Vaisheshika-sutra with Commentary
by Nandalal Sinha | 1923 | 149,770 words | ISBN-13: 9789332869165
The Vaisheshika-sutra 1.1.26, English translation, including commentaries such as the Upaskara of Shankara Mishra, the Vivriti of Jayanarayana-Tarkapanchanana and the Bhashya of Chandrakanta. The Vaisheshika Sutras teaches the science freedom (moksha-shastra) and the various aspects of the soul (eg., it's nature, suffering and rebirth under the law of karma). This is sutra 6 (‘above continued’) contained in Chapter 1—Of Substance, Attribute, and Action—of Book I (of the predicables).
Sūtra 1.1.26 (Above continued)
Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration, Word-for-word and English translation of Vaiśeṣika sūtra 1.1.26:
अन्यत्रान्त्येभ्यो विशेषेभ्यः ॥ १.१.२६ ॥
anyatrāntyebhyo viśeṣebhyaḥ || 1.1.26 ||
asamavāyāt—on account of non-combination; sāmānya-kāryam—common effect; karma—action; na—not; vidyate—is known.
26. Action which is the joint result (of an aggregate of two or more substances,) is not known, as it is not found in combination with them.
Commentary: The Upaskāra of Śaṅkara Miśra:
(English rendering of Śaṅkara Miśra’s commentary called Upaskāra from the 15th century)
Well, it may be asked, as Substances which are made up of parts, as well as Attributes already mentioned, have the characteristic of aggregation, so does not that characteristic belong to Actions also? So he says:—[Read sūtra 1.1.26 above]
‘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 consciousness ‘It moves,’ in respect of two substances and more than two substances; but it is not so; therefore Action does not reside in aggregation. This is the meaning.
It cannot be argued, “The Action of the body and its parts are 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 ease 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 ease, because the part moving there does not arise the consciousness. ‘it moves.’ in respect of the entire whole made up of the. parts. Otherwise 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