{"id":3615,"date":"2013-07-13T01:49:59","date_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:49:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/?p=3615"},"modified":"2013-07-13T01:49:59","modified_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:49:59","slug":"08-sankhya-and-yoga-vol-essays-on-the-gita-1950-edn","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/01-works-of-sri-aurobindo\/02-other-editions\/essays-on-the-gita-1950-edn\/08-sankhya-and-yoga-vol-essays-on-the-gita-1950-edn","title":{"rendered":"-08_Sankhya and Yoga.htm"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\n\n
\n

\n
\nVIII<\/font><\/b> <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\nSANKHYA AND YOGA <\/font><\/b>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nIN<\/font><\/b> THE<\/font> moment of his turning from this first and summary answer
\nto Arjuna’s difficulties and in the very first words which strike the
\nkeynote of a spiritual solution, the Teacher makes at once a distinction
\nwhich is of the utmost importance for the understanding of the Gita,
\n\u2014the distinction of Sankhya and Yoga. "Such is the intelligence (the
\nintelligent knowledge of things and will) declared to thee in the
\nSankhya, hear now this in the Yoga, for it thou art in Yoga by this
\nintelligence, 0 son of Pritha, thou shalt cast away the bondage o\u00a3
\nworks." That is the literal translation of the words in which the Gita announces the distinction it intends to make, <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nThe Gita is in its foundation a Vedantic work; it is one of the three
\nrecognised authorities for the Vedantic teaching and, although not
\ndescribed as a revealed Scripture, although, that is to say, it is largely
\nintellectual, ratiocinative, philosophical in its method, founded indeed on the Truth, but not the directly inspired Word which is the
\nrevelation of the Truth through the higher faculties of the seer, it is
\nyet so highly esteemed as to be ranked almost as a thirteenth Upanishad. But still its Vedantic ideas are throughout and thoroughly
\ncoloured by the ideas of the Sankhya and the Yoga way of thinking
\nand it derives from this colouring the peculiar synthetic character of
\nits philosophy. It is in fact primarily a practical system of Yoga that
\nit teaches and it brings in metaphysical ideas only as explanatory of its
\npractical system; nor does it merely declare Vedantic knowledge, but
\nit founds knowledge and devotion upon works, even as it uplifts works to
\nknowledge, their culmination, and informs them with devotion as their very heart and kernel of their spirit. Again its Yoga is
\nfounded upon the analytical philosophy of the Sankhyas, takes that
\nas a starting-point and always keeps it as a large element of its method
\nand doctrine; but still it proceeds far beyond it, negatives even some
\nof its characteristic tendencies and finds a means of reconciling the <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage-62<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nlower analytical knowledge of Sankhya with the higher synthetic and
\nVedantic truth. <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nWhat, then, are the Sankhya and Yoga of which the Gita speaks?
\nThey are certainly not the systems which have come down to us under
\nthese names as enunciated respectively in the Sankhya Karika of
\nIshwara Krishna and the Yoga aphorisms of Patanjali. This Sankhya
\nis not the system of the Karikas,\u2014at least as that is generally understood; for the Gita nowhere for a moment admits the multiplicity of
\nPurushas as a primal truth of being and it affirms emphatically what
\nthe traditional Sankhya strenuously denies, the One as Self and
\nPurusha, that One again as the Lord, Ishwara or Purushottama, and
\nIshwara as the cause of the universe. The traditional Sankhya is, to
\nuse our modern distinctions, atheistic; the Sankhya of the Gita admits
\nand subtly reconciles the theistic, pantheistic and monistic views o\u00a3
\nthe universe. <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nNor is this Yoga the Yoga system of Patanjali; for that is a purely
\nsubjective method of Rajayoga, an internal discipline, limited, rigidly
\ncut out, severely and scientifically graded, by which the mind is progressively stilled and taken up into Samadhi so that we may gain
\nthe temporal and eternal results of this self-exceeding, the temporal
\nin a great expansion of the soul’s knowledge and powers, the eternal
\nin the divine union. But the Yoga of the Gita is a large, flexible and
\nmany-sided system with various elements, which are all successfully
\nharmonised by a sort of natural and living assimilation, and of these
\nelements Rajayoga is only one and not the most important and vital.
\nThis Yoga does not adopt any strict and scientific gradation but is a process of natural soul-development; it seeks by the adoption of a few
\nprinciples of subjective poise and action to bring about a renovation
\nof the soul and a sort of change, ascension or new birth out of the
\nlower nature into the divine. Accordingly, its idea of Samadhi is quite
\ndifferent from the ordinary notion of the Yogic trance; and while
\nPatanjali gives to works only an initial importance for moral purification and religious concentration, the Gita goes so far as to make works
\nthe distinctive characteristic of Yoga. Action to Patanjali is only a
\npreliminary, in the Gita it is a permanent foundation; in the Rajayoga
\nit has practically to be put aside when its result has been attained or
\nat any rate ceases very soon to be a means for the Yoga, for the Gita it
\n" a means of the highest ascent and continues even after the complete liberation of the soul. <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage-63<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nThis much has to be said in order to avoid any confusion of thought
\nthat might be created by the use of familiar words in a connotation
\nwider than the technical sense now familiar to us. Still, all that is
\nessential in the Sankhya and Yoga systems, all in them that is large,
\ncatholic and universally true, is admitted by the Gita, even though it
\ndoes not limit itself by them like the opposing schools. Its Sankhya is
\nthe catholic and Vedantic Sankhya such as we find it in its first principles and elements in the great Vedantic synthesis of the Upanishads
\nand in the later developments of the Puranas. Its idea of Yoga is that
\nlarge idea of a principally subjective practice and inner change, necessary for the finding of the Self or the union with God, of which the
\nRajayoga is only one special application. The Gita insists that Sankhya and Yoga are not two different, incompatible and discordant systems, but one in their principle and aim; they differ only in their
\nmethod and starting-point. The Sankhya also is a Yoga, but it proceeds
\nby knowledge; it starts, that is to say, by intellectual discrimination
\nand analysis of the principles of our being and attains its aim through
\nthe vision and possession of the Truth. Yoga, on the other hand, proceeds by works; it is in its first principle Karmayoga; but it is evident
\nfrom the whole teaching of the Gita and its later definitions that the
\nword karma<\/i> is used in a very wide sense and that by Yoga is meant
\nthe selfless devotion of all the inner as well as the outer activities as a
\nsacrifice to the Lord of all works, offered to the Eternal as Master of
\nall the soul’s energies and austerities. Yoga is the practice of the Truth
\nof which knowledge gives the vision, and its practice has for its motor-power a spirit of illumined devotion, of calm or fervent consecration
\nto that which knowledge sees to be the Highest.  <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nBut what are the truths of Sankhya? The philosophy drew it
\nname from its analytical process. Sankhya is the analysis, the enumeration, the separative and discriminative setting forth of the principles of our being of which the ordinary mind sees only the combinations and results of combination. It did not seek at all to synthetise. Its original standpoint is in fact dualistic, not with the very relative
\ndualism of the Vedantic schools which call themselves by that name
\nDwaita, but in a very absolute and trenchant fashion. For it explain
\nexistence not by one, but by two original principles whose inters
\nrelation is the cause of the universe,\u2014Purusha, the inactive, Prakriti
\nthe active. Purusha is the Soul, not in the ordinary or popular sense
\nof the word, but of pure conscious Being immobile, immutable and <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage-64<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nself-luminous. Prakriti is Energy and its process. Purusha does nothing, but it reflects the action of Energy and its processes; Prakriti is
\nmechanical, but by being reflected in Purusha it assumes the appearance of consciousness in its activities, and thus there are created
\nthose phenomena of creation, conservation, dissolution, birth and life
\nand death, consciousness and unconsciousness, sense-knowledge and
\nintellectual knowledge and ignorance, action and inaction, happiness
\nand suffering which the Purusha under the influence of Prakriti attributes to itself although they belong not at all to itself but to the
\naction or movement of Prakriti alone. <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nFor Prakriti is constituted of three gunas<\/i> or essential modes of
\nenergy; sattwa, the seed of intelligence, conserves the workings
\nof energy; rajas, the seed of force and action, creates the workings of
\nenergy; tamas, the seed of inertia and non-intelligence, the denial of
\nsattwa and rajas, dissolves what they create and conserve. When these
\nthree powers of the energy of Prakriti are in a state of equilibrium, all
\nis in rest, there is no movement, action or creation and there is therefore nothing to be reflected in the immutable luminous being of the
\nconscious Soul. But when the equilibrium is disturbed, then the
\nthree gunas fall into a state of inequality in which they strive with
\nand act upon each other and the whole inextricable business of ceaseless creation, conservation and dissolution begins, unrolling the phenomena of the cosmos. This continues so long as the Purusha consents to reflect the disturbance which obscures his eternal nature and
\nattributes to it the nature of Prakriti; but when he withdraws his consent, the
\ngunas fall into equilibrium and the soul returns to its eter1′<\/i> nal, unchanging immobility; it is delivered from phenomena. This
\nreflection and this giving or withdrawal of consent seem to be the
\nonly powers of Purusha; he is the witness of Nature by virtue of reflection and the giver of the sanction, sāksī<\/i> and anumantā<\/i> of the Gita,
\nbut not actively the Ishwara. Even his giving of consent is passive
\nand his withdrawing of consent is only another passivity. All action
\nsubjective or objective is foreign to the Soul; it has neither an active
\nwill nor an active intelligence. It cannot therefore be the sole cause
\nof the cosmos and the affirmation of a second cause becomes necessary. Not Soul alone by its nature of conscious knowledge, will and
\ndelight is the cause of the universe, but Soul and Nature are the dual
\ncause, a passive Consciousness and an active Energy. So the Sankhya
\nexplains the existence of the cosmos. <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage-65<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nBut whence then come this conscious intelligence and conscious
\nwill which we perceive to be so large a part of our being and which
\nwe commonly and instinctively refer not to the Prakriti, but to the
\nPurusha? According to the Sankhya this intelligence and will are
\nentirely a part of the mechanical energy of Nature and are not properties of the soul; they are the principle of Buddhi, one of the twenty-four tattvas<\/i> the twenty-tour cosmic principles. Prakriti in the evolution of the world bases herself with her three gunas in her as the
\noriginal substance of things, unmanifest, inconscient, out of which
\nare evolved successively five elemental conditions of energy or matter\u2014for Matter and Force are the same in the Sankhya philosophy.
\nThese are called by the names of the five concrete elements of ancient thought, ether, air, fire, water and earth; but it must be remembered that they are not elements in the modern scientific sense but
\nsubtle conditions of material energy and nowhere to be found in
\ntheir purity in the gross material world. All objects are created by the
\ncombination of these five subtle conditions or elements. Again, each
\nof these five is the base of one of five subtle properties of energy or
\nmatter, sound, touch, form, taste and smell, which constitute the way
\nin which the mind-sense perceives objects. Thus by these five elements of Matter put forth from primary energy and these five sense
\nrelations through which Matter is known is evolved what we would
\ncall in modern language the objective aspect of cosmic existence. <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nThirteen other principles constitute the subjective aspect of the
\ncosmic Energy,\u2014Buddhi or Mahat, Ahankara, Manas and its ten
\nsense-functions, five of knowledge, five of action. Manas, mind, is
\nthe original sense which perceives all objects and reacts upon them; for it has at once an inferent and an efferent activity, receives by perception what the Gita calls the outward touches of things,
\nbāhya sparśa<\/i>, and so forms its idea of the world and exercises its reactions of
\nactive vitality. But it specialises its most ordinary functions of reception by aid of the five perceptive senses of hearing, touch, sight, taste
\nand smell, which make the five properties of things their respective
\nobjects, and specialises certain necessary vital functions of reaction by
\naid of the five active senses which operate for speech, locomotion, the
\nseizing of things, ejection and generation. Buddhi, the discriminating
\nprinciple, is at once intelligence and will; it is that power in Nature
\nwhich discriminates and co-ordinates. Ahankara, the ego-sense, is the
\nsubjective principle in Buddhi by which the Purusha is induced to <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage-66<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nidentify himself with Prakriti and her activities. But these subjective
\nprinciples are themselves as mechanical, as much a part of the inconscient energy as those which constitute her objective operations.
\nIf we find it difficult to realise how intelligence and will can be properties of the mechanical Inconscient and themselves mechanical
\n(jada),<\/i> we have only to remember that modern Science itself has
\nbeen driven to the same conclusion. Even in the mechanical action
\nof the atom there is a power which can only be called an inconscient
\nwill and in all the works of Nature that pervading will does inconsciently the works of intelligence. What we call mental intelligence
\nis precisely the same thing in its essence as that which discriminates
\nand co-ordinates subconsciously in all the activities of the material
\nuniverse, and conscious Mind itself, Science has tried to demonstrate, is only a result and transcript of the mechanical action of the
\ninconscient. But Sankhya explains what modern Science leaves in
\nobscurity, the process by which the mechanical and inconscient takes
\non the appearance of consciousness. It is because of the reflection of
\nPrakriti in Purusha; the light of consciousness of the Soul is attributed to the workings of the mechanical energy and it is thus that
\nthe Purusha, observing Nature as the witness and forgetting himself, is deluded with the idea generated in her that it is he who thinks,
\nfeels, wills, acts, while all the time the operation of thinking, feeling,
\nwilling, acting is conducted really by her and her three modes and
\nnot by himself at all. To get rid of this delusion is the first step towards the liberation of the soul from Nature and her works. <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nThere are certainly plenty of things in our existence which the
\nSankhya does not explain at all or does not explain satisfactorily, but
\nif all we need is a rational explanation of the cosmic processes in
\ntheir principles as a basis for the great object common to the ancient
\nphilosophies, the liberation of the soul from the obsession of cosmic
\nNature, then the Sankhya explanation of the world and the Sankhya
\nway of liberation seem as good and as effective as any other. What
\nwe do not seize at first is why it should bring in an element of pluralism into its dualism by affirming one Prakriti, but many Purushas. It
\nWould seem that the existence of one Purusha and one Prakriti should
\nbe sufficient to account for the creation and procession of the universe.
\nBut the Sankhya was bound to evolve pluralism by its rigidly analytical observation of the principles of things. First, actually, we find
\nthat there are many conscious beings in the world and each regards <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage-67<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nthe same world in his own way and has his independent experience
\nof its subjective and objective things, his separate dealings with the
\nsame perceptive and reactive processes. If there were only one Purusha, there would not be this central independence and separativeness, but all would see the world in an identical fashion and with a
\ncommon subjectivity and objectivity. Because Prakriti is one, all witness the same world; because her principles are everywhere the same,
\nthe general principles which constitute internal and external experience are the same for all; but the infinite difference of view and
\noutlook and attitude, action and experience and escape from experience\u2014a difference not of the natural operations which are the same
\nbut of the witnessing consciousness,\u2014are utterly inexplicable except
\non the supposition that there is a multiplicity of witnesses, many
\nPurushas. The separative ego-sense, we may say, is a sufficient explanation. But the ego-sense is a common principle of Nature and
\nneed not vary; for by itself it simply induces the Purusha to identify
\nhimself with Prakriti, and if there is only one Purusha, all beings
\nwould be one, joined and alike in their egoistic consciousness; however different in detail might be the mere forms and combinations of
\ntheir natural parts, there would be no difference of soul-outlook and
\nsoul-experience. The variations of Nature ought not to make all this
\ncentral difference, this multiplicity of outlook and from beginning to
\nend this separateness of experience in one Witness, one Purusha.
\nTherefore the pluralism of souls is a logical necessity to a pure Sankhya system divorced from the Vedantic elements of the ancient
\nknowledge which first gave it birth. The cosmos and its process can be explained by the commerce of one Prakriti with. one Purusha, but
\nnot the multiplicity of conscious beings in the cosmos. <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nThere is another difficulty quite as formidable. Liberation is the
\nobject set before itself by this philosophy as by others. This liberation
\nis effected, we have said, by the Purusha’s withdrawal of his consent
\nfrom the activities of Prakriti which she conducts only for his pleasure; but, in sum, this is only a way of speaking. The Purusha is
\npassive and the act of giving or withdrawing consent cannot really
\nbelong to it, but must be a movement in Prakriti itself. If we consider,
\nwe shall see that it is, so tar as it is an operation, a movement of
\nreversal or recoil in the principle of Buddhi, the discriminative will.
\nBuddhi has been lending itself to the perceptions of the mind-sense
\nit has been busy discriminating and co-ordinating the operations of <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage-68<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nthe cosmic energy and by the aid of the ego-sense identifying the
\nWitness with her works of thought, sense and action. It arrives by the
\nprocess of discriminating things at the acid and dissolvent realisation
\nthat this identity is a delusion; it discriminates finally the Purusha
\nfrom Prakriti and perceives that all is mere disturbance of the equilibrium of the gunas; the Buddhi, at once intelligence and will, recoils from the falsehood which it has been supporting and the
\nPurusha, ceasing to be bound, no longer associates himself with the
\ninterest of the mind in the cosmic play. The ultimate result will be
\nthat Prakriti will lose her power to reflect herself in the Purusha; for
\nthe effect of the ego-sense is destroyed and the intelligent will becoming indifference ceases to be the means of her sanction: necessarily
\nthen her gunas must fall into a state of equilibrium, the cosmic play
\nmust cease, the Purusha return to his immobile repose. But if there
\nwere only the one Purusha and this recoil of the discriminating
\nprinciple from its delusions took place, all cosmos would cease. As
\nit is, we see that nothing of the kind happens. A few beings among
\ninnumerable millions attain to liberation or move towards it; the
\nrest are in no way affected, nor is cosmic Nature in her play with
\nthem one whit inconvenienced by this summary rejection which
\nshould be the end of all her processes. Only by the theory of many
\nindependent Purushas can this fact be explained. The only at all
\nlogical explanation from the point of view of Vedantic monism is that
\nof the Mayavada; but there the whole thing becomes a dream, both
\nbondage and liberation are circumstances of the unreality, the empirical blunderings of Maya; in reality there is none freed, none bound.
\nThe more realistic Sankhya view of things does not admit this
\nphantasmagoric idea of existence and therefore cannot adopt this
\nsolution. Here too we see that the multiplicity of souls is an inevitable
\nconclusion from the data of the Sankhya analysis of existence. <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nThe Gita starts from this analysis and seems at first, even in its
\nsetting forth of Yoga, to accept it almost wholly. It accepts Prakriti
\nand her three gunas and twenty-four principles; accepts the attribution of all action to the Prakriti and the passivity of the Purusha; accepts the multiplicity of conscious beings in the cosmos; accepts the
\ndissolution of the identifying ego-sense, the discriminating action
\n<\/b>of
\n<\/b>the intelligent will and the transcendence of the action of the three
\nmodes of energy as the means of liberation. The Yoga which Arjuna
\nis asked to practise from the outset is Yoga by the Buddhi, the intelligent <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage-69<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\nwill. But there is one deviation of capital importance,\u2014the
\nPurusha is regarded as one, not many; for the free, immaterial, immobile, eternal, immutable Self of the Gita, but for one detail, is a
\nVedantic description of the eternal, passive, immobile, immutable
\nPurusha of the Sankhyas. But the capital difference is that there is
\nOne and not many. This brings in the whole difficulty which the
\nSankhya multiplicity avoids and necessitates a quite different solution. This the Gita provides by bringing into its Vedantic Sankhya the
\nideas and principles of Vedantic Yoga. <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nThe first important new element we find is in the conception of
\nPurusha itself. Prakriti conducts her activities for the pleasure of
\nPurusha; but how is that pleasure determined? In the strict Sankhya
\nanalysis it can only be by a passive consent of the silent Witness.
\nPassively the Witness consents to the action of the intelligent will
\nand the ego-sense, passively he consents to the recoil of that will from
\nthe ego-sense. He is Witness, source of the consent, by reflection upholder of the work of Nature, sāksī anumantā Vhartā,<\/i> but nothing
\nmore. But the Purusha of the Gita is also the Lord of Nature; he is
\nIshwara. If the operation of the intelligent will belongs to Nature,
\nthe origination and power of the will proceed from the conscious
\nSoul; he is the Lord of Nature. It the act of intelligence of the Will
\nis the act of Prakriti, the source and light of the intelligence are
\nactively contributed by the Purusha; he is not only the Witness, but
\nthe Lord and Knower, master of knowledge and will, j\u00f1ātā īsvarah. <\/i>He is the supreme cause of the action of Prakriti, the supreme cause
\nof its withdrawal from action. In the Sankhya analysis Purusha and
\nPrakriti in their dualism are the cause of the cosmos; in this synthetic
\nSankhya Purusha by his<\/i> Prakriti is the cause of the cosmos. We see
\nat once how far we have travelled from the rigid purism of the traditional analysis. <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nBut what of the one self immutable, immobile, eternally free, with
\nwhich the Gita began? That is free from all change or involution in
\nchange, avikārya,<\/i> unborn, unmanifested, the Brahman, yet it is that
\n"by which all this is extended." Therefore it would seem that the
\nprinciple of the Ishwara is in its being; it is immobile, it is yet
\nthe cause and lord of all action and mobility. But how? And what of
\nthe multiplicity of conscious beings in the cosmos? They do not seem
\nto be the Lord, but rather very much not the Lord, anīś,<\/i> for they are<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage-70<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\nsubject to the action of the three gunas and the delusion of the ego-sense, and if, as the Gita seems to say, they are all the one self, how
\ndid this involution, subjection and delusion come about or how is it
\nexplicable except by the pure passivity of the Purusha? And whence
\nthe multiplicity? or how is it that the one self in one body and mind
\nattains to liberation while in others it remains under the delusion of
\nbondage? These are difficulties which cannot be passed by without a
\nsolution. <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nThe Gita answers them in its later chapters by an analysis of
\nPurusha and Prakriti which brings in new elements very proper to
\na Vedantic Yoga, but alien to the traditional Sankhya. It speaks of
\nthree Purushas or rather a triple status of the Purusha. The Upanishads in dealing with the truths of Sankhya seem sometimes to speak
\nonly of two Purushas. There is one unborn of three colours, says a
\ntext, the eternal feminine principle of Prakriti with its three gunas,
\never creating; there are two unborn, two Purushas, of whom one
\ncleaves to and enjoys her, the other abandons her because he has enjoyed all her enjoyments. In another verse they are described as two
\nbirds on one tree, eternally yoked companions, one of whom eats the
\nfruits of the tree,\u2014the Purusha in Nature enjoying her cosmos,\u2014the
\nother eats not, but watches his fellow,\u2014the silent Witness, withdrawn from the enjoyment; when the first sees the second and knows
\nthat all is his greatness, then he is delivered from sorrow. The point of
\nview in the two verses is different, but they have a common implication. One of the birds is the eternally silent, unbound Self or
\nPurusha by whom all this is extended and he regards the cosmos he
\nhas extended, but is aloof from it; the other is the Purusha involved
\nin Prakriti. The first verse indicates that the two are the same, represent different states, bound and liberated, of the same conscious
\nbeing,\u2014for the second Unborn has descended into the enjoyment of
\nNature and withdrawn from her; the other verse brings out what we
\nwould not gather from the former, that in its higher status of unity the
\nself is for ever free, inactive, unattached, though it descends in its
\nlower being into the multiplicity of the creatures of Prakriti and withdraws from it by reversion in any individual creature to the higher
\nstatus. This theory of the double status of the one conscious soul opens
\na door; but the process of the multiplicity of the One is still obscure. <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nTo these two the Gita, developing the thought of other passages in <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage-71<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nthe Upanishads,1<\/sup> adds yet another, the supreme, the Purushottama,
\nthe highest Purusha, whose greatness all this creation is. Thus there
\nare three, the Kshara, the Akshara, the Uttama. Kshara, the mobile,
\nthe mutable is Nature, svabhāva,<\/i> it is the various becoming of the
\nsoul; the Purusha here is the multiplicity of the divine Being; it is the
\nPurusha multiple not apart from, but in Prakriti. Akshara, the immobile, the immutable, is the silent and inactive self, it is the unity of
\nthe divine Being, Witness of Nature, but not involved in its movement; it is the inactive Purusha free from Prakriti and her works. The
\nUttama is the Lord, the supreme Brahman, the supreme Self, who
\npossesses both the immutable unity and the mobile multiplicity. It
\nis by a large mobility and action of His Nature, His energy, His will
\nand power, that He manifests Himself in the world and by a greater
\nstillness and immobility of His being that He is aloof from it; yet is
\nHe as Purushottama above both the aloofness from Nature and the
\nattachment to Nature. This idea of the Purushottama, though continually implied in the Upanishads, is disengaged and definitely
\nbrought out by the Gita and has exercised a powerful influence on
\nthe later developments of the Indian religious consciousness. It is
\nthe foundation of the highest Bhaktiyoga which claims to exceed the
\nrigid definitions of monistic philosophy; it is at the back of the philosophy of the devotional Puranas. <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nThe Gita is not content, either, to abide within the Sankhya analysis of Prakriti; for that makes room only for the ego-sense and not
\nfor
\nthe multiple Purusha, which is there not a part of Prakriti, but separate from her. The Gita affirms on the contrary that the Lord by His
\nnature becomes the Jiva. How is that possible, since there are only
\nthe twenty-four principles of the cosmic Energy and no others? Yes,
\nsays the divine Teacher in effect, that is a perfectly valid account for
\nthe apparent operations of the cosmic Prakriti with its three gunas,
\nand the relation attributed to Purusha and Prakriti there is also quite
\nvalid and of great use for the practical purposes of the involution
\nand the withdrawal. But this is only the lower Prakriti of the three
\nmodes, the inconscient, the apparent; there is a higher, a supreme, a
\nconscient and divine Nature, and it is that which has become the
\nindividual soul, the Jiva. In the lower nature each being appears as <\/font>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\n1<\/sup> Purusah……….. .aksarāt. ………. .paratah  parah,\u2014<\/i> although the <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nAkshara is supreme, there is a supreme Purusha higher than it, says the
\nUpanishad. <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage-72<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nthe ego, in the higher he is the individual Purusha. In other words
\nmultiplicity is part of the spiritual nature of the One. This individual
\nsoul is myself, in the creation it is a partial manifestation of me,
\nmamaiva amśah,<\/i> and it possesses all my powers; it is witness, giver of
\nthe sanction, upholder, knower, lord. It descends into the lower nature
\nand thinks itself bound by action, so to enjoy the lower being: it can
\ndraw back and know itself as the passive Purusha free from all action.
\nIt can rise above the three gunas and, liberated from the bondage of
\naction, yet possess action, even as I do myself, and by adoration of
\nthe Purushottama and union with him it can enjoy wholly its divine
\nNature. <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nSuch is the analysis, not confining itself to the apparent cosmic
\nprocess but penetrating into the occult secrets of superconscious Nature, uttamam rahasyam,<\/i> by which the Gita founds its synthesis of
\nVedanta, Sankhya and Yoga, its synthesis of knowledge, works and
\ndevotion. By the pure Sankhya alone the combining of works and
\nliberation is contradictory and impossible. By pure Monism alone the
\npermanent continuation of works as a part of Yoga and the indulgence of devotion after perfect knowledge and liberation and union
\nare attained, become impossible or at least irrational and otiose. The
\nSankhya knowledge of the Gita dissipates and the Yoga system of the
\nGita triumphs over all these obstacles. <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\nPage-73<\/font><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

VIII   SANKHYA AND YOGA   IN THE moment of his turning from this first and summary answer to Arjuna’s difficulties and in the very…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[90],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3615","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-essays-on-the-gita-1950-edn","wpcat-90-id"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3615","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3615"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3615\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3615"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3615"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3615"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}