Matharavritti 62
English (machine translation) 62
- Language
- English
62.1
He states what she does once she has ceased:
62.2
"Nothing is more delicate than nature: such is my thought;
Having realized, 'I have been seen,' she comes no more into the sight of the spirit." //
62.3
Nature, also [called] primordial matter, acts. Just as in ordinary life a daughter-in-law enters inside her house out of modesty, hence one says: "She is exceptionally modest"; in this way, this nature is more delicate. Therefore, nothing else is more delicate than nature. In this way, even for the spirit, the supreme self, the thought has arisen: "Such is my thought: there is nothing [more delicate]." By "my", the spirit refers to himself. There, he describes her being more delicate: some teachers declare that God is the cause. And it is said:
62.4
"This living being is ignorant, not master of his own pleasure and pain;
Impelled by God, he must go either to heaven or to hell."
62.5
(Mahābhārata 3.31.27) (p. 55)
62.6
The proponents of the Vedas, on the other hand, explain the cause in this way: "The spirit alone is all this" (Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 3.15); hence they declare the spirit to be the cause. Others declare inherent nature [to be the cause], saying that inherent nature is the cause. For so it is said:
62.7
"He by whom swans have been made white, and parrots made green,
And peacocks variegated, he will provide our livelihood."
62.8
(Hitopadeśa 1.183)
62.9
Here the Sāṅkhyas say: God is not the cause. Why? Because he is devoid of constituents. These created beings possess constituents. Sattva, rajas, and tamas are the three constituents, and they exist in created beings. And seeing those constituents, we establish that these created beings have arisen from nature. If God were the cause, then from a God devoid of constituents, created beings devoid of constituents would arise. And such is not the case. Therefore, God is not the cause. The spirit also should be viewed in the same way. What is called "inherent nature" is not any fundamental category from which the production of created beings could appropriately follow. Therefore, what someone says, namely that inherent nature is the cause, is false. Some describe time as the cause:
62.10
"Time creates beings, time dissolves creatures;
(Mahābhārata 3.13.70.57)
Time remains awake among those who sleep; therefore, time indeed is the cause."
62.11
The Sāṅkhya refutes that too: what is called "time" is not any fundamental category. The manifest, the unmanifest, and the spirit: these are the only three fundamental categories. Time is subsumed within them. In this way, leaving aside primordial matter, there is no other cause. With regard to the comprehension of that primordial matter, when correct knowledge arises for the spirit, then nature, seen through that knowledge, turns away from association with the spirit. Just like a unchaste woman noticed by a man, as when one thinks: "Ah! This unchaste woman is deluding me; therefore I have nothing to do with her." And when she has ceased, he attains liberation. Thus God and the rest are non-causes. The phrase "more delicate" completes the sentence. Because primordial matter is more delicate, therefore it is said: "Nothing is more delicate than nature: such is my thought." "My" means of the spirit. Here it is asked: how does nature, once seen by the spirit, cease? To this it is said: "Having realized, 'I have been seen,' she comes no more into the sight of the spirit." Just as a noble woman of good family, standing at the door of her own house, seen by a man who has suddenly arrived, becoming suddenly embarrassed, quickly enters the house, and thinking thus: "I have been seen by him," she comes no more into the sight of that man; so nature, seen by the spirit, the supreme self, with the eye of knowledge, ashamed like a noble woman of good family, comes no more into the sight of the spirit. And when she has ceased, the spirit attains liberation.