Soul Meets Body

(i.e., an initial examination of the Samkhya school)

This post builds on the framework explored in a previous post: Navigating Indian Philosophy

Samkhya is considered the oldest of the six orthodox (āstika) schools of Hinduism. In the curricula I’ve been following, it’s the consistent starting point for those looking to delve into the subcontinental systems. Given its prominence and influence, I found it surprising that there’s been continuous debate about whether Samkhya philosophy is actually compliant with the authority of The Vedas (the defining characteristic of Hindu orthodoxy), or whether it’s instead an agnostic - or even atheistic - tradition.

Legend holds that the Samkhya school was founded by Kapila, a sage that lived during the height of the Vedic Period, in the 6th century BCE. His biography itself is a compendium of interpretations: some believe he actually lived earlier, and is specifically referenced in The Vedas; others point to mythologies that congealed in the first millennium CE, which offer an array of different origin stories, ranging from the mundane to the divine. What remains uncontested is the product of his meditations, the Samkhya Sutras, which laid the foundation for the earliest “complete” system of philosophy derived from The Vedas. The system’s central axioms would be developed over the course of a millennium, and comprehensively arranged in a subsequent text, the Samkhya Karika, authored by the sage Ishvara Krishna.

The General Structure

In the first lines the Samkhya Karika, Ishvara Krishna succinctly states why anyone would bother with philosophical inquiry: the unwavering presence of suffering (dukkha), which afflicts all conscious beings. Driven by this motivation, he unfurls a more exhaustive line of reasoning: we want to know why suffering emerges to begin with; what the true underlying nature of reality is, that produces such suffering; and principally, how we can ameliorate this suffering, if such relief is indeed possible. At the heart of Samkhya philosophy is the conviction that suffering can be eliminated through the unmediated understanding of true reality. The logical question is then: what is the hidden nature of our world and ourselves?

At the core of Samkhya’s metaphysics is a dualist claim about the nature of the universe: there are ultimately two essences that operate in conjunction with one another, known as prakriti and purusha. Together, they constitute all of reality - encompassing the realms of both ordinary and extraordinary phenomenon. Samkhya asserts that it is incorrect to ascribe a teleology to either prakriti or purusha; they are both eternal essences - which exist, and will exist, for all time. The world is to be understood through their interaction, and personal liberation is ultimately achieved through a form of their separation.

Prakriti is the primary cause behind every manifested element in the material universe. In its fundamental state, it is imperceptible; containing an even arrangement of its three intrinsic qualities (known as the three gunas). The first quality is sattva, which represents lightness, joy, and poise; the second quality is rajas, which represents dynamism, excitation, and friction; and the third is tamas, which represents inertia, heaviness, and sloth. The diversity of the physical universe is, in Samkhya’s estimation, categorically the result of different (i.e., uneven) permutations of these three qualities. If this is the case, the next logical question is: what is causing these perturbations in prakriti, and producing the ever-changing material world?

The answer, as you might’ve guessed, is purusha: the complementary essence, which is defined as pure consciousness. Its nature is considered transcendental - and beyond any possible perception that is mediated by the mind or senses. Samkhya claims that purusha’s presence is what “disturbs” the otherwise dormant prakriti, instigating its transformation into the countless material configurations we see throughout the known universe. Interestingly, Samkhya maintains that there are many purushas in the universe, and does not claim any sort of pantheistic unity among them (more on this in the next section). Any form of life is ontologically considered as a jiva, or a “bounded soul”, that resulted from the fusion of some amount of prakriti with a distinct purusha.

Samkhya’s dualism is constructed differently than prominent Western (e.g., Cartesian) forms of dualism. The mind, inclusive of the intellect and the ego, is viewed as a material manifestation that is solely in the realm of prakriti. In this way, there is no ambiguity about how the mind interfaces with the rest of the body, or external reality; they are all part of the same material substrate, and adhere to consistent laws of causality. Purusha, as pure consciousness, is considered to be the observer, but completely inactive; its likened to a mirror that can reflect the subtle elements of the mind (e.g., the ego, the rational faculty) back upon themselves, causing the prakriti-constructed elements to act in ways they otherwise wouldn’t. The exact nature of purusha - as paradoxically both instrumental to the universe and completely inactive - has been the subject of debate for millennia, among Samkhya scholars and in dialogues with other schools, both āstika and nāstika.

Evolution and Liberation

In Sanskrit, Samkhya roughly translates to “empirical” or “relating to numbers”. The name is apt, when you consider the mechanics that underpin the evolution of prakriti, upon exposure to purusha. Once moved into a state of flux, prakriti is said to evolve in accordance with 23 interdependent structures (known as tattvas). The first evolutes produced are the material intellect (mahat) and ego (ahamkara); these are then followed by the development of the conventional mind (manas), the sense organs, and the organs of action; which develop alongside the subtle elements of objects (e.g., their taste, smell, sound), and the classical elements of reality - air, fire, ether, water, and earth.

Each of these evolutes is dependent on the aforementioned state of prakriti’s three intrinsic gunas (qualities); certain structures, such as the intellect and ego, are borne from purusha interacting with sattva-tuned prakriti (i.e., lightness- and joy-tinged substance). Other structures, such as the subtle elements, are borne from tamas-tuned prakriti (i.e., inertia- and darkness-tinged substance). When taken holistically, Samkhya is expounding a finite, branching nature to the evolution of reality - which is dependent on the ongoing state of prakriti, as it is brought into contact with purusha. The processes that govern the cycles of transition between the different tattvas are replete with intricate and specific mechanics, and are beyond the scope of this post - but are fascinating at cursory glance. Throughout the universe, prakriti is said to be constantly cycling between its myriad manifestations and its original imperceptible, dormant state.

One critical, ethical product of Samkhya’s metaphysics is the universal brotherhood of humanity; all people are of the same “category” of prakriti - regardless of caste, creed, or sex. While we each contain individual differences, having developed our own inner and outer entanglements, we are all jivas (purusha bounded to prakriti) that endure suffering. Humans are said to exist in the same evolutionary plane as all other living creatures, but we possess the unique faculty of personal conscience - which opens the door to metaphysical reflection, realization, and liberation.

Samkhya defines liberation (moksha), in the case of any suffering jiva, as the separation of purusha from prakriti. In order for this to occur, the person’s true Self (the knowing purusha within) must clearly disentangle itself from the intellect, ego, and the other elements of prakriti that it has “confused” with itself. If this can be accomplished, it is believed that the individual purusha will be freed from any further bondage - which would otherwise continue through an eternal cycle of reincarnation. The ultimate liberation of the individual Self, in Samkhya’s metaphysics, is considered the last step in the evolutionary process.

Divine Particulars

The Samkhya school has had an undeniable influence on the development of Indian philosophy. Its interpretation of core elements of The Vedas (and specifically The Upanishads) provided the metaphysical grammar for other mainstream traditions that subsequently emerged. In particular, Samkhya developed a largely symbiotic relationship with the Yoga school - with the former considered the theoretical counterpart to the latter’s practical focus. Both schools, however, have drawn criticism from other āstika traditions for their “fuzzy” definitions of the divine.

Samkhya, with its conception of purusha, considers the presence of individual souls as axiomatic; the universe would not function without individual consciousness, in the form of individual purushas, stimulating the expanse of prakriti. Even so, Samkhya scholars have been skeptical - if not oppositional - towards the idea of a supreme, unified Godhead that exists in conjunction with its dualist structure. The arguments range from the ontological (purusha + prakriti provides a complete schema for an ever-changing world, inclusive of superhuman and divine evolutions; an unchanging and unified omniscience doesn’t logically fit) to the ethical (what sort of supreme God would cause each of us to suffer through our individual journeys toward personal liberation?)

“We do not completely reject the particular power of the Lord, since he assumes a majestic body and so forth. Our intended meaning is just that there is no being who is different from prakriti and purusha and who is the instigator of these two, as you claim. Therefore, your view is refuted. The conjunction between prakriti and purusha is not instigated by another being.”

- Excerpt from Yuktidipika’s commentary on the Samkhya Karika

Adi Shankara, a central scholar of the Vedanta school and perhaps the most influential Indian philosopher of the past millennium, viewed the Samkhya school as the “principal opponent” in the struggle to define orthodox Hinduism. As a practitioner of Advaita Vedanta, Shankara’s metaphysical views were strictly monist: at its most fundamental level, he believed the entirety of the universe to be Brahman, the intelligent and unified Godhead. He asserted that Samkhya’s inherent dualism was non-Vedic, and that the evolutionary dynamic it asserted between inactive purusha and unintelligent prakriti was logically incoherent; the only possible universal substrate is an undivided and omniscient Godhead. In their defense, Samkhya scholars point to thousands of years of their own Vedic hermeneutics - and naturally claim their views are in fact adherent with Scripture.

Buddhism, while non-Vedic (nāstika), is often considered a sibling philosophy to Samkhya - having developed contemporaneously during the Vedic Period. Both systems begin with the same humble diagnosis: the universal presence of suffering, among conscious beings. Their respective paths to personal liberation also share many common themes: the necessity of non-attachment, an individual’s progression through phases of revelation, the ultimate conviction in knowledge as the key to freedom. The primary difference is at the supposed root of understanding; where Samkhya believes in an eternal purusha that requires disentangling from the material world, Buddhist nirvana is contingent on realizing that no such permanent soul actually exists.

Onward

Thanks for reading; this was a more technical piece than the past few. Fortunately, some familiarity with Samkhya’s mechanics will make it easier to delve into other strains of Indian philosophy. I’ll be returning to Western philosophy with the next post; after that, my plan is to proceed through an overview of the Yoga school.