Sāṃkhya-kārikā (金七十論)

Seventy Verses, Part One

Translated by Paramārtha, Tripitaka Master from India

This is how the verses originated. Long ago there was a sage named Kapila. Born from the void, he naturally possessed four qualities: first, Dharma; second, Wisdom; third, Freedom from Desire; fourth, Sovereignty. Together these four made up his being. Seeing this world sunk in blind darkness, he raised great compassion. "Alas! Beings dwell in blind darkness within birth and death!" Surveying the whole world, he saw a brahmin of the Āsuri clan who had been sacrificing to the gods for a thousand years. Making himself invisible, Kapila went to him and said: "Āsuri, you delight in the ways of a householder." Having said this, he departed. After a full thousand years he came again and repeated the same words. The brahmin answered the sage: "World-Honored One, I do indeed delight in the ways of a householder." Hearing this, the sage left again. Later he came once more and spoke the same words. The brahmin answered just as before. The sage asked: "Can you live a pure life of chastity?" The brahmin replied: "Yes, I can." So he abandoned the householder's life, took up the homeless life, and became a disciple of Kapila. The outsider asks: How do we know what this brahmin was born from? Answer: He was driven by the three sufferings. What are the three sufferings? First, those based on the inner; second, those based on the outer; third, those based on the heavens. Based on the inner means: when wind, heat, and phlegm are out of balance, illness arises. As medical texts say, from the navel downward is the region of wind; from the heart downward is the region of heat; from the heart upward belongs to phlegm. Sometimes when wind greatly increases, pressing upon phlegm and heat, wind-illness arises. The same applies to heat and phlegm. This is called bodily suffering. Mental suffering means: separation from the beloved, union with the hated, and not getting what one seeks. Distinguishing these three gives rise to mental suffering. Suffering of this kind is called the inner-based suffering. Outer-based suffering means the suffering that arises from other people, beasts, poisonous snakes, landslides, collapsing banks, and the like — this is called outer suffering. Heaven-based suffering means cold, heat, wind, rain, thunder, lightning, and so on. Being troubled by the heavens in all such ways and losing one's mind — this is called heaven-based suffering. Driven by these three sufferings, he wondered about the cause that would end suffering. The outsider says: This cause of suffering can clearly eliminate these three sufferings — it has already been made evident. First, the eightfold medical method can eliminate bodily suffering. Second, the six pleasant sense-objects can eliminate mental suffering. This cause has already been shown. Why bother seeking to know more? Answer: This is not without truth, but it has two kinds of faults. Therefore the desire to know is not contrary to reason. The two faults are: first, uncertainty; second, limitation. The outsider says: If the eightfold medical method and the like have these two faults and so are insufficient as a cause for ending suffering, then the four Vedas contain a distinct cause. This cause produces its result with certainty and finality. So your desire to know is pointless. In the four Vedas it is said: "I once drank the soma juice and thereby became immortal. I entered the heaven of light and my consciousness beheld the gods. What can the enemy, suffering, do to me? What can death do to me?" Answer: You see and hear accordingly, but there is impurity and fault, superiority and inferiority. By reversing these two causes — the superior one being the knowledge of Nature and the Self — this is how it is. The cause seen in medical texts has the faults of uncertainty and limitation. The cause based on hearing is what has been passed down by tradition, from Brahmā down to the sages. Therefore the four Vedas are called "based on hearing." These Vedas also have two faults. Thus, compared with medical texts, they have three further faults. First, impurity. As the Vedas say: "O beast, your parents and kin all rejoice with you. Now that you give up this body, you will surely be reborn in heaven." As the horse sacrifice says: "Slaughter six hundred beasts. If the six hundred beasts are short by three and not complete, one cannot be reborn in heaven." For the sake of sport and the other four things, if a person speaks falsehood, the gods and sages say this is no sin. Thus such sins are present in the cause based on hearing. Therefore it is impure. Second, loss. As the Vedas say: Indra and the lord of the asuras, without cause, are destroyed by time. Time cannot be escaped. If this dharma is utterly destroyed, the patron falls from heaven. Thus there is the meaning of loss. Third, superiority and inferiority. For example, the poor, seeing the rich, become distressed. So too do the ugly and the beautiful, the foolish and the wise. The same applies among the gods. The lower, seeing the higher and superior, give rise to distress in turn. Thus there is superiority and inferiority. Because of these three, along with the previous two, there are five faults. The Vedas are not a [valid] cause. The outsider says: If so, what cause is superior? Answer: By reversing these two causes, one is superior. The two causes are: first, what medical texts say; second, what the Vedas say. By reversing these two causes, the knowledge one obtains as a cause has five qualities: first, certainty; second, finality; third, purity; fourth, non-loss; fifth, equality. Therefore it is superior to the previous two. The outsider says: By what cause is this cause obtained? Answer: Through knowing Nature (prakṛti) and the Self (puruṣa). "Nature" refers to: first, the Great (mahat); second, Egoity (ahaṃkāra); third, the five subtle elements; fourth, the five sense faculties; fifth, the five faculties of action; sixth, mind; seventh, the five gross elements. These seven are called modifications, being produced by Nature. Nature is the unmodified root cause. The Self is the knower. When people know these twenty-five true realities, neither more nor less, they are certain to be freed from the three sufferings. As the verse in the [text on] Liberation says: "If one knows the twenty-five, dwelling wherever and whichever path, the matted-haired, the shaven-headed attain liberation without doubt." The outsider says: How does one distinguish Nature, modification, and the knower? Answer: Nature is without modification. The Great and the rest are both root and modification. The sixteen are only modification. The knower is neither root nor modification. Nature can produce all things and is not born from another. Therefore it is called Nature. Nature can produce the Great and the rest. Therefore it receives the name "root." Because it is not born from another, it is not a modification. The Great, Egoity, and the five subtle elements — these seven are both root and modification. The Great, being born from Nature, is modification. Being able to produce Egoity, it is root. Egoity, being born from the Great, is modification. Being able to produce the five subtle elements, it is called root. The subtle element of sound, being born from Egoity, is modification. Being able to produce space and the ear faculty, it is called root. Likewise the subtle element of smell produces earth and the nose faculty. Thus these seven are both root and modification. The sixteen are only modification: the five gross elements — space and the rest; the five faculties — ear and the rest; the five faculties of action — tongue and the rest; and mind. These sixteen dharmas are only born from others and do not produce others. Therefore they are only modification. The knower is neither root nor modification: "knower" here means the Self, whose essence is knowing. This Self cannot produce and is not born from another. Differing from the previous three, it is neither root nor modification. The outsider says: By what means of knowledge are these three meanings known? In the world there are means of knowledge that can know, like scales and rulers, knowing length and shortness, lightness and heaviness. Answer: Perception, inference, and sacred testimony can encompass all objects. Therefore three means of knowledge are established. The establishment of objects follows from the means of knowledge. In this treatise three means of knowledge are established. First, perception. Perception is the cognition born from the faculties and sense-objects; it cannot be made evident [to others]; it is not uncertain, nor is it twofold. This is called perception. Second, inference. Inference has perception as its predecessor. Inference has three kinds: first, "having a predecessor"; second, "having a remainder"; third, "equal." Third, sacred testimony. Sacred testimony is when perception and inference cannot encompass a given meaning, but by sacred testimony it is encompassed. For example, the northern continent of Uttarakuru in heaven is not knowable by perception or inference; by trusting the sacred word it can be known. Sacred testimony is, as the verse says: "The Āgamas are sacred testimony. The sacred ones have extinguished all delusion. Being without delusion, they do not speak falsely. Because of dependent origination, they do not arise." "Encompassing all objects": if there are other means of knowledge and other objects of knowledge, they do not go beyond these three meanings. The six means of knowledge of the "equal" kind are included in sacred testimony. "The establishment of objects follows from the means of knowledge": "objects" means the twenty-five meanings, which encompass all. "Establishment" means clarifying that these twenty-five — how do they come to be called objects? Because they are the domain of the means of knowledge. Thus they are established as objects. Through perception, inference, and sacred testimony, they are briefly established as three, and in full as twenty-five. The outsider says: You say there are three means of knowledge. What are their characteristics? Answer: Perception is the understanding directed at a sense-object. Inference is known in three kinds. "Characteristic preceded by characteristic" — sacred teaching is called sacred testimony. "Perception is the understanding directed at a sense-object": the ear gives rise to understanding regarding sound, and so on up to the nose giving rise to understanding regarding smell. Mere understanding cannot know [conceptually]. This is called perception. "Inference is known in three kinds": first, having a predecessor; second, having a remainder; third, equal. These three kinds of cognition, because of perception, can distinguish these three objects and the three times. This is called inference. For example, when a person sees black clouds, he knows it will surely rain. When he sees a river full of fresh muddy water, he knows there must have been rain at the upper source. When he sees the mango trees of the country of Pāṭala putting forth flowers, he knows the country of Kosala is likewise. "Characteristic preceded by characteristic": characteristic and the possessor of the characteristic correspond and are not separate. Because perception of this characteristic, inference is accomplished. "Sacred teaching is called sacred testimony": as spoken by Brahmā and King Manu — the four Vedas and the orthodox treatises. The outsider says: You say inference has three kinds. Which means of knowledge, which objects, and what is attained and comprehended? Answer: By relying on the "equal" inference, what is beyond the faculties and objects is accomplished. If what is relied on by inference is not evident, it appears according to sacred testimony. "Relying on the equal measure" means: among inferences, this is called the equal measure. Nature and the Self — these objects are beyond the faculties, so the equal [measure] can distinguish them. The Great and the other effects have three qualities: first, pleasure; second, pain; third, delusion-darkness. These effect-qualities, apart from the root-quality, cannot be established. Therefore, by the effect-quality one infers the root. Thus Nature is established by the equal inference. The Self must be definitively existent. Because the Great and other modifications exist for the sake of another, the Self is also established by the equal [inference]. If one relies on perception and inference, certain meanings cannot be established, because they are beyond cognition. By relying on sacred testimony they are understood — like the heaven of Indra and Uttarakuru above. The outsider says: Nature and the Self, being invisible, are like a non-existent lord or a two-headed, three-handed being. Answer: Truly there are eight kinds of objects that are invisible. What are the eight? Let a verse show them:

Things that exist in the world may be invisible for eight reasons. First, because they are too far away. For example, something on the opposite shore cannot be known from here. Second, because they are too close. Like dust in the eye, it cannot be perceived. Third, because the senses are damaged. Just as a deaf or blind person cannot perceive sounds or sights. Fourth, because the mind is unsettled. For example, when the mind is occupied with something else, it cannot grasp this object. Fifth, because they are too subtle. Like smoke, heat, or dust particles dispersed in space—too fine to be noticed. Sixth, because they are covered or obstructed. Like something behind a wall—blocked and unknowable. Seventh, because they are overwhelmed. Like when sunlight appears, the stars and moon no longer show. Eighth, because they are too similar. Like a single bean among a pile of beans—of the same kind, hard to distinguish. Thus there are eight ways that existing things cannot be seen. There are also four ways that non-existing things cannot be known. First, before something arises, it cannot be seen. Like clay not yet made into a pot—the pot cannot be known. Second, once destroyed, it is gone and cannot be seen. Like a pot that has broken—it can no longer be known. Third, because of mutual absence. Like not finding a horse among cows, or a cow among horses. Fourth, because of absolute non-existence. Like the two heads or three hands of someone who is not a free being. In these twelve ways, things whether existing or non-existing cannot be seen. Therefore, when you say that because something cannot be seen, nature itself and the self do not exist—this reasoning is not correct. The opponent asks: If nature itself and the self cannot be seen, which of the twelve categories does that fall under? Answer: It is invisible for one reason. What is that one reason? The following verse will explain.

Because it is subtle, it is not seen; it is not that it cannot be seen at all. The intrinsic nature truly exists, but because it is subtle, it is not seen. For example, smoke and the like, when dispersed finely in the air, cannot be seen. The intrinsic nature is also like this. It is not like a second head or a third hand, which simply do not exist and therefore cannot be seen.

The opponent asks: If it cannot be seen, how do we know it exists?

Answer: Through the things that arise from it, we see that it is produced by its own cause, the intrinsic nature. By the equal measure of inference from these things, we know the intrinsic nature truly exists.

The opponent asks: What are these things?

Answer: The great principle and the others are these things. From the intrinsic nature arises the great principle. From the great principle arises egoity. From egoity arise the five subtle elements. From the five subtle elements arise the sixteen transformations. The great principle and the other things possess the three qualities; therefore we know the intrinsic nature possesses the three qualities.

"Similar and dissimilar to the nature": These things are of two kinds. First, those dissimilar to the intrinsic nature. Second, those similar to the intrinsic nature. For example, one person bears two sons: one resembles the father, one does not. Thus, things may resemble their source or not resemble it. This will be explained in detail later. This treatise and others contain such matters.

If a disciple accepts this, then with respect to the intrinsic nature and the like, are they existent, nonexistent, or both existent and nonexistent? How so? Because the sages hold different views. Some sages say that a pot and the like already exist in the lump of clay. The Vaisheshika school says that it did not exist before and comes into existence later. The Buddha Shakyamuni teaches that in the lump of clay, the pot is neither existent nor nonexistent. From these three views, our position is the middle one.

Answer: We first refute the view of Shakyamuni, then refute the Vaisheshika. The teaching of Shakyamuni that it is neither existent nor nonexistent is not correct, because it is self-contradictory. If it is not existent, then it is nonexistent. If it is not nonexistent, then it is existent. To say it is both existent and nonexistent is a contradiction in one place, and therefore cannot be established. For example, if someone says of a person that he is both dead and alive, this statement is contradictory and cannot stand. The words of Shakyamuni are likewise.

The Tripitaka master says: This reasoning is incorrect. Why? Because Shakyamuni does not hold this view. When Shakyamuni says "not existent," he does not cling to nonexistence. When he says "not nonexistent," he does not cling to existence. Being free from the clingings to existence and nonexistence, no refutation can be made against him.

Now we refute the Vaisheshika view. In the Vaisheshika doctrine of the self, there are five reasons that demonstrate that an effect definitely exists within its cause. What are these five reasons?

First, nothing can come into being without the capacity to produce it. In this world, if something has no capacity for production, it cannot be produced — like trying to extract oil from sand. But if something does have the capacity to be produced, it can be produced — like pressing oil from sesame seeds. If something is not present in a cause, it cannot come out of that cause. Now we see that the great elements and so on arise from the primal nature, so we know the primal nature contains the great elements and so on.

Second, one must take hold of a cause. If a person wants to obtain something, they must take hold of that thing's cause. For example, if someone thinks, "Tomorrow a brahmin will come to my house to eat, so I will now draw milk" — if there were no butter or curd in the milk, why would they not draw water instead? Because one seeks a thing by taking hold of its cause, we know the primal nature contains the great elements.

Third, if everything were not produced from something already present in the cause, then anything could produce anything — grass, sand, and stones could produce gold, silver, and so on. Since this is not the case, we know the effect exists within the cause.

Fourth, because of the capacity to make and what is made. For example, a potter, fully equipped with his tools, makes pots and jars from a lump of clay — he does not make pots and jars from grass or wood. So we know the primal nature can produce the great elements and so on. Therefore the primal nature contains the great elements and so on.

Fifth, because effects follow their causes. That is to say, whatever kind the cause is, the effect is of that same kind. For example, a barley sprout must follow from a barley seed. If the effect were not present in the cause, the effect would not resemble the cause — and then a bean sprout and so on could grow from a barley seed. Since this is not the case, we know the effect exists within the cause. The Vaisheshika school and others hold that the effect does not exist in the cause. This view is incorrect. Therefore we know that the effect definitely exists within the cause.

The intermediate question is now finished. We return to explaining the earlier meaning. "Not resembling the nature" — there are nine kinds of non-resemblance.

Whatever has a cause—the intellect and the other principles, down to the five great elements—all have causes. Nature is the cause of the intellect; the intellect is the cause of egoism; egoism is the cause of the five subtle elements; the sixteen categories beginning with the sense faculties have the five subtle elements as their cause. But Nature is not like this, because it is produced without any cause. Therefore it is said to be dissimilar.

Second, impermanence: the intellect and the rest arise from Nature. Because they arise, they are impermanent. There are two kinds of impermanence: one is temporary duration, the other is moment-to-moment impermanence. Temporary duration means that when conflicting conditions have not yet arrived, they abide for a time—like mountains and trees, which remain standing as long as no fire comes. But when fire arrives, the five great elements dissolve into the five subtle elements; the five subtle elements dissolve into egoism; egoism dissolves into the intellect; the intellect dissolves into Nature. Thus the intellect and the rest are impermanent. But Nature is not like this, because it is eternal and never dissolves.

Third, multiplicity: the intellect and the rest belong to many beings, because beings are different from one another. Egoism and the rest are likewise. But Nature is only one, because it is shared by many beings.

Fourth, non-pervasiveness: Nature and the self pervade all places—earth, space, and sky. But the intellect and the other principles are not like this, because they do not pervade everywhere. Therefore they are different from Nature.

Fifth, having activity: when the intellect and the other principles wish to set the cycle of birth and death in motion, they rely on these thirteen instruments, causing the subtle body to revolve through birth and death, expanding and contracting, going and returning. But Nature is not like this, because it neither expands nor contracts.

Sixth, dissolution: when the intellect and the other principles turn from the derived back to the source, they become invisible. This is called dissolution. Just as the five great elements dissolve into the five subtle elements and are no longer seen as great elements, and so on, until the intellect dissolves into Nature and the intellect too becomes invisible. But Nature is not like this, because it never turns or dissolves.

Seventh, having parts: the intellect and the rest all have parts, because each part is different. But Nature is not like this, because it is eternal and has no parts.

Eighth, dependence on another: the intellect depends on Nature; egoism depends on the intellect; the five subtle elements depend on egoism; the sixteen categories, including the five great elements, all depend on the five subtle elements. But Nature is not like this, because it is not produced by another.

Ninth, being subject to another: the intellect and the rest are born from the source, and the derived is not independent—like a son who has no freedom while his father is alive. But Nature is not like this, because it has no source to be subject to. By these nine reasons, the source and the derived are entirely different. Therefore they are said to be dissimilar.

Having explained dissimilarity, similarity will now be explained. The verses showing how they are similar to Nature are as follows:

There are six kinds of similarity. First, the three qualities: The transformations possess the three qualities. Transformations refer to the great principle, ego, subtle elements, and the five gross elements, and so on. These twenty-three are all possessed of the three qualities: first, pleasure; second, suffering; third, delusion and darkness. The transformations possess the three qualities, and therefore we know that the source possesses the three qualities as well. Because the transformations do not exist apart from the source. For example, a black garment comes from black threads. The transformations are similar to the source because the transformations arise from the source. The primordial nature possesses the three qualities — this is the similarity between the source and the transformations.

Second, non-separation: Because the transformations cannot be separated from the three qualities. For example, a cow and a horse — their bodies are not one. But the three qualities and the transformations are not like that. The primordial nature possesses the three qualities — this meaning is also the same. Because they are not separate, the source and the transformations are similar.

Third, the qualities as objects: The transformations of the great principle and so on are the objects of my enjoyment. Therefore they are called objects. The primordial nature is also like this — because it is the object of my enjoyment.

Fourth, equality: The transformations of the great principle and so on are shared in common by all selves. Like a maidservant who has many masters, all of them command her together. The primordial nature is also like this — all selves use it in common. Therefore this is called similarity.

Fifth, non-knowing: The transformations of the great principle and so on cannot know or distinguish pleasure, suffering, and delusion. The self alone knows — separate from the self, all things have no knowledge. The primordial nature is also like this — source and transformations alike are without knowledge. This meaning is similar.

Also, both can produce the source and the transformations. Similarly, the great principle can produce ego, ego produces the five subtle elements, and so on up to the five gross elements. The primordial nature can produce the great principle — therefore source and transformations are alike in similarity.

As for "I am the reverse — not similar": The transformations and the primordial nature have six kinds of similarity. The self does not have these similarities. Therefore the self is the reverse of similarity. And again, "the reverse of non-similarity": The transformations and the primordial nature have nine kinds of non-similarity. The self is the reverse of eight of them. Therefore it is called the reverse of non-similarity. Because the self has many meanings, it is not similar to the primordial nature.

The opponent asks: The transformations and the primordial nature — you have already explained that they possess the three qualities. What are the characteristics of these three qualities? Answering in verse:

Pleasure, sorrow, and darkness are their essential natures. These three qualities (gunas) are: first, Sattva; second, Rajas; third, Tamas. Pleasure is the essence of Sattva. Rajas has sorrow as its essence. Darkness and delusion are the essence of Tamas. These are the three essential natures.

Illumination, creation, and bondage are their functions. What do these three qualities do? First, they can produce illumination. Second, they produce arising. Third, they produce binding. These are the natural functions of the three qualities.

Mutually subduing, depending on, and producing one another, and operating in pairs — these are the ways of the three qualities. What are these ways of the three qualities? There are five kinds.

First, mutual subduing: When pleasure and joy increase, they can subdue sorrow and delusion, just as bright sunlight overpowers the moon and stars. When sorrow and distress increase, they can subdue pleasure, joy, and delusion, just as the bright sun overpowers the stars and moon. When darkness and delusion increase, they can subdue sorrow, pleasure, and joy, just as when the sun shines brightly, the stars and moon do not appear.

Second, mutual dependence: The three qualities are similar in nature. They can accomplish all things, just as three sticks can lean on one another to support a water pot.

Third, mutual production: Sometimes pleasure produces sorrow and delusion. Sometimes sorrow produces pleasure and delusion. Sometimes delusion produces sorrow and pleasure. It is like three people relying on one another to accomplish a single task together. In this way, the three qualities in the elements and so on rely on one another to jointly create death and rebirth.

Fourth, operating in pairs: Sometimes pleasure is paired with sorrow. Sometimes it is paired with delusion. Sometimes sorrow is paired with pleasure. Sometimes it is paired with delusion. Delusion is likewise: sometimes paired with pleasure, sometimes paired with sorrow. As the sage Vasishta said in verse:

The fivefold mutual interaction means the three qualities alternately perform each other's functions.

Take, for example, a princess whose beauty is most lovely. This is called the quality of Joy. This joy transforms into form, becoming a husband and producing offspring, and thus brings about joy and happiness. This is called performing one's own function. It can cause women of similar kind to all give rise to worry and distress. This is called performing another's function. It can also produce delusion in others. Just like maidservants and the like, constantly worrying about their servitude, finding no way to gain liberation. Their minds turn ever more deluded and darkened. This is called producing another's function.

This is the quality of Joy. It can perform both its own and others' functions.

As for Worry producing its own and others' functions: for example, when bandits bind a princess, and then a prince of royal lineage comes on horseback wielding a staff to rescue her — worry transforms into the prince. The prince is a fearsome circumstance, and the princess gives rise to joy: "I shall be liberated." This is called producing another's function. Because he kills the bandits, he can produce worry and distress in the bandits. This is called producing one's own function. When the remaining bandits see the prince, they become like a stump, unable to move. This is called producing delusion in others. This is called Worry producing its own and others' functions.

As for Darkness producing its own and others' functions: like thick dark clouds that can give rise to lightning and the like. The darkness of delusion transforms into clouds. All farmers who have seeds and food all give rise to joy. This is called producing another's function. It can also produce the darkness of delusion. For example, when a chaste woman, separated from her husband, sees these clouds and lightning, she worries that her husband cannot return. Because it can produce delusion in the woman, this is called producing one's own function. It can also produce worry and distress. For example, a merchant on the road, cold and wet, unable to bear his load, his mind becomes worried and distressed. This is called producing another's function.

These five kinds are the household ways of the three qualities.

Again, there are the characteristics of the three qualities.

Joy has the characteristic of lightness and radiance. A subtle, radiant glow is what we call joy. When joy grows, all the senses become light and free of weakness, and they can grasp their objects. At that time, you should know that joy and happiness are increasing.

Sorrow has the characteristic of tension and agitation. Tension means the mind is puffed up and disregards others, like a drunken elephant eager to fight, locking tusks with a rival elephant. When sorrow grows, the person constantly wants to fight; the mind is constantly restless and cannot settle in one place. At that time, you should know that the quality of sorrow is increasing.

Darkness has the characteristic of heaviness and covering. When the quality of darkness grows, the whole body becomes heavy, and because the senses are covered, they cannot grasp their objects. At that time, you should know that the quality of darkness is increasing.

An opponent says: If the three qualities are mutually opposed, like enemies, how can they work together?

The answer: It is indeed true that these three qualities are mutually opposed. But because they all belong to one self and are not independent, they can still work together in one thing. For example, mutually opposed things combine to make a lamp. Three things come together to make a lamp: the fire opposes the oil and the wick, and the oil also opposes the fire and the wick. In this way, things that are opposed can still do work for a person. The three qualities are like this too: though their natures are opposed, they can work for the self.

An opponent says: What was said above also resembles the self. We have already established one kind of self. The other five kinds of self we have not established. If the three qualities are already accomplished, the other five should be likewise.

The reply is in verse:

What is formed by the five aspects—non-separation and the rest—works as follows. The five, beginning with non-separation, have meanings as explained earlier. They are formed within the transformed realm. Because they are not yet formed there, they are found within the fundamental nature. The reason is that when the opposite is absent, they do not exist. These five meanings—non-separation and the rest—are formed within the transformations. Therefore, we know they must exist within the fundamental nature.

How is this so? Because of the three qualities. If the three qualities did not exist independently, we know they must be mutually non-separate. If they are non-separate, we know they are the object. Since they are called the object, we know they are equal. If they are equal and receptive, we therefore know they are without knowledge. Whether object, equal, or without knowledge, we therefore know they are productive. If knowledge—the transformations—contains these six meanings, then we know the fundamental nature also contains these six meanings.

How do we know this is so? Because when the opposite is removed, they do not exist. If we set aside the fundamental nature, the derived does not have the six meanings. For example, if you remove the threads, there is no separate cloth. The cloth is the threads; the threads and cloth are non-separate. The derived must come from the fundamental; fundamental and derived are non-separate. The qualities of the derived follow the qualities of the fundamental.

That the qualities of transformation are not independently formed means: in the world, all derived qualities must follow the fundamental qualities. Just as cloth made from red threads must follow the redness of the threads, so too with transformation and the rest. Because of the three qualities, the five meanings are formed. Because of the six meanings of the derived, we know the six meanings are not found within transformation.

An opponent asks: In the world, if a thing cannot be perceived, it is considered nonexistent—like a second head. Likewise, the fundamental nature cannot be perceived. How do we know it exists?

Answer: When weighing a snow mountain, its measure cannot be known, but you cannot say it is weightless. The fundamental nature is the same. How do we know it exists?

Does the self-nature truly exist? How can we know? Because distinct categories have measurable quantities. In this world, if something has a maker, that thing has a measurable quantity. For example, a potter makes vessels from a measured lump of clay, and the vessels have a measurable quantity. If these vessels had no source, they would have no measurable quantity, and no vessels would arise at all. Since we see that vessels have measurable quantity, we know they have a source. The example of threads forming cloth follows the same principle. In this Dharma, the transformations of the great principle and so on also have measurable quantities. What are these quantities? The great principle has one ego-consciousness; one set of five subtle elements and five sense faculties; eleven including the great principle and the five. These transformations—I see that they have measurable quantity. By the equal measure of inference, we definitively know that self-nature exists. If self-nature did not exist, these transformations would have no measurable quantity and would also not exist. Because they share the same nature—for example, when sandalwood is split, though the pieces are many, the sandalwood nature remains one. Transformations are the same: though the great principle and others differ, the three qualities are one in nature. Because of this oneness of nature, we know they all have a source. Therefore we know self-nature exists. Because of the capacity to produce: wherever there is a capacity, production can occur there. For example, a potter has the capacity for clay vessels—he can produce clay vessels but cannot produce cloth and such. The production of vessels is accomplished depending on that capacity. This capacity must have something it depends on—namely, it depends on the potter. Transformations are the same: transformations have arising, and the cause of arising has the capacity to accomplish. This capacity has something it depends on—self-nature is its support. Because of this capacity to produce, we know self-nature exists. Because of the difference between cause and effect: in the world, the difference between cause and effect can also be seen. For example, a lump of clay is the cause and a pot is the effect. The vessel can hold water, oil, and such, while the lump of clay cannot. This is the difference between cause and effect. Threads and cloth are the same. Thus the transformations of the great principle and so on are definitely effects. Seeing these effects, we know there is a distinct cause that is unlike them. Therefore self-nature exists. Because of the absence of difference in pervading characteristics: there is another reason for knowing that self-nature truly exists. The pervading characteristic: the three realms—earth, space, and heaven. At the time of dissolution, all worlds are without difference. The five great elements and eleven faculties dissolve into the five subtle elements without difference. Even the great principle dissolves into self-nature without difference. These transformations and self-nature cannot be spoken of. At the time of dissolution, since transformations do not exist, self-nature should also not exist. If self-nature did not exist, birth and death would also not exist. This reasoning is incorrect. This self-nature is real. Later it can again produce the three realms. Therefore we know self-nature exists. For these five reasons, we establish that self-nature exists.

The opponent says: If self-nature exists, it cannot produce transformations, because it has no companion. For example, one person alone cannot produce a child, and a single thread does not make cloth. Self-nature is the same. The reply in verse:

The reason for the production of transformations from Nature: In this teaching, Nature possesses the three qualities, and therefore can produce transformations. If Nature lacked these qualities, then what you say would be true. But if the three qualities were not present, it could not produce transformations. This is not the case. The three qualities combine to produce transformations. For example, just as many threads, when combined, can produce cloth, so too do the three qualities, relying on one another, thereby produce transformations. The opponent asks: In the world, production is of two kinds. One is production through transformation, like milk producing curd. The other is production without transformation, like parents giving birth to a child. When Nature produces transformations, which kind of production does it belong to? Answer: It is through transformation — like milk and curd, Nature transforms and becomes the transformation. Therefore, the transformation is itself Nature. Thus there is production of a distinct kind. Here, experience is not under discussion. The opponent asks: If a single cause cannot produce many kinds of effects, and if Nature in this teaching is one, how can it produce the three kinds of worlds? Being born as a god brings joy. Being born as a human brings sorrow and suffering. Being born as a beast brings darkness and delusion. If all arise from a single cause, how can there be three different grades? Answer: It is like water — each obtains difference accordingly.

If it is in a golden vessel, its taste is sweetest. But when it touches the ground, its flavor changes according to the ground beneath it, becoming many different kinds. The three kinds of worlds are like this. From one single Nature, the three qualities arise, and because these three are different, there is difference. In the heavens, the quality of goodness prevails, and so the gods always experience joy. Among humans, the quality of passion prevails, and so people experience much suffering. In the animal realm, the quality of darkness prevails, and so animals remain constantly in delusion and ignorance. In all these realms, the three qualities are always present together. But because one of them is dominant in each case, such differences arise. In this way, one single Nature brings forth the three worlds, and because the three qualities differ, there is superiority and inferiority. Now that the Nature has been fully explained, I will next speak of the Self. The Self is subtle, like the Nature. How do we know the Self exists? To reveal the Self, these verses are spoken.

Because it gathers for the sake of another, one knows liberation through understanding the transformations of primordial nature. The first verse states this. It also states that the five reasons establish both primordial nature and its transformations.

The self, the person, is most subtle. This should be established next. The self and person are truly real. Because gatherings are for another, I observe that all gatherings in the world are for the sake of another—like a bed, a mat, and so on. A gathering is not for its own use; it must always be arranged for a person. There is another who can enjoy it; for that reason, it is gathered. Houses and the like are the same. The great elements and the like are also the same. The aggregate of the five great elements is called the body. This body is not for itself; one definitively knows it is for another. That other is the self. Therefore, one knows the self truly exists.

Second, because the three qualities are different: primordial nature and its transformations have six kinds of similar meanings. The verses above have already explained this. The three qualities are inseparable. The qualities are equal, unknowing, and capable of producing both cause and effect as similar. The self is the reverse of similar and not similar. Because of these six differences, therefore I say the self exists.

Third, because of dependence: if a person depends on this body, the body has function. If no person depends on the body, it cannot act. As stated in the Shiliuke Lun, primordial nature, being what the person depends on, can produce transformations. Therefore, one knows there is a self.

Fourth, because of eating: as in the world one sees six kinds of food and drink, one knows there is a distinct one who eats. In the same way, seeing the great elements and the like, which are to be eaten, one must know there should be a distinct eater. Therefore, one knows there is a self.

Fifth, because of being separate and detached: if there were only the body, the methods of liberation spoken by the sages would be useless. As formerly a sage went among the brahmins and spoke thus.

If there were only the body, what use would this teaching be? So we know that apart from the body, there is something else—the self. If there were no separate self and only the body, then after parents, teachers, and elders die and their bodies are cremated or disposed of, making offerings to them would bring about wrongdoing and produce no merit. For this reason, we know there is a separate self. There is also sacred testimony.

If there were no self, the meaning of existing independently would not hold. Because of these sacred words, we know that a self definitely exists. Based on these five reasons, the meaning of a self is established. The opponent asks: What are the characteristics of this self? Is there one self shared by many bodies, or does each body have its own self? If you say it is so, how can this be? This doubt arises because different teachers hold different views about the self's characteristics being all-pervading. Some say there is one self that pervades all bodies, like a string threading through beads — many beads, one string. It is also like the deity Vaishravana with sixteen thousand consorts experiencing pleasure simultaneously; one self is likewise able to pervade all bodies. Other teachers say that each body has its own self. Therefore, I have doubts about this. The answer is: There are many selves, and each body has its own self. How do we know this is so? This is explained with a verse:

Because the root of birth and death is different. If the self were one, then when one person is born, everyone would be born. Every woman would be pregnant. There would also be those giving birth, and there would also be young boys and young girls. But since each is distinct and they do not all appear at the same time, we know the self is many. Furthermore, if the self were one, then when one person dies, everyone would die. Since this is not the case, we know the self is not one. Furthermore, because the senses are different, if a person were one, then when one person became deaf, everyone should become deaf. Blindness, muteness, and all kinds of illnesses would all occur at once. Since this is not the case, we know the self is many. Furthermore, because the three qualities are distinct, if a person were one, the three qualities should not differ. It is like one brahmin who has three sons: one intelligent and joyful, one fearsome and miserable, one dark and foolish. If a person were one, then when one is happy and joyful, all should be happy and joyful; and the same for suffering and delusion. You speak of the analogy of the string of beads and the analogy of the subtle one, and conclude that the self is one—but this is not correct. Therefore, by these five meanings, we know the self is many. The outsider says: Here I have a doubt. This self—is it an agent or not an agent? If you ask why there is such a doubt: it is because of ordinary worldly speech. In the world people say, "a person goes," "a person comes," "a person acts." The Sāṃkhya say the person is not an agent. The Vaiśeṣika say the person is an agent. Therefore I doubt. The answer says: How do we know the person is not an agent? This is explained with a verse:

Because of the reversal of nature: In the first two verses, it was said that the self is different from its own nature and also different from transformation. Because it reverses the two aspects and is different from both, the three qualities are the doer. Being different from these three qualities, therefore it is not the doer.

The opponent asks: If it is not the doer, what is the use of this?

Answer: For the sake of establishing the meaning of proof. The meaning of my proof is established because the self is the knower; other things are not like this. "Existing alone": because it is distinct from nature and transformation and is pure, it exists alone. "Upright in the middle": because it is different from the three qualities, and because the three qualities expand and contract differently, therefore it is upright in the middle. For example, a practitioner lives alone in one place and does not follow others coming and going; he only sees others coming and going. In this way, the three qualities can expand and contract in birth and death, while there is only one self that can see such things. Therefore it is upright in the middle. Because of difference in nature and transformation, therefore the self has knowledge and is therefore called the seer. For this reason, it is said that the seer is not the doer. Thus the meaning that the three qualities are the doer is established. That the person and self truly exist, are many, and are not the doer—this meaning is also established.

The opponent asks: If the person is not the doer, who makes the decision? "I will now practice the Dharma, abandon evil, and fulfill the vow." Who makes this decision? If the three qualities make this decision, they are intelligent and knowing; but earlier it was said that the three qualities are without knowledge. If the person makes the decision, then the person becomes the doer; but earlier it was already said that the person is not the doer. Thus there is a double fault.

The answer is given in a verse:

The three qualities work together, and so a person acts. These three qualities are themselves without awareness and cannot act; it is the one who has awareness who acts. Because these two are connected, the three qualities appear to have awareness—just as a heated pot, when in contact with fire, becomes hot, and when in contact with water, becomes cold. In the same way, the three qualities are connected with the knower and appear to have awareness and to be able to make decisions. Therefore it is said that the unaware appears as though aware.

You say that because people follow conventional speech, a person is said to be the doer. I will now answer this. It is the three qualities that act; the inner self is like the doer. Because of this connection, what is not the doer is spoken of as the doer. It is like a brahmin who mistakenly wanders into a band of thieves. If the thieves kill or seize someone, he too is said to kill or seize, because he is associated with the thieves, and so he gets the name of thief. The person and the self are likewise. Being associated with the doer, by conventional speech the self is said to be the doer.

The outsider asks: For what reason do the primal nature and the person come together?

The verse answers:

I seek to meet the three qualities. I have this intention: I now wish to see the three qualities and their own nature. Therefore, I unite with Nature. Nature is that which exists alone, for suffering beings can only know and see. Now, for their sake, Nature must be made to exist alone. For this reason, Nature and I unite. It is like a king uniting with a person. I should serve that person, and that person also unites with the king. The king should provide me with my livelihood; thus the king and the person unite out of mutual purpose. The meaning of my union with Nature is the same: I unite for the sake of seeing, and Nature unites for the sake of making itself exist alone for another. It is like the union of the lame and the blind. Here is an analogy: once there were merchants traveling to Ujjain. They were attacked by robbers and scattered in all directions. There was one born blind and one born lame, whom everyone abandoned. The blind man wandered at random, while the lame man sat and watched. The lame man asked, "Who are you?" The blind man answered, "I am born blind and do not know the road, so I wander at random. Who are you?" The lame man answered, "I am born lame; I can see the road but cannot walk. So now you should place me on your shoulders. I can guide the way, and you carry me as we go." In this way, the two of them, by joining together, reached their destination. Their union was accomplished through mutual purpose, and upon reaching the destination, they parted from each other. In this same way, when the self sees Nature, it attains liberation. Nature also makes me exist alone, and each lets go of the other. The world arises from purpose because a person seeks to see the other, and Nature seeks to exist alone. For these two reasons, they unite. This union gives rise to the world. It is like a man and a woman: through their union, a child is born. In this way, I unite with Nature, and from this arise the great principles and so on. The opponent asks: It has been said that union gives rise to the world. What is the order of this arising? The answer is given in verse:

From the self-nature, things arise in sequence. Self-nature is also called the Supreme Cause, or Brahma, or the All-Sustainer. If things arise in sequence, then since self-nature has always existed, it arises from nothing. From self-nature first arises the Great. The Great is also called Awareness, or Perception, or the All-Pervading, or Intelligence, or Wisdom. Because this Great is identical with intelligence, it receives the name "Great Intelligence."

From the Great next arises Egoism. Egoism is also called the First of the Five Great Elements, or Transformation, or Blazing Flame.

From Egoism next arise the sixteen. The sixteen are: first, the five subtle elements. The five subtle elements are: sound, touch, color, taste, and smell. These are subtle in essence and subtle in power. Next, the five faculties of knowledge. The five faculties of knowledge are: ear, skin, eye, tongue, and nose. Next, the five faculties of action. The five faculties of action are: tongue, hands, feet, the organs of generation, and the organ of excretion. Next, the mind faculty. These sixteen arise from Egoism. Therefore it is said: Great, Egoism, and the sixteen.

Furthermore, within the sixteen there are the five. From these arise the five great elements. The sixteen have the five. The five subtle elements alone give rise to the five great elements. Sound alone gives rise to the ether element. Touch alone gives rise to the wind element. Color alone gives rise to the fire element. Taste alone gives rise to the water element. Smell alone gives rise to the earth element.

One who sees the three — self-nature, transformation, and the self — attains Liberation. I have now finished explaining this.

The opponent asks: You have explained that the Great arises from self-nature. What is the characteristic of the Great? He answers with a verse:

What is called "decisive wisdom" is called the great. What is decisive wisdom? It is knowing "this is a thing" and "this is a person" — this kind of perception is called decisive wisdom. Decisive wisdom is what is called the great. This great has eight parts: four parts are called joy, four parts are called darkness-delusion.

The joy parts are: Dharma, wisdom, detachment from desire, and sovereignty. What is the characteristic of Dharma? Yama and Niyama. Yama has five: first, absence of anger; second, honoring teachers and elders; third, inner and outer purity; fourth, reducing food and drink; fifth, diligence. Niyama also has five: first, not killing; second, not stealing; third, truthful speech; fourth, pure conduct; fifth, absence of deceit. These ten accomplish it — therefore it is called Dharma.

What is called wisdom? Wisdom is of two kinds: outer wisdom and inner wisdom. Outer wisdom refers to the six Vedāṅgas: first, phonetics; second, grammar; third, ritual texts; fourth, etymology and related treatises; fifth, meter; sixth, astronomy. Knowledge of these six subjects is called outer. Inner wisdom refers to the three qualities and the self. The wisdom between these two is obtained through outer wisdom; worldly life is obtained through inner wisdom — and liberation.

What is detachment from desire? Detachment has two kinds: outer and inner. The outer is seeing the three-fold suffering in possessions — the time of seeking, the time of guarding, the time of losing. Also seeing the two faults of attachment: conflict and harm. Seeing this, one becomes detached and leaves home. Such detachment does not yet attain liberation. This detachment is accomplished through outer wisdom. The inner detachment is recognizing that the self is different from the three qualities, and therefore seeking to leave home. First one obtains inner wisdom, then obtains detachment. Through this detachment one attains liberation. Through outer detachment one still remains in birth and death; through inner detachment one can attain liberation.

Sovereignty: sovereignty has eight kinds. First, subtle to the finest atom. Second, light and subtle to the utmost spirit. Third, all-pervading to the extent of space. Fourth, attaining whatever one wishes. Fifth, being the master of the three worlds — because one surpasses all others everywhere. Sixth, being able to use all desired objects at once. Seventh, not being subject to others — being able to make beings of the three worlds operate according to one's will. Eighth, dwelling as one wishes — dwelling whenever, wherever, however one's mind desires. These four dharmas are the characteristics of Sattva. If Sattva increases, it can overcome Rajas and Tamas. At that time, because the self has much joy, one attains the four qualities beginning with Dharma. These are the characteristics of Sattva.

The opposite of these are the characteristics of Tamas — the opposite of the four, beginning with Dharma: first, non-Dharma; second, non-wisdom; third, craving; fourth, lack of sovereignty. These four dharmas are the characteristics of Tamas. When these four joy parts and four delusion parts are associated with the great, the great has eight parts. In the state of transformation, it is the former birth.

Seventy Verses, Part One

According to the Kaiyuan Catalog, this is also called the Sangha Treatise. Some say it is in two fascicles. The above-mentioned treatise was composed by the non-Buddhist sage Kapila. It explains the twenty-five principles. This is what is known as the Samkhya system. In the sutras, it is referred to as the Kapila Treatise. Furthermore, the two catalogs of Changfang's Inner Canon Records state that among Paramartha's translations there is the Golden Seventy Treatise in two fascicles, and also the Sangha Treatise in three fascicles. The claim that both titles exist is an error. This treatise and the Treatise on the Ten Categories of the Vaisheshika School are not Buddhist teachings. However, the various non-Buddhist schools regard these two treatises of the Samkhya and Vaisheshika as supreme. For those who wish to be broadly learned and to refute false views while revealing the true, they must first thoroughly understand the doctrines of other paths. Therefore, these were translated. Fearing they might be lost and not transmitted, they were included in the canon.