·THE
SANKHYA KARIKA
OF ISVARAKRSNA
A Philosopher's Exposition
BY
C, KUNHAN RAJA
1963

·FIRST EDITION
COPYRIGHT
Published by
v v RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Sadhu Ashram,
Hoshiarpur (Pb, Isdia)

·Woolner Indological Series ITS DEDICATION 1. The Noble Couple My revered teacher of sacred memory, the late Dr Alfred Cooper Woolner was a brilliant pupil of that well-known master of details, Professor AA Macdonell of Orford He was twenty-five when he joined the Panjab Unnersity at Lahore in 1903 as its Registrar as well as the Principal of its Oriental College He held the Registrar's post till 1920 after which he was made, first, the Dean of University Instruction and, subsequently, in 1928, the Vice Chancellor. Simultaneously, he remained in the Principal's chasr till be breathed his last on January 7, 1936 Whichever office he occupied, die drooght to dear on st the noble smpression of is gifted personality, thereby adding to its honour and dignityHe had completely identified himself with the University Indeed, it could be said of him with great aptness that he and the University formed one, indivisible whole Che could never think of the one without thinking of the other He was in bis fifty-eighth year and at the height of his glory when he fell ill and passed away in harness, leaving behind his devoted wife, a large number of friends and admirers and hundreds of pupils to mourn his irretrievable loss In his personal life, he was an embodiment of simplicity, frugality and hard work He was very abstemious and perfect tectot uller A man of quiet nature, homely habits and simple style of living, he was devoted to books, and enjoyed walks, in the company of his wife, along the banks of brooks He would invariably spend his vacation in the midst of wild nature in the hills and, at its end, go a-hiking for a hundred miles or so He was kind, generous and upright in his dealings with ail, and was like a fond father to his pupils He would love to do all he could for them. And, to those of them with a special aptitude for scholarship, he was a never-failing ·friend, guide and patron Himself an ideal student throughout his life, nothing pleased him better than youngmen takiog pains to acquire the habit of marshalling facts before making 113 founded generalisations and proclaiming new discoveries He was averse to all humbug The ideal of his life is teautifully summed up in his following Vedic epitaph, engraved 13 Devanagari characters ard accompanied by its rendering into English यसतो मा सद् गमय। तमसो मा ज्योतिर्गमय । मृत्योमा मृत गमय । "From the Unreal lead me unto the Real, From Darkness lead me unto Light, From Death lead me unto Life Eternal" That epitaph was the selection of his wife, Mrs Mary Emily Woolner who rightfully claimed that it expressed those noble sentiments which her husband loved the most So long as the tomb remains 17tact at Lahore, it will serve as a standing testimony to the uni, ersally attuned Indian cultural background of that ang-lic English lady herself. Consonant with the highest reach of universal Sanskritic culture, she not only gave her husband her best love and devotion as lus due. but also worshipped him, literally, as her eternal hero And, when, at last, the Providence called him to clornal rest, she passed every moment of the period of her survival, cight years and eleven days, in thinking of him when she was awake and in dreaming of him when she was asleep Thus, she nor shipped him to her last in the shrine of her heart India was dear to her, Veda and Sanskrit were dear to her, because her Altıed had made the former his home and the latter his lifeintcrest Thi, seemingly frail but really heroic woman had her munal tu in the teto ostet ta on January 18, 1944, bequeathing. practically, her entire eslate to the Panjab Unicrsit) towards crcation, after the name of her life.hero, of research scholarships at the Oriental Collcgc and of a Chair as well as a Lecture Foundation at our Institute for advancement of Sanskritie studio ·a 2. The Great Benefactors My contact with Dr Woolner began in 1915 when as an Honours Under Graduate I had the privilege of first sitting at his feet. During the years 1917-1919, I had the rare advantage, 13 my Post Griduate studies, of receiving his exclu. sive attention, because, as chince would have it, there was no other student in my class This opportunity combined with the guidance that I had from him during the next two years of my incumbency as Research Scholar 7t the University really, provided me with the necessary grounding on which I have been able to do my humble bit to this day When in the early twenties, our Institute was established at La ore and we launched our Vedic Lexicographical Project which is still in progress, we continued to have the constant benefit of Dr Woolner's valuable consultation and support. His extempore Presidential Address to the Seventh All-India Oriental Conference (Vedic Section), held at Baroda in 1933 was briefly recorded in the Proceedings and Transactions of the Session of the Conference (piges 3 and 4) Out of a total of 61 lines of the record, as many as 27 give an account of our atoresaid project in the following words: *A more detailed description was then given of a monumental Vedic Dictionary--Vaidika Sabdartha-Parljära being prepared by Pandit Vishva Bindhu of the Vishveshvaranand Research Institute, Vedic Ashram, Lahore Each article of this Dictionary gives : (1) Derivation and Etymology, (2) Complete record of citations with references, (3) The various interpretations, classified and reviewed. “The first fasciculus with the introduction and 84 articles was published in 1929 It was well received and appreciated by many scholars The work has been continued during the last three years, and about 500 articles are pow ready Publication has been delayed, partly, in order to profit by a number of suggestiors made by scholars with reference to the first instalment and, partly, on account of the attention being given to the work of indexing. This indexing is considered to be a necessary ancillary to the dictionary. A ·V111 complete Word-Index is being prepared of all Vedic literature comprising the Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas, Urani şads and Surras of this Vaidika Padanukrama Koşa, the second volume comprising the entire vocabulary of the Brahnanas and Aranyakas has been prepared and is being printed. Three other volumes remuin to be completed Every entry has been textually checked, classified, grammatically analysed and arranged under its proper radical and (from accented texts) properly accented Often there are critical notes on the reading or accent "PC Vishva Bandhu has been carrying on his work with about a dozen assistants, generally, his old pupils, with very limited financial resources He makes an earnest appeal for further assistance That great benefactor of the Institute kept up in his loving heart the same deep and zealous interest in the progress of its work, literally, up to the end of his noble activity on this earth For, so did it come to pass that the last thing written in his hand was a personal note winten on the 17th December, 1935, addressed to Sir George Anderson, the then Education Commissioner with the Government of India, pressing for the Institute being favoured with a grant-in aid of Rs 50,000/- towards its aforesaid Vedic Lexicographical Project that very day he was overtaken by the illness from which, alas, he could not recover. How pathetic but, also, how wonderful, indeed I Mrs Woolner cherished exactly the same noble sentiments and high idcas as her husband did Therefore, when the present writer exercised the privilege of suggesting to her the aforesaid cpitaph, she at once appreciated the idea and agreed to it A Vedic text covering the last remains of a Christian was to be for all time a unique cultural testament declaring the fundamental harmony of the human heart When generations pass and the conception of essential unity of all the faiths that can uphold the man in us all, supplies the common basis for all human action, this cvcnt might rescive its legitimate recognition as a ser significant fore- ·2X On was 112 runner of the coming manifestations the canvas of universal human culture, For obvious reasons, however, the denominational and imperial setting of the line would not permit anything like this taking place. So, there was bitter opposition from the high official circles to the proposal. But Mrs. Woolner was adamant. She had taken a position from waich she would not budge an inch. In the end, they did as she wished, thereby enriching the world with a cultural monument, replete with great significance for the coming generations and a high potential for developing into a place of universal pilgrimage. * Two ye.rs later, in the course of a special talk I had with her, she took me into her full confidence regarding her intended Will. Thereafter, she went back to England and from there told me in her letter of July 17, 1939, "I have been staying in Suffolk with old friends there, also visiting my Jawyers, seeing everythjog order. Sanskrit Research and your Institute will benefit at my death and further, eventually.” Giving expression to her great love for India, she wrote to me in her letter of July 9, 1942, "If you can, in your beautiul philosophy, advise me how I can best comfort myself when I cannot rise above such a selfish depression, I shall indeed welcome it...... All you said to me before I left Lahore, is ever in my memory, I prize it exceediogly and all your letters I guard and value...... how deeply I admire the splendid way to which you continue tu carry on your noble work"......(and continued, quite prophetically) "Yes, I feel sure your reward is awaiting you. My love for India is so deep, and with all my heart, I trust the issue of this world chaos will work for India's great and lasting benefit" And, in her letter of November 8, 1943, being the last one that I could have from her, she said, "How I wish I could see and talk with you, to be able to settle many problems that are now disturbing my mind......A few minutes' talk with you will be soliag. Your wise and great help through these days is a 79 con- *The related cemetery lies between the Lahore West (Mianmir) Station and the left Canal bank.

·continual support and I feel indeed grateful to have such a true Indian friend" Cbviously, her relative, Thompson correctly observed in his letter of March 9, 1944, "Her heart and all her thoughts were in India. .... It is most unlikely that she would have been satisfied to settle down here after the war 3. The Dedication It is to the ever sacred memory of these noble specimens of humanity and loving benefactors of our Institute that as decided by our Management, a new series of research and cultural works 18 most reverently and gratefully dedicated This Mary Emily Woolner and Alfced Cooper Woolner Indological Series or simply, Woolner Indological Series will incorporate works of research and cultural interest pertaining to all aspects of Indology, namely, studies in and text-editions of Indian languages, literatures, religions, philosophies, histories, arts and sciences and other allied disciplines Hallowed be for ever the two noble names which this series now goes forth to commemorate! Most respectfully subscribed VISHVA BANDHU V VR INSTITUTE, SADHU A HRAM, HOSHIARPUR November 6, 1960 ·FOREWORD Of the different systems of Indian philosophy, the Sankhya system is very conspicuous in that its carliest source-books still remain oblivion. Iśvarakſsna's Sankhya Karika happens to be the most authoritative text now available, but it represents only a particular later phase of Sinkhya The classic commentaries of Gaudapada and Vacaspati Misra on this work are sometimes inconsistent and not fully satisfactory in their expositions An attempt is made in the following pages by Dr C Kunhan Raja to make an original approach to and give a thorough-going and critical exposition of the system using the said two commen taries just for the purpose of his comment and criticism Dr Raja has brought to bea: on this exposition bis deep knowledge of the Indian philosophical thought and an analytical and scientific approach to the subject I feel that Our Woolner Indological Series, of which this work is being issued as Volume IV, has definitely been enriched by this publication But a very pathetic interest indeed, attaches to this publication because its leamed author had hardly completed and sent to us the last pages of this book for printing when a severe hear -attack suddenly brought about the end of his life He had however already seen the entire text of the book through the press and despatched his last packet containing the final part of the Notes and the Introduction It therefore with an intense feeling of sadness that we place before the scholarly world this posthumous publication of our dear and esteemed colleague, Dr C K. Raja May it go forth to keep his sacred memory ever fresh and green I 25 Xmas, 1963, GENERAL EDITOR ·PREFACE The Sankhya Karika is the only authentic work we have it present from which we can get an idea of the central doctrines of the Sankhya system of Indian philosophy Isvarakļşra the author of the Karika mentions only one work which he has made use of in writing his own work and that is the Şastitantra or the Sixtytreatise We know nothing about that work and references to it found in the later commentaries on the Karika are not based on a direct knowledge of the text For the Sankhya Karika there are two important commentaries One 25 by Gaudapada which is known as a Bhasya and the other is the Sankhya-tattra kaumudy of Vacaspati Mišra The Sankhya Karika with the commentary of Gaudapada is available with a translation by Colebrooke and Wilson with elaborace Notes by the latter The Sankhya tattvakaumud: has been edited with a translation by the late Hara Dutta Sharma in the Poona Oriental Series There is also a Mathara Vrtti In 1934 the late SS Suryanarayana Sastri who was then the Head of the Department of Philosophy in the University of Madras translated the text with his own critical notes and a very scholarly Introduction and was published by the University А second edition became necessary in a very short time and the revised edition of the text with his translation and notes appeared in 1935 Ever since Suryanarayana Sastri and myself had joined the University we were consulting each other in our respective works I went through his translation of Appaya Diksitas Suvadvartanirnaya and we were working together to translate the Mimamsa tork Alanameyodaya and the Catussatrt portion of Sankara s Brahmasatrabhaşya I read through his translation and explanation of the Sankhya Karika also When he was revising his original work I brought to his notice a rather it ·XIV recent commentary on the Karika of which there was a manuscript copy in the Adyar Library. This commentary differed from the classical commentaries of Gaudapada and of Vacaspati Misra and I found that in many places its interpretations were far more satisfactory than what was found in the other two commentaries I also pointed out to him the many places where the classical commentators Gaudapada and Vacaspati Misra were not at all satisfactory in their interpretations Suryanarayana Sastris plan was to present the interpretation of Vacaspati Misra to modern students and if he started on a discussion of the commentaries that would be more than what he had planned and would also take him far out of his track So he presented the interpretation of the Karika by Vacaspatı Misra with some critical obser vations just noting the interpretations of other commenta tors also Meanwhile I had been studying the Karıka and noting all the points where I could not accept the interpretations of the two classical commentators Gürdapada and Vacaspatı Miſra I had explained the text to my students, when I was in the University of Madras When later on I was in the Andhra University I delivered a course of pop ilar lectures on Some Fundamental Problems in Indian Philosophy which I tevised and enlarged and issued as a separate book published by Motilal Banarasidas of Delhi There I pointed out many contexts where I found the interpretations of the two commentators unacceptable Stnce these were the two commentarors whose interpretations were in the hands of the modern students through the editions and translations I took a special note of their interpretations I however wanted to bring out an edition of the Karika with my own interpretation In the middle of 1959 may health began to fail and by the close of 1960 my condition became very precarious and 1 See Preface to the revised edition of 1935 ·XV I had to resign my position in the University to take rest at Bangalore When I recovered completely, I thought of Teviving my idea of interpreting the Sankhya Karika and started the work early in 1962 As I was doing other works also, having already prepared a book on the Poet- Philosophers of the Rgveda, which Ganesh and Co, Madras rcre publishing, it was only in May, 1963 that I could find time to finish the interpretation of the Sankhya Karika I have carefully csamined all the previous materials available on the subject by way of translations and interpretations and discussions Here I am giving my own view of the Sathhya system of thought I have drawn attention to the interpretations of Gaudapada and of Vacaspatt Miśra at places where I differ from their interpretation I have not pointed out the views of any others since these two are the best known and since only theirs are the commentaries which the students read and depend upon for understanding the system From the beginning to the end there are few verses in which I do not have some difference of view They lived in a certain environment and they interpreted the Karika from that background They differ from each otlier and there are other commentators who differ from both of them Thus, there is nothing that can be called the traditional interpretation of the Karika We have to distinguish between the Sankhya theory of earlier date and the Sankhya theory presented by Isvarakrsna in the Kärıka and also the interpretations of the theories by Gaudapada and Vacaspati Mifra and other early commentators We are perfectly at liberty to give our own interpretation of the system I take the Karika as the basis for my presentation of the system since that is the only original text available My purpose is to present my own view of the Sankyha system in an independent way I am not presenting here what I have studied from books I have my own feelings and my own convictions as a philosopher and I read into the text what I can accept as the doctrines of the system, just as the earlier commentators and even the author of the ·Xv1 Kúrila have donc They have all guten iheir own viens of the Sinkhya system and I am giving my own viens There must have been a voluminous literature on the subject at an earlier period All the other systems have a Sutra and a Bhaşa Here there are no Sntras and the Bhaşya is on the Karika and not on any Snira Neither the author of the Karika nor of its commentary mentions a Sutra The Satra, now available with its commentary by Vijnina Bhiksu is generally not accepted as a genuine basic text of this system I too do not accept the Satra as such Sankara discusses the Sankhya system. Not one point there is found elaborated in the Karika He must have had before him some texts in which the points that he criticised had been elaborated Perhaps it was the $aspitantra the original of which the Karika is compendium He must have had before him some literaturc on the Sankhya in which the Upanisadıc passages had been interpreted from the Sankhya point of vier Unless there had been some such system of interpretations for the Upanisads and unless the interpretations had been popular there was no occasion for him to attempt at a refutation of the Sankhya stand to establish his own positions Perhaps the system dropped out and the Vedanta became the system in which Indian metaphysics was developed Now, we have only the Karika and the commentaries thereon as the chief basis for understanding and presenting the Sankhya doctrine and I take such material for my book Besides the text in Devanagari and Roman and also the translation and my own commentary I have added a few short notes at the end which may be of interest to the readers It is my very pleasant duty to thank the Vishvesh yaranand Vedic Research Institute for having kindly 2 Brahmasutrabhasya I 1-5 and IL-L 1-9 3 At the end of the irst chapter be says that tae Sankhya Is the Pradhana Malla (chief adressary) he has to face ·accepted this book for publication in their series, and my special thanks are duc to Shri Vishva Bandhu, the Director of the Institute, for the personal interest that he has been taking in my work. Shri Mahendra Kulasrestha made excellent arrangement for the prompt despatch of the proofs after very careful correction and the way in which the proofs had been read through at that end made my task very easy, indeed. The whole printing, too, has been done in an incredibly short time. The press has finished the printing in an excellent manner and I also thank the press for their work. There were many points in which I had to secure information, for which my own library was not adequate. Dr. K. Kunjunni Raja, a former student of mine and now in the Sanskrit Department of the University of Madras, has all along been very helpful by way of making the necessary references and supplying me with all the information that I required and I express my vety sincere and appreciative thanks to him. C. KUNHAN RAJA "NAIMISHAM", Dr. C. Kunhan Raja Academy, Cultural Centre for World Harmony, Bangalore, 16th October, 1963.

·CONTENTS
DEDICATION
..
GENERAL EDITOR'S NOTE
zi
PREFACE
.
INTRODUCTION
1
TEXT AND COMMENTARY
43
..
173
..
NOTES
TEXT IN DEVANAGARI
INDEX TO HALF VERSES
195
203

·Introduction The Agveda is by common consent the earliest available record of Indian culture It is also considered to be the earliest actual record of the civilization But the text of the Rgvedo is reminiscent of a long history of the evolution of a culture in this country Tlie ruthors of the Rgieda speak of their ancient forefathers, who had composed poetry in praise of the various gods and who had been also performing the rituals which they themselves had been performing Such ancient forefathers had been in communion with the gods and Yama hnd seen the path which he followed and which later people had also been treading? They mention a large number of their predecessors It is not unlikely that the available text of the Rgveda represents the closing stages of a civilization and not the earliest stage in the evolution of that civilization According to Indian tradition, there had been decadence from that age3 The Rgveda also presents various philosophical ideas of a general nature, and three regular currents of philosophical thought are traceable in the available text I have explained them in my book on the Poet-Philosophers of the Rgveda The three currents represent the currents found flowing through the channels of the Sankhya and the Vedanta and the Nyāya systems of later periods I have also been able to trace into the Rgvedic poetry the beginnings of the Tantric current with the Nāda Brahman as the root cause in the universe5 a (The references are to the Rgveda unless otherwise stat-d) 1 See The Vedas by C Kunban Raja Andhra University, Ch 1 2 X 11 2 3 They are represented by the four Yugas called the Krta, TretDvæpara and Kals 4 Ganesh & Co Madras 5 See the Poet philosophers of the l'eveda by C Kunban Raja, Ganesh & Co, Madras ·2 The Sankhya harika Among the general philosophical ideas that are found throughout the Rgveda, mention must be made of the distinction between the changing and moving world and the absolute world of a stationary, permanent and immortal nature There is frequent mention of Sthatuś caratham, Jagatas lassruşak and Amptam martyam Schatuś caracham, and Jagatas tasthusah should not be taken to mean only the stationary objects and the moving objects of the world like the animals and the trees I do bot ignore the combination of Dvipode caluşpade found in the Rgveda rather prominently and also the combination of Tohasya tana; asja They refer to the bipeds and the quadrupeds and to the children and the grand chuldren Although the terms Sthatus carathan and Jagatas tasthusal can be interpreted to mean what ire stationary and what are moving like the trees and the animals the terms Amrtam martjam cannot be so easily disposed of It is true that the term is interpreted by the classical commen tators of the Rgveda as relating to the gods and to men; one commentator relates it to the life and to the body But the terms should be taken in the context of the whole of the Rgveda There are many other concepts in the Rgveda that have a close relation to these terms The authors of the Rgveda speak of some dark regions, some positions that are hidden in the cavel! They speak of some mysterious names11 and of the highest position* Only 6 The terms mean respectively What is stationary and what 18 moving what is moving and what us stationary and what is immor tal and what is mortal 7 See the comuentaries of skandaspidin Madhava son of Venk (Brya and Sayana Madhara wbo is different from Madhava son of Venk sya hxecament er ie whisked she 448az Lubrerra lag with the commentary of the ocbes Madhave. 9 See expressions like I knete rajast and kend rajatass (I 35 2 and 4) 10. See gubt trini nih ta (I 164-45) etc 11 Ses carios nikita sapca noma (I 161-3) and frih sasta nimsgbinya 6 bbattı (VIL-87 4) etc 12. Se vad soh paraman padau (I 22-20) etc.

·Introduction 3 1S some gifted persons can know such positions, they arc hidden from the view of the normal vision of manis Who arc such gifted persons ? The Rgvada authors speak about the winning of the light by Indra Light is pictured as cows, in contrast to harma (Rituals) which is pictured as bulls Indra killed Vitra and released the waters and in this exploit it essentially the group of seven gods called the Maruts that helped Indra Jadra killed Vala and released the cows that were hidden behind the mountains within the caves In this there are many Sages who had been helping Indra, Brhaspati and the Angirases are the chief among them Water is in the Atmospheric region, which is above the carth and below the celestial regions, and light is in this celestial region It would be found that the gods in the celestial region are more closely related to Soma Maruts are the foremost among those who drink the Soma and it was the Maruts that helped Indra in this feat Bphaspati and the Angirases are closely related to the songs of praise and they helped Indra in winning the light There is also the relation of Devayāna (the path of gods) to the Puryāna (the path of the dead ancestors) It would be found that wisdom and song are related to the light in the highest region Thus the vision of the highest position that is concealed from the view of the normal human beings, is not merely the vision of the physical space above the Atmosphere The light is not also the light of the sun at the close of the rainy season when the sun was hidden by the dark clouds nor the light after the winter season when the day had become very short and when the sun loses its lusture Besides winning the light, there is the event of Yama having seen the Path for the first time This is also some sort of lumipation which he had about the region in the universe that is concealed from the ordinary persons There is enough evidence in the Rgveda to show that the thinkers of the times had some notion of an eternal unchanging part and a changing, dying part in the universe This is not a notion of the people tad VIPASO vapanyavo gryEinsaḥ samındl at 13 Sec (I 22 21) etc ·4 The Sankhya Karika whose compositions now form the available Rgieda They arc all notions which the composers of the poetry of the availabie Rgveda had inherited from an earlier age The world ss pictured as a trec śunahsepa speaks about such a tree in his Sultas and there is a similar reference to the tree in the Saktas of Dirghatamas. It is also mentioned in the Sukta about Yama attributed to Kumāra, the son of Yama It is contained in the instructions given by Yama to Nacketas * the Kashoponişad and also is the Bhagavad Gita The tree has its roots above and the branches below, as is described by Sunahścpa and in the Kathopanışad and in the Bhagavad Gita The tree is the abode of the wise according to Dirghatamas and Kumāra (in his Sakia about Yama). Sunahsepa also says that the key to solve the mystery is kept within man himself 15 When we deal with the philosophical thoughts of the Rgveda, we cannot ignore all such evidences that are spread out throughout the Rgveda That the changing world is a manifestation of the unchangung fundamental Absolute is a cardinal doctrine of Indian thought throughout the ages This is the one important point on which there is a conflict between the Buddhistic thought and the thought within the systems that followed the traditional Vedic path It is a real world arising out of a real fundamental. Life and wisdom are also at the base of this world It is not a change without any plan, it is not a chaos It is an orderly, well designed evolution from the absolute to the phenomenal There is no difference among the various systems of thought in India on this point, namely, the positive nature of the world both in its evolved stage and in its absolute stage and the existence of life at the root of the whole world formation and evolution And this goes back to the Rgvedic times I am not taking up, at this stage, the question of the Rgvedic origin of the Tăptric philosophy, where the root Ganesh & Co 19 See Poet philosophets of the Rgveda, Madras for a detailed account 15 For the description of the world as a tree the point is ofcen raised see Ibid where ·Introduction 5 causc is the Sadda or Nada Brainian I ani taking into consideration only the three other currents of thought that have taken definite shape in the systems of philosophy of a fater date They are what are found in the Sinkhya, in the Nyāya and in the Vedānta systems The Yoga and the Vaišeşik 1 have no independent theory different from what is contained in the Sankhya and in the Nyāya. In the Mimāms also, the position is not much different from what is found in the Nyāya system, that the world is a construction of the whole from parts called the Paramánus 18 There may be some difference regarding the agent who is at the back of this construction and also regarding the nature of the Paranianus 11 That is a minor affair, There is a Saktals in the Rgreda which begins with the words-nasad asin no sad asıl, 'It was not what was not, it was not what was' We speak of a thing as "it is only in relation to the things that are not elsewhere, or in relation to another that is not there Similarly, we say that a thing 18 sot, only in relation to something that is clsewhere or in relation to something that is there In the absolute stige, such a relative usage is impossible “There is no space nor the aspects of space at that stage " That is how the poem begins Certainly the reference is to a positive thing This accords with the Avyakta or the Unmanifest, the Pradhana (the Chief) or the Prakriti (the root cause) familiar in the Sankhya system But in the classical Sankhya, there is no life inherent in this Pradhana, which is in itself insentient and which receives its sentience as a reflection from the Puruşa, the self that is a pure sentience The sentience is external to the absolute basis of the phenomenal world, in the classical Sänkbyha But in the Rgvedic system of thought, sentience 16 Patamanus are the smallest particle of matter 17 The Nyaya system accepted distinctions between Paramanus (Ultimate atoms), Dusanukas (Double atoms; and Trganukas (Triple atoms) 18 X 129 ·6 The Sankhya Karika seems to be within the Absolute that is the basis of the phenomenal world "That one breathed by its own power without the air coming in or going out as brenth "19 This shows that there is the life fundamental within this absolute though there is no life function in it There was also some power in that absolute, what is called the Tapas The root Tap has the meaning of both light and heat Here it must be the heat aspect of the root that is to be understood in the context The Germ was born on account of this Tapas Then there arose a wall Kama 21 This was the seed of the mind There is this question in the poem "Who knows, who can declare, whence was born this creation ?" "It cannot be the gods that produced the first creation, the first change of the absolute into the phenomenal, the gods came after this eventº The poem ends with the statement, “He from whom this creation arose, whether he made it or not, only the highest person in heaven who can see, perhaps knows, or perhaps even he does not" The idea behind seems to be that there was no one who could be declared as a creator, the creation arose out of itself The absolute from within was transformed into the phenomenal, there was no external agent Many of the doctrines of the Sankhya are traceable to this Snkta in the Rgveda "The one major deviation in the classical Sankhya is that there is in it a factor external to the material root cause (the Pradhana) in the from of Parușas When there was the reflection of the external sentience from the Purusas on the materjal absolute, the evolution was from within that material fundamental and there was no external agent to start or to guide and control the evolution in the material world . 19 Anid avatam svad haya tad ekam (verse 2) 20 Tapasas tan mahindjaga tatkan (serse 3) 21 Lamas tad agrę samavartatıdh ma naso retaḥ prathamain yad ant (verse 4) ·Introduction There is the Snhia of Hiranyo garbha and there are two Saktas or Visvalarman*3 Here there is the supreme creator god syho was the agent to give a shape and a form to the world There is practically 10 mention of the absolute from which the phenomenal world aros: There is a question what the timber could be from which the edifice of the world was built and where the builder could have been sitting when he was making the construction. What is very prominent in ttese three Snhias is the presence of a great god who was the builder of the world Hiranyagırbha dropped out of the scene while Viśvakarman continued rather prominent in the Yajuneda There arose Prajāpati as another great power in the l'ajurveda Here I may say that the Sakta to which I trace the origin of the Sankhya system and which begins with "nasad asin no sad asır", is assigned according to tradition to Prajāpati Parameşthin, the Lord of the people who abides in the highest position, as the author, and according to the epics of the later day, he is the creator God God as an agent in every event in the world is a cardinal doctrine in the Nyāya, though there may be no cicar evidence of such a doctrine in the basic text, the Sutras of Gautama, nor in the Vaiseșika Satras of Kanada For this reason I trace the doctrine of the Nyāya-Vaišeşika system to these Suktas in the Rgveda Then there is the Sakta that is known as the Puruşa Suktams, the hymn about the Puruşa or the person or self This Sakra starts with a description of the absolute as a great Person, immense in size While the absolute of the Sukta which 1 consider as the source of the Sankhya, is material in content, the absolute in the Puruşa Sukta is more an intelligence, a Person The immensity of the Person indicates a material aspect, but that material aspect is only the body of the Person A Person is an intelligent individual and 22 23 Hiranyagarbha X 121 Viivakarman, X 81 and 82 Verses 2 and 4 in X 81 Puruşa X 90 25 roman ·8 The Sankhya Karika that is the most conspicuous feature in the absolute of the Puruşa Sukta From this absolute there arose a diversi fication a Virat (what shines in a manifold way) This Viral became the material for the creation of the world, and this creation is compared to a grand ritual The performers of the ritual are the gods and the demi gods called the Sadhyas and the sages 26 Thus the diversification of the absolute, the Puruşa took the form of the material for the world and also the agent for giving a shape to the world Here we find the Advaita Vedanta doctrine of the Para Brahman and the Creator The material and also the agency for the world creation were evolutes from this Para Brahman Here the gods are mentioned as having given the shape of the world In the Sakta which was mentioned above as the beginning of the Sankhya there was the allusion to thgods who could not be the agents for the first creation in so far as they appeared later 27 The reference is to the doctrine found in the Purusa Sukta In the Rgveda we find only the three currents of thought regarding the transformation of the absolute into the phenomenal We do not meet with the details of the change the various stages in the evolution They are described in the Upani sads and they are followed up in the later systems of philosophy In the Puranas also the various stages are described What is found in the Puruşa Sukta by way of the animals and the castes28 18 not of the nature of what is found in the system of philosophy and in the Purānas The details are rot at all comprehensive in the Puruşa Sukta Here it must to noted that in the Rgvedic philosophy the author of the poem to which is traced the seeds of the Sankhya thought is Prajapati Paramesthin who is the Creator God of a later day, wbile in the latter-day Sankbya itself there is no such creator it is Atheistic In the hymn to which the thoughts of the Vedanta are traced the Supreme is called 26 27 23 Verse 7 X 1²9 arvag devă asy3 visarjanena (verse 6) X 90 10 11 and 12 ·Introducilon Puruşa, which is a term that is prominent in the Sarkhya system ; in the Vedānta itself of the later days, the supreme is known as Brahman, which term means only poetry in the Rgreda. Such cross-currents and such interlockings in the developments of philosophical thoughts and doctrines may be taken note cf. They developed without any conflict along separate paths. In the Rgreda, we have the division of the world into the three regions, the Earth, the Atmosphere and the Heaven. We have to interpret their division as relating to their fineness in the course of the change over from the absolute to the phenomenal and not in relation to space, The earth being the grossest corresponds to the first of the five elements of the later days. Water and light are the special features of the other two divisions and they correspond to the Water and the Ftre of the classical division of the five elements, I have not been able to find anything that strictly corresponds to the air, in a clear way. The supreme positions may relate to the Akasa (ether) of the later systems. The body and the breath and the eye are related to the earth and to the air and to the suna. But we do not get any systematic classification of the elements in the Rgveda. We do not have any text bearing on the philosophy of those days; we have only poetry with that philosophy of those days as the environment, as the background. In the Upanişads we get at the various gradations of the world, the gradations of the various sense-organs and of the mind and of the facts that transcend them, We see a close relation between this classification in the Upani şads and what is found in the Vedānta, which is not, in this respect, much different from the Sankhya scheme also. There are the three Antahkaranas, the internal organs, of Buddhi or 29. Saesañ eakşur gacebatu yotan itme dytă ca gaccha prth viti ca dharmant apo P& Saccha yadı tatra te hitam osa dhışu prati 119tha dariraih (X-16-3). Wbat 18 given bere does not ist into the classif: sation of the Five Elements and the Five Sense-organs of a later Itage.

·10 The Sankkya Karika intellect, Ahankara or subjective consciousness and Manas or mind There are the five sense organs and the five organs of activity There are also the five qualities of the elements with the five elements corresponding to them There is the subtle body and the gross body. In the Vedanta, the five elements are not pure, except the finest, the Akasa or ether, all the others contain that element and also a part of all the other elements The five qualities abide in the five elements in the Vedanta In the Sankhya, the elements are pure and the five qualities are the sources for the evolution of the five elements 50 But in the main there is some close correspondence The course of evolution, rather creation, is described in the Puranas, namely, in the second and in the third Books of the Bhagavata and in the first Book of the Visnu Purana In the third Book of the Bhagavata, the doctrines of the Sankhya are also elaborated by Kapıla himself to his mother Deva hutt Such is the background for the development of the classical Sankhya The main doctrine of the Sankhya that what is experienced as the world has arisen from an absolute and that the evolution is from within, by the will within itself, through the power within it, can be traced back to the Rgveda But we do not see the important terms like Prakrti or Pradhana, Puruşa as a plurality, and the same Sankhya itself, in the earlier stages of the development of the thought in the Vedas We see the mention of the five elements, the sense organs and other factors in the Upanişads In the Svetasvat aropanı sad there is the mention of some absolute, unborn entity which consists of three colours 31 That may be equated with the Prakrti with three constituents Here the Tamas is the dark colour, the Rajas is the red colour and the Sattva is the white colour In some of the later thoughts, red or yellow colour is the symbol of peace and serenity, of renunciation But here it represents intense activity There 30h The admixture of the live Elements 1s explained in the Vedanta Paribhasa VIII 29 (Adyar Librasy) 31 See the verse ajamekom losita sukla kronam ·Introduction 11 is also the term śramang, which mu t mcan a min of intensc activity, and a Granana became a man who has renounced the world Sankhya can mean only what is related to discriminative knowing, Sankhya. The root Khya means "o know" and the preposition Sam means "clear". This term was applied in some specific sense to a separate system of philosophical thought only at a later stage, and the earlier stage in the meaning of the term is found retained in the Bhagavad Gita Śrt Krsna says that he had expounded the system of knowledge according to the Sănkhy and that he proposed to take up the point in its Yoga aspect 82 Sinkhya and Yoga are given here as antsthetical, but in some places st is said that is spite of this antethesis, they are both ultimately identical Karma Yoga is further brought in antethesis with Samnyasa,37 and from this it may be concluded that Sankhya was also related to renunciation, to Samn; asa In the Brahmasurrabha$3 a of Sankara, we find a refutation of the Sānkhya system Such a refutation presupposes the cxistence of a regular system of interpretation in the Sānkſiya system in which Upani şadic terms are explained as relatrag to the Prakrri, the Pradhana, the root cause We do not know the work in which there was such an interpretation Perhaps it is the Şasfitantra, the elaborate work dealing with sixty topics This may be an exhaustive commentary on some basic set of Sutras We do not know if at that time there was any set of Sutras current traced back to Kapıla, just as the Yoga is traced to Patanjali, the Nyāya to Gautama, the Varseşıka to Kanāda, the Mimämsä to Jaimin and the Vedānta to Bädarāyana Isvarakrsna does not mention any such work, he simply says that the first teacher of the system, Kapıla, tavght the doctrines to Asurt and that Ăsuri taught it to Pañcaśikha Pancabikha has elabo 32 Eg te bhibita sankbye buddhit yoga tv imam árnu 11 39 33 Såana yogena sokhyangm karmayogena yoginam (1113) But see also ekat sinkban ca yogañ ca yah payatı sa pasyatı (III 5) ·12 Sanklija Adrika rated it It was in the Şaştıtantra that there are discussions on the opposite viens and the narration of sarious anecdot". to illustratc and to maintain some doctrines" Can we S2 that Āsuci must have written a set of Satras containing the teachings of Kipila and that Pañcaśıkht wrote a commentary on it? This is only a surmise Then in the Saşpitatantra there must have been some detailed discussion of the doctrines as in a l'artika From Sankara's Brahmasdira bhasja, it is certain that there must have been some scction in the Sankhya work in which the Upani sadic terms have been interpreted as relating to Pradhana and other Sankhya concepts But we see nothing of the sort in the available text on the Sankhy?, which is a condensation of the Şaşıltantra In the Nasadıya Sakta of the Rgreda, the hymn which starts with the words näsad asit, and to which I traced the Sankhya doctrine as the original source, the absolute is regarded as matter with life in it In the Puruşa Sukia there is the Absolute life with matter in it I feel that this must be the main difference between the Sankhya and the Vedanta originally In the Sankhya there is matter as the ultimate and in the Vedānta there is life as the ultimate But in the Sankhya which Sankara criticises in his Bralımasatrabhasya the Pradhana or root cause does not seem to have life There is no mention of such a life even as a reflection from the Puruşa along with a duality between Prakrti and Puruşa Sankara does not mention Iśvarakrsna's Sankhya Kanka Is Sankara prior to the Sankhya Kārka? I do not propose to enter into a consideration of this rather complex problem If I enter that path, I may not be able to extricate myself from the winding paths and from sub paths and lanes to take up the main point at issue Sankara had some work different from the Sankhya Karika as the authoritative text, and perhaps he had a Sztra and a Bhasya and other literature, now lost to us My important point is that the Sankhya 34 Verse 72 of Sankhya Karika ·13 Introduction did not arise in a lonely region at an age far later than the Vedas There are traces of the Sānkhya in the Rgveda Itself, along with the fundamentals of the Nyāyā and of the Vedānta, these three being the three main currents of thought regarding the transformation of the absolute into the phenomena The Sankhya Aanha starts with the problem of the necessity for a system of philosophy It is suffering that sets man's mind active regarding the sources of suffering and the remedy for it Within the Karila, at a later stage there is reference to the termination of the three-fold suffering which are mentioned in the first Karika35 and in another place it is said that the suffering is due to old age and death 38 In this context I cannot ignore the event in the life of Buddha in which it was the sight of disease, old age and death that changed his whole outlook on life and persuaded him to take to renunciation when he saw a mendicant, Bhikku Such a search for the root of the suffering and the remedy for such suffering takes three courses I will call them the course followed by the Carvākas, the course followed in religion and the course of philosophy. The Cārvāka is generally spoken of as a system of heterodox philosophy, a Nastika Darsana It is not at all right to designate it as a Darsana It is only a way of looking at the problem of life for the general public. The system accepts only two ends in life, that of Artha and Rama, acquisition of the necessary means and the enjoyment of life thereby. This presupposes some regulation in man's life, otherwise it would become the law of fish (Matsya Njaya), the stronger fish ones That eating the weaker would defeat the very end kept in view So they recognise Dharma, but only as included within Artha and Kana Thus Raja Niti or secular law is included within the Artha ſastra, the treatise on the acquisition of means for a happy life. 35 Duhkbatrayabbighatat See also aika tikam atyantikam ubhayam kaivalyam appoti (68) 36 Tatra jar Amaranakſtam duḥkham pripnoti kevalab puruṣaḥ (Verse 55) ·mcan 14 Sankhya Karika Tht standard tore starts with the statement that it deals with the problem of acquiring power over territories and giving them proper protection. This docs no! merc conquest. It means also the method of getting into political power in a state. Th: protection is the enforcement of the law. The Canala syisсm docs not recognise the other mcaning of Dharma, namcly, that which Icads a min to heaven. They did not also recognise what is tcrm.cj the fourth and the highest goal of man, thc Parama Puruşartha, that of Molsa or final relcase from the bondages of the sold. Thcic principlc was that man should lead a happy life so long as he can live! With such an approach to life, they could not recognise sin and suffering as integral factors in life. There is suffering and no one can fail to recognise it. What brings about suffering is evil. So it is not proper to say that the Corvākas did not recognise sin and sufiering. If there is suffering, there is a method within the lorld itself to remedy the suffering. And that method of rcmcdying the suffering can be known through the common channel of experience, Praryakşa. There cannot be a suffering for which there is no remedy within the world itself. Something in life is called suffering not absolutely and within itself, but as 3 contrast to another state which we call happiness. If there is a happiness as a contrast to suffering, there is also a way to realise that happiness. In this way, the ordinary ways are enough for man to secure everything in life that would make him happy, that would remedy all the sufferings. It is generally said that the Cārvākas did not recognise a mode of knowing called the inference; certainly they did not recognise scripture as any authority. When a man sees Barika and ine ticas en puces, Cácvika could 37. Pithivya labhe palane ca y vanty artha sastrāni purvatoryaih prasthapitán 38. Yavajjiyam sukham jiyet See Sarvad arianasangraha, closing verses in Ch I dealing with the Carvaka System These verses may be from an original work on the subject ·Introducilon DS say that one cannot know of the existence of fire when he sees only the smoke What they must have been refusing to recognise is inference as the sole means to understand certain facts in the universe Whatever comes within the sphere of inference which they could recognise is what could also come within the sphere of perception, after the perception its subsequent knowledge can be had by inference But religion and philosophy speak of facts that cannot be known at all through perception The Carvãkas do not recognise the reality of such facts and the modes of knowing them which transcend perception In the first verse of the sankliza Kanka, the author says that there are reasons to believe that certain kinds of sufferings cannot be remedied by the means available within the sphere of perception, that is, direct experience They say that the remedies of this nature do not always bear fruit and in many cases when there are the fruits, they are not of an absolute and final nature Perhaps the Carvakas may say that if the remedies do not bear fruit, the reason must be that the proper remedy has not been known If there is no permanent result, then there can be the repetition of the remedy, anyway there must be the possibility of Some remedy for every evil and for every suffering, within the scheme of the experienced world There is no need to think of an outside for the world of experience39 Religion prescribes remedies for sufferings in its own way There are rituals pre cribed to ward off suffering and for gaining possession of riches Then there are rituals prescribed which would take man out of this world of suffering, which would take them to heaven For such rituals and for their fruits, one must depend on the authority of scripture The philosopher would say that even in such remedies for the sufferings, there are defects There are certain rituals that are associated with unclean practices like 39 The views assigned to the Corvokas here are in many cases what I consider to have been their real views though they are rut based on any authentic texts ·18 Sankhj a Karika carlier transformation Then a stage must come when the transformations cease to transform joto further modifications The knoner must be neither a basis for a transformation nor 10 itself the transformation of a fundamental This is the basis for the entire world of experience with changes and movements The changes and movements specified in the above classification do not come within the sphere of cxperience, they are arrived at through a process of inference It is only the further changes in this four fold scheme of the basis for the world of experiences that can come within the experience of man This four fold scheme consists of twenty five categories, and they are enumerated with the above scheme in the third verse The objects within the final stage in the formation of the basis for the world of experiences and their experience alone come within the sphere of the direct experience of man The lower stages fall within the sphere of inference There is no denial of facts transcending the objects within the sphere of reasoning If there are such facts, they can and must be known through scripture where they are dealt with 44 Thus there is no open refutation of the Vedānta position that the Ultimate from which the world of experience has evolved should not be traced only up to the Pradhana, and that the process must proceed further to the Brahman The Sankhya stops with an infinite number of Purusas as affording the basis for the infinite number of living beings The question whether the entire group of such Purusas should be reduced to a single Puruşa is also not considered in the Sankhya, as falling outside of man's reason There is also the question whether some active agent is working behind the scheme of the world Here also, reason is against such a presence But if scripture deals with such a God, that is another matter and that fails outside the system There are various rituals prescribed in scripture and such rituals are supposed to provide man with freedom from sufferings and Tasmad api casiddham parokşam Etpagamot siddham (verre 44 6 in Sankhya Karkib ·Introduction 19 also with gain of material wealth like cows Then there is also heiven promised in scripture as a fruit of rituals Such points also fill outside the scope of rational philosophy So far as the world of experience 15 concerned, there 1 little scope for controversy So among the three fictors mentioned for attatang release from suffering in an absolute and in an unfailing way, the Vyakta does not come up much for discussion They are taken up only as the ground for establishing the other two facts, the Arpakra, the unmanifest and the knower, Jna These are the three factors mentioned in the second verse Does the world of experience go back on an absolute ? If it exists how is it that we do not have a direct experience of such a fact? The answer is given that such a root cause as the absolute, is by its very nature, outside the sphere of direct perception We are considering the question of a basis for the entire aggregate of the experienced world If we say that such a root cause exists and that it is within the experience of man, it would be a contradiction in terms So it is spoken of as Sakşma (subtle) and the reason for its falling outside the range of common experience is Sauksniya This is subtility Even in our own experience we know of many facts that are not experienced though they exist, on account of various causes and such cases are given in the seventh verse Subtility as the ground for the root cause of the experienced world falling outside the sphere of ex perience is given in the eighth verse It is on this point that there is a serious controversy with the Carvakas The grounds given from ordinary experience do not prove the point If a thing is far aivay and is not seen, that thing is seen when it is near and the same holds good in the case of things that are very near If a man with a defective sepse organ does not see a thing, another man can see it If a thing is noticed when the mind is otherwise engaged, it can be known when the mind is attentive If a thing is covered up by an obstacle, the removal of the obstruction will make the object visible If stars are not seen by day on account of the superior brilliance of the sun, they are seen at night its ·also three 16 Sankhya Karika the killing of animal, Then the remedies are not uniform. There are gradations There is also a termination of the fruits That itself is a philosopher's suffering The philosopher wants a remedy for suffering that would be free from all such defects That is what the philosopher prescribes through tational investigation into the reality of the world It is on account of this three fold approach to the problems of life that the system recognises methods of knowing Perception is what is accepted by the Cārvākas Scripture is what religion accepts Reason 19 what the philosopher adopts This is the basis for the Tecognition of three modes of knowing in the Sankhya system They do not go into the question of further sub divisions of the modes It is within the sphere of inference that there are various kinds of sub divisions, like immediate and mediate But such problems are not taken up for consideration in the system They accept the three modes recognised in lhe three courses adopted for mitigating sufferings in the life of man in the world The philosopher is thinking only of a philosopher's suffering which others do not experience A philosopher is a philosopher only when he is able to create, at least to experience a new sort of suffering which the ordinary people cannot experience He is what Sankara terms a Mumuhsil, one who crayes for a release o But ordinary people do not feel any bondage in the world Man knows that there are limi tations in life and he takes limitations as factors in the Nature from which there is no escape This sense of a bondage arises a philosopher when he realises that there is a distinction between something that is permanent and something that is of a transient nature Ordinary people do not think of something that is absolutely permanent in nature This is what Sankara calls Miryani tyavastuv eka" distinction between in Such a 40 Mumukautta 18 the fourth of the four eligibilities (Adhikara) enumerated by Sankara for one to become a philosopher searching for the truth 41 This is the first of the four eligibilities enumerated to Sankara ·17 Introduction things that are absolutely of an eternal nature and things of experience that are transient in nature arises only out of the study of the scripture. For this reason Sankara says that the study of scriptures is a necessary precedent for philosophical speculations. But in the Sankhya philosophy, the craving for a release from the sufferings in the life arises even without dependence on scripture. The release arises from the proper application of one's reasoning faculty. Suffering is an experience. Experience presupposes the experiencer and the experienced. The experienced world is changing and moving in nature. This world of experience. with change and movement must go back on something which is of a fundamental nature, which cannot come within man's experience. The former is Vjahta (manifest) and the latter is Avyakta (unmanifest). Such an unmanifest fundamental absolute behind the changing and moving facts of the phenomenal world can be arrived at only through reason, through a process of inference. The experiencer must be something entirely different from both of the other two 43 The root cause cannot be the transformation of another cause, if it be so that ceases to be a root cause. So we must accept a root cause which is not the transformation of anything, which, at the same time, is the fundamental for its own transformations. Within such transformations, there must be Wo categories. Some of them must be what transform into other modifications, while they are themselves the transfor. mations of their own cause, either the root cause of an 42. Svadhyadhyayan to samanam (In the Bhagya on the firs Sotra, wbere he discusses the meaning of the word 'atha' (Then) It makes no difference whether a man has studied the texts relating to Dharma and has lived according to the prescriptions in such texts But it is only the Vedic Terts that can direct a man's mind towards such problems, otherwise the possibility is that one would proceed towards Nihilism. The study need not be according to the prescriptions relating to some vows and ceremonies. 43. See Fundamental Problems of Indian Philosophy, Moti Lala Banarsidass, where it is stated that there is no difference between the subject and the object in this world. Nothing is a pure object(Ch. 16). Here a subject is presumed as external to the worla since there are facts in the world that are never a subject.

·$ition that for the cotire world of experience there is an cven the Puruşa bas no purposc to be served by the root cause That is what is said in the sixty second verse, towards the very close of the expostion of the Sankhya tenets in the tert The bondage and the suffering and the release are all in the root cause itself and there is none, by implication (no Purusa). to te bound and to suffer and to be released. Why should there be some oprosite to the constitution of the three consthc cxperienced world, but that does not warrant a suprotituents? We may note some spposite for cust thing within 22 Sankhya Karika It has the normal form of Sattya which consists of the con- Sciousness of the Law (Dharma), knowledge (Jñana), detachment (Virāga) and lordliness (Arśvarya) But it has also a Tamasa side in which the features will be the opposite In the beings below man, the Buddhi takes this form, and in men, there is a possibility of the Buddhl being dominated by the Tamas aspect But the Sankhya system does not recognise the fact that this feature in Budddi, which is an effect of the root cause, is an inherent feature in the root cause The Buddhi has only the Sattva side as domrant in it and this side is what it has inherited from the root cause The nature of the Sattva is, according to the thirteenth verse, to illuminate The sentience comes from the Puruşa and on account of the Satha aspect in the root cause, there is the feature of manifestation or illumination Why did the system postulate that the sentience side in the evolutes of the root cause is not a heritage from the root cause itself, but is an extraneous feature which really extsts only in the Puruşa ? _The reasons are given in the seven- The first four of the five grounds given there teenth verse can as well be explained from the root cause itself The combinations of the three espects of the root cause in various ratios to form the various objects of the experienced world must have some external entity as the purpose What was in equilibrium could not have got the equilibrium disturbed from within the push must bave come from outside Ulti mately, it would be found that according to the system itsell, The control is of the top Ram doing and I am opposite ·Introduction 23 11 could ignore as experiencing A part of the root cause can be the "I" and the other part my be what is done and what is experienced There is no real ground for assuming that there is som entity external to the world that is the "J" in such experiences The same argument holds good for the fourth of the grounds, that one is the experiencer for the entire world as object Ic feels that he is an experiencer for a part of the world and the "I", as experiencer, has room in the other part of the world, outside the experienced objects But the real ground to assume that there is a Puruşa distinct from the root cause, is the fifth of the list At the time when the Sankhya system was developing and taking a shape as is presented in the Xarika, there was also deve loping a certain trait in tbe national genius which no one A universal observance has been taken always a ground for accepting the genuineness and validity of certain farts It is just like the opinion in th- modern world Evolution has been accepted as a fundamental Law in the world at present and no one can go against that doctrine In those days there was the goal of isolation for the self hept in view in the activities of the nation and Molşa (final emancipation) had ben accepted as the fourth and the highest goal of man 15 In the seventeenth verse where the grounds for the postulation of a purusa are enumerated, there are the terms Parartha (the purpose of another), Adhışthana (control) and Bhokiſbhava (the sense of being the experiencer) This another for whom there is the combina tion of the three costitutes of the root cause, who experiences himself as the controller and the experiencer, is taken to be in a state of bondage and suffering All the people are found to make an ffort to reach the final goal of release from this bondae andg from this suffering One tries to be oneself, free from entanglements with the root cause If the sentience is within this root cause, the sentient self cannot get isolation from the root cause This effort on the part of 45 It is called the highest goal Paratnapuruşartha that it to get release from the bondages of the world ·26 Sankhya karika the Purusa, it is certain that the Purusa can have no purpose of its own to be accomplished either by the Purusa itself or by another Since the Purusa is sentience and since it is also Saksin (an onlooker) th: Purusa must have been viewing the Prakrti always, prior to the start of change and activity in the Prakrti and also after that In the nineteenth verse, it is definitely stated that the Puruşa is a Sakşin and thus term Sāksin is explained in the second half of the verse, that it is isolated from the events in the Prakrri, that it is indifferent that it views the events in the Prakrii and takes no part in such activities That is what is called a sākşin, a witness In this case it is rather difficult to see how the activities in the Prakyti should have as their purpose the process of being viewed by the Purusa and yet in the closing section of the text, it is specifically said that the Puruşa, at the final stage sees the Prakſti and remains like a spectator, in a state of purity uneffected by the possible activities in the Praktii In the twentieth verse it is said that there is a special kind of contact between the Prakrti and the Puruşa (Tasma! Samjogai) Even after the final stage, they both remain together in the universe, as is said in the sixty sixth verse But that contact between the two factors existing in the universe is different from the contact that produces the mutual transfer of the features between the two that there is actually no mutual transfer, there is only a transfer of the feature of the Puruşa to the Praksti; nothing is really transferred to the Puruşa from the Prakyti The semblance of activity is not in the Puruşa, but only in the sentience in the Prakti transferred from the Purusa What was the cause of the production of the special kind of contact between the two factors of the universe at that time and why should not the same kind of contact occur again cich after the Puruşa had a view of the Prakril? The illustration in the twenty first cfac shows that there is some difference between the factors remaining together and their contact smith each other with some purpose The illustration is that ofino persons, one of them being lame and the other being blood If the blind man wants to go to some place, that does not I realise ·Introduction 27 on his 1 mean that the lame man would consent to sit shoulders and show him the way. If the lame man alone wants to go to the place, that does not mean that the Blind man would consent to carry him to the destination. I do not want to stretch the simile too far. In the illustration, there is a common purpose for both and the common purpose is to reach a common destination That destination is the place where they can separate and can manage for themselves, and there should then be no need for any such further collaboration. On account of the introduction of an element called the Puruşa as distinct from the Prakrii, there are all sorts of contradictions in the doctrines in the system If Duhkha (suffering) is in the very nature of the Puruşa, then such a Puruşa can never be free from Duhhha absolutely If the Puruşa is by nature free from any touch of Duhkha, there is no occasion for any Mokşa (final emancipation) for the Purusa If the entire evolution on the other hand is traced solely to the Prakrti with its three constituents, then all such difficulties can be avoided The Sastra aspect of the Prohr has been spoken of as of the nature of an illumination, in the thirteenth verse, and one of the four natures of Buddhi with the dominance of Sativa has been spoken of as jñana (knowledge) in the twenty third verse If the Satta aspect is taken as life in itself and not merely as a part of the dead Prakru, then such difficulties can be overcome If Pralpii is a combination of the three constituents of life (Satna), activity (Rajas) and matter (Tamas), then that would explain all the phenomena in the world of experience There is no objection to the postulaiva of a state of equilibrium & them at its infinite state, so its absolute state. The Rajas starts activity and consequently, change and movement, in the Tanias , there is the life aspect of Saltva to determine the direction and the pace and the other factors in the movement There is no actual beginning for this course of change and movement in the Prakrii This is a fact recognised in the Sankhya system also In this course of the change ind movement in matter under the guidance of the Sariya, there is a progression ·It cannot c arc another 24 Sandha Martha the thinking scopic among the nation, thus ellort which is being followed by all the people, shows that tl cre is an entily outside of the Prahti But it would be found that ulti mately, this assumption to crplain a feature in the national tentus of the p'oplent the time invites more dificulties than what it is supposed to remouc It would have been balter if it were plainly sud tline this is just a superstition whicha philosophy cannot take comince of if there is such a purusa outside of the sphere of th not cause in the universe that Purusa must be free and not subject to bondage The Puruça cannot be an agent engaged in activities and cannot also be an be an entity with santicnce it must be sentence itself ? there is the relation of the sentient and its locus between Purusa ind scnticnce, then r cognising category in the Universe, namely, the sentient Purusa distinct from thc scnticnce in the Purusa Can the relation be separated ? If it is not an agent engaged in activities and if it cannot also experience the fru or those activities who is it that is in bondage and for whom is the effort for release ? In the ninetecnth verse it is definitely said that the Purusa is only a Sakşın, a disinterested onlooker, it is always isolated It is neutral in all the affairs of the world of erperience It can see It is not at all an agent engaged in activities But in the twentieth verse, it is said that since there are two such factors, the Prakſti (root cause) and the Puruşa (the sentience) in the universe, there is a sort of transfer of their respective features to each other, each becoming thereby, partly what the other The Prakçıı has no itself and there is a semblance of sentience developed in it There is no activity in the Puruşa and yet the Purusa appears to be an agent with activity is really in the Prakrzi in its manifo'd form Praksti with the three constituents in equilibrium there is no activity at all Thus in the real nature of the universe there is no activity What was really generated through the presence together of the two elements is the factor of an activity It is definitely said that the activity is in the Guras 15 sentience in 1ctivities The in the ·Introduction 25 meaning, thereby, in their disturbed stale nhen the equilla brium 15 lost If there had been activity in the Prakril itself, the word Gung or constituent need not have been mentioned in the context Actually there is not cycn an apparent activity in the Puruşa The activity 15 only in the Prakpl with the cquilibrium upset and since there is the transfer of senticnce from the Puruşa to the Prakrii, there is the association of sentience and of activity in the same locus ic, in the Prakril It is this activity in the Prakçıl that is called Dulha or suffering in this way, it will be found that, strictly interpreted, the Sankhya system makes the Puruşa the source for the suffering in the Prahti Without the transfer of the sentience from the Purusa to the Prakrti there would have been no disturbance in the equilibrium of the three constituents in the Prakril and there would consequently have been no Duhkha in the form of activity In this verse, the apparent Caitanya and the real activity are both in the Prakrti with its equilibrium disturbed In the case of the sentience it is in the Linga (Mark), from which we infer the Prakſi in its absolute state and the activity too is in the Gunas in their disturbed condition when their equilibruim is upset, which disturbance is due to the sentience that 19 transferred to the Prakſit from the Purusa We cannot miss some semblance in this to the modern theory regarding the relation of dead matter and life According to the modern theory, life is a far later phenomenon in matter In the Sankhya also, life activities come later when originally there was only the dead Prali There is the fundamental difference also that in the Sunklıya, lifc as a fundamental was there and that activity in matter started only after life was infused into it Since the Puruşa was there with its nature of being pure sentience and since the Puruşa continues in that nature without any change after the activities started in the Prokšti, arising out of the transferred life in it on account of the presence of the sentence, namely 45 Acetanam cetanivad iva lingam gunataropve (verst 20) ·28 Sankhya Karika The Satnia aspect increases in its manifestation That 18 what is found in the BỊhadaran, ahopani sad, where there is the prayer, "Lead me from darkness to light." The goal is when the Sattva aspect becomes completely manifest without any suppression by the Tamas aspect When the Rajas starts its operation in the Tamas, the Sativa side is dim and the Tamas side is more prominent There is never a time of condition in which there is a complete elimination of any of the three constituents Thus the world is always dynamic in a state of change and movement There is the infinite absolute in which there is no change and movement But the change and the movement starts in it in the finite aspect There are the two sides in the universe, the changing and moving aspect and the infinite aspect The Sankhya system is one way of explaining the Vedic conception of the world being an infinite absolute with a changing and moving side in it It will take me far out of the track if I enter the field of the relation of the finite to the Infinite One cannot be the other and one cannot also be different from the other This question is not discussed in the system this question arises in the Vedānta That cannot be rationally discussed, that transcends reasoning faculty There is no Vedic authority for the bifurcation of the universe into life and matter, into a dead Prakſri and the septience or the Puruşa In the Nasadıya Sakta?, the breath without the air coming out and going into is within the infinite, absolute matter itself and not a feature extraneous to it a feature reflected on it or transferred into it from an external source Kama and Tapas! (will and power) also are in it and they become manifest In the Purusa Sakraso also there is no contrast betwees watter and life both came out of the Purusa our 47 48 49 50 X-129 And avātam svadhayå tad ekam (Ferse 2) Kama 11 mentioned in verse 4 and Tapas in verse 3 X 90 ·Introduction 29 The Vedas do not support the theory of a Molsa (final emancipation), the Laivala of the Sankhya system There is a description of a heaven in the Rgieda But there is no ultimate departure for the soul from this world into what is called Mokra State Dirghitamas says that when he realised the truth there arose a double personality in him, one immortal and the other mortal $Sunahśepa was full of the thoughts about sin and suffering and bondage in life 63 Yct he never wanted to escape from life as a remedy for the sufferings He wanted to continue his full span of life like all the Rşls of the Vedas * That shows that he knew that there is a remedy for sufferings within the world and within the life A pure spirit and the matter full of sins and sufferings, the entanglement of the spirit in matter and the effort for release from this bondage-these are beliefs that cime into Indian thought at a later stage They cannot be traced to any part of the Vedas The renunciation of activities in the world as a preliminary for release from the bondages of the world is also a later idea In the Vedas the authors prayed for help in removing suffering only to continue their activities in life That is what we find in the poems of Dirghntamas and or Sunahsepa Philosophically also, a pure spirit and its entanglement in the matter which is full of sin and suffering and the efforts to get release arc impossible doctrines If the spirit 15 pure it cannot get so entangled, if it has got entangled, 10 15 not pure If the spirit has activity towards release, it is no spirit activity being only in matter If the matter functions for the release of the spirit, why should the spirit run away from such a beneficent matter 755 How 51 IX 113 6 if 52 I 164 39 The point is explained in the Poet philosophers of the Rgveda by C Kunban Raja Ganesh & Co Madras 53 Sunaḥtepa frequently speaks of Enas and Pria in 1 24 and 25 54 See mi da Ayuh pramog h I 24 11 55 Matter is compared to a Nartaki to the milk from the mothers breast for the growth of the baby to dutiful woman working for the master under hard conditions and to a lady born of a noble family See verses 57 ff in the Karika ·30 Sankhya Adrika can we say that contact with such a matter is a bondage and is a seat of sin and a source of suffering? When the element of a pure Puruşa, extraneous to Prakrti, was introduced into the system, complications arose We find the system a mass of contradictions so far as this point 1s concerned The point must have been external to the genuine Sanklyn Puruşa is introduced as a Sakşin Then it is said that though indifferent, it has some apparent activity. Later there is the illustration of the collaboration of a lame man and a blind man, ard though the lame man does not actually work, he is an associate in the activity and not an indifferent onlooker After this there is frequent mention of a purpose of the Puruşa subserved by the Prakrti in the latter's activities 56 If the activity of the Prakrti is to subserve the purpose of the Purusa, how can such a Puruşa be accepted as a mere sakşın, an indifferent spectator 257 It is also said that the Purusa has no purpose of its own The purpose and the activity to subserve the purpose are both in the Praktı If the release is for the Prakrit, what is the nature of that release? There is the subtle body which gathers a gross body around it, and that is the individual who is to realise the release from the bondage What actually happens is that the subtle body dissolves into the Prakrti That is not what we mean by release If a man is in prison and if he is sent to the gallows, where he becomes extinct that is not a release for him from the prison One is not at all sure what the bondage is, for whom there is the bondage, who works for the termination of the bondage and what happens at the time of the release If we accept the world only as a seat of sin and suffering 58 56 See verses in the Karik& 21 31 36, 37 42 44 (where Apa varga can be only for the Puruşa), 56 57 58 59 60 61 (it is Kaivalya that is impl ed) 63 65 66 and 68 57 siddbam sākşitvam asya puruşasya (verse 19 in the Karks) 58 Samsara ti badhyate pucyate ca prakpth (verse 62 in the Katika) ·Introduction 31 and if absolute happiness is only outside the life in the world and if for this reason, an escape from this world, called Afokşa, is recognised as the supreme goal of man (Parama purusarsha), we must consider the moral implications of such a doctrine Practically, the world becomes a sinking ship The desire of everyone in such a ship is to find an escape from the danger and each one of them can be kept in his position only by physical force In such a world each individual tries only to secure his own salvation No sort of harmonious community life and mutual co-operation is possible in such a situation If the world is a place of activity meant to secure happiness then the people can live together and co-operate Happiness is only in a community life One cannot be happy in solitude But escape is in the form of deserting others, since everyone wants to find his escape first and before others I can very well understand the position taken up in the first tivo verses of the text There is suffering Ordinary min has suffering for which he finds remedies in the ordinary ways of the world There are people who suffer and who have futh in religious remedies for their sufferings But a philosopher has his own sufferings and those sufferings cannot be terminated by the two kinds of remedies mentioned above He has created a suffering of his own and he can find a remedy for the suffering only through a certain specific kind of knowledge His suffering is not at all among the three fold sufferings mentioned in the first verse The semedies that he finds out will not eradicate the sufferings of the three kinds mentioned in the first versc There are three parties in this situation Two pasjies have more or less similar sufferings and they follow different methods The third party, the philosopher has his own suffering different from the sufferings of the other two parties and he also follows a course different from what is followed by the other two parties A medicine may cure a man of his ailments A ritual may give a subjective satis faction to another to the extent that he believes in the efficacy of that ritual in securing him release from bis sufferings ·32 Šanhhya Karika But they are of no avail to a philosopher. Similarly, a philosopher may have somc satisfaction that his inner sufferings through ignorance of certain facts in the universe have been removed. But that does not terminate his physical ailments. The system starts with tlic postulation of a philosopher's suffering and a philosopher's remedy for that suffering. But the remedy has a defect. It is said that the remedy is the discriminative knowledge of the three factors. Really there are only two factors the unevolved and the cvolved world. The Jña or the knower is not a, separate factor. The introduction of this new factor has brought in all sorts of contradictions in the thoughts of the system. This is a case of religion creating some inconsistency in rational thinking. Knowing the truth is philosophy. Separation of the Spirit from matter is religion. The latter has crept into the former. That is the stage when the text was written I am noi at all sure whether senkara is reluting the Sankhya as is presented in the Sankhya Kartha or whether he had another form of the Sankhya of an earlier time. It is true that many facts mentioned in the Sankhya Karika are found alluded to in the Bhasya of Sankara. Thus there is the reference to the ſame man and the blind man, there is the reference to the flow of milk from the mother to allow the baby to grow. There is also the reference to the Puruşa being pure and there is the suggestion of a possible sentience in the Pradhana through transfer from an external locus. But I do not find the contents of the twentieth verse sufficiently brought into operation in retuting the doctrine of 59 It is the Prakti in a state of rcdification that is the Iccus for the auffering and thereby for the release al£, and that is through knowledge. So, the locus for the knowledge that secures the release must be also the Prakrti in the state of modification See sarasarati, badhyate mucgate.. praktiḥ (verse 62) It is said that there is a transferred sentience in the Prakti See a cetanam cetan Avad nya Ingam (verse 20 in the Karu) 60. Here, the sentience of the Puruşa is specifically stated to bave been transferred to the insentent Prakştı, ih tatsamy ogod #ceta nam cetapavad inva lingam ·Introduction 33 the Sankhya system There is too much emphasis on the insentient nature of the Pradhand that has evolved into the world According to the northa, it is not the insentient Pradhana that evolves, the evolution is due to the sentience in the Pradhana that has been transferred into it from the Puruşa According to Sankara, the illustration of milk flowing from the mother to enable the baby to grow, given in the Sankhya, is to show that even insentient objects can function This is how the Karlka has been interpreted by the classical commentators also But in the Karika itself, the context is one of activity in one entity entirely to subserve the purpose of another The Karika comes immediately after the stalement that there is the activity in Pradhana for the sake of another, but it appears as if it is working for itself 61 The point of grass transforming itself into milk found in Sankara is not found in the Karika I have a feeling that the larika is a revision of some earlier Sankhya text and that Sankara had this earlier text before him when he criticised the Sankhya interpretation of the Upanı şads Can the revision be in the light of the criticism of Sankara ? There is the difficulty of the relative chronology between the Karika and Sankara Šankara is, according to the accepted chronology, about 800 AD and the Karika cannot be later than about 600 AD There are evidences to show that Sankara is much earlier than the date accepted for him now In this revision the Karika must have absorbed many new concepts also That is the form in which we have the text now Purusa distinct from matter and a Moksa (final emancipation) may be among such new factors that crept into Sankhya in the light of the Vedanta doctrines My chief point is that the Sankhya system has its root in the Vedas and that the system has undergone many changes in the course of its evolution on account of the A pure 61 svartha iva pararthi drambhah (verse 56 in the Karika ) Here it 18 said that the Prakrti works for another as if for steel The illustration of m lk flowing from the mothers breast 110 tbe next verse varsavivddhinimittam (Karıka 57) ·Introduction 35 the time of Moksa 65 This is not much different from the Buddhistic Nirvana, the complete elimination of the individual The difference is that in the Sinkhya, the actual reality is positive in the form of Prakrti and Purusa In the Buddhistic thought it is Śanja, void The extinction of the individual at the time of reaching the goal is common to both The Sanhhya doctrine does not deserve to be called Pessimism Pessimism is really the belief that there is nothing worse than this world But that is not what the Sankhya texts teach It is true that there is the postulation of suffering in the world This suffering can be got rid of only by Alokşa (final emancipation) That means that there is no real happiness in life in the world But we must look at the problem with the illustrations given in the system, and such illustrations go back to a stage far anterior to the Karika The matter and the spirit are in the relation of collaborators for a common end like a lame man and a blind Inan 66 The activity of the Prakrti is compared to the activity of milk flowing from the mother to enable the baby to grow 67 Prahrli is also compared to a lady dancing on the stage, and certainly the darcing cannot be to bring about suffering to the spectator Prakrti is also compared to a very dutiful woman serving a master under hard conditions and there is a pun on the words which indicates that the Prakrti is good while the master served, ie, the Spirit, is not good Thus there is no aversion at all shown towards the world and life in it This attitude towards life is a heritage from the Vedas 70 65 See verses 64 ff in the Karika 66 pangvandhavad ubkayor aps samasargah (verse 21 in the Karika) 67 vatsavivsddhinimittam ksirasya yatha pravsttıs (verse 77) 68 See verse 59 in the Karika 69 Verse 60 This 18 only by implication and is not expressly stated There 1the pun on the word guna meaning both the constituents of Matter and good qualtties 70 In the Vedas the world is a good wo id and man can be happy in this life in this world All the fais of the Vedas found happiness in this world and no one wanted an escape See The Vedas by C Kunban Raja Andhra University ·36 The Sankhya Karika Another such heritage is the atheism of Sankhya In the Sankhya system there is no place for a God The evolution is from within the world itself The world in some positive form or another was always there and will always be thece There is nothing that can be thought of as a Creation, the bringing into being of what never existed before Thus there is no scope for a Creator and for a giver of the Law The work of regulating and maintaining the Law was also arranged within the world scheme and never depended on the existence of a God This sort of Atheism is found throughout Indian thought What is called Theism in Indian thought is only an idealisation of the World Unity into a God Attempts have been made in the past to equate the Sankhya with the Vedāntall and even now there are scholars who say that the Sankhya is a step towards the Vedānt" that there is no essential difference in fundamentals between There are scholars who see Gladstonian Democracy at work found in ancient India as studied from the Antla Sastra and other texts and there are also scholars who see Darwinian Evolution in Sankhya and 10 the theory of the ten Incarnations of Vişnu They all belong to the same category of thought pattern Really thc Sandhya is the direct development of one out of the three currents of thoughts found in the Vedas regarding the mutual relation of the absolute and the phenomenal In the Sankhya, the absolute is matter with life as an integral factor in it, as is found in the Nasadısa Sakta 7 The Vedanta is the development of the current of thought in which the absolute is essentially life with the potentiality of matter cvolving out of it That is what is found in the Puruga Salla" In the Nyasa, matter absolute and life are distinct the two 71 This is what Vajillnabbiktu tries to curatlank in ! Saathsapraracana Bhaya The Chinese translation teo kr show sobe Vedtata leunirs 72. RV 12 RV ·Introduction 37 There is a Supreme life and an infinity of ordinary lives The Supreme life works on the matter to produce the phenomenal world This is shat is found in the Hiranyagarbia and in the Vistakarnia Saktas 7All the three go back on the Rgxeda The difference is based on the difference in the view regarding the nature of the absolute matter The absolute matter is a collection of material particles according to one View If matter ever remains as a collection of the particles, such particles must be united together to form the whole in the world of experience The particles of matter cannot by themselves join together for the formation of such wholes There can be no life in the absolute matter if it is a collection of particles If matter in its absolute state is a collection of particles and if such collection of particles has life also, the result would be that what is called life can be reduced to particles Or we have to say that each such particle has also a life in it Then the combination of the particles will be the result of a joint work of different life principles existing in the dfferent particles If there is such a collaboration possible, then there can be no individuality in the final combination Jf life in the particle A and the life in the particle B work in such a way that there results the combination of A+B as a unitary individual, then where is the difference between the two elements called the life in the two particles? It is more reasonable to assume that the life behind A and the life behrod B in that formation is the same There is nothing to distinguish the two For this reason, along with the recognition of the absolute matter as consisting of particles, there is also assumed a single power, called life, in the whole world which brings about such a combination of the particles to form the wholes in the world of experience It is not merely a matter of putting two or more particles together in spatial contact Any two parts in spatial contact will not forth a whole What is called a whole is a Disyakarmin RV X 81 82 Hiranyagarbha RV X 12 ·38 The Sankhya Kārlka as collection of parts in a special kind of contact with one another Thus e ectrons come together to form atoms and atoms come together to form molecules The parts in the atoms and in the molecules are not merely in the relation of proximity in space There is something that keeps them together without causing a break up of the spatial continuity among the parts If particle A is operated by one life and if particie B is operated by another life, then how could they come together to form such a whole ? Either the life in A and the life in B are not different, or the particles A and B can not be held together by them to form a whole It is for this rezson that a world power is recognised existing behind the formation of the world This point is explained by Udayana shss Nyaya Kusumaña) in the fifth Book under the headings of Ayojana and Dhrit (combination and holding together), which is the second and the third of the grounds that he brings forward to establish a god 76 Then corresponding to the differences in experience, we have also to postulate a large number of individual lives in the world If the world of experience is to be reduced to particles, then ? postulation of such a supreme God and of the individual souls becomes a necessity But if the world is a fluid without any break up into particles, one such force is able to effect the changes ind the movement in the whole of the evolving matter Life 18 necessary for the evolution Otherwise matter will motionless in the absolute stage, there will be no cvolution of the world of experience Therefore, life within the ciolving matter is accepted There are two poss bilities in this case. Either matter contains life or matter arises out of life Thc latter means that the duality of matter and life has to be reduced to a unity To say that there was only matter and that life arosc out of it deteals the very purpose of the acceptance of a liſe element as a fundamental Ir there had remain 75 The verre 13 sargos ganadiriseden radat praisayatas bruichi radgat madhorskie ce sadky o ridsayıd aradan ·Introduction 39 been only matter and if life arose out of it, there must have been some activity in dead matter This is a contradiction in terms It is the source of the change that we call life and to say that life is the elfect of such a change is against reason. But the other alternative is a philosophical possibility If there had been only life, then that life can function from within and give rise to matter in it Either we must accept the matter-life dunlısm as a state of the fundamental absolute or accept matter as an evolute from life, reducing both to the unity of life If matter is an evolute of life and if there has been only a unitary life as the fundamental absolute, then that absolute life evolves into two factors, namely, life and matte- In the absolute stage, there can be no activity, there is an activity only if there is matter The operation in life as a fundamental cannot be of the form of change and movement Change and movement presuppose matter. What is it that evolves out of the life fundamental? Is it a dualism of matter and life or a unitary matter with life in it as an integral part ? If matter and life evolved from the life fundamental, it is more reasonable to postulate that they evolved as two separate facts in the world In that case, there arises the need for a universal life evolved from the life fundamental along with matter and also along with the lives The need has been explained in the previous section just above. Thus we get at the position of a life fundamental, a universal life, many individual lives, and matter evolved from it This is what we find in the Advaita Vedanta Matter as fundamental with life in it or life in matter as a fundamental is the other possible alternative We call something as an absolute, as fundamental in the universe, because there is unity What is a dualism cannot be a fundamental We accept the fundamental as the ultimate basis for the diversities in the world of experience If we stop at a dualism, there was no need to go beyond the world of diversities to reach a fundamental, an absolute. This is the position taken up in the Advaita Vedānta In the Nyaya where there are three realities as fundanentals, namely, the Supreme God, the soul and the matter, ·40 The Sanklıya Karika there is the explanation that the unity required for explaining our start on the journey towards the fundamental diversities is secured through the supremacy of the God over the other two elernents This is also the position in the other two systems of Vedānta where there is no absolute unity in the ultimate fundamental In the Viśıstādvaita, the Supreme has parts in the form of the diversified facts of the world, nimely, the souls and the objects They are the anisas while the Supreme is the amsin (parts and what has the parts) In the Dvaita, the difference between the Supreme and the facts of the world, namely, the souls and the objects, is a cardinal point Yet there is the unity on account of the Supreme, the others being subordinate to it In the Sankhya, there is a unity The three const tuents are not different factors, they all form into 1 unit, indiyısı ble into parts That absolute is capable of evolving into three constituents But in the absolute stage, the three constituents are not recognised as separate constituents, there is only a uniform There are two currents in modern science There is the materialistic monism of Darwin's evolution The absolute was the uniform matter which cvolved into the diversified world But there was no life in it Life appeared much later in the course of evolution There is also the theory of the uniform gravitational fleld or Electro-magnetic field, in the absolute stage which cvolved into the diversified world of relativity In this thought current, the problem of life does not fird a place We can call Darwinism the Tamas absolute, and Relativity the Rajas absolute. The Advaita Vedānta has the Sallva absolute. If in the Advaita Vedanta, the absolute can evolve into matter and the various selves with a Supreme Self also as agent, that shows that matter is a potentiality in the absolute Activity also is a potential factor in that absolute Oilarnisc there cannot be the evolution of the scles and the Supreme God and the matter, where the activity abides It may be said that it is all Araja, Vith; a, which cannot be descriled cither as "s" or as his noi". Yet it cannot be said that does not ctist absolutely And to that extent, thicre is some ·Introduction 41 tlie relation between matter and activity on one side and the absolute on the other, as evolute and source In Darwinism, life came later, and what never existed can never come into existence To this extent, life must have been a potential content of the primal uniform of dead matter In the Theory of Relativity, matter is involved in it $ince the original Relativity has been brought into relation with the Quantum Theory and the Unified Field Theory has been evolied In this way somehow or other, the three constituents of the Sankhya are implied even in the absolute, whether it is the absolute of the Advaita Vedanta or of Darwinism or of Relativity What is implied in them 15 explicit in the Sankhya The Purusas, the bondage, the Moksa (final emancipation) and ine other factors in the classical Sankhya must be later accretions I have preference for the theory of the Linga Śarıra or subtle body as an enduring factor which continues life, in relation to cell theory where the cells are destroyed and life is continued from cell to cell I also feel that it is more reasonable that evolution takes place in the body in activity, when a subtle body takes up a gross body until that gross body drops out, than that the evolution is between one cell and the subsequent cell Evolution is associated with the increase in knowledge, in the dominance of the Satta constituent over the matter or Tamas constituent Thus there must be the possibility of an absolute knowledge in the gross body as the goal of evolution That is what is meant by the cradication of suffering through the discriminative knowledge of the unevolved and the evolved world The knower is only a part of the evolved world He is the subject in relation to the other objects and he is also the abject in relation to other agents in knowing There is never an extinction of an individual The gross body may drop out and a new gross body may father round the subtle body even at the time of attaining this perfect knowledge There may be a termination of the Personality, but the individuality can still continue The body need not be the result of the normal activity of the absolute matter, beyond the ·IS 42 The Sankhya Karika control of the individual It what the individual assumes for himself through his knowledge of the exact relation between matter and the spirit Such a body will not be a limitation and also not a cause for suffering The individual can continue in that body with perfect knowledge and free from all suffering Then we get the sufferer who has ceased to be subject to suffering absolutely and eternally Some such thing must have been the genuine Sankhya into which some new factors crept in course of time and we have the classical Sänkhya in the Karika of Isvarakrsna These new factors have only created troubles and contradictions, no problem has been solved thereby Philosophy absorbed a little of religion from the passage to the classical stage This is the standpoint that I have taken up when I interpret the Karika The theories have changed from time to time according to the changes in the beliefs current There were certain doctrines which dominated the thoughts of the philosophers in the Vedic time This was not a uniform current there were different currents of thought at that time Then there came about a change with the advent of tbe latterday currents of thoughts in Buddhistic philosophy and there wis also a change in the Vedic current of thought, with proper adjustments It is the thought current in this period that we find in the Karika Now we live in a new period We have to take stock of the four periods through which the thought currents have flowed and we have to prepare a new channel We are concerned only with the nature of the objective syorld We are not interested in the sins and in the sufferings of the world and we scck no escape from the sufferings in life Wc try to understand the world We can develop an intellectual suffering and find a remedy for this suffering through ! solution of the problems thich created the suffering That suffering is in life and the way out is also confined to the limits of life It is with such a philosophers attitude that I interpret the harikas CLUNIAN RAJA ·The Sankhya Kārika i. duhkla traya 'bhghataj jijñasa tad-abhighalake herau drște sa 'partha cen nalkanta-'rjantato 'bhavat 2 drştavad anusravikah sa hy avisuddh ksaya 'risaja-Juhtalı sad-vi paritah śrezan vzalta.'vakta.jño-vijñanat 1 When one is oppressed by the three fold sufferings, there arises a desire to know the means for suppressing them If it be said that when there is the seen means, it is without a purpose, it is not so, since it does not exist esther in an invariable way or in an absolute way 2 What relates to the scripture is like the seen means, that, indeed, is associated with lack of purity, decay and gradations Something different from them is superior, whereby, there results the discriminative knowledge of the manifest, the unmanifest and the knower There is suffering in life and man is oppressed by this suffering It is the subjection to suffering that stirs up man to think of a way out of the suffering The sufferings as experienced in life are of three kinds Some are generated from within oneself and they are called Adhyatmıha (arising from Atman or self) Others arise out of the elementais like the fire and the water and they are called Adhbhaulika (arising out of the bhulas or the elementals) Still others arise out or te will or Providence and are called Adhıdavia (arising out of Daiva or Providence) There is suffering , but there are also means for escape from the suffering through various known ways There is the medical science, there are precautions against fire and water and even in the case of what are brought about by Providence, there are the means prescribed by way of worship of the deities There is tothing to think about in regard to ·44 The Sankhya Karika [1, 2] such sufferings, how man may find an escape from the sufferings On this prima facle issue, the position taken up in the system is that though there are the means available, which are being practised in man's life, such means do not always bring about the desired effect and even when there are the desired effects, such effects are only of a temporary nature and not permanent It may be that the means usually cmployed in the practical affairs of life may fail sometimes and do not bring about any unfarling and lasting effect, but there are the means prescribed in scriptures like the performance of certain Sacrifices which bring about such effects. What is prescribed in scripture cannot fail and when there is the attainment of Heaven, there is the final disappearance of suffering Here also there is not the absolute and invariable disappearance of suffering through such means Certain aspects of suffering continue to remain as intimately associated with the Sacrifices prescribed in the scripture There are impure actions like killing of animals The effects of such rituals that are prescribed in the scriptures are not at all permanent, they too are of a temporary pature and it is said that when the effects terminate, the man returns to this life on earth, and suffering starts once more There are also different gradations of happiness prescribed as the fruits of the Sacrifices in the scripture Impurity, fear of decay and other effects that excel the effects of the ritual performed bring about some suffering, by their very nature Therefore a means whereby one can attain to a discriminative knowledge of the three factors in the universe, namely, the manifest world, the unmanifest source of that world and the knower can alone be taken as what would suppress suffering in Lfe This means is of the nature of a rational approach to the problem, an investigation into the real nature of the universe comprising of the three factors Therefore in spite of the practical means, in spite of sacrifice, there is scope for an enquiry into the truth of the ·[1, 2] The Sankhya Karika 45 universe, and that is what is proposed to be undertaken in this system The classical commentaries give an impression that the investigation proposed to be undertaken according to the system keeps some "purpose" in view and is on a par with the normal means adopted in the world for the removal of the sufferings in life Certainly, a philosophical system cannot prescribe any such remedy against individual cases or types of suffering in man's life It is the individual cases of suffering in man's life that are classified under the three headings and it is the individual sufferings for which remedies are found in the form of practical steps dealt with in the medical science and in the form of the ritual prescribed in the scripture But when one suffering is removed, another suffering arrives The investigation undertaken in the system takes note of suffering in its generic aspect in life and does not keep the individual suffering in view What is suffering? Why 15 there suffering? It is this that the system takes note of and on account of the presence of suffering in life, the philosopher himself experiences a suffering, which is not included within the scope of the three fold suffering It is a philosopher's suffering that is proposed to be removed through the investigntion The system is not a means of removing suffering parallel to the practical steps in the sciences and the steps prescribed in scripture it is not proposed that diseases and poverty and other aspects of suffering are cured through the means advocated in this system The system is a system of philosopby and not a treatise to be made use of by any social service organisation It is suffering that has enabled man to develop various sciences and various religious practices It is suffuring that enables man to develop philosophy But the method and the goal are differant in the two sets-science and religion one side and philosophy on the other When through a rational investigation, the truth is known, there happiness in a philosopher That happiness in a philosopher is quite different from the happiness which an ordinary map on IS a ·46 The Sankhya harika [1,21 cxperiences by the application of practical means and through scriptural means as remedies for the various cases of suffering in life If there is a "purpose" in philosophy, that is different from the purpose kept in view in sciences and in religion No investigation can start unless there is some doubt in man's mind and unless the removal of such a doubt creates some difference in the condition around man in his life A philosopher's uneasiness in mind on account of the doubt and a philosopher's happiness when the doubt is removed, shall not be confused with the uneasiness and happiness in the ordinary affairs of life The purpose in philosophy is only the removal of a doubt, and the state of mind when a doubt is renioved is a state of happiness It is this happiness which is the "purpose" in philosophy It is such a doubt that must have created a suffering in Buddha, and when that doubt was removed through his "Illumination" it is a similar happiness that he must have experienced He must have had the same doubts Why is there suffering and what is the real nature of suffering ? His doubts were removed when he had the realisation of the four-fold truth dulkham duhhha sanluppadam duhkhassa ca arthhamam art yam ca-'ttha'ngakam maggam duhkhu-'pasama gamingit Suffering, origination of suffering overcoming the suffering and the eight fold noble Path that leads to the cessation of suffering (Dharmande, 14 11, 191) The thoughts of Buddha were stirred and moved along such lines, when he saw suffering in man's life like diseases, old age and death, and when he also saw the happiness in bermits by withdrawing from the normal affairs of life Buddha did not follow up the path to find remedies to supplement the available ones against the individual sufferings To say that the greatest achievements of Buddha are in prohibiting sacrifices where there is injury to life and in eradicating ·[1, 2] The Sankhya Karika 47 caste differences, is to degrade him to the level of the founder of a social service league His attempt was to find out a means of ending "suffering" through the realisation of the nature of suffering and the source of suffering There is suffering But that suffering his an origina. tion What has an origination, what is not in the eternal nature of the universe, can be overcome and removed. And there is a way, within the nature of the world itself, for the removal of the suffering, there is the eight fold path consisting of Samma Ditthi (right view), Sanma Sankappo (right aspiration), Samma Vaca (right speech), Samma Kanımanta (rigth action), Samma Jivanto (right living), Samma Vayano (right exertion), Samnia Sari (right learning) and Samnia Samadhi (right meditation) Not one of them has ? relation to the removal of any particular item of suffering in man's life, for which science and religion prescribe remedies This is not different from what is given in the verse that the real means of overcoming "suffering" is the discriminative knowledge of the manifest, the unmanifest and the knower Vacaspati Misra makes the position of the Sankhya system clear when he says "The subject matter of this treatise will not be an object of any one's desire to know if (1) there is nothing called suffering in the world, (11) it is not what has to be avoided, and (11) even when it has to be avoided, it is impossible to completely cut it off. There are two contingencies under wbich it becomes impossible to completely cut it off, either the suffering is eternal or the method of cutting it off is not known Even if it is possible to cut it off, the knowledge which is dealt with in the treatise may not be a way of erfecting it or there may de anotiter way which is casier to accomplish, for these two reasons also there may not arise any such desire" (Commentary on the first verse) The opening passages establish that philosophy and philosophers have a place along the side of sciences and religion and of those who move in the fields of practical arts and of religion, and there is also n hint that the philosopher's ·11, 21 48 The Sankhya Karika position is higher than what has to be assigned to the others I have nowhere seen the point considered that the suffering and the cessation of suffering contemplated in philosophy relate only to the sufferings of a philosopher and not the sufferings of the common people in the world It is the sciences and the arts and the religions that seek a remedy for the ordinary sufferings of humanity There is another point to be considered Who is the one who suffers and for whose sufferings is the discriminative knowledge among the three factors promised as a remedy? It cannot be cither the unmanıfast matter of the self When the evolved matter is reduced to the unmanifest matter, there is the cessation of the suffering that unmanifest matter, when thus reduced to that condition, does not agun start diversification and become manifest The Self does not suffer at all (see verse 62). It is the modifications of matter in its manifest state, that suffers (see verse 62) At the time of the discriminative knowledge, there is no evolved matter that is manifest (see verse 65) Not merely the physical body, the subtle body too dissolves That is, this is not a case of the cessation of suffering, but the sufferer There is no sufferer who will continue and enjoy the stage of the cessation of his suffering Self and the unmanifest matter remain and neither suffered The manifest matter that suffered ceases to continue the sufferer continues with the suffering terminated, one wonders bow anyone can take to the philosophy an extinction of Only the Unless 3 mala prakrtır ayıkrtir mahad adyah prakrti vikrlajah sapta sodasakas tu viharo na prakrtir na yrkstih purusali The root cause is not a modification The seven starting with intellect are both causes and modifica tions The group of sixteen, on the other hand, are modifications The Self is neither a cause nor 1 modification ·Karika 3 49 We see the world as a series of movements and changes When there is a change, there must be something in which the change takes place, and through this change there must be something that comes into eristence That in which the change takes place is the cause out of which, through the change, the new thing comes into being as a modification Thus clay is the cause from which as a result of the change, there is the transformation called a jar Or take an ornament It is a transformation of the cause called gold, gold is the transformation of its own cause called the ore In this series of causes and transformations we reach a stage when the cause is not the transformation of any thing else as its own cause This cause, which is not the transformation of another cause, is called the root ciuse of this world In this system it is called the Mnla Prakrii From this root cause there is transformation called the intellect, this transformation in its turn becomes the cause for another transformation called the "I" (ahankara) nature From this "I" nature, which is a transformation, there arises another transformation as a group of the five that called the tanniairās, the things in themselves From these tanmatras, the five elements are produced From the "I" nature, the eleven organs (five sense-organs and five organs of action and mind) are also produced in this way the seven, namely, the intellect and the "I" nature and the five Tanmatras, are causes from which other things are produced as transformatrons and at the same time, ench of them is a transformation of another cause So they are sometimes causes and sometimes effects arc The five elements produced from the five tanmairas and the eleven organs produced from the "l' nature do not transform themselves into further effects and they are traosformations of their own causes Then there is the Self, the sentience, which is not the transformation of a cause nor a cause out of which another thing comes into being as a transformation ·In SO The Sankhya Karika On the whole there orc thus twenty fise categories constituting the universe. All of them will be taken up for detailed treatment in the course of the work, It was enunciated that the philosophy of the form of an investigation into the nature of the universe is superior to practical sciences and arts and to religion This pb losophy results in a discriminative knowledge of three things, the manifest, the unmanifest and the knower Therefore, there are these three categories to be treated of in this philosophy The unmanifest, among them, is the root cause out of which the manifest world comes into being That cause itself has not come out of any cause, it is the root the case of the manifest, there are two further sub-divisions In the earliest stage of transformation, the transformations themselves become the cause for further transformations there are seven such Then at the final stage, there are transformations that do not form the cause for further trans formations They are sixteen There is also the knower, tbe Self that is not a transformation of any cause 'nor does it form the cause for the production of any other transformation It comes to this The universe is made up of two constituent factors They are the sentence and dead matter Sentience does not evolve into any other form nor is it an evolute from another cause The dead matter exists in two forms One is the root cause which is not manifest and which 18 not evolved from another cause but from this root cause, there arises the manifest matter When there is transforma tion into a particular evolute, that becomes a cause for the further transformation into other evolutes Then a stage comes when the transformed aspect does not get itself further transformed Sentience or Life is absolute and not an accidental product during the transformation of matter The need for a philosophy, distinct from practical knowledge and from religion, and also the subject matter of that philosophy have been given The three fold subject matter, further subdivided into twenty five categories, will now be taken up for detailed treatment ·Karikas 45 40949 51 The term mahat, meaning "great" is used to signify the first evolute from the foot cause, what is generally known as the Intellect. It will be found that the root cause is expressed also by the torm Pradhana in subsequent verses, what really means "The Primary" 4 drstam anumanam aptaracanari ca sara pramana siddhatvat 1 tri vidham pramanam iştam prameya siddhih pramanad dht a prati visaya 'dhyavasaze drstam tri vidham anumanam akh) atamı tal linga lingi-parvakam aplasrutir apto vacanan tu !! * Perception, snference and the statement of a reliable person--modes of knowing are recognised as of three kinds in so far as all the modes of knowing are established thereby The establishment of the objects of knowingas, indeed, through the modes of knowing" (4) "Perception is a determinative knowledge in respect of every individual object Inference is spoken of as of three kinds, it is what has the mark and what is marked as its antecedent But the word that is reliable is that of the reliable person and of the scripture." (5) It was stated that the system of Sankhya takes up for a detailed treatment the three primary categories further sub divided into twenty five categories One would have expected that cach one of them would be taken up at But actually & new subject is taken up This requires an explanation So, the new subject is introduced and the explanation for this departure from what was legitimate in the context is also given Instead of taking up the categories, the modes of knowing are given and the explanation for this is that one cannot deal with the categories without first of all establishing the mode of koowing the categories Therefore, before the categories are taken up for treatment, the modes of knowing are taken up at this stage this stage ·52 The Sankhya Karlka There are different views regarding the modes of knowing in the different systems of philosophy. One has to make it clear whether the system follows any of the other systems in this respect in which the subject matter has been dealt with or whether it takes up an independent position of its owo If the position taken up is an independent one, then the relation of the system to the other systems where there is another position taken up, has also to be explained; otherwise one may reject the position of the system in so far as it goes counter to the positions adopted in other recognised systems There are three recognised modes of knowing One is perception, another is inference and a third is the statement of a reliable person. This is the position taken up in the Sankhya system There are the Cārvākas who accept only perception, as the mode of knowing There are others, the Buddhists, who accept inference also, besides perception The Vaišesika system accepts the statement of a reliable person as a mode of knowing a thing, but they do not accept it as distinct from inference There is a universal relation between a word and its meaning When a man utters & word agother infers, in the mind of the speaker, the presence of the corresponding meaning So, it is rot a distinct mode A group of Naiyayikas accept the three modes, but there are Naiyāyikas who accept analogy as a distinct mode of knowing But in the Sankhya and in the above mentioned school of the Nyāya system, analogy is included in inference When a man knows that a wild animal called the gavaya resembles cow and when he finds in the woods an animal resembling a cow, he gets the knowledge that that animal is what is called a garaya This is the mode known as Analogy Thus, this is primarily a mode of knowing the meaning of a word This is accepted as a distinct mode in the Midāmsă and in the Vedānta systems There is a slight difference between the Naiyāyıka conception of this mode and the Mimämsä conception while in the Nyāya, it is the meaning of the word gavaya that is known through this mode, in the Mimosā, when a man knows that there is the resemblance of a cow in a gavaja and when he sees the galaya in the forest, he knows ·Karikas 4 $ 53 the resemblance of the gar zya in the cow that he had already seen in the village The difference is very subtle The matter 15 of importance only when the Nyaya or the Mimāmsā system is critically studied and may be ignored in the Sänkhya system, where it is not a distinct mode, but is included in inference In an There is another mode of knowing We cannot know a universal except in a particular We know the uriversal relation of smoke and fire only in individual instances of smoke found in the kitchen or in a sir et corner inference, when we see an instance like a mountain where there is smoke, we infer that there is also fire It is a case of knowing one co ordinate in a universal relation like the fire, when the other co ordinate, the smoke is seen This is the definition given by Śabarasvāmin in the Mimamsa Bhasya Now, we cannot know a thing as existing, except as existing in a particular place and at a particular time When a man's existence is known with reference to a particular place and when there is the knowledge that the man is not there, then the knowledge that he exists must have another locus in relation to which alone his existence can be known So another locus comes into the mind and this mode of knowledge is what is called artha patti The Mimāmsa system accepts this as a particular mode of knowing But in the Nyaya and in the Sankhya, it is included in inference When a man does not see a jar on the floor he gets the knowledge of the absence of a jar on the floor If the jar had been there he would have seen it, there is light and there is 90 factor that coul present the knowledge of the jer Thus mode of knowing the absence is accepted as a distinct mode in the Mimätnsă But in the Nyāya it is only a case of knowing the absence through the same mode through which the presence of the thing can be known Thus, since the jar would have been known through perception, its absence too s known through perception The Vedānta follows the Mimāmsā system In the Sankhya too, it is not accepted as a distinct mode ·the 54 The Sankhya Karika All the modes of knowledge are recognised in the various systems, except in the Cāryaka and Buddhistic systems The difference is only in the matter of the classification and definition of the various modes The Carvakas and the Buddhists do not recognise some of the modes at all The Cārvākas recognise only perception and the Buddhists accept inference too. A statement is accepted as a mode of knowing a fact in all the systems of thought, except in the Cārvāka and in the Buddhistic systems In the Vaiśesika system, it is a mode of inference and not a distinct mode As a matter of fact, there 1, an element of inference even in the mode of knowing as recognised by the Cārvakas The Buddhists also recognise statement of Buddha, like "one shall worship a sacred spot," as a means of knowing There are two reasons why the statement of another person has to be accepted as a distinct mode of knowing There are factors in the universe which cannot be known through perception and inference If there is no other mode of knowing, all such facts would turn out to be what cannot be known That is a confession of human limitations cannot know a thing as true from what another person savs, how can I trust myself? So, another person's experience is as much a mode of knowing as the experience of myself unference and the statement of another person must be accepted as modes of knowing things Those who deny a mode of knowing called inference, have to admit that mode for such a denial After all, he has to discuss and there can be a discussion only if there is impression that another person has a doubt or a urons knowledge or a lack of knowledge This impression is not produced by perception, since the mental states of one are not within the scope of another That is what Vacaspats Mirj says "Ir a Lokāyatıka (Carvāku) says that inference is not a mode of knowing, how can he know that another person has not understood a thing or has misunderstood a thing or has a doubt about a thing? And the lack of knonledge, misunder standing and doubt existing in another person cannot be If I Both &n ·Kaitkas 4.5 $$ known through perception by a person with only the normal powers of vision. And the knowledge of such a thing is not through another mode. One encountering another person without realising that the other has a lack of knowledge or a misunderstanding or a doubt, has to be ignored by those who have an intelligence and commonsense since the words of - such persons do not deserve any consideration." There is an element of inference implied in perception and inference itself implies some transcendental mode. 1 cannot distinguish between an ordinary wire and a "live wire" except by noting the difference in the behaviour of the tro wires. From the peculiar behaviour, we infer that one of them is electrified. The electrified nature of the wire is only an object of our inference. Now, an inference gives only a generic knowledge, and the particulars about it can be known only by other modes. Thus when we note smoke on the mountain, we infer fire; we do not know the details or the particulars of the fire. In the case of the "live wire," either we have to say that there is no method of knowing the particulars of the electricity or we have to admit that there is some mode of knowing the particulars of the electricity which transcend our perception and our jpference. It may be that man does not now possess that faculty ; but the fact that something is inferred in a generic way itself warrants that there are particulars and that there must be some mode of knowing those particulars. It may be some new faculty that can be developed in man, And when some men develop such a faculty, then the only way in which another person can know those particulars is through the statement of that person about the particulars, Now, perception is a determination in respect of every individual object. When we see a jar, there is no other factor coming in as a factor in this perception. It is simply a relation between a sense-organ and an object. There is a determination when the generic and the particulars are known, and this determination is effected within the perception itself without the aid of another object and its knowledge. This is what differentiates perception from the other two modes of ·When be rain , The second 56 The Sankhya Karika knowing In inference there must be the knowledge of the mark and what is marked as a pre-condition In the third, there must be the apta or reliable person and a scripture The next mode of knowing is the inference This is spoken of as of three kinds This division must be what is found in the Njaya-sutras The three varieties are what are called porvavat, sesarat and sămânyatodista, ie what has a prior, what has a posterior and what is generally seen there is the cause as the prior and when from this prior the effect is inferred, that is the first variety When the clouds are found to gather in the sky, one infers from this, as the cause, that there wou this is the first variety variety is when from the effect, which is poster or to the cause, the cause is in ferred When one finds the river swollen with greater speed for the current, one infers that there was a rain The third variety is like the inference of the movement of the sun when there is found a change in the position of the sun It is with a movement that there is usually seen a change in the posit on of objects The Sutra contains the element the inference is of three kinds' in the same words as are found in the Karika (trividham anumanam) The commentary on it by Vatsyāyana gives the expression "what is preceded by the mark and what is marked" (linga lingi-panahan) The examples given above are taken from that commentary The commentary on the Nyaya saira gives another meaning also for the three terms What has a prior is gnen in this explanation, as what was seen bafore, in which when one is seen the other that is not seen is inferred fire and smoke have been seen together before, and when smoke alone is seen later, one in fers fire, this is the example What has a posterior is what is left behind definition of sound is found to be applicable 10 a substance or a quality or an action, and when it is found that sound cinnot be applicable to a substance or an action, it is inferred that sound is a quality This is the second verrety What is scen In general is a variety in which the relation between the mart and what is marked is not known by perception, but uten When both When the ·Karikas 4.5 $7 the mark is known somehow in a general way, then the other is inferred. Thus nesther desire nor the self is an object of perception But when somehow we know that there is a quality called desire, then the self is inferred as the locus for the quality since a quality must have such a locus The classical commentaries introduce other explanations for the three-fold division of the inference, and also for the pissage, "What has the mark and what is marked as prior Now, perception has been explained as what is determined with regard to each object by itself This is not the same with inference In inference, there is something more than the object itself in the process of determination The presence of fire on the mountain is determined not by itself, but by the knowledge of the co existence of smoke and fire elsewhere and also by the knowledge of smoke on the mountain It is really to show this difference between perception and inference that the passage is introduced in the description of inference among the three modes Gauda pada takes this passage as stating a division of inference into two one is where from the Inark we infer what is marked and the other is when from what is marked we infer the mask A particular kind of staff is a mark of a mendicant When we find a staff in the hands of a mendi cant we infer that that is the staff which mendicants usually carry Also, when a particular kind of staff is carried by a man, we infer that the man is a mendicant While Gaudapāda accepts the three fold division as given by Vatsyāyana in his commentary on the Nyaya satras, Vacaspa ti has another division First he divides inference into vita and avita In the former, we infer through positive co existence and in the second we infer through the co-exis tence of negations The first variety is divided again into "what has a prior and what is generally seen' The second 13 what is called "what has a posterior What has a prioris that in whuch the objects are perceived already The example is that of the inference of fire from smoke, where the smoke and the fire and their relation had already been perceived 99 ·seen the eye an instrument 58 The Sankhya Karika When, in the inference, the objects have not been already perceived, that is where there is only what has been generally When ro specific instance has been perceived it 15 8 case of what is generally seen Thus when we see colour, we know that there has been some function and that for a function there must be an instrument So in the process of the function that resulted in the knowlege of the colour, " infer an instrument in the form of the sense-organ called In every process like the cutting of a tree, there is Knowing the colour is a process of that kind and so there must be an instrument in that process also What has a posterior is what Vacaspati Misra calls by the alternative name of arta, and it is that inference in which there is only the co existence of negations, where a positie co existence is not found outside the field of the inference in question Vācaspati Misra gives the example in the ninth verse in connection with the proof for the identity of the cause and the effect The example given by him is as follows cloth, which is an effect, cannot be different from its cause, the yarns, because the cloth subsists in the yarns object is different from another, it cannot subsist in the other, as in the case of a cow and a horse We have as cxamples only the cases of objects where there is no such subsistence and no such identity If there is such subsistence and such identity, that is a ase coming within the scope of the inference at hand and is not an example On the whole, the three-fold division of inference is accepted by all But there is considerable difference amons them regarding their nature and their examples. The following sets will make the point clear as among the commentators (a) Vätsyāyana panara! (having the prior known)-clouds and The If an Tain sesalat (having the posterior known)-food ard rain samanjatodiste (generally seen)--change of posts tion and moicment ·Karikas 4-5 59 I am not taking note of his alternative explanation (6) Gaudapāda The same (c) Văcaspati Miśra vita and auta Vita 1 pariarai-smoke and fire 2 samanyatodrşta-sense organ as an instru ment from the process of perception of colour etc 3 avita (which is sesavat)-identity of cause and effect known from the subsistence of effect in the cause, in this case such co existence not found outside the sphere of what is to be inferred and what is found is only the co-existence of the negation of identity and negation of subsistence a 1S On the other hand, what is called the words of a reliable person is the reliable person and the scripture Gaudapada divides the mode into two sets, the reliable person and the scripture But Vacaspati Miśra takes it as a single group, the scripture of a reliable person He says that instead of simple scripture, there is the qualification of the scripture being that of a reliable person in order to exclude from authority what are presented as scripture , but they may not be genuine scripture, as the scripture of the Buddhists The words of a person can be either what a reliable porson states or what is stated in scripture, and both are modes of knowing things When a man says that there are fruits available on the bank of the river and when it is said that by performing the sacrifice called citra one gets cows there i5, in both cases, the statement of a reliable person From both the modes we know a fact The question whether the scripture is the word of a reliable person like God or whether it is an impersonal, eternal mode of knowing is not taken up in the system The question of scripture is introduced only to show how many modes there are for knowing facts Scrip ture is not a mode of knowing any of the facts that come within the purview of this system of philosophy So it is ·This r other person 60 The Sankhya Karika better to accept the interpretation of Gaudapāda that thº "words of a reliable person consist of the reliable person and the scripture" The exclusion of the scripture of the Buddhists does not come into the picture The position is this There are two main modes of knowing One set of knowledge is derived with reference to each of the objects in itself In the other set the knowledge of the object must have an antecedent knowledge antecedent knowledge may be the knowledge of onesell regarding something else like the knowledge of smoke to inferring fire, it may also be the knowledge of the same object in another person There was the knowledge of the fruits on the river bank in another person and one knows !! from that These are the three modes of knowing 6 samanyatas tu siddhad atındriyānam pratitir anumanai | lasmad api ca 'siddham parokşam apraganiat siddhan 11 "Generally the cognition is through perception cognition of things that transcend the sense-organs is through inference What cannot be established esen through that and sbat are not within perception are established through the reliable person and the scripture" (6) All the classical commentators take only two modes of knowing as noticed here they do not take note of perception They take the mode of inference as the mode of hat are generally seen * Three kinds of the mode of inference here mentioned in the previous verse and onc was "what sas generally seen The cognition of things that transcend the sense organs is through this particular mode within inference This is the interpretation of the classical commentators, both Gauda pada and Vāca spati Miſri Having said that there are three modes of knowing, it is necessary that the sphere of all the three modes should be given, there is no justification in ignoring perception And if only onc out of the threc divisions The ·Karlka 6 61 of inference is taken up, what is the sphere for the other two modes within inference? Having stated that inference is of three kinds it is necessary that the sphere for each of the three modes is defined For these reasons I do not accept the interpretation found in the classical commentaries The translation that I have given is also found in some recent publications There is one o'd commentator, Narayana, who also splıts up the first half into perception and inference Then there are many facts that cannot be perceived and that cannot also be known through the process of inference from what are known For such facts, there must be another mode and that mode is what is called the reliable person and the scripture The examples given by Gaudapāda for the 11st group of facts that can be known only through a reliable person or through scripture are • Indra, the Lord of the gods the country of the Northern Kurus, the Apsaras damsels in the heaven etc They are what cannot be known through inference and also what cannot be known through perception For their knowledge there must be the authority of a reliable person or of the scripture The cases mentioned by Gaudapadu are not what can be legitimately introduced in a work on philosophy There are many facts that have to be given a place in philosophy, which are known through perception, like the various material objects and the quilities in them and their states like motion All the remaining facts that are dealt with in the philoso phy are understood through inference There is nothing coming within the scope of this system of philosophy which does not also come within the sphere of perception or reason But there are cases which can possibly come within the scheme of this philosophy and which cannot be included within the sphere of perception and reason, such things are excluded from the philosophy though they have some relation to the contents of the philosophy and as such they could also bave been included within the philosophy Through a process of reasoning it is conciuded that all the material objects with their qualities and states can be reduced to a scheme of an undifferentiated root cause, which ·62 The Sankhya Karika is termed the Mala-praksti It is also concluded through a reasoning process that what is called life is not an internal factor within the material contents of the universe, which is nothing but matter and that the life in matter is an extraneous factor and comes from another source called the Puruşa, the Self The Self is accepted, through the same process of reason ung, as innumerable Questions may arise whether the matter came out of the Self, whether the Self is only one and whether there is a universal Self involved in the process of the evolu tion of the world These topics do not come within the sphere of perception and they cannot also be settled by inference There are sages and there is the scripture If there is any information about such matters that we can have from these sources, that is not a part of this philosophy It is for explaining the postion in this philosophy regarding such questions that the third mode is mentioned Of course, there are systems like the Nyāya and the Mimamsa and the Vedanta where this mode is recognised, and as such this mode must be mentioned for the fullness of the treatment The chief purpose is to show the limits of this philosophy, which is purely a rational system Only such facts as come within the scheme of perception and reason are included in the system But it is not claimed that everything possible in the universe comes within this system of philosophy Rational philosophy has its own limitations The questions do arise and they cannot be answered within the sphere of perception and reason In the Mimamsa system also there is a statement that there are facts that have to be determined from other systems of thought In practical sciences and arts, there is an emphasis on perception They deal with what come within perception and what arise immediatelv and naturally out of perceptions lo religion, there are facts that come within the field of the authority of reliable persons and of scripture In philosophy there is a dominance of reason The modes of knowing are classed under three heads for allocating them to the three fields of intellectual activity Because there is a preponderen ce of reason in philosophy, the philosophical approach to the problems of suffering in the world is also claimed as superior ·Xariha 6 63 to the other two approaches based on perception in sciences and on scripture in religious practices The defects in the other two approaches are that there is no invariable success and no ultimate success in the remedies based on perception and that in the remedies prescribed in the scripture there is impurity, decay and gradation There is a lack of certainty about success and also a lack of finality in the success in the case of perception as a mode of knowing the problems of the world In perception, one does not go to the fundamentals, one remains on the surface, on the outside The depths and the inside are not probed into When we apply reason and take to the philosopher's approach we realise everything and there can be no scope either for a failure or for a reappearance of the evil The root is found out, the ultimate basis is known and the evil is rooted out for ever and without any fulure As for the defects in the remedies fourd prescribed in the scripture, the defects are also mentioned in the same scripture The position taken up in the system was that what is called evil and the consequent suffering are originated and not natural in the universe and that whatever is originated can be destroyed Now the question may arise whether knowledge which is derived through the process taken up in the philosophy will not itself be at a certain stage destroyed in so far as it is originated through the philosophical process, and if the knowledge which annihilates suffering is itself terminated, there may be a recurrence of suffering So the remedy is not absolute even in philosophy Now it must be understood that the philosophy does not accept a beginning for the appearance of safernt If there is a begronnig, various problems tise which cannot be solved rationally The when and the why and the how for the beginning of suffering in the world which at one time was free from suffer. ing cannot be determined through reason What is adopted in philosophy is only this, that suffering is not a nature of the two constituent factors in the universe, the dead matter and the intelligence There is nothing ·is necessary for 64 The Sankhya Karila positive in what is called suffering It is not an external positive thing Suffering is an experience Dead matter cunnot have experience Pure intelligence too cannot have cxperience since experience is a modification , pure intelligence cannot undergo modifications What is called suffering is some sort of dcfect, some sort of a dislocation, some vacuum Thc defect, the dislocation, the vacuum is in the form of the appearance in the intelligence, of what really is in the matter and also the appearance in the matter, of what was really in the intelligence Intelligence which experience is one thing and modification which is another tactor in experience is in matter When there is the super imposit on of modification in the intelligence and when there is the super-imposition of intelligence in matter, there is dislocation and this dislocation produces some defect and also some vacuum Philosophy does not produce a thing called knowledge, knowledg: was there and it is external to matter, and this extension of knowledge beyond itself creates modification in itself, or rather a semblance of it Thus there is intelligence in dead matter, and as a consequence there is modification, which can be only in the dead matter, introduced into that intelligence when it was so extended to matter This is suffering When intelligence is understood as distinct from matter and if matter is under stood as devoid of intelligence and intelligence is free from modification, there is scope for modification in matter is due to the extension of intelligence beyond itself to matter This final state is what is called Kaivalya, being isolated free from any admixture knowledge is produced through a process, then knowledge can also be destroyed and as such the suffering destroyed by knowledge may reappear at the termination of knowledge Nothing is produced, intelligence becomes pure intelligenc and matter becomes dead matter Both become themselves without admixture, kevala The question of the beginning of this admixture, of this mutual transposition, of this mutual super imposition does not arise In our present stage, it is a natural state of affairs ло suffering The If ·karlkas 7-8 65 (Kārika 55) and there is no such transposition When the discrimination comes, it would be found that the experience of the mutual transposition was only casual and that there was never a real transposition Both were always isolated from each other So there is no occasion for taking up the question when and why and how the super-imposition took place Thus the ultimate result of the plulosophical investigation is without a failure and is also absolute without a termination There is no positive result produced through philosophy Thus there is nothing that can be called a goal in philosophy. there is nothing positive, the attainment of which can be a purpose in philosophy Philosophy ends in knowing There is no possibility of a failure in this knowledge, there is no terminus for it It is absolute and final 7 att-darat ſami pyad indriya-ghaian mano 'navasthanati sauksmyad vyavadhanad abhibhavai samana 'bhiharac ca 11 8 sauksmjat tad-anupalabdhir na 'bhavat karyatas tad upalabdheh | mahad adi tac ca karyam prakrii-sardpam viropaſ ca il Through extreme distance, through proximity, through harm to the sense organs, through non attention of the miod, through subtlety, through interception, through suppression and through admixture with similar things (7) It is not cognised because of subtlety, not because of its non-existence, since it is cognised from its effects And that which begins with the intellect is that effect, similar and dissimilar to the cause (8) It was first explained why there is scope for philosophy even when there are ways of meeting all our normal needs through otber methods like sciences, where we depend mainly on perception, and religion, where we depend on the teachings of reliable persons It was also explained that in philosophy ·sciences and to Science 66 The Saikhya Karika wc depend mainly on reason The method known as philosophy was also declared as superior to religion, and the scope of philosopby was presented as a discriminative knowledge of these factors in this universe, namely, the evolved world which is the manifest, the root cause for this evolved world, which is unmanifest, and the intelligence The question arises why we should worry about the unevolved and unmanifest factors in the world deals with the evolved and tangible world and tbat must be enough Where is the proof for such an unmanifest factor in the world as the root cause for the evolved and tangible world? Can we not remant content with the factors that we can bandle, factors that are tangible and can be brought within the scope of science? To this the reply is given that there are factors in this universe that transcend direct perception and that though they do not come within the scope of porception and the immediate and natural inferences from such observed facts, when we apply reason as a major factor and not merely as an adjunct to perception, as is done in science, the intellect naturally begins to think of another factor In our day to-day experience we know that there are things which do not always come within the sphere of our knowledge for various reasons and which yet are important in our daily affairs Therefore, the fact that they do not come within the sco e of knowledge in the ordinary application of perception does not exclude the factors from the sphere of reality and does not minimise their importance Thus (1) a bird flying far up goes beyond our view, (2) the paint on the eye lashes is not seen by the person himself, (3) a blind man does not see and a deaf man does not hear, (4) when one's mind is engaged on one thing, he does not notice another thing on which the mind is not engaged , (5) dust particles are not seen by the cyc (6) an object hidden behind the wall is aot seeo , the sun shines the moon and the stars are not seen, (8) if something belonging to one class is placed along with other similar things, one may not be able to identify what belongs (7) when ·Xarika 78 67 to that class. In this way there are cight grounds for our ſulure to know what actually exist, in our real cxpcrience In this way, like intelligence and the tangible, evolved world, there is also an unevolved, intangible factor in the world It is legitimate that the objects that come within our intellectual activities include the third factor also In verse 7, there is given only a group of eight grounds But there is no verb and it is not stated what we are to do with the eight grounds What is it that we have to rresume on account of these eight reasons ? The point is not clear Vacaspati Miſsa says that the verb must be taken from the following verse, namely, there is the non perception (anupa- Jabdhl) Gaudapāda has no comment Perbap3 it is better to join this verse along with the previous verse where there is a reference to things that are beyond the sphere of perception, things that are beyond the scope of sense organs (paroksa and anindriya) They are not perceived, they are beyond the sphere of the sense organs for the eight reasons in this verse It is true that the two verses do not join together in a very natural way Yet in the absence of a verb with which the eight grounds are to be joined on, some such recourse must be resorted to I prefer to connect the verse to the previous verse The medieval commentators include in the factors that are not cognised and that have, yet, to be recognised as factors in the unjverse, the intelligence also and not merely the unevolved part of the universe But from the next Verse, it will be found that the author of the Karika had only the unevolved part of the universe in his mind Further, there is no question about intelligence , intelligence is experienced, and experience itself justifies the recognition of the factor in the universe The factor called the root cause is not cognised through the methods employed in science because of the subtlety of that factor In the second of the two vcrses, the term 'subtlety' means something different from what is meant in the first verse There it was the diminution of volume or spatial ·68 The Sankhya Karika extension in the object. Here it means the complete absence of spatial extension. A thing can become tangible only if it has a spatial extension. If we trace the objects of this manifest world to the causes, we come to a stage when the spatial extension becomes negligible and such things cannot either be seen or grasped with the hands. Yet it is possible to perfect instruments by which they can be handled. But according to a philosopher, there is a further stage when even instruments cannot handle the things ; at that stage it is not a question of the diminution of spatial extension; it is a question of the complete elimination of spatial extension. Spatial extension is necessary for visual perception or for cognition by touch, and a scientist can perfect iostruments only to magnify what exists in a subtle form ; he cannot crcate what does not exist in the object through his instru. It is on account of the complete elimination of spatial extension that the unmanifest factor in the constitution of the universe is not cognised through the methods adopted io science. But reason can cognise what the sense-organs and the instruments cannot detect. If that factor is not cognised through modes employed in science, the reason is not that it does not exist ; the reason is that it transcends the conditions, like spatial extension, for being cognised by ments. such means. And how can one cognise it? It is cognised by the process of inference from the effects of that cause. What are the effects from which a cause is inferred ? The effects are the intellect and others that follow. Twenty-three categories enumerated in karika 3 are all effects. All such effects must have a cause. If the effects are absolutely like the cause, then there is no scope for inference, since the cause is always known 1.kc thc cffects. If the effects arc absolutely dissimilar from the cause, then too an inference is impossible. There must be some similarity between the cffects and the cause. So it is said in the verse that the root causc inferred from the effects is partly like the effects and partly unlike the cffects.

·Karikas 7-8 69 The dispute is between the Cårvakas and the philosopher. The position of the Carvāka is more or less what the presentday scientists hold To them there cannot be realities that fall absolutely outside the scope of perception Perception includes certain inferences that follow easily and naturally from the perception The root cruse of the philosopher is absolitely outside the sphere of observation, It can be inferred only from certain universals, for which there is no authority A universal is a universal only within certain limits, and need not be held to be valid for facts that are outside verification. Certainly a Cărvaka will not question the validity of the inference of fire on the mountain from the smoke that is seen Fer, both smoke and fire had been seen elsewhere, and what is inferred is only the fire on the mountain and not fire in its very nature 1S an Everything that has change and movement effect, and every effect must have a cause. There are tivo universals here What the Cārvākas must have held is that such universals have a validity only within the world of change and movement Because there is the relation of cause and effect between two things where there is change and movement within the world of experience, can we say that the whole world of change and movement must have a cause outside of it? This is the doubt which the Cātvākas must have raised against inference If there is such a cause, that cause can be known only through this process of inference Here we are extending what is known inside the world of change and movement to an area outside of it. Can there be an arer outside of the world which we cannot gandle with our normal faculties of knowing ? All the facts within the world of change and movement come also within perception 'The limiting conditions are enumerated in the first of the two verses But the condition that limits the perception in the case of the inferred factor is outside of this field of conditions, le, a subtlety which is inherent in the fact, not a casual and occasional subtlety found in the facts of the changing and moving world ·Karika 9 71 1 The real conflict is between the followers of the Vedic path and the followers of the latter day Buddhist thought According to this latter, there is no happiness in our life in this body, to them there is also no reality for the world that is expasienced They argue that what is experienced can be only what has come out from a yoid, from a mere nothing What is experienced as a seality is a transformation of a yoid And then this non existent nature is extended to the world that is experienced as a reality, as positive The position in the Sankhya is quite different They take the positive nature of the experienced world as a fact and then they argue that there must be a cause for this positive worid or experience and crat tiat cause must also de positive in nature That is what is done in the following Verse If reason is applied and if through the application of reason, what is cognised within the world of experience is extended then He come to another fundamental fictor called the changeless undifferentiated, root cause for the world of experience which too must be positive in nature Jike the world of experience The world of experience is positive and changing wbile the root cause is positive and unching ng 9 asad akaranad upadana grahanat sarva sambhava 'bhavari Śaktas ya sakja karanar karana bhavac ca sat karzami Because wbat is non existent cannot be produced, because there is resort to a material cause, because there is not the production of everything, because what is capable to produce produces what is capable to be produced, and because there is the nature of the cause (in the effect)-for these reasons the effect is existent (9) After explaining their position in regard to the doctrine of the Carva kas now the doctrine of the Buddhists is taken up The main doctrine that is propounded here is that the effect in the form of the world of experience is positive and ·72 The Sankhya Karika that the cause is also positive, the positive world of effects being real in the positive cause. (1) What is called an effect is not an entirely new creation from a void. There cannot be the creation of what was absolutely non-existent. So the positive effect existed in the positive cause. (2) We resort to a particular material cause for the production of an effect If the effect was not existent in that cause, why should we resort to that materia) cause and why should we not resort to another cause or to no cause at all? If we want a jar, can we take some yarn and if we want a cloth, can we take up some clay? It is on account of the existence of the jar in the clay and of the cloth in the yarn that we resort to these two materials for the respective effects. (3) Anything cannot be produced from anything. There are the limitations that such and such a thing can be produced only from such and such a thing. This limitation is due to the existence of the particular cffect in the particular cause. (4) This limitation is in the form that only what is competent to produce that effect can produce it, and that something can produce only what is capable of being produced by that something as the cause. So there is special capacity in the cause for which capacity, the effect is the object. (5) The effect has the nature of cause. produce from cause an effcet that is entirely different from the cause. Thus we can produce only a gold ring from gold and an earthen jar from clay. If the cause is by nature non-existent and if the effect too is non-existent by nature, such a regulation of the series of cause and effect is inexplicable. We experience the world as positive and as such the cause from which it has evolved must also be positive in nature. And the whole of the effect must have been existent in that cause. The effect is not absolutely identical with the cause, There are differences also. The effect is the with some changes. That is why it was said that the effect We do not cause ·Karika 9 73 is partly similar and partly dissimilar to the root cause which is the cause of the world of effects, in the previous verse If the cause is non-existent and if the effects are also nonexistent, then there is no difference between the cause and the effect Differences are only in what a.c existent and not between what do not exist The effect exists in the cause in a subtle way and the production of the effect is only the manifestation of what was intangible in the state of the cause, though the effect cxisted even in that state In the world of effects, we speak of the effect as existing in a subtle way in the cause and the cause is tangible Thus we do not cognise the cloth in the thread since the cloth in the thread is subtle It becomes manifest as effect In the ultimate state even the cause is subile Just as the subtle effect in the manifest cause beromes manifest in the effect stage so far as our experience goes, it is not possible for the ultimate cause to be manifest at all It is always subtle and the effects in it are also subtle The elTects become manifest, while the cause remains ever subtle We can only infer such an ultimate cause, an inference gives us the knowledge of a generic nature, and as such we know only the ultimate cause in its generic nature without any particulars, except such particulars which inference can warrant If there are particulars, they must be known through some other mode, that mode cannot be perception Therefore the only way in which we can know the particulars about the ultimate cause in ferred through reason IS that of the statement of reliable persons and of scripture This is also what comes within the scope of the second half of the sixth verse It has been said that there are similarities between the world of effects and the root cause of the world The similarity is mainly in the matter of both being positive in nature The other grounds for inferring the existence of the effect in the cause also form such similarities Thus, just as there is a material cause for an effect, which material chase contained the effect, in the same way, the root cause contained the ·IS dependent on 74 The Sandhya Karika whole of the world of effects There is a regulation of the relation of cause and effect between the root cause and the Individual facts of the world of effects This relation is regi lated by what is called the relation of a competent cause producing the effect which is competent to be produced by that cause The world of effects is experienced as positive and it must have the same nature as the cause These are the similarities between the root cause and the world of effects Then there are dissimilarities too. 10 hetumad anlt) am ayyapi sakriyam anekam aſritam lingami sayaj avam para-lantram vyaktam vipantam ayyah tam || The manifest has a cause, is non permanent is non pervasive, possesses movement, is many, is supported is a marh, possesses parts and another , the unmanifest is the opposite (10) (1) Everything in this world of experience is produced from a cause (2) When it is produced, there was a time when it did not exist in a manifest form and there will also come a time when it has to cease to exist in a manifest form in so far as everything produced is destructible (3) What is produced is limited in space, and (4) Whatever is limited in space can move from one place to another (5) When a thing is limited ja space, there must be things in other places where it does not exist, therefore there must be a plurality in the things of the world of experience (6) We can infer another thing from everything in this world of experience, we can infer the cause from the effect and since everything is an effect produced from a cause, its nature as the mark for an inference is self-evident (7) Whatever is produced bas parts Such tha manifest world ·Karika 10 75 There are two more particulars given as related to the things of this manifest world. (8) Che is "supported" and (9) the other is "dependent on another." It is very difficult to make out the difference between these two particulars. The classical, medieval commentators give us no clue to it. Gaudapāda says that the effect is supported by its cause The effect is also declared as dependent on the cause I see no difference between the two. Vācuspati Miśra says that the effect is supported by the cause and that every caust depends on Nature for the production of the effect So, as effect a thing is supported by its cause and as a cause there is dependence on Nature Even then the difference is not quite noticeable In the Fundamental Problems in Indian Philosophy, I have suggested that the difference may be in the effects as individuals being supported by the respective cause and the effects as a whole in the world of experience being dependent on the basic fundamental (pp 180 () This too is pot an explanation It may be that the effect is supported by its cause and that each fact in the world of experience is dependent on another for its cognition as the general and the particular Or when everything is composed of parts, each part is dependent on another. There must be some real distinction between support (aśraya) and dependence (pararanırya) Neither the text nor the commentaries give us the clue to solve the problem. I have translated the term Linga as ‘mark.' The effect is the mark for the inference of the cause, and it was so stated in the eighth verse. But the commentators take the term to mean 'soluble' At the time of the final dissolution of the world, each succeeding effect dissolves itself into its cause till we come to the ultimate cause This is the explanation of Gaydapäda But Vācaspati Misra takes the term as mark'. It has already been said that the root cause is established as inferred from the effects in the world of expericoce Later in the fiftcenth and sixteenth verses the same point will be further taken up There is the difficulty in the ·76 The Sankhya Karika position taken up by Vācaspati Miśra, in so far as the intelli gence is inferred with the root cause itself as the 'mark' This will be taken up in the seventeenth verse. Vacaspati Miśra gives the apology that though the root cause is a mark for the inference of the intelligence, it is not a mark for the inference of itself, while the effects in the manifest world are the marks for the Enference of their respective causes and of the root ciuse Really it is not the basic root cause that serves as the mark for the inference of the intelligence in that verse, it is the changes in the basic fundamental in the form of the effects in the manifest world that serve as the mark for the inference The unmanifest is the opposite of these particulars (1) It has no cause, (2) it is eternal; (3) it is pervasive, (4) there is no activity in it , (5) it is only one, (6) is not supported by a cause, (7) it is not a mark for the inference of another, (8) it has no parts, and (9) It does not depend on another either as a part or for the cognition of the general and the particular, since there is no such distinction in that stage It is true that the root cause has three constituents, the three Gunas (Satta, Rajas and Tamas) But they are not parts of the root cause the three aspects of an undivided whole They are 2 The entire universe is filled with positive matter, there 1s no vacuum in the Universe There may be no non existence anywhere If we have various articles in a place, one being placed by the side of another, there may be an end to one and the beginning for another But matter is continuous in the universe The entire root cause does not evolve into the effects It is only partially Yet there is no portion left vacant in the root cause on account of the evolution into the effects the root cause cannot be divided into parts There is evolution from that root cause and yet the root cause contrunes full pervasive, motionless, change less The limitations in the effects do not affect the unfimited character of the root cause That is how it is the opposite of the effects The root cause remains even where there are ·Karika 10 77 the effects So we cannot divide the universe into two distinct parts, the manifest and the unmanifest There is some element that goes against logic in the stand taken up in this context It is by an extension of what is observed in the tangible nature that the root cause bas been established through inference From effects we can infer a cause and as such we can snfer a cause for the aggre gate of the effects. That was how the root cause was inferred in the eighth verse Now it is found that every cause in the world of effects has its own cause The effect as an effect is impermanent In this way, whatever has been enumerated as the particulars of the effects, ie, the manifest world, has been found to be the particulars characterising their cause also If we extend this universal even to the cause of the entire aggregate of the effects, we come to an absurdity There ceases to be anything that can be recognised as a root cause in the universe Every cause is the effect of its own cause Thus there is nothing that can be called a root cause with characteristics differentiating it from the aggregate of the effects If the universal relation between an effect and its cause can be extended beyond the effects, why should not the relation of effect to the cause of the cause also be so extended ? Thus cither we recognise the Carvaka position that there can be no root cause or we have to admit that the root cause also has a cause which is an absurdity In the process of inferring a causeless root cause there is a fallacy involved An individual fact is an aggregate of particular features that are its own nature (svabhava) one of such features is found in other facts also, we speak of that feature as the particular nature of a group of facts But we extend some features only to facts that are known to posses such features The presence of a feature in one fact docs not guarantee its extension to any other fact if a thing is found produced from a cause, we establish the causal relation between the two But how can we say that such a causal relation exists between facts that are not known, facts that had ceased to exist and facts that have yet to come into existence? In the above process of the inference of a If any ·But what 78 The Sankhya Karika causeless root cause sve are making a postulate about what can never come within the sphere of man's knowing We nore a clusal relation between two facts and we extend them to facts that can come within man's knowing So far it is not unreasonable If later it is found that the relation does not exist in certain cases, we can discard the relation is the basis for extending it to cases that can never te known ? Reason does not guarantee the validity of such an extension There is a regularity only wathir what are known and there is nothing that can be accepted as eternally inviolable, is a universal law Infererce depends on a universal relation and a universal relation can only be inferred This is the fallacy In the Afimamsa system there is no such root cause without change and movement from which the evolved world was produced To them the world is ever dynamic There is nothing that is without activity (akriya), as is accepted in the Sankhya We do not know what the actual position of the Carvãkas had been in those days We do not have any classical, standard text dealing with their tenets call that system by the term "Materialismº "intellectualism,” with no compromise with what is called intuition There are many points where the position of the Carvãkas comes into contact with the Mimamsakas To both of them the world of activity is sufficient and is supreme tri gunam aviveki vişa yah samanyam acetanam prasava-dharmi i vyakram tatha pradhanam fad vi paritas fatha ca puman li Made of the three constituents object, general, non intelligent, and having the nature of production--such is the manifest and similarly the Primal Aad, in this way, the Self is different from them (11) The purpose and the scope of philosophy as distinct from science and religion and the method followed 19 I will not It is rather tenets of the non discriminated, ·Karika 11 79 philosophy by way of reasoning as distinct from observation and authority in the other two methods, were first given The goal of philosophy is to discriminate between the three factors in the universe, the manifest, the unmanifest and the intelligence The similarity and dissimilarity between the manifcst and the unmanifest were also shown Now, discrimination is the understanding of two things through their distinctive features So the distinctive features that differentiate Matter in its manifest and unmanıfest stages from intelligence has to be shown That is what is done in this Verse (1) Matter in both the aspects is constituted of three elements They are the Sativa (Life), the Rajas (Activity) and the Tamas (Materiality) (2) The root cause which is unmanifest is the cause of the manifest matter, and in the field of manifest matter, there is the relation of cause and effect, it has been shown that the effect is of the nature of the cause. So, as between the facts of the manifest world mutually, and also between the manifest matter and the un. manifest, there 1S Do absolute discrimination possible (3) They are all within the scope of cognition, objects of cognition by another (4) There is no individuality in the matter, they are common to all the intelligent "subjects" (») They all produce something also in these respects both the unmanifest root cause and the manifest evolved matter are of the same nature In this way there must be something in the universe that 1$ the absolute contrast of these two Thus, till now the contrast was recognised between the manifest and the uz. manifest matter and this contrast was mingled with common features also Since the common features unite them into a single factor, there must, 10 this way, be something that is absolutely distint from both of them The verse is not primar ly meant to point out the similarity between the manj. fest and the unmin fest matter, the purpose is to show the necessity to postulate something that will be an absolute contrast to matter in either of the two forms ·same is discrimination and It can mean both that is The second will a discriminating $0 the Sankhya Karika The verse 13 sather difficult to explain satisfactonly as It stands and the medicial commentators have theu out explanations, the explanations are not at all satisfactory In the previous versc it sas found that there sere two terms used, both meaning more or less the same, namely Afrita (supported) and Paratantra (dependent on another) In this verse also there are two terms which mean more or less the One is Ainehl (without discrimination) and the other 15 Acetanam (non sentient) Phicha Vicki is what his discrimination capable of discriminating between two things and also what is capable of being discriminated between be the meaning of the position is that knowledge as possible about them But the general mean og of the term is the other, namely, what is capable of mak ng a discrimination among other things That means that it has The term in the text is the opposite of that Aviveki, what has no power of making a discrimination among other things, ie, what has no sentience or intelligence in this way there is a repetition of the same feature avoid this repetition that the term was taken as meaning "what is incapable of being discriminated between, what are not discriminated mutua ly. Between cause and effect an absolute discrimination is impossible the effect being only the cause, the effect existing in the cause explanation given classical commentators Vacaspati Miśra has another explanation also incapable of producing functioning each by itself are Audveld what are not discriminated But th s explanation too is not very satisfactory In the end there is the contrast of the manifest and the unmanifest matter from the Self Then the position will be that matter cannot function individually but only in collaboration while the S-if can This is aga nst the nature of the Self sentience It is to Some This is also the But What are What is wanted is that the matter by itself cannot produce the discriminative knowledge among the three factors of the universe the manifest and the unmanifest mattter and ·karika 11 3. the Self, and this discriminative knowledge is the goal of philosophy The discriminative knowledge should be traced to the Self If this is so, why should there be the other feature of the matter in its two aspects, namely, being insen. tient? And it must also be stated here that the Self, according to the philosophy, is not sentrent, it is sentence itself and not the locus of sentience This is a technical defect in the statement of the features in this contrast After stating that the matter in its two aspects has these features in common, the last portion of the verse says that the Self is the opposite of these Thus far it is all right But there is an expression tatha ca I have translated this as' in this way". It can also mean, "and also of this nature". If the second meaning is adopted in the context, the meaning of the last portion of the verse would be that the Self is the opposite of these ard is also of this nature Of course, the Self is not of the nature described in this verse for the matter But there are certain features in the previous verse where matter in its uomaniſest aspect was spoken of as the opposite of the manifest matter The meaning would be that there are certain features in which the self and the manifest matter, being the opposite of the unmanifest, are similar, like manitoldness There are also features that are common between the uomanifest matter and the Self, like the absence of a cause, being eternal and pervasive, which matter in its manifest nature is the opposite of matter in its unmanifest nature That means that in the two verses, there are given both the features that are common among the three and the features in which they are also the opposites This is not what is wanted The context is to show that Dere is a factor in the universe which is the opposite of matter 10 both its aspects Therefore, features common to the two aspects of matter were first enumerated and then it was said that in thuis way the Self is the opposite of matter in both its aspects, in which two aspects have these common features 10 There is the word Pradhana which means the first, or the chief of the primal It denotes the root cause, the ·They function 82 The Sankhya Karika unmanifcst matter from which the manifest matter is gene rated. It is called by other names also as the Mola Prakt (the root cause) and also as mcrc Prakrti. 12. pritz-aprill-sişada-'smilah prakasa-prairit-nijama-'thah ! anyon) D-'bhibhaid-sraja- Janana-mithuna-upirajaš ca sunuh !! 13 salivam laghu pralašałam Isfam upastambhalam calaii ca rajah / guru yaranakam ela tamah pradı pasac ca 'rthato 11tlh 11 The constituents are of the nature of contentment, discontent and sullenness Their purposes are to illumine, to activate and to arrest through mutual suppression, mutual dependence, mutual production, and mutual combigation (12) Samais accepted as light and illuminating, Rajas is stimulating and mobile But Tamas is heavy and enveloping And their function is with a purpose like a lamp (13) It was stated in the eleventh verse that matter in its two aspects of being manifest and unmanifest has the three consti tuents. These three constituents and their natures are given 10 these two verses The three constituents are called the Satria, the Rajas and the Tamas, or Life, Activity and Materiality That is, we experience the world as a series of changes and movements in matter and there is also a phenomenon called ufe in the universe The change is found to be from within in wme cases.ans.r these cases.pesaw that there is life is also the phenomenon called "knowing" This too is an aspect of life The universe is constituted of these three basic factors Sativa is of the nature of contentment, Rajas is of the nature of discontent Tamas is of the nature of sullenness The purpose of Sastya is to illumire The purpose of Rajas is to activate The purpose of Tamas is to arrest movement Sometimes one dominates over the others Sometimes one There ·Karlkas 14 83 depends on the others. Sometimes one produces the others. Sometimes one is combined with the others. They function in these ways. Satna gives illumination and it is light, having the tendency to rise up. This is more figurative than literal. Sativa helps evolution, forward movement, progression. It is Rajas that gives the impetus and movement to matter. The tendency of Tamas is to bring down, to arrest movement. It covers up the illumination. It would be noted that the Sattra and the Tanias are the opposites of each other. The threc arc the life, the movement and the matter aspects of the material world. The features of the three constituents must be taken in their widest sepse possible. 'In a lamp there are three factors when it burns and gives light. There is the wick which is of the nature of Tamas as described above ; there is the flame which corresponds to the Rajas and the illumination all round corresponds to the Sattva There is nothing in common between the wick and the light around. As a matter of fact they are opposed to each other. The wick as it is, can only obstruct the light. Yet they co-operate and there is the purpose served, to caable men to see 14. avſveky-adih siddhas trai-gunyai tad-viparyaya-bhavat i karana-guna- 'imakatvat karyasya-'vyaktam api siddham | The features beginning with non-discriminatedness are established through the pature of the triple constifuests, in so far as the annosite dans not exist. Tbs unmanifest too is established as such because the nature of the constituents of the cause is the same as that of the constituents of the effect. (14) In the eleventh verse certain features were given as common between matter in its manifest nature and matter in its unmanifest nature, and the contrast of the Self from both of them was also stated there. The three-fold nature of the world of experience is known to us. That is how we ·same nature 84 The Sankhya Karika experience the world Since the world of experience is of that nature, its cause, the unmanifest matter too must be of that The constituents of the effect must be the same as the constituents of the cause We experience the world as matter as boonn 10 a state of movement and change So we make a broad division of the world of experience into three constituents If tbe sorid is made up of the three constituents, the other features common to matter in both its aspects of being maniſest and unmanifest follow invariably since there is not koonn an opposite of that No instance has been known in which there is the feature of being made up of the three constituents while there is the absence of being non discriminated and other features It is because the world is made up of the three constituents that there is no possibility of a clear discriminat on between object and object in this world When there is found a series of objects in a state of change and movement and when the former passes on its nature to the latter, it is not possible to discriminate between the former and the latter in a complete way Nothing in this world has individuality, everything is partly this and partly that Since there are only the three constituents of matter 10 change and movement, with the life element, the aggregate becomes an object of being known by some external agent It has no power to be the agent for knowing It is true that there is the element of Satna or Life in the constitution of the objects and it is mixed up with materiality and change and movement The combination of the three is pot an agent but only the object, for knowing What is called the Life element in this combination is not self luminous best reflect illumination and cannot itself illuminate were pure Saina it could have illuminated things, and as such could have also become the agent for knowing What is an object in knowing cannot be sentient 15 sentient is what knows and not what is known we make the discrimination between the agent and the object in knowing When there is change and movement, the DC* an absolute It can at If at What That is how ·Karikas 15-16 85 state in this series of change is what is called the effect or what is produced by the previous state which becomes the cause. In this way the five features starting with the nature of being non-discriminated, mentioned in the eleventh verse, follow from the first of the six features enumerated there as common to matter in its two aspects of being maniſest and unmanifest. That the matter is general is quite obvious, since they are within the sphere of the cognition of the intelligent agent, or rather of intelligence as agent. So it need not be specially said. The first of the six features mentioned in the eleventh verse, is that it is made up of the three constituents and the consequent five features are known in our experience as what belong to the various facts of the manifest world. It has already been made clear that the constituents of the effect have the same nature as the constituents of the cause. So, these six features are established as belonging to the root cause, the unmanifest matter in the universe. 15, bhedanam parlņāmat samanvayat saktitah pravſtteś ca | karana-karya-vibhagad avibhagad vai svarupyasya 11 16. karanam asty avyaktam pravartate triguņataḥ samudayac ca| pariņāmatah salilavat prati-prati, guna-sraya-višeşat il Since what is differentiated must be a modification, since there is a homogeneous nature and since there is a functioning through potency, since there is a differentiation into cause and effect, since there can be no differentiation of what has a universal nature. (15) Thote exists a cause which is unmanifest. This functions both as three distinct constituents and also in combination. It is also through modification as in the case of water and according to the specific nature abiding in the constituents in each object. (16) ·. erscs The Sankhya marka In the cighth scrse, it has shorn that the womanifest exists and can be inferred from its effects, the evolut's starting with llic intcllcci", which arc similar and dissimilar to the rool cluse. The similarities betu.cen the root cause and the ciolutes and their dissimilarities too have leon pointed out in the tenth and the cleventh ciscs. Now the process of inferring the unmanifest Horld from the manifest world of crperience is described in these two The various grounds on which the inference is based arc pus en here. (1) TI erc is uniformity in clay, and from this uniform clay different kinds of cliccts are produced, like a jar and a wall Thc eno differentiated things are the modifications of a uniform Therefore if no reduce the chains of causes and cllccts to their ultimate stage, then ne must come to a stage when there is no differentiation and that is the unmantfest matter, the root cause If there is differentiation in a thing it must be a modification from another undifferentiated cause from which other cffects can also be produced Therefore "c must assume an absolutely undifferentiated cause for tbe entire world of change and movement and differentiation. What is manifest is only what is differentiated thing as common to certun things and as different from those things. If there is no differentiation, there can be no mani festation also So the undifferentiated cause of the cotire world of diffcrentiation is unmanifest (2) We notice some homogeneity between the cause and the effect and when tve proceed backwards from effects to the causes, we find that the differentration decreases and the homogeneity increases when the differer tration is completely eliminated and when homogeneity becomes complete, ve rcach the stage of the ultimate cause which is unmanifest From cause to effect there is an increase of differentiation and an elimination of homogeneity That is why we say that a ring and another ornament and a bowl are all effects of gold Although they are all gold we speak of them by their specific names with differentiations and not by their common name through their homogeneity We know a ·Karikas 15 16 87 (3) Whatever is homogencous h45 a potency to Eet differentiated This function of change from ciuse to cffect is due to this potency Whatcher is differentiated has the potency to get resolied into the homogençous nature in this way, so long as there arc causes which are themselics differentrations, we notice in the homogencous cause this potency to get dificrcntiated into various cffects and we also notice in the differentiated effects the potency to get resolved into the homogeneous causes But when we reach the stage of absolute homogeneity this potency to get rosolied into the causc necessarily cesses and we reach the stage of the undifferentiated, unmanifest, root cause (4,5) We notice the division into cause and clicct in this world of differentiation Such a div son itselr shows that there is differentiation When we reach the stage where there is absolute homogeneity, there can be no division at all possible it is only what is differentiated that can have a cause When we reach the stage of absolute universality without any differentiation, without any division, 1c gct at a cause which itself cannot have a cause, and at this stage it is the unmanifest that becomes this ultimate cause shout its own causc On such grounds we arrive at the position that there is an unmanifest rool cause for the differentiated, manifest world This unmanifest root cause functions according to the nature of the three constituents and in unison with one another In each function one can notice the constituent that is most prominent, and at different times it is onc or the other of the three constituents that becomes prominent At the simc time no one of the three constituents functions by nself, ihty all function in unison with one another At Chery such functioning there is modiſication also and this modification is like the modification in water The modification takes different forms and the new modification after every function appears to be entirely different from the cause of which it is a modification It 131 ke the modificanon in water latcr is found in various forms It is all water in essence, and yet there are variations in colour, taste appearance ctc The ·-- Such All the 88 The Sankhya Adrika variations are so many and so patent that one may eren miss the commonness in all such modifications as water great variations in the modifications are due to the specific nature abiding in the constituents of that object varieties in the world are possible though they are all the modifications of three constituents In each such modification, there is a specific nature attached to the constituents and this specific nature is not found in the constituents in another modification Even a difference in the ratio of the three constituents by the smallest fraction will sometimes make a great change 17 sanghala pararthaliat trigund 'di viparyayad adhisthanat ! puruṣo 'sti bhoktr bhavat haralja 'rtham pravrites ca 11 Since the combination must have another as the purpose, since there must be something different from the three constituents and other things since there must be some controlling entity, since there is the position of one being an experiencer, and also siace there is the universal activity for the sake of isolation, there is the Self (17) In the eleventh verse there was the statement that the Self is different from matter in both its aspects of being manifest and unmanifest in respect of the features enumerated in that verse Now the grounds on which we infer that there is such a Self are given in this verse Ia that verse above, there was an indication that since matter in ats two aspects is similar to each other in respect of those features, there onus be some entity that is different from matter in the two aspects. That was not a proof, the proof is given here 1 If the three constituents were in a state of absolute equipoise in which stage it is the unmanifest matter, then there must be some explanation for the disturbance in this equipoise If the three constituents bad been always in 3 state of disturbance without any equilibrium, then there is no ultimate cause for the entirety of the world of changa ·Karika 17 89 It has been shown that we must accept such an ultimate cause which is undifferentiated, in that stage there is nothing ibat can be called a combination There are no divisions, and it is only things that are in two divisions that can combine Therefore either we must say that there is no such root ciuse and that the world was always in a state of change and movement or we must give some explanation for the change from the undifferentiated, unmanifest state to the state of differentiation and combination and manifestation That explanation must be with reference to something outside of itself To say that the change came from within the unmanifest is no answer at all If the change bc absolutely from within itself, then the change also must be there always That means that we do not again have an absolute as the root cause of the entire world of differentiation The stimulus for the change must be referred to something outside of itself 2 In the eleventh verse certain features were given starting with the feature of being made up of three constitu ents, there must be something that is entirely different from all such features The three constituents in equilibrium cannot get disturbed from within There must be something that can be absolutely distinguished from them, since, among themselves such a discrimination is not possible It cannot be an object of knowing since the world of the three consti tuents cannot itself be the cause for the production of effects, in that case there must again be an explanation for the change from cause to effect So what is external to the world of change must be different from all the features startrag with the combination of the three constituents 3 What is wanted is not merely some entity that is external to and distinct from the world of change That entity must control the change the start of the clange and the direction of the series of changes and the other factors in the change must be determined by that entity that is external From the aature of the change in what was an absolute uniform, we have seen that for the above reasons there must be an entity postulated that is external to the ·Why should we not say that the sentience of the sentient We experience the world It is the experiencer that IS 4. We have the experience of being the experience The sentient individual is material 90 The Sankhya Karika world of change, to explain the change from absolute equilibrium to one of disturbance and fluctuations Now there are two other considerations brought in as explanations for the postulation of such an external entity, from our own experience The world is the world that is experienced For every expers ence there must be the experiencer as one of change and in movement experiences the change and not the experienced world itself The experiencer does not change while there the change and experienced world It is the all expertences that postulating an entity called the Purusa, the sentence, in this universe, apart from the world of experience and its root cause, the absolute matter It will be found later that what is called an experience is only a function in the material world, has no experience of the world theory in the Sankhya is that on account of the presence of this sentience there is a reflection of this sentence in one of the three aspects of the matter, that is the Sattva aspect, matter with this reflection of sentience on it, that becomes the sentient agent for experiencing clear difference between the sentience and the sentient indivi dual who experiences and this sentience in the sentient individual is not an innate nature of matter, but only a reflected feature in matter The experiencer continues the movement in the experience of an experi is depended on here for encer in The real sentience It is just a sentience The it IS There is a individual who experiences is an inherent feature of matter itself ? According to the Carvākas, the exprience, the life, in the individual is only a modification in matter just like fermentation in sugar solutions. But the position taken up in the Sänkhya is that there is a real difference between the two phenomena When we pour some sour matter in milk or if we keep the juice of palm tree for some time, fermentation ·Karika 17 91 is found to set in, But there, there is no element of a know. ing experienced by us. When a man experieaces, we also note the effects of such experiences like joy, sorrow, fear, admiration and so on. From these effects connected with the change in the individual, which changes we do not meet with in the case of fermentation, we conclude that in the case of the individual, there is an element which is absent in the case of the fermented substance like milk or palm-juice. The individual has been found to have the experience that he is an experiencer, which experience of being an experiencer is not noted in the case of the palm-juice or milk. It is on account of this experience of being the experiencer that there is an element called sentience postulated associated with the individual. 5. There is one more consideration that forms the ground for postulating a sentience in this universe. We all know that there is the universal activity with "isolation" as the goal. Man is not found to be happy in this life and his unhappiness is due to the association with the world of matter. Man tries to release himself from this association. What is it that is to be released, to be isolated, from matter? That must be something entirely distinct from matter itself and that something is the sentience. The suffering is not inherent in the experience itself; it is only in the experience of change and movement. This change and movement as an element in experience is due to the association of the sentience with matter which alone can change and move. If matter is removed from this experience, then there is only a mere experience of the sentience as sentience pure and simple. There can be no element of suffering in that experience of that sentience. It is the experience in association with the changing and moving matter that is called by the technical term of Vrtit (modification) in the Yoga system, and the goal of the Yoga system is to arrest this Vreti; in that state, there remains only a pure sentience, experiencing itself without any contact and association with matter. The Cārvākas might as well say that they do not work with any such purpose of isolation as their goal. Their ·universe 92 The Sankhya Karlka philosophy is that "one should live happy as loog as he can live and that by even borrowing money from others (of course with no intention of returning) one should driok plenty of ghee in his food” A sentience, known by the technical term of Puruşa (Self), has been postulated on the basis of certain logical conclusions (1) The basic assumption is that since, cvery phenomenon can be traced to a cause, the aggregate of phenomena also should be traced to a root cause and that that root cause must be different from the phenomenal world The Carvakas do not accept this extension of the causal chain beyond the realm of phenomena, and so they do not have anything that can be called the sub phenomenal part of the (2) Then to explain the change of that absolute root cause into the phenomenal world, some element external to the material world is assumed This is re-inforced by two considerations, the sense of being the experiencer and the goal of isolation from material contacts, found as a part of religious practices The Carvakas do not recognise either the extension of inference beyood the phenomenal world or the cfficacy of religious practices As for the sense of being the experiencer noticed in the experiences of an individual, as distinct from the phenomenon of fermentation and other changes, the Carvakas can take it as a feature in material changes janana marana karananam prati ni yamad ay uga pat pravrtles ca ! puruşu bahutyam siddhanı traigunya vi paryayāc cal 'va 11 Because there is the separate regulation of birth death and activity and because of the activities that are not simultaneous, there is established the plurality of the Self, and also because of the contrast from the three fold constituents (18) When the root cause which has no differentiation, started on a course of diversification, there was & double current There was the changing and moving matter formed and also a qumber of living organisms Every living organism 18 ·Karika 18 93 has an individuality This individuality must be traced to the individuality of the sentience whose reflection in the matter produced the living beings It cannot be the reflection of the same, single sentience on a large number of reflecting mediums in the changing and moving phenomena If it were so, then there must be a uniformity in the behaviour of all the living organism, they should come into existence together, they should go out of existence together, and during life, they should also behave in a uniform way The differences in these features must be due to the differences in the reflecting sentience Every sentience, reflecting on the changing and moving matter, produced a separate organism and each such organism behaved in its own way In each individual we find a distinct combination of the three constituents in the matter In ability, temperament and other matters, individuals differ from one another and this difference must be due to the difference in the reflecting septience The reflection of one sentience in matter produces one kind of living organism and the reflection of another sentience produces another kind of organism Reason takes us only to this plurality of the sentiences Reason is against the assumption of a unity in such sentiences Reason is also against a unity between the matter and the unified sentences But if there are ways of realising any such unity among the sentiences and also between this unitary sentience and the matter, that is outside this system of philosophy There are the following schools of thought (a) The Carvakas who refuse to go beyond what can come within observation and who boid that there is only this material world in change and movement, without any root cause out of which the phenomenal vorld arose, and who further refuse to accept the separate factor called sentience as a fundamental in the universe (6) The Mimāmsakas who do not accept the root cause and a starting point for the change of this root cause into the phenomena, but who at the ·already explained so far as the Sankhya system is concerned And because of that contrast there is established 94 The Sankhya karika same time accept the sentence based on other grounds (c) The Sankhya system of the world of change the root cause and the sentience as a plurality (d) The Advaita Vedanta and the Višistadvaita Vedanta, in which, besides the phenomenal world and the root cause and the sentience, there is a unity between the matter and the sentience and also among the sentienses The position in the Nyāya and in the Dvaita Vedanta is along other lines In this way, the subject matter for the system has been The three factors enunciated in the second verse bave been defined and described and their relations, their similarities and dissimilarities and other features too were 19 tasmac ca vi paryasat siddham saksitvani asja purusasya | haivalyam madhyasthyam draştrivam akartr bhāvas ca 1| explained his isolation bis the nature of this Self as a witness neutrality his being an on looker and his being not an agent in activity (19) In the eleventh verse the difference between matter (in its two aspects of being manifest and non manifest) and Puruşa (Self) has been shown On account of this difference, there are certain features of the Puruşa that can be established This was also stated in the seventeenth verse 1 A witness is one who has simply seen an event, with no part in the event and with no interest in the event Thc events relating to the system of philosophy are the changes and the movements in the world, which it is that is called suſtering It is when something has parts something is made up of some constituents, that there is occasion for change and ·karika 19 95 movement, When there is something that has no such constituents, that thing has no change. But in the seventeenth verse it was also said that the change in the matter with the three constituents has some controlling factor and that that controlling factor is the Purusa. Here it is explained that this function as the controlling force does not involve the Puruşa in the change and movements. Because there is the Puruşa, and only because there is the Puruşa, there is such a change and movement. There is only the simple presence of this puruşa and no active participation of the Puruşa in the change. This is what is emphasised in shis verse. J: should not be supposed that when the matter changes and moves because there is the presence of the Purusa, the Puruşa himself is actively functioning in this event. Because, there can be no change or movement in the Purusa since the Puruşa has no constituents, each Purusa is a solid whole without parts. 2. Purusa was and ever remains completely isolated from the changes and movements in the matter. He can be involved in those changes and movements only if he has parts. 3. Puruşa is also completely disinterested in the changes and in the movements in the matter. A change and a movement mean that some parts leave off and other parts come in; the parts may be only aspects, not really material parts. But Puruşa has po parts and so there can be no such interest for the Purusa either by way of having some parts removed from it or by way of having some parts added, 4. But that does not mean that the Purusa does not know what is happening in matter. The Puruse can see the changes and movements, without any interest in such changes and movements. 5. When the Puruşa sees the changes and the move. ments in matter the Puruşa does not enter the field of change and movement and does not act at all. What is meant by a witness as stated in the first half of the verse, is made perfectly clear in the second half ·All the other Purusa would 96 The Sankhya Karika where it is said that the Purusa is isolated and disinterested sees, but does not act It is only the words of such a person that can be admitted as evidence from a witness in a court of law It is the nature of the Purusa as not having const! tuent parts, that makes him such a witness features that are found in matter in its two aspects of manifestation and non manifestation, also establish the nature of the Puruşa as a witness Each Puruşa has a dis tinctness of his own from another and also from matter Purusa is not an object of knowing on the part of a subject Each Puruşa has a specific nature The Puruşa is sentience itself Nothing is produced by the Puruşa have been insolved in the changes and in the movements of matter if there had been something common in thc purusa with matter, if the Purusa had been the object of being anonte to the matter, if there had been a generality among the Purusas and between the Puruşa and the matter and if the Puruşa had been producing something. And he is the sentience so **** he can sec Matter and the Puinşa arc catirely distintl from each other There is nothing in common beineen the One is what the other is not and one is not what the other is. That is the position ns between the two mind factors in the universe, matter and spirit 20 tasmai lat sarhs agad acetanam celanarad na lingam 1 guna karte 'pl latha karse-l a bharoly udasinah 11 Trom such an association of theirs, the Mark nbicling inscoticnt appears as being sentient way, though the constituents are the agents of actints ties, the one which stands by oppears as an agent in activity (20) Though in absolute reality tere is no relation beinets matter and Purusa, we see both together javoloed in each other in our own experience Wc cannot deny wiat 11 experienced Inference cannot go against the facts ole pienet Certainly no cannot accept the testimony of a reliable pe1144 if that too is entirely against the facts as incun In actuales perience Therelore it is said here that though the two factes are entirely distinct from etch other and althout the H two In the $300 ·karika 20 97 really no sort of inter-mingling between the two, there has arisert a sort of apparent confusion between the two on account of a particular kind of association between the two. Matter is insentient. But matter has a constituent called the Sattva. That is of the nature of illumination. That does not mean that it is self-luminous. It can reflect light and its bright nature is only to this extent. When there is the illumination of sentience in the form of the Seif, that illumi. nation is reflected on the Sottsa element in the three-fold matter. The relected light appears to be the light of the matter itself, just as the light of the sun, eflected from the moon and the planets, appear to be the light of those bodies. The actual movements are in the matter, because of the presence of the element called the Rajas, which is of the nature of movement. These two natures in the Sativa and the Rojas elements of matter have been given in the thirteenth verse. If there is change and movement, it is the matter that changes and moves and becomes the agent in the change and movement. But it has been shown in the sejenteenth verse that there would have been no change and movement in the root cause in the universe if there had been no such factor called the Puruşa ; it is the reflection of sentience from the Puruşa that gives the appearance of sentience in matter and that makes matter really an agent in activities. On account of this reflection of the sentience from the Puruşa, the reflected sentience also appears to be involved in the change and in the movement and is taken to be the actual agent in the activities of the world. As soon as there is the reflection of sentience in the matter from the Puruşa, which is itself sentience, there is a disturbance in the equilibrium among the three constituents of matter, the Sattva having obtained a new feature called the sentience through reflection. Therefore in the stage of being tbe root cause, there is no such reflection and there is no ·12 the in IS tasniai (literally The 98 The Sankhya Karika appearance of being sentient in the case of the root cause so both the activity and the apparent sentience are manifest matter of change and movement and not in the roof cause, that is why in the verse the apparent sentience is restricted to the "mark” (linga) and not applied to the root cause (Prakrti) also The agency in the matter of activity is also applied only to the constituents and not to the root cause in which the three constituents are not separately noted The first word the verse "therefore") But I have taken it as a pronomioal adjective meaning "chat" and I gave the translation as "from that association" According to the other construction, the meaning would be "therefore from the association word "therefore" would mean, "since by a reasoning process, activity and sentience have been shown to exist in separate substates, the experience of the co existence of seatience and activity in the same substrate in the undivided individual us not real, is only an appearance I meant that the associa tion of the two factors, the matter and the Puruşa, is of a special nature which we cannot explain The appearance of sentience in what is dead and the appearance of activity in what stands aloof are due to a special kind of association between the two factors, we do not know how, when and why that association came about In the end it would be said (see verse 66) that when once there is the discrimination between matter in its two aspects and the Purusa, tals association will cease also and that both will remain in the universe without that association and that when once cut off the particular association will not re-occur admixture of the Sell with matter The Self remains as Sell and matter remains as matter It is not like the admixture of water and milk nor of grain with pebbles in the text is samyoga and it means in this context only the presence together in the universe There is no penctration of the parts of the one into the parts of the other neither the self nor the matter has parts, may be tbai sten there is the transformation into manifest matter, matter in that state has parts There is no The word used In that state ·Karika 21 99 21 puruşasja darsana 'rthan kaivalya'rthani tatha pradhanasja | pangv-and havad ubhajor api samyogas tai-krtah sargah !! There is an association of both, like that of a lame man and a blind man, that of the Self being to provide the sight and similarly that of the Primal being for isolation The evolution is brought about by that (21) There are two factors in the universe and they are matter and the Self, we experience ourselves as living matter or as (ife in matter they are really two distinct factors and yet they appear to be a complex in which one cannot be isolated from the other But as a matter of fact, it is only like the association of two men, a lame man and a blind man The lame man can see but cannot move about, the blind can move about but cannot see For the proper movement of a man, there must be the two elements, the ability to move about and the ability to see So, in the case of the associa tion of the ſame man and the blind mat, there is only one complete individual in the matter of moving about, and if there is a detachment of either from the other, the movement stops The part played by the Self in this apparent complex 25 that the self can see, it is sentence and so it can know Rather, it is sight itself The part played by the matter is that there is the movement towards the goal This is exactly what the lame man and the blind man do in their association The lame man guides the blind man and the blind man carries the lame man along the route determined by the lame man who sees It is not an eternal association When they reach the goal they separate and each is isolated Thus there are the two distioct functions for the two parties in the association The part of the lame man is to see and the part of the blind man is to reach the goal In the world there is the Self which can see while the Self cannot move there is the matter which can move wbile it cannot see So each contributes its share and they reach ·The evolu 1 The text has to be of So, they 100 The Sankhya Karika the goal, when each is isolated from the other. tion of the world and the various objects in our experience are the results of such an association between matter and the Self. The classical commentators have their own explanations When I was writing my Fundamental Problems in Indlan Philosophy, I was not quite sure of the exact meaning have to revise the explanation which I gave there (p 303) According to the classical commentators the meaning of the passage is that this association is for the Self to see the matter and also for own isolation strained to get such a meaning, while the real meaning the passage, when naturally interpreted, is what I bave given. They can accept the position that the sight is in the Self; but it is said in the passage that the isolation is selated to the matter. They cannot accept that the isolation is for matter. It is man, his Self, that attains isolation explain the word 'matter' as the object of the seeing by the Self. They also explain both the seeing and the isolation as related to the Self This is far-fetched the genitive case must be taken as the antecedents of the pronouns "of the two" in the second half Here kalvalsa (isolation) is at the stage of reaching the goal and the reaching of the goal is the movement to the goal This is what the matter accomplishes in this joint activity Is very simple Isolation is for both If in a pair one 19 isolated from the other, the other is also isolated from this Therefore, no one need be frightened that there is karvalya or isolation for matter while kaivalya is the goal for the Self According to Indian philosophy, there is no bordage or release for the self, this is true of Sankhya and of Vedānta The Self is always free, unmanifested by matter The bondage and the activity and the release are all 10 matter In th: seventeenth verse, it was said there is an activity for the sake of securing kaivalya, or isolation activity is in the matter and the kahalsa or isolation too? generated in the matter. It is in matter that there anses the The two words in The verse one This ·101 Karika 21 40949 element of suffering and this is due to thic reflection of the Self in the matter. Towards the close it will be strted categorically in the sixty second verse that the Self has neither a boadage nor a release Therefore, in all the cases where there is a mention of the release, it must be understood that the release is in the matter itself, the matter finding itself in bondage on account of the reflection of the illumination from the Self Then the Self thinks, really the reflected illumination and not the real Self, that there is a bondage and there is the activity for the release in the Self Therefore, the explanation that there is the release as goal for the matter is not at all against the Sankhya doctrine; that is the real Sankhya doctrine The verse must be interpreted in such a way that there is the contribution of the matter in the form of release or journey towards that goal In all the places where there is a mention of the purpose for the Self or Puruşa, it must be understood to refer to the individual person wlio 19 an admixture of matter and sentience and not to the absolute Self or Puruşa in the system There are many places where the term Puruşartha or the purpose of the Self is said, in all such cases the reference can be only to the individual in the world and not to the absolute Self or Puruşa in the universe What is this eleinent of sight contributed by the Self? The classical commentators say that it is the final vision of the matter by the Self at the time preceding the isolation. Gavdapāda says, "And the Primal too, securing the final release for the Self, retires, the Self too, having the vision of the Primal aitaras isolation" Vacaspati Missa too shys, "For that purpose, that is, the vision of the Primal which is the cause of all ” It is true that at a later stage there is the mention of such a vision of the matter by the Self as the immedinte antecedent of the final release, reading along with that section, the interpretation of the classical commentators 13 justifiable. But we bave to note the simile that is given here What the lame man in this combination contr butes is not his vision of the blind man, but hits sight of the path ·That is what the 102 The Sankhya Xarika along which he has to go We cannot explain the verse arth out taking note of the simile So in the combination of the Self and the matter, the sight provided by the Self is the sight of the path along which the mosements and the changes have to proceed after the beginning of the evolution, which has been started by this combination Tlc progress of the evolution is along a certain path There is a law according to which the evolution progresses Why is it that the evolution, which is only in the matter proceeds along that line and not along another line? Matter is dead and has no intelligence to see and to know The path itself has to be settled first For this also there must be the ability to see Thus when matter is combined with the Self, there is the illumination reflected in the matter from the Self This illumination settles the line of the progression and also directs the progression along the same line lame man and the blind man will do If the fame man has to reach one place and if the blind man has to reach another place, there is no possibility of their co-operation They must have a common destination: Then the lame man must also make it clear to the blind man that he knows the path to be followed for reaching that destination and he must also point out that path to the blind man who can walk way the simile shows that the sight in this verse is not the final vision of the Self relating to matter In the passage it is clearly stated that the context relates to the combination of the two factors and not to the final goal knowledge of the path to the final destination wbich is Kalval ya Here the term isolation must be construed as meaning the progression towards movement to that destination is contributed by the matter Neither the right vision of the matter by the Self at the last stage nor the isolation of the Sell from its complexities with the matter comes into the picture in this verse According to the Sankhya system the union is some thing like the combination of two metals say gold and copper They are two separate things aod they come into combination with each other They must be separated from each otber In this The sight is the The the destination ·Karlka 22 103 And the gold that is pure must be secured free from copper That is the goal Bat according to the Carvākas, there are no two separate factors in the universe as matter and life (sentience) There is no sentience as a distinct and independent factor, there is only matter and what is called sentience is only a state of matter It is like a bill rolling There is nothing like the rolling as a separate entity and we are not uniting the bill with th sentity There is only the ball as a thing and a certain state of the ball we call by the name of rolling When the rolling ball stops, thc ball continues, only the rolling has the end In the same way, matter continues, and what was called its sentence ceases There is no isolation sentience possible At the time of death, the material body remains and the sentience becomes extract That sentrence has no existence except as a state of the material body Matter itself knows the path and matter progresses along thº path What is called sen tience is only the state of the material body in that state of progression towards a certain stage 22 prakrter mahāms tato 'hankaras, tasmad ganas ca sodasakali tasmad api şodaśakat, pañcabhyah pañca bhntāni it From the root cause there arises the intellect thence the 'I ' nature and thence the group of sixteen From the five among the group of sixteen, there arises the five Elements (22) to the previous two verses, it was said that when there is the combination of the two factors namely, the Self and the matter, there starts cre evolution to wirek tite dead matter appears as living and the inactive Self appears as an agent in activity In this verse, the course of that evolution is given When there is the reflection of the illumination called the Self in the Sattva constituent of matter, the bright nature of that Sattya becomes very prominent, and the equilibrin between that and the other two constituents of the root ·The root cause with this and knowledge must be the knowledge of something Therefore, This sense of being the subject, the rest of the matter which that Buddhi And this object that is known by the Buddhi, as the subject, gets distributed into sixteen categories There are the things to be known and there must be the theads or Buddhi, the first evolute, transformed into "I" nature, has to function in respect of the objects, through There are the five channels through There is the element called motion in the evolution of hand, the leg, the sectum, the sex organ and the speech 104 The Sankhya Karika cause gets disturbed. The root cause with the reflection of the illumination from the Self in its Saina constituent, becomes intelligent, sentient Satra in a dominant position is what is called Buddhi Thus what is called Buddht, or intellect, is only matter with the Samna constituent in prominence and with the reflection of the illumination of the Self in at When there is this disturbance of the equilibrium so matter and when there is this evolution called the intellect, the intellect must have an object for its function, it is knowledge the subject-ohject relation sets in between this Buddht and the rest of the matter sense of ']," is a transformauon of the Buddhi, due to its own nature as the knowing intellect and also due to the existence of the can know channels for knowing them sense-organs a menns and that is the mind the 'l" nature and the instrument called the mind (Manas form the complex machinery for knowing, le agent (antah karata) which we know the external objects, and they are the eyes the ear, the nose, the tongue and the skin and the mind is within. matter, as an integral factor in the world of experience la the organic bodies, the movements come from within and in the other bodies, the movements must come organic or living body These movements within the organic body and the movements started in the inorganic bodies out side are related to five instruments and they are called the Such channels are known as the In this way, the Buddhu with the loternal They are external from some ·Karika 22 105 gan. They should not be taken in their bare meaning; ley rather represent types. he ear, As known through the five-fold channels, called the five ense-organs, there are the five categories of objects. They fre, in their own nature, the light (colour), the taste, the mell, the touch and the sound. They are known through he channels of the eye, the tongue, the nose, the skin and Our own expericace of them is as abiding in somehing and that something in which the colour and others Ibide is called an element, a Bhuta. The corresponding Bhatas we known as the Fire, the Water, the Earth, the Air and be Ether (Akaśa). In the order of their fineness, they may be Uranged as the Earth, the Water, the Fire, the Air and the Ether. In itself, 1.e., when it is not within the sphere of experience through a channel or a sense-organ, there is the smell and that is called a Tanmatra, that in itself. We know the Earth through the organ of smell. When the sense organ operates, the smell, the thing in itself, becomes transformed Xinto the Earth. From the five Tanmairas, we have the five Bhosas. There are thus three sets with mutual correspondence rand they are : I II III The sense-organ The Tanmaira The Bhara 1. The Nose The Smell The Earth 2. The Tongue The Taste The Water 3. The Eye The Light The Fire 4. The Skin The Touch The Air $. The Ear The Sound The Ether (Akasa) The last set of five is evolved from the preceding set of five, the five Tanmatras. The five Tanmatras, the five senseorgans and the five organs of action creating motion, and the mind, on the whole sixteen, are evolved from the Ahankara, the "I" nature. This "I" nature evolves from the Buddhi or intellect and the intellect or Buddhi evolves from the root cause, the Praktii, ·there proceeds the evolution in two currents, namely, When the illumination from nature is law, wisdom, detachment and lordly power the Self falls on the matter, it is the Saltva constituent that dominance knows the law governing the progression and the distinction between the right path and the wrong path (3) It chooses the right path without any attachment towards the (4) In this way it down up later in verses 44 and 45) But Buddhı does not always function in its pure form, it is found that in many cases the Buddhi that is pure, gets involved in the Tanias constituent 10 matter and when that ramas constituent becomes so strong as to eclipse the real nature of the pure Buddhi or intellect, then the nature of Buddhi in that form will be just not distinguish between the right path and the wrong path It functions with attachments for some immediate and casual benefits and not for reaching the destination along the path The "T" nature is the subjective feeling From that 106 The Sankhya Kardha 23. adh; arasayo buddhir dharmo jñanam viraga aisiar) am I satvikam elad.rapam tāmasam asmad viparjastamt it Intellect is the determinatuse knowledge Its Sarvka The Tamastc nature is the opposite of them (23) It has been said in the twenty-first verse that the Self.com tributes the element of sight reflects the light (1, 2) Then that Sarna constituent 10 pite results, simply because it is the law nates the progression nature of the intellect the opposite of it. It refuses to go along the path of law...s goes against it and goes astray from that path too prescribed by the law In this way it fails also 24 abhimano 'hankāras tasmad dvivldhah pravarrate sargah 1 ekadasakas ca ganas tanmatralt pañcakas cai ya 11 In its pure Saltvika form, this is the (These four features will be taken It does the group of eleven and the group of five called the (24) Tanmatras ·Karlka 25 107 If there is to be a resolute knowledge, there must be ome agent, some subject who knows things in that resolute way. There cannot be a simple "Know". It must be in the form of "'I know, "I exist", "I have this or that" and so on. It is in the very nature of the first evolute from the root ause, i.e., the Buddhi, that there must be a subjective sense ; herefore the Buddhi takes up the form of an individual agent to know. There cannot be a simple "I know". What and how these two questions also arise, There are the cleven channels and there are the five objects. Such evolutions are not in stages. It is a unitary evolu. tion and even at the first stage, there arises tbe twenty-three categories all together. The order given above is from the point of view of their relationships and not in point of time. 25. saltylka ekadašakalı pravartate vaikſtad alankarai Icon bharades tanmatrah sa tamasas taljasad ubhayam 1! The group of eleven which are Saltvika in nature proceeds from the "1" nature of the Vaikyta type. The Tannatras proceed from Bhatadi which is Tamasa. Both proceed from the Rajasa type (25) The transformation of the root cause into the sentient Buddhi or intellect contains within itself the feature that it is the subject of a knowing; otherwise it cannot know, it cannot be sentient. This subjective consciousness contains within it the feature that there are objects within the sphere of the subject and its knowing, and also the feature that there are certain channels through which the objects reach up to the subject. It is the channels that bring the object within the grasp of the subject. That means that there is a manifestation of the object through the channels. This manifestation itself implies that there is an element of brightness in the channel. The channels are eleven in number. They are of the sacila nature. The objects are not in themselves luminous and it is the channels that illumine them and make them manifest to the object. So the objects are of the ·Is known as the mind Being thus produced directly from the modification known as having proceeded from this Valksta (modification of the Saltvika Buddhl) aspect of the subjective consciousness matter, first as things in themselves and then as the elements or when we smell a rose or when we touch a soft surface, 108 The Sankhya Karika Tamasika nature If the objects are somewhere and if the subjects are somewhere else, there can be no mutual contact unless there is some operation, that means unless there : some activity This activity is both in the subject and 10 the object The Samnika nature of the subject Valkęta or what is generated from the Vikti or modificat:02 The Buddht or the intellect is essentially satıka sa natura though in its function it may sometimes be overcome by the Tamasika nature of the objects Its modification, the sub jective consciousness, must also be essentially Samike in nature, and from this direct modification there arises the organs of knowing and the organs of action, along with the (vihati) of the sainika Buddhi (Intellect), the organs are The subjective consciousness (Ahankara) bas ies on Tamasa element also, since everything contains the three constituents, and from this Tamasa aspect arise the fixe Tanmatras or the things in themselves give rise to the five Elements (Bhutas), the aspect of the subjective consciousness that produces the things in the selves is called the Bharadı, the origin of the Elements of provides the necessary operaticn to bring the channels and the objects into mutual contact tuents of the subjective consciousnessfunction in the evolution of the world of experience Its Tamasa aspect appears as the as known by the subject through the organs aspect appears as the organs and its Rajasa aspect appears as the changes and movements When we look at a jar or when we taste a Jump of sugar there is only a sensation of a colour (light) or of a taste of The Rajasa aspect of the subjective consciousness Bhatas In so far as they That is how the three consti Its Sarika ·Karika 25 109 + 102 of a touch But we experience these as qualities abiding in, matter Renly there is only the colour and the other facts, and the matter side as the substrate, what are called the Bhutas, what are produced (in experience) come in only when there is the experience The matter aspect is not a thing in itself, it is produced in experience What is real in itself is the colour and the other factors In the Nyāya and in the Mimāmsā systems, the colour and the other factors are the qualities and the qualities abide the real substance, the substrates of the qualities being as much real as the qualities themselves in the Sankhya system, it is the colour itself that appears as what is coloured, in experience Even when the other five organs operate to create move. ment, ie, the five organs known as the organs of action, there is the element of the Sartva constituent predominent in the operation The organs generate a motion and that means a manifestation of a feature in the thing Between the organ and the object there is contact brought about and this operafron is the function of the Rajas constituent The channels, whether for the knowing or for producing a motion, are themselves of Saltvika nature The organs of action produce the changes and movements, the changes and the movements make the object manifest to the sense organs Nothing will be known unless there is change and movement What is absolutely without any change and without any movenicot cannot be known, cannot be manifest. Thus the constituent of Sarrva or brightness exists both in the sense organs (for knowing) and also in the organs for action or movement and change It should not be supposed that the organs of action are of the nature of the Rajas constituent The constituent of Rajas produces the operation in the case of both the sets of organs This operative or active aspect of the subjective consciousness is called Taijasa or what is fiery Thus the subjective consciousness proceeds in three ways, as Sattya there are the organs (eleven in number), as Tamas there are the material objects and as Rajas there is the operation of the organs in relation to the objects ·ear 110 The Sankhya Karika 26 buddhi 'ndriyanı cakşuh srotra ghrana rasana tvag akhyani i vak-pani pada payn- 'pasthan karmendrijany ahuh Ji The organs of knowing are what bear the names of the eye, the ear, the nose, the tongue and the skin They speak of the organs of action as speech hand, leg, rectum and the sex organ (26) The organs should not be taken as the mere external points in the organic body In the case of the sense-organs they are certain physiological functionaries within those points that we call by the names given like the eye and the The mind too is such a functionary organs of action, they must be taken to mean some types with certain voluntary physiological functions represented by the points within the organic body Speech must be taken to signify whatever can produce a sound produce a movement in another body is the hand and what ever produces a movement within the body is the leg what ever is associated with the excretion of unwanted matter is called the rectum and whatever produces some flow through the voluntary operation of glands and other parts are called by the name sex organs These are the activities which cannot be produced by an inorganic body from within, activities for which an inorganic body stands need of a from commentator has said so, it is my own suggestion Simslarly the names of the five Elements or Bharas should not be taken in their ordinary meanings, they represent rather certain gradations in the course of the cvolution In the case of the Whatever can various voluntary in stimulus some organic body no Ion 27 ubhaya makam aira nanah sankalpalam indrisat ca sadharmpar! suna pari nama visesan nanaram lahya bhedat ca il Among them, the mind is of a doubic nature, cognature and also an organ, because of commca ·karika 27 ini ing, as features Their manifoldness is explained by the particulars 11 the modifications of the constituents, and also by the differences on the external objects (27) Mind has been enumerated as an instrument of knowan Indriya or organ And in this wny there are cleven organs enumerated, five being sense-organs and five being organs of action, with the mind as the eleventh organ But it is not entirely an organ, it has a double nature It is the subject that knows, that cognises, and as such, the mind can be regarded as a subject too, besides being a channel for the subject to contact the object When I look at a jar, it is not merely the eye that functions as the channel to bring the jar into contact with the subjective agent within, namely, the Ahankara and the Buddhi (the l' nature and the Intellect), the mind also operates in this function of the eye and it is the eye in collaboration with the mind that operates in bringing about the contact In one's experience of his own happiness or suffering the inind brings about the contact of the subject with the object, the object being happiness or suffering In this way sometimes the mind collaborates with an organ (both sense organ and organ of activity) and sometimes it functions alone as an organ , in both the cases funchons as an organ, being the medium between the subject and the object The eye is only a channel and is not what can be termed a cogniser But the mind is also a cogniser It receives the impression of the object and is a partner in the final cognition along with the 'l' nature and the intellect It brings the impression of the object to the subject as a channel and then it becomes the sogausrak, Mmerely the kann is the * So it is both an internal agent, what will be called the Antalkarana and an instrument in cognition When the mind was enumerated among the eleven organs or instruments, this special feature of the mind which distinguishes it from the other organs is noted in this verse I have taken the term "of a double nature' as referring to the nature of the 'l' consciousness, which is subjective consciousness, Abhimana and also to the nature of the organs it ·112 But the class Gaudapadas He gives the explar T BL The Sankhya Karika As Sankalpaka, it is of the nature of the subject, and a channel, sometimes in collaboration with the ten organs ! sometimes independently, it is an organ commentators and also modern interpreters take the dou nature as relating to the nature of the two kinds of orga the sense organs and the organs of action that it is a sense organ among the sense organs and an off of action among the organs of action tion for this double nature as determining the operation the sense organs and also of the organs of action explanation of Vacaspati Misra is also more or less the sam he says that it partakes of the double nature since the " sets of organs can function only when they are controlled ! the mind According to Gaudapada, the Sankalpa is the determ nation where and when and how they should operate Vācaspati Mišra explains the term Sankalpa as what dete mines the impression in a specific way when the sense-orga carry the impressions only in a generic unspecified way What the text says is not that the mind is an organ: what determines (Sankalpa), what the text says is that t! miod is what cognises (Sankalpa) and that it is also Indriya (organ So the double nature must be that it i on Indrlja (organ) and is also what determines cognises ! a specific way One nature, that is Sankalpa abides in the subject, and at the same time it is an organ operation either as a sensc-organ or as an organ of actio has not been made clere by any commentator or modest interpreter If it is a collaborator of the 150 sets of organs then it is not an organ but an accessory to the organ the meaning of the passage is that mind is a determining nol operative organ then the conjunction ca (and) has no salue From the text, as it stands the (no ſcatures must te that it is both a Sankalpale (determin ng agent) and an Irdelja (organ) The determining agent is the subject It has s0116 features with the i nature and also with the Therefore it is of a double nature both as a subject in cognition and also as an instrument in cognition Its distinc If common organs ·Karikas 27-23 113 If the eleven organs are produced from the Valkyra aspect of the Ahankara, that is, from the Saltvika or illumi. native aspect of the l' nature, then how is it that they is a plurality and not a unity? How are they different from each other ? The answer is g ven in the second half of the verse The Ahankara (subjective agent) is not a homogencous entity with the Sativa constituent in it. It is a complex of the three constituents This complexity can be in different proportions of the constituents When the three constituents modify in a particular way, there is the sense organ of seeing and when they modify in another way with another proportion, then there arises the sense of taste It is on account of the differences in the proportion of the constituents in the modification that there are the differences in the evolutes in the form of the eleven organs, Then the question still arises why there should be such a difference in the proportion of the three constituerts in the modification, and the reply is that this difference is due to the difference in the external objects The external objects can be brought into contact with the subject as its objects only in different ways according to the differences in the proportion of the three constituents in the object The different gradations in respect of the fineness in the different material objects are due to the differences in the proportion of the three constituents in tbe objects Corresponding to these differences there are the differences in the organs also There is the variety (Nanatva) in the organs and also the difference (Bheda) in the external objects on account of the specialities in the modifications of the three constituents, by way of their relative proportions 28 sabda-dışu pañcanam alocana nàiram 1Şj ate vittih! vacana 'dana-yiharano. tsarga-'nandaś ca pañcanam 11 The function of the five are accepted in respect of the group begioning with sound only as a viewing ·Nanas or mind functions as a cognition, Nhankara 114 The Sankhya Karika That of the five are speech, handling, wandering about, excretion and enjoymeat (28) The five sense-organs simply bring the object into view, of course, they themselves view the objects and bring them into the view of the subject The subject has some other functions and that is Sankalpa, determination, cogaition as this or that, in a determinate way. Gaudapāda takes the word "only" (mitra) out of its position and connects it with "the group beginning with sound" and he says that cach of them can have the view only of one of the five The Ford vlharana has the meaning "freely wandering about" in the Upani şad and also in the Buddhist literature in Pāli It is from this sense of fres movement that there is the name whara for a monastery. 29 sya-laksanjam vritis trayasya sai'sa bhayati asamanja i samanya karana-yrttih prana.'dya vajavah pañca il For the triad, the function is what has been given as their respective characteristic features of such a nature is not common among them common function of these organs consists of the five vital airs starting with supreme vital air. (29) The triad are the three categories defined in some previous verses, namely, verse twenty-three for Buddhi, verse twenty-four for Ahankara and verse twenty-seven for Alar:15 The definition of Buddht is that it is Adhjarasaya, sesolute knowledge, that of Ahankara Abhimana, subjective consciousness, and that of Nanas is or "l" nature functions as a subjective consciousness as I om knowing" and Buddhi, intellect, functions as determi native knowledge Mind brings the knowledge to the subjective consciousness and the intellect knows it as a definitie Thus cach has a distinct function among them in the ordinary process of knowing These ate cases of what may be called the soluntary activity of the internal organ This function The IS Sankalra, cogollac function onc 11 ore ·Karika 29 115 are tbree factors in what is called the voluntary activity of knowing, and each of the three factors bas its part in the internal functions in its individual capacity and their functions are also distinctly demarcated But a body is a living body only when there are various other functions going on, and those functions do not come within the volition of the person They are distinct from the functions of the ten organs of knowing and doing (five in cach) In these involuntary functions, the internal organ does not operate according to their method of a distribution of agency among the three constituents of the internal organ They are just there and the function goes on, without any such process as a first awareness (in the mind) and as a subject for the knowing (in the "I" consciousness) and as a resolute knowledge in the Buddhi (intellcct) The internal organ is not at all divided into three agencies in this involuntary function That is why they are called involuntary functions The three-fold function is what is called volition There ios oluntary functions are generally called the "vital airs", but the actual air functions only in some of them They are physiological functions within a living organism The air going out and coming in, in one of such functions, 18 only a consequence The beating of the heart is what is called the Prana (the supreme breath) Then when there 19 the function in the upper parts of the body, it is called the Udana , when it is in the lower parts, it is called the Apana The function in the middle part rep esented by the naval is called Samana and the function in the entire body without any such distribution is called the Vyana All the words arc derived from Van, and that root means "to breathe " The word Atman Self, is traced to this root, what breathes To this is added Pra (supreme), ud (upwards), apa (downwards), sam (together, le, neither upwards aor downwards) and 11 (away, spreading), to form the five separate names They together form the life function of an organic body In this function the triad of internal organs the intellect, the "I" nature and the wind function as a unity in common That is ·116 The Sankhya Karika why there is no special effort of our part in such functions, they simply go on In a voluntary life activity, the three parts of the internal organs function separately and in the involuntary life activities, they function as a unit, in common 30 yugapac caruştayasja tu yrttih kramašaś ca tasya nirdişta | drste tatha 'py adrşte trayas) a tal pūrviha irtith II But the function of this group of four is shown to be simultaneous and in sequence, in the case of percep tion. Even then, in the case of what is not perception, the function of the triad has that as the antecedent (30) There are two ways in which knowledge comes to a person. One is by direct perception, through the direct instrumentality of the sense organs In the other, there is no operation of the sense organs in direct relation to the object known The second may be either a process of inference or a process of knowledge from another person. This is what has been explained in the fourth, fifth and sixth verses above It has been said that there are four parties in a knowledge, namely, the three internal organs and a sense organ In this versc, the function of the four Parties is specified in the two types of knowing All the four must function in every case of knowing; but there is a slight difference in this matter regarding the two types In the case of porception, the four parties come together and function together simultaneously But in the other cases, that of inference and the testimony of a reliable person, the sense organ finishes earlier and the other three alone function at the moment of knowing But the prior function of a senseorgan is nectssary even in this type of knowing Thus when I see a jar, the sense-organ functions as a channel along with the mind and reveals the jar to the internal organ and the internal organ, consisting of the mind and the subjective consciousness and the intellect, finish the knowing They ·Kartka 30 117 was function together, without any noticeable interval between the function of each The word Yugapad (simultaneous) does not mean absolute identity in point of time, but only the absence of any noticeable interval between any two When I inſer fire on the mount in from the smoke known to be there, the function of the sense organ finished at the time when the universal relation of ccexistence between the fire and the smoke was determined through their co existence in specific cases like the kitchen and the city squares where people gather and warm them selves in a lighted fire There is : noticeable interval between this function of the sense organ and the process of knowing the fire on the mountain, where one does not see the fire at all and where the sense-organ has no function directly in relation to the fire, if the sense organ functions in seeing the smoke that is another affair, and in that case inference does not operate Similarly, when I know from a Teliable person that there are fruits on the bank of the river there is the man who had seen it and the function of the sense organ was finished at that time I know about the fruits or ly after an interval and at that time my sense organs do not function in relation to the fruits If I hear the statement of the person that is again another affair That has relation only to the words and not to the fruits known The classical commentators have another interpretation to give The verse says that the four (the sense-organs and the internal organ consisting of three members namely, the mind, the subjective consciousness and the intellect function simultaneously and in sequence in the case of the perception They consider this as two distinct types of perception Bath Vacaspati Miśra and Gaudapāda take the two words as relating to two distinct types of perception in one, the four function simultaneously as when a man sees a tiger and runs away, there is no sequence between the function of the cye and that of the internal organ the man sees the tiger and runs away When he hears the sound of the string of a bow, he may stop and think and then fear that some one might be coming who might do him harm There is a sequence ·118 The Sankhya Karika between the hearing of the sound of the bow string and the knowing that there is danger This is the example which Vacaspati Misca gives for each of the two types Gaudapāda gives other examples, but their positions are the same Even in this example, there is an interval , there must be such an interval between the function of the sense organ and of each of the three members of the antahkarana (internal organ) Only, the interval is so minute that it is not noticed And that is how they understand the term "simultaneity' There is no occasion for such a division of the process of perception into two types It has been said in the previous verse that the function of the three members of the internal organ I$ what forms their distinctive features It is also said in the twenty seventh verse that mind is both a sense-organ and an internal organ The point at issue is their relative functions How do they function ? Which precedes and which succeeds in the functioning ? These are the questions that arise In the previous verse it was said that the three members of the internal organ function individually in the process of knowing point had to be slightly modified and that is the force of the term “but” in the verse The expression "even then' also shows such a contrast between their function in 1 process of perception and their function in a process of knowing other thin perception In the fifth verse perception has been defined as determination in respect of every individual subject In the twenty third verse Buddhi, intellect, has been defined as the determinatisc knowledge The term used is the same in both namely, adhjavasaja In the definition of perception, it was said that there 11 a determinalise knowledge (by the intellect. as implied in the later verse) in respect of cach individual object The sense organ functions at the same time as the intellect, this is included by implication in that definition That is what distinguishes perception from the other two mojes 10 which the sense organ dons not function in respect of the object known, what immediately precedes the knowing I only the hannledge of the relation of the mark and what So, the 2 ·Karikas 30 31 119 is marked in the case of the inference and in the case of the testimony of a reliable person, it is the hearing of the words that immediately precedes the knowing what was implied there, in that classification of knowing into two patterns, is made explicit in this verse 31 svar svām pranipad yante paras para-'kata hetuham vttım! purysaortha eya hefur na kenacıt härjale karanom | (31) They take up their respective functions with the intentions of each as the moving force The goal of the Self is the sole ground, the organ is not activated by any (31) When there is a jar in front or when there is a lump of sugar or when there is a rose, the eye or the tongue or the nose functions and brings a sensation to the internal organs and the internal organs respond to this presentation There is a mutual adhesion among the various factors in the world They are all aspects of the same root cause They evolve through a process of modifications and further modifications Such modifications and such further modifications are guided by the illumination from the Self (Puruşa) That is what has been said in the twenty first verse, namely, that what the factor of the Self (in reflection) contributes is the sight This shows that everything is intelligently planned and worked out in the course of this evolution When there is the object, the sense organs know which of them should function The internal organs know when the external organs would be presenting something to them and then they respond 'The entire world is living as a single organism There is nothing that is a chance, that has no plan and no purpose There is an aknta (intention with a purpose) in everything in this world Each responds to the other and they all function in mutual harmony with the understanding of the intention and purpose of one another When a fly settles on the back of a cow, the tail comes to the help and by its swing, the fly is driven out When a thorn bites the foot of a on, the hands ·120 The Sankhya Karika come to his rescue by plucking out the thorn In the same way, there is a mutual understanding of the needs of all by all, and also a collaboration among all, in this world Each illumination from the Self (Purusa) reflected in the matter settles its goal and its path The goal alone is what determines the mutual collaboration In this context, the word Purusa (Self) need not be taken in its technical sense of that factor in the universe which is given as the "knower 'in the beginning of the treatise in the second verse It is the individual in the world constituted of the matter in which there is the illumination of the real Self (Purusa) that is meant by the term Purusa here, and that is the individual person in the world of activity Each individual has an intelligence and cach has the power and the vision to determine his own course and his own goal at the time of starting the evolution 'That goal alone impels the various parts of the human organism to function in harmony with one another and also in harmony with the external world The instrument is not made to function in a particular way by any external agency In this verse the instrument (karana) means both the external organs and the internal organs There is no agency outside the individual to regulate the course or to determine the goal Here what is wanted to be emphasised is that there is no God to regulate the course of human activities It has been said that the course of the world started from within the root cause through the reflection of the illumination of the Self, that means that there is no God to start the universe on a course of evolution A God is a God either as Creator or as the regulator of man's activities in the world He determines what is the right path and what is not the right path Both the goal and the course are determined by Him When it is said that there is no external agency to prompt the organs (internal and external) in theic functions what is meant is that God has no place in this philosophy Usually, the operation of an instrument, A harana, presupposes the activity of an agent But in this philosophy the instruments of knowing ind of activity operate by themselves ·karlkas 31 32 121 The position is that this is 1 philosophy of atheism, Without God, a philosophy in which God has no place But when it is said that there is no external agency to impel the activities of the individual person, there is a further implication, if anyone introduces the question of a God, the philosophy will have to become an anti theistic philosophy Reasons will be adduced to show that there cannot be a God. As a matter of fact, the atheistic tendency of the philosophy has been indicated even in the second verse when it was said that the goal is to know the three constituents where God has been given no place God has a position in religion, this philosophy has been even there, by implication, declared to be superior to religion One's reason helps min to reach the right goal, far better than what guidance a God can render, God's guidance as given in religion, can take man only to a certain stage and not to the ultimate goal This is n plulosophy of the supremacy of nian and also of the absolute competence of man to know independertly the ultimate truth and to reach the ultimate goal 32 haranın traso dasa udham tad aharana dharana prahasakaran i karyañi ca tasya dasadha 'haryam dhāryam prakas; añ ca ! The organs are of thirteen kırds and they are the agents in seizing holding and manifesting them Their objects are also of ten kinds, being what are seized, what are held and what are manifested (32) In a process of voluntary activity there are three factors, namely, the agent, the objects and the instrument Tbe ra truments are either internal or external The externat ones are divided into two groups, namely, the organs of activity and the sense organs There are three internal instruments (antalkarona) and there are five organs of activity and there are five sense organs In that way there are thirteen instruments In this process there must be the first contact with the object, then the object must be held in that contact and there ·122 The Sankhya Karika must be the manifestation of the object. This is true both in the process of a knowing and in the process of an activity. The ten external instruments contact the object along with the mind, the mind retains the contact and presents the object to the internal organ, of which it is itself a member, and then the internal instruments have the awareness of the object either in knowing or in activity. It makes no difference whether I am seeing a jar or wliether I am lifting up a jar The difference is only in the external instrument If I see a jar, it is the eye that contacts the jar, and in lifting it, it is the hand that contacts the jar. It is the mind which is common to both the acts, that maintains the continuity of the process There is no break up in the process between the eye or the hand on one side and the internal instruments on the other side, there is a transfer from one to the other, without any break in the process Corresponding to the three-fold function of the instrument, there is the three-fold aspect of the object The object is contacted, is kept up in the contact, and is manifested These objects are here divided into ten They are the five Tanmairas (things-in-themselves) and the five elements (Bhatas) I see or I lift up a jas with a colour. I take a lump of sugar and eat it, along with the sweet taste and so on The classical commentators have their own interpretations Gauda pāda says that the organs of activity do the function of contacting or seizing, the sense-organs manifest objects and the internal organs maintain or hold the life on The ten objects are the five Tanniatras and the five activities mentioned in the twenty-eighth verse Vacaspati Miśra too accepts the same in'crpretation, only, he divides the objects of the sense-organs and of the organs of activity into two further sub divisions as human and divine I have already said that there is an clement of manifestation in the function of the organs of activity It is not merely a dead activity This seems to be a more natural interprcta. tion But the classical commentators have taken the three sets given in the scrscas relating to the three sets of instruments To me, the three refer to all the instruments ·Karika 33 123 33 antah karanam tri-idham daśatha balyan tray asja vşaya 'khyann i sompraia halani bahjam iri halam abhyantaram karanam ! The internal orgins are of three kinds the external ones are of ten kinds bearing the designation of being objects of the tliree The external organs function only in respect of what are in the present the internal organs function in respect of what are in the three divisions of time (33) time, The internal organs consist of the three members, namely, the intellect (Buddhi) the subjective consciousness (Ahankara) and the mind (Manas! The external organs are the five sense organs and the five organs of activities Mind is internal even when it is a sense-organ The eye and the other sense organs and the hand and the other organs of activity can function only in respect of objects that are at the present time One cannot see a thing that existed long ago or that will come into existence only long after But the internal organs can also function in respect of what are past or what will come in the future This means that the mode of perception operates in respect of objects that exist in the present moment while inference and the statement of anotber person can operate in respect of what are past or what are present or what will be in the future Here it must be borne in mind that in the Sankhya system there is no category called the Time There is no Space either as a category Time and Space are only the relations between events and events There are only the events and not something external to them to relate them to one another The events are related as cause and effect, the fundamental and the modification Tle cause is prior to the effect and one event is here while another event is there The events do not have substrates like here and there or noy and then ·124 The Sankhya Karika An event is a modification of the root cause or a further modification of some such modification If such an event requires a substrate then the question arises whether that substrate is itself a modification of the root cause, or whether it is a modification of anything else or whether it is another basic category If it is the first alternative, then there is infinite regression. If it is either of the latter two, then there are other categories of a basic nature besides the root cause (Mala Prakrii) and the Self The relation between the three internal organs and the ten external instrumerts is given as, "bearing the title of being the objects of experience (Bhogya) for the threc." That is, there is the subject object relation between the two groups Vacaspatı Misra takes the term in its etymological sense Vişaya is object and Akhyā is knowing They are what make the external objects known to the internal organs, they form the channel between the internal organs and the external objects The meaning is that the ten are the objects of the three, being controlled by the three their functions are controlled and supervised and directed by the internal organs It has already been said in the thirty-first verse that each of them functions independently, knowing the intentions of the others That is slightly qualified here There must be the attention in the mind if the external instruments are to function, and it has been said in the seventh verse that lack of such attention is one of the causes for the non cognition of an object That point is made clear here. 34 buddhi-'ndrijanl teşām pañca višeşa-'višeşa vşay ani 1 vag bharati sabda işaja ſeşant lu pañca usaj ant 11 Among them the organs of knowing have as their objects things specific and things not specific The organ of speech has sound as its object, but the remaining have the five as their objacts. (34) ·Karika 34 125 Of the ten external instruments, the five sense organs have as their objects what are specific and also what are not specific There are the ten objects mentioned in the previous verse, they are the five things in themselves (Tanmatras) and the five elements (Bintas) The five things in themselves are the specific objects for the five sense organs Colour is cognised only by the eye, taste only by the tongue, smell only by the nose touch only by the skin and sound only by the ear In the case of the five elements, earth, fire and air are parceptible, both by the eye and by the touch Sound is cognised only by the ear, but it is also the object of the organ of activity called the speech, which produces the sound The remlining, that is, the four other organs of activity have the five, namely, the five elements or Bhūras as their objects Thc hand can give a movement to earth water fire and air, that is qu te understandable How Akasa or ether comes within the sphere of function of the organs of activity is a matter that gives some trouble It may be that there rs an acceptance of the doctrine of the admixture of the five elements Akasa is simple Akasa (Ether) But in the case of the other four elements, the doctrine is that they contain also the other elements admixture We call earth by that term on account of the predominance of the earth element to it, not because it is purely earth Air contains air predominantly and ether as a subordinate admixture In the same way, fire contains ether ind ait also and water contains ether air and fire too Earth contains all the five There are different theories about this There are slight differences among the systems of philosophy regarding this admixture of the five elements in the formation of the five elements Gaudapada interprets the terms specific and non specific in his own way He says, 'Men grasp sound touch, colour, taste and smell along with a qualification that is the qualification of pleasure, pain and ignorance them without such qualifications About the five organs of activity also, Gaudapada says that there is no difference between men and gods in the matter af speech, they all recite 10 Gods grasp ·126 The Sanka kartha and talk in the same way According to Vacaspati Mišra, the specific and the non specific are the gross elements and the subtle things-in-themselves (Tannatras) While I accept that the reference is to the ten mentioned by him, I take the terms specific and the non specific in another way, not to distinguish between the subtle Tanmatras and the gross elements My interpretation is that some are specific objects of the senses and others are common to the senses When sound is excluded from the objects of the organs of activity in general in so far as it is the object of the speech organ, there are again the five objects mentioned for the remaining Gaudipāda says that there are sound, touch colour, taste and smell in the land The leg walks freely on the earth which is characterised by 11 the five beginning with the sound In this way he explains the function of the remaining two also I am not satisfied with his explanation Vācıspati Misra says that the remaining organs of activity handle things that are characterised by the five Tanmatras, things in themselves This must be based on the doctrine of all the elements containing the admixture of the other elements Vācispati Misra is not clear on the point The object that is specific for one among the five organs of activity, namely, sound for the organ of speech, has been clearly stated the Therefore, consistently, in the first half also what is meant must be the distinction between objects that are specific for some sense organs and objects that are not so specific That is why I have given my own interpretation, without accepting the classical commentaries in verse 35 santahkarana budd hun sarvam visa, am avagahate yasmiat I tasmat tri vid ham karanam diant dvarani seşanı 11 Because the intellect corbined with the internal organs, comprehend the entire field of objects, the three fold organ is what has a channel, and the rest are the channels (35) ·harthas 35 36 127 Even among The internal organs with the intellect as their chief, pervades the entire field of the objects of knowing It Ins already been stated in the thirty third verse that the ten external instruments are the objects for the three internal instruments That point is now made quite clear, the thirteen instruments in knowing do not have the sime status The three internal organs control the channels and the ten external instruments are only the channels them the intellect is the chief, st is to show this that the intellect is specified separately among the internal organs The expression "combined with must be taken to mean "having the others as subordinates, is associates” The external instruments can grasp only what are in the present moment, as stated in the thirty third verse and they can function only if there are no such obstacles as arc enumerate 20 the seventh verse But the internal organs con grasp everything whether they are past or future whether they are immediately before or far off, whether there are 17 terceptions or not The internal organs function always and the external organs are made use of as channels only wnen they have to get anything from outside In the sphere of inference, which is the important mode followed in the system of philosophy, the externnt instruments have little scope It is dominated by the internal organs That is why this importance is attached to the internal organs It must be understood and recognised that the internal organs cannot supercede what are brought to the internal organs by the external instruments and cannot also function independently contradicting what ace brought to them by the external instruments The importance of the internal organs is only in the philosophy, where in the process of reasoning they have ? dominant place and can function without the operation of the external instruments 36 ete pradi pa kal pah paras para vilaksana guna visesah 1 Artsanam puruşasj a 'rshan prakāsja buddhau praacchanti { ·128 The Sankhya Karika 37 sarıanı praty upabhogam yasmat puruşasja sādhaj ali buddhil sai 'va ca stśinasti punah pradhuna-puruşa-'ntaram snksmam || These particular formations of the constituents, like a limp, having separate characteristics d fferent from one another, yield to the intellect the entire purpose of the Self after illuminating it (36) And therefore the intellect accomplishes for the Self the experience in respect of everything, that intellect itself again distinguishes the subtle difference between the root cause and the Sajf (37) In the thirteenth verse the illustratron of a lamp was given In the twenty-seventh verse it was stated that there is a large variety in the world of experience on account of the various combinations of the three constituents Each of the external organs is different from the others and this difference is due to the difference in the combinations of the three constituents In the thirteenth verse it has also been sud that the functions of the three constituents have some purpose In the thirty-first verse that purpose is made clear as the goal of the individual The function of the external instruments is to present the external objects to the internal organs organs do not proceed outside The external instruments are the channels through which the internal organs contact the external objects The external instruments go to the external objects, seize them and present them to the internal organs They do not function at random There is the goal and they know what the goal is and what the method of procedure is to reach that goal Their chief function is only to seize the external objects and bring them to the internal organs In the verse there is an indication that the illumination is also a function of the external instruments That is how a strict construction of the passage will yield a meaning. When the external instruments, along with the mind, bring the object to the external The internal ·Karika 37 129 Organ, then the mind holds it on and then along with the subjective consciousness, the object is presented to the intellect, which is the real chief The illumination is only at this stage, Along with the presentation of the external object to the intellect there is the illumination It has been said in the thirty-second verse that there is a three-fold agency in the function of the thirteen members, seizing, holding and illumination Here the term "Illumination" means only "producing the illumination” which takes place only when the object reaches the intellect In the present verse, the superior position of the intellect is made clear There is room for a doubt why there must be such an importance attached to the intellect, why it should be accepted that the external objects are presented to the intellect by the other instruments Can we not say that all the instruments, including the intellect, were in co-ordination ? The reply is that the other instruments may function and yet the individual does not have the impression of being the experiencer, either by way of enjoyment or by way of suffering in r spect of the external objects until tae intellect functions We may see so many things, we may do so many things, yet there will not be the impression in the form, "I have seen or I have done until the intellect too has functioned in respect of that object Further, the goal of philosophy is to discriminate between the root cause of the world of change and movement and the sentience That is accomplished only by the intellect and not by the external instruments or even by the mind and the subjective consciousness That final discrimination is an intellectual function without any reference to the other instru. ments in knowing It is for these reasons that a distinction is made between the intellect and the other twelve instruments though they are all instruments in knowing Gaudapada takes the first half of the verse as the ground for the statement in the second half of the verse There is the word Yast-wherefore in the first half and so he adds the word Tasmat--therefore in the second half Wherefore the ·Here 130 The Sankhya Karika intellect accomplishes for the Self the enjoyment in respect of everything, therefore, it is he alone that discriminates between the subtle difference of the Self and the root cause also there is the implication that the intellect bas a superior position relative to the other instruments of knowing Vācaspati Mišra takes the whole verse as an additional ground for the eminence of the intellect, 38 tanmalrany aliseşas tebhyo bhutani pañca pañcabh; ah ! ete smrtā višeşah santa ghoras ca mudhaś ca II The things-in-themselves are non-specific. From these five the five elements arise They, being specific, are spoken of as calm, insurgent and farnt (38) In the thirty-fourth verse the sense-organs were spoken of as having specific and non-specific objects Though the same terms are used here, I take the terms in a different sense in this verse In the stage of being things-in themselves, they cannot be distinguished among themselves They are not the specifications of anything They are in that stage when they are not the objects of sease-organs When they become such objects of sense-organs, they become the elements ard the elements can We be distinguished among themselves experience the elements in three ways Some impress themselves on us in a very calm way, others produce a very violent impression on us, still others make only a very faint impression It is when the Satria constituent is prominent that there is the first impression, when the Rajas constituent is prominent, there is the second kind of impression and when the Tamas constituent predominates, there is the faint impression Gauda pāda says that cnly gods can experience the things in themselves and to them there is no such difference as calm, insurgent and indifferent, they experience them all as calm without undue intensity and undue faintness any ·Karika 39 131 39 snkşnia mata pitr.jah saha prabhatais tridha wiseşah sjuht solşmas teşām nitja mata pitr ja nivartante il The subtle and what are generated from the mother and the father along with the gross elements - the specific are thus of three kinds Of them the subtle are constant , what are generated from the mother and from the father retire (39) are It has been said in the previous verse that the five gross elements are specific In this verse it is said that the specific are of three kinds in which the subtle ones are also found included, and the subtle ones are non specific according to the previous verse There is an apparent unconsistency here To zvoid this inconsistency, we have to take the term Viseşa (specific) in this verse to mean not the gross elements, but the gross body which are specific for each individual, and which are mainly of the nature of the gross elements What distinguishes the individual among themselves is the presence of the gross elements constituting the body In this body there three clements There is a subtle part and there is also a gross part The gross part is of two kinds, what is generated from the parents and what is assimilated from the outside world within the womb and after the birth It is the part contributed by the parents along with the matter assimilated from the external world when in the womb and after the birth, that distinguishes one individual from another Then there is the subtle part, which will be explained in the next verse This subtle part persists while at the time of the death, the gross part retires from the individual That subtle part of the body takes up a new gross body, first assimilating the parts contributed by the parents in the womb and also assimilating matter from external sources both within the womb and after birth, gradually What is called an individual is the subtle part with the gross part assimilated by it in the womb and alter the birth ·132 The Sankhya Karika When the subtle part assimilates matter from outside and when there is the matter contributed by the parents to form the nucleus of the gross body, there is some special anatomical formation specified for the gross body This! anatomical formation is described in the works on medical science, especially in the Susruta Samhita In versc thirty-eight, the Tanmatras, the things-in-themselves, are spoken of as non specific In this verse, there is the term Suksma, subtle It is true that the Tanmatras are Suksma But they do not exhaust the subtle part They are included within the subtle part and there are other subtle elements also in the body All these subtle parts are related to the gross part These subtle parts form a combination and is called the subtle body It is in this sense, the sense of a subtle body, that the word Suksma, subtle, is used in this verse And this subtle body is described in the next verse 40 purio tpannam asaktam nijatan mahad adı sal snia pars antami samsaratı nurupabhogam bhavair adhivāsitam lựnganı 11 Born prior unattached, constant, constituting of what begin with the intellect and what end with the subtle-this Mark transmigrates, free experience, with the dispositions abiding in them (40) When there was the diversification of the uniform root cause into twenty three categories, namely, the three inner organs (intellect and subjectivity and mind) the five sense organs, the five organs of activity, the five Tanmatras (the things in themselves) and the five gross elements, it was not a mere diversification Along with this diversification, there have been formed an infinite number of combinations of eighteen of them, excluding the five gross elements, and they form certain units that hold together It is these units that are really understood by the term Self, Atman, and the whole function of the evolutes from the root cause, mentioned before and later also, is for the sake of this unit They gather a gross body around them, with the material contributed by the from ·Kariho 40 133 bertat parents and assiinilited from the external world both within the womb and after the birth The gross body is cast off and another gross body is gathered This is what is called the transmigration of the Self It is this unit that transmigrates and not the Puruşa or the Self They are combinations, they are units that cannot be broken up They remain constant when the gross bodies change This subtle body has been ever there, earlier than any other evolute Here the term ut panna (born) should not be taken in its literal sense of a prodution of what was not prior All that it means is that the subtle body was there prior to all The fact is that the world of changes and movements has ro real beginning There was no interval between the evolution of the various categories and the formation of the subtle bodies --- It is not attached to anything The classical commentators take the word "Asakram" to mean what is not obstructed in its movement by anything what can enter even the thick rocks, as they say The presence of a material body is an obstacle in the way of another, but in the case of this subtle body, it can be there where there is the other matter also But I think that what it means is that the subtle body is not attached to any gross matter The body remains free from any sort of attachment to the gross elements They gather the elements and then they cast off the elements, thereafter they gather new elements This gathering of new elements is what is called the embodiment Even when the body is thus in a state of association with the gross matter, there is no attachment Gross matter comes and goes while the subtle body remains unattached to such changing gross matter The subtle body is constant The classical commentators say that it remains from the very beginning to the final dissolution This is what Vacaspati says Gaudapăda says that it remains till the rise of the true knowledge and the transmigration comes to a stop I take it to mean that the subtle bodies are not mixed up with on another, this is ·134 The Sankhya Karika Ea h the what is given in the cighteenth verse. There is a constancy regarding each individual and this was given as one of the grounds for inferring the plurality of the Purusa subtic body is the result of the reflection of the sentience from each separate Puruşa on the root ciuse. Each such body is constant to the Puruça also, without any sort of admixture Along with this the term "unattached" may as well be taken to mean what is not attached to the Puruşa, je, Puruşa is not affected by the body The Purusa remains pure even though the subtle body is generated by the reflection of the sentience from that Puruşa without any sort of attachment of the body to the Puruşa It consists of the eighteen cvolutes starting from the intellect, the Buddhi, up to the subtle elements, the Tanmatra They are what are enu nerated in the twenty second verse omitting the first, namely, the Prakrti and the Purusa and the last five, 1c, the gross elements In the previous verse, the term Saksma meant the entire subtle body with its eighteen constituents, but in this verse, the term means only the subtle elements the five Tanmatras This subtle body has no experience of its own The experience is only in the gross body that it gathers round it The experience is from the point of gathering the gross body up to the point of the gross body dissolving, what is called death It transmigrates from gross body to gross body Although it has no experience, it is the abode for some dispositions When there is an experience, that experience leaves some residue and this residue can remain only in the subtle body, the gross body falls off and cannot carry such residual impressions Such impressions or dispositions are called Bhava, a mental state or modification Each such body is distinguished from the other bodies on account of such dispositions Otherwise the subtle bodies have no distinguishing mark Though the Purusas are only pure sentience, there is some individuality in them, which produces sone such distinguishing disposition in the subtle body even at the very That is why there is no uniformity in the impressions start ·karika 40 135 1 of the various subtle bodies The fact that a particular subtle body is the result of the reflection of the sentience from a particular Puruşa, is itself a distinguishing feature for that subtle body and this determines also the nature of the progression of that subtle body These subtle bodies have an individua lity But they have no structure, no form, no volume, no niass They are at the same time absolutely material Tlı sy should not be confused with the cells of modern biology. The cells are material formations with a structure and a mass and a volume When a cell is destroyed and wh:n a new cell is produced, that second cell has a factor called life That factor existed in the first also The life fac tor in the first cell de ermines the nature of the life factor in the second Thus a cell that can evolve into the body of the elephant cannot produce 1 cell that can evolve into the body of a horse This life factor in the two cells, the one il at s dead and the one that is generated, us what may bec illed the subtle body It is called a Linga, a Mark It is this body that "marks tire individuality that runs through an infinite number of gross bodies that are in succession gattiered by the same subtle body and that are cast away by 10 When a man is born, there is a new personality found in that body But he is not born with a blank life in which dispositions are generated When a man is born, there is some antecedent This antecedent 13 of two kinds, one de ning the genus to which the organic body belongs and the other determining the dispositions of that body It is the factor generated! from the parents, as mentioned in the previous verse, that determines the genus The material contributed by the parents belonging to the elephant & nus can produce only a body that belongs to the elephant genus Thus, the fact that when a man is born, he belongs to the hurran genus is due to the material which the body has received from the parents, who are men The subtle body selects the place, the particular womb where it can receive the material contributed by the parents belonging to the human genus But the fact that he is born of such and such patents does not ·133 The Sanklija Karika result in the newly born man developing certain dispositions like intellectual capacities and tastes They are carried forward from the previous embodiment by way of dispositions, the Bhavas We must distinguish between the personality in an individual and individuality running through a whole series of such personalities Each such personality is a link in a chain, which entire chain has an individuality determined by the subtle body The dispositions within this individuality arc enduring, carried from birth to birth 41 citram jatha 'śrajam ſte sthānva-'dıbhyo vina jarha chaja i tad vad vina višesalr na tişthali niraśray am lingam 11 Just as a picture cannot remain without a support, just as there ca onot be a shadow without a post or other things, in the same way, the Mark cannot remain without a support, without the specific (41) A picture cannot be painted in an empty vacuum and there can be no shadow in a vacuum There must be a wall or some such surface on which a picture can be painted and there must be some material body which alone can cast a shadow In the same way, the subtle body, the Mark, must have some support to stand on, there must be the specific factors Gavda pāda reac!s the text as Vina višeşalh and says that the subtle body capinot remain without the unspecific The unspecific are the subtle elements, the Tanmairas, as given in the thirty eighth verse By Linga, he does not mean the entire subtle body, trut only the thirteen constituents 10 it excluding the five Tanmatras The printed editions of Vacaspatı read the text as Vina viseşaih Viseşas are what are specific The meaning' given by Vācaspati is Saksmasarra, the subtle body From the context it is found that he too means the five Tanma Iras by the term Visesa, specific The meaning, according to the classical commenta ors, seems to be that the thirteen constituents of the subtle body among the eighteen enumerate in the previotis verse, cannot ·Karikas 41-42 137 remain without the five Tanmatras I do not know how the question arises at all The subtle body consists of the eighteen factors and the question does not arise whether any part of them consisting of the thirteen, can remain without the other part, consisting of the five There is a division possible between the thirteen forming the instru. ments, the Karanas, for knowing and for activities and the five forming the nucleus for the body But no question arises about either part remaining without the other In the thirty eighth verse, it was said that the five Tanmatras are non-specific (Avlseşa) and the five gross elements are specific (Višeşa). The subtle body does not contain the five gross elements The question that can arise is whether the combination of the eighteen forming the subtle body can remain at all independent of the five gross elements The answer is given in this verse that although there is the subtle body without the gross elements, the remaining eighteen in combination and forming the subtle body can never remain as an independent entity They always remain associated with the five gross elements At the time of death, the gross elements drop off and the eighteen factors forming the unit continue. But they cannot endure independently, they require other gross elements for their continuity That means that there is never a stage when the subtle body remains as free, independent subtle body It always remains with a gross body also This is indicated in the Brhadaranya. kopanişad where there is the mention of the doctrine of transmigration When one body is left off, there is resort to a new body There is no disembodied state The subtle body has a gross body gathered round it at all times, though the unit called the subtle body is a separate entity, distinct from the gross elements 42 Purusa-'rtha-helukam idant nimirja naimiitika-prasangena prakrter vibhutya yogan najavad vyavarlsthate lingam di ·138 The Sankhy a korika This mark appears in manifold forms with the goal of the Self as the ground, in the contexts of the means and what the means serves, on account of the association of the root causc with pervasiveness like an actor (42) This subtle body presents itself in the world in various forms It has been said in the previous verse that as soon as a gross body falls down there must be another gross body for the subtle body to remain, it cannot remain by itself without such a support The new body is always found to be different from the previous body Each such gross body which a subtle body assumes in succession is distinct from another And the bodies assumed by different subtle bodies are also different from one another It is like an actor who assumes different roles in his profession There is an infinite number of subtle bodies and each must always have a gross body as its support. When a gross body parishes there must be a gross body ready for the subtle body to adopt as its support The gross body is produced in the womb and the subtle body cannot get into the womb directly it has to get into it through some natural channel How is this arrangement made in the universe for each subtle body to be provided with a gross body at all times when it is in need of it and how is it also that each such gross body is found to be distinct from the other bodies, both in the case of the gross bodies assumed by the same subtle body and also in the case of the gross bodies assumed by different subtle bodies ? The answer is given in the expression . On a count of the association of the root cause with pervasive There is such an immensity in the root cause that there is no hitch in this arrangement The subtle body does not remain static There is a change and a movement in the gross body moment by moment and there is a great change when one gross body is cast off and another is assumed This is due to the law of causation There is a stage which is the cause and this cause produces in effect then that effect becomes a cause in its turn for ness ·Karika 42 139 another effect This is the context in which the world moves and changes No cause can wait for the production of its effect The process is continuous For this reason there can be no delay for subtle body to be provided with a gross body when the previous gross body perishes The world is dynrmc and the movement goes on in the world is in a machine There is a law on account of which the whole world moves and functions like a single machine 1 The law means the start, the course, the pace and the destination The start is when there was the reflection of the sentence from the Puruşa on the root cause Each such reflection has its own characteristic feature and as such the course and the pace for eich subtle body is distinct from those of others In the subtle body ibere is a confusion of two distinct factors, the confusion of activity with the change. Jess, immutable sentence, the Puruşa and that of sentence in what is really insentient, the root cause The destination is for the subtle body to be freed from this confusion when the Puruşa becomes the pure sentience without any activity and the basic fundamental reverts to its equilibrium of the three constituents without any sentience and without any experience How can there be a start for something with its own dis solution as the goal at the close of the course ? Esther there need not have been this confusion or such a confusion should be what will continue Self-destruction cannot be accepted as a goal for any step taken The only possible answer is that there is no real dissolution at any future stage of the subtle body along with the gross body in which it has to find a support for its very existence The progression is not from a start towards a self extinction The progression is from imperfection in experience to perfection in expenence Even at the ultimate stage, the subtle body and the gross body continue The experience and also the activity both con tinue The limitation, the sense of imperfection, in both the etperience and in the activity, comes to a close, and there is secured perfection in experience and in activity In the stage ·Of them thirteen are of the nature of organs, three internal 140 The Sankhya karlka of the ordinary subtle body, the experience is that of the gross body being the locus for a process of knowing which is limited in scope and also for an activity which too is limited in its scope At the final stage, there is the full knowledge of the two factors, the Puruşa which is sentience, as perfect sentience and the root cause as 1 uniform of the three consti tuents The progression of the subtle body through a series of gross bodies will result in the expansion of both the knowing and the activity, finally resulting in freedom from limitations in both 43. Samsiddhihaś ca bhavah Praktika valkrtikaś ca dharma-'djah | distah karana 'śrayinah harya'śrayinaś ca halala 'dy ah il The primal dispositions and the acquired dispositions starting with Dharma are found to abide in the causal body the embryo and other factors abide in the produced body (43) In the fortieth verse it was said that the subtle body has some dispositions abiding in it There it was said that the dispositions are of two kinds, one determining the genus etc, and the other determining the capacities etc, of the newly The subtle body contains eighteen constituents and ten external Then there are the five Tanmatras When a man is born, the genus, the anatomical features and other factors are associated with the gross body that is produced The capacities and other factors remain in the organs The Tanmatras are not the abodes of any disposition They sim ply develop into the gross body as constituted of the five elements The dispositions that result in the capacities etc, are of two kinds There is the innate disposition by which the course and the pace and other factors in the progression of the person are determined That is why there is such a great difference in the progression made by different persons Such innate differences do not bind the man for ever can acquire certain dispositions These latter pay be called born person He ·Karllas 43-44 141 the evolution of the individual It is partly determined by the innate disposition, but is not completely bound by them, the acquired dispositions also determine the later stages in the progression Thus there are two factors in evolution One is the condition of the start and the other is the success or failure of the individunt after the start The classical commentators lived in an nge of mytho logicillore and religious beliefs They have to explain everything consistent with such a background Vācaspati Mista divides the first kind of Bhavas into two classes The innate dispositions lihe Dharma and wisdom are primeval, as in the case of Kapıla who is the founder of the Sankhya system The Maharşls Ihe Valmiki, the son of Pracetas, acquired some dispositions through their effort Gaudapāda speaks of three kinds of such dispositions as primeval, innate and acquired Kapıla had the first variety, the four sons of Brahmā, namely, Sanaka, Sanandana, Sanātana and Sanatkumāra, had the second variety and people like us who acquire wisdom from the teacher have the third variety 44 dharmena gamanam Ardhvami gamanant ad hastad bhavaty adharniena i jñanena ca 'pavargo vi paryayad işgale bandhah It Through Dharma there is the movement upwards, through Adharma there is the movement dowowards And through knowledge, there is complete release and from its opposite, it is accepted, there is bondage (44) Man starts with a certain disposition He has his Free Will and he can rcguire new dispositions There is a Law governing the progression which applies to all If a follows this Law, his progression will be continuously forhe will have Abhyudaya, movement upwards or forward towards a goal In the previous verse, the disposi tions were spoken of as Dharma and others The classical commentators have explained this term as meaning Dharma, Jiana (wisdom), Vairagya (freedom from attachments) and Alsrarya (lordliness) From this verse it seems that what the man ward, se, ·142 The Sankhya Karika author had in his mind must b- Dharma (Law), Adharma (Chaos), Jñana (Knowledge) and its op sosite These are the tour factors that he gives in this verse By going against the Law, by creating chaos, there is downfall, Pralja1dja (movement downward or backwards, away from the goal) Knowledge of the distinction among the three factors mentioned in the verse, leads a person to Apavarga (separation away from) which is Kalvalja From the opposite of this is bondage There is a Law in the world One can attain the goal by following the Law One has also to know the Law and also the factors of the universe in which the Law operates The primeval dispositions and the Free Will to determine the course and the pace in the progression are there in the person, there is no Go i to determine such things It cannot also come as a gift from another person It caonot either be taken away by a God or by another person 45 vairagyat praksti layah samsaro bhayari rajasad ragar! alsary ad avighato, vi paryayat tad vi parjasah 1 From non-attachment there is the dissolution of the From attachment, which is of the nature of Rajas there is the transmigration From lord liness, there is the removal of obstacles From the opposite there is the opposite thereof (45) There is a Law governing the progression That is of the nature of a Law of Chusation The cause at this stage was the effect in the previous stage and the effect in this stage becomes the cause in the next stage If a man knows this Law of Cause and Effect and if he works afong such lines prescribed by the Law there results the disposition of the basic fundamental He works up the cause knowing that the cause will produce the effect He does not attach himself to the effect directly If instend of working up the cause, he attaches himself to the effect, he does not secure the effect for himself That delays his progression In the sixty third root cause ·Karllas 45-46 143 and sixty-fifth verses, there is mention of the seven out of these eight forms, as obstacles, it is only when there is a cessation of these seven that there is the final release The dissolution of the root cause in this verse is given as the result of the break of attachment, Vairagja, which is the one of the seven to be terminated for the same release It may be that in this verse, the emphasis is on the function of Raga or attatchment, which brings about the transmigration In contrast to that, Valragya is a path to the dissolution of the root cause Some slight contradiction is noticeable here The lordliness is his Free Will If he applies his Free Will according to the Liw, the effects naturally follow the causes and there would be the removal of all obstacles in his path in securing the effect, which effect becomes the cause for the subsequent effect But if he uses Iris Free Will in another way, there would be the obstacles coming in his way When he does not use his Free Will in the proper way. what it means is that he surrenders his Free W:ll, and by such a surrender of Free Wall, he allows obstacles to come in his way The four features given in this and in the previous verses were already mentioned in the twenty third verse 46 esa pratyaya sargo vi paryaya sakkii tuşt1-sıddhya 'khyan gung-vaişam, a vi mardat tasya ca bhedas tu pañcaśat This evolution of the dispositions, bearing the designations of wrong knowledge, incompetence contenment and attainment is due to the mutual impact of the uneven constituents And their varieties, on the other hand, are fifty 46) In the forty fourth verse eight factors were given, namely, Dharma, Jñana, Viraga and disrarya and their opposite la the next verse, which is the previous one, four factors were given as Vairagya, Raga, Aisyarya and its opposite There are thus, Dharma, Jñana, Vairagya and Al svarja There are their opposites also in the present verse, there are four factors given, namely, Viparraza, Asakti, Tuşfi and Siddhi ·give the 144 The Sankhya Karika Dharma, Jñana, Valragya and Aiśvarya come within Tuşil and Siddhi and the other four come within Vipar) aja and Ašakti Such a variety in dispositions is due to the mutual impact of the unevenness of the three constituents, the Sariya the Rajas and the Tamas Vācaspati Miśra explains the second word as "Intellect s (Pratyaya) creation (Sarga) I take the term Praljaja as identical with Bhava, mental dispositions I have translated the word Sarga by the term "group" It means what has come out Really the meaning is "the dispositions that have become manifest" The classical commentators reason in the beginning of the second half as the ground for the division into fifty, while I take it as the ground for the division into the four mentioned in the first half The mental dispositions take the form of wrong knowledge and incompetence and also of contentment and attainment, which latter two are the opposites of the first two The primary classification of the dispositions into four, as given in the first half, is on the basis of the differences in the proportion and intensity of the three constituents The further classification into fifty is also due to the same difference When there is the predominance of Tamas, then, when the Sattva is very weak, there is Viparyaya (wrong knon ledge) and when the Rajas is weak, there is Asakti (incompetence) When Tamas is weak, then in the domination of Rajas there is Tusti and in the domination of Sattva, there is Siddhi (attainment) The further sub divisions into fifty and still further sub divisions are given in the subsequent verses The real contrast is between the Tamas on one side aid the Sattya and the Rajas together on the other side If through the impact of Tamas, there is a suppression of the Sativa the Rajas remaining then there is the wrong knowledge, if there is the suppression of the Rajas, the Sattva still remaining, there is incompetence In the same way, if the Tamas is suppressed through the dominance of the Rajas, there is Tusti (contentment) and if the suppression of the Tamaş is through the dominance of the Sutiva there is Siddhi ·Karikas 47-48 145 (attainment) The classical commentators seem to associate Siddhi or attainment with wisdom or Satta To them Siddhi is the attaspment of the final release through wisdom But I contrast wrong knowledge with Tuşil or contentment and Asakti or incompetence with Siddhi or attunment 47 paſca vi paryaya bheda bhavanty aśaktis ca karana jalkalyar | aşta vimśari bheda tuştir navadha 'stadha siddhth 11 There are five divisions of wrong knowledge Incompe tence, caused by the defect in the organs, is of twenty eight kinds Contentment is of nine kinds, attainment is of eight kinds (47) In this way the four kinds of dispositions mentioned in the previous versº, are of fifty kinds in all 48 bhedas tamaso 'sta vidho mohasya ca daśa vidho mahamohah ( tamisro 'sta daśadha tatha bhavanty andhatamisrah il There are eight varieties of Tamas and also of Moha Mahamoha is of ten kinds Tamisra is of eighteen kiods, Andhatamisra is of the same kind (48) In the previous verse the wsong knowledge was given as of five kinds Here their names and their further sub divisions are given The five kinds of wrong knowledge are mentioned here by name, along with the sub-divisions of each of them The five kinds are known as Tamas (darkness) Aloha (delusion), Mohamoha (great delusion) Tamisra (gloom) and Andhajamisra (blinding gloom) The commentators give the nature of the divisions 1 Tamas In the Yoga system thrs is called Avidya (nescience) The unmanifest fundamental, the intellect, the subjective consciousness and the five Tanmatras are not really the Self, the knowledge that they are what is called the Self, is the eighth kind of wrong knowledge ·3 4 146 The Sankhya harika 2 Moha There are cight kinds of attainments of supernatural powers in the course of Yogic progression They are Anima (atomic nature). Mahlma (immensity) Laghina (lightness) Garima (scight), Isina (oscrlordship) l'afilia (possession), Prapu (reaching any place) and Pralassa (manifestation) A man can makc himself atomic in size, immense in size, light so that he can fly or heavy so that nothing can liſt him, he can attain control over the world and get possession of cverything, he can transfer himsell to any place and he can make himself manifest anywhere If a person considers these as the final release, this is arota or dclusion and they are of eight kends according to the cight kinds of attainments Mfahamoha There are the five objects of sense cognition like the sound They can be human or devine Attachment to them is Mahamoha or the great delusion Tanti sra There are the ten objects of sense cognition as stated in the previous verse and the eight attainments mentioned in the still previous section Conflicts among them as objects that produce some joy form the eighteen forms of Tamisra or gloom 5 Andharanisra The blinding gloom is the fear that one may be deprived of the same eighteen factors that are supposed to give joy The above facts are taken from the commentary of Vacaspati Miśra The same is the position taken up by Gauda pada 49 eka daśe 'ndriya iadhah saha buddhı vadhair aśaktir uddista ! sapta daśa adha buddher vl paryayat tusti siddhinam t! Incompetence is enumerated as injury to the eleven organs along with injury to the intellect Injury to the intellect is of seventeen kinds, on account of the failure of contentment and attainments (49) The twenty eight kinds of incompetence are given here It may be due to any injury to any of the eleven organs (mind ·Karkas 49-30 147 and the five sense organs and the Ave organs of activity) There are oine kinds of contentments and eight kinds of attainments If there is a failure of any of these seventeen that are in the intellect, there are twenty-eight on the whole as incompetence, failure to move forward 50 adhy armiłaś catasrah prakst) upadana kala bhagya-'khyah 1 bah; a vişajo paramat panca nara tusta; o 'bhimalah Four pertaining to the Self, nimed Nature, Means, Time and Providence, and five that are external on account of the withdrawal from the sense-objects - the nine contentments are thus recognised (50) There are four kinds of contentments arising from within oneself There are also five kinds of contentments arising externally, on account of the cessation of sufferings produced by the five external objects In this way there are nine linds of contentments to the forty sixth verse, four kinds of dispositions were enumerated The classical commentators speak of them as what is produced by the intellect (praiyaja sarga) I speak of them as the mental moods (pratyaya) minifested (sarga) of these the classical commentators speak of the first three as infirmities in the mind and accept the last one, Siddhi or attainment, as the real positive factor Siddhi or attainment is the attarament of the final release Consistent with such an interpretation, they do not accept the nine Teştis or content. ments as assets in the mind They are only such appreot assests, what people regard as contentments, what are not really objects for contentments The four internal contentments are what are based on Praksi, Upadana, Time and Providence There is some sort of contentment which is in the nature of some persons It 1$ not due to any gain or to the satisfaction of any want Then when the means is found, that produces some contentment sa the mind This is not a case of any material gain It is just & knowledge that one has been able to secure the miçans for ·143 The Sankhya Karika the satisfaction of the want Then time works up some contentment, and in other cases, it is Providence that work out the contentment In all the four cases, it is a mere mental feature It arises out of oneself Then one may have some feeling of suffering on account of sense craving The external objects come within the sphere of a person through the five sense-organs and when there is some satisfaction for the mind on account of the fact that the cravings of the five sense organs have been satisfied, there is a contentment This contentment is external so far as its source is concerned These are the nine kinds of contentments To the classical commentators these are only cases of an apparent contentment According to Vacaspate Miśra the four kinds of internal contentment are as follows: Nature The direct experience of discriminative knowledge is a particular kind of the modification of the Prakytl (root case) and the root cause itself will bring it about, there is no need to take to repeated meditation So one may remain as he is without any effort The conteniment arising out of such a teaching is this variety 2 Means The discriminative knowledge does not arise out of the fundamental The Tanmatras are common to all persons and yet the discriminative knowledge does not arise in all It can arise only in those who take to renuncia. tion and wandering about, and so one should take to such a The contentment arising out of such a teaching is what is called the contentment through the Means 3 Time Even such means cannot bring about discriminative knowledge all of a sudden One must wait There is no need to be in a hurry The contentment arising out of such a teaching is the contentment out of Time Providence Discriminative knowledge does not arise in any of the above ways It comes only through luck The contentment arising out of such a teaching is what arises out of luck Gaudapada's interpretation is not much different from this, though in details there are slight differences means 4 ·Kartka: 31.52 149 $1 ahah Sabdo 'dhiyas antam dulkla ilghalas tra; ah suhri-praptik ? danañ ca siddhayo 'stau siddheh parvo 'nkušas trividhali u Reasoning, scripture, study, the three fold destruction of suffering, attainment of companions and giftsthese are the eight attainments The three that precede the attainment are curbs (51) Attrinment 13 the attunment of the discriminative knowledge as stated in the second verse Wrong knowledge and informity are real obstacles to this attainment Contentment can also be such an obstacle, sf contentment becomes the halting place and not a stage for further progression The first tivo must be avoided and the third shall not be allowed to act like a break Even the eight factors mentioned here are not final attain. ment, they are what leads one to the final attainment, which is the attainment of the discriminative knowledge mentioned in the second verse Vacaspati Misra interprets the word Dana as purity and not as gift But he gives that meaning also as an alternative, given by others One must apply his reasoning powers, one must listen to what others have to say, one must study One must detatch oneself from the three fuld sufferings mentioned in the first verse One must discuss the matters with others think that the last of the eight, Dana, is neither money gift, not purity It is the gut of one s knowledge to others I 52 na sing bhavalr lingam na vina lingena bhava niryrttih! linga khyo bhava klyas tasmad dvividhoh pravartate sargah 1 There is no Mark without the dispositions There is no accomplishment of the dispositions without the Mark Therefore the evolution proceeds in two ways called as Mark and also called as dispositions (52) ·Onc When eighteen It is said The Bhavas 150 The Sankhya Kanika In the fortieth verse, it was said that the dispositions abide in the Mark (Linga) Then something was said about the dispositions Did the subtle body, the Mark, appear first ard did it acquire the dispositions later ? Or did the dispositions come first and did they then find an abode in the subtle bodies ? The position taken up is that the real fact is a third alternative, that both arose simultaneously of them cannot have an existence without the other there was the diversification on account of the reflection of the sentience from the Purusa on the root cause, there resul ted tne infinite number of combinations of the evolutes, called the subtle bodies, along with certain disposi tions in them The classical commentators take the words Linga, Mark, to mean thc Tanmatras, the things in themselves, and not the subtle body consisting of the eighteen factors that the term is used in this secondary sense or dispositions are, according to them, the creations of the intellect (Pralyaya sarga) as interpreted by them But in the fortieth verse, the subtle body (Linga or Mark) has been stated to be the combination of the eighteen factors Later, the classieal commentators bifurcate this combination into two parts, one consisting of the thirteen organs and the other consisting of the five Tanmatras I see no evidence in the text, nor any reason or need, for such a bifurcation 53 aşta vikalpo daivas talry ag yonas ca pancadha bhavanı i manuşakaś cai 'kavidhah samasato bhautlkah sargalt if The divine are of eight kinds and what relate to the louer beings are of five kinds And the human is of one kind On the whole these are the elemental evolutions (5) It has been said that at the time of the evolution or diver sification on account of the rellection of the sentience from the Purusa on the root cause, there arose also an infinite number of subtle bodies, the Linga or the Mark They gather a gross - body around them The classification is on the basis of such ·Karikas 53-54 151 gross bodies There are eight such generi of evolutions that are divine and that are above the human genus Below, there are five genera. Man is a single genus The eight divine genera are what relate to (1) Brahma, (2) the Lords of humanity (Prajăpatis), (3) Indra or the Lord of the heaven, (4) the departed forefathers (Pitrs), (5) Gandharva, (6) Yakşa, (7) Rūkşasa and (8) Pisaca The last four are demigods aad demons The five kinds of lower beings are (1) Pasu (cattle), (2) Mrga (animals), (3) Birds (Pakşın), (4) Reptiles (Sarisrpa), and (5) immovable (Sthāvıra) There are the trees and the creepers Perhaps the first two mean the domestic and the wild varieties. We need not worry much about the soundness of the biological classification This classification is not a cardinal one in the philosophy and take note of the lore of tte days It is to be noted that humanity is regarded as a single genus This has always been the doctrine that governed the interpational relations of ancient India Unity of the human race has been a cardinal doctrine among the ancient India starting from the Vedic times 54, Ardhivam sativa-yısalas ſamo-višalaś ca mulatah sargah ! madhye rajo-visalo brahma-di-stamba paryantah II What are above have the expansion of Saltva and what we below have the expansion of Tanias In the middle there is the expansion of Rajas This starts trom Brahma and comes down to the grass (54) There are three varieties or generą, elgbt above, five below and one, the human, in the middle This is the order of the evolution There is the range of Saliva above the human genus with the eight genera within and there is the range of Tamas below with the five genera In the middle there is the range of Rajas with the human genus in it in the thirtcenth verse, the characteristic features of the three constituents were giseu When there is the predominance of Samna, th-re is lightness and there is illurdination.

·152 The Sankhya Karika An Thus the genera above can move about freely through space without any restriction of the gravitational pull They have knowledge also far superior to that of man The genera below are weighted down and their range of movement is very much restricted. Trees cannot even change their spot animal can move about and can set other things into motion through impact But an animal cannot change its conditions and environments, for which the Sativa consitituent is necessary in them Man can know, man can move about, man can set other stationary things into motion Man can also change his conditions and his environments His activity is greater than his knowing, so far as the range is concerned Man S essentially an active being and he can also work up his own final release from the sufferings of life 55. tatra jara marana krtam dulkham prapnoiz cetanah puruşah | lingasja 'vini vrties tasmad duhkham syabhavena 11 There, the sentient Self endures suffering brought about by old age and death Therefore, up to the time when the subtle body retires, suffering is natural (55) There is a distinction between the Puruşa or Self that is sentience itself and the Self, Puruşa, who is sentient. The sentient Self here is the subtle body really. On account of the association of the Self with the subtle body, for whose generation, contact with that pure Puruşa, the sentience, is the ground, the pure senticnce himself appears to be suffering, as is mcntioned in the twentieth verse A time will come when there will be the discriminative knowledge of the three factors in the universe, mentioned in the socond verse, and at that time the subtle body will retire as a limiting factor so long as there is the con. ſusion between the subtle body, which, being a modification of the root cause, cannot have sentience and the Purusa, which, being pure sentiencc, can have no crperience, there is this suffering. Such a suffering as natural, up to a point and at ·darikas 56-57 153 that point, the suffering comes to a close The classical commentators connect the part "up to the time when the subtle body retires" with the predicate "endures suffering". I take that portion as relating to the predicate "is natural" Therefore, 1e since there is such a suffering endured by the subtle body through oid-age and death, the suffering is natural so long as the subtle body remains 56 ały esa prakrii kſto mahad adi viseşa bhata paryantah 1 pratt puruşa vinoksa 'rtham sva 'rtha na paraertha drambhul 1 In this way, this start generated by the root cause beginning from the intellect and ending with the specific elements, operates for the sake of the final release of each separate Self, to subserve the purpose of another, and it looks as if it were for subserving its own purpose (56) There is the subtic body consisting of the eighteen factors and there is the gross body consisting of the five elements The subtle body gathers a gross body round it and later it casts it off to assume a fresh gross body This process goes on The real purpose is that the Puruşa may know that he is pure and that there is no activity in him and so no suffertog in him, that the activity and the suffering are in the matter, the root cause in its evolved condition The activity is only in the evolutes of watter and it would seemn that the activity has as its purpose some end for itseir Rcally the purpose is for the Puruşu The purpose is the attainment of isolation, Kalvalsa It ss not merely Karalya, it is the awareness of this Kaival, a Such an awareness can be only in the scnticnce and not in the insentient matter Each subtle body with a gross body around it works for each separate Puruşa 57 vatsa viyļddhi nimistam kşirasya yatha pravrtir ajñasja! Purusa vimokşa nimittam ratha prurithih pradhanasja }} ·154 The Sankhya Karika Just as there is the activity of the milk (within the breast of the mother) for the growth of the baby, though the milk does not have a knowing, in the same way the activity of root cause is for the final release of the Self (57) The question is about the activity of the root cause, which is insentient, with a purpose. A purpose is what an intelligent one keeps before him in his activity When there is an activity in what is insentient, we do not say that the activity in that thirg has some purpose If there is some purpose, it is not in that thing, but in the intelligent agent that has set that thing in operation Here it is said that even in the activity of the insentient objects, there is a purpose sometimes Thus the milk flows from the breast of the mother with a purpose, and that purpose is the growth of the baby It may be that the movement has ultimately to be traced to some intelligence Here in the Sankhya system it has been accepted that the movement started in the insentient matter on account of the reflection of the sentience from the Puruşa What is the real question that has been answered in this verse ? According to the classical commentators and also according to Sankara's criticism of the Sānkhya position in his Brahmasatrabhāşya (IIII-1 9), the question is How can the inventient Pradhana function at all? The illustration is the milk that flows though the milk has no sentence This explains how even the insentient Pradhana can function But in the context that is not the question The context is about the function of the Pradhana for the purpose of another as if it were for its own purpose Can there be the function in one entirely to subserve the purpose of another, AS 15 given in the previous verse ? I think that this is the real question so there is no need to emphasise the word Ajñasya, the insentient The emphasis must be on the word Vatsaviyeddhinimittam (for the purpose of the growth of the baby) Whether an absolutely insentient object can function at all has been settled in the twentieth verse where it is said that there is insentience relected from the Puruşa on the Pradhana Here the Praxtil (activity) 19 the Avyakta ·Karikas 57-58 155 1ssue IS (unmanifest) is only in the form of its diversification, through a disturbance in the equilibrium of the three constituents The subsequent functions are in the Pyakta (manifest) and not in the Avyakta This is also the case with the milk flowing What is meant in the context is the first flow of the milk; then it reaches the udder and enables the baby to drink it through many other functions in other factors Was there sentience reflected in the Pradhana (root cause) when it was absolutely in a state of equilibrium for the three constituents? There was not The reflection and the disturbance of the equilibrium are simultaneous, and they form a single action But this is not the point at issue The reference may be to the milk in a cow flowing for the growth of the calf In this context, Sankara refers to the change of grass into milk I have put the point in a general way, without restricting the milk to what flows from a cow The real question is whether the point at what is meant by the word Varsaviveddhinim tram or whether it is what is meant by the word Ajñasya I prefer the former, The latter has no relevancy to the context The subsequent illustrations relate to the work for another and bagno relation to function in what has no sentience. 58 autsuk; a-niviti-artham yatha kriyasu pravartate lokah! puruşasya vimokşa-'ntham pravartafe tadiad avyakran 11 Just as people engage themselves in activity in order to be relieved from some eagerness, similarly, the non manifest functions for the purpose of the fioal release of the Self (58) It has been said in the fifty sixth verse that something has been started for the sake of subserving another's purpose, though it may appear to be only for the sake of subserving some purpose of its own For this also, some example is given here from actual experience The eager desire is in the form "I wish I could do it " The desire is only to do it and not at all to serve any other purpose like some gain for ·156 The Sankhya Karika an But when oneself There are people who engage themselves in activity simply for the purpose of doing it, and when that is done, there is the cessation of that desire They want nothing more The purpose served may be of another they carry out the activity, they do it with such an enthusiasm that others would think that they are doing it with some personal end in view The activity of the root cause is just like this The only purpose that of securing the final release of the Purusa The root cause has no end to gain 59 rangasya darśayitva nivartate nartakı yatha nrtyati puruşasya tatha 'tmānam prakasja vinivartate prakſtih || Just as a lady dancer retires from her dance after her exhibition to the audience, in the same way the root cause retires after exhibiting itself to the Self (59) The final goal is what has been stated in the second verse ie discriminative knowledge of the three factors knowledge is possible only in the case of sentience, and it is the Puruşa, among the three, that is sentience in the twentieth verse, there has been a confusion through a mutual transfer, between the root cause and the Purusa What is not sentient becomes apparently sentient and what is inactive apparently becomes active When the Puruşa 15 able to ave a view of the root cause as the abode of activity, then the Puruşa knows that there is no activity in lumself He also sees the root cause as not having any senlience Thus, the goal kept in viety by the root cause is to exhibit itself to the Purusa This is compared to a lady dancing on When her purpose of exhibiting herself is served, she retires and she has nothing more to do with the audicncc А As stated the stage 60 nanu-vidhalr upay air uralarini anusalaninah punsah ! gundial) agungsja saias tas; a 'rrham aparthakan caratl 11 ·Karkas 60-61 157 She (root cause) carries out the purpose of the Self without keeping any purpose in view for herself, by resorting to the means of various kinds, she being helpful while he tenders no help, she being endowed with constituents (Guna or good qualities) while he IS without constituents (Aguna or without good qualties) (60) Here also there is an example by implication, taken from our common experience The question arises how the root cius can be assumed to be functioning simply for subserving the purpose of another, the Purusa, without any purpose for itself Here the example is taken of a woman work ing in a house, engaged by the master of the home She takes up the various means for serving the purpose of the master at home She helps the master while she receives no help at all from the master of the house She handles the various means while he does nothing of the sort. In this case, there is a double meaning for the terms "endowed with constituents** and "without constituents The word used is Guna for constatu. ents Guna also means a good quality There are cases of faithful servants working in the housshold while the master may not have any such good qualities of being grateful for the good work Absolutely unselfish work, cven under hard conditions, is seen in our experience The function of the root cause is just like that 61 prakşteh sukumarataram na krñced ask 'il me malir bharalı 1 ya dışta 'si '11 punar na darsanant u part puruşusya ( There is nothing else which is more tender than the root cause--such is my view She, when she has been once seen by the Sell, does not appear within the view of the Self again (61) There have been various imagetics introduced to describe the function of the root cause in relation to the Purusa The milk flowing from the mother's brcast, selfless work for simply the satisfaction that one has been able to do the work, ·of 158 The Sankhya Karika and the lady dancing on the stage were first introduced Then came the dutiful woman who works in a household in a faithful way under hard conditions Now there is introduced the picture of a lady born of a noble family, to illustrate the role of the root cause The word Prakrt! meaning the root cause is feminine and hence in many cases the comparison is with a lady The comparison here is only by implication Now there is the fear that when the root cause makes its appearance to the Purusa and thus serves the purpose the Purusa, there is the possibility of the root cause making its appearance again in another way and binding the Purusa again, as it had once done In that case, what is called a release is not final and hence it is no release at all To allay this fear, the verse says that the root cause is like a lady born of a very noble family, who is very tender in heart and as such is full of modesty and is also very bashful, she makes her appearance only for serving the purposa of the lord of the home and never makes her appearance in public at all moments and creates incovenience to the master of the house She is not at all like a forward and aggressive lady who is always present in the places where others too come in the house In the twenty first verse the union of the root cause and the Purusa was compared to the union of a blind man and a lame man each co operating with the other and each serving the purpose of the other In the illustratiors given in these five verses beginning with the fifty seventh, there is not even an indication that the root cause is Purusa In the case of the dutiful woman working faith fully in a home there is even a touch of superiority in the Prakrti in relation to the Puruşa, the latter being stated to be Agung devoid of good qualities by implication while the Prakrti is Gunavati, full of good qualities tasman na badhyale 'ddha na mucjate na 'pl sanisarati kaśct 1 samsarari badhyate niucy ale ca nana 'íraja praktih 11 an enemy of the 62 ·Karika 6 159 Therefore, there is no one, verity, who is bound, no one who is released and even no one who transmigrates The root cause, being the abode of manifoldness, transmigrales, xs bound and is released (62) There are many places where it is said that the function of the root cause is to subserve the purpose of the Purusa Now the author takes stock of the whole situation and says that for the reasons stated above in the whole work, there is certainly no bondage or release or suffering for the Purusa Suffering has been stated to arise out of old age and death, in the fifty fifth verse That indicates transmigration Sub serving the purpose of the Purusa can mean only subserving the purpose of the reflection of the sentience on the Puruşa on the root cause It is on account of this reflection that there has arisen the manifoldness in what was in a state of uniformity and equilibrium , this manifolding resulted in the formation of many combinations of the evolutes of the root cause and such combinations are called the subtle bodies Such subtle bodies gather organic bodies of a gross nature around them There is the reflection of the sentience from the Puruşa and that is how the organs work, in the subtle bodies On account of the reflected sentience of the Purusa on the subtle body, the subtle body experiences itself as active and as the enjoyer of the fruits of the activities There are thus limitations in the possibilities of the activity and in the fruits of such activities There is also the phenomenon of the gross body gathered round the subtle body, fallıng off and a new gross body gathering round it It is this that is called bondage and transmigration The release is for the subtle body, since the bondage and the transmi gration are in the subtle body The author emphasises this point of the absolute freedom from suffering for the Puruşa by the term Addha, verily The root cause itself can have no suffering , suffering is an experience and for experience there must be sentience The root cause has no sentience The Puruşa is pure sentience and cannot have any activities, and as such, there can be do ·160 The Sankhya karika suffering Really there is no suffering, no bondage for anything in the universe Then there is no question of a release also That means that this system of philosopical thought too has no scope It is this point that is explained in the verse There is no real suffering no bondage, either for the root cause or for the Purusa and as such there is no need for any release for either of them, and they exhaust the whole of the universe Yet there is a bondage and a suffering experienced as real on account of the particular combination of the two basic facts of the universe The sentience in the Puruşa is reflected on the root cause and then through this reflection there is a reflected sentience in the root cause This enables the root cause to experience What experiences in this way is neither the pure root cause nor the pure Puruşa but the reflection of the Purusa on the root cause So, the suffering and the bondage and the release are in the root cause and for the root cause, in a state of a particular kind of association with the Puruşa It is only on account of this particular kind of association that there is produced the variety in what was uniform If there is no such manifoldness there bondage and no suffering, and hence no scope for a release and for a philosophy showing the path to that release 63 rapaih saptabhir eva tu badhnaty armanam armana praktıh 1 sal 'va ca purusa 'rtham prati vmocaj aty ekarapena ! But the root cause simply binds itself, by itself through the seven forms And she herself effects her release through the one form, in order to subserve the purpose of the Self (63) It has always been said that the function of the root cause is for the sake of the Puruşa But it is not really so It is to show this that the word Tu is used in the text, which I translate as "now In the twenty third verse lour forms of thc Satirika type and four forms of the Tamasic type for the Buddht, intellect, here gisen They are IS NO ·161 Kartha 63 Sattviha-Dharma, Jñana, Viraga and Aišvarja Tanasic-Adharma, Ajiana, Raga and Anarfsarja or Asakti In the forty-fourth and forty fifth verses these eight were taken up and it was said that they lead to their respective goals After elaborating on them, in the fifty-first verse it was said that there are three that are like curbs on man and that it is only one, the Inst, namely, Siddhi, attainment, that is to be taken up The four were given in the forty-sixth verse as wrong knowledge, incapacity, contentment and attainment, These four are only other forms of the same as were given in the two verses previous to it In this verse it is now stated that the whole course of the world of experience consists of three or the first four with their opposites and the opposite of Jñana, which is the one remaining in the first group Thus the world and the life in the world consist of Dharma and Adharma, Viraga and Raga Aisvarya and Asaktı and Ajina The release is through the eighth, Jñana All these seven factors are within the manifolded World of experience The eighth tahes the individual out of it That is what is called subserving the purpose of the Puruşa, but this is only in the secondary sense This verse must be compared with the forty fourth and the forty fifth verses There it was said that through Jñana there is Apavarga or complete sepiration, which is complete separation of the Puruşa from the Prakrti Here also it is said that there is the release through Jñana This is in agreement with what was said in tne previous context But in that context it was said that through Vairagya, there is the dissolution of the Pralrı, and this dissolution can be nothing other than the Apavarga or complete separation mentioned about Jñana But here that is included among what brings in bondage to the Puruşa, and only Jñana among the eight mentioned in the previous context, is here considered as what brings in release for the Purusa from the bondage There appears to be a slight inconsistency I have already added a note on this point in the previous contert under the forty fifth verse ·162 The 'sankhya Karika 64. evani tattva-'bliyasan. na 'smi na me na 'han ity aparlseșam avi paryayad visuddham keralam ut padyate jñananı 1? In this way, through the repeated practice of the truth there arises the knowledge in the form "I am not, it is not mine, I am not that" without any residue resulting thereby, pure on account of the absence of an opposite, absolute. (64) One has to reason, one 'has to study, receive instructions from others and discuss matters with others, as stated in the fifty-first verse. One has also to give instructions, as slated there according to a possible interpretation, Then one has to contemplate repeatedly on the truth arrived at through soch processes. This implies the eight-fold process of the Yoga system. It is not a mere intellectual equipment; it is a realisation. It must become an inner experience of a direct nature. The experiences like "I am, this is mine, and this is myself" are all modifications within the root cause and not the pure koowing in the Purusa. It is the subtle body with the gross body gathered round it that has the above experience. All such modifications leave a residue and such a residue, in itself the effect of some antecedent, becomes the cause for a subsequent effect. But the knowledge arising out of the repeated contemplation of the truth leaves no such residue. But the new knowledge has no such opposite and so it is pure knowledge. But this knowledge is isolated, absolute, Kevala. "The seven factors do not lead to such a knowledge; it is the eighth factor, knowledge, that can lead to this final, absolute experience. The seven factors keep man tied up to the world. It is this eighth factor that shows him the way out of the world. In the verse the knowledge is given in the form of three negative sentences; (1) Na (101) Asmi (am); (2) Na (not) Me (my); (3) Na (not) Aham (1). I see little difference between the first and the last, Vācaspati Mišra ·163 : Karikas 64-65 says that in the first there is the denial of activity in the Self and in the third there is the denial of the Sell as the agent. Gjudapâda says, "I myself do not exist, I am not my body.; the third denies the egoism." The three forms may be "my existence","my possession" and "my identity with other things". Sankara in his Brah-' mashtrabhasya gives as example of Adhyasa (superimposition), the two forms "I am this" and "this is mine". (The opening section). The first may refer to "my very existence". That is how I understand the three forms, 65. tena nivstia-prasavām artha-vasat sapla-rupa-rini yrttami. prakſtim paśyatl puruşaḥ prekşakavad avasthitaḥ svacchaḥ Thereby the Seif views the root cause, standing by like an onlooker, when that has withdrawn from the production (of the chain of cause and effect), has withdrawn from the seven-fold form, in so far as it has served the purpose. (65) When there was the first reflection of the sentience from the Puruşa on the root cause and when there was the evolution, mainly in the form of the dispositions that are eight in number, of which seven continue duriog the evolution, and of which the eighth contributes to the production of the release, the purpose was that the Puruşa should be released through right knowledge. When the right knowledge of the nature described before arises, there is no longer any scope for any evolution, production of the series of causc and effect and the working of the dispositions. At this stage of . the sight knowledge, the Puruşa has a view of the root cause, remaining just like an oplooker, Till the right knowledge arose, there was the confusion between the real nature of the basic fundamental and of the Puruşa, as stated in the twentieth verse. Now that confusion ceases and the Puruşa becomes an onlooker as described in the nineteenth verse, he becomes pure, clean from the confusion, Svaçcha, ·164 The Sankhya Karika Vacaspatı Mısra interprets the word Artha vasat to mean "on account of the Artha or right knowledge" But Gauda pada interprets it to mean "having accomplished the purpose of the Purusa' Is it the pure Purusa, the sentience, or is it also the subject of the phenomenal world ? In the eleventh verse, the root cause and the manifest world are both spoken of as the object' In the nineteenth verse, the Puruşa is spoken of as a Saksin, a witness and as one who sees Draşlar So the position may be that the Puruşa has resumed its real nature and the root cause too has reverted to its state of uniformity and equilibrium The pure Puruşa has a vision of the root cause in its real nature 66 drşta maye 'ty upekşaka eko drsta "ham lty uparamaty anja | sati samyoge 'pi tayoh prajojanant na 'sti sargasj a II “She has been seen by me"-in this way one becomes indifferent. "I have been seen". this way, the other cesses her activity Though the association continues between the two, there is no longer any purpose in an evolution (66) In the state of evolution and during the course of evolution, the Puruşa does not see the root cause in its rcal nature at all By the relection of the sentence from the Purusa on the root cause, the power of seeing is transferred to the root cause and the reflected senticncc assumes the role of activity which is really in the root cause In that state, the root causc in its evolved state scos tsell, it is not the Purusa that secs the root cause, The system docs not recognise a prior stage when there was no such association and mutual transfer of features The purpose and the goal of cvolution is to restore the root cause and the Purusa to their respective natures When once that nature is restored, there is no longer any possibility of a further evolution duc to the association of the so in 1 particular way, in which there is such a mutual transfer or features It is only when ·165 Karikas 66-67 there was a first beginning of the transfer of the features mutuilly between the fundamentals of the universe, the root cause and the Puruşa, that there is a possibility of a second beginning of the same transfer mutually through a similar association The doctrine of the system is that when there is the right knowledge about the true nature of the two fundamentals, a similar association will not start again 67 samyag-jñana-dhiganiad dharma-'dinam al arana-prāpiau ! isthati saniskara yaśaccakra bhramavad dhrta ſarırah !! When through the attainment of the right knowledge, the Dharma and other factors come to the state of being no cause, he remains with a body kept on account of the residues, like the whirling of the wheel (37) The Dharma and other factors, seven in number, excluding the Jñana which is the eighth, mentioned in the twenty third verse, become the cause for various activities and stages in the life of an individual, as mentioned in the forty fourth and forty fifth verses When the eighth factor namely, Jñana, arises, the others cease to be the cause for any such production of activities and stages The question arises whether at the time of real knowledge, the body immediately falls down The subtle body ceases to exist and as such the gross body too must drop down The reply is that the gross body and the life phenomenon of such an individual, who has attaind perfect knowledge or the truth, still continue till the close of the natural life This is what is called the stage of Jivanmukti, final and absolute release even during life Here an example is given from common experience When a potter monkes a pot, placing the clay on the wheel and giving it a turn, so that he could give the proper the pot the wheel whirls, the pot becomes ready and he removes from the wheel But the wheel continues to wbirl account of the when form to on ·166 The Sankhya Karika residue of the force applied to it when he was actually giving a shape to the pot, and even when that purpose is served, the wheel continues its movement through the previous impact. In the same way, the previous activities of the subtle body had given a movement to the gross body and on account of that impact, the gross body continues its function for some time more When that body drops down, at the time of the death of the individual who has attained the perfect knowledge, there is no subtle body functioning to gather another gross body around it That means that the transmigration comes to an end. That is the final release of the Purusa 68 präpte sarıra bhede carita -rthatvat pradhana vinivittau ! arkantrkam atyantikam ubhayam kaivalyam āpnot: 11 When the separation from the body has taken place and when there is the retirement of the root cause after accomplishing the purpose, he obtains isolation of both the kinds, what is invariable and what is absolute. (68) When the root cause has accomplished its purpose of securing the final release of the Puruşa, it retires, having no further function to perform and at that stage, the Purusa has been separated from the body This separation from the body and the consequent isolation 13 both invanable and absolute When there is the ultimate knowledge of the truth, there is no possibility of 1 failure on its part to bring about the isolatron It not like a medicine and other remcdies, mentioned in the first verse, which are not invariable in the production of their effects And when once there is that separation, there is no possibility of a recurrence of the same association of the Puruşa with the body, it is final and absolute It is not at all itke the effects of medicines and other remcdics mentioned in the first verse 15 When there is the dissolution of the root cause, there is no longer any possibility of a subtlc body remaining, and ·167 Karlka 68 is without such a subtie body, there will be no gross body gathering around it. That the final close up of tlie individual. The individual gets cxtinct In this sense, what is called Kaivalya is not a state of freedom from all limitations and bondages for the individual It is a termination of any further state The text started with the statement that ordinary remedies are neither invariable nor absolute and the text closes with the statement that the remedy provided by philosophy is both invariable and absolute. One has to apply seriously one's thoughts regarding the final stage to which philosophy brings an individual What was promised in the first two verses is that through philosophy there would be an invariable and an absolute cessation of suffering for the philosopher. Now at the close it is found that it is not the suffering that terminates, but the sufferer, the individual himself if this be the position, there are various inconvenient positions in which we find ourselves landing. What is promised in the beginning is a continuation without suffering and what is promised at the end is a final end, not to the suffering but to the individual himself There appears to be some inconsistency. The reply can be that what is promised is the termination of suffering for the purusa and that when there is a termination of the subtle body and a consequent dissolution of the root cause, there is the continuity of the Puruşa as a viewer of the true basic fundamental But nothing has really been accomplished for the Purusa, which was always pure and free from all sufferings What suffered was the subtle body which gathered a gross body around it and there is no continuity for this individual free from suffering Further, if there is such a cessation of the individual at the time of reaching the goal, there is none in the world who has reached the goal on reaching the goal, the individual ceases to exist Thus freedom for the individual an illusion, just an extinction for him ·168 The Sankhya Karika The commentators mentioned Kapıla, the founder of the system, as having been born with perfect knowledge If perfect knowledge brings about the cessation of the body, how can there be an individual with perfect knowledge in a body? Kapıla was born of his mother with a body and he give his instructions about this system of philosophy to his mother with a gross body like any other person it is :3 contradiction to say that when there is absolute knowledge, there will be no body and that there is a teacher who has absolute knowledge and who at the same time has a body with which he give instructions How can there be a subtle body for one with perfect knowledge and how can he remain individual at all? This is the case of a person born with perfect knowledge Birth is only when there is no perfect knowledge Then there are cases of those who have attained perfect knowledge at a later time Do they become exinct ? Take the case of Veda Vyāsa According to tradition, he is an eternal individual, a Cirañiven Then there are Brahma and his four sons mentioned by the commentators in the forty third verse The point also must be made clear whether the divine orders in creation, given in the fifty-third verse, have to drop off their bodies. Personally I feel that this is not the true doctrine of the Sankhya system I propose a different interpretation for the sixty seventh verse When there is the perfect knowledge (Samyag-jñana) and when Dharma and other factors cease to be links in a chain of cause and effect, still, the individual continues with a body, (tişthari dhrta sarı rah), just like a wheel which continues whırling on account of the momentum given to it previously (Sanıskāra-kasar) In that state the body need not drop off The individual can continue with a body The only difference is that there is nothing called Karma and its consequences, nothing called the cvolution, for the individual, he has reached the final stage in the evolution Till that stage, the experience was that there is a confusion between the Puruşa and the subtle body regarding secing and activity The individual at that stage discriminates betsscen the two separate loci of sceing and activity ·169 Karika 68 There is The organ for knowing is within the subtle body and the gross body ceases to be a limitation for this knowing by the individual, consisting of the subtle body and the gross body The Puruşa attached to thrt individual ceases to be a mere reflection of the basic fundamental The Puruşa becomes the true Draşta (one who sees) as stated in the nineteenth verse, and he is only a sakşın (witness). The activity is in the soot cause, in the individual consisting of the subtle body and the gross body. The Puruşa views such an activity as a witness (Sakşın) The Puruşa, the body with the gross body gathered round him and the basic root cause are known as distinct from one another, as stated in the second verse the expression Samskara vasar in the sixtyseventh verse The clasical commentators take it along with the expression Tişthati dhỉta saſirah That means that the individual continues occupying the body on account of the residue of his prior activities and experiences I have also translated it and interpreted the portion in the same way, following the classical commentators But I am not satisfied with the position so I take the expression Sanishāravasat along with Cakrabhramavat The meaning 15 "Just the wbeel of a potter when he was making the pot, even after the pot is made" The question arises how there can be a body when there is no purpose to be served The example of Kapıla and Sanaka and others is enough Here the answer is given in a more specific way Generally the body exists to subserve a purpose It is like the wheel of the potter which whirls for a purpose But the wheel can whirl even when the purpose it served, even When there is no purpose to serve Similarly, normally the body subserves a purpose , but in rare cases there can be the body even without that purpose That is the case of those who bave attained the release They are the Jivanmuktas, those who are finally released and who yet continue to live in a body. The bodies of Kapıla and of Sanaka and of Veda Vyāsa are like this. There is no purpose to serve They live in the state of perfert knowledge Perhaps that body can continue eternally or such individuals can assume a new as ·170 The Sankhya karka body at their wil! I do not know if at the time of the fall of their body, after reaching perfect knowledge, there is a termination of that individual also, since no new body is assumed One thing is certain and that is, that the goal is reached when there is the perfect knowledge in that body and there is no waiting till that body falls Here the real treatise on the subject is finished and the following verses conclude the text 69 puruşa-'rtha janam idam guhyam parama rşına samakh) atam I sthity utpattı pralayas cintyante yatra bhatanam ii 70 etat pavitram agryam munir asuraye nukampaya pradadau asurir apr Pancasıkhaya tena ca bahudha krtani tattiam it 71 $rsya paramparaya gatam iśvarakrşnena cai tad aryabhihi sankşıptam arya matına samyag vinaya siddhantam 11 72 saptatyan kila je rthas te rthah kotsnasya saştıtantrasya ! akhyayıka virahitah para vada vivargitas ca pz 1 This wisdom about the goal of the Self, very esoteric, has been taught by the greatest among the sages in this are considered the sustenance, the origination and the dissolution of the beings (69) This, the foremost holy wisdom, the Sage gave to Asuri through compassion Asuri gave it to Pancasikha and by him the truth was made very elaborate in many ways (70) And this which came down through a succession of teachers and disciples has been condensed by Isvarakſsna, endowed with a noble heart, in the form of Arya verses, after having understood the doctrines completely (71) - ·Karikas 69 72 171 Whatever mcanings there are in the entire şaşfitantra, they are verily what is contained in these seventy Verses, excluding the anecdotes and also free from the discussions about the doctrines of the opponents Here the authentic succession of the author starting from the original teacher is given The system was first propounded by the great Sige Kapili and he taught it to Asuri and Asuri taught it to Pañcaśikha Pancasikha has expounded the system in a very elaborate way The system came down through a line of teachers and disciples and Isvarakrsna belongs to the direct line of this succession He has understood the entire doctrine and he has given the doctrines in a very condensed way in the form of seventy verses in the Arya metre The nobility of his heart is due to the proper training he had in the system and also to the unbroken succession from the original founder Prior to Isvarakrsna there was elaborate work called the Sastatantra or the Sixty treatise It must have contained sixty topics That may be the reason why it is called by that name Such a work has been known to later commentaries We do not know what the sixty topics are Vacaspatı Miśra mentions them We are sure that he bad not actually seen the work , he mentions them from wbat he had known through another work, the Rajavartika There must have been many anecdotes in it to illustrate and to explain the various points Perlaps the illustration of the Union of a lame man and a blind man contained in the twentyfirst verse may be semnant of such anecdotes The references to the faithful servant working under hard conditions and to the actress may also have some such basis There must also have been decatled discussions of the various viers of other systems of thought, to refute them and to substantiate the doctrine of the system The Brahmashtrabhaşya of Sankara presupposes such a work, he could not have been thinking of the work of fSvarakrsna an ·direct perception Karikas 1-2 Page 43 Dșsta means what is seen It denotes all such facts and events in the world that come within the normal process of knowing, namely, direct perception, inferences coming naturally from it and the statement of persons who had a This constitutes what the Carvākas accept as the world Page 47 : I have translated the word Satı in the Eight fold Path as learning taking the Sanskrit word Śruti as its equivalent and not the Sanskrit word Smrti The passage in Vāca spati Misra is cited below, on account of its great significance एव हि शास्त्रविपयो न जिज्ञास्येत यदि दुस नाम जगति न स्यात् सदा ग जिहासित जिहासितं या अशक्य समुच्छेदम् । अशक्यसमुच्छेदुता च द्विधा दु सस्य नित्यत्वात् तदुच्छेदोपायापरिज्ञानाद्वा । शक्यसमुच्छेदत्वेऽपि च शास्त्रविषयस्य ज्ञानस्यानुपायभूत वाद्वा सुकरस्योपायान्तस्य उद्भवावादा । Karika 3 Page 48 : Prakrti is the material cause and Vikrti is its modifi- Mala-prakril is the root material cause, it is also called merely the Prakſti and also Pradhana or the chief or cation the first Page 50 The Sankhya deals with only the basic situation out of which the world of experience and Man's experience started That is why all the Five Elements are taken collectively, it is true that within the evolved world, there are aspects of the Five Elements that are both the Prakſti or the material cause and also Vikrti or its modification But no new category arises out of the Five Elements It is in this sense that they are only the Vikytis and that they are never the Prakriis ·176 The Sankhya Karlha A thing is real only as it is an object of knowing If Puruşa or the Self is itself a Vlhril, there is no possibility of a knowledge of the cause of which it is a modification And to that extent, its cause is not a reality. If the Puruşa can modify itself into some Vikrli, that modification cannot come within the sphere of knowledge; if it is sentience still, then It is not a modification of the Puruşa ; it is Puruşa itself if there is no sentience in that modification of Puruşa, it is only Prakſıl and not anything else Thus, the very nature of the Puruşa as sentience proves it as neither a Prakyti for another category nor as a Viksıl in the form of a new category. Karikas 4-5 Page 51 : In these Karikas, the word Drşta means the specific mode of knowing called perception Page 53: The passage in Sabarasvamin's Mimamisa Bhasja is अनुमान ज्ञातसंबन्धस्यैकदेशदर्शनादेकदेशान्तरेऽसन्निकृष्टेऽर्थे बुद्धिः (I. 1 s) Abhava is not recognised as a reality in the Prabhakara School of the Mimāmsā To that School, the world is a complete positive reality. So a mode of knowing called Abhava is also not recognised in that school Page 54 What the Carvākas deny is a reality that can be known only through inference or through the authority of a reliable person As a mode of Man's normal recognition, they too accept inference and the authority af a reliable person. Fot the prescription 97.ga there is only the authority of a reliable person, it is not dete-mined either by perception or by inference The passage from Vac spatı Misra about the statement of a reliable person is very significant and is cited below नानुमान प्रमाणमिति वदता लोकायतिकेनाप्रतिपन्न. सन्दिग्धो विपर्यस्तो कथ प्रतिपद्येत । न च पुरुषान्तरगता अज्ञानसन्देहविपर्यया शक्या श्रवाशा प्रत्यक्षेण प्रतिपत्तुम् । नापि प्रमाणान्तरेण अनभ्युनगमात् वा पुरुष ·Notes: Karikas 5-6 177 अनवधृताशानसंशयविपर्ययस्तु य कंचन पुरुष प्रति वर्तमानोऽनवधेयवचन तया प्रेक्षावद्भिन्मत्तवदुपेदयेत । The division of the modes of knowing recognised in the Sānkhya system is based on the distinction between science, philosophy and religion Science recognises only such facts as can come within the normal modes of knowing Philosophy recognises facts that can be known only through inference also. Religion recognises even facts that can be known only through the authority of a reliable person, facts that can neither be known through the normal modes or through inference The division is not exhaustive and there are no sub-divisions introduced as in the case of the Nyāya and the Mimāmsā But all such divisions and sub-divisions are included within the Sankhya scheme also Karika 6 Page 60 The word prarth should be carried backwards to the first Pada also as Saman, atas tu pratılır dsstat atındrlianam pratitir anumanat, Page 62 Kumarıla Bhatta say, that details about the nature of the Self must be known from the Vedanta. इत्याह नास्तिक्यनिराकारिष्णु- रात्मास्तिता भाष्यकृदन युक्त्या । दृढत्वमेतद्विषयावबोध. प्रयाति वेदान्त निपेरणेन ।। (I i 5-148) This closes the fifth Satra in his commentary on the Śabara Bhāşya on the Mimansa Satras called the Slokavāritika Page 63 : The Chandogj opanısad says that the world secured through Karma is what will decay. VIII-v1-1, Page : 65 Karika 68 says that the release is final and without a failure ·178 The Sankhya Karika or IS said Karikas 7-8 Page 67 It is not impossible to connect the two Kārıkās in a single sentence I he position then will be, 'Just as there is the Anupalabdha through these reasons in ordinary experience, there is Anupalabdhi of the Mala prakſti through its own Saukṣmya” We have to add the words-yatha etair hetub hir loke anupalabdhis tatha Page 68 The Sauksmya in normal experience is different from the Sauksmj a in the Mala prekrtz In the Mala-prakrti, there is Sauksmya because there is the absence of differentiation and differentiation is necessary for any cognition We cognise a thing as like this as 'unlike this.” Sadharmya and Valdharmya are necessary to know a thing in its true nature, and that IS why in the Vaiseșika Surrait 47977 gaizai ATSA177 (I 1 3) Sadharmya and Vardharma presuppose differentiation Therefore in case of the Mala pra kril by its very nature, there can be no cognition Just as in normal experience, things not directly perceived through such causes are known through the authority of a reliable person, things that are by nature outside the sphere of per ception are known by inference This 19 faslure of cognition in our normal experience on account of such causes, similarly in philosophy also, there is such a failure of cognition through a special kind of Sauksmya Although it is not impossible to connect the two Karikas into a single sentence, I prefer to connect Karika 7 with Karika 6 It docs not mean that according to the system, what is to be known through authority are wbat arc unknown through such causes Here also the passage has to bc intepreted as, "Just as certain things are not known by perception and by inference through such causes, there are other things that are also unknown through perception and inference, and for their knowledge, one must have recourse to authority" ·179 Notes: Karikas 78 Karika 7 is incomplete and some words must be added to make the sense complete The reality of the Mnla-praksi is not in the context Kariha 8 follows from the second Pada of the Karika 6 The question whether there is such a Prakrti has not been raised Page 69 The Cārvākas also might have doubted the inviolable law of cause and effect From the fact that there is now found some regularity between cause and effect, can we say that this regularity will continue at all times and that it existed at all times before ? Causal relation is regular within our experience and there is no method of inferring some law outside of this field of experience Page 70 The Mimamsa theory is that a mode of knowing is a valid mode only if through that we know what candot be known otherwise and had not known otherwise Ajñatatattvarthajña paka is what is called a Pramana or mode of knowing manner About the Cācvaka theory of life, we do not know what it could have been We know the theory only as contained in the records of the opponents of the Carvāka system, and such presentations are always of the nature of a caricature and not a true, presentation of the theory in the objective They might have accepted the "Life" as a funda mental, what they did not accept is only the enduring nature of the "Life" so that it can go to heaven after death, as a result of the performance of the rituals prescribed in the Thus. Life is something more than the fermentation The beief in the happiness in life in this world is not against the Sankhya and the Vedic theories If heaven is an extension, perbaps the Cārvakas could not bave opposed it, what they opposed was only the migration from life to heaven Page 71 There are different theories about this infinite Absolute as the fundamental In the Nyaya, the Absolute is the aggregate of the parts that constitute the diflerent phenomenal texts of sugar ·180 The Sankhya Karika facts of the world In the Advaita Vedanta, there can be no relation between the Absolute which is infinite, and the phenomenal which is finite There is only the infinite Life (Parabrahman) knowing itself as the truth The finite individuals knowing the finite object are really each the infinite knowing the infinite Its appearance as the know ledge of the infinite by the finite individual is Mithya, what is neither true nor false In the Viśıştadvaita, the finite in dividuals know the finite objects and each finite has a beyond and this beyond is the infinite, which is a common beyond for all finites, the knowing individual and the known object Karika 10 Page 75 It may also be that the difference between Asraja and Paratantrja lies in dependence on another (Asraya) for its mere existence and dependence on another (Paratantrya) for its cognition Karika 11 Page 79 It is true In point (3), matter is the object of knowing only for the conditioned Puruşa The question arises whether what is conditioned can come within the cognition of the Absolute Puruşa that Puruşa is mentioned as Dista (A arlha 19) and it is said that at a later stage, the Puruşa sees the Prahrt (karlka 65) Here hat the Puruşa sees is the Prakrsi in its absolute nature and not in its phenomenal nature In Aarika 66 also it is this absolute Prahri and not the phenomenal Prakļli that is seen by the Purusa Thus in the larika under consideration the absolute Prakril 18 the Visaya of the absolute Puruşa and the phenomenal Prakrii is the 1/sa) a for the conditioned Puruşa as defined in Aartha 20 In po nt (5) there is the same praksi which is the common Hişaja for the many Purusas Page 81 in Aanika 17, I will be found that the purusa is un ferred on the ground crits d fference from Pralſ both in its abso lutc and its phenomenal aspects (Triegunya risarja; as) ·181 Karikas 12-17 Partiai similarity between Prakrit in its absolute nature and phenomenal n ture and their differences are given in Karika 10 (Vipantam avj aktam) and in Karika 14 (Karanagunalmakatar Karika) It was also stated in Karika & (Prahſil sarnpam pirupañ ca). The point of a similarity between Purusa and Prahrtı (absolute and phenomenal) has no relevancy in the context) Karihas 12-13 Page 83 : It is Rajas that produces the movement when there is Sativa, this movement has an upward tendency and when there is the Tamas, it becomes downwards Upwards and downwards are not spatial directions, they represent only evolution and retardation, being only figurative Karikas 15-16 Page 85 In point (1), Parinama has both movement and change, that is change in position. In an absolute thing without any differentiation, there can be no Parinama If Praksit had been absolute at any time how could a Parinama start in it? Thus, this Parināma is without a beginning. Karika 17 Page 88 Point (1) If the world is a "full" without a vacuum, and is also still, without any motion within it, then the movement cannot be from within Some special force is wanted But if movement is an integral feature in the world then such an external force is not needed There is no "first movement" Even if the movement started from within, that movement from within must be referred to what amounts to a "Life Along with this movement effected from within, there is also the healing from within, natural selection, determination of the direction and the pace of the movement and various other factors What is 'Life" distinct from this? This integral power may be the absolute, and the life functions ·182 The Sankhya Karikā of a later stage may be its manifestation just as the pheno menal matter is the manifestation of the uniform, absolute matter There is a very weak point in modern Materialistic Dialecticism which denies in an uncompromising manner the integral and original nature of 'Life" in matter As a matter of fact there is no matter, there is nothing in the universe that is not propelled by the "Life Fundamental' The distinction between organic and inorganic matter is only relative and not absolute I have made the point clear in the Fundamental Problems of Indian Philosophy, chapter bearing the title 'I Know" (Ch 16) The two grounds (1) and (3): A first movement can not arise from what is "Dead Matter" (Jada), it can come only from "Life" (Jiya) Point (4) The Bhoktựbhava is only in the conditioned Puruşa as defined in Karika 20 There cannot be a Bhokta who is absolutely distinct from the Bhoga and the Bhogya (enjoyment and the object of enjoyment) Page 91 Point (5) The whole system will fall down, if this ground is removed It must be taken note of that even in modern science, there is a final terminus for this world That may not bc techni ally Mokşa In essence there is no diffe rence between the final terminus of the world as accepted in modern science and Moksa accepted in this system It is a reversion to the pre cvolution stage, in both Molşa is only modern science in a religious garb If there was the world always and if it will ever be there, the modern theory of cvolution also crumbles down I do not ignore the theory of concurrent creations, instead of a single point creation of the world But all schools of thought in modern science accept a pre life and a post life stage for the world That laival, a is the main ground for the recognition of a Purusa is given in Udayına's Ausumayjall, which can be talen as a mode for ancient Indian thought of the medical stage Jodl buddhl niipi, aui mok saprasangah (If Buddhi of satellect is cternal, there would occasion the impossibility of ·183 Notes Aarikas 18-20 final release) So there must be a Puruşa distinct from Buddhi to explain Moksa This is given in discussing the Sankhya theory in the first Stabaka (Translation in the Adyar Library Series, Section 128, P 37.) The Yoga Sntra is Yogas cittaistrinirodhah (1 1) Karika 18 Page 93 In the Nyāya and the Dyaita Vedānta, there is a duality, rather a plurality, which is fundamental There is difference from the Mimamsă position to the extent that the creation (the movement of what was still) was due to a God God is the Supreme and at the same time, unlike in the other Vedantas, distinct from the world and from the souls Kariha 19 Page 94 A witness (Saksin) cannot have any purpose to be served in the context This shows that the Saksin Purusa and the Purusa with a purpose to be served (Purusas; a artha) are not the same in this seeing Page 95 Point 4 This Darsana (seeing) is distinct from the ordinary seeing by the people There is no Vrti (function) The Prakti is still in its absolute nature, with the changes in it But such changes are not a limitation for the Purusa to see the entire Prahrt with the changes in it In the ordinary Darsana (sceing), the seeing itself is limited For the Vi pary asa (contrast) see Karikas 17 and 18, and also Karika 11 Karika 20 Page 90 To the extent that the life function started after bis combination the theory corresponds to the modern science that "Life" is a later phenomenon in the world, long after the matter with its initial stages of evolution, but this initial stage is not accepted in the Sankhya Even in such an initial stage, there was the Life Fundamental as the reflection of sentience from Puruşa on Prakti Thus there is no "pre ·cause for the 184 The Sankhya karika life" stage in the Sankhya, though there is a "pre-lifefunction" stage There is the subtle indication, though not meant that the Purusa is the culprit in forming the sufferings in the world, this combination is the sufferer I think that this Karika should follow the Karlka now marked as 21. After describing the two constituents of the world, namely, Prakrti and Puruşa, we expect a mention of their combination, and then from "that combination" there is the admixture This wilt better explain the term Tasmat (from that) The difficulty of explaining the term, on p 97, would also disappear then I here is a similarity between this Karika and the statement of Sankara, satyarte mishunikrtya ma aham Idam mamedam if naisargiko 'yam lokavyavaharah, in the beginning of his Brahmasatrabhasya Karikā 21 Page $8 ff The simile should not be stretched too far, if it is stretched to the pre-combination period, then all sorts of questions would arise which would be difficult to answer they were apart at any prior stage as they would be at a later stage (Karika 66), why did they come together to produce this confusion between the two and if from their pure (Revala) stage, they can get mutually involved, the stage mentioned in Karika 66 is also capable of producing the same combination and confusion at a later stage Definitely, this Kanka should come before the Karika numbered as 20 They came together and then there was a confusion of their nature But they proceed towards the goal of isolation and though both remain together in the universe, there is no production of the world of change Page 1C1 : It is shown that there was the guidance in the progress sion and that the course to be followed by matter and spirit must also be the same. It is not that the Prahti took possession of the Puruşa and that the Puruşa works for being If ·185 Notes Karikas 21-26 extricated It is a mutual combination The meaning will be पुरुषस्य सयोगो दर्शनार्थम् । तथा प्रधानस्य सयोग कैवल्यार्थम् । (एव) उभयोरपि (प्रकृतिपुरुपयो. परस्पर) सयोग पट्व-धात् (पड्यन्धयो परस्पर सयोग इव) भवति । The three points, namely, the contribution of the Puruşa as Darsana (seeing), the contribution of the Prakrti as Salialja (isolation) by way of receding (Uparatl) and their association, are mentioned later in harika 66, with the diference that in that stage, there is no creation (Sarga) This Aanha must be read along with that later one Kariha 22 Pages 103 fr There is no interval between the various stages in this evolution of the wenty three categories from the Pakrtı through the presence of the Purușa It is a single modification and the stages are only in our intellectual abstraction The world is a projection of the Ahankara, this projected Ahankara requires an external reality So far as the physical world is concerned, what is called the Tanmatra is external and at the same time it may be only what can be termed a But when the physical world is formed, the waves become material particles Thus the world is "Idea', 'Wave" and "Matter” at the same time It is not any one of them alone, it is all the three We cannot say that there is only in "Idea" and that the external world has no reality The same position holds good for the other theories also The difference is only aspectual and not real It is subjective and not objective Kariha 26 Page 109 I have presented the Karmendnya as generic and not Specific for the reason that there are certain voluntary activities which cannot be referred to any Karmendrije unless their nature is made more generic If I kick 1 ball with my foot, does it come under "Gamana' or walking or when I hift up a thing with my foot does it come under the function of Pada (walking)? If I clap my hands and produce a sound, which I can do instead of calling a man, does it come under 'Vak" ? wave ·186 The Sankhya Karika But all such activities should be brought under the function of a Karmerdriya. Karika 28 Page 114 : Viharana means 'to wander about” and is equivalent to "walking", which is the function of the legs (pada) When Yajñavalkya settled everything and wanted to go away the word used is Vijahara (wandered about) This is in the Brhadaranyakopanışad, IV v-15 In Dhammapada, section XV is devoted to happiness (Sukha) and this word appears as Vtharama (let us live freely in happiness, without any cares) in the first 3 verses (196, 197, 198) Karika 29 Page 115 : Prana is only the "Life" force The Präna functions are involuntary. The Karmendnya functions are voluntary The internal organs associated themselves, as a unity, with the one or the other of the Karmendriya and that is what 15 called a voluntary activity. But when they function as a common factor, enabling the Karmendrija to function, there Is the Prana The darmendriyas function on account of the Antahkarana and the Antahkarana functions on account of the Pranas. Karika 30 Page 116 Drsta mcans perception and Adrsfa is what is other than perception, re, inference and authorny. That the inference has the prior selation between the Linga and the locus of the Linga was given in Aanika 5 Kariha 31 Page 121 : Atheist becomes Antitheism only if God is introduced on the authority of reason But if God is realised through any superrational faculty the Sinkhya has no objection This is what is meant in the Aarika 6 and this is what is explained in the Introduction on Page 13. There are thr c currents of thought on this paint, 1. Nyaya, represenled by the Njoj okusumonjall of Udayana. God is not strictly within the sphere of rational ·187 Notes Karthas 31-34 proof But as a preliminary stage to put the mind towards God realisation through contemplation, rationalism ss a factor in Theism 2 Sankhya God cannot be brought into any relation with rationalism 3 Mimāmsā If rationalism is introduced, then we arrive at a denial of God This is the subject matter of the Mimamsa Satras, Cb IX, Pada ), Adhikarana 4 (Sniras 6 10) Thus, neither Atheism nor Antitheism is antı Vedic and Theism is not the only Vedic current Kariha 33 Pages 123, 124 Time (Kala) and Space (Dik) are not external realities In the diversified world, the diversified objects are apprehended as related to one another, there cannot be a plurality with out a mutual relation also The relation is apprehended either as in time or as in space Sankhya does not accept either of them as external realities and they find no place in the scheme of categories in the Sankhya Nyāya and Mimamsā accept them There is time and there is space because there are diversi- Thus, instead of the diversified objects existing in time and in space, time and space exist in the diversified Time and space are not different from the objects apprehended as existing in the time and space They are only aspects of the objects Just as the acceptance of time lands us in infinite regression or in the acceptance of other categories, acceptance of space also lands us in the same difficulties Prakſti can be related to the diversified world as prior and also as a beyond in space in relation to the diversified But there is no such beyond, either in time or in space for the Prakrii Within the Prakrti too there is no diversification and as such no scope for the time and space Karika 34 Page 124 In this Karika, Vak means the articulate sound language sound in general can be produced otherwise too as in the case of clapping the hands to express an idea fied objects objects world Or ·This is in the 186 The Sankhya Karika But all such activities should be brought under the function of a Karmerdriya Karika 28 Page 114 Viharana means to wander about” and is equivalent to "walking", which is the function of the legs (Pada) When Yajñavalkya settled everything and wanted to go away the word used is Vijahāra (wandered about) Brhadaranyakopanışad, IV-v-15 In Dhammapada, section XV is devoted to happiness (Sukha) and this word appears as Viharama (let us live freely in happiness, without any cares) in the first 3 verses (196, 197, 198) Karika 29 Page 115 Prana is only the “Life' force The Präna functions are involuntary The Karmendriya functions are voluntary The internal organs associated themselves, as a unity with the one or the other of the Karmendriya and that is what is called a voluntary activity But when they function as a common factor, enabling the Karmendriya to function, there is the Prana The Karmendriyas function on account of the Antahkarana and the Antahkarana functions on account of the Pranas Karika 30 Page 116 Drsia means perception and Adrşia is what is other than perception, ie, inference and authority. That the inference has the prior relation between the Linga and the locus of the Linga was given in Karika 5 Karika 31 Page 121 Atheism becomes Antitheism only of God is introduced on the authority of reason But if God is realised through any superrational faculty the Sankhya has no objection This is what is meant in the Karika 6 and this is what is explained in the Introduction on Page 13 There are thr e currents of thought on this point Nyaya, represented by the Njayakusumañjall of Udayana God is not strictly witbia the sphere of rational 1 ·187 Notes: Karikas 31-34 proof. But as a preliminary stage to put the mind towards God realisation through contemplation, rationalism is a factor in Theism 2 Sanhhya . God cannot be brought into any relation with rationalism 3 Mimāmsā. If rationalism is introduced, then we arrive at a denial of God This is the subject matter of the Mimamsa Sacras, Ch IX, pada 1, Adhikarana 4 (Solras 6-10) Thus, neither Atheism nor Antitheism is antı Vedic and Theism is not the only Vedic current Kariha 33 Pages 123, 124 Time (Kala) and Space (DIL) are not external realities In the diversified world, the diversified objects are apprehended as related to one another, there cannot be a plurality with. out a mutual relation also The relation is apprehended either as in time or as in space Sānkhya does not accept either of them as external realities and they find no place in the scheme of categories in the Sankhya Nyāya and Mimamsā accept them There is time and there is space because there are diversified objects Thus, instead of the diversified objects existing 10 time and in space, time and space exist in the diversified objects Time and space are not different from the objects apprehended as existing in the time and space They are only aspects of the objects Just as the acceptance of time lands us in infinite regression or in the acceptance of other categories, acceptance of space also lands us in the same dificulties Prakſit can be related to the diversified world as prior and also as a beyond in space in relation to the diversified World But there is no such beyond, either in time or in space for the Prakyti Within the Prakti too there is no diversification and as such no scope for the time and space Karika 34 Page 124 In this Karika, Vak means the articulate sound language , sound in general can be produced otherwise too as in the case of clapping the baads to express an idea or ·189 Notes Karikas 42-51 towards it is expluned in the Sangutaratnahara, Chapter I, Section 11 The point is also developed in detail in works on Medical Science, especially in the Sušruta and in the Aşşangahşdaza in the Sarırasthāna (Part relating to anatomy and physiology). The Brhadaranyakopant sad says that as a caterpillar, after it has reached the tip of a leaf, makes a beginning upon another and draws itself towards it, so also the self, after it has shaken off the body and freed itself from ingorance, makes a beginning upon another and draws itself over (IV-18-26) Kariha 45 Page 142 Varragja, absence of attachment, need not mean any renunciation and membership of a monastic order, with saffron robes There is no indication of any renunciation and the association with a monastic order or saffron robes, as a necessary preliminary for the understanding of the Sankhya system of philosophy or for the attainment of Moksa (final release thereby), Sankara also does not say that the understanding of his Advaita depends on renunciation and member - Ship in a monastic order and wearing of saffron robes Prakſılaza, dissolution of the Prakştı or matter, need not amount to an inability of the individual to continue the body, a body is necessary for the released Self to experience the limited world and also to function in this world of thus, the complete inability to acquire a body deprives such an individual of any chance for social service He can initiate a body which will be only a means for him and not at all a limitation for him Karika 51 Page 149 The three fold destruction of suffering is the destruction The three that of the three sufferings as stated in Kanka 1 as given in precede Siddhi are Viparyaya, Ašakri and Tusţi Kartka 46 limitations, ·190 The Sankhya Karika Karika 52 Page 149 Bhala is a mental disposition, 1: fe is the root of all evolution, life gives the stimulus for the evolution to start Man did not start with a blank state. There was something written on the slate even at the very beginning and at the beginning of each birth something is written , what is written here has its influence in deciding the direction, the pace and the destination in evolution Perhaps many features like the genus and the sex are determined by such original Bhavas or dispositions which abide in the Lingasarira. Such differences are not due to any difference in the material content of the gross body (what is described in Kūnka 39) that had been supplied by the parents Kariha 54 Page 151 This lanka may be compared with the Giia, XIV-18 Karika 55 Page 152 What has been said in Karika 19 is what started the suffering. Suffering is by nature It is an integral factor in the combination of Prakrti and Purusa But this is not the suffering which ordinary individuals experience This is what only a philosopher can experience and he is released from that suffering when he realises that there is a distinction between the two factors in his being, which became mixed together Karika 57 Page 154 Is it the feature of the milk being insentient that is emhpasised here? Sankara takes the context to relate to the activity like an intelligent one in what is insentient But in this context, there is no special emphasis on this factor at all. What is emphasised is the function of milk in its flow for the sake of another (Parartha). This is the case with all succeeding tllustrations, they all show how there can be for the sake of another ·191 Notes Karikas 57 63 The illustrations show the spirit of the original Sünkhya in which Prakrti (Matter) is not at all a sin, but a beneficent factor in the universe It is only by work in the material world that Man can attain his final goal, and not by avoiding it, nor by renunciation Emphasis on Sarnny asa in the Inanamarga (Path of knowledge) must have later altered this spirit considerably through the admixture of the belief in Matter being a seat of sin and a source of suffering Karika 62 Page 158 The Karikā starts with the word Tasmat (therefore) But no such ground is given previously for the theory that the Puruşa is not bound nor released and that such features belong to Prakrti I fear that some Xarika is missing The subject matter in the system closes with Marika 68, there might have been 70 Karlkas explaining tbe philosophy as is indicated in Karika 72 Saptat might be the work which Kapıla taught to Asuri (Karika 72) Isvaiahrsna says that these Karikas are not the original work of Kapıla but only a condensation (Sanksi pta as stated in Karlka 71) I feel that something is missing here There was a similar difficulty about the word Tasmat (therefore) in the beginning of Karika 0 but that can be got over if the Karika now marked as 20 is put after the Karıka now marked as 21 Here, the previous Karika does not give the ground for the doctrine expounded in Karıka 62 Karika 63 Page 160 The seven are what are given as the aspects of Buddhi in Karika 44 What bind the Puruşa are Dharma and Adharma, Ajñana Viraga and Rage and Aisyarya and Anaišvarya The Jnana does not come within this scheme of seven, that is what brings about the final result The single aspect (Ekarupa) is Jnana It had been said in Karika 44 that Jiana brings about Apavarga and in Karika 45, it has been said that Varragya brings about Prakrullaja Is there an Apavarga distinct from ·190 The Sankhya Karika Karika 52 Page 149 Bhāva is a mental disposition, life is the root of all evolution, life gives the stimulus for the evolution to start Man did not start with a blank state. There was something written on the slate even at the very beginning and ac the beginning of each birth something is written , what is written here has its influence in deciding the direction, the pace and the destination in evolution Perhaps many features like the genus and the sex are determined by such original Bhāvas or dispositions which abide in the Lingasarira. Such differences are not due to any difference in the material content of the gross body (what is described in Kārkā 39) that had been supplied by the parents Karıhà 54 Page 151 This Karkā may be compared with the Gita, XIV-18. Kārıka 55 Page 152 What has been said ja Aarika 19 is what started the suffering. Suffering is by nature It is an integral factor in the combination of Prakrti and Puruşa But this is not the suffering which ordinary individuals experience This is what only a philosopher can experience and he is released from that suffering when he realises that there is a distinction between the two factors in his being, which became mixed together Karika 57 Page 154 Is it the feature of the milk being insentient that is emhpasised here? Sankara takes the context to relate to the activity like an intelligent one in what is in sentient But in this context, there is no special emphasis on this factor at all What is emphasised is the function of milk in its flow for the sake of another (Parartha). This is the case with all the succeeding illustrations, they all show how there can be function for the sake of another ·191 Notes kartkas 57 63 The illustrations show the spirit of the original Sankhya in which Prakſti (Matter) is not at all a sin, but a bencficent factor in the universe It is only by work in the material world that Man can attain his final goal, and not by avoiding it, nor by renunciation Emphasis on Samnyasa in the Iñananiarga (Path of knowledge) must have later altered this spirit considerably through the admixture of the belief in Matter being a seat of sin and a source of suffering Karika 62 Page 158 The Xarika starts with the word Tasmat (therefore) But no such ground is given previously for the theory that the Purusa is not bound nor released and that such features belong to Prakrti I fear that some Karika is missing The subject matter in the system closes with Marika 68, there might have been 70 Karikas explaining the philosophy as is indicated in Karika 72 Saptan might be the work which Kapıla taught to Asuri (Karika 72) Isvatahrşna says that these Karikas are not the original work of Kapıla but only a condensation (Sanksi pra as stated in Karika 71) I feel that something is missing here There was a similar difficulty about the word Tasmat (therefore) in the beginning of Karika 20, but that can be got over if the Karika now marked as 20 is put after the Karika now marked as 21 Here, the previous Karika does not give the ground for the doctrine expounded in Karika 62 Karika 63 Page 160 The seven are what are given as the aspects of Buddhi in Karila 44 What bind the Purusa are Dharma and Adharma, Ajñana, Viraga and Raga and Ansvarsa and Anai śvarja The Jñana does not come within this scheme of seven , that is what brings about the final result The single aspect (Ekarapa) is Jñana It had been said in Karika 44 that Jñana brings about A pavarga and in Kärlka 45, it has been said that Valragya brings about Praktilaj a Is there an 4 pavarga distinct from ·192 The Sankhya Karika Prakrtilaya ? I do not know why Valragya has not been clubbed along with Jñana as means for the final emancipation Karikas 65-66 Page 163 The imagery of the actress continues After the perfor mance, the audience thinks of the actress only as a citizen among themselves and not as a character of the drama There is an identification of the audience with the actress and that ceases when the drama closes I can understand how tbe absolute Purusa can be the subject for the absolute Prakrii, but I cannot understand how such an absolute Purusa can be the subject for the differentiated Prakrti Thus I think that a body continues attached to the Puruşa even at this stage, though the body may not be a limitation nor a cause for suffering The word Samyoga (union) in this Karikā must be related to the word in kartka 21, as the union of a blind man and a lame man There, there was an evolution through the union, but there is no such evolulion through the union in this state An absolute and undifferentiated Prakrri a d the evolution on account of the presence of the Puruşa are only intellectual abstractions Similarly a final break up of the two factors is also an intellectual abstraction It is nothing more than the final disintegration of the sun and the stars through radiation as accepted in modern science, that is our Aloksa also But no one considers that final disintegration of the universe as a goal to be aimed at as a goal for the termination of the sufferings in the world How can this intellectual abstraction have such a practiral valuc ? We must also consider the question whether the Purusa at that final stage is like a member of the audience, but without a body Or does he continue the body like the audience? That there is a difference in the relation between a member of the audience during the drama and after the drama, is quite clear What is not clear is whether there is a difference between tlic Purusa during life and the Purusa at ·193 Notes : Karikas 65-68 the stage of Kalsalya, that means, in respect of having a body and not having a body. Kariha 67 Page 165 This 13 what is called Inanmuhit, Kapıla and Vyasa are in that stage Kariha 68 Page 166 If there is a complete break up between Puruşa and Prakrii, I find it difficult to explain how there can be a Kapıla Kapıla had certainly a body. Then the Puruşa and the Prakru were separate, Kapila could develop a body, why should it not be possible after the separation of the Purusa and the Prakrti as given in (Kanka) 65 ? I have a preference for the Mimamsa position of Man being a knowing and dynamic formation. If such a formation of 1 body is possible at the stage of Kaivalya, the Sankhya position too becomes quite acceptable If Purusa-Prakſti combination is to be reduced to a unity either as pure Prakſti or as pure Puruşa, I have a preference for the Vedānta position that, that unity is Purusa (Parabraliman) from which Prakſti arose, I cannot accept the position of modern science that Matter in its absolute state was dead without "Life" and that "Life" appeared in it as a product at a later stage The unity as an abstraction must be the Puruşa and not the Prakrtı Life can evolve into Matter, but what has no "Life" cannot evolve and as such cannot produce "Life" at all I recognise that there is no occasion for an evolution (Sarga) at that stage, the purpose (Prayojana) for the Prakļlı to secure the Kaivalya of the Puruşa But is there not a Сап Prayojana (Purpose) in the form of social service ? there not be an evolution for this purpose ?

·TEXT ·सांख्य-कारिका " तु ॥५॥ * दु.स-याऽभिघाताज, जिज्ञासा तदभिघातके हेतो। दृष्टे साऽपार्था चेन्नैकान्ताऽत्यन्ततोऽभावात् ।।१।। दृष्टवदानुश्रविकः स विशुद्धि-क्षयाऽतिशययुक्तः । तद्विपरीतः श्रेयान् व्यक्ताऽव्यक्तज्ञ-विज्ञानात् ॥२॥ मूल-प्रकृतिरविकृतिर्, महदाद्याः प्रकृति-विकृतयः सप्त । पोडशकस्तु विकारो न प्रकृतिर्न विकृतिः पुरुषः ॥३॥ दृष्टमनुमानमाप्त-वचनं च सर्वप्रमाण-सिद्धत्वात् । त्रिविध प्रमाणमिष्टं प्रमेय-सिद्धिः प्रमाणाद्धि ॥४॥ प्रतिविषयाऽध्यवसायो दृष्टं त्रिविधमनुमानमात्यातम् । तल्लिग-लिङ्गि-पूर्वकमाप्तश्रुति-राप्तवचनं सामान्यतस्तु दृष्टादतीन्द्रियाणां प्रतीतिरनुमानात् । तस्मादपि चाऽसिद्ध परोक्षमाप्ताऽगमात् सिद्धम् ॥६॥ अतिदूरात् सामीप्यादिन्द्रिय-घातान्मनोऽनवस्थानात् । सोक्षम्याद्, व्यवधानादभिभवात् समानाभिहाराच्च ।।७।। सौक्ष्म्यात् तदनुपलब्धिर्नाभावात् कार्यतस्तदुपलब्धेः । महदादि तच्च कार्य प्रकृति-सरूपं विरूपं च ॥८॥ असदकरणादुपादानग्रहणात् सर्वसंभवाऽभावात् । शक्तस्य शक्यकरणात् कारण-भावाच्च सत् कार्यम् ।।९।। हेतुमदनित्यमव्यापि सक्रियमनेकमाश्रितं लिङ्गम् । सावयवं परतन्त्र व्यक्तं विपरीतमव्यक्तम् ॥१०॥ त्रिगुणमविवेकि विषयः सामान्यमचेतनं प्रसव-धर्म । व्यक्तं तथा प्रधान, तद्विपरीतस्तथा च पुमान् ॥११॥ प्रीत्यतीति-विपादात्मिकाः प्रकाश-प्रवृत्ति-नियमार्थाः । अन्योन्याऽभिभवाश्रय-जनन-मिथुन-वृत्तयश्च गुणाः॥१२॥ सत्त्वं लघु प्रकाशकमिष्टमुपष्टम्भकं चलं च रजः । गुरु वरणकमेव तमः प्रदीपवच्चाऽर्थतो वृत्तिः ॥१३॥ , ·26.2-76 27.2.76 .. 198 The Sankhya Karika अविवेक्यादेः सिद्धिस्नैगुण्यात् तद्विपर्ययाऽभावात् । कारण-गुणाऽऽत्मकत्वात् कार्यस्याऽव्यक्तमपि सिद्धम् ॥१४॥ भेदानां परिमाणात् समन्वयाच्छक्तित: प्रवृत्ते-श्च । कारण-कार्य-विभागादविभागाद्वैश्वरूपस्य ॥१५॥ कारणमस्त्यव्यक्तं प्रवर्तते त्रिगुणतः समुदयाच्च । । । परिणामतः सलिलवत् प्रतिप्रतिगुणाश्रयविशेषात् ॥१६॥ सवात-परार्थत्वात् त्रिगुणादि-विपर्ययादधिष्ठानात् । पुरुषोऽस्ति भोक्तृ-भावात् , कैवल्यार्थं प्रवृत्तेश्च ।।१७।। जन्म-मरण-करणानां प्रतिनियमादयुगपत्प्रवृत्तेश्च । पुरुप-बहुत्वं सिद्ध त्रैगुण्य-विपर्ययाच्चैव ॥१८॥ तस्माच्च विपर्यासात् सिद्ध साक्षित्वमस्य पुरुषस्य । कैवल्यं माध्यस्थ्यं द्रष्टुत्वमकर्तृभावश्च ॥१९॥ तस्मात् तत्संयोगादचेतनं चेतनावदिव लिङ्गम् । गुण-कर्तृत्वेऽपि तथा कर्तेव भवत्युदासीनः ॥२०॥ पुरुषस्य दर्शनार्थ, कैवल्याथं तथा पङ्ग्वन्धवदुभयोरपि संयोगस्तत्कृतः सर्गः ॥२१॥ प्रकृतेमहांस्ततोऽहड्वारस्तस्माद् गणश्च पोडशकः। तस्मादपि पोडशकात् पञ्चभ्यः पञ्च भूतानि ॥२२॥ अध्यवसायो बुद्धिर्धर्मो ज्ञानं विराग ऐश्वर्यम् । सात्त्विकमेतद्रूपं तामसमस्माद्विपर्यस्तम् ।।२३।।- अभिमानोऽहवारस्तस्माद् द्विविधः प्रवर्तते सर्गः । एकादशकश्च पञ्चकश्चैव ॥२४॥ सात्त्विक एकादशकः प्रवर्तते वैकृतादहद्धारात् । भूतादेस्तन्मात्रः तामसस्तैजसादुभयम् ॥२५॥ बुद्धीन्द्रियाणि चक्षुः-श्रोत्र-घ्राण-रसन-त्वगात्यानि । वाक्-पाणि-पाद-पायूपस्थान् कर्मेन्द्रियाण्याहुः ॥२६॥ उभयात्मकमत्र मनः संकल्पामिन्द्रियं च साधात् । गुणपरिणाम-विदोपान्नानात्वं बाह्य-भेदाश्च ॥२७॥ शब्दादिपु पञ्चानामालोचनमामिप्यते घृत्तिः। वचनादान-विहरणोत्सर्गानन्दाच पचानाम् ॥२८॥ प्रधानस्य । 2.376 गणस्तन्मात्रः स .

·199 वायव The Sanhhy a kartha स्वालक्षण्य वृत्तिस्नयस्य संपा भवत्यसामान्या । सामान्य वरण-वृत्ति प्राणाद्या पञ्च ॥२९॥ युगपच्चतुष्टयस्य तु वृत्ति क्रमशश्च तस्य निर्दिष्टा। दृष्टे तथाप्यदृष्टे त्रयस्य तत्पूर्विवा वृत्ति ॥३०॥ स्वा स्वा प्रतिपद्यन्ते परस्पराकूतहेतुवा वृत्तिम् । पुरुषार्थ एव हेतुर्न केनचित् यायते करणम् ॥३१॥ करण त्रयोदश-विध तदाहरण-धारण-प्रकाशकरम् । कार्य च तस्य दशधाहार्य धार्य प्रकाश्य च ॥३२॥ अन्त करण विविध दशधा बाह्य त्रयस्य विपयाख्यम् । साम्प्रतकाल वाह्य त्रिकालमाभ्यन्तर करणम् ॥३३॥ बुद्धीन्द्रियाणि तेपा पञ्च विशेपाऽविशेष-विपयाणि । वाग्भवति शब्द-विषया शेपाणि तु पञ्चविषयाणि ॥३४॥ सान्तःकरणा बुद्धि सर्व विषयमवगाहते यस्मात् । तस्मात् विविध करण द्वारि द्वाराणि शेषाणि ॥३५॥ एते प्रदीप-कल्पा परस्पर-विलक्षणा गुण-विशेषा । कृत्स्न पुरुपस्याऽर्थ प्रकाश्य बुद्धौ प्रयच्छन्ति ॥३६॥ सर्व प्रत्युपभोग यस्मात् पुरुषस्य साधयति बुद्धि । सैव च विशिनष्टि पुन प्रधान पुरुपान्तर सूक्ष्मम् ॥३७॥ तन्मात्राण्यविशेपास्तेभ्यो भूतानि पञ्च पञ्चभ्य । एते स्मृता विशेषा शान्ता घोराश्च मूढाश्च ॥३८।। सूक्ष्मा माता-पितृजा सह प्रभूतस्विधा विशेपा स्यु । सूक्ष्मास्तेपा नियता माता पितृजा निवर्तन्ते ॥३९|| पूर्वोत्पन्नमसक्त नियत महदादि-सूक्ष्मपर्यन्तम् । ससरति निरुपभोग भावरधिवासित लिङ्गम् ॥४०॥ चित्र यथाऽऽश्रयमृते स्थाण्वादिभ्यो विना यथा छाया । तद्विना विशेषैर्न तिष्ठति निराश्रय तिङ्गम् ।।४।। पुरुषार्थ-हेतुकमिद निमित्त-नैमित्तिक-प्रसङ्गेन । प्रकृतेविभुत्वयोगान्नटवद व्यवतिप्ठते लिङ्गम् ॥४२॥ सासिद्धिकाश्च भावा प्राकृतिका वैवृतिकाश्च धर्माद्या । दृष्टा करणाथयिण कार्यायिणश्च क्ललाद्या ॥४३॥ G ·260 The Sankhya Karika धर्मेण गमनमूवं गमनमधस्ताद्भवत्यधर्मेण । ज्ञानेन चाऽपवर्गो विपर्ययादिष्यते बन्धः ॥४४॥ वैराग्यात् प्रकृति-लयः संसारो भवति राजसाद्रागात् । ऐश्वर्यादविघातो विपर्ययात्तद्विपर्यासः ।।४।। एप प्रत्यय-सर्गो विपर्ययाऽशक्ति-तुष्टि-सिद्धयाख्यः । गुण-वैषम्य-विमर्दात् तस्य च भेदास्तु पञ्चाशत् ॥४६।। पञ्च विपर्यय-भेदा भवन्त्यशक्तिश्च करण-वैकल्यात् । अष्टाविंशति-भेदा तुष्टिर्नवधाऽष्टधा सिद्धिः ॥४७॥ भेदस्तमसोऽष्ट-विधो मोहस्य च दश-विधो महामोहः । तामिस्रोऽष्टादशधा तथा भवत्यन्धतामिस्रः॥४८॥ एकादशेन्द्रिय-वधाः सह बुद्धि-वधरशक्तिरुद्दिष्टा । सप्तदश-वधा वुद्धविपर्ययात् तुष्टि-सिद्धीनाम् ॥४९।। आध्यात्मिकाश्चतस्रः प्रकृत्युपादान-काल-भाग्याख्याः । वाह्या विपयोपरमात् पञ्च च नव तुष्टयोऽभिमताः ॥५०॥ ऊहः शब्दोऽध्ययनं दुःख-विधातास्त्रयः सुहृत्प्राप्तिः । दानं च सिद्धयोऽप्टो सिद्धेः पूर्वोऽड्कुशस्विविधः ॥५१॥ न विना भावलिङ्गं न विना लिनेन भाव-निर्वृत्तिः । लिङ्गाख्यो भावाख्यस्तस्माद् द्विविधः प्रवर्तते सर्गः ॥५२॥ अष्टविकल्पो देवस्तर्यग्योनश्च पञ्चधा भवति । मानुषकश्चकविधः समासतो भौतिकः सर्गः ॥५३॥ ऊध्वं सत्त्व-विशालस्तमो-विशालश्च मूलतः सर्गः । मध्ये रजोविशालो ब्रह्मादिस्तम्ब-पर्यन्तः ।।५४।। तत्र जरा-मरण-कृतं दुःखं प्राप्नोति चेतनः पुरुषः । लिङ्गस्याविनिवृत्तस्तस्माद् स्वभावेन ॥५५॥ इत्येप प्रकृतिकृतो महदादि-विशेषभूतपर्यन्तः। प्रतिपुरुप-विमोक्षार्थ स्वार्थ इव पराथं प्रारम्भः ॥५६॥ यत्रा-पिवृद्धि-निमितं क्षीरस्य यथा प्रवृत्तिरशस्य । पुरप-विमोक्ष-निमित्तं तथा प्रवृत्तिः प्रधानस्य ॥५७॥ मोत्सुक्य-निवृत्त्ययं यथा नियागु प्रवर्तते सोसः । पुरपस्य विमोक्षायं प्रवर्तते सहदध्यक्तम् ॥५॥ दुखं ·201 सैव अविपर्ययाद्विशुद्धं The Sankhya Karika रङ्गस्य दर्शयित्वा निवर्तते नर्तकी यथा नृत्यात् । पुरुषस्य तथाऽऽत्मानं प्रकाश्य विनिवर्तते प्रकृतिः ।।५९।। नानाविधैरुपायरुपकारिण्यनुपकारिणः पुंसः। गुणवत्यगुणस्य सतस्तस्मात्कार्यमपार्थक चरति ॥६॥ प्रकृतेः सुकुमारतरं न किंचिदस्तीति मे मतिर्भवति । या दृष्टाऽस्मीति पुनर्न दर्शनमुपैति पुरुषस्य ॥६१।। तस्मान्न वध्यतेऽसौ न मुच्यते नाऽपि संसरति कश्चित् । ससरति वध्यते मुच्यते च नानाश्रया प्रकृतिः ॥६२।। रूपः सप्तभिरेव तु वघ्नात्यात्मानमात्मना प्रकृतिः । च पुरुपार्थ प्रति विमोचयत्येकरूपेण ॥६३।। एवं तत्त्वाऽभ्यासान्नास्मि न मे नाहमित्यपरिशेपम् । केवलमुत्पद्यते ज्ञानम् ॥६४॥ तेन निवृत्त-प्रसवामर्थवशात् सप्तरप-विनिवृत्ताम् । प्रकृति पश्यति पुरुपः प्रेक्षकवदवस्थितः सुस्थः॥६॥ दृष्टा मयेत्युपेक्षक एको दृष्टाऽहमित्युपरमत्यन्या। सति संयोगेऽपि तयोः प्रयोजनं नास्ति सर्गस्य ॥६६॥ सम्यग्ज्ञानाऽधिगमाद्धर्माऽऽदीनामकारण-प्राप्तौ तिष्ठति संस्कार-वशाच्चन-भ्रमिवद्धृत-शरीरः॥६७॥ प्राप्ते शरीर-भेदे चरितार्थत्वात् प्रधान-विनिवृत्तेः । ऐकान्तिकमात्यन्तिकमुभयं कैवल्यमाप्नोति ॥६॥ पुरुषार्थ-ज्ञानमिदं गुह्य परमषिणा समास्यातम् । स्थित्युत्पत्ति-प्रलयाश्चिन्त्यन्ते भूतानाम् ॥६९॥ एतत् पवित्रमग्रचं मुनिरासुरयेऽनुकम्पया प्रददौ। आसुरिरपि पञ्चशिखाय तेन च बहुधा कृतं तत्त्वम् ॥७॥ शिष्य-परम्परयागतमीश्वरकृष्णेन चैतदार्याभिः। सक्षिप्तमार्य-मतिना सम्यग्विज्ञाय सिद्धान्तम् ।।७१॥ सप्तत्यां किल येऽस्तेिऽर्थाः कृत्स्नस्य पप्टितन्त्रस्य । भास्यायिका-विरहिताः पर-वाद-विवजिताश्चापि ॥७२।। यत्र ·INDEX OF HALF-VERSES (The references are to the verses) atidarat samipyat adhyavasayo buddhik 79 a 276 7 a gunaparinamavršeşat 27 b 23 a gunavaty agunasya satah 60 b antakkaranam trividham 33 a gunavaışamyavimardat 46b anyon; abhibhavafrasa 12b guruvaranakam eva 23b abhimano 'hankarah 24 a citram yathafryam yte 41 € apparyayad 11$uddham 64 6 jananamaranakararanam 18 a avizekyadih saddhah 14 año nena capavargah 44 b astavakalpo darah 53 a tatra jaramararakrtam 55 a astavimšatibhedah 47 6 tadvad vina visesaih 41 b asadakaranad upadana 9 a tadviparitaḥ sreyan 25 akhjayıkävirahitah 38 a 725 tanmatrany avisesah adhyatmikas catasrah 55 tal lingalingipürvakam 50 a asurir api pañcasıkhaya 706 tasmac ca viparyasat 20 a ity esa praktrikytah tasmat tatsamyogat 56 a ubhayatmakam atra tasmat truvidham urdhram sattvavrsalah karanam 356 54 a 60 tasmad ap ca sıddham thah Sabdo dhyayanan 51 a 22b ekadasakaś ca ganah tasmad apı sodatakat 24 5 62 a ekadasendriyavadhah tasman na badhyate sau 49 a 48 b etat pairtram agryam tamisro sţadaśadha 70a 67 b ete pradipakalpah 36 a tışthatı samskaravasat 65 a ete smyta visesah 386 tena nivyttaprasavam evam tattvabhyasat trigunam avivekı vışayah 11 a 4 b trividham pramanam 46 a esa pratyayasargah arkantikam atyantıkan 68 6 danam ca sıddhayo stau 51 b 1 a arśvaryad arghatah 45bduḥkhatrayabhighatat dystamanumanam apta 58 a autsukyanıyttyartham 2 a karanam tra, odaśa 32 a distavadanusravikah 435 karanakārsavibhagat 15 b drsgah karanaśrayınan karanagunatmakatrat 14 b | drsta mayety upeksalah 66 a 30 D karanam asty avyaktam 16 a drste tathāpy adrste 1 b karyait ca tasya dafadha 32 b drste sapartha cet krisnam puruşasyartham 36 b | dharmena gamanam kan alyam m idhyasth; am 19 6 na zina bhavarr lingam 52 a gunakartytje pa tatha 20 b Inanandhair upayalh 64 a 44 a 60 a