Sūtra 1.25

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of Sūtra 1.25:

तत्र निरतिशयं सर्वज्ञबीजम् ॥ १.२५ ॥

tatra niratiśayaṃ sarvajñabījam || 1.25 ||

tatra—in Him. niratiśayam—such as is not exceeded. sarvajña—of the omniscient. bījam—the seed.

25. In Him the seed of the omniscient is not exceeded.

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 seed of the omniscient is the larger or smaller knowledge of the individual, the collective or the ultra-sensuous arising out of the past or the future. Whenever this reaches a point in expansion, beyond which there is nothing, it is the omniscient. There must be the highest limit of the expansion of the seed of omniscience, inasmuch as there is larger or smaller manifestation of intelligence, just as it is in the case of dimension. Wherever knowledge reaches the highest limit that is the omniscient and that is a distinct Puruṣa. Inference is of service only in establishing the general idea. It has not the power of giving the special qualities. The knowledge of His distinctive names, &c., is to be sought out of the Veda.

Although Īśvara has no purpose of His own to fulfil by His (creation) His (creation) is purposed by compassion for other beings. ‘I shall lift the Puruṣa in evolution out of the world by teaching them knowledge and virtue, throughout the manifestations (kalpas), the Latencies (pralayas) and the Great Latencies (Mahāpralayas).’ This is what he proposes to Himself. And so it has been said:—‘The first Wise Being, the revered Great Sage, informed a self-made mental vehicle out of compassion, and gave the teaching to Āsuri who wished to know.—25.

The Gloss of Vachaspati Mishra

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

Having thus established the authority of the Sacred Teaching for His powers of action and knowledge, he now puts forward the authority of inference for His power of knowledge:—‘In Him the seed of the Omniscient is not exceeded.’ He explains:—‘The seed of the Omniscient, &c.’

The knowledge of things beyond the range of the senses, existing either individually or collectively, and caused by the appearance of the past and future forms, is qualified by the attributes of largeness and smallness, on account of the veil of darkness covering more of less of the essence of the will-to-be. The meaning is that this knowledge is the seed, the cause of the omniscient. One takes in a little of the past, &c., another more than that, another the most of all. Knowledge is spoken of as beings more or less with reference to the thing known. Wherever this knowledge expands so much that it passes beyond the limit of being further exceeded, that is the omniscient.

This describes only the thing to be known. Now he speaks of the means of knowledge ‘The seed of the omniscient must reach the highest limit, &c? This is the statemeut of the proposition to be proved. The ‘highest limit’ means the state of intensity which cannot be exceeded. It is not, therefore, by fixing a limit only that the proposition can be established.

‘Inasmuch as there is larger or smaller manifestation of intelligence This is the statement of the reason. Every thing which possesses the quality of being more or less, has a limit beyond which there is no manifestation of the kind; as is the case with the lotus, the emblic fruit and the Bel tree. The quality of largeness exists in these more or less. In the self (ātmā), however, the largeness is such that there is no largeness more than that. He shows the pervasion (vyāpti). ‘As in dimension.’ This means that the conclusion does not fail by the qualities of largeness, &c., being exceptions to the rule. Thus the proposition is established.

It is not necessary that the largeness of the parts only should be contributed to the largeness of the whole. The fact is that dimension is known to expand by the putting together of as many largenesses of individual factors as there may be, consisting of infinitesimal wholes reaching down to the atoms themselves. In the case of knowledge too this rule is not violated: and knowledge can, therefore, be more or less by having one, two or more objects of knowledge. Thus there is no exception to the rule, (or technically speaking, there is no exclusion of the middle term, which is marked by the pervasion).

He summarizes:—‘Wherever knowledge reaches, &c.’

The question arises that there are many Tirthaṅkāras, such as the Buddha, the Ārhats and the seer Kapila; why should hot they be considered to be omniscient by this inference? For this reason, he says:—‘Inference is of service only.’

How then is the knowledge of his specific qualities to be acquired? Says:—‘The knowledge of his special names, &c.’

Further, teaching of the Buddha, &c., is not properly speaking authority; it only looks like authority. The reason is that it teaches things against all reasoning, such as the momentary nature of all objects and the non-existence of the self, &c. It is, therefore, all misleading. Hence that which comes into the mind from the Veda, the Smṛti, the Itihāsa and the Purāṇa is the only true verbal cognition, the real authority; and is for this reason the only true means of worldly progress and the Highest Good. With this object the knowledge of special names, &c., should be obtained. Special names, such as Śiva, Īśvara, &c., are well known in the Vedas, &c.

By the mention of the word “&c.,” it is understood that He is possessed of the six accessories and the ten unchangeables. As says the Vāyu Purāṇa:—

‘Omniscience, satisfaction, eternal knowledge, independence, constant presence of power, infinity of power—these six are said to be the accessories (aṅgas) of the Great Lord by those who know the law. Similarly, knowledge, desirelessness, power of control, purificatory action, truth, forgiveness, endurance, creation, the knowledge of the self, and being the substratum of all activities—these ten unchangeable qualities (avyayas) always live in the Great source of all Good.’

Well let that be. But the Lord is ever satisfied and possessed of the Highest desirelessness. It is not possible that He should have any wish for the fulfilment of any objects of His own. Further, being compassionate He should be given to the creation of men possessed of undisturbed pleasure. It cannot, therefore, be that He should create a world, full of pain of all sorts. Further, a wise being cannot be considered as undertakings useless task. He, therefore, has not created the world, although He is possessed of Kriyā Śakti, the power of creation.

For this reason, he says:—‘Although Īśvara has no purpose of His own, &c.’ compassionate help of living objects is His object. The individual mind fulfils its object, when it has caused the experience of sound, &c., and the manifestation of the consciousness of the distinct nature of the self and the not-self. Its activity ceases when it has done so, and the Puruṣa then becomes absolutely independent of objective existence (kevali). With that object, the compassionate Lord informs men of the means of obtaining knowledge of the- distinct nature of the self and the not-self; because thereby the object of the existence of the mind is fulfilled. Īśvara, therefore, helping man as He does with reference to the performance of pure and impure works by them, is not cruel, even though He sees their pleasures and pains and feels for them.

Now he speaks of the entrance into the region of compassion, for the sake of explaining the means of obtaining the knowledge of the distinct natures of the self and not-self ‘By teaching them knowledge and virtue, &c.’ Knowledge and virtue are both to be understood together. They manifest the knowledge of the distinct natures of the self and the not-self.

Latency (pralaya) means the end of the day of Brahmā. In this state, the whole world except the Satyaloka becomes latent. The Mahāpralaya, the Great Latency, is that in which the Satyaloka and Brahmā himself come to an end. Then the Puruṣas in evolution go back to their causes and hence are subject to the pain of death. The word Kalpa is only suggestive here. The meaning is that the Lord’s determination to help the Puruṣas refers to the other Puruṣas also, who by virtue of the fruition of their action have to undergo births and deaths, and who become free from pain on reaching the state of absolute independence. This is the meaning.

This theory that the compassionate Lord teaches knowledge and virtue is also common to the teaching of Kapila:—So has it been said by Pañca Śikha. ‘The first wise man, &c.’ This is a quotation from Pañcaśikhācārya. The first wise man means the teacher who was the first emancipated being of his school. It does not mean the Highest Teacher who is ever free. The reference is to Kapila who was the founder of the school, and who was the first of those emancipated ones who had gone before among the followers of tho, school. The tradition is that Kapila got the knowledge by the grace of Maheśvara just as he was born, and he is known as such as a particular kind of Viṣṇu’s incarnations. Svayambhū is Hiraṇyagarbha. It is learnt from the Veda that he too got the knowledge of the Sāṅkhya Yoga. The same Īśvara, the self-existent Viṣṇu, was the first Wise man, Kapila. The meaning is that he is the Īśvara of those who proceeded from Svayambhū and others.—25.