Undecidable Questions in Indian Philosophy

In the 19th century, when mathematicians tried to consolidate and deeply analyse the scattered mathematical concepts haphazardly developed over the last few centuries, they ran into various paradoxes and inconsistencies. German mathematician David Hilbert developed Hilbert's program in the early 20th century as an approach to resolve this foundational crisis in mathematics. Hilbert proposed a solution by establishing a finite and comprehensive set of axioms to serve as the basis for all existing theories. He aimed to demonstrate the consistency of these axioms through a proof. However, in 1931, mathematician Kurt Gödel published his incompleteness theorems, which revealed that Hilbert's program was unachievable for crucial areas of mathematics. As a result, it became shockingly evident to mathematicians that certain statements can never be proven or disproven, rendering them undecidable! This concept of undecidability is not restricted to mathematics and applies to any logical framework, but of course, in different ways depending on how the particular logical framework has been constructed. And if we look at Indian philosophy from a logical perspective, it is applicable there too! What this means is that there are certain concepts in Indian philosophy that are also undecidable from a logical perspective and trying to answer these undecidable questions leads to a lot of unnecessary confusion. Lets try to analyse and understand some of these undecidable questions in Indian philosophy.

How many Purushas (पुरुष) are there?

Purusha (पुरुष) and Prakriti (प्रकृति) are central concepts in Indian philosophy and are used to loosely refer to consciousness and physical nature, respectively. Note that physical nature here does not just refer to matter, but also to the mind, intellect and ego which are also considered to be evolutes of Prakriti. Purusha is the drashta (द्रष्टा, one who sees) and Prakriti is the drishya (दृश्य, that which is seen). Interestingly, in Patanjali Yoga Sutras 1.24, God (ईश्वर) is considered to be a special Purusha (पुरुषविशेष), which is also echoed in Bhagavad Gita 15.17 (उत्तमः पुरुष). So clearly, both Yoga Sutras and Gita are referring to at least two kinds of Purushas, one for ordinary living beings and one for God. Now, are there are multiple Purushas, namely, one for each living being, or do all living beings share the same Purusha? This question is undecidable because Purusha, by definition, is the drashta (द्रष्टा), and everything else is the drishya (दृश्य). This implies that Purusha cannot be the drashya. Even if there are multiple Purushas, its presence cannot be known by any one Purusha since these multiple Purushas are drashta (द्रष्टा) and cannot become part of the drashya (which is Prakriti). When we meet other living beings, we infer that they are conscious because they behave in certain ways, but there is no way for us to actually detect consciousness in any other living being. In fact in Yoga Sutras 4.21, Patanjali says that if one mind could be seen by another mind, then that would lead to an infinite regress.

Does God (ईश्वर) exist?

As mentioned earlier, both Yoga Sutras and Gita use the phrase "special Purusha" to describe God (ईश्वर). Hence, God is also a Purusha (पुरुषविशेष or उत्तमः पुरुष), and as explained earlier, its presence cannot be detected by any other Purusha since पुरुषविशेष cannot become a drishya (दृश्य). It is perfectly alright to believe in the existence of God (पुरुषविशेष) as mentioned in our scriptures, but that will always be a belief and its existence can neither be proven nor disproven by logic or actual experience. So does it then mean that even God cannot know about the existence of consciousness (पुरुष) in various living beings? That is an interesting question, which one पुरुष cannot answer logically since it cannot ever know for sure if such an entity called पुरुषविशेष actually exists.

How does Purusha (पुरुष) interact with Prakriti (प्रकृति)?

In Gita 13.21, Krishna says that Purusha (पुरुष) is the experiencer of pleasure and pain that result due to various dynamics of the three gunas (सत्त्व गुण, रजोगुण and  तमोगुण) in the Prakriti (प्रकृति). And then immediately in verse 13.22, he says that the Purusha has absolutely no relation with Prakriti (देहेऽस्मिन्पुरुषः परः). This is a paradoxical concept and there is no way for us to resolve this conflict. The general resolution provided is that all the experience of pain and pleasure is just an illusion, but the fact that there is an illusion means someone is having the illusion, which is caused due to modifications of Prakriti. Now since Purusha is the only drashta (द्रष्टा), it must be the Purusha who is experiencing that illusion caused by dynamics of the Prakriti, and so how can we say that Purusha has no relation with Prakriti? But the independence of Purusha from Prakriti has also been repeatedly stressed upon in Gita and other Indian scriptures, and so cannot be ignored. Hence, this question is also undecidable.

Is there life after death?

Bhagavad Gita talks about continuation of consciousness after death of the body in several verses and its a central concept in Indian philosophy. Now if we accept that Purusha (द्रष्टा) is distinct from Prakriti (दृश्य), then accepting this continuation of consciousness is not really a problem since what dies is only a part of Prakriti. However, when we say continuation of life, we don't just mean continuation of consciousness, but also continuation of memories and experiences. Now if the memories and experiences of a living being are only stored in the brain, then there is no way for there to be continuation of memories from one life to another. But even if memories and experiences are stored in some non-physical realm, there is no reason to believe that the mass of memories gathered from one living being remains intact after death of the body. Even in the material realm, there is a continuous exchange of atoms and molecules between two bodies, and there can also be organ transplants. So it is very likely that in that non-physical realm also, there is  a continuous exchange and mixing of memories. That may also explain how scientists and artists get new ideas that they have never experienced before. Also, kids are often seen to inherit qualities from several different family members. Hence, although there is continuation of consciousness (पुरुष) in the form of a drashta (द्रष्टा), there is no way for us to know whether the memories and experiences acquired by a new born baby at birth are from one person or a combination of memories from various people who died earlier.

I am sure there are more such undecidable questions in Indian philosophy to which we will never be able to find a concrete resolution. Now that may seem frustrating at first, but it is actually comforting in another way because it tells us that a lot of our conflicts and debates are completely unnecessary. Human capacity for knowledge may be large, but it is not infinite and has many limitations. Once we realise this simple fact, we will act with a lot more empathy towards our fellow human beings and resist imposing our own thoughts and beliefs on them. If you are aware of more such undecidable questions, please share with me.