RE: Gita Satsang - cogitations-Ranade on Antinomies-Pa rt3

[Guest guest]

>

> sunderh [sunderh]

> suggesting that there is no distinction between Sankhya and Yoga.

> What does the author of the Bhagavadgita mean by Sankhya and

> Yoga ? Evidently, it is not the Sankhya of Kapila or the Yoga of

> Patanjali. What the author here means by Sankhya is Jnana, and by

> Yoga, Karma. For example, let us compare the following passage :

>

Harih Om Sundarji:

 

I have a question: Why can't we take that Lord Krishna means "Sankhya of

Kapila" and "Yoga of Patanjali"? Is there any contradiction? Even after

comparing the passage which followed, I don't understand why we shouldn't

take the meaning literally... Your enlightening ideas are most welcome.

 

I remain yours,

Madhava

[Guest guest]

Namaste Madhavaji,

 

Thank you for pin-pointing one of the 'mazes in

the labyrinth', as Ranade himself calls it, and his syncretism will

unfold as the chapter progresse.

 

There may be at least three, possibly more,

reasons why the literal meanings of Sankhya as Kapila's and Yoga as

Patanjali's philosophy may not apply in the verses quoted.

 

1. If we take the reference point for these as the verse III:3:

 

loke asmin dvividhaa nishhThaa puraa proktaa mayaa anagha .

j~naana-yogena saa~Nkhyaana.n karma-yogena yoginaam.h ..

 

[O sinless one! since ancient times a two-fold path of devotion was

taught by Me in this world: that of Sankhya-s by devotion to

knowledge, and that of Yogins by devotion to action.]

 

the meaning of the said quotations fits more aptly.

 

2. If we try to fit the literal meanings, we shall have to

accommodate the 'niriishvara-vaada' of Kapila and 'sa-iishvara-vaada'

of Patanjali, which has not been done as yet, I think! One may also

have to justify why this does not refer to Jaimini's 'puurva-

miimaa.nsaa' [karma-kaaNDa of the Vedas].

 

3. Both 'darshana-s' [philosophies] are dualistic in a sense, Kapila

referring to multiple souls, and Patanjali to Ishvara, and in that

way 'exclusivistic'. The vision of Advaita Vedanta transcends this

dualism, and yet incorporates their elements seamlessly!

 

4. Gita being an expression of Advaita Vedanta [Gita X:20 - aham

aatmaa...], it would be hard to justify the literal meanings in the

context of these verses.

 

I hope other members will provide other perspectives.

 

 

Regards,

 

s.

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "Madhava K. Turumella" <madhava@m...> wrote:

> >

> > sunderh@h... [sunderh@h...]

> > suggesting that there is no distinction between Sankhya and Yoga.

> > What does the author of the Bhagavadgita mean by Sankhya and

> > Yoga ? Evidently, it is not the Sankhya of Kapila or the Yoga of

> > Patanjali. What the author here means by Sankhya is Jnana, and by

> > Yoga, Karma. For example, let us compare the following passage :

> >

> Harih Om

>

> I have a question: Why can't we take that Lord Krishna

means "Sankhya of

> Kapila" and "Yoga of Patanjali"? Is there any contradiction? Even

after

> comparing the passage which followed, I don't understand why we

shouldn't

> take the meaning literally...