Talk:Samkhya/Archive 1

Text from Saamkhya article now merged here
Saamkhya is one of the six branches of ancient Indian philosophy collectively known as the shad-darsanas. The other five are Yoga, Nyaya, Vaiseshika, Poorva Meemamsa and Uthara Meemamsa. Saamkhya gives no reference to any God or supernatural power and is therefore called an atheist or materialist school of thought. It gives an account of the birth of universe which closely resembles the Big Bang theory. Saamkhya did not become as famous as Poorva Meemamsa, Uthara Meemamsa or Yoga because of its nature, which gave no practical ways to achieve Moksha.

Interesting article
Interesting article. However, this sentence in the third to last paragraph doesn't scan.

It is the influence of Samkhya that evolution has been discussed in ancient Hindu scriptures, including the Mahabharata and the Yoga Vasishtha.

I'm not sure what the intended meaning is so I haven't tried to fix it up.

Oska 11:28, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think whoever wrote that was trying to imply that theories of evolution in Hinduism were bolstered or even, perhaps, completely the result of Samkhya philosophy. The avatars of Vishnu, for instance, reflect a perfect evolutionary theory in many regards. --LordSuryaofShropshire 18:22, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

pd 18:42, Jan 9, 2006 CET

Hindu philosophical schools are not called astika. Astika means 'orthodox' or vedic hinduism as opposed to nastika - 'heretical' one (like buddhism, jainism). Philosophical schools are called darsana - i will correct it as soon as I make sure about the spelling etc

I think this article needs a major overhaul to its contents. I have put up an underconstruction notice. Will complete the overhaul in a few days SV 22:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Gita's sankhya is different from sankhya school
In the Gita, sankhya means knowledge and yoga means method. These should NOT be confused with sankhya and yoga school of philosophy. --SV 22:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Page move?
Shouldn't this be at Sankhya? "Sāṃkhya" is correct, but that doesn't mean "Samkhya" is.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 02:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Gita's Samkhya is NOT DIFFERENT
"Only the ignorant speak of devotional service [karma-yoga] as being different from the analytical study of the material world [Sankhya]. Those who are actually learned say that he who applies himself well to one of these paths achieves the results of both." (Gita 5.4)

You are not a Hindu and so you would not know this. Do you have any proof at all that This Sankhya is different? Why would Sri Krishna say this if it were different. He would have said so!

Sri Krishna in the Gita (10.26) "Of all trees I am the banyan tree, and of the sages among the demigods I am Narada. Of the Gandharvas I am Citraratha, and among perfected beings I am the sage Kapila."

I am also going to post these quotes into the main article to clear up any confusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HinduDefender (talk • contribs) 17:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC).


 * In Gita, sankhya is used etymologically as "knowledge of Atman" (samyak khyati iti sankhya). It is not referring to sankhya school of thought. In Gita yoga is used as "yujyate anena" (a sadhana), therefore the sadhana (means to knowledge) is related to the sAdhya(knowledge) so krishna says they are the same. Sankhya school and yoga school are NOT the same.
 * --SV 19:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

As soon as you refer to "Hindu" you are conjuring up a multiplicity of followers and belief systems, from a Delhi taxi driver with a plethora of demigods in his cab to the so-called highly qualified professor of sanskrit with a PhD. The verse you quote from the Gita (5.4) does indeed support that Lord Krishna states "Those who are actually learned say that he who applies himself well to one of these paths achieves the results of both." When discussing the science of the Vedic knowledge it is much better to refer to it as Vedanta - the end of knowledge. After all, the absolute truth is not simply for "Hindus". It is universal and for all living entities, otherwise how would it be the absolute truth? Stokakrishna

--59.101.25.4 19:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Your quote says karma yoga is the same as samkhya, not that the samkhya of the Gita is the same as the samkhya of Kapila and Isvarakrsna. But it is worth noting that the samkhya of vaishnavism has more tattvas (qualities) than that of classical samkhya (36 vs 25). And that this vaishnav ontology was developed after the gita was written. But most important is to remember samkhya means metaphysical understanding of the nature of the universe and very often is not referring to the classical system of Kapila, the actual astika being discussed on this page (since the gita is at least 500 years older than the Samkhyakarika. This classical samkhya is largely atheistic or some might say agnostic (though later developed into theistic models by Patanjali and others in what eventually became classical yoga which is supported by samkhya philosophy). So yeah, very much two different samkhyas.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 01:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "And that this vaishnav ontology was developed after the Gita was written." This is totally bogus speculation. The Sankhya of Kapila son of Devahuti was already in existence, and this is refered to by Vedanta comentators. Why am I even wasting my time coming to Wikipedia. )-: To paraphrase Denzil Washington "If I don't read an encylopedia I will be uninformed, but if I read wikipedia I will be misinformed."106.51.19.129 (talk) 08:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Classical Samkhya versus early Samkhya
I have added a quote from Gupta that begins to raise the developmental history of Samkhya, which spanned hundreds of years. The description of what Samkhya is in the present article is basically a description of classical Samkhya as it finally was codified. This addresses some of the questions raised regarding Samkhya in the Gita, which was a pre-classical form. Buddhipriya 03:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * sankhya in the Gita is NOT a pre-classical form of sankhya school. These are referring to two different objects of study. Just the occurance of the word "sankhya" does not suffice the assumption that they refer to the same object of study. SV 17:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Chapter 4 of Anima Sen Gupta's book, The Evolution of the Sāṃkhya School of Thought. Munshiram Manohartat Publishers Pvt. Ltd.: New Delhi, 1986, is entitled "Sāṃkhya in the Bhagavadgītā" which provides a detailed analysis of the meaning of the word sāṃkhya in the Gita. Gupta's analysis categorizes this as pre-classical sāṃkhya.  Can you provide a reliable source which you are referring to so we may examine it toogether? Buddhipriya 18:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My source are commentaries by shankara and Madhva of Gita ch-2. They rightly take "sankhya" to mean "knowledge of the spirit" (shudhAtma tatva vijnAnam). Even a cursory look at 2nd chapter makes it clear that objects of study of sankhya school and gita's sankhya are completely different. The same way "yoga" in Gita does not refer to yoga school but to "skill in work"(karmasu kaushalam) by its own definition. SV 19:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "The liberation gospels present in the Moksha- Dharma give us important clues especially about Sâmkhya and Yoga in their “epic” forms, prior to their systematizations at the hands of Îshvara Krishna (c. 350-400 C.E.) and Patanjali (c. 200 C.E.) respectively. What emerges from a careful study of the Moksha- Dharma is, the great similarities between Sâmkhya and Yoga notwithstanding, that these two traditions were already distinct and independent developments at the time of the final composition of the Mahâbhârata. This is epitomized in the following statement: The method of the yogas [i.e., yogins] is perception, [whereas] for the sâmkhyas it is scriptural tradition. (12.289.7) “These are not the same,” as the epic affirms two verses later. The distinction made here is between the pragmatic-experimental approach of the yogins (called yogas), and the reliance on traditional revelation (accompanied by rational inquiry into the nature of human existence) that typifies the followers of Sâmkhya. But Epic or Pre-Classical Yoga is not characterized simply by practice, nor Sâmkhya only by theory. Both traditions have their own specific theoretical framework and psychotechnology. Pre-Classical Sâmkhya arose out of the Upanishadic speculations about the levels of existence and consciousness as they were disclosed in the penetrating meditations of the sages. But by the time of the Moksha- Dharma, Sâmkhya and Vedânta had become distinct traditions. Like some schools of Vedânta, however, Pre- Classical Sâmkhya espoused a form of nondualism. This is also true of the epic schools of Yoga. What distinguishes epic Sâmkhya and Yoga from their classical formulations is, above all, their theistic orientation. The atheism of Classical Sâmkhya and the curious theism of Classical Yoga must be understood as deviations from a strongly theistic base, reflected in the Upanishads." Feuerstein, Georg (2013-09-11). The Yoga Tradition: It's History, Literature, Philosophy and Practice (Kindle Locations 7073-7085). Hohm Press. Kindle Edition.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iṣṭa Devatā (talk • contribs) 23:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Edits made to Ontological section
Found no sources on the prescence of Aparabrahman in the Samkhya school of hilosophy from any sources, and I altered the definitions on Purusha and Prakriti because I could find little evidence that the Samkhya school views the Purusha as akin to the Brahman, rather I found that it is viewed as pure conciousness and our true self, more like the atman (soul), and the section on Prakriti seemed to be missing any mention of the gunas so I added that as well

General Comments from the devotional perspective
I'm somewhat of a neophyte on the use and editing of Wikipedia articles, however I don't regard myself as such on the matter of Vedic knowledge. I took diksha initiation (Hare Krishna mantra) and Brahman initiation (gayatri mantra)in 1979 and consider Srila AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada as my instructing guru. Vedic scripture makes clear the distinction between Purusha and Prakrti, as it makes clear the nature of the living entity and his entanglement in material nature. The three modes of material nature are extensively described in the 14th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita.

I found the various references to Purusha in the article puzzling, ambivalent and downright confusing. I've added some material from the Srimad Bhagavatam regarding the absolute divinity of Kapiladeva and the science of Sankhya yoga as a theistic path. Here is a definition of Purusha given in the Srimad Bhagavatam (Canto 3 Chapter 26 verse 3)as translated by Srila AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada anadir atma purusha nirgunah prakrteh parah pratyag-dhama svayam-jyotir visvam yena samanvitam "The Supreme Personality of Godhead (purusha directly translates as "Supreme Personality of Godhead") is the Supreme Soul, and He has no beginning. He is transcendental to the material modes of nature and beyond this material world. He is perceivable everywhere because He is self-effulgent, and by His self-effulgent luster the entire creation is maintained."

According to the Bhagavatam, the Bhagavad Gita, the Brahma Samhita and numerous other Vedic scriptures, the Brahman which you refer to is the bodily effulgence of Krishna. Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 1 Chapter 2 verse 11 states vadanti tat tattva-vidas tattvam yaj jnanam advayam brahmeti paramatmeti bhagavan iti sabdhyate "Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan."

Prabhupada explains that the Absolute Truth is both subject and object, and there is no qualitative difference there. In other words Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan are different aspects of the same Supreme Being - Bhagavan is the personal feature of the Lord with whom the liberated souls are engaged in eternal lila or pastimes. The Paramatma feature is the Supersoul of all living entities and can be realized by the perfection of the astanga yoga process of meditation. Brahman is the transcendental effulgence of the Lord, described in the Bhagavad Gita (14.27) as follows brahmano hi pratisthaham amrtasyavyayasya ca sasvatasya ca dharmasya sukhasyaikantikasya ca "And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness and which is immortal, imperishable and eternal."

Krishna further elaborates in the Gita that the focus of the spiritual aspirant on the impersonal feature of the Brahman manifestation is ultimately a source of difficulty, and that concentration of the mind on the transcendental form of the Lord is a superior means of achieving the platform of self realization. (12.5) kleso dhikataras tesam avyaktasakta cetasam avyakta hi gatir dukham dehavadbhir avapyate "For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied."

Finally, if Kapiladeva is simply a figure of renown, or a sage or some other great personality of the mundane sphere, how can the authoritative statement of the acaryas and the sastras be understood. For example, here is a direct quotation of Lord Kapiladeva from the Srimad Bhagavatam (Canto 3 Chapter 32 text 29) yatha mahan aham-rupas tri-vrt pancha-vidha svaraj etc "From the total energy, the maha-tattva, I have manifested the false ego, the three modes of material nature, the five material elements, the individual consciousness, the eleven senses and the material body. Similarly, the entire universe has come from the Supreme Personality of Godhead."

--stokakrishna 09:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I find this whole section about "Sankhya in the Srimad Bhagavatam" full of need for citations. Also it is based on one particular interpretation (that of Swami Prabhupada). Also it disparages other interpretations of Samkhya philosophy because those interpretations don't confirm to Swami Prabhupada's interpretations. I request an impartiality tag be added to this section or else it be cleaned up.

Examples: "'The real sankhya philosophy is originally explained by Sri Kapiladeva, who is Lord Sri Krishna appearing Himself to distribute transcendental knowledge for the enlightenment of the conditioned souls. Lord Kapiladeva appeared as the son of Devahuti and Kadarma Muni, who were both elevated devotees.'"

This belief of sage Kapila being an incarnation of Krishna is a special belief held by followers of Prabhupada and it should be mentioned as thus.

Furthermore comments such as follows: "'Commentators who describe Kapiladeva as merely a sage or an unusually qualified person are disingenuous. Kapiladeva is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Elsewhere on Wikipedia are unbonafide comments such as “The original school of Samkhya as founded by Sage Kapila.'"

OR "'Complex word jugglery by mental speculators advertising themselves as great authorities on the sankhya philosophy are useless. Descriptions of purusha which do not refer to the Supreme Purusha, Lord Krishna, are also useless. Descriptions of prakrti which do not refer to the fact that prakrti is the external energy of the Lord are also useless.'"

don't belong in the main body of the article. This is a discussion point and should be in this section. Not in the main body of the article.

Sameer 19:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I felt compelled to add the neutral point of view tag to the Sankhya in the Srimad Bhagavatam section because it contains content which represents a particular point of view (that of followers of Swami Prabhupada) and needs a lot of clean up to adhere to neutrality.
 * Sameer 19:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

"Sameer: Throughout the Vedic literatures, the recommended process for self realization is the chanting of the Holy Name of the Lord, the maha mantra."

Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare.

The sages and Vedic authorities in the Parampara descending from the Lord also advocate this process.

"One can understand the Supreme Personality as He is only by devotional service. And when one is in full consciousness of the Supreme Lord by such devotion he can enter into the kingdom of God."

Bhagavad Gita 18.55

I would appeal to your sense of fairness not to delete this section, which is after all, a point of discussion.

stokakrishna


 * While I appreciate your passion: this article is on classical samkhya and not on the related enumeration system used in Acintya Bheda Abheda and other Vaishnav schools. Hinduism is a history of syncretism. The movement you belong to took its form around the 1500s CE. Everything you quote out of the Srimad Bhagavatam is the result of syncretic absorbtion of older ideas that were reframed to agree with the underlying bhakti philosophy of the group. Like samkhya, hare krsna is likely originally a non-vedic, non-brahmanical movement. Brahmanism, always under threat from more accessible religions like the Bhakti movement and the Yoga movement, absorbed elements of non-vedic religions. Hence all forms of Hinduism incorporate elements of the different astikas. That's why you can study dualist and non-dualist vedanta, theist and atheist or vaishnav or shaiva based samkhya, and a million varieties of atomism (vaisheshika), logic (nyaya) etc. To think that a small sect from Bengal with a very recent version of Samkhya is somehow superior or more worthy of encyclopedic inclusion is a mistake presumably born of your closeness to the movement. Bhaktivinoda Thakur is the only reason why the Srimad Bhagavatam is taken seriously in academic religious studies because it is, as he himself said, an almost incomprehensible compendium of older traditions including descriptions of heavens and hells that while "not accurate" depict the storied history of vaishnavism. "The Bhāgavata, certainly tells us a state of reward and punishment in future according to deeds in our present situation. All poetic inventions, besides this spiritual fact, have been described as statements borrowed from other works in the way of preservation of old traditions in the book which superseded them and put an end to the necessity of their storage." The Bhagavatam is historically very interesting but has a paper-thin agenda. It is not shruti and therefor not a veda; it is smriti and no more valid for academic purposes than the Kapilasutras or Samkhya Karika which are older, non-sectarian texts devoted solely to explaining classical samkhya. Vaishnav samkhya is based on the realizations of Kapila, but does not supersede it for these purposes in any way. These views deserve inclusion but belong to a seperate Vaishnav Samkhya or Vaishnav Ontology page, or at the very least a separate section.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 05:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Whoever said that the views of Prabhupada are his own and not in line with Vedic thought must have some negative bias to ISKCON, Hare Krsnas etc. Or, they are just plain ignorant of how the Vedanta deals with this topic and how the Sankhya of atheist Kapila is rejected starting at VS 2.1.1 you can look at Govinda Bhasya aka Vedanta Sutra of Badarayana commentary by Baladeva Vidya Bhushana. The same argumentation will be found in the Sri Bhasya of Ramanuja tr M. Rangacharya and M.B.Vardaraja Aiyangar, Madhvacarya "The Brahmasutras and Their Principal Commentaries" trans by B N K Sharma, and "Vedanta Parijata Saurabha of Nimbarka and Vedanta kaustabha of Srinivasa" trans by Roma Bose. But I am not going to argue with the wiki thought police. I feel dirty by reading the contents of your mind and need to take a bath.106.51.19.129 (talk) 08:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Vedanta is not advaitic
Vendanta has been interpreted by Sri Shankara in advaitic manner. Sri Madhva has interpreted it in a Dvaitic way.

To say vedanta is advitic is wrong. Infact Dvaitic philosophy uses the tenets of Samkhya to interpret vedanta.

So saying "Sankhya serves as the main opponent of Vedanta Philosophy which elucidates the non-dualistic (a-dvaita) theory of creation" makes no sense.

Rather "Sankhya serves as the main opponent of Advatic Vedanta Philosophy which elucidates the non-dualistic (a-dvaita) theory of creation" makes more sense.

The main disagreement between samkhya and advaita is regarding the plurality of souls. The argument is that if there is but one entity (brahman) then the attainment of enlightenment by one jiva would mean universal enlightenment and the end of maya/prakriti. The other disagreement is whether what we perceive as the world is maya (illusion which disappears with right knowledge) or prakriti (unconscious matter, born of purusha and able to reabsorb into it through metaphysical knowledge or, according to some, yoga). See Mircea Eliade for more on that idea. In this sense advaita argues the oneness of atman (or Brahman) because nothing else is real, and samkhya argues that matter is real and separate from atman (or purusha in samkhya). Rereading this though, I can imagine it is pretty confusing to the neophyte. One thing advaita vedanta and classical samkhya have in common is the belief in liberation through jñāna, while most dualist schools insist on a praxis of yoga (be that japa, samadhi, karmayoga, etc...)Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 05:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Samnkhya is not the same kind of dualism as dvaita. Samkhya is a duality between matter and consciousness; dvaita is a duality between individual souls and God. Vedanta refers either to the philosophies developed from the upanishads (literally the ends of the vedas, veda anta) which include Dvaita, Advaita, Dvaitadvaita, Visishtadvaita Visuddhadvaita, Acintya Bheda Abheda, etc or very often it refers to the original vedantic school which is Sankara's advaita. Just like samkhya usually refers to classical samkhya, vedanta often refers to classical vedanta. That is why the nondualists call their organizations 'vedantic societies'.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 04:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * First you should study Vedanta Sutra, the section from VS 2.1.1 deals with opposing schools of thought and one of them is the atheistic Samkhya. See, Govinda Bhasya aka Vedanta Sutra of Badarayana commentary by Baladeva Vidya Bhushana. The same argumentation will be found in the Sri Bhasya of Ramanuja tr M. Rangacharya and M.B.Vardaraja Aiyangar, Madhvacarya "The Brahmasutras and Their Principal Commentaries" trans by B N K Sharma, and Vedanta Parijata Saurabha of Nimbarka and Vedanta kaustabha of Srinivasa trans by Roma Bose.106.51.19.129 (talk) 09:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

article contains polemic
As it stands, the bulk of the article is not encyclopaedic, but reads instead as if it were written by a Hare Krishna devotee. How could that be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eucalyptus grandis (talk • contribs) 17:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me remind you that this is the discussion page. The bulk of the actual article on samkhya is written by people with what is an apparently dogmatic impersonalism. The article is based around the monist conception and decries the very idea of a Supreme Being.

For example

"Sankhya is an enumerationist philosophy that is strongly dualist.[4][5][6] Sankhya philosophy regards the universe as consisting of two realities: Purusha (consciousness) and Prakriti (phenomenal realm of matter). They are the experiencer and the experienced, not unlike the res cogens and res extensa of René Descartes. Prakriti further bifurcates into animate and inanimate realms. On the other hand, Purusha separates out into countless Jivas or individual units of consciousness as souls which fuse into the mind and body of the animate branch of Prakriti."

The actual Vedic reference to Purusha is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Purusha means "enjoyer". The Lord is the Supreme enjoyer. The living entity can be referred as a purusha in a relative sense in that he enjoys or suffers sense gratification as a consequence of being conditioned by the material nature. The Supreme Lord is also the Supreme consciousness. The living entity is only conscious of the extent of his material body, whereas the Lord is supremely conscious of all living entities as well as the expansion of His material nature.

Chapter 5. Karma-yoga--Action in Krishna Consciousness

TEXT 29

bhoktaram yajna-tapasam sarva-loka-mahesvaram suhrdam sarva-bhutanam jnatva mam santim rcchati

SYNONYMS bhoktaram--beneficiary; yajna--sacrifices; tapasam--of penances and austerities; sarva-loka--all planets and the demigods thereof; maha-isvaram--the Supreme Lord; su-hrdam--benefactor; sarva--all; bhutanam--of the living entities; jnatva--thus knowing; mam--Me (Lord Krsna); santim--relief from material pangs; rcchati--achieves.

TRANSLATION

The sages, knowing Me as the ultimate purpose of all sacrifices and austerities, the Supreme Lord of all planets and demigods and the benefactor and well-wisher of all living entities, attain peace from the pangs of material miseries.

PURPORT

The conditioned souls within the clutches of illusory energy are all anxious to attain peace in the material world. But they do not know the formula for peace, which is explained in this part of the Bhagavad-gita. The greatest peace formula is simply this: Lord Krsna is the beneficiary in all human activities. Men should offer everything to the transcendental service of the Lord because He is the proprietor of all planets and the demigods thereon. No one is greater than He. He is greater than the greatest of the demigods, Lord Siva and Lord Brahma. In the Vedas the Supreme Lord is described as tam isvaranam paramam mahesvaram. Under the spell of illusion, living entities are trying to be lords of all they survey, but actually they are dominated by the material energy of the Lord. The Lord is the master of material nature, and the conditioned souls are under the stringent rules of material nature. Unless one understands these bare facts, it is not possible to achieve peace in the world either individually or collectively. This is the sense of Krsna consciousness: Lord Krsna is the supreme predominator, and all living entities, including the great demigods, are His subordinates. One can attain perfect peace only in complete Krsna consciousness.Srila Prabhupada

Firstly, the dualism referenced here should be the dualism of the inferior and superior energies of the Lord, and that both energies are expansions of the original source of all energies, the Supreme Lord. ishvara parama krisha sat cid ananda vigraha anadir adir govinda sarva karana karanam

Brahma Samhita

The Supreme Personality of Godhead is Krishna. He has a blissful, transcendental spiritual body, He is the origin of all, He has no other origin and He is the cause of all causes.

The idea that the jiva soul separates out of the purusha and fuses into the prakrti is the old province of the mayavada philosophy which is simply not supported in the Bhagavad Gita and other texts. Rather, the purusha (Krishna) expands His separated parts (the jivas) into the material nature and they are conditioned by that material nature. The Lord is never covered in that way and always remains independent and transcendental to maya.

Chapter 15. The Yoga of the Supreme Person

TEXT 7

mamaivamso jiva-loke jiva-bhutah sanatanah manah-sasthanindriyani'' prakrti-sthani karsati''

SYNONYMS mama--My; eva--certainly; amsah--fragmental particles; jiva-loke--world of conditional life; jiva-bhutah--the conditioned living entity; sanatanah--eternal; manah--mind; sasthani--six; indriyani--senses; prakrti--material nature; sthani--situated; karsati--struggling hard.

TRANSLATION

'''The living entities in this conditioned world are My eternal, fragmental parts. Due to conditioned life, they are struggling very hard with the six senses, which include the mind.'''

Frankly, I stongly object to the almost darwinian perspective in the article, which is why I've written material which is much more closely allied to the Vedic tradition. The Supreme Lord predates and is paramount to all other considerations sarva karana karanam (Brahma Samhita). The idea that the Sankhya tradition originally stated that there could be no room for Ishvara or a supreme creator is simply misleading. Those who present themselves as Vedic authorities without reference to the Supreme Lord are really advocating the antithesis of the Vedic conclusion, which is given by the Lord Himself in Bhagavad Gita. It is also notable how thin the Vedic scriptural references are of those who are posing themselves as experts on Vedic philosophy. At least in my case everything is referenced to the translation of the Bhagavad Gita which is recognized as the most authoritative by a majority of Vedic scholars.

Chapter 15. The Yoga of the Supreme Person

TEXT 15

sarvasya caham hrdi sannivisto mattah smrtir jnanam apohanam ca vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedyo vedanta-krd veda-vid eva caham

SYNONYMS sarvasya--of all living beings; ca--and; aham--I; hrdi--in the heart; sannivistah--being situated; mattah--from Me; smrtih--remembrance; jnanam--knowledge; apohanam ca--and forgetfulness; vedaih--by the Vedas; ca--also; sarvaih--all; aham--I am; eva--certainly; vedyah--knowable; vedanta-krt--the compiler of the Vedanta; veda-vit--the knower of the Vedas; eva--certainly; ca--and; aham--I.

TRANSLATION

'''I am seated in everyone's heart, and from Me come remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness. By all the Vedas I am to be known; indeed I am the compiler of Vedanta, and I am the knower of the Vedas.'''

As described by Lord Krishna Himself in the Bhagavad Gita and elaborately explained by Srila Prabhupada.

Chapter 2. Contents of the Gita Summarized

TEXT 12

na tv evaham jatu nasam na tvam neme janadhipah na caiva na bhavisyamah sarve vayam atah param

SYNONYMS na--never; tu--but; eva--certainly; aham--I; jatu--become; na--never; asam--existed; na--it is not so; tvam--yourself; na--not; ime--all these; jana-adhipah--kings; na--never; ca--also; eva--certainly; na--not like that; bhavisyamah--shall exist; sarve--all of us; vayam--we; atah param--hereafter.

TRANSLATION

Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.

PURPORT In the Vedas, in the Katha Upanisad as well as in the Svetasvatara Upanisad, it is said that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the maintainer of innumerable living entities, in terms of their different situations according to individual work and reaction of work. That Supreme Personality of Godhead is also, by His plenary portions, alive in the heart of every living entity. Only saintly persons who can see, within and without, the same Supreme Lord, can actually attain to perfect and eternal peace.

nityo nityanam cetanas cetananam eko bahunam yo vidadhati kaman tam atma-stham ye 'nupasyanti dhiras tesam santih sasvati netaresam (Katha 2.2.13)

The same Vedic truth given to Arjuna is given to all persons in the world who pose themselves as very learned but factually have but a poor fund of knowledge. The Lord says clearly that He Himself, Arjuna, and all the kings who are assembled on the battlefield, are eternally individual beings and that the Lord is eternally the maintainer of the individual living entities both in their conditioned as well as in their liberated situations. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the supreme individual person, and Arjuna, the Lord's eternal associate, and all the kings assembled there are individual, eternal persons. It is not that they did not exist as individuals in the past, and it is not that they will not remain eternal persons. Their individuality existed in the past, and their individuality will continue in the future without interruption. Therefore, there is no cause for lamentation for anyone. The Mayavadi theory that after liberation the individual soul, separated by the covering of maya or illusion, will merge into the impersonal Brahman and lose its individual existence is not supported herein by Lord Krsna, the supreme authority. Nor is the theory that we only think of individuality in the conditioned state supported herein. Krsna clearly says herein that in the future also the individuality of the Lord and others, as it is confirmed in the Upanisads, will continue eternally. This statement of Krsna is authoritative because Krsna cannot be subject to illusion. If individuality is not a fact, then Krsna would not have stressed it so much--even for the future. The Mayavadi may argue that the individuality spoken of by Krsna is not spiritual, but material. Even accepting the argument that the individuality is material, then how can one distinguish Krsna's individuality? Krsna affirms His individuality in the past and confirms His individuality in the future also. He has confirmed His individuality in many ways, and impersonal Brahman has been declared to be subordinate to Him. Krsna has maintained spiritual individuality all along; if He is accepted as an ordinary conditioned soul in individual consciousness, then His Bhagavad-gita has no value as authoritative scripture. A common man with all the four defects of human frailty is unable to teach that which is worth hearing. The Gita is above such literature. No mundane book compares with the Bhagavad-gita. When one accepts Krsna as an ordinary man, the Gita loses all importance. The Mayavadi argues that the plurality mentioned in this verse is conventional and that it refers to the body. But previous to this verse such a bodily conception is already condemned. After condemning the bodily conception of the living entities, how was it possible for Krsna to place a conventional proposition on the body again? Therefore, individuality is maintained on spiritual grounds and is thus confirmed by great acaryas like Sri Ramanuja and others. It is clearly mentioned in many places in the Gita that this spiritual individuality is understood by those who are devotees of the Lord. Those who are envious of Krsna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead have no bona fide access to the great literature. The nondevotee's approach to the teachings of the Gita is something like bees licking on a bottle of honey. One cannot have a taste of honey unless one opens the bottle. Similarly, the mysticism of the Bhagavad-gita can be understood only by devotees, and no one else can taste it, as it is stated in the Fourth Chapter of the book. Nor can the Gita be touched by persons who envy the very existence of the Lord. Therefore, the Mayavadi explanation of the Gita is a most misleading presentation of the whole truth. Lord Caitanya has forbidden us to read commentations made by the Mayavadis and warns that one who takes to such an understanding of the Mayavadi philosophy loses all power to understand the real mystery of the Gita. If individuality refers to the empirical universe, then there is no need of teaching by the Lord. The plurality of the individual soul and of the Lord is an eternal fact, and it is confirmed by the Vedas as above mentioned.

stokakrishna

No one outside of Gaudiya Math even considers The Gita As It Is to be accurate. As a sanskrit student I can pick up that book and found countless misleading translations. This is a big part of why Gaudiya Math rarely teaches it's students to study sanskrit. Srila Prabhupada was not a sanskrit scholar, he was a vaishnavism scholar. His expertise was on the Bhagavatam, the Gita and Caitanya. And saying that 'god himself says in the gita' is terrible standards for a secular encyclopedia. You can't possibly think wikipedia would work at all if opinions could be validated by 'god's authority'. Your religion (which by its own description frequently calls itself non-hindu, and is largely recognized as non-vedic) reframes older samkhya into its ontology and alters it considerably. Just like having yajñas and simultaneously claiming they serve no point, vestiges of an older religion are weaved into your religion. This isn't even debated academically: this is how all modern denomination of almost all religions are. The whole pañcaratra movement was a more brahmanically acceptable version of the older Goddess worship traditions of tantric Bengali groups. There are plenty in Gaudiya Vaishnavism who have no problem admitting to this as it doesn't ruin the beautiful traditions and practices of the Gaudiya faith...mostly it's overzealous neophytes and bhramacharins who tout such absolutisms around while arguing over which bhava their guru's bhakti was in and banning offshoot groups from their temples.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 05:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "At least in my case everything is referenced to the translation of the Bhagavad Gita which is recognized as the most authoritative by a majority of Vedic scholars."

Purusa as "bound"
Regarding the Moksha section, I think this is a misunderstanding - Isvarakrsna explicitly states that Purusa is never bound, but eternally unbound (Karika 62). It is not Purusa which realises the independence of Purusa from Prakrti, but the internal organ, ie the evolutes of Prakrti. Understanding is in fact not a quality of Purusa, but of Prakrti. Purusa has neither the ability to seek nor to realise liberation, as it is eternally transcendent.

This has been extensively discussed in B David Burke's article "Transcendence in Classical Samkhya" (Philosophy East and West 1988, p19-29).

If no one minds, I will change the section to reflect this (let me know if you disagree). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yintov (talk • contribs) 15:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Tottaly (sic) biased
This whole article is biased toward the ISKCON philosophy. All references to dualistic or non-dualistic philosophies need to be deleted. Basically it needs to be rewritten with just a general overview. THEN maybe a section giving the different schools take on it should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.65.187 (talk) 08:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

As I've already pointed out with extensive references, my perspective is based on the Bhagavad Gita. ISKCON was started as an institution by Prabhupada to distribute knowledge of the Bhagavad Gita and other traditional Vedic texts in an authoritative way. Of course, hundreds of scholarly interpretations of the Bhagavad Gita have been translated into English, however generally they have some speculated or manufactured meaning. Krishna Himself in the Gita makes it clear that such persons are not qualified to understand the Bhagavad Gita, to say nothing of making elaborate and speculative commentaries about it.

Chapter 18. Conclusion--The Perfection of Renunciation

TEXT 67

idam te natapaskaya nabhaktaya kadacana na casusrusave vacyam na ca mam yo 'bhyasuyati

SYNONYMS

idam--this; te--you; na--never; atapaskaya--one who is not austere; na--never; abhaktaya--one who is not a devotee; kadacana--at any time; na--never; ca--also; asusrusave--one who is not engaged in devotional service; vacyam--to be spoken; na--never; ca--also; mam--unto Me; yah--anyone; abhyasuyati--envious.

TRANSLATION

This confidential knowledge may not be explained to those who are not austere, or devoted, or engaged in devotional service, nor to one who is envious of Me.

PURPORT

"'Persons who have not undergone the austerities of the religious process, who have never attempted devotional service in Krsna consciousness, who have not tended a pure devotee, and especially those who are conscious of Krsna as a historical personality or who are envious of the greatness of Krsna, should not be told this most confidential part of knowledge. It is, however, sometimes found that even demoniac persons who are envious of Krsna, worshiping Krsna in a different way, take to the profession of explaining Bhagavad-gita in a different way to make business, but anyone who desires actually to understand Krsna must avoid such commentaries on Bhagavad-gita. Actually the purpose of Bhagavad-gita is not understandable to those who are sensuous--even if one is not sensuous but is strictly following the disciplines enjoined in the Vedic scripture, if he is not a devotee, he also cannot understand Krsna. Even when one poses himself as a devotee of Krsna, but is not engaged in Krsna conscious activities, he also cannot understand Krsna. There are many persons who envy Krsna because He has explained in Bhagavad-gita that He is the Supreme and that nothing is above Him or equal to Him. There are many persons who are envious of Krsna. Such persons should not be told of Bhagavad-gita, for they cannot understand. There is no possibility of faithless persons' understanding Bhagavad-gita and Krsna. Without understanding Krsna from the authority of a pure devotee, one should not try to comment upon Bhagavad-gita.'"

In other words those who consider themselves Brahminical should understand the basic qualification of a Brahmana: To be able to properly differentiate between matter and spirit. Not only are those who are addicted to meat eating, gambling, intoxication and illicit sex not qualified to be authorities on Vedic knowledge. Even those who follow strict discipline are considered unfit to disseminate Vedic knowledge if they are bereft of any shred of love for the Supreme Lord.

stokakrishna

about writing Samkhya in Sanskrit
hi mistsube. Samkhya is correctly written in Sanskrit as साङ्ख्य and not सांख्य. Instead of using the anusvAra ( अनुस्वार ), it is a tradition in Sanskrit, to use the last letter of the same varga ( वर्ग ) as the succeeding letter. In this case, the letter ख belongs to the क varga, and hence the last letter of this varga, namely ङ has to be used while writing the word. Please see other examples such as - तन्तु, बन्धन, सम्बन्ध, किञ्चन, कण्ठ and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.173.40 (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Clarification needed
I don't understand this intro statement at all:
 * There are differences between Sankhya and Western forms of dualism. In the West, the fundamental distinction is between mind and body. In Sankhya, however, it is between the self (as Purusha) and matter (Prakriti).

The trouble is that the concept "mind" isn't distinguishable from the concept "self" or the "ego", that might be used interchangeably, and "body" is just kind of a "matter", so the differences between Sankhya and the Western mind-body dichotomy, sometimes called "Dialectical dualism" ― as opposed to "Dialectical materialism" and to "Dialectical idealism" ― seems to be very fuzzy. The problem might be the word "dualism", which might mean any kind of dichotomy with a clear cut borderline, such as good-evil, mind-body, subject-object or so. I think the differences between Sankhya and any certain form of mind-body dichotomy exist, certainly, but are much more subtile and precise than the difference between "mind" and "self", if such a difference exist. ... said: Rursus ( m b o r k³ ) 20:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The more I read Samkhya, the more it reminds me of Dualism (philosophy of mind) combined with some Teleology combined with some First cause and Cosmological argument, neatly packaged in a way that any western philosopher would recognize. ... said: Rursus ( m b o r k³ ) 20:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The distinction between Purushas and Mind, is it that Purushas also includes "form", "pattern", "constitution" in a distinct that Mind not necessarily does? Then Purushas might (or might not) be different from Mind. ... said: Rursus ( m b o r k³ ) 20:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The Samkhya Purushas-Prakriti-dichotomy fits best with either Neoplatonic Mind-Matter dualism, where Mind also contains form, termed as "idea", and next best with Descartes Mind-Matter dualism. ... said: Rursus ( m b o r k³ ) 20:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sankhya philosophy does cover mind body dualism but not in the way you are speculating here. The differentiation between the self and matter are clearly described in the Bhagavad Gita,Chapter 7 verses 4 and 5. TEXT 4

bhumir apo 'nalo vayuh kham mano buddhir eva ca ahankara itiyam me bhinna prakrtir astadha

SYNONYMS bhumih--earth; apah--water; analah--fire; vayuh--air; kham--ether; manah--mind; buddhih--intelligence; eva--certainly; ca--and; ahankarah--false ego; iti--thus; iyam--all these; me--My; bhinna--separated; prakrtih--energies; astadha--total eight .

TRANSLATION Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego--all together these eight comprise My separated material energies.

TEXT 5

''apareyam itas tv anyam prakrtim viddhi me param jiva-bhutam maha-baho yayedam dharyate jagat''

SYNONYMS apara--inferior; iyam--this; itah--besides this; tu--but; anyam--another; prakrtim--energy; viddhi--just try to understand; me--My; param--superior; jiva-bhutam--the living entities; maha-baho--O mighty-armed one; yaya--by whom; idam--this; dharyate--being utilized or exploited; jagat--the material world.

TRANSLATION Besides this inferior nature, O mighty-armed Arjuna, there is a superior energy of Mine, which are all living entities who are struggling with material nature and are sustaining the universe.

Explanation:

Verse 4 describes the range of the Lord's inferior material energies, which include the mind, intelligence and false ego. Material nature illusions the living entity into misidentification with the gross body and subtle mind. These however, have nothing to do with the transcendental nature of the soul. Verse 5 describes the living entity as apara prakrti, the superior energy of the Lord, eternal, non material and full of transcendental bliss and knowledge.

stokakrishna —Preceding undated comment added 19:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC).

Redirect
Can someone with more knowledgeof thisarea please look at the redirects. At the moment Samkhya and Sankhya redirect to each other. Waacstats (talk) 10:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Materialscientist (talk) 12:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Denial of existence of God?
I think we need a fresh look at the Samkya Philosophy and its semantics; The argument of disbelieving in God by Samkhya School is untenable. The said reference in the main article could be just authors interpretation of text in isolated context. The best story which I remember comes from Rudra Samhita of Shiv Purana where Goddess Parvati had a long discussion with Lord Shiv on his or her existence in this creation and their intermigling roles; this details the very existence of samkhya school and its beliefs. Avid Reader may verify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.101.171 (talk) 10:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

At the very least, it is misleading to make the blanket statement that the article currently has that Samkhya is atheistic. See Gerald Larson's Classical Samkhya for extensive discussion of various historical viewpoints on theism, non-theism, and atheism in Samkhya. It is not even clear that Samkhya has had a fixed viewpoint regarding the existence (or soteriological importance) of an ultimate deity during its various periods. It seems below the Wikipedia standards to ignore the ambiguity that exists within Samkhya and among its interpreters as to the existence and nature of a God or gods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.144.215 (talk) 08:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually i read the source and fixed it. Feel free to further improve edits. Same single Gbooks source on other article (Hindu philosophy) too. Trolls. You just can't pick one sentence out of a tome of philosophy unless it resumes the whole point of the book - which here it doesn't. On the contrary, the 'claim' is meant as a reply to a previous question which has a whole different context (which i tried to reproduce in the article body). Wakari07 (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We are discussing this at Talk:Hindu philosophy. Correct Knowledge «৳alk» 10:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Who is "we"? what is "discussion"? Wakari07 (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Discussion is something we (editors) do to buid consensus. Correct Knowledge «৳alk» 17:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, even if this is the main article for the subject - your choice - let's continue in Talk:Hindu philosophy. Wakari07 (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We continue at CK's request talking about the same subject here? Wakari07 (talk) 20:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Where do we go from here? Wakari07 (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Made it "Samkhya denies the final cause of Ishvara (God). " - for now. Feel free to discuss further and improve. Wakari07 (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * on a side note: interesting use of the word reals in the Dasgupta source. Seems to be used very differently from how Wikipedia treats it. Here we have the sole options of field theory, set theory or floating point computing... Wakari07 (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * on the side note: Dasgupta's first edition is in fact from 1922, so the English language evolved meanwhile. Is it possibly a prior usage of reel? Wakari07 (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * more sidenote: "real (n.) Look up real at Dictionary.com "small Spanish silver coin," 1580s, from Sp. real, noun use of real (adj.) "regal," from L. regalis "regal" (see regal). Especially in reference to the real de plata, which circulated in the U.S. till c.1850 and in Mexico until 1897." - is this "reals" in this source's context? Re: Apparently no, it would then be "reales". Wakari07 (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * further mitigated proposed sentence (adding context): "Sāṃkhya denies the final cause of Ishvara (God). " - could as well be "final cause of man in Ishvara" to further clarify the clear text part of the sentence. Wakari07 (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Dualism and Atheism in lead
has repeatedly removed the statement The Samkhya school is dualistic and atheistic from the lead. Since the purpose of the lead section is to introduce and summarize the article and dualism, atheism both have a section each (referenced by reliable sources) in the article it makes sense to include them in the lead. Besides, TwoHorned's argument that the writers (of the references) are non-Indian is not even worth considering here. Since when did Indianness become a criteria for reliability of sources? Here are a few more references for Atheism in Samkhya &mdash;, , , , , ,. Dualism has many references in the article itself. Please consider them before reverting again. Regards. Correct Knowledge «৳alk» 00:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I say you misunderstood. The Samkhya is cosmological in nature, and being so, it does not have to consider principles outside manifestation. This does not mean that it is "atheistic" or "dualist" in the western sense, this is a common mistake that is sometimes carried in some books, but not by all Samkhya compilers and commentators. As such, it can be mentionned in the text, but putting it in the lead is frankly non-neutral. BTW, the section on atheistic shamkhya contains very few quotations, and purports very special ideas. There are hundred of indian commentators that doe not carry these appreciations. See for example R. Guenon Introduction to the Study of Hindu Doctrines. - TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned  21:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Before we proceed I would like to know, is René Guénon only reference you have to support your claim? If not please quote others as well. Correct Knowledge «৳alk» 01:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not only. Another western scholar reference about it: The Female Pole of the Godhead in Tantrism and the Prakṛti of Sāṃkhya, KA Jacobsen - Numen, 1996, Jstor. The purportedly atheistic and dualistic aspects of Samkhya is an old discussion among western scholars (much less aknowledged today than 60 years ago), it is not accepted as such by indian specialists, the subject is much more complex than that. I think that a neutral presentation about it would be saying that Samkhya has sometimes been presented as dualistic and atheistic by first western scholars, while in Indian metaphysics, being a cosmological text, it studies manifestation and is not concerned by Paramatma, which is the Absolute Principle beyond any condition. Regards, - TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned 12:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have cited a few western and Indian scholars in my first post to establish that Samkhya was atheistic. Let me add two more notable Indian interpreters of Samkhya to the list. Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya, a marxist interpreter of Indian thought, believed that most ancient Indian philosophies including the dualistic Samkhya were atheistic. Nandalal Sinha, in his detailed translation and commentary on Samkhya literature, writes that Samkhya is Nir-Isvara (godless) but Astika (believes in the Vedas). In fact Samkhya Karika, the oldest surviving literature of Samkhya school, in Verses I.92-I.96 and III.54-56, gives many arguments against the idea of eternal, self-caused, creator God (arguments and references are in the article).


 * Your claim that Samkhya was not dualistic is even more suspect than your previous argument. In fact, I hadn't even seen an interpretation of Samkhya that argued that it was theistic non-dualism, till you quoted your sources. You are of course entitled to believe that you have the truth. However, you might want to read Verifiability, not truth, Fringe theories and WP:UNDUE before attempting to include this fringe viewpoint into the article. As for René Guénon, he is an occultist with hardly any expertise in Samkhya. His book doesn't quote the karika or any other Samkhya literature for that matter. It looks like he is propounding his own philosophy under the guise of Samkhya. The publisher Sophia Perennis is a non-peer reviewed, non-fact checking, dedicated publishing house. Since your claim is exceptional, it requires exceptional sources (WP:REDFLAG) and Guénon just won't fit the bill. Your second source (Jacobsen) argues against the interpretation of Samkhya as a Tantric male/female dualism. In the article Samkhya is represented as consciousness-matter dualism not as a male/female dualism, so I am not sure how this reference proves your point. Besides, I don't see what you mean when you say Samkhya "being a cosmological text... is not concerned with Parmatama". If Samkhya was not concerned with Parmatma that makes it a pragmatic atheistic or Apatheistic philosophy. Regards. Correct Knowledge «৳alk» 22:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course you can find many references, like the ones you give, that make the statement that Samkhya is atheistic and dualistic, so I don't mean to remove that interpretation of the article. The point is that this presentation of Samkhya goes back to the inception of Western indian studies, and as such, while it is still acknowledged by some Indian specialists, it also becomes relativised today. Let's go to the details: first, your statement that being Nir-Isvara means atheistic in the Western sense is false: Isvara is the principle of universal manifestation, being non-manisfested Himself, but that does not mean atheism as Paramatma is not negated and is beyond Isvara, your are making WP:ORIGINAL here, and WP:UNDUE as you misunderstand the way negative sentences must be understood in Indian metaphysics. Moreover 'astika' means 'orthodox', which would forbid atheism in the western sense. There are many academic references that question and relativize the classical dualistic etiquette put on the Samkhya. Example: G.J. Larson, An Eccentric Ghost in the Machine: Formal and Quantitative Aspects of the Sāṁkhya-Yoga Dualism in Philosophy East and West, 1983 writes "Whether one considers the Cartesian position or, according to Kai Nielsen, the modern, analytic restatement of it, the interpreter of Siakhya must admit that the Samkhya is not a dualism in these senses". Also J. Woodroffe, alias Arthur Avalon, who was the first to present a comprehensive introduction to tantric texts in the West, writes in John Woodroffe. Sâmkhya, or The Theory of Reality. By J. N. Mukerji, M.A. Philosophy 7 (25):104 (DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0031819100053808): The doctrine is neither realistic nor dualistic (p. 63). In a text of 1982, Vivian Worthington A history of yoga, Routledge, 1982, pages 44 to 47, denies the dualistic aspect of the Samkhya: in the  Bhagavadgītā, she writes, the Samkhya is a non-dualist philosophy since it considers prakriti, creation and the creatures as the 'material' termination of Purusa, associated to God, such a termination being operated by Maya. Reference K.A. Jacobsen is academic and you cannot dismiss it: what he says is that mainstream interpretation of the primordial duality purusa/prakriti is related to male/female, as this is very well known, and, as such it does not deny upper principles that go beyond male/female. Lastly, about René Guénon (who is not an occultist by the way), there is full chapter in his Introduction to the study of the hindu doctrines devoted to the Samkhya (beginning p. 181 of the Marco Pallis translation), where he writes:  "The orientalists, who mistake Sankhya for a system of philosophy, readily represent it as a 'materialistic' or 'atheistic' doctrine: it goes without saying that it is the conception of Prakriti which they identify with their own notion of matter, an utterly false assimilation, while in addition they take no account of Purusha in their distorted interpretation. Universal substance is quite another thing from matter which is at most but one restrictive determination of it [...] As for the reproach of atheism this is what it amounts to: Sankhya is nirishvara that is to say it does not introduce the conception of Ishvara or Divine Personality; but, if this conception is absent from it, that is because it has no place here, given the point of view in question, anymore than it has in Nyaya or Vaisheshika. The non-inclusion of something [...] only becomes denial when that point of view is declared exclusive [...]" see here p. 184. To sum up, I don't deny the labelling you propose, I am just proving it is not exclusive and that other interpretations have been introduced. I am just asking for their inclusion. Regards, - <font face="sans-serif">TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned  20:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have examined the new sources you have listed. You appear to be either misunderstanding or misrepresenting them:
 * G.J. Larson, An Eccentric Ghost in the Machine: Formal and Quantitative Aspects of the Sāṁkhya-Yoga Dualism— Larson is just saying that dualism of Samkhya is not similar to either Cartesian or Neilsen's dualism. This however does not mean that he is suggesting that Samkhya is non-dualistic. In fact, Larson's book Classical Sāṃkhya: An Interpretation of Its History and Meaning has been used extensively in the article. In this book, Larson takes an overwhelmingly dualistic approach to Samkhya, so much so that he tries to trace origin of Samkhya in the dualistic myths of Rig Veda. Besides, the article already acknowledges the difference between Cartesian and Samkhya dualism– "Samkhya avoids one of the most serious pitfalls of Cartesian dualism, the violation of physical conservation laws". (quoted from the article)
 * Vivian Worthington, A History of Yoga— this looks like another severe case of misrepresentation. Wothington in p. 44 of her book clearly states twice that "Janinism and Samkhya were atheistic and dualistic". Then she goes on describe how Bhagavad Gita synthesizes these views with Vedanta. She supports a point of view complete opposite to yours. Again, Samkhya Karika is the standard text for Samkhya school, Bhagavad Gita is a composite pre-karika text.
 * I wasn't dismissing Jacobsen at all. Jacobsen is only against a Tantric, male/female, dualistic misrepresentation of Samkhya. He is not against any other dualistic interpretation of Prakriti/Purusha dualism. Since, this article doesn't represent Samkhya as a Tantric philosophy, we are not really in conflict with Jacobsen.
 * I have listed my problems with René Guénon and his publisher in the previous post, please address them. Your POV is roughly same as Guénon's and both of you are mistaken if you think Samkhya does not mention Isvara (as Guénon claims in his book). Arguments against Isvara are given in verses of karika (quoted in previous post).
 * Sâmkhya, or The Theory of Reality. By J. N. Mukerji— Couldn't access this, didn't bother either. It is likely that you've quoted him out of context as well. You might like to take a look at Verifiability.
 * I had cited sources when I said Samkhya was God-less. It wasn't really WP:ORIGINAL. Moreover, your point that Samkhya also does not negate Parmatma is flawed. Samkhya also does not negate Yahweh and Allah, but that doesn't mean it supports Judeo-christian or Islamic beliefs. We can get a second opinion on Guénon if you insist on using him for an extraordinary claim. But please refrain from quoting sources out of context. Regards. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 23:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The Vaisheshika does not consider the tanmatras, because it does not have to w.r.t. to its point of view, that does not mean that it "doesn't believe" in the existence of the tanmatras. It is the same idea here, and this is precisely what Vivian Worthington is saying in her book from pages 44 to 47: she says that the Samkhya can be considered as dualistic when considered alone, but placed in the whole set of the six darshanas, the picture is different and, writing so, she conforms fully to the indian thinking that does not cut things into irreducible items. The main idea of Jacobsen article is similar. For Larson, it's ok, I wanted to reference it was not cartesian dualism, but if it is already written in the article, no problem. The reference Dasgupta that you use in the article about Ishavara is a well known Jain source, and does not correspond to mainstream orthodox interpretation, and is precisely dualistic on this matter as Jain philosophy can be. I didn't cite out of context, and your accusation against me about Woodfroffe's article is not fair, as the article says precisely what I reproduced above. Now about Guenon, and going back to your previous argument, the american publishing house that provides his texts in english does not have to be "peer-reviewed", because it's a publishing house, not an academic journal, but notable publishing houses are WP:RS. In fact Guenon writes: "[..] besides the Sankhya, there is another darshana that is sometimes considered as a second branch of the Shankhya, complementary to the previous one, and called Seshwara to distinguish if from the former, and it introduces the conception of Ishvara [...]" (my translation). This part of the text is not shown in google books, this is why you didn't see it in the first place, which is surely forgiveable.
 * That being said, I won't continue this discussion because it is mainly about interpretation. I admit fully that the point of view you develop is much more mainstream and referenced. I wanted just to show another point of view, which can be referenced by Guenon. May be it is not enough. I let you decide of its inclusion or not, I will not go further on that topic. Thank you and regards, - <font face="sans-serif">TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned 11:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I accept your point that sources such as Bhagavad Gita portray a different picture of Samkhya than the mainstream view. However, Bhagavad Gita is usually treated as a pre-Samkhya text and most scholars identify Samkhya with the Samkhyakarika. As per the the summary style of writing articles in wikipedia, this article is a WP:SPINOUT of Hindu philosophy (which is a spinout of Indian philosophy). It is therefore very limited in scope and can't include many alternate viewpoints, Bhagavad Gita can find a place here only perhaps in a historical development section. Likewise, content from Guenon's book should probably be included in his article rather than here. You can also create a new article on perception of Indian philosophy in the west in early 19th century, if you find multiple independent sources for it. Thank you for your patience. Regards. <font style="color:white;background:#167FF7;font-family:sans-serif;">Correct Knowledge <font style="color:#167FF7;background:white;font-family:sans-serif;">«৳alk» 01:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Confusion of terms
No doubt the article (judging by the discussion here) needs fine points of tuning, but as a visitor with only a passing knowledge of Samkhya, I found that one aspect of the text confusing.

The general understanding--one restated here--is that Samkhya is one of the oldest Indian "systems of ideas", with roots in the Vedas (pre 800 BCE?), connections to Yoga (pre 300BCE?) and the Gita. And yet the article then states that Samkhya (Philosophy and school) emerged around 200 CE. Obviously this framing uses "philosophy" in a more formal sense, which may not be understood by the visitor.

I think this confusion can be avoided by stating, perhaps in the first paragraph, that "Samkya is one of India's oldest philosophies, one whose formative concepts appeared as early as xxx BCE, strongly influenced Patanjali's system of Yoga, made a significant contribution to the Bhagvad Gita, and finally was brought together as a formal philosophy and school of thought around 200CE".

Quickly scanning this sentence, I can see the need for improvement in it already. However, most of the texts that I am familiar with apply the word "philosophy" to the whole line of development of ideas rather than just to the formalized definitions favoured by academics. As I've stated elsewhere, please write in an encyclopaedia for general readers, not for academics.

--184.70.23.98 (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Go ahead! Though the "roots in the Vedas" seems incorrect to me. According to Zimmer ("Philosophies of India") Samkhya has non-Vedic origins, akin to Yoga, Jainism and Buddhism. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Claims of "roots in the Vedas" are not so much wrong as vague. Their "correctness" depends upon how generous one is in interpreting "roots" (does any division into two qualify as dualism and hence Samkhya-ic?) and "Vedas" (do we restrict ourselves to the Samhitas, or do the Upanishads and BG qualify?). Given these unresolvable issues, and the different tacks taken by different respectable scholars, I think the current version of the article does quite a decent job on the subject. Of course, 184.70, if you can suggest further ways to clarify or improve the content, that would be welcome. Abecedare (talk) 03:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I admit that my statement of "incorrect" depends solely on Zimmer. I'll try to add gis interpretation to the article, but to do so I'll first have to get a better grip on the issue. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In case my comment was not clear: I wasn't really contradicting your statement, just adding commentary on why the issue is so fraught with confusion. Here for example, is Gerald Larson's attempt to thread that needle (in Classical Sāṃkhya: An Interpretation of Its History and Meaning, page 78-79) :
 * "'...Samkhya in any of its forms is not present in these early speculations [relating to priestly rituals]. Yet it is possible to point to certain trends of thought which might have later been assimilated into Samkhya. To point to such trends is not to make the claim that these trends can be precisely traced into later Samkhya. The claim is only that certain trends provide a context from which later Samkhya may have arisen. Important to remember the fact that Samkhya probably owes its origin to a variety of traditions and cannot convincingly be attributed to any one. One of the more obvious sources for later Samkhya is to be found in the ancient cosmological speculations of the Vedas, Brahmanas and the olest Upanishads...."
 * Is it any wonder that wikipedia fails to provide a unambiguous one-line summary ? :) Abecedare (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Improved sentence?
Might I suggest that

"Both the agrarian theology of Śiva-Śakti/Sky-Earth and the tradition of yoga (meditation) do not appear to be rooted in the Vedas."

could be more rapidly grasped if expressed as:

"Neither the agrarian theology of Śiva-Śakti/Sky-Earth nor the tradition of yoga (meditation) appear to be rooted in the Vedas."

The double negative of the first expression makes the sentence more difficult to grasp. --67.49.245.122 (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Origins section
Two points. First, Dandekar is not early 20th century. His article that is being cited was published in 1968. He died in 2001. Second, what Ruzsa is saying is nothing original or new. There has been an ongoing debate about whether the Sankhya in its original form was non-Vedic/anti-Vedic or not. This debate has never been settled and unless any new original source material of Sankhya is found (which seems unlikely) it will never be settled. Soham321 (talk) 04:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I wasn't comfortable with "early 20th". I fixed the wording. I am going to clean up Ruzsa shortly. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Rationalism?
The one citation supporting the description of 'rationalism' is qualified with "this ancient school's reliance on reason is neither exclusive nor strong". With so little to support this unusual description, why would it belong in the LEDE. Positing on the existence of Purusha is in no way rationalism, nor could any philosophy positing abstract and intangible explanations for the mundane be considered 'rationalist'. Nyaya is the school that is rationalist as it is a form of empiricism. Nyaya's sister school of Vaisheshika (atomism) is also rationalist, but more based on inference than empiricism. Samkhya is a metaphysical school and not a rationalist school. My edits have been conservative but I would rather remove all mention of rationalism from the article as it does not add anything useful.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 07:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * @Iṣṭa Devatā: Burley cites two sources that assert it to be rationalist school. So, it needs a mention. Samkhya school continues to be referred to as a rationalist school by many scholars. Burley is merely qualifying, or more accurately adding a nuance to it. I will add a second source. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * (ps): I embedded a quote in the second source to give examples of the premises and principles that Samkhya deployed. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * @Ms Sarah Welch: I just think it is overprominent in the intro. Especially when it's "reliance on reason is neither exclusive nor strong". That sentence does make it more palatable, but underscores the tenuousness of its rationalism. I don't know that the description adds to the article lead especially if it isn't discussed further below. I can understand its modes of correct knowledge being rationalist (more so than its ontology), but I think this is a case of verifiability not equaling accuracy.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Either way I think it looks better now than before and I'm happy to let it be.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Samkhya rationalism was not tenuous, but extraordinarily good in parts. Epistemology is as important as anything else, and the axiomatic assumption of Purusha is as decent as any in historic Indian or non-Indian philosophies. Not mentioning it would be an NPOV problem, but not clarifying its weaknesses would also be an NPOV problem. The wording we now have, thanks to your critical reading, is better. Indeed. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Pramana graphic
I think there are two errors in the graphic for pramana (though I welcome second opinions). One is a spelling error: pratyaksha is miswritten as 'pratyakshaya' in the devanagari. The other is that these are the three means of correct perception (pramana) but they point in the graph to knowledge (jnana). Jnana can be obtained by means other than the three pramanas, including prajna (at least in yoga) and siddhis. I believe that in order to be accurate to samkhya epistemology the word jnana should be replaced with pramana. Pramana is a vritti composed of pratyaksha anumana and shabda, while jnana is a bhava that can exist in the vritti of memory as well. Is it possible for the chart to be edited and readded? I posted this on the graphic's talk page as well Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note on the spelling, which needs attention! The chart is based on the three cited sources. It is silent about prajna/siddhi. Vritti and bhava is an interesting angle, but we need to stick with the sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I guess I'm not sure if I trust the sources then (ontological philosophy being complicated enough for mistakes to get published). The descriptions in the Karika and in the Sūtras would suggest that this is the description of the vṛtti called pramana. Jñāna (knowledge) itself would be derived from the vṛtti of pramāṇa, just as ajñāna (ignorance) would be derived from afflicted vṛttis like viparyaya (misperception). The means to Jñāna is through unafflicted (akliṣṭa) vṛttis, and the least afflicted vṛtti of pramāṇa can be experienced through pratyakṣa, anumāna, and śabda. If śabda is misperceived, for example, it still becomes ajñāna (that is, if you misinterpret a reliable testimony it will not lead to knowledge, but the opposite). Without pramāṇa as the intermediary between these three and jñāna it does not necessarily become jñāna. Jñāna is the goal, pramāṇa is the means, and pratyakṣa anumāna and śabda are the varieties of pramāṇa, but not inherently "pramāṇic" themselves. There is sort of a grammatical gray area crops up if we call these three pramāṇas, which is inaccurate in the scenario I laid out since what you accurately see may still be magic, your inferences might be wrong, and your interpretation of testimony might be mistaken (but this becomes a bit hair-splitting I admit). I'll take a look at Larson's Samkhya book later and see if I can dig up a source to back that up. In the mean time, it's not really as big of a deal as the spelling. And it is nice to have these graphics, so thank you for making it.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Amsuman and Kapila.jpg