Sūtra 2.13

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of Sūtra 2.13:

सति मूले तद्विपाको जात्यायुर्भोगाः ॥ २.१३ ॥

sati mūle tadvipāko jātyāyurbhogāḥ || 2.13 ||

sati—if existing. mūle—be the root. tad—its. vipākaḥ—ripening. jāti—life-state. āyuḥ—life-time, bhoga—life-experience, all these three.

13. It ripens into life-state, life-experience and lifetime, if the root exists.—64.

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 vehicle of actions begins to ripen into fruit when the afflictions exist; not when the afflictions have been rooted out. As the rice in the paddy has the power to grow only so long as the chaff remains attached thereto and their seed-power is not burnt up, not when the chaff has been removed; so also does the vehicle of actions grow into ripeness, when the afflictions are attached to it, and when its seed-power has not been burnt up by intellection; not when the afflictions have been removed.

The fruition is of three descriptions, life-state, life-time and lifeexperience. The following has to be considered in this connection. Is one action the cause of one life? Or, does it bring about more lives than one? The second question is this. Do more actions than one bring about more lives than one; or do they bring about one life only?

It is not that one action only is the cause of one life only. Why? Because in that case there would be no regularity of succession in the fruition of present actions and those that are being heaped up eternally and some of which still remain unconsumed; and thus the world would lose all patience. This, however, is not the desired end.

Nor is one action the cause of more lives than one. Why? There being more actions than one, it would necessarily follow that one action requiring more lives than one for fruition, there would remain no time for the fruition of the remainder. That also is not a desirable end.

Nor again are more actions than one, the cause of more lives than one. Why? It is impossible that all of them should exist at once, and it must, therefore, be said that if such a thing be possible it can only be in succession that so many lives can manifest. And in this latter case the defect already stated is apparent.

For this reason, the vehicle of the entire collection of good and bad actions done in the interval between birth and death, stands in all its variety with every action attached to one ruling factor of one life. This is brought into manifestation by death, is joined together by one link which at the time brings about death and thus causes but one life.

The period of this life is limited by this very action. During the life-period all experience is also caused by that very action alone. This vehicle of actions is said to possess a three-fold fruition, causing as it does the manifestation of life-state, life-period and life-experience.

For this reason the vehicle of actions is termed uni-genital (ekabhāvika), causing one birth only.

That, however, which is experienced in the visible life only, may bring about but a single fruition, as causing life-experience; or, double fruition as causing life-experience and life-period; or, a triple fruition as causing life-experience, life-period and life-state. It may be like Nandīśvara or like Nahuṣa.

This mind, however, is as it were, variously coloured, all through on account of its becoming pervaded from eternity by the residua of the experiences of afflictions, actions and fruitions; and as such looks like a fishing net pervaded all over with knots. These, therefore, must have been brought about by more (previous) lives than one.

It is this vehicle of actions which has been termed uni-genital (ekabhāvika), causing one birth only; and the potencies which as residua cause memory, exist from eternity.

Further the uni-genital (ekabhāvika) vehicle of actions is either of appointed or of unappointed fruition. The rule applies to that portion only which has to be experienced in the visible life and whose fruition has been appointed. It does not apply to that which has to be experienced in an invisible life and whose fruition has not been appointed. Why? Because, that which has to be experienced in an invisible life and whose fruition has not been appointed, has a three-fold end. It may be destroyed without fruition. It may become merged in the ruling action. It may live on for a long time overpowered by the ruling action whose fruition has been appointed.

Of these, the destruction of an action done takes place without fruition in this way that the black actions are destroyed by the rise of the white actions.

The following has been said on this subject:—

‘Two and two the actions, know,
‘Of him that evil does
One heap of virtue kills;
To do good actions therefore tend;
The wise such actions tell.’

As to mergence in the ruling action, the following has been said on the subject:—‘A little mixture of evil may be easily removed or borne; it cannot do away with the good.’ Why? ‘There is much of the good for me, mixed wherewith it may cause some insignificant diminution even in heaven.’

And now how may it live on for a long time, overpowered by the ruling action whose fruition has been appointed? Death is said to be the cause of the simultaneous appearance of the actions whose fruition has been appointed and which are to be experienced in the invisible birth, not that of the actions which although to be experienced in the invisible birth, yet whose fruition has not been appointed. The actions whose fruition has not been determined upon, may either be destroyed or get mixed up, or stand unfructified for a long time, overpowered so long as similar actions competent to bring the cause of manifestation into play, do not incline it towards fruition. It is because the time, the place and the cause of manifestation are not determined that the working of karma is variegated and difficult to know. Inasmuch as the rule is not abolished by the exception, the vehicle of actions is recognized as causing one birth only.—64.

The Gloss of Vachaspati Mishra

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

Let it be so, seeing that the vehicle of actions has its origin in Nescience. Let it also be granted that on the destruction of Nescience being brought about by the birth of knowledge, there should not come into existence another vehicle of actions. But the old vehicles of action which have been laid by in an eternal succession of innumerable lives, and the times of whose fruition have not been appointed, are impossible to finish off by experience and thus the chain of repeated births becomes interminable. For this reason he Says:—‘It ripens into life-state, life-experience and life-period if the root exists.’ The meaning is this. The vehicle of actions fructifies into pleasure and pain only. Life-state and life-period also are meant to fulfil that object and not to put in an obstacle thereto. Pleasure and pain follow in the wake of attachment and aversion, never exist in separation from them and cannot exist without them. And it is not possible that if any one is attached or averse to anything, he will not feel pleasure and pain respectively in contact with that thing. For this reason the mental plane becomes a field for the production of the fruit of actions only when it is watered by the stream of the afflictions. Hence the afflictions help the vehicle of actions in the production of their fruits also. It is for this reason that when the afflictions are destroyed, the power which helps to bring about the manifestation also disappears; and on that account, the vehicle of actions although existing, being innumerable and having no time for its fruition appointed, does not possess the power of producing fruit, because its seed-power has been destroyed by high intellection.

The Commentary makes the same subject clear:—‘The vehicle of actions begins to ripen when the afflictions exist.’ Illustrates the same:—‘As the rice in the paddy, &c.,’ even though covered by the chaff, their seed-power should not have been burnt up by heat, &c., before they can sprout. Applies the illustration to the illustrated:—‘So also, &c.’

The question arises that the afflictions can never be destroyed, because nothing that exists can be destroyed. For this reason says:—‘And not when the seed-power has been burnt up by intellection.’

Mentions three.descriptions of fruition:—‘This fruition is, &c.’ Fruit is that into which the actions ripen.

The first discussion relates to the unity or multiplicity of lives as the result of a single action taken as the starting point. The second discussion refers to the unity or multiplicity of lives caused by more actions than one taken as the starting point. Thus there are four options. Refutes the first of these options:—‘One action is not the cause of one life.' Question:—‘Why?’ The answer is this. Actions have been laid by from eternity in each life. They are for this very reason innumerable. If a single life exhausts one action only, many a one remains unexhausted. To this are to be added the actions of the present life. There will thus be no rule for the successive fruition of actions. As a necessary result there will be no comfort for the world, and this is. not desirable. The meaning is that when the actions that are exhausted are only isolated ones, and those that are being born are many, the vehicles of action will run into each other in confusion. They will keep being constantly born in uninterrupted succession, but there being no law for their fruition, there will be no comfort for men. It will be impossible for intelligent people to determine the order of their fruition, and thus there will be no satisfaction in the performance of virtuous actions.

He refutes the second alternative:—‘Nor is one the cause of more lives than one.’

Question:—‘Why?’ The answer is this:—If one action out of those that have been laid by in many lives, becomes the cause of bringing about many lives, then the actions that remain unexhausted will be many more, and the result will be that there will be no time available for their fruition. That also is useless, because the performance of actions having thus become useless, no one will attend to them. When on account of there being no rule for the succession of fruition, satisfaction disappears in case of one action only being considered exhaustible in one life, what mention is to be made of the option in which one action is considered as exhaustible in more lives than one. In this case there will be no opportunity and no time available for the fruition of any present actions that may be done.

He refutes the third alternative:—‘Nor again are more actions than one the cause of more lives than one? He gives the reason thereof. These many lives cannot be lived all at once in the case of one who is not a Yogī. It must, therefore, be said that such a thing is possible only in succession, if at all. It is only if a thousand lives were simultaneously caused by a thousand actions, that the thousand, actions becoming thus exhausted, time would become available for the fruition of the remaining ones, and a law for the succession of fruition becomes possible. But more lives than one cannot be possible all at önce. The same defect, therefore, that was found in the first alternative becomes apparent here also.

Three alternatives having thus been refuted, the only one that remains available by the canon of residues, is the last:—‘More actions than one are the cause of one life.’ For this reason he says ‘The vehicle, &c.’

‘The interval between birth and death’ is the period of life which falls between the two events, birth and death on either side.

‘In all its variety’ means variegated by the presentations of the fruits of actions in the shape of pleasure and pain.

The ruling factor of life is that which is in evidence above all and which fructifies in immediate succession.

‘The action merged into’ is that which fructifies sometime along with it. Death means passing beyond the present life. It is by that, that the vehicle of actions is brought into manifestation. This means that it is inclined towards the bringing about of its effects.

‘Is joined together by one link’:—Is brought into the state of one active force, working towards the bringing about of its effects in the shape of birth, &c. It thus causes one birth only, not more than one. This birth is as man, &c. The period of each such life is determined by that very karma. Each life has its appointed limit, with difference in time. During that life-period the enjoyment of pleasure and pain is brought about by that very karma, being as it is related thereto. For this reason the vehicle of actions is said to cause three fruitions, causing as it does life-state, life-period and life-experience. The author summarizes the general rule:—‘For this reason the vehicle of actions is termed uni-natal’ or unigental (ekabhāvika). The meaning is that its manifestation is limited to one birth only.

Having thus described the three-fold fruition of the one-birth vehicle as being the general rule, he now differentiates the three-fold fruition of the present karma, the one that is experienced in the visible life That, however, which is experienced in the visible life only, &c.’ In the case of Nandīśvara, whose human life was broken off at the age of eight, the special virtue which on account of high energy and intense application, became the cause thereof, resulted in the double fruition of life-state and life-experience. In the case of Nahuṣa, however, tbe period of life being already determined by the karma which determined his attainment of the position of Indra, his antagonistic action of kicking Agastya, resulted only in his experience of the result of the vice.

The question arises, Have the residua of afflictions and the residua brought about by the experiences of the fruitions of actions causing similar enjoyments, their fruition in one life only, just as the one-birth vehicle of actions has? For if it be so, a man passing into the animal state of life would not have the experiences which are suited to that state of life alone. For this reason he says:—‘The mind, however, is as it were variously coloured, &c,’

‘Pervaded from eternity’ means unified into a single manifestation of energy.

Now he describes the nature of residua in order to differentiate virtue from vice. ‘And the potencies which as residua, &c.’

The author introduces now the discussion of occasional exceptions to the general rule of the vehicle of actions causing one-birth only. ‘The vehicle of actions, however, &c.’ The word ‘however’ differentiates it from the residual potencies. The rule of causing one birth only applies only to the vehicle whose fruition is to be experienced in the visible life only, and whose fruition has been appointed. It does not apply to that which has to be experienced in an invisible life, and whose fruition has not yet been appointed. He asks the reason therefore:—

‘Why?’ and mentions the reason:—‘Because that which has to be experienced, &c.’

The author mentions now one of the three ends:—‘It may be destroyed without fruition.’ Mentions the second:—‘It may be merged in, &c.’ Mentions the third:—‘It may live on for a very long time, &c.’

Of these, he divides the first:—‘Of these the destruction of an action done without fruition, &c.’

There are only three kinds of actions, the white, the black and the white-black, besides the actions of a Sannyāsī, which are neither whiten or black. Now here the white vehicle of actions brought about by purificatory action and study, &c., becomes, as soon as it arises, the destroyer of the black one, which has not begun to fructify.

It should also be understood that it destroys the white-black one too, there being similarity on account of the presence of the black one in that. His reverence quotes the Veda on this very subject:—‘The following has been said, &c.’ ‘Two and two the actions, &c.’

The two and two actions are the white and the white-black. This is related to the verb ‘kills.’ The word ‘two’ is used twice to indicate manifoldness. Of whom are these two-fold actions? Of the man who does the evil. What is that which kills? The answer is:—‘The heap of the good actions of him who does good deeds.’ He speaks of aheap because a heap can be managed by a heap only. This makes out the white vehicle of actions to be the third one. The meaning is that the white vehicle of actions which is brought into being by the performance of such actions as avoid causing pain to others, is of such a nature that although one, it destroys the contrary vehicles of black and white-black actions, although they may be many. For this reason they tend, i.e., incline towards good actions, such as the wise men teach. Here it is a very high class virtue, this rise of white actions, that destroys others.

It is not by the pain consequent upon study, &c., that they are destroyed. It is not pain qua pain that is contrary to vice. It is contrary to that pain only which is brought about by vice itself. The pain which accompanies study, &c, is not brought about by vice. If it were so_: the ordinances of study, &c., would be useless, because in that case vice would be born out of the very strength of the study, &c., ordained. Further the pain which accompanies study, &c., is not caused by them. If it were caused by them, the recommendation of study. &c., would become useless, because the more intense the application to study, &c., the more would thus be the pain caused thereby. If no pain be caused by the application to study, &c., thus recommended, why then the hellish states of Kumbhīpáka, &c., may also be recommended as desirable, because in that case it would appear to be only on account of their not being recommended as desirable that pain would not be produced. Everything, therefore, runs into all four corners (i.e., nothing is well established in its own right place and is therefore absurd).

The author divides now the second end (of actions):—In the ruling action such as the sacrifice of Jyotiṣṭoma, &c., its minor actions such as the killing of animals, &c., are merged as parts in the whole.

The killing of animals, &c., has two effects. The first is that being ordained as part of the principal action, it helps in its fulfilment. The second is that the causing of pain to all living beings being forbidden, it results in undesirable consequences. Of these when it is performed only as subsidiary to the principal action, then, for that very reason, it does not manifest its result all at once independently of the principal action. On the contrary it keeps its position of an accessory only and manifests only when the fruition of the principal ruling action begins. It is said to be tacked on to the ruling action, when, while helping the ruling action, it exists only as the seed of its own proper effect. Pañcaśikhā has said the following on the subject:—‘A little mixture.’

When the ruling factor of the present karma born from the sacrifice of Jyotiṣṭoma, &c., is mixed up with the present cause of evil, it may be easily removed. It is possible of removal by a small expiatory sacrifice. Even if an expiatory sacrifice be not performed by carelessness, the subsidiary action would ripen at the time of the ripening of the principal only, and in that case the evil generated thereby would be easy to bear. The wise who are taking their baths in the great lake of the nectar of pleasure brought about by a collection of good actions, put up easily with a small piece of the fire of pain produced by a small evil. It is not, therefore, capable of diminishing, i.e., appreciably lessening the effect, of the good, i.e., of his large virtues.

He puts the question ‘Why?’ The answer is put into the mouth of the virtuous man:—‘There is much other good for me,’ which stands apart as a consequence of the fruition of the principal factor of action beginning with the taking of the vow of sacrifice and ending with the distribution of charities. With that there will be a little of the admixture of evil. Even in heaven which is considered as free from all pain, the enjoyment is the result of virtue mixed up with a little of vice and there will, therefore, be a somewhat inappreciable diminution of enjoyment only.

He divides the third alternative:—‘How may it optionally live on, &c.’ The ruling action here means the most powerful one, not the whole consisting of many parts. ‘The most powerful’ is that whose fruition has been appointed with regard to time, because there remains no other opportunity for its fruition. That whose fruition has not been appointed is considered weak, inasmuch as there is opportunity for its fruition at other times. ‘Living on for a very long time’ is in the seed state only, not as helper of the principal action, that being independent.

The question arises. It has been said that the vehicle of actions manifests at once at the time of death. It is now said that it lives on for a very long time overpowered. How is it that the former is not contrary to the latter? With this object he puts the question:—‘How may it, &c.’ The answer is:—‘Death is said to be the cause of the simultaneous appearance, &c.’ The singular denotes the class.

Now he lays down that what has been said applies to the other as well. ‘Not that of the action, &c.’ The rest is easy.—13.