The Samkhya System: A History of the Samkhya Philosophy c6: II. Sāṃkhya and Buddhism
The Sāṃkhya System: A History of the Sāṃkhya Philosophy c6
- Language
- English
II. Sāṃkhya and Buddhism
c6.1
THE essential fact of the atheism of the Sāṃkhya system in its classical form and the atheism of Buddhism naturally raises the problem whether the view is borrowed by the one system from the other. There is, of course, no *a priori* reason to deny the possibility of such borrowing; in definitely historical times there was clearly a lively interchange of views between Buddhism and the Brahmanical schools: the growth of logic was furthered by discoveries or developments now by the one side, now by the other, and there is striking similarity between the doctrine of void, which was brought into special prominence by the Buddhist Nāgārjuna, in the first or second century A.D., and its development into the Vijñānavāda of Asaṅga, probably in the fourth century A.D., which has suggested the view* that the illusion theory of the Vedānta, which has attained its classical shape in the doctrine of Śaṃkara, was derived from Buddhism as regards a very important part of its content. But that Buddhism is the source of the Sāṃkhya is most improbable, since the divergence of the two systems suggests that Buddhism represents a further advance in the disintegration of the earlier philosophy of the Upaniṣads. It is true that the Sāṃkhya abandons the idea of the existence of the absolute, but it is, on the other hand, careful to retain the idea of spirit and of nature; the doctrine of Buddhism, on the other hand, has in effect abandoned these two conceptions, and has left itself with only the fleeting series of mental states as a quasi reality, from which the development of the doctrine of the void is a natural enough step. It is impossible to prove, and certainly not plausible to believe, that from so developed a doctrine as that of Buddhism there could have grown the Sāmkhya, which is indeed not a believer in the absolute, but as little a believer in the view that the only existing principle is the law of movement, which in essence is the view of Buddhism.
c6.2
∗ See H. Jacobi, J.A.O.S., xxxiii, 51-54.
c6.3
On the other hand, the question whether the Sāmkhya is the source of Buddhism is one of peculiar difficulty, since the classical Sāmkhya is only attested by works of a much later date than the origin of Buddhism and, even admitting that we cannot assign the doctrines which make up the philosophy of Buddhism to the Buddha himself, nevertheless there is a considerable space of time between the records of the two doctrines. There is, indeed, in the epic evidence of the existence of the Sāmkhya at an earlier period than in the Sāmkhya Kārikā, but the doctrine there cannot be definitely ascribed to the same age as the Buddhist metaphysics, such as they are. Nor can it be denied that there is the possiblity that the Sāmkhya and Buddhism are both products of the older faith of the Upaniṣads, derived from it without the direct influence of the other, by the laying of stress on one or other of the elements which are contained in that collection of various points of view. There is certainly no difficulty in deriving Buddhism from the earlier doctrines of the Upaniṣads. The absolute which is produced as the ultimate ground of existence is clearly very far remote from knowledge, and the possibility of knowing anything of it is denied. The self which is the chief object of interest is much more immediately real, and the essential thing about the self is the fact that it suffers transmigration according to the law of action. It is not, therefore, to be wondered at if there can arise a philosophy which is largely indifferent to theoretic questions, as first enunciated by its founder, which is concerned with the essential fact of the transmigration of the actor, and which indeed goes so far as to deny the existence of any soul proper, though it substitutes for it a fairly adequate counterpart.
c6.4
The only means, therefore, of proving that Buddhism is really depended on the Sāmkhya is to find the existence in some important Buddhist doctrine of characteristics which, are very definitely connected with the Sāmkhya and which, if not necessarily in themselves peculiarities of the Sāmkhya school, are nevertheless treated by it in a special manner. The attempt to bring this really conclusive form of argument to bear has been made by Jacobi,* who has sought to find in the series of twelve principles, which are used in the Buddhist view to explain the causation of misery, clear traces of their derivation from the evolution series of the Sāmkhya. The elements of the evolution series of the Sāmkhya are not by any means peculiar to that system, but the order of evolution and the stress laid on the evolution are matters of great importance. Jacobi further strengthens his position by the argument that the reference in the epic to the two systems of Sāmkhya and Yoga as two and eternal is a clear indication that at the time of the epic, which he sets not later than the beginning of the Christian era, the systems were of great antiquity, that the atmosphere of thought in the time of the Buddha was filled with Sāmkhya ideas, and that the Buddha was influenced by these ideas, and strove in his own system to produce some formula of causation which would be suitable to serve as an explanation of the origin of the misery which the Sāmkhya and his own system so strongly affirmed. He also points out that in Aśvaghoṣa's *Buddhacarita* we have an account of a meeting between the Buddha and his former teacher, Arāḍa, in which are ascribed to the latter views which resemble those of the Sāmkhya, as modified by the belief in the personal supreme divinity of the Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta. The importance of this episode, if we are to credit the account in Aśvaghoṣa, would be that it would remove the most serious difficulty in the attempt to connect with the Sāmkhya the system of Buddhism. The latter has no trace of the doctrine of the three Guṇas, or constituents, which are present in nature and all its products according to the Sāmkhya, and therefore if it is to be derived from the Sāmkhya it must be traced to a Sāmkhya which did not accept the doctrine of the Guṇas. Now the account given of Arāḍa's teachings does not mention the Guṇas, and in it might perhaps be seen evidence of the existence of a Sāmkhya which did not know the Guṇas.[*] It is clear, however, that this argument cannot safely be pressed: the historical accuracy of the views of Aśvaghoṣa is not confirmed by the information we have. Arāḍa is known to the sacred books of Buddhism, but his doctrines are never set out in any way corresponding to the picture of him in Aśvaghoṣa, and we cannot therefore say that the account in Aśvaghoṣa has any value at all, not merely for the actual teaching of Arāḍa, but for the existence at any time of a school of Sāmkhya, which denies the existence of the Guṇas. It may be doubted if any such school of Sāmkhya ever was known.
c6.5
∗ Z.D.M G., lii, 1-15; *Nachrichten von den Königl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen*, 1896, pp. 43ff. For criticisms see Oldenberg, *Buddha* (3rd ed.), pp. 443ff; *Z.D.M.G.*, lii, 681-694.
c6.6
The causal series of Buddhism, in which the idea of cause is only an inaccurate or popular expression, applicable in its strictness to some alone of the members, traces the miseries of existence from ignorance, through the Saṃskāras, Vijñāna, name and form, the six organs of sense, contact, feeling, desire, clinging, becoming, birth, to old age and death. The series is of very curious appearance; it has variously been declared to be one of the first of the Buddha’s discoveries, and to be a late conglomerate, nor in any case is it a masterwork of expression or thought. In the view of Jacobi the whole refers but to one birth and life. The last element takes us into the midst of the sorrow of existence, which is explained by birth. The first ten members serve to explain the origin of birth, and are derived in part from the Sāmkhya and in part from the Yoga, which Buddha well knew and which had the Sāmkhya as the basis of its philosophic system. Avidyā, ignorance, is in the Sāmkhya and the Yoga alike the cause of the binding of the spirit. It consists in the failure to realize the external distinction of spirit and nature. In Buddhism it means the failure to realize the four great truths concerning misery. The Saṃskāras are terms of Sāmkhya and Yoga, expressing the impressions made upon the intellect by such activities as thinking, feeling, willing and action, from which in due course other phenomena of the life of the soul spring forth. The Buddhist conception of the Saṃskāras is a varying one, but it is sometimes clearly analogous in character. Name and form are to be considered as really equivalent to the principle of individuation, and they naturally grow out of Vijñāna, which is nothing else than the intellect of the Sāṃkhya, which has Vijñāna as one of its functions. Moreover, the derivate character of the Buddhist system shows itself very clearly in the fact that both for ignorance and for the Saṃskāras an intellect must be assumed, which it merely admits after the Saṃskāras in the form of Vijñāna. From individuation the Sāṃkhya allows, on the one hand, the organs of sense and the fine elements, from which are developed the gross elements, to arise. This is rendered plausible by the cosmic principle of individuation for each world period, but in the Buddhist series from individuation, as name and form, the senses and their objects are derived simply and without any justification as regards the derivation of the gross world from the individual. The next element in the Buddhist series, contact, is the contact of the senses and their objects which is recognized in the Sāṃkhya-Yoga: from it results the feeling of pleasure or the reverse, which is the same as the feeling of the Buddhist series. From feeling arises desire according to both theories: from desire the motive to rebirth or becoming, which in the Sāṃkhya-Yoga is termed Adṛṣṭa, or Dharmādharmau, and in the Buddhist Upādāna, clinging.
c6.7
∗ P. Oltramare (*L'historie des Idées Théosophiques* i, 243-5) holds that the Guṇa doctrine is a later accretion to the Sāmkhya, but without adequate grounds. See also O. Strauss, *Vienna Oriental Journal*, xxvii, 257ff, who points out the affinity of Arāḍa’s views to those of the epic.
c6.8
The evidence of dependence is clearly somewhat lacking in cogency, even on the theory of the causal series adopted by Jacobi, as regards certain of the points. Moreover, the series is interpreted, on the basis of the oldest Buddhist texts very differently by Oldenberg.∗ He lays stress on the fact that Vijñāna is conceived as coming into existence at the time of conception as a result of the Saṃskāras, or impressions, which have been formed in the mind through ignorance in a former birth. With Vijñāna come into being name and form, the latter being definitely the corporeal side of the future being, while name hints at the personality. From name and form we are led from experience of the world through the senses to the desire, which leads to clinging to life, and thence to a further rebirth, the series thus illogically including a second rebirth, which is traced to different causes, but the main idea being merely to show the connection of misery with life. An attempt to save the theory from the grave error of bringing birth twice in is made by Oltramare,* who argues that the matter is confined to an explanation of the existence of misery, based on the arguments that man is miserable because he exists through being born: he is born because he belongs to the world of becoming: he belongs to that world because he nourishes existence in himself: this he does because he has desires: he has desires because he has sensations: he has sensations because he comes into contact with the external world: this he does because he has senses, which act: the senses act because he opposes himself as individual to the nonself; this again he does because his consciousness is imbued with the idea of individuality: this again comes from former experiences, which in their turn are derived from the lack of the correct knowledge. This is a tempting suggestion, but it is open to the serious objection that it goes a good deal beyond what is recorded, and introduces in all probability too refined a psychology. Deussen† goes so far as to hold that the system is the conglomeration of two quite different elements: the last group of members from desire onwards is a formulation of the ground of the origin of misery: the group from the second to the seventh explains psychologically the growth of the eighth, desire, while the conception of ignorance is borrowed from the Vedānta and placed at the head of the series.
c6.9
∗ *Buddha* (5th ed.), pp. 257-295.
c6.10
∗ *La formule bouddhique des Douze Causes* (Geneva, 1909). † *Allgemine Geschichte der Philosophie*, I, iii, 164-168. His view is that Vijñāna is cosmic and produces all reality. Cf. M. Walleser, *Die philosophische Grundlage des älteren Buddhismus*, pp. 49ff., but see Oldenberg, *Buddha*, p. 263 n. 1.
c6.11
The only conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence is that some of the conceptions of Buddhism are very closely allied to those of the Sāmkhya. The most important correspondence is that in the conception of the relation of ignorance and the Samskāras, the impressions thus left on the mind, which cause it in the view of the Sāmkhya to attain ever new births, until at last the true knowledge is reached, and there ceases to be the possibility of rebirth, as the source being cut away no more impressions can be formed. This conception corresponds very closely with the Buddhist, and the use of the term Samskāras, which is not a very natural one, possibly points to direct borrowing. A second similarity of great importance is the precise correspondence of the two ideas, of the Sāmkhya that the essential knowledge is to realize that anything empiric is not I, and of the Buddhist that it is essential to free oneself from the delusion that there is anything which is or belongs to the self. A further point of close similarity is the fact that both systems lay great stress on the conception of causality, and that they devote deep consideration to the nature of the world-process, though there is a great distinction between the Buddhist resolution of it into a series of impressions determined causally and the Sāmkhya conception of nature. Here, too, may be mentioned the definite correspondence between the four truths of the Buddhist system and the fourfold division of the doctrine of final release in the Sāmkhya-Yoga. The latter falls under the heads of that from which final release is to be sought, final release, the cause of that from which release is to be sought, and the means to attain release, which are compared with the medical heads of disease, health, the cause of disease, and healing. The four Buddhist truths are misery, the origin of misery, the removal of misery, and the means to its removal, which in one Buddhist text are compared with disease, its origin, its healing and the prevention of recurrence, but the similarity is not conclusive of borrowing. Yet a further striking parallelism with the Sāmkhya is the attitude of Buddhism towards the end of endeavour. It is perfectly plain that this is not looked upon as annihilation, however clear it is that it is metaphysically nothing else: the doctrine of the Buddha is full of the savour of Nirvāna, and the repeated occurrence of that term in the epic suggests that the expression was borrowed from the Brahmanical speculations by the Buddhists. Similarly in the case of the Sāmkhya, though the attainment of knowledge would really be the end of all real existence and nothingness, it is expressly recorded that this is not the aim of the seekers after the true knowledge, who on the contrary attain isolation as something in itself enduring and perfect.
c6.12
These points, as well as the common possession of the rejection of the absolute, are striking, but at the same time it must be remembered that, in addition to the absence of the doctrine of the Guṇas, there is one other case of the first importance in which the Sāmkhya is very different from, and more advanced than, Buddhism. The Sāmkhya goes to the logical extreme, in its treatment of the difference between spirit and all else, of attributing the whole of the apparent empiric existence to the activity of nature, though that activity is only conscious by the union of nature with spirit. It therefore postulates that there is no real union of spirit and nature: and in this result it is quite logical, but, of course, at the same time it brings about its own refutation since, if there is no union, there can be no release. In the Buddhist view the release is regarded as a real one, not as something which is unreal and unconnected with the substitute for self in Buddhism. Nor has Buddhism any of the imagery by which nature is represented as a dancer performing for the benefit of spirit, or the union of spirit and nature is regarded as the union of the lame and the blind. In this and in its elaborate series of psychological conceptions, it is clear that the Sāmkhya as we know it is far more advanced than Buddhism.
c6.13
It seems best, therefore, to draw the conclusion that Buddhism did not draw its inspiration from the Sāmkhya in the form in which it appears even in the epic, for there the doctrine of the isolation of spirit and nature and of the three Guṇas is fully and completely evolved. We have indeed no means to assert that the Sāmkhya or its closely related Yoga may not have existed in gradually changing shapes long before it assumed its epic form, and that there may not have existed a variety of its development which directly affected the growth of Buddhism. But we have no means to reconstruct this stage of Sāṃkhya, nor can we say whether there ever was a system under that name without the Guṇas: the period from the Upaniṣads to the epic Sāṃkhya is a long one, and must have been marked by much intellectual activity, one form of which may have been a doctrine which cannot definitely be named Sāṃkhya, and from which both Sāṃkhya and Buddhism are derived. That such an atheist doctrine should have been evolved at an early date is not in the slightest degree wonderful. There is abundant evidence of the plentiful supply of heretical doctrines in India from an early date, and an atheist philosophy* can have hardly been open to more serious objection than an idealism which placed all reality in an incomprehensible absolute, and insisted that all real things were a mere illusion.†
c6.14
∗ The Mīmāṃsā is atheistic indeed, but it as a philosophy was doubtless held to be supplemented by the Vedānta. Nevertheless, however, it shows that atheism was not wholly un-Indian. Cf. Ganganath Jha, *The Prabhākara System of Pūrva Mīmāṃsā*, pp. 85-8.
c6.15
† There is, of course, abundant later evidence of the knowledge of Buddhist teachers of Sāṃkhya, as in the case of Nāgārjuna (J. H. Woods, *Yoga System of Patañjali*, p. xviii). That the Sāṃkhya system was known to the Dīgha Nikāya is disproved by Rhys Davids, *American Lectures on Buddhism*, pp. 25ff.
Linked texts (1)
- *Buddhacarita — Sanskrit