Soul Meets Body: An initial examination of the Samkhya school | Hacker News Reader

Soul Meets Body: An initial examination of the Samkhya school

worthypatterns.substack.com

74 pointshyperindexed43 comments

Here are some problems: (a) Don't postulate entities(essences) that don't play any role. That's what natural sciences do; that's also the heuristic of Occam's razor. On the one hand, 'purusha' is an essence; on the other hand, it is "completely inactive". Even Upanishads claim the same: Atman, Brahman don't play the causal role; they are described negatively in terms of existence--neti, neti (not this, not that).

(b) The notion of 'transcendence' is problematic to describe Sankya or any Indian traditions. In Semitic religions, God is outside of the cosmos that was, is and shall be. In other words, outside the space time. That's why He is transcendent. Yet He plays a causal role in this Cosmos; that's why he is immanent. This leads to huge problems in Semitic theologies.

(c) Purusha is "beyond any possible perception that is mediated by the mind or senses". If it is beyond senses, why bother? Isn't how this stuff is sold as transcendent (beyond space time), supra-mundane (beyond the mundane), etc? If one reads the text of Chandogya Upanishad carefully (but not all pages of commentaries), Prajapati makes the claim that Atman/Brhaman is seeable, accessible.

In philosophy, this is called the “Newton’s flaming laser sword problem”.

Did Newton have a flaming laser sword?

Sure, he could have had one. But we have no evidence today of that, so for the context of our discussion, let’s ignore it.

And this is where spiritually collides with Newton’s flaming laser sword. But I want to believe that newton had a flaming sword, therefore I want the discussion to be about how this laser sword influenced his writings.

It depends on the goal: whether one wants human knowledge or something exotic/esoteric/supra-mundane/Divine/super-natural knowledge, etc. (In Semitic religions, God's revelation is Divine knowledge, which is independent of human knowledge). If one wants human knowledge, we can't allow fundamental contradictions. But the article has such contradictions; maybe, these contradictions are there in the Sanskrit text or in the 'interpretations' over the last 2000 years.

At least I know, Sanskrit text doesn't talk about 'transcendent'. The transcendent of the interpreters is "Para" in Sanskrit. In Skt, it simply means: other. Even in many Indian languages, the word "para" is heavily used: "paradesi","paraayi vaallu"(in Telugu), etc.

It is like importing Semitic theology to understand these Sanskrit texts. I don't want to blame the Westerners. Even Indian Sanskritists (or the so-called Insiders) are the biggest offenders here. They also bullshit as if they are dealing with some kind of literary text.

Well written, I am on my personal journey to discover what being a Hindu means. I am appalled by the fact that the true knowledge and the diversity of different schools and line of thoughts has been dissolved and sublimated into a crude understanding of what Hinduism means.

I have thought about it a lot, and I think the main reason is that there is no single doctrine / school that everyone agreed upon in the past. I see this is as the pinnacle of free-thinking. The seeming consensus among people who follow Abrahamic religions has provided the functionality to conserve itself in some tangible form.

Whereas the meaning of Hinduism is just lost, because there is no religion single religion as such. Nothing comes close to the deep thought and inspection that philosophers (sages/rishis whatever you want to name them) of the ancient India. All their "work" has been hidden under layers of what people assume is just religious "stuff".

Carl Jung, Nikola Tesla and innumerable people have invested time in discovering their true essence.

The concept of "religion", "spirituality", "god" carry a lot weight, especially in the modern world. I myself (being a Hindu), assumed that all that was present in Vedic texts was just references to god, different kinds of gods, different rituals etc. And as a modern day human, I just assumed that these are just things of the past and now we are evolved enough to ignore these concepts and move towards the future.

And I was proved entirely wrong when I started reading The Upanishads, which are part of the Vedic literature. The concepts are so abstract that different schools/sub-religions spawned just on the basis of different interpretations. Roughly dualistic and non-dualistic interpretations.

I can go on and on about my discovery. In fact I am writing about this here: https://pulkitsharma07.github.io/2020/06/25/source-0/

I am really happy to see this post on HN, hoping this doesn't get flagged.

> I am appalled by the fact that the true knowledge and the diversity of different schools and line of thoughts has been dissolved and sublimated into a crude understanding of what Hinduism means.

Well, that's always a given when you look at a culture from outside. It takes time to uncover the details and the diversity.

> Well, that's always a given when you look at a culture from outside. It takes time to uncover the details and the diversity.

In this particular case, everyone is looking from "outside." Contemporary Hindus' own understandings of the religion are largely filtered through the modernist interpretations of reformers in the 19th and 20th centuries. They're somewhat divorced from the classical bardic and collegiate traditions that the various Hindu practices were originally developed through. It's not quite as divorced from the source as things like pagan reconstructionist movements trying to rebuild druidic practices, but it's not entirely an organic and internally driven process of evolution either. Western colonialism and the the disruptive Islamic conflicts that preceded it all have an impact.

The modernist reformers were mostly trying to condense Hinduism into a format that made sense to Abrahamic religions, so a lot of nuance got lost in the overall understanding of it. There are still plenty of local temples and village/caste traditions that are practiced they're not really systematized or written down for people to study and understand and they're usually ignored in discussions of the overarching concepts of what "Hinduism" is for that reason.

> the modernist interpretations of reformers in the 19th and 20th centuries

E.g. Brahmo Samaj, that sort of thing? What other reformers you have in mind?

I'm curious where would you put Aurobindo in this context. He's definitely "modernist", but he stuck to the Vedas quite a lot.

Even people like Ramakrishna and Vivekananda had a lot of Theosophist influences. And much of the English translated works from people like Radhakrishnan were notable for speaking to Western audiences too. Then there is the whole VHP take on things which is a purely modernist (nationalism) prism.

Ramakrishna is surprising to me. He literally grew up in a small village. Are you saying he was influenced later?

It's probably more accurate to ascribe it to his movement than Ramakrishna himself, but everyone would have been influenced by it. The "infrastructure" of philosophical discourse and spreading of ideas had largely atrophied away from neglect before the British even arrived in India. The big centers of learning, like Nalanda or Takshasila, had been burned out long ago.

The traveling orders of priests were greatly diminished and didn't hold the kind of intellectual or cultural sway among people in power that they used to. In Adi Shankaracharya's time they would travel around the country giving lectures and being feted by village heads and kings as they hosted big debates and symposiums. But once the background education system was gone, much of the continued development and education depended on the beneficence of sympathetic Muslim rulers.

Fascinating. That's aligned with a few intuitions I had.

The atmosphere of philosophical debate was definitely alive during the time of Shankara. At what point between then and now did it die out?

> And I was proved entirely wrong when I started reading The Upanishads, which are part of the Vedic literature.

Their being classified a part of the "Vedic" literature is not borne out by linguistic analysis, even though tradition claims it to be.

They post-date the actual Vedas themselves by centuries. The language used in most of them does not contain nearly as much irregularity as the Vedic language nor its pitch accent system - it's on its way to being a refined liturgical language, not a common man's language as the Vedic language was.

And the subject matter contained in them reflect that of the elites of a far more settled and stratified society (vs the more nomadic tribal culture of the Vedas). They are no more representative of Hinduism than their contemporary folk traditions, just as St. Augustine is no more representative of Catholicism than folk Catholicism where blessings are sought for mundane topics like health and prosperity.

No doubt, both groups of literature are incredible, but to lump them into one is incorrect, even if that is the tradition.

Can you provide some sources for your information ? From what I have read they are considered to be that part of the Vedas.

Here's an article that gets into the differences between the Vedic hymns and the later material that grew around them (in section 2):

https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/eieol/vedol

In particular:

”Over time a body of dependent and scholastic material grew up around the poems, known loosely as 'the Veda'. Perhaps around 1000 BC (all dating in prehistoric India is only approximate), editors gathered the ancient poems together and arranged them, together with some more modern material, into ten books according to rules that were largely artificial"

In terms of subject matter, I would cite the texts themselves. The bulk of the original Vedas (meaning the Samhitas proper), though exquisite in language, poetry and description, are remarkably concrete and earthly compared to the subject matter of the Upanishads, which instead are concerned with esoteric subjects like dualism and non-dualism, and the relationship of that to individual identity and a universal consciousness. The Vedic Samhita's subject matter predominantly concerns propitiation of deified forces of nature to aid with everyday survival concerns, like food, kinship practices, and inter-tribal conflicts.

The Upanishads clearly represent the reflections of an elite of a far more "advanced" stage of society than the Samhitas.

Indeed. Many Upanishads are, in spirit, opposed to the old Vedas, and some are outright critical of the ritualism that forms the core of the Vedas.

No, they are not. Upanishads are the later chapters of the Vedas. There are four vedas and ten principal upanishads.

Hindu philosophy aims to be accessible and useful to everyone. In that, Upanishads offer a way for people who are unable to follow Vedic standards.

An alternative is not opposition. It’s available choice. Upanishads are not against the Vedas. They just form the latter portions of Vedas.

Eg: consider chicken eaters. Veganism is an alternative dietary choice. Veganism existed before it was considered an ‘opposition’ to consuming meat. They are all part of ‘food’ and ‘eating’. Some vegans decided that it’s position against meat eating, but that’s not it’s origin. It’s a choice And a latter interpretation that it’s opposed to meat eating. But it doesn’t mean that veganism emerged due to an opposition to meat eating to compete with it.

> Upanishads are the later chapters of the Vedas.

They are not a single coherent work of literature. They likely have dozens of authors and were composed over the span of over 1500 years. You can only describe them as "chapters" in the sense of "chapters of history", but not like "chapters" of a novel or series.

In that sense they are like the Torah and the New Testament of the Bible, which are also not books in the modern sense.

Right then. But that doesn’t have anything to do with what I said.

And no, they are not ‘like the Torah’ or New Testament.

> But that doesn’t have anything to do with what I said.

My comment was narrowly addressing the use of the term "chapters" as used in literature being applied to the texts under discussion.

I made no comment about the spiritual functional claims you made about Hinduism.

> And no, they are not ‘like the Torah’ or New Testament

Yes they are like the Torah in the New Testament in that they are texts that developed over thousands of years predominantly in the ancient period, and only later were canonized. This is a relatively uncontroversial comparison between the historical development of ancient religious texts.

I made no claim about the similarity of their content, if that's what you are taking issue with.

Again. What is the relevance?

You said:

> Upanishads are the later chapters of the Vedas.

They are not later chapters of the Vedas. They are entirely distinct works of literature.

This is laughably wrong. Upanishads are part of the Vedas in context and as part of a larger contextual work..then expounded separately by several authors...no one knows who or how many people wrote the Vedas.

There is literally no proof either way. Just like no one can prove the authorship of vedas or Upanishads, there is no way to prove that they are ‘entirely distinct works of literature’.

Upanishads are not fungible and are married to specific related Veda. What you say doesn’t even make basic sense.

For example: Brihadaranyaka Upanishad is related to Yajur Veda and so it’s distinctly expounding upon Shukla YajurVeda. It makes no sense with Rig or Atharva or Sama Veda. So it is part of Yajur Veda.

The Vedas were orally transmitted as the language of the Brahmins and then written down much much later.

You can’t date or confer authorship on Vedas or Upanishads, but the commentaries and exposition are codified wrt the four vedas and each Upanishads is assigned to one of the four.

There is literally no basis for you to assert that ‘they are distinct works of literature’.

However: Without Vedas, Upanishads are not stand alone works. Vedas, otoh are relevant and understood without the Upanishads.

Are you claiming that ‘linguistic analysis’ by non Indians/Hindus at the university of Texas supersedes knowledge that was orally transmitted for aeons before linguistics as a term was even coined?

Plenty of Indians/Hindus conduct the same sort of linguistic analysis, beginning with a guy called Panini who lived around 800 BC. In any case, the nuance and depth of the arguments in the University of Texas article far supercedes the a priori (and apparently religiously nationalist) statements you are making here.

Historical linguistics is an evidence-based field of study that many Indian scholars also actively participate in, wherein they also analyze non Indian languages.

Where did you find ‘religiously nationalist’ statements?

I don’t understand why this has to become rude and hostile now. I don’t believe I have anything more to say to you.

This argument is circular: it is only Western indology that defines “Vedic” as referring to “the actual Vedas” by which it means only the saṃhitā portion of the texts. The traditional Indian understanding of “Veda” is indeed that it includes both mantra (saṃhitā) and brāhṃaṇa — the latter including āraṇyaka and upaniṣad. Yes it's true that sometimes when (say) “Ṛgveda” is mentioned, in that context it may refer only to the ṛk saṃhitā, etc — but the narrow meaning is only contextual; in general one talks of which brāhmaṇa-s / āraṇyaka-s / upaniṣad-s belong to which Veda, etc.

More generally the Vedāṅgas are also considered part of the Veda, etc. When Pāṇini (whom you allude to in one of the replies here) distinguishes the older language, he uses terms like “chandasi” not "in the Vedas”. Even today when a certain practice or person is called “Vaidika” obviously it doesn't mean a certain time period, belonging to several centuries BCE.

Ultimately, to consider linguistic analysis relevant to the definition of “Vedic” and to say “to lump them into one is incorrect, even if that is the tradition” is simply saying “let's make up a definition of ‘Vedic’ different from the traditional definition, under which the traditional definition can be termed incorrect” — no traditional scholar thinks of “Vedic” as referring to “the Vedic language” as referring to the language of the saṃhitās.

Edit: I have a theory for how this state of affairs came about: Western interest in Sanskrit texts took off in a big way after William Jones's (much-quoted) pronouncement of the relation between Sanskrit and Persian and Greek and Latin. So the interest started with linguists and philologists, who were naturally more interested in the oldest texts / the texts whose language was closest to the rest of the Indo-European family, and that has become the frame by which these texts are still talked about (rather than say the framing used by traditional Vaidika paṇḍita-s). This is why we see someone confidently deciding that linguistic analysis can tell us something about what “Veda” means or should mean, rather than only telling us about the language of a certain subset of texts.

Can someone explain to me the basic tenets of Hinduism, and if it is related to Yoga? I have met so many yoga teachers that don't know how to answer this yet are free to speak about spiritual yoga stuff, so I remain confused.

There is no single set of basic tenets. There's a continuum of schools of philosophy within the umbrella term of Hinduism, ranging from materialist atheistic (Ajivika, Charvaka) to pantheistic with a non-sentient God (Advaita) to full blown theism (Dvaita and Vishistadwaita). You get to pick your poison.

That clears it up, thanks.

I would not count Ajivika or Charvaka as within the ambit of Hinduism, and neither did the Ancient Commentators. Both were considered heresies. Indeed, Ajivika is better understood as a distinct dharmic religion. In addition, Advaita is not a "non-sentient God", but that's a separate discussion.

For the sake of the parent question, it would make sense to restrict to the Astika schools. Basal to these schools was an acknowledgement of the supremacy of the Vedas (or at least tacit acceptance of their authority).

Although most of the Nastika (atheist) literature has been lost over the ages, some texts are still available (The Charvaka text Tattvopaplavasimha in particular, I have a copy of it) and there's no reason to discount their philosophical contributions. Their contributions are no less important than the contributions of the Astikas (the Theists). Also, let's not forget that Buddhism which was more successful abroad than it was in India is a Nastika faith. OTOH, you'd naturally argue that Buddhism isn't Hinduism.

* In addition, Advaita is not a "non-sentient God", but that's a separate discussion. *

One of the Advaitin Mahavakyas (Great sentence/quote) from Aitareya Upanishad is: "Prajnanam Brahma", which translates to: "Knowledge/Consciousness is God". One of the fundamental ontological dichotomies in Hinduism is the difference between "Chit" (things that are conscious) and "Achit" (things that are not conscious). Essentially, the distinction between sentient and non-sentient objects. Although consciousness is a trait of "chit" or sentient objects, consciousness itself is not sentient (that'd be a circular definition). We don't even have to go that far if you interpret it as knowledge, because knowledge by definition non-sentient. Extending from that, if God is consciousness and consciousness is non-sentient, then God is non-sentient.

I know that the Adviatins try very hard to paper over this philosophical wrinkle, but that's what drew me to their school of philosophy. A religion with a non-beneficent and non-sentient God is beyond cool, IMO. One of the taunts that Ramanuja (a Vishistadwaita philosopher) had for Advaitins was to call them "Prachanna Bouddhar" (Closet Buddhists). Because from his theistic perspective, the Advaitins with their non-sentient God are only a hop skip and a jump away from the Buddhists (who were originally atheists).

My concern is not whether the nastika schools had valuable contributions to the advancement of Indian philosophy. The question was one of defining Hinduism. Within the ambit of that question, casting the net wide enough to include Ajivika and Charvaka is too broad, and one the Ancient Indians wouldn't likely have made either. For example, the Hindu acharyas were pretty clear that Buddhism and Jainism were heresies and beyond the pale, and their opinion of Charvakaism is well known. Therefore I suggest that the question is best answered by restricting to the Astika schools, a categorization the ancient commentators would likely agree with.

I'm barely beginning to delve into this world and have pretty much no knowledge of Hinduism. But most of the time what we call yoga in the west is just a physical practice akin to a sport, mostly with the goal of getting and being healthy, whereas when you read about the philosophy of yoga, you realize that there are a lot of different yoga schools/practices that promote different things, some without even any physical component to them. The original purpose of yoga, as I understand it, was to put ourselves in the right path to liberation and the end of suffering. The meaning/etymology of the word yoga is union or to unite.

Samkhya school of thought makes space for non-deism and subscribe to duality. This is unique because dualism has always been associated with worship of the god head as often embraced by Vaishnavite sects. Samkhya offers a different perspective. The non deistic approach in Vedanta(the non dualism school of thought that is the opposite of samkhya school) is less significant than probably the Mimamsa school. All six astikas(nyaya, Vaisheka,Mimamsa, samkhya,Vedanta,yoga) accomodate for both deistic and non deistic approach to life. Samkhya gives a lot of importance to the three Gunas of saatvic, rajasic and tamasic nature of Self. The guna theory appears everywhere from Ayurveda to yoga to astrology.

Hindu philosophy is the template for a way of life and the key theme that is most common and recurring is the Sattva-Rajas-Tamas Gunas. I look at it as the earliest attempt to take a stab at diversity. Not on the basis of colour or caste or language but diversity of human nature/instincts as it were...caste system, for example, arose out of these division. As did mythology and astrology. Without the division of humans on the basis of their instincts, we’d have no way to codify the different philosophies for everyone.

Diversity is about division and accepting that there are differences amongst us that separates us as individuals. I often feel like diversity as a word has been hijacked by the English language. Diversity exists only because it celebrates differences. If there are differences, there will be hierarchies. It means that we are all NOT the same. How can you celebrate that we are all different and then deny that that differences will manifest itself as a hierarchy? That doesn’t make sense at all.

I grew up listening to mythology from my grandfather. One of the striking things about the gods in Hinduism is that they see no difference between humans, demons and the ‘good’ celestials. There is a hierarchy even amongst gods. I remember asking him why the gods give boons to both the good guys and bad guys. The gods treat everyone equally. That doesn’t make sense.

And he said that it’s because we have all the gods and demons inside us and they all want to come out and live vicariously through us..and we get to choose which god or demon we choose to release. And we do it through worship. Maybe one can worship the goddess of music(Saraswati) or of wealth(Lakshmi) or destruction(Kali). It’s still our choice. And they all live within us. It’s the choice that causes dualism. “I want knowledge. I don’t want poverty. I want beauty. I don’t want injustice.’ Etc. our thoughts and instincts invite and welcome our inner gods and demons to live the human life through our actions. non dualism says that in the end..nothing matters anyways..because we are all that. And we are none of it. God and karma are just cherry on top extras.

It is a constant churn of attempts to diversify and then assimilate and then differentiate again. Rinse and repeat. We can’t escape this pattern because statis will set in after churn and equilibrium is fleeting.

That we call equilibrium or that fleeting moment of stability is what’s illusion or maya. Neither joy nor sorrow..ignorance or enlightenment is permanent. Life follows death and death is guaranteed after life. The churn never stops.

The nirvana or moksha hack is to slow down the entropy and make that fleeting moment seem to last forever. The Now is Forever. The Moment becomes Infinite.

I don’t necessarily accept the western interpretation of samkhya philosophy as ‘atheistic’. Hindu philosophy and religion is codified to reach as many people as possible as a way of life, not bonded faith. Theism is a layer as is atheism and both have its place in multilayered ancient Hindu philosophy.

The Hindu gods are manifestations of the three Gunas. Dualism is picking one of the three Gunas. Non dualism is accepting all the divisions in the soul that culminates as ‘a god’.

This is a good read. Much better than western interpretations of Samkhya and Vedanta etc that I find very ignorant and limited in its grasp of symbolic language.

I am troubled by any definitive interpretation. Hindu philosophy is meant for debate and discussion as a way to unravel layers of Self. It’s interpretation is unique and personal to each individual to suit their particular life circumstance. Contemplation is a beautiful thing. Thanks for the share.

I’ll upvote because you seemed to put a goodly amount of thought and effort into the comment, but not because I read every word.

It's convenient the natural hierarchy tells one lineage of human beings their entire purpose in life is to serve the people who discovered the "natural hierarchy". Reminds me of more recent discoverors of the "natural hierarchy" and their methods of educating others...

That’s a very simple and inaccurate interpretation.

What is your interpretation of the caste system?

I follow the vedanta(Advaita) school of philosophy

"What remains uncontested is the product of his meditations, the Samkhya Sutras, which laid the foundation for the earliest “complete” system of philosophy derived from The Vedas. The system’s central axioms would be developed over the course of a millennium..."

Is wrong for several reasons. As a Samkhyavadin of the arithmetic kind, let me count some of them:

1. What's 'uncontested' would be strongly contested by both their classical interlocutors such as the Mimansakas and by modern scholars - for example, for linguistic reasons mentioned in one of the other comments.

2. Not sure what 'complete' philososophy means, but we might assume that some account of reason and logic is part of a complete philosophical system, in which case the Samkhyavadins like many of their counterparts, took the lead from the Naiyayikas, who were closely related but distinct. Same for grammar, where everyone took their lead from Panini and the grammarians.

3. I think calling it 'Vedic Philosophy' doesn't do justice either to the Vedas or to Philosophy. For example, the accurate, elaborate and intricate performance of ritual action is central to the Vedic experience. We can't reduce that to philosophical beliefs about dualism or monism without serious harm to the original practices. It's a sign of modernity that beliefs (such as dualism) are given precedence over ritual performance.

3. Words like 'derive' and 'axioms' suggest an overly mathematical relationship which would be impossible to justify. Even the Upanisads aren't derived from the Vedas in any axiomatic sense. The Prakriti-Purusa dualism finds a precedent in the Rig Veda which says "Two birds associated together, and mutual friends, take refuge in the same tree; one of them eats the sweet fig; the other abstaining from food, merely looks on" - try deriving the Soul from that imagery.

In fact, the most well known Samkhya (influenced) text isn't the Karika but the Mahabharata, including the Gita, with Arjuna playing the role of Prakriti and Krishna that of Purusa. Which is why - to use a deductive argument - Arjuna fights even when he doesn't want to and Krishna doesn't even when wants to.

I know I am being pedantic, but I find that these kinds of reductive Whig histories of Indian knowledge traditions perpetuate the problems they are trying to remove. Far more interesting, say, from the perspective of modern philosophy of mind, is the somewhat technical question: why did most Indian traditions consider mind, aka Manas, to be a physical entity? What does it say about their account of knowledge since Manas is an Indriya, i.e., an instrument of knowledge. What does it mean for knowledge to be physical and yet normative, i.e., how can something physical be true or false?"

To reduce these subtleties to 'Hindu Philosophy' or even to six schools of Astika philosophy is deeply problematic.

I sympathize with what you're saying, but any broad survey of an incredibly complex subject like this is necessarily going to need to simplify some aspects of it. I definitely agree with you that the notion of the mind as a physical construct is a fascinating topic, but someone could easily write something just as long as the original article and barely scratch the surface.

Are there concrete ways you feel the article could be improved to address your points? (I'm asking out of genuine interest since you seem to know a lot about the subject.) Alternately, do you have other sources you'd recommend as a preferable introduction to the topic?

As a lay person with limited knowledge of these traditions, I didn't get the sense that the author was using axioms and derivations in a strict mathematical sense, but rather as "these are some foundational bits of epistemology in this tradition which informed further developments," for whatever that's worth.

1. Painting a very broad brush, as in half of Eurasian philosophy, check out Chakravarthi Ram-Prasad's 'Eastern Philosophy' [1].

2. More technical, but a valuable introduction to analytic methods in classical Indian thought: Jonardon Ganeri's 'Philosophy in Classical India: An Introduction and Analysis' [2]

These are, of course, scholars writing in a scholarly vein. Two books about Guru figures with deep spiritual experience are:

3. Sri Ramakrishna Kathamrita, translated into English as 'The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna'[3]

4. Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi [4]

Finally, to take a comparative route:

5. Roberto Calasso's 'Ka' which is his take on the Vedic-Puranic-Itihasic Corpus as a whole [5].

and to understand how India meets Greece via Persepolis and Egypt:

6. Thomas McEvilley's 'Shape of Ancient Thought' [6]

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Eastern-Philosophy-Dr-Chakravarthi-Ra...

[2] https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Classical-India-Introducti...

[3] https://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Sri-Ramakrishna-Swami-Nikhilan...

[4] https://www.amazon.com/Talks-Ramana-Maharshi-Realizing-Happi...

[5] https://www.amazon.com/Ka-Stories-Mind-Gods-India/dp/0679451...

[6]https://www.amazon.com/Shape-Ancient-Thought-Comparative-Phi...

Thanks!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com