Vedanta Home

Saamkhya

"Among the Siddhas ('spiritually elevated sages'), I am Kapila" - Lord Krishna in Gita

The Saamkhya system is quite possibly the oldest of the philosophical schools of India and is considered to have been very influential even before the time of the Buddha. The Upanishads - Shvetaasvatara, Katha, Prashna, Maitraayani - make liberal use of Saamkhya doctrines. The Bhagavad Gita, other large sections of the Mahaabhaaratha, the Manusmrti, Puraanas, Pancharaatra texts and other Agamas are heavily influenced by it. The Buddha's first teachers - Alara Kalama and Uddhaka Ramaputta - were Saamkhya/Yoga exponents. It may even be that the Buddha's land of birth - Kapilavastu, was named after the founder of the Saamkhya school.

TEACHERS OF SAAMKHYA

Numerous modern scholars trace the origin of the Saamkhya system to the Nasadiya Sukta (Rigveda X.129) or the Purusha Sukta (Rigveda X.90). According to tradition however, sage Kapila, identified as a manifestation of Lord Vishnu by the Bhaagavatha Puraana, is considered to be the founder of the school. None of his works have not come down to us, although the Saamkhyan tradition, recorded in numerous texts of the school, itself states that he merely imparted oral instruction to his disciple Asuri, which was later codified into texts (the most notable being the 'Shashtitantra' of Pancasikha) by his followers. It is certain that he flourished well before the time of the Buddha. A place called Siddhapur in Gujarat is said to be the site of his hermitage. It is believed that the now dried up Sarasvati river met the ocean close to Siddhapur. In modern times however, the hermitage of Kapila is placed at a place called "Gangasagar" where the Hooghly meets the Bay of Bengal. The oldest mention of Sage Kapila is encountered in the Shvetaasvatara Upanishad. He is also mentioned by name in Rigveda Khila and in the Atharvaveda Parisishta along with other Saamkhya teachers. In ancient Hindu literature, Kapila is often referred to as 'Adi-vidvan" (the first scholar) and even hostile texts refer to him as Paramarishi (Eg. Shankaraachaarya on Brahma Sutra 2.1.1). So great is the association of the Saamkhya doctrine with Kapila that this school of philosophy is often termed as 'Kapila's Darsana.'

Asuri, Panchashika, Gargya, Uluka, Varshaganya, Pancadhikarana, Jaigishavya, Patanjali, Devala, Vodhu, Baddhali, Sanandana and Madhava are considered to be the other great teachers of this school, all of whom lived before Ishvara Krishna (2nd century CE), the author of the Saamkhya Kaarikaa - the earliest text we have of the school. A later Saamkhyan author Svapneshvara identifies Ishvara Krishna with the great Sanskrit poet Kaalidhaasa.

Asuri is said to be the first disciple of Kapila. Pancasikha was Asuri's disciple in turn, and is said to have written numerous treatises for the systematization and popularization of Saamkhya. An important compendium on Saamkhya written by Pancasikha was the Shashtitantra or the book of 60 topics. Varshaganya is said to have redacted the Shashtitantra of Pancasikha, while Jaigishavya wrote the 'Dhyanayogashaastra' on the Yogic practices in accordance with the Saamkhya tenets. The works of all these and other teachers of Saamkhya teachers are lost, and exist only in quotations.

EXTANT WORKS OF SAAMKHYA

  1. Upanishadic accounts: The oldest accounts of the Saamkhya philosophy in extant literature are found in the Upanishads like the Kathavalli, Mundaaka, Shvetaasvatara, Brhadaaranyaka, Maitrayaani and Prashna. In all these accounts, the Saamkhyan teachings are woven beautifully into the Upanshadic (later called Vedantic) doctrines. The Saamkhya of these texts is therefore theistic.
  2. Accounts in Mahaabhaaratha, Puraanas and Manusmriti: The Mahaabhaaratha is a vast encyclopedia of Hindu culture and civilization. The text boldly declares: "There is no knowledge superior to the Saamkhya." It also informs that the Saamkhya literature was vast and comprised of several treatises. Apparently, the summaries (or perhaps a colored version of these texts) are presented in the Mahaabhaaratha (notably in its Santi and the Anusasana parvans) as dialogues between sages and kings. Some notable dialogs are the Kapila-Asuri dialog (occurs only in the South Indian version of Mahaabhaaratha), Janaka - Pancasikha dialog, Janaka - Vasishta dialog, Sulabha - Janaka dialog and so on. None of these accounts are clearly atheistic; they are either theistic or agnostic. On this basis, most scholars now hold that the Mahaabhaaratha is the best source of understanding the 'Classical' Saamkhya and its various streams and that the Saamkhya school was theistic to start with. The influence of Saamkhya teachings is fairly pervasive in the Puraanas, Agamas, Smritis etc., clearly showing the great esteem and popularity it enjoyed in the ancient past.
  3. Saamkhya Kaarikaas of Isvara Krishna: A short treatise of 72 (or 73) verses in the Arya meter, this text has been regarded the standard Saamkhya text for at least 14 centuries now. The kaarikaas succinctly explain all the major tenets of the Saamkhya school, avoiding the parables, disputations etc. recorded in the ancient treatises of the school. Apparently, at the time of Isvara Krishna, there were many varieties of Saamkhya, and he chose to summarize the doctrines of the dominant school of Pancasikha (also called Parasarya) in a politically correct manner. So, the work might not be a completely accurate presentation of the ancient Saamkhya thought, although it might be very close to it. The Kaarikaas have attracted a string of commentaries. Notable amongst them are the Yuktidipika (anonymous), Jayamangala (of Samkara, who is not to be confused with the great Advaitin teacher), and the commentaries of Mathara, Gaudapaada and Vaacaspati Misra (~850 C.E.). Two other anonymous commentaries were discovered a few decades ago and have been published. The Yuktidipika is a remarkable, and probably the most important commentary because it frequently quotes the divergent views of other Saamkhya teachers (all of whose works are now lost) and is highly polemical. The authorship of the Gaudapaadabhashya on the Kaarikaa is ascribed to a Gaudapaada. Whether he is the same as the author of the Kaarikaa on the Maandukya Upanishad is not known. The great Vaacaspati wrote a classic work on the school called Saamkhya Tattvakaumudi. This is considered as the standard commentary by on the Sutras by traditional Indian scholars.
  4. Saamkhyapravacana Sutra is a text of 6 chapters on the Saamkhya doctrine. The first three chapters closely follow the Kaarikaas, the 4th is a collection of some parables to make the doctrine more comprehensible, 5th chapter answers possible objections against the doctrine, while the last chapter reinforces the chief features of the Saamkhya doctrine. The text is often ascribed to Kapila or even to Pancasikha, but this is certainly wrong because of some later features (like refutation of later systems) in the sutras. The authorship issue can be resolved by considering the fact that another name for the text is the 'Pancasikha Pravacana sutra.' This implies that the sutras were extracted by an anonymous author from the Shashtitantra of Pancasikha. This is further corroborated by the last verse of the Saamkhya Kaarikaa, which says that all parables and disputations in the text of the Pancasikha were left out in the Kaarikaas. We find that these parables and disputations are present in the Sutras. While commencing his commentary on the Sutras, Vijnaana Bhikshu also remarks that the Sutras are but a 1/16 (i.e., a small fraction) portion that is extant of the Shashtitantra. Modern scholars often consign the text to the 14th century CE mainly on account of arguments of silence. They state that no scholar before the 14th Cent. C.E. (including Madhava, the author of Saravaadarsana Samgraha) has quoted this work. Such an argument is spurious because Shankaraachaarya has indeed quoted sutras 1.129 and 2.36 verbatim in his commentary on the Brahmasutras. Anyway, the work seems to be an ancient attempt to preserve the Saamkhya doctrine from extinction. Other scholars have pointed out that many of the 'late' features of the text (like criticism of Advaita Vedaanta) are actually later interpolations. Aniruddha's gloss (~14th Cent. C.E.) is the oldest commentary on this work. Mahadeva Vedantin abridged the work of Aniruddha and added a few original comments. The most famous commentary on the Sutras is however by the prolific writer Vijnaana Bhikshu (15th century CE) called the Saamkhyapravacana bhaashyam. By the time of Bhikshu, the Saamkhya school had almost become extinct because it was considered atheistic. Therefore, it had become the favorite whipping boy of scholars of rival schools of philosophy. Bhikshu therefore endeavors to prove that Saamkhya is not really atheistic, and is in fact in harmony with Vedaanta and Yoga, a trend that is very fashionable in modern Hinduism as well.
  5. Tattva Samasa Sutras: As the name indicates, this short text of 28 aphorisms is a mere listing of the categories dealt with in the Saamkhya system. The text is again ascribed to Sage Kapila, while the modern scholars consider it a late text composed after the 14th Cent. Both the views are erroneous because a play called Bhagvaadajjuka (5th Cent. C.E.) quotes numerous sutras of the text verbatim. Hence, this text too is an ancient summary of the Saamkhya system. These sutras too have a string of commentaries attached to them, the most significant being the Kramadipika (anonymous) and the commentary by Bhavaganesha, a disciple of Vijnaana Bhikhsu. Numerous quotations from the Kramadipika are often attributed to Pancasikha by other medieval authors, leading to the suspicion that it is actually the work of Pancasikha himself.

THE FINAL GOAL OF HUMAN EXISTENCE (Salvation)

The Saamkhya establishes as the purpose of its enterprise : the complete cessation of sorrows. Life is rife with suffering due to the afflictions of mind and body (Adhyatmic) or the afflictions caused by other living creatures and by the physical world (Adhibhautika) or that caused by supernatural powers, and those which result from sins commited in our previous lives (Adhidaivika). This complete cessation of 3 fold sorrows or misery alone is Salvation according to the Saamkhya Philosophy.

Life is an endless cycle of rebirths which is sunk in misery. We're caught in this endless cycle because we do not understand the difference between the permanent and the impermanent, the changeable and the immutable. The immutable and the permanent is the Self, which we are the Self in essence. And this Self is different from the inanimate creation at all times. Salvation results when we realize and perceive that we are the Self and that we are separate and different in nature from this world.

The Saamkhya doctrine therefore expends considerable energy in expounding the duality of this Self and the non-Self. In doing so, it enumerates the categories of Existence in a comprehensive manner. The relationships, the differences and similarities of these categories are explained in detail, and thereafter, the philosophy of salvation is charted out. This explains why the word 'Saamkhya' (which originally meant 'spiritual insight') came to denote 'an enumeration of categories.'

MEANS FOR CESSATION OF SORROWS

Saamkhya declares the complete cessation of sorrows does not result either from ordinary methods like acquisition of wealth, charity or from the extra-ordinary means prescribed in the Vedic scriptures. These extra-ordinary means are the 'yajnas' or the fire sacrifice rituals that are extolled in the Vedic texts. The Saamkhya rejects Vedic rituals as a means to Salvation and strongly protests against the sacrifice of animals in this regard because these rituals are tainted with the sin of violence. After considering a variety of alternative possibilities that could lead to salvation, Saamkhya decides that the knowledge of and the discrimination between two fundamental entities namely the Purusha (the 'Self' or the spiritual entity) and Praakriti (the material cause of the Universe) together with the latter's 23 evolutes, alone can be the direct cause of eternal Salvation. This realization of the distinction between the Purusha and Praakriti is achieved when control, compassion, charity and other mind purifying acts are supplemented with yogic practices and meditation.

SOURCES OF CORRECT KNOWLEDGE

To understand the existence of and distinction between Praakriti and Purusha, it is first important to determine the means by which this knowledge can be obtained. The Saamkhya school enumerates or recognizes 3 such primary valid means of knowledge (Pramanas):

  1. Perception by senses,
  2. Inference
  3. Scriptural testimony. This includes the authoritative scriptures (the Vedas) and the words of reliable men, who are called the Aptas. The scripture - the Veda - is considered to be unauthored. Since it is not of personal authorship it is free from doubts and discrepancies. Its validity is self evident and axiomatic.

DUALITY OF MATTER AND SPIRIT

The Saamkhya school reiterates that the two fundamental entities, namely, Purusha and Praakriti, cannot be perceived via senses due to their very nature. Or in other words, they are beyond perception. Therefore, the Saamkhya relies heavily on inference, and to some extent on scriptural testimony, to establish the existence of these two entities as separate and eternal.

The Mundaaka Upanishad says : "Two birds, fast bound companions clasp close to the same tree; Of these two, one eats sweet fruit, while the other looks on and shines resplendent without eating". This verse indicates how even when the individual self in man is caught up in the pleasures of life, the Supreme Self (God) remains unaffected. The Saamkhya system is a valiant attempt to reconcile this philosophy with empirical life, using pure inferential logic. Empirical experience demands a subject which experiences and objects which are experienced - so the Saamkhya presents a dualistic scheme with multiple Selfs or 'Purushas', which experience, and the Material Universe (Praakriti and its evolutes or modifications) that is experienced.

The central concern of all the schools of Indian philosophy, both Astika and nAstika, is the end to the suffering experienced in the world - which would also lead to liberation from the cycle of rebirths. All things in the world change, decay and perish - thus change indicates transience - suffering. So the solution to suffering is related to an understanding of the ephemeral and the immutable entities.

According to Saamkhya, something is considered eternal only if it exists at all times, never changes, is never born and never perishes. Anything that changes is also seen to be born at some time, and will definitely perish at some moment. In all the change that we experience in the Universe, there is only one constant - ourself - the subject, who experiences the changing Universe. But again, even if our presence is constant, it is we after all, who experience pain and suffering in the world. If suffering were an integral part of us, then being eternal (unchangeable in the Saamkhyan parlance), we would always experience suffering. So it cannot be that we, who are currently experiencing suffering in this Universe, will later evolve to the state of Salvation that is free of all suffering. This would contradict our being eternal (by being changeable) and would be like light and darkness existing together. And if we are prone to destruction by being non-eternal anyway, then why strive for Salvation? Why not just make merry and enjoy? Such a scenario is feared by all schools of orthodox Hindu philosophy because it will lead to chaos and strife in the world, and is therefore not admitted in Hinduism.

Now, logic demands that if Salvation means total cessation of all sorrows then it is not a state to which the Purusha can evolve to. So it naturally follows that he is either permanently immersed in sorrows, or he is already liberated.

If the former case is true, then it is futile to teach a doctrine of Salvation because the eternal Purusha will never be free of his sorrows; and if the latter is true, then why are we in bondage and seek liberation? How is it that we experience pain, fear and suffering in this world?

The Saamkhya unfolds its dualistic scheme of the Universe to show how this is possible. Saamkhya says that experiential world is praakriti or matter. The five senses of perception (indriyas) through which we experience pain and pleasure, and all the mental modifications belong to the realm of praakriti, though they are of a subtler nature. Thus, Praakriti, with all its evolutes that form the material Universe including the five senses of perception and the mind together form one pole of the bipolar scheme of envisaged by Saamkhya.

Saamkhya is keen to identify the other pole of its bipolar scheme with something which is part of our individual self, and which can be identified distinctly from the psychological experience of pain and suffering. The deepest that one can penetrate of the psychological self from an objective analysis, is to the level of consciousness - because that is the well spring of all human experience. So the Saamkhya identifies the unchangeable, eternal Self or Self in man - the Purusha - as that consciousness. But consciousness implies the necessity of the subject, which is conscious and also the object which the subject is conscious of. Reality cannot be that which depends on something else for its existence - it has to exist on its own. So the Self is not mere consciousness - but pure consciousness - devoid of the object.

PRAAKRITI - the Material Cause of the Universe

Saamkhya postulates that the entire inanimate Universe arises from an entity called 'Praakriti' which is formless, extremely subtle, indestructible and all pervading. The existence of Praakriti is established by inference based on the existence of objects experience by us in everyday life. It might be argued that that these material objects in the Universe could have emerged from nothing. However, admission of such a possibility is considered very dangerous by Saamkhya because if something that exists can emerge out of nothing, then existent objects can also disappear into nothingness. In such a case, why not allow the Purusha also the possibility of annihilation? And if Purusha can undergo annihilation, then it is non-eternal and a state of Salvation with eternal cessation of sorrows is meaningless. Therefore, Saamkhya rejects such a notion of emergence of something out of nothing.

To establish the presence of Praakriti by inference from an examination of the existent inanimate Universe, Saamkhya proposes the doctrine of 'Satkaaryavaada'. According to this doctrine, the effect actually exists beforehand in the cause. Cause is that in which the effect already exists in latent form. The following are the arguments given to support Satkaaryavaada :

  1. It is common experience that something cannot emerge out of nothing and vice verse.
  2. There must be some determinate material cause for every product. Curds, for instance, can form from milk only, and never from water. Were it absolutely non-existent in mil as it is in water, there would be no reason why it should form on milk, and not equally on water.
  3. The relationship of the cause and the producer is that of he producer and the produced, and the simplest conception of the cause as the producer is that it possesses the potentiality of becoming the effect, and this potentiality is nothing but the unrealized state of the effect.
  4. The effect is seen to possess the nature of the cause, eg., a coin still possesses the properties of the gold of which it is made.
  5. Matter is indestructible. Destruction of matter merely means disappearance into its cause.

In short, Cause and effect are but different states of the same substance. Production doesn't mean that something totally new arises but is just development or evolution. Nor does destruction mean utter annihilation - it's just involution or disappearance into the cause.

Definition of Praakriti

It has already been said that the effect is latent in the cause. If so, if one traces back effect to cause, which itself would have been an effect of a previous cause, where will it stop? So Saamkhya asserts a first cause, which is unmanifest matter - praakriti - a single substance.

In his Saamkhya Kaarikaas, Ishvara Krishna furnishes the following arguments as proof for the existence of praakriti :

  1. Individual objects are limited in magnitude and are dependent on something more lasting and pervasive than themselves. The finite itself cannot be the source of the world.
  2. All individual objects have certain pervasive characteristics, which implies the source from which they all issue.
  3. Evolution implies an active principle, which cannot be identified with any of the stages and though immanent in the products is larger than them.
  4. The finite and conditioned world cannot be its own cause, since the effect is always different from the cause.
  5. The unity in the world, which we feel instinctively, also suggests a single cause.

Praakriti is one homogeneous substance - eternal, unconditioned, uncaused, uncreated - "that which never is nor is not, that which exists and does not exist, that in which there's no non-existence, the un-manifest, without any mark, the central background of all." Devoid of sound and touch, its real nature is beyond knowledge. But it is not a material substance, nor is it conscious - it's pure potentiality in a state of tension.

The world is the parinaama or transformation of praakriti.

But if praakriti is unmanifested matter, how does this transformation occur?

Praakriti is a string of three strands - three constituent powers or gunas - they are sattva, rajas and tamas. They are not conscious in themselves and hence have only the potential for certain effects. Sattva is potential consciousness, which produces goodness and happiness. Rajas is the potential source of all activity and produces pain. Tamas is that which has the potential to resist activity and leads to ignorance and sloth. In praakriti's unmanifest state - its natural state - its three constituents are in a state of equilibrium (gunakshobha). When this equilibrium is disturbed, the gunas mix with one another in various proportions and evolution occurs.

All the three gunas are present in every manifestation of praakriti and the differences in the world are due to the predominance of the different gunas in the various manifestations. In immobile material things tamas predominates and the other two are subordinate. Activity signifies the predominance of rajas. Pleasure and happiness are due to sattva. Sattva is the ultimate state of praakriti - rajas is that force by which praakriti tries to evolve to sattva and tamas is what opposes the evolution. Satkaaryavaada - manifestation and non-manifestation depends on the presence of these counteracting forces.

So what's the external force, which causes the manifestation of praakriti?

It is the Purusha - the Self/Self. The fulfillment of the ends of Purusha is the cause of the manifestation of praakriti. But it should be understood that the evolution of praakriti - the disturbance of the equilibrium of the gunas which starts the process of evolution - by the Purusha, is not due to any conscious action by the Purusha to that effect - for that would imply desire on the part of the Purusha and being eternal, it would always desire and no liberation would be possible. The mere presence of the Purushas excites the praakriti to activity and development. The Purushas move the world without any movement from themselves. However, this may not be the common opinion of all the schools of Saamkhya. Modern scholars have pointed out that the Saamkhya teacher Varshaganya was first to deny a positive role of the Supreme Purusha (God) in the process of creation. In any case, the suggestion that Praakriti evolves on its own for the benefit of Purushas gained a wide currency by the time of Ishvara Krishna who in-fact, lauds the 'altruism' of Praakriti in transforming itself for the benefit of Purushas and states that in his opinion, there is nothing more unselfish and gentle/delicate than Praakriti (Kaarikaas 60-61). This feature of Saamkhya attracted the invective 'atheistic philosophy' from the theistic mainstream of the Hindu society and to this day, Saamkhya philosophy has not been able to overcome this stigma completely.

Evolutes of Praakriti

The first product of the evolution of praakriti is Mahat or the Great. In the psychological sense it is the buddhi or the intellect. The fundamental motive of the Saamkhya is to free the Self or Purusha of all the defects of individual life. To this end the Saamkhya engages in logical gymnastics to ascertain as to what mental processes can be loaded on the side of the buddhi and what is that which can be salvaged from this process, which can also be proved to be unaffected and can thus represent the Purusha.

The buddhi is the subtle substance of all mental processes. It's the faculty by which we distinguish objects and perceive what they are. Its functions are ascertainment and decision. All other organs function for the buddhi, which works directly for the Purusha, thus enabling it to experience all existence and discriminate between itself and praakriti. Since the buddhi is but praakriti, it too has the three gunas. In its sattvic aspect it produces knowledge and freedom from desire, in the rajasic - desires and in the tamasic - ignorance.

Out of the buddhi rises the Ego or self sense - ahamkaara and mind - manas. The Saamkhya Kaarikaa regards the three - buddhi, ahamkaaram and manas - as three states of one single inner organ - antahkarana. From the sattvic aspect of ahamkaaram are derived the five organs of perception (the functions of sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch) and the five organs of action (the functions of tongue, feet, hands, the organs of evacuation and reproduction) - from its tamasic aspect the five fine elements, from which is derived the five gross elements. These twenty three principles are but effects of praakriti.

The five tanmaatras or the subtle elements, which are imperceptible and have no distinctive quality, are the essences of color, sound, smell, taste and touch. Each is exclusively bound to its respective sense organ. The tanmaatras combine to form the five gross atoms - ether, air, light, water and earth - which is when sense perception occurs. The senses perceive - the mind receives the data from the senses, synthesizes it into percepts and passes it on to the Ego, which is what individualizes the perception for the Self. The intellect finally receives it, discriminates and decides on the course of action - which is implemented by the mind using the organs of action. Since the mind is connected with the senses, it is considered made up of parts. Praajna or life arises out of the modification of the senses and has no independent existence of its own, apart from the senses.

Inside every gross material body, which perishes at death, there exists a subtle body (lingadeha) - formed of the psychic apparatus including the senses. This subtle body is the basis of our individual identity and that, which passes from one gross body to another in successive births. Bound by the law of karma, it carries with it the fruits of past actions and this determines every form of new embodiment.

The evolution of praakriti goes on till the end of a world period (pralaya), when praakriti retires into its original primal state. Even this devolution is considered only towards the end of satisfaction of the Purushas - for the Purushas wish for a respite from the observation of the activities of praakriti. When the time arrives for the creation of a new universe, the evolution starts again. Liberation of a Self only means that the Self ceases to be affected by the actions of praakriti. As there are innumerable Selves to observe the actions of praakriti, its play goes on forever. SamsAra is without an end.

PURUSHA

That which is known - the object - is Praakriti. That which knows - the knower, the subject - is the Purusha. The Purusha is neither the body, nor the mind, nor life - but that which possesses them - beyond time and change - knowing, silent, peaceful - the eternal Self.

The Saamkhya puts forward these arguments as proof of the existence of the Purushas :

  1. The objective world must exist for the sake of another - something, which enjoys it i.e., the subject.
  2. All objects have three gunas. So that which knows them - the knower - must be devoid of the gunas.
  3. To coordinate all experiences, a pure consciousness is needed.
  4. Since praakriti is unconscious, a conscious subject is needed to experience the effects of praakriti.
  5. That we aspire for liberation from the effects of praakriti, implies that we - the Purusha - are opposed in qualities to praakriti.

The Purusha is changeless, eternal and pure consciousness - the subject, which holds together the different conscious states and consolidates them into a systematic whole. Its nature is unfailing light (sadAprakAshasvarUpa), which is what causes praakriti to manifest. It exists in all the states - waking, dream and dreamless sleep, which are all only modifications of the buddhi. Pleasure and pain, which imply the duality of subject and object - doesn't belong to the Purusha - it belongs to the buddhi. Besides if pain was a quality of the Purusha, then being eternal, pain would always be there and no liberation is possible. Nor can bliss can be associated with it. Its nature is only consciousness.

The Purusha is immobile and not of any particular size. It is without beginning or end, uncaused and doesn't cause anything. Devoid of qualities, it is subtle, omnipresent and beyond the senses, mind and intellect. Its consciousness is not the empirical consciousness, which is possible only through the limitations of praakriti. Opposed in nature to praakriti, it is merely the solitary, indifferent and passive witness.

While the Purusha is needed to explain the unity of empirical experience, the distinctness of these unities - the variety of individual experience - imply the existence of multiple Selves. Moreover if the Self were one, then when one attains liberation, all would be free. The Selves are innumerable.

So is the Purusha, the "I", in the normal sense?

No. The "I" is the jiva. When the light of the Purusha is reflected in the buddhi (intellect), the Ego (ahamkaaram) is born, followed by the manas (mind). Jiva is the antahkarana - the inner mental organ (intellect + ego + mind) - plus the Purusha. The antahkarana derives its consciousness from the Purusha and has no existence of its own apart from the Purusha. It is the doer and the actual experiencer of pleasure and pain, though it does it for the enjoyment of the Purusha. The buddhi is supposed to undergo transformation taking the form of the object perceived through the senses and the reflection of this modification (vritti) falls on the Purusha, allowing it to experience the object.

The Purusha passively watching the activity of the antahkarana, forgets its true nature and is deluded into believing that it is the doer, the thinker and the experiencer of pleasure and pain. But that doesn't mean that the Purusha is actually fallen into bondage - no, though seeming to experience pleasure and pain, it still remains unchanged in its essence. "As a pure crystal is observed by people to be red on account of the superimposition of some red colored stuff, so is the great Purusha".

The experience of the Purusha means only the reception of the reflection of the objects. Even the delusion, ignorance and non-discrimination belong only to praakriti and are but reflected to the Purusha. Bondage is only the reflection of the impurities of the buddhi in the Purusha and Liberation only means the cessation of the reflection due to the purification of the buddhi. The Purusha in its natural state rests in itself without any object.

Since Saamkhya deals with 25 entities (Purusha + Praakriti + 23 evolutes of Praakriti), it is called the system of 25 categories.

GOD IN SAAMKHYA

As can be noticed there's no place for a creator god in classical Saamkhya. Praakriti and innumerable Purushas are enough to explain the world. To the question whether there needs to be a first cause - God - to create the world, then the Saamkhya questions : what's the cause of this first cause? To the reply that the first cause is uncaused, the Saamkhya counters that then the world itself can be considered as uncaused and there's no need to posit another uncaused cause as the creator of the world. Praakriti is without beginning. All the same, Saamkhya does not deny the existence of God per se. He exists, but is irrelevant in the scheme of things. For this reason, Saamkhya is termed as 'Nirishvara' in the Hindu philosophical tradition. It is a misconception that Nirishvara means 'Atheistic.' The word, when defined in the context of Saamkhya teachings, really means 'Agnostic'.

Due to its lack of attention to God, bordering on atheism, the Saamkhya school increasingly came to be looked at with derision within the rising theistic philosophies in Hinduism. However, it must be pointed out that the earliest extant versions of Saamkhya in the Upanishads are clearly theistic. Most ancient accounts of Saamkhya in the Mahaabhaaratha and the Puraanas are also theistic. In this accounts, God is either introduced as the 26th principle, or as a special 'Purusha' who is the controller of Praakriti and other Purushas. God, in this version of Saamkhya, is the Creator, the dispenser of the fruits of our actions and the giver of Salvation to other Purushas. In other words, he corresponds to the God of the later theistic schools of Hindu philosophy. Such versions of Saamkhya are called 'Seshvara Saamkhya' in the texts of rival schools like Advaita Vedaanta and Visishtadvaita Vedaanta.

It must also be pointed out that the Yoga Philosophy itself adopts the 25 entities of Saamkhya in toto and also acknowledges God in the conventional sense. In parallel, classical Saamkhya adopts Yogic techniques of meditation in toto, while diminishing the role of God in Salvation and creation to an insignificant extent. Due to the close similarities of Saamkhya and Yoga schools, the former is often called 'Nirishvara Yoga' while the latter is called 'Sesvara Saamkhya'.

In modern times, the re-introduction of theism into Saamkhya was done by Vijnaanabhikshu, who attributes the function of guiding the development of Praakriti to God. Vijnaanabhikshu is also the author of a commentary on the Brahma Sutras called Vijnaanamrta, where he tries to minimize the distinction between Saamkhya and the theistic Vedaanta.

THE LEGACY OF SAAMKHYA: Its Decline and Rebirth

Except for a few monks in a monastery in West Bengal (a state in the eastern part of India) who claim to be followers of Saamkhya, this school of philosophy has no living adherents. And yet, the stamp of Saamkhya doctrines is extremely prominent in practically all of Hindu literature except the Vedic Samhitas and Brahmanas (non-Upanishad portions). What caused the demise of this school, which was at one time the most influential spiritual philosophy of India? We can only attempt a reconstruction of its path to decline, relying on the Hindu-Buddhist tradition, and discuss the legacy of this magnificent system of philosophy in the process.

According to Hindu tradition, Sage Kapila, the founder of the Saamkhya school, was born in the Treta age. This age, according to the Mundaaka Upanishad, was marked by a great increase in the emphasis on ritualism at the expense of spirituality. The ritualists claimed that their holy rites were sufficient to lead one to Salvation. The entire Vedic cannon was as if, appropriated by the ritualists. At this juncture, Sage Kapila and his followers raised a banner of protest, and sought to restore Spirituality to the foreground of Vedic (Hindu) religion, establishing it as the main purport of the Vedas.

In the Mahaabhaaratha, there is a 'Kapila-Cow' dialog (Kapila-go samvaada) in which Sage Kapila is overcome with compassion when he sees a cow being led to the sacrifical altar of Vedic ritualists, and he exclaims: "Alas! The poor cow!". In response, a Vedic priest miraculously transfers his Self into the cow. The cow then asks Kapila if he is not really reviling the Vedas by opposing an animal sacrifice based on Vedic texts. Kapila responds: "I am not opposing the Vedas. I am merely saying that the Vedas also preach the path of Spirituality for our Salvation and I prefer that path of Spirituality." In fact, according to Saamkhya texts, the first disciple of Sage Kapila was an avowed ritualist named Asuri, who was won over by Sage Kapila after great persuasion. The extant Saamkhya texts too take a negative view of Vedic rituals by considering them incapable of bestowing Salvation and by regarding them as tainted with violence. This opposition to ritualism seems to have increased further in the Saamkhyan circles with the passage of time, and brought them into a direct conflict with the priestly class, who relied heavily upon ritualism for their livelihood.

Thus, Saamkhya stressed the pre-eminence of Spirituality over ritualism, an idea that was to reverberate later in Vedaanta. In texts like the Mahaabhaaratha, the word Saamkhya is often used as a synonym for Spirituality (adhyaatma). Due to its opposition to ritualism and stress on Spirituality and mediation, Saamkhya naturally advocated the system of monasticism with great vigor. While monasticism and asceticism are clearly attested in the Rigveda, Yajurveda and Atharvaveda, they came to be associated very strongly with Saamkhya in the course of time. The Ashtadhyayi of Paanini mentions the 'Bhikshusutras' of Parasarya, which is another name for Panchasikha, the grand disciple of Sage Kapila. The Tamil epic Neelakesi too describes a Saamkhyan monk named Parasharya. The Jaina text 'Sad-darsana samuccaya' by Haribhadra Suri also mentions 'Kapilayogins'.

Unbridled with material concerns, the Saamkhyan monks were a direct threat to the materialistic priesthood of the Indian society. The priest hood seems to have reacted to this challenge by branding Sage Kapila as an 'Asura' (opponent of the gods). For instance, while discussing the appropriateness of the Asrama system, the Baudhayana Dharmasutra records a contemporary tradition that this system should be rejected because it was the invention of a Kapila, who was the son of Asura Prahlada. While the equation of Asura Kapila with the Saamkhyan Sage Kapila is not certain, as late as the 11th Cent. C.E., Sri Yadavaprakasa records in his 'Yatidharmasamuccaya' that some of his contemporary followers of the Vedas rejected the four-fold classification of monks (Paramahamsa, Bahudaka etc.) because they regarded this classification an invention of the Saamkhyas. This stress on monasticism later appealed a lot to other monastic traditions like Buddhism, Jainism and various schools of Vedaanta.

Right from its inception, Saamkhya followed the path of rationalism based on extensive use of inferential knowledge to determine the nature of truth. Extreme reliance on rationalism seems to have led it astray from the Vedic scriptures. In course of time, the Saamkhya school itself split into numerous sub-schools. It seems that these schools linked the knowledge of the 25 Saamkhyan principles so intimately to the attainment of Salvation that even God took a back seat in this system. This, in turn, drew a theistic reaction from the school of Yoga, founded by Sage Hiranyagarbha. While the followers of Yoga accepted the Saamkhyan category, they questioned how it is possible to attain Salvation without seeking refuge in God. Thus, the Saamkhya school faced opposition from the ritualists from one side, and the theistic philosophies on the other.

The agnosticism and the stress on morality and on monasticism of the Saamkhya philosophy appealed a lot to Buddhists and Jainas and even the early texts of these religions betray an acquaintance with Saamkhya philosophy. However, we often see that followers of closely related schools of philosophy often dispute amongst themselves more ferociously that with followers of widely divergent schools. And so the Buddhists and Jainas too got busy attacking the Saamkhyan philosophy. In a losing battle with its adversaries, the Saamkhya school tried to revise its doctrines. One of the last great teachers of Saamkhya was Madhava. He revised the Saamkhyan doctrines so radically that he was branded as 'Saamkhya-nasaka' (destroyer of Saamkhya) by his adversaries. Madhava lost a crucial debate to a Buddhist scholar- a debate that was surcharged with so much emotional intensity according to tradition that Madhava died in the middle of debate out of anxiety and humiliation. While Buddhism and Jainism were also monastic traditions, they were very well organized around a well spread network of monasteries and Universities. They were well allied with the laity and were also successful in attracting the patronage of kings and emperors and merchants and traders. In contrast, the Saamkhyan monks do not seem to have been as sectarian or organized into orders (although red robed 'kapila monks' are mentioned in texts like the Harshacarita of Bana) and did not hanker after royal patronage. Due to this, the Saamkhya school collapsed in the face of opposition from other schools, and did not leave behind any sectarian monuments as Indian Buddhism did.

The next serious challenge to Saamkhya came from the Advaitins and the Naiyaayikas. Bhagvatpada Samkaracharya, the founder of Advaita Vedaanta, acknowledged that the Saamkhya philosophy commanded the respect of intellectual quarters of his day, but he accused it of opposing the Upanishads by denying God as the material cause of the Universe. He branded the Saamkhyas as 'Pradhaana-malla' or the principal opponent of his own Vedantic doctrine because the Saamkhyas claim that their doctrine is supported by the Upanishads but in reality this is not so. Thus, he accused the Saamkhyas of distorting the message of the Upanishads. The Naiyaayikas too ostracized the Saamkhya school for advocating atheism and indulged in hair splitting arguments to demolish the Saamkhya cosmogony, epistemology and ontology. The Saamkhya school thus became the favorite whipping boy of all the Indian philosophical sects and in-fact, came to be looked with derision by the Indian philosophers. All later schools of Vedaanta (with the exception of the school of Vijnaana Bhikhsu) including the Visishtadvaita and Dvaita followed the Advaitins in criticizing Saamkhya. In course of time, its followers defected to the rising schools of Vedaanta, and its text tradition became fragmentary. Several centuries later, Vijnaana Bhikshu tried to rescue Saamkhya from extinction but succeeded only partially. It was too late and the Shashtitantra and other ancient texts of Saamkhya had been lost already.

However, in its apparent defeat, the Saamkhya actually emerged victorious in disguise. School after school of Indian philosophy accepted and adopted the Saamkhyan categories into its own system. For instance, the Visishtadvaita Vedaanta adopts the Saamkhyan notions of the evolution of the Universe in toto, with the difference that it adds God as the guiding factor for the process of creation. The Advaita Vedaanta, in rejecting the presence of any attributes like 'Ananda' (bliss) in Brahman has actually adopted the Saamkhyan notion of Purusha without attributes. The Dvaita Vedaanta too accepts Praakriti and its evolutes as valid categories in its system with the difference that Praakriti is made subservient to Lord Vishnu. And last, but not the least, before its demise, Saamkhya was able to proliferate the Dharmashaastras, the Agamas, the Puraanas and the Ithihaasas and numerous other branches of sacred Hindu literature on a massive scale. In these texts, Saamkhyan doctrines reign supreme, and the Saamkhyan teachers including Sage Kapila are held in great reverence. Only in very late sections of some Puraanas is Sage Kapila reviled. But even in such cases, the Puraanas postulate the existence of multiple Kapilas- one who preached a theistic Saamkhya ('the True Kapila') and was an incarnation of Lord Vishnu (or Agni deva), and another who was an Asura and preached an atheistic version of Saamkhya for deluding wicked men further and bringing them to ruin. Vijnaana Bhikshu made full use of this ambiguity reflected in the late Puraanas and tried to salvage Saamkhya from ill repute in a very admirable and a dexterous manner. His effort was too late however. Moreover, Saamkhyan doctrines had already found their way into the rising Indian philosophies by the back door.

In the above paragraphs, we have presented a hypothetical picture of what must have lead to the eventual demise of Saamkhya. Whatever be the true reasons for and genesis of its demise, there is no doubt that Saamkhya philosophy continues to enthrall intellectuals up to present times (including the famous physicist James Clark Maxwell). An International Conference on Saamkhya Philosophy was organized at Lausanne (Switzerland) on November 6-8, 1996. To summarize, the following represent the eternal legacy of the Saamkhya Philosophy: