Vaisheshika-sutra with Commentary
by Nandalal Sinha | 1923 | 149,770 words | ISBN-13: 9789332869165
The Vaisheshika-sutra 7.2.19, 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 9 (‘above continued’) contained in Chapter 2—Of Number, Separateness, Conjunction, etc.—of Book VII (of the examination of attributes and of combination).
Sūtra 7.2.19 (Above continued)
Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration, Word-for-word and English translation of Vaiśeṣika sūtra 7.2.19:
संयोगिनो दण्डात् समवायिनो विशेषाच्च ॥ ७.२.१९ ॥
saṃyogino daṇḍāt samavāyino viśeṣācca || 7.2.19 ||
saṃyoginaḥ—which is in conjunction; The conjunct. daṇḍāt—from the staff; samavāyinaḥ—which is in combination; The combined; viśeṣāt—from a distinction or distinguishing element; ca—and.
19. (Cognition of Conjunction results) from (e.g.,) the staff, which is in conjunction (with the hand of a man), and (of Combination) from a distinguishing element which is in combination (with the whole).
Commentary: The Upaskāra of Śaṅkara Miśra:
(English rendering of Śaṅkara Miśra’s commentary called Upaskāra from the 15th century)
It may be asked why one or other of the relations of Conjunction and Combination should not exist (between Word and Object). Accordingly he says:
[Read sūtra 7.2.19 above]
“This person is carrying a staff,” “The elephant possesses a trunk,”—these intuitions take place. Of these, the first results from conjunction, and the second, from combination. The intuition in respect of the trunk which is a particular member of the body, is dependent upon its combination with the elephant, since it arises from the distinction that that is an elephant to which belongs a trunk as being in combination with it. The distinction itself, viz., the trunk, etc., is distinctive in consequence of the relation of combination. But there is no intuition of threads, etc. also, such as “A cloth possesses threads” etc., under the relation of distinctive possession of the parts. Likewise, “The object, water-pot, is that which possesses the word, water-pot,”—such intuition does not take place. Of Word and Object, therefore, there is neither conjunction, nor again combination. This is the import.—19.