11 The sāmkhya system

G. Vedaparayana

Introduction

Sage Kapila is the founder of the Sāmkhya system and his work Sāmkhyaśūtra is the first work of this school. The Sāmkhya is considered to be a very old system since its ideas pervade the Indian literature including the srutis, smritis and purāņas. This system is described as atheistic (niriśvara) as distinguished from yoga which is called the theistic (Śeśvara). It is atheist because Kapila did not admit the existence of God which is beyond proof. Iśvarakŗşna’s Sāmkhya-karika is the earliest authoritative textbook available on the Sāmkhya system. Gaudapada’s Sāmkhya-karika-bhasya, Vacaspatis Tattvakaumudi and Vijňānabikşu’s Sāmkhya-pravacana-bhāsya-vŗtti are other important works of this system. The name ”Sāmkhya” is an adaptation from the term “Sāmkhya” which means number. This term is applied to this philosophy because it aims at the right knowledge of reality enumeration of the ultimate objects of knowledge. According to the other thinkers the system is associated with the term “Sāmkhya” also means perfect knowledge (samyag-jňāna). Sāmkhya is the philosophy embodying such knowledge of reality for the practical purposes of putting an end to all pain and suffering. It seeks to give us pure metaphysical knowledge of the self, the ultimate reality. Its metaphysics is dualistic, for it recognizes only two kinds of ultimate realities namely, spirit (puruşa) and matter (prakŗti).

2. Metaphysics

Theory of causation, prakŗti, puruşa the evolution of the world and the doctrine of liberation constitute the important aspects of the Sāmkhya metaphysics.

2.1 Theory of causation:

The Sāmkhya theory of causation is known as Satkaryavada. According to this theory the effect originally exists in the material cause prior to its production. This is opposed to the Buddhist and the Nyaya–Vaisesika theory of asatkaryavada or arambhavada which says that the effect does not really exist in the cause but begins anew. The Sāmkhya is based on the following six grounds, Firstly, if the effect were non-existent in the material cause, then no amount of effort on the part of any agent could bring it into existence. We cannot produce oil out of sand because the former does not contain the latter. Whereas, we produce oil from oil seeds by pressing them because oil is already contained in the seeds. So the effect pre-exists in the cause and it can be manifested by creating necessary conditions. Secondly, Satkaryavada is based on the theory that there is an invariable relation between the material cause and its effect. A material cause can produce only the effect with which it iscausally related and it cannot produce an effect which is in no way related to it. Thirdly, the theory is based on the belief that only certain affects can be produced from certain causes. Curd can be obtained only from milk and a cloth only out of threads. It refutes the idea that any effect can be produced by any cause. Fourthly, this theory is founded on the idea that only a potent cause can produce a desired effect. That is, the effect must be potentially contained in the effect. The potent cause is that which possesses some power that is definitely related to the effects. Fifthly, satkaryavada is supported by the notion that if the effect is non-existent in the cause then we have to admit that the non-existent comes into existence through causation and it results in results in, the absurdity that something comes out of nothing. And lastly this theory is based on the fact that effect is not different from but essentially identical with the material cause. The cause and the effect are explicit and implicit states of the same substance. A cloth is really not different from the threads, of which it is made. Thus the Sāmkhya theory of causation proves the thesis that the effect exists in the material cause even before its appearance. This theory has two different forms, namely, parinamavada and vivartavada. According to the former, the effect is the result of a real transformation (parinama) o f the cause into the effect. This theory is held by the Sāmkhya as a further specification of its theory of Satkāryavāda. The later theory which is held by the Advaita Vedanta says that the change of the cause into the effect is only apparent and not real. For instance, when we see a snake in a rope, the rope is not really transformed into a snake but only appears as snake. Similarly when Bŗahman is said to cause the world, He does not get really transformed into the world but only appears as the world.

2.2 Prakŗti:

According to Sāmkhya prakŗti is the root cause of the world of objects. All the worldly effects are latent in prakŗti which is the uncaused cause. Prakŗti is the potentiality of nature, the receptacle and nurse of all generation. It is the first principle of the universe (pradhāna), and unmanifested state of all effects (avyakta) and also the subtle and imperceptible thing which is only inferred from its products. (anumāna). It is also the unconscious and unintelligent principle (Jada) and the ever active unlimited power (shakti). Prakŗti is absolute, one, eternal and beyond production and destruction but its products are caused, dependent, relative, many, temporary and subject to birth and death. Prakŗti is the source of the inanimate world which evolves out of it. Evolution is the manifestation of the world and dissolution is the returning of the world to prakŗti. As the source of the world of objects, Prakŗti is the ever-active and motion is inherent in it in the form of Rajas. Sāmkhya gives five proofs for the existence of Prakŗti. Firstly, there should be a cause of this Universe and anything that is finite cannot be the cause. Only the infinite can be the cause of the universe. Since prakŗti is infinite, unlimited eternal and all-pervading, it alone can be the source of the universe. Secondly, all worldly things possess certain common characteristics by which they are capable of producing pleasure, pain and indifference. And there must be a common source composed of three guņas from which all worldly things arise. The common source is prakŗti. Thirdly, all effects arise from the activity of the potent cause. They evolve out of the implicit cause. The activity which generates evolution must be inherent in the world-cause. All this cause is prakŗti. Fourthly, all effects are limited and so they cannot be their own causes. The effects are the explicit manifestation of the implicit cause. The effects point to a world-cause where they are potentially contained. And this world class is prakŗti. And finally the unity of the universe points to a single cause, which is Prakŗti.

Prakŗti is the unity of three guņas namely, Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. The guņas are held in equilibrium. They are the constituents of the prakŗti and the objects. They are subtle, imperceptible and so their existence is inferred from their effects such as pleasure, pain and indifference respectively. Guņas are not ordinary qualities or attributes like the Nyāya–Vaiśeşika guņas. They themselves possess qualities like lightness, activity and heaviness. They are fine, ever changing elements of prakŗti. They are intertwined like the threads to make up the rope of prakŗti which bind the puruşa. The three guņas have their own distinctive characteristics. Sattva literally means real or existent. It is responsible for the manifestation of the objects in consciousness. It is light, bright and buoyant (laghu). It is illuminating, goodness and produces happiness. Luminosity of light, power of reflection, upward movement, contentment and bliss are all due to it. Its color is white. Rajas literally means foulness and it is the principle of motion, restless activity feverish effort and wild stimulation. Its color is red and pain is it product.. And tamas literally means darkness and it is the principle of inertia, apathy and indifference. It is heavy, enveloping and so opposed to both sattva and rajas. Ignorance, sloth, confusion, bewilderment, passivity and negativity are its results. Although distinctive in their characteristics, the three guņas are not separate but intermingled. They conflict and yet they co-operate with one another. They are compared to the oil, the wick and the flame of a lamp which though opposed yet co-operate to produce the light of a lamp. They are imperceptible and inferred from their effects. All things are composed of three guņas and inferred from their effects. All things are composed of the three guņas. And their differences are due to the different combinations of the guņas. The nature of a thing is determined by the preponderance of a particular guna. Things are good, bad or indifferent; intelligent, active or slothful; pure, impure or neutral on account of the predominance of sattva, rajas or tamas respectively. Prakŗti is the state of equilibrium of the guņas. Evolution starts when there is heterogeneous change in the guņas, It takes place only when one guna predominates over the other two and bring about commotion in prakŗti. Dissolution (pralaya) of the world means the change of guņas homogeneously, i.e., sattva changes into sattva, rajas into rajas and tamas into tamas.

2.3 Puruşa :

Puruşa is the co-eternal reality of prakŗti. It is the principle of pure consciousness. It is the self, the soul, the spirit, the subject, the knower. It is neither the brain, mind, ego, nor intellect. It is not a substance which possesses the quality of consciousness. Consciousness is its essence. As a transcendental and ultimate knower puruşa is the foundation of all knowledge. It is the pure subject which can never become the object of knowledge. It is described variously as the silent witness, the emancipated alone, the neutral seer and the peaceful eternal. It is beyond time and space, change and relativity. It is self-proved, self-luminous, uncaused and all-pervading. It is the indubitable real, the postulate of knowledge, and all doubts and denials ore-suppose its existence.

Sāmkhya gives the following five proofs or arguments for the existence of the puruşa. First is the teleological argument that the Prakŗti evolves itself in order to serve the puruşa’s end. Evolution is teleological or purpose in the sense that it takes place for the sake of the puruşa only. Evolution comprising the compound objects, namely, the body, the senses, the mind and the intellect are the means to realize the end of the puruşa. Second is the logical argument which says that the compound objects comprising the three guņas presuppose the existence of the puruşa who is beyond them (nistraigunya). Third is the ontological proof that all knowledge necessarily presupposes the existence of the self as the foundation (adhisthana), the fundamental postulate of knowledge. Fourth is the ethical proof that the experience of pleasure, pain and bewilderment presuppose he existence of the puruşa as the conscious principle who experiences them. And the fifth and the last is religious or the mystical proof which says that the desire for liberation implies the existence of a person who can try for and obtain liberation. Aspiration presupposes the aspirant who is puruşa. The Sāmkhya system advocates the plurality of puruşas. They are essentially alike but numerically different. This is called the qualitative monism and quantitative pluralism.

3. The Evolution of the World.

According to Sāmkhya, the world of objects evolves out of prakŗti. The evolution begins when the prakŗti comes into contact with puruşa. The evolution cannot be due to the puruşa alone for it is inactive. It cannot also be due to prakrit alone for it is non-intelligent. It takes place only when the activity of the prakŗti is guided by the intelligence of puruşa. There must be a cooperation between the two for the creation of a world of objects, the Sāmkhya compares the cooperation between the self and the matter with the cooperation between a blind man and a lame man in order to get out of a forest. Prakŗti requires the presence of puruşa in order to be known by someone and puruşa requires the help of prakŗti in order to determine itself from the latter and thereby attain liberation. With the contact between puruşa and prakŗti there is a disturbance in the equilibrium of the guņas. First the rajas gets disturbed which leads to the vibration in the sattva and tamas. The first product of the evolution of prakŗti is Mahat, the Great which is the germ of the vast world of objects. Next, the intellect (Buddhi), ego (Ahamkara) and Mind (Manas) are the products of the Mahat. The special functions of the intellect are ascertainment and decision. It is by means of the intellect that the distinction between the subject and objects is understood. The intellect arises out of the preponderance of the element of sattva in prakŗti. It is the natural function of the intellect to manifest itself and other objects. It has virtue (dharma) knowledge (jňāna) detachment (vairagya) and excellence (aiśvarya) as its attributes. But when vitiated by tamas, it has the contrary attributes such as vice (adharma), ignorance (ajňāna), attachment (āsakti) and imperfection (anaisvarya). Intellect (buddhi) is different from puruşa which transcends all physical things and qualities. But it is the ground of all intellectual processes in the individual. It stands nearest to the self and reflects the consciousness of the self in such a way as to become apparently conscious and intelligent. The senses and the mind function for the intellect whereas the intellect functions directly for the self and enables it to discriminate between itself and prakŗti.

Ego or ahamkara is the second product of prakŗti and it arises directly from buddhi. The function of the ego is the feeling of ‘I’ and ‘mine’. It is one account of the ego that the self wrongly considers itself to be an agent or a cause of action. Depending upon the predominance of one or the other of the three guņas, ahamkāra is said to be of three kinds, namely, sattvika ahamkāra, rajasa ahamkāra or tamasa ahamkāra. From the first arises the eleven organs, namely, the five organs of perception (jňānendriya), the five organs of action (karmedriya) and the manas. From the third arise the five subtle elements. (tanmātras) namely, sound, touch, odour, taste and smell. And from these subtle elements arises the five gross physical elements, namely, ākasa, air, fire water and earth. These five physical elements have respectively the specific properties of sound, touch, color, taste and smell. In the order in which they occur the succeeding element has the special qualities of the preceding ones added to its own, so, the earth the fifth gross element has all the five qualities, namely, sound touch color taste and smell. Thus the evolution of the world comprises altogether twenty four principles including prakŗti and excluding puruşa.

4. Epistemology.

According to the Sāmkhya theory of knowledge there are only three independent sources of valid knowledge (pramāņa), namely, perception, inference and scriptural testimony. The mother sources of knowledge like comparison, postulation (arthapatti) and non-recognition (anupalabdi) are not recognized as separate sources of knowledge but included under the first three pramāņas. Valid knowledge (prama) is a definite and an unerring cognition of an object through the modification of the intellect which reflects the consciousness in it. Without the self’s consciousness the unconscious intellect cannot cognize anything. Perception is the direct cognition of an object through its contact with some sense organ. When the object comes within the range of our vision, the object produces certain impressions in the sense organs, namely the eye and the mind analyses and synthesizes them. Then the intellect becomes modified into the shape of the object seen, say a table. With the reflection of the self’s consciousness in it, the unconscious modification of the intellect into the form of the table becomes illumined into a conscious state of perception. Perception is of two kinds, namely, indeterminate (nirvikalpaka) and determinate (savikalpaka) the former arises at the first moment of contact between a sense and its object. It is antecedent to all mental analysis and synthesis of the sense –data. It is accordingly called mere sensing of the object (ālocana) in which there is a cognition of the object as a mere something without any recognition of it as this or that kind of thing. It is an universalized experience like that of the infant or the dumb. The later kind of perception is the result of the analysis, synthesis and interpretation of sense-data by the mind. It is accordingly called a judgment (vivecana) of the object. It is the cognition of the object as a particular kind of thing having certain qualities and standing in certain relations to other things. The determinate perception of an object is expressed in the form of a subject-predicate proposition like ‘This is a table’. ‘That is a cow’. And so on.

The second pramāņa, namely, inference is arriving at the knowledge of that which is not perceived through the knowledge of that which is not perceived through a knowledge of a universal relation (vyāpti) between the two. We get the knowledge of the universal relation between two things from the repeated observation of their concomitance. We establish it by observing several instances of these relations. This is illustrated by the example of inferring the existence of fire from smoke because one has observed that smoke is always accompanied by fire.

Third pramāņa, namely, testimony (śabda) is constituted by authoritative statements (āptavacana). It gives the knowledge of objects which cannot be known by perception and inference. A statement is made up of words arranged in a certain way. A word is a sign which denotes something and its meaning is the thing denoted by it. The understanding of a sentence requires understanding of the meaning of its constituent words. Verbal testimony is of two kinds, namely, the testimony of ordinary trustworthy persons (laukika) and the testimony of Śruti or the Vedas (Vaidika). Sāmkhya does not recognize the former as a separate pramāņa, since it depends on the perception and inference. It is only the testimony of the later that the Sāmkhya admits as the third independent pramāņa. The Vedas give us true knowledge about super-sensuous realities which cannot be known through perception or inference, since they are not made by any persons. The Vedas are free from all defects and imperfections. They embody intuitions of enlightened seers (ŗşis). The intuitions are universal, eternal and they do not depend on the will or consciousness of individual persons. So, they are infallible and possess self-evident validity.

5. The Doctrine of Bondage and liberation:

Our life on this earth is full of sorrow which is of three kinds. The first is called adhyatmika which is due to intra-organic psychological causes. It includes all mental and bodily sufferings. The second kind of pain is called adhibhautika which is due to extra-organic natural causes like men beasts, birds, thorns etc. and the third kind of pain is called adhidaivika which is due to supernatural causes like the planets, elemental agencies, ghosts, demons etc. Life is so full of pain that even the so-called pleasures lead to pain. Wherever there are guņas, there are pains. Even the life in heaven is subject to the guņas and so painful. Liberation from these pains and sufferings is the ultimate aim of man. Liberation means complete freedom from bondage of all sufferings. It is the highest end, the summum bonum of our life (paramapuruşartha or apavarga).

Bondage means the ignorance of puruşa mistaking its reflection in the buddhi for itself. It arises when puruşa identifies itself wrongly with the intellect, the ego and the mind. Bondage is non-discrimination between the self and the non-self. Liberation is the discrimination between the self and the non-self. It is due to the right knowledge of the puruşa realizing its own nature of pure consciousness. The Sāmkhya says that liberation cannot be obtained by means of actions whether good, bad or indifferent, for actions are due to the guņas only. Good actions may lead us to heaven and the bad ones to hell but even the heavenly life is subject to suffering. All actions their fruits, merits and demerits belong to the non-self only. So it is only knowledge which leads to liberation, for only knowledge can remove the ignorance of the self mistaking itself to be the non-self. The individual self (jīva) has to realize itself as the pure puruşa through discrimination between itself and prakŗti. The knowledge that ‘I am not the self’, ‘nothing is mine’ that ‘ego is unreal’ has to be constantly meditated upon. The concentration on the knowledge of pure self leads to liberation of realizing the pure and the absolute self. Liberation is a return of the puruşa to its pure nature of consciousness. It is a state of complete isolation of puruşa from prakŗti and freedom from all kinds of pain. There is no pleasure or happiness or bliss in liberation for pleasure presupposes pain and is relative to it. Pleasure is the result of sattva guņa where liberation transcends all guņas (apavarga). The Sāmkhya subscribes to two kinds of liberation — the liberation here and now (Jivanmukti) and liberation after death (Videhamukti). Liberation here and now takes place the moment right knowledge draws on the individual. The liberated person may live embodied due to the demerits of the past actions (prārabdakarma) the body continuous to exist on account of the momentum of the past deeds. Just as the wheel of a potter goes on revolving for some time due to previous momentum even after the potter has withdrawn his hands from it. So also the liberates saint may live embodied but feels no association with the body and the actions it does. The jivanmukta does not accumulate new karmas because all karma loses causal energy. And the final and the absolute emancipation (videhamukta) takes place after the physical death of the jivanmukta which is the final disembodied isolation of the puruşa fr0m the prakŗti.

6. Summary :

We shall close the essay by pointing out the controversy surrounding the Sāmkhya conception of liberation and God. Sāmkhya believes that both bondage and liberation are only phenomenal and they do not apply to the Puruşa. The bondage of the Puruşa is a fiction and it is only the ego, the product of prakŗti which is bound and liberated. Being in complete isolation from prakŗti, the puruşa is untouched by bondage and liberation. If puruşa were really bound it could not have obtained liberation even after hundred lives for real bondage can never be destroyed. It is prakŗti which is bound and liberated. It can never bind the puruşa. Just as a dancing retires from the stage after entertaining the audience, similarly, prakŗti also retires from the puruşa who has seen her in her true color.

As regards to the question of God, the classical Sāmkhya is atheistic in the sense that it does not postulate a hypothesis of God. It says that prakŗti and puruşa are sufficient to explain this universe. It does not bother to establish the non-existence of God and it is called orthodox or theistic only because it believes in the authority of the Vedas. But some commentators have attempted to prove the non-existence of God by advancing the following arguments: (1) if God is affected by selfish motives of creating this world, then he is not free; if He is free, He will not create this world of pain and misery. (2) Either God is unjust and cruel or He is not free and all-powerful. (3) if God is determined by the law of karma, He is not free; if not, He is a tyrant. (4) God being pure knowledge, the material world cannot spring from him. The effects are multiple contained in their cause which must be prakŗti and not the pure non-dual monistic reality. The world is materialistic and subject to change and it requires only the unintelligent cause, namely, prakŗti and not the spiritual and immutable God. Hence there is no God. However, the later Sāmkhya writers like Vijňānabhikşu have tried to revive the necessity of admitting God in the manner of the original Sāmkhya which was theistic.

Web links

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samkhya
• http://indianphilosophy.50webs.com/samkhya.htm
• http://hinduonline.co/Scriptures/SankhyaDarshana.html
• http://hinduwebsite.com/24principles.asp
• http://iskconeducationalservices.org/HoH/tradition/1103.htm

Bibliography

• Chatterjee, S.C. & Datta, D.M., An Introduction to Indian Philosophy, Rupa publication, 2007.
• Hiriyanna, M., Outlines of Indian Philosophy, George Allen and Unwin 1932.
• Sharma,C.D., A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy , Motilal Banarsidass, 1994.