So Surya Deva’s reasoning is based on a falsehood. Here’s another one.
There is nothing false about the statement that the world is within you. It is simply a fact to say that the world is produced within our own minds. This is more or less admitted in neuroscience as well, that whatever we know of the world is what our brain represents to us. Hence why it is also called virtual reality. The phenomenological reality is virtual accoding to neuroscience. The physical reality according to physics is just a flux of vibrations. This flux when apprehended by the senses, body and mind is then represented as the world. Therefore I am saying nothing wrong by saying the world is verily within us.
This conclusion is arrrived at by all rational people. You desperately want to believe in a world that is out there that is separate from you not out of any rational consideration, but out of religious convinction. However, even in Samkhya this conclusion is arrived at by seeing the phenomenal form as the resultant interaction between purusha and prakriti. It passes through many filters on the way before perception happens: buddhi, ahamkara, manas and senses.
The world you see is entirely a psychological construction. It is easy to prove as well because if we were alter to your perception using strong magnetic fields or mind altering drugs, your entire perception of reality would alter.
This is just some convoluted reasoning that has nonsense as its output. The same is true of the Samkhya = Vedanta statement. If they were the same then there would not be one darsana called Samkhya and another one called Vedanta.
There is no prakriti, even in Samkhya. Samkhya says that prakriti is unmanifest in the beginning and all things are potential. A potential thing is not a real thing. If it is potential it does not yet exist, but could exist. In other words prakriti does not yet exist, but could exist. According to say Samkhya only two substances exist at the beginning: purusha and prakriti - and out of those only one thing is really existing: purusha and one thing is yet to exist. Therefore logic clearly shows us in the beginning only purusha exists and prakriti does not yet exist. Then Samkhya tells us that what exists thereafter is not actually real, but purushas avidya. Therefore prakriti never exists; it is a mere virtual reality of the purusha.
It is also proven by another argument. Prakriti is always changing. What is always changing has no beingness. You cannot say that anything within nature has any being, because the next moment it has already changed. It is like pointing at a mirage and saying, “Look, here is an oasis” when you get there you realise it is not there. Samkhya also says this: prakriti has no beingness or substance, but appears to beingness or substance when in proxmity with purusha. In other words it is clearly saying prakriti is an entirely virtual existence. Like the mirage.
Quantum physicists have come exactly to the same conclusion.
Your argument that if Samkhya was the same as Vedanta is so weak it is silly. Samkhya has historically existed in two forms: non-dualist Samkhya and dualist Samkhya. The first Samkhya can be found in the Upanishads itself and it is non-dualist i.e., Vedantic. The latter appears much later as an interpretation. However, any rational person if they read the Samkhya works can clearly see that Samkhya really is non-dualist. It does not contadict Vedanta at all.
You stick to dualist Samkhya out of religious convinction because of your Christian biasses.
I will be soon. This forum is going to miss me dearly!