Samkhyan terminology (was Re: A text dealing with Ayurveda)

[Ferenc Ruzsa]

[in reply to Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Dear Vidyasankar,

I am well aware of the need of a major reinterpretation. Actually I have
already attempted something of the kind, but of course you cannot possibly
know of it, as it is in Hungarian.

> to hold such a 'will' or 'desire' to be responsible for the evolution of
> the tanmAtras is plainly non-sAMkhyan.
Atypical, but not impossible. In SK 21 evolution (sarga) is said to occur
for the puruSa to experience (puruSasya darzanArthaM). Here the puruSa seems
to be the subject both of experiencing (darzana) and wishing it (artha,
purpose). Else who could have that particular purpose?

> In verse 7.4, the BhG only lists the five (subtle) elements along with
> manas, buddhi and ahaMkAra, as constituting the eight-fold lower prakRti.
[...]
> Samkara's commentary sounds more "sAMkhyan" than the verse he is
> commenting upon.
Another way of looking at this fact is that zaGkara's commentary at this
point *is* sAMkhyan. He identifies in the BG the sAMkhya theory of the eight
prakRtis, and explains it according to the standard sAMkhya text, the SK 3.
(He actually quotes it at ZB 1.4.11.) This is not very surprising as even in
the ZB the only objections against the Samkhya seem to be the
unconsciousness of the pradhAna and the multiplicity of puruSas.

Sincerely yours,
Ferenc