Here are some problems: (a) Don't postulate entities(essences) that don't play any role. That's what natural sciences do; that's also the heuristic of Occam's razor. On the one hand, 'purusha' is an essence; on the other hand, it is "completely inactive". Even Upanishads claim the same: Atman, Brahman don't play the causal role; they are described negatively in terms of existence--neti, neti (not this, not that).

(b) The notion of 'transcendence' is problematic to describe Sankya or any Indian traditions. In Semitic religions, God is outside of the cosmos that was, is and shall be. In other words, outside the space time. That's why He is transcendent. Yet He plays a causal role in this Cosmos; that's why he is immanent. This leads to huge problems in Semitic theologies.

(c) Purusha is "beyond any possible perception that is mediated by the mind or senses". If it is beyond senses, why bother? Isn't how this stuff is sold as transcendent (beyond space time), supra-mundane (beyond the mundane), etc? If one reads the text of Chandogya Upanishad carefully (but not all pages of commentaries), Prajapati makes the claim that Atman/Brhaman is seeable, accessible.