Text 43: On Space (Diś)

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of Text 43:

दिक् पूर्वापरादिप्रत्ययलिङ्गा । मूर्तद्रव्यमवधिं कृत्वा मूर्तेष्वेव द्रव्येष्वेतस्मादिदं पूर्वेण दक्षिणेन पश्चिमेनोत्तरेण पूर्वदक्षिणेन दक्षिणापरेण अपरोत्तरेण उत्तरपूर्वेण चाधस्तादुपरिष्टाच्चेति दश प्रत्यया यतो भवन्ति सा दिगिति । अन्यनिमित्तासम्भवात् । तस्यास् तु गुणाः संख्यायपरिमाणपृथक्त्वसम्योगविभागाः कालवदेते सिद्धाः । दिग्लिङ्गाविशेषादंजसैकत्वेऽपि दिशः परममहर्षिभिः श्रुतिस्मृतिलोकसंव्यवहारार्थं मेरुं प्रदक्षिणमावर्तमानस्य भगवतः सवितुर्ये सम्योगविशेषाः लोकपालपरिगृहीतदिक्प्रदेशानामन्वर्थाः प्राच्यादिभेदेन दशविधाः संज्ञाः कृताः अतो भक्त्या दश दिशः सिद्धाः । तासामेव देवतापरिग्रहात् पुनर्दश संज्ञा भवन्ति । माहेन्द्री वैश्वानरी याम्या नैरृती वारुणी वायव्या कौवेरी अइशानी ब्राह्मी नागी चेति ॥ ४३ ॥

dik pūrvāparādipratyayaliṅgā | mūrtadravyamavadhiṃ kṛtvā mūrteṣveva dravyeṣvetasmādidaṃ pūrveṇa dakṣiṇena paścimenottareṇa pūrvadakṣiṇena dakṣiṇāpareṇa aparottareṇa uttarapūrveṇa cādhastādupariṣṭācceti daśa pratyayā yato bhavanti sā digiti | anyanimittāsambhavāt | tasyās tu guṇāḥ saṃkhyāyaparimāṇapṛthaktvasamyogavibhāgāḥ kālavadete siddhāḥ | digliṅgāviśeṣādaṃjasaikatve'pi diśaḥ paramamaharṣibhiḥ śrutismṛtilokasaṃvyavahārārthaṃ meruṃ pradakṣiṇamāvartamānasya bhagavataḥ saviturye samyogaviśeṣāḥ lokapālaparigṛhītadikpradeśānāmanvarthāḥ prācyādibhedena daśavidhāḥ saṃjñāḥ kṛtāḥ ato bhaktyā daśa diśaḥ siddhāḥ | tāsāmeva devatāparigrahāt punardaśa saṃjñā bhavanti | māhendrī vaiśvānarī yāmyā nairṛtī vāruṇī vāyavyā kauverī aiśānī brāhmī nāgī ceti || 43 ||

Text (43):—Space is the cause or basis of the notions of East, West &c. That is to say, it is that from which arise the ten notions—of East, South-East, South, South-West, West, North-West, North, North-West, Below and Above—with regard to one corporeal (material) object considered with reference to another material object as the starting point or limit.

Specially so, as there is no other cause available (for these notions).

Its qualities are: Number, Dimension, Separateness, Conjunction and Disjunction. The presence of these in Space are to be shown as indicated by the Sūtra, in the same way as in the case of Time.—(II-ii-12, II-i-31, VlI-i-24, VII-ii-22).

Though the character of Space by itself is uniform, and one only, yet, for the sake of the usages of the Śruti, the Smṛtis and the ordinary people the Great Ṛṣis have coined the ten literal names—‘Prāci’ (East) and the rest—which pertain of the contacts of the Sun, revolting round the Meru, with the ten points of Space presided over by the ten Deities. Thus then it is only indirectly or figuratively th at we speak of the ‘ten quarters’. To these quarters is given another set of names based upon the names of the deity presiding over each of them—viz: ‘Māhendrī’ (East), ‘Vaiśvānarī’ (S.E;), ‘Yāmyā’ (S.) ‘Nairṛti’ (S.W.), ‘Vāruṇī’ (W.) ‘Vāyavyā’ (N.W.), ‘Kauberī’ (N.), ‘Aiśānī’ (N.E.), ‘Brāhmī’ (Above,) and Nāgi (Below.)—(II-ii-13 to 16).

Commentary: The Nyāyakandalī of Śrīdhara.

(English rendering of Śrīdhara’s commentary called Nyāyakandalī or Nyāyakaṇḍalī from the 10th century)

Just as the distinguishing feature of Time lies in the fact of its being the cause of the notions of simultaneity &c., &c., so that of Space lies in the fact of its being the basis of the notions of East, West &c. This same fact is further explained. For an immatarial object there is no boundary or limit, and as such the ideas of east, west &c. cannot apply to it; for the simple reason that their dimension is not limited; hence the author has said—‘taking a material object for the limit’; that is to say, Space is that from which there arises with regard to material objects, the idea that, ‘this is to the East of that,’ and so forth. In the sense of ‘this is to the East of that,’ we have the form ‘pūrveṇa’ as in the case of this word the Instrumental is laid down as signifying the sense of the basic noun.

Objection: “The notions of East, West &c., being effects justify simply the inference of a Cause; but whence do you conclude that it is Space that is this cause?”

Reply: There being no other cause. For the notions in question, a mere substance could not be the cause; for in that case, in whatsoever position the substance would be, it would give rise to the notions in question, which is absurd. We would have the same absurdity, even if the notions were held to originate from two substances as related to each other; and in this case there would be the further absurdity if the absence of both of the notions in question were attributed to Actions and Qualities, as in that case, there could be no such notions in the case of substances having similar Actions and Qualities. For these reasons it must be admitted that that which is the cause of these notions is Space. And this is also shown by the fact of the direction being expressed by such words as ‘idam etasmāt pūrvam’ ‘(this to the East of that)’, where we have the Ablative (in etasmāt); if this did not originate from Space, then the Ablative would be meaningless.

It might be argued that the Ablative would denote limit. True, it would; but limit also is with reference to Space, and not with reference to any and every substance; as in the latter case, it would be the same in all cases.

Though Space is itself imperceptible, yet it must, like Time, be regarded as the. cause of certain particular notions.

The author now proceeds to show that Space has the character of a substance, in that it is endowed with qualities:—Tasyāstu &c. The existence of these is established as in the case of Time. That is to say, as Time is one only on account of the common character of Time in all points of it, so in the same manner, the character of Space being common to all points in Space, it is one only. And from this singleness follows its Separateness. And as in the case of Time, its Great Dimension is indicated by the sentence ‘Kāraṇe Kālaḥ’ so is the Great Dimension of Space indicated by the sentence ‘Kāraṇe dik,’ specially as the effect of this, in the shape of the notions of East, West &c., is present everywhere. Then as the presence of the quality of Conjunction in Time is indicated by the expression ‘Kāraṇa-paratvāt,’ so also its presence in Space would be similarly indicated; and as in the case of Time the quality of Disjunction was proved to exist as the destroyer of Conjunction, so would it be in Space also.

Objection: “The fact of the distinguishing feature of Space being one only is not established; as we find the notions of East, West &c, differing from one another; and thus it is only proper to hold that there is a multiplicity or diversity of Spaces.”

Reply:—Not so; because we find that with reference to one and the same object we have all the notions of East, West &c., as taken with reference to its position in regard to different substances. If the notions of East &c., were based on so many different spaces, then the thing that would be recognised as ‘to the East,’ could not, at that same time, be known as ‘to the West.’

Objection: “The object may be in relation with all spaces.”

Reply: In that case every object in the world would be regarded as to the East, West, North and South, of every other thing. As a matter of fact however we do not find any such idea with regard to any object. Hence we conclude that Space is one only, and the diversity of notions is due to the diversity in the accessories. For instance, ‘East’ is the name given to that extent of Space which happens to lie between, the place of the rising sun, and the object in a straight line with it; and the name ‘West’ to that which lies between the place of the setting Sun and the object in a straightline with it; and the names North’ and ‘South’ is applied to that where the Sun is never seen, as considered with reference to an object that is in a position that would lie in a line with the meridian point; and the intervals between these come to be known as ‘South-East’ and the like. The diversity of the notions is thus very easily explained as being due to the accessory circumstances.

Nor can all these notions he taken as being due to the connecton of the Sun (and as such not indicative of any such distinct substance as Space). Because the Sun is not found to be in direct contact with any material object; and that which is not. so connected could not be the cause of the notions in question. This is what the author means to show by the clause digliṅgāviśeṣāt; That is to say, Space being found to be one only, the ten names of ‘East’ &c., were formed by the Great Ṛṣis. And these names were ‘anvartha’—‘literally applicable’ to those conjunctionsand disjunctions of the Sun with the points of Space presided over by the ten Ruling or Protecting Divinities, Indra and the rest. For instance, the point of Space where the Sun appears first of all (prathamam anati), was named ‘prācī’ ‘(East’); that which the Sun touches as[?]ant (avāk añcati) was named, ‘Avācī’(‘ South’); that which the Sun touches last (Pratyak añcati) was named ‘pratīcī’ (West); an 1 that which he touches high (udak añcati) was named ‘Udīcī’ (North). All these positions a^re those that the Sun takes while revolving round the mount Meru. These names were made by the Ṛṣis for the sake of the proper performance of the Vedic, Smārta and ordinary actions. As an instance of (1), we have the sentence ‘one should not sleep with his head towards the West,’ of (2) ‘one desiring long life takes his food, facing the East’; and of (3), such assertions, as ‘Go to the East,’ ‘look to the South,' and so forth.

In as much as the Ṛṣis coined ten names. Space is figuratively divided into ten forms. As for the names ‘Māhendrī’ and the like, they do not belong to any other things; they are synonymous with the names given above, but are based upon other conditions (than that of the Solar contact). This is what is. meant by—Tāsāmeva &c. ‘Māhendrī,’ is that which belongs to Mahendra; and that which belongs to Vaiśvānara is the ‘Vaiśvānarī’ (South); and so forth.