This article tries to explore the nature of puruṣa (witness consciousness) in Sāṃkhya philosophy. Puruṣa is admitted for the sake of liberation but as both bondage and liberation are attributed to prakṛti, they are secondarily attributed to Puruṣa. The prakṛti or primordial materiality can generate a set of discrete subdivisions in the presence of pure consciousness where pure consciousness is a mere spectator. The primordial matter evolves only in the presence of puruṣa. Sāṃkhya offers three reasons for admitting the self, firstly, the complex unity of mind and the body acts as a simple, and has a purpose, acting for consciousness which is reflected in it. The simple real being distinct from other bodies, is the enjoyer of the object but distinct from the object and this is the essence of the character of sākṣin striving for salvation and is known as pure consciousness. The individual or the self, comprises of the body, manas and self where the self as an independent entity attains salvation. The self being a mere spectator of the mental states retains its autonomy and is called sākṣin puruṣa or witness consciousness but loses its status as the knower and the doer, as it lapses into prakṛti due to viveka. In Sāṃkhya, both the mind and the body belong to the material realm prakṛti, and hence the Cartesian dualism does not arise, but a different sort, i.e., subject-object dualism is present. The consciousness after attaining salvation relapses into prakṛti and becomes contentless, and this contentless consciousness is never admitted in phenomenology, since for Husserl, consciousness is always intentional. Hence consciousness being contentless will signify the absence of consciousness. Now, for Sartre, consciousness remains empty, nothingness, all materiality lies outside in the world, ego is not within consciousness but in the world. Hence the Sāṃkhya notion of consciousness comes closer to that of Sartre’s notion.