A popular way these days of misinterpreting śāstra is to establish a principle out of an example. Reader V sent me a question which many have asked me before. His question is —
Could you share your understanding of CC Adi 7.116, where the analogy of a large fire and a small spark from that fire is given? It appears to suggest that we are similar in quality to the Lord, though quantitatively minute. Since the Lord possesses free will, and we share His qualitative nature on a smaller scale, wouldn’t this imply that we also have a minute degree of free will?
Here, we see an analogy being turned into a principle. But,
Examples are supposed to explain a principle. Examples do not make a principle.
The purpose of an example
The Sanskrit term for ‘example’, typically used in formulating nyāyas (discussed here), is dṛṣṭānta. It is defined as follows —
लौकिकपरीक्षकाणां यस्मिन्नर्थे बुद्धिसाम्यं स दृष्टान्तः
dṛṣṭānta is that object, regarding which, the laukika (layperson) and the parikṣaka (expert), have the same concept. Nyāya sūtra i.1.25
The commentary on this sūtra by Vātsyāyana explains further that a laukika or layperson is loka-sāmānyam-anatītā – one who has not gone beyond ordinary people, and has not attained special intelligence (buddhyatiśayam-aprāptā). In contrast, a parikṣaka is one who is capable of performing parikṣā, or examination, either with tarka (argumentation) or other means. A parikṣaka is of extraordinary intellect in contrast to the laukika.
An example is that on which both the expert and an ordinary person agree. The example helps an ordinary person to grasp an unfamiliar topic that is being explained. So the purpose of an example is not to establish a new principle related to any topic. It is to explain an already established principle to make it more comprehensible.
The fire-spark example
Returning to the fire-spark analogy, Śrī Jīva offers it in the Paramātmā Sandarbha to help us understand that Paramātmā is different from the jīva. He cites the following verse from the Bhāgavata —
yatholmukād visphuliṅgād dhūmād vāpi sva-sambhavāt apy ātmatvenābhimatād yathāgniḥ pṛthag ulmukāt bhūtendriyāntaḥ-karaṇāt pradhānāj jīva-sañjñitāt ātmā tathā pṛthag draṣṭā bhagavān brahma-sañjñitaḥ
Just as fire is distinct from the sparks and smoke [arising conditionally from] the burning kindling wood, of which it is the [fiery] source, and just as it is distinct even from the kindling wood itself, which is taken to be identical with it, so too the Self, the Seer, Bhagavān, known as Brahman, is distinct from the gross elements, the external senses, the internal senses, pradhāna, and [the self] who is called jīva. (SB 3.28.40–41)
Examples are offered with a specific purpose in mind. When an example is used to derive a principle, one is bound to go astray, as seen in the question above, where the questioner uses the example to infer that the jīva has the same qualities as Bhagavān.
In another place, the same fire-spark example is offered to show similarity between the jīva and Bhagavān by Śrī Viśvanātha. I have presented this example in this article, and it is reproduced below:
asyārthaḥ—yat-taṭasthaṁ viśeṣato jñeyaṁ cidvastu sa jīvaḥ yathāgneḥ kṣudrā visphuliṅgā vyuccaranti [bṛ.ā.u. 2.1.20] iti śruteḥ |
The meaning is as follows. That entity, which is taṭastha, which is to be known specifically as a conscious substance, is the jīva. The śruti says, “[the jīvas are like] small sparks of fire that come out in various directions from the fire.
In contrast to the example above that establishes difference, here we see that the fire-spark analogy is offered to help us understand that jīva and Bhagavān share the common property of consciousness. In contrast to the above verse from the Bhāgavata, here the example teaches the opposite- similarity between the jīva and Bhagavān.
We see that the same example can be used to help us understand diametrically opposite principles. It is thus incorrect to derive principles from examples. Rather, one must establish the principle first, and then offer examples to explain it. This, indeed, is what Śrī Jīva does in the Paramātmā Sandarbha. There, we learn that the jīva is but one type of śakti of Bhagavān. The jīva is not qualitatively the same as Bhagavān at all. The difference between the jīva and Bhagavān is not that it is ‘quantitatively minute’. The jīva shares but one quality – consciousness- with Bhagavān. It does not possess Bhagavān’s other qualities like independence. It has no independence whatsoever, and therefore has no free will whatsoever.
Summary
An example is offered for the benefit of ordinary persons so that they may understand the principle.
Making a principle out of an example is an easy way to develop misconceptions.
The same example can be offered to teach diametrically opposite principles.
Leave a Reply