Sūtra 4.1.11 (Where Numbers, etc., are objects of visual perception)

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration, Word-for-word and English translation of Vaiśeṣika sūtra 4.1.11:

संख्याः परिमाणानि पृथक्त्वं संयोग विभागौ परत्वापरत्वे कर्म च रूपद्रव्यसमवायात् चाक्षुषाणि ॥ ४.१.११ ॥

saṃkhyāḥ parimāṇāni pṛthaktvaṃ saṃyoga vibhāgau paratvāparatve karma ca rūpadravyasamavāyāt cākṣuṣāṇi || 4.1.11 ||

saṃkhyāḥ—numbers; parimāṇāni—magnitudes, extensions; pṛthaktvam—separateness; saṃyoga-vibhāgau—conjunction and disjunction; paratva-aparatve—priority and posteriority; karma—action; ca—and; rūpi-dravya-samavāyāt—through combination with substances possessing colour; cākṣuṣāṇi—visible, objects of visual perception.

11. Numbers, Magnitudes, Separateness, Conjunction and Disjunction, Priority and Posteriority, and Action become objects of visual perception, through their combination with Substances possessing colour.

Commentary: The Upaskāra of Śaṅkara Miśra:

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

Having thus stated objects perceptible by the senses individually, he now enumerates objects perceptible by two senses jointly:

[Read sūtra 4.1.11 above]

The words have not been formed into a compound in order to indicate their mutual independence in respect of their visual or tactual perceptibility. Although there is dependence upon “mahattva” i.e., largeness, yet it is not as upon a mode of extension or magnitude. The word ‘ca’ has the force of involving the addition of Viscidity, fluidity and Impetus. The word “cākṣuṣāṇi” implies tactual perceptibility; or the word ‘ca’ should be applied after the word “cākṣuṣāṇi” also. The plural number in Numbers, comprehends all numbers, from unity upwards. If it be held that unity is only a Genus, and not an Attribute, then if it appear in substances only, its denotation will be neither more nor less than that of substanceness; if, on the other hand, it be present in attributes and actions also, then its denotation will be neither more nor less than that of existence. “How, then,” if it be asked, “can there be perception of unity, etc., in attribute, etc. it may be answered that it is by means of attributed unity; or that by reason of the proximity known as combination or co-inherence in one and the same object, the perception of unity is quite justified. This unity is eternal in eternal substances, and in non-eternal substances it has causal unity for its non-combinative cause. On the other hand, duality, etc., are the product of relative understanding. Relative understanding is the mental basis or support of various unities, when two homogeneous or heterogeneous substances are in contact with the eye.—11.