Karika 1

दुःखत्रयाभिघातात् जिज्ञासा तदभिघातकेAlternatives: तदवघातके, तदपघातके हेतौ।
दृष्टे साऽपार्थाAlternative: सापार्था चेन्नैकान्तात्यन्ततोऽभावात्॥ १॥

Translation by Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1837): The inquiry is into the means of precluding the three sorts of pain; for pain is embarrassment; nor is the inquiry superfluous because obvious means of alleviation exist, for absolute and final relief is not thereby accomplished.

Translation by John Davies (1881): From the injurious effects of the threefold kinds of pain (arises) a desire to know the means of removing it (pain). If, from the visible (means of removing it), this (desire) should seem to be superfluous, it is not so, for these are neither absolutely complete nor abiding.

Translation by Ganganath Jha (1896): There being (in this world) an impediment caused by the three kinds of pain, (there arises) a desire for enquiry into the means of alleviating them. And if (it be urged that) the enquiry is superfluous on account of (the existence of) obvious means, - (we reply that it is) not so: because these (latter) are neither absolute nor final.

Translation by Nandalal Sinha (1915): From the disagreeable occurrence of the threefold pain, (proceeds) the enquiry into the means which can prevent it; nor is the enquiry superfluous because ordinary (means) exist, for they fail to accomplish certain and permanent prevention of pain.

Translation by Har Dutt Sharma (1933): On account of affliction from threefold misery, inquiry (should be instituted) into the means for its removal. If (it be said that) it is useless because of the (existence of) evident means, (then we reply -) no, because of the absence of certainty and finality.

Translation by Radhanath Phukan (1960): Being afflicted by three-fold affliction, man desires to enquire about a means to end it; if you say that there are well-known ways to end affliction and so further enquiry is unnecessary, my reply is: "No, these ways are not certain and they cannot remove affliction finally and once for all."

Translation by Swami Virupakshananda (1995): From the torment caused by the three kinds of pain, proceeds a desire for inquiry into the means of terminating them; if it be said that (the inquiry) is superfluous since visible means exist, (we reply), not so; because (in the visible means) there is the absence of certainty (in the case of the means) and permanency (of pain).

Translation by G. Srinivasan (recent): Investigating the triad of interactive stresses shows that such interactive modes of stresses exist but it would not have been detectable, had it not been for the existence of the synchronised - perpetual - dynamic - unmanifest state of existence (of the substratum).

Karika 2

दृष्टवदानुश्रविकः स ह्यविशुद्धिक्षयातिशययुक्तः।
तद्विपरीतः श्रेयान् व्यक्ताव्यक्तज्ञविज्ञानात्॥ २॥

Translation by Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1837): The revealed mode is like the temporal one, ineffectual, for it is impure; and it is defective in some respects, as well as excessive in others. A method different from both is preferable, consisting in a discriminative knowledge of perceptible principles, and of the imperceptible one, and of the thinking soul.

Translation by John Davies (1881): The revealed (means) are like the visible (i.e., inefficient), for they are connected with impurity, destruction, and excess. A contrary method is better, and this consists in a discriminative knowledge of the Manifested (forms of matter), the Unmanifested (Prakṛiti or primeval matter), and the knowing (Soul).

Translation by Ganganath Jha (1896): The revealed is like the obvious; since it is connected with impurity, decay and excess. A method contrary to both is preferable, - consisting in discriminative knowledge of the Manifested, the Unmanifested, and the Knowing (Spirit).

Translation by Nandalal Sinha (1915): Like the ordinary, is the scriptural (means ineffectual), for it is attended with impurity, waste, and excess. (The means which is) the opposite of both is preferable, as it consists in a discriminative knowledge of the Manifest, the Unmanifest, and the Knower.

Translation by Har Dutt Sharma (1933): The revealed is like the evident one. It is linked with impurity, destruction and inequality. Other than that is better, - proceeding from the right cognition of the Manifest, Unmanifest and the Knower.

Translation by Radhanath Phukan (1960): The scriptural means to end misery is equally ineffective, because it is linked with impurity, its effect is neither lasting nor always the same for all. Different therefrom and superior thereto is the means to be obtained by an intimate knowledge of the Vyakta, the Avyakta and the Jña.

Translation by Swami Virupakshananda (1995): The scriptural means is like the obvious means since it is linked with impurity, decay and excess. The means contrary to both and proceeding from the Discriminative Knowledge of the Manifest, the Unmanifest and the Spirit, is superior.

Translation by G. Srinivasan (recent): Standard methods of evaluation through detection are affected by distortion, attenuation and inferior resolution to details; but an alternate method that is totally satisfactory, is based on the principle of discriminating the basic and dynamic substratum into its appropriate components of the unmanifest, manifest, the self-potential and kinetic or dynamic potential.

Karika 3

मूलप्रकृतिरविकृतिर्महदाद्याः प्रकृतिविकृतयः सप्त।
षोड़शकस्तुAlternative: षोडशकस्तु विकारोAlternative: विकारः न प्रकृतिर्न विकृतिः पुरुषः॥ ३॥

Translation by Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1837): Nature, the root (of all), is no production. Seven principles, the Great or intellectual one, &c., are productions and productive. Sixteen are productions (unproductive). Soul is neither a production nor productive.

Translation by John Davies (1881): Nature (Prakṛiti), the root (of material forms), is not produced. The Great One (Mahat = Buddhi or Intellect) and the rest (which spring from it) are seven (substances), producing and produced. Sixteen are productions (only). Soul is neither producing nor produced.

Translation by Ganganath Jha (1896): Nature or Primordial Matter, the root of all, is not produced; the Great Principle (Mahat, i.e., Buddhi) and the rest are seven, being both producer and produced; sixteen are the produced; and the Spirit is neither the producer nor the produced.

Translation by Nandalal Sinha (1915): The Root Evolvent is no evolute; Mahat, etc., are the seven evolvent-evolutes; the sixteen are mere evolutes; (that which is) neither evolvent nor evolute, is Puruṣa.

Translation by Har Dutt Sharma (1933): Primal Nature is not an evolute; Mahat, etc., the seven, are evolvents and evolutes; the group of sixteen is evolute; the Spirit is neither an evolute nor an evolvent.

Translation by Radhanath Phukan (1960): The Prakṛti in her original state (as opposed to the Pradhāna of Kārikā XI, which is her subsequent state when her Guṇas come into action) is not a product of any change; the seven Tattvas (viz., Mahattattva, Ahaṁkāra and the 5 Tanmātras) are products of changes from one state to another, each Tattva being related to the other immediately coming after it, in the relation of producer and product or cause and effect; the 16 Tattvas (viz., the 5 Mahābhūtas which are the products of the Tanmātras, the 10 sense-organs together with the mind which form the 11 products of the Ahaṁkāra Tattva) are final products which suffer no further change of state and, for the reason of that, are not the producers of anything else. The Puruṣa is neither the cause nor the result of any change.

Translation by Swami Virupakshananda (1995): The Primal Nature is non-evolute. The group of seven beginning with the Great Principle (Buddhi) and the rest are both evolvents and evolutes. But the sixteen (five organs of sense, five of action, the mind and the five gross elements) are only evolutes. The Spirit is neither the evolvent nor the evolute.

Translation by G. Srinivasan (recent): Fundamental or root resonant oscillatory state is synchronised, coherent and stable; the first interactive oscillatory state is of maximum intensity; then there are seven levels of the harmonic oscillatory interactive stages followed by an expanding radiation above a sixteenth order of the fundamental value; the nuclear core is neither oscillatory nor harmonically interactive.

Karika 4

दृष्टमनुमानमाप्तवचनं च सर्वप्रमाणसिद्धत्वात्।
त्रिविधं प्रमाणमिष्टं प्रमेयसिद्धिः प्रमाणाद्धि॥ ४॥

Translation by Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1837): Perception, inference, and right affirmation, are admitted to be threefold proof; for they (are by all acknowledged, and) comprise every mode of demonstration. It is from proof that belief of that which is to be proven results.

Translation by John Davies (1881): Perception, inference, and fit testimony are the threefold (kinds of) accepted proof, because in them every mode of proof is fully contained. The complete determination or perfect knowledge (siddhi) of what is to be determined is by proof.

Translation by Ganganath Jha (1896): Perception, Inference, and Valid Testimony are admitted to be the three kinds of proof necessary; because they include all kinds of proof. It is by proof that a fact is ascertained.

Translation by Nandalal Sinha (1915): Perception, Inference, and Testimony (are the Proofs; by these) all proofs being established, Proof is intended to be threefold. From Proof verily is the establishment of the Provables.

Translation by Har Dutt Sharma (1933): The means of right cognition are recognised to be of three kinds, - perception, inference and valid testimony; as all the means of right cognition are proved (to be included in these three). Verily, a provable is proved by means of right cognition.

Translation by Radhanath Phukan (1960): There are only three recognised modes of proof which can lead us to an understanding that the knowledge we have arrived at about a thing is true. They are: (1) direct cognition by the sense-organs, (2) inference by logical reasoning, and (3) valid testimony (Āpta-vacanam) - other modes of proof being included in these three; the establishment of the truth to be known about anything depends on the correctness of the mode of proving it.

Translation by Swami Virupakshananda (1995): Perception, Inference and Valid Testimony are the means; (by these) all other means of right cognition too are established (as they are included in the above three); proof is intended to be of three kinds. It is through the proofs that the provables are established.

Translation by G. Srinivasan (recent): Siddhi or conclusive holistic proof is arrived at by a process of logical and theoretical analysis of information from observations, inferences and axiomatic principles. When such holistic conclusions are further condensed by using the threefold analytical process with appropriate rationale and theory, it is established as a conclusive axiomatic theorem.

Karika 5

प्रतिविषयाध्यवसायो दृष्टं त्रिविधमनुमानमाख्यातम्।
तल्लिङ्गलिङ्गिपूर्वकमाप्तश्रुतिराप्तवचनं तु॥ ५॥

Translation by Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1837): Perception is ascertainment of particular objects. Inference, which is of three sorts, premises an argument, and (deduces) that which is argued by it. Right affirmation is true revelation.

Translation by John Davies (1881): Perception is the application (of the senses) to special objects of sense. Three kinds of inference are declared: it (an inference or logical conclusion) is preceded by a liṅga (mark or sign = major premiss) and a liṅgī (the subject in which it inheres = minor premiss). Fit testimony is fit revelation (śruti).

Translation by Ganganath Jha (1896): 'Perception' is definite sense-cognition (i.e., cognition of particular objects through the senses); 'Inference' is declared to be three-fold, and it is preceded by (based upon) the knowledge of the major premiss [asserting the invariable concomitance of the Linga (the Hetu, i.e., the characteristic mark, the middle term), with the Lingi (the Vyâpaka or the Sâdhya, i.e., the major term), in which the characteristic inheres] and the minor premiss [asserting the existence of the characteristic in the Paksha, or the minor term]; and 'Valid Testimony' is true revelation (Śruti).

Translation by Nandalal Sinha (1915): Perception is the ascertainment of each respective object (by the Senses). Inference has been declared to be threefold. It is preceded by the mark and it is preceded by the thing of which it is the mark. While Testimony is the statement of trustworthy persons and the Veda.

Translation by Har Dutt Sharma (1933): Perception is the application (of senses) to (their special) objects; Inference is said to be of three kinds: it is preceded by the (knowledge of) liṅga (the Middle term) and the liṅgin (the Major term). And Valid Testimony consists of holy teachers and revelation.

Translation by Radhanath Phukan (1960): Direct cognition is the final ascertainment of objects by the Buddhi (Adhyavasāya). Inference, which is based on a prior knowledge of a symbol and its relation to another symbol, is of three kinds. But Āptavacana is verbal testimony of a truthful and wise man.

Translation by Swami Virupakshananda (1995): Perception is the ascertainment of each respective object by the senses. Inference is declared to be of three kinds and it is preceded by a knowledge of the middle term (liṅga) and major term (liṅgi) while valid testimony is the statement of trustworthy persons and the Veda.

Translation by G. Srinivasan (recent): With reference to persistent continuous sensory perception of phenomenon there are three aspects of factual information with characteristics like (positive) detectable, (negative) undetectable, (neutral) original characteristics that can be measured, analysed and interpreted to establish an axiomatic theorem or principle.

Karika 6

सामान्यतस्तु दृष्टादतीन्द्रियाणां प्रतीतिरनुमानात्।
तस्मादपि चासिद्धं परोक्षमाप्तागमात्सिद्धम्॥ ६॥

Translation by Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1837): Sensible objects become known by perception; but it is by inference (or reasoning) that acquaintance with things transcending the senses is obtained; and a truth which is neither to be directly perceived, nor to be inferred from reasoning, is deduced from revelation.

Translation by John Davies (1881): The knowledge of formal or generic existence is by perception; of things beyond the senses by inference; that which cannot be determined by this (method) and cannot be perceived must be determined by fitting means.

Translation by Ganganath Jha (1896): Knowledge of supersensuous objects is obtained through Inference - the Sâmanyatodrishta. What is not proved by this is proved by revelation.

Translation by Nandalal Sinha (1915): (Intuition of sensible things is from perception). But the intuition of super-sensible things is from Sâmânyato Dṛiṣṭa and Seṣa-vat Inference. And super-sensible things not established from that even, are established from Testimony and Revelation.

Translation by Har Dutt Sharma (1933): By means of Inference based on Analogy, the objects beyond senses are proved; that which is not proved by this (Inference) and cannot be directly perceived, is proved, by Valid Testimony.

Translation by Radhanath Phukan (1960): Knowledge of objects beyond the power of the senses to take cognition of, may be derived by inference which is based on analogy; what is obscure and not attainable even by inference may be knowable from Āptavacana.

Translation by Swami Virupakshananda (1995): But the knowledge of supersensible things is obtained through Inference based on general observation; and the knowledge of supersensible things not established even by that is established through Testimony and Revelation.

Translation by G. Srinivasan (recent): And in the case of phenomenon that is imperceptible, mobile, expansive and hence undetectable, inferential method using holistic, deductive, logical, verification technique to mentally experience phenomenon, is known as Siddhi.

Karika 7

अतिदूरात्सामीप्यादिन्द्रियघातान्मनोऽनवस्थानात्।
सौक्ष्म्याद्व्यवधानादभिभवात्समानाभिहाराच्च॥ ७॥

Translation by Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1837): From various causes things may be imperceptible (or unperceived); excessive distance, (extreme) nearness, defect of the organs, inattention, minuteness, interposition of objects, predominance of other matters, and intermixture with the like.

Translation by John Davies (1881): (This want of perception may be) from excessive distance, too great nearness, destruction of organs, inattention of the mind (manas), minuteness, concealment (by other objects), predominance (of other things), and by intermixture with like objects.

Translation by Ganganath Jha (1896): (Non-perception arises) from excessive distance, extreme proximity, destruction of the sense-organs, absence of mind (inattention), subtlety (or minuteness), intervention (or the existence of some intermediate barrier), predominance (of other objects), and from intermixture with other like objects.

Translation by Nandalal Sinha (1915): (Apprehension of even existing things may not take place) through extreme remoteness, nearness, impairment of the senses, non-presence of the mind, extreme fineness, intervention, suppression by other matters, intermixture with likes, and other causes.

Translation by Har Dutt Sharma (1933): On account of excessive distance, (excessive) proximity, injury to senses, inattention, minuteness, obstruction, suppression and mixture with what is similar, (even the existent objects are not perceived).

Translation by Radhanath Phukan (1960): Non-perception of a thing which really exists may arise from the following causes: (1) extreme distance; (2) extreme proximity to the eye; (3) injury to the sense-organs; (4) want of attention of the mind; (5) extreme subtlety of the object, e.g., an atom; (6) the object to be observed being veiled or suppressed; (7) the object being mixed up with similar things.

Translation by Swami Virupakshananda (1995): (Apprehension of even existing things does not arise) through excessive distance, proximity, impairment of senses, absentmindedness, subtlety, intervention, suppression by other objects, intermixture with other similar objects, and other causes.

Translation by G. Srinivasan (recent): Extremely far or near distances, mental and sensory inefficiencies, subtle or attenuated conditions, occultation or eclipsing of the object, poor background contrast, camouflaging effect (are the causes of non detection or non measurement of phenomenon).

Karika 8

सौक्ष्म्यात्तदनुपलब्धिर्नाभावात् कार्यतस्तदुपलब्धेः।
महदादि तच्च कार्यं प्रकृतिसरूपं विरूपं च॥ ८॥

Translation by Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1837): It is owing to the subtilty (of nature), not to the non-existence of this original principle, that it is not apprehended by the senses, but inferred from its effects. Intellect and the rest of the derivative principles are effects; (whence it is concluded as their cause) in some respects analogous, but in others dissimilar.

Translation by John Davies (1881): From the subtlety (of Nature), not from its non-existence, it is not apprehended (by the senses); it is apprehended (or perceived) by its effects. Intellect (Buddhi) and the rest (of the derived principles) are its effects, which have an unlike and a like form to Prakṛiti (Nature).

Translation by Ganganath Jha (1896): The non-apprehension of this (Nature) is due to its subtlety, not to its non-existence; since it is apprehended through its effects. These effects are the Great Principle, and the rest - effects (some of) which are similar, and (some) dissimilar to Nature.

Translation by Nandalal Sinha (1915): From extreme fineness is the non-apprehension of Prakṛiti, and not from her non-existence, because there is apprehension of her from the effect. And that effect is Mahat, etc., similar and dissimilar to Prakṛiti.

Translation by Har Dutt Sharma (1933): The non-apprehension of Nature is due to its minuteness and not to non-existence. It is ascertained from its effects. Those effects are Mahat and the rest, and they are similar and dissimilar to Nature.

Translation by Radhanath Phukan (1960): Non-perception of the Prakṛti is due to its subtlety and not to non-existence; since its existence can be inferred as being a cause of Mahattattva and the others, some of which are like it and the others unlike.

Translation by Swami Virupakshananda (1995): Its non-perception is due to its subtlety and not due to its non-existence. It is apprehended through its effects; these effects are the Mahat (Great Principle) and the rest; some of them are similar and some are dissimilar to Prakṛti (the Primordial Matter).

Translation by G. Srinivasan (recent): The non detectability (of the substratum) is due to the extremely attenuated reactions put out and not because it (substratum) does not exist. Only reactions are detectable. For when the reaction of the primary or first displacement takes place then a sequence of oscillations are detected that are either in its original form or harmonics.

Karika 9

असदकरणादुपादानग्रहणात् सर्वसंभवाभावात्Alternative: सर्वसम्भवाभावात्।
शक्तस्य शक्यकरणात् कारणभावाच्च सत् कार्यम्Alternative: सत्कार्यम्॥ ९॥

Translation by Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1837): Effect subsists (antecedently to the operation of cause); for what exists not, can by no operation of cause be brought into existence. Materials, too, are selected which are fit for the purpose: every thing is not by every means possible; what is capable, does that to which it is competent; and like is produced from like.

Translation by John Davies (1881): Existing things (sat) are (proved to be) effects from the non-existence of (formal) being by the non-existence of cause; by the taking (by men) of a material cause (to produce anything); from the non-existence of universal production (by every cause); from the possible causality of an efficient agent (only); and from the nature of cause.

Translation by Ganganath Jha (1896): The effect is an entity; (1) because a non-entity can never be brought into existence; (2) because of a (determinate) relation of the cause (with the effect); (3) because everything cannot be possible (by any and every means); (4) because a competent (cause) can do (only) that for which it is competent; and (5) lastly, because the effect is non-different from the cause.

Translation by Nandalal Sinha (1915): The effect is ever existent, because that which is non-existent, can by no means be brought into existence; because effects take adequate material causes; because all things are not produced from all causes; because a competent cause can effect that only for which it is competent; and also because the effect possesses the nature of the cause.

Translation by Har Dutt Sharma (1933): The effect is existent (in its cause), since, non-existent cannot be produced, since the material (cause) is selected, since everything cannot be produced (from anything), since a potent (cause) produces that of which it is capable and since (effect is) of the same nature as the cause.

Translation by Radhanath Phukan (1960): The effect even prior to its manifestation always exists as a real entity in its cause (which also must always be a real entity), as the following considerations will show: (1) Asadakaraṇāt: Nothing can be produced out of a thing which is as non-existent as the barren woman's son. (2) Upādānagrahaṇāt: In producing anything, one has to have recourse to the proper materials out of which only that thing can be produced. We cannot produce curd from water. Only milk can produce it. This shows that the effect has a certain fixed relation to its cause. (3) Sarva Saṃbhavābhāvāt: It is not possible to press out oil from sand. Oil can be obtained from mustard seed or such other seeds in which it exists. This shows that the effect always exists in latent form in its cause; otherwise, it would be possible to produce all things from anything. (4) Śaktasya Śakyakaraṇāt: It is common knowledge that the effect must be such as is within the power of the cause to create. There must therefore be a relation between the cause and the effect as regards potency also. (5) Kāraṇabhāvāt: The cause and its effect have inherent or intrinsic similarity or they may be as non-different as the woven cloth from its cause, viz., the threads. According to Sāṁkhya, everything has a cause. The cause and its effect always co-exist even before the latter becomes known or visible. Nothing happens by chance. Chance, according to Sāṁkhya, is a meaningless word used by us to cover our own ignorance when we cannot ascertain the cause of a thing. As shown in Kārikā III above, the whole universe is a continuous process of change of causes into their effects. The root cause, which itself is causeless, is Avyakta of the next Kārikā.

Translation by Swami Virupakshananda (1995): The effect is ever existent, because (1) what is non-existent can by no means be brought into existence; (2) because effects take adequate material cause; (3) because all effects are not producible from all causes; (4) because an efficient cause can produce only that for which it is efficient; and finally, (5) because the effect is of the same essence as the cause.

Translation by G. Srinivasan (recent): It is an error of logic to accept that continuous or all possible modes of action (manifestation) are possible without a physical cause; the ability to act in all possible ways must be due to the existence of a cause, therefore it becomes an axiomatic rule.

Karika 10

हेतुमदनित्यमव्यापि सक्रियमनेकमाश्रितं लिङ्गम्।
सावयवं परतन्त्रं व्यक्तं विपरीतमव्यक्तम्॥ १०॥

Translation by Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1837): A discrete principle is causable, it is inconstant, unpervading, mutable, multitudinous, supporting, mergent, conjunct, governed. The undiscrete one is the reverse.

Translation by John Davies (1881): That which is visible or developed has a cause; it is not eternal or universal; it is mobile (modifiable), multiform, dependent, attributive, conjunct, and subordinate. The undeveloped principle is the reverse.

Translation by Ganganath Jha (1896): The Manifested has a cause: it is neither eternal nor pervading (i.e., universal); it is active (i.e., mobile or modifiable), multiform, dependent, predicative (or characteristic), conjunct and subordinate. The Unmanifested is the reverse.

Translation by Nandalal Sinha (1915): The Manifest is producible, non-eternal, non-pervading, mobile, multiform, dependent, (serving as) the mark (of inference), a combination of parts, subordinate. The Unmanifest is the reverse (of this).

Translation by Har Dutt Sharma (1933): The Manifest is caused, non-eternal, non-pervading, active, manifold, dependent, mergent, conjunct and subordinate. The Unmanifest is just the reverse.

Translation by Radhanath Phukan (1960): The Vyakta is caused, perishable, not all-pervading, manifold, dependent, mergent, has a form or shape and supported (by others). The Avyakta is just the reverse of all these.

Translation by Swami Virupakshananda (1995): The Manifest is producible, non-eternal, non-pervasive, active, multiform, dependant, serving as a mark (of inference), aggregate of parts and subordinate. The Unmanifest is the reverse of this.

Translation by G. Srinivasan (recent): The caused and detectable effect of manifested phenomenon are relatively temporary; confined to limited region; proceed from action to action; resulting in a sequence of actions; and also becomes the cause of initiating further action; with coherent potential characteristics; has the quality of being substantial or with mass; as it is a resultant, so it is a secondary trait; and the unmanifest cannot be detected because of the inability to discern such effects.

Karika 11

त्रिगुणमविवेकि विषयः सामान्यमचेतनं प्रसवधर्मि।
व्यक्तं तथा प्रधानंAlternative: प्रधानम् तद्विपरीतस्तथा च पुमान्॥ ११॥

Translation by Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1837): A discrete principle, as well as the chief (or undiscrete) one, has the three qualities: it is indiscriminative, objective, common, irrational, prolific. Soul is in these respects, as in those, the reverse.

Translation by John Davies (1881): The manifested (Vyakta) has the three modes (guṇa). It is indiscriminating, objective, generic, irrational, and productive. So also is Pradhāna (Nature). Soul in these respects, as in those (previously mentioned), is the reverse.

Translation by Ganganath Jha (1896): The Manifested has the three constituent Attributes (Gunas), it is indiscriminating, objective, generic (or common), non-intelligent (or insentient) and productive. So also is Nature. The Spirit is the reverse, and yet also (in some respects) similar.

Translation by Nandalal Sinha (1915): The Manifest is constituted by the three Guṇas, is non-discriminative, objective, common, non-intelligent, prolific. So is also the Pradhâna. Puruṣa is the reverse of them both (in these respects), and yet is similar (to the Pradhâna and also to the Manifest in those other respects mentioned in the preceding Kârikâ).

Translation by Har Dutt Sharma (1933): The Manifest is composed of the three Attributes, non-discriminated, objective, general, non-intelligent and productive. So also is the Nature. The Spirit is the reverse of that, as well as similar.

Translation by Radhanath Phukan (1960): Notwithstanding what has been said above (in Kārikā III as to Prakṛti and Pumān being the same Avyakta) Prakṛti or Pradhāna in the manifested state, like any other manifested object (Vyakta), is composed of the three Guṇas; inseparable from the said Guṇas; object of the senses, common object of cognition for all observers alike; non-conscious; and productive; but the Pumān being the reverse of these remains Avyakta as before.

Translation by Swami Virupakshananda (1995): The Manifest is constituted of the three attributes (of Sattwa, Rajas and Tamas), is non-distinguishable, objective, common, non-intelligent, and prolific. So also is the Primordial Nature. The Spirit is the reverse of both of them and yet is similar in some respects.

Translation by G. Srinivasan (recent): The inability to discriminate between the triad of stressed states that form the dynamic connection is the cause of not detecting phenomenon in a synchronised, static or unmanifest state. The triplicity of dynamic forces that connect it, is a principle that applies to the first or primary intense state and the succeeding reactive states of manifestation and likewise to the nucleus which however is in the opposite state (non detectable state).

Karika 12

प्रीत्यप्रीतिविषादात्मकाः प्रकाशप्रवृत्तिनियमार्थाः।
अन्योन्याभिभवाश्रयजननमिथुनवृत्तयश्च गुणाः॥ १२॥

Translation by Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1837): The qualities respectively consist in pleasure, pain, and dulness; are adapted to manifestation, activity, and restraint; mutually domineer; rest on each other; produce each other; consort together; and are reciprocally present.

Translation by John Davies (1881): The modes have a joyous, grievous, and stupefying nature. They serve for manifestation, activity, and restraint: they mutually subdue and support each other, produce each other, consort together, and take each other's condition.

Translation by Ganganath Jha (1896): The Attributes are of the nature of love, aversion, and stupefaction. They are adapted to illumination, activity, and restraint; and they mutually subdue, and support, and produce each other and consort together (for one purpose).

Translation by Nandalal Sinha (1915): The Guṇas possess the nature of pleasure, pain and dulness; serve the purpose of illumination, activity, and restraint; and perform the function of mutual domination, dependence, production, and consociation.

Translation by Har Dutt Sharma (1933): The Attributes are of the nature of pleasure, pain and delusion; they are adapted to illuminate, to activate and to restrain. They mutually suppress, support, produce, consort and exist.

Translation by Radhanath Phukan (1960): The Guṇas give rise to delight, sorrow and indifference, they illumine, accelerate and restrain. These, their functions, they discharge, acting together, suppressing or helping each other, one of them working at a time with the co-operation of the other two.

Translation by Swami Virupakshananda (1995): The attributes are of the nature of pleasure, pain and delusion; they serve the purpose of illumination, action and restraint and they are mutually dominating and supporting, productive and cooperative.

Translation by G. Srinivasan (recent): Just as the human being undergoes, when under stress, a three stage transfer from a state of buoyant feelings through a calm state to a state of utter despair; the three interactions of the Guna are from a state of free and mobile expansion through a balanced and resonant interface to a state of compact static contraction. As a result the three states are capable of mutually interacting to override or strengthen or weaken, one or both, at the expense of the remaining aspects; be creative or destructive as a whole; associate or join or pair or combine to form groups; and also exist by itself as self supporting resonant or dynamic entity.

Karika 13

सत्त्वं लघु प्रकाशकमिष्टमुपष्टम्भकं चलं च रजः।
गुरु वरणकमेव तमः प्रदीपवच्चार्थतो वृत्तिः॥ १३॥

Translation by Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1837): Goodness is considered to be alleviating and enlightening; foulness, urgent and versatile; darkness, heavy and enveloping. Like a lamp, they cooperate for a purpose (by union of contraries).

Translation by John Davies (1881): 'Goodness' (sattwa) is considered as light (or subtle), and enlightening (or manifesting); 'passion' or 'foulness' as exciting and mobile; 'darkness' as heavy and enveloping (or obstructive, varaṇaka). Their action, for the gaining of an end, is like that of a lamp.

Translation by Ganganath Jha (1896): Goodness is considered to be buoyant and illuminating; Foulness is exciting and versatile (mobile); Darkness, sluggish and enveloping. Their action, like a lamp, is for a (single) purpose.

Translation by Nandalal Sinha (1915): Sattva is considered to be light and illuminating, and Rajas, to be exciting and restless, and Tamas, to be indeed heavy and enveloping. Like a lamp (consisting of oil, wick, and fire), they co-operate for a (common) purpose (by union of contraries).

Translation by Har Dutt Sharma (1933): Sattva is considered to be light and bright, Rajas exciting and mobile, and Tamas is only heavy and enveloping. Like a lamp, their function is to gain an end.

Translation by Radhanath Phukan (1960): Sattva Guṇa is said to be light and illumining; Rajas, stimulating and accelerating; Tamas, heavy and restraining; these three Guṇas act in co-operation towards a goal just like a lamp.

Translation by Swami Virupakshananda (1995): The Sattva attribute is buoyant and illuminating; the Rajas attribute is exciting and mobile; and the Tamas attribute is sluggish and obscuring; their functioning is for a single purpose, like that of a lamp.

Translation by G. Srinivasan (recent): Satwa is the force which operates outward at the maximum speed with the required intensity and energy to transmit the force beyond the level of the first octet of forces past the nuclear boundary that is in a fluidic or flexible state. Raja is the force in the transition region of seven oscillatory plus the first in the octet of forces; that shuttles inward or outward to transfer the forces from nuclear boundary to the expansive-radial boundary and vice-versa; Tama is the decelerating force acting inward forming the static nuclear enveloping boundary. Vrithi is the resultant force that is radiated in the form of a self-sustained vortex (particle) created by the permutations and combinations of the previous three levels of forces to transfer force or energy.

Karika 14

अविवेक्यादेः सिद्धिस्त्रैगुण्यात्तद्विपर्ययाभावात्Alternative: सिद्धस्त्रैगुण्यात्तद्विपर्ययाभावात्।
कारणगुणात्मकत्वात्कार्यस्याव्यक्तमपि सिद्धम्॥ १४॥

Translation by Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1837): Indiscriminativeness and the rest (of the properties of a discrete principle) are proved by the influence of the three qualities, and the absence thereof in the reverse. The undiscrete principle, moreover, (as well as the influence of the three qualities), is demonstrated by effect possessing the properties of its cause (and by the absence of contrariety).

Translation by John Davies (1881): The absence of discrimination and the rest (the other conditions of material forms) are a conclusion from the three modes, and by the absence of the reverse of this (the modal existence). The Unmanifested (Nature) is also to be determined by the cause having the same qualities as the effect.

Translation by Ganganath Jha (1896): Indiscreetness and the rest are proved from the existence of the three Attributes, and from the absence of these (the three Attributes) in the reverse (of indiscreetness, &c. i.e., Purusha). And the existence of the Unmanifested (Nature) too is established on the ground of the properties of the effect (the Manifested) being consequent on those of the cause.

Translation by Nandalal Sinha (1915): The proof of non-discriminativeness, and the rest (in the Manifest and the Unmanifest) is from their being constituted by the three Guṇas and from absence of their non-concomitance. From the effect possessing the attributes of the cause is proved the Unmanifest also.

Translation by Har Dutt Sharma (1933): The qualities of non-discriminatedness and the rest (of the characteristics of the Manifest) are proved (to exist in the Manifest) by the possession of the three Attributes and by the absence of its (i.e. of the Manifest) reverse. The Unmanifest is also proved by the effect being of the same nature as its cause.

Translation by Radhanath Phukan (1960): The attributes - inseparableness, objectivity, non-consciousness etc. (mentioned in Kārikā XI) - of the Vyakta follow from the very fact that the Vyakta is composed entirely of the three Guṇas and that it could not exist if it were not so composed; the effect being of the same nature as its cause, the Avyakta is also known (i.e., we can know that the Guṇas must have existed in latent form in the Avyakta).

Translation by Swami Virupakshananda (1995): (The existence) of indistinguishability and others (in the Manifest and the Unmanifest) is proved from their being constituted of three guṇas and from the absence of their reverse. The existence of the unmanifest is proved from the effects possessing the attributes of their cause.

Translation by G. Srinivasan (recent): Through a process of holistic analytical derivation of proof it is proved that non detection or detection is due to the observer's inability or ability respectively to detect any or all of the three guna modes of exchange or transfer of forces. And the very process of Siddhi or 'holistic analytical derivation of proof' is itself due to the unmanifest state of the substratum reacting through the action of the gunas or three modes of transfer of forces by it's own inner motivation or potential or cause or interaction to manifest as energy, awareness or consciousness.

Karika 15

भेदानां परिमाणात् समन्वयात् शक्तितः प्रवृत्तेश्च।
कारणकार्यविभागादविभागाद्वैश्वरूप्यस्यAlternative: कारणकार्यविभागादविभागाद्वैश्वरूपस्य॥ १५॥

Translation by Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1837): Since specific objects are finite; since there is homogeneousness; since effects exist through energy; since there is a parting (or issue) of effects from cause, and a reunion of the universe, -

Translation by John Davies (1881): From the finite nature of specific objects; from the homogeneous nature (of genera and species); from the active energy of evolution (the constant progressive development of finite forms); from the separateness of cause and effect; and from the undividedness (or real unity) of the whole universe.

Translation by Ganganath Jha (1896): From the finite nature of specific objects, from homogeneity, from evolution being due to active (causal) energy, from the separation of cause and effect, and from the undividedness (resolution) of the whole universe.

Translation by Nandalal Sinha (1915): (Karika 15-16) Of the particulars (e.g., Mahat and all the rest down to the earth), there exists an Unmanifest cause: because the particulars are finite; because they are homogeneous; because production is through power; because there is differentiation of effect from cause or difference of cause and effect; and because there is reunion of the multiform effect with the cause. It operates, in the form of the three Guṇas and by combination, undergoing transformation, (diversified) according to the differences severally of the other Guṇas depending on the principal Guṇa.

Translation by Har Dutt Sharma (1933): (The Unmanifest cause does exist), because of the finiteness of the specific objects, because of natural sequence, because of activity depending upon efficiency, because of distinction between cause and effect and because of the merging of this diverse (evolved).

Translation by Radhanath Phukan (1960): That the Avyakta is the root cause of this creation can be inferred from the following five considerations: (1) Bhedānām Parimāṇāt: The finitude of the diverse:- All the various objects beginning from Mahattattva are finite and limited and must therefore be caused. That cause again must have its own cause, that again a third cause and so on. Ultimately we arrive at an uncaused cause, and that is the Avyakta of Kārikā X - the root cause of the whole creation. (2) Samanvayāt: Sameness in diversity:- If we think of the various objects in the world, we find that they have a common characteristic, viz., that they are all made of the Three Guṇas. Take away the Guṇas and you arrive at the Avyakta. It follows therefore that the Avyakta is the root cause of all. (3) Śaktitaḥ Pravṛtteśca: The effect depending on the potentiality of the cause, as explained above in Kārikā IX. When we consider about the magnitude of the activity of the universe, we cannot but be convinced that there must be an immense immeasurable force at work. This force being observable and for the reason of that a Vyakta element, it cannot exist without depending on a support (Āśrita of Kārikā X). If we go on thinking, we find that the last support must be itself supportless (Anāśrita), i.e., the Avyakta of Kārikā X. (4) Kāraṇakārya-vibhāgāt: The distinction made between the cause and its effects:- The Vyaktas (including the Pradhāna) are caused, but they cannot be exactly of the same description as their causes, for, that would mean a complete merger of effects into their causes. What distinguish the Vyaktas from their cause are the five attributes mentioned in Kārikā XI. Take them away and you arrive at the cause which obviously is the Avyakta of Kārikā X. (5) Vaiśvarūpyasya Avibhāgāt: Continuity of the diversity of the Universe:- The diverse objects in this Universe beginning from Mahattattva downwards are the result of a continuous change of causes into effects as explained above. Now, at dissolution, the reverse processes, i.e., merger of effects into their causes, must happen. Thus the Mahābhūtas will merge into their cause, i.e., the Tanmātras, the Tanmātras into the Ahaṁkāra Tattva and the latter into Pradhāna and Pradhāna into the Avyakta. In the same way, the entire sense-world will merge into the same Ahaṁkāra Tattva and finally into the Avyakta which is the root cause of the whole creation.

Translation by Swami Virupakshananda (1995): (Karika 15-16) The Unmanifest cause exists because of (1) the finite nature of special objects; (2) homogeneity; (3) evolution being due to the efficiency of the cause; (4) the differentiation between cause and effect; (5) the non-differentiation or merging of the whole world of effects; (6) its operation through the three attributes by combination and modification, like water, through differences arising from diverse nature of the several receptacles of the attributes.

Translation by G. Srinivasan (recent): Cyclic interaction at the interface is due to a sequentially changing value that is due to acceleration or deceleration of a force. This cyclic action is the cause and effect, by turns, to expand and contract (rarefy and pressurise or decrease and increase density) to produce a waveform that is of a standard form in nature.

Karika 16

कारणमस्त्यव्यक्तं प्रवर्तते त्रिगुणतः समुदयाच्च।
परिणामतः सलिलवत् प्रतिप्रतिगुणाश्रयविशेषात्॥ १६॥

Translation by Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1837): There is a general cause, which is undiscrete. It operates by means of the three qualities, and by mixture, by modification, as water; for different objects are diversified by influence of the several qualities respectively.

Translation by John Davies (1881): (It is proved that) there is a primary cause, the Unmanifested (Avyakta), which acts (or develops itself) by the three modes; by blending and modification, like water, from the difference of the receptacle or seat of the modes as they are variously distributed.

Translation by Ganganath Jha (1896): The Unmanifested is the cause; it operates through the three Attributes by blending and by modification, as water, on account of the difference arising from the receptacle of the Attributes, as they are variously distributed.

Translation by Nandalal Sinha (1915): (please see Karika 15.)

Translation by Har Dutt Sharma (1933): The Unmanifest as the cause does exist. It functions through the three Attributes by combining and by modification, like water, due to the particular characteristics of the abode of each of the Attributes.

Translation by Radhanath Phukan (1960): Diversity of colour, taste, smell etc. arises from the three Guṇas acting in co-operation in various ways on various objects with which they come into contact; just as water gives rise to various tastes in various plants that absorb it.

Translation by Swami Virupakshananda (1995): (please see Karika 15.)

Translation by G. Srinivasan (recent): In an interactive process with a diminishing potential, the triple interactive state initiates a restful state of coherence or synchronised state and a transformation occurs; a distinctive change of state, like that of vapour condensing to liquid, takes place when the inward going force is brought to a very synchronised or coherent or merged (therefore static) state.

Karika 17

संघातपरार्थत्वात्त्रिगुणादिविपर्ययादधिष्ठानात्Alternative: सङ्घातपरार्थत्वात्त्रिगुणादिविपर्ययादधिष्ठानात्।
पुरुषोऽस्ति भोक्तृभावात्कैवल्यार्थं प्रवृत्तेश्च॥ १७॥

Translation by Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1837): Since the assemblage of sensible objects is for another's use; since the converse of that which has the three qualities, with other properties (before mentioned), must exist; since there must be superintendence; since there must be one to enjoy; since there is a tendency to abstraction; therefore, soul is.

Translation by John Davies (1881): Because an assemblage (of things) is for the sake of another; because the opposite of the three modes and the rest (their modifications) must exist; because there must be a superintending power; because there must be a nature that enjoys; and because of (the existence of) active exertion for the sake of abstraction or isolation (from material contact); therefore soul exists.

Translation by Ganganath Jha (1896): Since all composite (or compound) objects are for another's use; since the reverse of (that which possesses) the three Attributes with other properties (must exist); since there must be super-intendence; since there must be one to enjoy (experience or feel); and since there is a tendency towards final beatitude (abstraction of the Spirit from material existence); - therefore Spirit exists.

Translation by Nandalal Sinha (1915): Puruṣa exists: since the aggregate must be for the sake of the non-aggregate; since there must exist an entity in which the properties of being constituted by the three Guṇas and the rest do not appear; since there must be a superintendent; since there must be an experiencer; and since activity is for the sake of abstraction.

Translation by Har Dutt Sharma (1933): The Spirit exists, since composite (objects) are meant for another; since it is the reverse of that which has the three Attributes and the rest; since there must be control; since there must be someone who enjoys; and since there is activity for release.

Translation by Radhanath Phukan (1960): The Puruṣa must exist, because: (1) Saṁghāta Parārthatvāt: We have nothing to worry about when inanimate things lie scattered about here and there without any symmetry or arrangement. But when we find that they are so arranged that they can serve an useful purpose, we know that an intelligent person must have arranged them for himself or for another. The very symmetry, order and law of the universe afford a proof therefore that the Puruṣa exists. (2) Triguṇādiviparyayād: The person referred to above is surely unlike, or the reverse of, the things arranged by him. The things are non-conscious and mere objects of the senses (as per Kārikā XI). He must therefore be conscious, not an object of the senses - or, in other words, he must be the Seer. (3) Adhiṣṭhānāt: Inanimate things cannot work or serve an useful purpose unless they are directed into a proper channel by an intelligent being, just as a motor car cannot run without a driver. (4) Bhoktṛbhāvāt: There is surely some one to enjoy (otherwise the whole creation will be meaningless). (5) Kaivalyārtham Pravṛtteśca: There is a desire (as said in Kārikā I) for absolute release from misery. This desire cannot be of the Buddhi or of any inanimate substance like Prakṛti, because, as will be shown hereafter, absolute release cannot be had without parting from the Buddhi or destroying it altogether. Buddhi cannot be said to desire its own destruction. This desire must belong to one who is not the Buddhi.

Translation by Swami Virupakshananda (1995): The Spirit exists because (a) the aggregate is for another's sake; (b) of the absence of three guṇas and other properties; (c) there must be some controller; (d) there must be some experiencer; and (e) of the tendency of activities towards final beatitude.

Translation by G. Srinivasan (recent): Aggregation, superposition, coherence or synchronizing, is the background motivation for initiating the three modes of interaction from the central or core location. The restful and coherent state thus created causes the reversal of the initiating states thereby causing the unhindered and continuing oscillatory state.

Karika 18

जननमरणकरणानांAlternative: जन्ममरणकरणानां प्रतिनियमादयुगपत्प्रवृत्तेश्च।
पुरुषबहुत्वं सिद्धं त्रैगुण्यविपर्ययाच्चैव॥ १८॥

Translation by Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1837): Since birth, death, and the instruments of life are allotted severally; since occupations are not at once universal; and since qualities affect variously; multitude of souls is demonstrated.

Translation by John Davies (1881): From the separate allotment of birth, death, and the organs; from the diversity of occupations at the same time, and also from the different conditions (or modifications) of the three modes, it is proved that there is a plurality of souls.

Translation by Ganganath Jha (1896): From allotment of birth, death, and the organs; (2) from the non-simultaneity of actions (with different individuals); and (3) from the different modifications of the Attributes - the plurality of Spirits is established.

Translation by Nandalal Sinha (1915): From the individual allotment of birth, death and the Instruments, from non-simultaneous activity (towards the same end), and from the diverse modification of the three Guṇas, multitude of Puruṣas is verily established.

Translation by Har Dutt Sharma (1933): The plurality of the Spirits is established, because birth, death and organs are allotted separately; because there is no activity at one time, and because there are different modifications of the three Attributes.

Translation by Radhanath Phukan (1960): The incidence of birth and death and the action of the Indriyas being different for different individuals; all men not having the same inclinations at the same time; the thoughts arising out of the action of the three Guṇas being different for different men - it follows that souls (Puruṣas) are many (each man having a separate soul).

Translation by Swami Virupakshananda (1995): The multiplicity of the Spirit is verily established (1) from the individual allotment of birth, death and the instruments, (2) from the non-simultaneity of activities, and (3) from the diverse modifications due to the three guṇas.

Translation by G. Srinivasan (recent): Since the causative action leading to aggregation and dissolution or creation and destruction are not simultaneous or instantaneous at the nuclear interface, the holistic logical conclusion is that there must be many nuclei or individual core components (purusha) and also because the reversal of interactions of the triad of forces (gunas) produce multiple types of phenomenon (whereas it should have been singular otherwise).

Karika 19

तस्माच्च विपर्यासात्सिद्धं साक्षित्वमस्य पुरुषस्य।
कैवल्यं माध्यस्थ्यं द्रष्टृत्वमकर्तृभावश्च॥ १९॥

Translation by Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1837): And from that contrast (before set forth) it follows, that soul is witness, solitary, bystander, spectator, and passive.

Translation by John Davies (1881): And from that contrariety (of soul) it is concluded that the witnessing soul is isolated, neutral, perceptive, and inactive by nature.

Translation by Ganganath Jha (1896): And from that contrast (before set forth) it follows that the Spirit is witness, and has final emancipation, neutrality, and is perceiving and inactive.

Translation by Nandalal Sinha (1915): And from that contrast it is proved that this Puruṣa is witness, solitary, indifferent, spectator, and non-agent.

Translation by Har Dutt Sharma (1933): And from that contrast it follows that the Spirit is endowed with the characteristics of witnessing, isolation, indifference, perception and inactivity.

Translation by Radhanath Phukan (1960): And from the contrast with the three Guṇas follow the characteristics of the Puruṣa being merely a witness, arbitrator, or Seer, with no activity of its own, free of all connections with anything, and thus standing alone by itself.

Translation by Swami Virupakshananda (1995): And from that contrast it is established that the Spirit is the pure witness. He is solitary, neutral, spectator, and non-agent.

Translation by G. Srinivasan (recent): From previous sutras, the conversely inferential holistic conclusion is that the nuclear state forms the passive background with particulate or inertial mass, which forms a detectable state of reference in a neutral, unhindered and un-manifest state.

Karika 20

तस्मात्तत्संयोगादचेतनं चेतनावदिव लिङ्गम्।
गुणकर्तृत्वेऽपिAlternative: गुणकर्तृत्वे च तथा कर्तेव भवत्युदासीनः॥ २०॥

Translation by Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1837): Therefore, by reason of union with it, insensible body seems sensible; and though the qualities be active, the stranger (soul) appears as the agent.

Translation by John Davies (1881): It is thus, from this union, that the unintelligent body (the liṅga) appears to be intelligent, and from the activity of the modes the stranger (the soul) appears to be an agent.

Translation by Ganganath Jha (1896): Thus, from this union the unintelligent Linga (Buddhi, &c.,) appears as intelligent; and from the activity of the Attributes, the indifferent Spirit appears as an (active) agent.

Translation by Nandalal Sinha (1915): Therefore (the inference that intelligence and agency belong to one and the same subject is a mistake). Through conjunction with Puruṣa, the non-intelligent Effect appears as if it were intelligent, and although agency is of the Guṇas, the indifferent (Puruṣa) appears, in the same way, as if he were the agent.

Translation by Har Dutt Sharma (1933): Therefore, the non-intelligent liṅga becomes as if intelligent on account of its contact with that (Spirit). And although the activity belongs to the Attributes, yet the indifferent (Spirit) seems as if it were an agent.

Translation by Radhanath Phukan (1960): Hence (i.e., from the fact that the Puruṣa contemplates upon the Buddhi) the Liṁga, i.e., the non-conscious Buddhi, by virtue of its connection (Saṃyoga) with the Puruṣa behaves like a conscious being or appears to be conscious; thus, though activity is a function of the Guṇas only, the disinterested non-doer (i.e., the Puruṣa) thinks himself to be the doer.

Translation by Swami Virupakshananda (1995): Therefore, through this union, the insentient evolute appears as if it is intelligent; and similarly, also from agency belonging to the guṇas, the neutral Spirit appears as if it were the Agent.

Translation by G. Srinivasan (recent): Because of the proximity of the static and dynamic states the static state seems dynamic and as though the action of the gunas were brought to a standstill. The dynamic seems to behave in a neutral mode that maintains a balance.

Karika 21

पुरुषस्य दर्शनार्थं कैवल्यार्थं तथा प्रधानस्य।
पङ्ग्वन्धवदुभयोरपि संयोगस्तत्कृतः सर्गः॥ २१॥

Translation by Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1837): For the soul's contemplation of nature, and for its abstraction, the union of both takes place, as of the halt and blind. By that union a creation is framed.

Translation by John Davies (1881): It is that the soul may be able to contemplate Nature, and to become entirely separated from it, that the union of both is made, as of the halt and the blind, and through that (union) the universe is formed.

Translation by Ganganath Jha (1896): For the Spirit's contemplation of Prakriti, and its final Emancipation, the union of both takes place, like that of the halt and the blind; and from this union proceeds creation.

Translation by Nandalal Sinha (1915): The conjunction of Puruṣa and the Pradhâna is, like that of the halt and the blind, for mutual benefit, that is, for the exhibition of the Pradhâna to Puruṣa and for the isolation of Puruṣa. From this conjunction proceeds Creation.

Translation by Har Dutt Sharma (1933): (The union) of the Spirit (with the Nature) is for contemplation (of the Nature); (the union) of the Nature (with the Spirit) is for liberation. The union of both (i.e., the Spirit and the Nature) is like that of a lame man with a blind man. The creation is brought about by that (union).

Translation by Radhanath Phukan (1960): This connection (saṃyoga) of the Pradhāna (Buddhi) with the Puruṣa is like the association of a blind man with a lame one, and it serves a dual purpose of the Pradhāna being contemplated upon by the Puruṣa and the consequent attainment of kaivalya (the state of loneliness or release) by the latter. Thus they two have made the creation what it is.

Translation by Swami Virupakshananda (1995): For the exhibition of nature to the Spirit and for the emancipation of the Spirit, (there is conjunction between the Spirit and Nature) like the union between the lame and the blind; from this conjunction proceeds creation.

Translation by G. Srinivasan (recent): Fundamental measurement of phenomenon references nucleus in an unhindered and synchronised state. Therefore the synchronised nuclear state provides the basic background to detect or measure the first, (primary or fundamental) active (manifested) state as a comparative or relative difference. Manifestation of phenomena proceeds on the principle of fulfilling the need to maintain a balance, like when a blind man and lame man team up, to behave normally and effectively. From this combination all manifested phenomena proceeds.

Karika 22

प्रकृतेर्महांस्ततोऽहङ्कारस्तस्माद्गणश्चAlternative: प्रकृतेर्महांस्ततोऽहंकारस्तस्माद्गणश्च षोडशकः।
तस्मादपि षोडशकात्पञ्चभ्यः पञ्च भूतानि॥ २२॥

Translation by Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1837): From nature issues the great one; thence egotism; and from this the sixteenfold set; from five among the sixteen proceed five elements.

Translation by John Davies (1881): From Nature (Prakṛiti) issues the great principle (mahat, intellect), and from this the Ego or Consciousness; from this (consciousness) the whole assemblage of the sixteen (principles or entities), and from five of the sixteen the five gross elements.

Translation by Ganganath Jha (1896): From Prakriti issues Mahat (or Buddhi); from this Mahat again issues Self-consciousness (Ahankâra), from which proceeds the set of sixteen; from five of these sixteen, proceed the five gross elements.

Translation by Nandalal Sinha (1915): From Prakṛiti (evolves) Mahat; thence, Ahaṃkâra; and from this, the sixteenfold set; from five, again, among the sixteenfold, the five Elements.

Translation by Har Dutt Sharma (1933): From the Nature proceeds the intellect; thence ego, thence the group of sixteen, and from five out of this group of sixteen, the five gross elements.

Translation by Radhanath Phukan (1960): From Prakṛti proceeds the Mahattattva (equivalent to Buddhi); thence the Ahaṁkāra Tattva (the ego-sense); thence the aggregate of the sixteen (11 sense-organs, including the mind, and the 5 Tanmātras); and from the latter five the five Mahābhūtas come out.

Translation by Swami Virupakshananda (1995): From the Primordial Matter evolves the Great Principle; from this evolves the I-Principle; from this evolves the set of sixteen; from the five of this set of sixteen, evolves the five elements.

Translation by G. Srinivasan (recent): By the action of the primary force in the self sustaining oscillatory state an intense expanding force is radiated continuously at a calculated value that is at the sixteenth power of the primary value and in a progressive series, it is incremented through sixteen levels that binds or condenses through five orders into five sets of manifested phenomenon.

Karika 23

अध्यवसायो बुद्धिर्धर्मो ज्ञानं विराग ऐश्वर्यम्।
सात्त्विकमेतद्रूपं तामसमस्माद्विपर्यस्तम्॥ २३॥

Translation by Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1837): Ascertainment is intellect. Virtue, knowledge, dispassion, and power are its faculties, partaking of goodness. Those partaking of darkness are the reverse.

Translation by John Davies (1881): Intellect is the distinguishing principle (adhyavasāya). Virtue, knowledge, freedom from passion, and power denote it when affected by (the mode) 'goodness'; when affected by 'darkness' it is the reverse of these.

Translation by Ganganath Jha (1896): Buddhi is the determining Principle (Will); Virtue, Wisdom, Dispassion and Power constitute its form (when affected by Goodness), and the reverse of these when affected by Darkness.

Translation by Nandalal Sinha (1915): Ascertainment is Buddhi. Virtue, knowledge, dispassion and power are its forms or manifestations or modifications, partaking of Sattva. Those partaking of Tamas, are the reverse of these.

Translation by Har Dutt Sharma (1933): The intellect is determination. - Virtue, knowledge, non-attachment and power constitute its Sāttvika form. The Tāmasa form is its reverse.

Translation by Radhanath Phukan (1960): Determination (Adhyavasāya) is the Buddhi; virtue, wisdom, non-attachment and super-human power constitute its Sāttvika form; the reverse of these constitute its Tāmasa form.

Translation by Swami Virupakshananda (1995): Buddhi is ascertainment or will. Virtue, knowledge, dispassion and power are its manifestations when sattva attribute abounds. And the reverse of these, when tamas attribute abounds.

Translation by G. Srinivasan (recent): Defined by axiomatic process, any constant and continuing stress as the potential in the simultaneous or static state, undergoes a phase change, acceleration is produced by expansion of the volumetric form. The reverse process when acceleration reduces and undergoes a phase change it attains the compressed state of continuing stress as a potential in the static state.

Karika 24

अभिमानोऽहंकारस्तस्माद्द्विविधःAlternative: अभिमानोऽहङ्कारस्तस्माद्द्विविधः प्रवर्तते सर्गः।
एकादशकश्च गणस्तन्मात्रपञ्चकश्चैवAlternative: गणस्तन्मात्रपञ्चकञ्चैव॥ २४॥

Translation by Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1837): Consciousness is egotism. Thence proceeds a twofold creation. The elevenfold set is one: the five elemental rudiments are the other.

Translation by John Davies (1881): Egoism is self-consciousness. From this proceeds a double creation (sarga, emanation), the series of the eleven (principles) and the five (subtle) elements.

Translation by Ganganath Jha (1896): Egoism is self-consciousness; thence proceeds a two-fold creation, - the set of eleven and the five primary elements.

Translation by Nandalal Sinha (1915): Self-assertion is Ahaṃkâra. From it proceeds a twofold evolution only: the elevenfold set and also the fivefold Tan-mâtra.

Translation by Har Dutt Sharma (1933): Ego is self-consciousness. Two kinds of creations proceed from it, viz., the group of eleven and the fivefold subtle elements.

Translation by Radhanath Phukan (1960): Ahaṁkāra (i.e., the ego-sense) is individuation or the conceit of one being a separate entity; therefrom arise the two kinds of creation - the eleven aggregates (sense-organs and the mind) and the five Tanmātras.

Translation by Swami Virupakshananda (1995): Ahaṁkāra is self-assertion; from that proceeds a two-fold evolution only, viz, the set of eleven and the five-fold primary (or rudimentary) elements.

Translation by G. Srinivasan (recent): Self-potential, as compressed stresses in the simultaneous state and self-action, as the expansion due to accelerating stresses, form the dual mode of initiating an oscillatory state that creates the spectrum of stresses forming the field force, which accelerate and decelerate as an alternating wave form. Since the stresses are in the simultaneous state forming the self potential, only through calculations, by using the axiomatic Dharmic law, the value of the self potential can be arrived at as eleven orders thus leaving five orders forming each set, from the sixteen orders.

Karika 25

सात्त्विक एकादशकः प्रवर्तते वैकृतादहङ्कारात्Alternative: वैकृतादहंकारात्।
भूतादेस्तन्मात्रः स तामसस्तैजसादुभयम्॥ २५॥

Translation by Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1837): From consciousness, affected by goodness, proceeds the good elevenfold set: from it, as a dark origin of being, come elementary particles; both issue from that principle affected by foulness.

Translation by John Davies (1881): From consciousness modified (by 'goodness') proceed the eleven good principles; from this origin of being as 'darkness' come the subtle elements. Both emanations are caused by the 'foul' or 'active' mode.

Translation by Ganganath Jha (1896): The set of eleven proceeds from the modified principle of Egoism, and partakes of the attribute of Goodness. The primary elements are due to the Attribute of Darkness; from Foulness proceed both.

Translation by Nandalal Sinha (1915): The Sâttvika elevenfold set proceeds from the Vaikṛita Ahaṃkâra; from the Bhûtâdi Ahaṃkâra, the Tanmâtras; they are Tâmasa; from Taijasa Ahaṃkâra, proceed both.

Translation by Har Dutt Sharma (1933): From the Vaikṛta ego (proceeds) the group of eleven, characterised by Sattva. From the Bhūtādi ego (proceeds) the group of subtle elements which is Tāmasa. From the Taijasa ego (proceed) both.

Translation by Radhanath Phukan (1960): The Sāttvika eleven (mind and the sense-organs) proceed from the Vaikṛta Ahaṁkāra; the five Tanmātras (which are the original states of the five Bhūtas) proceed from that form of Ahaṁkāra which is known as Bhūtādi (the origin of Bhūta or matter); it is of the nature of Tamas (dark or heavy); both these changes are by the action of the Taijasa Ahaṁkāra.

Translation by Swami Virupakshananda (1995): The set of eleven abounding in sattva proceeds from the Vaikṛta form of I-Principle; the set of five primary elements proceed from the Bhūtādi form of I-Principle; they are Tāmasa. From the Taijasa form of I-Principle proceed both of them.

Translation by G. Srinivasan (recent): The expansive satvik state of eleven orders initiates acceleration through the oscillatory action and creates the dense or mass states and the vorticular or spinning states by using both the expansive and compressive stresses respectively.

Karika 26

बुद्धीन्द्रियाणि चक्षुःश्रोत्रघ्राणरसनत्वगाख्यानि।
वाक्पाणिपादपायूपस्थाःAlternatives: वाक्पाणिपादपायूपस्थान्, वाक्पाणिपादपायूपस्थानि कर्मेन्द्रियाण्याहुः॥ २६॥

Translation by Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1837): Intellectual organs are, the eyes, the ears, the nose, the tongue, and the skin; those of action are, the voice, hands, feet, the excretory organ, and that of generation.

Translation by John Davies (1881): The eye, the ear, the nose, the tongue, and the skin are termed the organs of intellect (buddhi); the voice, the hands, the feet, (the organs of) excretion and generation are called the organs of action.

Translation by Ganganath Jha (1896): The intellectual organs are, the Eye, the Ear, the Nose, the Tongue and the Skin; those of action are, speech, hand, feet, the excretory organs, and the organ of generation.

Translation by Nandalal Sinha (1915): Those called the eyes, the ears, the nose, the tongue and the skin are said to be the Indriyas of cognition, and the speech, hands, feet, the excretory organ and the organ of generation, to be the Indriyas of action.

Translation by Har Dutt Sharma (1933): The organs of sense are eye, ear, nose, tongue and skin. Speech, hands, feet, anus, and the organ of procreation are called the organs of action.

Translation by Radhanath Phukan (1960): The organs of cognition (buddhīndriyāṇi) are eye, ear, nose, tongue and skin; voice, hands, feet and the organs of excretion and generation are called organs of action (karmendriyāṇi).

Translation by Swami Virupakshananda (1995): Organs of knowledge (or cognition) are called the Eye, the Ear, the Nose, the Tongue and the Skin. The organs of action are called the Speech, the Hand, the Feet, the excretory organ and the organ of generation.

Translation by G. Srinivasan (recent): Efferent or input sensory responses are seeing with light, hearing with sound, smelling odours, tasting chemical qualities and touching physical states through contact are defined. The afferent output action responses are defined as communicating, manipulating, moving, expelling and regenerating.

Karika 27

उभयात्मकमत्र मनः संकल्पकमिन्द्रियं चAlternatives: संकल्पकमिन्द्रियञ्च, सङ्कल्पकमिन्द्रियं च, सङ्कल्पकमिन्द्रियञ्च साधर्म्यात्।
गुणपरिणामविशेषान्नानात्वं बाह्यभेदाश्च॥ २७॥

Translation by Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1837): (In this set is) mind, which is both (an organ of sensation and of action). It ponders, and it is an organ as being cognate with the rest. They are numerous by specific modification of qualities, and so are external diversities.

Translation by John Davies (1881): The manas (mind) in this respect has the nature of both (classes). It is formative (or determinative), and a sense-organ from having cognate functions (with the other organs). It is multifarious from the specific modifications of the modes and the diversity of external things.

Translation by Ganganath Jha (1896): Of these (sense-organs) Mind (Manas) partakes of the nature of both (intellectual as well as those of action): it is the reflecting (or thinking) principle, and is called a sense-organ since it has cognate properties. Its multifariousness, as well as its external forms, are due to the various specific modifications of the Attributes.

Translation by Nandalal Sinha (1915): Among the Indriyas, Manas possesses the nature of both. It is deliberative, and is as well an Indriya, as it is homogeneous with the rest. The variety of the Indriyas is due to the differences in the transformation of the Guṇas, and so are the external diversities (of objects of the senses).

Translation by Har Dutt Sharma (1933): Here, the mind is of the nature of both (organs of sense and action). It is determinative, and is also an organ on account of similarity. This diversity (of the organs) and the diversities of external things, arise from the specific modifications of the Attributes.

Translation by Radhanath Phukan (1960): Here (among the Indriyas, both of cognition and of action) the Mind partakes the nature of both sets, it intends the functioning of both the sets and is therefore an Indriya like both: the varieties noticed in the construction and the working of the Indriyas are the result of the activity of the Guṇas; so are the varieties in the external world.

Translation by Swami Virupakshananda (1995): Of these (sense organs), the Mind possesses the nature of both (the sensory and motor organs). It is the deliberating principle, and is also called a sense organ since it possesses properties common to the sense organs. Its multifariousness and also its external diversities are owing to special modifications of the Attributes.

Translation by G. Srinivasan (recent): The cerebral system (as mind) is capable of processing both the efferent or incoming input sensory information and afferent or outgoing action oriented outputs and as it follows the Guna principle of interactive transformations, it can produce a specific output despite the diversity in responses created by the permutations and combinations of the sensory inputs and the external variation in the responses.

Karika 28

शब्दादिषुAlternative: रूपादिषु पञ्चानामालोचनमात्रमिष्यते वृत्तिः।
वचनादानविहरणोत्सर्गानन्दाश्चAlternative: वचनादानविहरणोत्सर्गानन्दश्च पञ्चानाम्॥ २८॥

Translation by Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1837): The function of five, in respect to colour and the rest, is observation only. Speech, handling, treading, excretion, and generation are the functions of five (other organs).

Translation by John Davies (1881): The function of the five (senses), with regard to sound and other (sense-objects), is that of observation only. Speech, handling, walking, excretion, and generation are the functions of the five (organs).

Translation by Ganganath Jha (1896): The function of the five senses, in respect to colour, &c., is mere observation or feeling; speech, handling, walking, excretion and gratification are (the functions of) the other five.

Translation by Nandalal Sinha (1915): The function of the five, in respect to sound and the rest, is considered to be observation simply. Speech, manipulation, locomotion, excretion and generation are considered to be the functions of the other five.

Translation by Har Dutt Sharma (1933): The function of five (organs of sense) with respect to sound and the rest, is bare awaredness; while the functions of (the other) five (organs of action) are speech, taking, walking, excretion and pleasure.

Translation by Radhanath Phukan (1960): In respect of sound etc. (i.e., sound, touch, colour, smell and taste), the function of the five organs of cognition is a mere indeterminate awareness called 'ālocana'; the functions of the five organs of action are speech, grasping, motion, excretion and sexual enjoyment.

Translation by Swami Virupakshananda (1995): The function of the five in respect to form and the rest, is considered to be mere observation. Speech, manipulation, locomotion, excretion and gratification are the functions of the other five.

Translation by G. Srinivasan (recent): The five types of sensory input signals are activated by discrete quantum of forces and it results in five categories of output as oscillatory, interactive, transporting, radiating and creative activities.

Karika 29

स्वालक्षण्यं वृत्तिस्त्रयस्य सैषा भवत्यसामान्या।
सामान्यकरणवृत्तिः प्राणाद्या वायवः पञ्च॥ २९॥

Translation by Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1837): Of the three (internal instruments) the functions are their respective characteristics; these are peculiar to each. The common function of the three instruments is breath and the rest of the five vital airs.

Translation by John Davies (1881): The function (or action) of the three (internal organs) is the distinguishing mark (specific nature) of each, and it is not common (to the three). The common (combined) function of these organs is (the production of) the five vital airs, breathing and the rest.

Translation by Ganganath Jha (1896): Of the three (the internal organs) the functions are constituted by their respective characteristics; these are peculiar to each. The function common to the organs consists in the five vital airs - Prâna and the rest.

Translation by Nandalal Sinha (1915): Of the three (internal Instruments), their own definitions are their respective functions. These, the same, (functions) are peculiar to each. The common modification of the Instruments is the five airs beginning with Prâṇa.

Translation by Har Dutt Sharma (1933): The function of the three (internal organs) is the specific nature of each and it is not common (to the three). The common function of the organs is (the circulation of) the five vital airs, viz., Prāṇa and the rest.

Translation by Radhanath Phukan (1960): Of the three internal organs (viz. Buddhi, Ahaṁkāra and Mind), each has its own function, - this is not common to all of these; but the functions of the five Prāṇas (Prāṇa, Apāna, Udāna, Vyāna and Samāna) are the functions which are common to all Indriyas.

Translation by Swami Virupakshananda (1995): Of the three internal organs, their own characteristics are their functions: this is peculiar to each. The common modification of the instruments is the five airs such as prāṇa and the rest.

Translation by G. Srinivasan (recent): The cyclic vortex functions on self similar principles up to the third power, is non-synchronous, and yet interacts internally together in an extraordinary way. But in the synchronous accelerated state at the fifth power it becomes a fundamental unit of energy radiation.

Karika 30

युगपच्चतुष्टयस्य तु वृत्तिः क्रमशश्च तस्य निर्दिष्टा।
दृष्टे तथाप्यदृष्टेAlternative: तथाऽप्यदृष्टे त्रयस्य तत्पूर्विका वृत्तिः॥ ३०॥

Translation by Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1837): Of all four the functions are instantaneous, as well as gradual, in regard to sensible objects. The function of the three (interior) is, in respect of an unseen one, preceded by that of the fourth.

Translation by John Davies (1881): The function (or action) of the four (the internal organs and an organ of sense) is declared to be either instantaneous or consecutive with regard to visible objects; the function of the three (internal organs) with regard to an invisible object is preceded by that of the fourth.

Translation by Ganganath Jha (1896): With regard to visible objects, the functions of the four are said to be instantaneous, as well as gradual; with regard to invisible objects, the functions of the three (internal organs) are preceded by that (i.e. the cognition of some visible object).

Translation by Nandalal Sinha (1915): Of all the four, the functions are instantaneous; their functions are found to be successive also. This is in regard to sensible objects. In regard to unseen objects, so too are the functions of the three, but preceded by that.

Translation by Har Dutt Sharma (1933): With regard to visible objects, the function of the four (the three internal organs and an organ of sense) is simultaneous and gradual. So, also, with regard to invisible objects the function of the three (internal organs) is preceded by that.

Translation by Radhanath Phukan (1960): In the case of what is present to perception, the functioning of the four (viz., the internal organs and one external organ) may be simultaneous or successive; similarly, in case of what is not present to perception (and therefore when none of the external organs have been functioning), the functioning of the three internal organs based on previous perceptions, may be either simultaneous or successive.

Translation by Swami Virupakshananda (1995): Of all the four, the functions are said to be simultaneous and also successive with regard to the seen objects; with regard to the unseen objects, (and also seen objects) the functions of the three are preceded by that.

Translation by G. Srinivasan (recent): When the oscillatory cycle count in all directions acts simultaneously or synchronously and is raised to the power, a cyclic self-supporting and transmigrating Vrithi (vortex or quanta) is formed. When it acts non-synchronously or sequentially, it becomes detectable and measurable, with a degree of certainty and is thus defined. In the initiating state prior to the above, when the oscillatory count reaches the power of three and is synchronised and acts simultaneously in all directions, it is in a self supporting harmonic oscillatory state but is not detectable or observable in both the manifest and unmanifest states.

Karika 31

स्वां स्वां प्रतिपद्यन्ते परस्पराकूतहेतुकां वृत्तिम्।
पुरुषार्थ एव हेतुर्न केनचित्कार्यते करणम्॥ ३१॥

Translation by Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1837): The instruments perform their respective functions, incited by mutual invitation. The soul's purpose is the motive; an instrument is wrought by none.

Translation by John Davies (1881): They (the internal organs) perform each his own separate function, which is caused to act by a mutual impulse. The advantage of the soul is their cause of action. An organ is not caused to act by any one.

Translation by Ganganath Jha (1896): They (the organs) operate towards the performation of their respective functions, due to mutual impulse. The purpose of the Spirit supplies the motive; by nothing (else) is an organ caused to act.

Translation by Nandalal Sinha (1915): The Instruments enter into their respective modifications to which they are incited by mutual desire. The purpose of Puruṣa is the only (cause of the activity of the Instruments). By none whatever is an Instrument made to act.

Translation by Har Dutt Sharma (1933): The organs perform their respective functions incited by mutual impulse. The motive (of their action) is the goal of the Spirit; an organ is not caused to function by anyone.

Translation by Radhanath Phukan (1960): The organs (both internal and external) discharge their respective functions prompted by a mutual common impulse; that common impulse is the enjoyment, and final release thereby, of the Puruṣa; the organs are not made to work by any one.

Translation by Swami Virupakshananda (1995): The organs enter into their respective modifications being incited by mutual impulse. The purpose of the Spirit is the sole motive (for the activity of the organs). By none whatsoever is an organ made to act.

Translation by G. Srinivasan (recent): The cyclic vortex or spherical oscillator is kept in continuous interactive exchange up to the very end (limit) only by the nuclear or core potential developed by the mutual exchange of internally motivated and triggered self similar and self organized impulse or force and there is no other external potential cause.

Karika 32

करणं त्रयोदशविधम्Alternative: त्रयोदशविधं तदाहरणधारणप्रकाशकरम्।
कार्यं चAlternative: कार्यञ्च तस्य दशधाहार्यंAlternative: दशधाऽऽहार्यं धार्यं प्रकाश्यं चAlternative: प्रकाश्यञ्च॥ ३२॥

Translation by Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1837): Instrument is of thirteen sorts. It compasses, maintains, and manifests; what is to be done by it is tenfold, to be compassed, to be maintained, to be manifested.

Translation by John Davies (1881): Instrument (or organ) is of thirteen kinds, and has the property of seizing, retaining, and manifesting: the effect to be produced is of ten kinds, and is that which is to be seized, retained, or manifested.

Translation by Ganganath Jha (1896): Organs are of thirteen kinds; they have variously the functions of seizing, retaining and manifesting. The objects of these are tenfold, that which is to be seized, retained or manifested.

Translation by Nandalal Sinha (1915): The Instrument is of thirteen sorts. It performs apprehension, sustentation, and manifestation. And its effect or act, viz., the apprehensible, the sustainable, and the manifestable, is (each) tenfold.

Translation by Har Dutt Sharma (1933): The organs are of thirteen kinds; their functions are seizing, retaining and manifesting. Their objects, (which are of the nature of) what is seized, retained and manifested, are tenfold.

Translation by Radhanath Phukan (1960): The organs are of thirteen varieties; their functions are three, viz., carrying, holding and illumining; their actions are also of ten varieties of the nature of carrying, holding and illumining.

Translation by Swami Virupakshananda (1995): Organs are of thirteen kinds performing the functions of seizing, sustaining and illuminating. Its objects are of ten kinds, viz., the seized, the sustained and the illumined.

Translation by G. Srinivasan (recent): The potential rises to the . Power to accelerate superpose and radiate. Consequently the kinetic potential rises to the power to accelerate, superpose and radiate.

Karika 33

अन्तःकरणं त्रिविधं दशधा बाह्यं त्रयस्य विषयाख्यम्।
साम्प्रतकालं बाह्यं त्रिकालमाभ्यन्तरं करणम्॥ ३३॥

Translation by Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1837): Internal instruments are three; external ten, to make known objects to those three. The external organs minister at time present; the internal do so at any time.

Translation by John Davies (1881): The internal organs are three; the external ten, and these are to make known external objects to the three (internal organs). The external organs act only at the time present; the internal (or intermediate) at the three divisions of time.

Translation by Ganganath Jha (1896): Internal organs are three; and the external ten, making objects known to the former three. The external organs act at time present; and the internal at the three divisions of time.

Translation by Nandalal Sinha (1915): The internal Instrument is threefold; the external, tenfold, called the object of the three. The external instrument operates at time present; the internal at all the three times.

Translation by Har Dutt Sharma (1933): The internal organs are threefold; the external (organs) are tenfold and they are the objects of the three (internal organs). The external organs function in the present, and the internal organs function in all the three times.

Translation by Radhanath Phukan (1960): The internal organs are of three kinds; the external organs, which alone make objects known to the three internal organs, are ten-fold; the external organs can function only in the present; the internal organs can function (i.e., think) in the past, the present and the future alike (without any distinction).

Translation by Swami Virupakshananda (1995): The internal organ is three-fold. The external is ten-fold; they are called the objects of the three (internal organs). The external organs function at the present time and the internal organs function at all the three times.

Translation by G. Srinivasan (recent): The limit of bonding potential is at the third power. The externalizing factor is defined as power and the third power (from the 13 orders) is defined as the detectable state. If the power exists externally as present time the third power of time forms the internal bonding force.

Karika 34

बुद्धीन्द्रियाणि तेषां पञ्च विशेषाविशेषविषयाणि।
वाग्भवति शब्दविषया शेषाणि तु पञ्चविषयाणि॥ ३४॥

Translation by Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1837): Among these organs the five intellectual concern objects specific and unspecific. Speech concerns sound. The rest regard all five objects.

Translation by John Davies (1881): Of these, the five intellectual organs (or organs of sensation) are the domain of specific and non-specific objects. Speech is connected with sound. The rest are connected with the five objects of sense.

Translation by Ganganath Jha (1896): Of these, the five intellectual senses (those of sensation) concern objects specific as well as non-specific (collective); speech concerns sound; the rest regard the five objects (of sense).

Translation by Nandalal Sinha (1915): Among these (ten Indriyas) the five Indriyas of cognition have for their objects things gross and subtile. Speech has sound (alone) for its object. But the rest have (all) the five as their objects.

Translation by Har Dutt Sharma (1933): Of these, the five organs of sense apprehend specific and non-specific objects. Speech has sound (alone) for its object. The rest, on the other hand, have five objects.

Translation by Radhanath Phukan (1960): Of these, the five organs of cognition have as their objects of cognition both the five Aviśeṣas (undivided into their components) and their components (viśeṣas), speech has only sound for its object; as regards the rest, i.e., the organs of action, they have only the five Mahābhūtas as their objects.

Translation by Swami Virupakshananda (1995): Of these, the five organs of knowledge have, as their objects, both the gross as well as the subtle. Speech has sound as its object; the rest have all the five as their objects.

Translation by G. Srinivasan (recent): The will or internal potential to act comprises a spectrum of five sensory responses of both types as sensing and reacting. Speech forms are related to sound vibrations while the remaining is related to the entire five sensory response spectrums.