Sūtra 1.44

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of Sūtra 1.44:

एतयैव सविचारा निर्विचारा च सूक्ष्मविषया व्याख्याता ॥ १.४४ ॥

etayaiva savicārā nirvicārā ca sūkṣmaviṣayā vyākhyātā || 1.44 ||

etayā—by this, eva—also, savicārā—this meditative. nirvicāra—the ultrameditative. ca—and. sūkṣma-viṣayā—having the subtle for their or its objects, vyākhyāta—are described.

44. By this the meditative and the ultra-meditative, having the subtle for their objects, are also described.

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]

Of these the thought-transformation into subtle element is called Meditative, when their characteristics are in manifestation and when, the limitations of consciousness in space, time and operative cause are present. In this state too the subtle element comes into the trance-consciousness as qualified only by the present characteristics; and is taken in only by a single effort of consciousness; and it is this much alone of an object that comes into contact, with the faculty of Meditative Thoughttransformation.

That, however, is the ultra-meditative thought-transformation, which operates with reference to subtle objects unlimited in all ways, all round by the past, the present and the unpredicable characteristics, but running after all the characteristics possessing as they do in fact a nature common to all of them. This in fact is the nature of the subtle element. It presents itself to the trance-consciousness as such and colours it similarly by contact. As to the cognition it is called ultra-meditative, when it becomes the object itself, and thus as it were, becomes void of its own nature.

Of these the Indistinctive and Distinctive thought-transformations have to operate upon things extended in time and space; the Meditative and the Ultra-meditative operate upon the subtle elements. It is thus

that the absence of uncertainty in both these is described by the description of the Indistinctive alone.—44.

The Gloss of Vachaspati Mishra

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

Those that have manifested the characteristics of the jar, &c., are said to ‘have their characteristics in manifestation.’ It means those that have already taken up the characteristics of the jar, &c.

Space is indicated by above, below and the directions, &c. Time here is the present. ‘Operative cause*: The earthly atom is born from the five classes of ultimate atoms (tanmātras), with a prevalence of the odoriferous minima. Similarly the liquid atom (apas tattva) is born from the four classes of ultimate atoms except the odoriferous minima with the prevalence of the gustiferous minima. Similarly, the fiery atom is made of the three minima besides the odoriferous and the gustiferous minima, with a prevalence of the luminiferous minima. Similarly, the gaseous atom is horn from the tangiferous and soniferous minima without an admixture of the other three classes of minima, with a prevalence of the tangiferous minima. Similarly, the birth of Ākāśa is from the one class of soniferous minima alone. This is the operative cause of the subtle elements.

The subtle elements in this state are qualified by the limitations of space, time and their causes such as those specified. It means that, being limited by the consciousness of time, space and causes as they are, the cognition of these qualified objects is not independent of the cognition of their qualities.

The question is, what is the similarity of the Indistinctive to the Meditative Thoughttransformation? For this reason, he says:—‘Further in that state, &c.’ The earthy atom receives its individuality from the five classes of ultimate atoms (tanmātras) grouping together and is taken in by a single effort of consciousness as a single whole. Similarly are the liquid atoms, &c., to be understood as coming into consciousness as single substances, receiving as they do their individuality by groupings of three, two and one class of ultimate atoms (tanmātras) respectively.

The present characteristic is that which at is present rising. By saying that ‘it is qualified only by the present characteristics,’ it is indicated that in this state of consciousness are present along with the object the optional operations of the memory of convention and of verbal and inferential cognitions. Perception, while it cognizes the gross state, does not reveal the atoms. They are revealed by verbal and inferential cognitions. Hence it is proper that it (the Meditative Thought-transformation) should be mixed up with the operations of verbal and inferential cognitions.

Now explains the Ultra-meditative:—‘That however, etc.’

‘In all ways’ means in all modes of manifestation, as blue, yellow, &c. Allround means by the consciousness of all the conditions of time, space, and causation. By describing them thus, it is shown that the atoms are not limited by time. Further, he says that they are neither limited by the characteristics which are brought into operation by time ‘Unlimited by the past characteristic, i.e., those which have had their operation; by rising characteristics, i.e., those that are to be found in the present; by the unpredicable characteristics, i.e., the future ones.

The question arises that if the atoms are not conditioned by any of these characteristics, are they then quite fortuitous? For this reason he says:—‘but running after all the characteristics.’ By what connection then do the atoms run after the characteristics? For this reason, he says:—‘Possessing as they do in fact a nature common to all the characteristics.’ The meaning is that characteristics differ in some respects from, and are identical in others to, the atoms.

Now he says why this thought-transformation has this nature of the atoms as its object:—This in fact is the nature of the subtle element! The power which gives the knowledge of reality does not operate upon the unreal.

Having described the object of that state of consciousness, now he describes its nature ‘As to the cognition, &c.’

Summarising he makes a statement which shows the differences of their natures—‘Of these, &c.’ Finishes:—‘It is thus, &c.’

In both these:—in itself and the ultra-meditative.—44.