Kapila muni's sAnkhyA

[Guest guest]

Dear members,

I have a doubt. Please clarify. It's held that the sAnkhya

theory is against vedAnthA since it doesn't approve of the

possibility of a Supreme Universal controller viz., paramAthmA.

As well-known this theory was propounded by Sage Kapila. It's

also held that Sage Kapila is an amsam of Sriman Narayana as

brought out in Sri Vishnu Sahasranama, as also mentioned in the list

of incarnations of the Lord.

I have also read in this list that Sage Vyasa refutes sAnkhyam

in his Brahma Sutras.

Can scholars please shed some light and clarify this apparent

contradiction between Kapila muni's svarUpam and His theory?

 

I apologise if I had mentioned anything in this mail such that

it offends anybody's beliefs.

 

adiyEn,

chandrasekaran.

[Guest guest]

Chandrasekaran Venkatraman writes:

> Dear members,

> I have a doubt. Please clarify. It's held that the sAnkhya

> theory is against vedAnthA since it doesn't approve of the

> possibility of a Supreme Universal controller viz., paramAthmA.

> Can scholars please shed some light and clarify this apparent

> contradiction between Kapila muni's svarUpam and His theory?

 

Traditionally speaking, it is recognized that there are multiple

Kapilas. The Kapila who originated the non-theistic (nirISvara)

sAnkhyA philosophy is considered different than the Kapila who is

described as an avatAra of the Lord in Srimad Bhagavatam and other

Puranas. What is interesting is that in Srimad Bhagavatam this

Kapila propounds a theistic form of sAnkhyA which is acceptable

to Vedanta. (Please not that "sAnkhyA" by itself simply means

"enumeration" or "analysis". It is a way of discerning that the

true self is distinct from matter, i.e., the body. sAnkhyA as

a general system is held in great respect in the Gita.)

 

The latter may be a purely mythological figure; we do not know.

We also do not really know much about the former Kapila. The

main source of information about the sAnkhyA school these days

comes from Isvara-Krishna's sAnkhya-kArika.

 

The main problem Vedantins have with most sAnkhyA schools,

both theistic and non-theistic, is that they do not accept that

Brahman is both the material and efficient cause of the universe.

That is to say, they taught that world-creation occurred through

the commingling of two separate and distinct entities, purusha

and prakRti. Some theistic sAnkhyA schools accepted an Absolute God

but still held that God created the universe ex nihilo, i.e., from

without, meaning that God used prakRti as clay external to Himself.

 

The Vedantic conclusion, of course, is that not only did God create

the universe, God Himself *became* the universe. The various Vedantic

schools elaborate on this fundamental idea. [*]

 

The reason this is important is that it is taught in the Vedanta

that the knowledge of the One will lead to the knowledge of all,

including that which has not been heard or seen before. That One

is Brahman. This means that the creative cause and creation

are one and the same.

 

aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

Mani

 

[*] P.S. Interestingly, the Dvaita school of Vedanta does not accept this

fundamental principle.