samkhya and buddhism

7/29/2019 Samkhya and Buddhism

1/20

Samkhya and Buddhism


2/20

50.1. Samkhya and Samkhya-like ideas certainly predateemergence of Buddhism. One of the teachers of the Buddha is saidto have taught a doctrine that resembled Samkhya. There arecertain similarities between Samkhya and the early Buddhism. It islikely each influenced the other, in their later stages. That does nothowever mean that Buddhism is the same as Samkhya. Theirdissimilarities are perhaps more significant than their similarities.

50.2. The similarities between Samkhya and the early Buddhismcould briefly be mentioned as: acceptance of the notion that life ischaracterized by suffering; rejection of the notion of absoluteGod; rejection of the concept of soul; emphasis on individual ratheron cosmic; similarity in the theories of evolution; similarity in theview of the world as a constantly becoming and changingphenomena;acceptance of the concept of Gunas; acceptance ofthe Satkarya vadathat the effect resides in its cause; similarity inenumeration of the basic elements or components of nature;similarity in the notions of liberation kaivalyaor nirvana; rejectionof both the Vedic authority and the validity of rituals; rejection ofextreme practices and self torture etc.

50.3. In each of these similarities the Buddhist projections appearmore radical or perhaps more elaborate. Having said that let mealso mention that such similarities are not unique to Samkhya andBuddhism alone. One finds such features generally among otherancient Indian Schools too. For instance, the adoption ofenumeration of various components of nature was a well acceptedmethod among other systems of thought; rejection of Vedic

authority and its ritualistic attitude was also a feature of otherrational schools; the notion of aloofness kaivalyaabsoluteindependence was also the ideal of Jains. Similarly, the theories ofKarma, Gunas and such other beliefs were commonly accepted bymost schools.

50.4. But one similarity which is rather striking is the emphasison Dukkhasuffering and its eradication. That was the stated

objective of both the systems. Buddhism however made that thecentral point of its doctrine. The Buddhas second and the fourth


3/20

postulates on the origination of sorrow and the methods ofelimination of sorrow are his original contribution to Indianthought; the former being his philosophical stand point and thelatter his religious system.

50.5. The other distinctive characteristics of Buddhism are theemphasis on compassion and ethics. . The Buddha asserted that itis not adequate if one merely focuses on elimination of suffering;but one must acquire the skill of probing the nature of the object.Those efforts must essentially be rooted in ethics and a wholesomemental state. The cultivation of the four sublime virtues of loving-kindness, compassion, empathetic Joy, and equanimity is of great

importance.

50.6. The Samkhya abandons the idea of the existence of theabsolute, but it retains the idea of spirit (Purusha) and of materialworld (Prakrti); the Buddhism, on the other hand abandoned boththese two conceptions, and retained only the fleeting series ofmental states (stream of consciousness) as a quasi reality, In eithercase there is effort to disown the human psycho-physical

apparatus and its functioning.

51.1. Samkhya teaches that we should look beyond our personalaffinities with Prakrti and realize the timeless unchanging nature ofour true self, which resides beyond Prakrti as Purusha the pureconsciousness. This realization can be understood as the reverseprocess of evolution back into the Purusha. Whereuponthe Purusha is established in its own nature as kaivalyasolitary and

independent, indifferently observing the natural world.

51.2. Early Buddhism as also Samkhya attempted to do away withthe illusion that empherical ego is the real Self; though the Buddharemained silent on the question of Self as also on the question ofnirvana. But, the Buddhas studious disapproval of metaphysicaldiscussion on these aspects did not seem to have yielded theresults he desired. Because, his silence spurred series of

speculations in the later Buddhist Schools; and caused muchconfusion and bewilderment.


4/20

51.3 . The nature of Nirvana is perhaps the most debated issue ofBuddhist philosophy, probably because the Buddha himselfrefused to speculate on it. His attitude was, in effect: If you want toknow what nirvana is like, then experience it. Butclearly Nirvana does not involve the isolation of a pureconsciousness as in the case of Samkhya, because there is nosuch thing as permanent consciousness in early Buddhism. Theunique feature of Buddhism is that there is no permanent Self at all,and never was; there are only five skandhas, "heaps" of elements,which constantly interact. It is significant that the skandhasdo notconstitute a Self; the sense of a Self is merely an illusion created bytheir interaction. The Buddha emphasized that one should not

identify anything as the Self.

X. Samkhya and Vedanta

52.1. Even prior to the emergence of Samkhya as a system , the

Samkhya-like ideas and terms appeared in the Vedas, Upanishads,the Bhagavad-Gita, the epics and other texts .This suggests thatthe monistic trends in Vedic thought and dualistic concepts ofSamkhya had common origins.

52.2. But Samkhya as a doctrine was ever distinct from the Vedicstream of speculative intutions. The early Samkhya, in sharpcontrast, refused to speculate on god and rejected the scriptures

and rituals as means for human attainments. It stepped asidecosmological explanations or implications. It affirmed theexistence of the objective-world; emphasized the world has to beunderstood in the context of human existence; and said the worldis inextricably wound up with the presence of human existence.One has to therefore deal with the world positively.

52.3. The Samkhya separated itself from the scripture- based

Vedanta and preferred to be a group of reason-based free thinkerswith only a loose scriptural affiliation. But the Samkhya never


5/20

rejected the Veda completely unlike the Buddhists and the Jains;but maintained that Vedas cannot be accepted as unquestionedsole authority. Besides, the Samkhya brand of atheism nevercollapsed into the materialism of Charvakas and naturalists

(Lokayatas). Samkhya always maintained spiritual and salvation-oriented outlook.

52.4. Though both the Upanishads and Samkhya identifiedknowledge (jnana) and effective discrimination (viveka) as themeans for attaining human aspirations, which is realizing onestrue identity, Samkhya was dualistic to its core whereas theUpanishads adopted a non-dual approach saying that the absolute

consciousness encompasses the entire universe, everything thatresides in it is but a transformation of that principle.

53.1. The Samkhya insisted that the individual consciousness, thetrue identity of man , is distinct from everything else and there areinfinite number of such unit consciousness. It said consciousness(Purusha) which sees the world (Prakrti) is separate from what itsees. It asserted that confusing the seer for the seen or mixing both

is the cause for mans suffering.

53.2. Vedanta, on the other hand, asserted the notion of identity ofthe individual consciousness and the Universal consciousness. Itdeclared that the entire manifest universe is an expression ortransformation of that absolute consciousness. Vedanta sharplydiffered from the Samkhya theory of evolution of the manifest worldas emanating through a series of causes and effects.

53.3. Samkhya maintains two independent realities and infinitenumbers of Purushas. Vedanta does not accept two infinites andmultiplicity of Souls.

The extreme form of dualism between subject and object was seenas a basic inadequacy of Samkhya as it left no room for

coexistence of the two categories.


6/20

53.4. The later variations of the Samkhya School attempted toresolve these difficulties by (1) conceiving Purushas not as distinctfrom each other, but as various aspects or reflections of oneunitary consciousness; and (2) conceiving prakrti not as distinctfrom this unified consciousness, but as an aspect of it. But this, ofcourse, transformed Samkhya into a completely different system,because it gives up the basic dualism of Purusha and Prakrti.

53.5. With these modifications Samkhya came to resemble themonistic system of Sri Shankara. It was also rendered theistic withSamkhya accepting the existence of a Supreme Being (ParamaPurusha) the God. But, these adaptations rendered Samkhyaacceptable to Vedic Schools; and Samkhya came to be regarded,since about the sixteenth century, as one of the six acceptedSchools of traditional Indian philosophies (Darshana).

53.6. With or without its modifications Samkhya is a very importantSchool of thought; and has contributed to the richness, profundityand breadth of the Indian philosophy. The explanations andelaborations offered by most other Schools of Indian thought arebased in the foundations provided by the terms and conceptsprovided by the Samkhya. Swami Vivekananda in his exposition ofSamkhya philosophy aptly remarked, If we take into considerationAdvaita Vedanta, then our argument will be that the Samkhya is nota perfect generalization ...and yet all glory really belongs to theSamkhya. It is very easy to give a finishing touch to a buildingwhen it is constructed."

Y. Kaivalya, Nirvanaand Moksha

54.1. Samkhya, Buddhism and Vedanta are the three mostimportant philosophical systems. The three together representalmost the whole of Indian philosophies. Nearly every shade ofmetaphysical discussion revolves round these three pillars. Theymay also be viewed as three basic ways of resolving the relation


7/20

that exists between God and world; Man and God; Man and world;and in general the nature of relation between subject and object.

54.2. All the three systems regard realizing ones true identity andgaining release from suffering of all sorts as the goal of humanevolution. There are similarities as also differences among thethree modes of enquiry. All the three instruct the individual toavoid identifying with any physical or mental phenomenon butto let-goall identities. All three agree that enlightenment variouslycalled as kaivalya, nirvana or moksha-is not an intellectualconstruct. They point out that liberation cannot be attainedthrough theoretical knowledge of the scriptures because it is a

state that is beyond all categories of thought. In other words,enlightenment or liberation is beyond philosophies. Enlightenmentis an experience.

55.1. The question is: since all the three systems regardenlightenment as a state beyond intellect, are they all referring tothe same experience or whether there are different kinds ofenlightenment?

That question arises because the basic tenets and methods of thethree systems are irreconcilably different.Samkhya is dualistic, theearly Buddhism may be considered pluralistic, while AdvaitaVedanta is monistic.

55.2. Samkhya is the most radical possible dualism between

subject and its object. The separation between the two (Purushaand Prakrti) is so extreme that the system-connect virtually failsbecause the two neither can come together nor communicate witheach other.

55.3. Early Buddhism attempts to combine subject into object.Consciousness according to Buddhism has no independentexistence; it is something that is conditioned and arising out of the

interaction with other factors (skandas). Buddhism does notbelieve in a permanent Self. The Self is merely an illusion created


8/20


9/20

known is obliterated .It is akin to the Advaita ideal of realizing thewhole universe as the Self.

56.2. The term Nirvana derived from the root va(to blow like thewind) qualified by a negative prefix nirdenotes a state ofmotionless rest where no wind blows, where the fire has beenquenched, where the light is extinguished and where the stars havegone out .The Buddha explained it with a simile of an oil-lampsinking upon itself and expiring when its fuel has been consumed.Nirvana suggests a state of emptiness and nothingness. At thesame time Nirvana is described as a state of blessedness, unboundpeace and deliverance.

Nirvana is characterized as a state beyond conditionedconsciousness.The Buddha however refused to speculate on thenature of it. We therefore do not really know how the Buddhaunderstood Nirvana. The Pali Canon speaks of a state beyond allconceptual thoughts; and yet, it could be experienced inmeditation.

But nirvana does not seem to involve the isolation of a pureconsciousness, (as in the case of Samkhya) because such conceptis not present in the early Buddhism. The concept of a permanentSelf is also not there.The Buddha emphasized that one should notidentify anything as the Self. Nirvana , in essence is completefreedom by abandoning all sensations, all perceptions, all volitions,and acts of consciousness. It is a state of bliss which is entirelydifferent from and free from all that exists in the Samsara.

The Buddhist Nirvana is not the eternal essence, which is the basisof everything and from which the whole world has arisen (like theBrahman of the Upanishads) but the reverse of all that we know,something altogether different which must be characterized as anothing in relation to the world, but which is experienced ashighest bliss by those who have attained to it (Anguttara Nikaya,Navaka-nipata 34).


10/20

56.3. Vedanta says Brahman is One without a second; Brahman isunbound there is nothing outside it. For Sri Shankara, moksha,liberation, is the realization that I am, and always have been,Brahman. One does not attain or merge with this Brahman; one

merely realizes that one has always been Brahman. Sri Shankarauses the analogy of the space within a closed jar: that space hasalways been one with all space; their separateness is nothing butthe illusion.

57.1. On the face of it the early Buddhism and Vedanta appear tohave serious differences. While Buddhism does not believe in aSelf, Vedanta says everything is the Self. There is apparently no

consciousness in nirvana, but everything is consciousnessin moksha. The one appears to be the mirror image of theother.They are extreme positions, trying to resolve the relationbetween the Self and the non-self by conflating the one into theother. The not-self of Buddhism holds within it the Self; while theSelf of Advaita swallows the not-self.

57. 2. How different are they? Or do they mean the same thing inreverse?

It perhaps depends on the way one looks at it. In either case thereis no duality between the object (that which is observed) or thesubject (that which observes).If you look at it in another way thereis not a great deal of difference between the two systems.

In both the systems the right understanding is the key to salvation.It is the right understanding that liberates. In Vedanta, one does notattain or merge with this Brahman; one merely realizes that one hasalways been Brahman. Similarly in Buddhism too one does notachieve anything new, but realizes ones true nature (or Buddhanature) as being always been pure and unstained. All that oneneeds to do is to realize that fact.


11/20

The concept of Shunya emptiness of later Buddhism is ratherfascinating. Shunyatatranscends human thoughts and speech. InMahayana Buddhism shunyata, emptiness not merely refers to theabsence of a Self but is also the fundamental characteristic of all

reality; shunyatais the category which corresponds to the Vedantaconcept of Brahman.

57.3. But can shunyatabe reconciled with the One without asecond?

Yes, it can be done. The explanation offered is that there is

essentially only one thing; and to put it more accurately it is noteven one in the numerical sense. We cannot say that it is One, yet,we cannot say it is not one, not two or not any number. The termselected by Vedanta to give expression to its idea of Reality is: itis not two (a-dvaita).

To call it One is just a way of saying that it is a unity and there isnothing outside it -- no duality of a subject and an object. The it

(tat) would not even be aware of itself as being one or being alone.It is absolute wholeness. In another way of saying, because there isnothing outside it, its phenomenal experience would be of nothingor nothing, which is shunyata.

58.1. There are some passages in the Pali Canon which almostsound Vedanta- like. Its language too resemble the mysticism ofVedanta

There is Oh disciples an unborn, unoriginated, uncreated andunformed. Were it not there Oh disciples,.. there would be no

possibility of existence of the world of the born, generated, createdand formed.(Udana 8.3)


12/20

The great ocean is deep, immeasurable and unfathomable..So alsothe Perfect One is deep, immeasurable and unfathomable as the

great ocean.(Samyutta Nikaya 4)

58.2. The Buddha emphasized that nirvana is neither annihilationnor eternal life. In the Brahmanimantanika Sutra (Majjhima-Nikaya), the Buddha said: Do not think that this [nirvana] is anempty or void state. There is this consciousness, withoutdistinguishing mark, infinite and shining everywhere (Vinnanamanidassanam anantam sabbato-pabham);it is untouched by thematerial elements and not subject to any power.

On another occasion the Buddha describes the state of an Arhantthe one who has realized;

He who has gone to rest, no measure can fathom him.

There is no word to speak of him.

What thought could grasp has blown away.

And every path to speech is barred.

(Suttanipata)

58.3. Just as there are passages in the Pali Canonwhich sound likeVedanta, so there are passages in the Upanishads which seemBuddhist-like. Perhaps the most famous among them isYajnavalkya's instruction to his wife Maitreyi in the BrhadaranyakaUpanishad: "Arising out of these elements (bhuta), into them alsoone vanishes away. After death there is no consciousness (napretya samjna 'sti)...."

Yajnavalkya explains: For where there is a duality, as it were (iva),there one sees another.... But when, verily, everything has becomejust one's own self, then what could one see and through what...

Through what could one know that owing to which all this is


13/20

known? So, through what could one understand the Understander?This Self... is imperceptible, for it is never perceived. (II. iv. 12-15)

Thus, the notions of infinity and nothingness appear in both thesystems. Nothingness is an image or a reflection of the infinity.

59.1. But, why did Sri Shankara preferred to speak of the One andthe Buddha of nothingness?

It seems that the answer to this lies in the nature of their

philosophies. In referring to Brahman as One without a second, SriShankara tries to describe reality from outside, as it were, becausethat is the only perspective from which it can be understood asOne. Sri Shankara was basically a philosopher; and as allphilosophers do, he looks upon the whole of reality objectively andto comprehend its structure. It is as if the philosophizing intellecttakes a look at the whole of existence from outside of it.

59.2. But the Buddha was describing his experience. He realizedthat one cannot get outside of reality and describe it as an object;because one is inseparable from that reality. He also believed toomuch philosophizing and clinging to ideas is an obstruction toenlightenment. He advocated meditation as a process to let goallattachments, even the attachment to ideas and concepts.

59.3. But both the savants accept that conceptual thinking is part of

the problem; not in itself the way to enlightenment. If one acceptsthat the goal is to attain liberation rather than to understand it, thenphilosophy too must ultimately be transcended or let go.Philosophy might try to view things externally, but ultimately it isones experience that really matters.

59.4. Can nirvanaor mokshabe experienced? I do not know. But itappears these states suggest a condition where the boundaries of

individual identity would simply dissolve. It would perhaps be a


14/20

complete absence of tension and effort, a letting goof all identitiesand of everything that was previously clung to; and one wouldeventually become that everything which in fact one always was.

60.1. In summary, the difference between the Buddhist nirvanaandthe Vedantic mokshais one of perspective. The Vedantaexplanation -- that of realizing ones true identity -is a philosophicalview. The Buddhist interpretation of letting go all identities isobjective description. But in each case the actual experienceappears to be the same. Ones experience is the truest test of all, asSri Shankara observed.

Duality is a normal reality of experience.. So Samkhya

talks of a framework to link up with the dual world as elementisingbecomes logical and reasonable..and easier to comprehend.

Advaita is an unusual reality... an abstract experience and perhapscan be obtained in a particular state. You cant understand it as

even elemntaising of a whole kills the essence.

Buddhism is like Samkhya as it does not delve on question of godand is very practical to remove dukkha... and so is Samkhya.

All theses are true but in different locations... and if all locationsexist within us...all these are true...as experiential realities.

So one does not contradict the other.

DSampath


15/20

The Links to other Parts;

Samkhya: Part One: The Beginnings

Samkhya: Part Two: Samkhya Teachers

Samkhya: Part Three: Samkhya Texts and Samkhya Traditions

Samkhya: Part Four: Samkhya Karika

Samkhya: Part Five: Samkhya Karika continued

Samkhya: Part Six: Samkhya - Buddhism - Vedanta

References and sources

Vedanta and Buddhism

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/vonglasenapp/wheel002.html

Enlightenment in Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-AN/26715.htm

CreativeNirvanaVedantaBuddhism

All Comments on this article

Sreenivasarao S/ 4 yrs ago
http://ssubbanna.sulekha.com/blog/post/2009/10/samkhya-part-one-the-beginnings.htmhttp://ssubbanna.sulekha.com/blog/post/2009/10/samkhya-part-one-the-beginnings.htmhttp://ssubbanna.sulekha.com/blog/post/2009/10/samkhya-part-two-samkhya-teachers.htmhttp://ssubbanna.sulekha.com/blog/post/2009/10/samkhya-part-two-samkhya-teachers.htmhttp://ssubbanna.sulekha.com/blog/post/2009/10/samkhya-part-three-samkhya-texts-and-samkhya-traditions.htmhttp://ssubbanna.sulekha.com/blog/post/2009/10/samkhya-part-three-samkhya-texts-and-samkhya-traditions.htmhttp://ssubbanna.sulekha.com/blog/post/2009/10/samkhya-part-four-samkhya-karika.htmhttp://ssubbanna.sulekha.com/blog/post/2009/10/samkhya-part-four-samkhya-karika.htmhttp://ssubbanna.sulekha.com/blog/post/2009/10/samkhya-part-five-samkhya-karika-continued.htmhttp://ssubbanna.sulekha.com/blog/post/2009/10/samkhya-part-five-samkhya-karika-continued.htmhttp://ssubbanna.sulekha.com/blog/post/2009/10/samkhya-part-five-samkhya-karika-continued.htmhttp://ssubbanna.sulekha.com/blog/post/2009/10/samkhya-part-five-samkhya-karika-continued.htmhttp://ssubbanna.sulekha.com/blog/post/2009/10/samkhya-part-five-samkhya-karika-continued.htmhttp://ssubbanna.sulekha.com/blog/post/2009/11/samkhya-part-six-samkhya-buddhism-vedanta.htmhttp://ssubbanna.sulekha.com/blog/post/2009/11/samkhya-part-six-samkhya-buddhism-vedanta.htmhttp://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/vonglasenapp/wheel002.htmlhttp://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/vonglasenapp/wheel002.htmlhttp://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-AN/26715.htmhttp://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-AN/26715.htmhttp://creative.sulekha.com/creative_1_taghttp://creative.sulekha.com/vedanta_11012_taghttp://creative.sulekha.com/vedanta_11012_taghttp://rivr.sulekha.com/sreenivasarao-s_1308157http://rivr.sulekha.com/sreenivasarao-s_1308157http://rivr.sulekha.com/sreenivasarao-s_1308157http://creative.sulekha.com/vedanta_11012_taghttp://creative.sulekha.com/vedanta_11012_taghttp://creative.sulekha.com/creative_1_taghttp://creative.sulekha.com/creative_1_taghttp://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-AN/26715.htmhttp://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/vonglasenapp/wheel002.htmlhttp://ssubbanna.sulekha.com/blog/post/2009/11/samkhya-part-six-samkhya-buddhism-vedanta.htmhttp://ssubbanna.sulekha.com/blog/post/2009/10/samkhya-part-five-samkhya-karika-continued.htmhttp://ssubbanna.sulekha.com/blog/post/2009/10/samkhya-part-four-samkhya-karika.htmhttp://ssubbanna.sulekha.com/blog/post/2009/10/samkhya-part-three-samkhya-texts-and-samkhya-traditions.htmhttp://ssubbanna.sulekha.com/blog/post/2009/10/samkhya-part-two-samkhya-teachers.htmhttp://ssubbanna.sulekha.com/blog/post/2009/10/samkhya-part-one-the-beginnings.htm


16/20

Dear Shri Subrahmanian, That was a very valid observation. Thank you for mentioning it.I think , I

should include it in the blog for benifit of all readers. Thank you.Regards.

Comment

Subrahmanian V/ 4 yrs ago

Dear Rao,

There is this very nice verse that summarises the evolutionary path that leads to the SupremeSystem: Advaita:

(I think this verse is from the Sankshepa shArIraka)

[In Vedanta doctrine, the precursor to VivartavAdaH (Advaita) is the PariNAmavAda of Saankhya.

When one is well grounded in the PariNAma concept, the vivarta concept crystallizes all by itself.]

The satkArya vAda of sAnkhya is explained thus: the effect resides in the cause as effect.The satkArya vAda of Vedanta (Advaita) is: the effect resides in the cause AS CAUSE. This major

difference makes Vedanta a kevala Brahma vAda; the effect being a mere appearance of the cause

itself, vivarta.

Best regards and thanks for that fine series,

subbu

Comment

Ushasuryamani/ 4 yrs ago

Shree Rao

"I am sorry you had to read them over and again to drum some sense out of the posts." Actually this

was only due to my "Dumb" buddhi !! You have written so well...I have to raise myself to that level to

understand this..

A friend of mine gave me a copy of The treatise on Lalitha Sahasranama by Swami Chitbhavananda .

some how I found it rather complicated. Sri Kanchi Paramacharya gives a very simple and

graspable(hope there is such a wod !!) explanation of the naamaas. So does a lady named Sudha

Seshayyan..She writes very well.
http://rivr.sulekha.com/subrahmanian-v_1763221http://rivr.sulekha.com/subrahmanian-v_1763221http://rivr.sulekha.com/ushasuryamani_1289058http://rivr.sulekha.com/ushasuryamani_1289058http://rivr.sulekha.com/ushasuryamani_1289058http://rivr.sulekha.com/subrahmanian-v_1763221http://rivr.sulekha.com/sreenivasarao-s_1308157http://rivr.sulekha.com/ushasuryamani_1289058http://rivr.sulekha.com/subrahmanian-v_1763221http://rivr.sulekha.com/sreenivasarao-s_1308157http://rivr.sulekha.com/ushasuryamani_1289058http://rivr.sulekha.com/subrahmanian-v_1763221http://rivr.sulekha.com/sreenivasarao-s_1308157http://rivr.sulekha.com/ushasuryamani_1289058http://rivr.sulekha.com/subrahmanian-v_1763221


17/20

Comment


Dearushasuryamani, yes, as you mentioned Samkhya is rather complicated as compared to

Advaita. Samkhya with its variations is a many layered maze. It not easy either to

understand it or to interpret it to everyones satisfaction. Add to that my own inadequacies.

I admire your patience in reading all the six parts. I am sorry you had to read them over and

again to drum some sense out of the posts. I share your regard and enormous reverence for

Sri Sankara, his ideals, achievements and his relevance to the Traditional Religion. Please

keep talking. Regards

Comment

Ushasuryamani/ 4 yrs ago

Sree Rao

I have been reading all the posts twice & thrice.

Samkhya is rather complicated and in comparison Adwaitha is more lucid.

True, what you have said. Sree Shankara did not drive out Buddhism. People would have found iteasier to follow Adwaitha & Dwaitha than a complicated vague philosophy of Buddhism ( vague- not

the Buddhist philosophy..but the human mind which could not comprehend the Buddhist

philosophy.Shree Shankara, Madhwacharya and Ramanuja made Bhakthi & philosophy easier.

But when I think of Sree Sankara I am in awe.

My father gave me a copy of Viveka Chudamani & used to talk a lot about His Philosophy.

But when I think of Shankara, all ideas of philosophy vanish from my mind. I can only see and

experience to a certain extent, His Bhakthi.His establishing of Shanmathas..His Bhaja Govindam, the

Soundarya Lahari, Sivananda Lahari..

As they say, in Kaliyuga we don't need any homams, or yagaas or philosophy. The mere utterance of

Bhagwan Nama is enough to carry us through.When Bhakthi floods the heart and mind, philosophyjust happens. Self analysis vanishes. Self too vanishes.And every day turns out to be a day with

God..be it Rama or Krishna or Siva or Sakthi. They become part of us and we do keep experiencing

nirvana at the most unexpected moments.

Thank you Shree Rao...

your posts are making me think a lot...

Comment

N K Ravi/ 4 yrs ago
http://rivr.sulekha.com/sreenivasarao-s_1308157http://rivr.sulekha.com/sreenivasarao-s_1308157http://ushasuryamani.sulekha.com/http://ushasuryamani.sulekha.com/http://ushasuryamani.sulekha.com/http://rivr.sulekha.com/ushasuryamani_1289058http://rivr.sulekha.com/ushasuryamani_1289058http://rivr.sulekha.com/n-k-ravi_1442915http://rivr.sulekha.com/n-k-ravi_1442915http://rivr.sulekha.com/n-k-ravi_1442915http://rivr.sulekha.com/ushasuryamani_1289058http://rivr.sulekha.com/sreenivasarao-s_1308157http://rivr.sulekha.com/n-k-ravi_1442915http://rivr.sulekha.com/ushasuryamani_1289058http://rivr.sulekha.com/sreenivasarao-s_1308157http://rivr.sulekha.com/n-k-ravi_1442915http://rivr.sulekha.com/ushasuryamani_1289058http://rivr.sulekha.com/sreenivasarao-s_1308157http://rivr.sulekha.com/n-k-ravi_1442915http://rivr.sulekha.com/ushasuryamani_1289058http://ushasuryamani.sulekha.com/http://rivr.sulekha.com/sreenivasarao-s_1308157


18/20

Dear Rao,

on the point explained by Sampath Sir - it is true Buddhism is very similar to Samkhya . As I

understand both of them reject God - but Buddhism rejects Purusha and Prakirti too.On Atma

question also there is a difference.Both of them belong to almost same time period and talks of

Mukthi.Almost 1200 years later may be Sankara's advocacy of Vedanta - had to bring the absolute

element to negate Buddhism which was anti brahmnical.In order deal with Buddhism he chose to rope

in Samkhya as an ally.

No doubt the credit goes to to the original frame work of Samkiya Karikai by Eswara Krishnan - on

which it is easier to develop further thought processes and make a building on the foundation.It was

the need of the time that philosophers emerge with thoughts of relative time frame of civilization and

impact of other sciences that develop along.

Once an Arab was boasting to an Indian Muslim lawyer friend of mine in the club that all great

prophets be it Mohammed or Jesus - or Jewish thoughts all emerged from middle east.And this chap

who was his colleague in the law firm retorted - You guys needed them - because you were barbaric

and uncivilized.

If a prophet were to reappear today in Middle east I am sure he would re write the religion.

Comment


Dear Shri Sampath .I am glad you read. I agree, each system in its context is true. They

represent different perspectives of the same reality; and there is no real contradiction. You

might not have agreed with all that I said about Samkhya. That is understandable for two

reasons: One Samkhya is a many-layered maze, it is not easy to interpret; and the second is

my own inadequacies in understanding the subject and putting it across lucidly. As , I

mentioned at the commencement of the series , those who are familiar with Samkhya find

these articles rather inadequate or even flawed; while those who are new to the subject find

these just tedious. I think, I will take a relook at these after a while and see how they look

from a distance in time. Thank you for reading these articles. Please keep talking. Regards

Comment

http://rivr.sulekha.com/sreenivasarao-s_1308157http://rivr.sulekha.com/sreenivasarao-s_1308157http://rivr.sulekha.com/sreenivasarao-s_1308157http://rivr.sulekha.com/sreenivasarao-s_1308157http://rivr.sulekha.com/sreenivasarao-s_1308157http://rivr.sulekha.com/sreenivasarao-s_1308157http://rivr.sulekha.com/sreenivasarao-s_1308157http://rivr.sulekha.com/sreenivasarao-s_1308157http://rivr.sulekha.com/sreenivasarao-s_1308157http://rivr.sulekha.com/sreenivasarao-s_1308157


19/20

Dear Shri Ravi, Yes, I agree. The facts and myths are so mixed up it is no longer possible to

get a realistic pictures of these persons. Even in case of Sri Sankara it is made to appear that

he lived in a distant mythical age of demons of dragons; or ever perpetually immersed in

Samadhi. I tried to put together a picture of him as I understood. Please check Sri Sankara -

a genius, misunderstood. Similarly, please checkLife of the Buddha- the Pali tradition.

Regards

Comment

DSampath/ 4 yrs ago

duality is a rnnormal reality of experience..

so samkhya talks of a framework to link up with the dual world as elementising becomes logical and

reasonable..and easier to comprehend.

advaita is an unusual reality.. an abstract experience and perhaps can be obtained in a particular

state. you cant understand it as even elemntaising of a whole kills the essence.

Buddhism is like samkhya as it does not delve on question of god and is very practical to remove

dukha.. and so is samkhya.

all theses are true but in different locations.. and if all locations exist within us...all these are true ..as

experiential realities..

so one does not contradict the other.

Comment

N K Ravi/ 4 yrs ago

Dear Rao,

Thank you for the details

.I have read in great detail about Gyna Sambandar - and of other saivite scholars in Tamil.There is lot

of jain literature in Tamil - Tamil kings patronized them before his time.More than history ( which was

never fomally written ) there are strong literary evidences that Jains had to leave on account of a

organized popular movement by poets known as Nalver ( Nalver is four some ) - appar.Manikka

vasakar ( I have gone through his entire work in Tamil poetry known as Thiruvasakam ),sambandar

and Sundarar among the 63 nayanmars ( savite scholars like 12 Azhwars of Vaishanivism - stories of

their lives and deeds in Tamil poetry exists) - debate or no debate.

Mandana Misra is associated with Sankara's life story .The problem with all these information is its

authenticity - many people after add their own information and hearsay the communication lapse was

terrible - so no wonder it took 2 centuries for India to know who Adi Sankara was in spite of his super
http://ssubbanna.sulekha.com/blog/post/2007/06/sankara-a-genius-misunderstood.htmhttp://ssubbanna.sulekha.com/blog/post/2007/06/sankara-a-genius-misunderstood.htmhttp://ssubbanna.sulekha.com/blog/post/2007/06/sankara-a-genius-misunderstood.htmhttp://ssubbanna.sulekha.com/blog/post/2007/08/life-of-the-buddha-the-pali-tradition.htmhttp://ssubbanna.sulekha.com/blog/post/2007/08/life-of-the-buddha-the-pali-tradition.htmhttp://ssubbanna.sulekha.com/blog/post/2007/08/life-of-the-buddha-the-pali-tradition.htmhttp://rivr.sulekha.com/dsampath_1524813http://rivr.sulekha.com/dsampath_1524813http://rivr.sulekha.com/n-k-ravi_1442915http://rivr.sulekha.com/n-k-ravi_1442915http://rivr.sulekha.com/n-k-ravi_1442915http://rivr.sulekha.com/dsampath_1524813http://rivr.sulekha.com/n-k-ravi_1442915http://rivr.sulekha.com/dsampath_1524813http://rivr.sulekha.com/n-k-ravi_1442915http://rivr.sulekha.com/dsampath_1524813http://ssubbanna.sulekha.com/blog/post/2007/08/life-of-the-buddha-the-pali-tradition.htmhttp://ssubbanna.sulekha.com/blog/post/2007/06/sankara-a-genius-misunderstood.htmhttp://ssubbanna.sulekha.com/blog/post/2007/06/sankara-a-genius-misunderstood.htm


20/20

human wisdom and clarity of all confusions that existed before.His demise was at the age of 32.

sometimes doubts arise all the works attributed to him was by one man - or were there many

Sankaras ?( it is a common name after all ).Really it does not matter - his clarification of Vedanta

undoubtedly appeals to many as the best to truth seekers of this complex relationship between

individual and universe.

Regards,

NKR

samkhya and buddhism

Documents