7 ms·

Soul Meets Body: An initial examination of the Samkhya school

74 points by hyperindexed 6y ago

jelliclesfarm 6y ago
Samkhya school of thought makes space for non-deism and subscribe to duality. This is unique because dualism has always been associated with worship of the god head as often embraced by Vaishnavite sects. Samkhya offers a different perspective. The non deistic approach in Vedanta(the non dualism school of thought that is the opposite of samkhya school) is less significant than probably the Mimamsa school. All six astikas(nyaya, Vaisheka,Mimamsa, samkhya,Vedanta,yoga) accomodate for both deistic and non deistic approach to life. Samkhya gives a lot of importance to the three Gunas of saatvic, rajasic and tamasic nature of Self. The guna theory appears everywhere from Ayurveda to yoga to astrology. Hindu philosophy is the template for a way of life and the key theme that is most common and recurring is the Sattva-Rajas-Tamas Gunas. I look at it as the earliest attempt to take a stab at diversity. Not on the basis of colour or caste or language but diversity of human nature/instincts as it were...caste system, for example, arose out of these division. As did mythology and astrology. Without the division of humans on the basis of their instincts, we’d have no way to codify the different philosophies for everyone. Diversity is about division and accepting that there are differences amongst us that separates us as individuals. I often feel like diversity as a word has been hijacked by the English language. Diversity exists only because it celebrates differences. If there are differences, there will be hierarchies. It means that we are all NOT the same. How can you celebrate that we are all different and then deny that that differences will manifest itself as a hierarchy? That doesn’t make sense at all. I grew up listening to mythology from my grandfather. One of the striking things about the gods in Hinduism is that they see no difference between humans, demons and the ‘good’ celestials. There is a hierarchy even amongst gods. I remember asking him why the gods give boons to both the good guys and bad guys. The gods treat everyone equally. That doesn’t make sense. And he said that it’s because we have all the gods and demons inside us and they all want to come out and live vicariously through us..and we get to choose which god or demon we choose to release. And we do it through worship. Maybe one can worship the goddess of music(Saraswati) or of wealth(Lakshmi) or destruction(Kali). It’s still our choice. And they all live within us. It’s the choice that causes dualism. “I want knowledge. I don’t want poverty. I want beauty. I don’t want injustice.’ Etc. our thoughts and instincts invite and welcome our inner gods and demons to live the human life through our actions. non dualism says that in the end..nothing matters anyways..because we are all that. And we are none of it. God and karma are just cherry on top extras. It is a constant churn of attempts to diversify and then assimilate and then differentiate again. Rinse and repeat. We can’t escape this pattern because statis will set in after churn and equilibrium is fleeting. That we call equilibrium or that fleeting moment of stability is what’s illusion or maya. Neither joy nor sorrow..ignorance or enlightenment is permanent. Life follows death and death is guaranteed after life. The churn never stops. The nirvana or moksha hack is to slow down the entropy and make that fleeting moment seem to last forever. The Now is Forever. The Moment becomes Infinite. I don’t necessarily accept the western interpretation of samkhya philosophy as ‘atheistic’. Hindu philosophy and religion is codified to reach as many people as possible as a way of life, not bonded faith. Theism is a layer as is atheism and both have its place in multilayered ancient Hindu philosophy. The Hindu gods are manifestations of the three Gunas. Dualism is picking one of the three Gunas. Non dualism is accepting all the divisions in the soul that culminates as ‘a god’. This is a good read. Much better than western interpretations of Samkhya and Vedanta etc that I find very ignorant and limited in its grasp of symbolic language. I am troubled by any definitive interpretation. Hindu philosophy is meant for debate and discussion as a way to unravel layers of Self. It’s interpretation is unique and personal to each individual to suit their particular life circumstance. Contemplation is a beautiful thing. Thanks for the share.
- mikestew 6y ago
  I’ll upvote because you seemed to put a goodly amount of thought and effort into the comment, but not because I read every word.
- yters 6y ago
  It's convenient the natural hierarchy tells one lineage of human beings their entire purpose in life is to serve the people who discovered the "natural hierarchy". Reminds me of more recent discoverors of the "natural hierarchy" and their methods of educating others...
  - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
    That’s a very simple and inaccurate interpretation.
    - yters 6y ago
      What is your interpretation of the caste system?
pulkitsh1234 6y ago
Well written, I am on my personal journey to discover what being a Hindu means. I am appalled by the fact that the true knowledge and the diversity of different schools and line of thoughts has been dissolved and sublimated into a crude understanding of what Hinduism means. I have thought about it a lot, and I think the main reason is that there is no single doctrine / school that everyone agreed upon in the past. I see this is as the pinnacle of free-thinking. The seeming consensus among people who follow Abrahamic religions has provided the functionality to conserve itself in some tangible form. Whereas the meaning of Hinduism is just lost, because there is no religion single religion as such. Nothing comes close to the deep thought and inspection that philosophers (sages/rishis whatever you want to name them) of the ancient India. All their "work" has been hidden under layers of what people assume is just religious "stuff". Carl Jung, Nikola Tesla and innumerable people have invested time in discovering their true essence. The concept of "religion", "spirituality", "god" carry a lot weight, especially in the modern world. I myself (being a Hindu), assumed that all that was present in Vedic texts was just references to god, different kinds of gods, different rituals etc. And as a modern day human, I just assumed that these are just things of the past and now we are evolved enough to ignore these concepts and move towards the future. And I was proved entirely wrong when I started reading The Upanishads, which are part of the Vedic literature. The concepts are so abstract that different schools/sub-religions spawned just on the basis of different interpretations. Roughly dualistic and non-dualistic interpretations. I can go on and on about my discovery. In fact I am writing about this here: https://pulkitsharma07.github.io/2020/06/25/source-0/ https://pulkitsharma07.github.io/2020/06/25/source-0/ I am really happy to see this post on HN, hoping this doesn't get flagged.
- Florin_Andrei 6y ago
  > I am appalled by the fact that the true knowledge and the diversity of different schools and line of thoughts has been dissolved and sublimated into a crude understanding of what Hinduism means. Well, that's always a given when you look at a culture from outside. It takes time to uncover the details and the diversity.
  - naravara 6y ago
AakashRaina 6y ago
I follow the vedanta(Advaita) school of philosophy
mping 6y ago
Can someone explain to me the basic tenets of Hinduism, and if it is related to Yoga? I have met so many yoga teachers that don't know how to answer this yet are free to speak about spiritual yoga stuff, so I remain confused.
- woadwarrior01 6y ago
  There is no single set of basic tenets. There's a continuum of schools of philosophy within the umbrella term of Hinduism, ranging from materialist atheistic (Ajivika, Charvaka) to pantheistic with a non-sentient God (Advaita) to full blown theism (Dvaita and Vishistadwaita). You get to pick your poison.
  - mping 6y ago
    That clears it up, thanks.
  - valarauko 6y ago
    I would not count Ajivika or Charvaka as within the ambit of Hinduism, and neither did the Ancient Commentators. Both were considered heresies. Indeed, Ajivika is better understood as a distinct dharmic religion. In addition, Advaita is not a "non-sentient God", but that's a separate discussion. For the sake of the parent question, it would make sense to restrict to the Astika schools. Basal to these schools was an acknowledgement of the supremacy of the Vedas (or at least tacit acceptance of their authority).
    - woadwarrior01 6y ago
      Although most of the Nastika (atheist) literature has been lost over the ages, some texts are still available (The Charvaka text Tattvopaplavasimha in particular, I have a copy of it) and there's no reason to discount their philosophical contributions. Their contributions are no less important than the contributions of the Astikas (the Theists). Also, let's not forget that Buddhism which was more successful abroad than it was in India is a Nastika faith. OTOH, you'd naturally argue that Buddhism isn't Hinduism. * In addition, Advaita is not a "non-sentient God", but that's a separate discussion. * One of the Advaitin Mahavakyas (Great sentence/quote) from Aitareya Upanishad is: "Prajnanam Brahma", which translates to: "Knowledge/Consciousness is God". One of the fundamental ontological dichotomies in Hinduism is the difference between "Chit" (things that are conscious) and "Achit" (things that are not conscious). Essentially, the distinction between sentient and non-sentient objects. Although consciousness is a trait of "chit" or sentient objects, consciousness itself is not sentient (that'd be a circular definition). We don't even have to go that far if you interpret it as knowledge, because knowledge by definition non-sentient. Extending from that, if God is consciousness and consciousness is non-sentient, then God is non-sentient. I know that the Adviatins try very hard to paper over this philosophical wrinkle, but that's what drew me to their school of philosophy. A religion with a non-beneficent and non-sentient God is beyond cool, IMO. One of the taunts that Ramanuja (a Vishistadwaita philosopher) had for Advaitins was to call them "Prachanna Bouddhar" (Closet Buddhists). Because from his theistic perspective, the Advaitins with their non-sentient God are only a hop skip and a jump away from the Buddhists (who were originally atheists).
rajekas 6y ago
"What remains uncontested is the product of his meditations, the Samkhya Sutras, which laid the foundation for the earliest “complete” system of philosophy derived from The Vedas. The system’s central axioms would be developed over the course of a millennium..." Is wrong for several reasons. As a Samkhyavadin of the arithmetic kind, let me count some of them: 1. What's 'uncontested' would be strongly contested by both their classical interlocutors such as the Mimansakas and by modern scholars - for example, for linguistic reasons mentioned in one of the other comments. 2. Not sure what 'complete' philososophy means, but we might assume that some account of reason and logic is part of a complete philosophical system, in which case the Samkhyavadins like many of their counterparts, took the lead from the Naiyayikas, who were closely related but distinct. Same for grammar, where everyone took their lead from Panini and the grammarians. 3. I think calling it 'Vedic Philosophy' doesn't do justice either to the Vedas or to Philosophy. For example, the accurate, elaborate and intricate performance of ritual action is central to the Vedic experience. We can't reduce that to philosophical beliefs about dualism or monism without serious harm to the original practices. It's a sign of modernity that beliefs (such as dualism) are given precedence over ritual performance. 3. Words like 'derive' and 'axioms' suggest an overly mathematical relationship which would be impossible to justify. Even the Upanisads aren't derived from the Vedas in any axiomatic sense. The Prakriti-Purusa dualism finds a precedent in the Rig Veda which says "Two birds associated together, and mutual friends, take refuge in the same tree; one of them eats the sweet fig; the other abstaining from food, merely looks on" - try deriving the Soul from that imagery. In fact, the most well known Samkhya (influenced) text isn't the Karika but the Mahabharata, including the Gita, with Arjuna playing the role of Prakriti and Krishna that of Purusa. Which is why - to use a deductive argument - Arjuna fights even when he doesn't want to and Krishna doesn't even when wants to. I know I am being pedantic, but I find that these kinds of reductive Whig histories of Indian knowledge traditions perpetuate the problems they are trying to remove. Far more interesting, say, from the perspective of modern philosophy of mind, is the somewhat technical question: why did most Indian traditions consider mind, aka Manas, to be a physical entity? What does it say about their account of knowledge since Manas is an Indriya, i.e., an instrument of knowledge. What does it mean for knowledge to be physical and yet normative, i.e., how can something physical be true or false?" To reduce these subtleties to 'Hindu Philosophy' or even to six schools of Astika philosophy is deeply problematic.
raincom 6y ago
Here are some problems: (a) Don't postulate entities(essences) that don't play any role. That's what natural sciences do; that's also the heuristic of Occam's razor. On the one hand, 'purusha' is an essence; on the other hand, it is "completely inactive". Even Upanishads claim the same: Atman, Brahman don't play the causal role; they are described negatively in terms of existence--neti, neti (not this, not that). (b) The notion of 'transcendence' is problematic to describe Sankya or any Indian traditions. In Semitic religions, God is outside of the cosmos that was, is and shall be. In other words, outside the space time. That's why He is transcendent. Yet He plays a causal role in this Cosmos; that's why he is immanent. This leads to huge problems in Semitic theologies. (c) Purusha is "beyond any possible perception that is mediated by the mind or senses". If it is beyond senses, why bother? Isn't how this stuff is sold as transcendent (beyond space time), supra-mundane (beyond the mundane), etc? If one reads the text of Chandogya Upanishad carefully (but not all pages of commentaries), Prajapati makes the claim that Atman/Brhaman is seeable, accessible.
- jbob2000 6y ago
  In philosophy, this is called the “Newton’s flaming laser sword problem”. Did Newton have a flaming laser sword? Sure, he could have had one. But we have no evidence today of that, so for the context of our discussion, let’s ignore it. And this is where spiritually collides with Newton’s flaming laser sword. But I want to believe that newton had a flaming sword, therefore I want the discussion to be about how this laser sword influenced his writings.
  - raincom 6y ago
    It depends on the goal: whether one wants human knowledge or something exotic/esoteric/supra-mundane/Divine/super-natural knowledge, etc. (In Semitic religions, God's revelation is Divine knowledge, which is independent of human knowledge). If one wants human knowledge, we can't allow fundamental contradictions. But the article has such contradictions; maybe, these contradictions are there in the Sanskrit text or in the 'interpretations' over the last 2000 years. At least I know, Sanskrit text doesn't talk about 'transcendent'. The transcendent of the interpreters is "Para" in Sanskrit. In Skt, it simply means: other. Even in many Indian languages, the word "para" is heavily used: "paradesi","paraayi vaallu"(in Telugu), etc. It is like importing Semitic theology to understand these Sanskrit texts. I don't want to blame the Westerners. Even Indian Sanskritists (or the so-called Insiders) are the biggest offenders here. They also bullshit as if they are dealing with some kind of literary text.

74 points by hyperindexed 6y ago

Samkhya school of thought makes space for non-deism and subscribe to duality. This is unique because dualism has always been associated with worship of the god head as often embraced by Vaishnavite sects. Samkhya offers a different perspective. The non deistic approach in Vedanta(the non dualism school of thought that is the opposite of samkhya school) is less significant than probably the Mimamsa school. All six astikas(nyaya, Vaisheka,Mimamsa, samkhya,Vedanta,yoga) accomodate for both deistic and non deistic approach to life. Samkhya gives a lot of importance to the three Gunas of saatvic, rajasic and tamasic nature of Self. The guna theory appears everywhere from Ayurveda to yoga to astrology. Hindu philosophy is the template for a way of life and the key theme that is most common and recurring is the Sattva-Rajas-Tamas Gunas. I look at it as the earliest attempt to take a stab at diversity. Not on the basis of colour or caste or language but diversity of human nature/instincts as it were...caste system, for example, arose out of these division. As did mythology and astrology. Without the division of humans on the basis of their instincts, we’d have no way to codify the different philosophies for everyone. Diversity is about division and accepting that there are differences amongst us that separates us as individuals. I often feel like diversity as a word has been hijacked by the English language. Diversity exists only because it celebrates differences. If there are differences, there will be hierarchies. It means that we are all NOT the same. How can you celebrate that we are all different and then deny that that differences will manifest itself as a hierarchy? That doesn’t make sense at all. I grew up listening to mythology from my grandfather. One of the striking things about the gods in Hinduism is that they see no difference between humans, demons and the ‘good’ celestials. There is a hierarchy even amongst gods. I remember asking him why the gods give boons to both the good guys and bad guys. The gods treat everyone equally. That doesn’t make sense. And he said that it’s because we have all the gods and demons inside us and they all want to come out and live vicariously through us..and we get to choose which god or demon we choose to release. And we do it through worship. Maybe one can worship the goddess of music(Saraswati) or of wealth(Lakshmi) or destruction(Kali). It’s still our choice. And they all live within us. It’s the choice that causes dualism. “I want knowledge. I don’t want poverty. I want beauty. I don’t want injustice.’ Etc. our thoughts and instincts invite and welcome our inner gods and demons to live the human life through our actions. non dualism says that in the end..nothing matters anyways..because we are all that. And we are none of it. God and karma are just cherry on top extras. It is a constant churn of attempts to diversify and then assimilate and then differentiate again. Rinse and repeat. We can’t escape this pattern because statis will set in after churn and equilibrium is fleeting. That we call equilibrium or that fleeting moment of stability is what’s illusion or maya. Neither joy nor sorrow..ignorance or enlightenment is permanent. Life follows death and death is guaranteed after life. The churn never stops. The nirvana or moksha hack is to slow down the entropy and make that fleeting moment seem to last forever. The Now is Forever. The Moment becomes Infinite. I don’t necessarily accept the western interpretation of samkhya philosophy as ‘atheistic’. Hindu philosophy and religion is codified to reach as many people as possible as a way of life, not bonded faith. Theism is a layer as is atheism and both have its place in multilayered ancient Hindu philosophy. The Hindu gods are manifestations of the three Gunas. Dualism is picking one of the three Gunas. Non dualism is accepting all the divisions in the soul that culminates as ‘a god’. This is a good read. Much better than western interpretations of Samkhya and Vedanta etc that I find very ignorant and limited in its grasp of symbolic language. I am troubled by any definitive interpretation. Hindu philosophy is meant for debate and discussion as a way to unravel layers of Self. It’s interpretation is unique and personal to each individual to suit their particular life circumstance. Contemplation is a beautiful thing. Thanks for the share.

mikestew 6y ago
I’ll upvote because you seemed to put a goodly amount of thought and effort into the comment, but not because I read every word.
yters 6y ago
It's convenient the natural hierarchy tells one lineage of human beings their entire purpose in life is to serve the people who discovered the "natural hierarchy". Reminds me of more recent discoverors of the "natural hierarchy" and their methods of educating others...
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  That’s a very simple and inaccurate interpretation.
  - yters 6y ago
    What is your interpretation of the caste system?

pulkitsh1234 6y ago

Well written, I am on my personal journey to discover what being a Hindu means. I am appalled by the fact that the true knowledge and the diversity of different schools and line of thoughts has been dissolved and sublimated into a crude understanding of what Hinduism means. I have thought about it a lot, and I think the main reason is that there is no single doctrine / school that everyone agreed upon in the past. I see this is as the pinnacle of free-thinking. The seeming consensus among people who follow Abrahamic religions has provided the functionality to conserve itself in some tangible form. Whereas the meaning of Hinduism is just lost, because there is no religion single religion as such. Nothing comes close to the deep thought and inspection that philosophers (sages/rishis whatever you want to name them) of the ancient India. All their "work" has been hidden under layers of what people assume is just religious "stuff". Carl Jung, Nikola Tesla and innumerable people have invested time in discovering their true essence. The concept of "religion", "spirituality", "god" carry a lot weight, especially in the modern world. I myself (being a Hindu), assumed that all that was present in Vedic texts was just references to god, different kinds of gods, different rituals etc. And as a modern day human, I just assumed that these are just things of the past and now we are evolved enough to ignore these concepts and move towards the future. And I was proved entirely wrong when I started reading The Upanishads, which are part of the Vedic literature. The concepts are so abstract that different schools/sub-religions spawned just on the basis of different interpretations. Roughly dualistic and non-dualistic interpretations. I can go on and on about my discovery. In fact I am writing about this here: https://pulkitsharma07.github.io/2020/06/25/source-0/ https://pulkitsharma07.github.io/2020/06/25/source-0/ I am really happy to see this post on HN, hoping this doesn't get flagged.

Florin_Andrei 6y ago
> I am appalled by the fact that the true knowledge and the diversity of different schools and line of thoughts has been dissolved and sublimated into a crude understanding of what Hinduism means. Well, that's always a given when you look at a culture from outside. It takes time to uncover the details and the diversity.
- naravara 6y ago

AakashRaina 6y ago

I follow the vedanta(Advaita) school of philosophy

mping 6y ago

Can someone explain to me the basic tenets of Hinduism, and if it is related to Yoga? I have met so many yoga teachers that don't know how to answer this yet are free to speak about spiritual yoga stuff, so I remain confused.

woadwarrior01 6y ago
There is no single set of basic tenets. There's a continuum of schools of philosophy within the umbrella term of Hinduism, ranging from materialist atheistic (Ajivika, Charvaka) to pantheistic with a non-sentient God (Advaita) to full blown theism (Dvaita and Vishistadwaita). You get to pick your poison.
- mping 6y ago
  That clears it up, thanks.
- valarauko 6y ago
  I would not count Ajivika or Charvaka as within the ambit of Hinduism, and neither did the Ancient Commentators. Both were considered heresies. Indeed, Ajivika is better understood as a distinct dharmic religion. In addition, Advaita is not a "non-sentient God", but that's a separate discussion. For the sake of the parent question, it would make sense to restrict to the Astika schools. Basal to these schools was an acknowledgement of the supremacy of the Vedas (or at least tacit acceptance of their authority).
  - woadwarrior01 6y ago
    Although most of the Nastika (atheist) literature has been lost over the ages, some texts are still available (The Charvaka text Tattvopaplavasimha in particular, I have a copy of it) and there's no reason to discount their philosophical contributions. Their contributions are no less important than the contributions of the Astikas (the Theists). Also, let's not forget that Buddhism which was more successful abroad than it was in India is a Nastika faith. OTOH, you'd naturally argue that Buddhism isn't Hinduism. * In addition, Advaita is not a "non-sentient God", but that's a separate discussion. * One of the Advaitin Mahavakyas (Great sentence/quote) from Aitareya Upanishad is: "Prajnanam Brahma", which translates to: "Knowledge/Consciousness is God". One of the fundamental ontological dichotomies in Hinduism is the difference between "Chit" (things that are conscious) and "Achit" (things that are not conscious). Essentially, the distinction between sentient and non-sentient objects. Although consciousness is a trait of "chit" or sentient objects, consciousness itself is not sentient (that'd be a circular definition). We don't even have to go that far if you interpret it as knowledge, because knowledge by definition non-sentient. Extending from that, if God is consciousness and consciousness is non-sentient, then God is non-sentient. I know that the Adviatins try very hard to paper over this philosophical wrinkle, but that's what drew me to their school of philosophy. A religion with a non-beneficent and non-sentient God is beyond cool, IMO. One of the taunts that Ramanuja (a Vishistadwaita philosopher) had for Advaitins was to call them "Prachanna Bouddhar" (Closet Buddhists). Because from his theistic perspective, the Advaitins with their non-sentient God are only a hop skip and a jump away from the Buddhists (who were originally atheists).

rajekas 6y ago

"What remains uncontested is the product of his meditations, the Samkhya Sutras, which laid the foundation for the earliest “complete” system of philosophy derived from The Vedas. The system’s central axioms would be developed over the course of a millennium..." Is wrong for several reasons. As a Samkhyavadin of the arithmetic kind, let me count some of them: 1. What's 'uncontested' would be strongly contested by both their classical interlocutors such as the Mimansakas and by modern scholars - for example, for linguistic reasons mentioned in one of the other comments. 2. Not sure what 'complete' philososophy means, but we might assume that some account of reason and logic is part of a complete philosophical system, in which case the Samkhyavadins like many of their counterparts, took the lead from the Naiyayikas, who were closely related but distinct. Same for grammar, where everyone took their lead from Panini and the grammarians. 3. I think calling it 'Vedic Philosophy' doesn't do justice either to the Vedas or to Philosophy. For example, the accurate, elaborate and intricate performance of ritual action is central to the Vedic experience. We can't reduce that to philosophical beliefs about dualism or monism without serious harm to the original practices. It's a sign of modernity that beliefs (such as dualism) are given precedence over ritual performance. 3. Words like 'derive' and 'axioms' suggest an overly mathematical relationship which would be impossible to justify. Even the Upanisads aren't derived from the Vedas in any axiomatic sense. The Prakriti-Purusa dualism finds a precedent in the Rig Veda which says "Two birds associated together, and mutual friends, take refuge in the same tree; one of them eats the sweet fig; the other abstaining from food, merely looks on" - try deriving the Soul from that imagery. In fact, the most well known Samkhya (influenced) text isn't the Karika but the Mahabharata, including the Gita, with Arjuna playing the role of Prakriti and Krishna that of Purusa. Which is why - to use a deductive argument - Arjuna fights even when he doesn't want to and Krishna doesn't even when wants to. I know I am being pedantic, but I find that these kinds of reductive Whig histories of Indian knowledge traditions perpetuate the problems they are trying to remove. Far more interesting, say, from the perspective of modern philosophy of mind, is the somewhat technical question: why did most Indian traditions consider mind, aka Manas, to be a physical entity? What does it say about their account of knowledge since Manas is an Indriya, i.e., an instrument of knowledge. What does it mean for knowledge to be physical and yet normative, i.e., how can something physical be true or false?" To reduce these subtleties to 'Hindu Philosophy' or even to six schools of Astika philosophy is deeply problematic.

raincom 6y ago

Here are some problems: (a) Don't postulate entities(essences) that don't play any role. That's what natural sciences do; that's also the heuristic of Occam's razor. On the one hand, 'purusha' is an essence; on the other hand, it is "completely inactive". Even Upanishads claim the same: Atman, Brahman don't play the causal role; they are described negatively in terms of existence--neti, neti (not this, not that). (b) The notion of 'transcendence' is problematic to describe Sankya or any Indian traditions. In Semitic religions, God is outside of the cosmos that was, is and shall be. In other words, outside the space time. That's why He is transcendent. Yet He plays a causal role in this Cosmos; that's why he is immanent. This leads to huge problems in Semitic theologies. (c) Purusha is "beyond any possible perception that is mediated by the mind or senses". If it is beyond senses, why bother? Isn't how this stuff is sold as transcendent (beyond space time), supra-mundane (beyond the mundane), etc? If one reads the text of Chandogya Upanishad carefully (but not all pages of commentaries), Prajapati makes the claim that Atman/Brhaman is seeable, accessible.

jbob2000 6y ago
In philosophy, this is called the “Newton’s flaming laser sword problem”. Did Newton have a flaming laser sword? Sure, he could have had one. But we have no evidence today of that, so for the context of our discussion, let’s ignore it. And this is where spiritually collides with Newton’s flaming laser sword. But I want to believe that newton had a flaming sword, therefore I want the discussion to be about how this laser sword influenced his writings.
- raincom 6y ago
  It depends on the goal: whether one wants human knowledge or something exotic/esoteric/supra-mundane/Divine/super-natural knowledge, etc. (In Semitic religions, God's revelation is Divine knowledge, which is independent of human knowledge). If one wants human knowledge, we can't allow fundamental contradictions. But the article has such contradictions; maybe, these contradictions are there in the Sanskrit text or in the 'interpretations' over the last 2000 years. At least I know, Sanskrit text doesn't talk about 'transcendent'. The transcendent of the interpreters is "Para" in Sanskrit. In Skt, it simply means: other. Even in many Indian languages, the word "para" is heavily used: "paradesi","paraayi vaallu"(in Telugu), etc. It is like importing Semitic theology to understand these Sanskrit texts. I don't want to blame the Westerners. Even Indian Sanskritists (or the so-called Insiders) are the biggest offenders here. They also bullshit as if they are dealing with some kind of literary text.