The five schools of philosophy that preceded Shankara’s systemic exposition of Vedantic metaphysics were the Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Sankhya, Yoga, and Purva Mimamsha. All these were essentially guided by two fundamental tenets, investigation or mimamsha, and reflection or vichara – about the ultimate nature of the world, and the consequential purposes of life. They overlapped in their concepts and reasoning in some respects, but their differences were equally marked, and in this sense, provide definitive proof of the eclectic milieu of those times, and the independence and robustness of thought they nurtured.
The Nyaya Sutra dates back to the third century BCE and is attributed to the sage Gautama. This school’s principal preoccupation is with logic and dialectics, analysis and reasoning. To this end, the Nyaya relied primarily on four sources of knowledge: perception (pratyaksha), inference (anumana), analogy (upamana) and verbal testimony (shabda). Such tools were essential, the Nyaya Sutra stressed, to establish whether that which is posited exists or not. In other words, the importance of Nyaya lies in the fact that it set out the analytical framework for enquiry, and refused to accept anything only on face value or assertion.
The Vaisheshika school of the sage Kanada (third century BCE) relied closely on the tools of reasoning expounded upon by Nyaya, but went beyond to formulate what must arguably be the first philosophical doctrine based on the recognition of the atom.
All material objects, it asserts, are ultimately the product of four basic atoms found in earth, water, fire or air. Amazingly, for its times, the doctrine concludes that all finite objects can be broken down into parts and finally reduced to that one infinitesimal, indestructible and indivisible atom. A combination of atoms produces different products, which could, in their final form, be different from their constituent parts. The doctrine admits that in the evolutionary process, from the atom to a finite whole, the end result could be based on a dominant characteristic or vishesha, but essentially the worldview of the Vaisheshika is pluralistic.
While foundationally realistic in its approach, the Vaisheshika recognises that not all substances are material. The non-material aspects of cosmology include space, time, ether (akasha), mind and soul. At this point, somewhat reluctantly, Kanada accepts the possibility of a God or Ishwara who combined the four kinds of atoms and five nonmaterial substances into an ordered universe. The essential tone of the philosophy, however, remains atheistic, since even while conceding the presence of god, it limits his role to the ordering of the universe, and not to the creation of the elements that constitute it.
The Sankhya school was essayed by Kapila in the seventh century bce, and is one of the oldest systematised structures of thought in Hindu philosophy. In essence, the Sankhya posits a cosmic duality to the universe, consisting of Prakriti and Purusha. Prakriti, unlike the pluralistic atomistic view of the Vaisheshika, is a pervasive singularity, eternal and independent, from which the universe evolves. But this evolution happens only when Prakriti comes under the influence of Purusha, which stands for awareness or the sentient principle.
Until the influence of Purusha, Prakriti, representing the ‘potentiality of nature’13 lies latent, its three constituents, sattva, rajas and tamas, in equilibrium. Sattva stands for that which is pure; rajas signifies energy and activity; and tamas connotes inertia and stolidity.
This equilibrium is disturbed when Purusha interfaces with Prakriti, and evolution commences with all its manifest diversities. The emergence of the five cognitive organs – taste, touch, sight, sound and smell – and the five motor organs of movement are part of this evolution, as is the emergence of intellect (buddhi) and the ego (ahamkara). According to the Sankhya, this evolution is cyclical, with creation (shrishti) followed by dissolution (pralaya), and pralaya again followed by shrishti. For a human being, liberation consists in understanding the distinction between the material Prakriti and the sentient Purusha.
This understanding comes by lifting the veil of ignorance through the pursuit of jnana.
For sheer conceptualisation, there is an awe-inspiring grandeur to the cosmic architecture profiled by the Sankhya. What is especially interesting is that in the self-evolving cosmic drama that it structures, there is no place for god. As we shall see later, there are many aspects of this school that influenced Shankara, including, in particular, the emphasis on knowledge as the way to salvation, although he remained resolutely opposed to the duality of the system.
The Yoga school broadly accepts the worldview of the Sankhya, but fleshes out the physical discipline and meditational regimen required by an individual to realise the separation (kaivalya) of Purusha, pure consciousness, from the non-sentient Prakriti. The Yoga Sutra is attributed to Patanjali and is dated to sometime before 400 CE. Several scholars believe it to be of much greater antiquity, and it is very likely that even if composed later, the sutra codifies a tradition and practice from several centuries earlier.
The Yoga Sutra begins with this aphorism: Yogah chitta vrittih nirodha: Yoga is restraining the mind from discursive thought. This restraint, it believes, can be brought about by discipline, both physical and mental. In the sutra, discipline is outlined as an eightfold path, starting from yama (self-restraint), niyama (virtuous observances), asana (posture), pranayama (consciously controlling breath), pratyahara (withdrawal of the senses), dharana (concentrating the mind), dhyana (meditation), and samadhi (a trance-like state in which there is complete union with the subject of meditation).
Yoga literally translates to “union”, and the purpose of the entire regimen of the eightfold path is to prepare the disciple for this union with Purusha. Unlike the Vedantic system, which believes that enlightenment, based on jnana, can come to anybody at any time through direct anubhav or communion, Yoga provides to Sankhya a carefully structured complementary system of mental and physical exercises that it believes is a necessary pre-condition to moksha. On one essential point, however, Yoga differs from Sankhya, and that is in its acceptance of a personal god, who directs the cyclical evolutionary process from creation to dissolution.
The practice of dharma, through ritual action sanctified by the Vedas, is the principal focus of the Purva Mimamsha. Jaimini (circa 400 BCE) was its chief theoretician. This doctrine believes in karma or action and not jnana as the path to salvation. Its preoccupation is with the practice and interpretation of Vedic rites and rituals, which are to be performed out of a sense of duty and in the manner prescribed by the orthodox texts associated with the Vedas such as the Brahmanas.
The school believes that performing the obligatory rituals and abstaining from those that are proscribed will lead by itself to the elimination of evil and the attainment, through the purification of the soul, of moksha.
In the seventh century CE, Kumarila Bhatta wrote an extensive commentary on the original treatise of Jaimini. Shankara, who believed that jnana not karma is the path to salvation, met with Kumarila Bhatta, and had a definitive shastrartha or argumentation on this issue with Mandana Mishra.
Excerpted with permission from Echoes of Eternity: A Journey Through Indian Thought from the Rigveda to the Present, Pavan K Varma, Westland.
