Soul Meets Body: An initial examination of the Samkhya school

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.

I’ll upvote because you seemed to put a goodly amount of thought and effort into the comment, but not because I read every word.

> 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.

Well, that's always a given when you look at a culture from outside. It takes time to uncover the details and the diversity.

> the modernist interpretations of reformers in the 19th and 20th centuries

E.g. Brahmo Samaj, that sort of thing? What other reformers you have in mind?

I'm curious where would you put Aurobindo in this context. He's definitely "modernist", but he stuck to the Vedas quite a lot.

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...