Sūtra 7.2.21 (Priority and Posteriority, how prodiced)

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration, Word-for-word and English translation of Vaiśeṣika sūtra 7.2.21:

एकदिक्काभ्यामेककालाभ्यां सन्निकृष्टविप्रकृष्टाभ्यां परमपरञ्च ॥ ७.२.२१ ॥

ekadikkābhyāmekakālābhyāṃ sannikṛṣṭaviprakṛṣṭābhyāṃ paramaparañca || 7.2.21 ||

eka-dikkābhyāṃ—lying in the same direction; ekakālābhyāṃ—existing at the same time; sannikṛṣṭa-vipraṛṣṭābhyāṃ—near and remote; paraṃ—prior; Aparaṃ posterior. ca—and.

21. The Prior and the Posterior (are produced by two objects) lying in the same direction, existing at the same time, and being near and remote.

Commentary: The Upaskāra of Śaṅkara Miśra:

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

Now he explains Priority and Posteriority, the next in the order of enumeration, in one context, as these are the causes of mutually involved uses, and for the purpose of clearing up the understanding of the disciples as well as for the sake of brevity.

[Read sūtra 7.2.21 above]

“The Prior and the Posterior’—the reference here is principally in a substantive sense. “Are produced”—such is the complement. Or, the word “usage” or “convention” is to be supplied after ‘The Prior and the Posterior: such’. The word “such” should be understood. ‘Ekadikkābhyāṃ’ means by two bodies which have the same direction in space. Two bodies occupying equal place (i.e., equally distant) may also have the same direction in space, but by them Priority and Posteriority are neither produced, nor come into use. Accordingly it has been said,‘Near and remote,’ which expression means, possessing nearness, i.e., the quality or state of containing a smaller number of conjunctions with the conjunct, and remoteness, i.e., the quality or state of containing a larger number of conjunctions with the conjunct. Hereby combinative cause (of Priority and Posteriority) is stated; whereas conjunction of bodies and direction in space is the non-combinative cause. Priority and Porteriority [Posteriority?] are thus produced in a man standing with his face towards the east, by observing a relative paucity of conjunctions with the conjunct in one of two bodies lying in the east and a relative plurality of conjunctions with the conjuct [conjunct?] in the other. The non-comcinative cause is thus stated. ‘Near and remote’—the term implies intuition, as the contained metaphorically denotes the container. Relative understanding or cognition of relativity is thus stated to be the efficient cause. Priority and Posteriority are produced in respect only of two bodies lying in the same direction in space; hence there is no production of them in all places. Relative understanding is produced in one and the same observer only; hence there is no production of them in all circumstances. Being regulated by relative understanding, there is no production of them at all times. There is no mutual dependence between them, inasmuch as being produced from the capacity or power of the cause, they are proved by sense-perception. For otherwise they would be neither produced nor perceived. For in case of mutual dependence there would be non-production as well as non-perception of both of them. But Priority and Posteriority are perceived, and their perception cannot be possible without their production.

‘Existing at the same time’—this has reference to Priority and Posteriority in time. Now ‘existing at the same time’ means, by two bodies one young and the other old, which occupy the same, i.e., the present, time. Here nearness is the state of having the birth intervened by a fewer number of revolutions of the sun, and remoteness is the state of having the birth intervened by a larger number of revolutions of the sun. Here too understanding i.e., the container, is implied by the contained. Thus the young and old bodies are the combinative causes. Conjunction of time and bodies is the non-combinative cause. The understanding of the state of having the birth intervened by a fewer number of revolutions of the sun is the efficient cause in the case of Posteriority, and the understanding of the state of having the birth intervened by a larger number of revolutions of the sun is the efficient cause in the case of Priority,

These, Priority and Posteriority, again, are produced even in respect of bodies indeterminate in place and direction in space.

Now there is a seven-fold destruction of Priority and Posteriority in space but their production is simultaneous, else there would be mutual dependence. Priority and Posteriority in space then are destroyed from the destruction of relative understanding (1) from the destruction of conjunction which is the non-combinative cause, (2) from the destruction of substance which is the combinative cause, (3) from the destruction of the efficient and non-combinative causes, (4) from the destruction of the efficient and combinative causes, (5) from the destruction of the efficient cause, (6) from the destruction of the non-combinative cause, and (7) from the destruction of the combinative cause. Now, from the destruction of relative understanding, thus: Production of Priority; knowledge of the genus Priority; then destruction of relative understanding; after its destruction, at the moment of knowledge of substance distinguished by Priority, destruction of Priority,—the process should be understood in the same way as in the case of destruction of duality. Destruction of Priority and Posteriority follows also from the destruction of the non-combinative cause. Thus, as soon as there is relative understanding, action takes place in the body which is the substratum of Priority; as soon as Priority is produced therefrom, disjunction takes place between direction in space and the body; after it, when there is knowledge of the genus Priority, then there is destruction of the conjunction of direction in space and the body; then, destruction of relative understanding follows knowledge of the genus; at the very same moment, destruction -of Priority and Posteriority results from destruction of conjunction of direction in space and the bodies. And in this case destruction of relative understanding does not destroy them, inasmuch as it is synchronous with destruction of Priority.

Objection.—On the theory of destruction of attribute even from destruction of non-combinative cause, great confusion will result from the thus possible destruction of Saṃskāra, (tendencies, impressions), adṛṣṭaṃ (invisible after-effects of acts performed), etc., also from the destruction of the conjunction of Mind and Soul.

Answer.—It is not so. For Priority being pervaded by the characteristic of being remote, there must needs be cessation of Priority consequent on the non-existence of remoteness on the removal of the substratum of Priority to some other place. Nor is there at the time any other agent of destruction; hence, such destruction being otherwise impossible, destruction of conjunction alone is conceived to be the destroying agent. On the other hand saṃskāra, adṛṣṭa etc., as well as their effects, e.g., recollection, pleasure, etc., cannot be supposed to be so destroyed, inasmuch as they are observed even after a long time.

This also implies that Priority and Posteriority are destroyed also by the destruction of the conjunction between that particular place and the standard limit as well as the observer, the argument being the same as above.

Destruction of Priority sometimes results also from destruction of combinative cause. Thus, relative understanding arises at the very same moment that action produced in a portion of a body causes disjunction from another portion; from disjunction results destruction of the conjunction originative of the body, and then production of Priority; at the next moment, destruction of substance results from destruction of conjunction, and there takes place knowledge of the genus Priority; destruction of Priority follows destruction of substance, and destruction of relative understanding follows knowledge of the genus. So that, being synchronous, destruction of relative understanding does not destroy Priority.

Destruction of Priority sometimes takes place by the destruction of substance and destruction of relative understanding. It happens in this way: Production of action and relative understanding in a portion of the body; then, disjunction from another portion, and production of Priority; next desruction of originative conjunction and knowledge of the genus; thereafter, destruction of substance and destruction of relative understanding; and following them, there is destruction of Priority.

Destruction of Priority takes place sometimes from destruction of substance and destruction of conjunction. It is in this way: Simultaneously with disjunction amongst the constituent parts of substance, there is production of action in the body and of relative understanding; following it, appear destruction of conjunction of constituent parts, disjunction between space and body, and production of Priority; thereafter there are destruction of substance, destruction of conjunction of space and body, and production of knowledge of the genus: thereafter destruction of Priority results from destruction of substance and destruction of conjunction of space and body, and destruction of relative understanding from knowledge of the genus.

Destruction of Priority takes place sometimes from destruction of conjunction and destruction of relative understanding. It is in this way: Production of Priority, and action in the body; knowledge of the genus, and disjunction; destruction of relative understanding, and destruction of conjunction of space and the body; then, destruction of Priority.

Destruction of Priority results sometimes from destructions of combinative, non-combinative and efficient causes. It is in this way: Production of Priority, disjunction among constituent parts of the body, and action in the body, take place simultaneously; knowledge of the genus Priority, destruction of conjunction of constituent parts and disjunction between space and the body follow them; thereafter results destruction of Priority or of Posteriority in space, from destruction of relative understanding, destruction of substance, and destruction of conjunction of space and the body, which destructions are simultaneously produced.

Of Priority and Posteriority in time, however, there is no destruction due to destruction of non-combinative cause. As in the case of Priority and Posteriority in space, there is destruction of nearness and remoteness on the destruction of conjunction of space and the body, so it is not the case with Priority and Posteriorityin time. The three cases, therefore, of their destruction namely from destruction of combinative cause, from destruction of relative understanding, and from both jointly, should be understood in the way described above.—21.

Commentary: The Vivṛti of Jayanārāyaṇa:

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

It should be observed that, according to the writer of Muktāvali, destruction of relative understanding is destructive of Priority and Posteriority in both their forms (i.e., in space and in time), whereas in the Upaskāra it is stated that it is the destruction of their three-fold causes which is destructive of Priority and Posteriority.