It’s well known that you are impossible to reason with, for the simple fact that your ego will not allow you to consider any point or opinion other than your own. And also because you’ve simply dismissed the explanation (Samkhya-Pravachana-Sutram) in favor of the summary (Karika), I won’t waste my time.
Others can reason with me Asuri, you just never have anything to counter with. I am afraid you don’t know how to reason anything. My argument is valid, as the SPS is a late medieval text and has never been important in the Samkhya school, it cannot be taken as representative of classical Samkhya philosophy. The oldest extant text and defining text of the school is the Samkhya Karika. There are no commentaries on the SPS until late medieval times, but there are certainly commentaries on the Samkhya Karika. Even if the SPS did exist, it was not considered important by Samkhya philosophers or by philosophers from other school, who did not cite from it. The Karika has always been the main text of the Samkhya.
I am sorry this is just the way it is. I did not decide this myself.
Well, there is definitely evidence that indicates that SPS was considered authoritative by many scholars, but that is beside the point. Suppose we try using a little more accurate translation of the Karika 64.
So, through cultivation of the knowledge of the Tattvas is produced the final, pure, because free from error and doubt, and one single knowledge that neither does agency belong to me, nor is attachment mine, nor am I identical with the body, etc.
This translation makes it clear that the knowledge that produces self-realization is not ordinary intellectual knowledge, rather it is single, final, and pure, because it is free from error and doubt. And the explanation rightly says that such knowledge doesn’t come from reason alone, but from direct vision of the truth.
What is interesting is that this also works at the level of ordinary knowledge. Reason alone is not enough to establish a fact or truth, it has to be supported by empirical evidence.
I can read you know 
So, through cultivation of the knowledge of the Tattvas is produced the final, pure, because free from error and doubt, and one single knowledge that neither does agency belong to me, nor is attachment mine, nor am I identical with the body, etc.
It says what I told you already: knowledge of the tatttvas(tattva jnana) It does not say anything about direct vision or direct experience. It says that when one does inquiry and then gains knowledge of the tattvas i.e., the 24 elements which make up reality, and the difference between purusha and prakriti(and all her manifestations from mahat onwards) one realizes they are not an agent, not attached to anything and not the body etc
The Samkhya way is not the same as the Yogic way which is through meditation. If it was then Samkhya would mention dhyana and samadhi. The Samkhya way is purely intellectual.
I rest my case. If you choose to cling to your erroneous beliefs, it is of no consequence to me. What bothers me is that you pollute the minds of others. All of that karma is yours.
P.S. Sometimes I’m not sure that you read all that well.
P.P.S. This karika is typical of the obviously inferior translation you’re using. This is contributing to your misunderstanding.
As always you have no case.
It is says very clearly in the Samkhya Karika that inquiry is the means to liberation. It says nothing about meditation, direct vision or direct experience.
As always you refuse to read what something clearly says, twist the meaning in your head into something you want it to mean. I am beginning to suspect a pathology
This is one of your favorite tricks, to project on others your own weakness and inadequacies. If it wasn’t so demonic, it would be funny.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;72676]
It is says very clearly in the Samkhya Karika that inquiry is the means to liberation. It says nothing about meditation, direct vision or direct experience.
[/QUOTE]
It’s a summary, remember? You’re not going to get every detail from a summary.
The Karika maybe a summary of the older Samkhya sutras which are no longer extant, but it is the oldest extant text of the school and that has already been shown to be the scholarly consensus.
Again, I did not decide that the Karika is the primary text of the Samkhya school.
You really need to learn how to accept facts You’re like a stubborn little child who refuses to acknowledge something and then throws tantrums.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;72700]
You really need to learn how to accept facts You’re like a stubborn little child who refuses to acknowledge something and then throws tantrums.[/QUOTE]
Projecting again.
Again, I did not decide that the Karika is the primary text of the Samkhya school.
No, that appears to be largely the work of Gerald Larson, an American scholar whose work was not published until 1969. Prior to that time, most scholars, and especially the Indian scholars accepted the Samkhya Pravachana Sutram without question.
In my opinion the great weakness of Larson’s work is that he gives short shrift to the work of these scholars. His primary reasons for choosing the Samkhya Karika as the basis for his work were:
[ol]
[li]The inability to reconstruct the text of the Samkhya Pravachana Sutram from original sources.[/li][li]The influence of the Vedanta in the work of Vijnana Bhiksu, the primary translator and commentator of the SPS.[/li][/ol]
In order to avoid the Vedanta influence, he set out to interpret the meaning of the Karika without reference to the work of Vijnana Bhiksu.
The great value of Vijnana Bhiksu’s work is that in his time, he still was able to reconstruct the work that we now call the Samkhya Pravachana Sutram. Through his effort he was able to preserve and provide the most complete and comprehensive explanation of the Samkhya philosophy, which otherwise would have been lost. To completely reject this work and blindly follow Gerald Larson seems quite naive, especially for someone who in the past has complained loudly about the distortions of the western scholars and the superiority of the Indian scholars in matters of Indian philosophy.
Whether it is the work of Larson or several scholars, the arguments are strong for ignoring the SPS in favour of the Karika:
- It is a late medieval text
- It is influenced by Vedanta
It is not representative of classical Samkhya philosophy.
It is very likely that it was compiled from the same sources as the Samkhya Karika. It is foolish and naive to ignore it.
Svetasvatara Upanishad
Translated by Swami Tyagisananda
Published by Sri Ramakrishna Math, Chennai
Om! May Brahman protect us both together.
May He nourish us both together.
May we both work together, with great energy.
May our study be vigorous and effective.
May we not hate each other.
Om! Peace ! Peace ! Peace !
I am not ignoring the SPS at all. It is useful to read to get a whole overview of Samkhya’s history. However, it is not representative of classical Samkhya philosophy. There is only one extant text that describes the classical Samkhya school philosophy, and that is the Karika. The Karika is enough for me anyway to get an understanding of Samkhya philosophy.
like you surya deva, I am intellectually oriented in all my pursuits. So I will say that what has helped me is reading western philosophy. you already “intellectually” understand an eastern perspective, which now seems to wiegh you down. give your mind something else with which to play with and strengthen its conceptual arsenal. you seem caught up in applying the eastern philosphy–which was created in the eastern tradition/language/thought structure–to what was already a very western way of life.
which is tough. start with your base, the west, then go east.
read some plato, "phaedo"
and if you really wanted to take a few steps up…i suggest Kan’ts “prolegomena”.
Kant has been the greatest ‘western’ thinker to philosophically layout the workings of the mind.
these texts use the mind to erase its egoistic tendencies.
and just from reading this whole thread, it seems that what people are trying to tell you is that you are attached to having all this knowledge. which you always respond with “YOU ALL(everyone else) are missing the point”
that is, being intelligent is like having a large cell in prison. (read that somewhere)
in not being smarter than you,
smiles
[B]SPIRITUAL GENERAL WARNING: Conceptualizing the Indescribable Cause?s Exhaustion.[/B]
[QUOTE=ray_killeen;72793][B]SPIRITUAL GENERAL WARNING: Conceptualizing the Indescribable Cause?s Exhaustion.[/B][/QUOTE]
does “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger” apply here?
like you surya deva, I am intellectually oriented in all my pursuits. So I will say that what has helped me is reading western philosophy. you already “intellectually” understand an eastern perspective, which now seems to wiegh you down. give your mind something else with which to play with and strengthen its conceptual arsenal. you seem caught up in applying the eastern philosphy–which was created in the eastern tradition/language/thought structure–to what was already a very western way of life.
which is tough. start with your base, the west, then go east.
I don’t feel weighed down by my knowledge, I feel like the knowledge has really helped me develop conviction in spirituality, because I get it and understand it. It has helped me overcome my doubts: I have no doubts for instance that I am the soul(not the body) That my subtle body exists and transmigrates from body to body. The laws of karma and reincarnation. The existence of higher planes of reality. The infinite potential and powers of the mind. I have no doubts about the efficacy and the necessity of the spiritual path. For me these are not beliefs, I accept them as facts as I do any other fact. This is why this knowledge has been really helpful, not a burden.
I have studied Western philosophy. I have read all the texts you just mentioned and more so. No, I do not agree that Western philosophy is a few steps up, if anything it is many steps down compared to Eastern philosophy. In the Western tradition of philosophy I like Plato, Kant and Sartre. In general though Western philosophy does not reach the same level of sophistication in treating issues of ethics, metaphysics, mind and consciousness, the Eastern philosophical tradition has done much more useful work in this area. The area of Western philosophy where it strength lie are in science and technology(empirical and materialist philosophy)
and just from reading this whole thread, it seems that what people are trying to tell you is that you are attached to having all this knowledge. which you always respond with “YOU ALL(everyone else) are missing the point”
Nope, not everybody has been trying to tell me I am attached to my knowledge. No I do not respond to everybody they are missing the point. I am not attached to my knowledge. It is just a useful tool that has helped me understand spirituality
in not being smarter than you,
I have no idea what you are saying.
[QUOTE=hatcherc;72794]does “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger” apply here?[/QUOTE]
There?s some irony going on here
This Forum lends itself to Jnana, that?s what you get when you come here; an important aspect in the spiritual is desire, something I don?t doubt Surya utilizes in all avenues of his spiritual quest.