Roots of Indian Materialism in Tantra and Pre-Classical Samkhya

Sonali Bhatt Marwaha

Materialism is considered to be an anathema to Indian philosophy. Despite this, Indian tradition boasts of a strong materialist trend predating the Vedas. This paper traces the proto-materialist ideas as found in the ancient Tantra and pre-classical or original Samkhya. Representing the naturalistic trend in Indian philosophy, ancient Tantra identified the brain as the seat of human consciousness. The pre-classical Samkhya considered matter as the primal non-intelligent or non-sentient first cause from which the universe was to evolve. It considers the material cause to be self-sufficient for the purpose of producing the world; the principle of consciousness is potentially contained in the primeval matter. This paper aims to provide an overview of the Indian materialist viewpoint for multidisciplinary scholars.

Materialism was not a perversion of the innate spirituality of man. It was a natural development of the spirit of man, freed from primitive ignorance, and unencum­bered by the artificial impediments of the doctrines and dogmas of metaphysics. (Roy, 1940/1982, p. 14)

The East is identified as being primarily ‘spiritual’ in its essence, implying ontological and epistemological dualism and idealism. Indian philosophies are entrenched in the spiritualist world view, which many Indians accept as the ‘Absolute Truth’. Idealism and dualism are considered to be synonyms for Indian philosophy. A novice philosopher or a stray visitor to Indian philosophy would see the spiritualist tradition as the only tradition in Indian thought. Modern scholars exclude non-Vedic as well as the materi­alist tradition within classical Indian thought, thereby eclipsing the full richness present in the Indian traditions. This we may assume is also true for the layperson, religious in their beliefs, but unlettered in the great philosophical traditions and systems that form the basis of their beliefs. This lack of exposure is evident even among those who are adequately exposed to Indian philosophy and its offshoot, Indian psychology.

The materialist world view is found in the works of Carvaka muni, Payasi, Kanada (about 600 BCE), Ajita Kesakambali (6th c. BCE) and Bhatta (6th c. CE). Contemporary scholars are few, notably Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya, M. N. Roy,

Correspondence to: Sonali Bhatt Marwaha, Visakhapatnam 530 003, Andhra Pradesh, India. Email: sonalibm@ gmail.comDownloaded by [Sonali Marwaha] at 09:24 03 April 2013 J. Bandopadhyaya, S. Joshi, K. K. Mital, S. N. Prasad, Ramakrishna Bhattacharya and P. P. Gokhale. These scholars have concentrated purely on the textual and philoso­phical aspects of the Lokayata/Carvaka school. In addition, Chattopadhyaya has emphasized on the role of sociopolitical factors in the decline of the materialist world view in India. Unlike their work, this paper highlights the antiquity and core concepts of the Indian materialist tradition with the aim of bringing it to the forefront.

The term ‘proto-materialism’ refers to the rudimentary idea that everything is based on matter. The most conspicuous aspect of this primitive world view is that the human body (deha) is a microcosm of the universe, along with a cosmogony attributing the origin of the universe to the union of the male and female (Chattopadhyaya, 1973, p. xvii). Chattopadhyaya describes this ‘pre-spiritualistic’ phase of human awareness as ‘primitive proto-materialism’. Thus, in this form, we will not find the expression of the materialistic thought as defined in present times. Further, in his analysis, during this period of deep interdependency with the bounty of the earth, the discovery of agriculture and the numerous fertility rituals that linked the agricultural process and human fertility, the existence of a spiritualistic or idealistic world view of the Vedanta was not as yet developed.

Materialism in Early Tantra

The proto-materialistic world view may be found in the ancient belief systems of Tantra. Tantra predates the Vedas and is of non-Vedic origin. It places supreme emphasis on the female principle prakrti (primordial or subtle matter), whilst Vedic thought lays great emphasis on the masculine principle purusa (non-material con­sciousness, Supreme Being or soul).

As Tantra is older than the written form, it is difficult to trace its origins. Concrete material relics are found in the Indus ruins, placing its origins or existence to at least 5000 BCE (Chattopadhyaya, 1973, pp. 320-323). Although Tantra may find its roots in the hoary past of Indian culture, its existence still forms an intrinsic part of the contemporary Indian culture, not only in the practices of the tribal population but also in the religious rituals that are followed. To put things in perspective, the time line of human cultural evolution places the domestication of cattle at about 8500-6300 BCE, beginning of agriculture at about 5000 BCE, pyramid texts at about 3100 BCE in Near East (Hare, 2001).

Early Tantra represents a period of human thought that was not as yet acquainted with spiritualism. According to Chattopadhyaya (1973, p. 53), it was much later when Tantra’s ideas were put to the written form that the treatises were put down along theistic lines and spiritualistic ideas were superimposed on them. This led to the development of the various schools of Tantrism, such as Buddhist Tantra and Hindu Tantra, which was later sub-divided into Vaisnava and Saiva-Sakta Tantra. Many scholars have attested to the Tantra being much older than the written texts which are as early as 600-700 CE and as late as 1700s CE. Tantric usages and popular formulas were current and practiced in a much earlier age: they belong to a type of thoughtDownloaded by [Sonali Marwaha] at 09:24 03 April 2013

Asian Philosophy 3 that is primitive and among primitive people varies little in the course of centuries. According to S. B. Dasgupta (1946, p. 27), ‘Tantrism is neither Buddhist or Hindu in origin: it seems to be a religious undercurrent, originally independent of any abstruse metaphysical speculation, flowing on from an obscure point of time in the religious history of India.’

Considering the antiquity of this system, it also implies that it was a system that predates the development of the Vedic caste system. Procreation—human and agricultural—was of vital importance to the survival of the species. As its inner working was outside the grasp of human understanding of the time, it was shrouded in magical practices and worship. These practices are still common as seen in the variety of ‘coming-of-age’ rituals and the ‘pre-sowing’ rituals and festivals that are celebrated in most ancient cultures. The common understanding of Tantra is that of a philosophy of mystical metaphysics. However, the archaic system of Tantra had its origin in the belief that the productive activity of nature was related to, and even vitally dependent on, the reproductive function of the woman.

Chattopadhyaya (1973, p. 333) considers this agriculture-human fertility concept as a form of ‘magical thinking’ from the perspective of the ancients, as they functioned with a limited awareness of the workings of nature. Thus, there is no reference to soul, god, liberation, heaven, prayer or sacrifice in their belief system. Rather, it is a system that perceived the human body and nature as two aspects of the same fundamental reality, and this was in the form of matter. The forces lying dormant in nature and within the human body are astonishing. This brings the human body into the forefront, making it a proto-materialistic world view.

The cosmogony of the Tantra is a reflection of their basic world view. As Chattopadhyaya notes (1973, p. 336), ‘According to Tantra, the universe is created by sexual urge (kama); it was born of the female (vamodbhava) and as the result of her union with the male.’ This type of cosmogony is known as ‘genealogical’ and is commonly found among primitive cultures. For instance, similar cosmogonies have been found in ancient China, Mesopotamia and Polynesian islanders.

In his work Racanavali (Bengali/Hindi), Bandopadhyaya identifies the proto- materialistic world view of ancient Tantrism. This archaic view equates the body with the universe, as they are perceived to be made of the same material, acted upon by the same forces and thus function in the same way. This premise serves as the guiding principle behind the Tantra-sddhand or Tantra-practices—intimately knowing one’s body is akin to intimately knowing the universe. The Purdna and other Sdstra accept this conclusion of all Tantras (Chattopadhyaya, 1973, pp. 333-334).

As Chattopadhyaya (1973, p. 335) analyzes, ‘the search for the inner truth within the body led the Tantrikas not to any subtle non-physical spiritual principle but rather to the human nervous system in its essentially physical aspect’. With this, the early Tantrikas began to explore the human body, leading them to the discovery of the human nervous system, which led to the identification of the brain as the seat of human consciousness, rather than a non-physical spiritualistic conception. This perspective opened the doors of scientific methodology in ancient Indian historyDownloaded by [Sonali Marwaha] at 09:24 03 April 2013

and led to the development of alchemy and chemistry. As Seal (1915, p. 218) stated: ‘In Caraka and Susruta (as in Aristotle) the heart is the central organ and seat of consciousness; but in the Tantrika writings (as in Galen) the seat of consciousness is transferred to the brain or rather the cerebro-spinal system.’ Caraka (300-400 BCE) had a clear conception of the sensory and motor nerves. Whilst Caraka and Susruta regarded the heart as the seat of consciousness, Tantra writers considered the brain as the seat of consciousness. The Tantric writers referred to the different kinds of consciousness.

They had a fairly accurate analysis of neuroanatomy, despite its primitive conceptualization as compared to that of today. According to it, there are two nerve-cords (nadi or nerves) running parallel to the central cord, called the susumna, which stretches from near the pelvic curve to the brain. Within the susumna is another nerve cord, called the vajrakhya, within which is conceived another nerve cord called the citrine, which is the innermost core of the central cord, the susumna. They distinguished between the motor nerves (ajnavaha nadi) and sensory nerves (mano valid nadi), further identifying the differ­ent sensory nerves: the olfactory nerves (gandhavaha nadi), the optic nerves (rupavahd nadi), the auditory nerves (sabdavahd nadi), the gustatory nerves (rasavahd nadi) and the tactile nerves (sparsavahd nadi) (Sinha, 1986, vol. 1, p. 1).

Their practices centring around the dead body (fava sddhand), which was con­sidered to be impure, may have led the Tantrikas to gain a deeper understanding of the human body (Chattopadhyaya, 1973, p. 336). Although the Vedic and post-Vedic philosophers also had views on nature, origin and functions of the sense organs, their views were based on their philosophies with primarily metaphysical speculation. Nevertheless, they did provide phenomenological support for their views. As the Brahmanical orthodoxy had taboos against having anything to do with the dead body, they were prevented from exploring and contributing to the understanding of the human body; this may have led them to focus on discovering the true nature of the self or soul in the spiritual domain.

Human fertility and its associated rituals, early ideas of conception occurring in the breasts and then descending down to the abdomen, importance of blood—particularly menstrual blood—in both agricultural and human rituals (Chattopadhyaya, 1973, pp. 303-305) is an indication of the deep significance attributed to the human body. While the rituals are still performed, although in a symbolic manner, the sanctity of the human body, as being of vital importance for human and agricultural fertility, was seen as a perversion of a true metaphysical reality under the influence of the dualistic and idealistic philosophies. With the rise of the influence of these views and the caste system, with its accom­panying disdain for manual labour, a hands-on analysis of the physical processes of the body, agriculture and the tools of the tradesman diminished, curbing the devel­opment of science. A greater emphasis on the metaphysical realms was a severe blow to the development of a materialistic and scientific viewpoint.

In Chattopadhyaya’s (1973, pp. 280-285) analysis, the modern writers on Tantra, accustomed to the essentially spiritualistic conceptualization of Indian thought, are keen on discovering some hidden spiritual implications in it. The yogasadhana of Tantra is usually called the sat-cakra-bheda and has its origins in the anatomicalDownloaded by [Sonali Marwaha] at 09:24 03 April 2013

Asian Philosophy 5 view. This practice is a method suggested for the purpose of propiating the ultimate female principle residing within the body. For this, seven lotuses (padma-s) are conceived as situated on the central cord, the susumna, and are considered as the seven cords of feminity. The highest lotus on the susumna is called the lotus with the thousand petals (sahasra-dala-padma), which according to Seal (1915, p. 221) is ‘thousand-lobed, the upper cerebrum with its lobes and convolutions’. According to the Tantrikas, this is the highest seat of consciousness. Viewed in another way, this is also an early understanding of the nervous system. This proto-materialism was the basis of the development of a proto-science.

In later Tantra (Hindu and Buddhist), there is a distinct emphasis on experimental observation. It is to the field of chemistry that the Tantrikas made their greatest contribution. P. C. Ray in his History of Hindu Chemistry stated that ‘Indian alchemy very largely derives its colour and flavour for [[[Tantrism]]]’. The Tantrikas invented and used a variety of laboratory equipments (y antram) for their chemical experiments (Chattopadhyaya, 1973, p. 356). As Chattopadhyaya (1973, p. 358) surmises:

... unlike the followers of the idealistic systems of Indian philosophy, who belittle the importance of the body and dreamt of the liberation of the soul, the Tantrikas, with their supreme emphasis on the material human body (dehavada), conceived liberation only in terms of the development and culture of the body (kaya sad- hana). It is no wonder, therefore, that they should have been so much concerned with concrete material measures that could ensure the development and the pre­servation of the body itself. This explains their contributions to alchemy and medicine. In short, the proto-materialism of the Tantrikas was the clue to their proto- scientific tendencies. The original Tantra thus represents the naturalistic trend in Indian philosophy.

Materialism in Pre-Classical Samkhya

The origin of the Samkhya rests in the ancient past. Much controversy surrounds its origins and development. Much of early Samkhya literature is lost, and there is no continuity in the tradition from the ancient times up to the age of the commentators. Samkhya is based on speculative insight and not the religious experience of the Vedanta or analytical and critical method of the Nyaya (Bh attach ary a, 1959, p. 127).

In the absence of a core corpus of literature, interpretations are ba

sed on subse­quent compendiums of the core ideas as are passed down. This is akin to the vast difference in ideas that we see between early Tantra and the modern day interpreta­tions and practice of Tantra. In cases such as the Samkhya, it may involve providing the missing links by foraging through other traditions or texts of the period. In addition, there are persistent attempts to fit them into the Vedantic mould. Thus, to understand the Samkhya tradition is a difficult task for any scholar to accomplish. For the present work too, we find that at times we are faced with contradictory viewpoints influenced by the world view of the commentators on the system, based on their understanding or the sociopolitical exigencies of the time they lived in.Downloaded by [Sonali Marwaha] at 09:24 03 April 2013

In his work Classical Sdmkhya: An Interpretation of its History and Meaning, Gerald Larson (1969/1979, p. 75) has summarized the works of earlier scholars and organized the texts relating to the Samkhya into four basic periods: (1) ancient speculations including the speculative Vedic hymns and the oldest prose Upanisads, extending from the eighth or ninth century BCE through the period of Jainism and the rise of early Buddhism; (2) proto- Samkhya speculations, including the ‘middle’ Upanisads. Such texts as the Carakasamhita and the Buddhacarita, the Bhagavadgita and the speculative passages from the Moksadharma portion of the Mahabharata, extending from fourth century BCE through first century CE; (3) classical Samkhya speculation, including the Sdmkhya Kdrikd, the Yogasutras and related commentaries extending from first century CE to eleventh century CE; (4) later Samkhya speculation, including the Sdmkhyapravacanasutra and the commentaries of Aniruddha, Mahadeva and Vijnanabhiksu, together with the Tattvasamdsasutra, from about fifteenth century CE to the seventeenth century.

Bhattacharya and Larson (1987, p. 40) identify the various periods of Samkhya as (1) Proto-Samkhya (800 BCE to 100 CE), (2) Pre-Karika Samkhya (100-500 CE), (3) Karika-Samkhya (300-850 CE), (4) Patanjala-Samkhya (400-850 CE), (5) Karika- Kaumudl-Samkhya (850 or 975 CE to present), (6) Samasa-Samkhya (1300 to present) and (7) Sutra-Samkhya (1400 to present).

According to Bhattacharya and Larson (1987, pp. 40-41): ‘The original philoso­phical formulation occurs with the emergence of Pre-Karika Samkhya, and the normative formulations in summary form appear in Karika-Samkhya and Patanjala-Samkhya. Somewhere in these ancient traditions there appears to have been a clear break with the original genius and vitality of the system, and the later traditions of Karika-Kaumudl-Samkhya, Samasa-Samkhya, and Sutra-Samkhya present the system through a Vedanta prism.’

The Samkhya system of Indian philosophy is considered to be one of the orthodox schools, dualistic in nature. However, an analysis of the Samkhya system in terms of what scholars refer to as ‘original Samkhya’ emphasizes its pre-Vedic origins, and a ‘dualism’ that gives primacy to matter as the fundamental principle in nature. In Chattopadhyaya’s analysis, it is a monistic materialism, an antithesis to Sankara’s monistic idealism (Larson, 1969/1979, p. 66). However, Mittal (1974, p. 207) inter­prets the dualism of Samkhya as that of ‘jna (spirit—the consciousness, Purusa that transcends both thought and extension) and the Jneya (matter—the unconscious, Prakrti which holds mind also in its fold). He adds that ‘the ‘Samkhya itself interprets the mental phenomena materialistically’ (p. 212).

The Origins of Samkhya

In his analysis of Indian materialism (Lokayata), Chattopadhyaya (1973, pp. 359-448) hypothesizes that the early Samkhya system may be a more explicit philosophical re-statement of the theoretical position implicit in Tantrism. (The details of this hypothesis are beyond the scope of this work.) References supporting this hypothesis are found in the Kapilasya Tantra, the Sastitantra, also in the Sdmkhya Kdrikd, the Patahjala Tantra and the Atreya Tantra. He further adds that if the term LokayataDownloaded by [Sonali Marwaha] at 09:24 03 April 2013

Asian Philosophy 7 originally stood for the beliefs and practices broadly referred to as Tantrism, the original Samkhya may be viewed as the most important development of the Lokayata tradition in Indian philosophy. This implies that original Samkhya was a form of uncompromising atheism and materialism (pp. 362-363). The original Samkhya was called the godless doctrine of primordial matter, which was fundamentally opposed to the early Vedic orthodoxy that culminated in the idealistic outlook of the Upanisads. The essentially spiritualistic outlook of the Upanisads probably finds its roots in the ancient myths of spirits. Primitive views on death included the belief that the spirits of the dead pass into other forms. Viewed in this way, it may not be difficult to see the origins of some of the Upanisadic ideas, which through time and imaginative sophistication, developed into the form of the Great Spirit to which all eventually return.

This original potentially materialistic outlook of the Samkhya provided the funda­mental ideas of science in their theory of matter, theory of causality, theory of knowledge and a theory of evolutionary process. As Seal (1915, p. 251) observed: ‘The Samkhya system possesses a unique interest in the history of thought as embodying the earliest clear and comprehensive account of the process of cosmic evolution, viewed not as a mere metaphysical speculation but as a positive principle based on the conservation, the transformation, and the dissipation of energy.’

The works of Kapila, Asuri and Pancasikha are considered to represent the original Samkhya. The Sastitantra (ca. 100-200 BCE), which represents either the earliest of the Samkhya texts or systematic formats for discussing the Samkhya, forms the bridge between the older and the classical Samkhya of Isvara Krsna which appeared a few centuries later (Bhattacharya & Larson, 1987, p. 128). Although these are lost to us, they are referred to at the end of Isvara Krsna’s Samkhya Karikd (ca. 200 CE). (According to Dasgupta (1922/1955, vol. 1, p. 245), ‘the fact that Caraka (78 AD) does not refer to the Samkhya as described by Isvara Krsna and referred to in other parts of Mahabharata is a definite proof that Isvara Krsna’s Samkhya is a later modification, which was either non-existent in Caraka’s time or was not regarded as an authoritative old Samkhya view.’ Garbe, however, places it much earlier in about the fifth century CE.) The later Samkhya Sutra is considered to be a bit spurious and is dated at about 1400 CE. Gunaratna (Taraka Rahasya Dipika, p. 99) mentions two other authoritative works on the Samkhya, the Mathra Bhasya and the Atreya Tantra. Further, he spoke of two distinct schools of the Samkhya, the Maulikya (original) Samkhya and the Uttar a (later) Samkhya. This view is supported by Dasgupta (1922, p. 217).

he Samkhya system has had an all pervading influence on Indian thought, influencing its philosophy in medicine, law, statecraft, mythology, cosmology, theology and devotional literature. Eminent scholars such as Jacobi, Dahlman and Garbe support the view that the original Samkhya was vastly different from the later Samkhya as found in the Bhagavad Gita. According to Jacobi, the pre-classical or original Samkhya had a practical purpose rather than an exclusively metaphysical purpose. It was addressed to the masses rather than the trained dialecticians. In Garbe’s analysis, the old Samkhya was the singular work of Kapila or Panacasikha; itDownloaded by [Sonali Marwaha] at 09:24 03 April 2013

was not a blurred set of intuitions that finally got its house in order through the genius of Vijnanabhiksu, as stated by Dasgupta. The later Samkhya or the classical Samkhya of Isvara Krsna’s Samkhya Kdrikd was greatly influenced by Vedantic thought, to the extent of changing its earlier materialistic basis to a spiritualistic one (Bhattacharya & Larson, 1987, p. 43; Chattopadhyaya, 1973, p. 431; Larson, 1969/1979, p. 27).

In Oldenberg’s analysis, the pre-classical Samkhya can be traced in the works of the middle and younger Upanisads, such as the Katha Upanisad, Svetdsvatara Upanisad, Maitrayanlya Upanisad and the philosophical portions of the Mahabharata, i.e. in the Bhagavad Gita. While the discourse in the earliest Upanisads, such as the Chandogya Upanisad and Brhadaranyaka Upanisad, centred around the notion of unity and the atman, the intellectual concerns slowly shifted from the self to the world or nature, and the stirrings of it could be found in the Katha Upanisad and the early Samkhya (Bhattacharya & Larson, 1987; Chattopadhyaya, 1973; Larson, 1969/1979).

Chattopadhyaya disagrees with this view. In his analysis, modern scholars have tried to find germs of original Samkhya thought in the Upanisads by quoting some of the passages from them for Samkhya terminologies. However, in his analysis, the real purpose of the mention in the Upanisads has been to reject them or proclaim its superiority over the Samkhya. For instance, the author of the Svetdsvatara Upanisad does not deny the importance of the pradhana (primal nature) doctrine of the Samkhya, but he considers it subservient to God, who rules over it and produces it with his own magical powers (Chattopadhyaya, 1976, pp. 253-254).

An astute observation made by Chattopadhyaya (1973, p. 442) was on the mis­perception of later writers on the ‘sophistication’ of early non-Aryans or pre-Aryans. His contention is that any ideas of the pre-Aryan/non-Aryan groups that were deviant from their more ‘advanced’ ideas need not necessarily be due to their absorption from underdeveloped cultures; even they had a primitive past beyond them, having evolved just like the rest of humanity. Thus, finding ideas contrary to those that we now identify as the crux of the modern Samkhya need not be a surprise to us. This is supported by scholars such as Dandekar, H. P. Sastri, Garbe and Zimmer, who consider the origin of the original Samkhya to the ‘pre-Vedic non­Aryan thought complex’ (Dandekar, 1968, p. 444).

Garbe (1892) and H. P. Sastri (Boudha Dharma) support the anti-Vedic character of the Samkhya, and place its rise in the North-Eastern regions, which is also the home of the Tantra system. Garbe (1892, pp. xx-xxi) definitively states that:

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 the first attempt had been made to explain the riddles of the world and of our existence merely by means of reason. For the Sankhya philosophy is, in essence, not only atheistic but also inimical to Veda. All appeal to sruti in the Sankhya texts lying before us are subsequent additions. We may altogether remove the Vedic elements, grafted upon the system, and it will not in the least be affected thereby. The Sankhya philosophy had been originally, and has remained up to theDownloaded by [Sonali Marwaha] at 09:24 03 April 2013

Asian Philosophy

present day, in its real contents, un-Vedic and independent of the Brahmanical tradition.

Support for materialism in the original Samkhya comes from an unlikely source—the early proponents of the idealist Vedanta system. Sankara (Vedanta Sutra, ii.1.2; Thibaut, trans. 1890) and Ramanuja (Max Muller, 1879, xiviii, 411) vehemently opposed the original materialist Samkhya. According to them, the original Samkhya was opposed to the Vedic tradition of Brahma vada. In his Brahma Sutra (also known as the Vedanta Sutra and Uttara Mimamsa Sutra), Badarayana refers to the Samkhya as pradhana vada or pradhana karana vada, i.e. the doctrine of pradhana (matter) being the first cause, the ultimate reality.

Basic Principles of Pre-Classical Samkhya

According to the Samkhya, everything exists in the present moment. The qualities of things are mass, energy and essence. Before examining the basic principles of the original Samkhya, a brief look at the principles enumerated in the classical Samkhya Kdrikd are listed. The Kdrikd identifies three sets of principles: First are a set of 25 basic principles, comprising the five basic principles, five sense capacities, five action capacities, five subtle elements and five gross elements. Of these, the Samkhya Kdrikd recognizes the purusa as pure consciousness, holding a primary position, and prakrti as primordial matter, and they simply exist alongside each other. Pure consciousness is inherently inactive, and primordial matter is inherently generative. However, the original Samkhya considers the prakrti as primary and the purusa as an evolute of prakrti, i.e. an emergent property of matter.

Second are the fundamental predispositions (bhdva) or instinctual tendencies that guide the human being. These include meritorious behaviour (dharma), knowledge (jhana), non-attachment (vairagya), power (aisvarya), demeritorious behaviour (adharma.), ignorance (ajhana), attachment (avairdgya) and impotence (anisvarya).

Third relate to the phenomenal, empirical world of ordinary life, which are formed by the interaction of the 25 basic principles and the eight predispositions. These generate 50 categories of ‘phenomenal creation’. These are (1) five fundamental misconceptions and include ignorance, confusion or preoccupation with one’s own identity, extreme confusion or passionate attachment; (2) twenty-eight categories of perceptual, motor and mental dysfunctions; (3) nine categories for a reasonably balanced and conventional mendicant life and (4) eight categories representing authentic attainments (Bhattacharya & Larson, 1987, pp. 48-56). Keith (1918, p. 10) traces the development of these categories to the Svetasvatara Upanisad where

he individual self is compared to a wheel with three tyres, sixteen ends, fifty spokes, twenty counter-spokes and six sets of eight. These are interpreted as the three Gunas, the set of sixteen consisting of the ten organs, mind and the five elements, the fifty psychic states of the classical Samkhya, the ten senses and their objects, and the six sets of the five elements, mind, individuation and intellect; the eightDownloaded by [Sonali Marwaha] at 09:24 03 April 2013

elements of the body, the eight perfections, the eight psychic states which form in the Samkhya. As he further states, ‘The worth of such identifications must be regarded as uncertain, and no conclusive evidence is afforded by them, as plays on numbers are much affected by the Brahmanical schools’ (p. 10).

Matter (Pradhana/Prakrti) in Pre-Classical Samkhya

Pradhana, also known as prakrti (primordial or primeval matter), is the original state from which the universe or the world was to evolve. Matter, then, is the ultimate or principle reality. The Samkhya also recognized the principle of purusa, which literally means male. Pradhana meant only the primeval matter, the non-intelligent or non-sentient first cause. This was in contrast to the Vedanta philosophy of Brahma vada or Brahma karana vada, wherein Brahman was the first cause, the ultimate reality and the principle cause of consciousness. As Chattopadhyaya notes (1973, pp. 372-375), Badarayana devotes a considerable portion of the Brahma Sutra on the refutation of the materialist position of early Samkhya.

Of the 555 sutras of the text, at least 60 were designed to refute the doctrine of the pradhana, while only 43 were devoted to the refutation of other rival schools such as the Jaina and Buddhist views. Further, of the 60 aphorisms refuting the doctrine of pradhana, 37 were designed to prove its non-Vedic and anti-Vedic character. After a further analysis, Chattopadhyaya concludes that if Samkhya was not understood as a materialistic tradition, there would have been no need for the substantial opposition that it faced from the idealistic schools, which held that the first cause was a spiritual principle. However, the later Samkhya Karikd and the Samkhya Sutra compromised on the original position and conceded to the orthodox Vedantic viewpoint.

In the original Samkhya, the basic reality was the pradhana-, the purusa was not related to the formation of the universe. In the Vedanta Sutra, Sankara empha­sized that Kapila’s acknowledgement of the plurality of the self and rejection of the Vedanta position of the singularity of the purusa as the ultimate reality were strong grounds to consider the Samkhya as non-Vedic. This was based on the fundamental assumption that the experienced world is real and that the purusa had no role to play in its causation, further, that consciousness had no role to play in its causation. This was in stark opposition to the Vedantic view, which held that the purusa was the supreme reality, and it had no role to play in the causation and continuance of the world, which in itself were ultimately unreal. Sankara’s antip­athy to the Samkhya rested not only on its material first principle but also on its anti-scriptural position—it’s clear opposition to both the Vedas and the Manu Smrti.

Garbe (cf. Chattopadhyaya, 1973, p. 450) summarizes the Samkhya view on the material first cause:

The material universe is traced back by a correct philosophical method to a first cause. The Sankhya doctrine proceeds on the principle that the product is none other than the ‘material cause’ in a definite stage of evolution, and that theDownloaded by [Sonali Marwaha] at 09:24 03 April 2013

Asian Philosophy 11 preceding stages are to be inferred from that which lies open before us. By this means a first principle was finally reached, which is of the nature of cause only, and not also of product. This is the prakrti, primitive matter, from which the universe is evolved in regular course. It further teaches the existence in the entire material universe of three substances (guna-s), united in dissimilar and unstable proportions, of which the first (sattva) exhibits the qualities of lightness, illumination, and joy; the second (rajas), of movement, excitation, and pain; the third (tamas), of heavi­ness, obstruction, and sloth. Hence the conclusion necessarily follows that primitive matter also was composed of these three constituents. Undeveloped primitive matter is the ‘state of equilibrium of the guna-s’. As a result of a disturbance, which is not more definitely described, of this condition of equilibrium, the material universe is evolved...

However, Garbe, depending on the later Samkhya Kdrikd, did not agree to accept the original materialistic form of the Samkhya. He assigns a ‘spiritual principle’ behind the evolution of matter in the universe from the unconscious primitive matter. This spiritual principle is ‘the collective influence of the innumerable individual souls which—themselves incapable of any activity—contemplate, as spectators from all eternity, the movement of matter. It is not by conscious will that the souls exert an influence on matter but by their mere presence, which in a purely mechanical way excites matter to activity and development, just as a magnet acts on the iron’ (cf. Chattopadhyaya, 1973, p. 451).

Thus, the point of difference between the Samkhya and the Vedanta was on the perception of the reality of the world. While both systems agreed that the world was the result of an effect that potentially existed in a cause, they differed on the reality of the effect. Whilst for the Samkhya, the effect was real (parindm vada) and thus the world (as the effect of pradhan) was also real, from the Vedanta viewpoint, however, the effect could not be real (vivarta vada) and the world (as the effect of Brahman) could not have any ultimate claim to reality. For Samkhya, the proof of matter rested on the reality of the empirical world (Chattopadhyaya, 1973, p. 388).

The Samkhya Notion of Guna

Samkhya developed the notion of ‘guna-s’. It means a ‘cord’, ‘thread’ or ‘strand’ of primordial materiality. According to Dasgupta (1940/1952, p. 224), no definite explanation of the guna-s is found in any other work before Vijnana Bhiksu; hence, ‘it is quite probable that this matter may not have been definitely worked out before.’ In his analysis, Vijnana Bhiksu’s (Sdmkhyapravacana-bhdsya, 16th c. CE) definition includes all the qualities of the guna-s as accounted for in all the earlier texts. It also describes sattva as being light and illuminating—intelligence, rajas as of the nature of energy and causing motion and tamas as inertia—heavy and obstructing. Dasgupta further adds that during the development of the Samkhya doctrine, the concepts could have indeed been vague.

Keith (1918, p. 11) suggests that the concept of the three guna-s finds its roots in the Chandogya Upanisad view of the three fold elements—fire, water andDownloaded by [Sonali Marwaha] at 09:24 03 April 2013

earth—which ‘are produced from the absolute and which are present in all that exists’. He further adds that though they originally referred to material products, the tendency would be to see in them psychic states, as was apparent in the classical Samkhya where the development of the individual self to the absolute in the three guna-s was conceived. Keith considered it probable that these ideas were ‘original’ and shorn off the influence of the Vedanta school. At one level, guna-s is secondary or subordinate to the primeval matter or pradhana and is the inner essence or under­lying reality of primordial matter. On another level, it implies moral distinctions in the activity of prakrti on the basis of satisfaction/moral excellence (sattva), frustration/moral decadence (rajas) and confusion/amoral indifference (tamas). On yet another level, it refers to the aesthetic and intellectual matters that pervade subjective and objective experience.

The three guna-s are not conceptualized as individual elements; rather they are perceived, like a thread, as a contiguous and inextricably related process. From the objective perspective, the guna-s represent the spontaneous and continual flow of primeval matter as energy/activity (rajas), its rational ordering (sattva) and its determinate formulation or objectivation (tamas). From the subjective perspective, the guna-s represent the continuous flow of experi­ence capable of pre-reflective spontaneous longing (rajas), its pre-reflexive discern­ment or discrimination (sattva) and the continuous flow of awareness of an opaque, envelope world (tamas).

This continuous flow of experience gives rise to the daily rhythm of doubt, confusion and contentment. Further, there is no experiential distinction between the subjective and objective, i.e. mind and matter or thought and extension. Thus, in this continuous flow of primal material energy, the dualities of subjective/objective, mind/body, thought/extension does not apply. When the guna-s are in a state of equilibrium, no creation or modification occurs; it is when they are in a state of disequilibrium or state of flux that creation or modification occurs.

Disequilibrium then becomes an essential part of existence, which is in contrast to the Vedantic view, which declares a state of equipoise or equilibrium as the ultimate reality. Thus, that which is created or modified emerges from the primordial material when it is in a state of flux or disequilibrium (Bhattacharya & Larson, 1987, pp. 66-71). If we consider that in the Tantra view the human body was a replication of the cosmos—everything that constituted it, made it functional and happened to it was the same for the universe—then attributing subjective and objective processes to the guna-s become quite obvious. The human body and its psychological processes—including morals and personality— begin to have the same properties of fire, water and earth.

Samkhya Theory of Evolution

The pre-existence of the effect in the cause is the preliminary doctrine of causality in the Samkhya. For example, the tree is contained within the seed; nevertheless, the tree is not the seed nor is the seed the tree. The tree is potentially existent in the seed. Thus, the tree emerges from the seed when certain conditions are consistently met. In the same way, as mentioned earlier, the visible world is the product or effect ofDownloaded by [Sonali Marwaha] at 09:24 03 April 2013

Asian Philosophy 13 prakrti; as the visible world is material, it can be inferred that prakrti is material. However, this does not imply that prakrti is to be equated with the visible world. In other words, prakrti and the visible world are not synonymous. The common interpretation of prakrti as nature is erroneous, as nature is the totality of the phenomena of the visible world and is potentially contained in the prakrti. To distinguish between the two, the Samkhya philosophers employed the terms vyaktd (manifest) and avyakta (unmanifest). Thus, the constituents of matter are different from the concrete cognition of the visible world. As the Vedantists do not accept prakrti as the primal cause, they are faced with the problem of accounting for the real world. They do this by denying the existence of the real world and considering it as an illusion (Chattopadhyaya, 1973, pp. 453-455). As Stcherbatsky (1962, p. i.18) notes,

This Matter is supposed to begin by an undifferentiated condition (avyakta) of equipoise and rest. Then an evolutionary process is started. Matter is then never at rest, always changing, changing every minute (pratiksana-parinama), but finally it again reverts to a condition of rest and equipoise. This Matter embraces not only the human body, but all our mental states as well, they are given a materialistic origin and essence.

Commentators on the Caraka Samhitd older than Cakrapani, view the process of creation and dissolution as just birth and death, indicating that the Samkhya philosophy had its basic roots in human analogy. The human analogy, as stated earlier, is seen in Tantra cosmogony. In its primitive pre-evolved state, prakrti was in perfect equilibrium with its three constituent guna-s. According to the Samkhya Karikd, these guna-s are in a state of constant flux, uniting and separating. Thus, a disturbance in the initial equilibrium of the guna-s in prakrti marked the beginning of the evolution of the universe.

While the view of the original Samkhya philoso­phers on the cause of this early disequilibrium is unknown to us, the later Samkhya philosophers have attributed this to the passive influence of purusa on prakrti (Chattopadhyaya, 1973, p. 454). Thus, the primeval matter with the attributes of volition/intelligence, energy/motion and inertia are the fundamental blocks of all that is existent in the universe. Sattva is considered to be the essential attribute of the purusa, which is non-material and primarily spiritualistic and abstract in its conceptualization. However, it would be appropriate to invoke here the concepts of the ‘genetic self (Dawkins, 1989) and Francisco Varela’s (1997) concept of ‘the body’s self as examples that indicate the essential ‘intelligence’ within matter. Intelligence, not in the sense of higher cognitive abilities that we are accustomed to associating with the term but rather an inherent or built in mechanism that enables it to carry out its growth, development and function.

Causality in Original Samkhya

According to the Samkhya, the existence of the pradhana was based on the doctrine of causality: the nature of the cause is to be inferred from the nature of the effect, i.e. on the basis of observation, even though the effect may not be absolutely new and the material cause is self-sufficient for the purpose of producing the world. Since thisDownloaded by [Sonali Marwaha] at 09:24 03 April 2013

world is essentially material, its first cause is also necessarily material (Chattopadhyaya, 1976, p. 92). This principle of material first was a precursor to scientific thought. In the Samkhya view, where there is both change (parindma, e.g. milk changes to curd) and transformation (vivarta, e.g. silver is transformed to a ring) in the formation of the world, there was no spiritual principle that participated in these changes; rather natural laws (svabhavenaeva) governed the transformation of primeval matter. This doctrine is similar to that of svabhava vada, the doctrine of natural laws, which is attributed to the Lokayatas (Chattopadhyaya, 1973, p. 394).

Purusa in Original Sdmkhya

The Samkhya also recognized the principle of the purusa (literally, male) which in later Samkhya meant the Self or pure consciousness, as meant in the Vedantic interpretation. However, Chattopadhyaya (1973, p. 383) raises the question of whether this was indeed the original meaning within the early Samkhya world view, devoid of the Vedanta influence. To begin with, both Ranade and Belvalkar, citing references from texts such as the Satpatd Brdhmand, Aitareya Upanisad and Taittirlya Samhita, state that the purusa originally denoted the human being with his peculiar bodily structure and not any inner or spiritual entity indwelling therein (Dasgupta, 1932/1952, vol. II, pp. 427- 428). This, in the context of the pastoral society that it arose in, meant specifically the male (Chattopadhyaya, 1973, p. 402). In the original Samkhya, the purusa held a secondary position to prakrti, and was a-pradhana or udaslna (indifferent), and had no role to play in the evolution of the material world. This takes us back to the Tantra recognition of the role of the female (prakrti) in procreation and the male (purusa) as just the provider of seed. In contrast, in the Vedanta view, the purusa was of prime importance and was the ultimate reality, with the real world being a mere illusion arising out of ignorance (avidyd). Thus, everything was nothing and nothing was everything. As mentioned earlier, the original Samkhya believed in the doctrine of the multiple selves. In retaining its fidelity to the original Samkhya, the Sdmkhya Kdrikd emphasized on the grounds for the existence of the main selves as

(1) differences among individuals on their birth, death and the motor and sensory endowments;

(2) difference among individuals in their activities and

(3) differences in the guna-s among individuals, the three constituents of prakrti.

According to Samkhya, it is not necessary to postulate any spiritual principle, intelligence or consciousness for explaining movement or change. However, to establish the primacy of the spirit over matter, Sankara considered that change and movement can be only due to an Intelligent First Cause. To do so, however, he first needed to deny their reality. This led to the conceptualization of all reality as an illusion stemming from ignorance of the true nature of Brahman. Dasgupta (1940/1952, vol. Ill, p. 527) cites the Jaina scholar Silamka in his commen­tary on the Samkhya perception of purusa. According to Silamka, the Samkhya admit the existence of the souls; however, these are absolutely incapable of doing any work, which is done entirely by prakrti. Thus, the purusa, in the Samkhya world view,Downloaded by [Sonali Marwaha] at 09:24 03 April 2013

Asian Philosophy 15 occupies a nominal position, unlike in the Vedanta. In Garbe’s analysis, the place of the purusa in the Samkhya philosophy is thus anomalous; it cannot meet any genuine theoretical needs of the philosophy. Based on this analysis, Chattopadhyaya concludes that ‘the Samkhya would have been a far more consistent philosophy without the totally functionless purusa’ (1976, p. 415). Nevertheless, Garbe still tries to find a justification for the existence of the purusa based on its later idealistic influence. If the tradition of the original Samkhya is traced back to early Tantra view (with its primacy to the procreation process), the literal meaning of the term purusa as male and prakrti as female referring to the original meaning of purusa may be more appropriate.

Chattopadhyaya cites the Samkhya Kdrikd to clarify the meaning of purusa, where words such as puman and pumsah (meaning, the male) (Samkhya Kdrikd, 11, 60) are used as substitutes for purusa. The purusa of Samkhya is not to be seen in the Vedantic sense; rather, it is conceived as the solitary, bystander, spectator and passive witness of procreation. It was the passive spectator of an essentially real world process. Chattopadhyaya reminds us of the Tantra view of the human body as a replication of the larger universe. Thus, ‘just as a child in the [early] matriarchal society has no real kinship with the father, so the universe, in spite of being real, has no real relationship with the purusa. Hence, the anomalous status of the purusa in a system, known to the early orthodox idealists as essentially the doctrine of the pradhana’ (1973, pp. 407-408). However, the Samkhya Kdrikd aligns itself, at the cost of internal consistency with its other principles, with the Vedanta and considers the purusa as a detached consciousness.

In Dasgupta’s view, Caraka’s (78 CE) version of the Samkhya, which represents a more materialistic view, predates the Samkhya Kdrikd. The purusa in the Samkhya Kdrikd is the Self or Pure Consciousness. However, in Caraka’s older version, ‘there are six elements (dhdtus), viz. the five elements such as dkdsa, vdyu etc. [[[jala]], agni, prithvi] and cetand, called also purusa. From other points of view, the categories may be said to be twenty-four only, viz. the ten senses (five cognitive and five conative), manas, the five objects of senses and the eightfold prakrti (prakrti, mahat, ahamkara and the five elements)’ (Dasgupta, 1922, p. 217).

According to Dasgupta (1922, p. 214),

Caraka identifies the avyakta [the unmanifested] part of prakrti with purusa as forming one category. The vikara or evolutionary products of prakrti are called ksetra, whereas the avyakta part of prakrti is regarded as the ksetrajna. . . This avyakta and cetand are one and the same entity. From this unmanifested prakrti or cetand is derived the buddhi [[[intellect]]], and from the buddhi is derived the ego (ahamkara) and from the ahamkara the five elements and the senses are produced, and when this production is complete, we say that creation has taken place. At the time of pralaya (periodical cosmic dissolution) all the evolutes return back to prakrti, and thus become unmanifest with it, whereas at the time of a new creation from the purusa the unmanifest (avyakta), all the manifested forms—the evolutes of buddhi, ahamkara, etc.—appear.

From this, according to Chattopadhyaya (1973, pp. 398-399), there are two alter­native ways of looking at the Samkhya: (1) the purusa (consciousness or cetand) is onDownloaded by [Sonali Marwaha] at 09:24 03 April 2013

par with the five material elements and is itself a form of material element (dhdtu) and (2) as everything else on this list of 24 categories, including the 10 organs, and the mind are essentially material and there is no place for any spiritual principle in all of them—the concept of the purusa is absent in them. The Samkhya principle of purusa becomes a part of prakrti, i.e. the principle of consciousness as potentially contained in the primeval matter.

Consciousness in Original Samkhya

With the Samkhya finding its roots in a materialistic tradition, it would seem appropriate that the question of consciousness, self, intelligence and mind would also be attributed to within the material world. It would be erroneous on our part to expect in their work an understanding of materialism and the human body as we understand them now. Nevertheless, the seeds of it are present in their understanding of matter as the primeval cause and principle foundation of all that exists in the universe. Furthermore, the Tantra system which predates it had, as mentioned earlier, explored the nervous system and had a rudimentary idea of the brain as an essential organ. Thus, for the Samkhya, adhering to their basic principles, consciousness too would find its roots in the physical body.

Subsequently, the first references to the brain as an organ does not appear until the 2nd century BCE in the Atharva Veda, which though belonging to the Vedic corpus represents an independent parallel tradition. The early Samkhya predates the Atharva Veda, finding its roots in the ancient past. According to the Atharva Veda, the pranas (the vital currents) and the senses depend on the head (slrsa), which was dilferent than the brain (mastiska) (Atharva Veda, x.2.6). The brain matter (mastulunga) is referred to in the Caraka Samhita (about 100-200 CE) (9.101), and the head is considered to be the centre of the senses and all sense currents and life currents. Bhela, a contemporary of Caraka, considers the brain to be the centre of the mind. According to Cakrapani, though the currents of sensation and life pass through other parts of the body as well, yet, they are particularly connected to the head because, when there is an injury to the head, they are also injured (Dasgupta, 1932/1952, p. 340).

As Dasgupta argues, the Caraka Samhita admits no purusa except in the sense of this unmanifest stage of primeval matter, and the Caraka Samhita is yet to accept any pure spirit apart from matter. ‘The self is in itself without consciousness. Consciousness can only come to it through its connection with the sense organs and manas. By ignorance, will, antipathy, and work, this conglomeration of purusa and the other elements takes place. Knowledge, feeling, or action, cannot be produced without this combination. All positive effects are due to conglomerations of causes and not by a single cause, but all destruction comes naturally and without cause’ (Dasgupta, 1940/1952, pp. 213-214).

With the Samkhya concept of matter (pradhana), causality, the guna-s and reduc­tive materialism, it would be expected that the school develops a definitive materialist position. As Bhattacharya and Larson (1987, p. 75) state,�

Downloaded by [Sonali Marwaha] at 09:24 03 April 2013

This did not happen, however. Instead, the Samkhya teachers worked out an eccentric form of dualism with primordial materiality or the tripartite constituent process (encompassing twenty-four fundamental principles) as one kind of 'exis­tent’, and pure consciousness (purusa, a twenty-fifth tattva) as a second kind of ‘existent’. Eccentric, as it does not follow the usual or conventional notions of dualism, which profess two different kinds of reality—the physical and the mental.

Summary

Although dualism and idealism are the most propagated philosophies in India, the materialist viewpoint is an intrinsic part of the Indian thought system. Predating the Vedas is the proto-materialistic world view found in ancient Tantra and pre-Vedic or original Samkhya, which may be the most important development of the Lokayata system. Tantra places supreme emphasis on the female principle prakrti (primordial or subtle matter). This archaic view equates the body with the universe, as they are perceived to be made of the same material, i.e earth, wind and fire, and are acted upon by the same forces and thus function in the same way.

The early Tantrikas explored the human body, leading them to discover the human nervous system. The search for the inner truth within the body led them to the identification of the brain as the seat of human consciousness. They had a fairly accurate analysis of neuroanatomy, despite its primitive conceptualization as compared to that of today. With their supreme emphasis on the material human body, they conceived of liberation only in terms of the development and culture of the body. The original Tantra thus represents the naturalistic trend in Indian philosophy. An analysis of the original Samkhya emphasizes its pre-Vedic origins. It may be a more explicit philosophical re-statement of the theoretical position implicit in Tantrism. The original Samkhya was called the godless doctrine of primordial matter, which was fundamentally opposed to the early Vedic orthodoxy that culminated in the idealistic outlook of the Upanisads.

According to the Samkhya, everything exists in the present. The qualities of things are mass, energy and essence. Pradhana, also known as prakrti (primordial or primeval matter), is the original state from which the universe or the world was to evolve. It is the non-intelligent or non-sentient first cause. Matter, then, is the ultimate or principle reality with its proof resting on the reality of the empirical world. However, this does not imply that prakrti is to be equated with the visible world. In other words, prakrti and the visible world are not synonymous.

The Samkhya also recognized the principle of purusa, which literally means male. It originally denoted the human being with his peculiar bodily structure and not any inner or spiritual entity indwelling therein. The purusa held a secondary position to prakrti and had no role to play in the evolution of the material world. The principle of purusa is a part of prakrti, i.e. the principle of consciousness as potentially contained in the primeval matter.�

Downloaded by [Sonali Marwaha] at 09:24 03 April 2013

Samkhya developed the notion of ‘guna-s’, referring to material products, the tendency would be to see in them psychic states, as was apparent in the classical Samkhya where the development of the individual self to the absolute in the three guna-s was conceived. When the guna-s are in a state of equilibrium, no creation or modification occurs; it is when they are in a state of disequilibrium or state of flux that creation or modification occurs. Disequilibrium then becomes an essential part of existence. Thus, that which is created or modified emerges from the primordial material when it is in a state of flux or disequilibrium.

The pre-existence of the effect in the cause is the preliminary doctrine of causality in the Samkhya. The nature of the cause is to be inferred from the nature of the effect, i.e. on the basis of observation, even though the effect may not be absolutely new; the material cause is self-sufficient for the purpose of producing the world. The Lokayata system grew on the edifice laid by the Tantra and original Samkhya. Briefly, as the body was composed of a combination of material elements, and consciousness emerged in it due to the nature of its components, they did not accept the existence of the soul. As a result, rituals, reincarnation and liberation did not find a place in their belief system. They considered perception as the only source of valid knowledge, thus eliminating the need for a higher state of consciousness to access an ultimate truth or ultimate reality. Reality is that which can be observed. The techno­logical advances in modern science have opened our horizon to perceive realities that cannot be observed by the naked eye. Tantra to modern science is the on-going journey in our quest to understand the world as it is.

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by a fellowship from the Indian Council of Philosophical Research, New Delhi, India.

References

Bhattacharya, K. C. (1959). Studies in Samkhya philosophy. In B. Gopinath (Ed.), Studies in philosophy Vol. 1 (pp. 127-210). Calcutta: Progressive Publishers. Bhattacharya, R. S., & Larson, G. J. (1987). The encyclopedia of Indian philosophies. Vol. 4. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Chattopadhyaya, D. (1973). Lokayata: A study in ancient Indian materialism. Delhi: People’s Publishing House. Chattopadhyaya, D. (1976). What is living and what is dead in Indian philosophy. New Delhi: People’s Publishing House. Dandekar. (Ed.). (1968). Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. Vol. 48. (1917-1967). Pune: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. Dasgupta, S. B. (1946). Obscure religious cults as background of Bengali literature. Calcutta: University of Calcutta. Dasgupta, S. N. (1922). History of Indian philosophy. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/12956� Downloaded by [Sonali Marwaha] at 09:24 03 April 2013

Dasgupta, S. N. (1932/1952). A history of Indian philosophy. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://www.archive.org/details/indianphilosophy03dasguoft Dasgupta, S. N. (1940/1952). A history of Indian philosophy. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://www.archive.org/details/indianphilosophy03dasguoft

Dawkins, R. (1989). The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Garbe, R. (1892). Aniruddha s commentary and the original parts of Vedantin Mahadeva s commentary on the Samkhya Sutras. Bibliotheca fndica, [131]. Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal.

Hare, J. B. (2001). Sacred texts timeline. Retrieved from http://www.sacred-texts.com/time/ timeline.htm Keith, A. B. (1918). The Samkhya system: A history of the Samkhya philosophy. Calcutta: Association Press. Larson, G. (1969/1979). Classical Samkhya: An interpretation of its history and meaning. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Mittal, K. K. (1974). Materialism in Indian thought. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. Muller, M. F. (1879). Sacred books of the East: Six systems of Indian philosophy. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. Roy, M. N. (1940/1982). Materialism: An outline of the history of scientific thought. Delhi: Ajanta Publications. Seal, B. N. (1915). Positive sciences of the ancient Hindus. London: Longmans, Green and Co. Sinha, J. (1986). Indian psychology 1, cognition. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Stcherbatsky, F. T. (1962). Buddhist logic. New York: Dover.

Thibaut, G. (Trans.). (1890). The Vedanta Sutras, commentary by Sankaracharya (SBE34). Retrieved from http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe34/sbe34141.htm Varela, F. (1997). The body’s self. In G. Aniel (Ed.), Healing emotions. Boston, MA: Shambhala.