Re: [INDOLOGY] query on Sāṃkhya
dermot at grevatt.force9.co.uk
dermot at grevatt.force9.co.uk
Tue May 28 11:30:40 UTC 2019
Dear colleagues,
I was interested in Matthew's question, and I agree with Victoria's point abour "our"
terminology -- that is to say, the terminology with which we English-using indologists are
familiar, both in our indological work and in our thinking about other things. Some terms have
a different meaning in indology from what they have elsewhere, and "evolution" is one of
them. We shouldn't be surprised at these differences of meaning, but we have to beware of
letting the meaning a word has in one context interfere with the way we understand it in
another.
I also agree with Dan's warning that "matter" and "spirit" are a deceptive pair in an indological
context -- until we come to study people like Vivekananda, for whom the great difference
between "Western" and Indian ideas of evolution is that one is material and the other
spiritual.
Following another point of Dan's, I'd say that the Samkhyakarika introduced two points that
distinguish it from pre-classical Samkhya: the placing of prakrti alongside purusa rather than
subordinate to it, and the multiplicity of purusas.
Coming back to the word "evolution": though it was used occasionally in its indological
sense by H. H. Wilson, it was first used systematically by Fitzedward Hall in his expanded
edition of Wilson's Visnu Purana translation. "Involution" was introduced, as far as I can see,
by Vivekananda, and was used much more systematically by Aurobindo. This use was
independent of the meanings the word already had in biology and in mathematics. (I've
studied this matter in more detail in a forthcoming chapter on Darwin and neo-Hinduism in a
book edited by Mackenzie Brown).
I hope that helps.
With best wishes,
Dermot
On 28 May 2019 at 11:03, Viktoria Lysenko via INDOLOGY wrote:
Dear Matthew,
In my opinion, the problem arises from our terminilogy. The term "evolution" suggests that
there is a process of development from primitive state to more complex one, it entails an
evaluative sense that is characteristic of our culture, and is associated with our positive
attitude towards the idea of progress. In fact, the term "involution" would be closer, but I
would prefer more neutral "emanation" to exclude any allusion to our too culturally
determined terminology.
With best regards,
Victoria
https://rggu.academia.edu/LysenkoVictoria
http://iph.ras.ru/lysenko.htm
--
Victoria Lysenko, dr.hab.philos.
Head, Department for Oriental philosophy studies
Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences
Moscow, Goncharnaya, 12/1, Moscow 109240
-
28.05.2019, 01:20, "Matthew Kapstein via INDOLOGY" <indology at list.indology.info>:
Dear Indological colleagues,
One of the peculiarities of Sakhya thought is its unusual theory of "evolution" (though it
might better be termed "emanation") which proceeds from the subtle modifications of the mu
laprakti to those that are increasingly coarse, namely the organs of sense and of action, and
finally to their physical objects. This seems a very odd evolutionary path when we first
encounter it and I am wondering if there has been any work that seeks to explain just why
Sakhya adopted what to us may seem a remarkably counter-intuitive framework. I do have
my own theory about this, but I would not want to publish it if someone else has already come
up with a similar idea. I would therefore be grateful for any suggestions you may have
concerning scholarship that seeks to explain just why it is that Sakhya proceeds from top to
bottom, as it were, rather than the other way around.
with thanks in advance for your advice about this,
Matthew
Matthew Kapstein
Directeur d'études,
Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes
Numata Visiting Professor of Buddhist Studies,
The University of Chicago
,
_______________________________________________
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)
--
Dermot Killingley
9, Rectory Drive,
Gosforth,
Newcastle upon Tyne NE3 1XT
Phone (0191) 285 8053
More information about the INDOLOGY
mailing list