The view of the Śaṃkhya works may be tabulated thus:--

The place in the Vyāsa-bhāshya which refers to this genesis is that under viśeshāviśeshaliṅgamātrāliṅgāni guṇaparvāṇi, II. 19. There it says that the four bhūtas are ether, air, fire, water and earth. These are the viśeshas (specialised modifications) of the unspecialised modifications the tanmātras of sound, touch, colour, taste and smell. So also are the cognitive senses of hearing, touch, eye, tongue, and nose and the conative senses of speech, hand, feet, anus and the generative organ. The eleventh one manas (the co-ordinating organ) has for its object the objects of all the above ten senses. So these are the specialised modifications (viśeshas) of the unspecialised (aviśesha) asmitā. The guṇas have these sixteen kinds of specialised modifications (viśeshapariṇāma). The six unspecialised modifications are the sound tanmātra, touch tanmātra, colour tanmātra, taste tanmātra and smell tanmātra. These tanmātras respectively contain one, two, three, four, and five special characteristics. The sixth unspecialised modification is asmitāmātra. These are the six aviśesha evolutions of the pure being, the mahat. The category of mahat is merely a sign beyond the aviśeshas and it is there that these exist and develop.

In this Vyāsa-bhāshya the fully specialised ones, viśeshas, the grosser elements are said to have been derived from the tanmātras and the senses and manas, the faculty of reflection are said to have been specialised from the ego or asmitā. The tanmātras, however, have not been derived from the ego or asmitā here. But they together with asmitā are spoken of as the six slightly specialised ones, the five being the five tanmātras and the sixth one being the ego. These six aviśeshas are the specialisations of the mahat, the great egohood of pure Be-ness. It therefore appears that the six aviśeshas are directly derived from the mahat, after which the ego develops into the eleven senses and the tanmātras into the five gross elements in three different lines.

But let us see how Yoga-vārttika explains the point here:—

“But like the senses the tanmātras are also special modifications of the ahaṃkāra having specially modified characteristics such as sound, touch, etc., why, therefore, are they not mentioned as special modifications (viśeshas)? The answer is that those only are mentioned as special modification which are ultimate special modifications. The tanmātras are indeed the special modifications of the ego, but they themselves produce further special modifications, the bhūtas. The aviśeshas are explained as the six aviśeshas. The tanmātras are generated from the tāmasa ahaṃkāra gradually through sound, etc. The category of mahat which is the ground of all modifications, called also the buddhi, has six evolutionary products called the aviśeshas. Though the mahat and the prakṛti may also be regarded as the root-causes out of which the tanmātras have evolved, yet the word aviśesha is used as a technical term having a special application to the six aviśeshas only.” The modifications of these are from the buddhi through the intermediate stage of the ahaṃkāra, as has been explained in the Bhāshya, I. 45.

Thus we see that the Yoga-vārttika says that the Bhāshya is here describing the modifications of buddhi in two distinct classes, the aviśeshas and the viśeshas; and that the mahat has been spoken of as the source of all the aviśeshas, the five tanmātras and the ego; strictly speaking, however, the genesis of the tanmātras from mahat takes place through the ego and in association with the ego, for it has been so described in the Bhāshya, I. 45.

Nāgeśa in explaining this Bhāshya only repeats the view of Yoga-vārttika.

Now let us refer to the Bhāshya of I. 45, alluded to by the Yoga-vārttika: “The gradual series of subtler causes proceeds up to the aliṅga or the prakṛti. The earth atom has the smell tanmātra as its subtle cause; the water atom has the taste tanmātra; the air atom the touch tanmātra; the ākāśa atom the sound tanmātra; and of these ahaṃkāra is the subtle cause; and of this the mahat is the subtle cause.” Here by subtle cause (sūkshma) it is upādānakāraṇa or material cause which is meant; so the Bhāshya further says: “It is true that purusha is the subtlest of all. But yet as prakṛti is subtler than the mahat, it is not in that sense that purusha is subtler than prakṛti for purusha is only an instrumental cause of the evolution of mahat, but not its material cause.” I believe it is quite clear that ahaṃkāra is spoken of here as the sūkshma anvayikārana of the tanmātras. This anvayikāraṇa is the same as upādāna (material cause) as Vācaspati calls it. Now again in the Bhāshya of the same sūtra II. 19 later on we see the liṅga or the mahat is the stage next to prakṛti, it is differentiated from it though still remaining integrated in the regular order of evolution. The six aviśeshas are again differentiated while still remaining integrated in the mahat in the order of evolution (pariṇāmakramaniyama).

The mahat tattva (liṅga) is associated with the prakṛti (aliṅga). Its development is thus to be considered as the production of a differentiation as integrated within the prakṛti. The six aviśeshas are also to be considered as the production of successive differentiations as integrated within the mahat.

The words saṃsṛshṭa vivicyante are the most important here for they show us the real nature of the transformations. “Saṃsṛshtā” means integrated and “vivicyante” means differentiated. This shows that the order of evolution as found in the Sāṃkhya works (viz. mahat from prakṛti, ahaṃkāra from mahat and the eleven senses and the tanmātras from ahaṃkāra) is true only in this sense that these modifications of ahaṃkāra take place directly as differentiations of characters in the body of mahat. As these differentiations take place through ahaṃkāra as the first moment in the series of transformations it is said that the transformations take place directly from ahaṃkāra; whereas when stress is laid on the other aspect it appears that the transformations are but differentiations as integrated in the body of the mahat, and thus it is also said that from mahat the six aviśeshas—namely, ahaṃkāra and the five tanmātras—come out. This conception of evolution as differentiation within integration bridges the gulf between the views of Yoga and the Saṃkhya works. We know that the tanmātras are produced from the tāmasa ahaṃkāra. This ahaṃkāra is nothing but the tāmasa side of mahat roused into creative activity by rajas. The sāttvika ahaṃkāra is given as a separate category producing the senses, whereas the tamas as bhūtādi produces the tanmātras from its disturbance while held up within the mahat.^[29]

Nāgeśa in the Chāyā-vyākhyā of II. 19, however, follows the Sāṃkhya explanation. He says: “The five tanmātras having in order one, two, three, four and five characteristics are such that the preceding ones are the causes of the succeeding ones. The śabdatanmātra has only the characteristic of sound, the sparśatanmātra of sound and touch and so on.... All these tanmātras are produced from the tāmasa ahaṃkāra in the order of śabda, sparśa, etc.” This ignores the interpretation of the Vyāsā-bhāshya that the tanmātras are differentiations within the integrated whole of mahat through the intermediary stage of the tāmasa ahaṃkāra.

The order of the evolution of the tanmātras as here referred to is as follows:—

The evolution of the tanmātras has been variously described in the Purāṇas and the Smṛti literature. These divergent views can briefly be brought under two headings: those which derive the tanmātras from the bhûtas and those which derive them from the ahaṃkāra and the bhûtas from them. Some of these schools have been spoken of in the Barabara Muni’s commentary on the Tattvatraya—a treatise on the Rāmānuja Philosophy—and have been already explained in a systematic way by Dr. B. N. Seal. I therefore refrain from repeating them needlessly. About the derivation of the tanmātras all the other Sāṃkhya treatises, the Kārikā, the Kaumudī, the Tattvavaiśāradī, the Sūtra and Pravacana-bhāshya, the Siddhāntacandrikā, Sūtrārthabodhinī, the Rajamārtaṇḍa and the Maṇiprabhā seem to be silent. Further speaking of the tanmātras, Vijñāna Bhikshu says that the tanmātras exist only in unspecialised forms; they therefore can be neither felt nor perceived in any way by the senses of ordinary men. This is that indeterminate state of matter in which they can never be distinguished one from the other, and they cannot be perceived to be possessed of different qualities or specialised in any way. It is for this that they are called tanmātras, i.e. their only specialization is a mere thatness. The Yogins alone perceive them.

Now turning towards the further evolution of the grosser elements from the tanmātras, we see that there are great divergences of view here also, some of which are shown below. Thus Vācaspati says: “The earth atom is produced from the five tanmātras with a predominance of the smell tanmātra, the water atom from the four tanmātras excepting the smell tanmātra with a preponderance of the taste tanmātra, and so on” (I. 44).

Thus here we find that the ākāśa atom (aṇu) has been generated simply by the ākāśa tanmātra; the vāyu atom has been generated by two tanmātras, śabda and sparśa, of which the sparśa appears there as the chief. The tejas atom has been developed from the śabda, sparśa and rûpa tanmātras, though the rûpa is predominant in the group. The ap atom has been developed from the four tanmātras, śabda, sparśa, rûpa and rasa, though rasa is predominant in the group, and the earth or kshiti atom has been developed from the five tanmātras, though the gandha tanmātra is predominant in the group.

Now the Yoga-vārttika agrees with Vācaspati in all these details, but differs from him only in maintaining that the ākāśa atom has been generated from the śabda tanmātra with an accretion from bhūtādi, whereas Vācaspati says that the ākāśa atom is generated simply by the ākāśa tanmātra.^[30]

Nāgeśa, however, takes a slightly different view and says that to produce the gross atoms from the tanmātras, an accretion of bhūtādi as an accompanying agent is necessary at every step; so that we see that the vāyu atom is produced from these three: śabda + sparśa + accretion from bhūtādi. Tejas atom = śabda + śparśa + rūpa + accretion from bhūtādi. Ap atom = śabda + śparśa + rūpa + rasa + accretion from bhūtādi. Kshiti atom = śabda + śparśa + rūpa + rasa + gandha + accretion from bhūtādi.

I refrain from giving the Vishṇu Purāṇa view which has also been quoted in the Yoga-vārttika, and the view of a certain school of Vedāntists mentioned in the Tattva-nirūpaṇa and referred to and described in the Tattvatraya, as Dr. B. N. Seal has already described them in his article.

We see thus that from bhūtādi come the five tanmātras which can be compared to the Vaiśeshika atoms as they have no parts and neither grossness nor visible differentiation.^[31] Some differentiation has of course already begun in the tanmātras, as they are called śabda, śparśa, rūpa, rasa and gandha, which therefore may be said to belong to a class akin to the grosser elements of ākāśa, vāyu, tejas, ap and kshiti.^[32]

The next one, the paramāṇu (atom), which is gross in its nature and is generated from the tanmātras which exist in it as parts (tanmātrāvayava) may be compared with the trasareṇu of the Vaiśeshikas. Thus the Yoga-vārttika says: “this is called paramāṇu by the Vaiśeshikas. We however call the subtlest part of the visible earth, earth atoms” (IV. 14). The doctrine of atoms is recognised both in the Yoga-sūtrās (I. 46) and the Bhāshya (III. 52, IV. 14, etc.).

Whether Sāṃkhya admitted the paramāṇus (atoms) or not cannot be definitely settled. The Sāṃkhya-kārikā does not mention the paramāṇus, but Vijñāna Bhikshu thinks that the word “sūkshma” in Kārikā, 39, means paramāṇus (Yoga-vārttika, IV. 14). Though the word paramāṇu is not mentioned in the Kārikā, I can hardly suppose that Sāṃkhya did not admit it in the sense in which Yoga did. For it does not seem probable that Sāṃkhya should think that by the combination of the subtle tanmātras we could all at once have the bigger lumps of bhūta without there being any particles. Moreover, since the Yoga paramāṇus are the finest visible particles of matter it could not have been denied by Sāṃkhya. The supposition of some German scholars that Sāṃkhya did not admit the paramāṇus does not seem very plausible. Bhikshu in Yoga-vārttika, III. 52, says that the guṇas are in reality Vaiśeshika atoms.

The third form is gross air, fire, water, etc., which is said to belong to the mahat (gross) class. I cannot express it better than by quoting a passage from Yoga-vārttika, IV. 4: “The Bhāshya holds that in the tanmātras there exists the specific differentiation that constitutes the five tanmātras, the kshiti atom is generated and by the conglomeration of these gross atoms gross earth is formed. So again by the combination of the four tanmātras the water atom is formed and the conglomeration of these water atoms makes gross water.”

“It should be noted here: since the Bhāshya holds that the tanmātras of sound, etc., are of the same class as the corresponding gross elements it may be assumed that the combining tanmātras possess the class characteristics which are made manifest in gross elements by hardness, smoothness, etc.” Bhikshu holds that since Sāṃkhya and Yoga are similar (samānatantra) this is to be regarded as being also the Sāṃkhya view.

There is, however, another measure which is called the measure of parama mahat, which belongs to ākāśa for example.

Now these paramāṇus or atoms are not merely atoms of matter but they contain within themselves those particular qualities by virtue of which they appear, as pleasant, unpleasant or passive to us. If we have expressed ourselves clearly, I believe it has been shown that when the inner and the outer proceed from one source, the ego and the external world do not altogether differ in nature from the inner; both have been formed by the collocation of the guṇas (sarvamidaṃ guṇānāṃ sanniveśaviseshamātram). The same book which in the inner microcosm is written in the language of ideas has been in the external world written in the language of matter. So in the external world we have all the grounds of our inner experience, cognitive as well as emotional, pleasurable as well as painful. The modifications of the external world are only translated into ideas and feelings; therefore these paramāṇus are spoken of as endowed with feelings.

There is another difference between the tanmātras and the paramāṇus. The former cannot be perceived to be endowed with the feeling elements as the latter. Some say, however, that it is not true that the tanmātras are not endowed with the feeling elements, but they cannot be perceived by any save the Yogins; thus it is said: tanmātrāṇāmapi parasparavyāvṛttasvabhāvatvamastyeva tacca yogimātragamyam. The tanmātras also possess differentiated characters, but they can be perceived only by the Yogins; but this is not universally admitted.

Now these paramāṇus cannot further be evolved into any other different kind of existence or tattvāntara.^[33] We see that the paramāṇus though they have been formed from the tanmātras resemble them only in a very remote way and are therefore placed in a separate stage of evolution.

With the bhūtas we have the last stage of evolution of the guṇas. The course of evolution, however, does not cease here, but continues ceaselessly, though by its process no new stage of existence is generated, but the product of the evolution is such that in it the properties of the gross elements which compose its constitution can be found directly. This is what is called dharmapariṇāma, as distinguished from the tattvāntara-pariṇāma spoken above. The evolution of the viśeshas from the aviśeshas is always styled tattvāntara-pariṇāma, as opposed to the evolution that takes place among the viśeshas themselves, which is called dharmapariṇāma or evolution by change of qualities. Now these atoms or paramāṇus of kshiti, ap, tejas, marut or ākāśa conglomerate together and form all sentient or non-sentient bodies in the world. The different atoms of earth, air, fire, water, etc., conglomerate together and form the different animate bodies such as cow, etc., or inanimate bodies such as jug, etc., and vegetables like the tree, etc. These bodies are built up by the conglomerated units of the atoms in such a way that they are almost in a state of combination which has been styled ayutasiddhāvayava. In such a combination the parts do not stand independently, but only hide themselves as it were in order to manifest the whole body, so that by the conglomeration of the particles we have what may be called a body, which is regarded as quite a different thing from the atoms of which it is composed. These bodies change with the different sorts of change or arrangement of the particles, according to which the body may be spoken of as “one,” “large,” “small,” “tangible” or “possessing” the quality of action. Some philosophers hold the view that a body is really nothing but the conglomeration of the atoms; but they must be altogether wrong here since they have no right to ignore the “body,” which appears before them with all its specific qualities and attributes; moreover, if they ignore the body they have to ignore almost everything, for the atoms themselves are not visible.

Again, these atoms, though so much unlike the Vaiśeshika atoms since they contain tanmātras of a different nature as their constituents and thus differ from the simpler atoms of the Vaiśeshikas, compose the constituents of all inorganic, organic or animal bodies in such a way that there is no break of harmony—no opposition between them;—but, on the contrary, when any one of the guṇas existing in the atoms and their conglomerations becomes prominent, the other guṇas though their functions are different from it, yet do not run counter to the prominent guṇas, but conjointly with them, help to form the specific modification for the experiences of the purusha. In the production of a thing, the different guṇas do not choose different independent courses for their evolution, but join together and effectuate themselves in the evolution of a single product. Thus we see also that when the atoms of different gross elements possessing different properties and attributes coalesce, their difference of attributes does not produce confusion, but they unite in the production of the particular substances by a common teleological purpose (see Vyāsa-bhāshya, IV. 14).

We thus see that the bodies or things composed by the collocation of the atoms in one sense differ from the atoms themselves and in another are identical with the atoms themselves. We see therefore that the appearance of the atoms as bodies or things differs with the change of position of the atoms amongst themselves. So we can say that the change of the appearance of things and bodies only shows the change of the collocation of the atoms, there being always a change of appearance in the bodies consequent on every change in the position of the atoms. The former therefore is only an explicit appearance of the change that takes place in the substance itself; for the appearance of a thing is only an explicit aspect of the very selfsame thing—the atoms; thus the Bhāshya says: dharmisvarūpamātro hi dharmaḥ, dharmivrikriyā eva eshā dharmadvārā prapañcyate, i.e. a dharma (quality) is merely the nature of the dharmin (substance), and it is the changes of the dharmin that are made explicit by the dharmas.^[34] Often it happens that the change of appearance of a thing or a body, a tree or a piece of cloth, for example, can be marked only after a long interval. This, however, only shows that the atoms of the body had been continually changing and consequently the appearance of the body or the thing also had been continually changing; for otherwise we can in no way account for the sudden change of appearance. All bodies are continually changing the constituent collocation of atoms and their appearances. In the smallest particle of time or kshaṇa the whole universe undergoes a change. Each moment or the smallest particle of time is only the manifestation of that particular change. Time therefore has not a separate existence in this philosophy as in the Vaiśeshika, but it is only identical with the smallest amount of change—viz. that of an atom of its own amount of space. Now here the appearance is called the dharma, and that particular arrangement of atoms or guṇas which is the basis of the particular appearance is called the dharmin. The change of appearance is therefore called the dharma-pariṇāma.^[35]

Again this change of appearance can be looked at from two other aspects which though not intrinsically different from the change of appearance have their own special points of view which make them remarkable. These are lakshaṇa-pariṇāma and avasthā-pariṇāma. Taking the particular collocation of atoms in a body for review, we see that all the subsequent changes that take place in it exist in it only in a latent way in it which will be manifested in future. All the previous changes of the collocating atoms are not also lost but exist only in a sublatent way in the particular collocation of atoms present before us. For the past changes are by no means destroyed but are preserved in the peculiar and particular collocation of atoms of the present moment. For had not the past changes taken place, the present could not appear. The present had held itself hidden in the past just as the future is hidden within the present. It therefore only comes into being with the unfolding of the past, which therefore exists only in a sublatent form in it.

It is on account of this that we see that a body comes into being and dies away. Though this birth or death is really subsumed the change of appearance yet it has its own special aspect, on account of which it has been given a separate name as lakshaṇa-pariṇāma. It considers the three stages of an appearance—the unmanifested when it exists in the future, the manifested moment of the present, and the past when it has been manifested—lost to view but preserved and retained in all the onward stages of the evolution. Thus when we say that a thing has not yet come into being, that it has just come into being, and that it is no longer, we refer to this lakshaṇa-pariṇāma which records the history of the thing in future, present and past, which are only the three different moments of the same thing according to its different characters, as unmanifested, manifested and manifested in the past but conserved.

Now it often happens that though the appearance of a thing is constantly changing owing to the continual change of the atoms that compose it, yet the changes are so fine and infinitesimal that they cannot be marked by anyone except the Yogins; for though structural changes may be going on tending towards the final passing away of that structure and body into another structure and body, which greatly differs from it, yet they may not be noticed by us, who can take note of the bigger changes alone. Taking therefore two remarkable stages of things, the difference between which may be so notable as to justify us in calling the later the dissolution or destruction of the former, we assert that the thing has suffered growth and decay in the interval, during which the actual was passing into the sublatent and the potential was tending towards actualization. This is what is called the avasthā-pariṇāma, or change of condition, which, however, does not materially differ from the lakshaṇa-pariṇāma and can thus be held to be a mode of it. It is on account of this that a substance is called new or old, grown or decayed. Thus in explaining the illustration given in the Bhāshya, III. 13: “there is avasthā-pariṇāma. At the moments of cessation the potencies of cessation become stronger and those of ordinary experience weaker.” The Yoga-vārttika says: “The strength and weakness of the two potencies is like the newness or oldness of a jug; growth and decay being the same as origination and decease, there is no difference here from lakshaṇa-pariṇāma.”

It is now time for us to examine once more the relation of dharmin, substance, and dharma, its quality or appearance.

Dharmin, or substance, is that which remains common to the latent (as having passed over or śānta), the rising (the present or udita) and the unpredicable (future or avyapadeśya) characteristic qualities of the substance.

Substance (take for example, earth) has the power of existing in the form of particles of dust, a lump or a jug by which water may be carried. Now taking the stage of lump for examination we may think of its previous stage, that of particles of dust, as being latent, and its future stage as jug as the unpredicable. The earth we see here to be common to all these three stages which have come into being by its own activity and consequent changes. Earth here is the common quality which remains unchanged in all these stages, and so relatively constant among its changes as particles, lump and jug. This earth therefore is regarded as the dharmin, characterised one, the substance; and its stages as its dharma or qualities. When this dharmin, or substance, undergoes a change from a stage of lump to a stage of jug, it undergoes what is called dharma-pariṇāma or change of quality.

But its dharma, as the shape of the jug may be thought to have itself undergone a change—inasmuch as it has now come into being, from a state of relative non-being, latency or unpredicability. This is called the lakshaṇa-pariṇāma of the dharma or qualities as constituting a jug. This jug is again suffering another change as new or old according as it is just produced or is gradually running towards its dissolution, and this is called the avasthā-pariṇāma or change of condition. These three, however, are not separate from the dharma-pariṇāma, but are only aspects of it; so it may be said that the dharmin or substance directly suffers the dharma-pariṇāma and indirectly the lakshaṇa and the avasthā-pariṇāma. The dharma, however, changes and the lakshaṇa-pariṇāma can be looked at from another point of view, that of change of state, viz. growth and decay. Thus we see that though the atoms of kshiti, ap, etc., remain unchanged, they are constantly suffering changes from the inorganic to plants and animals, and from thence again back to the inorganic. There is thus a constant circulation of changes in which the different atoms of kshiti, ap, tejas, vāyu and ākāśa remaining themselves unchanged are suffering dharma-pariṇāma as they are changed from the inorganic to plants and animals and back again to the inorganic. These different states or dharmas (as inorganic, etc.), again, according as they are not yet, now, or no longer or passed over, are suffering the lakshaṇa-pariṇāma. There is also the avasthā-pariṇāma of these states according as any one of them (the plant state for example) is growing or suffering decay towards its dissolution.

This circulation of cosmic matter in general applies also to all particular things, such as the jug, the cloth, etc.; the order of evolution here will be that of powdered particles of earth, lump of earth, the earthen jug, the broken halves of the jug, and again the powdered earth. As the whole substance has only one identical evolution, these different states only happen in order of succession, the occurrence of one characteristic being displaced by another characteristic which comes after it immediately. We thus see that one substance may undergo endless changes of characteristic in order of succession; and along with the change of characteristic or dharma we have the lakshaṇa-pariṇāma and the avasthā-pariṇāma as old or new, which is evidently one of infinitesimal changes of growth and decay. Thus Vācaspati gives the following beautiful example: “Even the most carefully preserved rice in the granary becomes after long years so brittle that it crumbles into atoms. This change cannot happen to new rice all on a sudden. Therefore we have to admit an order of successive changes” (Tattvavaivśāradī, III. 15).

We now see that substance has neither past nor future; appearances or qualities only are manifested in time, by virtue of which substance is also spoken of as varying and changing temporally, just as a line remains unchanged in itself but acquires different significances according as one or two zeros are placed on its right side. Substance—the atoms of kshiti, ap, tejas, marut, vyoman, etc., by various changes of quality appear as the manifold varieties of cosmical existence. There is no intrinsic difference between one thing and another, but only changes of character of one and the same thing; thus the gross elemental atoms like water and earth particles acquire various qualities and appear as the various juices of all fruits and herbs. Now in analogy with the arguments stated above, it will seem that even a qualified thing or appearance may be relatively regarded as substance, when it is seen to remain common to various other modifications of that appearance itself. Thus a jug, which may remain common in all its modifications of colour, may be regarded relatively as the dharmin or substance of all these special appearances or modifications of the same appearance.

We remember that the guṇas, which are the final substratum of all the grosser particles, are always in a state of commotion and always evolving in the manner previously stated, for the sake of the experience and final realisation of the parusha, the only object or end of the prakṛti. Thus the Bhāshya, III. 13, says: “So it is the nature of the guṇas that there cannot remain even a moment without the evolutionary changes of dharma, lakshaṇa and avasthā; movement is the characteristic of the guṇas. The nature of the guṇas is the cause of their constant movement.”

Although the pioneers of modern scientific evolution have tried to observe scientifically some of the stages of the growth of the inorganic and of the animal worlds into the man, yet they do not give any reason for it. Theirs is more an experimental assertion of facts than a metaphysical account of evolution. According to Darwin the general form of the evolutionary process is that which is accomplished by “very slight variations which are accumulated by the effect of natural selection.” And according to a later theory, we see that a new species is constituted all at once by the simultaneous appearance of several new characteristics very different from the old. But why this accidental variation, this seeming departure from the causal chain, comes into being, the evolutionists cannot explain. But the Sāṃkhya-Pātañjala doctrine explains it from the standpoint of teleology or the final goal inherent in all matter, so that it may be serviceable to the purusha. To be serviceable to the purusha is the one moral purpose in all prakṛti and its manifestations in the whole material world, which guide the course and direction of the smallest particle of matter. From the scientific point of view, the Sāṃkhya-Pātañjala doctrine is very much in the same position as modern science, for it does not explain the cause of the accidental variation noticed in all the stages of evolutionary process from any physical point of view based on the observation of facts.

But it does much credit to the Pātañjala doctrines that they explain this accidental variation, this avyapadeśyatva or unpredicability of the onward course of evolution from a moral point of view, that of teleology, the serviceability of the purusha. They found, however, that this teleology should not be used to usurp the whole nature and function of matter. We find that the atoms are always moving by virtue of the rajas or energy, and it is to this movement of the atoms in space that all the products of evolution are due. We have found that the difference between the juices of Coco-nut, Palm, Bel, Tinduka (Diospyros Embryopteries), Āmalaka (Emblic Myrobalan) can be accounted for by the particular and peculiar arrangement of the atoms of earth and water alone, by their stress and strain; and we see also that the evolution of the organic from the inorganic is due to this change of position of the atoms themselves; for the unit of change is the change in an atom of its own dimension of spatial position. There is always the transformation of energy from the inorganic to the organic and back again from the organic. Thus the differences among things are solely due to the different stages which they occupy in the scale of evolution, as different expressions of the transformation of energy; but virtually there is no intrinsic difference among things sarvaṃ sarvātmakaṃ; the change of the collocation of atoms only changes potentiality into actuality, for there is potentiality of everything for every thing everywhere throughout this changing world. Thus Vācaspati writes: “The water possessing taste, colour, touch and sound and the earth possessing smell, taste, colour, touch, and sound suffer an infinite variety of changes as roots, flowers, fruits, leaves and their specific tastes and other qualities. The water and the earth which do not possess these qualities cannot have them, for we have proved that what is non-existent cannot come into being. The trees and plants produce the varied tastes and colours in animals, for it is by eating these that they acquire such richness of colour, etc. Animal products can again produce changes in plant bodies. By sprinkling blood on it a pomegranate may be made as big as a palm” (Tattvavaiśaradī, III. 14).

Looked at from the point of view of the guṇas, there is no intrinsic difference between things, though there are a thousand manifestations of differences, according to time, place, form and causality. The expressions of the guṇas, and the manifestations of the transformations of energy differ according to time, place, shape, or causality—these are the determining circumstances and environments which determine the modes of the evolutionary process; surrounding environments are also involved in determining this change, and it is said that two Āmalaka fruits placed in two different places undergo two different sorts of changes in connection with the particular spots in which they are placed, and that if anybody interchanges them a Yogin can recognise and distinguish the one from the other by seeing the changes that the fruits have undergone in connection with their particular points of space. Thus the Bhāshya says: “Two Āmalaka fruits having the same characteristic genus and species, their situation in two different points of space contributes to their specific distinction of development, so that they may be identified as this and that. When an Āmalaka is brought from a distance to a man previously inattentive to it, he naturally cannot distinguish this Āmalaka as being the distant one which has been brought before him without his knowledge. But right knowledge should be competent to discern the distinction; and the sūtra says that the place associated with one Āmalaka fruit is different from the place associated with another Āmalaka at another point of space; and the Yogin can perceive the difference of their specific evolution in association with their points of space; similarly the atoms also suffer different modifications at different points of space which can be perceived by Īśvara and the Yogins” (Vyāsa-bhāshya, III. 53).

Vācaspati again says: “Though all cause is essentially all effects yet a particular cause takes effect in a particular place, thus though the cause is the same, yet saffron grows in Kāśmīra and not in Pāñcāla. So, the rains do not come in summer, the vicious do not enjoy happiness. Thus in accordance with the obstructions of place, time, animal form, and instrumental accessories, the same cause does not produce the same effect. Though as cause everything is essentially everything else, yet there is a particular country for a particular effect, such as Kāśmīra is for saffron. Even though the causes may be in other countries such as Pāñcāla, yet the effect will not happen there, and for this reason saffron does not manifest itself in Pāñcāla. So in summer there are no rains and so no paddy grows then” (Tattvavaiśāradī, III. 14).

We see therefore that time, space, etc., are the limitations which regulate, modify and determine to a certain extent the varying transformations and changes and the seeming differences of things, though in reality they are all ultimately reducible to the three guṇas; thus Kāśmīra being the country of saffron, it will not grow in the Pāñcāla country, even though the other causes of its growth should all be present there;—here the operation of cause is limited by space.

After considering the inorganic, vegetable and animal kingdoms as three stages in the evolutionary process, our attention is at once drawn to their conception of the nature of relation of plant life to animal life. Though I do not find any special reference in the Bhāshya to this point, yet I am reminded of a few passages in the Mahābhārata, which I think may be added as a supplement to the general doctrine of evolution according to the Sāṃkhya-Pātañjala philosophy as stated here. Thus the Mahābhārata says: “Even the solid trees have ether (ākāśa) in them which justifies the regular appearance of flowers and fruits. By heat the leaves, the bark, flowers and fruits become withered, and since there is withering and decay in them, there is in them the sensation of touch. Since by the sound of air, fire and thunder the fruits and flowers fall away, there must be the sense of hearing in them. The creepers encircle the trees and they go in all directions, and since without sight there could not be any choice of direction, the trees have the power of vision. By various holy and unholy smells and incenses of various kinds the trees are cured of their diseases and blossom forth, therefore the trees can smell. Since they drink by their roots, and since they get diseases, and since their diseases can be cured, there is the sense of taste in the trees. Since they enjoy pleasure and suffer pain, and since their parts which are cut grow, I see life everywhere in trees and not want of life” (Sāntiparva, 184).

Nīlakaṇṭha in his commentary goes still further and says that a hard substance called vajramaṇi also may be called living. Here we see that the ancients had to a certain extent forestalled the discovery of Sir J. C. Bose that the life functions differed only in degree between the three classes, the inorganic, plants and animals.

These are all, however, only illustrations of dharma-pariṇāma, for here there is no radical change in the elements themselves, the appearance of qualities being due only to the different arrangement of the atoms of the five gross elements. This change applies to the viśeshas only—the five gross elements externally and the eleven senses internally. How the inner microcosm, the manas and the senses are affected by dharma-pariṇāma we shall see hereafter, when we deal with the psychology of the Sāṃkhya-Pātañjala doctrine. For the present it will suffice to say that the citta or mind also suffers this change and is modified in a twofold mode; the patent in the form of the ideas and the latent, as the substance itself, in the form of saṃskāras of subconscious impressions. Thus the Bhāshya says: “The mind has two kinds of characteristics, perceived and unperceived. Those of the nature of ideas are perceived and those inherent in the integral nature of it are unperceived. The latter are of seven kinds and may be ascertained by inference. These are cessation of mental states by samādhi, virtue and vice, subconscious impressions, change, life-functioning, power of movement, and energy” (III. 15).

This dharma-pariṇāma as we have shown it, is essentially different from the satkāraṇavāda of the aviśeshas described above. We cannot close this discussion about evolution without noticing the Sāṃkhya view of causation.

We have seen that the Sāṃkhya-Pātañjala view holds that the effect is already existent in the cause, but only in a potential form. “The grouping or collocation alone changes, and this brings out the manifestation of the latent powers of the guṇas, but without creation of anything absolutely new or non-existent.” This is the true satkāryyavāda theory as distinguished from the so-called satkāryyavāda theory of the Vedāntists, which ought more properly to be called the satkāraṇavāda theory, for with them the cause alone is true, and all effects are illusory, being only impositions on the cause. For with them the material cause alone is true, whilst all its forms and shapes are merely illusory, whereas according to the Sāṃkhya-Pātañjala doctrine all the appearances or effects are true and are due to the power which the substance has of transforming itself into those various appearances and effects yogyatāvacchinnā dharmiṇaḥ śaktireva dharmaḥ (III. 14). The operation of the concomitant condition or efficient cause serves only to effect the passage of a thing from potency to actualisation.

Everything in the phenomenal world is but a special collocation of the guṇas; so that the change of collocation explains the diversity of things. Considered from the point of view of the guṇas, things are all the same, so excluding that, the cause of the diversity in things is the power which the guṇas have of changing their particular collocations and thus assuming various shapes. We have seen that the prakṛti unfolds itself through various stages—the mahat called the great being—the ahaṃkāra, the tanmātras called the aviśeshas. Now the liṅga at once resolves itself into the ahaṃkāra and through it again into the tanmātras. The ahaṃkāra and the tanmātras again resolve themselves into the senses and the gross elements, and these again are constantly suffering thousands of modifications called the dharma, lakshaṇa, and avasthā-pariṇāma according to the definite law of evolution (pariṇāmakramaniyama).

Now according to the Saṃkhya-Pātañjala doctrine, the śakti—power, force—and the śaktimān—the possessor of power or force—are not different but identical. So the prakṛti and all its emanations and modifications are of the nature of substantive entities as well as power or force. Their appearances as substantive entities and as power or force are but two aspects, and so it will be erroneous to make any such distinction as the substantive entity and its power or force. That which is the substantive entity is the force, and that which is the force is the substantive entity. Of course for all practical purposes we can indeed make some distinction, but that distinction is only relatively true. Thus when we say that earth is the substantive entity and the power which it has of transforming itself into the produced form, lump, or jug as its attribute, we see on the one hand that no distinction is really made between the appearance of the earth as jug and its power of transforming itself into the jug. As this power of transforming itself into lump or jug, etc., always abides in the earth we say that the jug, etc., are also abiding in the earth; when the power is in the potential state, we say that the jug is in the potential state, and when it is actualised, we say that the jug has been actualised. Looked at from the tanmātric side, the earth and all the other gross elements must be said to be mere modifications, and as such identical with the power which the tanmātras have of changing themselves into them. The potentiality or actuality of any state is the mere potentiality or actuality of the power which its antecedent cause has of transforming itself into it.