Editing Samkhya (section)

==Philosophy==

===''Puruṣa'' and ''Prakṛti''===
Samkhya makes a distinction between two "irreducible, innate and independent realities",{{sfn|Sharma|1997|pages=149–168}} ''[[Purusha]]'', the witness-consciousness, and ''[[Prakṛti]]'', "matter", the activities of mind and perception.{{sfn|Lusthaus|2018}}{{sfn|Haney|2002|page=17}}{{sfn|Isaac|Dangwal|1997|page=339}} According to Dan Lusthaus,
{{blockquote|In Sāṃkhya puruṣa signifies the observer, the 'witness'. Prakṛti includes all the cognitive, moral, psychological, emotional, sensorial and physical aspects of reality. It is often mistranslated as 'matter' or 'nature' – in non-Sāṃkhyan usage it does mean 'essential nature' – but that distracts from the heavy Sāṃkhyan stress on prakṛti's cognitive, mental, psychological and sensorial activities. Moreover, subtle and gross matter are its most derivative byproducts, not its core. Only prakṛti acts.{{sfn|Lusthaus|2018}}}}

Puruṣa is considered as the conscious principle, a passive enjoyer (''bhokta'') and the ''Prakṛti'' is the enjoyed (''bhogya''). Samkhya believes that the puruṣa cannot be regarded as the source of inanimate world, because an intelligent principle cannot transform itself into the unconscious world. It is a pluralistic spiritualism, atheistic realism and uncompromising dualism.<ref name="Sharma">{{harvnb|Sharma|1997|pages=149–168}}</ref>

====''Puruṣa'' – witness-consciousness====
[[File:Purusha-Pakriti.jpg|thumb|upright=1.75|Purusha-prakriti]]

''[[Purusha|Puruṣa]]'' is the witness-consciousness. It is absolute, independent, free, imperceptible, unknowable through other agencies, above any experience by mind or senses and beyond any words or explanations. It remains pure, "nonattributive consciousness". ''Puruṣa'' is neither produced nor does it produce.{{sfn|Sharma|1997|pages=155–7}} No appellations can qualify ''Purusha'', nor can it be substantialized or objectified.{{sfn|Chapple|2008|p=21}} It "cannot be reduced, can't be 'settled'". Any designation of ''Purusha'' comes from ''Prakriti'', and is a limitation.{{sfn|Osto|2018|p=203}} Unlike [[Advaita Vedanta]], and like [[Mīmāṃsā|Purva-Mīmāṃsā]], Samkhya believes in plurality of the ''Puruṣas''.{{sfn|Sharma|1997|pages=155–7}} However, while being multiple, ''Puruṣas'' are considered non-different because their essential attributes are the same.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Nicholson |first=Andrew J. |date=2007-08-01 |title=Reconciling dualism and non-dualism: three arguments in Vijñānabhikṣu’s Bhedābheda Vedānta |url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10781-007-9016-6 |journal=Journal of Indian Philosophy |language=en |volume=35 |issue=4 |pages=383 |doi=10.1007/s10781-007-9016-6 |issn=1573-0395}}</ref>

====''Prakṛti'' - cognitive processes====
[[File:Evolution in Samkhya.jpg|thumb|160px|Elements in Samkhya philosophy]]
{{Main|Prakṛti}}

''Prakṛti'' is the first cause of the world of our experiences.{{sfn|Osto|2018|p=204}} Since it is the first principle (''tattva'') of the universe, it is called the ''pradhāna'' (chief principle), but, as it is the unconscious and unintelligent principle, it is also called the ''jaḍa'' (unintelligent). It is composed of three essential characteristics (''triguna''s). These are:
* ''[[Sattva]]'' – poise, fineness, lightness, illumination, and joy;
* ''[[Rajas]]'' – dynamism, activity, excitation, and pain;
* ''[[Tamas (philosophy)|Tamas]]'' – inertia, coarseness, heaviness, obstruction, and sloth.<ref name="Sharma" />{{sfn|Hiriyanna|1993|pages=270–272}}{{sfn|Chattopadhyaya|1986|pages=109–110}}

Unmanifested ''Prakriti'' is infinite, inactive, and unconscious, with the three gunas in a state of equilibrium. When this equilibrium of the ''guṇas'' is disturbed then unmanifest ''Prakṛti'', along with the omnipresent witness-consciousness, ''Purusha'', gives rise to the manifest world of experience.{{sfn|Osto|2018|p=205}}{{sfn|Larson|1998|page=11}} ''Prakriti'' becomes manifest as twenty-three ''[[tattva]]s'':{{Sfn|Osto|2018|p=204}} intellect ([[buddhi]], mahat), ego ([[ahamkara]]) mind (''[[Manas (early Buddhism)|manas]]''); the five sensory capacities; the five action capacities; and the five "subtle elements" or "modes of sensory content" (''tanmatras'': form (''[[rūpa]]''), sound (''shabda''), smell (''gandha''), taste (''rasa''), touch (''sparsha'')), from which the five "gross elements" or "forms of perceptual objects" emerge (earth (prithivi), water (jala), fire (Agni), air (Vāyu), ether (Ākāsha)).{{Sfn|Osto|2018|p=204-205}}{{sfn|Haney|2002|page=42}} ''Prakriti'' is the source of our experience; it is not "the evolution of a series of material entities," but "the emergence of experience itself".{{Sfn|Osto|2018|p=205}} It is description of experience and the relations between its elements, not an explanation of the origin of the universe.{{Sfn|Osto|2018|p=205}}

All ''Prakriti'' has these three ''guṇas'' in different proportions. Each ''guṇa'' is dominant at specific times of day. The interplay of these ''guṇa'' defines the character of someone or something, of nature and determines the progress of life.<ref name=jamesg>James G. Lochtefeld, Guna, in ''The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism: A-M,'' Vol. 1, Rosen Publishing, {{ISBN|9780823931798}}, page 265</ref><ref>T Bernard (1999), ''Hindu Philosophy'', Motilal Banarsidass, {{ISBN|978-81-208-1373-1}}, pages 74–76</ref> The Samkhya theory of ''guṇa'' was widely discussed, developed and refined by various schools of Indian philosophies. Samkhya's philosophical treatises also influenced the development of various theories of Hindu ethics.<ref name=royper/>

Thought processes and mental events are conscious only to the extent they receive illumination from ''Purusha''. In Samkhya, consciousness is compared to light which illuminates the material configurations or 'shapes' assumed by the mind. So intellect, after receiving cognitive structures from the mind and illumination from pure consciousness, creates thought structures that appear to be conscious.<ref name="Isaac">{{harvnb|Isaac|Dangwal|1997|page=342}}</ref> Ahamkara, the ego or the phenomenal self, appropriates all mental experiences to itself and thus, personalizes the objective activities of mind and intellect by assuming possession of them.<ref>{{harvnb|Leaman|2000|page=68}}</ref> But consciousness is itself independent of the thought structures it illuminates.<ref name="Isaac" />

===Liberation or ''mokṣa''===
{{Quote box |width=20em | bgcolor=#c6dbf7 |align=right  |quote=The Supreme Good is mokṣa which consists in the permanent impossibility of the incidence of pain... in the realisation of the Self as Self pure and simple. |salign = right
|source =—Samkhyakarika I.3<ref>{{harvnb|Sinha|2012|page=App. VI,1}}</ref>}}
Samkhya school considers ''[[moksha]]'' as a natural quest of every jiva. The [[Samkhyakarika]] states,

{{Blockquote|
<poem>
As the unconscious milk functions for the sake of nourishment of the calf,
so the Prakriti functions for the sake of moksha of the spirit.
</poem>
|Samkhya karika|Verse 57<ref>Gerald James Larson (2011), ''Classical Sāṃkhya: An Interpretation of Its History and Meaning,'' Motilal Banarsidass, {{ISBN|978-8120805033}}, page 273</ref><ref name=colebrookesktrans>Original Sanskrit: [http://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_z_misc_major_works/IshvarakRiShNasAnkyakArikA.pdf Samkhya karika] Compiled and indexed by Ferenc Ruzsa (2015), Sanskrit Documents Archives;<br />[http://www.kouroo.info/kouroo/transclusions/18/37/1837_SankhyaKarikaHTColebrook.pdf Samkhya karika] by Iswara Krishna, Henry Colebrooke (Translator), Oxford University Press, page 169</ref>}}

Samkhya regards ignorance ([[Avidyā (Hinduism)|avidyā]]) as the root cause of suffering and bondage (''[[Saṃsāra|Samsara]]''). Samkhya states that the way out of this suffering is through knowledge (viveka). ''Mokṣa'' (liberation), states Samkhya school, results from knowing the difference between ''Prakṛti'' (avyakta-vyakta) and ''Puruṣa'' (jña).<ref name="Lpage9" /> More specifically, the ''Puruṣa'' that has attained liberation is to be distinguished from a ''Puruṣa'' that is still bound on account of the liberated ''Puruṣa'' being free from its subtle body (synonymous with buddhi), in which is located the mental dispositions that individuates it and causes it to experience bondage.<ref name="ref1">{{Cite web |title=Sāṁkhya thought in the Brahmanical systems of Indian philosophy {{!}} WorldCat.org |url=https://www.worldcat.org/title/613798605 |access-date=2023-02-16 |website=www.worldcat.org |page= |language=en}}</ref>{{rp|58}}

''Puruṣa'', the eternal pure consciousness, due to ignorance, identifies itself with products of ''Prakṛti'' such as intellect (buddhi) and ego (ahamkara). This results in endless transmigration and suffering. However, once the realization arises that ''Puruṣa'' is distinct from ''Prakṛti'', is more than empirical ego, and that puruṣa is deepest conscious self within, the [[Ātman (Hinduism)|Self]] gains isolation (''kaivalya'') and freedom (''moksha'').<ref>{{harvnb|Larson|1998|page=13}}</ref>

Though in conventional terms the bondage is ascribed to the ''Puruṣa'', this is ultimately a mistake. This is because the Samkhya school (Samkhya karika Verse 63) maintains that it is actually ''Prakriti'' that binds itself, and thus bondage should in reality be ascribed to ''Prakriti'', not to the ''Puruṣa'':<ref>{{Cite book |last=Colebrooke |first=Henry Thomas |url=http://worldcat.org/oclc/61647186 |title=The Sānkhya kārika : or, Memorial verses on the Sānkhya philosophy |date=1887 |publisher=Chatterjea |pages=178 |oclc=61647186}}</ref>

{{Blockquote|text=By seven modes nature binds herself by herself: by one, she releases (herself), for the soul's wish (Samkhya karika Verse 63) ·}}

Vacaspati gave a metaphorical example to elaborate the position that the ''Puruṣa'' is only mistakenly ascribed bondage: although the king is ascribed victory or defeat, it is actually the soldiers that experience it.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Dasti |first=Matthew R., Bryant, Edwin F. |url=http://worldcat.org/oclc/852227561 |title=Free will, agency, and selfhood in Indian philosophy |year=2014 |isbn=978-0-19-992275-8 |pages=28 |publisher=Oup USA |oclc=852227561}}</ref> It is then not merely that bondage is only mistakenly ascribed to the ''Puruṣa'', but that liberation is like bondage, wrongly ascribed to the ''Puruṣa'' and should be ascribed to ''Prakriti'' alone.<ref name="ref1" />{{rp|60}}

Other forms of Samkhya teach that ''Mokṣa'' is attained by one's own development of the higher faculties of discrimination achieved by meditation and other yogic practices. ''Moksha'' is described by Samkhya scholars as a state of liberation, where ''sattva guṇa'' predominates.<ref name="Gerald James Larson 2011 pages 36-47" />

=== Epistemology ===
[[File:3 Pramana Epistemology Samkhya Yoga Hindu schools.svg|thumb|The Samkhya school considers perception, inference and reliable testimony as three reliable means to knowledge.<ref name="Lpage9"/><ref name=eliottjag/>]]
Samkhya considered ''Pratyakṣa'' or ''Dṛṣṭam'' (direct sense perception), ''Anumāna'' (inference), and  ''Śabda'' or ''Āptavacana'' (verbal testimony of the sages or shāstras) to be the only valid means of knowledge or ''pramana''.<ref name="Lpage9">{{harvnb|Larson|1998|page=9}}.</ref> Unlike some other schools, Samkhya did not consider the following three ''pramanas'' to be epistemically proper: ''Upamāṇa'' (comparison and analogy), ''Arthāpatti'' (postulation, deriving from circumstances) or ''Anupalabdi'' (non-perception, negative/cognitive proof).<ref name=eliottjag/>
* '''''Pratyakṣa''''' (प्रत्यक्ष) means perception. It is of two types in Hindu texts: external and internal. External perception is described as that arising from the interaction of five senses and worldly objects, while internal perception is described by this school as that of inner sense, the mind.<ref name=kamal>MM Kamal (1998), The Epistemology of the Carvaka Philosophy, Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies, 46(2): 13-16</ref><ref>B Matilal (1992), Perception: An Essay in Indian Theories of Knowledge, Oxford University Press, {{ISBN|978-0198239765}}</ref> The ancient and medieval Indian texts identify four requirements for correct perception:<ref name=kpmat/> ''Indriyarthasannikarsa'' (direct experience by one's sensory organ(s) with the object, whatever is being studied), ''Avyapadesya'' (non-verbal; correct perception is not through [[hearsay]], according to ancient Indian scholars, where one's sensory organ relies on accepting or rejecting someone else's perception), ''Avyabhicara'' (does not wander; correct perception does not change, nor is it the result of deception because one's sensory organ or means of observation is drifting, defective, suspect) and ''Vyavasayatmaka'' (definite; correct perception excludes judgments of doubt, either because of one's failure to observe all the details, or because one is mixing inference with observation and observing what one wants to observe, or not observing what one does not want to observe).<ref name=kpmat>Karl Potter (1977), "Meaning and Truth," in ''Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies'', Volume 2, Princeton University Press, Reprinted in 1995 by Motilal Banarsidass, {{ISBN|81-208-0309-4}}, pages 160-168</ref> Some ancient scholars proposed "unusual perception" as ''pramana'' and called it internal perception, a proposal contested by other Indian scholars. The internal perception concepts included ''pratibha'' (intuition), ''samanyalaksanapratyaksa'' (a form of induction from perceived specifics to a universal), and ''jnanalaksanapratyaksa'' (a form of perception of prior processes and previous states of a 'topic of study' by observing its current state).<ref>Karl Potter (1977), Meaning and Truth, in Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, Volume 2, Princeton University Press, Reprinted in 1995 by Motilal Banarsidass, {{ISBN|81-208-0309-4}}, pages 168-169</ref> Further, some schools considered and refined rules of accepting uncertain knowledge from ''Pratyakṣa-pranama'', so as to contrast ''nirnaya'' (definite judgment, conclusion) from ''anadhyavasaya'' (indefinite judgment).<ref>Karl Potter (1977), "Meaning and Truth," in ''Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies,'' Volume 2, Princeton University Press, Reprinted in 1995 by Motilal Banarsidass, {{ISBN|81-208-0309-4}}, pages 170-172</ref>
* '''''Anumāna''''' (अनुमान) means inference. It is described as reaching a new conclusion and truth from one or more observations and previous truths by applying reason.<ref>W Halbfass (1991), Tradition and Reflection, State University of New York Press, {{ISBN|0-7914-0362-9}}, page 26-27</ref> Observing smoke and inferring fire is an example of ''Anumana''.<ref name=kamal/> In all except one Hindu philosophies,<ref>Carvaka school is the exception</ref> this is a valid and useful means to knowledge. The method of inference is explained by Indian texts as consisting of three parts: ''pratijna'' (hypothesis), ''hetu'' (a reason), and ''drshtanta'' (examples).<ref name=jl4647>James Lochtefeld, "Anumana" in The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism, Vol. 1: A-M, Rosen Publishing. {{ISBN|0-8239-2287-1}}, page 46-47</ref> The hypothesis must further be broken down into two parts, state the ancient Indian scholars: ''sadhya'' (that idea which needs to proven or disproven) and ''paksha'' (the object on which the ''sadhya'' is predicated). The inference is conditionally true if ''sapaksha'' (positive examples as evidence) are present, and if ''vipaksha'' (negative examples as counter-evidence) are absent. For rigor, the Indian philosophies also state further epistemic steps. For example, they demand ''Vyapti'' - the requirement that the ''hetu'' (reason) must necessarily and separately account for the inference in "all" cases, in both ''sapaksha'' and ''vipaksha''.<ref name=jl4647/><ref>Karl Potter (2002), Presuppositions of India's Philosophies, Motilal Banarsidass, {{ISBN|81-208-0779-0}}</ref> A conditionally proven hypothesis is called a ''nigamana'' (conclusion).<ref>Monier Williams (1893), Indian Wisdom - Religious, Philosophical and Ethical Doctrines of the Hindus, Luzac & Co, London, page 61</ref>
* '''''Śabda''''' (शब्द) means relying on word, testimony of past or present reliable experts.<ref name="eliottjag">* Eliott Deutsche (2000), in ''Philosophy of Religion: Indian Philosophy,'' Volume 4 (Editor: Roy Perrett), Routledge, {{ISBN|978-0815336112}}, pages 245–248.
* John A. Grimes, A Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy: Sanskrit Terms Defined in English, State University of New York Press, {{ISBN|978-0791430675}}, page 238.</ref><ref name=dpsb>DPS Bhawuk (2011), Spirituality and Indian Psychology (Editor: Anthony Marsella), Springer, {{ISBN|978-1-4419-8109-7}}, page 172</ref> Hiriyanna explains ''Sabda-pramana'' as a concept which means reliable expert testimony. The schools which consider it epistemically valid suggest that a human being needs to know numerous facts, and with the limited time and energy available, he can learn only a fraction of those facts and truths directly.<ref name=mhir>M. Hiriyanna (2000), The Essentials of Indian Philosophy, Motilal Banarsidass, {{ISBN|978-8120813304}}, page 43</ref>  He must cooperate with others to rapidly acquire and share knowledge and thereby enrich each other's lives. This means of gaining proper knowledge is either spoken or written, but through ''Sabda'' (words).<ref name=mhir/> The reliability of the source is important, and legitimate knowledge can only come from the ''Sabda'' of [[Vedas]].<ref name=eliottjag/><ref name=mhir/> The disagreement between the schools has been on how to establish reliability. Some schools, such as [[Carvaka]], state that this is never possible, and therefore ''Sabda'' is not a proper ''pramana''. Other schools debate means to establish reliability.<ref>P. Billimoria (1988), ''Śabdapramāṇa: Word and Knowledge, Studies of Classical India,'' Volume 10, Springer, {{ISBN|978-94-010-7810-8}}, pages 1-30</ref>

=== Causality ===
{{unreferenced section|date=July 2012}}
The Samkhya system is based on [[Satkaryavada|Sat-kārya-vāda]] or the theory of causation. According to Satkāryavāda, the effect is pre-existent in the cause. There is only an apparent or illusory change in the makeup of the cause and not a material one, when it becomes effect. Since, effects cannot come from nothing, the original cause or ground of everything is seen as ''Prakṛti''.<ref>{{harvnb|Larson|1998|page=10}}</ref>

More specifically, Samkhya system follows the ''prakṛti-Parināma Vāda''. ''[[Pariṇāmavāda|Parināma]]'' denotes that the effect is a real transformation of the cause. The cause under consideration here is ''Prakṛti'' or more precisely ''Moola-Prakṛti'' ("Primordial Matter"). The Samkhya system is therefore an exponent of an evolutionary theory of matter beginning with primordial matter. In evolution, ''Prakṛti'' is transformed and differentiated into multiplicity of objects. Evolution is followed by dissolution. In dissolution the physical existence, all the worldly objects mingle back into ''Prakṛti'', which now remains as the undifferentiated, primordial substance. This is how the cycles of evolution and dissolution follow each other. But this theory is very different from the modern theories of science in the sense that ''Prakṛti'' evolves for each Jiva separately, giving individual bodies and minds to each and after liberation these elements of ''Prakṛti'' merges into the ''Moola-Prakṛti''. Another uniqueness of Sāmkhya is that not only physical entities but even mind, ego and intelligence are regarded as forms of Unconsciousness, quite distinct from pure consciousness.

Samkhya theorizes that ''Prakṛti'' is the source of the perceived world of becoming. It is pure potentiality that evolves itself successively into twenty four ''[[tattva]]s'' or principles. The evolution itself is possible because ''Prakṛti'' is always in a state of tension among its constituent strands or gunas – ''sattva'', ''rajas'' and ''tamas''. In a state of equilibrium of three gunas, when the three together are one, "unmanifest" ''Prakṛti'' which is unknowable. A ''guṇa'' is an entity that can change, either increase or decrease, therefore, pure consciousness is called nirguna or without any modification.

The evolution obeys [[causality]] relationships, with primal Nature itself being the material cause of all physical creation. The cause and effect theory of Samkhya is called "''Satkārya-vāda''" ("theory of existent causes"), and holds that nothing can really be created from or destroyed into nothingness – all evolution is simply the transformation of primal Nature from one form to another.

Samkhya [[Religious cosmology|cosmology]] describes how life emerges in the universe; the relationship between ''Purusha'' and ''Prakṛti'' is crucial to [[Patanjali]]'s yoga system. The strands of Samkhya thought can be traced back to the [[Vedas|Vedic]] speculation of creation. It is also frequently mentioned in the ''[[Mahabharata]]'' and ''[[Yoga Vasistha|Yogavasishta]]''.