FOOTNOTES:

"This agent of cognition, blinded by illusion, transmigrates through the fatality of works:"Taught his divine nature by science, as pure intelligence, he is enfranchised."

"This agent of cognition, blinded by illusion, transmigrates through the fatality of works:

"Taught his divine nature by science, as pure intelligence, he is enfranchised."

It may be asked: If the subject and the object are identical, what difference can there be between the self bound and the self liberated in regard to the objects cognisable by each? The answer to this question is given in a section of the Tattvártha-Saṅgraha—

"Self liberated cognises all that is cognisable as identical with itself, like Maheśvara free from bondage: the other (or unliberated) self has in it infinite plurality."

An objection may be raised: If the divine nature is essential to the soul, there can be no occasion to seek for this recognition; for if all requisites be supplied, the seed does not fail to germinate because it is unrecognised. Why, then, this toilsome effort for the recognition of the soul? To such an objection we reply: Only listen to the secret we shall tell you. All activity about objects is of two degrees, being either external, as the activity of the seed in developing the plant, or internal, as the activity which determines felicity, which consists in an intuition which terminates in the conscious self. The first degree of activity presupposes no such recognition as the system proposes, the second does presuppose it. In the Recognitive System the peculiar activity is the exertion of the power of unifying personal and impersonal spirit, a power which is the attainment of the highest and of mediate ends, the activity consisting in the intuition I am God. To this activity a recognition of the essential nature of the soul is a pre-requisite.

It may be urged that peculiar activity terminating in the conscious self is observed independent of recognition.To this it is replied: A certain damsel, hearing of the many good qualities of a particular gallant, fell in love with him before she had seen him, and agitated by her passion and unable to suffer the pain of not seeing him, wrote to him a love-letter descriptive of her condition. He at once came to her, but when she saw him she did not recognise in him the qualities she had heard about; he appeared much the same as any other man, and she found no gratification in his society. So soon, however, as she recognised those qualities in him as her companions now pointed them out, she was fully gratified. In like manner, though the personal self be manifested as identical with the universal soul, its manifestation effects no complete satisfaction so long as there is no recognition of those attributes; but as soon as it is taught by a spiritual director to recognise in itself the perfections of Maheśvara, his omniscience, omnipotence, and other attributes, it attains the whole pleroma of being.

It is therefore said in the fourth section—

"As the gallant standing before the damsel is disdained as like all other men, so long as he is unrecognised, though he humble himself before her with all manner of importunities: In like manner the personal self of mankind, though it be the universal soul, in which there is no perfection unrealised, attains not its own glorious nature; and therefore this recognition thereof must come into play."

This system has been treated in detail by Abhinava-gupta and other teachers, but as we have in hand a summary exposition of systems, we cannot extend the discussion of it any further lest our work become too prolix. This then may suffice.[152]

A. E. G.

FOOTNOTES:[150]Readbhávánforbhávát.[151]Cf.supra, p. 113. Mádhava here condenses Abhinava Gupta's commentary. Abhinava Gupta lived in the beginning of the eleventh century (see Bühler's Tour in Cashmere, pp. 66, 80).[152]I have seen in Calcutta a short Comm. on the Śiva sútras by Utpala, the son of Udayákara (cf. pp. 130, 131).—E. B. C.

[150]Readbhávánforbhávát.

[151]Cf.supra, p. 113. Mádhava here condenses Abhinava Gupta's commentary. Abhinava Gupta lived in the beginning of the eleventh century (see Bühler's Tour in Cashmere, pp. 66, 80).

[152]I have seen in Calcutta a short Comm. on the Śiva sútras by Utpala, the son of Udayákara (cf. pp. 130, 131).—E. B. C.

Other Máheśvaras there are who, while they hold the identity of self with God, insist upon the tenet that the liberation in this life taught in all the systems depends upon the stability of the bodily frame, and therefore celebrate the virtues of mercury or quicksilver as a means of strengthening the system. Mercury is calledpárada, because it is a means of conveyance beyond the series of transmigratory states. Thus it has been said—

"It gives the farther shore of metempsychosis: it is calledpárada."

And again in the Rasárṇava—

"It is styledpáradabecause it is employed for the highest end by the best votaries."Since this in sleep identical with me, goddess, arises from my members, and is the exudation of my body, it is calledrasa."

"It is styledpáradabecause it is employed for the highest end by the best votaries.

"Since this in sleep identical with me, goddess, arises from my members, and is the exudation of my body, it is calledrasa."

It may be urged that the literal interpretation of these words is incorrect, the liberation in this life being explicable in another manner. This objection is not allowable, liberation being set out in the six systems as subsequent to the death of the body, and upon this there can be no reliance, and consequently no activity to attain to it free from misgivings. This is also laid down in the same treatise—

"Liberation is declared in the six systems to follow the death of the body."Such liberation is not cognised in perception like an emblic myrobalan fruit in the hand."Therefore a man should preserve that body by means of mercury and of medicaments."

"Liberation is declared in the six systems to follow the death of the body.

"Such liberation is not cognised in perception like an emblic myrobalan fruit in the hand.

"Therefore a man should preserve that body by means of mercury and of medicaments."

Govinda-bhagavat also says—

"Holding that the enjoyments of wealth and of the body are not permanent, one should strive"After emancipation; but emancipation results from knowledge, knowledge from study, and study is only possible in a healthy body."

"Holding that the enjoyments of wealth and of the body are not permanent, one should strive

"After emancipation; but emancipation results from knowledge, knowledge from study, and study is only possible in a healthy body."

The body, some one may say, is seen to be perishable, how can its permanency be effected? Think not so, it is replied, for though the body, as a complexus of six sheaths or wrappers of the soul, is dissoluble, yet the body, as created by Hara and Gaurí under the names of mercury and mica, may be perdurable. Thus it is said in the Rasahṛidaya—

"They who, without quitting the body, have attained to a new body, the creation of Hara and Gaurí,"They are to be lauded, perfected by mercury, at whose service is the aggregate of magic texts."

"They who, without quitting the body, have attained to a new body, the creation of Hara and Gaurí,

"They are to be lauded, perfected by mercury, at whose service is the aggregate of magic texts."

The ascetic, therefore, who aspires to liberation in this life should first make to himself a glorified body. And inasmuch as mercury is produced by the creative conjunction of Hara and Gaurí, and mica is produced from Gaurí, mercury and mica are severally identified with Hara and Gaurí in the verse—

"Mica is thy seed, and mercury is my seed;"The combination of the two, O goddess, is destructive of death and poverty."

"Mica is thy seed, and mercury is my seed;

"The combination of the two, O goddess, is destructive of death and poverty."

This is very little to say about the matter. In the Raseśvara-siddhánta many among the gods, the Daityas, the Munis, and mankind, are declared to have attained to liberation in this life by acquiring a divine body through the efficacy of quicksilver.

"Certain of the gods, Maheśa and others; certain Daityas, Śukra and others;"Certain Munis, the Bálakhilyas and others; certain kings, Someśvara and others;"Govinda-bhagavat, Govinda-náyaka,"Charvaṭi, Kapila, Vyáli, Kápáli, Kandaláyana,"These and many others proceed perfected, liberated while alive,"Having attained to a mercurial body, and therewith identified."

"Certain of the gods, Maheśa and others; certain Daityas, Śukra and others;

"Certain Munis, the Bálakhilyas and others; certain kings, Someśvara and others;

"Govinda-bhagavat, Govinda-náyaka,

"Charvaṭi, Kapila, Vyáli, Kápáli, Kandaláyana,

"These and many others proceed perfected, liberated while alive,

"Having attained to a mercurial body, and therewith identified."

The meaning of this, as explicated by Parameśvara to Parameśvarí, is as follows:—

"By the method of works is attained, O supreme of goddesses, the preservation of the body;"And the method of works is said to be twofold, mercury and air,"Mercury and air swooning carry off diseases, dead they restore to life,"Bound they give the power of flying about."

"By the method of works is attained, O supreme of goddesses, the preservation of the body;

"And the method of works is said to be twofold, mercury and air,

"Mercury and air swooning carry off diseases, dead they restore to life,

"Bound they give the power of flying about."

The swooning state of mercury is thus described—

"They say quicksilver to be swooning when it is perceived, as characterised thus—"Of various colours, and free from excessive volatility."A man should regard that quicksilver as dead, in which the following marks are seen—"Wetness, thickness, brightness, heaviness, mobility."

"They say quicksilver to be swooning when it is perceived, as characterised thus—

"Of various colours, and free from excessive volatility.

"A man should regard that quicksilver as dead, in which the following marks are seen—

"Wetness, thickness, brightness, heaviness, mobility."

The bound condition is described in another place as follows:—

"The character of bound quicksilver is that it is—"Continuous, fluent, luminous, pure, heavy, and that it parts asunder under friction."

"The character of bound quicksilver is that it is—

"Continuous, fluent, luminous, pure, heavy, and that it parts asunder under friction."

Some one may urge: If the creation of mercury by Hara and Gaurí were proved, it might be allowed that the body could be made permanent; but how can that be proved? The objection is not allowable, inasmuch as thatcanbe proved by the eighteen modes of elaboration. Thus it is stated by the authorities—

"Eighteen modes of elaboration are to be carefully discriminated,"In the first place, as pure in every process, for perfecting the adepts."

"Eighteen modes of elaboration are to be carefully discriminated,

"In the first place, as pure in every process, for perfecting the adepts."

And these modes of elaboration are enumerated thus—

"Sweating, rubbing, swooning, fixing, dropping, coercion, restraining,"Kindling, going, falling into globules, pulverising, covering,"Internal flux, external flux, burning, colouring, and pouring,"And eating it by parting and piercing it,—are the eighteen modes of treating quicksilver."

"Sweating, rubbing, swooning, fixing, dropping, coercion, restraining,

"Kindling, going, falling into globules, pulverising, covering,

"Internal flux, external flux, burning, colouring, and pouring,

"And eating it by parting and piercing it,—are the eighteen modes of treating quicksilver."

These treatments have been described at length by Govinda-bhagavat, Sarvajña-rámeśvara and the other ancient authorities, and are here omitted to avoid prolixity.

The mercurial system is not to be looked upon as merely eulogistic of the metal, it being immediately, through the conservation of the body, a means to the highest end, liberation. Thus it is said in the Rasárṇava—

"Declare to me, O god, that supremely efficacious destruction of the blood, that destruction of the body, imparted by thee, whereby it attained the power of flying about in the sky. Goddess (he replied), quicksilver is to be applied both to the blood and to the body. This makes the appearance of body and blood alike. A man should first try it upon the blood, and then apply it to the body."

It will be asked: Why should we make this effort to acquire a celestial body, seeing that liberation is effected by the self-manifestation of the supreme principle, existence, intelligence, and beatitude? We reply: This is no objection, such liberation being inaccessible unless we acquire a healthy body. Thus it is said in the Rasahṛidaya—

"That intelligence and bliss set forth in all the systems in which a multitude of uncertainties are melted away,"Though it manifest itself, what can it effect for beings whose bodies are unglorified?"He who is worn out with decrepitude, though he be free from cough, from asthma, and similar infirmities,"He is not qualified for meditation in whom the activities of the cognitive organs are obstructed."A youth of sixteen addicted to the last degree to the enjoyment of sensual pleasures,"An old man in his dotage, how should either of these attain to emancipation?"

"That intelligence and bliss set forth in all the systems in which a multitude of uncertainties are melted away,

"Though it manifest itself, what can it effect for beings whose bodies are unglorified?

"He who is worn out with decrepitude, though he be free from cough, from asthma, and similar infirmities,

"He is not qualified for meditation in whom the activities of the cognitive organs are obstructed.

"A youth of sixteen addicted to the last degree to the enjoyment of sensual pleasures,

"An old man in his dotage, how should either of these attain to emancipation?"

Some one will object: It is the nature of the personal soul to pass through a series of embodiments, and to be liberated is to be extricated from that series of embodiments; how, then, can these two mutually exclusive conditions pertain to the same bodily tenement? The objection is invalid, as unable to stand before the following dilemmatic argument:—Is this extrication, as to the nature of which all the founders of institutes are at one, to be held as cognisable or as incognisable? If it is incognisable, it is a pure chimera; if it is cognisable, we cannot dispense with life, for that which is not alive cannot be cognisant of it. Thus it is said in the Rasasiddhánta—

"The liberation of the personal soul is declared in the mercurial system, O subtile thinker."In the tenets of other schools which repose on a diversity of argument,"Know that this knowledge and knowable is allowed in all sacred texts;"One not living cannot know the knowable, and therefore there is and must be life."

"The liberation of the personal soul is declared in the mercurial system, O subtile thinker.

"In the tenets of other schools which repose on a diversity of argument,

"Know that this knowledge and knowable is allowed in all sacred texts;

"One not living cannot know the knowable, and therefore there is and must be life."

And this is not to be supposed to be unprecedented, for the adherents of the doctrine of Vishṇu-svámin maintain the eternity of the body of Vishṇu half-man and half-lion. Thus it is said in the Sákára-siddhi—

"I glorify the man-lion set forth by Vishṇu-svámin,"Whose only body is existence, intelligence, and eternal and inconceivably perfect beatitude."

"I glorify the man-lion set forth by Vishṇu-svámin,

"Whose only body is existence, intelligence, and eternal and inconceivably perfect beatitude."

If the objection be raised that the body of the man-lion, which appears as composite and as coloured, is incompatible with real existence, it may be replied: How can the body of the man-lion be otherwise than really existent, proved as it is by three kinds of proof: (1.) by the intuition of Śanaka and others; (2.) by Vedic texts such as, A thousand heads has Purusha; and (3.) by Puráṇic texts such as, That wondrous child, lotus-eyed, four-armed, armed with the conch-shell, the club, and other weapons? Real existence and other like predicates are affirmed also by Śríkánta-miśra, the devoted adherent of Vishṇu-svámin. Let, then, those who aspire to the highest end of personal souls be assured that the eternity of the body which we are setting forth is by no means a mere innovation. It has thus been said—

"What higher beatitude is there than a body undecaying, immortal,"The repository of sciences, the root of merit, riches, pleasure, liberation?"

"What higher beatitude is there than a body undecaying, immortal,

"The repository of sciences, the root of merit, riches, pleasure, liberation?"

It is mercury alone that can make the body undecaying and immortal, as it is said—

"Only this supreme medicament can make the body undecaying and imperishable."

Why describe the efficacy of this metal? Its value is proved even by seeing it, and by touching it, as it is said in the Rasárṇava—

"From seeing it, from touching it, from eating it, from merely remembering it,"From worshipping it, from tasting it, from imparting it, appear its six virtues."Equal merit accrues from seeing mercury as accrues from seeing all the phallic emblems"On earth, those at Kedára, and all others whatsoever."

"From seeing it, from touching it, from eating it, from merely remembering it,

"From worshipping it, from tasting it, from imparting it, appear its six virtues.

"Equal merit accrues from seeing mercury as accrues from seeing all the phallic emblems

"On earth, those at Kedára, and all others whatsoever."

In another place we read—

"The adoration of the sacred quicksilver is more beatific than the worship of all the phallic emblems at Káśi and elsewhere,"Inasmuch as there is attained thereby enjoyment, health, exemption from decay, and immortality."

"The adoration of the sacred quicksilver is more beatific than the worship of all the phallic emblems at Káśi and elsewhere,

"Inasmuch as there is attained thereby enjoyment, health, exemption from decay, and immortality."

The sin of disparaging mercury is also set out—

"The adept on hearing quicksilver heedlessly disparaged should recall quicksilver to mind."He should at once shun the blasphemer, who is by his blasphemy for ever filled with sin."

"The adept on hearing quicksilver heedlessly disparaged should recall quicksilver to mind.

"He should at once shun the blasphemer, who is by his blasphemy for ever filled with sin."

The attainment, then, of the highest end of the personal soul takes place by an intuition of the highest principle by means of the practice of union (ἕνωσις after the acquisition of a divine body in the manner we have described. Thereafter—

"The light of pure intelligence shines forth unto certain men of holy vision,"Which, seated between the two eyebrows, illumines the universe, like fire, or lightning, or the sun:"Perfect beatitude, unalloyed, absolute, the essence whereof is luminousness, undifferenced,"From which all troubles are fallen away, knowable, tranquil, self-recognised:"Fixing the internal organ upon that, seeing the whole universe manifested, made of pure intelligence,"The aspirant even in this life attains to the absolute, his bondage to works annulled."

"The light of pure intelligence shines forth unto certain men of holy vision,

"Which, seated between the two eyebrows, illumines the universe, like fire, or lightning, or the sun:

"Perfect beatitude, unalloyed, absolute, the essence whereof is luminousness, undifferenced,

"From which all troubles are fallen away, knowable, tranquil, self-recognised:

"Fixing the internal organ upon that, seeing the whole universe manifested, made of pure intelligence,

"The aspirant even in this life attains to the absolute, his bondage to works annulled."

A Vedic text also declares: That is Rasa (mercury), having obtained this he becomes beatitude.

Thus, then, it has been shown that mercury alone is the means of passing beyond the burden of transmigratory pains. And conformably we have a verse which sets forth the identity between mercury and the supreme self—

"May that mercury, which is the very self, preserve us from dejection and from the terrors of metempsychosis,"Which is naturally to be applied again and again by those that aspire to liberation from the enveloping illusion,"Which perfected endures, which plays not again when the soul awakes,"Which, when it arises, pains no other soul, which shines forth by itself from itself."

"May that mercury, which is the very self, preserve us from dejection and from the terrors of metempsychosis,

"Which is naturally to be applied again and again by those that aspire to liberation from the enveloping illusion,

"Which perfected endures, which plays not again when the soul awakes,

"Which, when it arises, pains no other soul, which shines forth by itself from itself."

A. E. G.

FOOTNOTES:[153]Cf. Marco Polo's account of the Indian yogís in Colonel Yule's edit. vol. ii. p. 300.Párada-pánais one of the practices of the Siddhopásakas in the Śaṅkara-digvijaya, § 49, to obviateapamṛityu,akálamṛityu, &c.

[153]Cf. Marco Polo's account of the Indian yogís in Colonel Yule's edit. vol. ii. p. 300.Párada-pánais one of the practices of the Siddhopásakas in the Śaṅkara-digvijaya, § 49, to obviateapamṛityu,akálamṛityu, &c.

Whoso wishes to escape the reality of pain, which is established by the consciousness of every soul through its being felt to be essentially contrary to every rational being, and wishes therefore to know the means of such escape,—learns that the knowledge of the Supreme Being is the true means thereof, from the authority of such passages as these (Śvetáśvatara Upan. vi. 20)—

"When men shall roll up the sky as a piece of leather,"Then shall there be an end of pain without the knowledge of Śiva."

"When men shall roll up the sky as a piece of leather,

"Then shall there be an end of pain without the knowledge of Śiva."

Now the knowledge of the Supreme is to be gained by hearing (śravaṇa), thought (manana), and reflection (bhávaná), as it has been said—

"By scripture, by inference, and by the force of repeated meditation,—"By these three methods producing knowledge, he gains the highest union (yoga)."

"By scripture, by inference, and by the force of repeated meditation,—

"By these three methods producing knowledge, he gains the highest union (yoga)."

Here thought depends on inference, and inference depends on the knowledge of thevyápti(or universal proposition), and the knowledge of thevyáptifollows the right understanding of the categories,—hence the saint Kaṇáda[155]establishes the six categories in his tenfoldtreatise, commencing with the words, "Now, therefore, we shall explain duty."

In the first book, consisting of two daily lessons, he describes all the categories which are capable of intimate relation. In the firstáhnikahe defines those which possess "genus" (játi), in the second "genus" (or "generality") itself and "particularity." In the similarly divided second book he discusses "substance," giving in the firstáhnikathe characteristics of the five elements, and in the second he establishes the existence of space and time. In the third book he defines the soul and the internal sense, the former in the firstáhnika, the latter in the second. In the fourth book he discusses the body and its adjuncts, the latter in the firstáhnika, and the former in the second. In the fifth book he investigates action; in the firstáhnikahe considers action as connected with the body, in the second as belonging to the mind. In the sixth book he examines merit and demerit as revealed in Śruti; in the firstáhnikahe discusses the merit of giving, receiving gifts, &c., in the second the duties of the four periods of religious life. In the seventh book he discusses quality and intimate relation; in the firstáhnikahe considers the qualities independent of thought, in the second those qualities which are related to it, and also intimate relation. In the eighth book he examines "indeterminate" and "determinate" perception, and means of proof. In the ninth book he discusses the characteristics of intellect. In the tenth book he establishes the different kinds of inference.[156]

The method of this system is said to be threefold, "enunciation," "definition," and "investigation."[157]"But," it may be objected, "ought we not to include 'division,'and so make the method fourfold, not threefold?" We demur to this, because "division" is really included in a particular kind of enunciation. Thus when we declare that substance, quality, action, generality, particularity, and intimate relation are the only six positive categories,—this is an example of enunciation. If you ask "What is the reason for this definite order of the categories?" we answer as follows:—Since "substance" is the chief, as being the substratum of all the categories, we enounce this first; next "quality," since it resides in its generic character in all substances [though different substances have different qualities]; then "action," as it agrees with "substance" and "quality" in possessing "generality;"[158]then "generality," as residing in these three; then "particularity," inasmuch as it possesses "intimate relation;"[159]lastly, "intimate relation" itself; such is the principle of arrangement.

If you ask, "Why do you say that there are only six categories since 'non-existence' is also one?" we answer: Because we wish to speak of the six as positive categories,i.e., as being the objects of conceptions which do not involve a negative idea. "Still," the objector may retort, "how do you establish this definite number 'only six'? for either horn of the alternative fails. For, we ask, is the thing to be thus excluded already thoroughly ascertained or not? If it is thoroughly ascertained, why do you exclude it? and still more so, if it is not thoroughly ascertained? What sensible man, pray, spends his strength in denying that a mouse has horns? Thus your definite number 'only six' fails as being inapplicable." This, however, we cannot admit; if darkness, &c., are allowed to form certainly a seventh category (as "non-existence"), we thus (by our definite number) deny it to be one of the sixpositivecategories,—and if others attempt to include"capacity," "number," &c., which we allow to be certainly positive existences, we thus deny that they make aseventhcategory. But enough of this long discussion.

Substantiality, &c. (dravyatvádi),i.e., the genera of substance, quality, and action, are the definition of the triad substance, quality, and action respectively. The genus of substance (dravyatva) is that which, while it alike exists with intimate relation in the (eternal) sky and the (transitory) lotus, is itself eternal,[160]and does not exist with intimate relation in smell.[161]

The genus of quality (guṇatva) is that which is immediately subordinate to the genus existence, and exists with intimate relation in whatever is not an intimate or mediate cause.[162]The genus of action (karmatva) is that which is immediately subordinate to the genus existence, and is not found with intimate relation in anything eternal.[163]Generality (or genus,sámánya) is that which is found in many things with intimate relation, and can never be the counter-entity to emergent non-existence.[164]Particularity[165](viśesha) exists with intimate relation, but it is destituteof generality, which stops mutual non-existence.[166]Intimate relation (samaváya) is that connection which itself has not intimate relation.[167]Such are the definitions of the six categories.

Substance is ninefold,—earth, water, fire, air, ether, time, space, soul, and mind. The genera of earth, &c. (pṛithivítva), are the definitions of the first four. The genus of earth is that generality which is immediately subordinate to substance, and resides in the same subject with colour produced by baking.[168]

The genus of water is that generality which is found with intimate relation in water, being also found in intimate relation in river and sea. The genus of fire is that generality which is found with intimate relation in fire, being also found with intimate relation in the moon and gold. The genus of air is that which is immediately subordinate to substance, and is found with intimate relation in the organ of the skin.[169]

As ether, space, and time, from their being single, cannot be subordinate genera, their several names stand respectively for their technical appellations. Ether is the abode of particularity, and is found in the same subject with the non-eternal (janya) special quality which is not produced by contact.[170]

Time is that which, being a pervading substance, is the abode of the mediate cause[171]of that idea of remoteness(paratva) which is not found with intimate relation in space;[172]while space is that pervading substance which possesses no special qualities and yet is not time.[173]The general termsátmatvaandmanastvaare the respective definitions of soul (átman) and mind (manas). The general idea of soul is that which is subordinate to substance, being also found with intimate relation in that which is without form[174](amúrtta). The general idea of mind is that which is subordinate to substance, being also found existing with intimate relation in an atom, but [unlike other atoms] not the intimate cause of any substance. There are twenty-four qualities; seventeen are mentioned directly in Kaṇáda's Sútras (i. 1, 6), "colour, taste, smell, touch, number, quantity, severalty, conjunction, disjunction, remoteness, proximity, intelligence, pleasure, pain, desire, aversion, and effort;" and, besides these, seven others are understood in the word "and," viz., gravity, fluidity, viscidity, faculty, merit, demerit, and sound. Their respective genera (rúpatva, &c.) are their several definitions. The class or genus of "colour" is that which is subordinate to quality and exists with intimate relation in blue. In the same way may be formed the definitions of the rest.

"Action" is fivefold, according to the distinction of throwing upwards, throwing downwards, contracting, expanding, and going: revolution, evacuating, &c., being included under "going." The genus of throwing upwards, &c., will be their respective definitions. The genus of throwing upwards is a subordinate genus to action; it exists with intimate relation, and is to be known as the mediate cause of conjunction with a higher place. In the same manner are to be made the definitions of throwing downwards, &c. Generality (or genus) is twofold, extensive and non-extensive; existence is extensive as found with intimate connection in substance and quality,or in quality and action; substance, &c., are non-extensive. The definition of generality has been given before. Particularity and intimate relation cannot be divided,—in the former case in consequence of the infinite number of separate particularities, in the latter from intimate relation being but one; their definitions have been given before.

There is a popular proverb—

"Duality, change produced by baking, and disjunction produced by disjunction,—he whose mind vacillates not in these three is the true Vaiśeshika;" and therefore we will now show the manner of the production of duality, &c.

There is here first the contact of the organ of sense with the object; thence there arises the knowledge of the genus unity; then the distinguishing perceptionapekshábuddhi[by which we apprehend "this is one," "this is one," &c.]; then the production of duality,dvitva(in the object);[175]then the knowledge of the abstract genus of duality (dvitvatva); then the knowledge of the quality duality as it exists in the two things; then imagination[176](saṃskára).[177]

But it may here be asked what is the proof of duality, &c., being thus produced fromapekshábuddhi? The great doctor (Udayana) maintained thatapekshábuddhimust be the producer of duality, &c., because duality is never found separated from it, while, at the same time, we cannot holdapekshábuddhias the cause only of its being known [and therefore it follows that it must be the cause of its being produced[178]], just as contact is with regard to sound. We, however, maintain the same opinion by adifferent argument; duality, &c., cannot be held to be made known (jñápya) by that non-eternal apprehension whose object is two or more individual unities (i.e.,apekshábuddhi), because these are qualities which reside in a plurality of subjects [and not in any one individual[179]] just as "severalty" does [and, therefore, asapekshábuddhiis not theirjñápaka, it must be theirjanaka].

Next we will describe the order of the successive destructions. Fromapekshábuddhiarises, simultaneously with the production of duality (dvitva), the destruction of the knowledge of the genus of unity; next from the knowledge of the genus of duality (dvitvatva) arises, simultaneously with the knowledge of the quality duality, the destruction ofapekshábuddhi; next from the destruction ofapekshábuddhiarises, simultaneously with the knowledge of the two substances, the destruction of the duality; next from the knowledge of the two substances arises, simultaneously with the production of imagination (saṃskára), the destruction of the knowledge of the quality; and next from imagination arises the destruction of the knowledge of the substances.

The evidence for the destruction of one kind of knowledge by another, and for the destruction of another knowledge by imagination, is to be found in the following argument; these knowledges themselves which are the subjects of the discussionaresuccessively destroyed by the rise of others produced from them, because knowledge, like sound, is a special quality of an all-pervading substance, and of momentary duration.[180]I may briefly add, that when you have the knowledge of the genus of unity simultaneously with an action in one of the two things themselves, producing that separation which is the oppositeto the conjunction that produced the whole, in that case you have the subsequent destruction of duality produced by the destruction of its abiding-place (the two things); but where you have this separate action taking place simultaneously with the rise ofapekshábuddhi, there you have the destruction of duality produced by the united influence of both.[181]

Apekshábuddhiis to be considered as that operation of the mind which is the counter-entity to that emergent non-existence (i.e., destruction) which itself causes a subsequent destruction.[182]

Next we will inquire in how many moments, commencing with the destruction of the compound of two atoms (thedvyaṇuka), another compound of two atoms is produced, having colour, &c. In the course of this investigation the mode of production will be explained. First, the compound of two atoms is gradually destroyed by the series of steps commencing with the contact of fire;[183]secondly, from the conjunction of fire arises the destruction of the qualities black, &c., in the single atom; thirdly, from another conjunction of fire arises the production of red, &c., in the atom; fourthly, from conjunction with a soul possessing merit arises an action[184]in the atom for the production of a substance; fifthly, by that action is produced a separation of that atom from its former place; sixthly, there is produced thereby the destruction of its conjunction with that former place; seventhly, is produced the conjunction with another atom; eighthly, from these two atoms arises the compound of two atoms; ninthly, from the qualities, &c., of the causes (i.e., the atoms) are produced colour, &c., the qualities of the effect (i.e., thedvyaṇuka). Such is the order of the series of nine moments. The other two series,[185]that of the ten and that of the eleven moments, are omitted for fear of prolixity. Such is the mode of production, if we hold (with the Vaiśeshikas) that the baking process takes place in theatoms of the jar.[186]The Naiyáyikas, however, maintain that the baking process takes place in the jar.

"Disjunction produced by disjunction" is twofold,—that produced by the disjunction of the intimate [or material] causes only, and that produced by the disjunction of the intimate cause and the non-cause [i.e., the place]. We will first describe the former kind.

It is a fixed rule that when the action of breaking arises in the [material] cause which is inseparably connected with the effect [i.e., in one of the two halves of the pot], and produces a disjunction from the other half, there is not produced at that time a disjunction from the place or point of space occupied by the pot; and, again, when there is a disjunction from that point of space occupied by the pot, the disjunction from the other half is not contemporary with it, but has already taken place. For just as we never see smoke without its cause, fire, so we never see that effect of the breaking in the pot which we call the disjunction from the point of space,[187]without there having previously been the origination of that disjunction of the halves which stops the conjunction whereby the pot was brought into being. Therefore the action of breaking in the parts produces the disjunction of one part from another, but not the disjunction from the point of space; next, this disjunction of one part from another produces the destruction of that conjunction which had brought the pot into existence; and thence arises the destruction of the pot, according to the principle,cessante causâ cessat effectus. The pot being thus destroyed, that disjunction, whichresides in both the halves (which are the material or intimate causes of the pot) during the time that is marked by the destruction of the pot or perhaps having reference only to one independent half, initiates, in the case of that half where the breaking began, a disjunction from the point of space which had been connected with the pot; but not in the case of the other half, as there is no cause to produce it.[188]

But the second kind is as follows:—As action which arises in the hand, and causes a disjunction from that with which it was in contact, initiates a disjunction[189]from the points of space in which the original conjunction took place; and this is "the disjunction of the intimate cause and the non-cause." When the action in the hand produces an effect in relation to any points of space, it initiates also in the same direction a disjunction of the intimate effect and the non-effect; thus the disjunction of the body [the intimate effect] and the points of space arises from the disjunction of the hand and the points of space [the hand being an intimate or material cause of the body, but the points of space being not a cause]. This second disjunction is not produced by the action of the body, because the body is supposed to be at the time inactive; nor is it produced by the action of the hand, because it is impossible that an action residing in some other place [as the hand] should produce the effect of disjunction [in the body]. Therefore we conclude by exhaustion that we must accept the view—that it is the disjunction of the intimate cause and thenon-cause[190]which causes the second disjunction of the body and the points of space.

But an opponent may here object that "what you formerly stated (p. 147) as to existence being denied of darkness, &c., is surely unreasonable; for, in fact, there are no less than four different opinions maintained on this point,—thus (a.) the Bháṭṭa Mímáṃsakas and the Vedántins hold that darkness is a substance; (b.) Śrídhara Áchárya[191]holds that the colour of dark blue is imposed [and thus darkness will be a quality]; (c.) some of the Prábhákara Mímáṃsakas hold that it is the absence of the cognition of light; (d.) the Naiyáyikas, &c., hold that it is the absence of light." In reply, we assert that as for the first alleged opinion (a.) it is quite out of the question, as it is consistent with neither of the two possible alternatives; for if darkness is a substance, it must either be one of the nine well-known substances, earth, &c.,[192]or some different one. But it cannot be any one of the nine, since, under whichever one you would place it, all the qualities of that substance should certainly be found in it; nor can you, on the other hand, assert that it is some substance different from these nine, since, being in itself destitute of qualities, it cannot properly be a substance at all [the very definition of substance being "that which is the substratum of qualities"], and therefore, of course, it cannot be a different substance from the nine. But you may ask, "How can you say that darkness is destitute of qualities, when it is perceived as possessed of the dark blue of the tamála blossom?" We reply, that this is merely an error, as when men say that the [colourless] sky is blue. But enough of this onslaught on ancient sages.[193](b.) Hence it follows that darkness cannot have its colour imposed upon it, since you cannot have an imposition of colour without supposing some substratumto receive it;[194]and again, we cannot conceive the eye as capable of imposing a colour when deprived of the concurrent cause, the external light. Nor can we accept that it is an impression independent of the eye [i.e., produced by the internal sense, mind], because the concurrence of the eye is not a superfluous but an indispensable condition to its being produced. Nor can you maintain that "absence or non-existence (abháva[195]) is incapable of being expressed by affirmative tense affixes [and, therefore, as wedouse such phrases astenebræ oriuntur, darkness cannot be a mere non-existence"]; because your assertion is too broad, as it would include such cases of non-existence as a mundane collapse, destruction, inattention,[196]&c. [and yet we all know that men do speak of any of these things as past, present, or future, and yet all are cases ofabháva]. (c.) Hence darkness cannot be the absence of the cognition of light, since, by the well-known rule that that organ which perceives a certain object can also perceive its absence, it would follow that darkness would be perceived by the mind [since it is the mind which perceives cognitions].[197]Hence we conclude that the fourth or remaining opinion must be the true one, viz., that darkness is only the absence of light. And it need not be objected that it is very difficult to account for the attribution to non-existence of the qualities of existence, for we all see that the quality happinessisattributed to the absence of pain, and the idea of separation is connected with the absence of conjunction. And you need not assert that "this absence of light must be the object of a cognition produced by the eye in dependence on light, since it is the absence of an object possessing colour,[198]as we see in the case of a jar'sabsence," because by the very rule on which you rely, viz., that that on which the eye depends to perceive an object, it must also depend on to perceive that object's absence, it follows that as there is no dependence of the eye on light to perceive light, it need not depend thereon to perceive this light's absence. Nor need our opponent retort that "the cognition of darkness [as the absence of light] necessitates the cognition of the place where the absence resides [andthiswill require light]," as such an assertion is quite untenable, for we cannot admit that in order to have a conception of absence it is necessary to have a conception of the place where the absence resides, else we could not have the perception of the cessation of sound, as is implied in such an expression as "the tumult has ceased."[199]Hence, having all these difficulties in his mind, the venerable Kaṇáda uttered his aphorism [as anipse dixitto settle the question]: "Dravya-guṇa-karma-nish-patti-vaidharmyád abhávas tamas" (Vaiś. Sút.v. 2, 19), "Darkness is really non-existence, since it is dissimilar to the production of substances, qualities, or actions." The same thing has been also established by the argument that darkness is perceived by the eye[200][without light, whereas all substances, if perceptible at all, require the presence of light as well as of the eye to be visible].

Non-existence (abháva) is considered to be the seventh category, as established by negative proofs. It may be concisely defined as that which, itself not having intimate relation, isnotintimate relation;[201]and this is twofold, "relative non-existence"[202]and "reciprocal non-existence."

The former is again divided into "antecedent," "emergent," and "absolute." "Antecedent" is that non-existence which, though without any beginning, is not everlasting; "emergent" is that which, though having a beginning, is everlasting; "absolute" is that non-existence which abides in its own counter-entity;[203]"reciprocal non-existence" is that which, being different from "absolute," has yet no defined limit [i.e., noterminus ad quemnorterminus a quo, as "antecedent" and "emergent" have].

If you raise the objection that "'reciprocal non-existence' is really the same as 'absolute non-existence,'" we reply that this is indeed to lose one's way in the king's highroad; for "reciprocal non-existence" is that negation whose opposite is held to be identity, as "a jar is not cloth;" but "absolute non-existence" is that negation whose opposite is connection, as "there is no colour in the air."[204]Nor need you here raise the objection that "abhávacan never be a means of producing any good to man," for we maintain that it is hissummum bonum, in the form of final beatitude, which is only another term for the absolute abolition of all pain [and therefore comes under the category ofabháva].

E. B. C.

Back to Index Next