Yes.MiphamFan wrote:OK, so in Samkhya:Malcolm wrote:MiphamFan wrote:
OK so this is one of the key differences between samkhya and Dzogchen?
From a Dzogchen PoV, samkhya basically:
- takes conditioned mind to be permanent and the origin of all things
- does not recognise primordial consciousness (yeshe) as the basis
- just rests in conditioned mind
Is this right?
So from a Buddhist PoV, is this a cause for rebirth in the arupadhatu?
The purusha is a passive knower, deluded into thinking the transformations of the three gunas of pradhana/prakriti— sattva, tamas, and rajas— are distinct as the 24 tattvas — from mahat/buddhi down to the earth element. When a purusha recognizes all of this is nonself, it withdraws from all of it and abides in its own permanent, unique effulgence. There are infinite purushas.
The criticism of the Saṃkhya system of other yogis, is that not recognizing purusha, they mistake the most subtle form of sattva, i.e., mahat, as the self and rest in that state. But prakriti is not sentient, its sentient appearance is a reflection of the effulgence of purusha. So basically, they assert the nirvana of the Buddhists, for example, is simply resting in unmanifest prakriti, in a state where the three gunas are in stasis.
Of course we know the Buddhist criticisms of Samkhya are: they assert a permanent self, they assert identity of cause and effect, and they assert prakriti and purusha as real.
It is important to understand Saṃkhya well, since it is the foundation for all Hindu thought.
So called Neo-Advaita does not go beyond Saṃkhya in many respects. The reason why many people think that Advaita and Dzogchen, etc., are the same is that they do not understand Saṃkhya. All this business about the pure knower, the witness, etc., has its roots in Saṃkhya tenets.
The main difference between standard Advaita and Saṃkhya is that Advaita asserts that when purusha does not recognize its own state, it is saguna Brahman, and that purusha is itself brahman, and there is only one, and third, that the transformations of the three gunas are not real, but are Māya.Therefore, when one recognizes that all the appearances of the 24 tattvas are notself, one recognizes brahman as oneself and one rests in that state.
-In samsara, purusha, pure consciousness, passively "knows" prakriti, which includes all the various physical and mental phenomena (the tattvas).
The process actually is balancing the three gunas so that sattva becomes predominant. When one is thoroughly sattvic, then one notices also that buddhi is not the self either, and the jñā aka purusha, becomes embarrassed and turns away from prakriti altogether.-To achieve liberation, one must distinguish purusha from prakriti in one's lifetime.
-In the process of achieving liberation, one makes use of intellect (buddhi) to distinguish the lower tattvas from the purusha
Yes.-Upon death, the purusha permanently separates from prakriti, knows itself and is liberated forever.
-Both purusha and prakriti are real and eternal.
Yes, since rigpa is not a purusha, it is knowledge.So I guess where people confuse samkhya with Dzogchen is that they:
- get tripped up by the similarity in expression of "distinguishing mind from nature of mind" in Dzogchen and "distinguishing purusha from prakriti"
- confuse rigpa as being a permanent purusha that "knows itself"
Interestingly enough, however, Saṃkhya also uses the terms vidyā and avidyā in a way very similar to Dzogchen. But the meaning is totally different.
Yes.However, they forget the part where samkhya asserts purusha is permanent and separate from prakriti. Whereas in Dzogchen, what samkhya calls "prakriti" is simply the display of five lights, not separate from your own state. So what samkhya calls "prakriti" and "purusha" are both part of your own state. And rang gi rig pa is not something that "knows itself" like (A) knows (A) but simply knowledge that arises from oneself about one's state.
Yes.Also, I guess the methods involved in both are quite different.
Yes.So in base, path and fruit they are all different. The only similarities are some expressions in translated English texts. If anything, samkhya seems more similar to realist Hinayana schools to me?
