If you raise the objection that "'reciprocal non-existence' is really the same as 'absolute non-existence,'" we reply that this is indeed to lose one's way in the king's highroad; for "reciprocal non-existence"

is that negation whose opposite is held to be ident.i.ty, as "a jar is not cloth;" but "absolute non-existence" is that negation whose opposite is connection, as "there is no colour in the air."[204] Nor need you here raise the objection that "_abhava_ can never be a means of producing any good to man," for we maintain that it is his _summum bonum_, in the form of final beat.i.tude, which is only another term for the absolute abolition of all pain [and therefore comes under the category of _abhava_].

E. B. C.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 154: The Vaiseshikas are called Aulukya? in Hemachandra's _Abhidhana-chintama?i_; in the Vayu-pura?a (quoted in Aufrecht's _Catal_. p. 53 b, l. 23), Akshapada, Ka?ada, Uluka, and Vatsa are called the sons of Siva.]

[Footnote 155: He is here called by his synonym Ka?abhaksha.]

[Footnote 156: It is singular that this is inaccurate. The ninth book treats of that perception which arises from supersensible contact, &c., and inference. The tenth treats of the mutual difference of the qualities of the soul, and the three causes.]

[Footnote 157: For this extract from the old _bhashya_ of Vatsyayana, see Colebrooke's _Essays_ (new edition), vol. i. p. 285.]

[Footnote 158: Cf. _Bhasha-parichchheda_, sloka 14.]

[Footnote 159: "Particularity" (_visesha_) resides by "intimate relation" in the eternal atoms, &c.]

[Footnote 160: This clause is added, as otherwise the definition would apply to "duality" and "conjunction."]

[Footnote 161: This is added, as otherwise the definition would apply to "existence" (_satta_), which is the _summum genus_, to which substance, quality, and action are immediately subordinate.]

[Footnote 162: Existence (_satta_) is the genus of _dravya_, _gu?a_, and _kriya_. _Dravya_ alone can be the intimate cause of anything; and all actions are the mediate (or non-intimate) cause of conjunction and disjunction. _Some_ qualities (as _sa?yoga_, _rupa_, &c.) may be mediate causes, but this is accidental and does not belong to the essence of _gu?a_, as many gunas can never be mediate causes.]

[Footnote 163: As all karmas are transitory, _karmatva_ is only found in the _anitya_. I correct in p. 105, line 20, _nitya-samavetatva_; this is the reading of the MS. in the Calcutta Sanskrit College Library.]

[Footnote 164: _I.e._, it can never be destroyed. Indestructibility, however, is found in time, s.p.a.ce, &c.; to exclude these, therefore, the former clause of the definition is added.]

[Footnote 165: "Particularity" (whence the name Vaiseshika) is not "individuality, as of this particular flash of lightning,"--but it is the individuality either of those eternal substances which, being single, have no genus, as ether, time, and s.p.a.ce; or of the different atomic minds; or of the atoms of the four remaining substances, earth, water, fire, and air, these atoms being supposed to be the _ne plus ultra_, and as they have no parts, they are what they are by their own indivisible nature. Ballantyne translated _visesha_ as "ultimate difference." I am not sure whether the individual soul has _visesha_.]

[Footnote 166: Mutual non-existence (_anyonyabhava_) exists between two notions which have no property in common, as a "pot is not cloth;"

but the genus is the same in two pots, both alike being pots.]

[Footnote 167: "_Samavayasambandabhavat samavayo na jati?_," Siddh.

Mukt. (_Sa?yoga_ being a _gu?a_ has _gu?atva_ existing in it with intimate relation).]

[Footnote 168: The feel or touch of earth is said to be "neither hot nor cold, and its colour, taste, smell, and touch are changed by union with fire" (Bhasha-parichchheda, _sl._ 103, 104).]

[Footnote 169: The organ of touch is an aerial integument.--_Colebrooke._]

[Footnote 170: Sound is twofold,--"produced from contact," as the _first_ sound, and "produced from sound," as the _second_. _Janya_ is added to exclude G.o.d's knowledge, while _sa?yogajanya_ excludes the soul's, which is produced by contact, as of the soul and mind, mind and the senses, &c.]

[Footnote 171: The mediate cause itself is the conjunction of time with some body, &c., existing in time,--this latter is the intimate cause, while the knowledge of the revolutions of the sun is the instrumental cause. In p. 106, line 12, read _adhikara?a?_.]

[Footnote 172: _Paratva_ being of two kinds, _daisika_ and _kalika_.]

[Footnote 173: Time, s.p.a.ce, and mind have no special qualities; the last, however, is not pervading but atomic.]

[Footnote 174: The three other _padarthas_, beside soul, which are _amurtta_,--time, ether, and s.p.a.ce,--are not genera.]

[Footnote 175: All numbers, from duality upwards, are artificial, _i.e._, they are made by our minds; unity alone exists in things themselves--each being _one_; and they only become two, &c., by our choosing to regard them so, and thus joining them in thought.]

[Footnote 176: _Sa?skara_ is here the idea conceived by the mind--created, in fact, by its own energies out of the material previously supplied to it by the senses and the internal organ or mind. (Cf. the tables in p. 153.)]

[Footnote 177: Here and elsewhere I omit the metrical summary of the original, as it adds nothing new to the previous prose.]

[Footnote 178: Every cause must be either _jnapaka_ or _janaka_; _apekshabuddhi_, not being the former, must be the latter.]

[Footnote 179: _Apekshabuddhi_ apprehends "this is one," "this is one," &c.; but duality, for instance, does not reside in either of these, but in _both_ together.]

[Footnote 180: The Vaiseshikas held that the jivatman and s.p.a.ce are each an all-pervading substance, but the individual portions of each have different special qualities; hence one man knows what another is ignorant of, and one portion of ether has sound when another portion has not. Dr. Roer, in his version of the Bhasha-Parichchheda, has mistranslated an important Sutra which bears on this point. It is said in Sutra 26--

_----athakasasariri?am, avyapyav?itti? ksha?iko visesha-gu?a ishyate,_

which does not mean "the special qualities of ether and soul are limitation to s.p.a.ce and momentary duration," but "the special qualities of ether and soul (_i.e._, sound, knowledge, &c.) are limited to different portions and of momentary duration."]

[Footnote 181: The author here mentions two other causes of the destruction of _dvitva_ besides that already given in p. 152, l. 14 (_apekshabuddhi-nasa_), viz., _asrayanasa_, and the united action of _both_:--

1. Ekatva-jnana

Avayava-kriya

. . .

2. Apekshabuddhi

Avayava-vibhaga

Avayava-kriya.

3. Dvitvotpatti and

Avayava-sa?yoga-nasa

Avayava-vibhaga.

ekatva-jnana-nasa

4. Dvitvatvajnana

Dvitvadharasya

Avayava-sa?yoga-nasa.

(_i.e._,

avayavina?) nasa?

5. Dvitvagu?a-buddhi

Dvitva-nasa

adhara-nasa and

of avayavin). (_i.e._,

apekshabuddhi-nasa

(of avayavin).

6. Dvitva-nasa and

. . .

Dvitva-nasa.

dravya-buddhi

The second and third columns represent what takes place when, in the course of the six steps of _ekatvajnana_, &c., one of the two parts is itself divided either at the _first_ or the _second_ moment. In the first case, the _dvitva_ of the whole is destroyed in the fifth moment, and therefore its only cause is its immediately preceding _dvitvadhara-nasa_, or, as Madhava calls it, _asrayaniv?itti_. In the second case, the _nasa_ arrives at the same moment simultaneously by both columns (1) and (3), and hence it may be ascribed to the united action of two causes, _apekshabuddhi-nasa_ and _adhara-nasa_. Any _kriya_ which arose in one of the parts after the second moment would be unimportant, as the _nasa_ of the _dvitva_ of the whole would take place by the original sequence in column (1) in the sixth moment; and in this way it would be too late to affect that result.]

[Footnote 182: _I.e._, from the destruction of _apekshabuddhi_ follows the destruction of _dvitva_; but the other destructions previously described were followed by some production,--thus the knowledge of _dvitvatva_ arose from the destruction of _ekatvajnana_, &c. (cf.

Siddh. Mukt., p. 107). I may remind the reader that in Hindu logic the counter-ent.i.ty to the non-existence of a thing is the thing itself.]

[Footnote 183: From the conjunction of fire is produced an action in the atoms of the jar; thence a separation of one atom from another; thence a destruction of the conjunction of atoms which made the black (or unbaked) jar; thence the destruction of the compound of two atoms.]

[Footnote 184: _I.e._, a kind of initiative tendency.]

[Footnote 185: These are explained at full length in the Siddhanta Muktavali, pp. 104, 105. In the first series we have--1. the destruction of the _dvya?uka_ and simultaneously a disjunction from the old place produced by the disjunction (of the parts); 2. the destruction of the black colour in the _dvya?uka_, and the simultaneous destruction of the conjunction of the _dvya?uka_ with that place; 3. the production of the red colour in the atoms, and the simultaneous conjunction with another place; 4. the cessation of the action in the atom produced by the original conjunction of fire. The remaining 5-10 agree with the 4-9 above.]

[Footnote 186: The Vaiseshikas hold that when a jar is baked, the old black jar is _destroyed_, its several compounds of two atoms, &c., being destroyed; the action of the fire then produces the red colour in the separate atoms, and, joining these into new compounds, eventually produces a new red jar. The exceeding rapidity of the steps prevents the eye's detecting the change of the jars. The followers of the Nyaya maintain that the fire penetrates into the different compounds of two or more atoms, and, without any destruction of the old jar, produces its effects on these compounds, and thereby changes not the jar but its colour, &c.,--it is still the same jar, only it is red, not black.]

[Footnote 187: In p. 109, line 14, I read _gaga?avibhagakart?itvasya_.]

[Footnote 188: The Siddhanta Muktavali, p. 112, describes the series of steps:--1. An action, as of breaking, in one of the halves; 2. the disjunction of the two halves; 3. the destruction of the conjunction which originally produced the pot; 4. the destruction of the pot; 5.

by the disjunction of the two halves is produced a disjunction of the severed half from the old place; 6. the destruction of the conjunction with that old place; 7. the conjunction with the new place; 8. the cessation of the original impulse of fracture. Here the second disjunction (viz., of the half of the pot and the place) is produced by the previous disjunction of the halves, the intimate causes of the pot.]

[Footnote 189: The original has a plural _vibhagan_, _i.e._, disjunctions from the several points.]

[Footnote 190: _I.e._, the disjunction of the hand and the points of s.p.a.ce.]

[Footnote 191: The author of a commentary on the Bhagavad Gita.]