The University of Nalanda c15.42

c15.42

But a little examination of his objections against the Sāṃkhya would reveal that Hiuen Tsiang assumes too much. At least so it appears from the translation before us, and unless there is a mistake in the translation, or his biographer has not been able to represent his master's views well, we do not see any reason why the opponent should have been silenced and accepted defeat. We shall point out a few defects in Hiuen Tsiang's arguments. His objection that there is no force in the three forming the substance of the whole (all the principles) as each (as he proves) is the same as the whole, and thus the office of each ought to be the same, is thoroughly opposed to the chemical principles on which the *Sāṃkhya*-system is based. Because, if our body is constituted by the five-elements, "perfected," as Hiuen Tsiang would put it, it does not mean that our body is as good as and equal to every one of the elements. Only when the five elements combine that the body can be created, and Hiuen Tsiang seems to have missed this point. Likewise, only the combination of the three *guṇas* and a stir in their equilibrium can produce the *mahat*, and so *mahat* cannot be said to be equal to the three *guṇas*.