1.2.9
Vaiśeṣika Sūtra / Adhyāya 1 / 1.2.9
गुणकर्मसु च भावान् न कर्म न गुणः
guṇakarmasu ca bhāvān na karma na guṇaḥ
The line
And because it is present in qualities and in actions, it is not an action and not a quality.
नेपालीमा
र गुणमा तथा कर्ममा रहेकाले यो कर्म होइन र गुण पनि होइन।
Where it sits
1.2.8 said it is other than the three. This line proves the two that inherence can prove. A substance not residing in a substance was already the mark of the produced-substance chain. 1.2.10 adds the mark from the universal side.
Split: guṇa-karmasu (गुण-कर्मसु) + ca (च) + bhāvāt (भावात्) + na (न) + karma (कर्म) + na (न) + guṇaḥ (गुणः)
Sanskrit, in depth
The words
| Word | Grammar | Sense |
|---|---|---|
| guṇa-karmasu (गुण-कर्मसु) | locative plural | in qualities and in actions. |
| ca (च) | indeclinable | and. An added reason. |
| bhāvāt (भावात्) | ablative singular, masculine | because of its presence. Because it occurs there. |
| na (न) | indeclinable | not. |
| karma (कर्म) | nominative singular, neuter | an action. |
| na (न) | indeclinable | not. |
| guṇaḥ (गुणः) | nominative singular, masculine | a quality. |
The phrases
A quality does not reside in a quality. An action does not reside in an action. 1.1.16 and 1.1.17 said so. sattā (सत्ता) does reside in qualities and in actions. So sattā (सत्ता) is not a quality and not an action.
The subject sattā (सत्ता) carries from 1.2.8. Two nas, two refused identities.
Sanskrit in this line
The locative is where it is found. The ablative bhāvāt (भावात्) is because of that finding. The subject is unspoken.
Say it back
Why would being a quality make this line impossible?