Sūtra 4.28

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of Sūtra 4.28:

हानम् एषां क्लेशवद् उक्तम् ॥ ४.२८ ॥

hānam eṣāṃ kleśavad uktam || 4.28 ||

hānam—removal. eṣām—their, kleśavat—like that of the afflictions, uktam—has been described.

28. Their removal has been described like that of the afflictions.—188.

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]

As the afflictions are no longer capable of budding forth when their seed-power has been singed, so also does not the conserved energy of previous residua give birth to notions when its seed-power has been singed by the fire of knowledge. The residua of knowledge, however, live on until the duty of the mind has been fulfilled. They are, therefore, not considered.—188.

The Gloss of Vachaspati Mishra

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

Let that be. But if in the face of the existence of discriminative knowledge too, other thoughts arise, what is the cause of their utter removal so that these other thoughts may not rise again at all? For this reason says:—‘Their removal has been described like the afflictions.’ The outgoing activities in their potential state are not altogether destroyed as long as the discriminative knowledge is not firmly established. In the case howéver of discriminative knowledge being firmly established the other thoughts are utterly destroyed and are no longer fit to be born again.

By what cause does it come about that the afflictions born in the intervals of discrimination even cease to give birth to other potentialities? The cause is that the seed-power of the afflictions is burnt up by the fire of discriminative knowledge. In the same way the residua of the outgoing activities are burnt up.

But the residua of outgoing activities are to bo restrained by the residua of discriminative knowledge, and the residua of discrimination are to be restrained by the potencies of restraint. And it has been shown that the potencies of restraint have not the external objects for their sphere of operation. The means of restraint are, therefore, to be considered. For this reason says:—‘The residua of knowledge, however, &c.’ The residua of knowledge are the potencies of higher desirelessness.—28.