Chapter 3 - Buddha and Kapila

Buddha did not admit any prime principle like the Prakriti, which has been admitted by Kapila in the Sankhya. Buddha said that what cannot be perceived or inferred, is not existent, and so the manifestation of the universe is mere illusory. But Kapila admitted the phenomenal existence of the universe which goes into its causal state after the liberation of the Purusha, and that when the Purusha makes himself separate from the contact of the Prakriti, the phenomenal universe vanishes. Kapila also admitted the principle like Purusha even after his liberation, or separation from the Prakriti. But Buddha denied the existence of such a Purusha after he attained the liberation or Nirvana. Buddha also denied the Purusha who is devoid of any attribute. Kapila, on the other hand, admitted the process of evolution of the universe, which is caused by the contamination of the Prakriti with the Purusha, and this contamination or connection of the Prakriti with the Purusha is known as sannikarsha or sannidhya. Kapila said that the universe that evolves, appears as real, and when it vanishes or is destroyed, it goes to its causal state. But Buddha did neither believe in the real existence and value of the universe and its evolution, nor in the principles like the Purusha and the Prakriti, as has been said before. He rather substituted the objects of senses for the Prakriti, and the sense organs for the Purusha. The Buddhist thought or Buddhist philosophy was afterwards constructed upon the edifice of the sayings and teachings of Buddha.

Now, besides the Purusha and the Prakriti, and also the evolution of the universe from them, all other principal ideas and thoughts are found almost the same in both the Sankhya philosophy and the Buddhist philosophy. The Sankhya philosophy maintains that since the soul is liberated, the objects of senses and the sense organs are merged into the principles of self-consciousness (ahamkara), self-consciousness marges into understanding (buddhi), and understanding merges into the Prakriti. Then the soul arrives at the absolute knowledge of “I do not exist, I have nothing, and I am nothing”. This knowledge of negation almost corresponds with the absolute knowledge of nothingness or sunyata, as forwarded by the Madhyamika Buddhists. So the actual goal in both the systems of thought, Sankhya and Buddhist appear to be the same. As for example, the Sankhya philosophy says that when the Prakriti vanishes away i.e. is detached from the Purusha, the soul is liberated. The Madhyamika Buddhists are more scientific here in reducing everything, including the soul or atta, to nothingness or void, or sunyata (though, we think, Buddha himself did not reduce the soul and also Nirvana to nothingness or sunyata), without unnecessarily admitting the existences of the Purusha and the Prakriti of the Sankhya, even after the Purusha has arrived at the conviction of “I am nothing, and I have nothing”.

Regarding the process of evolution, the Sankhya system of Kapila says that the stuff of the Prakriti is composed of the three attributes (gunas), sattva, rajas and tamas, and the senses have evolved from the sattva quality of the Prakriti, and the sense objects, from the tamas quality. The Buddhist philosophy, or the systems of thoughts of Buddha also admit the existence and importance of both the sense organs and the sense objects. Now, if we compare both the systems of the Sankhya and the Buddhist, then we will find that though Buddha as well as the Buddhist philosophy do not admit the importance of the principles, Purusha and Prakriti, yet they admit the existence and importance of both the sense organs and the sense objects, which can fill up the place of the Purusha and the Prakriti of the Sankhya. It is needless to mention that according to the Sankhya, the quality or attribute of sattva does the function of illumination, and that of tamas does the function of envelopment, whereas the quality of rajas brings balance between the qualities, sattva and tamas.

Now, let me mention about the process of evolution according to the Buddhist philosophy. The Buddhist philosophy admits six sense organs and six objects of senses. From them sensation or vedana evolves, and from the sensation or vedana self-consciousness or vijnana evolves, and from the self-consciousness or vijnana the consciousness of the (extreme) universe or samjna evolves, and from the consciousness of the universe or samjna impression or samskara evolves. And atta (Atman) can be said to be the ideas of myself as well as of the external universe.

Here we can make a two-fold analysis of the universe, one subjective and the other objective. It is said that primitive Buddhism was founded upon an agnostic basis, the evidence of which can be found from the Sutta-Pitaka, certainly as regards the external world. Buddha declined to state whether it was infinite or finite, whether it was eternal or non-eternal. Moreover, the status of the Atman which has been taught by the Upanishad or Vedanta, was altogether denied by Buddha, because Buddha said that the personality (which is equal to Atman according to Buddha) is not. a unit, but a compound of various factors, such as the material body, consciousness, feeling, ideas, volitions, etc. Now, regarding the subjective and objective classifications, there are two groupings earlier and modern. The later Buddhist philosophers, including Buddhaghosa, preferred to revert to the earlier grouping of the subjective classification, acknowledging also the validity of the objective classification.

The subjective classification is consisted of the three categories, the five skandhas, the twelve ayatanas, and the eighteen dhatus.

(1) The five skandhas constitute the component parts of a personality, although they are not regarded as the ultimate factors in later Buddhism. However, all the ultimate factors are divided’ or classified into five groups or skandhas, and they are rupa-skandha, vedana-skandha, samjna-skandha, samskara-skandha and vijnana-skandha. Rupa literally means form or shape, and sometimes colour. The Sthaviravadins subdivided matter or form or shape in a more systematic way. The Sarvastivadins accepted the atomic theory and the four ultimate elements, from which eleven fundamental material factors were derived. The Yogacharins, being the idealist or vijnanavadins, considered all matter to be the creation of the mind or idea. Nevertheless the vijnanavadin Yogacharins followed the main principle of adopting the four elements and the eleven derivatives, as maintained by the Sarvastivadins, but still their eleven factors differed from those of the Sarvastivadins.

(2) Vedana means sensation or feeling. But this vedana is not similar to the awareness of the Vedantists, rather it is vijnana of the Buddhists. Vasubandhu has translated vedana as the sense feeling caused by the sense impressions.

(3) Samjna means perception, and sometimes conception. The Yogacharins and the Sarvastivadins emphasized upon the conceptual aspect of samjna, though Mrs. Rhys Davids called it an ideation like vijnana.

(4) Samskara is sometimes translated as conscience or volitional mentation, which means chetana. In fact, it is similar to impression of the Vedanta. Vasubandhu said that samskara means a creative activity, and it consists of sixfold chetana which corresponds to volitional mentation. Some Buddhist philosophers regard vedana and samjna as the parts of samskara, so that from the absolute point of view the five categories were reduced to the following materials, body, mental properties, or concomitants of consciousness, and consciousness. In the Hinayana Abhidharma period, elaborate charts of samskaras were compiled. The Sthaviravadins enumerated fifty-two such samskaras. The Yogacharins enumerated fifty-one samskaras,. though they sometimes enumerated them as fifty-two or fifty-three.

(5) Vijnana means consciousnes or cognition. Sometimes vijnana is translated as the various aspects of consciousness. Vijnana, in truth, involves both sensatory and ideation aspects of consciousness. The Buddhists generally admit the six-fold vijnana, though the Yogacharins and Sthaviravadins add some more from the philosophical speculation. The Buddhist philosophers said that rupa is like a plate, vedana is like food, contained in the plate, samjna is like a sauce, samskara is like the cook, and vijnana is like the eater or enjoyer.

The Buddhists describe also twelve ayatanas and eighteen dhatus. The twelve ayatanas are:

1. Object of sight,
2. Object of hearing,
3. Object of smell,
4. Object of taste,
5. Object of touch,
6. Object of thought.
   = sense-objects.
7. Organ of sight,
8. Organ of hearing,
9. Organ of smell,
10. Organ of taste,
11. Organ of touch,
12. Organ of thought.
    = sense-organs.

A dhatu, like dharma, is defined as that which bears its own attributes. Vasubandhu called them genus or species (vyakti or jati). In fact, there are fifteen sensuous factors, consisting of the five sense objects, the five sense organs and the five-fold sense perceiving aspects of consciousness.

The Buddhists differ in many respects from the Sankhyan philosophers, but they agree also in many things, as advanced by the Sankhya. As for example, the Buddhists agree with Kapila in admitting time or kala as a substance, because time or kala, according to both, is a mere cognition or knowledge, or form of thought, as Kant believed. Both the Buddhist and the Sankhyan philosophers do not also admit the existence of God the Creator and also the authority of the Vedas. Now, some are of opinion that the Buddhist philosophy is more or less indebted to the Sankhya philosophy for many doctrines and phraseologies of the scriptures. Shakyamuni Gautama was known as Buddha or Bodhisattva being enlightened with Nirvana or salvation, and the term ‘Bodhisattva’ is connected with the sattva quality of the Sankhya, and also the term bodhi is derived from the buddhitattva or buddhi of the Sankhya. In the Prajnaparamita, the word bodhi has been used in the feminine gender, coresponding to the gender of the buddhi, as has been mentioned by Kapila in the Sankhya philosophy. The Buddhists thought themselves to be made up of the sattva (shining) quality, and were called the Bodhisattva or intelligent and illuminating substance. The particle tanmatra of the Sankhya corresponds also to tathata of the Buddhists and their rupa-tathata has also been used for the Sankhyan rupa-tanmatra. Thus we find that the Buddhists incorporated some of the substance or matter as well as terminology of the Sankhya philosophy in the later days.

In the fourth century, after the parinirvana of the Lord Buddha, Maharaja Kaniska found that the Buddhists were divided into eighteen schools, and those schools were undoubtedly the sub-divisions of the four main schools which will be described in the next chapter. In fact, principal schools and sects evolved or were developed in India, in northern countries like Tibet and Nepal, China, Japan, Korea, and in the southern countries, Ceylon, Burma, Thailand, Cambodia and other lands. Buddhist literature, mainly written in Pali, Sanskrit (pure and mixed), Tibetan and Chinese, also evolved with the spread of Buddhist faith and religion. When Buddha died, he told his personal attendant and disciple, Ananda, that the Dhrama and Vinaya would be the supreme authority in the future. It is said that all the teaching or saying were recorded in the Suttas and Vinaya. In truth, Buddha’s sayings and their commentaries were handed down orally from teachers to disciples, and gradually they were collected and written in the systematic order with the decisions, taken in different Buddhist Councils, though we get some different versions or accounts in the Tibetan and Chinese translations of Vasumitra and others.

The Buddhists were mainly divided into two schools, Hinayana and Mahayana. Buddha said: “Do you think then, O Subhuti, that those who, having success to the higher road, Mahayana (i.e. the unfailing road), leave it, give it up, and consider the lower road (Hinayana), is worth-seeking”. Now the question is as to why Hinayana was strongly condemned. It was because that the followers of this road (yana) were considered as their sole aim for the control of one Atta (Atman), the peace of the Atta (Atman) and also for extinction of one Atta. They condemned the practice of all meritorious acts for the control, for the peace, and for the extinction of their own souls. Should that be the be-all and end-all of a higher spiritual Bodhisattva? The aim should be to place his own self in Truth or tathata, then to place all sentient beings in Truth or tathata, and thus to bring about the extinction of an inconceivable number of sentient beings. Therefore, the Hinayana is narrow, selfish and limited, whereas the Mahayana is broad, catholic and enlightened.

But these two schools are not important for the study of the Buddhist cosmology. Certain branches of the Buddhist thought is to be necessary to survey almost every sect and subsect before the completion of research or cosmological investigation, and for that purpose there arose three other schools:

(1) The Ceylonese which was founded on the Pali tradition, and was said to be the earliest Buddhist school, known as the Sthaviravadins or Theravadins.

(2) The Sarvastivadins were included in the learned and philosophical school of the Hinayana. The canons of this school were probably written first in Prakrit, and then were transformed into Sanskrit.

(3) The Yogacharins were also known as the vijnanavadins or vidyamatrins. This school was closely connected with the Sarvastivadin school, and its philosophical and other works were written in Sanskrit.

The Chinese and the Japanese schools also adopted the cosmological study or investigation of Buddhism. But the three schools, Sthaviravadin, Sarvastivadin and Yogacharin were greately interested in the Buddhist cosmology. Some scholars including Dr. W. M. McGovern and others are of opinion that for the Sthaviravadin school the standard taken has been the Abhidharmartha-Samgha, and by way of commentary and notes. For the Sarvastivadins the standard taken has been the Abhidharma-kosha, together with the criticisms of Samghabhadra in his Nayanusara, and Abhidharma-Prakarana. And for the Yogacharin school the standard taken has been the Vidyamatrasiddhi of Dhannapala, etc., together with the classical Chinese commentaries.

The Sakhyan school of Kapila was also interpreted in different ways by Isvarakrishna, Asuri, Panchashikha, Vijnanabhikshu, and others, and for the different interpretations, different schools also evolved in the domain of the Sankhyan thought. But it should be mentioned that in each of the schools, the guiding principles and central philosophy, as contributed by Kapila, were maintained by every Sankhya school with some differences.