30. And (the divinity is) endowed with all powers, because that is seen.

The highest divinity which is different in nature from all other things is endowed with all powers; for scriptural texts show it to be such, 'His high power is revealed as manifold, as essential, and so his knowledge, force, and action' (Svet. Up. VI, 8). In the same way another text first declares the highest divinity to differ in nature from everything else, 'Free from sin, from old age, from death and grief, from hunger and thirst', and then goes on to represent it as endowed with all powers, 'realising all its wishes, realising all its intentions', &c.

(Ch. Up. VIII, 1, 5). Compare also 'He, consisting of mind, having prana for his body, whose form is light, who realises his wishes,' &c. (Ch. Up.

III, 14, 2).

31. Not, on account of the absence of organs; this has been explained (before).

Although the one Brahman is different from all other beings and endowed with all powers, we yet infer from the text 'Of him there is known no effect and no instrument,' that as it is dest.i.tute of instruments it cannot produce any effect.--To this objection an answer has already been given in II, 1, 27; 28, 'on account of its being founded on the word,'

and 'for there are manifold (powers).' That for which the sacred word is the only means of knowledge, and which is different from all other things, is capable of producing those effects also of the instrumental means of which it is dest.i.tute. It is in this spirit that Scripture says 'He sees without eyes, he hears without ears, without hands and feet he hastens and grasps' (Svet. Up. III, 19).--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'the consequence of the entire (Brahman).'

32. (Brahman is) not (the cause); on account of (the world) having the nature of what depends on a motive.

Although the Lord, who before creation is alone, is endowed with all kinds of powers since he differs in nature from all other beings, and hence is by himself capable of creating the world; we all the same cannot ascribe to him actual causality with regard to the world; for this manifold world displays the nature of a thing depending on a motive, and the Lord has no motive to urge him to creation. In the case of all those who enter on some activity after having formed an idea of the effect to be accomplished, there exists a motive in the form of something beneficial either to themselves or to others. Now Brahman, to whose essential nature it belongs that all his wishes are eternally fulfilled, does not attain through the creation of the world any object not attained before. Nor again is the second alternative possible. For a being, all whose wishes are fulfilled, could concern itself about others only with a view to benefitting them. No merciful divinity would create a world so full, as ours is, of evils of all kind--birth, old age, death, h.e.l.l, and so on;--if it created at all, pity would move it to create a world altogether happy. Brahman thus having no possible motive cannot be the cause of the world.--This prima facie view is disposed of in the next Sutra.

33. But (it is) mere sport, as in ordinary life.

The motive which prompts Brahman--all whose wishes are fulfilled and who is perfect in himself--to the creation of a world comprising all kinds of sentient and non-sentient beings dependent on his volition, is nothing else but sport, play. We see in ordinary life how some great king, ruling this earth with its seven dvipas, and possessing perfect strength, valour, and so on, has a game at b.a.l.l.s, or the like, from no other motive than to amuse himself; hence there is no objection to the view that sport only is the motive prompting Brahman to the creation, sustentation, and destruction of this world which is easily fashioned by his mere will.

34. Not inequality and cruelty, on account of there being regard; for so (Scripture) declares.

It must indeed be admitted that the Lord, who differs in nature from all other beings, intelligent and non-intelligent, and hence possesses powers unfathomable by thought, is capable of creating this manifold world, although before creation he is one only and without parts. But the a.s.sumption of his having actually created the world would lay him open to the charge of partiality, in so far as the world contains beings of high, middle, and low station--G.o.ds, men, animals, immovable beings; and to that of cruelty, in so far as he would be instrumental in making his creatures experience pain of the most dreadful kind.--The reply to this is 'not so, on account of there being regard'; i.e. 'on account of the inequality of creation depending on the deeds of the intelligent beings, G.o.ds, and so on, about to be created.'--Sruti and Smriti alike declare that the connexion of the individual souls with bodies of different kinds--divine, human, animal, and so on--depends on the karman of those souls; compare 'He who performs good works becomes good, he who performs bad works becomes bad. He becomes pure by pure deeds, bad by bad deeds' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 5). In the same way the reverend Parasara declares that what causes the difference in nature and status between G.o.ds, men, and so on, is the power of the former deeds of the souls about to enter into a new creation--'He (the Lord) is the operative cause only in the creation of new beings; the material cause is const.i.tuted by the potentialities of the beings to be created. The being to be embodied requires nothing but an operative cause; it is its own potentiality which leads its being into that condition of being (which it is to occupy in the new creation).' Potentiality here means karman.

35. If it be said 'not so, on account of non-distinction of deeds'; we say, 'not so, on account of beginninglessness'; this is reasonable, and it is also observed.

But before creation the individual souls do not exist; since Scripture teaches non-distinction 'Being only this was in the beginning.' And as then the souls do not exist, no karman can exist, and it cannot therefore be said that the inequality of creation depends on karman.--Of this objection the Sutra disposes by saying 'on account of beginninglessness,' i.e. although the individual souls and their deeds form an eternal stream, without a beginning, yet non-distinction of them 'is reasonable' (i.e. may reasonably be a.s.serted) in so far as, previous to creation, the substance of the souls abides in a very subtle condition, dest.i.tute of names and forms, and thus incapable of being designated as something apart from Brahman, although in reality then also they const.i.tute Brahman's body only. If it were not admitted (that the distinctions in the new creation are due to karman), it would moreover follow that souls are requited for what they have not done, and not requited for what they have done. The fact of the souls being without a beginning is observed, viz., to be stated in Scripture,'The intelligent one is not born and dies not' (Ka. Up. I, 2, 18); so also the fact of the flow of creation going on from all eternity, 'As the creator formed sun and moon formerly.' Moreover, the text, 'Now all this was then undeveloped. It became developed by form and name' (Bri. Up. I, 4, 7), states merely that the names and forms of the souls were developed, and this shows that the souls themselves existed from the beginning. Smriti also says, 'Dost thou know both Prakriti and the soul to be without beginning?' (Bha. Gi. XIII, 19.)--As Brahman thus differs in nature from everything else, possesses all powers, has no other motive than sport, and arranges the diversity of the creation in accordance with the different karman of the individual souls, Brahman alone can be the universal cause.

36. And because all the attributes are proved (to be present in Brahman).

As all those attributes required to const.i.tute causality which have been or will be shown to be absent in the Pradhana, the atoms, and so on, can be shown to be present in Brahman, it remains a settled conclusion that Brahman only is the cause of the world. Here terminates the adhikarana of 'that which has the nature of depending on a motive.'

SECOND PADA.

1. Not that which is inferred, on account of the impossibility of construction, and on account of activity.

The Sutras have so far set forth the doctrine that the highest Brahman is the cause of the origination and so on of the world, and have refuted the objections raised by others. They now, in order to safeguard their own position, proceed to demolish the positions held by those very adversaries. For otherwise it might happen that some slow-witted persons, unaware of those other views resting on mere fallacious arguments, would imagine them possibly to be authoritative, and hence might be somewhat shaken in their belief in the Vedic doctrine. Another pada therefore is begun to the express end of refuting the theories of others. The beginning is made with the theory of Kapila, because that theory has several features, such as the view of the existence of the effect in the cause, which are approved of by the followers of the Veda, and hence is more likely, than others, to give rise to the erroneous view of its being the true doctrine. The Sutras I, 1, 5 and ff. have proved only that the Vedic texts do not set forth the Sankhya view, while the task of the present pada is to demolish that view itself: the Sutras cannot therefore be charged with needless reiteration.

The outline of the Sankhya doctrine is as follows. 'There is the fundamental Prakriti, which is not an effect; there are the seven effects of Prakriti, viz. the Mahat and so on, and the sixteen effects of those effects; and there is the soul, which is neither Prakriti nor effect'--such is the comprehensive statement of the principles. The ent.i.ty called 'fundamental Prakriti' is const.i.tuted by the three substances called Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas, (when) in a state of complete equipoise, none of the three being either in defect or in excess; the essential nature of those three consists respectively in pleasure, pain, and dullness; they have for their respective effects lightness and illumination, excitement and mobility, heaviness and obstruction; they are absolutely non-perceivable by means of the senses, and to be defined and distinguished through their effects only. Prakriti, consisting in the equipoise of Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas is one, itself non-sentient but subserving the enjoyment and final release of the many sentient beings, eternal, all-pervading, ever active, not the effect of anything, but the one general cause. There are seven Principles which are the effects of Prakriti and the causal substances of everything else; these seven are the Mahat, the ahankara, the subtle matter (tanmatra) of sound, the subtle matter of touch, the subtle matter of colour, the subtle matter of taste, and the subtle matter of smell. The ahankara is threefold, being either modified (vaikarika), or active (taijasa), or the originator of the elements (bhutadi).

The vaikarika is of sattva-nature and the originator of the sense-- organs; the bhutadi is of tamas--nature, and the cause of those subtle matters (tanmatra) which in their turn are the cause of the gross elements; the taijasa is of the nature of ragas, and a.s.sists the other two. The five gross elements are the ether and so on; the five intellectual senses are hearing and so on; the five organs of action are speech and so on. With the addition of the internal organ (manas) these are the sixteen ent.i.ties which are mere effects.--The soul, not being capable of any change, is not either the causal matter or the effect of anything. For the same reason it is without attributes, consisting of mere intelligence, eternal, non-active, all-pervading, and different in each body. Being incapable of change and non-active, it can neither be an agent nor an enjoyer; but although this is so, men in their confusion of mind, due to the closeness to each other of Prakriti and the soul, erroneously attribute to Prakriti the intelligence of the soul, and to the soul the activity of Prakriti--just as the redness of the rose superimposes itself on the crystal near it,--and thus consider the soul to be an 'I' and an enjoyer. Fruition thus results from ignorance, and release from knowledge of the truth. This their theory the Sankhyas prove by means of perception, inference, and authoritative tradition.

Now with regard to those matters which are proved by perception, we Vedantins have no very special reason for dissenting from the Sankhyas; and what they say about their authoritative tradition, claiming to be founded on the knowledge of all-knowing persons such as Kapila, has been pretty well disproved by us in the first adhyaya. If, now, we further manage to refute the inference which leads them to a.s.sume the Pradhana as the cause of the--world, we shall have disestablished their whole theory. We therefore proceed to give this refutation.

On this point the Sankhyas reason as follows. It must necessarily be admitted that the entire world has one cause only; for if effects were a.s.sumed to originate from several causes we should never arrive at an ultimate cause. a.s.sume that parts such as e.g. threads produce a whole (i.e. in the case of threads, a piece of cloth) in the way of their being joined together by means of their six sides, which are parts of the threads. You must then further a.s.sume that the threads themselves are in the same way produced by their parts, having a similar const.i.tution. And these parts again by their parts, until you reach the atoms; these also must be a.s.sumed to produce their immediate effects by being joined together with their six sides, for otherwise solid extension (prathiman) could not be brought about. And then the atoms also as being wholes, consisting of parts [FOOTNOTE 482:1], must be viewed as produced by their parts, and these again by their parts and so on, so that we never arrive at an ultimate cause. In order therefore to establish such an ultimate cause we must have recourse to the hypothesis of the general cause being const.i.tuted by one substance, which possesses the power of transforming itself in various different ways, without at the same time forfeiting its own essential nature, and which forms the general substrate for an infinity of different effects, from the Mahat downwards. This one general cause is the Pradhana const.i.tuted by the equipoise of the three gunas. The reasons for the a.s.sumption of this Pradhana are as follows:--'On account of the limitedness of particular things; of connexion (anvaya); of activity proceeding from special power; and of the difference and non-difference of cause and effect--the Non- evolved (Pradhana) is the general cause of this many-natured Universe'

(vaisvarupya) (Sankhya Ka. I, 15; 16).--The term 'vaisvarupya' denotes that which possesses all forms, i.e. the entire world with its variously const.i.tuted parts--bodies, worlds, and so on. This world, which on account of its variegated const.i.tution must be held to be an effect, has for its cause the Unevolved (avyakta = Prakriti), which is of the same nature as the world. Why so? Because it is an effect; for we perceive that every effect is different from its special cause--which has the same nature as the effect--and at the same time is non-different. Such effected things as e.g. a jar and a gold ornament are different from their causes, i.e. clay and gold, which have the same nature as the effects, and at the same time non-different. Hence the manifold-natured world originates from the Pradhana which has the same nature, and is again merged in it: the world thus has the Pradhana alone for its cause.

This Pradhana is const.i.tuted by the equipoise of the three gunas, and thus is a cause possessing a nature equal to that of its effect, i.e.

the world; for the world is of the nature of pleasure, pain, and dullness, which consist of sattva, rajas, and tamas respectively. The case is a.n.a.logous to that of a jar consisting of clay; of that also the cause is none other than the substance clay. For in every case observation shows that only such causal substances as are of the same nature as the effects possess that power which is called the origination of the effect. That the general cause can be found only in the unevolved Pradhana, which consists of the three gunas in a state of equipoise and is unlimited with regard to s.p.a.ce as well as time, follows from the limitedness of the particular things, viz. the Mahat, the ahankara, and so on. These latter things are limited like jars and so on, and hence incapable of originating the entire world. Hence it follows that this world, consisting of the three gunas, has for its only cause the Pradhana, which is const.i.tuted by those three gunas in a state of equipoise.

Against this argumentation the Sutra says, 'Not that which is inferred, on account of the impossibility of construction, and on account of activity.'--'Inference' means 'that which is inferred,' i.e. the Pradhana. The Pradhana postulated by you is not capable of constructing this manifold-natured world, because while itself being non-intelligent it is not guided by an intelligent being understanding its nature.

Whatever is of this latter kind is incapable of producing effects; as e.

g. wood and the like by themselves are not capable of constructing a palace or a carriage. As it is matter of observation that non- intelligent wood, not guided by an intelligent agent understanding its nature, cannot produce effects; and as it is observed that if guided by such an agent matter does enter on action so as to produce effects; the Pradhana, which is not ruled by an intelligent agent, cannot be the general cause. The 'and' in the Sutra is meant to add as a further argument that 'presence' (anvaya) has no proving force. For whiteness present in cows and so on is not invariably accompanied by the quality of being the cause of the cla.s.s characteristics of cows. Nor must it be said that qualities such as whiteness, although present in the effect, may not indeed be causes, but that substances such as gold and the like which are present in certain effects are invariably accompanied by the quality of being causes, and that hence also the substances called sattva, rajas, and tamas, which are found present in all effects, are proved to be the causes of all those effects. For sattva and so on are attributes of substances, but not themselves substances. Sattva and so on are the causes of the lightness, light, &c.. belonging to substances such as earth and the like, and hence distinctive attributes of the essential nature of those substances, but they are not observed to be present in any effects in a substantial form, as clay, gold, and other substances are. It is for this reason that they are known as 'gunas.'

You have further said that the world's having one cause only must be postulated in order that an ultimate cause may be reached. But as the sattva, rajas, and tamas are not one but three, you yourself do not a.s.sume one cause, and hence do not manage to arrive at an ultimate cause.

For your Pradhana consists in the equipoise of the three gunas; there are thus several causes, and you have no more an ultimate cause than others. Nor can you say that this end is accomplished through the three gunas being unlimited. For if the three gunas are all alike unlimited, and therefore omnipresent, there is nowhere a plus or minus of any of them, and as thus no inequality can result, effects cannot originate. In order to explain the origination of results it is therefore necessary to a.s.sume limitation of the gunas.

Nor is our view confirmed by those cases only in which it is clearly perceived that matter produces effects only when guided by an intelligent principle; other cases also (where the fact is not perceived with equal clearness) are in favour of our view. This the next Sutra declares.

[FOOTNOTE 482:1. As follows from their having six sides.]

2. If it be said--like milk or water; there also (intelligence guides).

What has been said--the Sankhya rejoins--as to the impossibility of the Pradhana not guided by an intelligent principle constructing this variously const.i.tuted world, is unfounded; for the Pradhana may be supposed to act in the same way as milk and water do. Milk, when turning into sour milk, is capable of going by itself through a series of changes: it does not therefore depend on anything else. In the same way we observe that the h.o.m.ogeneous water discharged from the clouds spontaneously proceeds to transform itself into the various saps and juices of different plants, such as palm trees, mango trees, wood-apple trees, lime trees, tamarind trees, and so on. In the same way the Pradhana, of whose essential nature it is to change, may, without being guided by another agent, abide in the interval between two creations in a state of h.o.m.ogeneousness, and then when the time for creation comes modify itself into many various effects due to the loss of equilibrium on the part of the gunas. As has been said '(the Pradhana acts), owing to modification, as water according to the difference of the abodes of the several gunas' (Sankhya Ka. I, 16). In this way the Unevolved acts independently of anything else.

To this reasoning the Sutra replies 'there also.' Also, in the instances of milk and water, activity is not possible in the absence of an intelligent principle, for these very cases have already been referred to as proving our position. The Sutra II, 1, 24 (where the change of milk into sour milk is instanced) meant to prove only that a being dest.i.tute of other visible instruments of action is able to produce its own special effect, but not to disprove the view of all agency presupposing an intelligent principle. That even in water and so on an intelligent principle is present is proved by scriptural texts, 'he who dwells in water' and so on.

3. And because from the independence (of the Pradhana) there would follow the non-existence of what is different (from creation, i.e. of the pralaya condition).

That the Pradhana which is not guided by an intelligent principle is not the universal cause is proved also by the fact that, if we ascribe to it a power for change independent of the guidance of a Lord capable of realising all his purposes, it would follow that the pralaya state, which is different from the state of creation, would not exist; while on the other hand the guidance of the Pradhana by a Lord explains the alternating states of creation and pralaya as the effects of his purposes. Nor can the Sankhya retort that our view gives rise to similar difficulties in so far, namely, as the Lord, all whose wishes are eternally accomplished, who is free from all imperfection, &c. &c., cannot be the originator of either creation or pralaya, and as the creation of an unequal world would lay him open to the charge of mercilessness. For, as explained before, even a being perfect and complete may enter on activity for the sake of sport; and as the reason for a particular creation on the part of an all-knowing Lord may be his recognition of Prakriti having reached a certain special state, it is the deeds of the individual souls which bring about the inequalities in the new creation.--But if this is so, all difference of states is caused exclusively by the good and evil deeds of the individual souls; and what position remains then for a ruling Lord? Prakriti, impressed by the good and evil deeds of the souls, will by herself modify herself on such lines as correspond to the deserts of the individual souls; in the same way as we observe that food and drink, if either vitiated by poison or reinforced by medicinal herbs and juices, enter into new states which render them the causes of either pleasure or pain. Hence all the differences between states of creation and pralaya, as also the inequalities among created beings such as G.o.ds, men, and so on, and finally the souls reaching the condition of Release, may be credited to the Pradhana, possessing as it does the capability of modifying itself into all possible forms!--You do not, we reply, appear to know anything about the nature of good and evil works; for this is a matter to be learned from the Sastra. The Sastra is const.i.tuted by the aggregate of words called Veda, which is handed on by an endless unbroken succession of pupils learning from qualified teachers, and raised above all suspicion of imperfections such as spring from mistake and the like. It is the Veda which gives information as to good and evil deeds, the essence of which consists in their pleasing or displeasing the Supreme Person, and as to their results, viz. pleasure and pain, which depend on the grace or wrath of the Lord. In agreement herewith the Dramidakarya says, 'From the wish of giving rise to fruits they seek to please the Self with works; he being pleased is able to bestow fruits, this is the purport of the Sastra.' Thus Sruti also says, 'Sacrifices and pious works which are performed in many forms, all that he bears (i.e. he takes to himself); be the navel of the Universe' (Mahanar. Up. I, 6).

And in the same spirit the Lord himself declares,'From whom there proceed all beings, by whom all this is pervaded--worshipping him with the proper works man attains to perfection' (Bha. Gi. XVIII, 46); and 'These evil and malign haters, lowest of men, I hurl perpetually into transmigrations and into demoniac wombs' (Bha. Gi. XVI, 19). The divine Supreme Person, all whose wishes are eternally fulfilled, who is all- knowing and the ruler of all, whose every purpose is immediately realised, having engaged in sport befitting his might and greatness and having settled that work is of a twofold nature, such and such works being good and such and such being evil, and having bestowed on all individual souls bodies and sense-organs capacitating them for entering on such work and the power of ruling those bodies and organs; and having himself entered into those souls as their inner Self abides within them, controlling them as an animating and cheering principle. The souls, on their side, endowed with all the powers imparted to them by the Lord and with bodies and organs bestowed by him, and forming abodes in which he dwells, apply themselves on their own part, and in accordance with their own wishes, to works either good or evil. The Lord, then, recognising him who performs good actions as one who obeys his commands, blesses him with piety, riches, worldly pleasures, and final release; while him who transgresses his commands he causes to experience the opposites of all these. There is thus no room whatever for objections founded on deficiency, on the Lord's part, of independence in his dealings with men, and the like. Nor can he be arraigned with being pitiless or merciless.

For by pity we understand the inability, on somebody's part, to bear the pain of others, coupled with a disregard of his own advantage. When pity has the effect of bringing about the transgression of law on the part of the pitying person, it is in no way to his credit; it rather implies the charge of unmanliness (weakness), and it is creditable to control and subdue it. For otherwise it would follow that to subdue and chastise one's enemies is something to be blamed. What the Lord himself aims at is ever to increase happiness to the highest degree, and to this end it is instrumental that he should reprove and reject the infinite and intolerable ma.s.s of sins which acc.u.mulates in the course of beginning and endless aeons, and thus check the tendency on the part of individual beings to transgress his laws. For thus he says: 'To them ever devoted, worshipping me in love, I give that means of wisdom by which they attain to me. In mercy only to them, dwelling in their hearts, do I destroy the darkness born of ignorance with the brilliant light of knowledge' (Bha.

Gi. X, 10, 11).--It thus remains a settled conclusion that the Pradhana, which is not guided by an intelligent principle, cannot be the general cause.--Here a further objection is raised. Although Prakriti, as not being ruled by an intelligent principle, is not capable of that kind of activity which springs from effort, she may yet be capable of that kind of activity which consists in mere transformation. For we observe parallel cases; the gra.s.s and water e.g. which are consumed by a cow change on their own account into milk. In the same way, then, Prakriti may on her own account transform herself into the world.--To this the next Sutra replies.