"Life is suffering"

[kyser_soze]

That was not my point kyser. It is the point you have inferred i've made.

No kyser, you only reply to the meanings you think i have put in my writing, notwithstanding that you have said a few minutes ago that i don't have any inkling what i mean in my writing. Just which way do you want it?

Your last comment really does demonstrate you have a problem with the different layers of meaning that language and co-communicators can provide.

Once again:

The human species was afforded the chance to lead a life of non-suffering.

I have replied to what you've written. It quite clearly says here 'was afforded the chance'. In English there is no other meaning I can take from this, other than 'this happened in the past'.

If that isn't what you meant, you shouldn't have used the past tense in your original statement; my inference that you were alluding to Genesis is simply that you are retelling the story of the Apple in a single sentence. I'm not 'putting an interpretation' on it - that is exactly the story of the Apple.

 

[kyser_soze]

OK, I've had a quick look-see at 3 different references to Samkhya, and none of them refer to a primal energy. They all however refer to a primal nature or matter, from which all things, except for Purusha, are made. A very different thing ineed to a 'primal energy'.

Beyond that, it's a dualistic system that posits no creator God, and make a priori assumptions about the nature of consciousness - it is acausal, and the demands of the material world distract the purusha from Being. It also states that purusha is eternal, and (seemingly) 'inhabits' prakriti, which is endlessly evolving, but can never know itself, as it is dumb matter.

It reads a lot like Hegel on consciousness in fact, with the cocomitant topics that brings up about immanence. It's also quite handy that the 3 things I looked at are all pretty direct and to the point about how the philosophy works, rather than any mystical nonsense.

So, the actual ideas are no more or less tosh than Hegel. You calling purusha or prakriti 'primal energy' is completely wrong. It's matter, not energy.

 

[TrippyLondoner]

OK, I've had a quick look-see at 3 different references to Samkhya, and none of them refer to a primal energy. They all however refer to a primal nature or matter, from which all things, except for Purusha, are made. A very different thing ineed to a 'primal energy'.

Beyond that, it's a dualistic system that posits no creator God, and make a priori assumptions about the nature of consciousness - it is acausal, and the demands of the material world distract the purusha from Being. It also states that purusha is eternal, and (seemingly) 'inhabits' prakriti, which is endlessly evolving, but can never know itself, as it is dumb matter.

It reads a lot like Hegel on consciousness in fact, with the cocomitant topics that brings up about immanence. It's also quite handy that the 3 things I looked at are all pretty direct and to the point about how the philosophy works, rather than any mystical nonsense.

So, the actual ideas are no more or less tosh than Hegel. You calling purusha or prakriti 'primal energy' is completely wrong. It's matter, not energy.

 

[fela fan]

Once again:



I have replied to what you've written. It quite clearly says here 'was afforded the chance'. In English there is no other meaning I can take from this, other than 'this happened in the past'.

If that isn't what you meant, you shouldn't have used the past tense in your original statement; my inference that you were alluding to Genesis is simply that you are retelling the story of the Apple in a single sentence. I'm not 'putting an interpretation' on it - that is exactly the story of the Apple.

I have used the passive form. The subject of the action is open to interpretation. Passive forms are normally used when the subject of the action is unknown or unimportant. I was thinking the latter when i wrote 'was afforded'. It was more important to my thinking that it had happened, not how. I had recognised, and tried to write here, an action in the past where the cause or subject of that action was unimportant. When i said 'genes' i was communicating in the here and now, and perhaps should just have said in our body, in our make-up, whatever.

I was not thinking of any apples or eves or adams...! Or even genesis, or even a creator.

 

[kyser_soze]

When i said 'genes' i was communicating in the here and now, and perhaps should just have said in our body, in our make-up, whatever.

Nope, still arguing for biologial determinism, that our behaviours are innate and not learned...obv there's a lot of debate around this point, but it's shifted from the nature vs nurture to 'nature & nuture, how to they interact to make a person' which looks at how our biology and physical living can affect how&what we learn, and also how we use those lessons (which in turn has an effect on our bodies)...but nothing innate in us...

 

[fela fan]

OK, I've had a quick look-see at 3 different references to Samkhya, and none of them refer to a primal energy. They all however refer to a primal nature or matter, from which all things, except for Purusha, are made. A very different thing ineed to a 'primal energy'.

Beyond that, it's a dualistic system that posits no creator God, and make a priori assumptions about the nature of consciousness - it is acausal, and the demands of the material world distract the purusha from Being. It also states that purusha is eternal, and (seemingly) 'inhabits' prakriti, which is endlessly evolving, but can never know itself, as it is dumb matter.

It reads a lot like Hegel on consciousness in fact, with the cocomitant topics that brings up about immanence. It's also quite handy that the 3 things I looked at are all pretty direct and to the point about how the philosophy works, rather than any mystical nonsense.

So, the actual ideas are no more or less tosh than Hegel. You calling purusha or prakriti 'primal energy' is completely wrong. It's matter, not energy.

Look, i'm going to quote from my book:

"Within pure existence there arises a desire to experience itself, which results in disequilibrium and causes the manifestation of primordial physical energy.

This energy is the creative force of action, a source of form that has qualities. Matter and energy are closely related: when energy takes form, we tend to think of it in terms of matter rather than energy.The primordial physical energy is imponderable and cannot be described in words. The most subtle of all energies, it is modified until ultimately our familiar mental and physical world manifests itself.

Pure existence and primordial energy unite for the dance of creation to happen. Pure existence is simply 'observing' this dance. Primordial energy, and all that flows from it cannot exist except in pure existence or awareness...

Primordial energy gives rise to cosmic consciousness or intelligence, which is the universal order that pervades life. Your individual intelligence, which is different from your everyday intellectual mind, is derived from and is part of this cosmic consciousness. It is your inner wisdom, the part of your individuality that cannot be swayed by the demands of daily life or by ahamkara, your sense of I-ness."

Ahamkara [which embraces much more than the western concept of ego] is "in essence, that part of 'me' that knows which parts of universal creation are 'me'. It is my unique vibration to which all physical parts of 'me' resonate... all parts of creation have ahamkara, not just human beings."

It then goes on to talk about ahamkara giving rise to a twofold creation, where sattva comprises the subjective world which can perceive and manipulate matter, and tamas, the objective world...


I've written enough i feel for you to confirm it's a pile of tosh, or to reevaluate your reactions, and for any other interested posters to take as they wish to take it all. I find it fascinating because it starts to afford the glimpses of the world that language cannot describe, yet we only have language to try and lead us to this dimension of knowing and understanding. In other words, one can only use the language of description as a starting point, and can only go further depending on one's own experiences and understandings of life, and how far down the journey they've gone towards answering the grand question, 'what does it [life] all mean?

 

[fela fan]

Nope, still arguing for biologial determinism, that our behaviours are innate and not learned...obv there's a lot of debate around this point, but it's shifted from the nature vs nurture to 'nature & nuture, how to they interact to make a person' which looks at how our biology and physical living can affect how&what we learn, and also how we use those lessons (which in turn has an effect on our bodies)...but nothing innate in us...

I am NOT arguing for biological determinism. I was not saying that we can have non-suffering from innate behaviours. I very much am saying that it is something that is available to us as humans. I have not said how it might be available, and that was why i was careful to use the passive voice. You just make a leap out of what you thought was there in my posts. It wasn't though.

Nature and nurture, and how they interact, yes, fine. But there's more than both of course...

 

[kyser_soze]

That either isn't Samkhya their talking about, it's a bad translation, or the person who has written it has got the wrong end of the stick about purusha and prakriti, how they interact etc. Or that it's lifted from Vedic or later schools of thought. For example:

Primordial energy gives rise to cosmic consciousness or intelligence, which is the universal order that pervades life. Your individual intelligence, which is different from your everyday intellectual mind, is derived from and is part of this cosmic consciousness.

Confuses two ideas. The second bit is correct - individual consciousness is a part of purusha inhabiting an evolute of the prakriti. However, nothing gives rise to purusha - the pure consciousness that inhabits prakriti and makes it sentient - it simply is - 'it cannot be made, cannot be changed, it is absolute, independent, free, imperceptible, unknowable, above any experience and beyond any words or explanation. It remains pure, “nonattributive consciousness ”. Purusha is neither produced nor does it produce'...

So, your book gets it's terms wrong (it's primordial nature or matter that evolves that makes up the prakrtiti, not energy), and it seems to be doing a bit of mixing and matching of it's own accord.

Also, the terms sattva, rajas and tamas refer to characteristics of inanimate matter, as well as being discreet forms of evolution in the development of animate, and later sentient, intelligence. Ahamkara is almost identical to 'I' in the Western sense in this case.

So I think your author has got a bit confused in their interpretation. Samkhya as an example of philosophy, it's a pretty decent fist at explaining I, the world and how both come to be and exist, but your author has turned a very succinct and logical set of ideas into something cod-mystical with all this talk of energy.

So a lot like Hegel, but not. Plus it's a dualist philosophy, which I tend to regard with suspicion these days...

 

[kyser_soze]

I am NOT arguing for biological determinism. I was not saying that we can have non-suffering from innate behaviours. I very much am saying that it is something that is available to us as humans. I have not said how it might be available, and that was why i was careful to use the passive voice. You just make a leap out of what you thought was there in my posts. It wasn't though.

Nature and nurture, and how they interact, yes, fine. But there's more than both of course...

When i said 'genes' i was communicating in the here and now, and perhaps should just have said in our body, in our make-up, whatever.

Read what you've written - what should I take 'in our body' to mean if it's not about biological systems? Why use the word 'genes' in the first place then? You're throwing terms around without thinking about what they mean here - behaviour that comes from our genes would be innate, no?

Can I just add that Samkhya doesn't place a limit on knowledge? Which is interesting.

 

[fela fan]

That either isn't Samkhya their talking about, it's a bad translation, or the person who has written it has got the wrong end of the stick about purusha and prakriti, how they interact etc. Or that it's lifted from Vedic or later schools of thought. For example:

Since i still haven't learnt the art of selective quoting i'll do it this way...

It is Sankhya, but it not Samkhya, that they are talking about. It might be a bad translation, only those fluent in both languages would be able to know. Those two terms, purusha and prakriti, are not mentioned. The context is in how a knowledge of Sankhya can support one's understanding of how ayurveda works. It's written by an american woman.

 

[fela fan]

Confuses two ideas. The second bit is correct - individual consciousness is a part of purusha inhabiting an evolute of the prakriti. However, nothing gives rise to purusha - the pure consciousness that inhabits prakriti and makes it sentient - it simply is - 'it cannot be made, cannot be changed, it is absolute, independent, free, imperceptible, unknowable, above any experience and beyond any words or explanation. It remains pure, “nonattributive consciousness ”. Purusha is neither produced nor does it produce'...

So, your book gets it's terms wrong (it's primordial nature or matter that evolves that makes up the prakrtiti, not energy), and it seems to be doing a bit of mixing and matching of it's own accord.

You are asking me to take your word on this more than the word of the author of my book. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but i find it interesting how certain you can be, generally, about such concepts of life, and how life unfolds itself. Contrary to popular belief here on urban i've done my own vast tonnage of reading in my life, and the only certainties i find i can talk about are my own direct experiences. Furthermore, it seems that the more one comes to know about life, the less one knows. But here i separate 'know' and 'understand' as different concepts. I think true wisdom is being certain about nothing in life except what one has experienced oneself.

I had intended to do a lot more research on sankhya when i first read this brief summary of it. I forgot. I shall do so now, and i'd like to discover my own ideas of what purusha and pakriti (based on what texts say about them and then applied to my own experiences and understandings of life). But based on the description you give of purusha, if it's unknowable, how do you know about it? And on whose texts have you read about purusha and pakriti that allows you to totally accept what they say, so much so that you are here quoting it all as fact to me? I don't see how you can accept ANYTHING in its entirety unless you have your own direct experience of it. And i know you're not that old in this case...

As for my book, the ideas it put forward i found fascinating. I did not manage to fully access it all, some of it confused me, but i had yet to find out if this was down to me, or the author.

 

[fela fan]

So I think your author has got a bit confused in their interpretation. Samkhya as an example of philosophy, it's a pretty decent fist at explaining I, the world and how both come to be and exist, but your author has turned a very succinct and logical set of ideas into something cod-mystical with all this talk of energy.

So a lot like Hegel, but not. Plus it's a dualist philosophy, which I tend to regard with suspicion these days...

How can talk about energy be 'cod-mystical'?? It is very difficult to argue against the whole world, and everything in it, simply being energy.

You should regard duality with suspicion. And based on your claims for the things you discovered so early in life i'm surprised you've only recently started being suspicious. Non-suffering is learnt outside of language constraints. Same with duality. Language cannot take people into non-suffering, and it cannot take people out of duality. This notion of understanding and experiencing things in our lives that cannot be put down into language is one of the reasons i liked the concept of Sankhya as i read about it.

It seems to me there are two polar ways of trying to tackle life in a 'philosophical' manner: read the theory (ie what others have thought, and/or declared to be true) and then try and live according to it, or get out and about and do loads of experiencing of life oneself, then read about the theory and see how it fits one's own understandings that have been gleaned from one's experiences. People will fit somewhere in that continuum. I prefer to be near the pole of the latter. Many people here seem to come from the other pole. That's fine. But i think it is at the root of most of the crap that comes my way, or others' way when they post here.

 

[fela fan]

Can I just add that Samkhya doesn't place a limit on knowledge? Which is interesting.

Nor should it do so. I don't. Do you? But i will say that knowledge can only take you so far. Knowledge as in what's in all the books, the stuff that can be learnt by rote, the stuff that can be argued about, the stuff that needs the memory to be working... the academic, intellectual stuff.

Knowledge is no guarantee of understanding and articulation.

 

[kyser_soze]

How can talk about energy be 'cod-mystical'??

Anything that imbues energy with consciousness or sentience is cod-mysticism.

Nor should it do so. I don't. Do you? But i will say that knowledge can only take you so far. Knowledge as in what's in all the books, the stuff that can be learnt by rote, the stuff that can be argued about, the stuff that needs the memory to be working... the academic, intellectual stuff.

Well I know that it's not possible to measure both the direction and velocity of an electron at the same time. So there's a limit on knowledge.

You should regard duality with suspicion.

In which case why are so enamoured of samkhya? It's a dualist system.

But based on the description you give of purusha, if it's unknowable, how do you know about it? And on whose texts have you read about purusha and pakriti that allows you to totally accept what they say, so much so that you are here quoting it all as fact to me? I don't see how you can accept ANYTHING in its entirety unless you have your own direct experience of it

Re: purusha - about 30 or so posts ago, you suggested that I should go and research samkhya for myself. This I duly did, using wiki as my base, and looking at the resources of a Hindu guru and an Indian university theology department. All three gave the same basic definition of purusha, which I then reported back on here. All those things I wrote are not my opinion they are simply the philosophical/belief system called samkhya. My point is that the author of your book has taken something that is relatively straightforward as a philosophical system and, if that paragraph you quoted from is anything to go by, run it through a mangler of personal misunderstanding and bad prose.

What's the book BTW? That you had seen neither prakriti or purusha before this, and given that they are listed as the two fundamental concepts of samkhya on all three of the sources I looked at, I'd say that it's the author of your book who is at fault.

 

[fela fan]

What's the book BTW? That you had seen neither prakriti or purusha before this, and given that they are listed as the two fundamental concepts of samkhya on all three of the sources I looked at, I'd say that it's the author of your book who is at fault.

Like i said earlier, the little bit that it covered made me interested in the philosophy so much so that my plan was to look into it more. Then the combination of time and memory, and living life, took over and i forgot.

The book is actually an excellent one for those interested in the topic of ayurveda, and interested in using this ancient health system to help them lead a more healthy and happy life. Typically people who can no longer take for granted their body start looking at ways to live more healthily. The author of this book quoted Sankhya as a way of better understanding the basis of ayurveda, but mentioned it was not necessary. Only four pages were devoted to sankhya.

Anything to do with 'cosmic consciousness', ie something in life that is undefinable, yet understandable, and omnipresent in the natural world, interests me. I well know from my work and my life's experiences the limitations posed by language when trying to understand the life we have been born with.

Assuming the author of my book is at fault, and i'll look into that more later, it neatly illustrates the problems of accepting anything at full face value, even hindi mystics/gurus, or respected western philosophers.