[Advaita-l] A Peep into the Patanjali System

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <
sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Dear Subrahmanianji,
>
> Namaste,
>
> You missed the whole point. Sankhya is valid knowlege but it is at a lower
> level than that of the Vedanta. Hence it has rightly been not equated to
> Vedanta. At Vedanta's level it rightly faces rejection.
>
> Regards,
>
> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya
>
>
Dear Sunil ji,

I had covered the point in the earlier post:

//........Further, in the spirit of the Sruti असंगो ह्ययं पुरुषः
(Br.Up.4.3.16) [This PuruSha is indeed non-attached] the sAnkhyakaarikA 62
says:

तस्मान्न बध्यतेऽद्धा न मुच्यते नापि संसरति कश्चित् ।
संसरति बध्यते मुच्यते च नानाश्रया प्रकृतिः ॥

which declares that, in reality, there is neither bondage nor transmigration
nor liberation for anyone; all such parlance is to be traced to prakRti
(which has been shown above to be illusory).  This is reminiscent of the
Mandukya kArikA:

न निरोधो न चोत्पत्तिः न बद्धो नैव साधकः ।
न मुमुक्षुर्न वै मुक्त इत्येषा परमार्थता ॥ २.३२

//There is neither dissolution nor creation, none in bondage and none
practicing disciplines. There is none seeking Liberation and none liberated.
This is the absolute truth. //

Here is a verse that traces the penultimate position of the Sankhya
(pariNAmavAda) as against the final position that is the Vedantic
VivartavAda:

विवर्तवादस्य पूर्वभूमिः वेदान्तवादे परिणामवादः ।
व्यवस्थितेऽस्मिन् परिणामवादे स्वयं समायाति विवर्तवादः ॥

I think it is from the SankshepashAreeraka.

[The doctrine of transformation (Sankhya) is the one that just precedes the
doctrine of transfiguration (vivarta) of the Vedanta.  Once the former is
well grasped, the latter falls in place by itself.]

In any case, in the BSB the Sankhya is rejected mainly on the grounds that
they hold the insentient pradhAna as the jagat-kAraNam while for Vedanta it
is the Conscious Brahman, in association with Maya.  To say that 'Sankhya's
is valid knowledge' would apply to all darshanams in their own sphere.  Even
pratyaksha is valid knowledge in the vyavaharika of the Vedanta.

Regards,
subrahmanian.v




> --- On Fri, 5/28/10, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] A Peep into the Patanjali System
> To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Date: Friday, May 28, 2010, 10:43 AM
>
>
> Namaste.
>
> This is what my understanding is:
>
> The Brahmasutra-s are called 'shAreeraka mImAmsA' by Bhagavatpada Himself
> in
> the preamble to the BSB.  That means 'the a study of the nature of the
> jiva,
> the resident in the body'.  That defines the scope of the BSB in particular
> and the Upanishads in general.
>
> With this as the baseline, the entire discussion is centred on what the
> jiva
> is, both in the bound state and the liberated state, what is the means for
> liberation, what is the fruit of practicing various sadhanas, the nature of
> the fruit and certain other miscellaneous related topics.  These are widely
> divided into the four adhyAyas: samanvaya, avirodha, sadhana and phala.
> While examining other schools, darshanas, the guiding principle is:  The
> word 'darshana' itself means:  दृश्यते आत्मतत्त्वं अनेन इति दर्शनम्  That
> which enables the comprehending/realizing of the Atma tattvam, the true
> nature of the Atma, is called 'darshanam'.  The Brahma sutra examines how
> this is accomplished if at all, or sought to be accomplished, by the
> various
> 'darshanams'.  Since the subject matter of discussion of the Brahma Sutras
> is the Upanishads and related Smriti-s, the compatibility and compliability
> of these 'other' darshanas, other than the Vedanta darshana also called
> Aupanishadam darshanam is examined.  In this process, the questions about
> what these darshanas say about the jiva, its true nature, what constitutes
> bondage, what are the means for liberation and what constitutes liberation,
> etc. are thoroughly examined.
>
> The Upanishads have stated in terms clear sometimes and sometimes not very
> apparent, the final word, the definitions, etc. on all the above questions.
> The task of the Brahma Sutras and the Bhashyakara is now to see how and
> whether these 'tattva-s' if we may call  them so, spoken of in the other
> darshanas fit into the Upanishadic template on these 'tattva-s'.
>
> In this process, it is quite possible that there are several occasions
> where
> some or many similarities with the Upanishadic darshanam are encountered in
> the other darshanas.  These are taken into account and a final audited view
> is established:  There are these similarities, we have no objection with
> them.  However, there are these glaring dissimilarities, deviations, in
> respect of some key issues.  Consequently these systems as they are
> available to us, the examiner, cannot be accepted as Aupanishadic.
>
> Thus, the criterion for deciding is 'how these schools fit into the
> Upanishadic template?'  According to the Upanishads the jiva is none other
> than Brahman.  Bondage is aavidyaka, aupaadhika, unreal.  If the other
> darshanas tally with the Aupanishadam darshanam on these key issues there
> will be no problem.  But, the fact, upon undertaking the above methodology,
> it is found that no school comes to be accepted by the Aupanishada-s.
> There
> may be non-controversial issues.  Yet they do not help us ultimately in the
> face of the really controversial ones.  In fact Shankaracharya has said
> even
> the method of practices of Yoga are originally available in the Upanishads
> themselves.  Bhakti is also available in this school itself.  He does not
> see the need to address the question/opinion that you have stated: A step
> by
> step development is seen in the various darshanas.  He simply feels that
> the
> scope of the Brahma Sutras is not that.  The BS comes to give an
> all-comprehensive compact sadhana system to the mumukshu.  It leaves
> nothing
> unsaid or unhinted.  It is a total system.  The other systems do not
> satisfy
> this criterion even though they might claim to do so.  And that is the
> reason why schools like the Sankhya, Yoga, Bhagavata and the like are
> 'rejected'.  The rejection is subjective, issue-based.
>
> Of course, this is just one aspect of the Brahmasutras: avirodha.
>
> I may not have stated things very clearly.  I have just put my thoughts in
> an unformulated manner.  Other members could say how they look at the
> issue.
>
> Om Tat Sat
> subrahmanian.v
>
> On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 6:25 PM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <
> sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Bhskarji,
> >
> > Namaste,
> >
> > In schools it is taught that Atom is the smallest particle of matter but
> at
> > higher level one is taught about the subatomic particles and at still
> higher
> > level a student knows about the equivalence of matter and energyu. So
> also
> > in Indian philosophy the six darshanas are in stepwise progress and all
> the
> > darshanas are correct at the level they are  meant to be taught. Sankhya
> > Sutra says Ishwara is asiddha ie. the existence of Ishwara cannot be
> proved
> > (and that is why Sankhya would not take it into consideration in its
> > treatment). But nowhere Sankhya said that Ishwara is not there. Then it
> is
> > left to Yoga to bring in Ishwara. Yoga leaves it to Veda to tell us about
> > the beings higher than us (ie. the 33 devas) and ultimately the Vedanta
> > tells us that all beings (sub-human. human and the super-human beings)
> are
> > no different from Brahman.) Adi Sankaracharya very well knew all these
> but
> > we the lwesser people have our doubts.  BTW do you agree with Tilak that
> >  one verse of Sankhya-karika is missing, which he reconstructed.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>