Emergent versus Eternal

Spirituality
#1

This post answers two often repeated criticisms of Samkhya philosophy:
1. That Samkhya rejects god or is atheistic, and
2. That Samkhya cannot explain what causes the evolution of nature to begin.

It has often been said that Samkhya philosophy is atheistic. This is either a misunderstanding or a deliberate effort by the enemies of Samkhya to discredit the philosophy, or a combination of both. The true position of Samkhya is that it rejects the concept of an eternal Isvara in favor of an emergent Isvara.

[B]Eternal Isvara [/B]

By an eternal Isvara (Lord), we mean a god or deity who exists prior to the creation of the world, and who causes the world to come into being through an act of will or desire. The arguments against the existence of an eternal deity are technical, but can be summarized in layman’s terms. All actions are preceeded by motives that are either egoistic or altruistic. If Isvara creates the world for his own benefit (egoistic), then he is reduced to the level of a man. If Isvara is a perfect and eternal being, then what need does he have that is served by the creation of the world? Likewise, if his motives are altruistic, then why would he create a world full of suffering and evil? And we know that there are no purely altruistic acts, as there is always some personal benefit to be gained from the act of helping others.

Samkhya argues that there can be no creation or superintendence of creation without desire, since we know that desire is invariably at the root of all activity. If the Isvara has a connection with desire, then he cannot be an eternally free being, since freedom from desire is a pre-condition for freedom from material nature. So if Isvara creates the world from any act of will or desire, then the doctrine of liberation fails.

[B]Emergent Isvara[/B]

Through dispassion is absorption into Prakriti - Samkhya-Karika: 45

The concept of an emergent Isvara is based on the belief that, through the practice of dispassion, the highest yogis eventually merge into Prakriti, where they remain for a very long time. However these yogis have not yet achieved liberation, and so they must eventually be reborn. Such a yogi is believed to be reborn as the omniscient Isvara, who is the first soul to emerge at the beginning of a cycle of creation, and whose external investment (body) consists of Mahat (the first principle).

For he becomes the all-knower and all-doer Samkhya-Pravachana-Sutram III:56

[B]The Cycle of Evolution Begins[/B]

According to Samkhya, the unmanifest Prakriti that exists before the creation of the world consists of the gunas in a state of equilibrium. When the equilibrium is disturbed, the gunas start to manifest as nature, and a new cycle of evolution begins. But what causes the equilibrium to be disturbed?

Samkhya says that Prakriti is not directed to act or acted upon by any external force, but acts spontaneously of its own accord. But although Prakriti acts spontaneously of its own accord, it is subservient to the Purusa, in the sense that it acts for the benefit of the Purusa. Similar to the way a mother produces milk spontaneously for the benefit of the infant, Prakriti acts spontaneously for the benefit of the emergent Isvara simply through the proximity of the two. The emergent Isvara needs to complete his karma, which is to be the all knowing Isvara for the current cycle of evolution. This is the meaning of Yoga Sutra I.25 regarding Isvara: In him, the seed of omniscience is unsurpassed. (Georg Feuerstein translation) Here, bija is the seed of rebirth.

#2

It is interesting to note that, while the Yoga Sutras never mentions Brahman, it makes a clear reference to the Isvara of the Samkhya system. I would venture to say that this goes a long way toward establishing the Yoga Sutras as a Samkhya document.

#3

Samkhya argues that there can be no creation or superintendence of creation without desire, since we know that desire is invariably at the root of all activity. If the Isvara has a connection with desire, then he cannot be an eternally free being, since freedom from desire is a pre-condition for freedom from material nature. So if Isvara creates the world from any act of will or desire, then the doctrine of liberation fails.

This Samkhya objection is valid and it is the best argument against a creator god. I accept this argument completely. However, this argument cannot be used against Vedanta, because Vedanta does not accept a creator, for the very reasons Samkhya points out. Rather, Vedanta accepts a peculiar impersonal concept of god, as ultimate reality, the universe or beingness. This entire universe is pure being, totality and infinite but it is of the nature of consciousness. It is satchitananda, meaning pure existence, pure bliss and pure consciousness. It cannot be described or objectified in any way, as it is beyond language.

Advaita Vedanta also does not accept that creation has taken place, so naturally it does not accept a creator either. The universe has existed eternally, unchanging, absolute and infinite and always has been like this. Whatever we see as creation is only just apparent, not real(maya)

Emergent Isvara

The concept of an emergent Isvara is based on the belief that, through the practice of dispassion, the highest yogis eventually merge into Prakriti, where they remain for a very long time. However these yogis have not yet achieved liberation, and so they must eventually be reborn. Such a yogi is believed to be reborn as the omniscient Isvara, who is the first soul to emerge at the beginning of a cycle of creation, and whose external investment (body) consists of Mahat (the first principle).

This is not an argument, but a belief. You state it yourself that it is a belief. So it turns out that it is you after all that is holding onto religious beliefs, not us Vedantins. So it turns out the Samkhyans ended up making something up when they could not answer the criticisms of Vedanta, no wonder it eventually died out. It was on its last legs and had abandoned its rationality.

It is a very problematic belief as well. If the Yogi eventually evolves to the level of Ishvara and then triggers of the next cycle, what happens when several yogis evolve to that level? Which one trigger it off? Is it tag teaming? (Now it gets silly) Also, why should the yogi not complete their spiritual evolution in one cycle? If they have not completed it one cycle, why should they be able to complete it second time around if prakriti does exactly the same dance all over again.

The Cycle of Evolution Begins

According to Samkhya, the unmanifest Prakriti that exists before the creation of the world consists of the gunas in a state of equilibrium. When the equilibrium is disturbed, the gunas start to manifest as nature, and a new cycle of evolution begins. But what causes the equilibrium to be disturbed?

Samkhya says that Prakriti is not directed to act or acted upon by any external force, but acts spontaneously of its own accord. But although Prakriti acts spontaneously of its own accord, it is subservient to the Purusa, in the sense that it acts for the benefit of the Purusa. Similar to the way a mother produces milk spontaneously for the benefit of the infant, [b]Prakriti acts spontaneously for the benefit of the emergent Isvara simply through the proximity of the two. The emergent Isvara needs to complete his karma, which is to be the all knowing Isvara for the current cycle of evolution.
[b]

If ishvara is just a liberated ex-yogi and starts of each creation, then who started of the very first creation when there were no liberated yogis yet? If you say it’s an eternal neverending cycle. Then you got a problem, because even a cycle in perpetual motion need a constant mover to move it. However, the liberated yogis are not constant, because at least at one time they were non-liberated, thus they had beginnings. Therefore there has to exist a special eternal ishvara to be the first mover whose always outside of the cycle. However, there cannot be a special eternal purusha according to Samkhya and the arguments it gives, therefore we have yet another contradiction.

This whole idea of an emergent ishvara ends up creating even more problems and contradictions within Samkhya. It seems to be a last ditch effort by Samkhya defenders to save their system from extinction. They realized that the classical form of Samkhya needed an ishvara entity to explain all the problems and inconsistencies, but they knew they could not have an eternal ishvara because that would contradict their whole philosophy so they fiercely resisted it for centuries and remained atheistic, so they came up with this silly idea of an emergent ishvara in the end, but by that time it was too late: Vedanta had already replaced Samkhya all over India.

Face it Asuri, Samkhya is a dead philosophical system. Why are you digging graves here? Let the dead rest in peace.

#4

Not dead, only suppressed.

#5

I-2: On that adorable splendour
Of the divine Creator we
Meditate; may He our thoughts inspire –

Tripura Tapini Upanishad

You forgot to tell the writers of the Upanishads that there’s no creator.

#6

Actually you are the one with the problem. The whole point of the emergent Isvara is that he’s not liberated. People can see what I wrote. You can’t misrepresent what I said and get away with it.

#7

[QUOTE=Asuri;69751]You forgot to tell the writers of the Upanishads that there’s no creator.[/QUOTE]

You honestly have no idea about Vedanta do you? :smiley:

Vedanta is not the same as the Upanishads, it is a philosophy based on a particular interpretation of the Upanishads. The first and original school of Vedanta Advaita does not accept a creator. Later schools of Vedanta that took place during the Bhakti movement like Dvaita modified Vedanta to accept an eternal ishvara/personal god. Dvaita is actually very similar to traditional orthodox Abrahamic religions and similar beliefs like heaven and hell, fall from grace and eternal damnation. However, it is likely that Dvaita had some Muslim influence.

Just as theistic Samkhya is not considered classical Samkhya and is not seen as defining for what Samkhya philosophy says, in the same Dvaita is not considered classical Vedanta and defining of what Vedanta says. Classical Vedanta is considered Advaita. The earliest extant text of this school is the Brahma Sutras which is advaita. The Brahma Sutras were created to present a coherent view of what the Upanishads teach by reconciling the apparent contradictions found in several Upanishads. That view was Advaita(total non dualism)

For example in one Upanishad it says “Then the creator willed and one became many” this is explained in the Brahma sutras as a metaphor to explain how phenomenal reality is born from desire.

Do yourself a favour and at least read a basic dummies guide to Vedanta. You are woefully ignorant on Vedanta and are wasting your time debating with somebody who is highly educated in it and has a degree dissertation in it. I do not rate your grasp of Samkhya either, but I will admit it is infinitely better than your Vedanta.

You hate something you don’t even understand, that’s the greatest irony. Why don’t you just give Vedanta a chance?

#8

Actually you are the one with the problem. The whole point of the emergent Isvara is that he’s not liberated. People can see what I wrote. You can’t misrepresent what I said and get away with it.

I don’t you think really explained it very well because it sounded like you were saying ishvara is just a liberated yogi, but I think I get what you are saying now. You are saying that Ishvara is the first creation of Prakriti and is identical with Mahat(the great one) To be honest this is something I always understood(There is even a name for this first created one, he is called Brahma or Hiryanagarbh in Vedanta) It says in the Gita that every universe has its own Brahma. Basically Mahat is cosmic intelligence, from which comes Buddhi(individual intelligence) Mahat and Buddhi are used interchangeably in Samkhya.

But you have not answered the problem of creation(will you ever, and can you, all Samkhya proponents have failed to, so its unlikely a layman like you could). If Ishvara is just a product of prakriti after the gunas are broken, you still have not explained what starts this production to take place and what breaks the balance(and how the unmanifest gunas leads to the manifest)

The idea of prakriti simultaneously working for the the liberation of the purusha and the liberation of the emergent ishvara is inherently contradictory. Prakriti is the emergent ishvara(Mahat etc) how can prakriti work for its own sake? This contradicts the central argument Samkhya makes for purushas existence - that prakriti only ever works for the sake of another. If prakriti can also work for its sake then we have no need for purusha anymore. There is only prakriti and nothing else(this argument is made by modern Samkhya scholar Gerald Larson in his paper, “Purusha: the eccentric ghost in the machine” where he questions Samkhya as being a false dualism) thus a purely naturalistic theory.

Don’t bother, the objections against the many contradictions and illogicalities in Samkhya are fatal. This is why the Samkhya school died out. You are a dinosaur clinging onto a philosophy that has been dead and considered superseded for centuries. I’ll wait for you in the 21st century.

Actually, I will go out of a limb and say I have noticed something about your personality over the years talking to you: you are a stubborn and fixed in your ways and ideas and never change your views. You are hostile to any new ideas. I think you are simply a case of a closed mind. The irony is you practice Yoga which is all about freeing the mind :wink:

#9

Revisiting your confusing and contradictory statements on Ishvara

who(ishvara) is the first soul to emerge at the beginning of a cycle of creation, and whose external investment (body) consists of Mahat (the first principle).

First soul? I am now very confused! So are you saying Ishvara is an emerged soul? That is impossible in Samkhya. You said yourself that matter is that which is of the nature of the gunas and the soul is that which is not the nature of the gunas, it is just witnessing consciousness. How can the soul be an emergent thing? If it is emergent then it a product of the gunas and therefore cannot be soul by definition.

In Samkhya the soul is not something that emerges, evolves, transforms, changes. Yet now you are saying that there is a special soul that emerges, evolves, transforms and changes and that it even survives after the end of each cycle, and comes back to continue its evolution! This is a fatal contradiction of the entire philosophy Samkhya is based on and destroys the dualism.

One Vedanta argument against Samkhya is “It is full of contradictions” You can see where exactly they are coming from now.

#10

It’s obvious that prior to reading this thread, you had never heard about emergent Isvara, so your lack of understanding and confusion would not be a surprise if you did not hold yourself out to be such an expert. Just read what I wrote. It’s not that hard to understand.

I have never claimed to be an expert on Vedanta. I’ve made a little headway from reading my basic dummies’ guide. Here is a quote from their front page:

#11

No, I was already familiar with the Ishvara of late Samkhya, but I did not exactly know the specifics of it until I read your description. The reason for this is clear you are reading the late Samkhya text the Samkhyaparivarchana sutras, where the new theory of ishvara is given by late Samkhya philosophers, and I am reading the oldest classical text of of the Samkhya school, the Samkhyakarika of Ishvarkrishna, where Ishvara is not even mentioned once.

In any case it makes no difference to your defense of Samkhya or not, the theory of emergent ishvara simply creates more problems and contradictions for Samkhya rather than resolving them.

There is a system of reading in Vedanta used in Vedanta ashrams if you are approaching them for the first time. You first read introductory texts by Vedanta philosophers like Sankara’s and Vidyanandas works(prakaranas) Then you read the Gita and Upanishads and finally the Brahma Sutras. This is known as Jnana Yoga, the aim is by reading, contemplating, analyzing constantly the knowledge of Vedanta in the texts, enlightenment happens. It eventually just clicks and you become a Jivanmukta(liberated soul, while still living)

However, you are obviously not a Jnana yogi, so you are best advised to read more academic primers on Vedanta philosophy. I highly recommend ‘Essence of Vedanta’ by Brian Hodgkinson

#12

No, I was already familiar with the Ishvara of late Samkhya, but I did not exactly know the specifics of it until I read your description.

You lie.

So the Hindus claim that the Samkhya Pravachana Sutram is a later work, not written until the 14th or 15th centruy. But most of these Hindus have never read it. If they had read it, maybe some of them would realize that the propaganda isn’t true. Yoga Sutra 1:25 makes a clear reference to the Isvara of the Samkhya system, and the Yoga Sutras were written a long time before the 14th or 15th century, so your assertion that the emergent Isvara was a creation of later Samkhya is just another desperate lie intended to preserve the dominance of Vedanta.

#13

I have been reading it recently actually, but it is a rather large work, consisting of several topics. I prefer the Samkhyakarika, because it is effectively a shorter and more concise description of the Samkhya philosophy. The Samkhya sutras suffer from too much modern interpolation.

It is not Hindus actually, it is historians and scholars that consider the Samkhya sutras to be of late origin. This is because the style it is written in is not characteristic of the sutra period but of later periods and there are no mentions of this text in the Samkhya school after Ishvarkrishna or commentaries available on it till the 14th-15th century, but prior to that there are dozens of commentaries by Samkhya scholars on the Samkhyakarika. So if the Samkhya sutras really existed prior to 14th-15th century, why did the Samkhya scholars not comment on it? The most likely answer is because it did not exist.

Your argument that the Samkhya Sutras is the original Samkhya Sutras mentioned at the end of the Samkhyakarika just because it consists of 60 topics, has the same name and the same layout is incredibly weak. It is well known in medieval India late works were composed and attributed to ancient characters. There is a Vedanta text like that as well called the Yoga Vasistha, attributed to sage Vasistha(Lord Rama’s guru) but scholars like they know with the Samkhya Sutras, it is of late origin due to the late style and late mentions of it.

Again, there is no conspiracy by “Hindus” to suppress Samkhya. The irony in you saying something like that is Sankhyans are Hindus anyway and always considered themselves Hindu. They accept the authority of the Vedas and are considered one of the 6 major schools of Hindu philosophy.

#14

This is because the style it is written in is not characteristic of the sutra period but of later periods

I just cannot agree with this. To me the style seems very old.

Samkhyakarika just because it consists of 60 topics, has the same name and the same layout is incredibly weak.

Obviously I don’t agree with that either. The Karika says that it summarizes the earlier work. If you compare the two, it’s obvious that the Karika does closely follow the larger work, and generally condenses several aphorisms into a single aphorism. The Karika also says that it omits certain chapters and the ‘controversies’. The larger work does contain the chapters that were omitted from the Karika. The current ‘controversy’ is characteristic of the other things that were left out, but are included in the Samkhya Pravachana Sutram. It is inconceivable to me that if someone wanted to de-construct the Karika and expand on it, that they would have done it in the form of a sutra that itself requires explanation. It would have been done in the form of a commentary.

I think the argument that the book did not exist because there were no commentaries prior to the 14th - 15th centuries is also weak. First of all, the Karika itself is a kind of commentary, in the sense that it is a derivative work. Second, it was simply much easier for commentators to comment on the Karika, because it was shorter and more readily available. It is well known that at one time not just Samkhya but any work that conflicted with the Vedas was not permitted. That would explain why the larger sutra would not have been readily available to commentators.

Also, I doubt your assertion that it is scholars and not hindus who claim that the Samkhya-Pravachana-Sutram is a later work. None of the academic texts that I read mentioned this. On the contrary they accepted it as an authoritative text. Also Nandalal Sinha didn’t mention it in his translation of 1915.

#15

Also, when you do read the Samkhya Pravachana Sutram, it becomes apparent, at least to me, that it is a work of an extraordinary intelligence and insight, and not the work of a 14th century scribe.

#16

I just cannot agree with this. To me the style seems very old.

And you are not a historian. It means nothing in academia for somebody to say, “It seems to me the style is old” it has to to be backed up with evidence, analyzing the style, grammar, vocabulary and intertexual references. On that count the historians have concluded it is a late text.

Besides what qualifications do you have in being able to ascertain something is of early or late style? You appear to form judgement on many things you are simply not qualified in or know next to nothing about.

Obviously I don’t agree with that either. The Karika says that it summarizes the earlier work. If you compare the two, it’s obvious that the Karika does closely follow the larger work, and generally condenses several aphorisms into a single aphorism. The Karika also says that it omits certain chapters and the ‘controversies’. The larger work does contain the chapters that were omitted from the Karika. The current ‘controversy’ is characteristic of the other things that were left out, but are included in the Samkhya Pravachana Sutram. It is inconceivable to me that if someone wanted to de-construct the Karika and expand on it, that they would have done it in the form of a sutra that itself requires explanation. It would have been done in the form of a commentary

The original Samkhya sutras of Kapila were lost to antiquity. The Samkhya Sutras that appeared in the 14th century, appeared during a time when several texts were all of a sudden appearing claiming hoary antiquity, such as the Yoga Vasistha and the Kapilopedesha(a puranic attempt to attribute theistic Samkhya to Kapila) If you read the massive work that is Yoga Vasistha, it also seems inconceivable that somebody would go to such extreme lengths to fabricate it, but we know it is of late origin, so somebody obviously did.

I think the argument that the book did not exist because there were no commentaries prior to the 14th - 15th centuries is also weak. First of all, the Karika itself is a kind of commentary, in the sense that it is a derivative work. Second, it was simply much easier for commentators to comment on the Karika, because it was shorter and more readily available. It is well known that at one time not just Samkhya but any work that conflicted with the Vedas was not permitted. That would explain why the larger sutra would not have been readily available to commentators.

Yes, we know that the Samkhyakarika is a derivative work of the original Samkhya sutras - but we also know that what goes by the name of the Samkhya sutras today is not the original one. It is absolutely not a weak argument that because there are no commentaries on the Samkhya sutras prior to the 14th and 15th century, it most likely did not exist. We can see, especially during the Gupta period, a huge explosion of philosophical debate appear in India, all the major schools of philosophy get commented on and in each instance their major authoritative work is mentioned. We see commentaries appear on the Yoga Sutras, 13 principal Upanishads, the Gita, but for the Samkhya school, we only see commentaries on the Samkhyakarika, including by Samkhyans themselves.

Your argument that because the Samkhya sutras are large, they opted to comment on the Samkhyakarika instead is ridiculous. The Yoga sutras, Vaiseshika Sutras, Nyaya Sutras, Mimassa Sutras are also large texts, but they are commented on and mentioned, so why would they exclude such an important text like the Samkhya sutras? The obvious answer is because it did not exist then. All that existed was the Samkhyakarika, it was the oldest text that the Samkhya school had remaining.

No doubt you are going to implicate some kind of conspiracy to explain why the Samkhya sutras were ignored by everybody. The conspiracy angle you keep on playing on how Vedanta suppressed Samkhya is ironic, because Vedanta was actually the underdog in India before the times of Sankara. Samkhya was the dominant and most influential Hindu philosophy during that time and Buddhism was the most popular philosophy in general. They both eventually lost out to Vedanta because Vedanta presented a more logically consistent philosophy, which eventually won out in formal debates all over India. Vedanta had to face an uphill struggle in India to rise to prominence.

Also, when you do read the Samkhya Pravachana Sutram, it becomes apparent, at least to me, that it is a work of an extraordinary intelligence and insight, and not the work of a 14th century scribe.

Well, that is just another one of your “it seems to me” beliefs. It also makes no sense because why is it impossible that a 14th century scribe could not come up with the work? Is extraordinary intelligence and insight only available in ancient times? Of course not. The principa mathematica, origin of species, etc are modern works and also works of extraordinary intelligence and insights. Works of extraordinary intelligence and insights continue to be produced to this date.

#17

Yoga Sutra 1:25 makes a clear reference to the Isvara of the Samkhya system, and the Yoga Sutras were written a long time before the 14th or 15th century, so your assertion that the emergent Isvara was a creation of later Samkhya is just another desperate lie intended to preserve the dominance of Vedanta.

I overlooked this statement a few times, but Asuri has now repeated it twice as a factual statement. I will now show that the statement is clearly false. The Ishvara of Yoga is not the same as the Ishvara of late Samkhya. Again, Asuri has only partially cited from Yoga sutras. Let us look at what the Yoga Sutras say fully on ishvara:

Translation on Sacred Texts.com
1.24. God is a particular yet universal indweller, untouched by afflictions, actions, impressions and their results.

1.25. In God, the seed of omniscience is unsurpassed.

1.26. Not being conditioned by time, God is the teacher of even the ancients.

Translation on http://www.reluctant-messenger.com/yoga-sutras-1.htm

24] God is the seat of Supreme Being, totally free from conflicts, unaffected by actions and untouched by cause and effect.

25] God is the unsurpassed and unrivaled onesource of omniscent wisdom, transcendent, yet unfolds the entirety of omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence.

26] God is the unlimited, unbounded, undefined source of all knowledge and is the foremost absolute guru untouched by time.

Translation by Swami J,
.24 That creative source (ishvara) is a particular consciousness (purusha) that is unaffected by colorings (kleshas), actions (karmas), or results of those actions that happen when latent impressions stir and cause those actions.
(klesha karma vipaka ashayaih aparamristah purusha-vishesha ishvara

1.25 In that pure consciousness (ishvara) the seed of omniscience has reached its highest development and cannot be exceeded.
(tatra niratishayam sarvajna bijam)

1.26 From that consciousness (ishvara) the ancient-most teachers were taught, since it is not limited by the constraint of time.
(purvesham api guruh kalena anavachchhedat)

The following specific characteristics of Ishvara in Yoga are described:

  1. It is a special type of purusha
  2. It is independent and eternally separate from prakriti, thus always remains pure
  3. It is always omniscient and liberated
  4. It is timeless

Now contrast this with the late Samkhya Ishvara

  1. It is an emergent product of prakriti
  2. It is not independent from prakriti
  3. It has to become liberated just like standard purusha
  4. It is in time and subject to its cycles

In conclusion we can see the Ishvara of Yoga and the Ishvara of late Samkhya are the opposite of one another. Once again Asuri has attempted to pull the wool over our eyes with his selective quoting.

#18

The original Samkhya sutras of Kapila were lost to antiquity. The Samkhya Sutras that appeared in the 14th century, appeared during a time when several texts were all of a sudden appearing claiming hoary antiquity, such as the Yoga Vasistha and the Kapilopedesha(a puranic attempt to attribute theistic Samkhya to Kapila) If you read the massive work that is Yoga Vasistha, it also seems inconceivable that somebody would go to such extreme lengths to fabricate it, but we know it is of late origin, so somebody obviously did.

Not to distract from the discussion at hand, but…

Scholars like Professor Edwin Bryant give good reasons why the dating of the Bhagavad Purana can be pushed back to the gupta period, unlike what earlier indologists like Wilson or reform movements like the Arya Samaj thought, the Bhagavata Purana was not written in medieval times by a fellow named Vopadeva. Pundit Jwalaprashad in his ashtadasha purana darpana explains that Vopadeva actually wrote a summary of the Bhagavata. The theme of theistic samkhya is not new to the Bhagavata either, but has a longer history in pancaratra literature and the Mahabharata.

The yoga vasishta is indeed a later text that has nothign to do with Valmiki, it is a spiritual amalgam of Kashmiri Shaivism, Pre-Shankaran Advaita and Mahayana Buddhism. The Yoga Vasishta (and tantric texts like the tripura rahasya) has had a lot of influence on modern advaitic teachers like Ramana Maharshi. That is why modern/ popular advaita is quite different from Shankaracharya’s advaita vedanta.

#19

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;69788]

  1. It is a special type of purusha
  2. It is independent and eternally separate from prakriti, thus always remains pure
  3. It is always omniscient and liberated
  4. It is timeless

Now contrast this with the late Samkhya Ishvara

  1. It is an emergent product of prakriti
  2. It is not independent from prakriti
  3. It has to become liberated just like standard purusha
  4. It is in time and subject to its cycles

[/QUOTE]

It is really unfortunate that you have to stoop to this kind of misrepresentation. It shows how weak you are.

Samkhya absolutely does not say that Isvara is product of Prakriti. This is an absolute lie, and really despicable. Isvara is a purusa so he is independent of prakriti in the same way that all purusas are.

The Yoga Sutras does not say that Isvara is liberated. By definition, liberation means no further interaction with material existence. But the Yoga Sutras says that Isvara was the teacher of the ancient yogis, so since there is interaction with material nature, Isvara cannot be liberated.

The Yoga Sutras does not say that Isvara is timeless. It says that he was the guru of the ancient yogins by means of [I]kala anavacceda[/I] or temporal continuity. Even if you translate this as ‘unbounded by time’, it still is consistent with the Samkhya system, because Isvara exists at the level of Mahat, which precedes the creation of time and space in the evoluiton of Prakriti.

I think I’m done here. I’ve said what I wanted to say, and I’m disgusted by Surya Deva’s lies.

#20

Samkhya absolutely does not say that Isvara is product of Prakriti.

You said yourself Ishvara is emergent:

The concept of an emergent Isvara is based on the belief that, through the practice of dispassion, the highest yogis eventually merge into Prakriti, where they remain for a very long time. However these yogis have not yet achieved liberation, and so they must eventually be reborn. Such a yogi is believed to be reborn as the omniscient Isvara, who is the first soul to emerge at the beginning of a cycle of creation, and whose external investment (body) consists of Mahat (the first principle).

My god, these Samkhyans are so schizophrenic :smiley: So is Ishvara emergent or eternal? Decide for Ishvara sake :wink: