The distinction between two kinds of ‘consciousness’ seems to confuse the issue, but it is a constant of human life that the distinction is rediscovered over and over: look at the mindfulness brouhaha: the obvious statement there is that we can ‘challenge’ ordinary ‘consciousness’ by working toward another. This situation is instantly classic and symptomatic of human ‘ill at ease’ existential ‘dread’ at the real behind the ‘real’. But whatever the case the benefit of Samkhya springs not from a new profundity but a simple reclassification of the ‘material/spiritual’ debate ad infinitum. The proto-yogis of proto-samkhya simply reclassified the whole as material with a ‘meta/material’ in its characteristic dualism. Thus we see that the ‘spiritual’ is counterpoint to the whole, from material physics to material biology to material spirit, the latter being simply a marker or token.
In any case the position of man at the border of the autonomic and the hypernomic is a useful way to see the confusion in standard accounts of man in ‘materialist’ reductionism. The problem is simple to solve and was done so millennia ago.