Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Sanskrit Literature c33.s6: 6. The Sāṁkhya and Yoga Schools

A History of Sanskrit Literature c33.s6

Language
English

6. The Sāṁkhya and Yoga Schools

c33.s6.1

While the Vedānta is a direct descendant of the Upaniṣad discussions, and the systems of logic and atomism at least do not go out of their way to challenge orthodoxy, and ultimately adopt more and more the authority of scripture, the Sāṁkhya system in its original form unquestionably marks a break with tradition. But this is a very different thing from claiming that the philosophy is not derived by legitimate process of development from ideas found in the Upaniṣads. The issue eventually turns on the interpretation to be given to the fact that a number of Upaniṣads, in special the *Kaṭha*, present features which may either be regarded as a preliminary stage in the development to the Sāṁkhya or as the influence of an already existing Sāṁkhya on the Upaniṣads. The idea of an independent creation of thought, that of warriors as opposed to priests, is really fantastic, and there can be little doubt that the Sāṁkhya follows legitimately from certain Upaniṣad positions when they are fully developed. The absolute of the Upaniṣads tends to become meaningless, and the Sāṁkhya gets rid of it by postulating only an infinite number of spirits, while matter it similarly divorces from the absolute, ascribing to it the power of evolution; consciousness is explained by some form of contact between spirit and matter, and release is attained when the unreality of any connexion between the two is appreciated. This is undoubtedly an illogical and confused system, for in it spirit is meaningless, and its connexion with nature, being non-existent, cannot serve as the motive for bondage. Such confusion accords best with a derivative theory, not with original thought. The most important contribution to Indian thought made by the Sāṁkhya is the conception of three Guṇas, constituents rather than qualities, as pervading nature and man alike. Even for this view, however, we find a basis in the Upaniṣads, where water, fire, and earth appear as the three fundamental elements derived from the creator or pervaded by him.¹

c33.s6.2

¹ Keith, *The Sāṁkhya System* (2nd ed. 1924); *Religion and Philosophy of the Veda* (1925).

c33.s6.3

The date of the Sāṁkhya has been fixed by arguments based on the derivation of Buddhism from it, but we have rather to do with the derivation of Buddhism from the early doctrine of the Upaniṣads which ultimately gave also the Sāṁkhya, but in the case of Buddhism with far more conscious rejection of Vedic views. In any case, however, the date of the development of Buddhist doctrine is far too obscure to be of any real aid in fixing the date and the claim² that the Sāṁkhya represents a philosophy of 800–550 B. C. seems quite inadmissible.

c33.s6.4

² Cf. Winternitz, GIL. iii. 450. The use of Caraka as an early Sāṁkhya source is quite unwarranted.

c33.s6.5

All the early teachers of the Sāṁkhya appear in legendary guise; the reality of Kapila, the alleged founder of the system, has been abandoned by Jacobi; Āsuri is a mere name, and Pañcaçikha, of whom we have views, is quite uncertain in date. The epic presents us with some information as to the Sāṁkhya, though usually it gives a composite philosophy, but our first definite text is the *Sāṁkhyakārikā*³ of Īçvarakṛṣṇa. From Buddhist sources we hear of an older contemporary of Vasubandhu (*c.* 320),⁴ Vārṣagaṇya, who wrote a *Ṣaṣṭitantra* on the Sāṁkhya; his pupil Vindhyavāsa corrected his master’s views in a set of seventy verses known as the Golden Seventy verses, which Vasubandhu criticized in his *Paramārthasaptati*. It is natural to identify Vindhyavāsa with Īçvarakṛṣṇa, and, though the identity is unproven, it is not improbable. Otherwise the only certain fact is that the Kārikā with a commentary was translated into Chinese by Paramārtha in A. D. 557–69, and therefore must have existed earlier. The view that the original of this comment exists in the recently discovered *Māṭhara Vṛtti* is certainly wrong.⁵ We have, however, a derived version of this comment by Gauḍapāda, whose date is uncertain, as is his identity with the author of the *Gauḍapādīya Kārikā* on the Vedānta, who seems a man of much higher calibre. Of greater importance is Vācaspati Miçra's *Sāṁkhyatattvakaumudī*, in which he displays his usual impartiality and capacity of exposition. He cites a *Rājavārttika* of Raṇaraṅgamalla or Bhoja. The Kārikā itself is doubtless indebted to older works for its substance which is expressed in dry Āryā verses which exhibit, however, traces of the distinctive feature of Sāṁkhya exposition, the choice of happy illustrative examples, such as the similitude drawn between nature and the modest maiden who retires once she has been seen by spirit.

c33.s6.6

³ Ed. BenSS. 1883; trans. J. Davies, London, 1881; P. Deussen, *Gesch. d. Phil.*, I. iii. 413 ff.

c33.s6.7

⁴ N. Péri, BEFEO. xi. 311 ff.

c33.s6.8

⁵ Keith, BSOS. iii. 551 f.

c33.s6.9

The *Sāṁkhya Sūtra*¹ is a late text; it is not used in the *Sarvadarçanasaṁgraha* and is commented on by Aniruddha (*c.* 1450). It may contain older matter, but the Sūtras given by Siddharṣi in the *Upamitibhavaprapañcā kathā* are not in it, and we do not know if he did not invent them, though that is not very likely. The system here is fully developed and scripture is invoked in support of it. Interesting is book iv in which we find brief references to illustrative stories; the comment explains these allusions; recognition of the distinction between spirit and matter comes by instruction as in the case of the king's son who, brought up by a Çabara, has the truth of his origin revealed to him and at once assumes the princely bearing and mien. So the forgetting of truth brings sorrow as in the case of the frog-maiden, who was married by a king on his promise never to let her see water; one day, unluckily, he forgot and let her have some when tired, with the result that he had to bear the pain of her return to her frog shape. In addition to Aniruddha's comment,² we have the curious work of Vijñānabhikṣu³ in which, anticipating much modern opinion, he seeks to deal with the Sāṁkhya not as opposed to the Vedānta but as representing one aspect of the truth of that system. He also wrote the *Sāṁkhyasāra*,⁴ a brief introduction to the topic, and his date is *c.* 1650. Before 1600 was written the catechism *Tattvasamāsa*,⁵ which has been held to be an old text, but which at any rate is not of much philosophic importance.

c33.s6.10

¹ Ed. BI. 1865; trans. SHB. 11, 1912.

c33.s6.11

² Ed. and trans. R. Garbe, BI. 1888-92.

c33.s6.12

³ Ed. R. Garbe, HOS. 2, 1895; trans. AKM. ix. 3, 1889.

c33.s6.13

⁴ Ed. BI. 1865.

c33.s6.14

⁵ Max Müller, *Six Systems*, pp. 224 ff.

c33.s6.15

Closely allied as a philosophy with the Sāṁkhya is the Yoga. In itself Yoga is merely the application of the will on the concentration of the mind, whence it denotes concentration, and, if the concentration aims at union with a deity as it may often have done, the sense may have come to be that of unity, the result being put for the effort. But primitively the object of Yoga was doubtless often to secure by practices of repression of the breath, sitting in certain postures and deep concentration, magic powers such as are believed throughout Indian thought to be the fruit of such exercises, for we find the same doctrine in Buddhism and Jainism. Yoga, therefore, in a sense can figure in all philosophies, but as a system it has been developed under Sāṁkhya influence, the only real difference being that the Yoga, as a result of the early connexion with the desire of finding union with a god, insists on finding a place for the deity as the twenty-sixth principle in addition to the twenty-five of the Sāṁkhya. This spirit is in constant connexion with subtle matter and possesses power, wisdom, and goodness. The Yoga thus figures as the theistic Sāṁkhya, while the Sāṁkhya appears as atheistic. Both systems in fusion with Vedānta ideas appear largely in the epic philosophy and again in the Purāṇas and the law-book of Manu.¹

c33.s6.16

¹ P. Tuxen, *Yoga* (1911); J. W. Hauer, *Die Anfänge der Yogapraxis* (1922); Keith, *Religion and Philosophy of the Veda* (1925).

c33.s6.17

The *Yoga Sūtra*² is ascribed to Patañjali, and the similarity of name has led to the foolish identification of the philosopher with the author of the *Mahābhāṣya*. The Sūtra has been accused of being a mere patchwork of different treatises, and, though this is exaggerated, it is a confused text, which is only intelligible by the aid of the *Yogabhāṣya* ascribed to Vyāsa, who may or may not have accurately rendered the original sense, very probably moulding it to his own views. His date is probably before Māgha, but nothing certain can be said, save that the Bhāṣya is commented on by Vācaspati Miçra (*c.* 850) as well as by Vijñānabhikṣu,³ while again the Bhāṣya mentions the mysterious Vārṣagaṇya. Bhoja is credited with the *Rājamārtaṇḍa*,¹ an important comment on the Sūtras. The work falls into four parts, dealing with the nature of concentration, the means towards it, the winning by it of supernormal powers, and the state of Kaivalya which results from complete concentration. The relation of the individual spirit to God is treated as part of the ethic of Yoga or Kriyāyoga. For information in detail regarding the practices followed to induce the trance condition desired we must refer to late works such as Svātmārāma Yogīndra's *Haṭhayogapradīpikā*² in which we find with some surprise the author, despite his style, indulging in *double entendres* of somewhat dubious character. Other texts are the *Gorakṣaśataka* and the *Gheraṇḍasaṁhitā*, of dubious age and authorship.

c33.s6.18

² Ed. with Vyāsa and Vācaspati, BSS. 46, 1892; trans. J. H. Woods, HOS. 17, 1914; Rāmaprasāda, SBH. 1910.

c33.s6.19

³ Ed. *Pandit*, N.S. v and vi. His *Yogasārasaṁgraha* is ed. and trans. G. Jhā, Bombay, 1894.

c33.s6.20

¹ Ed. and trans. R. Mitra, BI. 1883.

c33.s6.21

² Ed. and trans. Bombay, 1893.

Linked texts (14)