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.
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+.
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.
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
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 .
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.