Does Purusha will?

[Ferenc Ruzsa]

[In reply to nanda chandran]

Dear Nanda,

>The SAmkhya derives all the qualities and attributes apart from intelligent
>consciousness from the three gunAs. So apart from consciousness the Purusha
>is indeed qualityless.
Quality is, of course, a rather vague term; some would distinguish it from
attributes etc.; in a formal sense, however, there can be no doubt that even
the vedAnta Atman has some qualities, e.g. nitya, mukta. In the early and
classical sAMkhya I think that puruSa, clear consciousness, can have
qualities: the qualities that qualify consciousness. So probably they won't
be spatial (though some would say that it is all-pervading, vyApin), and
even in late sAMkhya puruSas are many, separate, private, conscious and
unproductive. Though it is quite controversial, it seems that puruSas even
think thoughts with propositional content: in SK 64 it must be the puruSa
who thinks: "the tattvas are not me; they are not mine; I am not the
tattvas" (evaMtattvAbhyAsAn "nAsmi na me nAham" ity).

>The credit should probably go to the SAmkhya for setting right early on the
>real definition of "eternal" - that it is changeless. If they did not think
>that reality was changeless, why would they 1. Work out a superimposition
>theory and attribute all the work only to prAkriti? 2. Why would they
define
>the Purusha only as pure consciousness? 3. And finally why would they cite
>ignorance as the true cause of bondage?
1. Work - bodily work - is done by matter and affects matter; soul cannot do
it for many reasons, e.g. because it is non-spatial. 2. Pure means probably
'undefiled', and it is a rather general assumption in some corners that the
spiritual sphere is superior, and defilements are bodily in origin ("carnal"
desires etc.). 3. If the soul is indeed superior it cannot be bound by what
is inferior; and as it is conscience, some negative _mental_ property must
be the cause of bondage.

-----Original Message-----
From: nanda chandran <vpcnk at HOTMAIL.COM>
To: INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK <INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK>
Date: Wednesday, May 12, 1999 1:52 AM
Subject: Re: Does Purusha will?


>Ferenc writes :
>
>>The two birds - as can be seen from the context of the same passage in the
>>zvetAzvatara IV. 6 & 7 - are >not the puruSa and a material ego (or
>>whatever), but two puruSas: one liberated, one bound; and it is the
>> >liberated 'bird' that looks on without eating, anaznann abhicAkazIti.
>
>If the Purusha is not already liberated, he can never be liberated. It is
to
>the credit of the SAmkhya that they realized early on the definition of
>eternal. So I'm not sure that you can equate the two birds in MundAka with
>an enlightened purusha and an ignorant one.
>
>And by this if you mean that Ishvara Krishna meant that the Purusha had to
>let go of all desires and purify itself, then he would not have been a
>SAmkhyan but a JainA!
>
>>The puruSa is aguNa in the SK, but it does not mean 'qualitiless', rather
>>'without the three guNas', i.e. the >constituent qualities of prakRti.
>
>The SAmkhya derives all the qualities and attributes apart from intelligent
>consciousness from the three gunAs. So apart from consciousness the Purusha
>is indeed qualityless.
>
>>I have a feeling that the equation undecaying = unchanging was the
>>invention
>>of advaita, and also I think that its import into sAMkhya was a later
>>development,
>
>All Indian philosophy right from the Upanishads center around only one
thing
>- the reconciliation between the changing and the changeless. All the
>founding saints of the respective traditions, both Astika and nAstika are
>clear that the reality is changeless. Their disciples try to work out the
>metaphysics between the changing and changeless, with the basic world view
>provided by their masters.
>
>Take for instance the three main streams : BrAhmana, Jaina and the Bauddha.
>
>The common sense view for a suffering man who seeks liberation, practicing
>virtue, is that the Soul would evolve from an impure state to a pure state,
>resulting in liberation. This is the view of the JainA, who work out a
>metaphysics of primal matter and multiple Souls. "Purification" of the Soul
>is what leads to NirvAna.
>
>The Buddha in his teachings is obviously hostile towards the concept of the
>Soul. All things in the world change. So NirvAna - the eternal, the unborn,
>the uncreated - is that which is beyond change. The early bauddha logicians
>don't see anything changeless in either the world or our individual Self -
>So they attribute reality to only the underlying elements of existence. The
>YogAcArins, reject the atomic theory and assert the reality of only
>consciousness - but there are indications that even they felt that the
>consciousness has to be purified ie undergo change. For Ashvaghosa, the
>ThathathA is the changeless absolute. NAgArjuna rejects both the atomic
>theory and the consciousness theory, for the fundamental reason, that both
>cannot stand the test of logic for changelessness. For him, the reality -
>PrAjnA PAramitA - the changeless absolute - is beyond all human
>comprehension.
>
>The credit should probably go to the SAmkhya for setting right early on the
>real definition of "eternal" - that it is changeless. If they did not think
>that reality was changeless, why would they 1. Work out a superimposition
>theory and attribute all the work only to prAkriti? 2. Why would they
define
>the Purusha only as pure consciousness? 3. And finally why would they cite
>ignorance as the true cause of bondage?
>
>It would have been much easier for them to go the JainA way, with an
>evolving Self.
>
>The same questions would have to be asked about Patanjala Yoga SutrA and
the
>bhAshyam on it by VyAsa - the superimposition theory where the Purusha
>seeing its distorted reflection in the buddhi, mistakes the reflection for
>itself.
>
>And why would the NaiyAyikas and the Vaishesikas make the Self - non
>conscious?
>
>Even the MimAmsakA PrabhAkara is of the opinion that the Self is both
>changeless and non conscious. Though MadhvAcharya, the author of Sarva
>Darshana Samgraha tries to make it out that KumArilla Bhatta was a VedAnti,
>the MimAmsakA himself seems to have been of the opinion that the Self needs
>to be purified - which actually fits quite well with his school's
philosophy
>advocating karma.
>
>And all the above individuals flourished well before the rise of Advaitam.
>
>>He is indifferent *because* he has seen her).
>
>Yes. The Purusha has seen that it's prAkriti, who is the real doer, the one
>who really desires and hence the real sufferer and not himself as he
>believed. Hence ignorance is removed. This stance is well supported even by
>the Gita, which in all probability advocates the original SAmkhya as per
>Kapila.
>
>If there seems to be a contradiction in the reconciliation of the Purusha
>and PrAkriti, it only reflects the logical impossibility of trying to
>reconcile the changing and the changeless.
>
>If as per your alternative interpretation the Purusha desires, then he
would
>always desire and hence they would be no salvation.
>
>
>_______________________________________________________________
>Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
>