Sankhya is one of the earliest philosophical schools of India, traditionally said to be established by Rishi Kapila whose original work Shastritantra is unfortunately lost today. The earliest sources we have today of this school is Sankhya Karika of Isvara Krishna which has a commentary on it by a great erudite scholar Vacaspati Mishra, his work is known as Tattva Kaumudi. Apart from that there are Sankhya Sutras with two commentaries one by Aniruddha known as Vritti and the other by Vijnanabhikshu known as Sankhya Pravacana Bhashya. Vijnanabhikshu is the greatest exponent of this system in latter times.
PRAKRITI
Prakriti is the cause of the manifest universe, both material
and psychological. It is a state of equilibrium of the three Gunas: Sattva,
Rajas and Tamas. These three though denoted by the term Guna are not qualities,
they are rather feeling substances, the ultimate reals. Prakriti is a generic
term for these three. Sattva denotes lightness or freedom, rajas restlessness
and tamas heaviness. The Gunas are not three in number but infinite and the
three terms sattva, rajas and tamas are used to denote these infinite and all
pervasive reals. These may be found in different combinations and in a certain
combination if certain properties of any of these Gunas are dominant then that
combination may be said to belong to either of the classes of sattva, rajas or
tamas depending on what the dominant features are. To quote a Sankhya text
(Sankhyatattvavivecena): “Though the sattva reals have many properties such as
happiness, complaisance and manifestation, yet it is on account of the
prominence of happiness that it is said to be of the nature of happiness. So
rajas also though possessed of many properties such as sorrow, turbidity of
mind, movement etc. yet on account of the prominence of sorrow is said to be of
the nature of sorrow. So tamas also though possessed of many properties such as
blinding, covering, stunning etc. is yet said to be of the nature of moha.”
Inspite of being substances they are called Gunas because they serve the ends
of Purusha in producing experiences and also bind them to the world. The gross
world is evolved out of a subtler material and that from a more subtle one and
so on and so forth till we reach the subtlest state which is prakriti. The
search to find the subtlest state of the gross world has to end somewhere and
wherever it ends that may be said to be Prakriti. Prakriti is the root of the
whole world while by itself it is rootless. It is called a-linga because it
does not serve as a sign for any previous state of existence which may be said
to be it cause. It may seem crude that the subtlest state of matter is traced
down to three feeling substances. But we see that cognitions of objects evoke
certain types of feelings in us. If those feelings did not already exist in the
object they could not have produced a corresponding effect in us. Feelings thus
may be as much existing in the objects as much they do in the mind and have an
objective existence. And the theory of pre-existence of effect in the cause
entails that feelings must have existed prior to the objects which manifest
them. Prof S.N. Dasgupta provides an interesting exposition of Sankhya view:
“According to Sankhya what we call matter complexes become at a certain stage
feeling complexes and what we call feeling complexes become at a certain stage
mere matter complexes with matter reaction. If we should analyze any percept
into crude and undeveloped sensations of which it is composed at the first
moment of its appearance, it comes as a shock than as an image. Even in our
ordinary life elements which precede an act of knowledge are probably mere
feelings. As we go lower down in the scale of evolution the automatic actions
and reactions of matter are concomitant with crude manifestations of feeling
which never rise to the level of knowledge. The lower the scale of evolution
the less keeness of feeling, till at last comes a stage where matter complexes
do not give rise to feeling but to mere physical reactions. The feelings are
therefore things in themselves, the ultimate substances of which consciousness,
gross and matter are made up. Ordinarily it may sound crude to take feelings
for ultimate substances but in Sankhya analysis thought and matter are but two
modifications of certain subtle substances which are in essence but three type
of feeling entities. There are three types of feelings usually: pleasure, pain
and dullness which are the manifestations of three types of feeling sunstances
regarded as ultimate entities called: sattva, rajas and tamas (gunas)
respectively.” (History of Indian Philosophy Vol I)
Above we came across the theory of pre-existence of effect in
the cause, known as Satkaryavada. Sankhya divides causes into two broad
categories: efficient and material. Material cause is that cause which subsists
in its effect, out of the parts of which the effect may be said to come out.
The efficient cause is every other type of cause which is not a material cause.
The potter and his stick are the efficient causes and clay is the material
cause of the pot. Sankhya Karika adduces five proofs to establish this theory:
1. What is non-existent cannot be brought into existence 2. Because effects
take adequate material cause 3. Because all effects are not producible from all
causes 4. Because an efficient cause can produce only that for which it is
efficient and finally 5. Because the effect has the same essence as the cause.
A pot is made from clay, cloth from yarns and curd from milk. Now the Sankhya
says that prior to the causal operation which brings about the said effect, the
effect pre-exists in its cause. The cause has the effect existing in it in a
potential form which awaits an operation to manifest it. A causal operation
cannot be performed on a said cause till the effect existed already to be
brought about. A non-existent entity cannot be produced at all and neither can
any causal operation be brought about on it. Moreover we never try to get curd
out of clay and cloth out of milk, because we know that curd can be had only
from milk and cloth from yarns, this fact cannot be accounted for if we take
effect to be non-existent in the cause. Moreover both cause and effect have to
exist so that there may exist some kind of relation between them. If the cause
is and the effect is not then of what may the cause be said to be of? And
neither can we conceive an effect of which we can trace no cause. Consequently
we have to accept that both cause and effect as existing even though the effect
has not made its appearance yet. The effect is not reducible to its cause, it
has the same essence as the cause. The cause and effect are identical because
they share the same essence, an entity is not just a conglomeration of certain
atoms, it has a certain essence, it is a particular substance, and the effect
that comes out of it is not something random but determined by the very essence
of the thing. The effect because it has the same essence as the cause may
legitimately be said to pre-exist before its production. Vacaspati Mishra says
in his Tattva Kaumudi (on SK.9): “The cloth is not different from the yarns
because the cloth subsists in the yarns. A thing differing from another cannot
subsist in another like a cow in a horse but here cloth subsists in its yarns.
From this it follows that the effect is not different from its cause. The cloth
and the yarns cannot be two different things because of the relationship
between material cause and its effect. Whenever two things are found to be
completely different from each other there the constitutive relationship of
constituent cause and effect are not found eg. in a jar and the cloth…..” In
similar fashion prakriti is the cause of the manifest world.
EVOLUTION OF PRAKRITI
All changes for Sankhya are changes of qualities. A substance
for instance earth remains the same even when transformed into jug or anything
else. The earth and the jug are the same but conventionally we make a
distinction between them which depends upon different practical capacities of
the two, a lump of earth does not have the capacity to carry water but a jug
has. Thus earth and jug are essentially the same but numerically different.
Their difference however is conceptual, necessary for relative purposes but not
actual. Again when a lump of earth is transformed into a jug we can say that
earth has the power or capacity to transform itself into a jug. The substance
earth is the power-holder (saktiman) and its sakti or potency is to transform
into another object, a jug in this case. Though we make a distinction between
the power holder and the power the two in fact are not different. The substance
earth and the potency are the same thing. Their distinction is merely relative
not actual, for in ordinary experience we never find these two things
differently. When the power of earth to thus transform itself is in the
potential state we say that the jug exists in a potential state and when we say
that the power has been actualized we say that the jug is actualized. Similarly
the emanations of prakriti, are both substantive entities and forces, two
aspects of one and the same thing and in all its modifications prakriti is the
same but still generates relatively new substances, the change is change of
relative qualities not of essence. Thus we find that Yoga Sutra 3.44 says that
material world have five forms: a) as they appear with their diverse physical
characteristic qualities or attributes b) as things or substances forming the
unity of genus and species or whole or unity of parts c) as subtle causes or
tanmatras d) as the ultimates or universals of the three gunas, e) in the
teleological aspect as conducive to experience and salvation of souls. The
gunas when once thrown off balance try to group themselves again together in
one form, then another and so one, to restore equilibrium, when it is restored
it is called pralaya. When one evolute is produced from another; this second
stage is the result of some of the reals of the first stage. The deficiency of
the first stage which had gone forth to form new aggregate as the second stage
is made good by refilling from prakriti and so one in the thrird stage and by a
succession of refillings the process of evolution proceeds till we come to a
stage when no new substance can be evolved. The first evolute of prakriti is
mahat. This is indeed the earliest state from which the world has sprung forth;
and it is a state in which sattva predominates. It holds within itself the
buddhi of all purusas which were lost in the prakriti during the pralaya. The
very first work of prakriti is thus manifested by separating out of the old
buddhis or minds which hold within themselves specific avidya inhenrent in them
with reference to each purusha. This state of evolution consisting of all
collected buddhis is called buddhitattva. Looked at from this point of view it
is the most widest and universal existence comprising all creation and it is
thus called mahat (the great one). The mahat tattva once being produced further
modifications take place. Mahat is now disturbed by three parallel tendencies
of a preponderance of sattva, rajas and tamas and is called ahamkara and the
latter mentioned tendencies are called tamasika ahamkara (bhutadi), rajasika
ahamkara (taijasa ahamkara) and vaikarika ahamkara. The ego or ahamkara are is
specific expression of general consciousness which takes experience as mine.
The function of ego is therefore called abhimanna (self asssertion). The
sattvik ahamkara produces manas or mind which is translucent and gives rise to
the specific notion of egohood. From bhutadi ahamkara through the help of rajas
are generated the tan matras, the immediately preceding causes of gross
elements. These tan matras are sabda tanmatra (the sound potential), Vayu
tanmatra (touch potential), rupa tanmatra (colour potential), rasa tanmatra
(taste potential) and gandha tanmatra (smell potential). The sound potential
with accretion of rudiment matter from bhutadi generates akasha or ether.
Through such constant co-mingling the atoms and then the gross elements are
produced. The evolutes of prakriti can be classified as avishaha and vishesha.
The former are those products of prakriti that are themselves capable of
originating other products like themselves. The Visheshas are themselves
products of causes but they themselves do not originate other products. This is
not to say that the visheshas do not cause anything, but that they cannot
originate other tattvas. To elaborate the causality of avisheshas is called
tattvantaraparinama. When tanmatras are produced from ahamkara the state of
being involved in tanmatras is altogether different from the state of being of
ahamkara. It is not a mere change of quality but change of existence or state
of being. The same is not the case with the products of Visheshas. The five
tanmatras and ahamkara are called the six avisheshas; the eleven senses and
atoms of the five mahabhutas are called visheshas. Mahat is the mother of all
avisheshas but since it has been produced by prakriti it possesses a linga or
specification and hence is included under avisheshas. Prakriti on the other
hand is completely indeterminate and uncaused, evolution is prakriti rendered
determinate. Note also that there is no point of time when prakriti starts
evolving for the association of Purusha and Prakriti is beginningless. The
order of evolution of prakriti is logical and not chronological.
PURUSHA
Purusha is pure consciousness,
the self, the ‘metaphysical principle of unity underlying subjective
experience’. “Coming into touch with it gives unity to all the movements of the
knowledge composites of subtle stuff, which would otherwise have remained
aimless and unintelligent. It is coming into touch with this principle of
intelligence that they are interpreted as a systematic and coherent experience
of a person and may thus be said to be intelligized. Intelligizing means the
expression and interpretation of events or the happenings of knowledge in
connection with a person, so as to make them a system of expression. This
principle of intelligence is called Purusha. This was the epistemic
significance of Purusha” (History of Indian Philosophy Vol.1). Vijnanabhikshu
provides the following argument to prove the existence of the Purusha: 1. That
the composite objects exist for someone other than themselves. 2. That the self
is opposite to that what is constituted of the three gunas. 3. That inanimate
objects stand in need of being controlled by some conscious principle. All
these proofs depend on the subject – object dichotomy, ie the subject and
object can never be identical. However for that the self has to be known
separately in direct experience, thus the inferential proofs given do not
establish the self in the manner that it is being freshly revealed as something
but as a matter of fact inferential arguments are used to strengthen the
introspective awareness of the self. Its purpose is not to establish but to
clarify the notion of the self. The self is neither the experiencer nor the
enjoyer of objects. That which is the experiencer is a product of Purusha and
Prakriti resulting from absence of discrimination on part of the Purusha
between itself and Prakriti. Seeing, hearing etc are attributed to the self but
they are not possessed by the Purusha. Just as the King is called a warrior
through the agency of his army which he has only commanded to wage a war similarly
the immutable self or Purusha is denoted as the seer, hearer etc. because it
makes all instrument of senses such as the eye, ear etc. function by virtue of
being in proximity with it. Experiencer-ship and Agency are attributed to the
self but do not belong to it. The “I” consciousness is a mental state and is
different from the pure consciousness, the principle that enlivens experience.
“Pure Intelligence though it is self-revealed and though it illumines and
reveals ordinary contents of our knowledge and feelings is yet an entity which
cannot be interpreted in terms of ordinary consciousness. Self-consciousness
can therefore be affirmed of such an entity in the sense that it is pure
intelligence and yet denied in the sense that it has no self-consciousness in
the ordinary sense of the term for what we call self-consciousness is but
illumination of a content, and thus limited in its nature and hence the result
of union of the self with the states of plane of consciousness.” (The Yoga
Philosophy In Relation To Other Systems of Indian Thought). But then how is it
that Purusha which is completely different from prakriti appear as an empirical
subject? There are three different answers suggested for this question by
commentators like Bhoja, Vacaspati Mishra and Vijnanabhikshu. According to
Bhoja just as iron fillings move in proximity to a magnet, similarly Sattva in
proximity of Purusha, manifests that aspect of buddhi by which the whole of
prakriti becomes an object of experience for Purusha. However according to
Vacaspati Mishra mere proximity is not enough to connect Purusha and Prakriti,
rather Buddhi catches a reflection of Purusha by which the mental states of
Buddhi become intelligized and capable of being called the experiences of a
person. Proximity in his opinion means yogyata or a capacity and not physical
contact, by which buddhi and Purusha seem to be united or identified though
such is never the case. Thus because of such a yogyata though Purusha remains
absolutely untouched by the modifications of prakriti yet it experiences the
states of prakriti. Vijnanabhikshu objects to this view that such a capacity
would continue to exist even in the state of emancipation as it is of the
nature of the Purusha. According to him proximity need not be interpreted as a
capacity, for contact between Purusha and Prakriti does not cause change in
Purusha as Vacaspati wrongly thought. Vijanabhikshu explains this phenomenon
through a theory of dual reflection. When the states of Buddhi get reflected in
Purusha there is the notion of a person or an empirical subject born in the
Purusha and when pure consciousness of Purusha is reflected in the Buddhi
conscious states arise in it. “The notion of the knower as ‘I’ the experiencer
cannot be generated in the buddhi by the reflection of pure consciousness, for
mere reflection cannot be said to be of any purpose. It is when by the
reflection of the Purusha, that the states of buddhi become intelligized, that
the Purusha shines forth through their reflections as the cognizer of those
states……Purusha does not become an actual part of the states of Buddhi but just
as by the mere presence of fire iron does become redhot, so by the mere
proximity of the Purusha mind becomes illuminated……But Jnana or Knowledge is no
real part of the person the knower or the self and their unity “I Know this” as
a mental state is false so far as the ‘I’ is concerned. Yet this union is
necessary for revelation even of the “I” as its notion in a conscious state.”
(Yoga Philosophy…..). Purusha is reflected in Buddhi but the states of Buddhi
are also reflected in Purusha on account of which Purusha seems to be an
empirical subject, a jiva. It is worth noting that in all these explanations
sattva is the predominant medium through which Purusha and Prakriti become
connected. Sattva though is not pure consciousness, is infact translucent and
in this aspect is similar to Purusha and thus it becomes easy to lose
discrimination between Buddhi and Purusha. The ancient Sankhya teacher
Panchasikha says: “not knowing the purusha beyond the buddhi to be different
from it in nature, character, knowledge etc. man has by forgetfulness the
notion of self (personality) therein.”
Comments
Post a Comment