Sūtra 3.2.4 (Marks of the existence of the Soul)

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration, Word-for-word and English translation of Vaiśeṣika sūtra 3.2.4:

प्राणापाननिमेषोन्मेषजीवनमनोगतीन्द्रियान्तर विकाराः सुखदुःखेच्छाद्वेष प्रयत्नाश्चात्मनो लिङ्गानि ॥ ३.२.४ ॥

prāṇāpānanimeṣonmeṣajīvanamanogatīndriyāntara vikārāḥ sukhaduḥkhecchādveṣa prayatnāścātmano liṅgāni || 3.2.4 ||

prāṇa-apāna-nimeṣa-unmeṣa-jīvana-manogati-indriyāntaravikāraḥ—ascending life-breath, descending life-breath, closing the eyelids, opening the eyelids, life, the movement of the Mind, and affections of the other senses; sukha-duḥkha-icchā-dveṣa-prayatnā—Pleasure, Pain, Desire, Aversion, and Volition; ca—and; ātmanaḥ—of the Soul; liṅgāni—marks.

4. The ascending life-breath, the descending life-breath, the closing of the eye-lids, the opening of the eye-lids, life, the movement of the Mind, and the affections of the other senses, and also Pleasure, Pain, Desire, Aversion, and Volition are marks (of the existence) of the Soul.

Commentary: The Upaskāra of Śaṅkara Miśra:

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

Now, showing the purpose of the violation of the order of enumeration, he says, with a view to complete the enquiry into the Soul:

[Read sūtra 3.2.4 above]

It must not be imagined that cognition itself is the only mark of the Soul. There are also the ascending life-breath, etc., which are the marks of the Soul. Thus that is surely the Soul in consequence of the volition of which the upward and downward motions in the air moving within the body and characterised as the ascending and the descending life-breath, take place, not being possible otherwise than by volition, just as the throwing upward and the throwing downward of a pestle, etc., (in a mortar, etc.), are not possible without volition. For, Air, the nature of which is to blow obliquely, cannot undergo such change of nature without volition. It cannot be said that two bodies of Air flowing in opposite directions and producing different effects may, like two similar bodies of water, have an upward motion. For, were this the case, there would be then the upward motion only but not the downward motion, nor oblique motion as in exsufflation or blowing by the mouth. There is then a being, who, by his volition, impels the air upwards or downwards. I cannot be asked how there could be upward and downward motions of the ascending and descending life-breaths in a state of deep or dream-less sleep; for, at that time, though volition proper does not exist, there exists another kind of volition which is called volition the source of vitality. In like manner, the closing and the opening of the eye-lids also infer a presiding agent in the organism. Thus the closing of the eye-lid (nimeṣa) in an action which produces the conjunction, of the lids of the eye; unmeṣa or the opening of the eye-lids is an action which produces their disjunction. These two actions, being constantly produced without any visible cause such as molecular motion, impact, etc., are not produced otherwise than by volition. As the dancing of a wooden manikin depends upon some one’s volition, so also does the dancing of the eye-lids. Thereby an entity, possessing volition, is inferred. Similarly, life also is a mark of the Soul. Thus by the word ‘life’ the effects of vitality, such as growth, the building up of wounds, fractures, etc., are indicated by implication. So that as the owner of a house builds up a broken edifice or enlarges a building which is too small, so the presiding agent of the organism effects, by food etc., the increase of enlargement of the organism which is to him in the stead of a habitation, and with medicine and the like, causes what is wounded to grow again, and broken hands and feet to grow together again. Thus like the master of a house, a guardian of the body is also proved. In the same way, the movement of the Mind also is a mark of the Soul. Thus it has been proved, in the foregoing section, that the Mind is something moulded or ponderable (mūrta) and that it is indivisible. Its application to a sense percipient of the desired object is dependent upon desire and attention. So that the inference is that the Soul is that being whose desire and attention direct the Mind, as a boy standing at the corner of a room sends a top or ball of lac hither and thither within the room itself.

It may be objected, “The dancer of the wooden manikin, the master of a house, or the boy (referred to above) is not different from his body, so that he could be adduced as an example. Moreover, it is the body which is the seat of consciousness inasmuch as it is the object of the sense of I-ness (ahaṃkāra); for, there are “I am fair,” “I am stout,” and the like intuitions which are co-extensive with I-ness. It may be urged that, on this theory, a man would not recollect in his youth or old age what he perceived in his boyhood, because as in the case of a difference of bodies, like those of Caitra and Maitra, so here too there would be no recognition, on the maxim, “One does not remember what another saw.” Here we may point out that Caitra and Maitra being two different currents, there may not be any correlation, whereas (in the case of a single individual) in spite of the differences of boyhood and youth, the current being the same, correlation by means of the relation of cause and effect will be possible.” To this argument we will reply that it would follow, on the above theory, that the son also would remember what was perceived by the father. If it be rejoined that perception of the difference of body prevents this, we reply that correlation (in the form of recollection) will not be possible also in the case of an old man who perceives his present body only as different from the body which he had as a boy, and also that there is no perception of the difference of body for a boy who has never known his father. In “My body,” the sense of I-ness appears as identical with the sense of ‘My-ness’ (and not as identical with the intuition of the body). If it be replied that the same holds good in the case of “My Soul” also; we reply that it does not, because the use of ‘My’ is there topical, since the genitive may be used even where there is no difference, as in “The head of Rāhu” (Rāhu being all head). The consequences of killing, etc., (i.e., Merits and Demerits) also will not result to the agent or doer, as his body will be different and different (at every stage of transmigration). Further, (on your theory), consciousness being limited to the bhūtas or elements (which constitute the body and are different at every new birth), if a man desires a sinful act, he will escape the consequences of his own acts, and there will be also the defect of the acquisition of the results of acts not done by him who experiences them. This is the point.

“From the affections of the other senses.”—For surely is observed an overflow of the salivary juice, induced by a strong desire for the taste, of one who, after experiencing the particular taste, accompanied by the particular colour, of an orange or a cira-vilva, observes such fruit again. Now, this cannot take place without the inference of the acid taste; nor the inference, without the recollection of the universal relation or invariable co-existence (of the taste and the colour); nor the recollection, without impression (Saṃskāra); nor the impression, without the experience of the universal relation; nor the experience, without repeated observation. This concatenation of cognitions, standing to one another in the relation of cause and effect, cannot be possible without (the existence of) a selfsame agent. Thus there is the Sūtra of Gautama. “From the affections of the other sense.” (Nyāya-Sūtra, IIII [IV?]. i. 12).

Pleasure and the like also are to be regarded, like cognition, as marks of the Soul. Thus pleasure and the like must reside somewhere or must reside in some substance, because they are things which are produced, or qualities like colour, etc. Hence an inference by analogy, accompanied by an exclusion of other possibilities, takes for its subject inherence or residence in a Substance other than the eight Substances. For the proposition that desire which does not reside in Earth and seven other Substances, resides in a Substance, is not complete unless it assumes as its mood the being resident in a Substance other than the eight Substances. Where, however, exclusion of other possibilities does not appear at first, there the being resident in a Substance other than the eight substances, will have to be proved by argument from effect to cause or negative reasoning. This is the distinction. It is absurd to say that inference has only the mood of that which determines the universal relation; for that alone is the mood there without which the intuition or inference would not result. Otherwise, in “A dyad not being resident in an effect, must reside somewhere, because it is a whole made up of parts,” and such other cases, there would be no inference having for its mood the being resident in a noneffect.—4.