I
THE SANKHYA
PHILOSOPHY
1. We begin this evening
with the Sankhya philosophy. Kapila, the reputed author of this
philosophy was probably a Brahmin, Though nothing is known about him. He is
the supposed author of two works‑ the original Sankhya Sutras
called (Sankhya Pravachan) and a shorter work called (Tatvsmas).
The Sankhya philosophy together with Yoga, Naya, Vaisheshika,
Mimamsa and Vedanta nominally accepts Veda as its guide. It is the
Philosophy of (Sankhya), i.e. enumeration or analysis of the Universe.
Sir Monier Williams calls it by the name of synthetic enumeration. Sir William
Jones calls it the Numeral Philosophy. It has been partly compared with the
metaphysics of Pythagoras, partly in its Yoga with the system of Zeno.
Others compare it with that of Berkeley.
2. It starts with the
proposition that the world is full of miseries of three kinds‑ the three kinds
of miseries:
(1) (Adhyatmic) due to
one's self,
(2) (Adhibhotic ) due
to the products of elements and
(3) (Adhidaevic ) due
to supernatural causes‑and that the complete cessation of pain of theses three
kinds is the complete end and object of man. (Trividhasya adhyatmic
Adhibhotic, Adhidaevic, roopsay, dukhsay, atyantnivriti atyantPurushrth.)1
This doctrine of Sankhya
is similar to the tenets held by the Buddhists whose main doctrine is that the
world is full of miseries. This is also the starting point of Spinoza.
In his work `The Improvement of the Understanding' he says: "After experience
had taught me that all the usual surroundings of social life are vain and
facile seeing that none of the objects of my fears contain in themselves
anything either good or bad, except in so far as the mind is affected by them,
I finally resolved to inquire whether there might be some real good which the
discovery and attainment would enable me to enjoy continuous, supreme and
un‑ending happiness." That is his starting point, just the starting point
where the Sankhya starts. He goes on to say: " I thus perceived that I
was in a state of peril and I compelled myself to seek with all my strength
for a remedy, however uncertain it might be, as a sick man struggling with a
deadly disease when he sees that death will surely be upon him unless a remedy
be found, is compelled to seek such a remedy with all his strength, in as much
as his whole hope lies therein. All the objects pursued by the multitude not
only bring no remedy that tends to preserve our being, but even act as
hindrance, causing the death not seldom of those who are possessed by them."
He continues: "All these evils seem to have arisen from the fact that our
happiness or unhappiness has been made the mere creature of the thing that we
happen to be loving. When a thing is not loved, no envy if another bears it
away, no fear, no hate; yes, in a world no tumult of soul. These things all
come from loving that which perishes, such as the objects of which I have
spoken. But love towards a thing eternal feasts the mind with joy alone, nor
hath sadness any part therein. Hence this is to be prized above all and to be
sought for with all our might."
3. How was such a theory
invented? In the West it has always been the case that the peculiar
circumstances of the philosopher's life lead him into a peculiar belief, in
the East the calm and quiet scenery and bountiful nature lead him to patiently
inquire into the mysteries of the universe. Their contemporaries judge them
from a false vantage ground. Spinoza in his owns age was denounced as a
atheist, profane person, monster. Long afterwards however his works were
re‑discovered, greedily read, and admired by great poets like Goethe and by
ardent and even romantic philosophers like Schelling. The Sankhya
system too was considered by its commentators atheistic. But the present
generation looks charitably upon it and tries to see some if not all-eternal
truths in it.
4. I told you in the
beginning that the Sankhya starts with the proposition that the world
is full of miseries of three kinds. These are the results of the properties of
matter (Prakriti) and not of its correlate intelligence of
consciousness (Purush)2. Matter is eternal and co‑existent
with spirit. It was never in a state of non‑being but always in a state of
constant change, it is subtle and insentient. According to this view,
Prakriti existed before the evolution of the universe and will continue so
to exist for ever, but with time it has so much been changed that the
unemancipated (Atma) (soul) is but ill able to comprehend its nature.
It has lost its original state and has become earthy. In other words,
Prakriti has assumed diverse shapes both gross and subtle3.
5. Kapila's theory is
strictly a theory of evolution. He says: (Navstuno vstusidhi) ‑‑ A
thing is not made out of nothings.4 Avastunobhavat
vastusidhirbhavotpatirnav sambhavti It is not possible that out of
nothing, i.e. an entity should arise. (Yadyabhavat bhavotpatistarhi karan
rupan karyai drishyat iti jagtopyavastusvanlllll ) ‑‑ If an entity were to
arise out of a non‑entity, then since the character of a cause is visible in
its product the world also will be unreal5. When the Vedantist
‑the monist or the idealist‑tell Kapila, `Let the world too be unreal, what
harm is that to us?', he replies : Abadhat adushtkaran.janyatvach
navstuutvama‑ The world is not unreal because these is no fact
contradictory to its reality and because it is not the false result of
depraved causes (leading to a belief in what ought not to be believed)6.
(Ahuktao rajatmiti gyanai naidan rajatmiti gyanat naidan rajatbadh na
chatr naidan bbhavroopan jagditi ksyapi gyanan yain bhavroopbadh syat)
When there is the notion in regard to a shell of a pearl‑oyster (which
sometimes glitters like silver) that it is silver, its being silver is
contradicted by the subsequent and more correct cognition that this is not
silver. But in the case in question‑that of the world regarded as a reality,
no one ever has the cognition "this world is not in the shape of an entity",
by which cognition if any one ever really had such its being an entity might
be opposed7. (Dushtkaran.janyatvach
mithyaityavgamyatai yatha kamladidoshat peetshankhgyanan ksyachit, atr cha
jagatgyanasya sarvaishan srvada stvann doshosti)‑ And it is held that that
is false which is the result of a depraved cause, e.g. someone's cognition of
a white conch‑shell as yellow, through such a fault as the jaundice which
depraves his eye‑sight. But in the case in question‑that of the world regarded
as a reality, there is no such temporary or occasional depravation of the
sense because all at all times cognize the world as a reality. Therefore the
world is not an unreality8.
Again he says: Nasdutpado
nrinshrigavt ‑ The production of that which does not already exist
potentially is impossible like the horn of a man.9 Upadananiymat
‑ Because there must of necessity be a material out of which a product is
developed.10 Srvatr srvada srvasanbhvat- Because everything
is not possible everywhere and always (which might be the case if materials
could be dispensed with).11 The meaning is this : Srvatr
srvasmin Daiichi srvada srvasmin kalai srvanutpatairlokdrshanat ‑ In the
world we see that everything is not possible everywhere and at all times. And
Shaktasy shakyekaran.at ‑ Because anything possible must be
produced from something competent to produce it.12
In short, the Hindu
philosopher's belief in the eternity of the world's substance arises from the
fixed article `Ex nihilo nihil fit,' nothing is produced out of
anything. All the ancient philosophers of Greece‑ who are believed to have
borrowed their theories from India‑seem to have agreed upon this point.
Lucretius starts with laying down the same principal. He says: "It things
proceed from nothing, everything might spring from everything and nothing
would require a seed. Men might arise first from sea, and fish and birds from
earth, and flocks and herds break into being from sky; every kind of beast
might be produced at random in cultivated places or deserts. The same fruits would not grow on the
same trees but would be changed. All things would be able to produce all
things."
6. Sankhya philosophy
then starts with an original primordial tattva or eternally existing
essence called Prakriti‑ a word means that which evolves or produces
everything else. Some philosophers translate this Prakriti by nature.
Certainly, nature is anything but a good equivalent for Prakriti, which
donates something very different from matter or even germ of mere material
substances. It is an intensely subtle original essence, wholly distinct from
soul yet capable of evolving out of itself consciousness and mind as well as
the whole visible world.13 In my opinion it is not even the name
for anything which ever existed by itself. For Kapila himself in his work
says: Parnparyaipaikatr parinishthaiti sangyamatram
In the manifestation of
objects there must be a succession of causes without any end; and in Hindu
logic the ruling idea is that you must suppose a point to exist where you
should halt and Prakriti is only a halting point; therefore, it is in
Kapila's words only a sangyamatram, i.e. merely a name given to the
point in question, a mere sign to donate the cause which is the root which
must be assumed rootless, merely to conform to the rule of Hindu logic.14
7. Let us now see how Kapila
defines this Prakriti. It is Satvrajstamasan ‑ Prakriti
is the state of equipoise of Satv, Rajas, Tames goodness or passivity,
passion, energy or activity and darkness or grossness.15 These
three qualities passivity, activity and grossness‑ are not qualities in the
ordinary sense. Qualities in the ordinary sense are attributes of Prakriti,
they are rather the cords which when in a state of equipoise constitute
Prakriti. On account of the disturbance of this state of equilibrium the
whole world comes out. Kapila says: Prakritairmhan mahatohankar ahankarat
panchtanmatran.i ubhyamindrayam tanmatraibhye sthoolbhootani Purush
iti panchvinshtirgan. From Prakriti proceeds Mind
mehat, from Mind self‑consciousness, from self‑consciousness the five
subtle elements Sthoolbhotani16 and two sets of organs
Indriyas external and internal, and from subtle elements gross elements
sthoolbhootani 16. Thus Prakriti is the first basic
primordial essence, and second principal evolved out of it is Mind, from Mind
come out the third principal Ahankara, self‑consciousness or
individuality, from individuality come our five subtle elements and two sets
of organs. These five subtle elements are Shabd, Sparsh, Roop Ras Gandha‑
sound, tangibility, form or color, taste and smell or odour17. The
two sets of organs are external organs and internal organs. The external
organs are again organs of sense and organs of action. The organs of sense are
ear, skin, eye, nose, tongue; the organs of action are larynx, hand, foot, and
the excretory and generative organs. These ten are external organs. The
eleventh is the mind‑ the internal organ18. From the five subtle
elements are produced five gross elements‑ Akash (ether), Vayu
(air), Taijas (fire or light), Apas (water), Prithvi
(earth)19. The twenty-fifth is the Purush ‑ the Soul,
which is neither producer nor produced but eternal like Prakriti. It is
quite distinct from the producing or produced elements and creation of the
phenomenal world, though liable to be brought into connection with them.