English
As co-extensive with the entire expanse, of being, it has knowledge of its entire existence and is composed of the sheaths of vitality, mind and intelligence (mro; and fzrcnrora: the next higher in the scale being Thara encased in the sheath of bliss ( <mh* 5*UK gfa:). But we have to traverse this entire scale of being and penetrate beyond this sheath of bliss into the golden sheath of serene light in which is seated Brahman in its integrity.* As Samkara remarks so significantly : “ we have to go behind the five koshas to find our true self (the Prajtta) —far and away, beyond the physical sheath, the vital principle, beyond the mind and intellect and beyond even the beatific consciousness.” Now the worldas repeat¬ edly affirmed by Advdita-Vedanta, is a vivartta , appearance or evolution without substantial muta¬ tion with reference to Brahman or the Absolute, while it is a parinama, evolution or real transforma¬ tion of Brahman as invested or associated with MQya. It thus accepts vivartta-srshti in a transcen¬ dental reference, and combines it with parinama srshti as an empirical method of explaining the world-order. Empirically speaking, therefore, the * fl rcw ft Oft fort UW Mandiiky&, II. 9. 42 350 A “SYSTEMATIC STUDY OP THE VEDANTA world is a continuous process of evolution—the initial impulse to which has been given by the original act of will on the part of the One to become many liEinfcl). Thus the empirical theory of evolution is riot incompatible with the admission of an original act of will starting the course of evolu¬ tion.* Ptow can there be conceived, it will probably be urged, a volition or desire prior to creation (when the world of objects is not yet in existence), seeing that all desires can only originate posteniis to tfife creation of a world of objects, there being no such thing as an abstract, contentless, general will? Ts not such a will or volition something undeter¬ mined, veritably like a bullet shot out of a pistol? But the original choice or will of the creator (as we have already discussed in the previous section) is not absolutely undetermined, but precipitated or conditioned under the stress of the potencies or energies stored up in the form of harmas of creatures about to be created itB UfuiqwfoS in ) . t This original choice which lies at the root of creation () has been figuratively called the primeval glance or attention (n q Afl jfoqn ). It has a remarkable functional similarity with ‘ the proximity to Purusha ’ (tjrorciTfaqvg) which, in the S&mkhya system, disturbs the original equilibrium and unevolved state of Prakrti (as the equilibrated * vm f— Ved&ntaparibhatha , Chapter I. t Ibid, Chap. I. JIVA AND JAGAf 331 state of sqttva, rajas and tamas ( qrcTOfSfPflf mi ) and thus sets Prakrti on the course of evolution. Thus Vedantism is a system of creative, evolution. But it by no means follows that the world is summoned into existence by the issue of a fmt: ‘ Let there be,’ or created out of nothing, as the scholastics love to call it. Vedantism does not subscribe to any such creation out of nothing.* This doctrine is duly meant to be a rigid denial of a pre-existing material anterior to, or co-eternal with, Is vara. But Vedantism believes in the existence of, and in fact presupposes, the Kannas as material potentialities or energies even when the world is seemingly dissolved or destroyed. * The world so dissolved subsists as a storehouse of unevolved potencies and emerges therefrom, in the absence of which there would be creation out of nothing,’ says Samkara.* Thus the disappearance or the with¬ drawal of the world is a temporary withdrawal into the primal unity with the promise of re-appearance lor the actualisation of the potential forces of karma. The world is therefore independent of finite con¬ sciousness, and may be termed objective in that sense. Accordingly this has been called the theory of Srshti-Drshti vfefcfeft' Others, however, like Prak56ananda, the author of Siddhanta-muktdbati, throw over¬ board this theory of periodical or cyclical evolution and involution, and subscribe, with —Com. on V.S., I. iii. 80. 332 A systematic study of the vedanta a Berkeleyan emphasis, to the doctrine that Drshti, seeing or perceiving, is Srshti or creation. Esse is per dpi. This directly falls in with the Ekajwavada or Solipsism according to which nothing is real save Brahman, the only self ( qqrajfa ; ) to whose perception, the world owes its origin and existence. ‘ The world is my idea,’ said Schopen¬ hauer; * the world the wise maintain to be ideal while the unenlightened or stupid erroneously view it as objective,’ says Praka^ananda.* This theory of Drshti-Srshti, again, assumes two forms admit¬ ting of a subtle distinction. The Vedantasiddhanta- daria phrases the distinction thus : “ According to one version of the theory of Drshti-Srshti, Drshti or perdpi is itself Srshti or creation; according to a different version of it, however, Srshti is synchron¬ ous with Drshti ,”t The former is the view spon¬ sored by Prakaiananda, the author of Siddhanta- muktabali, as has been more clearly and specifically delineated in an explanatory note : ‘ according to Siddhantamuktabali, the world is of the very stuff of intelligence or ideal in essence, there being lack of evidence for the difference of the objective world from the perception thereof; while, according to a different version of the theory of Drshti-Srshti the world is surely synchronous with the perception of it, on account of the impossibility of a oon-distinc- # TOW ft 9ITO I litvl Vtl fVIftWRi WTI JIVA AND JAGAT 333 tion between the conscious and the unconscious and of the impossibility of the pre-existence of the world prior to, and different from percipi, whose nature is to reveal or witness.’* This interesting develop¬ ment of Samkara-Vedanta in the direction of an undisguised subjective idealism gives the lie direct to the realistic trend of thought—of course, an empiri¬ cal realism—that lies embedded in the thought of the great master. Such a development is, by reason of its sympathies drawn perilously near the view of the 4 world as a ‘ presentation-continuum ’ () obtaining in the Yogacara school of Buddhists, which was severely castigated by Samkara (in his famous commentaries on V. S., II. ii. 28-32) and which needs no repetition here. In spite of that formidable critique on Subjective Idealism, any attempt at reviving a solipsistic con¬ struction of Advaita-Vedanta is clearly unhistorical and unauthoritative. Accordingly, Samkara envisages the problem of creative evolution as conceived by Advaita- Vedanta and offers a cosmology of the Vedanta from the orthodox standpoint. In the beginning of a particular cycle of existence, the entire world is supposed to have been lying dormant in Brahman as the result of the periodical re-absorption or dissolu¬ tion of the world therein. The creative power of * wrcr af g ftg WT*mnTf%* $WI: • 334 A SYSTEMATIC STUDY OP THE VEDXNTA Brahman reveals itself in making manifest these seed-forms of things and the individual souls are so many karmic potentialities or forces constituting the body of Brahman who is the material as well as the efficient cause of the world. Of the endlessly diverse cQsipologies that have been offered by later Vedantic writers, we shall content ourselves with the order of creation delineated by the Vedantaparibhasha* as being the most in accord with Sarpkara’s stand¬ point, and at the same time most philosophically thought out. Creation sets in when the primeval quiesppppe—brought about by a shifting equilibrium of forces at wprk—is disturbed from within by an inner necessity or a self-determination on the part of the Creator, who is then called, not Brahman, but Pamnphara. Creation may be viewed in its two inter-related aspects—the causal and the effectual. T|uj causal aspect of it consists in the original desire to expand or propagate and Maya is presupposed in the evolution of the five elements. It must be remembered, however, that mdyd, philosophically construed, js not a, force but a method, a modus operatidi ( fjncjTT-) of the Creator ; just as Evolution is not a Cause but a Method and, as such does not run counter to a theistic or teleological interpreta¬ tion of the wprld. This is a point which is so often lost sight of even by eminent thinkers and critics, both in the East and in the West. Now this Paramedvara is variously denominated as Brahmil, Vishnu and Siva or Mdheham, according as * Chapter V H, the section on ’ JIVA AND JAGAT 335 the elements of sattva, rajas and tamas pre¬ dominate in the causal aspect of mdya, function¬ ing all along as an upddhi of this trinity, or rather of the tri-une Paramehara as the creator, preserver and destroyer of the world. Paramehiara is the direct creator of the five subtle elements, of the linga^anra (fijfqiu'ihu) causal body, and of the Hiranyagarbha, the first-born or the first-created being fntmt or TOW), and is indirectly through the Hiranyagarbha, the author of manifold faTTOfi) or concrete things ( *9 — Veddntaparibhasha, Chap. VII). Inorganic nature consists of the five elements which are called sukshmabMtas or subtle matter and they originate in continuous succession. As the TaitViriya tfruti puts it, “ dkdM is the first evoluic to come into being from the self-alienation of Brahman. From aka,4a originates vdya, from vdyu. tejas, from tejas dp, from dp prthivi, i.e., earth.”* Samkara, it is to be noted by the way, rejects the Buddhistic conception of dkdia as the mere absence of concealment a negative entity. As the Vedantic.