Sūtra 1.49

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of Sūtra 1.49:

श्रुतानुमानप्रज्ञाभ्याम् अन्यविषया विशेषार्थत्वात् ॥ १.४९ ॥

śrutānumānaprajñābhyām anyaviṣayā viśeṣārthatvāt || 1.49 ||

śruta—heard, verbal. anumāna—inferential, prajñābhyām—from those of cognition. anya—different. viṣaya—object. Anya viṣayā—having objects different from. viśeṣa-arthatvāt—because it refers to particulars (viśeṣa).

49. It has different objects from those of verbal and inferential cognition, as it refers to particulars.

The Sankhya-pravachana commentary of Vyasa

[English translation of the 7th century commentary by Vyāsa called the Sāṅkhya-pravacana, Vyāsabhāṣya or Yogabhāṣya]

[Sanskrit text for commentary available]

And that, moreover, ‘has different objects from those of verbal and inferential cognitions, as it refers to particulars.’

Verbal cognition refers to knowledge received from another. It has the generals for its objects. It is not possible to describe the particulars by words. Why? Because there is no conventional denotation of the particular in words.

Similarly, inferential cognition has the generals for its objects. Wherever there is approach there is motion;wherever there is no approach there is no motion in existence. This has been said. Further inference arrives at conclusions by means of the generic qualities. Therefore there is no particular which can be made the object of induction and verbal cognition.

Ordinary perception does not cognize the subtle, the distant and the intercepted. Nor can it be said that this particular does not exist for want of authority. This particular can only be cognized by the trance cognition, whether it be present in the subtle elements or in the Puruṣa. Hence this cognition has different objects from those of inferential and verbal cognitions, because it has the particulars for its objects.

The Gloss of Vachaspati Mishra

[English translation of the 9th century Tattvavaiśāradī by Vācaspatimiśra]

Very well, the ultra-meditative has for its sphere of action the objects cognizable by verbal and inferential cognition and is the culmination of these faculties. It can therefore operate upon the objects of verbal and inferential cognitions only. Because it is not certainly possible that a mental potency born out of practice with reference to one object of thought, should be capable of causing the knowledge of another object. This would mean going beyond the proper limits. Therefore if the essential cognition is the same as the ultra-meditative, its objects must be the same as those of verbal and inferential cognitions. For this reason, he says It has different objects.’

Mental Essence is luminous by nature, and has the power of knowing all objects. When veiled by inertia (tamas) it cognizes only upon the veil being removed by energy (rajas). When, however, upon the impurities of inertia and disturbing energy being removed by practice and desirelessness, the pure light shines forth, then, light passes beyond the limits of all measures and all finite objects, and becomes infinite; what then is there that does not fall within the sphere of its action?

Explains ‘Verbal cognition is the knowledge received from another.’ Its sphere of action consists of the universal. Why? Words' cannot connote particulars. Why? Because of their not being limited and because of overlapping (vyabhicāra)

‘There is no conventional denotation of the particular in words,’ because the relation of the sign and the thing signified is not found existing between a word and the particular. Nor is such a particular possible of being expressed by the meaning of a sentence.

The same is the case with inference, whose operation depends upon the relation existing between the sign and the thing signified (the liṅga and the liṅgi):—‘Similarly, has induction, &c.’ The words ‘wherever’ and ‘there’ denote the pervader and the pervaded, by a change of places. For this reason the conclusion is arrived at here by virtue of the common property. Concludes—‘therefore there is, &c.’

Well, then, let it be the ordinary perception which does not depend for its operation upon the knowledge of any relationship. For this reason, he says:—‘Nor can it be said, &c.’ Ordinary perception may not depend for its operation upon the recognition of relationship. It does certainly depend upon the senses, and the senses are not in their sphere here (i.e., in the essential cognition). This is the meaning.

Well, but, if the particulars are not such objects as can be known by verbal, inferential and perceptive cognitions, then, there is no authority for their existence. For this reason, he says:—‘Nor can it be said that the particular does not exist for want of authority.’ The meaning is that a means of knowledge (pramāṇa) is neither co-existent with nor the cause of the thing known. It is not therefore necessary that the reality to be known should cease to exist, because there is no means or power of knowing it. Those who rely upon the ordinary means of knowledge, do not doubt the existence of a deer-like mark in the moon at a time when only certain phases of hers are visible. For this reason it is said that it is capable of being known by the trance cognition alone.

Here the atoms and the Puruṣas which are the subjects of discussion, are each of the nature of independent particularities, because, being substances, they are all separate from each other. All those that are separate from one another, being substances, are of the nature of independent particularities, as, say, sugar and a hair-shorn mendicant. Thus by this inference and by authority the special province of the essential cognition is defined, because otherwise there would remain a doubt as to its real nature, brought about by ordinary reasoning. Still, the attempt to define it is not complete, and its existence is brought within the sphere of consciousness with difficulty, on account of its being far removed from ordinary objects, by inference and authority. The knowledge although thus brought about with difficulty is not so plain and well-defined as the knowledge of collectivity, &c., obtained by words denoting them along with the proper accessories of enumeration of signs (signifying the particular object). Thus it is that its object is different from the objects of verbal and inferential cognitions.—49.