Verse 285-286 (the Sāṃkhya doctrine of the ‘Soul’ or Spirit)

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

चैतन्यमन्ये मन्यन्ते भिन्नं बुद्धिस्वरूपतः ।
आत्मनश्च निजं रूपं चैतन्यं कल्पयन्ति ते ॥ २८५ ॥
प्रधानेनोपनीतं च फलं भुङ्क्ते स केवलम् ।
कर्तृत्वं नैव तस्यास्ति प्रकृतेरेव तन्मतम् ॥ २८६ ॥

caitanyamanye manyante bhinnaṃ buddhisvarūpataḥ |
ātmanaśca nijaṃ rūpaṃ caitanyaṃ kalpayanti te || 285 ||
pradhānenopanītaṃ ca phalaṃ bhuṅkte sa kevalam |
kartṛtvaṃ naiva tasyāsti prakṛtereva tanmatam || 286 ||

Others hold caitanya ‘sentience’ to be distinct from the form of buddhi, intellect (cognition). They postulate ‘sentience’ as the ‘spirit’s’ own form; he only enjoys the fruits presented to him by primordial matter; he is not the ‘doer’; the character of ‘doer’ is held to belong to primordial matter alone.—(285-286)

 

Kamalaśīla’s commentary (tattvasaṃgrahapañjikā):

‘Others’—the Sāṃkhyas. They postulate the Spirit’s own form as consisting of Caitanya, ‘sentience’,—which is something different from Buddhi (of the Sāṃkhyas, which is Cosmic Intellect); as their doctrine is that Buddhi is of the nature of Primordial Matter, while Caitanya is the form of the Spirit alone.—This ‘Spirit’ is the enjoyer of the fruit of good and bad deeds, presented by Primordial Matter,—but he is not the doer of the deeds; as the character of the doer is held to belong to Primordial Matter alone, which contains within itself the evolution of the whole world. In support of this doctrine they adduce the following proof:—Whatever is of the nature of an aggregate is found to be for another’s purpose,—e.g. Beds and such things;—the eye and the rest are of the nature of aggregates; hence this is a reason based on the nature of things;—and this ‘another’ is, by implication, the Spirit (or Soul): This is what the other party means.—(285-286)