Syadvada Manjari

Author(s): Mallishenacharya, F W Thomas
Publisher: Motilal Banarasidas

Page 53

IX. THE VAIŠEŞIKA VIEWS ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE ATMAN
Now those disputants, denying the self's having the size of the body, although self-revealed by consciousness, (59) with their vision lost (destroyed) through contact with the knives of such bad Sastras, suppose its omnipresence'); therefore he says in criticism of that -- IX. Only where a thing has its qualities observed, there is it;
like a jar ete., - this is incontestable: nevertheless, a reality of the self outside the body propound those maimed by mistruth doctrines.
Only where, in whatever place; a thing, any object; its qualities observed: observed', experienced by the proof of perception, etc.; 'qualities', attributes; what has that, is so. It, the object; there only, only in the place meant. The supplying of the verb'is accountable' is obvious. Inasmuch as the previous 'only', which means limitation, is construed here also, 'there only, not elsewhere, is to exclude connection with something else. This same sense he confirms-by an example: like a jar, etc., like a pot. As the is-ness (actuality) of a jar is presented only in the place where its qualities, colour, etc., are observed, and not elsewhere, similarly also the self's qualities, intelligence, etc., are observed only in the body, not outside, therefore it (the self) has only the size of that same. Although the qualities, odour, etc., of flowers, etc., are observed also in places other than where they (the flowers, etc.) are, nevertheless this makes no exception; because the atoms of odour, etc., are their (the qualities') basis, and these, having the power of moving, by an involuntary or voluntary) motion of falling or manipulating, can be supposed to reach as far as the place of the nose, etc., which apprehend them. This is why he says, this is incontestable, this is incontestable, with nothing to veto it: because of the rule that?). 'In an observed fact there is no incongruity'.
Nor should it be said that 'Surely the qualities of mantras, etc., even in different places, namely those of attracting and extorting, (60) are observed even from a distance of a hundred leagues, etc.: so that there is a vetoing circumstance', - Say not so! For that is not, of course, a quality of the mantras, etc., but of the divinities presiding over them; and to their going to the place of the thing to be attracted or extorted; so why on earth this objection ? Never do qualities occur beyond the possessor of the qualities.
Next the second half is expounded. Nevertheless, though this truth stands fast without contention; those maimed by mistruth (a-tattva) doctrines; since, as in 'misconduct' (anācāra). the negative has the sense of contempt, 'sham-truth doctrines'; that is, by describing semblances of truths, worked out by certain persons having in their opinion the semblance of authorities; maimed', deluded; outside the body, even in places separate from the body, a reality of the self (atma-tattva), self-form (ātma-rūpa), propound, work out in the form of a sastra. This is the verbal meaning.
) On limited size' (parimana) of the soul see Sammati-tarka, pp. 133-6. *) Source untraced : quoted in Sammati-tarka, p. 75.