[QUOTE=ray_killeen;80869]It seems more like a happening of verification that arose innately after momentary eruptions of conceptual nonsense in self-inquiry.[/QUOTE]
That is just the justification(logical) and predictability. But still belief in those in my view.
Can we have a self inquiry without a self?
No, they have 25 tattvas. Purusha and Prakriti are the ultimate tattvas, and then the manifest tattvas are: buddhi, ahamkara, manas, 5 sense organs, 5 motor organs, 5 subtle elements, 5 physical elements. Most of these tattvas are copied into Buddhism.
According to my ignorance, the cause of suffering in Samkhya is the because of the bontage of Pususa and prakrti. And it is because of the Rajas-Tamas domination. If we raise the Satva guna, Kaivalya(liberation) is posible. Sankara critique to this idea of Prakrti doing the liberation by itself in the second chapter of the Brahma-sutra comentary.
Yes, this is true, this is why they differ. I never said Buddhism was identical with Samkhya, they have different metaphysics. However, the concept that ignorance(avidya) is the root cause of suffering is the same. The concept that ignorance leads to egoity and identification of oneself with their mind-body and senses is the same, that this leads to desire and that in turn to attachment and then rebirth in samsara and suffering is the same.
The Buddhist interpretation of the metaphysics of this is different. However, what it proves is that Buddhism is obviously derived from Samkhya - which is the point I am making.
If you see, all the indian schools, including Carvaka, suffering is a subject matter. with this we canot say all schools are the same.
Charvaka does not have the same concept of suffering. Charvaka does not say that ignorance is the root cause of suffering, rather it defines suffering as a lack of pleasure in life. It prescribes hedonism, pleasure seeking eat, drink and be merry to be happy in life. It goes against all other schools of Indian philosophy which tell us to control our senses. Charvaka also has no love for knowledge or wisdom, it only accepts only ordinary perception as a valid means of knowledge and rejects inference, analogy and testimony, which again goes against all other schools which accept inference.
Charvaka is not a sophisticated worldview because it is one based on naive realism. If we accept only ordinary perception, we would have to conclude the Earth is flat and the sun goes around the Earth. Charvaka worldview is the worldview of the materialist, who is not bothered where a fruit comes from, but it is bothered about eating it.
Rebirth in Buddha is completely different from the Samkhya or upanishidic schools. Don’t just catch the word. It may be the same. But the underlying meaning is completely different. There is no rebirth of the soul according to buddha. because there is no soul. What is rebirth is, Prattyccasamu-panna(dependent arising). What is here in this moment is because of the previous moment.
In fact it is not very different, because Samkhya says exactly the same thing: One is never reborn, never transmigrates, never liberated - it is matter that binds itself, matter which transmigrates and matter which is liberated. The Buddhists say the skanda self is reborn every moment, recycled from the skandas of the previous. In similar manner, Samkhya says the subtle body(jivatman in Vedanta) is product of matter made of material processes, every moment it changes.
Furthermore, the same levels of samsara which are recognized in Samkhya are recognized in Buddhism as well(and Jainism)
I am not known about the ego in samkhya. What i know is the Satva-rajas-Tamas together form the Mahat. With the more domination of Tamas it evolve into the Ahamkara(which is ego in my view).
how does this theory fit into Budha? No idea.
It fits, because what it is saying is the ahamkara is a material product which is made up of material elements which change and transform moment to moment. That is the Buddhist theory of skanada self
According to my ignorance, The mind and body is the split in the Ahamkara when the Tamas get dominated in the evolution. Mind is Satva dominat than the body still.
But where is this theory fit into Buddhism? ego, body mind is because of the Disposition(Sagara).
Again it fits, because Samkhya like Buddhism says there is no actual split between ahamkara and the rest of the world, this is why ahamkara is called false. If you take ahamkara out of the equation there would be no subjective and no objective split in reality, all would be just one single continuous material field. In Samkhya the dispositions of the mind and body are called bhavas and karmas
I don’t see any similarity in Samkhya, Yoga and Buddhism.
And that is because of my ignorance. But knowledge is again matter in samkhya. It is Disposition in Buddhism. So there is no value for knowlege according to me.
The opposite of Truth(sacca) in buddhism is Confusion(musa). Which i believe.
Great, and as a Samkhyan I believe the same. Confusion in Samkhya is called “Moha” or delusion.
You are setting up this false dichotomy between Buddhism and Samkhya-Yoga, which for all intents and purposes are identical. Only the metaphysical understanding is different, but like I said already Buddhism was never suppose to be a metaphysics, later Buddhists turned it into a metaphysics and as a metaphysics it failed and was ultimately rejected in India.
The Samkhya metaphysics explains the world we see far better. Lets see:
The fact of memory and sameness of personal identity: It is a fact that I can remember things from the past and the sameness of my personal identity, but Buddhists say there is no Self, every moment the self is created and destroyed, but it would be impossible then for new self to remember the memories of the old self. Samkhya explains this logically: There IS an enduring substance of Self which endures from moment to moment.
We have motivations, pursuits, ambitions and goals in life, even the goal of enlightenment, but Buddhists say there is no self, this makes everyone of our actions pointless. What is the point of having any goal, if the one who made the goal no longer exists the next moment? Why do anything at all? This flies in face of the fact that we do have goals and pursuits in life. Samkhya again explains this logically: Self-realization is what drives us. There is an enjoyer , a knower, a perceiver that is why we act and pursue things.
Buddhist enlightenment makes no sense: When we hear Buddhists talk about realizing their “Buddha nature” The Buddha nature of what? The Buddha nature of nothing? If there is nothing there to realize, then no realization or enlightenment can ever take place. And if the aim is to just extinguish one self - then why not just jump of a cliff and extinguish yourself?
Besides, aren’t you extinguished every moment anyway? Samkhya enlightenment makes sense, because there is something eternally there(pure consciousness) to reconnect to.
Buddhism doctrine of impermanence makes no sense and flies in the face of reality. The Buddhist say there is no substance, because everything changes from moment to moment. This is true, but incomplete, because in reality nothing actually changes from moment to moment, rather it evolves and transforms from moment to moment. Changes do not happen haphazardly: An apple does not change into an orange the next moment; your face does not change into another person face the next moment. In fact your face will change predictably over time, because obviously there is something permanent there which evolves over time. Samkhya explains this logically by positing the gunas as the modes of change: The rajas(active) force causes your face to change over time, the tamas(inertia) force slows down the rate of change, otherwise your face would grow old in a single moment and the sattva(neutral) force keeps the balance of the proportions of your face, otherwise your face would fall apart.
The same gunas maintain the expansion and contraction of the universe. If there was only rajas the universe would expand instantaneously and never stop expanding, it is kept in check by tamas which slows down the rate of expansion of the universe, while sattva maintains its proportions.
The same gunas maintain the spin of subatomic particles. If the ratio of the spin was off by even an infinitesimal margin, the entire universe would collapse.
Therefore Samkhya metaphysics explains our reality far better than Buddhism. Buddhism as a metaphysics fails; as a pragmatic philosophy it succeeds.
So what are you telling? There is no point in Buddhism and yoga? 
I am not sure how you arrived at the conclusion from my post.
Since you bring the Pramanas… here i state my understanding.
so there is no issue for a charvakan to accept the world’s global shape.
3)Samkhya
only accepts 3. Prathiksha, Anumana and sabda.
They don’t accept the other 3.
if you are contradicting tell me where samkhyans uses the other three…
There must be a language barrier or something
Charvaka did not accept inference(anumana) The Charvaka were skeptical of any inference and gave similar arguments as Hume did many centuries later, that one cannot know by perception of there being any cause and effect, therefore it is dubious. As inference is based on relationships of invariable concomitance of(vypati) cause and effect(cause to effect; effect to cause, and general inference) It is obvious then Charvaka would not accept inference.
As for Buddhism and Samkhya, as I never challenged that they did not accept inference, I wonder why you are bringing this up? I said to you quite directly all schools other than Charvaka accepted inference.
No, they have 25 tattvas. Purusha and Prakriti are the ultimate tattvas, and then the manifest tattvas are: buddhi, ahamkara, manas, 5 sense organs, 5 motor organs, 5 subtle elements, 5 physical elements. Most of these tattvas are copied into Buddhism.
I agree with you on 25 tattvas, but your reply is confusing. All the 25 tattvas are derived from Purusa and prakriti.
But where is the parallel in buddhism to this tattvas?
the concept that ignorance(avidya) is the root cause of suffering is the same.
Ignorance(avijja) is not in the part of skandha(kandha in pali).
In fact it is not very different, because Samkhya says exactly the same thing: One is never reborn, never transmigrates, never liberated - it is matter that binds itself, matter which transmigrates and matter which is liberated. The Buddhists say the skanda self is reborn every moment, recycled from the skandas of the previous. In similar manner, Samkhya says the subtle body(jivatman in Vedanta) is product of matter made of material processes, every moment it changes.
It fits, because what it is saying is the ahamkara is a material product which is made up of material elements which change and transform moment to moment. That is the Buddhist theory of skanada self
Don’t you see you are twisting the meaning to incorporate them? 
You are trying to say completely different things into one? at least i think so in my logic, which may not be the fact in general.
So what are you telling? There is no point in Buddhism and yoga?
Today, 06:51 AM #48
Surya Deva
trisahasra Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 4,512
I am not sure how you arrived at the conclusion from my post.
You still have not explained how you come to the conclusion I am saying “There is no point in Buddhism and Yoga” from my post.
I don’t mean this offensively, but I think you struggle a little with English comprehension.
[QUOTE=chadayan;80901]I agree with you on 25 tattvas, but your reply is confusing. All the 25 tattvas are derived from Purusa and prakriti.
But where is the parallel in buddhism to this tattvas?[/quote]
If I have to answer that, then it clear that just as you don’t know your Yoga and Samkhya, you don’t know your Buddhism either. Come back when you have read on both.
According to me, and many others(Mugalliputta Sutta, Dignaga, Nagarjuna), “There is no metaphysics in buddhism”.
So how can we analyze samkhya and buddha metaphysically?
Buddha was silent on all the metaphysical questions.
“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” - Wittgenstein in his Tractatus(the last line)
There is no point in discussing them. You can prove or disprove them.
So in reality there may be an atman or objects. But what is the use of them?
So i believe all buddhist philosophy is ethical. Anatman make things easy
Right, and that is what I’ve been saying: Buddhism is not a metaphysics. It is a phenomenological philosophy i.e. it is about this phenomenal world, the here and now.
Samkhya-Yoga are a metaphysical system, where Samkhya is the theory and Yoga is the practice.
Both are ethical. In fact every system of Indian philosophy is both ethical and practical. Even Charvaka has its own ethics.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;80902]You still have not explained how you come to the conclusion I am saying “There is no point in Buddhism and Yoga” from my post.
[/QUOTE]
Both buddhism and Samkhya disagree on this points according to you
So what is there in common between the two schools?
The answer you have is i have to go and study… Yes i will do…
I think you struggle a little with English comprehension.
True. And we both agree on this
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;80906]
Both are ethical. In fact every system of Indian philosophy is both ethical and practical. Even Charvaka has its own ethics.[/QUOTE]
Both Buddhism and Samkhya are ethical, i agree. But the ethic is different.
[QUOTE=chadayan;80907]Both buddhism and Samkhya disagree on this points according to you
So what is there in common between the two schools?
The answer you have is i have to go and study… Yes i will do…[/quote]
If we take Buddhism as a metaphysics it is pointless. I never said Yoga is pointless as well. That is because Yoga metaphysics makes sense: There is a self, a knower, a perceiver, there is a world of objects, and we do have our own unique stream of life and goals, memories, motivations etc
If you genuinely believed in no-self, then you wouldn’t do anything, because there is nobody there to do anything. Why would you sit to meditate at all, as there is nobody there meditating? lol
No Buddhist who accepts the doctrine of no-self can be consistent. There was this wishy washy new-age Buddhist woman who posted on this forum. She told me once that her husband was a Phd in philosophy. I then told that either she accepts 1) Her husband is an imposter, because it was not him who got the Phd in philosophy(it was the old skanda self ) or 2) The doctrine of of no self is wrong. As she had no answer, she threw a tantrum “How dare you call my husband an imposter”
Buddhists who genuinely believing in “extinguishing themselves” should all jump of a cliff
[QUOTE=chadayan;80908]Both Buddhism and Samkhya are ethical, i agree. But the ethic is different.[/QUOTE]
What’s different?
It is pretty obvious you are trying(very hard) to create a false dichotomy between yoga and Buddhism by exaggerating rather petty and subtle philosophical differences.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;80909]If we take Buddhism as a metaphysics it is pointless. I never said Yoga is pointless as well. That is because Yoga metaphysics makes sense: There is a self, a knower, a perceiver, there is a world of objects, and we do have our own unique stream of life and goals, memories, motivations etc
If you genuinely believed in no-self, then you wouldn’t do anything, because there is nobody there to do anything. Why would you sit to meditate at all, as there is nobody there meditating? lol
No Buddhist who accepts the doctrine of no-self can be consistent. There was this wishy washy new-age Buddhist woman who posted on this forum. She told me once that her husband was a Phd in philosophy. I then told that either she accepts 1) Her husband is an imposter, because it was not him who got the Phd in philosophy(it was the old skanda self ) or 2) The doctrine of of no self is wrong. As she had no answer, she threw a tantrum “How dare you call my husband an imposter”
Buddhists who genuinely believing in “extinguishing themselves” should all jump of a cliff ;)[/QUOTE]
Are we discussing which is right and which is wrong? or are we discussion both yoga and buddhism is same or not? or each can accept the other.
As far as i know, All indian philosophical schools are sufficient in explaining the world in their on ontological stand point. including Carvaka.
If you look one school with other’s point of view all are wrong. Budha had problem with Carvakans, Samkhyan and upanishads. Sankara had problem with all. Ramanuja had problem with Samkara etc.
So if we wanted to see Right and Wrong. All are wrong. But i believe all are right in their point of view. And they explained all phenomena according to their philosophy.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;80910]What’s different?
It is pretty obvious you are trying(very hard) to create a false dichotomy between yoga and Buddhism by exaggerating rather petty and subtle philosophical differences.[/QUOTE]
I have told it in my previous posts in subtle philosophical terms.
Be moral without being made of moral laws(Silava no ca silamayo).
This is buddha’s ethics. What is pragmatic at the moment that is the moral.
Yoga’s ethics: Follow Yama and Niyama.
[QUOTE=chadayan;80890]That is just the justification(logical) and predictability. But still belief in those in my view.
Can we have a self inquiry without a self?[/QUOTE]
An eye does not see itself but it sees everything else, the seeker is the sought.
[QUOTE=ray_killeen;80914]An eye does not see itself but it sees everything else, the seeker is the sought.[/QUOTE]
One cannot see their face, they need a mirror. - Upanishad and Sankara on Mandukya karika bashya