[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Swami Vivekanand on origins of Shiva Lingam
Jaldhar H. Vyas (jaldhar@braincells.com) wrote:
: In Sankhya the three gunas are part of prakrti and Ishwar or Purusha as
: they call him is completely distinct.
Dear Jaldharji:
Thank you for this post. I picked out this statement because it is
another issue where a choice must be made. As I have read, it is true
that the sAMkhya describes the purushha and prakR^iti to be distinct,
however, in the SBG, Sri KR^ishhNa has said that the two are not
independent. He describes the issue as 25 tattvas in the SBG (23 of
prakR^iti + avyakta + purushha) and also says that 'know both prakR^iti
and purushha to be eternal' but with important differences. sAMkhya is
limited to aparA-prakR^iti, therefore the distinction between purushha and
prakR^iti is inviolable. In the SBG, Sri KR^ishhNa has transcended this
sAmkhya limitation by describing parA-prakR^iti (prakR^itiM me parAM 7.5)
, who is jivabhutA, jagaddhAtrI and bhuta-jananI. But please note these
two statements 'etad yonIni bhutAni' and 'ahaM jagataH prabhava' in the
same verse:
etadyonIni bhutAni sarvAnItyupadhAraya
ahaM kR^itsnasya jagataH prabhavaH pralayastathA. SBG 7.6
This indicates that there is no difference between purushha and
parA-prakR^iti.
There are other statements that indicate a similar message; for
example,
ye chaiva sAttvikA bhAvA rajasAstAmasAscha ye
matta eveti tAn.h biddhi na tvahaM teshhu te mayi. 7.12
(All the sAttvika, rAjasika and tAmasika bhAvas, know them to be born
of Me; I am not in them, but they are in Me.)
I choose to go by the evidence in the SBG, and I think that most of us
here would too. I am curious about where do you stand on this issue?
With best regards,
Dhruba.
