Sūtra 5.1.17 (Action produced by Saṃskāra)

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration, Word-for-word and English translation of Vaiśeṣika sūtra 5.1.17:

नोदनादाद्यमिषोः कर्म तत्कर्मकारिताच्च संस्कारादुत्तरं तथोत्तरमुत्तरं च ॥ ५.१.१७ ॥

nodanādādyamiṣoḥ karma tatkarmakāritācca saṃskārāduttaraṃ tathottaramuttaraṃ ca || 5.1.17 ||

nodanāt—from impulse of molecular movement; ādyam—original, first; iṣoḥ—of the arrow; karma—action; tat-karma-kāritāt—produced by that action; ca—and; saṃskārāt—from resultant energy; uttaram—the next; tathā—similarly; uttaram—the next; uttaram—the next; ca—and.

17. The first action of the arrow is from impulse; the next is from resultant energy produced by that (i.e., the first) action; and similarly the next, and the next.

Commentary: The Upaskāra of Śaṅkara Miśra:

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

After the section on Action producible by impulse, he begins the section on Action producible by resultant energy.

[Read sūtra 5.1.17 above]

Of the first action, which is produced in an arrow, when discharged from a bowstring, drawn by the volition of a person, the arrow is the combinative cause, volition and gravity are the efficient causes. And by this first action, resultant energy, called impetus, and having the same substratum, is produced. It is proved even by perception, viz., “It (i.e., the arrow) moves with velocity.” By that resultant energy, action is produced in that arrow; of which the non-combinative cause is the resultant energy, the combinative cause is the arrow, while the efficient cause is an intense form of molecular movement. In like manner, a succession of actions one after another is produced by the resultant energy which continues until the arrow falls.

Since, on an action being destroyed by subsequent conjunction produced by (the action) itself, another action is produced by resultant energy, therefore, a single resultant energy only is productive of a succession of actions; whereas, on the ground of redundancy, it is not proper to assume a succession of resultant energy, similar to the succession of actions. To point out this, he says “similarly the next, and the next,” and also uses the singular number in “from resultant energy produced by that action.” In the Nyāya doctrine, however, which admits a succession of resultant energies like the succession of actions, there is redundancy. The reason, again, that of two arrows, simultaneously discharged, the impetus of the one is swift and that of the other slow, is the swiftness and slowness of the impulse or molecular movement.—17.

Commentary: The Vivṛti of Jayanārāyaṇa:

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

The original action itself of a discharged arrow, etc., destroys, at the third moment from its own origin, its cause, viz., molecular movement or impulse, given by the bow. Therefore, there being absence of impulse, how will other actions be produced at the fifth, and succeeding moments? In view of this objection, he states the aphorism.