It’s really unfortunate that this thread like many others before it has deteriorated into a contest between myself and Surya Deva. What is more unfortunate is that out of his desperate need to be seen as[I] the[/I] authority on all things related to Indian philosophy, the truth often suffers.
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.
I’m not going to spend years writing a book just to satisfy some egotistical critic with an axe to grind. If anyone is interested they can buy Nandalal Sinha’s book, which has both the Samkhya Pravachana Sutram and the Samkhya Karika. The evidence is readily apparent if you read the books.
Nowhere have I said that the emergent Isvara is a product of Prakriti, rather he is a soul, a purusa who in a previous cycle of existence reached the highest level of development short of liberation and is reborn as Isvara in the current cycle.
You have given conflicting descriptions of what this emergent ishvara is. They are
- It is emergent with Mahat
- It is an ex-liberated yogi
First be clear what you mean by emergent Ishvara.
If it 2, then you have got a problem, which I’ve already addressed in the other thread:
If ishvara is just a liberated ex-yogi and starts of each creation, then who started of the very first creation when there were no liberated yogis yet? If you say it’s an eternal neverending cycle, then you got a problem, because even a cycle in perpetual motion need a constant mover to move it. However, the liberated yogis are not constant, because at least at one time they were non-liberated, thus they had beginnings. Therefore there has to exist a special eternal ishvara to be the first mover whose always outside of the cycle.
I will restate the objection.
When there were no liberated yogis, who could have started the act of creation? The condition in this theory of emergent ishvara is that there must be at least one liberated yogi to start the creation. This means that in the beginning there must have been at least one cycle when there was no liberated yogi yet. Who or what started that cycle?
The yoga sutras say that Isvara is untouched by the klesas, action and its fruit, as differentiated from ordinary purusas. This is the consequence of his elevated state of development. The other key characteristic of Isvara is omnicience. This is present in both the yoga and samkhya sutras.
Nope, the Yoga sutras does not actually say that Ishvara is an ex-liberated yogi, this is your imposition.
It is clear what the Yoga sutras is saying(I have produced three different translations to show what it is saying) As usual you’re just being a spoiled sport, and not accepting what it is saying, and twisting it and adding stuff to it to support your whims(That is why I say you are the most dishonest debater I have ever come across)
1.25: Ishvara is a special type of purusha that is completely unconditioned. It does not say that Ishvara is an ex-liberated yogi. That is your addition.
1.26: Ishvara is the teacher of the most ancient of yogis, because it is not limited by the constraints of time/unbound by time. It does not say that Ishvara was ever a yogi itself. Nor does it define time as beginning with the appearance of akasha. That is your addition.
In other words based on the actual evidence it is clear that the Ishvara of the Yoga sutras is an eternal Ishvara not an emergent one. Again, you can insist until the cows come home, but anybody who has a copy of the Yoga sutras at hand can see for themselves what it says and know that you are talking nonsense.
[QUOTE=Asuri;71581]I’m not going to spend years writing a book just to satisfy some egotistical critic with an axe to grind. If anyone is interested they can buy Nandalal Sinha’s book, which has both the Samkhya Pravachana Sutram and the Samkhya Karika. The evidence is readily apparent if you read the books.[/QUOTE]
Nobody is asking you to spend years writing a book. You are making a claim here that the Samkhya sutras is older than the Karika and the Yoga Sutras, and you have not a single iota of evidence to support your claim. Your ‘sense’ does not count as evidence.
I can see why you do not like critics, because they don’t let your s*it your fly. As long as I am on this forum I will never leave your blanket claims unchallenged, because you are misleading people on this forum. I set the record straight by giving them the facts.
t’s really unfortunate that this thread like many others before it has deteriorated into a contest between myself and Surya Deva. What is more unfortunate is that out of his desperate need to be seen as the authority on all things related to Indian philosophy, the truth often suffers.
Then don’t start what you cannot finish. You started this debate here by insisting that the Samkhya sutras were older than the Karika and thus misleading the OP. Then you play your oft cited “Hindu conspiracy card” and claim how we Hindus are suppressing the sutras. Then I show you that it is in fact Western scholars that state the Sutras are a late text and show you one such scholar, and you start twisting what hes saying until it is unrecognizable from what he did say. You don’t win debates like that, rather you win peoples disgust, for it shows you are not honest enough to accept the truth of anything. You always have to distort it somehow until it sits comfortably with you. Sick.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;71527]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]Whatever precedes classical Sankhya is not necessarily proto-Samkhya. Professor Surendranatha Dasgupta makes the argument that the Samkhya in the Shashtitantra was theistic, similar to the Samkhya of the puranas. He bases this conclusion on the index of the Shashtitantra found in the Ahirbudhya Samhita. Samkhya was also mentioned by name in many scriptures including the upanishads, so what you call proto-Samkhya was definitely recognised as Samkhya at some point in history.
Deleted
[QUOTE=Sarvamaṅgalamaṅgalā;71621]Whatever precedes classical Sankhya is not necessarily proto-Samkhya. Professor Surendranatha Dasgupta makes the argument that the Samkhya in the Shashtitantra was theistic, similar to the Samkhya of the puranas. He bases this conclusion on the index of the Shashtitantra found in the Ahirbudhya Samhita. Samkhya was also mentioned by name in many scriptures including the upanishads, so what you call proto-Samkhya was definitely recognised as Samkhya at some point in history.[/QUOTE]
Well, obviously you have a bias for the Puranas so you are going to argue that their Samkhya is the original and real one 
However, we know clearly that the Puranas are much later than the Karika. The Karika is the earliest extant text which describes a systematic philosophical system of Samkhya. In other texts like the Mahabharata, Charaka Samhita and Upanishads Samkhya is mentioned in scattered references, but not as a full fledged system.
Asuri, I just deleted your post for a personal attack on Surya.
Next time either of you does it I’ll confine you to the religion forum.
Tit for tat, eh? If my words were a little too strong then I’ll rephrase it.
@Surya Deva
People are not stupid. It’s easy to see that I’ve answered your legitimate objections line for line, and what I wrote was very clear. It’s also easy to see that you’ve run out of legitimate arguments and that you are now simply attempting to distort and muddy the waters, as is your custom.
Nope, you have not actually answered my objections:
I will restate the objection.
When there were no liberated yogis, who could have started the act of creation? The condition in this theory of emergent ishvara is that there must be at least one liberated yogi to start the creation. This means that in the beginning there must have been at least one cycle when there was no liberated yogi yet. Who or what started that cycle?
1.25: Ishvara is a special type of purusha that is completely unconditioned. It does not say that Ishvara is an ex-liberated yogi. That is your addition.
1.26: Ishvara is the teacher of the most ancient of yogis, because it is not limited by the constraints of time/unbound by time. It does not say that Ishvara was ever a yogi itself. Nor does it define time as beginning with the appearance of akasha. That is your addition.
People are not stupid, indeed, and they can clearly see you have not answered my arguments. When have you ever answered any argument in fact?
You call it misleading, I call it shining a light on that which has been hidden from view. It’s interesting to see how uncomfortable that makes you.
re: preceding post. What did you think I was referring to when I said you had run out of legitimate arguments and are now attempting to distort and muddy the waters. If I had to answer every time you misrepresented something I said, it would be a full-time job.
P.S. Get a life.
[QUOTE=ray_killeen;71578]Dispositions are states of mind, if interest extends beyond the mind one must notice any trouble that may occur when clinging to such notions, perhaps prompting an emptying process at some point since there’s no way to practice being yourself, you are yourself…not this or that, as one’s true inner nature begins to emerge disturbing the mind with “seeking” distracts from moving beyond the need for help, it seems silly to think the mind can make the spontaneous happen. Having said that I love the fierier intensity and desire that arises from what you seek, if I was running the Forum nothing would be deleted but then everyone would be afraid to participate and it would be bad for business.[/QUOTE]
Sorry I took time to address this post.
There is a Samkhya answer to the issues you pose that the mind is disturbed with seeking and “doing nothing”.
Karika:
-
The sattva guna is the principle of illumination and bouyancy; the rajas guna is the principle of mobility and excitation and the tamas guna is the principle of inertia, density and slowness. They function for a single purpose.
The sattva guna and the tamas guna are inactive and require the activating energy of the Rajas guna to rouse them into action. -
Dispassion as merely abstinence from desire/inactivity/laziness causes one to becomes aborbed into matter and entangled. Passion causes one to transmigrate. Power leads to unimpeded fulfilment of desire, and weakness to obstructions of desire.
13: The Rajas guna is in fact the most important guna, because it breaks the status quo by providing excitement and energy. Both the Sattva guna and Tamas guna remain inactive, until Rajas guna energises them and activates them, the result of which is that is causes them to be roused into activity. In spiritual speak it means that if we remain in a state of inactivity we will stagnate at the current state we are in. In order for us to progress to higher levels we need to put in the right effort. Hence in the beginning, it is not advisable to do nothing, in the beginning we must exert a lot of energy to get us going.
45: Mere inactivity or abstaining from action causes one to become even deeper absorbed into entanglement with prakriti(matter/nature) and thus one falls deeper into delusion. It is easy to see that those who are lazy are not actually enlightened, but rather they become ineffective and weak and the longer they are inactive, the harder it is to rouse them back to action. The paradox is, however, that effort will produce karma and cause one to transmigrate, but in the beginning effort is absolutely essential to develop spiritually.
In later parts of the Karika it shows exactly what kind of effort is needed: Deep and serious study of the scriptures, constant contemplation on the self vis-a-vis nature, purification of the mind-body, renunciation of all desires and cravings. This subject is treated more exhaustively by the Yoga sutras. It is a tall order indeed and obviously not for the halfhearted.
You call it misleading, I call it shining a light on that which has been hidden from view. It’s interesting to see how uncomfortable that makes you.
re: preceding post. What did you think I was referring to when I said you had run out of legitimate arguments and are now attempting to distort and muddy the waters. If I had to answer every time you misrepresented something I said, it would be a full-time job.
P.S. Get a life.
Be here now.
Asuri
Asuri, again people can clearly see you once again have not answered my objections. Like I said, when did you ever actually answer any argument? If you make an attempt to answer my objections, there is a possibility for dialogue and progressing the discussion, but you obviously have no interests in doing that. Some would say that is trolling. I am moving on now.
Btw “P.S. ‘Get a life’” is another personal attack. Seems that is all you are capable of doing in a debate. Can never really expect anything of substance from you. Hence why it is better to just move on. I’d rather discuss/debate with somebody who is going to make an effort to participate.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;71626]Well, obviously you have a bias for the Puranas so you are going to argue that their Samkhya is the original and real one However, we know clearly that the Puranas are much later than the Karika. The Karika is the earliest extant text which describes a systematic philosophical system of Samkhya. In other texts like the Mahabharata, Charaka Samhita and Upanishads Samkhya is mentioned in scattered references, but not as a full fledged system.[/QUOTE]Jaina literature mentions the Bhagavata together with the Bharata and the Shashti Tantra as false (i.e. non-Jaina) scriptures around 500CE, without mentioning the Karikas of Ishvara Krishna, this shows that at time these texts were already considered important works of Hinduism. This isn’t merely a question of dating texts though, the Samkhya present in the puranas shows continuity of thought congruent with the earlier scriptures from the upanishads onwards. The Ahirbudhya Samhita also gives an index of the Shashti Tantra and shows that it described a theistic doctrine as was pointed out by professor Surendranath Dasgupta. On the other hand, the Karikas appear out of nowhere somewhere early in the first millenium claiming to be an adaptation of the Shashti Tantra. It makes sense that Samkhya at that time needed to be reevaluated to stand against the critisism of the nastika doctrines and consequently it was criticised by various schools of vedanta. As you have pointed out yourself, what you call proto-Samkhya was more a vedanta type of Samkhya. The paramartha sara of Adishesha from Kashmir which is the earliest text (pre-Shankaracharya) on advaita vedanta that is still available was also heavily grounded in Samkhya. This clearly shows that for a long time in history Samkhya and Vedanta were closely related.
@Surya Deva
I’m glad you finally have the good sense to call a temporary cease fire. I’m happy to engage on matters of substance, but I’m not going to waste my energy on silly and pointless arguments.
@Sarvamangalamangala
Interesting stuff. Great contribution.
Jaina literature mentions the Bhagavata together with the Bharata and the Shashti Tantra as false (i.e. non-Jaina) scriptures around 500CE, without mentioning the Karikas of Ishvara Krishna, this shows that at time these texts were already considered important works of Hinduism.
The Karika of Ishvara Krishna is dated 200CE, that is way before 500CE. However, it is interesting that the Bhagvata Purana is mentioned in 500CE, but this does not mean that the Bhagvata purana we have today is the same Bhagvata Purana. The Puranas have been edited continuously up to the 18th century(such as the Bhavaishya Purana, which mentions the British Raj and Queen Victoria) Thus still the Karika is the oldest extant text describing the Samkhya philosophical system. Thus the Samkhya that is present in the Purana is definitely posterior to the Samkhya of the Karika.
the Samkhya present in the puranas shows continuity of thought congruent with the earlier scriptures from the upanishads onwards. The Ahirbudhya Samhita also gives an index of the Shashti Tantra and shows that it described a theistic doctrine as was pointed out by professor Surendranath Dasgupta.
I agree that the Samkhya in the Puranas is congruent with the Samkhya in the Upanishads and Gita, but this is because the atheistic Samkhya is readapted by the Puranic authors to bring it in line with Vedanta. There is clear evidence of this in the Kapilopedesa in the Bhagvatam, which says that its expressed purpose is to correct the false athesitic Samkhya that is attributed to Kapila, by detailing a dialogue between Kapila and his mother explaining the true Samkhya. Thus proving that it is definitely posterior to the karika.
. As you have pointed out yourself, what you call proto-Samkhya was more a vedanta type of Samkhya. The
I agree, the Samkhya in the Upanishads and the Gita was more consistent with Vedanta, but this Samkhya was only found as scattered references. The Karika is the first technical philosophical text that actually systematically describes the entire philosophy. Prior to that there are no extant texts on Samkhya philosophy. This is why scholars regard Karika as being the defining text for Samkhya philosophy.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;71632]…It is a tall order indeed and obviously not for the halfhearted.[/QUOTE]
?We may talk and reason all our lives, but we shall not understand a word of truth until we experience it ourselves.? ~ Vivekananda from the book RAJA-YOGA
I think I need to remind people that Kapila is universally accepted as being the first to organize the Samkhya philosophy in a systematic way. It may be true that the original texts are no longer intact, but that is not a reason to rewrite history. Gerald Larson also challenged the assertion that the Samkhya Karika was authoritative, in favor of the sasti-trantra (which is probably the source for the Samkhya Pravachana Sutram). Surya Deva’s inability to tolerate these challenges has to be regarded as religious conviction, under the pretext of scholarship.
Surya Deva’s attachment to the Karika seems to be mostly based on an assumption that it is the oldest ‘extant’ text. I think it is not likely that the actual original manuscript is still in existence, and even if it is, being old and ‘extant’ doesn’t really prove much.
You said it Ray.
Here, one cannot be a scientist exoerimenting on mice in a lab. Mind mischief, perception deception, soul touch, Ishvara and every aspect of Yoga has to be one’s realized truth. You have to be the ‘mouse’ and the scientist at the same time. That’s Raja Yoga.
It takes lifetime(s) to dissect oneself and be aware of more and more subtle aspects of life within. Until then, the whole world without is as unknown as the alien world within. A premise that a lot of debate is intellectual prowess at work and tons of words fill knowledge gap is by itself a sign of not grasping the esence of either Samkhya or Yoga Sutra. Any real understanding born from self-experience brings smile to one’s face, not frown. If one gets even a glimpse of Ishvara, instincts become compassionate at birth and words loose their ugly sting that needs censoring.
Seen from a distance Vedic knowledge is full of variety and paradoxes that can feed endless debates. But, even a single syllable of experienced truth shows how life is one, and ‘many’ is only perceived manifestation. Entangled by many and forgetting to explore the One is exactly where Raja Yoga begins. Swami Vivekanand couldn’t be more correct.