_______________________________________________________

_____________

[Footnote 1:  Tattvavais’aradi, IV. 3; Yogavarttika, I. 24; and Pravavanabhasya, V. 1-12.]

260

that it can reflect the intelligence of the puru@sa, and thus render its non-intelligent transformations to appear as if they were intelligent.  Thus all our thoughts and other emotional or volitional operations are really the non-intelligent transformations of the buddhi or citta having a large sattva preponderance; but by virtue of the reflection of the puru@sa in the buddhi, these appear as if they are intelligent.  The self (puru@sa) according to Sa@mkhya-Yoga is not directly demonstrated by self-consciousness.  Its existence is a matter of inference on teleological grounds and grounds of moral responsibility.  The self cannot be directly noticed as being separate from the buddhi modifications.  Through beginningless ignorance there is a confusion and the changing states of buddhi are regarded as conscious.  These buddhi changes are further so associated with the reflection of the puru@sa in the buddhi that they are interpreted as the experiences of the puru@sa.  This association of the buddhi with the reflection of the puru@sa in the buddhi has such a special fitness (yogyata) that it is interpreted as the experience of the puru@sa.  This explanation of Vacaspati of the situation is objected to by Vijnana Bhik@su.  Vijnana Bhik@su says that the association of the buddhi with the image of the puru@sa cannot give us the notion of a real person who undergoes the experiences.  It is to be supposed therefore that when the buddhi is intelligized by the reflection of the puru@sa, it is then superimposed upon the puru@sa, and we have the notion of an abiding person who experiences [Footnote ref 1].  Whatever may be the explanation, it seems that the union of the buddhi with the puru@sa is somewhat mystical.  As a result of this reflection of cit on buddhi and the superimposition of the buddhi the puru@sa cannot realize that the transformations of the buddhi are not its own.  Buddhi resembles puru@sa in transparency, and the puru@sa fails to differentiate itself from the modifications of the buddhi, and as a result of this non-distinction the puru@sa becomes bound down to the buddhi, always failing to recognize the truth that the buddhi and its transformations are wholly alien to it.  This non-distinction of puru@sa from buddhi which is itself a mode of buddhi is what is meant by avidya (non-knowledge) in Sa@mkhya, and is the root of all experience and all misery [Footnote ref 2].

_______________________________________________________

___________

[Footnote 1:  Tattvavais’aradi and Yogavarttika, I. 4.]

[Footnote 2:  This indicates the nature of the analysis of illusion with Sa@mkhya.  It is the non-apprehension of the distinction of two things (e.g. the snake and the rope) that is the cause of illusion; it is therefore called the akhyati (non-apprehension) theory of illusion which must be distinguished from the anyathakhyati (misapprehension) theory of illusion of Yoga which consists in positively misapprehending one (e.g. the rope) for the other (e.g. snake). Yogavarttika, I. 8.]