Kundakunda On Samkhyapurusa

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Kundakunda on Samkhya-Purusa," by Dr. Shiv Kumar, focusing on Kundakunda's critique of the Samkhya concept of Purusha:

The article explores the significant critique of the Samkhya philosophical system, specifically its concept of Purusha (the self or soul), as articulated by the prominent Jain scholar Kundakunda. Kundakunda holds a revered position in Indian philosophy due to the antiquity and authority of his works, which appeal to all spiritual seekers. His writings are particularly valuable for understanding the history of Indian philosophy, especially the Samkhya system, during its formative stages before the influential work of Ishvarakrishna.

Kundakunda identifies several key criticisms of the Samkhya explanation of Purusha:

1. The Nature of Karma and Transmigration: Kundakunda faults the Samkhya view that karma-molecules do not transform into various modes of karma. He argues that this implies a denial of the worldly state and the transmigration of the soul. If the soul does not undergo emotional modifications like anger, etc., then the Samkhya theory, in Kundakunda's view, fails to explain the soul's worldly existence and its journey through different lives.

2. Agency and the Non-Agent Purusha: A central criticism revolves around the Samkhya assertion that all agency belongs to Prakriti (primordial matter), while Purusha is eternally free, unchanging, a non-agent, and free from contamination. Kundakunda points out the inherent contradiction: if Purusha is a non-agent, and karma is performed by Prakriti, yet Purusha experiences the fruits of these karmas, then the acting and experiencing entities are different. This, according to Kundakunda, would negate the purpose of ethical discipline. If the soul is not involved in an action like adultery or killing, then the perpetrator of the act (Prakriti) will not be held responsible, and the experiencing entity (Purusha) will not suffer or enjoy the consequences. Kundakunda argues that karmic material responsible for desire or action belongs to Prakriti, and since Prakriti is not an experiencing entity, Purusha is essentially unaffected, leading to a disconnect in moral accountability.

Kundakunda's Perspective vs. Samkhya's Defense:

The article then delves into how Samkhya authors and commentators defend their position against these criticisms:

• Karma as Impressions, Not Molecules: Samkhya proponents argue that acts are not independent molecules but rather impressions cast upon Buddhi (intellect), which then influence Purusha's future. Karma is seen as a false attribution to Purusha due to its association with Buddhi, similar to how an innocent person might be mistaken for a thief when associated with them.
• Purusha as an Experiencer, Not an Agent: Samkhya insists that Purusha, though inactive, is the experiencer of the results of Prakriti's actions. This is justified through analogies: a king experiencing the success or failure of his soldiers, or enjoying grains grown by others. The experienced pleasure or pain is a result of Purusha's perceived identity with or ownership of Buddhi.
• Theories of Reflection: Later Samkhya thinkers like Vacaspatimisra (theory of single reflection) and Vijnanabhiksu (theory of double reflection) attempt to explain this experience through the concept of Purusha being reflected in Buddhi or vice-versa. This suggests that Purusha's experience (bhoga) is distinct from Buddhi's real experience.
• Metaphorical Experience: Samkhya views Purusha as an inactive spectator who, due to ignorance or delusion, identifies with Buddhi's activities and develops a sense of ownership, leading to the experience of pleasure or pain. This "experience" is considered unreal from Purusha's perspective and is dispelled by true knowledge, leading to liberation.

The Crux of the Difference:

The article highlights that the fundamental divergence lies in the Samkhya supposition that Purusha, despite being a non-agent, is the experiencer of the acts performed by Prakriti. Kundakunda finds this problematic, arguing it fails to explain Purusha's worldly state and the necessity of ethical conduct.

Jain vs. Samkhya Metaphysics:

The discussion concludes by underscoring the core metaphysical differences:

• Jainism: Considers karma as molecules that affect the soul, and the soul reacts to these karmas, becoming the object of worldly imputation (vyavaharāṇaya).
• Samkhya: Views karma as the functioning of Buddhi, and Purusha remains unchanged and uncontaminated even in its empirical state.

The article suggests that Kundakunda's critique of Samkhya's absolute dualism and its limitations in explaining experience provides a valuable framework for understanding the historical development of both philosophies. While Samkhya offers its own explanations, they may not be acceptable from a Jain metaphysical standpoint. Kundakunda's critique is credited with presenting a more vivid picture of the nature of Purusha than Samkhya authors themselves.