The present paper considers whether the Consciousness or Puruṣa in Sāṁkhya can be an enjoyer (bhoktā) who is taken as indifferent (udāsīna) and beyond transformation (apariṇāmī) or not. If it is considered as indifferent and beyond transformation, it is defunct (niṣkriya) in nature. In reply, one justification is given by the Sāṁkhya that the Consciousness or Puruṣa possesses the property of being an enjoyer (bhoktṛtva) not in reality (tattvata) but metaphorical (aupacārika). It seems that the Sāṁkhya contradicts its philosophical position as it proves that the bondage, release and migration have no relation with Purusa. In fact, Puruṣa is not at all in bondage—na kaścit Puruṣo badhyate. Hence it cannot migrate and relate with this-worldly matter (saṁsāra)—na kaścit samsārāti. Purusa is also beyond release or emancipation—na kaścit Puruṣaḥ muktaḥ 18. So far as the actual state is concerned, bondage, worldly existence and release are not befitting with the nature of Purusa. It is commonly seen that a particular bound individual alone tries to get rid of it by seeking release. Hence, Puruṣa can neither be in a state of liberation nor be in a state of bondage. Hence, the property of being inactive or defunct is the real one of Puruṣa while the property of Puruṣa as active or functional is nothing but imposition.