Sūtra 2.15

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of Sūtra 2.15:

परिणामतापसंस्कारदुःखैर् गुणवृत्तिविरोधाच् च दुःखम् एव सर्वं विवेकिनः ॥ २.१५ ॥

pariṇāmatāpasaṃskāraduḥkhair guṇavṛttivirodhāc ca duḥkham eva sarvaṃ vivekinaḥ || 2.15 ||

pariṇāma—of change. tāpa—anxiety, saṃskāra—habituation. duḥkhaiḥ—by reason of the pains. guṇa—of the qualities. vṛttiḥ—of the functionings. virodhāt—by reason of the contrariety. ca—and. duḥkham—pain. eva—indeed. sarvam—all. vivekinaḥ—to the discriminating.

15. By reason of the pains of change, anxiety and habituation and by reason of the contrariety of the functionings of the ‘qualities,’ all indeed is pain to the discriminating.—66.

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]

How is that possible? ‘By reason of the pains, &c.’ The feeling of pleasure depending upon the enjoyment of intelligent and non-intelligent objects, is in the case of every one followed by attachment. Here the vehicle of actions is born out of attachment. Further inasmuch as there is aversion to the causes of pain and also delusion, there exists also the vehicle of actions brought about by aversion and delusion. And so it has been said:—‘Enjoyment is not possible without giving pain to beings.’ There is also the physical vehicle of actions caused by giving pain to others.

It has been said that the pleasure of enjoyment is Nescience. The calming down of the powers of action, sensation and thought, which comes in consequence of the satisfaction derived from enjoyment of their objects, is pleasure. The activity in consequence of want of satisfaction is pain.

Further, it is not possible to make the powers of action, &c., free from desire by the frequent repetition of enjoyments, because attachment increases in consequence of the repetition of enjoyments, and so also does the dexterity of the powers. The repetition of enjoyment is, therefore, no cause of pleasure. Whoever desiring pleasure enjoys certain objects and thus becomes addicted to them, in consequence, and having become addicted thus becomes entangled in the morass of pain, is like one who being afraid of the bite of a scorpion, is bitten by a serpent.

This is the pain of change. In the state of pleasure even, it produces a contrary effect and thus afflicts a Yogī alone.

Well, what is the painfulness of anxiety? The feeling of pain in depending upon intelligent and non-intelligent objects is in the case of every one followed by aversion. Here the vehicle of action is born out of aversion. Whoever desires objects of pleasure, acts with his mind, body and speech and thereby favours some and disfavours others. He thus lays by virtue and vice by favours and disfavours shown to others. This is a vehicle of actions brought about by avarice and delusion. This is termed the painfulness of consequent suffering (tāpa).

What again is the painfulness of habituation? By the enjoyment of pleasure comes into being the vehicle of the potency of pleasure. By the feeling of pain comes the vehicle of the potency of pain. By thus experiencing the fruition of actions in the shape of pleasures and pains, the vehicle of actions grows.

This is the eternal stream of painfulness which thus flowing on frightens the Yogī alone. Why the Yogī alone? Because the wise have in this case a similarity to the eye-ball. As a thread of wool thrown into the eye pains by mere touch, but not so by coming into contact with any other organ, so do these pains afflict the Yogi tender as the eye-ball, but not anyone else whom they reach.

As to others, however, who give up the pain they have again and again taken up as the consequence of their own karma, and who again take it up after having repeatedly given it up; who are alb round as it were pierced through by Nescience, possessed as they are of a mind full of afflictions, variegated by eternal residua; who follow in the wake of the ‘I’ and the ‘Mine,’ in relation to things that should be left apart,—the three-fold pain caused by both external and internal means, run after them as they are repeatedly born. The Yogī then seeing himself and the world of living beings thus surrounded by the eternal flow of pain, turns for refuge to right knowledge, the cause of the destruction of all pains.

Further, by reason of the contrariety of the functionings of the qualities, ‘all is indeed pain to the discriminating.’ The qualities of the Will-to-know being of the nature of essentiality, activity and inactivity, become dependent upon mutual help, and set the formation of either a quiescent, a disturbed or a delusive notion possessed of the three qualities themselves. And the functioning of the qualities being changeful, the mind is said to possess the nature of changing quickly. The intensities of their natures and the intensities of their functionings are contradictory to one another. The ordinary, however, function together with the intense. Thus do these, qualities bring about the notions of pleasure, pain and delusion by each subserving the others, and all thus enter into the formations of the others. It is by the quality which is the leading factor, that the difference is introduced. It is for this reason that all is pain to the discriminating.

The seed out of which this large heap of pains grows is Nescience, and of that the means of destruction is right knowledge.

As the Science of Medicine has four Departments, Disease, the Cause of Disease, the Absence of Disease, and Medicine or the Means of Removal, so also this Science has four Departments. It is thus divided: the Universe in Evolution, the Cause of the Universe in Evolution, Liberation, the Means of Liberation. Of these, the Universe in Evolution being full of troubles is the pain to be avoided; the conjunction of the Puruṣa (the conscious principle) and the Prakṛti is the cause of pain; the final cessation of the conjunction is the removal of pain. Right knowledge is the cause of the removal of the pain. Here the individuality of the remover is not to be considered the pain to be avoided; nor is to be considered as an object of desire to be aimed at. In the case of avoidability, the theory of their destructibility would come in. In the case of its being considered an object of desire to be aimed at, the theory of its being the effect of some preceding cause would come in. When both these positions have been given up, the theory of eternal immutability only remains. This is the Right knowledge.

Thus is the Science said to possess four Departments.—66.

The Gloss of Vachaspati Mishra

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

The author introduces the aphorism by putting a question with the object of explaining in the sequence, that although ordinary people do not at the time of feeling pleasure, have the sense of its contrariety to the mind, and do not, therefore, feel the pain thereof, the Yogī has the sense of pain therein:—‘How is that possible?’ ‘By means, &c.’ This is the aphorism. The consequential change, the suffering (tāpa) and the habituation are themselves pains. It is by means of these, &c.

He describes the painfulness of an object on account of the painfulness of sequential change:—‘This feeling of pleasure... in the case of every one, &c.’ It is plain that pleasure is not possible without the consequent bond of attachment.. Where there is no co-existence there is no pleasure. It is in that that the feeling of pleasure consists. Attachment causes activity. Activity is responsible for the heaping up of virtues and vices. Of these consists the vehicle of actions born out of attachments, because nothing that does not exist cannot be born. He who enjoys pleasure and is at the time even devoted to it, goes on at the same time hating the causes of pain, by means of the mental modifications of aversion which exists distinct and independent. When one becomes incapable of removing the causes of pain, he becomes deluded forgetting as he does the true nature of things. Thus a vehicle of actions is brought into being by aversion also, and like aversion by delusion also. This is but another name of Unreal Cognition. There is, therefore, nothing contradictory in its being the cause of the vehicle of action coming into existence.

The question arises: How can one who is attached, be at the same time averse and deluded? Aversion and delusion are not seen at the time of attachment. For this reason he says ‘And so it has been said;’ by us when speaking of the characteristic of alternation in the afflictions. The virtue and vice which have their origin in the activity of speech and mind have both been described by what has been said so far, because the incident of their being born out of attachment, &c., is common to both, inasmuch as there is no difference in this matter between a mental and verbal expression Of desire. As they say:—‘The mental modification of desire differs not from its verbal expression.’

Now he shows that there is a physical vehicle of actions also:—‘Enjoyment is not possible without giving pain to others.’ It is for this reason that the writers of the Dharmaśāstras speak of the five sins of householders.

It may be so. But it is, not proper that the pleasure derived from an object of enjoyment should be denied on account of this contrariety to the feeling of Yogīs. For this reason he says:—‘It has been said that the pleasure of enjoyment is Nescience,’ when describing Nescience as consisting of the four-fold unreality of cognition. The elders do not look with favour upon mere consequential conditions. There is, of course, no feeling of pleasure caused to anyone by the enjoyment of honey mixed up with poison, even though he may use it. On the contrary, there is a feeling of pain in the sequence. So also has it been said by the Lord:—‘The pleasure which is felt by the contact of the senses with their objects, that which is like nectar in the beginning and like poison in the end, is Rājasic pleasure.’—(Gītā)

He introduces this:—‘The calming down, &c.’ We do not hold that pleasure consists in the enjoyment of an object. On the contrary, the greatest pain of man consists in the desire for objects, of men, who being satisfied by objects are pained by the wish to possess them. This does not calm down without the enjoyment of the object. Farther, its calming down does not come about, being followed as it is by attachment, &c. Why then should it not be considered as the pain of consequence? This is the meaning. Satisfaction, is caused by the cessation of the thirst for an object. The calming down thus caused consists in the cessation of the powers from their work. The author shows this very meaning by means of the canon of difference:—‘The restlessness in consequence of absence of satisfaction is pain.’

He refutes:—‘Further it is not possible. &c.’ It is true that the cessation of desire is the faultless pleasure. It is not the repetition of enjoyments, however, that brings this about. The repetition of enjoyment, on the contrary, brings about the manifestation of desire, which is the opposite of the cessation thereof. As they have said:—‘The desire for enjoyments is not calmed down by their enjoyment. It gathers strength like fire by oblations.’—(Manu). The rest is not difficult.

Now he questions about the pain of anxiety‘Well, what is the painfulness of anxiety?’

He gives the answer:—‘The feeling of pain, &c.’ The full description of its nature has not been undertaken, because it is well known to all men. It is similar to the pain of consequence or sequential change. The details of this are the same as those of the other.

He now questions about the painfulness of habituation:—‘What again, &c.’

Answers:—‘By the enjoyment of pleasure, &c.’ The feeling of pleasure nourishes its residual potency. That brings about the memory of pleasure. That again causes attachment. From this follow the movements of mind, body and speech. These cause virtue and vice. Thence comes the enjoyment of their fruition. Thence again is the mind habituated to it. This is the meaning of eternity, absence of beginning. And here again memory comes in by the intensity of the potencies of pleasure and pain. Thereby come attachment and aversion. Thence come actions. From actions proceeds fruition. Thus should this be understood. Following thus this stream of pain troubles the Yogī alone, not any one else. For this reason he says:—‘This is the eternal stream, &c.’ As to others the three-fold pain runs after them.... this is the construction. The pains caused by other beings and the powers of nature are described by one common characteristic, the external. The modifications variegated by the eternal residua are described as the Nescience. It is the Nescience which causes modifications in the mind; they are, in fact, Nescience itself. It is by this that the feelings of ‘This is myself’ and ‘This is mine’ are generated in the Will-to-be the senses and the body, &c., and in wife and children, &c. These are the lines along which the ordinary Puruṣa moves.

Under these circumstances there is no rescue at all except in right knowledge. For this reason he says:—‘The Yogī then, &c.’

Having thus shown the painfulness of pleasurable enjoyments, on account of the surrounding circumstances of sequential change, habituation and anxiety, he now shows the painfulness due to the very nature of their being:—‘Further by reason of the contrariety of the functionings of the qualities, &c.’ He explains ‘The qualities of Essence (sattva), disturbing energy (rajas) and inertia (tamas) evolved as essentiality, activity and inactivity in their transformation as the Will-to-be, being dependent for support upon each other, bring about every notion, even though it be the notion of pleasurable enjoyments, as necessarily possessed of the three qualities, being as it is as such, either quiescent, that is pleasurable, disturbed, i.e., painful or inert, i.e., seedy (a feeling which is neither of active pleasure nor yet of pain). And even such a modification in the form of a notion of this Will-to-be is not permanent. So says he:—‘And the functioning of the qualities being changeful, &c.’ The mind has been said to be of a quickly changing nature.

But how can one notion become possessed of the opposite qualities of quiescence, disturbance and seediness at one time? For this reason he says:—‘The intensities of their nature and the intensities of their functionings are contradictory to one another.’

Natures differ from natures, that is, the eight modes of mental being characterization, &c. Their functionings are pleasure and pain. Thus characteristic (i.e., virtue) differs when ripening into fruit, from Vice (that which is non-characteristic), when that ripens into fruit. Similarly, knowledge, desirelessness and power as also pleasure, &c., differ from contradictory characteristics of the same classes. The ordinary manifestations, i.e., when their natures are not intensified, do not contradict their intense manifestations, i.e., when they are in the height of their manifestation. They, therefore, do manifest along with them.

Well, we understand this. But how can the enjoyment of pleasurable objects be painful by nature? For this reason he says ‘Thus do these, &c.’ The meaning is that they are both the same inasmuch as there is no difference in their material causes and the material cause and the effect thereof are the same in nature.

What, is it then a case of absolute identity of nature? If so, there would be no difference among mental conceptions as they do exist. For this reason he says ‘It is by the quality which is the leading factor, &c.’ The presence of the qualities is in their ordinary nature. The leading factor is that which is intense. For this reason, all is but pain to the discriminating, by nature as well as on account of surrounding circumstances. And pain has to be removed by the wise. And pain cannot be removed unless its root is removed. Further, the root cannot be removed unless it is known. For this reason shows the root thereof:—‘The seed out of which grows, &c.’ The meaning is that the seed is that out of which the heap of pains grows, i.e., from which it takes its birth.

He mentions the means of its eradication:—‘And of that the means of destruction, &c.’

Now he explains that this science, which is taught for the welfare of all, is similar to another science of the same class:—‘As the science of medicine, &c.’ That science which has four branches of discussion, is said to be a science of four departments. The question now arises that inasmuch as pain was ere now described as the thing which has to be removed and the universe in evolution is now described as the thing to be removed, is there not an evident contradiction in this? For this reason he says:—‘The universe in evolution being full of pain, &c.’

Now he describes the minor operation of Nescience, whereby the evolution of the universe is set in:—‘The conjunction of the Prakṛti and the Puruṣa, &c.’

He describes the means of liberation:—‘Right knowledge is the means, &c.’

Some are of opinion that liberation consists in the destruction of the very being of him who does away with pain. As they say:—‘The salvation of the mind is like the extinguishment of a lamp.’ Others say that liberation consists in the appearance of pure knowledge by the destruction of the afflictions together with their potencies. He says to them:—‘Here the individuality.of the remover is not to be considered the pain, &c.’

He points out the defect in the theory of removal:—‘In the case of avoidability, &c.’ No wise man ever works for self-destruction. It is, however, seen that men who carry a body full of intense pain, do attempt to destroy themselves. True. But it is only a few who do so.

Further, if this were so, there would remain no object of existence for the Puruṣa, inasmuch as there are spirits in evolution who enjoy different kinds of pleasure as gods, &c., and they too reach the state of liberation. Hence, liberation is not to be considered to be the annihilation of the very being of him who removes the pain.

Well, then, let us suppose that the mind in the state of liberation takes up another nature. For this reason he says:—‘In the case of it being supposed that another nature is put on, the theory of there being another cause for it, &c.’ It means that if it is something which comes into existence, it is an effect and is, therefore, impermanent. Being impermanent it cannot be considered liberation (mokṣa). Mokṣa consists in immortality. The expression of pure knowledge is not immortal. It is not possible that expression (santana) should exist as separate from the thing expressed, and as an independent existence. The things that are expressed are, of course, impermanent. For this reason we should try to find out a theory which would make it possible that Mokṣa should be permanent. Is is only thus that it would be possible to make Mokṣa an object for the Puruṣa to achieve. For this reason he says:—‘When both these positions, &c.’ Hence Mokṣa is only the establishment of the self in its own nature. This alone is Right Knowledge. Thus is this science said to possess four Departments.—15.