Does the puruSa will? (was: Re: A text dealing with Ayurveda)

Vidyasankar Sundaresan vsundaresan at HOTMAIL.COM
Wed May 5 01:00:03 UTC 1999

Paolo Magnone <p.magnone at AGORA.STM.IT> wrote:

As Larson (Classical SAMkhya, p. 182) notes, adhyavasAya is akin to
vyavasAya as used in BhG 2.41 with the meaning of
"resolution", a consideration (among others) which leads him to suggest that
buddhi should be best taken as "will", though not
quite in the sense of "conscious decision". This is perhaps going too far;
on the other hand, I do not think there need be an
irreconcilable opposition between Oberhammer's understanding of adhyavasAya
and the one implied here. What is essential is
that something that was fluctuating is "tied down", so to speak (ava-so),
i.e. fixed or determined. A definite stance is taken in
ascertaining the object, which means at one and the same time determining
one's own relationship towards the object (on
account of one's own individual karmic dispositions etc.), hence ipso facto
also deliberating about it.


Without turning this forum into a discussion list for Indian philosophies,
may I point out that adhyavasAya is preceded by the more "purposeful"
activity that is called saMkalpa or saMkalpa-vikalpa? What we are talking
about here demands that we look at the latter terms rather than adhyavasAya,
if for nothing else but the fact that in classical sAMkhya,
buddhi-adhyavasAya-sattva go together, while manas-saMkalpa-rajas go
together. And with Ferenc, I think Larson has changed his mind, as seen in
the Enc. of Indian Philosophies volume.

However, isn't Prof. Larson himself on this list? I seem to remember
postings from him in the past.


Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list