Two against one. Samkhya vs. Yoga

Spirituality
#41

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.

#42

@ 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.

#43

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

#44

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.

#45

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.

#46

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.

#47

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.

#48

[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’

#49

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.

#50

[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?

#51

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.

#52

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.

#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.