Verses on Sāṃkhya 14

Here an objector says: Sattva, rajas, and tamas are certainly not different kinds [of things]. Why? Because they abide within their own natures. Indeed, here [in the world] a woman endowed with beauty, youth, courtesy, intelligence, goodness, memory, absence of fierce temper, charm, and grace is taught to be the form of sattva. And she brings happiness to her husband, suffering to her co-wives, and delusion to passionate suitors. Similarly, a warrior woman striking down an army of bandits who cause suffering through weapons and commit crimes is taught to be the form of rajas. And by that, she brings happiness to those harassed and torn apart by the bandits, [and] suffering and delusion to the bandits. Likewise, a massive dark raincloud swollen with water, hanging low, growing as if devouring the sky and the earth, accompanied by cranes, with lightning and deep thunder, is taught to be the form of tamas. And it is pleasant to the farmers who have prepared their seeds and equipment. Yet that very [cloud] is a source of suffering and delusion to those whose dwellings are unthatched, who have not procured their grain, oil, and salt, who have not gathered their grass and firewood, and to women whose husbands are abroad. Therefore, having their nature thus fixed, sattva, rajas, and tamas are one.
To this it is replied: These three are indeed of different kinds, because they are established by distinct characteristics. If it is asked how, it is stated:

Sattva is held to be buoyant and illuminating; rajas is stimulating and active; / tamas is indeed heavy and obscuring; and like a lamp, their functioning is for the purpose [of spirit].

Here, the characteristic of sattva stated in the previous verse is that its characteristic is buoyancy and illumination. When sattva becomes dominant in Devadatta, then his limbs are buoyant, and his sense faculties are purified and capable of grasping their own objects. At that time, it should be understood: 'Today my sattva is present in a dominant state.' And it is 'held to be' [such] because it is the cause of accomplishing its own nature. 'Rajas is stimulating and active': 'stimulating' means prompting, haughty, this is the meaning. Just as an intoxicated bull, having seen another bull, becomes belligerent, so it is. Or else, arrogance, [meaning] restless activity, is the meaning. Thus, in whichever Devadatta or Yajñadatta rajas becomes dominant, he seeks a fight. Moreover, he also becomes restless in mind: 'I will go to the village, I will desire a woman, I will perform austerities,' and so forth. Thus he is always anxious-minded. This is the characteristic of rajas. Regarding tamas, he says: 'Tamas is indeed heavy and obscuring.' That which has heaviness and obscuration is tamas. When the limbs become heavy, and the sense faculties are sluggish and incapable of grasping their own objects, at that time it should be understood that this tamas is present in a dominant state. Therefore, sattva, rajas, and tamas are indeed of different kinds. As for what was said before: 'A woman, a warrior woman, and a cloud'—to this threefold [argument] we reply: Sattva, having relied on rajas and tamas, goes into a relation of principal and subordinate through its own form. Suffering arises from its injury. In the same way, rajas and tamas are to be applied. If it is asked here: How does a single functioning belong to constituents that are mutually contradictory? [We reply:] Enemies who are mutually opposed do not accomplish a single purpose. Yet these constituents, even though mutually contradictory, accomplish the purpose of the spirit. Why? 'And like a lamp, their functioning is for the purpose [of spirit].' 'Like a lamp' means similar to a lamp. 'For the purpose' means on account of the effect. Their functioning is observed even though they are mutually contradictory. Just as from the combination of oil, fire, and wick, even items that are mutually opposed unite to accomplish a single purpose in the form of light, so too the constituents, even though mutually opposed, unite to accomplish the purpose of the spirit.

Here [the opponent] says: Indeed, this is an intermediate question. Regarding what was said in the previous verse: 'Having the three constituents, non-discriminating, an object, common, non-conscious, productive: the manifest [is thus]'—how then is it known that the unmanifest also is possessed of having the three constituents and so forth? To this it is replied: