Emergent versus Eternal

Spirituality
#21

The Yoga Sutras does not say that Isvara is timeless. It says that he was the guru of the ancient yogins by means of kala anavacceda 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.

Yes it does, do you understand written English?

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

The Ishvara of Yoga is not constrained by time, because it is eternal and exists before creation. If something exists before creation it is by definition timeless, because time only begins when creation begins.

The Ishvara of Yoga is a dead-ringer for the unborn eternal god in the Upanishads and the Gita.

I am starting to doubt that you capable of even basic reading.

#22

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.

No it doesn’t, the creation of time and space begins from the moment the universe comes into manifest existence i.e., when the gunas are broken. Mahat is the first product of prakriti, it is not something which pre-exists prior to the gunas being broken. Nothing is existent prior to the gunas being broken in classical Samkhya.

The Samkhyakarika explicitly tells us that Mahat etc are born only after the gunas are unbalanced. Mahat is the first creation:

Samkhyakarika 3
The primal nature is non-evolute. The group of seven beginning with the great principle(Mahat) and the rest are both evolvents and evolutes. But the sixteen(five organs of senses, five of action, the mind and the five gross elements) are only evolutes. The spirit(purusha) is neither evolvent nor the evolute

It tells us here very explicitly that after creation the first thing to come into being is Mahat, therefore Mahat is at the beginning of time. It also tells us explicitly Mahat is a product of prakriti. It also says that the purusha is not a product.

The statements within the Samkhya school are all logically inconsistent and contradict one another:

  1. Ishvara is emergent
  2. Ishvara is spirit(purusha)
  3. Spirit is non-emergent
  4. The first product of creation is Mahat
  5. Mahat exists before time

Statement 1, 2 and 3 are logically inconsistent
Statement 4 and 5 are logically inconsistent

#23

As I said before, I’m done with this. As is his custom, Surya Deva has sunk to gross misrepresentation in order to try to make his case. It isn’t worthy of a response.

#24

@Sarvamaṅgalamaṅgalā

Thanks for your input.

#25

[QUOTE=Asuri;69813]As I said before, I’m done with this. As is his custom, Surya Deva has sunk to gross misrepresentation in order to try to make his case. It isn’t worthy of a response.[/QUOTE]

Nah, its not that you are done, rather you have been done :wink:

As usual you throw emotional tantrums, complain about being misrepresented and run off when you know your arguments have lost steam. To use a crude expression, “I am like totally kicking your ass” :smiley:

Nothing you have said has been misrepresented(rather you are often misrepresenting what I and Vedanta am saying, and I have shown clear proof of you doing it) You yourself said that Ishvara was emergent, heck you’ve said in the thread title itself, “Emergent vs Eternal”

Now that I have shown you the contradictions an 'emergent ishvara" creates in the Samkhya philosophy you complain about misrepresentation. I will outline those contradictions again

  1. There cannot be an emergent special purusha, because it contradicts the definition of what purusha is. The purusha is eternal, not-possessed of the gunas, non-active, unchanging, non-evolve(Samkhyakarika 3: neither an evolvent or evolute) The only thing that is emergent are the products of prakriti and the products of prakriti are of possessed of the nature of the gunas. Thus an emergent purusha is impossible.

  2. Prakriti cannot act for her own product (Mahat) because prakriti is her products. If prakriti could act for her own sake, there would be no need for purusha. This contradicts Samkhya argument that prakriti only ever acts for the sake of the purusha.

Emergent Ishvara introduces a fatal contradiction in Samkhya philosophy, contradicting all of its other propositions. This is why introducing Ishvara into Samkhya does it no good.

The theory of emergent ishvara appears in the late Samkhya and has obvious Vedanta influence. It doe not appear in early Samkhya, there is no ishvara in early Samkhya. It was introduced by late Samkhya thinkers to explain away the problems critics had raised against it, and in the process ended up creating even more problems and the school subsequently died out.

Asuri you are full of nothing but hot air. I’ve not yet see you make any effort to engage with, or even attempt to refute any of the problems I have pointed out. At least a real intellectual would make an attempt. At least real scholars of Samkhya actually made an attempt to engage with the criticisms. You are a pathetic debater. What a disappointment.

#26

If you get a man down, then kick him when he is down once said a wise man :wink:

Asuri’‘s post in the thread, "Observation vs scriptures’

One of the most important features of the theory of existent effects is that it is based observations of nature. No effect that exists in nature can be produced from sheer non-existence, everything has a material cause. A table is produced from wood, wood comes from trees, trees come from seeds. But you cannot produce an apple tree from an oak seed, you can’t produce iron from lead, you can’t produce a pig from a rock. An effect can only be produced from a material that is competent to produce it.

The natural progression of cause and effect leads to the question of what is the ultimate material cause, beyond which no further reduction of matter can be made. In Samkhya, the name given to this first cause is Prakriti. Samkhya also observed that the spirit or self of living beings is not material in nature, but something fundamentally different called Purusa. They reasoned that Prakriti cannot be an effect of Purusa, because Purusa is not a material that is competent to produce it. This leads to the natural and intuitive conclusion that spirit and matter, though fundamentally different, are equally real.

I have emboldened some statements to show the blatant contradiction of an ‘emergent purusha’

Asuri says above that prakriti is an inferred material cause to explain all the effects we see in nature. He also says that Purusha is non-material and is not competent to produce the effect we see in nature. He also says they are fundamentally different.

In this thread he is telling us of a special emergent purusha. What produces the emergent Purusha? He tells us that only prakriti is competent to produce the effects we see in nature and an emergent purusha is an effect, therefore it must have a cause. Prakriti is the inferred ultimate cause of all effects and is the only substance that can produce something due to the gunas. Therefore it is clear that this special emergent purusha is produced by Prakriti. But prakriti is not competent to produce a purusha, because purusha is fundamentally a different substance. Thus we end up in a fatal contradiction.

If we say that the emergent purusha is produced by the purushas then we contradict another part of Samkhya which says that purusha is non-productive, inactive spirit, not possessed of the gunas and hence cannot change, transform or act(only the gunas act) It is impossible that the purusha can produce anything.

What is sad that Asuri cannot see just how badly he has contradicted what he himself explained. Do not expect any rebuttal from him, he cannot argue himself out of this. It is a fatal contradiction.

#27

What kind of person is this? It’s really astonishing to witness how truly evil he is. I’ve never seen anyone so willing to boldly lie and distort the truth. God help me not to be sucked into this black hole.

#28

What kind of person is this? It’s really astonishing to witness how truly evil he is.

Note, that Asuri considers somebody debating against the points he makes and pointing out contradictions in his arguments(I did not start this thread, he did) truly evil :wink:

God help me not to be sucked into this black hole.

Christian fundamentalist. It is always a bad idea to try and have a debate with a Christian fundamentalist, they tend to be the worst offenders of reason. Asuri would fit right in during the times of inquisitions or something - then he would be able to do something about those ‘evil’ free thinkers, like myself :wink:

#29

A Christian fundamentalist talking about Samkhya philosophy? Give me a break. This is just one more example of how this person lies and distorts the truth. I’m fine with people debating against my points. What I object to is when people lie and misrepresent what I said, and what the philosophy says. In that category Surya Deva is by far the worst offender I’ve ever seen.

I think it might actually be a psychiatric problem. He seems to view the world through a distorted lens. Sometimes it’s subtle, and sometimes it’s not subtle at all, but you rarely get a truthful statement from him. This happens both when he’s trying to advance his own agenda and when he’s arguing against someone else. To make matters worse, he seems to actually believe his own lies. I predict that this pattern of behavior is going to cause problems in his life, and I would not be surprised to find out that it already has.

#30

[B]Or[/B]

Maybe he has a demon. That’s not just a Christian thing. The Bhagavad Gita also talks about demonic personalities. If there’s anyone I would describe as demonic, it would be Surya Deva. Maybe someday he’ll find Jesus and get an exorcism. What do think? I wonder if the Hindu shamans can do an exorcism. SD, you should look into it. I think it might do you some good.

#31

[B]Or[/B]

Maybe we could get all the Christian people to say a prayer for Surya Deva, to help him get rid of his demon. What do you think?

#32

Maybe he has a demon.

Need I say more about this Christian fundamentalist?

What I object to is when people lie and misrepresent what I said, and what the philosophy says.

You have not given any examples of where I have misrepresented what you said or Samkhya says. The difference between you and me is I can actually show where exactly you have misrepresented something, you simply just say it and leave it at that. Hot air, nothing but hot air.

#33

Look, I’m not going to get sucked into that. All anybody has to do is read what I wrote, and it should be obvious that what you are arguing about is not what I wrote. That seems to be a standard tactic with you.

#34

I know what you need, man. You need to accept Jesus as your savior. All the lousy low-down stuff you’ve done can be forgiven! Jesus already bore your sins on the cross, man. All you have to do is accept him as your savior and amend your life. Jesus loves you, man, even if you are dirty low-down.

#35

Still, no examples. Like I said, nothing but hot air.

#36

Look, I told you I’m not going to play your game. If I had to point out every time you misrepresented something I said, it would be a full time job.