15.09.09
Samkhya history
James said,
15.09.09 at 10:29 am ·
One great thing about the Samkhya/Patanjali(divested of the misleading commentaries) is that it offers some sort of ontology (it is probably better if you ditch the preposterous emanationist scheme and focus on the basic framework) and distinguishes between awareness(no causal efficacy) and the unity of consciousness/materiality(part of prakriti). In that way, it is a lot clearer than the Pali sutras which are more epistemological in orientation. I’ve often tried to bring this point up with Theravadin Buddhists only to end up jumping into a bunker since this is considered taboo. Most of them are just content to kill off more and more brain cells with useless debates about “anatta” (obviously seems to be some sort of pragmatic apophatic meditation technique in the early suttas rather than a metaphysical statement). Take a look at a look at this useless debate over the term vinnanam anidassanam(obviously seems to refer to some unconditioned awareness outside of the skandhas) and whether it contradicts the the Abhidhamma:http://www.abhidhamma.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=10
Note that Patanjali spells it out:
“Then, pure awareness can abide in its very nature.”
“Otherwise, awareness takes itself to be the patterns of consciousness.”
http://www.arlingtoncenter.org/Sanskrit-English.pdf
Good points: we might be better off going back to the original sources of Samkhya.