Chapter 5c - Reason and Intuitive knowledge

Reason is of two kinds, viz, pure reason and adulterated reason. The faculty of the soul in its pure state that applies itself to the examination of the selfconscious, may be described as pure reason. It is without defect and is a function which is natural to the soul. The perverted form of the above faculty due to association with the material principle that is found to guide the soul when she is engrossed in matter, is the adulterated reason.

This adulterated or pseudo-reason is of two kinds, viz.,

1. alloyed with fruitive works (karmamisra,’ and
2. allied with empiric knowledge (jnana-misra).

It is also called sophistry (tarka). It is this which is condemnable for the reason that there happens to be present in it the following defect, viz., error (bhrama), delusion (pramada.), deceit (bipralipsa) and inefficiency of the organs (karanapatava). Its decision is defective in all cases. That which is established by the real reason is the same in all cases. The opinions that are produced by the adulterated reason are diverse and mutually conflicting. By acting in accordance with those opinions the incarcerated jiva. earns only the bondage of ignorance as the fruit of such procedure.

Adulterated reason owes its origin to the operation of matter. The material picture which the individual soul, imprisoned in matter, receives in the first instance by means of the senses, is carried to the brain by the nervous process. The reason then goes to work on these pictures that are preserved in the brain by the process of memory. This activity gives rise to various concoctions and abstractions. The term ‘scientific knowledge’ is applied to the beauty that is perceived by the assortment of those pictures. By the processes of analysis and synthesis those pictures are made to yield hues in the form of secondary conclusions. This is called reasoning. Comte said, “Assort that which has been observed and from it investigate the truth”.

Let us now consider whether the reason which is brought to bear on the pictures that have been obtained originally and exclusively from the material world can be designated as reason born of matter. How is one to know about super-material objects and their qualities through this process? If there happens to exist any super-material entity there must, therefore, also necessarily exist for the realization of the same some process that is suitable for such purpose. That those who are not acquainted with this higher process, or do not like to be acquainted with it due to prejudice, adopting the reason that is based on matter, will speak the language of delirium, admits of no doubt. In those cases in which the investigation of the material world happens to be the sole endeavour the reason that stands on matter yields the best results. This adulterated reason is specially effective in all forms of material affairs such as arts, bodily activities, warfare, music, etc., etc. In the first place adulterated reason in alliance with empiric knowledge, arrives at certain decisions and subsequently joining hands with fruitive work completes them by carrying them out in practice. When the affair of the railway was first settled in the mind of a materialist scholar, his reason was at that time alloyed with empiric knowledge. When it was reduced to practice the reason becoming imbued with fruitive work applied itself to the work of manufacture. Works such as the industries, etc., are as a matter of fact the proper subject of the adulterated reason. Supermaterial entities are not its legitimate subject and’ therefore, its application to them is not practicable. Super-material reason is in a position to act only in the case of super-material entities. Materialism, the theory of material force, material extinctionism, idealism,—all these systems, adopting the reason that is dependent on matter for the purpose of investigating the cause of the world which happens to be super-material, could necessarily obtain no satisfaction. This was so because the process they adopted for the purpose happened to be quite ridiculous. All the books that have been written by them are, therefore, merely the meaningless utterances of delirious persons.

Although the real reason happens to be the natural faculty of the soul yet the soul that is encased in matter, under the heavy pressure of the load of matter for making it the exclusive subject of his contemplation, shows greater honour to adulterated reason. Hence most people of this world are upholders of the mixed reason. The super-material unalloyed reason is very rare. Those alone who through good fortune are actively disposed to serve the introspective faculty, are acquainted with the greatness of pure reason or spontaneous exclusiveness (sahaja samadhi). From a remote antiquity the world with a superficial vision paying honour to adulterated reason, had been hoping to obtain from itself its own realization. All the different views which were propounded by such reason, although they are at first accepted by it with cordiality, prove unsatisfactory to itself in the long run. But the reason even when it is limited or mixed, cannot be without relation to the soul. At times it tries to do good to the soul. When after having brought forth the long series of heterogeneous views and talked deliriously in many different ways the adulterated reason could obtain no satisfaction it developed a feeling of contempt for itself. It began to cry deliriously. It said, ‘Alas, how am I abandoning my nature by straying far away from the soul to whom I am eternally joined, having been occupied in such superficial activities!’ Lamenting in this way, weighed down with fear, it admits, when it happens to be on its last legs, God as the Source of all activities. At this stage the human mind proclaims to all countries that God is realizable by the adulterated reason. In this mood Udayanacharya wrote his work, the Kusmanjali. In England the opinions that are promulgated under the names of Deism and Natural Theology should be recognized as meeting the approval of those people who profess those opinions by reason of their being in the above-mentioned condition. The theistic principle that is established by the process of adulterated reasoning, is extremely imperfect and, in regard to the reality, is both foreign and incomplete; because the theistic conception that is brought about by reason in alliance with matter, is a specific and limited idea, viz., that God is the mere cause of matter. It is artificial in as much as there is in it no real advancement towards the spiritual state proper, no direct activity of the soul nor any investigation of the Reality. This will appear later in its proper place.

Such delirious mixed reason, even after admitting God, is unable to establish the unity of God on account of materialistic errors. Sometimes it supposes God to be a dual entity. Thereupon in their judgment the spiritual principle appears as one god and the material principle as another god. The god, whose nature is imagined to be spiritual, is supposed to be the source of good. The god as the material principle, is opined as the cause of all evil. A certain scholar who bore the name of Jaradvastra, in his work the Zendavesta, admitted the dual nature of the divine principle in recognition of the eternity of the two gods, as the evil and the good principle respectively. Theistically disposed persons showed their contempt for him by designating him as the rotten interpreter (jaranmimansaka). This designation is retained even to this day, having been applied subsequently in connection with all superficial persons of the schools of fruitive work and empiric knowledge. Jaradvastra is an ancient scholar. His view received no support in India but spread successfully in Iran. Becoming infective his view produced, in the religion of the Jews and subsequently among the followers of the Koran, Satan as the rival of God. About the time when Jaradvastra was preaching his view of two gods, the necessity for three gods being recognized among the Jews the doctrine of the Trinity was originated. In the Trinitarian view at first the three gods were conceived as separate from one another; and subsequently, when this appeared unsatisfactory to the scholars, they elicited the inter-connection among them by the elaboration of the theological principles represented by God, the Holy Ghost and Christ respectively. In the particular Age or Sect in which Brahma, Vishnu and Siva are conceived as different gods the unsatisfactory circumstance of similar belief in three gods occurred also in India. Scholars having established the theoretical unity of those three gods, have incorporated in many parts of the Shastras advice discountenancing their separate existence. In different countries there is also found to exist belief in many gods. Specially in very backward countries monothism in a pure form is not found to prevail. At one time it was the practice to regard the gods, such as Indra, Chandra, Vayu, Varuna, etc., as mutually independent. The school of the mimmansakas (interpretationists) correcting the above view subsequently established a single god, viz., Brahma. All this is mere delirious utterances of reason deluded by matter. God is one entity. Had He been more than one the world would have never functioned in a beautiful manner. Different laws in conformity with different wills in mutual conflict, would have undoubtedly wrecked the world. That this visible universe has issued from the will of one powerful person, cannot be denied by any person who feels the impulse of goodness.

The reasoning that is generated by the spontaneous cognition of the soul, is alone pure and free from defect. The Truth that is elucidated by such reasoning, is alone real. Reasoning can have no existence apart from instinctive knowledge. The reasoning associated with the knowledge of external Nature, that is noticed in the affairs of this world, is impure or mixed. The truths that are declared by the mixed reason, are all of a trivial character. Even if it establishes God its argument is never satisfactory. There is no applicability of the pervert reason to the case of the Absolute Truth. All conclusions regarding the Absolute reached by the pure reason on the basis provided by intuitive knowledge, are true. It may be asked in this connection what intuitive knowledge is. The soul is self-conscious and is, therefore, all knowledge. The knowledge that naturally exists in the soul is spontaneous or intuitive knowledge. Intuitive knowledge is eternally cognate to the soul. It is not produced by any process of material experience. Pure reasoning is the name for a certain process of such intuitive knowledge.

Intuitive knowledge is ascertainable by the fact that the jiva has the following realization from before the generation of any experience of the material world, viz.

(I) I exist.

(2) I shall continue to exist.

(3) I have joy.

(4) There is a great entity that underlies and maintains my joy

(5) It is my nature to depend on the support of this entity.

(6) I am eternally guided by this entity.

(7) This support is extremely beautiful.

(8) I have no power of abandoning this support.

(9) My present state is lamentable.

(10) I ought to follow again my guide and support, giving up this miserable condition.

(11) This world is not my eternal dwelling-place.

(12) By the progress of this world My eternal improvement is not secured.

Unless the reason adopts such intuitive knowledge it merely continues to wander deliriously. There also exist certain axiomatic truths in the domain of spiritual science. No spiritual progress is possible unless these are accepted and followed.

There is a certain class of people who cannot form a settled opinion of their own after accepting pure intuitive knowledge and yet do not trust reason in all cases. Admitting intuitive knowledge to a certain extent they recognize oneness of God. Absorbed in knowledge they attain the exclusive state. But this exclusiveness is not the natural state of samadhi in as much as it exhibits abstruseness of thought. By such abstruse thinking even after piercing through this gross world they fail to obtain the vision of the spiritual world because the natural Truth does not manifest Himself without spontaneous exclusiveness. Having observed the symbolic world they feel as if they have seen the ultimate abiding-place of the jiva. In reality they only stand on the symbol of the material world. The difference between the symbolic world and material world consists in this that the material world is apprehensible by the senses. The symbolic world is apprehensible by the mind. The symbolic world is merely the subtle initial stage of the material world.

The material world is of two kinds, viz.,

1. the very gross material world, and
2. the subtler world full of light.

The astral body that the Theosophists talk about, is the lighted material body. The symbolic body is subtler than the astral; that is to say, it is mental. The subtle world that is full of the manifestations of power, according to the Pantanjala Shastra and the opinion of Buddhist ascetics, is the symbolic world. The spiritual entity is different from these. The non-alternative kaivalya) state described in the Pantanjala Shastra, is merely the idea of the state that is the opposite of the gross and the subtle, but shows no trace of any investigation of the spiritual Truth. No one can Say what the relation of Godhead is to the jiva after his attainment of the non-alternative state (kaivalya), or about the whereabouts or the nature of God in the non-alternative (kaivalya ) state, although a god is met with during the pre-realization stage of such endeavour. If the jiva on attainment of the non-alternative state (kaivalya) merge with God then as a matter of fact it is monism. The Yogashastra, whether it is Theosophy or Patanjali, is not for the eternal benefit of jiva. Yogashastra is one of the numerous blind lanes that are found to exist between the grossest materialism at one end and spiritual Truth at the other. And, therefore, it yields no satisfaction to the jiva who is in quest of spiritual bliss.

Some hold that God has made this world for our enjoyment. We obtain the grace of God by religious merit earned in course of sinless enjoyment of this world. It may be objected to this that if this world had been made for yielding happiness to the jiva, God would not make it so imperfect. God has to be blamed for making it so imperfect if we assume that this world was intended by Him for our happiness. If His purpose in creating the world had been to teach us to be religious it would undoubtedly have been made differently because at present all persons of this world cannot attain to religion.

Holders of the opposite view say that this world is intended for the punishment of the jiva for offense committed by him. Being unable to find an adequate answer to the question how the jiva could commit offense a certain explanation has found a place in several religious systems to the following effect. God having created the first jiva permitted him to live in a pleasant wood in company of his wife. He forbade them to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. The first parents of mankind by the advice of a certain fallen jiva having eaten the forbidden fruit, were expelled from the happy region for the offense of disobedience to God and fell into this world which is so full of misery. For this offense of the first parents all these jivas were born sinful. As the offense could not be expiated by the jivas themselves a certain being, who is like one limb of God, being born among men in the likeness of man, chose to suffer death by taking upon his own shoulders the sin of all jivas, who would follow him. Those jivas who followed him thereby easily earned their deliverance while those who did not follow him were cast into the eternal hell. It is not possible to comprehend with the normal understanding how other jivas can be excused by the punishment of God becoming jiva.

According to the above the jiva exists as jiva from birth to death. The jiva, therefore, did not exist before birth and, after death also, the jiva would have no existence in this sphere of his work. Moreover man alone is meant by jiva. Jiva cannot in the circumstances be a spiritual principle. He is to be conceived as created in matter by accident or by the will of God. Why the jiva appears in different periods and in different circumstances, is not understood. Why should not other animals be counted among the jivas? Why should birds and beasts be anterior to man? It is incomprehensible to those who obey God how it can be the dispensation of God, Who is full of mercy, that man should earn eternal heaven or suffer eternal damnation merely for his acts done in a single birth. Those who belong to this School cannot serve God in any unselfish way. They cultivate the arts and sciences under the belief that God Can be pleased by one's attempt to improve the world. But they remain ever ignorant of pure devotion to God which is free from all impulses of worldly work and knowledge. The service of God from a sense of duty can never be disinterested or natural. That we shall serve God because He has been merciful to us, is a mean conception, because it implies that we would not have served Him if He had not been kind to us. We also cherish the immoral hope of future favours. If God were considered as merciful for His bestowal of devotion it would not have been objectionable in any way. In these religions such a statement is not to be found. The mercy of God in this case only refers to the conveniences and happiness incidental to the worldly life.

In this and other analogous creeds of a recent origin God is formless and all-pervasive. The pursuit of knowledge is the chief work of such systems. The consideration arising from empiric knowledge that God is lowered if considered to have a form, constantly troubles their minds. God, according to this view, must be formless and all-pervasive because we have created Him such by our knowledge and He cannot be anything else than this. This conception of God degenerates into a form of idolatry that is straitly circumscribed by materialistic considerations. The sky that is found in matter is also all-pervasive and formless. The God of this School is like it. This is matter-worship. The expressions used in the prayers and hymns of praise, which are the only forms of worship in these creeds, are also altogether worldly. Those who hold this view are generally self-sufficient. They keep aloof even from good preceptors through fear lest such association may impart superstitions. Some even hold that as the truth is inherent in the soul it can be realized by one’s own independent efforts, and that, therefore, there is no necessity for submission to a preceptor. Some opine that it is sufficient to accept the supreme Teacher. God is the supreme Preceptor and Saviour. He destroys our sinful tendencies by entering into our proper selves. There is no necessity for any human preceptor. Some of them regard as God-given a certain book which is a compilation from different sources. Others do not admit the authority of any book through fear lest by recognizing the authority of any Scriptures errors are admitted.

Although according to this view only there is only one God yet it is in many parts inconsistent, full of insinuations of partiality against God and of no value to jivas who are naturally disposed towards God. Instead of admitting a principle of evil existing separately from God it considers the commission of sin as due to the weakness of jivas for which also, as this view offers no other explanation. God is tacitly held to be ultimately responsible. In the pride of empiric knowledge they fail to grasp the difference between soul and mind. Their spiritual science is stunted in its growth on account of arrogance engendered by their superior knowledge of the physical sciences. Their spiritual knowledge is so meager that they cannot distinguish between the spiritual principle and the material principle in gross and subtle forms. They accordingly mistake the symbolic for the spiritual.

From a long time a body of opinions bearing the name of advaita-vada (monism) has been current in this country. This opinion is born of study of the Vedas under the lead of narrow partisan bias. Although monism has also been preached by many scholars outside India yet there seems to be little doubt that this view spread originally to other countries from India. A few savants who accompanied Alexander the Great into India, made the thorough acquaintance of it. This has been hinted by authors of Greece and Rome in their own works. According to advaita-vada the Brahman is the only entity. There is not and has never been any second entity besides the Brahman. Distinctions such as spirit, matter and God are due to conventional judgment. As a matter of fact the Brahman is the unchanged cause of all cognisable principles. The Brahman is eternal, without change, without form and without differentiation. In the Brahman there is no adjunct, no kind of power and no kind of activity. There is no change of state or transformation of the Brahman. All these expressions are to be found in different parts of the Vedas. The professors of the monistic cult of the Brahman adopted these statements without any objection, But when they turned their eyes towards the differentiated world, they began to reflect how such Brahman can be the cause of the world. Whence came the world? Unless this was explained the view which appealed to their tastes could not be rendered tenable. Arrived at this point they began to think, and numerous issues were soon brought to light that clamoured for solution. How can activity or the active power be admitted to the Brahman which is without activity in any form? On the other hand caution was necessary lest monism suffered any curtailment by the admission of a second principle. Thinking on in this manner they first of all came to the conclusion that there would be no violation of the monistic principle if a slight power of transformation in the Brahman were admitted. The Brahman is the transformation of itself. This transformation is cognisable. Those monists who considered such admission as inconsistent with the monistic position, proposed to account for the world by the assumption of deception or illusion (vivarta) due to want of true knowledge; just as a stick may be mistakenly supposed to be a snake. The world is unreal, a mere illusory idea. There is no world, no life. The Brahman exists and there also exists an illusion in the shape of the knowledge of the world. The names ‘avidya’ (nescience) ‘maya’ (illusion) etc. arose out of the effort to understand this deception thoroughly. A deception is never a real, separate entity. Therefore, there is no infringement of the conclusion of monism that the reality is only one. After this extraneous knowledge is subdued by the knowledge of the Reality the apparent illusion is destroyed with the realization of one entity, resulting in emancipation (mukti).Yet another body of scholars refused to consider the theory of illusion as being altogether true. They said that the world is not a piece of self evident deception. The illusion of the world owes its maintenance to another hallucination, viz., the jiva or individual soul. The jiva is not a separate entity from the Brahman. This would be an infringement of the monistic principle. The jiva is the real illusion. These scholars are divided into two groups. One of those held the view that the Brahman is like the great sky appearing as jiva due to limitation like the portion of the great sky enclosed within the pot. The other section thought this would be too great a tampering with the Brahman, and necessitate His subordination to illusion. Instead of doing this let the jiva be recognized as the reflection of the Brahman like the image of the moon in the water. Being itself a false entity full of a deceptive cognition in the way of the natural function of the principle of nescience the jiva soul imagines this world as made up of matter. In reality the Brahman is one and without a second. The jiva is not a separate entity. The world also is not anything that has a separate existence from the Brahman.

The great error of these scholars, which they can neither see nor want to see, is their assumption that the Brahman is only one admitting of the existence of no second entity, and that there is no other real thing separate from the Brahman. So long as the inconceivable power of the same Brahman is not admitted all the above speculations are bound to be trivial. Is the powerless Brahman proved to be one by the postulation of illusion by one, of ‘nescience’ by another, of ‘deception’ by a third and of ‘the deception of a deception’ by yet another school? In all these views the abandonment of the monistic position is easily recognizable. The conception of the Brahman possessed of inconceivable power, is an infinitely greater idea than that of the powerless Brahman. Neither does the former necessitate the postulation of an entity foreign to the Brahman for the purpose of preserving His so called unity. Monism fails utterly to comprehend and harmonize all the statements of the Vedas and is equally-powerless to promote the good of the jiva. We take leave of the subject of monism with these general observations for the present, reserving the specific consideration of the details of its numerous variants in connection with the teaching of Mahaprabhu when He refutes the fallacies of this view.

All these are mere verbal juggleries or the mischievous prejudices of self-opinionated controversialists. The Truth exists buried in the midst of erroneous speculations. It is the office of the real investigator of Truth, on ascertaining the nature of the untruths, to discard them and by making the direct acquaintance with Truth to procure and treasure Him. Victor Cousin, the French savant, although he rightly hit the method, failed in its actual application, due to the fact that he employed himself in searching for the Absolute Truth in the piles of empiric learning. Such effort is like the endeavour to obtain the grain by the process of grinding the chaff. The real sifting has been done by Sri Vyasadeva in his Brahmasutra and elaborated by himself in the Srimad Bhagavatam; and Sri Chaitanya Deva came into this world to make the religion set forth in the Srimad Bhagavatam possible of attainment by the fallen jiva.