Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Samkhya, one of the oldest schools of Indian philosophy, posits a dualistic reality comprised of Purusa (consciousness, the self) and Prakriti (matter, nature). This system asserts their complete independence, meaning neither influences nor defines the other. However, this very independence presents a significant philosophical challenge: how can interaction, and consequently, the experienced world, arise from two utterly separate entities? Adi Shankaracharya, the proponent of Advaita Vedanta, critically examined this Samkhya dualism, arguing that its inherent contradictions render it untenable. This answer will present Shankara’s key criticisms, demonstrating how his monistic framework offers a more coherent explanation of reality.
Samkhya Dualism: A Brief Overview
Samkhya philosophy, as articulated by Kapila, proposes that reality is fundamentally divided into two distinct principles: Purusa and Prakriti. Purusa represents pure consciousness, the witnessing self, which is eternal, unchanging, and passive. Prakriti, on the other hand, is the primordial matter, the source of all physical and mental phenomena. It is dynamic, constantly evolving, and possesses three gunas (qualities): sattva (goodness, purity), rajas (passion, activity), and tamas (inertia, darkness). The interaction of these gunas within Prakriti gives rise to the diverse world we experience. Crucially, Samkhya maintains that Purusa and Prakriti are fundamentally independent; Purusa merely witnesses the evolutions of Prakriti without influencing them.
Shankara’s Critique of Samkhya
Shankara, in his commentaries on the Brahma Sutras and other texts, launches a powerful critique against Samkhya’s dualism. His objections center around the impossibility of explaining the relationship between Purusa and Prakriti if they are truly independent. He raises several key points:
1. The Problem of Causation and Interaction
Shankara argues that if Purusa and Prakriti are completely separate, there is no logical basis for their association. If Prakriti evolves and manifests the world, what motivates this evolution? Samkhya posits that Prakriti evolves for the enjoyment (bhoga) of Purusa. However, if Purusa is entirely unaffected and independent, it cannot be the cause or even the reason for Prakriti’s evolution. A cause must have some relation to its effect, but Samkhya denies any such relation between Purusa and Prakriti. This leads to an inexplicable and arbitrary evolution of Prakriti.
2. The Problem of Suffering and Liberation
Samkhya explains suffering as arising from the Purusa’s identification with Prakriti. Liberation (kaivalya) is achieved when Purusa realizes its distinctness from Prakriti. However, Shankara questions how this realization is possible if Purusa is truly unaffected. If Purusa is untouched by Prakriti, how can it be ‘identified’ with it in the first place, and how can it ‘realize’ its separation? The very concepts of identification and realization imply some form of interaction, which contradicts the initial premise of complete independence.
3. The Incoherence of Multiple Purusas
Samkhya accepts the existence of multiple Purusas. Shankara points out that if each Purusa is independent and unaffected, then their experiences are entirely isolated. There is no basis for empathy, moral responsibility, or even the possibility of shared knowledge. This leads to a fragmented and incoherent view of reality, where each individual consciousness exists in complete isolation.
Shankara’s Alternative: Advaita Vedanta
Shankara proposes Advaita Vedanta (non-dualism) as a solution to the problems inherent in Samkhya’s dualism. Advaita posits that Brahman is the ultimate reality, which is one, eternal, and unchanging. The world we perceive is not ultimately real but is an appearance (Maya) projected onto Brahman. Maya is not illusion in the sense of non-existence, but rather a misperception of reality, a superimposition of name and form on the underlying Brahman. The individual self (Atman) is ultimately identical to Brahman.
In this framework, the apparent duality of subject and object, Purusa and Prakriti, is resolved. Prakriti is not an independent reality but a manifestation of Maya, a power of Brahman. The interaction between Purusa and Prakriti is explained as the interplay of Brahman and its illusory power. Suffering arises from ignorance (avidya) of our true nature as Brahman, and liberation is achieved through the realization of this identity.
| Samkhya Dualism | Advaita Vedanta (Shankara) |
|---|---|
| Two independent realities: Purusa & Prakriti | One ultimate reality: Brahman |
| Prakriti evolves for the enjoyment of Purusa | The world is Maya, a projection of Brahman |
| Liberation through Purusa’s separation from Prakriti | Liberation through realization of Atman-Brahman identity |
| Multiple Purusas | One Atman, identical to Brahman |
Conclusion
Shankara’s critique of Samkhya’s dualism effectively demonstrates the logical difficulties arising from positing two completely independent realities. His Advaita Vedanta offers a more coherent metaphysical framework by asserting the ultimate oneness of reality, resolving the problems of causation, suffering, and the relationship between the self and the world. While Samkhya provides a valuable analysis of the constituents of reality, Shankara argues that it fails to provide a satisfactory explanation of their underlying unity. His monistic perspective continues to be a dominant force in Indian philosophical thought.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.