Both Prakriti (female gender) and Purusha (male gender) put together become Brahman : the Absolute.
This concept of Brahman constitutes a twenty-sixth principle, which is not accepted by Samkhya. It is not accepted because there is no evidence for the existence of Brahman. Knowledge of Brahman is found only in scriptures.
I have written a blog post explaining the Samkhya system in modern terms. Samkhya literally means “enumeration” and it is intimately tied with the Indian system of counting with zeros.
I do not understand what motivates an individual to put so much time and effort into an essay that contains so much misinformation. The authoritative texts of the Samkhya darsana are well defined, and include the Samkhya-Pravachana-Sutram, the Samkhya Karika, and the Tattva Samasa. None of these texts include any reference to the system of five koshas, or to the Indian system of counting with zeros.
The 3 gunas produce the Hindu trinity of trimurti (Brahma - Infinity as sattva, Vishnu - Infinity as rajas, Shiva - Infinity as tamas).
In my view, this is an example of efforts to assimilate Samkhya principles into pre-existing religious beliefs, and in so doing, to legitimize those beliefs. This is an effort that apparently continues to this day.
[QUOTE=Asuri;29436]I do not understand what motivates an individual to put so much time and effort into an essay that contains so much misinformation. The authoritative texts of the Samkhya darsana are well defined, and include the Samkhya-Pravachana-Sutram, the Samkhya Karika, and the Tattva Samasa. None of these texts include any reference to the system of five koshas, or to the Indian system of counting with zeros.[/QUOTE]
Asuri,
Please do note that in India, there is no concept of “authoritative” texts. This idea is a very Abrahamic one. This is the reason why nobody is banished from the folds of Hinduism for having radical or even outrageous ideas. It is okay to have a personal interpretation of a text or a philosophical idea. And it is considered a good thing to debate one’s ideas with others, by showing the utmost respect to the other person’s views or interpretation. All the three streams of Vedanta interpret the Upanishads and the Bhagavad-Gita in their own way.
Samkhya is widely considered to be the oldest of all the darshanas (philosophical paths) of India, and it goes to a much older date than any of these texts. Investigation of cultural and philosophical history is a scientific discipline and the way to proceed is to have rival hypotheses and judging them based on the number of assumptions they make in order to explain the facts.
I have explored the idea that Samkhya philosophy (which itself means “enumeration”) is the foundation over which Indian arithmetic is built. The symbol for zero was only invented in the 6th century AD, so it is only natural that earlier philosophical texts wouldn’t use this interpretation for explaining Samkhya.
this is an example of efforts to assimilate Samkhya principles into pre-existing religious beliefs, and in so doing, to legitimize those beliefs.
The notion of trimurti is a very recent one, and stems from the Puranic period (300 AD). Samkhya is widely considered to be the “oldest” of all the philosophical systems in India. So your accusation doesn’t stand. On the other hand, the very puranic texts speak of trimurti as guna avatars.
Without a doubt, Samkhya challenged traditional beliefs about God.
What do you mean “traditional” beliefs ? Most historians of India think of Samkhya as the oldest philosophical system, even older than the Vedas. If there were any other beliefs about “God” or “gods” in India before Samkhya, they didn’t leave any trace in terms of philosophical texts. All “other” philosophical traditions (including Yoga, Upanishads, Buddhism, Tantra, Bhagavatas and Puranas) have either challenged or assimilated the beliefs of Samkhya, simply because they came “after” it.
This concept of Brahman constitutes a twenty-sixth principle, which is not accepted by Samkhya. It is not accepted because there is no evidence for the existence of Brahman. Knowledge of Brahman is found only in scriptures.
No, what constitutes the 26th principle is Ishwara or God. Brahman is not God.
Brahman is what “is”. Existence of Brahman is a tautology, because it means existence of existence… and therefore, it is useless to talk about it. That’s why no Indian philosophical text talks about the existence of Brahman, but about its relationship to an individual self.
In terms of Samkhya, what exists are prakriti and purusha. Brahman, by definition, becomes the union of both put together. Please note that the concept of Brahman is introduced in all its clarity in the Upanishads, which came much much later than Samkhya.
I think what you are trying here is to fit some Indian texts that you like to your own judaeo-christian world view. I don’t think it’s any bad, you are totally entitled to have your opinion or interpretation.
Thankyou all for a stimulating discussion . Very enlightening
[QUOTE=adityananda;29212]As such, there is some indirect correlation between the Hindu Brahma and the Christian Father, the Hindu Vishnu and the Christian Son, and the Hindu Shiva and the Christian Holy Spirit.[/QUOTE]
Holy Spirit-Adi Shakti is above Father and Son, that?s why Jesus says that-[B] ?I And My Father Are One?,[/B] [I]John 10:30.[/I]
[B]Jesus didn?t say ?I And Holy Spirit Are One?.[/B]
[QUOTE=vakibs;29380]The 3 gunas produce the Hindu trinity of trimurti (Brahma - Infinity as sattva, Vishnu - Infinity as rajas, Shiva - Infinity as tamas).[/QUOTE]Brahma - rajas
Shiva - tamas
Vishnu - sattva
Thank you for correcting me Seeker33,
You are right, Brahma is indeed rajas, and Vishnu is sattva. In Indian mythology, Brahma has a finite existence and germinates from the navel of Vishnu… This makes him indeed the symbolification of rajas.
But the reason why I got confused was because he also signifies intelligence (as does his spouse Saraswati) which is not usually assigned with the rajas guna. May be that intelligence that is signified by Brahma is vijnana the understanding about the other, instead of jnana which means understanding of one’s own self.
vakibs,
I think I’m finished with this discussion, as you seem to be convinced of your own authority, but unfortunately you have not persuaded me. On the contrary your statements show me that you don’t know your own philosophy very well. In fact, you’ve admitted that your knowledge comes from secondary sources. Everything I write about Samkhya is carefully researched from primary sources, including the authoritative texts, which I learned from your own professors Damodaran and Puligandla. And I do not limit my research to the Samkhya texts, I also look into the English translations of the Upanishads.
One of the main contributions of Samkhya philosophy, is that it was the first system to explain the natural world without reference to gods or other supernatural powers or divine forces. So your insistence on connecting it with gods and religion goes completely against the main thrust of the philosophy.
I should also point out that I did not originate these ideas, but learned from professor Damodaran, who concluded that Samkhya originated in the Indus Valley civilization, and was assimilated by conquerors who brought with them the gods and goddesses of the Vedic religion. As my own studies and contacts with Indian people progress, I am more and more convinced that this is indeed the case.
I’m sure you will continue to promote your own unsupported ideas and beliefs, and maybe you will convince other unwitting individuals, but I know better. That being said, I think I’m finished with you.
Asuri
If you have nothing to offer beyond what is written in those Sanskrit texts or what Prof Damodaran says, then alright. It’s good to end the discussion here.
One of the main contributions of Samkhya philosophy, is that it was the first system to explain the natural world without reference to gods or other supernatural powers or divine forces. So your insistence on connecting it with gods and religion goes completely against the main thrust of the philosophy.
I don’t know how you are managing to miss the point, again and again. Of course, Samkhya is an atheistic and naturalistic philosophy, and quite naturally, it did play a role in the development of Indian science and mathematics since ancient times.
But it is the first one to have come about in India, and the later philosophical systems have been built upon it. It is not my fault connecting Samkhya with gods. Complain against the writers of Puranas. The gods of Puranas were conceived on the model of Samkhya principles. In India, philosophy is open source, and it has always been so. Too bad if it goes against the main thrust of the philosophy, even though you yourself seems to have no problem connecting Samkhya with Judaeo-Christian imagery.
As my own studies and contacts with Indian people progress, I am more and more convinced that this is indeed the case.
You may add your correspondence with myself into your contacts with Indian peoples 
Good luck and goodbye !
Thanks for the discussion. You brought up a lot of sources I’d like to look at!
I don’t think Samkhya is atheist at all. The oldest extant philosophical treatise on Samkhya, the Samhyakarika does not mention god, it does not repudiate god either. It is just silent on it. However, even older varients of Samkhya are found in the Bhagvad Gita and in the Upanishads, and they certainly mention god. You can trace back Samkhya’s core concepts to the Rig Veda, particularly the Nasadiya Sukta, where the account of creation is very similar to Samkhya’s description of manifestation.
I aso wanted to say, because I saw Asura mention his professor talking about the conquest of the Indus valley people by the Vedic conquerors, that this theory known as Aryan invasion theory has fallen into disrepute recently. It is very controversial and it is no longer posited as fact. There is significant evidence now to show that the Vedic people were indigenous to India, based on significant archeaological evidence. The evidence is also showing us the Vedas are even older than the Indus valley phase.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;31781]I aso wanted to say, because I saw Asura mention his professor talking about the conquest of the Indus valley people by the Vedic conquerors, that this theory known as Aryan invasion theory has fallen into disrepute recently. It is very controversial and it is no longer posited as fact. There is significant evidence now to show that the Vedic people were indigenous to India, based on significant archeaological evidence. The evidence is also showing us the Vedas are even older than the Indus valley phase.[/QUOTE]
The controversy that you speak of concerns whether the invaders were Aryans or whether they were some other people. There is no dispute that a relatively advanced civilization existed in the Indus Valley, or that the civilization was conquered by relatively less advanced invaders who brought the Vedic religion with them. The differences between the surviving remnants of the Indus Valley culture and the Vedic culture seem obvious to me.
[QUOTE=Asuri;31802]The controversy that you speak of concerns whether the invaders were Aryans or whether they were some other people. There is no dispute that a relatively advanced civilization existed in the Indus Valley, or that the civilization was conquered by relatively less advanced invaders who brought the Vedic religion with them. The differences between the surviving remnants of the Indus Valley culture and the Vedic culture seem obvious to me.[/QUOTE]
No, the dispute is indeed over whether any invasion ever happend. No evidence has been furnished for this theory, but on the contrary the actual archeological evidence is showing the IVC is Vedic. I have also done a talk on this subject.
I am not allowed to post URL’s yet, so I will just excerpt from the articles:
The evidence of science now points to two basic conclusions: first, there was no Aryan invasion, and second, the Rigvedic people were already established in India no later than 4000 BCE. How are we then to account for the continued presence of the Aryan invasion version of history in history books and encyclopedias even today?
This brings us to the different theories that scholars have about the origins of the Aryan society. Though it seems evident that an Aryan society was in existence in the Indus Valley by 3100 B.C., not everyone agrees with the dates that Waddell has presented for the Aryan Invasion into India, and whether the Aryans were actually invaders is doubtful. Obviously, different views on the Aryanization of India are held by different historians.
The aryan invasion theory has been one of the most controversial historical topics for well over a century. However, it should be pointed out that it remains just that ? a theory. To date no hard evidence has proven the aryan invasion theory to be fact. In this essay we will explain the roots of this hypothesis and how, due to recent emergence of new evidence over the last couple of decades, the validity of the aryan invasion theory has been seriously challenged.
Please do a search on google using the search string, “Aryan Invasion theory” to find the sources I just used. I think the above will be sufficient to show that it is indeed controversial. The evidence actually contradicts the theory.
Thank you for interesting discussion.
Just want to remind original post
In the Yoga Sutras Patanjali, he talks about separation Purusha from Prakriti.
Is is separation in terms of recognition or something else?
Yes. It is like two things become superimposed and one needs to discriminate between those two things. Such as a garment and perfume become superimposed, that it may seem that the perfume smell is present within the garment, but actually it is separte from it. Likewise, Purusha which is the pure consciousness is superimposed on Prakriti which is the material nature and one must learn to separare the two. One must realise they are not the body, nor the mind, nor the ego,