resumen sāṅkhya

7/28/2019 RESUMEN Skhya

1/17

Skhya

Skhya (often spelled Skhya) is one of the major orthodox (or Hindu)

Indian philosophies. Two millennia ago it was the representativeHinduphilosophy. Its classical formulation is found in varakasSkhya-Krik(ca. 350 CE), a condensed account in seventy-two verses. It is astrong Indian example ofmetaphysical dualism, but unlike many Westerncounterparts it is atheistic. The two types of entities of Skhyaare Praktiand purua-s, namely Nature and persons. Nature is singular, andpersons are numerous. Both are eternal and independent of each other.Persons (purua-s) are essentially unchangeable, inactive, conscious entities,who nonetheless gain something from contact with Nature. Creation as weknow it comes about by a conjunction of Nature and persons. Prakti, or

Nature, is comprised of three gua-s or qualities. The highest of the threeis sattva(essence), the principle of light, goodness andintelligence. Rajas(dust) is the principle of change, energy and passion,while tamas(darkness) appears as inactivity, dullness, heaviness anddespair. Nature, though unconscious, is purposeful and is said to function forthe purpose of the individual purua-s. Aside from comprising the physicaluniverse, it comprises the gross body and sign-body of apurua. Thelatter contains among other things the epistemological apparati of embodiedbeings (such as the mind, intellect, and senses). The sign body ofa puruatransmigrates: after the death of the gross body, the sign-body is

reborn into another gross body according to past merit, andthe puruacontinues to be a witness through its various bodies. An escapefrom this endless circle is possible only through the realization of thefundamental difference between Nature and persons, whereby anindividual purualoses interest in Nature and is thereby liberated foreverfrom all bodies, subtle and gross. Much of the Skhya system becamewidely accepted in India: especially the theory of the three gua-s; and itwas incorporated into much latter Indian philosophy, especially Vednta.

Table of Contents1. History2. Skhyas Existential Quandary and Solution3. Epistemology4. Metaphysicsa. Causalityb. Praktiand the three gua-sc. Puruad. Evolution, Humanity and the World5. Liberation6. References and Further Reading
http://www.iep.utm.edu/hindu-ph/http://www.iep.utm.edu/hindu-ph/http://www.iep.utm.edu/hindu-ph/http://www.iep.utm.edu/hindu-ph/http://www.iep.utm.edu/dualism/http://www.iep.utm.edu/dualism/http://www.iep.utm.edu/dualism/http://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/#H1http://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/#H1http://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/#H2http://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/#H2http://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/#H2http://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/#H2http://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/#H3http://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/#H3http://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/#H4http://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/#H4http://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/#SH4ahttp://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/#SH4ahttp://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/#SH4bhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/#SH4bhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/#SH4bhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/#SH4bhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/#SH4bhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/#SH4bhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/#SH4bhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/#SH4bhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/#SH4bhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/#SH4chttp://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/#SH4chttp://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/#SH4chttp://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/#SH4chttp://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/#SH4dhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/#SH4dhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/#H5http://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/#H5http://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/#H6http://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/#H6http://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/#H6http://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/#H5http://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/#SH4dhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/#SH4chttp://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/#SH4bhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/#SH4ahttp://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/#H4http://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/#H3http://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/#H2http://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/#H1http://www.iep.utm.edu/dualism/http://www.iep.utm.edu/hindu-ph/http://www.iep.utm.edu/hindu-ph/http://www.iep.utm.edu/hindu-ph/


2/17

1. History

The word Skhya is derived from the Sanskrit noun sankhy (number)based on the verbal root khy(make known, name) with thepreverb sam(together). Skhya thus denotes the system of enumerationor taking account. The first meaning is acceptable, as Skhya is very fondof sets, often naming them as triad, the group of eleven, and so forth;but the second meaning is more fitting, as the aim of Skhya is to take intoaccount all the important factors of the whole world, especially of the humancondition.

Skhya has a very long history. Its roots go deeper than textual traditionsallow us to see. The last major figure in the tradition, Vijna Bhiku, thrivedas late as 1575 CE. Despite its long history, Skhya is essentially a one -book school: the earliest extant complete text, the Skhya-Krik, is theunquestioned classic of the tradition. Not only are its formal statementsaccepted by all subsequent representatives, but also its ordering of thetopics and its arguments are definitive very little is added in the course ofthe centuries.

Besides its own author, varaka, theSkhya-Krikitself names severalancient adherents of the school plus a standard work, the ai-Tantra(thebook of sixty [topics]). The ancient Buddhist Avaghoa (in his Buddha -

Carita) describes Ara Klma, the teacher of the young Buddha (ca. 420BCE) as following an archaic form of Skhya. The great Indian epic,the Mahbhrata, represents the Skhya system as already quite old at thetime of the great war of the Bharata clan , which occurred during the firsthalf of the first millennium BCE. Such textual evidence confirms that by thebeginning of our era, Indian common opinion considered Skhya as veryancient. Moreover, Skhya concepts and terminology frequently appear inthe portion of the Vedas known as the Upaniads, notably in theKahaandthe vetvatara. The older (6th cent. BCE?) Chndogya Upaniadpresentsan important forerunner of the gua-theory, although the terminology is

different. And before that, in the Creation-hymn of the g-Veda (X. 129) wefind ideas of the evolution of a material principle and of cosmic dualism, inthe company of words that later became the names of the gua-s.

Skhya likely grew out of speculations rooted in cosmic dualism andintrospective meditational practice. The agriculturally-rooted concept of theproductive union of the sky-god (or sun-god or rain-god) and the earthgoddess appears in India typically as the connection of the spiritual,immaterial, lordly, immobile fertilizer (represented as the iva-ligam, orphallus) and of the active, fertile, powerful but subservient material principle

(akti or Power, often as the horrible Dark Lady, Kl). The ascetic andmeditative yoga practice, in contrast, aimed at overcoming the limitations of


3/17

the natural body and achieving perfect stillness of the mind. A combinationof these views may have resulted in the concept of the purua, theunchanging immaterial conscious essence, contrasted with Prakti, thematerial principle that produces not only the external world and the bodybut also the changing and externally determined aspects of the human mind(such as the intellect, ego, internal and external perceptual organs).

Both the agrarian theology of iva-akti/Sky-Earth and the tradition of yoga(meditation) do not appear to be rooted in the Vedas. Not surprisingly,classical Skhya is remarkably independent of orthodox Brahmanictraditions, including the Vedas. Skhya is silent about the Vedas, abouttheir guardians (the Brahmins) and for that matter about the whole castesystem, and about the Vedic gods; and it is slightly inimical towards theanimal sacrifices that characterized the ancient Vedic religion. But all our

early sources for the history of Skhya belong to the Vedic tradition, and itis thus reasonable to suppose that we do not see in them the fulldevelopment of the Skhya system, but rather occasional glimpses of itsdevelopment as it gained gradual acceptance in the Brahmanic fold.

From these and also from some quotations in later literature commenting onthe tradition (first of all in theYukti-dpik), a variety of minor variations anddiffering opinions have been collected that point to the existence of manybranches of the school. The most significant divergence is perhaps thedevelopment of a theistic school of Orthodox Hindu philosophy, called Yoga,

which absorbs the basic dualism of Skhya, but is theistic, and thus regardsone puruaas a special purua, called the Lord (vara).

According to the Indian tradition, the first masters of Skhya are Kapila andhis disciple suri. They belong to antiquity (and sometimes, prehistory) andare known only through ancient legends. Another putative ancient master ofSkhya, Pacaikha, seems to be more historical, and may have been theauthor of the original ai-Tantra. Other important figures in the tradition,frequently referred to and also quoted in the commentaries, include

Vragaya, and Vindhyavsin, who may have been an older contemporary

of varaka.

Around the beginning of our era, Skhya became the representativephilosophy of Hindu thought in Hindu circles, and this probably explains whywe find it everywherenot only in the epics and the Upaniads but also inother important texts of the Hindu tradition, such as the dharmastra-s(law-books), medical treatises (yurveda) and the basic texts of themeditational Yoga school. And in fact much of the philosophy of Yoga (asformulated by Patajali ca. 300 CE) is considered by several modernscholars as a version of Skhya.


4/17

Of varaka we know nothing; he may have lived around 350 CE, in anycase after the composition of the foundational text of the Nyya schoo l ofIndian philosophy, known as the Nyya-Stra, and before the famousBuddhist philosopher, Vasubandhu. varakas work, theSkhya-Krikconsists of 72 stanzas in the rymeter. Perhaps some of the verseswere added by a student, but most of the work clearly tells of a single,philosophically and poetically ingenious hand. Unlike the (older) stras(aphorisms) of other systems, which are often cryptic and ambiguous,the Skhya-Krikis a clear composition that is well ordered and argued. Itis stated in the last stanza that it is a condensation of the whole ai-Tantra, leaving out only stories and debates. And in fact varaka neverrefers to the theses of other systems, nor to differences within the school.He purposefully avoids all points of conflict: he is either silent about them oruses ambivalent expressions. It is perfectly clear that he wanted to write thecommon standard for the whole school, acceptable to all adherents to thephilosophy; and he succeeded. The Krikousted all previous Skhyawritings, of which only stray quotations remain. The presentation givenbelow will thus follow this work very closely.

Many commentaries were written on the Krik, mostly simple explanationsof the text, and very similar to each other (the better known areGauapdasBhya, MharasVttiand akarcryasJaya-Magalthis Gauapda and akarcrya are generally thought to be different fromthe famous Advaitins of the same name). By far the most important and also

longest commentary is the Yukti-dpik, Light on the arguments writtenperhaps by Rjan or Rjna around 700 CE. This commentary discussesdifferent positions within the school (and is therefore our most importanthistorical source for old Skhya) and debates with other schools over manyfundamental points of doctrine. It follows the polemical style of writing inthe early classical schools, with heavy emphasis on epistemological issues.Unfortunately this text received very little response in classical times; in factit was hardly known outside Kashmir. One of the reasons for this may be theextreme popularity of another commentary, Vcaspati MirasSkhya-Tattva-Kaumud, or Moonlight of the Principles of Skhya, (circa 980 CE).

This commentary, although incomparably simpler, still follows matureclassical philosophical style, and was written by a master of all philosophies,respected for his works on all major schools. It was the starting point of atradition of sub-comments continuing to the present day.

Besides the Krikthere are two other important foundational texts ofSkhya. The cryptic, halfpage longTattva-Samsa-Stra(Summary of thePrinciples) is very old at least in some parts, but no Skhya authormentions it before the 14th century. It is only a list of topics, but a list quitedifferent from the categories of the Krik; it has several commentaries, the

best known is the Krama-Dpik, Light on the Succession. The other text isthe well-known, longish Skhya-Stra, which plainly follows the Krikin


5/17

most respects but adds many more illustrative stories and polemics withlater philosophic positions. It is markedly atheistic and makes argumentsagainst the existence of God. It appears first in the 15th century and isprobably not very much older. It has attracted a commentary by VijnaBhiku, the eminent Vedntist of the 16th century, entitledSkhya-Pravacana-Bhyaor Commentary expounding Skhya. He also authoreda small systematic treatise, the Skhya-Sra(The Essence of Skhya). Heintroduced several innovations into the system, notably the idea that thenumber of the qualities is not three but infinite and that thegua-s aresubstances, not qualities.

2. Skhyas Existential Quandary and

SolutionThe first premise of Skhya is the universal fact of suffering. There aremany practical ways to ward off the darker side of life: such as self-defense,pleasures, medicine, and meditation. But, according to Skhya, all of themare of limited efficacy and at best can offer only temporary relief. The refugeoffered by traditional Vedic religion is similarly unsatisfactoryit does notlead to complete purification (mainly because it involves bloody animalsacrifices), and the rewards it promises are all temporary: even after ahappy and prolonged stay in heaven one will be reborn on Earth for more

suffering.

Therefore the solution offered by Skhya is arguably superior: it analyzesthe fundamental metaphysical structure of the world and the humancondition, and finds the ultimate source of suffering, thereby making itpossible to fight it effectively. Cutting the root of rebirth is the only way tofinal emancipation from suffering, according to Skhya.

Skhya analyzes the cosmos into a dualistic, and atheistic scheme. The twotypes of entities that exist, on Skhyas account, arePraktior Nature

and purua-s or persons. Nature is singular, but persons are numerous. Bothare eternal and independent of each other.

Creation as we know it comes about by a conjunction of these twocategories. Nature, though unconscious, is purposeful and is said to functionfor the purpose of the individual purua-s. Aside from comprising thephysical universe, it comprises the gross body and sign body (or subtlebody) of apurua. The sign body of a puruatransmigrates: after the deathof the gross body, the sign body is reborn in another gross body accordingto past merit. An escape from this endless circle is possible only through therealization of the fundamental difference between Nature and persons,whereby an individual purualoses interest in Nature and is thereby liberated


6/17

forever from all bodies, subtle and gross. Characteristic of Skhya is ametaphorical but consistent presentation of the puruaas a conscious,unchangeable, male principle that is inactive, while Nature is theunconscious, forever changing, female principle that is active, yetsubservient to the ends of the purua. This is reminiscent of the cosmicdualism in Indian religions such as Tantrism, where the spiritual suprememale God mates with his female akti (Power) resulting in creation.

Prakti, or Nature, is comprised of three gua-s or qualities. The highest ofthe three issattva(essence), the principle of light, goodness andintelligence. Rajas(dust) is the principle of change, energy and passion,while tamas(darkness) appears as inactivity, dullness, heaviness anddespair. Praktias unmanifest, pure potentiality is the substrate of the wholeworld, while in her manifest form she has twenty-three interdependent

structures (tattva-s). Of the latter the highest is intellect or buddhi: it is notconscious, but through its closeness to puruait appears to be so. Theothers are egoism, mind, senses, biological abilities, the sensibilia like colorand the elements (earth etc).

3. Epistemology

Skhya recognizes only three valid sources of information: perception,inference and reliable tradition. The ordering is important: we use inference

only when perception is impossible, and only if both are silent do we accepttradition. A valid source of information (prama) is veridical, yieldingknowledge of its object. Perception is the direct cognition of sensiblequalities (such as color and sound), which mediate cognition of the elements(such as earth and water). Perception, on the Skhya account, is a complexprocess: the senses (such as sight) cognize their respective objects (colorand shape) through the physical organs (such as the eye). And these sensesare themselves the objects of cognition of the psyche (which in turn iscomprised of three facultiesthe mind (manas), the intellect (buddhi), andthe ego (ahakra). The mind for its part internally constructs arepresentation of objects of the external world with the data supplied by thesenses. The ego contributes personal perspective to knowledge claims. Theintellect contributes understanding to knowledge. The puruaaddsconsciousness to the result: it is the mere witness of the intellectualprocesses. According to a simile, thepuruais the lord of the house, thetripartite psyche is the door-keeper and the senses are the doors.

For Skhya , perception is reliable and supplies most of the practicalinformation needed in everyday life, but for this very reason it cannot supply

philosophically interesting data. Things that can be seen are not objects ofphilosophical inquiry. There are many possible reasons why an existent


7/17

material object is not (or cannot be) perceived: it may be too far (or near),or it is too minute or subtle; there may be something that obstructsperception; it may be indistinguishable from other surrounding objects orthe sensation produced by another object may be so strong as to overweighit. A fault of the sense-organs or an inattentive mind can also cause a failureof perception.

For philosophy, the central source of information is inference, and this isclearly emphasized in Skhya. varaka appears to recognize three kindsof inference (SK 5b) (as evidenced by his clear reference to the Nyya-Stra1.1.5): cause to effect, effect to cause and analogical reasoning. Thefirst two types are based on the previous observation of causal connections.Therefore they cannot lead us to the sphere of the essentially imperceptible.Thus all metaphysical statements are based on analogical inferencesuch

as: the body is a complex structure; complex structures, like a bed, servesomebody elses purpose; so there must be somebody else (thepurua) thatthe body serves. Of course the analogies utilized are themselves analogiesof the causal relation; so it would be a little more appropriate to say thatthey are analogical reasonings from the effect to the cause, but traditionallythe three classes of inference are considered mutually exclusive.

The two members of an inference are the liga, sign (the given or premise)and theligin, having the sign, i.e. the thing of which the liga is the sign(the inferred or conclusion).

The last valid source of information, pta-vacana, literally means reliablespeech, but in the context of Skhya it is understood as referring toscriptures (the Vedas) only. While the validity of scriptural authority isaffirmed, its importance is downplayed: they are never used to derive orconfirm philosophical theses.

4. Metaphysics

Skhya is very fond of numbers, and in its classical form it is the system of25 realities (tattva-s). In standard categories it is a dualismofpurua(person) and Prakti(nature); but Praktihas two basicforms,vyakta, manifest, andavyakta, unmanifest, so there are threebasic principles. Puruaand the avyaktaare the first two tattva-s; theremaining twenty-three from intellect to the elements belong to the manifestnature.

The relation of the unmanifest and manifest nature is somewhat vague,

perhaps because there were conflicting opinions on this question. Laterauthors understand it as a cosmogonical relation: the unmanifest was the


8/17

initial state ofPrakti, where the gua-s were in equilibrium. Due to theeffect of the purua-s this changed and evolved the manifold universe thatwe see, the manifest. This view nicely conforms to the standard Hinduimage of cosmic cycles of creation and destruction; but it is problematiclogically (without supposing God) and varaka without directlyopposing it does not seem to accept it. He says that we do not grasp theunmanifest because it is subtle, not because it does not exist; and thatimplies that it exists also at present, as an imperceptible homogenoussubstrate of the world.

It is a notable feature of Skhya that its dualism is somewhat unbalanced:if we droppedpuruafrom the picture, we would still have a fairly completepicture of the world, asPraktiis not inert, mechanical matter but is a living,creative principle that has all the resources to produce from itself the human

mind and intellect. Skhya thus looks like a full materialist account of theworld, with the passive, unchanging principle of consciousness added almostas an afterthought.

a. Causality

According to Skhya, causality is the external, objective counterpart of theintellectual process of inference. As Skhya understands itself as the schoolof thought that understands reality through inference, causality plays a

central role in the Skhya philosophy. According to Skhya, the world aswe see it is the effect of its fundamental causes, which are only knownthrough their effects and in conjunction with a proper understanding ofcausation.

The Indian tradition conceives of causality differently from the recentEuropean tradition, where it is typically regarded as a relation betweenevents. In the Indian tradition it rather consists in the origin of a thing. Thestandard example of the causal relationship is that of the potter making apot from clay, where the cause par excellenceis taken to be the clay. The

Skhya analysis of causation is calledsat-krya-vda, or literally theexistent effect theory, which opposes the view taken by the Nyyaphilosophy. Perhaps sat-krya is better rendered as the effect of existent[causes]; it stands for a moderate form of determinism. In thecommentaries it is normally explained as the view that the effect alreadyexists in its cause prior to its production. Understood literally, this is nottenableif the cause existed, why was it not perceived prior to the pointcalled its production? Rather the theory states that there is nothingabsolutely new in the product: everything in it was determined by its causes.


9/17

The following five considerations are used in an argument for the sat-krya-vda: (a) the nonexistent cannot produce anything (given the assumeddefinition of existence as the ability to have some effect); (b) whenproducing a specific thing, we always need a specific substance as materialcause (such as the clay for a pot, or milk for curds); (c) otherwiseeverything (or at least anything) would come into being from anything; (d)the creative agent (the efficient cause) produces only what it can, notanything (a potter cannot make jewelry); (e) the effect is essentiallyidentical with its material cause, and so it has many of its qualities (a pot isstill clay, and thus consists of the primary attributes of clay). This lastargument is utilized to determine the basic attributes of the imperceptiblemetaphysical causes of the empirical world: the substrate must have thesame fundamental attributes and abilities as the manifest world.

b. Praktiand the three gua-sThe term prakti(meaning nature and productive substance) is actuallyused in three related but different senses. (1) Sometimes it is a synonym forthe second tattva, calledmla-prakti(root-nature), avyakta(theunmanifest) or pradhna(the principal). (2) Sometimes it is pairedwith vikti(modification);praktiin this sense could be rendered as

source. Then the unmanifest isprakti-only; and the intellect, the ego andthe five sense qualities are both prakti-s and vikti-s thus producing the

set ofeight prakti-s. (The remaining sixteen tattva-sare viktis-only, whilethe first tattva, the unchanging, eternal puruais neither praktinor vikti.)(3) And in most cases, prakti means both the manifest and theunmanifest nature (which consists of the twenty-fourtattva-sstarting fromthe second).

Prakti is female gendered in Sanskrit, and its anaphora in Skhya isshe, but this usage seems to be consistently metaphorical only. Prakti, inits various forms, contrasts with puruain being productive, unconscious,objective (knowable as an object), not irreducibly atomic, and comprised of

three gua-s.

The unmanifest form ofPrakticontrasts with the manifest form in beingsingle, uncaused, eternal, all-pervasive, partless, self-sustaining,independent and inactive; it is aligin(known from inference only).Ironically, all these attributes with the exception of singleness alsocharacterize the purua, thus some ancient Skhya masters did callthepuruaalso avyakta(unmanifest).

Skhya analyzes manifestPraktithe world, both physical and mentalinto three omnipresent aspects, the gua-s. This is one of Skhyas main


10/17

contributions to Indian thought. Gua variously means a thread,subordinate component, quality or virtue. Here it is not just any simplequality but rather a quite complex side or aspect of anything materiallyexistent. (The puruahas no gua-s.) The gua-s cannot be understood asordinary qualities: their names are nouns, not adjectives; they are not

simple, and they dont have degrees; they themselves have qualities andactivity; they interact with each other; they do not have a substrate or asubstance distinct from themselves to inhere in. But neither are theysubstances: they cannot exist separately (in every phenomenon all thethree gua-s are present), they are not spatially or temporally delimited,they do not have separate individuality, and they can increase or decreasegradually in an object.

They are generally characterized as the real actors, even in mental

phenomena such as cognition; they are the substrata for each other andthey are interrelated in various ways. They subdue, give birth to andcopulate with each other. In other words, they compete but also combinewith each other, and they can even produce each other. They cooperate foran external purpose (the puruas aim) like the parts of a lamp the wick,the oil and the flame.

Their names are quite obscure, perhaps intentionally: they resist any facilesimplistic interpretation, forcing us to understand them from theirdescription instead of the literal meaning. The name of the first gua,

sattva, meanssat-ness, where the participle sat means being, existent,real, proper, good. Sattva is additionally often used for entity, existence,essence and intelligence. Sattvais light (not heavy). Its essence is affection,its purpose and activity is illuminating. Rajas, the name of thesecond gua, means atmosphere, mist, and dust. Rajasis supportive like acolumn but also mobile like water. Its essence is aversion, its purpose isbringing into motion and its activity is seizing. The name of the third gua,

tamas, means darkness.Tamasis heavy and covering. Its essence isdespair, its purpose is holding back, and its activity is preservation.

In more modern terms, these three gua-s may be paraphrased ascoherence / structure / information / intelligence (sattva); energy /movement / impulse / change (rajas); and inertia / mass / passivity /conservation (tamas). The depth of this analysis is the extent to which itgrasps the structure of both the external and the internal world.

c. Purua

Purua, the name of the firsttattva(reality) literally means man inSanskrit (though it often is used for the wider concept of person in Sanskrit


11/17

and the Skhya system, as the Skhya system holds that all sentientbeings are embodied purua-s: not simply male humans). In the Skhyaphilosophy, purua is metaphorically considered to be masculine, butunlike our concept of virility it is absolutely inactive. It is pure consciousness:it enjoys and witnesses Praktis activities, but does not cause them. It ischaracterized as the conscious subject: it is uncaused, eternal, all-pervasive,partless, self-sustaining, independent. It is devoid of the gua-s, andtherefore inactive and sterile (unable to produce). It can be known frominference only. As puruais essentially private for every sentient being,being their true self, there are many irreducibly distinct purua-s. IfPraktiisequated with Matter, puruamay be equated with the soul. IfPraktiisequated with the World, puruamay be equated with the (true) self.IfPraktiis understood as Nature, puruacan be understood as the person.

As the immaterial soul, puruais not known through direct perception. Fivearguments are given to prove its existence. (1) All complex structures servean external purpose, for instance, a bed is for somebody to lie on; so thewhole of nature, or more specifically the body a very complex system must also serve something different from it, which is thepurua. (2) Thethree gua-s give an exhaustive explanation of material phenomena, but insentient beings we find features that are the direct opposites of the gua-s(such as consciousness or being strictly private), and thus they need a non-material cause, which is thePurua. (3) The coordinated activity of all theparts of a human being prove that there is something supervising it; without

it, it would fall apart, as we see in a dead body, hence the puruamustexist. (4) Although we cannot perceive ourselves as purua-s with thesenses, we have immediate awareness of ourselves as conscious beings: the

enjoyer, the experiencing self is the purua. (5) Liberation, or theseparation of soul and matter, would be impossible without their beingseparate purua-s to be liberated, thus purua-s must exist.

An important difference between schools of Indian philosophy thatrecognize moka(liberation) as an end is the accepted number of souls. InBuddhism there is no separate soul to be liberated. In Advaita Vednta,

there is one common world-soul, and individuality is a function of thematerial world only. Skhya adduces three arguments to prove that there isa separate puruafor each individual: (1) Birth, death and the personalhistory of everybody is different (it is determined by the law of karma,according to our merits collected in previous lives). If there wereone puruaonly, all bodies should be identical or at least indistinguishablefor the function of the self orpuruais to be a supervisor of the body. Butthis is clearly not so. Hence, there must be a plurality of distinct purua-s.(2) If there were only one purua, everyone would act simultaneously alike,for the puruais the supervisor of the body. But this is clearly not so. Hence,

there must be a plurality of distinct purua-s. (3) If there were onlyonepurua, we would all experience the same things. However, it is evident


12/17

that the opposite is true: our experiences are inherently diverse and private,and they cannot be directly shared. Hence, there must be aseparate puruafor us all.

In time, it became difficult to follow most of the arguments given above:ifpuruais really inactive, it cannot supervise anything, and cannot be thesource of our individual actions. Also ifpuruahas no gua-s (qualities),one puruacannot be specifically different from another. These problemsperhaps grew under the influence of the concept of the absolutelyunchanging and quality-less spiritual essence elaborated in Vedntaphilosophy and were thus, arguably, not part of the original Skhyaphilosophy. The influence of Advaita Vedanta on Skhya seems to involve areinterpretation of two attributes ofpurua: inactivty came to be understoodas unchangingness, while having no gua-s was taken to mean that it has

no qualities at all.

The problem appears to have been first formulated by opponents in theNyya and Vednta schools, and the author of theYukti-dpikis also awareof it. The answer emerging, first in Vcaspati Mira and then moreelaborately in Vijna Bhiku, involves the innovation of the theory of

reflection: as the image in the mirror has no effect on the object reflectedand the mirror remains unchanged, but the image can be seen so theunchanging puruacan reflect the external world, and the material psychecan react to this reflection. In responding to the problems brought about by

the influence of Advaita Vedanta on Skhya, these authors appear to haveresponded by formulating a version of Skhya that comes fairly close to thesuperimposition theory of Advaita Vednta, according to which an individualperson is a cognitive construction that comes about by the error of mixingup the qualities of objects upon the quality of pure subjectivity. (For moreon this issue, see Shiv Kumar pp. 3943, 102109, 250253 and ShikanMurakami inAsiatische Studien53, pp.645665, who give insightful analysesof the problem in the classical schools.)

In varakasSkhya-Krik, however, the inactivity of the puruadoes

not seem to involve absolute incapability for change: the same word (a-kriya, without activity) is used also for the unmanifest nature, thesubstrate of all material manifestations. Arguably, it means only inability tomove in space or to have mechanical effect. As it is clear from the abovearguments, puruais the determinative factor of our actions and thatpresupposes that it changes in time (otherwise we would always do thesame thing). So it must be the locus either of volition or of some hiddenmotivation underlying it. And although it is a lonely, uninterested spectator,a witness unable to act, it does like or dislike what it sees: it can suffer (thisis, after all, the existential starting point for Skhya). It cannot be the locus

of our whole emotional life (passions are explicitly said to reside in the


13/17

intellect), but it must be considered the final source of our consciousfeelings.

This is a controversial issue. Many modern scholars understand puruaasstrictly unchanging; some of them (for example, A.B. Keith) are led by theinconsistencies following from this to consider Skhya as a hopeless bundleof contradictions. Larson (in Larson and Bhattacharya, pp. 7983) translates

purua as contentless consciousness; it is not only unchanging but alsotimeless and outside the realm of causality (a somewhat Kantian concept).He tries to solve some of the difficulties by proposing that the multiplicityofpurua-s be understood as essentially epistemological in nature andontologically irrelevant.

d. Evolution, Humanity and the WorldFor Skhya, creation consists in the conjunction of the two categoriesofPraktiandpurua(s). How this comes about is left somewhat of amystery. As a result of this conjunction, the puruais embodied in the worldand appears to be the agent, and moreover Praktiseems to be conscious asit is animated bypurua-s. The relation between a puruaand Prakti,according to the Skhya-Krikaare like two men, a lame man and a blindman, lost in the wilderness; the one without the power of sight(activePrakti) carrying the cripple (conscious purua) that can navigate the

wild. Their purpose is twofold: the puruadesires experiencewithout blindnature, it would be unable to have experiences; andboth Praktiandpuruadesire liberation (in keeping with the simile, bothnature and the person, the blind and the lame, desire to make their wayhome and part ways). Liberation is forestalled, on the Skhya account,becausepuruabecomes enamored with the beautiful woman, Prakti, andrefuses to part ways with her.

The nature of the puruaPrakticonnection is prima facieproblematic. Howcan the inactive soul influence matter, and how could an unintelligent

substance, nature, serve anybodys purpose?Puruais unable tomove Prakti, but Praktiis able to respond topuruas presence andintentions. Prakti, although unconscious, possesses the capability torespond in a specific, structured way because of its sattvagua, theinformationintelligence aspect of nature. The standard simile in the earlySkhya tradition explains that as milk (an unconscious substance) starts toflow in order to nurture the calf, Praktiflows to nurturepurua. In later texts,illumination and reflection are the standard models for this connection(puruais said to illuminate Prakti, and Praktireflects the natureofpurua), thus solving the problem of how Praktiandpuruacanseemingly borrow eachothers properties without affecting eachothersessential state.


14/17

In consequence ofPraktis connection with the soul,Praktievolves manyforms: the twenty-threetattva-s(realities) of manifest Prakti. The characterof this evolution (parima) is somewhat vague. Is this an account of theorigin of the cosmos, or of a single being? The cosmogenic understanding isprobably older, and it seems to predominate in later accounts as well. In apantheistic account the two accounts could be harmonized, but pantheism isalien from classical Skhya. varaka is again probably intentionallysilent on this conflicting issue, but he seems to be inclined to themicrocosmic interpretation: otherwise either a single super-puruasinfluence would be needed (that is, Gods influence) to account for how theuniverse on the whole comes about, or a coordinated effect of allthe purua-s together would be requiredand there seems to be nofoundation for either of these views Skhya.

The central mechanism of evolution is the complicated interaction ofthe gua-s, which is sensitive to the environment, the substrate or locus ofthe current process. Just as water in different places behaves differently (onthe top of the Himalaya mountain as ice, in a hill creek, in the ocean, or asthe juice of a fruit) so do the gua-s. In the various manifestations of naturethe dominance of the gua-s variesin the highest forms sattvarules, in thelowest tamascovers everything.

The actual order of evolution is as follows: from root-nature first appearsintellect (buddhi); from it, ego (ahakra); from it the eleven powers

(indriya) and the five sensibilia (tanmtra); and from the tanmtras theelements (bhta).

The function of the buddhi(intellect) is specifiedas adhyavasya(determination); it can be understood as definite conceptualknowledge. It has eight forms: virtue, knowledge, dispassion and command,and their opposites. So it seems that on the material plane,buddhiis thelocus of cognition, emotion, moral judgment and volition. All these may bethought to belong also to consciousness, or the purua. However, on theSkhya account,puruais connected directly only to the intellect, and the

latter does all cognitions, mediates all experiences for it. The view ofSkhya appears to be that whensattva(quality of goodness, orillumination) predominates in buddhi(the intellect), it can act acceptablyfor purua, when there is a predominance oftamas, it will be weak andinsufficient.

The ego or ahakra(making the I) is explained as abhimnathinking ofas [mine]. It delineates that part of the world that we consider to be or tobelong to ourselves: mind, body, perhaps family, property, rank Itindividuates and identifies parts ofPrakti: by itself nature is one, continuousand unseparated. It communicates the individuality inherent in the purua-sto the essentially common Praktithat comprises the psyche of the


15/17

individual. So it has a purely cognitive and a material function as welllikeso many principles of Skhya.

The eleven powers (indriya) are mind (manas), the senses and the powersof action (karmendriya), the biological faculties. The senses (powers ofcognition, buddhndriya) are sight, hearing, smelling, tasting, and touchingthey are the abilities, not the physical organs themselves through which theyoperate. The crude names of the powers of action are speech, hand, foot,anus and lap. They symbolize the fundamental biological abilities tocommunicate, to take in or consume, to move, to excrete and to generate.

Manas (often translated as mind, though this may be misleading),designates the lowest, almost vegetative part of the central information-processing structure. Its function is sakalpaarranging (literally fitting

together) or coordinating theindriya-s. It functions partly to make a unifiedpicture from sense data, provided by the senses, and partly to translate thecommands from the intellect to actual, separate actions of the organs. So, itis both a cognitive power and a power of action. (Later authors take

manas to also designate the will, forsakalpaalso has this meaning.)

Intellect, ego and mind together constitute the anta-karaa(internalorgan), or the material psyche, while the other indriya-s (powers)collectively are called the external organ. The internal organ as aninseparable unit is the principle of life (pra). In cognition the internal

organs activity follows upon that of the external, but they are continuouslyactive, so their activity is also simultaneous. The external organ is strictlybound to the present tense, while the psyche is active in the past and futureas well (memory, planning, and the grasping of timeless truths).

The material elements are derived from the gross, tamas-ic aspect of theego, which yields what Skhya callstanmtra-s (only-that, that is,unmixed). These in turn yield the elements (bhta, mah-bhta). Theelements are ether (ka), air, fire, water and earth. The tanmtra-s seemto be uncompounded sensibilia; perhaps subtle elements or substances,

each having only one sensible quality: sound, touch, visibility, taste andsmell. The gross elements are probably fixed compounds of the tanmtra-s:ether has only sound, air also touch, fire is also visible, water has in additiontaste and earth has all the five qualities.

Human beings are a compound of all these. At death we lose the body madeup of the five gross elements; the rest (from intellect down to the tanmtra-s) make up the transmigrating entity, called ligaor liga-arra(sign-body),often known in English translations as the subtle body. Thepuruaitselfdoes not transmigrate; it only watches. Transmigration is compared to an

actor putting on different clothes and taking up many roles; it is determined


16/17

by the law of (efficient) cause and effect, known also as the law of karma(action).

The world, from the creator god Brahm down to a blade of glass is just acompound of such embodiedliga-arra-s. The gods are of eight kinds;animals are of five kinds and humans, significantly, belongs to one grouponly (suggesting an egalitarianism with respect to humans). Of course, thegods of Skhya are not classical Judeo-Christian-Muslim God; they are justextra-long-lived, perhaps very powerful beings within the empirical world,themselves compounds of matter and soul.

5. Liberation

Because Praktiis essentially changing, nothing is constant in the materialworld: everything decays and meets its destruction in the end. Therefore aslong as the transmigrating entity persists, the suffering of old age and deathis unavoidable.

The only way to fight suffering is to leave the circle of transmigration(sasra) for ever. This is the liberation ofpurua, in Skhya, normallycalled kaivalya(isolation). It comes about through loosening the bondbetween puruaand Prakti. This bond was originally produced by thecuriosity of the soul, and it is extremely strong because the ego identifies

our selves with our empirical state: the body and the more subtle organs,including the material psyche. Although puruais not actually bound by anyexternal force, it is an enchanted observer that cannot take his eyes off fromthe performance.

As all cognition is performed by the intellect for the soul, it is also theintellect that can recognize the very subtle distinctionbetween Praktiand purua. But first the effect of the ego must beneutralized, and this is done by a special kid of meditational praxis. Step bystep, starting from the lowest tattva-s, the material elements, and graduallyreaching the intellect itself, the follower of Skhya must practice as follows:

this constituent is not me; it is not mine; I am not this. When this hasbeen fully interiorized with regard to all forms ofPrakti, then arises theabsolutely pure knowledge of the metaphysical solitude ofpurua: itiskevala, (alone), without anything external-material belonging to it.

And as a dancer, after having performed, stops dancing, sodoes Prakticease to perform for an individualpuruawhen its task isaccomplished. She has always acted for thepurua, and as he is no longer

interested in her (I have seen her), she stops forever (I have alreadybeen seen)the given subtle body gets dissolved into the root-Prakti. This


17/17

happens only at death, for the gross body (like a potters wheel still turningalthough no longer impelled) due to causally determined karmic tendencies(saskra-s) goes on to operate for a little while.

Puruaenters into liberation, forever. Although puruaand Praktiarephysically as much in contact as beforeboth seem to be all-pervading inextensionthere is no purpose of a new start: puruahas experienced allthat it wanted.

6. References and Further Reading

Asiatische Studien / tudes Asiatiques53(1999): 457798.o Papers of an 1998 conference; allows a glimpse at the state of current researches.

Chakravarti, Pulinbihari: Origin and Development of the Smkhya System ofThought. Calcutta: Metropolitan Printing and Publishing House, 1951.

o A detailed account giving due weight to the Yukti-dpik. Chattopadhyaya, Debiprasad: Lokyata. A Study in Ancient Indian

Materialism.Delhi: Peoples Publishing House, 1959.o A highly unorthodox approach utilizing anthropological and even archeologicalsources to understand the origins of philosophical thought.

Kumar, Shiv: Smkhya Thought in the Brahmanical Systems of IndianPhilosophy. Delhi: Eastern Book Linkers, 1983.

o Looks at Skhya tradition from the outside, especially as it appears in Nyya andVednta. Larson, Gerald James. Classical Smkhya. An Interpretation of its History

and Meaning.Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1979.o The standard book on the Krikand a useful summary of its antecedents.

Larson, Gerald James, and Ram Shankar Bhattacharya, eds. Smkhya. ADualist Tradition in Indian Philosophy. Princeton: Princeton University Press,1987. (Vol. IV. inEncyclopedia of Indian Philosophies.)

o A good description of Skhya followed by summaries of practically all survivingworks.

Author Information

Ferenc RuzsaEmail:[email protected] Etvs Lornd UniversityHungary
mailto:[email protected]?subject=Your%20S%C4%81%E1%B9%85khya%20Articlemailto:[email protected]?subject=Your%20S%C4%81%E1%B9%85khya%20Articlemailto:[email protected]?subject=Your%20S%C4%81%E1%B9%85khya%20Articlemailto:[email protected]?subject=Your%20S%C4%81%E1%B9%85khya%20Article

resumen sāṅkhya

Documents