0

Isvara KRshna's Samkhya Karika announces in Karika 1 a solution to human duHka. Karika 2 characterizes the solution as "the right cognition of the manifest, unmanifest and the knower". The quintessence of this cognition is stated in Karika 64 as the insight: Purusha and prakRti are different "nA'ham".

  • Which significance has this jinana-therapy against duHka in contemporary India?

  • Are there any reports about the success of this therapy? Reports, which allow to assess the correctness of this jinana and to evaluate its effect on reducing duHka.

Jo Wehler
  • 1,658
  • 11
  • 20
  • 1
    How can one assess spiritual progress? Who should assess? What methodologies should be used? – Rickross Apr 03 '18 at 18:05
  • What is described in Samkhya is the means of going beyond all sorts of Dukkhas in the Samsara (world).. not just one or two kinds of.. so such a stage is the ultimate stage in spiritual progress.. it is not a therapy designed to eradicate mundane troubles.. i mean one can be without any Dukkhas (sorrows) without reaching that ultimate stage (when Purusha identifies that it is different from Prakriti).. So, how can there be public reports that confirm that when that stage is reached all sorrows are demolished? how to verify even that a such a stage is reached by some at all for example? – Rickross Apr 03 '18 at 18:16
  • Do you mean that the claims of Samkhya are untestable? – Jo Wehler Apr 03 '18 at 18:41
  • @Jo Wehler They are testable by the individual doing Sankhya yoga. – Ikshvaku Apr 03 '18 at 20:41
  • Is the test reliable? How to exclude the possibility of self-deception, not unusual in the context of a doctrine of salvation? – Jo Wehler Apr 03 '18 at 21:07
  • @JoWehler Testable.. the Yogis can test and realize it's truth.. but how shall prove it to others that 1) he has achieved that ultimate stage and 2) that his all Dukkhas are thereby really demolished ? – Rickross Apr 04 '18 at 07:28
  • How to prove it to others? - Ask the Yogi how he feels. Every therapeut makes a similar inquiry with his clients. Why not with Yogis too, when in distinction they claim to be free of duHkha? – Jo Wehler Apr 04 '18 at 07:43
  • 3
    Do you know of such assessments of say Buddhism which also has pithy problem statements ("the root of sorrow is desire" etc.) and related solutions? Religious philosophy can be medically applied only to a certain extent on a mass-scale. Beyond that common denomination point, the philosophy is studied and applied individually. Your Q and its premise are incorrect and skew towards scientific speculation. Also- religious philosophy and inquiry are not for the mentally-ill. And philosophical dukhHa is not the same as material sorrow that we see in hospitals. You cannot make it a "therapy". –  Apr 04 '18 at 08:33
  • If you consider Sakmhya’s doctrine of salvation not testable, could you please add some arguments supporting your opinion. I would prefer to dismiss the discussion about secondary issues or the wording (therapy: yes or no; individual versus mass-scale; duHkha versus material sorrow; question correct, incorrect, or skew to scientific speculation). - The only comparable assessments I know are Stevenson‘s reports about incarnation, see „Medical Hypotheses (2000) 54(4), 652–659“ – Jo Wehler Apr 04 '18 at 16:35
  • What you say are secondary issues in the comment are your primary Qs in the OP. I was quoting the same language you used and explained why your thought process and the purpose for which you are trying to apply Sankhya are incorrect. Sankhya is a philosophy - not a medical procedure that can be lab-tested. You may argue for or against the doctrines put forth by Sankhya but you cannot apply the rules of evidence-based medicine to it. –  Apr 06 '18 at 09:23
  • You finish to early: Of course the Samkhya Karika comprises a philosophical anthropology. But that's not an end in itself. Instead it serves the purpose of the doctrine of salvation, i.e. to remove duHkha (Karika 1). Gaudapada in his commentary to Kariak 1 states his opinion which different types of duHkka could be meant. He names a whole range of suffering due to internal (bodily and mental), external (hostile animals) and divine factors (here he points to natural forces). That's all quite concrete and mundane. Gaudapada does not refer to spirituality. – Jo Wehler Apr 06 '18 at 10:11
  • Salvation can only be attained individually and "proved" anecdotally. And proof is in the belief. The elaboration of dukha and tapatrayas form part of the commentary. You are looking for the wrong thing in the wrong book. –  Apr 06 '18 at 10:17
  • Any therapy and any medical cure aims at the individual like salvation does. That's not the point. - Your statement "proof is in the belief" seems to mix up both. History knows about many false beliefs. Apparently people often did not prove their belief. - The text offers three pramanas (Karika IV) to obtain right cognition. Surprisingly it makes no use of no.3, AptaZruti (valid testimony). The level of epistemic theoretical reflection in classical Indian schools seems much more advanced than just voting for an anecdotally poof. What is it? – Jo Wehler Apr 06 '18 at 11:22
  • What both am I mixing up? Your question was predicated on incorrect understanding and wrong premises. I explained the same to you. Now you say something else. I am unclear what you are asking and so I bow out of this discussion. –  Apr 06 '18 at 12:10
  • Do you mean what is the medical or yogic therapy (e.g Ayurveda/herbal, homeopathy, allopathy etc.) established based on Samkhya Karia? and how much are they deemed helpful? – Pandya Oct 08 '18 at 08:52
  • @Pandya No, I simple mean the value of the jinana-therapy against dukha as characterized in Karika 2, please see above. – Jo Wehler Oct 08 '18 at 17:56

0 Answers0