In Indian philosophy, both the Vaisesika school and the Sankhya school have their own concepts of Guna. In this essay, we will compare and contrast these concepts in order to find the similarities and the differences that exist. According to the Vaisesikas, “ A quality or guna is defined as that which exists in a substance and has no quality or activity in itself” ( Chatterjee and Data 1948, p.265). They recognize 24 different types of gunas or qualities such as color, taste, smell, touch etc.. On the other hand, according to the Sankhya school, guna here means “ a constituent element of the component and not an attribute or quality.” ( Chatterjee and Datta 1948, p. 299). They only recognize 3 kinds of gunas- sattva, rajas and tamas. The reason why they are called gunas is “ either their being subservient to the ends of the purusa which is other than themselves, or their being intertwined like the three strands of a rope which binds the soul to the world.” ( Chatterjee and Datta 1948, p.299)

The Sankhya recognize two kinds of ultimate realities- spirit and matter ( purusa and Prakriti).  Prakriti is constituted by the three gunas of sattva, rajas, and tamas.  Thus we can say that that “ by the gunas of sattva, rajas, and tamas we are to understand the elements of the ultimate substance called Prakriti.” ( Chatterjee and Datta 1948, p. 299).  One of the differences between these two concepts of gunas is that in the Vaisesika school, guna cannot have a quality in itself, while in the Sankhya school, each of the three gunas has qualities of their own. As qualities or gunas can only exist within a substance, according to the Vaisesikas, and as the Sankhya believe that qualities exist in the three gunas, we can say that from the view of the Vaisesika, the three gunas in the Sankhya school would be considered as substance. As things do not possess guna, it merely signifies the manner in which a substance reacts.

Also, for the Vaisesikas, “ a quality is an unmoving or motionless property of things” (Chatterjee and Datta 1948, p.266).  Guna for them can also be said as passive and inactive. This is different from the Sankhya as another characteristic of the gunas for them is that they are constantly changing and are always in a state of flux and thus do not remain stagnant. Although the three gunas keep changing, sattva guna and tamas guna are inactive and motionless in themselves. It is only through rajas guna that both sattva guna and tamas guna are able to perform their actions.

Another characteristic of the triguna ( sattva guna, rajas guna, tamas guna) is that all three of them co-exists and cooperate amongst themselves in order to produce objects to the world. All the three gunas always go together and thus cannot be separated.  None of them can produce objects without the help of the other two gunas.  Another fact that needs to be mentioned is that all of the three gunas posses qualities that are different from the other. For example, the oil, the wick, and the flame are all important components for a candle to function. In this case, the wick, the oil, and the flame can be considered to be the different qualities of the gunas and yet they still come together to produce objects ( the candle).  On the other hand, this kind of cooperation and cohesion does not exist amongst the gunas as they do not need to depend on another guna or quality to perform their functions but they still need a substance as they cannot exist on its own. For example- if I say ‘ that car is near’, then I am implying the quality of nearness or aparatava and thus don’t need any other qualities like taste or rasa.

Another difference is that in the Sankhya philosophy, “ the gunas are not perceived by us. They are inferred from the objects from the world which are their effects.” ( Chatterjee and Datta 1948, p. 299). We can say this as we know the nature of the guna from the nature of their products as there is a relationship between  the cause and the effect. This is different from the gunas under the Vaisesika there are some qualities such as sparsa or touch, and sabda or sound that can be perceived and not necessarily inferred.

REFERENCES-

Chatterjee, Satishchandra and Dheerendramohan Datta. 1948. An Introduction to Indian Philosophy. University of Calcutta: Calcutta.