Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The System of the Vedanta according to Badarayana's Brahma-Sutras and Cankara's Commentary c7.s3: XVII. The exoteric Picture of Creation

The System of the Vedânta according to Bâdarâyana's Brahma-Sûtras and Çankara's Commentary c7.s3

Language
English

Contents

XVII. The exoteric Picture of Creation

1. General

c7.s3.t1.1

Two passages of the Upanishads, which we now give, are the main standards for the ideas of the creation of the world.⁹⁶

c7.s3.t1.2

⁹⁶ A third important passage, *Aitareya-Up.* 1, 1, is only touched upon incidentally in 3, 3, 16—17, and plays no further part in the system. We give the beginning of this passage here, for the sake of comparison: "Truly, this world was Âtman alone in the beginning; there was "naught else there to open the eyes. He conceived the idea: 'I will now "create worlds.' Then he created these worlds; [they are:] the floods, "the rays, death, the waters [*Çankara* reads p. 871, 8 *mara*, *âpas*]. Yonder "is the flood, beyond the heavens; heaven is its support; the rays are the "atmosphere; death is the earth; underneath are the waters."

c7.s3.t1.3

1) *Taittirîya-Upanishad* 2, 1: "Truly from this Âtman the "Âkâça came forth; from the Âkâça, the wind; from the wind, "fire; from fire, water; from water, the earth; from the earth, "plants; from plants, nourishment; from nourishment, seed; "from seed, man."

c7.s3.t1.4

2) *Chândogya-Upanishad* 6, 2, 2—3, 2: "Existent, alone, dear "one, was this in the beginning, one alone and without a second. "It conceived the idea (*aikshata*): 'I will become many, I will "propagate myself'; so it created fire (*tejas*).—This fire con- "ceived the idea: 'I will become many, I will propagate my- "self'; so it created water. Therefore, when a man is hot "and sweats, from the heat arises water.—This water con- "ceived the idea: 'I will become many, I will propagate my- "self'; so it created food. Therefore, when it rains, much "food arises, for from water arises the nourishment that man "eats.—In truth, these beings have three sorts of seeds (i. e., "origins), those born from the egg, those born alive, and those “born from the germ. That deity conceived the idea: ‘Verily, “I will enter into these three deities (fire, water, food), with “this living Self [the individual soul], and spread forth into “names and forms; and I will make each one of them three-“fold.’—Then that deity entered into these three deities, with “this living Self, and spread forth names and forms; and each “one of them it made threefold” [of this, later].

c7.s3.t1.5

As we see, in the first place five elements, Âkâça, air, fire, water, and earth, are mentioned, but in the second, only the last three. Our authors detailed discussion of the absence of contradiction in this, because in the second, Âkâça and air must be supplied from the first, may very well be omitted, since they are wholly exegetical in character. This, however, occasions a controversy of considerable interest, concerning the origin of Âkâça. For Âkâça, usually translated ether, is not so much this, as all-permeating, all-present space,—as may be understood from the popular expression, quoted for other purposes on p. 609, 7: *âkâçam kuru*, “make room,” *âkâço jâtaḥ*, “room has been made”; but still it is space, as something corporeal, as an element;—a conception that is not far from the ideas of all those which take space to be something self-existent (that is, independent of our intellect) and therefore real. In this sense, the Indian thinkers make it the medium of sound (e. g. p. 557, 14), which therefore they did not recognise as a vibratory movement of the air, and, in consequence, the element of air receives a more concrete meaning, approaching the idea of wind. Of this material apprehension of space, Çaṅkara (p. 558, 1) objects against the Buddhists, who define Âkâça as purely negative, as “the absence of hindrances” (*âvaraṇa-abhâva*), that, in that case, there could be no Âkâça in the space taken up by a body, a flying bird, for example; so that we must recognise in the Âkâça not the absence of hindrances, but that reality, through which the absence of hindrances is constituted, literally: characterised (*tad vastu-bhûtam, yena âvaraṇa-abhâvo viçishyate*),—all this in reality comes back to the verbal contention as to whether a negative can still be called real, and it clearly shows that the conception of the Âkâça wavers between that of space, and something material. It has the same character in the following controversy with Kaṇāda, who correctly recognizes the heterogeneity of Ākāça and the elements, and as a consequence, places Ākāça as a connecting link between corporeal nature and the power of nature manifesting itself therein (Brahman).

2. The Origin of Space (Ākāça)

c7.s3.t2.1

Sūtras 2, 3, 1-7.

c7.s3.t2.2

With unconcealed irony, Çaṅkara mentions those who follow in the footsteps of the illustrious Kaṇabhuj, (a nickname for Kaṇāda): "that we cannot conceive an origin of space" (p. 608, 6).—We will see how far this irony is well founded, by picking out from the chaos of discussion, the essential arguments and counter-arguments.

c7.s3.t2.3

Space can have had no origin, says Kaṇāda, for the following reasons: (1) How can one conceive the causal relation between space as an effect, and its cause? The cause (kāraṇam), of an effect (for example, a textile fabric) has three moments, as samavāyi-asamavāyi-nimitta-kāraṇam, that is, inherent cause (the threads), non-inherent cause (the union of the threads), and efficient cause (weaver and loom). The inherent cause consists of a substance, which is (a) homogeneous (ekajātīyaka), (b) manifold (aneka) [like the atoms of Kaṇāda]. "Now for space, there is no homogeneous and manifold substance, from which, as inherent cause, together with the union of the same (that is, of its particles), as non-inherent cause, space could originate. And if this does not exist, much less can we think of an assisting efficient cause for space" (p. 608, 8 ff.).

c7.s3.t2.4

(2) In the case of created elements (for example, fire) we can picture to ourselves a difference between the time before, and the time after they had come into being. This difference we cannot conceive in the case of space [na sambhāvayitum çakyate p. 609, 4), that is, therefore, we cannot picture a condition in which space was not]. "For how can a man assume that before the creation there was no place, no vacuity, no opening?" (p. 609, 5).

c7.s3.t2.5

(3) Space did not originate, for it is of a different nature (vidharma) from the earth, &c., in so far as its distinctive character is, that it penetrates all things (vibhutvam) etc. (p. 609, 6).

c7.s3.t2.6

(4) Lastly, in the scripture itself, space is called “undying, all-present, eternal” (p. 610, 3).

c7.s3.t2.7

According to all this, we must assume that before the creation, when, as the scriptures say, there was “one only, without a second,” space must have formed an all-penetrating, formless unity with Brahman, like water mixed with milk; and this separated at the creation in such a way that space remained immovable, while Brahman exerted itself (yatate) to produce the world (p. 612, 3).

c7.s3.t2.8

After Śaṅkara has pointed out that water and milk, although mixed, yet remain different essentially, whilst for the existent before the creation, an essential unity was required (p. 617, 15), he sets himself to refute Kaṇāda’s arguments; first however he gives the following positive proof of the origination of space:

c7.s3.t2.9

(p. 618, 13) “Whenever we see anything that has originated through transformation, whether it be pitchers, pots, and pails, or bracelets, clasps, and rings, or needles, iron arrowheads, and swords, we see division also in the world. On the contrary, a thing without origin can never be thought of as divided. The division of space is, however, shown by the earth, etc. (that is in space); therefore space also must be a transformation” (that is: all that has an origin is divisible; but space is divisible; ergo—!).

c7.s3.t2.10

Probably from a perception of the weakness of this argument, our author at once passes from it to the domain of metaphysics, where he is more at home: Ātman, he says, is not divided by the earth, or anything else; for space (the principle of division) originates in Ātman; consequently Ātman is no transformation. With this thought, which takes its root in the profound perception that that which exists in itself is spaceless, Śaṅkara goes on to the fine statement of the Self-existence of Ātman, which we translated in Chapter VIII, 6 (above p. 127). He then turns to the arguments of Kaṇāda mentioned above, to refute them one after another.

c7.s3.t2.11

(1) The cause need not necessarily be homogeneous and manifold; (a) not homogeneous: for the threads and their combinations need not be homogeneous, and still less the efficient cause, the loom (but no one ever maintained this).— Or is homogeneity to be asserted of the inherent cause only? That cannot be maintained unconditionally. For a single cord is twisted out of yarn and cow-hair; and many cloths are woven from thread and [unspun] wool. Or does the homogeneity of the cause only demand that it must be one being and one substance? That is self-evident, and the requirement is superfluous. (b) Further, the cause need not be manifold. For also the atoms of Kaṇāda work each for itself. It is not necessary that the cause should consist of several factors; for the effect can also be the result of transformation, since a substance passes into a different condition, and is then called the effect. The substance in this case may be manifold, as the earth and the seed that go to form plants, or uniform, as milk, which becomes curds. And so, according to the scripture, from the uniform Brahman, the manifold world, with space and all creatures, has sprung (p. 621, 5—623, 4).

c7.s3.t2.12

(2) It is absurd to assert, with reference to space, that a difference cannot be imagined between the time before, and the time after creation; for that space, with all bodies, is there now, and that nothing was there before, is precisely the difference. [But here Kaṇāda is not even understood, much less disproved.] Besides, the scripture expressly declares (Brih. 3, 8, 8, translated above p. 133), that Brahman, amongst other things, is spaceless (anākāçam, “not-ether,” as we translated above p. 133) (p. 623, 5—12).

c7.s3.t2.13

(3) It does not hold good, either, that space had no origin, because it is different in essence from the earth and the other elements. For, firstly, where the scripture contradicts this, a logical conclusion of the impossibility of its origin is fallacious, and, secondly, its origination follows even as a logical conclusion: for space is not everlasting, because it possesses qualities which are not everlasting (sound perhaps?—that would, however, under no circumstances be an essential quality of space;) therefore we must postulate a beginning for it, as for vases, etc. Do you maintain that, in this, it is not distinguished from Âtman?—For of Âtman, no one has ever yet demonstrated to a follower of the Upanishads that he is the bearer of non-eternal qualities. Furthermore, it has never been proved that space is all-pervading (vibhu) (p. 624, 5; the same monstrous assertion p. 700, 4).

c7.s3.t2.14

(4) When space is said by the scripture to be immortal, it is only in the (relative) sense in which the gods also are said to be immortal (on this, above p. 67). When, however, it is said of Brahman, that he is, "like space, omnipresent, eternal;" that is simply a simile, as when it is said: "the sun flies like an arrow," whereby it is not meant that it has only the same speed as an arrow; then also it is said of Brahman: "greater is he than space" (above p. 163) and "what is separate from him, is afflicted" (above p. 142).—Thus the origination of space is proved (p. 624, 6—625, 7).

3. The Origin of Air, Fire, Water, Earth

c7.s3.t3.1

Sûtras 2, 3, 8—13.

c7.s3.t3.2

As Âkâça came forth from Âtman, so Vâyu (air or wind) came forth from Âkâça; its immortality and imperishability, as taught by the scripture (Chând. 4, 3, 1. Brih. 1, 5, 22) are to be taken as only relative (âpekshika), that is, in comparison with the other elements, which all come forth from, and return to it, and only hold good in the lower doctrine (p. 626, 5), which seems to mean that, in the passage in question (Brih. 1, 5, 22), Vâyu is the representative of aparam brahma. As from Âkâça proceeds air, so from this proceeds fire (2, 3, 10), from fire water (2, 3, 11), and from water, earth (2, 3, 12), for this, and not rice or barley, is to be understood by "food" in the passage of the Chândogya at the beginning of this chapter, firstly, because the context requires this, and this is of more importance than the use of words (p. 634, 5) and also because "the food" is spoken of further on (Chând. 6, 4) as "black" and this refers to the earth which in some parts, it is true, is white like milk, and red, like [glowing] coals, (p. 633, 9), but as a rule is black, for which reason it is also called Çarvarî (night) in the Purāṇas (p. 633, 11). Plants, according to other passages, spring from the earth later and therefore the word "food" refers to the earth.

c7.s3.t3.3

How are we to understand this emanation of the elements from each other? They are without intelligence (acetana), but (a weighty axiom of our system) without intelligence, no motion is possible (p. 635, 1; compare 528, 7). Therefore we must assume that God himself changes himself into the elements (p. 635, 3) and after he has become air, for example, he creates fire (p. 630, 10); his position in regard to the elements is this expressed by the passage of scripture (Bṛih. 3, 7, 3): "He who, dwelling in the earth, is different from the earth, whom the earth does not know, whose body is the earth, who inwardly governs the earth, He is thy soul, thy inward guide, the immortal" (compare above p. 149 ff.). Consequently, in all elements, Brahman is the inner guide and overseer, and as such, brings about their motions (p. 635, 7).

c7.s3.t3.4

It must, therefore, be borne in mind that the elementary creation, that is, the whole body of inorganic nature, as such, is inanimate, and therefore incapable of movement, like a cart without a horse (p. 507, 9. 727, 1) and that according to this, when, for example, water flows, not water, as such, but the Brahman in it, brings this about (p. 507, 12); and the contradiction is not important, if, in his stead, the nature-gods (created by him, and dependent on him) have the same functions assigned to them, of which we have spoken above p. 65 ff.

c7.s3.t3.5

Further, the psychic organs (Buddhi, Manas, and the senses) of which we shall learn more in our psychological section, are, like the elements, emanations of Brahman; whether it be assumed that they are of like nature, and therefore of like duration, with these (p. 640, 1), or that they are different in kind from the natural elements and must be looked on as having emanated before or after them (p. 640, 3). In any case, they, as well as the elements, are, in themselves, lifeless, and both elements and organs are only created as means to an end, as we shall see further on.

4. Incidental Remark on the Destruction of the World

c7.s3.t4.1

WE must assume that, in the periodical re-absorption of the world in Brahman, the elements, in the same way as they have emerged from one another, are withdrawn again into one another in reverse order; for so experience teaches us, as, for example, in a staircase, coming down is the reverse of going up (p. 637, 5); therefore, as the vessel becomes clay again, and the ice, water (p. 637, 6), so also the dissolution of the elements takes place in such a manner that the less subtle goes back to that which is finer, the more remote effect returns everywhere into the nearer (p. 637, 9), for it is not right to assume that the effect continues when its cause is destroyed (p. 638, 4).

c7.s3.t4.2

At the end of the Kalpa, therefore, the earth becomes water again; water, fire; fire, air; air becomes Âkâça, and Âkâça re-enters Brahman. This view is likely to throw some light on the scientific motive of the teaching of the gradual evolution and absorption of the elements, as to which we have no other information: the observation that solids dissolve in water, that water turns into steam through heat, that the flames of fire flicker out into the air (Chând. 4, 3, 1: *yadâ vâ' agnir udvâyati, vâyum eva api-eti*), air, according to the altitude, rarifies more and more into empty space, might lead us to the gradual progression of the dissolution of the world, and by inversion to its opposite, the creation of the world.⁹⁷

c7.s3.t4.3

⁹⁷ A classification of the elements (with the omission of Âkâça), according to their greater or lesser density, and corresponding perceptibility, is indicated p. 536, 7: "the earth, as capable of being smelt, "tasted, seen, felt, is gross (*sthûla*); water, as being tasted, seen, and "felt, is subtle (*sûkshma*); fire, as being seen and felt, is more subtle "(*sûkshmatara*); the air, as only to be felt, is most subtle (*sûkshmatama*)." As a rule, the Indians add to these a fifth, and still more subtle element, Âkâça, with the quality of audibility (also possessed by the other four). Cf. Aristotle, *de sensu* 2, p. 438 B, 17 ff.: φανερὸν ὡς δεῖ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον ἀποδιδόναι καὶ προσάπτειν ἕκαστον τῶν αἰσθητηρίων ἑνὶ τῶν στοι- χείων. τοῦ μὲν ὄμματος τὸ ὁρατικὸν ὕδατος ὑποληπτέον, ἀέρος δὲ τὸ τῶν ψόφων αἰσθητικόν, πυρὸς δὲ τὴν ὄσφρησιν,—τὸ δ'ἀπτικὸν γῆς, τὸ δὲ

5. Organic Nature

c7.s3.t5.1

The creation of the world, properly speaking, which, as it appears, is to be thought of as a disk,⁹⁸ concludes with the creation of inanimate nature. For in organic nature, quite a new principle comes before us: it is the soul, which is incarnate in all the thousand phenomena of life, in all forms of gods, men, animals, and plants. It is true that souls also are an emanation from Brahman, from whom they, according to the Upanishads (for example Mund. 2, 1, 1, translated above p. 131 ff.; Kaush. 3, 3. 4, 20. Bṛih. 2, 1, 20) have arisen as the sparks from the fire, and into which they return in the same manner; but neither their origination from Brahman, nor their return to him, is understood by our system in the strict sense of the word. For the soul exists together with its organs (Prâṇas) and the "subtle body," from eternity—and, unless liberation is reached, to eternity; its entrance into Brahman in deep sleep, death, and at the dissolution of the world, takes place in such a manner that its seed remains, from which it proceeds again unchanged, with its organs. Of this later.

c7.s3.t5.2

⁹⁸ jagad-vimbam p. 488, 11. 489, 3. 490, 7.—The following expressions nâkasya priṣṭhe (frequent in the Veda, for example, Muṇḍ. 1, 2, 10; cf. Plato, Phaedrus, p. 247, C: ἐπὶ τῷ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ νώτῳ, and paro divo jyotir dîpyate viṣvataḥ priṣṭheshu (Chând. 3, 13, 7, translated above p. 169) seem to point to the idea of a sphere or hemisphere.

c7.s3.t5.3

By embodied souls, we are to understand all living beings (bhûtâni, more precisely [in contradistinction to the mahâ-bhûtâni or elements p. 140, 13] prâṇinaḥ p. 300, 5. 303, 4), therefore not only all gods, men, and animals, but also plants (therefore the expressions: brahmâdi-sthâvarânta p. 61, 11; brahmâdi-stambaparyanta p. 604, 2). Therefore plants (sthâvara) are also, as on p. 774, 5 it is expressly acknowledged, places of enjoyment (or suffering), they also have a living soul (kshetrajña p. 772, 5; jîva p. 773, 3), which has entered into

c7.s3.t5.4

γευστικὸν εἶδός τι ἁφῆς ἐστιν.—It should be noted that, while the Indians place fire between water and air, the Greeks, on the other hand, place air between water and fire.

c7.s3.t5.5

them in consequence of impure deeds (p. 774, 6), and they are sensible of enjoyment and pain (p. 772, 4), in which, however, the souls that return from the moon and stay for a while in plants as guests take no part. If the plant is cut, crushed, or cooked, the plant-soul dwelling in it passes out (*pravasati*), like every soul, when its body is destroyed (p. 773, 13 ff.). Plants must be in part endowed with perception, for, without it, the wandering of the lotus-flower from one pond to another, and the climbing of trees by creepers cannot be explained (p. 478, 9); for, as is often affirmed: without perception (*cetanâ*) there is no movement (*pravritti*).—It is true that the plant-world, as the immovable (*sthâvara*), is generally contrasted with the animal-world, as the movable (*jangama*) (p. 769, 4. 113, 1. 118, 17. 178, 5. 642, 1. 687, 4); it may serve as characteristic of the latter, that the cow (p. 507, 14) is said to have perception of, and love for, its calf, as also the goose (*hansa*) can distinguish both components in a mixture of milk and water, while we cannot (p. 799, 3); for the rest, in regard to the difference between animal and human perception, we are confined to what the passages translated in note 34, p. 57 above offer us.—It seems strange that p. 491, 7 to the gods is assigned a condition of infinite enjoyment, to man a mixed state, and to the animals, "infinite suffering." For the rest, such a conception could only be formed where the height of pleasure is to be measured by the degree of intelligence, and where, consequently, intellectual enjoyments are esteemed as the highest.⁹⁹

c7.s3.t5.6

⁹⁹ The argument on p. 102, 13 also rests on this view: if the (unconscious) primordial substance of the Sânkhyas were the place of the liberated, liberation would be a misfortune.

c7.s3.t5.7

We find a classification of organic beings 3, 1, 20—21, where they (as in the Ait. Up. 3, 3 p. 243) are divided according to their origin into
(1) *udbhijja*, born from a germ (plants),
(2) *svedaja*, born of sweat (damp heat, *sveda*, for which Bâdarâyana has the singular word *samçoka*), for example, vermin, (3) aṇḍaja, born of the egg,
(4) jarāyuja, born of the womb 100 (literally, from the Chorion).

c7.s3.t5.8

The two last classes originate by procreation, the two first, without it (p. 768, 10). The passage from the Chândogya-Upanishad, which we gave in the introduction to our chapter above p. 230, exhibits only three classes, for it joins the two first together, as if both came forth from germs, the one from earth, the other from water (p. 769, 3); yet the separation is justified, for the first class embraces immovable, the second movable beings (p. 769, 5).

6. Physiological Remarks

c7.s3.t6.1

Sûtras 2, 4, 20–22. 3, 1, 2.

c7.s3.t6.2

In the passage from the Chândogya-Upanishad, the beginning of which we translated above, p. 230, it is shown further how all things are triply mixed from the three original elements, fire, water, and food. So, for example, in natural fire, in the sun, moon and lightning, the red comes from the fire-element, the white from the water-element, and the black from the food-element. A preponderance of one of the three elements over the two others, brings about the differences of fire, water, and the other elements, in nature (p. 737, 13; natural fire is trivṛtkṛtaṃ tejas, "the triply formed fire," p. 144, 1, in contradistinction with the atrivṛtkṛtaṃ tejaḥ prathamajam p. 143, 7). The motive for this theory of commingling seems to be the wish to explain how the human body, although it only takes up single materials in nourishment, yet consists of all three original elements, of which the finer portion, like the cream on the milk, rises, while the coarser descends. Thus the body is made up of the three original elements according to the following scheme:

c7.s3.t6.3

| | Gross: | Medium: | Fine: |
| Food: | Faeces | Flesh | Manas |
| Water: | Urine | Blood | Prāṇa |
| Heat: | Bones | Marrow | Speech. |

c7.s3.t6.4

¹⁰⁰ These four classes are to be understood by the caturvidho bhūtagrāmaḥ p. 357, 5. 406, 7. 431, 10. 768, 9, while, on the other hand, bhūtacatuṣṭayam p. 956, 3 means the four elements.

c7.s3.t6.5

That which accomplishes this tripled mingling 101 in nature, and in the body, is, as is shown on page 733ff. not the individual soul, but Brahman.—That the body consists of the three elements, food, water, and heat, follows from the fact that their effects can be observed in it. On the other hand, it contains the three materials (dhātu): wind, gall, and mucus (p. 743, 8). It is not said in what relation these stand to the elements. In the body, watery substances preponderate, fluids, blood, etc. (p. 743, 11); "in another respect, indeed, the earthy "preponderates" (p. 743, 12; in what respect, remains unsaid); that, however, the human body is essentially watery, can be observed from the fact that it originally springs from two liquids, the (male) seed, and the (female) blood (p. 743, 13; cf. Aristotle, Met. H, 4 p. 1044 A. 35 and Ait. ār. 2, 3, 7, 3).

7. The Controversy with the Buddhists concerning the Reality of the Outer World

c7.s3.t7.1

Sūtras 2, 2, 28—31.

c7.s3.t7.2

Just as Kant, along with transcendental idealism, maintained the empirical reality of the external world, and defended it (against Berkeley), so the Vedāntins are not prevented by their doctrine of Ignorance as the foundation of all Being expanded in name and form from maintaining the reality of the outer world against the Buddhists of idealistic tendencies. (In order to guard against misunderstanding, we must bear in mind the passage translated in note 31, above p. 55.) Because of the high importance of this question, and the difficulty of the section of our work which treats of it, we shall translate the passage here at length.¹⁰²

c7.s3.t7.3

¹⁰¹ A pañcīkaraṇam, such as the Vedāntasāra § 124 teaches, is already found in Govinda's Gloss, p. 139, 21. 733, 17; but not yet in Ҫaṅkara's Commentary to the Brahmasūtras.

c7.s3.t7.4

¹⁰² In what follows, we translate vijñānam presentation; jñānam knowledge; anubhava sensation, feeling; pratyaya perception; upalabdhi, upalambha apperception; grahaṇam comprehension; avagamanam apprehension; saṃskāra impression; pratyaksham observation;—the meaning of these terms is, however, not so much to be gathered from the modern terms which we have chosen (in default of others), but rather from the context.

c7.s3.t7.5

Immediately before this, stands the discussion on Buddhist realism (2, 2, 18—27), to which the Buddhist idealist refers in the opening words.

c7.s3.t7.6

The Buddhist speaks:

c7.s3.t7.7

[p. 566, 12ff.] “Because the attraction of many scholars towards external things has been noticed, this doctrine of (the reality of) the outer world was put forward for their sake. But this is not the Buddha’s view; [p. 567] on the contrary what he desired, is solely the doctrine of the sole category (skandha) of presentation (vijñānam). According to the doctrine of presentation, the outward form is only in the intellect, (buddhi), and the whole worldly action of knowledge, what is known and [the enjoyment of] fruit is only something interior; and even if there were exterior things, yet without being in the intellect, this worldly action of knowing etc. could not take place.”

c7.s3.t7.8

“How then can it be proved that the whole worldly action is only something interior, and that beyond the presentation, there are no external things?—For the reason that they are impossible! For let it be taken for granted that there are exterior objects, e.g., solid bodies, they must be either infinitely small (paramāṇu) or an aggregate of the infinitely small; now that of which our perception can trace the limit as a solid body, etc., cannot be infinitely small, because the infinitely small is not visible and knowable; so also no aggregate of the infinitely small; for this can neither be thought of, as different from the infinitely small, nor as identical with it [p. 568] [not different, for it is made up of the infinitely small, for it would then escape observation in all its parts]. The same is true of species [jāti, which exist only in individuals].”

c7.s3.t7.9

“Further: if knowledge (jñānam), which is in its nature general, because it is produced by sensation (anubhava) alone, varies according to objects, as knowledge of columns, knowledge of a wall, knowledge of a vessel, knowledge of a cloth, this is possible only through the differentiation (viçeṣha) which concerns the knowledge.—Therefore we must unquestionably “grant the identity (*sārūpyam*) of the knowledge with the object. If we grant this, however, as the form of the object is determined only by the knowledge of it, the hypothesis (*kalpanā*) of the existence of things is superfluous.”

c7.s3.t7.10

“Then too, as apperception (*upalambha*) of necessity combines both, no division of the object from its presentation (*vijñānam*) is possible; for it is impossible to apperceive the one without apperceiving the other; and that would not be so, if they were different in nature, for then nothing would exist to prevent it. For this reason also, external objects do not exist.”

c7.s3.t7.11

“In this it is, for example, like a dream. As in dreams or hallucinations (*māyā*) there arise perceptions (*pratyaya*) of water in a mirage, Gandharva cities, etc., without outward objects in the form of apprehender and something to be apprehended; just so [p. 569] in the state of waking, must be the case with the perception of columns, etc., because we cannot distinguish them from the former, in so far as they are both perceptions.”

c7.s3.t7.12

“But if no external object exists, whence comes the variety of perceptions?—We answer: from the variety of (subjective) phenomena (*vāsanā*). Because in the beginningless Samsāra, the presentations and the phenomena, like seed and plant, are in turn the cause and effect of each other, variety is explained without contradiction. Also it is to be understood that, for the rule (waking), as well as for the exception (sleep), variety of knowledge has its ground solely in phenomena. And we both agree that in dream, etc., without any outward things, a variety of knowledge is produced by phenomena; only that I admit no variety of knowledge caused by external objects and not by phenomena. And therefore again there are no external objects.”

c7.s3.t7.13

To this the Vedāntin answers:

c7.s3.t7.14

“It cannot be maintained that no external objects exist. Why? Because we apperceive them. For we apperceive an external object according to our perception of it as a column, a wall, a vessel, a cloth; and what we apperceive, cannot “not be. It is as though one who eats, while feeling completely satiated by what he is eating, should yet say: ‘I am not eating, and I have not been satiated.’ It is just the same when a person directly apperceives outward objets by touching them with the organs of sensation [p. 570] and at the same time assures us: ‘I do not apperceive them, and the objects are not there.’—How can we care for such talk?”

c7.s3.t7.15

The Buddhist:

c7.s3.t7.16

“But I do not say that I do not apperceive an object; I only maintain that I apperceive nothing beyond the apperception.”

c7.s3.t7.17

The Vedântin:

c7.s3.t7.18

“Yes indeed, you maintain that! But only because your trunk is not goaded [elephants are guided by goads], and not because you have reasons. For we are compelled to admit objects outside our apperception, and this by our apperception itself. For no one apperceives a column or a wall as a mere apperception, but everybody apperceives the column and the wall as objects of apperception. And that everybody thus apperceives, is shown by the fact that even those who deny outward objects bear witness to this when they say: ‘The form perceived interiorly seems as if it were outside.’ For they also call to their aid the consciousness of an outside that everyone in the world has, when, in order to deny the existence of outward objects with their ‘as if it were outside,’ they appeal to an assumed outside. For how otherwise could they say ‘as if it were outside?’ No one says: such a one looks as if he were the son of a barren woman. Therefore, when we according to our feelings conceive the nature of anything that exists, we must say: ‘It appears outside,’ but not ‘as if it were outside.’”

c7.s3.t7.19

“But was not from the fact that no external things are possible, the conclusion drawn that it only seems as if they were outside?—[p. 571] Yes, but this conclusion is not justified. For we determine what is possible or impossible, from what is proved or not proved; we do not, however, in the "opposite way, determine what is proved or not proved, from "what is possible or impossible. For what we apperceive "through one of the instruments of knowledge, perception, etc. "(above p. 88) is possible (or: real, *sambhavati*), and what we "do not apperceive, through any means of knowledge, is not "possible (real). External objects are, according to their "kind, apperceived by all means of knowledge; how then can "anyone, on the basis of such arbitrary reflections as those "concerning exceptions and non-exceptions [dream and waking], "maintain that they are not possible, since they are apper"ceived!"

c7.s3.t7.20

"And if knowledge has the same form as the object, this "is no reason to deny the object. For, were there no object, "there could not be a similarity of form; and, that the object "exists, follows from the fact that we apperceive it as external "(p. 572). Thus we are under the necessity of apperceiving "perception and object at the same time, on the ground that "they are related, as cause and effect, and not because they "are identical."

c7.s3.t7.21

"Further: if we distinguish between the knowledge of a "pot, and the knowledge of a cloth, the difference lies in the "things which make different, the pot and the cloth, and not "in what is made different, knowledge. A white cow differs "from a black cow in whiteness and blackness, not in the fact "that they are cows. Therefore, through the two, we are able "to distinguish the one, and the one through the two. [They "could not be distinguished if they were not alike in being,— "or should we read: *naikasmâc ca* 'and not through the one?'] "Therefore object and knowledge are different, and we can "also appeal to the fact that we distinguish between seeing "the pot, and remembering it. For here also, the difference "lies in that which is distinguished, seeing and remembering, "and not in that which distinguishes the pot; just as in the "case of the words, smell of milk and taste of milk, the differ"ence is in that which is distinguished, smell and taste, and "not in the milk, which distinguishes them."

c7.s3.t7.22

"Also, between two [mere] presentations (*vijñânam*), which "are different in time, as they destroy each other by their “own coming to consciousness, no mutual [p. 573] relation of “comprehended (*grāhya*) and comprehender (*grāhaka*) can “exist [as if the subject were also a presentation, *vijñānam*!], “for thereby the theories which the Buddhists themselves have “maintained . . . [the statement of which we here pass over] “would fall through.”

c7.s3.t7.23

“And besides: you assume a series of presentations, then “why do you not also take outward things, such as columns “and walls for granted?—You say, because we are conscious “of the presentation?—But we are also conscious of external “things!—Or do you say that we are conscious of the pre“sentations in themselves, because it is in their nature to “illumine, like a lamp, but not, on the other hand in the “nature of external things?—and so you take for granted that “which is in its nature an absolute contradiction, just as if “you said: ‘Fire burns itself up;’ but the general acceptation, “which does not contradict itself, that we are conscious of the “outward object, through the presentation which reaches beyond “itself [p. 574], you will not assume? Truly this is great wis“dom that you display! The presentation, in so far as it “extends beyond the object, is certainly not felt, for that would “be contrary to its own being.” [Here, as often before, the idea of the presentation changes into that of the presenting subject, and this is made easy by the use of the word *vijñānam*.]

c7.s3.t7.24

“It may be objected that, if, from its nature, the present“ation must be apprehended by something extending beyond it, “then this again by something beyond it, this, by something else “beyond it, and so in *infinitum*.—And further, if knowledge, “according to its nature, illumines like a lamp, and we assume “that this knowledge is known by another knowledge,—yet, “from the equality of these two, no relation of enlightener and “enlightened can exist, and the assumption becomes superfluous.”

c7.s3.t7.25

“But these two objections do not hold good. As only the “presentation is apprehended, and there is no need of the “apprehension of the subject (*sākshin*) of the presentation, “therefore we are not face to face with a *regressus in infinitum*: “for subject and perception are in their nature contrary to each other, and are related as the apperceiver, and the apperceived; the subject, however, is, in itself, certain, and cannot be denied [compare the discussion of this above p. 127]. And if it be further maintained that the presentation, like the lamp, needs no other to illumine it, but makes itself known by itself, then this means as much as a presentation which cannot be apprehended by any instrument of knowledge, and which has no apprehender, which would no more make itself known than would a thousand lamps if they were set together in the middle of a block of stone.—But if presentation is in its own nature sensation, have we not [p. 575] in this granted the thesis of our opponents?—No; but as the lamp, to illumine, requires yet another, to apprehend, namely, the eye, in just the same way the presentation requires the power of making itself seen, and only, as with the lamp, when another which apprehends it is present does its light become visible.—But, the opponent might say, if you explain the apprehending subject as self proved, that is just what I maintain about the presentation making itself known by itself, only expressed in other words.—But that is not so, because the presentation has as its characteristics, origin, perishability, and non-unity [accidentally, not as the subject is a necessity; this further concerns its contents only, not the form which is just what constitutes the nature of the subject]. Thus we have proved that, like a lamp, the presentation also must be apprehended by something lying beyond it.

c7.s3.t7.26

When, further, those who deny external objects maintain that, as in the case of perceptions in dream, so also perceptions of pillars, etc., in waking, arise without an external object, because the two cannot be separated, as both are perceptions [p. 576], we answer: Perceptions in waking cannot arise as do perceptions in dream. Why? Because they are of a different nature. For between dream and waking, there is a difference of nature. In what does this difference of nature consist? In the refutability or irrefutability. For that which is apperceived in dreams, refutes itself; for he who is awakened, says: ‘In error I apperceived a large assembly of people, for there is no large assembly, only my ‘soul was confused by sleep, hence this error arose.’ In the same manner, all illusions of the senses are refuted, according to their character. On the other hand, there is no condition in which the existence of an object perceived in the waking state, a pillar, for example, can be refuted. A dream-face is only a remembrance, whilst seeing in the waking state is apperception. The difference between remembrance and apperception is evident, and is felt of itself; for it consists in the fact that a person is either separated, or not separated, from an object; when, for example, a beloved son is remembered, he is not apperceived, but we wish to apperceive him. [p. 577] As this is so, we cannot maintain that what is perceived in the waking state deceives, because, like apperception in the dreaming state, it is [only] apperception. For the difference between the two makes itself felt. And that which is felt by pretended sages cannot be denied by them. But just because their feelings protest, and they cannot demonstrate to themselves the groundlessness of waking perception, therefore they wish to prove it by its relation with dreaming perception. But a quality that is not in a thing in itself, will not be put there by relating it to another thing. For when we feel that fire is hot, it does not become cold because [as an element] it is related to water. And we have demonstrated the difference between dream and waking.”

c7.s3.t7.27

“Finally we must answer the assertion that variety of knowledge can arise without objects, by a variety of [subjective] appearances (*vâsanâ*). We reply: The existence of appearances is not possible, if, as you take it, there is no apperception of external objects. For the appearances in forms which differ according to the object have their basis in the apperception of the object [p. 578]; if, however, no objects are apperceived, wherein have the various appearances their foundation? If we accept the idea of beginninglessness, like a row of blind people holding to each other, a *regressus in infinitum* steps in, with no supporting basis, thus abolishing the worldly action without proving your position. If, further, he who denies the external world, appeals to the rule and the exception [waking and dream] to prove that knowledge, “in order to come into being, has, as its ground, appearances, and not objects, we must regard this also as refuted, if it is as we said; for without the apperception of objects, appearances cannot arise. And as, further, the apperception of objects can exist without the appearance, while, on the other hand, the appearances cannot exist without the apperception of objects, the rule and the exception [under discussion] serve but to affirm the reality of objects. For appearances are only certain impressions (*saṃskāra*); and, as experience shows, impressions can only be brought about by means of a supporting basis; for you, however, there is no such basis of impressions, because you follow as your guide the axiom that apperception does not exist.”

c7.s3.t7.28

“[p. 579] If, finally, you set up a ‘presentation of inwardness’ (*ālaya-vijñānam*) as the basis of appearances, this can no more co-exist with your theory of non-duration than can the ‘presentation of outwardness’ (*pravṛtti-vijñānam*), and therefore cannot serve as the substratum of appearances. For unless we either admit a Continuous Substance, which binds past, present, and future together, or an overseer of all objects, an activity linking together remembrances—depending upon appearances conditioned by space, time, and cause—is impossible. If, however, the ‘idea of inwardness,’ implies a continuum, you have thereby given up your principle (of non-duration).”

Linked texts (6)