Sūtra 2.1.19 (Existence of God.—continued)

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration, Word-for-word and English translation of Vaiśeṣika sūtra 2.1.19:

प्रत्यक्षप्रवृत्तत्वात् संज्ञाकर्मणः ॥ २.१.१९ ॥

pratyakṣapravṛttatvāt saṃjñākarmaṇaḥ || 2.1.19 ||

pratyakṣa-pravṛttvāt—because they follow from perception. saṃjñā-karmaṇaḥ—of name and effect.

19. Because name and effect follow from perception.

Commentary: The Upaskāra of Śaṅkara Miśra:

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

He explains how it is so:

[Read sūtra 2.1.19 above]

Here also the singular form or the resolution into one, of ‘name and ‘effect,’ from the copulative compound meaning collection, is intended to indicate the identity of the author of the name and the author of the universe. Thus ho only is competent to give the names ‘heaven,’ ‘apūrva’ (i.e., that which was not before, that is to say, adṛṣṭa), etc., with whom ‘heaven,’ ‘apūrva,’ etc., are objects of sense-perception, as in the giving the names, ‘Caitra.’ ‘Maitra,’ etc., to the bodies of Caitra, Maitra, etc., which are perceptible, by their father and others. Similarly, the application of the names, pot,’ cloth,’ etc., is only under the direction of Īśvara. The word which has been directed by Īśvara in a particular place, the same is appropriate there; e.g., ‘all those herbs which have been touched by the edge of the mongoose’s tooth, counteract the venom of the snake.’ Such direction is the mark, i.e., the means of inference, of beings distinguished from ourselves. And the name, ‘Maitra.’ etc., which the father gives to the son, that also is surely directed by Īśvara by such rules us “The father should give a name (to the son) on the twelfth day.”

Thus it is proved that naming is a mark of the existence of Īśvara.

In like manner action, i.e., effect, also is a mark of the existence of Īśvara; for, thus, Earth, etc., must have a creator, because they are effects like a pot, etc.

Here Earth, etc., do not mean a product producible by the body, nor a product producible by the volition of another product, nor a product which has become the subject-matter of dispute as to whether it has been produced by an agent or not, nor a product the production of which by an agent has been the subject of doubt, because Earth, etc., also are producible by the volition of another product by means of adṛṣṭa (i.e., invisible after-effects of voluntary acts), and because dispute and doubt, being too wide, do not determine the minor term. Moreover, if by the expression that they have a creator, it is meant that they are the products of an active principle, then production in question may be explained by reference to ourselves, etc., for the causality of ourselves also is productive of Earth, etc., by means of adṛṣṭa (the invisible after-effects of past acts). It is the same also if the product be producible by an active principle operating upon given materials, for the acts or ourselves, etc., also are relative to some given material. Then if the being effect, on the other hand, means the being the counter-opposite of prior non-existence (or potential existence), then it will include annihilation also. But notwithstanding all this, earth must have a creator because it is an effect. Here the having a creator means 1 he being the product of an active principle independently of (adṛṣṭa. and being an effect means the being the counter-opposite of existence determined by prior non-existence. In the ease of sprouts, etc., there is no fault of doubtfulness or multifariousness, for these faults arise where there is doubt as to the existence or nonexistence of the middle term when the non-existence of the major term has to be ascertained; for otherwise all inference will have to be abandoned. Nor should it be said that this is the fault beyond the minor term, for it will entail the command of the king; for it is not the glory or a fault that it does not attack the minor term. Therefore at the stage of sprouting, the proof of the existence of) the major term (in the minor term by the mark or middle term the universal relation of which is well ascertained, being unobstructed, where is the doubtfulness or multifariousness? And a fortiori at the stage of non-sprouting, those faults verily do not exist. Thus in brief.—19.