28.09.09
How did Samkhya/early Buddhism/Patanjali develop?
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.).
nemo said,
28.09.09 at 12:50 pm
That’s a great project and you should be the one to do it! But the labor is hard, and the necessary data hard to come by.
There are already some histories of Samkhya: consider Larsen’s Classical Samkhya.
Let’s start doing it here!
nemo said,
30.09.09 at 11:57 am
Keep us posted!
Hi everyone! - Yoga Forums | Yoga Beauty Wisdom said,
25.10.09 at 7:25 am
[...] The Gurdjieff Con » How did Samkhya/early Buddhism/Patanjali develop? [...]