Sarvadarshanasangraha 11.34

11.34

prakṛtipuruṣānyatvakhyātau prakṛtyuparame puruṣasya svarūpeṇāvasthānaṃ muktir iti sāṃkhyākhyāte 'pi pakṣe duḥkhocchedo 'sty eva/ vivekajñānaṃ puruṣāśrayaṃ prakṛtyāśrayaṃ vety etāvad avaśiṣyate/ tatra puruṣāśrayam iti na śliṣyate/ puruṣasya kauṭasthyāvasthānanirodhāpātāt/ nāpi prakṛtir āśrayaḥ/ acetanatvāt tasyāḥ/ kiṃ ca prakṛtiḥ pravṛttisvabhāvā nivṛttisvabhāvā vā/ ādye 'nirmokṣaḥ/ svabhāvasyānapāyāt/ dvitīye saṃprati saṃsāro 'stam iyāt/

Again, the Sānkhya opinion, which first lays down that nature and soul are utterly distinct, and then holds that "liberation is the soul's remaining as it is in itself after nature [on being known] has withdrawn,"—even this opinion accepts our tenet of the abolition of pain; but there is left a difficulty as to whether this cognition of the distinction between nature and soul resides in the soul or in nature. It is not consistent to say that it resides in the soul, since the soul is held to be unchangeable, and this would seem to involve that previously it had been hampered by ignorance; nor can we say that it resides in nature, since nature is always held to be unintelligent. Moreover, is nature spontaneously active or inactive? If the former, then it follows that there can be no liberation at all, since the spontaneous actions of things cannot be set aside; and if the latter, the course of mundane existence would at once cease to go on.