Sāṁkhya Karika with Vācaspati Miṣra Commentaries |Part 4

Guṇāḥ - They are called so because they exist for the sake of the other (i.e. the Spirit). In the next Karika, Sattva and other Gunas will be explained in a systematic order. Following the maxim of foresight, or according to the convention among the authors of treatises, prīti etc. (appearing in this Karika) ought to be considered in the same order (as sattva etc. in the next Karika). The meaning is that prīti being pleasure, sattva attribute comes to be known as of the nature of pleasure; aprīti is pain and is of the nature of Rajas; Viṣāda is delusion; so, Tamas is of the nature of delusion. In order to refute the contention that ‘pleasure is nothing more than the mere absence of pain’ and ‘pain is no more than the absence of pleasure,’ the term (of the nature of) atman has to be read with the above. Pleasure and pain are not merely mutual negations, but they are positive entities and the term ātma connotes this positive reality. Therefore, those whose nature consists of pleasure are prītyātman. Other terms too are to be explained accordingly. Positive nature of these (i.e. of pleasure etc.) is established by common experience. If they were merely of the nature of mutual negations, then they would be dependent on each other, in which case non-fulfilment of the one would lead to the non-fulfilment of the other too.

Having thus described their nature, the author next describes their several uses and purposes. ‘They serve the purpose of illumination, action and restraint.’ Here too, these three are to be compounded (with gunas) as before. The attribute of Rajas which is always and everywhere action-oriented, motivates the buoyant sattva guṇa to action if it were not restrained by the dull Tamas attribute; if it were restrained by the Tamas attribute, then it operates only intermittently. Thus, the Tamas here functions as a restraining element.

Having thus explained their uses, the author next explains their operation: ‘they are mutually dominating and supporting, productive and cooperative.’ Vṛtti (in the text) is function and this is to be connected with each term in the compound. (Then it will be anyonya-abhibhava-vṛtti etc.).

1. Mutually dominating because, when one becomes active for some purpose, it dominates over the other (i.e. it subjugates the other). For example, Sattva attains its calm nature only after dominating over (or subjugating) the Rajas and Tamas attributes. Similarly, the Rajas attains its agitated nature by subduing the Sattva and Tamas attributes and Tamas attains to its torpid condition by subjugating both Sattva and Rajas.

 2. Mutually supporting: The statement supporting each other is not made in the sense of the container and the contained: What is meant by āśraya (support) here is that when the operation of one depends upon another, then it becomes the āśraya of the former. For instance, Sattva by resting upon activity and restraint, subserves Rajas and Tamas attributes with illumination. Rajas by resting upon illumination and restraint subserves Sattva and Tamas with activity; and Tamas resting on illumination and activity subserves Sattva and Rajas with restraint.

3. Mutually productive: One produces its effects resting upon the other two. Production here means modification and it is always of the same nature as of the attributes. This is why it (modification) is not caused (i.e. not produced by some cause) because of the absence of a cause which is a different Tattva. Neither is non-eternality entailed here because of the absence of dissolution (laya) in another tattva. (ie there is no merging of it into another tattva essentially different from itself).

4. Mutually cooperative: That is, they are mutually concomitants and never exist separated from one another. The particle ca is used in the collective sense. In support of the above there is this agama text (Devi Bhagavata-3.8)

Anyonyamithunāḥ sarve sarve sarvatra gāminaḥ |
Rajaso mithunaṁ sattvam sattvasya mithunaṁ rajaḥ |
Tamasaścāpi mithune te sattvarajasī  ubhe |
Ubhayoḥ sattvarajasor mithunaṁ Tama ucyate |
Naiṣāmādiḥ samprayogo viyogo vopalabhayate || 

— All the attributes are mutual consorts; all go everywhere (i.e. are omnipresent). Sattva is the consort of Rajas, Rajas is the consort of Sattva; both of these Sattva and Rajas are the consorts of Tamas and Tamas is the consort of both Sattva and Rajas. The first union or disunion of these has never been seen.’ It has been said that the attributes serve the purpose of illumination, activity and restraint. Next is being explained as to what those attributes are and why they are so:

The Sānkhya Teachers hold that (of the three gunas) the Sattva attribute alone is buoyant and illuminating. Here lāghava (buoyancy) is that quality which is the cause for springing up of things and is opposed to sluggishness. It is this quality which causes the shooting upward of the flame of fire. Sometimes, the same quality of lāghava (buoyancy) causes lateral motion also, as in the case of air. Therefore, lāghavam is that which cause the efficient functioning of all instruments, while sluggishness would make the instruments inefficient. The illuminative character of Sattva guṇa has been explained (in the earlier verse).

Now, Sattva and Tamas are attributes which are inactive by themselves and, are therefore, unable to produce their own effects, derive their driving force from Rajas which rouses them from their inertia and excites them to accomplish their own respective effects. That is why it is said that Rajas is exciting. It is exciting because it is mobile. Through this it is indicated that the operation of Rajas is necessary for all activity. The Rajoguṇa, because of its mobility, keeps the three gunas in a continuous state of activity; but it is operative only in some cases because of its mobility getting restrained by the sluggish and obscuring qualities of Tamas. Therefore, in order to distinguish it from Rajas, Tamas is said to be the restraining force in the Text: ‘Tamas is both sluggish and obscuring.’ The particle eva (appended to Tamas) is to be appended to Sattva and rajas also; thus it is to be read as sattvameva, raja eva and tama eva.

Objection: Now, these gunas are endowed with mutually contradicting properties. It is but natural that (instead of cooperating) they would only destroy each other like Sunda and Upasunda. 

Answer: It has been said earlier that their functioning is for a common purpose, like that of a lamp. It is a matter of common observation that the wick and oil, though opposed to the action of fire, when brought together, they cooperate to perform the task of giving light. In a similar way, the three humours of the body, viz, wind, bile and phlegm, though possessed of mutually opposite properties, cooperate with each other for the sole purpose of sustaining the body. In the same way, Sattva, Rajas and Tamas attributes also though contradictory to each other, cooperate and effect their single purpose of bringing about the emancipation of the Puruṣa - (Spirit), as has been explained (in Karika 31): ‘Serving the purpose of the Puruṣa is the sole motive (for the activity of the instruments); by nothing else is an instrument (organ) made to act! 

Pleasure, pain and delusion are mutually contradictory attributes and people naturally assume their causes also as having the nature of pleasure, pain and delusion, following their respective connotations. And these causes appear in many forms, because, by their very nature, they are mutually suppressive. As for instance, a single woman endowed with youth, beauty and virtue is the source of happiness to her husband because, to him, she appears in the form pleasure; but the very same woman is the cause of pain to her co-wives, because, to them, she appears in the form of pain. Again, the same woman deludes another man who is unable to have her; to him she appears in the form of delusion. The example of this woman illustrates the nature of all things. That thing which causes pleasure is the Sattva guṇa the essence of which is pleasure; that which causes pain is Rajas which is of the nature of pain and that which causes delusion is Tamas which is of the nature of delusion. Pleasure, enlightenment and buoyancy, appearing simultaneously in one substratum, are not mutually contradictory, because, they are seen to co-exist together. Thus, there is no need to assume a different cause for each of pleasure, enlightenment and buoyancy as they are not mutually contradictory unlike in the case of pleasure, pain and delusion which are mutually contradictory (and as such cannot co-exist in the same substratum) and assumption of three different causes becomes necessary. Similar is the case with regard to pain, mobility and activity (properties of Rajas), and delusion, sluggishness and obscurity (properties of Tamas, where there is no need to assume different causes for each of the properties). Thus it is conclusively established that the attributes are only three.

Objection: Let the properties like indistinguishability and the rest which are things of our experience, subject in things like earth and others which are actually perceived. But how can we establish attributes like indistinguishability, objectivity, insentiency and productivity as belonging to Sattva and other gunas which are beyond the range of perceptible experience (as described in Karika 11)? This is answered in the following Karika:

Aviveki (in the text) is to be understood as avivekitvam, as is found in the Pāṇini Sutra: ‘dvyekayordvivacanaikavacane’ (1.4.22). Here, dvi and eka stand for dvitva and ekatva respectively; otherwise, the form of the compound would be ‘dvyekeṣu.'

Question: How are properties like indistinguishability and others are proved to exist?

Answer: From the existence of three gunas. Whatever is of the nature of Pleasure, Pain and Delusion, that thing is endowed with properties like indistinguishability and the rest, even like this Manifest which is directly perceived. This is inferred through the method of agreement (anvaya anumāna). This has not been stated explicitly in the text because it is clearly understood. But the method of difference (vyatireki anumāna) has been stated: tadviparyayābhāvāt. ‘Whatever does not possess properties like indistinguishability, etc. that thing does not possess Pleasure, Pain and Delusion, as in the case of Puruṣa (Spirit), in whom the three gunas are non-existent. Alternatively, both the Manifested and the Unmanifested can be taken as the subject (minor term, pakṣa) of the syllogism in which the reasoning will be: ‘because of the existence of three guṇas’ as a purely negative (avīta) inference.  There could be no other thing (besides the Vyakta and the Avyakta) where there could be an affirmation (of the middle term, i.e. the existence of the attributes).

Objection: The existence of properties like indistinguishability etc. in the Avyakta can be proved only if the existence of Avyakta is first proved. But the existence of Avyakta itself does not stand proved. How, then, could the existence of properties like indistinguishability etc. be proved?

Answer: Because of the effects consisting of the same properties as those of the causes. The meaning of the above argument is that all effects are verily found to be possessing the same properties of their causes. For example, the cloth etc. are constituted of the same property as those of the yams. Similarly, all products characterised as Mahat and the rest, possessing the form of Pleasure, Pain and Delusion must possess the properties of Pleasure, Pain and Delusion, inhering in its own cause. Thus, its cause in the form of Pradhāna, the Unmanifest, possessing the properties of Pleasure, Pain and Delusion, becomes established.

Question: The followers of Kaṇāda (Vaiśeṣikās) and Gautama (Naiyāyikas) hold that the Manifest is produced from the Manifest. (Vyaktat vyaktam utpadyate). The atoms are the manifests. From them proceeds the creation of manifest products of the nature of the Great Earth and the rest through a chain of combinations like the binary compound etc. The creation of qualities like form etc. in Earth and other substances are in accordance with similar qualities in their causes (i.e. in atoms). Inasmuch as all the manifest substances and their qualities are produced from a Manifest cause, why postulate an Unmanifest cause which is not even a perceptible Entity?

This is replied:

There exists this Unmanifest, the Root Cause, which is the cause of all specific products of elements like the Mahat and the rest upto the Earth element. Why so? ‘Because of the difference between the cause and the effect and because of the non-difference (ie merging) of the whole world of effect.’ It has been established that the effect is already existent in its cause. The limbs of the tortoise which already are there, when emerging out of its body, become distinguished from it when we express: ‘this is the body of the tortoise and these are its limbs,’ and when these limbs enter into its body, they become unmanifest. In the same way, products like jar, crown, etc. emerge from their causes, viz, clay and gold, and become distinguished from their causes. Similarly, the pre-existing products like earth and the rest, emerge from their causes in the form of Primary Elements (Tanmātras) and become distinguished from their causes. The pre-existing Primary Elements emerge from their cause, the I-Principle (ahaṁkāra) and become distinguished from it. The pre-existing I-Principle emerges from its cause, the Great Principle (Mahat) and becomes distinguished from it. The pre-existing Great Principle emerges from its cause, the Supreme Unmanifest (Parama avyaktam) and becomes distinguished from its cause. Thus the whole inverse of products related to its ultimate cause, the Highest Unmanifest, either immediately (as with Mahat) or through successive series of productions (like the earth etc.), comes to be distinguished from its cause — this is what is meant by ‘differentiation between cause and effects.’ At the time of dissolution, products like jar, crown etc merge back into their respective causes, clay and gold, i.e. they disappear in their causes find become unmanifest; that is to say, the effects become unmanifest in the form of their cause itself which is unmanifest as far as that particular product is concerned. Similarly, substances like Earth etc., entering the Primary Elements render them unmanifest in so far as the earth and other substances are concerned. In a similar way, the Primary Elements merge into the I-Principle rendering the I-Principle unmanifest in so far as the Primary elements are concerned; when the I-Principle disappears in the Mahat, it renders the Mahat unmanifest in so far as its own form is concerned. When, finally, this Mahat merges into the Prakṛti, it renders the Prakṛti unmanifested. But Prakṛti does not merge into anything else; it is the pure unmanifest state of all products. This is what is meant by the merging of the whole world of effects of all kinds. The term Vaiśvarūpya is formed by affixing the reflective affix ṣyañ. Therefore the existence of the unmanifest as the cause is proved inasmuch as there is the separation and mergence of the already existing effects in the cause.

Further proof for the existence of the Unmanifest as the cause is given: Because of evolution being due to the efficiency of the cause. It is well-known that effects evolve due to the efficiency of the cause; for, no effect can ever arise from an inefficient cause. This efficiency is latent in the cause and is no other than the existent effect in its unmanifest condition. Thus, on the hypothesis that effect already exists in its cause, die existence of any other form of causal efficiency other than the latent form at the unmanifest effect, cannot be proved in the cause.

The difference between sand and sesame seed which is the material cause of oil, lies in the fact that it is only in the sesame seed that oil exists in its unmanifest state and not in the sand.

Objection: Now, the reasons that evolution being due to the efficiency of the cause and separation and merging of the cause and effect prove the supreme unmanifest character (parama avyaktatvam) of Mahat itself. Then why postulate another unmanifest entity beyond that?

Answer: Because of the finite nature of specific objects of the evolutes. Here, the term parimāṇāt stands for parimitatvāt i.e. because of finiteness due to its non-pervasiveness. The form of syllogism here is as follows:

‘Mahat and the rest which are the specific objects in question, have the Avyakta for their cause; because they are finite; like jars and the like.’

Jars etc. are finite objects and are seen to inhere in their causes clay etc. in an unmanifested state. It has already been said that cause is verily the unmanifested state of the effect. Thus, the cause of Mahat must be the supreme unmanifest and that should be the final cause as there is no proof for assuming a further unmanifest entity beyond that.

The specific objects in question must have the unmanifest as their cause for the reason of homogeneity (samanvayāt). Homogeneity is possessing common forms among different things. Buddhi and the rest are of the nature of Pleasure, Pain and Delusion and manifesting themselves as cognition etc. are found to be homogeneous. Things which are invariably connected with certain forms must have only that for its cause which has those forms for its constituent elements, just as jar, crown etc. which are inherent in clay and gold pieces, have clay and gold as their unmanifest causes. Thus, it is established that the Unmanifest exists as the cause of specific objects.

Having thus established the existence of the unmanifest, the author next states the methods of its operations: it operates through the three attributes. At the time of cosmic dissolution, Sattva, Rajas and Tamas attributes undergo homogeneous modifications. The attributes are verily of the nature of modification. As such, they can never remain even for a moment without undergoing modification. Therefore, even at the time of dissolution, sattva attribute operates through its particular sattva form, Rajas operates through its own particular Rajas form and Tamas operates through its own Tamas form. (That is to say, the gunas attain a state of equilibrium in their respective particular forms at the time of dissolution). That is why it is said: operates through the three attributes.

Yet another method of operation is given: through combination (samudayāt). Here, the term samudayāt means appearing after having blended together. And this blending together is not possible without some sort of relation of the gunas with the Principal guṇa. (That is, the blending of the gunas in a particular ratio in which subsidiary gunas cooperate and combine with the Principal guṇa). This relationship of subserviency among the gunas in which one is the principal, is not possible without differentiation. And this differentiation is not possible without mutual suppression. (That is, certain principal guṇa suppresses the other gunas and then combines with-them). This is the second method of operation by which Mahat and other products are evolved.

Question: How can diverse methods of operation be attributed to gunas when they are of uniform nature?

Answer: Because of modification, like water. Even though the water released from the clouds is of one taste only, yet, it gets modified into different tastes like sweet, sour, saline, bitter, pungent and astringent according as it comes in contact with different modifications of earth and become transformed into the juice of fruits such as coconut, palmyra, palm, wood-apple, ebony fruit, Myrobalan fruit etc. In the same manner, owing
to the combination and mutual suppression of the subservient gunas, the gunas of Primordial Nature (Pradhāna Guṇāḥ) come to be predominant one by one and thereby bring about diverse modifications in the state of various products. This is what has been said by the phrase: through differences arising from diversity of the several receptacles of the attributes. That is, by the peculiarities due to the predominance of one or the other of the gunas.

There are some self-contented ones (Tauṣṭikāḥ - Materialists) who consider the Unmanifest or the Great Principle, or the I-Principle, or the senses or even the elements as the Spirit (Ātman), and worship them alone. To them, the author declares as follows: