Sūtra 7.2.8 (Non-eternal Unity and Separateness-of-one)

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration, Word-for-word and English translation of Vaiśeṣika sūtra 7.2.8:

एतदनित्ययोर्व्याख्यातम् ॥ ७.२.८ ॥

etadanityayorvyākhyātam || 7.2.8 ||

etat—this, ie, the characteristic of having the attributes of the cause as antecedents; anityayoḥ—of the two non-eternals, namely, Number and Separateness; vyākhyātaṃ—explained.

8. This, (as) explained in the case of the two non-eternals (namely, Number and Separateness, should be understood only in the case of non-eternal Unity and Separateness of one).

Commentary: The Upaskāra of Śaṅkara Miśra:

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

[Full title: Only non-eternal unity and separateness of one proceed from like attributes in their causes]

He points out that non-eternal Unity and Separateness-of-one have for their antecedents attributes of these causes.

[Read sūtra 7.2.8 above]

The characteristic of having attributes of the cause as antecedents,, which has been explained in the case of non-eternal Number and Separateness, should be understood to apply to only non-eternal Unity and Separateness-of-one, since other Numbers and Separatenesses are produced by relative understanding. As the characteristic of having attributes of the cause as antecedents belongs to non-eternal colour and touch of Fire, so it belongs also to non-eternal Unity and Separateness-of-one. This is the import. It follows, therefore, that Numbers beginning with two and ending with the highest arithmetical number, possess or reside in more than one substance. It also follows that separatenesses beginning with Separateness of two and ending with Separateness of the highest arithmetical number, co-exist in the same substratum with those Numbers. Now, the processes of the production and destruction of Duality, etc., are as follows; When two homogeneous or heterogeneous substances are in contact with the eye, cognition of the attribute qualified with the notion or characteristic of Unity, which is the genus of the two numbers, Unities, inhering in the two substances, are produced immediately after the elimination of difference in thought i.e., the assimilation of the two substances under the notion (of Unity); and it is this cognition which is called relative understanding or the conception of the one in the many. By it Duality is produced in the two substances. Then there takes place reasoning about the notion or characteristic of Duality which is the genus of the Duality so produced. After it, simultaneously there appear destruction of relative understanding by means of that reasoning, and a qualified or concrete understanding having for its content the attribute Duality as qualified with the notion or characteristic of Duality. And in the next moment there are simultaneously produced destruction of the attribute Duality in consequence of the destruction of relative understanding, and cognition, in the form of “Two substances,” qualified with Duality. Thereafter, results Saṃskāra, impresssion or a fixed idea, from the above cognition of substances qualified with Duality. Thus, to sum up:—Beginning with contact with the sense and ending with Saṃskāra or impression, there are eight moments; viz., contact of the sense with the substratum of Duality which is going to be produced, then cognition of the genus inherent in the attribute Unity, then relative understanding in the form of cognizance of the many along with the attribute Unity as qualified with, the generic notion or characteristic of Unity, then production of the attribute Duality, then cognition of the genus inherent in Duality, then cognition of the attribute Duality as qualified with that genus, then cognition of substances as qualified with the attribute Duality, and then Saṃskāra or impression. The order of destruction, again, is as follows: Destruction of the generic notion or characteristic of Unity, from relative understanding; destruction of relative understanding, from cognition of the generic notion or characteristic of Duality; destruction of the generic notion or characteristic of Duality, from cognition of the attribute Duality; destruction of cognition of the attribute Duality, from cognition of substances as qualified with the possession of Duality; and destruction of the latter, from Saṃskāra or impression, or from cognition of other objects.

Objection.—Why is not cognition of substance qualified with the possession of Unity, itself produced after the cognition of Unity, when all the causes of its production are present there? For, cognition of attribute taking place, there can be no delay in the cognition of substance. From that same cognition (of substance so qualified), therefore, there being destruction of relative understanding, from its destruction will follow, at its very next moment, destruction of Duality. Hence destruction of Duality resulting at the very moment prior to the qualified or concrete cognition in the form of “Two substances,” the production of cognition of substance as qualified with the possession of Duality, becomes impossible.

Answer.—The argument is defective; for, it is relative understanding uninfluenced or unobstructed or unobscured by the causes of the production of Duality, etc., which invariably produces cognition qualified with the content of substance, the above supposition being made on the strength of the result.

Objection.—But still destruction of relative understanding being caused by the very Saṃskāra or impression produced by itself, the fault, pointed out above, again appears all the same, since there is possibility of destruction of Duality at the very moment prior to the cognition qualified with Duality.

Answer.—It does not, since cognition of pure attribute, or of attribute unassociated with substance, is not productive of Saṃskāra or impression. For pure attribute can be nowhere called back to mind, since everywhere it is only by the background of, or as contained in, substance, that there can be recollection of attribute.

Objection.—Let it be so; still inasmuch as even at the time of the production of qualified or concrete cognition, there may be destruction of Duality, the possibility of non-production of qualified cognition remains in the very same state. For qualified or specific cognition, illuminative of that which is present, cannot possibly appear at the moment of the destruction of the qualification or that which serves to specify, since there is no such observation.

Answer.—This is not the case. For, cognition of that which serves to specify, contact of sense with that which is specified, and non-apprehension of non-association of the above two, which make up the whole cause of specific cognition, are possible also in the case of the subject under discussion. If, however, contact of sense with that which serves to specify, is also required, then this too existing at the preceding moment, the very contact, which exists at the preceding moment, is observed to be the cause. That which serves to specify, or a qualification or distinction, which is beyond the compass of specified cognition, may also exist: for, it is only the being the object or content of cognition productive of specified cognition, which determines the characteristic of being a distinction or that which serves to specify, but the being the object of specified cognition does not also determine it.

Objection.—Tn this view, an upalakṣāṇa or indication also will come to have the nature of a viśeṣaṇa or distinction.

Answer.—By no means; for, existence in the same substratum, which is invariable and which does not cause specified cognition, determines the characteristic of being a distinction, whereas an indication exists in a different substratum from that which it indicates. Thus, when there is possession of a raven in the house of Devadatta, then the raven is a distinction. But when, flying over the house, it does not exist in it, then the raven is an indication.

Objection.—This being so it would follow that in such cases as “There is taste in that which possesses colour,” etc., colour, etc., also would be distinctions.

Answer.—This is not an objection, since it is desired to be so.

Objection.—Then there too taste will exist.

Answer.—No, since that which exists in something distinguished by the possession of something else, does not necessarily exist in that by which it is so distinguished. For a distinction and that which is distinguished are not one and the same thing.

Objection.—At the time of the destruction of Duality, there exists no connection with the distinction. How can specified cognition, or cognition of that which is distinguished, be produced?

Answer.—The question does not arise, for the meaning of the term, the being distinguished or qualified, is only non-variation or nondeviation or non-divergence from that (i.e., the distinction); whereas the manifestation of that (i.e., the distinction) exists there (i.e., in specified cognition) also.

Hence, the teachers say, nothing remains unproved.

In like manner, on the analogy of the production and destruction of Duality, should be understood the production and destruction of Triplicity.

Duality is destructible by the destruction of relative understanding, for an existing attribute cannot be destroyed in the absence of another attribute opposed to the destruction of its substratum, like ultimate cognition, since ulitimate cognition is destroyed by destruction of adṛṣṭa. In some cases it is destroyed also from destruction of substratum, e.g., where there is knowledge of the genus, unity, simultaneously with action in the constituent parts of the substratum of Duality. It is in this way: Action in constituent parts and cognition of the genus; Disjunction and relative understanding; destruction of Conjunction and production of attribute Duality; destruction of constituted substance and cognition of the genus Duality;—here destruction of Duality results from destruction of substance, and destruction of relative understanding from cognition of the genus Duality; since, destruction of relative understanding taking place at the same time with destruction of Duality, there exists no relation, resembling the relation of effect and cause, between them. Where, however, there is simultaneity of action in the constituent parts of the substratum of Duality and relative understanding, there destruction of Duality results from both destruction of substratum and destruction of relative understanding. It is in this way: Action in the constituent parts and relative understanding; production of disjunction and production of Duality; destruction of conjunction and cognition of the genus Duality; destruction of constituted substance and destruction of relative understanding; destruction of Duality from both, the capacity of each for destroying being observed. This process properly fits in with the theory of two cognitions being related as the destroyed and the destroyer; and it is this theory which is legitimate or established by proof.

Objection.—The entire group of cause being the same in the cases of Duality, Triplicity, etc., how is it that there is this difference in their effects, namely, Duality is constituted by two Unities, Triplicity by three Unities?

Answer.—The question cannot arise, since Duality, etc., do not exist in Unity.

Objection.—It is Duality, Triplicity, etc., inhering in the combinative cause, which determine cognitions of Duality, Triplicity, etc.

Answer.—This is not the case; for prior to the production of Duality, etc., Duality, being absent therefrom, the enquiry after the cause of Duality, etc., does not cease even there, and the existence of such difference in relative understanding, and in Unities, or in the supposition of that on the strength of the result, is contravened by non-observation.

Objection.—Let the use also of Duality, etc., proceed from the same source; what is the need of Duality, etc.? Difference will result from difference of adṛṣṭa.

Answer.—Were it so, Triplicity, and Four-ness, would be sometimes produced also by the set of causes originative of Duality. Hence it would entail non-uniformity. Moreover, it may be said in this connexion that difference in the effect is explained by difference in prior non-existence; as in the case of colour, taste, smell, and touch, produced by burning, difference is produced under the same set of causes.

Objection.—Prior non-existence also is common to all, or is the same in all cases.

Answer.—It is not; for each prior non-existence in each particular case has been ascertained to have causality towards its own effect only.

Or, the process should be carried on in this way that Duality is produced by pure relative understanding, and Triplicity by relative understanding accompanied by Duality. In such cases as “I have killed a hundred of ants,” Duality is not at all produced in consequence of the non-existence of combinative cause. Accordingly, it should be observed, the use of number is there derivative or secondary.

Professor Śrīdhara opines that in the case of an army, a forest, etc., in consequence of the non-existence of constant relative understanding, only multiplicity is produced, but not hundred, thousand, and ether numbers. With regard to this view, Professor Udayana observes that if such be the case, then in these cases no doubt could arise whether it be hundred, or thousand, etc., nor could there be such cognition as “A large army,” “A larger army,” and that hence this is not the case. Here the matter should be discussed in the following manner: Multiplicity is either nothing but number commencing from Triplicity, and terminating with the highest arithmetical number, or another number different from them. It cannot be the first since in the case also of any army, a forest, etc., there is as a rule production of hundred, thousand, and other numbers. Nor can it be second, since multiplicity different in mark from Triplicity, etc., is not observed. Multiplicity, therefore, is only number, namely, hundred, etc., produced by relative understanding which is uniformly constant in each case and which does not depend upon Unity. The manifestation of hundred, etc., does not, however, take place there, since nothing exists there which can manifest it.

We, on the other hand, say that multiplicity is really a different number, existing in the same substratum with Triplicity, etc., and producible by relative understanding productive of Triplicity, etc. It is so in consequence of the difference of prior non-existence. How else can such a statement be possible as “All I can say is that there are many”? I do not know particularly whether they be a hundred or a thousand”? As magnitude or largeness and length co-exist in the same substance, so do Triplicity, etc., and multiplicity co-exist in one and the same substratum. For, to the query, “Shall I bring a hundred or a thousand of mango fruits?” the reply is given, viz., “Let a large number of them be brought. What is the use of inquiring about a particular number?” This being so, Triplicity is produced by relative understanding accompanied by Duality, Four-ness by relative understanding accompained by Triplicity, and so on, one after the other. In the production of multiplicity, on the contrary, there is no such uniformity or law that the relative understanding must be qualified with the possession or accompaniment of all the numbers which stand behind it. Hence in the case of an army, a forest, and the like, -only multiplicity is produced, but not any other number; and so the alternatives amongst which Doubt has to swing also become really non-existent.

Separateness, again, exists in the same substratum with that (i.e., number). Hence as is Duality, so is also separateness of two; and so on.

Objection.—The use of separateness of two, etc., being possible by means of separatenesses of one existing in the same substratum with Duality, Triplicity, etc., what is the use of Separateness of two, etc.?

Answer.—The question cannot be raised in view of the discrepancy that while in the case of “A cloth and a clod are separate from a water-pot” there is no perception of the separateness of the dual (cloth and clod) being produced by the dual and the single limiting each other, there is such perception in the case of their individual separateness. Nor does this theory entail and explain Priority of two, for Priority of two is explained and possible by means of two priorities existing in the same substratum, or co-extensive, with Duality. The contradiction in respect of one being the limit of the other, which exists in the case of separate ness, does not exist in the case of Priority; since the intuition. “These two are prior,” is possible or proved in same way as the intuition. “These two are blue.” For, though two bodies occupying the same part of space possess equal manifoldness of conjunctions with the conjunct, yet production of different effects is possible by means of the difference of the conjunction of space and body, which is the non-combinative cause. Moreover, as two Unities jointly become the non-combinative cause of Duality, it being, in like manner, possible for two separatenesses of one or single individualities, jointly operating, to possess non-combinative causality towards the production of separateness of two, or dual individuality, it is not observed that more than, one i.e., many, conjunctions are, by their joint operation, originative of one effect, which is not a constituted substance, by means of the proximity known as combination in the same object with the effect. On the other hand, by means of the proximity known as combination in the same object with the cause, a larger number of conjunctions of threads and the cylinder of wood in a loom do really originate a single conjunction of a cloth and the cylinder of wood in a loom This is the direction.

On the analogy of destruction of Duality, etc., should be under stood also destruction of separateness of two, etc.—8.

Commentary: The Vivṛti of Jayanārāyaṇa:

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

It may be objected: “The thread is distinct from the cloth and is dissimilar to the cloth”—such intuitions are simply erroneous, since it is threads conjoint among themselves, which becomes the cloth, and since no proof exists that the cloth is distinct from the threads. It cannot be said that difference from the thread can be proved to exist in the cloth by means of its dissimilarity to the thread, for dissimilarity itself is not proved. For, the nature of the cloth does not constitute its dissimilarity to the thread, inasmuch as in the state of the manifestation of the cloth, the nature of the cloth is recognised in the threads themselves.

Accordingly it has been taught by Professor Īśvarakṛṣṇa:—

asadakaraṇādupādānasaṃgrahāt sarvasambhavābhāvāt |
śaktasya śakyakaraṇāt kāraṇabhāvācca satkāryam ||

The effect is existent (in the cause, in an enveloped state, prior to its production); For, there can be no production and manifestation of that which is non-existent; there can be no connection of the cause with the effect (if the latter be non-existent); (some connection must exist between the cause and the effect, since) the production of everything is not possible from everything else; there can be production of one thing from another, if the two are mutually related as the producer and the producible (and such relation cannot be possible if the effect be non-existent); and the cause and the effect are identical, (so that the one cannot be non-existent, while the other is existent).—Sāṃkhya-kārikā, verse 9).

This being the case, the non-existence of non-difference and nondissimilarity between the cause and the effect remaining itself unproved, how can it establish the relation of Unity and of Separateness of one or single individuality?

To meet this objection, the author says:

‘Etat,’ i.e., the possession of the non-existence of Unity and Separateness of one in consequence of the possession of the nonexistence of non-difference and non-dissimilarity, has been observed, ‘anityayoḥ,’ that is, in the case of non-eternal cause and non-eternal effect. This is the meaning. Accordingly on the hypothesis of the non-difference of the threads and cloth, it would follow that in the state of the production of the threads, there would arise the intuition and use of language that the cloth is being produced; in the state of the production of the cloth, that the threads are being produced; in the state of the destruction of the threads, that the cloth is being destroyed; in the state of the destruction of the cloth, that the threads are being destroyed; and so on. Nor can it be maintained that production and destruction are not themselves entitled to acceptance, inasmuch as such intuitions are explained on the very theory of development or appearance and envelopment, or disappearance; for the hypothesis of an appearance, will entail a regress to infinity. If, on the other hand, the production of the appearance is admitted, then how does the theory of the production of the cloth, etc., become offensive? If, again, the production of appearance in appearance be not admitted, then appearance would become omniferous, or all-sided, (which is not desired by the objector). For, the all-sidedness of appearance is not recognised even by the Sāṃkhya thinkers. In reality, the common consent of humanity that the cloth is produced, the cloth is destroyed, and so forth, is proof of production and destruction; for, if experience of one thing be admitted to have another thing as its object, we must deny also the water-pot, cloth, etc.