Two against one. Samkhya vs. Yoga

Spirituality
#5

[QUOTE=Suhas Tambe;47150]Patanjali has provided a nice tweak to Samkhya and swiftly erased any conflict between duality and non-duality. According to him, Yoga meaning Union is between two - purusha and prakriti, so that they unite, or prakriti merges in purusha.

Prakriti being the changing and the finite has to arise from and dissolve in that which is not changing and infinite. Patanjali also provides a very subtle distinction - prakriti is that aspect of purusha, which is born in the process of awareness; hence, the distinction. Ordinary perception cannot perceive purusha and ends up taking its perceived version as the reality. Yoga is that process which enables just “being” in place of “becoming” to realize that the ultimate reality is purusha and not prakriti.

Thus, Patanjali’s yoga requires existence of dual aspects as sell as their union into One. It is human to expect duality and non-duality as two mutually exclusive approaches. It is transcendental to know that both are simultaneously true.[/QUOTE]

I have read the yoga sutras of Patanjali, both the version annotated by Vivekananda and the version of the theosophic society annotated by Taimni, but I have never seen this interpretation. It is very interesting. Can you tell me exactly which sutra(s) you’re referring to?

#6

[QUOTE=The Scales;47123]correction their being relies on one of the higher ups, not necessarily the highest.

Thats what I think…[/QUOTE]

That’s also the interpretation of the Hare Krishna movement, who refer to the Gita in which Krishna says “not I in them but they in me”. It is a believe system, which does not entirely fit my stream of logic. I don’t understand how there can be a difference between the purushas once they have attained complete liberation from prakrti, as they will be identical and hence the same.
is it that the difference between an purusha-quantum and the absolute purusha for you is not in quality but only in quantity?

#7

[B][I]That’s also the interpretation of the Hare Krishna movement, who refer to the Gita in which Krishna says “not I in them but they in me”. [/I][/B]

[I]It is a believe system, which does not entirely fit my stream of logic. [/I]

I didn’t know that view was Hare Krishna… hmmmm.

[B][I]I don’t understand how there can be a difference between the purushas once they have attained complete liberation from prakrti, as they will be identical and hence the same.
is it that the difference between an purusha-quantum and the absolute purusha for you is not in quality but only in quantity?[/I][/B]

Is it "whats the difference between the little "I"s " - or - Is it “whats the difference between the highest “I” and the little “I” ?”

#8

[QUOTE=The Scales;47181]
I didn’t know that view was Hare Krishna… hmmmm.
[/QUOTE]
It’s a view which is probably shared by many non-krishna-movement hindus as well; but then again not all hindus follow this interpretation.

[QUOTE=The Scales;47181]
Is it "whats the difference between the little "I"s " - or - Is it “whats the difference between the highest “I” and the little “I” ?”[/QUOTE]The last one is my question although that question encompasses as well the first one: If there is no difference between the little Purusha and the big one there is no difference between the little purushas separately either. I think the term “I” belongs to the world of prakrti. Ahamkara is a manifestation of prakrti, so I won’t use that term as synonymous for purusha.

#9

[QUOTE=Awwware;47190]If there is no difference between the little Purusha and the big one there is no difference between the little purushas separately either. I think the term “I” belongs to the world of prakrti. Ahamkara is a manifestation of prakrti, so I won’t use that term as synonymous for purusha.[/QUOTE]

Couple things:

I don’t think the little purushas have the ability to produce the universes…unless this is their Karma. I.E. they are a god and its thier job to make universes. I don’t know if the TOP makes universes. I think he makes a purusha to make a pursusha who makes a universe and the god is the lord of that particualr universe. From my understanding there are MANY universes. Each with its own Lord and Heirarchy / chain of command.

The (self,purusha) is the “I”.

Ahamkara is egoism. “I’m a boy.” I like that. I don’t like this. I think this is so. and on and on… a sense of personality.
I see Ahamkara as a “notion”. A function of “mind”.

Ahamkara seems to be a requirement of the system. Whod want a game where all the players “appear” to be the same?

#10

Easily refuted? Are you kidding? The statement cannot be right because it’s based on a faulty premise. What Samkhya [I]really[/I] says is that Purusa is not the material cause of Prakriti. The two are not dependent on each other for their existence, but still they are intimately associated. The relation is so close that it is known as bondage, and is characterized by suffering. (Sounds like a marriage.)

#11

There is an assumption here that pure consciousness has no attributes at all. I’m not sure that is the case. As I said before it’s worthy of further investigation but I haven’t done the research so I’m not prepared to comment further.

#12

Patanjali has defined Yoga in the first 3 sutras.

I.-2 (Yoga is achieved through calming the mind by restraining it from its natural tendency of taking various forms.)

Later, he describes how perception creates forms because of guṇa in the perceived object, and how all this is handiwork of Prakṛtī.

I-3 (When this is accomplished, the seer knows what he or she really is.)

This ultimate, real identity has not been explicitly mentioned, but pointers are provided in sutra I-16 and IV-34.

I-16 (When non-attachment becomes a way of life, one is liberated from the qualities of guṇa and possesses knowledge of the spiritual being that one is.)

Thus it is implied that a seeker?s quest for knowing the real identity travels an evolutionary path culminating in a realization that he or she is really a ?spiritual being?.

IV-34 (The pure spiritual consciousness withdraws into One.)

If one is in doubt about what kind of spiritual being, Patanjali describes it as ?a state of isolated unity? which becomes possible, when the three guṇas (qualities of Prakṛtī) no longer exercise any hold, as Purūṣa is isolated from it. This then is a resolution of a conflicting duality (the primary pair of opposites, Purūṣa and Prakṛtī) into the ultimate non-duality, Purūṣa. Thus, a seeker reaches the ultimate goal in Yoga, in realization that he/she is Purūṣa.

Use of the word ?pratiprasavā? is significant here. It literally means a process exactly reverse of ?giving birth?. Patanjali is referring to the original event of birth of matter (Prakṛtī) from the potent nothingness (Purūṣa) and is saying that Yoga is a reverse process where Prakṛtī merges back into Purūṣa.

Patanjali also elaborates the process of Yoga by telling us why duality, pairs of opposite, exists in III-35 and how that can be overcome in III-49.

III.-35 (Experience of the pairs of opposites comes from the inability to distinguish between the personal self and Purūṣa, the Spirit, a confusion that is clarified by Saṁyama on Self.)

III-49 (One who can discriminate between the Soul and Spirit achieves supremacy over all conditions and becomes omniscient.)

Patanjali doesn?t forget to highlight the importance of purification through the eight-fold practice of Yoga in achieving the goal, in sutra III-55.

III-55 (When all the bodies (physical, astral and causal) and the soul have reached the condition of equal purity, then true one-ness is achieved and liberation results.)

#13

[QUOTE=Asuri;47207]There is an assumption here that pure consciousness has no attributes at all. I’m not sure that is the case. As I said before it’s worthy of further investigation but I haven’t done the research so I’m not prepared to comment further.[/QUOTE]
Buddhism arrives at the conclusion of an unreal world (samsara) and the equivalent of purusha is then a void (shunyata). this goes further then my “aspectless consciousness”. Consciousness is at least about "being"and “observing”. Could it be that Purusha vs. Prakrti is quite different from Brahman vs. maya? Note that the “easily refuted” is a quote from “Shiva’s dice game”; it was not intended in a condescending manner by me. I do not know where the truth lies. I’m highly interested in the question whether there is a quantum of soul being an individual purusha or whether once we realise kaivalya we merge with Brahman so as to be indistinguishable therefrom.

#14

[QUOTE=Suhas Tambe;47210]Patanjali has defined Yoga in the first 3 sutras.

…
I-3 (When this is accomplished, the seer knows what he or she really is.)

This ultimate, real identity has not been explicitly mentioned, but pointers are provided in sutra I-16 and IV-34.

I-16 (When non-attachment becomes a way of life, one is liberated from the qualities of guṇa and possesses knowledge of the spiritual being that one is.)

Thus it is implied that a seeker’s quest for knowing the real identity travels an evolutionary path culminating in a realization that he or she is really a ‘spiritual being’.

IV-34 (The pure spiritual consciousness withdraws into One.)

I…
III.-35 (Experience of the pairs of opposites comes from the inability to distinguish between the personal self and Purūṣa, the Spirit, a confusion that is clarified by Saṁyama on Self.)

III-49 (One who can discriminate between the Soul and Spirit achieves supremacy over all conditions and becomes omniscient.)

Patanjali doesn’t forget to highlight the importance of purification through the eight-fold practice of Yoga in achieving the goal, in sutra III-55.

III-55 (When all the bodies (physical, astral and causal) and the soul have reached the condition of equal purity, then[B] true one-ness[/B] is achieved and liberation results.)[/QUOTE]

So what Patanjali calls purusha sounds much more like the concept of Brahman than that of nothingness. If I read this well, in the ultimate spirit, there is only one Spirit and no plurality.

I guess the answer to this question can only be obtained by attaining kaivalya. It’s like the “Hard Problem of consciousness”: reasoning will not get us further.:confused:

#15

Reasoning belongs to the causal plane and words, to the astral. Both are icapable of grasping, containing or articulating the transcendental states like ‘nothingness’ or ‘consciousness’.

Besides, translation (the only route to some of the writings) plays its own tricks. For example, in Indian languages, a word for “man” is “purusha”. Since, one tries to imagine a soul of an individual as purusha, further confusion and new kind of plurality creeps in.

#16

SPS 1.149 janmā-adu-vyavasthā-taḥ puruṣa-bahutvaṃ
[ul]
[li]janma- birth;
[/li][li] ādu - ‘et cetera’, ‘and others’, ‘and so on’ (of the same nature or kind), ‘such like’;
[/li][li]vyavasthā - To be arranged in due order; taḥ-? case ending;
[/li][li]puruṣa - self;
[/li][li]bahutvaṃ - Abundance, plenty, numerousness
[/li][/ul]

Translation: From the arrangement in due order at birth, and other similar phenomenon, (there is evidence of) the plurality of Purusas.

This is the first of the classical Samkhya arguments for the plurality of purusas. It is based on various phenomena that we observe in the world. Some are born into wealthy families with caring parents, others are born poor. Some die young of horrible, tragic, deaths, while others live to a ripe old age and die peacefully. Some are born with amazing talent, which may or may not come to fruition, while others, seemingly with little talent, do well in life. Why would this occur if all purusas are the same? These natural phenomena that we observe lead us to believe that there is some attribute of the purusa that affects the circumstances of his birth, life, and death.

#17

@Suhas Tambe

I don’t know where you got those translations, but I think you’re going to have to do better than that. For 1:16 I get,

The highest form of dispassion is freedom from desire for material nature resulting from knowledge of the self.

And your translation of 4.34 “The pure spiritual consciousness withdraws into One.” - not even close. You have not proved your point.

#18

The whole subject can become confused because of the various definitions one finds. In one sense there is no difference at all. In another sense Brahman is sometimes thought of as a 26th principle, having two aspects, nirguna (Purusa) and saguna (Prakriti).

#19

:smiley:

The workings of action/karma/volitionaly activity (being a function of material nature) is the cause for “bondage” to a particular sphere.

#20

Namaste Awwware,

Classical Samkhya is a flawed philosophy. I have read quite a lot of academic literature on classical Samkhya philosophy, and many philosophers both ancient and modern find that the dualism of Samkhya is highly flawed. I suggest you read Gerald Larson’s critiques of Samkhya and find his article where he talks about Purusha as the eccentric ghost in the machine. His arguments against Samkhya are damning.

Classical Samkhya only takes you up to a certain level and that is the level of the interaction between purusha and prakriti, but it tells you nothing about what happened prior to the interaction. One critic says, that if Purusha was eternal and Prakriti was eternal, then how at one point does the interaction takes place, for they both exist for eternity. What is the cause of manfiestation? Another critic points out, if there are a plurality of purushas and one singular prakriti that they all enjoy, then which of these purushas is the cause for the universe manifesting in the first place? All of them? Then there should be infinite universes and each of us should have our own universe that we created. How then do we explain the fact that each of us are interacting in one universe? We obviously are not all creating it.

Yet another criticism is the impossibility of purusha and prakriti ever interacting in the first place. How can they interact when they are completely independent substances and do not depend on one another. This is known as the interaction problem in philosophy and it is considered fatal to all dualist philosophies(including Cartesian dualism, in fact especially Cartesian dualism)

Asuri is not going to acknowledge that any of these problems exist for religious reasons. He wants to stick to a dualist paradigm of the world, with infinite purushas and one supreme creator. He even denies the fact that Patanajli’s definition of yoga “Chit vritti nirodha” means the cessation of all thought-activity. He maintains that it means only some thought activity, in complete contempt of the fact that Patanjali identified all possible thoughts(5 types of vrittis) as vrittis that need to be ceased.

For all his merits Asuri is a highly dubious and flawd source for Samkhya. He has his own very unique interpretretation of Samkhya which he tries to force into Christian theology, and in doing so does violence to even the classical Samkhya tradition. He told me that purusha and prakriti were observed entities, mistaking classical Samkhya dualism for catesian dualism(Christian dualism) and ironically the Samkhya texts themselves say very explicitly that purusha and prakriti are inferred entities. You cannot observe either of them. I pointed this fact out very clearly by citing the relevant section of the texts, and as always when his unique-christianized interpretation of Samkhya thought is criticised, he reacted violently and abusively.

#21

Namaste Asuri,
For a practitioner, a literal translation of many sutras leads nowhere. One has to understand and absorb the logical framework of Patanjali and interpret the sutras against that back-drop. (As a specialist in Samkhya philosophy, this won’t be new to you.)

In my post I am not giving either a literal translation or an elaborate one. I am rather making a point in the context of duality and non-duality. In fact, in essence what I am saying in sutra I-16 is pretty close to what your literal translation means and I can show it.

But its my personal choice to stay away from futile arguments on this forum. ‘Purusha’ belongs to those delicate concepts which one cannot justifiably argue about. Once a glimpse of that principle is experienced, one grows weary of words and easy judgments. As you rightly point out, there are ‘various definitions’ which we are tempted to refer absolutely rather than with reference to their contexts. It is preferable to take one definition and invest in it to make that a personal experience.

#22

In this post I want to point out why accepting classical or orthodox school of Samkhya as the defacto Samkhya is invalid. The oldest texts on Samkhya are neither the Samkhya sutras or the Samkhyakarika, the oldest texts on Samkhya are the Mahabharata, Gita Upanishads and Vedas and that Samkhya is decidedly Vedantic. In the Gita Krishna says that he is the purusha and prakriti, and he also identifies himself as Brahman and prakriti as his maya. There is no doubt here then that Samkhya and Vedanta are complimentary philosophies

Samkhya takes you as far as the interaction between purusha and prakriti and Vedanta takes you further prior to the interaction. This is why Vedanta later replaced Samkhya, because Samkhya was still only giving a relative view of reality, but Vedanta was giving an absolute view of reality: a total picture(Asuri believes(wrongly) that Samkhya was persecuted by the Vedantins, and that Vedanta is not a philosophy, but a theology)

Vedanta is very clear on what happens before the interaction. It shows that Samkhya’s problem is that it is treating the process of manifestation like a real historical process. One day eternal purusha interacts with eternal prakriti, than prakriti starts to manifest gradually over time and the universe evolves into being, and then all beings gradually evolve in the universe over time. This is why we have so many problems with Samkhya philosophy such as interaction problem and the number of purushas problem.

But Vedanta solves it by treating the process of manifestation like a psychological process. Rather than, the universe being a real thing that has a linear history with a beginning, middle and end, the universe is actually not a real thing at all, but a perceptual error owing to faulty psychological functioning(avidya) When we correct this faulty psychological functioning we will find that the common sense notion of history and continuity to be errorneous, but rather the universe is just a succession of disconnected moments or chaotic flux and continuity is something we project on this flux. In the light of modern discoveries in physics the teachings of Vedanta make a lot of sense. We now know that the so-called objective universe which has a history going back billions of years at the fundamental level is nothing more than a chaotic flux. In other words there is a creation and dissolution happening every moment. The universe is not objective or historical. This is only an error of perception.

If you read Samkhya in the Vedantic way then you can understand how reality begins psychologically not historically. It is an unreal manifestation not a real manfiestation. It begins at the level of absolute consciousness and from there filters on down through the ahamkara, buddhi, manas and jnanaindriyas. It is the tanmatras that construct our world of perception. It is very much like how the picture appears on the television(constructed of pixels) prior to it appearing it undergoes various processes. The perception works in exactly the same way.

#23

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;47326]
For all his merits Asuri is a highly dubious and flawd source for Samkhya. He has his own very unique interpretretation of Samkhya which he tries to force into Christian theology, and in doing so does violence to even the classical Samkhya tradition. He told me that purusha and prakriti were observed entities, mistaking classical Samkhya dualism for catesian dualism(Christian dualism) and ironically the Samkhya texts themselves say very explicitly that purusha and prakriti are inferred entities. You cannot observe either of them. I pointed this fact out very clearly by citing the relevant section of the texts, and as always when his unique-christianized interpretation of Samkhya thought is criticised, he reacted violently and abusively.[/QUOTE]

This is the second time that you’ve made this accusation. If I said that, I was wrong, but I don’t remember saying it, and there’s no reason for me to have said it, because there’s no doubt that the theory of the root prakriti is derived by inference. But inference is not purely reasoning. There must always be a mark, some evidence that can be observed from which we infer the existence of the thing inferred.

#24

So what? How is anyone supposed to know that? If someone were to tell me that he had such knowledge, I would consider it highly doubtful.

Who knows? Purusa and Prakriti are observed to interact. It is not a flaw that Samkhya does not pretend to know how that happens.