Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
But the common feature of all of them is that none of these schools has faith n
established by the time of the flourishing of the Sramana schools, 500 B.(
Among the orthodox schools of Indian Philosophy, the Sankhya and the
sahkhya) since it does not uphold God as the creator, and therebx it is
distinguished from the Yoga which is called the 'Theistic Sankhya' (Sesutr.i-
Sahkhya).
As we come across that the Vedas are the fountainhead of all forms <>i
Hinduism and they are mostly God-oriented. The Vedas regard Him as I'm.
(Agni), the Majestic (Indra). the terrible (Rudra) and the just (Varunai
the transcendent Being, ever free and ever the Lord ' 1 and this consciousness
Contrary to this stand, however in the Vedic hymns itself, we find sonu
passages which refer to heretics and unbelievers. They evidently were tin
pioneers o f the revolt against the natural religion and as such fore fathers o'
Indian Philosophy. The origin o f naturalist and skeptic thought can be found ti.
the Rg Veda itself, for instance the creation hymn" which concludes the
dialogue between the parents o f mankingjt- the twin brother and sister. Yam.i
and Yami. This thought was also developed in some o f the major IJpanisads.
Kapila, the founder o f this school while fighting against the nihilistic
tendencies came very close to materialism. He had to prove the reality o f some
and as a result Kapila had to fall back upon the material world. But the late
Sankhyas e.g. Vijnlnviksu, in the Sixteenth century tried to revive the earlier
theism in Sankhya. The first available work of the Sankhya school is the
Sankhya-Sutra' of Kapila.
wrote some books which aimed at a clear and elaborate exposition of the
Sankhya system. As these works were lost in course of time, only available
Sankhya System.
human nature enumerating and defining its elements analyzing their manner of
distinct from each other, yet anyone firmly established in either gains the fruit
of both.
(118)
monads (purusa) and matter (Prakrti). (2) that matter (Prakrti) though
itself, under three distinctly differentiated aspects (the so called gunas) which
are comparable to the three stands of a rope and (3) that every one of the life
The Sankhya upholds the theory of Sat Karyavada. Prakrti being the,
primal cause, though unintelligent and Purusa, being the self conscious the
teleological evolution starts, the different gross and subtle evolutes arise in the
process.
These ideas do not belong to the original stock of the Vedic Brahman k
teachings of the Sankhya. The Sankhya system along with its allied system tin
yoga related to the mechanical system of the Jainas. The Sankhya System is
therefore, traced back its origin in the Upanisads and in the Bhagvad-Gita.
of the doctrines of other people, and excluding the parables attached to the
Kapila, was regarded as semi-mythical holy man who stands outside the
the Mahabharata.5
Kapila and others also maintain a clear cut dualism between Purusa and
Prakrti. Purusa like Aristotle's God is the "sour, "self, 'the spirit', the
5. Mahabharata 3.107
Qtd. in Philosophies of India Zimmer P. 282
( 120)
It is neither body nor senses nor brain, nor mind (manas) nor ego
objects. All worldly effects are latent in this uncaused cause, it is the first
called Jada. In the Sankhya philosophy, the world process is described b\ the
purusa - Prakrti (soul and Nature) instead of God. In Zoroastrianism, like the
two warring principles struggle and in their struggle is grounded the drama of
cosmic life and human history. Here, one is the principle of light, justice and
good, and the other is the principle of darkness, injustice and evil. The battle
between these two is decided by the victory of the good. Before the triumph of
light over darkness is complete, the universe and mankind must pass through
6. Religion 7 Culture
Radhakrishnan
P.P. 35, 36
( 121)
In Sankhya philosophy also, the life monad also known as Purusa, man,
atman, self is the living entity concealed behind and within all the
Just in the Jainism, here also the number of life monads (JTvas) in the
regarded as totally different from that of the life less matter (Prakrti) in
which they are engulfed. They are termed Spiritual (cit. citi, cetana, caitanya)
and are said to be of the nature of sheer, self effulgent light (prahhasa) . *7
Within each individual, the self luminous purusa, atman or pums illuminates
all the processes of gross and subtle matter - the processes that is to say of
both life and consciousness - as these develop within organism, yet this life
an absolute spirit as well as its doctrine of the relation of avidya and the souls
means that there is no other powerful man than God and it limits Gods power
and his power becomes finite. So if God exists, Nature has dependent and
created existence, for if it exists in its right, it limits Gods power. Therefore,
interest of truth to reject the equivalence of Nature and God and proceeded to
for it and the invariable precondition for the inference would be the perception
of an invariable relation between that probans and God. But since God is never
perceived, the perception of such an invariable relation between Him and the
imagine that there can be ^ inferential proof for the existence of God.
9
Qtd. In Ind. Atheism
D P C
P - ^ '3
( 123)
The Sankhya philosophers who repudiate the existence of God give the
He is free, He will not create this world of pain and misery. Either God is
Law of Karma, He is not free; if not He is a tyrant. Again, God being pure
knowledge, this material world cannot spring from Him. The effects are
implicitly contained in their cause and the material world, which is subject to
and immutable God. Again, the eternal existence of the Purusas is inconsistent
with God. If they are the parts of God, they must have some divine power. If
they are created by God, they are subject to destruction. Hence there is no
God .10
maintained that Gods existence cannot be proved by logical evidence. But the
real merit of his philosophy is the recognition of the objective reality of the
physical world.
contradictory (to its reality), and because it is not the (false) result of dcpra\cd
consciousness, there are subtle, elements, sense organs and 'gross clement',
evolution is set on its head, the realities however are derived inducti\el\
from the immediately perceptible gross elements. The existence of the subtle
elements' (Sound, colour, touch, taste and small) is inferred from the gross
elements' which are directly perceptible. The process is traced to the primal
reduces the gross elements' to atoms, but Kapila traces a simpler, all
pervading substance the severally existing atoms down to a still simpler all
rejecting materialism.
Slnkhya, nature is not only eternal, but self operative. Thus, Nature is the
Final Cause. Since mind and self-consciousness are placed within the scheme
o f nature, they are included in the materialistic system. Only the soul stands
for explaining the being and becoming of the world. The existence of nature is
inferred from its perceptible phenomena, these are real, they must have a real
cause. Those ultimate elements are called in the Vaisesika. and Nyaya systems,
atoms.
souls are purely empirical. They do no have the least tendency to prove the
parts of the natural order i.e. empirical in original, character and content.
life o f that period was occupied by the Sahkhya system of Kapila. He being
engage itself in producing effects like mahat (i.e. the first evolute o f the
But in reply it can be said that there is instance in which we can sec
may engage itself to serve some purpose e.g. the unconscious milk How s lor
the nourishment of the calf, also the unconscious water flows lor the benefit
of the world. Similarly, prakrti, though unconscious, will act for the liberation
of the purusa.
Vataspati Misra. 14
Madhava and Vaeaspati Misra agreed that the primeval matter, moved by the
and development of the world. The self sufficiency of the principle of Prakrit
and water taken by the cow, naturally got themselves transformed into milk
that nourishes the calf. So, was the process of the transformation of primeval
matter into the world or the evolution of the world from the primeval matter.
world. 15 .
The theists claim that Gods existence was proved by His being the
15. Ibid
P 81
16. V ijn a n a v ik s u
O n S a n k h y a -S u t r a , V . 1
Q td . in Ib id
P .8 9
( 128) -
the fruits of actions is not due to the superintendence of God, because that is
The Sahkhya Philosophers further ask the theists how far the idea of
maintains that they came to the reasoned conclusion that it had none in as
The theists maintain that on the one hand God had to create the pre
condition for pain and suffering and on the other God is also moved by the
Madhava and Vacaspati Misra agree. But significantly they both were not
in defending theism.
17 Sankhya Sfflrav II
Ibid
P.89
( 129)
Isvara- The Sankhya teachers have said - "How can things endowed wi l l
The Nyaya Vaisesika and the Sankhya held that perception is a means
temporal. The Sankhya Sutra on this point felt obliged to deny God but the
later Naiyayikas never saw any antagonism between those points and then
P. 84
v
( 130)
In the fifth chapter of the Sankhya Stltra we find the polemic and
logical refutation of the theistic assumption. In first, third and the sixth
He argued that the denial of God was not to be confused with the denial of
the possibility of the theoretical proof for His existence. He in the same spirit
showed that it was designed simply to deny the possibility of proving God and
maintain that both these expression Because God is unproved and Because
In order Says Garbe, to bridge over the chasm between the Sankhya
fundamental doctrines of the genuine Sankhya, which is the denial of God 21.
Sankhya. This is proved by his own remarks in his Sahkhya pravacana bhffsya,
more with the views of the Sankhya doctrine of the Puranas, where both the
diverse purusas and the prakrti are said to be merged in the end in Isvara, by
whose will the creative process again began in the prakrti at the end of each
rational explanation, that it could explain all facts without the intervention of
God or Isvara and Vijnanaviksu could not do away with such atheistic
explanations.
explanation of the gunas as being of the nature of pleasure, pain and dullness
idea of God whose very existence cannot be proved. The God is the creator,
but he has no origin. If it is admitted that there must be a creator and ruler ol
the world, then there arises the question - who created the creator? Whence
did He come? The creator is said to be without beginning and w ithout end.
without any limit. But after all, he is a creator, which implies a personalitx on
his part. The God is indeed, considered to be the creator. But a person cannot
be without beginning and end and other limits. If the God is limited then, is t
not possible that there may exist a power over and above. Him? The God is
believed to be all powerful and all-pervading. But these attributes of the God
cease to be what they are believed to be, as soon as they are imagined by man
Thus, the essence of the God, the creator, disappears. Then, it is taught that
desire is the cause of creation. From this, it follows that God Himself is not
2 3 . M a te r ia lis m M . N R o y 1 0 5
( 133)
Further, if the universe is created by the will of God, then God Himself must
have the feeling of want, for wish grows out of want. The feeling of want
ascribed to God.
or better known as the Purva Mfmamsa school, we do not find any mention of
God or Supreme Being in the process of creation just like the SaAkhya.
This school was the outcome of ritualistic side of the Vedic culture just
speculative side. The mimamsa school helps and support ritualism (a) by
The Buddhists, Jainas and the CHrvakas challenge the authority of the
Vedas. The reality of the world and the existence of soul are denied by some
Buddhists. Some Upanisads disparage the idea that heaven is the goal of man
and rituals are the best possible human activities. The Mimamsa tries to meet
all such criticisms and upholds the original faith underlying ritualism.
( 134)
Jaimini 24, as the founder of the Mtmamsa school and also author of the
Mfmamsa-Stltra was held high by Badaranya, himself who has his distaste for
thrives on the Vedas, draws its entire intellectual nourishment from the Vedas
and in its major part, intends to be nothing more than the effort to settle the
Karma Mffnamsa puts it rather mildly, the atheism of the true MfmamSa is
across in the Mimamsa literature are practically the same as found in the
writings of the Buddhists and the Jainas, though as it is well known from the
point o f view o f Vedic Orthodoxy, the Mimamsakas were the most determined
opponents of the Buddhists and the Jainas. Thus, not withstanding all the
mutual differences between the Buddhists, Jainas and the Mimamsakas, there
could have been some kind of free exchange of ideas among these
philosophers is so far as they all belonged to the some fraternity of the Indian
atheists.27
Both commented on Sabarabhasya. Apart from his major work called the
prominent authors of the Mimamsa system are Mandana Misra, Partha Sara!In
of the external world and of the individual souls. They believe in the l aw <!
Karma, in Unseen Power (Apurba), in heaven and hell, in liberation and in the
and the mention of the deity secondary. The performance of the ritual act
generates the apurva and this apurva ultimately leads to the result designed
existence. However Sahara shows in Vedic deities and also the Mtmamsa
thesis that these were nothing more than the words used in the V e d a -,
But later Mimamsakas accepted Saharas views but later on being confronted
with the attack from the theists they could not stand Saharas rejection of God.
Both Prabhakara and Kumarila with all their mutual differences, elaborately
The Mimamsakas give priority to ritual performance i.e. yajna, not the
1 *
devas. Those who desire heaven (in the sense of pleasure) should perform the
instrumentality of the yajna itself and not of the devas in producing the fruit.
This fruit or result is the real purusartha or that which is the aim of man and it
is mans endeavour for the sake of Purusartha and not of the deity.30
But the question arises how the performance of the ritual directly
generates the apurva? Sahara answers that this is proved by verbal testimony
i.e. specifically the Vedas. The knowledge that anything gives fruit i.e. any
inducing agent gives a partieularfruit, arises from verbal testimony and not
Nyaya Vaisesikas proof for the existence of God. The later Buddhists and
Jainas were also concerned with the refutation of NySya Vaisesikas proof for
God as their brother atheists were. They felt bothered by a special problem
and the Jainas. This followed from their attitude to the Vedas. While the
Buddhists and. the Jainas were interested in the Vedas at best negatively i.e.
only in the sense of rejecting their validity - the Mimamsakas were utmost
serious about the authoritativeness of the Vedas. And the Vedas, atleast as
apparently understood, were full of all sorts of gods or devas. They were Agni,
Indra, Mitra, Varuna etc. How then were the Mimamsakas to look at the Vedic
Gods? Were they to reject the ideas of one God in favour of a multitude of
whether the vedic gods have anything to do with the human lot, with ritual
actions and their results, whether these gods have any real or substantive
existence!
But he came to the conclusion that these gods could have no existence
in the real sense of the term. Sahara, therefore, answered that in the Vedas
these stood for mere sounds or words i.e. the only existence which the Vedic
gods had was purely verbal. The so called gods Mitra, Varuna.etc. were not
It followed from this that from the Mimamsa point of view there was no
possibility of any interference by these Vedic gods with human lot. They had
nothing to do with the results of human actions. Hence there was no sense in
existence, these gods could not accept any offering not could they feel pleased
with these.
die book. The cultural Heritage of India Thus, the Mimamsa, Buddhism and
the Jainism together establish firmly the self-sufficiency of the moral law and
lay the basis for classical doctrine of Karma according to which moral action
produced their own fruits without reference to any kind of divine dispensation.
The great difficulty arose out of the logical impossibility of reconciling self
sufficiency of moral law with omnipotence of God. Once the self sufficiency
God as the creator of the world, the Prabhakaras along with the Bhattas argued
that the idea of creation itself was a myth. Experience Prabhakara urges show
us the bodies of all animals being produced by purely natural means, we can
argue hence to the facts of the past and the future, and need invoke no
extraneous aid. 33
existents or beings to every new existent comes into being as the result of the
action of some immutable process of Nature, and again when any existent
of Nature. By the immutable law o f Nature, he means that the same set of
conditions produce the same effect. He, therefore, to put in the words of B.
universe but he admits that the universe is made of components' parts. But he
rejects the view that the universe has had a beginning at any particular point
of time or that it would come to an end at any particular point of time. But in
mundane or Gods interference in the merit and demerit (dharma and adharma)
of the individual souls resulting from their past actions. According to him
dharma and adharma must belong to the same individual to whom itself the
intelligent he might be. God could have no knowledge of the dharma and
adharma of the being that is bom as man or animal etc, and without such
conclusion that the relation between God and the destiny (dharma - adharma)
The two relations samyoga and samavaya could not be maintained. Sanm;i
(conjunction) is possible only between the substances but the Nyaya Vaisesika
intelligent cause of the world also means Him as the exclusive sole - sufficient
of the individuals.
In this sense, the upholder must admit that God existed before the
creation of everything. But what was the time, place and condition of the
universe when God existed before creation, the theists cannot give suitable
reply.
Again, the theists had to admit that the creator either possesses a bod\
or he does not. In both the cases difficulty arises, because if God is without i
body, he cannot have any desire or wish to create the world, and if He is with
a body, he had to face all troublesome questions the answers of w hich are not
satisfactory.
(14 3 )
If God creates the world with a desire the question arises why he should create
a world M l of evils?
God? The theists reply just as the spider could create something without any
external material, God also creates out of nothing. But Kumarila argues Even
the production of the spiders net is not to be viewed as being without any
material basis, the net is produced by the saliva which in its turn, is produced
The theists claim that some amounts of pain or evil were indispensable
for the creation of the world. To this kumarila argues, God being viewed as
omnipotent, some amount of evil was indispensable for creation could not be a
binding on Him. If it is a binding on Him, the theists could not claim Gods
omnipotence.
Kumarila further attacks the theists point of God as an all perfect being.
If God creates the world, what is the purpose behind His creation of this
world? But the theists reply of Gods compassion or pity to create the world
Badarayana replies that God creates the world out of Sport or Lila. The
kings engage themselves in the act of hunting not to satisfy specific want but
because it is a mere pastime for them. Children fond to play for having the
Kumarila points - If the activity of the creator were due to a desire for
mere amusement, that would go against His ever contentedness. And (instead
o f affording any amusement) the great amount of work (required for creation)
would be a source of infinite trouble for Him. And His desire to destroy the
world (at the time of Pralaya or Periodic cosmic, dissolution) would be hardly
explicable. 36
passing away. 37
position of the theists argued that the Vedic passages apparently referring God
and His creation were not to be taken as actual evidences for the existence of
God.
misunderstood. For the Vedantic theists the strongest proofs for the existence
dissolution like its theological counterpart creation hardly made any sense.38
of God. But Kumarilas refutation covered three parts. First, the refutation of
comments, The Locuna of the Purva Mfmamsa was so unsatisfactory that the
Apadeva etc. Of these two, the former produced a strange work called the
Ses'vara MnnamsS-or Mlmamsa with God while latter advanced the thesis -
also strange from the Mimamsa point of view - that during the time of the
universal dissolution (pralaya) the Vedas remained and retained in the memory
of God.
Apadevas theory that God retained the Vedas during the timt, of
pralaya could be advanced only in complete disregard of the older and the
conception of pralaya, like that of srsti or creation, was only a figment of the
hundred million of gods as the authority of anybody. The glory of man is that
identity of. the individual who must not let himself be submerged by any
philosophy.
4 1 . S w a m i V iv e k a n d a s V e d a n t ic S o c ia lis m -
R . K . D a s G u p ta
P 50