Maya and the Self

When we strive to obtain knowledge about an object, there are three factors involved in the process of obtaining knowledge: the subject, the object to be known, and the internal instrument by which the subject obtains knowledge of the object. In both science and Western philosophy, the focus is entirely on knowing the object without regard to the nature of the internal instrument that we use to obtain knowledge.

In Vedānta, the situation is drastically different because it recognises that avidyā is the root cause of the jīva’s incapacity to obtain perfect knowledge. According to Advaita Vedānta, avidyā influences the perception of the world. Mūla-avidyā or the deep sleep that underlies the existence of ajīva, is avyakta, or unmanifest. It is the darkness of sleep that one ‘sees’ in deep sleep. It is the reason that when one wakes up from deep sleep, one says, ‘I knew nothing’. The ‘nothingness’ that one knows in deep sleep is the darkness that blocks the effulgence of the Self.

By its essential nature, the Self is self-effulgent with Consciousness. The deep sleep of the jīva obstructs this effulgence and presents the darkness of ‘nothing’. Even when a jīva wakes up, this sleep (bīja-nidrā) is present, and everything that it perceives is through the veil of sleep. That is why, when a man knows an object through perception, he still has the notion that he does not know it and builds theories to explain what the object is. The theories that one constructs to explain the object become superimpositions (adhyāsa) on the object.

In the words of Ludwig Wittgenstein, as Śrī Chittaranjan Naik explains, we look at the world through the nets of our theoretical constructs. Wittgenstein and his group in the field of Modern Analytical Philosophy tried to define a set of verifiability criteria for science. After striving for almost a decade, they abandoned the project. They recognised that the scientific propositions that form the initial working hypotheses of the scientists are already coloured by the symbolic framework of science. Thus, was born the idea of ‘theory-ladenness of observation’.

It is never possible for anyone to be completely free of theories when he or she looks at the world. Thus, the idea of our perceptions being coloured by avidyā is not a mere dogmatic assertion brought forth from the pages of Vedānta, but a similar notion is indeed evident in the phenomenon of ‘theory-ladenness’. This, then, is human predilection. The inner constitution of man is already coloured by the darkness of avidyā , and it presents a matrix of circularity from which it is difficult to escape.

The main point is that the inner instrument of cognition needs to be free of defects if we are to obtain knowledge. There is no attempt either in science or in Western philosophy to address this issue, whereas in traditional Indian philosophy, it forms a major part of the effort to acquire knowledge.

The Proof of the Self

Śrī Chittaranjan Naik demonstrates the existence of Self in his second treatise by showing that in the presence of intention (icchā śakti), the probability of ordered complexity arising from simplicity approaches one. In the absence of intent, the probability of such complexity through blind and random combinations approaches zero. Some of the most famous discoveries of science (like gravity) were made by recognising the most commonplace phenomena staring at us all along. Similarly, we are looking at a power of the Self, or of intentional action, right in its face and are not recognising it.

Naik, in presenting this proof, sets up a verifiability criterion by which the truth of the proposition can become verifiable. As seen earlier, Indian philosophy stresses verifiability criteria and not falsifiability for validity. His proof establishes a correlation between the presence of intention and the outcomes of ordered dispersions of matter happening repeatedly, millions of times every year, in the form of the production of cars, beehives, microchips, airplanes, buildings, and a million more things. In each case, there is the presence of intention and actions directed towards the material components, which acquire 100% biases to be in exactly the required spaces and the required orientations to fall in place. There is a case to establish a definite causal connection between the intention and the results of ordered configurations of matter.

This correlation, or vyāpti in Indian logic, enables one to infer the presence of the ātman or a conscious entity (soul in the western parlance) from the presence of goal-oriented actions. Where there is an intentional action, there is always a conscious being present as the source. Whenever there is an absence of the ātman, the probability of spontaneous order from chaos approaches zero, as he shows in the book. He addresses the Darwinian arguments about evolution too. Yet, in contemporary discourse, intention does not have the pride of place of an ontological principle. It is simply a manifestation of some underlying physical state in the brain or body. The ‘explaining away’ is not through a logical elucidation but by asserting a dogma.

The dogma lulls the mind into thinking that the phenomenon cited for the inference of the self is a mere appearance. Thus, it is imperative to undertake a philosophical investigation of the belief that goal-oriented actions are nothing more than manifestations of underlying physical processes and show it to be a mere dogma. This refutation of the dogma forms the second part of his book.

Authored by Dr. Pingali Gopal. Published by Brhat Culture Creative LLP.