"'Yajnavalkya said, That which is without attributes, O son, can never be
explained by ascribing attributes to it. Listen, however, to me as I
expound to thee what is possessed of attributes and what is devoid of
them. High-souled Munis conversant with the truth regarding all the
topics or principles say that when Purusha seizes attributes like a
crystal catching the reflection of a red flower, he comes to be called as
possessed of attributes; but when freed from attributes like the crystal
freed from reflection, he comes to be viewed in his real nature, that is,
as beyond all attributes.The duration here given has reference to the day and the night of the Mahabhutas. Unmanifest Prakriti is by her nature
endued with attributes. She cannot transcend them. Destitute of
intelligence by nature, she becomes attached to attributes. Unmanifest
Prakriti cannot know anything, while Purusha, by his nature, is possessed
of knowledge,—There is nothing higher than myself,—even this is what
Purusha is always conscious of. For this reason the unmanifest (or
Prakriti), although naturally inanimate and unintelligent, still becomes
animate and intelligent in consequence of her union with Purusha who is
Eternal and Indestructible instead of remaining in her own nature due to
destructibility.Prakritisthah means 'in his own Prakriti or nature.' The sense of the line is that Purusha, even when residing in the case that Prakriti provides him with, does not partake of the nature of Prakriti but continues to be undefiled by her. When Purusha, through ignorance, repeatedly
becomes associated with attributes, he fails to understand his own real
nature and therefore he fails to attain to Emancipation. In consequence
Purusha's lordship over the principles that flow from Prakriti, he is
said to partake of the nature of those principles. In consequence also of
his agency in the matter of creation, he is said to possess the attribute
of creation. In consequence of his agency in the matter of Yoga, he is
said to possess the attribute of Yoga. For his lordship over those
particular principles known by the name of Prakriti, he is said to
possess the nature of Prakriti.I expand this verse for bringing out the meaning. A verbal rendering will become unintelligible. For his agency in the matter of
creating the seeds (of all immobile objects), he is said to partake of
the nature of those seeds. And because he causes the several principles
or attributes to start into life, he is, therefore, said to be subject to
decay and destruction (for those principles themselves are subject
thereto). In consequence, again, of his being the witness of everything,
and in consequence also of there being nothing else than he, as also for
his consciousness of identity with Prakriti, Yatis crowned with ascetic
success, conversant with Adhyatma, and freed from fever of every kind,
regard him as existing by himself without a second, immutable, unmanifest
(in the form of Cause), unstable, and manifest (in the form of effects).
This is what has been heard by us. Those Sankhyas, however, that depend
upon Knowledge only (for their Emancipation) and the practice of
compassion for all creatures, say that it is Prakriti which is One but
Purushas are many.This is a difficult verse, I am not sure that I have understood it correctly. The sense to be that Prakriti, which is really unintelligent and incapable of enjoyment or endurance, becomes intelligent and capable of enjoyment or endurance in consequence of being united with Purusha who is intelligent. Thus when pleasurable or painful sensation are felt, it is the body that seems to feel it only in consequence of the Soul that presides over it. As a matter of fact, Purusha is different from
Prakriti which though unstable, still appears as stable. As a blade of
reed is different from its outer cover, even so is Purusha different from
Prakriti. Indeed, the worm that is ensconced within the Udumvara should
be known as different from the Udumvara. Though existing with the
Udumvara, the worm is not to be regarded as forming a portion of the
Udumvara. The fish is distinct from the water in which it lives, and the
water is distinct from the fish that lives in it. Though the fish and
water exist together, yet it is never drenched by water. The fire that is
contained in an earthen sauce pan is distinct from the earthen sauce pan,
and the sauce pan is distinct from the fire it contains. Although the
fire exists in and with the sauce pan, yet it is not to be regarded as
forming any part of it. The lotus-leaf that floats on a piece of water is
distinct from the piece of water on which it floats. Its co-existence
with water does not make it a portion of the water. The perennial
existence of those objects in and with those mentioned, is never
correctly understood by ordinary people. They who behold Prakriti and
Purusha in any other light are said to possess a vision that is
incorrect. It is certain that they have repeatedly to sink into terrible
hell. I have thus told thee the philosophy of the Sankhyas that excellent
science by which all things have been correctly ascertained. Ascertaining
the nature of Purusha and Prakriti in this way, the Sankhyas attain to
Emancipation. I have also told thee of the systems of those others that
are conversant with the great principles of the universe. I shall now
discourse to thee on the science of the Yogins.'"