Please recommend a Samkhya philosophy reading

Spirituality
#8

I would not recommend the Samkhya Pravachana Sutram either. It is a very late Samkhya text and contains a lot of ideas which are not representative of Samkhya. The oldest extant text of Samkhya is the Samkhyakarika. A paperback copy is available from the Ramakrishna Math.

Some web resources:

http://www.archive.org/stream/samkhyakarikasof00weldrich/samkhyakarikasof00weldrich_djvu.txt
http://www.easterntradition.org/samkhya%20karika.html


http://ssubbanna.sulekha.com/blog/post/2009/10/samkhya-part-one-the-beginnings.htm
http://www.cix.co.uk/~mandrake/samkhya.htm
http://www.santosha.com/moksha/witness1.html

#9

Ok, I’ll get the Samkhyakarika.
Thank you all.

#10

I just want to make a comment here about the Samkhya Karika versus the Samkhya Pravachana Sutram. The Samkhya Karika is an abridgement of an earlier text. How do we know this? The Karika itself says so. The Karika says that it has left out the ‘controversies’ and also names two chapters that were left out.

The Samkhya Karika is excellent and I don’t want to diminish its importance, but since it is a condensed version, you cannot get the full depth of the philosophy from it. It is purported to have been written by Krishna himself. To my way of thinking, the leaving out of the ‘controversies’ and the claimed authorship by Krishna was a clear attempt to sanitize the philosophy and to establish the officially recognized Hindu version of Samkhya.

On the other hand, the Samkhya Pravachana Sutram contains the complete version of the philosophy. It contains all of the controversial material that was omitted from the Karika, and it contains the two chapters that were left out of the Karika. If you read both texts, one can easily see how the Karika could have been derived from the Samkhya Pravachana Sutram. However, it is difficult to see how the Samkhya Pravachana Sutram could have been derived from the Karika, as the Hindu scholars claim.

The Samkhya Pravachana Sutram is instructive not only for the work itself, but also for the commentaries it contains. There are two important commentators, Anniruddha and Vijnana Bhiksu. Vijnana Bhiksu’s commentary is extensive and provides very thorough and complete discussions and interpretations of the material, but it also accounts for a lot of its difficulty, since he apparently was a trained philosopher and his writing often gets technical. It is however, indispensible if you want to obtain a really good understanding of the material.

It is currently in vogue among Hindu scholars to claim that the Samkhya Pravachana Sutram could not have been written before the 13th century, because there were no commentaries on it prior to that time. It appears to me that these so-called scholars have not read the work. They also have overlooked that fact that the Karika itself was a derivative work, although technically not a commentary. Vijnana Bhiksu was one of the most eminent scholars of his time, and he believed the Samkhya Pravachana Sutram to be the work of Kapila. So did Anniruddha. So did Nandalal Sinha, another excellent scholar who wrote the translations I referred to in my earlier post. Also, none of the college-level texts that I read made any mention that the SPS might be a later work, so I have to believe that this assertion is itself a recent development, made by people who probably couldn’t get published anywhere other than the Internet.

As one of the few people who have read both, and reflected deeply on them, I believe that the Samkhya Pravachana Sutram is the earlier work.

#11

Where does Samkhya come from?

http://www.samkhya-yoga.com/about/kapila

This links to a one-page article that summarizes a few of the legendary accounts of Paramarsi Kapila, the originator of the Samkhya darsana.

#12

Okay, I’ll read both then.
Thank you

#13

It is currently in vogue among Hindu scholars to claim that the Samkhya Pravachana Sutram could not have been written before the 13th century, because there were no commentaries on it prior to that time.

This is actually a damn good argument for dating something, because it shows that the philosophical community in India were not in possession of the text prior to the 13th century, otherwise there would have been extensive commentaries on it, as there have been on every other major philosophical text. Even the Samkhya school itself does not comment on it until the 13th century, but only on the Samkhyakarika.

There was indeed an original text called Samkhya sutras, that Samkhyakarika was derivative of, but this text had long been lost. In the 13th century a text appeared within the Samkhya school called the ‘Samkhya sutras’ claiming to be that legendary lost text and was structured in exactly the same way the original was suppose to be. This is also a time when in other schools many legendary and lost texts were appearing all of a sudden ascribed to legendary/mythological figures. Thus one can easily see there is more reason to believe the Samkhya sutras is another case of this.

In any case read both, but the Samkhyakarika will give a more accurate understanding of classical Samkhya philosophy as understood by the scholarly community. The later theories of emergent ishvara, or spontaneous creation of prakriti etc are not a part of classical Samkhya, but were rather attempts by later Samkhya philosophers of answering problems posed at it by other schools.

#14

Spoken like a true Hindu. You are entitled to your opinions and your fantasies, but you should not present them as fact.

#15

I don’t know why you blame this on the Hindu scholars, dating texts is the work of indologists, not Hindu scholars. Dating Sanskrit text is always very speculative, since the Hindu scholars have had very little interest in history. Vijnanabhikshu was also a Hindu scholar, in fact he is called the first modern Hindu by some scholars. He drew extensively from Hindu sources like the itihasas and puranas to build his philosophy. He attempted to reconcile the philosophy from the scriptures and vedanta with that of the Sankhya sutras. In this sense, he was a Hindu revivalist, since most Hindu text are talking about an integral metaphysics, not the compart mentalised polemic philosophies of medieval debate clubs.

Please, don’t use Hindu as a swear word.

Quoted from the article from the article you posted.

Kapila himself would probably reject the claim of divinity, since reliance on evidence and reason was a key feature of his philosophy, as opposed to reliance on scripture and divine revelation.

In the Mahabharata, Bhisma explains the difference between Sankhya and Yoga in the following way:

“The followers of yoga rely on experimental methods (pratyaksha hetava) and the followers of Sankhya on scriptural interpretation (shashtra vinishcaya). I consider both of these views true: followed by their instruction, both lead to the ultimate goal.” ~Mahabharata XII.304.1-4

#16

That is a bit of an understatement. Vijnana Bhiksu went to great lengths to try to show that the philosophy does not conflict with the Vedas. Now you may ask yourself, why did he think it was so important to do so? Because prior to his time the work was considered to be contrary to Vedic teachings and was not made available for general use until Vijnana Bhiksu was able to convince the authorities that it was OK.

“The followers of yoga rely on experimental methods (pratyaksha hetava) and the followers of Sankhya on scriptural interpretation (shashtra vinishcaya). I consider both of these views true: followed by their instruction, both lead to the ultimate goal.”

Yes, everybody has an opinion. And if you read through the Srimad Bhagavatam you will find many instances of words attributed to Kapila that are in direct conflict with the accepted authoritative texts. Indian scriptures are full of these kinds of contradictions. What bothers me is why would you attempt to call into question what is well established as one of the hallmarks of Samkhya philosophy? Samkhya is famous for being the first attempt to explain the working of the natural world on the basis of evidence and reason.

#17

[QUOTE=Asuri;71377]That is a bit of an understatement. Vijnana Bhiksu went to great lengths to try to show that the philosophy does not conflict with the Vedas. Now you may ask yourself, why did he think it was so important to do so? Because prior to his time the work was considered to be contrary to Vedic teachings and was not made available for general use until Vijnana Bhiksu was able to convince the authorities that it was OK.
[/quote] Vijnanabhikshu was a very late scholar, he did not have to convince anyone, since Samkhya metaphysics is found in Hindu literature since the upanishads. The reason that he attempted to reconcile different philosophical traditions that existed in medieval times, is simply because an integrated whole of yoga, samkhya, vedanta and bhakti has always been a part of Hindu literature and Vijnanabhikshu thought that the other acharyas have not done justice to this fact with their polemics.

Yes, everybody has an opinion. And if you read through the Srimad Bhagavatam you will find many instances of words attributed to Kapila that are in direct conflict with the accepted authoritative texts. Indian scriptures are full of these kinds of contradictions. What bothers me is why would you attempt to call into question what is well established as one of the hallmarks of Samkhya philosophy? Samkhya is famous for being the first attempt to explain the working of the natural world on the basis of evidence and reason.

The hallmark of Sankhya is simply that it is based on scriptural interpretation and reasoning, while yoga is about direct experimentation and techniques of meditation. This is not in conflict with each other, but the ancient Sankhya doctrine has long been lost and is different from what was known in medieval time as Samkhya, this is recognised by all modern scholars, Hindu or not. Remnants of the ancient philosophy of Sankhya are found spread throughout the ancient Hindu literature, like the upanishads, mahabharata, pancaratra agamas etc.

#18

As I think about this a little more, I realize that the quote is not referring to the differences between the two darsanas, but rather to the methods used by the adherents. Yogis focus more on practice, while followers of Samkhya tend to focus more on knowledge. But his real point is that both are true. And in reality the yoga and samkhya darsanas are closely related.

#19

That is indeed what it says, in the ancient literature yoga and sankhya were simply considered as different MODES of reaching the final goal, not as different metaphysical systems.

#20

You and I both know that this is not true, so the question becomes why are you Hindus so intent on creating conflict and confusion?

Remnants of the ancient philosophy of Sankhya are found spread throughout the ancient Hindu literature, like the upanishads, mahabharata, pancaratra agamas etc.

This again is imprecise and the errors it contains only serve to confuse people. The upanishads are the earliest documents to contain Samkhya thought, but it is scattered about in bits and pieces. These are not remnants of Kapila’s philosophy. At the time of the Upanishads Kapila’s work had not yet been written.

Kapila is universally recognized as being the first to organize Samkhya philosophy in a systematic way. It may be true that the original texts have been lost but his work is well known. There is another text also attributed to Kapila called the Tattva Samasa in addition to the Samkhya Pravachana Sutram.

The Mahabarata, at least the part containing the Bhagavad Gita comes after Kapila. We know this because it mentions Kapila by name. The bits of samkhya contained in the Gita are not remnants of some ancient philosophy. The original texts would have been intact at the time it was written, if you believe that Krishna wrote the Samkhya Karika using the original text as the source, as stated in the Karika.

Of course Hinduism has attempted to integrate samkhya, vedanta, yoga, and bhakti. But there are differences of opinion and belief, especially between samkhya and vedanta, that cannot be fully reconciled. This is a lot like the difference between judaism and christianity. I don’t know why you people can’t accept that.

but the ancient Sankhya doctrine has long been lost and is different from what was known in medieval time as Samkhya, this is recognised by all modern scholars, Hindu or not.

As I said previously, the original texts may have been lost, but the work of Kapila is well known. The academic texts that I studied made no mention of this controversy. That is why I think this is a Hindu thing, and a fairly recent thing. I know you modern scholars think your pretty smart, but I’m going with Vijnana Bhiksu on this one.

#21

I have to disagree. The Samkhya darsana was considered to be at odds with the Vedas. This is stated clearly in the Brahma Sutras. And we know that no disagreement with the Vedas was permitted. So it was necessary to show that the work did not conflict in order for it to released for general use.

#22

Asuri plays the ‘Hindu conspiracy’ card against any point that he has no formal argument for. Almost like playing a race card for every bad incident that happens. He says that only Hindus make the argument that the Samkhya Sutras is a late medieval text, but actually this is the opinion of current scholars, most of whom are Western. Gerald Larson, considered one of the top contemporary scholars on Samkhya, whose major work you can partially read on Google entitled, “History and Samkhya” actually says that the Samkhya Sutras is not representative of classical Samkhya philosophy because it is a late medieval text and to base ones reading of Samkhya on that text would lead to a misleading and inaccurate understanding of classical Samkhya. Like most scholars he based his understanding of classical Samkhya philosophy on the Samkhyakarika. He is not a Hindu.

That is a bit of an understatement. Vijnana Bhiksu went to great lengths to try to show that the philosophy does not conflict with the Vedas. Now you may ask yourself, why did he think it was so important to do so? Because prior to his time the work was considered to be contrary to Vedic teachings and was not made available for general use until Vijnana Bhiksu was able to convince the authorities that it was OK.

No, Vijnana Bhiksh did not try to show that Samkhya does not contradict with the Vedas, he was showing it did not contradict with Vedanta. Samkhya considers itself an Astika philosophy, meaning Vedic. It always has. In the Samkhyakarika it clearly states that Vedic scripture is valid proof to establish what cannot be established by perception and reason. Asuri consistently ignores this fact to try to make Samkhya look like some anti-vedic philosophy like Buddhism, when in fact anybody on this forum can look up Hindu philosophy and Samkhya and confirm that it is in fact considered a Vedic philosophy(Astika, orthodox) Scholarship does not at all agree with what Asuri is saying and most would actually find it quite laughable.

The hallmark of Sankhya is simply that it is based on scriptural interpretation and reasoning

This is the hallmark of Vedanta philosophy, not Samkhya. Asuri is right here Sarva. Samkhya philosophy merely only pays lip service to scripture, it bases all its argument on perception and reasoning. The dual categories of Purusha and prakriti are established purely on the basis of reasoning of empirical data, and no appeal to scripture is made to establish these conclusions(There are 5 arguments for the existence of Purusha and 5 for the existence of Prakriti)

On the other hand, Vedanta philosophy is based on interpretation of the Upanishads and then trying to prove how rational it is using reasoning. Here perception is not very important, and is actually considered a faulty means of knowing reality, because whatever that is perceived is maya. Thus scripture is given importance because it is the vision of reality by rishis who have seen reality beyond maya.

Still more, Yoga is based on direct internal perception, and not ordinary perception. Although it begins with ordinary perception like witnessing your breath etc, the aim is to penetrate into even deeper and internal perception. Hence why Yoga is considered a practical psychology.

To sum up: Yoga is predominantly based on perception; Samkhya predominately on evidence based reasoning, and Vedanta predominately on scripture based reasoning. They all use other means of knowledge as well, but the primary ones are as noted. They do not lead to the same viewpoint of reality, which is why they are considered separate darsanas. The degree of separation between Yoga and Samkhya is small, and it could be even said Yoga is just Samkhya in practice. The degree of separation between Samkhya and Vedanta is much greater, but not as great as Asuri’s exaggeration of Judiasm and Christianity. It is still clear that Samkhya and Vedanta share a similar philosophical root and similar enough for one to draw many similarities, but Vedanta seems to begin where Samkhya ends, and Samkhya is incomplete without the closure Vedanta provides. So in a way Vedanta is Samkhya+.

#23

As to the historical origins of Samkhya: Asuri is again right that classical Samkhya philosophy does not appear until Kapila, and the oldest text we have that describes this philosophy is the Samkhyakarika, which is basically a summary of the original Samkhya sutras which have been lost to antiquity. These Sutras were obviously older than the Gita and Mahabharata, because the Mahabharata and Gita mention Kapila by name. However, they are not as old as the Upanishads, where we find the earliest remnants of Samkhya philosophy, but this Samkhya was more Vedantic. Later, perhaps in reaction to the extreme monism of Vedanta philosophy, classical Samkhya is composed and given a systematic and scientific shape. A more systematic and scientific Samkhya is also evident in the Ayurvedic texts, such as the Charaka Samhita, which is a redaction of the older and original Agnivesa tantra.

#24

Swami Vivekananda has had honesty to praise sage Kapila and his exposition of Samkhya philosophy as, "(If we take into consideration Advaita Vedanta), [B]then our argument will be that the Samkhya is not a perfect generalization[/B], …and yet all glory really belongs to the Samkhya.
http://www.oocities.org/neovedanta/a67.html

#25

I am in complete agreement with Swami Vivekananda, and it echoes what Asuri still perceives to be contradictory, how I can actually prefer Samkhya despite seeing it as an incomplete philosophy to Vedanta which I see as a complete philosophy. This is because Vedanta is not practical, because it deals with the absolute truth of reality. It only gives one a cognitive understanding of absolute reality. However, we do not operate in the absolute reality of infinite, eternal consciousness, but in this relative empirical reality where we are bound by the laws of cause and effect(karma) Thus we are forced to act and to act we must accept temporarily that we are agents of our action.(free will must be assumed) Thus, we must strive to make efforts to unite(Yoga) and this means accepting the dichotomies reality presents us with(subjective-objective, cause and effect, good and bad/positive and negative, pain and pleasure) Despite our knowledge of Brahman, we are still condemned to behave like normal people - work on ourselves, our desires, our relationships. I am no more better than the average person on the street just because I understand Vedanta .

#26

@Seeker33

Nice article, although I have to say the statement that Mahat evolves into Akasha and Prana is a novel interpretation and something I haven’t seen anywhere else. I’m glad that Swami Vivekananda saw fit to praise [I]Kapila[/I]. Even the Samkhya Karika called Kapila Paramarsi (supreme or greatest rsi) yet somehow that seems to have been lost.

#27

This appears to be more dirty tricks. Notice that no link is provided. The only thing I was able to find online was a short excerpt from an appendix to Larson’s book. Larson says nothing of the sort, in fact he says almost exactly the opposite.

That the Samkhya Karika itself was authoritative by A.D 300 may be a hasty conclusion on Hacker’s part, for it is just as likely that the classical text or tradition which had become authoritative was the [I]sastitantra[/I] (the tradition of “sixty topics”) of which the Samkhya Karika purports to be a later summary.

Here is the link

The quote appears on page 288.