The being of ‘god’ and the ‘will’ of god are distinct aspects of the chronic confusions of theism/atheism. One problem with the trend of New Age thinking about god as ‘consciousness’ or pure being, is the persistent ideology of the ‘will’ of god in the actual histories of monotheistic religions. This is not incidental but the puzzle is not at first easy to resolve. The original Indic samkhya was not theistic at all. But this version may not be the ‘true’ original.
But Christian theology in its supreme muddle drops a hint: there is a mysterious connection with the Indian Samkhya, and the latter in turn appears to be the key to the issue of ‘will’. But the Indian version seems to have lost the key, while another mystery is the movement of some kind of Samkhya through the sufi world. It is hard to figure out the real history here but a figure like Gurdjieff clearly reflects the unknown Sufi version of Samkhya. But a considerable clarification suddenly appeared in the work of Schopenhauer, and then J.G.Bennett, the latter doing a work up on the sufi version of Samkhya. The gunas of Samkhya were suddenly aspects of the ‘will’, Bennett’s psychology being based on a triad of ‘being, function, will’ instead of a more typical ‘material/spiritual’ distinction. Things begin to click once we exhume the Glorious Super-muddle, the Doctrine of the Trinity, with secularists gasping, as evidence of an early form of the appropriation of Samkhya by monotheism. It is not impossible to see how it might have happened in the wake of the Alexandrian contact with India, the documented presence of ‘gymnosophists’ (Jains) in the roman empire, and result whose steps to reification are not completely clear was the ‘trinification’ of ‘god’ as the ‘one’ behind the ‘first triad’ in the cascade of cosmic laws: (1), 3, 6, 12, 24, 48, 96… Note the ambiguity of the (atheist) Samkhya version of the gunas: the level of the (1) has no real ‘existence’ apparently: the mysterious deep source (‘god’) is veiled by the onset of ‘manifest’ triads cascading downwards to the realm of the recognizable pysychologies of man at the level 12 (the will), 24 (the self) and 48 (the delusive mechanization of mechanical man with little in the way of will).
This must the source of the theologies of the ‘will’ of god, and these cascade through man himself who is a replica of this whole situation of triads or gunas. The Indian version has lost the connection with ‘will’ while the extent of the Islamic/sufi versions is not historically clear. But the theologies of the being versus the will of god show many remnants in the monotheistic religions.
The overall status of Samkhya is thus unclear but in Bennett there is an organized effort to reconstruct the subject, with mixed success. We can proceed if we can resolve a triadic logic but can we? Many will vounteer reams of explanation but the whole question remains unclear, in part because human thought processes show consistent failure to grasp ‘logic’ beyond the dualistic ‘main brand’.
In any case, one solution to the historical issues lies therefore in seeing that mystery of god question is a version of hybridized Samkhya seen finally as an aspect of the ‘will’ rather than being or consciousness.
All of this leaves the question of the true origins of Samkhya with its Indic signature but its clear reappearance in the history of monotheism (in disguise). It is downright amusing to see the preposterous confusion of the doctrine of the Trinity suddenly moving into the sunlight of an original clarity before the doctrinal theologians created a very confused trinitarian ‘god’.
The view of ‘god’ as consciousness is a thoroughly Indic interpretation, for better or worse.