Sūtra 4.21

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of Sūtra 4.21:

चित्तान्तरदृश्ये बुद्धिबुद्धेर् अतिप्रसङ्गः स्मृतिसंकरश् च ॥ ४.२१ ॥

cittāntaradṛśye buddhibuddher atiprasaṅgaḥ smṛtisaṃkaraś ca || 4.21 ||

cittāntara-dṛśye—in case of being knowable by another mind. buddhi-buddheḥ—of the wills to know, the wills to know. atiprasaṅgaḥ—too many, abundance, superfluity. smṛti-saṅkaraḥ—confusion of memories. ca—and.

21. In case of being knowable by another mind, there will be too many wills-to-know the Wills-to-know; and there will be confusion of memories.—181.

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]

There may be an opinion that the mind restrained in its own being may be known by another mind just in contact with it. ‘In case of being known by another mind there will be too many wills-to-know the Wills-to-know; and there will be confusion of memories.’ If the mind be cognized by another mind, by what may the wills-to-know the Wills-to-know be cognized. Even that by another; and that again by another. There will thus be too many of such Wills-to-know. And there will be confusion of memories. As many will be the cognitions of the various Wills-to-be, so many will be the memories. One memory will not be capable of determination on account of their confusion. Thus the Vaināśikas have confused everything by denying the existence of the Puruṣa who knows by reflex action the Will-to-know. Further, they are not logical in imagining as they do, the existence of the Puruṣa in some places. Some there are who say that there does exist a pure being, and that that being throws away the existing five Skandhas and takes up others. Having asserted so much they fight shy again of the same.

Further they say that for the purpose of entirely doing away with the Skandhas, and for securing desirelessness, non-production and calmness, they would go to a teacher and with him live the life of a student. And having said this they begin again to conceal the very existence of that being.

As to the Sāṅkhyayoga theories, they declare by the word SVA (on one’s own) applied to the mind that there does exist the lord in the shape of the enjoyer of the mind.—181.

The Gloss of Vachaspati Mishra

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

Introduces the Vaināśikas again:—There may be a theory that although the mind may not know itself by its own life, on account of its being objective by nature, yet even that fact does not prove the existence of the self-restrained moment of the mind which generates the next may well be taken in by the last mental moment of its own succession. This is the meaning. ‘Another mind just in contact therewith. This other mind is equal in knowledge, and between the two there is nothing else intervening.’ Therefore, ‘In case of being knowable by another mind, &c.’ The Will-to-be stands here for the mind. If the last act of mentality is not itself perceived, it cannot have the power of perceiving the previous act of mentality. It is not proper that the previous Will-to-know should be known without coming into contact with the present Will-to-know itself. No one who does not take hold of the connecting rod can reach the holder of the rod himself. Hence there is a regrussus ad infinitum.

The Skandhas are five:—Vijjñāna [Vijñāna?], Vedanā, Saṃjñā, Rūpa and Saṃskāra.

‘The theories of the Sāṅkhya yoga, &c.’ This means the theories of the Sāṅkhyas and the Yogas and of the Vaiśeṣikas, &c., which are preceded by the Sānkhyas and the Yogas. The rest is easy.—21.