Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Soul Meets Body: An initial examination of the Samkhya school

worthypatterns.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 44 posts

Re: Soul Meets Body: An initial examination of the Samkhya school

#31

Post by danans »

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #25
danans wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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 a…

Are you claiming that ‘linguistic analysis’ by non Indians/Hindus at the university of Texas supersedes knowledge that was orally transmitted for aeons before linguistics as a term was even coined?

Plenty of Indians/Hindus conduct the same sort of linguistic analysis, beginning with a guy called Panini who lived around 800 BC. In any case, the nuance and depth of the arguments in the University of Texas article far supercedes the a priori (and apparently religiously nationalist) statements you are making here.

Historical linguistics is an evidence-based field of study that many Indian scholars also actively participate in, wherein they also analyze non Indian languages.

Re: Soul Meets Body: An initial examination of the Samkhya school

#32

Post by danans »

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #30
danans wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Again. What is the relevance?

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.

Re: Soul Meets Body: An initial examination of the Samkhya school

#33

Post by jelliclesfarm »

danans wrote: post #31
jelliclesfarm wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you claiming that ‘linguistic analysis’ by non Indians/Hindus at the university of Texas supersedes knowledge that was orally transmitted for aeons before linguistics as a term was even coined?

Plenty of Indians/Hindus conduct the same sort of linguistic analysis, beginning with a guy called Panini who lived around 800 BC. In any case, the nuance and depth of the arguments in the University of Texas article far supercedes the a priori (and apparently religiously nationalist) statements you are making here. Historical linguistics is an evidence-based field of study that many Indian scholars also actively par…

Where did you find ‘religiously nationalist’ statements?

I don’t understand why this has to become rude and hostile now. I don’t believe I have anything more to say to you.

Re: Soul Meets Body: An initial examination of the Samkhya school

#34

Post by jelliclesfarm »

danans wrote: post #32
jelliclesfarm wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again. What is the relevance?

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.

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.

Re: Soul Meets Body: An initial examination of the Samkhya school

#35

Post by timgilbert »

rajekas wrote: post #22

"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 bot…

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.

Re: Soul Meets Body: An initial examination of the Samkhya school

#36

Post by _1qd4 »

raincom wrote: post #29

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)…

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.

Re: Soul Meets Body: An initial examination of the Samkhya school

#37

Post by valarauko »

woadwarrior01 wrote: post #11
mping wrote: post #9

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.

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.

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).

Re: Soul Meets Body: An initial examination of the Samkhya school

#38

Post by raincom »

_1qd4 wrote: post #36
raincom wrote: post #29

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)…

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 la…

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.

Re: Soul Meets Body: An initial examination of the Samkhya school

#39

Post by rajekas »

timgilbert wrote: post #35
rajekas wrote: post #22

"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 bot…

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 articl…

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...

[2] https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Classical-India-Introducti...

[3] https://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Sri-Ramakrishna-Swami-Nikhilan...

[4] https://www.amazon.com/Talks-Ramana-Maharshi-Realizing-Happi...

[5] https://www.amazon.com/Ka-Stories-Mind-Gods-India/dp/0679451...

[6]https://www.amazon.com/Shape-Ancient-Thought-Comparative-Phi...

Re: Soul Meets Body: An initial examination of the Samkhya school

#40

Post by timgilbert »

rajekas wrote: post #39
timgilbert wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 articl…

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 ex…

Thanks!
Post reply on HN