l had meant to post pdf articles but as l couldn't l just summarised the dualist version so it was schweizers interpretations; it was really to indicate how some indian philosophies do not equate mind with consciousness but with matter, which would help western science get over Descarte's hard cast mind/body duality that has plagued the philosophy of mind/science due to it has to be said Christianities extreme separation of flesh and spirit. So in this respect materialists can say mind is
brain, but still have to account for consciousness which some say is 'emergent' rather than 'inherent' or 'immaterial' or 'supernatural'.
My quote [which must have came from somewhere but can't recall] was to illustrate western science's emphasis on concrete matter, religion's on abstract spirit, with the soul having to be 'saved' or liberated but l see it as really the embodied medium of creative energy and of life itself, downgraded in christianity to the snake,dragon,from water and eve's expulsion, all negating 'goddess energy' or sensuality or shakti, if you like.
back to the article, mind is equated with prakrti [the primal substance and insentient or unconscious], composing of the faculties manas [perceptions and cognition] and buddhi [reason,intuition] - the mental, coupled with ahamkara [ego or phenomenal self] which appropriates the mental experiences to itself, posseses them.
so as you say the mind or mentality is 'lit up' only from the illuminative purusa via the more refined buddhi 'organ' which is then coloured according to the manas/ego. So content can be separated from consciousness per se, another boon to neuroscience which have had problems dealing 'objectively' with 'subjectivity' [the other article better explained the dissolving of the duality poles via idealistic monism and quantum tanglement/collapse].
am sorry nick as l do not know how to multiquote you l have to keep scrolling down [annoying!]. As purusha is conceived as the cosmic man in the rig veda who was sacrificed to create matter then yes prakrti 'emanates' from purusha or spirit [or world soul?], both therefore equalling creation. l would agree with you then that 'creation' does change and that spirit/matter are two sides of same coin. So how do you define energy in all of this?
l am not sure whether hinduism sees Brahman as Ultimate Reality as eternal and unchanging [therefore immutable] but certainly atman or soul within the individual must be capable of change/purification due their belief in karma and reincarnation?.
Yet In this article purusha is regarded as ontologically different from prakrti, and is the undifferentiated Self, pure awareness and unchanging consciousness, manifested through the 'organs' of the mind, and having no gunas or tendencies. it is matter that has movement and form, so by including mind in the realm of matter mental events are granted causal efficacy [ie thoughts are 'material' which is what science had been saying, eliminative materialism anyways]. So prakrti is merely the medium for spirit purusha to manifest, not the source of consciousness, hence the 'problem' for science.
Like l said, these are from an article which sought to reconcile mind/body problems in philosophy; there are many darshanas or schools, dualist and nondualists. lt was a shame l couldnt paste them on for folk to compare the two of them.
You say that 'soul is the marriage between spirit and matter'. I think that really depends on the definition of 'soul.' Rather, I would say that everything in the universe is the marriage between spirit and matter, and I see our having a 'soul' as merely a temporary state of being along our path to a higher level. (I would not say great Bodhisattvas/Archangels have a soul, but I think Christians would.) unquote.
So what continues to the higher level? the soul as a vehicle? l like the wisdom portrayed in astrology [which btw equates the moon with soul/mind] and l intuitively see a truth in reincarnation [if we believe in the law of conservation] but have no definite ideas, prefering the mystery of it all