SAmkhya/Yoga question

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Edwin Bryant <ebryant at FAS.HARVARD.EDU> wrote:

>It is noteworthy that Sankara took Samkhya to task so vigorously on this
>issue, and yet appeared comfortable with the equally conspicuous
>problematic in his own system, viz, the ultimate locus of MAyA/avidhyA.
>After all, a position of 'anirvAcanIya' could be invoked just as
>satisfactorily or unsatisfactorily to justify the Samkhyan position of
>ultimate causality as it has been used to justify the advaitin's
>explanation (in the matter of the relationship between advaita Brahman and
>Maya).

Indeed, but it seems that no Samkhya philosopher ever defended their
position using anirvacanIyatva. And nobody could have done so, for the
notion of anirvacanIya-khyAti is inextricably linked with a position that
does not hold the material world to be ultimately real. Sankara points out
in numerous places that Samkhya would simply reduce to Vedanta (brahmavAda)
if one or the other problem is addressed.

Also, for Sankara himself, the question of the locus of avidyA does not
arise. See gItAbhAshya 13.2. As he puts it here, he who sees avidyA also
sees him who has avidyA. The apparent samyoga between purusha and prakRti in
Samkhya is recast as mutual adhyAsa or adhyAropa of Atman and anAtman in
Advaita Vedanta. And when one sees that this samyoga is logically
indefensible, it follows, *from Samkhya principles*, that manifestation of
the non-conscious world can only be said to be apparent, so that the
ontological status of any independent non-conscious entity becomes suspect.
Samkhya accepts that the manifested world is paratantra, but that it is
nevertheless real. Sankara goes a step further and holds that the pradhAna
or prakRti itself cannot be svatantra, and that it cannot be said to be
ultimately real. In many ways, Sankara's formulation of Advaita Vedanta is
one solution to the central problems that would have been bothering Samkhya
philosophers in his day.

Regarding later commentators, I suggest that their invoking Vishnu as a
catalyst to bring about the manifestation of the world is not something
totally new. If one goes back to proto-Samkhya or "epic Samkhya", i.e. to
texts like the mok.sadharma in MBh, there is an underlying unifying
principle behind the dualism of prakRti and purusha. I would also venture to
suggest that what is normally called proto-Samkhya in these texts can
equally well be called proto-Vedanta.

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