Qualities (1): Rūpa (Colour)

Rūpa (Colour) is the first quality amongst the twenty-four guṇas. It is a special quality. According to Praśastapāda, the colour is perceptible to the eye.^[1] Viśvanātha states in his Bhāṣāpariccheda that colour is cognized by the sense of vision. It is an aid to the cognition of substance, quality, action, generic attributes etc. It is an auxiliary cause of visual perception.^[2] Śivāditya defines rūpa as that quality which possesses the generality of colourness and is perceptible by the eye alone.^[3]

Annaṃbhaṭṭa also follows his predecessors in giving the definition of rūpa as he says that colour is known as the quality which is apprehended by the eye only.^[4] This definition is explained by him in the Dīpikā to show its faultlessness. In this definition, the word mātra ia added to avoid the defect of over-pervasion to saṃkhyā. Because number is also apprehended by eye but it is perceived by touch also, the word ‘only’ will not be applicable to number, not by the eye only.^[5] Thus, the word guṇa is added in this definition to avoid over-pervasion to rūpatva, i.e., the generic attribute of colour. The same organ which comprehends a guṇa, comprehends its jāti also. Hence, rūpatva is also perceived by eye.^[6] Therefore, the word guṇa is added to exclude this over-pervasion. Again to avoid over-pervasion to saṃyoga (conjunction) of light with the wall the definition should be that which is perceptible by eye only and which possesses a generic attribute.^[7] The Nyāya-bodhinī. On the other hand takes guṇa in the sense of special quality (viśeṣaguṇa).^[8] If only special quality is given as the definition, then that will be over-pervasive to rasa etc., which are also special qualities. So the term ‘perceptible by eye only’ is given.^[9] Govardhana follows Dīpikā in explaining other terms of the definition. But he adds that to avoid over-pervasion to gurutva (weight) etc. which are not perceptible by causes, the term cakṣurgrāhya is given. He also clarifies that grāhya here means the object of ordinary perception.^[10] Gobardhana also maintains that the over-pervasion to prabhābhittisaṃyoga can be avoided by the inclusion of the term viśeṣaguṇa as saṃyoga is not a special quality.^[11] But even then the word mātra in the definition will be superfluous, because in that case the term special quality can avoid the overpervasion to number etc. Gobardhana argues that it is necessary to exclude overpervasion to natural fluidity.

Vākya-Vṛtti, another commentary on Tarkasaṃgraha, states that this definition is not faultless because paramāṇu rūpa (colour of atom) is not perceptible to the eye. Hence, the definition will be non-pervasion to the colour of the atoms.

To avoid this, Vākya-Vṛtti explains the definition as:

tvagagrāhya-cakṣurgrāhya guṇavibhājaka-dharmavatvam.

Here, the word tvagagrahya is used instead of mātra, while guṇavibhājakadharmavatvam (possessing the attribute which is the distinguishing mark of quality) serves the purpose of guṇatvajāti. Paramāṇurūpa possesses rūpatvajāti, though not perceptible by eye, so it is included in this definition.^[12]

Colour is divided into seven kinds, viz.,

1. white,
2. blue,
3. yellow,
4. red,
5. green,
6. brown and
7. variegated.

Among these the last one is the mixture of the other qualities. Now, it may be asked why citrarūpa should be accepted as a separate quality instead of saying that a particular substance possesses different colours. To this Annaṃbhaṭṭa replies that colour being a pervasive (vyāpyavṛtti) quality, there cannot be several colours in one and the same object.^[13] Hence variegated colour is accepted as a separate colour. But then it may be objected that a cloth can be perceived by means of the colour of its parts and as such there is no necessity of accepting a variegated colour. According to Annaṃbhaṭṭa, it is not possible, for there is no colour in the piece of cloth as a whole and without a colour an object cannot be perceived. But one may again argue here that the condition for perceptibility of an object can be rūpavatsamavetatva (i.e., the state of being in inherent relation with things having colour) and not only the possession of colour (rūpavatta). In that case though the piece of cloth does not possess a colour of its own, it is in inherent relation with parts that have colour and as such will be perceptible. This view is rejected by Annaṃbhaṭṭa on the ground that it is unnecessarily elaborate.^[14] The seven colours reside in earth, water and light. All the seven kinds exist in earth, pale-white resides in water and bright white is found in light.^[15]

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

rūpaṃ cakṣurgrāhyam. Vaiśeṣikadarśanam with Praśastapādabhāṣya, p. 68

[2]:

cakṣurgrāhyaṃ bhavedrūpaṃ dravyāderūpalambhakam/ cakṣuṣa sahakāri syāt …/ Bhāṣāpariccheda, p.185

[3]:

rūpatvajātimat cakṣurmātragrāhyoguṇo rūpam. Saptapadārthī, p. 55

[4]:

cakṣurmātragrāhyo guṇo rūpam. Tarkasaṃgraha, p. 14

[5]:

saṃkhyādāvativyāptivāraṇāya mātrapadam. Dīpikā on Tarkasaṃgraha, p. 14

[6]:

rūpatve’tivyāptivāraṇāya guṇapadam Ibid

[7]:

cf. Tarkasaṃgraha, p. 151

[8]:

guṇapadasya viśeṣaguṇaparatvāt. Nyāyabodhinī on Tarkasaṃgraha, p.15

[9]:

Ibid

[10]:

lakṣaṇe grāhyatvaṃ nāma pratyakṣaviṣayatvam. Ibid

[11]:

Ibid.

[12]:

cf. Trkasaṃgraha, pp. 151-152

[13]:

rūpasya vyāpyavṛttitvaniyamāt. Dīpikā on Tarkasaṃgraha, p.14

[14]:

tasmātpaṭasya pratyakṣatvānyathānupapatyā citrarūpasiddhiḥ. Ibid

[15]:

Tarkasaṃgraha, p. 14