Text 46

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of Text 46:

अथ गुणपदार्थनिरूपणम् |
रूपादीनां गुणानां सर्वेषां गुणत्वाभिसम्बन्धो द्रव्याश्रितत्वं निर्गुणत्वं निष्क्रियत्वम् ॥ ४६ ॥

atha guṇapadārthanirūpaṇam |
rūpādīnāṃ guṇānāṃ sarveṣāṃ guṇatvābhisambandho dravyāśritatvaṃ nirguṇatvaṃ niṣkriyatvam || 46 ||

Text (46):—To the Qualities, Colour and the rest belong the (common) character of belonging to the class ‘Quality,’ of inhering in substances, of being devoid of qualities, and of being devoid of action.

Commentary: The Nyāyakandalī of Śrīdhara.

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

All obeisance to one who is blue like the clouds, lying upon the bed of Śeṣa, delighting in the embrace of Lakṣmī,—the destroyer of the Asuras!

Having described the category of Substance, the author next proceeds to describe the next category of Quality. Rūpādīnām &c. The fact of belonging to the generality of ‘Quality’ is the common quality among these; and it is this that differentiates them from all other categories. The existence of this generality in Colour &c. is perceived directly by the senses, as aided by instruction,—just like the generality of ‘gem.’

That this category is, at first, not distinguished from Action &c., is due to the extreme likeness between these, consisting in the fact of both (Qualities and Actions) inhering in other substances.

The expression ‘Rūpādinām guṇānām’ only serves the purpose of mentioning the form of these.—“Sarveṣām,” has been added with a view to include all qualities.

‘Dravyāśṛtatva’—being subordinate to substances. This only points out a property of Qualities; and it does not point out any thing peculiar to these; as this character is found to belong to actions and substances also.

Similarly the absence of qualities is mentioned by way of pointing out the character of the Qualities; as Qualities are not capable of producing in themselves other qualities. This non-productiveness is learnt from the non-perception of the fact of any other colour being produced in one Colour; and also from the fact of the admission of such productions landing us in a regressus ad infinitum. In view of this such assertions as ‘one colour’ (when the quality of Colour is spoken of as having the quality of Number;, or ‘Sound is atomic.’ and the like must be regarded as figurative. Because Number &c. could not inhere in Colour, because it is a quality, like Colour.

The author points out another character of the Qualities:—Absence of actions. It might be argued that when the substance moves, its Colour &c. also move along with it (and thus the action of moving belongs to the quality of Colour). But it is not so; because as a matter of fact we find that no action is produced in the sky by the contact of swift wind-currents; while an action is produced in such things as the branches of a tree; which shows, by negative and positive concomitance, that action is always concomitant with materiality or corporeality; and hence as qualities have no material bodies of their own, it follows that they can have no action.

As for the ordinary notion of motion with regard to Qualities, this is due to the action of their substratum; just as is the case with ‘Being,’ ‘Sattī’: this ‘Being’ never moves along with its substratum; as if it did move then (‘Being’ being; common to all things) when one thing would move, all things would move with it.