If six systems of philosophy are progressive why are they contradictory?

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
So, if the six systems of philosophy are supposed to progress, then we don’t contradict each other. As a first-hand, second-hand, we don’t contradict what is taught in first-hand.
But then why are the conclusions of the six systems different? Now, this is a little technical question. I’ll try to keep it as simple as possible. Let’s have it.
Okay. Let’s quickly understand these philosophies. Let’s start with Vaisheshika.
Vaisheshika is called as the molecular theory of math. So, we look at the world and this world attracts us, entangles us. So many attractive objects which we get captivated by.
So, Vaisheshika is what? Analyzing the world in sleep. All is attractive. Ultimately, it’s made of molecules.
What is there to be attracted in molecules? So, the idea is, by deconstructing the sense objects, deconstructing means breaking down the sense objects into molecules, we learn to detach ourselves from the world. Now, Sankhya is also a similar deconstruction, but that is the elemental theory of math. In the history of philosophy, there have been these two broad theories of math.
The elemental theory of math and the molecular theory of math. So, we divide the material world into its elements. That was actually adopted by the Greeks and it came down to western intellectual thought, but since modern science has largely related to the elemental theory and accepted the molecular theory of math.
But, the elemental theory of math is also another way. We look at this world and see what are the elements in this world. Again, the point is, what is there to be so attracted to? Earth, water, fire? Let’s go beyond.
So, both are meant to give us a vision by which we can detach from. Then, after that, what is the Vimamsa? It is meant for us to arrive at this. So, if this world is nothing attractive, what do we do? Follow certain rules and regulations by which one can attain a higher destination.
The higher destination is Swadhisthana in Karma, in Vimamsa. That is, follow rules and regulations. So, then, after that, it understands that actually, you and me, that higher destination is also temporary.
Even that higher destination is temporary. So, therefore, what should we do? We should seek something beyond that. And that’s where Yoga comes in.
Yoga is a means of inner discipline by which one can arrive at it. Then, beyond that, there is Vimamsa. In Yoga, the idea is that one understands that there is a spiritual concept of liberation, but what that liberation is not very clear.
So, in Yoga, technically as Yoga is understood in Patanjali Yogasutras, liberation means that there is contentless consciousness. Contentless consciousness means, generally when there is consciousness, say, I am here and you are there. So, I am the observer, you are the observed, and there is a stream of consciousness being observed.
So, there is subject, there is object, and there is consciousness. That is the normal understanding of consciousness. But in Yoga, the concept of liberation is that there is dissolution of subject and there is dissolution of object.
There is only consciousness. So, they said, one should meditate in such a way that who is meditating, who is meditating, even he is meditating. Laughter Laughter So, that is the conception of liberation in Yoga.
But Vedanta takes us forward and says that actually, say, contentless consciousness, there is no positive happiness. So, there is subject, there is the soul, and there is object, there is Krishna, and when the consciousness is directed towards Krishna, then there is ultimate happiness. So, Nyaya is basically a system of logic.
So, Nyaya was originally meant as a tool to be used for analysis by different schools of thought. But then each of these became independent. See, that is the normal human tendency that everybody wants to consider themselves to be the best.
So, these schools of thought, they started evolving as independent schools of thought. And that’s how they became content. So, originally they were progressive in terms of, they were gradually taking a person towards the Absolute.
But eventually, they became content. And that’s when the need for refuting the contents of the school of thought came up. So, we should understand that no philosophy stays static.
So, Yoga, as was taught by Patanjali, and Yoga as was understood by the teachers of Yoga at the time of Baldev, that’s different. Because every school of philosophy evolves over time. The original Yoga, from the Vaishnava perspective, is that it was progressive.
But, subsequently, historically, Yoga has become content. And that’s why we need to get rid of it. So, we should not think of any school of philosophy as a frozen body of thought.
It always responds to history, to circumstance. And it evolves. Sometimes the evolution is good, sometimes the evolution is bad.
And Krishna talks about the bad part and he says, sakaleni hamata yogo nashtah parata. And fourth point he says, by the power of time, this knowledge of Yoga was lost. So, in their original uncontaminated forms, the schools of philosophy were progressive.
But, in their evolved, or in their contaminated forms, they became content. And that’s why there was a need to refute. And that’s why in their contaminated forms, there were contradictions.