Chapter 5 – The Concepts of Sakshi, Space and Time
5.1 SAKSHI
Another significant contribution of Sri Madhwacharya to the metaphysical speculations of Indian thinkers is the concept of Sakshi and the associated concepts of space and time as inevitable consequences of his epistemological stand. The concept of Sakshi is very fundamental in his philosophy and finds elucidation in his famous work Anuvyakhyana. The Sakshi is the jivatman or soul and is the perceiver of knowledge (jnatru). We have already seen that there are two types of knowledge viz. external knowledge and internal knowledge and that the latter is always true or unsublated. The fact that there is an essential distinction between the two types of knowledge indicates that the sources of the two types of knowledge are essentially different. The Sakshi is postulated as the source of internal knowledge which is always true and never sublated. No external sense of cognition is necessary for generating internal knowledge. In the knowledge ‘I am happy’ and in the knowledge 'I know myself’ it is the ‘I’ that apprehends knowledge, and it is the ‘I’ that is the means of knowledge. The ‘I’ directly i.e., without the intermediary of any other organ of cognition perceives happiness. It witnesseth all things.
Spatial and Temporal aspects of knowledge perceived directly by Sakshi
The Sakshi is to be invoked in order to explain the perception of space and time. In the apprehension of an object in knowledge there is always belief in the existence of the object. This is evidenced by the fact that when I perceive a rose, I stretch my hand to pluck it. If when I perceived the rose, I did not believe it existed I would not have stretched my hand. Things perceived are perceived as existing in space and time. I believe in the rose ‘out there’ and ‘now’. Such spatial and temporal aspects are concomitant with any piece of knowledge and must be regarded as the deliverances of perception and not the impositions of the perceiving mind on the substratum. Now the perception of space and time requires an apparatus different from the external senses of perception because the perception of space and time are never sublated. It is the Sakshi – ‘I’ - that is responsible for the perception of space and time.
Knowledge of ‘Generality’ perceived by Sakshi
Again, the form of the knowledge of any subject is ‘this is so and so’. In such knowledge we have the element ‘this' which distinguishes the object before us from all other objects. In saying ‘this’ we have a general concept or knowledge of all other things from which we distinguish ‘this'. Such a general knowledge of all things cannot have been derived from the external senses of cognition or the Manas because their capacities are limited and must be attributed to some other agency such as the Sakshi. The Sakshi is therefore to be postulated to account for such general knowledge, says Sri Madhwacharya ‘atah sarve padarthascha samanyat saksigocharah’ (A.V.p.41). Again, we have a concept of ‘all’ as when we say all men are mortal or as when we have a pile of fruits before us, we say ‘all the fruits are ripe'. This knowledge of ‘all’ is not the deliverance of perception of the external senses. It must have been derived from an altogether different agency which is postulated as the Sakshi. Otherwise says Sri Madhwacharya. how can we know ‘all’ – ‘sarvamityeva vijnanam sarvesham kathamanyatha’ (A.V.p.41).
Perception of time during deep sleep by Sakshi
We are conscious of time even during deep sleep. After a spell of deep sleep. I wake up refreshed and say, ‘I enjoyed sleep for so long’. This is an expression, which is pregnant with metaphysical implications. During deep sleep there is awareness of ‘I’, awareness of duration of time in ‘so long’ and awareness of enjoyment of sleep. Philosophers are not wanting who dispute or challenge the acceptance of each of these elements of awareness during deep sleep. If there is no ‘I’ during deep sleep, then to whom shall we attribute deep sleep? Again, if ‘I’ or consciousness of ‘I’ was not present during deep sleep how can I after waking say ‘I enjoyed sleep for so long’. In saying so I am referring to past experience in which the ‘I’ experienced or enjoyed sleep. The remembrance of ‘so long' points to the experience of a duration of time as ‘so long’ during deep sleep. The remembrance of enjoyment refers to a positive aspect of happiness different from the negative aspect of non-misery. If I mistook absence of misery during deep sleep for positive happiness I should exclaim after sleep ‘I slept so long without trouble of misery’. We have experience of time or duration of time during deep sleep. The external senses of cognition and the Manas are inactive during deep sleep and the perception of time must be attributed to Sakshi alone. Sri Madhwacharya therefore says... ‘kalo hi sakshipratyakshah susupthou cha pratitatah’ (A.V.p.16). time must be admitted as being perceived by Sakshi because it is cognized during deep sleep.
Sakshi as arbiter of Truth
Again, the Sakshi is to be invoked as the agent which distinguishes between true knowledge and false knowledge. If we examine experience in the matter of distinguishing between true knowledge and false knowledge the Sakshi emerges as the agent which determines the truth or falsity of knowledge. It is the Sakshi which determines the pramanya (truth) or pramanas, says Sri Madhwacharya – ‘sakshiipratyakshato hyeva mananam manateyate’ (A.V.p.40). It is by the pratyaksha of Sakshi that the truth of pramanas can be determined. It might, however, be questioned as to how we can trust the pratyaksha of Sakshi as the ultimate means of determining truth. The answer is, as Sri Madhwacharya says ‘sakshinah svaprakasatvamanavastha tathonyatha’ (A.V.p.40). The Sakshi knows from its pratyaksha whether some knowledge is true or false and it is the final arbiter. What it cognizes in its pratyaksha must be admitted to be true. Otherwise by questioning the veracity of the Sakshi we would be landing in infinite regress. If something else other than Sakshi is required to determine truth for the Sakshi something else is required to determine the truth for that thing, and so an ad infinitum. The result would be that the Sakshi would never be able to determine the truth or falsity and would be incapable of taking decisions and acting up to them. Such, however, is not the case in experience. We therefore have to admit the Sakshi as the final arbiter of truth or falsity. If even what is experienced by the Sakshi is regarded as false, it would be impossible to distinguish between the false and the true (bhramatvam abhramatvancha sarvam vedyam hi sakshina …na chet saksi kvachiddustah nirnaya iyate (A.V.p.36) - It is Sakshi alone that can distinguish between false and true. If Sakshi be admitted to be defective or incapable to distinguish how can anything at all be determined?). The Sakshi when it apprehends knowledge apprehends it as true, if defectless and false if defective. Therefore, even false knowledge as perceived by Sashi is not perceived as true but merely as knowledge.
If it is required to know whether the knowledge is true or false, the Sakshi proceeds to determine by further examination. The arbiter of the examination is however the Sakshi itself. For knowledge after examination no further stage is required to establish truth or falsity. The Sakshi uniquely determines truth or falsity and has no more doubts about it. Whatever is determined by the Sakshi as true after due examination is necessarily true (sakshisiddhe tvasamsayat (A.V.p.49)). The Sakshi must therefore be accepted as defectless in the matter of its capacity to distinguish between truth and falsity (sakshirnirdoshaevaikasadangikaryaeva nah (A.V.p.36)). Now how does the Sakshi proceed to determine the truth or falsity of knowledge? When a person who is thirsty is told that there is a pond nearby if he distrusts his informant, he goes in the direction pointed out to see if there is a pond. When he goes nearer, he feels a cool breeze from which he infers the existence of the pond. If he still distrusts, he goes up to the pond and actually sees the water in the pond. When he still distrusts his own vision, he goes to the pond and drinks water which quenches his thirst and makes him feel happy. He feels satisfied and such satisfaction is the experience of the Sakshi. He now believes completely in the experience of the pond and has no more doubts about its existence. The examination of truth by the Sakshi goes on until it results in an experience reaching up to the Sakshi directly. The experience of the Sakshi is the final and ultimate test of truth. Sakshi thus plays the role of an agent distinguishing between true and false knowledge. The Sakshi in essence is the nominative of the verb ‘to experience’. That which experiences is the Sakshi. The self, happiness and misery, impressions of the manas, space and time, the generality of objects, are objects perceived in the knowledge cognized by the Sakshi.
5.2 SPACE (Akasha)
Space is, as has already been said, perceived directly by the Sakshi. In all pieces of knowledge there is a spatial element which must be admitted as the direct perception of the Sakshi. The fact that we move our hands implies our belief in space for we would not move our hands if there were no space to move in. Space is the receptacle of everything in the world and such space is called avyakritakasha. Some schools of thought (ex; Nyaya school) say that because we get the knowledge of space after the activity of our sense of sight in which we see a bird flying ‘there’, the element of space is indicated by ‘there’ is also derived from our sense of sight. This is however not right. Space being non-material cannot be perceived by the sense of sight. The knowledge of the spatial element must be attributed as explained before to be due to the perception of the sakshi. The Tarkikas try to infer the existence of space as a result of an involved inference. The essence of their argument is as follows: Space must be postulated as abiding in some medium or the other. Of all the mediums known such as earth, fire, and water, not one of them can possibly be said to possess sound as their quality. We, therefore, are led to postulate a medium different from others, in which sound can inhere. Such a medium is akasha or space (For elaboration see Nyaya Sudha p212-216). Now if space is to be inferred as the medium for sound, a deaf person cannot have knowledge of space because he cannot hear any sound and infer the existence of space. But even a deaf man has a knowledge of space because he says ‘here is a book; there is a bird’ implying spatial concepts.
5.3 TIME (Kala)
Time, too as has already been said, is perceived by the Sakshi directly. In all elements of knowledge, we have temporal aspect indicated by ‘now’. The concept of time is not derived from the external senses because the knowledge of time is, as has already been said, unsublated and also because we have knowledge of time in deep sleep when the external senses are dormant. Some schools of thought like the Tarkikas seek to establish time on the basis of Anumana. But it must be realized that even before the Anumana is projected the concept of time should have been there. Without involving the concept or knowledge of time the Anumana cannot at all originate. The various elements of the Anumana trying to prove the existence of time would be pointless (tadetad iti sarvancha drishyam va smrithigocharam. sakshisiddhena kalena khachitam hyeva vartate (A.V.p.16)). In employing an Anumana we must recollect concomitance between hetu and the sadhya. Recollection or remembrance refers to a past event i.e., an event with a past in which the concept of time is involved. The remembrance of concomitance connects the hetu and sadhya as coexisting ‘then’ at an earlier period of time before the Anumana is employed. The hetu and sadhya in the earlier case have also been apprehended as being ‘here’, ‘now’ in which the temporal element is already there. It is impossible to divorce the temporal element from any part of an Anumana and so time is eternal and perceived directly without waiting for an Anumana to proclaim its existence. Thus, Anumana cannot independently establish time. Agama need not be pressed to establish time because even a deaf man who cannot hear Agama has the sense of time and must have derived the concept of time from some source other than Agama.
It is therefore clear that time also is perceived only by the Sakshi directly and the Sakshi emerges as the perceiver of space and time.