Thus it is said that "he is of the essence of understanding,

__________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: It is possible that there is a vague and obscure reference here to the doctrine that the fruits of our deeds are reaped in other worlds.]

56

of the vital function, of the visual sense, of the auditory sense, of the essence of the five elements (which would make up the physical body in accordance with its needs) or the essence of desires, of the essence of restraint of desires, of the essence of anger, of the essence of turning off from all anger, of the essence of dharma, of the essence of adharma, of the essence of all that is this (manifest) and that is that (unmanifest or latent)" ([email protected] IV. iv. 5).

The self that undergoes rebirth is thus a unity not only of moral and psychological tendencies, but also of all the elements which compose the physical world. The whole process of his changes follows from this nature of his; for whatever he desires, he wills and whatever he wills he acts, and in accordance with his acts the fruit happens. The whole logic of the genesis of karma and its fruits is held up within him, for he is a unity of the moral and psychological tendencies on the one hand and elements of the physical world on the other.

The self that undergoes rebirth being a combination of diverse psychological and moral tendencies and the physical elements holds within itself the principle of all its transformations. The root of all this is the desire of the self and the consequent fruition of it through will and act. When the self continues to desire and act, it reaps the fruit and comes again to this world for performing acts. This world is generally regarded as the field for performing karma, whereas other worlds are regarded as places where the fruits of karma are reaped by those born as celestial beings. But there is no emphasis in the [email protected] on this point. The [email protected] theory is not indeed given up, but it seems only to form a part in the larger scheme of rebirth in other worlds and sometimes in this world too. All the course of these rebirths is effected by the self itself by its own desires, and if it ceases to desire, it suffers no rebirth and becomes immortal. The most distinctive feature of this doctrine is this, that it refers to desires as the cause of rebirth and not karma. Karma only comes as the connecting link between desires and rebirth--for it is said that whatever a man desires he wills, and whatever he wills he acts.

Thus it is said in another place "he who knowingly desires is born by his desires in those places (accordingly), but for him whose desires have been fulfilled and who has realized himself, all his desires vanish here" ([email protected]@d III. 2. 2). This destruction of desires is effected by the right knowledge of the self. "He who knows

57

his self as 'I am the person' for what wish and for what desire will he trouble the body,...even being here if we know it, well if we do not, what a great destruction" ([email protected] IV. iv. 12 and 14). "In former times the wise men did not desire sons, thinking what shall we do with sons since this our self is the universe" ([email protected] IV.

iv. 22). None of the complexities of the karma doctrine which we find later on in more recent developments of Hindu thought can be found in the [email protected] The whole scheme is worked out on the principle of desire (_kama_) and karma only serves as the link between it and the actual effects desired and willed by the person.

It is interesting to note in this connection that consistently with the idea that desires (_kama_) led to rebirth, we find that in some [email protected] the discharge of the s.e.m.e.n in the womb of a woman as a result of desires is considered as the first birth of man, and the birth of the son as the second birth and the birth elsewhere after death is regarded as the third birth. Thus it is said, "It is in man that there comes first the embryo, which is but the s.e.m.e.n which is produced as the essence of all parts of his body and which holds itself within itself, and when it is put in a woman, that is his first birth. That embryo then becomes part of the woman's self like any part of her body; it therefore does not hurt her; she protects and develops the embryo within herself. As she protects (the embryo) so she also should be protected. It is the woman who bears the embryo (before birth) but when after birth the father takes care of the son always, he is taking care only of himself, for it is through sons alone that the continuity of the existence of people can be maintained. This is his second birth. He makes this self of his a representative for performing all the virtuous deeds. The other self of his after realizing himself and attaining age goes away and when going away he is born again that is his third birth" (Aitareya, II. 1-4) [Footnote ref 1]. No special emphasis is given in the [email protected] to the s.e.x-desire or the desire for a son; for, being called kama, whatever was the desire for a son was the same as the desire for money and the desire for money was the same as any other worldly desire ([email protected]

IV. iv. 22), and hence s.e.x-desires stand on the same plane as any other desire.

_

[Footnote 1: See also [email protected], II. 15.]

58

Emanc.i.p.ation.

The doctrine which next attracts our attention in this connection is that of emanc.i.p.ation (_mukti_). Already we know that the doctrine of Devayana held that those who were faithful and performed asceticism (_tapas_) went by the way of the G.o.ds through successive stages never to return to the world and suffer rebirth.

This could be contrasted with the way of the fathers ([email protected]_) where the dead were for a time recompensed in another world and then had to suffer rebirth. Thus we find that those who are faithful and perform _s'raddha_ had a distinctly different type of goal from those who performed ordinary virtues, such as those of a general altruistic nature. This distinction attains its fullest development in the doctrine of emanc.i.p.ation. Emanc.i.p.ation or Mukti means in the [email protected] the state of infiniteness that a man attains when he knows his own self and thus becomes Brahman. The ceaseless course of transmigration is only for those who are ignorant. The wise man however who has divested himself of all pa.s.sions and knows himself to be Brahman, at once becomes Brahman and no bondage of any kind can ever affect him.

He who beholds that loftiest and deepest, For him the fetters of the heart break asunder, For him all doubts are solved, And his works become nothingness [Footnote ref 1].

The knowledge of the self reveals the fact that all our pa.s.sions and antipathies, all our limitations of experience, all that is ign.o.ble and small in us, all that is transient and finite in us is false. We "do not know" but are "pure knowledge" ourselves.

We are not limited by anything, for we are the infinite; we do not suffer death, for we are immortal. Emanc.i.p.ation thus is not a new acquisition, product, an effect, or result of any action, but it always exists as the Truth of our nature. We are always emanc.i.p.ated and always free. We do not seem to be so and seem to suffer rebirth and thousands of other troubles only because we do not know the true nature of our self. Thus it is that the true knowledge of self does not lead to emanc.i.p.ation but is emanc.i.p.ation itself. All sufferings and limitations are true only so long as we do not know our self. Emanc.i.p.ation is the natural and only goal of man simply because it represents the true nature and essence of man. It is the realization of our own nature that

_

[Footnote 1: Deussen's _Philosophy of the Upanishads_, p. 352.]

59

is called emanc.i.p.ation. Since we are all already and always in our own true nature and as such emanc.i.p.ated, the only thing necessary for us is to know that we are so. Self-knowledge is therefore the only desideratum which can wipe off all false knowledge, all illusions of death and rebirth. The story is told in the [email protected] [email protected] that Yama, the lord of death, promised Naciketas, the son of Gautama, to grant him three boons at his choice.

Naciketas, knowing that his father Gautama was offended with him, said, "O death let Gautama be pleased in mind and forget his anger against me." This being granted Naciketas asked the second boon that the fire by which heaven is gained should be made known to him. This also being granted Naciketas said, "There is this enquiry, some say the soul exists after the death of man; others say it does not exist. This I should like to know instructed by thee. This is my third boon." Yama said, "It was inquired of old, even by the G.o.ds; for it is not easy to understand it. Subtle is its nature, choose another boon. Do not compel me to this." Naciketas said, "Even by the G.o.ds was it inquired before, and even thou O Death sayest that it is not easy to understand it, but there is no other speaker to be found like thee. There is no other boon like this." Yama said, "Choose sons and grandsons who may live a hundred years, choose herds of cattle; choose elephants and gold and horses; choose the wide expanded earth, and live thyself as many years as thou wishest.

Or if thou knowest a boon like this choose it together with wealth and far-extending life. Be a king on the wide earth. I will make thee the enjoyer of all desires. All those desires that are difficult to gain in the world of mortals, all those ask thou at thy pleasure; those fair nymphs with their chariots, with their musical instruments; the like of them are not to be gained by men. I will give them to thee, but do not ask the question regarding death."

Naciketas replied, "All those enjoyments are of to-morrow and they only weaken the senses. All life is short, with thee the dance and song. Man cannot be satisfied with wealth, we could obtain wealth, as long as we did not reach you we live only as long as thou pleasest. The boon which I choose I have said."

Yama said, "One thing is good, another is pleasant. Blessed is he who takes the good, but he who chooses the pleasant loses the object of man. But thou considering the objects of desire, hast abandoned them. These two, ignorance (whose object is

60

what is pleasant) and knowledge (whose object is what is good), are known to be far asunder, and to lead to different goals.

Believing that this world exists and not the other, the careless youth is subject to my sway. That knowledge which thou hast asked is not to be obtained by argument. I know worldly happiness is transient for that firm one is not to be obtained by what is not firm. The wise by concentrating on the soul, knowing him whom it is hard to behold, leaves both grief and joy. Thee O Naciketas, I believe to be like a house whose door is open to Brahman. Brahman is deathless, whoever knows him obtains whatever he wishes. The wise man is not born; he does not die; he is not produced from anywhere. Unborn, eternal, the soul is not slain, though the body is slain; subtler than what is subtle, greater than what is great, sitting it goes far, lying it goes everywhere.

Thinking the soul as unbodily among bodies, firm among fleeting things, the wise man casts off all grief. The soul cannot be gained by eloquence, by understanding, or by learning. It can be obtained by him alone whom it chooses. To him it reveals its own nature [Footnote ref 1]." So long as the Self identifies itself with its desires, he wills and acts according to them and reaps the fruits in the present and in future lives. But when he comes to know the highest truth about himself, that he is the highest essence and principle of the universe, the immortal and the infinite, he ceases to have desires, and receding from all desires realizes the ultimate truth of himself in his own infinitude. Man is as it were the epitome of the universe and he holds within himself the fine const.i.tuents of the gross body (_annamaya [email protected]_), the vital functions ([email protected] [email protected]_) of life, the will and desire (_manomaya_) and the thoughts and ideas (_vijnanamaya_), and so long as he keeps himself in these spheres and pa.s.ses through a series of experiences in the present life and in other lives to come, these experiences are willed by him and in that sense created by him. He suffers pleasures and pains, disease and death. But if he retires from these into his true unchangeable being, he is in a state where he is one with his experience and there is no change and no movement.

What this state is cannot be explained by the use of concepts. One could only indicate it by pointing out that it is not any of those concepts found in ordinary knowledge; it is not

_________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: [email protected] II. The translation is not continuous. There are some parts in the extract which may be differently interpreted.]

61

whatever one knows as this and this (_neti neti_). In this infinite and true self there is no difference, no diversity, no _meum_ and _tuum_. It is like an ocean in which all our phenomenal existence will dissolve like salt in water. "Just as a lump of salt when put in water will disappear in it and it cannot be taken out separately but in whatever portion of water we taste we find the salt, so, Maitreyi, does this great reality infinite and limitless consisting only of pure intelligence manifesting itself in all these (phenomenal existences) vanish in them and there is then no phenomenal knowledge"

([email protected] II. 4. 12). The true self manifests itself in all the processes of our phenomenal existences, but ultimately when it retires back to itself, it can no longer be found in them. It is a state of absolute infinitude of pure intelligence, pure being, and pure blessedness.

62

CHAPTER IV

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON THE SYSTEMS OF INDIAN PHILOSOPHY

In what Sense is a History of Indian Philosophy possible?

It is hardly possible to attempt a history of Indian philosophy in the manner in which the histories of European philosophy have been written. In Europe from the earliest times, thinkers came one after another and offered their independent speculations on philosophy. The work of a modern historian consists in chronologically arranging these views and in commenting upon the influence of one school upon another or upon the general change from time to time in the tides and currents of philosophy.

Here in India, however, the princ.i.p.al systems of philosophy had their beginning in times of which we have but scanty record, and it is hardly possible to say correctly at what time they began, or to compute the influence that led to the foundation of so many divergent systems at so early a period, for in all probability these were formulated just after the earliest [email protected] had been composed or arranged.

The systematic treatises were written in short and pregnant half-sentences (_sutras_) which did not elaborate the subject in detail, but served only to hold before the reader the lost threads of memory of elaborate disquisitions with which he was already thoroughly acquainted. It seems, therefore, that these pithy half-sentences were like lecture hints, intended for those who had had direct elaborate oral instructions on the subject. It is indeed difficult to guess from the sutras the extent of their significance, or how far the discussions which they gave rise to in later days were originally intended by them. The sutras of the Vedanta system, known as the S'ariraka-sutras or Brahma-sutras of [email protected] for example were of so ambiguous a nature that they gave rise to more than half a dozen divergent interpretations, each one of which claimed to be the only faithful one. Such was the high esteem and respect in which these writers of the sutras were held by later writers that whenever they had any new speculations to

63

offer, these were reconciled with the doctrines of one or other of the existing systems, and put down as faithful interpretations of the system in the form of commentaries. Such was the hold of these systems upon scholars that all the orthodox teachers since the foundation of the systems of philosophy belonged to one or other of these schools. Their pupils were thus naturally brought up in accordance with the views of their teachers. All the independence of their thinking was limited and enchained by the faith of the school to which they were attached. Instead of producing a succession of free-lance thinkers having their own systems to propound and establish, India had brought forth schools of pupils who carried the traditionary views of particular systems from generation to generation, who explained and expounded them, and defended them against the attacks of other rival schools which they constantly attacked in order to establish the superiority of the system to which they adhered. To take an example, the Nyaya system of philosophy consisting of a number of half-sentences or sutras is attributed to Gautama, also called [email protected] The earliest commentary on these sutras, called the _Vatsyayana [email protected]_, was written by Vatsyayana. This work was sharply criticized by the Buddhist [email protected], and to answer these criticisms Udyotakara wrote a commentary on this commentary called the [email protected]_ [Footnote ref 1]. As time went on the original force of this work was lost, and it failed to maintain the old dignity of the school. At this Vacaspati Mis'ra wrote a commentary called [email protected]_ on this second commentary, where he tried to refute all objections against the Nyaya system made by other rival schools and particularly by the Buddhists. This commentary, called [email protected]_, had another commentary called [email protected]'uddhi_ written by the great Udayana. This commentary had another commentary called _Nyaya-nibandha-prakas'a_ written by Varddhamana the son of the ill.u.s.trious [email protected]'a. This again had another commentary called _Varddha-manendu_ upon it by Padmanabha Mis'ra, and this again had another named [email protected]@dana_ by [email protected] Mis'ra. The names of Vatsyayana, Vacaspati, and Udayana are indeed very great, but even they contented themselves by writing commentaries on commentaries, and did not try to formulate any

___

[Footnote 1: I have preferred to spell [email protected] after Vacaspati's _Tatparyatika_ (p. I) and not Dignnaga as it is generally spelt.]

64

original system. Even [email protected], probably the greatest man of India after Buddha, spent his life in writing commentaries on the _Brahma-sutras_, the [email protected], and the _Bhagavadgita_.

As a system pa.s.sed on it had to meet unexpected opponents and troublesome criticisms for which it was not in the least prepared.

Its adherents had therefore to use all their ingenuity and subtlety in support of their own positions, and to discover the defects of the rival schools that attacked them. A system as it was originally formulated in the sutras had probably but few problems to solve, but as it fought its way in the teeth of opposition of other schools, it had to offer consistent opinions on other problems in which the original views were more or less involved but to which no attention had been given before.