Such is the Charvaka doctrine which has already been refuted by all other schools of thought. It has been said to be a semblance of agama because it is opposed to all other agamas. Now it will be shown to be opposed to everyone’s experience also. Samsara being an uninterrupted series of births, deaths, etc., is full of pain. Its root cause must be found and scotched. Samsara thus ending. Supreme Bliss ensues and this is the supreme goal of man. Such is the belief of the seekers of liberation; this is supported by holy texts and logic. Such being the case, to admit direct perception as the only valid proof and to assert on its basis that death is the only goal, show the sastra to be a so-called sastra only. Therefore that agama has not been admitted by wise men of discrimination to be helpful for gaining the supreme goal of man.
The Charvaka asserting only svatmânasa to the goal of man should be asked, “what is meant by svatmânasa which you say is the goal? Is it the momentary loss or the loss of the series or the ordinary loss as understood by all?” It cannot be the first since according to you the intellect that is the Self is momentary; the goal is attained every moment and no effort is needed to attain it. The other two are impossible (consistently with your views). For, at the time of the dissolution of one’s own self (svatmânasa) there would remain nothing to say one’s own (svasya); therefore the loss of one’s own self is unattainable and this ends in no purushârtha. If you say this very unattainability is itself the purushârtha, then it may even result in the loss of another self (because there is no syasya)!
Again, about the purushârtha of the loss of one’s self (svat- mânasa) is it established on any pramâna or is it not? If you say “not,” it is non-existent like a hare’s horn. If you say it is—on what prâmana? You admit only direct perception as proof. For this the object must be present here now. The past or the future cannot be proved according to you. You who admit only direct perception as proof, to say that the intellect is an effect similar to the intoxicating power of a solution of sugar is like saying “I have no tongue.” Your sastra was not given out by any allknowing saint; it is dry and devoid of any reasoning. Having thus dealt with atheism, the Sankhya school of thought is next examined.
They are parinama vadis, i.e., they assert that the jagat was originally contained in its source in a subtle manner; therefore it was before, it is now and it will be hereafter (this is sad vada). They say that the jagat was not created by an intelligent being; its source is the unintelligent principle, prakrti, in which its three constituent qualities— satva, rajas and tamas were in equipoise. It is itself devoid of intelligence, and cannot therefore do anything intelligently; it is inert (jada). However, it does not require an extraneous agent to modify itself into the jagat unlike clay requiring a potter to change it into a pot. By itself it is modified into jagat and thus it forms the source of the jagat. This is in brief the godless Sankhya doctrine.
Further on, in prakrti’ s satva (bright aspect) it is clear like a mirror; so it can take in reflections of purusha, the intelligent principle and the reflection of the universe, the inert nature of its tâmasic aspect. Owing to this union of the reflected seer and the seen, the purusha becomes associated with aviveka (the undiscriminating quality) of prakrti; so he feels ‘I know the pot’ (i.e., any object); this forms his wrong identity and this is just his samsâra. If however, by vichara (investigation) he knows himself to be different from prakrti, prakrti abandons him at once like a thief who has been discovered; this is the end of his wrong identification and constitutes mukti. This is their belief.
According to their view the universe gets illumined by its relation to the Chit (purusha) reflected in prakrti. Regarding this reflected Chit, is it void of intelligence like its base prakrti, or is it intelligent by its own nature? In the former case, illumining the universe is impossible. If contended that even though inert it can still illumine, then the satva aspect of prakrti can serve the purpose and the reflected Chit is redundant. In the latter case there is no need for the reflected Chit, since direct relation with Chit itself will do. Nor can it be said that just as a mirror is unable by itself to illumine an object yet when sunlight is reflected on it, it illumines the object, so also the reflected Chit is needed; for, the sunlight does not require any medium as the mirror does for illumining objects. Nor can it be said that the reflected Chit partakes of the qualities of both prakrti and Chit, or is altogether different from either or from both of them. In the former case, it is impossible (like darkness and light being together) and in the latter case it is inconsistent with your doctrine (apasiddhânta). Furthermore, prakrti naturally active in the presence of purusha cannot cease to be so after the accession of discrimination (viveka jnanottaram) for one’s own nature cannot change. Therefore bondage cannot be overcome (by adopting your system).
We see that a pot, etc., are formed by a potter, etc., endowed with intelligence, for it is done according to a plan—‘I will make such a pot in this manner.’ Since intelligence is required to make a pot, the jagat cannot be the production of an unintelligent principle— prakrti. The word ‘unintelligent’ is used deliberately to indicate that an image of a potter for instance—cannot make a pot. The srutis declare, “He (God) thought: I shall create the world”; I shall manifest names and forms, etc.” The Original Being thought, and manifested the worlds with no constituent material at all, like a magician conjuring illusory objects. Hence the anumâna (inference) is perfectly valid; jagat buddhimat kartrukam kâryatvat ghatadivat iti— meaning the jagat has an intelligent maker because it is karya, as pot, etc. This means that only an intelligent being can be the creator of the jagat and not the unintelligent principle prakrti.
Still more, in order to establish the inert prakrti as the creator of the jagat the Sankhya cannot show any illustration as a valid proof.
Well, I admit the jagat has an intelligent being for its creator. Sure, a potter is necessary to make a pot; similarly the jagat must have a creator but he need not be Paramesvara, the Lord of All. A: He must be Paramesvara because of the surpassing wonder that the earth stands amidst the water and these repose in empty space, etc. To accomplish such wonders the creator must have surpassingly wonderful powers. These powers must also be immeasurable and his capacity infinite. Therefore He must be different from any common artisan. We find each special work requires a specialist to do it. For the same reason the infinite universe should have one of infinite powers for its maker. Thus far, the existence of Iswara is established.
That He is the sole Refuge of all, will now be established. Surrender to Him whole-heartedly (without any other object but that of entrusting yourself to his care). If on the other hand there be any other desire, only half of your heart is with God and the other half with your desire. So it will be only half or part surrender which is not effective. Only surrender to Him body, heart and soul will lead to eternal Bliss. Iswara grants everything to His devotee.
Q: It is alright that persons in position being pleased with others’ service, satisfy their wants to a limited extent. But Iswara being self-contained has no wants. And so He cannot be pleased with others’ services. How then do you say that He is pleased and fulfils all the wants of devotees?
A: Because of His love of others’ devotion, that is to say, others’ devotion results in the reaction of God’s love for them and the automatic fulfilment of all their desires. Moreover there is no certainty with worldly men in power whereas it is certain with God. Therefore the devotee is sure of his goal. Q: How is this assumption of certainty warranted? A: Otherwise God will be open to censure. Uncertainty in God’s reaction or response means uncertainty in the results of everyday transactions of ours and untimely end of the samsâra projected by Him. You who desire the Supreme Goal need not engage in it nor seek it. But surrender yourself completely to God and He will establish you in the Supreme State.
Differences of opinion regarding the means of liberation and consequent doubts as to the means are thus resolved. Q: Which is God? Some say Siva, others Vishnu, or Indra or Gane
sa etc. Who is supreme among them? A: No name and form attach to Him. He is none of them singly or He is all of them. He is not personal. He is pure Chit only.
Q: But creation, preservation and dissolution are functions requiring the use of limbs and material? A: It is so with workers of limited powers and objectives. This holds good for gross bodies; but in dreams the gross bodies do not act and there are no means nor objectives, yet worlds are created, transactions go on, battles are fought, and empires won and lost; it is Chit that causes it all. If there had been material before creation with which to create the jagat, such material should be eternal and exempt from being created. Then Iswara must be accepted to be the creator of a part of the jagat; this contradicts His being the all-creator. Also being only the effective cause and not the material cause of the jagat, He can no more be Iswara (than a magnified artisan). Kshemarâjâcharya says: “Those who admit Iswara to be the effective cause only place Him on a par with a profligate enmeshed in the lures of a wanton woman other than his wife.” Those who imagine a starting-point for the creation (the ârambha vadis) assert that Iswara is only the effective cause and the effect (jagat) cannot come into being afresh. Before creation, paramânus (fundamental, indivisible, subtle particles) were present. By Iswara’s will they united with each other and creation took place.
But this cannot be. It is seen that only a sentient being responds to the wishes of another, but not an inert object. The paramânus being insentient cannot react to Iswara’s will. Objection: Such is the wonderful power of Iswara as to make even the inert paramânus obedient to His will. A: True, that Iswara’s powers are immeasurable and infinite. It is because of His extraordinary powers that He creates the jagat even in total absence of material for it. If in spite of this, paramânus be said to be the material cause it is thanks to duality-minded obstinacy! Hereby is refuted the theistic (Sânkhya) school, i.e., Patanjala or Yoga School.
There is not the least incongruity in our system based solely on the agamas declaring the all-powerful Supreme Being fully capable of conducting the totality of actions, transactions, etc. Objection: In order to explain the different grades of beings, etc., and also obviate the charges of partiality and cruelty to Iswara, every school of thought admits karma to be the cause of differences. This admission by you vitiates your position, for, there is karma needed for creation in addition to Iswara. So He is not allpowerful. A: True, that this contention remains insuperable to the dualists. As for the non-dualists the jagat is contained in Chit like images in a mirror; so also karma; it is not external to the infinite Supreme Intelligence (Parameswara) and there is not the slightest discrepancy in our contention. Objection: Even then, it is seen that a pot is made by a potter; he is the maker of the pot; and therefore Iswara is not the all-creator. A: The potter is not external to Iswara. Again just as the king remains the sole administrator, even though his servants act on the spot, so also Iswara acts through His agents. Conclusion: The Supreme Being is only One Solid Intelligence, nameless, formless, bodiless, infinite, non-dual, and Blissful. This being incomprehensible to impure minds is apprehended in various forms according to the capacities of individuals. Nevertheless devotion to any form or name of God purifies the mind so that the individual is ultimately resolved into the Supreme Being.
to Chapter IX
Nature of Pure Knowledge
Even after much effort the Self remains unrealized because the sâdhak is not acquainted with it and so does not recognise it even in Its presence. Now listen, the mind when checked remains inert for some time. At the end of it darkness is perceived. Before darkness supervenes there is an interval of pure knowledge which is quite unaware of the body or environment; only this pure Knowledge shines along with objects when the mind is active; when the mind is checked it shines of Itself. This state of pure Knowledge is called the residual state (sesha bhâva). This can by no means be eliminated because being self-resplendent, it shines of Itself, as is experienced by one just risen from sleep who says “For long I remained unaware of anything.” This residual state is the one of pure Knowledge void of objects. Always contemplate ‘I am.’ That is the state of Bliss beyond the ken of great pandits, yogis or even sâdhakas of a sort.
Though the jagat is variegated the whole of it can be classified under the two heads, Knowledge and the knowable. Of these the knowable is established by direct perception, inference, etc. and it is always the non-self. Being non-self, it is not worthwhile investigating; therefore knowledge alone will be examined here. Being self-evident, it requires no external evidence. In its absence nothing else can exist. Being the background of all, like a mirror of the images reflected in it, nothing can shine without it; so it cannot in any way be obviated. Objection: Unreasonable to say that nothing else can exist without it, because the proven is proved by proofs. A: If the proof be valid the proven is established by it. The validity of the proof is known by the proven. To say so is absurd, being interdependent. But without the knower the proof does not gain authority, i.e., the knowable cannot be said to be. A proof only proves a fact but is not the fact. If you object saying that the knower1 also can be known only by a proof, I reply there must be equally a knower to deny the knower as to know him. Therefore, we say that the knower is self-proven and does not require extraneous proof to establish its Being. Being conscious, being always self-shining it requires no proof like the selfshining sun requiring no candle light to illumine it. Were one to deny pure Knowledge itself—the knowable is dependent on knowledge and it cannot be in the absence of knowledge; therefore he cannot raise the question nor expect an answer, i.e., to say, he is out of consideration.
Pure knowledge means the state of awareness free from objective knowledge; it is knowledge remaining unmoded. This state forms the interval between deep sleep and waking state; it must be distinguished from the other two. Deep sleep means the dormant state of mind; waking consists of a series of broken knowledge; in it objects are perceived by the senses external to the mind whereas in dream the mind is at one with the senses and its latencies are objectified and perceived within itself like particles of dust in water. In deep sleep supervening after dream the mind together with the senses merges into its source—prakriti; then the tamasic or dull aspect of prakrti remains predominant on overwhelming the satvic and râjasic aspects. In this state the Self shines only very indistinct like the sun behind very heavy clouds. In the interval between deep sleep and waking the mind continues to be inward turned and cannot reflect objects external to it; at the same time the tamas of prakrti has lost its solidity and does not hide the Self. In this manner the Self that is Chit shines unobjectified, i.e., as unbroken knowledge.
In the same manner with the intervals of broken knowledge: the background namely pure knowledge remains unbroken in the interval of Knowledge of a pot, does not itself continue to subsist as that of a piece of cloth; the difference between the two is obvious. In the interval between the two kinds of knowledge, pure Knowledge persists devoid of the two forms: this cannot be denied. This is samvit (Knowledge) shining in its own merit.
Samvit is the seer or the ego. Just as the water in a tank passes through an outlet into a channel to irrigate a field and mixes with the water already in the field, so also at the instant of perception, the samvit of the seer passes through the senses to unite with the samvit of the object. In this case Chit remains as the body, mind, etc., of the seer; in the sky it remains as the sun; in the intervening space covered by it samvit is formless and this is its real state. All this indicates these intervals to be the seats of realization of the Self. The Self is no more than this. Pure Chit devoid of objective knowledge is the true Self. If this is realized as the Self the universe will appear to be just an image reflected in the mirror of Chit and so results the state of fearlessness, for to see a tiger reflected in a mirror does not cause fright.
to Chapter XI
Some say that the jagat is the product of invisible fundamental particles. Though remaining different from its source, it vani
shes altogether in the end. That the unitary, primary particles give rise to the binary particles is interred from the partibility of the latter. According to them the process of creation is as follows: The mature adrshta (results of previous karma persisting in a subtle form) of the individuals together with the will of Iswara causes the inert primary particles to be active; then binary, tertiary, etc., particles are successively formed resulting in the objects of the universe. The products are totally different from the original cause. At the time of dissolution the universe vanishes like the horns of a hare (i.e., ceases to be).
Its refutation: It is not proper to say that a pot is non-existent before creation; it is existent sometime; later it becomes nonexistent at dissolution because of the contrary existence and non-existence of the same thing. The Opponent: Not so. Though there is a contradiction in terms of being and non-being of the same thing, there is no contradiction in terms of relationship (samyoga) (e.g., a monkey is on the tree or a monkey is not on the tree). A: No. “Being” pervades the object in entirety whereas in relationship there is no such pervasiveness. This is certainly opposed to non-being. The same object cannot be yellow and not yellow at the same time. Opponent: The nature of an object must be determined only from experience. Pervasiveness is found applicable to the inseparable union of the material cause of the object in space but it is not applicable to the existence or the non-existence of the object in time; e.g., a pot is or is not. A: The same object cannot be both shining and non-shining at the same time. On the other hand, (if you are thinking) of the contrary experiences at the same time such as a blue tamas is moving, it is so because the same object by its satvic nature reflects light and by its tamasic nature remains dark, thus making it appear that light and darkness co-exist. This is not on all fours with my statement that the same object cannot both be yellow and not yellow at the same time. Therefore it is obvious that being and non-being certainly contradict each other both in time and space. Opponent: How can this rule apply to ascertain darkness to be, by seeing it with the light of the eye? It cannot. A: You are not right. To explain the facts of experience, different methods are adopted because the same rule may not apply in all cases.
Tripura Rahasya Page 22