are practiced in all religions. Miraculous
powers known as second sight, levitation etc. are the result of austerities.
Even some ignorant classes of India are known to possess these powers. They are
accounted to flow on account of austerities practiced in past incarnation
though in ignorance of the laws of such powers. Although these are the sign of
the real Yoga power, they are not the
true end of Yoga. (iv) Study‑the
fourth observance‑is claimed to lead to communion with the higher and
subtler forces of nature.24 The constant silent and devoted
repetition of certain formulas is said to be efficacious in establishing a sort
of communion with the higher powers of nature. (v) And the resignation to Eashwar leads to the accomplishment of
that final state of quietude, the Samadhi
25 We have then finished the first two stages through which a
practitioner to Yoga has to pass.
14.
The third stage is posture. Various modes of keeping the body in
position at the time of perfuming Yoga
are given in different books. The general and most convenient definition of
posture is that it should be perfectly steady and should cause no painful
sensation.26 There is a class of yogis in India who hold that the
breath in the body is a part of the universal breath and that the health of
mind and body accompanied by spiritual bliss and knowledge will follow on
controlling the individual breath in such a manner as to attune it to the cosmic
breath. Their methods are more physical than mental. They give much attention
to the different postures of the body to be assumed while practicing the Yoga. These postures are said to be 84
in number and each has its peculiar influence in the body and the mind. By
various kinds of postures and modes of controlling the breath the yogis get
over almost all kinds of diseases. Of these postures four are considered the
best for Yoga practice. The first is Swastic posture. In that posture you
have to sit with the body perfectly straight placing the right foot in the
cavity between the left thigh and calf and the left foot in the cavity between
right thigh and the calf. The second is the Sidh
posture, the third is the Padm
posture and the fourth is the Bhadra
posture. As none of us is ready and willing to pass through all the difficult
stages of the Yoga it is needless to
describe these postures. Suffice it to say that the Hathyogi having mastered one of the postures commences the actual
practice of Yoga. Hatha Yoga Pradipika‑ the text book of these yogis says: "One
who abstains totally form sexual intercourse, keeps temperate habits and remain
free from worldliness becomes a yogi after a full twelve month's practice. By
temperance in eating is meant the eating only three fourths of what is actually
required. The food also should consist of substantial liquids and solid.
Bitter, acid, pungent, salty and hot things as well as green vegetables, oil,
intoxicating drugs, animal food of every description, curds (?) etc. are to be
strictly avoided. Wheat, rice, barley, milk, butter, sugar, honey, dry ginger,
oats and natural water are most agreeable. In the beginning avoid fire, sexual
intercourse and extreme exertion. Young, old, decrepit or sick may all obtain
success by study practice; none succeeds who lacks in practice; mere reading of
Yoga books or talking on the subject
can never conduce to success."27
15.
The fourth stage through which a student has to pass is Pran.ayam the control of the expiration and
inspiration of the breath. It does not mean that there ought to be an unnatural
flow or control of the breath; it means rather that the breath should be
controlled or allowed to flow in accordance with the result to be attained.
There are three kinds of Pran.ayam.
When the breath is expired or held out it is called Raichak the first Pran.ayam.
When it is drawn in it is called Poorak
the second Pran.ayam. When it is suspended all at once
it is called kumbhaka the third Pran.ayam.28 These
three are again regulated by time. Works on Yoga
say that three kind of Pran.ayam are often to be combined in one
single act and their number should be slowly and slowly carried to eighty every
time one sits for practice. There are other works, which say that the number
must be sufficient to enable the student to mark the first Udghat and follow it
afterwards. By Udghat they mean the
rising of the breath form the navel and its striking at the roof of the palate.
Pran.ayam has its chief object the mixing of Pran. the upper breath and Apan the lower breath and rising them upwards by degrees and stages
till they subside in called Kudlini.
It is this force which is the source of all occult powers. The general practice
is to begin with Raichak followed by Poorak by the same nostril, whence the
control is begun over again with Poorak
and onward. This is called one Pran.ayam. The Hatha Yoga Pradipika says on this subject as
follows:
"Having mastered some one posture
and observing the rules of etc. the yogi may begin the study of regulating the
breath. Disturbance of mind follows disturbance of breath and mind remains calm
when the breath is calm; hence in order to attain fixing of mind the breath
should be controlled. So long as the Nadee
the vehicles of Pran. Are
obstructed by abnormal humors, there is no possibility of the Pran. Running the middle course Sushuman.a and of accomplishing the Unman.i mudra.29 Hence Pran.ayam
should be practiced in the first instance for the clearance of these humors.
The Pran.ayam for this purpose is as follow:
Having assumed the Parmesan posture
the yogi should inhale at the left nostril and, having retained the breath for
the time he easily can, should let it off at the opposite nostril, and repeat
the same process beginning with the nostril where he exhales. This will make
one Pran.ayam. These should be practiced four
times in twenty-four hours, in the morning, at noon, in the evening, at
midnight, and should be carried to eighty each time. The process in its lowest
stage will produce perspiration, in its middle stage tremor, and its highest
stage levitation. The student may rub off his body with the perspiration, for
this will make his body strong and light. In the beginning of the practice
being mastered no such rule is necessary. The breath should be mastered slowly
and by degrees, just as are trained tigers, bears and other wild beasts, for
otherwise the rash student is sure to come to grief. Proper Pran.ayam destroys all diseases, improper one produces them. When the
humors of the Nar.ee are
cleared the body becomes light and beautiful and digestion becomes strong,
health ensues, the retention of breath is done without effort and the Nad (sound) within becomes
audible."
The opinion of the Yoga author is that by this practice of Parmesan the outer covering of the soul‑the result of karma‑ is removed and the real
nature of the soul is realized once and for ever.
16.
This leads us to the fifth stage through which the practitioner has to
pass. By the practice of Pran.ayam the mind becomes fit for being
quite absorbed in the subject thought of. It is Parmesan the mind becomes fit for being quite absorbed in the
subject thought of. It is Pran.ayam, which leads the way to this state,
which is the fifth stage. It is Pran.ayam (abstraction)‑imitating by
the senses, the thinking principal by withdrawing themselves from their
objects. It consists in the sense becoming entirely assimilated to or
controlled by the mind. They must be drawn away from their objects and fixed
upon the mind and assimilated to it, so that by preventing the transformation
of the thinking principal, the senses also will follow it and will be
immediately controlled. Not only that, but they will be ever ready to
contribute collectively towards the absorbing meditation of any given thing at
any moment and even always.
17.
Passing through these five stages, Yam,
Niyam, Aasan, Parmesan and Pratyahar
the yogi purifies the inner self by
avoiding distraction. We then come to the sixth stage Dharan.a or contemplation. It is the fixing of the mind
on something, external or internal. If internal it may be the tip of the tongue
or the nose or any convenient spot. If external it may be any suitable image of
the deity, or a picture or any similar object. Of course it is necessary to
bear in mind that any such thing contemplated upon externally or internally
should be strictly associated with nothing but holiness and purity. The mind
should be able to picture in itself the object even in its absence in all
vividness and at an instant's notice.
18.
The next stage is Dhyan or
absorption, i.e. the entire fixing of the mind on the object thought of to the
extent of making it one with it. In fact the mind should at the time be
conscious of itself and the object.
19.
Proceed a step further and we come to the eighth stage, the Samadhi. The absorption is to be carried
to the extent of forgetting the act and of becoming the thing thought of. This
state of Samadhi implies two distinct
states of consciousness unified in one. The first- that is trance proper- is
the forgetting of all idea of the act and the second‑ the more important
factor‑ is the becoming the object thought of. Mere passive trance is a
dangerous practice as it leads to the madness of irresponsible medium-ship. It
is therefore necessary to lay stress upon the second part of the connotation of
the term Samadhi.
20.
The three stages, contemplation, absorption and trance are in fact
stages of contemplation; for the thing thought upon, the thinker and the
instrument together with other things, which are attempted to be excluded are
all present in the first, i.e. contemplation, all except the last, i.e. two,
are present in the second and nothing but the thing is present in the third.
This trance Samadhi however is not
complete Yoga, for it is only Svikalpak or conscious Samadhi, having something to rest upon.
Sanyam is the technical name
for these three inseparable processes taken collectively. When the three are
successively practiced with respect to the one and the same object at any one
time it is called Sanyam. But it is
practiced by stages. One cannot pass all at once to the highest kind of Sanyam any more than one can think of
something without first knowing it. For example, when Sanyam is practiced with respect to a mental image, the process
will tend from contemplating upon the gross to [that upon] the subtle. The
image may be thought of in all parts, then without the decoration, then without
limbs, then without any special identity and lastly as not apart from self.
21.
We have thus finished the eight stages. The first five of them are only
the preliminaries to the Yoga, which
really consists in the last three. The first five accessories are called the
external means of Yoga. The last
three are internal.37 Even the Sanyam
as the last three are so called collectively) is merely preparatory for the
final end, the unconscious Samadhi
for in Sanyam there is something to
depend upon whereas in real Samadhi
there is nothing to depend upon.
The question therefore naturally arises‑
what does the mind transform itself into in that state of unconscious Samadhi? The transformed state in that Samadhi is known in Sanskrit as nirodha, i.e.
interception of all transformations, thoughts or distractions‑ of course
not ordinary distractions but the distraction, which is still there in the form
of conscious Samadhi, conscious Samadhi, is a distraction, no doubt, for
there is yet something which the mind entirely transforms itself into. The
moment the mind begins to pass from one state into the other, two distinct
processes begin viz. the slow but sure going out of the impressions that
distract and the equally gradual but certain rise of the impressions that
intercept. When the intercepting impressions gain complete supremacy, the
moment of interception is achieved and the mind transforms itself into this
intercepting moment so to speak. It is in the interval of this change that the
mind may drop and fall into what is called Ley
or a state of passive dullness leading to all the miseries of irresponsible
mediumship.
Hence this passage from the conscious to
the so‑called unconscious is a very difficult and critical process. This Samadhi is called Nirodhparin.am or the transformation of the mind into
interceptions. It is called the Dharmparin.am or the transformation of the thing's
property. The intercepting impressions must rise so often as to become a habit,
for then alone their flow will become deep and steady and lead to the highest Samadhi.39 The mind is as it
were quite annihilated, for no transformation exists. The permanence of this
state is all that is desired.
So this trance‑transformation is the setting and rising of
distractions and concentration respectively‑ distractions, i.e., of the
mind which draw it off from unconscious Samadhi
i.e. concentration. Interceptions being repeated gain a certain firmness and
ripen into unconscious Samadhi. Hence
when this stage is reached the mere negative condition becomes as it were
positive and there arises concentration on nothing, to use a paradoxical
phrase. The moment when the mind arrives at this stage in its transformations
is called Avasthaparin,am.
What is the state of mind of the moment of complete unconscious Samadhi? The mind is conscious of
nothing except the respective repression and revival of certain impressions,
viz. distractions and interceptions, both welded in one act of supreme
consciousness.40 This is called Avasthaparin.am or transformation as to condition.
The mind has its property first transformed. Then this property is joined to a
certain moment of time, then the first transformation becomes perfectly ripe
and indicates the real condition of the mind. Then it is easy to see that
transformation though essentially
one is for the sake of explanation and
analysis described as threefold.
23.
In the Yoga philosophy the
theory of transformation of the mind is extended to all objects, for there is
nothing which is not compounded of one or more or all of the three properties
(passivity, activity and grossness) which are ever in a state of transformation.
When the very property of a thing is altered it is called property‑transformation
or Dharmprin.am. When
afterwards the thing with its altered property becomes manifest in relation to
some time, past, present or future, it is called its (rather its property's)
character transformation or Lakshanparin.am, for without the limitation of time
it is difficult to characterize or define the nature of any conceivable entity.
When after this the particular property thus defined ripens into maturity or
decay, it is called its condition‑ transformation or Avasthaparin.am.
Thus the whole universe consists of nothing but certain objects and their
properties which later by their transformation produce all variety. Thus this
philosophy puts forth an explanation of the phenomenal universe in accordance
with the doctrine of the Sankhya
Let us now see how the Yoga philosophy explains what the object
or the substratum of those properties is. The doctrine 'Ex
nihilo Nihau fit' is carried out to its full extent by this school and
therefore it is held that anything can never manifest itself in any other thing
unless it previously existed there. This manifestation has reference only to
the properties of things and it cannot be said what will come out of what. In
fact every thing is producible for everything, for everything potentially
exists in the root of all, the Prakriti.
All this however takes place in relation to the form in which a thing manifests
itself, and this form is none other than the unique combination of the three
original properties. The properties can never exist but in relation to some
substratum which in its turn can never become cognizable but through the
properties. The properties, which have once manifested themselves and passed
into oblivion are called tranquil, for they have played their part and are
still there to become actively manifest some other day. Those that are seen at
any moment are called active, whereas those not yet manifest are consigned to
the realm of possibility or the indescribable. In other words these possible
manifestations are as yet latent. Thus the object or the substratum of
properties is that which is correlated to the properties in one or the other of
the three states. In the opinion of the Yoga
philosophers therefore whatever form anything manifests itself as the phenomena
is nothing mare than a mere succession of properties in one or other of the
three conditions and the universe with all its phenomena is nothing more than
an incessant and immediate succession of states of properties.
24.
We have digressed from our discussion of the last three stages of Yoga to a discussion of the 'substratum
and its transformations' theory of the Yoga
philosophy. But in doing so I had a purpose. The Yoga philosophy claims that by performing Sanyam on the transformations the past and future of their
substratum is at once revealed to the mind.
25.
There is another result claimed by the Yogists to follow from Sanyam
and based on a theory to which we are now coming. Every school of philosophy
has its own theory about the relation between word and meaning but it would be
sufficient here to observe that the Yoga
philosophy accepts what is generally known as the Sphote doctrine. Sphote
is a something indescribable which eternally exists apart from the letters
forming any word and is yet inseparably connected with it, for it reveals
itself on the utterance of that word. In like manner the meaning of a sentence
is also revealed, so to speak, from the collective sense of the words used. So
then, the eternal sense of a word is always different from the letters making
that word; and the knowledge which in its turn is conveyed to our mind is
equally apart from these two. The sense of words is generally classified under
four heads: objects, properties, actions and abstractions; and the impressions
into which our mind transforms itself at the moment of cognizing is the
knowledge produce. In ordinary intercourse it so happens that the letters, the
sense and the knowledge all are so confused together as not to be separable
from one another. Thus letters i.e. sounds, being confused with sense and
knowledge, convey no precise meaning if they happen to be beyond our previous
acquaintance. The fact however is that every meaning is eternally existent and
is as eternally connected with particular sounds and therefore conveys or
reveals the same sense where ever it is uttered. Acting on this theory and
performing Sanyam on the three, i.e.
sounds, sense and knowledge, separately the yogi comprehends the sense of all
sounds uttered by any sentient being in nature.48 Even so can the
music of nature be heard and the joyous Nad
within be cognized and understood.
26.
Sanyam is also claimed to
produce knowledge of former births. In all the philosophies based on the Vedas, as well as in Buddhism and
Jainism, transmigration of the soul‑re‑incarnation from one body to
another‑is the one doctrine which runs parallel in all of them. As to the
grounds on which it is based, we will fully discuss them when we come to
Jainism. In this place however we have simply to refer to the Yoga doctrine that by performing Sanyam,
which is the same thing as complete mental presentation, on the impressions
inherent in the mind from time immemorial, there arises knowledge of previous
incarnations.
27.
Yoga also claims that Sanyam leads to the power of mind
reading. When a yogi performs Sanyam with reference to any sign as the
complexion, the voice or any such thing, he at once understands the state of
the mind of which these are the sure indices. Anybody's mind can thus be easily
comprehended by the yogi, i.e., he understands the state of the mind. In order
to understand the subject occupying the mind of that person, he has of course
to perform Sanyam on that subject.
28.
This philosophy also claims that by performing. Sanyam
in a certain way you can even cause the body to disappear. The theory on this
point is this. When light, the property of Sativa,
emanates from our body and becomes united with the organ of sight which again
is a reservoir of similar light, visual perception follows. Following this
theory {when} the yogi performs Sanyam
on the form of his body, i.e. the property that endows visibility to his body,
he disserves the connection between the light from his body and the eye of the
cognizer and thus follows the disappearance of the body. The yogi in fact
centers all this visibility in his thinking principal and prevents the
perception of his body. The same holds true of the other organs of his sense
and hence of sounds, sensations (touch sensations?) etc.
29.
There is a Sanyam on karma also Karma of course means past actions and they are divided by the Yoga philosophy into two divisions‑
active and dormant. That karma) which
produces its result speedily and is actually on the way to bear fruit is called
active, whereas that which is only in a latent condition of potency is called
dormant. By performing Sanyam on
these two classes of Karma the yogi knows the time of the cessation of
his life. He knows at once which will produce what fruit and therefore at once
sees the condition of his death.
The same knowledge also arises from
portents in the case of a yogi.53 Portents are corporeal, celestial
or physical. The corporeal are such as the inaudibility of the Pran.
in the stomach on closing the ears. The celestials are such as the sight of
things generally regarded invisible as heaven etc. The physical consists in
seeing extra-ordinary or frightful beings etc. These and similar portents such
as dreams, the chance hearing of certain words etc. indicate, to use a common
expression, which way the wind blows. But none but yogis can make use of any
such portents, for it is only they who can precisely interpret them.
30.
The Sanyam has also its
variety of effects by being practiced things.54 Of course, by Sanyam we mean three stages;
contemplation, absorption and trance. By performing Sanyam with reference to sympathy, compassion and complacency each
of these feelings becomes so strong as to produce the desired result at any
moment.55 In fact he finds no difficulty in enlisting the good will
and friendship of any one at any moment.
31.
By performing Sanyam on the
powers of elephant or any animal the yogi acquires those powers.56
By contemplation on the inner light of the Sanyam
is acquired the knowledge of subtle things such as invisible atoms, obscure
things such as hidden treasures and mines and things which are unapproachably
remote.57 By contemplation on the sun, the knowledge of the space
intercepted between the earth and the sun is acquired. By contemplation on the
moon the knowledge of the starry region is acquired.59 By
contemplation on the pole star is produced the knowledge of the relative
motions and positions of the stars and planets.60 Such are the
powers which the contemplation on the external world brings to the yogi.
32.
We now come to powers, which he obtains by contemplation on the parts of
his body. In the Yoga philosophy the
theory is that there are padma or
plexuses formed by nerves and ganglia at different places in the body. The are
generally believed to be seven in number. The most important of these, so far
as the arrangement of the nerves of the body is concerned, is the Nabhichakra or the navel circle. It is
the pivot of the whole system. Hence Sanyam
on it leads to knowledge of the conditions of the body.61 We will
now come to the other parts of the body. And the first, the pit of the throat.
This is the region about the pharynx where the breath from the mouth and the
nostrils meets. It is said that the contact of Pran with this region produces hunger and thirst, which therefore
may be checked by performing Sanyam
on this part to neutralize the effects of the contact.62 It may be
remarked that the fifth nerve‑circle called Vishudhchakr is situated somewhere about the same region and anyone
who is able to concentrate his breath in that circle and upward easily acquires
freedom from hunger and thirst besides other powers. Next we come to the
Koormnar.ee or the nerve
where in the breath called Koorm, and
Sanyam on this leads to such a fixate
of the body as to make it completely steady and immoveable.63
Next there is the light in the head, i.e.
the collective flow of the light of Satv
which is seen at the Brahamranghr
which is variously supposed to be somewhere near the coronal artery, the pineal
gland or over the medulla oblongata. Just as the light of a house presents a
luminous appearance at the keyhole, so even does the light of Satv show itself at the crown of head.
This light is very familiar to all acquainted even slightly with Yoga practices and is seen even by
concentration on the space between the eyebrows. By Sanyam on this light is acquired the sight of the yogis called Siddha, i.e. experts in such wonderful
sciences so that (sciences with the aid of which?) you can see things not
withstanding the obstacles of space and other things.64 But the real
object of Yoga seems to obtain the
prefect intuitive power which results from Pratibha65.
Pratibha is that degree of intellect
which develops itself without any special cause and which is capable of leading
to real knowledge. It corresponds to what is generally called intuition. If the
yogi tries simply to develop this faculty in him by performing Sanyam on the intellect he becomes able
to accomplish all that we have referred to before, only through the help of Pratibha. This sort of Pratibha is called Tarak gyan the knowledge
that saves i.e. leads to final absolution Moksh.
Hence that Yoga which entirely
concerns itself with this department of intellectual and spiritual development
is often called Tarakyog or Rajyog.
We come to other parts of the body. Sanyam on heart, by which is meant a
nerve‑circle called Anahat,
leads to a knowledge to the mind of others as well as one's own.66
33. Sanyam
on the Purush‑ soul itself‑leads
to the knowledge of soul.67 The Sankhya
as well as the Yoga lays great stress
on the point that Sanyam, the source
of intelligence, is apart and distinct from the ultimate essence of
consciousness. The theory is that Purush
being reflected in the clear Satv
enlivens it, and all experience is assumed by the Satv so enlivened to be entirely its own act. This confused
identification of the two, ever distinct by nature, is the cause if all varied
experience. The experience, which the Satv receives, is of no use to
itself. It is all for Purush; for all the actions of Prakriti, which is the source of Satv,
and the correlative of Purush is for Purush. Hence the action of Satv is for another and not for itself.
Therefore the Sanyam on self; i.e. on
Purush right nature and purpose, will
lead to a clear knowledge of Purush.
And thence is produced cognition without the intervention of the organs of
sense, i.e. intuition cognition of sound, touch, light, taste and smell.68
The wonderful or, if we may choose to say so, occult powers described hitherto
are often all positive obstacles in the way of Samadhi, i.e. Yoga proper
whose nature and import is that state in which the soul sees itself. The author
of the Yoga Sutras distinctly says that the occult powers serve as obstacles
because they become the cause of distracting the mind by the various feelings
they excite.69 Of course, they are not quite useless in as much as
they are powers for good in moments when Samadhi
is suspended. After all, so far as the Samadhi
highest spiritual aim is concerned, and certainly that is the aim of all
philosophies, the exercise of these powers is a positive obstacle on the way to
Samadhi. This is clearly stated in
the Yoga Sutras. But in the Yoga
aphorisms published by Mr. Judge of New York this portion is mistranslated (See
Judge's Yoga Sutras).
34.
The breath in the body is divided into five classes. The air intercepted
between the tip of the nose and heart is called Pran.,that
between the heart and the navel is called, Sman,
that from the navel to the toes of the feet is called Upan, that above the tip of nose is called Udan and the which pervades the whole body is called Vyan. Their respective functions are
vitalizing, digestions, expulsion of the excrements, raising up the sound etc.
and motion is general. The Udan air
has the tendency to raise the body upward and carry it above water etc. Hence
by mastery over Udan there arises the
power of ascension, non‑contact with water, mud, thorn etc.70
With reference to the Sman breath,
the part about the navel is this seat where it performs the function of
digestion by keeping the internal fire. When Sanyam is performed on Sman,
this fire can be seen about the whole body which will on that account appear
effulgent.71 This effulgence is most perceptible about the head,
between the eye‑brows and at the navel. It is said to be the basis of the
magnetic currents of living beings.
35.
By Sanyam on the relation
between ether which is the substratum of sound‑vibrations and the sense
of hearing arises the power of clair‑audience.72 By Sanyam
on the relation between the body and the Akash
(ether) arises the power of passing through endless space.73 And
There are many other powers which the Yoga
claims can arise by reason of performing Sanyam
on different things.
36.
The true yogi does not attach himself to these occult powers. And the Yoga Sutra
expressly says in one of its aphorisms that it is by non‑attachment to
this that Kaivalya the highest
spiritual knowledge is attained.74
36.
37. We will
now discuss this final aim of Yoga.
In doing so we will have to refer once more to the nature and doings of Prakriti. There are many hundred points
for which the Yoga philosophy offers
its solution. For instance, how is one body changed into another is that the
flow of Prakriti does it all,75
the flow of Prakriti i.e. that
inscrutable action of matter which performs all the work of transformation as
seen in the material universe. The very potencies of matter do all and by
powerful application produce the necessary conditions for independent action.
The incidental cause in the production of material results, are our virtuous
and vicious actions. It may be asked if Prakriti
does all by its action and produces transformations equal to its
potentialities, where is the use of individual good or bad actions. The
performance of such acts is not useful in setting up the action of Prakriti but it only prepares the way
for its free action by removing if good the obstruction in its way. An
illustration in point is that of a husband's man who only removes the obstacles
in the way of the water which then passes of itself from one spot to another.76
If the performance of good acts removes all obstacles and prepares the way for
the free action of Prakriti, a yogi, whose vision reveals to him all he
has still to go through, may with, as it were, to multiply himself and thus
undergo at one and the same time the fruition of all that is to happen. In this
he would require, as many minds as there are bodies and the question would
arise, whence do these come, it being taken for granted that a yogi can
duplicate his gross body. Such a yogi has full command over Mhat the root of all egoism and
everything else, which makes up "mind". The sense of being or
individuality is the result of Mhat
and the yogi who has command over it is able to send forth as many minds as he
likes from this grand reservoir.77 And as the one mind of the yogi
is the cause of all the minds in their various activities the same individual
is preserved in all the different bodies with different minds.78 These
newly created minds are not susceptible to impressions, they being produced by
means of Samadhi and because yogis do not acquire impression by
actions.79 Actions or Karma
are considered under four heads; white, black mixed and indifferent. The first
are of gods, the second of wicked beings, the third of men and the fourth of
yogis.80 In other words, yogis acquire no impression by their acts,
for they are perfect in non‑attachment and hence are ever considered
free. From the first three kinds of Karma
those impressions alone are developed for which the conditions are favorable.
In other words, every act leaves an impression and these are collected one upon
the other, and new ones added to them as any of them spends itself away by
producing its proper result under proper conditions. Only those impressions
manifest themselves for which conditions are favourable.81 For
example, if a being who is a man becomes a man again, after passing through the
dog, the wolf and the ape, it is certain that such impressions alone will
manifest themselves in each or any of these existences as are favored by the
conditions.
38.
Patajali the author of Yoga Sutras discusses from these facts many
metaphysical points about the nature of mind and soul. We will however come at
once to the final emancipation or Kaivalya.
And first the qualifications of one, who attains to it. One who has the desire
to know what the soul is and what relation his mind and the universe bear to it
is said to be desirous of Kaivalya.
When such a person clearly experiences the distinction between mind and soul
and understands the power and nature of either the said desire is distinguished
within him.82 Kaivalya is
in fact a state in which there is entire cessation of all desire and when the
nature of the essence of all consciousness is known there is no room for any
action of the mind the source of phenomena. The mind before such knowledge was
bent towards worldly objects but now it is entirely bent on discrimination
knowledge. This knowledge is of the kind of clear cognition of the different
between mind and soul. Not only this but mind is entirely full of the idea of Kaivalya to the exclusion of other
thoughts83. But while the condition of entire devotion to Kaivalya is suspended, there are other
thoughts from previous impression or impressions of previous births84.
These impressions are to be destroyed like other distraction85. Even
full discrimination is not the desired end and should be suspended by supreme non‑attachment
which is the nearest road to Samadhi,
the door of Kaivalya 86.
From constant discriminative recognition of the 26 elements of this philosophy
results the lights of knowledge; after this the yogi works entirely without attachment to any object of desire;
then he reaches the state of supreme non‑attachment, wherein the lights
of soul breaks out in full. In fact all appears full of soul and there is
nothing to interrupt this blissful perception. Then all distortion and action
cease altogether at least for the yogi87. When the distraction are
destroyed and when Karma and is
rendered powerless for good or for ill, there arises full knowledge which is
free from the obscuration caused by Rajas
and Tames and cleared of all
impurities arising from the distractions. This knowledge is infinite. As
compared to this infinity, that which ordinary men regard as knowable appears
but as insignificantly small things.88 It is easy to know it any
time though is not possible that the desire to know a comparatively worthless
thing should ever arise.
While such knowledge arises and supreme
non‑attachment is at highest there arises in the yogi entire cessation of the effects of three Gun., the properties. The
properties work for the Purush; the Purush having known himself the
properties cease to act, they having fulfilled their end.89 The
whole universe is but a succession of transformation upon transformation of
properties.90 These transformations take an inverse source till all
is reduced to matter with the three qualities. No fresh transformations comes
take place and hence the succession of transformation comes to an end on the
case of the Purush who has understood
Kaivalya.91 Their effects
the various transformation merge onto the higher source and nothing remains for
the Purush to cognize. This state of
the Purush is Kaivalya or the state of singleness. It dose not mean that the
universe is reduced to nothing, for it continues to exist for all those who
have not acquired knowledge. In the case of one who has not acquired knowledge,
the visible universe, the cause of distraction, the state of concentration, the
supreme idea of non‑attachment, all with their impression merge into the
mind, which again merges into mere being, which resolves itself in Mahat, which finally loses itself in Prakriti. This Kaivalya of Prakriti is
by way of metaphor said to be of Purush.
Or Kaivalya may be explained from the
side of the Purush. When the Purush has so far received due
illumination as to estrange itself from all relation with Prakriti and its transformations it is said to be Kaivalya (Kaival) alone or in a state
of Kaivalya. This is the power of
soul centered in itself. Kaivalya is
not any state of negation or annihilation as some are misled to think. The soul
in Kaivalya has his sphere of action
transferred to a higher plane limited by a limitless horizon. This, our limited
minds cannot hope to understand.
References:
1. As a matter of fact, the Sankhya school‑ at least what is
known as 'Classical Sankhya'‑is
only partly materialistic.
2. The exact import of the statement that
the mind is a result of Rajas is
somewhat obscure; but if 'mind' here stands for Buddhi and Satv for the Satvgun, then Gandhi is perhaps saying
that in Buddhi there is a greater
preponderance of Rajas than it is
there in the original Prakriti.
3. It is not clear what is precisely
meant by saying that mind has special attributes. Maybe it simply means that
mind has a specific nature of its own, but that is hardly worth saying.
4. YS 3.55
5. YS 1.2
6. Note how Gandhi concedes the
possibility of a practicing yogi acquiring miraculous capacities but at the
same time under‑emphasizes this aspect of the matter.
7. In view of the standard enumeration of
elements adopted by the Sankhya Yoga system Chit should not be an element over and above Manas and Ahamkar, and Buddhi, which three are collectively
called Antakaran. At places, Buddhi
alone is called Antakaran and as
a matter of fact the usual practice is to identify Chit with Buddhi; as Vachaspati in the Tattvavaisharadi on YS1.1 says: Chitashbdain
Antakaran. Budhdhimupakshyati.
8. YS1.3
9. YS1.4
10. YS 1.6‑11
11. YS 1.12
12. YS 1.17‑18.
13. YS 2.29.
14. YS 2.30.
15. YS 2.32
16. YS 2.35
17. YS 2.36
18. YS 2.37
19. YS 2.38; One word in Gandhi's
Sentence is illegible (it reads like `actute').
20. YS 2.39
21. YS 2.41
22. YS 2.42
23. YS 2.43
24. YS 2.44
25. YS 2.45
26. YS 2.46
27. HP 1.57‑65; Here again one word
is illegible (it reads like 'whicy').
28. YS 2.49; Vy.2.49
29. Sushumn.a
is spinal cord and it is a sign of balanced breathing that the Pran.
runs in the middle course represented by Sushumn.a. Unmanee is the word,
which in the Hatha Yoga Pradipika stands for the highest
type of Smadhi i.e. for Nirviklpaksmadhiv. But it is not easy to
see why Gandhi here uses the word unman,i mudra instead
of the simple unman.i.
30. HP 2.1-20
31.YS 2.54. The meaning is: 'the
imitation of the thinking principal on the part of the senses, by withdrawing
themselves from their objects.'
32. YS 3.1
33. YS 3.2
34. YS 3.3
35. Gandhi's meaning is that the
hypnotize medium' too is forgetful of all idea of being active but that he is
not concentrating his mind on anything; this is so because whatever positive
observations the 'medium' makes are due to the hypnotizing 'suggestion' rather
than to an endeavor on the part of the 'medium' himself.
36. YS3.4
37. YS.3.7
38. YS.3.8
39. YS3.10
40. YS3.11
41.As will be explained just below, a
thing undergoes transformation by means of its various properties, a thing's
property undergoes transformation by means of its temporal conditions like
'past‑ness', 'present‑ness', 'future‑ness', while a temporal
condition of a thing's property undergoes transformation by means of its states
like 'raw‑ness', 'ripe‑ness' etc. The technical name for 'thing' is
Dharma, for 'property' Dharma, for temporal condition " Lakshan.
", and for 'state' Avastha.
Hence Vyas (in the course of his
commentary on YS 3.13):
42. YS3.13
43. This statement seems inaccurate; for
according to the Sankhya philosopher
the properties, which have played their part, are still there no doubt but they
do not become actively manifest some other day.
44. YS 3.14
45. YS 3.15
46. YS
3.16
47. As judged from the next sentence, the
argument seems to be that since ordinarily a word becomes meaningful to us,
only in case someone tells us, that such is the meaning of this word, what we
ordinarily do is to confuse a word with its meaning, or with the knowledge this
word conveys.
48. YS 3.17
49. YS 3.18
50. YS 3.19
51. YS 3.21
52. YS 3.22
53. YS 3.22
54. It is not possible to correct this
sentence.
55. YS 3.23
56. YS 3.24
57. YS 3.25
58. YS 3.26
59. YS 3.27
60. YS 3.28
61. YS 3.29
62. YS 3.30
63. YS 3.33
64. YS 3.32
65. YS 3.33
66. YS 3.34
67. YS. 3.35; Gandhi speaks as if Sanyam on the Purush is Sanyam on a
part of the body, but it will be better to treat this Sanyam as an independent item. Hence our separation of its
treatment from that of the rest.
68. YS 3.36
69. YS 3.37
70. YS 3.39
71. YS 3.40
72. YS 3.41
73. YS 3.42
74. YS 3.50; As can be seen, Gandhi's
sentence needs completion
75. YS 4.2
76. YS 4.3
77. YS 4.4
78. YS 4.5
79. YS 4.6
80. YS 4.7
81. YS 4.8
82. YS. 4.25
83. YS. 4.26
84. YS 4.27
85. YS 4.28
86. YS 4.29
87. YS 4.30
88. YS 4.31
89. YS 4.32
90. YS 4.33
91. YS 4.34
III
THE
NAYA PHILOSOPHY
1.
Having finished our discussion on the Sankhya and its counterpart the Yoga
philosophy we now enter upon the Naya
of Gautama with its supplement the Vaisheshika.
The author or rather the recognized
promulgator of the Naya philosophy is
Gautama. This philosophy starts with the proposition that in order to obtain
the summum bonum one must acquire the knowledge of the truth; knowledge of the
truth drives away miseries, births, mundane existence, faults and false
knowledge and the result is Moksha,
the freedom of the soul. How can the knowledge of the truth be obtained?
Gautama says: 'Knowledge of sixteen topics leads to Moksha. What are these sixteen topics? They are all connected with
the process of reasoning and the laws of thought.1 We do not find in
Naya any prominence given to the
rational demonstration of the universe. This we shall find in its complement
the Vaisheshika. The Naya therefore teaches us the method of
investigation, the Vaisheshika
following that method actually tries to investigate into the nature of the
universe.
2.
The Naya mode of investigation
may seem very peculiar to those who are not acquainted with the Hindu mode of
thinking but it is quite Indian and unique. It says that if you wish to
investigate into the nature of things you must proceed first to mention Udaish, then give the Lakshan. of those things and lastly to make Pareeksha. I shall explain these terms.
First you have to mention Udaish,
i.e. only to name the things by their respective names. Then you have to give
the Lakshan. of those
things, i.e. give the differentia of those things‑differentia, i.e. those
qualities which belong to them only and to nothing else and which at the same
time are their essential qualities, i.e. qualities without which they cannot
exist. This means that after naming them you have to give their logical
definitions. And thirdly you have to examine whether those definitions are
right. The sixteen topics of Naya
philosophy are treated in that way. We shall proceed with them in order.
3.
The first is Prman., i.e. the means or
instruments by which Pram or the
right measure of any subject is to be obtained. These are the different
processes by which the mind arrives at a true and accurate knowledge. These
processes are four Prtyaksh, Anuman,
Upman, and Shabd. We shall
describe them when we come to the Vaisheshika
philosophy.3 The second topic is Prmaiya
by which is meant all the objects or subjects of right knowledge. They are
twelve in number: Atma (soul), Shreer
(body), Indriyas (organs or senses), Arth
(objects of sense), Buddhi
(understanding or intellect), Man (mind),
Prvriti (activity), Dosh (faults), Praityabhav (transmigration), Phal
consequences or fruits), Dukha
(pain), Apvarg (emancipation). These
are the twelve of which we have to get the right knowledge by any one of the
four processes. The other fourteen topics are not different categories under
which things can be classed but rather regular stages through which a logical
controversy is to pass. For instance, in discussing a topic there is first the
state of Sanshaya or doubt about the
point to be discussed. Next there must be a Pryojan
or motive for discussing it. Next a
drishant or a familiar example must
be adduced in order that a Sidhant or
established conclusion may be arrived at. These four with the former two Prman. and Prmaiya,
make up six. The seventh is Avayava,
i.e. the argument of the objector split up. The eighth is Tark or refutation of his objection. The ninth is Nirnaya or coming to a conclusion. But this is not enough for the Naya philosopher. He thinks that every
side of a question must be examined, every possible objection stated and so a
further Vad or controversy takes
place which of course leads to Jalpa
(mere wrangling), followed by Vitanda (caviling),
Haitvabhas (fallacious reasoning), Chhala (quibbling artifices), Jati futile replies), and Nigrahsthan (the putting an end to all
discussion by a demonstration of the objector's incapacity for argument). These
are Gautama's sixteen topics.
4.
The most important part of the [philosophy] is the Vaisheshika system.3 The Naya of Gautama does not aim at a {demonstration of the] universe.
The aim of every [philosophy] ought to be to give an [analytical] demonstration
of the [universe, it being] the way for obtaining the summum bonum. The Naya only mentions the objects or
subjects to be known but it is Kanada,
the author of the Vaisheshika, who
tries to analyze the things and then lays down that final liberation‑ the
summum bonum ‑follows the right understanding of things. His method is
that of generalization. He arranges all the nameable objects, their properties
or abstractions even, under seven categories. Let us place ourselves in his
position and look at the universe as he does; then only we will be able to
understand his philosophy.
5.
We [observe] things around us; we see uniformity [and variety] in them.
What is that [uniformity and what] is that variety? That [something which] is
common to many things, which [is all‑ pervading] and is without beginning
or end [accounts for] uniformity. Notwith ..... objects, we see variety in
them(?); [notwithstanding] common properties found in all of them, there is
something which individualizes them. This is variety. The Vaisheshika called uniformity or generality Samanya and variety or individuality Vishaish. They are the same as genus and species. But this
generality and individuality do not exist by themselves. They exist in
something. That something which is the tabernacle of qualities or energies is
what the Vaisheshika calls Dravya (substance). He thinks that the
qualities and energies or actions are separate entities and therefore ought to
be classed under separate categories. The first are what he calls Gun.
(Qualities), the second are Karma
(actions). We saw before that generality or individuality does not exist
without a substance; so there must be some intimate relation between them; in
the same manner, we do not see qualities or actions except in substances; (so)
there must be an intimate relation between substances and their qualities or
actions. This relation is classified by the Vaisheshika
under a separate category and is named Samvay
or perpetual intimate relation. Thus all the objects can be classed under six
heads Dravya (substance), Gun. (Quality), Karma (actions), Samanya (generality), Vishaish
(individuality) and Samvaye (the
perpetual relation). There is nothing in the universe outside these six
categories. In order however to include negative qualities into the nameable
objects‑ as darkness which
is the absence of light, a seventh
category called Abhav or non‑existence
or negation of existence is added to the six mentioned before.
6.
We will now proceed with these categories one by one.
(i)
The first
is Dravya or substance. Kanada
divides them into nine classes‑ Prithvi
(earth), Jal (water), taijasa (light), Vayu (air), Akash (ether), Kal (time), Dik (space), Atma (soul), Manas (mind). These are the nine substances, each existing as an
entity. There is no substance, material or spiritual, outside these nine.
(ii)
(iii)
(ii)The
second category is Gun. or quality. According to
this philosophy there are only 24 qualities and no more. These are Roop (color), Res (savor or taste), Gandha (odor),
Sparsh (tangibility), Sankhya (number), Pariman. (dimension),
Prithkatv (individuality), Sanyoga (conjunction), Vibhaga (disjunction, Pratv (priority), Apratv (posteriority), (intellect),
Sukha (pleasure), Dukha (pain), Ichha (desire, Dvaish (aversion),
Pryatn (volition), Gurutva (gravity), Dravatv (fluidity), Snaih (viscidity),
Sanskar (self‑productiveness), Dharma (merit),Adharma (demerit), and Shabd
(sound).
(iii)The third category action is
fivefold: Utkshaipan. (Elevation or throwing upwards), Avkshaipan. (Depression or throwing downwards), Akunchan (contraction), Sanprsaran. (dilatation), and Gaman
(motion in general).
(iv) The fourth category is samanya (generality). It is twofold,
higher and lower. All the different objects thought different one from each
other are known as substance. Their being substance is the highest
generalization.5
But these different objects may be
divided into several classes, each class differing from the other. All the
objects included in one class have a lower generality and so on.
(v) The fifth category Vishaish (individuality) is of infinite
nature. Each atom is separate from the other. And therefore there are infinite
individualities.
(vi) The sixth category Samvay or intimate relation is that
which exists between a substance and it qualities, between atoms and, what is
formed out of them, between the whole and its parts, between atoms and what is
formed out of them, between the whole and its parts, between substance and its
modifications.
(vii) The seventh category is non‑existence,
which is very easy to understand.
7.
We will examine these categories a little closer.
(a) Of the nine substances, earth, water,
light and air are considered eternal and non‑eternal. The atoms of these
substances are eternal but their different manifestations are not eternal. With
regard to the creation of the universe the Vaisheshika
supports the atomic theory and states that the material universe is created out
of these four elements. The Vaisheshika
believe in a personal creator because they think that although the elements
were here yet there must be some one to form them into different shapes. For
the formation of a pot, although the clay is there, still there is the
necessity of a potter. By the will of this divine power motion is imparted to
the atoms and evolution follows.
(b) Besides these four elementary
substances, there are five other substances‑ether, time, space, soul and
mind. These are eternal and all of them except mind are all‑ pervading,
i.e. they exist everywhere. This means that the soul of every man exists as
much in Chicago as in Bombay. The mind however is atomic and is connected with
soul. When the soul becomes related with mind knowledge is the result;
knowledge is a special characteristic of soul, but it is mind, which receives
the sensation of pleasure or pain. The different senses are only the
instruments of knowledge. The effects of acts are stored in the mind and they
manifest themselves as pleasures and pains in future incarnations. When by the
grace of god the soul acquires the right knowledge of things all miseries
vanish and the supreme bliss follows.
REFERENCES:
1. NS1.1‑2
2. The promise is not kept‑ at
least, not in the available manuscript
3. The manuscript is partly torn here and
so the completion thereof is conjectural.
4. Here again the manuscript is partly
torn and its completion‑ where ever possible‑ conjectural.
5.
Really speaking, the highest generality is Sata and it belongs to the substances, qualities and actions‑inasmuch
as these substances etc. though different from each other can all be called Sat.
6. This characterization of Vishaish is obscure. As a matter of
fact, not only each atom but each substance supposed to be eternal‑ i.e.
each soul, each mind, space, time, ether has got its own Vishaish. And it is a good definition of Vishaish that it is what distinguished an eternal substance from
every other substance. To take Vishaish
to mean species as contrasted to genus‑which is what Samanya then stands for‑ is a loose way of speaking. But the
usage actually occurs in the early Vaisheshika
authors and Gandhi was not being un‑authentic in having followed their
practice (towards the beginning of his exposition of the Vaisheshika system).
7.
This account of Samvaye is
neither exact nor complete. For the case of certain atoms forming a composite
body is in fact a case of parts forming a whole. And the Samvaye relation obtains also between a Samanya and its locus and a Vishaish
and its locus.
8. This account of mind is extremely
sketchy, so the following might be added. Knowledge as well as pleasure and
pain (together with several others) are the qualities of soul and mind is the
organ of `internal perception', that is, the organ for perceiving the qualities
of soul‑ just as eyes etc. are the organs of `external perception', that
is the organ for perceiving the qualities of physical substances. And the
soul's connection with mind is required stances. And the soul's connection with
mind is required not for the production of knowledge alone but for that of each
quality of soul.
IV
MIMAMSA
1.
The next school of thought to which we come the Mimasma of Jaimini. Jaimini's
system cannot really be called a philosophy. It is rather a system of
ritualism. It dose not concern itself with investigation into the nature of
soul, mind, matter but with a correct interpretation of the ritual of the Veda and the solutions of doubts and
discrepancies in regard to Vedic texts caused by the discordant explanations of
opposite schools, It is therefore a critical commentary on the ritual portion
of the Veda. We shall therefore at
once pass to the Vedanta philosophy.
V
THE
VEDANTA PHILOSOPHY
1.
The whole Vedanta philosophy
is based on the Upanishad portion of
the Vedas. The Chhandogya Upanishad
contains several allegories, which have become the starting point of the
philosophy.
There is, for example, a dialogue in the
Chhandogya Upanishad between a young student Shwetaketu and his father Uddalaka
Aruni, in which the father tries to convince the son, that with all his
theological learning, he knows nothing and then tries to lead him on to the
highest knowledge, the Tatvmai or
`thou art that'. The father said to him, "Shwetaketu, go to school, for
there is none belonging to our race, darling, who not having studied, is, as it
were, a Brahman by birth only.
He began his apprenticeship with a
teacher when he was 12 years of age. He returned home when he was 24, having
then studied all the Vedas‑ conceited, considering him well- read and
very stern. His father said, to him, " Shwetaketu, as you are so
conceited, considering yourself so well read and so stern, my dear, have you
asked for that instruction by which we hear what is not audible, by which we
perceive what is not perceptible, by which we know what is unknowable."
"What is that instruction, Sir?" he asked. The father replied,” My
dear, as by one clod of clay all that is made a clay is known, the difference
being only a name arising from speech, but the truth being that all is clay;
and as, my dear, by one nugget of gold all the is made of gold is known, the
difference being only a name arising from speech, but the truth being only a
name arising from speech, but truth being that all is gold; and, as my dear, by
one pair of nail scissors all that is made of iron is known, the difference
being only a name arising from speech, but the truth being that all is iron.
Thus, my dear, is that instruction." The son said, "Surely those
venerable men (my teachers) did not know that. For if they had known it why
should they not have told it me? Do you, Sir therefore, tell me that."
The father said, "In the beginning,
my dear, there was that only which, is, one only without a second. Others say,
in the beginning there was that only which is not, one only without a second;
and from that which is not, that which is was born. But how could it be thus,
my dear? How could that which is be born of that which is not? No, my dear,
only that which is, was in the beginning, one without a second. It thought, may
I be many, may I grow forth. It sent forth fire. That fire thought, may I be
many, May I grow forth. It sent forth water. Water thought, may I be many, may
I grow forth. It sent forth. It sent forth fire. That fire thought, may I be
many, may I grow forth. It sent forth water. Water thought, may I be many, may
I grow forth. It sent forth earth (or food). Therefore whenever it rains
anywhere, most food is then produced. From water alone is eatable food
produced. As the bees, my son, make honey by collecting the juices of descant
trees and reduce the juice into one form, and these juices have no
discrimination, so that they might say, I am the juice of this tree or that
tree, in the same manner, my son, all these creatures when they have become
merged in the true (either in deep sleep or death) know not that they are
merged in the true. Whatever these creatures are here, whether lion or a wolf
or a boar or a worm or a midge or a gnat or a mosquito, that they become again
and again. Now that which is the subtle essence, in it all that exists has its
self. It is the true. It is the self, and thou, O Shwetaketu, art it."
"Please, Sir, inform me still
more", said the son. "Be it so, my child," the father replied.
"These rivers, my son, run the eastern like the Ganges to the East, the
western like the Indus to the West. They go from sea to sea, i.e., the clouds
lift up the water from the sea to the sky and send it back as rain to sea. They
become indeed seas. And as those rivers, when they are in the sea, do not know,
I am this or that river, in the same manner, my son, all these creatures when
they have come back from the true know not that they have come back from the
true. Whatever these creatures are here, whether a lion or a mosquito, that
they become again and again. That which is that subtle essence, in it all that
exists has its self. It is the true. It is the self, and thou, O Shwetaketu,
art it."
"Please, Sir, inform me still
more," said the son. "Be it so, my child," the father replied.
" If some one were to strike at the root of this large tree here, it would
bleed but live. If he were to strike at its stem, it would bleed but live. If
he were to strike at its tip, it would bleed but live. Pervaded by the living self
that tree stand s firm, drinking in its nourishment and rejoicing. But if life
(the living self) leaves one of its branches, that branch withers, if it leaves
the whole tree, the whole tree withers. In exactly the same manner, my son,
know this. This body indeed withers and dies when the living self has left it;
the living self never dies. That which is that subtle essence, in it all that
exists has its self. It is the true. It is the self, and thou, O Shwetaketu,
art it."
"Please, Sir inform me still more,"
The son said. "Be it so, my child," the father said. Place this salt
in water and then wait on me in the morning." the son did as was
commanded. The father said to him, "Bring me the salt which you placed in
the water last night," The son having looked for it found it not, for of
course it was melted. The son having looked for it found it not, for of course
it was melted. The father said, "Taste it from the surface of the water.
How is it?" The son replied, " It is salt." "Taste it from
the middle, How is it?" "It is salt" "Taste it from the
bottom. How is it?" The son said, " It is salt." The father
said, " Now leave the vessel and sit by my side." He did so. The
father asked, "Where is the salt? Do you see it?" The son said,
" I do not see it but it is in the water." The father said, "
Here also in this body you do not perceive the true, my son, but there indeed
it is. That which is the subtle essence, in it all that exists has its self. It
is the true. It is the self, and thou, O Shwetaketu, art it."
"Please, Sir, inform me more."
"Be it so, my child. If a man is ill, his relatives assemble round him and
ask‑ dost thou know me? Now as long as his speech is not merged in the
mind, his mind in breath, his breath in heat, heat in the highest Godhead, he
knows them. But when his speech is merged in his mind, his mind in breath,
breath in heat, and heat in the highest Godhead, he knows them not. That which
is the subtle essence, in it all that exists has its self. It is the true. It
is the self, and thou, O Shwetaketu, art it."
2.
I told you last time that the Vedanta
philosophy is based on the Upanishads.
The ritual of the Vedas was
considered the Karmkand or the work
portion, the Upanishads constituted what is known as Gyankand or the knowledge portion in so far as it propounds a
certain theory of the world. I also told you that Mimamsa was a system of
ritualism which gave a correct interpretation of the ritual of the Veda and the solutions of doubts and
discrepancies in regard to Vedic
texts caused by the discordant explanations of opposite schools. Just as the
ritualistic portion of the Vedas
became object of comment by Jaimini,
the author of the Mimamsa so did
Badarayana comment on or rather composed aphorisms based on the Upanishads.
3.
The Vedanta philosophy has its
two chief supporters Shankara and Ramanuja. Both of them rest their doctrines
on the Upanishads. In Shankara's opinion the Upanishads teach as follows:
(a) Whatever is, is in reality one; there
truly exists only one universal being called Brahma or Parmatman (the highest self). This being is of an absolutely
homogeneous nature; it is pure being or, which comes to the same, pure
intelligence or thought Chaetanya, gyan. Intelligence
or thought is not to be predicated of Brahma as its attribute but constitutes
its substance. Brahma is not thinking being, but thought itself. It is
absolutely destitute of qualities; whatever qualities or attributes are
conceivable can only be denied of it. But if nothing exists but one absolutely
simple being, whence the appearance of the world by which we see ourselves
surrounded and in which we ourselves exist as individual beings? The answer is
that Brahma is associated with a certain power called Maya or Avidya. This
power cannot be called 'being', for 'being' is only Brahma; nor can it be
called' not‑being' in the strict sense, for it at any rate produces the
appearance of this world. It is in fact a principle of illusion, the
non-definable cause owing to which there seems to exist a material world comprehending
distinct individual existences. Being associated with this principle of
illusion Brahma is enabled to project the appearance of the world, in the same
way as a magician is enabled by his incomprehensible magical power to produce
illusory appearances of animate and inanimate beings. Maya thus constitutes the Upadan
(the material cause) of the world, or if we wish to call attention to the
circumstance that Maya belongs to
Brahma as Shakti, we may say that the
material cause of the world is Brahma in so far as it is associated with Maya. In this latter quality Brahma is
more properly called Ishwar (the
Lord).
Maya under the guidance of the Lord modifies
itself by a progressive evolution into all the individual existences
distinguished by special names and forms, of which the world consists; from it
there spring in due succession the different material elements and the whole
bodily apparatus belonging to sentient beings. In all those apparently
individual forms of existence the one indivisible Brahma is present, but owing
to the particular adjuncts into which (
) has specialized itself it appears to be broken up‑it is broken
up, as it were‑ into a multiplicity of intellectual or sentient
principles, the so called Jeev
(individual or personal souls). What is real in each is only the universal
Brahma itself, the whole aggregate of individualizing bodily organs and mental
functions, which in our ordinary experience separate and distinguish one Jeev from another, is the offspring of Maya and as such unreal.
The phenomenal world or world of ordinary
experience Vyvehar thus consists of a
number of individual souls engaged in specific cognition's, volition's and so
on and of the external material objects with which those cognition's and
volition's are concerned. Neither the specific cognition's nor their objects
are real in the true sense of the world, for both are altogether due to Maya. But at the same time we have to
reject the idealistic doctrine of certain Buddhist schools according to which
nothing whatever truly exists but certain trains of cognition acts or ideas to
which no external objects correspond for external things, although not real in
the strict sense of the word, enjoy at any rate as much reality as the specific
acts, whose objects they are.
(b) The non‑ enlightened soul is
unable to look through and beyond Maya,
which like a veil hides from it its true nature. Instead of recognizing itself
to be Brahman it blindly identifies itself with its adjuncts Upadhi ‑ the fictitious off
springs of Maya, and thus looks for
its true self in the body, the sense‑organs and the internal organ Manas, i.e., the organ of specific
cognition. The soul, which in reality is pure intelligence, non-active,
infinite, thus becomes limited in extent, as it were, limited in knowledge and
power, an agent and enjoyer. Through its actions it burdens itself with merit
and demerit, the consequences of which it has to bear or enjoy in series of
future embodied existences, the Lord‑as retributer and dispenser‑allotting
to each soul that form of embodiment to which it is entitled by its previous
actions. At the end of each of the great world periods called Kelp, the Lord retracts the whole world,
i.e. the whole material world is dissolved and merged into non‑distinct Maya while the individual souls, free
for the time from actual connection with Upadhi,
lie in deep slumber as it were. But as the consequences of their former deeds
are not yet exhausted they have again to enter an embodied existence as soon as
the Lord sends forth a new material world, and the old round of birth, action,
death begins anew to last to all eternity as it has lasted from all eternity.
(c) The means of escaping from this
endless Sansara, the way-out of which
can never be found by the non-enlightened soul, are furnished by the Veda. The Karmkand indeed whose purport it is to enjoin certain actions
cannot lead to final release, for even the most meritorious works necessarily
lead to new forms of embodied existence. And in the Gyankand of the Veda also
two different parts have to be distinguished, viz. firstly those chapters and
passages which treat of Brahma in so far as it is related to the world and
hence characterized by various attributes, i.e. of Ishwar or lower Brahma, and secondly, those texts which set forth
the nature of the highest Brahma transcending all qualities and the fundamental
identity of the individual soul with that highest Brahma. Devout meditation on
Brahma as suggested by passages of the former kind does not directly lead to
final emancipation; the pious worshipper passes on his death into the world of
the lower Brahma only, where he continues to exist as a distinct individual
soul although in the enjoyment of great power and knowledge‑until at last
he reaches the highest knowledge and through it final release. That student of
the Veda, on the other hand, whose
soul has been enlightened by the texts embodying the higher knowledge of
Brahma, whom passages such as the great saying 'That art thou' have taught that
there is no difference between his true self and the highest self, obtains at
the moment of the death immediate final release, i.e. he withdraws altogether
from the influence of Maya and
asserts himself in his true nature which is nothing else but the absolute
highest Brahma. This is the teaching of Shankara.
4.
According to Ramanuja, on the other hand, the teaching of the Upanishads
is a little different.
(a)
(b)
a. He says:
There exists only one all‑embracing being called Brahma or the highest
self or the Lord. This being is not destitute of attributes but rather endowed
with all imaginable auspicious qualities. It is not intelligence as Shankara
maintains but intelligence is its chief attribute. The Lord is all‑
pervading, all‑powerful, all knowing, all merciful; his nature is
fundamentally antagonistic to all evil. He contains within himself whatever
exists. While according to Shankara, the only reality is to be found in the
nonqualified homogenous highest Brahma which can only be defined as pure being
or pure thought, all plurality being a mere illusion, Brahma according to
Ramanuja's view comprises within itself distinct elements of plurality which
all of them lay claim to absolute reality of one and the same kind. Whatever is
presented to us by ordinary experience, viz. matter in all its various
modifications and the individual souls of different classes and degrees, are
essential, real constituents of Brahma's nature. Matter and souls Achit and Chit constitute according to
Ramanuja's terminology the body of the Lord, they stand to him in the same
relation of entire dependence and subservience in which the matter forming an
animal or vegetable body stands to its soul or animating principle. The Lord
pervades and rules all things which exist‑ material or immaterial‑
as their Anteryamee the fundamental
text for this special Ramanuja's tenet‑ which in the writing of the sect is quoted again and again‑
is the so called Anteryamee Brahman, which says that within all
elements, all sense organs and lastly within all individual souls there abides
an inward ruler whose body these elements, sense organs an individual souls
constitute. Matter and souls as forming the body of the Lord are also called
modes Prkar of him. They are to be
looked upon as his effects, but they have enjoyed the kind of individual
existence, which is theirs from all eternity and will never be entirely
resolved in Brahma. They however exist in two different periodically
alternating conditions. At some time they exist in a subtle state in which they
do not possess those qualities by which they are ordinarily known, and there is
then no distinction of individual name and form. Matter in that state is
non-evolved Avyakt individual souls
are not joined to material bodies and their intelligence is in a state of
contraction Sankoch.
This is the Prley State, which recurs at the end of each Kalpa, and Brahma is then said to be in its causal condition Karn.avastha.
To that state all those Vedic passage
refer which speak of the Brahma or self as being in the beginning one only
without a second. Brahma then is indeed not absolutely one, for it contains
within itself matter and soul in a germinal condition; but as in that condition
they are so subtle as not to allow of individual distinctions being made, they
are not counted as something second in addition to Brahma. When the Prley state comes to an end, creation
takes place owing to an act of volition on the Lord's part The primary
non-evolved matter then passes over into its other condition; it becomes gross
and thus acquires all those sensible attributes, visibility, tangibility and so
on, which are known from ordinary experience. At the same time the souls enter
into connection with material bodies corresponding to the degree of merit or
demerit acquired by them in previous forms of existence; their intelligence at
the same time undergoes certain expansion
Vikas. The Lord together with matter in its gross state and the expanded
souls is Brahma in the condition of effect Karyavstha.
Cause and effect are thus at the bottom the same; for he effect is nothing but
the cause, which has undergone a certain change Parin.am. Hence the cause being known, the effect is
known likewise.
(b) Owing to the effects of their former
actions the individual souls are implicated in the Sansara, the endless cycle of birth, action and death, final escape
from which is to be obtained only through the study of the Gyankand of Veda.
Compliance with the Karmkand does not
lead outside the Sansara. But he who,
assisted by the grace of the Lord, cognizes and meditates on him in the way
prescribed by the Upanishads reaches
at his death final emancipation, i.e. he passes through the different stages of
the path of the Gods up to the world of Brahma and there enjoys an everlasting
blissful existence from which there is no return into the sphere of
transmigration. The characteristics of the released soul are similar to those
of Brahma; it participates in all the latter's glorious qualities and powers,
excepting only Brahma's power to emit, rule and retract the entire world.
5.
The chief points in which the two systems agree on the one hand and
diverge on the other are these: Both systems teach Advaet i.e. non‑duality or monism. There exist not several
fundamentally distinct principles, such as Prakriti
and Purush of the Sankhya, but there exists only one all‑embracing
being. While, however, the Advaet
taught by Shankara is a rigorous, absolute one, Ramanuja's doctrine has to be
characterized as Vishishtadvaesh i.e.
qualified non‑duality, non‑duality with a difference. According to
Shankara, whatever is, is Brahma, and Brahma itself is absolutely homogeneous,
so that all difference and plurality must be illusory. According to Ramanuja
also, whatever is, is Brahma, but Brahma is not of homogeneous nature, but
contains within itself elements of plurality, owing to which it truly manifests
itself in a diversified world with its variety of material forms of existence
and individual souls is not unreal Maya
but a real part of Brahma's nature, the body investing the universal self. The
Brahma of Shankara is in itself impersonal, a homogeneous mass of objectless
thought, transcending all attributes; a personal God it becomes only through
its association with the unreal principle of Maya, so that, strictly speaking, Shankara's personal God, his Ishwar, is himself something unreal.
Ramanuja's Brahma, on the other hand, is essentially a personal God, the all‑powerful
and all wise ruler of a real world permeated and animated by his spirit. There
is thus no room for the distinction between a Pram Nirguna. And Apram Saguna Brahma, between Brahma and
Ishwar. Shankara's individual soul is Brahma in so far as [it is] limited by
the unreal Upadhi due to Maya. The individual soul of Ramanuja,
on the other hand, is really individual soul of Ramanuja, on the other hand, is
really individual; it has indeed sprung from Brahma and is never outside
Brahma, but nevertheless it enjoys a separate personal existence and will
remain a personality for ever. The release from Sansara means according to Shankara the absolute merging of the
individual soul in Brahma, due to the dismissal of the errouneous notion the
soul is distinct from Brahma; according to Ramanuja it only means the soul's
passing from the troubles of earthly life into a kind of paradise where it will
remain for ever in undisturbed personal bliss. As Ramanuja does not distinguish
a higher and lower Brahma the distinction of a higher and lower knowledge is
likewise not valid for him; the teaching of the Upanishads is not two fold but
essentially one, and leads the enlightened devotee to one result only.
6.
As Shankara's views are mostly considered to be true, we will follow him
in some details as to what he says in his comments on the Vedanta aphorisms. The whole work is divided into four parts, each
part containing four parts, each part containing four chapters. We will deal
with them in order.1
(a) In the first chapter he deals with
certain passages from Upanishads referring to the word Brahma. We will consider
only that part wherein the word Brahma is defined. Brahma is that from which
the origin, subsistence and dissolution of this world proceed. Shankara
explains this definition by saying that omniscient omnipotent cause from which
proceed the origin, subsistence and dissolution of this world‑ which
world is differentiated by names and forms, contains many agents and enjoyers,
it the abode of the fruits of actions, these fruits having their definite
places, times and causes, and the nature of whose arrangement cannot even be
conceived by mind‑that cause is Brahma.2
(b) Vedanta
philosophy then rests on the fundamental conviction of the Vedantistss that the Soul and absolute Being or Brahma is one in
their essence. In the old Upanishads this conviction rises slowly; but when
once it was recognized that the Soul and Brahma were in their deepest essence
one, the old mythological language of the Upanishads was given up; for instance
the passage representing the soul as travelling on the road of the fathers Pitryan or the road of the Gods Devyan. We read in the Vedanta aphorisms that this approach to
the throne of Brahma has its proper meaning so long only as Brahma is still
considered personal and endowed with various qualities but that when the
knowledge of the true, the absolute and unqualified Brahman, the Absolute
Being, has once risen in the mind these mythological concepts have to vanish.
" How would it be possible," Shankara says, " that he who is
free from all attachment, unchangeable and unmoved, should approach another person,
should move or go to another place? The highest oneness, if once truly
conceived, excludes anything like an approach to a different object or to a
distant place."
(c) The Sanskrit language has the great
advantage that it can express the difference between the qualified and the
unqualified Brahma by a mere change of gender; Brahma being used as a masculine
when it is meant for the qualified and Brahma as a neuter when it is meant for
the unqualified Brahma, the Absolute Being. This is a great help and there is
nothing corresponding to it in English.
(d) We must remember also that the
fundamental principle of the Vedanta
philosophy was not 'Thou art He' but 'Thou art that' and that it was not 'thou
will be' but 'thou art'. This 'thou art' expresses something, that is, that has
been and always will be, not something that has still to be achieved, or is to
follow, for instance, after death.
Thus Shankara says: "If it is said
that the Soul will go to Brahma, that means that it will in future attain, or
rather, that it will be in future what, though unconsciously, it always has
been, viz. Brahma. For when we speak of some one going to some one else, it
cannot be one and the same who is distinguished as the subject and the object.
Also, if we speak of worship, that can only be if the worshipper is different
from the worshipped. By true knowledge the individual soul does not become
Brahma but is Brahma as soon as it knows what it really is and always has been.
Being and knowing are one here."
(c) Here lies the characteristic difference
between Yoga philosophy and Vedanta. In Yoga the human soul is represented as burning with love for God, as
filled with a desire for union with or absorption in God. We find little of
that in the Upanishads, and when such ideas occur they are argued away by the Vedanta philosophers. They always cling
to the conviction that the Divine has never been really absent from the human
soul, that it always is though covered by darkness or nescience, and that as
soon as that darkness or that nescience is removed the soul is once more and in
its own right what it always has been. It is‑ it does not become‑
Brahma.
(f) Last time I gave you the dialogue
from the Chhandogya Upanishad between a young student Shwetaketu and his
father. In that dialogue we have only a popular and not yet systematized view
of the Vedanta. There are several
passages indeed, which seem to speak of the union and absorption of the soul
rather than of its recovery of its true nature. Such passages are always
explained away by the stricter Vedanta philosophers and they have no great
difficulty in doing this. For there remains always the explanation that the
qualified personal Brahma in the masculine gender is meant and not yet the
highest Brahma, which is, free from all qualities. That modified personal
Brahma exists for all practical purposes, till its unreality has been
discovered through the discovery of the highest Brahma; and as in one sense the
modified masculine Brahma is the highest Brahma as soon as we know it and
shares all its true reality with the highest Brahma as soon as we know it, many
things may in a less strict sense be predicated of Him, the modified Brahma,
which in truth apply to it only, the highest Brahma. This amphibole runs
through the whole of the Vedanta
Sutras and a considerable portion of the sutras
is taken up with the task of showing that when the qualified Brahma seems to be
meant it is really the unqualified Brahma that ought to be understood. Again,
there are ever so many passages in the Upanishads which seem to refer to the
individual soul but which, if properly explained, must be considered as
referring to the highest Atman that
gives support and reality to the individual soul. This at least is the view
taken by Shankara, whereas the fact is that there have been different stages in
the development of the belief in the highest Brahma and in the highest Atman; and some passages in the
Upanishads belong to earlier phases of Indian thought when Brahma was still
conceived simply as the highest deity and true blessedness was supposed to
consist in the gradual approach of the soul to the throne of God.
(g) The fundamental principle of Vedanta
philosophy that in reality there exists and there can exist nothing but Brahma,
that Brahma is everything, the material as well as the efficient cause of the
universe, is of course in contradiction with our ordinary experience. In Indian
as any where else, man imagines at first that he in his individual bodily and
spiritual character is something that all objects of the outer world also exist
as objects. Idealistic philosophy swept this distinction with the Vedantistss.
(h) The Vedanta philosopher however is not only confronted with this
difficulty but he has to meet another difficulty peculiar to himself. The whole
of the Veda is in his eyes
infallible, yet that Veda enjoins the
worship of many Gods and even in enjoining the worship Upasana of Brahma, the
highest deity in his active masculine and personal character, it recognizes an
objective deity different from the subject that is to offer worship and
sacrifice to him.
Hence the Vedanta philosopher has to tolerate many things. He tolerates the
worship of an objective Brahma as a preparation for the knowledge of the
subjective and objective or the Absolute Brahma, which is the highest object of
his philosophy. He admits one Brahma endowed with quality, but high above the
usual Gods of the Veda. This Brahma
is reached by the pious on the path of the Gods; he can be worshipped and it is
he who rewards the pious for their good works. Still, even he is in that
character the result of Avidya (ignorance,
nescience), of the same ignorance which prevents the soul of man, the Atman, from distinguishing itself from
its encumbrances, the so‑called Upadhis
such as body, the organs of sense and their works.
(i) This nescience can be removed by knowledge only and this knowledge
is imparted by the Vedanta which
shows that all our ordinary knowledge is simply the result of ignorance or
nescience, is uncertain, deceitful and perishable or, as we should say,
phenomenal, relative and conditioned. The true knowledge called Smyagdarshan or complete insight cannot
be gained by sensuous perception Prtyaksh
or by inference Anuman, nor can
obedience to the law of the Veda
produce more than temporary enlightenment or happiness. According to the
orthodox Vedanta, Shruti alone or
what is called revelation can impart that knowledge and remove that nescience
which is innate in human nature.
(j) Of the higher Brahma nothing can be predicated but that it is and
that through our nescience it appears to be this or that.
When a great Vedantistss was asked to describe Brahma, he was simply silent‑
that was his answer. But when it is said that Brahma is, that means at the same
time that Brahma is not, that is to say, that Brahma is nothing of what is
supposed to exist in our sensuous perceptions.
There are two other qualities, which may
safely be assigned to Brahma, namely, that it is intelligent and that it is
blissful, or rather that it is intelligence and bliss. Intelligent seems the
nearest approach to Sanskrit Chit and
Chaetanya. Spiritual would not
answer, because it would not express more than that it is not material. But Chit means that it is, that it perceives
and knows, though as it can perceive itself only we may say that it is lighted
up by its own light or knowledge, or, as it is sometimes expressed, that it is
pure knowledge and pure light. We can best understand it when we consider what
is negatived by it, namely, dullness, deafness, darkness and all that is
material. In several passages a third quality is hinted at, namely
blissfulness, but this again only seems another name for perfection and chiefly
intended to exclude the idea of any possible suffering in Brahma.
It is in the nature of this Brahma to be
always subjective and hence it is said that it cannot be known in the same way
as all other objects are known, but only as a knower knows that he knows and he
is.
(k) Still whatever is and whatever is
known‑two things which in the Vedanta
and in all other idealistic systems of philosophy are identical‑all is in
the end Brahma. Though we do not know it, it is Brahma that is known to us when
conceived as the author or creator of the world, an office, according to Hindu
idea, quite unworthy of the Godhead in its true character. It is the same
Brahma that is known to us in our own self-consciousness. Whatever we may seem
to be or imagine ourselves to be for a time, we are in truth the eternal
Brahma, the eternal self. With this conviction in the background, the Vedantistss retains his belief in what
he calls the Lord, God, the creator and ruler of the world, but only as
phenomenal or as adapted to the human understanding. He thinks that just as a
man believes in his personal self so he is sure to believe in a personal God,
and such personal God may even be worshipped. But we must remember that what is
worshipped is only a person, or as the Brahmins call it a Prteek, an aspect of the true eternal essence as conceived by us in
our inevitably human and limited knowledge. Thus the strictest observance of
religion is insisted on while we are what we are. We are told that there is
truth in the ordinary belief in God as the creator or cause of the world, but a
relative truth only, relative to the human understanding, just as there is
truth in the perception of our senses and in the belief in our personality, but
relative truth only. His belief in the Veda
would suffice to prevent the Vedantistss
from a denial of the Gods or from what we call atheism.
In deference to the Veda the Vedantistss has
even to admit, if not exactly a creation, at least a repeated emanation of the
world from Brahma and re‑absorption of it into Brahma from Kelp to Kelp or from age to age.
If we ask what led to a belief in the
individual souls the answer we get is the Upadhi, the surroundings or the
encumbrances, i.e. the body with the breath or life in it, the organs of sense
and the mind. These together form the subtle body Sooksham Shreer and this Sooksham Shreer is supposed to survive while death can destroy the coarse
body Sthool Shreer only. The
individual soul is held by this subtle body and its fates are determined by
acts which are continuing in their consequences and which persist in their
effects for ever, or at least until true knowledge has arisen and put an end
even to the subtle body and to all phantasms of nescience.
(I) How the emanation of the world from
Brahma is conceived in Vedanta
philosophy is of small interest. It is almost purely mythological and indicates
a very low knowledge of physical science. Brahma is not indeed represented any
longer as a maker or a creator, as an architect or a potter. What we translate
by creation Srishti means really no
more than a letting out and corresponds closely with the theory of emanation.
The Upanishads propose ever so many similes by which they wish to render the
concept of creation or emanation more intelligible. One of the oldest similes
applied to the production of the world from Brahma is that of the spider
drawing forth, i.e. producing, the web of the world from itself. Another
simile, which is meant to do away with what there is left of efficient‑
besides material‑causality in the simile of the spider which after all
sill the throwing out and drawing back of the threads of the world, is that of
hair growing from the skull. Nor is the theory of what we call evolution
wanting in the Upanishads. One of the most frequent similes used for this is
the change of milk into curds. The curds are nothing but the milk only under a
different form. It was soon found however that this simile violated the
postulate that the One Being must not only be one but that, if perfect in
itself, it must be unchangeable. Shankara therefore offered a new theory. It is
distinguished by the name of Vivart
from the Parin.am or evolution theory, which is held by Ramanuja. Vivart of Shankara means turning away.
It teaches that the Supreme Being remains always unchanged and that our
believing that anything else can exist beside it arises from Avidya i.e. nescience. Most likely this Avidya or ignorance was first conceived
as purely subjective, for it is illustrated by the ignorance of a man who
mistakes a rope for a snake. In this case the rope remains all the time what it
is, it is only our ignorance which frightens us and determines our actions. In
the same way Brahma always remains the same, it is our ignorance only, which
makes us see a phenomenal world and a phenomenal God. Another favorite simile
is our mistaking mother‑of‑pearl for silver. The Vedantist says: We may take it for
silver but it always remains mother‑of‑pearl. So we may speak of
the snake and the rope, or of the silver and mother‑of‑pearl, as
being one. And yet we do not mean that the rope has actually undergone a change
or has turned into silver. After that the Vedantists
argue that what the rope is to the snake the Supreme Being is to the world,
They go on to explain that when they hold that the world is Brahma they do not
mean that Brahma is actually transformed into the world, for Brahma cannot
change and cannot be transformed. They mean that Brahma presents itself as the
world or appears to be the world. The world's reality is not its own but
Brahma's, yet Brahma is not the material cause of the world, as the spider is
of the web, or the milk of the curds, or the sea of the foam, or the clay of
the jar (which is made by the potter), but only the substratum, the illusory
material cause. There would be no snake without the rope, there would be no
world without the Brahma, and yet the rope does not become a snake nor does
Brahma become the world. With the Vedantists
the phenomenal and the nominal are essentially the same. The silver as we
perceive and call it is the same as the mother‑of‑pearl; without
the mother‑of‑pearl there would be no silver for us. We impart to
mother‑of‑pearl the name and form of silver, and by the same
process by which we create silver the whole world was created by worlds and
forms.
(m) Besides, the Vedanta philosophy has its own theory as to the creation of the
whole world out of Brahma and Avidya.
The purport of the philosophy however comes to this: All being is Brahma,
nothing can be except Brahma, while all that exists is an illusory, not a real,
modification of Brahma and is caused by name and form. When the true knowledge
arises, everything becomes known as Brahma only. We may ask, whence the names
and forms and whence the phantasmagoria of unreality. The Vedantists has but one answer, it is simply due to Avidya. There is another simile. Indian
jugglers knew how to make people believe that they saw two or three jugglers
while there was only one. The juggler himself remained one, knew himself to be
one only‑like Brahma; but to the spectators he appeared as many. But all
these are similes only and with us there would remain the question whence this
nescience. The Vedantists is
satisfied with the conviction that for a time we are as a matter of fact
nescient and what he cares for chiefly is to find out, not how that nescience
arose but how it can be removed.
(n) What is the mode of removing this
ignorance? Bharati Tirtha, a famous Vedantist, says: "Neglecting the unreal creation consisting of
mere name and form, one should meditate on the Brahma and should ever practice
internal as well as external concentration. Internal concentration is of two
kinds, Sviklp, and Nirviklp. The first is the meditation of
(on?) the subjective Atma as the
witness of the mental world‑passions, desires etc. arising in the mind.
The second is the fixing one's mind on the thought `I am Brahma', [Brahma]
which is described in the Vedas as
self-existent, eternal, all‑consciousness and pleasure, self‑illumined
and unique in itself. That is Nirviklp
in which, through the ecstasy of the pleasure consequent upon the knowledge of
one's self, the sight as well as the world are both overlooked and the mind
stands like the jet of a lamp burning in place protected from the slightest
breeze. The separation in any external object of sight, of name and form from
its original substratum Sat is Drishanuviddh external concentration.
The meditation on the one, unique and Sachidanand
Brahma as the only reality in the universe is Shabdanuvridh external concentration. The third nirvikalpa is, like the one described
before, cessation of all thought, from the enjoyment of one eternal pleasure.
One should devote one's time to these six kinds of Smadhi.3 The
false identity of the material shell and the Universal Life being dissolved and
the universal Atman being thoroughly
realized, wherever the mind of the ascetic is directed there it naturally loses
itself into one or other of these Samadhi.
That limit of limits being seen, the knot of Ahamkar (egoism) is cut asunder, all doubts disappear, all actions
cease to affect."4
REFERENCES:
1. Gandhi does not actually follow Shankara's
Commentary chapter- wise though, of course, almost all the issues here taken up
do occur in this Commentary
2. VS 1.2 and Shankara thereon.
3. To summarize, the six kinds of Samadhi are: (i) Drishyanuvidh internal, (ii) Shabdanuvidh
internal, (iii) Nirvikalp internal,
(iv) Drishyanuvidh external, (v) Shabdanuvidh external, (vi) Nirviklp external. As can be seen, (i),
(ii), (iv) and (v) are Sviklp Samadhi
‑ because (iii) and (vi) are alone Nirviklp
Samadhi.
4. It will be located in some text of Bharti Tirtha. Panchdashi, of
course, says:
Shakyam
jaitun manorajyam nirvikalpsmadhina
Sunspad
krmat soapi sviklpsmadhina
VI
BUDDHISM
1.
We have described, very shortly though, those schools of philosophy who
take Vedas as their guide. We are now
entering upon another school‑one of the two, which have discarded the Vedas and followed their own lines of
thought. Buddhism is one of them. A philosophy is not born in a day and
therefore to say that Buddha while sitting under the Bo tree was inspired as it
were with the truths which he afterwards circulated has no meaning. Truths are
not reached in a moment. Sciences and arts are not discovered in a day and
therefore Buddha who was a Hindu by birth and a follower of the Brahma faith
must have been the outcome of his time.
Six centuries before Christ, India
witnessed the commencement of a great revolution. The Brahmanical religion had
been practiced and proclaimed for centuries of years. The Gods of the Rig‑Veda whom the ancient had invoked and
worshipped lovingly and fervently had come to be regarded as so many names and Indra and Usha raised no distinct ideas and no grateful emotions. The simple
libations of the Som juice, which the
old Rishi had offered to their gods,
had developed into cumbrous ceremonials, elaborate rites and utter sacred
prayers for the people. The people were taught to believe that they earned
merit by having these rites performed and prayers uttered by hired priests.
It was Buddha who created a reaction in
such society.1
2.
About 100 miles northeast of the city of Benares was situated about 600
years before Christ a place called Kpilavastu on the bank of the River Rohini.
And two kindred clans ‑ the Shakyas and Kolians‑lived on the
opposite banks of that river. Kapilavastu was the capital of the Shakyas who
were then living in peace with the Kolians and Shuddhodana the king of Shakyas
had married two daughters of the king of Kolians. Neither queen bore any child
of Shuddodana for many years, and the hope of leaving an heir to the principality
of the Shakyas was well nigh abandoned. At last however the elder queen
promised her husband an heir and according to ancient custom left for he
father's house in order to be confined. But before she reached the place she
gave birth to a son in the pleasant grove of Lumbini. The mother and child were carried back to Kapilavastu
where the mother died 7 days after leaving the child to be nursed by his
stepmother and maternal aunt, the younger queen.
The birth of Gautama is naturally the
subject of many legends, which have most remarkable resemblance with the
legends about the birth of Jesus Christ. The boy was named Siddhartha but
Gautama was his family name. He belonged to the Shakya tribe and is therefore
called Shakyasingh; and when he had
proclaimed and preached a reformed religion he was called Buddha or the
awakened or enlightened.
Little is known of the early life of
young Gautama except that he was married to his cousin Yashodhara, daughter of
the king of Koli about the age of 18. It is said that Gautama neglected the
manly exercises which all Kshatryas of his age delighted in, and that his
relations complained of that. A day was accordingly fixed for the trial of his
skill and the young prince of the Shakyas proved his superiority to his kinsmen.
Ten years after his marriage Gautama
resolved to quit his home and his wife for the study of philosophy and
religion. The story which is told of the young prince abandoning his home and
his position is well known. He must have for a long time pondered deeply and
sorrowfully on the sins and sufferings of humanity, he must have been struck
with the vanity of wealth and position. It is said that the sight of decrepit
old man, of a sick man, of decaying corpse and of dignified hermit led him to
form his resolution to quit home.
At this time a son was born to him. It is
said that the news was announced to him in a garden on the riverside and the
pensive young man only exclaimed: This is a new and strong tie I shall have to
break." That night he repaired to the threshold of his wife's chamber -
and there by the light of the flickering lamp, he gazed on a scene of perfect
bliss. His young wife lay surrounded by flowers and with one hand on the
infant's head. A yearning arose in his heart to take the babe in his arms for
the last time before relinquishing all earthly bliss. But this he might not do.
The mother might be awakened and the importunities of the fond and loving soul
might unnerve his heart and shake his resolution. Silently then he tore himself
away from that place. In that one eventful moment, in the silent darkness of
that night he renounced for ever his princely fame and more than all this the
affection of happy home, the love of a young wife and of a tender infant now
lying unconscious in sleep. He renounced all this and rode away that night to
become a poor student and homeless wanderer. His faithful servant Channa asked
to be allowed to stay with him and become an ascetic but Gautama sent him back
and repaired alone to Rajhagriha.
Rajgrha was the capital of Bimbisara, the
king of Magdhas and was situated in a valley surrounded by five hills. Some
Brahmin ascetics lived in the caves of this hill sufficiently far from the town
for studies and contemplation and yet sufficiently near to obtain supplies.
Gautama attached himself first to one Alara and then to another Udraka and
learned from them all that Hindu philosophy had to teach.
Not satisfied with this learning Gautama
wished to see if penances could bring superhuman insight and power as they were
reputed to do. He retired therefore to the jungle of Uruvela near the site of
the present temple of Buddha Gaya and for six year attended by five disciples
he gave himself up to the severest penance and self‑mortification, but he
could not obtain what he sought. At last one day he fell down from sheer
weakness and his disciples thought he was dead. But he recovered and despairing
of deriving any profit from penance he abandoned it. His disciples who did not
understand his object lost all respect for him when he gave up his penances.
They left him alone and went away to Banaras.
Left alone in the world, Gautama wandered
towards the banks of Niranjara, received his morning meal from the hands of
Sujata, a village daughter, and set himself down under the Bo‑tree or the
tree of wisdom. For a long time he sat in contemplation and scenes of his past
life came thronging into his mind. The learning he had acquired had produced no
results the penances he had undergone were vain, his disciples had left him alone
in the world. Would he now return to his loving widowed wife, to his little
child now a sweet boy of six years, to his affectionate father and his loyal
people? This was possible, but where would be the satisfaction? What would
become of the mission to which he had devoted himself? Long he sat in
contemplation and doubt, until the doubts cleared away like mists in the
morning and the daylight. Truth flashed before his eyes. What was this truth
which learning did not touch and penances did not impart? He made no new
discovery, he had acquired no new knowledge, but his pious nature and his
benevolent heart told him that a holy calm life and love towards others were
panacea for all evils. Self‑culture and universal love‑ this was
his discovery, this is the essence of Buddhism.
The conflict in Gautam's mind, which thus
subsided in calm, is described in Buddhist writings by marvelous incidents.
Clouds and darkness prevailed the earth and oceans quaked, rivers flowed back
to their sources and peaks of lofty mountains rolled down.
Gautam's old teacher Alara was dead and
he therefore went to Benaras to proclaim the truth to his five former
disciples. On the way he met a man of the name of Upaka belonging to the
Ajivaka sect of ascetics who, looking at the composed and happy expression on
Gautam's face asked: " Your countenance, friend, is serene, your
complexion is pure and bright. In whose name, friend, have you retired from the
world? Who is your teacher and what doctrine do you profess?" To this Gautama
replied that he had no teacher, that he had obtained Nirvana by the extinction of all passions and added: I go to the
city of Kashi to beat the drum of the immortal in the darkness of the
world." Upaka did not understand him and replied after a little
conversation, "It may be so, friend," shook his head and took another
road and went away.
At Benaras, Gautama entered the Deer Park
Migdav in the cool of the evening and
met his former disciples. And he explained to them his new tenets:
"There are two extremes, O Bhikkhus,
which the man who has given up the world ought not to follow the habitual
practice, on the one hand, of those things whose attraction depends upon the
passion, and especially of sensuality, a low and pagan way, unprofitable and
fit only for the worldly‑minded, and the habitual practice, on the other
hand, of asceticism which is painful, unworthy and unprofitable. There is a
middle path, O Bhikkhus, avoiding these two extremes, discovered by the
Tathagat Buddha, a path which opens the eyes and bestows understanding, which
leads to peace of mind, to the higher wisdom, to full enlightenment, to Nirvana.."
And he explained to them the four truths
concerning suffering, the cause of suffering, the destruction of suffering, and
the way, which leads to the destruction of suffering. And the way was described to be eight folds. "This
doctrine", Gautama said, "was not, O Bhikkhus, among the doctrines
handed down. In Benaras in the hermitage of Migdav,
the supreme wheel of the Empire of truth has been set rolling by the Blessed
One‑that wheel which not by any Saman. or Brahman., not by any God, not
by any Brahma or Mar, not by any one in the universe can ever be turned back."
The five former disciples of course were
soon converted and were the first members of the order. Yasa, the son of the
rich banker of Benares was his first lay disciple and the story of the
conversion of this young man, nurtured in the lap of luxury and wealth, is
worth repeating. He had three palaces, one of winter, one for summer, one for
rainy season. One night he woke from sleep and found the female musicians still
sleeping in the room with their dress and musical instruments in disorder. He
became disgusted with what he saw and in moment of deep thoughtfulness said,
"Alas, what distress, Alas ! What danger." And he left the house and
went out. It was dawn and Gautama was walking up and down in open air and heard
the perplexed and sorrowful young man exclaiming these worlds. He replied,
"Here is no distress, Yasa. Here is no danger. Come here, Yasa. Sit down.
I will teach you the truth." And Yasa heard the truth from the saintly
teacher and became converted. Yasa's father, mother and wife all went to
Gautama and listened to the holy truth. Yasa became a personal follower of
Gautama, the other three remained his disciples.
Within 5 months of his arrival at
Benares, Gautama had sixty followers. And now he called them together and
dismissed them in different directions to preach the truth for the salvation of
mankind. "Go you now, O Bhikkhus, and wander for the gain of the many, for
the welfare of Gods and men. Let not two of you go the same way. Preach, O
Bikkhus, the doctrine which is glorious in the end, in the spirit and in the
letter; proclaim a consummate, perfect and pure life of holiness."
At Uruvela, Gautama converted three
brothers named Kashyapa who worshipped fire in the Vedic form and had high
reputation as hermits and philosophers. The eldest brother Uruvela Kashyapa and
his pupils first flung their hair, their braids, their provisions and the
things for Agnihotr sacrifice into
the river and received the Pavja and Upsanpada ordination from the Blessed
one. His brothers, who lived by the river Niranjara and at Gaya, soon followed
the example. The conversions of the Kashyapa created a sensation and Gautama
with his new disciples and 1000 followers walked towards Rajgrha, the capital
of Magadha. News of the new prophet soon reached the king and Sain.iya
Bimbisara surrounded by numbers of Brahman
and Vaeshya went to visit Gautama.
Seeing the distinguished Uruvela Kashyapa there, the king could not make out if
that great Brahmin had converted Gautama or if Gautama had converted the
Brahmin. Gautama understood king's perplexity and in order to enlighten him
asked Kashyapa, "What knowledge have you gained, O inhabitant of Uruvela,
that has induced you who were renowned for your penances, to forsake your
sacred fire?" Kashyapa replied that he had seen the state of peace and
took no more delight in sacrifices and offerings. The king was struck and
pleased and with his numerous attendants declared himself an adherent of
Gautama, and invited him to take his meal with him the next day.
The solitary wanderer accordingly went,
an honored guest, to the palace, of the king, and the entire population of the
capital of Magadha turned out to see
him. The king then assigned a Bamboo
grove Vain.uvan close by
for the residence of Gautama and his followers, and there, Gautama rested for
some time. Shortly after Gautama obtained two renowned converts, Sariputta and
Magellan.
The fame of Gautama had now traveled to
his native town and his old father expressed a desire to see him once before he
died. Gautama accordingly went to Kapilavastu, but according to custom remained
in the grove outside the town. His father and relatives came to see him there.
And the next day Gautama himself went into the town begging alms from the
people who once adored him as their beloved prince and master. The story goes
on to say that the king rebuked Gautama for this act, but Gautama replied it
was the custom of his race. "But", retorted the king, "We are
descended from an illustrious race of warriors and not one of them has ever
begged his bread." "You and your family," answered Gautama,
"may claim descent from kings; my descent is from the prophet, Buddha of
the old."
The kings took his son to the palace
where all the members of the family came to greet him except his wife. The
deserted Yashodhara with a wife's grief and a wife's pride exclaimed, "If
I am of any value in his eyes he will himself come; I can welcome him better
here." Gautama understood this and went to her with only two disciples
with him. And when Yashodhara saw her lord and prince enter a recluse with
shaven head and yellow robes‑ her heart failed her; she flung herself to
the ground, held his feet and burst into tears. Then remembering the impossible
gulf between them, she rose and stood aside; she listened to his new doctrine
and when subsequently Gautama was induced to establish an order of female
mendicants Yashodhara became one of the first Buddhist nuns. Just at this time
however she remained in her house but Rahula, Gautam's son, was converted.
Gautam's father was aggrieved at this and asked Gautama to establish a rule
that no one should in future be admitted to the order without his parents'
consent. Gautama consented to this and made a rule accordingly.
On his way back to Rajgrha, Gautama
stopped for some time at Anupiya, a town belonging to the Mallas. And while he
was stopping there he made many converts both from the Kolian and from the
Shakya tribe, some of whom deserve special mention. Aniruddh, the Shakya, went
to his mother and asked to be allowed to go into the houseless state. His
mother did not know how to stop him and so told him, "If Bhaddiya, the
Shakya, will renounce the world thou also mayest go forth into the houseless
state." Aniruddha accordingly went to Bhaddiya and it was decided that
they should embrace the order in seven days. Chulvagga, the Buddhist Sutra
says: So Bhaddiya, the Shakyaraj, and Aniruddha, and Ananda and Bhagu and
Kimball and Devadatt just as they had so often previously gone out to the
pleasure ground with fourfold array, and Upali the barber went with them,
making seven in all. And when they had gone some distance, they sent their
retinue back and crossed over to the neighboring district and took off their
fine things and wrapped them in their robe and made a bundle of them and said
to Upali the barber; " Do you now, Upali, turn back. These things will be
sufficient for you to live upon." But Upali was of a different mind so all
the seven went to Gautama and became converts. And when Bhaddiya had retired
into solitude, he exclaimed over and over, " O happiness! O
happiness!" And on being asked the cause said: "Formerly, Lord when I
was a king I had a guard, completely provided, both within and without my
private apartments, both within and without and town and within the borders of
my country. Yet though I was thus guarded and protected I was fearful, anxious,
distrustful and alarmed. But bow, Lord, even in the forest at the foot of a
tree in solitude I am without fear or anxiety, trustful and not alarmed; I
dwell at ease, subdued, secure, with mind as peaceful as an antelope."
Of these converts Ananda became the most
intimate friend and companion of Gautama and after his death led the band of
500 monks in chanting the Dharma in
the council of Rajagrha. Upali, though barber by birth, became an eminent
member of the order and his name is often mentioned in connection with the Vinyapitak. Devadatta became
subsequently the rival and opponent of Gautama and is even said to have advised
Ajatashatru, the prince of Magadha, to kill his father Bimbisara and then
attempted to kill Gautama himself.
After spending his second Vas or rainy season in Rajagrha Gautama
repaired to Sravasti, the capital of
Kosalas, where Prasenajit reigned as king. A wood called Jaitvan was presented to the Buddhists and Gautama often repaired
and preached there. Gautam 's instructions were always delivered orally and
preserved in the memory of the people like all the ancient books of India,
although writing was known at this time.
The third Vas was also passed in Rajagrha and in the fourth year from the
date of proclaiming is creed Gautama crossed the Ganges, went to Vaisali and
stopped in the Mahavana grove. Thence he is said to have made a miraculous
journey through the air to settle a dispute between the Shakyas and Kolians
about the water of the Boundary River Rohini. In the following year he again
repaired to Kapilvastu and was present at the death of his father, then 97
years old.
His widowed step‑mother Prajapati Gautami and his no less widowed
wife Yashodhara had now no ties to bind then to the world and insisted on
joining the order established by Gautama. The sage had not yet admitted women
to the order and was naturally most reluctant to do so. But his mother was
inexorable and followed him to Vaisali and begged to be admitted. Ananda
pleaded her case but Gautama still replied: " Enough, Ananda, Let it not
please thee that women should be allowed to do so." But Ananda persisted
and asked, "Are women, Lord, capable when they have gone forth form the
household life and entered the homeless state under the doctrine and discipline
proclaimed by the blessed one, are they capable of realizing the fruit of
conversion, or of the second path or of Arhat
ship?"2 There could
be only one reply to this Honor to women has ever been a part of religion in
India and salvation and heaven are not barred to the female sex by the Hindu
religion. "They are capable," reluctantly replied Gautama.
And Prajapati and other ladies were admitted to the order as Bhikkhunee under some rules making them
strictly subordinate to Bhikkhu.
After this Gautama retired to Kausambi near Prayag (Allahabad).
In the sixth year after spending the
rains at Kausambi Gautama returned to Rajagrha, and Kshema the queen of
Bimbisara was admitted to the order. In same year Gautama is said to have
performed miracles at Sravasti and went to heaven to teach Dharma to his mother who had died 7 days after his birth.
In the eleventh year Gautama converted
the Brahmin Bharadvaja. In the next year he undertook the longest journey he
had ever made and then preached the famous Mharahulsutan to his son Rahula,
then 18 years old. Two years later Rahula was admitted in the order. In the
fifteenth year he visited Kapilavastu again and addressed a discourse to his
cousin Mahanama, who had succeeded Bhaddiya, the successor of Shuddhodana.
Gautam's father‑in‑law Suprabuddha, the king of Koli, publicly
abused Gautama for deserting Yashodhara but is said to have been swallowed up
by the earth shortly after.
In the seventeenth year he delivered
discourse on the death of Shrimati, a courtesan; in the next year he converted
a weaver who had accidentally killed his daughter; in the following year he
released a deer caught in a snare and converted the angry hunter who had wanted
to shoot him; and in the twentieth year he similarly converted the famous
robber Angulimala of the Chaliya forest.
For twenty‑five years more Gautama
wandered through the Gangetic valley, preached piety and holy life to the poor,
the lowly and misguided, made converts among the high and the low, the rich and
the poor and proclaimed his law wherever he went. He died at the age of 80. He
lived 45 years from the date of his proclaiming the new religion.
3.
This evening we proceed with the literature and philosophy of Buddhism:
(a) The form of Buddhism prevailing in
Nepal, Tibet, China and Japan is called northern Buddhism, while the form
prevailing in Ceylon and Burma is called Southern Buddhism. The Northern
Buddhists furnished us with scanty material directly illustrating the religion
in its earliest form in India. The sacred books of the Northern Buddhists are
not included in any comprehensive common name and as far as is known none of
then can be referred to the period immediately following on Gautam 's death.
Kanishka, The king of Kashmir, convened a great. Kanishka, the king of Kashmir,
convened a great council of the northern Buddhists in the first century after
Christ, but the council instead of collecting together the sacred books of the
Northern Buddhists wrote three great commentaries.3 The
Lalitavistata, a most important work of the Northern Buddhists, is only a
gorgeous poem; it is no more a biography of Gautama than the Paradise Lost a
biography of Jesus. It was composed probably in Nepal in the second, third or
fourth century, and the works on Buddhism which were then carried by Chinese
pilgrims from India from century to century and translated into the Chinese
language do not illustrate the earliest phase of Buddhism in India. And lastly,
Tibet his drifted still further away from primitive Buddhism in India and has
adopted forms and ceremonies, which were unknown to Gautama and his followers
in the sixth century before Christ.
(b) On the other hand, the southern
Buddhists furnish us with the most valuable materials. The sacred books of the
Southern Buddhists are known by the inclusive name of the three Pitakas and there is evidence to show
that these Pitakas now extant in
Ceylon are substantially identical with the canon as settled in the council of
Patna about 242 B.C.
(c) The three Pitakas are known as the Suttee Pitakas, the Vinaya Pitakas and the Abhidhamma
Pitakas. The works comprised in the suttee
Pitakas profess to record the sayings and doings of Gautama Buddha himself.
Gautama himself is the actor and the speaker in the earliest worker of this Pitakas and his doctrines are conveyed
in his own words. Occasionally one of his disciples is the instructor and there
are short introductions to indicate where or when Gautama or his disciple
spoke. But all through the Suttee Pitakas
Gautam's doctrines and moral precepts
are preserved professedly, in Gautam's own words.
The Vinaya
Pitakas contains very minute rules for the conduct of monks and nuns who
had embraced the holy order. Gautama respected the lay disciple Upasak but he held that to embrace the
order was a quicker path to salvation. As the number of monks and nuns
multiplied it was necessary to fix elaborate rules for their proper conduct and
behaviour in the Vihar or monastery.
As Gautama lived for nearly half a century after he had proclaimed his
religion, there can be no doubt that he himself settled many of these rules.
The Abhidhamma
Pitakas contains disquisition, on various subjects, like the conditions of
life in different worlds, on the explanation of personal qualities, on the
elements, the causes of existence etc. They have been miscalled metaphysics for
early Buddhism knew little of metaphysics.4
(d ‑e) Last time I said that the
doctrine of four noble truths is the central point of Buddhist teaching. The
substance of the teaching is, that life is suffering, the thirst for life and
its pleasures is the cause of suffering the extinction or the thirst for life
and its pleasure is the cause of suffering, the extinction of the thirst is the
cessation of suffering, and that such extinction can be brought about by a holy
life. We will discuss these four truths one after another.
(d) The first truth is the truth of
suffering. As Gautama said: " Birth is suffering, decay is suffering,
illness is suffering, death is suffering. Presence of objects we hate is
suffering, not to obtain [objects] we desire is suffering. Briefly, the
fivefold clinging to existence, i.e. clinging to the five aggregates, is
suffering." What are those five aggregates? In Buddhist philosophy man is
a compound of five aggregates. These are Roop
or the material aggregates‑ The first of the five. They include the
four elements, earth, water, fire and air, five organs of sense, eye, ear,
nose, tongue and body, five attributes of matter, form, sound, smell, taste and
touch, two distinctions of sex, male and female, three essential condition,
thought, vitality and space, two means of communication, gesture and speech,
seven qualities of living bodies, buoyancy, elasticity, power of adaptation,
power of aggregation, duration, decay chage.5 The second class of
aggregates is Vaidna or sensations‑
the sensation of pleasure or pain. The third is Sangya or name. The fourth is Sanskar
or the potentialities, which lead to good or bad results, and the fifth is Vigyan or knowledge. These five
aggregates include all bodily and mental parts and powers of man and neither
any one of them nor any group of them is permanent. It is repeatedly laid down
in the Pitakas that none of these skandhas is soul. The body itself is
constantly changing and so also each of the other aggregates. Man is never the
same for two consecutive moments and there is within him no abiding principle
whatever.
In Sanyut
Nikkei, a Buddhist work, Buddha says: " mendicants, in whatever way
the different teachers regard the soul, they think it is the five skandhas or one of the five. Thus
mendicants, the unlearned, unconverted man who does not associate either with
the converted or with the holy or understand their law or live according to it,
such a man regards the soul either as identical with or as possessing or as
containing or as residing in the material properties or sensations or in the
other three skandhas. By regarding
soul in one of these ways he gets the idea `I am'. Then there are the five
organs of sense and mind and qualities and ignorance. From sensation produced
by contact and ignorance the sensual, unlearned man derives the notions `I am'
`This I exists', `I shall be' `I shall not be' etc. But now, mendicant, the
learned disciple of the converted, having the same five organs of sense, has
got rid of ignorance and acquired wisdom, and therefore the ideas `I am' etc.
do not occur to him." This belief in self or soul is regarded in Buddhism
so distinctly as a heresy those two well‑known words in Buddhist
terminology have been coined on purpose to stigmatize it. The first of these is
skayedithi‑ the heresy of
individuality‑ one of the three primary delicious which mush be abandoned
at the very first stage of the Buddhist path of freedom. The other is Atvad, the doctrine of soul or self; it
is classed with sensuality, heresy and belief in the efficacy of rites‑
as one of the four upadans6, which are the
immediate cause of birth, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair.
There is another Buddhist work called Brahmjalsut, in which Gautama discusses
62 different kinds of wrong belief; among them are those held by men who
believe that the soul and the world are eternal, that there is no newly
existing substance but these remain as a mountain peak unshaken, immovable,
that living beings pass away, they transmigrate, they die and are born but
these continue as being eternal. With regard to these Gautama says: " Upon
what principle do these mendicants and Brahmins hold and doctrine of future
existence? They teach that the soul is material or immaterial or is both or
neither, that it is finite, or infinite or is both or neither, that it will
have one or many modes or consciousness, that its perceptions will be few or
boundless, that it will be in a state of joy, or of misery, or of both or of
neither. These are the sixteen heresies teaching a conscious existence after
death. Then there are eight heresies teaching that the soul material or
immaterial or both or neither, finite or infinite or both or neither has an
unconscious existence after death. And finally eight others which teach that
the soul in the same eight ways exists after death in a state of being neither
conscious nor unconscious." Lastly, he says: " Mendicants, that which
binds the teacher to existence, Tnha
or thirst, is cut off but his body still remains. While his body shall remain
he will be seen by Gods and men, but after the termination of life, upon the
dissolution of the body neither gods nor men will see him."
(e) So the first noble truth of Buddhism
is that clinging to existence is misery. The second noble truth is the cause of
misery. In Gautam's' words,
"Thirst leads to rebirth accompanied by pleasure and lust‑
thirst for pleasure, thirst for existence, thirst for prosperity", And the
third noble truth is, the cessation of suffering. It ceases with the complete
cessation of thirst- a cessation, which consists in the absence of every
passion - with the complete destruction of desire. The fourth truth is the
noble truth of path, which leads to cessation of suffering. The holy eight-fold
path is right belief, right meditation. The substance of the teaching is that
without entering into any discussion into the origin and destiny of men one
should lead a holy moral life and that will lead him to the summum bonum.
(f) On the eve of his death Gautama
called together his brethren and appears to have recapitulated the entire
system of morality under seven heads and these are known as the seven jewels of
the Buddhist Law.
"Which then, O Brethren, are the
truths which, when I had perceived, I made known to you, which, when you have
mastered, it behooves you to practice meditate upon and spread, in order that
pure religion may last long and be perpetuated, in order that it may continue
to be for the good and happiness of the great multitudes, out of pity for the
world, to the good and the gain and the weal of Gods and men? They are these:
1. The four earnest meditations.
2. The fourfold great struggle against
sin.
3. The four roads to saint-ship.
4. The five moral powers.
5. The five organs of spiritual sense.
6. The seven kinds of wisdom.
7. The noble eight-fold path."
The four earnest meditations alluded to
are: meditations on the body, the sensations, the ideas and the reason. The
fourfold struggle against sin is the struggle to prevent sinfulness, the
struggle to increase goodness. The fourfold struggle comprehends in fact a life‑long,
earnest, unceasing endeavor on the part of man towards more and more of
goodness and virtue. The fourfold roads to saint-ship are the four means the
will, the exertion, the preparation, and the investigation by which Idhi is acquired. In later Buddhism Idhi means occult powers but what
Gautama meant was probably the influence and power which the mind, by long
training and exercise, can acquire over body. The five moral powers and five
organs of spiritual sense are faith, energy, thought, contemplation,
investigation, joy, repose, and serenity. The eight-fold path we have referred
to.7
(g) It is by such prolonged self‑culture, by the breaking of
ten fetters doubt, sensuality etc.8 that one can at last obtain Nirvana..
Dhammapada says:
"There is no suffering for him who has finished his journey and abandoned
grief who has freed himself on all sides and thrown off all fetters. They
depart with their thoughts well collected they are not happy within abode. Like
swans those have left their lake, they leave their house and home. Tranquil is
his thought, tranquil are his words and deeds, who has been freed by true
knowledge, who has become a tranquil man."
It was generally believed that Nirvana meant final extinction and
death, and Prof. Max Muller was the first to point out, which most scholars
have now accepted [viz.] that Nirvana
does not mean death but only the extinction of the sinful condition of mind,
that thirst for life and its pleasure which brings on new births. Nirvana was not applied to any state
after death, it was a term applied to a certain state of the life here. What
Gautama meant by Nirvana is something
attainable in this life, it is the sinless calm state of mind, the freedom from
desires and passions, the perfect peace, goodness and wisdom which continuous
self‑culture can procure for man. As Rhys Davids puts it, "The
Buddhist Heaven is not death and it is not on death but it is on a virtuous
life here and now that the Pitakas lavish those terms of ecstatic description
which they apply to Arhat‑ship as the goal of the excellent way and to
Nirvana as one aspect of it."
(h) But is there no future bliss, no
future heaven beyond the virtuous life here and now for those who have attained
Nirvana? This was a question, which
often puzzled Buddhists and they often pressed their great master for a
categorical answer. Gautama was an agnostic and to all questions about a future
life after the attainment of Nirvana
his reply was: "I do not know. It is not given me to know."
Malunkyaputta pressed this question on
Gautama and desired to know definitively if the perfect Buddha did or did not
live beyond the death. Gautama inquired, "Have I said `come Malunkyaputta
and be my disciple, I shall teach thee whether the world is everlasting or not
everlasting?" "That thou last not said, sire", replied
Malunkyaputta. "Then", said Gautama, "do not press the
inquiry."
Once king Prasenajit of Koshala during a
journey between his two chief towns' Saketa and Shravasti met the nun Khema renowned for her wisdom. The king
paid his respect to her and said, " Venderable
lady, does and perfect one exist after death?" She replied, "The
Exalted one, O great king, has not declared that the perfect one exists after
death." "Then does the perfect on not exist after death, Venerable
lady?" inquired the king. But Khema still replied, " This also, O
great King, the Exalted one has not declared that the perfect one does not
exist after death."
This shows that Gautam's religion was a
perfect agnosticism, which did not and could not look beyond Nirvana. We know that according to
Gautam's theory there is nothing permanent in man, that every particle mental,
spiritual or physical, perishes every moment and new aggregates come into
existence by reason of the influence left by the karma or action of the former aggregates. Everything is momentary,
and if a man leads a perfectly holy life he would not collect new karma which
will lead him into new birth; and therefore the aggregates of which he is
composed come to an end without the new aggregates coming into existence. So
although Gautama might not have said in so many words that the future state
after Nirvana is a state of
annihilation, still the natural conclusion is that the state must be that of
total annihilation. In an article in the Lucifer of march 1874, Mr. G. R. Meads
tries to save Buddhism from the charge of propounding a theory of annihilation
and quotes a passage by Col. Olcott sanctioned by the High Priest of Ceylon. He
says that although soul according to Buddhism is impermanent and changeable,
still there is in man the permanent part called spirit. He says, "Buddhism
does not deny the impressible nature of an ultimate spiritual reality in man,
of a true transcendental subject, of an immortal changeless self." Now
this self or transcendental subject has been know in all Indian philosophy by
the name of Atma. With reference to
Brahma Gautama has distinctly said in Tevijjia Sutta that the talk of the
Brahmins about that Brahma is foolish talk and that there existed no such state
as Brahma with reference to Brahma, I have already quoted Gautama as saying
that it is heresy to say that there is any such thing as Brahma Soul and
spirit; Atma and Brahama are all identical in Indian philosophies and an
attempt to put into the mouth of Gautama views which he never maintained is
fruitless attempt.
(i) If a man does not attain, while he is
living, the state of Nirvana he is
liable to future birth. Gautama did not believe in the existence of the soul,
but nevertheless the theory of transmigration of souls was too deeply implanted
in the Hindu mind to be eradicated and Gautama therefore adhered to the theory
of transmigration without accepting the theory of soul! But if there is no
soul, what is it that undergoes transmigration? The reply is given in the
Buddhist doctrine of karma, which in
its result corresponds to the Jaina and Hindu doctrines of Karma but in its foundation is entirely different from them. The
doctrine is that karma or the doing
of a man cannot die but must necessarily lead to its legitimate result. And
when a sentient being dies a new being is produced according to the karma of the being that is dead. The
cause which produces the new being is Trishna
(thirst) or upadan (grasping).
Sensation originates in the contact of the organs of sense with the exterior
world; from sensations springs a desire to satisfy a felt want, a yearning, a
thirst. From thirst results a grasping after objects to satisfy that desire,
that grasping stage of mind causes a new being not, of course, a new soul, but
a new set of skandh, a new body with
mental tendencies and capabilities). The karma
of the previous set of skandh or
sentient being then determines the locality, nature and future of the new set
of skandh or the new sentient being.
Gautama said that in his philosophy four things are incomprehensible. The first
is the effects of karma. And from
what I have said just it is plain that the doctrine of karma as propounded by Gautama is an incomprehensible mystery.
(j) But the theory of transmigration was
not the only theory, which Gautama accepted from the ancient religion and
adopted, in a modified form into his own religion. The whole of the Hindu
pantheon of the day was similarly accepted and similarly modified to suit his
cardinal idea, the supreme efficacy of a holy life. The innumerable Gods of Rig‑Veda were recognized but they were not
supreme. Brahma, the supreme deity of the Upanishads, was recognized but was
not supreme. Holy life alone was supreme and in preaching that doctrine. Buddha
did an immense good; he raised goodness attainable by man above the gods and
nature powers of Brahmins.
(k) How did Gautama deal with the caste
system of the Brahmins? He respected a Brahman
or Shramana., but he
respected him for his virtue and learning, not for his caste which he
altogether ignored. When two Brahmin youths, Vasishtha and Bharadwaja, began
(j) But the theory of transmigration was
not the only theory, which Gautam accepted from the ancient religion and
adopted, in a modified form into his own religion. The whole of the Hindu
pantheon of the day was similarly accepted and similarly modified to suit his
cardinal idea, the supreme efficacy of holy life. The innumerable gods of Rig‑Veda were recognized but they were not
supreme. Brahma, the supreme deity of the Upanishads, was recognized but was
not supreme. Holy life alone was supreme and in preaching that doctrine Buddha
did an immense good; he raised goodness attainable by man above the Gods and
nature-powers of Brahmins.
(k) How did Gautama deal with the caste
system of the Brahmins? He respected a Brahman, Sherman or Arhat, but he
respected him for his virtue and learning, not for his caste, which he
altogether ignored. When two Brahmin youths, Vasishtha and Bharadwaja, began to
quarrel on the question "How does one become a Brahmin?" and came to
Gautama for his virtue and learning, not for his caste which he altogether
ignored. When two Brahmin youths, Vasishtha and Bharadwaja, began to quarrel on
the question "How does one become a Brahmin?" and came to Gautama for
his opinion Gautama delivered to them a discourse in which he emphatically
ignored caste and held that a man's distinguishing mark was his work, not his
birth.
(I) Gautama not only expressed his
pronounced disapprobation against the Hindu case system he also exclaimed
against the Vedic rites, which were practiced according to the injections of
the ceremonial works. In place of such rites he enjoined a benevolent life and
conquest of all passions and desires, and he recommended a retirement from the
world as the most efficacious means for securing this end. The recommendation
was followed and led to the Buddhist monastic system.
(m) And lastly, although Gautama himself
disapproved of philosophical discussion, a system of Buddhist philosophy soon
arose on the lines laid down by him; it ignored the existence of soul and
maintained living creatures to be only assemblages of skandhas or aggregates; it knew of no state of future existence for
those who attained Nirvana.
(n) What was it then that the Buddhists
worshipped? What was the concrete form which Gautam's religion took in its
early career before vast monasteries and an unwieldy priesthood replaced the
primitive faith? What was the actual form of worship, which drew and engaged
the multitude, which could not all have practiced or worshipped the abstract
idea of a holy life? The reply is simple. For centuries, the people worshipped
holiness and virtue as typified in the life of Gautama. They revered the
memories of the great Teacher, they worshipped his invisible presence. The
sculptures at Sanchi, at Amaravati, Barhut and other places represent homage
paid to tree, to serpent, to the wheel or to the umbrella, but in every case
the object represents the presence of Buddha.
(o) The moral precepts of Buddha are so well known that we shall pass
over them and go at once to the history of Buddhism after Gautam's death.
According to the Pali Scriptures, Buddha's death took place in 543 B.C. but the
European scholars put it in 477 B.C. We are told in Chullavagga that on the
death of Gautama, the venerable Maha Kashyapa proposed, "Let us chant the
Dhamma and Vinaya" The proposal
was accepted and 499 Arhat were
selected for the purpose and Ananda, the faithful friend and follower of
Gautama, completed the number 500. And so they went up to Rajagrha to chant
together the Dhamma and Vinaya. Upali, who was barber before, was questioned as
the great authority on Vinaya and Ananda, the friend of Gautama, was questioned
as the authority on Dhamma. This was the Council of Rajagrha held in the year
of Gautam's death to settle the sacred text and fix it on the memory by
chanting it together.
A century after the death of Gautama, a
second council of 700 was held at Vaisali to settle disputes between the more
and the less strict followers of Buddhism. It condemned a system of ten
indulgences, which had grown up, but it led to the separation of the Buddhists
into two hostile parties who afterwards split into 18 sects. During the next
200 years Buddhism spread over northern India. About 257 B.C. Ashoka, the king
of Magadha, became a zealous convert to this faith. He founded many religious
houses and his kingdom is called the land of monasteries.
REFERENCES:
1. The earlier draft of the lecture here
says: "The biography of Buddha is so well known that it is not at al
necessary to refer to it." But Gandhi seems to have changed his mind
afterwards. Hence the immediately forthcoming narration of Buddha's life‑story.
2. What are meant here are three
increasingly advanced stages of spiritual development.
3. That the Buddhist council allegedly
convened by Kanishka owed allegiance to Northern Buddhism is not a settled
point.
4 The statement is somewhat obscure. May
be Gandhi is here identifying `metaphysics' with ` ontology' and maintaining
that early Buddhism in general and the Abhidhamma
Pitakas in particular attached little
importance to ontological investigations.
5. Abhidhammathasangaho, a standard
manual of Theravada philosophy, would enumerate these 28 forms of matter as
follows:
1‑4
Pathvidhatu, Apodhatu, Taijodhatu,
Vayodhatu, (collectively known as Bhootrupan.
5‑9 Chakkhu, Sotan, Dhanan, Jivah, Kayo (collectively
known as Godhar
10‑14 Gandho, Rakho, Photaban (collectively
known as Gocharroopan.
15‑16 Purisatan, Ithitan (collectively known as Bhavroopan.
17 Hridyavathu (i.e. Hridyaroopan)
18 Jeevitindryan (Jeevitroopan)
19 Akasdhatu, (i.e. Parichaidrupan)
20‑21 Kayavinti, Vachivinti (i.e. Vintiroopan)
22‑28 Roopas Lahuta, Muduta, Kambanta
(collectively known as Vikarroopan),
(Roopras
upcheyo, Santati, Jarta, Avichta
(collectively known as Lakkhan.roopan)
However, Abhidhammathasangaho
tell us that Phottaban is not a
separate form of matter but stands for the collectivity of Pathvidhatu and Taijodhatu,
Vayodhatu. On the other hand, it enumerates an additional form of matter
called Kavleecharo aharo i.e. Aharroopan
‑ meaning `the food consumed'. Hence the number of forms remains 28 in
both lists.
6. In the language of
abhidhammathasngaho, they will be Atvadupadanan,
Kanupadanan, Dithupadanan, and
Seelavyatupadanan.
7. In the Abhidhammathasangaho, these
seven `jewels' are described under the title Vodhipakkhiysangho and as follows
1. Chataro
Satipadvana
2. Chataro
Sampadhano
3. Chataro
Idhipada
4. Panch
balani
5. Panchindryani
6. Satbojhaga
7.
Atth Mangangani
Gandhi's separate enumeration of these
seven also follows that of this text. However, instead of saying "The five
moral powers and five organs of spiritual sense are faith etc." he should
say " The five moral powers, five organs of spiritual sense and seven
kinds of wisdom are faith etc." again, this list beginning with `faith'
should contain 9 rather than 8 entries, an English equivalent of Prgya (s.k.t.) coming after
contemplation. The fact is that `faith, energy, thought, contemplation and Prgya are both the five moral powers and
the five organs of spiritual sense while the seven kinds of wisdom are `energy,
thought, contemplation, investigation, joy, repose, serenity.'
8. In the language of
Abhidhammathasangaho Dassanyojnani.
VII
JAINISM
1.
For this, the last lecture of the course, the subject that I have
selected is Jainism, and I shall condense as much as possible the things that
might be said on the subject.
Any philosophy or religion must be
studied from all standpoints, and in order thoroughly, know what it says with
regard to the origin of the universe, what its idea is with regard to God, with
regard to the soul and its destiny, and what it regards as the laws of the
soul's life. The answers to all these questions would collectively give us a
true idea of the religion or philosophy. In our country religion is not
different from philosophy, and religion and philosophy do not differ from
science. We do not say that there is scientific religion or religious science;
we say that the two are identical. We do not use the word religion because it
implies a binding back and conveys and idea of dependence, the dependence of
finite being upon an infinite, and [the idea that] in that dependence consists
the happiness or bliss of the individual.1 With the Jainas the idea
is a little different. With them bliss consists not in dependence but in
independence; the dependence is in the life of the world and if that life of
the world is a part of religion then we may express the idea by the English
word, but the life which is the highest life, is that in which we are
personally independent, so far as binding or disturbing influences are
concerned. In the Highest State the soul, which is the highest entity, is
independent.
2.
This is the idea of our religion. The first important idea connected
with it is the idea of universe. Is it eternal or non‑eternal? Is it
permanent or transitory? Or course, there are so many different opinions on the
subject, but with these opinions I am not concerned in this lecture; I am only
going to give the idea of the Jaina philosophy.
We say that we cannot study any idea
unless we look upon it from all standpoints. We may express this idea by
symbols or forms; we have expressed it by the story of the elephant and the
seven blind men who wanted to know what kind of animal the elephant was, and
each, touching a different part of the animal, understood its form in so many
different ways and thereupon became dogmatic. If you wish to understand what
kind of animal an elephant is, you must look upon it from all sides, and so it
is with truth. Therefore we say that the universe from one standpoint is eternal
and from another one‑eternal. The totality of the universe taken as whole
is eternal. It is a collection of many things. That collection contains the
same particles every moment, therefore as collection it is eternal; but there
are so many parts of that collection and so many entities in it, all of which
have their different states which occur at different times and each part does
not retain the same state at all times. There is change, there is destruction
of any particular form, and a new form comes into existence; and therefore if
we look upon the universe from this standpoint it is non‑eternal. With
this philosophy there is no idea, and no place for the idea, of creation out of
nothing. That idea, really speaking, is not entertained by any right‑thinking
people. Even those who believe in creation believe from a different standpoint
than this. It cannot come into existence out of nothing, but is an emanation
coming out of something. The state only is created. This book in a sense is
created because all its particles are put together, having been in a different
state. The form of the book is created. There was a beginning of this book and
there will be an end. In the same manner, with any form of matter, whether this
form lasts for moments or for centuries, if there was beginning of this book
and there will be an end. In the same manner, with any form of matter, whether
this form lasts for moments or for centuries, if there was a beginning there
must be an end.
We say there are both preservation and destruction in the many forces
working around us all these forces are working ever moment in the midst of us
and around us, and the collection of these entities is called by the Jainas
`God'.2 The Brahman. Represent it by the syllable OM; the
first sound in this word represents the idea of creation, the second of
preservation and the third of destruction. All these are energies of the
universe and taken as a whole they are subject to certain fixed laws. If the
law are fixed why do people bow down to these energies? Why do they consider
the collective energy as a god or as God? There is always an idea of the power
to do evil in the beginning of this conception. When railroads were first
introduced into India ignorant people who did not know what they were, who had
never seen in their lives that a car or carriage could be moved without the
horse or the ox, thought that there was some divinity in the engine, some God
or Goddess. and some of them even bow down before the car; and even to this day
you will find in some parts of India, among the pariahs or low class, that there are people who
entertain this idea. So to these energies in our primitive state we are liable
to attribute personality; and after a long course of development we symbolize
our thought in the form of pictures and explain them in that way to make them
more intelligible to others. In the ancient times there was not rain but a
rainer, not thunder but a thunderer, and in that way, personality is
attributed, or living consciousness and character, to those forces. There may
be conscious entities in these forces, as there may be living entities on the
planets, but these forces themselves are not living entities. This, however,
expresses the idea in the beginning; these energies were classed as creative,
preservative and destructive, and these three entities were considered to be
component parts of one entity called Brahma by the Hindus. Really, creation in
this is in the sense of emanation, preservation is used in the sense of
preserving the form, and destruction in the sense of destroying the form.
The idea of matter is something that can be handled or perceived
by the senses and the energies must be material energies, as cohesion,
magnetism, electricity, but to consider these God would be the most materialistic
idea, and therefore the Jainas discard this idea so far as the Godhead or
Godlike character is concerned. They of course admit the existence of these
energies, that they are indeed to be found everywhere, but they are subject to
fixed laws which cannot be interfered with by any person, not that these
energies consciously influence our destinies with regard to good and evil. To
say that they do so influence us is only to show our ignorance with regard to
their laws. These energies collectively we call substantiality. There are
innumerable qualities and attributes in matter itself, and they manifest
themselves at different times and ways. We are not able selves at different
times and ways. We are not able without further development to know what energies
are inherent in matter, and when any new thing comes to view we are surprised,
and whatever is surprising is considered to be something coming from divinity;
but where we understand scientific principles the surprise is removed and it is
all as simple as the daily rising and setting of the sun. Thousands of years
ago the different phenomena of nature were considered in different parts of the
world to be the working of different Gods and Goddesses, but when we understand
science these phenomena become simple and the idea of theses beings as
characters of the highest spiritual power goes away.
3.
`What is the God of the Jainas?' you will ask. I have only told you what
he is not. I will now tell you what it is. We know that there is something
besides matter; we know that the body exhibits many qualities and powers not to
be found in ordinary material substances, and that the some thing which causes
this, departs from the body at death. We do not know where it goes; we know
that when it lives in the body the powers of the body are different from what
they are when it is not there. The powers of nature can be assimilated to the
body at death. We do not know where it goes; we know that when it lives in the
body the powers of the body are different from what they are when it is not
there. The powers of nature can be assimilated to the body when that some thing
is there. That entity is considered by us the highest and it is the same
inherently in all living beings. This principle common to us all is called divinity.
It is not fully developed in any of us, as it was in the saviors of the world,
and therefore we can them divine beings. So the collective idea derived from
observations of the divine character inherent in all beings is by us called
God. While there are so many energies in the material world and in the
spiritual and putting those two energies together we give them the name of
nature we separate the material energies and put them together; but the
spiritual energies we put together and call them collectively God. We make a
distinction and worship only the spiritual energies. Why should we do so? A
Jaina verse says, " I bow down to that spiritual power or energy which is
the cause of leading us to the path of salvation, which is supreme, which is omniscient;
I bow down to the power because I with to become like that power." So
where the form of the Jaina prayer is given the object is not a receive
anything from that entity or from that spiritual nature, but to become like
that power." So where the form of the Jaina prayer is given the object is
not to receive any thing from that entity or from that spiritual nature, but to
become one like that; not that spiritual entity will make us, by a magic power,
become like itself, but by following out the ideal which is before our eyes, we
shall be able to change our own personality; it will be regretted, as it were,
and will be changed into a being which will have the same character s the
divinity which is our idea of God. So we worship God, not as being who is going
to give up something, not because it is going to do something or please us, not
because it is profitable in way; there is not any idea of selfishness; it is
like practicing virtue for the sake of virtue and without any other motive.
4. (a) Now we come to the idea of soul.
The ordinary idea of soul substance is that in order for thing to exist it must
have formed, it must be perceived by the senses. This is our ordinary
experience. Really speaking it is the experience only of the sensuous part of
the being, the lowest part of the human entity, and from and experience we
derive conclusions and think that these conclusions apply to all substance.
There are substances, which cannot be perceived by the senses; there are
subtler substances and entities and these can be known only by the
consciousness, by the soul. Such a substance which cannot be seen, heard,
tasted, smelt or touched, is a substance which need not occupy space and need
not have any tangibility, but, it may exist although it may not have nay form.3
Sight is an impression made on the nerves of the eye by vibrations sent
forth form the object perceived and this impression which we call sight, if
there are no vibrations coming out of the object, is of course not produced;
but if this substance influences us in certain ways the implication is that
there is something moving or producing vibrations, and these cannot exist
unless there is some material substance which is vibrating. The very fact that
something is moving in some way and influences us in some peculiar way implies
that there is something material about this. If there are no vibrations the
substance is not material. It need not exist in a form, which will give us the
impression of any color, smell, etc. There is nothing, which can partake both
the attributes of soul and of matter; the attributes of matter are directly
contrary to those of the soul. While one has its life in the other, it does not
become the other.
How can that soul live in matter when its
attributes are of a different nature? By our own experience we know that, we
are obliged to live in surrounding which are not congenial to us, Which are not
of our own nature. People feel that they are not related to their surroundings,
there must be some reason for their being obliged to live in those
surroundings, but there must be a reason in the intelligence itself; it cannot
be in the material substance. We know that this is fact, because intelligence
cannot proceed from any thing, which is purely material. No material substance
has given any evidence of having possessed intelligence; it might have done so
when there was life in it, but without this it has no intelligence.4
That intelligence is, we are quite sure, influenced by material things, but it
does not arise from the material things. Persons of sound intelligence take a
large dose of some intoxicating drink and the intelligence will not work at
all. Why should this material thing influence the immaterial, the soul? The
soul thinks that the body is itself and therefore anything, which is done to
the material self, is supposed by the real self to be done to it. That is where
the Christian scientists and the Jaina philosophy will agree; that if the soul
thinks that the body is real self anything done to the body will be considered
by the soul to be done to the soul, and therefore what happens to the body will
be felt by the soul; but if the soul for a moment thinks that the body is not
the self but altogether different and a stranger to the soul, for that reason
no feeling of pain will exist; our attention is taken away in some other
direction shows that the self is something higher than the body. Still under
ordinary circumstances the soul is influenced by the body, and therefore we are
to study the laws of the body and soul so as to rise above these little things
and proceed on our path to salvation or liberation, which is the real
aspiration of the soul. There is power of matter itself, but that power is
lower than the power of the soul. If there was no power at all in the body or
in matter, the soul would never be influenced by it, for mere non‑existence
will never influence anything; but because there is such a thing as matter when
the soul thinks that that the soul would never be influenced by it, for mere
non‑existence will never influence anything; but because there is such a
thing as matter, when the soul thinks that there is a power of the body and a
power of the matter, these powers will influence it. Bodily power as we see it
is on account of the presence of the soul. There is a power in matter, as
cohesion etc, and this will work although the soul does not think anything
about it. If the moon revolves around the earth there are some forces inherent
in the earth and moon. What I mean to say is that the influence of these
material powers on soul powers depends on the soul's readiness or willingness
to submit to these powers. If the soul takes the view that it will not be
influenced by any thing, it cannot be so influences.
(b) This being the soul's nature, what is
its origin? Everything can be looked upon from two standpoints, the substance
and the manifestation. If the state of the soul itself is to be taken into
consideration that state has its beginning and its end. The state of the soul
as living in the human body had a beginning at birth and will have an end at
death, but it is a beginning and an end of the state, not of the thing itself.
The soul taken as a substance is eternal; taken as a state every state has its
beginning and end. So this beginning of a state implies that before this
beginning there was another state of the soul. Nothing can exist unless it
exists in some state. The state may not be permanent, but the thing must have a
state at all times. if therefore the present state of the soul had beginning,
it had another state before the beginning of this state, and after the end of
this state it will have another state. So the future state is something that
comes out of or is the result of the present state. As the future is to the
present, so the present is to the past. The present is only the future of the
past. What is true with regard to the future state is true with regard to the
past and present state. The acts of the past have determined our present state,
and if this is true the acts of the present state must determine the future
state.
This brings us to the doctrine of
rebirth, transmigration of souls, metempsychosis, reincarnation, etc. as they
are variously known. First take incarnation, which means literally becoming
flesh; and, really that which is spirit is always spirit or soul. The spirit
does not become flesh. If reincarnation means to become flesh there can be no
reincarnation, but if it means simply the life in flesh for a short time, then
there is reincarnation. Reincarnation means also to be born in some state again
and again. Metempsychosis means in Greek only change; that the animal itself,
body and soul, everything together, is changed into some other thing and so on.
That is the idea of metempsychosis. Transmigration of souls is, especially in
the idea of the Christians, the idea of the human soul going into the animal
body, as if this were a necessity. But that is not the real idea; the real idea
is simply going from one place to another or from one body to another, but not
necessarily going from the human body to the animal body, but simply
travelling. It implies the idea of form. Nothing can travel unless it has form
and occupies space and is material; so in our philosophy we reject all these
terms if that is the idea connected with these terms, and use the idea of
rebirth; that is, the soul is born in some other body, and the birth does not
imply the same conditions [as those] applying to the human birth6.
There are certain conditions in which human beings are born; the seed itself
takes several months to ripen and then there is the birth. This may be due to
certain acts or forces, which are generated by human beings?7 These
are in a condition to be observed by beings whose forces will take them to some
other planet, and we say that there is another condition of birth there. There
is no necessity for gestation and fecundation. The karmic body has in itself
many powers and has a force to take to itself another body, which is in the
case of the human beings a gross body, but in the case of other beings a subtle
body is generated and this body is changeable so far as its form and dimensions
are concerned. Therefore, if the forces generated, while we live any kind of
life are of different kinds then in the case of some being it may be necessary
that he should be born in the human condition and pass through the actual
conditions which must be obeyed if the human being is to be born, while if the
forces generated are different in their character he may be born on some other
planet, where birth is manifested in different way, without any necessity of
the combination of the male and the female principle. There are so many
different planes of life that the mere study of the human life ought not to be
made to apply to all the affairs of life. We have studied only a few forms of
the life of animals, human beings, etc., but that is only the part which under
the present development of our science of our eyesight even, we are able to
study. We are not able to study other forms of life, innumerable in the
universe, and therefore we ought not to apply the laws thus discovered to all
forms of life.
Our study is introspective because our
idea is that soul is able to know everything under the right circumstances. The
knowledge acquired under these conditions is of the sounder nature and a more
correct kind because the obstacles, which come in the way science, are not
there. Science has to commit mistakes and think that they do not;8
still knowledge is derived from inferences which we draw from certain premises
which may not be right or if the premises are right the inference may be wrong.
We do not mean to say that there are always mistakes in the knowledge, which is
acquired through sensation or through matter, but sometimes it is possible, and
while it may be correct knowledge in many cases we cannot rely on that. The
highest knowledge is immediate knowledge, derived by the soul without the
assistance of any external thing, and the knowledge of liberated souls, and
also the knowledge of human beings who are just on the point of being
liberated, or have passed through the course of discipline, mental, moral and
spiritual, and have nearly exhausted past forces, at the same time generating
spiritual forces, and on account of discipline and sees everything when this
state is arrived at; it knows means that it is something, some reality, and
there can be no reality unless it can distinguish itself from other realities.
Only the one universal thing could not know itself, because knowledge implies
comparing one with another, and if that itself, because knowledge implies
comparing one with another, and if that is not done there is no individuality.
We say therefore that the soul in its highest existence knows, that it is
perfectly separate form other things, so far as experience and knowledge are
concerned, but in so far as its nature is concerned, so long as there is a
sense of separateness, there is no occasion or opportunity for the soul to rise
higher because when the soul thinks that it is living a different existence for
its own sake it is considering its own self to be different from another person
and thinks that this is its own and a part of its nature, its own being, and
therefore anything done in regard to these surroundings will benefit or injure
its own.9 It even thinks that its very life consists in doing goods
and in loving other souls and taking active measures for carrying into effect
the very plan of the sole (Those souls?). Then it comes higher, and ultimately
reaches the highest condition. The condition of the soul, as I have said, is
the highest in which there is perfect consciousness, there is infinite
knowledge and infinite bliss; we express these three ideas in Sanskrit as
existence infinite, bliss infinite and knowledge infinite. That condition of
the soul cannot be described by us because description is something which
proceeds from a finite mind and when the soul becomes infinite no finite mind
and when the soul becomes infinite no finite mind can fully express the
conditions of that infinite state. The attributes we give therefore to that
condition of the soul are always full of comprehension.10We shall
always leave out many things; we have not the power to express all our
thoughts. How can we express, then, this state of a soul, which so far as its
power and knowledge are concerned is infinite?
The Jainas have studied the nature of the
soul and the universe from these standpoints and have derived a beautiful
principle, and so far as this is concerned there is this difference between
this country and other countries and other religions, they can understand all
these from these standpoints11. The Bible says, 'Thou shalt not
kill', and Jainas practice universal love so that this also means that we
should not kill any beings. If we say that the Bible does not mean that we take
away a part of the bible. Why should we interpret the laws of any religion from
the narrowest standpoint? We should take into consideration the nature,
attributes and working of all things. We cannot derive laws, which are to be
applied to the whole universe simply by our observation of a part of the
conscious nature of the universe. If you wish to state correctly the nature of
the universe you will study the nature of all the different parts of the
universe and then the laws will be applicable to all parts of it. We think that
we are superior to other things because our tenants who live on the ground
floor are inferior to us, but we have no right therefore to crush those
tenants, who later on will acquire the right to inhabit the second and third floors
and finally the highest floor. One living on the highest plane has no right to
crush those who live on the lowest plane. If one thinks that he has a right to
do this, which he has, not sufficient strength to live without destroying life,
our philosophy says that it is still sin to destroy life, and it remains only
to choose the lowest form, the less evil, We will in business take such a kind
of business as will yield the most profit and will cause us to lose the least,
in which we have the less liabilities; and the highest condition will be that
in which we have no liabilities and no creditors, the state in which we may
live without any creditors or in a perfectly free condition. That is the
liberated condition.
5.
The idea of Karma is very
complicated. I have told you something so it in my former lectures. The one
chief point is that that theory is not the theory of fatalism, not a theory in
which the human being is tied down to some, one, bound down by the force of
something outside itself. In one sense only will there be fatalism; if we are
free to do many things we are also not free to do other things, and we cannot
be freed from and results of our acts. Some results may be manifested in great
strength, others very weakly; some may take a very long time and others a very
short time; some are of such a nature that they take a long time to work out,
while the influence of others may be removed by simply washing with water and
that will be the case in the matter of acts done incidentally without any settled
purpose or any fixed desire. In such a case with reference to many acts we may
counteract their effects by willing to do so. So the theory of karma is not in any sense a theory of
fatalism, but we say that all of us are not going to one goal without any
desire on our part, not that we are to reach that state without any effort on
our part, but that our present condition is the effect of our acts, thoughts
and words in the past state.12 To say that all will reach the
prefect state merely because some one has died that they might be saved, merely
from a belief in this person, would be a theory of fatalism, because those who
have lived a pure and virtuous state and have not accepted a certain theory
will not reach the perfected state simply for that reason and no other the
faith in saviors is simply this, that by following out the divine principle
which is in our selves when this is fully developed we also shall become
Christ's, by the crucifixion of the lower nature on the altar of the higher. We
also use the cross as a symbol. All living beings have to pass through or
evolve from the lowest, the monadic, condition to the highest state of
existence and cannot reach this unless they obtain possession of the three
things necessary; right belief, right knowledge and right conduct. The right,
belief, really speaking, is not that there is no passing through forms after
death, but the soul keeps progressing always in its own nature without any
backward direction at all13.
We have expressed this in clear language without any parables or
metaphors, but when we preach these truths to the ignorant masses some story or
picture might be necessary for them and after that the explanation of the real
meaning; as well have all allegory in the Pilgrim's Progress. It is just like
reaching the Celestial City in that book, but we must all understand that these
things are parables. Others may need music to assist their religion, but when
we understand the esoteric meaning which underlies all religion there will be
no quarrelling and no need of names or of forms; and this is really the object
of all religions.
REFERENCES:
1. The sentence makes sense only as thus
completed. Gandhi seems to be basing his argument on the etymological
derivation of the word `religion'.
2. This statement is anomalous, for it is
precisely Gandhi's argument that the material energies manifested there in the
universe are not treated as `God' in Jaina philosophy. Nor can it be said that
Gandhi here means to refer to the `spiritual energies' which, as we shall learn
in the next section, are actually treated as `God' in Jaina philosophy. For in
the present section Gandhi is confining his attention to the material sector of
the universe.
3. That soul does not occupy space only
means that it is not something physical; for strictly speaking, the Jaina does
maintain that there obtains some sort of relationship between the substance
called `soul' and that called `space'. The printed text here contains some
bracketed material but that is redundant.
4. This statement is worded somewhat
loosely; for according to the Jaina, even when occupied by soul the body done
not come to possess intelligence; what it becomes then is an `instrument of the
intelligent activities undertake by soul'.
5. `Christian Science' was a prevalent
Western cult of Gandhi's days According to it, the physical bodies possess no
real reality, the only real realities being the souls. Gandhi agrees with this
view only to the extent that according to him too the physical body does not
influence that soul which refuses to be influenced by this body but not to the
extent of denying the very reality of the physical body.
6. This sentence needs some correction of
the type here suggested.
7. Here the phrase `generated by human
beings' means `generated by those karmic
bodies which are going to take to themselves a human body,' This becomes clear
from the immediately forthcoming part of Gandhi's argument
8. It is not possible to correct this
part of the sentence, but it must be pointing out something that Gandhi
considers to be a shortcoming of scientific knowledge.
9. The exact import of the argument
Gandhi adduces in this sentence and the next is not quite clear. May be he is
distinguishing between the `sense of separateness' felt by one who is enlightened
and the felt by one who is not, further subdividing the latter into the `sense
of separateness' felt by one who is of a `self‑regarding' disposition and
that felt by one who is of an `other regarding' disposition.
10. The phrase `full of comprehension'
means `full of implied meanings'.
11. Here "they" might stand for
`Jainas' or for `this country (i.e. India) and its religions'. Maybe some words
are missing in this sentence.
12. This sentence will give a clearer
meaning if "we say that all of us are not going...." is read as
"we do not say that all of us are going...
13. The meaning of this sentence is not
quite clear. May be Gandhi is saying that the possession of `right belief' dose
not rule out the possibility of future birth but that it does rule out the
possibility of a future degeneration.
SANSKRIT TERMS
Agnihotr
Achit Matter
Atvad Doctrine
of soul
Adhirm Demerit
Anuman Inference
Anteryamee Ishwar
Antakaran. Internal instrument
Apratv Posteriority
Aparvag Emancipation
Apas Water
Abhan Unmanr.
Abhav Non-existence
Abhinivaish Dissolution
Abhyasa Constant
practice
Arth Object
of sense
Avyav Argument
of the objector split up
Avasthaprin.am Condition-transformation
Avidya Ignorance
Avyakt non-evolved
ahankara Egoism
Asmita Egoism
Akash Ether
Akunchan Contraction
Atma Soul
Asan Posture
Ichha Desire
Indriyas Organs
Ishwar God
Utkshaipan. Elevation
Udaish Mention
Upadan Material
cause
Upadhi Adjunct
Upasak Worship
Aeshwarya Supernatural
power
Karma Action
Karma
kand Work portion
Kalpa World
period
Karan,avastha Causal
condition
Karyavastha Condition
of effect
Kal Time
Kaivalya Final
Emancipation
Gandha Odor
Gaman Motion
Gun.. Quality
Gurutva Gravity
Chit Individual
soul
Caitanya Pure
intelligence
Chal Quibbling
artifices
Jal Water
Jalpa Wrangling
Jati Futile
replies
Jeev Personal
soul
Tanmatr Five
subtle elements
Tama's Darkness
Tark Refutation
Tarakgyan Intuitive
knowledge
Trishn.a Thirst
Taijasa Light,
Fire
Dick Space
Drishtant Familiar
example
Drvatv Fluidity
Dravya Substance
Dvaish Aversion
Dukkh Pain
Dharma Merit
Dharmparin.am
Property transformation
Dharan.a Restraint
Dhyan Absorption
Nad Sound
Nar.ee Vehicles
of Pran.a
Nabhichakr Navel
Chakr
Nidra Sleep
Nirodhprin.am Transfer of the mind into interceptions
Nirn.ay Conclusion
Pratv Priority
Parmatman Highest
self
Parin.am Change
Pariman. Dimension
Priksha Examination
of definition
Pitryan Road
of fathers
Purush Intelligence
Prithvee Earth
Prkar Modes
Prakriti Matter
Prakriti Matter
Prteek An
aspect
Prtyaksh Perception
Pratyahar Abstraction
Prma Right
measures
Prman. Evidence
Prmaiy Subjects
of right knowledge
Pryatn Volition
Prvriti Activity
Pran.ayam
Exercises of breadth
Praityabhav Transmigration
Phal Consequences
Buddhi Intellect
Manas Mind
Mukti Liberation
Yam Forbearance
Rajas Activity
Ras Taste
Rag Attachment
Roop color
Lakshan.
Differentia
Lakshan.prin.am
Character
Vayu Air
Vikalp Chimera
Vikas Expansion
Vigyan Knowledge
Vitanda
Caviling
Vipreya Misprision
Vishaish Variety
Vihar Monastery
Vriti Transformation
Vaidana Sensations
Vairagya Dispassion
Hinsa Killing
Haitvabhas Fallacious
Reasoning
Satv Purity
Samanya Uniformity
Sukha Pleasure
Sushumn.a Middle
course
Sanskar Potentiality
Sansara Endless
cycle of birth
Skandh Aggregate
Sangya Name
Sthoolbhoot Gross
elements
Sthoolshreer Gross
body
Snaih Viscidity
Spirsh Tangibility
Smriti Memory
Svkirm Fulfillment
of duties
Shabda Sound
Shreer Body
Gyan Knowledge
Gyankand knowledge
portion