Sūtra 2.1.9 (Touch infers Air)

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration, Word-for-word and English translation of Vaiśeṣika sūtra 2.1.9:

स्पर्शश्च वायोः ॥ २.१.९ ॥

sparśaśca vāyoḥ || 2.1.9 ||

sparśaḥ—Touch; ca—and; vayoḥ—of air.

9. And Touch (is a mark) of Air.

Commentary: The Upaskāra of Śaṅkara Miśra:

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

Having thus pointed out, according to observation, the probative value of Inference by which all human affairs are carried on, he, intending to begin tie section of proof of Air, says:

[Read sūtra 2.1.9 above]

‘Liṅgam,’ mark, is the complement of the aphorism. By the word ‘ca’ Sound, upholding, and quivering are brought forward.

It cannot be said, “The Touch which is being perceived must be of Earth itself of which the Colour is not yet developed,” because the developed Touch of Earth cannot be separated from developed Colour. Hence the Touch which is perceived, being Touch, must reside somewhere, like the Touch of Earth, etc. Some foundation of Touch being thus proved by inference, by analogy, (Sāmānyato dṛṣṭam), the foundation of Touch is not identical with the triad of Earth, etc., because it does not possess Colour, nor is it identical with the pentad of Ether, etc., as it possesses Touch. Therefore by the inference together with the exclusion of others a Substance over and above the eight Substances is proved. In like manner a particular Sound also is a mark of Air. Thus in the absence of the impact of Substances possessing Colour, the series of Sounds (arising in loaves, etc.) which is heard amongst leaves, etc., must be occssioned [occasioned?] by the impact of substances possessing Touch and Impetus, like the series of sounds produced in a drum by the percussion of the drumstick, because it is a series of sounds which is in relation to a substance the parts of which are indivisible. The absence of the impact of Substances possessing Colour, is, again, known by the non-perception of what might be expected or the co-relative. And from exhaustion that Substance possessing Touch and Impetus is verily an addition to the group of the eight substances. Similarly, a particular upholding also is a mark of Air. Thus the steadiness or flotation of grass, cotton, cloud, and air-ship in the sky, is due to the conjunction of some substance possessing Touch and Impetus, since it is the flotation of substance which are not presided over by a conscious being, like the flotation of grass, wood, boat, etc., on a stream; whereas in the flotation of poison, etc., caused by thought directed towards it, human and other influence is without doubt present. So also in the upholding of the bird, the branch of a tree, etc. Nor is the distinctive mark not proved on account of its being influenced by God, because by the word ‘conscious’ all else except God is meant. Similarly, quivering too is a mark of the existence of Air. Thus this Action in grass, etc., without the impact of Substances possessing Colour, is due to the impact of some Substance possessing Touch and Impetus, because it is an Action which is not produced by Weight and Conjunction of Soul exercising Volition, like the Action of a cane-bush when struck by the waves of a river. The word ‘weight’ implies Conjunction of Soul attended with adṛṣṭam (invisible after-effects of past acts), Fluidity and Impression; hence the being an action not produced by them is the mark.

It cannot be said, “Air is only an object of sense-perception and that therefore there is no need of the investigation of its marks for, Air is not perceptible; only its supersenusousness is proved by the inferenne [inference?]: “Being a colourless external Substance, it is like Ether.” It cannot be replied “Its perceptibility is inferred in this way that being the seat of Touch Air is perceptible like the water-pot;” for the possession of developed Colour is here the condition, upādhi. If it be objected, “In the case of Colour, etc., as well as Soul, it is not pervasive of the major term, since it pervades the major term when the latter is determined by the being the external substance which is the minor term containing the middle term, or is determined by the middle term which is the means of inference. Nor does it govern a body’s being an object of visual perception, because it is there that its presence and absence are observed as a rule. On the other hand, a body’s being an object of tactual perception is governed by the mere possession of an adequate Touch.” We reply, that both the presence and absence of Colour govern here; for perceptibility only by means of Touch proved by both positive and negative marks, has not been observed without the perception of Colour. Moreover, if Air were an object of sense-perception, then it would govern also the apprehension of general Attributes, e.g., Number, etc. If it be objected, “Perceptibility does belong to Number in blowing by the mouth, etc., to Measure or Extension, e.g., cubit, span, etc., and to Separateness as well as to Priority and Posteriority of two Airs existing on both sides. On the other hand, it is not the rule according to you also that they are perceptible by means of there being individual masses of Air, because they are not observed in the cloth, etc., lying on the back.” We reply, that it is the rule that they are perceived by means of there being individual masses of Air. Number, etc., are obtained in the cloth, etc., fixed upon the back, if they lie straight; if they are not obtained, it is because of the defect that the latter do not lie straight. “Developed Colour and Touch govern the perceptibility of external substances, only when they operate jointly. Light, the yellow substance within the eye, and the radiation or heat of the moon are not perceptible because their Touch is undeveloped. Hotness as in summer, heat and Watery Substances the parts of which have been dispersed (steam) are not perceptible, because Colour is undeveloped there.” This is the view of the commentator of Nyāya-Vārtikas. “But light, etc., are really perceptible although Touch is undeveloped. Therefore the Conjunction and Disjunction of the bird and the branch of the tree are really perceptible in the sky under moonlight.” So say those who know the traditions of the system. Nor can it be said that the possession of developed Touch (universally) excites to the perceptibility of universally external Substances, for then the light of the emerald would be non-perceptible. Nor is only the possession of the developed distinctive Attribute the governing condition, for then Ether too would become perceptible. Nor again is the possession of the developed distinctive Attribute co-existent with the ensuant or resulting magnitude, such condition, for the bilious substance existing at the tip of the tongue is imperceptible in spite of the development or manifestation of bitterness. Therefore only the possession of developed or manifested Colour governs the perceptibility of all Substances except Soul. And this is not present in Air. Hence Air is not an object of sense-perception—9.