ānvīk?ikī of the Real from the Lens of Sāmkhya-Yoga and Nyāya Schools

Abstract

From Plato’s cave allegory to Hath Yoga’s Prā?āyāma to Quantum Physics to Space Explorations, human beings have tried to understand what is it ‘real’? Is it our surroundings? The immediate observation or something beyond. Different schools of thought looked at this question differently. There were materialists (Cārvāka/ Lokāyata) who viewed reality as consisting of five elements namely fire, water, air, earth and space which can be observed. Therefore, non-observable entities (God, Heaven, Self) didn’t exist (Ghosh 100). In this essay, I’m not looking at these schools. My emphasis would be harmonising immediate observation as well as metaphysical. The fundamental question I’m addressing in my essay is what is real, its constituents, accessibility, proof of its existence, path for liberation, etc. with the help of Sāmkhya-Yoga and Nyāya Schools of Indian Philosophy respectively? The essay is divided into two parts: Part I and II. Part I discusses Sāmkhya-Yoga school’s proposition whereas Part II provides Nyāya school’s point of view. In conclusion, I’ll compare their convergence and divergence points. The purpose of this essay is ānvīk?ikī (interrogation or investigation) of fundamental reality.

Part I- Sāmkhya-Yoga 

“There is no reality except the one contained within us. That is why so many people live such an unreal life. They take the images outside of them for reality and never allow the world within to assert itself.”- Hermann Hesse, Steppenwolf

Hesse’s “world within” is an important point through which Sāmkhya-Yoga schools start deconstructing the Real. This ānvīk?ikī into the self is the way one can understand the origin of all experience. The purpose of these schools is liberation of this self (“world within”) and alleviating du?kha (distress or suffering) due to non-realisation of its true nature. Mikel Burley explains the central theme of Sāmkhya school where  “ontological dualism comprising purus?a and prakrti, whose beginningless conjunction generates the constitutive conditions of all possible experience, as well as the conception of a soteriological goal consisting in the eradication of distress and the liberation of the ‘self’ (131). There is a consensus where scholars believe that Yoga shares its roots with Sāmkhya system philosophically and historically (Maderey 269). 

To answer the question on fundamental reality, I refer to scholarly works on texts Sā?khyakārikā (SK) by ī?varak???a and Yoga-Sūtra (YS) by Patanjali. There are diverse traditions of Sāmkhya school like nirī?vara (‘without lord’) and Se?vara (‘with lord’) which have roots in various Upanis?ads (Burley 133-34).

Sā?khyakārikā falls into the former category of nirī?vara whereas Yoga-Sūtra in the latter. However, both these schools don’t believe in a creator God. So, the binary of theists and atheists falls flat. The common belief that there was a God who created the Universe is not a matter of discussion for these schools. Then the question arises: what was there before everything? 

As per SK, there was unmanifested prakrti which manifested itself when purus?a was in proximity. The conjunction or trigger of prakrti (matter, creative source ) with purus?a (pure consciousness, spirit, self) led to manifestion of prakrti through purus?acalled krtah? sargah?(creative emergence) as well as pratyaya- sarga (emergence of representations). Krtah? sargah?is the emergence of the universe as well as self. This is the real which emerges with its twenty-three constituents in which the totality of all experiences are bounded. If one removes bhutas (five material elements), then a complex soul which undergoes rebirth emerges called linga.

Prakrti consists of three ‘three- stranded’ (traigun?ya) namely sattva (purity), rajas (energy) and tamas (opacity) and each purus?a interacts with three strands in various proportions “ ‘like [the parts of ] a lamp ”(Burley 135). This leads to emergence of three layers. 

Source: https://yogasutrastudy.info/2010/08/01/sutra-1-45/

“The first is the conjunction of buddhi (intelligence), Aha?kāra (egoity) and manas (mind) which together comprise what is called anta?kara?a( inner ‘psychical sense’). The second comprises the conjunction of the psychical with the trace elements (tanmatras),  which makes up the ‘subtle’ body (suksma) as encountered in sleep, dream, the unconscious, astral and yogic experiences. The third is the conjunction of the psychical and the subtle bodies with the five natural elements, which makes up the physical or corporeal frame.” (Billimoria 34)

Till now, we have answered what makes up reality and its existence? Next section deals with how do we know what we know? At this stage, Sāmkhya-Yoga develop self-referential epistemology. These schools rely on Yogic insights or meditation to proclaim that if a thing is true then it can be perceived directly through adequate means (Maderey 268). What one requires is discipline and appropriate training in the meditational techniques to observe Krtah? sargah? as well as a path for liberation. 

“The yoga posture (āsana) is understood as a position of the body that creates the conditions for meditation. Keeping the physical body still and steady is an embodied way to become aware of the more subtle internal transformations that normally go unnoticed, like the constant movement of our breath.The aim is to achieve a moment of stillness within the movements of inhalation and exhalation (prān?āyāma) so that even subtler movements of matter become noticeable (YS II.49– 52). (ibid. 270)”

Yogic perception or meditation helps in creation of self-referential epistemology whereby one who is a Yogi can have access to fundamental reality whereas others have to rely on his or her words. This exclusivity of Yogis created opposition from others schools like Mīmā?sā who said Yogic perception is a first-person ānvīk?ikī which is not available for third-person ānvīk?ikī.  However, the defence from Sāmkhya-Yoga school was that anyone can get the proper training to sharpen one’s own insights to observe this process. At this moment, there is a significant departure in Sāmkhya and Yoga schools as the concept of ī?vara (Lord or God) emerges. Whereas there is no mention of Lord or God in SK,  in YS, ī?vara “ is, instead, the first teacher, the first source of insight for the realization of one’s true nature (YS I.25) (ibid. 272).” ī?vara becomes the ideal on which people can concentrate their focus to streamline their self-awareness process. He becomes an enabler. 

The following question that comes to mind is: What is the end result of this process? As per SK and YS, the goal of these schools are liberation of individual linga to pure consciousness purus?a by indentifying its difference from prakrti. The non-identification of difference with prakrti is the cause of all du?kha. This stage is called embodied awareness, moksha (liberation) or kaivalya (aloneness). This is the highest stage of epistemological pursuit. “In the multilayered process of yogic perception, the highest attainment that results from it is not only the absolute freedom of the self, but also the liberation from a reduced and limited conception of one’s own embodiment (body– mind unit).” (ibid. 273) 

 In  Part I, we see how Sāmkhya-Yoga school provided answers to what is real, its constituents, accessibility, proof of its existence, path for liberation. Now, we move on to Part II where I’ll try to provide Nyāya school’s perspective on these questions.

Part II- Nyāya

Nyāya  philosophers ānvīk?ikī starts a bit differently. They don’t provide a descriptive definition of the Real and its constituents. They consider that objects in the world exist independently of one’s perceptions: realism. Hence, they start with accessibility question: how we know what we know? To answer this question, I shall rely scholarly work on Nyāya- sūtra (NS ), c. 200 CE, a text authored by Gautama. 

The main thesis of Nyāya is the source of knowledge: Pramā?a. “Perception, inference, analogical vocabulary acquisition, and authoritative testimony are reliable sources of information” (Philips 178). Amongst the four, many scholars believe that perception is fundamental and other sources are auxiliaries to perception. The question that arises: what is perception? Perception is “a cognition which arises from the contact of the sense organ and object and is not impregnated by words, is unerring, and well- ascertained.” (Chadha 92). This definition is given in NS. However, it was contested and faced criticisms from other Nyāya philosophers. Bhartrhari believed that awareness can’t be apprehended without words. Vācaspati Misra, on the other hand, believed that verbal and non-verbal perceptions are two different kinds of perceptions. However, both these perceptions are valid (ibid. 93). This can be said as ‘direct realist’ view of the world where Nyāya philosophers believe in causal interaction between sense organ and the object. Stephen Philips translates perception in two senses as pratyaks?a and pramā?a. He says: 

“First, there is perception as veridical cognition, characterized at NS 1.1.4 as (1) a cognition (2) that arises out of the operative relation between an object and a sense faculty, (3) that is not intrinsically conceptual or verbal (although it is verbalizable), (4) that accurately presents the world, and (5) that is sufficiently specific not to give rise to doubts. The second sense is perception as a pramā?a, ‘knowledge source,’ that gives rise to perceptions as the results of its operation.” (180)

In addition to perception, Nyāya philosophers laid stress on inference, comparison and testimony to understand the world outside self. On inference, they argued that good inference must have a conclusion about the real world. So, if one sees smoke on a hill, there must be fire. It’s good inference only if it proclaims a pervasion or vyāpti which is conclusion about universals. Hence, wherever there’s smoke, there's fire. “For Udayana, causal relations— which, as a kind of vyāpti , underpin inferences— are relations among universals. We can know that a particular x is invariably present where any particular y is present by knowing that x - ness and y - ness are suitably connected, Udayana says.” (ibid. 181).

Others sources of knowledge include analogical vocabulary acquisition and authoritative testimony.  So, one acquires information about the world by adding vocabulary through the use of analogies. Water Buffalo is like cow in some aspects. One who had no clue about water buffalo adds that word in his world. “This is proved by the ability to use the term correctly in identifying a water buffalo even for the first time.According to most Nyāya philosophers (though not all), knowledge of the meaning has as its source a pramā?a irreducible to the other three.” (ibid.). 

Authoritative testimony means one relies on experts when one is unaware about the subject. This also helps in understanding the world better. Let’s say I’ll rely on the word of medical doctors for diagnosis of my health. “Trust is the normal, default position, possibly undermined but not normally needing to be reinforced by information about the testifier. We ‘give the benefit of the doubt,’ so to say” (ibid.).

Till now, we have established epistemological and ontological basis of Nyāya philosophers. Through the use of logic and reasoning, human beings can understand the world. Taking forward this logic, Nyāya philosophers argue that there must be a creator who could know everything. “Human beings have limited cognitive capacities; many knowables remain unknown to us. But not to God. God knows   everything as it is. (ibid. 184)”

The last question is what is the path of liberation? One is in du?kha due to ignorance of the reality. One can alleviate du?kha through right knowledge. One needs to know the means to right knowledge. In this way, Nyāya school provides answers to what is real, its constituents, accessibility, proof of its existence, path for liberation. 

Conclusion

Sāmkhya-Yoga and Nyāya schools provide logical, reasonable and metaphysical descriptions of what is there. There is a methodology to sources of knowledge and its verification. Both these schools believe in direct realism with non-epistemic processes of meditation and yogic perception. Nyāya philosophers authority of argument is most important whereas for Sāmkhya-Yoga school the yogic perception, self-discipline and embodied awareness is the authority. Sāmkhya-Yoga school provides elaborative description of the process of creation and its explanation of emergence of self and its liberation. On the other hand Nyāya is more concerned with means of knowledge. The major disagreement between the schools is on the question of creator. Nyāya is purely a theistic school whereas Sāmkhya-Yoga school’s believe in the creation which was beginningless without an agent except the concept of ī?vara in YS is kind of an ideal or eternal excellence who is an enabler to the process of liberation. However, the high point (summum bonum, ni??reyasa) of the inquiry and epistemic pursuit is the end of du?kha with non-identification with prakrti through “tattva- abhyāsa , literally ‘the [assiduous] practice of that- ness’ ( SK 64), which involves sustained attentiveness to the constitutive features of experience and a progressively refined discernment of the ontological difference between manifest phenomena ( vyakta ), their unmanifest ground ( avyakta ) and the knower itself ( j?a , purus?a) ( SK 2)” (Burley 139) in the case of Sāmkhya-Yoga whereas in Nyāya du?kha can end with the right knowledge through logical thinking. 

Works cited

• Bilimoria, Purushottama. The Self and its Other in Hindu Thought. 2nd edi., Open Wisdom Ink with Sophia Inc, 2005. 
• Burley, Mikel. “Sāmkhya.” Routledge History of Indian Philosophy (edited by Purushottama Bilimoria with Amy Rayner). Routledge, 2018. 132-141.
• Chadha, Monima.  “Contents Of Consciousness: Perception.”Bilimoria and Rayner, pp. 91-99.
• Ghosh, Raghunath. “Indian Materialism.” Bilimoria and Rayner, pp. 100-110. 
• Maderey, Ana Laura Funes. “An Overview Of Classical Yoga Philosophy As A Philosophy Of Embodied Self- Awareness.” Bilimoria and Rayner, pp. 266-273. 
• Philips, Steven. “Nyāya.” Bilimoria and Rayner, pp. 177-185.
• Subash. “Sutra 1.45.” Yoga Sutra Study, 1 Aug. 2010, yogasutrastudy.info/2010/08/01/sutra-1-45/.