Observation vs Scripture

[Asuri]

[B]Note: This is re-posted here with slight modifications for ease of future reference[/B]

Samkhya builds up its philosophy based on the theory of pre-existent effect. It says that the effect pre-exists within the cause e.g., the apple preexists within the apple seed. On the face of it this sounds like a strong argument(and Samkhya gives 5 solid proofs for why this is true) but if we scrutinize it further we will see that the effect is not identical with the cause completely. The apple is not the same as the apple seed.

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.

What does Vedanta have to say about this? The following is a quote from the Brahma Sutra, an authoritative document of Vedanta:

Topic-5: The first Cause Possessed of Consciousness
5. The Pradhana of the Samkhyas is not the cause of the universe, because it is not mentioned in the Upanishads, which fact is clear from the fact of seeing (or thinking).
6. If it be argued that the seeing is in a secondary sense, we say, not so, owing to the use of the word Self.
7. (Pradhana is not the meaning of the word “Self”), because liberation is promised for one who holds on to That.
8. (Pradhana has not been spoken of even indirectly), because there is no subsequent mention of its rejection, and (because that militates against the assertion at the beginning).
9. Because of the merger of the individual into his own Self.
10. Because the knowledge (gathered from the various Upanishads) is the same (as regards Consciousness being the cause).
11. And because (Brahman is) revealed (as such) in the Upanishads.

We can see clearly that the primary objection to the Samkhya theory of Prakriti (Pradhana) is that it is contrary to the Upanishads. This is a huge difference in approach. Samkhya starts with observation and uses reason to draw inferences about the nature of reality. Vedanta starts from scripture and uses reason to rationalize it. The unhappy consequence of this is that it leads to conclusions that are counterintuitive, unnatural, contrary to experience, and wrong.

If the cause can only produce what it already contains, then how does an unmanifest something produce a manifest something? That makes no sense. The best answer is given by Vedanta that an unmanifest something never can produce a manifest something, the manifest is just an illusion i.e., creation is an illusion. There has never been a creation and never will be. Time and space are just illusions that exist in our minds.

Here we can see that Surya Deva has missed the main point of the Theory of Existent Effects, which is that an effect can only be produced from a material that is competent to produce it. His rationale is motivated by the need to defend the authority of the Upanishads, which say that Brahman is the cause of the universe. He doesn’t really provide any valid reasoning, he just says, this is not possible, it makes no sense. Samkhya explains how it is possible.

The theory of Prakriti states that it has three constituent substances called gunas, and that all of the manifestations of nature occur through different combinations of the gunas in which one or the other predominates. In the root Prakriti, which is unmanifest, the gunas are said to be in equilibrium, and when the balance is disturbed Prakriti begins to manifest. So even though it is unmanifest, the root Prakriti is still a material that is competent to produce the effects of manifest nature.

This directly answers the question how does an unmanifest something produce a manifest something? The short answer is, when Prakriti is unmanifest, the gunas are in equilibrium. When the equilibrium is disturbed, the gunas begin to manifest. But it begs the question, what causes the equilibrium to be disturbed? This is answered by thetheory of the emergent Isvara.

Now that we understand the gunas, we can refine the definition of Purusa to [I]that which is [B]not[/B] composed of the gunas[/I]. This makes it more clear that Purusa is not a material that is competent to produce the effects of nature.

[CityMonk]

Asuri, thanks for compiling the confusing conversation in to meaningful great post! Some “food” for my morning 4am meditation…

[Surya_Deva]

Asuri has decided to start another thread to reiterate his arguments. In which case I will reiterate my arguments too, however very briefly here - more detail can be found in the Samhya vs Vedanta original thread.

We can see clearly that the primary objection to the Samkhya theory of Prakriti (Pradhana) is that it is contrary to the Upanishads.

This is a strawman fallacy Asuri is setting up. A strawman fallacy is when you deliberately misrepresent or misquote the position of somebody(in this case the arguments of Vedanta against Samkhya) to make their arguments seem weaker, and then refute the weaker misrepresented one.

Asuri’s strawman is Vedanta says Samkhya is wrong just because it is against scripture and he misquotes from the Brahma Sutras to support this. Actually, the Brahma sutras dedicates an entire section to analyzing and refuting the arguments of Samkhya:

Brahma Sutras, Section II, Topic 1: Samkhya view refuted(Translated by Swami Ghambirananda)

1. The inferred one(Pradhana) is not the cause owing to the impossiblity of explaining the design(in the universe)

2. And Pradhana cannot be the cause, since the tendency to create cannot arise within it(because it is insentient)

3. If it is claimed that Pradhana acts spontaneously like milk and water(milk acts to nourish calves and water for the good of people), then even then intelligence is needed as a guide.

4. And Pradhana cannot be the cause, since(nothing external to it exist, so that) it has nothing to rely on(for impulsion to or stoppage from action)

5. And Pradhana cannot change automatically like grass etc(into milk in a cow) for such a change does not occur elsewhere(e.g. in a bull)

6. Even if(spontaneous modification of Pradhana be) accepted, still(Pradhana will not be the cause) because of the absence of any purpose

7. If it be argued that like a lame man(riding on a blind man) or a magnet(moving iron) the soul can stimulate(pradhana), even then the defect persists.

8. Besides, Pradhana cannot act on the account of the impossibility of(the existence of) any relationship of the principal and its subordinates(among the gunas constituting the Pradhana)

9. And even if inference be purusued otherwise(still the defect will persist) owing to absence of power of intelligence in pradhana.

10. And the Samkhya doctrine is incoherent because of its inherent contradictions

It is evident here that Asuri’s argument that Vedanta’s principal argument against Samkhya is because it is against scripture is an obvious straw man. Vedanta gives 10 formal logical arguments against Samkhya and Asuri has not addressed a single one. He continues to address the strawman he has created, and pretends this section of the Brahma sutras does not exist.

Now questions must be asked why is Asuri not actually engaging with what Vedanta really says and would prefer to engage with what it doesn’t say? What is the point of having a discussion or debate if you are not even going to represent your opponents position/argument accurately?

Asuri loses this debate by default due to his strawman fallacy. He does not actually have any valid arguments. When he actually engaged with the 10 or so arguments against Samkhya that the Brahma Sutras cite against Samkhya, then we can say he is actually arguing(or at least trying to) By continuing to pretend the only argument Vedanta makes against Samkhya is, “it is against scriptures” He is either fooling himself or he is trying to fool us.

[Surya_Deva]

Here we can see that Surya Deva has missed the main point of the Theory of Existent Effects, which is that an effect can only be produced from a material that is competent to produce it. His rationale is motivated by the need to defend the authority of the Upanishads, which say that Brahman is the cause of the universe. He doesn’t really provide any valid reasoning, he just says, this is not possible, it makes no sense. Samkhya explains how it is possible.

Now Asuri is setting up another strawman, this time against me. He says my only rationale is to defend the authority of the Upanishads. This is an accusation with no substance. It is also contrary to what I told Asuri when he accused me Vedanta was my religious beliefs:

would not say Vedanta is a part of my religious beliefs, as I am not really a religious person at all. I do not go temples or on pilgrimages and live largely a normal secular life. I only accept the philosophical conclusions of Vedanta, which does mean accepting the existence of god, but the type of god I accept is not a religious god, but a conceptual god: God as pure being or infinite reality. If Vedanta was demonstrated to me to be have an error, I would have to renounce its conclusions. A religious person would not do that, they would continue to maintain it as an article of faith. I am not a faith driven person.

Here I explicitly say that I am not bound by the authority of scriptures and would renounce Vedanta if the philosophy was demonstrated to be erroneous. So despite this why does Asuri continue to maintain these accusations?

He also claims that my only argument against Samkhya is that it does not make sense or it is not possible(like he claims the only argument Vedanta makes against Samkhya is that it is against scripture) This is an obvious lie, and it would be very clear for anybody who reviews the original thread, I spend about 3 pages pointing out the logical flaws in Samkhya and deconstructing it. It is really beyond me how Asuri can be so blind to that.

I will summarize the three principal objections I made against Samkhya

1. The problem of creation: How and why does creation take place? What causes the gunas to break out of balance? How does the unmanifest lead to the manifest?
2. The problem of interaction and having two infinite separate entities: How do separate infinities interact with one another? What is the medium via which they can interact?
3. The problem of many purushas/individual souls? If there are many individual souls and nature evolves to serve them all, then why is there is one universe that all individuals souls share and not infinite universes per each soul? How does nature serve the needs of two souls that have opposite needs? How can insentient nature know what exactly the soul needs? If each soul is just a passive witness of nature and her products like body, mind, ego, personality, then shouldn’t each soul be identical?

So that is 3 major arguments from me against Samkhya and 10 major arguments from Vedanta against Samkhya - and Asuri has not dealt with a single one. However, to be fair he attempts to tackle the problem of creation, but I will show in the next post how he ends up playing yet another fallacy and not actually dealing with the argument at all in the end.

Note: I will take no credit for noticing these problems in Samkhya philosophy. These problems are well known to students of Samkhya philosophy and Samkhya scholars both in the East and West. I am simply describing them.

[Surya_Deva]

This directly answers the question how does an unmanifest something produce a manifest something? The short answer is, when Prakriti is unmanifest, the gunas are in equilibrium. When the equilibrium is disturbed, the gunas begin to manifest. But it begs the question, what causes the equilibrium to be disturbed? This is answered by the theory of the emergent Isvara.

I will answer this in two parts:

1)The Guna breaking out of balance theory of how the unmanifest becomes manifest
2)The emergent Isvara theory

1. Here the fallacy of begging the question(aka circular reasoning) has been used. In this fallacy the arguer uses the very proposition they are trying to prove as as their proof.

The problem of creation poses the challenge how does the unmanifest universe become manifest in response to the Samkhya guna breaking out of balance theory: Asuri does not actually answer this question, but instead gives the Samkhya breaking out of balance theory as an answer, when the question is actually questioning the theory in the first place!

The question is asking why should the unmanifest gunas breaking out of a balance lead to any manifestation at all? An unmanifest thing coming out of balance takes place in an unmanifest reality, so why should it lead to anything manifest? To illustrate: You have an imaginary world and a real world. In the imaginary world an imaginary mega explosion takes place, would that imaginary explosion have any impact in the real world? No, just as an explosion taking place in a virtual reality would no impact on the actual reality.

This objection actually takes the Samkhya theory of pre-existent effects to its logical conclusion. If the effect preexists within the cause, then the effect should be identical to the cause, if it is not identical, then it means something new has come into being, leading to the problem of something coming from nothing.

Another theory by a rival school of philosophy Nyaya-Vaiseshika(school of realism) argues the theory of the effect not being pre-existent(non identity of cause and effect)
An argument they give is that sound is not eternal, because it is produced, whatever is produced is non eternal, therefore sound is not eternal. Samkhya counter this by arguing that there is a problem of something coming from nothing, and it is observed that something never comes from nothing. Therefore sound had to be already preexistent and unmanifest in the cause, and certain conditions allowed it to manifest.

It sounds very logical, but there is a big problem: The sound that is manifest and produced and the sound that is unmanifest and unproduced are not identical, in the same way an apple seed is not identical to the apple it grows. Therefore still something is coming from nothing and Samkhya thus ends up in contradiction.

So Vedanta points out a huge problem in the Samkhya pre-existent effect theory and proves it to be an impossibility. It is impossible that the effect can be different from the cause, so therefore we must conclude that whatever effect we see only has apparent difference, but is essentially the same as the cause.

Note: It will become clear that Vedanta rather than being a whole different philosophy is really just a more consistent and problem free version of Samkhya. The problems that Samkhya has are solved by Vedanta.

[Surya_Deva]

2)The emergent Isvara theory

I have demolished this ‘theory’ in Asuri’s other thread.

[Asuri]

The problem with Surya Deva is that he does not argue against what I actually say, he misrepresents what I said, and then argues against that. A few examples:

Asuri’s strawman is Vedanta says Samkhya is wrong just because it is against scripture

I said that being contrary to scripture is the [I]primary[/I] objection, not the [I]only[/I] objection.

he misquotes from the Brahma Sutras to support this

I did not misquote. It is an exact quote, and I provided a citation so that anyone can see it is an exact quote.

He says my only rationale is to defend the authority of the Upanishads

I did not say that, I said that the rationale is [I][B]motivated by [/B][/I]the need to defend the authority of the Upanishads.

He also claims that my only argument against Samkhya is that it does not make sense or it is not possible

I did not say that, I was referring specifically to the argument he made in the section I quoted. This is his excuse for what follows, which really is an effort to distract attention away from the fact that his argument is in deep trouble.

There is no strawman fallacy on [I]my[/I] part. It’s clear that Surya Deva’s arguments are dishonest. I’m not sure that there’s any point in responding further.

[Surya_Deva]

I did not misquote. It is an exact quote, and I provided a citation so that anyone can see it is an exact quote.

Asuri did actually misquote from the Brahma sutras by selectively citing a part in the Brahma sutras that deals with a different topic, “Topic-5: The first Cause Possessed of Consciousness” this topic deals with some arguments why Brahman is the first cause as described in the Upanishads, and makes only a passing reference to the popular rival theory of Pradhana of the Samkhyans. Asuri takes this and presents it to us as the “primary argument” of Vedanta against Samkhya.

Yet look at how dishonest this man is, he misses out an entire section in the Brahma Sutras entitled, “Refutation of Samkhya” this section very specifically deals with Samkhya and why Vedantins think it is wrong. As we can see more than 10 solid arguments are given(and these arguments are later analysed by later Vedanta scholars with hair splitting precision) and not a single argument says, “Because it is against the Upanishads”

This dishonest man continues to hang onto his straw man, even though it has been thoroughly exposed and still - no surprises I guess - has nor engaged not even one of the 10 arguments Vedanta makes against Samkhya. What a pathetic defender of Samkhya. Isn’t the whole point of defending Samkhya to actually engage with the criticisms, rather than ignore them?

I think what this thread will be useful for future reference is to let Yoga readers know that it is futile having any debate with Asuri, because he is a nightmare to debate with. He never actually engages any of the arguments you make, he engages in relentless personal attacks and accusations and plays every fallacy in the book(so far we have had adhominems, strawmans, begging the question) and never concedes even when he is clearly shown to be in the wrong.

So if anybody ever wants to engage Asuri in any kind of intellectual debate, argument or discussion, be forewarned it will likely be waste of your time and energy. Asuri is just not a reasonable or honest person. He has already admitted indirectly to be a Christian fundamentalist, when he attacked a Hindu member on this board by calling them, “a cow-piss drinking dot head” and then later called it “a defense of his christian heritage” This is what were up against.

[Asuri]

[QUOTE=CityMonk;69728]Asuri, thanks for compiling the confusing conversation in to meaningful great post! Some “food” for my morning 4am meditation…[/QUOTE]

CityMonk,

You’re quite welcome. I’m happy to hear that someone got some benefit from this.

[CityMonk]

SD, you are too smart for me… I can read and comprehend your posts…

[ray_killeen]

[QUOTE=CityMonk;70377]SD, you are too smart for me… I can read and comprehend your posts…[/QUOTE]

The philosophy of Advaita Vedānta is an exercise in intellectual gymnastics, of course we all have to think in this human experience therefore some Jnana yoga is necessary but knowledge is a process of the finite mind, unable to effectively rationalize that which lies beyond the mind, therefore degrees of intellect have nothing to do with any direct experience one may obtain of the absolute infinite.

[Asuri]

I’ve found some rock solid evidence to support my position. The following quote appears in Gerald Larson’s book on Classical Samkhya, on page 210. According to Larson, the quote appears in two places in the Vedanta-Sutra-Bhasya, written by Sankara himself. Although it appears in a different context, the quote reveals Sankara’s motivation for his criticism of other philosophies:

…we have taken special trouble to refute the pradhana (Samkhya) doctrine, without paying much attention to the atomic and other theories. These latter theories, however, must also be refuted, [I][B]because they are opposed to the doctrine of Brahmin being the general cause[/B][/I]…

Now I expect that a number of posts are likely to follow in an effort to obscure the truth.

[Surya_Deva]

As always Asuri’s arguments are hot air.

The doctine of Brahman being the first cause is the doctrine of Advaita. So of course Sankara, a major philosopher of the tradition is going to say that he wants to refute other doctrines opposed to it.

I find it hilarious how Asuri always presents these meaningless arguments that never establish his points as the smoking gun lol Asuri has never made a valid argument in his entire post history here.

[Asuri]

And of course, Surya Deva has no valid counter argument, so he resorts to personal attacks. Yet he considers himself a scholar. Unfortunately Surya Deva has little regard for truth. His only concern is to advance himself and his personal agenda, Since he is so lacking in integrity, is willing to use any tactic to advance his cause, no matter how underhanded or corrupt.

[Surya_Deva]

There cannot be a counter-argument, when there is no argument. You have no argument.
The doctrine of Brahman being the first cause is the doctrine of Advaita, so of course a proponent of Advaita is going to say, “We must oppose doctrines opposed to our own” Just as a proponent of Samkhya is going to say, “We must oppose doctrines opposed to our own” or a Sunya vada Buddhist is going to say the same thing.

You don’t seem to get philosophy do you? It’s a philosophers job to justify their doctrine and refute the doctrine of others. All you prove by citing the quote above that Sankara is a philosopher of Advaita - lol, yeah we know that already

[Surya_Deva]

Your argument that Vedanta’s argument against other doctrines is only because it against scripture has already been exposed as a strawman. In the text you quoted from, 10 solid arguments are given against the doctrine of Samkhya in the chapter entitled, 'Refutation of Samkhya", and not a single one says, “because it is against scripture”

Why can’t you be honest for once, or actually make an actual argument lol

[Surya_Deva]

By the way members on this board need to stop just reading these threads and sitting on the fence - and actually get involved. If you agree with something, say it; disagree, say it

[Asuri]

Well, it’s really not that hard to connect the dots. The doctrine of Brahman as the first cause comes from scripture, not from observations of nature. And of course their arguments don’t say ‘because it is against scripture’, because being against scripture isn’t a rational argument. It is, however, the driving force that motivates all of the other arguments.

I don’t think I can make it any clearer. If you still can’t understand that, I’m afraid I can’t help you.

[Surya_Deva]

Indeed, the doctrine of Brahman come from scripture. It does not come from observation. It comes from the superconscious experience of the Risis. This has never been disputed and it is admitted by all Vedantins. Vedanta accepts scripture as the the highest proof. However, Vedantins know that nobody can be convinced by saying, “Scripture says so, therefore it is proof” this is why Vedantins use rational argumentation to justify the scripture and refute other doctrines. This is why it is philosophy.

Vedanta is not actually technically in contradiction with Samkhya. As Samkhya themselves admit in the Karika that those things which exist which cannot be established neither by perception and inference, are established by testimony from authority and scripture. Brahman is an example of an existent thing which cannot be established by neither perception or inference, but only by scripture.

[Asuri]

Samkhya is very much in disagreement with Vedanta on this issue, because scripture cannot overrule the evidence obtained from observation. In order for Samkhya to be in agreement with Vedanta, there would have to be a 26th principle, which would be an underlying unity of purusa and prakriti. Samkhya does not recognize a 26th principle.

In order to claim both philosophies, Hindus have to claim that such a syncretism exists, and there is no doubt that they believe it to be so, but this is not reflected in the classical form of the philosophy.