Samkhya vs Vedanta

Spirituality
#41

[B]Topic 1 Observation vs Scripture[/B]

One of the most important features of the theory of existent effects is that it is based observations of nature. No effect that exists in nature can be produced from sheer non-existence, everything has a material cause. A table is produced from wood, wood comes from trees, trees come from seeds. But you cannot produce an apple tree from an oak seed, you can’t produce iron from lead, you can’t produce a pig from a rock. An effect can only be produced from a material that is competent to produce it. The natural progression of cause and effect leads to the question of what is the ultimate material cause, beyond which no further reduction of matter can be made. In Samkhya, the name given to this first cause is Prakriti. Samkhya also observed that the spirit or self of living beings is not material in nature, but something fundamentally different called Purusa. They reasoned that Prakriti cannot be an effect of Purusa, because Purusa is not a material that is competent to produce it. This leads to the natural and intuitive conclusion that spirit and matter, though fundamentally different, are equally real.

What does Vedanta have to say about this? The following is a quote from the Brahma Sutra, an authoritative document of Vedanta:

We can see clearly that the primary objection to the Samkhya theory of Prakriti (Pradhana) is that it is contrary to the Upanishads. This is a huge difference in approach. Samkhya starts with observation and uses reason to draw inferences about the nature of reality. Vedanta starts from scripture and uses reason to rationalize it. The unhappy consequence of this is that it leads to conclusions that are counterintuitive, unnatural, contrary to experience, and wrong. For example, take the conclusion drawn above: Creation is an illusion. There has never been a creation and never will be, and time and space are just illusions that exist in our minds. If we look at the rationale for this conclusion, we can see that it comes from a misunderstanding of the theory of existent effects, and is motivated by the need to preserve Brahman as the cause of the universe as stated in the Upanishads. It doesn’t really provide any valid reasoning, it just says, this is not possible, it makes no sense. Samkhya explains how it is possible.

The theory of Prakriti states that it has three constituent substances called gunas, and that all of the manifestations of nature occur through different combinations of the gunas in which one or the other predominates. In the root Prakriti, which is unmanifest, the gunas are said to be in equilibrium, and when the balance is disturbed Prakriti begins to manifest. So even though it is unmanifest, the root Prakriti is still a material that is competent to produce the effects of manifest nature. This directly answers the question how does an unmanifest something produce a manifest something? The short answer is, when Prakriti is unmanifest, the gunas are in equilibrium. When the equilibrium is disturbed, the gunas begin to manifest.

Now that we understand the gunas, we can refine the definition of Purusa to [I]that which is [B]not[/B] composed of the gunas[/I]. This makes it more clear that Purusa is not a material that is competent to produce the effects of nature.

#42

Re: Topic 1: Observation vs Scripture

Asuri raises a valid objection that Vedanta’s main means of knowledge is the scripture of the Upanishads and Samkhya does not rely on scripture for support, but starts with observation. I reply, that there appear to be major gaps in Asuri’s knowledge:

  1. He does not know that although Vedanta does indeed appeal to scripture as it primary source of knowledge, it does actually adduce rational arguments to argue for its propositions(e.g. All is Brahman) and against the propositions of Samkhya(e.g., Pradhana cannot be the material cause)

  2. (a) He does not know that although Samkhya does not appeal to scripture as its primary source of knowledge, it does actually accept the authority of scripture on matters that cannot be resolved through rational methods.
    (b) He does not know that Samkhya is not in fact based on observation, but rather actually rejects observation as a means of knowing the truth of something. The unseen can only be inferred through reason. Moreover, the conclusions that Samkhya draws are also counter-intuitive to what can be observed.(a criticisms he levels at Vedanta)

I will now expand on these points:

  1. The Vedanta argument is that there is knowledge that we know intuitively and not through any rational means(observation, inference, testimony) In philosophy we call this knowledge a priori. There is some knowledge that we simply know and does not come to us from the external world, such as the knowledge of what is right and wrong, mathematics and ideals like perfection, infinite, whole. In the external world there is no such thing as a perfect triangle or a perfect circle for instance, such things only exist in our minds as pure ideas. The truths of mathematics and physics that we readily apply to the external world and expect the external world to behave according to, do not actually exist in the external world at all, they are being superimposed by us. What else are we superimposing on this world?

Vedanta’s argument is that even before any act of observation takes place the mind has already superimposed many things on reality, thus we never actually see reality as it really is essentially - noumena, but a superimposed version - phenomena. Any conclusions we draw from anything we observe can only tell us truths about this phenomenal reality, but nothing but the essential reality. Therefore, rational means of knowledge can never tell us anything about the essential reality. So what can reveal the essential reality to us? Scripture, says Vedanta. Scripture is based on the direct experiences of mystics who have been able to go beyond the veil of the phenonenal reality and see beyond.

Let me simplify it with an illustration: Suppose you were a virtual reality character in a game. Everything you see is virtual reality. Every inference you draw from what you see is also virtual reality. Can you ever know anything about the actual reality outside of the game through any number of observations and inferences drawn from the virtual world? The only way of ever knowing the actual reality would be to go beyond the virtual reality. Now suppose you were succesful in doing that and returned to explain the actual reality to the rest of the virtual characters, how would you go about explaining the actual things in terms of virtual language? It would be very difficult to describe it, the best you could do is use metaphors, “It is like, such and such” and use logic to explain it and justify it.

This is exactly what Vedanta does. It is a system of philosophy based on non-rational means of knowledge gained by those(seers) who have gone beyond the phenomenal reality, but come back and tried to describe it and explain it and justify it. Every point in the philosophy of Vedanta is justified using impeccable logic. It is therefore unfair to treat it as just a religion based on dogma.

Asuri cited from the Brahma Sutras to show Vedanta simply appeals to scripture all the time to disprove the Samkhya theory of pradhana. This is grossly misrepresenting the Brahma sutras by selectively citing from them, although it does indeed appeal to scripture(but then so does Samkhya and other orthodox schools of philosophy) it primarily uses formal arguments and devotes an entire section to do it:

Brahma Sutras, Section II, Topic 1: Samkhya view refuted(Translated by Swami Ghambirananda)

  1. The inferred one(Pradhana) is not the cause owing to the impossiblity of explaining the design(in the universe)
  1. And Pradhana cannot be the cause, since the tendency to create cannot arise within it(because it is insentient)
  1. If it is claimed that Pradhana acts spontaneously like milk and water(milk acts to nourish calves and water for the good of people), then even then intelligence is needed as a guide.
  1. And Pradhana cannot be the cause, since(nothing external to it exist, so that) it has nothing to rely on(for impulsion to or stoppage from action)
  1. And Pradhana cannot change automatically like grass etc(into milk in a cow) for such a change does not occur elsewhere(e.g. in a bull)
  1. Even if(spontaneous modification of Pradhana be) accepted, still(Pradhana will not be the cause) because of the absence of any purpose
  1. If it be argued that like a lame man(riding on a blind man) or a magnet(moving iron) the soul can stimulate(pradhana), even then the defect persists.
  1. Besides, Pradhana cannot act on the account of the impossibility of(the existence of) any relationship of the principal and its subordinates(among the gunas constituting the Pradhana)
  1. And even if inference be purusued otherwise(still the defect will persist) owing to absence of power of intelligence in pradhana.
  1. And the Samkhya doctrine is incoherent because of its inherent contradictions

The aim here is not to analyse these arguments, but to show that Asuri’s argument that the Vedanta merely appeals to scripture all the time to make its case is patently false. He either has not read the Brahma Sutras or is dishonestly citing from them. In the section on refutation of Samkhya in the Brahma sutras not a single appeal to scripture is made.

2.)
(a) In the principal text of the Samkhya philosphical school, the Samkhyakarika of Ishvarkrishna, it very clearly states that scripture is a valid means of knowing to know things which cannot be known from observation or reason:

Samkhyakarika 6(translated by Swami Viruprakananda):

The knowledge of supersensible things is obtained through inference based on general observation. And the knowledge of supersensible not established by even that, is known through testimony and scriptures.

In other words, while Samkhya indeed is a system of philosophy which is based on rational means of observation and then using reasoning drawn from that, it does actually accept its own limitations and accepts the existence of knowledge outside of rational means of knowledge.

(b) Asuri claims that Vedanta posits conclusions which are counter-intuitive, without realizing Samkhya does exactly the same e.g. Samkhya concludes for instance that we are not the body or the mind, but passive witnesses which transmigrate from one life to another - and yet it seems to us we are this body and mind and we do not remember any past lives. In other words just because something is counter-intuitive does not mean it is wrong. In reality we find most truths are counter-intuitive. According to physics our planet is a sphere spinning on its axis, hurtling through space at thousands of miles per hour going around the sun, yet to us it seems like our planet is a flat land, fixed, static and the sun is an orb going around it in the sky.

Observation is therefore clearly not a very reliable means of knowledge. Although Samkhya is more a rational means of knowledge, but still it has to rely on this unreliable observation as its starting point. Vedanta, on the other hand, begins at the point even before observation is taking place - it begins with consciousness. Any act of observation of course requires consciousness to allow it to happen in the first place. No consciousness = no observation = no world.

#43

These are personal attacks. Rather that just arguing the points I made, he’s continuing to engage in a smear campaign.

The evidence is clear that the primary objection of the Brahma Sutra to the Samkhya theory of Prakriti is that it is contrary to the Upanishads. I’ve clearly demonstrated that Samkhya offers a rational theory for how evolution occurs based on observation and inference, while Vedanta simply concludes that there can be no creation because the world is not real. This conclusion is based on misunderstanding and not on valid reasoning. It is unnnatural, counter-intuitive, contrary to experience, and wrong.

Surya Deva agreed to a set of rules, and broke just about all of them in the first post. I believe he is acting in bad faith, and so I think its best to end this here and now.

#44

Asuri seems to have a very broad and selective definition of what constitutes a personal attack. Him calling somebody a “a cow piss drinkling dot head” is not a personal attack but a defense of his Christian heritage, and somebody showing the flaws in his arguments is a personal attack.

I don’t think Asuri knows in a debate one is allowed to point out their opponent’s views by name and call out their fallacies. Asuri’s post was an obvious strawman fallacy: He set up a Vedanta strawman saying, “Look, all it does is appeal to scripture all the time” to make it look like religion and put it against ‘rational’ Samkhya which relies on logical arguments.

Now he wants to end the debate because I exposed his obvious strawman. This thread has clearly gone to show Asuri’s knowledge of both Vedanta and Samkhya is poor. He has not read any of the texts he actually cites from.

#45

I am doing this show the comedic irony of Asuri’s strawman:

Asuri selectively citing a random section from the Brahma sutras to show Vedanta’s argument against Samkhya is only just because it is against the scriptures:

opic-5: The first Cause Possessed of Consciousness
5. The Pradhana of the Samkhyas is not the cause of the universe, because it is not mentioned in the Upanishads, which fact is clear from the fact of seeing (or thinking).
6. If it be argued that the seeing is in a secondary sense, we say, not so, owing to the use of the word Self.
7. (Pradhana is not the meaning of the word “Self”), because liberation is promised for one who holds on to That.
8. (Pradhana has not been spoken of even indirectly), because there is no subsequent mention of its rejection, and (because that militates against the assertion at the beginning).
9. Because of the merger of the individual into his own Self.
10. Because the knowledge (gathered from the various Upanishads) is the same (as regards Consciousness being the cause).
11. And because (Brahman is) revealed (as such) in the Upanishads.

Asuri analysis:

We can see clearly that the primary objection to the Samkhya theory of Prakriti (Pradhana) is that it is contrary to the Upanishads.

…

It doesn’t really provide any valid reasoning, it just says, this is not possible, it makes no sense. Samkhya explains how it is possible.

Surya Deva’s exposing Asuri missing out an entire section in the Brahama Sutras solely dedicated to arguing against Samkhya:

rahma Sutras, Section II, Topic 1: Samkhya view refuted(Translated by Swami Ghambirananda)

  1. The inferred one(Pradhana) is not the cause owing to the impossiblity of explaining the design(in the universe)
  1. And Pradhana cannot be the cause, since the tendency to create cannot arise within it(because it is insentient)
  1. If it is claimed that Pradhana acts spontaneously like milk and water(milk acts to nourish calves and water for the good of people), then even then intelligence is needed as a guide.
  1. And Pradhana cannot be the cause, since(nothing external to it exist, so that) it has nothing to rely on(for impulsion to or stoppage from action)
  1. And Pradhana cannot change automatically like grass etc(into milk in a cow) for such a change does not occur elsewhere(e.g. in a bull)
  1. Even if(spontaneous modification of Pradhana be) accepted, still(Pradhana will not be the cause) because of the absence of any purpose
  1. If it be argued that like a lame man(riding on a blind man) or a magnet(moving iron) the soul can stimulate(pradhana), even then the defect persists.
  1. Besides, Pradhana cannot act on the account of the impossibility of(the existence of) any relationship of the principal and its subordinates(among the gunas constituting the Pradhana)
  1. And even if inference be purusued otherwise(still the defect will persist) owing to absence of power of intelligence in pradhana.
  1. And the Samkhya doctrine is incoherent because of its inherent contradictions

Wow, look, not a single argument actually saying, “Because its against scriptures” :smiley:
The irony here is Asuri cites a random section from the Brahma Sutras which is not dedicated to arguing against Samkhya, and misses out an entire chapter in the Brahma sutras dedicated to arguing against Samkhya and not a single argument says, “because it is against scriptures”

So Asuri has now to explain to us did he do this on purpose just to deliberately portray Vedanta as being religious/dogmatic(dishonest debating) or did he not read the Brahma Sutras?(ignorant debating) Come on Asuri, you got some explaining to do.

#46

…so much for one rebuttal. I think it actually demonstrates my point. The starting point is

The Pradhana of the Samkhyas is not the cause of the universe, because it is not mentioned in the Upanishads

Then it goes on to rationalize further.

#47

[QUOTE=Asuri;69585]…so much for one rebuttal.[/QUOTE]

Well you already ended the debate anyway. Now be honest for once, and concede you are wrong that Vedanta’s main argument against Samkhya is, “because it is against scriptures” You have just been shown an entire chapter in the Brahma sutras dedicated to making formal logical arguments against Samkhya, not a single one says, “because it is against scripture”

Nor have you answered any of the logical objections Vedanta has made against Samkhya which render Samkhya an incoherent system.

Stop hiding behind personal attacks, emotional tantrums and strawman fallacies and engage directly with what these philosophies actually say.

#48

We can see clearly that the primary objection to the Samkhya theory of Prakriti (Pradhana) is that it is contrary to the Upanishads.

…

It doesn’t really provide any valid reasoning, it just says, this is not possible, it makes no sense. Samkhya explains how it is possible.

This is a total misrepresentation of what I wrote. I was referring to this:

If the cause can only produce what it already contains, then how does an unmanifest something produce a manifest something? That makes no sense. The best answer is given by Vedanta that an unmanifest something never can produce a manifest something

The fact of the matter is that I totally blew your argument out of the water. Why don’t you grow up, troll.

#49

The fact of the matter is that I totally blew your argument out of the water.

No you did not, you did not at all explain how an unmanifest something could lead to a manifest something. You just parroted the Samkhya guna theory to explain this, but you are begging the question. The question is how do those unmanifest gunas become manifest? If your answer is because they come out of balance, you still have not answered it. Why should an unmanifest something coming out of balance lead to a manifest something? An unmanifest balance takes place in an unmanifest world and should remain in an unmanifest world.

To illustrate: If I cause an unbalancing in a virtual world, then that unbalancing only takes place in the virtual world. It cannot come out of the virtual world and enter the real world.

You have also not explained what causes these gunas to come out of balance all of a sudden? At one point they are in a super balanced and pure state. Then one day by magic they break out of balance? Why? What causes them to break out of balance?

If you now parrot me the Samkhya answer it is the individual souls coming into contact with the the gunas that break the balance? Then I reply which one? There are infinite individual souls that have been around for eternity passively floating about in nothingness! So here is your problem:

You have the unmanifest gunas which have been in balance for eternity
You have infinite passive souls which have been floating about in nothingness for eternity

Logically, manifestation can can never take place, because you have two eternal substances which have no means of contacting one another.

#50

Let us look closer at the objections in the Brahma Sutras against Samkhya and Sankara’s commentary:

  1. The inferred one(Pradhana) is not the cause owing to the impossiblity of explaining the design(in the universe)

Sankara: It is seen in the world that no insentient thing that is not guided by an intelligence or sentience can create modification to create a purpose design to serve man. Take for instance pots, houses, beds, seats etc require an intelligent engineer to take a material and design it into something that serves a purpose. How can unintelligent matter somehow create this complex universe of bodies, minds, senses so exactly coordinated, regulated and fine tuned so as to be fit for the purpose of man? This is not possible for we can see that insentient matter cannot form into anything purposful, without a sentient being imputing design into it, like earth cannot form a pot without the potter.

  1. And Pradhana cannot be the cause, since the tendency to create cannot arise within it(because it is insentient)

Sankara: It is not possible for the insentient matter in its isolation to even have a tendency to create or to depart from its original state of balance(gunas) for the creation of some distinct product. It is observed that insentient objects like earth or even a chariot have no tendency of their own to form into anything, unless under the guidance of a sentient being. So on account of the absence of any logical ground for acquiring the tendency to act, the insentient pradhana is not to be inferred to be the cause of the universe.

#51

Post #49 should have been your first response. The point of the first topic is that Samkhya provides a rational theory for how the evolution begins. Whether you accept it or not is irrelevant. It is at least as good a theory as the Vedanta theory that the creation is an illusion, maybe better. But so far the theory does not explain why or how the equilibrium goes out of balance, causing the evolution to begin. That would have been my next topic if you had not ended the debate prematurely with your bad behavior.

#52

The first topic was setting up a strawman fallacy and false dichotomy where you tried to put Vedanta squarely in the category of scripture and Samkhya squarely in the category of observation.

I put it correct in my first response by showing the obvious fallacy in the argument that Vedanta only appeals to scripture and nothing else. Rather I showed through argument that Vedanta is a system of philosophy that begins with scripture, but explains the points of scripture using formal arguments.

I showed that there is knowledge that is not possible to be obtained through observation, because it is knowledge that precedes observation(a priori). Samkhya too admits that there is knowledge that even observation and reason cannot reach, and like Vedanta also accepts the authority of scripture.
Samkhya takes you as far the limits of reason can allow you, but it hits an impasse when it tries to go to the point before the equilibrium of the gunas is broken. It cannot explain why and how this should take place and ends up contradicting itself. Vedanta starts where Samkhya finishes. It resolves all the problems in Samkhya by introducing Brahman as the first cause.

#53

It’s kind of unfortunate that the debate has to end here. I was looking forward to demolishing the rest of your arguments. You should go somewhere and lick your wounds like the scurvy dog that you are.

#54

Why don’t you grow up, troll.

You should go somewhere and lick your wounds like the scurvy dog that you are.

It is clear to anybody reading this thread who is the one making personal attacks.

I think what is unfortunate Asuri, is you were given an opportunity to prove your scholarship in Samkhya and you failed miserably. You were not able to answer any of the objections Vedanta makes against Samkhya, and major gaps in your knowledge of Samkhya have been exposed. In addition to that, your dishonest debating has also been exposed(re “Vedanta says Samkhya is wrong just because it is against scripture” strawman fallacy) and your total inability to concede when you’re wrong.

Although I have made attempts to argue my points and engage directly with that Vedanta and Samkhya actually say, you’ve once again not backed up anything you’ve said or made an effort to engage with what they actually say. You continue to hide behind personal attacks, emotional tantrums and strawman fallacies. I doubt this is ever going to change with you, so in the future I would rather not waste time with you. I’d rather talk to a real intellectual. You ain’t no scholar, that’s more than evident in this thread.

In the future if you make anti Vedanta statements, I will just re-direct readers to this thread to show them you know nothing about Vedanta.

#55

Now that Asuri has shown us he is not qualified or educated enough to debate on these topics or even argue for Samkhya, I think we can continue without him. Simply for the sake of the readers now I will explain how Vedanta provides the most satisfactory answer to the objection I outlined in an earlier: how does an unmanifest something lead to a manifest something?

The Vendata answer is: It doesn’t - the unmanifest never leads to a manifest something, this is not logically possible. The unmanifest always remains the unmanifest. A very famous Vedic mantra that appears in the Upanishads brings this point out exactly:

Om purnam-adah purnam-idam
purnaat purnam-udacyate.
purnasya purnam-aadaaya,
purnam-eva-avashishyate

Meaning

That is infinite, this is infinite;
From That infinite this infinite comes.
From That infinite, this infinite removed or added;
Infinite remains infinite.

What the mantra is saying that the universe has always been infinite, nothing finite could come from it, only the infinite could come from the infinite. If you remove infinite from infinite or add infinite to infinite, it still remains infinite.

What does it mean? It means it is impossible that any creation could have taken place. There cannot be the creation of a finite from the infinite, infinite can only lead to infinite and nothing finite. In that what we perceive to be a creation cannot be real, it is just a trick of our perception.

The problem we saw with Samkhya was that that when it reaches the point of the unmanifest matter which consists of balanced gunas it ends up in trouble, for it cannot explain how and why the gunas break out of balance and why should their breaking out of balance lead to manifestation of the universe. Nor can it explain what is the locus of the infinite individual souls at at this point and how and why they can interact with the unmanifest matter.

Vedanta provides the perfect solution: There has to be a third substance out of which both the individual souls and the unmanifest matter are made of. The problem is the individual souls and the unmanifest matter are irreducible to one another, so how can we have a third substance out of which both are made of, when they cannot be reduced to one another. The answer is we can if one of them is false and one of them is real. Either consciousness is false or matter is false. Now consciousness is not something we can deny, because without consciousness there can be nobody to deny; matter can be denied though.

How do we deny matter? Simple, by seeing what we call matter as nothing more than a form occurring within our consciousness. What we call matter is just what we experience in the waking state of consciousness. In the dream state we also see forms, but we do not call it matter, simply out of convention - but what we call matter is just a form like the forms in dreams. The very same consciousness which produces the dream world, produces our waking world.

So there never really has been a creation - what we call creation is just the waking state of consciousness. When we go to sleep creation disappears and we return to the unmanifest state. When we wake up again, creation reappears(Hence why in Sanskrit the word for creation is Jagat, meaning awakened) That infinite consciousness contains all these countless worlds and countless souls. We are all participating in its field. This entire universe is just that consciousness.

#56

I?m getting it. Slow but sure, I?m getting it. Thanks for the above (55).

#57

I’m reading the Samkhya Karika, and this thread in parallel (did not finish everything in this thread):

Let me show you the challenge I see in this thread:

The first immediate problem we have if matter has been there for eternity and is infinite and the souls have also been there for eternity and are infinite, then why at one moment creation takes place? What changes the status-quo and breaks the balance? The only way to answer this question is to posit a supreme efficient cause, a cause existing outside of matter and the individuals souls. Vedanta answer that by saying it is Brahman - the supreme purusha that causes creation.

^-- isn’t that just moving the problem? I mean if there’s no answer provided in the samkhya karika. Why should brahman be the cause? Why brahman…if brahman is the ultimate purusha (collection of souls and matter), doesnt that arise a new question: ‘why does the ultimate purusha contains all souls, and why does it pushes its souls into creation?’. Let me recycle your question:

[B]Question #1: [/B]What changes the status-quo and breaks the balance (which makes Brahman move the souls into creation)?

[B]Question #2[/B]: To me it seems Samkya sees matter as real (because effects are existent, because of permanency and certainty) and Vedanta sees effects as non-existent. What is the big deal? Why shouldnt this just be vedantist escapism to shift effects to be something illusionary? The karika makes a good point in doubting ‘claiming things to be non-existing effects’.

Any feedback much appreciated, also examples since this is pretty abstract stuff.

ps. sidenote: I’m pretty amazed by the Samkhya Karika…actually its also like looking at the basis of the scientific paradigm…its hard to imagine that their definition of pramana didnt cause the 1st industrial/technological revolution in india…I mean that samkhya stuff about correct knowledge is the basis for nowadays scientists imho. I know how hard it is to claim something in a scientific way, and they knew it too imho.

#58

Namasthe All,

I’m a newbie here. I’m trying to get some literature on Sāmkhya and stumbled upon this thread. Went through most of the debate between SD and Asuri. I immediately registered.

To be honest, Christians and Christianity try to assimilate from other traditions those parts that don’t disturb their Christian worldview, Nicene Creed and History-centrism; and they reject the remaining parts that are harmful to their fundamental dogmas of Nicene Creed and History-centrism (term coined by Shri Rajiv Malhotra).

I’m sorry for being off-topic in my very first post but couldn’t resist after reading the views of a staunch Christian Asuri.