Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The System of the Vedanta according to Badarayana's Brahma-Sutras and Cankara's Commentary c6.s2: VIII. Proofs of the Existence of God

The System of the Vedânta according to Bâdarâyana's Brahma-Sûtras and Çankara's Commentary c6.s2

Language
English

Contents

VIII. Proofs of the Existence of God

1. Prefatory Remark

c6.s2.t1.1

In the course of the work, with which we are concerned, we several times come across discussions, which have a certain likeness to the proofs of the existence of God that figure in the modern pre-Kantian philosophy. We give them here under the names in use among us, as a comparison of the arguments on both sides is not without historical interest. There can be no question of mutual dependence, since proofs like the cosmological and physico-theological lie in the nature of man's processes of thought; as it appears, the Indians were never ensnared into an ontological proof; on the other hand, we find a new proof, which we may call the psychological, and in which the concept of God blends with the concept of the soul. We begin with a short and provisional definition of the Brahman, and then introduce the passages which occur under the titles mentioned, without meaning to maintain that their entire contents are suited to these titles chosen for the sake of comparison.

2. Definition of the Brahman

c6.s2.t2.1

(p. 38, 2:) “The cause, from which [proceeds] the origin or subsistence, and dissolution of this world which is extended in names and forms, which includes many agents and enjoyers, which contains the fruit of works specially determined according to space, time and cause, a world which is formed after an arrangement inconceivable even for the spirit, this omniscient and omnipotent cause is the Brahman.”

c6.s2.t2.2

(p. 90, 3:) “Brahman is the omniscient and omnipotent cause of the origin, persistence and passing away of the world.”

3. Cosmological Proof

c6.s2.t3.1

Under this title we translate Sûtram 2, 3, 9 with Çankara's explanation (p. 627—628).

c6.s2.t3.2

Sûtram: "But [there is] no origin of 'the Existent,' on account of the impossibility." Explanation: "After anyone has been taught from the scripture, that also ether [or: space] and air have originated, although we cannot conceive their coming into being, he might come to think that the Brahman also originated from something, for when he perceives how from the ether and the like, which are still only modifications, yet other modifications arise, he might conclude that the ether also sprang into being from the Brahman, as if from a mere modification. The present Sûtram "But [there is] no-origin" etc., serves to remove this doubt; its meaning is: but one must not think that the Brahman, whose essence is Being (sad-ātmaka), could have originated from anything else; why? 'owing to impossibility.' For Brahman is pure Being. As such it can [firstly] not have sprung from pure Being, because [between the two] there is no superiority, so that they cannot be related [to each other] as original and modified;—but also [secondly] not from differentiated Being, because experience contradicts this; for we see that from homogeneity differences arise, for example, vessels from clay, but not that homogeneity arises from differences;—further [thirdly] also not from non-Being,⁶⁸ for this is essenceless (nirātmaka); and because the scripture overthrows it, when it says (Chând. 6, 2, 2): 'How should the Existent come from the non-Existent?' and because it does not admit a producer of the Brahman, when it is said (Çvet. 6, 9):

c6.s2.t3.3

⁶⁸ The similarity of this demonstration with that in the Parmenides v. 62 ff., is conspicuous; Zeller, Philosophie der Griechen I³, p. 471.

c6.s2.t3.4

"Cause is He, Master of the Sense's Lord,
"He has no Lord, and no Progenitor."

c6.s2.t3.5

"For ether and wind on the contrary an origin is shewn, but there is none such for the Brahman, that is the difference. And because it is seen how, from modifications, other modifications arise, there is no necessity for the Brahman also “to be a modification. For were this so, then we should come “to no primordial nature (*mûlaprakṛiti*) but should have a “*regressus in infinitum* (*anavasthâ*). What is assumed as the “primordial nature,—just that is our Brahman; there is thus “perfect agreement.” 69

4. Physico-theological Proof

c6.s2.t4.1

(p. 500, 3:) “When the matter is considered with the help “of examples only, it is seen that in the world no non-intelligent “object without being guided by an intelligence brings forth “from itself the products which serve to further given aims “of man. For, *e. g.*, houses, palaces, beds, seats, pleasure- “gardens and the like are [only] contrived in life by intelligent “artists in due time for the purpose of obtaining pleasure and “averting pain. Exactly the same it is with this whole world. “For when one sees, how, for example, the earth serves the end “of the enjoyment of the fruit of the manifold works, and how, “again, the body within and without by possessing a given “arrangement of parts suitable to the different species and “determined in detail that it may form the place of the en- “joyment of the fruit of the manifold works,—so that even “highly skilled artists full of insight are unable to comprehend “it through their understanding,—how should this arrangement “proceed from the non-intelligent original-matter [of the Sân- “khyas]? For lumps of earth, stones and the like are in “no wise capable of this? Clay also, for example, is formed, “as experience teaches, to different shapes [only] so long as “it is guided by the potter, and exactly in the same way must “matter be guided by another intelligent power. He, there- “fore, who relies on the material cause only as clay, etc., “cannot rightly maintain, that he possesses the primordial “cause; but no objection meets him who, besides it [the clay], “relies on the potter etc. as well. For when this is assumed “there is no contradiction, and at the same time the scripture, “which teaches an intelligent power as cause, is thereby re- “spected. So that, as the arrangement [of the Kosmos] would “become impossible, we may not have recourse to a non- “intelligent power as the cause of the world.”

c6.s2.t4.2

⁶⁹ In the last phrase, the relationship between the Indian and the western cosmological proof, as well as the inadequacy of both, comes out very clearly; since considered empirically nothing stands in the way of a *regressus* from the effect to the cause, from this again to its cause, *etc. in infinitum*.

5. Psychological Proof

c6.s2.t5.1

(p. 32, 4:) “Is the Brahman which is to be investigated “known or unknown? If it is known, we do not need to in- “vestigate it; if it is unknown, we cannot investigate it!— “Answer: That Being which is of its own nature is eternal, “pure, wise, free, all-knowing, almighty is Brahman. For from “the etymology of the word Brahman the meanings ‘eternal, “pure’ etc. are reached, according to the meaning of the root “barh [‘to separate;’ see above, p. 119]. But the existence of “the Brahman is demonstrated by the fact that it is the Self “(Soul, ātman) of all. For everyone assumes the existence of “himself, for he cannot say: ‘I am not.’ For if the existence “of Self were not demonstrated, then all the world could say “‘I am not.’ And the Self is the Brahman.—But if the “Brahman is universally demonstrated because it is the Self, “then it is known, and the objection that it need not be in- “vestigated, recurs?—Not so! For with reference to its “characteristics there is contradiction. For the common people “and the materialists [Lokāyatika: ‘those who follow the world’] “assert: ‘the Self is only the body invested with intelligence;’ “—others again: ‘the Self is only the [naturally] intellectual “organs of sense;’—others: ‘it is the understanding (manas);’ “—yet others: ‘it is only the perishable intellect;’—others: “‘the Void;’—others again: ‘it is the [individual soul] extend- “ing beyond the body, wandering, acting, and suffering;’—some: “‘it is only the sufferer, not the agent;’—some: ‘it is the “all-knowing, almighty Lord, who extends beyond this [world];’ “—still others: ‘it is the Self of him who suffers [or: enjoys] “there.’—Thus many oppose each other, and rely on arguments “and passages [of Scripture] or their appearance. He, there- “fore, who inconsiderately assumes the one or the other, may “compromise his salvation and come to destruction. Therefore, “because they set forth the investigation of the Brahman, the “consideration of the Vedânta [Upanishad] texts, supported “by non-contradictory reflexion, is recommended as a means “of salvation.”

c6.s2.t5.2

(p. 78, 6:) “For the eternal Spirit (*purusha*) different from “the agent [the individual soul], which is the object of the “presentation of I, dwelling as witness (*sâkshin*) in all being, “uniform, one, the highest, is not apprehended by anyone from “the Section of Works [of the Veda] or from any book based “on reflexion; he, who is the soul of all. And therefore none “can deny him, or make him an element of the Section of “Works; for he is even the Self (soul) of him who denies “him; and because he is the Self of all, it is therefore im- “possible either to flee from him or to seek him. For every- “thing that passes away, came into existence and passes away “through modification, because it finds its end in the spirit; “but the spirit is imperishable, because there is no cause of “perishableness in it, and because there is no cause of change “in it, therefore is it raised [above change], and eternal, and “for this very reason in its own nature eternal, pure and free “[or: freed].”

c6.s2.t5.3

Now in so far as God is the (metaphysical) I of man him- self, his existence cannot be proved at all, but also it does not need to be proved, because he is that which is alone known directly, and thereby the basis of all certainty, as is developed in the following most remarkable passage.

6. Cogito, ergo sum

c6.s2.t6.1

(p. 619, 8:) “For if the Self [that is, Brahman] also [like “ether, wind, fire, water, earth] were a modification, then, “since the Scripture teaches nothing higher above it, every “effect from ether downwards would be without Self (*nirât- “maka*, soulless, essenceless), since the Self [also] would be “[only] an effect; and thus we should arrive at Nihilism “(*çûnya-vâda*). Just because it is the Self, it is not possible “to doubt the Self. For one cannot establish the Self [by “proof] in the case of anyone, because in itself it is already “known. For the Self is not demonstrated by proof of itself.

c6.s2.t6.2

“For it is that which brings into use all means of proof, such as perception and the like, in order to prove a thing which is not known. For the objects of the expressions ether etc. require a proof, because they are not assumed as known of themselves. But the Self is the basis (âçraya) of the action of proving, and consequently it is evident before the action of proving. And since it is of this character, it is therefore impossible to deny it. For we can call in question something, which comes to us (âgantuka) [from outside], but not that which is our own being. For it is even the own being of him who calls it in question [cf. p. 79, l. 823, 2]; fire cannot call its own heat in question. And further, when it is said: ‘It is I, who now know what at present exists, it is I, who knew the past, and what was before the past, it is I, who shall know the future and what is after the future,’ it is implied in these words that even when the object of knowledge alters, the knower does not alter, because he is in the past, future, and present; for his essence is eternally present (sar-vadâ-vartamâna-svabhâvatvâd); therefore, even when the body turns to ashes, there is no passing away of the Self, for its essence is the present, yea, it is not even for a moment thinkable, that its essence should be anything else than this.”

Linked texts (3)