16. There is another point to
which I should like to draw your attention. The Sankhya philosophy in a
large measure supports the nature working under fixed laws without any
interference on the part of an extra‑cosmic being.
17. But of all his theories,
one that has struck me to be the most liberal is the universal salvation
theory. He does not restrict the liberation only to the few followers of his
philosophy but to others also.71
18. So far we have tried to
understand the meaning of Kapila's theory. Let us now see if it is consistent
and appeals to our reason. In the first place, he says that Prakriti
was in the beginning in a state of equilibrium. The three qualities,
passivity, activity and grossness, were balanced. What then caused a
disturbance in this state of equilibrium? Without external‑causes,
Prakriti cannot be disturbed. Pursha the soul is action-less,
changeless, without any qualities or attributes.
Secondly, the Great Mind and
self‑consciousness are considered by Kapila to be different form each other.
According to him one is the product of the other. And both of them are the
outcome of Prakriti, which is really material. Now the Great Mind or
Buddhi or intellect is nothing but a phase of consciousness.
Self‑consciousness‑'I am happy ','I am unhappy'‑ is only a particular instance
illustrating that phase and both of them imply knowledge and are but the
characters of the soul but can never be the products of primordial material
essence.
With regard to subtle elements
Kapila says that gross elements are produced from these subtle elements; e.g.,
from odor comes out earth, from taste water, from color fire, from touch wind
and from sound ether. If he means that the gross elements, which we see
outside the human or any other gross organic body, are the products of these
subtle elements, there is no reason to support it. The external elements we
see are as eternal as anything else.
REFERENCES:
1. SS 1.1; SK 1
2. Since Purush (i.e. Soul) is
here conceived in the from of pure consciousness (rather than a conscious
substance) all properties whether physical or mental are somehow or other
traced to Prakriti (i.e. matter). But how mental properties‑the
threefold miseries, for example‑can characterize matter is one of the
obscurest point of the system.
3. Here is the Sankhya
doctrine that it is only in the eyes of un unenlightened soul that Prakriti
assumes the form of the world of day‑to‑day experience (while an enlightened
soul views Prakriti in its pristine form).
4. SS 1.78
5. Ani. 1.78
6. SS 1.79
7. Ani. 11.79
8. Ibid
9. SS 1.114; SK 9
10. SS 1.115
11. SS 1.116
12. SS 1.117
13. Gandhi has himself earlier
talked as it Prakriti is identical with mater, but now that he notes
that Prakriti produces even consciousness he finds difficulty in
accepting that position.
14. SS1.68. The Sankhya
philosopher's idea seems to be that the physical world must have a root (or we
must be faced with an infinite regress) but that it is immaterial whether this
cause is given the name `Prakriti' or any other, However, in view of
the basic obscurity of the Sankhya position on the question there is
also sense in the way Gandhi interprets the present Sankhya aphorism.
15. SS 1.61
16. SS 1.61 SK 22
17. Ani. 1.61
18. Ibid
19. Ibid
20. SS 1.140; SK17
21. SS 1.141
22. SS 1.142
23. SS 1.143
24. SS 1.145
25. SS 1.146
26. SS 1.148
27. SS 1.149; SK 18; Gandhi's
sentence needs some correction of the type here suggested.
28. Ani. 1.149
29. SS 1.154
30. SS 1.157
31. SS 1.162; SK 62
32. SS 1.92
33. SS 2.1; SK 56; That soul
is really though not apparently emancipated means that it is really
emancipated but appears to be not so. Gandhi's interpretation of the phrase
Svarth seems to be somewhat far‑fetched, but he is apparently following
some commentator. The more natural interpretation of the phrase should be: "Or
we may say that Prakriti created the universe for the sake of itself,
that is, for the sake of the removal of pain that really belongs to itself."
As we have noted, in the Sankhya philosopher's eyes pain is a
phenomenon belonging to Prakriti rather than to Purush.
34. SS 2.13‑15; Vijn.2.13‑15;
SK 23; Both Aniruddha and SK maintain that demerit etc. arise out of
Prakriti when there is in it a preponderance of Tames (rather than
of Rajas and Tames).
35.
In Sankhya philosophy Ant Karen
is the name usually given to the collection of Manas, Ahamkar
and Buddhi alone‑but seldom to ahankara. See Aniruddha on
SS 2.38 (also SK 33) for the triple composition of Anskaran and SS 2.38
1.64 for the identification of Antakaran with Buddhi.
36. SS 2.17- 18; SK 24-25
37. SS 2.20
38. SS 2.22
39. SS 2.27; Vijn. 2.27
40. SS 2.29; Vijn. 2.39
41. SS 2.30; Vijn. 2.30
42. SS 2.31
43. SS 2.33; Ani. 2.33
44. SS 2.34
45. YS 1.2
46. SS 3.2; Vijn. 3.2
47. SS 3.3
48. SS 3.4
49. SS 3.7; SK39
50. SS 3.8
51. SS 3.9; In fact, Ahamkar
is the eighteenth constituent‑element of the subtle body but as
Vijnanabhikshu says it is here treated as included in Buddhi.
Aniruddha, on the other hand, interprets the aphorism itself to mean that
the subtle body is made up on eighteen elements.
52. SS 3.10
53. SS 3.12; SK 41
54. SS 3.13; Vijn. 3.13
55. SS 3.17
56. SS 3.23
57. SS 3.24
58. SS 3.25
59. SS 3.30
60. SS 3.31
61. SS 3.32
62. SS 3.33
63. SS 3.34
64. SS 3.35
65. SS 3.36
66. SS 3.37
67. SS 3.38‑45; SK 45‑51
68. SS 5.2‑12;SK 57
69. SS 3.54
70. SS 3.63
71. It has not been possible
to trace the original text that forms the basis of Gandhi's present contention
