Understanding Advaita Vedānta through Sāṅkhya and Yoga

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hari Oṁ,

The document on Understanding Advaita Vedānta through Sāṅkhya and Yoga can be downloaded from https://sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/understanding-advaita-vedanta-through-sae1b985khya-and-yoga.pdf

The comparisons are as under:

Regards,

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear Sudhanshu ji,

Thanks for that pdf.  It deserves close study to know the different doctrinal points of the various schools.

विवर्तवादस्य पूर्वभूमिः वेदान्तवादे परिणामवादः ।
व्यवस्थितेऽस्मिन् परिणामवादे स्वयं समायाति विवर्तवादः ॥

SankshepashAreeraka.

The doctrine of transformation (Sānkhya) immediately precedes the doctrine of transfiguration (vivarta) of the Vedanta.  Once the former is well grasped, the latter falls in place by itself.]

The Ratnaprabha for BSN 2.1.14 at the end quotes a verse in this connection: कृपणधीः परिणाममुदीक्षते क्षयितकल्मषधीस्तु विवर्तताम्  (source not provided). [‘The unprepared aspirant understands only the ‘creation, transformation’ scheme whereas the one who has purified his mind of all dross is able to appreciate the ‘transfiguration’ vivarta of Atman/Brahman as appearing as the world and jIva-s.’]

Warm regards

subbu

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAH9%3D%2BBB6JLLNtmLRgx2sNT6qBC6A%2B1wXvRSqx8g%3D2jkL1%3DsNPQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,

A quick Q on 5. prakRti or pradhAna is considered to be independent without any association with puruSha because the latter is accepted to be asa~Nga. Then why would saMyoga between them be accepted in Sankhya? In fact, the example I recall for creation by pradhAna without saMyoga is like a dancer dancing at the very sight of the beloved!

gurupAdukAbhyAm,
--Ananta Chaitanya
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know That, owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */

On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 1:20 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Subbu ji.

Thanks.

The Ratnaprabha for BSN 2.1.14 at the end quotes a verse in this connection: कृपणधीः परिणाममुदीक्षते क्षयितकल्मषधीस्तु विवर्तताम्  (source not provided). 

The source of this verse is Saṅkṣepa Śārīraka 2.89.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Ananta Chaitanya ji.

A quick Q on 5. prakRti or pradhAna is considered to be independent without any association with puruSha because the latter is accepted to be asa~Nga. Then why would saMyoga between them be accepted in Sankhya? In fact, the example I recall for creation by pradhAna without saMyoga is like a dancer dancing at the very sight of the beloved!

There are contradictory positions taken by Sāṅkhya in this regard. Section 2.3 of the note may be seen in this regard. Sāṅkhya would posit everything - Saṃyoga, Saṃyoga-ābhāsa (sannidhi), reflection of Puruṣa in Prakr̥ti etc. However, none of them can satisfy one.

For example - take verse 66 of Kārikā wherein Samyak-jñāna has arisen:

दृष्टा मयेत्युपेक्षक एको दृष्टाऽहमित्युपरमत्यन्या। सति संयोगेऽपि तयोः प्रयोजनं नास्ति सर्गस्य ॥ ६६ ॥

The one (the Puruṣa) becomes indifferent (Upekṣakaḥ), thinking, 'I have seen her (Prakr̥ti)'. The other (the Prakr̥ti) ceases her activity (Uparamati), thinking, 'I have been seen'. Therefore, even though their physical connection (Saṃyoga) may still continue, there remains no further purpose (Prayojana) for any new creation (Sargasya).

So, it is a confusing position of Sāṅkhya as per my understanding. 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,

On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 1:54 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

There are contradictory positions taken by Sāṅkhya in this regard. Section 2.3 of the note may be seen in this regard. Sāṅkhya would posit everything - Saṃyoga, Saṃyoga-ābhāsa (sannidhi), reflection of Puruṣa in Prakr̥ti etc. However, none of them can satisfy one.

For example - take verse 66 of Kārikā wherein Samyak-jñāna has arisen:

दृष्टा मयेत्युपेक्षक एको दृष्टाऽहमित्युपरमत्यन्या। सति संयोगेऽपि तयोः प्रयोजनं नास्ति सर्गस्य ॥ ६६ ॥

The one (the Puruṣa) becomes indifferent (Upekṣakaḥ), thinking, 'I have seen her (Prakr̥ti)'. The other (the Prakr̥ti) ceases her activity (Uparamati), thinking, 'I have been seen'. Therefore, even though their physical connection (Saṃyoga) may still continue, there remains no further purpose (Prayojana) for any new creation (Sargasya).

So, it is a confusing position of Sāṅkhya as per my understanding. 

I think the word saMyoga in सति संयोगेऽपि is not real in their case too. Since Purusha is accepted as asa~Nga, that saMyoga is also due to ajnAna. The knowledge in 12 includes knowing this saMyoga also along with bheda-jnAna.

Kind rgds,

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Ananta Chaitanya ji.

 

I think the word saMyoga in सति संयोगेऽपि is not real in their case too. Since Purusha is accepted as asa~Nga, that saMyoga is also due to ajnAna. The knowledge in 12 includes knowing this saMyoga also along with bheda-jnAna.

Yes. That is why it also talks of saṃyoga-ābhāsa. We can read saṃyoga-ābhāsa in place of saṃyoga.  

Is ajñāna dealt with in detail anywhere in Sāṅkhya?

In any case, their ultimate position is this - 





This is actually the end of Sāṅkhya position. However, if we carefully see, it is nothing but ātma-anātma-viveka of Advaita Vedānta. 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]]

Namaste Sudhanshuji, 

On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 2:10 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

I think the word saMyoga in सति संयोगेऽपि is not real in their case too. Since Purusha is accepted as asa~Nga, that saMyoga is also due to ajnAna. The knowledge in 12 includes knowing this saMyoga also along with bheda-jnAna.

Yes. That is why it also talks of saṃyoga-ābhāsa. We can read saṃyoga-ābhāsa in place of saṃyoga.  

Sure.

 

Is ajñāna dealt with in detail anywhere in Sāṅkhya?

I think unlike some other dArshanikas, Sankhyas don't have this issue; because they talk of jnAna, ajnAna is what is taken away is understood by implication. 

In any case, their ultimate position is this - 

 

Which is why this part being unopposed to Shruti, Sankhya is mukhya pUrvapakSha among Astika darshanas. Except for their ending here and not going further into aikya of Atma. (that and pradhAna+creation being real). 

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Ananta Chaitanya ji.

If we see the verse 23, it says the following:

अध्यवसायो बुद्धिर्धर्मो ज्ञानं विराग ऐश्वर्यम् । सात्त्विकमेतद्रूपं तामसमस्माद्विपर्य्यस्तम् ॥ २३ ॥

Buddhi is ascertainment or will. Dharma, jñāna, virāga and aiśwarya are rūpa of buddhi when sattva-attribute abounds. And the reverse of these, i.e. adharma, ajñāna, rāga and anaiśwarya, are the rūpa of buddhi when tamas-attribute abounds.

So, it is clear that both jñāna and ajñāna are rūpa of buddhi. Jñāna refers to prakr̥ti-puruṣa-viveka-jñāna i.e. a knowledge that these two are completely distinct. Ajñāna is the reverse of this. That is, to assume puruṣa as kartā and prakr̥ti as cetana is ajñāna.

रुपैः सप्तभिरेव तु बध्नात्यात्मानमात्मना प्रकृतिः । सैव च पुरुषार्थं प्रति विमोचयत्येकरूपेण ॥ ६३ ॥

Prakr̥ti by herself binds herself by means of seven forms, and it is she again, who by means of one form, releases herself for the benefit of the Puruṣa.

Here, the seven forms are dharma, virāga, aiśwarya, adharma, ajñāna, rāga and anaiśwarya. Through these, Prakr̥ti binds herself by herself. And by one form i.e. jñāna, she releases herself. Because of jñāna, the seven forms become unproductive and there remains no cause of creation then. [सम्यग्ज्ञानाधिगमाद्धर्मादीनामकारणप्राप्तौ । तिष्ठति संस्कारवशाच्चक्रभ्रमिवद्धृतशरीरः ॥ ६७ ॥ Through the attainment of perfect knowledge, virtue and the rest become devoid of their causal efficacy; yet, the Spirit continues to live for a while invested with the body, just like a potter's wheel continuing to revolve (even when the potter ceases in his efforts at revolving the wheel) due to the momentum of the past impulse.]

So, ajñāna is discussed in Sāṅkhya as one form of buddhi. However, since buddhi itself is absent in dissolution when guṇa are in sāmya-avasthā, it is not clear as to how can there be either saṃyoga or saṃyoga-ābhāsa. 

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar. 

[Ananta Chaitanya [Sarasvati]]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,

On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 4:20 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:

रुपैः सप्तभिरेव तु बध्नात्यात्मानमात्मना प्रकृतिः । सैव च पुरुषार्थं प्रति विमोचयत्येकरूपेण ॥ ६३ ॥

Prakr̥ti by herself binds herself by means of seven forms, and it is she again, who by means of one form, releases herself for the benefit of the Puruṣa.

Here, the seven forms are dharma, virāga, aiśwarya, adharma, ajñāna, rāga and anaiśwarya. Through these, Prakr̥ti binds herself by herself. And by one form i.e. jñāna, she releases herself. Because of jñāna, the seven forms become unproductive and there remains no cause of creation then. [सम्यग्ज्ञानाधिगमाद्धर्मादीनामकारणप्राप्तौ । तिष्ठति संस्कारवशाच्चक्रभ्रमिवद्धृतशरीरः ॥ ६७ ॥ Through the attainment of perfect knowledge, virtue and the rest become devoid of their causal efficacy; yet, the Spirit continues to live for a while invested with the body, just like a potter's wheel continuing to revolve (even when the potter ceases in his efforts at revolving the wheel) due to the momentum of the past impulse.]

So, ajñāna is discussed in Sāṅkhya as one form of buddhi. However, since buddhi itself is absent in dissolution when guṇa are in sāmya-avasthā, it is not clear as to how can there be either saṃyoga or saṃyoga-ābhāsa. 

The badhnAti would mean saMyoga is taking place when it unfolds into vikRtis in asAmyA avasthA. If you mean continuing of ajnAna and thereby bandhana in pralaya/apiti, buddhi could be taken to be unmanifest just like in Vedanta, but into guNasAmya state, I suppose. (Else, it is an impossibility that could be considered as refuted on the sidelines as well while refuting with नविलक्षणत्वाधिकरणम्, especially around अपीतौ तद्वत्प्रसङ्गादसमञ्जसम् and स्वपक्षदोषाच्च sUtras).

gurupAdukAbhyAm,
--Ananta Chaitanya