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.
[QUOTE=ray_killeen;71554]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.[/QUOTE]
It is a common mistake to think that when we are born we are pure. In fact, when we are born, we are full of many kinds of dispositions, dispositions we have inherited from our evolutionary past, from our parents and from our past lives. Thus we are not really pure, and certainly not enlightened when we are children.
I challenge the idea that children are more pure than adults, because I know from first hand experience how nasty children can be to one another from a very young age. In fact children are the least most enlightened people, because they lack discrimination, they are completely dependent and are more prey to natural instincts, wants and desires than adults.
We must all eventually become adults and this this means we must develop discrimination, we must become independent and we must conquer our base nature by purifying our nature. In other words there is a lot to be done. It is a tall order indeed. This is why I say we are in the same boat as anybody else. Everybody else is trying to become an adult as well. In order to do this we need to work on our relationships, our career and our health. Now tell me who is not working on these areas? Everybody is.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;71575]It is a common mistake to think that when we are born we are pure. In fact, when we are born, we are full of many kinds of dispositions, dispositions we have inherited from our evolutionary past, from our parents and from our past lives. Thus we are not really pure, and certainly not enlightened when we are children.
I challenge the idea that children are more pure than adults, because I know from first hand experience how nasty children can be to one another from a very young age. In fact children are the least most enlightened people, because they lack discrimination, they are completely dependent and are more prey to natural instincts, wants and desires than adults.
We must all eventually become adults and this this means we must develop discrimination, we must become independent and we must conquer our base nature by purifying our nature. In other words there is a lot to be done. It is a tall order indeed. This is why I say we are in the same boat as anybody else. Everybody else is trying to become an adult as well. In order to do this we need to work on our relationships, our career and our health. Now tell me who is not working on these areas? Everybody is.[/QUOTE]
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.
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
I’m not going to respond to the rest of your post because I just find it tiresome and I’ve already made my points. The fact that you find it necessary to misrepresent what I say really just shows your weakness. 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.
The yoga sutras say that Isvara is untouched by the [I]klesas[/I], 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.
The fact that Isvara is not liberated is key, since if he were liberated it would be impossible to have interaction with material existence. The yoga sutras describes his interaction as being the teacher of the ancient yogins, through temporal continuity. A literal translation of the yoga sutras would describe this aspect of Isvara as ‘unbounded by time’. This is totally consistent with the Samkhya theory of the evolution of Prakriti, since Isvara comes into existence at the very beginning of the cycle of evolution and at the most subtle levels, before the emergence of time (akasha), which is itself a product of prakriti. When this is understood then it becomes clear that there is no inconsistency if we say that Isvara is unbounded by time, yet still subject to the cycle of evolution, by virtue of the fact that he is not liberated.
Earlier in this thread the point was made that samkhya and yoga are basically the same. There really is no conflict between the Samkhya description and the Yoga description of Isvara and there is no doubt that the Isvara of the yoga sutras is the emergent Isvara of Samkhya.
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.