Sūtra 4.1.4 (The eternal exists)

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration, Word-for-word and English translation of Vaiśeṣika sūtra 4.1.4:

अनित्य इति विशेषतः प्रतिषेधभावः ॥ ४.१.४ ॥

anitya iti viśeṣataḥ pratiṣedhabhāvaḥ || 4.1.4 ||

anityaḥ—non-eternal; iti—such, i; e., such intuition and expression. viśeṣataḥ—of the particular, i; e., the eternal. partiṣedha-bhāvaḥ—the form of negation.

4. “Not-eternal”—such (intuition and expression) can be accounted for only as the negation of the eternal.

Commentary: The Upaskāra of Śaṅkara Miśra:

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

With a view to silence the advocate of the doctrine of the transiency of all things, he now says:

[Read sūtra 4.1.4 above]

In ‘viśeṣataḥ’ the affix ‘tasi’ is used in the genitive sense. There would be negation of ‘viṣeśa’ i.e., the eternal, if there were not such intuition, and application of the word as ‘non-eternal,’ because the prefix nañ (non) has the force of negating the meaning of the word next to it. Therefore how can there be the intuition and expression, ‘non-eternal,’ in the absence (of that) of the eternal? Hence it is proved that the eternal exists. Or, (the meaning of the Sūtra may be), the negation of the eternal must be made by you in this way that (it is) “not eternal,” i.e., that the ultimate atom is not eternal. But negation in this way is not successful, since it is frustrated by proof and disproof. (In this interpretation), the sūtra should be rendered thus: The word (not) will be a negative term by itself, as the rule, “a, mā, nī” and “nā” are negative terms.” Thus “non-eternal” will mean not eternal. ‘Pratiśedha-bhāvaḥ, means the nature or form of negative. Hence “not eternal”—this is the form of the negation of viṣeśa,’; i.e., the eternal, aud it is not possible. This closes the argument.—4.

Commentary: The Vivṛti of Jayanārāyaṇa:

(English extracts of Jayanārāyaṇa Tarkapañcānana’s Vivṛti or ‘gloss’ called the Kaṇādasūtravivṛti from the 17th century)

He refutes the view that all is non-eternal, that there is nothing which is eternal.

“a” (in the aphorism) is an indeclinable, having the same meaning as (non). Thus, ‘not eternal’—such negation is ‘viśeṣotaḥ,’ i.e., with reference to particular things. So that, there may be the negation that compound bodies are not eternal, but such whole-sale negation as everything is not eternal, is not possible, because the eternal, which is the counter-opposite, is frustrated by proof and disproof. This is the whole meaning.