In the Sāṁkhya, Puruṣa (self) is free, inactive and it is the nature of consciousness (cetanā).
It is beyond time and space, and it has both merit and demerit, attachment and detachment.
It is real form which is not bounded. All actions, pleasure and suffering, change and feeling,
etc. are the distortions of the body. Puruṣa (self) is beyond the bodily and mental suffering
(dukhaḥ). Puruṣa (self) is neither the cause nor the effect. Puruṣa (self) is not material, and
it is also not known by…
Read moreIn the Sāṁkhya, Puruṣa (self) is free, inactive and it is the nature of consciousness (cetanā).
It is beyond time and space, and it has both merit and demerit, attachment and detachment.
It is real form which is not bounded. All actions, pleasure and suffering, change and feeling,
etc. are the distortions of the body. Puruṣa (self) is beyond the bodily and mental suffering
(dukhaḥ). Puruṣa (self) is neither the cause nor the effect. Puruṣa (self) is not material, and
it is also not known by direct perception. Ācharya Śaṅkara critiques the Sāṁkhya view and
says, If Puruṣa (self) is inactive then how can it possibly influence the others? Śaṅkara also
questions the relation of the Puruṣa (self) with the Prakṛṭi (non-self). This paper elaborates
the nature and the existence of Puruṣa (self), purpose of the inactive Puruṣa (self), the
subjectivity of Puruṣa (self) from the text “Sāṁkhyakārikā”. A critical analysis of Śaṅkara‟s
critique of the “Sāṁkhyakārikā” is made and by providing an analytical assessment of the
self (Puruṣa) and its relation with the non-self (Prakṛṭi) the paper attempts at arguing against
Śaṅkara‟s logic.