[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.
SD, you are too smart for me… I can read and comprehend your posts…
[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.
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.
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.
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.
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 
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
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 
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.
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.
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.
because scripture cannot overrule the evidence obtained from observation.
Yes it can, and the Karika itself admits it:
- The unseen can only be established through reasoning based on general observations. And those unseen things which cannot be established even through reasoning, testimony and yogic revelation can establish them.
The 26th principle(Brahman) is an example of an unseen thing which can only be established through the testimony of yogic revelation.
Vedanta does not actually overrule what we establish through perception and reasoning. It accepts its reality as relative and practical. However, at the level of absolute reality it shows that that this relative and practical reality is just a projection from consciousness. This still does not mean it is any less real or important, it simply means that essentially the actual substance of reality is consciousness. It all takes place within consciousness. Consciousness is the first cause of reality.
Samkhya accepts the existence of many things whichn cannot be established through observation and reasoning, for example the existence of Brahma, celestial beings, angels, spirits and spirit realms. These are established only on the force of testimony from scripture.
Yes it can, and the Karika itself admits it:
You are saying here that if scripture says the earth is flat, that can overrule evidence that the earth is round. If you are going to indulge your penchant for endless, pointless, ridiculous argument and one-up-man-ship, you’re going to have to do it alone.
Nobody says scripture can stand alone as proof. Obviously, even Vedantins do not believe that scripture is proof by itself, hence why they use reasoning to justify what the scripture says and refute what is against scripture.
A statement like “the earth is flat” can be easily contradicted. There is no reasoning one could produce to justify this statement except that appears that the Earth is flat from an optical point of view. This can be contradicted from a 3D point of view.
However, the statement, “The Earth is round” can also be contradicted in the same way. It only appears the Earth is round from a 3D point of view, but actually there is no form as such from the atomic point of view. It is 99% empty space, and its solidity is owing to the electrons circulating rapidly around the nucleus producing the sensation of touch.
Vedanta considers this kind of reality which can be contradicted as relative and practical. It does not say it is unreal and not important, it says that it can ultimately be contradicted. Vedanta looks at the reality which cannot be contradicted and what cannot be contradicted is absolutely true. Now consider the postulations of Samkhya:
- Matter is changing, composite, active, objective, productive, has properties of pain and pleasure etc
- Consciousness is unchanging, non-composite, witnessing seeing, devoid of pain, pleasure and agency
Therefore
- The truth of matter can be contradicted
- The truth of consciousness cannot be contradicted
Consciousness simply is, it spaceless, timeless, absolute, free of all pain and pleasure. It is there even before there was manifest matter. It will be there even after there is no unmanifest matter. This truth is also accepted by Samkhya.
Now we can derive that if consciousness is spacless, timeless, absolute. It is identical to beingness and existence: Hence in Vedanta it is called sat(existence) and chit(consciousness). If consciousness is existence, then it means everything which happens happens within consciousness.
So Vedanta derive yet another conclusion: All forms(matter) are arising from consciousness and merging back into consciousness alone. Like all waves rise and merge back into the sea. Hence the Vedanta mahavakyas:
- All is consciousness
- You are consciousness
- I am consciousness
These truths can be supported by statements that cannot be contradicted(unlike the Earth is flat)
- If there is no consciousness, there is no reality
- Everything that happens is what we are conscious ‘of’ (i.e. is an object of our consciousnesses)
- The same consciousness that exists in the the state of deep sleep and dream, also exists in our waking sate
Vedanta is basically Samkhya Plus. Where Samkhya ends, Vedanta begins.
Samkhya begins at the waking state of consciousness of observer and object. Why? Because we all begin at this level only from the moment we are born, we find ourselves as observers in a world of objects. We also find that this world of objects is independent of us and thus observer-object dualism is a logical conclusion we have to make based on the reality of our waking consciousness.
However, when we start to interrogate this sharply drawn divide between observer and object at the waking state of consciousness, we soon start to see cracks in it. e.g., there is also observer and object dualism in the dream state of consciousness, but we know for a fact that this is all produced within our consciousness. In the state of deep sleep all objects disappear. However, we know that the consciousness which remembers being in deep sleep, which remembers being in dream, which now is reminiscing in waking is the same consciousness. Therefore, all these three states take place within this consciousness alone.
Unfortunately, because most of what we can remember clearly is our waking state of consciousness we treat waking life as the only reality that is real and accept that as a solid fact(correct knowledge) Hence, why we constantly return to the waking state and cannot freely enter into other states at our whim. We are locked down in waking because of our strong belief it is the only reality.
Vedanta is simply a reminder for us all that the waking state of reality is not the only reality, but rather is one level of reality within the vast infinite field of consciousness. We are present at all levels at all times.
“because scripture cannot overrule the evidence obtained from observation.”
If that is true, then which scriptures will be considered the ones with absolute authority ? You are speaking of scriptures as though they are all in agreement with one another. They are not. The Christian scriptures are not in agreement with the Buddhist scriptures. The Buddhist scriptures, even in Buddhism alone, are not always in agreement with one another. The scriptures of the Brahmins which give absolute authority to the Vedas as divine revelation are not in agreement with that of the Buddhists. The Jain scriptures have a different attitude and approach than the Christian, Buddhist, and Hindu scriptures. The Jewish scriptures are also competitors for absolute authority - they are equally convinced that the Torah is a divine revelation from God himself. Like the Brahmins, they also believe that Hebrew is a divine language which has come from the angels of God, just as the Brahmins believe that Sanskrit is a divine language, more divine than any other. The Quran is of course, like the Torah, the Bible, and the Vedas, also a divine revelation from God himself to the last and final prophet, Muhammed. It seems either God has multiple personality disorder, continues changing his mind all the time, or somebody here is hallucinating. Which of these scriptures will attain the first prize of being on the pedestal of absolute authority ?
Dont become too obsessed with this idea that if something is written in scripture, then it is without question. This is just a form of slavery to sacrifice your own intelligence for the sake of protection of your ego. Protection, because it always gives enormous nourishment that your beliefs and ideas have a divine seal of approval. Like this, most of the organized religions on the planet have been quarreling like hungry children for this divine seal of approval, often at the expense of excluding everybody else who does not agree. So if it is a question of something being truthful just because it is written in scripture, then we have a big problem. We will have to decide which of these scriptures, and especially in India there are thousands of scriptures that have been born out of the spiritual traditions, carry the divine seal of authority.
All of this attachment to the scriptures is simply because, by yourself you are inwardly completely empty. Because an inner revelation has not happened which has transformed your life, you have been left unfulfilled in such a way that one needs to cling to some scripture or belief system to fill the void.
- Matter is changing, composite, active, objective, productive, has properties of pain and pleasure etc
- Consciousness is unchanging, non-composite, witnessing seeing, devoid of pain, pleasure and agency
Therefore
- The truth of matter can be contradicted
- The truth of consciousness cannot be contradicted
Do not misconstrue my silence as agreement with anything that is said here. The quoted statement in particular is a complete non-sequitor and makes no sense whatsoever. However, I guess you can’t stop a preacher from preaching.
It should make sense, it is basic English and basic Samkhya
Which part are you disagreeing with?
This part:
- Matter is changing, composite, active, objective, productive, has properties of pain and pleasure etc
- Consciousness is unchanging, non-composite, witnessing seeing, devoid of pain, pleasure and agency
Or this part:
Therefore
- The truth of matter can be contradicted
- The truth of consciousness cannot be contradicted
“Consciousness is unchanging”
Tell me, is consciousness a fixed, static object - or is it a flowing process ? If it is a process, then how can it be changeless ? Even for anything to be changeless, would be to impose a limiting quality - it is simply the opposite of change. If we accept that Truth is simply inexpressible, that it is not something that can be grasped through thought - then it is neither of change nor is it changeless. If you say it is of change, you fail to recognize it as the very ground of nature itself. If you say that it is changeless, you fail to recognize its creative capability. Both would be to cling to one-sided views and perspectives. But that is the problem with all of these intellectual models of existence, whether Samkhya or any other model, if you are grasping onto these descriptions as though they can contain the inexpressible reality, you fall immediately into delusion. These models, at the most, can be useful tools. But once these tools start sticking to hands, they are far more of a nuisance than anything else.