Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The System of the Vedanta according to Badarayana's Brahma-Sutras and Cankara's Commentary c8.s1: XXII. Proofs of the Immortality of the Soul

The System of the Vedânta according to Bâdarâyana's Brahma-Sûtras and Çankara's Commentary c8.s1

Language
English

Contents

XXII. Proofs of the Immortality of the Soul

1. Preliminary Remarks on Psychology

c8.s1.t1.1

With Theology or the doctrine of the Existent, and Cosmology or the doctrine of its manifestation as the world, the foundations of the system are naturally completed; it is therefore only a further elaboration of what has already been expounded when in Psychology and the following sections we turn our attention specially to a particular side of the Universe, in order to consider more closely both in its own nature and in its two states of wandering and liberation that most important of cosmic phenomena, which is immediately present to the inner consciousness of every one, namely the soul.

c8.s1.t1.2

There are two factors which constitute the Universe; one of them may be properly termed the stage in this drama of cosmic evolution, the other the players who appear on it; the first factor is inorganic Nature consisting of space, air, fire, water and earth; the second is organic Nature consisting of souls that have entered into the elements and wander as plants, animals, men, and gods. Both factors are ultimately resolvable into Brahman, into "the One without a second," who according to the exoteric view creates the elements anew at the beginning of each world-period and then enters into them (above p. 231) "with the living Self," i. e., with the individual Soul; but both of them, the elements as well as the souls, are, from the higher, esoteric standpoint of the doctrine of identity, the one undivided Brahman Himself; for an existence in the highest sense real (*paramārthataḥ*) which passes beyond the one indivisible Brahman without a second cannot be predicated of the extension (*prapañca*) of the elements in names and forms as they are "laden on" the soul as "recompense of the deed on the doer" (*kriyâ-kâraka-phalam*, p. 273, 12. 291, 6. 447, 3. 987, 6), nor yet of the Brahman disguised by the Upâdhis whereby He represents a wandering, enjoying, acting soul.

c8.s1.t1.3

This double fundamental view of the Vedânta: the esoteric doctrine according to which every soul is the whole indivisible Brahman, who admits of nothing outside Himself, and the exoteric doctrine according to which there has from eternity existed a plurality of souls wandering but nevertheless (illogically) conceived as emanating from the Brahman—this view must be clearly kept in mind in what follows, even when (on the supposition that the reader is now sufficiently familiar with the leading conceptions) we do not treat the exoteric and esoteric Psychology in two strictly sundered sections which would involve too great a dislocation of the sequence of thought of the original. In general, it may be noted, Çañkara in the Psychology takes the esoteric view, and leaves it to the opponent whose opinion is step by step developed in detail and then refuted, to represent the exoteric view; at the same time having regard to the doctrine of metempsychosis maintained by him for the "lower knowledge." Çañkara cannot avoid descending to the exoteric standpoint himself; in doing so he appropriates partially and conditionally the arguments which he himself combats, in order thereby to gain a foundation for the doctrine of *Samsâra*, i. e., the "wandering" of the soul, which he then treats.—The individual enquiries as found in the original work will be left as far as possible untouched; only in the order will certain changes demanded by the subject be made; therefore we shall first treat of the origin and nature of the soul (chap. XXIII), of its relation to God (chap. XXIV), to the body (chap. XXV) and to its own works (chap. XXVI), all this from the esoteric standpoint; this course, however, from the continual connection with the exoteric point of view opposed to it will disclose many aspects which are true for the other doctrine also; these will be further developed when passing to the exoteric standpoint we consider the soul in relation to its empirical organs (chap. XXVII)

c8.s1.t1.4

and states (chap. XXVIII) in detail; to these preliminaries in the following section will be readily joined the doctrine of transmigration.

c8.s1.t1.5

However before we enter on these discussions, we must as an introduction produce the proofs of the immortality of the soul which are not found in the psychological part of the work (2, 3, 15—2, 4, 19, and 3, 2, 1—10) but 3, 3, 53—54 among the miscellaneous matter which forms the sections 3, 3 and 3, 4. Though Çañkara tries to justify artificially the interpolation of this episode at the place in question, it does not naturally belong there but to Psychology, and that as an introduction; for a *conditio sine qua non* of the doctrine of the soul is the proof that the soul exists, that there is in man a part which "reaches" beyond the body and is not affected by its dissolution.

c8.s1.t1.6

The word "immortality" is here to be understood in its western sense as, used by us, of "indestructibility by death." The Indians as a rule understand by the corresponding *amritatvam* as has already been emphasised (above p. 149) something different, namely "the deliverance of the liberated soul from dying."¹⁰⁸ What we call immortality is commonly called by them *vyatireka* the "reaching" (beyond the body); and this idea is the subject of the following controversy between the materialists and Vedântins, which, for the high interest of the question discussed, we add in a unabbreviated translation.

c8.s1.t1.7

¹⁰⁸ Martyatvam on the contrary means, p. 193, 7 "the necessity of dying again and again" of the individual soul.—However *amrita* too is occasionally found in our sense; *e. g.*, p. 197, 12, where it means the soul "which cannot die" (because there still exist works to be atoned for); cf. also p. 241, 14.

2. Arguments of the Materialists against the Immortality of the Soul

c8.s1.t2.1

"Some, namely those materialists (*lokâyatika*) who see the "Self in the body only, believe that there is no Self which "persists beyond the body; they assume that consciousness "though indiscoverable in the external elements, earth, etc., “taken individually and collectively, is contained in them when they take the form of the body; therefore they maintain that consciousness proceeds from them in the form of intellect, just as the power of intoxication [from fermenting matter], and that man is only a body which is distinguished by this consciousness. On the other hand they deny a Self which persists beyond the body, by virtue of which consciousness is in the body and which is capable of entering into heaven or into salvation; on the contrary they assume that the body alone is the conscious being and the Self, and cite as a proof that this conscious being only continues as long as the body. For when anything exists only as long as something else exists, and ceases to exist with it, this is completely expressed by terming it a quality of the other, just as heat and light are qualities of fire. It is just the same with breath, motion, spirit, memory, etc. which are considered qualities of the soul by believers in the soul; for they too are perceived only within the body and not without it, and as no bearer of these qualities which reaches beyond the body can be proved, therefore they can be nothing but qualities of the body. Therefore the Self does not persist beyond the body” (p. 954, 5--955, 2).

3. Proofs of the Immortality of the Soul

c8.s1.t3.1

“To this we reply: it is not true that the soul does not persist beyond the body; on the contrary its persistence beyond the body must be assumed because its Existence does not depend on the Existence (of the body). For if from the fact that the qualities of the Self persist as long as the body, the conclusion is drawn that they are qualities of the body, then also from the fact that they do not persist while the body persists must be concluded that they are not qualities of the body because they differ essentially from the qualities of the body. For what is a quality of the body, e.g., shape, etc., must persist as long as the body. Breath, motion, etc. on the other hand do not persist though the body does, namely in the state of death. Not only so but “the qualities of the body, as shape, etc., are perceived by others, but this is not so with the qualities of the Self, Spirit, Memory, etc.”

c8.s1.t3.2

“Further: it is true that from the existence of the body in a living state can be proved the existence of those [qualities of the Self], but from its non-existence the reverse cannot be proved; for there is always the possibility that whenever this body perishes the qualities of the Self persist by entering into another body; the opponents' opinion therefore is excluded by its being a mere hypothesis (saṃcaya).”

c8.s1.t3.3

“The opponent must further be asked how he imagines consciousness if he assumes its origin from the elements; for beyond the four elements the materialists of course admit nothing existing. If he says: consciousness is the perception of the elements and the products, consciousness has the latter as its objects and consequently cannot be a quality of them, for an activity directed towards one's own Self is a contradiction; for though fire is hot, it does not burn itself, and however skilled a dancer is, he cannot climb on his own shoulders; if consciousness is a quality of the elements and their products, the elements and their products cannot be objects of consciousness; for e.g. shapes cannot have their own shape or another as object, while on the other hand consciousness has as objects the elements and their products whether without or within the Self. As the existence of the elements and their products is concluded from the fact that they are perceived, so the conclusion must also be drawn that this perception is different from them [perception makes the material world known, not vice versa]; and the proper nature of perception is just what we call soul. Thus the independence of the soul from the body and its eternity follow from the unity of perception; and recollecting etc. is possible through the recognition in a different condition of a thing once perceived because the percipient is identical [with himself].”

c8.s1.t3.4

“Now if it be said that perception is a quality of the body because it persists as long as the body, the method of replying has already been indicated; perception continues as long “as the means e.g. the lamp, exists, and continues no longer “when it does not exist; but from this cannot be concluded “that perception is only a quality of the lamp; just in the “same way because perception continues as long as the body “exists and ceases when it ceases, it does not need to be a “quality of the body; for the body like the lamp serves only “as a means. Moreover the help of the body is not un- “conditionally necessary in perception, for while the body lies “motionless in sleep we perceive many things.—Therefore the “existence of a soul persisting beyond the body is indisputable” (p. 955--957).

4. On the Doctrine of Immortality in general

c8.s1.t4.1

If human thought were what it is not and perhaps never will be—completely logical, there would probably be only two philosophical standpoints: Idealism which holds the world which surrounds us as not real in the strict sense, and Realism which regards it as real. If these standpoints are logically adhered to, there is place in neither system, as it seems to us, for the immortality of the soul. For it is essential to Idealism to reach by one of the ways indicated by us in chap. II, 1, above p. 47 ff. the conviction of the unreality of all plurality as well as of all origination and dissolution and to grasp as the sole certainty the existence of the Self (*ego*): the logical consequence of this standpoint is the consciousness of the identity of the Ego with “Being-in-itself” and of the identification with it as soon as the dream of this existence is past—an identification which is not to be conceived so much as an absorption of the Self in the All, but rather (if we may speak spatially of the spaceless) as an absorption of the all into the Self, as a generalised realisation of what is in detail realised in every moral action. From this point of view the doctrine of immortality is superfluous; for it says us only what is self-evident. From the point of view of Realism on the other hand it is logically impossible. If nature is real, its dicta are real; and they tell us unmistakably that we arise out of nothing by procreation and at death return to nothing.—These considerations seem to show that the doctrine of immortality is a compromise between Idealism and Realism; it is an attempt to maintain from the realistic standpoint which is the natural one for the human intellect the idealistic certainty, rooted in self-consciousness, of the unchangeableness of the Self—a vain effort as the history of the doctrine of immortality sufficiently demonstrates.

c8.s1.t4.2

In the Vedânta system Idealism is represented by the esoteric view of the doctrine of identity, Realism by the exoteric doctrine of the Creation of the world. For the esoteric view the soul is identical with the Brahman and to grasp this only the right knowledge of the Self is needed, and no proof of immortality. The exoteric view makes us emerge from and return to Brahman; with this conception no doctrine of immortality can be reconciled but only the view of the Upanishads, expressed in the words (Mund. 2, 1, 1).

c8.s1.t4.3

"Just as the sparks from out the glowing flame
"In thousand forms, all glowing skywards mount,
"All creatures from the changeless one emerge,
"And thus, dear friend, return unto their fount."

c8.s1.t4.4

According to this doubtless original view the soul had an origin, and is as a necessary consequence, perishable. For what is so constituted that it can originate, is so constituted that it can perish. Τὸ μηδὲν εἰς οὐδὲν ῥέπει.—

c8.s1.t4.5

But the soul is the point in the universe where the veil (woven of time, space, and causality) that covers "Being-in-itself" becomes so transparent that we perceive facts through it, which protest against the cosmic laws of Realism and oppose themselves to a logical elaboration of it. Such a fact is above all the metaphysical significance of human action, reaching as it does beyond the grave. When a human being dies and his body is scattered to the elements, there is something in him which does not leave him; that is his works, as the Veda (Brih. 3, 2, 13) says; and this conviction of the indestructibility of the moral part of man by death compels the Vedânta to maintain inconsistently instead of the absorption into Brahman demanded by the exoteric view a persistence of the soul in its individual character beyond the Brahman into whom it enters at death.

c8.s1.t4.6

We shall return later to these questions of exoteric Psychology. The first question is not as to the empirical soul affected by Upâdhis and therefore wandering, acting and suffering, but as to the definition of the metaphysical nature of the soul free from all this; we shall however often enough have occasion to refer beforehand to this disguising of the soul by the Upâdhis.

Linked texts (3)