Back to Course

Philosophy (Optional) Notes & Mind Maps

0% Complete
0/0 Steps
  1. 1. Plato and Aristotle: Ideas; Substance; Form and Matter; Causation; Actuality and Potentiality
    1.1 Plato's Philosophy of Ideas
  2. 1.2 Plato's Understanding of Substance
  3. 1.3 Aristotle's Philosophy of Form and Matter
  4. 1.4 Aristotle's Theory of Substance
  5. 1.5 Plato's View on Causation
  6. 1.6 Aristotle's Four Causes
  7. 1.7 Actuality and Potentiality in Aristotle's Philosophy
  8. 1.8 Comparative Analysis of Plato and Aristotle's Philosophies
  9. 2. The Foundations of Rationalism: Method, Substance, God, and Mind-Body Dualism
    2.1 Rationalism (Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz)
  10. 2.2 Cartesian Method and Certain Knowledge
  11. 2.3 Substance (Aristotle, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz)
  12. 2.4 Philosophy of God (Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz)
  13. 2.5 Mind-Body Dualism
  14. 2.6 Determinism and Freedom (Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz)
  15. 3. Empiricism (Locke, Berkeley, Hume)
    3.1 Introduction to Empiricism
  16. 3.2 Theory of Knowledge (Locke, Berkeley, Hume)
    3 Submodules
  17. 3.3 Substance and Qualities (Locke, Berkeley, Hume)
  18. 3.4 Self and God (Locke, Berkeley, Hume)
  19. 3.5 Scepticism (Locke, Berkeley, and Hume)
  20. 4. Kant
    4.1 Introduction to Kant's Philosophy
  21. 4.2 Kant: The Possibility of Synthetic a priori Judgments
  22. 4.3 Kant's Space and Time
  23. 4.4 Kant's Categories
  24. 4.5 Kant's Ideas of Reason
  25. 4.6 Kant's Antinomies
  26. 4.7 Kant's Critique of Proofs for the Existence of God
  27. 5. Hegel
    5.1 Hegel: Dialectical Method; Absolute Idealism
  28. 6. Moore, Russell, and Early Wittgenstein
    6.1 Defence of Commonsense (Moore, Russell, and Early Wittgenstein)
  29. 6.2 Refutation of Idealism (Moore, Russell, and Early Wittgenstein)
  30. 6.3 Logical Atomism (Moore, Russell, and Early Wittgenstein)
  31. 6.4 Logical Constructions (Moore, Russell, and Early Wittgenstein)
  32. 6.5 Incomplete Symbols (Moore, Russell, and Early Wittgenstein)
  33. 6.6 Picture Theory of Meaning (Moore, Russell, and Early Wittgenstein)
  34. 6.7 Saying and Showing (Moore, Russell, and Early Wittgenstein)
  35. 7. Logical Positivism
    7.1 Verification Theory of Meaning
  36. 7.2 Rejection of Metaphysics
  37. 7.3 Linguistic Theory of Necessary Propositions
  38. 8. Later Wittgenstein
    8.1 Meaning and Use (Later Wittgenstein)
  39. 8.2 Language-games (Later Wittgenstein)
  40. 8.3 Critique of Private Language (Later Wittgenstein)
  41. 9. Phenomenology (Husserl)
    9.1 Method - Phenomenology (Husserl)
  42. 9.2 Theory of Essences - Phenomenology (Husserl)
  43. 9.3 Avoidance of Psychologism - Phenomenology (Husserl)
  44. 10. Existentialism (Kierkegaard, Sartre, Heidegger)
    10.1 Existence and Essence
  45. 10.2 Choice, Responsibility and Authentic Existence
  46. 10.3 Being–in–the–world and Temporality
  47. 11. Quine and Strawson
    11.1 Critique of Empiricism (Quine and Strawson)
  48. 11.2 Theory of Basic Particulars and Persons (Quine and Strawson)
  49. 12. Cârvâka
    12.1 Cârvâka: Theory of Knowledge
  50. 12.2 Cârvâka: Rejection of Transcendent Entities
  51. 13. Jainism
    13.1 Jainism: Theory of Reality
  52. 13.2 Jainism: Saptabhaòginaya
  53. 14. Schools of Buddhism
    14.1 Pratîtyasamutpâda (Schools of Buddhism)
  54. 14.2 Ksanikavada (Schools of Buddhism)
  55. 14.3 Nairâtmyavâda (Schools of Buddhism)
  56. 15. Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika
    15.1 Theory of Categories (Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika)
  57. 15.2 Theory of Appearance (Nyâya-Vaiśeṣika)
  58. 15.3 Theory of Pramâna (Nyâya-Vaiśeṣika)
  59. 15.4 Self, Liberation, God, Proofs for the Existence of God (Nyâya-Vaiśeṣika)
  60. 15.5 Theory of Causation & Atomistic Theory of Creation (Nyâya-Vaiśeṣika)
  61. 16. Sâmkhya
    16.1 Prakrti (Sâmkhya)
  62. 16.2 Purusa (Sâmkhya)
  63. 16.3 Causation (Sâmkhya)
  64. 16.4 Liberation (Sâmkhya)
  65. 17. Yoga
    17.1 Introduction to Yoga Philosophy
  66. 17.2 Citta (Yoga)
  67. 17.3 Cittavrtti (Yoga)
  68. 17.4 Klesas (Yoga)
  69. 17.5 Samadhi (Yoga)
  70. 17.6 Kaivalya (Yoga)
  71. 18. Mimâmsâ
    18.1 Mimâmsâ: Theory of Knowledge
  72. 19. Schools of Vedânta
    19.1 Brahman (Schools of Vedânta)
  73. 19.2 Îúvara (Schools of Vedânta)
  74. 19.3 Âtman (Schools of Vedânta)
  75. 19.4 Jiva (Schools of Vedânta)
  76. 19.5 Jagat (Schools of Vedânta)
  77. 19.6 Mâyâ (Schools of Vedânta)
  78. 19.7 Avidyâ (Schools of Vedanta)
Module 63 of 78
In Progress

16.3 Causation (Sâmkhya)

I. Introduction – Background of Sâmkhya philosophy

  • Origins of Sâmkhya: One of the six classical schools of Hindu philosophy, Sâmkhya finds its roots deep within Indian thought, largely discussed in ancient texts like the Mahabharata, Upanishads, and the Rigveda.
  • Philosophical Underpinnings: Fundamental to this philosophy is its dualistic nature, stressing the distinction between consciousness (Purusa) and material reality (Prakrti).
  • Relation to other schools: While unique in its core principles, Sâmkhya shares certain commonalities with other Hindu philosophies like Yoga and Vedanta, especially in its metaphysical approach.
  • Literary Foundation: The Sâmkhya Karika written by Ishvarakrishna around the 3rd century AD serves as one of the foundational texts detailing Sâmkhya’s core principles.
  • Prakrti – The Material Principle: Prakrti, often described as nature or the primal matter, is the fundamental cause of all physical and psychological phenomena in the universe. Its dynamic nature gives rise to the multitude of experiences in the material world. copyright©
  • Purusa – The Conscious Principle: Standing in stark contrast, Purusa represents pure consciousness, unchanging and eternal. It doesn’t act but observes, providing the necessary awareness for Prakrti’s operations.
  • Interplay of Prakrti and Purusa: The interaction between Prakrti and Purusa forms the basis of the world’s evolutionary process. The ever-changing Prakrti finds its observer in the form of Purusa, leading to the experience of the world.
  • Causation in Sâmkhya: Delving into causation is vital as it elucidates the transformative nature of the universe. This understanding provides insights into the very nature of existence and the processes that govern it.

The Significance of Causation in Sâmkhya

  • Foundational Role: The concept of causation is not just a minor aspect of Sâmkhya philosophy but rather serves as its bedrock, explaining the processes and transformations that the universe undergoes.
  • Relation to Evolutionary Process: By understanding causation, one can unravel the intricate process of evolution, where the unmanifested becomes manifested.
  • Application in Real-life: A comprehension of Sâmkhya causation has far-reaching implications, from guiding daily actions to shaping one’s understanding of reality.
  • Influence on Other Philosophies: Given its depth and intricacy, Sâmkhya’s concept of causation has also influenced other philosophical schools, both within and outside the Indian subcontinent. copyright©
  • Historical Context: The stress on causation finds its echo in various historical Indian texts, shedding light on the ancient civilization’s endeavor to understand the universe’s workings.

Comparative Analysis of Prakrti and Purusa

Prakrti (Material Principle)Purusa (Conscious Principle)
Fundamental cause of all phenomenaRepresents pure consciousness
Dynamic and ever-changingEternal and unchanging
Responsible for material experiencesThe observer, without which nothing is experienced
Represents the universe’s tangible aspectsSymbolizes the intangible consciousness
Acts under the influence of three gunas: sattva, rajas, and tamasRemains unaffected by these gunas

II. Satkāryavāda: The Doctrine of Pre-existent Effect

Historical Development of Satkāryavāda

  • Emergence and Literary Foundation: The doctrine of Satkāryavāda originated within the tenets of Indian philosophy, particularly within the Sâmkhya school. This doctrine received substantial attention in classical texts, with the Sâmkhya Karika by Ishvarakrishna serving as a monumental resource.
  • Roots in Ancient Philosophy: The notion of Satkāryavāda can be traced back to ancient Indian traditions and thoughts, evident in various Upanishads and the Mahabharata. These sources indicate the philosophy’s time-tested nature and its integration into Indian philosophical thought.
  • Contrast with Other Doctrines: While Satkāryavāda argues for the pre-existence of the effect in the cause, there are contrasting doctrines, such as Asatkāryavāda, which denies such a notion. This contrast sets the stage for many philosophical debates within the subcontinent’s intellectual circles. copyright©

Importance of Satkāryavāda in the context of Sâmkhya Causation

  • Core of Sâmkhya Evolutionary Theory: Satkāryavāda forms the crux of the Sâmkhya school’s evolutionary theory. The Sâmkhya philosophy’s understanding of the transformation and manifestation of the universe aligns with the doctrine’s core principles.
  • Clarification on Causation Process: By advocating for the pre-existence of effect in the cause, Satkāryavāda offers a clear perspective on how the causal process operates in the Sâmkhya framework. It negates the idea of spontaneous generation, emphasizing a systematic evolution.
  • Implications for Understanding Prakrti and Purusa: The interplay between Prakrti (material) and Purusa (consciousness) becomes more understandable with the Satkāryavāda lens. The doctrine suggests that the myriad manifestations we observe are mere expressions of what already exists in potential form within Prakrti.

Key Concepts

  • Pre-existence of Effect in the Cause: Central to Satkāryavāda is the belief that the effect is not a new creation but has always pre-existed in its cause. This challenges the widely held perception that every effect is a fresh emergence, emphasizing continuity over spontaneous creation.
  • Evolution as a Manifestation: Evolution, as understood in the Sâmkhya philosophy, is a process of unfolding or manifestation. Satkāryavāda posits that what evolves or manifests is not new but is a realization of what has been latent. The universe’s evolution, from the most subtle to the most gross forms, is seen as a sequential manifestation of what exists inherently within the primal nature, Prakrti. copyright©

Comparative Analysis of Satkāryavāda and Asatkāryavāda

Effect pre-exists in the causeEffect doesn’t pre-exist in the cause
Evolution is a manifestation of the pre-existingEvolution creates entirely new entities
Supports the Sâmkhya philosophy’s evolutionary theoryOften associated with Buddhist philosophies
Emphasizes continuity in the causation processImplies spontaneous or sudden creation

III. Asatkāryavāda: The Counter-view

Historical Contexts of Asatkāryavāda
Historical foundation: Asatkāryavāda, unlike its counterpart Satkāryavāda, posits that the effect does not pre-exist in its cause but comes into being afresh.
Emergence: Originating primarily from Buddhist philosophical traditions, Asatkāryavāda presents a contrasting view to the traditional Hindu philosophy seen in Satkāryavāda.
Literary mentions: The doctrine finds its reference in multiple ancient Indian texts, but it’s most prominently defended by the Buddhist schools, including some prominent figures like Nagarjuna.

Fundamental Tenets and Key Differences with Satkāryavāda
Central belief: The essence of Asatkāryavāda lies in its firm assertion that the effect is newly born and does not exist in any form before its actual production.
Contrast with Satkāryavāda: While Satkāryavāda emphasizes the pre-existence of the effect in the cause, Asatkāryavāda negates this entirely. For them, causality signifies the new emergence, rather than a mere manifestation.
Application in nature: A simple analogy often used is the production of milk from a cow. In Satkāryavāda, milk pre-exists in the cow, waiting to be manifested. However, for Asatkāryavāda, the milk does not exist until the cow produces it. copyright©

How Sâmkhya Reconciles with or Counters Asatkāryavāda

Reconciliation attempts: Sâmkhya, rooted in Satkāryavāda, offers explanations that aim to bridge gaps and find common ground, suggesting that both theories touch upon different aspects of the causal process, emphasizing different stages or perspectives.
Philosophical disagreements: Yet, the core disagreement remains. Sâmkhya argues for a logical continuity in the causal process, suggesting that something cannot come from absolute nothingness. This counters the Asatkāryavāda view that new effects arise spontaneously without pre-existence.
Defense of Satkāryavāda: Using examples, Sâmkhya philosophers argue for the consistency and predictability of nature. The seed turning into a tree is not a new creation but a manifestation of what’s inherent in the seed.

Comparative Analysis: Sâmkhya’s Satkāryavāda vs. Asatkāryavāda

Satkāryavāda (Sâmkhya’s Stance)Asatkāryavāda (Buddhist Stance)
Effect pre-exists in its cause.Effect is a fresh creation, not pre-existing.
Evolution is about manifestation.Evolution involves new production.
Supported by logical consistency in nature.Supported by the dynamic nature of existence.
Seed to tree is manifestation.Seed to tree is new creation.
Emphasizes continuity in causal process.Focuses on spontaneity in causal process.

Sâmkhya’s take: For the Sâmkhya school, the predictability and consistency observed in natural processes lend credence to Satkāryavāda. The regularity, as seen in the maturation of seeds or the birth of animals, suggests a pre-ordained order, not random newness.
Buddhist refutations: Buddhists, while acknowledging these natural processes, emphasize the ever-changing, dynamic nature of existence, supporting their stance of fresh creation. copyright©

IV. The Process of Evolution: From Unmanifest to Manifest

  • Origin and the Concept of Evolution: Sâmkhya, one of the classical Indian schools of philosophy, delves deep into the understanding of existence and the universe. Its principles are both profound and intricate. Fundamental to the Sâmkhya cosmology is the theory of evolution. – The doctrine establishes that there exists an unmanifest primordial state, and through an intricate process, it evolves or “unfolds” into the manifest world.
  • The Three Gunas: A Triadic Force: The Gunas, according to Sâmkhya philosophy, are the three fundamental “strands” or “tendencies” that act as primary forces of universe.
    • Sattva: Often associated with purity, tranquillity, and calmness, sattva is the principle of harmony and lightness. It is that which is illuminating, and brings about balance in nature and individuals.
    • Rajas: Dynamic, active, and ever-changing, rajas is the principle of movement. It leads to passion, desire, and is the driving force behind action and change in the universe.
    • Tamas: Representing inertia, darkness, and heaviness, tamas is the principle of stability, resistance, and rest. It is that which can obstruct, hinder, or bring stagnation.
  • Gunas and Evolutionary Influence: The interplay of these gunas is not static but dynamic. – Their equilibrium or disequilibrium is the main cause of the universe’s evolution or involution.
    • Interplay and Balance: When the gunas are in perfect equilibrium, the world remains unmanifested or in its primordial state. When there’s an imbalance, the process of creation or evolution commences. copyright©
    • The Role of Rajas: With its nature of activity, rajas brings about the disturbance in the equilibrium of sattva and tamas, initiating the process of evolution.
    • Tamas and Formation: As tamas represents inertia and resistance, its dominance after the initial disturbance results in the formation of grosser elements.
    • Sattva’s Contribution: Through illumination and balance, sattva paves the way for finer elements and subtle forms in the evolutionary process.
  • ‘Vikasa’ in Sâmkhya: The term ‘Vikasa’ means unfolding or expansion. – In Sâmkhya, it represents the systematic process through which the unmanifested evolves into the manifested.
    • Beginning with Disturbance: The journey from the unmanifested to manifested starts with the disturbance in the equilibrium of the gunas.
    • Sequential Progression: This unfolding isn’t random but follows a clear, sequential progression, ensuring a structured and orderly universe.
  • The 23 Tattvas: Evolutionary Steps: These principles, or tattvas, describe the stages or steps of evolution in the Sâmkhya system.
    • Emergence from Prakrti: Prakrti, the primal nature or the unmanifest, is the starting point. Everything emerges from this singular entity.
    • Mahat or Cosmic Intellect: The first to evolve from Prakrti is Mahat, the cosmic intellect or buddhi.
    • Ahankara or Ego: Following Mahat is the evolution of Ahankara, the principle of ego or individuality. copyright©
    • Manas and Sensory Organs: Manas, the mind, along with the ten sense organs, evolves next.
    • Tanmatras or Subtle Elements: These are the subtle forms of the five elements – sound, touch, form, taste, and smell.
    • Five Gross Elements: From the tanmatras emerge the five gross elements – space, air, fire, water, and earth.
  • Interconnection and Interdependence: Every subsequent tattva that emerges is inherently dependent on its predecessor, highlighting a deep interconnectedness in creation.
    • Holistic View: These tattvas aren’t isolated but present a holistic view of the universe’s structure, interwoven and deeply connected.

V. Causal Chain in Sâmkhya: Linking Macrocosm and Microcosm

Understanding the Cosmic and Individual Processes:

  • Cosmic Overview: Sâmkhya philosophy offers a unique cosmological view, emphasizing a dualistic perspective where the cosmic reality consists of two eternal entities: Purusa (consciousness) and Prakrti (matter).
  • Microcosmic Lens: Similarly, at the individual level, Sâmkhya posits that the human experience results from the interaction between individual consciousness (akin to Purusa) and the physical body (akin to a subset of Prakrti’s manifestations).
  • Dual Yet Interlinked: While Sâmkhya maintains a clear demarcation between the cosmic and individual processes, the philosophy elucidates that the macrocosmic principles mirror and influence the microcosmic ones, setting the stage for an interconnected causative relationship. copyright©

Emergence of Mahat, Ahamkara, and the Tanmatras:

  • Mahat’s Emanation: The first evolute to emerge from Prakrti in the process of cosmic evolution is Mahat or the Cosmic Intellect. Representing pure intelligence, it is the cosmic mind’s guiding force, overseeing all subsequent evolutions.
  • Ahamkara’s Role: Following Mahat, Ahamkara or the Cosmic Ego emerges. Serving as an intermediary, it facilitates the evolution of both the subtle and gross elements, effectively bridging the gap between consciousness and matter.
  • Tanmatras’ Significance: The Tanmatras, often referred to as the subtle elements, emerge post Ahamkara. Comprising sound, touch, form, taste, and smell, these subtle elements are precursors to the five gross elements (space, air, fire, water, earth) that make up the perceivable universe.

Interplay of Purusa and Prakrti in the Context of Causation:

  • Dance of Duality: Central to Sâmkhya’s causative chain is the interplay between Purusa and Prakrti. While they remain distinct, their interactions drive the cosmic and individual processes, giving rise to the multilayered reality we experience.
  • Prakrti’s Dynamism: Prakrti, inherently dynamic and creative, becomes activated in the presence of Purusa. It undergoes transformations, resulting in the multitudinal manifestations of the universe.
  • Purusa’s Passivity: Contrasting Prakrti’s active nature, Purusa remains passive. Yet, it’s this very passivity, combined with its witnessing capacity, that catalyzes Prakrti’s transformations. Without Purusa’s mere presence, Prakrti would remain inert. copyright©
  • The Causative Chain: The intricate interaction between Purusa and Prakrti, combined with the successive emergence of Mahat, Ahamkara, and the Tanmatras, constitutes the Sâmkhyan causal chain. This chain links the vast cosmic processes with individual experiences, providing insights into the profound connection between the macrocosm and microcosm.
  • Indian Illustration: A classic Indian analogy compares Purusa and Prakrti to a lame man (representing Purusa) and a blind man (representing Prakrti). Alone, neither can navigate effectively. But when the lame man rides on the blind man’s shoulders, directing him, they successfully move forward. This illustrates how passive consciousness (Purusa) and dynamic matter (Prakrti) synergistically create the universe’s grand narrative.

VI. Comparison with Other Philosophies – Causation in Sâmkhya vs. Nyaya, Vedanta, and Buddhism

Origins and Background

  • Historical context: Philosophical debates have been integral to India’s intellectual traditions, often occurring between proponents of different schools.
  • Major schools: Four dominant systems that have extensively deliberated on causation include Sâmkhya, Nyaya, Vedanta, and Buddhism.

Causation in Sâmkhya

  • Fundamental basis: Causation in Sâmkhya hinges on the interplay between Purusa (consciousness) and Prakrti (matter).
  • Dualistic framework: Unlike non-dual systems, Sâmkhya maintains a strict dichotomy between consciousness and matter.
  • Cause and effect relationship: Prakrti, in its unmanifest state, evolves into various manifest forms influenced by the proximity of Purusa.

Causation in Nyaya

  • Logic-driven school: Nyaya, often recognized as the school of logic, presents a system where causation is inferred through logical means.
  • Externally driven causation: Unlike Sâmkhya’s internal evolution, Nyaya proposes that an effect exists in its cause in a potential form and external conditions bring it into a manifest state.

Causation in Vedanta

  • Brahman centric: The causation in Vedanta is centered on Brahman, the ultimate reality.
  • Non-dual perspective: Advaita Vedanta, a major sub-school, posits non-duality wherein the world is Brahman’s manifestation.
  • Maya’s role: The concept of Maya or illusion explains how the one Brahman appears as many.

Causation in Buddhism

  • Dependent origination: Buddhism introduces Paticcasamuppada, suggesting things arise dependent on conditions.
  • Absence of eternal substratum: Rejecting an eternal soul or self, it offers anatta, the doctrine of non-self.
  • Transient nature: Emphasizing impermanence, Buddhism views causation as a constantly changing process.

Comparative Overview

Dualism: Purusa and PrakrtiLogic-driven, external conditionsNon-dual, Brahman-centricDependent origination, no eternal self
Evolutionary causationPotential to manifest causationMaya-driven manifestationConstant change, conditions-based
Internal evolutionExternal manifestationIllusory differentiationRejects permanent essence

Similarities Across Philosophies

  • Shared cultural backdrop: All these philosophies emanated from the Indian subcontinent, sharing a common cultural and historical milieu.
  • Causative focus: Each system, while distinct, centers around understanding the nature of reality and the process of causation.
  • Conceptual overlaps: Elements such as the focus on understanding the true nature of the self appear in multiple schools.

Differences Among Philosophies

  • Dualism vs. Non-dualism: Sâmkhya’s strict dichotomy contrasts with Vedanta’s non-dual perspective.
  • Logic vs. Metaphysics: Nyaya’s logic-driven approach diverges from Vedanta’s metaphysical leanings.
  • Fixed reality vs. Flux: Buddhism’s emphasis on impermanence and flux sets it apart from other systems which posit more stable realities.

Intersections of Thought

  • Cross-influences: Philosophers from these schools often engaged in debates, resulting in mutual influences.
  • Syncretic traditions: Over time, thinkers attempted to reconcile differing views, leading to hybrid philosophical traditions.
  • Example: The debates between Advaita Vedanta and Buddhist philosophers are notable, wherein both sides highlighted similarities while defending their unique positions.

VII. Criticisms and Counter-arguments

Contemporary Criticisms of Sâmkhya Causation

  • Modern Relevance: In an age of empirical science, some argue that Sâmkhya’s causation theory lacks the empirical backing that modern philosophies possess.
  • Lack of Universal Acceptance: Critics pinpoint the absence of global acceptance or adaptation of Sâmkhya compared to other Eastern philosophies.
  • Rigidity of Thought: Given its age, some feel Sâmkhya hasn’t evolved as dynamically as some other philosophical systems.
  • Dualistic Limitations: With many modern philosophies embracing non-dualistic or pluralistic views, Sâmkhya’s steadfast adherence to dualism is often critiqued.
  • Undefined Nature of Purusa and Prakrti: Some scholars believe that the very foundations of Sâmkhya – Purusa (consciousness) and Prakrti (matter) – are vaguely defined.

Responses and Justifications from Sâmkhya Scholars

  • Empirical Basis: Sâmkhya scholars assert that the philosophy is grounded in empirical observation of the internal world, even if it doesn’t align with modern empirical methods.
  • Timeless Wisdom: They believe that the age-old wisdom of Sâmkhya, far from being outdated, offers timeless insights into human nature and the universe.
  • Philosophical Flexibility: Advocates suggest that, despite seeming rigidity, Sâmkhya offers a flexible framework that can accommodate and explain diverse life experiences.
  • Dualism as a Strength: For Sâmkhya scholars, the dualism isn’t a limitation but rather offers a clear distinction between the observer and the observed, the conscious and the inert