Home Cloverleaf (ISSN 2561-6986)

Chronological Alteration of Characteristics of the Main Principles in Sāṁkhya Philosophy: An Analysis

Author
Dr. Debamitra Dey

Introduction:

The synonym of the term philosophy in Sanskrit is ‘darśana’. From the derivation of the term darśna, it is denoted that the scriptures which act as a tool to obtain proper world-view, is considered as darśana, i.e. philosophy. Any avid reader of Indian Philosophy knows that it is divided into two definite cults, i.e. Āstika and Nāstika. It is opined that among the Āstika cult, Sāṁkhya is the oldest one. The great sage Kapila is considered as the founder of this system.

                   Scholars opine that the word Sāṁkhya is derived from the term saṁkhyā which means number. It is said that as the Sāṁkhya school discusses about twenty five main principles of this world, namely tattva, hence the school is stated as Sāṁkhya. According to Amarakoṣa, the term saṁkhyā refers discussion and analysis. In this particular system it is seen that the characteristics of the principles are discussed with great sincerity. Moreover it is also observed that the mutual difference among those principles is defined in a systematic way. As an effect of that the system got the name Sāṁkhya.1

                   In the commentary of the text Yogasūtra , the term prasaṁkhyānaṁ (synonym of the term saṁkhyā)  is used to denote obtaining of ultimate knowledge. The commentator of Yogasūtra, Vyāsa has also expressed the same view in his commentary.2 If we accept this explanation of the term saṁkhyā, then also the philosophy of Kapila can be entitled as Sāṁkhya because here to obtain the ultimate knowledge, the proper path is directed by knowing the distinction between two major principles, i.e. Prakṛti (matter) and Puruṣa (consciousness).

             In Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad, the first implication of the Sāṁkhya thought is seen. According to the views of Śaṁkarāchārya, there term is used to mean knowledge, “ tatkāraṇaṁ sāṁkhyayogādhigamyaṁ iti vaidikameva tatra jñānaṁ dhyānaṁca sāṁkhyayogaśabdābhyāṁ abhilapyete”.3 Even in Śrīmadbhāgavadgītā, the word sāṁkhya is used and the commentators, Śrīdharasvāmī and Rāmānuja have explained it as cognition of self (ātmatattva) or absolute cognition, “samyak khyāyate prakāśyate vastutattvamanayā iti saṁkhyā samyagjñānaṁ, tasyāṁ prakaśamānamātmatattvaṁ sāṁkhyamiti”. Śrīdharasvāmī opines that in this context, the word sāṁkhya is used in the sense of Sāṁkhya philosophy.4 It is his view that the actual meaning of the term saṁkhyā is the cognition of self distinguished with the concept of the difference between Puruṣa and Prakṛti. It can be added furthermore that though in Carakasaṁhitā the word sāṁkhya is used to mean profound knower or a person who is able in medicine but the word is used to denote Sāṁkhya thought in some places also.5   

                   From the above discussion it is clear that many ancient scriptures of India, such as, Mahābhārata, Charakasaṁhitā, Manusaṁhitā, Bhāgavad Gītā are all replete with mention of Sāṁkhya. Thus it cannot be refuted that the spread of Sāṁkhya Philosophy was wide from very ancient times. However there is vast difference between the views of Sāṁkhya mentioned in smṛti-itihāsa and that we find in later Sāṁkhya scripts. In all those sources, Kapila stands out as the most popular proponent of Sāṁkhya philosophy, though there are doubts about his identity and time. Though the names of Āsuri and Pañcaśikha are found as his disciples but no books written by those two are available. At present the oldest book of Sāṁkhya is Saṁkhyakārikā, written by Īśvara Kṛṣṇa. It is a notable feature that unlike other philosophy, Sāṁkhya does not maintain the traditional well organised form.                    It is often seen that in case of other schools of Indian philosophy, the sūtragrantha is regarded as the oldest one. The examples of Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika can be considered in this regard. But clearly Sāṁkhya departs from this tradition.

                   The scholars hold this opinion that Kapila’s sūtragrantha was prepared in 14th century A.D. it is also validated by the fact that the literary works written before 15th Century of other schools of Indian philosophy has never mentioned Kapil’s Sāṁkhyasūtra. Śaṁkarācārya’s commentary on Brahmasūtra makes mention of Sāṁkhya but the views expressed there are distinctly different from the views of Sāṁkhyasūtra. Also, two most eminent commentators of Sāṁkhyasūtra, Aniruddha and Vijñāna Bhikṣu wrote their commentaries in the later part of 15th Century. From these discussions we can say that the time gap between the views of Sāṁkhya as depicted in the Carakasaṁhitā (78B.C.) and views expressed in Saṁkhyakārikā is more than 200 years. Also the time-gap between Sāṁkhyakārikā and Sāṁkhyasūtra is more than 1000 years. Hence it is not hard to accept that there should also be changes in the thought-process as well as in perspectives that are reflected in those two books.  An effort will be made to identify those changes in the following part of our discussion.6                                                                                                                                                                         

 I

 In Saṁkhyadarśana, twenty five principles (pañcaviṁśati tattva) are accepted. Among them two ultimate principles (para tattva) are acknowledged by the Sāṁkhya scholars and they are Prakṛti (matter) and Puruṣa (conscious self). In Saṁkhyakārikā, prakṛti is often expressed as Avyakta and Puruṣa as Jña, “tadviparitaḥ śreyān vyaktāvyaktajñavijñānāt”. In the eleventh kārikā of Sāṁkhyakārikā, the characteristics of Prakṛti and Puruṣa have been discussed in an interesting matter.

                        Triguṇamavivekī visayaḥ sāmānyamacetanaṁ prasavadharmī/

                 Vyaktaṁ tathā pradhānaṁ tadviparītastathā ca pumān.7 (Sāṁkhyakārikā, verse-11)

Here we see that all the qualities mentioned in the verse are adjectives of Prakṛti and the consistent of the opposite attributes is Puruṣa. Now the question arises whether the same characteristics are notable in the oldest sources (such as Carakasaṁhitā or Mahābhārata) or there are some other kinds of that. In the following section, we will discuss about that.

               In Carakasaṁhitā, six categories of element are recognized. They are pañcabhūta (five core elements of creation) and cetanā (consciousness). There the cetanā is mentioned as Purūsa. Moreover we also find a list of twenty four main principles of creation (tattva). They are –ten senses, mind, five kinds of objects cognized by senses, five elements, ahaṁkāra (self-sense), mahat (intelligence) and prakṛti (matter). It is significant that Puruṣa does not exist in that list. The famous commentator of Carakasaṁhitā, Cakrapāni says that “Prakṛtivyatiriktancodāsīnāṁ puruṣamavyaktatvasādharmyāt avyaktayāṁ prakṛtaveva prakṣipya avyaktaśabdenaiva gṛḥṇāti’’. 8It means that the unmanifested quality of Prakṛti is also a quality of Puruṣa, consequently both Prakṛti and Puruṣa are expressed here by the term Prakṛti. From this discussion, can we reach to this decision that in the oldest form of Sāṁkhya, Prakṛti hold a position of prominence than Puruṣa? Or we can say it another way that in the previous stages of Sāṁkhya, matter was chosen over consciousness in case of creation.

                        In Sāṁkhyakārikā we find that two main forms of Prakṛti , vyakta (manifested part) and avyakta (unmanifested part)  are recognized. In tenth kārikā (verse) of Sāṁkhyakārikā, the exclusive characteristics of vyakta and avyakta are explained in this way,

                  “ Hetumadanityamavyapi sakriyamanekāśritaṁ liňgaṁ/

                Sāvayavaṁ paratantraṁ vyaktaṁ viparītamavyaktaṁ”.9 ((Sāṁkhyakārikā, verse-10)

It is stated earlier that in the 11th kārikā, vyakta’s characteristics were described in a detailed way but we find that avyakta’s qualities are never explained. We have to take a glance to Carakasaṁhitā to find an answer of this. There these two parts vyakta and avyakta are mentioned. There the manifested part of the creation (vyakta) is mentioned as Kṣetra and the unmanifested portion (avyakta) is called Kṣetrajña. Renowned philosopher S. N. Dashgupta opines that the unmanifested part of prakṛti and consciousness (cetanā) is synonymous there. Also in the Mokṣadharma part of Mahābhārata, it is told that the ultimate principle (paratattva) is not manifested and it is called as Puruṣa.

               Contextually a question arises here that in the older stages of Sāṁkhya, was there a single principle namely avyakta which was actually an amalgamation of matter and consciousness, i.e. prakṛti and Puruṣa? To find an answer of this question we may try to look at the theories of Tantra because many scholars have stated that in the earlier stages of Sāṁkhya philosophy, Tantra has played a great part of influence in it. In a similar way with Sāṁkhya, Tantra has accepted two main principles, Śiva and Śakti. In some particular texts of Tantra, the importance of Śakti is found whereas in other texts of Tantra, we see that Śiva is given much more significance than Śakti. But we have to admit that mostly the impact of Śakti is greater there and it is acknowledged there as root-cause of this world. In Tantra, the term prakṛti is used as a synonym of Śakti. Though it is used as a synonym of it, still it will not be proper to accept that. The reason is, in Tantra, Śakti is described as active, qualified with certain qualities and conscious. On the contrary, prakṛti is also skilled with three qualities and active but it is never considered as conscious. Interestingly, Tantra has described Śiva as both qualified (saguṇa) and unqualified (nirguṇa) with qualities. Here we find some kind of similarities with the views of Carakasaṁhitā and Mahābhārata as described before. Finally it is important to note that in Tantra, nirguṇa  Śiva (unqualified consciousness)is described as different from prakṛti (matter) but saguṇa  Śiva is identified there as prakṛti or Śakti and referred as avyakta (unmanifested one).10

            Mahābhārata reflects three kinds of opinion regarding the principles of Sāṁkhya. According to the first opinion, the total number of principles of creation is twenty four. There Puruṣa is not mentioned separately but it is a part of avyakta or sometimes even synonymous with it. In the second opinion, the number of those principles is twenty five. Here it is seen that both Prakṛti and Puruṣa are regarded as two different principles. The third view states about twenty six principles and here Prakṛti and Puruṣa are distinct and apart from them there is also mention of Īśvara (God). According to Dr. S.N. Dashgupta, this is actually an effect of Yoga philosophy. Similarly in Śāntiparvan of Mahābhārata, we see that there is mention of Nārāyana (Hindu God of Creation) along with avyakta or puruṣa while describing the theory of creation. Moreover, the characteristics of Puruṣa are attributed in the description of Nārāyana. Thus it can be conferred that in the early stages of Sāṁkhya philosophy, the predominant stress was laid on Prakṛti. Puruṣa comes subtly often as a part of avyakta or often as a synonymous term of avyakta.11

  II

 In later stages of Sāṁkhya, the manifested (vyakta) and the unmanifested (avyakta) part of prakṛti were recognized and their similarities were also shown but Puruṣa was never made a part of the avyakta. Later avyakta and prakṛti was made identical and gradually the attributes of Puruṣa and Prakṛti were separated in a distinguished way. In the following period of time many commentators were influenced by the views of Vedānta and Yoga and as a result of that and they presented Prakṛti as avidyā or māyā. At that time, Puruṣa also becomes similar with Ātmā. But their interpretation cannot be accepted because according to Vedānta philosophy, Ātmā’s singularity (ekatva) is recognized. But in Sāṁkhya doctrine, Puruṣa’s plurality is mentioned by scholars. Again, it would also be incorrect to say that Prakṛti and Avidyā or Māyā is same. The reason is, Prakṛti is the root cause of the world and is not perishable but the scholars of Vedanta have admitted that when tattvajñāna or brahmajñāna (absolute cognition) arises, then Māyā or Avidyā is destroyed. So the difference between Prakṛti and Avidyā or Māyā is quite clear.

                        Many scholars who are influenced by the western thought have stated that in the early stages, Sāṁkhya was actually a materialist doctrine. In a primitive state, Prakṛti was the main principle and Puruṣa was included as a principle in the doctrine after a long time. These scholars opine that the word Puruṣa depicts soul or consciousness or the conscious soul and in their view Prakṛti is nothing but matter. In this regard, they even quote an adjective, i.e. ‘jadāṁ’ which denotes unconscious part of matter. Here a question arises that if prakṛti is nothing but unconscious matter then how it is possible to accept Mahat (intelligence) as an effect of Prakṛti? We will try to solve it later.

                            According to renowned scholar Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya, since early Sāṁkhya emphasizes greatly on Prakṛti and Prakṛti was more prominent than Puruṣa then it can be inferred that it reflects that matriarchal social system of that period. In a matriarchal society, men are rather passive or somehow indifferent compare to the role of women. The actual cause of his perception is that two terms, udāsīna’(indifferent) and ‘akartṛbhāva’ (passive) are used as adjectives of Puruṣa in Sāṁkhya. Moreover, the colloquial meanings of Prakṛti and Puruṣa are women (sometimes nature also) and men. Prof Chattopadhyaya has somehow related these terms ‘udāsīna’ or ‘akartṛbhāva’ to Puruṣa from his own perspective.  But it is our opinion that this view of Prof. Chattopadhyaya is over simplistic in nature.12

                                     Lastly, we revert back to our previous question that from a modern perspective what would we understand by the two terms Prakṛti and Puruṣa? What is their actual meaning? We would like to refer the opinion of Acharya Brajendranath Seal in this aspect as it is proper and commendable. According to him Prakṛti is the main and the essential element of the manifested world. However Prakṛti itself is not manifested and it contains three qualities—1) sattva (essence) 2) rajas (energy) and 3) tamas (mass). According to him, essence contributes to produce knowledge and it is the main quality of manifestation. Rajas or energy promotes interest in work and Tamas is matter whose manifestation is momentum and it creates obstacle to expression and work.

                      In the concluding part of this discussion it may be said that Prakṛti is the agglomeration of knowledge, actions and obstacles. None of any these three alone can be attributed as the whole characteristic of Prakṛti. So it would be wrong to state that Prakṛti is nothing but matter. On the other hand if we accept that Prakṛti is a culmination of all of these three, then we can easily accept that Mahat i.e. intelligence is a formation of Prakṛti. For the meaning of the term Puruṣa, modern scholar’s versions are quite acceptable. The term Puruṣa may be explained as individual consciousness which is nothing but pure essence or individual self qualified with consciousness. Some scholars also suggested that the idea of Jīvātmā (individual self) as depicted by other schools of Indian philosophy is similar with the idea of Puruṣa but it requires another elaborate as well as analytical discussion.13

 

End-Notes:

  1. Bhāratīya Darśan: Āstik o Nāstik Prasthānasamūha, p. 81-82.

  2. See bhāṣya of Yogasūtra. 2, pātañjala darśan , p.6.

  3. < >, 5.7 and 5.8.

    See the commentary of Śrīdharasvāmī of Śrīmadbhāgavadgītā , śloka 5.4 and 5.5.

  4. < >, p.217.

    < >, 222-223.

    < >, verse-11.

     AHistory of Indian Philosphy, p.213, see the footnote.

  5. < >, verse-10.

     Sāṃkhyadarśaner bibaran, p.71-73.

  6. See end-note 5.

  7. Lokāyata Darśana, Vol.2, p.118.

  8.  Positive sciences of Ancient Hindus, see the discussion regarding Sāṃkhya philosophy.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

  1. A History of Indian Philosophy, Surendranth Dasgupta, Vol.1, reprint, Motilal Banarsidas Private Limited, Delhi, 2004.