A Constructive Survey of Upanishadic Philosophy c7.6

Language: English

c7.6.1

3. Like Buddhism, Sāmkhya was also a system of philosophy which was very early to come into existence. Its origin may certainly be traced to Upanishadic literature if not even earlier. It is true that the Sāmkhya, along with its compeer system the Yoga, is mentioned by name only in such a late Upanishad as the Śvetāśvatara (S. 2. a); but the root-ideas of Sāmkhya are to be found much earlier in Upanishadic literature. When in the Chhāndogya we are told that behind all things, there are really three primary colours, namely the red, the white, and the black, and that it is only these three colours which may really be said to exist, while all other things that are constituted out of them are merely a word, a modification and a name, we have the rudiments of the theory of three Guṇas of the later Sāmkhya philosophy--a fact which was made use of in the description of the original Prakṛiti, made up of the red, the white and the dark colours by the Śvetāśvatarapanishad (S. 2. b). We must remember, therefore, that for the origin of the three Guṇas in the Sāmkhya philosophy we have to go to the conception of the three colours in the Chhāndogyopanishad as repeated also in the Śvetāśvataropanishad. Then again, we have an interesting specimen of how Sāmkhya philosophy was yet in the making at the time of the Kathopanishad.

c7.6.2

When we are told in that Upanishad that above the Mind is Buddhi, above the Buddhi is the Mahat Ātman, above the Mahat Ātman is the Avyakta, above the Avyakta is the Purusha, and that beyond and above the Purusha there is nothing else (S. 3. a), and yet again, when we are told, just a little after the verse which we have considered above, that the Mind must be merged in the Jñāna Ātman, the Jñāna Ātman in the Mahat Ātman, and the Mahat Ātman in the Śānta Ātman (S. 3. b), we have evidently to equate the Buddhi of the one passage with the Jñāna Ātman of the other, the Mahat Ātman of the one with the Mahat Ātman of the other, and the Purusha of the one with the Śānta Ātman of the other, only the Avyakta of the first passage which comes in between the Mahat Ātman and the Purusha having been elided in the second scheme for the sake of convenience, or even for the sake of metre. In any case it stands to reason that we may suppose that in these two passages we have enunciated for us Mind and Intellect, the Mahat, the Avyakta, and the Purusha,—categories which play such an important part in the later Sāmkhya philosophy. Then also we have to note that the conception of the Liṅga-śarīra in the later Sāmkhya philosophy is already adumbrated for us in the Praśnopanishad, which reiterates from time to time the nature of the Purusha with sixteen parts. In this body verily is that Being who is made up of sixteen parts, says one passage (S. 4. a);

c7.6.3

another goes on to enumerate the constituents of this Person which are breath, faith, space, air, light, water, earth, the senses, mind, food, power, vidual Soul, is described as bound in the chains forged for him by the Universal Soul (S. 6. b). In this way we get a theistic description of the Godhead, who is endowed with all activity, and the power of creation and government. On the other hand, there are other passages where God is described as living apart from Prakṛiti in a transcendent sphere, while the Individual Soul in the blindfoldment of his ignorance lies by the Prakṛiti and is caught in the meshes of her love (S. 7. a). In a true deistic spirit God is described as only the spectator of actions, as being absolutely free from the influence of qualities and as thus living apart from contamination with Prakṛiti (S. 7. b). We need not point too often that the Śvetāśvatara was written at the time of the parting of the ways between the Vedāntic, the Sāṁkhya and the Yoga Schools of Thought, which explains why we have not in the Śvetāśvatara cut-and-dry doctrines about Nature and God and their inter-relation That the Sāṁkhya and the Vedānta were merged together at the time of the Śvetāśvatara could also be proved by the way in which the Upanishad describes the tawny-coloured being (Kapila) as first created by the Godhead, who is described as looking upon him while he was being born (S. 8. a).

c7.6.4

Much controversy has arisen about the interpretation of the word "Kapila" in the above passage and doctrinaires are not wanting who hold that the Kapila referred to in the above passage was no other than the originator of the Sāṁkhya Philosophy. It need not be denied that the author of the Śvetāśvatara had no idea whatsoever at the back of his mind about the existence of Kapila, the originator of the Sāṁkhya Philosophy, but it is evident from the way in which two other passages from the same Upanishad tell us that the Kapila of the above passage is merely the equivalent of Hiraṇyagarbha, the Intermediary Person, the Logos of Indian Philosophy, who was the first to be created by God, and who was endowed by him with all powers (S. 8. b) ; while what doubt may still be lurking about such a Vedāntic interpretation of the word Kapila, which the author of the Upanishad must have had in mind, may finally be set at rest by the consideration of a last passage from the Śvetāśvatara, where we are told that it was Brahmā, the Creator, who was first created by the Godhead as intermediary between himself and creation (S. 8. c), thus placing beyond the shadow of a doubt the identity of the Kapila Ṛishi of Śvetāśvatara V. 2 with the Hiraṇyagarbha of Śvetāśvatara III. 4 and IV. 12, as well as the Brahmā, the Creator, of Śvetāśvatara VI. 18.