Two against one. Samkhya vs. Yoga

Spirituality
#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.

#25

I hate critics.

I don’t think this critic understands the concept.

then which of these purushas is the cause for the universe manifesting in the first place? - [B]Isvara[/B]- All of them? -[B]No[/B]

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.

This unnamed critic seems to have made an assumption that all purusas are equal. We know that is not the case.

#26

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)

Once again you’re working off of an assumption, that two completely independent substances cannot interact. Says who? That is a poor excuse for a factual statement. Considered fatal? By whom? Not by me.

#27

Sorry, pal, but you’re wrong again. I just stated my objections and none of them have anything to do with religion.

The good news is that you’re right, I do deny it. The bad news is that the term ‘nirodha’ does not mean cessation. There’s another word for cessation, and it’s an important distinction. I would have expected that a master such as yourself would have realized that.

#28

@Suhas Tambe

A gracious response indeed.

#29

This is where I stop reading.

#30

Asuri confirms what I accused him off, forcing Samkhya into christian theology. Asuri’s theology hinges upon a dualistic world of god, many souls and a world created by god. Hence why he also misinterpret Patanjali’s famous definition Yoga as not the cessation of thought, but simply the cessation of some thoughts, because his theology demands that we are thinking-things(like Descartes) His theology opposes any merger between the soul and god or any identity of the soul with god.

It is valid for him to have a right to entertain such a theology, but invalid for him to fit Samkhya in this theology, because it does not fit and on top of that he ignores genuine flaws in classical Samkhya and ignores other versions of Samkhya which do not fit his views. It is therefore very apparent Asuri is not a credible source on Samkhya.

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.

There are three very particular ways of looking at reality

  1. The real
  2. The historical
  3. The psychological

The real assumes a world of particular of innumerable categories(plants, animals, minerals etc) The historical assumes a world of transformation of few categories into many categories(matter and consciousness) and the psychological assumes a world of perception which is organized by psychological categories which construct the world.
In these viewpoints latter psychological category viewpoint is the most fundamental and the other two depend upon it. Vedanta is an example of this type of viewpoint. It reduces everything to name and form and looks at how language creates and shapes reality.

If you are familiar with philosophy today, in postmodern philosophy it is language that is considered the constructer of reality. Even the scientist is playing a language game(Wittgenstein) such as the fixed categories he works with: external world, internal world, experimenter, tester, variables etc. When a child is born he/she learns to view this world through linguistic maps. Language orders how we observe reality and conditions our perception of the world. There are many things we take for granted which exist only in language.

The Samkhya are also playing a language game of observer and observed. They treat these two categories as ontological facts, but they are not as ontological facts, but facts of language.

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.

You did in fact say it and I could even go through your post history to find it, but seeing as you now admit you know purusha and prakriti are inferred categories there is no need for that. Now your understanding is correct. Yes, inference requires a mark to infer from.
Not only prakriti but purusha is also inferred. It is inferred for example that there is an unconditioned purusha who is a pure observer/pure consciousness, but that cannot be observed itself.

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

It is a flaw alright, because if you cannot prove your assumptions in your philosophy, then your philosophy is not complete. It is like the assumption in materialism that a certain transformation of matter leads to the emergence of consciousness.

By the way once again you have made the error that prakriti and purusha are observed. Nobody sees purusha and prakriti, so how can we “observe” them to interact?

I hate critics.

We need critics to point out the flaws, because we cannot notice all flaws. Once we know flaws exist we need to revise accordingly. You obviously struggle in revising the flaws in your interpretations of Samkhya - I am not surprised you hate critics.

I don’t think this critic understands the concept.

then which of these purushas is the cause for the universe manifesting in the first place? - Isvara- All of them? -No

There is no Isvara in classical Samkhya philosophy and in Yoga ishvara is a psychological category. The purusha can either be conditioned or unconditioned, the conditioned purusha is the one who feels pain, pleasure, desire and knows. The unconditioned purusha is the one who feels no pain, pleasure, desire and knows nothing as distinct from itself.

Your answer here hinges on the assumption of a historical world that one day was created by a special purusha(ishvara - your Christian creator god) for normal purushas(souls). You completely miss the clues given in Samkhya texts which say the purusha never is really conditioned.

This unnamed critic seems to have made an assumption that all purusas are equal. We know that is not the case.

How do we? Purusha and prariti are inferred entities that are inferred from sound logical arguments based on the mark being present. There is no inference for a special purusuah. Manifest prakriti and the conditioned purusha are not the purusha and prakriti categories of Samkhya, they are classes of those categories.

Once again you’re working off of an assumption, that two completely independent substances cannot interact. Says who? That is a poor excuse for a factual statement. Considered fatal? By whom? Not by me

Funnily enough, another Christian thinker denied this fact when I was criticising Cartesian dualism a few years ago. They did not accept the interaction problem as a problem and insisted that spirit and matter do interact, even though they are completely independent substances.

This is a problem and it is recognised as a problem in philosophy. For two things to interact they require a medium to interact through. This medium has to be such that the two substances are actually a part of it. For example a magnet and a needle interact but they only interact because they are actually part of the same substance and have likeness. The eyes do not smell the particles in the air, they cannot smell, becaue they are not a medium to smell through. Thus a medium is required for both purusha and prakriti to interact and this medium has to contain both of them and be the ultimate substance that both are made out of.

Sorry, pal, but you’re wrong again. I just stated my objections and none of them have anything to do with religion.

Your objections are denials of valid flaws in your christanized interpretation of classical Samkhya. You have made it both implicit and explicit on many occasions that you have a Christian bias.

The good news is that you’re right, I do deny it. The bad news is that the term ‘nirodha’ does not mean cessation. There’s another word for cessation, and it’s an important distinction. I would have expected that a master such as yourself would have realized that.

The bad news is that Sanskrit words, like English words have synonyms. The word Nirodha means removal of, restraint of, cessation of obstacles. The word vritti means modifications. The word chit means consciousness.Yoga chit vritti nirodha therefore means Yoga is the restraint of the obstacles cause by the modifications of consciousness
http://en.mimi.hu/yoga/nirodha.html

The other bad news for you is Patanjali very clearly identifies all types of possible vrittis(right knowledge from perception, inference and testimony, wrong knowledge from assumptions, errors and fallacies; fantasy from word creations, sleep from different awareness states and memory from all remembered information) as the vrittis that need to be restrained.

The scholarship is clear on this that the vrittis are impediments which restrict the flow of consciousness. Yoga is the act of removing those impediments leading to a free flowing of consciousness.

This is where I stop reading.

Predictable that you do not want to read anything that argues against your christianized Samkhya theology. I get the same response from Christians who do not want to read anything on quantum mechanics, and ironically, argue for a christianized quantum mechanics where they can hold onto their precious realism: an objective world created by the father dearest in heaven. The very idea that this world is not objective and it in fact their own psychological processes that are creating it is sagreligious.

I can see through you Asuri. You are clearly have massive Christian biases. Hence it is important to expose them to anybody that will take you as an authority on Samkhya-Yoga.

#31

Criticism on the mind before matter

The reasoning that consciousness is the underlying principle of being and not a product of existence as outlined above has a number of flaws, which need to be discussed further.

  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.
  2. Gross and massive aggregates are gradually built from ever more subtle and minute sub-substances. This appears irrefutable.
  3. 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. 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.
  4. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

#32

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

#33

[QUOTE=The Scales;47323]
The workings of action/karma/volitionaly activity (being a function of material nature) is the cause for “bondage” to a particular sphere.[/QUOTE]

The cause of bondage is the subject of much discussion in the literature, probably better left to another thread.

#34

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.

#35

@ 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.

#36

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.

#37

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.

#38

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.

#39

[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.

#40
  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.