८.१०: १५१.४-विभागोविभक्तप्रत्ययनिमित्तम् । शब्दविभागहेतुश्च। प्राप्तिपूर्विकाऽप्राप्तिर्विभागः । सचत्रिविधः । अन्यतरकर्मजौभयकर्मजोविभागजश्चविभागैति ।
Disjunction is the basis of the idea of two things being disjoined. It consists in the separation of two things that have hitherto been in contact. It is of three kinds: (1) Produced by the action of any one of the two things
८.१०: १५१तत्रान्यतरकर्मजोभयकर्मजौसम्योगवत् । विभागजस्तुद्विविधःकारणविभागात्कारणाकारणविभागाच्च। तत्रकारणविभागात्तावत्कार्याविष्टेकारणेकर्मोत्पन्नम्यदातस्यावयवान्तराद्विभागम्करोतिनतदाकाशादिदेशात्यदात्वाकाशादिदेशाद्विभागम्करोतिनतदावयवान्तरादितिस्थितिः ।
(2) by the action of both, and (3) by another Disjunction. The first two are like the kinds of Conjunction mentioned before;
And that produced by another Disjunction is of two kinds ; as proceeding from the disjunction of causes and from that of the cause and the non-cause.
The former of these we find when there appears an action in the cause as possessed by the effect, then that action brings about the disjunction of that cause from its other parts, and from the place occupied by Akasha &c. ; and when it does bring about its disjunction from the place occupied by Akash etc then there is no disjunction from its other parts.
८.१०: १५१अतोऽवयवकर्मावयवान्तरादेवविभागमारभतेततोविभागाच्चद्रव्यारम्भकसम्योगविनाशःतस्मिन्विनष्टेकारणाभावात्कार्याभावैत्यवयविविनाशःतदाकारणयोर्वर्तमानोविभागःकार्यविनाशविशिष्टम्कालम्स्वतन्त्रम्वावयवमपेक्ष्यसक्रियस्यैवावयवस्यकार्यसम्युक्तादाकाशादिदेशाद्विभागमारभतेननिष्क्रियस्यकारणाभावादुत्तरसम्योगानुत्पत्तावनुपभोग्यत्वप्रसङ्गःनतुतदवयवकर्माकाशादिदेशाद्विभागम्करोतितदारम्भकालातीतत्वात्प्रदेशान्तरसम्योगम्तुकरोत्येवअकृतसम्योगस्यकर्मणःकालात्ययाभावादिति ।
Such being the case, the action of the part must be regarded as producing the disjunction from another part only. From this Disjunction follows the destruction of the Conjunction that serves to keep the substance intact And on the destruction of this, the substance as a composite whole is destroyed, as the effect could not survive the destruction of the cause. Then the Disjunction present in the two causes brings about the disjunction of the active part, from that point of Akasha—which may be in contact with the effect,—with reference either to the time qualified by the aforesaid destruction of the effect or to the part independently by itself. This Disjunction could never be that of a part that would be inactive ; as in the case of such a part there would be no cause for such disjunction; and further, no further Conjunction appearing after this, the
disjunction would become altogether purposeless. The said action of the part however does not bring about a Disjunction from the point of Akasha & c.; as that action is past before the bringing about of any such disjunction. But that action does bring about the conjunction of another point of space; as no action ever becomes lost in time until it has produced some sort of a Conjunction.
८.१०: १५१कारणाकारणविभागादपिकथम् ।
Question: How can Disjunction proceed from the Disjunction of the cause and non -cause ?”
८.१०: १५२.१-यदाहस्तेकर्मोत्पन्नमवयवान्तराद्विभागमकुर्वदाकाशादिदेशेभ्योविभागानारभ्यप्रदेशान्तरेसम्योगानारभतेतदातेकारणाकारणविभागाःकर्मयाम्दिशम्प्रतिकार्यारम्भाभिमुखम्तामपेक्ष्यकार्याकार्यविभागानारभन्तेतदनन्तरम्कारणाकारणसम्योगाच्चकार्याकार्यसम्योगानिति ।
Answer : When an action takes place in the hand (as when the hand is waived) and without disjoining the hand from any other part of the body, it disjoins it from a particular point in Akasha and joins it to another point in it,—then we have such Disjunctions of the cause and the non-cause as bring about the disjunctions of the effect and the non-effect; with reference to that point in space towards which the action is prone to produce its effect. After this that same action produces, out of the conjunctions of the cause and the non-cause, the conjunctions of the effect and the non-effect And if after the Disjunction of the cause there appear the disjunction of the effect, then after the Conjunction of the cause there would be the conjunction of the effect.
८.१०: १५२यदिकारणविभागानन्तरम्कार्यविभागोत्पत्तिःकारणसम्योगानन्तरम्कार्यसम्योगोत्पत्तिःनन्वेवमवयवावयविनोर्युतसिद्धिदोषप्रसङ्गःिति ।
Objection ; This would involve the absurdity of the whole and its parts having, existences apart from one another
न ।८.१०: १५२युतसिद्ध्यपरिज्ञानात्। सापुनर्द्वयोरन्यतरस्यवापृथग्गतिमत्त्वमियन्तुनित्यानामनित्यानाम्तुयुतेष्वाश्रयेषुसमवायोयुतसिद्धिरिति ।
Not so ; as apparently you do not understand what is meant by ‘separate existence.’ In the case of eternal things it only means ‘separate or distinct movement or action’; and in that of the transitory things, it means the ‘inherence or existence in distinct substrata.
८.१०: १५२त्वगिन्द्रियशरीरयोःपृथग्गतिमत्त्वम्नास्तियुतेष्वाश्रयेषुसमवायोस्तीतिपरस्परेणसम्योगःसिद्धः। अण्वाकाशयोस्त्वाश्रयान्तराभावेप्यन्यतरस्यपृथग्गतिमत्त्वात्सम्योगविभागौसिद्धौ ।
In the case of the Organ of Touch and the Body there is no distinct movement; but they are “inherent in distinct substrata ; and it is for this reason that the relationship between these two is that of Conjunction (and not of ‘Inherence* which would have to be admitted if ‘separate existence meant only ‘distinct motion’ as there would be absence of this in the case in question, and it is only this absence that is the necessary condition of Inherence).
In the case of the Atom and the Akasha however, even though they
have no other substrata (and as such the two would appear to bear the relationship of Inherence,) yet in as much as each of them is capable of independent action or motion (there can be no Inherence) and Conjunctions and disjunctions between them become possible.
८.१०: १५२तन्तुपटयोरनित्ययोराश्रयान्तराभावात्परस्परतःसम्योगविभागाभावैति । दिगादीनाम्तुपृथग्गतिमत्त्वाभावादितिपरस्परेणसम्योगविभागाभावैति ।
In the case of the Yarn and the Cloth however, both of which are transient, in as much as they do not inhere in distinct substrata (and are not capable of separate action or motion), there is no possibility of Conjunction and Disjunction (and the relationship is that of Inherence).
८.१०: १५२विनाशस्तुसर्वस्यविभागस्यक्षणिकत्वादुत्तरसम्योगावधिसद्भावाद्क्षणिकैति ।
In as much as all Disjunction is momentary, and exists only till the next Conjunction, its destruction also is momentary.
८.१०: १५२नतुसम्योगविद्ययोरेवविभागस्तयोरेवसम्योगाद्विनाशोभवतिकस्मात्सम्युक्तप्रत्ययवद्विभक्तप्रत्ययानुवृत्त्यभावात्तस्मादुत्तरसम्योगावधिसद्भावात्क्षणिकैति ।
In the case of Conjunction we have found that it is destroyed by the disjunction of those very things that have been in conjunction ; such is not the case with Disjunction ; it is not destroyed only by the Conjunction of the two things disjoined; because the idea of two things being disjoined is not continuous like that of their being conjoined (ie the idea of Disjunction appears only at the moment of separation while that of Conjunction continues as long as the conjunction itself lasts,) Hence Disjunction is regarded as momentary only on account of its existence for being executed by the next Conjunction.
८.१०: १५३.३-क्वचिच्चाश्रयविनाशादेवविनश्यतीति । कथम् ।
In some cases Disjunction, is destroyed by the destruction of ‘its substratum. ‘How?’
८.१०: १५३यदाद्वितन्तुककारणावयवेअंशौकर्मोत्पन्नमंश्वन्तराद्विभागामारभतेतदैवतन्त्वन्तरेऽपिकर्मोत्पद्यतेविभागाच्चतन्त्वारम्भकसम्योगविनाशःतन्तुकर्मणातन्त्वन्तराद्विभागःक्रियतेइत्येकःकालः ।
When in a part of one of the yarns of a ‘duplicate yarn’ an action is produced it brings about its disjunction from another part of the same yarn and at that very time an action is produced in the other yarn also. This Disjunction leads to its destruction of the cohesive Conjunction of the
substance and the action in the yam produces a Disjunction from the other yarn. This constitutes one moment of time.
८.१०: १५३ततोयस्मिन्नेवकालेविभागात्तन्तुसम्योगविनाशःतस्मिन्नेवकालेसम्योगविनाशात्तन्तुविनाशस्तस्मिन्विनष्टेतदाश्रितस्यतन्त्वन्तरविभागस्यविनाशैति। एवम्तर्ह्युत्तरविभागानुत्पत्तिप्रसङ्गः ।
Then, at the time that the Disjunction brings about the destruction of the Conjunction of the yarns, there also follows from that destruction of the Conjunction, the destruction of the yarn. And this being destroyed, there fallows the destruction of the Disjunction of the other yarn, which has the former yarn for its substratum.
८.१०: १५३कारणविभागाभावात्। ततःप्रदेशान्तरसम्योगवतिसम्योगाभावैत्यतोविरोधिगुणासम्भवात्कर्मणश्चिरकालावस्थायित्वम्नित्यद्रव्यसमवेतस्यचनित्यत्वमितिदोषः । कथम् ।
If such were the case then there would be no chance of the coming about of any subsequent Disjunction ; as there would be no Disjunction ‘present that could serve as the cause of any subsequent disjunction. Hence, in as much as there would be no conjunction in a thing in contact with another point in space the action (in the yarn) would continue for a long time, specially as no contrary quality (in the shape of another conjunction) would be appearing; and that action which would be inhering in an eternal substance would he eternal ; and all this could never be admissible. ‘How so?’
When an action appears in the atom of the Water-diad, and brings about its Disjunction from another atom—
at that very time there appears an action in the other atom also; and hence at the time that the disjunction gives rise to the destruction of the cohesive conjunction of the substance,
at that very time the action of the other atom brings about the disjunction of the atom from the diad; and then, at the time that Disjunction produces the destruction of the conjunction of the Diad and the Atom, at that very time from the destruction of the Conjunction follows the destruction of the Diad.
And this being destroyed, the Disjunction of the Diad and the atom resting therein is also destroyed. And then, there being no possibility of the appearance of any contrary quality; there would be an eternality of the action inhering in the eternal substance (Atom).
८.१०: १५४तन्त्वंश्वन्तरविभागाद्विभागैत्यदोषः । आश्रयविनाशात्तन्त्वोरेवविभागोविनष्टोनतन्त्वंश्वन्तरविभागैतिएतस्मादुत्तरोविभागोजायतेअङ्गुल्याकाशविभागाच्छरीराकाशविभागवत्तस्मिन्नेवकालेकर्मसम्योगम्कृत्वाविनश्यतीत्यदोषः ।
In as much as the Disjunction would follow from the Disjunction of the yarn from its other part, there would be none of the absurdity urged above.
The destruction of the substratum destroys only the Disjunction of the two yarns and that of the yarn and its other parts; and from this latter Disjunction would proceed other subsequent Disjunctions; just like the Disjunction of the Body and akasha following from that of the finger-tip and akasha; and as the action brings about the Conjunction and becomes destroyed, there is no anomaly in this.
८.१०: १५४अथवाअंश्वन्तरविभागोत्पत्तिसमकालम्तस्मिन्नेवतन्तौकर्मोत्पद्यतेततोंश्वन्तरविभागात्तन्त्वारम्भकसम्योगविनाशःतन्तुकर्मणाचतन्त्वन्तराद्विभागःक्रियतेइत्येकःकालः ।
Or, simultaneously with the appearance of the Disjunction of the yarn from its other part there appears in that same yarn an action ; and then from the Disjunction of the yarn from its other part there follows the destruction of the cohesive Conjunction of the yarn; and the action of the yarn brings about its Disjunction from another yarn ; all this forming one unit moment of time.
८.१०: १५४ततःसम्योगविनाशात्तन्तुविनाशःतद्विनाशाच्चतदाश्रितयोर्विभागकर्मणोर्युगपद्विनाशः । तन्तुवीरणयोर्वासम्योगेसतिद्रव्यानुत्पत्तौपूर्वोक्तेनविधानेनाश्रयविनाशसम्योगाभ्याम्तन्तुवीरणविभागविनाशैति ॥
Then from the destruction of the Conjunction there follows the destruction of the yarn, and- this destruction brings about simultaneously the destruction of the Disjunction and the action inhering therein.
Or when (during weaving) there is a conjunction of the yarn with the Brush, as (at that point of time) no substance is produced, we would have the destruction of the Disjunction of the yarn and the Brush, brought about by the destruction and Con-Junction of the substratum,—all this occurring in the same process as explained before.