Part 2.1 - The refutation of Pṛthivī

[Full title: Secondary Refutations (1) Pṛthivī]

It seems that the need to discuss and refute pṛthivī and other subsequent dravyas, has arisen due to the aforesaid reason, which is, the direct support to the existence of the nine dravyas accepted by the Vaiśeṣika darśana. Hence, the discussion starting from pṛthivī upto manas, is superfluous. Due to this reason, only a summarised view of the refutations has been presented and analysed.

Refutation of pṛthivī can be divided into the following parts:

1. Based on pṛthivītva.
2. Based on gandha.
3. Based on pākaja guṇas.
4. Based on the anumānas used for constructing its lakṣaṇa.
5. Based on lakṣaṇa of lakṣaṇa.
6. Based on pṛthivītva as jāti, svarūpa or dharmāntara.
7. Based on nitya and anitya types of pṛthivī.
8. Based on threefold kāryas of pṛthivī.
9. Based on one kārya; śarīra.
10. Based on indriya and viṣaya.

Analysis.

In 1, Ānandajñāna shows parasparāśraya fault.^[1] In 2, he counters gandhavattva (being the possessor of gandha) as the lakṣaṇa by saying that it is found even in salila (water) and so forth.^[2] Then the opponent puts forward the argument that even in that case, it is because of their contact with pṛthivī.^[3] The opponent's argument that it is so because in the absence of contact with kusuma (flower) and so forth, gandha is not perceived, is countered by Ānandajñāna by saying that there are cases where, in the absence of contact with the parts of salila and so forth, gandha is not perceived in kusuma and so forth.^[4] When it is said that even in the absence of such contact there is some amount of gandha in kusuma and so forth, Ānandajñāna replies that so could be with pṛthivī being in contact with some amount of salila and so forth, in which case gandha couldn't reside in pṛthivī alone.^[5]

To this the opponent replies that Ānandajñāna's idea that gandha also resides in other dravyas, goes against a statement of Vyāsa, according to which the gandha in ap and vāyu is due to contact with pṛthivī and that gandha should be known to be residing in pṛthivī alone.^[6] Ānandajñāna says that this āpta statement does not oppose his statement because it is applied on the basis of usual or most cases, due to which its object is the gandha which resides in pṛthivī and if it weren't the case, why would it assert its perception in pṛthivī also?^[7]

He further says that there is no pramāṇa in the idea that gandha exists in the paramāṇus of pṛthivī which are separated from other dravyas.^[8] It cannot also be established on the basis of its perception in kāryadravyas, because then inversely, one could imagine those paramāṇus being combined with others, because at the kārya level, those dravyas are combined.^[9]

In 3 Ānandajñāna deals with the pākajaguṇas (guṇas produced by pāka or contact with fire). He counters an anumāna, which is based on the idea that gandhatva resides in pṛthivī's guṇa alone, because it resides in the pākajaguṇa alone.^[10] He counters it by stating the idea of pāka as accepted by Naiyāyikas, which is piṭharapākavāda.^[11] In this theory the pāka happens in the kāryadravya like pot and so forth, and not in paramāṇus, in which case, the gandhatva would reside also in the apākaja guṇa of paramāṇu, leading to the hetu being rendered false.^[12] This counter is important because Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika darśanas are otherwise mostly in agreement with each other. Hence, to counter a Vaiśeṣika idea with an idea from Nyāya darśana puts some pressure on the Vaiśeṣika opponent.

The theory of pāka accepted by the Vaiśeṣikas is called pīlupākavāda, which states that pāka happens in paramāṇus. To counter this, Ānandajñāna gives a counteranumāna which states that gandhatva resides in the guṇa of pṛthivī and other dravyas, because it resides in gandha, just as guṇatva resides in guṇa.^[13] The basis of this counter is the refutation with which he begins the refutation of pṛthivī, which is the refutation of the idea that gandha resides in pṛthivī alone. He says that surabhitva (frangrance-ness) and so forth, resides in salila and so forth.^[14]

The next lakṣaṇas of pṛthivī are based on being the possessor of a certain pākajaguṇa.^[15] With them Ānandajñāna shows avyāpti in the pre-pāka pot.^[16] The method of a Vaiśeṣika in this case is to appeal to something related to jāti. Here, the Vaiśeṣika says that pṛthivī would be that which is a possessor of the guṇas of those jātis.^[17] The word 'those' or 'that' with regard to jāti is unspecified, because rasa, rūpa and sparśa have been talked about. If taken according to the Vaiśeṣika, it would mean that pṛthivī is the possessor of a guṇa which is born of pāka. But as the said word is unspecified, Ānandajñāna takes it to stand for 'being a possessor of a certain jāti or of a jāti of a guṇa', for example, being a possessor of rasa, which has rasatva jāti. He says that in this way, there would be ativyāpti in salila and so forth.^[18] As has been seen in the revised vivakṣā of 'guṇavattva' lakṣaṇa of dravya, which was 'being the non-substratum of the atyantābhāva of being a possessor of guṇa', here also the Vaiśeṣika comes up with the lakṣaṇa of pṛthivī as 'being the non-substratum of atyantābhāva of pākaja rasa'.^[19] To this Ānandajñāna replies with the Vaiśeṣika idea that in the process of pāka, the previous dravya is destroyed and a new one is born.^[20] When the pāka is taken to be happening at the level of paramāṇus, the kāryadravya like the pot undergoing pāka, is said to be entirely destroyed, after which a new pot is said to be born from the paramāṇus which now have a different guṇa namely the pākajaguṇa.^[21] The opponent then says that even if there is a difference between the old and the new dravya, because pāka is of the form of pravāha (flow), it has no beginning, due to which one could prove the old dravya being a possessor of pākaja guṇas.^[22] To this Ānandajñāna replies with another accepted idea of Vaiśeṣikas which is, pākas are many, hence each pāka process involves multiple pākas.^[23] He says that it cannot be known that the guṇa which is born of pāka, is born from which specific pāka, due to which there would be the ananugama fault in the lakṣaṇa.^[24] He further says that because pākapravāha is unreal, it would lack real activity.^[25] In case pāka alone is accepted for the lakṣaṇa, then there would be avyāpti in a freshly produced and destroyed pot and so forth.^[26]

This counter provided by him against pākaja guṇas does seem reasonable, because he has countered it with using the Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika darśanas. In the case of Nyāya, they simply do not accept pāka in paramāṇus, which leads to pṛthivī paramāṇus not being the possessors of pākajaguṇas, at least for some point in time, due to which the Vaiśeṣika anumāna indicating that gandhatva resides pakajaguṇas alone, incurs fault. In the case of pāka in paramāṇus, Ānandajñāna gives a counteranumāna asserting that gandhatva resides in guṇas of pṛthivī and other dravyas. He has also reasonably asserted that gandha does reside in other dravyas. The remaining points advanced by the opponent were also countered via the idea that in the process of pāka, the older kāryadravya is destroyed and a new one is born. Also, pāka being accepted to be many in a single pāka process, one cannot know for sure which pāka has produced a specific guṇa, due to which the lakṣaṇa would suffer ananugama fault. Both 4 and 5 as a combination is a refutation of the concept of lakṣaṇa and of the process of its construction. This has been dealt with in 2.1.1. The reason why Ānandajñāna has discussed it here is that he has taken Udayana's Kiraṇāvalī as a basis for his refutation of pṛthivī. Because Udayana discusses lakṣaṇa during the exposition on pṛthivī, Ānandajñāna takes it up to refute in this part itself. The refutation of lakṣaṇa could be applied to each and every padārtha. Half of author's method of refutation is about showing the impossibility of lakṣaṇa. This refutation straightaway serves that purpose.

Even after refuting the lakṣaṇa and definability of pṛthivī, for some reason, Ānandajñāna feels the need to refute pṛthivītva in 6, where he attempts to refute the three views regarding pṛthivītva, which is, it is jāti, or svarūpa, or a dharma different from both.^[27] The first option is countered on the basis that its lakṣaṇas have in them gandha, dravyatva, and so forth.^[28] As he had argued earlier, gandha is also present in other dravyas. He reiterates that dravyatva has been refuted.^[29] This refutation could have been much more brief because most of the points put forward by the opponent have already been countered by Ānandajñāna.

When the very pṛthivī as a dravya has been refuted, what is the need for a detailed refutation of the two types of pṛthivī? For instance, having refuted X, if the refuter then tries to individually refute X_a and X_b, where both are types of the said X, it implies that they have not adequately refuted X itself and now have to resort to refuting it by the refutation of its types. Hence, this implies that the discussion before 7 did not lead to the conclusion which Ānandajñāna claims to have arrived at. Although the discussion may look sophisticated, its superfluity is clear.

In 8, he takes up the task to refute the three kāryas of pṛthivī. Upto this point the author has attempted the refutations of the lakṣaṇas of pṛthivī. So to discuss and refute the two types of pṛthivī is unnecessary. The refutation of kārya has been mentioned in 2.1.2. Through it, all the kāryas of any padārtha could be refuted.

Hence, the refutations of individual kāryas of each dravya are superfluous.

At the end of 9, Ānandajñāna concludes as:

"yonijaṃ eva pārthivaṃ śarīraṃ iti sthitam"^[30]

The word pārthiva means ‘of pṛthivī’ or ‘belonging to pṛthivī’. To say that yonija pārthiva śarīra exists, is to say that its source, which is pṛthivī, also exists. In 10, he discusses and attempts to refute the other two kāryas of pṛthivī namely, indriya and viṣaya. That of indriya is based on gandha, which has been shown to exist in other dravyas also.

Ānandajñāna finally concludes by saying:

"tasmāt pṛthivyāḥ lakṣaṇapramāṇayoḥ abhāvāt tadavāntarabhedasya ca asambhavāt pratītimātrasiddhatvaṃ āstheyam"^[31]

Here also, he seems to view the refutation of the lakṣaṇa of pṛthivī and that of its types and parts as different. Similar to what can be seen in 2.1.4, here also the author seems to first separate the entities which are conceptually tightly bound and then instead of refuting multiple ones by refuting the one on which others depend, he refutes each and every one of them. The support he lends to pṛthivī by supporting yonija śarīra and calling it 'pārthiva' could have been avoided.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

na tāvat pṛthivītvaṃ eva tallakṣaṇaṃ yuktaṃ parasparāśrayagrastatayā tasya asaṃbhavitvāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 22

[2]:

nāpi gandhavattvaṃ tallakṣaṇaṃ salilādau api tadupalabdhyā'tivyāpteḥ -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 22

[3]:

pṛthivīsambandhāt anyatra tadupalabdhiḥ -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 22

[4]:

kusumādisannikarṣābhāve tadanupalabdhiniyamāt itthaṃ iti cet na salilādyavayavāsannikarṣe kusumādau api kadācittadanupalambhaniyamāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 22

[5]:

tatrāpi mātrayā gandhopalabdhirasti iti cet tarhi mātrayā bhūtāntarasaṃsargo'pi astīti na pṛthivīmātrasya gandhavattvam -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 22

[6]:

upalabhyāpsu cedgandhaṃ kecidbrūyuranaipuṇāḥ/ pṛthivyāmeva taṃ vidyādapo vāyuṃ ca saṃśritam// -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 22

[7]:

āptavākyaṃ hi prāyovṛttyā pṛthivīniṣṭhagandhamadhikṛtya aviruddham kathamanyathā tatrāpi tadupalambhaṃ abhyanujānīyāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 22

[8]:

na hi tatra bhūtāntarāsaṃsṛṣṭeṣu paramāṇuṣu gandhasiddhau kiñcidasti pramāṇam -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 22

[9]:

kārye tadupalabdhyā tatsiddhiḥ iti cet tarhi bhūtāntarasaṃsṛṣṭe taddṛṣṭiniyamāt tatrāpi tatsaṃsargaḥ kalpanīyaḥ -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 22

[10]:

gandhatvaṃ pṛthivīguṇamātravṛtti pākajaguṇamātravṛttitvāt pākajaviśeṣaguṇatvavat -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 23

[11]:

paiṭharaprakriyāyāṃ hetvasiddheḥ -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 23

[12]:

tatra hi piṭhareṣveva pāko na paramāṇuṣu iti sthiteḥ tadguṇasya pācakatvābhāvāt gandhatvasya kāryagandhavṛttitayā pākajaguṇavṛttitayā pākajaguṇavṛttitve’pi tanmātravṛttitvābhāvāt paramāṇuguṇasya apākajasyāpi tadāśrayatvāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 23

[13]:

gandhatvaṃ pṛthivītaditaraguṇavṛtti gandhavṛttitvāt guṇatvavat -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 23

[14]:

uktaṃ hi salilādau api surabhitvādervyaktatvam -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 23

[15]:

pākajarasavattvaṃ vā pākajarūpavattvaṃ vā pākajasparśavattvaṃ vā pṛthivīlakṣaṇaṃ -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 23

[16]:

pākātprācīne ghaṭādau tadabhāvāt avyāpteḥ -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 23

[17]:

tatrāpi tajjātīyavattvāt na -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 23

[18]:

tarhi salilādāvativyāptiḥ tajjātīyavattvasya tatrāpi susaṃpādatvāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 23

[19]:

pākajarasātyantātyantābhāvānadhikaraṇataṃ ityādinirdeśena avyāptisamādhiḥ -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 23

[20]:

pāke sati apūrvadravyotpatterāśrayaṇāt ekasya dravyasya uktalakṣaṇatvāsambhavāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 23 The text reads 'pūrvadravyotpatterāśrayaṇāt', which should instead be 'apūrvadravyotpatterāśrayaṇāt'.

[21]:

Padārthadharmasaṅgraha (Praśastapāda) (Pākaja Prakaraṇa), pp. 71-73

[22]:

pūrvottaradravyabhede'pi pākasya pravāharūpeṇa anāditayā pūrvasminnapi dravye tajjanyarūpādimattvasiddhiḥ -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 23 The text reads 'dravyatajjanyarūpādimattvasiddhiḥ' which should be 'dravye tajjanyarūpādimattvasiddhiḥ'.

[23]:

tasmāt paramāṇuṣu rūpādīnāṃ vināśotpādau naikāgnisaṃyogakāraṅkau rūpādyutpattivināśatvāt śyāmādyutpattivināśavat -Kiraṇāvalī (Udayana) (Guṇa Padārtha), p. 119

[24]:

sūryāgnipākānekatve kiṃpākajanyatvaṃ rūpāderabhimataṃ iti durjñānatayā lakṣaṇasya ananugamāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 23 The text reads 'kiṃ-pākajanyatvaṃ', which should instead be 'kiṃpākajanyatvaṃ'.

[25]:

pākapravāhasya avastutvena arthakriyābhāvāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 23

[26]:

pākamātravivakṣāyāṃ utpannamātravinaṣṭaghaṭādau tadabhāvāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 23

[27]:

kiṃ idaṃ pṛthivītvaṃ jātiḥ svarūpaṃ vā dharmāntaraṃ vā -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 26

[28]:

ayogānyayogavyavacchedena gandhavadvṛttijātiḥ tathā -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 26 dravyatvanyūnavṛttitve sati ghaṭapaṭavṛttijātiḥ tathā -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 27

[29]:

dravyatvasya pratyuktatvāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 27

[30]:

Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 33

[31]:

Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 35