PDA

View Full Version : The sāṁkhya view...



yajvan
30 April 2010, 01:32 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté
Are people interested in a discussion regarding the sāṁkhya philosophy?


This sāṁkhya can be view in two ways:

sāṁkhyā - number; to reckon or count , up , sum up , enumerate , calculate:; deliberation , reasoning , reflection , reason , intellect.
Hence from this this sāṁkhya philosophy reviews 25 tattva-s i.e. prakṛiti (24) + puruṣa (1) and the nature of creation.Another view is this:

sāṁkhya meaning samyag-jñāna. Samyag-jñāna is samyag+jñāna. Samyag = samyañc. This is defined as correct , accurate , proper , true , completely , wholly , thoroughly.
And we know that jñāna is knowledge. So in this case sāṁkhya means full , complete, thorough knowledge.What would be perhaps interesting is the principles of sāṁkhya overall.

What I cannot comment on is the sāṁkhya kārikā-s that are authored by īśvaṛa-kṛṣṇa-ji. I have read this work as of yet. Perhaps some one can offer this to the conversation?

praṇām

yajvan
01 May 2010, 01:53 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

the sāṁkhya view is dualistic in nature.

I wrote

And here's one more idea just to insure that the sāṁkhya system is a bit different ( not wrong, just different) then the vedānta view or kaśmir śaivism view ( and there are many others) is this: Sāṁkhya does not see one SELF but multiple Selfs. They say there cannot be one SELF and give multiple reasons for this.

This view of many selves is supported by the following view:



People come and go ( birth and death) at different times; The death of one person does not inflict the death occurrence of another of all others.
If one were blind, this blindness does not spread to all others.
If there where just one Self, then the conditions above would affect all simultaneously.
There is a distinction of man, woman, animals, gods, and the like. If there is one Self where then would there be the distinction?
How do we reconcile this view? The sāṁkhya view says you do not. Yet Vedānta says different.

Why the differences?

praṇām

smaranam
01 May 2010, 03:59 PM
Namaste Yajvanji

This is a gray area. I am very much interested in what you and others write on this thread. And certainly KRSNa's Sankhya - in chapter 2 of Bhagavad Gita.

Appearantly, on the surface, what sankhya calls self is very much at the prakrti level, hence material ? Does sankhya claim that its many 'self' s are comletely spiritual with no traces of karana sharira , sukshma sharira, or prakrti-maya ?

The jiva being eternally a jiva is a common thread in many schools of thought - like some Vaishnav siddhantas. I would love to know what an eternal jiva looks like, and how it has a different color/flavor from its neighbor.

praNAm