Vaisheshika-sutra with Commentary
by Nandalal Sinha | 1923 | 149,770 words | ISBN-13: 9789332869165
The Vaisheshika-sutra 2.1.16, English translation, including commentaries such as the Upaskara of Shankara Mishra, the Vivriti of Jayanarayana-Tarkapanchanana and the Bhashya of Chandrakanta. The Vaisheshika Sutras teaches the science freedom (moksha-shastra) and the various aspects of the soul (eg., it's nature, suffering and rebirth under the law of karma). This is sutra 6 (‘air is inferred not as such but as a substance in general’) contained in Chapter 1—Of Earth, Waters, Fire, Air, and Ether—of Book II (of substances).
Sūtra 2.1.16 (Air is inferred not as such but as a Substance in general)
Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration, Word-for-word and English translation of Vaiśeṣika sūtra 2.1.16:
सामान्यतो दृष्टाच्चाविशेषः ॥ २.१.१६ ॥
sāmānyato dṛṣṭāccāviśeṣaḥ || 2.1.16 ||
sāmānyato-dṛṣṭāt—from the method of inference known as general inference or inference by analogy; ca—and; aviśeṣaḥ—not in particular, General.
16. And, by inference by analogy, (Air is proved) not as a particular substance, (but as Substance only).
Commentary: The Upaskāra of Śaṅkara Miśra:
(English rendering of Śaṅkara Miśra’s commentary called Upaskāra from the 15th century)
How then can there be any infernce [inference?] at all of Air? Hence to strengthen what has been already stated, he says:
[Read sūtra 2.1.16 above]
Inference is three-fold: from cause to effect, from effect to cause, and from the commonly observed to the unobserved, or from analogy. Thus this Touch which is being felt, must reside somewhere, because it is a Touch or because it is an Attribute. From this analogy or common observation or experience, accompanied by the exclusion of other possibilities, its residence in a Substance in addition to the eight Substances, is proved. This is the meaning.
It cannot be said that the inference from effect to cause is then gone. For after the exclusion of other possibilities, where analogy prevails, there proceeding upon the proved qualification of the minor term that it does not reside in the eight Substances, the proposition that this) Touch which does not reside in the eight Substances must reside somewhere, does not result except on the assumption of its being resident in a Substance in addition to the eight Substances. Therefore the proposed object being not explained otherwise, it is proved by inference from cause to effect alone. But where analogy arises from the appearance of exclusion at the very beginning, there the proposed object results at last and the mode of inference is found to be inference from effect to cause. It is not sound to hold that inference from effect to cause only shows the manner, for in the case of being accompanied by the exclusion of other possibilities, inference from cause to effect itself comes to show the manner. The rule also that inference merely shows the manner which determines the pervasiveness, is not valid, for the appearance of a different manner is possible from the association of particular materials.—16.