Rope Bondage Rebirth Full Version
Macabeo Eastman
We may note here another basic point also on which almost all the systems agree. Except the Cārvāka, all the other systems of philosophy, both orthodox and unorthodox, admit rebirth or transmigration of self. All the systems admit that the self (ātman) is an entity distinct from the body. The self is born again and again, and dies again and again. However, the self is admitted to be eternal and birth and death are to be understood in a secondary sense. Thus, for self, birth means association with a new body and death means dissociation from the old body. As long as one is not liberated the cycle of births and deaths goes on endlessly. This is known as bondage or worldly existence (saṃsāra).[2] Such existence is full of suffering and one can finally destroy suffering only when one is able to stop this cycle. If there is no association with or dissociation from bodies the self remains in its pure state. Then no suffering can be produced at all.
Naturally, it may be asked, why should the self be in bondage? How is it that the self passes through a series of births and deaths? The answer to this question also is the same in all the systems. False knowledge is the root cause of bondage. Since a person does not have right knowledge and is ignorant of the true nature of things, he suffers from worldly existence. Though there is general agreement on this point there is however differences of opinion about the nature of the false knowledge or the right knowledge which respectively causes bondage and freedom. Even then, it may be said generally that false knowledge is removed by right knowledge, just as darkness is dispelled by light. As to the nature of reality also, the systems differ widely among themselves. For example, according to Sāṃkhya, there are two basic realities, namely, puruṣa and prakṛti. The two are quite opposite in nature. The former is consciousness itself and is not subject to any transformation. But the latter is non-sentient and constantly subject to transformation. This external world is an evolution of the latter.[3] But the common people are not aware of this fundamental distinction between the two and they wrongly consider the two as identical. So long as this false knowledge of identity persists one is in bondage. But when one acquires right knowledge, the knowledge correctly discriminating between the two, one becomes liberated. This is no doubt especially the position of Sāṃkhya. Other systems naturally do not subscribe to such a view. They conceive reality in their own ways and admit totally different categories. Accordingly, the exact nature of right knowledge also becomes different.
The fact that these two are the main concerns of philosophy is hinted at by Gautama. In the first sūtra of his work, Gautama briefly states his main point, namely, final good can be attained through the right knowledge of sixteen categories, namely, instrument of valid cognition (pramāṇa), object of valid cognition (prameya), doubt (saṃśaya) etc. While explaining this sūtra Vātsyāyana notes an objection of the opponent. It is objected that the separate mention of the first two categories, i.e. pramāṇa and prameya, is justified. But it is not necessary to mention separately the other fourteen categories (i.e. from saṃśaya to nigrahasthāna), because they all can be included in the first two. In answer Vātsyāyana says that, even then, the separate mention of doubt etc. is necessary because they constitute the unique subject matter of Nyāya or logic. From this remark of Vātsyāyana it may be concluded that if considered logically all categories may be divided only into two, pramāṇa and prameya. Moreover, in the fourth chapter of his work Gautama has refuted some views each of which declare that there is only a specific number of objects in the world. There also we find an indication that such a view was upheld by some.[5] Of these two again, prameya seems to be of greater importance, because it is the false knowledge concerning the prameyas only which binds one to worldly existence. One can attain liberation only when one can remove this false knowledge. Pramāṇa is the means for getting right knowledge. In this context we can briefly note what Gautama says in the second Sūtra of his work. Gautama says that in the series of suffering (duḥkha), birth (janma), activity (pravṛtti), evil (doṣa) and false knowledge (mithyājñāna), when each previous one is removed as a consequence of the removal of the one following it liberation (apavarga) is attained. That is, the removal of false knowledge leads to the removal of evil, that of evil to that of activity, that of activity to birth and finally that of birth to that of suffering and this is nothing but liberation. In this series each previous one is the effect and the following one is the cause, e.g. false knowledge is the cause of evil, evil of activity and so on. According to the general rule that the absence of cause is followed by the absence of effect, we get that the removal of the following one results in the removal of the previous one. Although false knowledge has been mentioned in the sūtra in a general way, we have to take only that particular form of false knowledge which is the cause of worldly existence. This is because to attain liberation one has to remove the connection with such existence. Thus if the particular form of false knowledge is not removed the purpose will not be served. For example, false knowledge of a rope can be removed only by the right knowledge of a rope and not by the right knowledge of anything else.
For the enjoyment of virtue and vice one has to pass through worldly existence. But because of ignorance people generally think that there is no such law. The prameya called evil is of three kinds attachment (rāga), aversion (dveṣa) and ignorance (moha).[7] These three also compel one to remain in saṃsāra, but people think that evil is not a cause of saṃsāra. Re-birth (pretyabhāva) is a prameya according to Gautama. So long as one does not attain liberation one has to pass through the cycle of births and deaths continuously. But regarding this re-birth one wrongly feels that actually there is no entity which can be said to be being born or dying again and again. There is nothing which is born or dies. It is to be noted that the self is eternal. Therefore the self cannot be subject to birth or death in a general sense or directly. Actually, the self is said to be so depending upon the production or destruction of the body. For the self birth means association with a new body and death means dissociation from the existing body. But people wrongly believe that there is no definite cause for re-birth and thus it is not possible to specify when the cycle of rebirths will come to an end and one will be able to reach liberation. Liberation is considered the highest goal of human existence. It is the most desirable state, because it means permanent freedom from all sufferings. But ignorant people are afraid of liberation. In the state of liberation, just as there is no suffering so also there is no pleasure either. People think that in such a state one can not have any kind of pleasures and there being no material body, even cognition or consciousness will be totally absent. One will be transformed into a piece of stone. Every one seeks pleasure. No one is ever led to activity unless one may have something pleasant. Therefore why should any intelligent person go for liberation?
Some scholars have tried to avoid this contradiction.[9] They say that the cause of bondage for every human being is his false knowledge about the nature of his own self. Therefore, he will be able to attain liberation only when this false knowledge is removed by the right knowledge of his own self. The objects of knowledge in the case of the false cognition and the right cognition must be the same. Otherwise one cannot oppose the other. The right knowledge of one thing cannot remove the false knowledge of another thing. That the right knowledge of ātman is actually the cause of liberation is established on the authority of the Upaniṣads. It has been again and again said in the different Upaniṣads that one must realise the nature of the self and then one will become free. The Nyāya is an orthodox system and it accepts the authority of the Veda. Vātsyāyana also has followed that tradition and accepted the position that the self is the most important one not only among the categories but also the objects of knowledge. It does not mean that the other categories have no utility. The most important thing is to realise the true nature of the self, but the right knowledge of the other categories essentially helps. Their knowledge may be secondary but is indispensable. For example, right knowledge can be acquired only through pramāṇa and it is necessary to understand its nature.
In the ninth sūtra of the first āhnika of the first chapter, Gautama has given a list of twelve prameyas. They are: self (ātman), body (śarīra), sense (indrīya), object of sense (artha), knowledge (buddhi), mind (manas), activity (pravṛtti), evil (doṣa), rebirth (pretyabhāva), result (phala), suffering (duḥkha) and liberation (apavarga). Gautama himself has discussed the nature of them in different chapters. But while explaining the ninth sūtra Vātsyāyana has very briefly noted the nature of each in his own way.
About the body Vātsyāyana is very brief using only a single to term to describe it. He says that the body is the medium (āyatana) through which the self experiences pleasures and pains. In the Nyāya view the self belongs to the category of substance and pleasure and pain to that of quality. The self experiences pleasure or pain actually means that these qualities are produced in the self. But they can be produced only when the self is associated with a body. If there is no such association, no quality can be produced in the self. That is why in the Nyāya view there can be no pleasure also in the self in the state of liberation. But the experiences of pleasure and pain are not possible only with the help of self and the body. It is also necessary to have some instrument or means which produces them. Such instruments are called in (indriya), the third in the list of prameya. They have their own specific objects and when they are connected with them they produce pleasure of pain according to the actual nature of the object. The fourth prameya is artha. This term has a number of meanings, but here it technically means such things as are enjoyed through the instrumentality of the senses. In the ancient Sāṃkhya system buddhi is used to mean the internal sense, but in Nyāya it is used to mean cognition in general. But in the presents context it will not be proper to take the word in such a meaning. Therefore Vātsyāyana says that here buddhi means direct awareness of pleasure and pain.
aa06259810