A Cogitation on the Samkhya

School of Hindu Philosophy with an

Accentuation on its View on God

A Term Paper
Submitted to
Prof. Alfredo P. Co, Ph. D
Faculty of Arts and Letters

In partial fulfilment
of the requirements of the subject
ASN 702: Indian Philosophy

By

#8
Lyn Jeen I. Binua
4ASN1
March 8, 2019
 This paper discusses the Samkhya school of Hindu philosophy with an
accentuation on its view on God. Further, it includes the basic information of
the said school and its main tenets. At the core of the paper however will focus
on critiquing Samkhya's thought on God's existence. First, it will be shown how
Samkhya philosophers actually have different stance on this matter. They
accept an "ultimate reality," Brahman. In this respect, a question arises: "Can
this ultimate reality be accepted as God?"
The entirety of this paper presents various statements on the denial of
the existence of God. As such, the discussion attempts to provide
counterarguments on these statements which will follow after.
Samkhya or Sankhya is one of the six major astika 1 schools of Hindu
philosophy. Samkhya 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. Kapila is the founder of the
system. Its classical formulation is found in Īśvarakṛṣṇa’s Sāṅkhya-Kārikā (ca.
350 C.E.), a condensed account in seventy-two verses. It is a strong Indian
example of metaphysical dualism, but unlike many Western counterparts it is
atheistic.2 Samkhya is most related to the Yoga3 school of Hinduism and held
the position as the most influential school of Hinduism. In such school of
thought, there are two known entities namely Prakṛti and puruṣa-s, Nature and
persons. Prakrti has been defined as the unity of the three Gunas held in
equilibrium.The three Gunas are Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. They are the
constituents of Prakrti. On the other hand, Purusa is the second type of ultimate
co-eternal according to Samkhya. It is the principle of pure consciousness,
Purusa is the soul, the self, the spirit, the subject, the knower. He neither body,
nor senses nor mind nor ego, nor intellect, but the sustaining soul, silent
peaceful and eternal. It is the ultimate knower which is the foundation of all
knowledge. It is a conscious spirit which is always the subject of knowledge and
can never became the object of knowledge. It is not a substance which

1 Orthodox
2 Ruzsa, Ferenc. "Sankhya." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: A Peer-reviewed Academic
Resource. Accessed March 3, 2019. https://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/.
3 The Yoga philosophical system aligns closely with the dualist premises of the Samkhya school. The

Yoga school accepts Samkhya psychology and metaphysics, but is considered theistic because it
accepts the concept of personal god (Ishvara), unlike Samkhya. The epistemology of the Yoga school,
like the Sāmkhya school, relies on three of six prāmaṇas as the means of gaining reliable knowledge:
pratyakṣa (perception), anumāṇa (inference) and śabda (āptavacana, word/testimony of reliable
sources).
possesses the quality of consciousness, but the consciousness is its very
essence.4
Sāmkhya is an enumerationist philosophy whose epistemology accepts
three of six pramanas5 as the only reliable means of gaining knowledge. These
include pratyakṣa (perception), anumāṇa (inference) and śabda (āptavacana,
word/testimony of reliable sources). Sometimes described as one of the
rationalist school of Indian philosophy, this ancient school's reliance on reason
was neither exclusive nor strong.
Much of the Sāṅkhya system became widely accepted in India: especially
the theory of the three guṇa-s; and it was incorporated into much latter Indian
philosophy, especially Vedānta.6
In whatever religion, the concept of God remains fundamental. This idea
is the most important and almost universal. Ever since, man has always
believed that there is something supernatural, a Supreme Being called God - the
Supreme reality, Supreme end and Supreme value. Looking back at history and
viewing things through the lens of the earliest historical records that this world
possesses, it becomes apparent that man has always exerted effort in debating
on the existence of God. Man has always sought to explain the universe, to
explain God. This subject also remains as one of the most frequent topic on
philosophical discourses and debates. And when man tries to talk and inquire
about this, he creates an idea that may be helpful in answering the problem at
hand. This leads to a more in-depth discussion and discourse but man has never
arrived to a single answer or agreement with respect to the existence of God.
God is the creator, the infinite designer man’s beginning and end. He is
creator, preserver and destroyer of the universe. God is omnipotent,
omnipresent and omniscient. Man has this belief that God is the cause of this
world, a Supreme Being that serves as the root cause of everything. And in the
continuous quest of man in the field of philosophy, it becomes clear that the
world is enveloped in a system of causes and effects; that each cause is an effect

4 Dutt, Sunil. "Samkhya Philosophy and Its Importance in Indian Philosophy." New Man International
Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 3, no. 8 (August 2016): 5-25. Accessed March 3, 2019.
http://www.newmanpublication.com/admin/issue/Articale/5 New Man Publication- NMIJMS
August 2016_www.newmanpublication.pdf.
5 Proofs
6 Vedānta is nominally a school of Indian philosophy, although in reality it is a label for any

hermeneutics that attempts to provide a consistent interpretation of the philosophy of the Upaniṣads
or, more formally, the canonical summary of the Upaniṣads, Bādarāyaņa’s Brahma Sūtra.
of its corresponding cause. However, the search for the ultimate cause of
everything forces man to stop at a certain point and conclude that there is this
one being who is all-powerful who is the source of everything. This being is
therefore labelled as self-existent, someone who exists by and through himself
alone. As such, this is independent of any other cause. And this "causeless"
cause is God. He is the designer of man's everything, He is the sole reason
behind every man's beginning and end.
The existence of the world is dependent on something that has caused it
to exist. It depends upon a necessary, independent, absolute and infinite Being
for its existence, which is not contingent and dependent on any other being.
This Being is God. He is unlimited in space and time, absolute and the ground of
the world. God is not only the creator and destroyer of the whole universe. God
also controls it.
With the significance and distinction of the concept of God, this topic is
very important in Hindu philosophy. Various philosophers had already
attempted to bring discourse regarding the matter and this always ends up with
either denial or acceptance.
Among the six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy, the Samkhya and
Mimamsa7 schools do not adhere to the view of the intervention of a Supreme
Being or God in creation or dissolution of the world process. The Samkhya
system is sometimes described as the atheistic Sankhya since it does not uphold
God as the creator, and thereby it is distinguished from the Yoga which is called
the 'Theistic Samkhya.'
Samkhya school of Hindu philosophy explains and denies the existence of
God. It regards Moksha as the end of worldly bondage and where individuals go
after attaining Moksha is not given much importance. Ascend into heaven or
descend in hell, this does not really matter because even according to the
Bhagavad Gita,8 we are in this world for two purposes: to enter, and exit; and
whatever happens in this external world is solely because of the two entities in
Samkhya called Prakrti and Purusa.9

7 Primarily concerned with defending the way of life defined by the ancient scripture of Hinduism,
the Veda.
8 an ancient Indian text that became an important work of Hindu tradition in terms of both literature

and philosophy.
9 "Samkhya and Its Arguments against God's Existence." Dhyan Praveshika. 2017. Accessed March 3,

2019. http://www.dhyanpraveshika.org/index.php/87-samkhya-and-its-arguments-against-god-s-
existence-2.
 As an atheistic system, Samkhya philosophers have made statements
against the existence of an independent and self-caused Creator. This includes:
"If the existence of Karma is assumed, the proposition of God as a moral
governor of the universe is unnecessary. For, if God enforces the
consequences of actions then he can do so without karma. If however,
he is assumed to be within the law of karma, then karma itself would be
the giver of consequences and there would be no need of a God."
"Even if karma is denied, God still cannot be the enforcer of consequences.
Because the motives of an enforcer God would be either egoistic or
altruistic. Now, God's motives cannot be assumed to be altruistic because
an altruistic God would not create a world so full of suffering. If his
motives are assumed to be egoistic, then God must be thought to have
desire, as agency or authority cannot be established in the absence of
desire. However, assuming that God has desire would contradict God's
eternal freedom which necessitates no compulsion in actions. Moreover,
desire, according to Samkhya, is an attribute of Prakriti and cannot be
thought to grow in God. The testimony of the Vedas, according to
Samkhya, also confirms this notion."
"Despite arguments to the contrary, if God is still assumed to contain
unfulfilled desires, this would cause him to suffer pain and other similar
human experiences. Such a worldly God would be no better than
Samkhya's notion of higher self."
"Furthermore, there is no proof of the existence of God. He is not the object
of perception, there exists no general proposition that can prove him
by inference and the testimony of the Vedas speak of Prakrti as the origin
of the world, not God."10
Samkhya philosophers do accept an "ultimate reality." However,
although they have this concept, this so-called "ultimate reality" is outside the
creation process; it has nothing to do with it. The evolution of the universe is
confined only within the principles of Prakrti and Purusa; no God has been
mentioned that can be considered as the Being behind the evolutionary
process. However, it becomes clear that Samkhya philosophers accept
Brahman as the ultimate reality behind Purusa and Prakrti although they deny

10"Samkhya and Its Arguments against God's Existence." Dhyan Praveshika. 2017. Accessed March 3,
2019. http://www.dhyanpraveshika.org/index.php/87-samkhya-and-its-arguments-against-god-s-
existence-2.
the existence of the Creator, God. In connection to this, philosophers question
whether such "ultimate reality" can be accepted as God. Those who adhere to
the Samkhya system therefore argues that the creation process is not a sole
criterion in God-hood. They hold the position that it is enough to believe that
God forms the basis of this world; that God's essence is just spiritual and that it
does not extend to creation.11
Classical Samkhya does not hold any place for devotion to God. according
to Isvarakrsna,12 Prakrti is the material cause of this world. Purusa is inactive
but conscious and Prakrti is active but unconscious. In the beginning ofthis
world, the equilibrium of Prakrti is disturbed by the contact ofthe Purusa,
which, acts as a stimulus, as a result of which Prakrti evolves into the manifold
world So, Isvarakrsna does not admiy aa creator God, because it is not parallel
with his philosophy of Purusa and Prakrti.
Vacaspati Misra, the commentator of Samkhyakarika, 13 also rejected
God's existence. According to him, "God is unnecessary for the explanation of
the creation of the world. Generally, God is assumed for giving an explanation
to the universe of Prakrti and Purusas as also to the ultimate end of human life.
But Vacaspati Misra pointed that all this can be described with the concepts of
Prakrti and Purusa." 14 This is like saying that Prakrti and Purusa, the two
known entities of the Samkhya school, are the main forces and the primary
reasons behind everything that others believe to have been created by God
himself.
From the above-given statements, one can question their credibility and
legitimacy. Purusa, which is devoid of action cannot act as stimulus and Prakrti,
with its nature of being non-intelligent, must be controlled by something;
something intelligent which has the ability to direct Prakrti in order to create
the world. These are just some of the loopholes found in the arguments that are
firmly being defended by Samkhya philosophers. The individual selves are
limited in knowledge and power; individuals do not have the capacity to
perform everything and to put everything in existence. For while it is true that
humans do have the ability to think, to invent things most especially those that

11 Basu, Saheli. "Samkhya Metaphysics and Some Philosophical Problems." PhD diss., University of
North Bengal. Accessed March 3, 2019. http://hdl.handle.net/10603/149378.
12 The author of the Samkhyakarika, an early account of the universe and its components
13 The oldest available Samkhya work
14 Basu, Saheli. "Samkhya Metaphysics and Some Philosophical Problems." PhD diss., University of

North Bengal. Accessed March 3, 2019. http://hdl.handle.net/10603/149378.

are of unusual nature, it has to be remembered that the power of these humans
has its own limits. No matter how great, no matter how we try to assert that
humans are actually intelligent beings, it remains indubitable that their
knowledge and power do have their own ends. Therefore, there is really a need
to accept an infinite and powerful God who has sole control of everything; God
whose power and might transcends those of the humans; God who is the
primary cause of everything. Nothing exists prior to itself and by saying so,
nothing is the efficient cause of itself. As such, there must really be God who is
the first efficient cause.
At this juncture, this paper attempts to contest the general notion of the
Samkhya school of Hindu philosophy that God does not really exist. And as such,
the approach would also be in a general manner.
This paper reiterates that the Samkhya philosophers hold that the
existence of Karma makes the proposition of God as a moral governor of the
universe unnecessary because Karma itself has the ability to give consequences
and there would be no need of God. From this Samkhya argument, questioning
the concept of Karma also becomes necessary in proving the existence of God.
While those who adhere to the Samkhya school who denies the existence of God
strongly questions such assertion, it becomes necessary to doubt their concept
of Karma.
Furthermore, we find in nature things that are possible to be and not to
be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings. Everything
in this world has its own cause and so there could have been a time when
nothing existed and without an "efficient cause," nothing could have existed by
now. Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its
existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as
God. Moreover, in our everyday lives, we observe the fact that man is full of
worldly desires. Man has the natural urge to desire and want things. However,
along with such observation, it also remains indubitable that man does not
always obtain the fruit of his desire. This may be because of certain
circumstances that hinder him from achieving it. That being said, is inferred
that man's acquisition of the fruits of his actions is dependent upon some other
person. Given the various possible barriers towards attaining the fruit of his
desire, the concept of God arises. That person upon whom man and his desire
is dependent is God; and so it follows that there is really a God who is the Cause.
Yet at the same time, it must also be noted that God himself helps the effort of
Man. For example, when Man is trying to obtain a particular goal, it is God that
accomplishes that goal for him; when God does not accomplish it, Man's action
becomes fruitless; hence things are influenced by someone called God and his
existence, given such case, cannot be denied.
Based from a number of readings and researches, it has been found out
that Samkhya philosophers take different stances on the existence of God. 15
And with that being said, we conclude that these philosophers are not actually
unanimous when it comes to such matter. In line with this, though the Samkhya
school of Hindu philosophy is widely known as an atheistic system, some
modem scholars have pointed out that the classical Samkhya is not actually
atheistic. They strongly assert that Samkhya denies not the existence of an
eternal God but the causality and agency of such a God. For them, God is not the
direct cause of the world and the denial of such causality does automatically
equate to the denial of his existence. He may not be a cause, but that does not
necessarily imply that he does not exist also.
Now, with all the arguments that have been presented which try to prove
either the existence and absence of God, it becomes imperative to arrive to one
concrete conclusion. A variety of discourses have been found out but the
problem here lies in the concept of God itself.
It is important and necessary to have the same definition of God. Why?
Because different cultures, thinking and philosophies carry with them different
definitions of God. Some define God as a Higher Being, a Supreme Being. Some
define it as a mere force that lies within every creation found in this material
world while others believe that God is the Ultimate Reality and the like. From
this variations alone, contentions and contradictions are inevitable. Perhaps,
this is really where the problem arises. It is known that the existence of God has
always been a prime topic for philosophical debates and all these attempts and
efforts to either accept or deny the existence of God will remain fruitless and
unanswered unless humans arrive to a single definition of God; unless humans
set the boundaries and parameters of the word "God"; unless humans delineate
the term to make it clearer and more distinct.
However, arriving at this single definition of the word "God" is not easy
to do; for the world is full of systems that are distinct from one another and one
culture, one philosophy and one thinking is not that easy to give up. To craft
just one definition for the reference of everyone requires compromise. But such

Basu, Saheli. "Samkhya Metaphysics and Some Philosophical Problems." PhD diss., University of
15

North Bengal. Accessed March 3, 2019. http://hdl.handle.net/10603/149378.

compromise is not feasible to all. Yet as long as different individuals have
different concept of God, refutations and critiques will always be there and
these can never be avoided.
But as this paper revolves around the Samkhya school of Hindu
philosophy which denies the existence of God, it was evidently found out that
such school maintained that the various cosmological, ontological and
teleological arguments could not prove God as a single superpower who others
believe has control over everything. It must be remembered that one belief is
different from another and we cannot really refute one's thinking. Rather with
respect to the Samkhya school of thought, we might find solace instead in the
possibility that God is just an energy which exists everywhere and in every one
of us in all forms. Yet this should not stop one from believing what he knows
and thinks is right; for to accept one's belief is to respect and respect itself does
not mean to surrender one's faith and principle.
SOURCES:
Ruzsa, Ferenc. "Sankhya." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: A Peer-
reviewed Academic Resource. Accessed March 3, 2019.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/.
Dutt, Sunil. "Samkhya Philosophy and Its Importance in Indian Philosophy."
New Man International Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies 3, no. 8 (August
2016): 5-25. Accessed March 3, 2019.
http://www.newmanpublication.com/admin/issue/Articale/5 New Man
Publication- NMIJMS August 2016_www.newmanpublication.pdf.
"Samkhya and Its Arguments against God's Existence." Dhyan Praveshika.
2017. Accessed March 3, 2019.
http://www.dhyanpraveshika.org/index.php/87-samkhya-and-its-
arguments-against-god-s-existence-2.
Menon, Sangeetha. "Advaita Vedanta." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: A
Peer-reviewed Academic Resource. Accessed March 3, 2019.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/adv-veda/.
Taber, John A. "Mīmāṃsā." Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 1998.
Accessed March 3, 2019.
https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/mimamsa/v-1.
Violatti, Christian. "Bhagavad Gita." Ancient History Encyclopedia. September
5, 2013. Accessed March 3, 2019. https://www.ancient.eu/Bhagavad_Gita/.
Mohanty, Jitendra N. "Historical Development Of Indian Philosophy."
Encyclopædia Britannica. September 15, 2014. Accessed March 3, 2019.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Indian-philosophy/Historical-
development-of-Indian-philosophy#ref314637.