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.
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.
The quote appears on page 288.
I am using the definition of the Mahabharata when saying Sankhya is based on scriptural interpretation. The Mahabharata can be considered posterior to the appearance of Maharshi Kapilacharya, but it is older than both the Samkhya Karika and the Samkhya Sutras which are late texts. I am distinguishing here between Samkhya of Kapila (which is clouded in mystery, but is traceable throughout Hindu literature) versus the Samkhya of the karikas/ sutras and also between vedanta as the portions of the vedic corpus relating to Jnana versus the philosophical systems of the medieval acharyas. That may have caused some confusion.
Another thing I have to add is that Asuri confuses Ishvarakrishna, the author of the Karikas with Bhagavan Sri Krishna. Ishvarakrishna is the name of the person who wrote the Karikas, many people are named after gods. They were not trying to make it look like it was written by the God Krishna.
Wait a minute. Isvara is usually translated as ‘Lord’ or ‘The Lord’. So you’re saying that the author’s name was ‘Lord Krishna’, not to be confused with Krishna of the Bhagavad Gita? I think I’m finished here. Nobody seems to have anything real to add to the conversation.
[QUOTE=Asuri;71488]@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.[/QUOTE]Mahat is two types, Mahat Ahamkara/Ego/ and Mahat Manasa/Superego/.
I guess I’m not finished yet. First of all I want to point out that what Swami Vivekananda praised, was sage Kapila [I]and his exposition of Samkhya philosophy[/I]. The reader can figure out what is meant by his exposition of Samkhya philosophy. Thank you very much for that.
Just so we can clear up any confusion as to what constitutes the twenty-five principles, we can go directly to the source. SPS Book1 Sutra 61.
Prakriti is the state of quiescence of sattva, rajas, and tamas. From Prakriti (evolves) Mahat; from Mahat Ahamkara; from Ahamkara, the Tan-matras and the two sets of Indriyas; from the Tan-matras, the gross elements; then there is Purusa.
The two sets of Indriyas are explained by Aniruddha as follows:
External:
The Instruments of action: Voice, hands, feet, anus, and genital,
The instruments of cognition: Eye, ear, nose, tongue, and skin.
Internal:
Manas or mind, having characteristics of both cognition and action.
The five tan-matras are: sound, touch, form (or color), flavor, and smell.
The five gross elements are: ether (or akasha), air, fire, water, and earth.
This classification is consistent throughout the authoritative literature. Anything else is either interpretation or error, or something other than samkhya.
The Samkhya you are referring to is not really recognized as Samkhya, but rather as proto-Samkhya. At this point Samkhya has not yet developed into a full philosophical system. It is only mentioned partially in the Mahabharata, but the Mahabharata is not a philosophical text, but an epic poem. The only evidence we have of a systematic philosophical Samkhya is as evinced in the Karika, and it is this Samkhya which is known as classical Samkhya in scholarship. It is considered defining of what Samkhya is. This philosophical Samkhya is very different to the scattered Samkhya thoughts in the Mahabharata, and is based on evidence-based reasoning. It has no place for god in its system.
Similarly, the Upanishads are not Vedanta philosophy, but rather they are proto-Vedanta. Vedanta does not emerge as a full philosophical system until the sage Badarayana composes the Brahma Sutras. Even then, Vedanta does not take full shape until Adisankarcharya explicates and interpret the philosophy.
The Upanishads contain both proto-Samkhya and proto-Vedanta thought, but it can be argued they are more strongly Vedantic than Samkhyan.
[QUOTE=panoramix;71282]Okay, I’ll read both then.
Thank you[/QUOTE]
I have found you a copy of the the same Samkhyakarika paperback copy I have published by Ramakrisha Math. This is particularly good, because it has the commentary of Vacaspati Mishra, a major ancient Samkhya scholar.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;71478]…I am no more better than the average person on the street just because I understand Vedanta .[/QUOTE]
What you wrote makes much logic, before awareness of Vedanta “wake up, take a shower, go to work” after awareness of Vedanta ?wake up, take a shower, go to work" but the perspective is completely different, not?
It surly seems that this rapidly changing stream of momentary manifestations in human consciousness is illusionary, therefore anything that is changing is not real and that which is not changing is real, i.e.; I eat, I exercise, I work, I write etc., where the eating, exercising, working, writing is changing but the ?I? is constant reality. Therefore acknowledging ?I AM? self inquiring ?WHO AM I?? seems to help peel away the layers towards the source of one?s true inner nature. Perhaps one begins to recognize; I am not this finite body, mind or vital energy, identifying more with the source that which was never born, will never die, the infinite awareness that lies beyond the minds. This realization may permit one to act spontaneously without interference of attractions/aversion/likes/dislikes of the mind, veils of maya are lifted clarity of reality is revealed, one begins to operate though natural inner intelligence, decisions from a completely different perspective, ?wake up, take a shower, go to work?.
My credibility is fine. It is you and your phony dissertation that have repeatedly been embarrassed so I understand your jealousy. I actually have no problem with your quote (1) from Gerald Larson. As I said Vijnana Bhiksu went to great lengths to reconcile samkhya with the vedas and with vedanta, and for that reason, some of his translations and explanations have to be taken with a grain of salt. I’m fully aware of this. Nevertheless, his commentary and the other commentaries that are included in the Nandalal Sinha’s book are the best available to most readers, who have neither the time nor the inclination to make a career out of trying to decipher volumes of Indian scriptures.
It’s really funny to me that you think you can just announce I’m wrong and you’re right and carry on as if those are the facts. You’ve proven time and again that you cannot have a discussion without entering into these despicable personal attacks. People who have followed this forum know that I’ve repeatedly exposed your malevolent lies and they can decide for themselves who they want to believe.
(1) That is, I have no problem with what Gerald Larson actually said. But the first words that you put in his mouth were not his at all. That was just one more example of your ‘language construction of reality’, where if you can get people to believe your lies, then it becomes real to them.
I still wake up and take showers like everyone else, my perspective is the same as everybody else. Knowledge of Vedanta has not changed that. However, it is a different matter when I become enlightened, which I am not. As long as I am full of desire(which I am) I will not reach enlightenment. I have to focus on my mundane life first: career, relationships and health. I am in the same boat as everybody else.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;71550]I still wake up and take showers like everyone else, my perspective is the same as everybody else. Knowledge of Vedanta has not changed that. However, it is a different matter when I become enlightened, which I am not. As long as I am full of desire(which I am) I will not reach enlightenment. I have to focus on my mundane life first: career, relationships and health. I am in the same boat as everybody else.[/QUOTE]
Whenever my mind has a few minutes alone I recognize the stillness of ?I AM? and realize there is nothing to be done.
[QUOTE=ray_killeen;71551]Whenever my mind has a few minutes alone I recognize the stillness of ?I AM? and realize there is nothing to be done.[/QUOTE]
Nah, what you are calling stillness, is actually ceaseless movement of the mind. Patanjali calls this state Nidra. The “I am” is not something that can be experienced, it is something that IS when there is no longer any experiencer. You are not there yet, nor am I, and nor is anybody else on this forum. As long as the modifications of the mind persist, none of us will ever enter that I-am-ness. As long as we are still desiring, our mind is in ceaseless motion, even though it may appear to be still.
We are not yet at that stage where nothing needs to be done. In fact on the contrary, LOADS needs to be done.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;71553]Nah, what you are calling stillness, is actually ceaseless movement of the mind. Patanjali calls this state Nidra. The “I am” is not something that can be experienced, it is something that IS when there is no longer any experiencer. You are not there yet, nor am I, and nor is anybody else on this forum. As long as the modifications of the mind persist, none of us will ever enter that I-am-ness. As long as we are still desiring, our mind is in ceaseless motion, even though it may appear to be still.
We are not yet at that stage where nothing needs to be done. In fact on the contrary, LOADS needs to be done.[/QUOTE]
The only eruption into enlightenment was the day one was born, letting go the collection of conceptual nonsense since that moment allows return to that which one never parted, there?s no cure for a calamity that does not exist, other than?seeking the cure must cease?otherwise it becomes a painful process to find out there?s nothing to be done.
Whenever my mind has a few minutes alone I recognize the stillness of “I AM” and realize there is nothing to be done.
A very good practice indeed. I, on the other hand, have a little more work to do.
I will just ignore Surya Diva’s despicable personal attacks and focus on Dr. Larson’s quote, which does add some clarity to the discussion.
It is difficult to determine the date of the sutras, but in view of the fact that Madhva in sarvadarshanasamgrah makes no reference to them, it appears likely they will compiled after his time i.e., after the 14th century.
At first glance this may appear to contradict what I have said, but looking a little more closely you will see that Dr. Larson uses the word [I]compiled[/I], meaning that the text was put together using previously existing sources.
The late date for these texts is supported by the fact that commentaries to the texts are also late.
There is no dispute here. My position is that people who make this argument usually make [I]only[/I] this argument as evidence of the date of the texts, but if you actually read and compare the texts, a different picture starts to emerge.
It is possible, of course, that many passages or ideas contained in the texts may go back to classical times,
My sense of the text is that it is not only possible but very likely that most of it predates the both the Samkhya Karika and the Yoga Sutras.
but it is difficult to sort out the earlier from the later
Difficult but not impossible. I do acknowledge that there appear to be some later additions to the text.
Generally, these late texts are markedly influenced by the Vedanta. Vijnanabhikshu, for example, devotes much energy to show Samkhya can be reconciled with the orthodox point of view.
The juxtaposition of these two sentences shows that Vijnana Bhiksu’s translation and commentary are exactly what Larson is referring to when he talks about the influence of Vedanta.
Some of these emphasis in the late texts are absent or only vaguely implied in the Karika
Of course some of these things are not present in the Karika. The Karika acknowledges that the ‘controversies’ among other things were left out of it.
In view of the Vedanta influence and the new emphasis in the sutras, it becomes clear that these late texts must be used cautiously, if at all in explicating and interpreting the doctrines of classical Samkhya.
Dr. Larson makes it very clear that the [I]Vedanta influence[/I] is the reason one should be cautious in using these texts. As far as emphasis is concerned, Dr. Larson mentions the articulation of the creation and destruction of the world, which would include the theory of the emergent Isvara. This can be easily explained as one of the controversies that was left out of the Karika. The fact that the same concept of Isvara appears in the yoga sutras proves that it is not of late origin.
My understanding of written English is quite good, thank you. That is fortunate too. Otherwise, who else could oppose a scoundrel like Surya Deva. Unfortunately for him his strategy of using Dr. Larson against me has failed because I agree with Dr. Larson.
I have to admit ignorance with Samkhya philosophy, Vedanta philosophy and application has become familiar and habitual.
Surya Deva, I just deleted a bunch of your posts. Knock it off with the personal attacks please. You can disagree with someone without attacking them.
Thank you.
Apologies David, I have just grown very tiresome of Asuri’s attitude, who never acknowledges any point I am making, and is always accusing me of misrepresenting/lying(without ever providing a single example) and uses the word ‘Hindu’ as a swear word against me. I normally do not use personal attacks, but with him have been forced to take a more ‘stick’ approach. In any case I will take heed of your admonishment and cease the personal attacks. But in exchange I am going to report every personal attack Asuri makes against me from now on.
Asuri, Larson is not at all supporting your viewpoint. You are dissecting what he is saying, removing the context and reinterpreting what he is saying so that it fits in neatly with what you believe, and it is clear to anybody who read the passage earlier that is exactly what you are doing. The fact that you have to do this is really disturbing. Simply accept Larson does not support your viewpoint, rather than mutilate what he is saying to give it another meaning.
At first glance this may appear to contradict what I have said, but looking a little more closely you will see that Dr. Larson uses the word compiled, meaning that the text was put together using previously existing sources.
It does in fact contradict what you are saying. You are taking one single word, “compiled” out of context to give it an alternative meaning. However, Larson repeats throughout the passage that the Samkhya sutras is a late text. He admits the possibility that it may contain material that is from classical times, but he does not say this conclusively. What he does say conclusively, a point I have already made several times to you, that the Samkhya sutras are a late text.
If you agree they are a late text, we can end this debate here 
My sense of the text is that it is not only possible but very likely that most of it predates the both the Samkhya Karika and the Yoga Sutras.
Your sense is not based on evidence, but on your personal speculations. You may continue to repeat that most of the Samkhya sutras predates the Karika and the Yoga Sutras until the cows come home, but until you do not produce any evidence to validate your assertion it will remain only your personal fantasy.
Difficult but not impossible. I do acknowledge that there appear to be some later additions to the text.
How can you acknowledge that there appears to be addition to the text, when you don’t have the original at hand? Unless of course you have been looking at the manuscripts in the Akashic records? This is why Larson says it is difficult to determine. When we don’t have a copy of an original to compare and contrast, it becomes difficult to say which parts are old and which parts are new. What we can say, with confidence, is that the Samkhya sutras as we have them today is a new composition.
In any case your admission itself that the Samkhya Sutras does in fact contain new additions validates my point that the Samkhya Sutras are not an accurate and reliable representation of classical Samkhya. Thank you for finally conceding
The juxtaposition of these two sentences shows that Vijnana Bhiksu’s translation and commentary are exactly what Larson is referring to when he talks about the influence of Vedanta.
Again, you are taking Larson’s sentences out of context. It is clear Larson is referring to the sutras himself, because he actually says it clearly many times later. He says, “Generally these late texts are influenced by Vedanta”, “In view of the Vedanta influence and new emphasis in the sutras” etc. He is clearly not talking about just the commentaries to the sutras having Vedanta influence, but the sutras themselves having Vedanta influence, and he clearly marks them out. It is clear to me as an English speaking person what he is saying, and I would hope clear to the rest on this forum.
Of course some of these things are not present in the Karika. The Karika acknowledges that the ‘controversies’ among other things were left out of it.
Again, you are taking what he is saying out of context and adding something he did not say. He never said a word about ‘missing controversies’ What he did say was that the Samkhya Sutras pays a lot more emphasis on the cosmic side of the doctrine, spending a lot of detail on the periodic acts of creation and destruction. This emphasis is not present in the Karika, but this emphasis is indeed characteristic of later Vedanta thought. Hence why he concludes that the sutras are influenced by Vedanta. Read again, he is not saying Vijnana Bhikshu is influenced by Vedanta, he is saying the sutras themselves are influenced by Vedanta.
Dr. Larson makes it very clear that the Vedanta influence is the reason one should be cautious in using these texts. As far as emphasis is concerned, Dr. Larson mentions the articulation of the creation and destruction of the world, which would include the theory of the emergent Isvara. This can be easily explained as one of the controversies that was left out of the Karika. The fact that the same concept of Isvara appears in the yoga sutras proves that it is not of late origin.
Yep, the theory of emergent Ishvara is a late Samkhya addition in reaction to Vedanta influence. As is the the theory of spontaneous generation of prakriti. You have absolutely no evidence to show that these are the “missing controversies” that got left out in the Karika. Again, your personal fantasies only belong to you. You may continue to insist that these were part of the original until the cows come home, but the fact remains; you have zilch, zero, nada evidence.
It has already been proven to you in the thread, “Emergent vs Eternal Ishvara” that the Ishvara in the Yoga Sutras is not the same Ishvara in the Samkhya sutras. The Ishvara in the Yoga sutras is a special purusha that never enters the cycle of rebirth, is always pure and unconditioned. This is contrast to the normal purushas who do enter the cycle. The Ishvara in the Samkhya sutras is a normal purusha that becomes ishvara after transcending the cycle, and then begins the next creation. Thus it is clear to see that the Yoga Sutras eternal Ishvara is not the same as the Samkhya sutras emergent Ishvara.
I must say you are the most dishonest debater I have had the misfortune of ever debating with.
Re: Ishvara of the Yoga Sutras and Ishvara of the Samkhya sutras
I am reposting the post I made in the thread, “Emergent vs Eternal” because of its relevance here.
Original Quote by Asuri
Yoga Sutra 1:25 makes a clear reference to the Isvara of the Samkhya system, and the Yoga Sutras were written a long time before the 14th or 15th century, so your assertion that the emergent Isvara was a creation of later Samkhya is just another desperate lie intended to preserve the dominance of Vedanta.
I overlooked this statement a few times, but Asuri has now repeated it twice as a factual statement. I will now show that the statement is clearly false. The Ishvara of Yoga is not the same as the Ishvara of late Samkhya. Again, Asuri has only partially cited from Yoga sutras. Let us look at what the Yoga Sutras say fully on ishvara:
Quote:
Translation on Sacred Texts.com
1.24. God is a particular yet universal indweller, untouched by afflictions, actions, impressions and their results.
1.25. In God, the seed of omniscience is unsurpassed.
1.26. Not being conditioned by time, God is the teacher of even the ancients.
Quote:
Translation on http://www.reluctant-messenger.com/yoga-sutras-1.htm
24] God is the seat of Supreme Being, totally free from conflicts, unaffected by actions and untouched by cause and effect.
25] God is the unsurpassed and unrivaled onesource of omniscent wisdom, transcendent, yet unfolds the entirety of omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence.
26] God is the unlimited, unbounded, undefined source of all knowledge and is the foremost absolute guru untouched by time.
Quote:
Translation by Swami J,
.24 That creative source (ishvara) is a particular consciousness (purusha) that is unaffected by colorings (kleshas), actions (karmas), or results of those actions that happen when latent impressions stir and cause those actions.
(klesha karma vipaka ashayaih aparamristah purusha-vishesha ishvara
1.25 In that pure consciousness (ishvara) the seed of omniscience has reached its highest development and cannot be exceeded.
(tatra niratishayam sarvajna bijam)
1.26 From that consciousness (ishvara) the ancient-most teachers were taught, since it is not limited by the constraint of time.
(purvesham api guruh kalena anavachchhedat)
The following specific characteristics of Ishvara in the Yoga sutras are described:
- It is a special type of purusha
- It is independent and eternally separate from prakriti, thus always remains pure
- It is always omniscient and transcendent
- It is timeless
Now contrast this with the late Samkhya Ishvara
- It is an emergent product of prakriti
- It is not independent from prakriti
- It has to become liberated just like a standard purusha
- It is in time and subject to its cycles
In conclusion we can see the Ishvara of Yoga sutras and the Ishvara of Samkhya sutras are the opposite of one another. Once again Asuri has attempted to pull the wool over our eyes with his selective quoting.