Two days ago I spoke a little about the atheistic Saṅkhya philosophy and the difference from the original Saṅkhya philosophy propounded by Lord Kapila many millions of years ago.

A concept that is very central to the atheistic Saṅkhya philosophy is the idea that everything that exists is a combination of pradhāna (the unmanifested mass of material elements) and purusha (the souls), excluding the idea of Isvara (the Supreme Lord). According to their theory, through the interactions of the three modes, pradhāna (or prakrti) is the ultimate cause of everything that exists, and purusha, the souls, get involved in the creation by falsely identifying with the different material manifestations.

The difficulty with this theory is that it is not supported in the Vedas. The Puranas include descriptions of how Lord Maha-Vishnu looks in the direction of the material energy, impregnating her with both Kala (the time energy), which puts her in motion, and the different souls who desire to take part in the material creation. Similarly, the Upanisads are full of passages describing the Lord as being the cause of the material creation.

The Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.16, for example, states: pradhāna-kṣetrajña-patir guṇeśaḥ, “The Supreme Lord as the Supersoul is the chief knower of the body and the master of pradhāna (the unmanifested material nature).”

On the other hand, there is no passage that says that the pradhāna or prakrti is the ultimate cause. Everywhere, prakrti is described as the apparent cause, just like a chisel being used by a carpenter.

Since Saṅkhya is an astika philosophy (derived from the Vedas), the followers must support their ideas with passages from the scriptures. This forces the Saṅkhya philosophers to become creative and interpret verses out of context to try to give support to their theory. Two of such verses are Kaṭha Upaniṣad 1.3.10 and 1.3.11:

indriyebhyaḥ parā hy arthā arthebhyaś ca paraṁ manaḥ
manasas tu parā buddhir buddher ātmā mahān paraḥ

mahataḥ param avyaktam avyaktāt puruṣaḥ paraḥ
puruṣān na paraṁ kiñcit sā kāṣṭhā sā parā gatiḥ

“Superior to the senses are the sense objects. Superior to the sense objects is the mind. Superior to the mind is intelligence. Superior to intelligence is the great ātmā (mahat). Superior to great ātmā is avyakta. Superior to avyakta is the puruṣa. There is nothing superior to the puruṣa. That is the final goal.”

This verse brings an analogy similar to what we find in the Bhagavad-Gita 3.42:

“The working senses are superior to dull matter; mind is higher than the senses; intelligence is still higher than the mind; and he [the soul] is even higher than the intelligence.”

In this analogy, the body (śarīra) is compared with a chariot, the intelligence (buddhi) is compared to the charioteer, the mind (manas) with the reins, the sense objects (arthas) with the road, and the senses (indriyas) with the horses that pull the chariot. On top of this chariot is seated the soul.

Therefore, in this analogy, the sense objects are considered higher than the senses, the mind higher than the sense objects, the intelligence (used to guide the mind) is superior to the mind and the body itself (which includes all the other components) is superior to the intelligence, just like a complete chariot is more than just the horses or the reins, or a complete tree is more than a branch or a fruit. In the verse from the Kaṭha Upaniṣad, two components are added: the great ātmā, and the purusha, which is above all. According to the Saṅkhya philosophy, purusha means the individual soul, but Vaishnavas understand that the word purusha refers to the Supreme Lord, Who is above all.

The idea of this analogy is that by understanding the ingredients of our material conditioned identity, one can learn how to properly use his intelligence to control the mind and the senses, and thus become firmly fixed in his or her spiritual practice, eventually realizing our eternal nature as transcendental souls.

This is more clearly explained in the Bhagavad-Gita 3.42-43

“The working senses are superior to dull matter; mind is higher than the senses; intelligence is still higher than the mind; and he [the soul] is even higher than the intelligence. Thus knowing oneself to be transcendental to the material senses, mind and intelligence, O mighty-armed Arjuna, one should steady the mind by deliberate spiritual intelligence [Kṛṣṇa consciousness] and thus – by spiritual strength – conquer this insatiable enemy known as lust.”

When we take the analogy and the references to it in the Bhagavad-Gita and other passages, it’s clear that the “avyakta” in the verse from the Kaṭha Upaniṣad refers to the body itself. However, the followers of the Saṅkhya philosophy interpret it differently.

For them, “avyakta” refers to the pradhana, the unmanifested mass of material elements. This interpretation is only possible when the verse is taken out of context, but if accepted it gives support to the Saṅkhya thesis that pradhana works independently.

According to this interpretation, the meaning of the verse becomes: Superior to the senses are the sense objects. Superior to the sense objects is the mind. Superior to the mind is intelligence. Superior to intelligence is the great ātmā, mahat. Superior to mahat is the unmanifest, pradhana. Superior to pradhana is the puruṣa (the individual soul of the Saṅkhya philosophy).

As you can see, if accepted, this interpretation gives support to the idea that everything that exists comes from the combination of the souls and the unmanifested pradhana, without the presence of God.

To this, Vyasadeva answers: ānumānikam apy ekeṣām iti cen, na, śarīra-rūpaka-vinyasta-gṛhīter darśayati ca (Vedanta Sutra 1.4.1). If some accept the Saṅkhya hypothesis that avyakta in the passage refers to the pradhana, I say no, because avyakta in the metaphor clearly refers to the body, and not to pradhana.

One could then argue about how the word avyakta can be used to refer to the body.

In the Bhagavad-Gita, we see the word avyakta being used in the sense of “unmanifested”. In verse 9.4, for example, Krsna says “By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them.” Here, “unmanifested form” is the translation for avyakta-mūrtinā. The word avyakta can be used even to refer to the Mahat-tattva, to Prakrti, or even to the spiritual world, since the spiritual world is transcendental in nature and not materially manifested. However, how can it be used in connection with the body (sarira), which is composed of material elements and visible to the material eyes?

To this objection, Vyasadeva answers: sūkṣmaṁ tu tad-arhatvāt (Vedanta Sutra 1.4.2). The word avyakta in the previous verse certainly means the sūkṣmaṁ-sarira (the subtle body) because that’s the only appropriate use in the context of the verse. The word “tu” (certainly) is used to dispel any doubt regarding this.

When we speak about “body”, both the subtle and the gross bodies are included. Between the two, the subtle body is higher, since the gross body is created as a covering for it. The subtle body is invisible to the material eye, therefore the word avyakta is appropriately used to describe it. We can observe the same usage of the word “avyakta” to denote the body in other passages. On SB 6.1.54, for example, the expression “vyakta-avyaktam” is used by Vyasadeva to refer to both the subtle and gross bodies.

The Saṅkhya philosophers try to impose a different meaning into the verse, equating avyakta with the pradhana to support their philosophy, but this is possible only when the verse is taken out of context and misinterpreted.