ajAti vAda

All change was then described as the working of prakRti, which deluded the purusha
into activity and thus into bondage (bandha). Liberation (moksha) for the purusha arose
only when the purusha dissociated completely from the workings of prakRti.
Meanwhile, the position of a creator God remained ambivalent in the sAm.khya system.
Most classical sAm.khya authors denied the necessity of an ISvara, while some were
willing to postulate ISvara as an eternally liberated purusha. The yoga system, as
expounded in the yoga-sUtras of patanjali, accepted ISvara and made ISvarapraNidhana
an essential aspect of yogic sAdhana.
The pUrva mImAm.sA system was concerned primarily with asserting the eternal value
of the vedas, and interpreted everything in the vedas in the context of ritual action.
Consequently, impelling the listener to action was asserted to be the over-riding purpose
of the vedas. The fruit of the ritual action was also mentioned in the same vedas, and the
highest fruit that was obtainable by the proper performance of ritual action was heaven.
On this view, the individual Atman attained heaven by the performance of Vedic ritual,
and returned to the cycle of rebirths otherwise. On the other hand, the aupanishada
tradition which gave birth to the mature vedAnta systems asserted an eternal Atman
forcefully. This Atman was also held to be beyond birth and death. Physical death only
meant that the Atman took another body. Moreover, the upanishads declare the Atman to
be ultimately the same as the One brahman which is the sole cause of the universe.
The upanishads relate a higher vision that is mystic and that does not demand to be
logically substantiated. The problem of the one brahman creating the diverse universe
was handled by means of various analogies, as in the chAndogya upanishad. The nature
of the Indian philosophical traditions, however, required every new teacher to not only
relate his vision of reality, but also to substantiate it by logical arguments. The
naiyyAyikas, the buddhists and the grammarians had developed methods of logical
analysis, including inducto-deductive reasoning, evaluating the validity of cognitions
with a consistent theory of language and meaning, and rigorous requirements of
consistency and non-contradiction. Analogies did play an important part in the logical
analysis, but the spirit of the times called for more intellectual speculation and
rationalization. This was the prime motivation for bAdarAyaNa's brahmasUtras, which
attempted to harmonize the many teachings of the upanishads into one consistent system.
The brahmasUtras are therefore called the nyAya-prasthAna (not to be confused with the
independent philosophical system of the nyAya).
The gauDapAdIya kArikAs and Sankara's bhAshyas follow in the same spirit. In
establishing the main tenets of advaita vedAnta, Sankara drew upon mImAm.sA theories
of perception and language, and sAm.khya notions of the transformations of prakRti. He
also gave a place for yogic practice in his system, and used nyAya methods of inferential
reasoning wherever appropriate. This was coupled with a critique of the logical
shortcomings of these systems and rejecting those tenets which were not in accordance
with the thought of the upanishads. Thus, for example, he accepted mImAm.sA rules of
exegesis, but pointed out that their applicability was limited largely to the karmakANDa,
the upanishads requiring different methods of interpretation. Similarly, he
denied an independent existence to the sAm.khyan prakRti, and in his analysis of the