word (Shankara on cranes, lotuses and milk & curd)

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Michaelji,

 

advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

 

Michael:

> In B.S.B. you will find that Shankara thought that

> Cranes conceived by hearing the sounds of clouds and

> that Lotuses travelled from lake to lake mysteriously.

 

CN:

> I remember having reading this vaguely. Can you give

> me the reference sutra no?

 

Michael:

> The crane and the lotus are in II.i.25. Prior to

> that Shankara says that milk (II.i.24) turns into

> curds on its own without depending on any extraneous

> accessory. Not true. It requires if its preparation

> is like yoghurt a small amount of starter, carefully

> controlled temperature which stimulates the correct

> bacteria (lactobillius something).

 

CN:

 

I would have ignored these examples as being trivial to our

discussion had it not been for the fact that you use them to infer

that philosophy and science operate in two different realms, and that

philosophy has no authority over the domain of particular sciences. I

would like to say a few words to show that your arguments are

misplaced. Firstly, Shankara demonstrates the non-difference of

universal and particular through reason (through the argument related

to cowness and cow, through the argument related to singularity of

names for divers particulars, etc) and these arguments cannot be

negated just because Shankara says something in regard to cranes,

lotus stalks, and milk transforming into curd that seem strange to

our ears. Secondly, I believe you have got the context wrong with

respect to cranes and lotuses. Let me try to explain how these

examples arise in the specific context of the bhashya.

 

Curd is quite a popular edible in India, and it is normally made by

adding a little bit of starter (usually a bit of curd itself) to the

milk and letting it remain for a few hours (under normal Indian

ambient conditions) for the milk to transform into curd. This has

been the traditional way in which curd has been made in India for

untold ages, and I would believe that this was how curd was made in

India during the days of Shankara. So, it is not that Shankara didn't

know that a starter had to be added to the milk for making curd. But

it is also known that if you keep milk under normal (Indian) ambient

conditions without adding anything to it, it still transforms into

curd. This is a stark fact of perception (pratyaksha). When you

account for it through the paradigm of science, you bring in things

like bacteria because science believes in hidden material agents

sitting behind the things that we see in perception. But

nevertheless, as a pure fact of perception, the milk transforming

into curd is a valid example. The paradigm of science is (logically)

inverted from the Vedanta paradigm because it gives more priority to

inference than to perception, whereas Nyaya and Vedanta give more

priority to perception over inference. This is because all facts of

perception are manifested by the One cause and any other cause that

the One cause shows forth is a cause only because it is bestowed as a

cause by that One cause. Thus an inferred cause has no priority over

a perceived cause. Let me explain this through an example. We see

milk turning into curd in a dream just as we see milk turning into

curd in this waking world. Does the milk that we see in the dream

require some bacteria for it to turn into curd? The ultimate and

absolute fact is that each thing and each cause that we perceive

through perception shows the cause as only 'that much' (as revealed

by perception) because the cause has been thus bestowed by the One

cause that projects phenomena, and any other cause that is inferred

has validity that is secondary to what is perceived. Thus, in the

strictest sense of logic (Nyaya), the milk transforms into curd

without any external aid because it is seen to be like that. And

Shankara uses this analogy for showing that Brahman too, without any

external aid, just as in the case of milk transforming into curd, may

bring Himself (as the material and efficient cause) to transform into

the world.

 

Now let us come to the matter regarding cranes conceiving by hearing

thunder in the clouds and lotus stalks moving mysteriously from lake

to lake. But before I proceed to show this matter in the proper

light, I would like to ask you one question: Did you know that not

only cranes, but also human beings, sometimes conceive without

mating? Draupadi, the fiery queen of the Pandavas, was born a full-

grown beautiful maiden from the fire of a yajna?

 

Coming back to the topic of cranes and lotuses, I think it would be

helpful to this discussion to consider the times of Shankara's life.

According to tradition Shankara's is dated around 500 BC and

according to the Indologists, he is dated around 800 AD. Whatever the

date may be, I don't think lotuses were in the habit of taking a walk

around the lake during those days. I am quite sure that they used to

stay fixed in the lake and I am also sure that Shankara knew that

they stayed fixed in the lake. Also, Shankara knew that cranes

conceived by mating. The Vedas say that out of the four types of

beings – those born of the egg, those born of the womb, those born of

moisture and those born of sprout, the first two are conceived by

mating (there being of course exceptional cases like Draupadi). And

Shankara, I am sure, followed the Vedas. Then what do the crane and

lotus examples mean? I think we need to consider the context properly

before we jump to conclusions.

 

Having shown through argument that Brahman may transform into the

world without any extraneous accessory, Shankara brings in examples

to illustrate how it can be so. Please note that the examples are

supplementary to the arguments. Milk transforming into curd is one

such analogy. Then the following objection arises from the purva-

paksha:

 

Opponent: "It may be granted that insentient things like milk etc

turn into curds etc. without the help of external means, it being a

matter of experience; but conscious beings like potters and others

are seen to depend on the requisite means while engaging in their

respective works. So can Brahman, conscious as It is, act without

help?"

 

And Shankara replies: "We say it can be so 'as in the case of gods

and others'. For on the authority of the mantras and (other)

corroboratory statements (in scriptures), anecdotes, and mythologies,

it is a known fact 'in this world' that the gods, manes, rsis, and

others, very powerful and sentient as they are, create by themselves

through mere will and without any external help, many such things as

bodies, palaces, chariots, etc., or various shapes, because they are

possessed of special powers. The spider also creates its threads by

itself; the crane conceives without mating by hearing merely the roar

of clouds; and the lotus stalk moves from one lake to another without

waiting for any vehicle. Similarly, Brahman, conscious though It is,

may well create the universe by Itself without looking for external

means."

 

Note that the purva-paksha mentions that conscious beings are not

seen to create without external accessories just as a potter is never

seen to work without tools and accessories. It is at this point that

Shankara brings in extra-ordinary examples on the authority

of "mantras, and (other) corroboratory statements (in scriptures),

anecdotes, and mythologies". And the example of the crane conceiving

without mating and lotuses moving from lake to lake are extra-

ordinary cases just as Draupadi's birth is an extra-ordinary case.

And what is required in an analogy is a case that is similar to what

is to be illustrated (Brahman acting without external aid) and not

necessarily examples from common experience. Shankara surely knew how

cranes conceive and how lotuses stay fixed in the lake despite these

examples, just as he knew how men and women conceive despite

Draupadi's immaculate birth. And it is all quite clear when you

consider what Shankara says next:

 

"For the point emphasised is the mere difference from the

illustrations of potters and others. Though the potters and the gods

and others are equally sentient beings, the potters depend on

external accessories for undertaking their work, whereas the gods and

others do not. Similarly, Brahman, though conscious, will not depend

on external means. It is merely this much that we imply by citing the

cases of the gods and others."

 

And it is merely this much, and not more, that we should see in these

analogies.

 

Your remarks on Shankara were misplaced. Since this list is dedicated

to Shankara and his philosophy, I thought that a clarification would

be in order here.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan