Sūtra 2.5

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of Sūtra 2.5:

अनित्याशुचिदुःखानात्मसु नित्यशुचिसुखात्मख्यातिर् अविद्या ॥ २.५ ॥

anityāśuciduḥkhānātmasu nityaśucisukhātmakhyātir avidyā || 2.5 ||

anitya—the non-eternal. aśuci—the impure. duḥkha—the painful. Anātman, the not self, all these. nitya—the eternal. śuciḥ—the pure. sukha—the pleasureable, ātman—soul, khyātiḥ—supposing, taking to be. avidyā—nescience.

5. Nescience is the taking of the non-eternal, the impure, the painful and the not-self to be the eternal, the pure, the pleasurable and the self.—56.

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]

Out of these the nature of Nescience is described:—“Nescience is the taking of the non-eternal, the impure, the painful, and the not-self to be the eternal, the pure, the pleasurable and the self.”

The taking of the non-eternal to be eternal is the possession of such notions as that the earth is permanent, the firmament with the moon and the stars is permanent, the gods are immortal, &c.

Similar is the seeing of purity in the body, which is impure and highly disgusting. And it has been said:—‘The wise know the body to be impure on account of its position, its origin, its process of up-keep, its perspiration and destruction and also on account of the necessity of keeping it constantly clean.’ Thus is purity seen in the impure. ‘The girl is attractive like the new moon. Her limbs are, as it were, made of honey and nectar. She looks, as it were, she has emerged from the moon. Her eyes are large like the leaves of a blue lotus. With playful flashes of her eyes she imparts life to the world of men.’ Now what is in this connected to what? This unreal cognition, however, of the pure in the impure is daily seen. By this is described the cognition of the sacred in the profane, the cognition of purposeless. As here so will the cognition of pleasure in pain be later described.

“All is pain to the discriminating because of the end, the remorse, the residual potency, and the mutual contrariety of the manifestations of the ‘qualities.’” II.—15.

The cognition of pleasure under these circumstances is Nescience.

Similar is the cognition of the self in the not-self. The external accessories, whether sentient or not sentient, the body which is the vehicle for enjoyments, the mind which is only a vehicle for the Puruṣa, are all manifestations of the not-self. The notion that any one of these is the self is Nescience. On this subject the following has been said:—

‘Those who believing the sentient or insentient objective essence to be the self, rejoice in their increase believing it the prosperity of the self, and are anxious when they decrease, believing it to be the adversity of the self have not awakened.’

This nescience is thus possessed of four locations. It is the root of all this overgrowth of afflictions, the vehicle of action together with the vehicle of fruition. This nescience should be understood as being a real substance, like the word Amitra (a, not, and mitra, friend, the compound meaning an enemy) and the word Agoṣpada (a, not, and goṣpada, cow’s foot, the compound meaning a particular place). As the word Amitra does not mean the absence of a friend nor a particular friend, but something opposite to a friend, an enemy; and as the word Agoṣpada does not mean the absence of a Goṣpada, nor a particular Goṣpada, but a particular place distinct from both, another substance; so is nescience neither Real Cognition nor the absence of Real Cognition. On the contrary, Nescience is another form of cognition, which is contrary to real knowledge (the cognition of the real).—56.

The Gloss of Vachaspati Mishra

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

Nescience is non-eternal and impure. It is, that is to say, an effect which is ever qualified by the presence of non-eternity. There are some, it is well-known, who believe the elements to be eternal, and meditate upon them devotedly with the object of assimilating their natures. Similarly do others meditate with devotion upon the heavens, the sun, moon, and stars as stages of the path of Smoke (the Pitṛyāna,) with the object of reaching them in the belief of their eternity. Similarly do people drink the Soma juice for attaining the state of the denizens of heaven, the gods, believing them to be eternal and immortal, inasmuch as the Veda says ‘Drink we the Soma so that we may become immortal.’ This is the Nescience which is described as the cognition of the eternal in the non-eternal.

Similarly with reference to the impure and highly disgusting body. Having said this much, he stops in the middle to quote a verse of Vyāsa, describing the disgusting nature of the body.

‘The wise, &c.’

The ‘position of the body’ in the mother’s womb close to urine, &c. The ‘origin’ is the germ and sperm cells of parents. ‘The process of the upkeep of the body’ is the transformation of the foods and drinks into chyle, &c. It is by this that the body is supported. Perspiration means sweating. Destruction or death renders the body of even a -man learned in the Veda, impure, inasmuch as a bath is ordained after it has been touched.

The question is that if the body is by nature impure, what then is the use of washing it with earths and water? For this reason he says: ‘On account of the necessity, &c.’ This means that although by nature impure, the body admits of being purified by external applications; as, for example, take the bodies of women by means of sweet smelling applications.

He finishes the sentence:—The body which is impure is cognised to be pure in the way now described. ‘Like the new moon, &c.’

“Playful flashes denote the frolicsomeness of love.”

‘Now what is here connected with what? The first ‘what’ stands for the body of a woman which is by nature so impure and therefore disgusting. By what poor similitude is the body related to the new moon?

By this illustration of the cognition of the pure in the impure body of a woman, is also described the cognition of virtue in the vices of causing pain to others under the impression of their being released from the world.

Similarly are described the notions of usefulness in wealth, &c., which on account of the troubles incident upon collection and preservation, &c., are really things which contradict the real purpose of life. They are all impure on account of their being causes of disgust.

Similar is the case of the cognition of pleasure in pain. This is easy.

‘Similar is the cognition of self, &c.’ This also is easy.

Similarly has it been said on this subject by Pañcaśikhā.

‘The sentient’ are the intelligent objects of enjoyment, such as wife, &c., and animals.

‘The insentient’ are the non-intelligent objects, such as seats and couches, &c.

All such have not awakened, means they are forgetful.

This nescience is said to possess four locations, i.e., places where it manifests.

Upon this the question arises that nescience being really located in an infinity of places, such for example, as the forgetfulness of directions and the appearance of a complete circle in the case of a rapidly rotating point of light, &c., why should it be described as being located in four places only? For this reason he says:—‘It is the root, &c.’ There may be other forms of nescience; that however, which is the root of repeated births is only four fold.

Now another question:—The word ‘nescience’ is a compound of ‘ne’ (a = not) and science (vidyā = Science). Now is the prohibitive NE (a), the effective word of the compound, thus signifying the mere absence of the thing signified by the second word, as in the word Amakṣika, one meaning of which is the absence of bees. Or, is the second word of the compound the effective portion thereof, in which case it would mean a particular form of knowledge, as in the case of the word Arājapuruṣa, Not-public servant. Or, is it that the word denotes something which is neither the meaning of the first word nor of the second, but something different from both? Such a word would be the word Amakṣika, beeless place. This meaning is different from the meaning of both the factors of the compound.

Now the meaning of the word Nescience would be the absence of knowledge already existing, if the first word of the compound were the effective one. This, however, cannot be the cause of the afflictions. If the second word of the compound be the effective one, then the meaning of the compound would be a science qualified by the absence of something (particular) the science of the negation, (A, of something). Science, however, can only be the opposite of the afflictions, &c., not their seed. It is not proper that the destroyer of a thing should be a quality thereof.

If it be considered that it means something different from both, then it can only mean the Will-to-know (buddhi) with the knowledge absent there from, i.e., something in which there is no knowledge. Now the Will-to-know can never be the cause of afflictions, &c., even though knowledge be absent therefrom. Whatever thus be the meaning given to Nescience, it can never be the root of afflications, &c.

For this reason he says:—‘It is to be considered, &c.’ It is possessed of substantiality. This means cannot be the absence of something existing as such. Neither is Nescience a particular form of science; nor is it the Will-to-know devoid of knowledge. It is, as has been said, a cognition contrary to the Real Cognition; it is the cognition of the unreal (or briefly, unreal cognition.)

The relation of word and meaning depends upon how the world begins to understand it. In the world it is often seen that in words compounded with deprivative prefixes, the deprivative prefix, while denying the existence of the last word of the compound, signifies something which is the contrary thereof. Similar is the meaning here. He gives analogies:—‘As the word Amitra.’ It does not mean the absence of a friend; nor does it mean a particular friend (a friend called A). On the contrary, it means the opposite of a friend, an enemy.

Similarly, the word Agoṣpada does not mean the absence of a cow-shed (goṣpada); nor does it mean a particular cow-shed (styled A). On the other hand, it means a particular country where kine are not found. It is a substance different from both. He applies the analogy to the thing illustrated:—‘In the same way, &c.’