Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads v2.c40.s7.t2: (b) Nature

The Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads v2.c40.s7.t2

Language
English

Contents

(b) Nature

v2.c40.s7.t2.1.1

While, however, one side of the teaching of the Upaniṣads develops in this brilliant manner, and in the hands of Gauḍapāda and Çaṅkara emerges as the *chef d’œuvre* of the Indian philosophical intellect, another and important scheme of philosophy was growing up, and was destined to exhibit itself, at a period not far distant from the close of the great Upaniṣads, in a living and effective form. The existence of this system as the definite Sāṁkhya of the classical period is not attested until comparatively late: the oldest text-book, the Sāṁkhya Kārikā, may be assigned to about the fourth century A.D.,⁷ and for the earlier form of the system we are reduced to conjectures built on that text, the history of the parallel system of Yoga, and the indications of the epic, which knows well the Sāṁkhya and Yoga systems, but which in regard to its date is so uncertain, that it does not necessarily afford us any information older than that contained in, and to be inferred from, the Sāṁkhya Kārikā itself. Very briefly put,¹ the classical Sāṁkhya system discards entirely the idea of an absolute: it reduces the universe to a multitude of individual subjects, which have nothing true about them save their subjectivity, a subjectivity which has no creative power and is not properly realized at all by having an objective content. On the contrary, it is only by error in any way connected with the existing world, through its fancied connexion with Prakṛti, ‘nature’.

v2.c40.s7.t2.1.2

Through the development of Prakṛti there arises the principle called the great one or intellect, Mahān or Buddhi: the Prakṛti is, therefore, to be regarded as purely unconscious, a conception vaguely analogous to the Aristotelian Hyle, and connected, directly as it would seem, with the older views of the Rigveda and the Brāhmaṇas as to the primitive condition of the universe as a chaos. The development of consciousness must therefore, it would appear, be cosmic, and the Mahān or Buddhi would thus correspond to the Hiraṇyagarbha of the later Upaniṣads and the Vedānta, the spirit which, in the earlier view, appeared on the waters after the creation of the waters by Prajāpati or the Brahman. But at the same time the Buddhi is the first element of the subtle body, the Liṅga, which is the essence of the individual spirit, and which passes through transmigration.

v2.c40.s7.t2.1.3

The Buddhi serves as the basis for the development of the principle of individualism, Ahaṁkāra, from which are derived on the one hand the mind and the ten organs—or rather potentialities or faculties—of sense, five of perception, and five of action, and on the other hand the subtle elements, from which in their turn come the gross elements, though an epic variant gives in lieu the elements and the objects of sense, sound, &c.² The Liṅga, which is perhaps most appropriately called the ‘psychic apparatus’, contains in itself all the elements down to the subtle elements, and even of the gross elements it has the fine parts,³ and it is through it that the individual subject experiences—or rather seems to experience—the facts of this world. The experience is painful and unhappy, even though alleviated by the joys of earth, and the real aim of life is to be rid of the connexion with nature. But that connexion does not really exist: it is only thought to exist by an error and, when this error of ignorance is removed, then the connexion is seen not to exist and ceases to exist, the subject being freed from any connexion with an object, and on the other hand, the Prakṛti is freed from any pain or trouble, since being absolutely unconscious in the absence of subject there is no possibility of its suffering or enjoying anything.

v2.c40.s7.t2.1.4

Strictly speaking, therefore, the spirit is never troubled or suffers anything or enjoys anything: it merely illumines nature, which accordingly suffers, but is set free by the cessation of illumination. But the difference of the result in the two cases is enormous: the subject by ceasing to have an object is emancipated for all time, the Prakṛti in that one case is delivered, but that is a matter of indifference since the infinite number of other souls means that Prakṛti is ever being unrolled for the gaze of the subject and ever is suffering.

v2.c40.s7.t2.2

⁷ A later date is usually given (cf. Garbe, *Sāṁkhya und Yoga*, p. 7), but the earlier date is now the most probable; see Winternitz, *Gesch. d. ind. Lit.* ii. 256; iii. 452 f.

v2.c40.s7.t2.3

¹ In the main I agree with Deussen (*Gesch. der Phil.* I. iii) when he departs from the views of Garbe (*Sāṁkhya-Philosophie* and *Sāṁkhya und Yoga*). The account of Deussen in the *Phil. of Up.* is slightly inaccurate. Cf. my *Sāṁkhya System* (1918, 2nd ed. 1924). Berndl's reconstruction (*Über das Sāṁkhya*) is clearly unhistorical; see below.

v2.c40.s7.t2.4

² Cf. O. Strauss, *VOJ.* xxvii. 257 ff.

v2.c40.s7.t2.5

³ Deussen, *Gesch. der Phil.* I. iii. 497. This is the only possible or at least natural sense of Sāṁkhya Kārikā 38–41, though this fact is often ignored, and normally the fine parts are treated as if the subtle elements included them. Maitr. vi. 10 may be thus explained instead of being amended. For an attempt to regard *sūkṣma* as *tanmātra*, see Strauss, p. 262.

v2.c40.s7.t2.6

The whole theory is one mass of difficult paradoxes, despite its seeming elegance and simplicity of structure. The main basis of the conception, that there is suffering through the connexion of the soul with nature, is contradicted by the fact that there is really no connexion: the suffering is produced by a connexion which does not exist, and is only imagined to exist, but an imagined connexion is no ground for results which a real connexion alone could produce. The relation of the one Prakṛti with the psychical apparatuses which are not conscious except under the illumination of the subject is never clearly explained, or perhaps understood.¹ At best we may endeavour to conceive the position that the connexion—which, however, as we have seen, is not really existent—of the spirit with Prakṛti, as a single undifferentiated unit, produces a primal consciousness (Buddhi), which develops under the influence of the individuation (Ahaṁkāra) of the spirit an individual form or psychic apparatus, on which is based the life of the individual. In that case the conception of a cosmic development of individuation and the other things would be in the main a mistaken complement of the system which is not essential to it. But there is the grave objection to this theory that already in the Sāṁkhya Kārikā the paternal and maternal portions of the gross elements are supposed by the author to fall back into and be picked up out of Prakṛti by the psychic apparatus in the case of death and rebirth, and not as would be logical and proper, if the development of Prakṛti were individual from the point of Buddhi onwards, recalled into and evolved from the subtle elements, while the Prabhūtas, which represent the material world, are made to stand over against the selves as an independent real world.

v2.c40.s7.t2.7

¹ Cf. Oltramare, *L'histoire des idées théosophiques*, i. 261 ff. Jacobi's account (*Die Entwicklung der Gottesidee bei den Indern*, pp. 30 f.) leaves the obscurity unaffected.

v2.c40.s7.t2.8

It is, however, unnecessary to consider further the contradictions of the Sāṁkhya, and it is only requisite to note that in the nature of Prakṛti there is supposed to be contained a triad of constituent factors, Guṇas, literally 'threads' rather than 'determinant qualities', which in the passive condition of Prakṛti are in a quiescent state of equilibrium, but which in the process of evolution develop differently in the several psychic apparatuses, producing, therefore, the very varied characters of men and of life. These factors are Sattva, the light, the intellectual principle, Rajas, the active and emotional principle, and Tamas, the dark and gloomy principle. The terms are wholly indefinite and unphilosophical, and the use made of them in practice is mainly psychical, whereas, as constituents of Prakṛti, they ought to have received some different cosmic sense, such as that of conditional being, energy, and inertia, suggested by Hopkins.¹ Their importance in the system, however, cannot be underestimated, and it is significant that, while Çaṅkara rejects definitely the validity of these principles, they are accepted by the later school of Vedānta and interwoven with the Vedānta philosophy.²

v2.c40.s7.t2.9

¹ *Great Epic of India*, p. 113, n. 1. See also Garbe, *Sāṁkhya-Philosophie*², pp. 274 ff.

v2.c40.s7.t2.10

² E.g. in the Vedāntasāra, as pointed out by Col. Jacobs in his edition, and by Deussen in his translation (*Gesch. der Phil.* I. iii); Keith, *Sāṁkhya System*, chap. viii.

Linked texts (1)