Guest guest Posted January 11, 2004 Report Share Posted January 11, 2004 Namaskar, I have a question on Samkhya's position regarding Purusha and the Advaitic refutation ( if its being opposed ) of this. Looks to me like Samkhya treats the 24 constituents starting from Prakriti to be exisiting by itself and the Purushas to be having individual existence. So Purusha need not be there to say the world exists in Samkhya. In Advaita, the world is there because ' I ' am here to say it is. or maybe I should say "The world appears this way to me because I am in this present state of consciousness " . So, Prakriti exists only because Purusha is there to witness it. Am I correct in my statements ? Regards Guruprasad Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2004 Report Share Posted January 11, 2004 Namaskar Guruprasadji, In Samkhya, the 24 categories are not 24 different self-subsisting entities. They are the 24 evolutes of undifferentiated Prakriti, and as such, differs from Prakriti only in name just as cloth differs from yarn only in name and is a condition (or configuration) of the yarns itself. In other words, the material effect subsists in the cause and differs only in name. Samkhya is however a dualistic philosophy in that it speaks of Prakriti and Purusha as separate. Also it speaks of a multiplicity of Purushas. Inspite of this dualism of Purusha and Prakriti, I am not sure whether one can say that Purusha is not required for the world to exist. In Samkhya, Prakriti exists only for Purusha, and its creation of the world is impelled by the presence of Purusha. The entire leela of creation is Prakriti acting so that Purusha may experience; and after having provided this experience it goes back to its undifferentiated state, which is the release of Purusha. The difference between Samkhya and Vedanta is that in Vedanta Prakriti is not self-subsisting, but is the predicative aspect of Purusha (Brahman) and exists only in Purusha - they are not separate. Again, I am not sure if one can say that Prakriti is there only because Purusha is there to witness it. Prakriti is the very nature of Purusha, and this nature is not contingent on any condition. When we witness it, it is differentiated and manifested, and when we don't witness it, it is undifferentiated. Regards, Chittaranjan advaitin, Guru Venkat <v_vedanti> wrote: > Namaskar, > I have a question on Samkhya's position regarding Purusha and the Advaitic refutation ( if its being opposed ) of this. > Looks to me like Samkhya treats the 24 constituents starting from Prakriti to be exisiting by itself and the Purushas to be having individual existence. So Purusha need not be there to say the world exists in Samkhya. > > In Advaita, the world is there because ' I ' am here to say it is. > or maybe I should say "The world appears this way to me because I am in this present state of consciousness " . So, Prakriti exists only because Purusha is there to witness it. > Am I correct in my statements ? > > Regards > Guruprasad > > > > > Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2004 Report Share Posted January 12, 2004 Namaste Naikji, you wrote : " In other words, the material effect subsists in the cause and differs only in name. Samkhya is however a dualistic philosophy in that it speaks of Prakriti and Purusha as separate. Also it speaks of a multiplicity of Purushas. ............. The entire leela of creation is Prakriti acting so that Purusha may experience; and after having provided this experience it goes back to its undifferentiated state, which is the release of Purusha. " Yes, I understand Samkhya is dualistic in that many purushas exist and are all different from Prakriti and its constituents. Is creation considered a leela in Samkhya ? I thought this was only the Vaishnavaites view of creation. If there is a Leela, leela by who ? Do they admit a supreme Purusha ? Prakriti by itself is unintelligent, is it not ? As I understand , Samkhya considers the world to be snapshots of different states and have already happened (That's the fatalistic view I suppose ). Purusha merely goes through it as a witness until he has realized his true state. "Again, I am not sure if one can say that Prakriti is there only because Purusha is there to witness it. " Yes, I'm not sure either. But I think this is a very powerful argument and also, many seers seem to affirm this. "Prakriti is the very nature of Purusha, and this nature is not contingent on any condition." I'd like to believe this. But Brahman being Nirgunam, can it have any nature ? I guess then Prakriti here is equal to Maya. " When we witness it, it is differentiated and manifested, and when we don't witness it, it is undifferentiated." This last line of yours seems to sum up the vedantic view nicely. Thanks and Regards Guruprasad Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2004 Report Share Posted January 13, 2004 Namaste Guruprasadji, This extract from the Samkhya Karika of Ishwar Krishna may be relevant to our discussion: "Just as a dancing girl ceases to dance after having exhibited herself to the spectators, so also, Prakriti ceases to operate after having exhibited herself to Purusha. "The benevolent Prakriti, endowed with attributes, brings about, by manifold means, in a manner in which she has no interest of her own, the good of Purusha, who is devoid of the attributes and who confers no benefit in return. "My opinion is that nothing is more modest than Prakriti: Knowing that "I have been seen", she no more comes within the sight of Purusha. "Thus, verily, Purusha is never bound, nor is he released nor does he migrate. It is Prakriti, being the support of manifold creation, that migrates, is bound and is released. "Prakriti by herself binds herself by means of seven forms, and it is she again, who by means of one form, releases herself for the benefit of Purusha." Regards, Chittaranjan advaitin, Guru Venkat <v_vedanti> wrote: > Namaste Naikji, > > you wrote : > " In other words, the material effect subsists in the > cause and differs only in name. Samkhya is however a dualistic > philosophy in that it speaks of Prakriti and Purusha as separate. > Also it speaks of a multiplicity of Purushas. > ............ > The entire leela of creation is Prakriti acting so that Purusha may experience; and after having provided this experience it goes back to its undifferentiated state, which is the release of Purusha. " > > Yes, I understand Samkhya is dualistic in that many purushas exist and are all different from Prakriti and its constituents. > Is creation considered a leela in Samkhya ? I thought this was only the Vaishnavaites view of creation. If there is a Leela, leela by who ? Do they admit a supreme Purusha ? Prakriti by itself is unintelligent, is it not ? > As I understand , Samkhya considers the world to be snapshots of different states and have already happened (That's the fatalistic view I suppose ). Purusha merely goes through it as a witness until he has realized his true state. > > "Again, I am not sure if one can say that Prakriti is there only because Purusha is there to witness it. " > > Yes, I'm not sure either. But I think this is a very powerful argument and also, many seers seem to affirm this. > > "Prakriti is the very nature of Purusha, and this nature is not contingent on any condition." > > I'd like to believe this. But Brahman being Nirgunam, can it have any nature ? I guess then Prakriti here is equal to Maya. > > " When we witness it, it is differentiated and manifested, and when we don't witness it, it is undifferentiated." > > This last line of yours seems to sum up the vedantic view nicely. > > Thanks and Regards > Guruprasad > > > > > Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2004 Report Share Posted January 13, 2004 Dear Respected GuruprasdaJi: The kaarikaa that explains the "pruSha-prakR^iti" relation in most meaningful words, is as being "pa.ngva.ndha", where the lame puruSha (with sight) sits (rides) on the shoulders of blind prakR^iti. SunderJi - Can you help me recollect that karika? If you find it could you please arrange to post it in the file section in a PDF format in the devnaagari skript. (It drives me nunts when I cannot remember specifc shlkoa. It is said that two thing happen when you get old. First you start forgetting things and Second? I do not remember !!) purusha can not move by himself lf thus he needs manifestation for existing in this world. This is satisfied by the prakR^iti, however being blind it has to rely on the puruSha for the direction. This synergistic union is the key explains their significance. This is applicable universally. Scientific Research - Ph.D. Students are prakR^iti their "puruSha" is the direction from their professor. Professor knows the path but he himself cannot do all that labor to travel on that path, this need is satisfied by his student how follows his directions to arrive the (tedious laborious) path of performing the research. Performing research manually is important but even more important is the key "What is that specific research and why that line of approach?". This is contributed by the professor's experience and his existing knowledge. Just think of how many beautiful women getting married to ugly older men. Here both of them satisfy each other's needs. If he did not have the money then she probably would not have married him. If she was not so pretty-thing then he would not have been interested in her. If not for their rich affluent parents some of these girls probably would have never gotten married. In my opinion our ancestors have left us with a enormous treasure of knowledge expressed in their own words as it applied to their lives of their time. Therefore if we look at that knowledge objectively in the light of practicality then their knowledge will be really useful for our vyavahaarika as well as spiritual well being and make us "Well Placed, properly balanced" in every aspect. The key phrase is "OBJECTIVELY without BIAS" Regards, Dr. Yadu advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik" <chittaranjan_naik> wrote: > Namaste Guruprasadji, > > This extract from the Samkhya Karika of Ishwar Krishna may be > relevant to our discussion: > > "Just as a dancing girl ceases to dance after having exhibited > herself to the spectators, so also, Prakriti ceases to operate after > having exhibited herself to Purusha. > > "The benevolent Prakriti, endowed with attributes, brings about, by > manifold means, in a manner in which she has no interest of her own, > the good of Purusha, who is devoid of the attributes and who confers > no benefit in return. > > "My opinion is that nothing is more modest than Prakriti: Knowing > that "I have been seen", she no more comes within the sight of > Purusha. > > "Thus, verily, Purusha is never bound, nor is he released nor does he > migrate. It is Prakriti, being the support of manifold creation, that > migrates, is bound and is released. > > "Prakriti by herself binds herself by means of seven forms, and it is > she again, who by means of one form, releases herself for the benefit > of Purusha." > > Regards, > Chittaranjan > > > > advaitin, Guru Venkat <v_vedanti> wrote: > > Namaste Naikji, > > > > you wrote : > > " In other words, the material effect subsists in the > > cause and differs only in name. Samkhya is however a dualistic > > philosophy in that it speaks of Prakriti and Purusha as separate. > > Also it speaks of a multiplicity of Purushas. > > ............ > > The entire leela of creation is Prakriti acting so that Purusha may > experience; and after having provided this experience it goes back to > its undifferentiated state, which is the release of Purusha. " > > > > Yes, I understand Samkhya is dualistic in that many purushas exist > and are all different from Prakriti and its constituents. > > Is creation considered a leela in Samkhya ? I thought this was only > the Vaishnavaites view of creation. If there is a Leela, leela by > who ? Do they admit a supreme Purusha ? Prakriti by itself is > unintelligent, is it not ? > > As I understand , Samkhya considers the world to be snapshots of > different states and have already happened (That's the fatalistic > view I suppose ). Purusha merely goes through it as a witness until > he has realized his true state. > > > > "Again, I am not sure if one can say that Prakriti is there only > because Purusha is there to witness it. " > > > > Yes, I'm not sure either. But I think this is a very powerful > argument and also, many seers seem to affirm this. > > > > "Prakriti is the very nature of Purusha, and this nature is not > contingent on any condition." > > > > I'd like to believe this. But Brahman being Nirgunam, can it have > any nature ? I guess then Prakriti here is equal to Maya. > > > > " When we witness it, it is differentiated and manifested, and when > we don't witness it, it is undifferentiated." > > > > This last line of yours seems to sum up the vedantic view nicely. > > > > Thanks and Regards > > Guruprasad > > > > > > > > > > Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2004 Report Share Posted January 13, 2004 advaitin, "ymoharir" <ymoharir> wrote: > Can you help me recollect that karika? If you find it > could you please arrange to post it in the file section in a PDF > format in the devnaagari skript. Namaste Dr. Yaduji, I do not have the sanskrit verse, but the English translation is as follows: http://theosophy.org/tlodocs/SankhyaKarika.htm #21 21. The conjunction of the two, like that of the lame and the blind, is for the perception of Nature (pradhana) by the Self (purusha) and for the release of the Self. From this conjunction proceeds evolution. Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2004 Report Share Posted January 13, 2004 Thank you Sunder-Ji for your quick find. If any one has "samkhy karika" in Sanskrit I would like to get atleast this specific referenc if not all. Plesae contact me directly at dryadu. Thank you in advance for your help. Regards, Dr. Yadu advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh> wrote: > advaitin, "ymoharir" <ymoharir> wrote: > > > Can you help me recollect that karika? If you find it > > could you please arrange to post it in the file section in a PDF > > format in the devnaagari skript. > > > Namaste Dr. Yaduji, > > I do not have the sanskrit verse, but the English > translation is as follows: > > http://theosophy.org/tlodocs/SankhyaKarika.htm #21 > > 21. The conjunction of the two, like that of the lame and the blind, > is for the perception of Nature (pradhana) by the Self (purusha) and > for the release of the Self. From this conjunction proceeds evolution. > > > Regards, > > Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2004 Report Share Posted January 13, 2004 Namaste Dr. Yaduji, The file is available in transliterated form at: ftp://ftp.ucl.ac.uk/pub/users/ucgadkw/indology/texts/ 21 puru.sasya dar"sanaa'rtha.m kaivalyaa'rtha.m tathaa pradhaanasya pa"ngv-andhavad ubhayor api sa.myogas tat-k.rta.h sarga.h. This had to be encoded in Itrans to get the devanagari output in pdf. I have uploaded only this verse in the Files section, under sankhyakarika. To do the whole file would be very laborious! Regards, Sunder advaitin, "ymoharir" <ymoharir> wrote:> If any one has "samkhy karika" in Sanskrit I would like to get > atleast this specific referenc if not all. > advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh> > wrote: > > advaitin, "ymoharir" <ymoharir> wrote: > > > > > Can you help me recollect that karika? If you find it > > > could you please arrange to post it in the file section in a PDF > > > format in the devnaagari skript. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2004 Report Share Posted January 13, 2004 Namaste Dr. Yadu-Ji, yes, I read this lame purusha the blind prakriti analogy some time ago. Its very interesting. I have to read it in the Karika itself. I bought the book recently, but started off with these questions with the first few couplets. Your example of the student teacher is very refreshing. change from the routine quotes. I would think your "OBJECTIVELY without BIAS" is what JK says as "Awareness without condemnation". Thanks and Best Regards Guruprasad ymoharir <ymoharir wrote: purusha can not move by himself lf thus he needs manifestation for existing in this world. This is satisfied by the prakR^iti, however being blind it has to rely on the puruSha for the direction. Scientific Research - Ph.D. Students are prakR^iti their "puruSha" is the direction from their professor. Professor knows the path but he himself cannot do all that labor to travel on that path, this need is satisfied by his student how follows his directions to arrive the (tedious laborious) path of performing the research. Performing research manually is important but even more important is the key "What is that specific research and why that line of approach?". This is contributed by the professor's experience and his existing knowledge. In my opinion our ancestors have left us with a enormous treasure of knowledge expressed in their own words as it applied to their lives of their time. Therefore if we look at that knowledge objectively in the light of practicality then their knowledge will be really useful for our vyavahaarika as well as spiritual well being and make us "Well Placed, properly balanced" in every aspect. The key phrase is "OBJECTIVELY without BIAS" Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2004 Report Share Posted January 13, 2004 Thank you for your kind words. My basic philosophy is to keep an open mind without letting the brain fall out. Regards, Dr. Yadu advaitin, Guru Venkat <v_vedanti> wrote: > Namaste Dr. Yadu-Ji, > yes, I read this lame purusha the blind prakriti analogy some time ago. Its very interesting. > I have to read it in the Karika itself. I bought the book recently, but started off with these questions with the first few couplets. > > Your example of the student teacher is very refreshing. change from the routine quotes. > I would think your "OBJECTIVELY without BIAS" is what JK says as > "Awareness without condemnation". > > Thanks and Best Regards > Guruprasad > > > ymoharir <ymoharir> wrote: > purusha can not move by himself lf thus he needs manifestation for > existing in this world. This is satisfied by the prakR^iti, however > being blind it has to rely on the puruSha for the direction. > > Scientific Research - Ph.D. Students are prakR^iti their "puruSha" > is the direction from their professor. Professor knows the path but > he himself cannot do all that labor to travel on that path, this need > is satisfied by his student how follows his directions to arrive the > (tedious laborious) path of performing the research. Performing > research manually is important but even more important is the > key "What is that specific research and why that line of > approach?". This is contributed by the professor's experience and his existing knowledge. > In my opinion our ancestors have left us with a enormous treasure of knowledge expressed in their own words as it applied to their lives of their time. Therefore if we look at that knowledge objectively in the light of practicality then their knowledge will be really useful > for our vyavahaarika as well as spiritual well being and make us "Well Placed, properly balanced" in every aspect. The key phrase is "OBJECTIVELY without BIAS" > > > > > Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.