Indian Philosophy v2.c24.s13: XXIII Some Critical Considerations on the Nyāya Theory of the Soul and Its Relation to Consciousness
Indian Philosophy v2.c24.s13
- Language
- English
XXIII Some Critical Considerations on the Nyāya Theory of the Soul and Its Relation to Consciousness
v2.c24.s13.2
The Naiyāyika is not clear about the status of consciousness in his theory. He regards the soul by itself as unconscious, and argues that consciousness is produced by the reaction of the self to organic nature. He assumes the reality of a soul substance to account for the unity of our consciousness. Our consciousness is not the same for two moments, and there are periods when it often lapses altogether. Yet there seems to be an identity which makes us remember things and say that we are the same in childhood and old age. To explain this phenomenon, the Naiyāyika assumes an eternal self-substance, which remains the same, though conscious states supervene one upon another. But can the soul be unconscious and yet be able to recognise? If in sleep and such other states there is a complete breach of our conscious life, and if the soul were an unconscious substance, how can the phenomenon of recognition be accounted for? If the self assumed by the Naiyāyika were not an eternal consciousness witnessing the series of mental states, it cannot recognise or remember. As Śaṁkara says: "Even for him who maintains that consciousness fails in those states, it is not possible to speak of a failure not witnessed by consciousness."¹ The self must be an uninterrupted consciousness which never takes a holiday. The Naiyāyika is right in holding that, if consciousness means a succession of states of consciousness of something observed either by itself or from outside, then it is not the fundamental reality, the subject which is eternal and self-sufficient. But this latter principle need not be beyond consciousness. An unconscious soul registering the traces left by conscious states, is on the same level with the brain retaining the impressions of conscious occurrences. If the self is not to be viewed as a constant consciousness, then we need not assume it at all. The brain cells of the organism may serve as the basis of memory and recognition. But the Naiyāyika is not satisfied with such a solution, and therefore he has to admit a conscious subject or self. This seems to be the implication of his view of the self as an immaterial substance. It is said to be spiritual, and it is necessary to admit that it is conscious, though not in the empirical sense. The Naiyāyika is anxious that the eternal self should not be identified with fleeting cognitions. The spiritual reality of the self is not to be confused with the transitory mental states. The self is not always qualified by these passing mental phenomena. But if it is to serve the purpose for which it is assumed, then it must be of the nature of consciousness. The Sāmkhya view is, on this point, a step in advance of the Nyāya.
v2.c24.s13.3
¹ S.B., ii. 3. 18.
v2.c24.s13.4
Unless we assume the reality of self as consciousness, the explanation of consciousness becomes difficult. We cannot make consciousness a *tertium quid*, a sort of mechanical glow which arises when two unconscious substances, soul and matter, interact. If the soul by itself is not conscious, and if consciousness is induced in it by the action of the outer world on it, there is nothing to distinguish the Nyāya theory from materialism, say as it may that consciousness is not a mere by-product of the brain. Consciousness is furthest removed from materiality, and we cannot find any mechanical equivalent to it. It is inconceivable how material and non-material entities interact. When we pass from a material event to a psychical state, we step from one world into another incommensurable one. It is no explanation to say that conscious states are epiphenomena produced by the interaction of two unconscious substances, soul and manas. The soul is infinite and partless (niravayava), the manas is atomic and partless, and how can we conceive the interaction between the two?¹ If consciousness is something originated in the infinitely extended self, is the substrate of this consciousness the self in its whole extent, or a part particularised by the body? The former is not admissible, since then all things should present themselves to consciousness all at once. The latter is not admissible, since the self has no parts. It is no use taking shelter under the determining character of merit and demerit, for these can have little to do with the apprehension of the sea or the sky or the rivers or the mountains. Śaṅkara urges several objections. Since every soul is omnipresent, the manas connected with one soul must be connected with all souls, with the result that all souls should have the same experiences. Since all souls are all-pervading, they must be in all bodies as well. Many all-pervading souls must be regarded as occupying the same space.² If consciousness is traced to the action of the self on manas, which is material in nature, then the soul must be looked upon as sharing the character of consciousness, for two material bodies, when they come into contact with each other, can only produce a material phenomenon. If we wish to escape from the charge of materialism, which makes intelligence the unpurposed effect of a blind dance of atoms or electrons, we have to assume the independence of consciousness. The soul must be regarded as a spirit unceasingly active, though we may not be aware of its activity. Forgetfulness and falsehood require explanation, and not memory and knowledge.
v2.c24.s13.5
¹ S.B., ii. 2. 17. In the state of pralaya, or destruction, the souls are not supposed to be in contact with atoms. How do they retain the traces of their past? Does the manas retain them, and is the manas with the soul in the pralaya as well?
v2.c24.s13.6
² S.B., ii. 3. 50-53.
v2.c24.s13.7
If we distinguish soul and body, we have to rely upon the conception of adṛṣṭa or Descartes’s deus ex machina to account for their interaction. According to the Nyāya, cognitions arise when there is a contact of the soul with manas. Manas is, on the one side, joined to the sense-organs, and, on the other, to the soul. How it is able to do this is a mystery which the Naiyāyika solves by appealing to the power of God.
v2.c24.s13.8
The Nyāya regards soul and body as not only distinct but as co-ordinately real. It adopts the theory of a separable soul inhabiting a body which is to be defined in terms of matter. In the human organism, soul and body cannot be regarded as of equal rank. Nor are they exclusive. The soul is not something added from outside to the machine of the body. The Naiyāyika believes in a more organic connection between the spiritual and the physical aspects of human nature.¹ According to the theory advocated by the Nyāya and the Vaiśeṣika, matter is the vehicle and instrument for the expression of ideal purposes. There is more of meaning and value in spirit than in matter, and therefore more of reality. The distinction between soul and body has to be viewed as one of higher and lower levels of experience.
v2.c24.s13.9
¹ N.B., iii. 2. 60.
v2.c24.s13.10
The Naiyāyika is aware that consciousness is the basis and prius of all experience. It is not a fact among facts, like the sun or the earth, but the necessary ground of reference of all facts. Buddhi, instead of being a mere quality induced in the self by the action of the outer objects, is the necessary basis of all experience. Annam Bhaṭṭa defines it as the “ condition of all experience ” (sarvavyavāharahetuḥ).¹ Śivāditya defines buddhi as “ the illuminating principle belonging to the soul,” ² which the commentator Jinavardhana explains more clearly as “ of the nature of light, since it dispels the darkness of ignorance and illuminates all objects.” 3 What is prior to all experience cannot be derived from experience. While the particular ideas and beliefs may be consequent upon environmental conditions, the latter by themselves cannot account for them apart from the basis of consciousness. Buddhi as defined by the Nyāya belongs to the subject side.⁴ It is not a temporary phase, but the essential nature of the subject which can never become the object, the universal consciousness, apart from which neither finite individuals nor objects are possible.
v2.c24.s13.11
¹ Tarkasaṁgraha, p. 34. Govardhana, in his Nyāyabodhini, regards vyavahāra as equivalent to śabdaprayoga, or whatever can be expressed through words, though this view is too narrow.
v2.c24.s13.12
² Ātmāśrayaḥ prakāśaḥ. Cp. Annam Bhaṭṭa’s definition of Ātman as jñānādhikaraṇam (Tarkasaṁgraha, p. 17).
v2.c24.s13.13
⁴ N.V., iii. 2. 19
v2.c24.s13.14
If consciousness is the basis of all experience, the foundational reality within which the finite selves and the objects of which they are conscious fall, it is more than finite. The individual subject and the object are fragmentary phases of the infinite, which are ever changing. The self which the Nyāya assumes to account for the synthesis of the manifold experiences of life, is of the nature of consciousness which makes possible all experience. We cannot call it a substance, since that would be to apply to it conceptions valid only in the world of experience, seeing that it is in virtue of the presence of this constant consciousness that a world of experience is possible. If we include within this experience that which is superior to it and at the same time constitutes it, the self becomes a thinking substance with other things outside it.
v2.c24.s13.15
A distinction will have to be made between the self as pure consciousness, common to all individuals, and the finite selves which have a historical existence. The self of the Naiyāyika is something which grows, is plastic and has a history. The arguments that what has a beginning will have an end, what is put together is liable to dissolution and decay, and that the simple can in no manner be dissolved or destroyed, prove the eternal character of the pure self, and not that of the historical souls. The latter have ends and ideals which determine their reactions to the conditions of life. The susceptibility of the finite individual to particular emotions and the obstacles which impede its activity are due to historical circumstances. The kind of permanence which the growing individuals possess is not to be confused with the constancy of the pure self. The relatively fixed character of the nature of the finite selves is derived from external factors. The self-enclosed historical selves are infinite in number. A sure philosophic instinct guides the Naiyāyika when he regards the limits of individual and physical particularity as accidents of the self, which it will be freed from when it is delivered from the curse of mortality. The defining character of the self must persist, whether it is in a state of freedom or bondage. Since the nature of the self transcends our knowledge, we feel that what remains after eliminating the intellectual, emotional and volitional impulses, is a mere blank. The Naiyāyika is, however, convinced that the basis of the accidental properties is something real. It is the relation to the object that hides the truth of the self. The self in us is clouded by the passive element of matter. The Naiyāyika is right in his view that the spirit is immortal, though he is wrong in confusing it with the jīvātman, which has no recollection of the former life, any more than of the uninterrupted presence of consciousness. While the ātman in us is the universal spirit, the identical self, yet the faculty which receives impressions is, because of its receptivity, something dependent, passive, perishable, partaking more of the nature of matter. The ātman or the self in us which is regarded as immaterial cannot admit of any suspension of its activity. It is not subject to enfeeblement or corruption, while the manas, like the body which houses it and the associated organs, is of a different character. The facts experienced by each soul are different, since the souls are attached to different organs of thought. If the soul is freed from its association with manas, then all objects would reach consciousness simultaneously, and the contents of all souls which are omnipresent would be the same. This universal content is grasped by each finite soul from one peculiar point of view determined by the spatio-temporal order in which each soul is placed. The view which Viśvanātha assigns to the Vedāntin, that the self is knowledge, while all objects are but special forms of it determined by historical circumstances, is unavoidable.¹
v2.c24.s13.16
³ Ajñānāndhakāra - tiraskārakāraka - sakalapadārthasyārthaprakāśakaḥ pradīpa iva dedīpyamāno yaḥ prakāśaḥ sā buddhiḥ.
v2.c24.s13.17
¹ Nan vastu vijñānam eva ātmā tasya svataḥ prakāśarūpatvāc cetanatvam. Jñānasukhādikaṃ tu tasyaivākāraviśeṣaḥ. Tasyāpi bhāvatvād eva kṣaṇikatvam pūrvapūrvavijñānasyottaravijñāne hetutvāt (Siddhāntamuktāvali, 49). The self is knowledge indeed. Its character as knowledge is proved by its self-manifestation. Knowledge of this or that object, happiness, etc., are special forms of it. Being simply objects, they are transitory, the preceding mental states causing the succeeding ones.
v2.c24.s13.18
That the exclusiveness of the jīvātman is not its essential property comes out from the fact of knowledge itself. If each soul is a distinct spiritual unit with a peculiar manas, we cannot be sure that the worlds which they perceive are all one. If each unit makes a world for itself, a radical pluralism, where there are as many worlds as there are units, would result. The Nyāya is anxious to escape from subjectivism, and believes that we all know a common world. In other words, we are able to transcend the limits of the here and the now, rise above the contingent, the particular and the fragmentary, to the necessary, the universal and the infinite. All knowledge has an element of the necessary, something that must be. The knowing self cannot be finite. The relation of the finite subject to the world is not static. The finite consciousness is never complete, and is therefore ever at unrest with itself. The characteristic of finite thought is to be continuously self-transforming. Human thinking is dialectical in its procedure, always attempting to negate the relatively static character of what is external to it. All that seems external to consciousness is not really so. That we are discontented with what we are, is a claim to what we ought to be. To try to get beyond the merely empirical order of things and events is to aim at a more fundamental reality, which is nothing else than the supreme consciousness which regards nothing as alien to itself. The Naiyāyika distinguishes the pure self from the historical individuality dependent on the ideals and beliefs which give, so to say, a sort of concretion to the pure self. If we are able to distinguish at any moment the nature of the finite self, it is through its organic character and ideals, determined by its past history and environmental conditions. But these individualising conditions of the ideals, the organism and the environment, are admitted by the Naiyāyika to be different from the true self, though resting on it. The Naiyāyika has logically to admit that the doctrine of the plurality of selves is based on the accidental properties of the self, and it will have to be given up when the essential nature of the self is emphasised. The historical point of view which is not ultimate yields a pluralistic conception of the universe; the metaphysical point of view which is ultimate transcends pluralism. The Nyāya argument, that the supreme self cannot be one, since on that view there will be a confusion of the different experiences of pleasure—pain, cannot be pressed, since the distinction of historical selves is not denied. The many minds determine the different souls, which in their turn are said to mould into shape the universe by their deeds. While the individual souls are not in touch with all aspects of the universe, Śrīdhara admits that there must be at least one soul which has the whole universe for its sphere of experience. This soul has not any general relation to all things, but has intimate relation with and control over all.¹ In essence all souls are one. The empirical differences which we notice among the souls are determined by the intimate and special relations into which the souls, which are in general touch with all things, enter.
v2.c24.s13.19
¹ Nyāyakandalī, p. 88.
v2.c24.s13.20
To assume the fundamental reality of the universal consciousness or self is not to support the doctrine of subjectivism. To base the distinction of subject and object on the reality of the universal self is not to deny that the earth and the planets spun on their axes and waltzed round the sun æons before there was a living plant to respond to the light of the sun or a sentient eye to translate solar energy into light.
v2.c24.s13.21
The Nyāya cannot account for experience so long as it regards consciousness as a mere property of the soul. Self, as universal consciousness, is to be admitted, if experience is to be rendered intelligible. The Nyāya is right when it says that environmental conditions lead to the development of certain ideas and beliefs, and the development constitutes the historicity of human nature. This human nature, however, is not the subject of all consciousness, but is a development within consciousness determined through an objective medium. The distinctness of the souls is due to the earthly life in which they partake. The finite beings, though rooted in matter, strive to flower in spirit. The perfected souls live within the spirit's fire when the smoke of their bodies passes away. Nor have we on this view the danger that the freed soul is empty-handed. The distinction of one and many has no meaning, so far as the freed condition of the souls is conceived. It is to some such view that we are led, if we try to carry out the central teaching of the Nyāya philosophy and rid it of its inconsistencies, though the Nyāya thinkers themselves were not clearly aware of it.
Cites (1)
- Tarkasaṅgraha — Annaṃbhaṭṭa 1550, Sanskrit