Removing The Sheen From Buddhism

[Husky]

Not really about Buddhism. But the following is related to the post on the previous page concerning Indology on Panini/Grammar. Not about Panini anymore, but the process is sort of the same.





Elst wrote at http://koenraadelst.blogspot.com/2010/07...-yoke.html

[...]

Patañjali wrote when theism was at a low ebb. In modern self-presentations of Hinduism, you would not know that it was ever anything else than devotional-theistic. At some point, [color="#0000FF"]a theistic coup d’état has eclipsed the godless schools of thought and written them out of the record. The Gita is a blatant instance, with Krishna imposing his presence as object of devotion on chapters named after (and giving an otherwise fair summary of) godless philosophies like Sankhya.[/color] Some have argued that the YS started with a godless core and had theistic elements added later on, to the point that Hindus came to call it Sesvara Sankhya, i.e. “Sankhya-with-God”. This is plausible, but the reconstruction of a text’s editorial history is notoriously susceptible to speculative excess, so let us cautiously focus on another and unmistakably operative method of theistic incorporation, viz. leaving the text intact but reinterpreting key terms.



Thus, “Isvara” is defined merely as “a distinct purusa untouched by afflictions, actions, fruitions or their residue” in YS 1:24, but has been assigned the exclusive meaning of “God/Shiva”, nowadays assumed in the expression “Isvarapranidhana” (YS 1:23, 2:1, 2:32, 2:45). It is on the basis of little else than this expression’s repeated appearance that the YS is classified among the theistic systems.

[...]

Concerning the above matter. The following was written by a native Hindu, in the early 90s I think:

Pre-classical Samkhya

[...]

The concepts of the Purusha, of the Prakriti, of the Gunas, of the evolution of different categories, of life being a vale of sorrows, of the doctrine of Samsara or repeated births and deaths, of gaining freedom from Samsara through spiritual striving, etc. are familiar to the Upanishads, may be with some differences of meaning, and they find a place in the classical Samkhya. The Mundaka and the Katha Upanishads, if closely studied, will be found to have much Samkhyan affinities. The Shvetashvatara Upanishad gives clear evidence of the existence of a pre-classical Samkhya that is not distinguishable from Vedantic ideals. In that Upanishad we get for the first time the expression Prakriti, which is also called Maya--a term which in the earlier literatures was known as Brahman, Akshara, Avyakta, and Mahan-atma. The theory of the three Gunas, which bind the Purusha, is adumbrated in this Upanishad in the passage IV.5, where it speaks of the "Aja" ('female unborn'), red, white and black in colour, and producing offspring resembling her. The dualism of Purusha and Prakriti is clearly visible, but unlike in the classical Samkhya they are unified in Supreme Being, all-powerful, described as Isha or Deva. Prakriti is called His Yoni (source of creative power) and also as Devatma-shakti (the inherent Power of the Lord). It speaks in the same breath in contiguous passages about Samkhya and Vedanta in expressions like samkhya-yogadhigamyam (the Highest Truth that can be attained through Samkhya and Yoga) and vedante prachoditam paramam guhyam (the Supreme Truth inculcated in the Vedanta). The Upanishad also mentions the name of Kapila, the reputed author of the Samkhya philosophy, although that word is interpreted in commentaries as the 'golden-coloured one', the Hiranyagarbha.



Gita Samkhya

The existence of a pre-classical Samkhya, which is both theistic and devotional and therefore indistinguishable from Vedanta, is most abundantly clear from the Mahabharata from its most important sections, the Bhagavad Gita, and the Mokshadharma section of the Shantiparva. Ever since the time of Shankaracharya, the Bhagavad-Gita has gained recognition as one of the most important Vedantic texts--in fact as one of the three foundational Vedantic texts (Prasthanatraya). But critical scholars of the text today claim it also to be a pre-classical Samkhyan text. It is interesting to note that Lord Krishna terms the teaching he gives as Samkhya in several chapters. Thus he calls his teaching as Samkhya in five places (cf. II.39; III.3; V.4-5; XIII.24; and XVIII.13) while he refers to himself in a solitary place as Vedantakrit or author of the Vedanta (cf. XV.15).

[...]

The theory of the unaffected Atman discussed in the second chapter, which is one of the basic teachings of the Gita, is described by the Lord as Samkhya. The doctrine of the three Gunas and the various effects through which they are observed, is perhaps discussed in greater detail here than in any Samkhyan text proper. The distinction between the Purusha and the Prakriti or Kshetragnya and Kshetra, is described exactly as it is in the Samkhya texts. There is, however, one important difference. While in classical Samkhya, Prakriti is of the nature of the Gunas, the Gita describes the Gunas as both constituting Prakriti (Gunamayi), and as born of Prakriti (Prakritijan). It is the power of Ishwara (God).

The categories of Prakriti are reduced to 8 in the Gita in place of 24. But all this is done with some basic and fundamental differences from the classical Samkhya, namely, that the Purusha and the Prakriti are the higher and the lower aspects of the Power of Purushottama (the Supreme Purusha), known jointly as the Prakriti, and that the lower Prakriti has power of creation only under the stimulation received from Purushottama, and that the Jiva or the higher Prakriti can gain release only by the grace of the Purushottama. Thus it is found that a pre-classical text like the Gita is cent per cent theistic and devotional.



Epic Samkhya of the Mahabharata

The Mokshadharma of the Shantiparva of the Mahabharata contains many details of what may be called pre-classical epic Samkhya, which is theistic but yet different from the Vedanta as also from the classical Samkhya. Bhishma refers to Samkhya as originated by Kapila, whom he calls an Adhyatma-Chintaka, the founder of a spiritual doctrine. Like the classical Samkhya it recognizes twenty-four categories of Prakriti, and the Purusha as the twenty-fifth, but it differs from the former in holding that there is no ultimacy in the multiplicity of the twenty-fifth as in the classical Samkhya. The Purusha, in association with Prakriti in the creative cycle, seems to be many. But in liberation, with the effacement of the bondage of Prakriti, the separateness of the Purusha is effaced and it becomes the one and only Purusha that exists in the nature of things. This version of Samkhya too is sometimes called Anishwara (without a God), but this is only in the sense that it does not have a twenty-sixth category called God entirely distinct from the twenty-fifth, as was recognized by the Yogins and the Gita-Samkhyans whose leanings are towards the Vedanta.

[...]

Another important respect in which the epic Samkhya as also the Gita differs from classical Samkhya is in that Prakriti in the former cannot be active without the prompting or will of the Purusha. The idea of a God is essential to them.

[...]

Classical Samkhya scrupulously excludes a God as a superfluous and inconvenient assumption in their way of thinking. Epic Samkhya, however, is entirely different from it, in that the will of the Purusha is necessary to make the Prakriti creative. But this Purusha of the epic Samkhya is not Ishwara, a God, as accepted in the Gita or in all schools of theism. Purusha, free from bondage of Prakriti, is Ishwara, but He becomes a limited centre of intelligence in bondage; He is therefore taken only as the 25th category and not as the twenty-sixth. This equivocal position of Ishwara in epic Samkhya is one of the steps towards the emergence of atheistic Samkhya of classical times.

[...]



[color="#800080"](From the section on the above's development into classical non-theistic Samkhya)[/color]

This tendency to downgrade the importance of scripture must have been responsible for the speculative theories of thinkers like Panchashikha and the final termination in atheism. But the Samkhya never rejected the Veda completely unlike the Buddhists and the Jains and so continued to be included among the Astika systems of thought. [...]

Was under the impression the author of the above (who knew Samskritam) had passed away.



Among the bits not present/not typed out in the above excerpt but which are (perhaps) also relevant - may perhaps include them in the future - are:

- the complete section on the development of classical (non-religious) Saamkhyam evolved from the pre-classical kind

- the subsequent discussion on how Hindus tried to later reclaim the "pre-classical theistic" SAmkhya from the "classical, non-theistic" view. (Not just with the SB. But all the way down the centuries.)





Anyway. The above at least goes toward explaining why Samkhya permeates various theistic Hindu paths - and hence, so does Yoga as its counterpart (the practise related to the Hindu cosmological view apparent from Samkhya). The following points are as recalled from a very recent perusal of a booklet (which was possibly/presumably meant as an introduction for kids?):



- The MBh version of Saamkhya as described above - including its view of the puruSha/ishwara - seems to be mirrored in the view of Kashmiri Shaivam, as it explains each pashu/jeeva as being 'Shiva himself, but in bondage of prakriti's evolution'*. While I think in the Shaivam of the Pashupatas and also Shaiva Siddhanta (?) Ishwara is considered unaffected by the evolution of Prakriti. (*Note: paraphrased from memory.)

- And though KS has 36 tattvas (consequently the same as in southern Shaivam of Kannada and Tamizh Hindus, while the Paashupatas apparently kept just the 25), this 36 seems to include the standard 25 of the MBh (which 25 has its own special place in several of these Hindu traditions as well).

Shaktam is of course related. And the presence of Sankhya in Vaishnavam speaks for itself.

- In the Shaivam of paashupata Hindus, Ishwara (who presides over sriShTi, sthiti and samhaaram) is described as in Nyaaya (?): as being the "efficient cause" but not the "material cause" of the Kosmos. While my understanding of Tamizh Shaiva Hindus' view - could be wrong - is that Shiva as Ishwara is considered both, which matches some other traditional Hindu views yet again.





Elst's statements (in this post's first quoteblock) sort of indicates/explains why indology and native parrots have been working to separate "Bhogindra" Patanjali from his traditional Hindu identification with Adishesha. IIRC the claim is that the Kashmiri Hindus just blindly accepted the identification from the Tamizh Hindus (Chidambaram is blamed as the source of this ... what's now dubbed as "mythmaking"). But even that claim admits to one thing at least: that learned Kashmiri Hindu scholars writing on Patanjali repeated his being the Bhogindra as a given. It was part of the same view of the same religion after all. And so the traditional Hindus of this view who still remain state no less.



Of course, in general and regardless of whether Patanjali is or isn't allowed to be identified with the Ananta, it is moreover necessary (and hence is part of the indological pattern) to turn Hindu claims to Patanjali of being a devout Hindu attached to Shiva into "actually, this was but later Hindu mythmaking", same as is done with the tradition regarding the Maheshwara Sutras of Panini. The one thing we *can't* have - after all - is that Patanjali and hence his Yogasutras (or Panini with his opening Shiva Sutras) being a .... what's that ... a "pagan" type character. Hindus can't have any theistic claims on Samkhya or even Yoga - it must all be declared originally "non-theist" or so at core (and BG too is demoted as seen at the Elst link above), or else it should be declared as a secular work un-influenced by any Hindu Divine inspiration (=as with Panini's grammar), or else declared Buddhist/Jain/etc "originally/in influence".



Else yoga can not be made into the practical "universal" system meant "even for alien non-religious persons too" (although having said that, why should alien non-theists be disallowed when alien anti-Hindus of christoislamic affiliation are allowed to dabble in and even claim yoga? Besides, aliens who don't even subscribe to the Hindu cosmological view set out by Samkhya will still do "yoga" <- a logic which I never did get, but hey).

But note how Yoga is now logically made to be At Least As Much alien non-religious persons' as it is theistic Hindus'.





Can watch indology divorce everything piecemeal from theistic Hindu religion (and in origins it was theistic - from the Vedam to the MBh at least).

If it can't all be donated to Buddhism/Jainism (before it can be declared as universal etc. from there), it will be dubbed "Not theistic originally, but was hijacked - 'coup d'etat' - by theistic Hindus *later*, so *actually*, theistic Hindus have no *real* claim on it". A la what was done to Panini and his Maheshwara Sutras (since dubbed the "so-called" Maheshwara Sutras).



The following comment at the Elst link does belong in this thread -

LV said...

Personally, I think Chip Harnranft's translation is the best. [color="#0000FF"]It rescues the YS from Vedantin and theistic misinterpretations and acknowledges the heavy Buddhist influence[/color]

<img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> Just like that.



In a way it's strange to notice a similar metamorphosis happen as for Tiruvalluvar's Tirukkural - once considered Hindu literature (hence still recited by devout Hindoos), then turned secular Tamizh, now declared Other Indic - to Patanjali and his Yogasutras or Panini and his Grammar work. I don't know the present state of wackypedia, but somewhere this or last year the wacky page on either Patanjali or Yogasutras was still mostly devoted to how the Yogasutras was largely Buddhist/Jain in its view. You wouldn't know there was anything Hindu about the work from reading the page. And now that it's been declared there's nothing ("really") theistically Hindu about Yoga either - reiterated by Elst himself - the process of divorcing Yoga from "paganism" is quite complete.



So what's up for grabs next?

Or, approaching the question from the other end ("glass half-full/half-empty"): of what now remains, what are the things they will *never* get?



(Reinstated removed comments.)