Part 4 - Philosophy of the Jayākhya and other Saṃhitās

The Pañcarātra literature is, indeed, vast, but it has been shown that most of this literature is full of ritualistic details and that there is very little of philosophy in it.

The only saṃhitās (so far as they are available to us) which have some philosophical elements in them are the

• Jayākhya-saṃhitā,
• Ahirbudhnya-saṃhitā,
• Viṣṇu-saṃhitā,
• Vihagendra-saṃhitā,
• Parama-saṃhitā
• and Pauṣkara-saṃhitā;

of these the Ahirbudhnya and the Jayākhya are the most important.

The Jaya starts with the view that merely by performance of the sacrifices, making of gifts, study of the Vedas, and expiatory penances, one cannot attain eternal Heaven or liberation from bondage. Until we can know the ultimate reality (para-tattva) which is all-pervasive, eternal, self-realized, pure consciousness, but which through its own will can take forms, there is no hope of salvation. This ultimate reality resides in our hearts and is in itself devoid of any qualities (nir-guṇa), though it lies hidden by the qualities (guṇa-guhya) and is without any name (a-nāmaka).

A number of sages approached Śāṇḍilya in the mountain of Gandhamādana with inquiry concerning the manner in which this ultimate reality may be known. Śāṇḍilya in reply said that this science was very secret and very ancient, and that it could be given only to true believers who were ardently devoted to their preceptors. It was originally given to Nārada by Viṣṇu. The Lord Viṣṇu is the object of our approach, but He can be approached only through the scriptures (Śāstra); the Śāstra can be taught only by a teacher. The teacher therefore is the first and primary means to the attainment of the ultimate reality through the instructions of the scriptures.

The Jayākhya-saṃhitā then describes the three kinds of creation, of which the first is called Brahma-sarga, which is of a mythological character; it is stated that in the beginning Brahmā was created by Viṣṇu and that he, by his own egoism, polluted the creation which he made and that two demons, Madhu and Kaitabha, produced from two drops of sweat, stole away the Vedas and thus created great confusion. Viṣṇu fought with them by His physical energies, but was unsuccessful. He then fought with them by His “mantra” energy and thus ultimately destroyed them.

The second creation is that of the evolution of the Sāṃkhya categories. It is said in the Jayākhya-saṃhitā that in the pradhāna the three guṇas exist together in mutual unity. Just as in a lamp the wick, the oil and the fire act together to form the unity of the lamp, so the three guṇas also exist together and form the pradhāna. Though these guṇas are separate, yet in the pradhāna they form an inseparable unity (bhirmam ekātma-lakṣaṇam). These guṇas, however, are separated out from this state of union, and in this order of separation sattva comes first, then rajas and then tamas.

From the threefold unity of the guṇas the buddhi-tattva is evolved, and from this are produced the three kinds of ahaṃkāra,

1. prakāśātmā,
2. vikṛtyātmā
3. and bhūtātmā.

From the first kind of ahaṃkāra, as taijasa or as prakāśātmā, the five cognitive senses and the manas are produced. From the second kind of ahaṃkāra the five conative senses are evolved. From the ahaṃkāra as bhūtātmā the five bhūta-yoni or sources of elements (otherwise called the five tan-mātra) are produced, and from these are derived the five gross elements. The prakrti is unintelligent and material in nature, and so, as may well he expected, the evolution from prakṛti is also material in nature. The natural question in this connection is: how can matter begin to produce other material entities? The answer given to this question is that, though both a paddy seed and a piece of rice are material by nature, yet there is productivity in the former, but not in the latter; so, though the prakṛti and its evolutes are both material in nature, yet one is produced out of the other.

The products of the unintelligent prakṛti, being suffused with the glow of the self as pure consciousness, one with Brahman, appear as being endowed with consciousness^[1]. Just as a piece of iron becomes endowed with magnetic powers, so the prakṛti also becomes endowed with intelligence through its association with the intelligent self in unity with Brahman. The question, however, arises how, since matter and intelligence are as different from each other as light from darkness, there can be any association between the unconscious prakṛti and the pure intelligence. To this the reply is that the individual soul (jīva) is a product of a beginningless association of vāsanā with pure consciousness. For the removal of this vāsanā a certain power emanates from Brahman and, impelled by Mis will, so works within the inner microcosm of man that the pure consciousness in the jīva is ultimately freed from the vāsanā through the destruction of his karma, and he becomes ultimately one with Brahman.

The karma can bear fruits only when they are associated with their receptacle, the vāsanā. The self, or the soul, is brought into association with the guṇas by the energy of God, and it can thereby come to know its own vāsanā, which are non-intelligent by nature and a product of the guṇa^[2]. So long as the self is in association with the covering of māyā it experiences good and evil. The association of consciousness with matter is thus effected through the manifestation of a special energy of God by which the self is made to undergo the various experiences through its association with māyā. As soon as the bond is broken, the self as pure consciousness becomes one with Brahman.

The third creation is the pure creation (śuddha-sarga), in which God, otherwise called Vāsudeva, evolved from out of Himself three subsidiary agents, Acyuta, Satya and Puruṣa, which are in reality but one with Him and have no different existence. In His form as Puruṣa God behaves as the inner controller of all ordinary gods, whom He goads and leads to work. And it is in this form that God works in all human beings bound with the ties of vāsanā, and directs them to such courses as may ultimately lead them to the cessation of their bondage.

God is pure bliss and self-conscious in Himself. He is the highest and the ultimate reality beyond all, which is, however, self-existent and the support of all other things. He is beginningless and infinite and cannot be designated either as existent or as non-existent (na sat tan nāsad ucyate). He is devoid of all guṇas, but enjoys the various products of the guṇas, and exists both inside and outside us. He is omniscient, all-perceiving, the Lord of all and all are in Him. He combines in Him all energies, and is spontaneous in Himself with all His activities. He pervades all things, but is yet called non-existent because He cannot be perceived by the senses. But, just as the fragrance of flowers can be intuited directly, so God also can be intuited directly^[3]. All things are included in His existence and He is not limited either in time or in space. Just as fire exists in a red-hot iron-ball as if it were one therewith, so does God pervade the whole world. Just as things that are imaged on a mirror may in one sense be said to be in it and in another sense to be outside it, so God is in one sense associated with all sensible qualities and in another sense is unassociated therewith.

God pervades all the conscious and the unconscious entities, just as the watery juice pervades the whole of the plant^[4]. God cannot be known by arguments or proof. His all-pervading existence is as unspeakable and undemonstrable as the existence of fire in wood and butter in milk. He is perceivable only through direct intuition. Just as logs of wood enter into the fire and are lost in it, just as rivers lose themselves in the ocean, so do the Yogins enter into the essence of God. In such circumstances there is difference between the rivers and the ocean into which they fall, yet the difference cannot be perceived^[5]. There is thus both a difference between the waters of the rivers and the ocean and an absence of difference, even as between the devotees of God and God. The doctrine here preached is thus a theory of bhedābheda or unity-in-difference.

Brahman is here described as being identical with consciousness, and all objects of knowledge (jñeya) are regarded as existing inside the mind^[6]. The true knowledge is unassociated with any qualifications, and it can rise only through the process of Yogic practice by those who have learnt to be in union with God^[7].

When through the grace of God one begins to realize that all the fruits of actions and all that one does are of the nature of the guṇas of prakṛti, there dawns the spiritual inquiry within one, as to one’s own nature, and as to the nature of the essence of sorrow, and one approaches the true preceptor. When the devotee continues to think of the never-ending cycle of rebirths and the consequent miseries of such transitoriness and other afflictions associated with it, and also undergoes the various bodily disciplines as dictated by his Gurus, and is initiated into the “mantras” his mind becomes disinclined to worldly joys and pure like the water in the autumn, or the sea vvithout any ripple, or like a steady lamp unfluttered by the wind. When the pure consciousness dawns in the mind, all possible objects of knowledge, including the ultimate object of knowledge, arise in the mind, and the thought and the object become held together as one, and gradually the Supreme knowledge and cessation that brings “Nirvāṇa” are secured.

All that is known is in reality one with the thought itself, though it may appear different therefrom. This ultimate state is indescribable through language. It can only be felt and realized intuitively without the application of logical faculty or of the sense-organs. It can be referred to only by means of images. It is transcendental by nature, ultimate and absolutely without any support. It is the mere being which reveals itself in the joy of the soul. Of the two ways of Samādhi which proceed through absorptive emotions (bhāva-jā) and the way of the practice of mantras it is the latter that is the more efficacious. The practice of mantras removes all obstacles to selfrealization produced by māyā and its products.

In describing the emanation of Acyuta, Satya and Puruṣa from Vāsudeva, the Jayākhya-saṃhitā holds that such an emanation occurs only naturally and not as a result of a purposive will; and the three entities, Acyuta, Satya and Puruṣa, which evolve out of Vāsudeva, behave as one through mutual reflections, and in this subtle form they exist in the heart of men as the operative energy of God, gradually leading them to their ultimate destination of emancipation and also to the enjoyment of experiences.

The Jayākhya-saṃhitā describes knowledge as two-fold, as sattākhya (static) and as kriyākhya (dynamic). The kriyākhya-jñāna involves the moral disciplines of yama and niyama, and it is by the continual habit and practice of the kriyākhya-jñāna of yama and niyama that the sattākhya-jñāna, or wisdom, may attain its final fulfilment. The yama and the niyama here consist of the following virtues: purity, sacrifice, penance, study of the Vedas, absence of cruelty, and ever-present forgiveness, truthfulness, doing good to all creatures including one’s enemies, respect for the property of others, control of mind, disinclination of mind to all things of sensual enjoyment, bestowing gifts upon others according to one’s own power, speaking true and kind words, constancy of mind to friends and enemies, straightforwardness, sincerity and mercifulness to all creatures. The equilibrium of the three guṇas is called Avidyā, which may be regarded as the cause of attachment, antipathy and other defects. Ātman is the term used to denote the pure consciousness, as tinged with guṇas, avidyā and māyā.

The position described above leads to the view that God emanates from Himself as His tripartite energy, which forms the inner microcosm of man. It is by virtue of this energy that the pure consciousness in man comes into association with his root-instincts and psychosis in general, by virtue of which the psychical elements, which are themselves unconscious and material, begin to behave as intelligent. It is by virtue of such an association that experience becomes possible. Ultimately, however, the same indwelling energy separates the conscious principle from the unconscious elements and thereby produces emancipation, in which the conscious element of the individual becomes merged in Brahman. The association of the conscious element with the unconscious psychosis, which has evolved from prakṛti, is not due to a false imaging of the one or the other, or to an illusion, but to the operative power of the indwelling energy of God, which exists in us.

The individual, called also the Atman, is the product of this forced association. When the complex element is disassociated from the psychosis and the root-instincts, it becomes merged in Brahman, of which it is a part and with which it exists in a state of unity-in-difterence. The difference between this view and that of the Sāṃkhya is that, though it admits in general the Sāṃkhya view of evolution of the categories from prakṛti, yet it does not admit the theory of Puruṣa and the transcendental illusion of Puruṣa and prakṛti, which is to be found in the classical Sāṃkhya of īśvara kṛṣṇa. There is no reference here to the teleology in prakṛti which causes its evolution, or to the view that the prakṛti is roused to activity by God or by Puruṣa. Prakṛti is supposed here to possess a natural productive power of evolving the categories from out of itself.

The Jayākhya-saṃhitā speaks of the devotee as a yogin and holds that there are two ways of arriving at the ultimate goal, one through absorptive trance, and the other through the practice of concentration on the mantras. In describing the process of Yoga, it holds that the yogin must be a man who has his senses within his absolute control and who is devoid of antipathy to all beings. Full of humility, he should take his seat in a lonely place and continue the practice of prāṇāyāma for the control of mind. The three processes of prāṇāyāma, viz. pratyāhūra, dhyāna, and dhāraṇā, are described. Then, Yoga is stated to be of three kinds, prākṛta, pauruṣa and aiśvarya, the meaning of which is not very clear. It rriay, however, be the meditation on prakṛti' s ultimate principle, or on Puruṣa, or the Yoga, which is intended for the attainment of miraculous power. Four kinds of āsanas are described, namely, that of Paryamka, Kamala, Bhadra and Svastika. The l ogic posture is also described. The control of the mind, which again is regarded as the chief aim of yoga, may be of two kinds, namely, of those tendencies of mind which are due to environments and of those that are constitutional to the mind. It is by increasing the sattza quality of the mind that it can be made to fix itself upon an object.

In another classification we hear of three kinds of yoga,

1. sakala,
2. niṣkala
3. and Viṣṇu,

or

1. sabda,
2. vyoma
3. and sa-vigraha.

In the sakala or the sa-vigraha type of yoga th e yogin concentrates his mind on the gross idol of the deity; and then gradually, as he becomes habituated, he concentrates his mind on the notion of a glowing circular disc; then on the dimension of a pea; then on the dimension of a horse-hair; then on a human hair of the head; then on the human hair of the body; and as a consequence of the perfection of this practice the path of the brahma-randhra opens up for him. In the niṣkala type of yoga the yogin meditates upon the ultimate reality, with the result that his own essence as Brahman is revealed to him. The third form consists in the meditation on the mantras, by which course also the ultimate reality is revealed to the yogin. Through the process of the yoga the yogin ultimately passes out by the channel of his brahma-randhra and leaves his body, after which he attains unity with the ultimate reality, Vāsudeva^[8].

In the fourth chapter of the Viṣṇu-Saṃhitā (Manuscript) the three guṇas are supposed to belong to Prakṛti, which, with its evolutes, is called Kṣetra, God being called Kṣetrajña^[9]. The prakṛti and God exist together as it were in union^[10]. The prakṛti produces all existences and withdraws them within it in accordance with the direction or the superintendence of the Puruṣa^[11], though it seems to behave as an independent agent. Puruṣa is described as an all-pervading conscious principle.

The Viṣṇu-saṃhitā, after describing the three kinds of egoism as sāttvika, rājasa and tāmasa, speaks of the rājasa ahamkāra not only as evolving the conative senses but also as being the active principle directing all our cognitive and conative energies. As the cognitive energy, it behaves both as attention directed to sense-perception and also to reflection involving synthetic and analytic activities.

The Viṣṇu-saṃhitā speaks further of the five powers of God, by which the Lord, though absolutely qualityless in Himself, reveals Himself through all the sensible qualities. It is probably in this way that all the powers of prakṛti exist in God, and it is in this sense that the kṣetra or the prakṛti is supposed to be abhinna, or one with God.

These powers are

1. (first) cic-chakti^[12], that is, power of consciousness, which is the unchangeable ground of all works.
2. Second is His power as the enjoyer, or puruṣa.
3. The third power is the causal power, manifested as the manifold universe.
4. The fourth power is the power by which sense-objects are grasped and comprehended in knowledge.
5. The fifth power is that which resolves knowledge into action.
6. The sixth power is the power that reveals itself as the activity of thought and action^[13].

It seems, therefore, that what has been described above as puruṣa, or enjoyer, is not a separate principle, but the power of God; just as prakṛti itself is not a separate principle, but a manifestation of the power of God.

^[14] (wisdomlib: unknown note location, somewhere in following paragraph)

The process of Bhāgavata-yoga described in Viṣṇu-saṃhitā consists primarily of a system of bodily and moral control, involving control of the passions of greed, anger, etc., the habit of meditation in solitary places, the development of a spirit of dependence on God, and self-criticism. When, as a result of this, the mind becomes pure and disinclined to worldly things, there arises an intellectual and moral apprehension of the distinction of what is bad and impure from what is good and pure, whence attachment, or bhakti, is produced. Through this attachment one becomes selfcontented and loyal to one’s highest goal and ultimately attains true knowledge. The process of prāṇāyāma, in which various kinds of meditations are prescribed, is also recommended for attainment of the ultimate union with God, which is a state of emancipation. The view here taken of bhakti, or devotion, shows that bhakti is used here in the simple sense of inclination to worship, and the means to the fruition of this worship is yoga.

The so-called bhakti-schooi of the Bhāgavatas was so much under the influence of the yoga-system that a bhakta was required to be a yogin, since bhakti by itself was not regarded as a sufficient means to the attainment of salvation. In the tenth chapter of the Parama-saṃhitā the process of yoga is described in a conversation between Brahmā and Parama. It is said there that the knowledge attained by yoga is better than any other kind of knowledge. When deeds are performed without yoga wisdom, they can hardly bring about the desired fruition. Yoga means the peaceful union of the mind with any particular object^[15]. When the mind is firmly fixed on the performance of the deed, it is called karma-yoga ^[16]. When the mind is unflinchingly fixed on knowledge, it is called jñāna-yoga^[17]. He, however, who clings to the Lord Viṣṇu in both these ways attains ultimately supreme union with the highest Lord.

Both the jñāna-yoga and the karma-yoga, as the moral discipline of yama and niyama on the one hand and vairāgya (disinclination) and samādhi on the other, are ultimately supported in Brahman. It may be remembered that in the Gītā, karma-yoga means the performance of the scriptural caste-duties without any desire for their fruits. Here, however, the karma-yoga means yama and niyama, involving vrata, fasting (upavāsa) and gifts (dāna), and probably also some of the virtues of diverse kinds of self-control. The term vairāgya means the wisdom by which the senses are made to desist from their respective objects; and the term samādhi means the wisdom by which the mind stays unflinchingly in the Supreme Lord. When the senses are through vairāgya restrained from their respective objects, the mind has to be fixed firmly on the Supreme Lord, and this is called yoga.

Through continual practice, as the vairāgya grows firm, the vāsanās, or the root-instincts and desires, gradually fall off. It is advised that the yogin should not make any violent attempt at self-control, but should proceed slowly and gently, so that he may, through a long course of time, be able to bring his mind under complete control. He should take proper hygienic care of himself as regards food and other necessities for keeping the body sound and should choose a lonely place, free from all kinds of distractions, for his yoga practice. He should not on any account indulge in any kind of practice which may be painful to his body. He should further continue to think that he is dependent on God and that birth, existence and destruction are things which do not belong to him. In this way the pure bhakti will rise in his mind, through which he will gradually be able to extract the root of attachment. He should also train himself to think of the evils of alluring experiences which have not yet been enjoyed, and he should thus desist from attaching himself to such experiences.

As regards the preference of karma-yoga to jñāna-yoga and vice versa, the view maintained here is that there can be no rule as regards the preference. There are some who are temperamentally fitted for karma-yoga and others for jñāna-yoga. Those who are of a special calibre should unite both courses, karma-yoga and jñāna-yoga.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

cid-rūpam ātma-tattvaṃ yad abhinnaṃ brahmaṇi sthitaṃ
tenaitac churitaṃ bhāti acic cinmayavad dvija.
     Jayākhya-saṃhitā (MS.), III. 14.

When this section was written the Jayākhya-saṃhitā was not published. It has since been published in the Gaekwad’s oriental series.

[2]:

māyāmaye dvijā-dhāre guṇā-dhāre tato jaḍe
śaktyā saṃyojito hy ātmā vetty ātmīyāś ca vāsanāh.
     Ibid. III. 24.

[3]:

sva-saṃvedyaṃ tu tad viddhi gandhaḥ puṣpādiko yathā.
     Jayākhya-saṃhitā, IV. 76.

[4]:

cetanā-cetanāḥ sarve bhūtāḥ sthāvara-jaṅgamāḥ
pūritāḥ parameśena rasenauṣadḥayo yatḥā.
     Ibid. IV. 93.

[5]:

sarit-saṃghād yathā toyam saṃpraviṣṭam maho-dadhau
alakṣyaś co’ dake bhedaḥ parasmin yogināṃ tathā.
     Jayākhya-saṃhitā, iv. 123.

[6]:

brahmā-bhinnaṃ vibhor jñānaṃ śrotum icchāmi tattvataḥ
yena saṃprāpyate jñeyam antaḥ-karaṇa-saṃsthitam.
     Ibid. IV. 1.

[7]:

sarvo’-pādhi-vinirinuktatri jñānam ekānta-ninnalam
utpadyate hi yuktasya yogābhyāsāt krameṇa tat.
     Ibid. v. 2.

[8]:

Jayākhya-saṃhitā, Ch. 33. In Ch. 34 the process of yoga by which the yogin gradually approaches the stage of the final destruction of his body is described.

[9]:

kṣetrākhyā prakṛtir jñeyā tad-vit kṣetra-jña Īśvaraḥ.
      Viṣṇu-saṃhitā, IV.

[10]:

ubhayaṃ cedam atyantam abhinnam iva tiṣṭḥati.
     Ibid.

[11]:

tan-niyogāt svatantreva sūte bhāvān haraty api.
     Ibid.

[12]:

cic-chaktiḥ sarva-kāryābdiḥ kīiṭasthaḥ parameṣṭḥy asau
dvitiyā tasya yā śuktiḥ puruṣūkhyādi-vikriyā
viśvā’-khyā vividhā-bhāsā tṛtīyā karuṇā’-tmikā
caturthī viṣayaṃ prāpya nivṛtty-ākhyā tathā punaḥ.
     Viṣṇu-saṃhitā.

[13]:

purvā-jñāna-kriyā-śaktiḥ sarvākhyā tasya pañcamī.
     Ibid.

[14]:

tasmāt sarva-prayatnena bhākto yogī bhavet sadā.
     Ibid. Ch. 30.

[15]:

yat karoti samādhānarn cittasya viṣaye kvacit
anukūlam a-saṃkṣobhaṃ samyoga iti kīrtyate.
     Parama-saṃhitā, Ch. 10 (MS.).

[16]:

yadi karmāṇi badhnanti cittam askhalitarn naram
karma-yogo bhavaty eṣah sarva-pāpa-praṇāśanaḥ.
     Ibid.

[17]:

yadi tu jnāna evārthe cittaṃ badhnāti nirvyathaḥ
jñāna-yogaḥ sa vijñeyaḥ sarva-siddhi-karaḥ śubhaḥ.
     Ibid.