'Evolution' in saankhya is not evolution in time , particularly not evolution in historical time. 

'Evolution' here, is just a (metaphorical) expression for the hierarchy of sources and results, causes and effects, controlling and controlled, primary and secondary aspects of reality. 

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 12:08 PM alakendu das via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:
Dr.Kapstein,
As I have understood Samkhya,This school of our philosophy begins with Prakriti or "Mulprakriti " which is the primordial element from which the Evolution sets off.Then we have Purusha,which may be equated with "Atmana".,..the omnipresent omnipotent Existence..Its the desperate endeavour on the part of 
Purusha to disentangle itself from the clutches of Prakriti ,with a view to attaining the Final Emancipation at the transcendental level(Paramarthika).The Samkhya flow chart ,perhaps,goes something as follows:-
Prakriti-Purusha-Ahamkar -.Buddhi-Manas-5 Gyanendriyas(5 sense organs),5 Karmendriyas,5 gross elements,and 5 subtle elements.A total of 25 elements constitutes the Samkhya evolutionary flow chart from the initial fundamental concept (Prakriti) at the bottom to the final Transcendence of the Purusha at the Top.It traces our entire journey from the mundane to the supra-mundane.
Alakendu Das.
Sent from RediffmailNG on Android




From: Matthew Kapstein via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info>
Sent: Tue, 28 May 2019 03:50:51 GMT+0530
To: Indology <INDOLOGY@list.indology.info>
Subject: [INDOLOGY] query on Sāṃkhya

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 Pro
fessor of Buddhist Studies,
The University of Chicago
_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)


--
Nagaraj Paturi
 
Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.


Director,  Inter-Gurukula-University Centre for Indic Knowledge Systems. 
BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, Maharashtra

BoS, Chinmaya Vishwavidyapeeth, Veliyanad, Kerala

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies
 
FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,
 
(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )