In through the out door.
It’s actually quite simple. hindus believe in Brahman, Samkhya rejects the idea of Brahman. That is sufficient to establish Samkhya as non-hindu. There is no need to go into other differences in philosophy. I am not the only one who holds this opinion. If you have never heard of this, it shows the shallowness of your alleged knowledge.
You need to stop this campaign of personal attacks against me, which if one digs a little bit, can be seen in many places in this forum. You have consistently misrepresented my views, which could be grounds for legal action against you.
[QUOTE=ray_killeen;75303]The human mind creates the sacred/profane/evil illusion.[/QUOTE]
The human mind may very well create illusion, but the sacred and the profane aren’t illusory. That is, unless you believe that all human experience is illusory, which I don’t.
t’s actually quite simple. hindus believe in Brahman, Samkhya rejects the idea of Brahman. That is sufficient to establish Samkhya as non-hindu. There is no need to go into other differences in philosophy. I am not the only one who holds this opinion. If you have never heard of this, it shows the shallowness of your alleged knowledge.
And this is where you clearly show you don’t know what you are talking about: Hindus believe in Brahman? No, Hindus actually believe in many different things, depending on which denomination or tradition they belong to. The Mimassas do not believe in Brahman, but in the mantras or laws of the Vedas. The Gaudiya Vaishnavas do not believe in Brahman, but in the personal godhead Vishnu in the form of Krishna. The Shaktas believe in the divine mother. The Shivaists believe in Shiva.
It is a well known fact to scholars of religious studies and generally to people with a simple grasp of Hinduism that Hinduism does not just have one set of beliefs, Hinduism is a highly diverse and pluralistic religion made up many different kinds of traditions and schools of thoughts(of which Samkhya and Yoga are a part of) Even those that believe in Brahman, have various distinctions ranging from Advaita to Dvaita.
You can press as many law suits as you want, it is very clear you don’t know what you are talking about when it comes to Indian philosophy and Indian religion, and I have exposed that several times already, and right now as well. If you are going to say something as ridiculous as “Samkhya is anti-Hindu” then be prepared to be refuted.
Moreover, Samkhya never actually explicitly rejects Brahman at all. The Samkhyakarika clearly says, “That which cannot be proven neither by perception or reason, can be proven by testimony or revelation” Samkhya is a system of philosophy based on perception and reason, so it cannot say anything about something which is beyond perception and reason, such as Brahman. So it remains quiet on the subject, but never explicitly rejects it as you are claiming here.
[QUOTE=Asuri;75450]The human mind may very well create illusion, but the sacred and the profane aren’t illusory. That is, unless you believe that all human experience is illusory, which I don’t.[/QUOTE]
As to what is sacred and what is profane is based on the subjective value judgement of human minds, and no human minds agree on what is sacred and what is profane, then clearly the notion of sacred and profane is purely a mental construct, and nothing to do with actual reality.
I doubt the tiger thinks it is profane when it hunts down and brutally murders then consumes its prey, nor do I think the cow thinks it is sacred when it gives milk to all.
Yin and Yang symbol in context with the sacred and profane comment. As well hear are a part of reality but are subject to individual creation.
@Surya Deva
This is a good example of what a chamelion you are. You change colors whenever it suits your purpose. In the past you have clearly used the term hindu to refer to a particular religion consisting mostly of vedanta with a little yoga thrown in. Now when you feel the need to defeat me in an argument, the word hindu comes to mean not just one religion but a whole collection of religions. It is because of this willingness to change your views on demand that you have no credibility at all. It is quite clear that your primary objective is to try to discredit me, and that you are willing to say anything to accomplish that goal. You need to get over it, you won’t succeed.
It is a historical fact that the teacher Shankara made a huge effort to try to discredit Samkhya, because it held views that were contrary to his religion, which for convenience I will call hinduism. So it is now quite inconsistent to try to claim Samkhya as being part of that very religion.
It boils down to how you want to define hinduism. If you use it to refer to anything remotely related to the Indian subcontinent, then Samkhya could be called hindu. But because of the religious connotation of the word hindu, I prefer to refer to Samkhya as Indian philosophy, which is completely accurate and free of religious overtones.
It is true that I do not concern myself with the wide variety of things that could be called hindu, depending on how you choose to use the word. My specific area of interest is yoga philosophy and samkhya philosophy. Unfortunately for you, I do know enough about that to expose your falsehoods and misinterpretations.
Asuri, you are painfully out of your depth here. I would rather discuss/debate with an equal, who at least knows the basics.
Clearly then, to you, nothing is sacred.
[QUOTE=Asuri;75490]Clearly then, to you, nothing is sacred.[/QUOTE]
It’s a word humans use to refer to something they think is holy. A piece of rock is unholy, but as soon as they shape into the shape of a deity and consecrate it, all of sudden it is seen as holy. It’s nothing but human fantasy.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;75489]Asuri, you are painfully out of your depth here. I would rather discuss/debate with an equal, who at least knows the basics.[/QUOTE]
On the contrary, I’m quite comfortable, feeling no pain at all. You need to find somebody who won’t fight back.
Controversial conversation without argumentation breeds understanding.
without argumentation does not mean without dis agreement. It means to discuss without bringing “yourself” into it.
Do not attack the person,attack the idea.
Do not debate the person,debate the idea.
Do not discredit the person,discredit the idea.
Do not use logical fallacy against the person, use it against the idea.
You two are discussing not only the ideas, but eachother. You two are arguing.
Has argumentation refined the understanding of the ideas? If so please keep arguing about eachother. If not, take the personal out of it, keep to the idea.
Do u agree with this? Or disagree?
Avatar, there is no need for me to discuss/debate with Asuri, because he does not know the subject. Debates should be between equals. Asuri does not even know the basics of this subject for me to have any worthwhile debate/discussion with me. For example it is well known fact to scholars of Indian philosophy that Samkhya and Yoga are schools of Hindu philosophy(Astika, as opposed to Nastika) Asuri does not even seem to know this, so why should I bother to debate with somebody who lacks even basic scholarship? I have a degree in the subject and would prefer to debate with somebody who is equally qualified.
Simply put, Asuri does not know what he is talking about. I’d rather discuss this subject with somebody who has some knowledge of the basics, than waste my time giving free education to ignorant people.
Ah I understand.
Well know that I am ignorant on the subject. I have no formal education in this area.
But I do appreciate the reply.
Thank you.
Avatar, the difference is, you recognize you are ignorant in the subject It is another matter when somebody who is actually ignorant claims to know.
There is a big difference between not knowing and having an opposing view. To Surya Deva, anyone who disagrees with him is ignorant. And when he starts to feels frustrated he sinks into these personal attacks. But if someone is even mildly critical of him, he complains to the moderator.
When someone like Surya Deva attempts to position himself as a leader, then character becomes a legitimate concern. Surya Deva is well aware that I have in-depth knowledge of Samkhya-Yoga philosophy, and in fact that my knowledge surpasses his own, yet he attempts to create the false impression that I lack basic scholarship. Why should I waste my time debating with someone so completely lacking in integrity? He has shown time and time again that he is not interested in a search for truth, but only in establishing himself as the Yoga Forums expert on all things related to yoga philosophy. It’s pathetic.
I did not say who was right or wrong.
Simply acknowledged surya. I acknowledge you as well.
Still. I cannot be convinced of one side or the other, for I do not have in-depth knowledge of the subjects you two speak of. This seems to be a personal matter between you two.
Yes, there is no doubt about the personal animosity. The subject under discussion tends to get lost.
That’s me point!
Their was a picture.
Genius minds discuss ideas
smart minds discuss events
Low minds discuss people
NOW. Even though this saying is NOT true.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You get the authors point.
“Caps for emphasis”
Yes, I really hate getting dragged into these low-end arguments, but on some level, I guess I do enjoy a good fight. My battles are based on the principle that, when trying to understand a document like the yoga sutras, one should attempt to discover the intention of the original authors. When people interpret them according to their own personal beliefs, the real meaning gets lost.