SAmkhya/Yoga question

Edwin Bryant ebryant at FAS.HARVARD.EDU
Sat Dec 18 04:29:40 UTC 1999


On Fri, 17 Dec 1999, Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote:

> Classical Samkhya arrives at its notions of vyakta and avyakta, and pradhAna
> or mUlaprakRti through inference. What Sankara does through his criticisms
> of Samkhya is to establish the holes in the inferential arguments that lead
> to the Samkhya dualism. And it is not just the logical validity of the
> argument that concerns Sankara. It is equally or more important for him that
> the Samkhya inference is not concordant with the scripture.
>
> You suggest that in Samkhya, mUlaprakRti, which is initially in a state of
> equilibrium of the three guNas, can spontaneously have its equilibrium
> disturbed. This would then have to be uncaused (ahaituka) and independent
> (svatantra) of anything else. If you argue for an internal cause within
> prakRti that leads to moving away from equilibrium, you have to specify
> whether such an internal cause is part of the guNas or something additional
> to the three guNas. In either case, we can then question whether this is an
> inherent svabhAva of prakRti or not, and also ask whether a state of
> equilibrium of the three guNas is wholly fictitious to begin with.

It is unfortunate that there is so little preserved of post-Kapilan
Samkhyan commentaries that for all we know might have addressed such
issues.  Post Sankaran Vedanta commentators such as Ramanuja, of course,
resolved the issue to their satisfaction by positing a third player --
PuruSa ViSNu, who serves as the required catalyst causing the union of
puruSa and prakRti, so they too recognized the problem in classical
Samkhya.

It is noteworthy that Sankara took Samkhya to task so vigorously on this
issue, and yet appeared comfortable with the equally conspicuous
problematic in his own system, viz, the ultimate locus of MAyA/avidhyA.
After all, a position of 'anirvAcanIya' could be invoked just as
satisfactorily or unsatisfactorily to justify the Samkhyan position of
ultimate causality as it has been used to justify the advaitin's
explanation (in the matter of the relationship between advaita Brahman and
Maya).

Edwin Bryant





More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list