Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

1

matter by reason alone. His memory survives only in his system; for of the details of his life or of the time. when he lived we have no certain account. It is probable that he lived in the seventh or eighth century before Christ. He is said to have been born at Pushkara, a sacred bathing-place near Ajmeer, and to have dwelt at Ganga Sagar; but there is no reliable evidence in support of either statement. It seems to be certain that he was born in Northern India, and at some time before the birth of the great reformer Gautama Buddha, the date of whose death has been generally assigned to 544 B.C.; for in the Pali Dāṭhavamsa, Buddha is said to have been born in the city of Kapila, and that this city, called Kapila-vastu, had been built by the sons of Ikshvāku, by the permission of the sage Kapila, and that it was near the Himalaya mountains (i. 20). An indefinite antiquity was sometimes assigned to the system. In the first book of the Mahabharata, Nārada is said to have taught the thousand sons of Daksha the doctrine of final deliverance (from matter), the surpassing knowledge of the Sankhya,2 and he is reckoned as one of the Prajapatis, or first progenitors of mankind.

Tradition affirms that Kapila lived as a recluse-he is called a Muni in Bhag. G., x. 1. 52-and that he possessed a supernatural power, not always used with philosophic calmness. In the Rāmāyana (i. 36–44) we are told, with true Oriental exaggeration, that the sixty thousand sons of Sagara, a king of Ayodhyā (Oude), were directed by their father to go in search of a horse

1 In the Padma Purāņa he is said to have dwelt in the village of Indraprastha (F. Hall, Introduction to S. Sāra, p. 20).

2 Adi-parvan, 3131; Sans. Texts, i. 125.

2

that had been stolen by a Rakshasa (demon) at an aśwamedha (horse-sacrifice). Meeting with Kapila in their search, they accused him of the theft, and the charge so enraged him that he reduced them immediately to ashes.1 It does not appear that Kapila separated himself entirely from the Brahmanic system. It has been said that he "proclaimed the authority of revelation as paramount to reasoning and experience." This, however, is contrary to the main principle of his system, which upholds a knowledge of philosophy as the only way of obtaining the deliverance of the soul from matter. He denies that such a result can be obtained from the Vedas; for they are impure, as ordaining sacrifice, and insufficient for the attainment of this great purpose. He allows "valid testimony" to be one method of proof; and his Vedāntist expounders have interpreted this to be an acknowledgment of the divine origin and authority of the Vedas, but there is no ground for such a statement. The common designation of his system as Nirīśwara (godless or atheistical) is a sufficient indication that it did not acknowledge a Supreme Lord or a divine revelation. The eminent Vedāntist commentator, Śankara, rightly estimated the position of the Sankhya system with regard to the Vedas. In his commentary on the Brahma Sutras he discusses this subject, and concludes: "Hence it is proved that Kapila's system is at variance with the Veda, and with the words of Manu, who follows the Veda, not only in supposing an independent Prakriti (Nature), but also in supposing a mentary on the Brahma Sūtras, ii. I, I; Sans. T., iii. 190).

1 Sankara says, however, that it was another Kapila, named also Vasudeva [a name of Krishna], who destroyed the sons of Sagara (Com

2 Sanskrit Literature, p. 83.

diversity of souls" (Sans. T., iii. 190). The system of Kapila, if it had been generally adopted, would have been as fatal to the Vedāntist ritual and doctrine as that of Gautama Buddha, which was the natural result or logical issue of the earlier system. In each, knowledge and meditation took the place of religious rites; but Kapila established no society and no hierarchy; he knew nothing of sympathy with mankind in general; he addressed himself to thinkers like himself, and to these alone. Hence his system remained only as a philosophical theory, affecting the whole course of Hindu thought in some respects, chiefly in its physical speculations, but never attaining to a practical supremacy over large masses of men. It was never embodied and crystallised in a concrete form, and as a complete system it has been preserved only as an intellectual product, or as an esoteric doctrine, understood and accepted by a small inner circle of free-thinking men.

It has often been misunderstood. Professor Cousin asserted that it was a pure materialism, though the soul is represented in it as holding a kind of royal supremacy, and all material things are subservient to it. Another writer states, on the contrary, that in this system "souls alone are regarded as substances, whatever affects the soul being ranged under the head of a quality: 1. pleasing; 2. displeasing; or 3. indifferent." The Gunas, however, are not qualities, but constituent elements, of Prakriti, as real in their nature as the soul, and having like it an eternal existence.1

1 The Sankhya philosophy, whatever may be its merits or demerits, is rarely presented in a correct form by Western writers. Professor

Schlüter in describing it says, "Das Selbstbewusstsein (Ahankāra) ist erzeugt und nicht zeugend" (Aristotle's Metaph. eine Toch. de San

The term sankhya is from the noun sankhyā, number, and also calculation, reasoning. In the Mahābhārata it is said: "They (the Sankhyans) exercise reason (sankhyā) and discuss Nature and the twenty-four principles, and are therefore called Sankhya." Vijnāna Bhikshu, in his commentary, explains the noun sankhyā as meaning discrimination,” "the setting forth of spirit as distinct from matter (Prakṛiti).” Śankara Āchārya gives a similar interpretation (Comm. on the Vishņu-sahasra-naman; trod. to Sankhya Sāra, by F. Hall). The course of ideas seems to be from number to discrimination, and then to a discriminating judgment, a result of reasoning.

[ocr errors]

In

The doctrines of the Sankhya system have been set forth in many well-known treatises, and on these many commentaries have been written.

1. The Sankhya-Pravachana (Exposition of the Sankhya), or Sankhya Sutras, a work which has been attributed, but erroneously, to Kapila. It appears to be comparatively modern, for it is not mentioned by Sankara Acharya, who lived probably in the seventh or eighth century A.D.; by Vachaspati Miśra; or even by the author of the Sarva-darśana-sangraha, who is supposed to have lived in the fourteenth century.1 The most important commentary on this work is the Sankhya-pravachanabhāshya, by Vijnāna Bhikshu, probably written in the sixteenth century.

2. The Tattwa-Samāsa, or Compendium of Principles, a smaller work, also assigned by some, but incorrectly, to Kapila.

khya-Lehre, p. 11). It is, on the contrary, from consciousness, or conscious mind-matter, that the subtle essences of material forms

proceed, and from these the gross, visible, manifold forms of sensuous existence.

1 Introd. to Sank. Sāra, p. 9.

3. The Sankhya-Sara, written by Vijnana Bhikshu. It has been lately edited by Dr. Fitz-Edward Hall, who has prefixed to it a valuable introduction.

4. The Sankhya-Kārikā (Exposition of the Sankhya), by Iswara Krishṇa. This is a work of high authority on the subject, and appears to be the oldest exposition of Kapila's philosophy that has come down to the present time. An edition of this work was published at Bonn in 1832 by Professor Lassen, with a Latin translation and notes. It was also translated by the late Sir H. T. Colebrooke, and this translation was adopted by Professor Wilson in an edition published by the Oriental Society, to which the commentary of Gauḍapāda, with explanations, was added. It has also been translated into German by Drs. Windischmann and Lorinser, and into French by Messrs. Pautier and St. Hilaire. latter has added a very extensive commentary.

The

It consists of seventy-two distichs or slokas, each expressing in general a distinct principle or dogma. The last three, however, are not connected with the exposition of the Sankhya system, and are probably a late addition. It is written in the Ārya or Gāthā metre.1

It is this work which is now presented to my readers in a new translation with notes, and also occasionally with references to other systems where they coincide with parts of the system of Kapila. It may seem hazardous to attempt the translation of a work which is confessedly obscure and difficult, after the labours of such eminent Sanskrit scholars as Professor Lassen and Sir H. T. Colebrooke; but neither of them has, I think, interpreted the Hindu system, or this exposition of it,

1 Williams, Sans. Gram., p. 354, 2d ed.

« ZurückWeiter »