The three gu/n/as of the Sa@nkhyas when in a state of equipoise form the pradhana.  Beyond the pradhana there exists no external principle which could either impel the pradhana to activity or restrain it from activity.  The soul (purusha), as we know, is indifferent, neither moves to—­nor restrains from—­action.  As therefore the pradhana stands in no relation, it is impossible to see why it should sometimes modify itself into the great principle (mahat) and sometimes not.  The activity and non-activity (by turns) of the Lord, on the other hand, are not contrary to reason, on account of his omniscience and omnipotence, and his being connected with the power of illusion (maya).

5.  Nor (can it be said that the pradhana modifies itself spontaneously) like grass, &c. (which turn into milk); for (milk) does not exist elsewhere (but in the female animal).

Let this be (the Sa@nkhya resumes).  Just as grass, herbs, water, &c. independently of any other instrumental cause transform themselves, by their own nature, into milk; so, we assume, the pradhana also transforms itself into the great principle, and so on.  And, if you ask how we know that grass transforms itself independently of any instrumental cause; we reply, ‘Because no such cause is observed.’  For if we did perceive some such cause, we certainly should apply it to grass, &c. according to our liking, and thereby produce milk.  But as a matter of fact we do no such thing.  Hence the transformation of grass and the like must be considered to be due to its own nature merely; and we may infer therefrom that the transformation of the pradhana is of the same kind.

To this we make the following reply.—­The transformation of the pradhana might be ascribed to its own nature merely if we really could admit that grass modifies itself in the manner stated by you; but we are unable to admit that, since another instrumental cause is observed.  How?  ’Because it does not exist elsewhere.’  For grass becomes milk only when it is eaten by a cow or some other female animal, not if it is left either uneaten or is eaten by a bull.  If the transformation had no special cause, grass would become milk even on other conditions than that of entering a cow’s body.  Nor would the circumstance of men not being able to produce milk according to their liking prove that there is no instrumental cause; for while some effects can be produced by men, others result from divine action only[326].  The fact, however, is that men also are able, by applying a means in their power, to produce milk from grass and herbs; for when they wish to procure a more abundant supply of milk they feed the cow more plentifully and thus obtain more milk from her.—­For these reasons the spontaneous modification of the pradhana cannot be proved from the instance of grass and the like.

6.  Even if we admit (the Sa@nkhya position refuted in what precedes, it is invalidated by other objections) on account of the absence of a purpose (on the part of the pradhana).