A while back I read a poem stating how Descartes’ inquiry of the self did not lead to an accurate conclusion in the famous line “cogito, ergo sum” (I think, therefore I am). It reminded me of ātmaṣatkam/nirvāṇaṣatkam by Ādi Śaṅkarācārya. In the first line of the first verse of this text itself, Śaṅkara refutes the conclusion of Descartes — मनोबुद्ध्यहङ्कार चित्तानि नाहं (Neither am I the mind nor intelligence or ego). This sound like a bold claim right, so let’s go step by step as to how we can come to this conclusion. We will take the help of Vidyāraṇya’s text, Dṛg-Dṛśya-Viveka.
Inquiry of the self according to Advaita
रूपं दृश्यं लोचनं दृक् तद्दृश्यं दृक्तु मानसम् ।
दृश्या धीवृत्तयः साक्षी दृगेव न तु दृश्यते ॥The form is seen and the eye is its seer. It (the eye) is seen (perceived) and the mind is its seer (perceiver). The mind with its modifications is seen/perceived and the Witness (the Self) is verily the seer/perceiver, But It (the Witness) is not seen/perceived (by any other).
Here a relation is established between the seer and the seen. When the world is seen, the eyes are the seer. When the eyes are the seen, the mind is the seer and when the mind is seen, the ātman is the seer.
- Form: The word implies all objects of sense perception.
- Eye: It stands for all the organs of perception such as the nose, ears etc. Here the eye (sense organs) is the perceiver only in a relative sense because it is itself perceived by the mind.
- Mind: The sense organs, unless the mind is attached to them, cannot perceive their objects. In a state of deep sleep, the sense organs do not perceive anything because the mind, at that time, ceases to function. of mind includes Buddhi, Modification of mind Chitta, and Ahaṃkāra.
- The mind is perceived by the conscious Self. अन्यत्रमना अभूवम्, नादर्शम् (Br. up. 1.5.3) “I was absent-minded, I did not see it”. Thus Mind is also a relative seer.
- The ātman or the innermost Self is the ultimate perceiver. If a perceiver of the ātman is sought, the enquiry will end in regressus ad infinitum. All entities from the gross objects to the mind are products of avidyā which itself is insentient (Jaḍa). Hence they also partake of the nature of insentiency. Therefore they are objects. The subjective character of some of these is only relative. But the Self is the ultimate seer because no other seer is known to exist. The knowledge of the knower (self) is never absent.
Q: How so the knowledge of the knower (self) is never absent?
Ans: “Because the Self is self-evident. For, (only) when the Self stands predetermined as the knower, there is a search for a means of knowledge by the knower. Indeed, it is not that without first determining oneself as ‘I am such’, one takes up the task of determining an object of knowledge. For, what is called the ‘self’ does not remain unknown to anyone. But the scripture is the final authority by way of merely negating superimposition of qualities that do not belong to the Self, it attains authoritativeness about the Self, but not by making some unknown thing known.” (Bhagavadgītā. Śaṅkara Bhāṣya 2.18).
“The Brahman that is immediate and direct, the Self that is within all’ (Bṛhadaraṇyaka Upaniṣad 3.4.1). You can go on to say nothing exists at all but you cannot say “I do not Exist”. Six principles for the seer-seen relationship to be remembered. We will see more clearly how these principles apply later:
- The seer and the seen are always different from each other.
- The seer is always Within (subtle); the seen is outside (object of perception).
- The seer is Non-dual; the seen are many.
- The seer is ‘sentient’; the seen, with it, is ‘inert’.
- Neither the seer nor the seen can see itself.
- The same thing cannot be both seer and seen at the same time.
नीलपीतस्थूलसूक्ष्मह्रस्वदीर्घादिभेदतः।
नानाविधानि रूपाणि पश्येल्लोचनमेकधा॥The forms etc. are objects of perception which are varying. That which is constant and changeless is the perceiver. The different objects appear, no doubt, as distinct from one another. But they are perceived with their changes, because the eye, as perceiver, is a unity. They all belong to one category, namely, dṛśya or the seen. Concerning objects, the eye is the perceiver.
The forms etc. are objects of perception which are varying. That which is constant and changeless is the perceiver. The different objects appear, no doubt, as distinct from one another.
But they are perceived with their changes, because the eye, as perceiver, is a unity. They all belong to one category, namely, dṛśya or the seen. Concerning objects, the eye is the perceiver.
The ‘Eye’ stands for all 5 sense organs. Note it is the central organ in the list. Similarly, ‘Object’ or ‘Form’ stands for all 5 respective sense objects for each sense organ. The sense organ is always the ‘seer’ of the sense object, which is the ‘seen’. Each sense organ has a vast range of objects of perception.
- Eye: In the verse, only the variety that pertains to colour and form is mentioned. We can add the varieties in the other senses.
- Ear: Silent, soft and loud, whistling, gurgling, thunderous, thudding, clapping, etc.
- Skin: Smooth, rough, tender, pricking, blunt, cool, hot, etc.
- Tongue: Sweet, sour, astringent, saline, spicy, bitter, etc.
- Nose: Earthy, foul, fragrant, inviting, repulsive, etc.
To the principles we discussed above, the object and the eye are always different. The object is outside and the eye is inside. The eye is one whereas the objects are many. The eye is sentient (relatively/seeming) and the objects are inert.
आन्ध्यमान्द्यपटुत्वेषु नेत्रधर्मेषु चैकधा ।
सङ्कल्पयेन्मनः श्रोत्रत्वगादौ योज्यतामिदम् ॥Such characteristics of the eye as blindness, sharpness or dullness, the mind can cognize because it is a unity. This also applies to (whatever is perceived through)the ear, skin etc.
Though the eye is the perceiver in respect of the various forms, it becomes the object of perception about the mind. The eye is subject to changes which are perceived by the mind; for it is the mind that thinks ‘I am blind’ etc. The mind knows the changes because it is a unity. This applies to the other sense organs as well. Though the nose, the skin, the tongue etc. are respectively perceivers concerning their several objects, they are perceived by the mind.
Hence, the mind is perceiver and the sense-organs are objects of perception. Mind, also like other sense-organs, is an object perceived by another. This is indicated in the following sloka :
कामः सङ्कल्पसन्देहौ श्रद्धाऽश्रद्धे धृतीतरे ।
ह्रीर्धीर्भीरित्येवमादीन् भासयत्येकधा चितिः ॥Consciousness illumines (such other mental states as) desire, determination and doubt, belief and non-belief, constancy and its opposite, modesty, understanding, fear and others because it (Consciousness) is a unity.
- Desire: Desire for the satisfaction of sensual pleasure.
- Determination: Determining the nature of objects directly perceived by a sense-organ.
- Faith: Faith in the result of Karma and the existence of God.
- Steadiness: The mental power which sustains a man even while he is physically or otherwise tired.
- Others etc.: Other states or functions of the mind are enumerated in the Aitareya Upaniṣad [3.1.2] “retentiveness, sense-perception, thinking, genius, mental suffering, memory, hankering, passion, and such others”
The list of the states or functions of the mind has been adopted from Bṛhadaraṇyaka Upaniṣad [1.5.3]: कामः संकल्पो विचिकित्सा श्रद्धाऽश्रद्धा धृतिरधृतिर्ह्रीर्धीर्भीरित्येतद्सर्वं मन एव — “Desire, resolve, doubt, faith, want of faith, steadiness, unsteadiness, shame, intelligence and fear — all these are but the mind”.
The mind undergoes all these changes known to all. Because of its changeable nature, the mind is an object of perception and Consciousness is the perceiver. This is because all these changes are perceived by Consciousness. After all, it is unity. These states, though distinct, become unified in Consciousness or Self.
नोदेति नास्तमेत्येषा न वृद्धिं याति न क्षयम् I
स्वयं विभात्यथान्यानि भासयेत्साधनं विना ॥
This Consciousness does neither rise nor set. It does not increase nor does it, nor does suffer decay. Being self-luminous, it illumines everything else without any other aid.
- Consciousness: It is the eternal Witness of all internal changes.
- Neither rise: ‘Rising’ here means birth, i.e., coming into the existence of an entity previously non-existent. This cannot be predicated on Consciousness as it is the Witness of even previous non-existence. Otherwise, no one will be aware of such non-existence. All entities from the empirical ego to the gross object perceived have a previous non-existing state because their appearance and disappearance are cognised by consciousness.
- Set: ‘setting’ means the disappearance of an existing entity, i.e., it’s becoming non-existent again. This state, though possible for relative entities, cannot be predicated on Consciousness. No disappearance or destruction can be cognized without a conscious Witness.
Does not etc.: Growth and decay are only possible for those entities which have parts. But Consciousness is without parts.
Everything else: All perceived entities are illumined by Consciousness. तमेव भान्तमनुभाति सर्वं तस्य भासा सर्वमिदं विभाति — The sun does not shine there; nor do the moon and the stars, nor do these lightnings shine. How could this fire? Him shining, all shine after. All this shines by his light. (Kaṭhopaniṣad 2.2.15). It is because ātman is self-luminous and illumined by none.
There’s one more beautiful verse in the Tattva Bodha which negates the mind from the self.
मदीयं शरीरं मदीयाः प्राणाः मदीयं मनश्च
मदीया बुद्धिर्मदीयं अज्ञानमिति स्वेनैव ज्ञायते
तद्यथा मदीयत्वेन ज्ञातं कटककुण्डल गृहादिकं
स्वस्माद्भिन्नं तथा पञ्चकोशादिकं स्वस्माद्भिन्नम्
मदीयत्वेन ज्ञातमात्मा न भवति ॥Just as bangles, earrings, house etc., known as ‘mine are all other than knower ‘me’, so too, the five sheaths etc., are known by the self as my body, my pranas, my mind, my intellect, and my knowledge and are therefore not the self.
Problems with Descartes’ arguments
Descartes is criticized for starting his philosophical inquiry by stating “I think” instead of “there is thinking happening”, which is seen as invalid. He also distinguished between “res extensa” and “res cogitans”, which is rejected by Advaita. This is a problem common to most Western philosophy, as it confuses the concepts of mind and consciousness. According to Advaita Vedānta, a mind is an object of consciousness, which appears and disappears, unlike consciousness which is unchanging and always present. Therefore, it is considered a fact that consciousness exists independently of objects, rather than as a theoretical concept.
The statement that the “I” of Descartes, often thought of as the self or the ego, is a mere construct of the brain with no actual existence can be true if one defines the mind as encompassing or being synonymous with consciousness. However, if the term ‘consciousness’ is used instead of ‘mind’, then many scientists and scholars from a variety of fields, including religion and philosophy, may disagree with this idea. This is because, for them, the concept of consciousness does not always imply that the ‘I’ or the self is not real.
How Descartes separated human beings into the components of mind and matter also became the primary perspective through which Westerners viewed the world subsequently. He believed that Matter is extended in space, can be divided and so on, while the mind is indivisible and appears to exist independently of the body and outside of space. This is known as Cartesian Dualism. However, he was never able to explain how these two fundamentally different substances could interact with each other. The concept of an immaterial “self” located in the brain and interpreting information from the senses did not make sense to many. The question of how the mind and body interact, known as the “mind-body problem,” has puzzled philosophers for centuries and a widely accepted explanation for the nature of the self has yet to be developed.
He further argues that the statement “I think, therefore, I am” is truth and forms the foundation for his proof of God’s existence. He posits that the concept of God exists in the mind, and as every effect has a cause, the idea of God must have a source. Additionally, the cause cannot be less than the effect and the effect cannot have more reality than its cause. Therefore, the idea of God, being infinite, must come from an infinite being-God. This idea of the infinite in the mind must be due to the existence of an infinite being, which he concludes to be God, thus proving his existence.
He is compelled to establish a connection between God and the world of things to address concerns that there could be no interaction between them if he were to accept the idea of dualism or the existence of multiple distinct substances. Despite this effort, Descartes’ views continue to be contradictory, as he holds that God is the only true substance, yet also maintains that God, the world, and the mind are all separate, distinct substances. As a result, he creates significant divides without attempting to reconcile them.
The idea of parallelism put forward by Descartes is at odds with the observations of real-world experiences. People’s emotions and physical sensations demonstrate the link between the mind and the body. Complex feelings in the mind and physical sensations such as hunger, pain, colour, and sound cannot be solely attributed to either the mind or the body. They are instead the result of an interaction between the mind and the body. According to the Vedanta philosophy, humans are not just pure spirit, pure mind, or pure body, but a combination of all three. Humans are an integrated whole, not separate parts as Descartes believed. The highest being is Īśvara, in whom the world and individuals are united to form a singular being. Īśvara’s will directs and organizes all things.
According to Vedanta, the world and individuals do not exist independently from Īśvara but are manifestations of Īśvara. Īśvara is the only true reality and the individuals are a part of Īśvara. This understanding is reached when individuals let go of their will and allow their higher intelligence to connect to the infinite Īśvara. The relationship between Īśvara, the world, and individuals is similar to the relationship between a dreamer and the dream world. Therefore, the distinctions between God, the world, and individuals are only perceived by the limited perspective of the human consciousness, but in reality, there is only one being, referred to as God about the world and individuals and the Absolute in itself. The idea of three distinct substances in Descartes is at odds with reason and fails to match real-world experiences.
