_______________________________________________________

____________

[Footnote 1:  This is distinctively a Vais’e@sika view introduced by Pras’astapada.  Nyaya seems to be silent on this matter.  See S’a@nkara Mis’ra’s Upaskara, VII. ii. 8.]

[Footnote 2 It should be noted that the atomic measure appears in two forms as eternal as in “parama@nus” and non-eternal as in the dvya@nuka.  The parima@n@dala parima@na is thus a variety of a@nuparima@na.  The a@nuparima@na and the hrasvaparima@na represent the two dimensions of the measure of dvya@nukas as mahat and dirgha are with reference to trya@nukas.  See Nyayakandali, p. 133.]

315

(hrasva) of the dyad is the cause of the measure “great” (mahat) of the trya@nuka.  But when we come to the region of these gross trya@nukas we find that the “great” measure of the trya@nukas is the cause of the measure of other grosser bodies composed by them.  For as many trya@nukas constitute a gross body, so much bigger does the thing become.  Thus the cumulation of the trya@nukas of mahat parima@na makes things of still more mahat parima@na.  The measure of trya@nukas is not only regarded as mahat but also as dirgha (long) and this dirgha parima@na has to be admitted as coexisting with mahat parima@na but not identical, for things not only appear as great but also as long (dirgha).  Here we find that the accumulation of trya@nukas means the accumulation of “great” (mahat) and “long” (dirgha) parima@na, and hence the thing generated happens to possess a measure which is greater and longer than the individual atoms which composed them.  Now the hrasva parima@na of the dyads is not regarded as having a lower degree of greatness or length but as a separate and distinct type of measure which is called small (hrasva).  As accumulation of grossness, greatness or length, generates still more greatness, grossness and length in its effect, so an accumulation of the hrasva (small) parim_a@na ought to generate still more hrasva parim_a@na, and we should expect that if the hrasva measure of the dyads was the cause of the measure of the trya@nukas, the trya@nukas should be even smaller than the dya@nukas.  So also if the atomic and circular (parima@n@dala) size of the atoms is regarded as generating by their measure the measure of the dya@nukas, then the measure of the dya@nukas ought to be more atomic than the atoms.  The atomic, small, and great measures should not be regarded as representing successively bigger measures produced by the mere cumulation of measures, but each should be regarded as a measure absolutely distinct, different from or foreign to the other measure.  It is therefore held that if grossness in the cause generates still more greatness in the effect, the smallness and the parima@n@dala measure of the dyads and atoms ought to generate still more smallness and subtleness in their effect.  But since the dyads and the trya@nuka molecules are seen to be constituted of atoms and dyads respectively, and yet are not found to share the measure of their causes, it is to be argued that the measures of the atoms and dyads do not generate the measure of their effects, but it is their number which is the cause