Samkhya and Competing Systems

Yoga Discussion General Yoga
#1

The following quote was originally posted in another thread. I thought it should be answered in its own thread.

[QUOTE=vakibs;29385]… there is a relation to how “we” perceive things to what the world is physically made of. The meeting ground is on the complexity of the information that is contained within various natural objects.

So the samkhya theories of evolution of nature (prakriti just means nature) have a scientific imprint, and should definitely be cross-validated with what modern science tells us through experimental observation.

There are two crucial numbers in Samkhya - 3 and 5. There are 3 gunas and there are 3 principal layers of existence. But these 3 layers contain two intermediate sheaths between them, counting which we have 5 layers of existence for natural objects. These 5 layers correspond indeed to 5 layers of complexity in how information is represented in this universe. These different evolutes of Prakriti that are first postulated by Samkhya find repeated mention in many Indian texts, including the Upanishads.

The 5 layers of existence are : inanimate matter (anna), matter with breath (prana), matter with mind (manasa), matter with understanding (vijnana or buddhi) and matter with ego (chitta or ahamkara). Simple examples of objects present in these 5 layers are rocks, plants, animals, humans (and may be, computers) and adult human beings respectively. When Purusha identifies himself with any of these 5 layers, he feels a pleasure that is proportional to the complexity of this layer. But each such pleasure is finite, and excess indulgence in any layer causes pain. Beyond all these layers is the true nature of Purusha that is bliss alone (ananda) which is infinite.

Any natural object or form can be given a number (should we call it the Kapila number :slight_smile: ) based on which layer it stands and the complexity of information represented in it. Thus, any finite object gets a finite number. The 3 gunas of samkhya can be understood as arithmetic operations that take a finite number as input and produce another finite number as output. On the axis of integers, there are simply 3 such operations : increasing (rajas), decreasing to a zero (sattwa) and staying the same (tamas). All of these operations are extremely counter-intuitve and have to be understood with respect to the Indian system of counting with zeros. A number has to put a zero in every decimal place-holder to advance to the next level.

Thus paradoxically, sattwa becomes the best bet for any finite object to reach towards infinity. That’s why liberation is sometimes written as nitya-sattwasta (eternal reduction to zero).[/QUOTE]

#2

vakibs,

I assume you are the same individual who recently invited me to comment on a blog post containing similar ideas. I don’t have a lot of time for this sort of thing right now, but I’ll try to answer you fully.

#3

Let’s start with this

(prakriti just means nature)

Like many words in many languages, the term ‘prakriti’ has several shades of meaning. It is often used to refer to nature as a whole, but that is not its only menaing.

#4

there is a relation to how “we” perceive things to what the world is physically made of…So the samkhya theories of evolution of nature … have a scientific imprint, and should definitely be cross-validated with what modern science tells us through experimental observation

If one were to evaluate the Samkhya theory of the evolution of Prakriti strictly in terms of modern physical sciences, one would have to dismiss it as contrary to established facts. In my opinion Samkhya has little value as physical science. It’s about understanding human nature, and the experience of life. On the other hand, one cannot ignore a certain resemblance of Samkhya metaphysics to modern science.

Certainly there is a relation between how we perceive things and what the world is physically made of. But the world as we understand it is not made of sound, color, form, taste, and smell as taught by Samkhya. They are the attributes that allow us to perceive it.

The significance of the Samkhya system, is that they enumerated these potentials of perception and the corresponding instruments that perceive them. When extrapolated into broad categories, it is difficult to name any modern method of perception or communication that does not fit into one or the other of them. I’m talking about radio, tv, x-rays, all kinds of electromagnetic devices. They all consist of some kind of potential, and an instrument that “perceives” them.

So, I suppose in some sense we can think of the world roughly as composed of sound, color, form, taste,l and smell, but if we are going to do so, we have include the entire spectrum of sound, light, matter, and so on.

#5

There are two crucial numbers in Samkhya - 3 and 5. There are 3 gunas and there are 3 principal layers of existence. But these 3 layers contain two intermediate sheaths between them, counting which we have 5 layers of existence for natural objects. These 5 layers correspond indeed to 5 layers of complexity in how information is represented in this universe. These different evolutes of Prakriti that are first postulated by Samkhya find repeated mention in many Indian texts, including the Upanishads.

The 5 layers of existence are : inanimate matter (anna), matter with breath (prana), matter with mind (manasa), matter with understanding (vijnana or buddhi) and matter with ego (chitta or ahamkara). Simple examples of objects present in these 5 layers are rocks, plants, animals, humans (and may be, computers) and adult human beings respectively. When Purusha identifies himself with any of these 5 layers, he feels a pleasure that is proportional to the complexity of this layer. But each such pleasure is finite, and excess indulgence in any layer causes pain. Beyond all these layers is the true nature of Purusha that is bliss alone (ananda) which is infinite

I believe you are referring to the system of five koshas or sheaths, which you referred to in your blog post as Samkhya philosophy. This is not a comment on the validity of this system. Your explanation here has a lot of merit, but the theory of five koshas originates in the Upanishads (Mandukya Upanishad, I think), and is not found anywhere in the authoritative texts of the Samkhya darsana, so it really can’t be called Samkhya, even if it is explained in terms of Samkhya principles.

#6

Any natural object or form can be given a number (should we call it the Kapila number ) based on which layer it stands and the complexity of information represented in it. Thus, any finite object gets a finite number. The 3 gunas of samkhya can be understood as arithmetic operations that take a finite number as input and produce another finite number as output. On the axis of integers, there are simply 3 such operations : increasing (rajas), decreasing to a zero (sattwa) and staying the same (tamas). All of these operations are extremely counter-intuitve and have to be understood with respect to the Indian system of counting with zeros. A number has to put a zero in every decimal place-holder to advance to the next level.

You should definitely not call it the Kapila number. I’ve seen guna theory explained in several places: the Bhagavad-Gita, Srimad Bhagavatam, Samkhya Karika and Samkhya Pravachana Sutram. This is the first time I’ve seen anyone try to decribe guna theory in terms of numbers. I don’t mean to be too critical, as it seems you’ve put a lot of thought and effort into this, but frankly I don’t see how it contributes anything to the understanding of guna theory. The Samkhya-Pravachana-Sutram explains guna theory in terms of the evolution of Prakriti. In my opinion, that provides the best understanding, although it will be meaningless to anyone who is not familiar with the subject. For someone looking for a basic understanding, I would recommend reading chapter fourteen of the Bhagavad Gita.

#7

Asuri,

Thanks for your reply. I didn’t know it is you who runs the Samkhya-yoga website. I found that is a very useful resource (and hopefully you’ll succeed in adding a lot more information to it). I am very glad to have this input from you.

I am aware that my interpretation of Samkhya philosophy (in terms of numbers) is completely original. But I would like to check if this interpretation of the gunas differs in any of the conclusions that are made by the classical Samkhya literature.

Any religious and philosophical text is written with respect to a finite audience in mind - both in space (a particular region) and time (a particular period). Unfortunately, the concepts lose their meaning when they traverse these limits. In India, Samkhya is considered to be the oldest of all the philosophical darshanas - older than the Upanishads, Bhagavad gita etc. If Krishna who gave the Gita is modeled on a historical person, Samkhya is even older than this.

The problem with language is that it evolves rapidly over time : several new concepts get introduced as words and the meaning of the old words changes drastically to mingle the new ideas. The Bhagavad Gita is not identical to Samkhya philosophy, but it uses the words (gunas, koshas etc) provided by Samkhya to explain itself. The Upanishads did the same. The Bhagavad Gita has to also compare and contrast the Upanishadic ideas using the words of Samkhya. The Samkhyakarika, which is just written in 200 AD, is a re-establishment of classical Samkhya ideas in the light of these new streams of philosophy. Did it use exactly the same words and same sentences as Kapila imagined ? I highly doubt it.

I think the major difference in outlook between Indian and western philosophers is the adherence to word. In India, words are considered chains. There is no Divine word that is eternal. Even the Vedas, that are considered the most sacred, are supposed to get recited continuously by the four faces of Brahma, and could be heard by anyone who pays attention. One need not have any access whatsoever to the oral recitation of the Vedas, or the the scrolls over which they are written. It is inner meditation and investigation that is more important, because words can be deceptive.

If we merely translate words with words, meaning can indeed be lost in translation. Even for speakers who speak the language of the text natively. Because there is an immense gap of time that separates the older language to the current period. For all purposes, 200 AD is as distant to us as the moons of neptune.

The written record for the symbolic notation of zero is available at 600 AD from Brahmagupta. That is a good 400 years after Samkhyakarika, so obviously it is a “new” language that introduced new concepts. But these were developed in the fertile basin that is watered since an ancient time by the ideas of Kapila. Take Brahmagupta’s symbol for zero - a very interesting one. A circle enclosing a dot. The circle has an accepted meaning in Tantra to denote Prakriti. The dot (bindu) denotes the individual self. Personally, I suspect highly that Brahmagupta borrowed both these two symbols from Samkhya philosophy.

What I tried to do in my blog is to illustrate Samkhya ideas using modern terminology : not only the arithmetic of Brahmagupta, but also terms from computer science such as information complexity etc. This is obviously going to be controversial and not many people would like it. But I think what matters in the end is if the conclusions of this interpretation are the same as that of the earlier interpretations. This is what I would be interested in knowing.

#8

[I] This is the first time I’ve seen anyone try to decribe guna theory in terms of numbers. I don’t mean to be too critical, as it seems you’ve put a lot of thought and effort into this, but frankly I don’t see how it contributes anything to the understanding of guna theory.[/I]

Well, it helped for me.

Human mind is primarily a measuring device. Ultimately any concept that is explained in verse can also be explained through numbers. Especially for people who are mathematically inclined, this is an easier way to get the concept. In fact, in our modern times, unless a theory can be written in a mathematical notation, some people say it is not even a theory ! Such are the times in which we are living…

I don’t think everyone needs to use numbers to understand Samkhya (or quantum physics, for that matter). But some people may find it easier.

#9

vakibs,

Yes, the Samkhya-Yoga website is mine. I’m glad to hear that you found it helpful. Thank you for your encouragement. At the current rate of development, I expect it will take years to complete the project. I’m not doing any new content right now, because I’m busy with something else.

I am aware that my interpretation of Samkhya philosophy (in terms of numbers) is completely original. But I would like to check if this interpretation of the gunas differs in any of the conclusions that are made by the classical Samkhya literature.

I have found that there are basically two interpretations of guna theory. One is found in the Hindu religious scriptures like the Bhagavad Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam. Naturally, these interpretations tend to reinforce religious ideas. One of the characteristics of this interpretation is that rajas, the principle of action, excitement, passion. or motion, is always interpreted as negative.

The Samkhya Karika and Samkhya-Pravachana-Sutram present somewhat different interpretations. The Karika provides a few definitions, but the discussion in the Samkhya-Pravachana-Sutram is surprisingly sparse, considering that guna theory is one of the main foundations of the system. it seems sparse, that is, until you realize that guna theory is explained by the evolution of Prakriti.

For a brief example, we can use the evolutes of Ahamkara. In the individual, Ahamkara can be described as the sense of self, but on a cosmic level, it is something a little bigger. Its evolutes having a predominance of tamas are the tan-matras (sound, color, form, taste, and smell). Its evolutes having a predominance of rajas are the instruments of cognition (the senses), and action (locomotion, grasping, reproduction, elimination, speech). The sattvic evolute of Ahamkara is manas, or lower mind. We can get an idea through these concrete examples how the Samkhya philosophers conceived of the gunas. This is quite a bit different from what we find in the Bhagavad-Gita.

Guna theory really is not very scientific, which is why I think it may be problematic to try to explain it in terms of mathematics. It is however, useful in meditation practice and personal development. Kapila’s approach seems more oriented towards learning to recognize the gunas, through the similarities and differences in their various manifestations.

#10

Asuri,

I would have to respectfully disagree with you on the topic of scientific merit of Samkhya philosophy. I personally believe that Samkhya was instrumental in the development of Indian mathematics - arithmetic, trigonometry etc. But this apart, Samkhya influenced immensely Ayurveda - the system of medicine developed in India.

Also, in your website you have this to say

[I]It did, however, challenge some of the prevalent ideas about the nature of a God, and contains a theory of a single God, similar to the Judeo-Christian concept. In that respect, Samkhya may be more compatible with Christianity than it is with Hinduism and its pantheon of gods and goddesses.[/I]

I am afraid to say this is very very wrong ! In fact, Samkhya philosophy is the fundamental element over which the pantheon of Hindu gods is built. The Hindu trimurti, for example, represent directly the 3 gunas of Samkhya. This is why they are called guna avatars. In fact, all Hindu goddesses represent an aspect of Prakriti, and all Hindu gods represent an aspect of Purusha (as reflected in Prakriti, because by Himself Purusha is beyond any description).This is why Divinity is commonly represented by the joint presence of god and goddess.

Also it is common knowledge that Samkhya itself has no place whatsoever for Ishwar (God). More than this, it is directly in opposition for the Judaeo-Christian God who is a creator separate from the universe.

In Samkhya, Prakriti is self-born and evolves completely out of her own nature. The Indian philosophy that is probably the closest to the Judaeo-Christian God… that could be the Dwaita version of Vedanta.

#11

How do you reconcile the apparent inconsistency in your statements? On the one hand, you state that

Samkhya itself has no place whatsoever for Ishwar (God)
But on the other hand you say
Samkhya philosophy is the fundamental element over which the pantheon of Hindu gods is built. The Hindu trimurti, for example, represent directly the 3 gunas of Samkhya

In my view, the Samkhya concepts were assimilated into pre-existing religious beliefs. While it is true that Samkhya challenged traditional beliefs about the nature of god, it is not entirely atheistic, and I stand by my statement that the philosophy contains a concept of a single god. This is supported by the authoritative texts, specifically: Samkhya-Pravachana-Sutram, Book III, sutras 54 - 57.

#12

[QUOTE=Asuri;29439]How do you reconcile the apparent inconsistency in your statements?.[/QUOTE]

Asuri, the common understanding today is that Samkhya is the oldest of the philosophical traditions of India and that it has no place for Ishwara. But your knowledge should be higher than mine, because I haven’t studied the Samkhya texts with attention. My understanding is from second hand commentaries. What they say is that Samkhya is atheistic and Yoga is exactly the same thing with the principle of God (Ishwara) added to it. That makes Samkhya and Yoga twin siblings - one of them atheistic and the other theistic. But I would be very interested to read those verses that you quote.

The Samkhya-Yoga combine is probably the oldest religion in India, and may be older than the Vedas themselves, reaching to the Indus valley civilization. Similar to how Yoga has taken Samkhya principles and adapted them into a theistic framework, various other religions have taken bits and pieces of Samkhya and moulded them to suit their framework.

Specificially, the Hindu pantheon of trimurti is built using this framework as the guna avatars of the 3 Samkhya gunas.

#13

My understanding is from second hand commentaries. What they say is that Samkhya is atheistic and Yoga is exactly the same thing with the principle of God (Ishwara) added to it. That makes Samkhya and Yoga twin siblings - one of them atheistic and the other theistic.

This is a very simplistic view and not quite correct. The exact relation between Samkhya and Yoga has many aspects and is a subject of continuing research. The Yoga darsana does not simply adopt Samkhya philosophy. It is more like a progression of thought on various subjects, and contains other influences in addition to Samkhya.

I don’t know that you can call Samkhya-Yoga a religion, as it contains no rituals or other prescribed methods of worship. There are no rites of initiation or rules that have to be adhered to, or requirements of membership.

#14

I am very attracted in the focus of your post. I got very positive results. I am sure that your post will definitely be of help to many people.

#15

Namaste,

This thread in particular made me join this forum, because the philosophy of Samkhya is dear to me, and I recenty did my dissertation on Samkhya and its relation to modern physics. In this discussion this is exacty what is being discussed, and I felt I would share some of my research on Samkhya. I find Samkhya to be a very impressive philosophical system, and although its dualism seems to be at odds with the Vedic philosophy, it is not in fact a real dualist system of philosophy, but it is in fact only a relative dualism and a qualified form of non dualism. The dualism is only there insofar as there is a subject and object relationship, and when this collapses, the dualism disappears.

This collapse take place at the level of Moolaprakriti, this is the quantum nature of matter, where everything becomes potential. At this level there is no matter as such, for all matter is only potential. All that exists at the level of Moolaprakriti is the spaceless and timeless Purusha. In Vedic terminology this spaceless and timeless Purusha is the equivalent of Brahman, only that there are innumerable purushas that participate in Brahman. They are what we can understand in Western terms to be moands, atomic spiritual units, and they are infinite in number. A link can be drawn to the paramanu of the Vaiseshika Darsana, where all of reality is thought to comprise of atomic units, but these units are not necessarily physical units.

If anybody delves deeper enough into any Vedic philosophical school, they will discover that the Vedic ontology is purely spiritual. It is the opposite of materialism, which contends everything is made out of physical material, and nor is it dualist which contends there are both material and spiritual things. Ultimately, the grande philosophy of vedism is that everything is spirit and difference is only insofar as name and form. So the primordial substance is not matter, but spirit. If we understand this, we can understand exactly what Samkhya teaches.

In the beginning in that vast undifferentiated fied of consciousness waves of vibration take place for some reason which will remain unknown to us, which causes the fied to differentiate into infinite self-similar units of ego, each possessing an intelligence(buddhi) These self-similar units split up the field into an artificial subjective and objective dichotomy. In the subjective part develops the minds and senses and in the physical part develops the 5 subtle and 5 great elements. The mental and the physical are in fact not separate realms but continious and the mental is more subte and fundamental than the physical.

So what does this really mean? Well, it means that whatever you perceive which is physical, has an inner mental dimension. It is quite literally crystalized thoughts. Reducing even further, everything is just crystalized consciousness. These 3 leves of existence(physical, mental and spiritual) have been represented within the Vedic tradition as triloka or the 3 worlds, and each word is differentiated by its vibrational frequency. The spiritual being the highest, most lightest, freest and expansive is sattva. The mental is energetic, agitated is rajas. The physical is dense, contractive is tamas.

In the Samkhya scheme there are 49 levels(7*7) or vibrational densities and each level consists of 7 sub-levels which are transitory. This is why when we try to analyse matter at the microscopic level we find that it exist in transision states and it is not distinctive. It ony becomes distinctive when we reach the next level which is the astral(the sensory plane) but we cannot reach this level by splitting atoms, this level can only be reached via the mind or by raising the vibrational frequency of matter beyond the event-horizon of space, such that it comes out of phase with space-time.

I think one can clearly see the links between Samkhya and modern physics. Simply put Samkhya is an ancient, and ironically a more advanced quantum physics.

#16

Certainly there is a relation between how we perceive things and what the world is physically made of. But the world as we understand it is not made of sound, color, form, taste, and smell as taught by Samkhya. They are the attributes that allow us to perceive it.

The phenomenal word is indeed made out of sound, color, form, taste and touch. The Samkhya philosophers were very wise in dividing reality into 5 perceptual categories, because indeed the empirical world is made up of sense data we receive from the 5 senses. Light we receive through the receptors in the eyes; sound through the receptors in ears; forces through many receptors in our skin; taste through the receptors in the tongue and smell through particles entering our nose receptors.

So as far as we know there are only 5 categories of matter. Even modern scientists speak of 5 categories without realising it: waves, forces, energy, sub-atomic particles, atomic elements. Interestingly, the Vaiseshika philosopher knew that except for space every other element is atomic(It is believed that forces like gravity may also be made of particles, called gravitons. And we know light is made out of photons)

However, the core philosophy of Samkhya is that the phenomenal or empirical reality is not real, and that to know the real reality we have to use logical inference or special yogic perception. It does this using its axioms of satkaryavada whereby it counts the various stages of manifestation before we become aware of an empirical object. It then shows through the rigour of its logic that there are no empirical objects in existence, until the observer(Purusha) collapses the quantum state(Moolaprakriti) As soon as this collapse takes place, there are still no empirical objects in existence, but in fact the first things that come into existence are mental. Empirical is the last stage of manifestation.

So when we become aware of an empirical object, we simply become aware of the collapsed state of the object after it has filtered down to us from the higher vibrational densities. This is something the physicist Eugene Wigner also demonstrated with his Wigners friend paradox.

Samkhya is basically quantum physics. I call it the master philosophy, because it is indeed the main philosophy which underpins all of Vedic philosophy. As one author I read once said: Samkhya is India.

#17

The 5 layers of existence are : inanimate matter (anna), matter with breath (prana), matter with mind (manasa), matter with understanding (vijnana or buddhi) and matter with ego (chitta or ahamkara). Simple examples of objects present in these 5 layers are rocks, plants, animals, humans (and may be, computers) and adult human beings respectively. When Purusha identifies himself with any of these 5 layers, he feels a pleasure that is proportional to the complexity of this layer. But each such pleasure is finite, and excess indulgence in any layer causes pain. Beyond all these layers is the true nature of Purusha that is bliss alone (ananda) which is infinite

You are close. This is indeed Samkhya, but using another enumeration scheme. In this case there are 5 levels. In the Vedas there are 3 and in Samkhya there are 49(7*7) and in the Puranas there are 7. This all depends on how you divide reality and how precise you want to be. The Vedas are rather general with their 3 divisions of gross, subtle and causal(bhu, bhuva swaha) The Upanishads add more details(bhu = anna and prana; bhuva = mano and vijana; swaha = ananda) and the Puranas make it even more precise by adding tapa, jana, satyam, brahma.

These are all basically different vibrational densities and they overlap with one another.
I just want to correct you though everything that exists exists on all these levels. So although a so-called inanimate rock may seem to only physical, it will also exist on the subtle and causal plane in another form. We have direct access to the subtle plane through our mind, but we come under the false impression that only we have minds and assume inanimate objects do not. So we come to make these false distinctions of animate and inanimate, living and dead. In reality everything is alive.

#18

Welcome back, Surya Deva. You and Vakibs seem to have quite similar points of view. I’m afraid I don’t have the time or energy or inclination right now to go through everything that you’ve written and try to sort out fact from from opinion from misinformation from fiction, because there are so many instances where I disagree with you. Your most basic mistake is that you have adopted the philosophy and so you are no longer objective but have become an advocate. You desperately want for Samkhya to be completely in harmony with modern physics and with Vedic philosophies, and so you will go to great lengths to try to prove that this is so. This means that you are at risk for not seeing things as they really are, but seeing what you want to see.

If you have some research that you would like to share, I have a website that is designed for that sort of thing. Maybe you would like to contribute. If you have some valid research that supports your views, maybe you will manage to persuade me to your way of thinking, but so far I don’t see it.

#19

Surya Deva,

It occurs to me that maybe I owe you an apology for taking a confrontational approach with you from the start. I welcome someone with an interest similar to my own, even if we do not agree on many things. I hope that this does not turn into a battle of egos. My interest is in clarity and knowledge that helps myself and others obtain a correct understanding of yoga and yoga philosophy and related philosophies, so that we all can evolve more consciously.

#20

My research is based on the primary texts and secondary texts. It should not matter whether I adopt the philosophy or not, this does not necessarily mean I will not be objective about it. Indeed, the primary texts are written by adherents of the system. Should we disregard their works because they were advocates of the system? No, of course not. Look at the research.

The connection between Samkhya and modern physics is clear. In fact, you may not know this but Schrodinger wave mechanics was inspired by Samkhya and the Schrodinge’r cats paradox is a reformulated Samkhya paradox. If you are familiar with quantum physics, the same problem that Samkhya addresses is raised, that is the relationship between the observer and the observed and how the observer affects the observed. The Copenhagen solution to the problem is the observer collapses quantum reality and before the act of observation there are no particles in existence. The Samkhya solution is the same that the observer(Purusha) collapses the quantum reality(Moolaprakriti) before which there is no physical reality in existence. This should not be conroversial to you, because it is common knowledge in Samkhya philosophy that Prakriti is an undifferentiated(avyaktam) state prior to it becoming differentiated by the act of Purusha observing Prakriti. Then manifestation begins and the first evolutes are mental things.

I have done my research quite well and was awarded high marks for my dissertation. I have also been able to reconcile the differences between Vedanta and Samkhya. I don’t see them as contradictory systems, but complimentary systems. When Samkhya ends, Vedanta begins.