Sankhya and Mimamsakas - Essay Example

Natasha Neehaul MA Indian Philosophy Dr Will Rasmussen 14/12/12 Assess Sa?khya’s and Mima?sa’s arguments for the law of karma, and discuss whether the law implies or refutes the existence of God. Sankhya and Mimamsakas have various convergence and divergent points with regard to the Karma and its perspectives on the existence of God. Both belong to the Vedic systems. Although the Sankhya doctrine hold the existence of God or ‘Isvara’ as a fact, they argue that the same God is not the Karta or the creator of the universe (Radhakrishnan 23 b). The Sankhya argues that the cosmos is made up of some material referred to as insentient (Buley 51). Sankhya believe that the material of creation is made of earth and stone and could possibly not be created by ‘Isvara’ whose own characteristics are not consistent with the same material (Radhakrishnan 43 b). The Sankhya doctrine holds that it is not possible to prove the existence of God and therefore he cannot be said to exist (Larson 83). I would opine that the doctrine contention aligns with the view that a benevolent God would have no motive of creating a world of mixed happiness and sorrows. The Purusa takes an important place in the understanding of the Sankhya doctrine. The Sankhya offers that the Purusa is not caused (Collins 106). The Purusa is usually likened to consciousness. In most doctrines, consciousness is usually attached to the idea of the existence of a Supreme being. The Sankhya position that the Purusa is not caused directly contradicts the idea of the existence of a creator God. However, problems arise within the doctrine with the supposition that Purusa does not have any qualities. In my opinion, this view would imply that all beings are same. Such a thesis would refute the possibility of the existence of different fates for different actions as understood within the overall framework of the Karma. The position adds weight to some of the problems and contradictions that have been identified within the Sankhya doctrine with regard to the nature and qualities of the Purusa. The character of the ‘Isvara’ according to the doctrine developed by the Sankhya is that he is not attached to the universe (Radhakrishnan 40 b). According to the Mimamsa doctrine, the ‘Isvara’ does not provide the fruits of actions, which essentially distinguishes them from other doctrines that assign roles of reward and punishment to the deity (Radhakrishnan 22 b). Instead, the rewards or consequences of actions are purely depended on the actions of individuals. Good actions beget positive consequences, while bad actions bring about negative consequences. The Mimamsa doctrine does not mention whether or not the ‘Isvara’ created the universe (Radhakrishnan 19 b). In my view, I would conclude that the positions adopted by both doctrines acknowledge the fact of divine being but do not agree on his nature or tasks. In general terms, the Sankhya philosophy is governed by the concept of dualism. The philosophy challenges the view of the God as central idea that controls the cause and destiny of humanity. The destiny of man, according to Mimamsa is dependent on the actions and will of man in accordance with the Verdas (Radhakrishnan 74 a). In this sense, God is only a benevolent power that grants to human beings their due share in accordance with their character on earth. It is therefore important to consider the fact that the actions of man are integral in the destiny of the universe. The cultivation of ‘Dama’ or self-control as a way of pursuing a virtuous and upright life (Radhakrishnan 13 b). Samkhya adopts the position that the harmony in the world is born out of the paradoxical dualities as argued by Sage Kapila. Samkhya philosophy is founded on the idea of harmony numerals. According to the terms of this philosophy the collection of elements and characteristics of things in the universe work to maintain some sense of balance between the systems. The underlying meaning in the Samkhya philosophy is derived from the relationship between the ‘Paramatma’ and ‘Prakruthi.’ Pramatma, according to the Samkhya philosophy is the cause of things whereas the ‘Prakruthi’ is regarded as the consequence (Joshi 40). As a way the two cannot therefore be divorced from one another. Ultimately, the question of the existence of God should be perceived from the perspective of the relationship. In essence, God and nature are considered to exist through some form of support relationship. The union between the entities of God and nature are fundamental between the power of creation. The union between the Prakruthi and the Purusha, according to the Samkhya system completes the picture of a harmonious universe (Joshi 61). The Jiva, which refers to the individual being, comprises of twenty-four elements. One of the notable characteristics of the Jiva is that it separates itself from the two entities of Prakruthi and the Purusha in order to merge with the twenty-sixth element, which is the Easwara (Radhakrishnan 17 b). The Easwara, which forms the twenty-sixth element is also referred to as the ‘absolute soul.’ The Jiva contains both the ‘Prakruthi and the Purusha.’ According with the Samkhya description of the Jiva, “The Jiva is in the Body and the Lord is in the heart,” (Bhavathi, p. 98). The question of God is considered within the estimation of the relationship between the human and the Divine. According to the Samkhya system humanity must be considered in terms of the Divine unity (Radhakrishnan 21 b). It expresses divinity in terms of its near perfection and its expression in a state of perfection. As a result, it must be considered in terms of the manner in which it attaches on the values and qualities of perfectionism and existence, “There is a puppeteer who directs this play,” (Bhavathi, p. 98). The state of perfection comes through the struggle towards divine values. The Samkhya system offers that humans have the capacity to reach states of perfection if they can strive to clear “the weeds” from the human heart, which is described as the wish-fulfilling tree, (Radhakrishnan 22). “In the human heart is the Kalpataru,” (Bhavathi, p. 98). The Kalpataru is the term used to refer to the wish-fulfilling tree. Man is positioned at the mid-point between the wish-fulfilling tree and the things that are celestial. This would imply that both the physical forces and the unseen forces within the universe control the place of God in the world of man. The life of man, according to this philosophy, must be considered in terms of the unseen effects of the daily actions undertaken by man (Kumar 70). The word ‘Martya’ is used to describe man’s unique position at the middle of the physical and the celestial forces (Garbe 26). According to both philosophies, it is the practice of ‘Karma’ that decides the kind of rewards that man receives on earth (Radhakrishnan 18 b). Although the Sankhya adopts a rather complex perspective of Divinity, they argue that it runs within everything that it real. It is evident in the ‘Prakruthi.’ The Sankhya’s idea of a God is one who allows things to flow in accordance with definite laws without any direct interventions. According to them, the past is recorded in the ‘Chitta,’ which is a name used to describe the mind (Garbe 55). Man, according to this doctrine is a fusion of radiation, materialism, and vibration. In this sense, man becomes a being that unites the Purushatva, Jiva, and Prakruthi. Samkhya Philosophy is one of the philosophies that exert a profound influence on Indian and Asian cosmology. It is also regarded as one that has the most controversial appreciation in Indian metaphysics. Some ancient influences such as the Baghavadita and Upanishads are tied within the philosophy of Samkhya (Sinha 32b). The major defining aspects of Samkhya are connected to its marked departure from claims of deity and its insistence on the existence on the connection between nature and human action. The Samkhya philosophy locates all essence of reality in the Prankriti (Larson 40), which equates to the unintelligible creative cause. This would imply the power of being and the controller of the universe lies in nature. The Prakriti according to this philosophy does not have its creator (Sinha 131c). It is uncreated and contains the creative force of all things except the soul. However, the philosophy acknowledges that this form retains a special kind of relationship with different life forms in a way that determined that actual being of the soul (Sinha 32b). Nature effectively takes the place of the creative power as other philosophers would assume of God. In essence, it becomes the ultimate substitute of God (Kumar 56). On the other hand Purusa, which takes the place of the individual soul. It might be argued that the natural creative abilities are only brought out in terms of some coordination between the forces the two coordinates. According to the fundamental tenets of the principle, the creative force is governed by 24 principles (Sinha 47a). These principles must work together in creative harmony in order to achieve the ultimate creative force that would be requires to produce meaningful results. Central to the Mimmamsa philosophy of Karma is the idea of fruitive activity (Buley 140). According to the Mimmamsa a God if any must be guided by the principles of fruitive activity. It follows therefore that good rewards will necessarily follow a person who carries out good deeds. As such men should not strive to be devotees of any deities. Cause and action, according to Mimamsa philosophy are the necessary ingredients of good life and bad life. According to Mimamsa Karma, everybody suffers or enjoys in line with their past deeds. Accordingly, all men are subject to Karma. As long as all of them undertake some actions, they should all prepare to feel the full rewards or consequences of their actions. According to this philosophy action and consequences is key to all life forces. As an early form of Hindu philosophy, Mimamsa continues to provide the rationale behind some of the complex and mystical aspects of the Karma. Mimamsa is often associated with some element of action. Ontological realism is one of the distinguishing aspects of Mimamsa as observed within the bigger picture of Karma (Keith 38). Through a power of action and practical application of the laws of semantics within the Vedas, it becomes possible for the determination of the underlying meanings of the Karma doctrine. Mimamsa interpretation of Karma includes the exclusion of the story of creation and destruction, which makes the essence of God unnecessary. I would argue against the grounds of this argument in the sense that it does not seem to supply a clear argument about the causative agents of creation or destruction. The doctrine fails to supply some argument regarding the source of power of creation. Another point of difference between Mimamsa and Sankhya is that Mimamsa begins from the point that the Vedas is unchangeable and that it is eternal (Buley 66). In the same manner, the Mimamsa argues that the world of things is impossible to change because all things have some eternal element inherent in them as derived from the Vedas. However, Samkhya does not go far beyond portraying the Prakiti as the creative element of all things (Keith 121; Collins 93). One of the claims that have been made with regard to the Prakiti is that it contains both the constructive and destructive abilities of all things. The Samkhya seems to make a cautious argument about the existence of some supreme forces without actually reducing such forces into a God (Garbe 67; Joshi 78). In this way, it might be argued that the Samkhya appears to propose some alternative creative forces beyond those proposed by science and beyond those advocated by the laws of science. There still remains various unexplained areas in its alternative proposition because the manner of existence of the original force; the Prakiti still remains as puzzling as the original forces claimed in both religion and science. The Sankhya system advocates the pursuit of knowledge as the only path to liberation. On this point, it challenges the view held by other religions regarding the power of God to liberate. According to the Sankhya philosophy, only the pursuit of knowledge would protect man from delusion leading to higher knowledge. Such knowledge would prevent him from the blind pursuit of material things, which according to the Sankhya, corrupts the soul. The ‘Tatwas’ are regarded as the primary corrupting elements that prevent man from accessing higher states of knowledge, “Man cannot see Truth as long as he has these ‘Tatwas,’ he should go beyond these ‘Tatwas,’ (Radhakrishnan 20 b). In some sense, the state of Divinity, according to the Sankhya system is achievable with or without God. The search for this state entails the destruction of worldly desires in pursuit of celestial glories, which are resident in higher states of mind otherwise known as the Supermind and the Overmind. The pursuit of the knowledge of God through prayer and sacrifice is essential in helping man to go beyond temptations of the material world in order to uphold a pure and sacred lifestyle. Ultimately, it might be argued that the Sankhya and the Mimamsa project common and divergent views on the Karma, which seems to problematize their positions on the existence of God. The Sankhya seems largely atheistic in assigning the conventionally presumed roles of God to other metaphysical entities. The Mimamsa on the other hand only insists on the irrelevance of God without making any definite assertion as to whether he exists or not. Each arguments leaves notable points of weaknesses that pose problems of comprehension although they both contribute in expanding the understanding of Indian philosophy. Works Cited Bhavathi, Brahma, V., B. The Samkhya Philosophy. Summer Showers. 15 Dec, 2013. Web. 1993. PDF. Buley, Mikel. Classical Samkhya And Yoga: The Metaphysics Of Experience. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2006. Collins, Randal. The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change. Harvard: Harvard University Press, 2000. Garbe, Richard. The Philosophy Of Ancient India. New York: Kessinger Publishing, 2004 Joshi, Dinkar. Glimpses Of Indian Culture. London: Star Publications, 2005. Keith, Arthur, B. The Samkhya System, a History of the Samkhya Philosophy. London: Hard Press, 2012. Kumar, Raj. Essays on Indian Philosophy. New York: Discovery Publishing House, 2003. Larson, Gerald, J. Classical Sankhya: An Interpretation of Its History and Meaning. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publ., 1998 Radhakrishnan, Sarvepalli. Indian Philosophy. Delhi: Oxford Univ. Press, 2009 a. Sinha, Nandalal. The Samkhya Philosophy. New York: Kessinger Publishing, 2010 Sinha, Nandalal. The Samkhya Philosophy; Containing Samkhya-Pravachana Sutram, with the Vritti of Aniruddha, and the Bhasya of Vijnana Bhiksu and Extracts. New York: General Books LLC, 2009. Sinha, Phulgenda. Samkhya karika of Kapila: rediscovering the original text of Samkhya philosophy. New York: India Heritage Press, 2000 Radhakrishnan, Sarvepalli and Charles A. Moore. A source book in Indian philosophy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967 b Read More