http://www.gurdjieff-con.net/2009/09/26/danielou-a-traditionalist/ Debriefing the Gurdjieff work Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:41:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://www.gurdjieff-con.net/2009/09/26/danielou-a-traditionalist/comment-page-1/#comment-35329 The Gurdjieff Con » How did Samkhya/early Buddhism/Patanjali develop? Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:11:10 +0000 http://www.gurdjieff-con.net/?p=961#comment-35329 [...] Comments on Danielou: Samkhya James said, 27.09.09 at 8:50 pm One of the topics that I would like to see a scholar take up is how the systems of Samkhya/early Buddhism/Patanjali developed. As far as I know, noone has discussed how these systems developed this view that there is some wholly transcendent aspect to the sentient organism. It radically differs with the monism and/or immanism of Vedanta/Upanishads/Mahayana(I don’t buy Phulgenda Sinha’s assertion that Shankara misinterpreted the Upanishads. It seems pretty obvious that they are in support of monism/immanism). I wonder if there were two different sources of the “yogas.” James said, 27.09.09 at 10:14 pm It also seems to me that the translation of “purusha” as “self” in Patanjali/Samkhya makes no sense. If this “pure awareness” is completely transcendent and stands in relation to nothing (i.e. an object/prakriti), then it obviously can’t be a defined in terms of “self” (A subject can only be defined in relation to an object and vice versa.). [...] [...] Comments on Danielou: Samkhya James said, 27.09.09 at 8:50 pm One of the topics that I would like to see a scholar take up is how the systems of Samkhya/early Buddhism/Patanjali developed. As far as I know, noone has discussed how these systems developed this view that there is some wholly transcendent aspect to the sentient organism. It radically differs with the monism and/or immanism of Vedanta/Upanishads/Mahayana(I don’t buy Phulgenda Sinha’s assertion that Shankara misinterpreted the Upanishads. It seems pretty obvious that they are in support of monism/immanism). I wonder if there were two different sources of the “yogas.” James said, 27.09.09 at 10:14 pm It also seems to me that the translation of “purusha” as “self” in Patanjali/Samkhya makes no sense. If this “pure awareness” is completely transcendent and stands in relation to nothing (i.e. an object/prakriti), then it obviously can’t be a defined in terms of “self” (A subject can only be defined in relation to an object and vice versa.). [...]

]]> http://www.gurdjieff-con.net/2009/09/26/danielou-a-traditionalist/comment-page-1/#comment-35325 Amos Anon Sun, 27 Sep 2009 13:43:23 +0000 http://www.gurdjieff-con.net/?p=961#comment-35325 Did you see this? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/genetics/article6846424.ece Did you see this?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/genetics/article6846424.ece

]]>