Verse 1.64

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 1.64:

गुणः प्रकर्षहेतुर्यः स्वातन्त्र्येणोपदिश्यते ।
तस्याश्रिताद् गुणादेव प्रकृष्टत्वं प्रतीयते ॥ ६४ ॥

guṇaḥ prakarṣaheturyaḥ svātantryeṇopadiśyate |
tasyāśritād guṇādeva prakṛṣṭatvaṃ pratīyate || 64 ||

64. When an attribute which is the cause of degree is presented as an independent thing, degree in it can be known only through another attribute present in it.

Commentary

Whatever is presented as the main thing in the form ‘this’ or ‘that’ is substance. There cannot be a greater or lesser degree of it; therefore, when degree is sought to be expressed in an object, it is done through attributes (nimitta) which exist in it, differentiate it, are dependent upon it, are physically attached to it and are active in bringing about degree. In the sentence: ‘this is an excellent white thing (prakṛṣṭaḥ śuklaḥ) even though the colour white distinguishes the thing, it is also active in bringing about degree and, therefore, that thing which has that quality and would otherwise have no degree, now attains degree. In the sentence: ‘the colour of this is white’ where colour is presented as a substance, degree is brought about by an attribute (nimitta) present in the colour. The universal ‘whiteness’ which inheres in white is one and cannot be a cause of differentiation and so differentiation in the one having shades of difference within (avāntarasya) is brought about by an attribute present in the colour. Or it can be put in this way: As there is no word expressive of such attributes (in śuklataram rūpam asya) and as they cannot be conveyed by the abstract suffix (bhāvapratyaya) they are understood from the word, like whiteness itself, and are understood as the cause of degree. As long as it is sought to bring about degree in anything which is presented as the main thing, in the form ‘this’ or ‘that’, so long would there be no end to this process of abstracting some attribute or other.¹

Notes

1. Verse 61 makes the statement that a grammatical operation is not done on a word which is actually mentioned in a sūtra but on a similar word occurring in worldly usage. The two words are different but are looked upon as the same because of resemblance. Verse 62 gives the reason for the statement made in 61: what is mentioned is subordinate to something else and so is not subject to grammatical operations. Verses 63 and 64 give illustrations. The former tells us that what was the common point in the previous comparison becomes the standard and the object of comparison in the succeeding one by a process of abstraction while the latter tells us that by the same process, what is presented as a guṇa in one statement can be presented as a dravya in another.

When a quality which is the cause of degree in a substance is presented independently, i.e., as a substance, it is only by another quality present in it that degree can be understood. In ‘śuklataraḥ paṭaḥ’, paṭa is the substance and degree in it is expressed by śuklatara which denotes the quality of being whiter. But in śuklataraṃ rūpam asya, colour itself is presented as a substance and not as a quality of cloth. But it is presented as having degree and this degree comes through some other quality like bhāsvaratva, brightness present in the white. For grammarians, whatever a word presents as the main thing to be qualified is substance (dravya). They do not follow the Vaiśeṣika definition of dravya (Vai. Sū. 1.1.15.). Even what is called quality can be so presented by words in which case it will have to be qualified by some other quality. In order that a quality may bring about degree in a substance it must be: (1) bhedahetu, (2) āśrita, (3) saṃṣṛṣṭa, (4) prakarṣe savyāpāra. Due to the absence of one or more of these conditions in the sentence puruṣasya svāmi, puruṣa cannot bring about degree in svāmi. For the same reason, jāti or the universal, cannot bring about degree.

That being so, in an utterance.