What is the difference between Purusha and Brahman? Is it just the same thing explained through the different approaches of Sankhya and Advaita respectively? Sankhya believes that Prakriti and Purusha are fundamentally different, whereas Advaita says that Brahman alone appears as nature and soul, or the object and subject. So is Purusha and Brahman the same thing, just different in their relation with the manifest universe? To my understanding Purusha is just brahman seen as fundamentally different from Prakriti, and Brahman is just purusha seen as a Non-Dual truth, not really a separate truth apart from the manifest universe. Correct me if I'm wrong.
1.Prakriti is non-sentient and has potential for activity but Purusha is sentient and inactive. Their association (just like the blind man and the limp man) disturbs the balance of sattva, rajas, and tamas and creates the universe. But what causes the initial union of Prakriti and Purush to create the universe in the first place?
- If creation is caused by the union of Prakriti and Purusha, what causes the dissolution (pralaya) ?
Vyadha Gita may be the part of the most important discourses in Hinduism but you would seldom hear its name. Vyadha Gita was narrated to Yudhisthira in Mahabharata and has been discussed in depth by scholars. Vivekananda especially was fond of this story and have discussed this in his book βKarma Yogaβ. There are many many sub-stories in Mahabharata(it even has Ramayana) and those are very very insightful in understanding what our society was. Stories are a great medium to convey ideas and through the discussion of these stories we ourselves get insight into philosophy.
> In the middle of a forest sat a Sanyasi, completely engrossed in his Tapasya. He had meditated and performed austerities here for many years and was completely set on reaching his goal, Moksha. But this fine evening was going to turn out to be different. While meditating suddenly he was startled by droppings of a bird and his Tapasya broke. Angry at how his years of effort just vaporised in just a moment he searched for the source. He saw that it was heron who did that and angrily glanced at the heron. At that moment the heron suddenly burned to death. But it wasn't pity he felt for the poor bird but a great throb of accomplishment. The sanyasi realised that due to his years of Tapasya had caused him to develop yogic powers. Happily, he moved towards the village to collect alms.
> He reached a house and asked for alms. The woman opened the door and told him to wait a moment. Then that Yogi waited and waited. An hour passed by and the lady still didnβt return. At this point the Yogi was furious. The woman finally returned with food and presented the food to the Yogi. Yogi angrily shouted at how careless the woman was and asked her βDonβt you know who I am?β while again angrily glancing at her. But something was different. Nothing happened to the woman. She calmly replied, βYes sir I do know who you are but I am not a Heron who you can just burn by glancing angrily.β The Sanyasi was dumbfounded and confused. How could this be? Then he finally realized that this woman was a Yogi too and that too more accomplished than him. This, even more, fueled his confusion. Then the woman apologized to keep the Yogi waiting stating that she was looking after her home and the first duty of hers was towards her home. The Yogi stopped and asked her, how did she gain this self-realization, she didnβt do any austerities, she didnβt do any penance, she didnβt go to the forest then how did she acc
... keep reading on reddit β‘In the previous thread, I noticed a prevalent scepticism among the commenters. There was doubt about whether it was possible to practically pursue the 4 Purusharthas or goals/meaning of life. The demands made by Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksha mostly if not always are antithetical to each other. How can we be righteous(Dharma) and at peace(Moksha) while fulfilling all our desires(Kama) and earning enough(Artha)? There is disillusionment and dejection in life even if we know that this is what we need to aspire to. Life seems like a war on whose battlefield you stand and see all the worse aspects in front of you. Yet only by winning at this game or war called life can you get everything that you want(Kama and Moksha) and what you need(Artha and Dharma). We also feel a sense of just leaving the battlefield and never return thus ending everything. These aren't new questions and have been raised in the past. Who are we, how should we live our lives and how should we act in the world are the questions every generation wrestles with. In fact, there was a warrior who raised the same questions in an actual battlefield. He too had the desire to just leave the battlefield and threw his weapon. These were the same questions which were answered and the same concerns that were dispelled by his charioteer. That answer is what became what is for me the most important book in history called Bhagavad Gita. There is a reason why Krishna chose to elucidate the Gita in the middle of the battlefield, our lives are our very own Kurukshetra and it is a battle every human being needs to fight. The fact that the philosophy painted in Gita is Samkhya tells us very much about the influence and importance of this philosophy in our culture. This is the very reason why made this series to revive it. Samkhya is the philosophical foundation on which Gita stands and Yoga is how we need to act to actualize it.
The Yoga of Bhagavad Gita isn't the stretching exercises you are familiar with but a system where you actually achieve Moksha navigating the battle of life. If you have read my previous post you would know that the thing standing between you and Moksha is Ahamkara, the false ego created by you. By doing Yoga you can not only kill your Ahamkara but also live a better life. Yoga is a practical way to achieve the 4 Purusharthas but you would also need the knowledge of Samkhya as a foundation to achieve it. Here are the 4 Yogas discussed in Bhagavad Gita-
- Karma Yoga - The Yoga of act
In this part of the series, I am going to step back and focus on Hinduism rather than Sankhya philosophy. Context is important for understanding Sankhya and in keeping in mind the dominance of Western culture on Indian one it would be difficult to understand this part unless you are well versed in Hindu Philosophy.
Forever the west has been struggling with defining what Hinduism is as we have a different culture in our country and philosophy which are impossible to just reduce to the region(Something I am personally very proud of). The most basic definition, something which has been seen every culture whether Tamil, Malayalam, Punjabi, Bengali etc is the common ethos of this subcontinent is the 4 Purusharthas. This is what we prize most of all although this has been dimnished yet not disappered. From Tulsidas to Dinkar, Kabir to Nirala, Nanak to Premchand this is what has been reflected in everything that have defined our identity. This is what we all spire to whether consciously or subconsciously. This is what has united us against Islamic invaders, British, Portugese or Dutch. This is the core of our identity and this is my personal opinion but Indic culture would disappear when this does.
The aspiration of these goals of life is our take on the tragedy called life which is full of sorrows. Artha, Kama, Dharma, Moksha. These simple words contain the essence of the ethos of this land as we know it. For better defintion if you are unfamiliar it's this-
-
Artha- The pursuit of things that enables us to be alive. Artha is the quintessential need as basic needs to be alive i.e. Roti, Kapda, Makaan. whatever enables to survive and be alive. When you can't live how can you enjoy anything. Further reading tha I recommend highly is Arthashastra.
-
Kama - The pursuit of things that gives us pleasures. Whether sex, good food, beauty or music. Our Indriyas(the five senses of sight, taste, sound, smell and touch). Sense in Sankhya's context is important as we(the purush or consciousness) are in this world to enjoy the prakriti(which is nature or worldly) and what is point if we can't even enjoy this. Further reading and I highly highly recommend reading is the text of Kamasutra. Do read as the nature of the materialistic western society is in Kama. You would get to know the modrated way as opposed to the excessive indulgence way of the west on the path of Kama.
-
Dharma - Not the definition that you already know as religion. Dharma is much much deeper than t
Previously I talked about the difference between the monism and dualism. Today I would like to elaborate on how this dualism is expressed in Sankhya philosophy. Sankhya divides things into the material world(Prakriti) and the experiencer(Purush). Think of it this way, imagine in the near future Virtual Reality has been realised. You are one of the people who get to try this. You put on your device and it transports you into another world where everything is different yet seems real. This world that you get to experience would be Prakriti. Everything the sun, the earth, the galaxies, the stars, even your own body is part of Prakriti. Prakriti in Sankhya is treated as something unreal, though to us it seems real. It is forever changing, forever evolving. Even your own body grows old eventually and change is a part of Prakriti.
Purush on the other hand in the previous analogy would be yourself. But though it is easier to explain Prakriti through the previous analogy to understand Purush from this would not only be incorrect but wrong. Purush is basically your consciousness. The thing that makes you yourself. An incomplete but better analogy would be, imagine a rogue AI takes over this world which has VR. The AI malevolent as it decides to separate every human being's brain from its body then hooks it up with VR to give you this illusion that you're still living in this material world. Your brain would be the thing that you could call Purush. But we are not quite there and I would elaborate on why this is an incorrect definition. The AI decides that humans itself are becoming more and more intelligent and recognizing that they are in a simulation, so he comes up with a new solution. He dissects your brain in such a way separating with your memory, your decision-making skills and even your sense of current self. The thing left after this is what you can call Purush. The unchanging, undestroyable.
The reason for this very complicated definition of Purush is because in Sankhya our mind is a very very special entity. Our mind according to Sankhya is the infusion of both Prakriti and Purush. It is unchanging yet evolves and is subject to time, unlike pure consciousness Purush. I would have loved to go into deep detail about how Purush and Prakriti come together and give rise to our mind and consciousness(this itself has seven levels) according to Sankhya but alas it is beyond the scope of this series and maybe I would write about it some other time.
Now to attai
... keep reading on reddit β‘
As an ardent follower of Sankhya, I have seen a lot of people who don't have even heard of Sankhya. Through these series of blog posts, I intend to create awareness and a following of a philosophy that was once the crown jewel of Hindu Philosophy. I would prefer discussing the practical points of Sankhya in our lifestyle which would benefit the follower of this philosophy through my own experience, but first I would have to lay down the philosophical foundation for it. Since Sankhya is an Indian philosophy it would not only be unfair but also incorrect to describe it using English words so I would give an English synonym for it to convey what I mean and then give the correct word for it since there is a spasm between English and sanskrit. I would also request to have an open mind and consider them from a point of view of the actual question rather than understading them from your own preconceived notions. Also, I would like to remind the reader of admitting things that we simply can't know.
Monism and Dualism, as I see it is are a take on the nature of our reality itself i.e. the mind-body dualism or monism. Both have their theistic and atheistic practices but that is for the reader to choose from. Sankhya is a Dualist atheistic aastik philosophy. The question is about the disagreement on the nature of consciousness(Chaitanya) itself. Consciousness itself is difficult to define but we all intuitively know what it is. The question that separates them is whether consciousness(Chaitanya) is part of the body or not. Monism believes they are English and dualist believe they are different. That would be simplest definition there is though it doesn't fully convey the gravity of the question. I recommend reading more on the Mind-Body problem if you want a much nuanced understanding.
When we go on to chart out the history of life itself on earth we face the question where did intelligent life came from, how did we evolve. We have solved how purely atomic forces and energy made up the geological construct of elements and earth but we haven't been able to theorize how these geological changes gave rise to life. That is currently the biggest puzzles of all. Monoism believes that the neurological changes in eventually gave rise to Chaitanya but they don't have concrete evidence of it. Dualists on the other hand believes that Chaitanya and body (that include the brain. I would make another post on philosophy and nature of brain itself according to Sankhya) are differ
... keep reading on reddit β‘600+ subs
updoot party
I want maybe a commentary on the sankhya karika that translates all the versus and then has commentary on what they mean etc or some other sort of book that will teach me everything I need to know about samkhya, thanks
