Indian Philosophy

Author(s): Sukhlal Sanghavi
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 99

The Sankhya, Jaina and Buddhist Views Regarding God
the task of attaining discriminatory knowledge which acts as a means for attaining emancipation there arises for the element God no need at all.10 But the fact of the matter is that in the Sānkhya tradition positing twentyfive elements there can possibly be attributed to the element God no role whatsoever.
Let us now consider the Jaina and Buddhist traditions. Unlike Sānkhya, neither of these traditions posits a conscious element of the form of something eternal-undergoing-110-change. Both envisage the possibility of an inherent virtuous quality of a soul or conscious element undergoing development. The non-conscious element (=füpa) can well act as an aid to the development of the virtuous qualities inheret in a soul but the basic seed of such a developement lies latent in the conscious-element soul (=citta) itself. The spiritual aspirants who, as a result of fully developing this seed attain emancipation themselves become God because of having become a perfect being. Apart from them there exists no God who might act as a world-creator and world-destroyer or even as a passive witness. As for the spiritual aspirants they, while seeking to fulfil their aspiration - that is, while in an imperfect state - do stand in need of a support of some sort or other, According to both these traditons, such a support can be only such a personage who has become an emancipated one or an enlightened one through his own endeavour; moreover, those who have attained perfection taking recourse to such a support can, in turn, themselves act as a support to other spiritual aspirants. Thus according to the Jaina and Buddhist traditions, an emancipated or enlightened soul or citta itself is what constitutes God or Supreme Soul.
The Mimāmsaka, Sankhya, Jaina and Buddhist--all these four tradi. tions do admit that the world undergoes a change, but they are not of the view that there was a time when this world was first created and hence they also porvide no occasion for God's actorship in the task of creating this world. The net essence of the above discussion is that just as the Mımāmsaka is in his own manner an advocate of the doctrine of activity so verily are the Sankhya, Jaina and Buddhist. The capacity to perform an act and to reap the fruit thereof lies in oneself. Hence unlike those advocating the doctrine of world-creatorship on God's part, these traditions attribute no role to God's impulsion in the task of one performing
10 This is what Vijñānabhikşi says in his Introduction to Sankhyapravacanabhāsya--
... ... ..brahmamināmsāyām iśvara eva mukhyo vişaya upakramádibhir avadhịtah. Tatráinse tasya badhe śástrasyaivāpramanyam syāt, yarparah sabdah sa šablärtha iti nyāyāt. Sänklayaśāstrasya 1a parişat thatatädhanapral tipurşavivekāy eva nukhyo vişaya it isyarapralise thamsabadhe'pi naprāmānyam, yatparah sabdah sa sandārtha iti nyāyāt. Ataḥ sävakāśatayā sānk hyam cvešvarapratişe dhāmse durhalam iti,