II, 2, 9

9. And although another inference be made, (the objections remain in force) on account of the (pradhāna) being devoid of the power of intelligence.

But--the Sāṅkhya resumes--we draw another inference, so as to leave no room for the objection just stated. We do not acknowledge the guṇas to be characterised by absolute irrelativity and unchangeableness, since there is no proof for such an assumption. We rather infer the characteristics of the guṇas from those of their effects, presuming that their nature must be such as to render the production of the effects possible. Now the guṇas are admitted to be of an unsteady nature; hence the guṇas themselves are able to enter into the relation of mutual inequality, even while they are in a state of equipoise.

Even in that case, we reply, the objections stated above which were founded on the impossibility of an orderly arrangement of the world, &c., remain in force on account of the pradhāna being devoid of the power of intelligence. And if (to escape those objections) the Sāṅkhya should infer (from the orderly arrangement of the world, &c.), that the primal cause is intelligent, he would cease to be an antagonist, since the doctrine that there is one intelligent cause of this multiform world would be nothing else but the Vedāntic doctrine of Brahman.--Moreover, if the guṇas were capable of entering into the relation of mutual inequality even while in the state of equipoise, one of two things would happen; they would either not be in the condition of inequality on account of the absence of an operative cause; or else, if they were in that condition, they would always remain in it; the absence of an operative cause being a non-changing circumstance. And thus the doctrine would again be open to the objection stated before^[1].