|
by V. R. Gandhi, B.A., M.R.A.S. Barrister-at-Law
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:
- (Adhyatmic) due to one's self,
- (Adhibhotic ) due to the products of elements and
- (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.)
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). 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 subtle.
5. Kapila's theory is strictly a theory of evolution. He says: (Navstuno
vstusidhi) -- A thing is not made out of nothings. 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 unreal. 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). (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 opposed. (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 unreality.
Again he says: Nasdutpado nrinshrigavt - The production of that
which does not already exist potentially is impossible like the horn
of a man. Upadananiymat - Because there must of necessity be a
material out of which a product is developed. Srvatr srvada
srvasanbhvat- Because everything is not possible everywhere and always
(which might be the case if materials could be dispensed with). 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.
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. 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.
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. 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 Sthoolbhotani and two sets of organs
Indriyas external and internal,
and from subtle elements gross elements sthoolbhootani. 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 odour. 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 organ. From the five
subtle elements are produced five gross elements- Akash (ether),
Vayu
(air), Taijas (fire or light), Apas (water), Prithvi
(earth). 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.
8. The arguments which Kapila brings forward for the existence of
soul as a separate entity, distinct from Prakriti, are these; First,
Sanhatprarthatvat that which combined and is therefore discreditable
is finally for the sake of some other which is not discerptible. The
second argument Trigun.adivipryat Soul is something else than Prakriti
because there is in Soul the reverse of the three qualities passivity,
activity and grossness. The third argument is Adhishthanach -Soul is
not material because of its superintendence over Prakriti (and a
superintendent is an intelligent being while Prakriti is
unintelligent). The fourth argument is Bhoktribhavat - Soul is not
material because of its being the experiencer. It is the Prakriti
that is experienced, the experiencer is soul.
What then is the nature of soul? Kapila answers: Jadprkashayogat
parkas Since light does not pertain to the unintelligent, light is the
essence of soul. The followers of the Vaisheshika system think that
intelligence is only an attribute of soul; really it is without
quality. It is essentially intelligent. If soul be unintelligent, it
would not be a witness of its own comfort in profound and dreamless
sleep. He does not agree with the Vedantists when they say that soul
is one only for it is eternal, omnipresent, changeless, void of
blemish; on the contrary, he says that from the fact [that] when one
person is born another dies and a third one becomes old at the same
time [it follows that] there is a multiplicity of souls. If soul
were one only, when one is born all must be born. Both the
Vedantists and the Sankhya are followers of the Veda and in the Veda
there are passages like Aikamaivadviteeyan brahm (chhandogyopanishad
6.2.1), naih nanasti kinchan (Vrihadan.ykopnishad 4.4.19) mritio sa
mritiomapnoti ye eh nanaiv pashyati (kathopnishad 2.1.10) - Brahma is
one without a second; there is nothing here diverse; death after death
does he, the deluded man obtain who here sees as if it were a
multiplicity. Kapila gives an ingenious interpretation to these
passages. He says that his view of the multiplicity of souls is not
opposed to the above passages of the Upanisads because those texts
refer to the genus of all souls, i.e. to the fact that all souls are
of the same nature. On the contrary he says in the Puranas we find
passages to the effect that Vamadeva has been liberated, Shuck has
been liberated. If soul were one, since the liberation of all would
take place on the liberation of one the mention of diverse
liberation's would be self-contradictory30.
9. The soul is not considered by the Sankhya bound to matter. It is
not bound, nor is it liberated. It is free. It has a delusive
semblance of being bound. The nature of the soul is constant freedom
and indifference to pleasure and pain alike.
10. These are the basic principals of the Sankhya philosophy. In
short, according to its doctrines Prakriti and Purush are enough in
themselves to and the idea of a creator is looked upon by the Sankhya
as a mere redundant phantom of philosophy.
11. We may now enter into the details of this philosophy. In the
first place let us ask Kapila what the motive is for the creation of
the universe. He mentions two motives; they might have appeared
satisfactory to him but to me his reply is not rational. He says that
Prakriti created the universe for the emancipation of the soul which
is really though not apparently emancipated or, secondly, for the
removal of itself, i.e. for the sake of removing the actually real
pain which consists of itself, as his commentator explains it. If
the soul is essentially free and essentially light, there was no
necessity for Prakriti to interfere with the soul's infinite bliss.
12. Let us examine the other stages of creation. I told you in the
beginning that from Prakriti sprang the Great Mind. What is this Great
Mind? Kapila says: It is intellect and judgement or ascertainment is
its peculiar modification; and Dharma, gyan, Vairagya, Aeshvarya i.e.
merit, knowledge, dispassion and supernatural power arise out of it
when there is in it a superlative degree of the first if the three
qualities, i.e. Satv, purity or passivity. But demerit, ignorance,
non-dispassion and want of supernatural power arise out of it when
there is in it a preponderance of the other two qualities. From the
great principal -the Greet Mind, we were told, is produced Ahankara
i.e. self-consciousness. It is what makes the Ego. It is the same as
Antakaran i.e. the internal instrument35. We were also told that the
eleven organs and five subtle elements are produced from
self-consciousness. But there is this distinction that the eleventh
organ, the mind proceeds from self-consciousness in which the first
quality Satv, purity or passivity- preponderates, while the other ten
organs proceed from self-consciousness in which the second
quality-activity or passion-predominates, and the five subtle elements
proceed from self-consciousness in which the third quality-darkness or
grossness- predominates. I have already enumerated the eleven
organs. The popular opinion is that the organs are formed of gross
elements. But the Sankhya doctrine is that is not so because the Veda
does not support that view and we know that Kapila could not assume an
attitude of direct opposition to the Vedas. There was another
popular opinion about this mind-organ. It was that it is eternal, but
Kapila says that none of the organs is eternal because the Vedas say
so and because we see that they are destroyed. Further he says that
mind is the leading organ while the other ten are kinds of powers.
All these organs are mere instruments. As a king even without himself
taking an active part becomes a warrior simply by employing an army,
so does the soul, although quiescent, through the different organs,
become a seer, a speaker, a judge and the like, merely by reason of
its proximity with these organs.
There are some special properties belonging to the Great Intellect,
self-consciousness and the mind. Attention or thought is the special
property of the Intellect, conceit of personality is the property of
self-consciousness, and decision and doubt of the mind, while the
five airs- known as Pran etc. - are the common properties of all of
them. The modifications of the organs are Prman. Vipreya, Vikalp,
Nidra, Smriti, evidence, chimera, sleep and memory. Some of them are
painful, and others not painful. When these modifications cease to
exist the soul comes to a state of self-quiet. The Yoga philosophy
has the same doctrine. The very word Yoga means concentration and is
defined as the suppression of the modifications of the thinking
principal45.
13. We will go still deeper into Kapila's philosophy. We have
enumerated in the beginning the principals commencing with Prakriti
and ending with Purusa. Prakriti as Prakriti in a state of equilibrium
is unable to produce anything. It is only when equilibrium is
disturbed that the creation follows. Purush-the soul-itself is neither
the producer nor the produced. Whence is the human body created
according to this philosophy? Kapila says that out of the remaining
twenty-three principals a pair of bodies sthool shreer and Sooksham
shreer gross body and subtle body originates. In fact the
twenty-three principals act as the seed. out of which the body is
produced and the fact that the soul becomes conditioned by the 23
principals is the cause of its going from one body to another in fact
the cause of all mundane existence, and this mundane existence
continues for each soul so long as it does not discriminate the
difference between soul and Prakriti. It should be noted how -ever
that according to Kapila's theory the soul is not really fettered by
matter, it only has a wrong impression that it is fettered. Really it
is quite free. Only it does not realize this fact so long as it is in
mundane existence. We come again to the pair of bodies- the gross body
and the subtle body. The gross body usually though not always arises
from father and mother, while the subtle body is a creation out of the
principals. Pleasure and pain belong to the subtle body, not to the gross
body. In the beginning of the creation
there was but one subtle body which consisted of the collection of
seventeen elements-eleven organs, five subtle elements and the Buddhi,
i.e. the great intellect the understanding. But through the
diversity of actions later on the one subtle body became
differentiated into many. The subtle body does not exist
independently, It has its tabernacle- the gross body for residing
therein. As a shadow or a picture does not stand without a support, so
the subtle body at death leaves one gross body and passes into
another. It cannot in fact exist independently because its essence
is Satvprakash pure light and all luminous ether is seen only as
associated with earthy substance. The gross body is a composition of
the five gross elements.
14. What aims then are accomplished by the subtle body
transmigrating from one gross body to another? Kapila says Gyananmukti.
From knowledge (acquired through mundane existence) comes the
liberation, i.e. the discrimination between soul and non-soul.
Bondage is also one of the aims of this transmigration but it arises
on account of misconception. Kapila altogether discards the theory
of the efficacy of works as a means of salvation. To him only
knowledge is the sole means of liberation. Even meditation is not
the direct cause of liberation, though it is useful as secondary
cause, for it removes desire, which really hinders knowledge. So it
is worth practicing, which can be done by stopping all modifications
of the Mind. This is done by dharna asan and Svkarm restrain,
posture and the fulfillment of duties. By restrain I mean the
restrain of breath by means of expulsion and retention under certain
rules. By posture is meant the peculiar position in sitting gives
pleasure, and by the fulfillment of the duties is meant by the
performance of actions prescribed for one's religious order.64 This
meditation can be acquired only through Vairagya and abhyasa
dispassion and constant practice. Through meditation knowledge is
acquired. But if misconception interferes, bondage will be the result.
What is this misconception? It is fivefold Avidya Asmat, Rag, Dvaish
and Abhinivaish ignorance, egoism, attachment, aversion and fear of
dissolution. Why should this misconception play its part at all?
Simply because the powers called Tushti and Siddhi are impeded and
hence arises the disability which cause misconception. Much can be
said with reference to these powers of Tushti and Siddhi. But our time
will not permit us to go into any details. We shall come to some of
them when we shall talk on the Yoga philosophy.
15. There is however one point to which, I should draw your
attention. I mean the nature of the Sankhya Mukti the liberation of
the soul. His theory is not, as misunderstood by Western orientalists,
the theory of absorption. The soul on liberation does not merge into
the Universal Spirit or into the Absolute, for in his system there is
no such thing as the Supreme Spirit or the Absolute. Not only does he
not propound such a theory as the final object but on the contrary he
refutes it. He thinks that by merging into the primordial original
essence, the Prakriti, the souls will have to rise again and pass
through different mundane existence. It is only when the right
discrimination of soul and non-soul takes place that there will be the
final emancipation of the soul.
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.
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.
Suggested Further Reading
|
