SAmkhya/Yoga question

[Vishal Agarwal]

Dr. Bryant said: But he has replaced one problem with another.  He has
by-passed the
need for explaining samyoga between prakRti and puruSa by positing that
the former can only be apparent, but in so doing he has created a new
problem -- whence the 'samyoga' between Brahman and this apparency,
(Maya/avidhya)?  Sankara's detractors (Ramanuja, Madhva, Nimbarka,
Vallabh, Baladev and even Siva/Sakti monists), in turn, never cease to
point out what they consider to be the achilles heel of Sankara's own
solution to the Samkhyan dilemma.

VA: Correct. In fact, I suspect that Samkara's criticism of Samkhya here
might merely reflect a vareity the Samkhya of his own times, or a
mispresentation their views. For that matter, the Tattva Samasa Sutra
clearly states "Five are the yonis of Karma", an idea echoed in the Gita and
other old texts of Samkhya as well. This allows for the Purusha to be a
performer as well as the non performer of Karma. In fact, Bhagvatpada's
criticism of Samkhya on this count might be totally misplaced considering
that Samkhya makes a radical distinction between Purusha and
Prakriti/Vikriti. From the Samkhya perspective, we cannot conceive a
'samyoga' between the two just as we see a 'Samyoga' between two material
objects. This is because the Purusha is not a material object. But this does
not preclude the possibility of the overlord ship of the Prakriti by
Purusha. By denying the Samyoga between Prakriti and Purusha, the Samkhya is
merely dispelling the **apparent** admixture of Prakriti and Purusha.

Dr. Bryant Wrote:
I am curious to explore to what extent Ramanauja's arguments defending the
necessity of a divine being are borrowed from Nyaya.
Vishal: These arguments are encountered in the chatuhssutri portion of the
Sri Bhashya which follows the (now fragmentary) Siddhitraya of Sri Yamuna
very closely. It is clear that in this stream of reasoning, the  Mimamsist
arguments are first countered by the Naiyayika. The latter's arguments are
finally countered by Sri Ramanuja and the Siddhanta is stated. Thus, the
Nyaya defence for the necessasity of the divine being is not accepted as the
final solution by the Sri Vaisnavas when the relevant portion of the Sri
Bhashya is read. Surendranath Dasgupta however states otherwise while
reviewing the doctrine of Sri Yamuna, forgetting that only a fragment of the
Isvarasiddhi is extant and a summary of the lost portion is encountered with
in the Sri Bhashya as the final Siddhanta on this issue. A good reference on
this issue is

Siddhitraya; Uttamur Viraraghavacharya; Ubhaya Vedanta Granthamala Book
Trust; Madras; 1072

Regards

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