Donald Trump hosted a debate that nobody participated in. Did Donald Trump win the debate? I don’t think so.
I’ve noticed that participation in the forum is down over the last few days. People were just starting to come back after the fiasco of the last year or so. But now that the flame wars have started again, they’re leaving again. Nice work, chump.
Its a challenge to read this thread. Sheer verbiage is overwhelming. What is called a ‘proper debate’ doesn’t look like one. It is more a show of stength. If the trophy is so desperately sought, let that be given, and let there be peace.
Peace is what we come to Yoga for. A true seeker is told that an atom, a human being or the whole universe have the same gross-subtle composition and that is scale-invarient. Put simply, the assurance is that know thyself and you will know what an atom and the universe is. On the Yoga path, one engages oneself in search of that truth first hand, revisits the experiences and understands the subtleties.
That experincing and understanding is completely missing here. There is no inquiry into the compulsive human need to see things frozen, separated and then judged. There is no sign of unrest over generalizations, undue simplifications, assertions based on subjective views of external authorities, and skewing of someone’s reality into the world’s ultimate, unshakable truth. Abundance of words itself is expected to bring richness of meaning.
Not everything said is untrue, nor the efforts less commendable. What is un-Yoga, if you will, is the desperate anguish to defeat someone and the deceptive air of presenting a balanced truth. The overriding question is whether this takes Yoga and the yogis any further?
I wish this grand presentation is followed by a sequel called “Making of this article” examining own processes of thinking, evaluating, reasoning, judging, articulating, etc in the context of limitation of perceptions in realizing the truth and inability of words in capturing it. Afterall, words like purusha and prakriti are too weak to convey the experience of the phenomena and if you have experienced them, there is no urge to convey anything, but just be there.
? just be there.
I do not take true Sankhya philosophy to be taken from the sankhya sutras which were of much more recent origin and was not the position of sage Kapila. There is an interesting development in the philosophical systems. In the age of the Mahabharata and Bhagavatam the Sankya system, yoga system and vedanta system had more commonalities than differences. Even though there were different philosophers already on the Sankhya system as is mentioned in the Mahabharata. Later in the first millenium through the medieval period and further everything was dissected and debated and systemised. I don’t think any of these systemised philosophical schools do justice to the Shastras whether it be advaita vedanta or medieval sankhya. In later years (for example in the work of Vijnana Bhikshu) attempts were made to harmonise the philosphical systems again with a renaissance of the ancient philosophies as described in the vedas, itihasa, purana and agamas. In my opinion more effort should be spend researching the ancient texts to understand Hindu philosophy rather than arguing points made by medieval scholars. Still, these debates and arguments can be used as an aid in understanding and the works of the darshanic acharyas are important because they preceded us in their analysis of Indian philosophy. The subject of Hindu philosophy should always go together with a deep undertanding of the Hindu shastras (veda, itihasa, purana, agama) and personal practice. The problem with neo-vedanta (like that of theosophy, ken wilber etc.) is that the philosphy is seperated from the shastras which will lead to all sorts of groundless imagination.
This thread does exactly what it set out to do. It has set up a debate between two philosophies Samkhya and Vedanta. The proponent for Samkhya, Asuri, is not making any effort now, but over the last 2 years has been vociferousness in condemning Vedanta at any chance he got, most recently in the thread, “Intellectual or con artist” where he even personally attacked me for defending a Vedanta view, while trumpeting Samkhya as the bastion of rationality. I have done the needful by setting up this debate to show that this person is not at all aware of flaws within Samkhya and the strengths of Vedanta in addressing those flaws.
In the future when Asuri makes more anti-Vedanta comments and personally attacks somebody for sharing Vedanta views, I will just re-direct him to this thread to show his failure in being unable to engage with any of the core issues in Samkhya and provide any defense to his oft blanket statements against Vedanta. At least in this case, I have shown Vedanta is a superior philosophy to Samkhya.
In any case this thread is only going to appeal to those who have a grounding in philosophy, this type of thing is not for everybody. The sheer ‘verbiage’ is just standard philosophy speak which not everybody can get their heads around. I did make an attempt though to include others by giving backgrounds and educating about the core concepts in these philosophies.
A better understanding of Sankhya can be obtained from the Srimad Bhagavatam, Khanda 3 and the conversations of sage Kapila with his mother devahuti.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;69437]This thread does exactly what it set out to do. It has set up a debate between two philosophies Samkhya and Vedanta. The proponent for Samkhya, Asuri, is not making any effort now, but over the last 2 years has been vociferousness in condemning Vedanta at any chance he got, most recently in the thread, “Intellectual or con artist” where he even personally attacked me for defending a Vedanta view, while trumpeting Samkhya as the bastion of rationality. I have done the needful by setting up this debate to show that this person is not at all aware of flaws within Samkhya and the strengths of Vedanta in addressing those flaws.
In the future when Asuri makes more anti-Vedanta comments and personally attacks somebody for sharing Vedanta views, I will just re-direct him to this thread to show his failure in being unable to engage with any of the core issues in Samkhya and provide any defense to his oft blanket statements against Vedanta. At least in this case, I have shown Vedanta is a superior philosophy to Samkhya.
In any case this thread is only going to appeal to those who have a grounding in philosophy, this type of thing is not for everybody. The sheer ‘verbiage’ is just standard philosophy speak which not everybody can get their heads around. I did make an attempt though to include others by giving backgrounds and educating about the core concepts in these philosophies.[/QUOTE]
Your attitude about this is right, when people make statements about philosophy, they should also be able to defend them, or otherwise remain silent. But other than that, I don’t think that starting a debate with an ignoramus will be of any use.
[QUOTE=Sarvamaṅgalamaṅgalā;69434]I do not take true Sankhya philosophy to be taken from the sankhya sutras which were of much more recent origin and was not the position of sage Kapila. There is an interesting development in the philosophical systems. In the age of the Mahabharata and Bhagavatam the Sankya system, yoga system and vedanta system had more commonalities than differences. Even though there were different philosophers already on the Sankhya system as is mentioned in the Mahabharata. Later in the first millenium through the medieval period and further everything was dissected and debated and systemised. I don’t think any of these systemised philosophical schools do justice to the Shastras whether it be advaita vedanta or medieval sankhya. In later years (for example in the work of Vijnana Bhikshu) attempts were made to harmonise the philosphical systems again with a renaissance of the ancient philosophies as described in the vedas, itihasa, purana and agamas. In my opinion more effort should be spend researching the ancient texts to understand Hindu philosophy rather than arguing points made by medieval scholars. Still, these debates and arguments can be used as an aid in understanding and the works of the darshanic acharyas are important because they preceded us in their analysis of Indian philosophy. The subject of Hindu philosophy should always go together with a deep undertanding of the Hindu shastras (veda, itihasa, purana, agama) and personal practice. The problem with neo-vedanta (like that of theosophy, ken wilber etc.) is that the philosphy is seperated from the shastras which will lead to all sorts of groundless imagination.[/QUOTE]
Thank you Sarva, for a reply that is actually on-topic and can further this discussion.
The earliest text on Samkhya we know of is the Samkhyakarika and not the Samkhyasutras. The Samkhyasutras were unknown in India prior to Vijnana Bhikshu, some even said that he may have invented them. The Samkhyakarika is more like an abridged version of the original Samkhya sutras attributed to sage Kapila of the Samkhya system, but the original has been lost.
In any case we can see that there is not just one Samkhya, but many: There is the theistic Samkhya found in the Mahabharata, Gita and the Upanishads, where Samkhya is found in a less systematized form. There is the atheistic Samkhya darsana, which is the most systematic articulation of it. There is also a medieval Samkhya in the Srimad Bhagvata purana, known as the Kapilpodesha which attempts to reconstruct the original theistic Samkhya.
There is actually no problem even in the atheistic Samkhya darsana as long as one accepts Samkhya is taking a certain viewpoint and constructing a systematic philosophy based on that. Samkhya is looking at creation from the point of its beginning, and not before it. At the point of its beginning in Vedanta Brahman has already split up into infinite jivatmans(purushas) each participating in one universe. Thus Samkhya starts from there and constructs its philosophy from that base.
This is why Indian philosophies are known as darsanas, they all take one viewpoint and start building a system of philosophy from that base. Buddhism starts from the void; Nyaya-Vaiseshika start from empirical reality; Charvaka start from matter. They are all highly logical and consistent theories insofar as you accept the fundamental assumption and viewpoint.
Vedanta starts before the beginning from the absolute reality. It constructs its philosophy from that base. In other words Vedanta takes the highest perspective. There can be nothing higher than Vedanta, hence why it is called Ved+anta, the end point of the Vedas. There is nothing higher than the absolute. Thus Vedanta provides the most comprehensive and unified theory of philosophy we know. It can explain everything! It is widely considered the acme of philosophy by many. Whitehead called it, "The most perfect metaphysics the human has ever conceived’
The earliest text on Samkhya we know of is the Samkhyakarika and not the Samkhyasutras.
My mistake, I meant the Samkhyakarika. There are indeed many different Samkhyas, but the debate is mainly between the systemised atheistic Samkhya and vedanta. Vijnana Bhikshu was the first to try to reconstuct the Samkhya from the puranic literature and try to harmonise it with vedanta.
There is also a medieval Samkhya in the Srimad Bhagvata purana, known as the Kapilpodesha which attempts to reconstruct the original theistic Samkhya.
I do not take the Srimad Bhagavatam to be medieval. Some indologists like Van Buitenen have tried to argue that the text is much younger, because of the sophisticated use of language, but I don’t take this view. Professor Edwin Bryant makes a good overview of the arguments about the date of the bhagavatam and shows that there is good reason that the text is much older. The Bhagavatam (canto 3) forms a part of the theistic Samkhya found in the Mahabharata, Upanishads and Pancaratra literature. Vijnana Bhikshu also draws a lot from this puranic source.
As we all know, there are also many different schools of vedanta. Scholars of dvaita and advaita are still debating. The dvaitins are well praised for their expertise in logic, more so than the advaitins. Advaitins are putting more emphasis on pravachan (lecturing) than debate these days.
Samkhya vs Vedanta: What does it all mean for the layman
Here is an attempt to allow the readers to cut through the verbiage and come to the core points these philosophies are making from the point of view of spirituality:
Samkhya:
Every individual soul is separate from one another(individualism)
Each soul is a passive witness of the world(pacifism)
There is no god, each soul must bring about their own liberation through Yoga by emptying the mind of its conditioning(asceticism)
Each soul must incarnate innumerable lifetimes and gradually work through their karma to be empty of desire(reincarnation)
Liberation/enlightenment is a slow and progressive process(spiritual evolution)
This world is suffering(pessimism)
Thus Samkhya philosophy leads to a rather bleak, passive and selfish view of reality. It basically sums up the average spiritual seeker - retiring away into the mountains in order to find their enlightenment. I did this myself recently, only to realise how selfish it is to leave the world behind you, while you go in search of enlightenment. I already realised just how apathetic yogis and sadhus were. Many of them simply do not care about others or their feelings, they are self-absorbed, spending hours locked up in their hermitage, hardly engaging with the world around them and eschewing all senses pleasures, living on alms, barely wearing anything.
This is what happens when you internalize a philosophy like Samkhya - which many of us have done through Yoga and Buddhism, both of which have Samkhya as their underpinning.
Vedanta:
There is no separation, everything is divine, everything is god(pantheism, compassion, social responsibility)
You are god in essence, the supreme, omniscient, omnipotent lord(self empowerment)
You are an active co-creator within the universe(self-responsible)
There is a god(it is your essence) and you must seek communion with god to become liberated by directing your mind to god(devotion)
There is no reincarnation because there is no time and space, one can become free right here and now just by realizing their unity with god(assertiveness)
Enlightenment is instant
The world is to be enjoyed
Such a contrast to the Samkhya worldview! The Vedanta worldview is positive, life affirming, vibrant, confident, responsible, self-empowering, majestic. A random spiritual person I met once, who appeared in my life almost as if he was guided by the divine to talk to me, once said to me, “Do not fear, you are a prince amongst men” When we realise that we are divine beings, we no longer see ourselves as the limited complex ridden creatures that we do - but rather as gods - like royalty - who have a birthright to be happy and prosperous. This changes our worldview dramatically from just a face in the crowd, to the life of the party. We should be the life of the party wherever we go. We should be worship worthy - for we are gods.
I feel the need to set the record straight.
Statements such as these are outright, boldfaced lies. This is the statement I objected to:
And this is what I said about it:
It would be perfectly reasonable for me to condemn Surya Deva for all of the lies and slanderous remarks he has made against me over the past few days. But we need to recognize that this is the work of someone who is deeply disturbed and irrational, and try to show a little compassion.
[QUOTE=Asuri;69449]
It would be perfectly reasonable for me to condemn Surya Deva for all of the lies and slanderous remarks he has made against me over the past few days. But we need to recognize that this is the work of someone who is deeply disturbed and irrational, and try to show a little compassion.[/QUOTE]
Posts made by Asuri:
[QUOTE=Asuri;62586]Go worship a cow, you filthy piss-drinking dot-head.
User was banned for two months for this and the below posts - admin - 06/13/2011 4:18pm central[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Asuri;62587]And stay on your side of the Atlantic, or go home in a box.[/QUOTE]
hhhmm…
That remark was directed against Neitschze, who for many months went around this forum making highly offensive remarks against Christians in general. The particular remark that prompted that response was made in the context of a thread that was started by a Catholic priest, which made his highly offensive remark even more egregious. I did not mean to offend anyone else, but sometimes collateral damage cannot be avoided. I am not going to apologize, in fact I’m proud to have defended my Christian heritage, and would do it again.
Nietzsche was right though with his criticism against Christianity.
Yeah? So was I.
Showdown, slowdown, lost and found, turn around
the boys in their military shirts
I keep my eyes on the prize, on the mo-fo-in skies
and I don’t let my friends get hurt
All you back-room schemers, start-trip dreamers better find something new to say
’cause its the same old story, it’s the same old crime
and you’ve got some heavy dues to pay.
I’m a space cowboy. Bet you weren’t ready for that.
–Steve Miller, 1969
I am not going to apologize, in fact I’m proud to have defended my Christian heritage, and would do it again.
You defended your Christian heritage by making a racist comment against Neitzsche by calling him a filthy, cow piss drinking dot head? OK…
In any case I think the readers reading this thread, in front of whom you are trying to act very innocent, will come to understand you are not so innocent at all. You often make blanket statements and never back them up. In this thread I have called your bluff.
Not only do you not understand Vedanta - a philosophy which you have condemned and attacked on several occasions in in the past 2 years, not just the philosophy, but even me for being a propnent of it - you also do not understand Samkhya, a philosophy which you claim to be an expert on and even have a website on. The real reason you clash with me, is because you know I show you up. I am far more educated than you in the subject of Samkhya or Indian philosophy in general, and that really grates on you. Hence why you create threads like, “Intellectual or con artist” it betrays your insecurity and envy.
Prior to me coming to this web site you tried to make yourself look like the resident scholar. When I arrived, your comfortable bubble was shaken up and you hated it when others here praised my scholarship, this is why you positioned yourself as my enemy. In your words you saw me as "dangerous’
But the real danger was not anybody else, but the danger to your ego and your self-assumed title as the Samkhya-Yoga expert on this board.
I demonstrated a long time ago that you did not even understand the basic concepts in Samkhya: Purusha and Prakriti dualism. You mistook Samkhya to be an empirical dualism like Cartesian dualism(which you more or less said was the same as Samkhya) which is a Christian dualism - and as a self-confessed Christian you were trying to force Samkhya to fit your Christian worldview - when in fact they couldn’t be more incongruent. I demonstrated to you by directing citing from Samkhya texts that it is not an empirical dualism, but a rational dualism i.e., Purusha and prakriti are not things you can see, they are inferred to exist using logic. (This is very basic knowledge that any student of Samkhya philosophy knows, but you didn’t even know this) Your ego could not take being proven wrong, so as usual you threw a tantrum.
Then you tried to force Yoga into your Christian worldview. You decided to change the often repeated definition of Yoga, “Yoga is the cessation of the modifications of the mind, then then the witnesses essential form is revealed” to Yoga is the cessation of only negative thoughts in mind, not all of them and asserted this new definition you fabricated as if it was gospel. You could not careless for what the sutras actually really said or what 2000 years of scholarship on Yoga said.
And a real expert in Samkhya or Yoga would not be so dismissive of the criticisms of these philosophies by scholars. I recall what you said, “I hate critics, I don’t care what they think” What this showed is that you were not even making an attempt to look at the philosophical problems in Samkhya, like a true Christian, you just turned a blind eye to it and pretended they did not exist.(I have bought light to those problems in this thread)
I have a good memory indeed and I can remember many of these blanket statements you have made without ever backing your points up. Your interest in Samkhya is not for the sake of Samkhya, but to give your Christian worldview an air of rational semblence, hence why you freely distort it to fit into it. This is why you are a pseudo-Samkhyan. You’re really just another fundamentalist Christian trying to justify and rationalize your faith, by selectively borrowing from every other tradition, and leaving out what does not fit in with it.
So now we get to the real reason for this thread. It was never anything more than a thinly veiled excuse for Surya Deva to attack Asuri. I’ve already made my case, and I think its pretty much iron-clad. Surya Deva is a liar, and a very sick puppy indeed. This forum was a much better place before he arrived.
You have to ask yourself, what is going on here? I think what we are witnessing is how hindus attempt to suppress anyone or any idea that dares to oppose them. I must say this thread really is quite an education.
I need to provide some context for this post.
I will call this the [B]Nonsense Theory[/B]. And my original response:
Based on this thread I’ve realized that the Nonsense Theory isn’t just about being gullible, it’s also about [I][B]intimidation[/B][/I]. It’s like they’re saying, accept this, or be subjected to an endless barrage of lies, slander, misrepresentations, and other assorted personal attacks. So to swallow the Nonsense Theory, you would need to be [I][B] either gullible or passive[/B][/I]. So if you are gullible or passive, that’s OK with the Vedantins, because you can be easily controlled. But if you are neither gullible nor passive, that creates a problem that has to be eliminated. The bottom line is that this really isn’t about philosophy, [B]it’s about dominance and control[/B].