You are here: Sri Vaishnava Home Page : Bhakti List : Archives : December 2000

Re: [Kapila muni's sAnkhyA]

From: M.S.HARI Madabhushi Sarangarajan Hari (
Date: Thu Dec 14 2000 - 12:42:21 PST

Dear SrI Chandrasekaran Venkatraman,

Your question is impressive but I think you will not 
mistake me for making a correction to your question. 

You have written:
>"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"

Here, "a Supreme universal controller" should be "the
Supreme universal controller"; this is because, your words
leads to a presumable point that the Supreme Universal
controller may be established by anumAnam itself, which
is not possible. (Refer the concluding note of this article)

The subject is very vast; It can be known clearly only through
the traditional kAlakshEpam methods. Still, let me outline it.
Let me answer your question briefly as follows. Hope the list
owner will not reject this article for its length. Furhter, 
I am writing these things from my poor memory; the adhikaraNa-sUtra 
numbers, transliterations are subject to verification! At Singapore,
I do not have all the granthams except few books. I have to depend
only upon my memory and hand written notes that I prepared during
my kAlakshepams. Therefore, scholars, please correct me if there
is spelling mistakes/transliteration errors or such mistakes.
I answer your questions as follows:

However great may be Sage Kapila who composed the nireeswara
sAnkaya smruthi, but his words do not agree with the VedAnta. Therefore, 
Kapila smruthi it is rejected. The two sUtras in Brahma sUtra second chapter
(avirOdha adyAyam), first pAdam (smruthi pAdam), smruthiyadhikaraNam declares

"smruthyanavakASa-dOsha-prasanga ithi chEnnAnyassmruthyanavakASa
dOsha prasangAth"

The ithihAsas, purANas, dharma-SAstras etc., are aiming at explaining and
ascertaining the purport of apowrushEya Sruthi. The Kapila smruthi is one
amoung them. If this smurhti is accepted, then the pradhAnam (prakruthi-
achit) is to be accepted as jagath kAraNAm. If this is rejected, then there is
no use for kapila smruthi as veda-upabruhmaNam. To avoid this case, if one
argues that it has to be accepted, then by the same manner of 
argument, it can be argued that manu smruthi, pArASara smruthi etc., which 
is fully in accordance with the Sruthi has to be accepted as
veda-upabruhmaNam; If it is not accepted, then the same dOsham "no use" 
arises for these smruthis also. Also the veda-virudhda and vaidika smruties
cannot be simultaneously accepted as both are mutually 
contradicting one another. When we have number of smruties like manu 
smruthi which are fully in accordance with the Sruthi, why should kapila 
smruthi which is against the Sruthi be treated and accepted as 
veda-upabruhmaNam? Therefore, considering veda-virudhda kapila smruthi as 
veda-upabruhmaNam is not appropriate.


If it is argued that Sage Kapila is also equally great "yogi" as Manu (who 
is an amSam of VishNu) etc, then it can be counter-aruged that Manu, 
parASara etc have not found out (through the Sruthi) what Kapila has 
found. . As Kapila smruthi is against the Veda, it can be safely conclued 
that Kapila smruthi is bhrAnthi-mUlam - having confusion/bewilderment as 
source. Therefore, Kapila smurhti is rejected.

In brahma sUtra 2-2-9, we find the sUtra "viprathishEdAth asamanjasam";
the sAnkaya theory of Kapila has mutually contradicting concepts and
therefore it is irrational; it is refuted and rejected. The explanation of 
these things are lengthly. The smruthi-pAdam and tarka-pAdam in the second
chapter of Brahma sUtra has all the points to refute nireeswara sAnkya

The kapila sAnkya matham's thathvam is "mUla-prakruthirvikruthi: 
mahadAdyA: prakruthi vikruthaya: saptha: | shODaSakaScha vikArO 
na prakruthirna vikruthi: purusha: || This is the nireeSwara sAnkya 
pancha-vimSathi thathva sangraham. This has to be very critically
analysed and only then, we can find it to be against the pramANam.

SrImath ParASara bhaTTArya: in his SrI RangarAja stavam (2-17) mentions 
nireeSwara sAnkaya matham in a way, which refutes it as "sanchashtE nESvaram
thvAm purusha-parishadi nyasya yadvAAnyaparyAth sAnkya:"

In yatirAja sapthati, the greatest AchArya swAmi SrIman NigamAntha 
mahA dESika says "kapila kalpanA vAgurAm". The nireeSwara sAnkya matham
of Kapila is refuted and rejected by Vaidikas.

In the Brahma sUtra's second chapter (avirOdha-adyAyam), second pAda (tarka
pAdam), Veda vyAsa in rachanAnupapathyadhikaraNam, refutes 
nireeSwara sAnkya matham in detail

"rachanAnupapaththEScha nAnumAnam pravruthEScha"

The insentient (achit) cannot be held independently as the cause (kAraNam)
as it has no knowledge. "effect" (kAryam) is possible if and only if
a prAgnya (sentient entity) is admitted to adminster it. Therefore the
anupravESam (being entered into it by sankalpam atleast) is esstential.
This prAgnya is the paramAthma. Otherwise, the achit cannot be held
as kAraNam.


If it is argued that "like milk (kAraNam) becomes curd (kAryam) by itself, 
prakruthi (kAraNam) by itself (independenlty without paramAthma) becomes
jagath (kAryam), then this anumAnam is invalid because, even in the
example "milk-curd", chEthana-vasthu is involved. The micro-organisms
are chEthana (chit) entities (sentients), and they have further another
chEthana entity (who is paramAthmA) as their Aathma. Without chEthana
entity, kAryam is not possible.


If paramAthma is not required/accepted here in Srushti (creation), then 
creation should be continous and always it should be happening; as this is 
not observed, mere pradAnam cannot be the kAraNam.

"anyathrAbhAvAncha na truNAdivath"

If it is argued that "just like the grass eaten by a cow automatically 
becomes milk, the pradhAnam independently is the jagath-kAraNam" then, 
this argument is  funny because the opponent has accepted 
chEthana-sankalpam but still argues that independent achit is the cause. 
Even if the opponent's vAdam is accepted,then the argument can be reversed 
that "why not the same type of grass eaten by ox is not becoming milk?"; 
Therefore bhagavath sankalpam cannot be rejected in this context. 

"purushASmavadithi chEth thathApi"

Now the argument of sAnkya is substantiated with some irrelevant examples 
as follows: "A person with vision but without legs (handicapped) can lead 
a blind man who is not handicapped. A magnet attracts and makes iron piece 
to move  towards it just because of its closeness with the iron piece; in 
the similar manner, the independent prakruthi in the sannadhi (presence, 
closeness) of udAseena (he who is neither favorable or unfavorable) 
sentient purusha becomes the cause"; 
This explanation of sAnkya is not appropriate to itself and infact fatal for
sAnkya itself. This is because, in the blind man example, the 
handicapped fellow being sentient entity dictates and leads the blind fellow
(another sentient being ) by sankalpam. The magnet which does the 
action of attracting iron is insentient. But in sankya theory, the 
udAseena purusha (though sentient-chethana vasthu) is not having any 
action to perform. Therefore, the examples of sAnkya to substantiate the
independent-pradAna-kAraNa-vAdam is not appropriate.


The Srushti is possible only if there is difference in the ratio of the three
guNas (attributes) present in the prakruthi. In sAnkya, this cannot 
be established as in prati-sarga-avastha guNas are in uniform manner always.
Therefore, the Srushti has to become impossible in 
sAnkya theory. How can it speak about Srushti?

"anyathAnumithow cha gnya-Sakthi-viyOgAth"

Even if the above error in sAnkya is overlooked, then without chEthana 
vasthu's knowledge (which is his power) - sankalpam, achEthanam cannot be the
kAraNam. The errors cited in the earlier sUtras are very much 
applicable here.


sAnkya holds that the "bhOgam" of purusha is his bewilderment of 
prakruthi-guNas as his guNas. This is pradhAna-darSanam. If he realises that
prakruthi is different from himself (purusha), 
then it is "moksham". This concept of sAnkya is most irrational. sAnkya holds
that the purusha is udAseena. How is that he gets the bewilderment 
of prakruthi-guNas as his guNas? Further, sAnkya holds that the purusha is
nirvikAra vasthu. How can it attribute a vikAram "pradhAna-darSanam"
to the purusha? As the purusha is held udAseena, he should not get any
prayojanam (benefit) from prakruthi. Therefore, the concept of bhOgam and
moksham is illogical in sAnkya.


As the kapila's sAnkya matham talks about pradhAna-darSanam, bhOgam, 
nirvikArathvam for purusha and pradAna-kAraNathvam with resepect to 
achEthanam, these things are mutually contradicting one another; 
therefore, Kapila matham is not logical; It is refuted and rejected.
It is against the Sruthi. The Sruthi has clearly declared that
the jagath kAraNam is SrIman NArAyaNa: Brahman.

Further in fourth pAda in first chapter of brahma sUtra has important 
points in the same context. The AnumAnikAdhikaraNam, chamasAdhikaraNam 
(which deals with the Sruthi "ajAm EkAm lOhitha Sukla krushNAm bahvee: 
prajA: SrujamAnAm sarUpA:") are very important to reject the
abrahmAthmaka pradhAnam (prakruthi) of Kapila sAnkya. (please note the letter
"a" in the term  abrahmAthmaka which negates brahmAthmaka pradhAnam). 

Important note: 
The rachanAnupapathyadhikaraNam seems to use anumAnam to 
establish the chEthana vasthu as paramAthma, without him the achEthanam 
cannot become kAryam. Therefore, a contradiction may arise here - "Has 
rachanAnupapathyadhikaraNam contradicted the SAstra-yOnithvAdhikaraNam 
where it was established that the Brahman can be established only by 
apowrushEya sabda pramANam and cannot be established by anumAnam?"
The doubt/contradiction in the form of above question is solved/answered as
follows: There is no contradiction between SAstra-yOnithvAdhikaraNam & 
rachanAnupapathyadhikaraNam. In SAstra-yOnithvAdhikaraNam, it was 
established that the Brahman CANNOT be established
by anumAnam. In rachanAnupapathyadhikaraNam, it is established that the 
Brahman CANNOT be refuted/rejected by anumAnam. Therefore, there is 
absolutely no contradiction between the two adhikaraNams. It has to noted 
that the pramANam which establishes an entity alone may have the capacity 
to reject it. 

Thanks & Regards
M.S.HARI RAmAnuja DAsan (

Get free email and a permanent address at

           - SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH -
To Post a message, send it to:
Search archives at