Reading section 26

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: I suppose that Râjâ's commentary on the _Kârikâ_ was the same as _Râjavârttika_ quoted by Vâcaspati. Râjâ's commentary on the _Kârikâ_ has been referred to by Jayanta in his _Nyâyamañjarî_, p. 109. This book is probably now lost.]

213

Amongst the modern works to which I owe an obligation I may mention the two treatises _Mechanical, physical and chemical theories of the Ancient Hindus and the Positive Sciences of the Ancient Hindus_ by Dr B.N. Seal and my two works on Yoga _Study of Patanjali_ published by the Calcutta University, and _Yoga Philosophy in relation to other Indian Systems of Thought_ which is shortly to be published, and my _Natural Philosophy of the Ancient Hindus_, awaiting publication with the Calcutta University.

Gu@naratna mentions two other authoritative Sâ@mkhya works, viz. _Mâ@tharabhâ@sya_ and _Âtreyatantra_. Of these the second is probably the same as Caraka's treatment of Sâ@mkhya, for we know that the sage Atri is the speaker in Caraka's work and for that it was called Âtreyasa@mhitâ or Âtreyatantra. Nothing is known of the Mâtharabhâsya [Footnote ref 1].

An Early School of Sâ@mkhya.

It is important for the history of Sâ@mkhya philosophy that Caraka's treatment of it, which so far as I know has never been dealt with in any of the modern studies of Sâ@mkhya, should be brought before the notice of the students of this philosophy. According to Caraka there are six elements (_dhâtus_), viz. the five elements such as âkâs'a, vâyu etc. and cetanâ, called also puru@sa. From other points of view, the categories may be said to be twenty-four only, viz. the ten senses (five cognitive and five conative), manas, the five objects of senses and the eightfold prak@rti (prak@rti, mahat, aha@mkâra and the five elements)[Footnote ref 2]. The manas works through the senses. It is atomic and its existence is proved by the fact that in spite of the existence of the senses there cannot be any knowledge unless manas is in touch with them. There are two movements of manas as indeterminate sensing (_ûha_) and conceiving (_vicâra_) before definite understanding (_buddhi_) arises. Each of the five senses is the product of the combination of five elements but the auditory sense is made with a preponderance of akasa, the sense of touch with a preponderance

_________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Readers unacquainted with Sâ@mkhya-Yoga may omit the following three sections at the time of first reading.]

[Footnote 2: Puru@a is here excluded from the list. Cakrapâ@ni, the commentator, says that the prak@rti and puru@sa both being unmanifested, the two together have been counted as one. _Prak@rtivyatiriktañcodâsîna@m puru@samavyaktatvasâdharmyât avyaktâyâm prak@rtâveva prak@sipya avyaktas'avbdenaiva g@rh@nâti._ Harinâtha Vis'ârada's edition of _Caraka, S'ârîra_, p. 4.]

214

of air, the visual sense with a preponderance of light, the taste with a preponderance of water and the sense of smell with a preponderance of earth. Caraka does not mention the tanmâtras at all [Footnote ref 1]. The conglomeration of the sense-objects (_indriyârtha_) or gross matter, the ten senses, manas, the five subtle bhûtas and prak@rti, mahat and aha@mkâra taking place through rajas make up what we call man. When the sattva is at its height this conglomeration ceases. All karma, the fruit of karma, cognition, pleasure, pain, ignorance, life and death belongs to this conglomeration. But there is also the puru@sa, for had it not been so there would be no birth, death, bondage, or salvation. If the âtman were not regarded as cause, all illuminations of cognition would be without any reason. If a permanent self were not recognized, then for the work of one others would be responsible. This puru@sa, called also _paramâtman_, is beginningless and it has no cause beyond itself. The self is in itself without consciousness. Consciousness can only come to it through its connection with the sense organs and manas. By ignorance, will, antipathy, and work, this conglomeration of puru@sa and the other elements takes place. Knowledge, feeling, or action, cannot be produced without this combination. All positive effects are due to conglomerations of causes and not by a single cause, but all destruction comes naturally and without cause. That which is eternal is never the product of anything. Caraka identifies the avyakta part of prak@rti with puru@sa as forming one category. The vikâra or evolutionary products of prak@rti are called k@setra, whereas the avyakta part of prak@rti is regarded as the k@setrajña (_avyaktamasya k@setrasya k@setrajñam@r@sayo viduh_). This avyakta and cetanâ are one and the same entity. From this unmanifested prak@rti or cetanâ is derived the buddhi, and from the buddhi is derived the ego (_aha@mkâra_) and from the aha@mkâra the five elements and the senses are produced, and when this production is complete, we say that creation has taken place. At the time of pralaya (periodical cosmic dissolution) all the evolutes return back to prak@rti, and thus become unmanifest with it, whereas at the time of a new creation from the puru@sa the unmanifest (_avyakta_), all the manifested forms--the evolutes of buddhi, aha@mkâra,

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: But some sort of subtle matter, different from gross matter, is referred to as forming part of _prak@rti_ which is regarded as having eight elements in it _prak@rtis'ca@s@tadhâtuki_), viz. avyakta, mahat, aha@mkâra, and five other elements. In addition to these elements forming part of the prak@rti we hear of indriyârthâ, the five sense objects which have evolved out of the prak@rti.]

215

etc.--appear [Footnote ref 1]. This cycle of births or rebirths or of dissolution and new creation acts through the influence of rajas and tamas, and so those who can get rid of these two will never again suffer this revolution in a cycle. The manas can only become active in association with the self, which is the real agent. This self of itself takes rebirth in all kinds of lives according to its own wish, undetermined by anyone else. It works according to its own free will and reaps the fruits of its karma. Though all the souls are pervasive, yet they can only perceive in particular bodies where they are associated with their own specific senses. All pleasures and pains are felt by the conglomeration (_râs'i_), and not by the âtman presiding over it. From the enjoyment and suffering of pleasure and pain comes desire (_t@r@s@nâ_) consisting of wish and antipathy, and from desire again comes pleasure and pain. Mok@sa means complete cessation of pleasure and pain, arising through the association of the self with the manas, the sense, and sense-objects. If the manas is settled steadily in the self, it is the state of yoga when there is neither pleasure nor pain. When true knowledge dawns that "all are produced by causes, are transitory, rise of themselves, but are not produced by the self and are sorrow, and do not belong to me the self," the self transcends all. This is the last renunciation when all affections and knowledge become finally extinct. There remains no indication of any positive existence of the self at this time, and the self can no longer be perceived [Footnote ref 2]. It is the state of Brahman. Those who know Brahman call this state the Brahman, which is eternal and absolutely devoid of any characteristic. This state is spoken of by the Sâ@mkhyas as their goal, and also that of the Yogins. When rajas and tamas are rooted out and the karma of the past whose fruits have to be enjoyed are exhausted, and there is no new karma and new birth,

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: This passage has been differently explained in a commentary previous to Cakrapâ@ni as meaning that at the time of death these resolve back into the prak@rti--the puru@sa--and at the time of rebirth they become manifest again. See Cakrapâ@ni on s'ârîra, I. 46.]

[Footnote 2: Though this state is called brahmabhûta, it is not in any sense like the Brahman of Vedânta which is of the nature of pure being, pure intelligence and pure bliss. This indescribable state is more like absolute annihilation without any sign of existence (_alak@sa@nam_), resembling Nâgârjuna's Nirvâ@na. Thus Caraka writes:--_tasmi@ms'caramasannyâse samûlâh@hsarvavedanâ@h asa@mjñâjñânavijñânâ niv@rtti@m yântyas'e@sata@h. ata@hpara@m brahmabhûto bhûtâtmâ nopalabhyate ni@hs@rta@h sarvabhâvebhya@h cihna@m yasya na vidyate. gatirbrahmavidâ@m brahma taccâk@saramalak@sa@nam. Caraka, S'ârîra_ 1. 98-100.]

216

the state of mok@sa comes about. Various kinds of moral endeavours in the shape of association with good people, abandoning of desires, determined attempts at discovering the truth with fixed attention, are spoken of as indispensable means. Truth (tattva) thus discovered should be recalled again and again [Footnote ref 1] and this will ultimately effect the disunion of the body with the self. As the self is avyakta (unmanifested) and has no specific nature or character, this state can only be described as absolute cessation (_mok@se niv@rttirni@hs'e@sâ_).

The main features of the Sâ@mkhya doctrine as given by Caraka are thus: 1. Puru@sa is the state of avyakta. 2. By a conglomera of this avyakta with its later products a conglomeration is formed which generates the so-called living being. 3. The tanmâtras are not mentioned. 4. Rajas and tamas represent the bad states of the mind and sattva the good ones. 5. The ultimate state of emancipation is either absolute annihilation or characterless absolute existence and it is spoken of as the Brahman state; there is no consciousness in this state, for consciousness is due to the conglomeration of the self with its evolutes, buddhi, aha@mkâra etc. 6. The senses are formed of matter (_bhautika_).

This account of Sâ@mkhya agrees with the system of Sâ@mkhya propounded by Pañcas'ikha (who is said to be the direct pupil of Âsuri the pupil of Kapila, the founder of the system) in the Mahâbhârata XII. 219. Pañcas'ikha of course does not describe the system as elaborately as Caraka does. But even from what little he says it may be supposed that the system of Sâ@mkhya he sketches is the same as that of Caraka [Footnote ref 2]. Pañcas'ikha speaks of the ultimate truth as being avyakta (a term applied in all Sâ@mkhya literature to prak@rti) in the state of puru@sa (_purusâvasthamavyaktam_). If man is the product of a mere combination of the different elements, then one may assume that all ceases with death. Caraka in answer to such an objection introduces a discussion, in which he tries to establish the existence of a self as the postulate of all our duties and sense of moral responsibility. The same discussion occurs in Pañcas'ikha also, and the proofs

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Four causes are spoken of here as being causes of memory: (1) Thinking of the cause leads to the remembering of the effect, (2) by similarity, (3) by opposite things, and (4) by acute attempt to remember.]

[Footnote 2: Some European scholars have experienced great difficulty in accepting Pañcas'ikha's doctrine as a genuine Sâ@mkhya doctrine. This may probably be due to the fact that the Sâ@mkhya doctrines sketched in _Caraka_ did not attract their notice.]

217

for the existence of the self are also the same. Like Caraka again Pañcas'ikha also says that all consciousness is due to the conditions of the conglomeration of our physical body mind,--and the element of "cetas." They are mutually independent, and by such independence carry on the process of life and work. None of the phenomena produced by such a conglomeration are self. All our suffering comes in because we think these to be the self. Mok@sa is realized when we can practise absolute renunciation of these phenomena. The gu@nas described by Pañcas'ikha are the different kinds of good and bad qualities of the mind as Caraka has it. The state of the conglomeration is spoken of as the k@setra, as Caraka says, and there is no annihilation or eternality; and the last state is described as being like that when all rivers lose themselves in the ocean and it is called ali@nga (without any characteristic)--a term reserved for prak@rti in later Sâ@mkhya. This state is attainable by the doctrine of ultimate renunciation which is also called the doctrine of complete destruction (_samyagbadha_).

Gu@naratna (fourteenth century A.D.), a commentator of _@Sa@ddars'anasamuccaya_, mentions two schools of Sâ@mkhya, the Maulikya (original) and the Uttara or (later) [Footnote ref 1]. Of these the doctrine of the Maulikya Sâ@mkhya is said to be that which believed that there was a separate pradhâna for each âtman (_maulikyasâ@mkhyâ hyâtmânamâtmânam prati p@rthak pradhânam vadanti_). This seems to be a reference to the Sâ@mkhya doctrine I have just sketched. I am therefore disposed to think that this represents the earliest systematic doctrine of Sâ@mkhya.

In _Mahâbhârata_ XII. 318 three schools of Sâ@mkhya are mentioned, viz. those who admitted twenty-four categories (the school I have sketched above), those who admitted twenty-five (the well-known orthodox Sâ@mkhya system) and those who admitted twenty-six categories. This last school admitted a supreme being in addition to puru@sa and this was the twenty-sixth principle. This agrees with the orthodox Yoga system and the form of Sâ@mkhya advocated in the _Mahâbhârata_. The schools of Sâ@mkhya of twenty-four and twenty-five categories are here denounced as unsatisfactory. Doctrines similar to the school of Sâ@mkhya we have sketched above are referred to in some of the

_________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Gu@naratna's _Tarkarahasyadîpikâ_, p. 99.]

218

other chapters of the _Mahâbhârata_ (XII. 203, 204). The self apart from the body is described as the moon of the new moon day; it is said that as Râhu (the shadow on the sun during an eclipse) cannot be seen apart from the sun, so the self cannot be seen apart from the body. The selfs (_s'arîri@na@h_) are spoken of as manifesting from prak@rti.

We do not know anything about Âsuri the direct disciple of Kapila [Footnote ref 1]. But it seems probable that the system of Sâ@mkhya we have sketched here which appears in fundamentally the same form in the _Mahâbhârata_ and has been attributed there to Pañcas'ikha is probably the earliest form of Sâ@mkhya available to us in a systematic form. Not only does Gu@naratna's reference to the school of Maulikya Sâ@mkhya justify it, but the fact that Caraka (78 A.U.) does not refer to the Sâ@mkhya as described by Îs'varak@r@s@na and referred to in other parts of _Mahâbhârata_ is a definite proof that Îs'varak@r@s@na's Sâ@mkhya is a later modification, which was either non-existent in Caraka's time or was not regarded as an authoritative old Sâ@mkhya view.

Wassilief says quoting Tibetan sources that Vindhyavâsin altered the Sâ@mkhya according to his own views [Footnote ref 2]. Takakusu thinks that Vindhyavâsin was a title of Îs'varak@r@s@na [Footnote ref 3] and Garbe holds that the date of Îs'varak@r@s@na was about 100 A.D. It seems to be a very plausible view that Îs'varak@r@s@na was indebted for his kârikâs to another work, which was probably written in a style different from what he employs. The seventh verse of his _Kârikâ_ seems to be in purport the same as a passage which is found quoted in the

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: A verse attributed to Âsuri is quoted by Gu@naratna (_Tarkarahasyadîpikâ,_ p. 104). The purport of this verse is that when buddhi is transformed in a particular manner, it (puru@sa) has experience. It is like the reflection of the moon in transparent water.]

[Footnote 2: Vassilief's _Buddhismus,_ p. 240.]

[Footnote 3: Takakusu's "A study of Paramârtha's life of Vasubandhu," _J. R.A.S._, 1905. This identification by Takakusu, however, appears to be extremely doubtful, for Gu@naratna mentions Îs'varak@r@s@na and Vindhyavâsin as two different authorities (_Tarkarahasyadîpikâ,_ pp. 102 and 104). The verse quoted from Vindhyavâsin (p. 104) in anu@s@tubh metre cannot be traced as belonging to Îs'varak@r@s@nâ. It appears that Îs'varak@r@s@na wrote two books; one is the _Sâ@mkhya kârikâ_ and another an independent work on Sâ@mkhya, a line from which, quoted by Gu@naratna, stands as follows:

"_Pratiniyatâdhyavasâya@h s'rotrâdisamuttha adhyak@sam_" (p. 108).

If Vâcaspati's interpretation of the classification of anumâna in his _Tattvakaumudî_ be considered to be a correct explanation of _Sâ@mkhya kârikâ_ then Îs'varak@r@s@na must be a different person from Vindhyavâsin whose views on anumâna as referred to in _S'lokavârttika,_ p. 393, are altogether different. But Vâcaspati's own statement in the _Tâtparyya@tîkâ_ (pp. 109 and 131) shows that his treatment there was not faithful.]

219

_Mahâbhâsya_ of Patañjali the grammarian (147 B.C.) [Footnote ref 1]. The subject of the two passages are the enumeration of reasons which frustrate visual perception. This however is not a doctrine concerned with the strictly technical part of Sâ@mkhya, and it is just possible that the book from which Patañjali quoted the passage, and which was probably paraphrased in the Âryâ metre by Îs'varak@r@s@na was not a Sâ@mkhya book at all. But though the subject of the verse is not one of the strictly technical parts of Sâ@mkhya, yet since such an enumeration is not seen in any other system of Indian philosophy, and as it has some special bearing as a safeguard against certain objections against the Sâ@mkhya doctrine of prak@rti, the natural and plausible supposition is that it was the verse of a Sâ@mkhya book which was paraphrased by Îs'varak@r@s@na.

The earliest descriptions of a Sâ@mkhya which agrees with Îs'varak@r@s@na's Sâ@mkhya (but with an addition of Îs'vara) are to be found in Patañjali's _Yoga sûtras_ and in the _Mahâbhârata;_ but we are pretty certain that the Sâ@mkhya of Caraka we have sketched here was known to Patañjali, for in _Yoga sûtra_ I. 19 a reference is made to a view of Sâ@mkhya similar to this.

From the point of view of history of philosophy the Sâ@mkhya of Caraka and Pañcas'ikha is very important; for it shows a transitional stage of thought between the Upani@sad ideas and the orthodox Sâ@mkhya doctrine as represented by Îs'varak@r@s@na. On the one hand its doctrine that the senses are material, and that effects are produced only as a result of collocations, and that the puru@sa is unconscious, brings it in close relation with Nyâya, and on the other its connections with Buddhism seem to be nearer than the orthodox Sâ@mkhya.

We hear of a _Sa@s@titantras'âstra_ as being one of the oldest Sâ@mkhya works. This is described in the _Ahirbudhnya Sa@mhitâ_ as containing two books of thirty-two and twenty-eight chapters [Footnote ref 2]. A quotation from _Râjavârttika_ (a work about which there is no definite information) in Vâcaspati Mis'ra's commentary on the Sâ@mkhya kârika_(72) says that it was called the _@Sa@s@titantra because it dealt with the existence of prak@rti, its oneness, its difference from puru@sas, its purposefulness for puru@sas, the multiplicity of puru@sas, connection and separation from puru@sas, the evolution of

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Patañjali's Mahâbhâ@sya, IV. I. 3. _Atisannikar@sâdativiprakar@sât mûrttyantaravyavadhânât tamasâv@rtatvât indriyadaurvalyâdatipramâdât,_ etc. (Benares edition.)]

[Footnote 2: _Ahirbudhnya Sa@mhitâ,_ pp. 108, 110.]

220

the categories, the inactivity of the puru@sas and the five _viparyyayas_, nine tu@s@tis, the defects of organs of twenty-eight kinds, and the eight siddhis [Footnote ref 1].

But the content of the _Sa@s@titantra_ as given in _Ahirbudhnya Sa@mhitâ_ is different from it, and it appears from it that the Sâ@mkhya of the _Sa@s@titantra_ referred to in the _Ahirbudhnya Sa@mhitâ_ was of a theistic character resembling the doctrine of the Pañcarâtra Vai@snavas and the _Ahirbudhnya Sa@mhitâ_ says that Kapila's theory of Sâ@mkhya was a Vai@s@nava one. Vijñâna Bhiksu, the greatest expounder of Sâ@mkhya, says in many places of his work _Vijñânâm@rta Bhâ@sya_ that Sâ@mkhya was originally theistic, and that the atheistic Sâ@mkhya is only a _prau@dhivâda_ (an exaggerated attempt to show that no supposition of Îs'vara is necessary to explain the world process) though the _Mahâbhârata_ points out that the difference between Sâ@mkhya and Yoga is this, that the former is atheistic, while the latter is theistic. The discrepancy between the two accounts of _@Sa@s@titantra_ suggests that the original _Sa@s@titantra_ as referred to in the _Ahirbudhnya Sa@mhitâ_ was subsequently revised and considerably changed. This supposition is corroborated by the fact that Gu@naratna does not mention among the important Sâ@mkhya works _@Sa@s@titantra_ but _@Sa@s@titantroddhâra_

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: The doctrine of the _viparyyaya, tusti_, defects of organs, and the _siddhi_ are mentioned in the _Karikâ_ of Is'varakr@sna, but I have omitted them in my account of Sâmkhya as these have little philosophical importance. The viparyyaya (false knowledge) are five, viz. avidyâ (ignorance), asmita (egoism), raga (attachment), dve@sa (antipathy), abhimives'a (self-love), which are also called _tamo, moha, mahâmoha, tamisrâ_, and _andhatâmisra_. These are of nine kinds of tusti, such as the idea that no exertion is necessary, since prak@rti will herself bring our salvation (_ambhas_), that it is not necessary to meditate, for it is enough if we renounce the householder's life (_salila_), that there is no hurry, salvation will come in time (_megha_), that salvation will be worked out by fate (_bhâgya_), and the contentment leading to renunciation proceeding from five kinds of causes, e.g. the troubles of earning (_para_), the troubles of protecting the earned money (_supara_), the natural waste of things earned by enjoyment (_parâpara_), increase of desires leading to greater disappointments (_anuttamâmbhas_), all gain leads to the injury of others (_uttamâmbhas_). This renunciation proceeds from external considerations with those who consider prak@rti and its evolutes as the self. The siddhis or ways of success are eight in number, viz. (1) reading of scriptures (_târa_), (2) enquiry into their meaning (_sutâra_), (3) proper reasoning (_târatâra_), (4) corroborating one's own ideas with the ideas of the teachers and other workers of the same field (_ramyaka_), (5) clearance of the mind by long-continued practice (_sadâmudita_). The three other siddhis called pramoda, mudita, and modamâna lead directly to the separation of the prak@rti from the purus'a. The twenty-eight sense defects are the eleven defects of the eleven senses and seventeen kinds of defects of the understanding corresponding to the absence of siddhis and the presence of tustis. The viparyyayas, tu@stis and the defects of the organs are hindrances in the way of the achievement of the Sâ@mkhya goal.]

221

(revised edition of _@Sa@s@titantra_) [Footnote ref 1]. Probably the earlier @Sa@s@titantra was lost even before Vâcaspati's time.

If we believe the @Sa@s@titantra referred to in the _Ahirbudhnya Sa@mhitâ_ to be in all essential parts the same work which was composed by Kapila and based faithfully on his teachings, then it has to be assumed that Kapila's Sâ@mkhya was theistic [Footnote ref 2]. It seems probable that his disciple Âsuri tried to popularise it. But it seems that a great change occurred when Pañcas'ikha the disciple of Âsuri came to deal with it. For we know that his doctrine differed from the traditional one in many important respects. It is said in _Sâ@mkhya kârikâ_ (70) that the literature was divided by him into many parts (_tena bahudhâk@rtam tantram_). The exact meaning of this reference is difficult to guess. It might mean that the original _@Sa@s@titantra_ was rewritten by him in various treatises. It is a well-known fact that most of the schools of Vai@s@navas accepted the form of cosmology which is the same in most essential parts as the Sâ@mkhya cosmology. This justifies the assumption that Kapila's doctrine was probably theistic. But there are a few other points of difference between the Kapila and the Pâtañjala Sâ@mkhya (Yoga). The only supposition that may be ventured is that Pañcas'ikha probably modified Kapila's work in an atheistic way and passed it as Kapila's work. If this supposition is held reasonable, then we have three strata of Sâ@mkhya, first a theistic one, the details of which are lost, but which is kept in a modified form by the Pâtañjala school of Sâ@mkhya, second an atheistic one as represented by Pañcas'ikha, and a third atheistic modification as the orthodox Sâ@mkhya system. An important change in the Sâ@mkhya doctrine seems to have been introduced by Vijñâna Bhik@su (sixteenth century A.D.) by his treatment of gu@nas as types of reals. I have myself accepted this interpretation of Sâ@mkhya as the most rational and philosophical one, and have therefore followed it in giving a connected system of the accepted Kapila and the Pâtañjala school of Sâ@mkhya. But it must be pointed out that originally the notion of gu@nas was applied to different types of good and bad mental states, and then they were supposed in some mysterious way by mutual increase and decrease to form the objective world on the one hand and the