Sūtra 1.43

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of Sūtra 1.43:

स्मृतिपरिशुद्धौ स्वरूपशून्येवार्थमात्रनिर्भासा निर्वितर्का ॥ १.४३ ॥

smṛtipariśuddhau svarūpaśūnyevārthamātranirbhāsā nirvitarkā || 1.43 ||

Smṛti of memory—Pariśuddhau, on the purification, or cessation. svarūpa—its own nature, śūnyā—devoid of, iva—as it were. artha—as the object, to, mātra—alone. nirbhāsa—shining. nirvitarkā—distinctive (wordless).

43. Distinctive (wordless) thought-transformation is that in which the mind shines out as the object alone on the cessation of memory, and is as it were devoid of its own nature.

The Sankhya-pravachana commentary of Vyasa

[English translation of the 7th century commentary by Vyāsa called the Sāṅkhya-pravacana, Vyāsabhāṣya or Yogabhāṣya]

[Sanskrit text for commentary available]

The description of this Distinctive Thought-transformation is given by the aphorism:—“It is Distinctive, when on the cessation of memory, the mind shines out as the object alone and is, as it were, devoid of its own. nature.” The thought-transformation becomes Distinctive at the time when the memory of the fictions of verbal convention, verbal and inferential knowledge, ceases; when the mind is coloured by the nature of the object; when it, as it were, gives up its own nature of conscious cognition; and when, therefore, it only shows out the nature of the object, and has, as it were, transformed into the shape of the object itself. And so it has been explained.

The object itself is but a single output of the effort of that (thoughttransformation of the mind).

The visible world, the cow, &c., or the jar, &c., consists each in its own nature, of different collections of atoms. Each of these collections is a particular arrangement of the subtle elements. It is a generic quality and constitutes the very nature of the object. It is inferred by its visible effect. It has the form of its cause. It shows itself and exists. When other characteristics, such as those of the half-jar, &c., arise, it disappears. This characteristic is called the substratum (the independent Whole, the avayavī). It is this substratum which is spoken of as being one, or large, or small, or tangible, or possessing the quality of action or transitory.

To him, however, who does not believe this particular collection to be an independent reality and for whom the subtle cause does not admit of perception, there is of course no substratum; and therefore nearly all knowledge is false, being untrue knowledge and not possessing the form of the real. And then what would Real Cognition be, when there was no real object? Hence there is a substratum (independent of the constituent parts) which being spoken of as being large, &c., is the object of Distinctive Thought-transformation.—43.

The Gloss of Vachaspati Mishra

[English translation of the 9th century Tattvavaiśāradī by Vācaspatimiśra]

Connects the aphorism to be explained:—‘The description of this Distinctive Thought-transformation, &c.’

‘It is Distinct, &c.’—this is the aphorism. Imagination affects the knowledge of word-convention, verbal and inferential cognitions only. Cessation of the memory born therefrom, is spoken of here.

Here, the cessation of the memory of the convention is the cause. The cessation of the memory of the verbal and inferential cognitions is caused thereby. The words ‘inferential cognition,’ denote here the thing to be inferred by means of the process of induction. The words ‘as it were’ used in the text after ‘own nature’ are to be taken as qualifying the words ‘given up.’

He refutes the contrary theories about the object of (this thought-transformation):—“The object itself is but a single, &c.” ‘A single output of the mind,’ consists in what puts out the mental act but singly. This means that the atoms which go to make up an object being naturally many are not the objects of the Distinctive Thought-transformation. The reason is that although the atom may otherwise well be the object of this thoughttransformation, it cannot be so on account of its extreme subtlety, and because many of them being joined together to make a single whole large object, each cannot singly shine out in the mind and make as such a single notion.

If so, why then it may be supposed that really existing atoms possess the characteristic of shining out in the mind by virtue of existing as derivative qualities of the single whole, i.e., by showing out (what might be called a) derivative grossness. For this reason, he says: ‘The object itself (i.e., not the constituent parts).’ The meaning is that the grossness of an object being provable by perception, is impossible to conceal in the absence of any defect.

To those who say that the objects cow, &c., and jar, &c., are formed by the successive formations of diatoms, &c., he says that these objects ‘consist, each in its own nature, of different collections of atoms.’

A collection of atoms is a modification showing a gross form, and it differs from another such modification. Each particular modification of collectivity is of the very nature of the object, its own form. The description applies equally whether it be an object such as a cow which is capable of enjoying, or, an object such as a jar which is capable of being enjoyed. Both these classes of objects fall within the connotation of the word ‘world’ (loka, that which is visible).

Now the question arises: Is this collection appearing as a gross form different from the subtle atoms, or, is it the same with them? If different, how could they live in it as such and how could it have that form? A jar is different from a cloth. A jar cannot therefore take the form of a cloth; nor can the qualities which go to make a jar, live in a cloth. If, on the other hand, the whole in its collective form wore the same with the parts (the atoms), it would likewise be subtle and independent (asādhārana).

For this reason, he says:—‘Each of these collections is a particular arrangement, &c.’ This is the meaning. A jar and other such objects are not entirely different from atoms; nor are they entirely of the same nature. In the case of their being like the horse and

the cow, the existence of the relation of the characteristic and the characterized could not be predicated. If, however, they were not different they would be of the nature of the characterized object itself, and this is not proper. Hence the substratum (the characterized object, the Whole) should be considered to be in some respects different and in others similar to its constituent parts, the subtle atoms. In this way everything becomes proper.

By placing the words ‘subtle elements’ in the genetive case, he shows partial difference; and the words, ‘constitutes the very nature of the object,’ &c., show the absence of difference.

‘It is inferred by its visible effect’:—‘Visible effect’ means its perception as such and its being dealt with as such.

‘It has the form of its cause’:—This is intended to show that in so far as it is not different from its cause, it is in the nature of things that it should possess the form of the cause.

Is this characteristic which is of the nature of the characterized object itself, permanent? The commentator answers in the negative:—“when other characteristics such as those of the half-jar appear, &c.”

Now he shows that the form of the characterized object, the whole as such, is different from the atoms:—‘This characteristic is called the substratum, &c.’ The meaning is that its function is the possession of qualities like the sweetness of water, &c., which are quite different from the functions to be performed by atoms.

It is not only by inference that the independent existence of a substratum (the avayavī, the Whole as such) is established; but by the fact as well of the whole world treating it as such, inasmuch as the business of the world depends upon that. For this reason, he says:—‘By this, &c.’

Well, but the mental conception of the percept as an individual existence independent of its parts, may only avail if there is no contradiction. There is, however, contradiction. Thus, whatever exists has no parts, such as consciousness (vijñāna); and the cow and the jar, &c., do exist. This is a reason taken from the very nature of the things. Existence is qualified by the absence of the touch of such characteristics as are contradictory thereof. It is contradicted by the touch of contradictory qualities.

The touch of contradictory qualities being found in an object possessed of parts, contradicts the pervading quality (excludes the middle term). It, therefore, disproves even the existence of the object.

In the substratum there exists the touch of contradictory characteristics, such as occupying the same space or not occupying the same space, not being covered or uncovered, redness and not-redness, movability and immovability, &c.

For this reason, he says:—‘To him however, &c.’ This is the meaning. The proof of the existence by perception is given as the reason. But the pole perceived as a limb of a bedstead may also become the pole of a plough, or something else different from what it has been proved to be by perception. As to its becoming something else, that is no reason, because the something else is not so proved. As to the existence of the jar, &c., being proved by perception, why this existence consists of the capacity of performing certain functions; and that capacity is not different from grossness (sthūlattva). The reasoning which does away with grossness, does away with the nature of the thing itself.

But the objection may still arise that the grossness of a thing is not its existence itself. Existence is the absence of non-existence. Grossness is the absence of non-grossness. The absences differ on account of the difference of the objects whose absences are contemplated. Therefore existence is not destroyed, oven though grossness may be absent, because the two are different. Or, it might be said that there is difference in the objects to be determined on account of the difference of their absences. If with a view to determine the nature of the object of perception, which being true cognition and free from the taint of imagination, precedes the determination of the nature of the object as such, you say that it is made up of the visible atoms, being incessantly born without there being any interval between them, and without their having put on the nature of extreme subtlety; then, it is to be noted that the atoms of odour, taste and touch fall into the intervals of the visual atoms and that they do not exist without them.

Besides, the notion of a grove, as a single whole, comes into the mind, because the intervals among the trees thereof is not perceived, (although it does exist). The theory, therefore, which speaks of the atoms as being visible and gross in themselves and as having no intervals, is false. How can the fancies based upon such a theory have anything to do with the realities of things, even on the strength of the conception of a causal chain (pāramparya)? How can it be accepted as establishing the nature of the existence to the effect that they do not exist as parts but are wholes themselves.

Therefore he who believes in the authority of perception free from the taint of fancy, must grant that grossness itself, being as it is the object of such perception, does exist as such. This is determined for certain without the taint of fancy, and must be admitted even by one who has no desire left for such things. And further, if existence as such were to contradict and thus exclude grossness, why, it would exclude itself too as a necessary consequence.

The very highly subtle atoms have, therefore, their intervals filled up with atoms of another class, and the theory of their being the objects of perception is shorn of admissibility. This is meant by saying, ‘To him, however, who does not believe this particular collection to be an independent reality, &c? But the particular collection although independently existing is still the object of certain (nirvikalpa) perception.

Well then, the subtle atoms may be the objects of certain perception. For this reason, he says:—‘And the subtle object docs not admit of perception.’ Perception here means that which is free from the taint of imagination, is certain.

‘To him who has such a chief,’ there is of course no substratum and for this reason, all knowledge is false, being defined as it is “to be untrue knowledge, not possessing the form thereof.” The knowledge, that is to say, which has grossness for its object, and that again on which this rests, the knowledge of existence, is all false to him.

Well, even so, the knowledge of self would not be untrue, inasmuch as the self does not exist as a whole consisting of parts. How then should it be said that all knowledge would become false? For this reason, he says Nearly all knowledge.”

The question now arises, ‘What even if it were so?’ In answer he says:—‘And then what would Right Cognitions be, &c.’ If the knowledge of existence (sattva), &c., be false then the knowledge of things which have their origin in Sattva, &c., such as the knowledge of there being no substratum, independent of parts, must also be false. For what is the object of this knowledge but the grossness which is the object of certain perception? And inasmuch as this grossness does not exist, its knowledge would certainly be false. But how is it that the object itself does not as such exist? For this reason, he says:—“Whatever is perceived, &c.”

As to contradiction (virodha) that is to be explained in accordance with the aforesaid method of knowledge, by means of the variety of modifications, and by differenciation and non-differenciation. Thus all is beautiful.—43.