Sūtra 2.1.7 (Above continued)

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration, Word-for-word and English translation of Vaiśeṣika sūtra 2.1.7:

त्रपुसीस लोह रजत सुवर्णानामग्निसंयोगाद्द्रवत्वमद्भिः सामान्यम् ॥ २.१.७ ॥

trapusīsa loha rajata suvarṇānāmagnisaṃyogāddravatvamadbhiḥ sāmānyam || 2.1.7 ||

trapu-sīsa-loha-rajata-suvarṇānām—of tin, lead, iron, silver, and gold; agnisaṃyogāt—through Conjunction of Fire; dravatvam—Fluidity; adviḥ—with Waters; sāmānyam—similarity.

7. The Fluidity of tin, lead, iron, Silver, and gold, through conjunction with Fire, constitutes their similarity to Water,—55.

Commentary: The Upaskāra of Śaṅkara Miśra:

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

But still, because that condition, i.e., Fluidity, appears in tin, lead, iron, and other modifications of Fire, therefore that condition itself is an instance that the definition is too wide. To this objection he replies:

[Read sūtra 2.1.7 above]

This is an indication; bell-metal, copper, brass, etc., are also implied. The characteristic which is common to those which have been mentioned and those which are implied, is that they are the foundation of the Fluidity which is produced but is not destroyed by the closest Conjunction of Fire. Thus the Fluidity of gold, etc., also is only occasional, the occasion which is the Conjunction of Fire, being proved by the method of agreement and difference. Moreover there is this distinction; in the last aphorism the word ‘agni’ denotes Light —tejas—possessing an excess or abundance of heat, but here it denotes fire.

If it be objected, “Gold, etc., also must be either modifications of Earth or different Substances; because yellowness, weight, etc., establish terreneness [?], and because the non-annihilation of Fluidity which constitutes their difference from Earth, is perceived in them, and because this is capable of establishing of Substance.” We reply that gold is a modification of Fire, and its fieriness is proved in the negative way, namely, “That which is not thus, is not thus, as Earth,” by the characteristic of its being the foundation of Fluidity which is not annihilated even at the closest Conjunction of Fire.

Again there is no contradiction in the ultimate atoms of Water, because Fluidity should be qualified as being non-eternal. Nor is there incommensurability, as the mark does not appear in the lamp and other objects of the ascertained class, because the fact which is to be proved is that gold is not a modification of Earth. Nor is there any obstacle to the receptacle of weight becoming the minor term here; the foundation or substratum will not be proved if something else were the minor term, as the minor term must be foundation of Fluidity. Nor is it hard to ascribe ultra-finality or absoluteness, because it is desired to be said that it is the foundation of temporary Fluidity which is not annihilated even at the closest Conjunction of Fire for three hours. If it be objected that the annihilation of Fluidity must be concluded from the destruction of the foundation and the perception of more and less; we reply that it is not so, because the mark of inference is the possession of the Fluidity containing the Genus of Fluidity which does not appear in the counter-opposite of the annihilation produced by that Conjunction of Fire which is not combined with the totality of non-existent Fluidity. Or the foundation of yellowness and weight, conjoined as it is with Fluid Substance which excludes all Colour different from yellow Colour, docs not therefore become fhe foundation of any Colour different from yellow Colour even at the Conjunction of Fire for three hours, like a piece of yellow cloth placed inside Water which is conjoined with Fire. If it be objected, “The Colour of gold will then be visible in darkness as there will be nothing to cloud or overpower its Colour, because, overpowering means the non-apprehension caused by the apprehension of a more powerful like object,” we reply that overpowering denotes the mere relation with a like object which is more powerful by the power of the effect produced by it. So it has been said, “Other Colour does not at all shine under the influence of the association of the earth.” This is our view.—7