Refutation of single cause theory of Sāṃkhya

After elaborately refuting the Mīmāṃsaka theory of potency, Udayana briefly refutes the view of the Sāṃkhya in a single verse. According to Sāṃkhya, there are two principal realities, puruṣa and prakṛti. The former is eternal, without any change, neither a cause nor an agent and only of the nature of consciousness. The latter on the other hand is one and eternal, but it is unconscious and always subject to transformation. The whole external world is an evolution of prakṛti. There is a distinct process through which the different elements of the world come into being, step by step. Thus the first evolute of prakṛti is buddhi. Qualities like pleasure, pain desire, merit and demerit belong to buddhi and not to puruṣa. Puruṣa is without any action and does not really experience any pleasure or pain. Buddhi experiences pleasure or pain, but it is wrongly attributed to puruṣa.^[1] From the Nyāya standpoint Udayana says that the experiences of pleasure and pain are regulated by the properties of the agent. The agent in which the properties like merit, demerit, desire and aversion are located is conscious and enjoys the fruits of actions. It cannot be accepted that the self has no property and cannot be an agent. The Sāṃkhya view is quite illogical. It says that buddhi is the agent, it is unconscious and enjoyment of object is determined by merit and demerit located in buddhi. Udayana says that this is an absurd position–merit and demerit are present in one thing, but the results are present in another thing. When an action is performed, the agent has an awareness in the form “I am conscious and I am performing this act”. Consciousness, desire, enjoyment of fruits etc. must be located in the same thing. Buddhi is unconscious, how can it be an agent?^[2]

Udayana further objects that if the Sāṃkhya view is accepted there will be no explanation for liberation (apavarga) and worldly existence (saṃsāra). It is to be asked, is buddhi eternal, or noneternal? If it is eternal there can be no liberation. In the Sāṃkhya view, liberation means that the connection between buddhi and puruṣa has been destroyed. But since both of them are eternal the relation between them also will be eternal. Thus there can be no liberation. If on the other hand buddhi is admitted to be noneternal it will follow that at a certain point of time buddhi is not present. Then at that time there can be no worldly existence, because it means a state when buddhi and purusa remain connected. If the one is absent how can there be such a connection?^[3]