Samkhya (Sanskrit: , IAST: skhya) is one of the six ?stika schools of Hindu philosophy. It is most related to the Yoga school of Hinduism, and it was influential on other schools of Indian philosophy. It forms the theoretical foundation of Yoga. Samkhya is an enumerationist philosophy whose epistemology accepts three of six pramanas ('proofs') as the only reliable means of gaining knowledge. These include pratyak?a ('perception'), anuma ('inference') and ?abda (?ptavacana, meaning, 'word/testimony of reliable sources'). Sometimes described as one of the rationalist schools of Indian philosophy, this ancient school's reliance on reason was exclusive but strong. It is traditionally viewed as a theistic philosophy as it accepts the authority of Vedas.
Samkhya is strongly dualistic and has historically been theistic or nontheistic, with some late atheistic authors, such as the author of the Samkhya Sutras. Samkhya philosophy regards the universe as consisting of two independent realities: puru?a ('consciousness') and prak?ti ('matter'). These two realities exist parallel without affecting each other.
Jiva ('a living being') is that state in which purusha is bonded to prakriti in some form. This fusion, state the Samkhya scholars, led to the emergence of buddhi ('intellect') and ahamk?ra ('ego'). The mind and the thoughts that appear in the mind are also considered a part of prakriti. The universe is described by this school as one created by purusha-prakriti entities infused with various combinations of variously enumerated elements, senses, feelings, activity and mind. During the state of imbalance, one or more constituents overwhelm the others, creating a form of bondage, particularly of the mind. The end of this imbalance and bondage is called liberation or kaivalya by the Samkhya school.
The existence of God or a supreme being is not considered relevant by the Samkhya philosophers. Samkhya denies the final cause of Ishvara. Although the Samkhya school considers the Vedas a reliable source of knowledge, it is an atheistic philosophy according to Paul Deussen and other scholars. A key difference between the Samkhya and Yoga schools, state scholars, is that the Yoga school accepts a 'personal, yet essentially inactive, deity' or 'personal god'. However, Radhanath Phukan, in the introduction to his translation of the Samkhya Karika of Isvarakrsna has argued that commentators who see the unmanifested as non-conscious make the mistake of regarding Samkhya as atheistic, though Samkhya is equally as theistic as Yoga.
All matter (prakriti), Samkhya teaches, has these three gunas, and in different proportions. Each guna is dominant at specific times of day. The interplay of these gunas defines the character of someone or something, of nature and determines the progress of life. The Samkhya theory of gunas was widely discussed, developed and refined by various schools of Indian philosophies. Samkhya's philosophical treatises also influenced the development of various theories of Hindu ethics.
Skhya () or skhya, also transliterated as samkhya and sankhya, respectively, is a Sanskrit word that, depending on the context, means 'to reckon, count, enumerate, calculate, deliberate, reason, reasoning by numeric enumeration, relating to number, rational'. In the context of ancient Indian philosophies, Samkhya refers to the philosophical school in Hinduism based on systematic enumeration and rational examination.
The word samkhya means 'empirical' or 'relating to numbers'. Although the term had been used in the general sense of metaphysical knowledge before, in technical usage it refers to the Samkhya school of thought that evolved into a cohesive philosophical system in early centuries CE. The Samkhya system is called so because 'it "enumerates'" twenty five Tattvas or true principles; and its chief object is to effect the final emancipation of the twenty-fifth Tattva, i.e. the puru?a or soul'.
Some 19th and 20th century scholars suggested that Samkhya may have non-Vedic origins. Richard Garbe, a Christian missionary, wrote in 1898, 'The origin of the Sankhya system appears in the proper light only when we understand that in those regions of India which were little influenced by Brahmanism [political connotation given by the Christian missionary] the first attempt had been made to solve the riddles of the world and of our existence merely by means of reason. For the Sankhya philosophy is, in its essence, not only atheistic but also inimical to the Veda'. Dandekar, similarly wrote in 1968, 'The origin of the Sankhya is to be traced to the pre-Vedic non-Aryan thought complex'.
Some scholars disagreed with this view. Surendranath Dasgupta, for example, stated in 1922 that Samkhya can be traced to Upanishads such as Katha Upanishad, Shvetashvatara Upanishad and Maitrayaniya Upanishad, and that the 'extant Samkhya' is a system that unites the doctrine of permanence of the Upanishads with the doctrine of momentariness of Buddhism and the doctrine of relativism of Jainism.
Arthur Keith in 1925 said, '[That] Samkhya owes its origin to the Vedic-Upanisadic-epic heritage is quite evident', and 'Samkhya is most naturally derived out of the speculations in the Vedas, Brahmanas and the Upanishads'.
Johnston in 1937 analyzed then available Hindu and Buddhist texts for the origins of Samkhya and wrote, '[T]he origin lay in the analysis of the individual undertaken in the Brahmanas and earliest Upanishads, at first with a view to assuring the efficacy of the sacrificial rites and later in order to discover the meaning of salvation in the religious sense and the methods of attaining it. Here - in Kaushitaki Upanishad and Chandogya Upanishad - the germs are to be found (of) two of the main ideas of classical Samkhya'.
Chandradhar Sharma in 1960 affirmed that Samkhya in the beginning was based on the theistic absolute of Upanishads, but later on, under the influence of Jaina and Buddhist thought, it rejected theistic monism and was content with spiritualistic pluralism and atheistic realism. This also explains why some of the later Samkhya commentators, e.g. Vijnanabhiksu in the sixteenth century, tried to revive the earlier theism in Samkhya.:137
More recent scholarship offers another perspective. Ruzsa in 2006, for example, writes, 'Skhya has a very long history. Its roots go deeper than textual traditions allow us to see. The ancient Buddhist A?vagho?a (in his Buddha-Carita) describes Ara K?l?ma, the teacher of the young Buddha (ca. 420 B.C.E.) as following an archaic form of Skhya'.
Anthony Warder in 2009 says that the Samkhya and M?ms? schools appear to have been established before the Sramana traditions in India (~500 BCE), and he finds that Samkhya has Vedic origins. Warder writes, '[Samkhya] has indeed been suggested to be non-Brahmanical and even anti-Vedic in origin, but there is no tangible evidence for that except that it is very different than most Vedic speculation - but that is (itself) quite inconclusive. Speculations in the direction of the Samkhya can be found in the early Upanishads'.
Mikel Burley in 2012 says that Richard Garbe's 19th century view on Samkhya's origin are weak and implausible. Burley states that India's religio-cultural heritage is complicated and likely experienced a non-linear development. Samkhya is not necessarily non-Vedic nor pre-Vedic nor a 'reaction to Brahmanic hegemony', states Burley. It is most plausibly in its origins a lineage that grew and evolved from a combination of ascetic traditions and Vedic 'guru (teacher) and disciples'. Burley suggests the link between Samkhya and Yoga as likely the root of this evolutionary origin during the Vedic era of India.
Between 1938 and 1967, two previously unknown manuscript editions of Yuktidipika (ca. 600-700 CE) were discovered and published.Yuktidipika is an ancient review by an unknown author and has emerged as the most important commentary on the Samkhyakarika, itself an ancient key text of the Samkhya school. This commentary as well as the reconstruction of pre-karika epistemology and Samkhya emanation text (containing cosmology-ontology) from the earliest Puranas and Mokshadharma suggest that Samkhya as a technical philosophical system existed from about the last century BCE to the early centuries of the Common Era. Yuktidipika suggests that many more ancient scholars contributed to the origins of Samkhya in ancient India than were previously known and that Samkhya was a polemical philosophical system. However, almost nothing is preserved from the centuries when these ancient Samkhya scholars lived. Larson, Bhattacharya and Potter state that the shift of Samkhya from speculations to the normative conceptualization hints--but does not conclusively prove--that Samkhya may be the oldest of the Indian technical philosophical schools (e.g. Nyaya, Vaisheshika and Buddhist ontology), one that evolved over time and influenced the technical aspects of Buddhism and Jainism. These scholars trace the earliest references to Samkhya ideas (designated as proto-Samkhya environments) to the composition of the Chandogya Upanishad (~800 BCE to ~600 BCE). Samkhya philosophy proper begins with the pre-karika-Samkhya (ca. 100 BCE - 200 CE).
Sage Kapila is traditionally credited as a founder of the Samkhya school. It is unclear in which century of the 1st millennium BCE Kapila lived. Kapila appears in Rigveda, but context suggests that the word means 'reddish-brown color'. Both Kapila as a 'seer' and the term Samkhya appear in hymns of section 5.2 in Shvetashvatara Upanishad (~300 BCE), suggesting Kapila's and Samkhya philosophy's origins may predate it. Numerous other ancient Indian texts mention Kapila; for example, Baudhayana Grhyasutra in chapter IV.16.1 describes a system of rules for ascetic life credited to Kapila called Kapila Sannyasa Vidha. A 6th century CE Chinese translation and other texts consistently note Kapila as an ascetic and the founder of the school, mention Asuri as the inheritor of the teaching and a much later scholar named Pancasikha as the scholar who systematized it and then helped widely disseminate its ideas. Isvarakrsna is identified in these texts as the one who summarized and simplified Samkhya theories of Pancasikha, many centuries later (roughly 4th or 5th century CE), in the form that was then translated into Chinese by Paramartha in the 6th century CE.
The early texts of the Vedic period, contain references to elements of Samkhya philosophy. However, the Samkhya ideas had not distilled and congealed into a distinct, complete philosophy. The early, proto-Samkhya phase was followed by early Upanishads, about 800 to 700 BCE, wherein ascetic spirituality and monastic (sramana and yati) traditions came into vogue in India. It is in this period, state Larson, Bhattacharya and Potter, that ancient scholars combined proto-Samkhya ideas with a systematic methodology of reasoning (epistemology) and began distilling concepts of spiritual knowledge (vidya, jnana, viveka), making Samkhya a more emerging, comprehensive philosophy. These developing ideas are found in texts such as the Chandogya Upanishad.
Sometime about the 5th century BCE, Samkhya thought from various sources started coalescing into a distinct, complete philosophy. Philosophical texts such as the Katha Upanishad in verses 3.10-13 and 6.7-11 describe a well defined concept of puru?a and other concepts of Samkhya, The Shvetashvatara Upanishad in chapter 6.13 describes Samkhya with Yoga philosophy, and Bhagavad Gita in book 2 provides axiological implications of Samkhya, therewith providing textual evidence of Samkhyan terminology and concepts. Katha Upanishad conceives the Purusha (cosmic spirit, consciousness) as same as the individual soul (?tman, Self).
The Mokshadharma chapter of Shanti Parva (Book of Peace) in the Mahabharata epic, composed between 400 BCE to 400 CE, explains Samkhya ideas along with other extant philosophies, and then lists numerous scholars in recognition of their philosophical contributions to various Indian traditions, and therein at least three Samkhya scholars can be recognized - Kapila, Asuri and Pancasikha. The 12th chapter of the Buddhist text Buddhacarita suggests Samkhya philosophical tools of reliable reasoning were well formed by about 5th century BCE.
Samkhya and Yoga are mentioned together for first time in chapter 6.13 of the Shvetashvatra Upanishad, as samkhya-yoga-adhigamya (literally, "to be understood by proper reasoning and spiritual discipline").Bhagavad Gita identifies Samkhya with understanding or knowledge. The three gunas are also mentioned in the Gita, though they are not used in the same sense as in classical Samkhya. The Gita integrates Samkhya thought with the devotion (bhakti) of theistic schools and the impersonal Brahman of Vedanta.
The ideas that were developed and assimilated into the classical Samkhya text, the Skhyak?rik?, are visible in earlier Hindu scriptures such as the Vedas, the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita. The earliest mention of dualism is in the Rigveda, a text that was compiled in the second millennium BCE., in various chapters.
There was neither non-existence nor existence then;
Neither the realm of space, nor the sky which is beyond;
What stirred? Where? In whose protection?
There was neither death nor immortality then;
No distinguishing sign of night nor of day;
That One breathed, windless, by its own impulse;
Other than that there was nothing beyond.
Darkness there was at first, by darkness hidden;
Without distinctive marks, this all was water;
That which, becoming, by the void was covered;
That One by force of heat came into being;
Who really knows? Who will here proclaim it?
Whence was it produced? Whence is this creation?
Gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.
Who then knows whence it has arisen?
Whether God's will created it, or whether He was mute;
Perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not;
Only He who is its overseer in highest heaven knows,
At a mythical level, dualism is found in the Indra-Vritra myth of chapter 1.32 of the Rigveda. Enumeration, the etymological root of the word Samkhya, is found in numerous chapters of the Rigveda, such as 1.164, 10.90 and 10.129. Larson, Bhattacharya and Potter state that the likely roots of philosophical premises, spirit-matter dualism, meditative themes and religious cosmology in Samkhya philosophy are in the hymns of 1.164 (Riddle Hymns) and 10.129 (Nasadiya Hymns). However these hymns present only the outline of ideas, not specific Samkhya theories and these theories developed in a much later period.
The Riddle hymns of the Rigveda, famous for their numerous enumerations, structural language symmetry within the verses and the chapter, enigmatic word play with anagrams that symbolically portray parallelism in rituals and the cosmos, nature and the inner life of man. This hymn includes enumeration (counting) as well as a series of dual concepts cited by early Upanishads . For example, the hymns 1.164.2 - 1.164-3 mention "seven" multiple times, which in the context of other chapters of Rigveda have been interpreted as referring to both seven priests at a ritual and seven constellations in the sky, the entire hymn is a riddle that paints a ritual as well as the sun, moon, earth, three seasons, the transitory nature of living beings, the passage of time and spirit.
Seven to the one-wheeled chariot yoke the Courser; bearing seven names the single Courser draws it.
Three-naved the wheel is, sound and undecaying, whereon are resting all these worlds of being.
The seven [priests] who on the seven-wheeled car are mounted have horses, seven in tale, who draw them onward.
Seven Sisters utter songs of praise together, in whom the names of the seven Cows are treasured.
Who hath beheld him as he [Sun/Agni] sprang to being, seen how the boneless One [spirit] supports the bony [body]?
Where is the blood of earth, the life, the spirit? Who will approach the one who knows, to ask this?-- Rigveda 1.164.2 - 1.164.4, 
The chapter 1.164 asks a number of metaphysical questions, such as "what is the One in the form of the Unborn that created the six realms of the world?". Dualistic philosophical speculations then follow in chapter 1.164 of the Rigveda, particularly in the well studied "allegory of two birds" hymn (1.164.20 - 1.164.22), a hymn that is referred to in the Mundaka Upanishad and other texts . The two birds in this hymn have been interpreted to mean various forms of dualism: "the sun and the moon", the "two seekers of different kinds of knowledge", and "the body and the atman".
Two Birds with fair wings, knit with bonds of friendship, embrace the same tree.
One of the twain eats the sweet fig; the other not eating keeps watch.
Where those fine Birds hymn ceaselessly their portion of life eternal, and the sacred synods,
There is the Universe's mighty Keeper, who, wise, hath entered into me the simple.
The tree on which the fine Birds eat the sweetness, where they all rest and procreate their offspring,
Upon its top they say the fig is sweetest, he who does not know the Father will not reach it.-- Rigveda 1.164.20 - 1.164.22, 
The emphasis of duality between existence (sat) and non-existence (asat) in the Nasadiya Sukta of the Rigveda is similar to the vyakta-avyakta (manifest-unmanifest) polarity in Samkhya. The hymns about Puru?a may also have influenced Samkhya. The Samkhya notion of buddhi or mahat is similar to the notion of hiranyagarbha, which appears in both the Rigveda and the Shvetashvatara Upanishad.
The oldest of the major Upanishads (c. 900-600 BCE) contain speculations along the lines of classical Samkhya philosophy. The concept of ahamkara in Samkhya can be traced back to the notion of ahamkara in chapters 1.2 and 1.4 of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and chapter 7.25 of the Ch?ndogya Upani?ad. Satkaryavada, the theory of causation in Samkhya, can be traced to the verses in sixth chapter which emphasize the primacy of sat (being) and describe creation from it. The idea that the three gunas or attributes influence creation is found in both Chandogya and Shvetashvatara Upanishads. Upanishadic sages Yajnavalkya and Uddalaka Aruni developed the idea that pure consciousness was the innermost essence of a human being. The purusha of Samkhya could have evolved from this idea. The enumeration of tattvas in Samkhya is also found in Taittiriya Upanishad, Aitareya Upanishad and Yajnavalkya-Maitri dialogue in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.
Buddhism and Jainism had developed in eastern India by the 5th century BCE. It is probable that these schools of thought and the earliest schools of Samkhya influenced each other. A prominent similarity between Buddhism and Samkhya is the greater emphasis on suffering (dukkha) as the foundation for their respective soteriological theories, than other Indian philosophies. However, suffering appears central to Samkhya in its later literature, which likely suggests a Buddhist influence. Eliade, however, presents the alternate theory that Samkhya and Buddhism developed their soteriological theories over time, benefiting from their mutual influence.
Likewise, the Jain doctrine of plurality of individual souls (jiva) could have influenced the concept of multiple purushas in Samkhya. However Hermann Jacobi, an Indologist, thinks that there is little reason to assume that Samkhya notion of Purushas was solely dependent on the notion of jiva in Jainism. It is more likely, that Samkhya was moulded by many ancient theories of soul in various Vedic and non-Vedic schools.
--Bhagavad Gita 2.39
Larson, Bhattacharya and Potter state it to be likely that early Samkhya doctrines found in oldest Upanishads (~700-800 BCE) provided the contextual foundations and influenced Buddhist and Jaina doctrines, and these became contemporaneous, sibling intellectual movements with Samkhya and other schools of Hindu philosophy. This is evidenced, for example, by the references to Samkhya in ancient and medieval era Jaina literature.
The earliest surviving authoritative text on classical Samkhya philosophy is the Samkhya Karika (c. 200 CE or 350-450 CE) of varaka. There were probably other texts in early centuries CE, however none of them are available today. I?varaka in his K?rik? describes a succession of the disciples from Kapila, through ?suri and Pañca?ikha to himself. The text also refers to an earlier work of Samkhya philosophy called ?aitantra (science of sixty topics) which is now lost. The text was imported and translated into Chinese about the middle of the 6th century CE. The records of Al Biruni, the Persian visitor to India in the early 11th century, suggests Samkhyakarika was an established and definitive text in India in his times.
Samkhyakarika includes distilled statements on epistemology, metaphysics and soteriology of the Samkhya school. For example, the fourth to sixth verses of the text states it epistemic premises,
Perception, inference and right affirmation are admitted to be threefold proof; for they (are by all acknowledged, and) comprise every mode of demonstration. It is from proof that belief of that which is to be proven results.
Perception is ascertainment of particular objects. Inference, which is of three sorts, premises an argument, and deduces that which is argued by it. Right affirmation is true revelation (Apta vacana and Sruti, testimony of reliable source and the Vedas).
Sensible objects become known by perception; but it is by inference or reasoning that acquaintance with things transcending the senses is obtained. A truth which is neither to be directly perceived, nor to be inferred from reasoning, is deduced from Apta vacana and Sruti.-- Samkhya Karika Verse 4-6, 
The most popular commentary on the Samkhyakarika was the Gau?ap?da Bhya attributed to Gau?ap?da, the proponent of Advaita Vedanta school of philosophy. Other important commentaries on the karika were Yuktid?p?ka (c. 6th century CE) and V?caspati's Skhyatattvakaumud? (c. 10th century CE).
The Skhyapravacana S?tra (c. 14th century CE) renewed interest in Samkhya in the medieval era. It is considered the second most important work of Samkhya after the karika. Commentaries on this text were written by Anirruddha (Skhyas?trav?tti, c. 15th century CE), Vijñ?nabhik?u (Skhyapravacanabhya, c. 16th century CE), Mah?deva (v?ttis?ra, c. 17th century CE) and N?ge?a (Laghuskhyas?trav?tti). According to Surendranath Dasgupta, scholar of Indian philosophy, Charaka Samhita, an ancient Indian medical treatise, also contains thoughts from an early Samkhya school.
The 13th century text Sarvadarsanasangraha contains 16 chapters, each devoted to a separate school of Indian philosophy. The 13th chapter in this book contains a description of the Samkhya philosophy.
In his Studies in Samkhya Philosophy, K.C. Bhattacharya writes:
Much of Samkhya literature appears to have been lost, and there seems to be no continuity of tradition from ancient times to the age of the commentators...The interpretation of all ancient systems requires a constructive effort; but, while in the case of some systems where we have a large volume of literature and a continuity of tradition, the construction is mainly of the nature of translation of ideas into modern concepts, here in Samkhya the construction at many places involves supplying of missing links from one's imagination. It is risky work, but unless one does it one cannot be said to understand Samkhya as a philosophy. It is a task that one is obliged to undertake. It is a fascinating task because Samkhya is a bold constructive philosophy.
Samkhya considered Pratyak?a or Dam (direct sense perception), Anum?na (inference), and ?abda or ?ptavacana (verbal testimony of the sages or sh?stras) to be the only valid means of knowledge or pramana. Unlike some other schools, Samkhya did not consider the following three pramanas to be epistemically proper: Upama (comparison and analogy), Arth?patti (postulation, deriving from circumstances) or Anupalabdi (non-perception, negative/cognitive proof) .
While Western philosophical traditions, as exemplified by Descartes, equate mind with the conscious self and theorize on consciousness on the basis of mind/body dualism; Samkhya provides an alternate viewpoint, intimately related to substance dualism, by drawing a metaphysical line between consciousness and matter--where matter includes both body and mind.
The Samkhya system espouses dualism between consciousness and matter by postulating two "irreducible, innate and independent realities: puru?a and prak?ti. While the prak?ti is a single entity, the Samkhya admits a plurality of the puru?as in this world. Unintelligent, unmanifest, uncaused, ever-active, imperceptible and eternal prak?ti is alone the final source of the world of objects which is implicitly and potentially contained in its bosom. The puru?a is considered as the conscious principle, a passive enjoyer (bhokta) and the prak?ti is the enjoyed (bhogya). Samkhya believes that the puru?a cannot be regarded as the source of inanimate world, because an intelligent principle cannot transform itself into the unconscious world. It is a pluralistic spiritualism, atheistic realism and uncompromising dualism.
Puru?a is the transcendental self or pure consciousness. It is absolute, independent, free, imperceptible, unknowable through other agencies, above any experience by mind or senses and beyond any words or explanations. It remains pure, "nonattributive consciousness". Puru?a is neither produced nor does it produce. It is held that unlike Advaita Vedanta and like Purva-M?ms?, Samkhya believes in plurality of the puru?as.
Prak?ti is the first cause of the manifest material universe--of everything except the puru?a. Prak?ti accounts for whatever is physical, both mind and matter-cum-energy or force. Since it is the first principle (tattva) of the universe, it is called the pradh?na, but, as it is the unconscious and unintelligent principle, it is also called the jaDa. It is composed of three essential characteristics (trigunas). These are:
All physical events are considered to be manifestations of the evolution of prak?ti, or primal nature (from which all physical bodies are derived). Each sentient being or Jiva is a fusion of puru?a and prak?ti, whose soul/puru?a is limitless and unrestricted by its physical body. Sams?ra or bondage arises when the puru?a does not have the discriminate knowledge and so is misled as to its own identity, confusing itself with the Ego/ahamk?ra, which is actually an attribute of prak?ti. The spirit is liberated when the discriminate knowledge of the difference between conscious puru?a and unconscious prak?ti is realized by the puru?a.
The unconscious primordial materiality, prak?ti, contains 23 components including intellect (buddhi, mahat), ego (ahamkara) and mind (manas); the intellect, mind and ego are all seen as forms of unconscious matter. Thought processes and mental events are conscious only to the extent they receive illumination from Purusha. In Samkhya, consciousness is compared to light which illuminates the material configurations or 'shapes' assumed by the mind. So intellect, after receiving cognitive structures from the mind and illumination from pure consciousness, creates thought structures that appear to be conscious. Ahamkara, the ego or the phenomenal self, appropriates all mental experiences to itself and thus, personalizes the objective activities of mind and intellect by assuming possession of them. But consciousness is itself independent of the thought structures it illuminates.
By including mind in the realm of matter, Samkhya avoids one of the most serious pitfalls of Cartesian dualism, the violation of physical conservation laws. Because mind is an evolute of matter, mental events are granted causal efficacy and are therefore able to initiate bodily motions.
The idea of evolution in Samkhya revolves around the interaction of prak?ti and Purusha. Prak?ti remains unmanifested as long as the three gunas are in equilibrium. This equilibrium of the gunas is disturbed when prak?ti comes into proximity with consciousness or Purusha. The disequilibrium of the gunas triggers an evolution that leads to the manifestation of the world from an unmanifested prak?ti. The metaphor of movement of iron in the proximity of a magnet is used to describe this process.
Some evolutes of prak?ti can cause further evolution and are labelled evolvents. For example, intellect while itself created out of prak?ti causes the evolution of ego-sense or ahamkara and is therefore an evolvent. While, other evolutes like the five elements do not cause further evolution. It is important to note that an evolvent is defined as a principle which behaves as the material cause for the evolution of another principle. So, in definition, while the five elements are the material cause of all living beings, they cannot be called evolvents because living beings are not separate from the five elements in essence.
The intellect is the first evolute of prak?ti and is called mahat or the great one. It causes the evolution of ego-sense or self-consciousness. Evolution from self-consciousness is affected by the dominance of gunas. So dominance of sattva causes the evolution of the five organs of perception, five organs of action and the mind. Dominance of tamas triggers the evolution of five subtle elements- sound, touch, sight, taste, smell from self-consciousness. These five subtle elements are themselves evolvents and cause the creation of the five gross elements space, air, fire, water and earth. Rajas is cause of action in the evolutes. Purusha is pure consciousness absolute, eternal and subject to no change. It is neither a product of evolution, nor the cause of any evolute.
Evolution in Samkhya is thought to be purposeful. The two primary purposes of evolution of prak?ti are the enjoyment and the liberation of Purusha. The 23 evolutes of prak?ti are categorized as follows:
|Primordial matter||prak?ti; puru?a||Root evolvent|
|Internal instruments||Intellect (Buddhi or Mahat), Ego-sense (Ahamk?ra), Mind (Manas)||Evolvent|
|External instruments||Five Sense organs (Jn?nendriyas), Five Organs of action (Karmendriyas)||Evolute|
|Subtle elements||Form (Rupa), Sound (Shabda), Smell (Gandha), Taste (Rasa), Touch (Sparsha).||Evolvent|
|Gross elements||Earth (Prithivi), Water (Jala), Fire (Agni), Air (V?yu), Ether (?k?sha).||Evolute|
As the unconscious milk functions for the sake of nourishment of the calf,
so the Prakriti functions for the sake of moksha of the spirit.
Samkhya regards ignorance (avidy?) as the root cause of suffering and bondage (Samsara). Samkhya states that the way out of this suffering is through knowledge (viveka). Mok?a (liberation), states Samkhya school, results from knowing the difference between prak?ti (avyakta-vyakta) and puru?a (jña).
Puru?a, the eternal pure consciousness, due to ignorance, identifies itself with products of prak?ti such as intellect (buddhi) and ego (ahamkara). This results in endless transmigration and suffering. However, once the realization arises that puru?a is distinct from prak?ti, is more than empirical ego, and that puru?a is deepest conscious self within, the Self gains isolation (kaivalya) and freedom (moksha).
Other forms of Samkhya teach that Mok?a is attained by one's own development of the higher faculties of discrimination achieved by meditation and other yogic practices. Moksha is described by Samkhya scholars as a state of liberation, where Sattva guna predominates.
This section does not cite any sources. (July 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
The Samkhya system is based on Sat-k?rya-v?da or the theory of causation. According to Satk?ryav?da, the effect is pre-existent in the cause. There is only an apparent or illusory change in the makeup of the cause and not a material one, when it becomes effect. Since, effects cannot come from nothing, the original cause or ground of everything is seen as prak?ti.
More specifically, Samkhya system follows the prak?ti-Parin?ma V?da. Parin?ma denotes that the effect is a real transformation of the cause. The cause under consideration here is prak?ti or more precisely Moola-prak?ti (Primordial Matter). The Samkhya system is therefore an exponent of an evolutionary theory of matter beginning with primordial matter. In evolution, prak?ti is transformed and differentiated into multiplicity of objects. Evolution is followed by dissolution. In dissolution the physical existence, all the worldly objects mingle back into prak?ti, which now remains as the undifferentiated, primordial substance. This is how the cycles of evolution and dissolution follow each other. But this theory is very different from the modern theories of science in the sense that prak?ti evolves for each Jiva separately, giving individual bodies and minds to each and after liberation these elements of prak?ti merges into the Moola prak?ti. Another uniqueness of S?mkhya is that not only physical entities but even mind, ego and intelligence are regarded as forms of Unconsciousness, quite distinct from pure consciousness.
Samkhya theorizes that prak?ti is the source of the perceived world of becoming. It is pure potentiality that evolves itself successively into twenty four tattvas or principles. The evolution itself is possible because prak?ti is always in a state of tension among its constituent strands or gunas - Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. In a state of equilibrium of three gunas, when the three together are one, "unmanifest" prak?ti which is unknowable. A guna is an entity that can change, either increase or decrease, therefore, pure consciousness is called nirguna or without any modification.
The evolution obeys causality relationships, with primal Nature itself being the material cause of all physical creation. The cause and effect theory of Samkhya is called Satk?rya-v?da (theory of existent causes), and holds that nothing can really be created from or destroyed into nothingness - all evolution is simply the transformation of primal Nature from one form to another.
Samkhya cosmology describes how life emerges in the universe; the relationship between Purusha and prak?ti is crucial to Patanjali's yoga system. The strands of Samkhya thought can be traced back to the Vedic speculation of creation. It is also frequently mentioned in the Mahabharata and Yogavasishta.
Samkhya accepts the notion of higher selves or perfected beings but rejects the notion of God, according to Paul Deussen and other scholars, although other scholars believe that Samkhya is as much theistic as the Yoga school. According to Rajadhyaksha, classical Samkhya argues against the existence of God on metaphysical grounds. Samkhya theorists argue that an unchanging God cannot be the source of an ever-changing world and that God was only a necessary metaphysical assumption demanded by circumstances.
According to Sinha, the following arguments were given by Samkhya philosophers against the idea of an eternal, self-caused, creator God:
Therefore, Samkhya maintained that the various cosmological, ontological and teleological arguments could not prove God.
The oldest commentary on the Samkhakarika, the Yuktid?pik?, asserts the existence of God, stating:
"We do not completely reject the particular power of the Lord, since he assumes a majestic body and so forth. Our intended meaning is just that there is no being who is different from prakrti and purusa and who is the instigator of these two, as you claim. Therefore, your view is refuted. The conjunction between prakrti and purusa is not instigated by another being.
A medieval commentary of Samkhakarika such as Skhyapravacana S?tra in verse no. 1.92 directly states that existence of "Ishvara (God) is unproved". Hence there is no philosophical place for a creationist God in this system. It is also argued by commentators of this text that the existence of Ishvara cannot be proved and hence cannot be admitted to exist.
These commentaries of Samkhya postulate that a benevolent deity ought to create only happy creatures, not a mixed world like the real world. A majority of modern academic scholars are of view that the concept of Ishvara was incorporated into the nirishvara (atheistic) Samkhya viewpoint only after it became associated with the Yoga, the Pasupata and the Bhagavata schools of philosophy. This theistic Samkhya philosophy is described in the Mahabharata, the Puranas and the Bhagavad Gita.
The Advaita Vedanta philosopher Adi Shankara called Samkhya as the 'principal opponent' (pradhana-malla) of the Vedanta. He criticized the Samkhya view that the cause of the universe is the unintelligent Prakruti (Pradhan). According to Shankara, the Intelligent Brahman only can be such a cause.:242-244 He considered Samkhya philosophy as propounded in Samkhyakarika to be inconsistent with the teachings in the Vedas, and considered the dualism in Samkhya to be non-Vedic. In contrast, ancient Samkhya philosophers in India claimed Vedic authority for their views.
With the publication of previously unknown editions of Yuktidipika about mid 20th century, scholars have suggested what they call as "a tempting hypothesis", but uncertain, that Samkhya tradition may be the oldest of the Indian technical philosophical schools (Nyaya, Vaisheshika). The Vaisheshika atomism, Nyaya epistemology may all have roots in the early Samkhya school of thought; but these schools likely developed in parallel with an evolving Samkhya tradition, as sibling intellectual movements.
The Yoga school derives its ontology and epistemology from Samkhya and adds to it the concept of Isvara. However, scholarly opinion on the actual relationship between Yoga and Samkhya is divided. While Jakob Wilhelm Hauer and Georg Feuerstein believe that Yoga was a tradition common to many Indian schools and its association with Samkhya was artificially foisted upon it by commentators such as Vyasa. Johannes Bronkhorst and Eric Frauwallner think that Yoga never had a philosophical system separate from Samkhya. Bronkhorst further adds that the first mention of Yoga as a separate school of thought is no earlier than ?ankara's (c. 788-820 CE) Brahmas?trabha?ya.
The dualistic metaphysics of various Tantric traditions illustrates the strong influence of Samkhya on Tantra. Shaiva Siddhanta was identical to Samkhya in its philosophical approach, barring the addition of a transcendent theistic reality. Knut A. Jacobsen, Professor of Religious Studies, notes the influence of Samkhya on Srivaishnavism. According to him, this Tantric system borrows the abstract dualism of Samkhya and modifies it into a personified male-female dualism of Vishnu and Sri Lakshmi. Dasgupta speculates that the Tantric image of a wild Kali standing on a slumbering Shiva was inspired from the Samkhyan conception of prak?ti as a dynamic agent and Purusha as a passive witness. However, Samkhya and Tantra differed in their view on liberation. While Tantra sought to unite the male and female ontological realities, Samkhya held a withdrawal of consciousness from matter as the ultimate goal.
According to Bagchi, the Samkhya Karika (in karika 70) identifies S?mkhya as a Tantra, and its philosophy was one of the main influences both on the rise of the Tantras as a body of literature, as well as Tantra sadhana.