Samkhya Karika 27

उभयात्मकमत्र मनः संकल्पकमिन्द्रियं च साधर्म्यात् ।
गुणपरिणामविशेषान्नानात्वं बाह्यभेदाश्च ॥ २७ ॥

ubhayātmakamatra manaḥ saṁkalpakamindriyaṁ ca sādharmyāt ।
guṇapariṇāmaviśeṣānnānātvaṁ bāhyabhedāśca ॥ 27 ॥

Ubhayātmakam=possessing the nature of both; atra=here (related to the sense organs); manaḥ=mind; saṁkalpakam=determinative, ponders over; indriyaṁ=sense organ; ca=and; sādharmyāt=because of common properties; guṇa=three gunas; pariṇāma=transformation; viśeṣāt=special; nānātvaṁ=variety; bāhyabhedāḥ=due to difference of external forms; ca=and

Of the sense organs, the mind possesses the nature of both (the sensory and motor organs). It is the deliberating principle. It is also called a sense organ since it possesses the properties common to the sense organs. This diversity of the organs and the diversities of the external objects arise from the specific modifications of the three gunas.

Having listed the five organs of sense perception and the five organs of action in the previous karika, the present karika discusses the nature of the eleventh sense organ, the mind (manas).

The word ubhayātmakam in the first line means “possessing the nature of both”. What is the word “both” referring to in this karika? According to both Gaudapada and Mishra it points to the fact that since the mind is connected to the organs of sense perception as well as to the organs of action, it is similar to both.

A couple of other authors have interpreted the first line differently. The mind is ubhayātmakam since the sentence points to two attributes of the mind:

• It is “sankalpakam” or determining/deliberative.
• It is a sense organ because it shares properties with both – organs of action and the organs of perception.

Looking at the structure of the sentence, I favor the second interpretation.

The mind is determinative (saṁkalpakam) as it offers a clear cognition of the item perceived through one of the sense organs. The sense organs themselves are merely instruments of perception. For example, the eyes can only present an image of the object being seen. It is the mind that determines whether the item perceived is a fruit, a flower or some other item. Based on previously experienced objects, the mind can determine that the fruit perceived is a mango or the flower is a rose etc.

Another reason for the mind to be considered as having qualities similar to both the sets of five is that they have all evolved from the sattvic attribute of ego (ahamkara).

The second line of the karika pertains to the term “nanattva” (variety/multifariousness) being the result of different transformations of the three gunas – sattva, rajas and tams. Does this variety refer to:

• The ten sense organs being different? Or,
• Just the mind having the ability to connect with ten different organs?
• Does it include the other two organs – ego and the intellect?

Commentators seem to have different views on these questions. Evolution of the eleven sense organs from the sattvic nature of ahamkara has already been mentioned. So, I tend to agree with the assertion that the variety of the mind refers to its ability to connect with the ten sense organs. As we know, the three gunas are in a state of constant change and the dominance of one over the other two keeps shifting from moment to moment. Thus, the five perceptions and the five actions may, with the help of the ego and the intellect, be different depending on which guna is dominant at a given time.

The variety in the external objects (bāhyabhedāḥ) which represent a mix of the five gross elements (earth, water, fire, air and ether) is also attributed to the variations in dominance of the three gunas.

An alternative reading suggests that this variety of the mind is due to “grāhyabhedāt” (due to the difference in the objects perceived). Perception of diverse objects does require diverse and suitable organs.