Love, the Self and the Other, according to Kierkegaard, Hegel - and Lacan
The Soteriological Role of the ṛṣi Kapila, According to the Yuktidīpikā
Transcript of The Soteriological Role of the ṛṣi Kapila, According to the Yuktidīpikā
1
The Soteriological Role of the ṛṣi Kapila, According to the Yuktidīpikā
James Kimball
Kimball, J. (2013). “The Soteriological Role of the ṛṣi Kapila, According to the Yuktidīpikā.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 41(6): 603-614. The final publication is available at http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10781-013-9199-y .
Abstract
A basic teaching of classical Sāṃkhya is that repeated embodiment is the result of an
individual’s ignorance of the distinction between prakṛti and puruṣa. The only exception to
this is the ṛṣi Kapila, legendary founder of Sāṃkhya, who was born with innate knowledge of
this distinction. It is this knowledge that leads to liberation from saṃsāra when it is acquired. This brings up the question, why was Kapila incarnated in the first place? If he already
possessed this knowledge, what need did he have for further experience of prakṛti’s activity?
The classical commentators on the Sāṃkhyakārikā give various accounts of the nature and
origin of Kapila, but they do not directly address this question. However, the evidence of one commentary, the Yuktidīpikā, does provide clues to the reason behind Kapila’s incarnation. In
this article, I argue that the author of the Yuktidīpikā views Kapila as a direct embodiment of
prakṛti’s soteriological potential for all puruṣas.
According to classical Sāṃkhya philosophy, everything that we experience in the phenomenal
world is an aspect of the activity of prakṛti, the principle of primordial materiality. The
motivation behind this activity, however, lies in the presence of countless individual puruṣas.
The term puruṣa, literally meaning “man,” signifies in Sāṃkhya the principle of pure
consciousness lying behind the experience of every individual. A puruṣa is completely
passive; it does not act, it only watches the activity of prakṛti. This activity encompasses the
body, sense faculties, and even the intellectual faculties of the individual. We mistakenly
identify with these elements of experience; in reality they belong to the objective realm, while
what we really are is pure subjectivity.
The relationship between prakṛti and puruṣa can be illustrated by the image of an
audience of puruṣas in a cinema, watching a screen on which is projected the activity of
2
prakṛti.1 The objectives of this film are two: first, the entertainment of the puruṣas, and second,
the realization of the nature of the viewing experience. That is, at first prakṛti’s activity takes
the form of escapism, in which each puruṣa identifies himself completely with the actions on
screen, but its ultimate objective is to attain a kind of self-reflexivity, drawing attention to the
fact that this is actually only a film, at which point the film ends and the puruṣas are left in a
darkened cinema; that is, they are liberated from the viewing experience.
This analogy is somewhat complicated by the fact that prakṛti functions differently with
regard to each particular puruṣa. That is, despite the fact that there is only one screen, the
viewing experience is so subjective that every puruṣa sees something different, depending upon
which stage in the process of realization it has reached. In fact, this process usually requires
multiple viewings. Each phenomenal reincarnation of an individual can be thought of as a
return to the cinema for another viewing. Prakṛti writes a new character into its film for the
benefit of each puruṣa entering the cinema. If the character on screen with whom a puruṣa
identifies is killed off before the realization of separation sets in, the puruṣa leaves briefly and
returns to identify with a new character. When eventually the self-reflexive aspect of the film
sinks in, and the puruṣa ceases to identify with any of the characters, the film ends once and
for all for that particular puruṣa, although it continues for others.
This understanding of the process central to Sāṃkhya meets with an interesting problem
when we consider one of the characters in prakṛti’s film. The Sāṃkhya texts treat the ṛṣi Kapila
as what we might call the leading actor in this film. Kapila is known to the tradition as the
founder of Sāṃkhya philosophy and is said to have been born with innate knowledge of the
relationship between prakṛti and puruṣa. Since it is this knowledge that is held to result in the
1 The core text of classical Sāṃkhya, the Sāṃkhyakārikā, uses a similar image, which I have updated: “Just as a
dancer, having been seen by the audience, ceases from dancing, so does prakṛti cease, having made herself
manifest to the puruṣa.” (Sāṃkhyakārikā 59: raṅgasya darśayitvā nivartate nartakī yathā nṛtyāt / puruṣasya tathātmānaṃ prakāśya vinivartate prakṛtiḥ //) Note that prakṛti is a feminine noun, and although this refers an
impersonal principle, the Sāṃkhya texts often personify prakṛti as a woman (in contrast to puruṣa, literally “man”)
in the metaphors that are used to illustrate Sāṃkhya doctrine.
3
liberation of the puruṣa identified with a particular character in prakṛti’s film, we might ask
why Kapila was written into the film in the first place. That is, if the puruṣa with which Kapila
is associated has no need for further experience of prakṛti’s activity, what is the purpose of
Kapila’s incarnation? I will argue that the evidence of one Sāṃkhya text, the Yuktidīpikā,
suggests a clear explanation of Kapila’s role on the Sāṃkhya screen.
The term ṛṣi is usually applied to individuals with intuitive access to eternal, revealed
knowledge, whose role is to manifest or disseminate this knowledge, usually in the form of the
Veda. The earliest clear references to a ṛṣi or ṛṣis called Kapila come in the Mahābhārata,
where Kapila figures are included in lists of Vedic-style ṛṣis, identified with various deities,
and sometimes associated with the practices of renunciation and non-violence, as well as with
certain prototypically Sāṃkhya philosophical ideas.2
By the time of the normative formulation of the Sāṃkhya system in Īśvarakṛṣṇa’s
Sāṃkhyakārikā (ca. 350-550 C.E.) and its commentaries, Kapila had come to be definitively
regarded as the paramarṣi, the “supreme ṛṣi,” the founder of Sāṃkhya and initiator of the
tradition of Sāṃkhya teachers:
This secret [knowledge] for the sake of the puruṣa—wherein is considered the existence, origination, and dissolution of beings—has been expounded by the
supreme ṛṣi. This purifying, foremost [knowledge] the sage gave with
compassion to Āsuri; Āsuri likewise to Pañcaśikha; by him the doctrine was expanded. Handed down by a succession of disciples, it has been condensed in
āryā [verses] by the noble-minded Īśvarakṛṣṇa, having fully ascertained the
established truth.3
Elsewhere we are told that Kapila and the doctrine he expounded had rather unique origins.
The Gauḍapādabhāṣya, an early commentary on the Sāṃkhyakārikā, quotes a verse including
2 Jacobsen (2008, pp. 9-24) has provided a good survey of the early appearances of Kapila, and Larson and Bhattacharya (1987, pp. 1-18) give an overview of the early development of Sāṃkhya ideas. 3 puruṣārtham idaṃ guhyaṃ paramarṣiṇā samākhyātam /
sthityutpattipralayāś cintyante yatra bhūtānām //
etat pavitram agryaṃ munir āsuraye ’nukampayā pradadau /
āsurir api pañcaśikhāya tena ca bahudhā kṛtaṃ tantram // śiṣyaparamparayāgatam īśvarakṛṣṇena caitad āryābhiḥ /
saṃkṣiptam āryamatinā samyag vijñāya siddhāntam // (Sāṃkhyakārikā 69-71)
Note: all translations of passages from primary texts are my own.
4
Kapila in a list of seven ṛṣis and explains that Kapila was born with, among other qualities,
innate Sāṃkhya knowledge, which he transmitted to his disciple, Āsuri:
In this world, there was a glorious son of Brahmā named Kapila, as here follows: Sanaka, Sanandana, and the third, Sanātana,
Āsuri, Kapila, Voḍhu, and Pañcaśikha—
These seven great ṛṣis have been declared the sons of Brahmā. Kapila’s merit, knowledge, non-attachment, and lordliness were produced
simultaneously [with him]. Being born thus, seeing the world sinking in blind ignorance through the succession of transmigration, with true compassion he
conveyed to his kinsman Āsuri, a brāhmaṇa who desired to know, this
knowledge of the twenty-five principles—from the knowledge of which there is the destruction of pain.4
In this context, “merit, knowledge, dispassion, and lordliness” refer to the four conditions
(bhāvas) of the intellect characterized by the constituent quality of sattva, according to
Sāṃkhya doctrine. “Knowledge” (jñāna) refers primarily to the knowledge of the distinction
between prakṛti and puruṣa, which leads to liberation. This creates an interpretative problem
for us, since it is a basic Sāṃkhya doctrine that incarnation is the result of the condition of
ignorance (ajñāna).5 Kapila is unique, according to the Sāṃkhya commentaries, in having
been born instead with knowledge.
In the above passage, though, Gauḍapāda emphasizes not only Kapila’s uniqueness but
also his kinship to other ṛṣis. Gauḍapāda’s list of seven ṛṣis may have been adapted from a
similar list found in the Mahābhārata:
Sana, Sanatsujāta, Sanaka, together with Sanandana,
Sanatkumāra, Kapila, and the seventh, Sanātana— These seven ṛṣis are declared the mental sons of Brahmā,
Whose discrimination has come of its own accord, who dwell in the
renunciatory dharma.6
4 iha bhagavān brahmasutaḥ kapilo nāma / tadyathā—
sanakaś ca sanandanaś ca tṛtīyaś ca sanātanaḥ /
āsuriḥ kapilaś caiva voḍhuḥ pañcaśikhas tathā /
ity ete brahmaṇaḥ putrāḥ sapta proktā maharṣayaḥ //
kapilasya sahotpannāni dharmo jñānaṃ vairāgyam aiśvaryaṃ ceti / evaṃ sa utpannaḥ sannandhe tamasi majjaj
jagad ālokya saṃsārapāramparyeṇa satkāruṇyo jijñāsamānāya āsurisagotrāya brāhmaṇāyedaṃ
pañcaviṃśatitattvānāṃ jñānam uktavān / yasya jñānād duḥkhakṣayo bhavati / (Gauḍapādabhāṣya on Sāṃkhyakārikā 1, p. 1, ll. 13-21) 5 “By means of knowledge is liberation; from the opposite is bondage.” (Sāṃkhyakārikā 44cd: jñānena cāpavargo
viparyayād iṣyate bandhaḥ //) 6 sanaḥ sanatkujātaś ca sanakaḥ sasanandanaḥ /
5
Kapila’s name certainly stands out among this group of ṛṣis, and Gauḍapāda’s incorporation
into this list of Āsuri, Voḍhu, and Pañcaśikha, all reputed to be early Sāṃkhya teachers, is
likely an attempt to further validate the Sāṃkhya lineage, by ascribing to them the innate
knowledge or insight possessed by ṛṣis.
This tendency toward the legitimization of the lineage of Sāṃkhya teachers becomes
more pronounced in the Yuktidīpikā (ca. 600-700 C.E.), a slightly later, anonymous
commentary on the Sāṃkhyakārikā. The author of this text, like Gauḍapāda, tells us that Kapila
was born with innate knowledge, merit, dispassion, and lordliness. The commentator also
specifies that Kapila was born first of all beings in the world:
The glorious supreme ṛṣi, born first in the world, having ascertained the glorious
Āsuri’s desire to know and his attainment of the successive particular virtues, expounded [this system].7
The supreme ṛṣi is the glorious sage Kapila, born first in the world, with a body
possessed of innate merit, knowledge, non-attachment, and lordliness.8
The significance of the phrase “born first in the world” is made clear elsewhere in the
Yuktidīpikā. In the context of a discussion of the bodies of devas, the commentator elevates
Kapila to an even higher status than he was given by Gauḍapāda, placing him on a par with
Brahmā and above Brahmā’s sons:
The bodies of devas are of four kinds: due to the anugraha of primordial
Materiality (pradhāna, i.e. prakṛti in its unmanifest state), like those of the
supreme ṛṣi and Viriñca (Brahmā); due to their attainments (siddhis), like those
of Brahmā’s sons and grandsons; from mother and father, like those of the sons of Aditi and Kaśyapa; or from fathers alone, like that of Vasiṣṭha from Mitra
and Varuṇa.9
sanatkumāraḥ kapilaḥ saptamaś ca sanātanaḥ //
saptaite mānasāḥ proktā ṛṣayo brahmaṇaḥ sutāḥ /
svayamāgatavijñānā nivṛttaḥ dharmam āsthitāḥ // (Mahābhārata 12.327.64-65) 7 bhagavān viśvāgrajaḥ paramarṣir bhagavadāsurer jijñāsām upalabhyottaraguṇaviśeṣasampadaṃ ca
vyākhyātavān / (Yuktidīpikā on Sāṃkhyakārikā 1, p. 8, l. 19 – p. 9, l. 1) 8 paramarṣir bhagavān sāṃsiddhikair dharmajñānavairāgyaiśvaryair āviṣṭapiṇḍo viśvāgrajaḥ kapilamuniḥ / (Yuktidīpikā on Sāṃkhyakārikā 69, p. 267, ll. 13-14) 9 tatra devānāṃ caturvidhaṃ śarīraṃ pradhānānugrahād yathā paramarṣer viriñcasya ca, tatsiddhibhyo yathā
brahmaṇaḥ putrāṇāṃ tatputraputrāṇāṃ ca, mātāpitṛto yathāditeḥ kaśyapasya ca putrāṇāṃ kevalād vā yathā
pitṛto mitrāvaruṇābhyāṃ vasiṣṭhasya / (Yuktidīpikā on Sāṃkhyakārikā 39, p.228, ll. 12-15)
6
The term anugraha can be translated as “favor” or “assistance,” but the precise significance of
the term in this context is not immediately clear and will be discussed below. It is clear from
this passage though, that the author of the Yuktidīpikā holds that Kapila and Brahmā are
considered equal in terms of the manner in which their bodies are produced. As Chakravarti
(1975, pp. 282-283) and Jacobsen (2008, p. 45) have noted, these two figures are significant
insofar as they fulfill the two primary purposes of prakṛti’s activity. Given the fact that Brahmā
initiates the physical creation of succeeding generations of beings, he fulfills the first purpose
of prakṛti, the experience of prakṛti’s activity (in the form of bodily incarnation) by various
puruṣas. Kapila, on the other hand, who was born with innate knowledge of the Sāṃkhya
principles (tattvas), would appear to fulfill the second purpose of prakṛti; by disseminating his
knowledge of the distinction between prakṛti and puruṣa, he effects the salvation of embodied
beings.
This association is made explicit in another passage of the Yuktidīpikā, which elaborates
on the initial phase of the production of bodies:
Before the manifestation of pradhāna, there was no possibility of merit
(dharma) and demerit (adharma), on account of the fact that these are qualities
of the intellect (buddhi), and [the intellect] is a product of pradhāna. Then, without those [bhāvas], [the constituent qualities of] sattva, etc., aiming at the
[dual] purpose of the experience of [the sensory objects of] sound, etc., and the
realization of the difference between the constituent qualities (guṇas) and
puruṣa, abiding in the state of the intellect, ego, subtle elements, faculties, and elements, produced bodies (śarīra) beginning with those of supreme ṛṣi and
Hiraṇyagarbha (Brahmā).10
Elsewhere in the Yuktidīpikā is found an explanation of the next phase of creation as the time
of the “six attainments,” which are explained as six supernatural forms of reproduction.
Following this begins the normal cycle of saṃsāra, in which rebirth is determined by dharma
10 prāk pradhānapravṛtter dharmādharmayor asambhavo buddhidharmatvāt tasyāś ca pradhānavikā<ra>tvāt /
tatas tadvyatiriktaṃ śabdādyupa<bhoga>lakṣaṇaṃ guṇapuruṣāntaropalabdhilakṣaṇaṃ cārtham uddiśya
sattvādayo mahadahaṃkāratanmātrendriyabhūtatvenāvasthāya paramarṣihiraṇyagarbhādīnāṃ śarīram
utpādayanti / (Yuktidīpikā on Sāṃkhyakārikā 52, p. 255, ll. 8-12).
7
and adharma, and in which physical reproduction is of the kind with which we are now
familiar.11
These passages suggest that the bodies of Brahmā and Kapila were manifested by
pradhāna at the beginning of creation, obviously not in response to any dharma or adharma,
but in order to make possible for the various puruṣas the experience of prakṛti and then
liberation from prakṛti. With regard to the significance of the term anugraha in the previous
passage, as an explanation for this manifestation, there are two possible shades of meaning.
The term could refer simply to the “assistance” or “support” from pradhāna that enables Kapila
and Brahmā to become embodied (in the absence of any other cause for or means of
embodiment). Alternatively, the term could have the connotation of “favor,” in the sense of
the favor shown by prakṛti to all puruṣas by initiating the creation of beings through the
manifestation of Brahmā and the path to liberation through the manifestation of Kapila. I think
it is likely that the anugraha of prakṛti encompasses both of these senses, so I would like to
consider both shades of meaning successively, with reference to usages of the term in other
contexts.
In the former sense, of assistance in becoming embodied, a similar occurrence of the
term is found in the Pali canon. The Pali anuggaha occurs in the context of the Buddha’s
explanation of the four “nutriments” (āhāra):
These four, bhikkhus, are the nutriments for the maintenance of beings who have
been born or for the assistance (anuggaha) of [beings] seeking birth. Which
four? Material food, either gross or subtle, [sense] contact the second, intellectual intention the third, and consciousness the fourth.12
11 See Yuktidīpikā on Sāṃkhyakārikā 39cd, p. 229, ll. 4-17. 12 cattārome, bhikkhave, āhārā bhūtānaṃ vā sattānaṃ ṭhitiyā sambhavesīnaṃ vā anuggahāya / katame cattāro?
kabaḷīkāro āhāro – oḷāriko vā sukhumo vā, phasso dutiyo, manosañcetanā tatiyā, viññāṇaṃ catutthaṃ /
(Saṃyuttanikāya 2.1.2.1).
8
The term here refers to the “assistance” or “support” which enables beings to become
embodied, which would accord well with the use of anugraha in the Yuktidīpikā passage,
although obviously the doctrinal and historical contexts are very different.
The term does occur in a similar sense in connection with the initial manifestation of
prakṛti in several Purāṇas. Following an account of the manifestation of the Sāṃkhya tattvas
in their standard order,13 the term anugraha is used to refer to pradhāna’s instrumentality in
producing the “egg of Brahmā”:
Having come together into conjunction with one another, mutually dependent, and characterized as a single aggregate, having entirely attained unity, on
account of being superintended (adhiṣṭhita) by puruṣa and by means of the assistance (anugraha) of pradhāna, those [tattvas] from intellect down to the
elements produced an egg.14
Here, as in the Yuktidīpikā passage in question, the use of anugraha seems to suggest that
unmanifest prakṛti has a certain instrumental power in combining the manifest elements that
have evolved out of it, in order to initiate the creation of physical beings. The reference in this
passage to the superintendence of puruṣa is also not in contradiction to the Sāṃkhya view. The
Yuktidīpikā, in fact, explains how superintendence (adhiṣṭhātṛtva) applies to puruṣa:
How is there superintendence (adhiṣṭhātṛtva) [on the part of puruṣa]? Just as
when someone is standing by as a witness of activity, the agent brings about the
effect in conformance with the desires of that [witness], so also does pradhāna. Accordingly as the puruṣa’s goal is fulfilled in activity and cessation, so does
[pradhāna] arrange itself through the situation of intellect, ego, subtle elements,
faculties, and elements into devas, human beings, animals, and inanimate
objects, not out of happenstance.15
13 E.g., Viṣṇupurāṇa 1.2.33-49 and Mārkaṇḍeyapurāṇa 45.35-51. This process differs from the orthodox classical
Sāṃkhya doctrine insofar as puruṣa and prakṛti, the two primary principles, originally develop out of Viṣṇu
himself as the supreme being (e.g., Viṣṇupurāṇa 1.2.15-16). 14 Viṣṇupurāṇa 1.2.53-54: sametyānyonyasaṃyogaṃ parasparasamāśrayāḥ / ekasaṃghātalakṣyāś ca
saṃprāpyaikyamaśeṣataḥ // puruṣādhiṣṭhitatvācca pradhānānugraheṇa ca / mahadādya viśeṣāntā
hyaṇḍamutpādayanti te //. Parallel passages are found at Mārkaṇḍeya 45.60b-62a; Padma 3.24b-26a; Kūrma
1.4.34-35; Vāyu 4.65-66. 15 adhiṣṭhātṛtvaṃ katham iti / ucyate: yathā hi kriyāsākṣiṇi kasmiṃścid avasthite kartā tadicchānuvidhāyī kāryaṃ
nirvartayati na svatantraḥ, evaṃ pradhānam api / pravṛttinivṛttyor yathā puruṣasyārthaḥ sidhyati tathā
mahadahaṃkāratanmātrendriyabhūtadevamanuṣyatiryaksthāvarabhāvena vyūhate na yadṛcchātaḥ /
(Yuktidīpikā on Sāṃkhyakārikā 19, p. 176, ll. 23-27).
9
This brings us back to the dual purpose of puruṣa as the motivation for the creation initiated
by pradhāna, and to the second sense of anugraha, “favor.” I use this distinction in translation,
between “assistance” and “favor,” to draw attention to the fact that while pradhāna can play
an instrumental role, or provide “assistance,” in combining the manifest tattvas to initiate
physical creation, the eternally liberated puruṣa itself can never be in need of “assistance,” but
rather pradhāna “favors” puruṣa with the whole process of its activity and cessation of activity.
The term anugraha is used in this sense in Vyāsa’s Bhāṣya and Vācaspati’s
Tattvavaiśāradī on Yogasūtra 1.25, where it refers to the soteriological reason behind the
manifestation of Kapila, whose purpose is to initiate the Sāṃkhya tradition out of compassion
for embodied beings:
Even in the absence of his own [need for] favor (anugraha), the favor
(anugraha) of beings is his motive: “I will lift up the transmigrating puruṣas
through the teaching of knowledge (jñāna) and merit (dharma) in the ages,
dissolutions, and great dissolutions.” And thus it has been said: “The first knower, the glorious supreme ṛṣi, taking control of a transformation-mind
(nirmāṇacitta)16, out of compassion taught the philosophical system (tantra) to
Āsuri, who desired to know.”17
It is taught that Kapila attained knowledge (jñāna) as he was being born, due
simply to the favor (anugraha) of the great Lord (maheśvara). By the name
Kapila he is known as a particular incarnation (avatāra) of Viṣṇu.18
Both here and in the Yuktidīpikā, the term anugraha is used in explanation of the reason for
Kapila’s incarnation. Vyāsabhāṣya and Tattvavaiśāradī differ from the Yuktidīpikā, however,
in that they ascribe anugraha to īśvara (according to Vyāsa) and to Viṣṇu as īśvara (according
to Vācaspati), rather than to pradhāna.19
16 Chakravarti (1975, p. 85) points out the similarity of the concept of nirmāṇacitta to the Buddhist concept of
nirmāṇakāya (“transformation-body”). 17 tasyātmānugrahābhāve ’pi bhūtānugrahaḥ prayojanam / jñānadharmopadeśena kalpapralaya-mahāpralayeṣu saṃsāriṇaḥ puruṣān uddhariṣyāmīti tathā coktam / ādividvān nirmāṇacittam adhiṣṭhāya kāruṇyād bhagavān
paramarṣir āsuraye jijñāsamānāya tantraṃ provāceti // (Vyāsabhāṣya on Yogasūtra 1.25, p. 46). Vācaspati
attributes the quoted passage to the early Sāṃkhya teacher Pañcaśikha (Tattvavaiśāradī on Vyāsabhāṣya 1.25, p.
78, l. 18). 18 kapilasyāpi jāyamānasya maheśvarānugrahād eva jñānaprāptiḥ śrūyata iti / kapila nāma viṣṇor avatāraviśeṣaḥ prasiddhaḥ / (Tattvavaiśāradī on Vyāsabhāṣya 1.25, p. 78, ll. 22-23). 19 On the possibility that the author of the Yuktidīpikā also saw Kapila as an incarnation of “God” (īśvara), see
Bronkhorst (1983) and the discussion below.
10
This soteriological connotation of anugraha seems also to be present where the term
occurs elsewhere in the Yuktidīpikā. It is notably used in connection with the production of
Sāṃkhya knowledge, which serves as the bridge between the two purposes of prakṛti’s
activity—embodied experience and the cessation of experience. In a discussion of the use of
formal inference in the exposition of Sāṃkhya philosophical texts (śāstra), the Yuktidīpikā
explains:
And the favor (anugraha) of everyone is to be accomplished. For this purpose,
the explanation of śāstra is undertaken by the wise, not for their own sake or for the sake of those with a similar intellect to their own.20
In this context, the term is used with a certain soteriological association, implying that the
tradition of Sāṃkhya śāstra exists for the sake of the eventual liberation of all puruṣas,
although this is not explicitly connected to the activity of pradhāna. Elswhere, though, we find
the participle anugṛhīta used in connection with pradhāna’s instillation of a desire for
knowledge in Kapila’s disciple, Āsuri:
But the prākṛta [bhāvas]21 are those like the dispassion of the glorious Āsuri.
For his merit, produced due to his esteem for the supreme ṛṣi, destroyed his impurity, because of being opposed [to it]. When this was destroyed, a stream
of purity came forth from prakṛti, favored (anugṛhīta) by which, having become
a mendicant, the desire to know arose in him, on account of affliction from the three forms of suffering.22
It seems rather significant that here, as in the Yuktidīpikā passage relating the production of the
bodies of Kapila and Brahmā, and in the Purāṇa passage relating the production of the egg of
Brahmā, prakṛti in its unmanifest form appears to exert a direct influence on its manifest
creation, here in the form of this “stream of purity” (śuddhisrotas).
20 sarvasya cānugrahaḥ kartavya ity evamarthaṃ śāstravyākhyānaṃ vipaścidbhiḥ pratāyate na svārthaṃ
svasadṛśabuddhyarthaṃ vā / (Yuktidīpikā on Sāṃkhyakārikā 6, p. 93, ll. 14-16). 21 The term prākṛta (“deriving from prakṛti”) refers to one of the three modes of production of the bhāvas
(conditions of the intellect). 22 prākṛtās tu tadyathā vairāgyaṃ bhagavadāsureḥ / tasya hi paramarṣisambhāvanād utpanno dharmo ’śuddhiṃ
pratidvandvibhāvād apaja<ghāna> / tasyām apahatāyāṃ prakṛteḥ śuddhisrotaḥ pravṛttaṃ yenānugṛhīto
duḥkhatrayābhighātād utpannajijñāsaḥ pravrajitaḥ / (Yuktidīpikā on Sāṃkhyakārikā 43, p. 234, ll. 9-13).
11
According to the Yuktidīpikā, pradhāna has a tendency to directly manifest itself in the
phenomenal world in the form of “streams.”23 Elsewhere in the text, the commentator relates
a mythological story (apparently quoted from an earlier text) in which the Sāṃkhya categories
of the intellectual creation (pratyayasarga)—namely error, incapacity, contentment, and
attainment—are manifested in streams out of pradhāna through the meditation of Brahmā.24
It could be that these categories represent another level of the manifestation of pradhāna’s
anugraha. Specifically, error, incapacity and contentment serve to keep puruṣa bound to the
experience of prakṛti’s activity, while attainment (siddhi) leads to the cessation of that
experience.
It may be significant that some of the Purāṇas associate these categories of the
pratyayasarga with another creation called the anugrahasarga, which is itself a part of a series
of streams produced through the meditation of Brahmā. This anugrahasarga is mentioned in
several of the major Purāṇas:
The fifth [creation] is the anugraha creation. This is arranged into four parts:
error, [in]capacity, contentment, and attainment.25
Oberhammer (1961, p. 153) notes that the only other place this anugrahasarga is found is in
the Sāṃkhya text Tattvasamāsasūtra, which he assumes represents an older strand of Sāṃkhya
tradition. He suggests that the anugrahasarga was a doctrine of pre-classical Sāṃkhya and
was then replaced with the paradigm of the bhāvas in the Sāṃkhyakārikā. On the basis of the
presentation of the bhāvas in the Sāṃkhyakārikā, Oberhammer argues that this anugrahasarga
would have been characterized by a reciprocal dependence of the subtle body and the categories
of the pratyayasarga (pp. 154-156). According to this view, the term anugraha takes on the
connotation of “mutual assistance” or “interdependence.”
23 This seems a suitable activity for pradhāna, which has a literal meaning something like “putting forth.” 24 See Yuktidīpikā on Sāṃkhyakārikā 46ab, p.239, ll. 11-20. 25 Vāyupurāṇa 6.53ab: pañcamo ’nugrahaḥ sargaś caturdhā sa vyavasthitaḥ / viparyyayeṇa śaktyā ca tuṣṭyā
siddhyā tathaiva ca /. Mārkaṇḍeya 47.28 reads: pañcamo 'nugrahaḥ sargaḥ sa caturdhā vyavasthitaḥ /
viparyayeṇa siddhyā ca śāntyā tuṣṭyā tathaiva ca //. The anugraha sarga is also mentioned in: Viṣṇu 1.5.24 and
Agni 20.5.
12
Alternatively, the term anugrahasarga might simply be another name for the
pratyayasarga. An explanation of the significance of the name can be suggested on the basis
of the usage of anugraha in the other contexts we have examined. The series of creations in
which the anugrahasarga appears in the Purāṇas, as well as the creation of the categories of
the pratyayasarga related in the Yuktidīpikā, arise as streams out of pradhāna through the
meditation of Brahmā. As discussed above, both in the Purāṇas and in the Yuktidīpikā, the
production of Brahmā himself was effected through the anugraha of pradhāna. The term
anugrahasarga, as an alternative name for the pratyayasarga, might therefore reflect the fact
that these categories represent a further manifestation of pradhāna’s anugraha or “favor.” The
initial manifestation of Brahmā (and of Kapila, according to the Yuktidīpikā), at the beginning
of creation, would be only the first instance of the anugraha shown to all puruṣas by pradhāna.
The manifestation of the pratyayasarga or anugrahasarga could be seen as a continuation of
this favor, as shown toward living beings after they have been embodied.
In all of the occurrences of anugraha we have considered, the term seems to imply that
unmanifest prakṛti exercises a kind of direct influence on the configurations of the manifest
tattvas. That is, pradhāna acts for the benefit of puruṣa not just by manifesting the tattvas in
the first place, but also by manipulating their phenomenal configurations, first by producing
the bodies of Brahmā and Kapila, and then later by producing the categories of the
pratyayasarga as “streams” that flow into the realm of phenomenal experience. The term
anugraha also appears to hold a soteriological connotation, especially when used in connection
with the birth of Kapila or with the tradition of Sāṃkhya śāstra initiated by him. It thus seems
logical to assume that, according to the author of the Yuktidīpikā, Kapila was born “out of the
anugraha of pradhāna” in order to lead embodied beings to liberation through knowledge.
In connection with this conclusion, an interesting (though indirectly related) usage of
the term anugraha can be found in the Mahābhārata. Here, the term is often used in the context
13
of the duties proper to a king.26 For example, in Book 3 of the epic, Hanumān, in conversation
with Bhīma, refers to nigraha, “repression” or “punishment,” and anugraha, “favor,” shown
toward one’s subjects, as two complementary duties of a king:
When a king correctly proceeds with repression and favor, then the limits of the people
are well established.27
An analogy can be drawn between these two duties of a king and the two purposes of prakṛti.
Just as a king both represses and favors his people, prakṛti both binds the puruṣas by the illusion
of identification with the phenomenal world, and liberates them by producing the knowledge
of their actual difference from prakṛti. According to the evidence of the Yuktidīpikā, Brahmā
fulfills the first of these purposes and Kapila the second.
Note that in the Yuktidīpikā’s explanation of the onset of Āsuri’s receptivity to the
“stream of purity” flowing from prakṛti, Kapila played a central role. It was due to his esteem
for Kapila as his teacher that Āsuri became receptive to the soteriological potential of prakṛti.
The anugraha of all puruṣas depends not only upon the preservation of Sāṃkhya śāstra, but
also upon its explanation by a qualified and respected teacher. The teacher-student
relationship, of which the relationship between Kapila and Āsuri provides the prototype, can
be seen as the key to the continued manifestation of prakṛti’s favor.
The author of the Yuktidīpikā treats Kapila’s original formulation of Sāṃkhya doctrine
as the foundation for this process of transmission. The commentator emphasizes the
conformity of the Sāṃkhyakārikā to Kapila’s original philosophical treatise:
[This] short text, not short in meaning, is possessed of all the characteristics of a tantra, just like an image in a mirror of the tantra of the supreme ṛṣi.28
26 I thank Prof. J. Fitzgerald (personal communication, March 13, 2010) for drawing my attention to this usage
of the term. 27 nigrahānugrahaiḥ samyag yadā rājā pravartate /
tadā bhavati lokasya maryādā suvyavasthitā // (Mahābhārata 3.149.39) 28 alpagrantham analpārthaṃ sarvais tantraguṇair yutam /
pāramarṣasya tantrasya bimbam ādarśagaṃ yathā // (Yuktidīpikā Intro., p. 3, ll. 2-3)
14
The importance placed upon Kapila’s original teaching by the commentator can be assumed to
reflect a conception of Kapila as a direct manifestation of prakṛti’s soteriological power, as the
initiator of a tradition of knowledge by which this power is made manifest. To return to the
cinema image, Kapila would be a hero whose mission is to convince everyone else that they
are only characters in a film.
If our conclusions so far are valid, there remains an interpretative problem with regard
to the position of the puruṣa with which Kapila is associated. Is there a liberated puruṣa still
in the audience, watching the film projected by prakṛti for the benefit of other puruṣas? Or,
perhaps, is Kapila without his own particular puruṣa but rather projected onto the screen for
the benefit of all puruṣas?
Bronkhorst (1983) suggests that the author of the Yuktidīpikā might see Kapila as an
incarnation of the Lord (īśvara), a view mentioned in the passages from Vyāsabhāṣya and
Tattvavaiśāradī discussed above. Bronkhorst’s discussion centers on the observation that the
Yuktidīpikā, like the Pātañjalayoga texts, accepts the existence of īśvara but views him as a
particular puruṣa and therefore passive (p. 153). Nevertheless, Bronkhorst observes, the
Yuktidīpikā does admit that īśvara incarnates in particular bodily forms (p. 152). Bronkhorst
argues that the evidence of the text also implies that Kapila might be one of the forms taken on
by īśvara (pp. 152-155). The evidence for this view is not conclusive, but an association of
Kapila with īśvara would be compatible with the soteriological conception of Kapila that is
arguably apparent in the text.
On the other hand, given the veneration with which Kapila is treated in the Yuktidīpikā,
if he were considered an embodiment of īśvara, one would expect the commentator to make
this explicit. Moreover, as we have seen, Kapila’s manifestation is explicitly associated only
with the soteriological purpose of prakṛti, which is directed toward all beings except for Kapila.
It thus seems plausible that Kapila, the bearer of a primordial Sāṃkhya śāstra, is considered a
direct manifestation of prakṛti in its universal aspect, before the activity of prakṛti becomes
15
differentiated according to the intellectual conditions (bhāvas) associated with particular
puruṣas. Kapila is produced as an embodiment of the creative potential behind the world as a
whole, for the purpose of drawing attention to the structure of that world. In other words, in a
postmodern twist, the director makes an appearance in his own film in order to remind the
audience that they are in fact watching a film.
References
Primary Texts
Gauḍapādabhāṣya (1933). The Sāṁkhya-Kārikā: Īśvara Kṛṣṇa’s Memorable Verses on
Sāṁkhya Philosophy with the Commentary of Gauḍapādācārya. Ed. Har Dutt Sharma. Poona: the Oriental Book Agency.
Mahābhārata (1999). Critical Edition. The Electronic Text of the Mahābhārata. Ed. John P.
Smith. http://bombay.oriental.cam.ac.uk/john/mahabharata/statement.html. Last
accessed: March 10, 2013.
Mārkaṇḍeyapurāṇa. GRETIL e-library edition. http://gretil.sub.uni-goettingen.de/gretil/
1_sanskr/3_purana/mkp1-93u.htm. Last accessed: March 10, 2013.
Pātañjalayogadarśanam (1971). Vācaspatimiśraviracita-tattvavaiśāradī-
vijñānabhikṣukṛta-yogavārtikavibhūṣita-vyāsabhāṣyasametam. Kāśīhindūviśvavidyālayasya kalā-saṃkāye saṃskṛtavibhāge ’dhyāpakena
śrīnārāyaṇamiśreṇa ṭippaṇīpariśiṣṭādibhiḥ saha sampāditam. Vārāṇasī.
Sāṃkhyakārikā (1979). In: Larson, G.J. Classical Sāṃkhya. Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass (2nd revised ed.; 1st ed., 1969), Appendix B.
Tipiṭaka. Chaṭṭha Saṅgāyana edition. Ed. Vipassana Research Institute.
http://www.tipitaka.org/romn/. Last accessed: March 10, 2013.
Vāyupurāṇa. http://sa.wikisource.org/wiki/vāyupurāṇam. Last accessed: March 10, 2013.
Viṣṇupurāṇa. GRETIL e-library edition. Based on the Bombay edition: Venkatesvara Steam
Press, 1910. http://gretil.sub.uni-goettingen.de/gretil/1_sanskr/3_purana/visnup_u.
htm. Last accessed: March 10, 2013.
Yuktidīpikā (1998). The most significant Commentary on the Sāṃkhyakārikā. Critically
edited by A. Wezler and S. Motegi. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
16
Secondary Literature
Bronkhorst, J. (1983). “God in Sāṃkhya.” In: Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde Sudasiens 27: 149-164.
Chakravarti, P. (1975). Origin and Development of the Sāṃkhya System of Thought. Delhi:
Munshiram Manoharlal (2nd ed.; 1st ed., 1951).
Jacobsen, K.A. (2008). Kapila: Founder of Sāṃkhya and Avatāra of Viṣṇu. Delhi:
Munshiram Manoharlal.
Larson, G.J. and Bhattacharya, R.S. (1987). Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, Vol. 4:
Sāṃkhya: A dualist tradition in Indian philosophy. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Oberhammer, G.R.F. (1961). “On the ‘Śāstra’ Quotations of the Yuktidīpikā.” In: Adyar Library Bulletin 25: 131-172.