Content area
Full Text
Introduction
In a number of standard introductory textbooks on Indian philosophy, classical Sâmkhya is described as a Hindu philosophical school based on a fundamental dualism between a plurality of selves, or spirits (purusas) and the material, or phenomenal world (prakrti), whereas Buddhism, on the other hand, is most often described as a system based on the radically different position of "no-self" or selflessness (Sanskrit: anātman; Pali: anattā).1 However, such depictions, although not entirely inaccurate, often obscure strong structural homologies between the two systems, which highlight the fundamental duality at the heart of both systems' ontologies and their inherent pessimism toward conventional reality. Building on some recent innovative studies, this comparison begins with an analysis and reinterpretation of some of the main ideas found in the Sāmkhyakārikā, the foundational text of classical Sâmkhya composed by Isvarakrşna. Next it demonstrates how these new interpretations illuminate new points of contact between classical Sâmkhya and Theravāda Buddhism as primarily represented by the fifth-century c.e. Pali commentator Buddhaghosa in his classic meditation manual The Path of Purification (Visuddhimagga). By comparing these two texts, I aim to illustrate the internal coherence of the Sâmkhya system, which has all too often functioned as a "straw man" in accounts of Indian philosophy.2 Also, this comparison sheds some light on the important issue of method within Sâmkhya by arguing that both systems attempt to restructure experience based on "no-self." Finally, this comparison helps to locate Theravāda Buddhism firmly within the renouncer ethos and to highlight certain core features of the system, such as its radical denial of worldly life and its ontological dualism, which in recent decades have often (intentionally or unintentionally) been overlooked.3
Classical Sâmkhya
The historical development of Sämkhyan philosophy has been discussed in detail in a number of contemporary studies.4 It is generally accepted in the field that the Sāmkhyakārikā (hereafter SK), composed by Isvarakrşna sometime before the sixth century c.e., is our sole witness to Sâmkhya in what has been designated its "classical" phase. K. C. Bhattacharya has made a crucial observation about classical Sâmkhya in relation to the Sâmkhya School and its modern interpretations:
Much of Sämkhya literature appears to have been lost, and there seems to be no continuity from ancient times up to the age of commentators....