Is Purusha an Agent?

Now follow a number of special questions, which seemed to require fuller treatment. The first is, Is the Purusha an agent, or is he not? If Purusha were an agent, he would do good actions only, and there would not be the three different kinds of action. The three kinds of action are (1) Good conduct, called virtue (Dharma), which consists in kindness, control and restraint (of the organs), freedom from hatred, reflection, displaying of supernatural powers.

(2) But passion, anger, greed, fault-finding, violence, discontent, rudeness, shown by change of countenance, these are called indifferent conduct.

(3) Madness, intoxication, lassitude, nihilism, devotion to women, drowsiness, sloth, worthlessness, impurity, these are called bad conduct.

We see here once more that the three Gunas must have had originally a much wider meaning than is here described. They are here taken as purely moral qualities, whereas originally they must have had a much larger cosmic sense. They are not qualities or mere attributes at all; they are on the contrary ingredients of Prakriti in its differentiation of good, indifferent, bad; bright, dim and dark; light, mobile, heavy. We see here the same narrowing of cosmical ideas which we had to point out before in the case of Buddhi and Ahamkâra, and which, it seems to me, would render the original conception of the Samkhya-philosophy quite unmeaning. We must never forget that, even when the Sâmkhya speaks of moral qualities, these qualities belong to nature as seen by the Purusha, never to Purusha apart from Prakriti.

Three Gunas.

Whenever this triad is perceived in the world it is clear that agency belongs to the Gunas, and it follows that Purusha is not the agent.

Deceived by passion and darkness, and taking a wrong view of these Gunas which belong to Prakriti, not to himself, a fool imagines that he himself is the agent, though in reality he is unable by himself to bend even a straw. Nay, he becomes an agent, as it were, foolish and intoxicated by vain imagination and saying, 'All this was made by me and belongs to me.'

And then it is said (in the Bhagavad-gîtâ III, 27): 'Acts are effected by the qualities (Gunas) of Prakriti in every way, but the Self (Atman), deluded by the conceit of the I (Ahamkâra), imagines that the I is the agent.'

Ibid. XIII, 31:

'This imperishable supreme Self, from being without beginning and devoid of qualities, neither acts nor suffers, even while staying in the body.'

And XIII, 29:

He sees (aright) who looks upon actions as in all respects performed by Prakriti alone, and upon the Self as never an agent.'

Is Purusha one or many?

Now comes the important question, Is that Purusha one or many? The answer to this question divides the Sâmkhya from the Vedanta-philosophy. The Sâmkhya answer is that the Purusha is clearly many, because of the variety in the acts of pleasure, pain, trouble, confusion and purifying (of race), health,

birth and death; also on account of the stages in life (Asrama) and the difference of caste (Varna). If there were but one Purusha, as the Vedântins hold, then if one were happy, all would be happy; if one were unhappy, all would be unhappy, and so on in the case of people affected by trouble, confusion of race, purity of race, health, birth and death. Hence there is not one Purusha, but many, on account of the manifoldness indicated by form, birth, abode, fortune, society or loneliness. Thus Kapila, Âsuri, Pañkasikha and Patañgali, and all other Sâmkhya teachers describe Purusha as many.

Vedanta Sayings.

But teachers who follow the Vedânta, such as Harihara, Hiranyagarbha, Vyâsa and others, describe Purusha as one. And why so? Because (as the Vedanta says),

I. 'Purusha is all this, what has been and what is to be, he is lord of that immortality which springs up by (sacrificial) food, that is, he is beyond the immortality of the ordinary immortal gods1.

2. That is Agni, that is Vâyu, that is Sûrya, that is Kandramas, that is pure, that is Brahman, that is water and Pragâpati 2.

3. That is true, that is immortal, it is liberation,

1 These verses are meant to represent the views of the Vedanta, and they are mostly taken from the Upanishads. The first from Svet. Up. III, 15, occurs also Taitt. Âr. III, 12, 1, and in the Rig-veda X, 90, 2, where we should read, Yát ánnenâdhiróhati, see Deussen, Geschichte, I, p. 152.

2 Mahânâr. Up. I, 7; cf. Våg. Samh. 32, 1.

it is the highest point, it is indestructible, it is the glory of the sun;

4. Higher than which there is nothing else, nothing smaller, and nothing greater, the One stands like a tree planted in the sky; by him. and by the Purusha, all this is filled'.

5. Having hands and feet everywhere, having mouth, head and eyes everywhere, hearing everywhere in this world, it stands covering everything;

6. Shining through the qualities (Guna) of all the senses, and yet free from all the senses, the master of all, the Lord, the great refuge of all ;

7. He is all substances everywhere, the Self of all, the source of all; that in which everything is absorbed, that the sages know as Brahman.

8. For there is but one Self of beings, settled in everybody, it is seen as one and as many, like the moon in the water.

9. For he alone, the great Self, dwells in all beings, whether moving or motionless, he by whom all this was spread out.

10. This Self of the world is one-by whom was it made manifold? Some speak of the Self as several, because of the existence of knowledge, &c. (because knowledge is different in different people). 11. Wise people see the same (Âtman) in the Brahman, in worms and insects, in the outcast, in the dog and the elephant, in beasts, cows, gadflies, and gnats.

4

12, 13. As one and the same string passes

1 Svet. Up. III, 9; Mahânâr. Up. X, 20.

2 Svet. Up. III, 17; cf. Bhag. Gîtâ XIII, 14.

3 Brahmabindu Up. 12.

Ꮓ

Cf. Bhag. Gità V, 18.

through gold, and pearls, jewels, corals, porcelain, and silver, thus is one and the same Self to be known as dwelling everywhere in cows, men, and in elephants, deer,' &c.

We see in these extracts a mixture of Vedanta and Sâmkhya terms and ideas; and in verse 10 the two views of Brahman being one, and the Purusha being many, are given in the same breath.

Early Relation between Vedanta and Sâmkhya.

The relation between Sâmkhya and Vedânta during the Upanishad-period is by no means clear. Most scholars seem to regard it as a kind of syncretism, but it may also represent to us a period of philosophic thought when these two views of the world were not yet finally differentiated, and were not felt to be altogether incompatible. Though there is in the Upanishads which we possess a decided preponderance of a Vedântic interpretation of the world, the Sâmkhya philosophers are not altogether wrong when they maintain that their view also can be supported by Vedic authority. All these views were at first no more than guesses at truth, gropings in the dark; but the idea that if the one was right the other must be wrong, belongs decidedly to a later period, to that of systematised and controversial philosophy. There are certain technical terms, such as Purusha, Buddhi, Gunas, &c., which are looked upon as the peculiar property of the Sâmkhya, and others, such as Âtman, Brahman, Avidyâ, Mâyâ, &c., which remind us at once of the Vedanta-philosophy; but even these terms are used far more freely in the Brahmanas and Upanishads than in the Darsanas,