SAmkhya/Yoga question

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Bob Lazarowitz <lazarowitz at HAWK.UCC.EDU> wrote:

>I am led to believe that perhaps Shamkara conflated several distinct facets
>of the
>issue under concern.

I have to question whether it is not us 20th century folks who are
conflating various facets of the issues, instead of Sankara.

>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).

Classical Samkhya assumes that that which is can be known, if not
perceptually, then through inference or appropriate authority, i.e.
scripture/tradition. Epistemology is the first issue discussed by
Isvarakrishna (see Samkhyakarika 5-7). I submit that to properly understand
Indian systems of thought, we have to accept that the old philosophers
assigned enormous truth value to scriptural authority. Most modern
reconstructions/reinterpretations/criticisms of schools like Samkhya and
Vedanta fall far short of appreciating this point.

Classical Samkhya arrives at its notions of vyakta and avyakta, and pradhAna
or mUlaprakRti through inference. What Sankara does through his criticisms
of Samkhya is to establish the holes in the inferential arguments that lead
to the Samkhya dualism. And it is not just the logical validity of the
argument that concerns Sankara. It is equally or more important for him that
the Samkhya inference is not concordant with the scripture.

>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.
>

You suggest that in Samkhya, mUlaprakRti, which is initially in a state of
equilibrium of the three guNas, can spontaneously have its equilibrium
disturbed. This would then have to be uncaused (ahaituka) and independent
(svatantra) of anything else. If you argue for an internal cause within
prakRti that leads to moving away from equilibrium, you have to specify
whether such an internal cause is part of the guNas or something additional
to the three guNas. In either case, we can then question whether this is an
inherent svabhAva of prakRti or not, and also ask whether a state of
equilibrium of the three guNas is wholly fictitious to begin with.

The trouble with all this is that classical Samkhya philosophers certainly
did not have the benefit of input from 20th-century sub-atomic physics, and
did not know about the apparently spontaneous rise of matter-antimatter
pairs. Neither did Sankara. As far as Samkhya is concerned, the manifest
material world is affirmed to have a cause (hetumat) and is dependent
(paratantra). The cause of this manifestation is then said to be the
association or proximity (samyoga) of pure consciousness and the root
prakRti. The "other" (para), upon which material manifestation is dependent,
is the purusha or pure consciousness. If not for the presence of purusha,
the prakRti would continue undisturbed in its state of equilibrium of the
three guNas. All the Advaita Vedanta criticisms of Samkhya are centered upon
how this samyoga is possible and what it means for questions of liberation
and the ontological status of the manifested, material universe. Sankara's
criticism of Samkhya has to be understood in the context of what Samkhya
itself sets forth, not in terms of what modern science tells us about
causality. And we may also note that Sankara came from a school that
ultimately rejected conventional notions of causality, just as quantum
physics tends to do today.

We could perhaps reconstruct a modern version of Samkhya that takes into
account scientific developments and that circumvents such criticisms as
raised by Sankara and others. However, we should be careful of conflating
such a reconstructed version with classical Samkhya, before suggesting that
it is the earlier criticism that conflates philosophical issues. I say this
not because of my acknowledged admiration of Sankara's thought, but simply
out of a desire for accuracy in understanding the classical schools of
thought in India.

Vidyasankar
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com