Sūtra 1.27

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of Sūtra 1.27:

तस्य वाचकः प्रणवः ॥ १.२७ ॥

tasya vācakaḥ praṇavaḥ || 1.27 ||

tasya—Him. vācakaḥ—connoting, praṇavaḥ—the Sacred word—Om.

27. The Sacred word connotes Him.

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 sacred word connotes ‘Him.’ He is denominated by the sacred word, the Praṇava (A U M). Is the relation of the sign and the thing signified between these conventional, or inherent as between flame and light? His relation with the sign is inherent and thus ever present. Further, the convention of God shows only an object which exists (that which is inherent). As the relation already existing between father and son, is only expressed by convention, this is the father, this the son. In other creations too the same convention is adopted on account of the dependence upon the connotative powers of the sign and the thing signified.

The Gloss of Vachaspati Mishra

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

Now he speaks of His sign (indicator, Vācaka) in order to explain the meaning of his devotion. ‘The sacred word connotes Him.’ Explains:—He is denoted by Praṇava, &c. Introduces the opposite theory by putting a question. Is the relation, &c. Signifying is laying down, expressing.

Others, of course, hold that if the relation of word and meaning is inherent, and that it is manifested by a convention that such and such a meaning is to be denoted by such and such a word, then in the absence of any relation between word and meaning, the meaning would not be conveyed even by a hundred conventions. If no jar exists which may be shown by a lamp, even a hundred lamps would not reveal one. It is, however, observed that the word ‘elephant’ will signify a camel if a convention is made that this word will be used to signify an animal of that class. Hence the power to signify is conventional.

Having thus stated their position, he explains his own teaching:—‘Its relation is inherent.’ This is the meaning. All words have the capability of meaning objects of all forms. Their relation with objects of all forms must, therefore, be inherent. And the convention of Īśvara is the determining factor and the shower thereof. The division of the sign signifying and not-signifying something is also made by Īśvara’s convention or non-convention. This is what he says: ‘Further the convention of God, &c.’ He gives an illustration:—“already existing between, &c.”

The question arises. Sound is a manifestation of the Prakṛti. At the time of the Great Latency it passes back into the state of the Prakṛti. Its power also thereby disappears. ‘Then a particular verbal sign is born again through the successive states of Mahat, &c. But then the power of signification having disappeared, its manifestation does not remain possible. For this reason, he says ‘In other creations also, &c.’

Although a word does become one with the Prakṛti along with the power, it comes back into manifestation along with the power. As earth-born creatures becoming one with the earth on the cessation of the rains, come back to life on being wetted by showers of rain water. Thus God makes a convention similar to the convention which indicated the former relation. Hence on account of the eternity of the succession of similar usage, due to simultaneous knowledge, the relation of word and meaning is eternal. Independent eternity is not meant. So say the Āgamis. Without the authority of the Āgama (the Veda) it is not possible to ascertain that tn other creations also the convention is the same. This is the meaning.—27.