Book 3 - Pada-kāṇḍa (5): Guṇa-samuddeśa (On Quality)

3.5.1 unformalized

संसर्गि भेदकं यद् यत् सव्यापारं प्रतीयते ।
गुणत्वं परतन्त्रत्वात्तस्य शास्त्र उदाहृतम् ॥ १ ॥

saṃsargi bhedakaṃ yad yat savyāpāraṃ pratīyate |
guṇatvaṃ paratantratvāttasya śāstra udāhṛtam || 1 ||

Whatever is understood as commingling, as differentiating, and as possessed of operation — its quality-hood, from its being dependent, has been exemplified in the science.

The definition of quality, and it is built from three marks. Samsargi — *commingling*: a guna is never met alone; it is always with something (3.4.1's samsarga-rupat sambhutah, and 1.62's paratantra guna). Bhedakam — *differentiating*: its office is to distinguish — the red cow from the black (3.4.3's bhedyatvena vivaksitah, substance being what is *to be* differentiated: the two definitions interlock exactly). Sa-vyaparam — *possessed of operation*: it does something, which will be the samuddesa's whole argument. And the ground of the classification: gunatvam paratantratvat tasya sastra udahrtam — its *quality-hood*, from its being *dependent*, has been *exemplified in the science*. Paratantra: other-tenanted — the term 3.3.4 used of the relation (atyanta-paratantra, whence no form to name). Quality is dependent but not *utterly* so: it has an operation of its own, and that is what distinguishes a guna from a relation. The samuddesa will spend nine verses establishing that the operation is real.

3.5.2 unformalized

द्रव्यस्याव्यपदेशस्य य उपदीयते गुणः ।
भेदको व्यपदेशाय तत्प्रकर्षोऽभिधीयते ॥ २ ॥

dravyasyāvyapadeśasya ya upadīyate guṇaḥ |
bhedako vyapadeśāya tatprakarṣo'bhidhīyate || 2 ||

The quality which is taught, as differentiator, of a substance that is not designated — for the sake of its designation, that thing's excellence is what is expressed.

Quality's office in designation. Dravyasya avyapadesasya — of a substance *that is not designated*, that cannot be picked out as it stands (one cow among many) — yah upadiyate gunah bhedakah: the *quality* which is taught as *differentiator* — vyapadesaya, *for the sake of its designation*. And what such a quality expresses: tat-prakarsah abhidhiyate — that thing's *excellence* is what is expressed. Prakarsa: eminence, degree, the more-ness that 1.64 analysed (the quality as prakarsa-hetu, the ground of the comparative). So a differentiating quality does not merely mark; it *grades* — 'the red cow' picks her out by her being more red, standing out. The verse introduces the samuddesa's technical problem: prakarsa is what qualities deliver, and the next verses ask what prakarsa itself rests on.

3.5.3 unformalized

सर्वस्यैव प्रधानस्य न विना भेदहेतुना ।
प्रकर्षो विद्यते नापि शब्दस्योपैति वाच्यताम् ॥ ३ ॥

sarvasyaiva pradhānasya na vinā bhedahetunā |
prakarṣo vidyate nāpi śabdasyopaiti vācyatām || 3 ||

Of every principal whatever, there is no excellence apart from a cause of differentiation; nor does it come to be expressible by a word.

The dependence of excellence, stated twice over. Sarvasya eva pradhanasya — of *every principal whatever* (any substance, anything that gets qualified) — na vina bheda-hetuna prakarso vidyate: there is *no excellence* apart from a *cause of differentiation*. Nothing is eminent in itself; eminence is always eminence-by-something (the cow is not simply outstanding, she is outstanding *in redness*). And: na api sabdasya upaiti vacyatam — nor does it *come to be expressible* by a word: bare excellence, unattached to a differentiating ground, cannot even be said. So prakarsa is doubly dependent — ontologically on a cause of difference, semantically on the same. This is 1.64's doctrine (the quality that is the ground of pre-eminence is indicated as though independent, and exists only asrita, resting on its substrate) now made the axis of the samuddesa: excellence is what qualities give, and it is nothing on its own.

3.5.4 unformalized

विग्यामानाः प्रधानेषु न सर्वे भेदहेतवः ।
विशेषशब्दैरुच्यन्ते व्यावृत्तार्थाभिधायिभिः ॥ ४ ॥

vigyāmānāḥ pradhāneṣu na sarve bhedahetavaḥ |
viśeṣaśabdairucyante vyāvṛttārthābhidhāyibhiḥ || 4 ||

Not all the causes of differentiation that are present in the principals are stated by particular-words, which express excluded meanings.

A limit on what language marks. Vidyamanah pradhanesu na sarve bheda-hetavah: *not all* the causes of differentiation that are *present* in the principals — a thing has indefinitely many features that could distinguish it — visesa-sabdaih ucyante: are *stated* by *particular-words*. And those words are characterized: vyavrtta-artha-abhidhayibhih — *expressing excluded meanings*: a particular-word means by excluding (3.1.14's vyavrtti, 3.1.98's apoha). So language selects: of a thing's countless differentiating features, a few get words, and those words work by exclusion. This is 3.1.47's finding (the real difference in the scent of jasmine, unnamed because too transient) generalized: what has a word is not what is distinguishable but what usage has troubled to exclude for (3.1.51's yatnat: what costs effort to say is what is meant).

3.5.5 unformalized

वस्तूपलक्षणे तत्र विशेषो व्यापृतो यदि ।
प्रकर्षो नियमाभावात् स्यादविज्ञातहेतुकः ॥ ५ ॥

vastūpalakṣaṇe tatra viśeṣo vyāpṛto yadi |
prakarṣo niyamābhāvāt syādavijñātahetukaḥ || 5 ||

If the particular were there engaged in the indicating of the thing — then, from the absence of restriction, the excellence would have an unknown cause.

The first horn of a dilemma about what the quality-word does. Suppose the visesa — the particular, the differentiating quality — is vyaprtah vastu-upalaksane: *engaged in* the *indicating of the thing*, doing the pointing-out (3.4.3's vastu-upalaksana: the pronoun's office). Then: niyama-abhavat prakarsah syad avijnata-hetukah — from the *absence of restriction*, the *excellence* would have an *unknown cause*: if the quality is busy indicating, nothing is left to ground the grading, and the eminence 3.5.2 said it expresses would come from nowhere. The dilemma's structure is the samuddesa's own: a quality cannot both point out the substance and grade it, if it has only one operation. Which is why 3.5.8 will insist that the quality has its own operation, distinct from its indicating work.

3.5.6 unformalized

सर्वं च सर्वतोऽवश्यं नियमेन प्रकृष्यते ।
संसर्गिणा निमित्तेन निकृष्टेनाधिकेन वा ॥ ६ ॥

sarvaṃ ca sarvato'vaśyaṃ niyamena prakṛṣyate |
saṃsargiṇā nimittena nikṛṣṭenādhikena vā || 6 ||

And everything is necessarily and by rule made excellent from every side — by a commingling cause, whether inferior or superior.

The universality of grading. Sarvam ca sarvatah avasyam niyamena prakrsyate: *everything* is *necessarily* and *by rule* made excellent *from every side* — there is nothing that is not graded relative to something; every thing stands in comparisons in every direction. Samsargina nimittena nikrstena adhikena va: by a *commingling cause*, whether *inferior* or *superior*. The grading-cause is always a samsargin — something the thing is with (3.5.1's first mark) — and it may be less or more: a thing is eminent by exceeding and eminent by being exceeded (the small stone is eminently small among boulders). So prakarsa is not a property a thing has but a relational fact holding in all directions at once, generated by whatever it is commingled with. This is 3.1.15-16's structure (places belonging to what is not a place, conferred by relata) applied to degree.

3.5.7 unformalized

नापेक्षते निमित्तं च प्रकर्षे व्यापृतं यदि ।
द्रव्यस्य स्यादुपादानं प्रकर्षं प्रत्यनर्थकम् ॥ ७ ॥

nāpekṣate nimittaṃ ca prakarṣe vyāpṛtaṃ yadi |
dravyasya syādupādānaṃ prakarṣaṃ pratyanarthakam || 7 ||

And if what is engaged in the excellence does not depend on an occasioning ground — then the taking-up of the substance would be purposeless with respect to the excellence.

The second horn. Suppose the reverse of 3.5.5: the quality is engaged in the *excellence* and does *not* depend on an occasioning ground — the grading is intrinsic to the quality, needing nothing else. Then: dravyasya syad upadanam prakarsam praty anarthakam — the *taking-up of the substance* would be *purposeless* with respect to the excellence: why mention the cow at all, if the redness grades by itself? The substance becomes idle. Anarthaka — purposeless: the word 2.34 used for what results when a word-meaning is added or subtracted against the sentence's one meaning, and 3.1.63's superfluous second animal. So both horns fail: engage the quality in indicating and the grading is groundless (3.5.5); engage it in grading and the substance is idle (3.5.7). The samuddesa's dilemma is complete, and 3.5.8 resolves it.

3.5.8 unformalized

सव्यापारो गुणस्तस्मात्स्वप्रकर्षनिबन्धनः ।
द्रव्यात्मानं भिनत्त्येव स्वप्रकर्षे निवेशयन् ॥ ८ ॥

savyāpāro guṇastasmātsvaprakarṣanibandhanaḥ |
dravyātmānaṃ bhinattyeva svaprakarṣe niveśayan || 8 ||

Therefore the quality is possessed of operation, grounded in its own excellence; it differentiates the substance's very self, installing it in its own excellence.

The resolution, and it grants the quality genuine agency. Tasmat sa-vyaparo gunah: *therefore* the quality is *possessed of operation* — 3.5.1's third mark, now established by the dilemma's exhaustion: neither horn works unless the quality does something of its own. Sva-prakarsa-nibandhanah: *grounded in its own excellence* — the quality's operation rests on its own grading, not on a borrowed one. And the operation itself: dravya-atmanam bhinatti eva sva-prakarse nivesayan — it *differentiates the substance's very self*, *installing it* in its *own excellence*. The redness does not merely accompany the cow and get noticed; it *installs* her in redness, and the installing is what differentiates her. Nivesayan — installing — is 2.45's verb for the relation delimiting the hovering general and settling it in the particular. So the quality is the operator that takes an undesignated substance (3.5.2's dravyasya avyapadesasya) and puts it somewhere on a scale, and its being-there is its being-differentiated. Quality is dependent (3.5.1's paratantra) and active, which is exactly what distinguished it from relation at the samuddesa's opening.

3.5.9 unformalized

अरूपं पररूपेण द्रव्यमाख्यायते यथा ।
अप्रकर्षं प्रकर्षेण गुणस्याविश्यते तथा ॥ ९ ॥

arūpaṃ pararūpeṇa dravyamākhyāyate yathā |
aprakarṣaṃ prakarṣeṇa guṇasyāviśyate tathā || 9 ||

As a formless substance is designated by way of another's form — so a quality that is without excellence is entered into by way of excellence.

The samuddesa's closing parallel, and it folds quality back into the kanda's master-doctrine. Arupam para-rupena dravyam akhyayate yatha: as a *formless* substance is *designated by way of another's form* — the substance, having no own-form available to designation (3.2.2's satyam vastu ascertained by unreal configurations; 3.3.54's word stating the object by way of another form), is reached through what is not it. Aprakarsam prakarsena gunasya avisyate tatha: *so* a quality that is *without excellence* is *entered into* by way of *excellence*. The quality, in itself ungraded, is reached through grading. So both categories — the kanda's two great ones, substance and quality — are accessible only through what they are not: substance through alien form, quality through degree. Neither is ever met as itself. This is 3.3.80's footless station arriving in the humblest possible setting: a nine-verse technical discussion of adjectives, ending with the finding that adjectives reach their objects the way everything reaches everything — obliquely, and by what is not there.