
Soul Meets Body: An initial examination of the Samkhya school - hyperindexed
https://worthypatterns.substack.com/p/soul-meets-body
======
raincom
Here are some problems: (a) Don't postulate entities(essences) that don't play
any role. That's what natural sciences do; that's also the heuristic of
Occam's razor. On the one hand, 'purusha' is an essence; on the other hand, it
is "completely inactive". Even Upanishads claim the same: Atman, Brahman don't
play the causal role; they are described negatively in terms of existence--
neti, neti (not this, not that).

(b) The notion of 'transcendence' is problematic to describe Sankya or any
Indian traditions. In Semitic religions, God is outside of the cosmos that
was, is and shall be. In other words, outside the space time. That's why He is
transcendent. Yet He plays a causal role in this Cosmos; that's why he is
immanent. This leads to huge problems in Semitic theologies.

(c) Purusha is "beyond any possible perception that is mediated by the mind or
senses". If it is beyond senses, why bother? Isn't how this stuff is sold as
transcendent (beyond space time), supra-mundane (beyond the mundane), etc? If
one reads the text of Chandogya Upanishad carefully (but not all pages of
commentaries), Prajapati makes the claim that Atman/Brhaman is seeable,
accessible.

~~~
jbob2000
In philosophy, this is called the “Newton’s flaming laser sword problem”.

 _Did Newton have a flaming laser sword?_

Sure, he could have had one. But we have no evidence today of that, so for the
context of our discussion, let’s ignore it.

And this is where spiritually collides with Newton’s flaming laser sword. _But
I want to believe that newton had a flaming sword, therefore I want the
discussion to be about how this laser sword influenced his writings._

~~~
raincom
It depends on the goal: whether one wants human knowledge or something
exotic/esoteric/supra-mundane/Divine/super-natural knowledge, etc. (In Semitic
religions, God's revelation is Divine knowledge, which is independent of human
knowledge). If one wants human knowledge, we can't allow fundamental
contradictions. But the article has such contradictions; maybe, these
contradictions are there in the Sanskrit text or in the 'interpretations' over
the last 2000 years.

At least I know, Sanskrit text doesn't talk about 'transcendent'. The
transcendent of the interpreters is "Para" in Sanskrit. In Skt, it simply
means: other. Even in many Indian languages, the word "para" is heavily used:
"paradesi","paraayi vaallu"(in Telugu), etc.

It is like importing Semitic theology to understand these Sanskrit texts. I
don't want to blame the Westerners. Even Indian Sanskritists (or the so-called
Insiders) are the biggest offenders here. They also bullshit as if they are
dealing with some kind of literary text.

------
pulkitsh1234
Well written, I am on my personal journey to discover what being a Hindu
means. I am appalled by the fact that the true knowledge and the diversity of
different schools and line of thoughts has been dissolved and sublimated into
a crude understanding of what Hinduism means.

I have thought about it a lot, and I think the main reason is that there is no
single doctrine / school that everyone agreed upon in the past. I see this is
as the pinnacle of free-thinking. The seeming consensus among people who
follow Abrahamic religions has provided the functionality to conserve itself
in some tangible form.

Whereas the meaning of Hinduism is just lost, because there is no religion
single religion as such. Nothing comes close to the deep thought and
inspection that philosophers (sages/rishis whatever you want to name them) of
the ancient India. All their "work" has been hidden under layers of what
people assume is just religious "stuff".

Carl Jung, Nikola Tesla and innumerable people have invested time in
discovering their true essence.

The concept of "religion", "spirituality", "god" carry a lot weight,
especially in the modern world. I myself (being a Hindu), assumed that all
that was present in Vedic texts was just references to god, different kinds of
gods, different rituals etc. And as a modern day human, I just assumed that
these are just things of the past and now we are evolved enough to ignore
these concepts and move towards the future.

And I was proved entirely wrong when I started reading The Upanishads, which
are part of the Vedic literature. The concepts are so abstract that different
schools/sub-religions spawned just on the basis of different interpretations.
Roughly dualistic and non-dualistic interpretations.

I can go on and on about my discovery. In fact I am writing about this here:
[https://pulkitsharma07.github.io/2020/06/25/source-0/](https://pulkitsharma07.github.io/2020/06/25/source-0/)

I am really happy to see this post on HN, hoping this doesn't get flagged.

~~~
danans
> And I was proved entirely wrong when I started reading The Upanishads, which
> are part of the Vedic literature.

Their being classified a part of the "Vedic" literature is not borne out by
linguistic analysis, even though tradition claims it to be.

They post-date the actual Vedas themselves by centuries. The language used in
most of them does not contain nearly as much irregularity as the Vedic
language nor its pitch accent system - it's on its way to being a refined
liturgical language, not a common man's language as the Vedic language was.

And the subject matter contained in them reflect that of the _elites_ of a far
more settled and stratified society (vs the more nomadic tribal culture of the
Vedas). They are no more representative of Hinduism than their contemporary
folk traditions, just as St. Augustine is no more representative of
Catholicism than folk Catholicism where blessings are sought for mundane
topics like health and prosperity.

No doubt, both groups of literature are incredible, but to lump them into one
is incorrect, even if that is the tradition.

~~~
pulkitsh1234
Can you provide some sources for your information ? From what I have read they
are considered to be that part of the Vedas.

~~~
danans
Here's an article that gets into the differences between the Vedic hymns and
the later material that grew around them (in section 2):

[https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/eieol/vedol](https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/eieol/vedol)

In particular:

”Over time a body of dependent and scholastic material grew up around the
poems, known loosely as 'the Veda'. Perhaps around 1000 BC (all dating in
prehistoric India is only approximate), editors gathered the ancient poems
together and arranged them, together with some more modern material, into ten
books according to rules that were largely artificial"

In terms of subject matter, I would cite the texts themselves. The bulk of the
original Vedas (meaning the Samhitas proper), though exquisite in language,
poetry and description, are remarkably concrete and earthly compared to the
subject matter of the Upanishads, which instead are concerned with esoteric
subjects like dualism and non-dualism, and the relationship of that to
individual identity and a universal consciousness. The Vedic Samhita's subject
matter predominantly concerns propitiation of deified forces of nature to aid
with everyday survival concerns, like food, kinship practices, and inter-
tribal conflicts.

The Upanishads clearly represent the reflections of an elite of a far more
"advanced" stage of society than the Samhitas.

~~~
ravoori
Indeed. Many Upanishads are, in spirit, opposed to the old Vedas, and some are
outright critical of the ritualism that forms the core of the Vedas.

~~~
jelliclesfarm
No, they are not. Upanishads are the later chapters of the Vedas. There are
four vedas and ten principal upanishads.

Hindu philosophy aims to be accessible and useful to everyone. In that,
Upanishads offer a way for people who are unable to follow Vedic standards.

An alternative is not opposition. It’s available choice. Upanishads are not
against the Vedas. They just form the latter portions of Vedas.

Eg: consider chicken eaters. Veganism is an alternative dietary choice.
Veganism existed before it was considered an ‘opposition’ to consuming meat.
They are all part of ‘food’ and ‘eating’. Some vegans decided that it’s
position against meat eating, but that’s not it’s origin. It’s a choice And a
latter interpretation that it’s opposed to meat eating. But it doesn’t mean
that veganism emerged due to an opposition to meat eating to compete with it.

~~~
danans
> Upanishads are the later chapters of the Vedas.

They are not a single coherent work of literature. They likely have dozens of
authors and were composed over the span of over 1500 years. You can only
describe them as "chapters" in the sense of "chapters of history", but not
like "chapters" of a novel or series.

In that sense they are like the Torah and the New Testament of the Bible,
which are also not books in the modern sense.

~~~
jelliclesfarm
Right then. But that doesn’t have anything to do with what I said.

And no, they are not ‘like the Torah’ or New Testament.

~~~
danans
> But that doesn’t have anything to do with what I said.

My comment was narrowly addressing the use of the term "chapters" as used in
literature being applied to the texts under discussion.

I made no comment about the spiritual functional claims you made about
Hinduism.

> And no, they are not ‘like the Torah’ or New Testament

Yes they are like the Torah in the New Testament in that they are texts that
developed over thousands of years predominantly in the ancient period, and
only later were canonized. This is a relatively uncontroversial comparison
between the historical development of ancient religious texts.

I made no claim about the similarity of their content, if that's what you are
taking issue with.

~~~
jelliclesfarm
Again. What is the relevance?

~~~
danans
You said:

> Upanishads are the later chapters of the Vedas.

They are not later chapters of the Vedas. They are entirely distinct works of
literature.

~~~
jelliclesfarm
This is laughably wrong. Upanishads are part of the Vedas in context and as
part of a larger contextual work..then expounded separately by several
authors...no one knows who or how many people wrote the Vedas.

There is literally no proof either way. Just like no one can prove the
authorship of vedas or Upanishads, there is no way to prove that they are
‘entirely distinct works of literature’.

Upanishads are not fungible and are married to specific related Veda. What you
say doesn’t even make basic sense.

For example: Brihadaranyaka Upanishad is related to Yajur Veda and so it’s
distinctly expounding upon Shukla YajurVeda. It makes no sense with Rig or
Atharva or Sama Veda. So it is part of Yajur Veda.

The Vedas were orally transmitted as the language of the Brahmins and then
written down much much later.

You can’t date or confer authorship on Vedas or Upanishads, but the
commentaries and exposition are codified wrt the four vedas and each
Upanishads is assigned to one of the four.

There is literally no basis for you to assert that ‘they are distinct works of
literature’.

However: Without Vedas, Upanishads are not stand alone works. Vedas, otoh are
relevant and understood without the Upanishads.

------
mping
Can someone explain to me the basic tenets of Hinduism, and if it is related
to Yoga? I have met so many yoga teachers that don't know how to answer this
yet are free to speak about spiritual yoga stuff, so I remain confused.

~~~
woadwarrior01
There is no single set of basic tenets. There's a continuum of schools of
philosophy within the umbrella term of Hinduism, ranging from materialist
atheistic (Ajivika, Charvaka) to pantheistic with a non-sentient God (Advaita)
to full blown theism (Dvaita and Vishistadwaita). You get to pick your poison.

~~~
valarauko
I would not count Ajivika or Charvaka as within the ambit of Hinduism, and
neither did the Ancient Commentators. Both were considered heresies. Indeed,
Ajivika is better understood as a distinct dharmic religion. In addition,
Advaita is not a "non-sentient God", but that's a separate discussion.

For the sake of the parent question, it would make sense to restrict to the
Astika schools. Basal to these schools was an acknowledgement of the supremacy
of the Vedas (or at least tacit acceptance of their authority).

~~~
woadwarrior01
Although most of the Nastika (atheist) literature has been lost over the ages,
some texts are still available (The Charvaka text Tattvopaplavasimha in
particular, I have a copy of it) and there's no reason to discount their
philosophical contributions. Their contributions are no less important than
the contributions of the Astikas (the Theists). Also, let's not forget that
Buddhism which was more successful abroad than it was in India is a Nastika
faith. OTOH, you'd naturally argue that Buddhism isn't Hinduism.

* In addition, Advaita is not a "non-sentient God", but that's a separate discussion. *

One of the Advaitin Mahavakyas (Great sentence/quote) from Aitareya Upanishad
is: "Prajnanam Brahma", which translates to: "Knowledge/Consciousness is God".
One of the fundamental ontological dichotomies in Hinduism is the difference
between "Chit" (things that are conscious) and "Achit" (things that are not
conscious). Essentially, the distinction between sentient and non-sentient
objects. Although consciousness is a trait of "chit" or sentient objects,
consciousness itself is not sentient (that'd be a circular definition). We
don't even have to go that far if you interpret it as knowledge, because
knowledge by definition non-sentient. Extending from that, if God is
consciousness and consciousness is non-sentient, then God is non-sentient.

I know that the Adviatins try very hard to paper over this philosophical
wrinkle, but that's what drew me to their school of philosophy. A religion
with a non-beneficent and non-sentient God is beyond cool, IMO. One of the
taunts that Ramanuja (a Vishistadwaita philosopher) had for Advaitins was to
call them "Prachanna Bouddhar" (Closet Buddhists). Because from his theistic
perspective, the Advaitins with their non-sentient God are only a hop skip and
a jump away from the Buddhists (who were originally atheists).

~~~
valarauko
My concern is not whether the nastika schools had valuable contributions to
the advancement of Indian philosophy. The question was one of defining
Hinduism. Within the ambit of that question, casting the net wide enough to
include Ajivika and Charvaka is too broad, and one the Ancient Indians
wouldn't likely have made either. For example, the Hindu acharyas were pretty
clear that Buddhism and Jainism were heresies and beyond the pale, and their
opinion of Charvakaism is well known. Therefore I suggest that the question is
best answered by restricting to the Astika schools, a categorization the
ancient commentators would likely agree with.

------
jelliclesfarm
Samkhya school of thought makes space for non-deism and subscribe to duality.
This is unique because dualism has always been associated with worship of the
god head as often embraced by Vaishnavite sects. Samkhya offers a different
perspective. The non deistic approach in Vedanta(the non dualism school of
thought that is the opposite of samkhya school) is less significant than
probably the Mimamsa school. All six astikas(nyaya, Vaisheka,Mimamsa,
samkhya,Vedanta,yoga) accomodate for both deistic and non deistic approach to
life. Samkhya gives a lot of importance to the three Gunas of saatvic, rajasic
and tamasic nature of Self. The guna theory appears everywhere from Ayurveda
to yoga to astrology.

Hindu philosophy is the template for a way of life and the key theme that is
most common and recurring is the Sattva-Rajas-Tamas Gunas. I look at it as the
earliest attempt to take a stab at diversity. Not on the basis of colour or
caste or language but diversity of human nature/instincts as it were...caste
system, for example, arose out of these division. As did mythology and
astrology. Without the division of humans on the basis of their instincts,
we’d have no way to codify the different philosophies for everyone.

Diversity is about division and accepting that there are differences amongst
us that separates us as individuals. I often feel like diversity as a word has
been hijacked by the English language. Diversity exists only because it
celebrates differences. If there are differences, there will be hierarchies.
It means that we are all NOT the same. How can you celebrate that we are all
different and then deny that that differences will manifest itself as a
hierarchy? That doesn’t make sense at all.

I grew up listening to mythology from my grandfather. One of the striking
things about the gods in Hinduism is that they see no difference between
humans, demons and the ‘good’ celestials. There is a hierarchy even amongst
gods. I remember asking him why the gods give boons to both the good guys and
bad guys. The gods treat everyone equally. That doesn’t make sense.

And he said that it’s because we have all the gods and demons inside us and
they all want to come out and live vicariously through us..and we get to
choose which god or demon we choose to release. And we do it through worship.
Maybe one can worship the goddess of music(Saraswati) or of wealth(Lakshmi) or
destruction(Kali). It’s still our choice. And they all live within us. It’s
the choice that causes dualism. “I want knowledge. I don’t want poverty. I
want beauty. I don’t want injustice.’ Etc. our thoughts and instincts invite
and welcome our inner gods and demons to live the human life through our
actions. non dualism says that in the end..nothing matters anyways..because we
are all that. And we are none of it. God and karma are just cherry on top
extras.

It is a constant churn of attempts to diversify and then assimilate and then
differentiate again. Rinse and repeat. We can’t escape this pattern because
statis will set in after churn and equilibrium is fleeting.

That we call equilibrium or that fleeting moment of stability is what’s
illusion or maya. Neither joy nor sorrow..ignorance or enlightenment is
permanent. Life follows death and death is guaranteed after life. The churn
never stops.

The nirvana or moksha hack is to slow down the entropy and make that fleeting
moment seem to last forever. The Now is Forever. The Moment becomes Infinite.

I don’t necessarily accept the western interpretation of samkhya philosophy as
‘atheistic’. Hindu philosophy and religion is codified to reach as many people
as possible as a way of life, not bonded faith. Theism is a layer as is
atheism and both have its place in multilayered ancient Hindu philosophy.

The Hindu gods are manifestations of the three Gunas. Dualism is picking one
of the three Gunas. Non dualism is accepting all the divisions in the soul
that culminates as ‘a god’.

This is a good read. Much better than western interpretations of Samkhya and
Vedanta etc that I find very ignorant and limited in its grasp of symbolic
language.

I am troubled by any definitive interpretation. Hindu philosophy is meant for
debate and discussion as a way to unravel layers of Self. It’s interpretation
is unique and personal to each individual to suit their particular life
circumstance. Contemplation is a beautiful thing. Thanks for the share.

~~~
yters
It's convenient the natural hierarchy tells one lineage of human beings their
entire purpose in life is to serve the people who discovered the "natural
hierarchy". Reminds me of more recent discoverors of the "natural hierarchy"
and their methods of educating others...

~~~
jelliclesfarm
That’s a very simple and inaccurate interpretation.

~~~
yters
What is your interpretation of the caste system?

------
AakashRaina
I follow the vedanta(Advaita) school of philosophy

------
rajekas
"What remains uncontested is the product of his meditations, the Samkhya
Sutras, which laid the foundation for the earliest “complete” system of
philosophy derived from The Vedas. The system’s central axioms would be
developed over the course of a millennium..."

Is wrong for several reasons. As a Samkhyavadin of the arithmetic kind, let me
count some of them:

1\. What's 'uncontested' would be strongly contested by both their classical
interlocutors such as the Mimansakas and by modern scholars - for example, for
linguistic reasons mentioned in one of the other comments.

2\. Not sure what 'complete' philososophy means, but we might assume that some
account of reason and logic is part of a complete philosophical system, in
which case the Samkhyavadins like many of their counterparts, took the lead
from the Naiyayikas, who were closely related but distinct. Same for grammar,
where everyone took their lead from Panini and the grammarians.

3\. I think calling it 'Vedic Philosophy' doesn't do justice either to the
Vedas or to Philosophy. For example, the accurate, elaborate and intricate
performance of ritual action is central to the Vedic experience. We can't
reduce that to philosophical beliefs about dualism or monism without serious
harm to the original practices. It's a sign of modernity that beliefs (such as
dualism) are given precedence over ritual performance.

3\. Words like 'derive' and 'axioms' suggest an overly mathematical
relationship which would be impossible to justify. Even the Upanisads aren't
derived from the Vedas in any axiomatic sense. The Prakriti-Purusa dualism
finds a precedent in the Rig Veda which says "Two birds associated together,
and mutual friends, take refuge in the same tree; one of them eats the sweet
fig; the other abstaining from food, merely looks on" \- try deriving the Soul
from that imagery.

In fact, the most well known Samkhya (influenced) text isn't the Karika but
the Mahabharata, including the Gita, with Arjuna playing the role of Prakriti
and Krishna that of Purusa. Which is why - to use a deductive argument -
Arjuna fights even when he doesn't want to and Krishna doesn't even when wants
to.

I know I am being pedantic, but I find that these kinds of reductive Whig
histories of Indian knowledge traditions perpetuate the problems they are
trying to remove. Far more interesting, say, from the perspective of modern
philosophy of mind, is the somewhat technical question: why did most Indian
traditions consider mind, aka Manas, to be a physical entity? What does it say
about their account of knowledge since Manas is an Indriya, i.e., an
instrument of knowledge. What does it mean for knowledge to be physical and
yet normative, i.e., how can something physical be true or false?"

To reduce these subtleties to 'Hindu Philosophy' or even to six schools of
Astika philosophy is deeply problematic.

~~~
timgilbert
I sympathize with what you're saying, but any broad survey of an incredibly
complex subject like this is necessarily going to need to simplify some
aspects of it. I definitely agree with you that the notion of the mind as a
physical construct is a fascinating topic, but someone could easily write
something just as long as the original article and barely scratch the surface.

Are there concrete ways you feel the article could be improved to address your
points? (I'm asking out of genuine interest since you seem to know a lot about
the subject.) Alternately, do you have other sources you'd recommend as a
preferable introduction to the topic?

As a lay person with limited knowledge of these traditions, I didn't get the
sense that the author was using axioms and derivations in a strict
mathematical sense, but rather as "these are some foundational bits of
epistemology in this tradition which informed further developments," for
whatever that's worth.

~~~
rajekas
1\. Painting a _very_ broad brush, as in half of Eurasian philosophy, check
out Chakravarthi Ram-Prasad's 'Eastern Philosophy' [1].

2\. More technical, but a valuable introduction to analytic methods in
classical Indian thought: Jonardon Ganeri's 'Philosophy in Classical India: An
Introduction and Analysis' [2]

These are, of course, scholars writing in a scholarly vein. Two books about
Guru figures with deep spiritual experience are:

3\. Sri Ramakrishna Kathamrita, translated into English as 'The Gospel of Sri
Ramakrishna'[3]

4\. Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi [4]

Finally, to take a comparative route:

5\. Roberto Calasso's 'Ka' which is his take on the Vedic-Puranic-Itihasic
Corpus as a whole [5].

and to understand how India meets Greece via Persepolis and Egypt:

6\. Thomas McEvilley's 'Shape of Ancient Thought' [6]

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/Eastern-Philosophy-Dr-Chakravarthi-
Ra...](https://www.amazon.com/Eastern-Philosophy-Dr-Chakravarthi-Ram-
Prasad/dp/0297847449)

[2] [https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Classical-India-
Introducti...](https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Classical-India-Introduction-
Analysis-
ebook/dp/B000FA6324/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=ganeri+reason&qid=1594750352&s=books&sr=1-2)

[3] [https://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Sri-Ramakrishna-Swami-
Nikhilan...](https://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Sri-Ramakrishna-Swami-
Nikhilananda/dp/0911206019/ref=sr_1_13?dchild=1&keywords=kathamrita&qid=1594750628&s=books&sr=1-13)

[4] [https://www.amazon.com/Talks-Ramana-Maharshi-Realizing-
Happi...](https://www.amazon.com/Talks-Ramana-Maharshi-Realizing-
Happiness/dp/1878019007/ref=sr_1_4?dchild=1&keywords=Talks+with+Sri+Ramana+Maharshi&qid=1594750781&s=books&sr=1-4)

[5] [https://www.amazon.com/Ka-Stories-Mind-Gods-
India/dp/0679451...](https://www.amazon.com/Ka-Stories-Mind-Gods-
India/dp/0679451315/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=ka+calasso&qid=1594750975&s=books&sr=1-2)

[6][https://www.amazon.com/Shape-Ancient-Thought-Comparative-
Phi...](https://www.amazon.com/Shape-Ancient-Thought-Comparative-
Philosophies/dp/1581152035/ref=sr_1_1?crid=34Y4AAK4ORSK9&dchild=1&keywords=shape+of+ancient+thought&qid=1594751003&s=books&sprefix=shape+of+ancien%2Cstripbooks%2C187&sr=1-1)

~~~
timgilbert
Thanks!

