Philosophy East & West Volume 68, Number 1 January 2018 201–222 201 © 2018 by University of Hawai‘i Press NO-SELF IN SĀṂKHYA: A COMPARATIVE LOOK AT CLASSICAL SĀṂKHYA AND THERAVĀDA BUDDHISM Douglas Osto Department of Philosophy, Massey University d.osto@massey.ac.nz Introduction In a number of standard introductory textbooks on Indian philosophy, classical Sāṃkhya is described as a Hindu philosophical school based on a fundamental dual- ism between a plurality of selves, or spirits (puruṣas) and the material, or phenom- enal world (prakṛti), whereas Buddhism, on the other hand, is most often described as a system based on the radically different position of “no-self” or selflessness (San- skrit: anātman; Pali: anattā ). 1 However, such depictions, although not entirely inac- curate, often obscure strong structural homologies between the two systems, which highlight the fundamental duality at the heart of both systems’ ontologies and their inherent pessimism toward conventional reality. Building on some recent innovative studies, this comparison begins with an analysis and reinterpretation of some of the main ideas found in the Sāṃkhyakārikā, the foundational text of classical Sāṃkhya composed by Īśvarakṛṣṇa. Next it demonstrates how these new interpretations illumi- nate new points of contact between classical Sāṃkhya and Theravāda Buddhism as primarily represented by the fifth-century C.E. Pali commentator Buddhaghosa in his classic meditation manual The Path of Purification (Visuddhimagga). By comparing these two texts, I aim to illustrate the internal coherence of the Sāṃkhya system, which has all too often functioned as a “straw man” in accounts of Indian philoso- phy. 2 Also, this comparison sheds some light on the important issue of method with- in Sāṃkhya by arguing that both systems attempt to restructure experience based on “no-self.” Finally, this comparison helps to locate Theravāda Buddhism firmly within the renouncer ethos and to highlight certain core features of the system, such as its radical denial of worldly life and its ontological dualism, which in recent decades have often (intentionally or unintentionally) been overlooked. 3 Classical Sāṃkhya The historical development of Sāṃkhyan philosophy has been discussed in detail in a number of contemporary studies. 4 It is generally accepted in the field that the Sāṃkhyakārikā (hereafter SK ), composed by Īśvarakṛṣṇa sometime before the sixth century C.E., is our sole witness to Sāṃkhya in what has been designated its “classi- cal” phase. K. C. Bhattacharya has made a crucial observation about classical Sāṃkhya in relation to the Sāṃkhya School and its modern interpretations: