Chapter 7 - The Perceptibility of Time

54. It may not be doubted how ether could become perceptible as it has no form. It is replied that by the statements like "the bird flies" etc., is the proof by which ether becomes the object of the knowledge.

55. It is not the form that is the cause of perception in certain objects like ether, time etc. It is because in each and every object there is the object namely, “this is of this nature—idam ittham” which is comprehended by the sense organ of Vision. The aspect “idam ittham” conveys that the object is here and now.^[1]

56. According to some, the usage “idam ittham” does not convey the object as related to the time factor but only the movement of the sun at that present time. Thus it conveys only the kriyā and not the time. It is not proper to deny the perceptibility of time on this ground.

57. The relation of an activity to the object happens only in relation to the time factor. The relation of an activity like the movement of the sun is only due to its association with the time. This activity can be termed as kālopanaya sāmagrī that is it becomes a cause as associated with the time factor. Therefore, there arises the perception ayaṃ ghaṭaḥ etc., by one and all.

58. Further in the above usage there is the association of time with the pot it means that the existence of the pot. This existence too related to time which is known as sattā.^[2] Therefore, the usage ‘this is’ conveys only the pratyakṣatva of an entity.

59. The relation of substances in regard to time is only conjunction (saṃyoga). The relation of the nonsubstances to that of time is saṃyuktāśraya.

60-61. The non-substances (adravyā) such as guṇa, jāti (quality, genus) etc., owe their existence through the substratum which is a substance. This is accepted by the pramāṇas. The existence of an entity is to be known only through the time-factor. The view that a substance is known through its form^[3] is the view of others.

62. Knowledge is self-luminous as it doesn't require any other object for its comprehension. Though time doesn't possess a form, yet, it is to be comprehended through pratyakṣa only. Its perceptibility is due to the object with which it is related. Knowledge which reveals other objects reveals itself. This is the view of the Upaniṣads.

63. Therefore, the time (kāla) is perceptible, and is proved while explaining the ether. Its visibility is established on the basis of the objects.

64. Though ether doesn't possess a form yet, there is nothing contradictory in holding a view that it is perceptible. To those, who doesn't admit such a view, it is replied that, due to the process of quintuplication (pañcīkaraṇa) form superimposed and there by it became the object of perception.^[4]

65. This view has been explained on the inferential cognition of rūpa or form which is self-luminous. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in admitting that ether is the object of Vision.

66. All these views have been explained and determined in the works of great preceptors like Śrī Vedānta Deśika. As far as the Vāyu is concerned it possesses the characteristics of the sound and touch only;

67. The Vāyu that is present inside the physical body attains denotation as vital air, (prāṇa). That Vāyu is perceptible is known from the statement that "the wind blows and this has been accepted by all.

68. If it is said that Vāyu is inferred because of the sense of touch then on the same ground of argument it can be said that pot is also known by inference because of its form. The view that the sense of touch is the cause for the inferential knowledge of the Vāyu is not admissible to the learned scholars.

69. If sparśa etc., are admitted as (hetu) probans, it would involve the fallacy of vyabhicāra, as there is no concomitance (vyāpti). The contention that rūpa and sparśa are the direct probans (hetu) for vāyu etc., then gurutva etc., too would become the direct reasoning (pratyakṣahetu). This view is not acceptable to others. If it is tried to counter this argument then there would arise the defect of gaurava.

70-71. According to the statement ‘dravya pratyakṣe rūpam kāraṇam’, rūpa became the inherent quality for the perception of a substance. In the same way sparśa is the cause for vāyu pratyakṣa. Due to the above said reason gurutva is also considered as a counter factor (pratibandhaka) for perception.

It is objected that gurutva will come under perception, and then there arise a fallacy called prolixity, as there is the non-existence of pratibandhakābhava which is the cause of pratyaksa.

The causality (kāraṇatva) of the substances in perception is possible only in a place which has been accepted by both namely naiyāyikas and Siddhāntins. There is no causality, where there is no perception as it involves the defect called kalpanā gaurava.

72. The udbhūtarūpa (perceivable form) which is associated with śabda (sound) and sparśa (touch) is the quality of tejas.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

18. By this the place and time is conveyed. For instance the usage—‘ayaṃ ghaṭaḥ’ is understood as the place and the time of that particular objects. Thus kala become Pratyakṣa. See Nyāya Siddhāñjana, pp.83-85.

[2]:

In every perception there will be the comprehension that ‘sat etat’ (the object exists). Thus kāla or time become Pratyakṣa.—Quoted in Nyāya Siddhāñjana, p.86.

[3]:

“dravyapratyakṣam prati rūpam kāraṇam” is the view of the naiyāyikas, see Tarka Saṅgraha Dīpikā. p. 82-83.

[4]:

The common experience is that the blue sky or the sky is blue is an illustration of this fact. Here, the blueness does not belong to the ether, but it is associated only with the pṛthvī element. By the process of pañcīkaraṇa a percentage of an earthem element is present in the sky.—Nyāya Siddhāñjana. p.52.