Re: [INDOLOGY] all-pervasive puruṣa in classical Sāṃkhya

Mon Jun 18 16:18:22 UTC 2018

Dear Nagaraj-ji,

thanks for your answer. Well, I understand what the Jayamaṅgalā says, but I am not able to reconcile it with my understanding of the classical Sāṃkhya teaching. As we know, puruṣa, being an absolutely different ontological category from prakṛti, in fact cannot be ever bound by or released from prakṛti. This is not possible, as SK 62ab clearly says: tasmān na badhyate nāpi mucyate nāpi saṃsarati kaścit.

Best,
Lubomir

On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 09:26:21 +0530
Nagaraj Paturi <nagarajpaturi at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Lubomir-ji,
> 
> avyāpi vyaktam, vyāpy avyaktam / puruṣo'pi vyāpī yadā prakṛtyā muktaḥ /
> yuktaś cet vyaktena sadṛśo  na pradhānena / hi sarvadā devādiṣu pravartate /
> 
> yadā prakṛtyā muktaḥ is just solving a logical problem.
> 
> As long as  puruṣa is bound with  prakṛti, it has the features of prakṛti.
> Since  prakṛti is  avyāpi ,   as long as  puruṣa is bound with  prakṛti ,
> puruṣa  is also avyāpi. But being  vyāpi  is the nature of   puruṣa . When
> is this nature  puruṣa found? When it is not bound to  prakṛti .
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 8:24 AM, alakendu das via INDOLOGY <
> indology at list.indology.info> wrote:
> 
> > It's true there are logical flaws in Samkhya karika which has been aptly
> > pointed out by the AdwaityaVadins in BrahmaSutras.However Purusha in
> > Samkhya is indeed the Atmana,or the Emancipated Alone.....and Atmana is
> > always all -pervasive, irrespective of space and time .
> >
> > Alakendu Das.
> >
> > Sent from RediffmailNG on Android
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Lubom r Ondra ka via INDOLOGY <indology at list.indology.info>
> > Sent: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 03:12:07 GMT+0530
> > To: <indology at list.indology.info>
> > Subject: [INDOLOGY] all-pervasive puruṣa in classical Sāṃkhya
> >
> >
> > Dear colleagues,
> >
> > I have  a small group of students interested in the Sāṃkhyakārikā and we
> > have a seminar where we interpret this text with the help of classical
> > (pre-Kaumudī) commentaries (mainly Yuktidīpikā). When reading SK 10, we
> > encountered a problem which I could not answer.
> >
> > SK 10 defines vyakta and says that avyakta has opposite characteristics.
> > One of these characteristics is non-pervasiveness (avyāpi… vyaktam
> > viparītam avyaktam). Almost all commentaries are clear and say that vyakta
> > is not all-pervasive, but avyakta and puruṣa are.
> >
> > Gauḍapāda:
> > avyāpi – asarvagam ity arthaḥ / yathā pradhānapuruṣau sarvagatau naivaṃ
> > vyaktam /
> >
> > Māṭharavṛtti is almost the same.
> >
> > Paramārtha:
> > pradhānapuruṣau sarvatra pṛthivyām antarikṣe divi ca vyāpnutaḥ / mahadādi
> > kāryantu na tathā / asarvagamatatvāt, tasmāt prakṛtivibhinnam /
> >
> > Sāṃkhyavṛtti:
> > avyāpi – na vyāpi mahadādi liṅgam asarvagatam ity arthaḥ / yathā
> > pradhānapuruṣau divi bhuvi cāntarikṣe ca vartete [tathā] tanmahadādi liṅgaṃ
> > na vartante / kiñcānyat avyāpi vyaktam asarvagatatvāt / vyāpi pradhānam,
> > kasmāt, sarvagatatvāt /
> >
> > Sāṃkhyasaptativṛtti is similar.
> >
> > Yuktidīpikā is unfortunately missing for this passage, but I think that in
> > other part (ad SK 19 on puruṣa’s akartṛbhāva) it also subscribes to the
> > concept that puruṣa is all-pervasive. It says that since pradhāna is
> > all-pervasive and creative, all-pervasive puruṣa should be also creative.
> > This possibility is of course denied (vibhutvād iti cet / syād etat / yathā
> > vibhutve sati pradhānasya sakriyatvam evaṃ puruṣasya sati vibhutve
> > sakriyatvena bhavitavyam iti / tac ca naivam / Wezler-Motegi, p. 180).
> >
> > Now, Jayamaṅgalā says this:
> > avyāpi vyaktam, vyāpy avyaktam / puruṣo'pi vyāpī yadā prakṛtyā muktaḥ /
> > yuktaś cet vyaktena sadṛśo  na pradhānena / hi sarvadā devādiṣu pravartate /
> >
> > This is surprising. According to this commentary, puruṣa is all-pervasive
> > only when liberated, otherwise he is not all-pervasive and in this sense
> > similar to vyakta. I cannot answer the question of my students how could
> > puruṣa (who is absolutely passive etc.) change itself so dramatically? And
> > where does this concept occur in classical Sāṃkhya? Could you please help
> > me with these answers? I am not a specialist in Sāṃkhya, we have this
> > seminar just for fun, so I probably missed something in Sāṃkhya teaching on
> > puruṣa. I promised to my students that I will ask this learned forum to get
> > the right answers.
> >
> >
> > Many thanks
> > With best regards
> > Lubomir
> >
> > --
> > Lubomír Ondračka
> > Department of Philosophy & Religious Studies
> > Faculty of Arts, Charles University
> > Nam. J. Palacha 2, Praha 1, 116 38
> > CZECH REPUBLIC
> > e-mail: ondracka at ff.cuni.cz
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > INDOLOGY mailing list
> > INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> > indology-owner at list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing
> > committee)
> > http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or
> > unsubscribe)
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > INDOLOGY mailing list
> > INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> > indology-owner at list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing
> > committee)
> > http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or
> > unsubscribe)
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Nagaraj Paturi
> 
> Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.
> 
> 
> BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, Maharashtra
> 
> BoS, Chinmaya Vishwavidyapeeth, Veliyanad, Kerala
> 
> Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies
> 
> FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,
> 
> (Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )