Sūtra 7.2.10 (Disjunction, how produced)

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration, Word-for-word and English translation of Vaiśeṣika sūtra 7.2.10:

एतेन विभागो व्याख्यातः ॥ ७.२.१० ॥

etena vibhāgo vyākhyātaḥ || 7.2.10 ||

etena—by this; vibhāgaḥ—disjunction; vyākhyātaḥ—explained.

10. By this Disjunction is explained.

Commentary: The Upaskāra of Śaṅkara Miśra:

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

By extending the mode of the production of Conjunction to Disjunction ha says:

[Read sūtra 7.2.10 above]

Like Conjunction, Disjunction also is produced by action of either of two things, by action of both, and by Disjunction. Disjunction takes place between a hawk and a post by the action of the hawk; disjunction of two wrestlers or of two rams fighting with each other, by the actions of both. And Disjunction in these cases has its production at the moment immediately following the production of action, inasmuch as there exists nothing else to be waited for or depended upon. Accordingly it has been said,“Action is an independent cause of Conjunction and Disjunction” (yide I. i. 1., above).

Objection.—There is dependence upon substratum where Disjunction has to be produced, and upon destination of antecedent Conjunction where Conjunction has to be produced.

Answer.—This is not the case, for action is independent since it does not depend upon anything in the form of an existence which has its production immediately after the production of itself.

Disjunction, produced by Disjunction, however, is two-fold, according to the difference of Disjunction of cause and not-cause produced by Disjunction of cause alone, and the difference of Disjunction of effect and not-effect, produced by Disjunction of cause and not-cause. Therein Disjunction of potsherd and Ether, resulting from Disjunction of the two potsherds, is an example of Disjunction of cause and not-cause, resulting from Disjunction of cause alone; and Disjunction of hand and tree resulting from Disjunction of finger and tree, and Disjunction of body and tree, resulting from Disjunction of hand and tree, are examples of Disjunction of effect and not-effect, resulting from Disjunction of cause and not-cause.

Objection.—There is no proof of Disjunction itself, the term, Disjunction, being used to denote only non-existence of Conjunction.

Answer.—It is not so. For, if non-existence of Conjunction be absolute non-existence, then it would follow that the term Disjunction would be used to denote attribute and action also.

Objection.—Absolute non-existence of Conjunction, being present in two substances, is the source of the intuition of the disjunct.

Answer.—It cannot be, since it would in that case follow that absolute non-existence of Conjunction, being present also in a constituted whole and its constituent parts, would be the source of the intuition of the disjunct.

Objection.—The term “two substances” should be qualified by the expression “not being related to each other as effect and cause.”

Answer.—In that case, absolute non-existence of Conjunction, being present in the Vindhya and Himalaya mountains also, would be the cause of the intuition of the disjunct

Objection.—Indeed there it is.

Answer.—It is not. For there being existence of erroneous intuition, due to it, in the case of attribute and action also, it should be considered how far it will be valid to make it the source of convention or usage with reference to the accurate intuition only.

Objection.—Destruction of Conjunction is Disjunction.

Answer.—Were this the case, it would entail the use of the term Disjunction on Conjunction being destroyed by the destruction of any one of the two things in Conjunction.

Objection.—“Things in Conjunction” should be qualified as being existent.

Answer.—In that case, it would entail the intuition of Disjunction even in the state of Conjunction of a jujube and an emblic myrobalan which become conjunct again immediately after the destruction of one conjunction.

Objection.—Disjunction is the destruction of all Conjunctions.

Answer.—If it be so, then there would be non-existence of Disjunction in the case of destruction of one Conjunction, since the denotation of ‘all’ finds no place there.

Disjunction, therefore, exists, and it is an additional attribute.

This attribute, again, is destructible by another contradictory attribute, inasmuch as, so long as the substratum exists, destruction of attribute cannot be possible without a contradictory attribute existing in the same substratum.

Objection.—Action itself may be destructive of Conjunction.

Answer.—It cannot be, since only a contradictory attribute is destructive of attribute. Moreover, although where finger, hand, arm, and body come to have conjunction with the tree, by means of their respective actions, there is possibility of destruction of conjunction of the finger and the tree, by means of the action produced in the finger only, yet there would not follow destruction of conjunctions of the hand and the tree, of the arm and the tree, and of the body and the tree, since the hand, etc. are inactive and the action of the finger rests in a different substratum. If it be supposed that even action resting in a different substratum may be destructive of conjunction, it would then follow that there would be destruction of all conjunctions at one and the same moment of time, by action wherever it may be produced.

Objection.—What then is the solution here on your theory?

Answer.—Disjunction of the hand and the tree, produced by Disjunction of the finger and the tree, is destructive of conjunction of the hand and the tree. This is a matter of observation.

Sarvajña has said that there may very well be destruction of conjunction of the hand and tree, by the very action of the finger, resting in a different substratum, and that there will be no undue extension (of the causality of action), inasmuch as it is observed that mutual non-conjunction of the container and the contained is itself destructible by action resting in a different substratum. This too is not a sound opinion; for, distructiveness is everywhere observed to belong only to a contradictory attribute appearing in the substratum, and it is not reasonable to abandon that without some argument to the contrary.

Sound and Disjunction, again, are effects of Disjunction. Therein we shall ponder over the non-combinative causality of Disjunction towards the production of Sound. For, of the Sound which is produced, when a bamboo is being split up, and one of the two halves is held down by the pressure of the foot, and the other is drawn upwards, we find no other non-combinative cause than the disjunction of the half and ether (or of the ether within the halves). Nor do we find any non-combinative cause over and above Disjunction in the case of the sounding forth of a bamboo bursting out while it is being burnt in a conflagration. We also infer the Disjunction of the effect and not effect from the Disjunction of the cause and not-cause. How else, where conjunction of the finger and the tree, conjunction of the hand and the tree, conjunction of the arm and the tree, and conjunction of the body and the tree are produced by the respective actions of the finger, etc., can there be destruction of the conjunction of the hand and the tree, and of other conjunctions, even on the destruction of the conjunction of the finger and the tree, consequent on the disjunction of the finger and the tree produced by action produced in the finger alone? For, in this case, it is the series of disjunctions, produced by disjunctions, that is, as has been already stated, destructive of the corresponding conjunctions. There is, however, no clear evidence in the case of disjunction of the cause and not-cause, of which the antecedent is the disjunction of the two (constituent) causes (i.e., the two halves of the bamboo); for, it is observed that, production of the disjunction of ether, etc., like the disjunction of one of the two halves of the bamboo, being also possible by the action produced in the other half, disjunction is produced by the action of that other half from all those with which that half was conjunct. For it is not that disjunctions are not produced also from particular parts of ether, etc., by action produced in a finger, equally as disjunction from another finger. Nor is it that disjunctions from particular parts of ether, etc, are not originated by action produced in a lotus-leaf, even as disjunction from another lotus-leaf is produced. We maintain, “Let a single action originate even a hundred disjunctions which are not opposed to the conjunction originative of substance. But that action which originates disjunction which is opposed to the conjunction originative of substance, cannot also originate disjunction which is not opposed to the conjunction originative of substance. And that which originates disjunction which is not opposed to the conjunction originative of substance, cannot also originate disjunction which is opposed to the conjunction originative of substance.”

Objection.—Is there any reason for taking such a view?

Answer.—Yes, there is, diversity of cause being rendered necessary by diversity of effect.

Objection.—Variety is necessary in action, so that one action may produce disjunction which is opposed to conjunction originative of substance, as in the case of flowering lotus-blossoms, etc., and another action may produce both, i.e., disjunctions which are opposed and not opposed to conjunctions originative of substance.

Answer.—This cannot be. For contrariety of effect is the origin of the supposition of diversity of cause; and that contrariety arises by way of the characteristic of the one being the counter-opposite of conjunction originative of substance, but by way of the characteristic of the other not being the counter-opposite of conjunction originative of substance, inasmuch as diversity also ought to be supposed by those very ways.

This same action, present in the one half of the bamboo, produces only disjunction of the two halves. And this disjunction first originates disjunction from the particular parts of ether, etc.,—disjunction which is not the counter-opposite of conjunction originative of substance. And if it produced disjunction by itself, it would then bear the characteristic of action; hence it depends upon time which is distinguished with the possession of destruction of substance.

Objection.—At that moment also let that action itself produce Disjunction.

Answer.—It cannot do so, being past in time. In the production of Disjunction, Time follows immediately after the production of action itself.

Objection.—But subsequent Disjunction being thus produced by antecedent Disjunction, action cannot produce conjunction with other places.

Answer.—This is not the case; for towards the production of conjunction, action is not past time. Otherwise, action will be never destroyed, it being destructible only by subsequent conjunction.

This same Disjunction, destructible by subsequent conjunction, lasts for three moments only. Sometimes it is destructible by destruction of substratum. It is in this way: Action is produced in the fibre which is a constituent part of the thread; Disjunction of two fibres follows it; at the same moment, action is produced in another thread; then there is destruction of conjunction, originative of the thread, by disjunction of two fibres, and Disjunction is produced by action in the thread; then there is destruction of the thread from destruction of conjunction originative of substance, and from destruction of the thread results destruction of Disjunction produced by action in another thread.

Objection.—Such being the case, there will be no destruction of action produced in another thread, since there is nothing to destroy it. For, it can be destroyed by subsequent conjunction, but Disjunction being destroyed, there is no subsequent conjunction.

Answer.—The argument is not valid. As Disjunction of the thread in the state of being destroyed is produced by action which is produced in the thread, so by the same action should be produced Disjunction of the thread from the fibre also. Such Disjunction also is really opposed to originative conjunction. By this Disjunction of the fibre and the thread is produced Disjunction of the thread and ether, which produces subsequent conjunction, and this, in its turn, causes destruction of action. Or, wherever action is produced in a thread, action is produced in its fibre also. That action, again, in the thread in the state of being destroyed, originates simultaneous -Disjunctions from the constituent parts of the thread, and particular parts of ether, etc., all these Disjunctions being not opposed to originative conjunction. There is, therefore, destruction of action combined or co-inherent in the thread, by conjunction which has its production immediately after the Disjunction of the effect, e.g., thread, from the not-effect, e.g., ether, etc., produced from the Disjunction of the cause, e.g., the fibre, and the not-cause, e.g., ether etc.

Sometimes Disjunction is destroyed jointly by subsequent conjunction and destruction of substratum. It is in this way: There being conjunction of a thread, and a thread, action is produced in the constituent parts of the thread, namely, the fibre, and action is produced in the reed. This is one moment of time. By action in the fibre is produced Disjunction from another fibre, and by this there is destruction of conjunction originative of the thread. By the action in the reed also, there is Disjunction of the thread and the reed, and there is also destruction of the conjunction of the thread and the reed. Destruction of the thread immediately follow destruction of conjunction originative of the thread. Conjunction of the reed with another portion of space immediately follows destruction of conjunction of the thread and the reed. Jointly from both of them, viz., destruction of substratum, and conjunction, results destruction of Disjunction.—10.