Sūtra 7.2.26 (Combination described)

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration, Word-for-word and English translation of Vaiśeṣika sūtra 7.2.26:

इहेदमिति यतः कार्यकारणयोः स समवायः ॥ ७.२.२६ ॥

ihedamiti yataḥ kāryakāraṇayoḥ sa samavāyaḥ || 7.2.26 ||

iha—here, ie, in the cause; idam—this, ie, the effect; iti—such; yataḥ—whence; kārya-kāraṇayoḥ—of effect and cause; saḥ—that; samavāyaḥ—combination.

26. That is Combination by virtue of which (arises the intuition) in the form of “This is here,” with regard to effect and cause.

Commentary: The Upaskāra of Śaṅkara Miśra:

(English rendering of Śaṅkara Miśra’s commentary called Upaskāra from the 15th century)

It has been stated that priority, posteriority, etc., are combined in dense or corporal substances only, and that knowledge, pleasure etc., are combined in the soul. Now what is this combination itself? Having regard to this inquiry of the disciples, he steps over Understanding which is the next subject for treatment according to the order of enumeration, and describes the examination of Combination.

[Read sūtra 7.2.26 above]

‘Kārya-kāraṇayoḥ’ is an indication; non-effect and non-cause also are implied. So it has been said in the section called the Locality of the Predicables, “Combination is that relation of things mutually involved or associated in nature and bearing to one another the relation of the contained and the container,—which is the source of intuition in the form of “(It is) here.” Ayuta-siddhiḥ, inseparable association, is the non-existence of things unrelated. As in the case of “There is curd here in the bowl,” “There are jujubes here in the bowl,” so in the case of “There is cloth here in the threads,” “There is mat here in the reeds,” “There are substance, attribute, and action here in substance,” “There is bovineness here in the cow,” “There is knowledge here in the soul,” “There is Sound here in Ether,” the cognition of here which is thus produced, cannot be produced without some relation; whereby it is inferred that some relation exists. And this relation is not mere conjunction. For the causes of conjunction, namely, action or either of the two things, etc., are absent here; it does not terminate in disjunction; related things do not exist unrelated; it can be inferred as a uniform substratum; it is not perceptible to the senses; it is one; and it is eternal.

Objection.—If combination be one, it would then entail intermixture of substance-ness, etc., since combination of action-ness, etc., would be possible in substance.

Answer.—This cannot be the case, since non-intermixture follows from the very rule of the container and the contained. Although the same combination which is the combination of substance-ness. is also the comibation [combination?] of attribute-ness, action-ness, etc., still substance is not their container or substratum, since they are not observed there.

Substance-ness is observed in substances only, attribute-ness in attributes only, action-ness in actions only, but not elsewhere. It is from the observation of this agreement and difference, that the uniformity (of the container and the contained) results. As even in the absence of a particular conjunction between the bowl and the curd, it is the bowl which is the container, and not the curd, and hence there is the uniformity of the relation of the container and the contained, so the uniformity is valid in this case also from the very difference of the power of the revealed and the revealer, for action-ness, etc., are not revealed by substance in the same way as snbstance-ness is.

Accordingly it has been said.

sambideva hi bhagavatī vastūpagame naḥ śaraṇam ||

All-powerful consciousness is verily our resource in the apprehension of things. For consciousness in respect of the being the container is not reversible; nor is there the intuition that substance is action; nor, again, that threads are in the cloth. It is for this reason that, notwithstanding the combination of colour in Air, “There is colour in Air”—such characteristic of being the container is not observed in the case of Air. It is natural capacity, therefore, which everywhere determines the relation of the container and the contained.

This combination, again, is eternal, inasmuch as it is uncaused. For the rule of production from combinative causes applies to existences or beings, and efficient and non-combinative causes are subsidiary to those causes. Therefore that which would be the combinative cause of combination would be either another combination, or that combination itself. It cannot be the first, as it would entail nonfinality; nor the second, as it would involve self-dependence, for that very combination cannot produce combination with itself.

Objection.—How does the intuition arise that there is combination of cloth in threads, aud that there is combination of colour in cloth?

Answer.—It is by means of the relation of their intrinsic form, or essential relation, as the supposition of another combination would entail non-finality.

Objection.—The intuition of here, e.g., “There is colour here in the cloth,” will, then, arise by means of the same essential relation. What is the use of combination?

Answer.—It is not so, since there is no obstruction here to the admission of an additional relation.

Objection.—If it be so, then “Here in this place there is non-existence of the water-pot,”—in this case also there will be either combination or any other relation.

Answer.—No, as the intuition can be possible by means of essential relation itself. For, on the contrary supposition, the absolute and mutual non-existences of the water-pot, which are eternal and combined with more than one substance, would have the characteristic of being Genera, subsequent non-existence also, being an effect in combination, would be perishable or destructible, and antecedent non-existence also, not being produced, though combined, would be indestructible.

Nor is the quality of existence the determining factor there, for the quality of existence can be produced at anytime.

The Bhaṭṭas maintain that in non-existence there really is present a different relation called distinguishedness or qualifiedness. Nor is this distinguishedness be one and the same in the case of all individual manifestation of non-existence, then it would follow that there is non-existence of the water-pot even in that which contains a water-pot, inasmuch as the distinguishedness of the non-existence of the water-pot would exist by means of the same distinguishedness of the non-existence of the cloth.

Objection.—But the water-pot itself will in this case prevent the cognition of the non-existence of the water-pot.

Answer.—It cannot do this, since the non-existence of that which will prevent such cognition is itself present there by means of the relation of distinguishedness. Nor is the very nature of the substratum (i.e., where the water-pot lies) such that on account of it there can be no manifestation of the non-existence of water-pot in that place, for immediately after the removal of the water-pot follows the intuition of the non-existence of water-pot in that very place.

Objection.—In your view also,, why is there not intuition of possession of colour after the destruction of colour, since Combination is, as you say, eternal and one?

Answer.—Because non-intuition of colour is proved from the very destruction of colour.

The arguments against Combination have been demolished in the Mayūkha under Sense-Perception. So we stop here.—26.