or

Âsraya for the journey of the soul from existence to existence is Sûkshma-sarîra, the subtle body. The Vedantists look upon this thin and transparent vehicle of the soul as a seminal or potential (Viga or Sakti) body, which at death leaves the coarse material body, without being injured itself. This subtle body arises, according to the Vedanta, from the so-called Upâdhis (conditions), and consists of the senses of the body (Dehendriyas), both perceptive (Buddhîndriyas) and active (Karmendriyas), and of Manas (mind), of Buddhi (intellect), Vedanâ (sensation), implying beyond itself the Vishayas, objects required for sensation and presupposed already by Manas. Its physical life is dependent on the Mukhya Prâna, the vital spirit, and on the five Prânas, the specialised spirits. Its Indriyas or senses are not to be taken as the external organs of sense, such as ears, eyes, &c., but as their functions only (Vritti). This subtle and invisible body or Sûkshma-sarîra remains, according to the Vedanta, till true knowledge arises, and the individual soul recovers its true being in Brahman. The Vedântists are, however, by no means consistent in their views on these two bodies, the subtle and the coarse body (Sûkshmam and Sthûlam Sarîram), or on the process by which the one affects or controls the other. At the final dissolution of the coarse body we are told that the Indriyas are absorbed in the Manas, the Manas in the Mukhya Prâna, this in the Giva, the individual, and this in the subtle body; but neither the Upanishads nor the Vedanta-Sutras are always quite consistent and clear in their views on the subject, and it seems to me useless to attempt to reduce their various guesses to one uniform theory.

In the Sâmkhya-philosophy this Sûkshma-sarîra appears as Linga-sarîra, or the sign-body. The Sthûla-sarîra or coarse material body consists, according to some Sâmkhya teachers, of the five or four coarse elements (Bhûtas), according to others of the element of the earth only, and is made up of six coverings, hair, blood, flesh, sinews, bones and marrow. The subtle or inner body, sometimes called the vehicle, or the Âtivâhika-sarîra, is formed of eighteen elements', of (1) Buddhi, (2) Ahamkara, (3) Manas, (4-8) the five Tanmâtras or Sûkshmabhûtas, and (9-18) the ten senses. This body is of course invisible, but without it the coarse body would be useless. It forms what we should call our personality, and causes the difference in the characters of individuals, being itself what it has been made to be by former works. All fitness for reward and punishment attaches to it, not to the Purushas who are all alike and unchanging, and it likewise determines by means of its acquired dispositions the gross bodies into which it has to enter from life to life, till final freedom is obtained by the Purusha ; and not only the gross body, but the subtle body also is reabsorbed in Prakriti.

The Atheism of Kapila.

We have still to say a few words about the charge of atheism brought against the Sâmkhyas. It seems certainly strange that at this early time

1 Kârikâ 40, and Sâm khya-Sûtras III, 9. Why the Lingasarîra should be said to consist of seventeen and one (Saptadasaikam) elements, is difficult to say, unless Eka is taken for the Purusha who, for the time being, identifies himself with the subtle body.

and surrounded as he no doubt was by sacrifices and hymns addressed to the innumerable Vedic Devas, nothing should have been said by Kapila either for or against these beings. Most likely at his time and before his time, the different Devas of the popular religion had already been eclipsed in the minds of thoughtful people by one Deity, whether Pragâpati, Visvakarman, or Brahman. Both Pragâpati and Brahmâ are mentioned in the Tattva-samâsabhâshya. But even such a supreme Deva or Adhideva is never asserted or denied by Kapila. There is a place in his system for any number of subordinate Devas, but there is none for God, whether as the creator or as the ruler of all things. There is no direct denial of such a being, no out-spoken atheism in that sense, but there is simply no place left for him in the system of the world, as elaborated by the old philosopher. He had, in fact, put nearly everything that belonged to God into Prakriti, only that this Prakriti is taken as purely objective, and as working without a conscious purpose, unless when looked at by Purusha, and then working, as we are told, for his benefit only.

This has sometimes been illustrated by what must have been a very old fable, viz. that of a cripple who could not walk, meeting another cripple who could not see. As they could not live by themselves, they lived together, the lame one mounting on the shoulders of the blind one. Prakriti, we are told, was the blind, Purusha the lame traveller.

We must remember, however, that Prakriti, though blind, is always conceived as real, because the Sâmkhya-philosophy looks upon everything that is, as proceeding out of something that is real (Sat

kâryavâda). And here we see again, the fundamental difference between the Sâmkhya and the other philosophies, as Vakaspati-Misra has pointed out in his commentary on the Sâmkhya-kârikâ 9. The Buddhist takes the real world as the result of nothing, the Vedântist takes the unreal world as proceeding from something real, Naiyâyika and Vaiseshika derive what does not yet exist from what does exist, while the Sâmkhyas derive what is from what is1.

If it be asked how the unconscious Prakriti began to work and attract the attention of Purusha, Kapila has an answer ready. The Gunas, he says, are first in a state of equipoise, but as soon as one of the three preponderates, there is tension, and Prakriti enters on the course of her unceasing labours, beginning with the emanation of Buddhi, and ending with the last of the twenty-four Tattvas.

There is this difference also between the atheism of Kapila and that of other atheistic systems of philosophy, that Kapila nowhere puts himself into a hostile attitude towards the Divine idea. He nowhere denies distinctly the existence even of the purely mythological gods, such as Indra, which is strange indeed; nor does he enter on any arguments to disprove the existence of one only God. He simply says-and in that respect he does not differ much from Kant-that there are no logical proofs to establish that existence, but neither does he offer any such proofs for denying it. We know that Kant, honest thinker as he was, rejected all the logical proofs of the existence of Deity as insufficient, and based the arguments for his belief in God on purely

1 Garbe, Sâmkhya-Philosophie, p. 202.

ethical grounds. Though we have no right to assume anything of the kind with regard to Kapila, when brought face to face with this great religious and moral problem, the existence of a supreme God, we ought to mark his impartiality and the entire absence, in the whole of his philosophy, of anything like animus against a belief in God. The Devas he could hardly have seriously believed in, we should say, and yet he spares them and allows them to exist, possibly with the reservation that people, in worshipping them, were unconsciously approaching the true Purusha. We should not forget that with many people atheism meant, and means, a denial of Devas rather than the denial of the one, only God, the First Cause of the world. This whole question, however, will be better discussed when we reach the Yoga-philosophy and have to examine the arguments produced by Patañgali against Kapila, and in support of the admission of a Supreme Being, generally called Îsvara, the Lord.

Immorality of the Samkhya.

It has also been said that Kapila's system is not only without a God, but likewise without any morality. But though it is quite true that, according to Kapila, Purusha in his perfect state is nonmoral, neither merit nor demerit, virtue nor vice, existing any longer for him, he is certainly not allowed to be immoral. The Sâmkhya, like the Vedanta and other systems of Indian philosophy, implies strong moral sentiment in the belief in Karman (deed) and transmigration. Kapila also holds that deeds, when once done, can never cease, except at the time of Moksha, but produce effect