Asuri has reported a post.
Reason:
abusive language, personal attacks, defamation.
Post: Please recommend a Samkhya philosophy reading
Forum: Spirit’s Path
Assigned Moderators: N/A
Posted by: Surya Deva
Original Content:
Asuri is simply not a reasonable person. He’s behaving like a paranoid nut
He views everything I, or any other Hindu says from the conspiracy angle of evil Hindus plotting against him. For instance, above I refer him to a contemporary Western scholar of Samkhya who also cautions against the Samkhya sutras because of their late origin, and he accuses me of lying/misrepresenting what he is saying
He views everything I, or any other Hindu says from the conspiracy angle of evil Hindus plotting against him. For instance, above I refer him to a contemporary Western scholar of Samkhya who also cautions against the Samkhya sutras because of their late origin, and he accuses me of lying/misrepresenting what he is saying Unfortunately as we will now see, Asuri is a complete idiot, and we will see now proof of his idiocy: In Gerald Larson’s book, “Classical Samkhya: An interpretation of its history” which is available partially to read on google, on p.152-53 we see this:
[quote]The Sankhya underwent a kind of revival in the 16th century AD, for in that century both Anirudha(ca 1500) and Vijnana Bhikshu(later half of 16th century) wrote commentaries on the Samkhyapravhichanasutras. 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. The same is true for the tattvasamasasutra. The late date for these texts is supported by the fact that commentaries to the texts are also late. It is possible, of course, that many passages or ideas contained in the texts may go back to classical times, but it is difficult to sort out the earlier from the later.
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. There is also greater emphasis in these late texts, on the cosmic side of the doctrine, and the Samkhyapravachanasutra articulates in great detail the periodic creation and destruction of the world. Some of these emphasis in the late texts are absent or only vaguely implied in the Karika, as will be shown in the final chapter. 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.
Note: I have transcribed verbatim the passage from Larson’s book. However, if there is any doubt that I have not, the reader is free to look for themselves here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Ih2aGLp4d1gC&pg=PA76&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
I caution readers on this forum not to take anything Asuri says on the subject of Samkhya seriously, as his views are only peculiar to him and not shared by actual scholars of Samkhya. Asuri’s misinterpreted version of Samkhya is a sort of a polemical philosophy against Hinduism, which he has synthesized with Christianity, which is clearly not what Samkhya is.
Readers will find the information I share on Samkhya to be factual and reliable, as I am well versed in the scholarship on Samkhya and have also done my dissertation on the subject.[/quote]