________________
SANKHYA-YOGA
271 doctrines including much of Western thought till quite recent times, start by positing matter in space and time, but looks upon the primordial physical entity as including and explaining them both. The nature of praksti is deduced from the nature of the common things of experience by the aid of reason alone. As the material cause of these things, it should consist of what is common to all of them; for the effect, according to a fundamental postulate of the system, must be, essentially the same as the material cause. By a process of analysis, the essential characteristics of the physical universe are reduced to three-named sattva, rajas and tamas; and praksti is conceived as constituted of them. It is thus complex in its nature, though single. These three factors are termed guņas, whose conception is of the utmost importance in the system. The chief point about them is that they are not what their name might suggest, viz. qualities of praksti., That would be admitting the distinction between substance and attribute as the Nyāya-Vaiseșika does, but the SankhyaYoga regards it as a pure abstraction. The guņas are to be understood here as the components.of.praksti. They might be described as substances, if that again did not suggest the same artificial distinction. They are still termed guņas because, it is said, they by intertwining make a rope (guna) or forge a chain for binding the self. This explanation is somewhat inconsistent with the spirit of the Sankhya-Yoga teaching, for praksti not only binds but also liberates the self from bondage. Indeed puruşa's liberation, as we shall see, is the ultimate purpose for which it evolves. There is another explanation, which again seems to run counter to the dominant thought of the doctrine. It is stated that the gunas are so called because they form a category subordinate to the purusa, which implies that spirit here is more important and that praksti is only something that ministers to it. The explanation, though supported by certain statements of old authorities, would destroy the a vowed dualistic character of the teaching by making one ultimate entity depend upon another. As regards the nature of the guņas: sattva represents whatever is fine, or light; tamas whatever is coarse or 1 SPB. i. 61.
*YS. ii. 23; YSB. i. 4.
