Sūtra 7.1.6 (Colour, etc., of Earth, produced by burning)

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration, Word-for-word and English translation of Vaiśeṣika sūtra 7.1.6:

कारणगुणपूर्वकाः पृथिव्यां पाकजाः ॥ ७.१.६ ॥

kāraṇaguṇapūrvakāḥ pṛthivyāṃ pākajāḥ || 7.1.6 ||

kāraṇa-guṇa-pūrvakāḥ—preceded by, or having for antecedents, the attributes of the causes; pṛthivyāṃ—in earth; pākajāḥ—produced by burning; Due to the action of heat. Thermal.

6. In Earth, (Colour, Taste, Smell, and Touch) have for their antecedents (like) attributes in (its combinative) causes, (and are also) due to the action of heat.

Commentary: The Upaskāra of Śaṅkara Miśra:

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

In earth, appearing in the form of wholes made up of parts, (i.e., in terrene bodies), also, Colour, etc., appear and disappear only on the conjunction of fire. How, therefore, are they destructible only by the destruction of their substrata? To remove this apprehension, he says:

[Read sūtra 7.1.6 above]

‘Pākajāḥ’ means Colour, Taste, Smell, and Touch, due to the action of heat, ‘Kāraṇa-guṇa-pūrvakāḥ’ means preceded by the attributes of that, e.g., potsherds, etc., which is the combinative cause of the substratum of Colour, e.g., a water-pot. Thus, the Colour of the potsherd is the non-combinative cause of the colour of the water-pot, by means of the proximity known as combination in the same object with the cause. So also in the case of Taste, etc. Colour, Taste, Smell, and Touch possess the jāti or ‘class’ directly pervaded by attribute-ness such as colourness, etc.

Objection.—Colourness, which is nothing but apprehensibility by the eye, is the udādhi or external condition (of colour-perception).

Answer.—It is not. For, this would entail non-appearance of the intuition of colour immediately on the falling of the sense, since an upādhi or external condition which is not adjacent, is unfit for producing the intuition of that which is conditioned or super-imposed. Here the upādhi, again, is the eye, and the same—the ocular sense—is super-sensuous. And apprehensibility is the being the object of apprehension. This too is not an object of ocular perception, since perception distinguished or determined by colour-ness is ocular. Colour-ness, therefore, is the characteristic of the attribute perceptible by the external sense of the eye alone.

Objection.—But it does not pervade or include super-sensuous colour.

Answer.—The objection does not arise; for, the possession of the jāti or class apprehensible by the external sense of the eye alone, is intended. Such jāti is colour-ness; as also are blue-ness, etc.

Objection.—The manifestations of blue, yellow, etc., are eternal, only as each of them is a single, individual, manifestation. There are not blue-ness, and other classes, inasmuch as their denotation is a single individual.

Answer.—This is not the case, as it would entail the non-appearance of the intuition of deeper blue, deepest blue, etc.

Objection.—But the use of the comparative and the superlative may be caused here by the absence of inter-penetration of whiteness, etc.

Answer.—It cannot, since there is no proof of it, and also because of the intuition, “Dark colour is gone, red produced.”

Objection.—But such intuition is caused by the production and destruction of combination.

Answer.—No, since there is no trace of combination there, and since combi nation is eternal. The same (i.e., production and destruction of combination) being applicable also in the case of the non-eternality of the water-pot, etc., the result would be non-finality, since Anyathāsiddhi, production by other means, or plurality of causes, can be easily ascribed there by way of the very non-eternality of combination.

Another objection.—The attributes, blue, yellow, etc., are not different from substance, since there is no difference between a property and that of which it is a property.

Answer.—This cannot be the case, as it would entail such uses as “Colour is water-pot,” “Touch is water-pot,” etc.

Objection.—But there is no harm in it, inasmuch as there are really such intuitions as “White cloth,” “Blue cloth,” etc.

Answer.—The analogy does not hold, because the intuitions are explained by the supposition of elision of the affix, matup, denoting possession, or by the supposition of transference of identity.

Objection.—This supposition would be somewhat probable, were there proof of difference.

Answer.—But difference is proved by means of such predication as “Colour of sandal-wood,” “Smell of sandal-wood,” etc. If the cloth were identical with colour, then, like the cloth, colour also would be perceived by the sense-organ of the skin, and being asked to bring the colour, one would bring some substance whatever.

Objection.—Let, then, there be identity in difference, seeing that in the case of absolute difference as well as of absolute identity, coexistence in the same substratum would not be possible.

Answer.—This cannot be, for it is impossible for identity and difference, which are contradictory to each other, to appear together in the same place, without the difference of their situation.

Objection.—But the characteristic of mutual non-existence (or nonexistence which is the counter-opposite of identity, e.g., a waterpot is not a cloth) appears in that which appears in what is not pervaded or included, since it is the characteristic of being the property of that which appears in eternal non-existence, like the characteristic of absolute non-existence (or non-existence which is the counter-opposite of connection with the past, the present, and the future, e.g., there is no waterpot inside the earth).

Answer.—This is not the case. For, in virtue of the intuition of conjunction and its absolute non-existence, the characteristic of appearing in that which is not pervaded, is observed of absolute non-existence, but, in the case of mutual non-existence, such intuition does not exist.

Now, this colour is of various kinds in Earth; in Water and Fire, it is only white. Sometimes there is one more colour, i.e., variegated or compound colour, also in a cloth, etc.; for, otherwise, they would not be objects of visual perception, since only substances possessing colour can be objects of perception by the eye.

Objection.—But there can be no origination of colour by heterogeneous colours.

Answer.—This is not the case; for, homogeneity, only as constituted by the characteristic of being colour, is required in the origination of blue, yellow, etc., since otherwise, as has been already stated, they would not be objects of visual perception.

Objection.—But the apprehension of the colour of a whole made up of parts is possible by means of the apprehension of the colours of those parts.

Answer.—It is not, as it would entail that the parts also, possessing variegated or compound colour, are themselves void of colour. Moreover, wherever, in consequence of the action of heat, variegated colour appears in ultimate atoms, there also variegated colour is produced in the cloth, etc., originated by them successively.

Objection.—In the yellow myrobalan, then, taste also is variegated.

Answer.—No, for no harm would be done, even if the yellow myrobalan were void of taste. The tradition of six tastes, however, is due to the causality which produces the effects or properties of those tastes.

Similarly, smell also is not variegated, since a fragrant and a non-fragrant part are not its origin ators.

Objection.—In the parts of a karkaṭī or cucumber, there is sometimes bitterness, and sometimes sweetness. Which taste, then, exists in karkaṭī?

Answer.—Only sweetness.

Objection.—There existing a conflict of attributes, how can it be so?

Answer.—On account of the non-existence of bitterness in the parts thereof.

Objection.—How, then, does such sensation (of bitterness) arise?

Answer.—It arises from the bitter taste of the bilious substance existing at the tip of the tongue irritated by the eating of the karkaṭī. It is from this cause that sometimes the mouth also becomes bitter.

Objection.—But how does not this explanation apply in the case of the yellow myrobalan also?

Answer.—Because, in the parts of the yellow myrobalan, various tastes are felt, e.g., sour, sweet, salt, etc. There is no need of further argumentation or elaboration.

And this colour is an auxiliary to the eye.

Objection.—Such being the case, how do the non-existence of Colour in air, and darkness become objects of ocular perception?

Answer.—The question does not arise, since colour is an auxiliary to the eye in the apprehension only of existences or objective realities. The colours of all the three, viz., the object, the light, and. the eye, are exciting causes of ocular perception.

Taste, again, is that which possesses the jāti or ‘class,’ taste-ness. Taste-ness is the jāti or ‘class’ which is the object of immediate cognition producible by the sense taste alone. And the possession of such a jāti or ‘class’ is taste-ness. It is this, the source of vitality, growth, strength, and health, that is an auxility to the tongue. Thus, taste-ness being possession of the jāti or ‘class’ pervaded by attribute-nṇss capable of being apprehended by the organ of the tongue, there is no non-pervasion, i.e., exclusion, of super-sensuous taste.

Attribute, apprehensible by the nose alone, is Smell. Smell-ness is the possession of the jāti or ‘class’ pervaded by attribute-ness apprehensible by the nose only. It is two-fold, being fragrant and non-fragrant. Or Smell-ness denotes the possession of the jāti or ‘class’ directly pervaded by attribute-ness appearing only in that which is present in Earth.

In like manner, Touch also is the attribute possessing the jāti or ‘class,’ touch-ness. Touch-ness denotes the possession of the jāti or ‘class’ directly pervaded by attribute-ness apprehensible by the organ of the skin only. Inhering in the quartet of substances, (namely, Earth, Water, Fire, Air), it is, again, three-fold, according to the differences of neither hot nor cold, cold, and hot.

Now, in passing, the process due to the action of heat, is considered. Here, according to those who hold the theory of the burning of an earthenpot (as a whole), the whole of the effect and the cause is burnt. Those who hold the theory of the burning of the ultimate atoms (constituting the whole), maintain that it is the ultimate atoms which are separately burnt, that it is in them that there take place destruction of the previous colour and production of the succeeding colour, etc., and that, following the course of the attribute of the cause, colour, etc., are produced in the burnt (wholes made up again) of (burnt) parts. Here the sense is as follows: From the impulse or the impact, given by fire, to a raw substance, e.g., a water-pot, etc., thrown in a kiln, disjunction, which is the counter-opposite of conjunction originative of a compound substance, appears among the ultimate atoms originative of that raw substance, and on the destruction of originative conjunction by the disjunction, destruction of the substance must take place. For, it is seen that of rice, etc., placed in a pan, destruction takes place at once from frying, only by the application of heat from below, and that, (under similar conditions) intense ebullition takes place in milk, water, and the like. Therefore, it is hoping too much that substances, smitten with flames of fire on all sides, in a kiln, will endure. Moreover, if there be no destruction of substances, then burning at their centre will not be possible. For, there is no possibility of conjunction of fire at the centre which is enclosed with harder other constituent parts. So that there will be this great incongruity that the parts are dark but the whole made up of those parts is red.

Objection.—Substances which are wholes made up of parts, are certainly porous. How, otherwise, can oil, clarified butter, etc., poured into a jar, etc., ooze out, and how also can these be boiled? Hence, at the centre also, there can be conjunction of fire.

Answer.—This cannot be, inasmuch as, on account of exclusion of ponderable or corporal or dense substances in virtue of the property of impenetrability, conjunction of fire is impossible at the centre which is already conjoined with other (constituent; parts.

Objection.—If there is destruction of the substance, how, then, can there be the recognition, “This is that very water-pot?” How, again, in all changes of conditions, in the kiln, etc., are the water-pot, etc., observed in one and the same form? How is it that a pan, a plate, etc., placed on the burning water-pot, etc., are observed in the sameposition? For they should fall down on the dissolution of the water-pot, etc. How, again, are exactly the same number of wholes as are placed in the furnace, afterwards obtained from it? For, during the process of burning, the origination is possible, of more or less substances, by the (dissolved) ultimate atoms, in the order of binary and other atomic aggregates. How, again, are water-pot, etc., of exactly the same dimensions, observed to come out from the furance [furnace?]? How, again, will not the marks of lines and prints be obliterated? Burning, therefore, takes place only in the wholes.

Answer.—Such is not the case. For disjunction of three or four tertiary atomic aggregates being effected from a water-pot, etc., with the point of a needle, there being destruction of substance as a whole in consequence of the destruction of conjunction originative of substance, all such contradictions appear in, or are explained on, both the theories. For, even they who hold the theory of the burning of the water-pot as a whole, cannot venture to say that substance as a whole is not destroyed in the case of the above instance.

Even in that case the water-pot, etc., are not destroyed, since it is possible for an effect to continue to exist by inhering in the remaining constituent parts even when there has been destruction of some constituent parts. Were it not so, recognition, etc., would be really impossible. This is the view of the Mīmāṃsakas. But they should be asked; how the water-pot, etc., bearing relation to the situation or arrangement of all the constituent parts, can appear in a smaller number of constituent parts. If it be their reply that it is possible in the same way as is possible contraction of measure or extension or quantit [quantity?] in a cloth which is not yet destroyed; we reply that there can be no such analogy, for there is no observation of contraction and expansion in the case of wood, stone, pillar, earthen jar, etc., made up of harder constituent parts. It cannot be rejoined by them that what is said to destroy the water-pot. etc., destroys only its measure or extension; for, measure or extension can be destroyed only by the destruction of its substratum. Moreover, like the recognition of the water-pot, etc., measure or extension also is recognised in the case of the needle-scratch, whereas in their view its destruction also is impossible. This is the point.

On the theory of those who hold that disjunction which is the counteropposite of conjunction originative of substance as well as disjunction which is not its counter-opposite, are produced by one and the same action in the constituent part, there is production of red colour, etc., at the ninth moment counting from the destruction of the binary atomic aggregate, in another binary atomic aggregate, since action is conceived to exist in the very same ultimate atom. Thus, there is first action in the ultimate atom originative of the binary atomic aggregate, from the impulse given by fire; then, disjunction: then destruction of conjunction originative of substance; then, destruction of the binary atomic aggregate; then, in consequence of conjunction of fire, disappearance of dark colour, etc., from the pure or singly existing ultimate atom, after the destruction of the binary atomic aggregate; after destruction of dark colour, etc., production of red colour, etc., from another conjunction of fire; after production of red colour, etc., cessation of action in the ultimate atom; following it, action in the ultimate atom, from conjunction of soul possessing adṛṣṭa or destiny; then, disjunction; then, cessation of previous conjunction, originative of substance, with another ultimate atom; then, production of the binary atomic aggregate; after the production of the binary atomic aggregate, production of red colour, etc., in the progressive order of the attribute of the cause. These are the nine moments, if a different action is produced just at the moment of the cessation of the previous action. If, on the other hand, a different action is produced not at the moment of the cessation of the previous action, then there are ten moments. Even if disjunction, etc., produced by disjunction, be admitted, still there are ten moments, if disjunction produced by disjunction has reference to the time in which destruction of conjunction originative of substance takes place. If, on the other hand disjunction produces another disjunction with reference to the time in which destruction of substance takes place, then there are eleven moments in the process. Thus, destruction of the binary atomic aggregate and disjunction produced by disjunction, at one moment; then, destruction of previous conjunction, and cessation of drak colour, etc.; subsequent conjunction and production of red colour, etc., cessation of disjunction produced by disjunction and of action, by means of subsequent conjunction; then, action in the ultimate atom, favourable to origination of substance, disjunction from action; cessation of previous conjunction from disjunction; thence, conjunction originative of substance; thence production of substance; production of red colour, etc., in the produced substance. These are the ten moments. Wḥere however, production of disjunction by disjunction depends upon the passing of the time containing the destruction of substance, there are, by the increase of one moment, eleven moments. Thus, destruction of substances; then disjunction produced by disjunction and cessation of dark colour, etc.; then subsequent conjunction and production of red colour, etc. then cessation of disjunction produced by disjunction and of action; then action in the ultimate atom, favourable to the origination of substance; then disjunction; cessation of previous conjunction; production of conjunction originative of substance; production of the binary atomic aggregate; production of red colour, etc. These are the eleven moments. Such is the process on the conception of action and cessation of action in one and the same ultimate atom. If action favourable to the origination of substance is conceived to take place in a different ultimate atom, then the production of red colour, etc., should be understood to appear at the fifth, sixth, seventh, or eighth moment commencing from destruction of the binary atomic aggregate. The same has been explained in Kaṇāda-Rahasya.—6