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.
- Charvaka.
Charvaka accepts prattiskha. Then the curious question arises. How do you know only one pramana? it is only through Amumana.
So Charvaka accept Anumana which don’t contradict with the prattiskha.
so there is no issue for a charvakan to accept the world’s global shape.
- Buddhism
Accept two Prattiskha and Anumana. And the thinkers like Dignaga and his logic tells, anumana is more important than the perception.
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.
- In samkhya, is ignorance is the cause of the bondage between purusha and prakriti?
I thought it was an accident. - Is knowledge liberates(kaivallya) in samkhya?
- Is the Ignorance is the same in both Samkhya and buddhism? Ignorance of what?
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
- In the idea of memory
- The idea of motivations, pursuits, ambitions and goals in life
- The idea of enlightenment
- The core of Buddhism(impermanence): Prattccasamupada and Samkhya(Purusha and prakrti)
- metaphysically(One have a strong metaphysics than any philosophical school, And other don’t have one)
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
- In the idea of memory
- The idea of motivations, pursuits, ambitions and goals in life
- The idea of enlightenment
- The core of Buddhism(impermanence): Prattccasamupada and Samkhya(Purusha and prakrti)
- metaphysically(One have a strong metaphysics than any philosophical school, And other don’t have one)
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
[QUOTE=chadayan;80915]One cannot see their face, they need a mirror. - Upanishad and Sankara on Mandukya karika bashya[/QUOTE]
Wink!
[QUOTE=chadayan;80908]Both Buddhism and Samkhya are ethical, i agree. But the ethic is different.[/QUOTE]
Who is to determine what is ethical and unethical, there are 7,000,000,000 human minds on the planet all with various likes and dislikes pick any subject and you have the possibility of 7,000,000,000 different beliefs in what?s ethical or unethical, everything is perfect nothing is happening that should not be happening, perfection.