This essay will consider sāṃkhya darśhana, its origins and its theoretical systems which are the basis of the Sāṃkhyakārikā of Īśvarakṛṣṇa. It will look at how the āstika school of sāṃkhya presents methods of soteriology within both the Bhagavad Gītā and Sāṃkhyakārikā and will reflect on how the texts unravel the nature of the self through metaphysics. The essay will take in to account epistemology and how understanding sāṃkhya can give insight in to the uniqueness of both texts and how they reveal ways by which the soul may attain an immortal state with the cessation of the cycle of saṃsāra. It will also consider the idea of yoga detailed within the Bhagavad Gītā, being a practical application of the sāṃkhya philosophy of the Sāṃkhyakārikā.
The etymology of sāṃkhya is derived from the sanskrit word for number, Burley (2012 p37), asserts that it refers it to systematic enumeration and logical analysis.
Larson (2017 p3), aligns sāṃkhya with the term ’reason method’ and suggests an innate way to define soteriology is through the means of knowledge. Chakravati (1951), affirms this and states;
‘Śaṃkara within his commentary on Viṣṇu-sahasra-nāma quotes a verse from the Vyāsa-Smṛiti which defines Sāṃkhya to be the knowledge of the true nature of the self.’
Therefore, from this scholarly reasoning, sāmkhya can be regarded as a system of perfect knowledge and understanding. Sāmkhya, is however, a tradition of philosophical speculation, there is a hybrid of opinions on its origins and much has been written by scholars suggesting it was thought to have been founded during the vedic period by the sage Kapila, as an alternative method of soteriology to the vedic brahmanic sacrifices and rituals that were prevalent at the time (Chakravati 1951 p 5).
Kapila has also been attributed with compiling the Sāmkhya Sūtra, although, in actuality this work has been dated later (approximately 1400AD) throwing some confusion in to its authorship. In addition, Kapila is credited with teachings in The Purāna-s, including the Viṣṇu Purāna, yet, there is little definitive evidence as to who he was or if he really existed at all. Andrew Nicholson (2010, P75), states; ‘the historian of Indian philosophy can ignore Purānic Sāṃkhya only at his or her peril.’
Scholars have not always agreed on the roots of Sāṃkhya, Richard Garbe (1895, trans 1943), maintained that an atheistic and dualistic Kapila-Sāṃkhya was the ‘original’, ‘true’ Sāṃkhya, somewhat ignoring the darśhana’s early vedantic foundations.
Garbe also stated that the two grandest achievements of ancient India were its rational, atheistic Sāṃkhya philosophy and its devotional, monotheistic ‘Bhagavata (Krishnaism)’. religion although, Garbe does give acknowledgement that these two philosophies were connected (Dickstein 2010).
Arthur Keith (1918 p 7), evidences rudimentary elements of Sāṃkhya within the Upaniṣads, however, he also says that Sāṃkhya teachings ‘go radically’ beyond them.
Keith States that the first notions of Sāṃkhya can be found within the Chāndogya Upaniṣad. (in Larson 2017 p 30 1928).
‘Uddālaka instructs his son Śvetaketu about the origin of the elements and of man’
(Deusen Chāndogya v1-1-7 P86-89). Larson (2017 Ch 2), concours and indicates that Sāṃkhya is rooted in the vedic and upaniṣadic eras, although says that its construction and development took place after the oldest upaniṣads had already been composed. Burley (2012 p37), suggests Sāṃkhya is not necessarily vedic or non-vedic or a ‘reaction to Brahmanic hegemony.’ He considers that it was a system evolved from a combination of sources stemming from ascetic traditions. Burley (2012 p37), evidences strong links between yoga and Sāṃkhya in the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad.
‘The first known mention of sāmkhya and yoga together occurs at Śvetāśvatara 6.13’
Here the systems of yoga and Sāṃkhya are described as being equally important for soteriology. It can be said that Sāṃkhya represents the theory of the philosophy and yoga the application. However, at this point within Sāṃkhya’s history the verses of the Upaniṣads are strongly theistic following the philosophy of vedanta which was widespread during this pre- classical period.
Sāṃkhya theories are developed further within the Māhābarāta and The Bhagavad Gītā, where, in the latter Kṛṣṇa uses the concepts of sāṃkhya philosophy in his discourse with Arjuna. Elements of the philosophy that are evident in the Bhagavad Gītā are later codified by Īśvara Kṛṣṇa within the Sāṃkhyakārikā in approximately 200 AD. (This comes at a similar time to the compilation of the Pātañjalayogaśāstra). In the Sāṃkhyakārikā metaphysical elements are broken down in to tattvas (elements of reality) and the darśhana is developed. The objective of the philosophical teachings is to lead the aspirant toward the ultimate dissolution of puruṣa from prakṛti.
The Sāṁkhyakārikā is a soteriological text, concerned with the pursuit of salvation from suffering, including sin, ignorance and pain with the ultimate aim of the cessation of transmigration (Larson p155). The Bhagavad Gītā also focuses on attaining salvation through divine knowledge and devotion through action. Like the Sāṃkhyakārikā, it too considers the concept of metaphysics however, the text remains theistic, with the ultimate aim of the individual soul (jīva) being recognised and reunited with the Paramātmāṇ or Brahman with the dissolution of the soul from prakṛti.
There is an obvious dualism here, within the Bhagavad Gītā with the notion of both Jīva and Ātman which follows similar doctrines to Sāṃkhya, however, Johannes Bronkhorst (1983), states that
‘The Kārikā is silent about God.’
Bronkhorst also considers that although ‘The Sāṃkhyakārikā does not speak a word about God, by its silence does it does not deny His existence’ (Bronkhorst 1983 p6)
It is within the second chapter of the Bhagavad Gītā that Kṛṣṇa introduces the elements of sāṃkhya and gives Arjuna teachings on the imperishable nature of Puruṣa.
‘The self is not born, nor does it ever die’ (Patton, BG Ch 2 v 20).
In this chapter Kṛṣṇa considers the tattvas of prakṛti, including body, senses mind, ego and intelligence.
Both the Sāṁkhyakārikā and the Bhagavad Gītā consider the tattvas and how they are affected by the gunas, the innate qualities of the material world. Although as Chakravati (1951 p59) states;
‘the Gītā maintains the gunas are products of the prakṛti, whereas classical Sāṃkhya holds them as its constituents’
This is likely due to the theistic, soteriological Gītā, with the doctrine that everything comes from God including prakṛti.
The metaphysical elements of Sāṃkhya are many and the structure of these elements is the backbone of the philosophy. The Sāṁkhyakārikā gives a logical breakdown of this dualist system with puruṣa as the uncreated, unchanging indestructible principle that is conscious and eternal. Maliner (in Frazer 2011), states that it is Puruṣa that breathes life in to prakṛti and Frazier (2011 p85), states that creation is initiated because Puruṣa, although devoid of any activity misidentifies as being an energetic force.
‘Puruṣa mistakes himself as being active and full of potential when he becomes connected to the other eternal ontological principle, prakṛti.’
Larson (2017 p11), concours suggesting that matter evolves when prakṛti is illuminated by Puruṣa, and The Sāṃkhyakārikā (verse xx) states;
‘The unconsciousness one appears as if characterized by consciousness. Similarly, the indifferent one appears as if characterised by activity, because of the activity of the gunas’
Although both principles of puruṣa and prakṛti are unchanging, once puruṣa has shone a light on prakṛti the conditions for the emanation of the tattvas is conceived. The Sāṁkhyakārikā (XX1), likens this to the analogy of the mutual co-dependency of the blind man and the lame man, the conjunction of the two is for the purpose of seeing and realising primordial nature with the objective of the isolation and liberation (kaivalya) of the puruṣa from prakṛti.
Larson (p10), expounds that many of the Sāṃkhya principles are imperceptible and suggests that within the Sāṃkhyakārikā the basis of valid knowledge (pramāṇa) is considered to be threefold, the darśana has to rely on inference (anumāna) and reliable and hermeneutical testimony (ādhyātmika), particularly from its own teachers. Burley (p78) states that the third means of validity is Perception (dṛṣṭa), and highlights that this concept of perception is also a means of valid cognition within The Pātañjalayogaśāstra. Dṛṣṭa means ‘seer’ and is synonymous with puruṣa within both texts. Burley continues, by stating that the purpose of the manifestation of Prakṛti is to enable ‘purusha’s enjoyment or ‘seeing’ Prakṛti on one hand, and its ‘liberation on the other’ (YS 2.18; SK: 21).
It is through the aforementioned gunas (the three strands or qualities of matter), that the material world is formulated through the manifestation of Prakṛti. The gunas are said to be constituents that are present in all materiality. Burley (p74), suggests that it is due to the proximity of puruṣa to prakṛti that the gunas become disturbed and this presence can be regarded as a catalyst for the development of materiality. The gunas are considered as threefold, sattva, rajas and tamas. In the Sāṃkhyakārikā V:13 sattva is said to be buoyant, shining, light and illuminating. Rajas is considered to be stimulating and moving and tamas heavy and enveloping (tra Larson 2017 and Burley 2012).
Within the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (Ch 4; V 1-4), the notion of prakṛti and puruṣa (here puruṣa as the vedantic Brahman) are considered by attributing colours to them. Brahman is ‘devoid of colour,’ however, specific aspects of matter are defined as red white or black. Gordon White (p76) attaches red to rajas, black to tamas and white to sattva.
Burley (2012 p101), states that G. Feuerstein considers that the gunas appear to denote material particles, however Burley disagrees and suggests that they are more akin to the properties of nature and have emotive qualities including gladness, perturbation and stupefaction as depicted within the Sāṃkhyakārikā (V: x11).
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
In the fourteenth chapter of the Bhagavad Gītā, Kṛṣṇa teaches Arjuna about the aspects of these three gunas and states that;
‘They bind the embodied, imperishable one within the body’ (BG 14:5).
Kṛṣṇa in his advisory role to Arjuna deconstructs the qualities of the gunas, which later, clearly provide Īśvarakṛṣṇa with some of the foundations to codify Sāṃkhya darśhana. Kṛṣṇa tells Arjuna that rajas, has the nature of passion, lust and action. Tamas is ignorance laziness and confusion and sattva, stainless, light and connected to joy and wisdom. Kṛṣṇa, then informs Arjuna that salvation is attained through a sattvic state.
‘When sattva has grown strong, the embodied one goes to dissolution; then enters the stainless realms of those who know the highest’ (Patton BG 14 14 p 158)
Kṛṣṇa continues with his soteriological discourse and informs Arjuna that on transcending the three gunas ‘one reaches eternity and is free from sorrow, old age, death and birth’, (BG 14 v 20). Arjuna is keen to know what he needs to do to attain immortality, Kṛṣṇa advises him to practice Bhakti yoga (Sargeant, BG 9 v 34), the yoga of devotion to God. Yoga being a practical application of Sāṃkhya philosophy.
Within the Bhagavad Gītā the supreme element is God (26th tattva), and it is through the unification with the divine that salvation is found (BG 9:32). within the Sāṃkhyakārikā God is not part of the methodology. The tattvas form a metaphysical template for the creation and constitution of visible bodies as depicted within The Sāṃkhyakārikā, consisting of a set of twenty- five tattvas, 23 are non-eternal, however, puruṣa and prakriti as discussed above are eternal and changeless.
Bronkhorst (1994 p7), states ‘Sāṃkhya views the world as a continuous series of modifications of substrates which do not lose their essence’.
These modifications or changes (pariṇāma), of the 23 tattvas are apparent within the ontological order in which the structure of reality evolves. The primary substrate is the unconscious, engaged principle of prakṛti. From prakṛti, the mind complex evolves, consisting of Buddhi (intelligence), followed by ahaṃkāra (ego) and then manas the mundane mind. Out of this arises four specific tattva groups, the five sense capacities or tanmātras, consisting of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching. The action capacities (karmendriyas) which are speaking, clasping, walking, excreting, and reproduction. The subtle elements or Jāñanendrias comprising of sound, tactile feeling, visible form, flavour and odour. The gross elements or māhabhūtas, are, earth, water, fire, air and space. This doctrine of emanation depicts progression and a logical reasoning on the nature and configuration of reality, it can be understood as an account of cosmic evolution or as a transcendental analysis of factors involved in experience, or as an examination of the tangible human constitution. Sāṃkhya is presenting the engagement of materiality at the grossest levels, with the soteriological aim of involution, working back through the evoloutes until prakṛti itself is reached. It is only at this point that there can be a dissolution of the material self from puruṣa.
Unlike the non-theistic Sāṃkhyakārikā, within the Bhagavad Gītā Kṛṣṇa tells Arjuna that eight prakṛtis are attributes of God; (BG 7.4)
‘My prakṛtis are eightfold: earth, water, fire, wind, space, manas, buddhi, ahamkāra’
Kṛṣṇa describes the physical body and Ātman, he states that the physical Body consists of mahābhūtas, ahaṃkāra buddhi, avyakta, eleven organs, and the objects of organs. (BG 13:5) Although there are clearly similarities here between the Bhagavad Gītā and the Sāṃkhyakārikā the inclusion of God, highlights the differences in the metaphysics and values within the two texts.
As considered above, The Sāṃkhyakārikā details the soteriological purpose of sāṃkhya darśhana as the ultimate liberation of mankind from duḥkha, which as Larson (2017 p155), states are threefold, external, (ādhibhautika) personal (ādhyātmika) and supernatural (ādhidaivka) This release from that which clouds the mind, and binds the mortal body is salvation.
‘Intuitive discrimination of the knower’ is the only method of achieving this end.
(Larson p 156 SK:11)
Like the Sāṃkhyakārikā, release from suffering to attain salvation and thus immortality are also prevalent teachings within in the Bhagavad Gītā. It is here, that Kṛṣṇa teaches Arjuna that attaining salvation through Sāṃkhya is inseparable from the practice of yoga. Kṛṣṇa informs Arjuna that without yoga renunciation is hard to achieve (Patton BG 5:6).
Kṛṣṇa also states that
‘Those, who practise yoga, reach the place attained by those who practise Sāṃkhya’ (Patton BG 5.5).
Kṛṣṇa teaches Arjuna that for those who follow the Sāṃkhya path they can attain salvation through knowledge and for those who practice yoga, soteriology is attained via action.
(Patton BG 2.3).
It is clearly evident that Kṛṣṇa holds both Sāṃkhya and yoga in very high esteem, and that the two work in conjunction with each other.
‘He who sees that Sāṃkhya and yoga are one, he truly sees’ (BhG 5.4-5).
Kṛṣṇa continues his explanations to Arjuna and sates that it is through bhakti yoga or devotional knowledge, that one can, by winning the grace of God, attain salvation, release from rebirth and enjoy liberation and eternal bliss (BG Ch 12).
This clear affiliation between Sāṃkhya and yoga is also apparent in the Śāntiparvan, the twelfth book of the Mahābhārata.
‘There is no knowledge equal to Sāṃkhya, there is no power equal to Yoga; both of them are the same path’ (12.304.12-13).
It is an important consideration here not to separate the two philosophies of sāṃkhya and yoga, as it is not until the classical period that they are regarded as two different schools of philosophical thought. It is at this point, that the focus for Sāmkhya is metaphysical enumeration, providing the psycho-physical map for a corresponding means of practice. This corresponding means of practice including meditation on specific, object, idea or principle is yoga.
In conclusion we are informed that the Bhagavad Gītā attests that Sāṃkhya and yoga are the same and it is through the practice of the yoga-s of the Bhagavad Gītā that salvation can be achieved. Within both sāṃkhya and yoga, the removal of ignorance (avidyā) is the catalyst of liberation from the cycle of birth and re-birth, with sāṃkhya being the theoretical concept and yoga the methodology.
The Sāṃkhyakārikā teaches that a ‘God’ of any type is not essential for soteriology, the achievement of mokṣa or kaivalya, can be ultimately achieved through absolute knowledge and once puruṣa recognises prakṛti, there can be a dissolution between the two.
‘As a dancer ceases from the dance after having been seen by the audience; so also, prakṛti ceases after having manifested herself to the Puruṣa’
(Larson SK V 61)
Chakravati (p324) states that puruṣa comes to realise that
‘nothing in the world of prakriti belongs to him and he is distinct from prakṛti’
This realisation gives rise to an illuminated state where good and bad karma cease to operate. However, even when this knowledge and dissolution has been attained the physical body and prakṛti can still function for a period of time so that the person can be a guide to those in his wake.
‘such a state is necessary for imparting perfect wisdom to the seeking disciple. The person who has attained this state is really fit to be a spiritual guide’ (Chakravati p325)
Chakravati (p325) states that when no traces of karma are left upon the Buddhi, it is only at that point release from transmigration is reached and salvation is attained.
Both the Bhagavad Gītā and the Sāṃkhyakārikā are soteriological texts, one being theistic the other non- theistic, yet for both the aim is to remove the human condition of suffering and to guide the aspirant towards the soteriological aim of the final cessation of and liberation from the cycle of saṃsāra.
Stuck on your essay?
