The Dharmas of the Buddhists and the Gunas of the Samkhyas

Summary

The article critically examines the relationship between the Buddhist concept of dharma and the Samkhya doctrine of guna. It responds to Vidushekhara Bhattacharya’s claim that these concepts are equivalent and that the Buddha merely denied the soul by transferring qualities to elements. The author begins by explaining the Buddhist doctrine of anatman (no-self), which posits that persons are aggregates of dharmas and that no permanent substance underlies experience. In Samkhya, by contrast, the three gunas (sattva, rajas, tamas) are the constituents of prakrti that combine to produce material phenomena. The article argues that equating dharmas with gunas is a misunderstanding. It notes that Buddhist dharmas include mental and physical factors and are not limited to qualities. Moreover, the Buddhist path aims at extinguishing desire and ignorance through insight into impermanence and dependent origination, not through balancing gunas. The article cites canonical passages to show that early Buddhism does not accept a permanent purusha separate from prakrti. It also differentiates between Hinayana and Mahayana interpretations, clarifying that Hinayana’s pudgala-nairatmya denies a substantial soul, while Mahayana’s dharma-nairatmya extends this denial to the dharmas themselvesfile:///home/oai/share/The_Dharmas_of_the_Buddhists_and_the_Gunas_of_the_Samkhyas.pdf. The article further argues that attributing attributes to substances (dravya-dharma relation) is not the same in Buddhism and Samkhya; in Buddhism there is no substance to bear attributes. Finally, the article explains that the Buddhist path emphasises ethical conduct and meditation, culminating in nirvana, whereas Samkhya seeks kaivalya (isolation) through discriminating purusha from prakrti. The author concludes that conflating these two systems erases significant philosophical differences and misrepresents Buddhist teachings.