What are the main arguments given by Samkhya in the favour of the Prakritiparinamavada? Give some possible objections against it?
Prakritiparinamavada is the belief that the material world is constantly changing and that this change is the result of the transformation of the fundamental elements or principles that make up the world. This belief is held by the Samkhya school of Indian philosophy.
The main arguments given by Samkhya in favour of Prakriti parinamavada are:
- Observable evidence: Samkhya argues that the constant change and transformation of the material world is evident to anyone who observes it. This includes the change of seasons, the growth and decay of living beings, and the cycles of birth and death.
- The presence of change: Samkhya asserts that the material world cannot be static or unchanging, as this would violate the principle of causality. According to Samkhya, every effect must have a cause, and the only way to explain the constant change and transformation of the material world is through the transformation of the fundamental elements or principles that make it up.
- The lack of a permanent self: Samkhya argues that the belief in a permanent self or soul is not supported by the evidence of the constantly changing material world. If the self were permanent, it would not be subject to change or transformation, but the evidence suggests that everything in the material world is subject to change.
- The presence of diversity: Samkhya argues that the diversity and variety of the material world cannot be explained without the transformation of the fundamental elements or principles that make it up. If the material world were unchanging, it would be uniform and lacking in diversity.
However, there are several possible objections to Prakriti parinamavada. One objection is that the concept of Prakriti parinamavada relies on the assumption that the material world is composed of fundamental elements or principles that are capable of transformation. However, it is possible that the material world is not composed of these elements or principles, or that they do not have the ability to transform.
Another objection is that Prakriti parinamavada does not account for the role of consciousness or perception in shaping our understanding of the material world. It is possible that our perception of the material world is subjective and influenced by our individual experiences and perspectives, rather than being an objective representation of reality.
A third objection is that prakriti parinamavada does not explain the apparent stability and order in the material world. If the material world were constantly changing and in a state of flux, it would be chaotic and lacking in stability and order. However, the material world appears to be relatively stable and ordered, which suggests that it is not subject to constant change and transformation.