Although
today’s class was a bit difficult to fully understand, I was able to understand
Prakrti and Purusa and the relationship between the two.
The Samkhya structure believes that
“…the universe can be reduced to tension between two antithetic principles: on
the one side, unitary matter (prakrti)…on the other, we find a spiritual
principle (purusa)”(Torella 76).
Prakrti
is translated as “nature.” When it is in an unmanifest state, it has the
potential for everything that could possibly manifest and when it is in a
manifest state, it is the universe as we know it.
Purusa
is translated as “spirit” or “soul.” Purusa never changes and never actually
does anything at all. It is this pure consciousness that is always free and
always liberated and is never bound up in any kind of change. Purusa actually
causes Prakrti to manifest even though it does not ever do anything.
The
idea that Prakrti, coded as female, is envisioned as a female dancer and
Purusa, coded as male, is envisioned as the male witness looking in on a female
performance is very interesting to think about. It also helps to understand the
relationship between Purusa and Prakrti. The male, or the Purusa, is not
actually doing anything, but is just admiring the woman who is dancing, the
Prakrti.
So,
since Purusa is never changing and is pure consciousness, does this mean that
Prakrti is everything that changes and is everything that is not conscious? It seems
like Purusa is easier to understand since it does not change and is consciousness,
unlike Prakrti. Is Prakrti a more complicated idea than that of Purusa? In a way, Purusa controls Prakrti, because it causes Prakrti to manifest. Does this mean that Prakrti is never able to be in a manifest state without Purusa? Thoughts?
I interpreted the distinction between Purusa and Prakrti in a similar manner. I agree that it is easier to understand if you initially lay Purusa as a foundation, that is to say: Purusa is consciousness. That, in turn, leads to the conclusion that Prakrti encompasses all that is not consciousness. While initially one may only view Prakrti as including material and emotional aspects, but then one soon realizes that it extends in infinite directions, limited only to the capabilities of the consciousness, Purusa. Because of this, I think that Prakrti is intrinsically linked to Purusa and without Purusa, cannot manifest at all.
ReplyDeleteI interpreted the distinction between Purusa and Prakrti in a similar manner. I agree that it is easier to understand if you initially lay Purusa as a foundation, that is to say: Purusa is consciousness. That, in turn, leads to the conclusion that Prakrti encompasses all that is not consciousness. While initially one may only view Prakrti as including material and emotional aspects, but then one soon realizes that it extends in infinite directions, limited only to the capabilities of the consciousness, Purusa. Because of this, I think that Prakrti is intrinsically linked to Purusa and without Purusa, cannot manifest at all.
ReplyDeleteYes, prakṛti in and of itself is not conscious. This is so even though prakṛti some elements that we would normally think of as being independently conscious: the intellect and the mind. The intellect is often represented as a mirror that reflects the light of consciousness onto an object of perception. Although it's illuminated by consciousness, it is not itself conscious. Prakṛti is certainly a much more diverse idea than puruṣa. As for which is more complicated, however, for me it's a toss-up. With puruṣa, it's somewhat difficult to understand what could be meant by a pure consciousness that is always aware but doesn't have any content and never changes. Also, there are many different puruṣas, so what could distinguish one from another? The most difficult thing to understand, I think, is the nature of the relationship between the two. As we mentioned in class, thought about this relationship led to the development of many other traditions.
ReplyDelete