Crikey ... Samkhya?! [was A painted fisher cannot catch a real fish]

[Guest guest]

Hi Devi Bhakta

 

"Many Years ago when i met the great Gopinath Kaviraj for the first

time in Varanasi, he inquired about my work. I commented that i was

working on one of the ancient systems of Indian philosophy namely the

Samkhya. He immedieately waved his hand to interrupt me "samkhya" he

said "is not ONE of the systems of indian Philosophy, Samkhya is THE

Philosophy of india."

Excerpt from ther preface to the Volume iv of the Encyclopedia of

Indian Philosophy

 

Whoever knows who Gopinath Kaviraj was, also knows that i am in good

company in my estimation about the course of study and what the

fundamentals of Indian Philksophy are, and that my advice is sound.

If someone prefers to be informend by reading stuff like "The

Complete Idiot's Guide® to Hinduism" he can feel free to do so,i

doubt he will be closer to understanding indic religions, my advice

would be to first study the Upanishads and Samkhya, then shaiva

Siddhanta, then Kashmir Shaiva, followed by Advaita, then Shakta.

After that maybe he can understand some parts of the Agamas and

Nigamas (i.e so called tantra)

MahaHradanatha

 

 

 

, "Devi Bhakta"

<devi_bhakta wrote:

>

> Hi Mahahradanatha:

>

> When I read your post last evening, in which you advised that "one

> should start with a study of Samkhya Philosophy," and then

> characterized it as "the foundation of all Indic religions

including

> Shakta" -- well, frankly, it gave me a headache. *lol*

>

> It's not that I felt that your post was bad or wrong. On the

> contrary, I don't think I disagree with you on any profound

> fundamental level. It's just that the topic under discussion is so

> large and so complex, and the assertions and advice in your post so

> broad and general, that -- without a boatload of caveats,

footnotes,

> clarifications and sub-explanations -- they could actually be

> counterproductive or misleading for someone without a pretty strong

> grounding in this area.

>

> So I shut off my computer and went to bed, figuring I'd deal with

it

> after a good sleep. ;-) This morning, however, I was happy to find

> your follow-up post, in which my instinctive concerns seem to be

> addressed. Specifically you explained, "Since every tradition has a

> different emphasis in this matter [...], there is no need to go

into

> the details if the basics are not correctly understood."

>

> Hallelujah! I personally don't think *anyone* ought to embark on "a

> study of Samkhya Philosophy" until they have a pretty comprehensive

> contextual understanding of Eastern Religion in general and

Hinduism

> in its many forms specifically. Even then I'd recommend they take

up

> a hobby -- archery, pottery; hell, macramé! *lol*

>

> However, if anyone out there has a hankering to tackle Samkhya

> someday, but is hampered by a lack of Hindu-religion basics, I have

> two alternative reading suggestions (both of them written by and

for

> Westerners getting their first exposure to the topic):

>

> 1. For those who like their information quick, simple and easily

> digestable, I heartily recommend Linda Johnsen's really

> excellent, "The Complete Idiot's Guide® to Hinduism":

> <http://www.amazon.com/dp/0028642279>

>

> 2. For those who prefer a more detailed, complete, and academically

> balanced survey of the topic (including a pretty decent

introduction

> to Samkhya, which is here compared and contextualized against the

> other major Hindu philosophical systems), I am partial to "A Survey

> of Hinduism" by Klaus K. Klostermaier:

> <http://www.amazon.com/dp/0791421104>

>

> ~aim mAtangyai namaH ~

>