Sūtra 3.15

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of Sūtra 3.15:

क्रमान्यत्वं परिणामान्यत्वे हेतुः ॥ ३.१५ ॥

kramānyatvaṃ pariṇāmānyatve hetuḥ || 3.15 ||

krama—of succession. anyatvam—the distinctness, pariṇāma—of modifications. anyatve—for the distinctness. hetuḥ—the reason.

15. The distinctness of succession is the reason for the distinctness of modifications.—121.

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]

It then coining to this that there can be but one modification for one substratum, it is said that the distinctness of succession becomes the cause of the distinctness of modifications. This takes place as follows:—The order of causation is: the clay as powder, the clay' kneaded into a lump, the clay appearing as a jar, the clay appearing as a half-jar, the clay appearing as a potsherd.

The succession of a characteristic is that characteristic, which comes before it immediately. The kneaded lump of clay disappears and the jar appears in close sequence. This is the order of the sequence of the changes of the characteristic. The order of the change of secondary qualities is the sequential appearance of the present state of a jar out of its yet-unmanifested state of existence. Similarly is there a succession for the passing into its past state, of the present state of the kneaded lump of clay. There is no succession for the past. Why? Immediate sequence exists only, where there is a. relation of antecedence and postcedence. That does not exist in the case of the past. Hence succession exists in the case of two secondary qualities only.

Such is also the succession in the case of the change of condition. A new jar begins to become old in immediate sequence of its appearance as a new one. This oldness is found being manifested in succession which follows the sequence of the moments of time, until it reaches the last stage. And this third change is distinct from the changes of characteristic and secondary quality. All these successions find their being in the conception of there being a distinction between the characteristic and the characterized object, because the characteristic also becomes sometimes the characterized, in its relation to the nature of another characteristic.

When, however, the characterized object is spoken of as being what it really is, as not distinct from the characteristic, then by virtue of that conception, the object itself is described as a characteristic; and then the succession appears to be one only.

The characteristics of the mind are two-fold, the conscious (or patent paridṛṣṭa) and the unconscious (or latent, aparidṛṣṭa). Of these the patent are those that appear in consciousness as notions. The latent are those that are but the substance itself. They are seven only and it is by inference that their existence itself has been established. ‘Supression, characterization, potentialization, constant change, physical life, movements, power are the characteristics of the mind, besides consciousness.’

Hereafter is introduced the subject of Saṃyama to be performed by a Yogī with the object of obtaining the knowledge of any desirable subject, when he has mastered all the means of obtaining knowledge as described.—121.

The Gloss of Vachaspati Mishra

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

‘The distinctness of succession is the reason for distinctness of modifications.’ Is one substratum subject only to one change, which may be described as characteristic, secondary quality, or condition, as the case may be? Or, are the changes of characteristic secondary quality and condition more than one? What does it come to then? It comes to this that the change must be one because the substratum is one. A cause which has but one form, cannot produce a variety of effects, because the variety in that case would be causeless.

This being the suggestion, it is said:—Distinct changes are posited, because the orders of succession are different.

Observers of the world have plainly observed that an order obtains in the succession of the changes of one clay into dust, kneaded lump, jar, half-jar and sherds. It is also seen that the sequence between powdered clay and kneaded lump is independent of the sequence between kneaded clay and jar: the sequence between a jar and a half-jar is quite another. The sequence between a half-jar and pot-sherds is again quite different. In each of these one of the elements precedes another. The difference of order existing in one succession of changes establishes the distinctness of the changes. Although the substratum of clay is one, it puts on a succession of changes, whose order is established by allied characteristics appearing in succession to each other īn due order. The appearance is not, therefore, causeless. This is the meaning.

As is the case with the changes of characteristics, so also is the distinctness of the succession the reason for the distinctness of the changes of secondary qualities and the changes of condition.

The same is illuminated by the Commentary ‘It comes to this that there can be but one modification for one substratum, &c.’

‘The succession of characteristic, &c.’:—The word ‘succession’ is used here to denote that which succeeds, looking upon the one to be nothing distinct from the other.

‘Such is also the succession in the case of the change of condition.’ And so it happens that the barley grain, even though kept with great care by a cultivator in a grain-pit is, on the lapse of a large number of years, reduced to a condition, such that the cohesion of its particles gives way to the mere touch of hand, i.e., of being reduced to an atomic condition. This is not possible to take place all at once causelessly in the case of new grain. It is, therefore, by a succession of different states appearing one after the other in moments of time as being small, smaller and smallest on the one side, and large, larger and largest on the other, that the specific condition appears.

This distinctness of succession exists only in the case of distinctness being conceived as between the charateristic and the substratum. So he says:—‘All these successions find their being, &c.’

The state of the characterized and the characteristic, are relative down from the undifferentiated phenomenal to the products, and vice versa, inasmuch as the solids, clay, etc., are also characteristics in correlation with the ultimate atoms (the tanmātras, or divine measures). So he says:—‘The characteristic also sometimes becomes the characterized object in relation to the nature of another characteristic.’

When, however, the conception of the unity of the substratum and the characteristic is entertained with reference to the real substratum, the noumenal, í.e., when ‘by virtue of that conception,’ of the substratum being common to all its states, the characterized object itself is considered as the characteristic, then there is but one change, the change, that is to say, of the characterized object alone. Characteristic, secondary quality and condition enter then into the very being of the characterized.

It is to be considered as. having been said by this that the substratum is far removed from the state of constant independent eternity (kūṭastha nityatā).

Speaking of the change of characteristic, the Commentator takes up in the context, the distinctions of the modality of the characteristics of the mind ‘The characteristics of the mind, &c.’

The conscious (patent) characteristics are those that come into our consciousness, of which we are conscious. The latent are those of which we have no direct knowledge. Those that appear, in consciousness as notions are the real cognitions, &c. Suppression, etc., are those that are but the substance itself. This explains that they are not of the nature of illumination.

Well, but if characteristics are latent, they certainly do not exist at all. For this reason he says:—‘And it is by inference that their existence as substance itself is established.’ The knowledge that comes through authority is also spoken of here as inference by the similarity of their coming into existence after other knowledge. He mentions the seven characteristics by a verse:—‘Suppression, &c.’

Suppression is the ultra cognitive state of mental modifications. It is known by authority as well as by inference to be a state of residual potency.

By the word ‘characterization’ the author suggests virtue and vice. The reading in some places is ‘Karma’ (action) instead of ‘Dharma’ (characterization). There too virtue and vice caused by action are to be understood, Virtuous and vicious tendencies of the mind (or, which is the same thing, good and bad character) are known by authority or inferred by the existence of pleasure and pain.

Potentialization or the power which generates mental potencies, is inferred by memory.

Similarly is the constant change of the mind in evolution inferred from the fact of the mind being made up of the three ‘qualities’ and of the function of the qualities being changeful.

Similarly physical life, the specific action of the mind which sustains physical life, is inferred as a characteristic of the unconscious mind by expiration and inspiration.

Similarly are the movements of the mind, i.e., the acts which set the different organs and parts of the body into motion, inferred by these very movements following thought in that direction.

Similarly is power the subtle state of all the effects of thought which manifest in action (It is the idea of all actions). That this also as a characteristic of the mind, is inferred by seeing the gross appearances due to the mental images thereof.—15.