Two against one. Samkhya vs. Yoga

Spirituality
#53

[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.

#54

[QUOTE=Awwware;47620]@ SD
If you believe that Purusha observes Parkrti, then show me that observation does not involve interaction to prove your point.[/QUOTE]

Observation does not involve interaction because the interaction is taking place within the observer. All that you touch, hear, taste, see, smell is taking place within you only in your field of conscousness. So it is not the case that there is you the observer and then an outside world that you are interacting with. The world is verily within you.

Tav Tvam Asi.

#55

@SD

I see you’re back. I thought you had left to live in an ashram in India. I’m glad I see you embrace the Advaita Vedanta point of view. I also adhere to that one.

#56

No, not quite yet :smiley: I will be soon. This forum is going to miss me dearly!

#57

It looks like we’re back to two against one, only it’s not Samkhya vs Yoga, it’s Samkhya vs Advaita Vedanta. I’m sorry but I can’t accept a point of view that regards reasoning based “I am god” as valid.

#58

In fact, one of the main attractions of Samkhya is that it’s not Advaita Vedanta. It’s good for people like myself who find the typical Vedantin to be just a little too flakey.

#59

Samkhya is Vedanta. There is no difference. The original Samkhya was in Vedantic texts -Upanishads and Gita.

#60

I don’t see the debate.
It’s matter or conciousness.
Purusha or Prakriti.

#61

[QUOTE=Asuri;49418]It looks like we’re back to two against one, only it’s not Samkhya vs Yoga, it’s Samkhya vs Advaita Vedanta. I’m sorry but I can’t accept a point of view that regards reasoning based “I am god” as valid.[/QUOTE]
What is your definition of “I”? Once the “I” in the form of Ahamkara is destroyed upon kaivalya, what will be left? Also, the drop is not the ocean; the Gita is very clear about that… So I do not claim that “I” am God, but the essence of my true Self, (not my “I”-ness), can only be pure consciousness (jnana, not vijnana).

#62

It seems that we agree on that point, but a statement like the one below violates that principle.

So Surya Deva’s reasoning is based on a falsehood. Here’s another one.

This is just some convoluted reasoning that has nonsense as its output. The same is true of the Samkhya = Vedanta statement. If they were the same then there would not be one darsana called Samkhya and another one called Vedanta. I’m really weary of this kind of incessant petty bickering. Not only is it annoying, it also dilutes the content of the thread in such a way that the important points get obscured by all the B.S. I’m willing to admit when I’m wrong, if you can convince me that I’m wrong. Others though, apparently are not. That is a weakness of character.

By the way, where have you been Awwware? We didn’t hear form you for a while.

#63

So Surya Deva’s reasoning is based on a falsehood. Here’s another one.

There is nothing false about the statement that the world is within you. It is simply a fact to say that the world is produced within our own minds. This is more or less admitted in neuroscience as well, that whatever we know of the world is what our brain represents to us. Hence why it is also called virtual reality. The phenomenological reality is virtual accoding to neuroscience. The physical reality according to physics is just a flux of vibrations. This flux when apprehended by the senses, body and mind is then represented as the world. Therefore I am saying nothing wrong by saying the world is verily within us.

This conclusion is arrrived at by all rational people. You desperately want to believe in a world that is out there that is separate from you not out of any rational consideration, but out of religious convinction. However, even in Samkhya this conclusion is arrived at by seeing the phenomenal form as the resultant interaction between purusha and prakriti. It passes through many filters on the way before perception happens: buddhi, ahamkara, manas and senses.

The world you see is entirely a psychological construction. It is easy to prove as well because if we were alter to your perception using strong magnetic fields or mind altering drugs, your entire perception of reality would alter.

This is just some convoluted reasoning that has nonsense as its output. The same is true of the Samkhya = Vedanta statement. If they were the same then there would not be one darsana called Samkhya and another one called Vedanta.

There is no prakriti, even in Samkhya. Samkhya says that prakriti is unmanifest in the beginning and all things are potential. A potential thing is not a real thing. If it is potential it does not yet exist, but could exist. In other words prakriti does not yet exist, but could exist. According to say Samkhya only two substances exist at the beginning: purusha and prakriti - and out of those only one thing is really existing: purusha and one thing is yet to exist. Therefore logic clearly shows us in the beginning only purusha exists and prakriti does not yet exist. Then Samkhya tells us that what exists thereafter is not actually real, but purushas avidya. Therefore prakriti never exists; it is a mere virtual reality of the purusha.

It is also proven by another argument. Prakriti is always changing. What is always changing has no beingness. You cannot say that anything within nature has any being, because the next moment it has already changed. It is like pointing at a mirage and saying, “Look, here is an oasis” when you get there you realise it is not there. Samkhya also says this: prakriti has no beingness or substance, but appears to beingness or substance when in proxmity with purusha. In other words it is clearly saying prakriti is an entirely virtual existence. Like the mirage.

Quantum physicists have come exactly to the same conclusion.

Your argument that if Samkhya was the same as Vedanta is so weak it is silly. Samkhya has historically existed in two forms: non-dualist Samkhya and dualist Samkhya. The first Samkhya can be found in the Upanishads itself and it is non-dualist i.e., Vedantic. The latter appears much later as an interpretation. However, any rational person if they read the Samkhya works can clearly see that Samkhya really is non-dualist. It does not contadict Vedanta at all.

You stick to dualist Samkhya out of religious convinction because of your Christian biasses.

#64

[QUOTE=Asuri;49570]This is just some convoluted reasoning that has nonsense as its output. The same is true of the Samkhya = Vedanta statement. If they were the same then there would not be one darsana called Samkhya and another one called Vedanta. I’m really weary of this kind of incessant petty bickering. Not only is it annoying, it also dilutes the content of the thread in such a way that the important points get obscured by all the B.S. I’m willing to admit when I’m wrong, if you can convince me that I’m wrong. Others though, apparently are not. That is a weakness of character.

By the way, where have you been Awwware? We didn’t hear form you for a while.[/QUOTE]
Hi Asuri,
I haven’t really been away, but for a while I have not had the urge to comment on anything. Please note that it is not my purpose to convince you of the correctness of Vedanta. As you and as all of us on this forum we’re in pursuit of knowledge of the truth. A debate where everybody puts forward reasonable arguments is for me a way to probe whether I should stick to my beliefs or whether my beliefs are confirmed. For the moment I am still in the camp of the Vedantists and I do agree with SD that Maya is the product of the Mind of Brahman.
As to whether Prakrti or maya has any level of reality is a matter of definition. What is the level of reality of experiences in the dream state? Please note that I do not believe in a solipsistic universe of Awwware (even if I sometimes make provocative statements that would suggest that). I give a more comprehensive resume of my thoughts on these issues in my most recent post on my blog: http://awwware.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/the-fool-is-drinking-gods-last-cup-of-time-on-magick-and-mysticism/

#65

@Surya Deva

Your misunderstanding and denial of reality is so complete is really it is pointless to argue with you. Your misrepresentations of Samkhya are appalling to one who knows better. As far as I’m concerned, you/re absolutely out of your mind.

My reading of Samkhya has nothing to do with any religious conviction, but yours does. You follow the typical Hindu line of thought, in which there can be no disagreement among the darsanas, and no disagreement with the Vedas. But not being Hindu, I am free from the Hindu interpretation and able to read what the book really says. The Samkhya of Kapila was actually intended as opposition to the dominant thinking of the Brahmans, which simply is not in accord with reality.

#66

Now you are talking about levels of reality. We all definitely have the experience of dreaming. We know this because we can talk about it and everybody understands what we are talking about. But the dream itself is not shared experience. Shared experience is the litmus test for “reality”.

#67

Awaaare,

“What is your definition of “I”? Once the “I” in the form of Ahamkara is destroyed upon kaivalya, what will be left?”

This depends on whether one means by kaivalya. If one means it as a living experience, then it is impossible for one’s ego to be destroyed. Neither is it possible for one to live an ordinary life without the ego. The ego will continue, the only difference is that one’s awareness need not be identified with it.

"but the essence of my true Self, (not my “I”-ness), can only be pure consciousness (jnana, not vijnana). "

Certainly that is what many schools of philosophy have been saying, but it is simply a projection of the mind. Desiring to see one’s own reflection, one leaps into the water. Consciousness, no matter what one means by that word, is a limiting quality. And one’s true nature is simply beyond all limiting qualities, identities, and forms. To call it nothingness comes close, to call it no-thingness comes closer, but even this is dimensions apart from the reality. Neither of form nor formless, neither of being or non-being, it simply defies all mental categories. Raise a single word about it and declare “this is it!”, and one immediately falls into delusion. Unfathomable beyond the unfathomable, doing away with all words once and for all, for one who has seen directly into his own nature, let there be an understanding in silence and nothing else.

#68

Surya,

“There is nothing false about the statement that the world is within you. It is simply a fact to say that the world is produced within our own minds.”

As far as one’s own experience is concerned, it is produced in the mind. But that does not mean everything is of the nature of mind. And you are right, not only is the world within man in the sense that you have said, but all of the forces of nature which are functioning everywhere in existence are also functioning at the level of one’s mind and body. Man is a microcosm in a macrocosm, a bit like a model of the universe in a miniature form. That is why, if one comes to understand one’s system, through and through, it is one and the same as having seen into the workings of the whole existence, because they are not different.

#69

I think you would get this Amir if you did or had done some kind of deep transcendental meditation. That forms are just an apperance on the mind and illusory.Unless you’re engaged in that it’s less likely to click.The world as most folk think they understand it and see it conceptually refracted through language and the thoughts that language embodies is just an artificial construct.They don’t witness it with the shades off …it’s a play on their consciousness which is just a succession of forms moving and changing.

#70

As I contemplate this a little more, I have to admit that in some dreams (some of my dreams anyway) there is a shared experience. The experience is not shared in this reality, but it is quite real and sometimes we even get information that we can use in this reality. So I think it may be fair to say that there is a reality that is beyond our normal waking state, but somehow connected. Both are real, neither is unreal.

#71

Well there is the experience of [I]tuirya[/I] , unadulterated pure bliss consciousness or pure awareness,buddhists might call it ,which runs through all three states(waking ,dreaming and dreamiless sleep)

Also if you are really " awake" you can be aware that you are sleeping.

Turiya is higher consciousness and it occurs in samadhi. I think i’ve had glimpses into it with the deep meditation. You can read about it here though.

It is your true nature, your birth-right even you could say… supposedly.

#72

Really this debate is between dualism and realism and non-dualism and idealism.

Unfortunately, dualists and realists tend to be the most irrational bunch. Irrespective of how much evidence you provide, they never actually listen and willfully remain ignorant. Even quantum physics is plagued with this irrationality of realists and dualists, despite the fact that now hundreds of experiments have been done in quantum physics proving there is no reality and locality, realists and dualists simply can’t leg go of this precious notion of reality. The result is quantum physics is not allowed to progress just because these realists and dualists, an influencial bunch, cannot face the facts.

It is very easy to prove that there is no reality because nothing would ever exist without consciousness. This is simply a fact. In order to know any reality you must have consciousness. Whatever reality you know is dependent upon your consciousness. It you take consciousness out of the equation - reality disappears like a phantom. Like it does in the state of dreamless sleep.

It is also very easy to prove and it is accepted as a fact in neuroscience that the phenomenal reality we see is a representation. When any event takes place, it goes through several filters in our mind known as apperception, before the final picture comes to us(language filters, cognitive filters, personality filters, brain filters) In other words the phenomenal form of reality is indeed a mental creation. It is what we see after it has passed through every filter. It is very easy to prove as well, if you distort any of the filters, the reality one sees is drastically different. Take some LSD and then see what reality you get.

When the child is developing many of their language and personality filters are not developed yet, so they do not differentiate between say a toe and a foot, they see both the toe and foot as one undifferentiated entity. There are other things like object permenance, children do not believe an object is permenant as demonstrated by experiments where children observe an object pass behind a screen and they believe it has disappeared, rather than simply being behind the screen. In the formative stages as investigated by psychologists like Piaget, the child sees himself and his world as undifferentiated. Later, through language acquisition and cognitive development the child starts to differentiate the world into numerous categories, classes and sub-classes.

How we view reality is based upon several facts: language, senses and mind. It is simply a fact to say that all our perceptions are constructions or representations meditated by language, senses and mind. Anybody who oppoes this obvious fact is being irrational.

Reality is not a physical stuff. It is a mental stuff. It is a form which is constructed through processes. This is why our perception of things is known as phenomenological reality. This understanding that everything really is just mind really liberates ones understanding. You no longer look at the world as some fragmented external physical stuff “out there” with you as some internal mental stuff “in there” but rather you see everything as just a mind-stuff taking on myriad forms.

I strongly question the intelligence of somebody that cannot follow this. In short I strongly question the intelligence of the dualist and realist.