Vaisheshika-sutra with Commentary
by Nandalal Sinha | 1923 | 149,770 words | ISBN-13: 9789332869165
The Vaisheshika-sutra 7.1.23, English translation, including commentaries such as the Upaskara of Shankara Mishra, the Vivriti of Jayanarayana-Tarkapanchanana and the Bhashya of Chandrakanta. The Vaisheshika Sutras teaches the science freedom (moksha-shastra) and the various aspects of the soul (eg., it's nature, suffering and rebirth under the law of karma). This is sutra 3 (‘mind is infinitely small’) contained in Chapter 1—Of Colour, Taste, Smell, and Touch, and Magnitude—of Book VII (of the examination of attributes and of combination).
Sūtra 7.1.23 (Mind is infinitely small)
Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration, Word-for-word and English translation of Vaiśeṣika sūtra 7.1.23:
तदभावादणु मनः ॥ ७.१.२३ ॥
tadabhāvādaṇu manaḥ || 7.1.23 ||
tat-abhāvāt—in consequenes of the non-existence of that, i; e., universal expansion. aṇu—atomic, Minute, Small; manaḥ—mind, The internal organ.
23. In consequence of non-existence of universal expansion, Mind is atomic or infinitely small.
Commentary: The Upaskāra of Śaṅkara Miśra:
(English rendering of Śaṅkara Miśra’s commentary called Upaskāra from the 15th century)
It may be asked that Mind being all-pervading, inasmuch as it is always a touchless substance, like Ether, and inasmuch as it is, like the soul, the field wherein takes place the conjunction which is the non-combinative cause of knowledge, etc., why has it not been mentioned along with Ether and the Soul? Hence he says:
[Read sūtra 7.1.23 above]
‘Manaḥ’ is aṇu,’ in consequence of the non-existence of ‘that,’ i.e., universal expansion or the characteristic of being in conjunction with all dense bodies. Did the characteristic of being in conjunction with all dense bodies exist (in it), then, there being simultaneous conjunction with more than One sense, simultaneity of cognitions would follow, with the result that there would be no particular attachment or act of attention. The two inferences, (namely, that Mind is all-pervading, because it is a touchless substance, and that mind is all-pervading, because it is the seat of conjunction which is the non-combinative cause of cognition, etc.) are, however, unproved in point of their subject matter, so long as Mind is not proved (to exist), while in the state of Mind being proved (to exist), they are counter-oppposed by proof which leads to the cognizance of the object i.e., Mind as an atom.)
Objection.—Minuteness cannot be thus proved from non-existence of universal expansion, since the inference would be unduly applicable to the water-pot, etc.
Answer.—It would not, inasmuch as (only) non-pervasion (and not atomic-ness) is proved by non-existence of universal pervasion.
In one body, therefore, there is just one mind, since the supposition of plurality would entail randundancy [redundancy?]. To imagine parts even of a single mind would be showing exuberance of imagination. Moreover, being touchless, they cannot originate. By such arguments, (infinite) minuteness is proved. This is the import.—23