Articles by alphabetic order A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Â Ā Ḍ Ḥ Ī Ḷ Ṃ Ṇ Ñ Ṅ Ṛ Ṣ Ś Ṭ Ū Ö Ō 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0

# The Vaisesika sutras of Kanada. Translated by Nandalal Sinha

The Sacred Books of the Hindus. Translated by various sanskrit scholars.

Edited by MAJOR B. D, BASU, IM.S-Retd.

VOL. Vi.-THE VAlSESIKA SUTRAS OF KAN, NANDALAL SINHA, M. A., B L. OF THE BEHAR AND ORtSSA OEVEL SER SECOND EDITION REVISED AND ENLARGED.

THE PANINI OFFICE, BEUVANE&WARl l^RAMA, BAHADURGANJ, Allahabad. PRINTED BY KASHINATH! BAJPAYA AT THE VIJAYA PRESS 1923.

P K E F A C E.

The Vaishesika Sutras of Kanada, with the Commentary of Sankara Misra aiid extracts from tho gloss of Jayanarayana and the Bhasya of Chandrakanta, was first published in tho years 1910 and 1911. Inspite of the numerous imperfections of the work, it appears to have awakened a lively interest in the study and propagation of one of the oldest systems of Hindu Philosophy. For, its publica tion lias been followed by a number of very valuable contributions to the literature of the subject from the pen of some eminent scholars. First and foremost amongst them is the Positive Sciences of the. Ancient Hind-tut by Dr. Brajendranath Seal, M. A. Ph. D. (1915). Dr. Seal observes that "Hindu scientific ideas aud methodology (e. g. the in ductive method or methods of algebraic analysis),have deeply influienced the course of natural philosophy in Asia in the East as well aa in the

"West in China and Japan, as well as in the Saracen Empirec . and enters into "a comparative estimate of Greek and Hindu sconce". He gives very lucid expositions of the Nyaya-Vaisesika Themical The- oi-v, of the conception of Molecular Motion (Parispanda), and of the idons of Mechanics (Kinetics) and Acoustics, and deals very fully with the Doctrine of Scientific Method.

In the following year (I9l6y, that accomplished scholar, Dr. Ganganaiha Jha, M. A., D. Litt., came out \\ith an English translation of the Paddrtha-Dharma-Sam jraha, the Maynum, Opus of the Vaisesikas , that is, Prasastpada s Bhasya on the Vaisesi- ka Sutras of Kanada, with ^ridhara s Commentary (Nyayakandali) on the Bhfisya.

In tho Introduction he explains the Vaisesika conception of Bhuta ( element ), and points out that "what tthe Vaisesika means by saying that these are the five bhutas , is that there are five states of matter: solid (Earth), liquid (Water), gaseous (Air), luminous (Fire), and ethcric (AkAfia*)."

The notes he has added in the body of the book are very illuminating, and clear up many obscure points in he text. In the year 1917, was published the Dasa-Paddrtha.-Sdstra: Chinese Text (translation), with Introduction, Translation and Note*, by H- Ui, Pro fessor in the Sotoshu College, Tokyo, under the editorship of F. W. Thomas Esquire.

It is a remarkable publication in many ways. In the Jirst place, it presents us with a Chinese version of the tenets of Kanada in the form of Kwei-ci s quotations, probably from a commentary on the treatise.

The author tells us that the treatise was composed^ by a follower of the Vaisesika, named Mati Chandra, and translated into Chinese by Yuan Chvvang in 648 A. D. It is in the form of a cateciism r and, as a catechism of the doctrines of the later school of the Vaiseskas, it is almost unsurpassed. In the second place, the author has compiled from Chinese records an account of the traditions current among Chi nese scholars respecting Kanada, his work, and his school.

His resear ches fully confirm our view of the great antiquity and popularity of the Vaisesika-Siitras. Last but not least is Indian Logic and Atomism (1921) which is an exposition of the Nyaya and Vaisesika Systems, by A. B Keith, D. C. L., D. Litt., a well-known orientalist. He regards them "ag able and earnest efforts to solve the problems of knowledge ard being on the basis of reasoned argument". He has attempted "to set out the

fundamental d< cirii ts < I il e Ms1< u s \\iih clue iegid to their history- and their relations to Buddhist j hilosoj hy". Jt is gratifying to : find that, as in the ancient past, even so at the present day, the Vaisesika has engaged the attention of earnest students all over the- world.

Now, what is the Vaisesika Darsana V We do not know when or by whom the name Vaisesika was first applied to the teachings of Kanada. In the Sutras the word appears only once (in X. ii. 7) where it means characteristic , distinguishing . According to the rule of .Paniui, IV. iii. 87, the word is derived from the word Visesa , meanintr a treatise on Visesa . The word visesa has various meanings ; e. g. species, distinction, difference, excellence, superiority. Accordingly- the word Vaisesika also has been variously interpreted. "The origin of the name", in one view,, "is in the fact that the system is distingui shed from, and superior to, the Sfunkhya . In another view, "fcho work was named the Vaifiesika sastra, .since, it excelled other works in all respects, or because it was composed by a man of superior intelligence". h third view is that it is called Vaisesika, because it particular!} or specifically treats of Genus, Species, and Combination which have not been dealt with in any other treatise and though they are included in the predicables Substance, etc. In a fourth view, it is distinguished .from the Samkhya in its theory of Buddhi (understanding), natnelv that Buddhi is an attribute of the Soul, and not its instrument of know ledge. In another view, it is distinguished from the System of Jaimini in so far as it declares that the highest good is to be achieved by the renunciation of the things of the world and by the contemplation of Truth, and not by positive performances. Lastly, it is explained that Kanada s system has come to be called "Vaisesika from his theory of visesa inhering in the ultimate atoms (I. ii. 6). His atoms are math ematical points , without parts, and possessing the same attribute and activity in their respective classes of Earth , Water , Fire , and Air . It is by means of their visesas or individual characteristics that thev are distinguished from one another, and account for the variety of things in nature. This last explanation appears to be preferable to till the others

The Vaisesika is a Mohsa-silatra; it teaches u doctrine of release release from the coil of mortality. According to Kauada, man must work out his own salvation. It is given to him, if he will, to hear the Truth from the Scriptures or from a preceptor, on high or here below to think over it in his mind, and to meditate upon it in the recesses of his heart. He can control his sensory and motor organs, and, by eliminating superficial psychic states, make the mind steady in the Soul. Steadiness of the mind in the Soul is called Yoga. Yoga is neither a mystery nor is it mysticism. It is the realisation of the free dom of will, of the free Self. He then becomes master of time and space. .For him there is no distinction of past, present, and future ; no disti nction of here, there, and elsewhere. The mind being at rest, pleasure and pain do not arise, activity ceases, and the law of Karma is cancell- ed for all time to come. The accumulated Karma of the past, however remains. Having realised the fundamental freedom of the Self, he sees what experiences are in store for him, and lives out those exper iences in appropriate forms and surroundings brought about by the-

creative power of will. In this way he cancels the past as well. There after, when death takes place, and the soul finally quits its temporal .bode, it does not pass into other forms of finite life, but remains free for ever till the end of Time. That freedom is called Moksa, the supremo good, the be-all and end-all of existence.

Self-knowledge, Self-realisation, Atma-saksatkara, is then the only means of attaining Moksa. The fundamental teaching of Kanada, therefore, is "tattva-jnanat nihsreyasam", the supreme good results- from the knowledge of the truth about the Soul. It is a translation of the Vedic text, "Tarati sokaui Atma-vit", the knower of the Self over comes Evil.

The Soul is therefore to bo known. Kauada shows how it is to be known. Hence the Vaisesika Sastra is also called Adhydtma Sdstra, a treatise respecting the Soul. It was not necessary for him to call Attention to the nature of the Soul in itself, the pure Soul as it was in the beginning and as it will be in the end. It was enough for his pur pose to demonstrate the nature of the Soul in the interval of Time, the suffering Soul, the Soul revolving on the wheel of births and deaths and re-births under the Law of Karma. The universal experience of Suffering ("Duhkha") compels an enquiry as to the means of its removal,, namely, realisation of the truth about the Soul ; and Kauada s view is that the Soul can be known by means of the Not-Soul.

The Soul and the Not-Soul make up Reality. The Real is that which is knowablo and nameable-Reality therefore consists of Padar- thas, nameables or predicables. They are not merely categoric -f Teought, in the sense that they have no existence outside and indepen dent of thought. They are classes of entities which have an existence antecedent to, and independent of, our thought. They become objects of our thought, they are-knowable and nameable, because they exist. "In pure perception we are actually placed outside ourselves, we touch, the reality of fch- object in an immediate intuition "(Bergson). Tattva- aaksatkara, immediate intuition of reality, is the aim of Kauada s phil osophy.

By a subtle process of analysis and synthesis, Kanada divides all nameable things into six classes: viz. substance, attribute, action, genus, species, and combination. He then shows, that atfcrribute and action exist by oombinaton with substance. Without substance, there were- no attribute and action. Similarly, genus and species are correlative, and are not absolute, except in the case of the highest geuus which ia existence, and the lowest species which is the visosas or individual characteristics appertaining to, inhering in the eternal substances. Genus and spocies therefore exist by combiuatioti with substances. Without substance, there where were no genus and species. Similarly, combination is " the intimate connection iu the inseparably connected things " ; e. y. of parts and wholes, of substances and their attributes,, of action and the sent of action, of genus and soecies and substances, in which they reside, and of eternal substances aud their ultimate- differences. Without substance, then, there were no combination. Substance, there-fore, is the fundamental reality.

By analysis, substance is resolved into nine kinds : viz. Earth, Water, Fire, Air, Ether, Time, Space, Soul, and Mind. Of these Earth,

Water, Fire, and Air are, as effects, i. e., wholes made up of parts, non- eternal.. Their ultimate atoms which are without parts, are eternal. On the other hand, Ether, Time, Space, Soul, and Mind are without parts, and. therefore oternal. Ether is held to be "nothing- other than the cosmic vacuum (?) which contains all objects, and gives room for their activities". Time and Space are complementary to Ether. The three substances are in reality one only (Prasastapada and Chandra- kanta). Mind, again, is entirely material, and yet capable of coining .into intimate relation with the Soul ; it is as it were a sort of camera obscura to the Soul. In another view, the ultimate atoms are subject to change ; they produce effects ; and themselves undergo changes, but do not initiate changes, jexcept in so far as they reflect themselves in the Mind. Mind also suffers change ; it modifies in the form of everv ob ject it comes in contact with ; otherwise it is absolutely inactive. The Soul, on the other hand, does not suffer change of states. Tt is. the initiator of change in everything else. Cognition, pleasure, pain, desire, aversion, volition, merit, demerit, and impressiou are its attri butes, and not its essence. They are determinations of Will, and prove a state of "indetermination of Will" in which the Soul is truly free and eternal, tt follows that Atoms, Minds, and Souls are the ultimate unit* in Creation. The highest Soul, the Supreme Person, is God.

Atoms and Minds do not exist for themselves. They exist for th Souls, for their bhoga and apavarga, transmigration and emancipation. In the beginning of Creation, activity is induced in them they are set in motion, by Adristam, the resultant energy abiding in the Souls aa a consequence of their previous activities. It causes the combination of iitoms to form the body and the world. "The sphere of transmigra tion is the common result of the individual adflsta, and every one 7 * bodv and other personal circumstances are the special results of the in dividual adrista". It has no activity during the time of the world e dissolution. At the end of the period of dissolution, it is set free by the will of (rod. It then starts the process of Creation, and maintains it ; it is t!ie sustaining energy from the beginning to the end of Crea tion. It can be neutralised, its force can be exhausted, only by th action of the Soul (Vaisesika Sutras, V. ii. 16).

In this view the interesting references that are met with here and there in the Vaisesika Sutras, to cosu.ology, geology, mineralogy, bot any and plant-physiology, zoology, physiology, mechanics, acoustic*, and other positive sciences, become explained. The doctrine of adri sta carries the enquiry further into the field of ethics and sociology, on the one ha id, and lo^io aid epistem>lo^y as well a* psychology and philology, 0:1 the other F>>r, the Soul is at the core of reality, that is, th.3 raa.1 which is kio.vi jle aid -laudable. Every individual S ml is the centre of a separate world of its own, which is evolved to suit its alf s ji. T) ki.i.v tlia S >ul, so have invue4iate intuitiiu of it, there fore, it is iieje-is iry t> k i-vv the N^ot-Sjul. " For we do not obtain an iutuiti > i from reility, that is, an intellectual sympathy with the most iiiti iiita part of it, a ileii we have won its confidence by a long r ello- w lii j with, its sn jerti^ial manifestations. (Bergson, An Introduction to Metaphysics).

Kviada accordingly elab>r;ibes a process of thinking consideration of things. As Dr. Deusseu rightly observes, India i Philosophy did

5

not start, as, for the most part, the (Ireecian did, from an investigation free of assumptions into the existent, but rather like modern philo sophy from t.ho critical analysis and testing of a complex of know ledge handed down (through the Veda). " Hence the Vaisesika is also called Manana s Astra, treatise based on reasoning, rational or critical system. The starting point of the system is the observation and analysis of objects, .with a view to their strict definition and a correct appreciation of their place and function in the world of bhoga and apavarga, probation and perfection, bondage and freedom. And tattva-jnana, knowledge of truth, is its end and aim. To accomplish this result, it evolves a* doctrine of Scientific Method, which, however, is " only a subsidiary discipline, being comprehended under the wider conception of Methodology," which proceeds by way of " (1) the pro position (or enumeration) of the subject-matter (Uddesa), (2) the ascertainment of the essential characters or marks, by Perception, Inference, the Inductive Methods, etc. resulting in definitions (by Jaksana) or descriptions (by upalaksana) ; and (3) examination and verification (pariksa and nirnaya)" (Seal). In this method, logic is not pure reasoning or inference ; the reasoning is also proof. And the Methodology evolved by Kanada and Gotama has been carried almost to perfection in the later Nyaya, "which, inspite of its arid dia lectics, possesses a threefold significane in the history of thought: (1) logical, in its conceptions of Avachchhedaka and Pratiyogi, being an attempt to introduce quantification on a connotative basis, in other words,to introduce quantitative notions of Universal and Particular, in both an affirmative and a negative aspect, into the Hindu theory of Inference and Proposition regarded connotatively as the establishment of relations among attributes or marks ; (2) scientific, in its investiga tion of the varieties of Vyapti and TJpadhi (and of Anyathasiddha), being an elaboration of Scientific Method, in the attempt to eliminate the irrelevant and (3) ontological and epistemological, in its classi fication and precise determination of the various relations of Know ledge and Being, with even greater rigidity and minuteness than in Hegel s Logic of Being and Essence" (Seal).

The criterion of truth, in the Vail^sika Sutras, is the correspon dence of thought with things and vice v-ir-ia Truth a:id reality are, in this system, convertible terms. "* * * the existence of the concept of au object, subjective as well as objective, is tlie lo^isal reas vi for and the real consequence of the existence of the object" (\n). Existence per vades the world of reality: to be real, is t>> be existe it: a^id to be exis tent is t"> bi k -lowable aid nanjable; than is. there mist be in it "an immediately intuitable ele:n3 it, which is lete-mi ied by the function of o ie or in >re of our se isas. or by in-ier per^itio i" (Si.jwart), or, as we sh-m! I say, by th^ Mni i;l , aai all, bv m-d;tation a -id tra isoaa- dental or ;>u!-e perse >tio-i (t^ttva-saksatkara). Hen.ce the Vaisesika is called a r-aalis:n, a id, ;t dualism.

A characteristic d ><3tri-ie of the Vaifijsika is its Kriya-vada. This is the d >ct.ri e which h >lds that self is active, or that self is affected by pleti3ui-? or desire et^ , i i other wjtvls, that it is a kartri or an age it, i i tho course of t!ia eyolution, or more jorr-jtly, revolution of its traasnai^ratory existence.

6

Another characteristic doctrine of the \ r aisesika is its Arambha- vada: the doctrine, namely, that the world as an effect, is not a mere appearnace (vivarta) of the cause, nor an evolution (pariuama) of tho cause, but is produced by aggregation of the cause which is the ulti mate atoms. And this leads to the doctrine of Alat-karya-vada, that is, that an effect has only a temporary existence, and that, before its pro duction, and, after its destruction, it is non-existent.

Before we close this short notice of the scope and character <C the Vaisesika Philosophy, it is our pleasant duty to acknowledge our obligations to the distinguished authors cited above. Our special thanks are due to Dr. Sea] and 1 rofessor Ui whom \ve have freely quoted.

Translator.

(N. B. Asterisks indicate the Aphorisms of Kanada )

BOOK I. Of the Predicables.

CHAPTER I. Of Substance, Attribute, and Action.

SECTION A. Of the Problem of Evil.

Page- Human suffering prompts an enquiry as to the means of its

removal .

Realisation of the Self alone can end all suffering Kanada s view is that the Self can be realised by means of the Not-Self by a person who does not covet the things of die world ~

Sruti and Siuriti in support of the above view

SECTION B.

Of the Scope and Method of Kanada.

The scheme of the Aphorisms of Kanada o

Kanada s Methodology : Enumeration, Definition and

Demonstration ft

SECTION c. Of Dharma.

Dharma is to be explained. 1 ft

Dharma (Contemplation of Truth) purifies the mind and

creates thirst after knowledge Dharma brings forth Knowledge of Truth and the Supreme

Good. 2 Vrittikara s explanation of the Aphorism a

SECTION D. Of the. Veda. The Veda is the Word of God, or is an exposition of Dharma,

and hence is authoritative. 3 fl

Arguments against the authority of the Veda refuted 7

SECTION E.

Of the Supreme Good. he Supreme Good results from the knowledge of the truth

< )out the fc>ix Predicables. 4 g

The Supreme Good consists in the final cessation of Pain 1 cessation of pain consists in the antecedent non- ustence of pain brought about by the neutralisation of tne cause of pain n

How antecedent non-existence- is an object of volition \

of ain eme ^ 110t Uie " abBolut "oil-existence"

Non-e*i,,tn. * .; distinguished from the state of swoon &

11

11

Neither is it the laya or dissolution of the fudividual Self

into the Universal Self

Nor, the removal of the veil of Nescience from the Self Nor, the unimpeded flow of the stream of consciousness ... 11

SECTION F.

Of the Categories.

Sixfold division of nameable things defended ... 12

Mere knowledge distinguished from the realisation of the

truth

Upaskara criticised by the author of Vivriti ... 13

tl Non-existence " is the seventh Predicable, not denied by

Nyaya, Vaisesika, aud Sarnkhya views of the Supremo Good

are the same ...

A section of the Nyaya thinkers hold that the Supreme

Good consists in the permanent cessation of de-merit only The division of the Predicables defended from another

point of view by Chandrakanta ... 15

Why the system of Kanfida is called Vaisesika ... 15

In reality, there are only three Predicables, Substance,

Attribute, and Action ... Itt

SECTION* G.

Of the Enumeration of Substance, Attribute and Action.

• Earth, Waters, Fire, Air, Ether, Time, Space, Self, and

Mind are the nine Substances. 5 ... 17

" Self " includes Grod ; Metals are transformation of Tcja*

(Fire) ... 17

Darkness is not a separate Substance, but a non-entity ... 17

Chandrakanta thinks that Time and Space are included in

Akasa (Ether) ... J8

Attributes reside in Substances, are manifested by Sub stances, and themselves manifest Substances ... 18

• Attributes are Colour, etc. 6 ... 18 A reflection on the Samkhya theory of Buddhi (Cruder- standing) ... 19

Pleasure and Pain do not differ in kind ... 1&

• Actions are Throwing Upwards, etc. 7 ... 19 Action analysed ... 20

SECTION H.

Of their Resemblances and Differences.

• Resemblances of Substance, Attribute, and Action stated. 8 21

Ultimate stems are not anityam or perishable ... 22

• Resemablance of Substance and Attribute stated. 9, 10 ... 22
• Actions do not originate Actions. 11 ... 23 Difference of Substance from Attribute and Action

stated ... 24

• Substance is not destroyed by its own effect or by its own

cause. 12 ... 24

• Attributes are destroyed i.n both ways. 13 ... 24
• Action is destroyed by its own effect. 14 ... . 24
• A Substance is that which possesses Action and Attribute,

and operates as a material cause. 15 ... 25

Ill

In what sense the Self which is void of action, is a Subs tance 25

• An Attribute is that which inheres in Substance, does not

possess Attribute, and is not an independent cause of Conjunction and Disjunction. 10 ... 2ft

• An Action is that which inheres in one Substance only, and

is an independent cause of Conjunctions and Disjunc tions. 17 ... 2d

• Substance, Attribute, and Action co-exist in one and Ihe

same Substance. 18 ... 27

• Thev have the same Attribute as their non-material or

efficient cause. 19 ... 28

• Conjunction, Disjunction, and Impetus are the co-effects of

Action. 20 ... 28

• Action is not an immediate cause in the production of

Substance 21,22 ... 29

• A single Substance may be the joint effect of many Subs

tances ; but not so Action. 23, 24 ... 30

• Certain Attributes are originated by more than one Subs

tance. 25 ... 80

• A single Action does not relate to two or more Substances

at the same time. 26 ... 31

• Resemblance of Substance, Attribute, and Action further

stated. 27, 28, 29 ... 32

Twofold operation of efficient causes explained ... 32

• Actions produce Conjunctions and Disjunctions. 30 ...
• Causality of Action further upheld. -31 ... 33

CHPTER II. Of Genus and Species.

SECTION A. Of the Relation of Cause and Effect.

• Non-existence of effect follows from the non-existence of

cause. 32 ... 35

Importance of the principle of causality explained ... 35

The Samkhya theory of Causation considered ... 35

The Yaisesika doctrine of Causality maintained ... 36

• But non-existence of cause does not follow from the non-

existence of the effect. 33 ... 37

The bearing of the doctrine of Causality on the problem of

the Supreme Good explained ... 37

SECTION B. Of Genus and /Species.

• Geaus and Species are relative terms distinguished by the

Understanding. 34 ... 38

Objections to the doctrine of Jati or Universals stated ... 38

The objections answered ... ... 39

The Mimamsa doctrine of Jati considered ... 40

Marks which indicate that a thing is not a Genus, stated

and explained ... 40

• Existence is pure Genus, as it recurs everywhere. 35 ... 41
• The characteristics of Substance, Attribute, and Action

are both Genera and Species. 36 ... 41

IV

Proof of the existence of Genera and Specieg stated ... 12

• The Predicable Viiesa is pure Species, as it is the ultimate

principle of differenciation. 37 ... 1-3

• Existence causes the belief that Substa ice, Attribute, and

Action are existent. 38 ... 13

• It is a different object from Substance, Attribute, and

Action. 39

• It exists in Attributes and Actions. 40 ... -14
• It does not comprehend the characteristics of Subsuince,

Attribute, and Action, as alternately Genus and Species- 41 ... 15

• Substance-ness is a Genus. 42 ... 45
• Substance-ness is different from Substances. 43 ... 15
• Attribute-ness is a Genus. 44 ... !<;
• Attribute-ness is different from Substance, Attribute, and

Action. 45 ... JO

• Action-ness is a Genus. 46 ... !>
• Action-ness is different from Substance, Attribute, and

Action. 41 ... 17

~ x ~ Existence is one and universal. 48 ... 17

BOOK II.

Of the Substances. CHAPTER I.

Of Earth, Waters, Fire, Air, and hither.

SECTION A. Of the Description of the Five Jjhiltas.

• Earth possesses Colour, Taste, Smell, and Touch 49 ... 1-8
• Waters possess Colour, Taste, and Touch, and are fluid and

viscid. 50 ... 51

• Fire possesses Colour and Touch. 51 ... 53. Fourfold Tejas (Fire) explained ... 5:j
• Air possesses Touch. 52 ... 54
• Cotour, Taste, fcmell, and Touch do not exist in Ether. 53 54 Ndf in Space and Time ... 54
• The fluid state of Earth-substances and Fire-substances

"(metals) is caused by the action of heat, and therefore artificial, and not natural, as it is in the case of Waters. 54,55 ... 55

Gold, etc. are tansformations of Fire (Tejas ... 5^5

SECTION B. Of the Inference of Air.

• The use of Inference explained. 56 ... 5 O
• Touch is a mark of the inference of Air. 57 ... 57 Air is not an object of sense-perception Conditions of Per ception discussed ... 59
• The Touch which infers Air, is Touch without Colour. 58 tfO
• Air is a separate Substance. 59 ... 60
• It possesses Action and Attribute. 60 ... (50 Proof of Parama Anu or Ultimate Atom staled ... (H
• Air is eternal. 61 ... 6
• A ; r is manifold. 62 ... 62
• Visible principle of inference of Air is not known. 63 ... 62

• Mode of iufereice of Air stated. 64 ... 63
• The name, Air, is derived from the Veda, 65 ... 64

SEBTION c. Of Existence of Gt-od.

• Language a id Creation are marks of the inference of

superior Beings. 66 ... 64

• Because they presuppose knowledge by Perception. 67 65

SECTION D. Of Inference of Ether.

• The Samkhya view stated : Actions, e. j/., egress, ingress,

etc. are marks of Ether. 68 ... 66

• And criticised : Action appears in corporal Substances only,

and also not in more than one at a time. 69 ... 66

• Ether, being a Substance, cannot be a non-material

cause. 70 ... 67

~* Neither can it be the occasional (nimitta) cause of

Action. -71 67

• An effect derives its attribute from its cause. 72 ... 68
• Sound is not an attribute of tangible Substances. 73 ... 68
• Nor of Soul, nor of Mind 74 ... 69
• Therefore, it is the mark of Eth^r. 75 ... 69 Time and Space are really identical with Ether, ... 70
• Ether is a Substance and is eternal, like Air. 76 ... 70
• It is one, like Existence. 77 ... 70
• There is nothing to infer a plurality of Ether. 78 ... 70
• " Separateness of one " (individuality) belongs to Ether. 79 71 Summary of the chapter ... 71

CHAPTER II.

Of the Five Bhutas, Time, and Space.

SECTION A. Of Essential and Accidental Attributes.

• Smell perceived in a piece of cloth is due to the contact

of Hower. 80 ... 73

Smell, etc. proceeding from the material cause of subs tance, are essential or natural ; otherwise, they are accidental or conditional

• Smell is natural to Earth. 81
• Similarly hotness is natural or accidental. 82
• Hotness is natural to Fire. 83
• Coldness is natural to Waters. 84

Touch which is neither hot nor cold, nor is due to the

action of heat, is natural to Air 75

SCETION B.

Of the Characteristics of Time.

• "Now," " Then," "Simultaneous,"" Slow," " Quick," such

are the marks of Time. 85 75

Time is the principle of Change ; Change measures Time 76

• Like Air, Time is a Substance, and is eternal. 86
• Like Existence, Time is one. 87 77
• Time is the efficient cause of all that is produced. 88 ... 78

VI

SCETICN C.

Of the Characteristics of Space.

• " This, from this "such is the mark of Space. 80 ... 7H Distance in place cannot be explained by Time ... 79 Time relations cannot be altered ; Space relations can be

altered ~ >

• Like Air, Space is a Substance, and is eternal. 90 ... 80
• Like Existence, Space is one. 91 80 Chandrakanta thinks, Ether, Time, and Space are but

different forms of a single Substance ... 80

• Its manifoldness is due to the variety of its effects. 92 ... 81
• The conception of the East, South, West, and North

explainsd. 93, 94 ... 8lj

• Similarly, the intermediate directions. 95 ... H2

SECTION D. Of Doubt.

• Doubt arises from the perception of the general property,

non-perception of the differentia, and the recollection

of the alternatives. 96

Doubt is not A-Prama or Uncertain Knowledge Doubt is neither threefold nor fivefold, as some Nyaya

teachers think Doubt is not "Wonder" or curiosity ; nor is it knowledge

which does not produce an impression (Samskara) ... SI

Doubt is (i) internal , or (ii) external : (a) in respect of an

object in view, or (b) in respect of an object concealed

from view 84

• The property seen may have been observed in several

objects before. 97 ... S 4

• Or an object may be seen in a different form from that in

which is was seen before. 98 84

• Doubt arises from science anb nescience also. 99 ... 85- Nyaya Sutra, I-i-22, considered ... 85-;

SECTION E Of Sound.

• Sound is the object of perception by the ear. 100 ... 86- The doctrine of Sphota is refuted by Convention ... 86-

Sound is an object apart from all other objects : hence

Doubt arises in respect of it. 101 ... 87

Sound is not a Substance nor an Action. 102,103 ... 87

• Sound is transient, not eternal. 104, 105 ... 881
• Sound differs in property from that which is eternal. IOC ... S()
• Sound is non -eternal, because it is an effect. 107, 108 ... HO
• Defect in the doctrine of the eternality of Sound

stated 109 ... 90

• Sound is produced from Conjunction, Disjunction, and also

from another Sound. 110 ... 1)1

• Sound is non-eternal, also because of its mark, viz. to be

cognisable by the ear. 111 ... 91

• Arguments in favour of the eternality of Sound stated and

refuted. 112-116 ... 91-941

Vll

Two theories of the production of Sound : (a) Vichitarnga- nyaya (successive production of single sounds) and (6) Itadamba-golaka-nyaya (simultaneous production of multiple sounds) 94

BOOK III.

Of Soul and Mind.

CHAPTER I. Of the Marks of Inference.

SECTION A. Of Enquiry Respecting Soul.

• The objects of the Senses are perceived. 117 ... 96
• Their perception is the mark of the existence of an object

different from them. 118 ... 96

• The Body or the Senses are not the seat of perception. llg, 97
• Because there is no consciousness in their causes. 120 ... 97
• For consciousness does not appear in the other products of

those causes. 121 ... 98

• And because consciousness is not known to exist in those

causes. 122 98

Recollection of previous experience in an amputated part of the body, the Law of Karma, recollection of infancy in youth, instinctive acts, etc. are so many more objec tions to a physiological theory of consciousness ... 98,99

SECTION B. Of Fallacies of Inference,

• An identical mark cannot be a means of inference. 123 ...
• Any one thing cannot be a mark of any other thing. 124 100

SECTION c. Of Marks of Inference.

• The Conjunct, the Inherent, the Co-inherent, and the Con

• One effect, of another effect. 126
• The non-existent, of the existent. 127
• The past, of the non-past. 128
• The past, of the past. 129 102
• For a mark operates on the recollection of the " universal

relation." 130 102

" Universal relation " discussed ... 107

SECTION D. Of Enumeration of Fallacies.

• The unproved, the non-existent, and the dubious are false

marks 131

• E- g-j because it has horns, therefore it is a horse. 132 ... L07
• A multifarious is also a false mark : e. g. because it has

horns, therefore it is a cow. 133 Various kinds of " unproved " mark indicated Threefold division of true marks described

True and false marks discussed. 109

Other examples of false mark described

False marks are of three kinds, and not five, as maintained

in the Nyaya

Vlll

SECTION E. Of Marks of Inference of Soul.

• Cognition produced from the contact of the Soul, the Sense,

and the Object, is a true mark. 134 ... Ill

The Bauddha theory cf Recognition and Recollection

criticised m

A possible attack on the Samkhya theory of Buddhi ... 112

• Activity and inactivity observed in one s own soul, are

marks of inference of other souls. 135 ... 113

CHAPTER II. Of the Inference of Soul and Mind.

SECTION A. Of the Mind.

The appearance and non-appearance of knowledge on the contact of the Soul with the Senses and the Objects, are marks of the existence of the Mind. 136 J 14

Mind is not universal, but atomic ]14

Mind is a Substance, and is eternal. 137

• Mind is one 138 Hg

The theory that there are as many minds as there are senses

in the organism, and that mind is a whole made ui> of parts, refuted Ug

SECTION B. Of the Said.

The marks of the inference of the Soul are many. 139 117

The body is not the seat of consciousness Hg

The Soul is a Substance, and is eternal. 140 The doctrine that the Soul is not known by inference, but

by Revelation, stated. 141-143 120

> But the very word "I" infers the Soul, so that the Soul is

known by inference as well as from Revelation. -144 121

ine Soul is not imperceptible to the Mind 122

But " Devadatta (a person) is known by perception : what

is the use of inference ? 145 j 22

• Inference strengthens the intuition. 146 123

" Devadatta goes " is a metaphor. 147 The metaphor raises a doubt: In I am fair " " I " ma v

refer to the body or to the Soul. 148 124

The intuition of I " arises in respect of one s own Soul

only, and not of others : hence ,t denotes the Soul

primarily. 149 , O4

The doctrine that the intuition of " I " j s primarily i n

respect of the body, raises the same doubt 150-151 12

Were consciousness an attribute of the body, one would

perceive the thoughts of another, and vice versa. 152 12(5

The Soul is not proved by Revel; tion alone, as it is proved

by its characteristic mark of the intuition in the form

or 1 . 153 -J27

The Vedanta doctrine criticised by Jayanarayana iQfi

How the boul is distinguished as Jiva or isvara 12 9

SECTION c. Of Plurality of Souls-

• Soul is one, because there is no difference in the productio

of pleasure, pain, and knowledge. 154

• Plurality of Souls is proved by circumstances U **
• The Veda also supports this view. 156

BOOK IV.

Of the Origin of Bodies.

CHAPTER T.

Of Atoms.

SECTION A.

Of the Eternal.

• The eternal is that which is existent, and uncaused. 157...

SECTION B. Of Existence of Ultimate Atoms.

• The effect is the mark of the existence of the Ultimate

Atom. 158 1 _

• The Ultimate Atoms possess Colour, etc. 159 J*
• The Ulimate Atom is eternal. 160

Objections to the eternality of the Ultimate Atom stated ...

• It is an error to suppose that the Ultimate Atom is not

eternal. 161

SECTION c.

Of Condition of Perception.

• Perception takea place from magnitude due to possession of

component parts, and from colour. 162

• Air is not perceived by the Senses, because it has not colour

developed in it 163 137

SECTION D. Of Perception of Attributes.

• Perception of Colour, Taste, Smell, and Touch takes place

from their special characteristics, and from their inhere- ing in compound bodies. 164,165 ... 188, 139

Conditions of their perception are their special charac teristics, absence of a more powerful like attribute, their intensity, and inherence in compound bodies

• Gravitv is not perceptible. 166

Gravity is perceptible to Touch, says Vallabhacharya

SECTION E. Of Hi-sensual Perception.

• Numbers, Magnitudes, Separateness, Conjunction, Disjunc

tion, Priority, Posteriority, and Action are perceptible to the eve in bodies possessing Colour, and not else where. 167, 168 141,142

SECTION F. Of Omni-sennual Perception.

• The classes, Attribute-ness and Existence, are perceptible

to all the Senses. 169

CHAPTER II.

Of Tangible Atomic Products.

SECTION A. Of Threefold Product.

• Atoms produce Earth, etc. in three forms, vix t Body, Sense,

and Object. 170 ... 143

SECTION B. Of Body.

• The Body is not composed of the five Bhutas ; neither is it

a compound of three Bhutas. 171, 172 ... 144

• The influence of the other Bhutas is not denied. 173 ... 145

SECTION c. Of Twofold Body.

• Body is twofold : sexually and a-sexually-produced 174 145

The sexual body is either womb-born or is egg-born ... 146

Plants are living bodies ... [4g

• A-sexual bodies are produced by Ultimate Atoms not con

fined in direction and place 175 ... 14(5

They exist in the worlds of Varuna, etc. ... 148

• Ultimate Atoms are moved by a particular Dkarma towards

the production of the a-sexual bodies of gods and sages. 176 ... 147

• Thero is record of the existence of such bodies 177 ... 147
• Brahma, the first-born must have been produced a-sexuallv.

-178 ... U8

• A-sexual bodies do exist;as is seen in the Veda 179, 180... 148

Aqueous, igneous, and aerial bodies cannot but be a-sexually

produced. ... 149

Constitution of the organs of Sense described. ... 149

Manifestations of Earth, Waters, Fire, and Air described... 149

BOOK V.

Of Investigation of Action.

CHAPTER I. Of Voluntary Action.

SECTION A. Of Upward Movement.

• The hand moves up in the presence, and by the volition, of

the Soul. 181 ... 151

Action analysed ... 15]

• With the hand, the pestle goes up. 182 ... 151
• Volition is the cause neither of the rebounding of the pestle

nor of the going up of the hand with it. 183-186 ... 152,168

SECTION B. Of Downward Movement.

• In the absence of an impediment, a body falls from

gravity. 187 ... 154

• It does not go upward nor sideward, because there is no

impulse towards those directions. 188 ... 154

• A particular impulse is given by a particular volition 189 155
• Range of motion depends upon the impulse. 190 ... 155

SECTION c.

Of Cause of Merit and Demerit. Like the reaction of the hand, the playful movements o-f

limbs by an infant are non-moral. 191 ... 155

• So is the bursting of bodies caused by burning. 192 ... 156

XI

• Slodp-walking is non-volitional. 193 ...

SECTION D. Of Indifferent Movement

• (Trass is moved by Air. Ig4 ... 157

SECTION E. Of Movement caused by Adristam.

• Adristam causes the jewel to move towards the thief, and

also the attraction of iron, grass, etc. by magnetic and electric bodies, 195 ... 157

SECTION F Of Nature of Motion.

• Motion is not one and continuous, but consists of a series of

discreet movements. 196 ... 15&

• Movement springs from impulse which produces impetus

which keeps up a succession of movements from point to point 197 ... 159

A single impetus runs through the whole series of move ments ... 159

The Nyfiya maintains the theory of a series of impetus as

well ... 159-

• Gravity destroys the impetus, and the body falls. 198 ... 160-

CHAPTER II. Of Non-volitional Action.

SECTION A. Of Action in Earth.

• Impulse, Impact, and conjunction with a moving body,

are causes of action in terrene substances. 199 ... 161

• Earthquake* etc. which affect birth, and bhoga, are caused

by adristam (destiny). 200 ... 161

SECTION B Of Action in Water.

• Rain is caused by the gravity of water particles disengaged

from the cloud. 201 ... 162

• Water flows in a stream or current on account of

fluidity. 202 ... 162

• Sun and air cause the evaporation of water. 203,204 ... 162,163
• Circulation of water in trees is caused by adristam 205 ... 163 Water is transformed as snow, hail, etc. by the actiou of

heat. 206-209 ...164,165

SECTION, c. Of Action in Fire, and Air.

• Conflagration, volcanic eruption, tempest, meteor, etc. are

Adristam caused the movement of fire, air, atoms, and mind

at the time of Creation. 211 ...

SECTION D. Of Action in Mind. (i) Caused by Volition Soul.

Volition of the Soul causes movement of the mind. 119 .., 266

Function of the nervous process explained 167

Pleasure and pain, cognition, volition, etc. are caused by the conjunction of the soul with the object through the mind and the senses. 213

XI)

• No change can be produced in the mind when it abides in

the soul, which is the state of Yoga. 214 ... 167

SECTION E.

Of Action in Mind, etc. (ii) Caused by Adyistam.

• The ingoing and outgoing of life and mind at birth and

death, metabolic, physiological and other vital processes

are caused by adristam. 215 ... 169

• Emancipation takes place in the absence of adristam.-" 216 170 How Yoga destroys adyistam is described ... 170

SECTION F. Of Action in Shadows,

• Darkness is a non-entity. 217,218 ... 171

SECTION G. Of Absence of Action.

• Space, Time, Ether, Soul, Action, Attribute, Genus, Species,

Combination are void of action, as they are incorporeal

or imponderable. 219-224 ... 172-174

BOOK VI.

Of the Investigation of Dharma and A-Dharma. CHAPTER I.

Of Vedic Duties.

SECTION A. Of Source of the Authority of the Veda.

• The Veda is a statement of facts by a person who has previ

ously known those facts. 225 It is the work of an Absolute Person The Mlmdmsd doctrine that Word is eternal, is refuted

• Allotment of names in the Brdhmana portion of the Veda is

a mark of the previous knowledge of the things

named. 226 ... 175 "* Injunctions on gift and on acceptance of gift are also such

marks. 227,228 ... 176

SECTION B. Of the Reaper of Consequences.

• Result of Act accrues to the performer enly. 229 ... 177 Exceptions to the rule considered ... 177 The Vrittikdra does not admit any exception, ... I7g

SECTION c. Of Dharma and A-dharmas from Prescribed and Prohibited Acts.

• Entertainment of impure Brahmanas at a &rdddha does not

produce Dharraa. 230 ... 179

• < Impurity consists in killing. 231 ... 179
• Association with the impure is sinful. 232 ... 779
• Entertainment of a pure Brahman a at a Srdddha is not

sinful 233 ... J80

• Puiity, and not status, should be the criterion. 234,235 ... J80

SECTION D. Of Certain Exceptions.

• Stealing, killing, and suicide are not sinful in certain

circumstances. 236-240 . 181-183

Zlll

CHAPTER II. Of the Production of Dharma and A-dharma.

SECTION A.

Of the Supreme Good. "* Acts of which the purpose is not of this world, produce

Exaltation 241 ... 184

Proof of Adfistam is stated ... 184

• Acts of which the objects are not visible stated. 242 ... 181

SECTION B. Of Purity.

• Parity is purity of heart ; impurity is impurity of

heart. 243,244 ... 185,186

• What objects are pure, stated. 245 ... 186
• Impure objects stated. 246,247 ... 187-188

SECTION c. Of Self-restraint. ~+ Purity must be coupled with self-restraint in order to

produce ( Exaltation. 248,249 ... 188

SECTION D. Of Causes of i Faults.

• Desire and Aversion are caused by pleasure and pain, by

habit, by adristam, and also by racial distinction. 250-253 ... 189,190

SECTION E.

Of Effects of < Faults. "* Desire and aversion cause activity towards dharma and

a-dharma. 254 ... 191

Activity of mind, speech, and body described ... 191

SECTION P.

Effects of Dharma and A-dharma. -* Birth and death are the results of dharma and a-dharma

255 ... 191

SECTION G.

Of the Nature of Release.

• Release is a state of permanent impossibility of pain. 256 192 Hew Release is attained, is described ... Ipfc

BOOK VII.

Of the Examination of Attributes and of Combination .

CHAPTER I.

Of Colour, Taste, Smell, and Touch, and Magnitude. SECTION A.

Of Non-eternal Attributes.

• Aphorism I. i. 6 recalled 257 ... 193
• Colour, etc, of Earth, etc. are non-eternal, because their

subtrata are non-eternal. 258 ... 193

SECTION B. Of Eternal Attributes.

• Colour, etc. of the ultimate atoms of Water, Fire, and Air

are eternal. 259,260 ... 194

Vrittikdra s reading of Aphorism 250 explained ... 194

• Bat Colour, etc. of aqueous, ig.ieous, a id aerial bod ies are

non-eternal. 261 ... 195

X1T

SECTION c. Of Variety of Colour,etc. in Earth.

Colour, etc. of terrene bodies are produced from like attri butes in their constituent cause and also from the action of heat 262 ... 196

Colour. ness, etc. are not mere apprehensibility by the external senses, but are jdtis or universals which are the characteristics of the attributes perceptible by the external senses ... 196-199-

Process due to the action of heat is considered. Two views : pithara-pdka (pot-baking) and pilu-pdka (atom-baking-) distinguished ... 199-202:

• Because the substance is the same before and after the

action of heat. 263 ... 202

SECTION D. Of Measure or Extension.

• The minute is not perceived ; tho massive is perceived. 264 203- Measure is of four kinds : Largeness, Smallness, Long-ness,

and Shortness ... 203

The universal substances, Space, Time, Ether, and Soul, are also infinite in measure, i. e, possesses extreme large ness and long-ness ; extreme smallnrss and shortness exist in the ultimate atoms ; the next degrees of small- ness and shortness exist in binary atomic aggregates ; and largeness and long-ness exist in substances from tertiary atomic aggregates upwards 203

• Largeness is produced either from multiplicity of consti

tuent parts, or from their magnitude, or from their loose conjunction. 265 204

A multiplicity of constituent parts come into combination

by the direction of God 204

• Smallness is produced from opposite causes. 266 205 1 Relative uses of large and small explained. 267-269 205-2UU Largeness and Smallness do not exist in Largeness and

Smallness. 270,271 207

• Largeness and Smallness do not exist in Attributes and

Actions. 272 207

• Long-ness and Shortness do not exist in Long-ness and

Short-ness.. 273 208

• Measure of eternal substances and ultimate atoms is eternal,

and measure of non-eternal substances is non-eternal , 274,275 _ 208,209

Measure of the ultimate atom is called parimandala. 276 20 ( J The existence of Measure in a relative sense in perceptible bodies, is proof of the existence of Measure in a roal sense in imperceptible substances. 277 210

• Ether as well as the Soul is infinitely large 278 210

The Mind is infinitely small._279 21.1

> Space is all-pervading. 280 212

Time is the efficient cause of all that is produced 212

CHAPTER II.

Of Number, Separateness, Conjunction, Disjunction, Priority, Posteriority, and Combination.

SECTION A.

Of Attributes which exist in one object as well as in more than one object.

• Unity is a different Attribute. -282 ... 214 Bhilsana s view criticised ... 214
• Separateness is a different Attribute. 283 ... 215 Separateness is distinguished from mutual non-existence,

difference in property, and Genus ... 215

• Unity and Separateness do not exist in Unity and Separate-

ness. 284 216

• Unity does not exist in Attributes and Actions, because

they are void of Number. 285,286 ... 216,217

• If Unity did not really exist, the word could not be used

even in a relative sense. -287 ... 217

The Sdmkhyas hold that cause and effect are one and the same, i. e. that unity and individuality belong to them. This is not correct 217

• Unity and Individuality do not exist in Effect and Cause.

288 218

• The characteristic of having the attributes of the cause as

antecedents, belongs to non-eternal Unity and Indivi duality. 289 -. 219 Other Numbers and Separatenesses are derivative, and

embrace more than one substance ... 21g

The conception of duality analysed ... 221

How duality is destroyed , ...221-222

Sridhara, Udayana, and Sanltara- Misra on the idea of

multiplicity or manifoldness ... 223

The common consent of humanity that a thing is produced and thai a thing is destroyed, is a refutation of the Sdmkhya doctaine that cause and effect are identical ... 225

SECTION B. Of Attributes which embrace more than one object.

• Conjunction and Disjunction are produced either by the

action of one of the substanees concerned, or by the action of both, or by another Conjunction or another Disjunction. 290,291. .... 225,228

Production of things takes place by means of Conjunction 226 There is no Conjunction among all-pervadiug substances.

e. g. Space, Time, Ether, and Soul ... 226

Conjunction is not eternal ... 227

How Conjunction is destroyed 227

Sarvajna s view of Disjunction criticised ... 23(

How Disjunction is destroyed ... 231,282

• Coniunction and Disjunction do not exist in Conjunction

and Disjunction. 292,293 ... 232,233

• Effect and Cause do not possess Conjunction and Disjunc

tion, because they are already in combination with each other. 294 233

XT!

SECTION c. Of Sound and Sena?.

• The relation between a Word and its Meaning is neither

Conjunction nor Combination, because Conjunction is an Attribute 295-300 .

• Because Attribute also may be the meaning of a Word. 296 234-
• Because Word and its Meaning are both inert. 297 234.
• And because a non-entity also is denoted by Word. 298 234
• Word and its Meaning are therefore unrelated. 299 ... 285- "* Intuition of Meaning from Word follows from Convention.

-301 23*

The convention is the direction of God 236

It is learnt from usage, testimony, analogy, synonymy, etc. 236 Tutata, Prabhdkara, the ancients, Sankara Misra, and

Gautama on the import of Words ... 237,238-

Convention is twofold : original and modern. The first

supplies the force of a Word ; the second, the definition

of a Word 73:T

SECTION D.

Of Attributes existing inonc substance and haviny reference to all-pervading substances.

• Priority and Posteriority are produced by two bodies lying

in the same direction, at the same time, and being near and remote. 302 ... 238

How they are destroyed ...239-241

• Priority and Posteriority arise from the nearness and

remoteness of the cause. 303 ... 241

2 Priority and Posteriority do not exist in Priority and

Posteriority. 304,306 ... 242"

SECTION K. Of Combination.

• Combination is that relation by virtue of which arises the

intuition in the form of " This is here," with regard to

effect and cause. 307 ... 243

The test of Consciousness invoked ... 244

Combination is eternal ... 244

The view of the Bhattas considered ... 245-

• Combination is different from Substance, Attribute, Action.

(jrenus, and Species.- 308 ... 24-j j

• Combination is one. 300 ... 246 The followers of Prabhdkara maintarn that Combination is

manifold, and is non-eternal. This is not reasonable ... 246 i The Nydya doctrine that Combination is perceptible to the

senses, is not valid ... 246-

BOOK VIII.

Of Ordinary Cognition by means of Conjunction or Combi n ation .

CHAPTER I. Of Presentative Cognition.

SECTION A.

Of the Nature of Cognition.

• Understanding or Cognition is a property of the Soul. 310 247

XVII

The Minkh ja doctrine that Understanding is an evolute o I rakriti and a distinct entity from Soul, is not reasonable ...247-24*

Coo-nition is either true knowledge or false knowledge : "true knowledge is produced by perception, inference, memory, or testimony : the forms of false knowledge are doubt, error, dream, and uncertainty

• Soul, Mind, Time, Space, Air, Ether, and Ultimate Atoms

arc not knowable by ordinary perception. 311 248-

Sense-born cognition is of two degrees : ordinary and transcendental, as of Yogins who can see even ultimate atoms ... 24i*

All that is demonstrable, nameable, and existent, is an object of sense-cognition, whether ordinary or trans cendental ... 249

Ordinary perception is either discriminative or non-dis criminative ... 249

Dhar-makirti, and Dinndya s argument against discrimina tive cognition stated and arswered ... 249-250

SECTION B. Of the Production of Cognition.

• Aphorism 111, i. 18 recalled. 312 * ... 25O
• Cognition of Attribute, Action, Genus, and,. Species is

rendered possible by means of the substances in which

they inhere. 313,314 ... 251,252

• ilenus and Species are causes of cognition of Substance,

Attribute, and Action. 315 ... 252

• Substance, Attribute, and Action are causes of cognition

of Substance 316 ... 253

• Attribute and Action are not causes of cognition of Attri

bute and Action. 317 ... 253

• Combination is a cause of cognition. 318 ... 254
• Successive cognitions of a pillar, a jar, etc. are not related

as cause and effect- 319,320 ... 255

Cognition is either presentative or representative. Presen- tativo cognition is either perception or inference. Perception is either discriminative or non-discrimina tive : again, either ordinary or transcendental- Infer- once is either from agreement, or from difference, or from commonly observed marks ... 25ti

Cognition is either true knowledge or false knowledge :

jicrain. either certitude or doubt ... 257

CHAPTER II. Of Doubly Preset tntive Cognition.

SECTION A. Of Proof of Involved Cognition.

• This/ ; That Done by you < Feed him, are instances

of cognition involving cognition of another thing. 321 25$• Tho proof is that such cognitions arise in respect of objects seen, and do not arise in respect of objects not seen. 322 258 SECTION B. Of the Meaning of Artha (Object) in the Vaijusika. • Substance, Attribute, and Action are called Object.* 323 ... 259 SECTICK c. Of the Senses and their Objects. Bodies are not compound products of five elements. 824 ... Senses are relative to their corresponding attributes 25i> • The Sense of Smell is constituted by the element of Earth. -325 *" -39? • Similarly the Senses of Taste. Colour, and Touch are constituted by the elements of Water, Fire, and Air- 326 Likewise the Sense of Hearing is a portion of Ether con fined within the cavity of the ear BOOK IX. Of Ordinary and Transcendental Cognition by means of presentation other than Conjunction and Combination. CHAPTER I. Of Ordinary Perception of Non -Existence and Of Transcendental Perception. SF.CTIOX A. Of Enumeration and Demonstration of Non-Ed ixtencc*. • An effect cannot, before its production, be spoken of in terms of action and attribute, and is therefore then non existent. 327 • The existent becomes non-existent. • The existent is quite different from the non-existent.- -329... 2f4 • What is existent in one form (e. </. a horse) is non-existent in another form(e. g. as a cow) 330 Such reciprocal non-existence is eternal • There is a fourth kind of non-existence kno\vn as absolute non-existence. 331 The ancients and the moderns view of absolute non- existence SECTION i; Of the Ptrception of Non -exist en? i-. • Absence of perception after destruction, and recollection of existence before destruction, are causes of perception of consequent non-existence.- -332 26fi • Perceptibility after pi eduction is the cause of perception of non-existence before production. -333 267 • Non-apprehension of identity is the cause of the perception of reciprocal non-existence. 334 ^tW • Non-cognizance of production and destruction is the cause of the perception of absolute non-existence. 335 2Ht> • The judgment " The water-pot does not, exist in the room." merely negates the connection of the existent water- pot with the room. 336 - * SECTION o. Of Transcendental Perception. • Perceptual cognition of the Soul results from a particular conjunction of the Soul and the Mind in the Soul. 337 272^ XIX SECTION D. Of Nescience. Dreain is produced in the same way as Reminiscence. 348 Intensity of impressions, derangement of the bumours of the body, and adristam are causes of dreaming ... 291 Dreams, good and evil, described 291 So is also " Consciousness accompanying dreams. "3 49 ...,, 292 Pratastapdda s and VrittiJcdra * views on Dream stated ... 292 > Merit and De-Merit also cause Dream and Dream-memory. 350 ^^ 292 1 Nescience or False Knowledge arises from imperfection of the Senses and also from imperfection of ImDression. OKI T 293 1 Avidyd or False Knowledge is imperfect knowledge. 352... 293 The forms of A-vidyd are Doubt, Error, Dream, and Indecision go^ SECTION E. Of Scientific Cognition. • Scientific Cognition is cognition free from Imperfection ~ 363 ... 294 SECTION F Of Cognition by Seers and Siddhas. • The cognition of Seers and Siddhaa takes place by means of merit. 354 295 Vfiltiledra s and PraSastapada s views stated 295 BOOK X. Of the Differences of the Attributes of the Soul and of the threefold Causes. CHAPTER I. Of the Attributes of the Soul. • Pleasure and Pain are different objects, because of the difference of their causes and because of their mutual opposition. 355 29ft Prafastapdda s view stated 296 • They are not forma of Cognition. 356-360 ... 297-300 • The relation of the body and its parts explained. 361 301 CHAPTER II. Of the Threefold Causes, SECTION A. Of Combinative and Non-combinative caiise. Substance is the only combinative cause. 362 .,. 302 It operates as an efficient cause also.~-363 ... 303 Actions are non-cornbinative causes 364 ... 304 Certain Attributes are non-combinative causes, and occa sionally operate as efficient causes also 365 ... 304 • Conjunction is a non-combinative cause. 366,367 ... 804 SKGTION B. Of Efficient Cause. • Heat is an efficient cause. 368 ... 305 SECTION c. Of Transcendental Utility of Acts. • Of acts enjoined, of which worldly good is not the fruit, the utility is transcendental. 369 ... 305 or ascetics are either yukta or meditative, or viyukta or non-meditative. The former have perceptual cogni tion of the Soul. The Soul sometimes flashes across ordinary hmte consciousness 272 Transcendental presentation discussed 272 > Similarly, by means of; Meditation, omniscience is attained! 273 < Omniscience also belongs to the viyukta or supra-meditative* . . those who have reached the state of independence of the sense-apparatus 339 2^ . How they exhaust their karma, is described 274 Ihe Yogin* perceive Attributes and Actions through their combination in Substances. 340 They perceive the attributes of their own souls through their combination in their souls o41 An argument that Kandda recognises only three independ- fint Pr<l i <>ahiQa * f "** Of Other Forms of Cognition. SECTION A. Of Inference. • the effect, or cause of, conjunct with, contradictory " tl " 8 27 r o~ r 97 t\ CHAPTER II. Three views of P*ka or the minor term described 07- Lingo, or inferential mark (the middle term) discussed 277 Place of Pardmarja or subsumption of the mark in the process of inference discussed Different forms of Inference described ! ^^J f r atUr * i8 /^ baS1 8 f Infer e, nd not the relation of Cause and Effect. 343 How Uniformity of Nature is established Two kinds of Inference, logical and rheiorical, described" 281 Syllogism analysed and illustrated tha terra pratijnd hetu uddharana, upanaya, and niyamana explained 2 81 The Vaisesika terminology stated and explained 282 SECTION B. Of Testimony and Other Forms of Proof Verbal is a form of Inferential Cognition. 344 oo Gesture, whether conventional or non-conventional, is not a form of Proof Reason, Word Mark, (Met^s of) Proof, Instrument, the s e" are not- antonyms. 345 Analogy, Presumption, Subsumption, Privation, and Tradi tion are included in Inference, because they proceed by the cognition of the Uniformity of Nature.~-346 2 8" SKCTION c. Of Reminiscence. Reminiscence takes place from a particular conjunction of the Soul aud the Mind and from past impression.-437.. 290 FrasaetapAda explanaiion quoted Q How sagely cognition is produced fi y * XXI The Veda is not impersonal, and is the work of a Supreme Person absolutely free from imperfection The purpose of sacred observance is to purify the mirror of the mind SECTION D. Of the Author of the Veda. The Veda is the work of God. 370 307 The argument fully stated 307 THE VAJSESJKA SUTRAS OF KANADA WITH THR COMMENTARY OF SANKARA MISRA AND 3XTUACTS FROM THE GLOSS OF J AYANARAYANA. AXD Till-: BHASYA OF CHAXDRAK ANTA. SAXKAKA MISRA S INTRODUCTION. Salutation to Sri (Janesa ! I bow to llara who has the Heavenly lliver playing on the lap if His uptied matted locks, and whose forehead is adorned with the Umbel li slier of the Night. Mv Salutations constantly reach those two, Kanada and Bliava- ntitha, by whom I have been thoroughly enlightened in the Vaisesika System. Xole. Kamula here does not refer to the author of the Vaisesika-Sutram, but to a >vell- known Yaisesika teacher of a recent date. lihavanatha was the father of Sankara MiSra. May success attend this venture of mine who, like a funambulist; in the air. walk here without any support, with the only help of the Sutram. _y 0<e Sutraiii a. piece of rope ; an aphorism ; just as a rope-daucer walks in the air with the help (A a (Sutram (rope), so the commentator traverses the philosophy of tho Vaisesikiis with the help of the Sutram (aphorisms) of Kamula. Human existence is subject to threefold afflictions. These afflictions are partly adhyatmika, i.e., bodily and mental. They are partly Adhibhautiku, i.e., caused by natural agencies, e. g. man, beast, bird, reptile and the immobile. And they are partly adhidaiyika, i.e., caused by supernatural powers, such as Yaksa, llaksasa, Vinayaka, -etc. Discriminative men, struck with the threefold afflictions, looked for the root-cause of the cessation of the threefold afflictions. They gathered from the various Srutis (Revelations), Smritis (Recollections), Ftihasas (Histories), and Purunas (Cosmogonies), that it is the imme diate intuition or direct vision of the principle of the self, or simply, self-reali/.ation, which is that cause. They then desired to know the path also which led to the attainment of self-realization. Accordingly- they approached the very kind sage (muni) Kanada. VAIESIKA PHILOSOPHY. Now, the Muni Kanada had accomplished the knowledge of the prin ciples (tattvas), dispassion, and lordliness. He thought within himself | that the knowledge of the principles of the six padarthas (predicables), I by means of their resemblances and differences, is the only royal road to the attainment of self-realization, and that that would be easily 1 accomplished by the disciples through the dharrna (Merit or Worth) of renunciation. He therefore resolved first to teach them dharma alone with reference to its essential form and with reference to its character istics, and then to teach them also the six padfirthas by means of their enumeration, definition, and demonstration. Note. Dharma of renunciation. The indirect method of Self-realization is Pravritti Marga, i. e. through and by means of wordly experience. The direct method of Self-realization - is Nivritti Marga, i. e. through and by means of abandonment of worldly experience. Hence, to invite their attention, he proposes. Jay andrdy ana s Introduction. He who of His own will spreads out the production, preservation, and destruction of the universe; He who, even though shining forth in suppression of all these, still is not known by other than wise men ; He, by knowing whom as He is in Himself, men are saved from further | immersion into the waves of the stream of transmigration ; the same is Bhava (i.e., the Lord of Creation), and He is easy of access by the path of communion with Him in constant devotion.* Mayj- He be pleased t<- give you prosperity. I adore Bhavani (the consort of Bhava), Mahesi (the consort of Mahesa, the Great Lord;, who, Herself bearing limbs as dark as th&j cloud, still dispels the mass of darkness by myriads of collected rays ;. who while cutting asunder the bond of re-birth of Her devotees, is Her-j self bound by love to Bhava and is His constant delighter; who! although She is born of the Immobile (the Himalaya), ^ still moves from] place to place; and who while being the consort of the Pure (Siva), is- seated on a corpse. After bowing to his good preceptor, the fortunate twice-born r Jayanarayana is writing out the vivriti (explanation or elaboration) of the aphorisms of Kanada for the pleasure of Isvara. Here, indeed, one and all of the disciples, desiring to throw off the multitude of afflictions arising from birth, decrepitude, death, and the like, hear from the various Srutis, Smritis, Itihasas, Puranas, etc., that the vision of the reality of the Self is the fundamental means of escaping them. Thus, there is the ruti : " Verily, verily, the Self is to be seen, to be heard about, to be thought over, and meditated upon. V erilyj O verily, this is (the measure of) immortality 7 (Bnhadaranyaka 2 4, 5;; also, " When the Purusa (the in-dweller) will know himself the Self- "I am," then wishing what, for which desire, will he pursue the course of transmigration?" And the Smriti also: "By elaborating his under standing in three ways, namely by "sacred writings, inference, and habitual flow of contemplation, a person attains to laudable com munion. C f. Narada Bhakti Stitrarn, aphorism 58 p. 23, S. B. H., Vol. VII. t Cf Sandilya-Sutram, III, 1, 7,|page 7If,S. B. H., Vol. VII. KANADA SIJTRAS I, 1, 1. Now, some disciples, who were unenvious and who had properly studied the Vedas and the Vedaiigas, (i-e., treatises regarded as so many limbs as it were of the Vedas) and had also achieved the gravana (i.e., the stage of self-culture known by the name, audition, in other words, the mere acquisition of knowledge or information as referred to in the preceding paragraph^, with due rites approached the great and mighty sage Kaiuida for the purpose of manana or intellection (the second stage of self-culture, i.e., that of discriminative understanding). Thereupon that sage, full of great compassion, taught them a system (of self-culture) in Ten Books. There in the First Book he has stated the entire group of paddrtlias (Predicables); in the Second Book he has ascertained Substance; in the Third Book he has described the Soul and the Inner Sense; in the Fourth Book he has discussed the body and its constituents; in the Fifth Book he has established Kama, (Action); in the Sixth Book he has considered Dharma (piety) according to &ruti ; in the Seventh Book he has established Attribute and tiamavdya (co-inherence or combination) ; in the Eighth Book he has ascertained the manifestation of knowledge, its source, and soon; in the Ninth Book he has established particular or concrete understanding; and in the Tenth Book lie has established the differences of the attributes of the Soul. The operation ot this treatise (towards teaching) is three-fold: Enumeration, Definition, and Examination or Demonstration. Classi fication or Division is a particular form of Enumeration; and hence it does not constitute an additional method. Although this system is mainly concerned with the determination of the Predicables, still, inasmuch as Dharma, being at the root of the knowledge of the essence of the Predicables, possesses a prominence of its own, therefore he (Kanada) proposes to ascertain that (Dharma} first of all. Dharma t .y to If- f.i>plaiiif <1. w? sq^qr^nr: ii ? I ? I m Slr Atha, now. ?[?T: Atah, therefore, [^wfc JDliarmmam, piety, religi. n. sqreqWTW: Vyakhyasyamah, (We) shall explain. 1. Now, therefore, we shall explain Dharma. 1. Cpatkai-a. Atha, indicates sequence to the desire of the disciples; Atah Because disciples, skilful in, SVeu crua (audition), etc, and uneiiviou d , approached (him)," therefore <fr the word atha has the sense of auspiciousness. For it has been said : " Q,nk Ira (aum and the word .-tt/ia these two came out, at the beginning, by breaking through the throat of Brahma ; hence both of them are auspicious." Audit is as it should" be. How, otherwise is it possible on the part of the great sago, while composing the Vaisesika system of self culture, not to observe the auspicious ceremony, which has acquired the obligatory nature Of a duty, by a succession of observances by pious, men ? It cannot be said, on the other side, that the non-observance might be due to the experience of the non-appearance of fruit even where the auspicious ceremony has been observed and of the appearance of fruit even where it has not been observed ; since a wise man does not engage in a useless pursuit For its usefulness becomes certain on the supposition of its observance in another birth in the case of the above non-observance where the fruit still appears, and of defect in some part (of the ceremony) in the case of the above observance, where the fruit does not still appear VAISESIKA PHILOSOPHY. Again, there need be also no apprehension of its uselcssness merely on account of the non- appearanco, for the time being, of the fruit of that, the obligatory nature of which has bet n taught in the >Sruti ami can be inferred from the conduct of the elect or polite. Nor i,s it that there can be no supposition of .something in another birth since an act must produce it.s fruit in this (one) life only , because, as in the case of the sacrifice for the birth of a son, so in every act the characteristic of producing fruit in one and the same life is not proved to exist. Whereas the characteristic of producing fruit in one and the same life belongs to Kt ir trl (sacrifice for rain) and other sacrifices, because these are performed with that desire alone. Here the agent is desirous of completion, as the agent in a sacrifice is desirous of heaven. The difference is that there the object (of the observance) is a ne-,v entrance in the shape of ftdriftam, while here it is the annihilation of hindrances, since the undertaking is with the desire that what has been begun may be safely completed. tt cannot be said that the fruit of the observance is tlie mere an nihilation of hindrances while completion will follow from its own cause. For, the mere annihilation of obstacles is not in itself an object of volition, whereas completion as the means of happiness is an objV.-t of volition, and it is also uppermost in the mind. Moreover, the mere destruction of demerits is not the fruit, for that being 1 otherwise capable of accomplishment by propitiation, singing the name of God, crossing the river Karmanasfi, etc., there will be plurality of causes, i.e , a violation of the rule (that only the observance of the omen will produce the result). If it is held that the destruction of demerits is the end, as the destruction of the particular demerits which obstruct the fulfil ment of the undertaking, then the fulfilment itself properly becomes the end. Here too there will be a violation of the rule, since such destruction of particular demerits is producible by gift of gold, bathing 1 ^at the con fluence (of the GangA and Yamuna) at Prayaga (Allahabad), etc. ; and it will be rash to speak of them as so many good omen^. Again, the causality of the good omen consists in this that it being observed, the completion must necessarily follow. So it has been said: "Because of the rule that the fruit necessarily results from an act. complete in all its parts, according to the Veda." Hence an alternative- cause also is certainly a cause, for the idea of a cause in the Veda refers only to the uniformity of immediateness or to the immediate- sequence of the effect. It is perverse to suppose a difference in kind in the effects, in the case of a plurality of causes. "Where causal it v has to be deduced from agreement and difference, there the rule of ante cedence to the effect should lie observed, but not in the Yeda also, where the appearance of difference does not figure as a weighty con sideration. Thus it is not a violation of the rule to say that the- omen being observed in all its parts, the completion necessarily follows. Now, completion or fulfilment is that on the performance of which arises the belief that this act has been completed. In the case of writings it consists in the writing of the last sentence; in the case of a sacrifice,., etc., in the final oblation; in the case of a cloth, etc.. in the addition of the last thread ; in the case of going to a village, etc., in the final con tact of the feet with the village : and it should be similarly undetstood in all other cases. Therefore in the case of completion produced by an auspicious observance-, even if we suppose a difference in kind in the- effect, still there is no violation of the rule of agreement and diffe rence. KANADA SUTRAS I, 1, 2. An auspicious observance is an act which brings about fulfilment as its fruit by the path of the annihilation of obstacles, and that is real I v of the form of salutation to the deity, etc. Even where obstacles do not exist of themselves, although the commonly attributed (as above; charactei sitic of issuing by the path of the annihilation of obstacles is absent there, still the idea of the auspicious observance is not too narrow, because the salutation, etc., as such, possess the incidence of tlie characteristic of issuing by the path of the annihilation of obstacles This is the point. 1. The ] irTt>ti adds : Others again say that the non-existence of any hindrance having been insured by the virtue born of concentration ()V< t /a), the sage did not attend to the auspicious observance, or that if lie did. he has not inserted that at the beginning of the book. Later thinkers, on the other hand, say that, as in the treatise of (lautama (i.f .. Nvaya Sutra), in the recital of the word yramana (Proof; which falls, witliiu the group of the names of Grod, so too in this treatise, the auspicious ceremony has been observed, in the form of reciting the word {Ihannci, which also is a synonym of God. It should be understood here that dliarma leads up to knowledge by the way of the purification of the mind (chitta), thirst after know ledge, and so on. Tor the A r eda says: "They come to thirst after know ledge by the performance of sacrifices," etc. And says the Smriti also.. "Knowledge is produced after demerits or dark deeds have been dest royed by good acts." Chandrak&nta : The classification of Ulianna is not shown by Kan (id a, as it does not fall within the scope of his philosophy ; for, he lias undertaken the Sdstra with the object of teaching Tattva-Jnanani, knowledge of the essences or principles, only. Definition of Dharma. ii ? I n ^ ii W. Yatah, whence. Wfg^-fsfcSTWferfe;: Abhyudaya-nihsreyasa- siddhih. Exaltation, Supreme (rood. Accomplishment. ST: Sah, that, gn?: Dharmah, Piety, Religion. 2. Dharma (is) that from which (results) the accomplish ment of Exaltation and of the Supreme Good. 2. Ifpashira. Now lie describes the subject proposed : Abhyudaya means knowledge of the essences. < Nihsreyasam is final cessation of pain. That from which both of them result is (Jli.an,ia. The compound of the two words, rendered as nihsreyasa by the path of abhyudaya, belongs to that class of compounds which are formed l>y the elision of the middle term: or it is a Tat-puriwa compound ablatively formed. This dliarma will be later on described as being characterised by forbearance. If it is the effect of constant contemplation and other practices of iogo and is the same as adrittam (the invisible, potential after effects of actions, or Merit and Demerit), then it is producible by positive performances. 6 Va1sesika Philosophy. The Vrittikara, however, says: u Abhyudaya is happiness, and 4 nihsreyasam the simultaneous annihilation of all the particular attri butes. (-i.e., modifications) of the Soul. The proof is that in the case of dharma, the body, etc., of Devadatta are made up of eleme its s direct ed by the particular attributes of the enjoyer or sufferer, and as they are products or effects, they are, as the means of his enjoyment or experience, like a garland made by himself." Now, this explanation has been discarded by superficial readers as being not wide enough to apply to each and all (a). Whereas in fact "what is dharma ? and what its characteristic ?" the enquiry of the disciples being of such a general nature, the answer comes, "That from which (results) the accomplishment of Exaltation and of the Supreme (food." Thus, that which leads to the attainment of Exaltation, and also that which leads to the attainment of the Supreme Good, both of them are dharma. Thus that the invariable cause of the object of volition is dharma, being the matter to be expressed, the expression "the accom plishment of Exaltation and of the Supreme (rood " has been used with the object of specially introducing the two great objects of volition, r/z., happiness and absence of pain. Because paradise and emancipation are the only great objects of volition, being the objects of desire which is not dependent upon desire for ulterior objects. And it will be shown that the absence of pain also is an object of volition. ___ 2. [Note. (.a) " Not wide enough to apply to each and all." The separate characteristics are that it produces pleasure and that it produces the Supreme (!ood. The former does nob include the dharma of mvritti and tiie latter does not include the dharma of pravriui Tho characteristic is that it produce., both pleasure and the .Supreme Good. And this does not include that which produces pleasure only, nor that which produce the Supreme <,ood only Thus the definition of dharma as explained by the Vrittikara is in cither case too IK, according to Upasknra, the view of superficial readers.] Chandrakdnta :WliereZrom does the production of the good and the ultimate good result? The production of the good and of the ultimate good results from Pracritti, activity or employment, that is observed in the world, or) exertion of the speech, the mind, and the body Therein, it is said, that a person cultivates Jjjta.-ma with the speech, by telling agreeable a.,d wholesome truths and by studying the sacred writings; with the mind, by showing compassion, contentment, and faith; with the body, by practising charity and by relieving the poor and the distressed and those who are in danger. q^ *ERq ?a ?rKanf H*Mfor This text of the Veda also shows that Dharma is the designate of the word, " yajati," to perfcrm (sacrifices, tc.) And this Dharma is subsidiary, because it subserves taf.tcajn:"<nam f knowledge of the principles ; which is the principal Dharma, because it is the means of the supreme good. Authority <>f tha Veda. 1 1 ? n \\ II Tad-vachanfit, ber.ig* His Word or declaration, or its (of dharma*) exposition. ?n*crpK9 Amnayasya, of the Veda. manyam, authoritativeness. KANADA SUTRAS I, 1, 3. 3. The authoritativeness of the Veda (arises from its) being the Word of God [or being an exposition of dharma]. 3. Upaski ira. It may be objected, " Well, the Veda is the authority for this that dhurmtt characterised by nivritti is the source of the Supreme Good by means of the knowledge of the essence or reality. But we are doubtful about the authoritativeness of the Voda itself, ou account of the faults of falsity, contradiction, and repetition. Falsity is shown by the non- production of the son, even after the sacrifice for a son has been performed. The homn (oblation to tire) after sun-rise, etc., actually prescribed in the ordinances He offers oblation unto fire after sunrise, he offers oblation unto tiro before runrise, he offers oblation unto lire at a belated hour, is counteracted by suen t ixts as oyava (a dog of Yamaj eats up the oblation of him who oilers oblation unto fire alter sunrise, Savala (the other dog of Yama) eats up the oblation of him who offers oblation unto fire before sunrise,$yava and savala eat up the oblation of him who offers oblation unto fire at a belated hour, etc. And repetition surely appears from the mention of the thrico recital of the first and the last Stimidheni (the Rik III. 27. 1-11. directed to kindle fire) in He will recite the first for three times, he will recite the last for three times. Beside there is nothing to establish the authoritativeness of the Veda. Its eternality being uncertain, its eternal freedom from defect also becomes doubtful. On the other hand, if it is the product of a human brain, then by the possibility of mistake, oversight, uncertainty, want of skill in the author, etc., its characteristic of being the infallible testimony of a great and good (apta) man, certainly becomes doubtful. Thus there is no Supreme Good, nor is knowledge of reality its means, nor again is d/iarma. Thus all this remains uncertain."

To meet this objection he says :

Tat alludes to God whose existence is well-known, although the word does not appear in the context ; as in the aphorism of Gautama r " That is nuauthoritative on account of the faults of falsity, contradic tion, and repetition," the Veda is alluded to by the word Hat , althougfh- it^does not appear in the context. Thus tadvachanat, means bei;;g- the composition of Him, Isvara ; < amnayasya, of the Veda ; <pra- manyam. Or, tat refers to dharma only which is close by i. e., in the context. Thus, of dharma ; i vachanat, being the exposition ; amnayasya, of the Veda ; pramanyam ; since that statement is really proof which establishes something which is authoritative. God and the quality of His being an dpta (? . e., a great and good person) will lie established later on.

Now, with reference to what has been said, namely, " on account of the faiilts of falsity, contradiction, and repetition," there in the case of falsity, the explanation lies in the supposition of producing result in another existence or the supposition of defect in the act, the agent, and the instrument, since there is the rule that the result necessarily follows from an act, complete in all its parts, prescribed in the Veda. Moreover, it is not the case that the result must appear in this and only this life, as in the case of Karlrl. (i. e., sacrifice for rain.j There the occupation is that of one who desires a revival of crops which are getting dry. In the case of the sacrifice for a son, the occupation is that of one who desires a son only. This is the difference. There is also no contradiction, because the condemnatory passages such as " Syava eats up his oblations/ etc., have reference only to cases where after having particularly vow T ed oblations after sunrise, etc., one perfoms such homax at other times. Nor is there the fault of repetition r because the repetition has this justification that eleven mantras for kindling fire having been as a matter of fact recited, fifteen such mantras as required by the text, " By the means of the fifteen word- thunders he opposed that enemy who is here," cannot be obtained without reciting the first and the iast mantra for three times each. 3.

Valsesika Philosophy.

Vivriti Or here the word tat itself denotes Isvara, on the strength of the saying : " Om, Tat, Sat this has been remembered to be the three-fold reference to Brahman."

Knowledge of Predicables is the meana of attaining tJic Supreme Good.

Dharinma-visesa-prasiitat, Produced by a particular f%^^T*T^m^f Dravya-guna-karmma-samanya-vise.<a-

samavuyanam, of Substance, Attribute, Action, Genus, Species, and Com bination. I^T^TI*? Padarthanam, of the padarthas or predicables. tfl^WjIf- ^Trqfcqj Sadharnmiya-vaidharmmyabhyam, By means of resemblance and difference. fl^RTTin^ Tattvajnanat, From knowledge of the essence. ft:^q^^ Nihsreyasam, The Supreme Good.

4. The Supreme Good (results) from the knowledge, pro duced by a particular dharma, of the essence of the Predicables, Substance, Attribute, Action, Genus, Species, and Combination, by means of their resemblances and differences. 4.

ra. Having described the nature and characteristic of d/ianna in accordance with the desire of the disciples, he lays down the following aphorism for ascertaining tho subject-matter and the "relation".

Such knowledge of the essences i* dependent upon the Vaiiesika, System ; therefore it goes without saying that it too is a source of tho Supreme Good. If, through its derivation in an instrumental sense, namely, that the essence is known by it, the word tattvajiiana refers to the treatise, then it will not have apposition to the word dharma-yisesa- prasutat. In dravya-gnna, etc., the compound is a copulative com pound wherein all the words are prominent, because the knowledge of the essence of all the I redicables is the source of the Supreme Good.

Now, here the i relation is understood to be : between the Doctrine and the Supreme Good, that of the means and the end or motive ; bet ween the Doctrine and the knowledge of the essences, that of form and matter ; between the Supreme Good and the knowledge of the essences, that of effect and cause ; between the Predicables, Substance, etc., and the Doctrine, that of the demostrable and that which demonstrates. And from the knowledge of these relations, those who seek the Supreme Good apply themselves to this Doctrine, and those who desire salvation apply to it only when they realize that the sage is an dpta or trust worthy person.

Xilisreyasam " is final cessation of pain ; and the tinality of the cessation of pain consists in its noa-simultaneonsness with the antece dent non-existence of pain in the same substratum, or in its simultan- eonsness, in the same substratum, with the simultaneous annihilations "of the special attributes of the Soul, viz., adristam and saniskara. Or, Salvation is the antecedent lion-existence of pain upto the moment of the annihilation, without leaving any trace, of these special attributes.

A 7 c/s Antecedent non-existenos": Non-existenoe is fourfold, viz.

(a) antecsdent, e.g. of the pot before it is produced.

(b) enasrgent, e.g. of the pot after it is destroyed.

(c) reciprocal, e.y. of the characteristic of the pjt in a picture and vice versa.

(d) absolute, e.g. of the pot in a room where there is no pot.

It will be noticed that antecedent non-existence has no beginning ; emergent non-existence las no end ; and reciprocal non-3xistenc3 and absolute non-existence have neither be< inriin ior end.

The tuing of which there is non-existence, is said to be the opposite or counter-opposite pratiyogt) of that non-sxistence. In the abovo illustration the counter-opposite is the pot.

One kind of non-sxistence (e.g. of the pot) is differentiated from another kind of non- jxistence (e.g. of the picture), by means of the characteristics of their counter-opposites. fhese characteristics are therefore called determinants or differentiators (avachchhedaka).

Now, mere cessation of pain is not Salvation ; because there remains the po.ssibilitv of aain in future and there remains also the memory of the pain that has then passed into non- )eing. The cause of the possibility of pain is adrlstam or karma (merit and demerit) ind the cause of the memory of pain is samiMra, (the imprint of the experience of pain left n the soul). Salvation will result only when there is not merely the cessation of the pain ictually experienced, but also the neutralisation of the causes of possible pain viz, adristant ind sainsk&ra.

Not that it is not an object of volition, being incapable of achieve ment, because even antecedent non-existence can be brought about by the neutralisation of the cause. Nor does it thereby lose in the charac teristic of being antecedent non-existence, because such characteristic remains as the characteristic of the non-existence of the producer of the opposite (i.e., the existence of pain) ; and to be the producer is merely its essential or general fitness to be the cause. Again, antece dent non-existence is not the last member or element, so that, it existing, the effect must necessarily appear ; for if it were so, then it would follow that an effect also has no beginning. Thus, as in the absence of a contributory cause it did not produce the effect so long, so also in future it will not produce it without the co-operation of a contributory cause the person operating to the eradication of the cause. Therefore this aphorism too upholds antecedent non-existence. Hence in the second aphorism of Gautama, " Pain, birth, activity, faults, and false notion on the successive removal of these in turn, there is the removal of the one next preceding and thereafter salvation," (Nyaya Sutram, 1, i, 2), the statement of the non-existence of the effect on the non-existence of the cause, strengthens the idea of salvation as having the form of the antece dent non-existence of pain. Removal of activity on the removal of faults removal of birth on the removal of activity, of pain on the removal of birth here removal does not mean annihilation but non-production, and that is nothing but antecedent non-existence. It is not that the opposite is lot known, for the opposite is surely known in the form of pain in general. As in the case of propitiation, there too only the non-production of pain is expected through the annihilation of faults. In the world also it is seen that the removal of the snake, thorn, etc. is for the purpose of the non-production of pain. So the activity of the wise is directed only Cowards removing the causes of pain.

Some however say : " Only the absolute non-existence of pain is. lalvation. If it is not seated in the Soul, yet, as seated in the stone, etc., it is connected with the Soul ; and its connection lies in the annihilation of pain which does not accompany the prior non-existence (or potential existence) of pain ; as it is found in connection with such annihilation of pain, seeing that such annihilation taking place, there arises the consciousness of the absolute non-existence of pain in that j.Iace. This being so, such texts of the Veda as " He moves about being absolutely relieved of pain/ also become explained." We reply that it is not so. Absolute non-existence of pain, being incapable of accom plishment, is not an object of voluntary activity. Nor has annihilatio i of pain any connection to that, since this would entail a techni cality.

tfote. Absolute non-existence has neither beginning nor end. It does not therefore depend upon human will or effort. Hence it cannot bo pursued as an object of desire. You inav say that, as long as it is not accomplished in the Soul, as the connection of that which is not connected with it, such connection taking the form of the annihilation of pain which does not coexist with the antecedent non-existence of pain so long surely it is an object of dei-ire. But to this also there is an objection ; viz., that the annihilation of pain does not form such a connection, as it is not co-extensive with the soul. To hold otherwise, w^uld be to i ut a new interpretation upon the word " connection " (Sambandha).

The text of the A r eda " He moves about being absolutely relieved of pain " implies that, by way of the neutralization of causes,, prior non-existence of pain may be reduced into a condition similar t<> that of the absolute non-existence of pain.

It may be said, " This is not an object of the will, as it is not an object of desire which is not subject to another desire, because those only who seek pleasure, become active in the removal of pain, seeing that pleasure is not produced at the time oi pain." But this is not so ; because it is equally easy to say the contrary also. Will not desire for pleasure also be subject to the desire for the absence of pain V seeing that men overwhelmed with grief as well as those who turn their fa?es away from pleasure, having in view only the absence of pain, are inclined to swallowing poison, hanging themselves, etc..

Neither can it be said, " Even if it is an object of the will, it is so only because it is an object of cognition. But salvation as absence of pain is not even an object of cognition. Otherwise (/.<-. if to be an object of cognition were Lot a nece.-sary coi clition of being an object of the will) men would be inclined to bring about the state of swoon, etc." For that which is capable of being known from the Veda and by inference- cannot be reasonably said to be unknowable. For there are the texts. of the Veda: " He moves about being absolutely relieved of pain," "By knowing Him only one transcends death/ etc. There is inference also : The series of pain is finally or absolutely rooted out, because it is a series like a series of lamps ; and so on. It can be known by perception also, since final annihilation of pain for a moment becomes the subject- matter of thought in the realization of pain in consciousness (in the moment prior to death) and (if you do not admit this), also because the yoyins perceive the future annihilation of pain by virtue of the power born of concentration (i/w/a).

It cannot be said, " Still, the loss and gain being the same, it is not the object of the will, sii ce with pain, pleasure is also removed, the removel of both being due t. the ^ ame set of causes" ; for men naturally dispassionate and fearful oi dark days of suffering and who overestimate every glow-worm of j leasure, are active to that end.

]t cani.ot again be said, " Cessation of pain is still not the object of the will; becai se cessation of ] ain which is yet to come, is inrj cssib.e, \ ain v^hich is j att is in the past, and pain which is piesent will ctase even without an eifcrt of the j erson"; for the activity of the j erson is towards the eradication of causes, as in j e^unces. Thus. r false knowledge attended with desire, is the cause of Samsdra, i.e. f .succession of mortal existences ; it is rooted out by the knowledge of the truth about the Self ; and knowledge of the truth about the Self is producible by the practice of Yoya ; he. ice activity in this direction is justified.

It cannot be said that only the manifestation of permanent pleasure is salvation, and not the absence of pain ; for there is no proof that j)leasure can be permanent ; if there were such proof the i the maniiestation of pleasure being constant, there would be no difference between A worldly and an other-worldly or liberated man, aid also manifesta tion being a product or effect, on its termination there wjll again follow or stream of mortal existence.

It cannot be said that salvation consists in the laya or disappearance of the Jivdtmd or embodied Self into the Brahmdtmd or un -embodied or universal Self ; for if laya means amalgamation, then there is an obstacle, as two do not become one. It cannot be explained that laya means the removal of the subtle embodiment composed of the senses and of the physical organism ; for hereby the absence of the causes of pain being imolied, it follows that the absence of pain alone is salvation.

Hereby the doctrine of the Ekadandins (a sect who carry staffs con sisting of single sticks) that salvation means the remaining of the pure Self after the cessation of Nescience or false knowledge and that Self is by nature true knowledge and happiness, is also refuted, because there is no evidence that the Self is knowledge and happiness. The text of the Veda u Brahman is eternal, knowledge, and bliss," is no evidence, because it proves possession of knowledge and possession of bliss. For we have the perceptions " I know," and " I am happy," but not the percep tions "I am knowledge " and " I am happiness." Moreover, Brahman being even now existent, it would follow that there is no distinc tion between a liberated and a worldly man. The cessation of Avidya or false knowledge is also not an object of the will. Brahman also, being eternal, is not a xddhya or what has to be accomplished. The realization of Brahman within the Self, having Him as the object, is not a sddhya or what has to be accomplished. Similarly bliss also, having Him as its essence or object, is not a sddhya. For these reasons activity directed towards Him is not justified.

It cannot be said that salvation lies in the purity or unimpeded flow of the stream of consciousness. For if by purity is meant the removal of such impediments as pain, etc., then this much alone being the object of the will, there is no reason for or proof of the survival of the stream of consciousness. Moreover, the retention or survival of the stream of consciousness can be possible only by means of the body, etc., and hence in this view the retention of samsdra or the stream of mortal existence also would be necessary.

It is therefore proved that cessation of pain as described above is alone the Supreme Good.

In knowledge of the essence the genitive has been used in the place of the accusative. The third case-ending i n Sadharmmya-Vaid- harminya-bhyam shows the mode (of knowledge). (K these Sadharmmya means recurrent property and Vaidharmmya , divergent property.

Although a property which is recurrent in one place is divergent in another, and vice versa, still knowledge in the shape of recurrent and divergent properties, is here intended.

Here the enumeration itself of the Predicables, Substance, etc., has. come to be their division, which has the effect of excluding a more or less number. Therefore it follows that as a rule Predicables are o ;1 sir in number. And this is not proved. If any other Predicable which requires to be excluded is known then the rule does not stand good ; if it is not known, then the exclusion is invalid. It cannot be- said that this is not the exclusion of the addition of something else but the exclusion of non-application ; in other words, that the non- application of the characteristics of the six to all predicables or things is excluded. For all known predicables having been included bv the word i Predicable/ there is here then the fault of proving over a train and also that something else is not known. Moreover, which is to be- excluded, non-application of the characteristics jointly or their non- application severally ? In the first alternative, joint non-application prevails everywhere, so that there can be no exclusion. It cannot be- said that in the econd alternative also there can be no exclusion as with reference to one another their individual non-application prevails everywhere ; for the purpose of the rule is to exclude the non-applica tion of the characteristics of the six, w T hen, according to others, thev do not apply to Energy, Number, Similarity, and other Predicables recognised by them. Therefore the meaning of the rule that Predic ables are only six in number .is that in all perceptible objects, there in application of one or other of the characteristics of the six, and not that there is non-application. Now, only/ if it goes with the noun, it means exclusion of the addition of something else ; if it goes with the adjective, it means exclusion of non-application ; and if it goes with the- verb, it means exclusion of absolute non-application. Here according to some " only" has all this three-fold significance; while others say that its force lies in mere exclusion and that non-application, addition of something else, etc., are things to be excluded, which are derived by association.

i Produced by a particular dhanna is the adjective of " knowledge of the essence." Here " particular (Uiarma" means piety characterised by forbearance or withdrawal from the world. If by " tattvajnuna" explained as "by this essence is known." the treatise (i.e., the Aphorisms of Kanada) is meant, in that case it should be said that " particular dharma" means the grace of a.,d appointment from God, for it is heard that the great sage Kanada composed this System by obtaining the grace of and appointment from God. In the aphorism by " knowledge of the essence" the realization of the truth about the Self in the understanding is i;;to",ded. because such relization alone is competent to root out false knowledge attended with desire. " By knowing Him only one transcends death, no other road is known (vidyate) for travelling," " Two Brahmans have to be known (veditavye)" "Having no eyes He yet sees, etc." in all these passages the word vedana has the sense of realization in the understanding, and the use of the fifth case-ending in the causal sense in the word l tattvajiiAnat indicates that such realization of the Self comes in the progressive career of hearing from the Sdstras, thinking within oneself, medita tion, etc., 4.

Vivriti. Dharmmavi&esaprasutat means producded by a parti cular (go )d conduct, virtue or) merit, acquired in this life or in previous- births. It is the qualification of tattvajnanat (knowledge of essence). As pointed out by the author of Muktavali, Sadharmmya means common property, and i Vaidharmmya means opposing (i. e. f dis tinguishing) propei ty. The use of the third case-ending indicates ma:iner. The fifth case-ending in * tattvajnanat has the sense of appli cability. Thus the meaning is: By particular virtue knowledge of essence is produced by means of the generic and specific properties of the Predicables, Substance and others; thereafter is produced l intellec tual conception of the Self, and next comes the realization of the Self in the understanding by constant meditation ; after this liberation follows in the train of the removal of false knowledge, etc-, (Vide Nyaya Sutram, I. i. 2.)

The author of the Upaskara has however said : The word tattva- j liana in the aphorism conveys the principal idea of the realization of the Self in the understanding ; or, if it is interpreted in the instrumental se:,se, it refers to the treatise which is the (instrument or) means of such realization. In the first of these cases, the word dharmmavisesa will mea i that dharma the characteristic of which is forbearance (nivfitti) ; a.id in the latter case it will mean a particular virtue or merit in the form of the grace of and appointment from God, according to the tradition that the great sage Kanada composed this treatise under the grace and appointment of God. And as the causal use of the fifth case-ending bears the sense of applicability, the realization of the Self in the understanding will follow from the treatise through the chain of intellection, constant meditation, and soon, for the word, knowing in such texts of the Veda as " By knowing Him only one transcends death," " Two Brahmans have to be known," etc., denotes realization in the understanding (i. e., spiritual intuition), and alone is competent to root out false knowledge together w r ith desires.

This should be considered. If the word tattvajiiana in the apho rism denotes the realization of one s Self in the understanding which counteracts false knowledge together with desires, then it would follow that the expression by means of generic and specific properties as well as the term, l of the Predicables, bearing the sense of the sixth case- ending, have no syntactical connexion. For in the matter of the realization of the Self in the understanding there is neither the modality of the ge leric and specific properties, nor the materiality or substantiveness of the six Predicables ; because they do not exist there as they are distinct form the body, etc., whereas the realization of the Self in the understanding is only competent to root out desires, etc., which are not distinct from the body, etc. It cannot be said that in the state of the representation of separateness from the other (i. e. t the Not-Self) in the Self by the virtue born of Yoga (concentration"* knowledge of the six Predicables, namely Substance, etc., by means of their generic and specific properties, is also produced through their tem porary contiguity, inasmuch as the subject-matter of such knowledge (i. e. the Predicates, etc.) appears there for the time being. For notwithstanding that such representation contains such indifferent generic property, etc., within itaelf, since it is not necessary for the real purpose in view, the description of it by the revered Sfge will mean so much mad talk on his part.

the venerable author of the Upaskara has brought forward the texts " By knowing Him alone, etc. " as being evidence that the realization of the Self in the understanding is the cause of liberation. That too has been improper. For the Supreme Self alone being implied by the text, " I know Him, the Great Person, of the colour of the Sun, beyond the reach of darkness, " the word tat (that) has reference to the Supreme Self, and therefore it cannot refer to the Jivdtmd (Subordi nate or Embodied Self) which has not been so implied. So much for the sake of brevity.

Here the enumeration- of six Predicables has been made under the view of Existence or Being. In fact Non-Existence or Non -Being also lias been intended by the sage to be another Predicable. Hence there is no impropriety either in the aphorism " Non-existence of effect, fnuu non-existence of cause " (I. ii. 1) of the second chapter or in sn -h aphorisms as " From non-existence of qualification by Action and Attribute" (IX- i- 1; of the Ninth Book. Accordingly in the j\ T yaya- Llldvati. it has been said : " Non-existence also should be stated as con ducive to the Supreme Good, like the modifications of Existence. This ronduciveness is proved by the fact that the non-existence of the effect follows from the non-existence of the cause in all cases. In the Dravyakirandeali also, Nyaya teachers have admitted that Xoa- Existence is the seventh Predicable, in the passage ending thus : " And these Predicables have been mentioned as being the principal ones. Non-Existence, however, although it possesses a ^ form of its own, has not been mentioned, not that it is something negligible, but because its .ascertainment is dependent upon the ascertainment of its opposite." Thus the knowledge of the generic and specific properties of the seven (iiiid not six only) Predicables is conducive to the Supreme Good ; and that conduciveness, it should be observed, lies in the mode of knowledge of marks (liiiga), etc., in the matter of the establishment of separatenesa from the Not-Self in the Self.

The Supreme Good, according to the views of thy Nyaya, Vais^sika, and Sankhya philosophies, consists in the permaie.it cessation of pain, and results as the annihilation of pain, which is not synchronous with pain co-existent with itself. In fact, annihilation of ultimate pain is non-synchronus with pain co-existent with itself, since no pain can at that moment arise in the liberated Soul. With a section of the NyAya thinkers, salvation means permanent cessation of demerit only, because, in their view, this only can be directly accomplished by the realization of the Self in the understanding, as the Veda says, " And his actions wear off when he sees that High-and-Low (Mundaka 2, 2, 8)." In the opinion of the one-staffed Vedantin, salvation lies in the cessation of nescience, and nessience is (with him) a different Predicable. In the opi nion of the three -staffed Veda itin, salvation means the disappearance of the Embodied or finite Self i i the Great Self, aid results as the cessation of the Upddlii or external condition of the J-lua (Embodied Soul), and of the causal body. Causal body again has been proved to be "the organic combination of the five life-breaths, mind, understanding, and ten senses, arisii g from the elements which have not been compounded (i. e.j redintegrated), possessing subtle limbs, and being the means of experience (i. *., &/MM/O)". The Bhattas however say that salvation consists in the manifestation of eternal happiness, and that eternal happiness, though evidenced by the Veda and penetrating all living beirgs 6/iea*), is unmanifest in the state of transmigration (Samsdra*), and becomes manifest to the sense, immediately after the realization of the truth about the Self in the understanding. The possible defects in these views are not shown here for fear of increasing the volume of the book. Bnt in all the views the permanent cessation of pain in the state of salvation remains uncontradicted. And that is our point.

Now, it may be contended, " There are additional Predicables such as Ei.ergy, Similarity, etc. How else can it be explained that in the vicinity of the jewel, etc., burning is not caused by that which causes burning- an d is caused when it is not in the vicinity V Therefoieit must be imagined that the jewel, etc., counteract the burning ei.ergy of that which causes burns, and that the inciting removal of them revivifies it. In like manner, Similarity also is a different Predic- able. For it does not fall within the six forms of existence, as it equally applies to them all, since such similarity as in "As bovine-ness is eternal, so also is horseness," is perceived. Nor is it a non-existence, as it appears in the form of an existence." But our reply is that reconciliation being possible by the mere suppostion of the self-activity of fire, etc., existing away from the jewel, etc., or the supposition of the absence, etc., of jewel, as the cause of burning, etc., it is not proper to imagine infinite Energy, its prior non-existence, and its annihilation. It should not be asked again how there can be burning even in the close presence of apowerful jewel, because that supposition has been made only of the absence of jewels in genaral, which are powerful but remote. In the same way, Similarity alsu is not -A, different Predicable, but denotes that, while one thing is quite distinct from another thing, the one possesses the majority or the chief of the attributes belonging to the other ; as the Similarity of the moon in the face, means that the face which is quite distinct from the moon, possesses the cheerfulness, and other attributes belonging to the moon. This in brief.

Chandrakdnta. (1) Dharma presents two aspects, that is, under the characteristic of Pravr-itti or wordly activity, and the characteris tic of A icritti or withdrawal from wordly activity. Of these, Dharma r characterised by Xicrittl, brings forth tattva-jndna or knowledge of truths, by means of removal of sins and other blemishes.

(2) Here the separate enumeration of Sdmdnya, etc., is unneces sary, on account of their non-divergence; for, tidnidnya, etc., falling, as they do, within Substance, etc., do not differ from the latter. Their separate mention, however, is justified en the possibility of difference in* the mode of treatment adopted by the author. Systems, differing in their methods, are taught for the benefit of embodied souls, differing irom one another. This is, then, the Vaisesika System, of which the distinctive features are /Sdmdnya, etc., as are, in the other (Nydya\ System, Doubt, etc., although they are included in the Proof and the Provable, respectively. Accordingly, this System is enabled to stand apart by mens of Sdmdnya and the other Predicables; and so it is called the Vaiseiiika System. Otherwise it would be merely an Upanitsat teaching Adhydtma-vidyd, Philosophy of the Embodied Self. * * * * * 4 Samanyam means possession of similarity. * * * Doubt and Error arise from (observation of) Sdmdnyam and from non-observation of Visesa (or distinctive) peculiarity. Observing the common properties, altitude and extension, of a pillar and a person, and remaining ignorant of their differentia, one feels the doubt whether it be a pillar or a person ; error also arises in this way : observing the common property only and in consequence of fault or imperfection, one mistakes a pillar for a person or a mother of pearl for a piece of silver. False cognition, again, is the root of all suffering. It is for this reason that Samfinyam has been separately mentioned, notwithstanding that it is included in Substance, etc. Visesa is that by which a thing is. reduced to itself. False cognition which springs from (observation of only) the common property is corrected by the observation of the distinctive property : whence arises correct knowledge, which is called tattva-jndnam. * * * For this reason Visesa is separately mentioned, although it is included in Substance, etc. If, again, it is a single reality that, being determined in particuiar ways, comes to be used as Samanyam and Visesa, then it falls within (the class ofj Attributes. Or, if these are mere technical names, then they are not additional Predicables. Samavaya means complete approximation, *. e., ^identification ; as it has been said, Samavaya is inseparable existence. * * * Samavaya is a:i attribute, which is the counter-opposite of Separateness, either character ised as pluarlity or characterised as difference in kind. It inheres in Substance, and does not possess Attribute; nor is it a form of Action. Now, birth means a particular conjunction (of the Self) with the body, the senses, and the feelings. Thereafter the Jiva errs that the Self has no separate existence from the body, etc., in consequence of which a person transmigrates and suffers a multitude of pains, and on the cessation of which he is liberated, the stream of his sufferings being dried up. Hence Samavaya , though included in Attributes, is separately mentioned.

(3) There are other Predicables also, viz., pramdna, Proof ; prameya, Provable ; xamsaya, Doubt; prayojana, Purpose; dristaiita, Instance; siddhflnta, Tenet ; avayava, Member (of a syllogism); tarka, Confutation (or Reasoning) ; nirnaya, Ascertainment ; vdda, Discussion ; jalpa, Wrangling; vitandd, Cavilling; hetvdbhdaa, Fallacy; c.hhala, Equivocation ; jdti, Showing the futility of the mark of inference ; and nigraha-sthdna, Ground of Defeat or Opponent s Error. These too come under the Predicables of Kandda.

(4) The Supreme Good results from knowledge of truth about the Self, etc., while knowledge of truth about the rest is auxiliary to it. False knowledge about the Self, etc., is of various kinds, e.y., the sense of Non-Ego in the Ego, the sense of Ego in the Non-Ego.

Enumeration of Substances,

Because as the souljit participates in salvation and is the support of all the substances.

5. Earth, Water, Fire, Air, Ether, Time, Space, Self, and Mind (are) the only Substances. 5.

Iti has tha sense of determination. Thereby the meaning is that Substances are nine only, neither more nor less. If it is doubted that the exclusion of a greater or less number having been secured by the force of the division itself, there was no need for the word. iti/ then it should be understood that it being possible to take the aphorism in A merely denotative, indicatory or enumerative sense, the word Iti is used to indicate that it has the object of division also, and that the word is used also to indicate that gold, etc., as well as God are included in them, a. id also that Darkness which may be apprehended to be an additional substance is a non-being. The fact that the words have not bee i compounded goes to show that they are all equally prominent. And the author of the aphorisms himself will point out their definitions or differentia; while treating of i difference.

It cannot be said that gold is neither Earth as it has no smell, nor Water as it has no wetness and natural fluidity, nor Fire as it has weight and on the last account, nor Air, nor again Time, etc. ; therefore it is something over and above the nine. For, in the first two cases, there can be no comparison ; in the third case, that which has to be proved is something imaginary (i. c., that gold is not a transformation of Fire). After that there has been analogous argument, although there is no doubt about that which has to be proved, and also the mark of inference is fallacious. He will prove afterwards that gold is a trans formation of fire 5.

Firfiii. It may be objected, " The writer of the Kandali and the Samkhya teachers have held that Darkness is a Substance. And it is right. For otherwise how can people have the perception of quality and action in it,- viz., Dark Darkness moves ? Now, being devoid of Smell, Darkness is not Earth ; as it possess dark colour it cannot be included in Water, etc. Therefore how is it right to say that the sub stances are nine only ?" We reply, It is not so, because it is illogical to imagine another Substance, when it can be produced by the a bsence of necessary Light. The perception of dark colour is, like the percep tion of the vault of heaven, erroneous. The perception of movement is also an error, occasioned by the departure of light, as the perception of movement by the passengers of a boat in respect of the trees, etc., standing on the bank of the river, is occasioned by the movement of the boat, etc. The supposition that Darkness is a substance will entail the supposition of tlie antecedent non-existe.x-e and annihilation of a-i infinite number of its parts. Lii the opinion of the \\riter of the Kandali Darkness is included in Uarth. So that according To him there is no impropriety in the exclusion of a greater nninlier."

Among these nine divisions of Substance. Kther, Time, anil Spacedo- n ot form anv class, since they have only a single individual existence. hut the rest form classes.

Clta-uJrakflnta. The separate mention of Time and Space is inten ded to indicate the difference in the uses of these terms according- to the difference of the effects. Akdsa, though it is one. still admits of a variety of names and uses, according to the difference of effect. It is not that Time and Space are essentially different objects from Akdsn, Kther.

6. Atrributes are Colour, Taste, Smell, and Touch, Num bers, Measures, Separateness, Conjunction and Disjunction, Priority and Posteriority, Understandings, Pleasure- and Pain, Desire and Aversion, and Volitions. 6.

The word cha gathers up Weight, fluidity. Liquidity, Impression, Virtue, Vico and Sound ; they are well-known Attributes, it is hence that they have not been verbally stated. Their attribute;! ess, he will, in their" proper places, explain with respect to their nature and maik. The words Colour, Taste, Smell, and Touch are compounded into a, tim.iaxa in -order to show that they do not co-exist with contemporaneous! Colour, Taste, Smell, and Touch. But Numbers a<id Measures are not so compounded and are stated in the plural number, to show that they co-exist with contemporaneous Numbers and Measures. Although that which co-exists with, unity is not another unity or that which co-exist* with largeness or length not another largeness or length, still there is- in fact co-existence of duality, etc.. amongst themselves and: also of largeness, length, etc., with largeness, length, etc., of a different kind. Although separateness is cu-existent with the separatenes of Two, etc., and therefore should Le specified in the plural, like numbers, still us specification in the singular goes to indicate its difference from Numbers, namely, to be known or shown by its limits. Conjunction and Disjunction are stated i u the dual number to show that both of them are the effects of one and the same act. Priority and Posteriority are slated in the dual number to show that they are to be known in relation lo eacli other and tluit they are equally marks of Space and Time. The plural i.umber in understandings indicates the refutation of the theory of one and only one understanding held by the Samkhya thinkers, ou the ground of its division into knowledge, etc. The dual number in Pleasure and Pain is intended to point out that both of them are causes of one elTejt which is distinguished as experience (bhoya) and that they are equally instrumental to the inference of adristam, and also that even Pleasure resolves into Pain. The dual number in Desire and Aversion indicates that both of them are causes of Activity. The plural in Volitions is meant to show that ten kinds of volitions which comprise both permitted and prohibited acts, are causes of Virtue and that ten other kinds are causes of Vice.

Or, Colour, Taste, Smell, and Touch have been shown in a va-nni#<t, form to teach that they are the means of the disposition of the elemental senses or sense-organs or to establish the operation or changes due to heat. Number is mentioned in the plural number to indicate a refuta tion of this that there is a contrariety in numbers, such as dualitv, plurality, etc. Separateness is separately mentioned to indicate that it is aUo plural on account of the plurality of Numbers, and also that its difference from Numbers lies in its being revealed by the knowledge of limits. In Measures or Exteasions the plural number is meant ta remove the contradiction of length, shortness, etc. The dual number in. Conjunction and Disjunction points out their mutual opposition. Priontv and Posteriority are mentioned also in the dual number lest it might be doubted that the division of Attributes is too narrow, because Priority and Posteriority may be four-fold by the possibility of their being different in kind by their difference as relating to Spa<-e and as relating to Time-

He will give their definition as he proceeds. (j. Enumeration <>f Actions.

L jtaxMra. Actions become the object of the sense by reason of their production by

-Substances ami Attributes as well as of their Combination with Substances having colour.

Therefore, immediately after the statement of Substances and Attributes, he states the enumeration and division of Actions.

Throwing upwards, Throwing, downwards. Contraction, Expansion. and Motion are Actions. Iti has the force of determination, as. .Rotation etc, are included in Motion. Here then there are five classes directly pervaded by Action-ness, namely, the quality of throwino upwards, the quality of throwing downwards, the quality of contraction. the quality of expansion, and the quality of motion (or throwiug- up ward-ness ,tlir owing-down ward-ness, con tract ion -ness, expansion-ness,, and motion-ness).

Well, Imt this is disproved by the fa c t that Motion is a synonym of Action, because the consciousness of Going is experienced in all cases. The foiir classes, throwiug-upward-ness, etc, which have the co-exten sion or common field of the absolute non-existence of each in the others.. are not known to be co-existent; therefore the classes pervaded by Action-ness are only four. (To this objection we reply): It is tine that Motion is another name for Action. But it is separately mentioned with the object of collecting under one word Rotation, Evacuation, Percolation, Flaming upward, Bending, Uplifting, etc; which produce different states of consciousness and are known by different names. Or Going-ness also is really a fifth class pervaded by Action-ness. 80 that the application of Motion to Rotation, Evacuation, etc .. alone is primary and if there is the application of Going to throwing upwards, throwing downwards, etc., then it is secondary or analogous. The common property of the primary and analogous instances is only this that they are the non-combinative causes (/. /. ., conditions) of Conjunc tion with and Disjunction from constantly changing places a .<]. ^directions, and this belongs to Rotation and others, so that by the inclusion of Going these too have been included.

The states of egress, ingress, etc. however, are not classes ; for. in respect of one and the same Action, c. <j., a person going from one room to another, one observer will have the consciousness, he enters ; while another, he comes out ; and thus there will result an intermixture of classes. So also in the case of Rotation, etc., on entering one water course after corning out by another, there will arise two states of consciousness, lie comes out and he enters ; therefore these should br resolved into relativity in general.

In the case of throwing upwards, etc., however, the action of throwing upwards is caused in the hand by the volition produced by the desire I throw up the pestle, through the non-combiuative cause of conjunction with the soul exercising volition ; then from the non-combi native cause of motion in the hand thrown up, there appears the action of throwing upwards in the pestle also ; or, these two actions take place- simultaneously. Then through the conjunction of the soul exercising^ volition produced by the desire to throw down the hand and pestle which have been thrown up, and also through the motion of the hand there is produced in the hand and the pestle simultaneously the action of throwing downwards favourable to tha fall of the pestle within the mortar. Then towards the sudden going upwards of the pestle after conjunction with a harder substance, neither desire nor volition is the* cause, but the springing up of the pestle is due only to Re-action ; and this is only going and not throwing upwards ; the application of throwing upwards to it is only secondary. Similarly is the application of the name of Throwing upwards to two bodies of Air as well as to grass, cotton, etc., carried by them, going upwards by the force of "the collision of two bodies of Air flowing in opposite directions. So also iu the case of the going up of water under the collision of two currents. Thus the usa of throwing npw r ards and throwing downwards is primary, only in the case of the body, its limbs and pestles, clubs, etc. in contact with them ; for there are such perceptions as he throws up the pestle, he throws up the club ; as also, he throws down.

Contraction is action which produoes flexion in cloth and other things made up of parts and non-initial conjunctions of parts among- themselves even while there exist the initial conjunctions of those parts ; whence arise such perceptions as the lotus contracts, the cloth contracts, the leather contracts. Similarly, Expansion is action destructive of the non-initial conjunctions already produced, of parts ; whence arise such perceptions as the cloth expands, the leather expands, the lotus expands. Actions which are different from these four are forms of Going. Therein Rotation is action, favorable to oblique conjunctions, appearing in the hand, from conjunction with soul exercising volition, and in the wheel, etc., from revolving and from conjunction called nodana (molecular motion^ with the hand possessing Action. Evacuation, etc., should be similarly explained. He will also make them clear as he proceeds.

Now it should be understood that in the case of prescribed sacrifices, baths, gifts, etc., these Actions are the products of conjunc tion with the soul exercising volition favourable towards the production of Virtue ; and in the case of going to a forbidden place, slaughter. eating- tobacco, etc., they are the products of conjunction with the soul exercising volition tending towards the production of Vice. 7

Resemblances of Quittance, Attribute, and Action.

L i><txkdra. After the enumeration of Substance, etc,, he begins the topic of the Resem blance of tl.e three. He states the Resemblance of the three even before the enumeration of the other three Predicables, Genus, etc., inasmuch as it is expected first of all i by the disciples, because the Resemblance of the three, Substance, etc., is favourable to the knowledge of reality.

ception and r.aino in 1 he form of that which is existent, Because a]] the three have fitness for existence. Anityam connotes the qual-ty of that which tends towards annihilation. Although it is not common to the ultimate atoms, etc., still it is inte ided to denote the possession o f the uptldhi or condition which distinguishes predicables having the function or nature of that which tends towards annihilation. Dravyavat moiins that which contains substance as its combinative cause. This too is not present in the ultimate atoms, etc. Therefore the intention is to denote the possession of the /t/>d<l]it. or condition which distinguishes predicables having the function of that which contains substance as its combinative cause. Karyyam is intended to denote the possession of the upddhl or condition which distinguishes predicates having the Junction of that which is the counter-opposite of antecedent non-e.xis- tence (or potential existence). Karanam indicates the ])ossession of the npddhi. or condition which distinguishes predicables having tlie function of that which belongs to the class of constant (Mill s invariable and unconditional) antecedents of all effects except knowledge. Thus the definition is not too wide so as to include the Soul which is the object of Self-intuition, as a cause of Self-intuition, or to extend to the generic quality of being a cow, etc ; nor is it too narrow so as to exclude the ultimate atoms (///, perfect spheres) which are not, causes. Samanayavisesavat, means the possession of those charac teristics which though they are genera, still are species inasmuch as they serve to differentiate themselves severally, <.</., Substance, iess, Attributeness, Actionness, etc. It cannot be said that causality is too wide, because from " (rive a cow." " A cow should not be touched with the feet " and other texts of the Veda it appears that class or kind , snfa) also is a cause of virtue and vice ; for a class has the sole use of limitation.

This aphorism is illustrative. It should be observed that the Resemblance of the three lies also in their being capable of being denoted by words having the meaning inherent in them.

If it is said that the characteristics of being effects and non-eternal ity belong to those only which have causes, and that this is their Resem blance as laid down by Professor Prasastadeva in " And causality (ap pears) elsewhere than in the perfect spheres (ultimate atoms). 1 he;) according to the aphorism it cannot be specified by the possession of the upddhi or condition which distinguishes predicables.

The characteristics of being the causes of Attributes and also the effects of Attributes belong to the three except the eternal Subs- tan ces. 8. The Resemblance in respect of the characteristic of being the originators of c-i" -cncrs should l>o understood or observed with the exclusion of universal Substances composed of final parts, the Attributes of what are composed of final parts, and also the Attributes of Duality, the Separateness of Duals, Priority, Posteriority, etc. Or the author means to indicate the possession of the njM lhi or condition which distinguishes predicables having the function of that which originates its congener, whereby Substances and individuals which an no . causes, arc also included. 10.

Actions do not originate Action*.

Here the root vid has the sense of knowledge, and not existence. The meaning is that there is no proof of the existence of Action which is producible by Action, as in the case of Substance and Attribute- originated by their congeners.

Here the idea is this: If Action is to produce Action, then it will. like Sound, produce it immediately after its own production. Therefore Disjunction from substances in Conjunction having been completely caused bv the first Action itself, fuoin what will the second Action cause Disjunction? For Disjunction must be preceded by Conjunction, and u uew Conjunction has not also been produced in the subject m question. Hut the definition of Action suffers if there is non-production of Disjunc tion. It cannot be said that a new Action will be produced at another moment; because a patency cannot be delayed and because there is nothing to- be waited for. In the case of the production (of Conjunc tion) at the very moment of the destruction of the previous Conjunction, the production of Disjunction (by Action) will be surely not proved. The same also will be the result in the case of its production of the subsequent Conjunction. And after the subsequent Conjunction there is really destruction of Action. Therefore it has been well Action producible by Action is not known. 11.

Difference of Substance from Attribute and Act u n. l ,.. : <:,->-:>. He mentions the Difference of Substance from Attribute nd Aotiou : .

12. Substance is not annihilated either by effect or by cause. 12.

Substance is not destroyed either by its own effect or by its own cause. The meaning is that the relation of the destroyer and the destroyed does not exist between two Substances which have entered into the relation of effect and cause, because, (and this is the purport") Substance is destroyed only by the destruction of the support or substratum and the destruction of the originative Conjunction.

The form badhati (instead of the correct from hanti) is found in aphorisms. 12.

Above continued.

Vpaskdra. He says that Attributes are capable of being destroyed by eMecl ami o-mise.

13. Attributes (are destroyed) in both ways. 13

The meaning is (that they are) capable of being destroyed by effect as well as by cause. The initial Sound, etc., (in a series) are destroyed by their effects, but the last is destroyed by its cause, for the last but one destroys the last. 13.

An attribute sometimes destroys its cause (c. j/., in chemical compounds), and sometimes does not destroy it (c. <j. in physical compounds or masses).

Above continued.

Upanknra. After stating that Attributes arc opposed by (and so cannot coexist M ith> both their effects and causes, he mentions the opposition of effect to Action.

Karyva-virodhi, whereof the effect is the opposite or contradictory. ffWj Karmina, action.

14. Action is opposed by its effect. 14.

Karyyavirodhi is Bahuvrlhi or adjective compound meaning that of which the opposite is effect, because Action is destructible by- subsequent Conjunction produced by itself.

The non-opposition of effects and causes is uniform in the case of Substances only. But it is not the rule in the case of Attribute and Action. For what the author desires to say is that those Attributes destroy, which are the opposites of the destruction due to the destruc tion of the non-combinative cause of the destructio i of the sub stratum 14.

Characteristics of /Substance.

Upaskdra. After describing the Resemblance of the ithroe aooording to the wish of th disciples, he now goes on to state their marks.

Kriyft-guna-vat, possessing Action and Attribute. Samavayi-karanam, combinative cause. faf Iti, such. Dravyalaksanaia, mark of substance.

15. It possesses Action and Attribute, it is a combinative cause such (is) the mark of Substance. 15.

Kriyagunavat means wherein Actions and Attributes exist. The word laksana, by the force of its derivation, viz. < By this it is marked out, denotes a mark as well as a particular differetiating mark or sign which divides off objects of like and unlike kinds. Therein by Action it is marked out that this is a substance. And by the possession of Attri butes, Substance, excluded from objects of like and unlike kinds, is marked out. Of these the like kinds, *. ., objects which resemble one another in being existent, are five, viz., Attributes, etc. The unlike kind how ever is Non-Existence. Therefore Substance is different from Attribute etc., because it possess Attribute. That which is not different from Attribute, etc., does not possess Attribiite, e.y., Attribute, etc. Although the possession of Attribute is not found in a substance made up of parts at the moment of its origin, still the possession of the opposite of the absolute non-existence of Attribute is meant to be stated, because the antecedent and the subsequent non-existence of Attribute are also opposites of the absolute non-existence of Attribuse. Similarly, the being the combinative cause also, which divides the six Predicables i a mark of the Predicable, Substance.

Here the Sddliya, i. e., that which has to be proved, does not suffer from the fault of being unknown, for difference from Attribute, etc. is proved by perception in the water-pot, etc. Nor is here the fault of proving that which has been already proved, for although the difference of the water-pot as such from others has been proved, yet such difference remains to be proved in respect of it considered as a Substance. Some say that in the case of the difference of that which defines the paksa {i. <>.., the object in which the existence of the Sddhya is sought to be proved, e. y., the mountain when the existence of fire is sought to be proved in it), there can be no proving of that which has already been proved, as, for instance, in "Word and Mind are eternal." But this is not so, for that which has to be proved being proved in anything whatever determined by that which determines the characteristic of being a paksa, the paksa suffers in its essential, and hence that which has to be proved in such cases, must be proved as such, i. e., independntly.

The word it, means others , Therefore tha possessoin of Number the possession of Measure, the possession of Separateness, the possession* of Conjunction, and the possession of Disjunction also are brought together. 15.

Bhdsya : Although the soul is void of action, i. e. change, still it appears to possess action by the action of the mind or internal

of souse, in the state of its phenomenal existence; and hence it is called a Substance.

Characteristics of Attribute.

("paskdra. Attributes having been enumerated after Subatancast, Be gives their mark.

16. Inhering in Substance, not possessing Attribute, not an/ independent cause in Conjunctions and Disjunctions,- such is the mark of Attribute. 16.

Dravyasrayi means that of which the nut in e is 10 reside in Subs tance. This however pervades Substance also. Therefore he says

• AgunavAn or Attributeless. Still it over-exte.ids to Action; so he adds
• not a cause in Conjunctions and Disjunctions. Yet it. does noi include Conjunction, Disjunction, Merit, Demerit, knowledge of Uod, etc.; so he- adds independent. After i independent, Attribute should be supplied. The moaning therefore is that Attribute is that which is not an indepen dent cause of Conjunctions and Disjunctions. Conjunctions and Disjunc tions, etc., are depended upon by Conjunction and Disjunction. Attribute- ness is the characteristic of possessing the genus pervaded by existence and residing in the eternals with .eternal functions. The revealer of Attributeness is the causality present in something possessing genus and devoid of combinative causality and non-combinative causality towards- Conjunction and Disjunction combined. Conjunction and Disjunction are severally caused by Conjunction and Disjunction, but not jointly. Merit, Demerit, knowledge of (rod, etc., have been included, because they are only occasional or conditional causes of both and are not their combinative causes or non-combinative causes. Or tlu- revealer of Attributeness is the characteristic, co-extensive with genus.. of being devoid of combinative and non-combinative causality towards Conjunction aifd Disjunction. Or the mark of Attribute is simply t he- characteristic of not possessing Attribute along with the possession of OVenus and of difference from Action. 16.

Characteristics of Action.

{ Ekadravyam means that of which only one Substance is the subs tratum. * Agunam is that in which no Attribute exists. Samyoga etc/ means independent of something in the form of positive existence which comes to appear after its own production; so that it is not unesta- blished where there is necessity for or dependence upon the combinative cause and also where there is dependence upon absence of antecedent conjunction. Or independence of that which has its production after the production of Action itself, is meant, because the annihilation of the antecedent conjunction also has its production after the production of Action itself, and because as a non-existence it does not bear relation to its first moment.

Action-ness is the possession of the genus directly pervaded by existence other than that residing in the eternals, or the possession of the genus determinative of the uncommon or specific causality which produces the perception that someting moves, or the possession of the genus residing only in what is devoid of Attribute and not being an Attribute, or the possession of the genus determinative of the causality towards Disjunction present at the moment immediately subsequent to the production of Action itself.

And this again is a Predicable evidenced by the perception that something moves, which cannot be demonstrated by its production, etc., at places having no interval between each other, because the breaking up of a moment will be refuted later on.

The manner in which the mark serves to distinguish it from others is the same as has been already described 17.

Resemblance of Substance, Attribute, and Action.

Upaakdra. Now he begins the topio of the Resemblance of the three only by way of their cause :

3lmr^**iqrf Dravya-gun.a-karmman.am, Of Substance, Attribute, and Action, jfni Dravyam, Substance, wraf Karanam, cause. 3wi?*i Saman- yam, Common, Uniform.

18. Substance is the one and the same cause of Substance, Attribute, and Action. 18.

Samanyam (common) means the same one, as in - These two have H common mother. The meaning is that Substance, Attribute and Action exist in one and the same Substance which is their combinative cause. The Resemblance of the three lies in the possession of the genus having the function of that which lias Substance as its combinapiv : cause -18.

Above .continued.

L pasktira. He states the Resemblance of the three a.s having Attribute a* their mvi~ oombi native cause :

The Resemblance of the three lies in the possession of the genus- residing in that which has Attribute as its non-combinative cause. Conjunction is the non-combinative cause of substance. The possession. as their non-combinative cause, of Attributes which are the causes of their congeners, belongs to the Attributes of effects, ev/., Colour, Taste. Smell, Touch, Number, Extension or Magnitude, Separateness, etc. The Attributes oi the ulimate atoms of Earth have Conjunction with Fire as their non-combinative cause. The non-combinative cause of Actions, however, are Fire etc., internal vibration, impact, weight. fluidity, impression, conjunction with soul possessing invisible conse quences of Actions (adristam), conjunction with Soul exercising Volition. etc. These should be respectively understood by the reader. Sometimes- even one Attribute gives rise to all the three Substance, Attribute and Action ; for instance. Conjunction with a ball of cotton possessed of Impetus, produces Action in another ball of cotton, originates a Substance, viz., an aggregate of two balls of cotton, and the Exten sion of that aggregate also. Sometimes a single Attribute originates a Substance and an Attribute ; <>. [/., Conjunction which may be- described as an aggregation independent of Impetus, with a ball of cotton as well as its Extension. 19-

Ithdsya : rcada I. i. 19, as Ubhayathd ytindh and, inttrpretn it to mean that Attributes sometimes become the cause of Substance, Attri bute, and Action, and sometimes do not.

Effects of Action. Upaxkara. He bays that sometimes a single Action is productive of a multitude of effects :

stance in which Action is produced, it (Action) also produces an equal number of Conjunctions elsewhere. And the same Action again produce,* impetus in its own substratum.

The word Impetus indicates Elasticity also 20.

Difference beticeen Substance and Action.

Upaikdra. But it may be argued that originative Conjunction having bean brought about by substance possessed of Action ; the substance which is originated thereby, is surely- produced by Action since Action has been ita antecedent as a rule, ( Hence he says :

21. Action is not the cause of Substances. 21. The meaning is that Action is not the cause of substances. 21.

Vyatirekat, because of cessation.

22. (Action is not the cause of Substance) because of its cessation. 22.

Vyatirekfit means on account of cessation. Substance is produc ed, on the cessation of Action by the ultimate Conjunction ; therefore Action is not the cause of Substance. Neither is Action which has ceased to exist, a cause of Substance. Moreover if Action be such a cause, it must be either the non-combinative cause of Substance or its conditional cause. It cannot be the first, because then it will follow that Substance will be destroyed, even on the destruction of the Action of the parts, inasmuch as Substance is capable of being destroyed by the destruction of the non- combinative cause. Nor can it be the second, for in that case there will be a violation of the rule, since small pieces of cloth being produced just from the Conjunctions still existinig after the destruction of a large piece of cloth, it is seen that even parts which are devoid of Action, originate Substance. 22.

fihdsya reads I, i. 21 and 22 as one aphorism, and interprets it thus : Action does not become the immediate cause of substances. "Why V In consequence of its cessation. For, when a Substance be comes what it is, at that moment cessation of Action takes place. Action in the constituent parts of a Substance ceases on conjunction, and the Substance becomes what it is. Action, therefore, is not an immediate cause in the production of Substances. What the author means to say is, as the expression shows, that the mediate causalitv of Action in the production of Substance is not refuted.

Difference between Substance and Action.

Upaskura. ;HaA ing stated that one may be the originator of many, he .now atates tht of or.e effect there may be many originators :

Of Substances, i.e.. of two Substances as well as of more than two Substances. Thus by two threads a piece of cloth consisting of two threads is originated, so also by many threads one piece of cloth is originated . It cannot be ; said ; that a piece of cloth consisting of one thread is seen where the warp and woof are supplied by one and the same thread, for owing to the mtn-exi stance of the Conjunction of a single object there is no non-combinative cause here. Nor again can it, be said that the Conjunction ot the thread and the iibres is the non-combinative cause, because the relation of such parts and whole being naturally established there can be no Conjunction between them, also because the relation of that which is to be originated aad the originated is not perceived, and also because of the impenetrability of condensed bodies. It cannot be said that this is commonly observed. For here, as a matter of fact, cloth is produced by the mutual conjunction of many small pieces of thread, produced on the destruction of a long thread by the impact of the loom, etc., whereas from the nature of things there arises the false notion of unity in respect of threads which are really many in number. 23.

Abocn continued

Upaskdra. -Well, it may be asked, ae a single Substance is the effect of many Substances, a also a single Attribute of many Attributes, BO is a single Action the effect of many Actions ? Henoe he says :

Ghina-vaidharmmyat, on account of the difference of Attributes, f Na, Not. qrofan, Karrnmanam, of Actions. IFI? Karmma, Action.

24. Action is not the joint effect of many Actions, on account of the difference of their Attributes. 24.

4 Karyyam is the complement. It has been already stated that the resemblance of Substance and Attribute is that they originate their congeners-. Also it has been already denied that Actions are productive of Action, in the aphorism " Action producible by Action is not known" (I. i. 11). This is here repeated. This is the idea. 24.

Difference between Attribute and Action.

Upaakdra. Now, pointing out that Attributes which reside in aggregation are originated h\ many Substances, he says :

Numbers. S4^sqtnfa<*nm: 1 mhaktva-samyoga-vibhagah, Separateces*. Conjunction, and Disjunction. ^ Cha, And.

25. Duality and other Numbers, Separateness, Conjunction, and Disjunction (are originated by more than one Substance).- -25.

" Originated by more than one substance " This is the complement. The word Separateness appearing together with Duality, etc., also denotes Separateness of two, etc. Thus Numbers beginning with Duality and ending with the highest arithmetical figure, Separateness of two, etc.. Conjunctions, and Disjunctions are originated by two as well as by mure than two Substances. So that the characteristic of residing in more Substances than one belongs to them. And this characteristic- again is the same as co-extension with the mutual non-existence of combinative causes. 25.

Above continued.

I uaxhii u. Well, it may ba asked, as Substances which are made up of parts, as welf B Attributes already mentioned, have the characteristic of aggregation, so does not that characteristic belong to Ac ions a]o ? So he says :

Asamavfxyat, on account of non-combination. S; A unanya-karyyam, common effect, ^ffl, Karmma, action, f, Na, "Vidyate, is known.

2(j. Action which is the joint result (of an aggregate of two or more substances,) is not known, as it is not found in combina tion with them. 26.

On account of non-combination should be joined with in two- substances/ and in more than two substances/ Thus a single Action does not combine in two substances; nor does a single Action combine- in more than two substances ; so that Action which is the effect of an aggregate, is not known. Here too the root vid in vidyate has the sense of knowledge and does not denote existence. If Action resided in aggregation, then one substance moving, there would arise the consci ousness It moves/ in respect oi tw r o substances and more than tw< substances ; but it is not so ; therefore Action does not reside in aggre gation. This is the meaning.

It cannot be argued, The Action of the body and its parts art- certainly originated by many substances, namely, the body and its parts ; otherwise, the body moving, how can there be the consciousness, It moves , in respect of the hands, feet, etc.? Similarly in the case of other objects made up of parts." For such consciousness is due to the fact that the quantity of the Action of the parts is pervaded by the quantity of the Action of the whole made up of these parts. The contrary is not the case, because the part moving there does not arise the consciousness. 4 It moves, in respect of the entire whole made up of the parts. Other wise from the conjunction of cause and not-cause, the conjunction of effect and not-effect also will not follow, since there can be conjunction of an effect also, only with the Action of the cause. 26

Resemblance of Substance, Attribute and Action. UpasMra, He again mentions a single effect of many (causes) :

The meaning is that substance is the single effect of many Conjunc tions. It should be observed that here Conjunctions should be taken to the exclusion of the conjunctions of touch-less substances, substances made up of final parts or ultimate formations, and heterogeneous sub

• Colour is the single effect this is the con: ection. The w >rd < colour in both the instances are indicatory, and its indicative power is such that it does not abandon its own meaning. And die common property of the intrinsic and the indicatory significance is dependence upon the relation of the product and producer by means of the proximity known as combination with an object which is one and the same as the cause. Hence Colour, Taste, Smell, Touch, Liquidity, Natural Fluidity, Unity, and Separateness of one are brought together. For these, being present in the cause, originate in the effects only one Attribute of the same kind. In fact the operation of non-combinative causes is two-fold- Some produce their effects by pioximity to the object which is one and the same as the cause. Here the cause is the combiaative cause and it is the cause of the effect, namely colour, etc., which have to be produced. Thus Colour which is present in the potsherd originates the Colour of the pot by means of the combination, known as combination with the object which is one and the same as the cause, with the combinative cause, namely pot, etc., of the effect such as Colour, etc. Similarly Taste, etc. In some places, however, there is an operation of non-combinative causa lity by means of proximity to the object which is one and the same as the effect. For instance, Sound, although it is a cause, originates in the skv another Sound, although it is an effect. In the sky itself Colour, etc., also are produced by Conjunction of Fire with the ultimate atoms of Earth by means of the proximity in the form of combination with the object which is one and the same as the effect. 28.

The meaning is that Throwing- upwards is their single effect. Here Weight residing in the hand, stone, etc., is the conditional cause and Conjunction of the Soul exercising Volition is the non-combinative cause, of the Throwing upwards seated in the hand, whereas the non-coinbina- ive cause of the Throwing upwards seatel in the stone is the internal movement or vibration of the hand.

Here also the term Throwing upwards is indicatory of Throwing downwards, etc. 20.

Causality of Action upheld.

Upask .ira. But it lias been said that Attributes which have taken a shape, (i.e., by appearing in some Substance) are, as effects, preceded (and so caused) by the Attributes of the causes ; it has also boen .said tnat they are preceded by the Attributes of that in which they reside ; therefore it follows that Action produces no effect >vhatever. That being so, even the inference of ultrasensual phenomena such as the movements of the Sun, etc., becomes impossible in the absence of any mark of inference. For this reason, merely reminding the reader of what has already been said in the aphorism " Action iw the common cause of Con junction, Disjunction, and Impetus," he says :

<nui: Samyoga-vibhagah, Conjunctions and Disjunction*. Cha, and. ^ijjqj f Karmmanam, of Actions.

30. Conjunctions and Disjunctions also (are individually the products) of Actions. 30.

• Products is the complement. The plural number is for the purpose of individual reference. Imprerssion* also should be taken at indicated

Vivriti. The word cha implies Impetus and Elasticity in addi tion (to Conjunctions and Disjunctions).

Above continued.

Upashira. But it has been already said that Substance and Action are not the effsoti of Action. Conjunction and Disjunction again are the effects of Conjunction and Disjunc tion alone. So that the i affirmation of the Causality of Action here seems to bo self-con tradictory. So he sas :

The word Karanasamanya denotes the topic of causes in ge.ieral. Thus in the topic of the statement cf causes in general. Action has beea aid to be not a cause of Substance arid Action, and not that it is alto gether a not-cause only, whereby ihe aphorism " Conjunctions and Dis- junctioi.s also are individually the products of Act in: s " might be destroyed. M

Here ends the lirst chapter lesso;i of the Kirsi Book in ihe Co tarv of Srtnkara (;i the VaiAesika aphorisms.

Whereas it is seen that in spite of earth, wheel, water, putter, thread, etc., being brought together, there is non-existence of the pot, if there is non-existence of the; potter s staff, and that in spite of earth, water. etc.. being brought together, there is non-existence of the shoot if there is non-existence of the seed : it (/ . e., non-existence) cannot be explained without the relation of effect and cause between the potter s staff and the pot or between the seed and the shoot. Otherwise there will be non-existence of the pot even on the non-existence of the loom, etc., and there will be non-existence of the shoot even on the 110.1 exis tence of pieces of stone, etc. Moreover it is seen that the pot, a piece of cloth, etc, exist for a time only. That even cannot be explained without the relation of cause and effect. For they being non-existent at one time, their temporariness in the form of existence at another time is not possible but by the dependence of existences upon causes. For if there were no dependence upon causes, then a thing could only be or not be; but could not be for a time only; since an existing thing cannot be non-existent, nor can it come into existence from that which is not its cause, nor ca i it come into existence from one knows not what, nor can it come into existence from unreal things such as tho horn of a hare, etc., but from a really existing limit or beginning like the potter s staff, the loom, etc., as is seen in such effects as a pot, a piece of cloth, etc. Now the limit or beginning is nothing but the cause.

Thus if the relation of effect and cause did not exist, there would be no inclination or disinclination to activity. Then the world would become desireless, inert. For there can be no activity without, the knowledge that this is the means of attaining that which is desired ; nor can there be forbearance without the knowledge that this is th means of avoiding that which is not desired. 1.

Vii-riti _ Tho Sankhya thinkers argue as follows : A water-jar, etc., existing in an enveloped state in earth, etc., from before, develop into visible existence, and again by being struck with a cudgel, etc-, are enveloped therein and exist. So that production and destruction are not real, but merely development and envelopment. This being so. why should not a water-jar be produced fruin yarns ? It cannot be said that the existence of eft tct in causes prior to their production is without evidence, for the proof is supplied by such texts of Veda as < Only the existent, Dear One, was at the beginning/ (ChandogyaG, 2, ],) etc."

This view should be considered. The admission of the development b f development will entail non-finality. If on the other hand, develop ment be previously non-existent, then it will be necessary to admit pro duction from the non-existent, and hence the supposition of the prior existence of the water-pot, etc., will become groundless. Thus causality is the belonging to the class of invariable and unconditional antece dents which cannot be otherwise accounted for, or the quality of that which fails to produce an effect on account of defect in the eontribu- tories, or an additional Predicable, being a particular relation arisino- out of its own nature.

JBhdtya. Predicables called Substance, Attribute, and Action have been mentioned. Their tidmdnya or common characteristic has been stated. Their Visesa or distinctive characteristic, again, follows from its contrariety to the common characteristic. All this is sufficient for the production of tattva-jndna. The Supremo Grood results from tattva- jfidna. This is apavarga, Salvation. But what is its characteristic form ? How does it appear ? All this is no\v here described.

Non-existence of the effect, e.. y.. the faults (namely, desire, aversion, and infatuation), etc., (results) from non-existence of the cause, e.j/., false knowledge (?.. /., the idea of the Self iu the Not-Self), etc. li Thus, Pain, birth, activity, faults, and false knowledge, on the successive annihilation of these in turn, there is the annihilation of the one next before the other/ (Xydya ti&tram, I. i. 2), the ultimate consequence being Emancipation, the return of the Self into its own nature.

Above continued.

Upatkdra. II may bo objected that only the existent is produced, and not the non-existent, according to the authority of the Veda, e. g., " Verily the existent was at the beginning, calm one!," etc. Otherwise in the case of undifferentiated non-existence there will be no such uniformity that a piece of cloth is produced front t breads only and not from potsherds. If it is so then, we reply, this uniformity must be accepted by the advocates of the doctrine of transformation (*?f^IJT*T3T i v) who admit the theory of causes ; otherwise how it happens that the manifestation of the pot is only in the potsherds, ai.-d not in thread ? Moreover if the manifestation or development also really existed from before, then that too being eternal, it comes to this that production and destruction are merely develop ment and envelopment. Now, development and envelopment depend upon causes. There fore it results that a pot, a piece of cloth, etc., also surely depend upon causes arid also that there is production ol that which was not before. The objection that there is no proof of the uniformity towards the cause is answered by the uniformity of the nature of the cause, and this uniformity of the nature of the cause (to produce the effect) becomes known by the method of agreement arid difference. For it if> a universal experience that no pot is produced without a potter s staff and tnat a pot is produced when there is the potter s staff. Thus causality is the quality of that which belongs to the class of invariable and uncondi tional antecedents, which cannot be otherwise established or explained, or the characteristic of being attended with the non-production of the effect due to defect in some contributory oause. Although there is no invariable antecedence in such places as " one should perform sacrifice with barley or with paddy," etc., because the sacrifice with paddy is not an antecedent of the result producible by the sacrifice with barley, still a oause ordained in the alternative is truly a oause, as causality is proved in the case of both even though th results are similar in kind. Tiius the characteristic of being attended with the non-produc tion of the effect due to defect in some contributory cause, forms the causality which is common to both secular and scriptural practices ; whereas invariable antecedence known by the method tf agreement and difference is (he causality which 1* secular onlv. For in such cases as " He who desires heaven should perform sacrifice," etc;., the difference or negative side is not required, because knowledge of the agreement or positive side alone is sufficient to induce activity. For this reason also, if the alternative is assumed, then both lo.se their significance in the code, for the result of the same kind being secured by one alone, the performance of the other becomes futile. Hence also it has been rightly said : " The result ncceBsarily A follows from practices taught in the Veda, if performed in all their parts." When the Acharyya (preceptor) says " And this object proceeding from the Veda, breach of uniformity is no fault," he only means to refer to ordinary objects. In the case of grass, igniting wood, and jewel, however, heterogeneity of effect is necessary ; because there causality being inferred by agreement and difference, non-existence of the effect is necessary from non-existence of the cause. If heterogeneity of effect is supposed in alternative oases, causality will be in the alternative in Rajasuya, Vajapeya, and other sacrifices. For these reasons he goes on establishing the same law of the relation of effect and cause.

If the la.v of the relation of effect and cause do not exist, the non- existence of cause will follow also from non-existence of effect. Non- existence of effect is not instrumental towards the nou-existeuce of cause ; but non-existence of cause instrumental towards non-existence of effect. Thus the application of this introductory section of two aphorisms is that persons desirous of nwksa, (salvation) are concerned in non-existence of birth for the sake of non-existence of pain, m non- existence of activity for the sake of non-existence of birth in, non- existence of faults for the sake of non-existence of activity, in preven tion of false knowledge for the sake of non-existence of faults, and in spiritual intuition of tho Self for the sake of prevention of false knowledge. 2.

Dlulsya : The aphorism is meant for them who think that apacuryii is mere absence of pain.

Non-existence of the cause, viz., birth, etc., does not follow from non-existence of the effect, viz., pain. Birth, etc., therefore, may still take place even when no pain exists. If birth, etc., are thus possible, then there is possibility of pain also, in consequence of the appearance of the causes of pain. Apavarga, accordingly, does not lie in the mere absence of pain, but in the permanent impossibility of pain, resulting in the order of the successive non-existence of false knowledge, etc.

Genus and Species relative to understanding.

Upaskdra. After the irarks of the three Predicates in the order of their enumeration, h now states the mark of the Predi cables, Genus, which has also boon mentioned

Samanyam, Genus, fe^H: Visesah, Species- fft Iti, thse. Buddhyapeksam, relative to understanding.

Genus is two-fold, high and low, of which the first is Existence and the second is Substanceness, etc., pervaded by Existence. The Understanding itself is the mark of Genus and its Species : the cogni tion of re-appearance or recurrence, of Genus, and the cognition of disappearance ur reversion, of species. The word ill takes thorn singly, and hence the word < buddhyapeksam has been used in tho neuter gender. The writer of the -vrltti however applies it to species only and explains its use in the singular number and neuter gender

the rule. < A word in the neuter gender used with a word not in

the neuter gender optionally entails neuter gender and singlar num-

Buddhyapeksam means that, of which the understanding or

cognition is the mark or the definition. < Genus in the aphorism

means that which is external and resides in more individuals than one.

enus, whether high or low, is, while it is eternal, co-existent in

a me substratum with the mutual non-existence of its own situation

Moreover Genus also takes the name of Spe-ies, as for

example, at the same time that there is the cognition of re-appearance

or recurrance, namely, < This is Substance, < This is Substance/ and

s > on, there is the particular cognition that it is not Attribute, that it

t Action, etc. So that the nature of species belongs to the genera themselves, c. <j.. substanceness, etc.

It may be objected, " Genus (/. t., the Universal), as an objective

reality, is a non-entity, since the consciousness of recognition can be explained (without it) by the absence of reversion or divergence. For the object of the cognition. It is a cow," is that it is not different from a cow. Even the advocate of the doctrine of kinds (jAti} admits that this is the subject-matter of the concrete cognitions of bovineness, et;- ; for coiicreteness or particularity is not "something other than absence of difference from itself ; it is the absence of divergence from a -ow, etc., which is also the occasion of the use of the words cow. etc. Moreover, where does the Genus of bovineness reside V Not surely in the bovine animal, because the animal is non-existent prior to the appearance of bovineness. Nor in anon-bovine animal, because there will be then contradiction. Whence does bovineness come to reside in the body of a bovine animal when such a body is produced? It did not surely remain in that locality, for that place also will then possess bovineness. Nor is bovineness even produced then and there, for it (a Genus) has been observed to be eternal. Xor can it come from else where, for it (a Genus) possesses m> activity. Nor again does one eternal possess the characteristic of appearing in many individuals, for there is no proof that it (a Genus) optionally appears in part and as a whole. For the whole does not appear in a single place, siuco then it would follow that there would be no concrete cognition of it in other places. Nor does it appear in part for a > class is not confined to one part. So it has been said. ; < It does not move, nor was it there. Nor is it produced, nor has it parts. Nor does it leave its former residence. Alas! the succession of difficulties." Genus exists and that is manifested by situation or organisation only like bovineness. potriess, etc, But it does not belong to Attribute and Action also." Such is the quarrel of kind rod thinkers.

To this ft is said, "Genus is eternal a:id pervasive ; and pervasive ness consists in lieing 1 related to all place by its own form. It does not arise that places should be treated in. the terms of bovineness, for the use of bovineness is obtained by the relation known as combination; as ^Time possesses form or clour such cognition and use do not arise, because Time does not possesses form or colour, etc. Xor can it be said pervades !a parlcular spot, combines with the organism which is produced in that verv place, as it is found that it is produced and it is combined (with bovineness)," refer to the same moment of Time. Hereby " where does it reside ? " is answered by where it is perceived ; " "where is it perceived ?" by where it resides ;" and what sort of a body it was prior to the appearance of bovineness ?" by u It did not exist at all." Similarly It does not move, nor was it there, etc.," is so much .cry of despair. The Genus of bovineness is nothing but non-divergence of cognition from what it has been, this is obstructed or contradicted bv the real or positive cognition It is a cow or ox." For the cognition also is not explained, as it has been said that the cognition of a real existence does not help the understanding of negation, nor does diver gence from a cow or ox come to light in the cognition " It is a cow or ox." The option of whole and part can arise only if a single Genus appear as a whole or as a part. Wholeness means multitude and infini ty, and it is not proved in an individual. This is a cow or ox such cognitions arise in respect of n on -entities and are not capable of esta blishing entities "to this the reply will be given afterwards.

The followers of PraltJirtkam (a thinker of the Mimarasa School) however say that Genus is manifested by its situation (?!. c.,the organism where it resides). If it is evidenced by reeognitive understanding, then what offence has been committed by Genera belonging to Attibute and Action ? For there arises consciousness of recognition or knowing again in respect of Colour.. Taste, etc. ; and this consciousness surely establishes a class (jV W)- si ^e there is no obstruction. As it is in the case of Ether-ness, identity of the individual is not the obstruction in the class attributes of Colour, etc. Nor is co-extension the obstniction here as it is in the case of Understanding and Knowledge or in the case of the classes of water-pots and water-jars, because of the multiplicity of individual Colours, Tastes, etc. For co-extension is denotation of neither more nor less individuals : and the class attributes of colour, etc., have a narrower denotation than Attribute-ness, and have a wider denotation than blue-ness, etc. For this reason also, there is no over lapping or intermixture (which is also an obstruction to the existence of Genus), as there is in the case of the characteristics of being material and ponderable substances, because although their mutual absolute non-existences co-exist in the same substratum, yet there is no co-existence with any other class. Xor is here instability or infinite regression, because other Genera included in Colourness. etc., are not recognised. Xor is here loss of form or transformation as in the case of species. If species, while residing in substances, possess classes or jdti then they will become either Attributes or Action ; if while appear ing in Universals(V. </., Time, Spaca, Ether, and Son!) they possess classes or jdti, then they will become Attributes. The transformation which thus takes place in the case of the Predicable, Species, is absent in the case of the subject under enquiry. Xor is here non-relation, as in the case of Combination. Let there be non-relation in the case of Combina tion, seeing that the supposition of Combination of Combination will entail infinite regression ; but in the case of the subject under enquiry the relation of Combination itself is recognised. Although identity of the individual itself is an obstruction to Combination being a Genus yet the view of those also should be considered, who hold that Combina tions are many in number and undergo production and destruction. Or it (absence of combination or identity of the individual" is the obstruction to Xon-existe.ice, etc.. being (ienera.

The learned writer of the Yt ltti has said : li The point in dispute, namely, recognitive understanding, because it is an unobstructed, recurrent consciousness, is explained by a recurrent property, as the consciousness, garland-flowers (covers all the flowers making up a particular garland and is explained by the common property of lulojio-- ing to that garland, whieh recuis in eyery one of those J|o\y<>rsV This requires consideration. "">.

] irriti : The Xyaya teachers have recited the obstructions to Genus : " Identity of the Individual, Similarity or Co-extension, Over lapping or Intermixture, Instability or Infinite Regression. Transfor mation, and Non-relation, this is the collection of the obstructions to Genus. Xow, Ether-ness is not a Genus, as it denotes only one individual. Pot-ness and Jar-ness are not two genera, because* the individuals denoted by the one are neither more nor less than by the other. Material-ness and ponderableness are not genera, because, by appearing in the same individual, the substrata of their respective absolute non- existence would then intermix. Genus-ness is not a Genus, on account of infinite regression. The transformation of Species which is by nature exclusive, is an obstruction to its being a Genus. If Particularity be a Genus, then, itself possessing Genus, it will not be possible for it to distin guish itself and therefore its special property of self-distinction will suffer. Therefore Particularity or Species is not a Genus. Or trans- formation may mean change of nature. So that if Species, while appear- ing in ponderable things, possess Genera, then they would be either Attributes or Actions. If while appearing in the universals (e. #., Ether, Space, Time, and Soul) they possess Genera, then they would be Attri butes. In this way change of nature of the Species is the obstruction to Species possessing the characteristic of Genus. Combination or Co-inherence is not a Genus, as the relation of combination does not exist in it, since the admission of combination into combination would entail infinite regression. This applies to the view that combinations are many in number and undergo production and destruction. Otherwise from the identity of the individual also Combination cannot be a Genus. Similarly the absence of the relation of Combination is an obstruction

5. Substance-ness, and Attribute-ness and Action-ness are both Genera and Species. 36.

The word cha collects Earth-ness, and other genera belonging to Substance, Colour-ness, and other genera belonging to Attribute, Throw- ing-up-ness, and other genera belonging to Action. * Substance-ness, etc./ have been left uncompounded in order to indicate the absence of the relation of that which pervades and that which is pervaded, from amongst them. Genera and Species have not been compounded so that it may be understood that these are Species also even while they possess the characterises of Genera. Otherwise (if the words were compounded) there might be a mistake that the compound was a genitive one and then the being Species would not have been perceived in the presence of Genus-ness.

It might be objected, " Substance-ness cannot be something which penetrates into or inheres in the forms of substance and is beyond the cognizance of the senses, because if it somehow exists in Earth, etc., it* existence is impossible in the case of Ari, Ether, etc. It cannot be estab lished as something which constitues the combinative cause of an effect determined by Attribute-ness, because Attribute-ness, as it appears in eternal and non-eternal objects, is not the determinant of being an effect. The rejoinder that it is required for the sake of Attribute-ness does not improve the situation." The objection however does not arise, for Substance-ness is established by the way of constituting the combi native causlity of an effect determined by the characteristic of Con junction. This causality cannot be constituted by the class attribute of Earth-ness, which is of a narrower comprehension, nor by Existence which has a wider denotation; and there must be something to constitute or define it, as otherwise suddenness or chance would bo the result. Now Conjunction must necessarily be recognized in the case of ultimate atoms, as supplying the non-combinative cause of a molecule of two atoms ; in the case of molecules of two atoms each, as supplying the non- combinative cause uf a molecule of three atoms ; in the case of the four universals ( .</., Time, Space, Ether, and Soul), through their being its con junction with all ponderable things ; in the case of Mind; as the ground for the conjunction of Mind and the Senses ; in the case of Air, as the support fur the movement of grass, etc. ; in the case of perceptible Substances, through their very perceptibility. On the other hand, there is no un-uriginated Conjunction so that it could be said that the quality of Conjunction even, appearing in effects and not-effects, could not be the determinant of being an effect. Li like manner, it is easily demonstrable that substance-ness is established also by the way of constituting the combinative causality of Disjunction also. Attribute-ness again, it lias been already said, is proved by its being the deterininat of the causality which exists in a thing possessing Genus and not containing the non- combinative causality of the combinative causality of Conjunction and Disjunction. The class attribute of Actions also, is, in the case of perceptible Substances, cognizable by the cognition, It moves, but in other places can be inferred from Conjunction and Disjunction, for Action-ness is required to be established also by its being the deter minant of the non-combinative causality of both Conjunction and Disjunction. For this reason also it is possible to infer the movement (f the sun from its reaching another place. Here although the other place, P.<J., of Sky. etc., is beyond the reach of the senses, yet the Con junction and Disjunction of the solar rays are perceptible by the solar zone, and it is from these Conjunctions and Disjunctions that the inference of the movement of the sun can be drawn. The learned Uddyotaliura has said : " The inference of the movement of the sun is by its reaching a different place, which again is also a matter of inference in the following way : The sun which is perceived by a man when facing eastwards, is also perceived by him when facing the west, and is recognised by him. This fact together with the fact that the sun is a substance and is not destroyed and produced again at every moment, is proof that the sun has reached a different place from where it was before." 5.

Final Species excluded.

The meaning is that the statement of Genus and Species is to the ex clusion of those final Species* residing in eternal substances, which have been mentioned above. l Antyah/ i. e. < final/ means those which exist or appear at the end (of the division or dissolution of compounds.) The teachers say that they are final/ because after them there is no other principle of differentiation. According to the Vrittikdra they are final Species/ because they exist in enternal Substances, t. e. Sub stances which exist at the end of production and destruction. They are really Species only, the causes of the consciousness of differentia tion, and not of the form of Genus also. 6.

7, Existence is that to which are due the belief and usage, namely (It is) existent/ in respect of Substance, Attribute, and Action. 38.

By the word iti he teaches the mode of belief and usage. Thus Existence is that which causes the belief in this way that this is existent, that that is existent, in the case of the triad of Substance, etc., or on which depends the application of the words in the from of it is existent/ it is existent/ 7.

Existence not identical with Substance, Attribute, or Action.

Upaskdra. But Existence is not perceived as being separate from Substance, Attri bute, and Action. Therefore Existence is nothing else than one or other of Substance, etc, Because that which is different from something else is perceived by means of its difference from that, as a water-pot from a piece of cloth. But Existence is not perceived by mean* of its difference from them. Therefore it is identical with them. To meet this objection he says :

Dravya-guna-karmmabhyah, from Substance

Attribute, and Action. ft|!?a< Arthantaram, a different object. *r Satta, existence.

• It is th introduction of these " final species," which is the reason why the of Kunad* i. called th Vai&ttta philosophy of final species.

8. Existence is a different object from Substance. Attribute, and Action. 39.

Substance, etc., are non-assimilative but Existence is assimilative. Thus Existence is a different, etc., because its difference from them is established by the consideration of the opposite properties charac terised by assimilativeness and non-assimilativeness. That, however, it is not perceived elsewhere than in them, is due to the virtue of their primary or natural inter-relation, whereas the relation of a pot and a piece of cloth is derivative or artificial.

The intrinsic form of the individual is not Existence, for in dividuals do not assimilate themselves or form themselves into classes. If the inner nature be assimilative, then the same is nothing but Existence. If non-assimilative inner natures or essences be the means of classification, then the class attributes of bovineness, etc., are also gone. This consideration also dismisses the objection, "When the practice of classification is established by those very objects in which as substrata Existence inheres, then what is the use of Existence ?" For the same reason also it is not valid to hold that Existence is the property which makes an object and its action possible, or that Ex istence is reasonableness or reliability ; for the cognition l It is existent/ arises even in the absence of any enquiry in those res pects. 8.

Bhasya: Existence is a difierent object from Substance, Attri bute, anb Action Substance, Attribute, and Action are called objects (VIII. ii. 3). Existence is, therefore, included amongst them. But it is not contained in the ascertained classes of Substance, Attribute, aad Action. Hence it is said to bo a different object from them known classes).

9. And as it exists in Attributes and Actions, therefore it is neither Attribute nor Action. 40.

" Neither Attribute nor Action" this being the matter to be ex pressed, their individual mention (i. e. } the words being not compound ed) indicates that Existence is not Substance also. For an Action does not exist in Actions, nor an Attribute in Attributes, nor does Substance exist in an Attribute or Action. Existence however resides in Attribute and Action. Therefore on account of its Difference from Substance, Attribute, and Action, Existence is really different from them. 9. Aneka-dravya-vattvena, by means of its containing more than one Substance. ?^^ Dravyatvam, Substance-ness. 3tfi Uktam, explained.

11. Substance-ness has been explained by means of its containin more than one Substance. 42.

Anekadravyavat means that to which belong more than one Substance as its combinative causes. The term more than one here denotes all. Hence it is distinguished from Earth-ness, etc. Its eter- nality is obtained simply from its being a Genus ; hence its distinc tion from wholes made up of parts. And anekdravyavattvam means the being combined with more than one Substance in general ; hence its distinction from Existence. Therefore Substance-ness is eternal and combined with more than one Substance in general, Hence it is implied that conjunction is not desired. And Substance-ness also has been verily establshed. Substance-ness explained , means that Subs tance-ness also has been explained in the very same way as Ex istence. 11.

Above continued-

Vpaskdra. But Substance-ness is also a class, and can bo quite non-distinct from it own ground. What is the fault here ? So ho says.

Tatha, in like manner, fjnrg Gnnesu, in Attributes. Bhavat, from its existence. 3m?3f (Junatvam, Attribute-ness. Uktam, explained.

13. (That Attribute-ness is distinct from Substance, Attri bute, and Action is) explained from its existence in Attributes __ 44.

The meaning 1 is that in the very sumo way as Existence, Attribute- ness is explained to be distinct front Substance. Attribute, and Action from its existence in /. p., combination with) Attributes onlv. ___ 13.

14. (Attribute-ness is distinct from Substance, Attribute, and Action) also by reason of the absence of Genera-Species in it. 45.

If Attributeness be n.t something over and above Substance, Attri bute, and Action, then it, should be perceived as containing Substance- ness, Attributeness, and Action-ness, and their sub-classes. This is the meaning. 14.

Action-ness not identical icith tiubatanre, Attribute, or Action.

Upask&ra. He points out that which distinguishes Action-ness from Substance, Attributt and Action :

swfsj *Rng; ^wf<ggrB^ n \ i R ni n

STi?g Karmmasu, in Actions. -*TT^Tc^ Bhavat, from its existence. p*tfcf Karmmatvam, action-ness. grE Uktam, explained.

15. (That) Action-ness (is distinct from Substance, Attri bute, and Action is) explained from its existence in Actions. 46.

Like Existence, Action-ness also, which is another class/ is ex plained as distinct from Substance, Attribute, and Action from iti xistence in (i. e., combination with) Action only. 15-

SfunAnya-visesabhuvena, by reason of the absence of Genera-Species. =* Clia, and.

16. (Action-ness is distinct from Substance, Attribute, and Action) also by reason of the absence of Genera-Species in it. 47.

The meaning is that if Action-ness be identical with Substance, et~., then the Genus-Species of Substanceness, etc., will combine in it.

It should be noted that these four aphorisms identical in form, are, stated so as to form one section for explaining the distiction from Substance, Attribute, and Action, of the four classes Existence, Subs tance-ness, Attributeness, and Action-ness. 16.

Exitence is one.

Upasb ira. But why should not Existence which ia present in substance, Attribute and Action, be rendered different by the difference of the determinants of Substance-ness, etc. ? So he says : Sat, existent. ?f?l Iti, this. fagnfMhl^ Lingavisesat, from the non-particularity or uniformity of the mark. fsreNf^Wm^ Visesa- lingSbhavat, from the absence of a particular or distinctive mark. ^ Cha, and. w Ekah, One. *nT: Bhavah, Existence.

17. Existence is one, because of the uniformity of the mark viz., that it is existent and because of the absence of any distin guishing mark. 48.

The knowledge or the use of words in this form that it is existent, ie the mark of Existence. And it is the same, i.e., non-particularized, in respect of Substance, Attribute, and Action. Therefore one and the same Existence resides in them. Otherwise, Existence having the same denotation or manifestation as Substance-ness, etc, either it whould not exist or they would not exist. Visesaliiigabhavat Cha/ means that there is no diference, as inference which is the mark of visesa,i. e. difference, does not here exist. As in the judgment, This lamp ia verily that, the mark of distinction ia the difference of measure such as length, shortness, etc., so here there is no such mark of distinction. This is the idea. 17.

. Bhdsya. read* T, ii, 17, with the omission of the word linga in vijteso,- Ifnyd-abhdvflt.

Here ends the second chapter of the First Book in the Commentary by Saiikara. on the VaiseBika Aphorisms of KanAda of great powers . Characteristics of Earth.

Upaakdra. The subject-mabtor of the Fir,st chapter of the Second Book is the description of the nine Substances. Herein there are three sections : description of Earth, Water, and Fire ; proof of God ,- and inference of Ether. Of these the anther states the characteristic of Karth which hag been mentioned first of all.

Rupa-rasa-gandha-spai sivati, Possessed of Colour, Taste, Smell, and Touch. sM* Prithivi, Earth.

1. Earth possesses Colour, Taste, Smell, and Touch. 49.

Manifold Colour such as blue, yellow, etc., belongs to Earth alone. Thus the characteristic is the possession of the class pervaded by Subs tance-ness and co-extensive with blue colour. Similarly manifold Taste such as bitter, sour, etc., resides in Earth alone. Thus the (second) characteristic is the possession of the < class pervaded by Substance- ness and co-extensive with bitter Taste. In like manner other charac teristics should be understood by the substitution or interpolation of the words l sour, etc. Smell is of two kinds, fragrant and non-fragrant. Thus the (third) characteristic is the possession of the class pervad ed by Substance-ness and co-extensive with Smell. It will be therefore seen that Earth is a Substance which is the substratum or location of class which is co-extensive with Smell but not co-extensive with n Attribute which is not co-extensive with Smell. It must not be objected that as Smell and Taste are not perceived in a stone, etc., therefore both of them fall short of being universal here. For, though Smell and Taste are not perceived there in the first instance, still they are found to be present in their ashes ; and the very same parts which originate the stone do also originate its ashes. Hence there is no want of universality. How then is there such perception as " The air is fragrant," " Water mixed with Kdravella (Momardica Charantia, Hairy Mordica) is bitter V" The question does not arise, be cause that Smell and Taste are due to the external condition formed by (particles of) Earth. Touch also which is neither hot nor cold and which is produced by the action of heat, belongs to Earth only. Thus the (fourth) characteristic is the possession of the class pervaded by Sub stance-ness and co-extensive with Touch produced by the action of heat. And the quality of being produced by the action of heat, which is reveal ed by a distinctive peculiarity, belongs to the Touch of Earth alone ; and a distinctive peculiarity is very manifest in the peculiar Touch of

the flowers of Sirtsa (Acacia Lebbec) and Lavanyi (clove-creeper) ; but it is not so in the Touch of Water, etc. Although in a whole made up of parts Touch, etc., are not produced directly through the con junction of Fire, from heating, yet there too a particular heterogeneity hould be recognised by the way of its being the product of a series of parts and wholes.

" But," it may be objected, " this mark or characteristic is what is called a mark of disagreement or a negative mark which is the proof of its difference from others or of the mode of its treatment. Now, Earth is distinguished from othersbecause it has Smell. That which is not different from others, does not possess Smell, e. </., Water, etc. And Earth is what has Smell which is the counter-opposite of the non- existence of the porvader of the non-existence of the difference from others than itself. Therefore it is different from others than itself. Hero supposing that the major term, the quaasitum, namely, difference from others, is a well known object, if the mark of inference disagree with it, then the inference will have the fault of incommensurability, as the minor term will in that case fall outside the class of ascertained similar objects and of un-uscertained objects ; and if it does not disagree, then the mark will be what is called a mark of agreement or a positive mark. On the other hand, if the major term is not well known, then the minor term will contain an -unknown major term. In that case there can be no expectation, nor any desire for inference, nor again any inference in the shape of knowledge in particular about it. Moreover, absence of the mark or the middle term and absence of the quEesitum or major term are universally related by agreement. Thus there will arise the contradiction that the absence of the major term will not have the characteristic of being the mark nor will the mark have the characteristic of being the absence of the major term. By this alone the futility of the minor premiss is explained, but not the object, the universal relation of which has not been obtained. So it has been said : " The faults of an inference by disagreement or by the method of difference, are ignorance of the major term, contradiction, futility of the minor premiss, and proof by the method of agreement." So also if the mark is intended to establish usage. Here the usage consists in being the object of reference of the word Earth, and that belongs also to the class of Earth-neas and therein the mark Earthness does not exist. Although therefore incommensurability may appear to exist here, yet there is no incommensurability, the quantum or major term being the characteristic of being the object of reference of the word Earth, which is the occasion of the significance of Earth-ness. Or again Earth-ness being, as a class. proved in a general way, like pot-ness, to be the occasion of the significance of an accidental word, the word Earth contains the occasion of the signi ficance of Earthness. If it contains the occasion of not signifying others not-Earth-ness, then as it appears together with that which is the occasion of the significance, it should be proved in the way, vix. } 4 That which is not so, is not so. Thus here too there is surely the fault of ignorance of the qusesitum, etc."

It is not so, the author replies, difference of others such as Water, etc., being manifest in the pot itself, because the difference, i. e., the mutual non-existence of Air, and other super-sensuous objects also i* proved by sense-perception itself in the pot, etc., in as much as only the fitness for the location or ground or substratum governs the apprehen sion of mutual non-existence, as is seen in cases like "The column is not a piid -Jia (a ghost-like being)."

It should not be said, < This i" not the case. Let then the pot only be the analogue or example. What is the use of a negative mark ? Who will prove in a roundabout fashion a conclusion arrived at in a itraight way ? " If the non-negative mark be not a mere simulacrum. then this path too is unobstructed to him who is described as arguing in a round-about way ; because with the removal of the fault of ignorance of the queesitum, all other faults which arise out of it, are also removed. There is no contradiction, because the positive pervasion or the relation in agreement is apprehended along with the negative relation ur because the positive pervasion is inferred by the negative pervasion. Nor is there futility of tho minor premiss, because the very mark of which the pervasion* has boon _ obtained, is proved in tho minor term ; as has been said : < Whatever " relation of the determinate and the determinant subsists between two existences, just the reverse of it is to be understood in the case of the corresponding non-existences." Usage again follows from tho teaching Earth possesses Smell, " in the same wav as what possesses a^ narrow, twisted neck, etc., is the object of reference of the word < pot. Thus that by which, anywhere and everywhere, in the case of clarified butter, etc., clay, etc., the being the occasion of the force of the word Earth is derived, from the above teaching, in Earth-ness by means of the indication, namely, the possession of Smell, also operates as a negative mark in this way that that which is not this, is not this, because everything which possessess Smell is the object of reference of the word Earth, through its possession of Sinoll, by means of Earth- ness which is the occasion of the force of the word. "

The objector cannot say " In the case of the negative mark or per vasion which will prove difference, the difference must be either diffe rence in property, or difference in nature, i. e., otherness, or mutual non-existence. Now it cannot be the first two, because they are known by sense perception itself. Nor can it be the third, because when tho difference of non-existence also comes to bo the quajsitum, its mutual non-existence is not present there, and therefore the difference of that which is other than non-existence coining to be the quantum the qunesitum is not found/ For mutual non-existence, of which the counter-opposite is non-existence, is also a quantum. So that if it is something additional then it verily exists ; if not then being reduced to itself, it is in reality something different, because its difference in property is pervaded by its mutual non-existence. And here there is unsteadiness or want of no finality, because the non-iinality remains only so long as there is perception or cognition, whereas in other cases iinality is obtained by perception.

It is also said that thirteen kinds of mutual non-existence well known in thirteen cases are jointly proved in Earth. This is nonsense because the knowledge of every one of them being not in point the knowledge of them jointly disappears. Whereas mutual non-existence With counter-opposition determined by non-odorousness should be proved, because the difference of non-existence by means of the difference of that which determines counter-opposition is necessary and bec.ause it has been already said that this difference of non-existence is proved by sense-perception in the pot etc., also.

If it is asked " What is the solution in the case of Ether, etc ?" the author replies that Ether is difierent from others than itself, by being

tlie seat of Sound. Although in " That which is not thus, is not thus," and cases like this, where the minor term is one-sided, the qusesitum, i. e. } the major term, is not well known, still that which possesses differ ence iu property from something else, possesses the mutual non-existence of which that something is the counter-opposite. So that by virtue of the pervasion brought into play in this general way, the mutual non-existence the counter-opposite of which possesses the absolute non-existence of being the seat of Sound, having- been already proved, hero it is only shown as being connected with the minor term, like fire being connected with the mountain. This is our other conclusion, its difference in quality being pervaded by its mutual non-existence. If it is said that only the pos session of the absolute non-existence of being the seat of Sound is not found in objects of the unascertained class, then the being the seat of Sound is neither the definition nor the description, because it is attacked with the fear of belonging to unascertained objects. I.

Viv-rtf __ The revered Sankara Misra himself knovis what the necessity was of carrying the investigation here, leaving aside the possession of Smell, up to the possession of the < class pervaded by Substance-ness co-extensive with Smell.

Characteristics of Water. Ho states the characteristic of Water mentioned after Earth :

Rupa-rasa sparftavatyalj, possessed of Colour, Taste, and Touch, sntf: Apafo, Waters. %*\: Dravah, Fluid. fa**!: Snigdhah, Liquid, viscid.

2. Waters possess Colour, Taste, and Touch, and are fluid and viscid. 50.

The Colour, Taste, and Touch are respectively White, Sweet, and Cool only. Fluuiness is constitutional bat Viscidity is by nature or essential.

Objection. But it is no I.- correct to say that the Colour of Water is only White, because blueness is observed in the water of the river Yamund, etc. That the Taste is only the sweet is also not correct, because acidness, bitterness, etc., are observed in the juice of the blackberry, karavlra, etc.. That the Touch is only the Cool one is also not proved, because at mid-day hotness also is observed. Con- stiutional Fluidity again is too limited, as it is absent in ice, hail-stone, etc. Viscidity also is not proved as essential and is too wide, as it is not perc^ved in Water, and is perceived in clarified butter and other terrene objects. Moreover Water-ness is not a class even, which may be the characteristic of Water, because it is not proved on account of the non-existence of that which will establish it. Nor is it proved by the characteristic of the determinant of its being the combinative cause. of Viscidity, because the nature of Viscidity, appearing in both the effect and what is not the effect, is not the determinant of the state caused by Viscidity and Fluidity. It is not due to Fluidity alone, "be cause no compounding is established by the Fluidity of glass or gold ; nor is it due to Viscidity alone, because no compounding is established by condensed clarified butter, etc. Therefore by the method of agree ment and difference it is proved to be caused by A T iscidity and Fluidity. And this compounding, being seen to take place in barley, sand, etc., by water, confirms Viscidity in Water. This argument is based upon wide experience itself, as Viscidity is an object of sense- perception. Viscidity which however is found in clarified butter, etc., is of the Water which is the occasional cause of that clarified butter, and it appears as though belonging to the clarified butter through combination with the conjoint. So also in the case of oil, juice, etc. And Water which is the occasional cause of clarified butter, contains a preponderance of Viscidity ; therefore owing to this very prepon derance of Viscidity, this Water does not counteract Fire. If Viscidity were a particular Attribute of Earth, then, like Smell, it would have been present in all terrene objects, hastly, Water-ness is a class which is directly pervaded by Substanco-ness, because it has been proved that a class which determines the being the combinative cause of the conjunction present only in objects possessing Viscidity, is common to the ultimate atoms. 2.

The meaning is that Fire possesses Colour which is luminous, and Touch which is hot. If it be objected, "Luminousness is the being the illuminator of other bodies, and such Colour is not found in heat or in Fire as it exists in gold, in a frying-pan, or in Water. White Colour also is found nowhere in these, nor is hot Touch found in moonlight or in gold. How then is this so ?" We reply that ther can be no such objection, because luminous Colour may be inferred in hotness, etc., by means of Fire-ness. If it be objected that Fire-ness itself is not proved there as such, we reply that it is inferred in them by their possessing hpt Touch. If it be asked, "How is it proved in gold ?", our reply is that the author desires to say that it is moved because, even in tho absence of luminous Colour in it, Fire-ness is inferred by the negative., mark, viz., the characteristic of being the substratum or ground of Fluidity which is produced but not destroyed by the closest Conjunction of fire. And in the case of Fire as existing in the frying- pan, etc., Fire-ness is inferred from their possession of hot Touch.

Fire is four-fold : that in which both Colour and Touch are partly developed, as the solar, etc.; that in which Colour is partly developed but Touch is undeveloped, as the lunar; that in which both Colour and Touch are altogether undeveloped, as the ocular ; and that in whioh 5. These (characteristics) arc not in Ether. 53.

Hero the root < -yid, in vidyante means to perceive. The meaniu* hen that because they are not perceived therefore they do not exist in Ether, and other substances, either uniformly or by nature, or ooUeo- ively or accidentally. If it bo asked,- How does the perce, lion arise that Ether is as white as curd ?" we reply that it is due to the impression created by the perception of the white colours of the ravs of the sun If it be asked, " How then does the perception arise that Ether is blue ?" we reply that it is duo to the impression created in the niinds of the observers who are looking at the radiance of the emerald rfcak lyin ff largely extended over the south side of Sumeru mountain. If has beer opined that it is due tt the impression created by the eye when after travelling to a long distance it turns back and reaches its own puiul inis is not a sound opinion, because those who possess jaundiced eves also have such impressions. J

From the perception, Here now there are Colour, etc.," it cannot

be argued that Colour and the three other Attributes belong to Space

ime also, because they have been already stated to be the charac

teristics of Earth, etc., only by the relation of combination and not bv

any other relation also. Here now there is absolute non-existence of

iron, silver, and gold. SffrwtiTi^ Agnisamyogat, through Conjunction of Fire. ^?3 Dravatvam, Fluidity. *lf??: Advih, with Waters. 8WI*W Samanyam, similarity.

7. The Fluidity of tin, lead, iron, Silver, and gold, through conjunction with Fire, constitutes their similarity to Water, 55.

This is an indication ; bell-metal, copper, brass, etc., are also im plied. The characteristic which is common to those which have been mentioned and those which are implied, is that they are the foundation of the Fluidity which is produced but is not destroyed by tne closest Conjunction of Fire. Thus the Fluidity of gold, etc., also is only occa sional, the occasion which is the Conjunction of Fire, being proved by the method of agreement and difference. Moreover there is this distinction ; in the last aphorism the word agni denotes Light tejas possessing an excess or abundance of heat, but here it denotes fire.

If it be objected, " Gold, etc., also must be either modifications of Earth or different Substances; because yellowness, weight, etc., establish terreneness, and because the non-annihilation of Fluidity which constitutes their difference from Earth, is perceived in them, and be cause this h capable of establishing of Substance. r Wo reply that gold is a modification of Fire, and its fieri ness is proved in the negative way, namely, " That which is not thus, is not thus, as Earth, " by the characteristic of its being the foundation of Fluidity which is not annihilated oven at the closest Conjunction of Fire.

Again there is no contradiction in the ultimate atoms of Water, because Fluidity should bo qualified as being 1 non-eternal. Nor is there incommensurability, as the mark does not appear in the lamp and other objects of the ascertained class, because the fact which is to be proved is that gold is not a modification of Earth. Nor is there any obstacle to the receptacle of weight becoming the minor term hero; the foundation or substratum will not be proved if something else were the minor term, as the minor term must be foundation of Fluidity. Nor is it hard to ascribe ultra-finality or absoluteness, because it is desired to be said that it is tho foundation of temporary Fluidity which is not annihilated even at the closest Conjunction of Fire for three hours. If it be objected that the annihilation of Fluidity must be concluded from the destruction of the foundation and the perception of more and less; we reply that it is not so, because the mark of inference is the possession of the Fluidity containing the Genus of Fluidity which does not appear in the countei- opposite of the annihilation produced by that Conjunction of Fire which is not combined with the totality of non-existent Fluidity. Or the foundation of yellowness and weight, conjoined as it is with Fluid Substance which excludes all Colour different from yellow Colour, does not therefore become fhe foundation of any Colour different from yellow Colour even at the Conjunction of Fire for three hours, like a piece of yellow cloth placed inside Wider which is conjoined with Fire. If it be objected, The Colour of gold will then be visible in darkness as there will be nothing to cloud or overpower its Colour, because, overpowering means the non-apprehension caused by the apprehension of a more powerful like object," we reply that overpowering denotes the mere relation with a like object which is more powerful by the power of the effect produced by it. 80 it has been said, u Other Colour does not at all shine under the influence of the association of the earth. * This is our view. 7.

Use of Inference.

Upaskara. Having thus finished the section on the characteristic of the four Sub stances which possess Touch, the author, seeing that the characteristic of Air is net proved by its foundation or with a view to avoid this, at the outset introduces the method of ] roof by inference, and then first of ull establishes tho probative force or value of inference itself, according to experience, and thereby begins the section of demonstration >f Air :

8. That it has horns, a hump, a tail hairy at the extremity, and a dewlap such is the admitted mark of being a cow. 56.

The import is that as horns, etc. are the marks, the pervasion, or universal or invariable relation of which is well-known or recognised, towards the proof of cow-ness, so also the commonly-observed marks of the five super-sensuous Substances,, Air, etc., assume the form of proof. Here although the mere possession of horns is not the mark of cow- ness, since it is also found in the buffalo, etc. ; nor is the possession of the dew-lap, etc., the distinction or differentia, since in that case the name will become senseless ; still with them who can discern in the horn of the cow difference in characteristic in comparison with the horns of the buffalo, the sheep, etc., all those distinctions truly assume the nature of marks. And all those distinctions such as straightness, crookedness, hardness, softness, shortness, length, etc., which are capable of being known by observers of superior skill, do really exist in horns also. Thus in respect of the body of a cow at a distance standing by itself, the inference is altogether unobstructed that it is a cow because like the body of a cow which has been previously perceiv ed, it possesses peculiar horns. Similarly, the possession of a hump also is a mark of being a cow. The possession of a tail hairy at the extremity, is also a truly independent mark of being a cow. Prante- valadhib means that in which hair are placed at the extremity, that is, a particular tail. From the use of the aluk compound (i. c., that form of compound words in which the inflection of the first word is not elided), the tail of the cow only is denoted by the word Antevaladhi^- For the charaeteristic of the tail hairy at the extremity, which is found in the tails of cows, does not belong to the tails of the horse, sheep, etc., as these tails are covered with hair all over. In the tail of the buffalo, etc., there is not so much prolongation. From this difference in charac teristic, the possession of a tail hairy at the extremity is also a mark of being a cow. The dropping of the inflection conveying the sense of possession (i. e., the use of the word tail only instead of tail-bearing) shows that only the body of the cow has been in view. Thus (the inference) " It is a cow" because, like the body of the cow which has been previously perceived, it possesses a tail which is hairy at tho extremity. The possession of a dew-lap, again, is simply a well-known mark of being a cow. 8.

Lirigam, mark, is the complement of the aphorism. By the word cha Sound, upholding, and quivering are brought forward.

It cannot be said, " The Touch which is being perceived must be of Earth itself of which the Colour is not yet developed," because the developed Touch of Earth cannot be separated from developed Colour. Henco the Touch which is perceived, being Touch, must reside somewhere, like the Touch of Earth, etc. Some foundation of Touch being thus proved by inference, by analogy, (Samanyato dristam), the foundation of Touch is not identical with the triad of Earth, etc., because it does not possess Colour, nor is it identical with the pentad of Ether, etc., as it possesses Touch. Therefore by the inference together with the exclusion of others a Substance over and above the eight Substances is proved. In like manner a particular Sound also is a mark of Air. Thus in the absence of the impact of Substances possessing Colour, the series of Sounds (arising in loaves, etc.) which is heard amongst leaves, etc., must be occasioned by the impact of substances possessing Touch and Impetus, like the series of sounds produced in a drum by the percussion of the drumstick, because it is a series of sounds which is in relation to a subs tance the parts of which are indivisible. The absence of the impact of Substances possessing Colour, is, again, known by the non-perception of what might be expected or the co-relative. And from exhaustion that Substance possessing Touch and Impetus is verily an addition to the group of the eight substances. Similarly, a particular upholding also is a mark of Air. Thus the steadiness or flotation of grass, cotton, cloud, and air-ship in the sky, is due to the conjunction of some subs tance possessing Touch and Impetus, since it is the flotation of substance which are not presided over by a conscious being, like the flotation of grass, wood, boat, etc., on a stream ; whereas in the flotation of poison, etc., caused by thought directed towards it, human and other influence is without doubt present. So also in the upholding of the bird, the branch of a tree, etc. Nor is the distinctive mark not proved on account of its being influenced by God, because by the word conscious all else except (rod is meant. Similarly, quivering too is a mark of the exis tence of Air. Thus this Action in grass, etc., without the impact of Substances possessing Colour, is due to the impact of some Substance possessing Touch and Impetus, because it is an Action which is not produced by Weight and Conjunction of Soul exercising Volition, like the Action of a cane-bush when struck by the waves of a river. The word l weight implies Conjunction of Soul attended with adristam (invisible after-effects of past acts), Fluidity and Impression ; hence the being an action not produced by them is the mark.

r It cannot be said, " Air is only an object of sense-perception and that therefore there is no need of the investigation of its marks ;" for, Aic is not perceptible ; only its supersenusousness is proved by theinfer- enne : " Being a colourless external Substance, it is like Ether." It canot be replied " Its perceptibility is inferred in this way that being the seat of Touch Air is perceptible like the water-pot ; " for the posses sion of developed Colour is here the condition, upddhi. If it be objected, " In the case of Colour, etc., as well as Soul, it is not pervasive of the major term, since it pervades the major term when the latter is deter mined by the being the external substance which is the minor term containing the middle term, or is determined by the middle term which is the moans of inference. Nor does it govern a body s being an object of visual perception, because it is there that its presence and absence are observed as a rule. On the other hand, a body s being an object of tactual perception is governed by the mere possession of an adequate Touch." We reply, that both the presence and absence of Colour govern here; for perceptibility only by means of Touch proved by both posi tive and negative marks, has not been observed without the perception of Colour. Moreover, if Air were an object of sense-perception, then it would govern also the apprehension of general Attributes, e.y., Number, etc. If it be objected, u Perceptibility does belong to Number in blowing by the mouth, etc., to Measure or Extension, e. y., cubit, span, etc., and to Separateness as well as to Priority and Posteriority of two Airs existing on both sides. On the other hand, it is not the rule accor ding to you also that they are perceptible by means of there being individual masses of Air, because they are not observed in the cloth, etc., lying on the back." We reply, that it is the rule that they are perceived by means of there being individual masses of Air. Number, etc., are obtained in the cloth, etc., fixed upon the back, if they lie straight ; if they are not obtained, it is because of the defect that the latter do not lie straight. " Developed Colour and Touch govern the perceptibility of external substances, only when they operate jointly. Light, the yellow substance within the eye, and the radiation or heat of the moon are not perceptible because their Touch is undeveloped. Hotness as in summer, heat and Watery Substances the parts of which havo been dispersed (steam.) are not perceptible, because Colour is un developed there." This is the view of the commentator of Nyaya-Vartikaa. " But light, etc., are really perceptible although Touch is undeveloped. Therefore the Conjunction and Disjunction of the bird and the branch of the tree are really perceptible in the sky under moonlight." So say those who know the traditions of the system. Nor can it be said that the possession of developed Touch (universally) excites to the percepti bility of universally external Substances, for then the light of the emerald would be non-perceptible. Nor is only the possession of the developed distinctive Attribute the governing condition, for then Ether too would become perceptible. Nor again is the possession of the deve loped distinctive Attribute co-existent with the ensuant or resulting magnitude, such condition, for the bilious substance existing at the tip of the tongue is imperceptible in spite of the development or manifesta tion of bitterness. Therefore only the possession of developed or manifested Colour governs the perceptibility of all Substances except Soul. And this is not present in Air. Hence Air is not an object of tense-perception 9.

Touch which infers Air, cannot be explained by visible objects.

Upatkdra. It may be objected, " Here there ii no mark which can be known by senee- peroeption. For here the pervasion or universal relation is not obtained by sense perception like that of fire and smoke. Moreover thia will be also the Touch of one or other only f Earth etc." Therefore he says.

The Touch which is made the subject of enquiry does not belong to visible Substances, viz., Earth, Water, and .Fire, because it ig not accompanied by Colour. Therefore the inference is that this Touch resides somewhere. Hence in virtue of the middle-term, i. <\, the mark of inference, being contained somewhere, we get Air although the mark is not the mark of the visible Substances, i. e., although the mark is observed in analogous Substances. This is the meaning. Although only the quartet of observed Touch, etc., are the mark, yet because their relation with Air is not apprehended, therefore it is said that the mark of Air is 7iot the mark of the visible Substances. For it is not possible to prove Air after first proposing that this which possesses this or that property is Air. Therefore the import is that the proof of Air is by inference from analogy together with the exclusion of (possible) others (i. e.,by hypothesis^). 10.

Air is a Substance.

Upaskdra.H&ving proved Air as a whole made up of parts, which is the foundation of Touoh capable of being perceived, he says, with a view to prove Air oharauterised a ultimate atoms :

The ultimate atom of Air is a Substance this is the complement of the aphorism. Although there is this mutual dependence or correla tion that Substance-ness being proved, the possession of Action and the possession of Attribute are also proved and in their proof the proof of Substanceness lies, yet the possession of Action is proved by this that the ultimate atom which is the constituent element of the composite whole which is the foundation of the Touch which is being perceived, cannot be established otherwise than by the Conjunction of the non- combinative cause ; and the possession of Attribute is proved by the rule that the Touch, Colour, etc., of the composite whole are preceded by like Attributes in its cause ; and by these two Substance-ness also is proved ; so that here there is no fault, namely repetition or vicious circle. Of these the possession of Action extends to a portion of the objects of the same ascertained class, while the possession of Attribute pervades all the objects of the same ascertained class, which the posses sion of Attribute pervades all the objects of the same ascertained class. The word cha brings forward the characteristic of being combinative cause, which proves Substance-ness.

If it be objected, " There is no proof (of the existence) of the ultimate atoms themselves. Then the Substance-ness of which is being proved ?," we reply that by the maxim of the division, etc., of the action of dense effects, a body which is being divided and sub-divided becoming smaller, smallest, etc., that than which no smaller unit can be obtained, the same is the ultimate atom. If the relation of part and whole w r ere unlimited, then it would follow that the mountain Suineru and a mustard seed, etc., will have the same Measure or Mass, because in that case they would resemble one another in possessing infinite parts, and because without the distinction of the number of causes (i. e., constituent elements), measure and magnitude, mass and volume, do not rule the difference of Measure. It cannot be said that this relation of part and whole continues only up to the limit of destruction for that which remains at the end having no parts, its destruction is not possible ; and if it contains parts, then non-finality will be the result, and its defect has been already pointed out. If it is said, " Truti (i. e., a minute part) is the limit, because it is visible and there is no reason for the supposition of something invisible," we re-join that as it is a visible Substance it must possess extension or largeness and many Substances.

" Of Air characterised as ultimate atom " this is the complement of the aphorism. A Substance is destroyed by the destruction of the one or the other of its combinative and non-combinative causes. But the ultimate atom containing no parts, both of these causes do not belong to it. Therefore there being nothing to destroy it, it is not liable to destruction. Where the possession of Action and Attribute is the cause of non-eternality, there the possession of parts is the condition, upddJii, and this condition pervades the major term which is determined by the Substanceness of the minor term ; whereas the condition which is pervasive of the major term as such, is the charac teristic of being the counter-opposite of prior non-existence. 13.

Vivriti Some read the first word of the aphorism as adravyadravy- atvena (instead of l adravyatvena ), (meaning " by its being a Sub stance which does not contain any other Substance)."

Air is manifold.

VAyusaiiimurrhchanam means the collision, /. e. t a mode of con junction, of two or more Airs. It is the co-incidence, the falling in together, of two Airs of equal Impetus, flowing in opposite directions and producing contrary Actions. And it is inferred from the flying upwards of grass, cotton, etc., because the flowing upwards and also the falling in together of two Airs, are beyond the reach of the senses, whereas the perceptible Action characterised as flying upwards of grass, etc., which are perceptible, is inferred to be produced either by the impact or the vibration (i. e., the molar or the molecular movement) of Substances possessing Touch, and Impetus. Thus the flowing up wards of Air the nature of which is to flow obliquely, not being capable of proof or possible without mutual collision, proves the mutual colli sion, the same being observed in the case of the water and the wave of the river. Their going upwards also is to be inferred by the going upwards of grass, etc. For the going upwards of grass, etc., is not possible without either the collision or the internal vibration of Substances possessing Touch and Impetus. 14.

Vayu-sannikarse, in contact or association with Air. Pratyaksabhftvat, from the absence of perception, re Dristam* visible, fa^ Lingam, mark. ^ Na, not. ftI^ Vidyate, exists.

15, There being no preception of the association (i. e., universal relation) with Air, there is no visible mark (of the exis tence of Air). 63.

There the mark is said to be visible where the universal relation is grasped by perception, as smoke is of fire. But in the case of associa tion with Air, there is no perception of the appearance of the mark in accompaniment with Air. For Air itself not being an object of eense- perception, nobody can have the perception. " Things which give Touch, quivering, etc., are Air." Therefore the meaning is that no such mark exists the pervasion of which can be grasped by perception. 15.

Air is inferred not as such but as a Substance in general.

UpasMra. How then can there be any infernoo at all of Air ? Henoe to strengthen what lias been already stated, he says :

Samanyato-driftat, from the method of inference known as general inference or inference by analogy, g Cha, and wf^K: Avi- desah not in particular, General.

16. And, by inference by analogy, (Air is proved) not a a particular substance, (but as Substance only). 64.

Inference is three-fold : from cause to effect, from effect to cause, and from the commonly observed to the unobserved, or from analogy. Thus this Touch which is being felt, must reside somewhere, because it is a Touch or because it is an Attribute. From this analogy or common observation or experience, accompanied by the exclusion of other possi bilities, its residence in a Substance in addition to the eight Substances, is proved. This is the meaning.

It cannot be said that the inference from effect to cause is then gone. For after the exclusion- of other possibilities, where analogy prevails, there proceeding upon the proved qualification of the minor term that it does not reside in the eight Substances, the proposition that this) Touch which does not reside in the eight Substances must reside somewhere, does not result except 011 the assumption of its being resident in a Substance in addition to the eight Substances. There fore the pro posed object being not explained otherwise, it is proved by inference from cause to effect alone. But where analogy arises from the appea rance of exclusion at the very beginning, there the proposed object results at last and the mode of inference is found to be inference from effect to cause. It is not sound to hold that inference from effect to cause only shows the manner, for in the case of being accompanied by the exclusion of other possibilities, inference from cause to effect itself comes to show the manner. The rule also that inference merely shows the manner which determines the pervasiveness, is not valid, for the appearance of a different manner is possible from the association of particular materials. 16.

VIA&2IKA PHILOSOPHY.

The name Air is derived from Scripture.

nn Jv r? Ut i f Jt - lH in i t I1<lc(l to bo Sftid that according to not aa a particular Sub*. the last aphorism there is no inference in the form, This i,s Air," but that Air is 1 by way cf the mark being resident in a Substance in addition to the eight Substance*, ien what is the evulenco of that Substance being called by the name of Air ? So ho eayfi ;

17. Therefore the name, Air, is proved by the Veda. 65.

Because there is no inference in the particular form, therefore the name Air is proved by dyama, i. c., the Veda. This is the meaning.

Air is the moving deity," " One should offer a white goat to Air," And this Air is all colour, the carrier of all smells, and pure/ from these and other recommendation, which have acquired the force of regulations, the name, Air, is obtained. As the name, heaven, is obtained from the recommendation < That which is not pierced with pain nor is clouded afterwards ;" the name, barley, from the recommendation,

Ine leaves of all crop-plants fall off in spring. But the barley plants possessing ears of corn thrive in it as if with joy ;" the name, cane, from the recommendation, " cane is born in water ;" and the name, bear, from the recommendation, " cows run after the bear/ Otherwies, in the case of such instructions as "He who desires heaven should perform sanfice," etc., in the non-appearance of the particular happiness for the time being, men desiring heaven will not be inclined towards the performance of sacrifice, etc. Nor will there be any arrest of activity according to the usage of the Mlechchhas, i. e. the impure, in respect of His becomes a mess of barley." " He kindles

v?f re ** ive tire n a oane mat " " Shce of bear-skin," etc., for the Mlechchhas apply the words barley, bear, and cane, to yellow paddy, crow, and black-berry (of jackal,) respectively. Thus there will be room for doubt without those recommendations. Therefore their respective meanings are known from the Veda only. This is the import. Only the name is proved by the Veda ; the proof of the Substance, however, is really by analogy. 17.

Existence of God.

.UH^?;r*ftT i ^ gthu8 ? niril ! dihesecti011 " Air, he establishes that the Veda Is th by the All-knower, in order to answer the objection, Is then the name, Air, also, e the names dtttha and davtttha (i. c., the gibberish or abracadabra), uttered by a mad ? , and with a view to open the section on Igvara or God, he says,

• I? I te n

T SaAjfla-karmma, name and effect, g Tit, on the other hand. But. wf|[tiiei;rf Asmad-visistanam, beings distinguished from, other than, or superior to ourselves, f^r^ Lingam, mark.

18. But name and effect are the mark (of tho existence) of beings distinguished from ourselves. 66.

19. Because name and effect follow from perception. 67.

Here also tho singular form or the resolution into one, of name and effect/ from the copulative compound meaning collection, is intended to indicate the indentity of the author of the name and the author of the universe. Thus he only is competent to give the names heaven, opjU ya (i- <\> that which was not before, that is to say, adrstam*), etc., with whom heaven/ i fii>0.i ca^ etc., are objects of sensu- peioeption, as in the giving tho names, Chaitra. Maitra, etc., 1> the bodies of Chaitra, Maitra, etc., which are perceptible, by their lather imd others. >Srmlarly, the application of the names, pot. cloth/ etc., is only midei tho direction of Isvara. The word which has been directed by tsvara in a particular place, the same is appropriate there ; c. #., all those herbs which have been touched by the edge of the mon goose s tooth, counteract the venom of the snake. Such direction is the mark. 1. e., the means of inference, of beings distinguished from our selves. And tho name, -Alaitra/ etc., which the father gives to the son, that also is surely directed by Isvara by such rules as vi The father should give a name (lo the son) on the twelfth d;iy. J

Thus it is proved that naming is a mark of tho existence of Isvara.

In like manner action, /. u., effect, also is a mark of the existence of tsvara ; for, thus, Earth, etc., must have a creator, because the} aro effects like a pot, etc.

, Here Earth, etc., do not m^an a product producible by the body, nor a product producible by the volition of another product, nor a pro duct which has become tho subject-matter of dispute as to whether il, has been produced by an agent or not, nor a product the production of which by an agent has been the subject of doubt, because Earth, etc., also are producible by the volition of another product by means of adfista (i. e., invisible after-effects of voluntary acts), and because dispu te and doubt, being too wide, do not determine the minor term. .Moreover, if by the expression that they have a creator, it is meant, that they are the products of an active principle, then production in question may be explained by reference to ourselves, etc., for tho causality of ourselves also is productive of Earth, etc., by means of adrisf-a (the invisible aftcr-olTocts of past acts). It is the same al.,o if the product be producible by an active principle operating upon given materials, for the acts or ourselves, etc., also are relative to some given

material. Then if the being effect, on the other hand, means the ben." the counter-opposite of prior non-existence (or potential existence)! then it will include annihilation also. I5ut notwithstanding all this earth must have a creator because it is an effect, Here tlie havin a creator means the being the product <>f an active principle indepSn- tlc " ll . v m " ?/" !llul heing an effect means the being the CM. unter- "pposite of existence determined by prior non-existence. In the case of sprouts, etc., there is no fault of doubtfulness or multifariousness, For these faults arise where there is doubi as to the existence or non- existence of the middle term whe-i the non-existence of the major teim to be ascertained ; for otherwise ail inference will have to be Nor should it be said that this is the fault beyond tho t \\ill entail the command of the king : f,, r it is not the glory or a fault that it does not attack the minor term. Therefore at itago of sprouting, the proof of the existence of) the major term (in nior term) by the mark or middle term the universal relation ,,f ascertained, being unobstructed, wheie is the doubtful* ness or multifariousness ^ And a fortiori at the stage of non-sprouting, those faults verily do nut exist. Thus in brief. 10.

Xi^kramauam. egress. SI^H Pravesanam, ingress, ffa III, h. UTITflW Akasasya, of Kther fy$Lingam, mark. 20. Egress and Ingress such is the mark (of the existence) of Ether. 68. The word - it signifies manner and brings forward Actions, 22. And also because they differ in property from Un characteristic of another (i.e., the non-combinative) cause. 70. Anuklripti means characteristic or sign, by the etymology that by which a thing is made known/ The meaning is : on account of difference from that which is the characteristic of another cause, /. P., the non-combinative cause. Substance does not surely at all become a non-combinative cause. Now non-combinative causality arises by proximity in the same object with the cause, or by proximity in the same object with the effect. The first is illustrated in the case of the colours of the yarns towards the colour of the cloth. And this non-combinative causality is calletl great/ as it. produces a larger effect. The second is as that of the conjunction of$<m"l and Mind towards knowledge, or cognition, etc. And this non-combinative causality is called small. as it produces a smaller effect. But Ether is neither the combinative cause nor, again, the non-combinative cause of egress, ingress, and other Actions. Hence Action is not a mark of the existence of Ether. 22.

} i, v rltl. _ He says that Action does not infer Ether even as iis n on -combinative cause.

On the maxim that a verbal affix signifies an object, i annklnpti (agroament) means anuklripta/ 1. <-., that which is agreed to by i he opposite disputants ; and such a different caused is the non-combina tive cause, ri".. Attribute and Action. Therefore the meaning is Iliat oo-ress, etc., do not warrant the inference of Ether as Iheir non-coni- bTnative cause, because difference from Attribute and Action ( which are non-combinative causes), in the form of Substance-ness, exists

in Ether.

The uou-produotion of Action is due to the obstruction of Impetus Gravity, etc., which are the causes of Action, by Conjunction with jorporal substances, and is not due to the non-existence of Ether which is all-pervasive. Therefore the meaning is that the presence of or agruemo.it with Sky which should be really explained otherwise does not prove that Ether is the occasional cause of Action __ 23.

is seen or observed.

Tho Attribute of the offoct is soon to ho proccdod by the Attribute of the cruiso. 72.

Tho particular Attributes such n.i colour, etc., which exist in the effect characterised as Earth, etc.. are found to be preceded by like Attributes in their causes. Sound also is a particular or distinctive Attribute, for in spite of its being a class, it is, like colour, etc.. apprehended by only one of the external senses. Thus the meaning ia that such" effect is not observed in which sound preceded by a like Attribute in the couse thereof may appear. ____ 21.

Sound not an. Attribute of tamjll>l>: tliinya,

It would have bean so, if, as when Colour, Taste, etc., are observed in yarns, potsherd, etc., other Colour, Taste, etc., homogeneous with the former, are also observed in a cloth, pot, etc., so the congener of the sound which is observed in the constituent parts of a lute, flute, tabour, etc., were also observed in the wholes made up of those, /. P., Into, 11 nte, tabour, etc. But this is not the case ; for, in fact, it is seen that a lute, etc., are originated by constituent parts which are destitute of all Sound, whereas it is not seen that a cloth, a pot, etc., have their origin in yarns, potsherds, etc., which are destitute of Colour. More over if Sound were a particular Attribute of tangible things, then the relation of high and low and lower tones, etc., would not be observed

KAN AD A StiTPvS IT, 1, 27.

in it. For Colour, etc., which appear in a single composite whole are not observed to be varying in degree. Therefore Sound is not a dis tinctive Attribute of tangible tilings. -25.

Bhasua. reads II. I. 25 as two aphorisms, t>., Also because of the non-appearance of different effects (Kdrya-anto.ra aprddurbhdvdt and Sound (is) not an attribute of tangible tilings tfabda* sliartawtfin

Paratra, elsewhere, with other objects. aTOUI* Samavayat be- combination. ^^^ I ratynk.atvAt, because it is an object of -perception. ^ Oha and ; al 8 o. -f Na not. *W*\ n <\^? f an Attribute of Soul. ^ \a. not. ^: N[ano-miah, an Atl

Mind.

95 Because it combines with other objects, and is an~ object of sense-perception, therefore jiound is neither an Attribute of Soul nor an Attribute of Mind.

If sound were an Attribute of Soul, then there would be such staten of oonSsuWB as I am filled (with Air),-; T am sounded/ I give out Sound " etc., as there are such state as 1 am happy, 1 ow " - I desire " etc. But it is not the case ; on the contrary, the exnei-ieuce of a 1 men is that a conch-shell is filled with Air a lute is in tins way that, being an Attribute, Sound, like Colour, etc., must reside somewhere. And it is an Attribute, because, like Colour,

^tel g S o 1 )!l ,> SS < !M>ilMC " ll . eill "JM-ehended by only one external sense. Being non-eternal, it resembles knowledge, etcs both of which are combined with Universal Substances. And its no oternalny will he shown later on. The Substance, proved by exhaustSon nal,as there ,s no reason for the supposition of constituent parts s also universal, because Sound is observed in a,l! places 27. /^/"-. The idea ,-f Knnfrln is that Time as well ns S.-ac 30, (Kther is one), because there is no difference in Sound \vliich is its mark, and because there exists no other distinguishing mark. ---78.

Tho sense is that i.lio unity of Ether is proved. Fthei being ubiquitous oi- uui versal, all founds are explained by their having that one and the same foundation or seat. Therefore to suppose a different basis will lie shewing ;in exuberance of: imagination. Besides the very same Sound must be the mark of the different I .lther which is to be supposed. ;ind thai, / . - .. Sound, is tin differentiated ; nor is there any other mark which can prove the differentia or the difference or division. It will be stated after-wards (III. ii-20 ) that ;il though the mark. <-. / knowledge, etc., of Souls is really non-differentiated, still the plnralitv of Souls is proved ly other marks, according to difference o[ conditions or circumstances. oO.

I iiTitL- Plurality of Souls is proved by the differences of Lite products "f the Soul, r/.v.. pleasure and pain, seeing that at one and (lie same time an ofl ect in the form of pleasure is produced in one Soul, while in another Soul an effect in the form of pain is produced. Bui, in the case of Fther there is no d ifferenciation of Sound which is its mark, whereby a multiplicity of Ether might be established. Nor is there any other mark which can establish a plurality of hither. So that no account of the alisence of proof, and no account of simplicity, Ether is one and not many.

Individuality of Ether.

I-.H^I-U H. It 1 iuv hi *;u<l. " L A unity l>y all iuc;ms Vlcm;, to Klher, LuL. it ,-,1,-u h;m; xtreme largencBS as it is imiveral. Let Conjunction aud Disjunction also belong to it as t is the non-ooinbinativo cause of Sound, JJut how oau individuality belong l

The subject-matter of ihe chapter is the definition or statement, of the characteristics possessing particular Al tributes and which are not the objocts of mental perception or perception by the internal organ. Hence the characteristics of ICarth, "Water, Fire, Air, and Ether and. in passing, of the divine Soul also, are stated in this chapter. Thus Earth possesses fourt on Attributes, and these Attribu tes are Colour. Taste, Smell, Touch. Number. Measure. Separateness, Conjunction, Disjunction. Priority, Posteriority, Gravity, Fluidity, and .Impression. Faa-Ml y I lie same number of Attributes, with tho^exception of vSmell and addition of Viscidity, belong to Y\ ater. These sauio Attributes, with the exception of Taste, Smell , Viscidity, and Gravity belong to Fire, and with the exception of Smell, Taste, Colour, Gravity, Viscidity, and Fluidity, belong 1 to Air. With tlio addition of Sound, the five Attributes beginning with Number, belong to Ether. Only the five Attributes beginning with Xumber belong to Space and Time. The live Attributes beginning with Number, together with Priority, Posteriority, and Impetus, belong to Mind. The live Attributes beginning with Xumber, and Cognition, Desire, and Volition belong to fsvara. 31,

Here e ids the iirst chapter of the second book in the Commentary given by Sankara to the Vaisesika aphorisms of Kanada of great powers.

Vlci Ui.Tlie subject-matter <>f this chapter is the delinition of Substances possessing particular Attributes which do not appear in that which possesses - bhavana. i. e., impression or meditative tinder- standing. Substances are the live elements and (Jod.

Smell may be essential or accidental,

Upaskdra. Now the author dosi res to examine the characteristics, such as Small, etc., of the " elements "< bhuta). Therefore, byway of establishing that Small, eto., may be essential or natural as well as accidental or conditional, he saya :

Puspa-vastrayoh, of a flower and a cloth, tffa Sati, -existing. Qfotq* Sannikarse, contact. JJUn^WJHfa: Gunantarapra- durbhavah, non-appearance from another Attribute. fj& Vastre, in the cloth. iTOMmfaiF!; Gandhfibhava-lingam, mark of the non-existence of Smell.

1. The non-production (of the smell which is perceived in the cloth), after or during its contact with a flower, from the At- tribnte (of the constitutive cause of the cloth), is the mark of the non-existence of smell in the cloth. 80.

Where Colour, Taste, Smell, and Touch are produced from the corresponding Attributes in the cause, there they become essential and so acquire the nature of being characteristic marks, and not otherwise. For, the fragrance which is perceived in the breeze, or the cold which is perceived in a tablet of stone, or the warmth which is perceived in water, does not become a characteristic. Therefore he says. 4 Of a flower arid a cloth. For the fragrance of the golden ketaki (Pandanus Odoratissimus), which is perceived in the cloth when the cloth has been* brought into contact with the golden ketaM flower, does not belong to the cloth, because it is not produced according to the ( corresponding ) Attribute of the cause ( i. e., yarns ). What, then ? It is accidental or conditional, because due to the proximity of the golden ketaki ; for the non-existence of Smell in the ketaki is not the mark of the non-existence of Smell in the cloth. What is the mark ? So it has been said, " Non- appearance from another Attribute," i. e. } non-production from the Attribute of the cause. For, if the Smell, which is perceived in the cloth, were essential to it, then it would be percieved in the cloth also before the constituent parts, i. e., the yarns of the cloth, are brought into contact with the ketaki but it is not so. This is the meaning . Thus the Smell in question is not inherent in the cloth, because, like cold and hot Touch, etc., it is a particular Attribute which is not produced by the Attribute of the constituent parts. 1.

Vivfiti. It has been already stated that the possession of Smell,

-etc., are the marks of Earth, etc. But this would not be proper. For

Smell being perceived of Air, etc., combined with fragrant parts, the

mark becomes too wide. For this reason he shows that the perception.

^of Smell, etc., in Air, etc., is accidental.

Smell is essential in Earlh. UpatkAra. He Bays that essential Small is tho mark of EarthVyavasthitah, established. ?fqcji Prithivyam, in Ear L h. : Gandhah, Smell.

2. Smell is established in Earth. 31.

Established in the Earth i. c., determined by absence of connec tion as well as connection with other objects. * The meaning is that Smell is the mark, because it serves t > differentiate Earth from objects of similar and dissimilar classes. For Earth has Sme .l only and only- Earth has Smell. It is therefore established that Smell which differen tiates Earth from the eight similars beginning with Water, and th five dissimilars beginning with Attribute, is essential to Earth __ 2.

Vivriti. Established/ i. e., ascertains 1 or undoubted, as there i* nothing to oppose it.

Heat may be essntial or accidental.

Upaiklra. Extending the mode of establishing Smell IBS an ewswntial Attribute, to- Hotnesg also, which is the characteristic of Firo, lie says :

^?U Etena, by this. iUHl UsnatA, Hotness. Warmth, VyakhyatA, explained.

3. By this hontness is explained. 82.

This extension or analogy should be understood also in the case- of coldness, etc., which are the characteristics of Water, etc. 3.

Heat in essential in Fire. He examines tho characteristic of Firo :

Tejasah of Fire. f:nM! UsnatA, Hotness. 4. Hotness (is the charateristic) of Fire. 83.

^The meaning is that natural or essential Hotness is the characte ristic of Fire. Colour, white and luminous, is also implied. _ 4.

Coldness is essential in Water. UpatlcAra. He examines the characterise of Water :

1 ^ ! tfTrTrlT II \ \ R { * II

Apsu, in Waters, jftnrni &itata, Coldness.

" Absence of connection as well as connection with other objects." i. e., Smell is always- found in essential agretment with Earth and in essential di/erenct from Non-Earth.

5. Coldness (is the characteristic) of Water. 84.

The meaning is that natural or essential coldness is the character istic of water ; s> that it is not too wide, by over-extending to a stone- tablet, sandal-wood, etc. Colour and Taste also are said to be the characteristics of Water in the same way as coldness which also implies Viscidity and constitutional Fluidity.

It cannot be asked, " Why is there this breach in the order of the characteristics according to the enumeration of Earth, etc ? " Because it is intended to indicate that the Touch of Fire overcomes or over whelms the Touch of Earth and the Touch of Water, and so the exami nation of Fire should of course come in between them. Or, the order has not been observed in order to introduce the examination of Air. Thus it should be inferred that Touch, which is neither hot nor cold and is not due to be the action of fire or heat, is essential to Air, and, as such, is its characteristic This is the import.- 5.

VLvritl. The order of enumeration has been abandoned with the object of indicating that the mark of Air, i. e., the possession of a heterogeneous Touch, should be investigated in the same way. The explanation, given by the learned writer of the Upaskara, namely that the violation of tha order is intended to show that the Touch of Fire overcomes the Touches of Earth and Water, is not satisfactory. For it is known to all that in gold as well as in moon-light, etc., the Touches of Earth and Water overcome the Touch of Fire.

Marks of Time.

Upaskdra. Thus it has boon stated that particular Attributes suoh as small, etc., of tangible things, which are preceded by like Attributes in their causes, are the oharaohteris- tios of Earth, etc., Now he bogini the suction on the characteristics of Time, brought in by the order of enumeration, by sayii-g :

Aparasmin, in respect of that which is posterior, Aparam, posterior. ^ITT^. Yugapat, simultaneous, f^i Chiram, slow. f%si Ksipram, quick, ifi Iti, such, ^l^i^^i l^ Kala-lingani, marks of Time.

6. Posterior in respect of that which is posterior, simul taneous , slow, quick, _ Such (cognitions) are the marks of Time. 85.

The word iti which shows the nude of cognition, relates to each. individual word ; so that the meaning is that the cognition it is pos terior the cognition l it is simultaneous, the cognition it is slow or late, the cognition i it is quick or early, are the marks of Time. By posterior in respect of that which is posterior, we are also to uuder stand l prior, in respect of that which is proir. Therefore the sense is this : If we make a youth our point of view of starting point, then the oog.iition of Priority is produced in a:i old man, whosa birth has been ^distanced by a large number of the revolutions of the sun ; and thia

Priority depends upon some non-combinative cause. Now. Colour, etc., cannot be the non-combinative cause, owing to their variable presence. The three, beginning with Smell, do not produce Priority in respect of Air. Touch also, rendered different by the difference of hot, etc., is in ach case variable in its presence. Nor is a fixed Measure the non- combinative cause, for it does not originate a heterogeneous object. Therefore it remains at last that, the revolutions of the sun being connected with a different substratum, conjunction with a Substance determined by those revolutions is really the required non -combinative- cause. And that Substance, being conjoint both with the lump of matter on earth (e. g., the body of a youth) as well as the sun, must be- universal. If the characteristic of that Substance be supposed to be- belonging to Ether, then it would follow that the beating of a drum at any place will produce Sound in all drums everywhere. Thus the Conjunction of Time alone, which is conjoint with the sun, with the lump of matter in question, is the non-combinative cause of Priority. It is Time which demonstrates the action of the sun, because, for the purpose of the determination of a different Substance in the case of the properties of a different Substance, the Soul is dependent upon an affinity in addition to its own propinquity, otherwise the redness of a kusumbha flower at Varan asi (Benares) would entail redness in a crystal at Patna also. But Time being supposed to be of that very nature, this (i. e., dependence upon another affinity) is no fault here. If it be asked, why Time also would not transmit colour, we reply, it ia because Time has been established only as that which always demonstrates action.

In the same way, the production of Posteriority should be ascer tained in a youth, with an old man as tl e starting point. Simultane ous : They are born simultaneously, They exist simultaneously, 1 They act simultaneously/ in such cognitions, simultaiieously means at the same time, during the same movement of the sun, in other words, at the same time as determined by the movement of the sun. It is not unconnected movements of the sun, which undergo the qualifications, e. g., l simultaneously born, etc. ; nor are these connected by their own nature. Therefore, these specific cognitions being incapable of a different proof, the Substance which establishes the specification,. is Time 6.

Like Air, Time is a substance, and is eternal.

UpatkAra. It may be said, " Let Time bo proved. But there is no proof that it is a Substance, nor that it is eternal." So he says :

Dravyatva-nityatve, substanceness arid eternality. VAyuna, by Air. qitqi?T Yyakhyate, explained.

7. The Substance-ness and eternality (of Time) are explained by (the explanation of the Substance-ness and eternality of) Air. 86.

The meaning is that, as the ultimate atom of Air is a Substance,,

1 ecause it possesses Attributes, and is eternal, because it is a Sub stance which does not contain any other Substance, so also is Time. 7.

Like Existence, Time is one.

UpaskAra. " Even then," it may be said, " there may bo a plurality of Times." So h* nays :

Tattvam, unity. Tl^f Bhtivena, by Existence.

8. The unity (of Time is explained), by (the explanation of the unity of) Existence. 87.

The aphorism has grammatical connection with the word

• vyakhyfite in the last aphorism, reduced to the form vyakhyatam/ The meaning is : Time, like Existence, is one, because, in spite of their multiplicity, the marks of Time, viz., the cognition it is slow or late, etc., are the same in all places, and because no distinguishing- mark, like those of Souls, exists.

It may be objected, " Time is manifold according to the difference of moments, two-moments, hours, three-hours, days, days-and-nights^ fortnights, months, seasons, half-years, years, etc. How then can it be one ?" We reply that ii is not so, because the appearance of difference is due to upddhi or an external condition. For, it is found, that as the self-same crystal appears to be different according to the reflection thrown upon it by the external condition or upddhi of a China rose, tdpinja (Xanthochymus Pictorius), etc., so also does the one and indivisible Time appear to be different according to the limit set by the movement of the Sun, etc., as well as according to the limit imposed by their respective effects. Thus moment (ksana) is the- external condition of Time, which does not pervade or cover another external condition of Time, or it is Time which is not the receptacle of the counter-opposite of the prior as well as posterior non-existence of what is placed or contained in it ; and this should be understood from. the production of something and the destruction of something at every moment. It is proved by the Veda that a i lava/ is an aggregate of two moments, and so on.

" Yet," it may be objected," " Time must be at least three-fold, according to the difference of the past, the future, and the present ; for it is heard, The three times return, < The three Times are not accom plished or proved, etc." We reply, it is not, for the use of three-fold Time is due to the limits of (the existence of) a thing, its prior non-exis tence, and its total destruction. The Time which is determined or deli mited by a thing, is its present ; the Time which is delimited by they prior non-existonce of a thing, is its future ; and the Time which ia delimited by the total destruction of a thing, is its past. Thus the use of the threefoldness of Time depends upon thethreefoldness of tho deter minant or that which delimits. 8.

Time, a cause of non-eternal Substances. a. H.fire he says that Time is the oaue* of all that is produced.

Nityogu, in eternal Substances. SHT^ Abhavat, because it does not exist. *f<?4!J Anityesu, in non-eternal Substances, u sr q; Bhfivat Because it exists. cir$Orane, in tho cause. *iil*<n KalnkhyA, the name of Timo. ffa Iti, he:ice. 9. The name Time is applicable to a cause, inasmuch as it does not exist in eternal substances and exists in non-eternal substances. 88. The word iti is used in the sense of be.-auso. For this roaso-i the name Tim 9 is applicable to < cause, i. e., tho cause of all that i* produced. He states the reason : " Because it does not exist i-i eter nals, aid because it exists in non-eternals." The meaning is this : cause in tho case of the eternals such as Ether, etc., there do not arise the cognition, " produced simultaneously," produced slowly or ate/ "produced quickly or early," "produced now," "produced during the day, * produced at night," etc., whereas cognitions of simultaneity etc., do arise in the case of tho non-eternals such as the pot, cloth etc therefore, by the methods of agreement as well as difference, Time is proved to be a cause. It is to be understood that Timo is tho occasional or efficient cause of all that is produced, not only in virtue of the cogni tions of simultaneity, etc., but also in virtue of the application of the terms, hibernal, vernal, pluvial, etc., to flowers, fruits, etc. 9. Upaskdra. Having finished the section on the mark of Time, ami goin,- to ba in the -aeotion on the mark of Spaoo, he says : comparative largeness in number of the conjunctions of the conjoint^ For, without the existence of such a substance, there is no other means- of establishing a comparatively large or small number of the conjunc tions of the conjoint in the two bodies ; nor, without such establishment,, can there be any particular or concrete understanding about them res pectively ; nor, without such understanding, can Priority and Posteri ority arise ; nor, without their appearance, can. there be concrete cognition and usage about them. It cannot be said, " Let Time be the means also of establishing the conjunctions. What is the use of another Substance?" For Time is proved only as the means of establishing constant or unchaiigeable actions. If, on the contrary, it is supposed to be the means of establish ing the inconstant or changing property of Remoteness, then it would establish the colouring of the paste of the saffron of Kasmira (Cashmere) on the breasts of the women of Karnata (the Carnatic). The same will be the implication if Ether and Soul also are similarly made to be the means of communicating the prcperty of Remoteness. Whereas Space being proved only as the invariable means of communicating the pro perty ( f Remoteness, there is no such absurd implication. In this way Space, which establishes conjunctions, is really separate from Time,, which establishes actions. Moreover, these cognitions, namely " This is east of that/ " This- is south of that," " This is west of that," " This is north of that/ " This is soufh-east of that/ This is south-west of that/ " This is north west of that," " This is north-east of that," " This is below that/ "This, is above that," are brought together by the statement " This from this," because it is not possible for these cognitions to have another occasional or efficient cause. Further, Time establishes external con- ditiors or upddhis which are constant, while Space establishes external conditions or upddhis which are not constant. For, when one thing is present (in Time) with reference to another thing, that other thing also is l present with reference to the former : but in the case of the external condition OP upddhi of Space, there is no such rule or fixity, because that which is east in relation to a person, the very name sometime becomes west in relation to the same person. The same is to be observed with regard to north, ete., also. The direction or quarter which is nearer to the mountain whereon the sun rises, with reference to another direction, is east in relation to the latter ; the direction which is nearer to the mountain whereon the sun sets, with reference to another direction, is west in relation to th latter. Nearness, again, is the fewness of the conjunctions of the conjoint ; and these conjunctions with the sun, whether they be a few or many, are to be established by Space. In like manner, the direc tion, which is determined by the portion of Space falling on the left of a person facing towards east, is north ; the direction determined by the right division of such a person, is south ; while Tightness and left- ness are particular < classes residing in the constituent parts of the body. The direction, which is the support of the conjunction which is produced by an act of which Weight is the nou-combinative cause, is below ; and the direction, which is the support of the con junction which ia produced by the conjunction of Soul possessing adrigtam (invisblfr consequences of conduct) or by the action of fire, is above. In this way, from their reference as east, etc., they are also otherwise referred to, as m the statement, " Directions are ten in number, as marked out by their being presided over by Indra, Agni, Yama, Nirrita, Varuna Vayu, boma, iSina, Naga, and Brahma." _ 10. Like Air, Space is a Substance, and is eternal. 1 also eternality b3long to Sijac in thc Unity is proved in Space, as in Existence, by the absence of differ ence in the marks of Space together with the non-existence of any differentiating mark. Separateness. of one, i. e., individuality, also belongs to Space, because individuality constantly follows unity. 12. Bhdsya. According to Kandda, it appears, there is but one Subs tance, variously called as Ether, Time, and Space. For, he has take:i much pain to establish the difference of Ether from tangible things, Self, and Mind, but he has made no attempt to prove the difference of Ether from Time and Space as well. Nor has he attempted to prove the difference of Time and Space themselves from any other Substance. It may be, therefore, considered that with the difference of Ether, the difference of Time and Space also has been established. But it may be asked, if there be one Substance only, how does it come to be variously called as Ether, Time, and Space ? He replies that this is due to the variety of effects produced by it (II ii. 13) and also to the variety ol external conditions attending it (II, ii, 14, 15, and 16.) The meaning is that the attribution of multiplicity is due to the divergence of effects. 13. Directions explained. Vpaskdra. Showing the aforesaid divergence of effects, he says : . Aditya-saayogut, from the conjunction of th.3 sun. ^ Bhuta-purvvat, past and gone, vffsfsqff: Bhayisyatah, future. Bhutfit, what has taken place or come into existence ; present. ^ Cha, and. Ri^ft, Prachi, east (lit. Orient). 14. (The direction comes to be regarded as) the east, from the past, future, or present conjunction of the sun 93. The east (prfichi) is so called, because the sun first (prak) moves (anchati) there. Thus that direction is called the east, wherein the first conjunction of the sun took place, or will take place, or is taking place in the course of its circulation round Mount Meru. Here the reference to the three times rests upon the difference, of the conceptions of the present (i. e., the observer). For with some one on the morning of the previous day, the conjunction of the sun first took place in this direction ; therefore it is the east ; so the use of the word, east. With some other, the next day, the conjunction of the sun will first take place in this direction ; so, in view of this, the use of the word, east. With some other, again, at this moment, the conjunction of the sun is taking place in this direction ; so, in view of this, the use of the wcrd, east. In the word, l bhutat, the affix, l kta/ is used in the sense of incipient action. Therefore, no fixed point being invariably necessary, the repetition of the use of the word, east, is proved also in those cases, even where tbere is no conjunction of the sun, as at night, or at mid-day, etc. This is the import. 14. Upaskdra. Extending the same method to the use of the other directions also; he says : In the very same way, the use of the term, South, arises from the past, or future, or present conjunction of the sun with the mountain situated in the south direction. The use of the \Yest and North also is to be similarly understood. Kightness and leftness (have their technical or recognised meanings, or) have been explained above. 15. Aliovr continued. Vpask tra. Extending the very same method to the intervals of direction also, he lays : UpatMra. It has been already established that the characteristics, e. g. Colour, etc., of the four elements are essential, if they are preceded by like Attributes in their causes, and if not, then they are conditional or accidental. The marks of the universal substances* which are devoid of any distinctive Attribute, have also been stated. Now, the mark of Ether, . e. y Sound, should bo examined. And hero wo meet with the contradictory conclu sions of the Tantrikas. Some say that Sound is a Substance, and some call it an Attribute. Even when they call it an Attribute, it is eternal according to soive, while according to others it is non-eternal. Others, again, distinguish even in Sound another Sound, which they call by the name, ">9?>&ota." Accordingly, to begin the examination of Sound, he first of all establishes Doubt itself, which is the first element or mombr of an examination, by its characteristic and cause, and says : Samanya-pratyaksat, from the perception of the Genus or g* 3ral property. fejfaltWsncT Visesapratyaksat, from the non-precep- tion of the Species or special property or differentia, fsra^pj^:, ViSesa- smriteh, from the recollection of particulars, i. e,., alternatives. "9, Cha, and. ^1: Samsayah, doubt. 17. Doubt arises from the perception of (the object contain ing) the general property, the non-perception of the differentia, and the recollection of the alternatives, all at once or in one act of thought. 96. Samanyapratyaksat means from the perception, i. e., apprehen sion, of the object which possesses the general property, the affix • matup, signifying possession, having been elided. Visesapratyaksat means from the non-perception or non-apprehension of the property which is the means of mutual differentiation, e. g., crooked, hollow, etc., and also head, hand, etc. Visesasmriteh means from tlie recollec tion of the particulars, i. t>,., the alternatives characterised as a trunk and as a person. Recollection also includes apprehension by sense, because, in some instances, bodies which are being perceived also become the alternatives. The word l cha brings together adfiatam (invisible consequences of voluntary conduct) etc., which are also the causes of Doubt. It has not been said that an individual or particular property is the source of uncertain knowledge. Nor has it been said that a particular or special property, being the means of discrimination, is such a c ause, and that this differenciation from similar and dissimilar objects is really the common property. Contradiction, again, consists of two propositions arising from two opposite conclusions ; one being Sound is eternal/ and the other being Sound is non-eternal. Both of them as well as both the forms of knowledge produced by them, do not together become the source of Doubt, since they do not exist simultaneously. Hence it has not been separately stated that there the cause of Doubt is either the non-common property, such as Soundness, or the common property, such as the being existent, the being the subject of proof, etc. Uncertain knowledge finds no place in the kindred system of Gautama (i. e., Nyaya Philosophy), and so a non-common property has been mentioned there as a cause of Doubt. Contradiction, i. e., two opposite propositions, containing as a rule a positive and a negative statement, has been mentioned as a cause of Doubt. In the commentary on Nyaya, Doubt has been described as five-fold, accord ing ay the fact that something is being perceived, or the fact that something is not being perceived, is the cause of Doubt. Thua Doubts may arise whether what is being perceived be existent, whether what is being perceived be non-existent, whether this thing which is being perceived be existent or non-existent, whether what is not being perceived be existent, such as a radish, a latch, etc., and whether what is not being perceived be non-existent, at a lotus in the air. But all these are really of the same kind, being explained in the very same way by the expression from the perception of the common property. Again, the three-foldness of Doubt, according to differences in its cause, as taught in the Nyaya-Yarttika, is also not possible, as tbe three, viz., common property, etc., themselves cannot be causes on. account of their variability. For heterogeneity should not be supposed here, like heterogeneity in fire produced from grass ; a strike-stick (arani) (i. e., where fire is kindled by striking two sticks against each other), and a gem, because ex hypothesi the causality consists of the common property of producing an effect defined by the characteristic of Doubt. The heterogeneity which is said to appear in the form of referring primarily to the positive alternative, or primarily to the negative alternative, etc., does not serve the purpose of a diffe rentia, as it is not sufficiently extensive, or wide. Thus Doubt is neither three-fold nor five-fold, but is of one kind only. The writer of the aphorisms, however, will himself explain its two-foldness in another respect. Universal Substances arc Ether, fcjpaue, Time, and Soul. It may be objected, Doubt is knowledge which produces the desire to know. This is not the definition, as it overlaps uncertainty. Doubt is knowledge which does not produce impression (samskara). This too is common to unmodified or undiliereritiated knowled ge or state of cons ciousness ; for, if it is a concrete knowledge, then Doubt also produces an impression. Again though it is a class/ yet the quality of Doubt is not a characteristic, for as the quality of Doubt does not reside in the object containing the property (the perception of which is the occasion of the Doubtj, the class also does not appear there, since it is not found that a, class appears elsewhere than in what it classifies." To this our reply is that from the definition of Doubt it follows that Doubt is know ledge of diverse and contradictory forms in respect of one and the same object 17. Cause* of Doubt or Disbelief continued. Upashira. Doubt is two-fold : that which relates to external objects, and that which relates to internal objects. And that which relates to external objects, is also tow fold : where the object is visible, and where the object is not visible. Of these, Doubt, in which the object is visible, may be illustrated as the uncertainty whether it be a post or a person, which arises on seeing some object distinguished by height ; and Doubt, in which the object is not visible, is such as when on seeing the horns only in the body of a cow or a gayal (Bos gavseus), etc., which is concealed by the intervention of a bush, etc., the uncertainty arises, "whether it bo a cow or a gayal." In fact, in the latter case also the Doubt really relates to the property of the horn, i. e., whether the horns are the horns of a cow or of a gayal. The statement of the two-foldness of Doubt is however, a figure of .speech. Now, the (ieiius (. e., Common property) which is the source of Doubt, raises Doubt by being observed either in more than one object or one object. He explains the first kind : f- fg Dristam, that which is seen. <g Cha, and sg^ drista-vat, Like that which was seen. 18. And that which is seen, resembles that which was seen (this also is the source of Doubt.) 97. Height, which is seen, is the source of Doubt. Dristavat is formed by yati/ i. e., the affix of similarity. Thus, something similar to the previously seen post and person, lies before. The meaning is that the height, which is observed in what lies before, is a source of Doubt, be cause it has been previously observed (in more than one object). 18. Causes of Doubt or Disbelief. continued. Vpaskdra, Ho illustrates the observed common property which relates to one object : because an object is seen in a different form, therefore that which was seen in a certain form, also gives rise to Doubt, as Chaitra who was seen in a certain form, * . e., with hair on his head, is at another time seen not in that form, i. e., with the hair removed. Then afterwards when the very same Chaitra is seen with his head covered with a piece of cloth, Doubt arises whether this Chaitra has hair or not. Here the identity of Chaitra is the common property which gives rise to Doubt, and it is seen in one object only. Therefore what is here the source of Doubt is seen in one, undifferentiated object. 19. Internal Doubt really springs from science and nescience. For instance, an astronomer predicts correctly, and predicts incorrectly eclipses of the moon, etc. Accordingly Doubt arises in his mind as to his knowledge, whether it be accurate or not. Or knowledge is some- - times science, and sometimes nescience, f. e., wanting in proof ; and consequently, Doubt arises with respect to something, whether, ivas- tnuch as it is known, it be existent or non-existent. The retention of the word, Doubt, in the aphorism, indicates that here, too, Doubt arises only from the perception of the common property, and not from any other source. Thus the opinion held by some that he uncertainty or inconstancy of cognition and non-cognition alluded to in the definition of Gautama, "Doubt is deliberation in expectation of a differentia, due to the proof of the common properties as well as of the properties of similar and dissimilar objects, the non-proof of, or uncertainty as to, these properties, and also the uncertainty or in constancy of cognition and non-cognition, " (Nyaya-Sutras I. I. 22), is a different source of Doubt, is hereby refuted. 20. Vivfiti. Here the affix tasi in vidya-avidyatas is used in the genitive sense. Therefore the expression means "of true knowledge and false knowledge." And the doubt is whether it be true knowledge or false knowledge. From the word cha/ and, it follows that Doubt as regards the object of knowledge also arises from the perception of the common property. Thus, The mountain contains fire/ The lake con tains fire/ in these and other causes of true or false knowledge, the Doubt, whether such knowledge be true or false, arises from the know ledge of the common property of their both being knowledge. In like manner, after such Doubt, Doubt also arises whether the mountain con tains fire or not, whether the lake contains fire or. not, etc., from the knowledge of the common property of their being objects of knowledge. Now, .a contrary certainly, the proof of which has not been obtained, is opposed to Doubt, and the Doubt whether it be true knowledge or false Srotragrahanah means that of which ear is the organ or instru ment of apprehension. Arthah means that which contains properties. So that the definition has not the defect of over-extending to Sound ness, loudr.ess, etc., Attribute-ness, Existence, and other properties residing in Sound and capable of being perceived by the ear. By the word arthah meaning that which contains properties, the possession of a class property is intended ; hereby it is indicated that Sound called /Sphota (i. e., by which the words of a sentence can convey a complete sense), inherent in Sound, does not exist. It may be argued as follows ; Sphota must be postulated on the Strength of the intuitions, ore word/ one sentence. for the intuition, of unity does not arise in a word composed of several letters, nor in a sentence composed of several letters. And the word spliota forms a name or nominal on which the elucidation of the sense depends. The letters individually do not at all produce the intuition of the meaning of the whole sentence; their combination again is impossible, because they speedily disappear, being uttered by one speaker ; therefore the intuition of the sense of the whole arises from sphota only, because elucidation of the sense does not take place without the knowledge of it. And this sphota,, although it is present in one and all the letters standing as words, yet becomes manifest in the last letter. " We reply that it is not so. Conventional letters form words. Thus the sense being intuited from the word in virtue of convention alone, what is the use of sphota? The use of the expression one word is a pretence, inten ded to denote the one property of making up one sense, possessed by a large number of letters. So also in the case of a sentence. If some inner meaning of the word, beyond that of its component letters, could be apprehended by perception, then the same might have been admitted to be sphota. Therefore the author of the aphorisms has overlooked this doctrine of sphota as being of no consideration 21. Causes of Doubt with respect to Sound. Upaskura. Sound having thus appeared as an object which,contains properties, its being the mark or Ether depends so-lely on its being an Attribute. Therefore to establish its Attri bute-ness, he brings out the trilateral Doubt, and says : " Doubt arises in respect of sound/ is the complement of the aphorism. Sound-ness and perceptibility by the ear are observed in Sound. And this gives rise to Doubt whether Sound be an Attribute, or a Substance, or an Action, because ihe partcular/ i. e., difference or divergence is observed both in homogeneoiis objects, namely the twenty-three Attributes, and in heterogeneous objects, namely Subs tances, and Actions. But Doubt, whether it be a Genus, or a Species, or a Combination, does not arise, inasmuch as difference in point of being existent, being produced by a cause, etc., is observed. It may be said, " A non-common property cannot be the cause of Doubt by being the cause of indecision or uncertainty. And Sound ness as well as perceptibility by the ear is really a non-commou pro perty." We say : Truly its difference or divergence is common to homo geneous and hetrogeneous things, and so only this common difference or divergence has been stated to be the cause of Doubt. Difference or divergence, which is the counter-opposite of Sound-ness, is tho common property ; and the characteristic of being the counter-opposite of the difference or divergence belonging to both, in other words, Sound-ness, is the non-common property. Therefore it has been said : " From the observation of the difference in both. Here the observation of parti cular, i. e.j the difference, in both, i. e., in homogeneous and heterogene ous things, constituting tho cause of Doubt, it becomes really the common property. 22. Because the intuition of perception of Sou, id is not visual, i. ^., is produced by an external so.iso-organ other than the eye. So that the import is that, like the quality of Taste, etc., Sound-ness also does not reside in Actions, because it is a l class wbich does not reside in the objects of visual perception. 24. Apavargah means speedy destruction. And this, eveu in the case of Attribute-ness, is dependent upon the incidence of a rapidly appearing destroyer, in the same way as duality, etc., are. This constitutes only its resemblance to Actions, and not its Action-ness. The quality of undergoing rapid destruction which you (i. e., the objector) advance as as an argument, is not one-pointed i. e., multifarious, because it is found in Duality, Knowledge, Pleasure, Pain, etc., as well. This is the import. 25. Above continued. Upaskdra. It may bo said, " Lst Sound be proved as an Attribute. Still it cannot be the mark of the existence of Ether. For it would justify the inference of Ether, if it were an effect of it. But it is eternal instead Its occasional non-cognition, however, is duo to the absence of something which could reveal it." With this apprehension, he says : For, if Sound were existent (before and after utterance), then there would be found some mark, i. e., additional proof, of it as existent. But in the state of non-hearing, there is no proof that Sound exists. Therefore it is only an effect, and not something which requires to- be revealed only. 26- Upaskdra. He says that for this reason also, it (Sound) Is not something which only requires to be made known : Nitya-vaiadharmmyat, owing to difference in property from what is eternal. 27. (Sound is not something which only requires to be brought to light), because it differs in property from what is eternal. 106. The difference of Sound from what is eternal, is observed. Where as, as in " Chaitra speaks/ the existence of Chaitra, Maitra, etc., even though they are covered from view, may be inferred from their voice ;. and whereas that which reveals, e. g., the lap, etc., is never inferred by that which is revealed, e. y.. the water-pot, etc. ; therefore Sound is only a product, and not something which requires to be brought to light. This is the sense.- 27- 28. And Sound is non-eternal, (because it is observed to be produced) by a cause. 107. " Because its production is observed," this is the complement. For Sound is observed as issuing out of the (temporary) conjunction of the drum and the drum-stick, etc. So that it is non-eternal, because it has a production (or beginning). Or " From a cause " may imply the reason that it has a cause. 28. Above continued. Upaskdra. Lest it might be said that the possession of a cause is disproved in Sound by its very nature, BO he says : 29. Nor is (the dependence of Sound upon a cause) dis proved by its modifications. 108. From observing the loudtiess, softness, and other modifications, it should not be concluded that the possession of a cause by Sound is thereby disproved. For a loud or soft sound is perceived according to the hardness or softness of the beating of the drum with the drum stick, and the like ; whereas the loudness, etc., (. e., the intensity) of that which is made known, is not dependent on the loudness, etc., (t. e., the intensity) of that which makes it known. Hence from its undergoing modification according to the modification of the cause, it is inferred to be a product, and not something to be revealed only 29. Upaikdra. It may bo argued, " It is the virtue of that which reveals, that it reveals in the form of intensity, softness, eto. And it is Air impelled by the drum and the drum stick, etc., which, being intense and soft or slow (in velocity and volume), produces lik perceptions," Hence he says : Abhivyaktau, in (the theory of the) manifestation or revela tion (of Sound). iVn^ Dosat, from defect. Because there will be a defect. 30. (Sound is not eternal), because the theory that it requires to be revealed only, will entail a defect. 109. On the theory of the revelation of Sound, the defect will arise that (in each case) an invariable relation of the revealer and the revealed will have to be admitted in respect of things co-existent and caj able of being perceived by the same sense. But the invariable relation-ship of the revealer and the revealed is nowhere observed of such things. If it be not assumed here, then it will follow that on the manifestation of one letter, say ka, all the letters will become manifest. The rejoinder that an invariable relation of the revealer and the revealed is in fact observed to obtain among the characteristic of being existent, the characteristic of being a man, and the characteristic of being a Brah- mana, which are also co-extensive and are revealed by their individual difference, situation, and origin, is invalid. For they lack in beii g co-extensive, inasmuch as the extension of the characteristic of being a man, or of the characteristic of being a Brahmana, is not so large as that of the characteristic of being existent. 30. From Conjunction i. e., from Conjunction of the drum and the drum-stick. From Disjunctio., i. e., when a bamboo is being split up. Here Conjunction is by no means the cause of the fiist Sound, because there is then no Conjunction. Therefore the Disjunction of the two halves of the bamboo is the efficient or conditional cause, and the Dis junction of the halves and Ether is the non-combii,ative cause. And where Sound is produced in a distant flute, and the like, there Sound which is produced in the order of a current, reaches the portion of Lther limited by the hollow of the ear, and thereby becomes heard. 1 heref ore Sound is produced from Sound also. 31. Abcve continued. Upaskdra. He brings forward another ground of its being non-eternal : 33. (Sound is eternal), because (otherwise) the occupations of both (the teacher and the pupil) will vanish out of exis tence. 112. The word tu cuts off connection with the context, and introduces the statement of an objection of the first party. The occupation or em ployment of both/ i. *., of the teacher and the pupil i, teahing and learning respectively, is observed. " From its non-existence or absence," i e.y from the entailment of its non-existence. For teaching is an act of gift or donation. The teacher makes a gift of the Veda to the pupil. If it is something constant or fixed, then a donation of it is possible. The second party may say, " A cow, and the like which are being given away, are perceived as standing between the donor and the donee ; whereas the Veda, etc., are not perceived as lying between the teacher and the pupil. Therefore teaching cannot be a donation." Our (i. e., the first party s) reply is that they are perceived in the interval between the teacher and the pupil by the ear of a person standing there. Moreover, the eternality of Sound follows from recurrence also. As in " He sees the colour for five times/ the recurrence or persistency of colour which is constant or permanent is observed, so the recurrence or persistency of Sound in " The anuvdka or paragraph has been read ten times, twenty times," is proof of the constancy or permanence of Sound. And constancy or steadiness being proved, since nothing is known which can destroy it, its eternality also is necessarily proved, on the principle " What will afterwards destroy it which is constant or lasting all this time ?" This is the import. 33. Arguments for the eternality of Sound continued. UpasJcdra.-~ He translates another reason urged in favour of the eternality of Sound : Prathamasabhfit, from the word the first. 34. From the word, trie-first, (it follows that Sound is eternal). 113. The meaning is that the thrice recitation of the first and the last mantra for kindling a sacrificial fire, as enjoined in the text, " The first should be recited three times, the last three times/ is not justified or accountable without the steadiness of Sound. 34. Bhdsya reads H- A ii- 34 as Prathamd-ddi-/Sabddt while the meaning remains unchanged. ( Adi = and others, e- </., the second). Upakdra.So translates another reason advanced by the oonolusionist for the eternality of Sound : Sampratipatti-bhav&t, from the possibility or existence of recognition. ^ Cha, and. 35. (The eternality of Sound follows), also from the pos sibility of recognition. 114. Sampratipatti-bhavat i.e., from the existence of recognition. The word pratipatti (cognition) alone would have conveyed the sense of recognition which is a particular kind of the former ; therefore the prefix Sam (in the sense of thorough-ness) implies certainty. Thus, " He is reciting the very same poem which was recited by Maitra," " He is reading the same verse over and over again," " You are repea tedly saying the same thing which has been said before/ " You are veu now making the very same statement which was made by you last year and the year before," " It is that same letter ga," on the strength of the recognition of Sound in such cases, the steadiness or permanence of Sound is proved. 35. (: Saridigdhah, Doubtful. Uncertain. Inconclusive, flfa Sati, existing. qgf Bahutve, plurality. 36. Plurality (of Sound) existing, (these arguments are) inconclusive. 115. Sandighah, i. e., not one-pointed. So it has been said, " Kailyapa taught that a contradictory, unproved, or uncertain mark was no mark." Thus it is oberved that there can be learning, repetition, and also re cognition, also if there is a plurality of diversity of Sound, therefore these arguments are inconclusive. For, "He learns dancing," "He prac tises dancing." "He danced the same dance twice/ "You are dancing the ame dance to-day, which you danced the other day," "This man also is dancing the same dance which was danced by another dancer," in these cases, learning, repetition, and recognition (of Action) are obser ved. But you (the conclusionist) too do not on this account admit the permanence (or eternality) of dancing which is a particular kind of Acti ng 36. Bhdsya : reads II. ii. 36 as simply sandigdhdh, supplying for him self the reason for the declaration there, and joins the latter part of it to II. ii. 37, a-id interprets it to mean that in spite of plurality of indivi dual sounds, their definite enumeration is possible by means of reference to their genera or types. Counter objection stated and answered. Upaskdra.lt may be objected, Fifty letters ; an eight-lettered mantra ; a three-lettered mantra ; the eight-lettered raetra, anustubk ; ete. How can there be suoh uses of members, when, the letters being non-eternal, there is a possibility of their being infinite in number according to the difference of utterance ? " So he says : Samkhyabhavah, the existence or application of Number. s Samanyatafyjfrom Genus. 37. The existence of number (in Sound) is with reference to the Genus. 116. The meaning is thab the existence of the number, fifty, etc., arises from the class notion of fca, ga, etc. Although there might be an infini ty of ka Sj etc., the letters determined by the notions of fca, ga, etc., are fifty, three, or eight, in the same way as Substances, Attributes, etc., are nine, twenty-four, etc., although there may be an infinity of them according to differences within the group of each of them. This is the> import. The objector may say: " This is that ga," This recognition itself proves the permanence of Sound. Nor is it opposed by the perception, • Loud ga, soft ga, which conveys, contrary properties ; because loud- ness, etc., are there due to external conditions. Nor is it to be main tained that there cannot appear any difference from the difference of the external condition also ; for, then, the crystal also will not shine as- different, developing in the form of blue, yellow, etc., from the con junction of the China rose tdpinja, etc., nor will the face also, when reflected as elongated, etc., in the sword-blade, jewel, and looking-glass, appear to be different. If it be asked, To what does this property of loudness, etc., belong, which influences ga ? We reply : It may be the- property of Air, or of utterance, or of resonance. What is the use of fixing upon the particular one amongst them ? You also admit that loudness, etc., are natural distinctions, as the relation of high and low amongst them cannot be established or explained by the notions of ka, ga, etc." We reply : It is not so. Because even when such contrary percep tion exists, viz., ga is produced, <ja is destroyed, < ga which was just heard, does not exist, the noise has stopped, etc., if this recognation d jes not then cease, then it must be supposed to relate to class-notions. Otherwise such recognition coming to rest upon the permanence or steadi-ness of individual Sounds, the above contrary perceptions. themselves would not be produced. Nor is this the property of Air,,, because the properties of Air are not the objects of aural perception. Nor again is it the property of the utterance ; for if utterance is only Air, then the defect has been already pointed out ; if it is something else, then nobody, can say what it is. Nor again is it the property of resonance, for loudness, etc., are perceived also in the resonance from, the conch, etc., even though ya is not found there. The naturalness of loudness, etc., however, does not involve an intermixture of classes, for its diversity is obtained from its being pervaded by the class-notion of ga, etc., Moreover, there is a very distinct mode of distinguishing forms in the ga s, etc., utterer by male and female parrots and man, as also in those uttered by a male and a female, as well as in those uttered by those who are neither males nor females ; by which a parrot,, etc., concealed from vision by branches, a screen, etc., are inferred. But their being produced by external conditions does not arise from external conditions which can be perceived, as in " a young woman looking yellow with saffron." Nor is their being produced by external conditions proved by argument, for no proof of such a conclusion exists. So far in brief. 37. Here ends the second chapter of the second book in ^ankara s- commentary on the Vaisesika aphorisms. Vivrtti Some explain the production of Sound on the principle- of ripples and waves. According to them, the first Sound is produced from the impact of a drum and a drum-stick, etc., within the limits of that particular Space. Then outside that circle and within the confines. of the ten quarters the second Sound is produced from the first, and extends it. After that, beyond this second circle, and within the confines- of the ten quarters, the third Sound is produced from the second. And in the same way the production of the fourth and other Sounds should be understood. Others, however, hold that the production of Sound takes place on the principle of the ball of the kadamba flower. In their view, the second and other Sounds are neither single nor confined to the ten quarters take;i together, but are produced ten-fold in ten-quar ters. (Thus the one is the theory of the successive production of single Sounds, while the other is the theory of the simultaneous production of multiple Sounds). " This is the difference. Upaskdra. Having thus in the second book completed he examination of the external Substances, the another following the order of enumeration, now proceeds to construct a basis for an inauiry respecting the Soul. Prasiddhah, universally known, perceived, ff^qisrf: Indri- object of the senses. 1. The objects of the senses are universally known. 117. The objects of the Senses, c. <j., Smell, Taste, Colour, Touch, and Sound, are capable of being apprehended by the several external sens 3- organs. Amongst them, the universal cognition or experience of S mnd having been shown by the aphorism, " Sound is that object of which the- organ of apprehension is the ear " (II. ii. 21). it is in like manner demonstrated that Smell, etc., ending with Touch (i.e., Smell, Taste, Colour, Touch) are universally known. Thus Smell is that object of which the organ of apprehension is the olfactory organ ; Taste is that object of which the organ of apprehension is the organ of taste ; Colour is that object of which the organ of apprehension is the eye alone ; Touch is that object of which the organ of apprehension is the organ of touch alone. And by the word, object there is, in all these cases, denoted a real entity possessed of properties, and therefore the defini tions cannot be too wide by over-extending to Smell-ness, etc., and to the non-existence of Smell, etc. Hence Smell-ness is the possession of a sub-class of Attribute-ness, appearing in what is apprehended by the olfactory organ. So also with regard to Taste, etc. Consequently,. supersensuous Smell, etc., are not left out. 1. yivfiti __ Prasiddhah, means subject of ascertainment by per ception. Mark of supersensuous object. UpasTcdra He explains the application of the universal (experience o" the objects of the aenses to the inquiry respecting the Soul. indriyartha-prasiddhih, the universal experience of the objects of the senses. ff^ JTsfc T: Indriyarthebhyah, from the senses- and their object, sjsifar^q Arthantarasya, of a different object. \$j: Hetuh, mark.

2. The universal experience of the objects of the senses is the mark of (the existence of) object different from she senses and their objects. 118.

etc-, as well as from those which possess them. Though it is implied here that only knowledge is the mark of the existence of the Soul, yet inas much as there being a universal experience of the objects of the senses, the immediate presentation to the mind of Colour, etc., is more com- monly known, the mark of there being a Soul is described as constituted by tliat universal experience. Wow this universal ex] erience must : reside somewhere, either as an effect as a water-pot, or as an Attribute, or as an Action. This universal experience, again, since it is an act in the same manner as cutting is an act, must be produced by an instru- ment. That which is the instrument of the universal experience is the senses ; and the latter, being an instrument, must be employed by an agent, as an axe and the like, are employed. Thus, that in which this universal experience resides, and which employs the olfactory and other organs for its instruments, is the Soul. 2.

The body or the st-nses are not the seat of perception.

U,pax\idrQ. Lest it be said, "Let the body or the senses be the foundation of the universal experience or perception, because their presence and absence are more manifest as determin ing perception. What is the use of the ^supposition of any other foundation? Thus, consci ous-ness is an attribute of the body, being its effect, dike its Colour, etc. The same should be understood in tne case of its beirg an attribute of the senses ; " so he says :

Karanajnanat, because the causes or constituents are devoid of cognition or consciousness.

|, 4. (The body or the senses cannot be the seat of perception), because there is no consciousness in the causes (i.e., the component parts, of the body). 120.

It is mea,nt (that the body or the senses cannot be the seat of per ception), because of the absence of consciousness in the hands, feet, etc., or in their parts, which are the causes, i.e., components of the body. For it is observed that the particular attributes of Earth, etc., are preceded by like attributes in their causes. In like manner, if there existed consciousness in the components of the body, it might possibly exist also in the body. But this is not the case. It cannot be urged that consciousness may exist also in the components of the body ; for it would entail the absence of uniformity in the actions of the body, since uniformity is never observed amongst a plurality of sentient beings. It would then alsj follow that, after the amputation of the hand, there will be no more recollection of that which was experie iced within the limit of the hand, according to the maxim, il One does not remember that which has bean experienced by another." Moreover, the supposition would entail that, after the destruction of the body, there would be no experience of the Cv> isequences of the acts performed by the body, e. (/., causing hurt, etc., for certainly Maitra does not suffer the consequences of the sins committed by Ohaitra. And hence there would be a i anni hilate) i of acts performel, a id a i acce-ion of acts not performed. 4.

The body or the senses are not the seat of perception, continue l-

Upaskdra. It may be added in objection that consciousness exists in a minute degree in the components of the body, whereas it is manifest in the body, and that therefore it cannot be said that it is not preceded by a like attribute in the cause, nor does there arise the impos sibility of uniformity. Anticipating this, he says :

Karyesu, in the effects. 3TT*U^ Jfumat, (because there would be consciousness.

5. Because (there would be) consciousness in the effects. 121.

If, as a matter of fact, consciousness existed in the primary causes of the body, namely the ultimate atoms, then it would also exist in the water-pot, etc., which are the effects originated by them also. Moreover, consciousness would exist in products such as water-pots, etc., also because the particular attributes of Earth pervade all terrene ex istence. But consciousness is not observed to exist in these products. 5.

The body or the senses are not the seat of perception, continued.

The meaning is that there is no consciousness in the water-jar,. etc., inasmuch as it is not known by any means of knowledge. If you admit that which is beyond the range of all means of knowledge, then you will have to admit also that a hare has horns, and so on. For, by no kind of evidence, is it known that consciousness exists in the water-jar, etc 6.

Titi. It is more proper to conceive some one other substance as the seat of consciousness than to imagine a plurality of consciousness iu various portions of matter. This is the import.

On the theory that consciousness resides in the body, recollection of what is experienced in infancy, will be impossible in youth, etc t because of the non-existence of that which had the experience, since the destruction of the infant-body must be observed by the destruction of its material. Similarly, there would be no activity at sucking the breasts on the part of a child just born, because of the impossibility at that stage of the understanding that this is the means of attaining- the desirable which is the cause of activity. According to the advocate of the existence of a separate conscious being, the activity explained by the possibility of reminiscence due to the impression produced by the- understanding in the previous birth that this is the means of attaining the desirable. Recollection of other experiences in the previous birth. does not take place owing the absence of appropriate extern nl stimuli.

Bhdsya. reads III. i. 5 and 6 as one aphorism, and explains it in the sense that as cognition is found within one effect, e. g., the body, and is not found within another effect, e. g., a jar, therefore, it follows that there can be no cognition in their combinative causes (which must be same in both cases).

Fallacious mark.

UpaskAra. It may be urged, " It has been affirmed that an employer (a presiding soul) is inferred from the organ of hearing tand other instruments. But this is not a legitimate inference, for the auditory and other organs are neither identical with, nor are produced by, the Soul, and, unless one of these alternatives be admitted, there|is.no proof of the universal concomitance or inseparable existence of these organs and the Soul ; and, unless there be suck inseparable existence, thero can bo no inference." So he says in reply :

Bhdsya. Something quite different is the mark of inference of the Self; the sense or the object cannot be such a mark. What this

• something quite different is, is declared in the eighteenth aphorism of this chapter.

Fallacious mark continued.

UpaskAra. It be may said, "As the Soul is not identical with the auditory and other organs of sense, so there is no production of the latter from the former. For the senseorgans of hearing, etc., are not produod from the Soul, as smoke is produced from fire " So he says :

8. (Although a mark is quite different from that of which it is a mark, still they are not wholly unconnected), for, any oi.e thing cannot be a mark of any other thing. 124.

Because, as the effect, e. g., smoke, etc., is a different thing from an ass, so it is also a different thing from its cause, e. g., fire, etc. So that i i the absence of any distinction in respect of being a different object, a particular nature is the regulative principle here, whereby the smoke does not infer an ass, but only fire. And if that nature belongs to any thing other than the effect, then that too really becomes a mark. Thus an effect cannot be a mark, if it is devoid of the parti cular nature intended here. Thus, identity and causation only cons titute inseparable existence or universal concomitance ; these two are reduced into inseparable existence ; or, it is co-ordinate with them as the principle of inference ; or, its apprehension is dependent upon the apprehension of the above two only. Hence the aphorism is only the statement of an argument for causing confusion to the disciples in the above way. This is the import. 8.

Marks of inference.

Upaskdra. Now, in order to make it clear that universal concomitance or inseparable existence may be found elsewhere than in the cases of identity and causation, he saya :

9. The conjunct, the combined, the con-combined, and the contradictory also (are marks of inference). 125.

" The body has skin, because it is the body" here the mark is the conjunct or the contiguous. For skin is described as a natural in tegument of matter capable of growth and decay. And it is neither an effect nor a cause of the body, but merely produced together with the body and in invariable conjunction with it. Similarly, the combined is also a mark. For instance, " Ether possesses Magnitude or extension, "because it is a Substance, like a water-pot, etc." ; here Magnitude or

extension which is to be proved is proved by the property of Substance- ness which is in essential combination with Ether. Or, to take another example. Tho extension of an atom, a particular form or limit of exten sion or Magnitude is proved by this that the relativity or degree of -extension or Magnitude must somewhere cease ; whereby the ultimate atom is inferred as that in which the limit of extension rests.

The inference of Ether by Sound, etc., and the inference of the Soul by knowledge, etc., are inferences of the cause by the effect ; so that they are not i-istanced here. 9.

Marks of inference continued. Upask ira Tae author of the aphorisms illustrates the co-inherent or co-existent

II \ I ? ( ? II

q Karyyam, an effect. ^TT^qfaTC^ Karyyantarasyi, of another effect. 10. One effect (may be ^he mark of inference) of another effect. 126.

An effect 6. g., Colour, is the mark of another effect, e. g., Touch. This is merely illustrative. Thus, that which is not an effect, e. g., the unity of Ether, is a mark of the individual separateness of Ether, and so in the case of its extreme largeness. 10.

v$3 Bhutam, that which has taken place. ^T*|?T^T Abhutasya, of that which has not taken place. 13. That which has taken place, (is a mark) of that which has taken place. 129. There is sometimes inference of an existing contradictory from an other existing contradictory ; as when, on seeing a snake swelling with anger, it is inferred that there is an ichneumon behind a bush. In this case, the snake excited is that which is, existet t, ai d the ichneumon hidden by the bush is also in existence. Therefore, an existent r as the mark of another existent object. On the other hand, a shower cannot exist at the same time as the conjunction of air and clouds, nor can tumours, etc., co-exist with the recitation of mantras. 13. MarTfs of inference continued. UpaskArc. Now he shows the importance or use of the above recapitulation : 14. (These are valid marks), because the characteristic of an inferential mark is that it is preceded by (the recollection of the) universal relation (of itself and of that of which it is a mark). 130. Prasiddhi means recollection of universal relation. Apadesa r denotes a mark. Therefore the mark attended with the recollection of universal relation, is described by that member of an argument which states the mark, or by that member which states the deduction ; so that the mark is, as has been stated, preceded by recollection of universal relation. Thus universal relation, (i. e. } a true major premiss) exists- in all these cases of inference of an agent by the instruments suchas- organ of hearing, etc., and of the Soul as their substratum by th& attributes such as knowledge, etc.; whereas there is no universal rela tion in the inference by which you (i. e., the opponent) have sought to establish knowledge as a i attribute of the body, through the mark that it is an effect o? the body. This is the import. It may be asked, what is this universal relation ? It is not merely inviolable relation /for, in the case of inference from cause to effect, it is not known that inviolable or invariable concomitance is the being not the ground of the co-existence of the absolute non-existence of ihat which has to be proved, and because inference from cause to effect it is impossible that invariable concomitance is the not being the seat -of that which is not the seat of that which has to be proved, and also because smoke, etc., are the seat of that which is not the seat of that, whatever it may be, which has to be proved. Nor is it inseparable existence, for that is either the non-existence -of the mark i i the absence of that which is to be proved, or existence of the mark after deduction has been drawn from that which is to be prove 1. It cannot be said that because sometimes there is non-existence of smoke, also where no ass exists, and there is existence of smoke also where an ass exists, therefore uniform agreement and uniform difference -are intended here ; because the very same uniformity is the subject of enquiry. Nor is it relation to a whole. If it be the relation of the whole of the major term to the middle term, such relation does not exist even in the case of smoke, etc., which are not equally pervasive as their corresponding major terms. Let it be relation of the whole of the middle term to the major term ; but this is impossible, for there does not exist in the whole of the middle term relation to a single major term- Let it be relation of the whole of the major term to the whole of the middle term. This also is not valid, for it is nowhere possible -that there should be relation of the whole of the major term to the whole of the middle term, inasmuch as the individuals denoted by the major and ths middle term are related each to each. And in the case of the terms being unequally pervasive, there would be a want of pervasion or universal relation. Nor is the relation essential. For essence means either the nature or condition of a thing, or (condition in itself, or production by itself). Now, if the nominal affix which converts * essence into the form 4 essential, has the sense of production thereby, then the definition will be too narrow to apply to universal relation characterised as -Combination. If the affix bears the sense of dependence upon it or -residing in it, in that case also the definition will be too narrow to -apply to Combination, for combination does not reside in, i. e., depend upon, anything whatever ; and also because even Conjunction neither resides in, nor is produced by, smoke-ness, etc., which are the pro perties of the middle term. Nor is the relation, non-accidental or non-coditional. For an up&dhi, accident or external co idition, itself is difficult to ascribe, and were it easy to ascribe, would be difficult to conceive. And were it asy to conceive, it would still involve mutual dependence or • reciprocity or argument in a circle, for there being pervasion of the major term, the conception of the non-pervasion, etc., of the middle term would depend upon the conception of the universal relation. Nor is universal relation mere relation. Fcr, though variable relation also appears as universal relation, though its reference to particular place and particular time, yet, as the knowledge of it does not govern the inferential process, it is, therefore, required to deter- -mine that universal relation only which, by being known, will become the means of inference. . , , . Nor is universal relation co-existence with the major term which is not the counter-opposite of the absolute non-existence appertaining to that which contains the middle term, (i. e., the rniuor term; For fire- also is the counter-opposite of the absolute non-existence, presort -ih that which has smoke, since it is not that in a kitchen hearth there is. not the absolute non-existence of volcaiii c fire. In such a,n intance as "This has conjuncetion, because ii is a Substance," the definition would become too narrow, as the absolute non-existence of Conjunction would be co-extensive with the mark or means of inference. It cannot l be said,- Universal relation is co-extension with the major term which is not the counter-opposite of the absolute non-existence which is co-extensive with itself and which is the contradictory of the countpr- opposite, because the absolute non-existence of conjunction falls short of being the contradictory of the counteropposite." For the absulute non-existence of conjunction also is the contradictory of the counter- . opposite ; otherwise, it would be useless to imagine differences of /delimiting circumstances for differences , of delimitations are not imagined for the purpose of showing the states ;of -being produced and .non-eternal. ; Nor is universal relation the not being the foundation or substratum of non-co-extension with the major term ; for in the inference from cause to effect, there is not konwn any such non-co-extension with the -major term. It is in fact another form of being th^ foundation of that which is not the foundation of the major term. Nor is the universal relation of a thing the possession of the form which determines its relation to something else, for the characteristic ,of fire also has the function of, determining relation to or the co- extensioji of smoke. It cannot be sait that because of wider extension this is not the case ; for it i,s o^sevred that, that which determines the- pervasion (e. g., fire) has a wider extension (in other words, fire exists- where there is no smoke), and the characteristic of Smoke also has a- wider extension inasmuch as there exists smoke pendant on the surface of the sky e. g., in clouds;. If therefore, a qualification be added for the purpose of excluding such instances, then it must be allowed that, that which determines the characteristic of being the middle term. (yy&pycC) the same is intended to determine the characteristic of being co-extended, and hence there is the fallacy of self-dependence (Atmdsra- yo). The view also that two things are universally related, when the One possesses the form of determining the co-existence of the other in a. common substratum, is fallacious in the same way. In reply to the above objections, we may proceed to state as- follows: pervasion or universal relation is a non-accidental relation; hile by the being non-accidental is meant co-existence in the same substratum with a variably present sddhya or that \\hich has to be proved (i.e., the major term which is predicated of the minor, in the con clusion), of all those in which the mark or middle term is sometimes present and sometimes absent, or co-existence in the same substratum with a yddhyd co-existent with the absolute non-existence of the counter- opposites of all those which are the counter-opposites of the absolute noi - existence co-existing in the same substratum with the mark. The mean ing of the two expressions is co- existence in the same substratum with the sddhya which is not pervaded by anything that does not pervade tie sddhana or the middle term ; in other words, it is the characteristic < f being pervaded by all that which is jervasive of the sddhya. It may be said that this is difficult to understand from the relative com pound which has been employed here. For this reason there is i. eed of observation and argument also. In other words, pervasion, vydjiti, is co-existence in the same substratum with the sddhya which is i. ot the counter-opposite of the absolute non-existence co-existing in the same substratum with the sddhana. By absolute non-existence is intended that which possesses the counter-opposite determined by the genera of fire-ness, etc., Therefore, even though in the smoke of the kitchen hearth there is co-existence in the same substratum with the absolute non-existence of mountain fire, yet it is no fault, because there never Arises the intuition that there is not fire in that which has smoke. Substanceness, however, is never co-existent in the same substratum with the absolute non-existence of the charateristic of being in con junction, for we never have the intuition that substance is not con junct, because, although conjunctions singly do not appear in that which is the subject of pervasion, yet the generic quality of being conjunct appears in that which is the subject of pervasion, and is itself pervasive. Objection. But the being non-accidental implies the absence of accident or adjunct, upddhi ; and upddhi itself is difficult to obtain. Answer. It is not so. Because the characteistic of upddhi belongs to that which does not pervade the sddhana, i. e., the middle term, while it does pervade the sddhya, i. e., the major term. So it has been said, " upddhi is that which is dependent upon another upddhi, (for determin ing non accidentally), in the case of the sddhana, and which is not dependent upon another upddhi, (for determining non-accidentality), in the case of the sddhya." Objection. But the definition does not include an upddhi which is only non -pervasive of the sddhya. For example, A iris perceptible, because it is the substratum of touch which is perceptible. Here the possession of developed colour is such an upddhi. So also is the characteristic of being produced by eating herbs (which might produce blackness), in, • He is black, because he is the son of Mitr& " (a low-born woman). For, the possession of developed colour is not pervasive of perceptibility, since it does not exist in the perception of the Soul as well as of Attri bute and Action ; nor is the characteristic of being produced by eating- herbs pervasive of blackness, since it does not exist in the case of the blacki.ess of the black crow, cuckoo, cloud, black-berries, etc. Answer The objection is not valid. For, that which is non-perva sive of the sddhana, while it is pervasive of the sddhya as finally deter* mined, the same is intended as the upddhi. And a sddhya becomes finally determined, when it is determined by a property, by determina tion by which the pervasiveness of the upddhi remains unbroken. In the instances given the possession of developed colour is pervasion of per ceptibility by the determination or limitation of external substantiality, and is apprehended by agreement and difference. As regards the second instance, it has been ascertained in the works of Charaka, SuSruta, and other medical writers, that the characteristic of being produced by eating herbs is pervasive towards the sddhya determined by the black ness of a person, which can be produced (artificially). Other cases should be similarly understood. Objection. Still it is not the meaning of the word, updplii. An upddhi is something the property of which shines in another object, t-g-, a China rose, etc., in reference to a crystal, etc. In the case of an un equally pervaded upddhi, there being absence of the characteristic of that which can be pervaded, its property cannot shine in the approved sddhana. Answer. This is true. The primary use of the word, upddhi, is only where it is equally pervaded (as the sddhya), e. g-,in the possession of fire produced from moist faggots, (for wherever there is such fire r there is smoke, and vice versa). In other places, its use is secondary. The secondary sense infers variation, or deviation, according to the rule that, that which deviates from the pervader of something, also deviates from that thing. And there exists sddhana which deviates fyom the upddhi which is pervasive of the sddhya. Hence, that the sddhana deviates from the sddhya, and that, that which is not pervaded by that which pervades an object, is also not pervaded by that object, together infer that there is no proof of the characteristic of being pervaded, or brings forward a contrary argument, satpratipaksa* there being proof of the non-existence of the sddhya from the non-existence of the upddhi, which is pervasive of the sddhya, in the paksa, i. e., the subject, which is the minor term). So it has been said, u The disputant may bring forward an upddhi, governing the sddhya finally determined, even though it be divorced from the rule or determination of the sddhya maintained by the speaker, such upddhi being equally (a means of discrediting the conclusion, or) a source of xatpratipaksa." And such upddhi is brought forward by arguments adverse to the absence of arguments in favour of bddha obstruction, (i. e., the certainty of the non-existence of the sddhya), and deviation (i. e-, the non-co-existence of the sddhana with the sddhya). It has boen held that by the non-co-existence of which the non-cc- existence of the sddhana with the sddhya arises, the same is upddhi. But here the instrumental case-ending is used to express neither instrument, nor means, mode, nor mark. Nor is the construction to be completed thus, By the non-co-existence of which beingknown, the non-co-existence of the sddhana with the sddhya becomes known ; for the definition, not • satpratipaksA has boen defined as " an argument which contains a counter-mark capable of demonstrating the non-existence ef that which has te be proved," (vide Tarka-samgrahaj. applying to an unknown upddhi, would not apply to upddhis in obvious cases of non-co-existence. It is diffcult to ascertain it (i. e., upddhiy significatively or by its significance, since it is impossible to formulate or invent, an upddhi without (first) establishing the characteristic of being the means of the inference of non-co-existence. The characteris tic of being other than the paksa (or the subject of the conclusion), again, though suffering from the characteristic of an upddhi, is yet not an upddhi ; for, it would involve obstruction to itself, e. g., dubiousness and not-one-pointedness in the paksa. For if there is no doubt about it, then it is not a paksa ; if it is a paksa, then doubt is necessary, and consequently, dubiousness and not-one-pointed-ness become certain. That which remains to be said on this topic, may be sought in the Mayukha. 14. Enumer ration of fallacies. Upaskdsa. Now. with a view to distinguish (logical) marks (of inference) which have gone before as well as those which will come hereafter, from fallacious marks, he begins the section of fallacies, ardisays : Aprasiddhah, unproved, ^jsfq^l : Anapedesah, a fallacious mark. ?^r^ Asan, non-existent. tff?5*>*: Sandigdhah^, dubious. *3 Cha, and. i =*H c ffol: Anapadesa^i, A fallacious mark. 15. The unproved is a false mark ; the non-existent and the dubious also are false marks. 131. 1 Aprasiddhah, means that which is not pervaded or in universal relation, and that the universal relation of which has not been observed, and that which is in opposite universal relation, i. e., the contradictory. The word includes the two forms of the unproved, in point of universal relation or being pervaded, arid the contradictory. Asan means non existent in the paksa or the minor term, i. e., that which has not the property or possibility of residing in the paksa or subject. And this is due sometimes to the unreality of the form (attributed to the mark), and sometimes to the absence of uncertainty and the desire to prove as) in the proof of that which has been already proved. Sandigdhah means that which causes the doubt whether the sddhya be existent or iion-exist- ent (in the subject of the conclusion). And this arises sometimes from the observation of common property, sometimes from the observation of a non-common property, and sometimes from the observation of the mark accompanying the sddhya as well as its non-existence. The first is general multifarious, the second is particular multifarious, and the third is inconclusive. 15. Yasmat, because. ftmqft Visani, (It) has horns. ?npn^. Tasmat, therefore. 9J>^: Afivah, a horse. 16. Because (it) has horns, therefore (it is) a horse. 132. Where, the hody of an ass becoming the paksa or subject of the conclusion, such confusion, as u This is what is a horse, because it has horns," due to the observation of the negative co-existence (or, simply, disagreement) that that which is not a horse is not horned as a hare, a jackal, a man, a monkey, etc., prevails, there it is an example of the not-pervaded, the unreal, and the contradictory marks (i. e., the fallacies of noa-pervasion, unreality, and contradiction). 16. Yasmat, because, fa^mft VisjXni, (it) has horns. <T^Tct Tasmat, therefore. ft: Gauh, a cow. fft Iti, such, this. "^ Cha, and. Anaikantikasya, of a not-one-pointed or many-sided mark. Udaharanam, an example. 17. And, "Because (it) has horns, therefore (it is) a cow, * such is the example of a many-sided (mark). 133. Where, taking a buffalo as the paksa or subject, it is concluded that it is a cow because it has horns, there is general many-sided-ness. But when it is concluded that Ether is eternal because it is the seat of Sound, then there is particular many-sided-ness. So also in such ex amples as " Sound is non-eternal because it is sound," there being no universal relation, there is only particular many-sided-ness. But when the sddhya or the middle term is proved (to exist) only in the paska or the minor term, by bringing forward arguments which exclude vipaksa* or contrary instances, it is then, that is, when co-existence with sapaksa^ (or objects of the same class as the paksa), becomes known, that the mark of inference is a valid mark, for a paksa j also must be a sapakxa. There, (i. e., in the fifteenth Sdtram above), the unproved is that which is not proved by pervaded appearance in the paksa. And it is three-fold : (a) unproved in point of being pervaded, (6) unproved as such or by itself, (* . e., in respect of the form attributed to it), and (c) unproved by substratum or situation. Of these, the unproved in point of being pervaded, is that of which the pervasion or invariable co-exist ence has not been observed, whether from the non-observation of actually existing pervasion, or from the non-existence of pervasion. Hence the non-existence of favourable arguments, etc., are different kinds of the unproved. And this invalid mark has a thousand divisions according to the diversity of impossibility of predicate, impossibility of • Vipaksa is that wherein the non-existence of that which has to be proved, is certain. t Sapaksa is that wherein the existence of that which has to be proved, is certain. t Paksa or subject, is that wherein the existence of that which has to be proved, i doubtful. subject, impossibility of both, uncertainty and impossibility of predicate, uncertainty and impossibility of subject, uncertainty and impossibility of both, and so on. And in all these cases, only absence of proof can be -discerned. Here the idea is this : The mark of inference is of three kinds only, according to its division into the purely positive, the positive-and- negative, and the purely negative. Amongst these, the purely positive is an attribute belonging to all subjects of attributes, (i- e., objects) ; .e.g., knowableness, nameableness, qualifiability, predicability, absolute non-existence of annihilation in attributes etc., destructible by the destruction of the subtratum of the absolute non-existence of eternal substances, etc. For, no such thing exists, as that in which these attributes do not exist. The characteristic of the purely positive, there fore, is that it penetrates everywhere, or that it is the counter-opposite of absolute non-existence. Though these exist in themselves also, (and so that uniformity of the mutual distinction of the container and the contained, is violated), that is no fault ; for it has been said, li In the case of appearance or existence (of one thing in another), recourse should be had to proof, and not to that which establishes difference and non-difference." That mark is purely positive, of which the sddhyaia purely positive. Of this there are four forms, namely, existence of the paksa } existence of the sapaksa, unobstructedness, and the not being confronted with a .satpratipaksa or equally valid argument to the contrary, which are the means of leading to inference. The same, together with the non-exist ence of the vipaksa, are the five forme of the positive-and-negative. With the exception of the existence of the sapaksa the remaining are the four forms of the purely negative. That mark, therefore, is a mere semblance, i. e., a false mark, which is void of one or another of all the forms which, as a true mark, it might possess as the means of leading -to ait inference. Accordingly, the characteristic of being a false mark or fallacy, is the being void of One or another of the forms which are the means of leading to an inference. Hence doubt also, like certainty, about the voidness of one or another of these forms, is an obstruction to inference, and proof of the inconclusiveness of the mark put forward by the speaker. But the purely positive and purely negative mark? do not become fallacies by being void of one or another of their forms ; because, in the case of the purely positive, non-existence of the vipaksa, and in the case of the purely negative, existence of the sapaksa, lack the characteristic of being the means of leading to an inference. Simi larly, the unproved by situation (e. g., a castle in the air), the unproved by itself (e. g., a golden lion), and the unproved in part, are fallacies by reason of the absence of that form which is existence of the paksa ; the unproved in point of being pervaded, the contradictory, and the ; general many-sided, are fallacies by reason of defect in that form which is non-existence of vipaksa; the particular many-sided and the inconclusive are fallacies by reason of defect as regards existence of the sapaksa ; the obstructed and the confronted with an equally valid argument to the contrary, are fallacies by reason of the absence of the characteristics of not being obstructed and of not being confronted with an equally valid argument to the contrary. So also, accidentalness and inapplicability do not lead to inference, because of the absence of certainty of tlje non-existence of the vipaksa absence of favourable argument, and unfavourable argument, also do not lead to inference because of the absence of certainty of the non-existence of the vipaksa. In like manner, apparent (but fallacious) examples^ inadequate in regard to the sddhya, or in regard to the yAdhana, or in regard to both, if invalid as being fallacies, are so through the uncertainty of the existence of the sapaksa. If they are fallacious by themselves as being examples in appearance only, yet they are so mediately through the mark which is the same uncertainty of existence- of the sapaksa. Marks of which the positiveness or agreement is not manifest, and marks of which the negativeness or difference is not manifest, however,, are resolved only into the insufficient, the inopportune, and the ground of defeat. Self-dependence, mutual dependence, circle in an argument, and infinite regression, by unsettling the certainty of universal relation or pervasion, become deficient in respect of one or the other of the forms of existence of the sapaksa and non-existence of the vipaksa, and there by acquire the nature of fallacies. Amongst these fallacies, that is accompanied with non-co-existence,. which causes doubt alternating between the existeace and the non- existence of the sddhya. The contradictory is that fallacy which pro duces certainty of the non-existence of the sddhya. The unproved is that which is void of pervasion, existence in the paksa and proving. According to Kasyapa, obstruction and an equally valid argument to the contrary are not independent fallacies. Of these, obstruction resolves itself either as the unproved by situation, or as the many- sided ; as it has been said, " In obstruction (bddhd~), the mark is either non-existent in the paksa, or is many-sided." An equally valid argu ment to the contrary, also by causing doubt in respect of pervasion or invariable co-existence, etc., in other places, really resolves itself into the many-sided, etc. The writer of the vritti, however, says that the word, cha/ in the- Sutram, ^MRi^tSTq^fts^T^ ^V^^FH^T: (III, i, 15, ibid ), has the sense of bringing forward bddhd (obstruction} and satpratipaksa (an equally valid argument to the contrary), and thereby follows the view of Gautama as expressed in thosdtram, " Fallacies are five, that which is accompanied with non-co*existence, the contradictory, that which is identical with the paksa that which is identical with the sddhya and that which is post in time,"(Nyaya Sutram, 1. ii.4). But, from such statements as " The contradictory, the unproved, and the dubious, declared Kasyapa, are no marks," it appears that the Sutrakara, i. e. } Kanada), himself was inclined to uphold the threefoldness of fallacy. The word cha/ however, has the object of bringing forward what has been stated before. This ; s the idea. I have not dilated upon it for fear of increasing; the bulk of the book. More details should be sought in Maytikha. 17. That (i. e., knowledge) which is produced from the contact of the soul, the sense, and the object, is other (than a false mark). 134.  From the contact of the soul, the sense, and the object, it is know ledge that is produced. And it is a mark of the existence of the soul, and, as such a mark, is different from the unproved, the contradictory, and the many-sided, that is to say, is not a fallacy. Thus, knowledge is, in two ways, a mark of the existence of the soul ; either by the inference that knowledge must reside somewhere, because it is an effect, like colour, etc., or by assuming the form of recognition, e. </., " I who saw am the same as I who am touching." In. the former case, effectness belonging to knowledge is not unproved, because of the assertion " (that) which is produced ;" nor it is contradictory, for here, as in all other instances of analoguous inference or inference from a sdmdnya- todrista, or commonly -observed mark, there can be no contradiction ; nor is it many-sidod, for the very same reason. So that by means of the commonly observed characteristic, appertaining to it, viz., of being an effect or an attribute, knowledge truly becomes a mark of the existence of the soul. Recognition, again, resiling from other agents, resolves into having but one agent or cause. (The Bauddha theory criticised.) Objection. Recognition may be also due entirely to the relation of effect and cause subsisting between understanding and consciousness. Answer. This cannot be, as it would entail recognition also, of the understandings of the disciple and the preceptor. Objection. But relation of the matter (i.e., knowledge which causes activity or inclination) and the form does not exist there; and that relation is the exciting cause of recognition. Answer. Matter, having the property of Substance, cannot possibly exist in the understanding (which is an attribute). Even if its existence were possible, understandings being momentary, recogni tion of what was perceived before, would not be possible. For, no impression is thrust into subsequent understandings by a previous understanding, since you do not admit the existence of an abiding impression. And if it consists of the form of a stream of temporary understandings, it cannot be the cause of recollection at another time, nor of recognition. Objection. The stream of subjective consciousness, which is really different from the stream of objective consciousness, is that which ra collects as well as that which recognises. 112 VAlSESxJiA PHILOSOPHY. Answer If it is permanent, then our obeject is fulfilled. If it is of the form of a stream of temporary understandings, then it has not yet freed itself from the fault already pointed out ; for then even there- can be no permanent impression. Moreover, proof is wanting that it is something different from objective consciousness. Objection Proof is supplied by the stream of understandings, I am, am/ and so on. Answer. May be. But if here states of objective consciousness- take in or receive as their matter, only the subjective consciousness, then, in the absence of the characteristic of being the matter, from the- states of objective consciousness, their efficient causality also will, disappear ; for efficient causality is derived from the characteristic of being pervaded by the characteristic of the material cause. Objection. Let there be no efficient causality also. Answer. In that case, their existence also is gone. For the cha racteristic of an entity or real substance is that it is the means of serving necessary purposes. Objection. Both the streams are received, as material, jointly by the stream of objective consciousness and the stream of subjective- consciousness. Answer. If it is so, then what fault has been committed by con~ junction of wholes made up of parts, etc., when you also admit that a cause can operate at a different place ? Therefore, recognition proves, as being permanent, the soul which is inferred by knowledge, as its substratum. Hence nothing remains- unproved. Or, the stitram, <i||cHP4^m*<jfilhMf^ qfasq^ W5R; is calculated to- refute the Saiiakhya theory that the understanding, being eternal, is- not fit to infer the soul as its cause. It should be, then, interpreted thus : what you call the principle or entity, viz., the understanding, is- nothing but knowledge ; for, there is the statement of synonyms, namely, " understanding, comprehension, knowledge." And it is- produced from the contact of the soul, etc., and is really other than the inner sense the existence of which you admit. This is the meaning. The import, therefore, is that that does become the mark of the ex istence of the soul 18. Vivriti He gives another proof of the existence of the Soul : From contact, i.e., of the mind with the object of the sense, which: is the soul, in other words, from the conjunction of the soul and the- mind, the knowledge which is produced/ in the form of "1 am happy/ etc., is different/ i.e., other than inference, as a proof of the existence- of the Soul. This is a roundabout way of indicating that knowledge- produced by the cognition of the soul and the mind, is perceptual,, since the definition of perception is knowledge produced from the* contact of the senses ond objects. Altough such perception does not- prove the soul as different from the body, etc., yet, as it proves the aoul in general, it is unobstructed. This is the import. 19. And activity and inactivity, observed in one s own soul, are the marks of (the existence of) other souls. 135. Pratyag-atmani means in one s own soul. Pravritti-nivritti are particular volitions caused by desire and aversion. By them are produced bodily actions, characterised as ^&\ or muscular motion, of which the objects are the acqisition of the agreeable and the avoidance of the disagreable. So that, on observing muscular motion in another body, the inference of another soul takes place in the following man ner. This muscular motion must have been produced by volition, because it is muscular motion, as is my muscular motion. And that volition, is the product of a soul, or is seated in a soul, because it is volition, as is my volition 19. Here ends the first chapter of the third be ok in the Commentary of Sankara upon the Vaifiesika Aphorisms, . Upaskdra. Distinction of real and fallacious marks is the subject-matter of the (prece- dirg) chapter. Now, going to bring the examination of the Soul to a close, the author, by a transgression of the order of enumeration (of the Substances) (vide I. i, 5;, introduces th examination of the Mind, and says : Atmendriyarthasanriikarse, on contact of the Soul with the senses and their objects. STT fi?! Jnanasya, of knowledge. m&: Bhavah, existence, production, appearance. ?nrfW Abhavah, non- existence, non-production, non-appearance. (Bhdsya. reads the words bhdvah and abhdvah in a compounded form as bh&vdbhdvah. ) ^ Cha, and. *H*T: Manasah, of the Mind. f^JT Lingam, Mark. 1. The appearance and non-appearance of knowledge, on contact of the Soul with the senses and the objects are the marks (of the existence) of the Mind. 136. He will say that the movement of the Mind is the mark (of tha Soul). If, therefare, Mind is found on examination to be the instrument or means of knowledge, and as being dense, moulded, or ponderable ( ifa* )> then it becomes proved that the Soul is that, being directed by which, the Mind comes te be connected with the sense apprehensive of the desired or agreeable object, rather than with any other sense. This is the reason of the violation of the order of enumeration. The meaning is that the Mind is that which, while there is contact of the soul with the sense and its object, being connected with the sense, there is production ef knowledge, and which not being so connected with the sense, there is non-production of knowledge. Objection. Mind is all-pervading or universal. Nevertheless, non- simultaneity of knowledge can be inferred from this alone that Mind possesses the property of an iastrument. Moreover, Mind is universal because, like Time, it is a substance void of any distinctive attribute; because, like the Soul, it is the substratum of Conjunction which is the non-combinative cause of knowledge ; and because, like Ether, it pos sesses the absolute non-existence of Touch ; and there are similar other proofs of its universality. Answer. It is not so. If Mind were universal or all-pervading, then as it would be connected with all the senses, there would be only one cognition including all the senses (i. e. } omui-sensuous). If it be replied that (objection} such is not the case, because there is a contrariety amongst the effects ; we deny this, (answer} for a complete cause does not take notice of contrariety and non-contrariety whereby it might be apprehensive of the contrariety of the characteristics of belonging to perception by the eye, organ of taste, etc. It cannot be said, (objection) "Or, it (cognition) may be of a variegated form like variegated colour, as it is in the case of eating some pudding," (where perceptions of taste, flavour, etc., take place all together) ; for (answer} even there attention or attachment to a particular object (i. e., taste or flavour, etc.,) is observed. Nor can it be asked, (objection) " How then does the complex belief arise, viz., i I perceive Colour, Taste, Smell, and Touch simultaneously "i" ; for, (answer") it is merely a sense of simultaneity in respect of the five cognitions, produced by the swiftly moving Mind and presented in memory. It cannot be objected that attention to particular objects is also dependent upon the property of the instru ment, for the answer has already been given. If it be maintained (objection ) that attention depends upon the desire to understand ; we deny this, for, (answer*) on that supposition, it would follow that when there was a desire to understand all, there would be a total presenta tion of all objects, wliereas the only result of a desire to understand is connection of Mind with the sense percipient of the oject desired. Inasmuch, therefore, as non-simultaneity of cognition is otherwise impossible, the Mind is proved to possess a minimum of divisibility. Consequently, the marks of universality are obstructed by proof which comprehends or infers the subject. Moreover, if the Mind were all-per vading, then there would not be such local character of pleasure, etc., as in " pleasure in my foot," " pain in my head," etc. ; for, the effects of universal substances uniformly appear in places delimited by their non-combinative causes. It cannot be said that in our view also it follows that pleasure, etc., are confined to the place of the atom ; for, the rule is that a non-combinative cause really produces an extensive effect at its own place, so that there is no opposition to their produc tion even beyond the limits of their instrumental causes, e. g., sandal- wood, etc. It cannot be urged, " Mine too is request for remoteness from ths instrument causes ; " for, it would entail a breach of the above uniformity. Further, how will there be conjunction of the universal Mind with the Soul ? It cannot be replied that it is without beginning, for then disjunction will also necessarily become beginningless. It canot be said that owing to the difference of their limitations (i.e., substrata wherein they take place), both of them remain uncontradioted ; for, the difference of the limitations of conjunction and disjunction depends upon their own causes, whereas in the case of the difference of things which have no beginning, such dependence does not exist. This is the direction. 1. Mind is a substance, and te eternal. Upnskdra. Now, it may be asked, The perception of pleasure, etc., is producible by an instrument, because it is an act, like the perception of Colour : from inference in this way, or by the non-production of simultaneous cognition, Mind is proved as the instru ment of that perception. But whence does it derive its Substance-ness, and eternality?" Hence he says: As the ultimate atom of Air, inferred from Substance made up of parts, is a Substance, because it possesses attribute and action; BO Mind, inferred by the non-production of simultaneous cognition, IK & Substance, because it possesses attribute. For it is not productive of cognition, withont conjunction with the sense, whereby it might appear that possession of attribute does not belong to it. Moreover the pre sentation of pleasure, etc., (to the Soulj must have a sense as its instrument, because it is a presentation, like the presentation of Colour, etc. Hence Mind is proved as an instrument or sense. And the being a sense means the being the foundation or seat of the conjunction of the Mind which is the instrument of cognition ; so that the Subtance- ness of Mind is proved without much ado. And its eternality follows from its not being made up of any other Substance. Arid this latter characteristic follows from the absence of any proof for the supposition of its being made up of parts 2. Mind is one. If there were many Minds in a single organism, then cognitions and volitions would be simultaneous. It is not a valid conclusion that many volitions are produced at one and the same time, because simulta neous actions are observed in the fingers of the hands and the toes of the feet of a dancing girl ; for, that being explained or possible by the swift movement alone of the Mind, simultaneity of necessary or corres ponding particular attributes of the Soul in their indestructible state, is not obtained. Hereby (t. e., by the necessary particular attributes of the Soul in their indestructible state), the theory that in one and the same body there are five Minds, and that on the conjunction of two, three, four or five of them with their respective senses, two, three, four or five cognitions are simultaneously produced, is refuted, as it would entail a superfluity of suppositon ; while the sense of simultaneity is upheld ( as an illusion). The implication of the simultaneity of two cognitions, e. g., the cognitions " bitter treacle," produced by the connection of the Mind with the sense-organ of Touch, undr the limita tion of the sense-organ of Taste, also does not exist in view of the pro perty (t. e., of rapid transition) of the instrument or internal sense, (i. c. t Mind). Action also in the two parts of a lizard, snake, etc., cut into two or three pieces, arises from the impact of the chopper, etc., or the rapid transition of the Mind, or the invisible operation of another (and barren) Mind which has just slipped off from a liberated Soul. The view that Mind is really a whole made up of parts, like a leech and that by its contraction and expansion, like those of a leech, simul taneity and non-simultaneity of cognitions are respectively produced is opposed by the fault of redundancy in the supposition of its parts! This is the direction. 3. Marks of the existence of the Soul. Prana-Apana-Nimesa-Unmesa- Jivana-Manogati-Indriyantaravikarak, ascending life-breath, descend ing life-breath, closing the eyelids, opening the eyelids, life, the move ment of the Mind, and affections of the other senses. g<Sf:^3fT^^SpJ5n: Sukha-Duhkha-Ichchha-Dvesa-Prayatna, Pleasure, Pain, Desire, Aver sion, and Volition, ^r Cha, and. ^n?*TT: Atmanah, of the Soul. f^jflf^r Lingani, marks. 4. The ascending life-breath, the descending life-breath, the closing of the eye-lids, the opening of the eye-lids, life, the move ment of the Mind, and the affections of the other senses, and also Pleasure, Pain, Desire , Aversion, and Volition are marks (of the existence) of the Soul. 159. It must not be imagined that cognition itself is the only mark of the Soul. There are also the ascending life-breath, etc., which are the marks of the Soul. Thus that is surely the Soul in consequence of the volition of which the upward and downward motions in the air moving; within the body and characterised as the ascending and the desceud- ing life-breath, take place, not being possible otherwise than by voli tion, just as the throwing upward and the throwing downward of a pestle, etc-, (in a mortar, etc.), are not possible without volition. For, Air, the nature of which is to blow obliquely, cannot undergo sush cha-ige of nature without volitioa. It cannot be said that two bodies of Air flowing in opposite directions and producing different effects may, like two similar bodies of water, have an upward motion. For, were this the case, there would be then the upward motion only but not the downward motion, nor oblique motion as in exsufflation or blowing by the mouth. There is then a being, who, by his volition, impels the air upwards or downwards. I cannot be asked how there could be upward and downward motions of the ascending and descending life-breaths in a state of deep or dream-less sleep ; for, at that time, though volition proper does not exist, there exists another kind of volition which is called volition the source of vitality. In like manner, the closing and the opening -of the eye-lids also infer a presiding agent in the organism. Thus the closing; of the eye-lide (nimesa) in an action which produces the conjunction. of the lids of the eye ; unmesa or the opening of the eye-lids is an action. which produces their disjunction. These two actions, being cons tantly produced without any visible cause such as molecular motion, impact, etc., are not produced otherwise than by volition. As the danc ing of a wooden manikin depends upon some one s volition, so also does the dancing of the eye-lids. Thereby an entity, possessing volition, is- inferred. Similarly, life also is a mark of the Soul. Thus by the word life the effects of vitality, such as growth, the building up of wounds, fractures, etc., are indicated by implication. So that as the owner of a house builds up a broken edifice or enlarges a building which is too small, so the presiding agent of the organism effects, by food etc., the increase of enlargement of the organism which is to him in the stead of a habitation, and with medicine and the like, causes what is wounded to grow again, and broken hands and feet to grow together again. Thus like the master of a house, at guardian of the body is also proved. In the same way, the movement of the Mind also is a mark of the Soul. Thus it has been proved, in the foregoing section, that the Mind is something moulded or ponderable (m&rto*) and that it is indivisi ble. Its application to a sense percipient of the desired object is dependent upon desire and attention. So that the inference is that the Soul is that being whose desire and attention direct the Mind, as a boy standing at the corner of a room sends a top or ball of lac hither and thither within the room itself. It may be objected, " The dancer of the wooden manikin, the master of a house, or the boy (referred to above) is not different from his body, 30 that he could be adduced as an example. Moreover, it is the body which is the seat of consciousness inasmuch as it is the object of the sense of I-ness (a/iam/cdra) ; for, there are tl lam fair/ " I am stout/ and the like intuitions which are co-extensive with I-ness. It may be urged that, on this theory, a man would not recollect in his youth or old age w r hat he perceived in his boyhood, because as in the case of a difference of bodies, like those of Chaitra and Maitra, so here too there would be no recognition, on the maxim, " One does not remem ber what another saw." Here we may point out that Chaitra and Maitra being two different currents, there may not be any correlatior, whereas (in the case of a single indvidual) in syite of the differences of boyhood and youth, the current being the same, correlation by means of the relation of cause and effect will be possible. To this argument we Mill reply that it would follow, on the above theory, that the son also would remember what was perceived by the father. If it be rejoined that perception of the difference of body prevents this, we reply that correlation (in the form of recollection) will not be possible also in the case of an old man who perceives his present body only as different from the body which he had as a boy, and also that there is no percep tion of the difference of body for a boy who has nevor known his father. In " My body," the sense of I-ness appears as identical with the sense of My-ness Cand not as identical with the intuition of the body). If it be replied that the same holds good in the case of " My Soul " also ; wo reply that it does not, because the use of My is there topical, since the genitive may be used even where there is no differ ence, as in " The head of Rahu " (Rahu being all head). The consequ ences of killing, etc., (i. e., Merits and Demerits) also will not result to- the agent or doer, as his body will be different and different (at every stage of transmigration). Further, (on your theory), consciousness being limited to the bhutas or elements (which constitute the body and are different at every new birth), if a man desires a sinful act, he will escape the consequences of his own acts, and there will be also the defect of the acquisition of the results of acts not done by him who experiences them- This is the point. " From the affections of the other senses." For surely is observed an overflow of the salivary juice , induced by a strong desire for the taste, of one who, after experiencing the particular taste, accompanied by the particular colour, of an orange or a chira-vilva, observes such fruit again. Now, this cannot take place without the inference of the acid taste ; nor the inference, without the recollection of the universal relation or invariable co-existence (of the taste and the colour); nor the recollection, without impression (Samskdra) ; nor the impression, with out the experience of the universal relation ; nor the experience, with out repeated observation. This concatenation of cognitions, standing to one another in the relation of cause and effect, cannot be possible without (the existence of) a selfsame agent. Thus there is the Sutram of Gautama. " From the affections of the other sense." (Ny ay a- Sutram. I1II. i. 12). Pleasure and the like also are to be regarded, like cognition, as marks of the Soul. Thus pleasure and the like must reside somewhere or must reside in some substance, because they are things which are produced, or qualities like colour, etc. Hence an inference by analogy, accom panied by an exclusion of other possibilities, takes for its subject inherence or residence in a Substance other than the eight Substances. For the proposition that desire which does not reside in Earth and seven other Substances, resides in a Substance, is not complete unless it assu mes as its mood the being resident in a Substance other than the eight Substances. Where, however, exclusion of other possibilities does not appear at first, there the being resident in a Substance other than the eight substances, will have to be proved by argument from effect to cause or negative reasoning. This is the distinction. It is absurd to say that inference has only the mjod of that which determines the universal relation ; for that alone is the mood there without which the intuition or inference would not result. Otherwise, in " A dyad not being resident in an effect, must reside somewhere, because it is a whole made up of parts," and such other cases, there would be no inference having for its mood the being resident in a noneffect. 4. Soul is a substance, and is eternal. Upaskdra. Well, granted that there is proof of a fixed Soul. But whenoa is it eternal and whence is it a Substance ? To meet this obj action, he says : As there is no proof for the supposition of parts in the ultimate- atom of Air, and therefore Air is eternal, so also in the case of the Soul. As the ultimate atom of Air is a Substance, because it possesses- attributes, so also is the Soul. This is the meaning 5. Objection : I. Mark of the Soul, not visible. Upatkdra. Ho cites an objection of the opposite party to the foregoing conclusion : 6. There is no visible mark (of the existence of the Soul),. because there being contact (of the senses with the body of Yajnadatta), perception does not arise that this Soul is Yajna datta). 141. There being contact, if no such perception take place as " This is YajSadatta," then there is no visible mark, i. e., no mark the universal relation of which with the sddhya or what has to be proved, has been grasped by perception. The meaning is that as smoke, perceived as accompanying tire which is perceptible, is a visible mark in the case of fire, so there is no such visible mark which can estaclish the ex istence of the Soul. 6. IJpaskdra. Lest it might be urged, " Although no visible mark exists, the universal relation of which has been observed by perception, yet a sdmdnyatcdrittam, or commonly- observed or analogous mark, will be the mark, for it is not that there can be no inference from that," therefore the objector says : Tasmat, therefore, because the Soul cannot be proved by reasoning. ^Tlf^: Agamikah, scriptural, proved by the revealed texts. 8. Therefore (the Soul is) proved by Revelation. 143. The Soul is really proved by Revelation only, but not by inference, since visible and commonly-observed marks do not exist. Therefore, mental vision of the principles or essences of things results from the proper hearing of the Upanisads, and not from the course of intellec tion. So that this Regulation (i. e. } the Vaisesika system), which teaches intellection, is no regulation. For, it is observed in the case of " ten ghosts, swimming across the river," etc., that the cognition of the person who has representation of these things in his consciousness, arises only from the very instructions that ten ghosts dwell on this tree, that such and such an object floats across the river, etc.). 8, Objections answerd. Upaskdra. Toi this objection of the first party, set forth in the three foregoing sdtras, the upholder of the doctrine of inference replies : Vyatirekat, exclusion, non-application, divergence, abhorrence, T Na, not, ^Hlfr^ J^ Agamikam, Scriptural. Proved by Revelation. 9. (The proof of the existence of the Soul is not solely) from revelation, because of the non-application of the word T (to other designates or objects). 144. Revelation alone is not the proof of the existence of Soul ; but the Soul is proved also by the inference that the word * I/ or the word • Soul/ must have some designate (or objective reality corresponding- to it), because it is a word, like the word, water-pot, etc. Lest it might be said that it is Earth, etc., which are its designates, so he says,. "Because of non-application," in other words, because of the non-appli cation or divergence of the word i from Earth, etc. For, there never arises any such use of language or intuition as "I am Earth," "I am, Water," "I am Fire," "I am Air," I am Ether," "I am Time," I am Space," "I am Mind." If you object that such intuition or use arises with respect to the body, we reply that it does not, for it would then entail such intuition or use with respect to the bodies of others ; if, that it arises with respect to one s own body, we reply that it is not so, for • one s own or one s self, as different from the Soul, has no meaning or is not proved by etymology, and because the intuition, " My body," proceeds upon a difference of substrata. It cannot be said, (objection) "Well, but this too is an inference by analogy which however does not and with a particular thing, and is therefore defective ; " for, (answer) in the word I, I-ness or Soul-ness itself forms the specification or distinction. So that on the strenght of the property of its being an attribute of the subject of the argument (pafoa), it follows that I-ness is the cause of the inference of Soul, and as it is not common to any other object, therefore the particular object (or the Soul in parti cular) is proved. Similarly, there is proof of the particular object, from the analogous inference or commonly observed mark accompained with the exclusion of other possibilities. The objection which has been made, namely, " From hearing alone results realization or intuition of the Soul ; what is the need of all this proof ?", is not sound. For, without reflection or intellection, the dross of unbelief in wavering minds cannot be purged away ; without this purification, there can be no aptitude in them for constant meditation ; and without constant meditation, there can be no realization of truth or intuition of the Soul, which is capable of uprooting false knowledge together with desires or appetencies, as it is from habit only that a sad lover suddenly comes to have a mental realization of his beloved lady, and because verbal or inferential knowledge is not capable of uprooting false knowledge, as is seen in the case of delusion in respect of direc tion in Space, etc. This is the import. If it be asked, "Still how can a sign or indication (of its existence) be apprehended in the Soul which is imperceptible ?", we reply, "Who has ever said that the Soul is not perceptible ? On the contrary, the Soul is apprehended by its proximity through or in the form of con junction, to the Mind. Otherwise, how can there be such intuitions as I am happy, I know, I desire, I will/ I feel pain, etc ? For these intuitions are neither unsubstantial nor of doubtful substantiality, because like that of the perception of blueness, their substantiality is undoubted. Nor are they inferential or derived from marki, for they arise even without any knowledge of marks. Nor again are they derived from verbal information or authority, for they do not follow upon enquiry for that." If it be urged that they are appearances of perception (and not true perceptions), we reply that they must have then for their object something which is not apparent (i.e, real), for it will be shown in the sequel that that which is not object of certain knowledge, cannot be applied by metaphor to or superimposed upon, another object 9. The s&tram is illustrative. It should be known that inferences, as described above, by the marks of knowledge, etc., are also proofs of the existence of the Soul. The word iti marks the form of knowldge, In dristam, the affix <kta is used in a passive sense. Anvaksain means sensuous or per ceptual. Therefore the meaning is : if there is perceptual or sensuous observation in the form of This is Devadatta, This is YajEadatta/ then what is the use of taking the troule of making an inference ? "For an elephant being in sight or observation, those who infer, do not infer it by its screaming." 10. Above answered. Upaskdra.To this the advocate of Inference says : Driste/ i. e., grasped by perception ; l atmani ; linge/ i. e., having all its marks or causes developed ; eka eva,, i.e., having one object only as its matter ; pratyayah/ Pratyayah implies the expulsion of all apprehension of error. " How can it be so ? " Hence he says, dridha- tvat/ i. e., because the current of proof is capable of removing the apprehension of its being otherwise. He gives an example, pratyksavat ; i. e., as even when there is perception of water from a distance, yet inference of water by the mark of the baldkds (water birds) is made for the purpose of corroboration. So it has been said, "Skilful logicians desire to understand by inference even what is grasped by perception." The import here is this : Although at times the Soul really shines in mental perception, yet, like knowledge, produced by the flash of light ning, it does not derive so much fixity or permanence being overclouded by such other conflicting perceptions as " I am fair," li I am lean/ and the like. Here another form of knowledge produced by marks which cannot but lead to their proper inference, confirms or fixes the very knowledge previously obtained from perception. Moreover, inference must be applied to the Soul owing to the desire to infer the knowledge that intellection of the Soul as taught in the precepts "(The Soul) should be heard about, reflected upon," and the like, is a means towarda the realization of that which is desirable, i. e., the Supreme Good. Because if there be no intellection of the Soul, then constant medita tion would be impossible, and consequently there would be no realiza tion of the Soul in the understanding, and so salvation would be impossible. This is the purport. 12. Davadatta goes, Yajladatta goes, in these cases, the belief (that their respective bodies go) is due to transference. 147. For there are such intutitions as " I am fair," " I am stout," and there is also such differential intutitiou as " My body." Now, in " Devadatta goes," the perception of co-existence with motion, and the use of language to express it, are topical, whereas the intutition lt my " is real as carrying its own meaning. Although the property of being Devadatta is a jdti, kind or genus, existing in the body whereby the use of language as Devadatta goes " is in the primary sense and the intutition is true in its own meaning, yet if the term Devadatta be applied to the Soul delimited by it, it is then to be understood as a transferred epithet. Another objection. Upaskdra. Here he apprehends (an objection): where. SRTWC Abhavat, because it does not exist. ?TO???TCSlW^r: Arthantara- pratyaksah, (Intuition) wherein the individual soul is the object of perception. 14. Because the intuition T exists in one s own soul, and because it does not exist otherwhere, therefore the intuition has the individual Soul as the object of perception. 149. Arthantara-pratyaksah is that intuition in which l arthantaram,* i. e., the Soul itself, is the percept. The meaning is as follows : Since the intuition I arises in respect of pratyagatma/ i. e., one s own Soul, and since it does not arise paratra i. e., in respect of other Souls, therefore it is proper to regard the reference to arthantaram or one s own Soul as the primary reference. If, on the other hand, the primary- reference were to the body, then the intuition whould be produced by the external senses, for the body is not an object of mental perception, and the intuition This is I is mental being produced even without the operation of the external senses, since the mind takes in as its object the Soul as modified by appropriate particular attributes in the form of I am happy/ < I know, * I will, I desire, This intuition is not inferential, as it is produced even without seeking any mark of inference. Nor is it verbally communicated, since it is produced even without the apprehension of any authoritative text. Therefore it is only mental ; further because the mind, as it is not an independent agent -outside its own sphere, does not apply into the body and other external objects. Moreover, if it be urged that, if it referred to the body, it would refer to the bodies of others, and if it referred to one s own Soul, it would also refer to the Souls of others ; we deny this, for the Soul of one man is beyond the senses of another, since its particular attributes have no fitness for or relation to, them, and since its fitness for or rela tion to, them arises from the taking on or super-imposition of appro priate particular attributes. Nor is this the nature of the Soul only, but of every Substance. For Substanc^ becomes perceptible only by the taking on of appropriate particular attributes. If it is said that Ether also should, for the same reason, become perceptible by the accompaniment of Sound, we reply that such would be the case, if the car were capable of apprehending Substance, or if Ether possessed colour. If it is rejoined that the Soul also is equally devoid of colour, we reply that it is in the case of external Substances only that posses sion of colour is a requisite with regard to perceptibility. The word pratyag, in-going, points out divergence from others. 14. Another objection. Upaskdra. He apprehends another objection : Ahankarah, i. e., the intuition of I. It is Sarirapratyaksah/ i. e., that which has the body as the percept or subject-matter. You have determined that the intuition or, for the matter of that the expres sion, " Devadatta goes, " is due to transference. Now, this transference is a fancied one, because such intuitions and expressions as " I am fair," " I am lean," " I am fortunate, my brith is a mere repetition/ and the like, cannot be reconciled on the theory of transference. This is the meaning. 15. 16. The transference, (as characterised by you), however, is doubtful. 151. The word Hu here points out the solution (of the foregoing objec tion). The meaning is that there is doubt even in what has been said (by you, . e., the opponent^), namely that the transference is a fancied one, whereas the intuition of I is in respect of the body itself. Since, therefore, the intuition is a false witness on either side, we must endea vour to find out a distinction. Since on making this endeavour, we observe that even a man, whose eyes have been closed, still has the intui tion of I, we must hold that it refers to an object different from the body, and beyond the cognizance of the external senses. If it referred to the body, it would reter to the bodies of others, and also would not take place in independence of the eyes. If it be asked how there can be such common measure or co-extension as in "I who am stout or thin,. am happy;" we reply that in this case it is possible that the body would appear as the condition of pleasure, etc., as in " This forest is resonant with the roar of a lion " (there is such appearance). Mere I-ness, presented by the Mind, is superimposed upon the body, just as heat, presented by the organ of touch, in the judgments, " The water is hot, " " The body is hot/ etc __ 16. 17. But the thoughts of Yajfiadatta and Visnumitra do not become objects of perception to them, while they perceive the difference of their bodies. (Therefore consciousness is not an attribute of the body). 152. Jnanam implies sensible pleasure, pain, and other attributes of the Soul. As the bodies of Yajnadatta and Visnumitra are mutually different, so are also their knowledge, pleasure, pain, and the like different. Accordingly, as is this body of Yajnadatta, so also, though no knowledge, or pleasure, etc., be produced in \ ajnadatta, will the knowledge, etc., "I feel pleasure," "I know" " I will, " " I desire, " be objects (of perception) ; because the sensible body being an object of perception, knowledge, etc., which are (ex hypothesi) its properties, like its colour, etc., will have the possibility of being perceptible. But this i? imposible. Therefore Csuch is the import), it should be said that the seat or subject of knowledge, etc., is something really different from the body. l ^ariraviiesat means from difference of body. The fifth case-ending has been used in the sense of the infinitive. So that the meaning is that knowledge or thought is not an object of perception, while difference of body is being perceived. 17. Proof of Soul not from Revelation only. Upaskdra. It may bo objected as follows : " The Soul ia not perceptible, since, like Ether, it is a colourless Substance, or a Substance without component parts. Therefore th body itself should be affirmed to be the object of the cognition " I am thin, pale." If occasionally there arises also the consciousness " I feel pleasure," it is proper to suppose that pleasure and the like becoming manifest without a substratum, are transferred to or superimposed upon the body. As in " Hot, fragrant water," heat and fragrance appearing without a substratum are superimposed upon water, but for the sake of this the intuition of water also does not contain as its object anything except common water ; so 1-ness in "I am " is real only in reference to the body, whereas pleasure and the like are sometimes superimposed upon it. There is then, in respect of the Soul, no knowledge of it in the form of perception. That which has to be supposed as the substratum of pleasure, etc., must be established by revelation. There is no perception of it." In reply to this objection, he says This is the meaning. The cognition, " I feel pleasure," or " I am in pain/ is neither scriptural, nor verbally communicated, nor in ferential, since it arises even without the help of verbal communication or of marks of inference- Whereas it has been said that colourlessness and simplicity (or the not being an aggregate of component parts) are obstacles to the perception of the soul, this holds true in the case of perception by external senses, for of this the possession of colour and the possession of more than one substance are the necessary conditions. or exciting causes, while mental perception is independent of these. It may be objected that this would be the case were there proof of the existence of the Soul, but that there is none. Accordingly it has been said, "From proof in particular by invariable divergence, as is the case with Sound." As in the Substances, Earth, etc., the absence of Sound ig invariable, i. e., uniform, and there is thereby proof of a particular Substance, namely Ether, in addition to the eight Substances, as the Substratum of Sound, so on account of the invariable divergence of desire froui Earth, etc., the substratum of desire also must be different from the eight Substances. Lest it be argued that all this goes to show only that the Soul is a subject of inference, not an object of perception, the words " by the innate as well as the sensible cognition in the form of P are employed. By the word iti the form of the cognition is. indicated. Therefore the cognition, in the form of I/ which is pro duced, without the help of verbal communication and mark of inference, in one whose eyes are closed, should be explained by the innate idea, of Egoity or I-ness and its sensible or perceptible attributes, and not by reference to the body, and the like, since the divergence or absence of desire is invariable there. After "by the innate as well as the sensible cognition" the words "Should be established" are to be supplied. There are many proofs of the existence of the Soul. They are omitted here for fear of increasing the volume of the treatise. They should be sought in the Maytikha 18. Vivfiti. Vedantins, however, hold that the soul is nothing but eternal knowledge (vijnana) according to the Sruti, SlfsfawN S^S^ *J f ?H I ^Tr*i JT s T*H ??f sHF, "Lo ! the Soul, imperishable, is truth, knowledge,, infinite, and all-pervading," (Brihaddrnyaka Upanisad IV. v. 14). Although, in reality, it is one, yet, owing to the diversity of its Upddhi or adjuncts in the form of the inner sense, which are products of Mdyd r i.e., limitation, it appears as manifold. That it is so, follows from such Srutis as yt>*HlRdlM*t "One only, without a second," Chhdndogya Upanisad, VI. ii. I), q^^sTI ^4^?TTrd<lr*4| ^T 5*f nRlfrMHffi "^o tne one " inner Self of all beings, for every form, became its counterform"" (Katha Upanisad, II. v. 9.) He discredits this view. The words, i object of perception are the complement of aham Hi/ I this. Thus, the object of such popular mental perceptions as I feel pleasure/ etc., is not agamika/ i. e., identical with tsvara^ the probandum, of such l agama or text of the Veda as " truth, know ledge, infinite, and all-pervading," (Taittiriya Upanisad, II. i. 1). He states the reason of this by g^pftn^vqf etc. ftfofe^: because difference from Isvara is established by pleasure and pain, which, though primary or instinctive or original or innate, are yet sensible. The instinctive- ness of pleasure lies in agreeables or desirables, since it is there the object of desire which is not dependent upon any other desire ; whereas the instinctiveness of pain lies in disagreeable, since it is there the objeet of aversion which is not dependent upon any other aversion. Sensibleness, again, is the being the object of perception (i. e. by the inner sense). This is mentioned for the purpose of removing the (possible) apprehension that the mark is an unproved or unknown mark, and also to prevent overeaten sion, in the case where eternal bliss is attributed to Isvara, because eternal bliss can never be an object of perception. Pleasure and pain, therefore, being products, are proof of the difference between the Jiva and fsvara. This argu ment is illustrative : it should be observed that knowledge, volition, desire, and also aversion, as products, establish difference from Isvara. It may be urged that in such inferences as, u The soul which is the object of the perception, I am/ is different from Isvara, because it possesses pleasure which is a product," there being no example, and consequently no observation of congruity of similar instances, know ledge of the universal relation is impossible. For this reason, it has been said wjfaVflJWfftraTT^ i- e., from the uniformity of difference. The use of the ablative inflexion has the object of denoting the (necessary) condition leading to the inference, and the syntactical connection of the word is with the word f^fa%3[: The import, therefore, is, that, even though there is no example by way of agreement, yet, Isvara being an example by way of difference, an inference with respect to the matter in hand is possible, through the observation of the universal relation of difference, dependent upon the concomitance or congruity of difference. It may be urged, again, that that a mark can establish difference from Isvara, by the universal relation of difference, has not been known before. To remove this apprehension, it has been stated JT^c i. e., like Sound, etc. The meaning is this : As the difference of Ether from Isvara is proved by the mark, namely Sound, which is known by the method of the universal relation, or uniformity, of difference, so the difference of the soul from tsvara is proved by the possession of pleasure, etc., which are products. Bhdgya: In III. ii. 6 17, the author gives, in the form of a dialogue, contrary arguments as to whether the Self be an object of perception only, or of inference only, or of both, and gives his own conclusion in III. ii. 18. Unity of Soul, as an objection. Upaskdra.- Having thus finished the section on the investigation of the Soul, he now begins the section on the plurality of Souls. Therein the following aphorism sti forth an adverse doctrine. There is only one S:>ul, in spite of the difference of the bodies of Chaitra, Maitra, and others. Why ? Because of the non-distinction in the prodiiction of pleasure, nain, and knowledge, i. e., because the origin of pleasure, pain, and knowledge is really undifferentiated in this that it is determined by, or confined to, the body as a whole. If there were another mark to prove the difference of the Soul, the difference of the Soul might be proved, but there is no such mark. As Ether is only one, in spite of the production of Sounds within the limits of particular paces, since there is no distinction in Sound which is its mark ; as Time is only one, since there is no distinction in the intuition of simul taneity, etc., which is its mark ; s Space is only one, since there is no distinction in the intuition of East, West, etc., which is its mark ; (so the Soul is only one). 19. Vivirti. It may be urged that the identity of Jiva and Isvara must be admitted, on the strength of the texts of the Veda, " One only, with out a second. dH*4fa ^H%d1, " Thou, !vetaketu, art that," (Chhan- dogya Upanisad VI. viii. 7), etc. It cannot be held that difference is proved by the aforesaid inference ; because, pleasure, pain, etc. , being properties of the internal organ, are unproved by themselves (t. e., have no independent existence). Thus says the Brihadaranyaka Upanisnd, I. V. 3-, TW tf^ftfrf%for?ST3r3CTS9T3CT ^rdcT^fcfWfb^ H^ *nr^, "Desire, Inten tion, Doubt, Faith, Unfaith, Patience, Impatience, Modesty, Intelli gence, Awe, all this is verily Mind " Here the word Desire denotes pleasure, and the word Intelligence denotes knowledge in the from of a faculty. Moreover, pain, algo, appearing, as it does, in co-existence with pleasure, cannot be an attribute of the Soul. This he apprehends : The meaning is that, Tlft Stalc^ . e., becasue the difference of the Jivatma (embodied Soul) from fsvara is not proved, frR*TT, . ., by the certainty or ascertainment, g^r^TT TFTf , i. e., of pleasure, pain, and knowledge ; in other words, they, being proved in the mind by the above Sruti or Vedic text, are thereby disproved in the Soul. Souls are many. Why ? Because of status. Status means several conditions, at one is rich, another miserable, one is happy, another un happy, one it of high, another of low, birth, one is learned, another ignorant. These circumstances being impossible without a diversity of Souls, prove a diversity of Souls. It cannot be maintained that as the states of one and the same Soul is diversified by the difference of birth or by the difference of childhood, youth and old age, so also it will be in the case of the difference of the bodies of Chaitra, Maitra, and others, for it is possible to impose contradictory attributes (on one and the same subject) by means of change of Time (i. e. } at different times). 20. Vivriti. He removes the apprehension. STTTT means non-identity of the Souls, in other words, that the Jivatma is not identical withfivara. Whence ? 5T3^TT?T:, because of the certainty of the existence of pleasure, pain, and knowledge, in the Soul. For pleasure, etc., are not proper ties of the mind, because the mind not having largeness or large size, pleasure etc., Would be imperceptible; and minuteness or atom-ness or subtleness must be affirmed of the mind as determining the non-simul taneity of acts of knowing. The 5ruti, " Desire, Resolution, etc.," however, like "Life is clarified butter/ etc., demonstrates that the mind is the cause of desire, etc., but not that it is their receptacle, nor that it is identical with them. Its diversity explained continued. I7paskdra.-Ho gives another proof : It cannot be asked. "What then will be the fate of these texts , viz., " Thou art that, O &vetaketu ! " " One who knows Brahman, verily becomes Brahman," etc. ? For the text, " Thou art That," conveys the sense of identity in this sense that what is devoted to, or, belongs to That, is not different from That. The text, "One who knows Brahman* verily becomes Brahman, ll does not convey the sense of identity, but thatr of similary of the Jiva (t. e., the embodied Soul), to Isvara (i.e., the Great Soul), in point of freedom from suffering etc. ; for, otherwise, the text. The stainless one attains to supreme similarity," can have no meaning. In popular language also there is the topical use of identity in the sense of resemblance, as when there is an abundance of wealth, it is said, "this priest has become a king," and so on. Nor should it be ma intained that identity is produced in the state of salvation, on the cessation of ignorance or false knowledge, since difference, being eternal, is incapable of destruction, and even if we admit the destruc tion of difference, then since there is necessity for the existence of two individuals. So much in brief. Bhasya .Interpret* III. ii. 19, 20, and 21 in the monistic sens* namely, that there exists only one Self, variously differentiated on the phenomenal plane, as witnessed by such texts as " One only, with- out a second," " One ihitiing Being is immanent in all created things," < All Selves become one," "All Selves emanate from this, Same Self" Two birds," etc. Upaskdra. Having finished the enumeration, definition, and examination of th nina Substances, Earth, etc., and desiring to refute the dootrine, held by the Samkhya philoso phers, that prakriti or Matter is the prime cause, and to establish that ultimate atoms are the prime cause and enter into the composition of earth, etc., the author first of all gives the definition of the Genus, eternality. 1. The eternal is that which is existent and uncaused. 157. Akaranavat, means not having a precedent cause, on the maxim of the purity of words (which excludes other interpretations of the term). Hereby the water-pot, and the like are excluded. Still the definition may be too wide by including previous non-existence ; so he says, 4 existent i. e., having connection with existence. In the case of the Predicables, Combination and Species, connection with existence is nothing but combination or inherence in one and the same object with existence. In the case of any other Genus and of existence connec tion with existence consists only in being the object of the cognition that it exists. This cognition ia not in respect of a thing as such. " Let.it be so; " it cannot be objected, " in other cases also. What is the use of existence ? " For, existence has already been proved as the cause of assimilative understanding. 1. Vivriti. Seme hold that the existent is produced from the non existent. What they have in view is this. Seeds, etc., are not productive- of effects such as shoots, etc. Were this the case, then seeds, etc., lying in a granary, would also produce shoots, etc. But since shoots appear only after the destruction of seeds sown on a field, by the disjunction of their parts, it follows that it is the destruction of seeds, etc., which is the cause of shoots, etc., So we have the stttram of Gautama, stating the argument of an opponent, " Production of exietence (is) from non-existence, as there is no appearance without destroying." (Nyaya- Sutram, IV. i. 14). Only to refute this view, he strengthens the theory of progressive origination by the series of ultimate atoms, etc. Sat/ means something in the form of existence ; akaranavat " means a non-product ; nityam means an entity which opposes an nihilation. The meaning is : the primary cause of compound bodies is not non-existent, that is to say, because, if causality of destruction were admitted, then it would entail the production of shoots even from pow dered seeds. Mark of existence of ultimate atoms, Vpaskdra. After describing the Genus, sternal, he now says with reference to ultimata atoms : Tasya, its. Of the ultimate atom. pp^ Karyyam, effect, Lingam, mark. 2. The effect is the mark (of the existence) of the ultimate atom. 2. 1 Tasya/ i. e. of the ultimate atom ; karyyam, e. g., the water-pot and the like ; lingam. Accordingly the stitram of Gautama. " From the evolved is the production of the evolved, on the evidence of (ex perience by) perception," (Nyaya-sutram IV. i. II). Now the inter relation of parts and wholes is perceived. If it were unlimited, there would be no difference in size of measurement between mount Meru and a grain of mustard seed ; for, they wauld be without distinction, both being orginated by infinite parts. Nor can it be said that difference will be caused by the differences of the size of each part, and of the aggregation of parts ; for, without a difference of number, these also would be impossible. If it be said that pralaya or destruction of the creation may be the limit (of the series of parts and wholes) ; (we reply that) the final something ex-hypothesi) having no parts, pralaya itself would be impossible, for it is only disjunction and destruction of parts which can destroy substances. Nor is disjunction the limit, for it is impossible for it to have only one substratum. Therefore, a substance without parts,, must be the limit, and this the ultimate atom. A mote is not the limit ; for, being a visible substance, it possesses magnitude, and is composed of more substance than one ; magnitude, as the cause of visual percep tion, presupposes, or is dependent upon, multiplicity of substance ; else there would be no magnitude even, what then would be the cause ? Nor are the constituent parts of the mote atoms, for we must infer that they also, as originatfve of a substance possessing magnitude,. are compossed of parts, like thread, and like potsherd. Therefore. whatever substance is an effect, is composed of parts, and whatever substance is composed of parts, is an effect. So that from whichever part the nature of being an effect goes away, from it goes away also the nature of being made up of parts. This is the proof of the existence of indivisible ultimate atoms. So it has been said by Professor Prasastadeva, " Earth is twofold, eternal and non-eternal. 2- Law of Causation. Anityah, non-eternal, ffif Iti, such, t. e., such intuition and expression .f^RfaW: ViSesatah, of the particular, i.e., the eternal. srf^Nnrra 1 * Partisedha-bhavah, the form of negation. 4. "Not-eternal" such (intuition and expression) can be accounted for only as the negation of the eternal. 160. In visesatah the affix tasi is used in the genitive sense. There would be negation of visesa i. e., the eternal, if there were not such intuition, and application of the word as non-eternal, because the prefix nan (non) has the force of negating the meaning of the word next to it. Therefore how can there be the intuition and expression, 4 non-eternal/ in the absence (of that) of the eternal ? Hence it is proved that the eternal exists. Or, (the meaning of the S&tram may be), the negation of the eternal must be made by you in this way that (it is) " not eternal," i. e., that the ultimate atom is not eternal. But negation in this way is not successful, since it is frustrated by proof and disproof. (In this interpretation), the siltram should be rendered thus : The word ?f (not) will be a negative term by itself, as the rule, "SJ, TT, ft, and ^n are negative terms." Thus " non-eternal " will mean not eternal. Pratisedha-bhavah, means the nature or form of negative. Hence " not eternal" this is the form of the negation of visesa/ i.e. y the eternal, and it ( is not possible. This closes the argument. 4. Vivriti. He refutes the view that all is non-eternal, that there is nothing which is eternal. 3tf (in the aphorism) is an indeclinable, having the same meaning as 5T*T (non). Thus, not eternal such negation is i visesotah/ i. e., with reference to particular things. So that, there may be the negation that compound bodies are not eternal, but such whole-sale negation as every thing is not eternal, is not possible, because the eternal, which is the counter-opposite, is frustrated by proof and disproof. This is the whole meaning. 136 VAI&ESIKA PHILOSOPHY. The theory that atoms are not eternal, is erroneous. Upatldra, It may be objected as follows : The ultimate atom is not eternal, since it is corporal of ponderable, like a watei-pot. Similarly, the possession of colour, the possession of taste, etc., may be, one by one, adduced as so many reasons. So also by simultaneous conjunc tion with six (other ultimate atoms), an ultimate atom has six parts ; so that from its posses sion of parts, and from its being the substratum of the conjunction appearing in objects which it cannot pervade, (we may infer that the ultimate atom is not eternal). Moreover, if there be Ether within an ultimate atom, then being porous, it must have parts ; if there be no Ethr inside it, then it would follow that Ether does not penetrate every where. Further, (the ultimate atom is not eternal), because it casts shadow, and possesses circulation. Again, the inon-eternality of the ultimate atom follows also from the inference whi oh establishes transi ency, e. g., the inference, that all that exists is momentary. If then there be such a series of inferences, how can it be maintained that the ultimate atom is eternal ? To meet these objections, he says : Avidya, ignorance, error. 5. (It is) an error (to suppose that the ultimate atom is not eternal). 161. Every inference, which has for its subject the non-eternality of the ultimate atom, is ignorance, i.e., is of the form of error, since it springs from a fallacy, This fallacy is occasionally obstruction or opposition to the proof which comprehends the subject ; always absence of the characteristic of being pervaded (or being the mark), due to want of evidence preventive of its existence in the vipaksa (i. e., in which the non-existence of that which has to be proved, is sertain) ; sometimes unproof by itself ; and others which should be learnt from the kindred. system (i.e-, the Nyaya-Sutram of Gautamaj. 5. Bhdsya. Reads IV. i. 3.4, and 5 as two aphorisms only, viz., Icdrana- bhdvdt kdryabhdvo, nilya iti , and Visesatah pratisedhabhdvo l vidyd , and interprets them to mean, respectively, "The nature of the effect, (though) following from the nature of the cause (which is eternal) is non-eternal" and " It is an error to suppose that because things (e.g. r atoms) exist as effects (e.gr., compound bodies), therefore they cannot exist in the causal (or atomic) state", in order to explain the applica tion of the word "non-eternal in, I. i. 8 where the reference is to things which are products. Requisites of perception. Upaskdra. It may he objected, " Well, if the ultimate atom exits, why is it not per ceived by the senses ? It is you who have proved that the possession of colour, the possession of touch, etc., are exciting causes of sensibility." Hence he says : Mahati, in respect of an object possessing magnitude. Aneka-dravya-vattvat, by means of its possession of what is composed of more than one substance. ^TTrT Rupat, by means of colour. ^ Cha, and. YTftf^: Upalabdhih, perception. 6. External perception (takes place), in respect of an object possessing magnitude, by means of its possession of that which is composed of more substances than one, and by means of its. colour. 162.n M.aliati means in respect of a substance possessing magnitude the affix, , matup, denoting possession, among affixes denoting quality being elided after the word, mahat, denoting measure. l Anekadravyat- • -at mtans from the nature or state of containing that of which more substances than one are the substrata. This being so, Air also would be perceptible. Hence he says, " And by mean? of Colour/ i. e. as will be later on said, developed and un eclipsed or un obscured colo ur. Uj alabdhih " is complemented by the words, "by the external sense/ "Therefore it goes without saying that there is no external perception of the ultimate atom, since it does not possess magnitude. " The possession of that which is composed of more than one substance " means either the being constituted by a compound of more than one substance, or the being the substratum of the magnitude which is due to a multiplici ty of component parts. It cannot be said that the possession of that which is a compound of more than ore substance, is rendered futile (as a condition precedent of i erception), by the very possession of magnitude ; since the reverse is also i cssible. Nor can it be said, "Futility of the producer is caus ed by the producible,, but not that of the producible by the producer " for the agreement and the difference of the producible and the producer being simultaneously apprehended, there is no futility, since otherwise it would follow that the futility of the staff, etc., will be caused by the whirling of it, etc. Nor can it be said that there is a development of or rise in, perceptibility at a distance due to development of, or rise in magnitude; for a development of, or rise in, the possession of a compound of more substances than one being also possible, there can be no discrimination. Moreover, while a spider s web measuring four cubits, etc., is not perceptible frcm a distance, the perceptibility of the spider itself is certainly due to a development of the possession of a compound of more substances than one, since a preponderance of magnitude exists in the web. So also it should be observed that while ^ a piece of cloth, constituted by five yarns, is not perceptible at a dis- jtance, is in spite of a preponderance of magnitude in it, a club of a very small magnitude is perceptible there __ 6. Cause of non-perception By the term " evolution of colour " are intended combination or inhesion of colour, the development of colour to the degree of appre ciability, and the no.i-obscuration of colour. Though, therefore, i.i the case of Air, the selfsame combination of touch is alse the combina tion of colour, yet it is not qualified or determined by colour, for there is in it absolute non-existence of colour. In the light of the eye, there is no^evolution, that is, appreciability, of colour. In the light of the shooting star at midday, there is no ev<lnv.on, that is, non-obscuration, of colour. Of these, therefore, there is uo perceptibility. In like man ner, evolution of colour is to be analogously applied to the heat of the summer, the fire in a frying pan, gold, etc. The writer of the VTitti has, however, said that ^T^f^rR is a com pound of the words ^T and ^TCTC^TC, formed by tho elision of one of the tvvc ^T s, and that, therefore, the non-perception of Air is in conse quence of the non-existence of colour in it, while the non-perception of the ocular light, etc., is due to the non-existence of the evolution of col oar 7- Requisites of perception of colour. Upnskdra. -In this way having, itum3diatJly after t ae section on the eterpality of the ultimate ato:us, finished the section on fie perospfcibility of external objects, as a subsi diary topic, by their being the inferential marks of the ultimate atoms, and intending to sot forth, by introducing an example, the section on the perceptibility of Attributes he says : Aneka, more than one. %zq Dravya, substance. ^nftr^T^ Samava- yat, from combination in. ?5*r Rupa, colour. fa^ftTci; Visesat, from some special characteristic of. 5^q[ Rupa, colour. ST^fsvr: Upalavdhih, perception. 8. Perception of colour (arises) from its combination with a compound of substances more than two, and from (its possession of) some special characteristic of colour. 164. Rupaviiesa means the species or peculiarity inherent in colour, and that consists of the characteristics of being developed to the degree of appreciability, of being unobscured, and of being colour. From this, perception of colour takes place. Lest it might be said that, such being the case, the colour of the ultimate atom as well as of the dyad would be perceived, so it has been added anekadravya-samavayat. The word aneka denotes multitude ; hence l anekadravya means that to which many substances belong as its substratum, e. g., a molecule of the atoms, and the like. To term anekadravya-samavayat therefore, means from combination with such a compound substance. The water-pot, etc., although they are originated by two parts, (i- e. y potsherds, etc.), really contain a multitude of substances as their subs tratum, in the serial arrangement of the parts of these parts, and so on As taste, touch, etc., lack in the characteristic of colourness, so there is no ocular perception of them. In the case of ocular fire or light non-visibility is due to the absence of the degree of appreci abi lity. Development or appreciability is only a particular universal entity or l class belonging to the particular attributes of colour, etc., and is pervaded by, or included in, colourness, etc. Objection : _ This being so, no relation of higher and lower (classi fication) will be at all established even by whiteness, fragrantness, sourness, etc. If, however, you suppose a manifoldness of develop ment or appreciability, pervaded by, or included in, them respectively, then there will be a redundancy of supposition, and the term develop ment or appreciability, 33?5T also will have various meanings. Answer : _ It is not so ; for, development or appreciability denotes the ur.ddhi or condition, namely, the characteristic of the attribute cay.able of being apprehended by each individual external sense, while non-development or non-appreciability denotes only the absence of the upddhi or condition. Some say that appreciability is simply the non-existence of non-appreciability. This should be considered, since non-appreciability also cannot be similarly established. It may be said that non-appreciability is a particular attribute beyond the cognizance of the senses. If it be so, then it would follow that appre ciability is a particular attribute within the reach of the senses. If it be asked " What is the determinant of sensuousness ?," we reply that both of us, (i. e., the disputants) are equally at a disadvantage here. They also say that appreciability is the one and only one class present in all particular attributes, and that the non-establishment of the relation of higher and lower is no fault in the case of the class inhering in attributes. 8. Perception of Taste, Smell, and Touch. Uvaskdra Of the attributes other than Touch, co-exsistsnce in the same substratum with colour is "itself the nectary condition of their being perceptible by the external senses. For this reason, after having stated the conditions of perception of colour, he now extends them to other cases, and says : i s i ? 1 8. ii ^srTena, by this,. ?3W?J*I3 R asa-gandha-sparsesu, in respect of taste, smell, and touch, srtf Jnanam, knowledge. sqriqra^ Vyakhyatam, explained. 9. Hereby is explained (perceptual) knowledge in the case of Taste, Smell, and Touch. 165. 1 Ten a means by the preceptual knowledge of colour. As precep- tion of colour arises from some special characteristic of colour,m z., colour- ness, non-obscuration, and appreciability, so perception of taste arises from some particularity of taste, characterised as tasteness, non-obscura tion, and appreciability. This should be applied to other cases. Com bination with a compound of more than two substances, should be also- extended. From inappreciabilitj to the organs of the ear, the tongue, and the skin, result non-apprehension of smell, taste, and touch Being undeveloped or inappreciable, smell and taste are not perceived in a stone, etc. ; for they are perceived in their ashes. Some maintain that they are perceived indeed in the stone, etc., but not distinctly The non-apprehension of the colour of a watery substance, the parts of which have been disjoined from one another, is due to non-developrae it of the colour. So also is the non-apprension of taste. In hot water, there is non-approhension of the colour of the fire, in consequence of its non- development, and of touch, in consequence of its obscuration. In com minuted camphor, the champaka flayer, etc., non-apprehension of colour taste, and touch is due to thoir non-djve 1 -pment or inappreciabilit/ In gold, and the like, colour is indeel do /eloped, but whiteness and lummousness are obscured. Some hold that colour also is obscured whereas the apprehension of gold takes place with the help of other colour. Obscuration, again, is non-apprehension caused by the appre hension of a more powerful like object, and not merely relation or connection with a powerful like object. For, since connection with a powerful like object has to be ascertained by non-apprehension it is the non-apprehension which is of primary importance. Whereas the powerful like object is not of primary importance, as the necessary condition of non-apprehension ; because neither non-apprehension, nor antecedent non-existence of apprehension, nor its absolute non-exis- tenoe is subject to its operation, while the annihilation of apprehension does not exist there. If it be objectei, Then your proposition also that obscuration is non-apprehension caused by the apprehension of a more powerful like object, is not proved," we reply, Let it be so- Still apprehension and non-apprehension alone are the necessary condition* of the strength or weakness of a like object, or of the existance of such a relation ; and the same is the meaning of the word, obscuration." 9. G <fl^ Tasya, of this, i. e., the genus of colourness, etc., and develop ment or appreci ability. sroRT^ Abhavat, because of the non-existence ^rsqfr^rc: Avyabhicharah, non-deviation. No breach of uniformity OP the rule. 10. Because of the non-existence of this, there is no viola tion (of the above law of perceptibility in the case of Gravitv }- 166. Gravity is not perceptible, because of the non-existence, in Gravity of this, Viz., the genus of colourness, etc., and development or apprecia- bihty. It might be said that granted that, colourness, etc., do not exist there, yet there may be perception of Gravity. To prevent this, he adds • avyabhicharah. There is < non-deviation i. e., unbroken uniformity of the five classes or universals, e. g., colourness, etc., towards. apprehensibility by each individual sense. Whenever there exists one or another of the pentad of colourness,etc., there also exists apprehensi bility by the respective external senses, as shown by the method of difference (that where the former are not, there the latter does not -exist). This is the meaning. Gravity, by reason of its being left obscure in tha sutram, as the topic of discussion, by Prasastadeva classed annng things supersen- suous, is by Vallavacharya said to be perceived by touch. 10. Where Numbers, etc., are objects of visual perception. 11. Numbers, Magnitudes, Separateness, Conjunction and Disjunction, Priority and Posteriority, and Action become objects of visual perception, through their combination with Substances possessing colour. 167. The words have not been formed into a compound in order to indi cate their mutual independence in respect of their visual or tactual perceptibility. Although there is dependence upon JTff3T, i. e., largeness, yet it is not as upon a mode of extension or magnitude. The word cha hastheforce of involvingthe addition of Viscidity, fluidity and Impetus. The word ^T^^fa implies tactual perceptibility ; or the word l cha should be applied after the word ^T^ fflT also. The plural number in Numbers, comprehends all numbers, from unity upwards. If it be held that unity is only a Genus, and not an Attribute, then if it appear in substances only, its denotation will be neither more nor less than that of substanceness ; if, on the other hand, it be present in attributes and actions also, then its denotation will be neither more nor lesr than that of existence. " How, then," if it be asked," can there be perception of unity, etc., in attribute, etc. ?," it may be answered that it is by means of attributed unity ; or that by reason of the proximity known as combination or co-inhere:ice in one and the same object, the percep tion of unity is quite justified. This unity is eternal in eternal subs tances, and in non-eternal substances it has causal unity for its non-combinative cause. On the other hand, duality, etc., are the product of relative understanding. Relative understanding is the mental basis or support of various unities, when two homogeneous or heterogeneous substances are in contact with the eye. 11. 12. In substances not possessing colour, they are^not objects of visual perception. 168. Numbers, etc., up to action, are not objects of visual perception, when they are present in substances which are devoid of colour. It should be observed that they are not objects of tactual perception also. It has not been said that they are imperceptible ; for, if it were so, then the unity of the Soul also would not be an obiect of percep tion. 12. Attribute-ness and existence perceptible to all the senses. Upaskdra. Colour, etc., are uni-sensuous or perceptible by the senses individually. Numbers, etc., are bi-sensuous or perceptible by two senses jointly. Pleasure, etc., are mental or perceptible by the inner sense. So that it results that the two Genera, Attribute- ness and existence, are omni-sensuous. tSo he says : Upaskdra. la the fourth book, of whio a the subject-matter is the examination of tangible substances, intondin; to exa:nin3 only tangible sub.itanc3s by their effjots, im n> di&tely after the examination of tne ultimate atonic which are the root causes, he says : Here corporeity or the characteristic of the body is a kind of upadhi or adjunct, namely, the characteristic of being constituted by final parts (i.e., atoms), possessing activity, of which the non-combinative cause is the conjunction of the soul exercising volition. But corporeity is not a class -or universal eatitiy, since in that case Earthness, etc., will establish no relation of higher and lower divisions. The characteristic of being a sense, is the being the seat of the conjunction of the mind, which is the cause of knowledge which produces no reminiscence, or the being a seat of the conjunction of the mind, which is the cause of knowledge, while at the same time it is not a substratum of appreciable particular attributes other than sound. 0;i the other hand, the light of the eye of animals that prowl at night, is really another kind of light. In regard to its being treated as forming the visual sense, the words " not being a substratum of appreciable particular attributes other than sound aud colour " should be added. The characteristic of being a sense, how ever, is not a l class/ for the a the characteristic of Earth, etc., will not establish the relation of higher and lower divisions without entailing cross-division). And objectivity, or the characteristic of being ari object, although it is the being the means of phenomenal experience, that is to say, the being the object of ordinary perception, common to substance, attribute, action, genus, and non-existence yet should be, in accordance with the aphorism, observed to be the characteristic of being a product-substance which is the object of ordinary perception, for the aphorism is this only that Earth and other product-substances • ire three-fold. Objectivity also, therefore, is not a class or universal entity. -1. Body is not a compound of Jive elements. Upaskdra. Now, in order to refute the assertion that the body is composed of three elements or four elements, he says : 2. (Nothing exists, which is constituted by five elements, or) the body is not constituted by five elements, for the conjunc tion of things, perceptible and imperceptible, is imperceptible. 171. Were the body, by reason of its odour, moisture, digestive heat, breath, and porosity, composed of five elements, then it would be imper ceptible. In the same manner as the conjunction of pen eptible and imperceptible objects, e.g., air and trees, is imperceptible, the body also would be imperceptible. Thus the aphorism employs an example. The word body is the complement of " penta-substantial does not exist." Moisture, digestive heat, etc., however, belong to the efficient causes or conditions of the body, namely, water and fire. The theory that the body is composed of four elements should be also similarly understood. Let it then, it may be urged, contain three elements, as there is perception of three elements. This cannot be, for an origina tion not of heterogeneous elements is denied. One attribute in a whole made up of parts is not originative of similar other attributes. If, therefore, the production were from Earth and Water, then that which they originate would be void of smell and taste. In like manner, if it originated in Earth and Fire, it would not possess smell, colour, and taste ; if in Earth and Air, it \\ould be destitute of smell, taste, colour, and touch. Other cases should be similarly understood. 2. Nor a compound of three elements. Upaskdra. Ho continues the same topio : Gruna-antara-apradurbhavat, by reason of the non- appearance of another attribute. ^ Cha, and. sf Na, not. 3^[?JT^J3; Tri- atmakam, tri-substantial. Composed of three elements. 3. And by reason of the non-appearance of another attribute,. it is not composed of three elements. 172. A body originated by Earth, Water, and Fire only, which are objects of perception, might be perceived, if there were manifested in it another attribute having for its antecedent a like attribute in the cause. But this can never be the case, as it has been already stated that a single smell, etc., is not originative. Therefore the body is not composed of even three elements, i. e., is not originated by the three elements possessing colour. 3. Bndsya reads IV. ii. 3 as two aphorisms, viz., "G-undntardprddur- bhdvdchcha," and " Na trydtmakam." Apratisiddha^, not denied. 4. But a conjunction of atoms is not denied. 173. A mutual eon junction of the five elements as (the basis or) condi tional causes of oue another, is not denied. But it is not desired that the conjunction of two heterogeneous atoms can be the non-combinative cause of a substance. Thus, as its conditional or efficient causes, digestive heat, etc., are perceived in the body- If it be asked, then, of what nature the human body is, the answer is given by the aphorism of Gautama : _ " (The body is) terrene, the distinctive attribute of Ether being perceived (in it)." Nyaya-Sutram III. i. 28(?} ). Smell which is the distinctive attribute of Earth, is observed in the human body as not departing from it till its dissolution, whereas digestive heat, etc., are not observed in the decayed body. These attributes, therefore, are accidental, while Smell is essential. Hence itsterreneness is established. 4. Body is two-fold: sexually produced, and asexually produced. UpasMra. He divides the body : fljf Tatra, therein, amongst terrene, aqueous, and other bodies, Sariram, body, terrene body, fefev* Dvividham, two fold, qtf^f Yonijam, sex-begotten, sexually generated. IRtfrsn^ Ayonijam, not sexually gene rated. <9 Cha, and. 5. Of these, the body is two-fold : sex-born and not sex-born. 174. Of these, i. e., among terrene, aqueous, and other bodies, the terrene body is two-fold. What are the two kinds ? In answer, he says, l sexborn and not-sex-born/ Aqueous, igneous, and aerial bodies, well-known in the spheres of Varuna, Aditya, arid Vayu, are entirely a-sexual. A-sexuality means independence of the commixing of semen and blood. The bodies of gods and sages are also a-sexual, according to the text of revelation, " Manu and others, the mind-born or desire- born of Brahma." If it be asked how there can be an effect without a cause, we reply that the female organ of generation is not a cause essential to or determining corporeity, as it does not apply to the bodies of worms, mosquitoes, etc., produced by warmth. The posses sion of a particular constitution also is not proved, since our bodies are different in appearance in comparision with the bodies of goda and sages. The sexaul body, again, is two-fold, womb-born and egg-born. Womb-born are bodies of men arid animals, wild and domestic, the womb being the name given to the receptacle of the embryo. The bodies of birds and reptiles are egg-born. Snakes, worms, fishes, etc., also are really reptiles, since it is their nature to crawl about. Trees and the like also are no doubt so many kinds of bodies, being the seat of experience (i. e., the field wherin particular souls reap the consequences of their acts in previous births). For without the charac teristic of being the seat of experience, life, death, sleep, waking, use of medicine, propagation of the seed, approaching the agreeable, avoid ing the disagreeable, etc., would be impossible. And growth and the healing up of wounds and fractures, which prove experience, are mani fest in them. There is also the sacred text : " The Sarala and Arjuna trees, which grow on the banks of the Narmada from contact with the waters of the Narmada, attain to the highest state hereafter," etc. And also, " In the cemetery grows a tree haunted by herons and vultures, etc.," etc. Yet germinant bodies do not evidently possess activity or movement and senses, and they are therefore not treated as bodies. 5. Vivriti. That trees, etc., are bodies (i. e., ground of the experience of the consequences of acts) is evidenced by the text of Manu, viz., "A man acquires the candition of an immovable existence, by faults of action, born of the body. A-sexual bcdies, how produced. Upasltdra. S.Q states the cause from whioh asexual bodies are produced : A-niyata-dik-desa-purvakatvat, because it(. ., a-sexual body) has for its antecedent ultimate atoms which are not constant in direction aud place. 6. Because a-sexual bodies are formed by ultimate atoms inconstant in direction and place. 175. Ultimat atoms, inconstant in direction and place, possess activity or movement produced by a particular dharma or virtue. And they are tho antecedents of a-sexual bodies. 6. i. In the words of Varuna, etc., there exist a-sexual, aqueous, igneous, aerial, and mental bodies, which are not dependent, for their production, upon semen, blood, etc. Whence come the ultimate atoms which orignate them ? In the case of sexual bodies, it is observ ed that only the ultimate atoms of semen and blood are their origina tors. To remove this apprehension, the present aphorism has been formulated. Terrene, aqueous, igneous, and aerial ultimate atoms exist in all directions and in all places. Since there is nothing to confine them to direction and place, there can be no scarcity of ultimate atoms in the production of a-sexual bodies For it is not the case that ultimate atoms other than the ultimate atoms of semen and blood, are not ori ginative of bodies, seeing lhat in that case there would be no produc tion of gnats, mosquitoes, trees, shrubs, etc. A-sexual bodies, how produced continued. Upaskdra. It may be objected, how there ean be preduction of a substance ( . ., a body), without conjunction which is the non-oembinative cause of substance, seeing that there can be no conjunction without the action of the ultimate atoms. Heuoe he says : The sense is that, at the beginning of creation, action or motion arises in the ultimate atoms in consequence only of the conjunction of the soul carrying with it the invisible (adristam) consequences of its previous acts, and the ultimate atoms, having by that action come together, originate, in the order of binary atomic aggregate, etc., the a-sexual badies of gods and sages. The aphorism is illusrative. It should be also observed that, in consequence of particular adharma or vices, the tortured bodies of mos quitoes and other small insects, generated by heat, are produced. 7. Proof of their existence. Upskdra. He gives another proof that the bodies of gods and sages are a-sexual : ^nn^ means a significant name, or definition, such as is well- known in Sruti, Itihasa, Purana, etc. Thus, Durvasas, and other sages were born from the mind (of Brahma) ; Angiras was produced from ahamkdra (the sense of * I") ; and so on. From this also it is known that there ar a-sexual bodies of gods and sages. 8. Yviriti. _ But whence do a-sexual bodies derive their names, in the absence* of parents, etc. ? For it is observed on earth that the names Chaitra, Maitra, etc., are affixed by parents, etc. Lest there be such an apprehension, so he says : 1 Bhavat/ i. e., from the existence, of Samakhya, i. e., the name ; i even in the absence of the procreative parents, etc. is the complement. For, all names are not affixed only by parents, etc., as it is not the case with the names, water-pot, canvas, etc. Therefore, the import is that the names, Ma iu, Marichi, etc., have been put upon a-sexual bodies, by the very same Isvara by whom names have been affixed to the water-pot, canvas, and other unconscious objects. 9. (The existence of a-sexual bodies is proved) from the primitiveness of the name. 178. By means of the name, Brahma, etc., which came to be the begin ning, i. e.j primordial, at the beginning of creation, it is known that a-sexual body exists. For then there were net parents of Brahma, by whom the name Brahma, etc., should be given. 9. Vivriti. But there being no proof of the existence of tsvara, how can it be affirmed that the names of the water-pot, the canvas, etc., have been given by Him ? So he says : Because livara, which is the complement of the aphorism, ia the beginning (adi), i. e., the cause or source, of names. Thus the proof of fsvara having been already stated, by the characteristic of His being the author of names, in the aphorism, " But name and effect are the mark (of the existence) of beings distinguished from ourselves" (II. i. 18 Ibid;, being the author of names remains unobstructed. This is the sense. Conclusion : A-sexual bodies exist. UpasTcdra. He concludes : Santi, exist. SHftfr3T|: Ayonijah, a-sexual bodies. 10. A-sexual bodies exist. 179. The words " particular forms of bodies " are the complement of the aphorism 10. Another proof that a-sexual bodies exist. UpasTcdra. In order to strengthen the above cooclu.sion all the more, he gives aiother proof : 11. (The existence of a-sexual bodies is proved) also from the Brahamana portion of the Veda. 18J. 1 Veda means mantra. That by which it is linjyate, i. e., made known, is veda-lingam/ i. e. } Brdhmanam. From this also a-sexual body is proved. This is the meaning. Thus there is the Brdhmanam : " Prajapti (i. e., the lord of creation) created numerous creatures : He practised peaauce, with the desire, " I may be able to create creatures." He created the Brahmana from His mouth, King from his arms, the Vaisya from His thighs, the Sudra from his feet. " There is also the Veda : " His mouth became the Brahmana ; the arms were made the King i. e.j Kstriya) ; it was His thigh, which became the Vaisya ; the Sudra was born from the feet, etc." Thus terrene body, sexual and a-sexual, has been described in the above way. Aqueous, igneous, and aerial bodies can be only a-sexual, since semen and blood are, as a rule, terrene, and a terrene substance does not originate an aqueous one. The terrene sense is the organ of smell, common to all living beings. The organ of smell is originated by terrene particles unoverpowered or unobscured by water, etc. The organ of smell is terrene, because it causes manifestation of smell, while it does not cause the manifestation of taste, etc., like the excrement of the fowl which causes the manifestation of the perfume of the musk. Similarly, the organ of taste, the tongue, is the aqueous sense, as it causes the manifestation of taste only, while it does not cause the manifestation of colour, etc,, like water which causes the manifestation of the taste of the pudding. In like manner, the eye is the igneous sense, because it causes the manifestation of colour only, while it does not cause the manifestation of taste, etc., like light. The skin is the aerial sense, because it causes the manifestation of touch only, while it does not cause the manifestation of smell, etc., like the wind blown by the fan which causes the manifestation of the coolness of the water (perspiration) sticking to the body. The object which is terrene, is characterised as earth, stone, and the immoveable. Therein the modifications of earth are the divisions of the land, wall, brick, etc., Stones are the troantains, jewels, diamond, red-chalk, etc. The irnm^veable are grass, herbs, trees, shrubs, creepers, and trees bearing fruits without flowers. Aqueous objects are rivers, seas, dew, hail-stone, etc. Igneous object is four-fold, differen tiated as terrestrial, celestial, abdominal, and mineral. Tlie terrestrial is that which is produced from fuel, such as wood. The celestial is not produced from fuel ; e. g., lightning, etc. The abdominal is the sto machic, capable of extracting the juice of rice, etc. And the mineral is gold, etc. .The aerial object is the wind wdich is the seat or support > -of touch which can be felt. The fourth effect of Air, which is called Prdna; i.e., the life-breath, and which is the means of disposing of the essences (rasa), excreta; and the humours or \ital fluids (dhdtu ) within the body, though it is one, still acquires the names of Apfina (i.e., the ir which throws out) etc., according to the diversity of its func tions. 11. Here ends the second chapter of the fourth book in the Commen tary of Sankara upon the Vaisesika Aphorisms of Kanada. Upaskdra. The subject of the fifth book is the investigation of Action. The investi gation of Action, producible by volition, is the subject of the first chapter. In this there are sections treating of (1) throwing upwards, (2) throwing upwards effected without volition, <3) action which has virtue or merit as its cause, and (4) actions, goods, bad, and indifferent. With reference to a particular form of muscular or bodily action, (e. (jr., in using a pestle and mortar), the author says : By means of conjunction and volition of the soul, Action (is pro duced) in the hand which is its combinative cause. And of this Action, conjunction with the soul exercising volition, is the non- combinative cause, aid volition is the efficient or conditional cause. It is this which is called muscular action , for muscular action is action which has for its non-combinative cause conjunction with the soul exercising volition, or action producible by volition of something other than, that which possesses touch and which is not combined with, and is additonal which to that in which the action appears (e.g., hand.) 1. Vivriti- Here 5^ in the hand, is an illustration. The meaning is that by the conjunction, and volition, of the soul, action, in the form of muscular motion, is caused in the body as well as in the parts there of. So it has been said. That which is produced by the Soul, may be called Desire. That which is prodnced by Desire, may be called first Impulse or stir. That which is produced by Impulse, may be called muscular motion. It it that which is produced by muscular motion, that may be called Action or physical change. Action in the pestle described. Upaskdra.A.Her describing the throwing upwards of the hand, he describes the throw ing upwards of the pestle, which depends upon the former : The word cha implies gravity/ which is another efficient cause. • Tatha means like that/ i. e., of the form of throwing upwards. Or tatha and hasta-sasayogat may be taken as constituting a single term, which will then mean from conjunction with hand possessing upward motion. Here, again, conjunction of the pestle with the hand conjoined with the soul exercising volition, is the non-combinative cause ; the pestle is the combinative cause ; volition and gravity are the efficient causes. 2. Upaskdra. He states the caiise of tho sudden motion upward which is produced in the pestle when struck by the mortar : Abhighata-je, produced by impact. gqfaT^ Musat.adau, in the pestle, etc. ^rwffiif Karmmani, in action, sqf^fri^ Vyatirekat, because of absence (of volition). 3T^TT?;*rf Akaranam, not cause. l^rT^ftr: Hasta- BaBayogah, conjunction with the hand, 3. In the action, produced in the pestle, etc., by impact, conjunction with the hand is not a cause, because of the absence (of volition). 183. Here, though there is also conjunction of the hand with the rising pestle, yet that conjunction possesses no causality On the other hand, the impact of the mortar only is the non-combinative cause. It may be asked, u Why so?" Therefore he adds, * vyatirekat/ which means because of the absence of operativeness of volition." If there were volition at that moment, there would surely be no sudden upward motion in the pestle. By a volition to hold fast, there would be rather susten tion of the pestle ; or, the upward motion again of the pestle would be caused by muscular action. This is the import. 3. Vivriti. Conjunction with the hand is not the combinative cause. • Conjunction is indicative. Volition and muscular action also, it should be understood, are not the efficient causes. Action in the hand. "Upaskdra. With a view to specify a particular cause of the action of the hand, as it flies upward with tho pestle, and for the purpose of disproving the non-combinative causality of conjunction with the soul exercising volition, he says : u * i n 8 n Tatha, the same, i. e., not a cause. ^fTrfl^f^tT: Atma-samyogah, con junction with the soul. l^rRTWT c ftr Hasta-karmmani, in the action of the hand. 4. In the case of action of the hand, ccnjunction with the soul is not a cause. 184. KANADA StTTRAS V, 1, 6. 153 In the case of the action of the hand, as it springs upwards with the pestle, conjunction with the soul, i. e , conjunction with the soul exercising volition, is the same, i. e., not a cause. The term not-a- cause which appears in the preceding aphorism, is carried over here by ( tatha. the same. 4. Vivriti. Yhis too is illustrative. If shouln be understood that that volition also is not a non-common efficient cause. Above continued. Upaskdra. " Whence then at that time the upward motiou in the hand " ? In answer to this, he says : H U* I 3 I U> II Abhighatat, from impact. JjJW^nftTT^ Musala-sarayogat, from conjunction with the Beetle. 5^" Hoste, in the hand. ^WT^Karmma, action. 5. The action (i. e., upward motion) in the hand is from impact, and from conjunction with the pestle. 185. As, when the pestle flies upwards, the iron-ring at the end of the } estle rises upwards, so the hand also at that time springs upwards. Here by the word, impact, re-action (i. e., recoil) produced by impact, is expressed by transference. By the vigorous action of the up-going pestle, accompanied with the impact, re-action or recoil is produced in the pestle itself which is the substratum of that subs tratum of that action. Subject to the re-action so effected, upward motion appears in the hand also, in consequence of the conjunction of the hand and the pestle, as its non-combinative cause ; and not that this upward motion has for its non-combinative cause conjunction with the soul exercising volition, for the hand rises involuntarily together with the pestle. This is the idea. 5. Action in the body. Upaxkara. " well," it may be asked, " conjunction with theisoul exercising volition is the cause of the action which is produced in the body or in a part of the body. Why is it ot so in the present instance " ? Henoe he says : II U. I t I 3 II Atma-karmma, action of the body, and its members. Hasta-samyogat, from conjunction with the hand, ^r Cha, and, also. 6. Action of the body and its members is also from conjunc tion with the hand. 186. The word atma, by transference, means the body and its parts, For, impossibility of order or coherence in the text, is the germ of a transference of epithet. Thus the action which appears in a part of the body also, that is, in the hand, arises from the conjunction of the hand and the pestle. Th would l cha implies also impetus. In the- action of the hand, conjunction with the hand is really th non-combi- 154 VAIEIKA PHILOSOPHY. native cause. There is no deviation or breach of uniformity in this respect. This conjunction is sometimes conjunction with the soul exercising volition, and sometimes conjunction of the hand with pestle, etc., possessing impetus, as is the case with the action of the body and its parts, of a mad man. 6. Falling how produced. Upask&ra. Ho begins the section on action independent of volition : II * I ? I V9 II Sarayoga-abhave, in the absence of conjunction. Gurutvat, from gravity. WTflC Patanam, falling. 7. In the absence of conjunction, falling (results) from gravity. 187. By the term, conjunction, every kind of impediment is indicated. Hence in the absence of impediments, in consequence of gravity as its non-combinative cause, falling i. e., an action resulting in conjunction below, is produced. Here in fruit, etc., possessing gravity, the impedi ment is conjunction ; in a bird, etc., however, volition to hold up is the impediment to falling ; in an arrow, etc., when discharged, it is the re action that is the impediment to falling. The meaning is that, in the absence of these, falling is caused by gravity. In the case of holding up of poison, etc., in the air, by thought-transference, etc., conjunction with the soul endowed with adristam (invisible after-effects of pre vious acts), or mantra, and the like are really the impediments. These also are included by the term conjunction. 7. Bhdsya. reads Samskdra in the place of Sam-yoga. Falling how produced continued. Upaskdra. Will, if falling is caused by gravity, then how can there be sometimes an upward, and sometimes a sideward motion in a stone, etc., when thrown up ? To meet this objection, he says : I \ I c: II Nodana-visesa-abhavat, owing to the absence of a particular movement or impulse. ?T Na, not. 3^>^ Urddhvam, upward. • f Na, not. ffc4f Triyyak, oblique, sideward. JUT^flC Gamanam, going. 8. Owing to the absence of a particular molecular movement, there arises no upward or sideward motion (in the fruit, bird, and arrow). 188. The upward or sideward motion which takes place in a stone, arrow, etc., though they possess gravity, results from a particular i. ., a violent, molecular movement. So that in the case of the falling of a fruit, a bird, an arrow, etc., in the absence of conjunction, volition, 3,nd re-action, there does not exist a particular movement, and conse quently there is no upward or sideward motion. This is the sense. 8. KANADA SftTRAS V, 1, 11. 155 Above continued. Upnskdra.But, whenoo is particular molecular movement itself produced ? Ho gives the answer : II VI I t I & II . Prayatna-visesat, from a particular volition. 5 Nodana-viSesah, particular molecular movement or impulse. 9, Particular molecular movement (results) from particular volition. 189. Particular volition is caused by the desire " I will throw sideward r upward, far, or near." By this, particular nodana or molecular move ment is produced, from which upward or sideward motion is possible produced in a substance possessing gravity, a. </., a stone, etc. 9. Throwing far away, how produced. (Tpaskdra. Udasanara means throwing far upwards. , Nodana-viSesat, from a particular molecular movement. Udasana-visesah, particular throwing away. 10. From particular molecular movement, (results) particular throwing away. 190. Vivriti. sftvrt^faRfc * > from a heterogeneous molecular move- tuont produced by the aforesaid volition, 33CTTq, i. e., throwing high upwards, going upwards, *Rfrf, e., takes place, which completes the aphorism. Thus, by agreement and difference, the causality of parti cular molecular movement toward upward motion, is proved. a^TT^, going upwards, is an indication. Sideward motion, etc., also should be understood. Non-volitional action, not a cause of virtue or vice. Upask-lra. The action which is produced in the hand together with the pestle, by th& impact of the mortar, is not at all preceded by volition, nor is it the source of virtue and vice. He extends a similar nature to the playful movements of the hands and feet, etc., of a child : 541H9MMH II % I t I K II Hasta-karmmana, by the action of the hand. 3T<<$ <#uf Daraka- karmma, the action of a child. itWRlftfC Vyakhyatam, explained.

11. By the action of the hand, the action of a child (has been) explained. 191.

Although a child s movement of its hands, feet, etc., is surely pre ceded by effort, it has not for its result the acquisition of the good and the avoidance of the evil, nor is it consequently a source of virtue and vice. This is the meaning of the extension or analogy. 11.

But how is action, in the form of sideward and upward. motion, of the hands and feet of a child lying on the lap, produced, in.

156 VAI&ESIKA PHILOSOPHY.

the absence therefrom of the particular molecular movement or im pulse ? So he says ;

By the action of the hand, of the form of throwing upwards, etc., simultaneous with the throwing upwards of a stone, the action, i, e., the throwing upwards of the hands and feet, of a child, is explained, i. e., proved. Thus, a particular molecular movement is not the cause of all throwing high upwards, but only of particular acts of throwing high upwards. Hence the throwing upwards of the hands and feet of a child is not unproved. Otherwise, the throwing upwards of the hands of one who throws up a stone, etc., will be also unproved.

Certain volitional action altsn, not a cause of -virtue or vice.

Upaskdra. Now, extending similarity to the action of a child to action which , though preceded by volition, is yet not the cause of a virtue and vice, he says :

n *i i ? i ?R u

Tatha, the same. ^T^J Dagdhasya, of a burnt person. Visphotane, in the case of a boil.

12. The same (is action directed towards the killing of a felon), when (a house being set on fire by him) the body of a person burnt therein, is torn open by fire. 192.

A house being set on fire by a felon and in it boils being caused to a person burnt by the fire, action which is produced in the hand, etc., by volition directed towards the killing of that felon, is neither a cause of virtue nor a cause of vice ; as it has been said, " In the slaying of a felon, there is no sin in him that slays openly or covertly : wrath encounters wrath. An incendiary, a poisoner, an assassin, a thief, a ravisher of wife and field, these six are felons. " 12.

V ivriti Sometimes throwing upwards, etc., result also from parti cular molecular movements which are not dependent upon particular volition produced by the desires, " I throw upwards," etc. This he points out :

5*\=r^T, of a burnt body, building, fruit, etc. ; f^rlte^, in the going sideward and upward of their parts ; <TIT ? molecular movement, caused by a particular volition, is not the cause. This is the meaning.

Non-volitional action in the body described. Upaskdra. Now, he points out actions which take place without volition.

n * i ? i ^ n

Yatna-abhave, in the absence of volition. M^dfrU Prasuptasya, of the sleeping. ^FTJ^ Chalanam, movement.

13. Movement of the sleeping (takes place) in the absence of volition. 193.

The word prasuptasya implies the state of absence of conscious ness. Therefore, the movement caused by air in the unconscious state of a person in swoon, while living, should be observed here. 13.

KANlDA SftTRAS V, 1, 15. 157

Vivriti. Even in the absence of volition caused by the desire, " I throw up," etc., movement of the body, i. e., action such as the side ward and upward movements of the limbs of a person sleeping or attended with deep sleep, is produced. Therefore, a particular voli tion is not everywhere the cause. This is the import.

Action in things other than the body. Upaslcdra. Having explained the actions of the body, he treats of other actions :

n % i * i * 9 n

rjjrfr Trine, in the grass. ^frwf Karmma, action. ^HJ^T^tTT^ Vayu-samyogat, from conjunction with air.

14. Action in the grass (arises) from conjunction with air.

194.

By the term grass/ he implies trees, shrubs, creepers, and all such other objects 14.

Vivriti. He points out .similar other actions also.

Even in the absence of a particular volition, from conjunction with -air, action is produaed in the grass.

Action produced by adristam. UpasMra. Enumerating actions dependent upon adcistam, he says :

II % I 3 I ?V, ||

JTT^WfMani-gamanam, movement of the jewel. ^qfaspfqi Suchi- abhisarpanam, approach of the needle. ^TfgsRW^ Adrista-karanakam, have adristam, (i.e., the invisible consequences of previous acts) as their cause.

15. The movement of the jewel, and the approach of the needle, adristam as their cause. 195.

By the term jewel, bell-metal, etc., are implied. In the going which takes place, therefore, of the jewel, bell-metal, etc., informed with mantra or incantation, towards the thief, there, of that movement the jewel, etc., are the combinative cause, conjunction of the jewel with the .Sjul of the thief possessed of adristam, is the non-combinative cause, and the vice of the thief is the efficient or instrumental cause. By the word

• needle, in the approach of the needle/ all metal as well as grass are implied. Thus, in the case of the movement of the needle, etc., towards that which is attractive of iron (i. e., the magnet), and of the movement of grass towards that which is attractive of grass, the needle, etc. are the combinative cause, conjunction with the soul of the person possess ed of adristam, who is affected for good or for bad by that movement of the grass, the needle, etc., is the non-combinative cause, and his yery adristam, is the instrumental cause. Other instances, e. g. the naming upwards of fire, the sideward motion of air, the action of the ultimate atoms at the beginning of creation, etc., should be similarly understood. 15.

158 VAlgfiSIKA PHILOSOPHY.

Vivfiti. By the terra, jewel/ are intended vessels made of gold, etc., and filled with water. To such a vessel magicians apply incanta tions for the recovery of stolen property. The tradition of the ancients is- this. The vessel is set on the grou id, and some other person lays his- right hand upon it. The vessel accompanied with the hand, in conse quence of the efficacy of the incantation, moves towards the spot where- the stolen property has been deposited, and on reaching that place, stops.

The reason of the movement of such a vessel is not a particular volition, but the efficient cause is the merit of the former possessor or the demerit of the thief. The non-combinative cause is conjuuction of such a vessel with soul possessing such adristam (or results of actions- done in previous states of existence) ; and the combinative cause is- such a vessel. In like manner, adristam is also the causa of the attrac tion towards a loadstone, which takes place in needles, i. e., iron-rods,. when in proximity with the magnet. If it be asked, in consequence of whose adristam motion takes place in needles, etc., the reply, is that it is the adristam of him to whom benefit or injury accrues by the motion, that is the cause. The term, needle/ is indicative, iro:i in general attracted by the load-stone being inte idel. It is to be understood that adristam is the cause of the motion of grass attracted by that which is attractive of grass (amber ?), of the upward flaming of fire, of the side ward motion of air, and of the aotiou of the ultimata atoms at the beginning of creation.

Plurality of action.

Upaskdra It may bo doubted whether an arrow, a bird, a wheel of burning charcoal, etc.,. have only one action, or many, till they come to a stop. To remove this doubt, he says :

n * i ? i ?$u jq\ Isau, of the arrow. SinjTT^ Ayugapat, Samyoga-visesah, peculiarities of co iju ictio is. ^rfr:q?% Karmma- anyatve, in respect of diversity of action.^: Hetuh, cause. Mark 16. Peculiarities of non-simultaneous conjunctions of the arrow, are the mark of the diversity of its actioa. 195. In isau the locative inflection has bee i used in the se:ise of the- genitive. The sense of the aphorism is as follows : After conjunction with a wall and the like, of an arrow, etc., moving with impetus, a cessation of motion is observed, even though the arrow, etc., still exist;. Here it is not the destruction of the substratum which causes the- destruction of the motion, for the substratum continues to exist. A ly contradictory attribute is also not observed. It is, therefore, inferrel. that it is conjunction produced by itself, that destroys the action. And this conjunction, produced at the fourth moment, destroys action of the fifth moment. Thus, first there is production of action, then dis junction, next destruction of the previous conjunction, after it sub sequent conjunction, and lastly destruction of action. The meaning, therefore, is that peculiarities of non-simultaneous conjunctions make- known the diversity of the action. * Saiayoga-viiesah means- KANlDA SftTRAS V, 1, 17. 15& peculiarity in conjunction, which is nothing but self-produced-ness. Otherwise, were conjunction, as such, destructive of action, action could not abide anywhere. 16. Action produced by Samskara. Upaskdra. After the section on Action producible by impulse, he begins the section on Action producible by resultant energy. K II V, I \\ \\3 II Nodanat, from impulse of molecular movement. 9TI^} Adyam, original, first, %q\: Isoh, of the arrow. *&*] Karmma, action. dcijfcw Tat-karmma-karitat, produced by that action. =5 Cha, and. fl frftKT^ Sams- karat, from resultant energy. HrfT Uttaram, the next. <TIT Tatha, simi larly. SflT Uttaram, the next. Sfrf Uttaram, the next. ^ Cha, and. 17. The first action of the arrow is from impulse ; the next is from resultant energy produced by that (i.e., the first) action ; and similarly the next, and the next. 197. Of the first action, which is produced in an arrow, when discharged from a bowstring, drawn by the volition of a person, the arrow is the combinative cause, volition and gravity are the efficient causes. And by this first action, resultant energy, called impetus, and having the ^ame substratum, is produced, it is proved even by perception, viz., " It (i. e., the arrow) moves with velocity." By that resultant energy, action is produced in that arrow ; of which the non-combinative cause is the resultant energy, the combinative cause is the arrow, while the efficient cause is an intense form of molecular movement. In like man ner, a succession of actions one after another is produced by the resultant energy which continues until the arrow falls. Since, on an action being destroyed by subsequent conjunction produced by (the action) itself, another action is produced by resultant energy, therefore, a single resultant energy only is productive of a succession of actions ; whereas, on the ground of redundancy, it is not proper to assume a succession of resultant energy, similar to the succession of actions. To point out this, he says " similarly the next, and the next," and also uses the singular number in " from resultant energy produced by that action." In the Nyaya doctrine, however, which admits a succession of resultant energies like the succession of actions, there is redundancy. The reason, again, that of two arrows, simultaneously discharged, the impetus of the one is swift and that of the other slow, is the swiftness andslownees of the impulse or molecular movement. 17- Vivrtti. The original action itself of a discharged arrow, etc., destroys, at the third moment from its own origin, its cause, viz.t molecular movement or impulse, given by the bow. Therefore, there VAlSESIKA PHILOSOPHY. being absence of impulse, how will other actions be produced at the fifth, and succeeding moments ? In view of this objection, he states the aphorism. Falling of arrow, how caused. Upa*kdra.--Svt if only a single resultant energy be productive of a succession of actions there would be, under no circumstances whatever, a falling of the arrow, because of the the resultant energy which is productive of aciton. (To this objection, he Saiiiskara-abhave, in the absence of resultant energy (or propulsive energy generated by action). p^T^ Gurutvat, from o-ravity. Patanam, falling. 18. In the absence of propulsive energy generated by action, falling (results) from gravity. 198. Gravity, which is the cause of falling, invariably follows (the- arrow), at every moment. That gravity, being counter-acted by resul tant energ/, could not cause the falling (of the arrow;. Now, in the- absence of the counter-active, the very same gravity causes falling. This is the meaning. 18. Here ends the first chapter of the fifth book in Sankara s Com mentary on the Yaiiesika Aphorisms. KANiDA SfiTRAS V, 2, 2. 161 BOOK FIFTH CHAPTER SECOND. Causea of action in Earth. Upatibira. This is the section on the examination of Action producible by impulse, etc., Therein he says: Nodana-abhighatat, from molecular movement or impulse, and from impact. ^Tfi^^JlWC, Saiiayukta-Saikyogat, from conjunction with the conjunct. ^ Cba, and. ^fa^T Prithivyam, in Earth. sp,*i Kar- mina, action. 1. Action in Earth (results) from impulse, impact, and con junction with the conjunct. 199. ^\\*f is a particular form of conjunction : conjunction, action pro duced by \\hich does not Leccme the cause of the disjunction of conjoint things from each other ; or, conjunction which does not become the efficient cause of Sound. That j articular form of conjunction is called impact, \vhich becomes the efficient cause of Sound, and action produced by which becomes the cause of disjunction of conjoint things Irom each other. By each cf them also action is produced in. Earth called clay. In Earth action is produced from imrulse given by the foct, as weil as from the impact of the foot. Here clay is the combinative cause ; impulse and impact are respectively non-combinative causes ; gravity, imj etus, and volition are, so far as they are necessary, efficient causes. " From conjunction with the conjunct : " Because action is simultaneously observed in a water-pot, etc., lying on clay, when action is produced in that clay from impulse or from impact. 1. Above continued. l~ ],cn>l:ra. But \\hat is the non-combinative caute of earthquake, etc., which take place M ithout the intervention of impulse and impact ? He gives the answer : ^ , Jl ^ I R I R II b, that, i. e., action in Earth. f^^^Jir Visesena, with a particu lar consequence. ^j^S^lfrcf Adrista-karitam, caused by adrisiam or destiny. 2. (If action in Earth happens) with a particular conse quence, it is caused by adristam. 200. Tat alludes to action in Earth. Action in Earth alone, if it happens with a particular consequence, i. e., under the tendency (vdsand) of transmigratory souls towards birth, life, and experience (bhoga"), is then caused by adristam. Therefore, the non-combinative cause of earthquake is conjunction of the soul, possessing adristam, of a person whose pleasure or pain is produced by the earthquake ; the earth is the combinative cause ; and adristam is the efficient cause. 162 VAI&ESIKA PHILOSOPHY. Or tat alludes to impulse and impact. i Visasa.i means absence. So that, the meaning is, action in Earth, which is produced in the absence of impulse and impact, is caused by adl istam. 2. JBhdsya. explains adrista in V. ii. 2 in the sense of unseen natural force, the causes of seismic disturbances, of the revolution of the ter restrial globe round the sun, and of other actions in Earth. Cause of rain. Upaskdra. Now, in the section on the examination of action combined with fluid (which includes liquid) substance, he says : t A pain, of waters. ^nTfiT^ra Samyoga-abhave ; in the absence of conjunction. JT^rSTT^ Gurutvat, from gravity. TrFTflt Patanam, falling. 3. The falling of waters, in the absence of conjunction, is due to gravity. 201. The falling of waters, in the form of a shower, is caused by gravity, which is its non-combinative cause. It takes place in the absence of conjunction, *. c., conjunction with the cloud. Therefore, absence of conjunction is the efficient cause. This is the meaning. -3. Causes of flowing of ivater. Upaskdra. But how is action, productive of mutual conjunction amongst the drops of water themselves, produced ? He gives the answer. Dravatvat, from fluidity. ^Tr^rq Syandanam, flowing. 4. Flowing (results) from Hudity. 202- By the mutual conjunction of drops of water fallen on earth, a large body of water, in the form of a stream, is produced. And the flowing or distant progression, which takes place- in it, is produced from fluidity as its non-combinative cause, and from gravity as its efficient cause, in water drops which are its combinative causes 4. Cause of evapc ration of water. Upaskdra. But the falling in rain, due to gravity, would be po&sible, if water lying on earth went up. But how does this take place ? fe o he says : Nadyah, the sun s rays. ^r^^TTr^Vayu-saKiyogat, through con junction with air. 3Tntr?<!IflC Arohanam, ascent. 5. The sun s rays (cause) the ascent (of water), through conjunction with air. 203. The word, cause (verb), is the complement of the aphorism. The rays of the sun cause the going up of water, through conjunction with air. KANADA StTTKAS V, 2,7. 163 In the summer, the sun s rays, being impelled "by air, cause the ascent of water. This is the meaning. Where the reading is Tlg^l3S qVlffi(. there it should be interpreted as conjunction with air related to the sun s rays. 5. Cause of evaporation of water, continued. Upaskt tra. But how do the sun s rays come to possess such power that they carry up water lying on the earth ? Hence he says. Nodana-apidanat, from concussion, or being violently shaken by or through the impulse. sfgflsf^TJTT^ Saihyukta-samyogat, from conjunction with the conjunct. ^ Cha, and. 6. (Particles of water fly upwards), by means of concussion with impulse, and of conjunction with the conjunct. 204. . Particles of water fly up, being conjoined with the sun s rays, which are, in turn, conjoined with air, through concussion with the imj ulse of strong wind ; in the same way as the rays of fire, bestirred by air, carry up particles of water boiling in a cauldron. The word cha conveys the sense of as. And here only particles of water boiling in a cauldron should be observed to be the simile. 6. NOTE : Upaskdra compares the two processes of evaporation and ebullition of water Cause of circulation of water in trees. Upasl ura. Water peured at the root, gots up in all directions, through the interior of a tree. Neither impulse and impact, nor the sun s rays prevail there. How, then, is it caused ? He gives the answer. II * I R I V9 II qOT Vriksa-abhisarpanam, circulation in trees, ff^ Iti, this. Adrista-karitaro, caused by adfistam or destiny. 7. The circulation (of water) in trees is caused by adristam. 205. 1 Abhisarpanam means flowing towards oV all over. That takes place in a tree, of water poured at its root. It is caused by adristam, i. e. f of those souls whose pleasure or pain is produced by the growth of the leaves, branches, fruits, flowers, etc. The meaning, then, is that action by which water rises up and causes the growth of trees, arises from conjunction with the above-mentioned souls, possessing adfistam, as its n on- combinative cause, and from adfistam, as its efficient cause, in. water which is its combinative cause. 7. Cause of condensation and dissolution of water. Upaxkara. Constitutional fluidity has been stated to be the characteristic of water. Upward, downward, and sideward motion of such water only has been proved. The aqueous- ness of snow, hail, etc., also are proved without a dispute, since they possess coldness. There fore, how do these possess condensation, i. e., hardness, and how dissolution ? Hence i\e says. 164 VAI&ESIKA PHILOSOPHY TT Apara, of waters. ^-fHT: Sanghatah, condensation, fr^ppf Vilaya nam, dissolution. ^ Cha, and. ^3T:*f<ffmt Tejah-sarkyogU, from conjunc tion with fire. 8. Condensation, and dissolution, of water, are due to con junction with fire. 206. Aqueous ultimate atoms, originating a binary atomic ao-aieo-ate in consequence of being impeded by celestial fire, do not originate fluidity in these binary atomic aggregates. Snow, hail, etc, void of fluidity, are thus originated, in the course of binary and others atomic aggregates, by constituent {.arts void of fluidity. Therefore hard iess is observed in them. Such being the case, it may be asked, what proof is there that s iow hail, etc., are modifications of water V Accordingly it has bea i said Dissolution also from conjunction with fire." By a more powerful conjunction with fire, aotion is produced in the ultimate atoms oricrj lia -" tive of s:io\v, hail, etc. Action produces disjunction. Froin the successive destruction thereby of originative conjunctions follows the destruction of the larger compounds, snow, hail, etc. In consequence of the departure therefrom of conjunction with fire, which was aa impediment to fluidity, the very same ultimate atoms originate fluidity in binary atomic aggregates; whence dissolution takes place of s lovv hail, etc., thus endowed with fluidity. Here also the subsequent ingress of a more powerful fire is the efficient cause. -8. xplils up V. ii. 8 into two aphorisms, viz., Apdm San jhdtak and vilayanclia tejah Above continued. UpaskAra. But what is the proof that thare i* sub.^iuent in jrojs into \v-ii v of a m ,rn powerful nro present in other ? So he says : I ^ I R | 8. II Tatra, there, i. e., in the case of the ingress of fire into water." ^ Visphurjjathuh, the pealing of thunder. fafflC Lingam, mark. 9. The pealing of thunder is the mark of that. 207. 1 Tatra/ i. e., in the matter of the subsequent ingress of fire, present in ether, into water floating in ether, visphurjjathuh lingam/i.e. the pealing of thunder itself is the mark. This is the meaning. Par-reach ing flash of lightning is clearly perceptible ; thunder which iirnndiate- ly follows it, is also really perceptible. By this it is inferred that fire present in ether, in the form of lightning, has entered into the cloui from which hailstones appear. By its presence, as a condition, irn >edi- ment is caused to the fluidity of water-particles originative of hail stones. 9 S&TRAS V, 2, 12. 165 Cause of condensation of water, continued. Upaskdra. Of this he gives yet another proof . r u * i R i ?on T Vaidikam, Vedic, Derived from Veda. =g Cha and. 10. (There is) Vedic (proof) also. 208. The meaning is that the ingress of fire into water is proved by the Veda also. Thus : " Those waters held fire in their womb, which held fire in their svomb," etc. 10. Cause of thundering . Upaskdra. But how is thundering produced, since conjunction and disjunction, which are the causes of Sound, are not observed ? Hence he says : i R i ? Apum, of waters. S qtJTT^ Samyogat, from conjunction, . Vibhagat, from disjunction. ^ Cha, and. ^crTft?%r: Stanayitnoh. of cloud. 11. (Thunder-clap results) from conjunction with, and dis junction from, water, of the cloud. 209. " Visphuvjjathuh " is the complement of the aphorism. Conjunction with, and disjunction from, water, of the cloud, by becoming efficient causes, produce sound, i. e., thundering, in ether as the combinative cause, through the conjunction of the cloud itself with ether, as the non-combinative cause. Sometimes, again, conjunction with, and dis junction from, air, of the cloud, are the efficient causes, and conjunc tion of the cloud with ether, and its disjunction therefrom, are the non-combinative causes. This is collaterally mentioned in the topic of the causes of action. Or, since action is the leading topic here, it is indicated that, conjunction of the cloud and ether, or their disjunc tion, being the non-combinative cause of sound, the (efficient) cause is action produced from the impulse and impact of water alone 11. Vivriti- Thundering takes place from the conjunction of water, i. e., from the impact of air with it, and from its disjunction from the cloud. Causes of conflagration, tempest, etc. UpasMra. It has been stated that conjunction with soul possession adristam is a eauso of earth-quake. A; there, so in the case of the action which is produced in fire which causes sudden conflagration, and in air which eausos a sudden agitation uf trees and the like con junction with soul possessing adristam is also the non-combinative cause ; air and tiro are tha .combinative causes ; and adristam is the efficient cause. This is the meaning. II V* I R I 166 VAlgESIKA PHILOSOPHY. n Prithivi-karmmana, by the action of Earth. ?HT:^wr Tejah- karmma, action of fire, sn^wf Vayu-karmma, action of air. =g Clia, and Vyakhyatam, explained. 12. The action of Fire, and the action of Air are explained by the action of Earth. 210. The twice recurrence of the word action in the aphorism, has the object of indicating the action of meteors, etc. 12. Causes of initial action of fire, air, atoms, and mind. Upskdra. Ho mentions other actions of which conjunction with soul possessirg ailrixtam s the non-combinative cause. %: Agneh, of fire. 3^33^1 sf Urddhva-jvalanaiii, flaming upward. : Vayoh, of air. faafoTiryyak, sideward. T^ Pavan am, blowing. INgrj Anunam, of atoms, JTT^r: Manasah. of inind. ^ Cha, and. ^fr^4 Adyam, initial, first. q;| Karmma, action. *%%% ^TT^rTq Adrista-karitam, caused by adristam. 13. The initial upward flaming of fire, the initial sideward blowing of air, and the initial actions of atoms, and of mind are caused by adristam. 211. Adyam means contemporaneous with, or existing at, the beginn ing of creation. At that stage, impulse, impact, etc., being non-existent. conjunction with soul possessing adristatii is in these cases the non- combinative cause. The adjective, initial, qualifies upward flaming, and sideward blowing also. It is proper to hold that impetus is the non-combinative cause of other (than initial) actions of fire and air, for there being a visible or known cause there is no occasion for the- supposition of an invisible or unknown cause 13. Cause of action of mind. Upaskdra. With reference to non-initial action, he says : r Hasta-karmmana, by the action of the hand. Manasah of mind or the internal organ. ^FFJ karmma, action. s^f- Vyakhyatam, explained. 14. The action of mind is explaind by the action of the hand. 212. As in the throwing upward, etc., of the pestle, the action of the- hand has for its non-combinative cause conjunction with soul exercis ing volition, so the action of the mind also, for the purpose of coming KANADA StTTRAS III, 2, 12. 167 into contact with the (external) sense receptive of the object desired, really has for its nou-corabi native cause conjunction with soul exercis ing volition. Although mind, the sense, is not directly subject to volition, still it should be observed that action is produced in mind by volition which can be reached by the nervous process by which mind travels. That the nervous process can be apprehended by the tactual sense-organ, however, must be admitted ; for, otherwise, assimilation of food, drink, etc., also will not be possible by volition which can be reached by the nervous process through which life or the vital energy travels. 14. Pleasure and pain are marks of action of mind. UpasMra. But, it may be objected, there is no proof that action is produced in the .mind. Hence he says : II 1^ Atma-indriya-manah-artha-sannikarsfit, from contact of soul, sense, mind, and object. g<Sf:^ Sukha-duhkhe, pleasure and pain. 15. Pleasure and pain (results) from contact of soul, sense, mind, and object. 213. Pleasure and pain is indicative ; cognition, volition, etc., are to he understood. The universality or ubiquity of mind has been already refuted and its atom-ness established. It has also been stated that the non-production of cognitions simultaneously is the mark of mind. There could, therefore, be no pleasure and pain at all, without the con junction of mind with the respective localities of the senses. The mean ing is that, did no action take place in mind, there could be no feeling in -the form of " Pleasure in my foot," "Pain in ray head," etc. Although all the particular attributes of the soul depend upon contact of mind, yet pleasure and pain are (alone expressly) mentioned*, because, on account of their intensity, they are very manifest. 15. Yoga described. Ifpaskdra. Well, if the mind is so fickle or restless, then there being no inhibition or restraint of the internal organ there can bo no ycga or communion, and without yoga there jan be no intuitive knowledge of the soul, and without it, there can be no moksa or salvation, Therefore, the undertaking of this treatise is futile. In anticipation of this objection he says :$ I 1 I ^ II

Tat-anarambhah, non-origination of that, i. e., pleasure .and pain, or action of mind. ?TTr*T$f Atrnasthe, steady in the soul. JfTf^T ananasi, mind being. SETTta^ Sarirasya, of body, i. e., of the embodied ;-soul. 5:^1^3": duhkha-abhavah, non-existence of pain. ^ Sah, that* Yogah, yoga, communion. 168 VAI&ESIKA PHILOSOPHY. 16. Non-origination of that (follows) on the mind becoming steady in the soul ; (after it, there is) non-existence of pain in the embodied soul. (This is) that yoga. 214. When the mind of an indifferent person who has come to believe in the vanity of all objects of enjoyment, comes to stay only in the soul at that stage, owing to the absence of volition corresponding to its action action is not produced in the mind which then becomes comparatively steady. It is this (state) which is (called) yoga, since the characteristic I yoga is the inhibition or restraint of the internal organ, chittam. 1 Tat-anarambhah, means non-origination of action of mind. Or by the word, Hat/ only pleasure and pain are denoted, being in the* context. < Duhkha-abhavah ; Being the means of the non-existence of pain, Yoga itself is (spoken of as) non-existence of pain as is the expression " Food is life." Or, it is a relative compound word mean ing where there is non-existence of pain, garirasya means the soul as limited or determined by the body. Sah yogah : here the word 1 that / refers to a universally known object," (the meaning bein^ this is that Yoga. Or, by the word, fitma, life is here denoted by transference since soul is inferred by life. So that, by action in the nervous process which is the channel of tho life breath, action of the life breath (respiration ), is also produced. Or, the action of the life breath has for its non-combinative cause, conjunction of the life-breath with soul exercising volition the source of vitality. And volition, which is the source of vitality, is supersensible, and has to be inferred by the movement of the life-breath. Otherwise, ho\v can there be inspiration of air, even in the state of deep sleep ? This is the import _ 16 i. 1 Atmasthe manasi, i. e., when, quitting the senses, etc. in virtue of tho six-limbed Yoya, mind abides in the soul alone, then < tat-anarambhah, i. e., anarambhah or non-production of action of mind. The mind then becomes fixed or steady. In this state, Sarlrasya- duhkha-abhavah, i. e., pain in relation to tho body is not produced. Sah, i. e., conjunction of mind, resiling from the outside, with soul is called Yoya. The following verses of Skandapurdnam also prove the same thino- ; i t " So also, (i . e. restkss) is Chitta, (i. e., the internal organ), smitten with air. Therefore, do not trust it Accordingly ; restrain air, for the- purpose of steadiness of Chitta. For the purpose of restraining air, practise Yoga, of which there are six angaa or limbs. Posture, Regula tion of breath, Abstraction or Inhibition of the senses, Concentration of mind, Meditation, and Absorption, these are the six anyas or limbs of Yoga or communion. KANiDA SftTRAS V, 2, 17. 169 Therefore, there being cessation of false knowledge, etc., brought about by the manifestation of intuitive knowledge of soul, after the attainment of Yoga, final emancipation remains unimpeded. Conse quently a system of thinking about things (like Kandda Stttras} is not fruitless. This is the import. Other actions of mind, etc. independent of volition, and dependent on adristam. Upnskdra. But, if volition were the efficient cause of the action of life and mind, then, when life and mind go out from the body, in the state of death, and, on the production of another body, re-enter into it, there being no volition, both the.^e actions would ba impossible. How, again, can be produced action, productive of conjunction of even what is eaten and drunk, i. e., food and drink, which conjunction is the cause of the growth of the body and its limb*, as well as action %vhich causes conjunction and disjunction during life within the womb ? In anticipation of this objection, he says : n * i i i far Apasarpanam, going out, egress. gr<T?T*T<f?n; Upasarpanam, com ing into, ingress. ^ri^rnfa^frTT: Asita-pita-samyogah, conjunctions of what is eaten and drunk. ^T^fcdMJMlTI 1 Karyya-antara-samyogah, con junctions of other effects or products. =5 Cha, and. ^Tfg^ni^Trfr Adrista- karitfi ii, caused by adfistam. 17. Egress and ingress (of life and mind, from and into, body), conjunctions (i.e., assimilation) of food and drink, and con junctions of other products, these are caused by adristam. 215. Here the neuter gender in the word adrista-kiiritani is according to the rule that word of the neuter gender, appearing together with a word of another gender, may optionally entail neuter gender in both. The word, Samyoga/ again, secondarily denotes action which is its cause. l Apasarpanam/ i. e., the going out of life and mind from the body alone, on the wearing away of action which originated the body ; • Upasarpanam/ i. e., the entrance of life and mind into another body as it is produced ; action which is the cause of the conjunction (i. e. f assimilation) of food, drink, etc. ; and action which is the cause of the conjunction (i. e., pulsation, etc.) of another product, i. e,, the foetus ; all these have as their non-combinative cause conjunction with soul possessing adTistam. The word, iti/ implies that the actions of the humours and excreta of the body are also caused by conjunction with, soul possessing adristam, as their non-combinative cause. 17. Vivriti- He mentions other actions dependent on adTistam. Apasarpanam/ i. e., egress of mind from the body at death ; ( Upa sarpanam, i. e., the ingress of mind into another body when it is pro duced ; action from which conjunctions of what is eaten and drunk, i. e., food and water, are produced ; action from which conjunctions of other effects, i. e., the senses and life, with the body, are produced : all these are caused by conjunction with soul possessing adristam, as th& non-combinative cause. 170 VAIESIKA PHILOSOPHY. Moksa described. Upattkdra. But, it may be urged, if the production of another |body were necessary, how| -would there be Moksa ? Hence he says ; Tat-abhave, in the non-existence of that, i. e., the causal body, or potential body, or the subtle body of impressions and tendencies, acquired during life, which becomes the cause of re-birth, and in re birth, becomes encased, as it were,, in the gross, physical body. 5f4tTT*n^: Samyoga-abhavah, non-existence of conjunction, i. e., with the existing physical bodv. ?THTiHfe : A-pradurbhavah, non-re-appearanco, or non-re birth. g Cha, and. in^f: Moksah, salvation. Moksa. 18. Moksa consists in the non-existence of conjunction with the body, when there is at the same time, no potential body exist ing, and consequently, re-birth cannot take place. 216. Here the idea is as follows: The power of Yoya produces intui tive knowledge of the self ; false knowledge, attended with desire, is thereby annihilated ; consequently, attraction, aversion, stupidity or irrationality or spiritual blindness (moha"), and other faults due to it, disappear ; then inclination or activity goes away ; birth, due to it, therefore, does not take place ; and, consequently, pain, bound up with birth, also vanishes away. This, then, is the nature of things. Now, in virtue of the power born of yoya, a yoyin, considering the entire mass of virtues and vices, or merits and demerits, which are the un common or particular causes of pleasure and pain to be enjoyed, at particular places and times, in the bodies of a horse, an elephant, a serpent, a bird, etc., in accordance with those merits and demerits, and then going through those several forms of physical existence, thereby wears away or exhausts his previously produced merits and demerits by experiencing them. His faults being thus neutralised, when other merits and demerits are not produced, and when there is in coi. sequence no production of another future or potential body, at that time, it is the non-existeuce of conjunction, which then exists, with the former body, that is (called) moksa. Tat-abhave means in the absence of conjunction, in the non-production of a future body. To meet the objection that this state is common to all at pralaya, or periodical dissolution of creation, he adds apradurbhavah. The meaning is, after which manifestation of body, etc., does not again take place. Sah moksah : that is, annihilation of pain, which results in that state, is Moksa. 18. VivTiti. _ It may be objected that the stream of bodies being with out beginning and without end, the impossibility of emancipation is also the same. Hence he says : Tat-abhave/ i. e., in the absence of adristam, that is to say, where future adristam is exhausted by intuitive knowledge of self, and existing adristam, by experience, bhoga ; samyoga-abhavah. i. e., a severance KANADA StiTRAS V. 2. 20. 171 takes place from connection with the stream or succession of bodies ; following it, is apradurbhavah ; i. e., non-production of pain, since the causes, viz., body andfadristam, do not exist. It is then and there that emancipation becomes possible. Therefore, emancipation is notichimerical like the horns of a hare. This is the import. Darkaess is non-existence. Upaskdra. It may be objected : The action of a substanca is observed also in darkness^ there being the perception, " The shadow moves." Here there is no volition, no impulse or impact, no gravity or fluidity, no resultant energy. Therefore, another efficient cause should be enumerated ; but it does not fall within observation. Accordingly he says : t II <i I ^ I 33. H because of difference in production from Substance, Attribute, and Action. ?PTT^: Abhavah, non-being, non-existence. rR:Tamah, darkness. 19. Darkness is non-existence, because it is different in its production from Substance, Attribute, and Action. 217. By this aphorism, the determination or delimitation that substances. are nine only, also becomes established. Now, the production of substance is dependent upon substance* possessing touch ; but in darkness, touch is not felt. It cannot be that touch is only undeveloped here , for development of touch is essential to development of colour. Objection. This is the rule in case of Earth, whereas darkness is the tenth substance. Answer. It is not- For no other substance is substratum of blue colour, and gravity is inseparable from blue colour, as also are taste and smell. Objection. As sound is the only distinguishing attribute of Ether,. so also will blue colour be the only distinguishing attribute of dark ness. Answer. It is not so, as there is contradiction to its visibility. For, if darkness were something possessing blue colour, or were it blue* colour itself, then it would not be perceived by the eye without the help of external light. 19. Above continued. Upaskdra. What, then, causes the perception of motion (in darkness) ? Ho giv th Answer : II H* I < I ** II Tejasah, of light. jfiqi-flMl Dravya-antarena, by another subs tance. wnTOR^ Avaranat, because of obscuration. <9 Cha, and also. 20. (Darkness is non-existence), also because (it is produced) from the obscuration of light by another substance. 218. 172 VAI&ESIKA PHILOSOPHY. Light being obscured by another moving substance, non-existence of light is not observed in the places falling behind, and is observed n the places lying before. It is from this resemblance of the nou- xistence of light to the moving substance, that, motion is mistake i in it, but not that motion is real in it. This is the meaning, the -.orcep tion appearing so (i. e., erroneous) from agreement and diffjre >j (That is, whenever a body in motion obscures light, the shad ,\v caused thereby also moves ; and where the obscuring body is not iu nntiou the shadow also does not move). Darkness, (then), is non-e-iste ice of every trace of light possessing developed or appreciable colour. -2J. Space, Time, Ether, and Soul are void of action. Upasktra. Having thus finished the parenthetical action on darkness, in two aph iri- srm, ho bo^m.s t 10 section on voiati3ss of aoti m : Dik-kalau, space a-id time, srr^rtf Akasam, ether. ^ Clia, and also. ftarra^NcRlfet Kriyavat-vaidharmmyat, because of difference from that which possesses activity. fM^lffar Niskriyani, inactive. Space, Time, and also Ether are inactive, because of their difference from that which possesses activity. _ 219. The word Cha brings in the soul. Difference from that which possesses activity lies in the imponderable less or incorporiety of space, etc., for activity always accompanies cjrpoi-eity or form. __ 21 . Action, Attribute, Genus, Species, and Combination are v)id of action. Upaskara. Ho points out the inactivity of actions and attributes : H * i R i RR n !$* Etena, by this. ^n=ir!ftl Karmmaui, actions. JTqjT : Grunah, attributes. ^ Cha, and. s^T^FTf: Vyakhyatah, explained.

22. By this, Actions and Attributes are explained (as in active). 220,

Etena means by difference from that which possesses activity. Difference from that which possesses activity, in other words, in- corporeity or imponderableness, belongs to attribute and action. They are, therefore, explained to be inactive. 22.

iti; The worfl Oka implies Grenus, etc. Combination has no beginning, and so is independent of action.

a.-^L^ may be urged : If attribute and action are inactive, how then can there be relation of substance with them ? Connection by conjunction may be possible ; but that- is dependent upon action. Hence he says :

wrenr* *p* g: iru* i R i % u

KAN ADA StTTRAS V, 2, 25. 173

j Niskriyanaih, of the inactive, ^*r=nJj: Samavayah, com bination. ^Rp:q: Karmmabhyah, from actions. f%f^ Nisiddhah, excluded, beyond, independent.

23. (The relation) of the inactive (i.e., Attribute and Action), (to Substance), is Combination, (which is) independent of actions.

221.

It is combination which is the relation of attributes and actions (to substance;. It is excluded from actions. The meaning is that this relation, i. e., combination, has no production even, and that its depen dency upon action, therefore, remains at a long distance. 23.

Attributes are non-combinative causes.

Upaskara. It may bo objected : If attributes, bain ; impondjrable, are nob the combina tive causes of action, then how are attributes and actions produced by attributes ? For causality, save and except in the form of combinative icausality, is not possible. To moot this objection, ho says :

- II * I * I

Karanaih, cause. Tu, however. ?RT*T5fTft*tt A-sainavayinah, non-combinative. JTOn : Grunah, attributes.

24. Attributes are, however, non-combinative causes. 222.

Attributes are non-combinative causes but not combinative causes also, whereby they might be receptacles or fields of action. And that non-combinative causality arises, in some cases, from combination in the same object with the effect, as that of the conjunction of soul and mind in the particular attributes of the soul, and of conjunction, disjunction, and sound in sound, and, in other cases, from combination in the same object with the cause, as that of the colour, etc., of pot sherds, etc., in the colour, etc., of the water-pot, etc. 24.

vTiti. The use of l cause instead of causes, is aphoristic. Space is a non-combinative cause.

. It may be objected : Action is produced here. Action is produced now. On the strength of such perceptions, Space andfTime also are surely combinative causes of action. How, otherwise, could they be assigned as the seat of action in these oases ? Accordingly he says:

II

-\

Trap Gunaih, by attributes. f^> Dik, space. STR^ffi! Vyakhyatah. ex plained.

25. Space is explained by Attributes. 223.

The meaning is that gravity, and other attributes, being impon derable, are not the combinative cause of action, so space also, being imponderable, is not the combinative cause of action. As to being the -.seat or receptacle, however, it can arise even without combinative;

VAIEIKA PHILOSOPHY.

causality, as in " cotton-seeds in a bowl," " curd in a bowl/ " the roaring of a lion in the forest/ and other instances. 25.

Time is an efficient cause. Upaskdra. With the same object as already stated, he saya :

II * R I

Karanena, by cause, i. e., by way of efficient causality. Kalah., Time.

26. By way of (efficient) causality, (the reference of action to Time as its seats, being explained), Time (is explained to be inactive, so far as combinative causality is concerned). 224.

The syntactical connection of the aphorism is with " explained to be inactive," corresponding words in the preceding aphorism, with necessary changes. The use of Karanena/ instead of nimittakar auena/ is an instace of denoting an object principally as an existence, (i.e., without qualification). The meaning, therefore, is that Time, being the efficient cause, is only the seat of action, but is not its com binative cause. 26.

Here ends the second chapter of the fifth book in the Commentary^ of Sankara upon the Vissesika Aphorisms.

KANlDA SftTRAS VI, 1, 2. 175

BOOK SIXTH CHAPTER FIRST- The Veda is a work of intelligence, and therefore, authoritative,

Upaskdra. The subject, of the sixth book is th^ examination of dhar/na,, virtue or merit, and adharma, vioe or demerit, whiea are the root causes of transmigration, Dhartna and adharma, again, have to b-> supposed on the strength of such precepts aad prohibitions as " Let him who desire heavoa, perform sacrifices." " Let him not eat tobacco," etc., and their existence depends upon the authoritativaness of these perceptive and prohibitive texts. And that authoritativeness can be possible or arise from the speaker s previously possessing the attribute characterised as knowledge of the moaning of the sentences as corresponding to objective reality since authoritativeness per se is excluded. Hence the author, in the first place, commerces the demonstration of the attribute which clothes the Veda with authorita tiveness.

g ^jo^^ Buddhi-purvva, preceded by understanding, ^,f^^%: Vakya- Kritih, composition of sentences. ^ Vede, in the Veda.

1. In the Veda the composicion of sentence has been preced ed by understanding. 225

1 Vakya-kritih/ i. e., composition of sentences, is buddhi-purvva/ i. e., preceded by the speaker s k lowledge of the meaning of the sen tences as corresponding to objective reality because it is composition of sentences, like composition by ourselves and others of such sentences as " There lie five fruits on the bank of the river.

In the Veda means in the aggregate of sentences. Here the com position of aggregated sentences is the paksa (i. e., the subject of the conclusion). It cannot be otherwise established (as authoritative), namely by the characteristic of being preceded by the understanding of ourselves a-.id others ; for, in such instances as " Let him who desires heaven, perform sacrifices," the fact that performance of sacrifices is a means of attaining the desired object, or that securing heaven is an effect, is beyond th reach of our and others understanding. It is, therefore, proved that the Veda, as au effect, has for its antecedent an Absolute or Independent Person. And the characteristic of the Veda is that, while the subject of its mea.iing is not certain knowledge pro duced by proof other than the proof supplied by words and all that which depends upon them, it is word of which the proof or authority is not produced by knowledge of the meaning of sentences produced by words. 1.

VivT iti- By this aphorism, the doctrine of Mimamsa philosophy, that word is eternal, is refuted.

The Veda is a work of intelligence, and therefore, authoritative, continued.

Upaskdra. He shows in another manner that the sentences of the Veda have boon preceded by understanding :

H n i R ii

Brahmane, in the portion of Veda, so called. ^|<fc*V Samjna- Karma, attribution or distribution of names, f^fe^g^ Siddhi-lingam, mark of knowledge of things named, or of the conclusion that the Veda, is an intelligent production.

176 VAI!ESIKA PHILOSOPHY.

The distribution of names in the Brfihmana (portion of the Veda) is a mark of knowledge, (on the part of the framer of the names), of the things named (therein). 226.

Here Brahmanaiii denotes a particular portion of the Veda. 1 Samjna-Karmma, i. e , the distribution of names, which appears there, points to understanding on the part of the framer of the names, as in the world the distribution of such names as Long-ear, Long-nose Long-neck, does. 2.

The Veda is a work of intelligence, and therefore, authoritative,

continued. Upaskdra. He mentions another form of proof :

II $I \\ \ II m Buddhi-purvvah, preceded by understanding. TOfr: Dadatih, giv f s, to give, gift. 3. (Precepts enjoining) gift (are) preceded by understanding. 227. The injunction of gift (as a source of dharma), which has been established in such text as " Let him who desires heaven, give a cow," has been made from the knowledge that it is the means of attaining the object desired. The conjugated form, < dadatih, gives, topically denotes gift which is the meaning of the root to give. 3. Above continued. Upaskdra He gives yet another proof : a$ i n a ii

Tatha, so, the same. Slfwflf: Pratigrahah acceptance.

4. The same is acceptance (of a gift.) 228.

Texts of the Veda, enjoining acceptance of gifts, are also preceded by understanding. The word, "pratigrahah" indicates a Vedic text of which it is the subject. Thus, texts of the Veda, enjoining accep tance of land, etc., imply its efficacy to the welfare of the acceptor. Texts of the Veda, of which the subject-matter is the acceptance of the skin of a black-and-white antelope, point out or bring to light it* efficacy towards that which is not desired by the acceptor. And efficacy towards the desired and efficacy towards the undesired, or potencies for good and for evil, cannot, in these cases, appropriately fall within the cognizance of t,he understanding of persons later born. 4.

i. Although all these have been already explained by the- Erst aphorism, still this much undertaking is for the purpose of point ing out some of the dharmas or duties.

KANlDA SfiTRAS VI, 1, 5. 177

Attributes of one soul do not produce effects in another soul : he

reaps who sows.

Upaskdra. Now, in justification of the aphorism of Jaimini, "Result (of action), indicated by the gastra, ( aocruse ) to the performer, " (Purva-Mlmariisa Sutram) he saya :

$I$ I Ml

Atma-antara-gunanam, of the attributes of one sold. Atma-antare, in another soul. ^T^TW^ RC, A-karanatvat, be cause there is no causality.

5. [" Result (of action) indicated by the Sastra, (accrues) to the performer"], because there is no causality of the attributes of one soul in (the attributes of) another soul. 229.

Because the attributes of one soul, e. g., merits and demerits arising fromsacrifice, slaughter, etc., are not causes of the attributes, in the shape of pleasure and pain, of another soul. This being the case, pleasure and pain are produced by dharma and dharma appertaining to each individual soul, and not by dharma and dharma existing in different substrata. Otherwise, the fruits of sacrifice, slaughter, etc., will accrue to him by whom these were not performed, and hence, loss of the fruits of acts done, and acquisition of the fruits of acts not done will be the result.

Objection. There is no such universal rule since there is a viola tion of it in the sacrifice for the birth of a son, sacrifice in favour of the departed ancestors, etc. Thus, it is heard that the fruits of

jSrdddha or performance of obsequies, etc., performed by the son, accrue to the departed ancestor ; it is also heard that the fruit of the sacrifice for the birth of a son, performed by the father, accrues to the son. You connot say that here is really in these cases the co-existence of the performance and its fruit is the same subject, the agent-enjoyer, by means of the fruit accruing to the son and the departed ancestor ;

in the one case, the fruit of the Sraddha accrues to the son in this way that he becomes the son of departed ancestors participating in the enjoyments of heaven and in the other case, the fruit of the sacrifice accrues to the father in this way-that he becomes the father of a. vigorous son.

For this view his adristam becomes inoperative, conflicts with the Veda ; for, it is heard that the fruit is only the satisfaction, etc., of the departed ancestor, and the vigorousness, etc., of the son, the sup position of any other fruit being precluded by redundancy.

Anwer. Let then dpurvam or adristam accrue to the agent as the fruit, while heaven accrues to the departed ancestor.

Objection It cannot be so, since activity must in your theory, uniformly co-exist in the same subject with the fruit. Otherwise where,, immediately after the performance of the rdddha, the son is liberated and consequently, heaven will not accrue to the departed ancestor.

178 VAlSESxKA PHILOSOPHY.

Objection- It cannot be said that it " will not accrue," since it is the same in the other way, for, when the departed ancestor is already liberated (t. e., freed from the bonds of all enjoyment and suffering what ever) (prior to the performance of the Srdddha) then no such fruit will issue from the Sraddha, however perfect it may be in all its parts.

Conclusion. But this is not the case. For, the declaration that u Result (of action), indicated by the Sastra, (accrues) to the performer, being a general rule, admits of exception, in the presence of a strong contradiction, and, in the matter in hand, it is the Sruti, or Revelation of the fruit accruing to the departed ancestor and the son, which is the contradication.

Objecti(n. This being so, there is proving too much.

Answer. Not so, for, the corresponding texts of the Veda them selves prevent any such too much proving.

Another objection. In the case of the greatest gifts (mahdddnam, a technical term which denotes sixteen kinds of specially meritorious gift), heaven only (*. e., heaven without the mention of the enjoyer) is fruit, and in the name of whomsoever person they declared to be are performed, the fruit they produce, accrues to that person.

Answer. This is an absurd argument. For, here there being no contradiction to the general observation, the general observation accompanied with the absence of contradiction or exceptional instance, becomes the rule, and hence, it would not follow that kings and such other persons need not observe fast, etc., though observance of such and such acts would be possible for them by means of other persons, with the intention or prayer that the fruit of those acts may accrue to the former. Moreover, it is the rule, that the thorough performance of the duties of a householder produces fruit in the form of attainment of the world of Brahmd, and thus the declaration in general terms has been made with the object of showing that fruit accrues to each individual agent.

The writer of the Vfitti, however, says : " Result (of action), indi cated by the {astra," etc., is really a rule without an exception. On the other hand, the fruit which accrues to the departed ancestor, etc., results from the influence of benedictory mantras pronounced by

Brahmanas entertained at the /Srdaddha, etc., the mantras in question being in the case of sacrifice for the departed ancestor, " May thy pitris or departed ancestors have their objects fulfilled," and, in the case of sacrifice for the son, " May a son be born unto thee, who will be vigorous, beautiful as the moon, and the feeder of all," in the same way as neutralization of the effect of poison on the body of a person bitten, by a snake, is produced from the recitation of mantras or incantation by foresters. 5.

Vivfiti. " Result (of action), indicated by the Sastra, (accrues) to the performer, this aphorism of the system of Jaimini should be supplied at the end of the present aphorism ; for otherwise, the ablative in it will remain unconnected.

Entertainment of impure Brdhmanas at a Srdddha is useless.

Upaskdra. Those fruits accrue from the benediction of Brdhmanas who have been aatisfied with the entertainment, and who are not wicked, in other words, whose conduct is in accordance with the Sdstra, but not from the benediction of the wicked who have been excluded from the category of recipients, e g., an illegitimate son born during wedlock, an illegitimate son born after the death of the husband, etc. This is what he says here :

n ^ I * i $n fl^ Tat, that, i. e., the fruit of benediction. g4fcl% Dusta-bhojane, (Sraddha) in which impure (Brahmanas) are entertained. * Na, not. fcej^ Vidyate, exists, accrues. 6. That does not exist where the impure are entertained. 230. Tat alludes to the fruit of benediction. The meaning is that where at a Srdddha (i. e., the observance of obsequial rites) evil or impure Brahmanas are entertained there the fruit of benediction does not accrue to the departed ancestor, or the meaning is this that the fruit of the Srdddha itself does not accrue to the departed ancestor. 6. Impure explained. Upaskdra. Who are they that are called impure ? Accordingly he states the characteris tic of the impure. ? I V9 55 Dustam, wickedness, impurity. fl ^-TTTPl Himsayam, in killing. 7. Impurity (lies) in killing. 231. Here himsayam is indicative of all prohibited acts whatever. The meaning, therefore, is that a person, given to or occupied in a pro hibited act, should be known as impure 7. Association with the impure is sinful. Upaskdra. He says that ,not only non-existence of fruit accrues from entertaining an impure Brahmana invited at a Srdddha, but sin also accrues. M I I I II Tasya, his, of the wicked or impure Brahmana. ^TTfasqTfrr/T: Sa- mabhivyaharatah, from companionship or association.$fa: Dosah, vice, demerit, adharma.

8. Demerit results from association with him. 232.

The meaning is that dosah, i. e., sin, accrues, Samabhivyaha- ratah, i. e., from association, characterised as eating in the same row, sleeping in company, reading in company, etc., with a Brahmana engaged in forbidden acts. 8.

Entertainment of a pure Brahmana is not sinful.

L r 2>at<kdra.Doen then sin accrue also from association with one who is not impure ? H sayi, No.

180 VAI&ESIKA PHILOSOPHY.

II $I ? I 8. II ^ Tat, that, i". e., sin. "Sjjg A-duste, in the case of (entertaining) one who is not impure. ?f Na, not. frq^ 1 Vidyate, exists, accrues. 9. This does not accure in the case of (entertaining) one who is not impure. 233. The meaning is that tat, i. e., sin, na vidyate, i. e., does not accrue, where a Brahmana, whose conduct is in accordance with the precepts and prohibitions of the Sdstra, is entertained at a Sraddha 9. Preference should be given to worthy recipients afterwards. Upaskdra. It may be asked, what should the rule of conduct be in a case where worthy recipients being not available, unworthy ones are at first invited, but gradually worthy recipi ents become available. To this he replies : n ^ \ 5^: Punah, again, afterwards, fafat Vifiiste, in or to a superior, or a qualified or worthy person, i. e , recipient. 5^%: Pravrittih, inclina tion, attention, preference. 10. Preference (should be given), to a worthy recipient (who is available) afterwards. 234. At a Srdddha, or where gifts have to be received, if qualified per sons, i. e., those who do not transgress the rules of the Sdstra in their conduct, are obtained, then one should entertain them only, leaving aside the censurable ones, although invited. The rule, " One should not reject persons invited," refers to worthy recipients only. One should, however, gratify censurable persons, who have been invited, by giving money, etc. 10. Vivriti. But what is to be done where Srdddka, etc., have been per formed through the services of an impure Bramana ? He gives the reply : Attention should be given to the thing of quality, i. e., the, re-per formance of the tirdddha, etc., by a pure Brahmana, etc. The Srdddha> previously performed, is all useless. This is the import. Equals or inferiors, if pure , should be accepted as guests or recipients. Upaslcdra. He lays down the rule of conduct where, at a Srdddha, distribution of gifts, etc., recipients superior to the agent himself, are not obtained : H^ Same, in or to an equal, ffi Hine, in or to,an inferior. ?TT Va, or. ST^frT: Pravrittih, inclination, attention, preference. 11. Preference (should be given) to an equal, or to an inferior, (if he is free from impurity or fault). 235. KANlDA SfrTRAS VI, 1, 13. 181 r The meaning is that at Srdddha, charity, etc., attention or prefer ence should be given to a recipient, free from fault, who is equal, i. e., like oneself, or inferior, i. e., less than oneself, in point of merit, etc., because happiness accrues, to the departed ancestor, from blessings pronounced by them only. The import is that persons prohibited are by all means to be rejected, but not the pure, whether they be equals or inferiors. 11. Reception of gift i.y also a source of dharma, or } stealing is not sinful, in certain circumstances. Upaskdra. Having described the production of adharma, by the meritorious character of the donation at a Sraddha or charity, he extends production of dharma from reception also of a similar nature : n$ i n vui

Etena, by this. fK^TM^=nfrT%T: Hina-sama-vifiista dharm- mikebhyah, from inferior, equal, superior virtuous persons. K^fT^T f Parasva-adanam, reception of property. sq^MId ^ t Vyakhyatam, ex plained.

12. By this is explained reception of property from virtuous persons who are inferior, equal, or superior (to oneself). 236.

The excellence of dharma, is in the order of its mention. The mean ing is that dharma, accrues from the reception of a gift of land, etc., from a virtuous person, whether he be inferior, equal, or superior to oneself. Parasvadanaia means reception of property from another.

The writer of the Vritti, however, says : " Parasvadanam/ i. e. t the taking of another s property, by theft, etc., is explained. Thus, according to the fjruti, 5$jgf^ fl-c^f^qRiqq- ^ffaqi^ ^^ m^Tf^sn^f^j to save himself or his family, suffering from starvation, a man may steal the food of a Siidra, when he has not obtained food for seven days. Similarly, when he has not obtained food for ten days, or when he has not obtained food for fifteen days, or when life is in danger, to steal food from a Vaifiya, a Ksatriya, or a Brahmana respectively, does not tend to adharma or sin." 12. Killing is not sinful in certain circumstances. UpaskAra. -Not only is the taking of another s proparty, when life is in danger, nofc forbidden, but in such circumstances those who do nofc give anything to take away, may even be put to death. By all this there is no loss of dbar/na, or app3arano3 or production of .adharma. This is what he saya : II$ I n U II

Tatha, likewise, frs^f^ Viruddhanam, of th*se wh stand in the way. &ni\: Tyagah, the making away with.

13. Likewise the making away with those who stand in the Way, (is justified). 237.

182 VAIE$IKA PHILOSOPHY. The meaning is that they are to be put to death who act in the con trary manner, (i. e., who play the enemy), in such circumstances. So it has been said : Let a man save his poor self by whatsoever deed, mild or cruel. When he is able, let him practise dharma or righteousness." 13. Vivriti. He points out that certain censurable deeds also do not produce sin : The meaning is that the killing of those who are about to take one s life, is likewise not forbidden, according to the saying " Let one- kill an aggressive felon without a second thought." Note. The author of the Upaskara gives up his own context, and here follows the Vritti quoted by him under the preceding aphorism. Above continued. Upaskdra. But is the making away with another to be resorted to with any distinction- whatever ? He says, No : r: II$ I \ [ ?8 U

^% Hine, in an inferior. ^ Pare, in another. r*TTT: Tyagah r making away with, killing.

14. Making away with another (is not sinful), if (he is) inferior (to oneself.) 238

If another who does not give anything to take away, is inferior to oneself, he, the Sudra, or the like, maybe put to death. 14.

Vivriti. Para means an enemy, (and not one who does not give anything to take away).

Killing is not sinful in certain circumstances, continued. Upaskdra. With reference to an equal, he says :

II

^ Same, in the case of an equal. ?HcTrc*n*T: Atma-tyagah, self- abandonment. Suicide. TroW: Para-tyagah, destruction of another. m V a, or.

15. In the cause of an equal, either suicide or destruction! of the other (may be resorted to). 239.

Where it is a Brahmana, equal to oneself, who becomes the ad versary, theri destruction of oneself only by starvation, etc., is to be- committed. Or, if there appear no other means of preserving oneself or one s family, and the opponent be an equal, he is to be then made- away with. 15.

Above continued.

Upaskdra. If, then, a person, superior to oneself, become the adversary, should he ever* bo put to death ? He says, No :

KANADA SftTRAS VI, 1, 16. 183

I t I M II

f % II

Visiste, in the case of a superior. nr*T?^TT: Atmatyagah self- destruction. ff?t Iti, finis.

16. In the case of superior, self-destruction (is to be com mitted). 240.

In the case of a person, supericr to oneself, i. e., excellent by the study of the Veda, etc., becomming the opponent, destruction of oneself only is lawful. The meaning is that even when life is in danger, a man. may design only his own death, but must not slay a Brahmana.

Iti indicates the end of the chapter. 16.

Here ends the first chapter of the sixth book in the Gonimeatary of Sankara upon the Vaisesika Aphorisms.

184 VA1&ESIKA PHILOSOPHY

BOOK SIXTH CHAPTER SECOND.

Exaltation is the motive of actions of which no visible motive exists.

Upaskdra.ThuB, in the first chapter, because the proof, supplied by the Veda, is produced by some attribute or quality, therefore, in connection with its production, a descrip tion of the attribute or quality then the consideration that " Result ( of action ), indicated by the S^stra, (accrues) to the performer," and also the consideration of this that under certain circumstances there is non-production of demerit, even on the performance of for bidden acts, have taken place. Now, the author, with a view to explain fehe second aphorism, " Dharma is that from which (results) the attainment of exaltation and the Supreme Good" (I. i. 2, above), is going to make an examination of the production of dharma or merit, in particular cases, and accordingly he says :

t Drista-adrista-prayojananam, of which the motives are risible and invisible. ^gTHT^T Drista-abhave, where no visible motive exists. snftlR Prayojanam, motive. ^VH^F! Abhyudayaya, for the purpose of exaltation or knowledge of reality.

1. (Of actions) of which the motives are visible and invisible, the motive, where no visible (motive) exists, (tends) to exaltation. 241.

Actions of which the motives are visible, are agriculture, com merce, service under the king, etc. Actions of which the motives are invisible, are sacrifice, charity, brahmacliarya or celibacy and devotion to learning, etc. Amongst these actions, where no visible object is observed, there an invisible object has to be supposed. And that is conducive to exaltation, i. c., knowledge of reality or truth. Or, in abhyudayaya/ the dative has been used in the sense of the nomina tive. The meaning, therefore, is that the fruit (of the action) is exalta tion. The invisible fruit is nothing but adristam (or potential after effects of past acts). If it is produced by yoga or holy communion, then the exaltatton is spiritual intuition of tho self. If it is produced by r sacrifice, charity, etc., then the exaltation is heaver.. Here, again, unlike the actions milking, cooking, etc., which bear fruit then and there but like the actions sowing, ploughing, etc., which bear fruit after a while, the actions sacrificing, giving alms, practising brahma- charya, etc., by no means bear fruit then and there, for no such pro duction of fruit is observed. Nor are gain, etc., through being known as virtuous, themselves the fruit ; for those who practise brahmacharya have no eye to such fruit. Therefore, heaven, etc., which will accrue in the distant future, are the fruit. And this is not immediately con nected with action which by nature speedily vanishes out of exis tence. Hence it results that there is an intermediate common sub stratum of the action and the fruit, and this is aptirvam or adristam.

Actions of which the motive is invisible. [ UpasMra. He enumerates actions of which the fruits are invisible :

II ^ I R I R II

KANiDA StTRAS VI, 2, 3. 185

Abhiseoha-

naupavasabrahmacharyya gurukulavasa van aprastha~y ajnadana- proksana-dikasatra-kala-niyamah Ablution, Fast, Brahmacharya, Resi dence in the family of the preceptor , Life of retirement in the forest, Sacrifice, Gift, Oblation, Direction, Constellation, Seasons and Reli gious observances. ^ Cha, and. 5T^gT*I Adristaya, condusive to adristam, or invisible fruit.

2. Ablution, fast, brahmacharya, residence in the family of the preceptor, life of retirement in the forest, sacrifice, gift, obla tion, directions, constellations, seasons, and religious observances conduce to invisible fruit. 242.

1 Adrstfiya means for the purpose of the fruit characterised as adristam, or for the purpose of the fruit, characterised as heaven and salvation, through the gate of adristam. Hereby are included all actions or duties enjoined in the Veda and smriti and having adrtstam as their fruit. Here abhisechanam means ablution as enjoined in such precepts as " One should bathe in the Ganga (Ganges)." Fast denotes such as is enjoiued in such precepts as " One should abstain from food on the eleve ith day of the moon." l Brahmacharyyam means clutivation of dharma in general. Gurukulavasah/ is that of Brahmachdrins or stu dents for the purpose of studying the Veda the twelve-year vow called Mahdvrata, etc., Vanaprastham means the duty of those who have retired to the forest 011 the ripening of age. Yajiiah denotes Rdjaasuya, Vdjapeya, and other sacrifices. Dan am is as en joined by such precepts as One sbould give away a cow." Proksanam, is as enjoined by such precepts as "One should offer rice." Dik denotes such as is enjoined by the precepts., "One should perform sacrifice on an altar inclined towards the east," " One should eat rice, etc., facing towards the east," etc. 1 Naksatram is such as Maghd (the tenth lunar asterism), etc., on the occasion of a sadddha, etc. Mantrali denotes " 0, ye waters, who are the sources of pleasures," etc. (Rig Veda X. ix. 1), and other sacred hymns. Kalah is as is enjoined by such precepts as " IVIonth after month food shall be given to theo " where one should offer food in the afteri 0011 of the day of new moon, " In summer let one be surrounded with five fires," " In spring let one deposit the sacrificial fires," etc. 1 Niyamah means conduct, in accordance with the Sastra, of those who observe the distinction of caste and the four stages of holy living, i. e.) Varna and Asrama.

Now, it will be seen that of the dharma, so produced, the soul is the combinative cause, conjunction of the soul and the mind is the non- combinative cause, and faith and the knowledge of the motives or objects characterised as heaven, etc., are the efficient causes. 2.

Other sources of dharma and sources of adharma.

UpasTc&ra. Having thus mentioned the sources of dharma, he now mentions them along with the sources of adharma also :

186 VAI&ESIKA PHILOSOPHY.

Chaturafiramyam, the observance of the four Asramas or stages of holy living, viz., the life of continence and scholarship, the ife of a householder, the life of retirement in the woods, and the life of absolute selfrenunciation, (lit. living on alms). STOl : Upadhah, defects in respect of faith, misbeliefs and disbeliefs. STg^T Anupadlui, non-defects in respect of faith, beliefs. =g Cha, and.

3. The observance of the four Atramas (has been already mentioned) Misbeliefs and disbeliefs as well as beliefs are also (sources of adnstam or dharma and adharma}. 2^.

That which is the means of dharma, common to the four Asramas, has been (and thus the sentence should be completed), e^haustivel^ denoted by the preceding aphorism alone. Upadhah means defects of bhdva (*. e sentiment; or faith ; anupadhfth, means non-defects of bhdva or faith 1 hey too should be understood to be the sources of dharma and adharma, according to themselves. By the word, < upadhAh all the means of adharma have been included. _ 3.

purity, aa regards their

Bhava-dosah, defect of feeling, impurity of emotion, or of the soul. *q*T Upadha, (cty.) that which is placed, or settles, upon or near anything. Impurity. ?r*fr: Adosah, non-defect. ?T 3 ^ T Anupadha, purity. Purity of emotion, or of the soul.

4. Upadha or Impurity (denotes) impurity of emotion, or of the soul ; anupadhd (denotes) purity. 244.

Feeling, desire, attraction, inattention, unfaith, vanity, conceit, envy, and other impurities of the soul are denoted by the word upadhd or impurity. Faith, complacence of mind, perseverance in the performance of prescribed actions, determination of what should be done in particular situation, (or presence of mind), and certitude are called anupadhd or purity of the soul. The efficient causality of all these towards dharma and adharma, is here de clared. 4.

What objects are pure or holy.

Upaskdra. (Purity and impurity may be internal as well as external, that is, may relate to thought as well as to things. In the preceding aphorism, purities and impurities of the soul have been mentioned. With regard to external objects it is said as follows). Things pure and impure are also called upadhd or purity and anupadhd or impurity. Here he distinguishes between pure and impure objects :

R i^ n

which. aVUyiT?SRW, Ista-riiparasa-gandha-sparsaci posse sses prescribed! colour, taste; smell, and^touch.sJtf^RfJProksitam, aspersed.

KANiDA SfiTRAS VI, 3, 6. 187

Sprinkled with water together with the pronunciation of mantras or sacred hymns. r*gf%rf Abhyuksitam, sprinkled with water without the pronunciation of mantras. The above rendering of the two words, prok^tarii abhyiksitani is in accordance with the view of $ankara misra. But, " Sprinkling of water with the pronated hand is called proksanam that with supinated hand is called abhyuksanam ; and the same with the inclined hand is known as avoJfsanam."- From the above saying of the Smriti, it would appear that the correct translations would be, sprinkled with water with pronation, in the case of proksitam, and sprinkled with water with supination, in the case of abhyuksitanV ^ Cha, and. ?Tcj;Tat. that gfe$uchi, pure, clean, holy.

5. The pure is that which possesses prescribed Colour, Taste, Smell, and Touch, and is sprinkled with water along with the recitation of sacred hymns, and also without it, or is sprinkled with water both with pronation and with supination. 245.

Whatever Substance possesses such colour, etc., as are istam/ i. e. prescribed by the Veda and the Smriti, the same is of that character (i. e., pure). Therein, Colour (is prescribed) in such texts as " He buys the soma drink for a cow, ruddy, one year old, with tawny eyes/ 3 " He should obtain a white goat," etc. i Proksitaik, means sprinkled with water during the recitation of sacred hymns ; abhyuksitam/ means sprinkled with water without any sacred hymn. The word ( cha t implies that which is lawfully acquired, and that is brought out by such restraining percepts as " A Brahmana, should acquire wealth by performing sacrifices, by teaching, and by receiving presents, etc. 5.

What objects are impure or unholy. Upaskdra. Ho states the characteristic of impure objects :

Asuchi, impure. ffrT Iti, this Such, sgfrsrf?^: ^uchipratisedhah, the negation of exclusion of the pure.

6. Impure, such is the form of the negation of the pure. 246.

The meaning is that the contrary of such substance as ia pure, is impure. In other words, a substance of unpraiseworthy colour, taste, smell, and touch, or not aspersed, or not sprinkled, or sprinkled with forbidden water, or unlawfully acquired, as the substance of a Brahmana acquired by agriculture and commerce, is impure. 6.

What objects are impure or unholy, continued. He mentions oteher impure objects :

VAIEIKA PHILOSOPHY.

n $i * { vs n Arthantaram, something else. Another thing. ^ Cha, and. 7. (It is) also something else. 247. The meaning is that where a thing possesses praiseworthy colour, taste, smell, and touch, and is at the same time aspersed, sprinkled, and lawfully acquired, even there that thing also is impure, if it is vitiated by speech or vitiated by intention. 7. To produce .exaltation, purity must le coupled with selfres-traint. Upaskdra. Now ho points ont another contributory oauso of dharma and adharma : n Ayatasy, of the unrestrained. gfavft^Rt. uchi-bhojanat, from eating that which is pure. 3J**R?J : Abhyudayah, exaltation. ^ Na, not. fq^Yidyate, exists. Accrues. pnjJTpTRT^ Niyama-abhavfit, owing to the absence of self-restraint. RST^ 1 Vidyate, exists. Accrues. ^T Va, and. ?JlfccTC?=rT3(. Artha-antaratvat, being a different thing, q*T^ Yamasya, of self-reatraint. 8. To the unrestrained, exaltation does not accrue from eating what is pure, inasmuch as there is an absence of self-res traint ; and it accrues, (where there is self-restraint), inasmuch as self-restraint is a different thing (from eating). 248. Ayatasya means void of restraint, or unrestraint. The eating of one, void of the restraints brought out in such precepts as. " A man should take food after washing his hands and feet, and rinsing his mouth, restrained in speech, while taking food, though restrained, he should twice rinse his mouth," does not tend to exaltation, but to sin. It may be asked, Why ? Hence he says, niyama-abhavat/ i. e., owing to the absence of self-restaint, which is a contributory cause. That which takes place where self-restraint exists, is now stated. Vidyate va,, i. e., exaltation verily accrues from eating by means of the accom paniment ef the self-restraint mentioned above. It may be asked, How ? So he says, Artha-antaratvat yamasya, i. e., because self-restraint is something else than eating. Therefore the meaning is that without the contributory cause there is no production of the fruit, and that with it, there is production of the fruit. 8. Bhdsya reads Vidyateva rthdntaratvdt yamasya as a separate aphorism. Self-restraint alone, again, is not sujficint for the purpose. Upaalc&ra. It may be objected, " If self-restraint .alone is the goveruing element, then eating is not a governing element at all," Aooordingly he says : u$ i R i a n

KANlDA SfrTRAS VI, 2, 11. 189

Asati, non-existing. ^ Cha, and. ^TffTTTc^ Abhavat, because of non-existence.

9. (Self-restraint alone is not the cause of exaltation), for there is non-existence (of exaltation), where (the eating of pure food) does not exist. 249.

Of exaltation is the complement of the aphorism. Abhavat/ i. e., since exaltation does not exist, asati, i. e., where the eating of pure food does not exist, although there is self-restraint. The meaning, there fore, is that it is both, of them, namely self-restraint and eating, which is the cause of merit. The word, eating, is illustrative Yama and Niyama, i. e., self-restraint, external and internal, are accessories also of sacrifice, charity, ablutions, oblations, and other actions prescribed by the Veda and the Smriti. 9.

Origin of desire which, being a fault, is an accessory to adharma.

Updslcara. Having thus stated self -restraint as a contributory towards the production of dharma, he now points out the origin of fault, with a view to spocify fault as ian (accessory to adharma :

Sukhat, from pleasure. ;TJJT: Ragah, (Lit. Colouration), Desire. 10. From Pleasure (arises) Desire. 250.

{ Sukhat," i. e., from pleasure derived from the enjoyment of gar lands, sandal-paste, women, and other objects, ragah/ i. e., desire, is produced successively for pleasue of a similar kind, or for the means of attaining it. It is also to be considered that from pain begotten by snakes, thorns, and the like, aversion arises with regard to such pain, or with regard to its source. Desire, aversion, and infatuation are called faults, inasmuch as they are incentives to activity (which serves to bind the agent down to this world). Accordingly there is the aphorism of G-autama, " Faults have for their characteristic incitement to acitivity (or worldly occupation)." (Nyaya-Sutram, I. i. 18), 10.

Origin of desire which, being a fault , is an accessory to adharma,

continued.

Upaslc&ra. " Now," it may bo objected, " if only pleasure ani pain produced desire and aversion, how then can the latter exist after the destruction of the former ? " Hence ho says :

cf-fnr^ig M i R i ** H

W^T^^T^Tat-mayatvat from transformation into, absorption, or entire occupation of mind with, or habituation to, that, g Cha, and.

11. (Desire and Aversion arise) also through habituation to .that. 251.

Desire and aversion arise this is the complement of the aphorism. ^Tat-mayatvam means a particular kind of comparatively powerful impression produced by constant or habitual experience of objects,

190 VAI&ESIKA PHILOSOPHY.

through the influence of which, a sad lover, who does not win his mis tress, sees his beloved in every object ; audihe who has been once bitten by a snake, i i consequence of the strong impression regarding that, sees snakes everywhere. So it has been said, l Tat-mayatvam (lit, full- of-that-ness) means the manifestation of that both internally and externally." 11.

Above continued.

(Tpa,9kdra. He brings forward another source (of desire andjaversion) :

II $I R I & II Adristat, from destiny*or adristam. ^ Cha, and. Also. 12. (Desire and Aversion arise) from adristam also. 252. Desire and version this forms the complement of the aphorism. Although adristam is a universal cause, still particular causality, to wards desire and aversion, sometimes attends it. For instance, it should be inferred by such cases as of desire for a (mistress or) woman on the breaking forth of youth even in one who has not in that birth enjoyed the pleasures of love, and of aversion towards snakes even in those who have not experienced the pain of snake-bites. Nor is it only samakdra or impression produced in a previous existence (that is to say, instinct), which supplies tlio missing link in these cases. For there being no proof for the supposition of its existence, or for thfc supposi tion of its resuscitation, the supposition of adristam becomes neces sary. 12. Origin of desire which, beiny a fault, is an accessory to adharma, continued. UpasMra. H.Q mentions another contributory cause (of desire and aversion) : n 5 i * i \\ \\ Rtaffit. Jati-visesfit, from particularity of race or racial distinc tion. ^ Cha, and. 13. (Desire and Aversion arise) also from racial distinctions. 253. Thus, human beings have desire for rice, etc., animals of the deer class, for grass, etc. ; those of the camel class, for briers. In these cases also, adristam which produces birth in such and such a race, is the governing principle, while race, i. e., distinction of birth, is only a means or medium. Similarly, pigeons, etc., possess desire for crops. In the same way, animals of ! the buffalo class possess aversion towards the horse ; dogs, towards the jackal ; ichneumons, towards snakes ; and from other instances, it is to be inferred (that racial distinction is a means of desire and aversion). 13. Desire and aversion produce dharma and adharma through inclination. Upvskdra. Having thus enumerated the efficient causes of desire and aversion, desire and aversion being the efficient causes of dharma and adharma, he now points out that the causality of fault towards dharma and adharma operates through the medium of activity or inclination. KANADA SftTRAS VI, 2, 15. 191 I R I * II Inhchha-dvesa-purvvika, preceded by, or having for its antecdents, desire and aversion. >iWrfcrRT*5i<|;f^r : Dharma-adharma- pravrittih, Activity, tendency, inclination, or application to dharma and adharma. 14. Application to dharma and adharma has for its antece dents Desire and Aversion. 254. Pravrittih or employment in a prescribed action, is due to the link of desire, and in a prohibited action, e. y., killing, is due to the link of aversion. Employment, due to the link of desire, in sacrifices, etc., begets dharma; employment,;due to the link of aversion, in killing, etc., begets adharma. These same desire and aversion cause the wheel of transmigration to revolve. Accordingly there is the aphorism of Gau tama/ Pravritli or employment is the operation or exeratioii of speceh, mind, and body," (Nyaya-Sutram, I. i. 17). Verbal employment is exer tion of speech ; it is meritorious, if it is for the expression of what is true, kind, and beneficial ; it is sinful, if it is for the expression of what is nature, unkind, and baneful. By Buddhih/ (mind), is meant that by which objects are cognised, i. e., mind. Therefore mental employment is compassion towards all creatures, and other activities. Bodily employment, such as almsgiving, ministration, etc., is tenfold as sinful, and tenfold as meritorious. 14. Vivriti. The aphorism has been framed in a general way. Hence no harm has been done to the production of dharma, etc., also from chance contact with the water of the Grafiga (the Granges) and such other sources, even though desire and aversion do not exist here. Dharma and adharma are causes of birth and death. Upaskdra. Now he states the end or object of dharma and adharma, . e., reappearance after passing away : n ^ i ^ i mi Tat-samyogah, conjunction produced by them. Vibhagah, disjunction. 15. Conjunction (of soul with body, sense, and life), produced by them (i.e., dharma ar.d adharma), (is called birth) ; Disjunc tion (of body and mind, produced by them, is called death). 255- From these, namely dharma and adharma, conjunction, i. e., birth, results. Connection with non-pre-existing body, sense, and life is here termed conjunction. Vibhagah again, denotes disjunction of body and mind, characterised as death. The meaning, therefore, is that this system of births and deaths, samsdra or ceaseless flow of existences, otherwise termed pretya-bhdva or re-appearance after passing away, ia caused by dharma and adharma. The Vedic name of this very pretya- bhdva is ajarafijart-bhdva or uon-decrepit decrepitude. 15. 192 VAI^ESIKA PHILOSOPHY. How moksa is attained. Upaskdra. To ascertain, therefore, what moksa is, in which there is an end of this re-appearance after passing away, of the system of births and deaths, ho says : t II$ I R I ?$II Atma-karmmasu, actions of the soul taking place. Moksah, salvation, sqpjqTrT: Vyakhyatah, declared. 16. (It has been) declared that the actions of the soul taking place, salvation (results). 256. This same disjunction of body and mind rises into mohsa or libera tion, when there exist the actions of the soul. This is the meaning. Now, the actions of the soul collectively are as follows : audition/ intellection, practice of holy communion, or yoga, constant meditation, posture, regulation of breath, (lit. lengthening of life, the acquisition of the control of the external senses and of the control of the internal sense, spiritual intuition of one s own soul and of the souls of others, accurate knowledge of previously produced dharma and adharma, which have to be experienced in other bodies and places the building up of various bodies suitable to such experience, the exhaustion of that dharma and adharma by experiencing them, and ultimate success or emancipation, characterised as cessation of pain, on the cessation of bii h, when there is cessation of tendency to action, in consequence of the non-production of subsequent dharma and adharma, due to the overcoming of the mists of faults characterised as desire and aversion. Of these the prime action of the soul is knowledge of the real nature or essence of the six Predicables. 16. Here ends the second chapter of the sixth book in the Commentary of ankara upon the Vaisesika Aphorisms. Vivfiti. Spiritual intuition of the reality of the self steals away false knowledge, sprung from spiritual blindness, of which the subject- matter is that the soul is not distinct from the body, etc. Thereupon there is cessation of faults, characterised as desire and aversion ; from which there follows destruction of activity or inclination productive of dharma and adharma. And from the non-existence of inclination results annihilation of birth in the form of the initial conjunction of lifeiwith a future body. And hence there results final annihilation of the threefold afflictions. It is in this that moksa consists. Therefore this treatise is useful, as a system of thought intended for the purpose of intellection or thinking abont things. KANiDA SftTRAS VII, 1, 2. 195 BOOK SEVENTH CHAPTER FIRST- Allusion to I. i. 6. Upaxkdra. Having examined dharma and adharma, as the root oamei of Samidra r transmigration, as the efficient causes of all that has a production, as the meana of bhoga or worldly experience, and as uniformly attaching to each individual soul, from their origin, as wall as the adristam of others as conducive to fruits to be experienced by those others, the (tiUhor now calls back to the mind of the disciples the enumeration and definition of Attri butes with the intention of examining these Attributes. Uktah, stated, mentioned, enumerated. *pm Gunah, attributes. 1. Attributes (have been) mentioned (above). 257. The meaning is that Attributes have been enumerated and defined- Of these colour, etc., seventeen in all, have been verbally stated, and seven have been brought forward by the word cha, l and . Accordingly all the twenty-four Attributes have been mentioned. Now, Attribute- ness connotes possession of the l class directly pervaded by existence appearing in eternals present in the eternals, or possession of the class directly pervaded by existence appearing in eternals which do not appear in combinative causes, or possession of the class directly per vaded by existence appearing in eternals appearing in non-combina tive causes, or possession of the class not appearing in action which. does not co-exist in the same substratum with the effect. 1. What attributes are non-eternal. Upaskara. Now, the examination of Attributes, as Attributes, is the subject of the Tenth book. Of this, in the first Chapter, there are five sections, viz., (1) the examination of Attri butes as eternal, (2) the examination of Attributes as non-etenal, (3) the examination of Attri butes due to the action of heat, (4) the examination of Attributes which appear of function in more substances than one, e. g., Number, etc., and (5) the examination of measure or exten sion. Herein he states the non-eternality of the four Attributes, colour, etc. I VS H R II Prithivi-adi-rupa-rasa-gandha-sparsah, the Colour, Taste Smell, and Touch of Earth, etc., L o., of Earth, Water,. Fire, and Air. 5nfrsrc*n^ Dravya-anityatvat, on account of the non- eternality of the substances in which they reside, nfrtn: Anityah, non- eternal. ^l Cha, also. 2. The Colour, Taste, Smell, and Touch of Earth, Water, Fire, and Air, are also non-eternal, on account of the non-eterna lity of their substrata. 258. Of the wholes made up of parts, beginning with Earth, and ending \vith Air, the four Attributes, colour, and the following, are non-eternal. Although other Attributes also, being present in whole made up of parts, are really non-eternal, yet (they are not referred to here, because) their destruction is also due to other causes. The four Attributes, beginning vrith colour, disappear only on the destruction of their substrata, and 194 VAlSESIKA PHILOSOPHY not in consequence of another, aid contradictory, Attribute. { Dravya- anityatvat : The meaning is that the non-etertiality of the dependent Attributes is on account of the uon-eternality of substances upon which they depend. 2. What attributes are eternal. Upask&ra. If the non-eternality of substrata governs the non-eternality of colour, etc., then, he says, it is obtained from necessary implication, that those colour, etc., which reside in eternal substrata, possess eternality. I V9 \ \ I ^ II Btena, by this. f^T?^f Nityesu, in eternals. T?!^ Nityatvam, eter nality. 3<E*^ Uktam, stated. Implied. 3. By this is implied eternality (of Colour, etc., which reside) in eternal substances. 259. Of the same four Attributes, colour, etc., present in eternal subs trata, eternality is implied by this, which means, by the declaration of non-eternality by reason of the non-eternality of the substrata. The writer of the Vfitti, however, explains thus : this is the reading, with the addition of an sr, (so that instead of eternality, the reading is non-eternality. ) Thus, colour, etc., residing in terrene ultimate atoms, disappear on the conjunction of fire. 3. Above continued. Upxakdra. Does, then, eternality belong also to colour, etc., which reside in terrene eternal substances ? Accordingly he specifies (the eternals referred to in the preceding aphorism). II V9 I$ I 8 II

Apsu, in water. ?fa% Tejasi, in fire. %\q\ Vayau, in air. =g Cha, and. fr?n: Nityalj, eternal. i[^Pl9T^Ii^ Dravya-nityatvat, in consequence of the eternality of substrata.

4. And also in consequence of the eternality of their (respec tive) substrata, (Colour, etc.) are eternal in Water, Fire, and Air. 260.

In aqueous ultimate atoms, Colour, Taste, and Touch are eternal ; in igneous ultimate atoms, Colour and Touch ; in ultimate atoms of Air, Touch is eternal. " But," it may be asked, what is the contradiction, if colour, etc., present even in things eternal, be themselves non-eternal like Sound, Understanding, etc. V" Accordingly, an additional reason, viz., non-appearance of another attribute (vide IV. ii. 3 ante~), is indicat ed by the word xi, and. For, in Sound, the. manifestation of a different attribute is observed in the form of tones, high, low, etc. ; and in knowledge, etc., samskdra, impression or habit, etc., contradictory of, or which oppose, knowledge, etc., (are observed). In aqueous, igneous, and aerial ultimate atoms, other attributes, contradictory of colour, etc., do not appear. If they appeared, then Colour, etc.,

KANiUA SftTRAS VII, 1, 6. 195

heterogeneous from the antecedent ones, would be observed also in the aqueous and other wholes made up of parts, or compounds, originated by the same ultimate atoms, in the order of binary and other atomic aggregates. But colour, different in kind from white colour, does not belong to Water and Fire ; nor do Touches, different in kind from cold and hot Touches. " Hot water," "Cold air/ such intuitions are, however, due to the influence of upddhi or adjunct or external coadi- , tion. This is the import. J.

Vivriti. " But Colour, etc., residing in aqueous ultimate atoms, being destructible by the conjunction of fire/ it may be objected, why this generalisation, namely, "in eternals " (in tha preceding aphorism) ?" Hence he specifies the eternals.

The meaning is that Colour, etc., inherent in the eternal earth ( i. e. f ultimate atoms of earth), are not certainly eternal, but that it has been stated in the preceding aphorism that those only are eternal, which in here in the eternal Water, Fire, and Air (i. e., aqueous, igneous, and aerial ultimate atoms).

What attributes are non-eternal.

Upaskdra. Already it has been stated that (Colour, etc., are) non-eternal in non- eternals among terrene substances. Now he states it ia the case of aqueous other non- oternals also.

-"

II VS | t I % H

Anityesu, in non-eternals, srf^zns Anityah, non-eternal. Dravya-anityatvat, in consequence of the non-eternality of

substrata.

5. In non-eternals, (Colour, etc., are) non-eternal, in conse quence of the non-eternality of their substrata. 261.

The meaning is that Colour, etc., of aqueous, and other wholes made uo of parts, disappear only on the dissolution of substrata, but not in consequence of other, contradictory, attributes. 5.

Vivriti. Are Attributes, inhering in non-eternals, and other than Colour, etc., eternal ? If so, then Conjunction, etc., also will be eternal. To remove this apprehension, he says :

The meaning is that Attributes which exist in non-eternal substan ces, are, all of them, non-eternal, because their substrata are non- eternal, so that eternal Attributes do not at all exist in non-eternal substances.

Colour, etc., of Earthy produced by burning.

Upaskdra. In earth, appearing in the form of wholes made up of parts, (i. e., in terren* bodies), also, Colour, etc., appear and disappear only on the conjunction of fire. How, therefore, are they destructible only by the destruction of their substrata ? To reraore thit apprehension, he says :

i \ i ^ u

196 VAI&EIKA PHILOSOPHY.

Karana-guna-purvvakah, preceded by, or having fo

antecedents, the attributes of the causes. $fart Prithivjam, in earth. i^lTI* Pakajah, produced by burning. Due to the action of heat. Thermal. 6. In Earth, (Colour, Taste, Smell, and Touch) have for their antecedents (like) attributes in (its combinative) causes, (and are also) due to the action of heat. 262. Pakajah means Colour, Taste, Smell, and Touch, due to the action of heat, < Karana-guna-purvvakah means preceded by the attributes of that, e. g., potsherds, etc., which is the combinative caus& of the substratum of Colour, e. y., a water-pot. Thus, the Colour of the potsherd is the non-combinative cause of the colour of the water-pot, by means of the proximity known as combination in the same object with the cause. So also in the case of Taste, etc. Colour, Taste, Smell, and Touch possess the jdti or class directly pervaded by attribute- ness such as colourness, etc. Objection, Colourness, which is nothing but apprehensibility by the eye, is the udpdhi or external condition (of colour-perception). Answer. It is not. For, this would entail non-appearance of the intuition of colour immediately on the falling of the sense, since an U}>ddhi or external condition which is not adjacent, is unfit for produc ing the intuition of that which is conditioned or super-imposed. Here the itpddhij again, is the eye, and the same the ocular sense is supersensuous. And apprehensibility is the being the object of apprehension. This too is not an object of ocular perception, since perception distinguished or determined by colour-ness is ocular. Colour-ness, therefore, is the characteristic of the attribute perceptible by the external sense of the eye alone. Ob j notion. But it does not pervade or include supersensuous colour. Answer. The objection does not arise ; for, the possession of the jdti or class apprehensible by the external sense of the eye alone, is intended. Such jdti is colour-ness ; as also are blue-ness, etc. Objection. The manifestations of blue, yellow, etc., are eternal, only as each of them is a single, individual, manifestation. There are not blue-ness, and other classes, inasmuch as their denotation is a single individual. Answer. This is not the case, as it would entail the non-appearance of the intuition of deeper blue, deepest blue, etc. Objection. But the use of the comparative and the superlative may be caused here by the absence of inter-penetration of whiteness, etc- Answer. It cannot, since there is no proof of it, and also because 01 the intuition, " Dark colour is gone, red produced." Ob j action. But such intuition is caused by the produc ion and destruction of combination. K ANDA SUTRAS vn, i, . 197 Answer. No, since there is no trace of combination there, and since combination is eternal. The same (* . e., production and destruc tion of combination) being applicable also in the case of the non- eternality of the water-pot, etc., the result would be non-finality, since AnyathAgiddhi t production by other means, or plurality of causes, can be easily ascribed there by way of the very non-eternality of com bination. Another objection. The attributes, blue, yellow, etc., are not different from substance, since there is no difference between a property and that of which it is a property. Answer. -This cannot be the case, as it would entail such uses as " Colour is water-pot," " Toucth is water-pot," etc. Objection. But there is no harm in it, inasmuch as there are really such intuitions as " White cloth," " Blue cloth," etc. Answer. -The analogy does not hold, because the intuitions are explained by the supposition of elision of the affix, matup, denoting possession, or by the supposition of transference of identity. Objection. This supposition would be somewhat probable, were there proof of difference. Answer. But difference is proved by means of such predication as - Colour of s-.i idal-wood," " Smell of sandal-wood," etc. If the cloth were identical with colour, then, like the cloth, colour also would be perceived by the sense-organ of the skin, and being asked to bring the colour, one would bring some substance whatever. Objection. Let, then, there be identity in difference, seeing that in the case of absolute difference as well as of absolute identity, co existence in the same substratum would not be possible. Answer. -This cannot be, for it is impossible for identity and differ ence, which are contradictory to each other, to appear together in the same place, without the difference of their situation. Objection. But the characteristic of mutual non-existence (or non- existence which is the counter-opposite of identity, e. g. y a waterpot ia not a cloth) a ipears in that which appears in what is not pervaded or included, since it is the characteristic of being the property of that svhich appears in eternal non-existence, like the characteristic of absolute non-existence (or non-existence which is the counter-opposite of connection with the past, the present, and the future, e. g., there is no waterpot inside the earth). Answer. This is not the case. For, in virtue of the intuition of conjunction and its absolute non-existence, the characteristic of appear ing in that which is not pervaded, is observed of absolute non-existence, but, in the case of mutual non-existence, such intuition does not exist. Now, this colour is of various kinds in Earth ; in Water and Fire it is only white. Sometimes there is one more colour, i. e., variegated or compound colour, also in a cloth, etc. ; for, otherwise, they would net be objects of visual perception, since only substances possessing colour oan be objects of perception by the eye. 1&8 VAlSESIKA PHILOSOPHY. Objection. -But there can be no origination of colour by heteroge neous colours. Answer. This is not the case ; for, homogeneity, only as constituted by the characteristic of being colour, is required in the origination of blue, yellow, etc., since otherwise, as has been already stated, they would not be objects of visual perception. Objection. But the apprehension of the colour of a whole made up of parts is possible by means of the apprehension of the colours of those parts. Answer. It is not, as it would entail that the parts also, possessing variegated or compound colour, are themselves void of colour. More over, wherever, in consequence of the action of heat, variegated colour appears in ultimate atoms, there also variegated colour is produced in the cloth, etc., originated by them successively. Objection. In the yellow rnyrobalan, then, taste also is variegated. Answer . No, for no harm would be done, even if the yellow inyro- balan were void of taste. The tradition of six tastes, however, is due to the causality which produces the effects or properties of those tastes. Similarly, smell also is not variegated, since a fragrant and a non- fragrant part are not its originators. Objection In the parts of a karkatl or cucumber, there is sometimes bitterness, and sometimes sweetness. Which taste, then, exists in karkatt ? Answer. Only sweetness. Objection. There existing a conflict of attributes, how can it be so ? Answer. On account of the non-existence of bitterness in the parts thereof. Objection. How, then, does such sensation (of bitterness) arise ? Answer. It arises from the bitter taste of the bilious substance existing at the tip of the tongue irritated by the eating of the karkati. It is from this cause that sometimes the mouth also becomes bitter. Objection. But how does not this explanation apply in the case of the yellow myrobalan also ? Answer. Because, in the parts of the yellow myrobalan, various tastes are felt, e. g., sour, sweet, salt, etc. There is no need of further Argumentation or elaboration. And this colour is an auxiliary to the eye. Objection. Such being the case, how do the non-existence of Colour In air, and darkness become objects of ocular perception ? Answer. The question does not arise, since colour is an auxiliary to the eye in the apprehension only of existences or objective realities- KANlDA SUTRAS VII, 1, 6. The colours of all the three, viz., the object, the light, and the eye, are exciting causes of ocular perception. Taste, again, is that which possesses the jdti or class, taste- ness. Taste-ness is the jdti or i class which is the object of immediate cogaition producible by the sense taste aloae. And the possession of such a jdti or class is taste-ness. It is this, the source of vitality, growth, strength, and health, that is a:i auxility to the tongue. Thus, taste-ness being possession of the jdti or class pervaded by attribute- ness capable of being apprehended by the organ of the tongue, there is no non-pervasion, i. e., exclusion, of super-sensuous taste. Attribute, apprehensible by the nose alone, is Smell. Smell-ness is the possession oc the jdti or l class pervaded by attribute-ness appre hensible by the nose only. It is two-fold, being fragrant and non- fragrant. Or Sruell-ness denotes the possession of the jdti or class directly pervaded by attribute-ness appearing only in that which is present in Earth. In like manner, Touch also is the attribute possessing the jdti or • class, touch-ness. Touch-ness denotes the possession of the jdti or 4 class directly pervaded by attribute-ness apprehensible by the organ of the skin only. Inhering in the quartet of substances, (namely, Earth, Water, Fire, Air), it is, again, three-fold, according to the differences of neither hot nor cold, cold, and hot. Now, in passing, the process due to the action of heat, is considered. Here, according to those who hold the theory of the burning of an ear- thenpot (as a whole), the whole of the effect and the cause is burnt. Those who hold the theory of the burning of the ultimate atoms (consti tuting the whole), maintain that it is the ultimate atoms which are separately burnt, that it is in them that there take place destruction of the previous colour and production of the succeeding colur, etc., and that, following the course of the attribute of the cause, colour, etc., are produced in the burnt (wholes made up again) of (burnt) parts. Hera the sense is as follows : From the impulse or the impact, given by fire, to a raw substance, e. g., a water-pot, etc., thrown in a kiln, disjunction, which is the counter-opposite of conjunction originative of a compound substance, appears among the ultimate atoms originative of that raw substance, and on the destruction of originative conjunction by the disjunction, destruction of the substance must take place. For, it is seen that of rice, etc., placed in a pan, destruction takes place at once from frying, only by the application of heat from below, arid that, (under similar conditions) intense ebullition takes place in milk, water, and the like. Therefore, it is hoping too much that substances, smitten with flames of fire on all sides, in a kiln, will endure. Moreover, if there be no destruction of substances, then burning at their centre will not be possible. For, there is no possibility of conjunction of fire at the centre which is enclosed with harder other constituent parts. So that there will be this great incongruity that the parts are dark but the whole made up of those parts is red. Objection. Substances which are wholes made up of parts, are cer tainly porous. H)W, otherwise, can oil, clarified butter, etc., poured. 200 VAlSEIK A PHILOSOPHY. into a jar, etc., ooze out, and how also can these be boiled ? Hence, at the centre also, there can be conjunction of fire. Answer. This cannot be, inasmuch as, on account of exclusion of ponderable or corporal or dense substances in virtue of the property of impenetrability, conjunction of fire is impossible at the centr* which is already conjoined with other (constituent^ parts. Objection. If there is destruction of the substance, how, then, can there be the recognition, " This is that very water-pot ?" How, again r in all changes of conditions, in the kiln, etc., are the water-pot, etc., observed in one and the same form ? How is it that a pan, a plate, etc., placed on the burning water-pot, etc., are observed in the same- position ? For they should fall down on the dissolution of the water- pot, etc. How, again, are exactly the same number of wholes as are placed in the furnace, afterwards obtained from it ? For, during the process of burning, the origination is possible, of more or less substan ces, by the (dissolved) ultimate atoms, in the order of binary and other atomic aggregates. How, again, are water-pot, etc., of exactly the same dimensions, observed to come out from the furance? How, again,, will not the marks of lines and prints be obliterated ? Burning, there fore, takes place only in the wholes. Answer. Such is not the case. For disjunction of three or four tertiary atomic aggregates being effected from a water-pot, etc., with the point of a needle, there being destruction of substance as a whole in consequence of the destruction of conjunction originative of subs tance, all such contradictions appear in, or are explained on, both the theories. For, even they who hold the theory of the burning of the water-pot as a whole, cannot venture to say that substance as a whole- is not destroyed in the case of the above instance. Even in that case the water-pot, etc., are not destroyed, since it i* possible for an effect to continue to exist by inhering in the remaining constituent parts even when there has been destruction of some cons- "tituent parts. Were it not so, recognition, etc., would be really impossible. This is the view of the Mimdmsakas. But they should be asked ; how the water-pot, etc., bearing relation to the situation or arrangement of all the constituent parts, can appear in a smaller num ber of consituent parts. If it be their reply that it is possible in the same way as is possible contraction of measure or extension or quantit in a cloth which is not yet destroyed ; we reply that there can be no such analogy, for there is no observation of contraction and expansion in the case of wood, stone, pillar, earthen jar, etc., made up of harder constituent parts. It cannot be rejoined by thm that what is said to destroy the water-pot, etc., destroys only its measure or extension ; for, measure or extension can be destroyed only by the destruction of its substratum. Moreover, like the recognition of the water-pot, etc., measure or extension also is recognised in the case of the needle- scratch, whereas in their view its destruction also is impossible. This- is the point. On the theory of those who hold that disjunction which is the counteropposite of conjunction originative of substance aa well as disjunction which is not its counter-opposite, are produced by one and KANADA StiTRAS VII, 1, 6. 201 the same action in the constituent part, there is production of red colour, etc., at the ninth moment counting from the destruction of the binary atomic aggregate, in another binary atomic aggregate, since action is conceived to exist in the very same ultimate atom. Thus r there is first action in the ultimate atom originative of the binary atomic aggregate, from the impulse given by fire; then, disjunc tion : then destruction of conjunction originative of substance ; then r destruction of the binary atomic aggregate ; then, in consequence of conjunction of fire, disappearance of dark colour, etc., from the pure or singly existing ultimate atom, after the destruction of the binary atomic aggregate ; after destruction of dark colour, etc., production of red colour, etc., from another conjunction of fire ; after production of red colour, etc., cessation of action in the ultimate atom ; following it, action in the ultimate atom, from conjunction of soul possessing adrist- am or destiny ; then, disjunction ; then, cessation of previous conjunc tion, originative of substance, with another ultimate atom; then, production of the binary atomic aggregate ; after the production of the binary atomic aggregate, production of red colour, etc., in the pro gressive order of the attribute of the cause- These are the nine moments, if a different action is produced just at the moment of the cessation of the previous actioii. If, on the other hand, a different action is pro duced not at the moment of the cessation of the previous action, then there are ten moments. Even if disjunction, etc., produced by disjunc tion, be admitted, still there are ten moments, if disjunction produced by disjunction has reference to the time in which destruction of conjunc tion originative of substance takes place. If, on the other hand disjunc tion produces another disjunction with reference to the time in which destruction of substance takes place, then there are eleven moments in the process. Thus, destruction of the binary atomic aggregate and disjunction produced by disjunction, at one moment; then, destruc tion of previous conjunction, and cessation of drak colour, etc. ; subsequent conjunction and production of red colour, etc. , cessation of disjunction produced by disjunction and of action, by means of subsequent conjunction ; then, action in the ultimate atom, favourable to origination of substance, disjunction from action ; cessation of previous conjunction from disjunction ; thence, conjunction originative of substance; thence production of substance ; production of red colour, etc., in the produced substance. These are the ten moments. Where however, production of disjunction by disjunction depends upon the passing of the time containing the destruction of substance, there are, by the increase of one moment, eleven moments. Thus, destruction of subs tances; then disjunction produced by disjunction and cessation of dark colour, etc.; then subsequent conjunction and production of red colour, etc. then cessation of disjunction produced by disjunction and of action; then action in the ultimate atom, favourable to the origination of substance ; then disjunction ; cessation of previous conjunction ; production of conjunction originative of substance ; production of the binary atomic aggregate ; production of red colour, etc. These are the eleven moments. Such is the process on the conception of action and cessation of action in one and the same ultimate atom. If action favourable to the origi nation of substance is conceived to take place in a different ultimate atom, then the production of red colour, etc., should be understood to 202 VAlSESAIAK PHILOSOPHY. appear at the fifth, sixth, seventh, or eighth moment commencing from destruction of the binary atomic aggregate. The same has been ex plained in Kandda-Rahaxyam. 6. Colour, etc., of Earth, produced by burning, continued. UpaskAra. In order to establish that the Colour, etc., of terrene ultimate atoms have conjunction of fire as their non-combinative cause, he says : I V9 I { | V9 II Eka-dravya-tvat, Because of the characteristic of inher ing in one substance. 7. Because their substratum is the same. 263. The expression, " of (attributes) produced from burning," is the complement of the aphorism. " Being attributes," and " being effects," are also intended here. The whole sentence, therefore, means : Colour, etc., of terrene ultimate atoms, have conjunction for their non-combi native cause, inasmuch as these, being product-attributes, are at the same time non-abhorrent or incongruent attributes inhering in eternals, like Sound, and like Understanding, etc. Or the sddhya, or what has to be proved, is merely the characteristic of being produced from con junction. Hence there is no undue extension to, or inclusion of. Sound produced from disjunction, since conjunction of Air is the efficient cause of all Sounds whatever. And from the observation of the pre sence and absence of fire in relation to them, the non-combinative causality of conjunction of fire, towards terrene colour, etc-, is proved by the force of 2^aksa-dharmatd i. e., the characteristic of the vydpya or the middle term, the mark of inference, existing in the paTcsa or the subject of the conclusion- 7- VivTiti. The question may arise ; how the attributes of the cause, as they do not exist in the effect, can be productive of the attributes of the effect, when there is thus a difference of substrata. Apprehending this, he says : Because they have one substance as their substratum, that is to say, because there is co-existence in the same substratum. Thus, even though the attributes of the cause do not exist -in the effect by the relation of immediate combination, yet, inasmuch as they exist in the effect by the relation of co-existence in the same substratum in the form of combination with that which is in combination with them, their productiveness of the attributes of the effect is not unproved. This is the import. Non-cognition of Minuteness and cognition of Magnitude, explained before. Upaskdra. Having elucidated Colour, Taste, Smell, and Touch, by long discourses, and going to begin first the examination of Measure of Extension, in violation of the order of enumeration (of the Attributes), following the maxim* of the needle and the kettle, inasmuch as Measure of Extension is proved by co union consent, whereas there is a wide range of divergent views on the question of Number, he says : • The maxim of the needle and the kettle is that when a man has got to turn out a needle and a kettle, he first makes the needle, the smaller and easier piece of work, and then devotes his whole attention, energy, and time to the manufacture of the kettle, th lrg and more difficult piece of work. KANlDA SfiTRAS VII, 1, 8. 203 II V9 | ? ( c; || ft: Anoh, of the atom or atomic. J?f?r : Mahatah, of the molecular or the dense or the extended. ^ Cha, and. ^T^svqgqtTs^ Upalabdhi-anu- palabdhi, cognition and non-cognition. f?R^ Nitye, in (the book treating of) the eternal. s^TS^n^ Vyakhyate, explained. 8. Cognition and non-cognition of the atomic and the extend ed or massive, respectively, have been explained in (the fourth book treating of) the eternal. 264. The term, l in the eternal/ signifies the fourth book, demonstrative of the eternal, i. e., the container, by the contained. l Cognition and non-cognition : The application ( of these words ) will be according to relevancy, 01 the maxim., " When one thing is relevant to another, it belongs to that other, even though lying at a distance." So that the proposition, "Non-cognition of the atomic" is obtained. In like manner, in the perceptual cognition, therefore, namely, " l &r ge, blue jug/ Measure or Extension also is as much an object (of perception) as blue colour. And by means of this Measure or Extension, Measure or Extension terminating in the ultimate atom, is inferred, as also from Substance-ness. Moreover, n the perceptibility of Substance, Measure or Extension also is a cause, like colour ; for, without magnitude, substance cannot be perceptible. It is, therefore, ascertained that, as being a cause of the perceptibility of Substance, and being itself perceptible, an attribute, called Measure or Extension, exists. For, were the distinctive form of a water-pot, etc., its Measure or Extension, a man would bring any water-pot, when he was told to bring *Tf^ > the massive or the extended, and thus there would be a contradiction between the order of the master and the apprehension of it by the servant. Likewise from the term water- pot, Measure or Extension would be understood, or from the term, Measure or Extension, a water-pot. Measure or Extension is the non-common or specific cause of the usage or application of measures, or a universal attribute inhering in the object which is the cause of the perceptual cognition of Substance. Application of measures is the application of cubits, etc., but not the application of weights, numbers, etc., This Measure or Extension is. of four kinds, namely, Largeness, Smallness, Length, and Shortness. Of thesr, extreme largeness and extreme lenght exist in the four 1 universals (i. e., Space, Time, Ether, and Soulj ; extreme smallnsss- and extreme shortness exist in the ultimate atoms ; the next (higher) degree of smallness and shortness exists in binary atomic aggregates; largeness and length exist in substances from tertiary atomic aggrega tes upwards to composite wholes (or compound bodies as they exist in nature). In this manner, all substances whatever possess two Measures or Extensions. The attribution of smallness to a vilva or a bael fruit, dmalaka (phylanthus emblica ), etc., and of shortness to fuel-sticks, etc., is relative. And relativity here denotes non-existence of bulkiness. The bulkiness that exists in the dmalaka (emblic myrobalan), does not exist in the jujube ; the bulkiness that exists in the wilva, does not exist in the dmalaka. It is this bulkiness, which is the denotation of the- 204 VAI&ESIKA PHILOSOPHY. terra, relativity, inasmuch as it partakes of both the primary and secondary uses. Some maintain that length and shortness do not exist in the eternal substances. Others hold that these are not even modes of Measure or Extension ; for, what they mean is this : As in the com mand, " Bring the longer ones from amongst these bodies," so also in the command, " Bring the spherical and the triangular ones from amongst these bodies," discrimination boing equally possible, spheri city or roundness, etc., also could then have |to be admitted as modes of Measure or Extension. 3. Largeness or magnitude how produced. Upaskdra. -Ho now enumerates the causes of measure or extension. II vs i ? i s. ii Karaua-vahutvat, from a multiplicity of causes. ^ Cha, also. 9. Largeness or Magnitude is produced, from a multiplicity of causes also. 265. The word cha implies the addition of magnitude and pracliaya i. e.j loose conjunction among parts. " Measure or extension is pro duced " this is the complement of the aphorism. Among these, multiplicity of causes alone produces largeness or magnitude and length in tertiary atomic aggregates, since magnitude and accretion do not exist in their causes. That multiplicity is produced by the relative understanding of God, and the apprehension of particular adr*stam or destinies, determines this plurality of objects in such rela tive understanding. Likewise, it will be stated hereafter, duality existing in two atoms is productive of measure or extension in a binary atomic aggregate. In a piece of cloth, originated by two non-coales- cent threads, it is magnitude alone which is the non-combinative cause, since multiplicity and coalescence do not exist there. Where again, a ball of cotton, in this case, inasmuch as an increase of measure or extension is observed, therefore accretion is the cause, since multiplicity does no!; exist, and since magnitude though existing, is not a condition or occasion for increase of measiire or extension. Such being the case, were magnitude cause here, there would be no defect in the argument, for it has been said, " By two, by one, or by all." Prachaya, coalescence or accretion, is originative conjunction, and is defined as conjunction in an object of some of its constituent parts towards itself, in which object some of the constituent parts were not in conjunction towards itself. And this conjunction of cons tituent parts, it has been observed, is dependent upon a loose con junction among their own constituent parts, is productive of measure or extension, and is involved in the origination of Attributes and Actions. 9. KANlDA SftTRAS VII, 1, 11. 205 The atomic is the opposite of the large or massive ; the short, of the long. Upaslcdra. Having demonstrated magnitude and length, he now demonstrates atomic-ness or minuteness. u vs i ? i ?o n ^ ?RT: Atah, of this. f^nrftf Viparitam, the contrary. ?fqj Arm, the atomic, small, or minute. 10. The contrary of this is the atomic. 266. Atah/ i. e., from large or massive measure or extension estab lished by perception ; viparitam/ (i. e., divergent). The meaning is that that is atomic measure or extension. The contrariety arises from imperc eptibility, and from contrariety of causes also. For in the case of magnitude or massiveness, magnitude, multiplicity, and accretion are the causes, while in the case of atomic-ness or minuteness, duality inhering in the cause and produced by the relative understanding of God. is the cause. By this is also to be understood that the contrary of length is shortness, and here too the contrariety is as afore said. 10. In ichat sense the same thing appears both small and large. Upaskdra. He now shows that in the case of a jujube, an dmalaka, etc., the attribu tion of smallness is secondary or relative v ^Tirr Anu, atomic, small, minute. JTfc^ Mahat, large, massive. f[f?T Iti, such, rfft 1 !^ Tasmin, in that, i. e., in respect of one and the same object 1 fe^nHl^T^. Visesa-bhavfit, from the existence of the species, or of the peculiarity. fe^T^T^T^Visesa-abhavat, from the non-existence of the species, or of the peculiarity. 11. (It is) smaller, (It is) larger, such affirmations, in respect of one and the same object, arise from the existence of the species, or of the peculiarity, and from the non-existence of the species, or of the peculiarity. 267. The word, iti/ indicates the sense of attribution or usage. There is, then, all this usage that a jujube, is .small in relation to a fraeZ-fruit, that an emblic myrobolan is large in relation to a jujube, that a hael- fruit is large in "relation to an emblic myrobalan. Amongst these, (It is) large such usage with regard to them is primary. If it be asked how it is so, says, < visesa-bhavat/ i.e., because of bhava, i.e., existence of visesa/ i."e. the very species, magnitude, by bhava/ i. e.. the relation of more,, etc. On the other hand, the trantment of them ag • mall, is secondary or relative. If it be asked how this is so, he says, < visesa-abhavat/ i. e., because of the non-existence in them of the species, smallness. For, smallness, as an effect, resides only in binary atomic aggregates, and, as eternal, resides in the ultimate atoms, and consequently it does not exist in a jujube, etc. 206 VAlSESIKA PHILOSOPHY. Or, the meaning may be, that the treatment of a jujube, etc., as small is secondary, because of the bhava, i. e., the existence in the constituent parts of the jujube, etc., of the visesa, i. e, the cause of magnitude, namely, multiplicity of constituent parts, magnitude, and. accretion, and because of the abhtxva, i. e., the non-existence, in the constituent parts of the jujube, etc., of the vifiesa, i. e. f the cause of smallness, namely, duality which does not co-exist in the same substra tum with magnitude. 11. In what sense the same thinj appears both small and large, continued. ives the reason why the attribution of small nas.s is secondary : I V9 I * I ^ II Eka-kala-tvat, from simultaneity (of the cognitions of largeness and smallness). 12, (The attribution of smallness is secondary), because of the simultaneity (of the cognition of largeness and smallness in respect of the same object.) 268. Magnitude and minuteness are perceived at one and the same time. And these, magnitude and minuteness, being mutually contradictory, cannot appear together in one and the same substratum. The intuition of magnitude, therefore, is there primary inasmuch as the cause of magnitude exists there, and the intuition and application of minute ness are secondary. This is the meaning. 12. Above continued. Upaskdra, He status tho reason for the priiuarinoss of the intuition of magnitude : II VS \\ I \\ \\ Dristantat, from example, or analogue. ^ Cha, And. 13. Also because there is the analogue. 269. The meaning is that it is seen likewise that in the natural order of things the practical recognition, i. e., the application, of large, larger,. and largest, must be with regard only to things possessing magnitude, namely, the jujube, the ernblic myrobalan, and the bael fruit, just as the application of white, whiter, and whitest, is, according to the nature of things, with regard only to white objects, namely, a piece of cloth, a conch-shell, a crystal, etc. 13. Minuteness and magnitude do not exi^t in minuteness and magnitude. Upask&ra. It may be objected : In virtue of the usage, " Small Measure or Extension," " Large Measure or Extension," it is known that there is magnitude also in magnitude as ft measure or extonsion, and that there is sm allness in smallness also. How, then, can these bo said to exist in Substance alone ? H ow, again, does not the contradiction result, in Attribute, of being existent in Attribute ? KANlDA SfrTRAS VII,jl, 16. 207 Anutva-mahattvayoh, in minuteness and magnitude. ^l mtva ~ ina k attva - a bhavah, non-existence of minuteness and ef magnitude. qTR^^i: Karmma-guuaih, by Actions and Attri butes. sqi^FT: Vyakhyatah, explained. 14. The non-existence of minuteness and magnitude, in minuteness and magnitude, is explained by (the explanation, already given, of the non-existence of Actions and Attributes, in) Actions and Attributes. 270. To this he replies : The meaning is that as Attribute and Actions do not possess minuteness and magnitude, so also do not minuteness and magnitude possess minuteness and magnitude. The usage should be regarded as derivative. 14. Above continued. It may be urged that as Attributes are possessed of Attributes, ^and how else could there be such uses as Large (i. e., extensive) Sound," " Two Sounds," " One Sound," " Twenty- four Attributes," etc. ? and as Actions appear to be possessed of Actions, and how else could there be such uses as " It goes quickly," " It goes s.viftly " ? so minuteness and magni tude must also be possessed of minuteuess and magnitude. II vs I$ 1
Karmmabhih, by actions. ^wrffijr Karmmani, actions. Ounaih, by attributes. ^ Cha, arid. JTITi: Grunah, attributes Vyakhyatah, explained.

15. Actions have been explained (to be void) of Actions and Attributes, of Attributes. 271.

With this in view, he says :

By Actions, Actions are not possessed of Actions. By Attributes Attributes are also not possessed of Attributes. In like manner, minute ness and magnitude are also not possessed of minuteness and magnitude. The usage, however, is, in all these cases, derivative. This is the meaning. 15.

Minuteness and Magnitude do not exist in Attribute or in Action.

Upaakdra It may be urged that usage suoh as " Lirge Actions," " Minute Actions, " Large Attributes," " Minute Attributes," etc., entails that Actions possess minuteness and magnitude, and also Attributes possess both of them. In anticipation of this, he says :

u ^ n i

Anutva-mahattvabhyam, by minuteness and magni

tude. ^j5T c irmTKarmma-gunah, actions and attributes. ^ Oha ; and. Vyakhyatah, explained.

16. By minuteness and magnitude, Actions and Attributes also are explained (to be void of minuteness and magnitude). 272.

208 VAISESIKA PHILOSOPHY.

The meaning is that as minuteness and magnitude are not posses sed of minuteness and magnitude, so Actions are not possessed of either of them, nor are Attributes possessed of either of them. This treatment as such however, is derivative as aforesaid. This is the import. 16.

Bhdsya. Minuteness and magnitude may be predicated of action and attribute.

Length and shortness do not exist in length and shortness. Upaskdra. He extends ths process of minuteness and, magnitude to length and shortness,

II \3 I \ \ \\3 \\

Eteua, hereby. 5>J?cr^?rr% Dirghatva-hrasvatve, length and shortness. STTW^ Vyakhyate, explained.

17. Hereby are explained Length and Shortness. 273.

Length, and shortness also are not possessed of length and short ness, Whatever is productive of magnitude, the same is productive of length ; whatever is productive of minuteness, the same is productive of shortness. If it be asked, the cause being the same, how there can be this difference in the effect, the reply is that it is proved or explain ed, like attributes produced by burning, by the difference of antecedent non-existence. Wherever there is minuteness, there is shortness ; where there is eternal minuteness, there is eternal shortness, etc. This is the meaning of the extension or analogy. 17

How Measure or Extension is destroyed. Upaskdra. He now points out that which destroys (Measure or Extension): _

u

Anitye, in the non-eternal ^TpTcZW; Anityam, non-eternal, peri shable.

18. In the non-eternal, (Measure or Extension also is) non- eternal. 274.

All this four-fold Measure or Extension, being present in perisha ble substance, disappears only on the destruction of the substratum, and not on account of contradictory, other attributes.

Objection. But the Measure or Extension of a water-pot is destro yed, although the water-pot still exists; how else, even after the breaking of the ueok of the water-pot, can there be the recognition, "This is that very water-pot"?

Answer. This is not the case, in as much as the destruction of the water-pot is necessary or inevitable, by the destruction of the substratum. For, it stands neither to reason nor to experience that, the binary atomic aggregates being destroyed on the destruction of the conjunction of two ultimate atoms, there is non-destruction of the tertiary atomic aggregates constituted by the binary ones, and of limestone, etc., constituted by the tertiary atomic aggregates.

Objection. How then does the recognition arisa?

Answer. It is an error, like the recognition, "This is that very flame of the lamp."

Objection. But the recognition of the the lamp is certainly correct knowledge; whereas minuteness and magnitude undergo production and destruction.

Answer. This cannot be maintained, because it has been already mentioned that their destruction is not possible without the destruction of their substratum. 18.

What Measure or Extension is eternal.

I Upaskdra. Is then minuteness, inhering in ultimate atoms, destroyed, as are Colour r etc., of terrene ultimate atoms? Is magnitude also, inhering in ether, etc., destroyed, aa are Sound, Understanding, etc.? In anticipation of these objections, he says:

n

Nitye, in the eternal. f^R^q; Nityam, eternal.

19. In the eternal, (Measure or Extension also is eternal.

275.

Measure or Extension which exists in eternal substances, e. g., ether, etc., and also in the ultimate atoms, is eternal since there is nothing to destroy it. 19.

Eternal Measure or Extension is called Parimandalam.

Upaskdra. He states the name by which the Measure or Extension of the ultimate atom is denoted in the Vaisesika system:

n vs i ? i ** n

Nityam, eternal. TfcW^TO; Parimandalam, Parimandala, the allround, or the spherical. Measure or Extension of the ultimate atom.

20. Parimandala is eternal. 276.

Pdrimandalyam has the same denotation as Parimandalam/ So it has been said, "Elsewhere than in Pdrimandalya, etc." 20.

Proof of true Minuteness and true Shortness.

Upaskdra. It may .be asked: If minuteness, or shortness as applied respectively to a jnjube, an emblic myrobalan, etc., and to fuel-sticks, sugar-canes, etc., is not transcendental or real, (but apparent only), what then is the proof of them as transcendental?

Accordingly he says:

Avidya, false knowledge. Nescience. *3 Cha, moreover, and. Vidya-lingam, mark or indication of knowledge.

210 VAIEIKA PHILOSOPHY.

21. False knowledge is, moreover, the (inferential) mark of (true) knowledge. 277,

The mark of knowledge is false knowledge. The meaning therefore, is this: The cognition or consciousness of minuteness in respect of a jujube, an eiublic myrobalan, etc., and the consciousness of shortness in respect of sticks for fuel, sugar-canes, etc., are all avidySi or false knowledge, inasmuch as real or transcendental minute ness and shortness do not exist there. Moreover, it is admitted by those who hold the doctrine of anyatha-khyati, illusion of the senses, that every where unscientific knowledge is just preceded i. e., pre supposed, by scientific knowledge. So that true consciousness of minuteness, as well as true consciousness of shortness, should be inferred. This is the meaning. In like manner, secondary use of words being impossible without the primary use, minuteness and shortness, in the primary sense of the terms, must be thought of to be present somewhere. 21.

Vivriti. -But why should substance, in the form of the ultimate atom, be admitted, when it is not perceptible to the senses ? On the other hand, substance which is perceptible to the senses, such as a tertiary atomic aggregate, etc., should be recognised.

To meet this objection he says :

Avidya/ i. e., unscientific knowledge, in other words, cognitions, such as " Earth is eternal," Water is etrnal," etc., of which the obje-rs are wholes made up of parts, is the inferential mark/ of Vidya, i. e., scientific knowledge, namely, that Earth is eternal, of which the object is (i. e., in respect of), the ultimate atom ; because everywhere scientific knowledge, is preceded by unscientific know ledge, for nowhere it is possible for a man to have the erroneous idea that Earth is eternal, if he does not know what eternality is. This is an indirect proof. The method ef proof of ultimate atoms as realities, which has been pointed out before, should be preferred.

Ether and Soul possess infinite Measure tr Extension.

Upaakdra. H.e describes the nature or proper from of the Measure or Extension of Ether, to. which has been already inferred by the mark of their substance-ness.

II \9 I t I RR II

Vibhavat, in consequence of omnipresence, infinite ex pansion, or universality. *TT^ Mahan, vast. Immense. Infinitely large. H^istf: Akasah, Ether. ?rn Tatha, so. The same. 5* Cha, and. Also.

• n?TT Atma, Soul.

22. Ether, in consequence of its vast expansion, is infinitely large. So also is the Soul. 278.

Vibhavah denotes capacity for conjunction, or the characteristic of being in conjunction, with all dense bodies ; and this, being im possible, or incapable of proof, without vast magnitude, leads to the inference of vast magnitude. It is also observed by us that Sounds

KANlDA SftTRAS VII, 1, 23. 211

are produced, just at one and the same time, both at Bar&nast (Benares) nd at Pdtaliputra (Patna) ; It is one and the same Ether that is here the combinative cause. Consequently the pervasion of Ether is proved. Pervasion, again, consists only in connection with infinitely vast Measure or Extension. To suppose a diversity of Ether would be superfluous ; hence only one Ether should be recognised. Such re ference as " A portion or division of Ether/ is, however, relative, being due to conjunction with the water-pot, etc.. (occupying a limited space, or) possessing limits. And the relativity consists in the charac teristic of being in conjunction with substances possessing limits.

Tatha atma : As Ether is immensely vast, since it possesses universal pervasion, that is, the characteristic of being in conjunction with all dense bodies, so is also the Soul immensely vast. Did not the characteristic of being in conjunction with all dense bodies belong to Soul, then action would not be produced in the respective dense bodies, as a result of conjunction of the Soul carrying its adristam or destiny, inasmuch as adristam, being present in a different substratum, is dependent upon or stands in need of, proximity, (or a common plat form), in order that it may be productive of action ; and that proximity is nothing but conjunction of the Soul carrying its adris*(iml Likewise, as the body moves on, the production of knowledge, pleasure, etc., in particular situations, is impossible or incapable of proof except on the theory of the universal pervasion of the Sould. Consequently, the Soul also is pervasive. The Soul, however, is not only one, like Ether, since, as has been already pointed out, difference of status or condition is observed. This is the import.

In these cases, the magnitude is infinite, and is also eternal, like the minuteness of the ultimate atom.

In like manner, should be inferred infinite length in the case of Ether, etc., and infinite shortness in the case of the ultimate atom. 22.

Mind is infinitely small.

Upaskdra. -It may be asked that Mind being all-pervading, inasrauoh as it is always a touchless substance, like Ether, and inasrauoh as it is, like the soul, the field wherein takes place the conjunction which is the non-oombi native cause of knowledge, etc., why has it nots been raertioned along with Ether and the Soul ? Henoe he says :

II V9 I \ \

Tat-abhavat, in consequenes of the non-existence of that, i. e., universal expansion. ?mj, Arm, atomic. Minute. Small, ift: Man ah, mind. The internal organ.

23. In consequence of non-existence of universal expansion, Mind is atomic or infinitely small. 2,79.

Manah is ami, in consequence of the non-existence of that/ i. ., universal expansion or the characteristic of being in conjunction with all dense bodies. .Did the characteristic of being in conjunction with all dense bodies exist (in it), then, there being simultaneous conjunction with |0tt>re|3ian <6ne sense, simultaneity of cognitions would

212 VAI&ESIKA PHILOSOPHY

follow, with, the result that there would be no particular attachment or act of attention. The two inferences, ^namely, that Mind is all-pervad ing, because it is a touchless substance, and that mind is all-pervading, because it is the seat of conjunction which is the non-combinative cause of cognition, etc.) are, however, unproved in point of their sub ject matter, so long as Mind is not proved (to exist), while in the state of Mind being proved (to exist), they are counter-oppposed by proof which leads to the cognizance of the object i. e., Mind as an atom.)

Objection. Minuteness cannot be thus proved from non-existence of universal expansion, since the inference would be unduly applicable to the water-pot, etc.

Answer. It would not, inasmuch as (only) non-pervasion (and not atomic-ness) is proved by non-existence of universal pervasion.

In one body, therefore, there is just one mind, since the supposition of plurality would entail randundancy. To imagine parts even of a single mind would be showing exuberance of imagination. Moreover, being touchless, they cannot originate. By such arguments, (infinite) minuteness is proved. This is the import. 23

Space is all-pervading. Upasltdra. He states the argument for the infinite magnitude of space :

\ \ \ W \\

?T% G-unaih, by attributes. f\3T Dik, space. 5g[<5qffi[ Vyakhyata, ex plained.

24. By attributes, Space is explained (to be all-pervading). 280.

The meaning is that, * gunaih, i. e., by attributes characterised as priority and posteriority inherent in all dense bodies, and appearing in the forms of the intuitions of the Bast, the West, etc., common to all persons inhabiting all the island or divisions of the globe, space also is explained under the aspect of pervasion. For, it will be men tioned later on that in the production of (the notions of) priority and posteriority, the cause is relative understanding having for its subject- matter larger and smaller number of conjunctions with the conjunct. Moreover, the supposition of a plurality of space is contravened by (the fault of) superfluity of supposition.

Objection. How, then, can there be the intuition and the expression or reference, namely, " Ten spaces (i. e., quarters)"?

Answer. The objection does not arise, since it has been already stated that they are due to particular upddhi or external condi tions. 24.

Vpaskdra. He explains the universal expansion of Time :

• n u 1 1 1 w n

KANlDA SftTRAS VII, 1, 24. 213

Karane, in cause. To a specific cause, or to a universal cause. Kalah, time.

25. Time (is the name given) to (a specific, or a universal) cause. (Hence, in either case it is all-p3rvading).281

Time is the name which fully designates the substance which is the cause of the intuitions of reciprocal prior and posterior, simultaneity non-simultaneity, slow, and fast.- Such an intuition, common to all persons in all countries, would be impossible without the universal pervasion of time. Universal parvasion, that is to say, connection with infinite magnitude, therefore, belongs to it.

Or, in virtue of such intuitions as "barn now/ Time is known to be the efficient or occasional cause of all that is produced; a-id this is dependent upon universal pervasion, for an occasional cause must be, as a rule, in proximity with the cambinative and non-combinative causes.

Or, the use or application of past, future, and present is universal: consequently time is all-prevading.

Or, time is the name of the substance which is the cause of the application or use of moments, lavas (thirty-six winks), hours, watches, days, days-and-nights, fortnights, months, seasons, half-years, years, etc- Consequently, such use or application being universal, time is universal, and therefore, infinitely large.

The supposition of its manifoldness is, as has been already stated, contravened by (the fault of) superfluity of supposition. 25.

Here ends the first chapter of the seventh book in the Commentary ,of Sankara upon the VaiSesika Aphorisms.

214 VAIS*ESIKA PHILOSOPHY.

BOOK SEVENTH CHAPTER SECOND.

Number : Proof of Unity.

[7paslcdra.~ln the second chapter there are five section : (a) the section on the examina tion of attributes existing in one, and in more than one, object ; (b) the section on the examination of attributes existing only in more than one object ; (c) the section, in passing, on the examination of the relation of sound and significance (i. c., of words and their meaning); (d) the section of the examination of attributes existing in one object and baring for their non-combinative cause conjunction with universal substances void of particular or distingui shing attributes ; and, (c) the section on the examination of combination. Now, the percep tibility of Number, etc., also is dependent upon combination in the same object with magni tude. Accordingly, with a view to examine number, and also separateness, immediately after the determination of measure of extension, in violation of the order of enumeration, the author says :

Rupa-rasa-gandha-sparsa-vytirekat, because of difference from Colour .Taste, Smell, and Touch. smfaTTO ArtMntaram, a different object, t^^q Ekatvain, unity.

1. Because of its difference from Colour, Taste, Smell, and Touch, Unity is a different object. 282.

Rftpa-rasa-gandha-sparsa is indicatory of all attributes other than the pentad beginning with number, (i. e. } number, measure or extension, separateness, conjunction, and disjunction). Vyatirekat* = because of difference or divergence. The meaning, therefore, is this i li One water-pot Such particular intuition can be produced by some particularity. And that particularity is not colour, etc., for the intui tion is produced by difference from, or without, them. Nor is it the being a water-pot, etc., that is the condition or occasion (of the intui tion), for such intuition is produced in respect of a piece of cloth also. Nor is unity a Genus, like Existence, for its denotation is neither less- nor more than that of Existence- Nor, again, is it a Genus confined to substance only, for it is neither less nor more extensive than Subs tance-ness. Nor does the difference or mutual distinction (of Unity and Substance-ness) arsie from difference of intuition, even though they are neither less nor more extensive than each other ; for if differ ence of intuition were caused by itself, existence also would be differ entiated if, on the other hand, it were to be caused by difference of subject-matter, then, difference of subject-matter, as has been stated, is not possible, since, otherwise, there would be difference of the characteristic of being a small water-pot and of being a large water- pot. Nor is the view, held by Bhusana, that unity is non-difference from (or identity withj itself, a reaaoi.able one. Were self-identity of the water-pot its Unity, then there would be no intuition of Unity in the case of a cloth, etc., Bhuiaha s other view, namely, that difference- from itself constitutes Duality, etc., is also not valid ; for variety of uses of difference from itself or self-distinction, as being common to three, four, and so on, is not possible or capable of proof. This is the- import.r 1.

Proof of Separateness.

Upaskdra^With a view to prove separateness also, by means of its similarity to Unity,, he says :

KANiDA SftTRAS VII, 2, 2. 215

II V* I * I * II

HIT Tatha, similarly. ^W7^n Prithakatvam, separatenesg. Indivi duality.

2. Similarly, Separateness (is a different object). 283.

The practice of discrimination or separation verily exists, in the form, namely " This is separate from, other than, a different object from, this. For, separation means definite apprehension or grasp, having regard to certain limits. Here, again, Colour, stc., are not the cause, since they are not its invariable antecedents, and also because the limits (of them) are undefinable.

Objection. Separateness is nothing but anyonya-abhdva, mutual non-existence, non-existence which opposes identitity ; for, like " This is separate from, other than, a different object from, this," the intuition u (This is) different from this " rests on anyonya-abhdva.

Answer. li is not so. Although the terms separate, etc., are synonymous, they do not convey the sense of anyonya-ahdva, since in that case the use of the ablative ( from ,) would not be possible or reasonable, because the intuitions, " This is separate from this, " and " This is not this, " contain different subject-matter. Nor is separat eness an object or entity which possesses anyonya-abhdva, for , then, in " A cloth is a not water-pot, ,, there would also be the use of the ablative. Objection. The intuitions, " It is separate, and It is distinct, " having the same form, Separateness is nothing but distinct ness. Answer. It is not. For, in that case, while Maitra possessed the distinction of a staff, the intuition, " This Maitra is separate fcrm Maitra. " would also arise. Likewise it would entail the application of Separateness to Ether it is distinguished by Sound, and to the Soul when it is distinguished by Understanding.

For the same reason, dissimilarity or difference in property also is not Separateness, inasmuch as it would entail, in the case of a water- pot, which has been burnt to redness, such usage as " This water-pot is separate from the dark water-pot." For, it is the possession of properties repugnant to a thing, that constitutes difference in property from that thing. And this appears in the state of redness immediately after darkness.

Nor is it Genus itself, which is Separateness. For, the limits of a -Genus are undefinable. Moreover, it would entail inter-mixture of classes ; for, if it exist only in existent things, then its denotation would be neither less nor more than that of existence, andlif it exist in substance only, then, than that of Substance-ness. 2.

Unity and Separateness do not exist in Unity and Separateness.

Upaskdra. It may be argued that inasmuch a3 there is thia nsage, namely " On* Unity," "Separateness is separate from colour, etc.," therefore (there is Unity also in Unity, fieparateness, and similarly, iu other and other instances. Accordingly he saya :

216 VAIiEiA PHILOSOPHY.

u vs i * i \ (\

Ekatva-ekaprithaktvayoh, in Unity and Separa-

teness of one, or Individuality.

abhavah, non-existence of Unity and Individuality. Anutva-mahattvabhyum, by minuteness and magnitude: Vyakhyatah, explained.

3. The non-existence of Unity and Individuality, in Unity and Individuality, is explained by minuteness and magnitude.

284.

The meaning is that as minuteness and magnitude do not possess minuteness and magnitude, the application of which to them is deriva tive, so Unity and Individuality do not possess Unity and Individu ality do not possess Unity and Individuality, the application of which to them is derivative.

" By Actions, Actions," " By Attributes, Attributes," these two aphorisms (vii. 24, 25, infra") also, which employ analogy, here seem to carrv the same import as the preceding ( i, e., the present ) aphorism employing an analogy. The meaning is that as Actions are not possess ed of Actions, nor are Attributes possessed of Attributes, so Unity and Individuality are not possessed ef Unity and Individuality. 3.

Unity is not universal, but is confined to /Substance only.

Upaskdra. It may be asked : The application or use of Unity is indeed common to Attributes and Actions- What does here lead to the conclusion that Unity exists only in Substances and not in Attributes, etc ? To this, he replies :

n vs i R i a n

Nih-amkhatvat, being void of Number. ^v&fTOiJFn Karm- ma-gunanam, of Actions and Attributes, ^rssfa^ Sarvva-ekatvam, Uni versal Unity. T Na, not. f^q^ 1 Vidyate, exsists.

4. Actions and Attributes being void of Number, universal Unity does not exist. 285.

Unity of all that does not exist. On what ground ? So he says. Nihsamkhyatvam means the state or condition of standing away from Number. Thus Actions and Attributes are void of Number. Number being an attribute, Number by no means exists in attributes ; nor, again, in Actions, because Attributes are excluded from, or denied to, Action, since, otherwise, Actions would possess Substance-ness- And the attributeness of Number has been proved, and also the Nunu ber-ness of Unity. This is the import. 4.

Cognition of Unity in Attribute and Action is erroneous.

Upaskdra. How, then, do such cognitions arise, as " One colour,"" One taste, "etc. P 1 To this, he replies :

KANiDA SftTRAS VII, 2,5. 217

I V9 I * I * II

yT rf Bhrdntam, mistaken ; Erroneous. <T<^ Tat, that, i. e., the cogni tion of Unity in Action and Attribute.

5. That (i.e., the cognition of Unity in Action and Attri bute) is erroneous. 286.

The meaning is that the cognition of Unity which arises in the case of Attributes and Actions, is erroneous. Cognition this is the complement of the aphorism, because an objection of the opponent has bee i thrown into it. The application (of Unity in these cases) is, however derivative, and it is non-difference from itself, or self-identity T which constitutes the derivation. Nor is Unity nothing but that (i. e., self identity), for the reply has been already given. 4.

Bhdsya : explains VII. ii. 5 as demolishing the view contained in VII. ii, 4.

Indirect proof of Unity.

Upaskdra. It may bo asked : tk Let this application of Unity bo secondary in tho case of substances also and the intuition of it erroneous, what is the use of unity at all ? " To- this, he replies :

Ekatva-abhavat, in consequence of the non-existence of Unity. *T?rfi: Bhaktih, derivative (function. Secondariness. 3 Tu, but. However. ^ Na, not. frq^ Vidyate, exists.

6. In consequence of the non-existence of Unity, however, secondariness would not exist. 287.

If Unity in its transcendental or real sense be nowhere to be obser ved, then the application of the term could not be secondary, for the secondary, has for its antecedent the primary, use. Nor, again, could the intuition be erroneous, for error has for its antecedent certain knowledge. For it is the certainly known that is (erroneously) attri buted, and not the erroneous, for the intuition of the non-existent has been disproved, and the intuition of the otherwise (i. e., the existent) has been proved. 6.

J3hdsya : explains^?!!, ii. 6in support of the interpretation of VII. ii. 5, thus: Did not unity exist everywhere, there would be no bhalfti, pro duction, of things at all. For, any one thing is the joint product of several things ; but there can be no such production in the absence of one-ness or unity ; unity, therefore, exists in all places.

Unity and Separateness of one do not exist in effect and cause.

Upaskdra. Effect and cause, e. g., threads and cloth, possess Unity and single Indivi duality. Single Individuality also belongs to them for the very same reason for which Unity belong to them. For it is not possible that a thing can be separate from itself. For when a piece of cloth is torn asunder and the threads are drawn out one after another, a piece of cloth different from them is not observed. Were a piece of cloth different from the threads, then it shou Id be observed under the characteristic of being different from them, like a water-pot. In like manner, a water-pot also is nothing but identical with the two potsherds (which compose it), since a water-pot also being broken, nothing over and above the two potsherds is observed. Accordingly it has been said, " A whole made up of parts is nothing else than the parts.": This is the view of the Sftmkhya thinkers. And for the purpose of controverting it, he says :

218 VAI&ESIKA PHILOSOPHY.

v* I * I V9 II

Karyya-karanayoh, of or in effect and cause. Ekatva-ekaprithakatva-abhavat, in consequence of non-exist ence of identity and heterogeneity. f^rclNr 1 ^^?^ Ekatva-ekapritha- ktvam, Unity and Individuality. ?f Na, not. fcent Vidyate, exists.

7. Effect and cause are neither the same nor similar (in being equally distinguished from all other things) ; therefore, Unity and (single) Individuality do not exist in them. 288.

Effect and cause these two are not one. Why ? So he says : from non-existence of ekatva, i. e., from non-existence of non-difference and because co-existence of plurality and unity in the same substratum is not therefore, possible, as would be required by the proposition that the very same thing which is the effect, is also the cause, e. y., that threads are a piece of cloth.

Objection. But there is as a matter of fact such co-existence in the same substratum, seeing that the term, waters, is applied to a drop of water only, and also seeing that the term, wives, is applied to a single Woman.

Answer. Such is not the case. For such applications can be possible by reference to multiplicity of constituent parts. In the case of the ultimate atom of water, however, such application takes place, according to some thinkers, by means of multiplicity of colour, etc., naturally belonging to it ; while, according to others, it is due to the characteristic force of sound or language which should not be found fault with. Nor do fibres present in a salvinia cucullata and honey comb obtain the application of cloth. Nor do threads singly prevail to contain and to drag anything.

Nor, again, can the two, effect and cause, become the substratum of single Individuality, for it is saor. that they become the limits of each other. How ? So he says, eka-prithakatva-abhavat, i. e., in consequence of the non-existence of eka-prithakatvam, or non-hetero geneity or non-difference in property ; in other v\ords, because, of effect and cause, difference in property is observed, for it is universal among mankind that the notions of thread and cloth, as well as of warter-pot and potsherds, are embraced by different acts of understanding.

Objection. Why, then, are not Colour, Taste, Smell, and Touch, cognised by their difference (or separately from one another, i. e., one after another always) ?

Answer. Because of the absolute similarity of their forms, i. e., modes of manifestation. And when sometimes, as in a piece of cloth of variegated colour, etc., separate cognition also takes place, it is because the differences of Number, Measure or Extension, etc., are most mani fest there. 7.

KANADA StTTRAB VII, 2, 8. 219

Only non-eterml unity and separateness of one proceed from like attributes in their causes.

Uj> i->kdra.T3.o points out that non-eternal Unity and Separateness-of-one have for their antecedents attributes of these causes.

H V? I R | t; H

Etat, this, i. e., the characteristic of having the attributes of the cause as antecedents. ^n^T3i4t : Anityayoh, of the two non-eternals, namely, Number and Separateness. 5 7T<Rf<WC Vyakhyatam, explained.

8. This, (as) explained in the case of the two non-eternals (namely, Number and Separateness, should be understood only in the case of non-eternal Unity and Separateness of one). 289.

The characteristic of having attributes of the cause as antecedents,.

which has been explained in the case of non-eternal Number and

Separateness, should be understood to apply to only non-eternal Unity

and Separateness-of-one, since other Numbers and Separatenesses are

produced by relative understanding. As the characteristic of having

attributes of the cause as antecedents belongs to non-eternal colour

and touch of Fire, so it belongs also to non-eternal Unity and Separate

ness-of-one. This is the import. It follows, therefore, that Numbers

beginning with two and ending with the highest arithmetical number,

possess or reside in more than one substance. It also follows that

separatenesses beginning with Separateness of two and ending with.

Separateuess of the highest arithmetical number, co-exist in the same

substratum with those Numbers. Now, the processes of the production

and destruction of Duality, etc., are as follows ; When two homoge

neous or heterogeneous substances are in contact with the eye, cogni

tion of the attribute qualified with the notion or characteristic of

Unity, which is the genus of the two numbers, Unities, inhering in the

two substances, are produced immediately after the elimination of differ

ence in thought i.e., the assimilation of the two substances under the notion

(of Unity); and it is this cognition which is called relative understanding

or the conception of the one in the many. By it Duality is produced in

the two substances. Then there takes place reasoning about the notion

or characteristic of Duality which is the genus of the Duality so produ

ced. After it, simultaneously there appear destruction of relative under

standing by means of that reasoning, and a qualified or concrete-

understanding having for its content the attribute Duality as qualified

with the notion or characteristic of Duality. And in the next

moment there are simultaneously produced destruction of the attribute-

Duality in consequence of the destruction of relative understanding,

and cognition, in the form of "Two substances," qualified with Duality.

Thereafter, results Samskdra, impresssion or a fixed idea, from the

above cognition of substances qualified with Duality. Thus, to sum

up : Beginning with contact with the sense and ending with Samskdra

or impression, there are eight moments ; viz., contact of the sense with

the substratum of Duality which is going to be produced, then cognU

tion of the genus inherent in the attribute Unity, then relative under

standing in the form of cognizance of the many along with the

220 VAI&ESIKA PHILOSOPHY.

attribute Unity as qualified with the generic notion or characteristic of Unity, then production of the attribute Duality, then cognition of the genus inherent in Duality, then cognition of the attribute Duality as qualified with that genus, then cognition of substances as qualified with the attribute Duality, and then Samskdra or impression. The order of destruction, again, is as follows : Destruction of the generic notion or characteristic of Unity, from relative understanding ; destruction of relative understanding, from cognition of the generic notion or characteristic of Duality : destruction of the generic notion or characteristic of Duality, from cognition of the attribute Duality ; destruction of cognition of the attribute Duality, from cognition of subs tances as qualified with the possession of Duality; and destruction of the latter, from Samskdra or impression, or from cognition of other objects.

Objection. Why is not cognition of substance qualified with the possession of Unity, itself produced after the cognition of Unity, when all the causes of its production are present there ? For, cognition of attribute taking place, there can be no delay in the cognition of substance. From that same cognition (of substance so qualified), therefore, there being destruction of relative understanding, from its destruction will follow, at its very next moment, destruction of Duality. Hence destruction of Duality resulting at the very moment prior to the qualified or concrete cognition in the form of " Two substances," the production of cognition of substance as qualified with the possession of Duality, becomes impossible.

Answer. The argument is defective ; for, it is relative understand ing uninfluenced or unobstructed or unobscured by the causes of the production of Duality, etc., which invariably produces cognition qualified with the content of substance, the above supposition being made on the strength of the result.

Objection. But still destruction of relative understanding being caused by the very Samskdra or impression produced by itself, the fault, pointed out above, again appears all the same, since there is possibility of destruction of Duality at the very moment prior to the cognition qualified with Duality.

Answer. It does not, since cognition of pure attribute, or of attribute unassociated with substance, is not productive of Samskdra or impression. For pure attribute can be nowhere called back to mind, since everywhere it is only by the background of, or as contained in, substance, that there can be recollection of attribute.

Objection. Let it be so; still inasmuch as even at the time of the production of qualified or concrete cognition, there may be destruction of Duality, the possibility of non-production of qualified cognition remains in the very same state. For qualified or specific cognition, illuminative of that which is present, cannot possibly appear at the moment of the destruction of the qualification or that which serves to specify, since there is no such observation.

Answer. This is not the case. For, cognition of that which serves to specify, contact of sense with that which, is specified, and non-appre hension of non-association of the above two, which make up the whol*

KANADA SUTRAS VII, 2, 8. 221

cause of specefic cognition, are possible also in the case of the subject under discussion. If, however, contact of sense with that which serves to specify, is also required, then this too existing at the preceding moment, the very contact, which exists at the preceding moment, is observed to be the cause. That which serves to specify, or a qualifica tion or distinction, which is beyond the compass of specified cognition, may also exist: for, it is only the being the object or content of cogni tion productive of specified cognition, which determines the charac teristic of being a distinction or that which serves to specify, but the being the object of specified cognition does not also determine it.

Objection. In this view, an upalalcsdnam or indication also will come to have the nature of a visesaiiani or distinction.

Answer. By no means; for, existence in the same substratum, which is invariable and which does not cause specified cognition, determines the characteristic of being a distinction, whereas an indi cation exists in a different substratum from that which it indicates. Thus, when there is possession of a raven in the house of Devadatta, then the raven is a distinction. But when, flying over the house, it does not exist in it, then the raven is an indication.

Objection. This being so it would follow that in such cases as "There is taste in that which possesses colour," etc., colour, etc., also would be distinctions.

Answer. This is not an objection, since it is desired to be so. Objection. Then there too taste will exist.

Answer. No, since that which exists in something distinguished by the possession of something else, does not necessarily exist in that by which it is so distinguished. For a distinction and that which is dis tinguished are not one and the same thing.

Objection At the time of the destruction of Duality, there exists no connection with the distinction. How can specified cognition, or cognition of that which is distinguished, be produced?

Answer. The question does not arise, for the meaning of the term, the being distinguished or qualified, is only non-variation or non- deviation or non-divergence from that (i.. e., the distinction); whereas the manifestation of that (i. e. } the distinction) exists there (i. e., in specified cognition) also.

Hence, the teachers say, nothing remains unproved.

In like manner, on the analogy of the production and destruction of Duality, should be understood the production and destruction of Triplicity.

Duality is destructible by the destruction of relative understand ing, for an existing attribute cannot be destroyed in the absence of another attribute opposed to the destruction of its substratum, like ultimate cognition, since ulitimate cognition is destroyed by destruc tion of adristam. In some cases it is destroyed also from destruction.

222 VAlgESIKA PHILOSOPHY.

of substratum, e.g., where there is knowledge of the genus, unity, simul taneously with action in the constituent parts of the substratum of Duality. It is in this way: Action in constituent parts and cognition of the genus; Disjunction and relative understanding; destruction of Conjunction and production of attribute Duality; destruction of constituted substance and cognition of the genus Duality; here des truction of Duality results from destruction of substance, and destruc tion of relative understanding from cognition of the genus Duality; since, destruction of relative understanding taking place at the same time with destruction of Duality, there exists no relation, resembling the relation of effect and cause, between them. Where, however, there is simultaneity of action in the constituent parts of the substratum of Duality and relative understanding, there destruction of Duality results from both destruction of substratum and destruction of relative under standing. It is in this way: Action in the constituent parts and rela tive understanding; production of disjunction and production of Duality; destruction of conjunction and cognition of the genus Duality; destruction of constituted substance and destruction of relative under standing; destruction of Duality from both, the capacity of each for destroying being observed. This process properly fits in with the- theory of two cognitions being related as the destroyed and the- destroyer ; and it is this theory which is legitimate or established by proof.

Objection. The entire group of cause being the same in the cases of Duality, Triplicity, etc., how is it that there is this difference in their effects, namely, Duality is constituted by two Unities, Triplicity by three Unities ?

Answer. The question cannot arise, since Duality, etc., do not exist in Unity.

Objection. It is Duality, Triplicity, etc., inhering in the combina tive cause, which determine cognitions of Duality, Triplicity, etc.

Answer. This is not the case ; for prior to the production of Duality, etc., Duality, being absent therefrom, the enquiry after the cause of Duality, etc., does not cease even there, and the existence of such difference in relative understanding, and in Unities, or in the supposition of that on the strength of the result, is contravened by non-observation.

Objection. Let the use also of Duality, etc., proceed from the same source ; what is the need of Duality, etc.? Difference will result from difference of adristam.

Answer. Were it so, Triplicity, and Four-ness, would be sometimes- produced also by the set of causes originative of Duality. Hence it would entail non-uniformity. Moreover, it may be said in this con nexion that difference in the effect is explained by difference in prior non-existence ; aa in the case of colour, taste, smell, and touch, pro duced by burning, difference is produced under the same set of causes.

Objection. Prior non-existence also ia common to all, or ia th& j same in all cases.

KANADA SUTRAS VII, 2, 8. 223

Answer. It is not ; for each prior non-existence in each parti cular case has been ascertained to have causality towards its own effect only.

Or, the process should be carried on in this way that Duality is produced by pure relative understanding, and Triplicity by relative understanding accompanied by Duality. In such cases as " I have killed a hundred of ants/ Duality is not at all produced in conse quence of the non-existence of combinative cause. Accordingly, it should be observed, the use of number is there derivative or secondary.

Professor Sridhara opines that in the case of an army, a forest, etc., iu consequence of the non-existence of constant relative under standing, only multiplicity is produced, but not hundred, thousand, and ether numbers. With regard to this view, Professor Udayana observes that if such be the case, then in these cases no doubt could arise whether it be hundred, or thousand, etc., nor could there be such cognition as " A large army," " A. larger army," and that hence this is not the case. Here the matter should be discussed in the following manner : Multiplicity is either nothing but number commencing from Triplicity, and terminating with the highest arith metical number, or another number different from them. It cannot be the first since in the case also of any army, a forest, etc., there is as a rule production of hundred, thousand, and other numbers. Nor can it be second, since multiplicity different in mark from Triplicity, tc., is not observed. Multiplicity, therefore, is only number, namely, hundred, etc., produced by relative understanding which is uniformly constant in each case and which does not depend upon Unity. The manifestation of hundred, etc., does not, however, take place there, since nothing exists there which can manifest it.

We, on the other hand, say that multiplicity is really a different number, existing in the same substratum with Triplicity, etc., and producible by relative understanding productive of Triplicity, etc. It is so in consequence of the difference of prior non-existence. How else can such a statement be possible as " All I can say is that there .are many"? I do not know particularly whether they be a hundred or a thousand "? As magnitude or largeness and length co-exist in the same substance, so do Triplicity, etc., and multiplicity co-exist in one and the same substratum. For, to the query, " Shall I bring a hundred or a thousand of mango fruits ?" the reply is given, viz., " Let a large number of them be brought. What is the use of inquiring about a particular number ?" This being so, Triplicity is produced by rela tive understanding accompained by Duality, Four-ness by relative understanding accompained by Triplicity, and so On, one after the other. In the production of multiplicity, on the contrary, there is no rsuch uniformity or law that the relative understanding must be quali fied with the possession or accompaniment of all the numbers which .stand behind it. Hence in the case of an army, a forest, and the like, only multiplicity is produced, but not any other number ; and sj the alternatives amongst which Doubt has to swing also become really non-existent.

224 VAlSESIKA PHILOSOPHY.

Separateneas, again, exists in the same substratum with that (i. e., number). Hence as is Duality, so is also separateness of two ; and so on.

Objection. The use of separateness of two, etc., being possible by means of separatenesses of one existing in the same substratum with Duality, Triplicity, etc., what is the use of Separateness of two, etc.?

Answer. The question cannot be raised in view of the discrepancy that while in the case of " A cloth and a clod are separate from a water- pot" there is no perception of the separateness of the dual (cloth and clod) being produced by the dual and the single limiting each other, there is such perception in the case of their individual separateness. Nor does this theory entail and explain Priority of two, for Priority of two is explained and possible by means of two priorities existing in the same substratum, or co-extensive, with. Duality- The contradiction in respect of one being the limit of the other, which exists in the case of separate ness, does not exist in the case of Priority ; since the intuition. " These two are prior," is possible or proved in same way as the intuition. " These two are blue." For, though two bodies occupying the same part of space possess equal manifoldness of conjunctions with the con junct, yet production of different effects is possible by moans of the difference of the conjunction of space and body, which is the non-com binative cause. Moreover, as two Unities jointly become the non-com binative cause of Duality, it being, in like manner,, possible for two separatenesses of one or single individualities, jointly operating, to possess non-combinative causality towards the production of separate- ness of two, or dual individuality, it is not observed that more than, one i.e., many, conjunctions are, by their joint operatioii, originative of one effect, which is not a constituted substance, by means of the proximity known as combination in the same object with the effect. On the other hand, by means of the proximity known as combination in the same object with the cause, a larger number of conjunctions of threads and the cylinder of wood in a loom do really originate a single conjunction of a cloth and the cylinder of wood in a loom This is the direction.

On the analogy of destruction of Duality, etc., should be under stood also destruction of separateness of two, etc. 8.

Vivriti. It may be objected : " The thread is distinct from the cloth and is dissimilar to the cloth " such intuitions are simply erro neous, since it is threads conjoint among themselves, which becomes the cloth, and since no proof exists that the cloth is distinct from the threads. It cannot be said that difference from the thread can be proved to exist in the cloth by means of its dissimilarity to the thread, for dissimilarity itself is not proved. For, the nature of the cloth does not constitute its dissimilarity to the thread, inasmuch as in the state of the manifestation of the cloth, the nature of the cloth i.i recognised in the threads themselves. Accordingly it has been taught by Professor fjvarakrisna :

The effect is existent (in the cause, in an enveloped state, prior to- its production) ; For, there can be no production and manifestation of

KANADA StfTRAS VII, 2, 9. 225

that which is non-existent ; there can be no connection of the cause with the effect (if the latter be non-existent) ; (some connection must exist between the cause and the effect, since) the production of every thing is not possible from everything else ; there can be production of one thing from another, if the two are mutually related as the producer and the producible (and such relation cannot be possible if the effect be non-existent) ; and the cause and the effect are identical, (so that the one cannot be non-existent, while the other is existent). S&mkhya- kdrikd, verse 9).

This being the case, the non-existence of non-difference and non- dissimilarity between the cause and the effect remaining itself unproved r how can it establish the relation of Unity and of Separateness of one or single individuality ?

To meet this objection, the author says :

Etat/ i. e., the possession of the non-existence of Unity and Separateness of one in consequence of the possession of the non- existence of non-difference and non-dissimilarity, has been observed, anityayofy/ that is, in the case of non-eternal cause and non- eternal effect. This is the meaning. Accordingly on the hypothesis of the non-difference of the threads and cloth, it would follow that in the state of the production of the threads, there would arise the intuition and use of language that the cloth is being produced ; in the state of the production of the cloth, that the threads are being produced ; iu the state of the destruction of the threads, that the cloth is being destroy ed ; iii the state of the destruction of the cloth, that the threads are being destroyed ; and so on. Nor can it be maintained that production and destruction are not themselves entitled to acceptance, inasmuch- as such intuitions are explained on the very theory of development or appearance and envelopment, or disappearance ; for the hypothesis of an appearance, will entail a regress to infinity. If, on the other hand, the production of the appearance is admitted, then how does the theory of the production of the cloth, etc., become offensive ? If, again, the production of appearance in appearance be not admitted, then appea rance would become omniferous, or all-sided, (which is not desired by the objector). For, the all-sidedness of appearance is not recognised even by the Samkhya thinkers. In reality, the common consent of humanity that the cloth is produced, the cloth is destroyed, and so forth, is proof of production and destruction ; for, if experience of one thing be admitted to have another thing as its object, we must deny also the water-pot, cloth, etc.

Conjunction, how produced. U paskilra. H.Q begins another section or topio :

5 Anytara-karmma-ja^, produced by the action of either of two things. CTq^fTPF^T: Ubhaya-karmma-ja^, produced by action of both. ?-f4tT5T: Samyoga-jah, produced by conjunction. ^ Oha, and. Samyogali, conjunction.

226 VAI&ESIKA PHILOSOPHY.

9. Conjunction is produced by action of any one of two things, is produced by action of both, and is produced by Conjunc tion, also. 290.

Unobstructed intuition that things are conjunct is proof of con- juntion. So also are effects ; e. g., substance, in the case of conjuntions of constituent parts ; colour and other attributes produced by burning, in the case of conjunction of fire ; particular measure or extension, in the case of accretion ; sound, in the case of conjunction of the drum and ether ; such other instances should be understood. Nor is Con junction merely production without the intervention of empty space. The theories of transiency and transformation of things having been thrown away, Conjunction is the coming together which has non- coming together for its antecedent. And it is produced by the action of one of two things ; as is the conjunction of a motionless post with a hawk in motion, or the conjunction of one in motion, when the motion is not directed where the conjunction takes place, e. </., conjunc tion of a runner with the back of another runner. Conjunction pro duced by the action of both the conjunct is that of two rams or of two wrestlers, since it is produced by both of them exercising strength towards each other. The third (conjunction producced by conjunction) is the conjunction of the hand and the tree resulting from the conjunc tion of the finger and the tree- And it results sometimes from one con junction even, as the conjunction of cloth aud reed may result from the conjunction of thread and reed. In some cases, one conjunction is produced from two conjunctions, as from two conjunctions, of ether with two threads, may result only one conjunction of a two-threaded cloth with ether. In some cases, again, a single conjunction is originat ed even by a plurality of conjunctions, as ten conjunctions of ether with ten threads may originate only one conjunction of a ten-threaded cloth and ether. Sometimes, on the other hand, two conjunctions are produced even from a single conjunction as their non-combinative cause. For example, there having first taken place non-originative conjunction between two ultimate atoms, terrene and aqueous, subse quently two conjunctions, originative of two binary atomic aggregates, are produced, namely, one in the terrene ulimate atom with an other terrene ultimate atom, and another in the aqueous ultimate atom with another aqueous ultimate atom. By those two conjunctions inhering in homogeneous things, two binary atomic aggregates are simultaneously produced. Therein by that one non-originative conjunction alone, produced between the terrene and the aqueous ultimate atom, one conjunction of the terrene ultimate atom with the aqueous binary atomic aggregate, and another conjunction of the aqueous ultimate atom with the terrene binary attomic aggregate, are produced simultaneously with the production of the colour, etc., of the two binary atomic aggregates.

Inasmuch as the conjunction of cause and not-cause must neces sarily produce conjunctions of effect and not-effect, the conjunction of all-pervading substances (viz ., Space, Time, Ether and Soul) with dense or corporal bodies is produced by action of one of the two only. Of two all-pervading substances, however, there is no conjunction, since there is no cause (of conjunction). For in them there is no action, nor is

KANADA SOTRAS VII, 2, 9. 227

there any (combinative) cause ; hence there cannot be in this case also conjunction of effect and riot-effect resulting from conjunction of cause and not-cause. Eternal conjunction, on the other hand, is not possible, for conjunction is the coming together of two things, which has the not-coming together as its antecedent, and eternality is opposed to it. And were conjunction eternal, Disjunction also would be without pro duction ; and eternality of conjunction will not be obtained, since it would be impossibe for Conjunction and Disjunction, which are contra dictories, to exist side by side in their indestructible states. More over, yuta-siddhi or uncombined or naturally unassociated existence is a necessary condition of Conjunction, and it is not possible in the case of two all-pervading substances. For yuta-siddhi is merely the separate existence of two or of one of two ^unrelated) things, or the relation of one thing being inherent in another, as its substratum, when the twe have been externally brought into relation with each other.

Destruction of Conjunction, however, results from Disjunction having a common substratum with Conjunction. la some cases it results from destruction of substratum also. For example, action is produced in the constituent fibre of a thread immediately after the Conjunction of two. threads ; thereby is caused Disjunction from another fibre ; from Disjunction results destruction of originative conjunction ; from this follows destruction of the thread ; and from destruction of the thread results destruction of Conjunction, where two threads haying been long conjoined, action is not produced in them. Some, on the contrary, main tain that Conjunction is destroyed by simultaneously produced destruc tion of substratum, and by Disjunction, inasmuch as action is conceived to exist in another thread at the moment when by action iu the constituent parts of a thread there is effected destruction of Conjunction origina tive of the thread. This is impossible ; for there can be no production of Disjunction at the moment of destruction of the combinative cause, since the rule is that the combinative cause is of equal duration with the effect.

This same Conjunction which is an independent agent in the origi nation of substances, and a dependent agent in the origination of attributes and actions, is the counter-opposite of the absolute non- existence existing in the same substratum with itself, since it is obser ved to be so. For it is perceived that there is conjunction of an ape in the Banyan tree, although conjunction of the ape present in a large Banyan tree is limited to a branch only. Were such mere limitation to a part not sufficient to account for it, then conjunction would come to exist in ultimate atoms, and so would not be cognizable. In the case of the all-pervading substances also, it is the difference of upddhi, adjunct or external condition, which serves to localise them. Conjunc tion present by limitation to that is not pervaded in its denotation . Of Conjunction residing in the ultimate atoms also, direction in space, and the like should be regarded as determinants. 9.

Disjunction, how produced.

Upaskdra. By extending the mode of the production of Conjunetion to Disjunction ho

says :

228 VAl6EIKA PHILOSOPHY.

II vs I R I ?o ||

Etena, by this, f^rm: Vibhagafc, disjunction. n$W Vyakhyatah, explained. 10. By this Disjunction is explained. 291. Like Conjunction, Disjunction also is produced by action ef either of two things, by action of both, and by Disjunction. Disjunction takes place between a hawk and a post by the action of the hawk ; disjunc tion of two wrestlers or of two rams fighting with each other, by the actions of both. And Disjunction in these cases has its production at the moment immediately following the production of action, inasmuch as there exists nothing else to be waited for or depended upon. Accord ingly it has been said," Action is an independent cause of Conjunction and Disjunction " (vide Li. l~, t above). Objection. There is dependence upon substratum where Disjunction has to be produced, and upon destiuction of antecedent Conjunction where Conjunction has to be produced. Answer. This is not the case, for action is independent since it does not depend upon anything in the form of an existence which has its production immediately after the production of itself. Disjunction, produced by Disjunction, however, is two-fold, according to the difference of Disjunction of cause and not-cause pro duced by Disjunction of cause alone, and the difference of Disjunction of effect and not-effect, produced by Disjunction of cause and not- cause. Therein Disjunction of potsherd and Ether, resulting from Disjunction of the two potsherds, is an example of Disjunction of cause and not-cause, resulting from Disjunction of cause alone; and Disjunc tion of hand and tree resulting from Disjunction of finger and tree, and Disjunction of body and tree, resulting from Disjunction of hand and tree, are examples of Disjunction of effect and not-effect, resulting from Disjunction of cause and not-cause. Objection.- There is no proof of Disjunction itself, the term, Dis junction, being used to denote only non-existence of Conjunction. Answer. It is not so. For, if non-existence of Conjunction be absolute non-existence, then it would follow that the term Disjunction would be used to denote attribute and action also. Objection. Absolute non-existence of Conjunction, being present in two substances, is the source of the intuition of the disjunct. Answer. It cannot be, since it would in that case follow that abso lute non-existence of Conjunction, being present also in a constituted whole and its constituent parts, would be the source of the intuition of the disjunct. Objection. The term " two substances " should be qualified by tho expression " not being related to each other as effect and cause." KANiDA SftTRAS VII, 2, 10. 229 Answer. In that case, absolute non-existence of Conjunction, being present in the Vindhya and Himalaya mountains also, would be the cause of the intuition of the disjunct. Objection. Indeed there it is. Answer. It is not. For there being existence of erroneous intui tion, due to it, in the case of attribute and action also, it should be considered how far it will be valid to make it the source of convention or usage with reference to the accurate intuition only. Objection. Destruction of Conjunction is Disjunction. Answer. Were this the case, it would entail the use of the terra Disjunction on Conjunction being destroyed by the destruction of any one of the two things in Conjunction. Objection. "Things in Conjunction" should be qualified as being existent. Answer. In that case, it would entail the intuition of Disjunction even in the state of Conjunction of a jujube and an emblic myrobalan which become conjunct again immediately after the destruction of one conjunction. Objection. Disjunction is the destruction of all Conjunctions. Answer. If it be so, then there would be non-existence of Disjunc tion in the case of destruction of one Conjunction, since the denotation of all finds no place there. Disjunction, therefore, exists, and it is an additional attribute. This attribute, again, is destructible by another contradictory attri bute, inasmuch as, so long as the substratum exists, destruction of attribute cannot be possible without a contradictory attribute existing in the same substratum. Objection. Action itself may be destructive of Conjunction. Answer. It cannot be, since only a contradictory attribute is des tructive of attribute. Moreover, although where finger, hand, arm, and body come to have conjunction with the tree, by means of their respec tive actions, there is possibility of destruction of conjunction of the finger and the tree, by means of theiaction produced in the finger only, yet there would not follow destruction of conjunctions of the hand and the tree, of the arm and the tree, and of the body and the tree, since the hand, etc. are inactive and the action of the finger rests in a different substratum. If it be supposed that even action resting in a different substratum may be destructive of conjunction, it would then follow that there would be destruction of all conjunctions at one and the same moment of time, by action wherever it may be produced. Objection. -What then is the solution here on your theory? Answer. Disjunction of the hand and the tree, produced by Dis junction of the finger and the tree, is destructive of conjunction of the hand and the tree. This is a matter of observation. 230 VAI&ESIKA PHILOSOPHY. Sarvajna has said that there may very well be destruction of conjunction of the hand and tree, by the very action of the finger, rest ing in a different substratum, and that there will be no undue exten sion (of the causality of action), inasmuch as it is observed that mutual non-conjunction of the container and the contained is itself destructi ble by action resting in a different substratum. This too is not a sound opinion; for, distructiveness is everywhere observed to belong only to a contradictory attribute appearing in the substratum, and it is not reasonable to abandon that without some argument to the contrary. Sound and Disjunction, again, are effects of Disjunction. Therein we shall ponder over the non-combinative causality of Disjunction to wards the production of Sound. For, of the Sound which is produced, when a bamboo is being split up, and one of the two halves is held down by the pressure of the foot, and the other is drawn upwards, we find no- other non-combinative cause than the disjunction of the half and ether (or of the ether within the halves). Nor do we find any non-combina tive cause over and above Disjunction in the case of the sounding forth of a bamboo bursting out while it is being burnt in a conflagration, We also infer the Disjunction of the effect and not-effect from the Dis junction of the cause and not-cause. How else, where conjunction of the finger and the tree, conjunction of the hand and the tree, conjunc tion of the arm and the tree, and conjunction of the body and the tree are produced by the respective actions of the finger, etc., can there be destruction of the conjunction of the hand and the tree, and of other conjunctions, even on the destruction of the con junction of the finger and the tree, consequent on the disjunction of the finger and the tree produced by action produced in the finger alone? For, in this case, it is the series of disjunctions, produced by disjunctions, that is, as has been already stated, destructive of the corresponding conjunctions* There is, however, no clear evidence in the case of disjunction of the cause and not-cause, of which the antecedent is the disjunction of the two (constituent) causes (i.e., the two halves of the bamboo); for, it is observed that, production of the disjunction of ether, etc., like the dis junction of one of the two halves of the bamboo, being also possible by the action produced in the other half, disjunction is produced by the action of that other half from all those with which that half was conjunct. For it is not that disjunctions are not produced also from particular parts of ether, etc., by action produced in a finger, equally as disjunction from another finger. Nor is it that disjunctions from particular parts of ether, etc , are not originated by action produced in a lotus-leaf, even as disjunction from another lotus-leaf is produced. We maintain, "Let a single action originate even a hundred disjunctions, which are not opposed to the conjunction originative of substance. But that action which originates disjunction which is opposed to the con- jumction originative of substance, cannot also originate disjuuction which is not opposed to the conjunction originative of substance. And that which originates disjunction which is not opposed to the^ conjunc tion originative of substance, cannot also originate disjunction which is opposed to the conjunction originative of substance." Objection. Is there any reason for taking such a view ? KANlDA SftTRAS VII, 2, 10. 231 Answer. Yes, there ia, diversity of cause being rendered necessary by diversity of effect. Objection. Variety is necessary in action, so that one action may produce disjunction which is opposed to conjunction originative of substance, as in the case of flowering lotus-blossoms, etc-, and another action may produce both, i. e., disjunctions which are opposed and not -opposed to conjunctions originative of substance. Answer. This cannot be. For contrariety of effect is the origin of the supposition of diversity of cause ; and that contrariety arises lay way of the characteristic of the one being the counter-opposite of conjunction originative of substance, but by way of the characteristic of the other not being the counter-opposite of conjunction originative -of substance, inasmuch as diversity also ought to be supposed by those very ways. This same action, present in the one half of the bamboo, produces only disjunction of the two halves. And this disjunction first originates disjunction from the particular parts of ether, etc., disjunction which is not the counter-opposite of conjunction originative of substance. And if it produced disjunction by itself, it would then bear the charac teristic of action ; hence it depends upon time which is distinguished -with the possession of destruction of substance. Objection. At that moment also let that action itself produce Disjunction. Answer. It cannot do so, being past in time. In the production of Disjunction, Time follows immediately after the production of action itself. Objection. But subsequent Disjunction being thus produced by antecedent Disjunction, action cannot produce conjunction with other places. Answer. This is not the case ; for towards the production of con junction, action is not past time. Otherwise, action will be never destroyed, it being destructible only by subsequent conjunction. This same Disjunction, destructible by subsequent conjunction, lasts for three moments only. Sometimes it is destructible by destruc tion of substratum. It is in this way : Action is produced in the fibre which is a constituent part of the thread ; Disjunction of two fibres follows it ; at the same moment, action is produced in another thread ; then there is destruction of conjunction, originative of the thread, by disjunctiou of two fibres, and Disjunction is produced by action in the thread ; then there is destruction of the thread from destruction of conjunction originative of substance, and from destruction of the thread results destruction of Disjunction produced by action in another thread. Objection. Such being the case, there will be no destruction of action produced in another thread, since there is nothing to destroy it. For, it can be destroyed by subsequent conjunction, but Disjunction, being destroyed, there is no subsequent conjunction. 282 VAIEIKA PHILOSOPHY Answer. The argument is not valid. As Disjunction of the thread in the state of being destroyed is produced by action which is produced in the thread, so by the same action should be produced Disjunction of the thread from the fibre also. Such Disjunction also is really opposed to originative conjunction. By this Disjunction of the fibre and the thread is produced Disjunction of the thread and ether, which produces subsequent conjunction, and this, in its turn, causes destruction of action. Or, wherever action is produced in a thread, action is pro duced in its fibre also. That action, again, in the thread in the state of being destroyed, originates simultaneous -Disjunctions from the constituent parts of the thread, and particular parts of ether, etc., all these Disjunctions being not opposed to originative conjunction. There is, therefore, destruction of action combined or co-inherent in the thread, by conjunction which has its production immediately after the Disjunction of the effect, e. y., thread, from the not-effect, e. g., ether, etc., produced from the Disjunction of the cause, e. <j. } the fibre, and the not-cause, e. g., ether etc. Sometimes Disjunction is destroyed jointly by subsequent conjunc tion and destruction of substratum. It is in this way : There beino- conjunction of a thread, and a thread, action is produced in the con stituent parts of the thread, namely, the fibre, and action is produced in the reed. This is one moment of time. By action in the fibre is produced Disjunction from another fibre, and by ;his there is destruc tion of conjunction originative of the thread. By the action in the reed also, there is Disjunction of the thread and the reed, and there is also destruction of the conjunction of the thread and the reed. Destruction of the thread immediately follow destruction of conjunction originative of the thread. Conjunction of the reed with another portion of space immediately follows destruction of conjunction of the thread and the reed. Jointly from both of them, viz., destruction of substratum, and conjunction, results destruction of Disjunction. 10. Conjunction and Disjunction do not possess Conjunction and Disjunction. Upaakdra. It may be said, " Let there be Conjunction in Conjunetion also, and Dis junction in Disjunction also." To prorent this he says : I R I \\ II Samyoga-vibhagayot, in Conjunction and Disjunc tion. ^nttrf^TTTT^n^ Samyoga-vibhaga-abhavah, non-existence of Con junction and Disjunction. WJWTfr^Tvqi Auutva-mahattvabhyam, by minuteness and magnitude. KJI^m^T: Vyakhyatah, explained. 11. The non-existence of Conjunction and Disjunction, in Conjunction and Disjunction, is explained by Minuteness and Magnitude. 292. As Minuteness and Magnitude are not possessed of Minuteness and Magnitude, so also are not Conjunction and Disjunction posaeaaed of Conjunction and Disjunction. 11- KANADA SUTRAS VII, 2,13. 233 Actions are void of actions, and Attributes, of attributes. r: Karmmabhih, by actions. ^T*?!f^r Karmmani, actions.$: Grunaih, by attributes. JT^: Guuah, attributes. %f H^^T^Issn Anutva- mahattvabhyam, by minuteness and magnitude. ffrT Iti, this.

12. Actions are (void) of Actions ; Attributes are (void) of Attributes. This (is explained) by Minuteness and Magnitude. 293.

Upaskara. This second aphorism has been already explained. (Vide VII. i. 15 supra).

Bhdsya. reads VII. ii. 12 as two aphorisms viz., Karmabhirkar- mdni yunair-gundh and Anutvamahattvabhydmiti, and explains them in the same way as VII. i, 16.

Conjunction and Disjunction of effect and cause do not exist.

Upaskdra. If it be asked why there cannot be conjunction of two substances, namely of constituent part and constituted whole, so he says :

II v I * I

Yutasiddhi-abhavat, in consequence of the absence of separate or independent existence. ^TF 3 ! * K*u4t Karyya-Karanayoh, of effect and cause. ^*^TJTf=t*n M Samyoga-vibhagau, Conjunction and Disjunction. !f Na, not. feef% Vidyete, exist.

13. In consequence of the absence of separate existence, there exist not Conjunction and Disjunction of effect and cause. 294.

Yutasiddhih means the state of being existent, of two things which have no connection with each other, or the characteristic of being supported by separate substrata. A constituent part and a con stituted whole, however, do not possess this. This is the meaning. 13.

VivTiti. * Yutasiddhih means the existence of two uncombined things. Of cause and effect, e. g., of constituent part and constituted whole, conjunction and disjunction do not exist, because of the absence of their uncombined existence. For constituted wholes such as a water*- pot, etc., do not exist having no relation to constituent parts such as potsherds, etc., whereby their conjunction and disjunction might be possible.

The relation between a word and its meaning is neither conjunction

nor combination.

Upaskdra. ~ Now follows from the context another section intended to establish the conventional relation of words and objects. Therein he states an adverse argumint.

234

II vs I ^ |

> because it is an attribute.

14. (There can be no conjunction of Sound or Words with Objects), because (Conjunction, is an Attribute. 295.

Of conjunction *- - this is the complement. Thus, the meaning is r how can there be conjunction which is an attribute, of an attribute, e. g., Sound or Word, with objects sujh a water pot, etc. ? -14.

Above continued.

Upaxkdra. Moreover, the object also is sometimes characterised as colour, taste, eto. r Therefor*, conjunction is riot possible, inasmuch as the existence of attribute in an attribute^ has not been admitted. This is what he says :

n

nm: Gunah, attribute. ?ffa A pi, a ^ 3() - f^TT 5 ^ Vibhavyate, is known or established.

15. Attribute also is known (to be an object denoted by Word), or is established (by Word). 296.

1 Attribute also, object this is the complete sentence. Attribute also, e. <JT., colour, etc., is an object denoted by Word, but with that there is no relation of conjunction. This is the meaning. Or, the meaning is that attribute also is established (by being denoted) by Word and that with that there is no relation of conjunction of Word. 15.

Above continued.

Upaskdra. .Further, conjunction (of Word and Object) cannot be produced by th<r action of either or by the action of both, because any substance whatever, <>,. g., Ether, etc., as well as Word are inert. This is what he says :

u ^ i R i \\ ii

fM^T?TT^, Niskriyatvat, because of inactivity or inertness. 16. Because Word and Object are inert. 297.

4 Of Word and of any Object whatever Such is the complement of^the aphorism. 16.

Above continued. Upaskdra. He states another obstruction to the inter-relation (of Word and Object) :

u v* i ^ i ?vs u

Asati, not existing. !f ?rf^T Na asti, (It) does not exist, ^frf Iti such, q Cha, and. SpftTI^ Prayogat, because there is application.

KANADA SftTRAS VII, 2, 1. 235

17, (Word and Object are not in conjunction), also because in the case of a non-existent object there is such application (of word) as " (It) does not exist." 298.

Even in the case cf a non-existent water-pot, cloth, etc., such application (of word) is observed as " There is no water-pot in the room," " Cloth does not exist," "The letter r/ajwhich was heard before, no longer exists," 5 There was a cloth," There will be a cloth, etc. ; therefore (there is no inter-relation) This is the meaning. The import accordingly is that there is no conjunction, nor again combination, of Word with a non-existent water-pot, etc. 17.

Word and Object are unrelated. Upaskdra. What then ? He gives the answer :

&abda-arthau, sound and sense. Word and object. Asambandhau, unrelated.

18. (Therefore), Word and Object are unrelated. 299.

If Conjunction of Word and Object does not exist, it then comes to this that Word and Object are unrelated. This is the meaning. 18.

Above continued.

{Jpaskdra _ It may be asked why one or other of the relations of Conjunction and Combination should not exist (between Word and Object). Accordingly he says :

n

Samyoginah, which is in conjunction. The conjunct. Dandat, from the staff. Wflfrr: Samabayinah, which is in combination. The combined. f^t<*T^ Visesat, from a distinction or distinguishing element. ^ Cha, and.

19. (Cognition of Conjunction results) from (e. .,) the staff which is in conjunction (with the hand of a man), and (of Combination) from a distinguishing element which is in combina tion (with the whole). 300.

" This person is carrying a staff," " The elephant possesses a trunk "these intuitions take place. Of these, the first results from conjunction, and the second, from combination. The intuition in respect of the trunk which is a particular member of the body, is depen dent upon its combination with the elephant, since it arises from the distinction that that is an elephant to which belongs a trunk as being m combination with it. The distinction itself, viz., the trunk, etc., is distinc tive in consequence of the relation of combination. But there is no intui tion of threads, etc. also, such as " A cloth possesses threads " ete., under the relation of distinctive possession of the parts. Likewise, " The object, water-pot, is that which possesses the word, water-pot,"

236 VAI^ESIKA PHILOSOPHY

such intuition does not take place. Of Word and Object, therefore tport!l.l9 ""iwurtioi., nor again oombinat j This is &

Intuition of object from word proceed* from convention.

^a^5T^T: N vs | R | ^o ||

• wfor: Samayikah, conventional. According to direction. w*m; babda-artha-pratyajah, intuition of object from word.

2 The intuition of Object from Word (takes place) accord ing to the direction (of God). 301.

.

object. The same is convention, depended ^ upor tL wm of Co 1 f V example, -Whatever plant the ichneumo tw^Mito*h ?i antidote to poison.- This is the meaning. h 1S an

This convention is learnt sometimes from usage;,,/, when employer gives the order -Bring the water-pot/ and an employe*

?n g ,%h U k J8C r S T:\? V UbUlai> " eCk > a W standing Tear J by infers the knowledge of the latter in this way. This his

produced by knowledge, because it is activity? like my a ot f {ha knowledge again is produced by the words of this o/der, because follows immediately after it; and the subject-matter of this knowdre namely, this object with a tubular neck/is the denotation of the term water-pot. By such processes of transposition of verbs and cases boy becomes informed in respect of the object, water-pot, cloth etc.

Sometimes the convention is learnt directly from testimony alone e.g that this tubular-necked object is designated by the term, water pot. Sometimes it is learnt from comparison; e.g., from a con prison

cow Tat a 11 , ! ^ T CaS6S aS , Uiata W a ^ that which is P like a w that as is mudga so is mudya-parni (a kind of bean), that as is

edVe ofobiecr f 7i a ;- U ?, f le * "? ^^ etc. Sometimes (know! f objects is derived) from condemnatory passages also- e a the camel with too pendulous upper lip and long neokf the eater of hard thorns, the vilest of animals-when after hearing this condenatory sentence one sees a body of this description, knowledge arises in one tm ^ "This is that camel/ Sometimes it springs from commun ty o f substratum, or synonymy, with words of known import; . T "The honey-bee ,s sipping the honey with, n cloven lotus-blossoms^-after hearing this proposition, (the knowledge arises), "This is what is desig nated by the term, honey-bee, because it is the sipper of honey within cloven lotus-blossoms," or as in the case of the proposition, -The cuckoo. sings sweetly ,n the mango-tree.- Here, in the above instances, it s-

.ther a case of inference, or a case of word itself being productive of

KANiDA StTTRAS VII, 2, 20. 237

knowledge through the force of synonymy with words of known import, or only a particular mode of comparison or analogy, inasmuch as the being the agent in drinking honey infers resemblance to other individuals such as the bee, etc.

The convention, again, has reference to classes only, individuals being brought home by means of special characteristics, such is the view of the followers of Tutdta. According to the followers of Prabhd- kara, the force of word is in respect of both the class and the individual, but so far as it refers to the class, it denotes the object by the word, by being known, and so far as it refers to the individual, by being its proper form. The teaching of the ancients or elders is that convention is the force itself and that classes appearing in the forms of the indi viduals are the objects denoted by words. This is the case with words- like cow, etc., but the objects denoted by words expressive of attribute and action are both classes and individuals as detailed in the

l. He now points out the connection between words and objects, which is the means of verbal knowledge.

• * * < gamaya is arbitrament or convention. It is two fold, eternal and modern. Eternal arbitrament is called force (of words), and modern arbitrament is called definition. Arbitrament has for its form, This object is to be understood from this word, or Let this word convey this signification. Accordingly it has been said,

Convention has been declared to be two-fold, original and modern. Therein the original is the eternal, which is called force; whereas the modorn is the occasional, imposed by scientific writers and others.

The apprehension of the force of words proceeds from conduct,. etc. So it has been said,

The elders declare the apprehension of the force of words to proceed from grammatical analysis or etymology, from comparison or analogy, from lexicography, from authoritative sayings or testimony, from co.i- duct (of the employer who gives an order which is carried out by the employed,, from contiguity to a wordof well-known import, from context, and from explication or description.

• The doctrine of the force of the word to denote primarily the class is not sound, for, in such instances as " Bring the cow," the fact which is established by experience, namely, that the indi vidual is the object of verbal cognition, cannot be explained except on.

238 VAIEIKA PHILOSOPHY.

the theory of the force of the word primarily to denote the individual. Nor does the knowledge of the individual arise from implication or derivatively, for in the absence of a primary use a derivative use ia im possible. Nor is the knowledge of the individual possible even by the equivalence of the act and the object of cognition (in verbal knowledge); for, inasmuch as the being an object of verbal cognition, standing in the position of an effect, must be produced by a cause, the equivalence of the act and the object of cognition (in verbal knowledge; which is sun >osed to be the condition, cannot be the condition there, as is desired We should, therefore, respect the doctrine that the force of the words cow etc., lies in denoting the individual charaterised by, or possessing, the generic form and the class or the universal. It has been a;;- u-dingly laid down in the aphorism of Gautama, " The individual, the generic form, and the universal are, however, the object of the word." (Nydya- S&tram, II. ii 63).

Priority and Posteriority, how produced.

l7pankdra. Now he explains Priority and Posteriority, the next in the order of enumeration, in one context, as these are the causes of mutually iuvolved USOH, and for the purpose of clearing up the understanding of the disciples as well as for bhe sake of brevity.

ii v* m *t n

Eka-dikkabhyam, lying in the same direction. Ekakalabhyam, existing at the same time *TflTgfrjTeT*<lT Sannikrista- vipkraristabhyam, near and remote. ^ Paratn, prior, SPTC Aparam pos terior. <g Cha, and.

21. The Prior and the Posterior (are produced by two objects) lying in the same direction, existing at the same time, and being near and remote. 302.

" The Prior and the Posterior the reference here is principally in a substantive sense. " Are produced" such is the complement. Or, the word "usage" or "convention" is to be supplied after The Prior and the Posterior : such . The word "such" should be understood. Ekadikkabhyam means by two bodies which have the same direction in space. Two bodies occupying equal place (i. e., equally distant) may also have the same direction in space, but by them Priority and Posteriority are neither produced, nor come into use. Accordingly it has been said, Near and remote, which expression means, possessing nearness, i.e., the quality or state of containing a smaller number of conjunctions with the conjunct, and remoteness, i. e., the quality or state of containing a larger number of con junctions with the conjunct. Hereby combinative cause (of Priority and Posteriority) is stated ; whereas conjunction of bodies and direction in space is the non-combinative cause. Priority and Porteri- ority are thus produced in a man standing with his face towards the east, by observing a relative paucity of conjunctions with the conjunct in one of two bodies lying in the east and a relative plurality of conjunc tions with the conjuct in the other. The non-comcinative cause is thus

KANlDA StiTRAS VII, 2, 21. 239

stated. Near and remote the term implies intuition, as the contained metaphorically denotes the container. Relative understanding or cognition of relativity is thus stated to be the efficient cause. Priority and Posteriority are produced in respect only of two bodies lying in the same direction in space ; hence there is no production of them in all places. Relative understanding is produced in One and the same observer only ; hence there is no production of them in all circums tances. Being regulated by relative understanding, there is no produc tion of them at all times. There is no mutual dependence between them, inasmuch as being produced from the capacity or power of the cause, they are proved by sense-perception. For otherwise they would be neither produced nor perceived. For in case of mutual dependence there would be non-production as well as non-perception of both of them. But Priority and Posteriority are perceived, and their perception cannot be possible without their production.

Existing at the same time this has reference to Priority and Posteriority in time. Now existing at the same time means, by two bodies one young and the other old, which occupy the same, i. e., the present, time. Here nearness is the state of having the birth intervened by a fewer number of revolutions of the sun, and remoteness is the state of having the birth intervened by a larger number of revolutions of the sun. Here too understanding i. e., the container, is implied by the contained. Thus the young and old bodies are the combinative causes. Conjunction of tirno and bodies is the non-combinative cause. The understanding of the state of having the birth intervened by a- fewer number of revolutions of the sun is the efficient cause in the case of Posteriority, and the understanding of the state of having the birth intervened by a larger number of revolutions of the sun is the efficient cause in the case of Priority,

These, Priority and Posteriority, again, are produced even in respect of bodies indeterminate in place and direction in space.

Now there is a seven-fold destruction of Priority and Posteriority iu space but their production is simultaneous, else there would be mutual dependence. Priority and Posteriority in space then are destroyed from the destruction of relative understanding (1) from the destruction of conjunction which is the non-combinative cause, (2) from the destruction of substance which is the combinative cause, (3) from the destruction of the efficient and non-combinative causes, (4} from the destruction of the efficient and combinative causes, (5) from, the desi ruction of the efficient cause, (6) from the destruction of the non-combinative cause, and (7) from the destruction of the combinative cause. Now, from the destruction of relative understanding, thus: Production of Priority ; knowledge of the genus Priority ; then destruc tion of relative understanding ; after its destruction, at the moment of knowledge of substance distinguished by Priority, destruction of Priority, the process should be understood in the same way as in the case of destruction of duality. Destruction of Priority and Posteriority follows also from the destruction of the non-combinative cause. Thus, as soon as there is relative understanding, action takes place in the body which is the substratum of Priority ; as soon as Priority is produced therefrom, disjunction takes place between direction in space and the

240 VAI!ESIKA PHILOSOPHY.

body ; after it, when there is knowledge of the genus Priority, then there is destruction of the conjunction of direction in space and the body ; then, destruction of relative understanding follows knowledge of the genus ; at the very same moment, destruction -of Priority and Posteriority results from destruction of conjunction of direction in space and the bodies. And in this case destruction of relative understanding does not destroy them, inasmuch as it is synchronous with destruction of Priority.

Objection. On the theory of destruction of attribute even from de struction of non-combinative cause, great confusion will result from the thus possible destruction of Samskdra, (tendencies, impressions), adristam (invisible after-effects of acts performed), etc., also from the destruction of the conjunction of Mind and Soul.

Answer. It is not so. For Priority being pervaded by the char acteristic of being remote, there must needs be cessation of Priority consequent on the non-existence of remoteness on the removal of the substratum of Priority to some other place- Nor is there at the time any other agent of destruction ; hence, such destruction being other wise impossible, destruction of conjunction alone is conceived to be the destroying agent. Ou the other hand samskdra, adristam etc., as well as their effects, e. g., recollection, pleasure, etc., cannot be suppos ed to be so destroyed, inasmuch as they are observed even after a long time.

This also implies that Priority and Posteriority are destroyed also "by the destruction of the conjunction between that particular place and the standard limit as well -as the observer, the argument being the same as above.

Destruction of Priority sometimes results also from destruction of combinative cause. Thus, relative understanding arises at the very same moment that action produced in a portion of a body causes dis junction from another portion ; from disjunction results destruction of the conjunction originative of the body, and then production of Priority ; at the next moment, destruction of substance results from destruction of conjunction, and there takes place knowledge of the genus Priority ; destruction of Priority follows destruction of substance, and destruction of relative understanding follows knowledge of the genus. So that, being synchronous, destruction of relative understand ing does not destroy Priority.

Destruction of Priority sometimes takes place by the destruction of substance and destruction of relative understanding. It happens in this way : Production of action and relative understanding in a portion of the body ; then, disjunction from another portion, and pro duction of Priority ; next desruction of originative conjunction and knowledge of the genus ; thereafter, destruction of substance and des truction of relative understanding , and following them, there is destruc tion of Priority.

Destruction of Priority takes place sometimes from destruction of substance and destruction of conjunction. It is in this way : Simultane ously with disjunction amongst the constituent parts of substance,

KANlDA SftTRAS.VII,2, 22. 241

there is production of action in the body and of relative understand ing ; following it, appear destruction of conjunction of constituent parts, disjunction between space and body, and production of Priority -, thereafter there are- destruction of substance, destruction of conjunc tion of space and body, and production of knowledge of the genus : thereafter destruction of Priority results from destruction of substance and destruction of conjunction of space and body, and destruction of relative understanding from knowledge of the genus.

Destruction of Priority takes place sometimes from destruction of conjunction and destruction of relative understanding. It is in this way : Production of Priority, and action in the body ; knowledge of 1 the genus, and disjunction ; destruction of relative understanding, and destruction .of conjunction of space and the body then, destruction of Priority.

Destruction of Priority results sometimes from destructions of combinative, non-combinative and efficient causes. It is in this way : Production of Priority, disjunction among constituent parts of the body, and action in the body, take place simultaneously ; knowledge of the geauj Priority, destruction of conjunction of constituent parts and disjunction between space and the body follow them ; thereafter results destruction of Priority or of Posteriority in space, from destruction pf relative understanding, destruction of substance, and destruction of conjunction of space and the body, which destructions are simultane ously produced.

Of Priority and Posteriority in time, however, there is no destruction due to destruction of non-combinative cause. As in the case of Priority and Posteriority in space, there is destruction of nearness and remoteness on the destruction of conjunction of space and the body, ao it is not the case with Priority and Posteriorityin time. The three cases, therefore, of their destruction namely from destruction of combinative cause, from destruction of relative understanding, and from both jointly, should be understood in the way described above. 21.

Vivriti. It should be observed that, according to the writer of Muktdvali, destruction of relative understanding is destructive of Priority and Posteriority in both their forms (i. e., in space and in time), whereas in the Upaskdra it is stated that it is the destruction of their three-fold causes which is destructive of Priority and Posteriority.

Priority and Posteriority in 2 1 ime ) how produced. UpasM.ra.-~ He states a peculiarity in the oase of temporal priority and posteriority.

Karana-paratvat, from priority of the cause. Karanaaparatvat, from posteriority of the cause. "^ Cha, and.

22. (Temporal Priority and temporal Posteriority are said, by suggestion, to arise respectively) from Priority of the cause and from Posteriority of the cause. 303.

242 VAlgEIKA PHILOSOPHY.

The cause of Priority and Posteriority is time. Priority and Posteriority belong to it. Conjunction of time which is the non- combinative cause of priority, and conjunction of time which is tfre non-combinative cause of posteriority are stated, by implication, as otherswise, the result would b want of congruity or syntactical connexion. For, priority and posteriority cannot be produced by priority and posteriority themselves. The terms, priority and posteri ority, denote, by implication, conjunctions cf time which are productive of them. 22.

Vivfiti. If the uses of prior (remote) and posterior (near) are pro duced by cognitions of remoteness and nearness, then, inasmuch as the cognition, Ka4i (Benares) is near in relation to Prayaga (Allahabad), refers also to Prayaga as its object subject-matter, why does not there arise the use of Posteriority (or nearness) in respect of Prayaga ? Lite- wise, why is there not the use of Priority (or remoteness), i respect of Kasi, etc., which also become the subject-matter of the cognition of remoteness ?

He removes this incidental doubt.

1 Karana-paratvat, i. e., owing to the priority or remoteness of the combinative cause ; and also owing to its posteriority or nearness. 1 he uses of priority and posteriority are only in respect of the combinative cause, but not in respect of anything else simply because it becomes tn/e subject-matter of relative understanding. For use is detemiued by 1$he object in respect of which the use arises. This is the import. Priority and Posteriority do not exist in Priority and Posteriority. II V9 I * I 3 II Paratva-aparatvayoh, in priority and posteriority. Paratva-aparatra-abhavah, non-existence of priority and posteriority. SH^Mfcfsrp^n Anutva-mahattvabhy&m, by minuteness and magnitude. cqronft: Vyakhyatafc, explained. 23. The non-existence of Priority and Posteriority, in Priority and Posteriority, is explained by mintuteness and magnitude. 304. Actions are -void of actions. II vs I R I W II KarmiDabhih, by actions qrwrffor Karmmani, actions. 24. Actions are (void) of Actions. 305. Attributes are void of attributes. KANlDA SfrTRAS VII, 2, 26. 243 ip^: Gunailj, by attributes. 3TWT : GunAh. attributes. 25. Attributes are (void) of Attributes. 306. CTpafclra.--Those aphorisms, being rirfcually explained above, are nofc explained here. 23, 24, 25. VIL ii. 24 and 25 aa one aphorism. Combination {7paskJra.I haa been stated that priority, posteriority, etc., are combined in deng or corporal substances only, and that knowledge, pleasure etc., are combined in the soul. Now what ia this combination itself ? Hating regard to this inquiry of the disciples, he steps ovr Understanding which is the next subject for treatment according to the order of enuruer#- ifeu, and describes the examination of Combination. II v$ I ^ i

{f Iha, here, 4. e., in the cause. ff*j Idam, this, i. &., the effect. f% Iti, such. HT Yatah, whence. VT^f^TCCfr Karyya-karanayofc, qf effect arid cause tf: Salj, that. ^WUfi Samavayab^, combination.

26. That is Combination by virtue of which (arises the intui tion) in the foim of " This is here/ with regard to effect and . 307.

.^Aryya-karanayob/ is an indication ; non-effect and non-cause also are implied. So it has been said in the section called the Locality of the Predicables, " Combination is that relation of things mutually involved or associated in nature and bearing to one another the relation of the contained and the container, -which ia the source of intuition in the form of " (It is) here."" Ayuta siddhih, inseparable association, is the non-existence of things unrelated. As in the case of " There is curd here in the bowl," " There are jujubes here in th.e bowl," so in the case of " There is cloth here in the threads," " Ther.e is mat here in the reeds," " There are substance, attribute, and action Here in substance," " There is bovineness here in the cow," " There is knowledge here in the soul," " There is Sound here in Ether," the cognition of here which is thus produced, cannot be produced without somo relation ; whereby it is inferred that some relation exists. And this relation is not mere conjunction. For the causes of conjunction, namely, action or either of the two things, etc., are absent here ; it does not terminate in disjunction ; related things do not exist unrelated ; it can be inferred as a uniform substratum ; it is not perceptible to the senses ; it is one ; and it is eternal.

Objection. If combination be one, it would then entail intermix ture of substance-ness, etc , since combination of action-ness, etc., would be possible in substance.

- Answer. This cannot be the case, since non-intermixture follows from tke very rule of the container and the contained. Although the same combination which is the combination of substance-neas. is also the comibation of attribute-ness, action-ness, etc., still substance is not their container or substratum, since they are not observed there.

244 VAlSESIKA PHILOSOPHY.

Substance-ness is observed in substances only, attribute-ness in attri butes only, action-ness in actions only, but not elsewhere. It is from the observation of this agreement and difference, that the uniformity (of the container and the contained) results. As even in the absence of a particular conjunction between the bowl and the curd, it is the bowl which is the container, and not the curd, and hence there is the uniformity of the relation of the container and the contained, so the uniformity is valid in this case also from the very difference of the power of the revealed and the revealer, for action-ness, etc., are not revealed by substance in the same way as substance-ness is. Accord ingly it has been said.

• rfa^ ft *m^ 3*tqj|ir *: **K

All-powerful consciousness is, verily our resource in the apprehen sion of things. For consciousness in respect of the being the container is not reversible ; nor is there the intuition that substance is action ; nor, again, that threads are in the cloth. It is for this reason that r notwithstanding the combination of colour in Air; " There is colour ia Air" such characteristic of being the container is not observed in the case of Air. It is natural capacity , therefore, which everywhere determines the relation of the container and the contained.

This combination, again, is eternal, inasmuch as it is uncaused. For the rule cf production from combinative causes applies to exis tences or beings, and efficient and non-combinative causes are subsi diary to those causes. Therefore that which would be the combinative cause of combination would be either another combination, or that combination itself. It cannot be the first, as it would entail non- finality ; nor the second, as it would involve self-dependence, for that very combination cannot produce combination with itself.

Objection. How does the intuition arise that there is combination of cloth in threads, and that there is combination of colour in cloth ?

Answer. It is by means of the relation of their intrinsic form, or essential relation, as the supposition of another combination would entail non-finality.

Objection. The intuition of here, e. g., " There is colour here in th& cloth," will, then, arise by means of the same essential relation. What is the use of combination ?

Answer. It is not so, since there is no obstruction here to the admission of an additional relation.

Objection. If it be so, then " Here in this place there is non-exis tence of the water-pot," in this case also there will be either. combina tion or any other relation.

Answer. No, as the intuition can be possible by means of essential relation itself. For, on the contrary supposition, the absolute and mutual non-existences of the water-pot, which are eternal and combined with more than one substance, would have the characteristic of being G-enera, subsequent non-existence also, being an effect in combination, would be perishable or destructible, and antecedent non-existence also, not being produced, though combined, would be indestructible.

KANlDA SftTR AS VII, 2, 27. 245

Nor is the quality of existence the determining factor there, for the quality of existence can "be produced at any -time.-. >-

The Bhattas maintain that in non-existence there really is present a different relation called distinguisheduess or qualifiedness. Nor is this distinguishedness be one and the same in the case of all individual mani festation of non-existence, then it would follow that there is non-existence of the water-pot even in that which contains a water-pot, inasmuch as the distinguishedness of the non-existence of the water-pot would exist by means of the same distinguishedness of the non-existence of the cloth.

Objection. But the water-pot itself will in this case prevent the cognition of the non-existence of the water-pot.

Answer. It cannot do this, since the non-existence of that which will prevent such cognition is itself present there by means of the relation of distinguishedness. Nor is the very nature of the substratum .(i.e., where the water-pot lies) such that on account of it there can be no manifestation of the non-existence of water-pot in that place, for immediately after the removal of the water-pot follows the intuition of the non-existence of water-pot in that very place.

Objection. In your view also, why is there not intuition of posses sion of colour after the destruction of colour, since Combination is, as you say, eternal and one?

Answer. Because non-intuition of colour is proved from the very destruction of colour.

The arguments against Combination have been demolished in the Maytikha under Sense-Perception. So we stop here. 26.

Combination is different from Substance, Attribute, Action, Genus, and Species.

Upaskdra. By way of proving its difference from the five beginning with Substance (i. e., Substance, Attribute, Action, Genus, and Species), he says :

|| v9 \ ^

Dravyatva-gunatva-pratisedhah, negation or exclu

sion of substance-ness a-nd attribute-ness, (in or from Combination). Bhavena, by existence. n^fiT: Vyakhyatah, explained.

27. The negation of Substance-ness and Attribute-ness (in Combination) is explained by Existence. 308.

Bhavah, means Existence. As Existence is not identical with substance, etc., being cognised by a different form of understanding, so combination also is different from the same Substance, etc., i Dravyatva- gunatva is an indication ; Action-ness, etc., also should be under stood. 27.

Combination is one.

246 VALEIKA PHILOSOPHY.

drfHil^H \\ V9 I R I V: II

Tattvam, that-ness. One-ness. Unity. >n%T Bhavena, by Exis-

28. The Unity (of Combination, is explained) by Existence. 309.

Explained is the complement. Tattvam, i. e , Unity, bhavena, i. e., by Existence, is explained. As one Existence everywhere induces the cognition of the existent, so one Combination everywhere induces the cognition of the combined. Moreover the inferential mark of Com bination is not differentiated, nor is there any other particular mark. For, we do not find any particular mark, i. e., differentiating mark, of Combination, whereby we could recognise its diversity. For the very ame reason, Combination is eternal ; for, as in the case of Existence, non-eternality cannot appropriately belong to it which is un differen tiated even in the difference of Space, Time, etc.

Objection If combination is nothing but this relation, then there may be disunion of threads and cloth, or of the cloth and its colour.

Answer. This cannot be, for in the absence of (previous) uncor- relsted existence, disunion is not possible. For, there is no unrelated existence or colour and that which possesses the colour, or of the parts and the whole, that there may be a disunion between them.

Objection. But theirl uncorrelated existence may be brought to pass.

Answer. It cannot, for the effectuation is contravened by being never so experienced.

The followers of Prabhdkara hold that Combination is manifold and also non-eternal. But this is not a reasonable view to take, for the intuition of " Colour is destroyed," whereas it is the intuition of no body that the Combination of colour is destroyed.

The view of the school of Nyaya that Combination is perceptible to the sense is also not valid. Combination is supersensuous, for being different from the Soul, it is at the same time in a state of being ui;- combined, like the Mind, or like Time, etc. 28.

Bhdsya : Combination is proved to be an attribute in the same way as is existence, and further, like existence, Combination also is produced by itself, p. e., does not depend upon any other Combiuation lor its production.

Here ends the second chapter in the seventh book of Sankara s Commentary on the Vaisesika Aphorisms.

KANADA SflTRAS VIII, 1, 1. 247

BOOK EIGHTH CHAPTER FIRST. Cognition explained by allusion to III. i. 2, 18.

\Jpaskdra.~ The order of enumeration was violated in favour of the curiosity of the disciples. The author now adopts the order of enumeration. Therein the examination of understanding is the subject of theleighth book. Understanding hat been already mentioned for the purpose of proof of the Soul. By recalling it, he says :

Dravyesu, among substances. Jirff Jnanam, knowledge. Cogni tion. sqi<p{||HH Vyakhyatam, explained.

1. Cognition (has been) explained among Substance. 310.

By the term, " Among substances," the author implies the third book, as the the container by the contained. The meaning is that cognition, jndnam, has been explained by the two aphorisms, namely, " The universal experience of the objects of the senses is the mark of (the existence of) an object different from the senses and their objects" (III. i. 2), and " That (i. e., knowledge) which is produced from the contact of the soul, the sense, and the object, is other (than a false mark)" (III. i. 18).

Now in the kindred system (i. e., the Nydya-Sutram of Gautama),

under the defination of understanding, there has been made a declara

tion of synonyms, namely, " Understanding, Apprehension, Cognition,

Intuition these are synonyms/ (Nydyd-Sutram, I. i. 15), for the pur

pose of demolishing the Sankhya doctrine. For the Sankhyas maintain

a difference in meaning of the terms, Understanding, etc. Thus Prakriti f

Matter, is the state of equilibrium of Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas, the

principles of purity, passion and darkness, or the principles of illumina

tion, evolution, and involution, respectively. Prakriti is one, and one

only, while Purusas, Spirits, are divided to infinity. They are seated

in the cave (i. e. } retired, unaffected, indifferent spectators), eternal,

immutable, and characterised, by eternal consciousness. They are

called lame, as it is not their nature to undergo modification or trans

formation, while Prakriti is said to be blind, being stupid or insensate.

When there arises in Prakriti a desire for fhe enjoyment of sensuous

objects, or a desire to see the difference between Prakriti and Pwrusa,

at that moment Prakriti is modified, or transforms, under the influence

or osculation of Purusa. And its first transformations Buddhi, Under

standing, a particular form of the inner sense. Understanding it is

that is called the principle of Mahat, the great one ; accordingly it

has been said, " The great one evolves from Prakriti." And this under

standing is pure or stainless like a mirror. And that particular trans

formation of it, which takes the form of an object in such shapes as

" It is a water-pot/ u It is a cloth," etc., through the channel of the

external senses, is called cognition, jndnam, and faculty, vritti. Appre

hension, upalabdhi, is the same as a kind of abhimdna, egoity or self-

consciousness, in the form of " I know," which arises in consequence

of the non-perception or non-apprehension of the distinctness or differ

ence of Purusa which is consciousness, by cognition present in transpa

rent or pure understanding. Pratyaya, Intuition, is that particular

248 VAIE$AIAK PHILOSOPHY. transformation of understanding itself, which takes the form of pleasure, pain, etc., through the channel of the senses alone, in conse quence of the contact of garland, sandalwood, and other objects of sense. Hence it is that cognition, pleasure, pain, desire^ aversion,. volition, reminiscence, virtue, and vice are, all of them, particular transformations of understanding, and being present in Pralcj iti itself, in subtle forms or in minute proportions, appear and disappear, accord ing to difference of circumstances ; while Puritsa is as free from adhesion or affinity or attachment as a lotus-leaf, but casts its shadow in the understanding. This theory which the Sankhyas hold is thrown away by the proof indicated in the above declaration of (these terms as) synonyms. Thus, if the term, understanding, be derived in the instru mental sense, viz., as that by which a thing is understood, then it comes to be nothing else than the mind. Nor is the mind an object of percep tion, whereas understanding is surely cognizable by perception in the form of " I understand." , Nor are cognition, etc., the properties of the internal sense, inasmuch as they are proved to exist only as being the properties of an agent. For the manifestation of " I know," " I intuit," " I apprehend," takes place as having community of substratum with I-ness or egoity. If they reply that this phenomenon is abhimdna or conceit, we rejoin that it cannot be so, since there is no obstruction to its being real. It cannot be contended that such obstruction is supplied by the very characteristic of the Purusa as being seated in the cave, that is to say, by its not being the receptacle of adventitious properties or changes ; for, we would then reply that eternality is compatible with the nature of being the substratum of adventitious modes. For that which possesses a property and the property are not one and the same reality, so that the production and destruction of the property should themselves be the production and destruction of the substratum of the property. It is only he, then, who is conscious, that also under stands, cognises, apprehends, and intuits. Hence the hypothesis of distinct entities (e. y., Soul and understanding) is not reasonable. This- is the point. 1. Soul, Mind, Ether, Time, Space Air and Ultimate Atoms are not (ordinarily ) perceptible. ITpaskdra. This cognition, again, is two-fold, Vidyd, Science or true knowledge and A.-vidyd, Nescience or false knowledge. Vidyd is of four kinds, characterised by perception, inference, memory and testimony. A- Vidyd also has four kinds characterised by doubt,. error or mistake, dream, and uncertainty or indecision or non-finality. Among the above four kinds of true knowledge, that which is inferential, is not produced by the senses. Why this is so, is explained here. u c i \ \ * \\ <f3T Tatra, therein, among substances. Sff?*n Atma, soul, q^s Manas, mind. ^ Cha, and others, e. y., Ether, Time, Space, Air and Ultimate Atoms. W&rt A-pratyakse, non-perceptible, not objects of perception. 2. Among Substances, the Soul, the Mind and other ara not objects of perception. 311. KANiDA StiTRAS VII, 1, 2. 249 The word, soul, in the aphorism denotes the soul of another or one s own soul. That even one s own soul is not an object of perception, has been already declared, inasmuch as the casual mental intuition of the I, aham, in one s own soul, is repudiated by such intuitions " I am fair," " I am thin/ " I have long arms, etc. (where the I has reference to the body). The word, "cha," extends the application of the predicate to the substances, namely, ether, time, space, air, and ultimate atoms. Sense-born cognition again is of two degrees, being that of the omniscient and that of the non-omniscient. That of the omniscient is the cognition of such and such complements of objects by means of the proximity or presentation (or reaching upto ordinarily supersensuous objects) characterised by virtue or merit springing from Yoga (i. e. t inhibition of the activity of the internal organ, the mind, and con sequent freedom of the all-pervading soul, in other words, the steadi ness of the mind in the soul. Vide v. ii. 16 above-*) Thus ultimate atoms fall within its sphere, (or are objects of perception), being de monstrable, nameable, and existent. Objection. Since there is no material or data of such cognition, how can this be the case ? Magnitude also is a cause of sense-percep tion, but ultimate atoms do not possess magnitude. The possession of colour, again is the cause of visual perception, but sapce, etc., do not possess colour. How then can there be perception in these oases ? Answer. The objection does not stand, for such omniscience is possible by means of the mind alone as an auxiliary to the virtue or merit born of Yoga, or by means of the eye and other senses under the favourable influence of such mind. For the virtue or merit produced by Yoga is of inconceivable efficacy, and does not stand in need of any other auxiliary. " The man whose omniscience is the subject of controversy, is not omniscient, because he is a man like myself," such reasonings, however, are inapplicable, since they are void of argument which would render impossible the proposition of the other side (maintaining the existence of omniscience in the man in question), as is the case with the reasoning, " A follower of Prabhdkara (a writer of the Mimamsa school) is not versed in Mirnamsa, because he is a man like myself." Perception of the non-omnisciont, again, is two-fold, discrimina tive and non-discriminative- Discriminative cognition, according to Dharmakirti and Dinndya and others of the Bauddha school, is not certain knowledge or proof. Thus they argue : Such cognition owes its manifestation or apparent reality to connection with words. But the connection of an object with a word, a name, is not possible, that there should be such intuition, coloured with a name, as it were, as " A water-pot," or " A piece of cloth." Nor is jati, the universal, really existent or objectively real, that the being distinguished with the possession of it should be apprehended in objects by the sense. Nor is possible connection of the existent characterised by itself with that which is non-existent. Nor is the non-existent within the cognizance of senses. Therefore, discrimination (alochanam) is produced by the senses, and while in the process of being produced, and leading to 250 VAI&ESIKA PHILOSOPHY. corresponding objects, by the power of the discrimination, discrimina tive cognition is called perception and also proof. (To this the com mentator gives the reply.) Now, while discriminative cognition may be objectively unreal, besause it owes its manifestation or apparent reality to connection with words, it may be at the same time real, because it is the product of contact of sense and object. Hence it is doubtful that discriminative cognition is unreal. Moreover, the being distinguished with the possession of a name may very well be a possible object in visual cognition, its appearance in consciousness being possible form presentation by memory, as is the case with the perception " Fragrant sandalwood." Or, it may be, the being distin guished with the possession of a name does not come to light in perceptual cognition, and there is only recollection of the name, which as soon as it is recollected serves to. distinguish its corresponding object, like the recollection of the counter-opposite in the case of the cognition of non- existence. Also it has been proved that jAti, the universal or class, ect., are immanent in objects or" entities, Hence, discriminative or modified cognition also is perception, inasmuch as it is produced from contact of senses and objects. Objection. Non-discriminative, or unmodified, cognition neither excites to activity, nor is an object of current use. What then is the proof of its existence ? Answer. The proof is discriminative, or modified, cognition itself ,. for, this is a specialized cognition, or the cognition of a thing as pos sessing, and being accordingly distinguished by, something else. Nor can it be produced without the cognition of that which is possessed and serves to distinguish or individualize, that is the distinctive element. For it has been ascertained above that the cause of specialized cogni tion is cognition of that which serves to specialize, contact of sense and that which is going to be specialized, and non-apprehension of non-connection of both. 2. Bhdsya: Among substances, Self, Mind, and Ether are not objects of perception. Cognition, how produced. Upaiskdra.lu order to elucidate how Coguition is produced, in what circumstances, and from what causes, he says : Jnana-nirddese, in the differentiation of a particular cog nition. 5TFff^Gqfflf%fa: Jnana-nispatti-vidhih, mode or process of produc tion of cognition. TTF: Uktah, stated, described. 3. The mode of the production of Cognition is being descri bed, in connection with the differentiation of a particular Cognition. 312. A cognition should be marked off or distinguished from other cognitions, in i-espeet of the mode of its production, in respect of its subject matter, and in respect of its property. Now, differentiation of KANADA SfiTRAS VIII, 1, 4. 251 cognition having .to be made, the process of the production of cognition ia going to be described. This is the meaning. In uktah, the past participle affix Ha is used in the sense of incipient action. 3. Vivriti. What is the cause of cognition ? There being this expect ancy, he says : Jnana-nirddese/ i. e., in the third |book, where enunciation of cognition has been made. There too the process of the production of cognition has been described. The meaning is that the causes of cogni tion have been mentioned in. the aphorism, " That (i.e., knowledge> which is produced from the contact of the soul, the sense and the objec. is other (than a false mark) " (III i. 18.) Thus, the soul is the combi native cause of cognition, conjunction of the soul and the mind is the non-combinative cause, and contact or contiguity of the object is the efficient cause- This has been mentioned in that very aphorism. It should be observed that the causality of contact has been stated under the topic of perception. Substance is the cause of cognition of Attributes and Actions. . He describes the mode of production (of cognition) : 11 ^ i ? i 3 n Gruna-karmmasu, Attributes and Actions. ^TRT^55 Sannikris- tesu, being in contact. jjTFTf^iVt: JMna-nispattehyo f the production of cognition, ^wf, dravyam, substance. ^TTW* Karanam, cause. 4. Substance is the cause of the production of cognition, .where Attributes and Actions are in contact (with|the senses). 313. Substance is the cause of the cognition which is produced in respect of attributes, e. g., colour, etc., and in respect of actions, e. g. } throwing upwards, etc., Both of them are apprehended only in so far as they inhere in substances appropriate or perceptible to the senses. Hence it is the appropriateness or perceptibility of the substances which deter mines their perceptibility. It is by substance, moreover, that their co itiict with the senses is constituted, they being apprehended by means of their combination with the conjunct (i. e., Substance which is con junct with the sense). Althogh there is apprehended the odour of dis persed particles of champaka flower, and of portions of camphor, which aio all imperceptible, yet it is substance, imperceptible though it be,. which effects their contacts. Although perceptibility of substance ia not a requisite in the apprehension of sound, yet sound is apprehneded Only as it is combined or inherent, therein and hence this itself is the requisite. If it be asked, why is made this supposition of contact which is invisible ? we reply that the production of cognition, being an effect, necessitates the supposition of a cause. This is the import. 4. Substance is the cause of cognition of Genus and Species also. UpaaJcdra.He describes another mode of the production of knowledge : 252 VAI^ESIKA PHILOSOPHY. n s i ? i %*iJ<| Sainanya-vifiesesu, in genera and species. Samanya-visesa-abhavat, in consequence of the non-existence of genus and species, *T<T: Tatah, thence, from aubstrata. ^ Eva, alone. STT^J? Jnanam, cognition. 5. In consequence oflthe non-existence of Genus and Species in genera and species, cognition (of them) is due to that alone. 314. Existence is the (summum) genus, its species are substanceness,. attribute-ness and action-ness. These again are genera, and their species are earth-ness, etc., colour-ness, etc., throwing-upward-ness, etc. Among these, omnisensuous cognition of the genera inhering in substance is due to that only, that is, due only to appropriate or per ceptible, particular substratum, and also to combination with the* conjunct, combination with the combined with the conjunct, .and com bination with the combined, all these combinations being related to that substratum. Omnisensuous cognition, again, is produced, in the case of attribute, from combination with the combined with the Conjunct; in the case of sound-ness, fca-noss, etc., from combination with the combined ; in the case of existence, from combination w th the conjunct, from combination with the combined with the conjunct, and from combination with the combined. In the case of attribute, the proximity or contiguity which is the condition of perceptibility, is not Constituted by combination with the conjunct, or combination. It may be objected : Tatah, eva/ i. e., from contact with or contiguity to their substrata alone auch delimitation or exclusion is not valid. Because in genus and in species also there do exist other genus and species. Contact with, or contiguity to, them also is a cause of cognition. In anticipation of this objection, he says, * In consequence of the non-existence of genus and species. For genus and species do not exist in genus and species, since that would entail infinite regres sion. The intuition of their mutual distinctions arises from their own forms or natures alone, or in this way, for instance, that the genus, bovine-ness, is cognised from the distinctness of the upddhi, adjunct or external condition, characterised by being present-in-all-bovine ai i- inials ; while being absent from other than bovine animials. Similarly with regard to pot-ness, etc., also. 5. iolnt* and Species are causes of cognition of Substance, Attribute and Action. • TI*_ Upaskdru. It may be asked : As, in consequence of the non-existence of genus and epeoies, cognition of genus and, species is absolutely independent of them, is it likewise absolutely independent of them in (the case of substance, attribute and action also ? He says, No : n * i n 5 ir CANADA SftTRAS VIII, 1, 8. 253 Samanya-visesa-apeksam, dependent upon genus and species ^s^n^wfg Dravya-guna-karmmnasu, in respect of substance, attribute and action. 6. (Cognition which is produced) in respect of Substance, Attributes and Action, (is) dependent upon genus and species. 315. " Cognition is produced " this is the subject in discourse. In respect of substance, attribute and action, ithere is no doubt cognition specialized with the content of substance-ness, attribute-ness and action-ness. Such specialized cognition, again, cannot be produced without the contact of the subject specified, that which serves to specify, a-.ctthe sense. Hence dependence upon genus and species is there necessary. For there is such specialized cognition as " This is substance," " This is attribute," " This is action." This is the import. 6- Substance, Attiribute and Action are causes of cognition of Substance. [fpaskdra.Ia, then, in the case of substance also, cognition dependent only upon genus and species ? To remove this curiosity, he says : II c I ? l vs ii ^5^ Dravye ,in substance. ^s^JT^T^^I^n? Dravya-guna-karmraft- apeksam, dependent upon substance, attribute and action. 7. (Cognition), in the case of Substance, (is) dependent upon Substance, Attribute and Action. 316. " Cognition is produced" this is the subject in discourse. " A white cow, possessing a bell, is going," .this is a cognition. Here subs tance, the bell, is the distinction or that which serves to specify ; white denotes an attribute ; is going denotes action. Thus in specialized cognition or intuition of a thing distinguished with the possession of something else, there cannot be non-apprehension of the distinction or that which serves to specify, nor can such specialized intuition take place without relation to that which serves to specify. Hence in the cognition of substance there is dependence upon substance, attribute and action. Such is the import. 7. Attribute and Action are not causes of cognition of Attribute and Action. Upaskdra. Is there, then, dependence upon attribute and action, also in the case of attribute and action ? He saj s, No : U c m c II Guna-karmmasu, attributes and actions. n^TW^faraT^ Gruna- karuuna-abhavat, in consequence of the non-existence of attribute and action. JpJHJ^ft^t Gruna-karinnia-apeksam, dependent upon attribute and ctioa . f Na, not. f%T^ Vidyate, exists. 254 VAT^ESIKA PHILOSOPHY. 8. (Cognition), dependent upon Attribute and Action, does- not exist in the case of Attributes and Actions, inasmuch as Attri bute and Action do not exist in Attribute and Action. 317. " Cognition " is the complement of the aphorism. Since there is no cognition of attribute as distinguished with the possession of an other attribute, and since there is no cognition of action as dis tinguished with the possession of another action, there is no cognition thereof, which is dependent upon attribute and action. For there exists no attribute in an attribute nor action in actions, whereby .they might appear as distinctions in them. This is the import. 8. Combination (as well as Attribute^ is a e< use of Cognition. Upaskdra. Lest it might be asked that since thore is manifestation of attribute and action (in the cognitions thereof), why there should not be dependence upon attribute and action in the cognition of attribute and in tho cognition of action, BO ho begins another topic in reply to that : ii * i n s. u Samavayinah, of that in which combination exists, the substratum, "tfaqr^ovaityat, from whiteness. >%q^: Svaitya-buddheh r from cognition of whiteness. =g Cha, and. ft Sveto, in a white object. gfe;: Buddhih, cognition, ^ Te, they. ^ Ete, those. ^T 5 ^^^ Karyya- karana-bhute, related as effect and cause. 9. The cognition, ( It is white ) in respect of a white object, (results) from whiteness of the substance in which combination of whiteness exists, and from the cognition of whiteness. These two, (cognition of white object, and cognition of whiteness), are related as effect and cause. 318. By using the term Samavayinah he states the causality of relation. Thus, inasmuch as combination of attribute does not exist in attribute, and inasmuch as combination of action does not exist in action, in their respective cognitions there is no dependence upon attribute and action as distinguishing marks or qualifications ; but there does exist dependence upon attribute and action as subject-matter or objects of cognition. This being so, it is stated that in the case of such intuitions as " A white conch shell/ the combination of whiteness, the attribute whiteness, and the cognition of whiteness as a distinction or that which serves to specify, are the causes. So that relation with the distinction r the distinction, and cognition of them are the causes of specialized perceptual cognition. Hereby is proved all that has been stated. before. 9. Bhasya. reads VIII. i. 9 as two aphorisms, viz., Samavdyinah Svaitydchchhaiiya buddhescha svete buddhih, and Ta ete kdryakdrana- bhtite. KANiDA SftTRAS VIII, 1, 11. 255 Exception to the above. In the case of Substances, Cognition is not a cause of cognition. Upaskdra. It may be objected. As in the case of " possessing a bell," cognition of substance (e. g. t the cow possessing the bell) is dependent upon substance (e. g., the bell), so also in the case of (the serial cognitions of) " It is a pillar," It is a jar," etc., where the the cognition does not embrace another substance as a distinction, cognition of (the first) substance, (the pillar), is the cause (of the cognition of the second substance, jar), (and so or). Thus nowhere can there be cognition of substance in the first instance or at first hand. Dravyesu, in substances. %(P)d\d<^KU(|: An-itara-itara-kai anali, 11 ot causes, one of another. 10. In the case of Substances, (cognitions are) not causes of one another. 319. Accoodingly he says . " Cognitions " is the complement of the aphorism. Cognition of the jar, even though it takes place immediately after the cognition of the pillar, is yet not the effect of the cognition of the pillar, inasmuch as the pillar cannot properly be the distinction of, or that which serves to specify, by being containedlin, the jar. 10. The exception explained. Upaskdra. It may be urged that the sequence of the cognitions of the water-pot, the cloth, etc., is observed, and that that sequence is due only to the relation of effect and cause. So he says : Karana-ayaugapadyat, ifrom non-simultaneity of causes- ^TKm**ll<^ Karana-Kramat, from succession of causes. ^ Cha, and- ^rerf^^l ri Ghata-pata-adi-buddhinam of the cognitions of the water-pot, the cloth, etc. 3W Kratnah, succession. ^ Na, not. Hetu-phala-bhavat, in consequence of the relation of cause and effect. 11. The sequence of the cognition of the water-pot, the cloth, etc., (results) from the sequence of their causes, due to the non- simultaneity of the causes, and not in consequence of the relation of cause and effect (amongs the cognitions.) 320. The sequence of the cognitions of the water-pot, the cloth, etc., is dependent upon the sequence of their causes, and not dependent upon the relation of cause and effect. If it be asked, where the sequence of causes itself comes from, so he says, from the non-simultaneity of the causes. Simultaneity of cognitions has been denied or disproved. Hence there is not simultaneity also of diverse causes of cognition, If, 256 VAI&ESIKA PHILOSOPHY. on the other hand, there were simultaneity of causes, it would entail simultaneity also of effect, and thus the argument that non-production of simultaneous cognitions is the mark of the existence of the mind, would be shattered. This is the import. 11. Here ends the first chapter of the eighth book in the Commentary of Sankara upon the Vaisesika Aphorisms. Vivriti. The sequence or order, in the form of antecedence and subsequence, of the cognitions of the water-pot, cloth, etc., arises, not from the relation of cause and effect amongst them, but from the order r or the antecedence and subsequence, of the contacts, etc., of the water- pot, cloth, etc., (with the senses), which contacts are the causes of those cognitions. The word cha, and, implies the addition of non-simul taneity which is not mentioned here, and this word is to be construed after the word sequence or order. The mean.ing, therefore, is this that the non-simultaneity of the cognitions of the water-pot, cloth, etc., is> due to the non-simultaneity of their causes, e. g., contacts with senses,, etc. Where, however, simultaneity of the contacts, etc., of the water-pot and the cloth exists, there is simultaneously produced a collective cogni tion of all the objects in contact with the senses for the time being. Hence it is also to be understood that simultaneity of effects follows. from simultaneity of causes, . and non-sequence of effects from non- sequence of causes. Understanding or Intelligence, buddhi, is primarily divided into presentation, anubhtiti, and representation, smTiti. Presentation, according to the doctrine of Kanada, is again two-fold, being divided into perception pratyaksa and inference, anumdna. Perception is of six kinds, as derived from smelling, etc., (t. a-, from the five external, and the internal, senses) ; and is two-fold, as discirminative, saviTeal- paka, and non-discriminative, mrvikalpaka ; and two-fold, as ordinary or popular, laukika, and super-ordinary or hyper-popular, alauTciJca. Inference, again, is three-fold, as produced by illation from only positive conditions, kevala-anvayi, or purely agreemental ; from only negative- conditions kevala-vyatireki or differential ; and from both positive and negative conditions Sdmdnyato-drista, or inference from commonly observed marks. For example, " This is expressible by words, inas much as it is knowable," etc., are illations from purely positive condi tion (or by Mill s method of agreement). " Earth differs from other substances, inasmuch as it is possessed of odour," and the like are illa tions from purely negative conditions, (or by Mill s method of differ ence) ; and " The mountain is fiery, inasmuch as it smokes," and the- like are illations from both positive and negative conditions (or by Mill s method of agreement and difference.) Representation, reproduc tion or memory, on the other hand, is uniform, dependent on that form of Samshdra which is called Hhdvand or permanent mental impression,, having the same form as the original presentation and dependent upon certain cognition in which inattention played no part. In another point of view also, understanding is two-fold, science or correct know ledge, pramd, and nescience or incorrect knowledge, apramd. Science- is cognition a certain form of that which has that form. Nescience is cognition in certain form of that in which there is non-existence- KANADA SfiTRAS VIII, 1, 11. 257 of that form. Understanding or Intelligence is also two-fold accord ingly as it is divided into doubt, sam^aya, and certitude, niSchaya. Doubt is a cognition whereof the form is (mutually) repugnant exis tence and non-existence in one and the same object; certitude in regard to a thing is cognition in the form thereof, and not in the form of the non-existence thereof. In this doctrine, in the case of cognition of similarity, and in that of knowledge of terms, an inference takes place by the production of a judgment respecting the inferential mark, subsequently thereto. Evidence or proof, pramdna y is of two kinds, perception and inference ; and science is exact experience or correct presentation or presentation in accordance with reality. Tnis will be explained by the author of the aphorisms himself in the sequel. 258 VAlSESTKA PHILOSOPHY. BOOK EIGHTH CHAPTER SECOND. Cognition of a doubly specialized nature, illustrated. Upaskdra. Having described the mode of production of percoptual cognition, both <hscriminative and non-discriminative, now the author, with a view to describe the per ception of (a doubly specialized nature, or) the being specialized in the specialized, gives a few examples: I e: | ^ | \ \\ Ayam this, ^r: Esah that. ?*W\ Tvayii, by you.$rf Kritam, done. tfpTq Bhojaya, feed y*H En am, him. ffr Iti, such. f^n^ Buddh i- apeksam, dependent uponunderstauding or cognition.

1. This, That, Done by you, Feed him such (cogni tions are) dependent upon Understanding. 321.

The cognition, this, arises in respect of an object which is near and, that/ in respect of an object which is dista.it. By you _ such cognition, coloured with the characteristic of being an agent, presup poses or depends upon the cognition that he is independent in the action. The cognition of the act, namely, done, de: ends upon the cognition that it is the subject of the operation of the instrument of act! n. The cognition, feed/ depends upon the cognition that he in the agent in the act of feeding, and also the employer of the instru ment. The cognition, him, depends upon the cognition that he is the subject of the operation or relation of the fed and the feeder. Similar other instances of cognition, dependent upon cognition, should be understood.

Dependence of cognition upon cognition, explained.

Upaskdra. He says that this (i.e., dependence of cognition upon cognition in some o- is proved by induction from agreement and difference:

d*f *TRRseiGwraR[ ii * i * i R n

?tw Dristesu, in the case of objects seen. rRT^ Bhavat, from their existence or appearance. SK|<| A-dristesu, in the case of objects ui-.seen. Abhavat, from their non-existence or non-appearance.

2. (Such cognitions depend upon previous other cognitions), inasmuch as they appear in respect of objects seen, and do not appear in respect of objects unseen. 322.

When the contiguous object of the cognition This; the object, though distant yet presented in consciousness, of the cognition That, the object, i-e., the contiguous agent, of the cognition By you/ the object, i. e., the action, of the cognition done/ the object, i.e.", the em ployer and the employed, of the cognition Feed/ the object, i.e., the occupation of both of them, of the cognition Him/ when these objects come into contact with the senses, then such cognition is produced. Whereas with reference to unseen objects these cognitions do not

KANADA StiTRAS VIII, 2, 5. 259

appear. Hence this (i.e-, the dependence of cognition upon cognition can be inferred from agreement av.d difference. This is the mean ing. 2.

Substance, Attribute and Action are called artka or object.

\3pankara. Ho now begins another topio :

II c: I R I % II

H*: Arthah object. *fr Iti, such. jfw^Wg Dravya-guua-karm- masu, in respect of substance, attribute, and action.

3. (The Vaisesikas apply) the term, object, to Substance, Attribute and Action. 323

Of these, i. &-, Substance, Attribute and Action, the characteristic of being sought after or apprehended (by the senses) or objectified in such and such ways, has been stated. Hence, (It is) an object/ such is the terminology of the Vaisesika thinkers with regard to hem, inas much as as they are presented by the term, object. Accordingly it has been said by Professor Praaastadeva, "The characteristic of being denoted by the term, object, belongs to the three. "-

IV- ii. 2, re-called. Upaskdra. He introduces another topic.

H * i * i * ii

, Dravyesu, under substances. *|gnw!7?^. PaScha-atmakatvam, t.euta-subsfcantiality, the characteristic of being a compound of five -substances. stfM^H Pratisiddham, denied, contravened.

4. In (the topic dealing with the ascertainment of) Substances, (the theory) that bodies, etc., are a compound of five elements, has been refuted. -324.

Under substances the term indicates the topic of the determina tion <>f the predicable, substance. By the aphorism (IV. ii. 2, supra*)", "Of things perceptible and imperceptible, etc.," the penta-substantiality of the body, etc., that is to say, (the theory, that they are compounds of five elements, ; pratisiddham, has been refuted. As a variety of constituent causes does not belong to the body, so also it does not belong to the senses of smell, etc., which are going to be described, It, there fore, becomes proved that the senses are uniformly percipient of their corresponding attributes. This is the import. 4.

The Sense of Smell is constituted by the element of Earth. a.yie states the proposition for which the topic was begun :

II 5 I R I V, II

260 VAI^ESIKA PHILOSOPHY.

Bhuyastvat, by reason of preponderance or predominance. Gandha-vatvat, by reason of possession of smell. ^ Cha, and. Prithivi; earth. 7TOITFT G-andha-jnane, in (the constitution of) that by which smell is perceived, i. e., the olfactory sense, gfift: Prakritih, matter, material cause, essence.

5. By reason of (its) predominance, and of possession of Smell, Earth is the material cause of the olfactory sense. 325.

That by which smell is cognised, is gandha-jnanaih/ that is, the olfactory sense. Therein prithivi, Earth, alone is prakritih, the material cause. It may be asked, why is it so ? Accordingly he says 4 gandha-vatvat ; for it has been said already that that which possesses smell cannot be originated by that which isivoid of smell. The posses sion of smell (by the olfactory sense) or its odorousness is proved from the rule or well-known uniformity of nature that the external senses themselves possess attributes similar in kind to those which are appre hensible by them. If it be urged, how then can there be such unifor mity that the characteristic of being the revealer of smell does not belong to the other members of the body but only to the olfactory sense- orwan, even when terrene-ness belongs to all of them without distinction V 80 he says bhuyastvat. It is the being constituted or originated by terrene particles uninfluenced by other substances, which is called bhuyastvam, predominance. This, bhuyastvam, is a technical term, and has been so used in the kindred system (i. e., the Nydya- Sutram) also. 5.

Similarly the Senses of Taste, Colour and Touch are respectively

constituted by the Elements of Water, Fire and Air. Upaskdra. B.G extends the argument to the other senses :

I c I R I ^ II

Tatha, in like manner, snq: Apah, waters, ^n: Tejah, fire ^pj: Vayuh, air. *3 Cha, and. m^^TyiffSHl^ Rasa-rupa-sparsa-avifiesat be cause of the non-difference of taste, colour and touch.

6. In like manner, Water, Fire and Air (are the material causes of the sense-organs of Taste, Colour and Touch), inasmuch as there is no difference in the Taste, Colour and Touch (which they respectively possess, from what they respectively apprehend). 326.

1 The material causes of the organs of the tongue, the eye, and the akin this is the complement of the aphorism. Water, etc., are then respectively the material causes of the tongue, etc., inasmuch as the latter respectively apprehend the objects with which they are uniformly related. Here too it is bhuyastvam, predominance, which governs the uniformity (that the characteristics of being the revealer of taste> etc., belong respectively to the tongue, etc-) It has been declared that,

KANlDA SCTRAS VIII, 2, 6. 261

it is the rule or uniformity that the tongue, etc., possess particular .attributes of the same kind as are apprehensible by them, that is the proof of the possession of taste, etc., by the tongue, etc. Likewise the organ of hearing is only a portion or division of Ether confined within the hollow of the ear and favourably influenced by particular adyistam or destiny. 6.

Here ends the second chpater of the eighth book in the Commentary of Sarikara upon the Vaisesika Aphorisms.

262 VAI&ESIKA PHILOSOPHY

BOOK NINTH CHAPTER FIRST.

Perception, e. g., of antecedent non-existence is produced ly other means than conjunction or combination.

Upaskdra. After the determination of popular or ordinary perception produced" from contact or contiguity in the form of either conjunction or combination, the author begins the ninth book of whioh the object is to demonstrate ordinary or popular and super- ordinary or hyper-popular perception produced from proximity or presentation due to other causes :

II S. I t I t II

i?i consequence of

the non-existence of application or predication of action and attribute. prak, prior, antecedently. *RT^ A-sat, non-existent.

1. In consequence of the non-application of Action and Attribute (to it), (an effect is) non-existent prior (to its produtcion.) 227.

An effect/ such is the complement of the aphorism. Prak/ i. e. prior to the production of the effect, an effect/ e. g., a water-pot, cloth, etc., a-aat/ (i. e., non-existent), that is to say, the counter-opposite or contradictory of the contemporaneous non-existence of its own pro ducer. Here the reason is the impossibility of the application of action and attribute. If the effect, e. y., a water-pot, etc., were really existent during that time also, then it would be affirmed to possess action and attribute- As in the case of a water-pot already produced reference- can be made to it in such forms as "The water-pot is at rest/ "Th& water-pot is in motion/ "The water-pot is seen to possess colour," etc., there can be no reference made to it in like manner also prior to its production. It is therefore inferred that the water-pot is during that time, non-existent, And this, antecedent non-existence; in such cases as while straws are in the course of weaving or threads in the course of joining, or when clay is placed on the potter s wheel, while the- activity of the potter, etc., is yet going on, is the universally experien ced perceptual cognition that there will be in that place a mat, or a piece of cloth, or a water-pot, inasmuch as such cognition takes place- as soon as the eyes are opened. Here proximity or presentation con stituted either by conjunction or by combination cannot be the cause of the cognition. Hence proximity or presentation in which the thing in itself or the qualification or distinction of that which is connected with the sense, (indriya samboddha visesanata) is here the necessary- condition of perception. It cannot be said that in this explanation there is mutual dependence (of cause and effect) in as much as the- distinction of antecedent non-existence being existent, there is percep tion of it and the perception being existent, there exists the distinction for the characteristic of being the distinction is here really the proper or essential form of both the cause and the effect and it is capable of producing perception in which both are mutually involved and that is- really existent even prior to the perception so it has been declared in.

KANADA SttTRAS IX, 1, 2. 26?

the Nydya-Vdrtika, "In the case of combination as well as if Non-exis tence, the relation of vis?sna that which serves to specify and visesya that which is specified, (is the proximity between the sense and the object)."

This same antecedent non-existence is productive of its counter- opposite (that is, the object not yet existent). For when a water-pot is produced, it is not produced just at that very moment. Even though the other (partial) causes existed at the time, the iniperfectness of the cause, being pursued, should pursue only the imperfectness consisting of the antecedent non-existence of the water-pot itself. If it be objected that the (antecedently non-existent) water-pot itself would then be an impediment to its own production; our reply is that since, by its non-existence at the time, it constitutes the absence of impedi ment, its causality should not be thrown away. Nor can it be objected that the water-pot itself constituting the non-existence of its antecedent non-existe.ice, it would follow that its antecedent non-existence will again appear when the water-pot is destroyed; for, the destruction of the water-pot also is repugnant to its antecedent non-existence, so that there can be no appearance of a contradictory also during the existence of another contradictory. For the contradiction between them is not merely spafci il, so that they might be simultaneous like (the genera of) bovine-ness and h-jrse-ness. The contradiction is temporal also, and therefore how can they be existent at one and the same time? 1.

Note. In this and the few following aphorism*, the author deals with the topic of non-existence. Now, non-existence is primarily divided into two kinds, samsarga-abhdva and anyonya-abhdva. Anyonya-abhdva or reciprocal non-existence is characterised as non- existence of which ithe counter-opposite (i. e., the object non-existent) is determined by the relation of identity ; in other words, it is equivalent to absence of identity, that is, difference. Samsarga-abhdva or relational non-3xistenco is non-existence other than reciprocal non-existence, and it is sub-divided as antecedent, consequent, and absolute non-existences.

Bhdsya. Non-Existence is not the seventh predicable inasmuch as absolute non-existence, e. y., a castle in the air, is not a predicable at all, while non-existence of the existent, in the forms of non-production, destruction, and absence of identity, cannot exceed the number of the six-predicables.

Consequent non-existence also is proved by perception and inference.

Upatkdra. He states that another (form of) non-existence is established by the foroe >f cognition.

?3T Sat, existent. 5RTc^ A-sat, non-existent. 2. The existent (becomes) non-existent. 328.

As the non-existence of the effect, prior to the operation of the cause, is proved by perception and inference, so is it proved by percep tion and inference, after the operation of a club, etc., which destroys it, that a really existent effect, e. g., a water-pot, etc., is now non existent. And this same non-existence is commonly described a.

264 VAI&ESIKA PHILOSOPHY.

annihilation or destruction (or consequent or emergent non-existence.) For there arise such cognitions as that the water-pot is now destroyed, annihilated, that the letter ga which was heard before, no longer exists, etc. This is the import. 2.

existent is a different thing from tli< j non-existent, so that after annihilation there can be no continuation of existence.

Upaskdra.lt may be objected : It is the same water-pot that under a partioulai condition gives rise to the idea, or conventional use, of annihilation ; and not that th annihilation of the water-pot is different from the water-pot :

& I t I ^ II

A-satah, from the non-existent. fsKmTOtf^r^Wn^T^ Kraiya-guna- vyapadesa-abhavat, in consequence of the non-existence of reference- by, or predication of, action and attribute. ?T*lfaT?:JI Artha-antaranu a different object.

3. (The existent is) a different object (from the non-existent), inasmuch as Action and Attribute cannot be predicated of the non existent. 329.

Accordingly he says :

"The existent" such is the complement of the aphorism. The- existent is a different object from the non-existent. If it be asked, How ? So he says, kriya-guna-vyapadeia-abhavat. For there can be no such predication, during the period of annihilation also, as- " The water-pot remains," " The water-pot exists at this moment, " The water-pot possesses colour," " Bring the water-pot," etc. In consequence of this difference, therefore, the existent is a different thing from the non-existent. 3.

Bhd$ya. Whatrver is non-existent prior to its apperanoe as air effect, is non-existent only by the nature of an effect, but is really existent at the time by the nature of a cause, and that, therefore, it is- essentially different from absolute non-existences. Reciprocal non-existence or absence of identity, explained. Upaskdra. Antecedent and consequent non-existences being proved, the p resent Aphorism is laid down with the purpose of proving mutual or reciprocal non-axistence : II S. I * I 8 II ^ Sat, the existent. ^ Cha, and, also. 3RT^ A-sat, non-existent. 4. The existent also is non-existent. 330. Where. a really existent water-pot etc., are spoken of as being non- , there non-existence of identity is perceived. For the-e arise- " The horse is non-existent by the nature of the cow," <v is non-existent by the nature of the hoi^se," " Apiece of cloth KANADA SftTRAS IX, 1, 5. 265 is non-existnt by the nature of a water-pot," "A piece of cloth is a not- water-pot," "A cow is a not-horse," " A horse is a not-cow," etc. Now y " A cow possesses reciprocal non-existence with a horse," " A water- pot possesses reciprocal non-existence with a piece of cloth/ it is this reciprocal non-existence, otherwise called absence of identity, that appears in the above cognitions. Here identity is that which de termines the counter-oppositeness or contrariety (of absence of identity). And this (reciprocal) non-existence has the same substratum or denotation or extension as its counter-opposite ( . e., identity); for there is such cognition as that the water-pot is not the ground (on which it lies). It is also eternal, for it is impossible that there should be at any time identity between a water-pot and a piece of cloth. 4. In addition to antecedent, consequent, and reciprocal, non-existence, there is absolute non-existence. Upaskdra.Novf he describes the fourth (kind of) non-existenoe called absolute non-existenoe. M . I ? I , M q^ Yat, that, which. =g Cha, and. STl^ Any at, different. A-sat, non-existent. ?ffi: Atalj, from these, i. e., antecedent, consequent, and reciproeal, non-existents. ^ Tat, that. ITOc^ A-sat, non-existent. 5. And that which is a different non-existent from these, is (absolutely) non-existent.- 331. Atah/ from the three forementioned non-existences, *yat any at a-sat tat a-sat/ (that which is a different non-existent is non-existent) • . e., that is absolute non-existence. The word a-sat (non-existent) is in both the places used in a substantive sense. Of these, one a-sat/ is the subject and the other a-sat is the predicate in apposition with the subject. The meaning of the aphorism, therefore, eomes to be this that non-existence which is different from the three fore-mentioned non- existences, is absolute non-existence. Amongst these, antecedent non- existence is limited in the future or at the end, consequent non- existence is limited in the past or at the beginning, and reciprocal non-existence has the same substratum or extension as its counter- opposite ; but absolute non-existence differs from all the three. Hence it is the fourth (kind of) non-existence. 5. i. There are three things repugnantto absolute non-existence, viz., the counter-opposite or the object non-existent, its antecedent non- existence, and its consequent non-existence. The ancients teach that the cognitions that dark colour does 4 not exist (after baking) in a red water- pot, and that red colour does not exist (before baking) in a dark water-pot, are conversant about consequent and antecedent non-existences, but not absolute non-existence. The moderns, on the other hand, maintain that consequent and antecedent non-existences are not repugnant to absolute non-existence and hence that there certainly is absolute non-existence also by reference to annihilation, production, etc. They hold that when a water-pot, etc., previously removed, are brought back to a place, there is no cognition of the absolute non-existence of the water-pot, so 266 VAIEIKA PHILOSOPHY. long as the water-pot exists, inasmuch as the time during which the water-pot is existent does not constitute connection with non-existence. Some, again, teach that when there has formerly stood in any place a water-pot, and this has been removed and brought back again, there arises in this case cognition of a fourth kind of non-existence under the aspect of connection (Samsarga-alhdva), called temporary non- existnce, and not of absolute non-existence. Causes of the perception consequent non-existence. Upaskdra. He nowibegins another section and therein states the causes of the perception of consequent non-existenoo : A-sat, non-existent, jfr Tti, such. 3JFTJK<r5TPTT3T^ Bliftta-pratyaksa- abhavat, because of the non-existence of the perception of a past object. Bhuta-smriteh, because of the recollection of a past object. Virodhi-pratyaksa-vafc, similar to the perception of the contradictory or opposite. 6. "(It is; non-existent " such (perceptual cognition) is similar to the perception of the counter-opposite (of non-existence), because fin both cases) there is non-existence of the perception of that which is past and gone, and there is recollection of the past.- 332. A-sat iti ; By the word, iti/ he indicates cognition in the form of perception. Thereby (it is obtained that) there is such perceptual cognition as " The water-pot is non-existent," " The water-pot has- been destroyed," " The water-pot is now in a state of annihilation." An example of this cognition is given by l virodhi-pratyaksa-vat ; as there is clear perception of the counter-opposite (of existence) e. </., a water-pot, etc., so there is of its annihilation or consequent non-exis tence also. The reason of this stated as bhuta-pratyaksa-abhavat, which means, because there is non-existence of the perception of bhuta, i. e., a water-pot, ete., which having been first produced have been subse quently destroyed. Hereby the non-apprehension of the (once) appre hensible is stated. There, again, the following argument is confirma tory (of the perceptual cognition) : If there were a water-pot here,. it would be seen, as the place is seen ; but it is not visible ; therefore there is none. He mentions another auxiliary cause : bhuta-smriteh, which means, because there is recollection of the counter-opposite, e. </., a water-pot, etc., which is past and gone. Hereby recollection of the counter-opposite is stated. 6. VivTiti- The four kinds of non-existence being explained, the per ception of consequent non-existence is explained. A-sat, iti, " The water-pot is non-existent," The water-pot is destroyed/ 5 " The water-pot is annihilated," such perception, virodhi- pratyaksavat, is similar to the perception of the water-pot which is the KANlDA SftTRAS IX, 1, 7. 267 counter-opposite (of ita non-existence), that is to say, is proved by sense-experience and produced from the ordinary or popularly under stood contact (of sense and object). Between them there is, however, this difference that the perception of the counter-opposite is produced from the conjunction of the eye, etc-, (with their objects), while the per ception of consequent non-existence is produced from there being a modification or qualification (e< g., non-existence of water-pot in. ("plac.e possessing non-existence of water-pot") conjoint with the eye r etc. He mentions another point of difference, viz., bhuta-pratyaksa- abhavat. The meaning is that perception of consequent non-existence- is produced from a cause in the form of the non-apprehension of the 3 apprehensible consequent on the non-existence of the perception of the- past, i. ., the counter-opposite, e. g., the water-pot, etc., and also from the recollection of the past water-pot etc., in other words, from cogni tion of the counter-opposite, which cognition is here identical with recollection. Thus the perception of consequent non-existence is pro duced from the non-perception of its counter-opposite as well as from the cognition of the counter-opposite, whereas the perception of the- eounter-opposite is not so produced. There is, therefore, difference between them in this respect also. This is the import. * It should be observed that recollection as such is not intended (in this aphorism,. though the word has been used), but mere cognition is intended. Thai being so, the idea is this that as the water-pot, etc., are proved by perception, so also are their consequent non-existences. Causes of the perception of antecedent non-existence. Upaskdra. Extending to (antecedent non-existence the mode in which consequent non-existence is an object of perception, he says : ii & i ? i va u <fl>JT Tatha, similarly. Wt& A-bhave, in the case of (antecedent) non-existence. HTMH?^?^!^ Bhava-pratyaksa-tvat, in consequence of the perceptibility of the .existent, xj Cha, also. 7. Similarly (there is perceptual cognition) of (antecedent) non-existence, in consequence also of the perceptibility of the existent. 333. Although this word, non-existence is a general terra, still from the context it signifies antecedent non-existence. As there is perceptual cognition in the case of consequent non-existence, so also in the case of antecedent non-existene. Q. How? A Bhava-pratyksatvat : praty- aksatvat, in consequence of the characteristic of being made an object of cognition by perception, bhavasya, of straws, etc., while these are in the course of weaving (for a mat which is then antecedently non-exis- % cent). Or, the meaning is this: pratyaksatvat, in consequence of the fit ness (for the senses) or apprehensibility, bhavasya/ of the substratum as well as of the counter-opposite (t. e., the mat after production) ; in asmuch as the apprehensibility of the substratum as well as the appre hensibility of the counter-opposite govern the apprehension of Samsarga- abhdva or relational non-existence. The word cha, also, brings 268 VAI/SEIKA PHILOSOPHY. forward the recollection of the counter-opposite and the argument already stated (in the preceding aphorism, as contributory causes of the perception of antecedent non-existence.) (It ia to be obserred that),. although antecedent non-existence has no beginning, and although consequent non-existence has no end, yet they are preceptible under particular conditions only. 7. Vivfiti. It may be asked, inasmuch as antecedent non-existence has no beginning, how is it that there is no perception of it long before the production of the conjunction of the two halves of a water-pot, etc., the fore-mentioned causes (of such perception) being possible at that time also? Hence the author adds, bhava-pratyaksatvat. • Bhava means the final collocation of causes, according to its deriva tion from the root bhti,, to be by the affix ghaK, in the ablative sense that it springs from this. Bhavapratyaksatvat means the state or condition of that whereof perception takes place by means of bhava. The resultant meaning of the term, therefore, is, because it must be mani fested by the final collocation of causes. Thus, the import is, in the instance in question, there can be no perception of antecedent non-exis tence in consequence of the non-existence of the final collocation of cause. Causes af the perception of reciprocal non-existence. .Ho shows that reciprocal non-existenoo is an object of perception : II . I ? I c l| Eton a, hereby. *TTC: A-ghata^, not-water-pot. *pft: A-gauh,. not-cow. Wiwf: A-dharmalj, not-dharma. ^ Cha, and, also. cWMTft: Vyakhyatah, explained. 8. Hereby also are explained * not-water-pot, not-cow/ 1 Etena by this term he extends (the causality of) the recollection of the counter-opposite, apprehension of the substratum, and the .argu ment stated before. Non-apprehension of the apprehensible is the same in all cases. The word, cha, also, has the object of bringing forward what has been stated before. A-dharma^ : By saying that the reciprocal non-existence of dharma, merit, though it is supersensible, is an object of perception in its substratum, e. g. : pleasure, knowledge, etc., he suggests that in the apprehension of reciprocal non-existence, apprehensibility of the counter-opposite is not the governing condition, but that only the apprehensibility of the substratum is the governing condition. How otherwise eould the reciprocal non-existenoe of a fiend, in the form that the pillar is not . a fiend, be apprehended in the pillar ? For, the non-apprehension of a fiend as being coincident or identical with the pillar is the cause of the apprehension of the re ciprocal non-existence of a fiend (in the pillar), and, it is again impossible, were the pillar identical with a fiend, that there should be such non-apprehension (of a fiend in the pillar), since such non- apprehension is contradictory to, or contravened by, the existence of the entity (e. </., a fiend) which is the counter-opposite (of its non- existence.) KANiDA SftTRAS IX, 1, 9. 269 Objection. Identity with a fiend is not in this instance the counter- opposite. Is it then a fiend ? But it may be that though it is present in the pillar, yet, like its gravity, it is not apprehended. Hence its non-apprehension would not be contradictory to the existence of the entity which is the counter-opposite, (viz., a fiend.) Answer. It is not so, for, like the non-apprehension of the counter- opposite, the non-apprehension of that which determines the charac teristic of being the counter-opposite, also causes the apprehension of non-existence. Objection. The apprehension of reciprocal non-existence is depend ent upon the apprehension of counter-opposite-ness, and counter-oppo- ^iteness is of the nature of the absence of reciprocal non-existence; and hence it follows that the apprehension of reciprocal non-existence is really dependent upon the apprehension of reciprocal non-existence. Answer. This is not the case; for, as has been already stated, it is a. property which is cognised as being not present in any given subs tratum, that determines the characteristic of being the counter-opposite, but the apprehension of that property also as that which determines counter-opposite-ness, is not the governing condition (of the apprehen sion of reciprocal non-existence.) 8. Vivriti. The causes of the apprehension of reciprocal non-exis tence are determination (or possession of attribution, or intrinsic form) in relation to the senses, indriya-nambaddha-visesanatdj non-appre hension of the counter-opposite, and cognition of the counter-opposite- The difference, however, is this that the perceptibility of the counter- opposite is the condition of apprehension of Samsarga-abhdva or rela tional non-existence, whereas it is the perceptibility of the substratum that is the condition of apprehension of reciprocal non-existence. Thus, in spite of the super-sensibility of dharma or merit, there is no impedi ment to the perception of its reciprocal non-existence in the sensible substratum thereof, e. g., pleasure and the like. Whereas some have taught that perceptibility of both the counter-opposite and the sub stratum is the condition of apprehension of relational non-existence, this is inaccurate ; for, were this the case, since the perception of non- existence of fragrance in a stone, of non-existence of bitterness in treacle, of non-existence of colour in air, and of non-existence of touch .as well as sound in ether would be impossible their respective substrata would not be perceptible to the several senses cognisant thereof res pectively. It is from this consideration that Paksadhara Misra has maintained that the perception of the destruction (or cessation) of the touch of air is produced by the determination or qualification thereof by time conjoint with the skin. Perception of absolute non-exivtence, how produced. Upaskdra Now in this aphorism he says that absolute non-existence is an object of perception: ii s. i ? i s. ii A-bhutam, not produced. 5f Na, not. tff^T Asti, exists, ffa Iti r this. *H*lfrtH?j; An-artha-antaram, not different objects. 270 VAIEIKA PHILOSOPHY. 9. That which has not been produced, does not exist; this is- an identical proposition. 335. That which was produced, at present does not exist such cogni tion rests upon annihilation, and is not conversant about, or does not bring out, the having been produced; whereas perceptual cognition which embraces simply this that it does not exist, reposes upon absolute non-existence. A-bhutam, (that which has not been produced), denotes non-cognizance of production and destruction. The being an-artha-antaram, not different objects, also has the same purport only. For example, Earth-ness dues not exist in Water, and Water- ness does not exist in Earth. For, were there Earth-ness in watery wholes, it would be perceived, but it is not perceived, therefore it does not exist; a reference to such argument is to be observed in this case also. We must, in like manner, hold that there is absolute non-exis tence of a thing where such a thing will never be, nor even has been, produced. The cognition, on the other hand, in the form that it does not exist, of the non-existence in their substratum, of that which has been, and that which will be, depends upon consequent non-existence and ante cedent non-existence. Hence it is that this (absolute non-existence) is de signated as absolute or illimitable and as of trinal time or eternal. 9. Vivriti. Na asti iti, perception in the form that something does not exist, which is abhutam/ not conversant about the past, an-artha- antaram, that is, has for its object nothing but absolute non-existence, such as consequent non-existence etc. * * * *. The word bhuta or past includes the future also. The perception, "Tht water-pot dot-u not (71010) wist in the room," explained. Upaskdra.It may be objected: The non-existence of the water-pot in the room is not absolute non-existenoe, because of the existence of the water-pot there at some time or other. Nor is it either antecedent non-oxietenoe or consequent non-existence, for they appear only in combinative causes. Nor is it absolute non-existence undergoing production and destruction, for the expression absolute non-existence undergoing pro- dcution and destruction involves a contradiction in terms. Nor is it a fourth kind of samsarga-abhdva or non-existence of association, since inithat case the three-fold division of the non-existenoe of association would be disproved. To meet this objection, he says : , u f Na, not. uf^T Asti, exists, qi: Grhatah, water-pot, ff^ Gehe, in the room.$f?T Iti, such. ^T: Satah, existent, vrapj Grhatasya, of water- pot. Jfr^nEffafrre^ Geha-samsarga-pratisedhah, negation of association with the room.

10. The water-pot does not exist in the room such is (the form of) the negation of association of the existent water-pot with the room. 336.

(* Geha-samsarga-pl-atisedhah means) the negation or privation of the association or conjunction of the water-pot with the room. And it would be simply absolute non-existence, if the water-pot do not exist

KANADA SUTRAS IX, 1, 10. 271

at any time whatever ; antecedent non-existence, in the case of the water-pot which will exist; and consequent non-existence, in the case of the water-pot which had its existence in the past.

Objection. That being so, the cognition should have been in this form that connection of the water-pot does not exist in the room.

Answer. What is meant by the cognition should have been ; ? If it means l the cognition of which the actual object or content is the -connection of the water-pot, should have been, and so conveys the sense of inclusion, then what is desired is obtained. If, on the other hand, it means (the cognition) which refers to or suggests that (i. e., connection of the warer-pot), then (we reply that), it is the reference to the substratum, viz-, in the room, which leads to, and results in, the reference to the connection, inasmuch as it is the being the substratum that appears in the form of con.nection of the property (or conjunction -of the contained.)

Objection. Does then the water-pot really exist there V

Answer. What do you mean by really exist ? Is it combined or conjunct ? It cannot be the first since there is in the room non-exis tence, of the water-pot as combined with it (that is, since the room is not the material cause of the water-pot). Nor the latter, since there is denial of conjunction.

Objection. It would then follow that the water -pot, etc., are always present, inasmuch as there is everywhere denial only of the one or the other of their conjunction and combination.

Answer. This would not follow, since the denial itself of both of them is idcntial with the denial of the water-pot. Are then the water- pot and its conjunction one and the same thing, whereby denial of con junction of the water-pot would be the denial of the water-pot ? Are then the water-pot and its combination one and the same thing, where by the admission itself of its combination would be the admission of the water-pot ? For, there is not presence of the water-pot there where both of them (conjunction and combination) are denied, whereby the water-pot might be in constant agreement. Thus it is the denial or negations of the admission or affirmation of something, that constitutes the denial or negation of that thing. .. /

Or, it may be that there is really absolute non-existence of tho water-pot in the room in the relation of being in combination, and that it is this (absolute non -existen.ee) that is the object of the cognition that the water-pot does not exist in the room ; as for example, (there is absolute non-existence of the water-pot) in the potsherd in the relation of being in conjunction.

Objection. Such being the case, the water-pot would be non-exis tent, being the counter-opposite of the constantly present absolute non-existence.

Answer- It would be so, were it everywhere non-existent under the joint characteristics of being in conjunction and being in combi nation. 10.

272 VAIEIKA PHILOSOPHY.

Perception of the Soul, how produced, in the yogins who are (called)

united.

Upaskdra. Having thus ascertained popular perception having for its object existence and non-existence, he begins a new section in order to ascertain the perception of the yoyint :

fi. I ? I I

Atmani, in the soul. TTW?^T: Atma-manasoh, of soul and mind. ^nftMftsflMT^ Samyoga-visesat, from a particular conjunction- Atma-pratyaksara, perception of the soul.

11. Perceptual cognition of the Soul (results) from a particu lar conjunction of the Soul and the Mind in the Soul. 337.

" Knowledge is produced " such is the complement (of the aphor ism.) Now, the yogins or ascetics are divided into two classes ; those whose internal organs have been steadied in samddhi or deep medita tion, and they are called united ; and those whose internal organs are no longer steadied in samddhi, and they are called disunited- Therein those who are united, having with eagerness fixed their mind on the object to be presented to it, are engaged in constant meditation ; and in them cognition of the soul, of their own souls as well as of the souls of others, is produced. Atrna-pratyaksariV means in the manner of the cognition in which the soul is the percept or object of immediate presentation or intuition. Although in ourselves and others also, cognition of the soul sometimes exists or appears, yet, as it is obscured by avidyd or nescience, it has been declared to be virtually non-existent. Atma-manasoh samyoga-visesat means from particular contiguity between the soul and the mind, i;amely, a favourable influence by virtue born of yoga or holy communion. 11.

Vivriti. Having examined perception produced through ordinary or physical presentation or contiguity, he now explains perception produced through super-ordinary or hyper-physical presentation or contiguity.

• Atma-manaso^ samyoga-visesat, from the conjunction of the soul and mind, accompanied by the power or virtue born of yoga, or holy communion ; Atmani, there being effort or volition towards the origi nation of understanding, (dtmdjne&uing volition) on the authority of the lexicography : " Soul or Atmd, Volition, Patience or Contience, Understanding (are synonymous)," that is to say, when there arises the thought^ produced by volition towards the origination of under standing ; Atma-pratyaksam/ perception of one s own soul as well as of the souls of others ; " takes plaee/ this is the complement of the aphorism.

ITow, super-ordinary or hypher-physical presentation or contiguity is three-fold, according to its division as Sdmdnya-lakaand, having the form of the genus, jfidna-laksand, having the form of cognition, and yogaja-dharma, virtue or power born of holy communion. Therein yogaja-dharma is a particular merit or virtue produced by the practice-

KANADA StiTRAS IX, 1, 13. 273

of yoga or holy communion, and to the existence of which the Vedas, Puranas, etc., testify. It is again two-fold according to the two-fold- ness of the yoyins as those who are united or have attained to holy communion mid those who are in the process of being united or are in the course of attaining to holy communion. Among them those are called the unit t d, who have subdued their mind or inner sense by the practice of yoga and have achieved the siddhis or < powers/ perfection or attain ments by means of Samddhi or meditation. It is they that are also called the specially united, on account of their possessing conspicuous or advanced yoga. Those who are in the process of being united are they whose minds are turned away from objects of the senses and who are immediate beholders of all objects through the accompaniment of con templation. The present aphorism has been laid down with reference to such yog-inn only.

Xott. It would seem that the word viyukta has been differently used by SaAkara Misrct and Jayandrdyana ; by the former in tho sense of the disunited, and by the latter as denoting those who are specially united through the possession of highly advanced yoga Vide IX. . IS infra, Upaskdra. Sahkara Misra obviously does not recognise the distinction, made by Jayanilrdyana, of the united and those in the process of being united. According to him, yogiut are of rwo classes, namely, the united and the ultra-united or dis-united.

Omniscience of the united yogins, how possible.

L pathira. Do then the tinned have cognition in respect of the -soul only? How there fore oau they possess omniscience ? In roplyito these possible queries, he says :

N & i ? i 33 ii

mil Tatha, similarly. 3*11^3 Dravya-antaresu, in the case of other substances. SCT^R Pratyaksaih, perceptual.

12. Perceptual (cognition is) similarly (produced) in the case of the other substances. 338.

" Cognition is produced this is implied by the context. <Tath& means by the mind, only as favourably influenced by, or accompained with, the virtue or power, born of yoga or holy communion. Dravya- antaresu means in respect of the four kinds of ultimate atoms, the mind, air, space, time and ether. By the term, substance, are included attribute, action and genus inhering in substance ; the predicable, species, combination ; also gravity, elasticity, etc., appertaining to things which are not objects of perception ; and also volition, the sourc* of vitality (or spontaneity), non-discriminative thought, dharma, adharma, etc., residing in the soul. For the favourable influence of the virtue or power born of yoga is equivalent to a perceptive apparatus ; otherwise omniscience would not be affirmed (of those who are united. ) 12.

Omniscience belong also to those yogina who are (called) dis-united.

Upnskiira. Having described the perceptual cognition of the united, he now describe*

that of tho disunited.

I! . I ? I t^ II

274 VAI!ESIKA PHILOSOPHY.

A-samahita-antahkaranah, whose internal organs are not attached to meditation. SH*fd^*TT>5ni: Upsamhrita-samadhayahj who have given up meditation, for Tesam, their. 5 Cha, also.

13. They whose internal sense-organs are not attached to meditation, are those by whom meditation has been given up. They too (have perception of hidden and distant objects.) 339.

1 Upasamhrita-samadhayah is simply an explication of asamahita- antahkaramih. Or, to the question, why they are called asmahita- antahkaranal? V the reply is given by upasamhrita-samadnayah, meaning, because they are those by whom. Sarnadhi of which the essence is constant meditation, upasamhrita, has been thrown away. For they, being able to transced the senses through the influence ^>f Samddhi, absorption or intentness of mind on o;ie acquiring Sarira-Siddhi, powers over, or perfection of, the physical object only, and, organism, e. </., the power of attenuation, etc., and Indriya-Siddhi, powers over, perfection of, the senses, e. (/-, the power of hearing at a distance, i. c., clair-audience, etc., and then feeling the insufficiency of Samddhi itself, realise the need of other parctices as referred to in following and other texts of the Veda : rTT^^I^J f%< m^t f%*ft^T ^*I 3*T?**I, There is need for it so long as I am not freed and fulfilled. They learn that every form of blioya or experience whether agreeable or disagreeable, must be undergone, and that they will undoubtedly reach firm ground from which there is 710 fall, only after experiencing Karma-dtaya, vehicles of karma, c., physical organisms, previously merited or acquired, in different countries, divisions of the land, peninsulas, etc., by different births as horses, elephant, birds, serpents, etc., as well as by existence as celes tials, sages, or men. They, therefore, make the whole universe of things, hidden and distant, the objects of their perception, the powers of their senses having been enlarged or heightened by the force of the virtue or power born of Yoga. 13.

Vivriti. After describing the perception of the yoyin who is in course of union, he describes that of the yoyin who has attained union.

Asamahita-antahkaranah, those whose internal sense is destitute of tiamddhi or meditation ; upasamhrita-samadhayah, those by whom samadhi or deep meditation has been consummated, that is, carried to fruition, in whom are produced the various siddhiy, perfections or attainments which are the fruit of samddhi or deep meditation; such united yog ins attain perception of souls and other substances. Such is the sense to be gathered from the aphorism- In fine, in the perception of the yoyin who is in course of union, there is need for dhydna, thought or contemplation, while in the perception of the yoyin who is united, there is no need of satnddhi or meditation involving thought or con templation.

. According to the vivriti, the word asam4hita-antahkranah would seem not to have syntactical connection in the approhism. The classification of yoyins, made by Jayantirdyana, is, therefore, so far unsatisfactory.

KANlDA StTTRASIX, 1,14. 275

The Yog in a perception of Substance, Attribute and Action, popularly explained.

UpasMra. It may be objected: In them ( ., substances, etc.) cognition (of the Ypgins) is not mental, inasmuch as the mind is no* self-dependent outside its sphere. Nor ia it product of the external senses; for, they apprehend objects present as being connected with them, depend upon the development of colour, etc., as the case may be, to the degree of perceptibility, and particularly depend also upon light, etc.

In anticipation of this objection, he proves proximity (. ., the medium of cognition) in the case of certain predioables, and says:

Tat-samavayat, from combination with that, i.e., subs tance. qTFFtJTQt!! karmma-gunesu, in respect of actions and attributes.

14. (Perception) of Actions and Attributes (arises) from (their) combination with Substance. 340.

" Perceptual cognition is produced" this is the complement (of the aphorism.) If the elemental senses are dependent upon some pre sentation or contiguity (of objects to them for the apprehension of those objects by them), then from the combination in that which is in conjunction with the mind of the perceiver, cognition of the genera of attributes combined or inhering in the ultimate atoms, ether, space and timo, is produced and in the case of other substances, since there is conjunction with them of various sterile (seed-less ?) minds, favourably directed towards, or taken over for, the experience of mortal coils, cognition is produced in respect of the attributes, etc., of those substances through their combination in those substances which are thus conjoint with those minds. This is declared here, regard being had to, or in view of easy demonstration. In fact, in the case of the external senses as well as of the mind, it is the virtue or power born of yoga that constitutes the proximity or presentation to the senses, inasmuch as all uncertainty or impossibility of proof is set at rest by it alone. Tho drinking up of the ocean by Agastya (the sage), and the conver sion of the kingdom of Dandaka into a forest are examples in point. -.14.

Vivriti. It may be urged that omniscience is not possible or proved in the 1 oyin, for though there be perception of substances, there is no such cognition of attributes, etc. Accordingly he says :

The meaning is that from combination of that/ i. e., conjunction of mind facilitated by the power or virtue born of Yoga or holy com munion, there is produced in the Yogin, whether united or in course of union, perception of attributes and actions.

• * * The term k of actions and attributes is indicative, and genus, etc., also are to be understood. In a like manner, should be understood perception produced from super-ordinary or hyper-physical presentation or contiguity in the form of Sdmdnya-laJesana or general implication, and jndna-laksana or implication of cognition.

276 VAlgEIKA PHILOSOPHY.

The Y ogins perceive the attributes of their own souls in the popular way.

Uvakdra.ls it then, it may be asked, combination with that which is conjoint with ,ome other substance, that constitutes the presentation or proximity to the mind ^ even i the case of one s own understanding, etc. ? He replies, No :

^ Atma-Samavajat, from combination in the soul. Atma-Gunesu, in respect of the attributes of the soul.

15 (Perceptual cognition) of the attributes of the Soul (results) from (their) combination in the Soul. 341.

Perceptual cognition of the yogins is produced" this is the topic Perceptual cognition of understanding, etc., combined in the soul is on the other hand produced simply from combination in the conjoint (t.c , the soul which is conjoint with the mind), as it is with ourselves and others Ihe meaning, therefore, is that in such cognition there ik no dependence upon any other form of contiguity or presentation Now, ordinary or popular perception is cognition, which is never changing, produced from the contact of the senses and objects It may be said to be produced by objects. Perception is connected with the genus of presentation (that is, without some form of immediate presentation, there can be no perception). And this is common to ordinary or popular and to super-ordinary or hyper-popular C omi-

t!071S. - 15.

n *4t?~\v e v r *^ P L nt . heililltlbook f the Commentary of bankara on the \ aisesika Aphorisms. y

BhCtsya.-lii the view of Kandda, there are only three independent and ultimate predicates, namely, Substance, Attribute, and Action jr while describing the process of yoyic cognition of all realities, he deals with these three predicates only and is entirely silent with regard to the other so-called predicables.

KANiDA S&TRAS IX, 2, 1. 277

BOOK NINTH CHAPTER SECOND.

Marks of inference enumerated.

Upaskdra. Thus in the preceding chapter the perception of goyins and non-yogin* IIBH been determined aouording to its cause, its nature, and its characteristic. Of the two kinds into which pramJna or proof has been divided, viz., perceptual or sensuous and inferential or produced by marks, the author now commences to determine that which is produced by means of marks :

has

II 5. I R I ? II

Asya, of this, f^ Idam, it. qn4 Karyyam, effect. Tl^Hi Karanam, cause. *f4lfa Samyogi, conjunct. f^ttfe Virodhi, contradictory, ?=RrTfo .Samavayi, combined. gf Cha, or. jft Iti, such. 5fflFFH Laingikam, produced by the mark of inference, mediate.

1. "It is the effect or cause of, conjunct with, contradictory to, or combined in, this," such is (cognition) produced by the^ mark of inference. 342.

Cognition this is the topic in hand. Laingikam means pro duced from liny am or mark. Line/am is a property of the paksa, possess ing vydptij pervasion or invariable concomitance with the major term. Therein vydpti has been already declared. (Vide III. i. 14, supra.} One thing is paksa in relation to another, when there is in the former non- existence of proof or evidence repugnant to the desire for proving the latter. Such evidence includes proof and disproof, or is demonstrative as well as obstructive, for a paksa or minor term is that which contains non-existence of both of them. For, there existing either demonstrative or obstructive evidence, no one feels doubt or desire of demonstration. It is for this reason that the ancients defined the paksa to be an object wherein the existence of the sddhya, that which has to be established, the major term, is doubtful, or an object wherein the existence of the xddhya, is desired to be demonstrated. According to Jlvandtha Miira, a paksa is that in which there is non-existence determined by the being evidence preventive of the appearance of doubt terminable by the ascer tainment of the possession of producible sddhya. Some others say that that is & paksa in which there isnon-existence of demonstrativeevidence accompanied with absence of desire of proof. In this view, the nature of the paksa will exist even in the case of obstruction (i. e., even where obstructive evidence, in other words evidence which disproves the existence of the major term in the minor, exists.) This then may be seen in the Anumdna-Mayukha.

It then becomes apparent that the property or characteristic of this paksa is the lih-ja or mark of inference. And the cognition, in the form of a preseutative state of consciousness, which the mark, whether it be a visible, an inferred, or a heard one, produces, is laingikam or that which is produced from a mark. Accordingly it has been said.

278 VAI&ESIKA PHILOSOPHY.

That mark is the medium of inference, which is connected with that which is to be inferred, is known to exist in that which is accom panied with that which is to be inferred, and does not exist at all where that does not exist.

If is, therefore, the mark which is the instrument of inferential cognition, and not its pardmarsa, subsumption, inasmuch as subsnraption, being destitute of function, lacks causality whereas lit is the same (i. e. r to cause inference) that is th* function of the mark.

Objection. How can there be illation or inferential cognition, where the smoke, etc., (i. e., marks) are either past or future ?

AnswerThis is not a valid objection, as in this case the sddhya or that which is to be proved, is also inferred as past or future.

Objection. How can there be illation where, in consequence of au impediment in the case, it is not ascertained whether the smoke etc., be past, future or present ?

Answer There can be by no means, since in such an instance there is uncertainty also as to the sddhya, that which is to be proved.

Objection. How can an illation take place where there is certainty as to the existence (of the mark) on a previous and a following day and uncertainty as to the intermediate day ?

Answer. In such a case, the inferential cognition results from the inference of fire, etc., limited to those days, by means of smoke, etc , limited to those days, such having been ascertained to be the causalitv of vydptt,, pervasion or the universal concomitance of the major and minor terms, (in the process of inference.)

Objection How does inferential cognition arise from a cloud of dust mistaken for smoke V

Answer. It is because that which is understood to be pervaded (i. e., the cloud of dust, supposed to be smoke, and therefore pervaded by fire), is the mark of inference, and because the inference is correct or incorrect according to the correctness or incorrectness of such understanding ; else how should your own paramar-sa or subsum j- tion be the instrument (of inferential cognition) in such a case V

Objection. In the case of a supersensible mark, pardmarsa or sub- sumption not being producible thereby, how can the mark have the function (of being the means of inference) ?

Answer. Such function is effected by there being a practical or saving argument demonstrative of existence ( ksaimika sddhanata), for otherwise, the function of combination in the case of hearing, etc . would not be possible.

Inference results from a mark which is an effect, as the inference of fire, etc., from smoke, light, etc. ; also from (a mark which is) a cause, as the inference of sound by a deaf man from a particular con junction of the drum and the drumstick, or the inference of dharma or merit, heaven, etc., by a pious man from the due performance of.

KANiDA S&TRAS IX, 2, 2.

sacrifice, ablution, etc., or the inference of rain from the due perfor mance of kdrlri or Sacrifice for rain, or the inference of the efflux of water from a channel which men are digging out from a river, etc., full of water, or the inference of the rising of a stream from the observation of rain overhead. This is, then, a single connection, characterised as the relation of effect and cause, which has been stated in two ways. Inference from a conjunct object is such as the inference of the sense- organ of the skin from the observation of the physical organism which is in conjunction with it. Inference from a contradictory or repugnant object is such as the inference of an ichneumon concealed by bushes, etc., from the observation of an excited snake which is its natural -ants:-j >:iist. Inference from a combined object is such as the inference of fire connected with water by means of the warmth of the water. 1.

Vivriti * * * * Cognition by means of marks is of three kinds, according as it contains a cause, or an effect or a co-existent thing as the mark, and is called 2 > ^ rva ~ va ^ sesa-vat, or sdmdnyato-dristam. Piirva-vat means that which contains as the mark the antecedent, that is, the cause. $sa-vat means that which contains as the mark the consequent, that is, the effect. Sdmdnyato-dristam means that which contains as the mark some thing other than a cause or an effect. The author explains these forms of inference, which have been also explained in the aphorisms of Gau tama (i.e., the Nydya-S&tram). 1 Asya idam karyyam ;<Asya, of this, i. ., of the sddhija or that which is to be proved, idam, this the sddhana or that which will prove the sddhya, is karyyam/ i.e., the effect where such usage arises, there it is the case of inference by means of an effect as the inferential mark. e. </., the inference of fire and the like, by the mark of the smoke and the like Asya idam karanam : that is infer ence of which the mark is a cause is as, e. </., the inference of a shower by means of a particular ascent of clouds. Sdmdnyato-dristam or that which appears in the form of that of which the inferential mark is something other than a cause or an effect, is manifold ; as, for example, the inference of the iron ring as being in conjunction with the mortar and the like, by means of the mark of a particular pestle which is conjoint with the iron ring (at its end) ; so also is the inference of an ichneumon concealed behind bushes and the like, by the sight of a particular excited snake which is the enemy of the ichneumon ; and also the inference of fire and the like (as existing) in a frying pan and the like, by means of the hot touch combining in fire, in the form of the counter-opposite of combination favourable to fire. Inference and the Law of Cause and Effect, how related. (Jpaskdra. It may be objected that this enumeration (of marks) is inadequate, since it floes not include the inference of the heaving of the ocean from the rising of tho moon, of the rise of Canopus (a bright star in the southern constellation Argo navis) from the tranquility -or clearness of the waters of the rising of tho moon from the expansion of the Nymphaja, of the sotting of the fourteen lunar mansions or naksatras from the rising of the other fourteen, of colour from taste, or of a particular taste from a particular colour. II & I ^ I R It Asya, its, to it. ^ Idam, it. ^T^WH^^f^?*: Karyya-karaua-sam- bandhah, (The suggestion or introduction of the relation of effect and 280 VAIEIKA PHILOSOPHY cause.) ^ Cha, and, whereas. SRT^n^ Avayavut, from a member of the- argument or syllogism, vr^fr Bhavati, arises. 2. l It is its ( this cognition is sufficient to cause an illation to be made) ; whereas (the introduction of) the relation of effect and cause arises from a (particular) member (of the argument). 343. In anticipation of this objection, he says. It is its this much only becomes the instrument of illation. Asya/ i. e., of the means of illation, e. g., smoke, etc., idam/ i. e., (it is) that which is to be established, e. </., fire, etc. ; or, l asya/ I. e., of the pervader, e. g., fire, etc., idam, i. e., (it is) that which can be pervaded,. e. jr., smoke, etc. It is, therefore, only the apprehension of the being that which can be pervaded, that governs (the process of illation), and not also the relation of effect and cause, etc. Lest it might be objected that the enumeration (of marks of inference) in the preceding aphorism is consequently futile, he adds the relation of effect and cause. Other relation (i. e., of the conjunct, the contradictory, and the combined), mentioned above, are also hereby implied. In the word l relation/ there is the tropical suggestion of that in which relation is the thing contained. Relation accordingly means the introduction or talk of relation. Whence does the introduction or talk or relation arise ? He gives the reply by saying avayavat, i. <>., from a part or member (of the argument), that is to say, only from the uddharana or example or illus tration. The fifth case-ending or the ablative inflection (HI avayavat } bearsithe sense of the infinite. The meaning, therefore, is that, in this Darsana or philosophy as well as in the Samkhya and other Darsanas the introduction of the relation of effect and cause, etc., has been made in conformity with, or regard being had to, the uddliarana or illustra tion (q. v. } further below). Thus, then, vydpyatva, the being that which can be pervaded (as the- mark, by that of which it is the mark) denotes the possession of a natural connection, the natural being that which is not accidental or adventitious. This quality of being non-accidental is in the case of perceptive object, known simply from its being ascertained, in some cases that they do not pervade (or are not invariably concomitant with) that which is to be proved (or that which is denoted by the major term), and from the certainty, in other cases that they pervade the instru ment of inference or inferential mark. Of supersensible objects esta blished by proof, some are pervasive of both (that which is to be proved, and the instrument of inference), or non-pervasive only of the instru ment of inference, or non-pervasive only of that which is to be proved. Amongst these, the quality of being non-accidental is to be ascertained, in the first case, from their being pervasive of the instrument of infer ence ; in the second case, from their being non-pervasive of that which is to be proved ; and in the fourth case also, from their being pervasive of the instrument of inference. In the third case also, there being room for the further inquiry that while it is not possible or proved why that which pervades, should pervade only this much (t. e., the instrument of inference) and not more, how it is at the same time possible for that KANlDA SOTRAS IX, 2, 2. 281 which does not pervade, to pervade even so much (i. e., the instrument of inference), and thus acquisition and preservation (or loss and gain) being counter-balanced, and from other considerations, the quality of being non-accidental should be determined. The attitude of mind that the demon of apprehension that some upddhi, accident, adjunct, or external condition, may exist is these cases, attacks all rules of conduct, prescriptive and prohibitive, should be rejected, inasmuch as there is possibility of certainty of non-accidental nature. The definitions of upddhi nnd vydpti (pervasion) have been already stated. This inference is of two kinds self-satisfying or logical, and other- satisfying or rhetorical. Therein inference for the sake of , or origina ting from, oneself, arises from the investigation by a person himself of vydpti, pervasion or universal concomitance of the major and middle terms, and paksadharmatd, the being a property or characteristic of the minor term or the existence of the middle in the minor term ; and inference for the sake of, or originating from, another, results from the knowledge of vydpti and paksadharmatd produced from an argument (nydya, ) enunciated by another. A nydya argument or syllogism is a proposition productive of verbal cognition which leads to the recognition or sub-sumption of the mark of illation in the third member of the syllogism. The members thereof are five ; and membership here denotes the being a proposition productive of verbal cognition, which again is productive of another verbal cognition leading to the recognition or sub-surnption of the infer ential mark in the third member. Such propositions are : pratijnd, enunciation ; hetu, mark or reason ; uddharana, illustration ; upanaya, application, ratiocination, or deduction ; and nigamana, conclusion. Of these the pratijnd, enunciation, is aproposition which is a member of the argument or syllogism, conveying verbal cognition the object whereof is neither less nor greater than that of the inferential cognition desired ; the hetu, mark or reason, is that member of the syllogism, ending with the ablative inflection, which is applied to the instrument of inference or the middle term under consideration ; the uddharana, illustration, is that member of the syllogism which is declaratory or demonstrative of the inseparable existence of the given major and middle terms ; the upanaya, application or deduction, is that member of the syllogism which establishes that the hetu which is so distinguished by the posses sion of inseparable existence, is a distinguishing characteristic or con tent of the paksa, the subject of the conclusion, %. e. } the minor term ; and the nigamaua, conclusion, is that member of the syllogism which declares that the object denoted by the given major term is a distin guishing characteristic or content of the paksa. Thus the syllogism proceeds as follows : Sound is non-eternal, pratijfid, Because it is an effect, hetu. Whatever is an effect or producible is non-eternal, uddharana, It (sound) possesses effectness or producibility pervaded by non-eternality, upanaya. 282 VAlSESIKA PHILOSOPHY. Therefore, (it is) non-eternal, nigamana. The significant appellations given by the l Vaifesikas to these very members are pratijnd (enunciation of that which is to be proved), apadesa (reason), nidarsana (instance), anusandhdna (investigation), and pratydmndya (re-stateraent of the pratijnd ). In this connection, the mode of the application of vdda, theory or discourse, jalpa, disputa tion or demolition of the argument of the opponent and establishment of one s own theory, and vitandd, controversion or only destructive criticism, and the characteristics of chhala, misconstruction, jdti, futile or adverse reply, and nigraha-sthdna, ground of defeat, ^. e., misapplica tion or non-application of the argument advanced, may be sought in the Vddi-vinoda. 2. Inferential Cognition includes Verbal Cognition. U"paskdra.With the purpose of including other forma of proof into (the {inferential, ho commences another topic. Etena, hereby. STT*^ Sabdam, verbal. sqT93TrTO( Vyakhyatam, explained. 3. Hereby verbal (cognition is) explained. 344. This cognition is Sabdam (verbal), produced by the instrument ality of sound or word this doctrine, maintained by the Nydya school, is also, vydkhydtam, explained, etena (by this), by the characteris tic of being inferential, that is to say, simply as being produced from marks (of inference). As inferential cognition depends upon vydpti, pervasion, paksadharmatd, the existence of the middle in the minor term, and recollection, so does verbal cognition also. Thus, e. </., "These objects denoted words, or meanings of words, are mutually connected, since they are represented in memory by words possessing expectancy for, or dependence upon, one another, etc., as are the meanings of words in l Drive away the cow. " Here it is by observing or apprehending the characteristic of being represented in, or called to, memory by a number of words possessing expectancy for, or dependence upon, one another, which characteristic is pervaded by the possession of mutual connection by these meanings of, or objects denoted by, those words, that one infers the possession of connection. What then is the use of the supposition of sound or word or language as a form of proof ? Objection. There can be no inference in cognition produced by words, inasmuch as such inference fails where the words are spoken by an untrustworthy person, e. g., that there are fivs fruits on the river bank. Answer. The objection does not arise, as the words must have the qualification of coining from the mouth of an dpta or trustworthy person. For trustworthiness denotes the possession of knowledge of the meaning of the statement corresponding to objective reality within the reach of the meaning of the given statement, and not merely that a person is not a deceiver. KAWADA StiTRAS IX, 2, 3. 283 Objection. But this is hard to apprehend, prior to the intuition of the meaning of the statement. Answer. Not so, for even those who hold the theory of the autho ritativeness of word or language, admit the apprehensibility of the quality of being spoken by a trustworthy person, which serves to differentiate fallible or false language. Objection They depend upon that (i. e., the quality of being spoken by a trustworthy person) for the apprehension of authoritative- ness, whereas verbal cognition is produced even without the apprehen sion of that quality. In your case also the apprehension or inference must needs be in accordance with nature of the inferential mark. And that which is pervaded (i. e., the middle term), is qualified with the possession of the quality of being spoken by a trustworthy person. Answer. The objection is not successful, since it is possible to have such general apprehension as " He is here infallible." Objection But the term here ultimately means the same thing as the term the connection under consideration/ So that to apprehend that (i. e., the quality of being spoken by a trustworthy person), previ ously, is simply impossible. Ansict r. It is not, in consequence of the possibility of ascertain ment of the inferential mark by means of the possibility of ascertain ment in a general way of the quality of being spoken by a trustworthy person, from the force of association with the topic and other circum stances. If even then discrepancy sometimes appears the inferential process proceeds as by the property of smoke (mistaken) in vapour, etc. Objection. What is in this case the vddhya or the major term ? Is it that the meanings of words are in fact connected, or that their connection is something possible ? It cannot be the first, as it is not the case with the statement of an untrustworthy person. Nor can it be the second, for, even though mere connectibility or coherence of words be proved, still inference cannot proceed unshaken, in conse quence of the uncertainty of actual connection. Moreover, coherence being previously known as the qualification of the inferential mark, what is the use of inference ? Answer. This is not a valid objection, inasmuch as it is the gene ral proposition or uniformity which is the addhya or the thing to be proved, and, there can be no violation of the rule in consequence of the qualification, as has been already stated, by the characteristic of being spoken by a trustworthy person. Objection. Expectancy or interdependence of the words of a sen tence is equivalent to antecedent non-existence in the hearer of the cognition of connection (of the meanings of words) producible by it. It is only so long as it exists as such that it can be the inferential mark. The futility of inference (in verbal cognition), therefore, follows from this that in order to the cognition of expectancy, the cognition of con nection must take place beforehand, and not at any other time. 284 VAlgESIKA PHILOSOPHY. Answer. This is not the case, for we do not say that expectancy is merely antecedent non-existence of the eognition of connection. On the other hand, expectancy is distinguished with the possession of inseparable existence or universal agreement of what is presented to consciousness by the words and what is represented in memory, as it is from the cognition of this adjective element that the cognition of expectancy results. Objection. Let then inseparable existence itself constitute ex pectancy. Answer. By no means. For, " The water of the river is pure," " The buffalo grazes in the basin of the river " in these cases also it would entail the consciousness of the connection of the river and the basin by means of their inseparable existence in the form of the cogni tion that the buffalo grazes in the basin of the river of pure water. And in such instances as " The water-lily is blue," in the presence of inseparable existence of the water-lily and blueness even in particular cases, would make the inseparable existence of the substance and attribute presented to consciousness by the words, possible (that is, that all water-liles were blue.) Or, it may be that expectancy is nothing but the desire to know or enquiry with reference to the object recalled by words, or that it is the complement of the connotation. Still the cognition of it is neces sary, inasmuch as in a cause which is being known, there must appear divergence in characteristic from what is not a cause, appro priate to such cognition, as is the case with pervasion or univer sal concomitance. It is for the very same reason, whether connectibility or coherence of the words of a sentence mean the absence of certainty of non-agreement, or the non-existence of contradictory evidence, or the observation of agreement with similar other words, or that in the connection of the meaning of the one word (e.</., fire) with that of another (e.g.. wets), there exists as something contained therein, certain knowledge that the one (e. </., fire) is not the counter-opposite of absolute non-existence inherent in the other (e. y.j wetsj, that cognition of coherence is necessary. Cognition of adjacency of the words of a sentence, in the form of recollection without interval of the objects denoted by them, is also a condition. It may be that differences or peculiarities of connection of words result only from the peculiarities of differences of the words which are going to be connected ; and the proof of the peculiarity or difference in this way, is not undesired. Or, the desired peculiarity may be proved by the characteristic of its so determining cognition, inasmuch as the inference takes place that these words, being a collection of words possessing expectancy, co-herence, and adjacency, are preceded by, or liave for their antecedent, cognition of the connection of the ideas or mailings represented in memory, as is the case with the group of the words " Drive away the cow." The opposition that the sddhya or thing to be proved is that these words have the connection of the meanings recalled, and that the possession by words of connection with the meanings of those words, is impeded, is better left unnoticed. Nor is it the being expressive of, or the means of making known, connection, by KANADA StiTRAS IX, 2, 3. 285 being the inferential mark, that is the possession of connection by the words, since the mark not being proved to exist prior to the inference, there can be no apprehension or cognition of the peryasion thereof. Some say that expressive movement or gesture is a new form of proof. To this it is replied: Gesture is of two kinds, conventional, and non-con-ventional. Therein that which is conventional, calls back to mind the sound or word lying in the understanding or intent or com mon consent, but does not also produce certain cognition of connection (between gesture and its significance), as letters do. It is sound or word, rising up in memory, that is the means of proof there, and it has been .already declared that the chracteristic of being a mark of illation belongs to sound or word. Nor is recollection of the word a collateral or secondary function of gesture, inasmuch as, in order to exercise -such function, gesture would have to be uniformly present in all cases,, whereas there takes place intuition of meanings from words even without the intervention of gesture. Objection. This being so, how does the conduct of a deaf person come to depend upon, or spring from, gesture ? For, it is impossible for him to have knowledge of the convention in a given instance. Answer. The objection cannot prevail, for it is to be considered how he derives certain knowledge of the meaning or idea even, from gesture, when it is impossible for him to grasp the sense or connection of the meaning or idea also. His conduct, again, springs from the apprehension of inseparable existence (or serviceable associated (habit), in the same way as particular adaptations of conduct are possible in the case of the elephant and the horse in accordance with the pricks of the goad and strokes of the whip. On the other hand, non-conventional gesture, that kind of it which, further, is in agreement or association with action, causes .-activity in the employee by reminding him of the intention of the -employer, but does not produce sure cognition in any case. For example, as according to the instruction " You should come on the blowing of "the conch-shell/ the man turns up on hearing the blowing of the .conch-shell, so a man strikes another at the proper time- according to the pre-ordination " You should strike him when I shall raise my forefinger," but this does not prove anything. Non-conventional gesture, again, which is in agreement with cognition, is either pro minent on its subjective side, as in " By the raising of the ten fingers, it should be understood by you that the number of coins, (or contor tions of the limbs in ascetic posture), or of the purdnas is ten ; " or it is prominent on its verb or predicate side, as in " You should come up, after seeing contraction of the hand." Thus, by this form of gesture the meanings of words are no doubt recalled, but only severally or each independently of the rest ; but their mutual association or con nection also is not illuminated by it, as it is by nominative, objective, And other case-endings which explain that inter-relation, inasmuch as in the case under consideration, invariable or constant components of .gesture do not exist. Objection. How do then activity and inactivity proceed from gesture in the absence of cognition of connection ? 286 VAlgESIKA PHILOSOPHY. Answer. Yon may take it that these follow from either the one or the other of doubt or uncertainty amd pratibhd or inventive genius or instinct. Gesture also is, therefore, no proof. _ 3. Sound or word cannot produce cognition of its sense or meaning. UpasMra.li may be B ked, how sound (or word) conld be a mark of illation, when- its difference from the nmrk appear* from its posting the nature of an apadeia or I description. Anticipating this, he says : \g: Hetuh, reason. *jq^ : Apadesah, description. Sound, Lingam, mark. JWWT Prainanarn, proof, ^ Karanam, instrument. fftr Hi, these. fR*rf??R3( An-artha-antaram, not different things. 4. Reason, Description, Mark, Proof, Instrument these are not antonyms. 345. Apadesah means sound (or word), according to its derivation that by it objects are referred to, i. e., affirmed or described. And it is really a synonym of hetu, reason, and linya, mark. Pramanam means the instrument of true cognition in the manner of the inferential mark. In like manner, the word karanam also is equivalent to the mark itself which is the instrument (karana) of inferntial cognition. For the operation of karana or the instrument is two-fold : Some karana operates or exercises its function under ur subject to contact or conti guity, and some karana exercises its function on the strength of inse parable existence. Sound (or word;, on the contrary, has neither contact nor inseperable existence with the object or meaning ; htmee,. how can it lead to the object ? Objection. -It leads to the object with the help of arbitrament or according to direction. Anawer.It cannot do so, for arbitrament or direction is with. reference to the meaning of words, and not to their connection. Objection^- There may be arbitrament or direction with reference to that also. Answer. No for that connection being of a manifold nature it is impossible that ,t could be the object of reference by arbitrament O r QI recti on. O^zon.-But it iB from the force of arbitrament or direction in e a f ni& t: dS ^ ^"^ ^ ^ ^ ^ a ^^nce also Answer. This i is not the case, as there would be then over extei sion or undue application of the principle, if something is oroughV thing else! * " P 7 arbltrameilt or directj o" with regard to some- fT,i a ^ c **?-r- I f Y* riB , l)le antecedei ^e or pervasion of connection in, this case will be that of connection as recalled by sound. KANADA 8CTRA8 IX,/2, 5. 287 Answer. If it be so, then, by that admission, inference itself finds admittance on the strength of invariable antecedence or pervasion. Arbitrament or direction also, if it implied mere intention or desire, would be unduly applied or too wide. Objection. -But the desire of tsvara, G-od, cannot be said to be too ^vide. Answer. Yes, it may be so, inasmuch as even in the absence of divine will, the words, river or Ganga (Ganges), etc., suggest or call up the ideas of the bank, etc. This is enough of over-forwardness in a logician. 4. Comparison, Presumption, Sub-sumption, Privation, and Tradition are all included in Inference. UpaskAra. For the purpose of showing that comparison, etc., also, recognised of others (as so many independent means of proof) and which proceed on the strength of inseparable existence or universal concomitance, are merely different forms of inferential cognition, he .says : Asya, its. f^* Idam, it. fft Iti, such. This. ^MMRidrMl^ Buddhi- Apeksitevut, because of the cognition or notion being needed. 5. (Comparison, Presumption, Sab-sumption, Privation, and Tradition are all included in Inference by marks), because they depend, for their origin, upon the cognition, namely, " It is its." 346. The words " of comparison, presumption, comprehension or sub- sumption and privation " complete the aphorism. Asya, of the per- vader, i idam (it is) the pervaded, the cognition is in this form. The} - are dependent upon it, by which it is depended upon as their originator. < Buddhi-apeksitatva means the state of being so dependent. In consequence of such dependence, -this is the meaning of the term, it being a relative compound formed similarly to dhita-dgnih (by whom fire has been deposited), or formed with the affix ita (which signifies that something, e.g., dependence upon the cognition, has been produced in the something else, e. y., comparison, etc.), according to the rule that it is applied to the words star, etc., (so that tdrakd + ita = tdrakita = starry, heaven). Upamdna, comparison or analogy, is in every respect nothing but <inumdna, or inference, by means of words. Now the sentence, " A gavaeus or gayal looks like a cow," is spoken by a forester in reply to -the enquiry by a twonsman, viz., " What does a gayal look like to ? " Here immediately after hearing the above sentence at distant place, "the townsman determines the meaning of the name, gayal, of the strength of the community of substratum, namely that which is like a cow is the object of reference by, or designate of, the word, gayal. Then when ho goes to the forest and meets an animal body of that des cription, he recognises that that is that which is the designate of the word, gayal. 288 VAIEIKA PHILOSOPHY. Objection. At the time of hearing the sentence at a distant place r the generic nature of the gayal, which is condition or occasion of the recognition or application of the name, is not known. How then can there be such determination by, or application of, the name ? Answer. There can be such determination, as the cognition there of (i. e., of the generic nature) is possible by means of suggestion or metaphorically. Objection. But where is the room for suggestion, when in the sentence, " A gayal looks like a cow/ there is no want of proof of the agreement or positionjof the subject and predicate ? Answer. There is room for suggestion, inasmuch as complete equi valence of the two terms still remains to be proved. For it is not proper to hold up before one, who desires to be enlightened Tn the matter, likeness to a cow as the condition or occasion of partial appli cation of the name. Therefore, it (the name) refers to a particular genus or class in its entirety. Hence arises the possibility of sugges tion. Or, the word, gayal, is denotative of the animal, gayal, being applied thereto by the elect, and there existing no other application of it. Other applications being non-existent, whatever word is applied by the elect to a certain object, the same is denotative of that, as the- word, cow, is of the cow. It is from this inference that the application of the name, gayal, comes to be determined. And the reasoning which you may set forth as being auxiliary to upamdna, comparison, would better go with anumdna, inference, which has been established as a method of proof. What is the use of upamdna which, as a method of proof, is yet to be supposed ? More detailed consideration on this subject may be sought in the Anum Ana-May tikha. Arthdpattiy Presumption or Explanation, also is nothing but infer ence. Thus, (1) presumption from the observed, arises where by means of the non-existence of Chaitra who is living, in the house, ascertained by stronger evidence, (e. g., perception), his existence outside it is presumed. Here the cognition of Chaitra s existence outside the house is wholly dependent upon the ascertainment of the relation of the pervader between the demonstrable and the demonstrator. For, as a matter of fact, the non-existence of a living person in the house is accompanied with this existence outside it, or there arises the cogni tion that the non-existence of a living person in the house is impossible without his existence outside it. In the first case, there is apprehen sion of positive pervasion or concomitance, and, in the last, of negative- pervasion. Objection. Pervasion does exist, but the apprehension thereof does- Hot here take place. Answer. Were this the case, then, in the absence of the apprehension of pervasion, there would be no scope or occasion for the- manifestation of presumption, and there would consequently be sup position of only that which, as an entity, would demonstrate pervasion existing in its proper form or as such. This is the direction or point. K ANiDA StiTR AS IX, 2, 5. 289 The inclusion of presumption due to the instrumentality of doubt or uncertainty as well as of that due to the instrumentality contra diction or contrast or opposition, in inference, should be also under stood or inferred ; for contrast or opposition, characterised as unifor mity of non-co-existence, also is constituted by pervasion or (negative) concomitance. (2) Presumption from what is heard, is also inference by means of the inferred. " Deva-datta, who is stout, does not eat by day" By this proposition, stoutness is inferred, and, by means of that stoutness, there takes place inference of eating at night in this way that Deva-datta eats at night, because, as he does not eat by day, stoutness cannot otherwise appear in him. fSamhhava, Comprehension or Sub-sumption, also is merely a form of inference. For, the examples of it are : A drona (a standard measure)- does nut exceed a khdri (one khdri = 4t dronas) ; an ddhaka does not exceed a drona (one drona = 4i ddhakas) ; a hundred does not not exceed a thousand ; etc. Here a khdri contains a drona, being constituted by it. One thing being constituted by another thing, the former is possessed of the latter by means of the latter, as a water-pot is possessed of its components. Other instances should be similarly understood. That learning is probable in a Brdhmana (because Brdhmanas as a class are learned), that valour is probable in a Ksatriya (because Ksatriyas as a class are valiant), etc., on the other hand, do not at all become means of proof, inasmuch as they do not produce certainty. Abhdva, Non-existence or Privation, also is not a different form of evidence ; for, being similar to the inference of the cause by means of the effect, the inference of the non-existence of the cause by means of the non-existence of the effect, is included within inference itself, as pervasion or universal concomitance is the ground of such inference by means of non-existence. The Jthattas (Prabhdkara and other Mimdmsakas), however, maintain that the evidence which causes the apprehension of non-existence in the ground, etc., (v.g-, The water-pot does not exist on the groundj, is called non perception. Now, this evidence or proof is in some cases included in perception, and in other cases, inference, inasmuch as non-existence is apprehended by the eye, etc., themselves. For, it cannot be said that the senses are exhausted Justin the apprehension of the substratum (of non-existence, e. </., the ground), since their function continues up to the apprehension of non-existence. AitUiya, Tradition, is a succession of sayings of which the authors are not known. Itiha this collection of expletives appears in the narration of past events. The state of being such narration of past events is called aitihya, traditional saying. If it is not impeded in its meaning, then, coining under the class of verbal cognition, it is a made of inference. For example, In this Banyan tree there dwells a Yaksa There is a Gaurt (a Buddhistic Spirit) in the madhttka tree (Bassia latifolia*) etc. Now, if the traditional sayings come from the mouth of trustworthy persons, then they are as has been already declared ; if they do not come from the mouth of trustworthy persons, then they are no evidence at all. a90 VAI^ESIKA PHILOSOPHY. Accordingly it is established that proof or evidence is of two kinds only, perception and inference __ 5. Wvriti.Sambhava or Probability is cognition dependent upon a plurality of concomitances ; e. g., learning is probable in a Brdhmana a hundred is probably contained in a thousand. Note. The construction put by Jayandrdyana upon the word, Sambhava is explicitly rejected by Sankara Misra. In the lexicon Medmi also we find that the meaning of the word is Adheyasya ddhdrdnatiriktatvdm, i. e., the state of what is contained not exceeding that which contains it, or, simply, the relation of the part not bein? greater than the whole. Reminiscence, how produced. Upatkdra. Inferential cognition having been explained, he now begini another topic. Atma-manasot, between the soul and the mind. Samyoga-visesat, from a particular conjunction. ^TRPj; Samskarat, from impression or retention or latency. ^ Cha, and. *nfr:Sm ritilj, Reminiscence. 6. Reminiscence (results) from a particular conjunction between the Soul and the Mind and also from Impression or latency. 347. " Results"--This is the complement of the aphorism. Samyoga- vise^afc means contact or contiguity such as reflection or meditation or inter-penetration, etc. From this as the non-combinative cause, in the soul as the combinative cause, < Srnritifc/ (reminiscence), a particular kind of cognition or knowledge, is produced, He states the efficient cause by Samskarat. By the word cha he implies past experience which too is operative here as the object recalled. Re miniscence or recollection imitates the correctness of the previous experience, such alone being the recollection of him who has mistaken a rope for a snake and has consequently fled from it. It does not, moreover, follow that reminiscence should take place at all times or continually, einee it depends on the resuscitation of the mental im pression. Accordingly it has been said by the revered Prasastadeva, 4< Reminiscence, caused by the inferential process (as in inferring fire from smoke there is recollection of the universal concomitance of fire and smoke), desire, re-produetion (or suggestion of one idea by an other), and aversion, and having for its content the past, among objects seen, heard, and otherwise experienced, (results) from a parti cular conjunction between the soul and the mind, due to the observa tion of a suggestive mark, voluntary attempt at recollection, etc., and from impression or latency produced by intuitions constantly repeated vnd attended to with interest." KANADA SCTRAS IX, 2, 7. 291 The cognition of highly advanced sages, or their intellectual intuition has not been separately noticed by the author of the apho risms. It is included within perception by Yogins or ascetics (See IX- ii. 13 below). In tho treatise, called the Paddrtha-Pradefa, an account of it has been given, which is as follows : Prescient or inventive cogni tion which is produced from conjunction between the soul and the mind, and also from a particular d/tarma, virtue or merit, independently of inferential marks, etc., in advanced sages, the promulgators of the Vedas, in respect of objects, supersensible, or past, present, arid future, or in respect of dliarma, etc., as preserved in books, that is called sagely cognition. " This form of cognition at times arises in ordinary or wordly people also ; as when a young maiden says, " My heart assures me my brother will depart to morrow." 6- Dream y how produced. Upankdra. Thus four-fold vidyd, or true cognition, or knowledge, having been explained, it now becomes proper to explain \avidyd or false cognition or knowledge. Therein doubt or uncertainty and error have been incidentally ascertained before. For the purpo.se of ascertaining dreaming, he says : H S. I * I vs || , Tatha, so. ^Jf: Svapnah, dreaming. 7. So (also is) dreaming. 348. The meaning is that as reminiscence results from a particular con junction between the soul and the mind, and from impression or latency, so also does cognition in dreaming. Cognition in dreaming is the mental experience, through the channels of the senses, belonging to one, when one s senses have ceased to be active and one s mind is in a quiescent state. And this is of three kinds (1) It partly arises from acuteness of impression or facility of reproductiveness ; as in a man who, in love or in auger, thinks intently on some object, when he goes to sleep, in that state, cognition resembling perception, in the form, " This is the contest between Karna and Arjuna " (two heroes of the Mahdbhdrdta), is pro duced, through the influence of impression, reproductiveness or latency, produced by previous hearing of the Purdiias, etc. (2) It arises partly from deran gemeut of the humours or affections of the body, viz., wind, bile, and phlegm. Therein, in consequence of disorder of the wind, one dreams of moving about in the sky, wandering about on the earth, fleeing with fear from tigers, etc., and the like ; under the influence of an unwholesome excess of the bile, one dreams of entering into fire, embracing flames of fire, golden mountains, corruscations of flashing lightning, sudden extensive conflagrations, etc. ; while, through predo minance of phlegmatic deragement, one dreams of swimming upon the sea ; immersions in rivers, sprinklings with showers of rain, silver mountains, etc., (-3) Dreams appear also uuder the influence of adrstam (the invisible after-elfects of past acts) or deserts. These are cognitions, produced in one whose internal sense has been lulled to sleep or over powered with sleep, in respect of the experiences of the present or previous states of existence. Therein soinnial cognition, signifying good, results from dharma or merit, and has for its object the riding upon elephants, ascending on mountains, acquistion of the royal 2&2 VAI&ESIKA PHILOSOPHY. umbrella, feasting upon pudding, interview with the sovereign, and the like ; whereas soranial cognition, signifying evil, arises from adharmi or demerit, and has its object unction with oil, falling into blind wells, riding upon camels, immersion in mire, the seeing of one s own nuptials, and the like. The above three, only as jointly operating, have causality here (i.e., in the production of dreams). It should be further observed that this division of causes, is based on the predominance of one or another of the qualities of these causes in their effects. 7. Cognition accompanying dreaming, how produced. Upatkilra.- It may bo objected : The cognition which springs up in tho midst of a dream, in the form of reoollootion of the very same object which is experiencad in sonmial cognition, does not posaoss tho nature of dreaming inasmuch as dreaming takes the form of perceptual experience. From vrhat cause, then, doea it arise ? To this he gives the reply : Svapna-antikara, that which intervenes in, or lies near to, or accompanies, dream. 8. (So is) consciousness accompanying dreams. 349. The word so comes in from the preceding aphorism. The mean ing, therefore, is that as dreaming, so also consciousness accompanying dreaming arises from a particular conjunction between the soul and the mind and also from impression or retention. The difference between the two cases extends only thus .f ar that soranial cognition results from impres sion or retention produced by former experience, while consciousness accompanying dreaming results from impression or retention produced by experience arising at the very time (of dreaming.) It has been accord ingly stated by Professor Parsatttadcva, " Somnial cognition is merely recollection, inasmuch as it results from looking back upon past cogni tions." The writer of the vritti also says, " Somnial cognition, its function being the illumination of experienced objects, is not a different thing from recollection. Some teach that consciousness accompanying dreaming is cogni tion amounting to certitude, in the midst of dreams, as, for example, " I am in a state of lying on the bed," etc. 8. Another cause of dreaming and of cognition in dreaming. Upttakdra. He adds another cause of dreaming and consciousness accompanying dreaming. II S. T R I 5. II Dharmat from dharma or merit, ^r Cha, also. 9. (Dreaming and consciousness accompanying dreaming result) from dharma also. 350. The word cha is used with the purpose of adding adharma r demerit. This has been already explained. 9. KAN AD A SftTRAS Ix, 2, 11. 293 Vivrlti. * * * * Some think that this aphorism has been laid down for the purpose of showing that in some cases dreaming, etc., are also produced from dharma, etc., alone, even without the action of Samskdra or impression, and that the poetic observation of Sriharsa that the maid Sleep brings before the vision of man, through the all- pervading efficacy of adfistam, even objects which have not been observed before, accordingly becomes explained. Causes of Avidya or Incertitude. I7paskdra.-Now, referring to the series (of doubt, dream, incertitude) he says : n s. i * i?o H Indriya-dosat, from imperfection of the senses. 13amskara-dosat; from imperfection of impression. *3 Cha, and. A-vidya, false knowledge. Incertitude. 10. False knowledge (arises) from imperfection of the Senses and from imperfection of Impression. 351. The word A-vidya/ though a general term, applies to incertitude, according to the context, doubt, dream, and incertitude having been mentioned. Therein imperfection of the senses is inefficiency caused by predominance of the bile, etc. Imperfection of impression is the being accompanied with non-observation of distinctions ; for under such non-observation, false cognition is produced. 10. Vivfiti. Understanding according to another mode is divided into two kinds, certitude and incertitude. Of these, he states the cause of incertitude. Indriya-dosah, is such as opthalmia, etc. Samskara-dosah ig the being the effect of erroneous experience, etc. The word and implies the. addition of such imperfections as remoteness, etc., and also sub-sumptions of false marks or middle-terms, etc. The cause, then, of false knowledge or incertitude is imperfection ; and imperfection, aa consisting of biliousness, remoteness, etc., is of diverse kinds. The characteristic of Avidya. . He states the characteristic oridefinition of avidyd in general : II & I * I U N ^ Tat, that. Avidyd. false knowledge. g9MH Dusta-jfianam, im perfect cognition. 11. That (/. e., Avidya) is imperfect knowledge. 352. Tat, an indeclinable word, conveying the sense of a pronoun, alludes to avidyd. That, avidyd, is dustajnanam , i.e., cognition which is anduly applied, cognition that a thing is what in fact it is not, in other words, cognition determined in the manner of a divergent object, and 294 VAIEIKA PHILOSOPHY. having the mode which does not reside in the object in question. Imperfec tion consists also of cognition taking the form of uncertainty. Doubt, therefore, even where there is only one alternative, is vicious, being identical with non-assurance or non ascertainment. The four (forms of avidyd), therefore, namely, Doubt, Error, Dream, and Regression or Indecision are included in this aphorism. -11. The characteristic of Vidya. Upatkdra. (He declares what scientific cognition is :) II S. I R I ?R II Adustatn, not imperfect. Free from imperfection, f^nj Vidya true knowledge, Vidyd. 12. (Cognition) free from imperfection, is (called) Vidya or scientific knowledge. 353. The word " Cognition " comes in (from the preceding aphorism). • Adustam means produced by organs of sense which are not inefficient or defective (in consequence of any derangement mentioned above). The meaning, therefore, is that vidyd is the experience of a thing in its proper place, or the experience of a thing in the same manner in which another thing having a common substratum with the former ig experi enced, or experience of a thing not having the mode which does not reside in the thing in question. It is of two kinds, immediate or sensu ous, and mediate or inferential. -12. Cognition by tiaycis Siddhas, how produced. Upaskdra. It may be objected : The cognition (of objects beyond tho reach of senses), by advanced sages, also appears in tho very samo form in which other cognitions, having a common substratum with the former, take placu. It is again not produced by the senses, inasmuch as it cognizes objects which are not in contact with them. Nor is it produced by means of inferential marks, as it is produced in tho absence of any investigation of such marks. Hence it follows that there is a third form of proof (besides perception and inference) which is the instrument of suoh cognition. In view of this objection, ho says : n a. i ^ i \\ n Arsam, sagely. Of advanced sages, fa^fa Siddha-darsanam, viiion of tho Perfected Ones. ^ Cha, and. vwqfVif : Dharmmebhyah, from dharma or merits. 13. Cognition of advanced sages, as also vision of the Per fected Ones, (results) from dharma or merits. 354. Arsrn or sagely cognition is the cognition of sages such as Gdlava, etc., having for its object things past and yet to come. Siddha-darfianam means the vision by those who have attained success in the direction of cognition apprehensive of objects remote as well as screened from view, by means of mantra or incantation, herbs, eye-salve prepared from cocoort, etc. Both of them arise from dharma or merit, such that there cognition of objects, in their true light. The author of the KANADA SttTRAS IX, 2, 13. 295 observes that this cognition is not a different kind of vidyd or scientific knowledge, as it is included in Yogic or ascetic perception. Sagely cognition is really the fourth kind of vidyd, and it occurs to sages as well as to worldly people. And it is simply a form of mental percep tion, being produced by the mind accompanied with inattention (to internal and external objects), or produced by inferential marks such as faithful observances of the rules of conduct. The cognition of pervasion which is the ground of inference is here solely dependent upon or due to Samvkdra, or impression having its origin in a former state of existence I. e-, in the same way as is the pervasion or universal concomitance of sucking the breast and the cognition that this is the means of securing what is desired, (in the case of the instinctive application of the baby to sucking the breast.) The revered Professor Prasasa<ieva,however,says that Siddhadaria- nam, cognition of the Perfected Ones, is not a different form of cognition. His reasoning is as follows : If it is said that cognition, by the Perfected Ones, of objects remote and hidden from view, takes its rise from conditions brought about by means of eye-salve prepared from cocoon, and the like, then it is nothing but perception. If it be, on the other hand, cognition which apprehends objects beloging to the earth, the region lying between the earth and the vault of heaven, and the space beyond it, and which is dependent upon the conditions or inferential marks such as the movements, etc., of planets and the lunar mansions (naksatras^ then it is nothing but inferential cognition, inasmuch as pervasion, or universal concomitance of the thing to be inferred and the mark of inference, is determined by the observation of such accompaniment.- 13. Here ends the second chapter of the ninth book in the Commentary of aiikara upon the Vaisesika Aphorisms. 296 VAI&ESIKA PHILOSOPHY. BOOK TENTH CHAPTER FIRST. Pleasure and Pain are two different things. Upakdra.-ThQ purpose of the tenth book is the exposition of the differences of the- attributes of the soul according to their causes. Now, in the aphorism of Qautama, which enumerates or classifies the provablea or objects of certitude, viz., Soul, Body, Sense, Object, Understanding, Mind, Activity, Fault, Metempsychosis, Desert, Pain, and Emanci pation are the provable" Nydya-Sdtram, I. i. 9.), there bein<4 no mention of pleasure, the error may arise that pleasure is really not different from pain. With the purpose of dispelling this possible error, the author first of all points out the difference of pleasure and pain themselves. II *o I t I t II Ista-anista-karana-visesat, in consequence of the- differrence of causes, (in the forma of) desirables, and undesirable facjvftfj Virodhat on account of opposition. ^ Cha, and. faaj: Mithah, between them, towards each other, mutual, g&:&qt: Sukha-duhkhayoh, between plasure and pain. ^farc^TR: Artha-antara-bhava^, relation of different objects. 1. In consequence of the difference of (their) causes, in the form of desirables and undesirables, and on account of (their) mutual opposition, Pleasure and Pain stand in the relation of objects different from each other. 355. 1 Sukha-duhkahayoh/ (between pleasure and pain there exists) mitha^/ mutual, l artha-antara-bhavah, distinction that is to say heterogeneity. Whence (does this distinction arise)? To this quention the author replies, ista-anista-karana-visesat i. #., in consequence of visesah, distinction or difference, of their causes which have, in the one- case, the form of istam, desirable objects such as garlands, sandal-paste, women, etc., and, in the other case, the form of anistam/ undesirable objects such as snakes, thorns, etc. For heterogeneity of effect necessarily follows from heterogeneity of cause. He lays down another principle of distinction, viz., virodhat/ on account of opposition characterised by non-dwelling together, for pleasure, and pain are- not experienced in one and the same soul at one and the same time. The word, cha, and, brings forward the difference of the effect of pleasure and pain as a further means of distinguishing betwean them. Thus, graciousness, the embrace, clearnesss of the eyes, etc., are the effects of pleasure, while despondency, a sullied countenance, etc., are the effects of pain; hence on this ground also pleasure and pain must differ from each other. Accordingly it has been stated by Professor Prasaftta-deva f "Pleasure has the characteristic of agreeable feeling. In the presence of garlands and other desirable objects, from the contact of the senses- and objects in the recognition of something desirable being produced,. and from the conjunction of the soul and the mind and dependent upon dharma or merit and the like, that which is produced and is the cause of complacence, embrace, and kindliness of the eyes, etc., is pleasure." KAN ADA SOTRAS X, 1, 2. 207 In the ase of garlands, sandal-paste, etc., enjoyed in the pait, plearure arises from smriti, reminiscence, and, in the case future objects, it arises from$an/ra/pa, desire or appetency or imagination or will.

The non-enumeration of pleasure in the aphorism of Gautama is in order to promote indifference or dispassion, in other words, to teach that dispassion would arise in one who should account even pleasure as- pain. (Cf- Nydya IStitram, IV. i. 58, 5:wfr^THTfanrT^, The idea of pleasure takes place in an alternative form of pain).

Pleasure and Pain are not forms of cognition.

Upaakdra. It may be urged : Lot pleasure ad pain bo mutually distinct. But ( hy way be non-different from cognition, like recollection and perception of sensation.

Accordingly the author says :

Samsaya-nirnaya.antara-abhjiva, non-inclusion in doubt and certainty. * Cha, and. 10*1*^$JMna-antaratve, in the matter of being different from cognition. \g: Hetuh, reason, mark. 2. And the non-inclusion (of Pleasure and Pain) either in Doubt or in Certainty, is the mark that they are other than cognition. 356. The meaning is that non-inclusion either in doubt or in certainty is the mark of inference that pleasure and pain are other than, i. e.. different from, cognition. The idea is this ; Were pleasure or pain a kind of cognition, it would either have the form of doubt, or have the form of certainty. It cannot be the first, as the two alternatives (which must be present in doubt; do not exist ; nor can it be the seeond, as the single alternative does not exist (see Vivriti below). And the species or parts being thus excluded, the geuns or whole is necessarily excluded. For the species of cognition, are two only, the characteristic of doubt and the characteristic of certainty. And both of them are excluded from pleasure as well as from pain ; hence the characteristic ofcognition also finds no place in them. The word, cha and, a Ida on the exclusion of external sensation or perception. The perception of pleasure and pain is mental i. e . t by the inner sense, in the forme, " I feel pleasure," " I feel pain " whereas perception of them does not take such shape of form as in "I k <ow " " I and doubtful," " I am certain." 2. i- * Neither pleasure nor pain has the form in which two repugnant alternatives are present together, that it should be probable that they have the nature of doudt, nor has either possession of a given form together with absence of negation of that form, that it should be likely that they have the nature if certainty. The supposi tion of a third form of cognition is chimerical like the horn of a hare. Ooncequently neither pleasure nor pain can come under knowledge. Pleasure and Pain are not form cognition continued. UpaikAra. Ho laya down another principle of differentiation, 298 VAI&ESIKA PHILOSOPHY. ?r4t: Tayoh, their, of doubt and certainty, f^qfw: Nispattih, pro duction. S^fTl^fff fiP^ J, Pratyaksa-laiagikabhyarn, by means of percep tion and inference. 3. The production thereof (i.e., of Doubt and Certainty) is by means of perception and inference. 357. Tayoh, of doubt and certainty, nispattih, production, (is) from perception and from inferential marks. Neither pleasure nor pain is produced by the perceptive apparatus or by inferential marks. For, pleasure is four-fold, being objective, subjective, imaginative or sympathetic, or habitual. Of these, the last three by no means possess the characteristic of taking their origin from the contact of the (outer) senses (with their objects). Should it be contended that the first is cognition, inasmuch as it is generated by contact of the senses and their objects, we reply that it is not so, for a part only of the whole cause, (being the same), cannot entail homogeneity in the effect ; else ill and sundry effects would come to be. homogeneous as they must have pace and time as their common antecedents. Moreover, (if pleasure ivere cognition), the pleasure which is not produced through contact of r,he senses and their objects, would be either non-discriminative or udefinite, or discriminative or definite. But it cannnot be the first, 1 >r then it would be supersensible ; nor can it be the second, inasmuch as it does not consist of a judgment respecting two objects in the relation of subject and predicate. Again, pleasure and pain are necessarily accompanied with sensibility ; (were they forms of cognition), there would be involved in the (consequent) notion of a sensibility of cognition a regression to infinity. Laingikam (the adjective) meaus merely lingam (the noun), mark, as the word, objective, (means an object). The author of the VTitti, on the other hand, explains the aphorism thus, that the origin thereof, i. e., of cognition and pleasure, is explain ed, pratyksa-laingikam, L e., by the explanations of perceptual and inferential cognitions, that is to say, that whereas perceptual cognition is produced by the senses, and inferential by marks of illation, it is not so with pleasure, etc. 3. i _ It may be urged that as non-discriminative cognition is neither "doubt nor certitude, so too may be pleasure and pain. Accord ingly he says : The proof of pleasure and pain is furnished by perception and inference. In one s own soul, pleasure and pain are proved by per ception ; in other souls, pleasure is inferred by brightness of the eyes, etc. and pain by paleness of the face, etc. So that, had they the form of non-discriminative cognition, there could be no perception, nor could it be possible for them to be the subject of inference by such marks as brightness or paleness of the face, and the like. Hence, the import is, they are not included in cognition. KANADA SftTRAS X, 1,5. Pleasure and Pain are not forms of cognition. continued. Upattkdra. Ha points out the difference of pleasure, etc., from inferential tqgnltion. depending upon a difference of their modes or appearance. MO i * i * M Abhut, (it) was. ffa Iti, such modal distinction. <jfo Api, also. 4. (It) was " such (modal distinction) also (establishes the difference between pleasure or pain and cognition.) 358. The word iti indicates the form. The word l api implies another form, viz., " (It) will be." Thus, in inferential cognition, e. g. t " Ther& was or will be lire in the mountain," the modal distinction of the past, etc., is observed ; but pleasure or, pain, produced under this form, has never been observed. 4 Vivriti * * * * Cognition is conversant about objects past, future, and present. But of other pleasure or pain, no object whatever exists. Therefore, by the application of contradictory properties, viz.,. objectivity and non-objectivity, it follows that pleasure and pain ara not identical with cognition. Plcasiire and Pain are not forms of cognition continued. Upasledra. He brings forward a further ground of differentiation : U ?* I \\ * II Sati, existing. ar Cha, also. ^TT^jfofTT^ Karyya-adarsanat, be cause of the non -observation of the effect. 5. Also (Pleasure and Pain are not forms of cognition), inasmuch as the effect, (pleasure or pain), is not observed, where (the antecedents of cognition) are present. 359. Pleasure or pain is not merely perception or merely inferential cognition, since the effect, pleasure or pain, is not observed, where contact of the senses and objects exists, or where there is recognition of the universal concomitance (which is the ground of inference), of the mark of inference being a property of the minor term, etc. The mean ing, therefore, is as follows : It has been already stated that pleasure and pain are not cognition in general, (i. e., non-discriminative cogni tion). Should they be cognition in particular (or discriminative cognition), they would be either perceptual cognition or cognition in the form of inference". (Pleasure and pain cannot be the former), inasmuch as the experience of the element of pleasure does not take place during the perception of garlands, sandal-paste, etc., on the contact of the senses and their object ; nor can they be the latter, since there is no experience of the pleasurable or the painful, as the case may be where there exists an inference respecting sandal-paste, etc., or an inference respecting fire, etc. In like manner, pleasure and pain being; 300 VAIEIKA PHILOSOPHY. not experienced in any particular act of perception or in particular act of inference, they are also not the particulars of that perception or that inference. 5. Bhdtya reads tiaticlia of X i. 5 as a separate aphorism, and explain/* it thus : Cognition arises, Sati, i. ., iu respect of objects actually exist ing at the moment. Cognition accordingly relates to past, present, and future objects. But this is not the case with pleasure and pain. Herein also, therefore, there is difference between cognition, on the one hand, and pleasure and pain, on the other. Above continued : Causes of Ple,a*ure and Pain. Upaikdra. He mentions another! differentiating characteristic. I ? \ \ \ \ II Eka-artha-samavayi-karana-antaresu, there ex isting other causes co-inherent in one and the same object. JffTFT Driftatvat, from the being observed. Because they are observed. 6. (Pleasure and Pain are not form of cognition), because they are observed, when there exist other causes co-inherent in one and the same object, (i. e., the soul). 360. " Of pleasure and pain " such is the complement (of the aphorism). In relation to pleasure, uncommon or specific causes co-inherent in one and the same object are dharma or merit, attachment to, or attraction for, pleasure, desire for the cause of pleasure, volition or striving to secure the material (cause) of pleasure, and cognition of garlands, sandle-paste, etc.; while in relation to pain, they are adliarma, or demerit, and cognition of thorns and other undesirable object. The meaning is that (pleasure and pain differ from cognition;, inasmuch as they are observed on the co-inherence of these causes in one and the same object. But cognition which is non-discriminative, does not at • 11 stand in need of an uncommon cause co-inherent in the same object (with it). Discriminative cognition, of course, depends upon a cogni tion of predication or attribution (or judgment), but this is not another cause, that is, a cause heterogeneous to the cause of the cognition itself. Conjunction of the mind, as being a cause common (to pleasure and pain with cognition), does not require mention. Though reminiscence requires samskdra, impression or reproductiveness, as its specific or uncommon cause, yet the difference therefrom is quite obvious, as it is for this reason that the difference (of pleasure and pain) has been investigated with reference only to cognition or perceptual experience. Although in inferential cognition there is dependence upon the recollec tion of pervasion or universal concomitance, the cognition that the mark is a property of the minor term, etc., yet it is thrown overboard by the very word antara, other, (in the aphorism). The probative sense (of the aphorism) is, therefore, that pleasure and pain are different from cognition, inasmuch as they are the products of uncommon or particular causes, of their own kind, co-existing in the same subs tratum with them, as is the case with reminiscence, and with the first sound (in a series of sounds). 6. KANiDA SfrTRAS X, 1,7. 301 An objection answered. L paskAra. It may be objected; If the difference ef pleasure and pain from cognition depend on the difference of their causes, and if the difference of pleasure and pain from eaoh other be just like the mutual difference between a pillar and a water-pot, etc., then there oan be no mutual difference between the body and its parts euoh as the head, the feet, the back, the stomach, etc., there being, in regard to ihese, no difference in their causes, whether they be thf! ultimate atoms, binary atomic aggregates, etc., or blood and semen. To meet thi* objection, he ays: Eka-dese, in the part. f% Iti, such. This, j^rf^i^ Ekasrain, in one body). f*K Sirah, the head. 1% Prietham, the back. Wf^ Udarain, the stomach. <rotff% Marmmani, the vitals. 5T%jfa: Tat-viAesah, their distinction. rTfi^r^^: Tat-visesebhyah, from the distinctions or their causes .) 7 . The head, the back, the stomach, the vitals are in the parts of one and same (body) ; this their difference (results) from the differences thereof (/. ., of their causes). 361. 1 Eka-desa iti means, in the part. Ekasmin means, in the body ; • Siralj this is one part ; udaram ; pristham ; and marmmani, 1. ?., the sinews, etc. ; their viiesah/ difference in kind, (results). tat- visesebhyah, from the difference in kind of their causes. There, again, (i.e., in the case of the heterogeneity of the causes), heterogeneity results only from the heterogeneity of the causes (of those causes) ; for, the combinative causes of the stomach, the back etc., also are not just of the same kind as that of the head ; just as the heterogeneity of a spiece of eloth, a water-pot, etc., results from the heterogeneity of threads, postherds. and other material causes ; heterogeneity being possible, in them also, the heterogeneity of threads, postherds, etc., also, results from the heterogeneity of fibres, dust, etc. Heterogeneity is, in like manner, to be sought in the successive material causes : for, while the ultimate atoms may be common, the heterogeneity of the respective material causes universally gives rise to heterogeneity (in their res pective effects) ; whereas homogeneity of the material auses, constitu ted by their substanceness, does not cause such heterogeneity. This is the point. 7. Hkdsya : rtad Ekadeie iti of X. i. 7 with X. i. 6, and explains it as giving an additional reason why pleasure and pain cannot be forms of cognition, the meaning being that pleasure and pain are localised in the body, whereas cognition is not so localised. Here ends the first chapter of the tenth book in the Commentary oE Sankara upon the Vaiaesiki Aphorisms. 302 VAI&ESIKA PHILOSOPHY. BOOK TENTH CHAPTER SECOND. Substance is tlie only combinative cause. Upaskdra. As a collateral topic, the author now commences a special discrimination of the three causes : II ? 1 H I ? U Karanam, cause. ffa Iti, such. ^ Dravye, iu substance. Karyya-samavayat, from the combination of effect. 1. "(It is the combinative) cause" such (intuition and usage), with regard to Substance, (arise) from the combination of effect (in it). 362. 1 Karanam/ that is, that it is the combinative cause ; < iti/ such intuition and usage, are to be observed, l dravye, with regard to substance. Why so ? He gives the reply : kfiryya-samavayat/ be cause effect, viz., substance, attribute, and action, combine in it alone. 1. Vivriti. _ * * * * The definition of a cause in general is that causality consists in constant antecedence, there existing at the same time voidness of failure to produce the effect (that is to say, in Mill s phraseology, causality o-onsists in invariable and unconditional antece dence). There are three kinds of causes, according to their division into the combinative or material, non-combinative or formal, arid instru mental or efficient. * * * * Substance i-s- effcient cause also. tfpatkdra. It may bo aaked : Do then subatancoa (possess only combinative causa lity ? So he says : Samyogat, from conjunction, ^l Va, or, and. 2. And, through conjunction, (Substance becomes the efficient or conditional cause also). 363. As combinative causality, so also efficient causality, belongs to the threads, in the production of a piece of cloth. Inasmuch as conjunction of the shuttle and the threads is also a cause of the cloth, the shuttle and the thread, are, mediately through that conjunction, also efficient cause of the cloth. The word va is used in a collective sense, inasmuch as, though the thread possesses combinative causality to wards the conjuction of the shuttle and the thread, yet it possesses efficient causality towards the cloth, mediately through such conjunc tion. 2. Vivriti. He says that combinative causality belongs to subs tances, not only because effects combine in them, but also because they are fields for the operation of non-combinative causes. KANADA SftTRAS X, 2, 4. 303 Samyogat means because they are the support or substratum wherein takes place c&njunctiou which is the non-combinative cause.* * Actions are non- combinative causes. Upaskara. He explains what causality resides iu Action : MO Karane in the cause. <4*HNK Samavayat, from combination. Karmmani, actions. 3. Through combination in the (combinative) cause, Actions (are non-combinarive causes). 364. " Non-combinative causes" such is the complement (of the apho rism.) Non-combinative causality is causality combined or co-inherent in one and the same object connected with the state of effect and cause. Such causality results either from combination in the same object with the effect, or from combination in the same object with the cause. Of these the former is called, in the terminology of the VaisesiJeas, the slighter or minor, and the latter, the greater or major, proximity. If it be asked by means of which proximity, then, actions possess non-co v nbin- ative causality towards disjunction, and samsJcdra or impression ; it is here replied, karane samavayat, (that it is; through combination in the combinative cause of conjunction, etc. The meaning, therefore, is that non-combinative causality is exercised by action in (the production of) conjunction, etc., by means of the minor proximity characterised as combination in the same object with the effect. 3. Certain Attributes are non- combinative causes, and occasionally efficient causes also. Upaskdra. In anticipation of the question as to what kind of causality pertains to ooloui and other attributes residing in the (conseituent) parts, in relation to the attributes of the wholes, he says : O I R I 8 II WH\ Tatha, so. ^T Rupe, in colour. BTCmin? *nwn^ Karana-eka- :artha-aaraavayat, through combination in the same object with the cause. ^ Cha, and, also. 4. So also in Colour (there is non-combinative causality) through combination in the same object with the cause. 365. The expression colour indicates colour, taste, smell, touch, num ber, magnitude or quantity, separateness, gravity, fluidity, viscidity, etc. The term so extends (the application of) non-combinative causality. Karana-eka-artha-samavayat : (This non-combinative causality of colour, etc.) originates the colour, etc., of the wholes, by means of the major proximity (constituted) by (their) combination in the same object with the whole, which is the combinative cause of the colour, etc., of that whole ; as, for instance, the colour, etc., of the potsherds originate the 304, VAIEIKA PHILOSOPHY. colour, etc., in the water-pot, and similarly it should be observed in all other cases. The word <cha implies that occasionally colour, etc., possess efficient causality also. 4. X. ii. 4 as two aphorisms, viz., Tatkd r&pc, and KAr&nai-kdrtha-Samavdydcheha. (Jon junction in a non-combinative cause. Cpatkdra.He states that the minor proximity belongs to conjunction whil it is a non-combinative cause in the origination of substances : II ? o | *n U. II Karana-samavnyat, through combination in the cause. : Samyogah, conjunction, q^q Patasya, of the cloth. 5. Through combination in the (combinative) cause, Conjunc tion (is a non-combinative cause) of the cloth. 366. The meaning is that, through combination in the combinative cause, conjunction also is a non-combinative cause, in the production of effects such as a piece of cloth, etc., by means of the proximity characterised as combination in the same object with the effect. The word l cloth indicates product substance in general. A certain author maintains that if, on the other hand, conjunction of part with part be also a non-combinative cause of a piece of cloth and the like, then combination in the same object with the cause is also (a non-combinative cause). 5. Above continued. ^Upaskdra. He says that causality sometimes pertains to oonjuuotion by means of the major proximity : o I ^ I ^ || . Karaua-karaua-samavayat, through combination in the cause of the cause, ^r Cha, and, also. 6. And, through combination in the cause of the cause, (conjunction becomes a non-combinative cause by means of the major proximity) also. 367. The conjunction, technically termed prachaya, (loose) coalition aggregation, and residing in the constituent parts of a bale of cotton originates magnitude in the bale of cotton. Here the proximity is -constituted by combination in the same object with the cause. This is the meaning. 6. Efficient causes declared. UpavMra. Having thus ascertained causality determined by the combinative cause ha begins a new section for ascertaining efficient causality. 11 1 . i V t it, ( SftrRASX,2, 8. 305 • TS!*nWPlT^ Samyukta-samavayat, through combination in the con junct. m? Agneh, of fire, t^lfa^ Vaisesikam, distinctive attribute. The distinctive attribute of Fire, (i. e., heat), (becomes an efficient cause), through combination in the conjunct. 368. 1 Vaisesikam, distinctive attribute, agneh, of fire, in other word lieat, becomes an efficient cause in relation to the effects (colour, etc./ produced by burning or baking, through combination (of colour, etc.,) in the conjunct, (i. e., the water-pot placed in fire.) This is indicative ; in relation to cognition everything possesses efficient causality. Under standing, pleasure, pain, desire, aversion, volition, merit, demerit, and impression possess efficient causality only. It should be observed that this system or elaboration of thought has the purposes of establishing the mutual differences of pleasure, etc. 7. Vicfiti * * * * The general definition of an efficient cause is to be understood to be a cause other than the combinative and non- combinative causes. * * * * Observances produru adristam an their fruit, on the authority of the Veda. Upask.ira. Xow, in order to confirm the authoritativeness of the Vedas, he repeate the very same statement which has been made by him before : in* * i * n T DristanAm, of acts observed or known to be productive of good. Drista-prayojananam, of acts the purpose of which has been taught. ^T*n% Drigta-abhave, in the absence of visible or observed. faults or defects. spfm : Frayogah, performance. SFi^W? Abhyudayfiya, for the production of exaltation or adfistam. 8. The performance of acts of observed utility and of acts the purpose whereof has been taught (in the sacred writings), is, for the production of adristam, (as these teachings are authoritatArie being the word of God in whom) the defects found in ordinary speakers do not exist. 369. Dristunum means, of acts which have been proved to be useful by the evidence of experience, e.</., sacrifices, almsgivings, ablution, and the like. Drista-prayojananam means, of acts the purpose whereof has been taught. For, thus, "in such precepts as " He who desires heaven, shall perform sacrifice," u He who desires heaven, shall offer oblation in the aynihotra sacrifice," etc., the fruit or purpose is mentioned at once along with the injunction ; in some cases, the purpose is given out by way of a recommendation, as in a The pitrt-x or departed ancestors of him who studies during these nights, pour down upon, or send down to, 806 VAlgESIKA PHILOSOPHY. him streams of clarified butter and streams of honey," etc. ; in other cases, the purpose is left to be imagined, as in " He shall perform the Viivajit sacrifice," etc., for, here the purpose is neither mentioned along with the injunction nor presented by way of a recommendation, and is therefore, suppositional, and (it cannot be any thing but heaven), for heaven alone should be supposed as the purpose or fruit which is charming in itself. That being so, it does not stand to reason that these acts which so shortly come to their end, should have causality towards the production of fruits or results in the distant future. Hence, the meaning is, prayogah, the performance, of these acts, is abhyuda- vava, for the purpose of apfirvam, that is, adTistain, or deserts. It might be objected as follows : This would have been the case, were the authoritativeness of the Vedas a fact. But that is hard to maintain. For the authoritativeness of the Vedas as being eternally free from faults or defects in themselves, is not desired by you, (t. e., the Va-is- faifca), as it is by the Mimdmsd school, inasmuch as you recognise them as the production of a person, and in that case, it is possible that mistake, absence of mind, intention to mislead, and other defects exist ed in the person. To this the reply is given by the phrase, drista- abhave which means, there being non-existence of personal defects such as error, absence of mind, desire to mislead, and the like, which are found in other persons, namely, in ourselves and others ; inasmuch as the Supreme Person, inferred whether as the Creator of the earth or as the Speaker of the Vedas, is presented to us entirely under the characteristic of freedom from faults or defects. So that His words can neither have no meaning, nor convey a contrary meaning, nor convey a useless meaning. It is only impurities caused by error, absence of mind, inefficiency of the senses, and the like, due to defec- tiveness of the elements constituting the physical organism, the external senses, and the mind, that may possibly vitiate speech. But they cannot possibly lurk in the word of ffivara. It has been accordingly de clared : Being influenced by passion, ignorance, and the like, a speakei may tell untruths. But these do not exist in Isvara. How can He speak otherewise (than truthfully) ? 8. NotQ~Cf. VI. ii. 1, supra. Vivriti. Thus the Prcdicables have been ascertained, as also Res emblance and Difference. This Sdstra or System of Self-culture faci litates manana, intellection or thinking about things, in them only wfiose chitta, or inner sense or mind, has been purified by the perfor mance of acts, and not in them whose cliitta has not been so purified. Observances are productive of purity of cliitta, as declared by such text of the Veda as " They desire to know," etc. The same has been mentioned before. He repeats it for further confirmation. • : * Observances, *** when performed disinteres tedly, do not produce elysian bliss, etc., as their fruit, but produce at their result purity of .cliitta or intellect, etc., according to the text of KANADA StfTRAS IX, 2, 2. 307 the of. Veda, " They desire to know," and the /SmTiti, " When worldly attachment has, by observances, borne its fruits, knowledge is after wards produced." Authoritativencas of the Veda established. UpasMra It may be urged : The Veda has been revealed b} God, it is here that there- is conflict of opinions. Accordingly he says : 11 to R i s. H Tat-vachanat, from being the word of Him, G-od. Amnayasya, of the Vedas, snTT*rtf Pramanyam, authoritativeness finis. According to Sridhara, author of Nyaya kandati, " " tat refers to Risis. 9. The authoritative ness of the Veda (follows) from its beintr the Word of God. 370. iti ; indicates the conclusion of the Sdstra or system. The authori- tntiveness, amnayasya/ of the Veda, (is derived), l vaehanat, from its being the composition, tena, by tsvara. For, thus,, we have already proved that the Vedas have a personal author, inasmuch as they are a collection of sentences or declarations. Nor can we and others possibly l.e the speakers of them, divided and sub-divided as they are in a thou sand branches, for they treat of objects which transcend the senses, and beings of our nature cannot behold objects which transcend the senses. Moreover, the Vedas must have been spoken by a trustworthy person, in asmnch as they ar.e accepted by men of light and leading. That which is not spoken by a trustworthy person, is not accepted by men of light and leading, the Vedas are accepted by men of light and leading, therefore they have been spoken by a trustworthy person. To be spoken by a trustworthy person is to be declared by a self-governed or independent person ; and to be accepted by men of light and leading is to be believed in, and acted upon, by persons attached to all the systems of thought. It has been stated before that non-appearance of the fruit or result, which occasionally happens, is due to defect or flaw in the act, or performance, the agent, and the means or requisites. If it be denied that this is so, there being no recollection on the part of the agent ; we reply that the denial has no value, it having been already proved that there is recollection on the part of the agent. The composition thereof by Him is proved, inasmuch as they could be declared only by an independent person, while such independent power to declare the Vedas in their thousand branches is as has been said, impossible fryr beings of our nature. Moreover, since certitude must be the product cf excellence or superiority, the certitude derived from the Vedas must also have excellence for its condition, and excellence must in this case be pronounced to be only the speaker s accurate knowledge of the true meaning of the sentences. The speaker of the Veda must, therefore 308 VA1&ESIKA PHILOSOPHY. 1)6 one of that description, one who has immediate cognition of heaven, udristam and like other objects ; and there is none such but tsvara alone. This is well said. 9. Xotf. ty. I. i. 3, supra. | The fortunate Sahkara, who is the son of Bhavandtha by Bhavda,}., and who is devoted to the worship of Siva, has written this commentary on the Aphorisms of Kandda. Even though this production of mine may not find favour \\ith others, nay, may be an object of ridicule with them, yet, (it is hoped), it will be adored a thousand times and over by my pupils, out of respect for their teacher. _ + _ Here ends the second chapter of the tenth book in the commentary on the Vaisesika Aphorisms by$ri Sankara Misra, son of Mahamahopa- <lhyaya Bhavanatha Misra.

And complete is also this treatise.

APPENDIX 1.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

(Compiled h-om the Vjdvakosa and Hull s Catalogue}.

An -nit* of Work*.

1 A.paabda.-khandana

2 A-hetu-aama-yvakarana

> Atiua-tattva-vi vekn

4 -~kal},alaf:a

~t -didh.it i

l . K ana da-samgrah a vy a khy a

1 1 Knrikfxvali

10 17

18

tika

prakaia

... kafiika ...

vy a khy ft

21 ...... rahasya ,.,

22 Kusumunjali (-karika)

-v-yakhyu...

-oraktUa

-makaranda

-vritti vvakhva

2 Kornala-tika-tika ->3 Guna-kiranAvali -34 ...... -tika , /.

^ ...... -praka^n

36 liuna-didhiti-tippani

37 ^nna-prakaAa -didhiti

...... ... -raathtm

...... -vivriti

.......... bhava-praka\$ika

41 Guna-rahasya

4--J Guna-6irauiahi

44

40 GunA,iuuidi (oji No. 22)

46 JAti-satka-j)rakarana

47 Tattva-jfsana-vivrid dhi-praka4a

48 Tattvanusandhana

f

Karuulu

LJdayana ^Icharya. Saukara Misra. Raghnnatlia Bhattacliary* Padiuaiiabha Mifiva. Saukara .Misra.

Anonymaux.

RaghudeVa Nyayalaukftrai Visvanaiiha. Udayana Achai ya. Udayaua. Krisiva JBliatta.. Blmjjjiratlia Thukkura. Mathuratiatha. Vardhamana Upadhyav i. Meglia Bhagiratha. Unknown.

Narayana Tirtha Yati. TriJoohaua Deva. Visvauatha. Untraced. Untraced. Vardhamana. Jayarama Bhattacahrya. Kaghanatha. Mathuranathft. Raghunatha. Rudra BhattachArya Rfimbhadra. Madhava Deva. Raghunatha. RAmakrisna Gunatianda. YiSvamltha

Unknown.

310

APPENDIX I.

49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 32 83 84 85 86 87 SB 89 90 91 92 9 3

94

95

96

97

100

-prakasa

Tarka-karika

Tarka-kaumudi

Tarka-dipika

Tarka-bhasa

Tarka-inaujari

Tarka-ratua

Tarka-sariigraha

- chart drika

-tattva-prakhsa .. Tarka-samgrahopanyasa Tarkamrita

-chasaka

-tatparya-tika

-tarangiui ..

Dravya-kiranavali-praka&a ..

-pariksa ...

-sabda-viveehana Dravya-guna-paryuya Dravya-nirupana Drav\ a-pataka ...

Drayya-sara-samgraha Dvandva-viohAra Nirukti Nyaya-kandali Nyaya-tantra-bodhini Nyaya-tarangi ni

Nyay a-bodhini

Nyaya-lilavati

-kanthabharana ... ... -prakasa ...

-didliiti,

... -viveka ...

-bhava-prakafca ... Nyaya-aai a ...

-t.ika ...

-vilasa , 4i

Pti-lArtha-tattvavaloka ..

... -nirnaya

. Jivaraja Diksita.

Annain Bhatta. . Nilaka^tha ^astri.

Konda Bhatta.

V r isva;iHtha. . Jivaraja Diksita.

Konda Bhatta. . Viraraghava Sastri.

Aniiam Bhatta.

Mukunda Bhatta.

Unknown

MukumJa Bhatta. , Vardhainana.

Rudra Vachaapati.

Chandrafiekhara Bharati.

Untraced.

Untraeed.

Untraced.

Raghu.iatha.

Megha Bhagiratha fhakkur*.

Anonymous.

Baglmdeva.

Gokulanatlia Maithila.

Pattabhirama Sasfcri.

Sriidhara Aohirya.

V iftv i at ha.

Keaava.

Grovardhaa Misra.

V allabha A . harya.

Sankara Miara.

Raghunatha Siromani.

VidyavagiAa Bhattacharya.

Bliagiratha. Madhava Deva. Visvauatha Panch&nana. Govardhana Ranga Acharya. Chaudraraja Simha. Krisna Mist a Raghunaih-i Siromani. Govinda, Madhava, Kaghudeva., Ruchi-datta, and Ramabhadr*. Krisna Misra. Misaru Misra (or Sarngad-

hara ?) Krisna Bhatta. Viavanatha.

-prakaaa ...

tattva) -tika

P a r i b ha sa - v i se sa Praiuaiia majijari Baliyartha-bhanga-uirakaraiia Bhasa-parichchheda ...

Bheda-prakasa Mita-bhasiui

rahasya Uasa sara

Ua lilhauta-muktahara Laksanavali

-tika

Lilavati-rahasya V a la-sudha tika ratnavali Vaisea ka-vatna-ma!a ...

[t-Sutra

.. -bliasya ...

-vantika ... -vi\ riti -vritti

-vyakhya

142 14 i 144 145 1 14/ 148 149 Siddhanta-mnktavalr-prftkasa

... -tika -

Siddhauta-chandrika Siddhanta-tattva-viveka

Koiida Bhatta. Prasastapada. Ny ay a vac hasp at i. Krisna Miara. Saiikara.-harya. Untraced-

Untraeed. Gropinat.ha Muni. Untraced. Sarvadeva Pun . Visva tar,ha Pafichanana.

Sankara Afiara.- Ma lhava Sarasvati. Grokulai at,ha. Visvanadia. Prithvidhara Acharya.

Harira:na. Grada 1 hava. Malhava Vadindra. Padmar.a .ha MiSra. jldaya i:. A -harya. Sosa oa> anoradhra. Math 11 1 a arha Tarkavagiaa. Krisua M-sra. Bha\adeva Pandita Kavi. K ana. la

San kara M ; fira. Udayana Acharya ; ChandrA-

11 anda. Havana / Raghudeva; Chandra-

kit : a,

Vijfia ia Bhikau. Jay a a ay an a. Bht>ja ?

Hari.

Mi lra.

Jaykriana (or Kriana Maunin)

Gobardhana. . ^ _. -.

Kriana Dhurjati DJksita. ,

Gokulanatha. - v

Q-opinatha Maani.

A P PEN J) I X 11. INDEX OF WORDS.

wfir

i n i u : in 13 n : * n iv.

• .nn

inn iiii^ urn :

APPENDIX II.

HIS