Sānkhya Aphorisms of Kapila | 6 Book

BOOK VI.

Having explained, in four Books, all the matter of the Institute, and having, in the Fifth Book, thoroughly established it, by refuting the opinions of opponents, now, in a Sixth Book, he recapitulates the same matter, which is the essence of the Institute, while condensing it. For, in addition [to what has preceded], an enumeration of the matters before mentioned, namely, a summary, having been composed, learners acquire an undoubting, accurate, and more solid knowledge; so that, therefore, reiteration is not here to be imputed as a fault; because the method is that of fixing a stake, [viz., by repeated blows], and because arguments, &c., not previously stated, are adduced.  

Aph. 1.

Soul is; for there is no proof that it is not.

Aph. 2.

This [Soul,] is different from the Body etc.,  because of heterogeneousness, [or complete difference between the two].

Aph,. 3.

Also because it [Soul,] is expressed by means of the sixth [or possessive,] case.

Aph. 4.

It is not as in the case of the statue; because there is [there] a contradiction to the evidence which acquaints us with the thing.

Aph. 5.

Through the entire cessation of pain, there is done what was to be done.

Aph. 6.

Not such desire for pleasure is there to Soul, as there is annoyance from Pain.

Aph. 7.

For [only] someone somewhere is happy.

Aph. 8.

It [Pleasure,] is also mixed with Pain; therefore the discriminating throw it to the side of [and reckon it as so much,] Pain.

Aph. 9.

If you say that this [cessation of pain] is not Soul’s aim, inasmuch as there is no acquisition of Pleasure, then it is not as you say; for there are two kinds [of things desired].

Aph. 10.

The Soul [someone may suggest,] has no quality; for there is Scripture for its being unaccompanied, &c.

Aph. 11.

Though it [the Pain,] be the property of something else, yet it exists in it [the Soul,] through non-discrimination.

Aph. 12.

Non-discrimination [of Soul from Nature] is beginningless; because, otherwise, two objections would present themselves.

Aph. 13.

It [non-discrimination,] cannot be everlasting [in the same manner] as the soul is; else, it could not be cut short, [as we affirm that it can be].

Aph. 14.

It [Bondage,] is annihilable by the allotted cause, [viz., discrimination of Soul from Nature]; as darkness is [annihilable by the allotted cause, viz., Light].

Aph. 15.

Here, also, [viz., in the case of Bondage and Discrimination, as in the case of Darkness and Light,] there is allotment, [as is proved] both by positive and negative consociation; [Liberation taking place where Discrimination is, and not where it is not].

Aph. 16.

Since it cannot be [accounted for] in any other way, it is non-discrimination alone that is [the cause of] Bondage, [which cannot be innate].

Aph. 17.

Further, Bondage does not again attach to the liberated; because there is Scripture for its non-recurrence.

.Aph.18.

Else, it [liberation,] would not be Soul’s aim, [which it is].

Aph. 19.

What happened to both would be alike, [if liberation were perishable].

Aph. 20.

Liberation is nothing other than the removal of the obstacle [to the Soul’s recognition of itself as free].

Aph. 21.

Even in that case, there is no contradiction.

Aph. 22.

This [attainment of Liberation, on mere hearing of the truth,] is no necessity; for there are three sorts of those competent [to apprehend the truth; but not all are qualified to appropriate it, on merely hearing it].

Aph. 23.

Of others [viz., other means besides hearing], for the sake of confirmation, [there is need].

Aph. 24.

There is no [absolute] necessity that what is steady and promoting ease should be a [particular] posture, [such as any of those referred to in Book III., §34].

Aph. 25.

Mind without an object is Meditation.

Aph. 26.

If you say that even both ways there is no difference, it is not so: there is a difference, through the exclusion [in the one case,] of the tinge [of reflected pain which exists in the other case].

Aph. 27.

Though it [Soul,] be unassociated, still there is a tingeing [reflexionally,] through Non-discrimination.

Aph. 28.

As is the case with the Hibiscus and the crystal [Book I., § 19, c.], there is not a tinge, but a fancy [that there is such].

Aph. 29.

It [viz., the aforesaid tinge,] is debarred by Meditation, Restraint, Practice, Apathy, &c.

Aph. 30.

It is by the exclusion of dissolution and distraction, say the teachers.

Aph. 31.

There is no rule about localities; for it is from tranquillity of Mind.

Aph. 32.

Nature is the primal material; for there is scripture [to the effect] that the others are products.

Aph. 33.

Not to Soul does this [viz., to be the material of the world,] belong, though it be eternal; because of its want of suitableness.

Aph. 34.

The despicable sophist does not gain [a correct apprehension of] Soul; because of the contradictoriness [of his notions] to Scripture.

Aph. 35.

Though but mediately [the cause of products], Nature is inferred [as the ultimate cause of the intermediate causes,]; just as are Atoms, [by the Vaiśeṣikas].

Aph. 36.

It [Nature,] is all-pervading; because [its] products are seen everywhere.

Aph. 37.

Though motion may attach to it, this does not destroy its character as ultimate cause; just as is the case with Atoms.

Aph. 38.

Nature is something in addition to the notorious [nine Substances of the Naiyāyikas]: it is no matter of necessity [that there should be precisely nine].

Aph. 39.

Purity and the others are not properties of it [viz., Nature]; because they are its essence.

Aph. 40.

Nature, though it does not enjoy [the results of its own energizing], creates for the sake of Soul; like a cart’s carrying saffron,[for the use of its master. See Book III, § 58].

Aph. 41.

The diversity of creation is in consequence of the diversity of Desert.

Aph. 42.

The two results are through equipoise and the reverse of equipoise.

Aph. 43.

Since [or when,] the emancipated has understood [that he never was really otherwise], Nature does not create; just as, in the world, [a minister does not toil, when the king’s purpose has been accomplished].

Aph. 44.

Even though it [Nature,] may invade others [with its creative influences], the emancipated does not experience, in consequence of the absence of a concurrent cause, [e.g., Non-discrimination, in the absence of which there is no reason why the emancipated should be subjected to Nature’s invasion].

Aph. 45.

The multicity of Soul [is proved] by the distribution [announced by the Veda itself].

Aph. 46.

If [you acknowledge] an adjunct [of Soul], then on its being established, there is duality, [upsetting the dogma founded on in § 44].

Aph. 47.

Even by the two the authority is contradicted.

Aph. 48.

The prima facie view [of the Vedānta] is not [to be allowed any force, as an objection]; because, by [admitting] two, [viz., Soul and Ignorance], there is no opposition [to our own dualistic theory of Soul and Nature]: and the subsequent [dogma, viz., that one single Soul is the only reality, is not to be allowed]; because of the non-existence of a proof, [which, if it did exist, would, along with Soul, constitute a duality].

Aph. 49.

[And] in its [Soul’s,] being demonstrated by the light [of itself, as you Vedāṅtins say it is], there is the [unreconciled] opposition of patient and agent [in one, which is a contradiction].

Aph. 50.

This [Soul], in the shape of Thought, discrepant from the non-intelligent, reveals the non-intelligent.

Aph. 51.

There is no contradiction to Scripture [in our view]; because that [text of Scripture which seems to assert absolute non-duality] is [intended] to produce apathy in those who have desires, [and who would be better for believing in ‘the nothingness of the things of time’].

Aph. 52.

The world is real; because it results from an unobjectionable cause, and because there is [in Scripture,] no debarrer [of this view of the matter].

Aph. 53.

Since it cannot be [accounted for] in any other way, manifestation [of whatever is manifested] is of what is real, [i.e., of what previously existed].

Aph. 54.

Self-consciousness, not Soul, is the agent.

Aph. 55.

Experience ceases at [discrimination of Soul, [as being quite distinct from Nature]; since it arises from its [Soul's,] Desert, [which is not, really, Soul's, but which, while Non-discrimination lasts, is made over to Soul; just as the fruits of the acts of a king’s ministers are made over to the king].

Aph. 56.

Even in the world of the moon, &c., there is return [to mundane existence]; because of there really being a cause [of such return].

Aph. 57.

Not by the counsel of [super-mundane] people is there effectuation [of Emancipation]; just as in the former case, [the case, viz., of counsel given by mundane instructors].

Aph. 58.

There is Scripture [declaratory] of Emancipation, [on going to the world of Brahma]; this [Emancipation] being effected [more readily in that world than in this, but only] by intermediacy [of the appropriate means].

Aph. 59.

And, in accordance with the text of its ‘going,’ though it [Soul,] is all-pervading, yet, in time, it reaches its place of experience [or body], through conjunction with an adjunct; as in the case of Space.

Aph. 60.

This [constitution of a body] is not accomplished in the case of what is [organic matter] not superintended [by Soul]; because we find putrefaction [in organic matter where Soul is absent].

Aph. 61.

If you say that [independently of any superintendence,] it is through Desert [that a Body is formed, it is not so]; since what is unconnected [with the matter to be operated upon] is incompetent thereto; as is the case with [unapplied] water, &c., in respect of a plant.

Aph. 62.

For this is impossible [viz., that the Soul should, through its Desert, etc., be the cause of Body]; because it has no qualities for these [viz., Desert, &c.,] are properties of Self-consciousness, [not of Soul].

Aph. 63.

The nature of a living soul belongs to that which is qualified, [not to Soul devoid of qualities, as is proved] by direct and indirect arguments.

Aph. 64.

The effectuation of works is dependent on the agent Self-consciousness, not dependent on a Lord, [such as is feigned by the Vaiśeṣikas]; because there is no proof [of the reality of such].

Aph. 65.

It is the same as in the arising of Desert.

Aph. 66.

The rest is from Mind, [the Great Principle].

Aph. 67.

The relation of possession and possessor, also, if attributed [as it is by some,] to Desert, in the case of Nature [and Soul], like [the relation of] seed and plant, [which takes the shape of an infinite regress of alternant], is beginningless.

Aph 68.

Or [the ease is, likewise, one of an infinite regress,] if it[the relation between Nature and Soul,] be attributed to Non- discrimination [of Soul from Nature], as Pañchaśikhā [holds].

Aph. 69.

[The case is the same,] if, as the teacher Sanandana does, we attribute it [the relation between Nature and Soul,] to the Subtile Body, [which, in the shape of its elemental causes, attends Soul, even during the periodical annihilations of the world].

Aph. 70.

Be that the one way, or the other, the cutting short thereof [viz., of the relation between Nature and Soul,] is Soul’s aim; the cutting short thereof is Soul’s aim.