In my opinion, the problem arises from our terminilogy. The term "evolution" suggests that there is a process of development from primitive state to more complex one, it entails an evaluative sense that is characteristic of our culture, and is associated with our positive attitude towards the idea of progress. In fact, the term "involution" would be closer, but I would prefer more neutral "emanation" to exclude any allusion to our too culturally determined terminology.

http://iph.ras.ru/lysenko.htm

--
Victoria Lysenko, dr.hab.philos.

Head, Department for Oriental philosophy studies

Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences

Moscow, Goncharnaya, 12/1, Moscow 109240

28.05.2019, 01:20, "Matthew Kapstein via INDOLOGY" <indology@list.indology.info>:

Dear Indological colleagues,

One of the peculiarities of Sāṃkhya thought is its unusual theory of "evolution" (though it might better be termed "emanation") which proceeds from the subtle modifications of the mūlaprakṛti to those that are increasingly coarse, namely the organs of sense and of action, and finally to their physical objects. This seems a very odd evolutionary path when we first encounter it and I am wondering if there has been any work that seeks to explain just why Sāṃkhya adopted what to us may seem a remarkably counter-intuitive framework. I do have my own theory about this, but I would not want to publish it if someone else has already come up with a similar idea. I would therefore be grateful for any suggestions you may have concerning scholarship that seeks to explain just why it is that Sāṃkhya proceeds from top to bottom, as it were, rather than the other way around.

with thanks in advance for your advice about this,

Matthew

Matthew Kapstein
Directeur d'études,
Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes

Numata Visiting Professor of Buddhist Studies,
The University of Chicago