Gian Giuseppe Filippi
Evidence and its understanding
One of the most difficult points to overcome for the initiate engaged in the practice of an operative method typical of karma kāṇḍa concerns the clear understanding of the purely cognitive method pursued by the jijñāsu. Accustomed to the methodical use based on the repetition of a mantra, concentration of the mind on a symbol and meditation to be applied at certain times of the day following the Guru’s injunctions, the method that prescinds from repetition and spatio-temporal contingencies appears somewhat obscure.
One could easily be inclined to believe that jñāna prakriyā, not availing itself of rituals, is reduced to mere speculation (vitarka), to mere theory (bhāvanā), to a complacent play of intellect and reason (mānasa rasāsvāda) without any true and positive ‘realisation’ (sākṣātkāra). This misunderstanding is due to a false conception about the meaning to be attributed to realization. In this case, it is thought that realization consists of the conquest of a goal that is not yet possessed, of an object of knowledge hitherto unknown, of a higher state from which one was excluded, of an extraordinary power that is acquired in addition to one’s natural abilities. Well, this way of seeing, typical of karma kāṇḍa, is nothing but a sādhanā that pursues, on a subtler level, the mamakāra, the desire to appropriate what ‘is not mine’. Even the aham of the ignorant man perceives his own limitation, inadequacy, misery, and intends to compensate for this deficiency by conquering more and more mama from what he calls the ‘external world’ (bahiḥ prapañca): children, wealth, social position, fame, etc. The ignorant sādhaka seeks to compensate for the same deficiency by conquering more and more mama from what he calls the ‘internal world’ (āntara prapañca); power over the prāṇas, control of the senses and mind, siddhis, etc. To conquer what he considers ‘realization’, he uses action (karma), because everything that is other than ‘me’ is distant and must be reached, must be obtained, must be united with ‘me’. This means that one is limited to the domain of action. However, with action, one does not exit the domain of action. Thus, the more acute sādhaka realizes that only knowledge frees from the domain of action. He will therefore follow a path proposed by karma yoga not to conquer something other than himself, but to purify the mind (śuddhadhī) so as, finally, to pursue knowledge (jñāna). And here ‘realization’ (sākṣātkāra) takes on its true meaning: to realize means to recognize the Real beyond false appearances, it means to recognize one’s true nature as Ātman by rejecting the illusions of everything that erroneously appears as anātman, it means to become Conscious (Cit) that Existence (Sat) and absolute Fullness (Ānanda) are eternally in one’s own possession (sampatti). True knowledge, for Vedānta, is never knowledge of something else, but is Self-Consciousness. The knowledge of something other than Self is fallacious and falls within the domain of ignorance (avidyā, adhyāsa) and action (karma).
The knowledge of something other than the Self is therefore a cognitive action of the mind, a path of investigation through which the distance between the initial absence of information and the subsequent achievement of learning about the object to be known is progressively covered. This occurs in various stages corresponding to the progressive acquisition of notions regarding the details of the object under investigation. Such knowledge, therefore, is the conquest of something other than the Self, of something that was not previously possessed and that, even earlier, was unknown to exist. The mind that engages in this study reaches the fruit (karma phala) of a mental action (mānasa kriyā).
Not so with the Knowledge of the Self, which is always experienced through a mental support, but which does not constitute the fruit of a mental action that was previously not possessed: the mind, through Vedāntic inquiry, does not create new thoughts but corrects the error. The simple liberation from error removes ignorance (avidyā or adhyāsa) and brings forth Knowledge.
But let us further clarify this argument, which is the very heart of Advaita. The human being has only one absolute certainty: beyond any doubt, he knows he exists and is conscious. He is fully aware of existing and knows he exists consciously. Existence and Consciousness appear to him as a whole. This knowledge is natural, spontaneous, and immediate and is universally shared by all conscious beings (sarvaloka prasiddhānubhava). Vedānta calls this awareness Ātma pratyaya, an unwavering certainty of being the Self due to direct knowledge. Let us repeat: this is the only absolute certainty because it is knowledge of the Self (Ātma jñāna or Ātma vidyā), which excludes the duality of subject-object. Indeed, any other knowledge is knowledge of something other than the Self (anātma pramā). In this latter case, knowledge is not immediate; it is a cognitive process, an investigative action performed by a subject to approximate the knowledge of an object: it fully falls within the domain of action (karma kāṇḍa) and for this reason, this cognitive investigation is not expressed by the term jñāna or vidyā, but by jñapti, which more properly expresses a ‘verification’, a ‘learning’, that is, an intellectual exercise (bauddha vyāpāra) to inform oneself about something. Another way to convey the idea of a cognitive action is pramā, that is, the use of instruments of sure knowledge (pramāṇa). The most used pramāṇas by Advaita are: pratyakṣa, the investigation of the world through the five senses (indriyas); anumāna, inference or deduction; śābda, the word, that is, the Upaniṣads heard from the mouth of the Guru. To these three are also added upamāna, comparison by similarity or contrast (anvaya-vyatireka); arthāpatti, supposition or hypothesis; and anupalabdhi, the ascertainment of the absence of an object. It should be noted that the first pramāṇa, pratyakṣa, is the foundation of all the others, which are therefore dependent on it. Indeed, one deduces only by considering perceived objects; one learns śābda through hearing or reading a śruti; one compares what has been investigated with the senses or which, in addition, has been inferred with logic. Ultimately, any knowledge reached with the pramāṇas is dependent in primis on the mediation of the senses and, only secondarily, on the mind. For this reason, the knowledge produced by pramā (or by jñapti, as one might say) is mediated and indirect and is not true Knowledge, it is not knowledge of Reality.
Instead, the certainty of existing and being unique (ekātma pratyaya sāra) is immediate knowledge that cannot be proven through the five senses nor through any reasoning. It is an experience free from thought. When one thinks of oneself, then one says “I am such and such” (aham amukaḥ asmi). But this is a thought, a thought elaborated by the individual mind based on a sensory investigation of one’s bodily characteristics (daihika lakṣaṇa): “I am tall, thin, old, young, man, woman, robust, hairy, hairless, etc.”; and based on a reflection of one’s mental (mānasa lakṣaṇa) and intellectual (bauddha lakṣaṇa) characteristics: “I am generous, courageous, shy, intelligent, cultured”. All these are thoughts that overlap the Self in an attempt to qualify it, to objectify it. But the Self, even when interpreted in this way, remains free from any characteristic (alakṣaṇa), devoid of any form (arūpin), different from any thought (acintya), unqualified (nirguṇa) and undifferentiated (nirviśeṣa). The Self is by its nature evident (prakāśita svarūpa) and cannot be the object of pramā.
If the evidence is under everyone’s nose, why do so few recognize their true nature? The answer is that the evidence must also be understood. Those who do not understand it have it in front of them, look at it, but do not see it. Those who do not understand the evidence think they are an individual (pratyagātman), describable as ‘such and such’, who lives in the world (prapañca) that existed before their birth and that will continue even after their death. Instead, it is not so: who is and is conscious is always and only the non-individual Ātman. The non-individual is different from the individual, but it is not other than the individual, because there is no ‘other’ besides it. If our existence-consciousness were ‘other’ than the individual ego, it could not be evident here-now. The formless is different from the form, but it is not other than the form, because there is no ‘other’ besides it; it is not characterized by the form, but it is not other than the form. It includes individuality, includes form, includes limitation, but it is not qualified by individuality, by form, by limitation. The fact that it includes individuality, form and limitation, time and space, makes it all-encompassing (vyāpta), formless (nirākāra), unlimited (aparimita), eternal (nitya) and infinite (ananta). He who sees the individual form (jīva), who sees the form of the universe (jagat) is different from the form, but is inclusive of the form. The subject is inclusive of the object, while not being qualified by the object. The rope is the origin of the image of the snake, but it is not qualified by the snake.
However, one must pay attention to this further and subtle reflection: the rope is the origin of the snake, because without the rope one could not make the mistake of the snake. The rope, therefore, is the reality and reality as such includes the error of the snake. Those who directly see the rope at first glance, see the reality, the fact (vastu) as it is: but this happens only to exceptionally qualified seekers (uttamādhikari vicārin). Instead, for those who mistakenly see the snake, the snake is a clue to the reality of the rope, a first trace to follow to bring out the reality of the rope. Regardless of the classic Vedāntic example of the rope and the snake and coming to the doctrine, that jīva ‘so and so’ and that universe that appears before him, are nothing but false appearances of Brahman–Ātman. The Absolute, therefore, is the real substrate on which erroneous knowledge, the jīva and the jagat are superimposed. If there were no rope, no one could see the snake; without a real substrate, no one could project an unreal imagination onto it1. Just as the snake is mistakenly imagined in place of the reality of the rope, so the world and the ego are mistakenly imagined in place of the non-dual Reality of Brahman–Ātman. It is appropriate to emphasize that it is a non-dual Reality because the same śruti could be understood as if the Reality of the jagat were the Brahman and that of the jīva were the Ātman. Instead, Brahman-Ātman is the non-dual Absolute, just as its mistaken appearance jīva-jagat is a single error. Therefore, the Absolute is the origin of the error, includes the error, without being qualified by the error, because the Real is the True. Reality and Truth in Sanskrit are rendered by a single word: Satya.
Based on the above, should one perhaps conclude that the error is the clue from which to start to reach the knowledge of Satya? No, it is not so; and this question reveals obvious contradictions and mistakes. If the error were the clue from which to proceed to the knowledge of Reality, the error would qualify it. Moreover, Reality cannot be the object of either knowledge or attainment. And again, by asserting this, one would give reality to the error, to false knowledge and to ignorance, something expressly denied by Śaṃkara Bhagavatpāda in his Adhyāsa Bhāṣya.
But then, the error (bhrānti), the false knowledge (mithyā jñāna), the non-knowledge (jñāna abhāva) and the doubt (saṃśaya) or, in simple words, the ignorance (avidyā or adhyāsa), what are they indicative of? They are indicative of illusion, non-reality, misunderstanding, the thought that confuses Ātman and anātman. When one mistakes a rope for a snake, there are two behaviours one can follow. The ordinary man sees the rope, thinks it is a snake, does not question this error of interpretation, considers it real, and runs away. The person qualified for cognitive investigation (adhikārin), on the other hand, tests what he thinks and verifies with the use of pramāṇas if it really is a snake. He approaches, increases the light to see better, and begins to evaluate if the shape, characteristics, and behaviour of that object correspond to those of a snake. Does it have a body covered in scales? Does it have a head and a tail? Does it move? He observes, therefore, if the typical details of a snake are found in that object. Using the details of a snake, he removes the initial belief that it is a snake. It is not a snake. And here, without further investigation, the evidence of the rope emerges. Between the discovery that the snake was not there and the evidence of the rope, there is no gap, interval, or temporal succession. The discovery that it is not a snake is simultaneous with the evidence of reality. Some late-period advaitins have argued that once it is verified that it is not a snake, one should begin an investigation to discover if it is a rope. But this is not the Advaita of Śaṃkara, it is the path of fools (amanas mārga). If in a dark room there are many invisible objects because they are covered by darkness, once a light is turned on and the darkness disappears, the objects appear by themselves. There is no further investigation to be done to see the objects.
Let us return to consider the example of the investigation that the person of sharp intellect and purified mind undertakes to verify if what appears as a snake is really a snake. He progressively tries to identify in the examined object the characteristics of the snake: if he does not find a certain characteristic, he excludes its presence from that object. After some attempts to identify other characteristics, it will become evident that that object is not a snake, but a rope. This example effectively illustrates the proceeding of the advitīya method of “neti neti”: the error is demolished by noting the absence of the typical characteristics of snakes; that is, the characteristics of snakes are used to demonstrate the falsity of the snake taken in place of the rope. This is the general method known as ādhyaropa-apavāda prakriyā2. Ādhyaropa, the first phase, consists in accepting as an evident fact what appears to the senses spontaneously and instinctively in the condition in which one is born and lives, and which the mind considers to be reality. The ordinary man adheres to this thought on the impulse of inclinations (saṅkalpa) and past actions due to previous existences, latent in his current human nature (svabhāva), neglecting the primordial intuition “I exist and am conscious”, which everyone experiences. In this way, he assumes that adventitious personality (upādhi) of being ‘so and so’, mentally constructed by imagination due to ignorance (avidyā kalpanā). The Vedāntic seeker (vedānti vicārin), on the other hand, does not forget his true Nature (Svarūpa), but temporarily sets aside this certainty in order to investigate and correct the error produced by svabhāva. He deliberately assumes the error in order to remove it: this deliberate choice is defined as śāstra kalpanā, imagination suggested by scripture and directly explained by the Guru for teaching purposes. Indeed, the Absolute cannot be the object of any teaching; only the error can be. The śāstra kalpanā does not differ in any way from the avidyā kalpanā of the ignorant, except for one important detail: such teaching is assumed solely to be demonstrated false. In the subsequent phase of apavāda, indeed, the ādhyaropa is methodically demolished by the use of “neti neti”, “not this, not this”. This is the practice of Vedāntic discrimination (vedānti viveka prakriyā) that nullifies the mutual superimposition between Ātman and anātman, between real and non-real. It is exactly that process of investigation (vicāra) previously illustrated by the example of how to nullify the illusory image of the snake by refuting one by one its various characteristics. By doing so, the self-luminous (svaprākaśa) reality of the rope underlying the erroneous thought becomes fully evident. It is the same śāstra, the śruti, that demonstrates the falsity of the śāstra kalpanā. The investigation, therefore, concludes in the Ātma pratyaya. But this time, at the conclusion of the Vedānta vicāra, it is no longer just about the evidence: there is also the understanding of the evidence. Indeed, one thing is the evidence that is before everyone’s eyes, and another thing is its understanding, its realization. This is the Reality-Truth (Satya), this is the Brahmātman, this is mokṣa, this is nirviśeṣam, that is your own existence, that is what is to be understood. It is not at all a state to be obtained, a degree to be reached, a power to be acquired, a ‘principle’ to be identified with, a mystery to be discovered; it is not something to be upāsyam, i.e. object of any upāsanā, it is not something to be meditated upon, it is not something to be worshipped, it is not something to be imagined. It is something to be understood. Mokṣa is Liberation from ignorance, it is recognizing one’s true nature as the Absolute, eternally real and from which one has never been separated. For this reason, any action performed with the body, with speech, and with the mind is entirely ineffective for understanding: the only way is that of knowledge. The problem is to understand, not to do. One who knows can instruct the disciple to act by operating with yantra, mantra, and tantra. But no one can instruct another to understand. It is the one who does not understand who believes that Advaita Vedānta is mere theory, speculation, philosophy. Understanding is solely the responsibility of the seeker. The Guru can teach that “You are That” (tattvamasi), but it is up to the vicārin to understand “I am Brahman” (aham Brahmāsmi). The Self is I: it is not other than Me, because otherwise, the thought that the Self is different from Me would be another anātman. Reader, remember: “You are That, O Śvetaketu”. “You are the tenth boy”. We are talking about You.
OṂ TAT SAT
- This is the great limitation of Buddhist thought: by denying the existence of the Absolute, asserting that there is no real substrate to the false imaginations of the mind and that everything is śūnya, void, zero, nothing, the śūnyavādin condemn their own doctrine to falsehood, error, and non-reality.[↩]
- It is a general method that can be applied to address and demonstrate the falsity of some apparent relationships (sambandha) assumed as ādhyaropa. It concerns the avasthātraya sambandha, the abhidhāna-abidheya sambandha, the kārya-kāraṇa sambandha, the sṛṣṭi-sṛṣṭikartā sambandha, the dṛg-dṛśya sambandha, etc. The application of the ādhyaropa-apavāda method to demonstrate the falsity of the relationship (sambandha) between the three states, between the name and the named, between cause and effect, between Creator and creation, between the Witness and the witnessed, etc., with the use of “neti neti”, makes each of these arguments a true method of cognitive realization; for this reason, they can be defined as avasthātraya prakriyā, and so on.[↩]