Nyaya-Vaisheshika categories (Study)
by Diptimani Goswami | 2014 | 61,072 words
This page relates 鈥楽atkaryavada鈥� of the study on the Nyaya-Vaisheshika categories with special reference to the Tarkasangraha by Annambhatta. Both Nyaya and Vaisesika are schools of ancient Indian Philosophy, and accepted in their system various padarthas or objects of valid knowledge. This study investigates how the Tarkasamgraha reflects these categories in the combined Nyayavaisesika school.
Go directly to: Footnotes.
厂补迟办腻谤测补惫腻诲补
厂补迟办腻谤测补惫腻诲补 is upheld by the 厂腻峁僰丑测补-Yoga and Advaita Ved膩nta philosophers. According to 厂补迟办腻谤测补惫腻诲补 the effect already exists in the cause in a potential condition. So, it is not basically new creation and different from the material cause. But effect is only an explicit manifestation of that which are contained in its material cause. For example, a pot is not different from the clay, a cloth is not different from the threads. There are two divisions of 厂补迟办腻谤测补惫腻诲补-笔补谤颈峁嚹乵补惫腻诲补 and 痴颈惫补谤迟补惫腻诲补. They are called to be 笔补谤颈峁嚹乵补惫腻诲颈苍蝉, who believes that the effect is a real transformation of its cause, but who believes that the effect is unreal, they are 痴颈惫补谤迟补惫腻诲颈苍蝉.[1] 厂腻峁僰丑测补-Yoga鈥檚 view is known as 笔谤补办峁泃颈-笔补谤颈峁嚹乵补惫腻诲补, 搁腻尘腻苍耻箩补鈥檚 view is known as Brahma-笔补谤颈峁嚹乵补惫腻诲补, 艢补峁僰补谤补 is 痴颈惫补谤迟补惫腻诲颈苍.
It is the 厂腻峁僰丑测补s who have actually established the theory 蝉补迟办腻谤测补惫腻诲补 by different arguments. 莫艣va峁沘k峁涐梗峁嘺 has discussed the theory of 蝉补迟办腻谤测补惫腻诲补 in his 厂腻峁僰丑测补k膩rik膩.[2] He gives five arguments to prove this theory. The five arguments are discussed here as follows:
a. 础蝉补诲补办补谤补苍腻诲
The effect must pre-exist in the cause. If the effect is not existent in its cause then no effort can bring it into existence. The non-existent things like hare鈥檚 horn or the sky-flower cannot be produced. 痴腻肠补蝉辫补迟颈 惭颈艣谤补 says in his commentary that a thousand artists also can never make the blue colour into yellow.[3] According to him, if the effect is produced from something where it is not present previously then anything can be produced from any cause. There is no example of such an effect.[4]
b. 鲍辫腻诲腻苍补-驳谤补丑补峁嚹乼
For the production of a thing, it is necessary to take the proper materials from which that thing can be produced. If one wants to produce curd, he must take milk, since curd cannot be produced from water. 痴腻肠补蝉辫补迟颈 惭颈艣谤补 explains the term 鲍辫腻诲腻苍补 as cause and 驳谤补丑补峁嘺 as relation. There exists a relation between cause and effect. This relation is not possible with a non-existent thing.[5] Hence the effect must
pre-exist its cause.
c. 厂补谤惫补蝉补尘产丑补惫腻产丑腻惫腻迟
Some effects can be made from some causes and some other can be produced from some different causes, e.g. curd can be produced from milk only, not from sand. A cloth can be produced from threads. This implies that the effect exists in its cause even before its production.. Any effect is not made from any cause, the potter takes only clay to produce a pot, instead of taking milk or threads or any other thing.[6]
d. 艢aktasya 艢akyakara峁嚹乼
A cause can produce that effect for which it has the essential potency. It means that the effect must be potentially contained in its cause before its production. If, it is not, such then curd can be produced from water, oil, from sand, cloth from reeds, etc. For this reason, the effect is sat in its cause before its production.[7]
e. 碍腻谤补峁嘺产丑腻惫腻迟
An effect cannot be made without cause. Everything has a cause. The effect remains in its material cause. Without cause the effect is impossible (碍腻谤补峁嘺产丑腻惫腻迟). 痴腻肠补蝉辫补迟颈 惭颈艣谤补 points out that there is no different between the cause and the effect. As the cause is existent, so the effect must also be existent. According the 厂腻峁僰丑测补s, the cause and effect are the implicit and the explicit stages of the same process. 痴腻肠补蝉辫补迟颈 惭颈艣谤补 also says that the effect is a property of the cause and as such is not different from it.[8] Thus, from these arguments the 厂腻峁僰丑测补s try to establish that the effect is existent (sat) in its cause before its production.
The Advaita Ved膩ntins are also 蝉补迟办腻谤测补惫腻诲颈苍蝉. 艢补峁僰补谤补 gives arguments to establish the pre-existence of effect in the cause. He says that if a thing does not exist in and in identity with something, it cannot be originated from that, as for example, oil from sand. In his view, the effect exists in the cause and is non-different from the cause production. It also may be believed that the effect must be identical with its cause after production.[9] Again 艢补峁僰补谤补 argues that the effect is not revealed before its before its production because the effect exists in an unmanifest condition in its cause. But it becomes manifest when it is produced.[10]
艢补峁僰补谤补 also points out that it is seen that people takes particular cause for a particular effect. For example, people take up milk for curd as its cause. Similarly clay is taken up for making pot, gold for necklace etc. No one takes earth to make curd or milk to make a pot. This fact does not fit in with the theory of nonexistence of the effect before origination. If everything is not existed everywhere before its creation there is reason that curd is produced from milk and not from earth and pot is produced from earth not from milk.[11] Hence, it must be admitted that the effect pre-exists in the cause.
According to a蝉补迟办腻谤测补惫腻诲颈苍蝉 cause has some special power for which the effect is produced from that cause. The meaning of this is that milk alone has some special capacity for curds and not for pot. The clay alone has some special potency for pot and not for curd. Against this argument of the a蝉补迟办腻谤测补惫腻诲颈苍蝉, 艢补峁僰补谤补 points out that if this capacity of the cause remains before the origination of the effect, the a蝉补迟办腻谤测补惫腻诲补 becomes meaningless and the theory of 蝉补迟办腻谤测补惫腻诲补 becomes confirmed.[12] 艢补峁僰补谤补 again points out that the potency is assumed in the cause which determine the effect cannot influence the effect being different from it or being non-existent. If there is difference between potentiality and both cause and effect or if the potentiality is non-existent, it cannot produce the effect because its features of being different and non-existent are equally present in relation to other things.[13] So, cause must have the potentiality as its essence and the effect is the essence of the potency.[14] 鈥淐ause and effect are not two different things which can be seen independent of each other like horse and cow. The difference between the effect before manifestation and after is a relative one. The cause and the effect represent two phases of one thing and are really of one nature.鈥�[15]
Again 艢补峁僰补谤补 points out that the son of a barren woman is impossible, it can never be born. If it becomes possible is then only the effect which is not-existent before its production can be produced. As a matter of fact, the son of a barren woman and the non-existence of an effect both are equally non-existent. The effect which is non-existent cannot be produced even by the activity of the causal agents just like the barren women鈥檚 son cannot be brought about by any operation of cause.[16]
The a蝉补迟办腻谤测补惫腻诲颈苍蝉 say that the activity of the causal agent will become useless if he tries to bring into existence what already exists. Therefore, to make the activity of the causal agent purposefull, it must be accepted that the effect does not remain before its production.[17] Refusing this point 艢补峁僰补谤补 argues that this is not acceptable as the activity of the causal agent becomes meaningful by transforming the cause into the shape of the effect. He says that the effect is non-different from the cause and anything, not existent already in cause cannot be produced. A thing does not become different just because of the appearance of some peculiarity. Thus, things like milk etc. are themselves called products when they exist in the form of curd etc.[18] Although 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 has established 蝉补迟办腻谤测补惫腻诲补 refuting the views
of the a蝉补迟办腻谤测补惫腻诲颈苍蝉, actually he is a 惫颈惫补谤迟补惫腻诲颈苍, according to which the effect has no real existence. In his view, the effect has no existence as distinct from that of the cause.[19] No modifications exists as apart from its cause. That is why the 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲 says that the effect is nothing but respective names and forms; ultimately the cause is real.[20] This is the idea of 惫颈惫补谤迟补惫腻诲补, since in 惫颈惫补谤迟补惫腻诲补, the cause does not actually change into the effect, but falsely appears to be something different.[21] However, in empirical cases, 辫补谤颈峁嚹乵补惫腻诲补 is also accepted by 厂补峁卥补谤补. It is only in case of the origination of the world from Brahman, 厂补峁卥补谤补 accepts 惫颈惫补谤迟补惫腻诲补.
Footnotes and references:
[2]:
asadakara峁嚹乨up膩d膩nagraha峁嚹乼sarvasambhav膩bh膩v膩t/ 艣aktasya 艣akyakaran膩tk膩ra峁嘺bh膩v膩cca satk膩ryam// 厂腻峁僰丑测补k膩rika, 9
[3]:
[4]:
asata岣� kara峁噀 tu na 苍颈诲补谤艣补苍补峁� ki帽cidasti 鈥� Ibid
[5]:
办腻谤测别峁嘺 蝉补峁僢补诲诲丑补峁� 办补谤补峁嘺峁� 办腻谤测补蝉测补 箩补苍补办补峁� sa峁僢andha艣ca k膩ryasy膩sato na sa峁僢havati. Ibid
[6]:
asa峁僢addhasya janyatve asa峁僢addhatv膩vi艣e峁峁嘺 蝉补谤惫补峁� 办腻谤测补箩腻迟补峁�
sarvasm膩dbhavet, nacaitad 鈥a峁僾addham sa峁僾addhena janyata. Ibid.
[7]:
[8]:
iha yad yato鈥檅hidyate tat tasya dharmo na bhavati yath膩 gaura艣vasyadharma艣ca pa峁璦stant奴n膩峁� tasm膩nn膩rth膩ntaram. Ibid
[9]:
yacca yad膩tmana yatra na vartate na tat tatutpadyate, yath膩sikat膩bhyastailam. tasm膩t pr膩gutpatterananyatv膩d utpannampyananyadeva 办腻谤测补峁� ityavagamyate 叠谤补丑尘补蝉奴迟谤补 -艣腻峁卥补谤补产丑腻峁补, 2.1.16
[10]:
cf. Ibid., 2.1.17
[11]:
avi艣i峁ａ弓e hi pr膩gutpatte岣� sarvasya sarvatrasattve kasm膩t k峁Ｄ玶膩deva dadhyutpadyate na m峁泃tik膩y膩岣�, m峁泃tik膩y膩 eva ca 驳丑补峁璦 utpadyate na k峁Ｄ玶膩t. Ibid., 2.1.18
[12]:
tarhyatisayavattv膩tpr膩gavasth膩y膩 a蝉补迟办腻谤测补惫腻诲补h膩ni岣� 蝉补迟办腻谤测补惫腻诲补siddha艣ca. Ibid
[13]:
补蝉补迟迟惫腻惫颈艣别峁Ｄ乨补苍测补迟惫腻惫颈艣别峁Ｄ乧肠补. Ibid
[15]:
Radhakrishnan, S., Indian Philosophy, Vol. II, p. 529
[16]:
cf. vandhy膩putrasya k膩ry膩bh膩vasya c膩bh膩vatv膩vi艣e峁Ｄ乨 鈥� k膩ry膩bh膩vo鈥檖i k膩rakavy膩p膩r膩d奴rdhvam na bhavi峁at墨ti. 叠谤补丑尘补蝉奴迟谤补-艣a峁卥arabh膩峁a, 2.1.8
[17]:
cf. ata岣� k膩rakavy膩p膩r膩rthavattv膩ya many膩mahe pr膩gutpatterabh膩va岣� 办腻谤测补蝉测补 iti. Ibid
[19]:
k膩ra峁嚹乼 param膩rthato鈥檔anyatva峁� vyatireke峁嘺 abh膩v膩岣� k膩ryasy膩vagamyate. 叠谤补丑尘补蝉奴迟谤补-艣a峁卥arabh膩峁a, 2.1.14
[20]:
cf. Ch膩ndogya 鲍辫补苍颈峁诲, 6.1.4