Sankhya: Classical Indian Philosophy and Society

This article will explore the relations of the Sankhya in the context of its universal practice on Earth, for the purpose of understanding it as a 'blueprint' for an ideal society. In the Buddhist context it should not matter whether one finds contradictions within the practices of the Sankhya, for one who is not yet an Arhat or enlightened through Nibbana is not capable of fully knowing the Dharma.

Following the Buddha's enlightenment, several Vinaya (Buddhist Monastic rules) were established by the Buddha for the Sankhya. These Vinaya were and still are believed to help allow one realize the Dharma, thus making monastic life a more direct path to nibbana (enlightenment).

Moreover, one who follows the Dharma is believed not always to make sense in his or her actions. Thus, any monk who is not enlightened can reasonably be assumed to be a walking contradiction in light of this. However, this does not prevent one from understanding the Sankhya in light of other non/Buddhist beliefs for the purpose of critical analysis. Furthermore, this essay will study the Sankhya for what it is from an external perspective i.e. compile a working definition of the Sankhya. Then, it will discover the concept of the Sankhya as a foundation for a future "Utopia".

This will require the asking of questions such as the likelihood of the Sankhya being universally accepted as ideal; any problems or consequences which may occur as a result of its universality such as the extinction of man in exchange for universal enlightenment; the concept and problem of evil, and the plausibility of such a society ever emerging.

In order to understand the 'Sankhya', the rules which they live by should first be comprehended. Although many such rules exist within the Vinaya, this article will focus on the essential underlying precepts which must be adhered to for one to be a member of the Sankhya community. In other words, the moral understandings and practices of the Sankhya such as those found in the 'Sutras'-canonical text derived from the Buddha's words (Strong, p.360)- will be considered secondary to the rules of conduct (Pratimoksa). This is so because without rules of conduct, a Buddhist monk and/or nun cannot behave in such a way which facilitates the proper practice of moral virtue. Moreover, the rules of monastic conduct will be given importance due to the notion that they are a pre-requisite for moral virtue.

Furthermore, a Society which has no foundation of any kind is less likely to stand, thus, monastic rules of conduct will be considered foundational in nature. Again, the 'Pratimoksa', are the formal rules which command monastic discipline and are spoken every two weeks. (Ibid, p.359) They are the regulations that all Buddhist monks and nuns must follow in order to be true members of the Sankhya. "The set of rules the Sankhya possesses as a formal organization are the Vinaya precepts...in the Theravada, they are typified by the 227 rules comprising Patimokkha...true Buddhism is realized where monks uphold the Patimokkha faithfully." (Ishii, p.68)

Since the perceived influence and large presence of the contextual Vinaya is so ubiquitous, the categories of the Pratimoska will include its general features only. They include within the Pratimoska (and hence in the Dharmas/truths), several areas such as property, etiquette and manner, sex, work, speech and diet. The first, and most vital of the Pratimoksa are the "Parakika Dharmas", the (four vital rules). These Dharmas are offenses which prevent monks and nuns from engaging in false claim -especially of enlightenment- murder, sex and theft.(Prebish, p.11)

Another set of Pratimoska regulations are the Nihsargika-Payantika Dharmas (thirty property rules). These codes regulate matters such as property, trade, and money. For example, there are ten rules in regard to the monastic attire, ten more for monastic carpets and money, and still other rules for property such as bowls and medicine. (Ibid, p.13)

A third set of Dharmas are those named Adhikarana-Samatha (Seven Judiciary rules). These regulations maintain that the Dharmas are properly enforced and punishments properly applied. In order to do so, seven judiciary rules exist within the Adhikarana-Samatha Dharmas for monks and for nuns. Furthermore, the judiciary Pratimoksa includes aspects such as majority decision, the character of the accused, presentation, testimony, confession, and verdict. Other Dharmas of the Pratimoksa include the Payantika Pratidesaniya (ninety-two broad offenses),and Samghavasesa Dharmas (thirteen offenses); all of which regulate monastic conduct in terms of dwelling, accusation, morality, social relations, food, destruction and other employments of the Dharma to reality. (Ibid, p.11-15) The above categories represent a portion of the disciplinary rules within the Vinaya.

Whether or not, these rules capture the truth of the Dharma or not is irrelevant and uncertain within this context. Moreover, within the framework of this study, it is the Sankhya as a Societal blueprint which is being understood, and not the actual truth of the Dharma. However, in some instances, it will be necessary to question such truths as they apply to monastic discipline and society.

Furthermore, if the monastic community is actually governed in part by the Pratimoksa, then any problems within the Pratimoksa will reveal a flaw within the greater monastic community in regard to its other sutras and hence the whole Vinaya. . Moreover, the Sankhya also adheres to the Dharmas of other Sutras such as the diamond, heart, lotus and pure land Sutras. However, to apply all the Sutras to the painting of a society would include understanding and representation of the many sayings and teachings and thus, requires a more expansive analysis.

This contextual difficulty can be overcome using an analogy to illustrate; if the Pratimoksa represent one support for a bridge (the ideal Buddhist society), any fault within that one support will inevitably lead to the bridge not being perfect i.e. even if all the other supports are flawlessly designed, a miscalculation in the design of the Pratimoksa is all that is necessary in order to reveal an enigma within the greater proposition of Buddhist doctrine.

However, such a problem has yet to be identified, and thus, will be the focus of this section of study. Furthermore, assuming that an unknowing society awaits its first set of rules, and if this first set of rules are the Pratimoksa, how well do they perform. Also, these rules are believed by Buddhism, to be better defined within the Sankhya/monastic community and thus, the Sankhya regulations must facilitate the goals of Buddhism i.e. the goals of its founding rules.

For us to know, if the regulations are conducive to such a state would require our being enlightened because one cannot know how well something works without first knowing the ideal of that something. Hence, we can only attempt to show how the Sankhya will perform according to its founding rules. Again though, to discover the truth of the Dharma is not our purpose at this time, rather it is to discover and apply its guiding principles to society.

"The Buddhist Sankhya developed an entire religious and educational institution. The religious gathering gave birth to social and political ideas and systems. On the same basis of these gatherings, the Buddha eventually advised the Sankhya to recite the Pratimokkha, the key doctrine for monastic institutional life." (Putuwar, p.8)

It is evident now, that if the Sankhya were to be recognized as the most perfect society, that it would no doubt make the rules for that society. Thus, the political ideas and systems which emerge also reflect the state of the Sankhya in terms of its administrative and religious duties. This Society has yet to be painted however, so let us begin with the wishes of the Buddha.

"The Buddha wanted society to run prosperously and smoothly without any deviation from moral precepts. Furthermore, he desired that mankind attain the ultimate goal, nibbana, in life." (Ibid, p.3)

According to this, the society which we are discussing will have the ideal of celibacy. Thus, if the Buddha's wish of no deviation from moral precepts is accomplished the ideal society will be entirely celibate. Second, according to the Nihsargika-Payantika Dharma of the Pratimoksa, trade must be in the form of barter and/or in any way which eliminates buying and selling. . "The monk might accept material under certain conditions. Gold and Silver must not be accepted or used in transactions, and buying and selling were forbidden." (Prebish, p.13)

Hence, the economy will be quite different to that which most of us are accustomed i.e. it will be greatly simplified in that economic principles such as monetary inflation, stock piling for higher yields etc. can be discarded. A third characteristic of the Buddha's ideal society is its high ethical and social standards of behavior (Sila) which are also represented in the Vinaya. Such aspects of the Vinaya include the eightfold path; the four noble truths; the six perfection's (Prajnaparamita); the three bodies, realms and natures and karma. All of these Buddhist doctrines capture the essence of the Sila which essentially support widespread morality.

"Sila...is a religious moral standard applied particularly within a group of followers and generally to all of mankind. Its main emphasis is on practical religious values rather than on abstract dialectical methods. Buddhist ethical conduct (Sila) stresses genuine tolerance, benevolence, consideration, love, sympathy, good-will, moderation, generosity, and far- sightedness. hence, any altruistic value is part of the code. These genuine virtues are the cornerstones of humanistic behavior. In short, one could say that "to avoid all evil, to cultivate good, and to purify one's mind is the aim of Buddhist practice." (Putuwar, p.12)

Fourth, spiritualism is paramount in the Buddhist doctrine and hence, another important precept of the Sankhya. For example, the notion of samsara or the cycle of rebirth holds the belief that all individuals are simply temporary ego's which influence the destiny of one's soul or incorporeal nature. Such a destiny ironically desires the end of samsara for the attainment of enlightenment. Thus, the Sankhya is founded on concept which emphasize meditation as a means to become familiar with this spiritual self. As a result, the Sankhya, if a society, would include extensive meditation. Such practice is evident in the Sankhya of the Yogacara school of Buddhism.

In the Yogacara, the role of the mind in constructing the World is so emphasized that all concepts of an external physical reality are rejected. (Harvey, p.109) That is to say, the Yogocara school endorses the acquiring of a certain state of mind, within which all that exists -or all that is believed by the perciever to exist- is supposed to be mental in nature. This is similar to the Cartesian theory of dualism.

Nevertheless, the purpose of Yogacara perspective is not simply to reflect but to promote the purpose of the Sankhya which is to create an environment appropriate for attaining enlightenment. "The intention of the school, is to develop a perspective which will facilitate enlightenment...and spiritual change." (Ibid) This same goal of enlightenment is carried out by different schools in different ways, but is still the primary purpose of the Sankhya. For example, some schools emphasize enlightenment techniques through meditation in the lotus position, others while gardening, and still others in recitation of the Sutras.

Thus, celibacy, barter, morality and spirituality are four major aspects of the Buddhist Sankhya. But if such characteristics are Orthodox in nature, then certain consequences exist as well as effects of similar amplitude if the nature of the Sankhya is not Orthodox in nature. That is to say, the Sankhya is far from being a basis for an ideal Society because there are existing congruities within the Buddhist teachings. It has been established that an Orthodox Sankhya will maintain the above four mentioned qualities. The first and most obvious of the difficulties here is the future. If the Sankhya is ideal and all persons follow that ideal, then no persons will exist following the first generation. This is so simply because complete celibacy leads to a zero birth rate.

Second, if the use of money in trade is not allowed, much of the ideal society in question will undergo huge economic reform. A reform in which the concepts of profit, economic ambition, inflation, technology and development, international law and so on will require change. Such changes, if possible at all, would most likely hinder the progress of man technologically. Furthermore, it is just as conceivable to state that evolution in the physical sense is the ultimate goal of humanity. This can be argued from the notion that throughout History humanity has made it possible to expand its own abilities, creativeness, sustenance, longevity etc. Without such developments, humanity would never emerged as separate from its primate ancestors and the concept of enlightenment could not even have been conceived.

Hence, from this perspective, evolution is more necessary than enlightenment. If this is the case, then any obstacles in the way of humanities evolution will be precisely that, obstacles. Such an obstacle is barter because it has a counter-productive effect which reverses the evolutionary pattern in history, and metaphorically bites the hand which gave it the concept of reversal in the first place.

Suffice to say, this point can be discussed further, but won't be. Next is the notion of morality; the ideal that a society based on the Sankhya will be moral. This does not just mean, partially moral, but completely in terms of the Buddhist definition of morality. Such a definition can be discovered in the Sutras, the middle way, the six perfection's etc. but generally promote good will and harmony as mentioned previously.

The questions are, first is such universal morality possible, and from whence does such a concept come from. In regard to the latter, one can argue that since ones ego is a part of the greater Dharma/truth, then either that ego either exists or it does not. If it does, then reason also exists with it, and if it doesn't, then there is no such thing as reason. If one does have reason, one is encouraged by Buddhism to violate its perimeters. That is to say, concepts within Buddhism such as emptiness, or the Yogacara mental phenomena only theory, go beyond reason in that reason lacks faith in what is known to it. Therefore, to accept the unknown as known through conventional reason is impossible if not difficult. However, what does this have to do with morality? If morality is necessary it must coincide with reason, since reason exists in the mind. This requires that one judges morality for oneself and not because of a dharma.

The question now emerges, are all people capable of discovering such morality and why. The reason will inevitably say why be moral when one is physical and must do physical things to survive, this may include immorality. Furthermore, since it can be argued that evolution is a possible necessity for humanity, then physical existence must continue and thus immorality as well. This is so because one cannot be physical and moral at the same time according to the doctrine of the Sankhya. Moreover, to not be celibate, and to evolve technologically are necessary characteristics of evolution, but they also violate the Buddhist precepts of Celibacy, trade and morality. "By involving himself in politics (which the dalai lama must do) a monk impurifies his monkhood and therefore jeopardizes his own position and the Sankhya as a whole." (Suksamran, p.165)

Hence, as long as morality remains physical, immorality will exist. "Vinaya is the preservation of the Dhamma. A bhikku (Sankhya monk) does as much damage to Buddhism by using modern black umbrellas, footware when healthy, and porcelain plates in place of traditional alms bowl, as he does by misleading the Dhamma, by denying , for one example, that nibbana is possible at this very moment." (Smith, p.219) Thus, physical phenomena such as plates instead of bowls can easily be associated with immorality. Such a problem can be attributed to paradox, evil, god, deities, monkeys, cats or dogs.

That is to say, the concept of knowledge (about what is moral) as it is currently defined, is finite in what it accepts as truth (in the western perspective). Unfortunately, the Dharma falls under the little or no knowledge category. Hence, the only solution is to be spiritual and have trust in the Dharma. This is the fourth category which was discussed as a notion and/or ideal of the Sankhya, (which is being questioned as a blueprint for an ideal society). Here the question of what is spiritual emerges.

With each new sect, religion and belief a different criteria for spiritualism emerges. "Buddhists today face the question not only of how to relate to other religions, but also how to relate to other forms of Buddhism from different traditions." (Wei-hsun Fu and Wawrytko, p.355) Which one is right; if they are all right then sacrifice is spiritualism. That is, any old cult could define spiritualism as it pleases. Furthermore, what makes the religion any more correct than the cult; what authority really exists. If any God has the ability to impregnate a women with his son, or enlighten humans as Buddha's, then why not go all the way and finish the job.

Such skepticism is not unfounded, it presents claims which are just as valid as any other, nevertheless it is often written off as tedious. Such action falls short of universal epistemology, or is it that enlightenment does not need epistemology. Buddhist spirituality is thus defined as an explanation which is believed to be divine in origin, but has no way of making sense in a conventional way. Moreover, spirituality is unfounded on the basis that one must become enlightened to comprehend it and not vice versa. Such a circumstance is suspicious if not unusually obstacle like in regard to enlightenment; it hinders rather than promotes human understanding.

Is it not in the precepts of morality that the strong help the weak; just as a parent explains and demonstrates to teach a child, should a Buddha not do the same. If this were the case, all Buddhists should be enlightened through demonstration and explanation of Buddhism, rather than first becoming enlightened then being able to understand explanation. One can only understand within the realm of ones own faculties, beyond this something cannot truly be taught. Surely a compassionate being would recognize this and at least show clearly through those limited faculties that one cannot actually know everything.

The Buddhist Sankhya is a monastic community which adheres to the precepts of the Pratimokkha. For monks of the Theravada tradition such rules include but are not limited to 227. Moreover, the regulations outlined in the Pratimokkha are fundamental but do not include the complete Dharma collection of truths. However, they have been sufficient in arguing a perspective. This perspective has been that the Sankhya as an ideal society is just that, ideal. In other words, it is difficult to find such a notion plausible. This became evident when the four notions of celibacy, trade, morality and spiritualism -which are included but do not come close to encompassing the whole Dharma- were discussed.

The problem in the emergence of such a society rests in the problem of knowledge. For example pluralism has until recently been unencountered in regard to western religion. "it is important to transcend the conventional views of religious differences and to affirm the highest Buddhist truth of nonduality by acting to affirm unity among all people and all religious groups." (Ibid, p.366) The author of this quote goes on to cite a poem as his frame of reference. What are we to make of such an analysis. Surely a poem is no confirmation; even a divine poem is questionable in regard to its claim as divine. Such a problem of credibility arises with the notion of its moral dogma.

Can the Sankhya simply change its regulations to accommodate new beliefs, perspectives and ideals for the purpose of unity. Where would the Sankhya attain approval for such alterations. If it is Buddha, who is Buddha beyond a good story; is knowledge of Buddha necessary, is knowledge of Buddhism what it is conceived to be, how does one know when one has knowledge of the Dharma, what criteria exist with which to base such knowledge. Buddhism answers, knowledge is knowing that not knowing is what knowledge is. Again the same problem arises, under what criteria, enlightenment. It has been argued that enlightenment is an element of human physical evolution is this even exists, thus evolution is more necessary than enlightenment. Moreover, reason and evolution coincide, making the problem of knowledge inevitable. Until such difficulties are solved in a manner which all can believe -which should not be to difficult for Buddha- then, the many different beliefs held by the many different cultures of the World will remain at a difference. "Between the Sankhya and the surrounding secular society is a constant tension, which can only abate when the precepts cease to be observed." (Ishii, p.8) Thus, the ideals of the Sankhya are good in that they promote the morality (however unfounded) which aids in the development of Societies, but the ideals also lack in that they can also hamper and conflict with the development of a Society.

================
Sources:

Harvey, Peter. An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, history and Practices, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Ishi, Yoneo, Sankhya, State, and Society: Thai Buddhism in History, Honolulu, Hawaii: The University Of Hawaii Press, 1986.

Prebish, Charles S. Buddhist Monastic Discipline: The Sanskrit Pratimoksa Sutras of the Mahasamghikas and Mulasarvastivadins, New York: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1975.

Putuwar, Sunanda, The Buddhist Sankhya: Paradigm of the Ideal Human Society, Lanham, Maryland: University Press Of America, 1991.

Smith, Bardwell L. Religion and Legitimation of Power in Thailand, Laos, and Burma, Chambersburg, Pennsylavaina: Anima Books, 1978.

Smith, Bardwell L. Religion and Legitimation of Power in Sri Lanka, Chambersburg, Pennsylvania: Anima Books, 1978.

Strong, John, The Experience of Buddhism: Sources and Interpretations, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1995.

Suksamran, Somboon, Buddhism and Politics in Thailand, Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1982.

Wie-hsun Fu, Charles and Sandra A.Wawrytko, Buddhist Ethics and Modern Society:An International Symposium, New York: Greenwood Press, 1991.