Marzenna Jakubczak

The paper starts with some textual distinctions concerning the concept of God in the metaphysical framework of two classical schools of Hindu philosophy, Sāṃkhya and Yoga. Then the author focuses on the functional and pedagogical aspects of prayer as well as practical justification of “religious meditation” in both philosophical schools. A special attention is put on the practice called īśvarapraṇidhāna, recommended in Yoga school, which is interpreted by the author as a form of non-theistic devotion. The meaning of the central object of this concentration, that is puruṣa-viśeṣa, is reconsidered in detail. The subject matter is discussed in the wider context of yogic self-discipline that enables a practitioner to overcome ignorance ( avidyā) and the narrowness of egotic perspective (asmitā), recognized in the Hindu darśanas as the root-cause of all suffering or never-fulfilled-satisfaction ( duḥkha). The non-theistic devotion and spiritual pragmatism assumed by the adherents of Sāṃkhya-Yoga redefines the concept of “God” ( īśvara) as primarily an object of meditative practice and a special tool convenient for spiritual pedagogy.

In this paper I reflect on the mythocreative potential of Gimbutas’ narrative reconstruction of archaic culture and its impact on the contemporary critique of culture. First, I revise the notion of ‘nature’ in the context of two opposing conceptual paradigms of change-over-time, namely cyclic and linear. Then, I discuss symbolic connotation of ‘Nature – Culture’ interrelationship with special reference to the ‘idyllic vision of Goddess’ proposed by Marija Gimbutas (1921-1994), American archaeologist of Lithuanian origin, the author of the groundbreaking books on Neolithic religion The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe (1974) and The Language of the Goddess (1989). Gimbutas’ work based on archaeological evidence and also anthropological, linguistic, ethnological and folklore studies, aims in supporting her general thesis that the European prehistoric culture, so called Old Europe (c. 6 500 – 3 500 BC), was peaceful, egalitarian, nature-revering, matrifocal and worshiped a Great Goddess as giver of all life. In conclusion, I undertake a question whether this ecofeminist mythization of Nature, inspired by the ancient artifacts and Gimbutas’ reconstruction of the narrative structure they represent, may provide inspiration for present and future cultural transformation, or rather remains merely past-oriented sentimentalism and outdated eco-romanticism.

The paper discusses the issue of psychophysical agency in the context of Indian philosophy, focusing on the oldest preserved texts of the classical tradition of Sāṃkhya–Yoga. The author raises three major questions: What is action in terms of Sāṃkhyakārikā (ca. fifth century CE) and Yogasūtra (ca. third century CE)? Whose action is it, or what makes one an agent? What is a right and morally good action? The first part of the paper reconsiders a general idea of action – including actions that are deliberately done and those that ‘merely’ happen – identified by Patañjali and Ῑśvarakṛṣṇa as a permanent change or transformation (pariṇāma) determined by the universal principle of causation (satkārya). Then, a threefold categorization of actions according to their causes is presented, i.e. internal agency (ādhyātmika), external agency (ādhibhautika) and ‘divine’ agency (ādhidaivika). The second part of the paper undertakes the problem of the agent’s autonomy and the doer’s psychophysical integrity. The main issues that are exposed in this context include the relationship between an agent and the agent’s capacity for perception and cognition, as well as the crucial Sāṃkhya–Yoga distinction between ‘a doer’ and ‘the self’. The agent’s self-awareness and his or her moral self-esteem are also briefly examined. Moreover, the efficiency of action in present and future is discussed (i.e. karman, karmāśaya, saṃskāra, vāsanā), along with the criteria of a right act accomplished through meditative insight (samādhi) and moral discipline (yama).

Self-knowledge, at first glance, seems to be naturally and easily accessible to each of us. We commonly believe that we need much less effort to understand ourselves than to understand the world. The authoress of the paper uncovers the fallacy of this popular view referring to the fundamental conceptions and philosophical ideas of the classical Yoga. She tries to demystify our deceptive self-understanding explaining the definitions of ignorance (avidya), I-am-ness (asmita), desire (raga), aversion (dvesha) and fear of death (abhinivesha) given by the author of the oldest Yoga treatise. Besides, the paper discusses briefly how we can make use of our limited, incorrect self-knowledge as far as we are aware that it needs to be transcended. In the final part of the paper, the issue of self-discipline consisting basically in cultivation of detachment and the practice of meditation is addressed.

W artykule rozważane są rozmaite semantyczne i symboliczne relacje, w jakich ujmuje się przyrodę na gruncie filozofii, kosmologii i estetyki indyjskiej. Punktem wyjścia jest charakterystyka wewnętrznej dynamiki przyrody, w którą wpisane jest nieustanne zderzanie się biegunowych jakości. Przedstawione są m.in. wedyjskie kosmogoniczne rozważania, konstatujące samorodność i substancjalną jednorodność cyklicznej natury, oraz pięć reprezentatywnych filozoficznych koncepcji przyrody. Autorka podkreśla także swoistą współzależność pomiędzy afirmowaną wizją przyrody a kulturowymi reprezentacjami natury ludzkiej.

The chapter is divided into five sections. Firstly, I shall briefly describe the phenomenon of Kāpil Maṭh, a Sāṃkhya-Yoga āśrama founded in the early twentieth century by a charismatic Bengali scholar-monk Swāmi Hariharānanda Ᾱraṇya (1869–1947); while referring to Hariharānanda’s writings I will also consider the idea of the re-establishment of an extinct philosophical school. Secondly, I shall specify the method of analysis I apply while addressing the question raised in the title of my chapter and discuss some relevant Sanskrit and Pāli sources. Thirdly, I intend to focus on Aśvaghoṣa’s record in reconstructing the Buddha’s argument against the self. Then I shall offer a possible defence of the self reinterpreted in Buddhist terms and formulated, so to say, ‘on behalf’ of the revived Sāṃkhya-Yoga school. Finally, I will conclude by explaining why and on what assumptions Sāṃkhya can benefit from Buddhist critiques.

The main objective of this collection of papers is to explore ideas of generation and transformation in the context of postdependency discourse as it may be traced in women’s writing published in Bengali, Polish, Czech, Russian and English. As we believe, literature does not have merely a descriptive function or a purely visionary quality but serves also as a discursive medium, which is rhetorically sophisticated, imaginatively influential and stimulates cultural dynamics. It is an essential carrier of collective memory and a significant indicator of group identity. Along with philosophy, literature explores the intellectual and emotional, aesthetic and ethical components of our lives, and, while focusing on a single feeling or unique event or phenomenon, aspires to capture the universal attributes of human experience. Hence, we intend to juxtapose interpretations of literature originating in very different cultural milieus, such as the Central East European and South Asian,with the literary treatment of the philosophical dilemmas that challenge authors of various nationalities in times of great political, economic and social upheaval and transformation following long periods of dependency and suppression, caused either by colonial and imperialist domination or by communist ideology.