Samkhya

Is it difficult to learn?

Barney, See Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.19 ««« He goes from death to death who perceives diversity here. One must see it as just one»»»

Hello, How do you explain the fact that from an Indian standpoint, reincarnation is a curse, while from a Western standpoint, it is a happy fate?

It is by discriminative knowledge of prakriti and purusha that we get out of the hole.

How can the law of karma work without an intelligent being who discriminates between morally good and evil deeds?

Why are you hindus?

Hello, In one famous place of the Rg Veda (10.129), we read that: ««« The life force that was covered with emptiness, that one arose through the power of heat...»»» I don't understand what it means.

And are there saints today who have acquired with such powers?

Dear all, What if a jivanmukti has an accident and has his forebrain damaged? His behavior, his personality will change, according to findings in neuropsychology. He will be no longer a spiritually fulfilled man. If he was enlightened, he will lose this enlightenment and will go back to his state of bondage. Makes sense?

My point is that if meditation is accompanied by supernatural powers, it seems that they cannot be explained naturalistically. One cannot say, for instance, that the effects of meditation (samadhi) is due to some change in the brain and nothing more.

Hello, Have you heard of supernatural powers acquired through meditation? If such powers exist, is not it a proof of the value of meditation?

Thank you for answering me, but I see no actual argument in the first part of your answer. The use of the concept of maya makes me think that you to Advaita... ?

Thank you, But is not it possible that it also refers to some vedantic school?

Hello, I would like to know what "vaisnava" means.

Dear all, Even if we grant that an immanent cause of the universe exists, on what ground are we entitled to identify it with Atman, and thereby to state that the immanent cause is spiritual in nature?

It is quite possible that the basic intuition of the Vedanta is true: one reality underlying all phenomena. However, if it is physical in nature, rather than spiritual, it is of little interest for the religious thought.

How can we know that the wide reality underlying all natural phenomena and all souls is spiritual, rather than physical, in nature? Are there some arguments?

I will state my question otherwise: Why is hinduism a more sensible stance than another religion?

Sâmkhya philosophy is in agreement with modern science in his statement that «mind», «consciousness» and «self» are modes of matter (prakriti), instead of qualities of soul (Purusha).

What are the objective reasons supporting hindu faith?

Good case against Advaita. I add that what is problematical with Advaita is the very origin of the false perception of the world (maya). Talking about a "cosmic play" belongs more to mythology than to philosophy. What do you mean saying that the perception of the snake is true for the perceiver?

Do you know good books about Hinduism and Indian Philosophy? I need some titles.

He seems to imply that, since religious texts allege to be the Word of God, they must be utterly true. If there is one error, it means that they are not the Word of God, who is infallible, therefore they are not reliable.

Even if neurobiology provided strong arguments supporting the view that mental events (perceptions, mental pictures, reasonings, feelings, awareness, volitions, and even the empirical self, etc.) are produced by the brain, can't we still say that Subjectivity itself, that Sâmkhya philosophy calls "Purusha", is to be distinguished from mental events, in the same way a spectator is not the same as the show he watches, and therefore, that it is not proven that Subjectivy depends upon the brain? Thus, when we are unconscious, it does not imply that Subjectivity (Purusha) is non-existent, but simply that it is "void". Purusha has to receive an input from without in order to experience something, hence the need of a brain. So, Subjectivity may be present in all organisms that have a nervous system, but the objective content of the diverse subjectivities depends upon the complexity and the state of the nervous system. We can consider that subjectivity is bound to a body as long as the body can provide subjectivity with some objective content, and when the body is written off, the subjectivity (or soul) is no longer bound to it, but there is no reason to think that the soul ceases to exist. Whether there is one or many soul is not settled. With this view of the soul, I think we can face successfully some materialistic arguments.

««« We observe in our small world intelligence behind any creation and then to think the whole cosmic creation comes about without any intelligence behind it is utter madness on gigantic proposition »»» Why do you relate big bang to the atheistic view of the world? Is atheism involved in the theory of big bang? Can't somebody believe that the evolution of the world since big bang is directed?