SAmkhya/Yoga question

[Bob Lazarowitz]

Following up on Dr. Cronk's very useful clarification of the views of
Shamkara on the Samkhya position regarding the impossibility of
disequilibrium of prakriti,
given its initial condition of equilibrium and its attendant relationship to
purusha,
I am led to believe that perhaps Shamkara conflated several distinct facets
of the
issue under concern. For example, we learn that, according to Shamkara on
Samkhya, "...it is impossible to understand why it [prakriti] should
sometimes depart from a state of equilibrium...and sometimes not do this."
The reason why it is impossible to understand this is because no force
external to prakriti exists to effectuate such a change (by hypothesis), and
prakriti (at initial time) is in
a state of equilibrium. However, what we can or cannot understand falls
under
the rubric of epistemology and not ontology; ie, the limitations of our
understanding impose no corresponding limitations on what is ontologically
the case in the cosmos (at least I would defend such a position). Next, I
would
argue, contrary to Shamkara, that it is not logically! impossible for
prakriti to
move from a state of equilibrium to disequilibrium without an external force
present. The notion that every event has a cause is a metaphysical principle
that
has, I believe, been questioned in sub-atomic particle physics. Einstein, I
believe,
demurred on this point ("God doesn't play dice with the world."), but this
was
a minority opinion.

So, to sum up, Shamkara may be conflating what is possible or impossible to
understand with what is logically possible or impossible. But these are
certainly two entirely different matters (Leibniz' Principle of Sufficient
Reason notwithstanding.)

Bob Lazarowitz


----- Original Message -----
From: george9252 <george9252 at EMAIL.MSN.COM>
To: <INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK>
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 1999 9:07 PM
Subject: Re: SAmkhya/Yoga question


> In Shamkara's view, Samkhya metaphysics and cosmology would not make sense
> even if purusha were one rather than many. The weak link is the
> non-interaction (or non-contact) between prakriti and purusha.
>
> According to Shamkara in his Brahmasutra-Bhashya,  the Samkhyas held that
> prakriti and purusha are absolutely distinct from one another and do not
in
> any way really interact. The pradhana (prakriti) is initially composed of
> the three gunas (sattva, rajas, tamas) in a state of perfect equilibrium.
> Beyond the pradhana, there is no external force that can either activate
the
> pradhana or prevent its activity. The Soul (purusha) is indifferent; it
> neither moves nor restrains. Shamkara argues that since the pradhana has
(on
> Samkhya assumptions) no relationship with anything outside itself, it is
> impossible to understand why it should sometimes depart from a state of
> equilibrium and transform itself into a world and why it should sometimes
> not do this but rather remain in the state of equilibrium. The three
gunas,
> co-existing in a state of perfect equilibrium in which each is completely
> independent of the others, cannot enter into relations of inferiority or
> superiority with one another; and since there is no external principle or
> force to stir them up, the initiation of activity in the pradhana and the
> consequent evolution of a world seems impossible.
>
> Dr. George Cronk
> Dept. of Philosophy & Religion
> Bergen Community College (NJ)
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: nanda chandran <vpcnk at HOTMAIL.COM>
> To: <INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK>
> Sent: Thursday, December 16, 1999 2:50 PM
> Subject: SAmkhya/Yoga question
>
>
> > I've a question on SAmkhya/Yoga philosophy :
> >
> > The SAmkhya/Yoga schools posit the reality of matter (prAkriti) and
> > innumerable (Selves) Purushas. While Purushas are supposed to be the
> > mere observers, PrAkriti is said to evolve for the satisfaction of the
> > Purushas. Classical SAmkhya makes it absolutely clear that the
> > Purusha is only pure consciousness - it even denies it the quality
> > of bliss. (And whether the Purusha itself can desire is very
> > debatable and we had a long argument on this list about this very
> > issue a few months back).
> >
> > The real problem with reconciling a changing prAkriti with a
> > changeless Purusha seems to be due to attributing some part of
> > empirical experience to the Purusha. But then any such invovlement
> > cannot affect the basic concept of the Purusha being unaffected
> > by such experience. And to this end the SAmkhya tries valiantly
> > to reconcile the changing world to the changeless Self - in vain.
> > As it's logically impossible.
> >
> > My question here is - is the problem due to giving an individual
> > identity to the Purusha? ie since since SAmkhya in its worldview
> > has innumerable Purushas it has to essentially individualize them
> > to identify them distinctly from each other. But to identify them
> > distinctly it overrides its own definition of the Purusha being
> > pure consciousness - for if every Purusha was but pure consciousness
> > devoid of objectivity, how could we distinguish them from one
> > another? The struggle in classical SAmkhya seems to be at reconciling
> > an impersonal Purusha and its personal identification.
> >
> > If there was but one Purusha then there is no need to
> > assert its individuality and hence it could be an impersonal entity
> > which effects the prAkriti to evolution. And reconciliation would
> > be that much better, though not final, between the changing PrAkriti
> > and the unaffected Purusha.
> >
> > Is it this inherent contradiction in its worldview of multiple
> > Selves, the weak link in the SAmkhya/Yoga argument?
> >
> > Grateful for any clarifications.
> >
> > ______________________________________________________
> > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>