Guest guest Report post Posted January 6, 2006 Hi, just curious here... recently saw that Samkhya was one of the six systems of philosophy in Hinduism. im familar w/ mostly Vedanta and Yoga, but not the others... just curious, what are the principles and ideas and theories and teachings of Samkhya? a response from someone who actually follows and practices Samkhya would also be appreciated. Thank You Om Namah Shivaya Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Samkhya 0 Report post Posted January 6, 2006 http://theosophy.org/tlodocs/SankhyaKarika.htm That should help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Samkhya 0 Report post Posted January 6, 2006 Sâmkhya is one of the first rationalistic systems of the world, that arose roughly at the same time as the first Greek philosophers. Its tenets are hopelessly false, but what matters is the spirit of Sâmkhya. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 6, 2006 ****Its tenets are hopelessly false, but what matters is the spirit of Sâmkhya.**** what the heck does that mean???? the tenets are hopelessly false????? so why is you name Samkhya? how can u follow teachings which u know are false. why does the spirit of samkhya matter? u have just made me very confused. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sephiroth 0 Report post Posted January 6, 2006 Its tenets are hopelessly false, but what matters is the spirit of Sâmkhya. Same as what Ravi said. What is the use of Spirit of Samkya when you know its tenets (principles?) is false? Same as what Christians say about their religion - the teaching is corrupted but what important is Jesus sacrified himself. /images/graemlins/wink.gif Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Samkhya 0 Report post Posted January 6, 2006 I have no demonstration that Sâmkhya's tenets are false, but there is no evidence that they are true, and Sâmkhya, which seems to be a cosmological system (whereas Vedanta is a metaphysical one), is very far from the scientific view of the world. But Sâmkhya says something interesting: mind (not to be confused with the soul or "Purusha") comes from matter ("prakriti") And today, most of scientists think that yes, mind depends upon matter. However, a scholar said that Sâmkhya could be, not a cosmological system, but a kind of theory of knowledge. Thus the concept "Prakriti" would not mean "Nature". At any rate, I chose my name not because I to Sâmkhya, but because I find it funny. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Samkhya 0 Report post Posted January 6, 2006 The spirit of Sâmkhya is to put reason above the authority of Scriptures. Sâmkhya used reason in an awkward way, but it deserves nonetheless our respect. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 6, 2006 u named urself that b/c u find it funny? ok.. i believe what u said "The spirit of Sâmkhya is to put reason above the authority of Scriptures." is also true w/ Vedanta. Although the Vedantins have their Upanisads, their main source of strength is their logic, reasoning and science of thought. wonderful! (for those who do not want a belief system shoved down their throats). and seprioth, that christ comment was funny lol Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sephiroth 0 Report post Posted January 6, 2006 The spirit of Sâmkhya is to put reason above the authority of Scriptures. Sâmkhya used reason in an awkward way, but it deserves nonetheless our respect. What they deserve is a Mental Ward. /images/graemlins/wink.gif What do you meant that they use reason in an awkward way? As far as I know, reasons can only be used in one way - Rational Way. If you KNOW that Samkya uses reasons in a wrong way and their teaching is "wrong", then don't expect others to respect them. That's NOT rational ... maybe I shouldn't be talking to you about rationalism. What you asking us to do (in respecting them) is like asking us to pardon theives for stealing because he is too poor which is rational (but not too clever to find work) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Samkhya 0 Report post Posted January 6, 2006 We owe respect to Sâmkhya for its effort to probe into the world by its own means. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 6, 2006 Before you poke fun at Sankhya, you should know that the author(s) of the Bhagavad Gita reconciled Sankhya with Vedanta and said the wise know that they are the same. Now if you believe Krishna spoke the Bhagavad Gita, then you ae actually saying Krishna deserves to be in the loony bin and Vedanta is irrational. Cheers Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Samkhya 0 Report post Posted January 6, 2006 Beyond all cosmological details that are not supported by any evidence (how Prakriti evolves, the three Gunas), perhaps the core of Sâmkhya is true, its teaching on the meaning of life. Perhaps it is our association with the matter which brings about all our suffering. It is our being subject to its mindless laws and forces, that we cannot change. Salvation would consist of getting separated from the matter and to live without it. I find this view more interesting than that of the Vedanta. But there remains one important question to be answered: how to get separated from the matter? How to get out of the hole? /images/graemlins/confused.gif Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sephiroth 0 Report post Posted January 7, 2006 by Samkhya We owe respect to Sâmkhya for its effort to probe into the world by its own means. Even a madman can mumble whatever he wants, that doesn't mean that everything is say is true and we need to respect him. /images/graemlins/wink.gif by Shiv Before you poke fun at Sankhya, you should know that the author(s) of the Bhagavad Gita reconciled Sankhya with Vedanta and said the wise know that they are the same. I only know two person who were directly involved (according to Mahabratha) in writing down Mahabratha (and Gita) - the Sage Vedavyasa (who narrated the events) and Sri Ganesha. I don't think either of them are Samkhya or loonies. /images/graemlins/wink.gif Now if you believe Krishna spoke the Bhagavad Gita, then you ae actually saying Krishna deserves to be in the loony bin and Vedanta is irrational. If what stated in the Gita didn't make sense or irrational, then I can put Sri Krishna into loony bin like those who follows Samkhya, but I found what stated in the Gita do make sense and very much logic. So, Sri krishna deserves respect for stating what is rational and logical, unlike some people who claims Samkhya is irrational but still deserves respect (for what, I don't know). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Samkhya 0 Report post Posted January 7, 2006 You did not take into account my last post. Anyway... if there is no free will, no praise is fair. Nothing can be praiseworthy if what someone does was not the result of his conscious will. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 7, 2006 ok guys... we've had a nice discussion, but i never got my answer. what is Samkhya???????? what is its philosophy?? how is it different from vedanta etc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Samkhya 0 Report post Posted January 7, 2006 I have borrowed two books on Indian philosophy. I will read them and then I will explain what is Sâmkhya. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Samkhya 0 Report post Posted January 13, 2006 Sâmkhya is usually understood as an atheistic dualism - though some scholars say that Sâmkhya does not explicitly denies God - which claims that there exist two natures: prakriti, the matter, and purushas, the souls. Contrary to the Upanishads, Sâmkhya teaches that souls are many. That's why it is said that Sâmkhya puts reason above the Scriptures. Matter, according to Sâmkhya, is made up of three interacting components: sattva (goodness, light), rajas (activity, pain) and tamas (heaviness, apathy). At the beginning, these components were in a state of balance, but for an unknown reason, the balance was broken, and as a result, prakriti began to evolve and took gross forms. The evolution of matter is goal-directed in Sâmkhya: matter evolves for the sake of the soul. Mind, insofar as it is applied to material things, the self, and intelligence are material in nature. Whereas matter is active, soul is passive. Soul is a kind of witness. Soul is in a state of bondage, and this bondage stems from the false identification of the soul with matter. The means to salvation according to Sâmkhya is discriminative knowledge: the soul has to know that it is different from matter to be freed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 13, 2006 "atheistic dualism" -what the heck? lol... isnt dualism usually not atheistic? "Contrary to the Upanishads, Sâmkhya teaches that souls are many. That's why it is said that Sâmkhya puts reason above the Scriptures." - ok... the upanisads are the reason... they are not just scriptures, they ARE reason... they are PERFECT reason... no other reasoning is above them.. check for urself and u'll see.. "At the beginning, these components were in a state of balance, but for an unknown reason, the balance was broken, and as a result, prakriti began to evolve and took gross forms." - very interesting.. "The means to salvation according to Sâmkhya is discriminative knowledge: the soul has to know that it is different from matter to be free." - many similarities but also differences from vedanta.. good, thank you for your answer. Om Namah Shivaya Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
