Category: 

Sāṁkhya Karika with Gauḍapāda Commentaries | Part 1

Duḥkhatrayābhighātāt, jijñāsā tadapaghātake hetau |
dṛṣṭe sāpārthā cen, naikāntātyaṅtato abhāvāt  |1|

1. On account of the attacks (strokes) of the three kinds of pain arises an enquiry into the means of their removal.  If [the enquiry be pronounced] superfluous because of [the existence of] obvious [means], [the reply is] no, owing to the absence of finality and absoluteness [in them].

Gauḍapāda Bhāṣya

 Salutation to that Kapila by whom, through compassion, was the Sānkhya philosophy imparted like a boat for crossing the ocean of ignorance in which the world was sunk.

For the benefit of students shall I briefly expound the Śāstra, which is short in extent, lucid and is furnished with proofs, conclusions, and reasons.

On account of, etc. Serves as a preface to this Ārya verse. The holy Kapila [was] indeed the son of Brahmā, for “Sanaka, Sananda, and third Sanātana, Āsuri, Kapila, Boḍu, Pañcaśikhā, these seven great sages are said to have been the sons of Brahmā.”  Piety, Knowledge, Dispassion and Power came into existence together with Kapila.  Thus born, he, seeing the universe plunged in thick darkness through a succession of births and deaths, was filled with compassion, and to the enquiring Āsuri, a Brahman of his own stock, communicated a knowledge of the twenty-five principles, from a cognition of which the destruction of pain results: [for it is said], “ One who knows the twenty-five principles, whatever order of life he may have entered, and whether he wear matted hair, or have a shaven crown, or keep a top-knot only, he is liberated; of this there is no doubt”.

Therefore has it been said, On account of the strokes of the three kinds of pain is the enquiry, etc.

There are three kinds of pain, intrinsic, extrinsic, and supernatural. Of these, intrinsic is of two kinds, mental and corporeal; corporeal are fever, diarrhoea, etc., caused by disorder of wind, bile or phlegm; mental are absence of an object of desire, presence of an object of dislike, and the like. Extrinsic [pain] is of four kinds, due to the four kinds of created beings; [it] is produced by the viviparous, the oviparous, the moisture-generated, and the earth-sprung, [that is,] by men, beasts, animals, birds, reptiles, gnats, mosquitoes, lice, bugs, fish, crocodiles, sharks, and objects which remain stationary. Supernatural [pain] is either divine or atmospheric, and implies such [trouble] as arises in connection therewith, [e.g.,] cold, heat, wind, rain, thunderbolt, etc.

Into what then is the enquiry that is prompted by the strokes of three-fold pain to be made? Into the means of removing them, the afore mentioned three kinds of pain. If the enquiry be [considered] superfluous because obvious, i.e., because obvious means of removing the three-fold pain exist: [thus] of the two-fold intrinsic pain, medicinal applications, such as pungent and bitter decoctions, and association with what is liked and avoidance of what is disliked [supply] the visible means [of remedy]; [so] the extrinsic may be prevented by protection and the like [means]. If you consider the enquiry superfluous on account of their being obvious! means, it is not so, owing to the absence of finality and absoluteness, because through the instrumentality of the obvious means certain and permanent removal is not obtained. Therefore elsewhere is the enquiry [or] investigation into the final and never-failing means of destroying [pain] to be made.

Dṛṣṭavad ānuśravikaḥ, sa hi aviśuddhaḥ kṣayātishayayuktaḥ |
tadviparītaḥ shreyān, vyaktāvyaktajñavijñānāt  |2|

2. The revealed [mode] is like the apparent, since it is connected with impurity, destruction and excess. A [mode] different is preferable, because of the discriminative knowledge of the Manifested, the Unmanifested, and the Knowing [that it consists in].

Gauḍapāda Bhāṣya

‘Though enquiry be made into means other than the visible, yet [the object] is not so [to be gained], because the revealed means are destructive of the three-fold pain.’

What is heard successively is Ānuśrava; what is thence produced is Ānuśravika, which again is that established by the Vedas: e.g., “we drank the soma, became immortal, acquired effulgence, learnt divine [things], can then foes harm us at all? What can decay do to an immortal?” At some time there was a discussion among the gods, Indra etc., as to how they had become immortal. [They] decided, “because we drank the soma- juice therefore we became immortal; what else? attained or acquired effulgence, that is, heaven ; [and] came to know divine [things]; then assuredly, how can an enemy harm us any more than grass? what can disease or envy do unto the immortals?”

Again in the Vedas we hear of pre-eminent recompense [being allotted] to animal sacrifice: “One who performs the horse-sacrifice, conquers all the worlds, overcomes death, expiates sin, and atones for the crime of killing a Brahman.”

‘The means indicated by the Vedas being final and absolute, the enquiry is superfluous.’ That is not so; [for the text] says, the revealed is like the apparent: similar to the obvious [means]. Why is the revealed means [ineffectual] like the apparent? Because connected with impurity, destruction, and excess. Connected with impurity on account of the slaughter of animals, for it is said, “according to the ritual of the horse-sacrifice, six hundred animals minus three are offered at mid-day.” Though this is the pious practice enjoined by tradition (the Vedas) and law, yet it is tainted with impurity on account of the presence of harmfulness.  Again, “many thousands of Indras and other divinities have, in course of time, passed away with different cycles; time is hard to overcome.” It [the revealed mode] is thus, through the death of Indra and the rest, associated with destruction. It is further connected with excess, that is, special difference. From beholding the special advantages [of a favoured individual], another [less favoured] is pained. Thus the revealed means are also [ineffectual] like the obvious. If [it be] then [asked], which is preferable? [the text] answers, that which is different, other than both the visible and the revealed [means], is preferable, because unconnected with impurity, destruction, and excess.

How is that? Though a discriminative knowledge of the Manifested, the Unmanifested and the Knowing. In this, the Manifested mean Mahat and the rest, [viz.], Consciousness, Self-consciousness, the five subtle elements, the eleven organs, and the five gross elements. The Unmanifested is the Pradhāna [Prime cause]. The Knowing is Soul. These twenty- five principles are said to comprise the Manifested, the Unmanifested, and the Knowing. This [last mode] is superior on account of the [said] discriminative knowledge; for, it is said, “he who knows the twenty-five principles,” etc.

Mulaprakṛtir avikṛtir, mahadādyāḥ prakṛtivikṛtayah sapta |
shodashakas tu vikāro, na prakṛtir na vikṛtih puruṣah  |3|

3. Nature, the root, is no effect; the Great One and the rest are seven, causing and caused; sixteen are the evolutes; the soul is neither a cause nor an effect.

Gauḍapāda Bhāṣya

 Then [the author] goes on to explain the difference between the Manifested, the Unmanifested and the Knowing [categories].

Radical Nature is the chief, being the root of the seven causing and caused [principles]. It is the root as well as the prime evolvent.  No effect, not produced by another; therefore Nature is not a product (or change) of anything else.

The Great One and the rest are seven, causing and caused. Great is Intellect; Intellect and the rest are seven: 1. Intellect, 2. Self-consciousness, 3-7. the five rudiments ; these are the seven causing and caused [principles]. Thus, from the Chief [Nature] is produced Intellect, [it] therefore, [is] an effect, that is, an evolute of the Chief; it again produces self-consciousness, [it], therefore, [is] a cause. Self-consciousness, too, is produced by Intellect and is therefore an effect, it also produces the five subtle principles and is therefore a cause. Again, rudimental sound as produced by self-consciousness is an effect, as originating ether is a cause; similarly rudimental touch as derived from self-consciousness is an effect, as producing air is a cause; rudimental smell as derived from self-consciousness is an effect, as generating the earth is a cause; rudimental form (or colour) as produced by self-consciousness is an effect, as giving rise to light (or fire) is a cause; rudimental taste as derived from self-consciousness is an effect, as originating water is a cause. Thus the Great One and the rest are seven [principles, which are both] causing and caused.

Sixteen are the evolutes: the five organs of perception, the five organs of action, the eleventh mind, and the five gross elements, these are the sixteen effects or evolutes.

The Soul is neither a cause nor an effect.

Dṛṣṭam anumānam āptavacanam ca sarvapramāṇasiddhatvāt|
trividham pramāṇam ishtam, prameyasiddhiḥ pramānād dhi  |4.|

4. Perception, Inference, and Authoritative Statement are the three kinds of approved proof, for they comprise every mode of demonstration.  The complete determination of the demonstrable is verily by proof.

Gauḍapāda Bhāṣya

Of these three [classes of] principles, the Manifested, the Unmanifested and the Knowing, by what and how many kinds of proof and of which by what proof, is a complete determination effected? In this world, a demonstrable thing is established by proof, as, [the quantity of] grains of rice [is determined] by prastha, etc., sandal and the like [are] by weight. Therefore proof is to be defined.

Perception; as, the ear, the skin, the eye, the tongue [and] the nose are the five organs of perception, whose objects of sense are sound, touch, colour, flavour and smell respectively. The ear apprehends sound, the skin touch, the eye colour, the tongue taste, the nose smell. This proof is called sense-apprehension.

An object that may not be apprehended by perception or inference is to be accepted on authoritative testimony. As, Indra the king of the gods, the Kurus in the north, the nymphs in heaven, and the like objects, which are not determinable by perception or inference are accepted on authoritative affirmation. It is also said: “Authoritative testimony is an affirmation made by a person of authority, known as such from his immunity from faults. A person without faults will not speak an untruth, any incentive [thereto] being absent [in his case]. He who is devoted to his own work, devoid of partiality or enmity, and ever respected by those like him, such a person is known as a man of authority.

In these [three] proofs are comprised all modes of demonstration. There are six kinds of proof according to Jaimini. Well, what are those proofs? The six kinds are presumption, equivalence, privation, intuition, tradition, and comparison. Of these, “presumption” is twofold, ‘seen’ and ‘heard.' ‘Seen,’ [as], where the existence of the soul being admitted in one case, it is presumed to exist in another. ‘Heard,’ e. g., Devadatta does not eat in the day and yet looks fat, thence it is presumed that he eats at night.  “Equivalence,’ as by the word prastha, four kuḍavas are signified. “Privation”: ‘prior,’ ‘reciprocal’ ‘absolute’ and ‘total’ are the styles thereof.  ‘Prior privation,’ as, Devadatta in childhood, youth etc.; ‘reciprocal privation,’ as, of a water-jar in cloth; ‘absolute privation,’ as, the horns of an ass, the son of a barren woman, the flowers of the sky, etc.; ‘total privation' or destruction, like burnt cloth, [or] as want of rain is ascertained from seeing withered grain. Thus “privation” is manifold. “Intuition,” as, “Pleasant is the country [lying] to the south of the Vindhyas and to the north of the Sahyas, [and] stretching to the sea.”

When this is said, the comprehension arises that in that country the quality of pleasantness exists; intuition is the knowledge of one who knows.  “Tradition,” as, people say on this fig-tree a she-devil dwells. “Comparison,” as, the nilgai is like a cow, the pond like a sea. These six kinds of proof are comprised in the three kinds, perception, etc. Thus, presumption is included in inference; equivalence, privation, intuition, tradition and analogy in authoritative testimony. Therefore, since these three comprise all modes of demonstration, [the author] speaks of “three approved” forms. ‘From these three methods the establishment of proof follows,’ this [has to be added] to complete [the sense of] the sentence.

The complete determination of the demonstrable is verily by proof. The demonstrable are the Chief One, Intellect, self-apperception, the five elemental rudiments, the eleven sense-organs, the five gross elements, and the Soul. These twenty-five principles are spoken of [collectively] as the Manifested, the Unmanifested and the Knowing. Of these, some are demonstrable by perception, some by inference, and some by revelation. Thus proof [which is] three-fold has been described.

Prativiṣayādhyavasāyo, dṛṣṭam trividham anumānam ākhyātam |
ta liṅgalingipūrvakam, āptaśrutir āptavacanam tu  |5|

5. Perception is the mental apprehension of particular objects; Inference, which is by means of a mark and the marked, is declared to be three-fold ; authoritative statement is true revelation.

Gauḍapāda Bhāṣya

The characteristics of the three-fold proof are now stated.

The application of the senses, ear, etc., to the particular objects thereof, sound and the like, is sense-apprehension or perception.

Inference has been declared to be three-fold, [viz.,] prior, posterior, and generic. ‘Prior’ is that which has an antecedent, as, one infers rain from the gathering of clouds from past experience. ‘Posterior,’ as, from finding salt in a drop of water from the sea, [one infers that] the remainder also is saltish.  

‘Generic,’ as, from noticing them to have moved from one place to another, [one infers that] the moon and the stars have locomotion like Chaitra,—as a person named Chaitra is [inferred to be] moving by seeing him transfer himself from one place to another, so [also] the moon and the stars. So, by analogy, we infer that the mango-trees must be in flower elsewhere because we see them in blossom [here]. This is ‘generic inference.’ What else? It is by means of the mark and the marked. Inference is by means of the mark, where from the mark (predicate) the marked (subject) is inferred, e.g., the mendicant from the staff. [It is,] again, by means of the marked, where the mark (predicate) is inferred from the marked [subject], e.g., seeing a mendicant [you say], this is his triple staff.

True revelation is authoritative Statement. Āpta [means] holy teachers, Brahmā and the like, Śruti [means] the Vedas; what is said by holy teachers or in the Śruti is authoritative statement. Thus the threefold proof has been explained.

Sāmānyatas tu dṛṣṭad, atīndriyānām prasiddhir anumānāt |
tasmād api cāsiddham, paroakṣam āptāgamāt sādhyam  |6|

6. The knowledge of sensible things is by perception, of the non-sensible by inference;   what is not ascertainable even thereby and is imperceptible is determined by revelation.

Gauḍapāda Bhāṣya

 [The author] next proceeds to show what is demonstrated by which kind of proof.

By inference from analogy [proceeds the knowledge] of non-sensible [things], [that is], the demonstration of things that exist beyond the sense. Nature and Soul are super-sensible, and [therefore] demonstrated by inference from analogy. For, since the Great One and the like are modes composed of the three constituents, that of which they are products with trine properties is the Prime Cause (Nature); again, since the irrational appears as rational it has a separate controller, namely, Soul.

The manifest is ascertainable by perception.  What is not demonstrable by that, [that is, inference, and is] imperceptible, is determined by revelation; as, for instance, Indra the king of the gods, the Kurus in the north, the nymphs in heaven are not perceptible, but ascertained by sacred authority.

Atidūrāt sāmīpyād, indriyaghātān mano’navasthānāt |
saūkṣmyād vyavadhānād abhibhavāt samānābhihārāt ca  |7|

7. [A thing may be imperceptible] on account of excessive distance, [extreme] nearness, defect of organs, inattention of the mind, minuteness, interposition [as well as] predominance [of other objects], and intermixture with like [things].

Gauḍapāda Bhāṣya

Here someone objects, ‘neither is Nature nor Soul perceived [by sense], what is not [so] perceived does not exist in the world; therefore these two also do not exist, like a second head, a third arm. ’ To which [the author] replies, there are eight causes in the world which prevent the apprehension of existing objects. They are [as follows]:—

The non-perception of existing objects is here seen to be from [their] remoteness, as, of Chaitra, Maitra, Vishnu and Mitra residing in another country. From nearness, as, the non-perception of the collyrium [on the lids] by the eyes. From destruction of the organs, as, the non-perception of sound and colour by the deaf and the blind [respectively]. From inattention of the mind, as, a distracted (person) does not comprehend even what is said distinctly. From minuteness, as the atoms of smoke/ vapour, and frost are not perceived in the sky (or atmosphere). From interposition, as, an object concealed by a wall is not perceived. From predominance, as, obscured by the light of the sun, the planets, asterisms, and stars are not perceived. From intermixture with the like, as, a bean cast in a heap of beans, a lotus amongst lotuses, a Myrobalan amongst Myrobalans, a pigeon amongst pigeons, is not perceived [or distinguished], being confounded amidst a mass of [similar] things. Thus non-perception of existing things here is seen to be in eight ways.

Saūkṣmyāt tadanupalabdhir, nābhāvāt kāryatas tadupalabdheḥ |
mahadādi tat ca kāryam, prakṛtivirūpaṃ sarūpaṃ ca  |8|

8. The non-perception of [Nature] is owing to its subtlety [and] not non-existence; its apprehension is through its effects. Consciousness and the rest are its products, like and unlike to Nature.

Gauḍapāda Bhāṣya

Let this be so.  Yet what then? Of Nature and Soul what is it that prevents an apprehension, and what leads to it? This is [next] explained.

Owing to its subtlety is its non-apprehension, [to wit], of Nature ; that is, Nature is not apprehended on account of its subtlety, as, the particles of smoke, vapour and frost, though existent, are not perceived in the atmosphere.

How then is it to be apprehended? It is apprehended through its effects. On seeing the effect, the cause is inferred, ‘There is Nature the cause, of which this is the effect.’ Intellect, self-apperception, the five elemental rudiments, the eleven organs of sense, and the five gross elements are its effects (or products). These effects are unlike Nature, dissimilar to it; like also, similar too; as, in the world a son may be [at the same time] like and unlike the father. The reason why like and unlike we shall explain later on.

Asadakaraṇād upādānagrahaṇāt sarvasambhavābhāvāt |
śaktasya śakyakaraṇāt, kāraṇabhāvāc ca satkāryam  |9|

9. An effect [pre-] exists [in its cause], because of the non-existent being uncaused, of the employment [by men] of material means, of the absence of universal production, of the effecting of the possible [only] by a competent agent, and of the nature of a cause.

Gauḍapāda Bhāṣya

 On account of the conflicting opinions of teachers, a doubt arises whether the effects, consciousness and the rest, [pre-] exist in Nature or not. For, according to the Sānkhya doctrine, effects [pre-] exist; according to the Bauddhas, they do not; [but] if existent they cannot cease to be, and if non-existent, they cannot begin to be; here is a contradiction. Therefore it is said: [An effect etc.].

From there being no production of the non-existent that which exists not is non-existent; what is non-existent cannot be called into existence; therefore effect subsists. In this world there is no production of the non-existent, for instance, the production of oil from sand [is impossible]; therefore [only] what [already] exists comes from an operative cause, having previously originated therein. [Thus] the manifest [principles exist] in Nature; hence effect is.

What else? From the employment of materials, from the taking of material means. In this world each man selects [appropriate] materials for his [particular] end; for instance, he who desires curds [takes] milk, not water. Hence effect subsists.

Again, from the absence of universal production. Every thing is not possible everywhere, as, gold [is not possible] in silver and the like, in grass, dust or sand. Hence, because of the absence of universal possibility (of everything), effect subsists.

Further, from the production by the capable of what it is competent to. Here a [particular] potter, [who is] a competent agent, or the material means [he employs, viz, the lump of clay, the wheel, rag, rope, water, etc., produce out of a clod of earth the practicable pot. Hence effect subsists.

Lastly, effect subsists because it is [nothing else than] the cause. Whatever the character of the cause, such is the character of the effect, as, from barley [is produced] barley, from paddy rice. If effect were not pre-existent, rice might grow from peas. But it does not. Therefore effect is.

Thus by five arguments, Intellect and the other modes [are shown to pre-]exist in Nature. Consequently, production is of what is and not of what is not.

Hetumad anityam avyāpi sakriyam anekam āshritaṃ liṅgam |
sāvayavaṃ paratantraṃ, vyaktaṃ viparītam avyaktam  |10|

10. The Manifested is caused, non-eternal, limited, changeful, multiform, dependent, attributive, conjunct [and], subordinate. The Unmanifested is the reverse.

Gauḍapāda Bhāṣya

 It was said “like and unlike Nature (verse 8). How it is so is now explained.

The manifested, that is, Intellect and the other products, are caused, furnished with a cause (hetuḥ, upādāna, kāraṇa, and nimitta being synonymous terms). Nature is the cause of the manifested. Therefore all the perceptible principles, inclusive of the gross elements, have a cause. [Thus,] intellect finds its cause in Nature, self-consciousness in intellect, ether in rudimental sound, air in rudimental touch, light in rudimental colour, water in rudimental taste, earth in rudimental smell. Hence the Manifested up to the gross elements have a cause.

What else? Non-eternal, inasmuch as produced by another; as, a pot is non-eternal, because made from a clod of earth.

Also, non-pervading, that is, not entering everywhere; for instance, Nature and Soul are omnipresent, not so the discrete principles.

What else? Changeful, [it] moves [from one body to another] at the time of dissolution; furnished with the thirteen instruments and indwelling the subtle frame it migrates; hence is endowed with motion.

What else? It is multiform, [comprising] Intellect, egoism, the five elemental rudiments, the eleven organs of sense, and the five gross elements.

What else? Dependent, supported by its cause, [thus,] consciousness is supported by Nature, self-apperception by consciousness, the eleven organs and the five subtle principles by self-apperception, and the five gross elements by the five subtle principles.

Also, mergent, perishable; at the time [of (general) dissolution, the five gross elements merge into the subtle principles, these together with the eleven organs of sense into self-consciousness, this into intellect, which', again, into Nature.

Further, conjunct, accompanied by properties, [viz.,] sound, touch, taste, colour, and smell.

Moreover, subordinate, not self-governed; for example, intellect is governed by Nature, egoism by intellect, the rudiments and the sense-organs by egoism and the five gross elements by the rudiments. Thus it is subordinate or dependent. The Manifest category has been [now] described.

We shall how describe the unmanifested: The Unmanifested is the reverse. It is contrary with reference to the qualities specified. [E.g.] the Manifested has been said to be caused, [but] there is nothing prior to Nature, whence it is unproduced; therefore the unmanifested is uncaused. Again, the Manifested is non-eternal, [but] the unmanifested is eternal because unoriginated; it is not like the elements produced from anywhere,—thus it is Primal Nature. Further, the Manifested is non-pervading, Nature is universal, because all-pervasive. The Manifested is movable, the unmanifested is not, owing to the [same] omnipresence. Moreover, the Manifested is multiform, Nature one, because it is the (Prime) Cause; “Nature is the sole cause of the three worlds,” and hence it is single. Again, the Manifested is dependent, the unmanifested is self-supported, because not an effect; there is nothing beyond Nature of which it can be an evolute. Again, the Manifested is subject to resolution, the unmanifested is indissoluble, because eternal; Mahat and the other modes will at the time of general dissolution resolve into one another, not so Nature; therefore it is immergent. Again, the Manifested is compound, the Unmanifested is uncompounded,—sound, touch, taste, form and smell subsist not in the Prime Cause. Finally, the Manifested is subordinate, the Unmanifested is independent, governed by itself.

Triguṇam aviveki viṣayaḥ, sāmānyam acetanaṃ prasavadharmi |
vyaktaṃ tathā pradhānaṃ, tadviparītas tathā ca pumān  |11|

11. The Manifested has trine constituents, and is indiscriminative, objective, generic, irrational and productive. So also is Nature. Soul is the reverse in these respects as in those.

Gauḍapāda Bhāṣya

 Thus having specified the differences between the Manifested and the Unmanifested principles, [the author] proceeds to describe the similarities, for it was said, “it is also like” [verse 8].

The Manifested has three constituents, [viz.], goodness, passion and darkness. It is indiscriminative, without power of differentiation; it is not capable of distinguishing, for instance, that this is the Manifested and these are [its] properties, that that is a cow and the other is a horse, that as are the properties so is the manifest principle, as is the principle so are the properties, and so forth. Again, the manifested is objective, that is, an object of enjoyment (or use), being an object [of experience] for all souls. The Manifested, again, is generic, since it is, like a harlot, common to all. The Manifested is irrational, it does not feel pleasure, pain, or insensibility. Lastly, the Manifested is productive, thus, Intellect produces self-consciousness, which produces the five rudiments and the eleven organs, and which rudiments, again, produce the five gross elements.

Thus have the characteristics of the Manifested been detailed up to ‘productive’, and it is in them that the un-manifested is similar,—as are the discrete principles, so is Nature. Thus like the Manifested, the Unmanifested has three constituents, [and] of this Intellect and the rest, similarly constituted, are products; in this world, the effect is of like quality with the cause, as, of black threads a black cloth is made. So, the Manifested is undiscriminating, Nature also cannot discriminate between the constituents, cannot distinguish that properties are one thing and the world-stuff another; hence the Prime Cause is undiscerning. Again, the Manifested is objective, so also Nature, being an object for all Souls.

Again, the Manifested is generic, so is also Nature, being common to all [things]. Moreover the Manifested is irrational, so is also Nature, unconscious of pleasure, pain, or dullness; whence is this inferred? [From the irrationality of its effect, because] from an unconscious lump of clay an (irrational) pot is produced. Finally, the Manifested is productive, so is also Nature, for from it Intellect springs. Thus Nature has also been described.

Now soul is the reverse in these respects as in those, [this] is explained. Soul is the reverse of both the Manifested and the Unmanifested. Thus: those two principles possess three constitutive factors, soul possesses none; they are indiscriminative, it is discriminative; they are objective, it is not [an object of sense or fruition]; they are generic, it is specific or individual); they are irrational, it is rational, being conscious of pleasure, pain and insensibility; they are productive, it is unprolific—nothing is born of Soul. Hence it is said, “The soul is the reverse.”

It is also said as in those; in the preceding verse as Nature was explained to be without cause, such also is Soul. There it is stated, the Manifested is caused, non-eternal, etc., the Unmanifested is the reverse. That is, the Manifested is caused, the Unmanifested uncaused, so also is Soul uncaused, because not produced. The Manifested is non-eternal, the Unmanifested eternal, so also is Soul eternal. The Manifested is non-pervasive, the Unmanifested is all-pervading, so also is Soul, through omnipresence. The Manifested is changeful, the Unmanifested unchanging, so also is Soul, because all-pervasive. The Manifested is many, the Unmanifested one, so is the Soul one (uniform). The Manifested is dependent, the Unmanifested independent, so also is Soul independent. The Manifested is dissoluble, the Unmanifested indivisible, so also is Soul irresolvable, it never is decomposed. The Manifested is compound, the Unmanifested is uncombined, so also is Soul uncombined, in it no parts [like] sound and the rest exist. Finally, the Manifested is subordinate, the Unmanifested self-governed, so also is Soul self-governed, ruled by itself.

Thus the common properties of Nature and Soul were explained in the preceding verse ; the common properties of Nature and the Manifested, and the dissimilar of Soul, have been explained in this verse, “ the Manifested,” etc.