Two against one. Samkhya vs. Yoga

Attempts to prove or refute non-duality or duality have always left more questions unanswered. Like the thought process in Quantum physics radically changed with awareness of the ?observer? and his ?effect on the observed?, we need to realize that we are approaching the unfathomable, with our limited ability of perception and articulation. The ground for debates does not arise because of the unsteady nature of Purūṣa and Prakṛti, but because the thinking processes that try to put their arms around them are essentially grounded in pre-dispositions. While the real world remains multi-dimensional, we remain the proverbial ?six blind men? armed with a single-dimensional perception. For example, while driving we remain aware of the solid road under us but never think of the subtle air corridor that is penetrated.

[B]Time, Space, and Causation[/B]
For the same reason, our world-view contains myriad objects but cannot embrace a concept of ?Absolute? that is the essence with which we begin and to which we return at the end. By labeling it as Purūṣa, we only invite debates since labels attract us more. In the Sānkhya school, the universe is often described as the interplay between pure, transcendental consciousness (Purūṣa) and the material world of matter or Nature (Prakṛti). According to Patanjali, this apparent duality is preceded by and takes place within the context of a Unity of Absolute reality, from which all things originate, all things belong, and to which all things return. The ability to be conscious of Ultimate reality beyond the dualities of ordinary perception is the ?enlightenment? of the self is Yoga?s ultimate destination.

Swami Vivekānanda describes the universe, as it is ordinarily perceived, as the Absolute seen through the screen of time, space and causation (kāla, d?sha, nimitta). A screen (consciousness) causes the image (or perception) of that which is seen to be altered. Therefore, two entities result, one real and the other perceived: the Absolute, which is real, and its perceived counterpart, the universe of ordinary consciousness, which, in Absolute terms, is not real. In other words, ordinary perception of the universe is not created but instead caused by consciousness and the act of perceiving. It is a corollary of consciousness: the ?I-am-ness?-producing cause, or a causation. As long as consciousness exists, the perception or illusion of duality exists as well.

The ?changeless,? ?infinite? and ?undivided? nature of Absolute reality, which exists beyond perceptions of time, space and causation, is Yoga?s fundamental hypothesis. Since it [Absolute] is not in time, it cannot be changing. Change takes place only in time. And since it is not in space, it must be undivided, because dividedness and separation occur only in space. And since it is therefore one and undivided, it must also be infinite, since there is no ?other? to limit it. Now ?changeless,? ?infinite,? and ?undivided? are negative statements, but they will suffice. We can trace the physics of our universe from these three negative statements. If we don?t see the Absolute as what it is, we?ll see it as something else. If we don?t see it as changeless, infinite, and undivided, we?ll see it as changing, finite, and divided, since in this case there is no other else. There is no other way to mistake the changeless except as changing. So we see a universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms.?

[B]Universal Mind[/B]
Absolute exists in perfect balance and harmony within itself. But in becoming self-aware, there arises a ?self? and an ?other?. Then separation is established, balance is lost, and countless chain reactions of involution are set into motion. In the process, the infinite Cosmic Consciousness appears to become finite Universal Mind.

All objects are either man-made or natural. Behind the birth of each object is a mind that conceives an idea, designs it and executes. Whether it is a human mind or Nature?s mind, it ?knows? everything about the created object. Universal Mind can also be conceptualized as that virtual amalgam of all the minds that collectively know everything about all the objects. Thus, as the involution rolls out the subtle mind creates gross matter. Mind and matter form a single spectrum, with Universal Mind on the subtle end and the most inert objects on the opposite gross end. This is the second most important Yoga hypothesis.

[B]Consciousness[/B]
The Cosmic Consciousness that permeates all of Nature pulsates as life and awareness unfolding from subtle to gross. As the force of separation rolls out, the force of attraction for wholeness (and moving from gross back to subtle) sets in, creating an ever-increasing tension. That tension appears, in its grossest form, as gravity and the ?attraction between opposites, like positive and negative electrical charges.?

Yoga?s path of transformation frees awareness from cell-level bondage and cultivates recognition of the fundamental illusion of duality. Thus, it is a powerful tool and vehicle for transcending the illusion of duality and returning to the divinity of wholeness or pure, Absolute Consciousness.

[B]Subtle-to-Gross[/B]
Universal Mind, the mother of all matter, is not ?created? in the usual sense of the word. It is apparitional causation: the Absolute seen as the universe, through the screen of time, space and causation. What is perceived as matter and what the laws of physics explain as one form of matter created from another form of matter is transformational causation. In such creation of matter, the sum total of energy remains the same while the configuration of the elements of matter is changed.

Hence, Sānkhya theory proposes that, in relation to the Absolute, the universe of mind and matter is unreal and that gravity, electricity, energy (prāṇa) and inertia are all examples of the same underlying, inherent consciousness, manifesting (or not manifesting) at different levels of energetic vibrations.

In the Absolute plane, there exists a ?potent nothingness,? a ?sum total of potential energy? that is ?one, perpetual, dynamic and unmanifest.? However, physical-molecular-electronic universes are manifested energy and there is a subtle-to-gross progression or hierarchy, with ākāśa (inadequately translated as ?space? or ?ether?) as the most basic and most subtle element (bhūta) in the material world.

The ?five great elements? combine in myriad permutations to produce the whole of the subtle-to-gross spectrum of the entire material plane and, through the infinite layers of subtle-to-gross roll-out, create the appearance of diversity?though in essence and core composition, all things are the same. It is essentially scale-invariant. This is the third most important Yoga hypothesis.

@ Suhas Tambe

Thanks for your comprehensive contribution. Although I do believe in the three yoga hypotheses you described, I do not consider that any scripture gives a watertight reasoning so as to make these hypotheses irrefutable. My belief in the rightness thereof stems from my confidence in my teachers who have taught me more or less the same. I.e. learning the truth by testimony from a bona fide source, which Patanjali also gives as method to learn the truth.
What I’d like to see here is that the adherents of either view admit the impossibilty to decide this incongruence between duality vs monism, and singularity vs. plurality by debate or reasoning.

I agree, nothing is going to be solved here. It’s too bad that people can’t discuss philosophy without getting their feathers ruffled or standing on a soapbox and beating their breast.

This is a quote from the commentary on Samkhya Pravachana Sutram Book 1:152

Vijnana Bhiksu has stated here, the properties belonging to Purusa:

Birth - is a property of Purusa in the form of - Conjunction
Death - ------------------------------------ Disjunction
Bondage ----------------------------------- Experience
Release ------------------------------------ Non-experience

He then echos "…only properties which possess the the form or nature of transformation [i.e. guna], and none else are denied in regard to Purusa.

Surya Diva

I really have more important things to do than to go through your posts and point out all of the errors, lies, and bad reasoning, because there are just too many instances

Where? If you are going to make a claim, back it up, or just remain silent :wink:

Not only that, but it would be fruitless, because you are not really interested in the discussion, you’re interested in attacking me.

Ironically, I was the one that responded to all your points. You did not respond to any one of my points. I have nothing personal against you, I have a problem with you telling wrong things about Samkhya philosophy. An area I have some expertise in and have done my dissertation in and was awarded with distinction.

I’m not too worried about your attacks. I doubt that anybody really reads them or pays much attention to them. People will judge me based on how I interact with them, not based on what you think.

You could be the nicest person in the world, but that will not make the wrong information you give out on Samkhya anymore true. I have so far demonstrated with clear evidence that you are giving out wrong information on Samkhya, not being critical about its obvious philosophical flaws that Samkhya scholars have pointed out, and trying to force into Christian theology. In addition rejecting other forms of Samkhya.

You are proving to me what I have found with almost all Christians: denial of facts, denial of evidence and violence against people who bring those facts up(in your case against me and the critics of Samkhya) You simply pretend that by denying something you will make it go away. Truth never goes away.

[QUOTE=Asuri;47536]I agree, nothing is going to be solved here. It’s too bad that people can’t discuss philosophy without getting their feathers ruffled or standing on a soapbox and beating their breast.[/QUOTE]

If there was ever a really good example for projection… this is it :smiley:

I responded to everyone of your points sincerely and honestly. You responded by attacking me, but did not respond to any of the points I made.

You are the one that has got your feathers ruffled and are not actually discussing. You are just repeating the same thing over and over again and respond to criticism of it with spite. This is not how philosophy is done. If you want to show your opponent is in error, you show it through arguments, not through personal attacks.

  1. Something never comes out of nothing. This is a hypothesis, challenged both by modern science (Maxwell’s demon) and also by Buddhism: Samsara or the illusory world comes from the great Void, shunyata.

Nope, this is an empircal fact. Nobody has ever seen something come out of nothing, there is always a cause for it. If there is smoke, then there is fire, smoke does not just come into being without cause. It is found in the empirical world that an effect can only issue out of a cause which it is inherent in. You never get an orange tree producing an apple or a human couple producing a dog. If something could come out of nothing then effects would be issuing randomly out of everything.

If something could out of nothing then the tree would come into being without a seed; an adult human would come into being before a child human.

It is very obvious that the law that all effects have causes and all effects are inherent within the cause is axiomatic.

Buddhism and Maxwell’s demons just alternative viewpoints in need of proof for their assertions.

  1. Gross and massive aggregates are gradually built from ever more subtle and minute sub-substances. This appears irrefutable.

Yes, absolutely. Things always start out small and subtle, then they get bigger and gross. The tree begins first as a seed; the adult first begins as an adult; the solid first begins as a gas; the molecule first begins as a quark.

Mind and matter are transformations of the same substance because they are able to contact each other. This is also a hypothesis: Purusha is apparently also capable of contacting Prakrti because it can observe Prakrti. Yet Purusha and Prakrti are said to be totally different substances. So the fact that substances can contact each other is no proof of their similarity.

Again empirical evidence shows clearly that for any two substances to interact they must have a common medium which is a common substance of both substances. Why does the eye and the photons in light interact? They interact because the eye is made out of photosensitive material. On the other hand, the nose is not, so it does not interact with light.

Why does a magnet and a needle interact? They interact because they both have magnetic property. A piece of cloth does not have magnetic property so do it does not interact with the magnet.

Why does hydrogen and oxygen interact and make water? They interact because they have compatible atomic structures(protons, electrons and neutrons) which combine to form water.

So again empirical evidence is showing that it is an axiomatic that if two substances interact they are really the same substance.

A priori it would appear that mind and matter/energy are fundamentally different unless transformation of one into the other can be proven. Here again there is the experiment of Maxwell’s demon, implying that information could be transformed into energy. Without wanting to comment on that experiment in detail, there is also a flaw in the conclusion of that experiment, namely the conclusion that information is transformable into energy: It is only by intervention from the outside world that the typical information leading to a decrease in entropy is achieved. The whole system increases its entropy if the action of feeding the information to the device is taken into account. Mind is eventually information in the form of woven ontological concepts and functional algorithms. It is a system of information patterns wherein complexity reduction takes place. In fact it is just as right or unproven as the point of view that mind and matter are of equal substance to uphold the view that Mind is the platonic separate world of ideas, which can but need not use a material substrate to exist. Whereas Mind can enable a meaningful interaction with the material world, technically it does not need the material world to exist if the Platonic view is right.

Mind is not the same as physical matter(gross matter) because mind is subtle matter - but it is matter. Information is not the same as energy - granted - but it is still matter. Samkhya have a very precise and reductionist scheme for what constitutes matter and that anything that is possessed of the properties of the gunas i.e., it undergoes the states of going from a neutral state, to a state of transformation and inertia. Physical matter does that; energy does that; information does that; and mind also does that.

They are distinct from consciousness which does not have the properties of the gunas. Consciousness has the property of seeing and knowing. It is the one that knows all change. The changes of physical states, energy states, information states and mental states.

As mind is ever more subtle than any form of apparent material aggregate, mind is the origin of matter, not vice versa. If as argued above mind and matter belong to different dimensions, there is no way to prove this hypothesis. Because we cannot compare apples and pears. Subtlety as regards which characteristic? Both mind and matter build aggregates true, both have degrees of complexity, but in a different dimension. The one in the form of information which can exist independent of the substrate, the other in patterns which are formed by the substrate.

Remember, apples and pears are both fruit and fruit is material :smiley: Mind and matter are not different at all. This has been proven in modern philosophy of science which have shown the so-called unique properties of mind such as cognition can be replicated by information systems. We can even create executive programs that replicate the functions of the ahamkara/ego. It is very clear they are the same substance because one can see clearly that if one affects the physical state of the brain(either chemically or electromagnetically) it has direct impact on the mental state - always. So much so we can predict what will happen to a person when a physical state is affected.

If they were independent substances why should affecting one affect the other? Me and you are independent, what happens to me, does not happen to you. If I eat cake I taste the cake, not you.

There is a great deal of similarity between the way mental information consists of patterns and the way matter is organised. But similarity does not mean identity. If one does consider the patterns in the material world to be information as well, then one can also state that matter is a form of Mind and thus arrive at the notion of panpsychism via the backdoor.

Here we not only just have similarity, but clear empirical evidence that they interact all the time. These interactions can be predicted with remarkable accuracy. We know what the neural correlates are for many mental states, how simply toggling an area of the brain can cause a mystical experience to happen, depersonalization, recall of memory etc.

Now for all clarity: I do not deny the theory of panpsychism, I even adhere to that view, but that is rather a belief. I do not find the above reasoning of points 1-5 completely convincing or completely watertight. So I’ll continue to probe this topic until I am convinced of one or the other. I’ll also post this in the thread on the mind.

It is not a belief, but based on very hard empirical evidence and sound and demonstrative reasoning based on that.

As to the present discussion on the one vs. many purushas, here again my point of view of one purusha only is a (somewhat vague) belief, which does not stem from arrogance (I do not think I am God, I think Brahman is the only underlying reality in me and when I realise that, there will be no “I” anymore. That is my I-ness will be sacrificed and I will cease to exist). But as I like reason (more than the so inaccessible states of meditation), I’ll continue to probe this topic until I am convinced of one or the other.

The plurality of purushas is not established for the following reason: all purushas are actually unconditioned really. They are never actually embodied in prakriti but their embodient is just the error of misindeitication(I am not my body nor my mind for they are my objects of observation) Therefore all purushas are equally as unconditioned. Therefore they are all the same observer. Therefore there is only one purusha.

The argument against classical Samkhya that says owing to different births, different results and different private states the multiplicity of purushas is established has been refuted by Samkhya scholars. The different births, different results and different private states are taking place only to the multiple minds - and all mind are the product of prakriti. Therefore these things are not occuring to purusha but prakriti.

As a last point, addressed to Surya: Why do you give Asuri the label “Christian”? I have read nothing from him that has anything to do with “Christian”, I thought he was a Hindu just like you.

He is not Hindu. He has made it clear many times he is Christian. Even recently he(bizzarely) tried to fit Samkhya philosophy with Christian trinity. Look at his post history. He has clear Christian biases.

This is a quote from the commentary on Samkhya Pravachana Sutram Book 1:152

Vijnana Bhiksu has stated here, the properties belonging to Purusa:

Birth - is a property of Purusa in the form of - Conjunction
Death - ------------------------------------ Disjunction
Bondage ----------------------------------- Experience
Release ------------------------------------ Non-experience

He then echos “…only properties which possess the the form or nature of transformation [i.e. guna], and none else are denied in regard to Purusa.”

Note that the identification of properties of the Purusa answers the argument that if Purusa has no attributes, one is indistinguishable from another.

It goes further, identifying not just four properties, but two sets of contradictory properties. In other words, the theory of one self is impossible because it would entail the existence of contradictory properties in the one self. One self cannot have properties of both conjunction and disjunction at the same time, and similarly cannot have properties of both experience and non-experience at the same time. Hence the saying, under the theory of one self, if one is born, all would be born, and if one dies, all die. If one is bound, all are bound. If one is released, all are released.

@ SD
You have not sufficiently well counted the following statements:
I quote myself: Purusha is apparently also capable of contacting Prakrti because it can observe Prakrti. Yet Purusha and Prakrti are said to be totally different substances. So the fact that substances can contact each other is no proof of their similarity.

With the examples you gave, one must conclude Purusha and Prakrti share a medium of interaction or are of similar substance.

@ SD
If you believe that Purusha observes Parkrti, then show me that observation does not involve interaction to prove your point.

Everything can be seen from almost infinite number of angles and perspectives. If you want to understand something like Samkhya, you will have to see beyond it’s outward shell. All of the understanding of samkhya has not arisen as a by product of philosophy, but out of direct insight into the inner workings of one’s own system. To try and preserve this understanding, those sages started speaking about it, and samkhya is just an expression of something else which is far deeper. It is simply an intellectual model. And like all intellectual models, philosophical or scientific, it doesn’t matter - they are incapable of transmitting the Truth, they can only offer an interpretation of existence. If you want to understand Samkhya as a philosophy, then remain with the sutras, scriptures, and book learning. But if you want to understand Samkhya as a useful model to assist you towards understanding your own inner workings, you will have to use it just as one uses a staff in the darkness. Once you gather a sense of your own system and the light starts arising, you can throw it aside immediately.

If you say that prakriti and purusha are distinct, in some ways they are and in some ways they are not. If you say that prakriti and purusha are not distinct, in some ways they are and in some ways they are not. The very idea of the dual and the non-dual are inseparable, and if one falls away from your mental vision, the other has immediately collapsed with it. If one rears it’s head, then too the other rears it’s head. These are the workings of the intellect, which seeks to divide everything into polar opposites. That is it’s basic function, to divide amongst the senses.

Samkhya is bound to be flawed, just as any philosophy is bound to be flawed, simply because it is to fit the whole existence into the small boundaries of one’s thought. But certainly, it is tremendously useful as a model for inquiring into oneself.

Nice try, Amir. I’m guessing your knowledge of Samkhya goes back about a week. I believe a man should never talk about things he doesn’t know. I encourage you not to do so.

Asuri,

I know Samkhya quite well. And as most philosophies I do not consider it to be of much value, except as a model which may be used as a skillful means.

Scales,

"My current views are:

karma binds the purusha to nature/prakriti. "

Nature is never fragmented in it’s ways, it is the intellect which is like a knife dividing everything into countless fragments. And to say that the so called “purusha” is separate from prakriti is liking trying to separate water from ice. Or it is like, putting your hand underneath a sink of running water, if you change the temperature slowly from hot to cold, is there ever a point where coldness ends and heat begins ? Everything is a continuity, there is no dividing line between heat and cold. The same is the case with all of the polarities of existence, they appear to be separate only through the lenses of the intellect, and samkhya is very much an intellectual phenomenon. It can help you to understand constituents of existence, but it can never open a perception of how everything in existence is integrated into one holistic phenomenon.

[QUOTE=AmirMourad;48730]Scales,

"My current views are:

karma binds the purusha to nature/prakriti. "

Nature is never fragmented in it’s ways, it is the intellect which is like a knife dividing everything into countless fragments. And to say that the so called “purusha” is separate from prakriti is liking trying to separate water from ice. Or it is like, putting your hand underneath a sink of running water, if you change the temperature slowly from hot to cold, is there ever a point where coldness ends and heat begins ? Everything is a continuity, there is no dividing line between heat and cold. The same is the case with all of the polarities of existence, they appear to be separate only through the lenses of the intellect, and samkhya is very much an intellectual phenomenon. It can help you to understand constituents of existence, but it can never open a perception of how everything in existence is integrated into one holistic phenomenon.[/QUOTE]

purusha/self/jiva = Consciousness.

Prakriti/Nature = Not Consciousness.

“the mind” is not consciousness. “mind” is of ‘nature’

Scales,

That consciousness which is not of the mind is yet not separate from mind. It is to be realized through the mind and the senses, only it does not belong to them.

[QUOTE=AmirMourad;48760]Scales,

That consciousness which is not of the mind is yet not separate from mind. It is to be realized through the mind and the senses, only it does not belong to them.[/QUOTE]

Thats nice.

Do you have any disciples yet?

A lot of people mistake vijnana for jnana. The type of consciousness we’re used to, where our Buddhi is involved and displays the power of distinction (viveka) is vijnana. It is not yet pure consciousness (jnana) as it still goes through the mental filter of Buddhi.

The Scales,

“Do you have any disciples yet?”

Yes, many. And seeing one who is as arrogant and insincere as yourself, even if you manage to cut your arm off as Huike did for Bodhidharma, not even in millenia would I accept you as a disciple.

[QUOTE=Awwware;47618]@ SD
You have not sufficiently well counted the following statements:
I quote myself: Purusha is apparently also capable of contacting Prakrti because it can observe Prakrti. Yet Purusha and Prakrti are said to be totally different substances. So the fact that substances can contact each other is no proof of their similarity.

With the examples you gave, one must conclude Purusha and Prakrti share a medium of interaction or are of similar substance.[/QUOTE]

There is no prakriti. Prakriti is just maya that the purusha experiences and this gives purusha the illusion that there is something other than it. All prakriti is simply varying degrees of avidya of the purusha. When there is only jnana then there is no prakriti.

I was looking at a sofa in a cafe recently. An insight occured to me that god was hiding behind the sofa. I then realised the sofa was actually god taking on its form playing hide and seek with me and I had to catch god. The apparent form is just the covering that is covering god. Likewise, prakriti is just a covering that god is hiding underneath.

All is Brahman they say. So there is nothing else but Brahman.