आनुमानिकमप्येकेषामिति चेत्, न, शरीररूपकविन्यस्तगृहीतेः, दर्शयति च ॥ १ ॥
ānumānikamapyekeṣāmiti cet, na, śarīrarūpakavinyastagṛhīteḥ, darśayati ca || 1 ||
ānumānikam—That which is inferred (i.e. the Pradhana); api—also; ekeṣām—in som (recensions of the texts); iti cet—if it be said; na—no; śarīra-rūpaka-vinyasta-gṛhīteḥ—because it is mentioned in a simile referring to the body; darśayati—(the Sruti) explains; ca—too.
1. If it be said that in some (recensions of the Vedas) that which is inferred (i.e. the Pradhana) (is) also (mentioned), (we say) no, because (the word ‘Avyakta’ occurring in the Katha Upanishad) is mentioned in a simile referring to the body (and means the body itself and not the Pradhana of the Sankhyas); (the Sruti) too explains (it).
An objection is again raised here by the Sankhyas that the Pradhana is also based on scriptural authority, for some Sakhas (Vedic recensions) like the Katha Sakha (school) contain expressions wherein the Pradhana seems to be referred to:
“Beyond the Mahat (Great) there is the Avyakta (Undeveloped), beyond the Undeveloped is the Purusha (Being)” etc. (Kath. 1 . 3. 11).
The word ‘Avyakta’ they say, here refers to the Pradhana. Because the words ‘Mahat’, ‘Avaykata’, and ‘Purusha’, which occur in the same order as mentioned in the Sankhya philosophy, occur in the text, and so they are recognized to be the same categories of the Sankhyas.
This Sutra after raising this objection refutes it thus: The word ‘Avyakta’ is used in connection with a simile referring to the body, and does not refer to the Pradhana. In that word we recognize something mentioned in an earlier text.
“Know that the soul is the rider of the chariot and the body the chariot. Consider the intellect to be the charioteer and the mind the reins. The senses, they say, are the horses, and their roads are the sense-objects” etc. (Kath. 1. 3. 3-4).
All these things that are referred to in these verses are to be found in the following:
“The objects are superior to the senses, the mind is superior to the objects, the intellect is superior to the mind, the Mahat is superior again to the intellect, the Avyakta is superior to the Mahat, and the Purusha is superior to the Avyakta. Nothing is superior to the Purusha,” etc. (Kath. 1. 3. 10-11).
Now compare these two quotations. The senses, mind and intellect, mentioned in the earlier texts, are to be found in these later texts. The Atman of the earlier texts is denoted by the ‘Purusha’ of the later ones. The Mahat of the later texts mean the cosmic intellect and so is included in the intellect of the earlier texts, where it is used in a comprehensive sense to include both the individual and cosmic intellects. What remains is only the body in the earlier texts, and Avyakta in the later texts; and so Avyakta means the body here and not the Pradhana. We shall not be justified in interpreting a Sruti according to Sankhyan technicalities. For the purpose of recognition a comparison should be made not with the Smriti, but with similar passages of the Sruti itself, like those cited above.