Since no definite explanation of the gu@nas is found in any other work before Bhik@su, it is quite probable that this matter may not have been definitely worked out before.  Neither Caraka nor the Mahabharata explains the nature of the gu@nas.  But Bhik@su’s interpretation suits exceedingly well all that is known of the manifestations and the workings of the gu@nas in all early documents.  I have therefore accepted the interpretation of Bhik@su in giving my account of the nature of the gu@nas.  The Karika speaks of the gu@nas as being of the nature of pleasure, pain, and dullness (sattva, rajas and tamas).  It also describes sattva as being light and illuminating, rajas as of the nature of energy and causing motion, and tamas as heavy and obstructing.  Vacaspati merely paraphrases this statement of the Karika but does not enter into any further explanations.  Bhik@su’s interpretation fits in well with all that is known of the gu@nas, though it is quite possible that this view might not have been known before, and when the original Sa@mkhya doctrine was formulated there was a real vagueness as to the conception of the gu@nas.

There are some other points in which Bhik@su’s interpretation differs from that of Vacaspati.  The most important of these may be mentioned here.  The first is the nature of the connection of the buddhi states with the puru@sa.  Vacaspati holds that there is no contact (sa@myoga) of any buddhi state with the puru@sa but that a reflection of the puru@sa is caught in the state of buddhi by virtue of which the buddhi state becomes intelligized and transformed into consciousness.  But this view is open to the objection that it does not explain how the puru@sa can be said to be the experiencer of the conscious states of the buddhi, for its reflection in the buddhi is merely an image, and there cannot be an experience (bhoga) on the basis of that image alone without any actual connection of the puru@sa with the buddhi.  The answer of Vacaspati Mis’ra is that there is no contact of the two in space and time, but that their proximity (sannidhi) means only a specific kind of fitness (yogyata) by virtue of which the puru@sa, though it remains aloof, is yet felt to be united and identified in the buddhi, and as a result of that the states of the buddhi appear as ascribed to a person.  Vijnana Bhik@su differs from Vacaspati and says that if such a special kind of fitness be admitted, then there is no

225

reason why puru@sa should be deprived of such a fitness at the time of emancipation, and thus there would be no emancipation at all, for the fitness being in the puru@sa, he could not be divested of it, and he would continue to enjoy the experiences represented in the buddhi for ever.  Vijnana Bhik@su thus holds that there is a real contact of the puru@sa with the buddhi state in any cognitive state.  Such a contact of the puru@sa and the buddhi does not