EVOLUTION

We have seen that Prakrti is regarded as essentially dynamic. If motion were not
inherent in Prakrti, it could not be given to it by any outside agency; and if motion
once ceased in Prakrti, it could not reappear. Hence Prakrti is always changing.
Even in dissolution, there is homogeneous change (sarüpa or sajâtïya parinäma)
in Prakrti when all the three gunas are in the state of equilibrium. It is only when
heterogeneous change takes place and rajas vibrates and makes sattva and tamas
vibrate that the equilibrium is disturbed and evolution takes place. Sattva, the
principle of manifestation and rajas, the principle of activity were formerly held
in check by tamas, the principle of non- manifestation and non-activity. But when
rajas, the principle of activity vibrates and makes the other two vibrate, the
process of creation begins. And creation is not the new creation of the worldly
objects, but only their manifestation. It is only making explicit of that which was
formerly implicit. Evolution is regarded as cyclic and not linear. There is no
continuous progress in one direction, but alternating periods of evolution (sarga)
and dissolution (pralaya) in a cyclic order. Evolution is again said to be
teleological and not mechanical or blind. Evolution takes place for serving the
purpose of the Purusa. Prakrti, the gunas, the senses, the mind, the ego, the
intellect, the subtle body—all are constantly serving the end of the Purusa. This
end is either worldly experience (bhoga) or liberation (apavarga). Purusa needs
Prakrti for enjoyment as well as for liberation, for samsara as well as for Kaivalya.
Evolution supplies objects to be enjoyed to the Purusa and also works for his
liberation by enabling him to discriminate between himself and Prakrti.

Now the question is: How does evolution take place? Evidently when
heterogeneous motion arises and rajas disturbs the equilibrium of the gunas. But
how is the equilibrium disturbed? Sähkhya fails to answer this question

1
satisfactorily. The fundamental blunder of Sänkhya has been to separate Prakrti
and Purusa as absolute and independent entities. As a matter of fact, the subject
and the object are two aspects of the same reality which holds them together and
yet transcends them. All realistic pluralism, of whatever brand it may be, has
failed to answer this question satisfactorily. If Prakrti and Purusa are absolutely
separate and independent entities, then they can never unite together, nor can
there be any tertium quid to unite them. And if they cannot unite evolution cannot
take place. Sänkhya says that the disturbance of the equilibrium of the gunas
which starts evolution is made possible by the contact of Purusa and Prakrti.
Purusa without Prakrti is lame and Prakrti without Purusa is blind. ‘Theory
without practice is empty and practice without theory is blind.’ ‘Concepts without
percepts arc empty and percepts without concepts are blind.’ Prakrti needs Purusa
in order to be known, to be seen, to be enjoyed (darshanärtham); and Purusa needs
Prakrti in order to enjoy (bhoga) and also in order to obtain liberation (apavarga),
in order to discriminate between himself and Prakrti and thereby obtain
emancipation (kaivalyärtham). If Prakrti and Purusa remain separate, there is
dissolution. For creation they must unite. Just as a lame man and a blind man can
co-operate and the lame may sit on the shoulders of the blind and point to him the
way, while the blind may walk and thus both can reach the destination, though
neither of them could have done that separately, similarly the inactive Purusa and
the non-intelligent Prakrti co-operate to serve the end, and this union disturbs the
equilibrium of the gunas and leads to evolution.1 But how can the two opposed
and independent entities really come into contact? Sänkhya realizes this difficulty
and in order to avoid it says that there is no real contact between Purusa and
Prakrti and that only the proximity of the Purusa, only the fact that Purusa is near
to Prakrti (purusa-sannidhi-mätra), is sufficient to disturb the equilibrium of the
gunas and thus lead to evolution. But here Sänkhya falls into another difficulty.
The Purusa being always near to Prakrti (for the inactive Purusa cannot move),
evolution should never stop and dissolution would become impossible.

2
Evolution, then, would be beginningless and the very conception of Prakrti as the
state of equilibrium of the three gunas would be impossible. Sahkhya finds itself
between these two horns of a dilemma—either no contact and hence no evolution
or else no equilibrium and hence no Prakrti and no dissolution. In order to avoid
these difficulties, Sänkhya now posits the theory of the semblance of a contact
(samyogäbhäsa). Of course, there is no real contact (samvoga) between Purusa
and Prakrti; there is the semblance of a contact and it is this semblance which
leads to evolution. Purusa is reflected in the intellect (buddhi) and wrongly
identifies himself with his own reflection in the buddhi. It is this reflection of the
Purusa which comes into contact with Prakrti and not the Purusa himself. But
buddhi or mahat is regarded as the first evolute of Prakrti and how can it arise
before evolution to receive the reflection of the Purusa? To avoid this difficulty
it is said that the Purusa is reflected in the Prakrti itself. If so, then liberation and
dissolution would become impossible because Prakrti being always there and it
being the essential nature of the Purusa to identify himself with his reflection in
the Prakrti, he would never get liberation and the very purpose for which
evolution starts would get defeated. Moreover, the reflection being always there,
there would be no dissolution and so no equilibrium of the gunas and hence no
Prakrti. Again, if semblance of a contact is sufficient to disturb the equilibrium,
then evolution itself becomes a semblance of evolution, an appearance only
(vivarta) and no real transformation (parinäma) of Prakrti. Thus we see that in
order to defend the initial blunder of regarding Purusa and Prakrti as absolute and
independent entities, Sänkhya commits blunders after blunders.