The Sāṃkhya-sūtra also avails itself of the same story in IV. 1, “rājaputtravattattvopadeśāt,” which Vijñāna Bhikshu explains as follows:—A certain king’s son in consequence of his being born under the star Gaṇḍa having been expelled from his city and reared by a certain forester remains under the idea: “I am a forester.” Having learnt that he is alive, a certain minister informs him. “Thou art not a forester, thou art a king’s son.” As he, immediately having abandoned the idea of being an outcast, betakes himself to his true royal state, saying, “I am a king,” so too the soul realises its purity in consequence of instruction by some good tutor, to the effect—“Thou, who didst originate from the first soul, which manifests itself merely as pure thought, art a portion thereof.”
In another place there are two sūtras:—(1) niḥsaṅge’pi uparāgo vivekāt. (2) japāsphaṭikayoriva noparāgaḥ kintvabhimānaḥ. (1) Though it be associated still there is a tingeing through non-discrimination. (2) As in the case of the hibiscus and the crystal, there is not a tinge, but a fancy. Now it will be seen that all these theories only show that the transcendent nature of the union of the principle of pure intelligence is very difficult to comprehend. Neither the reflection nor the limitation theory can clear the situation from vagueness and incomprehensibility, which is rather increased by their physical illustrations, for the cit or pure intelligence cannot undergo reflection like a physical thing, nor can it be obstructed or limited by it. The reflection theory adduced by the Sāṃkhya-sūtra, “japāsphiṭikayoriva noparāgaḥ kintvabhimānaḥ,” is not an adequate explanation. For here the reflection produces only a seeming redness of the colourless crystal, which was not what was meant by the Vedāntists of the reflection school. But here, though the metaphor is more suitable to express the relation of purusha with the prakṛti, the exact nature of the relation is more lost sight of than comprehended. Let us now see how Patañjali and Vyāsa seek to explain it.
Let me quote a few sūtras of Patañjali and some of the most important extracts from the Bhāshya and try, as far as possible, to get the correct view:—
(1) dṛgdarśanaśaktyorekātmateva asmitā II. 6. (2) drashṭā dṛśimātraḥ śuddho’pi pratyayānupaśyaḥ II. 20. (3) tadartha eva drśyasya ātmā II. 21. (4) kṛtārthaṃ prati nashṭamapyanashṭaṃ tadanyasādhāraṇatvāt II. 22. (5) Svasvāmiśaktyoḥ svarūpopalabdhihetuḥ saṃyogah II. 22. (6) tadabhāvāt saṃyogābhāvo hānaṃ taddṛśeḥ kaivalyaṃ II. 25. (7) sattvapurushayoḥ śuddhisāmye kaivalyaṃ III. 25. (8) citerapratisaṃkramāyāstadākārāpattau svabuddhisaṃvedanaṃ IV. 22. (9) sattvapurushayoratyantāsaṅkīrṇayoḥ pratyayāvśesho bhogaḥ parārthatvāt svārthasaṃyamāt purushajñānam III. 35.
(1) The Ego-sense is the illusory appearance of the identity of the power as perceiver and the power as perceived.
(2) The seer though pure as mere “seeing” yet perceives the forms assumed by the psychosis (buddhi).
(3) It is for the sake of the purusha that the being of the knowable exists.
(4) For the emancipated person the world-phenomena cease to exist, yet they are not annihilated since they form a common field of experience for other individuals.
(5) The cause of the realisation of the natures of the knowable and purusha in consciousness is their mutual contact.
(6) Cessation is the want of mutual contact arising from the destruction of ignorance and this is called the state of oneness.