Many of us over emphasize on logic and reasoning. Rightly so, if you are scientifically oriented person. Science does stress on logic and reasoning and discourages subjective opinions or views. Many of the scientific ‘truths’ are accepted not because some great scientist like Newton or Einstein has said so, but because they can be arrived at using logic and reasoning and of course mathematics. Even when some of their findings are yet to be proven empirically, we take it for granted that they are true since these scientists based their discoveries on sound foundation of logic and reasoning.
But we are forgetting something here. Any logic or reasoning ultimately boils down to some basic assumptions or axioms which are taken to be true. And almost always these axioms are based on observations and our perception of happenings in the world. That means their scope is limited to perceptible world. What if there is something which is beyond the scope of our senses? Can we infer things about such a thing purely based on logic and reasoning?
No, say the Upanishads. Upanishads say that there are two categories of things – things that can be perceived through our senses and things that are beyond our sense perception. Logic and reasoning work within the domain of things that can be perceived through our senses. But when it comes to the second category, logic alone fails. A peep into those domains need capabilities beyond what our senses are capable of.
Many of the fundamental truths about our existence fall under this second category. They can be analyzed to some extent using logic but to claim that everything can be inferred using logic alone is a bit farfetched. That amounts to saying that there is nothing beyond this perceptible world of ours. Upanishads don’t agree with that conclusion.
But the Samkhya makes exactly this mistake. They assert that everything can be inferred by mere observation and reasoning. In a way, that is the same stand taken by our modern scientific way of thinking. We believe that everything is perceivable by our senses and there is nothing that cannot be perceived. If there is something which is not directly perceivable, then we think that we can make it indirectly perceivable through some gadget. Keeping in line with such a way of thinking, science even rejects the concept of soul since soul cannot be perceived by our senses either directly or indirectly.
What is wrong in taking such a stand? For one, we may miss out some important aspects of our existence. Over reliance on logic and reasoning makes us mechanistic, ignoring several finer things of our being. For example, can we logically explain our feelings, emotions, likes, dislikes, experiences and so on? Does that mean that all these things have no meaning at all? Where does that lead us? We become just biological robots!
Is there a truth beyond what is apparent to our senses? Upanishads say that there is. And that truth is not at the mercy of logic and reasoning. You probably can try to explain it to some extent using logic and reasoning, but you cannot prove or disprove it using logic alone.
Samkhya came up with a concept of an almost completely material world just like our modern scientists. Only difference is that Samkhya also assumed some sentient souls that brought this material world alive. But these souls have no role in the material world other than being just enjoyers of its booty. Neither they created the world nor did they take part in its creation. They were mere bystanders!
According to Samkhya, this world came up on its own by the acts of the primordial substance namely the Pradhana. But this Pradhana according to them is insentient. It cannot think, it has no free will, it has no intelligence nor it can feel. That being the case, how did this inert thing called Pradhana get into action? What motivated it if at all?
The Samkhya tries to explain away this by saying that it was the mere presence of intelligent and sentient souls that motivated the inert Pradhana to plunge into action. Did the souls actively participate in the creation act? No, says the Samkhya. Then an inert thing getting into action and creating such a complex, well organized and seemingly intelligent world, all on its own, seems implausible.
This was Sankara’s main objection to Samkhya’s way of thinking. Likes of Sankara point out to the fact that only an intelligent and sentient thing can create a world full of intelligence and sentience. It is possible for a sentient thing to create an inert world. But not the other way around. An insentient thing cannot give rise to sentience.
Sankara rejects the claim of Samkhya that everything can be inferred through logic and observation. The reason is that they are dealing with things that are beyond the domain of logic and reasoning.
I suspect that Sankara had more deeper reasons why he fiercely opposed the theories of Samkhya. Let me make some guesses.
The Upanishads have a unification view at their core. They try to see unity behind all the apparent diversity. But the Samkhya posits a world view which is inherently diversified. There is the material world and infinitely many independent souls that are either busy enjoying the material world or remain totally disinterested in it while maintaining their individuality. This latter view ultimately promotes self-centeredness. But the Vedas emphasized on collective existence where an individual is just a part of the totality. These two contrasting views have far-reaching consequence.
That probably is the reason why Sankara considers Samkhya as non wholistic. Sankara even rejects Yoga for the same reason since Yoga also has a similar worldview as the Samkhya. The ultimate goal of Samkhya as well as Yoga is not unification of the world but individual liberation. That way, both these are no different from Buddhist approach or for that matter that of the Jains. All of them are individual centered. So, Sankara takes all of them as his opponents and leaves no stone unturned to condemn them.
But in the process, he introduces the concept of Maya or illusion to explain away things that probably cannot be explained without falling into the traps of his opponents.
Many of the Sankara’s followers take this concept of Maya or illusion to the extreme and try to explain even our mundane day-to-day experiences in mystical terms. Many of them quote one of the shortest Upanishads namely Mandukya Upanishad to support their explanations. Even Sankara says that this small Upanishad with just 12 verses is the essence of all the Upanishads.
Does this Upanishad really support the concept of Maya or illusion? What does this Upanishad really say? Let us discuss that in the next episode.
Extremely interesting views!
ReplyDelete