Sāṁkhya Karika with Vācaspati Miṣra Commentaries |Part 5

There must be the Spirit, distinct from the Unmanifest and other evolutes. Why? Because all aggregates of components are for the sake of another. The following is the form of syllogism here: ‘The unmanifest, the Great Principle, the I-Principle and other products exist for another’s sake, because they are composites, like the bedstead, chair, unguents and the like.’ The Unmanifest and the rest are all composites, because they are constituted of pleasure, pain and delusion (which are represented by Sattva, Rajas and Tamas attributes respectively).

Objection: Let it be so; but it is observed that bedsteads, chairs and other aggregates exist only for the use of the body which itself is a composite product; it is not seen that they are for the use of the Spirit which is beyond the Unmanifest and the rest. This leads us to the inference that composite products are verily for the purpose of some other composite product and not for the purpose of the Spirit which is non-composite.

This is answered: because of the absence of the three gunas and other properties. The intention is this: if it is said that one composite thing is for the use of another composite thing, then, we have to infer yet another composite thing for the use of which the latter composite product exists; similarly, another composite product and so on. Thus we have to assume an unending series of composite products ad infinitum. With a reasonable termination being available, it is not proper to assume an endless series of composite products, as it leads to multiple assumptions. Nor can it be said that multiplication of assumptions becomes excusable when it is supported by evidence. Because, here, the composite character of the bedstead is put forward in the inference only in so far as it is concomitant with being for another’s use. (It is not meant to include all the properties of the composite object). If it is insisted that inference should be in accord with all the proper-ties (sarvadharma anurodha) of the corroborative example, then that would be the end of all inferences.  This has further been explained by us in Nyāyavārtika-tātparyatīkā. Therefore, in order to avoid the absurdity of regressus ad infinitum, if we have to accept the non-composite nature of the Spirit, then we will have also to attribute to the Spirit the properties such as without the three gunas, non-distinguishability, non-objectivity, uncommonness, sentiency, and non-productivity. Properties like the quality of possessing the three gunas’ etc are always accompanied by the nature of being composite. Thus, when the nature of being composite is excluded from the Spirit, then the being of the three gunas in the Spirit also gets excluded, just as by excluding Brāhminness, all brāhmins like Kaṭha (a special class of brahmin) and others get automatically excluded. Thus, when the Teacher of Sānkhya (Iśvara Kṛṣṇa) laid down the term: ‘because of the absence of three gunas,’ he intended to mean that there is some supreme thing which is not a composite product and that thing is the Spirit.

For the following reason also, Spirit as apart from Matter exists: because there must be a controlling Agency, that is, inasmuch as the evolutes constituted of the three gunas are always controlled, there must be a controller. It is observed that whatever is of the nature of pleasure, pain and delusion, all such things are controlled by something else, just like the chariots etc being controlled by the charioteer etc. These Buddhi and other evolutes are constituted of the nature of pleasure, pain and delusion; therefore, they too must have someone else to control them, and that someone beyond the three gunas is the Spirit.

For the following reason also, the Spirit exists: because there must be an enjoyer. The term bhogya indicates the objects of enjoyment in the form of pleasure and pain. Every soul experiences the objects of enjoyment as pleasure and pain according to their being felt agreeable or disagreeable respectively. Now, this agreeable and disagreeable feelings can take place only in someone other than the feelings themselves. Feelings cannot be agreeable or disagreeable to Buddhi and other products because ^ Buddhi etc. are themselves constituted of pleasure and pain; otherwise, there will be the anomaly of things operating upon themselves. Therefore, only that thing which is not constituted of pleasure etc. can have either agreeable or disagreeable feelings and that is the Spirit.

Others, however, interpret it thus: Things of enjoyment (bhogyāḥ) are the visible things, like the Buddhi and the rest. They cannot become visible without an observer. Therefore, there is a seer beyond the visible things like Buddhi and the rest, and that seer is the Spirit. Because there is an experiencer (in the text), means because there is an observer, i.e. because the observer is to be inferred from the visible. The visibility of Buddhi and the rest is to be inferred from the fact of their being constituted of pleasure etc. like the earth and other substances.

Yet for another reason also the Spirit must be there: because of the -tendency of activities towards final beatitude. According to the Scripture and Sages endowed with divine perception, the final beatitude characterised by the absolute and final cessation of the three kinds of pain can never take place in Buddhi and other products. Buddhi and other products are, by their very nature, constituted of pleasure etc.; they can never be isolated from their component elements. Only that thing which is distinct from Mahat etc. and which is not constituted of pleasure; etc. can be isolated. According to the Scriptures and opinions of wise-men of great intelligence, all activities tend towards final emancipation. Therefore, there must be something which is beyond Buddhi and the rest, and that is the Spirit.

Having thus proved the existence of the Spirit, the author next explains the theory of plurality of Spirits in answer to  questions whether the Spirit is one inhabiting many bodies, or many, being different in each body:

On what basis is the plurality of Spirit established? This is answered: because there is definite individual allotment of birth, death and the organs. Birth is the connection of the Spirit with a particular aggregate of a special group of body, sense-organs, mind, I-Principle, Great Principle and experiences; it is not a modification of the Spirit, because the Spirit is not subject to any kind of modification. Death is only giving up of that body etc.; it is not the destruction of the Spirit, because the Spirit is immutable and eternal. Organs of action and cognition are thirteen, beginning with Buddhi. Niyama is a particular adjustment of these organs, birth, death etc. It cannot be said that all these are connected with one Spirit dwelling in all the bodies. If the Spirit were one and the same in all bodies, then, when one is born, all would be born, when one dies, all would die; should one become blind etc., then, all else too would become blind. On one going out of mind, all would go out of mind; thus there will be confusion. A definite adjustment is possible only if a distinct Puruṣa dwelling in each set of body is accepted. Nor is it proper to hold that a definite adjustment can be had by assuming that a single Puruṣa has connection with different adjuncts of bodies. Because, this also would land us in confusion as the Spirit would then either be born or die according to the differences of even adjuncts like the hands, breasts etc. For, a maiden does not 'become dead when her hands are cut off her body; nor does she become born on the appearance of breasts and other things on her body! For the following reason also, the Spirit must be different in each body: because of non-simultaneity of activities. Activity is a form of effort; though it is a function of the internal organs; yet, here, it is attributed to the Spirit in a figurative senses. If the Spirit were accepted as one in all the bodies, then, when the Spirit is active in one body, all the bodies would become active and there would be simultaneous movement in all the bodies. This absurdity can be done away with if the Spirit is accepted as multiple, i.e. each Spirit in each body.

For the following reason also, Spirit is different in each body: because of the diverse modifications of the three gunas. Eva in the text should be read after siddham and not with Viparyaya (as found in the text) to emphasise that the plurality of the Spirit is verily a proved fact (siddhameva), and not an unproved one. Traiguṇya means the three attributes. Their differentiation is Viparyaya. Some abound in Sattva attribute, i.e. the composition of their body excels in sattva guṇa, like the ascetics and divinities. Some abound in Rajoguṇa, like ordinary people; some abound in Tamoguṇa, such as animals etc. born in inferior wombs. This differentiation in the distribution of the three gunas in different entities could not be explained if the Spirit were to be one and the same in all the bodies. This defect can be eliminated if the Puruṣa is accepted as multiple.

Having thus established the plurality of the Spirit, the author next states the properties of the Spirit as a knowledge of these are conducive to the attainment of discriminative wisdom (Viveka jñāna):

The particle ca in the text adds the following properties of the Spirit to its plurality. If it had been said Viparyāsād asmāt - And from this contrast (in the text), then the reference would relate to the ‘differentiation due to the three guṇas’ appearing in the previous Kārikā. To avoid this it is said tasmāt - from that-(in the text). A thing immediately preceding becomes the object of the pronoun idam - this; whereas by tad-that, something not so proximate is denoted; hence, tad here denotes ‘three attributes,’ ‘indistinguishability’ etc. mentioned much earlier in Karika 11.  Therefore, the phrase: opposite of three gunas etc. connotes the properties of the Spirit, such as being without three gunas, possessing the quality of discrimination, being non-objective, uncommon, sentiency, and non-prolific. The properties of being sentient and non-objective indicate the characteristics of being a witness and a seer. A sentient being alone can be a seer and not an insentient being; one becomes a witness only when objects are shown to him; he is a witness to whom objects are exhibited. In daily life we find that the two parties of a dispute show the object of the dispute to the witness; in a similar way, the Prakṛti also exhibits its creations to the Puruṣa who thus becomes the witness.
No object can be exhibited to one who himself is an object and is insentient. The Spirit thus becomes the witness as it is both the sentient and non-objective. For the same reason also, the Spirit is the seer.

The Spirit is solitary because of the absence of three gunas. Solitariness or Isolation is the final and absolute cessation of three kinds of pain. And the Spirit being without three gunas by its very nature, the absence of Pleasure, Pain and Delusion also will be there, which proves the solitary nature of the Puruṣa. Puruṣa is also neutral, because, of the same quality of being without the three gunas. One who is satiated with happiness is a happy man; he who hates pain is a miserable man; such a one cannot be a neutral person. Only he who is devoid of both, can be called neutral or indifferent. The non-agentship of the Puruṣa is proved from its being discriminative and non-producing.

Objection: Let it be so; but it is a fact of experience, that one decides what is to be done by him after proper reasoning, and then thinks as follows: ‘I am a sentient being, I want to do this, and I shall do so.’ Thus it is proved that sentiency and activity are found to co-exist in the same substratum. This argument contradicts the Sānkhya theory that the Sentient is inactive and the insentient is the active agent. This is answered:

The term tasmāt (in the text) suggests that inasmuch as sentiency and agency having been proved by reasons to be in different substrata, the objections (immediately preceding the above verse) are only false impressions. The cause of the false impression (of the objector) is the union, i.e. the proximity of the Spirit with the evolute. The word linga (in the text) stands for every evolute from the Great Principle down to the Primary Elements. The rest is clear enough.

Objection: It is said in the above verse: Through this union. But there can be no union between two different things without some mutual need; and this expectation of some need is not possible without the relation of the helped and the helper. (Then, how is it possible to have any union between the Spirit and the Evolute if there is no mutual expectancy)?

This is replied:

The term pradhānasya (in the text) is in the genitive affix having active force. It means: for the sake of perception of Pradhāna, the cause of all evolutes, by the Puruṣa. ’ By this, the fact of nature as being an object of enjoyment is shown. From this it follows that Pradhāna as an object of enjoyment could not be without an enjoyer; therefore, it is quite logical to accept that the Pradhāna needs an enjoyer. Next, the author shows the need of the Spirit for Pradhāna by saying: for the sake of isolation of the Spirit. The Spirit, ignorant of its distinction from Pradhāna, while in union with that, considers the three kinds of pain which are really the constituents of Pradhāna, to be his own; and seeks liberation from this bondage. And this liberation is possible only on the knowledge that the Puruṣa is distinct from Pradhāna. This knowledge of distinctness of Puruṣa from Pradhāna cannot take place without the Pradhāna (with all its evolutes). Thus, for its own liberation, the Puruṣa needs Pradhāna. This union is eternal due to the continuous series of connections between the Spirit and the Nature. Though the Spirit unites with Nature for the purpose of enjoyment, it unites again with it for the purpose of achieving liberation.

Question: Let there be union between the Puruṣa and the Pradhāna; but whence is this evolution of Mahat and the rest?

This is answered: From this proceeds creation. Union by itself would not suffice either for enjoyment or for liberation if Mahat and the rest were not there; hence the act of union itself brings about the evolution for the sake of enjoyment and liberation.

Now is explained the process of evolution:

Prakṛti is the Unmanifest. Mahat, the Great Principle, and Ahankara, the I-Principle will be defined later. The set of sixteen consist of eleven sense-organs, to be described later, and five tanmātras (Primary elements). Since this set is limited by sixteen, it is known as a set of sixteen. From the five Primary elements out of the above sixteen, evolve five elementary substances such as Space, Earth, Water, Air and Fire.

(a) From the Primary element of sound (śabda tanmātra) proceeds Space (ākāśa) having sound as its characteristic property; (b) from the primary elements of touch as combined with that of sound, proceeds Air (Vāyu) with sound and touch as its characteristic properties; (c) from the Primary element of colour (rūpa) as combined with those of sound and touch proceeds Fire (tejas) with sound, touch and form as its characteristic properties;
(d) from the primary element of taste (rāsā) as combined with those of sound, touch and form proceeds Water (āpaḥ) possessing sound, touch, form and taste as its characteristic properties; and
(e) from the primary element of odour (gaṅdha) as combined with those of sound, touch, form and taste proceeds Earth (pṛthvi) with sound, touch, form, taste and odour as its characteristic properties.

The Unmanifest has been defined in general terms by the statement the reverse of this is the Unmanifest etc. (in Karika 10), and in specific terms by the statement Sattva is buoyant and illuminating etc. (in Karika 13). The Manifest too has been defined in general terms by the statement depending upon a cause (in Kārikā 10) etc. Now Buddhi which is a special form of the Manifested, and whose knowledge is conducive to obtain discriminative wisdom, is being defined.

Buddhi is ascertainment: This statement in apposition is intended to indicate that there is no difference between the function and the functionary. It is well known in this world that all functionaries first think over the matter; and then consider themselves as entitled to do it and determine that they ought to do it and then proceed to do it Now, this determination that a certain thing has to do done, is of the buddhi which has acquired sentiency owing to its proximity to the sentient faculty (of the Spirit). This power of determination is the special operation of the Buddhi and Buddhi is non-different from the operation. This is a definition of Buddhi in so far as this definition distinguishes Buddhi from all classes of similar and dissimilar things.

Having thus defined the buddhi, the author next states its properties as abounding in sattva and tamas attributes etc. as a knowledge of those properties is conducive to the attainment of discriminative wisdom: Virtue is the cause of both secular prosperity and the highest good (abhyudaya and niḥśreyasa). Merit that is accrued by the performance of sacrifices, charity, etc. lead to worldly prosperity. The merit brought about by the practice of the eight-fold yoga (aṣṭāṅga yoga) leads to the Highest (Spiritual) good. Wisdom consists in the Knowledge of difference between the attributes (as constituting Prakṛti) and the 

Puruṣa (Spirit). Dispassion is the absence of passion (for sensual enjoyments).

Dispassion is four-fold known as (1) yatamāna saṁjñā, (2) Vyatireka saṁjñā, (3) ekeṅdriya saṁjñā, (4) vaśīkāra saṁjñā. Passion and other emotions which are so many impurities, dwell in the citta, the retentive faculty; prompted by them, the sense organs flow towards their respective objects. The preliminary efforts at boiling (purifying) those impurities (in the form of passion etc.) in order that the sense-organs do not turn towards their objects, is the first known Yatamāna saṁjñā or the Stage of endeavour. When this effort of boiling (i.e. purification) is commenced, it is found that some passions have become refined or purified while some others are in the stage of getting purified. At this stage the relation of before and after (purvāparī bhāva) comes into existence. The ascertainment of the purified emotions from those that are in the process of being purified by means of discrimination is the second stage of dispassion known as vyatireka saṁjñā or discriminative stage. When the sense-organs have become incapable of activities, the purified emotions continue to dwell in the citta in the form of mere craving. This is the third stage known as ekeṅdriya saṁjñā, the one-organ stage. The cessation of this craving also which is subsequent to the first three stages, towards all sensuous and supersensuous objects of enjoyments even when they are near at hand, is the fourth stage known as vaśīkāra saṁjñā, the control stage which has thus been described by the Blessed Patañjali: ‘The dispassion known as vaśīkāra saṁjñā belongs to one who has rid himself of the craving for both the seen and revealed objects of enjoyment.’ (1-15). This type of dispassion is a property of the Buddhi.

Power also is a property of Buddhi from which perfections like aṇimā and the rest become manifest. Aṇimā is to become atomic by means of which one could enter into even (such dense matters) as stones; laghimā is levitation by which one could go to solar regions by following the path of sun’s rays. Mahimā is magnification by which one becomes great; prāpti - is the ability to touch the farthest, by which one would be able to touch the moon with fingertips. Prākāmya is unfettered fulfilment of desires, by which one would be able to sink into the earth and rise again as in water; Vaśītvam is mastery by which one masters all elements and their products and is not mastered by others. Īśitvam is sovereignty by which one becomes sovereign over production, absorption and arrangement of elements and their productions. Yatra Kāmāvasāyitvam is the infallibility of will, by which all the elements follow the course as willed by him. The decisions of ordinary mortals follow what has already been ordained whereas in the case of Yogins, their will dictates the course of events. Thus four are the properties of Buddhi abounding in Sattva attribute. The Buddhi abounding in Tamas attribute has just the reverse of those properties, viz, vice or demerit, ignorance, passion, and servility. Thus four are the properties of Buddhi abounding in Tamas.

The author next defines ahaṁkāra, the I-Principle: