Sūtra 1.1.1 (Dharma is to be explained)

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration, Word-for-word and English translation of Vaiśeṣika sūtra 1.1.1:

अथातो धर्मं व्याख्यास्यामः ॥ १.१.१ ॥

athāto dharmaṃ vyākhyāsyāmaḥ || 1.1.1 ||

atha—now; ataḥ—therefore; dharmam—piety, religion; vyākhyāsyāmaḥ—(We) shall explain.

1. Now, therefore, we shall explain Dharma.

Commentary: The Upaskāra of Śaṅkara Miśra:

(English rendering of Śaṅkara Miśra’s commentary called Upaskāra from the 15th century)

‘Atha’ indicates sequence to the desire of the disciples. ‘Ataḥ’—Because disciples, skilful in Śraraṇa (audition), etc, and unenvious, approached (him), therefore. Or the word ‘atha’ has the sense of auspiciousness. For it has been said: “Oṃkāra (aum) and the word Atha—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 sage, while composing the Vaiśeṣika system of selfculture, 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.

Again, there need be also no apprehension of its uselessness merely on account of the non-appearance, for the time being, of the fruit of that, the obligatory nature of which has been taught in the Śruti and can be inferred from the conduct of the elect or polite. Nor is it that there can be no supposition of something in another birth since an act must produce its 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 Kārīrī (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 new entrance in the shape of adṛṣṭa, while here it is the annihilation of hindrances, since the undertaking is with the desire that what has been begun may be safely completed.

It cannot be said that the fruit of the observance is the mere annihilation 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 object of volition, and it is also uppermost in the mind. Moreover, the mere destruction of demerits is not the fruit, for that being otherwise capable of accomplishment by propitiation, singing the name of God crossing the river Karmanāśā, 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 fulfilment 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 (at the confluence (of the Gaṅgā and Yamunā) at Prayāga (Allahabad), etc. and it will be rash to speak of them as so many good omens.

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 alternativecause 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 causality has to be deduced from agreement and difference, there the rule of antecedence to the effect should be observed, but not in the Veda also, where the appearance of difference does not figure as a weightv consideration. 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 contact of the feet with the village: and it should be similarly understood 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 difference.

An auspicious observance is an act which brings about fulfilment as its fruit by the path of the annihilation of obstacles, and that is really of the form of salutation to the deity, etc. Even where obstacles do not exist of themselves, although the commonly attributed (as above charactersitic 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 the characteristic of issuing by the path of the annihilation of obstacles This is the point.—1.

Commentary: The Vivṛti of Jayanārāyaṇa:

(English extracts of Jayanārāyaṇa Tarkapañcānana’s Vivṛti or ‘gloss’ called the Kaṇādasūtravivṛti from the 17th century)

The Vivṛti adds: Others again say that the non-existence of any hindrance having been insured by the virtue born of concentration (Yoga), the sage did not attend to the auspicious observance, or that if he 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 Gautama (i.e., Nyāya Sūtra), in the recital of the word pramāṇa (Proof; which falls within the group of the names of God, so too in this treatise, the auspicious ceremony has been observed, in the form of reciting the word dharma, which also is a synonym of God.

It should be understood here that dharma, leads up to knowledge by the way of the purification of the mind (citta), thirst after knowledge, and so on. For the Veda says: “They come to thirst after knowledge by the performance of sacrifices,” etc. And says the Smṛti also, “Knowledge is produced after demerits or dark deeds have been destroyed by good acts.”

Commentary: The Bhāṣya of Candrakānta:

(English translation of Candrakānta Tarkālaṅkāra’s Bhāṣya called the Vaiśeṣikabhāṣya from the 19th century)

The classification of Dharma is not shown by Kaṇāda, as it does not fall within the scope of his philosophy; for, helms undertaken the Śāstra with the object of teaching Tattva-Jñāna. knowledge of the essences or principles, only.