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.
[QUOTE=Asuri;71650]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.[/QUOTE]
Well, if you consider yourself a scholar of Samkhya, you should study everything you can get your hands on, including the Karikas since they have played a very important role in classical Samkhya long before the Samkhya Sutras came into the picture. My personal interest goes beyond studying the debate culture and scholastic commentaries of Indian philosophy, even though it is interesting, my primairy studies are more concerned towards understanding the scriptures directly and most of my time goes towards the practical aspects of my sadhana. That is also the reason why I am looking beyond classical Samkhya metaphysics and more into the Samkhya of Hindu scriptures. But if your interest is primairily in classical Samkhya, you should study the Karikas, vyasa bhasha of the yoga sutras, Samkhya Sutras objectively with all their commentaries and subcommentaries with logical scrutiny. I don’t think either of you has done that, neither have I, but I don’t claim to be a scholar of classical Samkhya. It is also not possible to this under the guidance of a Samkhya guru anymore, since the last living guru of this tradition, Swami Hariharananda Aranya, has already passed away.
@Sarvamangalamangala
I’m probably more like you than Surya Deva. I’ve read the Karika, although the commentary with my copy is fairly limited. I acknowledged its importance early in the thread. I have Swami Hariharanada Aranya’s book on the Yoga Sutras, which includes the vyasa bhasya, although I haven’t read it all. At one time I intended to do a thorough study of the Samkhya literature. but I don’t know Sanskrit enough to really do it justice. More recently I’ve read some of the Upanishads, but overall I’m not trying to be a scholar of Samkhya or any other Indian philosophy. I still post on some of the things I’ve learned in the past but these days I’m more focused on the practical aspects of life.
My recent posts on the emergent Isvara were the first time I dared to discuss it publicly, because I knew it would be controversial. It only happened because Surya Deva was looking for a fight.
OK, I just stumbled across something that seems to be clear evidence of antiquity in the Samkhya Pravachana Sutram. It appears in Book 1, Sutra 127.
The mutual difference in property of the Gunas arises by means of their pleasantness, unpleasantness, and dullness, etc
This is one of the few instances where the Karika doesn’t exactly mirror the Samkhya Pravachana Sutram, it is a little more descriptive. But that’s not the point. The point is that Vijnana Bhiksu used a quote from [I]Panchasikha[/I] to explain it. Who was Panchasikha? According to the Karika (70), the line of succession started with Kapila himself, to Asuri, then to Panchasikha.
This is the quote from Panchasikha
What is called Sattva is of infinite variety under the forms of clearness, lightness, love, agreeableness, renunciation, contentment, etc., which are summed up by the word Pleasant. Similarly Rajas also possesses many varieties, such as grief, etc, which are summed up by the word Painful. So also does Tamas possess many varieties such as sleep, etc., which are summed up by the word Bewildering.
Now I have to tell you, quotes attributed to Panchasikha are few and far between. Clearly the quote is explaining this specific sutra, which does not appear in the Karika. And if the quote is really from Panchasikha, then both the quote and the sutra predate the Karika. Not only that, it would be pretty strong evidence that the sutra came from Kapila himself. Are you guys going to tell me that this is all just some elaborate hoax?
Surya Deva’s inability to tolerate these challenges has to be regarded as religious conviction, under the pretext of scholarship.
It only happened because Surya Deva was looking for a fight.
So much for that ceasefire 
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.
No, what Gerald Larson actually says is that the Samkhya Pravachana Sutram should not be used, if at all, for explicating and interpreting the Samkhya philosophy, because
- It is a late text
- It is influenced by Vedanta
He automatically rejects the Samkhya Pravachana sutras, saying that he he has chosen to only focus on the Karika alone to explicate and interpret the Samkhya philosophy. You can verify it by looking at p.152-53 in his, “Classical Samkhya: It’s history and meaning” which is partially available to read on google books.
He also criticizes earlier scholars of Samkhya who he said had a tendency to read classical Samkhya into the Samkhya Sutras, but he cautions against doing this because of its dubious origins, again emphasizes that the karika alone should be used.
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.
It is not really an assumption that the Karika is the oldest extant text, but the consensus of scholars of Samkhya. It is not a controversial issue, it a widely accepted fact the Karika is is oldest extant text on Samkhya. I have already cited Gerald Larson to show this is true, but Asuri is still not satisfied, so I will cite other scholars and academic sources:
(i). The period from the first century C.E. to ca. the tenth presents us with what has been called “classical” Samkhya, and the teaching now becomes differentiated from other yogic traditions. The major text is the Samkhya-karika of Ishvarakrishna (ca. fourth century C.E.); he was probably a contemporary of the Buddhist Vasubandhu (who wrote a refutation of Samkhya) and of the Samkhya teachers Varshaganya and Vindhyavasa, so that his articulation of the tradition took place during the cultural flowering associated with the Gupta dynasty (ca. 320-540 C.E.). Ishvarakrishna’s work was translated into Chinese by Paramartha between 557 and 569 C.E. This important writer also produced a Life of Vasubandhu, and it is from this, as well as from references in the works of the great seventh century Chinese scholar Hsuan-tsang and his pupil Kuei-chi, that we have an idea of the strength of Samkhya at this time. Indeed, it is so influential that the Buddhist logician Dignaga (ca. 480-540 C.E.) vigorously opposes it. A little later the Buddhist Dharmakirti (ca. 610-670 C.E.) also refers to it, and as late as the ninth century Shankara continually argues against it (see under Shankara).
There is a reference in the Samkhya-karika to “sixty topics” (shasti-tantra), and the enumeration into sixty is also found in both later Samkhya texts and in a Pancaratra work (see under “Pancharatra”). However the claim that there was a text of this name is arguable.
Several commentaries on the Samkhya-karika were composed. Paramartha wrote one to accompany his translation; Gaudapada’s Bhashya, a simple and direct commentary, dates possibly from 600-800 C.E, ; in the ninth century C.E., Vachaspati Mishra - a significant figure in the history of Samkhya - wrote his Samkhyatattvakaumudi, and this was in turn glossed by Narayanatirtha (though according to Dasgupta, this gloss was on Gaudapada’s commentary). There are also other commentaries of a most uncertain date - the Mathavritti, the Jayamangala, and the Yuktidipika.
(ii) After this heyday of Samkhya, which lasted for several centuries, the school lost its force and entered a period of decline. This may have been because in place of a vigorous tradition (articulated by several teachers, and creatively pitted against other schools of thought), there came to be an emphasis upon the Samkhya-karika as normative. The eleventh-century Muslim traveller Alberuni, who wrote a work in which he summarizes the teachings of Indian philosophy, bases his summary of Samkhya primarily upon the karika. Similarly, the fourteenth-century Madhava in his summary of sixteen systems of Indian thought (the Sarvadarshanasamgraha) relies solely on the karika.
A final stage is marked by a kind of renaissance. Aniruddha (late fifteenth century) wrote a commentary (bhashya) on the Samkhyapravachanasutra, as did Vijnanabhikshu (late sixteenth century). It is difficult to put a date on these sutras, but because not only Madhava, but also Gunaratna (also fourteenth century) make no reference to them they may well be later than this, a suggestion supported by the late date of the commentary upon them. On the other hand, it may well be that certain ideas or even passages in the sutras derive from the earlier, classical period. Vijnanabhihshu is credited by some scholars with having composed an elementary work on Samkhya, the Samkhyasara. Other late works on Samkhya are the Tattvasamhasutra, Simananda’s Samkhyatattvavivecana, and Bhavaganesha’s Samkhyatattvayatharthyadipana. Generally, according to some scholars, these late works are clearly influenced by Vedanta. Again, there are differences of scholarly emphasis, some using these late works directly as sources for the interpretation of Samkhya, others exercising a greater or lesser degree of caution in so doing.
Source: http://www.philtar.ac.uk/encyclopedia/hindu/ascetic/samkhya.html
Although many references to the system are given in earlier texts, Samkhya received its classical form and expression in the Samkhya-karikas (“Stanzas of Samkhya”) by Ishvarakrishna (c. 3rd century ce). Vijnanabhikshu wrote an important treatise on the system in the 16th century.
Source: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/520526/Samkhya
Kapila was the founder of Sankhya philosophy. (8-6th Cent. B.C.E.?) Ishvara Krishna was its most famous writer. (3rd Cent. C.E.)
The main text comes from the Third Century C.E. and the commentary in smaller type comes from about 850 C.E.
Source: http://www.wabashcenter.wabash.edu/syllabi/g/gier/306/sankhya.htm
Sāṅkhya has a very long history. Its roots go deeper than textual traditions allow us to see. The last major figure in the tradition, Vij?āna Bhikṣu, thrived as late as 1575 CE. Despite its long history, Sāṅkhya is essentially a one-book school: the earliest extant complete text, the Sāṅkhya-Kārikā, is the unquestioned classic of the tradition. Not only are its formal statements accepted by all subsequent representatives, but also its ordering of the topics and its arguments are definitive – very little is added in the course of the centuries.
Source http://www.iep.utm.edu/sankhya/#H1 (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
I will also add add a major academia text book reference used for many undergraduate world philosophy and comparative philosophy courses: A short except on the section on Samkhya:
Although the first extant text we have is the Samkhyakarika of Ishvarakrishna possibly fourth century CE, the structure of thought is undoubtedly old
Source: Smart, Ninian(200.8). ‘World Philosophies: 2nd edition’. Rouledge, New york.
Thus the point has now been clearly established that the academic consensus is that the Karika is the oldest extant text of the Samkhya school and is considered the definitive text of Samkhya. Although, speculations do exist among Samkhya scholars that the later Samkhya sutras may indeed contain ideas or even passages that date back to classical times, this is not considered proven, and there is even doubts about whether there really existed a text called Sastri tantra at all(Most likely it did) However, what there is wide agreement on is that the Samkhya sutras are
- Definitely later, probably composed around the 14th or 16th century.
- It is not considered a core text of formal Samkhya philosophy, but more like a secondary text, as optional or further reading
Thus it certainly is not my religious conviction to constantly maintain that the Karika is the oldest extant text of Samkhya philosophy. I am giving the readers on this forum accurate and reliable information on what scholarship says on Samkhya, and not misleading them by giving my own personal theories, as Asuri is doing. Hence why I maintain the readers on this forum will find that the information I am giving on Samkhya or other areas of Indian philosophy is reliable information. I have formally studied Indian philosophy and have copies of the most major philosophical texts, so I say with utmost modesty, I know what I am talking about. Asuri, on the other hand, has not. This is painfully clear, for he even confused the author of the Karika Ishvarkrishna with Lord Krishna of the Gita(which I am sorry to say is hilarious!). It is obvious he has no scholarship in this area and should not pretend that he does.(He is annoyed by me, because he knows that I am formally qualified in this area, and he is not, but he sees himself as a scholar)
I would also like to bring to the attention of the readers that this is not the first time Asuri has given misleading information about Indian philosophies. A year ago he insisted that the famous definition of Yoga, “Yoga chit vritti nirodha: Yoga is the cessation of the modifications of the mind” was actually wrong, though this definition is not controversial with scholarship. He insisted that the Yoga sutras actually says “Yoga is the cessation of only some(negative) modifications of the mind” and everybody else has got it wrong. Yet, it is clear to all Sanskrit scholars that it says cessation of all modifications of the mind. Patanjali even makes it clear by detailing the 5 types of modifications that need to be ceazed ultimately. He does not spare a single modification, because any kind of modification means the mind is still not restored to its original and pure state.
Thus we can see Asuri has a habit of of adding his personal spins and twists to Indian philosophies, and presenting this as factual. Thus I caution readers to be wary of Asuri’s representations of Indian philosophies, whether that be Samkhya, Yoga or Vedanta. I have already caught him out wrongly representing each of these philosophical schools, especially Vedanta which he hates.
That is also the reason why I am looking beyond classical Samkhya metaphysics and more into the Samkhya of Hindu scriptures. But if your interest is primairily in classical Samkhya, you should study the Karikas, vyasa bhasha of the yoga sutras, Samkhya Sutras objectively with all their commentaries and subcommentaries with logical scrutiny. I don’t think either of you has done that, neither have I, but I don’t claim to be a scholar of classical Samkhya
This is not to boast, I don’t consider myself a professional scholar of Samkhya, Yoga, Vedanta or any other Indian philosophy. However, I do have scholarship in this area formally and informally. Formally, I have a first class dissertation in Samkhya, which also looks partially at Yoga and Vedanta. Thus I have widely read a lot of academic literature on the subject and have been formally awarded for my work. I have plans to do a Phd in Samkhya in the near future.
Informally, I have read 3 different translations of the Karika(I also have some grasp of Sanskrit, so I always make it a point to translate the Karika for myself) and two different commentaries Gaudapada and Mishra. I am currently working on my own translation and commentary for my personal reference. Thus my understanding of Samkhya is strongly versed in scholarship.
My Samkhya reading is of course not limited to the Karika. I have also read the Samkhya Sutras, but must admit because of its length and it superfluous nature, I have not committed the same energy to it as I have the Karika. I have also read academic literature on Samkhya which quotes many major Samkhya commentators. I have read the major text of Puranic Samkhya, Kapilopedesa.
I have also read very extensively outside of Samkhya. My reading in Vedanta is probably the most, in which I have read and reread all the principal Upanishads, the Brahma Sutras (various translations and commentaries) The Gita(various translations and commentaries) and most of the major works of Sankarcharya. As well other core Vedanta texts like the Panchadasi of Vidyananda, Vedanta Sara and obscure Vedanta texts like Drk-drishya-vivek, jeeva-yatara, Astavarka Samhita. As well as lesser important Vedanta texts like Yoga Vasistha(a fusion of Yoga and Vedanta)
In Yoga I have only read the Yoga Sutras with passionate interest. I have read dozens of different translations and commentaries(but none by Vyasa, so I will make it a point to acquire that) Alongside the Karika, the Yoga sutras are the most important texts for me. I have read a lot of academic literature on Yoga. My reading of Tantric literature though is sparse, I have read only the Shiva Sutras, and superficially glanced at the Hatha Yoga Pradipika(I am not a big fan of Hatha Yoga) A lot of Tantric literature turns me off(like the Puranas)
I also have read the core texts of the analytical school of Indian philosophy Nyaya-Vaisehsika, both of the Nyaya Sutras and the Vaisehsika Sutras, with various commentaries. I have read them over and over again, because of their formal and analytical nature they are harder to digest. I have also read Navya-Nyaya texts like Tarka Samagrah. However, there are literally dozens of highly technical Nyaya literature I have not read, because they hard to obtain and are difficult to read.
Thus I have reasonable scholarship in all areas of Hindu philosophy. The areas I am weak in because I have barely read any of the core texts is in the Nastika tradition of Indian philosophy. Although I have a very basic understanding of Buddhism and Jainism from secondary sources, I have barely read any of the primary sources. Thus I would consider my scholarship in that area rather poor, but I still have a better grasp than the lay person of these philosophies.
Another area my scholarship is poor in is in Puranic theology(they are not philosophy). I have not a read a single Purana from start to finish, and the reason is because I don’t consider them important, and sorry to say but primitive, unsophisticated and not worthy of serious attention. I am brave enough to add that I have not enjoyed reading even the Ramayana because of its mythological character(but I’ve enjoyed watching them on TV)
I own a copy of the Narada Bhakti Sutras, but I have not actually read it yet!
Hence, I will correct you that my reading in Hindu philosophy is extensive and detailed. I doubt there is anybody else on this forum who is as well read as I am on this area. Again, I am not boasting, simply stating a fact. I am not saying this to establish myself as the only authority in this forum on all matters of Indian philosophy, but to make it clear what my credentials are in this area, as they have been brought into question. Otherwise I have no need to tell anybody my credentials.
OK, I just stumbled across something that seems to be clear evidence of antiquity in the Samkhya Pravachana Sutram. It appears in Book 1, Sutra 127.
The mutual difference in property of the Gunas arises by means of their pleasantness, unpleasantness, and dullness, etc
This is one of the few instances where the Karika doesn’t exactly mirror the Samkhya Pravachana Sutram, the Karika is a little more descriptive. But that’s not the point. The point is that Vijnana Bhiksu used a quote from Panchasikha to explain it. Who was Panchasikha? According to the Karika (70), the line of succession started with Kapila himself, to Asuri, then to Panchasikha.
This is the quote from Panchasikha
What is called Sattva is of infinite variety under the forms of clearness, lightness, love, agreeableness, renunciation, contentment, etc., which are summed up by the word Pleasant. Similarly Rajas also possesses many varieties, such as grief, etc, which are summed up by the word Painful. So also does Tamas possess many varieties such as sleep, etc., which are summed up by the word Bewildering.
Now I have to tell you, quotes attributed to Panchasikha are few and far between. Clearly the quote is explaining this specific sutra, which does not appear in the Karika. And if the quote is really from Panchasikha, then both the quote and the sutra predate the Karika. Not only that, it would be pretty strong evidence that the sutra came from Kapila himself. Are you guys going to tell me that this is all just some elaborate hoax?
What really pains me is that every time I shed some light on something, some jerk covers it up with bullsh*t. Regarding Surya Deva’s most recent accusations, that is just one more despicable lie. He has once again misrepresented what I said, and I assure you I can back up what I actually did say.
I do not doubt that you have read a lot of books, but I doubt that you have examined every argument down to the detail or that you have read everything in its original Sanskrit. I am not sure if you heard of the famous subhashita, [B]vidya dadati vinayam[/B], [I]knowledge gives humility[/I]. In general the people with partial knowledge are more boastful of their “scholarship.” You say you have a passionate interest in the yoga sutras, but you have never studied the vyasa bhasha and its subcommentaries, then please be more humble about your “scholarship.”
I wouldn’t pride myself of not having read the Ramayana, a scholar of Greek philosophy who has never read the Illiad and Odyssey would not be taken serious anywhere. The Ramayana of Valmiki has the same importance in Sanskrit literature. The rule goes, [B]itihasapuranabhyam vedam samupabrmhayet[/B] through the itihasas and puranas, the vedas have to be understood. All the great vedanta acharyas have quoted extensively from the itihasas and puranas and Shankaracharya speaks highly of the puranas.
No, I have not just read them, I have extensively studied them. There is always room for more understanding and depth in every subject, I am never going to claim that I have exhausted any of the areas. Hence why I admit, for example in the case of the Yoga, that I can still read more commentaries on the Yoga sutras, such as the one you indicate like Vyassa’s commentaries. However, to say that just because I have not read Vyassa’s commentaries, that I have an incomplete/inadequate scholarship is obviously unfair and an exaggeration. I may not have read Vyasa’s, but I have dozens of others. Moreover, I have actually engaged with Patanjali’s text myself.
Anyway I had anticipated when making that post about my credentials your response about being more humble etc. Hence, why I prefaced my post and reiterated in the end that I am only sharing my credentials, because you have raised a question on them, and otherwise would feel no need to. I have honestly evaluated the strengths and weaknesses in my areas of scholarship, and to be cognizant and vocal of my strengths is no way being not humble. This kind of attitude to not being able to positively evaluate your strengths is rather unfortunate, impractical and narrow minded. We can’t take such an attitude to a job interview situation for example, where we are encouraged to talk about our strengths.
Reading the texts in their Sanskrit original is not very important, because I have read several reliable English translations on them. Nonetheless, I appreciate the importance of reading them in Sanskrit as well, and I have actually gone to some considerable effort in reading them in Sanskrit as well.
In any case, and I again I will say this utmost modesty, I am probably the most well-read and qualified member on this forum in the area of Hindu philosophy. Thus the last thing I need is somebody lesser qualified to remind me my knowledge is incomplete I am not apologetic, and have never been apologetic about the knowledge I have. I have worked hard to study and I have the right to have healthy pride in my achievements.
Anyway your approach that reading the Puranas is essential is not shared by me, and nor by other scholars of Indian philosophy. As they are not philosophical texts, they are theological texts. A student of Hindu theology would need to read them, but not a student of Hindu philosophy. The fact remains that the philosophical texts like the Karika etc predate the Puranas. Your interest in the Puranas is obviously a religious one, and this is why I have dissociated myself from Hinduism, having realized I do not share the religious convictions of Hindus, which to me are on the same level as any Abrahamic religion. My interest in Hinduism is only in philosophical Hinduism and I practice the Jnana path. The Puranas are irrelevant reading to one on a path of Jnana, because is obvious they are not essential to the Jnana tradition, because it predates them.
We simply do not share the same attitude on the Puranas Sarva, but you know that already.
Just to add to what I said Sarva, and dare I say to rub in some irony. On the Hindu dharma forum I saw many people were criticized for following a Jnana path. When they professed to be Hindus they were asked, “What deity do you worship, how regular do you practice the prescribed rituals(prasadam, pooja), what pilgrimages have you been on, which puranas do you read, what is your caste” The ‘Hindus’ who merely have interest in Jnana are looked upon as inferior Hindus, or not even Hindus(Obviously, this is how I was treated on the forum)
But the greatest irony is that philosophical(Jnana) Hinduism actually predates Puranic Hinduism by a long margin. Thus to say because somebody does not practice Puranic Hinduism, they are an inferior Hindu is hilarious, because Puranic Hinduism is not essential Hinduism.
A further great irony is that the path of Jnana is extolled as the highest in the most authorized texts of Hinduism, the Upanishads and the Gita. These texts even criticize idol-worshipping and rituals as inferior practices and the Puranas themselves admit that they are not authoritative . Thus the Puranic Hindus knowingly engage in inferior practices and reading inferior scriptures, and yet have the gall to look down on Jnana margis 
I genuinely believe that I am practicing the true Hinduism, and I have the highest scriptures in Hinduism to support me. Unfortunately, Hinduism has been hijacked by the Puranic Hindus, that it does not serve me anymore to identify as a ‘Hindu’ I thus identify now as a Sanatana Dharmin, a follower of the original Aryan religion. Not the corrupt and degenerated Puranic Hinduism that came later. It is widely agreed, even by Hindu scholars, that Hindu civilization has been in long decline and is badly corrupted. The kind of religious fundamentalist views Sarva and his friends at HDF share exemplifies that corruption.
Anyway Jnana marga is my sadhana, and my philosophical reading in Hinduism is an essential part of my Sadhana. I thus do have very deep religious attitude to my sadhana and my sadhana is now a decade old. The Karika defines my achievement of even having read the core philosophical texts to be one of the 8 successes on the path. So as far Samkhya is concerned I am on the right path.
There are many adherents on this forum of the path of experience, citing often heard cliches in Yoga, “a morsel of experience is greater than tons of theories” But little do they realize that theoretical study is actually considered an essential part of the Samkhya-Yoga tradition, and in Vedanta it is the modus operandi. Thus their convictions I am afraid are not actually endorsed in the authentic tradition.
No, I have not just read them, I have extensively studied them. There is always room for more understanding and depth in every subject, I am never going to claim that I have exhausted any of the areas. Hence why I admit, for example in the case of the Yoga, that I can still read more commentaries on the Yoga sutras, such as the one you indicate like Vyassa’s commentaries. However, to say that just because I have not read Vyassa’s commentaries, that I have an incomplete/inadequate scholarship is obviously unfair and an exaggeration. I may not have read Vyasa’s, but I have dozens of others. Moreover, I have actually engaged with Patanjali’s text myself.
In the similar way you have criticised Asuri for not putting importance on the Samkhya Karika, I can criticise you for not recognising the importance of the vyasa bhasha on the yoga sutras. The fact alone that you do not recognise the importance of the vyasa bhasha on the yoga sutras, makes it clear that you are not a scholar and that you have never read a traditional commentary on the yoga sutra, because all the important ones refer to vyasa. Now that I have made you aware of the importance of vyasa’s commentary, I am sure you are going to run to the store to buy a copy so that you can start boasting that you have extensively studied vyasa’s commentary.
You have posted a lot of nonsense on this forum already which you have gathered from your neo vedanta sources, but I don’t have the time to educate you. I do not mind that you give a list of books you have read, but you arrogantly assume you are the foremost authority on Indian philosophy on this forum.
OK, I just stumbled across something that seems to be clear evidence of antiquity in the Samkhya Pravachana Sutram. It appears in Book 1, Sutra 127.
The mutual difference in property of the Gunas arises by means of their pleasantness, unpleasantness, and dullness, etc
This is one of the few instances where the Karika doesn’t exactly mirror the Samkhya Pravachana Sutram, the Karika is a little more descriptive. But that’s not the point. The point is that Vijnana Bhiksu used a quote from Panchasikha to explain it. Who was Panchasikha? According to the Karika (70), the line of succession started with Kapila himself, to Asuri, then to Panchasikha.
This is the quote from Panchasikha
What is called Sattva is of infinite variety under the forms of clearness, lightness, love, agreeableness, renunciation, contentment, etc., which are summed up by the word Pleasant. Similarly Rajas also possesses many varieties, such as grief, etc, which are summed up by the word Painful. So also does Tamas possess many varieties such as sleep, etc., which are summed up by the word Bewildering.
Now I have to tell you, quotes attributed to Panchasikha are few and far between. Clearly the quote is explaining this specific sutra, which does not appear in the Karika. And if the quote is really from Panchasikha, then both the quote and the sutra predate the Karika. Not only that, it would be pretty strong evidence that the sutra came from Kapila himself. Are you guys going to tell me that this is all just some elaborate hoax?
The only arrogance I can see here Sarva is from you that you have read the Vyasa commentary, and I have not. Of course Vyaasa is a key figure in Puranic Hinduism, so it does not surprise me you have read him. However, it is definitely not essential in Yoga philosophy to have read any particular commentary, and the fact that I read dozens of commentaries except your great Vyasa one, is enough for you to ignore my reading in this area is obviously a fundamentalist attitude. You are indeed a self professed Hindu fundamentalist. But I still thank you for your view, but I am going to discard it as nothing but religious dogma.
I do not actually consider Vyassa commentary unimportant, I have just not read it, but I will definitely make it a point to read it. However, the chances are I have already read his commentary indirectly through the dozens of other commentaries I have read.
Your comparison of the the core text of the philosophical system of Samkhya, the Karika to a commentary on the Yoga sutras is obviously ill-founded. Not reading the Karika as a part of a Samkhya philosophy course, is like not reading the bible in a Christian theology course It is clear a commentary does not have the same value as a core text.
Again your accusation that my understanding is Neo-Vedanta is basically a lie you are more content to believe, despite my revealing the contrary. I practice Vedanta of the authentic tradition of the Sankara Math. I know I do, because I have learned Vedanta at traditional Vedanta ashrams. My Vedanta is not at all based on Neo-Vedanta of Swami Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo, Ramana Maharishi, and this point has been explained to you several times. You are simply more content in believing in a lie. This fundamentalist characteristic you share with Asuri.(I agree with what Asuri said earlier, he is more like you than me)
In any case I am going to give a tit for tat response as you criticize my Jnana Yoga path, but you my friend, are practicing a self-confessed inferior Puranic Hinduism. The same Puranic Hinduism which is responsible for the decline of your great holy motherland. I am sorry, but you will simply have to accept, the Puranas are irrelevant to me.