________________
928
JOHANNES BRONKHORST
we stick to our rationalistic presupposition, we might have to assume that Samkhya originally had a plurality of purusas and an equal number of prakrtis.
Such a conclusion might have to be drawn if we believe that already the forerunners of classical Samkhya were rational in the sense described above and looked for coherence. But what reason is there to do so? Is it not equally conceivable that in those early days Samkhya discourse concerned two different levels of reality at the same time? Examples of parallelisms between, and of identifications of, macrocosm and microcosm are numerous, both in Indian and in non-Indian religions. A well-known example comes from Buddhist cosmology. Here the universe is thought of as consisting of three layers, the kāmadhātu, the rupadhätu, and the arūpyadhātu. These layers are thought of in spatial terms, yet the rupadhatu and the arūpyadhātu correspond to attainments in meditation. Here too homology, or rather identification, between the profoundly personal and the cosmological is to be seen.25 Examples from Vedic literature, and even from classical Indian medicine (Ayurveda) are not lacking.26 The importance of homologization of the body with the macrocosm in Yoga and Tantrism has been emphasized by Mircea Eliade and others." Epic Samkhya is inseparable from Yoga. Equally close to the historical predecessors of classical Samkhya, the Bhagavadgitä describes how Krsna reveals to Arjuna the whole universe inside himself.28 Such identifications of different realms-usually the
25 See the discussion in Gombrich, 1996:83ff.
26 See, e.g., Carakasamhita, Sutrasthäna, chapter 12, and Filliozat, 1933.
27
See Teun Goudriaan in Gupta, Hoens and Goudriaan, 1979-57f: "The doctrine that the human body corresponds to, is even identical with, the universe is seldom systematically expounded but nearly always self-understood." "Microcosmic symbolism is especially prominent in the passages which deal with kundaliniyoga [...]" "[...] very common [...] is the outright equation of the body [...] with the world or universe. We also find many statements to the purport that gods, heavens, hells etc. are all present in the body [...]" "A consequence of the 'cosmization of the individual is that the body is made to encompass the world of the gods in particular ways." etc. Padoux (1990:78 n.122) observes, similarly: "Saiva cosmogony often appears as a 'cosmization' of psychological experiences and viceversa." Heilijgers-Seelen (1994: 20 f.) draws attention to the fact that the five cakras, which are situated in the body, are given dimensions inspired by cosmological theories. A later commentator, she points out on p. 25 (with n.20), distinguishes the macrocosm and the microcosm, where the text commented upon makes no such distinction. Man as Microcosm in Tantric Hinduism by Grace E. Cairns (New Delhi, 1992) was not available to me.
28 Mhbh 6.33 (Bhag 11). Surprisingly, the Bhagavadgită may be without the contradiction that mars classical Samkhya. It appears to distinguish between the individual and the "godly" level, both of which interact in parallel but different ways with prakṛti. See e.g. Bhag 3.27-28, 30 (tr. Edgerton): "Performed by material nature's strands (guna) are actions, altogether, he whose soul is deluded by the I-faculty (ahankara) imagines 'I am the agent'.
INDOLOGY AND RATIONALITY
929
personal and the cosmological, microcosm and macrocosm-are not "rational" in our sense, because they can evoke tricky, or even unanswerable, questions, like the ones raised by Franco with regard to Samkhya. Yet many religions, especially the ones in which rationality as here defined plays a less important role, have proved able to ignore or bypass such annoying questions. Why should we not accept that this is precisely what the pre-classical Samkhyas did?
It will be interesting to point out that the second flourishing of Samkhya in the second millennium of the common era made an effort to rectify the lack of coherence that they apparently thought characterized the classical school. Clearest in this respect is Vijñānabhiksu's commentary on Samkhya Sütra 3.10. It has been known for long that the Samkhya Sutra was composed (or compiled) late, long after the Samkhya Kärikä and most of its commentaries; its present form may date from the fourteenth or fifteenth century. Vijñānabhikṣu himself wrote in the sixteenth century. He speaks in this passage of the single (eka) subtle body (linga) which is formed at creation and is an adjunct (upädhi) of Hiranyagarbha. This single subtle body subsequently divides into many (nānā) individuals, just as the single subtle body of a father becomes multiple in the form of the subtle bodies of his sons and daughters. This division of the subtle body of Hiranyagarbha is caused by the difference of karma of the individuals." It is true that Vijñānabhikṣu has a tendency to impose his own views on the Samkhya philosophy, in particular the idea of a creator god. But his interpre
But he who knows the truth, great-armed one, about the separation [of the soul] from both the strands and action, 'the strands act upon the strands'-knowing this, is not attached [to actions]. [...] On Me all actions casting, with mind on the over-soul, being free from longing and from selfishness, fight, casting off thy fever." (prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni gunaiḥ karmāņi sarvaśaḥ/ahamkaravimäḍhātmā kartäham iti manyate // tattvavit tu mahābāko gunakarmavibhāgayoḥ gund gunesu vartanta iti matva na sajjate // [...]// mayi sarvāni karmani samnyasyadhyatmacetasä/ nirâfir nirmamo bhütvä yudhyasva vigatajvaraḥ //); and contrast this with Bhag 9.9-10 (tr. Edgerton): "And Me these actions do not bind, Dhanamjaya, participating as one indifferent, unattached to these actions. With Me as overseer, material nature brings forth (the world of] moving and unmoving [beings]; by this motive-force, son of Kunti, the world goes around." (na ca mām tāni karmāņi nibadhnanti dhanamjaya/udasinavad asinam asaktam teşu karmasu // mayadhyakṣena prakṛtiḥ sayate sacaracaram/hetunänena kaunteya jagad viparivartate //).
29 Vijanabhiksu on Samkhya Sütra 3.10 (p. 190): nanu lingam ced ekam tarhi katham purusabhedena vilakṣaṇā bhogāḥ syus taträha: vyaktibheda / yady api sargadau kiranyagarbhopadhirupam ekam eva lingam, tathapi tasya pascad vyaktibhedo vyaktirupenamato nänätvam api bhavatil yathedänim ekasya pitṛlingadehasya nānātvam amfato bhavati putrakanyádilingadeharūpeṇa tatra käraṇam aha: karmavisepad iti/jiväntarāṇām bhogahetukarmåder ity arthaḥ/ Cp. Garbe, 1889:211.
