Philosophy - A Synoptic
View
By Prof. M.L.
Koul
PART I
Be it said in all fairness that philosophy in
India did not begin as an independent segment of
human investigation. It actually overlapped with
religion which to a large extent concealed it
under a covering of myths and credos but never
hampered it from assuming its bold contours. As
is well known, India is a land of multiple and
multiform religions that have all long sought
support and succour from philosophy to buttress
and fortify their essential doctrines and
positions. This link between philosophy and
religion, not in any way tenuous, resulted in
generating new taxonomies of ideas and concepts
that enriched the content of religions and also
provided a nisus to the process of weaving the
warp and woof of systematic thought models. The
close inter-relationship between philosophy and
religion in India is in no way a matter of
weakness on part of Indian philosophy. In
reality, the culture and civilization of India,
on the whole, have the inspiration of religions
behind them and religions have the inspiration
and energy of philosophy behind them. To the
Western mind, this weltans chung appears to be
an anathema and that is how scholars in the west
are misled into wrong assessments about the
nature of the Indian philosophy. Thinkers in the
west are fed and nourished by the Green thought,
which in its broad essentials was based on the
pedestal of rationalism. Their absolute
commitment to reason deters them from placing
the Indian thought structure in the category of
philosophy. Their categorization of the Indian
philosophy is that of religious philosophy in
letter and spirit. Karl Potter an eminent
scholar of Indian philosophy, is of the view
that all systems of Indian philosophy are
goal-oriented and hence they be evaluated by
standards peculiar to them, certainly not
conforming to the standards applicable to
philosophy in the west. But objectively
speaking, the nature of philosophy in India is
not different from that of the philosophy in the
west. The Indian philosophers have never
repudiated reason, never sealed discussions on
the nature of Reality, never taken well-founded
beliefs at their face value and never stopped
from asking questions about the universe and the
real meaning of human existence. True as it is,
the Indian thinkers were not mere theoreticians,
but, for them, philosophy as view of life was
inseparable from philosophy as way of life.
Winternitz, colebrook, Neitzehe, Scholpanhauer
and many other orientalists had an appreciative
understanding of the Indian cultural ethos and
their evaluations of the entire corpus of the
Indian literature in general and philosophy in
particular are more objective and precious than
those that verge on pre-occupied opinions. As in
the west, so in India, philosophers were in
quest for the ultimate truth and the systems
they have structured are as coherent and
well-knit as many other systems in the west.
Indian thinking is the product of its own milieu
and it has to be evaluated as it is. Indian
philosophers loved wisdom or sophia, evined a
keen curiosity to plumb the depths of atman and
its nexus with the world that evolves. The total
spectrum of thought processes leads us to
believe that Indian thinkers were motivated by
an intellectual quest for goals that were
metaphysical and spiritual in essence and for
practical realisation of truth. The vedic and
upanishade visionaries from Uddalak, Yajn-avalak,
Kapil, Kanad, Patanjali to sankar and off the
beat thinkers like Buddha and Mahavir and others
possess all the credentials for entry into the
famed hall of pre-eminent thinkers.
Religions in India were far from being rigid and
dogmatic. They had no set codes to reduce vast
numbers of Indian masses to the sheer position
of obedience and conformity. They had intrinsic
proclivity to allow openness and variety of
thinking that led to the formation of a broad
mosaic in which each thread of thought merged on
the pattern but at the same time stood out of it
to attract attention. From a bird's eye view of
the broad mosaic of Indian culture, one gathers
the idea of a key role that tradition has played
in preserving age-old religious mores and also
in assimilating any new model of philosophy and
enquiry within its ambit and perpetuating its
bonds with centuries old thought process without
hampering such an enquiry from burgeoning into
an independent philosophical thinking. The close
nexus the religions in India had with philosophy
desisted them in a large measure from ossifying
into rigid and lifeless dogmas and tradition
cemented the bond between the two without
playing the negative role of stunning and
stultifying the growth of either of them.
Numerous thought proceses with varied approaches
and premises to essential problems of life and
world have come into being in India and
tradition deep-rooted as it has cemented their
links with the essential genius of India.
Tradition elsewhere has proved reactionary and
retrogressive by way of discouraging and even
suppressing new trends of thought, but in the
Indian cultural model, it has not worked fetters
on the wings of speculative thought. Instead it
has aided all stirrings in the minds of men
towards new horizons of thinking by way of
raising a corpus of questions regarding man's
existence and the world where he held his being.
To hold that tradition in India was always
healthy and positive certainly smacks of
conservatism and parochialism. But what is
significant about India is the growth of
regenerative and assimilative movements after
every crisis caused by the choking impact of
tradition at a time when it proved a hurdle in
the development of new thinking processes.
Various systems of philosophy that had their
genesis and growth in India are essentially
rooted in the empirical experience but most of
the systems ultimately find their apogy in
transcendentalism. In fact, empirical data and
observable facts have been culled and gleaned
and utilized as 'building blocks' to structure
and construct these transcendental systems. The
philosophers in India are in no way contented
with the mere analytical explanations of the
world process and the mass of data provided by
them to the human senses, but they have posed
the essential hypothesis of absolute Reality as
the creator, defender and supporter of the
world. In fact, thinkers in India by and large
have a 'metaphysical hunger' to know and
understand what lies beyond the ‘elusive and
mysterious veil of nature'. They have offered a
concept of absolute Reality which is a
changeless principle, infinite and beyond the
precincts of temporality. Most systems of Indian
philosophy pose, discuss and explain the concept
of absolute Reality from their own positions.
In fact, these systems are 'insights' affording
man ‘sight of the sensible verities’ enabling
'him to understand in the light of reason the
super-sensible truth". The systems, in fine,
afford a mine of debate and discussion of
Reality, which is generally believed to be one
of the essential functions of philosophy.
To
distinguish between 'Reality' and 'appearance'
is one of the commonplace functions of Indian
philosophy. Reality is immutable and is the
uncaused cause of appearances. Reality in
Advait-vedanta is pure, untouched and undefined
by appearances. Brahman as Reality in Vedanta is
transcendental. But Paramsiva in 'Saivadvaya
philosophy of Kashmir is both transcendental and
immanent Reality. Brahmana is Sat, cit and anand,
away from the gross impurities and defilements
of the world of Maya, but Paramsiva is directly
involved in the cosmic process. The nexus
between reality and appearances have been
discussed and analysed from dualistic,
dual-cum-non-dualistic and non-dualistic stand
points. Reality is being, unchangeable and
permanent and appearances are becoming,
changeable and immanent.
It is commonly believed that architectonics of
philosophy in the west are put on the pedestal
of reason. Philosophers from Aristotle to Bertand Russel have never ignored and repudiated
the primacy of reason and intellect in their
efforts to structure their philosophies and the
systems they have constructed are
reason-oriented and logic-based. But, contrary
to the western standpoint, the Indians do not
commit themselves to reason though the systems
they have structured provide ample evidence of
reason-reoriented analysis and explanation of
the empirical data. Liberation or moksa from the
bondage and trammels of birth and death is the
principal goal they assiduously pursue with a
deep sense of faith. Observes Karl Potter, "Pract-ically
all philosophical systems view liberation as the
highest aim of mankind and Advaita is no
exception...liberation consists of release from
the process of birth, life, death and
transmigration". Puts Dr. Theos Bernard, “Hindu
Philosophy does not attempt to train one to
discern metaphyiscal truths; it offers a way of
thinking which enables one rationally to
understand the Reality experienced by
self-fulfilled personalities and thereby to lead
one to realisation of Truth. In this light
philosophy is seen as art of life and not a
theory about the universe".
PART II
April 2011
A way of thinking which enables one
rationally to understand the reality experiened
by self-fulfilled personalities, and thereby to
lead one to realisation of truth. In this light,
philosophy is seen as art of life and not a
theory a bout the universe”.
Despite such views and evaluations of Indian
philosophy, it can be safely put that Indians
have woven philosophical systems that are
thoroughly coherent, compact and systematic.
They have devised certain physical and mental
constructs and also devised concomitant tools to
test and verify their validity. If the
constructs whether physical or mental are
coherently built step by step with a view to
erect the edifice, it is not fair to say that
Indian philosophy is lacking in logic. The
Buddhist philosophy in its broad contours is
highly logical. It has set up certain categories
which it elucidates and estabalishes by
attempting to furnish proofs with a view to
prove their validity. Sankhya philosophy sets up
two categories of Purusa and Prakriti and
elucidates and explains them by furnishing and
marshalling sound proofs. The inner logic
underpinning the Sankhya system leads it to the
stand ponit of pure dualism even if the
predominance of Purusa as the ultimate reality
is maintained. The Vaishesika system in its
essentials is realistic pluralism and has given
a scientific analysis of the ‘catalogue of
categories’ that it has drawn to establish its
fabric. Nyaya as a system is known as
taraksastra or science of logic. It gives a
logical discussion and elucidation of the
problems of perception, inference, comparison
and causation. All the systems of Indian
philosophy by and large have a spirit of logic
running through them and that is why they are
not perpetually teetering on the verge of
collapse. Each system appears to be a monolith
with least visible cracks in it.
It is not out of place to put that the
dominance of over-intellectualism and reason in
philosophy was challenged by and was not
acceptble to the thinkers who in philosophical
paralance are called existentialists. Reason,
according to them, puts fetters on the
understanding of an existing and living
individual, who in the classical philosophy of
the west, was lost in corrosive and uprooting
universalism and homogenising abstractions and
generalisations. Most of the existentialists
began as Hegelians but finally ended by
denouncing Hegal and his philosophical
postulates. Fichte, Joseph schelling and Hegel
despite differences in their systems objectified
thought as reality and equated it with being.
Existentialists protested against any attempt to
objectify thought and made a willing, striving,
suffering and above all existing individual the
focal point of their philosophy. The upanishadic
seers had put emphasis on and at the same time
signalled the importance of self-knowledge (Aatmanam
Vidhihi as the supreme wisdom and the same
thread of thought is found oft-recurring almost
in every sphere of Indian philosophy and
religious thought. The entire line of Indian
thinking though distanced by mighty time-spaces
is in quest, has raised and discussed all vital
issues of human existence and human condition.
The individual as such is not ignored; instead
is made deeply conscious of his essential and
inevitable destiny. The Indian existentialism
generates from a consideration of life vis-a-vis
its ultimate destiny. It also asserts its
essential stand point by not accepting the
divorce and dichotomy between ‘theory and
practice,’ doctrine and life, truth and its
practical realisataion. With the emphatic
assertion of the supremacy of human mind or
self, the Indian thinking raises a protest
against votaries of reason, who altogether
overlook the fact that human mind has the
potentia of soaring to lofty heights of
consciousness if and when it is properly
initiated and put to the rigour of discipline
where reason ceases to have any importance and
actually proves a fetter or restraint. In fact,
heightening of human consciousness after
crossing beyond the trammels and limitations of
body and the world is the leit motif of Indian
philosophy. Reality as such is not only to be
explained and expounded theoretically but it is
to be realised and appropriated by heightening
the level of consciousness to the point where it
has a full and intense feeling of identity with
the reality as the only ultimate truth.
The fact has to be recognised that Indian
philosophy has its peculiar manner of handling
and dilating upon the essential problems of
human existence and world. It is unfair to
evaluate it by the tools of Fitchte, Kant and
Hegel tradition or Erdman, uberweg academical
tradition. The reality is that Indian thinking
has raised the question of ‘Atman’ according
to its own angle of vision’. ‘In the words
of Max Muller’, puts Hiriyana, ‘philosophy
was recommended in India not for the sake of
knowledge, but for the highest purpose that man
can strive in this life’. Darshan while
discarding the key-hole vision of man presents
an uplifted vision of him. It does not only
rivet man’s attention on the perceptible world
outside him but also acquaints him with and
develops in him an awareness of his own mental
and spiritual nature by transcending the methods
of physics. Darshan, to the Indian mind, is not
only a matter of weaving a web of theories and
structuring systems, but, more than most, it is
essentially a spirit or method of fathoming and
experientially realising the inmost depths of
one’s own being.
Indian philosophy is not all spiritual. It
embraces a broad but chequered history of
materialism within its ambit. No evaluation of
Indian thinking can afford ignore Lokayat system
in ‘a catalogue of the philsophic forces of
India’. Lokayat as a system of thinking simply
afirms that all is matter. It in direct contrast
to spiritualism denies the primacy of spirit
over matter. Lokayat is bold and fearless in
total rejection of Vedic authority and belief in
theism and attaches the greatest importance to
the world of senses which was the greatest
casualty at the hands of idealists and
spiritualists. The principal character of Lokyat
system was ‘practical, rather than
metaphysical’, teaching utilitariansm and
crude materialism in an outspoken way. Being
atheists in their approach and premis,
Lokayat thinkers have been contemptuously
rejected, but as thinkers, they invested their
thinking to denounce theories invested with
spiritual aura and grandeur. Lokayat, infine,
has raised questions and framed opinions of real
import and value. It understands the world from
a different angle of vision and furrows a new
path by raising new issues and putting them on
the pedestal of common sense realism. The
statement that ‘philosophy in India is
essentially spiritual’ is belied by Lokayat.
Rigveda-as the first written record of
mankind is the repertoire of philosophical
ideas. It is not a book, but a compilation of
books. It records and provides an insight into
that hoary past of India of which scanty notices
are available. The Rigvedic seers reflect a
thinking that in its essentials centres round
“religion, myth and mystery”. Most of the
hymns of the Rigveda contain germs of thought,
hints at guesses of truth and flashes of
insights into supreme being. In the hymns
questions of perennial significance are raised,
but not answered. Ideas as espoused by the
Rigveda are not regular and consistent, yet they
reveal and reflect a mind that is vivacious,
this worldly and down to earth. Observes Swami
Ranga Nath Nanda, “In the Rigveda, we are
already face to face with the emergence of the
life of the mind, the life of thought, not
merely in the field of literature, but also in
the field of bold philosophical speculation’.
Part
III
June
2011
Rigveda
It
is the first written record of mankind and its
hymns though addressed to various gods contain
seed ideas that are essentially philosophic in
content. It provides an amazing insight into
that hoary past of which minimum or negligible
records and notices are available. The hymns
underpin a thinking that rotates round 'religion
myth and mystery'. Most of them contain 'germs
of thought', 'hints at surmises about truth' and
'flashes of insight into the Supreme Being'. In
the hymns questions of perennial significance
are raised, but not answered. They do not
present a pattern of thought that is coherent
and consistent, but they reflect a mind that is
vigorous, this-worldly and brimming with
vivacious life. The Rigvedic seers seem to be
opening new vistas into the realms of
philosophical speculation by raising meaningful
questions about the nature of universe and
meaning of human life. The philosophic mood of
the Rigveda set the tone and temper for future
evolution of Indian philosophy. To Max Muller,
'the Vedas were unique and priceless guides in
opening before us tombs of thought richer in
relics, than the royal tombs of Egypt and more
ancient and primitive in thought than the oldest
hymns of Babylonia and Acadian poets'.
The
Rigvedic gods symbolise nature powers and are
anthropomorphic representations of various
phenomena of nature. Observes Max Muller,
"These gods were the first philosophy the
first attempt at explaining the wonders of
nature". The gods that are purported as
agents behind the natural phenomena reveal the
religious consciousness of the Indians in a
seminal form. 'The Hymn of Creation' underpins
an intense curiosity to probe the ultimate
origin of the universe. It radiates a
consciousness that swings between 'being' and
'non-being' and reveals a mood of wonderment at
the prospect of cosmos and underpins a
reflective seriousness to know the origins of
it.
Upanishads
The
Upanishads as texts of Indian wisdom have
attracted the deep attention of thinkers and
scholars of all shades and persuasions. To
Schopenhaur, they were the products of the
highest wisdom and as such were 'the solace of
his life and solace of his death'. But, to Max
Muller, the Upanishads contained a heap of
rubbish from which fragments of gold had to be
extracted. The first encounter that the European
scholars had with the Indian wisdom was through
the Upanishads. They were baffled and dazzled.
With a view to downgrading their importance in
terms of philosophy most of them came out with
irrelevant appraisals lacking in historical
perspective. An Indian scholar, Ranade,
evaluated the available texts from a historical
stand-point without taking them as excellent and
flawless bits of human wisdom.
The
Upanishads, in fact, mark the burgeoning of the
seeds that were sown in the garden-bed of
Rigveda in particular and other Vedas in
general. Among other connotations the Upanishads
imply 'rahasya' or secret or esoteric
predilections. The Vedic texts had emphasised 'sacerdotalism'
and 'complexus of ceremonies'. But, the
Upanishads emerged as a protest against these
ritual crafts and marked a milestone towards
'deepening inwardness'. Seriously doubting the
utility and purpose of sacrifices and rituals,
the Upanishads fixed their accent of emphasis on
'Atman' or self, a region deeper and vaster than
the external world. 'Sacerdotalism' with its
barren-ness and superfluity had misled spiritual
aspirants from the region of inner world as a
locus of probing and fathoming. 'Quest within'
is the cardinal principle of Upanishads
ruminations. Lacking in an integrated frame, the
Upanishadic are interspersed with 'flashes of
insight' and 'gems of thought'. They impacted
the entire Indian stream of culture and thought
and more than most the trends of thought outside
the purlieux of India.
As
per the Upanishadic stipulations, Atman as self
or soul is the fundamental essence of man. It
originally meant 'breath' but subsequently
donned another layer of meaning signifying
everything from gross body to the finest
principle underlying the existence of man.
Finally it came to constitute an essential part
of anything, especially of man, his self or
soul. To Sankara, ‘Atman’ is all pervading,
it is the subject and it knows, experiences and
illuminates the objects. It is immortal and
immutable'. In its profounder connotations,
Atman means the self-conscious being within man
underpinning the ultimate reality. The
Upanishads as a whole explain Atman as the
innermost existence and body and mind as 'the
trappings that dress reality'.
The
over-riding concern of the Upanishads is to
probe the primordial source of cosmos. It is
this sense of pre-occupation that has motivated
the Upanishadic seers to establish an entity
called 'Brahman' as the life-breath of cosmosas
a whole. The word 'Brahman' is derivable to the
root 'brh' meaning 'to grow' or 'to burst
forth'. Brahman' is that which naturally 'bursts
forth' as world and soul. As per the Taittiriya
Upanishad, all existence is traceable to the
fount of 'Brahman' is that which naturally
'bursts forth' as world and soul. As per the
Taittiriya Upanishad, all existence is traceable
to the fount of 'Brahman', 'from which all
beings originate by which they are sustained and
into which they are withdrawn'.
Though
packed with stray and disjointed ideas, the
Upanishads have established the spiritual unity
of all forms and varieties of existence through
lofty utterances of deeper import. The opening
verse of Isha Vasya Upanishad posits Isha
(Supreme Lord) as the omnipresent reality of the
entire creation. The Mandukya Upanishad opens a
new vista through the utterance 'This Atman is
Brahman'. The same idea is crystallised through
the utterance 'Thou Art That' as available in
the Chandogya Upanishad. The Brhihadaranyak
Upanishad establishes the identity of man with
Supreme Truth through its utterance 'I am
Brahman'. These utterances are gems of thought
and highlight a trend-setting standpoint
impacting the struggling minds to free
themselves from cold and frigid doctrines of
deism. Observes Krishna Chaityna that the
current set in motion by these resounding
utterances 'flowed to the mystics of Persian
Sufism, the mystic logos-doctrine of the
neo-Platonists and the Alexandrian Christians,
to the radical doctrines of Eckhardt and Tauler".
That
the universe functions like a machine is not
what the Upanishadic seers hold and trot out.
Nor do they subscribe to the view that 'world is
a phantom or a mere appearance'. They endeavour
to discover an underlying unity, essentially
spiritual, amidst diversities of life and world.
Man is seen as undergoing a continuous process
of becoming with a view to getting identified
with ultimate reality. As a seeker he is
required to achieve ethical excellence leading
to the awakening and fruition of his faculties
and urges to share the final beautitude and
bliss.
Mimansa
Mimansa
as a school of thought owes its origins to
Jaimini who found discerning intellects like
Prabhakara and Kumarilla Bhat to elaborate and
propound his views. Though 'Mimansa' implies
critical analysis and investigation, yet it as a
system of thought remains stuck in the grooves
of Vedic ritualism with its enormous
superfluities. To Jaimini and all shades of
mimansakas, Vedas are a revealed knowledge and a
plethora of commands and injuctions allied with
them are eternal and unchangeable. Owing total
servility to the Vedas the manner of explicating
issues relating observance of rituals by
the mimansakas is downright traditional and
fossilised. Performance of rituals is so vital
for the mimansakas that it has nearly grabbed
the position of God as its ground principle.
Despite many a lacuna, the Mimansa has evolved a
sound theory of knowledge. It appears that it
has accidentally strayed into the field of
linguistic analysis through the tools of logic.
It also counters the standpoint of the Buddhists
and Nayayki as regarding their exposition of
language and theory of knowledge.
To
Himansakas, knowledge is 'apprehension that is
immediate, direct and valid, not tainted by
defects and not to be made invalid by subsequent
knowledge'. They stick to the position that no
erroneous cause or condition is required to
validate knowledge. In fact, knowledge, to them,
is self-valid and 'itself certifying its own
truth'. To Kumarilla Bhat, knowledge lies in
'apprehending an object only to be set aside by
the discrepancies arisen by its non-confirmity
to the inherent nature of the object'. To
Prabhakar, 'all cognitions as cognitions are
valid and their lack of validity depends upon
their disagreement with the nature of objects'.
Mimansakas are considerably aware of deficient
tools that render knowledge invalid.
Mimansa
as a school of thought is broadly realistic in
its approach to and treatment of issues relating
philosophy. The system that it has built is not
propped upon the crutches of God. In fact, the
agency of God or a transcendent being is missing
in it. But doctrines like transmigration of
soul, law of Karma and eternal world do provide
the strengthening support to the edifice of
Mimansa as a thought system. The creation and
dissolution of the world does not find favour
with the proponents of Mimansa as it conflicts
with its basic assumption of holding the Vedas
as eternal and revealed knowledge.
Doctrinally
speaking, Mimansa is barren and a mis-mash of
borrowed view-points from different systems of
thought. As a structured system it is so fragile
that it comes tumbling as and when authority of
the Vedas is questioned or doubted. Mimansa
holds that absolute obedience to the Vedas and
their injunctions is the definite path that can
lead a seeker to heaven as a matter of
redemption from
the tangles of birth and death. Ethical life as
a tool of salvation is more stressed than that
of knowledge or contemplation.
Sankhya
As
a separate school of thought Sankhya is a unique
development in the annals of Indian philosophy.
Its origins can be sought in the thinking moods
and concepts that are found enunciated in the
Upanishads and epics. The Sankhya as a word
connotes 'enumeration' and 'reasoning'. It is
enumeration as the system has devised
twenty-five categories to reinforce its
positions. It is reasoning as it has formulated
its positions logically and intellectually.
Sankhya
is predominantly materialistic in its exposition
of the realities of man and world. Despite its
bold and novel doctrinal positions, it has been
regarded as an orthodox school of thought. Debi
Prasad Chattopadyaya has elaborately exposited
the basic positions of Sankhya from a
materialistic standpoint. But what makes the
Sankhya system as a hall-mark in the realms of
Indian thought is its reasoned discussion of the
fundamental categories of Purusa and Prakriti
and the process of cosmic evolution. The system
is so logical and reason-oriented that it knocks
the bottom out of the myth created by some
Westerners that Indian thought is not a reasoned
discourse. Observes theos Bernard, "The
Sankhya is the oldest school of Indian
philosophy for it is the first attempt to
harmonise the philosophy of the Vdas through
reason".
Kapil
Muni is said to have authored the Sankya Sutras
that are not now extant. Isharkrishna and
Vachaspati Misra are the later authors who have
expounded the Sankhya positions from their own
perspectives. The exposition that they have
offered form the substratum of the critical
analysis of the system. The available Sankhya
Sutras uphold the authority of the Vedas and
primacy of the spirit over matter. That the
Sankhya system is akin to the Tantric thought
and tradition is established by Sankara calling
the Sutras of Kapila as 'tantrakhya'. It leads
one to believe that the original Sankhya
positions were materialistic and atheistic.
Jacobi holds the same view but is outright
rejected by Dr. Radhakrishnan who observes that
Sankhya 'at any stage of its development could
never be identified with materialism'. Despite
Radhakrishnan's spirited defence of the Sankhya
orthodoxy, the fact remains that Purusa is
grafted on the system in a manner that it does
not appear to be organically woven with the
inner logic of the system.
The
Sankhya in its basics is a dualism that rotates
round two of its dominant categories, Purusa and
Prakriti. It stipulates them as two separate and
independent categories without any cogency for a
meaningful contact or bond. Prakriti is
stipulated as beginningless and endless matter
constituting the basis of the world of name and
form. It grows and evolves as per its own
dynamics and does not depend on any external
agency to impulse its growth and development.
Prakriti is 'absolute, eternal, unmanifest, ever
dynamic and imperceptible' and in this state it
is known as Mula Prakriti or Pradhan. It is
endowed with three attributes of satva, rajas
and tamas. Satva is 'static energy,
psychological poise', rajas is 'dynamic energy
and psychological extroversion', and tamas is
'physical inertia and mental apathy'.
Constituting matter the three 'gunas' with their
intrinsic energies maintain an equilibrium and
'are inseparably linked and mutually condition
one another'. The process of evolution is
generated when the three gunas lose their
equipoise and get disturbed. The evolutionary
process implies change 'which is homogenous and
heterogeneous'. The cause for the loss of
equipoise of the gunas is inherent dynamism or
contradiction.
The
Sankhya has delineated a sketch of a yogic
discipline or praxis for attainment of release
from the sorrows afflicting a man through his
contact with the 'miserable and
corruptible world'. There is no concept of grace
as it does not sit well with its essential
atheism. Redemption or release from the world in
the parlance of the system is known as kaivalya.
The
Sankhya thought is original, compact, analytical
and more that most penetrating. Its impact on
the formative processes of other systems has
been tremendous and overwhelming. In fact, all
systems with rare exceptions have 'filled their
husks' with the Sankhya content including its
structural elements. The entire corpus of Indian
literature from the Mahabarta to the
mythological Puranas are replete with they stray
doctrines of Sankhya. It has given a
comprehensive description of evolutionary
processes which are not viewed 'from angles
metaphysical' but are based on 'the
conservation, transformation and dissipation of
energy'. The Sankhya thought has devised 'a
theory of matter, a theory of causality, a
theory of knowledges and a theory of cosmic
evolution'.
Source: Kashmir
Sentinel
|