Sūtra 4.23

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of Sūtra 4.23:

द्रष्टृदृश्योपरक्तं चित्तं सर्वार्थम् ॥ ४.२३ ॥

draṣṭṛdṛśyoparaktaṃ cittaṃ sarvārtham || 4.23 ||

draṣṭṛ-dṛśya-uparaktam—being coloured by the knower and the knowable, cittam—the mind. sarvārtham—omni objective.

23. The mind being coloured by the knower and the knowable is omni-objective (sarvārtha).—183.

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]

And it is known in this way:—‘The mind being coloured by the knower and the known, is omni-objective.’ The mind is of course coloured by the objects of thought. The mind being itself an object comes into relationship with the subjective Puruṣa through its modification as Self. Thus it is that the mind is coloured by both subjectivity and objectivity, the knower and the knowable; it assumes the nature of both the conscious and unconscious. Although it is of the very nature of the objective, it appears as if it were of the nature of the subjective. Although it is devoid of consciousness by its nature, it appears as if it were consciousness. Being of the nature of the crystal, it is termed omni-objective.

It is by this similarity of mental appearance that some people are deceived into saying that the mind itself is the conscious agent. There are others again who say that all this is but the mind only and that there is nothing in existence of the objective world, such as the cow or jar, all of which are governed by the law of causation. They are to be pitied. For what reason? Because they are possessed of a mind which is the cause of confusion, shining forth as it does in the shape of all appearances.

In the case of the trance cognition, the cognizable object is reflected into the mind, and it is different from the trance cognition, because it is the object upon which the act of cognition rests. If that object were the mind alone, how could it be that the phenomenon of cognition would be taken in by the cognition itself. For this reason, he who takes in the object reflected in the mind, is the Puruṣa. Thus those who teach that the knower, the knowable and the means of knowledge are the three modifications of the mind, and thus divide the phenomena into three classes are the only true philosophers. It is to them that the Puruṣa is known.—183.

The Gloss of Vachaspati Mishra

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

Thus has been established the existence of the Puruṣa, the unchangeable as a separate entity from the mind which is by nature changeable, being as it is by nature the knowable. Now he gives also the authority of the perceptions of the world to prove the same, ‘And it is known in this way.’ The meaning is that it must be so. ‘The mind coloured by both the knower and the knowable is omni-objective.’ As the mind coloured by the blue and other objects establishes their existence by perception itself, so also coloured by the reflection of the knower into itself, the mind establishes the existence of the knower too by perception-. A notion is evidently made up of two percepts ‘I know the blue object.’ Therefore the subject also is of a nature similar to that of the object, Although proved by perception, it is not shown thereby as existing separately from the mind, like the reflection of the moon which is perceived to be quite distinct from the water into which it is reflected. The mental perception of the Self does not cease to be perception merely by this much.

Further inasmuch as the reflection in the water does not exist in reality as a moon it cannot be said that because the reflection is only a reflection and not the substance itself, that therefore the moon herself does not exist. In the same way, although consciousness becomes the objective in its state of mental reflection, it docs not so become in its own nature. This is what is meant by the mind being omni-objective. Says this:—‘The mind coloured by the object of thought, &c.’ It is not by the external object alone that the mind is coloured by assuming its shape; it is coloured by the Puruṣa too. The reflection of the Puruṣa is his, the Self’s manifestation (vritti). This reflection of the Puruṣa is to be accepted by the Vaināśikas also. How? If this be not so they must fasten the consciousness upon the mind, saying that there is consciousness in the mind. Says so:—‘Misled by this similarity of the mind, &c.’ There are some Vaināśikas who speak of the existence of an eternal object. There are others who speak of the existence of an idea. The question now is that, if the mind shines forth both as a subject and an object, there must certainly be a difference between the knower and the knowable. As they say:—Although the Self of the Will-to-be is not different, yet those who are given to seeing things separated from each other, see it as possessed of the differences of the concepts of the subjective and the objective. This being the case, how are they to be pitied? Says for this reason:—‘In the case of the trance cognition, &c.’ They must be brought round by first convincing them by the above reasoning that the Puruṣa must be something different from the mind, and then bringing them into touch with the trance cognition, which has the self as the sphere of its operation by teaching them the eight branches of Yoga. That is to be done in this way. In the trance cognition the object of knowledge is the Self reflected into the mind. It is different from the real Self, because it becomes the support to that Self (Ā-tmā). If he begin to say notwithstanding that he is given the reasons, that the support may be the mind itself, it is said:—If the object which appears as the Self, be the mind itself and nothing different from it, then how is it possible that the mind may be known by the mind itself (the act of knowing that is to say, by the act of knowing itself). It is self-contradictory to speak of the action of a mental modification upon itself. Concludes:—‘Therefore, &c.’ They are to bo pitied and taught the truth. Says this:—‘In this way, &c.’ Class means nature.