Sūtra 2.6

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of Sūtra 2.6:

दृग्दर्शनशक्त्योर् एकात्मतेवास्मिता ॥ २.६ ॥

dṛgdarśanaśaktyor ekātmatevāsmitā || 2.6 ||

dṛg—the subjective, power of consciousness. darṣana—the instrumental power of seeing. śaktyoḥ—of (both these) powers. ekātmtā—identity, iva—appearance. asmitā—egoism.

6. Egoism is the appearance of identity in the natures of the subjective power of consciousness and the instrumental power of seeing.—57.

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 Puruṣa is the subjective power of consciousness, and the Will-to-know is the instrumental power of seeing. The appearance of these two powers as if they were identical, is the affliction known as Egoism. Enjoyment is rendered possible when the power of enjoyment in the enjoyer and the capacity of being enjoyed in the Objective Existence, which are quite distinct and different from each other, are looked upon as, as it were, identical. When, however, their natures have been understood they become isolated; and how then can there be enjoyment? And so it has been said:—‘Not knowing the Puruṣa beyond the Will-to-know to be different therefrom in nature, character and knowledge, &c.’, a man has by forgetfulness the notion of self therein.—57.

The Gloss of Vachaspati Mishra

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

Having described Nescience, now he describes Egoism, which is quite as dear to the heart of man as attachment and the others ‘Egoism is the appearance of identity in the natures of the subjective power of consciousness and the objective power of seeing.’

Consciousness and seeing are two distinct powers. They are, respectively, the self and the not-self. The particular Nescience which is responsible for the cognition of this not-self as the self, and which is only a delusion and not a reality is Egoism. Although it was sufficient only to say “consciousness” and “seeing” the word power is added to bring out their mutual relation of fitness as the enjoyer and the enjoyed. He explains the aphorism:—‘The Puruṣa, &c.’

The question arises, why should they not in fact be considered as one when in fact they are taken in as such? How is it that their unity afflicts the Puruṣa? For this reason he says ‘Enjoyment, &c? The capacity of being enjoyed means the Will-to-be. The power of enjoyment in the enjoyer means Puruṣa. They are quite distinct from each other. Why? The reason is given to be that they are seen to be quite distinct from each other. The Puruṣa possesses the characteristics of unchangeability, &c., the Will-to-know has the characteristics of changeability, &c. They are, therefore, quite distinct from each other. It is meant to be said by this that although they appear to be identical they are not in reality the same. ‘Are looked upon, as it were, to be one with each other.’ This explains that this notion is an affliction. This employs the canon of agreement.

The cannon of difference is now applied:—‘When, however, their natures are understood, &c.’ Understood means when the consciousness of discrimination has been attained.

Now he shows that this is conceded by others also ‘And so it has. been said’ by Pañcaśikhā. ‘Knowing the Puruṣa beyond the Will-to-know, &c.’ Its nature is constant purity, its character is indifference, its knowledge means intelligence. The Will-to-know is impure, not indifferent and non-intelligent. The notion of self therein is Egoism and it is Nescience, Forgetfulness is the potency generated by former nescience. Or it may be the darkness of inertia (tamas), because Nescience is born of the quality of inertia (tamas).—6.