Raja Yoga
-
I have a question about the Sankhya philosophical concepts of Sattva, Rajas, Tamas, and Purusa. Would it be fair to say that Sattva would be comparable to Yin, Rajas to Te, Tamas to Yang, and Purusa to Tao? Thank you for any thoughts.
No.
In fact some of those are bizarrely off!
-
I have a question about the Sankhya philosophical concepts of Sattva, Rajas, Tamas, and Purusa. Would it be fair to say that Sattva would be comparable to Yin, Rajas to Te, Tamas to Yang, and Purusa to Tao? Thank you for any thoughts.
-
I have a question about the Sankhya philosophical concepts of Sattva, Rajas, Tamas, and Purusa. Would it be fair to say that Sattva would be comparable to Yin, Rajas to Te, Tamas to Yang, and Purusa to Tao? Thank you for any thoughts.
Starting with Purusha, I see I was completely off. Tao would be associated with Kether on the tree. Would Purusha be associated with Neschmah and Binah? In retrospect and further investigation the others are just plain wrong. Again thank you for any further insights.
Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk 2
-
I have a question about the Sankhya philosophical concepts of Sattva, Rajas, Tamas, and Purusa. Would it be fair to say that Sattva would be comparable to Yin, Rajas to Te, Tamas to Yang, and Purusa to Tao? Thank you for any thoughts.
@ARYK said
"Starting with Purusha, I see I was completely off. Tao would be associated with Kether on the tree. Would Purusha be associated with Neschmah and Binah?"
I didn't answer elaborately because (1) to the extent there are generic or shared valuations for this, you seem way off target in general theory, (2) I especially don't think there is a direct comparison between these two systems - they can each relate to a common set of concepts or associations, but not directly to each other, and (3) to some extent these are individual/personal associations, and it's not my place or anyone else's to tell you how you should lay them out - as long as you are keeping them entirely to (and for) yourself. (OTOH, you asked! <g>)
Purusha, which literally means "the person," and broadly means what other systems call "the Self," is not radically different from Atma. (The subtleties probably aren't necessary for the present conversation.) But, in that broad sense, it's no different from Yechidah, etc., i.e., is Kether. At the very least it is the Supernals collectively in relationship to the remainder of the Tree, and this could be justified to some extent since, in the advance to Chesed, one has to objectify (distinguish oneself from) the Gunas. OTOH, at a more subtle level, even Neshamah (arguably: especially Neshamah) is part of prakriti, therefore external to Purusha.
"In retrospect and further investigation the others are just plain wrong. Again thank you for any further insights."
The one that just stunned me was your equation of Tamas to Yang and Rajas to Teh. Of the three Gunas, Tamas (= alchemical Salt) is the most distinctly feminine one, and Rajas (= alchemical Sulphur) is the most distinctly masculine one - exactly opposite the Yang and Teh characterizations. (I suspect you were going for "Teh = power" sort of thing and equating this to Rajas; but Teh as power is feminine, i.e., shakti.
-
I have a question about the Sankhya philosophical concepts of Sattva, Rajas, Tamas, and Purusa. Would it be fair to say that Sattva would be comparable to Yin, Rajas to Te, Tamas to Yang, and Purusa to Tao? Thank you for any thoughts.