Please recommend a Samkhya philosophy reading

Spirituality
#81

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 :smiley:

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.

#82

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.

#83

@bjoy

Welcome to the dark side.

#84

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?

#85

@Surya Deva

Until you learn to practice the most basic yamas, you will get no respect.

#86

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 :smiley: 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) :smiley:

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.

#87

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;71679]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)[/quote]This has absolutely nothing to do with me, what random people post on Hindu dharma forums doesn’t represent what I belief in. The only reason for you to bring this up is because you want to start arguing against strawman positions.

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.
Who has said this? I have not said this, so please leave it out of the discussion.

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 :smiley:
The upanishads and gita do not criticise idol worship. You are misrepresenting the scriptures here. The puranas do not say that they are not authorative, most of the puranas put themselves on the same pedestal as the vedas. You say you have read and reread the upanishads, but you have convienently missed what is said in the Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya Upanishad and various passages of the Atharvaveda where the Itihasapurana is called the fifth veda.

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.
You have bought the view of the 18th century reformist groups like the Arya Samaj and the Brahmo Samaj. There is no puritanical Arya Dharma that is better than all other practices of Hinduism. You obviously have not studied the vedas, otherwise you would know that they are highly ritualistic and devotional and only sparingly deal with philosophical topics. There are more passages related to jnana and yoga in the puranas, agamas and tantras than there are in the vedas.

#88

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;71684]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 :smiley: It is clear a commentary does not have the same value as a core text.[/quote]In the similar way you have criticised Asuri for not being able to differentiate between Bhagavan Sri Krishna and Isvarakrishna of the Karikas, I can criticise you for not being able to distinguish between Krishnadvaipayana Vyasa of the Mahabharata and vyasa, the author of the commentaries on the yoga sutras.

If you had any knowledge of the yoga sutra, you would know that they are unintelligable in many places without the commentaries of vyasa. That doesn’t mean that the commentary has the same authority, but without it, you simply cannot get a good grasp of the sutras. The fact that you do not know this says a lot about your scholarship in Hindu philosophy.

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) :smiley:

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.

Obviously, you do not follow Shankaracharya, since you are ignoring many things Shankaracharya has said and you are even vilifying the practices that are widely used in Shankara maths throughout India.

#89

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.

Asuri has repeated this post twice, claiming this to be the smoking gun evidence that Samkhya Sutras are older than the Karika. However, as usual with Asuri’s “arguments”, it’s nothing but hot air

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.

The quote appears in the Samkhya Sutras which were composed in the 14th or 16th century, and is attributed to Panchasikha, there is actually no such quote prior to the 14th or 16th century. As the origins of the Samkhya sutras are dubious, any quotes found within it are equally dubious. There are several examples of quotes being attributed to ancient and legendary personalities in medieval literature, some of which I have already discussed. In the Bhagvata Purana an entire dialogue between sage Kapila and his mother is attributed to him, but it is agreed by all scholars this dialogue is completely fabricated by medieval Purana scholars. In the Yoga Vasistha, an entire dialogue is attributed to the ancient Vedic sage Vasistha and Lord Rama, but this too is known by scholars to be a complete fabrication by medieval scholars. As is now been proven beyond a reason of doubt that scholarship agrees the Samkhya Pravachana sutras are a late medieval text, any quotes appearing within it attributed to legendary ancient personalities have to be considered dubious.

Still, one must grant the possibility that the quote maybe genuine, but even if it is, it is not at all inconsistent with what is already both explicitly stated and implied within the Karika. The Karika already contains sutras giving similar descriptions of the gunas as found in this quote. Sattva is considered light and buoyant and is associated with higher mental states; Rajas is considered mobile, exciting and passionate and is associated with pain and transmigration and tamas is considered dull and in association with delusion.

Proof from the Karika on the gunas:

  1. The three gunas(Sattva, Rajas and Tamas) are subjectively experienced as pleasure, pain and delusion. They serve the purpose of illumination, action and restraint.

  2. 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.

  3. The intelligence principle is the faculty which ascertains or wills. When sattva guna is preponderant, virtue, wisdom and dipassion are produced in the intelligence. When the other gunas are preponderant, other qualities are produced(tamas: torpidity, dullness, delusion)

  4. The higher planes are preponderant with sattva guna, the lower planes with tamas guna and the intermediate plane with rajas guna

  5. This creation from the highest to lowest is painful because of the fact of death and decay(everything is perishable) Hence everything is potential pain. Owing to the non-cessation of the subtle body. As long as consciousness(purusha) is in association with the subtle body, it experiences pain due to constant transmigration(due to Rajo guna, passion)

Thus it is clear that the content contained within the quote that has been attributed to Panchashika is already stated in the Karika.

#90

Wise movie Sarva, to now disassociate yourself from the Hindu fundamentalists at HDF where you are a regular poster :wink:

The upanishads and gita do not criticise idol worship. You are misrepresenting the scriptures here. The puranas do not say that they are not authorative, most of the puranas put themselves on the same pedestal as the vedas. You say you have read and reread the upanishads, but you have convienently missed what is said in the Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya Upanishad and various passages of the Atharvaveda where the Itihasapurana is called the fifth veda.

I believe I have already established conclusively that the Upanishads and the Gita do indeed criticize Idol worship in the other thread, “I am no longer Hindu” However, you appear to have forgotten, so I will refresh you:

Ironically enough the Upanishads(considered Vedanta, the end of the Vedas) are strongly critical of the ritualistic Hinduism we see today and even make fun of it(obviously showing that the ritualistic Hinduism was also present during the times of the Upanishads)

Quote:
The Upanishads They are the concluding parts of the brahmanas and are also called the Vedanta, which means the summing up of the Veda. The word Upanishads means to sit close to. It suggests that this sacred material was originally secret. The most important ones appeared between 800 and 600 B.C.

Several important Hindu schools of thought, including the sankhya and yoga schools, were founded on the teachings of the Upanishads. They contain information about Indian philosophy, on matter (prakriti), soul (atman) and God (Brahma). The Upanishads criticize rituals and lay stress on the doctrine of karma and the right knowledge. They also deal with the doctrines of Karma (action), mukti (salvation), maya (illusion) and the transmigration of the soul. They have been translated into major languages of the world because of their philosophical content.

The literary works referred to above are believed to contain sacred knowledge or divine revelation. This knowledge had been handed down by oral transmission by the sages to their pupils by word of mouth. This method of oral transmission is called the shruti or ‘revelation by hearing’.
http://indiansaga.com/history/aryans...iterature.html

Quote:
The Upanishads recommend very elevated ethical behavior for those who wish to achieve salvation through the intuition of Brahman.

Some Upanishads condemn all rituals as pointless and utterly useless in attaining the intuition of Brahman, but most allow them a place as a way of disciplining the self and of meditating on higher realities.
http://personal.stthomas.edu/jdkronen/Brahmanas.html

Quote:
While the hymns of the Vedas emphasize rituals and the Brahmanas serve as a liturgical manual for those Vedic rituals, the spirit of the Upanishads is inherently opposed to ritual.[76] The older Upanishads launch attacks of increasing intensity on the ritual. Anyone who worships a divinity other than the Self is called a domestic animal of the gods in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. The Chāndogya Upanishad parodies those who indulge in the acts of sacrifice by comparing them with a procession of dogs chanting Om! Let’s eat. Om! Let’s drink. The Mundaka launches the most scathing attack on the ritual by comparing those who value sacrifice with an unsafe boat that is endlessly overtaken by old age and death.[76]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upanishads

It is obvious the tendencies to degenerate into pointless ritualism existed even in Vedic times, which Vedanta condemned as pointless. Unfortunately, ritualism gained prominence during the formation of Puranic Hinduism and it all went down-hill from there. The original Santana dharma where one practices a life of contemplation and self inquiry and refined their moral and intellectual character, was eclipsed by this primitive and superstitious ritualism of Puranic Hinduism where people started to pray to made up gods and goddesses and swear by blind faith and idol worship. It is during this period we see India degenerate badly and break apart.

It is widely agreed by Hindu scholars that idol worship is an inferior practice, but this practice is only allowed because the masses of the age of decadence are incapable of practicing the higher practices of Jnana. That is hardly an endorsement, but more of a concession.

#91

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;71690]Wise movie Sarva, to now disassociate yourself from the Hindu fundamentalists at HDF where you are a regular poster ;)[/QUOTE]You seem to be completely incapable of any logical thought, you can not even understand the fact that what random people post on a forum doesn’t represent my views simply because I am also a regular poster there.

#92

Nevermind. I’ll let you guys battle it out. Another thread gone south thanks to Surya Deva. The moderator should have the good sense to do what the Hindus did on their own forum.

#93

By the way Karika also regards rituals/idol worship etc as an inferior pratice to Jnana:

  1. A permenant solution to curing the three kinds of pain is inquiry. Other means only offer temporal relief.

  2. The ritualistic means is impure and does not produce certain removal of the pain. Discriminative knowledge of the unmanifest, manifest and the cognizer offers a permenant solution.

The highest scriptures of Hinduism thus all take a critical stance on rituals/idol worship etc and advocate Jnana. Hence the behavior of Hindus today is indeed very ironic!

You have bought the view of the 18th century reformist groups like the Arya Samaj and the Brahmo Samaj. There is no puritanical Arya Dharma that is better than all other practices of Hinduism. You obviously have not studied the vedas, otherwise you would know that they are highly ritualistic and devotional and only sparingly deal with philosophical topics. There are more passages related to jnana and yoga in the puranas, agamas and tantras than there are in the vedas.

I do not support the Arya Samaaj, I consider them to be Hindu fundamentalists. The Arya Samaaj is basically a Hindu nationalistic reactionary movement to Christianity, which tries to reinterpret Hinduism along Abrahamic lines.

It is simply incorrect to say that there was no original Arya dharma. There was indeed, as we can find very clearly stated in the Veda Samhita. It says again and again to cultivate Aryan qualities and enjoins upon the Aryans to make the whole world Aryan. Synonymous with the word Aryan is dharma(the path of virtue). Hindu scriptures also advocate that we must protect dharma. The Gita takes the most radical stance here, where god himself incarnates in the form of an avatar whenever dharma is threatened. So I identify with the Aryan mission which is expressed very clearly in the Veda Samhitas: Know the ultimate reality, cultivate virtue and higher character, do noble deeds.

The most accurate and authentic articulation of the Aryan mission is in the Upanishads and the systems of philosophy which are derived from the Upanishads path of Jnana. Samkhya, Yoga and Vedanta are all different articulations of the path of Jnana as prescribed in the Veda Samhitas.

It is true that even in Vedic times there was a strong and dominant ritualistic culture as contained within the Brahmanas, and a community of Brahmins who performed ritualistic sacrifices. This was challenged by the seers of the Upanishads who argued that the Brahmins had missed the deeper esoteric meaning of the Vedas, and thus they made an attempt to distill this out of the Vedas. It is clear they succeeded, because Brahmanical Vedism subsequently declined like the OT declined in Christianity, and was replaced by the NT of the Upanishads.

Unfortunately, the ritualism returned with the Puranas after the common era. The Puranas can be seen as the continuation of the old OT Brahmanical Vedism in a new avatar of devotionalism. The same thing the Upanishadic seers rose against.

If you had any knowledge of the yoga sutra, you would know that they are unintelligable in many places without the commentaries of vyasa. That doesn’t mean that the commentary has the same authority, but without it, you simply cannot get a good grasp of the sutras. The fact that you do not know this says a lot about your scholarship in Hindu philosophy.

The Yoga sutras are quite concise and can be read without any commentaries I have found. However, you keep overlooking that I have read dozens of commentaries, by Sanskrit scholars who have read the commentaries of Vyassa et al. Thus I have been indirectly exposed to Vyassa’s commentaries too. Your insistence that my scholarship on the Yoga sutras is faulty simply because I have not read your pet favorite commentary is dogmatic and unfair to say the least. I actually have a very deep understanding of the Yoga sutras and it one of the few texts that I keep reading over and over and over again. I am currently working on my own translation and commentary. Again, not to say I consider Vyasa’s commentary unimportant, but you are certainly blowing its importance out of proportion, and at the same time undermining all other commentaries to the text as unimportant.

Obviously, you do not follow Shankaracharya, since you are ignoring many things Shankaracharya has said and you are even vilifying the practices that are widely used in Shankara maths throughout India.

Your statement that I am ignoring many things Sankara said is unintelligible without examples of what those things are.

#94

Basic yamas and niyama will serve you better. Attempting to follow a path of jnana without these results only in self-righteous arrogance, which is essentially delusion.

#95

[QUOTE=Sarvamaṅgalamaṅgalā;71696]You seem to be completely incapable of any logical thought, you can not even understand the fact that what random people post on a forum doesn’t represent my views simply because I am also a regular poster there.[/QUOTE]

It is obvious you agree with their views because you were endorsing them in my thread, “I am no longer Hindu” and you also endorsed their intolerant behavior against me. Now you want to disassociate yourself from them. But I think this is good, because it shows you are starting to recognize their fundamentalism :wink:

Originally posted by Asur: Nevermind. I’ll let you guys battle it out. Another thread gone south thanks to Surya Deva. The moderator should have the good sense to do what the Hindus did on their own forum.

This is ironic Asuri, because the one to actually start this debate on the Karika vs the Samkhya sutras is you in post 10, 11 and 14. To use a brilliant and ironic quote David once used with Yogiadam, “You’re an arsonist, complaining about the noise of fire alarms”

In any case this thread has long served its purpose in the first few posts to the thread. The OP wanted to be recommended Samkhya readings, and that’s exactly what he was given. Then you brought up the whole Karika vs Sutras subject, and that is what we have been discussing since. I do not consider this tangent you have introduced to be fruitless though, because it has lead to a very informative discussion on Samkhya philosophy. Perhaps this thread would be served more by renaming this thread, “Discuss Samkhya philosophy” Rather than having dozens of separate threads as we do currently.

What I find promising and reassuring that our philosophical battles, for right or wrong, has created a lot of awareness about Samkhya vis-a-vis Vedanta on this forum and how it relates to Yoga history, philosophy and practice. There are many members on this forum who now know a lot more on this subject and that is definitely a good outcome.

The good thing about this Yoga forum is that that a more active interest is taken here on the spiritual, religious, historical and philosophical side of Yoga, as compared to other Yoga forums which focus predominantly on asanas. This is one of the few Yoga forums online where the relationship between Yoga and Hinduism is freely and openly discussed, without taking any official pro or anti Hindu stance.

#96

Samkhya cannot be understood by reading, debating or discussing. It has to be experienced and the techniques of yoga helps in realising this goal. The chances of finding a fake proponent of Samkhya are higher as the real ones are enlightened and may not get themselves too involved in worldly affairs like Dr. Jayadeva Yogendra of The Yoga Institute, Mumbai who has written his thesis of Samkhya in the 1950’s and Swami Hariharananda Aranya of Kapila Math who has named the Math after the founder of Samkhya Shri Kapila Muni.
Hope this helps.

#97

[QUOTE=smartmelvin;74916]Samkhya cannot be understood by reading, debating or discussing. It has to be experienced and the techniques of yoga helps in realising this goal.[/QUOTE]

Since one of the yoga?s is Jnana, there seems to be nothing wrong with knowing/using your mind before moving beyond it. Know your being; the body depends on the mind, the mind depends on consciousness, consciousness depends on awareness and awareness depends on the absolute?fourth.

#98

I can vouch for Swami Hariharananda Aranya. His version of Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras is unique, in that it includes the commentary of Vyasa, and then the swami’s own sub-commentary. Vyasa’s commentary is well known, and is a classic.

It is true that ultimately, knowledge has to be verified by experience, but Samkhya is very much about knowledge of material nature, through which one comes to understand the nature of the self.

#99

[QUOTE=Asuri;74929]Samkhya is very much about knowledge of material nature, through which one comes to understand the nature of the self.[/QUOTE]

Its more of understanding the limitations of material nature and its only then that one would want to understand the unchanging truths of life.

#100

I don’t know about that. It seems to me that material nature operates through unchanging truths, i.e. the speed of light, gravity, electro-magnetism, the periodic table of the elements.