Sūtra 1.24

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of Sūtra 1.24:

क्लेशकर्मविपाकाशयैर् अपरामृष्टः पुरुषविशेष ईश्वरः ॥ १.२४ ॥

kleśakarmavipākāśayair aparāmṛṣṭaḥ puruṣaviśeṣa īśvaraḥ || 1.24 ||

kleśa—of affliction. karma—of action. vipāka—of fruition. āśayaiḥ—by the vehicles, aparāmṛṣṭaḥ—not touched, Puruṣa viśesaḥ—a distinct Puraṣa. īśvaraḥ—God.

24. Īśvara is a distinct Puruṣa, untouched by the vehicles of affliction, action and fruition.

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]

Now who is this called Īśvara (God) that is neither the Mūlaprakṛti (the root of matter) nor the Puruṣa (the conscious principle of the human constitution)? ‘Īśvara is a distinct Puruṣa, untouched by the vehicles of affliction, action and fruition.’

The afflictions are Nescience and others. The actions are good or bad. Their fruition is the effect they bring about. Habits following them in their qualifications are the vehicles. These while really existing in the mind, are attributed to the Puruṣa, as he is the enjoyer of their fruit, just as victory or defeat of the soldiers is attributed to their master. He who is not touched by this experience, is the distinct Puruṣa, Īśvara.

Are all those then who have reached the state of absolute freedom Īśvaras and there are many such for they have reached the state of absolute freedom after cutting the three bonds? No, Īśvara never had, nor will have, any relation to these bonds. As former bondage is known in the case of the emancipated, not so in the case of Īśvara. Or, as future bondage is possible in the case of the Prakṛti lay as, not so in the case of Īśvara. He is ever free, ever the Lord.

Is there any, or, is there no reason for this supremacy of the Lord, unlimited by time, and due to His taking up the Universal Supreme Essence? The reason for that is the sacred teaching. What then is the authority of the teaching? The authority is the supremacy of His Universal Essence. These two, the supremacy and the sacred teaching, exist in the Universal Essence of īswara eternally related to each other. For this reason does it become possible that He is ever free, and ever the Lord.

And this divinity of His is free from excess or equality. It is not exceeded by another divinity. Whichever is the Highest, must be the divinity Īśvara. For this reason wherever there is the culmination of this divinity that is Īśvara.

Nor is there any divinity equal to that. Because, in the case of equality, if one of the two equals says with reference to a common object of their attention, ‘let this be new,’ and the other says, ‘let this be old,’ then one thing only necessarily happening, unrestrained fulfilment of the wish is interfered with, and one becomes less than the other. Further it cannot be that two equals should at once possess ah object desired by both. Because the wishes are contradictory. Hence he alone is Īśvara whose divinity is free from equality or excess, and He is a distinct Puruṣa.—24.

The Gloss of Vachaspati Mishra

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

The world is made of the conscious and the unconscious principles only. There is none else that goes to make it, If Īśvara is unconscious, He must be the Mūlaprakṛti, comprehending as it does all the non-intelligent modifications. If this be so, then there can be no such thing, by reason of his being non-intelligent that he should be brought face to face with the devotee. If, on the other hand, he is intelligent, then too it is impossible that he should be brought face to face with the devotee, because the power of consciousness is by nature indifferent, and because Īswara is not like other Puruṣas in evolution, on account of the absence of any connection with the principles of egoism, &c. Furthermore how is it possible that he should possess a wish for the attainment (of trance by the devotee)?

This is the meaning of the question, now who is this Īśvara, &c.? The answer to the question is given by the aphorism:—‘Īśvara is a distinct Puruṣa untouched by the vehicles of affliction, action and fruition.’

Nescience (avidyā) and others are the afflictions (kleśas), so called, because they afflict the Puruṣa in evolution with various painful blows. Good and bad actions are virtue and vice. They are called actions metaphorically because they are born from actions. Their fruition consists in life-state, life-period and life-experience. The vehicles are so called, because by their means the residue which show themselves as fruitions, are embedded as potencies in the substance of the mind.

As long as the karma which brings about the manifestation of the life state of a camel does not bring into play the potencies of the experience which having been generated by previous existence, are suited to the life-state of a camel, the experience suited to the life-state of a camel cannot be caused. Therefore there must be a potency causing the subsequent experience of the life-state of a camel, and it must be possessed of qualities similar to the experience of the life-state of a camel.

Another question arises. What is the use of adding the words, untouched ‘by the vehicles of affliction, action and fruition’ in the aphorism, seeing that afflictions, &c., are the characteristics of the Will-to-be, and that they never touch the Puruṣa and therefore the mere use of the word Puruṣa would have implied that he was untouched by them? For this reason, he says:—‘These while really existing in the mind are attributed to the Puruṣa’ in evolution. Why? Because he is the enjoyer, the intelligent agent of their fruit. Hence it is possible that Īśvara being a Puruṣa might come to be considered as having some relation to these. For this reason their special denial of Him is proper. Therefore he says that the distinct Puruṣa who is not touched by the experience present in the Will-to-be even, is Īśvara.

‘Distinct’ is that which is distinguishable. He is differentiated from the other Puruṣas. With the object of showing those who are taken out of the conception of the word Īśvara by the use of the word ‘distinct,’ he first states an objection and then replies:—‘All those then who have reached the state of absolute freedom. There are three kinds of bondages,—the bondage of the Prākṛtic modifications in the case of the Videhas, the bondage of the Prakṛtis in the case of the Prakṛtilayas, and the bondage of honour, &c., in the case of those who experience the divine and worldly enjoyments. Those whose mind are saturated with devoted thought of the Prakṛtis, reach the state of submersion into the Prakṛtis immediately after separation from the physical body. For this reason the others are spoken of as being bound at the previous end (of the chain of life) and the Prakṛtilayas are spoken of as being bound only at the next, the future end only; the previous and the second bondages being denied to them. Thus he shows the distinction in brief:—‘He is always free, always the Lord.’

Divinity consists in the possession of knowledge and the power of action (Kriyā Śaktiḥ In this connection he puts the question:—‘Has this supremacy of the Lord, unlimited by time, &c.’ The reason for the question is that knowledge and power of action are not possible to the unchanging constant power of consciousness. It has been said that they live in the purified mental essence, when the rajas and the tamas have been removed. Further, it is not proper that Īśvara who is ever free should become related even to the Highest Mental Essence, which after all has its origin in Nescience, as an owner to the thing owned.

For this reason it is said that it is due ‘to his taking the Universal Supreme Essence in hand.’ The relation of Īśvara to the Essence of the mind is not due to Nescience like that of ordinary Puruṣas; and there is therefore no sense of ownership in it. On the other hand he takes the Universal Mental Essence in hand thinking that he will thus give freedom to men surrounded by the three sorts of pain, and rescue them, being drowned as they are in the great ocean of birth after death, by teaching them virtue and giving them knowledge; and that this teaching is not possible without the possession of the highest power of action and knowledge; and that this cannot be possible without taking in hand the mental Essence, pure and freed from the dirt of the disturbing energy (rajas) and inertia (tamas). The Lord even though untouched by Nescience, and conscious of knowledge, assumes the nature of Nescience, and becomes the possessor thereof. He does not devote Himself to Nescience as Nescience. A mimic personating Rāma shows all his actions but all the while does not forget himself. This form of his is assumed, not real.

Let it be so. Inasmuch, however, as Īśvara has to take up the Mental Essence (sattva), on account of the wish of helping the afflicted, and the wish to help is caused by the taking up of Mental Essence, because the wish itself is a modification of the Mūlaprakṛti, the relation of mutual support is evident. To remove this misconception he says that he is unlimited by time. It might be so if creation came first and the wish to help manifested afterwards.’ But the arrangement of successive creation and dissolution being eternal, Īśvara draws the world inwards, having first made up his mind that he will take up the Highest Universal Essence, when the time comes for the wish, arising out of an interior manifestation, to reach the limit of its operation. This divine Mental Essence potent with the residuum of this determination even though it passes into a state similar to that of noumenal matter (mūlparakṛti) comes to manifestation again in the same state as Mental Essence, by virtue of the potency of that determination, when the ulterior limit of the Mahāpralayas, the Great Latency, is reached. This happens in the same way as in the case of Caitra who goes to sleep, having made a determination that he must rise early next morning, and awakes at the same time by virtue of the potency of the determination. Hence because the determination of the Lord and the taking in hand of the Universal Essence are eternal and thus ever present, their relation to each other cannot be that of interdependence.

Further, it should not be said that the divine Mental Essence does not pass into the state of the noumenal root-matter, the equipoise of the Mūlaprakṛti, even at the time of the Great Latency. That which never passes into the state of the Mūlaprakṛti, can never be the effect thereof. Nor can this Universal Mental Essence be the power of consciousness, because it is non-intelligent by its own nature. If it be not both these, then, it would come to this that it must be another class of substance, for which there is no authority. This is not proper. There is no substance existing independently of the noumenon of matter (prakṛti) and consciousness (puruṣa).

Such is the greatness of the Lord unlimited by time. Is there any reason, any authority for it? Or, is it without reason, without authority? The answer is ‘Its authority lies in the sacred teaching,’ the Vedas, the Smṛtis, the Itihāsas and the Purāṇas.

The author introduces the consideration of the Sacred Teaching:—“What then is the reason of the Teaching? The Sacred Teaching is based upon observation and inference. The Universal Mental Essence of the Lord cannot depend upon anybody’s observation and inference. Nor is the Sacred Teaching based upon the observation of the Lord. Some one may, therefore, think that the proper reason for the existence of the Sacred Teaching is that Īśvara desires to manifest his own divinity.

He refutes this by saying that the Sacred Teaching has its reason in the Divine Universal Essence. The meaning is this. Evidently the mantras and the science of life are proved to be the works of the Lord by the virtue they show in action and by the certainty of the things mentioned therein, being never found to be otherwise. Further, it is not possible that any one possessed only of the ordinary means of knowledge of the world should be able, even in a thousand human lives, to note the agreements and differences of various medicinal agents, their various compositions, and those of the mantras, by throwing them into and taking them out of the various classes. It cannot evidently be said on the ground of the existence of the relation of eternal interdependence, that the agreements and differences are known from authority, and that authority is again based upon the canons of agreement and difference. Because during the Great Latency, the Mahāpralaya, both these manifestations cease to exist.

Further, it is not the case that there is not authority for their existence. It will be shown that the universe is a modification of noumenal matter, the Mūlaprakṛti, not different from it. It has been observed that things of the same class change into different forms, as in the case of the modifications of curds and sugar, &c., from milk and cane-juice. It has also been observed that different modifications have the same form in their antecedent state. Similarly the noumenal root-matter having different modifications in the forms of the Great Will-to-be, the principle of individuality and others, must have a form common to all in the antecedent state. This common antecedent state of the noumenal matter is the state of equipoise, and that is the state of the Great Latency, the Mahāpralaya. Hence the Universal Essence of the will-to-be of the Lord, shining all round by reason of the absence of the veil of the impurities of disturbing energy (rajas) and inertia (tamas), must be considered as established by at least the promulgation by Him of the Mantras and the science of life. And similarly that collection of the Vedic knowledge too, which has for its object the teaching of how to attain worldly progress and divine freedom, can be a divine production only by virtue of the Universal supremacy of His Spiritual and Mental Essence. It is not possible to have confusion and falsehood, the products of disturbing energy and inertia (rajas and tamas) in the face of the culmination of Universal Essence. Hence it is established that the authority of the sacred teaching lies in the divinity of the Universal Essence.

Let it be so. The teaching has its origin in the supreme manifestation of the divine Mental Essence, and therefore it shows the highest knowledge. This is an instance of inference by the canon of residue, not of the authority of verbal cognition. To meet this objection he says ‘The relation of these two, the Teaching and the Highest manifestation of divine Mental Essence, &c.’ The meaning is that the Teaching does not give the highest knowledge because it is the product of the Highest Universal Essence, but that it teaches because of the existence of an eternal relation of the explainer and the explained. Supremacy exists in the Universal Essence of the divine mind, and the Teaching which promulgates it, is also present there as such.

The author states the final conclusion Hence by it, i.e., the teaching which promulgates the Highest Universal Divine Mental Essence, is it known, in the same way that the differentiating qualities of the signified are known by the sign, that He is ever free, ever the Lord.

Having thus distinguished Him from other Puruṣas be now distinguishes Him from other lords also:—‘This divinity of His is free, &c.,’ and explains freedom from excess:—‘There is no other divinity, &c.’ Why? ‘Wherever there is the highest, &c.’ For what reason is His divinity free from the defect of being exceeded by any other divinities? He gives the reason:—‘Wherever there is the highest perfection of this divinity, &c.’ The meaning is that the divinity of those in whom it has not reached the highest perfection, is unreal.

Now he explains freedom from equality:—‘Nor is there divinity equal, &c.’ Unrestrained fulfilment of wishes means the removal of obstacles from the path thereof. When wishes are checked in their fulfilment, it means weakness. Even if it do not mean weakness, it means equality. For that reason he says that in both cases the unrestrained fulfilment of desires is interfered with. The desired effect is not produced, or if it is produced then the same thing is found to possess contradictory qualities (which is absurd). With this object, he says: ‘In the case of two equals, &c.’ If the wishes of more divinities than one be considered as never being contradictory, then each must be an Īśvara. But then what is the use of having more Īśvaras than one? The purpose of divine rule is fulfilled by One only. Or. if it be supposed that they perform the work of divine government by common conśent, then there would be no supreme Lord, just as in a republic. Further in the case of those who believe in the eternal possession of divinity, the succession of divinity is improper. Furthermore there is the defect of cumbersomeness (positing more agents than is necessary for the purpose of bringing about an effect). Thus everything is plain.—24.