Part 1.3 - The refutation of Samavāya

[Full title: Primary Refutations (3) Samavāya]

Samavāya is a sambandha which exists specifically between dravya and guṇa, dravya and karman, vyakti and jāti, and so forth.^[1] The aforesaid pairs are called ayutasiddhas, out of which one is the āśraya (substratum), while the other is āśrita (dependent on it). The āśrita is said to exist upto the point that it is dependent on the āśraya.^[2] As Ānandajñāna claims to have refuted dravya, guṇa, sāmānya and viśeṣa, there is no need to separately refute samavāya sambandha.

Lakṣaṇa 1.—The mutual relation of ayutasiddhas is samavāya.^[3]

Refutation.—If ayutasiddhi means being born together, it doesn't apply to the nitya sambandhins like ātman, and to anitya entities where the ādhāra (substratum) has to exist prior to the ādheya (dependent).^[4] If it means being known together, the jñānasāmagrī (contents of knowledge) of rūpa and ghaṭa (rūpin) are different, and hence there's no simultaneity in their knowledge.^[5] If it means the incompatibility of the ādhāra and ādheya toward vibhāga, then vibhāga being impossible, there would be no ādhāra and ādheya.^[6] The words vibhāga and bheda have been shown as synonymous during the refutation of vibhāga.^[7]

If ayutasiddhatva means being simultaneous, then there is no niyama of dravya, guṇa and so forth being simultaneous, because one of them is ādhāra and other is the ādheya.^[8] If it means being in the same place, then although guṇa and so forth are in the dravya, the dravya cannot reside in itself.^[9] If it means having the same svabhāva, there is a difference of it because one is svatantra (dravya), whereas the other is paratantra (guṇa etc.), and so forth.^[10]

Lakṣaṇa 2.—The eternal sambandha is samavāya.^[11]

Refutation.—Being a sambandha, non-eternality of samavāya can be inferred like that of saṃyoga.^[12] If its eternality is suggested by saying that it is like that of ātman, which is a bhāva entity and is asamaveta (does not reside somewhere through samavāya relation), there is a fault of parasparāśraya; based on eternality of sambandha, asamavetatva (not residing in an entity through samavāya) is established via samavāyatva, and by establishing asamavetatva, samavāyatva is established via eternality.^[13]

Samavāya is also not established via pariśeṣa, because the knowledge of 'here' (ihapratyaya) between ādhāra and ādheya pair, can be explained by yogyatā sambandha.^[14] In the case of an anumāna prayoga; saṃyoga is different from the sambandha which is different from itself, because of being the object of knowledge, like a pot; there would be the fault of siddhasādhya (establishing that which has been already established) for those who believe in the yogyatā relation.^[15] Also, 'a relation different from saṃyoga' (a specific saṃyoga) could be another saṃyoga as well and if it is meant to convey 'a relation completely different from saṃyoga', then if it is samavāya, the fault of aprasiddhaviśeṣaṇa is incurred (specificity of sādhya is stated by something which is not itself established) and if it is completely different from it then it would lead to the arthāntara fault.^[16]

Samavāya is not single, because like saṃyoga, it can be said to be multiple on the basis of the difference of the entities in which the sambandha resides.^[17] Singularity of liṅga could also be interpreted as singularity of prakāra, which is the case with the sāmānyas and viśeṣas in the form of dravyatva and so forth, where there is still the knowledge of exclusivity.^[18] The knowledge of difference caused by the difference of related entities, is similarly existent in samavāya, or else saṃyoga would also become singular.^[19]

Samavāya can reside in the samavāyins through svabhāva sambandha, which leads to the ideation of a separate samavāya padārtha useless.^[20] It is not extrasensory, because there can be yogyatā sambandha instead of samavāya and yogyatā sambandha is more parsimonious than samavāya.^[21] [1028] The viśeṣaṇaviśeṣya relation would lead to atiprasaṅga.^[22]

Analysis. 

The very basis of samavāya sambandha, which is dravya, guṇa, sāmānya and viśeṣa, has earlier been claimed by Ānandajñāna to have been refuted. His refutation of ayutasiddhi involves the presentation of various interpretations of it; being born together, or being known together.^[23] When he refutes ayutasiddhatva, the various interpretations of it which he considers, have been considered and refuted by Ādi Śaṅkarācārya in his bhāṣya on Brahmasūtra 2.2.17.^[24]

To explain the knowledge of inherence, Ānandajñāna provides an option, which is yogyatā sambandha. It is defined as the sambandha in which one padārtha is a possessor of another.^[25] This sambandha is stated when a vākya is being defined.^[26] A typical example which is used to state the thing which does not have yogyatā is the sentence 'he may water with fire'.^[27] Here it is pointed out that watering being an effect, fire is stated as its most important cause or karaṇa. But fire does not have any ability to water something.^[28] Hence, the absence of yogyatā is regarding the cause and effect relation between fire and watering respectively.^[29] Yogyatā sambandha is also defined as that which is inferred from direct perception.^[30] It is the relation of the various indriyas with their respective arthas (objects).^[31]

Ānandajñāna's citation of yogyatā sambandha is regarding the knowledge of 'here' in the entities which are in the form of ādhāra and ādheya.^[32] If we take the example of dravya and guṇa, dravya is called the samavāyikāraṇa of guṇa.^[33] So in the knowledge of 'there is guṇa in this dravya',^[34] the dravya has the yogyatā of possessing guṇa in it, that is, dravya can be the cause (or substratum) of guṇa.

Keśavamiśra while discussing the sambandha between dravya and guṇa, says, "(dravya is samavāyikāraṇa of guṇa) because it is the substratum (āśraya) of guṇa due to yogyatā".^[35] Here yogyatā seems to denote the unique ability of dravya to possess guṇa, which is absent in any other padārtha. Ānandajñāna seems to point out that when it is only dravya which, acting as an ādhāra, would possess any ādheya like guṇa, then one could simply explain it by saying that it is because dravya is naturally able to do it. And because dravya possesses a guṇa because of its yogyatā, the very knowledge of 'guṇa in dravya' can be explained by the same yogyatā which is the very reason why guṇa is in dravya. Similar yogyatā can be conceptualised regarding the guṇatva jāti in guṇa, and so forth.

The singularity of samavāya is challenged by Ānandajñāna on the basis of the difference of the sambandhins (the related).^[36] As in the case of saṃyoga, where there are types like anyatarakarmaja, and so forth on the basis of the sambandhins, similar could be in the case of samavāya. The Vaiśeṣika darśana agrees with the idea that for a moment, a dravya is born without guṇa and for that moment the dravya stays with the potential that there is never an absolute nonexistence of guṇa in it.^[37] The sambandhins of samavāya are not always stuck together, and so can be seen from a point of view similar to that of sambandhins of saṃyoga.

Irrespective of the apparent sophistication of the above discussion, when samavāya is itself a subject of refutation, the suggestion that it can be of multiple types, goes against the effort for the refutation of samavāya. Also, as the author provides saṃyoga as an example for the said multiplicity, it further goes against the refutation of saṃyoga, which has been attempted by the author himself.^[38] Raghunātha Śiromaṇi, in his Padārthatattvanirūpaṇa accepts that samavāya is not single but multiple, because if it were single then even jala dravya and so forth would become possessors of gandha and so forth.^[39] Raghudeva Bhaṭṭācārya's commentary on this portion of Raghunātha Śiromaṇi's aforesaid text states that because the gandhasamavāya in pṛthivī is not separate from the snehasamavāya in jala, there would be gandhasamavāya even in jala and so forth, leading to the knowledge of jala being a possessor of gandha.^[40] He further considers a rejoinder by the opponent who would say that there is absence of the samavāya specific to gandha, and responds to the rejoinder by saying the something which is viśiṣṭa does not become something completely different, and if the opponent finds such a viśiṣṭa samavāya to be something completely different from other samavāyas, then what is wrong with the idea of multiple samavāyas?^[41]

This is related to the idea stated by Ānandajñāna regarding the multiplicity of samavāya based on the entities with which it is related.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

yathā avayavāvayavinau guṇaguṇinau kriyākriyāvantau jātivyaktī viśeṣanityadravye -Tarkabhāṣā (Keśava Miśra) (Pramāṇapadārtha), p. 29

[2]:

avayavyādayo hi yathākramamavayavādyāśritā evāvatiṣṭhante'vinaśyantaḥ -Tarkabhāṣā (Keśava Miśra) (Pramāṇapadārtha), p. 29

[3]:

ayutasiddhānāṃ parasparasambandhaḥ samavāyaḥ -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 126 This definition is found in Padārthatattvanirṇaya of Ānandānubhava.

[4]:

keyaṃ ādhāryādhārabhūtānāṃ rūparūpiprabhṛtīnāṃ ayutasidhiḥ sā khalu apṛthagutpattiḥ... na ādyaḥ nityeṣu sambandhiṣu ātmādiṣu tadasiddheḥ anityeṣvapi mṛdghaṭādiṣu ādhārānantarabhāvitvāt ādheyasya apṛthagutpatteḥ anupapatteḥ -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 126 The text reads 'ātmatvādiṣu', which seems to be 'ātmādiṣu'.

[5]:

apṛthag jñaptiḥ vā... na dvitīyaḥ jñānasāmagrīkrame jnānayaugapadyāyogāt/ anyā hi rūpādeḥ jñānasāmagrī ghaṭādeśca anyaiva tatsāmagrī/ tathā ca na tayoḥ jnānayaugapadyaṃ upapadyate/ -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 126

[6]:

ādhārādheyayoḥ mitho vibhāgāyogyatvaṃ ayutasiddhatvaṃ iti cet na tathā sati vibhāgāyogāt ādhārādheyatvasyaiva asambhavāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 126

[7]:

vibhāgabhedaśabdayoḥ ekārthatāyāḥ vibhāgādhikāre darśitatvāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 126

[8]:

kiṃ ca ayutasiddhatvaṃ ekakālatvaṃ... na ādyaḥ dravyaguṇādiṣu ekakālatvaniyamāyogāt teṣu ādhārādheyabhāvena bhinnakālatvasya yuktatvāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 126

[9]:

na dvitīyaḥ guṇādeḥ dravyadeśatve’pi tasya taddeśatvābhāvāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 126

[10]:

na tṛtīyaḥ svatantratvaparatantratvādinā bhinnasvabhāvatvāt tridhātvena ayutasiddheḥ upalambhanāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 126

[11]:

nityaḥ sambandhaḥ samavāyaḥ -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 126 This lakṣaṇa is found is Lakṣaṇāvalī of Udayana.

[12]:

samavāye'pi sambandhatvāt anityatvaṃ saṃyogavat anumīyate -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 127 The published text reads; samavāye'pi sambandhatvāt anityatvaṃ saṃyogavat anumīyate, bhāvatve sati asamavetatvāt/ nityatvaṃ ātmavat iti cet... (Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna), p. 127). As per the text in the manuscript, there is a virāmacihna before 'bhāvatve sati'. The first sentence should end with 'anumīyate'. The sentence beginning from 'bhāvatve sati asamavetatvāt' is a reply by the opponent. Also the reply correctly applies to ātman. Pramāṇamañjarī (Samavāyanirūpaṇa), p. 151 states similarly; sa nityaḥ sattve satyasamavetatvāt. Balabhadra's commentary on the same statement reads 'bhāvatve sati' instead of 'sattve sati'. Citsukha in Tattvapradīpikā (Dvitīya Pariccheda), p. 511, also considers this; 'bhāvarūpatve satīti viśeṣaṇādayamadoṣa iti cet'. Pratyaksvarūpa commenting on it identifies it with Śivāditya.

[13]:

bhāvatve sati asamavetatvāt nityatvaṃ ātmavat iti cet na sambandhasya nityatve siddhe samavāyatvena asamavetatvasiddhiḥ tatsiddhau ca uktānumānāt tasya nityatvena samavāyatvasiddhiḥ iti parasparāśrayaprasaṅgāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 127 The published text reads 'samavāyatvena samavetatvasiddhiḥ', but as per both the context as well as the text in the manuscript, it should be 'samavāyatvena asamavetatvasiddhiḥ'.

[14]:

na hi pariśeṣāt samavāyasiddhiḥ dvānāṃ ādhārādheyabhūtānāṃ ihapratyayasya yogyatākhyānugatasambandhādapi siddhau pāriśeṣyāsiddheḥ -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 127

[15]:

saṃyogaḥ svātiriktasambandhāt bhinnaḥ meyatvāt ghaṭavat iti samavāyasiddhiḥ iti cet na yogyatāsambandhavādinaḥ siddhasādhyatvāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 127

[16]:

svātiriktasambandhasya ca saṃyogāntaravyaktitvasambhavena uktadoṣatādavasthyāt saṃyogamātrātiriktasambandhavivakṣāyāṃ tasya samavāyatve aprasiddhaviśeṣaṇatvāt tadatiriktatve ca arthāntaratvāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 127

[17]:

na ca samavāyasya sarvatra ekatvaṃ sambandhibhede saṃyogavat anekatvasādhanasambhavāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 127

[18]:

ekaliṅgatvasya prakārābhedenāpi sambhāvitatvāt dravyatvādiṣu sāmānyeṣu viśeṣeṣu ca tatprathanāt vyāvṛttapratyayābhāvasya asiddhatvāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 127

[19]:

anyathā saṃyogasyāpi ekatvaprasaṅgāt sambandhibhedāt bhedapratyayasya samavāye’pi samānatvāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 127

[20]:

yā hi samavāyasya samavāyinoḥ vṛttiḥ iṣṭā tasyāḥ svabhāvatve sambandhilābhe ca svabhāvasambandhasambhave samavāyakalpanānarthakyam -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 127

[21]:

na ca asya indriyasambandhābhāvāt atīndriyatvaṃ yogyatālakṣaṇasambandhasambhavāt tasya ca kāryakalpyasya durapahnavatvāt kalpanālāghavācca tasyaiva abhyupeyatvāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. [1028]

[22]:

viśeṣaṇaviśeṣyatvasambandhasya atiprasaṅgitvāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 127

[23]:

apṛthagutpattiḥ apṛthag jñaptiḥ vā -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 126

[24]:

tatpunarayutasiddhatvam apṛthagdeśatvaṃ vā syādapṛthakkālatvaṃ vā'pṛthaksvabhāvatvaṃ vā -Ādi Śaṅkarācārya's commentary on Brahmasūtra 2.2.17. kiṃ ca ayutasiddhatvam ekakālatvaṃ ekadeśatvaṃ ekasvabhāvatvaṃ vā -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 126. The only difference is in the use of the word 'eka' instead of 'apṛthak' by Ānandajñāna.

[25]:

ekapadārthe aparapadārthavattvam -Rāmarudrīya on Annaṃbhaṭṭa's Tarkasaṃgrhadīpikā, Śabdapariccheda (Tarkasaṃgraha (Annaṃbhaṭṭa), p. 340).

[26]:

vākyaṃ tvākāṅkṣāyogyatāsaṃnidhimatāṃ padānāṃ samūhaḥ -Tarkabhāṣā (Keśava Miśra) (Pramāṇapadārtha), p. 47

[27]:

agninā siñcet -Tarkabhāṣā (Keśava Miśra) (Pramāṇapadārtha), p. 47

[28]:

sekarūpaṃ kāryaṃ prati karaṇatvamagneḥ pratipāditam / na cāgniḥ seke karaṇībhavituṃ yogyaḥ -Tarkabhāṣā (Keśava Miśra) (Pramāṇapadārtha), p. 48

[29]:

tena kāryakāraṇabhāvalakṣaṇasaṃbandhe'gnisekayorayogyatvād -Tarkabhāṣā (Keśava Miśra) (Pramāṇapadārtha), p. 48

[30]:

aparokṣānubhavakāryānumeyaḥ yogyatākhyaḥ sambandhaḥ -Nyāyasāra (Bhāsarvajña) (Pariccheda 3), p. 432. In their commentators on this portion of Nyāyasāra, Aparārka and Ānandānubhava take it to be the idea of Mīmāṃsakas.

[31]:

cakṣurādīnāṃ tu svārthaiḥ saha yogyatākhya eva sambandha iṣṭaḥ -Nyāyabhūṣaṇa autocommentary on the same portion of Nyāyasāra (Bhāsarvajña) See Footnote 1018.

[32]:

dvānāṃ ādhārādheyabhūtānāṃ ihapratyayasya yogyatākhyānugatasambandhādapi siddhau pāriśeṣyāsiddheḥ -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 127

[33]:

svaguṇān prati pūrvabhāvitvādbhavati guṇānāṃ kāraṇam -Tarkabhāṣā (Keśava Miśra) (Pramāṇapadārtha), p. 30

[34]:

iha dravye guṇaḥ

[35]:

samavāyikāraṇaṃ dravyamiti dravyalakṣaṇayogāt/ yogyatayā guṇāśrayatvācca/ -Tarkabhāṣā (Keśava Miśra) (Pramāṇapadārtha), p. 31

[36]:

sambandhibhede'nekatvaṃ saṃyoge gamyate yathā/ tathaiva samavāye'pi tadekatvaṃ kuto matam// -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 127

[37]:

guṇātyantābhāvānadhikaraṇatvam -Tarkabhāṣā (Keśava Miśra) (Pramāṇapadārtha), p. 31

[38]:

see 3.2.8

[39]:

samavāyo'pi ca naiko jalādergandhādimattvaprasaṅgāt paraṃ tu nānaiva -Padārthatattvanirūpaṇa (Raghunātha Śiromaṇi) (Samavāyanānātvavicāra), p. 154

[40]:

pṛthivyāṃ gandhasamavāyasya jalaniṣṭhasnehasamavāyasyābhinnatayā jalādāvapi gandhasamavāyasattvāt tatra gandhavattāpratītiḥ durvāreti bhāvaḥ -Padārthatattvanirūpaṇa (Raghunātha Śiromaṇi) (Samavāyanānātvavicāra), 154

[41]:

na ca jale gandhanirūpitatvaviśiṣṭasamavāyābhāvānna gandhavattāpratītiriti vācyam/ viśiṣṭasyātiriktatvābhāvena jale'pi tatsattvāt tathāvidhaviśiṣṭanirūpitādhikaraṇatāyā atiriktatve kimaparāddhaṃ vibhinnasamavāyairiti// -Padārthatattvanirūpaṇa (Raghunātha Śiromaṇi) (Samavāyanānātvavicāra), p. 154