Two against one. Samkhya vs. Yoga

Spirituality
#76

This is where you are wrong. Of course what we experience through our senses is a representation, but it is a representation of something that exists outside of ourselves.

There is your assumption right there: that there a world outside of us that we represent.
Bishop Berkely was the first person in the Western philosophical tradition to point out how this an obvious assumption when critiquing Cartesian dualism. We don’t actually know the world is outside of us. All we know is that whenever any perception happens it is preceded by mental processes. That is all we know. Hence Berkley concluded that idealism is the the most rational viewpoint to explain reality.

It is entirely possible to have a reality which is made purely out of the mind and have a me and other, or inner and outer, this and that within it. If you take a box, and within the box you place a divide, then you divide the box into two areas. Can you then say that the two areas are two different worlds made out of completely different substances? No. Similarly, the fact that we perceive an inner world and an outer world does not mean that the inner and outer are two different worlds made out of two different substances.

Dualism is not a respectable philosophy in modern philosophy and has been defeated for centuries. I was told this directly by my professor when I made a pro-dualist case in one of my essays. Nobody accepts dualism because it is clear that mind and matter are part of the same substance and this has been pointed out by several philosophers. Most scientists argue that this common substance is material and argue away mind as an epiphenomena of material activity.

Then there are idealists who argue in fact it is the other way around, the substance is mind and it in fact matter which is an epiphenomena of mental activity.

There are only two possible explanations here. It is either material or it is mental. It cannot be both. One is right and the other is wrong. Dualism is not tenable.

Of these two possible explanations the only that makes any sense at all is idealism. Even philosophers consider this option to be the only one that actually has the least philosophical problems. First of all, it is an obvious that whatever we perceive is a mental construction. Secondly, it is a fact materiaism leads to the hard problem of consciousness which cannot be resolved. This leaves idealism as the only sound and rational explanation for reality.

Your reasons for clinging onto dualism are religious. No scientist takes dualism seriously. It is only religious people who cling onto dualism. Just like they also cling onto things like flat earth. You may not cling onto flat earth, but you certanly cling onto the philosophical equivalent of flat earth.

#77

Look, if you want to believe this nonsense, go right ahead. I’ll comment on the rest of your post when I get around to reading it.

#78

I could let it lie, but I am going to actually take you to task.

To the objective reader: Notice how Asuri has not offered any argument at all to the points I raised. He simply says, “Nonsense” and refused to read the rest of the post.

This is because the points are irrefutable. Dualism is an assumption, not a fact. The idea of reality being split into two things of mind and matter makes no sense to a rational person. It cannot be two things. Nothing begins as two things, it begins as one thing. 2 comes after 1, not before 1.

The perception of there being an inner and outer world is not proof of these worlds actually existing. No more than a divide in a box is proof that that there are two different areas of the box. There is only one area.

In a computer there is an executive program known as the operating system that operates all other programs. The executive program is the inner world and all other programs it runs are the outer world - but actually the truth is they are both the same machine code of 0’s and 1’s. There is one, not two here.

Similarly, in Samkhya the idea of inner and outer is only present because of the ahamkara which splits up reality into two divisions of inner and outer(like the divide in the box above) This is why the ahamkara is seen as false. When the ahamkara disappears, so does the division of inner and outer.

#79

???.. Mother + father = child. This is the problem with idealism, it ignores reality in favor of your own mental constructions. I have a real problem with these intellectual elitists who think they have decided what is and what is not an acceptable way of thinking. They just don’t have any common sense. Nobody cares about any of this except for the philosophers. Everybody else has already figured out that it’s pointless and worthless. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Who cares?

#80

I also object to these repeated accusations that my views are based on religious conviction. Nothing could be further from the truth. Yet you continue to accuse me. This is an attempt to stereotype me, another of your elitist tactics. Why do you consider me so dangerous that you have to resort to these tactics? Because I make sense, and you know it.

#81

I already made the case why non-dualism is impossible, but you simply ignored it and you continue to make your ridiculous arguments. So I will repeat, non-dualism is impossible because it would entail the simultaneous existence of contradictory properties in the same entity. The same purusa cannot be both alive and dead at the same time. He also cannot be both bound and released at the same time.

#82

???.. Mother + father = child. This is the problem with idealism, it ignores reality in favor of your own mental constructions.

What is hilarious about your above example is it feeds exactly into my point that originally there is only one substance: In the above example what is common between the mother, father and child? They are the same human species. We can reduce further. What is common between a human, a dog and an pig? They are living organisms. We can reduce further. What is common between a living organism and a non living organism? They are made out of physical matter. We can reduce further. What is common between carbon, oxygen and hydrogen? They are made out of the same fundamental units of protons, electrons and neutrons.

If you keep reducing everything you see you soon realise what appears to be many things is actually just one thing undergoing different modifications. So we never begin with two things, we always begin with one thing. There is no such thing as categories in reality - categories are only abstract things humans invent to make sense of the world for practical purposes: inner and outer, up and down, space and time, matter and energy, mind and consciousness, ego and self. In actual fact reality is just one uniform substance that we categorize and classify. Just as the child does not know what a toe and a foot is until it learns to categorizes and classify.

Wittgenstein famously said: “The limits of my world are the limits of my words” What we consider to be reality is nothing more than a creation of language.

So I will repeat, non-dualism is impossible because it would entail the simultaneous existence of contradictory properties in the same entity. The same purusa cannot be both alive and dead at the same time. He also cannot be both bound and released at the same time.

If you actually read my post, and not glossed over it because you don’t like listening to non-dualist philosophy, you would realise that non-dualism does not say there are contradictory properties in one entity. Rather it teaches that there is only one substance and every other substance is an epiphenomena, unreal, illusory.

#83

Here we go round and round again. This is why I avoid answering your posts. You just proved my point for me. You completely ignore the reality of how beings are born into the world, in favor of your own rationale.

I did read your post. Once again you either misunderstand what I wrote or you’re purposely twisting my words. Of course non-dualism doesn’t say that there are contradictory properties. But if you follow their theory, it results in an impossible condition, which is simultaneous existence of contradictory properties in the purusa; i.e. conjunction and disjunction, bondage and release.

There really is no need for a reply, as I’m sure that nothing short of an act of God will convince you of your erroneous ways, and I’m not inclined to spend my valuable time going around in circles with you.

#84

But to answer you more directly, I already explained in my post On the Dual Nature of Brahman, that the “single substance” that you are so fond of talking about is not really a single substance at all. If you’re so smart, why haven’t you figured this out yet?

#85

We are only going round and round, because you are not responding to any of my arguments I am making. Such as again you did not respond to my arguments for:

  1. How all mutiplicity can be reduced to one substance ultimately. The example I gave was child, father and son to humans; human, dog and pit to living organisms; living things and non-living things to physical matter; various atomic elements to fundamental particles.

  2. If you reduce matter down from the gross physical to causal mental you get to the stage of moolaprakriti. But at this stage moolaprakriti does not yet exist, but is only potential. Nothing that later evolves from her is yet existent. You cannot say what is potential to be existent. I cannot look at a seed and say “Here is a tree” because the tree does not yet exist. There is only one substance that exists in the beginning and that is Purusha. Then clearly Prakriti has to be within Purusha and made out of Purusha.

  3. How language is what creates categories, classes and sub classes and no such entities actually exist in reality. The example I gave was of a foot and a toe, prior to their classification into two different things, they are one undifferentiated entity. Similarly reality is one undifferentiated entity prior to our classification of it into multiple things. Therefore the categories of “inner and outer” do not at all prove that the inner and outer are dual substances, anymore than a divide in a box does not prove two areas of the box are different substances.

You are only showing yourself to be irrational by continuely to refuse to answer these very valid arguments, which have been raised by famous philosophers. Answer each argument, then we can move on. We don’t have to be going in circles.

I did read your post. Once again you either misunderstand what I wrote or you’re purposely twisting my words. Of course non-dualism doesn’t say that there are contradictory properties. But if you follow their theory, it results in an impossible condition, which is simultaneous existence of contradictory properties in the purusa; i.e. conjunction and disjunction, bondage and release.

No, it does not. It results in what as Nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman. Where Nirguna Brahman is real and without parts, change and transformation and unmanifest and Saguna Brahman is unreal, with parts, change and transformation and manifest. It is no more a contradiction than an object and the reflection of the object. The object is real and the reflection is unreal.

Vedanta does not say the purusha is both conjoined and disjoined and both in bondage and free. It says that the purusha is actually disjoined and free, but it is an error of perception that gives it the illusion that it is in conjoined and in bondage. In other words it is not saying that the purusha has contradictory properties and there is no logical contradiction here. You are missing the obvious fact here that Samkhya-Yoga say exactly the same thing: the purushas misidentification is what causes the purusha to perceive itself as conjoined and in bondage, when actual fact it is not. It is just the purushas error of perception.

Why are you denying an obvious fact about what Vedanta, Samkhya and Yoga teach?

#86

Unless we jump to a meta-level and clearly define what is meant by reality, levels of reality, shared reality, illusion etc. SD and Asuri will continue to disagree and their exchange of arguments is a recurrent yes-no-yes-no pattern. Let’s try to discipline ourselves and clearly define what is understood by these terms. For me in my temporal incarnation, this world as experienced in the waking state has a certain level of reality and a certain level of illusion: It is more consistent than the world of dreams and it is less consistent than the ultimate reality of the ultimate essence of Brahman: that what does not change.

#87

The technical definition for reality in philosophy is:

existing objectively; actual (not merely possible or ideal), or essential, absolute, ultimate (not relative, derivative, etc.)

http://www.yourdictionary.com/real

Existing objectively in the world regardless of subjectivity or conventions of thought or language.

So the main conditions which define what realism are is that it must be objective and independent of oneself. It presupposes a world made out of many human observers looking on at a world populated by many objects that can be acted upon and examined by the human observer.

The philosophy of idealism says that all objects are just sensory constructions/linguistic constructions/mental constructions within the observer itself, hence it is impossible that any objects are existing outside of us which are independent of us or that you can examine and act upon them without actually affecting them.

Edmund Husserl called the notion of reality to be a "natural assumption" The natural assumption is the belief that there is a world out there that one can examine and which will yield to our examination. An assumption that all physical scientists make. But the reality is that without consciousness there would be no world in the first place. Hence, the world has a contingent existence depending on consciousness: it is therefore not real. Husserl's project was to find out what the structures of consciousness are and how they construct reality.

Today in philosophy, many post-modern philosophers posit that reality is just a construction of language. That chairs and tables do not exist for example, because they refer to simply objects humans have identified to be the same object exihibting the same behaviour. Here we make two major assumptions 1) We separate out the chair from everything else around it seeing it a separate object and 2) We assume it is the same object enduring every moment because it seems to exhibits the same behaviour.

People like Asuri hate us philosophers because we philosophers point out the obvious assumptions they swear by. Physical scientists particularly hate postmodern philosophers because postmodern philosophers point out the assumptions they make. But what people like Asuri cannot negate is that these observations are pointed out by some of the greatest philosophers of all time.

The philosophers of the Upanishads first pointed out how everything was just name and form(nama, rupa) That is whatever object we isolate from perception is just a differentiate of a form in our perception based on our linguistic identification of it as as object exhibiting the same behaviour. In the Chandogya Upanishad, when Narada approaches Sanatkumara on how he has knowledge of everything but no contentment, Santakumara answers him, "All you know is name and form" When Narada inquires about anything beyond name and form, Sanatkumara responds, "Speech precedes name and form" This dialogue goes on for a dozen more categories before Brahman is reached as the ultimate reality.

Buddha pointed out that nothing ever endures, that everything is incessant change. The illusion of enduring objects is what causes suffering, for then we cling onto those objects, only to finally realise their transient nature. Buddha also adopted the name and form philosophy of the Upanishads.

Plato also pointed out in his allegory of the caves how taking the world to be real is just an assumption. It could very well be like on the cave walls the dancing of shadows, with an object outside of the world that is casting the shadow.

Bishop George Berkely pointed out in his critique of Descartes dualist philosophy, how the splitting of reality into a subjective and objective component was an assumption, it could just as be possible that the subjective and objective are both within the mind itself and all of reality just a mind-stuff. The notion of there being two separate universal substances is just an assumption.

David Hume pointed out the obvious assumption we make that an object is enduring just because it seems to look the same. He famously asked whether anything continues to exist when we are not looking at it, and how can we be certain it does. Perhaps it momentarily goes out of existence and comes back. Perhaps it goes out of existence and is replaced by something else.

Immanuel Kant pointed out that our obvious assumption of the world being completely objective with us just passive receivers of sense impressions from it is an assumption. Rather, it was clear to Kant that the world was a construction within the mind itself, where sense impressions are received by the noumenal level of reality and then phenomena constructed by the ordering categories of the mind(more or less confirmed by neuroscience today)

Arthur Schopenhauer pointed out how the world was a representation of intentions. Kant's noumenon was actually desire. As long desire as remained, the need for constructing objects remained, and as long as this process continued one was going to suffer because objects are not real.

Quantum physics have proved how matter really is an undifferentiated and inseparable whole, until it is observered and the very act of observation causes this undifferentiated and inseparable whole to seem to be made out of differentiated and separable things in time and space.

People like Asuri hate us because we dare to bring into question the most obvious assumptions they make about reality and successfully show that they are assumptions.

#88

Samkhya, Yoga and Vedanta are not separate systems of science, but have separate approaches to science(very much like the physical sciences vs the social sciences) Samkhya uses a rational scientific method; Vedanta uses a linguistic scientific method and Yoga uses a phenomenological scientific method. They each reach the same conclusions, though they begin at different starting points.

#89

If it wasn’t for that remark, I might have answered you point by point. I don’t answer to you, and I don’t have time for this. You can argue and cite all the philosophers you want, that doesn’t change the facts of existence. This obvious condescending attitude of yours is very offensive. I’m more than capable of answering your arguments, but unlike you, I have enough sense not to engage in worthless and pointless debate, in order to try to establish some sort of ephemeral superiority. I told you before, if you want to believe in a bunch of nonsense, go ahead. It doesn’t affect me at all. I have more important things to do.

#90

I’m more than capable of answering your arguments, but unlike you, I have enough sense not to engage in worthless and pointless debate.

Translation: You can’t answer them.

You prove my point that dualists and realists are the most irrational bunch. The philosophical equivalent of flat earthers. I have no doubt in my mind you would have me burned at the stake if you could :wink:

#91

@ Asuri
I do not deny there is a substratum out there which corresponds to shared experiences, but I like to see it as a mass-hallucination. I do not want to believe in a solipsistic universe of me, but I do want to believe in a solipsistic universe of Brahman. I see the perception of me as an individual (which I do experience on a daily basis) as a painful imprisonment. The “I” my thoughts have constructed are an algorithm which needs to be erased.
Unfortunately, apparently I appear to still believe in the same concepts as you otherwise I would not be here in a material form. The same is true for SD despite all he can say. If he really believed what he preaches, he would no longer (need to) be captured in the material form. If we really realise all is Jnana or Brahman, then we would not be having these discussions. Therefore, I think that a humble attitude is more appropriate. I can allege or want to believe in advaita Vedanta, because I have an intuitive affinity therewith. I may even claim to be able to reason its veracity, but all this is merely a preference or affinity as one thing is 100% sure for me: I have not attained Kaivalya, I have not attained Samadhi and I do not KNOW the ultimate reality, because I have not experienced it directly. Inference, logic, hearsay are the cornerstones and building blocks of our so-called “beliefs”. But our true belief is manifest by our incompetence to realise what we preach. In fact Asuri, your beliefs are more in harmony with your experienced state of being. By the way, the belief that our Universe or other Universes would necessarily laws of logic, causality and consistency are in a way a denial of God’s unlimited possibilities. I follow the path of Vedanta because of faith, not because of conviction.

#92

I follow the path of Vedanta because of faith, not because of conviction.

And I follow it out of Sharadda, which is faith born out of conviction :smiley:

#93

I can respect that. Also your point about following (or not) logic, causality, and consistency is a good one. This is vividly shown in Christianity by the miracles of Jesus.

#94

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;50148]Translation: You can’t answer them.

[/QUOTE]

Once again you’ve reached a wrong conclusion. Won’t is not the same as can’t. But as usual you distort the facts. It would be easy to give some glib and thoughtless answer like you do, but that’s just an exercise in egotism. So no, I don’t play that game, especially not with you, because you’re dishonest and your intentions are bad.

#95

This is vividly shown in Christianity by the miracles of Jesus.

There you go, he finally admits he is a Christian :wink: