Does Purusha will?

[nanda chandran]

Ferenc writes :

>The credit should probably go to the SAmkhya for setting right early on the
>real definition of "eternal" - that it is changeless. If they did not think
>that reality was changeless, why would they 1. Work out a superimposition
>theory and attribute all the work only to prAkriti?

>>1. Work - bodily work - is done by matter and affects matter; soul cannot
>>do
>>it for many reasons, e.g. because it is non-spatial.

But what about the workings of the mind? The mind too is subtle matter
according to the SAmkhya and thus, is prAkriti. And even a simple man with
no special knowledge of psychology, would naturally link desire to thought.

The question here is : is desire thought? If it is, then it has to be only
the buddhi ie prAkriti, which desires.
And desire can never be linked with consciousness. Consciousness is only
knowledge - to be conscious, to know - The Purusha is only the knower and
the silent observer - and cannot be linked to desire.

And AFAIK, all the traditional SAmkhya and Yoga, commentators, interpret it
this way.

>2. Why would they define the Purusha only as pure consciousness?

>>2. Pure means probably 'undefiled', and it is a rather general assumption
>>in some corners that the
>>spiritual sphere is superior, and defilements are bodily in origin
>>("carnal" desires etc.).

"carnal", "desire" -  even if carnal can be linked to the body, how can
desire ever be? It's a thought - the buddhi - prAkriti.

Consciousness always implies the subject object relation. The subject being
conscious of the object. Here as long as the Purusha is conscious of
prAkriti and is not aware of himself, then there's the normal psychological
consciousness. When he has realized his ignorance, awakens and rests content
in himself, separate from prAkriti - then it's pure consciousness devoid of
the subject object relation - liberation - moksham.

>3. And finally why would they cite
>ignorance as the true cause of bondage?

>>3. If the soul is indeed superior it cannot be bound by what
>>is inferior; and as it is conscience, some negative _mental_ property must
>>be the cause of bondage.

If mental property belongs to Purusha, then the buddhi would have been
defined along with the Purusha and not as prAkriti.

Ignorance is not the opposite of knowledge, but wrong knowledge (if it was
the opposite of knowledge, the Purusha would be forever ignorant and no
liberation is possible). The Purusha is MISTAKEN and identifies himself with
PrAkriti. The removal of this ignorance, the right knowledge - to KNOW - is
what brings about liberation.

We've to clearly distinguish between knowledge and thought (desire).


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com