Comment by rramadass
1 year ago
The Original "Classical Samkhya" is Atheistic and Dualistic Realism. It is only in later modifications/extensions that the concept of "God" was added in, which is strictly speaking not necessary. Wikipedia gives the debate - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samkhya#Views_on_God See the texts Samkhya Karika/Panchasikha Sutram/Kapila Sutras in the magnum opus by Nandalal Sinha titled The Samkhya Philosophy (contains a translation of all extant Samkhya texts in over 700 pages!). Also see the books of Gerald Larson (one of the foremost western scholars on Samkhya) to get an idea of the evolution of the entire Samkhya School.
In Patanjali Yoga Sutras the concept of "God" is merely used as an entity and technique to help you in your practice to break out of your self-identity (i.e. Ahamkara). It is just one among a set of techniques. There is only half a dozen sutras which even mention god in the entire text (see this succinct translation by Bon Giovanni - https://sacred-texts.com/hin/yogasutr.htm). It is in the later commentaries on the text that you find an elaboration according to the pre-existing beliefs of the author.
> It is only in later modifications/extensions that the concept of "God" was added in, which is strictly speaking not necessary.
You can turn it the other way round and the claim would be even more valid: Atheism came later in the Sāṁkhya schools. The scholars have a bias towards atheism so it's not surprising they'd claim that.
This is proven by the fact that the Mahabhārata's Bhīṣma-parva has a whole chapter on Mokśa-dharma which give us the very first signs of a proto-sāṁkhya philosophy and it is very much theistic. Also, the later added atheistic Kapila philosophy is a deviation from the original Kapila, the avatar of Lord Viṣṇu.
Even Patanjali is mentioned as Śeṣa in the scriptures and every school agrees with it. Śvetāśvataropaniṣad is one of the earliest references to Sāṁkhya and is very much theistic. Sāṁkhya being atheistic is a fiction. There were atheistic Sāṁkhya branches but it was never 'only' atheistic.
> "God" is merely used as an entity
That is true, because Patanjali's project was "svarūpe avasthānam", the method by which the seer can abide in its own nature. Īśvara is merely used as a prop to gain something else, which is okay because that is what Yoga Sūtra is about but it does not mean Sāṁkhya was originally atheistic or that theistic Sāṁkhya is a later addition.
> You can turn it the other way round and the claim would be even more valid: Atheism came later in the Sāṁkhya schools.
No, current scholarship is unanimous in accepting that the Atheistic view came first. Unless some new unknown texts come to light to make us revise the dates that is what we have to live with.
Outside of the classic sutra texts mentioned above, there is only the "Kapilopadesha" from the Bhagavatha Purana and "Kapila-Gita" from the Mahabharatha which seem to espouse proper Samkhya philosophy. All other mentions in the upanishads/vedas/puranas/itihasas seem to be just a mention without any substantial details.
The Historical Development section gives a good overview - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samkhya#Historical_development
Most of Sāṁkhya is theistic and came first. All purāṇas are sāṁkhya and theistic. Mahābhārata is theistic. Even Īśvara Krṣṇa never rejects īśvara in the kārikas. Only Gaudapada rejects it explicitly in his commentary. The sūtras, which came much later also don't reject īśvara, they just say it's not necessary (anivārya) to discuss, just like Darwinian Evolution, it's not necessary to presuppose there's a God but theists will still say that God sets it up in the first place.
To say something is not necessary doesn't entail that it's doesn't exist or that it's philosophically untenable.
Śankara does debate with atheistic Sāṁkhya so I'm not saying that it's not the case but it's a mistake to claim that Sāṁkhya is non-theistic because that's what some authors write when it's not the case. The majority of Sāṁkhya traditions were īśvara-vāda, theistic.
Who cares what prescientific people thought first or second? The order in which they thought these prescientific thoughts has no bearing on the correctness of those thoughts.
1 reply →