Talk:Purusha

Untitled

I think this article has got the concept of Purusha as in Hinduism totally wrong. Can somebody change its contents or at least put a cleanup tag or something till somebody else does it?

Who wrote this?

Agree that the concept presented here is a distortion of the idea of Purusha. I've given up on Wikipedia-- it just perpetuates a Western narrative and a distorted view of Vedic concepts. -- Fgpilot (talk) 10:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

What

Who wrote this? This has to be unbiased.

Purusha/Anthropos

I'd like to know whether this article is right or wrong as I would like to know if the concept of the Purusha is the same or similar to the Western idea of the Anthropos. ThePeg 15:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ymir

Unwaranted boldness:

not unlike the Norse Ymir^{[citation really needed]},

We should not speculate in similarities this way without external sources and good reasons. The myths might actually be related, but without external sources claiming so, the texts risks ridicule if we just freely speculate. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 18:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Angustha purusha

No WP:CONSENSUS formed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Other article has been tagged for a couple years already, is less complete and apparently about the same topic, and is improperly named for casing. 3gg5amp1e (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with the merge. Since, both are very different entities and the terminologies used to describe them are interchangeable. Thanks Kapil.xerox (talk) 05:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This whole existence is Purusha

RigVeda Informed पुरुष एवेदं सर्वं यद भूतं यच्च भव्यम | — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:30B:2125:99CE:495A:16D0:A06A (talk) 05:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The meaning of Purusha

In the context of the Samkhya philosophical system, the term Purusha refers to that which is observing. It denotes pure observing consciousness. In Karika 3 Purusha is said to be neither prakrtir nor vikrtih. That means it neither is the world (Prakriti), nor the foundation of the world (Pradhana). It is something else entirely: the observer. Like Pradhana, Purusha is not cognizable by the senses; it is subtle and not directly observable. But unlike Pradhana, its properties cannot be inferred; Purusha is known only through inner experience. Therefore, it is said to be distinct from both Pradhana and Prakriti. In the Tamas state of psychological development, Purusha observes the world without self-knowledge (ajnana). In the Sattva state of consciousness, Purusha observes the world with self-knowledge (jnana). It is always just witness. The only difference between Tamas and Sattva is that in Tamas there is no awareness of this fact, while in Sattva there is! (For more info see Jens Lauschke (2023). Samkhya Yoga: An Interpretation of Iswara Krishna's Samkhya Karika. Taxila Publications. ISBN: 9783948459604). 185.162.223.23 (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

df.= sign

I’m taking my cue from the article Tattva (Shaivism) were Purusha is described as one of the Seven pure-impure tattvas. It seems to me that kalā and kāla are being conflated because, apparently C.S. Peirce(Kant) wasn’t Hindi, at least not that I know of. There is a Semeiotic answer to this question. Ask, what is the definition of ‘sign’? 2600:1700:77A1:6170:4C2A:2D96:8E78:8E65 (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)