rely
shown on the ground of ordinary experience that an effect may take place
in itself independently of any external instrumental cause; a conclusion
which does not contradict the doctrine, based on Scripture, that all
effects depend on the Lord.

4. And because (the pradhana), on account of there existing nothing
beyond it, stands in no relation; (it cannot be active.)

The three gu/n/as of the Sa@nkhyas when in a state of equipoise form the
pradhana. Beyond the pradhana there exists no external principle which
could either impel the pradhana to activity or restrain it from
activity. The soul (purusha), as we know, is indifferent, neither moves
to--nor restrains from--action. As therefore the pradhana stands in no
relation, it is impossible to see why it should sometimes modify itself
into the great principle (mahat) and sometimes not. The activity and
non-activity (by turns) of the Lord, on the other hand, are not contrary
to reason, on account of his omniscience and omnipotence, and his being
connected with the power of illusion (maya).

5. Nor (can it be said that the pradhana modifies itself spontaneously)
like grass, &c. (which turn into milk); for (milk) does not exist
elsewhere (but in the female animal).

Let this be (the Sa@nkhya resumes). Just as grass, herbs, water, &c.
independently of any other instrumental cause transform themselves, by
their own nature, into milk; so, we assume, the pradhana also transforms
itself into the great principle, and so on. And, if you ask how we know
that grass transforms itself independently of any instrumental cause; we
reply, 'Because no such cause is observed.' For if we did perceive some
such cause, we certainly should apply it to grass, &c. according to our
liking, and thereby produce milk. But as a matter of fact we do no such
thing. Hence the transformation of grass and the like must be considered
to be due to its own nature merely; and we may infer therefrom that the
transformation of the pradhana is of the same kind.

To this we make the following reply.--The transformation of the pradhana
might be ascribed to its own nature merely if we really could admit that
grass modifies itself in the manner stated by you; but we are unable to
admit that, since another instrumental cause is observed. How? 'Because
it does not exist elsewhere.' For grass becomes milk only when it is
eaten by a cow or some other female animal, not if it is left either
uneaten or is eaten by