Scholarlink

In the Sāṁkhya Kārikā of Īśvrakṛṣṇa, the notion of proximity or affinity Puruṣa bears in relationship to Prakṛti is presented as the reason Prakṛti evolves: “The presence of the Spirit by the side of the Prakṛti is sufficient to make the latter evolve, by disturbing the equipoise of the constituents.” At the same time, however, Puruṣa is regarded to be neither producer (“cause”) nor product (“caused”). And, although mahat or buddhi is the tool that discerns, it is acetana, it lacks consciousness that one might consider necessary for the presence of discernment. What appear to be contradictions or difficulties with the Kārikā, resolved in various ways by commentators or later texts, may also be viewed as the inevitable consequence of limitations with language. (By this we mean the limitations of language if restricted to classical or Boolean logic. An alternative form of logic is that proposed by Birkhoff and von Neumann to be appropriate for quantum mechanics. (Birkhoff & Birkhoff, G., & Von Neumann, J. (1936). The Logic of Quantum Mechanics. Annals of Mathematics, 823–843) An alternative language that may help reconceptualize the relationship between Puruṣa and Prakṛti is that of mathematical physics. Emergence of structure in complex systems, for example, appears to require external organizing intelligence, but does not when such systems “self-organize.” (“A self-organizing system acts autonomously, as if the interconnecting components had a single mind. And as these components spontaneously march to the beat of their own drummer, they organize, adapt, and evolve toward a greater complexity than one would ever expect by just looking at the parts by themselves” [Samuels, L. K. (2013). In Defense of Chaos: The Chaology of Politics, Economics and Human Action. BookBaby]) The specific way in which microscopic systems evolve observably when they are governed by the rules of quantum mechanics is indeterminable without specifying macroscopic boundary conditions, such specification seemingly requiring the influence of a conscious observer. With a focus specifically on the classic non-theistic version of Sāṁkhya of Īśvrakṛṣṇa, and Patañjali’s Yoga Sūtra, we describe a conceptualization of consciousness that addresses the difficulties in the Kārikā mentioned above and that agrees with at least one of the many interpretations of quantum mechanics.

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Relationship of Puruṣa and Prakṛti in Sāṁkhya Kārikā—A Perspective from Quantum Theory

  • 章节

  • 发表日期：

    2025年

查看全文
  • Siegfried Bleher

摘要

In the Sāṁkhya Kārikā of Īśvrakṛṣṇa, the notion of proximity or affinity Puruṣa bears in relationship to Prakṛti is presented as the reason Prakṛti evolves: “The presence of the Spirit by the side of the Prakṛti is sufficient to make the latter evolve, by disturbing the equipoise of the constituents.” At the same time, however, Puruṣa is regarded to be neither producer (“cause”) nor product (“caused”). And, although mahat or buddhi is the tool that discerns, it is acetana, it lacks consciousness that one might consider necessary for the presence of discernment. What appear to be contradictions or difficulties with the Kārikā, resolved in various ways by commentators or later texts, may also be viewed as the inevitable consequence of limitations with language. (By this we mean the limitations of language if restricted to classical or Boolean logic. An alternative form of logic is that proposed by Birkhoff and von Neumann to be appropriate for quantum mechanics. (Birkhoff & Birkhoff, G., & Von Neumann, J. (1936). The Logic of Quantum Mechanics. Annals of Mathematics, 823–843) An alternative language that may help reconceptualize the relationship between Puruṣa and Prakṛti is that of mathematical physics. Emergence of structure in complex systems, for example, appears to require external organizing intelligence, but does not when such systems “self-organize.” (“A self-organizing system acts autonomously, as if the interconnecting components had a single mind. And as these components spontaneously march to the beat of their own drummer, they organize, adapt, and evolve toward a greater complexity than one would ever expect by just looking at the parts by themselves” [Samuels, L. K. (2013). In Defense of Chaos: The Chaology of Politics, Economics and Human Action. BookBaby]) The specific way in which microscopic systems evolve observably when they are governed by the rules of quantum mechanics is indeterminable without specifying macroscopic boundary conditions, such specification seemingly requiring the influence of a conscious observer. With a focus specifically on the classic non-theistic version of Sāṁkhya of Īśvrakṛṣṇa, and Patañjali’s Yoga Sūtra, we describe a conceptualization of consciousness that addresses the difficulties in the Kārikā mentioned above and that agrees with at least one of the many interpretations of quantum mechanics.