Verses on Sāṃkhya 19

On this [the opponent] says: We accept, first of all, by these five taught reasons that this spirit exists distinct from the body. Is that spirit one in all bodies, or is the spirit different in each body? If it is asked, 'From where does the doubt arise, O questioner?', [the reply is:] the doubt arises from the disagreement among teachers. Here, some teachers who hold the view of difference think: 'This spirit is one, perceived in all bodies like a thread in beads. In this world, through all the beads that exist on a girdle, runs a single thread. In the same way, among bodies that are like beads, is the supreme self one like a thread? Or is the spirit like the reflection of the moon in water, perceived as one alone in many rivers, wells, pools, and the like?' Hence there is doubt: is the spirit one, by the reasoning of the string through the qualities/beads, or are there many spirits? To this it is replied: There are many spirits. If it is asked, 'How?', that is stated:

From the distinct allocation of birth, death, and instruments, and from non-simultaneous activity,
the multiplicity of spirits is established, and also from the contrariety of the three constituents. //

'Of birth, death, and instruments' [means]: from the allocation of birth, some in this world are of low birth, some of intermediate birth, and some of superior birth. If, on the other hand, the spirit were one, that same one would be born in a low family, and that same one would be born in an exalted family. Why? Because of the oneness of the spirit. And there is this fixed allocation: some are low, others are exalted. Therefore spirits are many. And also: from the allocation of death. In death too, a fixed allocation is observed: 'my brother has died, and my father [has died].' Therefore spirits are many. Others, however, explain it in this manner: from the allocation of birth and death. In this world, someone dies at some time, [and] at that very time another is born. If the spirit were one, then when one is being born, all would be born. But this is not so. When one dies, all would die. But this is not so. Therefore spirits are many. And for this reason also we see [multiplicity]: from the allocation of instruments. The instruments are the sense faculties, hearing and the rest. In this world, some are deaf, blind, mute, and so forth, while others have sharper instruments. Hence we see that those whose sense faculties are impaired are distinct, and those whose sense faculties are unimpaired are distinct. Therefore, from the fact that instruments are distinctly allocated, we also see that spirits are many. And for this reason also we see [multiplicity]: and also from the contrariety of the three constituents. The word 'and' indicates combination: together with the reasons previously stated, and from this reason as well—such is the meaning. In this world, a single brahmin has three sons who are fellow students, born of one [father] in one wife. Among them, one is luminous (sāttvika), intelligent, pure, and happy; (p. 23) the second is passionate (rājasa), unintelligent, and sorrowful; the third is dark (tāmasa), foolish, and an unbeliever. If the self were one, when one is luminous, passionate, or dark, all would be so. They do not become so. Hence we see that spirits are many.

On this point, [the opponent] says: There is this doubt. Is spirit truly an agent, or is it a non-agent? If you ask whence comes this doubt, [we say] it is due to disagreement among teachers. In ordinary life, a man walks, runs, stands, grieves; and there is the conflicting opinion: 'This was done by spirit.' Thus say the teachers who follow the Veda. The Vaiśeṣikas also have accepted the view that [spirit] is an agent. Therefore, there is a doubt. To this, it is replied: Spirit is a non-agent. If you ask how, that is explained: