Sankara’s Refutation of Sāmkhya

The criticism of the evolutionary theory and the untenable nature of Purusa, Prakriti of Sāmkhya, as explained by Sankarā in his Adhyāsa Bāshya.
_________________

In the Brahma Sutrās, Bādarāyana deploys the second pāda – the tarka pāda of the second chapter- the avirodhādhyāya, to refute other schools starting from Sāmkhya. Here in the tarka pāda. It deals with mainly, 2 āstika schools, 1 nāstika school, the pāsupatha and the Pāncaratra School for discussion. The refutation of Sāmkhya, is intended to mainly negate their stand on negating the concept of Iswara as the designer or creater, their theory of evolution known as the satkārya vāda, untenability with regard to Prādhāna being the root cause for the creation, the impossibility of insentient purusa distorting the state of equilibrium (of Satva rajas and tamas) in Avyaktha and finally attempts to prove the fallacies of analogies held by the Sāmkhyans. The topic is named as Racanānupapathyadhikaranam. Before we proceed to the details of dialectics, it is important to briefly understand some tenets of Samkhya system.

sāmkhya means right knowledge - samyak khyāti. samkhyas as we know is traced back to the vedic period and is considered pre-vedantic too. There are upanishadic sources which mentions about this school like katopanishad svetasvatara Upanishad along with the smriti – the bagavad gita. Thus the prasthana trayi frame significantly laments the tenets of this school, due to which it becomes much noticed by the Vedantins especially Sankara who considered samkhya as the pradhāna malla – prime enemy, while Rāmānuja regarded it anti-vēdic. Though the primary text of Samkhya, which is the samkhya sutra of kapila, is no longer available, the secondary sources such as samkhya kārika of Iswara Krishna, Samkhya tatva kaumudi of Vācaspathi Misra, Samkhya pravacana Bāshya & samkhya sāra of Vijnana Biksu and samkhya kārika Bāshya of Gauda pāda are some of the prominent texts which are mostly referred. Sāmkhya pravacana sutra is attributed to Kapila. Samkhya posits the homogenous causality of the world called prakriti. Samkhyas enumerate three points to prove existence of prakriti. First, they argue that all finite individual things, since they cannot be self sufficient, there should be an infinite thing to be the source of all beings, which is prakriti. Secondly, the wide range of things being limited and not all of them are entirely different from each other, must have a common cause, which they call it as prakriti. Lastly, the cause must be omnipotent to produce the effect by itself, which return to the cause itself. In this sense empirical reality have the ingredient nature of cause to which they merge finally. This is possible by prakriti alone. This prakriti is called pradhana the main substratum for the functioning of evolutionary process. Avyakta is the rudimentary state of prakriti, which is un-manifested and inactive.

Samkhyas theory of causality is known as satkaryavada. This means to say that effects exist in the cause. Something that not exist cannot be produced and hence all effects exists eternally in the avyaktha and they manifests due to parināma or transformation. Thus evolution is convolution and annihilation / destruction is involution. Former is avirbāva and the latter is tirobāva. Sāmkhyas explain the theory of evolution in such a way to mean it is accidental. Samkhyans explain that the accidental encounter of purusa with prakrit makes the latter dynamic from its inert state of avyaktha disturbing the equilibrium of its constituents satva rajas and tamas, producing the karmas – the activity. It is important to note that the contact between the both is not the physical contact as we think about but samkhyans smartly explain that the very proximity of purusa to prakriti (sannidhi mātra) causes vibrant evolution to take place, that too for the sake of Purusa alone. The scriptures give slight variations to theorize the contact between prakriti and purusa. One such theory is to say that purusa is reflected on Buddhi, a product of prakriti that which is wrongly identified with the buddhi itself. Other theory states that purusa physically gets committed with prakriti and is trapped by its complex manifestations, which makes it limited. The theories perpetuate new ideas interminably. Sankara promptly addresses these problems with samkhya’s evolution to refute the same in the racanānupapathyadhikaranam.

With this background let us now see how Sankarācārya, systematically approaches the tenets of Sāmkhya school to point of the incongruence involved in it. First, tenet of creation is taken into consideration, while sankara questions the opponent about the design of evolution and the ontological position of the designer. Racana literally means design. When the samkhyan theory of accidental creation and evolution is considered Sankara predicts a serious flaw, as there is no scope for inferring its designer referred as ‘na anumānam’. He also points out the logical deficiency to say that the inert insentient Purusa is said to influence the prakriti at the juncture of accidental meet, causing incidental creation. Thus without the guidance of an intellectual being endowed with efficiency nothing is spontaneously capable of being produced. Thus pradhana must be manifested with vested intelligence of a designer, which samkhyans fail to supply. The incongruence here is the deliberate attempt to fix a non-intelligent being is the antecedent for cause and its effect. Subsequently on account of the impossibility of activity, Sankara in the second sutra ‘pravrittesca’, Sankarācārya attempts to ridicule the proportion theory of satva rajas and tamas mutually presiding over each other. If held so, sankara finds the logical contradiction to the prior samkhyan notion that gunas are inactive by themselves. They also seems to contradict their own theory of causality that what persists in the cause is in the effect. Thus if the pradhana has equal proportion of gunas, then the effect must also have them in equi proportion, which is not accepted by them. This contradiction makes both theory of causality and the evolution untenable, says Sankara. Further more, the cause – pradhana being inactive, then the effect must also be inactive. Where comes the question of manifestation arise if the effects too are inactive? Sankara perhaps stands heavy in this sutra to negate samkhya. Sankara re-iterates this is the eight sutra ‘angitvānupapathēsca’ the principle of relation among the gunas and with the pradhāna being impossible The next sutra ‘payombuvaccēth thathrāpi’ is conjoined here to refute the samkhyan reply to former giving milk and water as examples, those which are non-intelligent have their own activity. Sankara quotes scriptural evidences to show that even in those cases, Lord alone gives the direction for such an activity and he designs them in such a manner that it gains fluidity to flow downwards. Samkhyan without having the designer of such cannot claim vitality to the examples they work upon says Sankara. Rāmānuja combines first 2 sutrās. Extending further, Sankara explicitly expresses his discomfort over an evolutionary process without an intelligent being. In the sutra ‘vyatireka anavastithesca anapēksatvāt’ he points out that pradhāna has nothing to rely on so that the essential end can be justified with. Since there is no role for a third party for which the evolution is evolved, the concept of pralaya is made to lose its play. Sankara amuses the fact that the evolution creates multiplicity without an end, which makes it infinite. Ironically, in Vedanta the god due his omni potency is the determinant factor to stop and play the process of evolution. When the samkhyans give the grass the insentient changing to milk, Sankara answers in their own analogical terms to say bull does not give the milk. ‘anyatra abāvātsca na trunādivat’ refutes the samkyan untenable analogy to advocate pradhana can produce the effect without dependence. Sankara iterates the same fact, commenting to sutra ‘apyupagamē arta abāvāt ca’, wherein the untenability is pointed out in samkhyans stand to say prakriti animates for purusa’s enjoyment / experience. This is fallible since the dormant purusa without any activity cannot create the adhyāsa unto the prakriti and for the same reason it can never enjoy the activities of the latter. Interestingly, The sutra ‘purusa asma vat iti cēt tatā api’ discuses the flaw in the analogy given by samkhyans. Sankara says, in the analogy of lame and blind, both are sentient while prakriti and purusa are not so. Similarly magnet and iron filings attract forever and in some conditions do not attract at all. It would then mean purusa and prakriti attracts forever in the first case and never does the same regarding the second case. The former concludes to say that there is ever bondage to purusa without scope for liberation while latter rejects evolution totally. Thus the first 9 sutras ponder over the issue that pradhāna cannot function without the intelligent being, the conscious manifestation which is the all known God. Sankarācārya vitally proves the non-existence of such dormant inactive purusa and potentially dynamic prakriti. At last in the last sutra of this topic – racanānupapathyādhikaranam, consolidates the entire arguments to show that samkhyan theory is completely illogical. Sankaracārya eminently manages the conceptual difficulty to synchronize his earlier contention of the view that laukika anumānam cannot be implied to the inquiry of Brahman while latter he does the same in racanānupapathyādhikaranam.

Sutra (2-2-10) 'viprathishēthāsca asamanjasam’ will continue...