१२.०: ३२४.१८अथसमवायपदार्थनिरूपणम् ।
Inherence, is the relationship between things that are inseparably connected, and which stand to each other in the relation of the container and the contained,– the relationship, namely, that serves as the ground of the notion that ‘such and such’ a thing subsists in this ‘.
That is to say, the relationship named ‘ Samavaya ‘ or ‘inherence’ is that from which proceeds the notion that ‘this subsists in this’ – with regard to substances, qualities, actions, communities and individualities, that appear in the form of causes and effects, as well as those that do not appear as causes and effects, which are inseparably connected; and also that relationship from which proceeds the interdependence of things of limited extension upon something else, from which they are known to be different.
As for instance, the notion that ‘there is curd in this pit is found to be present only when there is a distinct relationship between the two things ; so also the notions – ‘the cloth is in these threads’ , ‘ the mat is in these reeds’, ‘this quality and that action are in this substance’, ‘Being is in these substances, qualities and actions’, ‘there is the general character of substance in this substance’, ‘the general character of quality in this quality’, ‘the general character of action in this action’, ‘the ultimate individualities in this eternal substance’; and from all such notions we infer the existence of the relationship in question. (Vll-ii-29, 27, 28, ; V-ii-23).
१२: ३२६.१नचासौसम्योगःसम्बन्धिनामयुतसिद्धत्वातन्यतरकर्मादिनिमित्तासम्भवात्विभागान्तत्वादर्शनादधिकरणाधिकर्तव्ययोरेवभावादिति ॥
Inherence is not mere conjunction;(1) because the members of this relationship are inseparably connected ; (1) because this relationship is not caused by the action of any of the members related; (3) because it is not found to end with the disjunction of the members; and (4) because it is found subsisting only between the container and the contained.
१२: ३२६.१२सचद्रव्यादिभ्यःपदार्थान्तरम्भाववल्लक्षणभेदात् ।
Inherence is a category distinct from Substance and the rest ; as like ‘being’ it has a character different from these.
That is to say, as in the case of being we find that bringing about notions of itself in regard to the substrates of the classes of substance and the rest, it differs from its substrates, as also from other classes,—so also Inherence, being the cause of the notion that this subsists in that with regard to the other five categories, must be regarded as something different from these.
Nor is there a multiplicity of Inherences, as there is of Conjunctions; because like ‘being’ Inherence has the same distinguishing feature, and also because there are no reasons for making distinctions in regard to it; for these reasons Inherence, like ‘being’ must be regarded as one only.
१२: ३२७.९ननुयद्येकःसमवायोद्रव्यगुणकर्मणाम्द्रव्यत्वगुणत्वकर्मत्वादिविशेषणैःसहसम्बन्धैकत्वात्पदार्थसङ्करप्रसङ्गैतिनआधाराधेयनियमात् ।
Objection : ” If Inherence in one only, then, in as much as there would be one and the same relationship between substances and the class ‘substance’, between qualities and the class ‘Quality’ and between actions and the class ‘Action’ — we would have an intermixture of Categories ‘.
Reply : Not so ; because of the differences in the container and the contained in each case.
Thai is to say, though Inherence is one only everywhere and self-sufficient, yet there is a restriction due to the differences of the container and the contained.
For instance, the community of substance resides in substances only ; the community of ‘ quality ’ in qualities only ; and that of ‘ Action ’ in actions only.
Question: “How do you know that this is so ?”
एवमादिकस्मादन्वयव्यतिरेकदर्शनात् । इहेतिसमवायनिमित्तस्यज्ञानस्यान्वयदर्शनात्सर्वत्रैकःसमवायैतिगम्यते । द्रव्यत्वादिनिमित्तानाम्व्यतिरेकदर्शनात्प्रतिनियमोज्ञायते ।
Answer : We learn this from the ‘perception of their concomitances and non-concomitances ; that is to say, from the invariable concomitance of the notion of this subsists in that which is based upon Inherence, we infer that Inherence is one only everywhere ; and from the non-concomitance of the notion of ‘substance’ &c., in all cases we infer that there is a restriction or limitation in regard to them.
यथाकुण्डदध्नोःसम्योगैकत्वेभवत्याश्रयाश्रयिभावनियमः। तथाद्रव्यत्वादीनामपिसमवायैकत्वेऽपिव्यङ्ग्यव्यंजकशक्तिभेदादाधाराधेयनियमैति ॥
For instance, as in the case of the curd and the pit, though the conjunction is one only, yet there is a restriction (as to which is the container and which the contained), so, in the same manner, in the case of the communities (of ‘substance’ &c)., even though the Inherence is one only, there is restriction as to the container and the contained, based upon the differences in the potencies of being the ‘ manifester ’ and the ‘manifested’.
१२: ३२८.१९सम्बन्धनित्यत्वेऽपिनसम्योगवदनित्यत्वम्भाववदकारणत्वात् ।
Even though the members related are transient, the Inherence is not transient, like Conjunction ; because like Being, it is not brought about by any cause.
यथाप्रमाणतःकारणानुपलब्धेर्नित्योभावैत्युक्तम्तथासमवायोऽपीति। नह्यस्यकिञ्चित्कारणम्प्रमाणतौपलभ्यतेइति ।
That is to say, in the case of Being we have found that it is eternal because we cannot cognize any cause for it, by any of the valid means of knowledge. ; and the same may be said to be the case with Inherence also, as by none of the valid means of knowledge can we find any cause for it.
कयापुनर्वृत्त्याद्रव्यादिषुसमवायोवर्तते । नसम्योगःसम्भवतितस्यगुणत्वेनद्रव्याश्रितत्वात् । नापिसमवायस्तस्यैकत्वात्नचान्यावृत्तिरस्तीति।
Objection: — By what relation does Inherence subsist in substance &c? This relation can not be that of conjunction ; as conjunction being a quality can reside in substances only (and Inherence is not a substance); nor can the relation he that of inherence ; as the latter is one only ; and there is no third relation by which it can subsist”.
न। तादात्म्यात्। यथाद्रव्यगुणकर्मणाम्सदात्मकस्यभावस्यनान्यःसत्तायोगोऽस्ति। एवमविभागिनोवृत्त्यात्मकस्यसमवायस्यनान्यावृत्तिरस्तितस्मात्स्वात्मवृत्तिः ।
Reply :—Not so; as it is itself of the nature of relation or subsistence. In the case of ‘Being’ with regard to substances, qualities and actions, we have seen that it has no connection with any other ‘being’ and in the same manner, Inherence, being inseparable (from its substrate) and of the very nature of a subsisting relation, could have no other relation and hence it is regarded as self-sufficient.
१२: ३२६.२अतएवातीन्द्रियःसत्तादीनामिवप्रत्यक्षेषुवृत्त्यभावात्स्वात्मगतसंवेदनाभावाच्च । तस्मादिहबुद्ध्यनुमेयःसमवायैति ॥
For this reason, it has been regarded as imperceptible by the sense-organs; specially as it is not found to have an existence in the perceptible substances in the same manner that ‘being’ &c. have; and as it is not perceptible by itself, we conclude that it is only inferable from the notion that this is in that.
१२.०: ३२६.५इतिप्रशस्तपादभाष्येसमवायपदार्थःसमाप्तः ॥
So comes to the conclusion the chapter on Inherence from the Prashastpad Bhashya.
०.०: ३२६.७योगाचारविभूत्यायस्तोषयित्वामहेश्वरम् । चक्रेवैशेषिकम्शास्त्रम्तस्मैकणभुजेनमः ॥
All reverence to that Kanada who having pleased Maheshwara by the superb character of his mediation and austerities, propounded the philosophy of the Vaisheshika system !
०.०: ३२६.९इतिप्रशस्तपादविरचितम्द्रव्यादिषट्पदार्थभाष्यम्समाप्तम् ॥
Thus ends the Padartha dharmasangraha of Prashashtpad.
>>>अनुक्रमणिका ( Back to Table of Content): पदार्थधर्मसंग्रह : प्रशस्तपाद ऋषी