Is 'inseparability' (ayuta-siddhatva) a necessary condition or a sufficient condition for defining characteristics (laksana) of samavāya (inherence)? Explain with reference to Vaiśeşika Philosophy.

Understanding Samavāya in Vaiśeşika

In Vaiśeşika metaphysics, reality is composed of substances (dravyas) possessing qualities (gunas). These qualities are not external attributes but are intrinsically related to the substance. *Samavāya* is the relation that binds them. Unlike other relations like conjunction (samyoga), which requires an external agent, *samavāya* is an intrinsic relation, existing within the substance itself. For example, the yellowness is not *joined* to the mango; it *inheres* in it.

The Role of Inseparability (Ayuta-siddhatva)

‘Inseparability’ (*ayuta-siddhatva*) refers to the impossibility of conceiving or separating the inhering entities – the substance and the quality. A yellow mango cannot be thought of without its yellowness, and yellowness cannot exist independently of a substance like a mango. This inseparability is a prominent feature of *samavāya*. However, the question is whether this feature *defines* samavāya.

Is Inseparability a Necessary Condition?

Inseparability is undoubtedly a necessary condition for *samavāya*. If a quality could be separated from its substance without destroying the substance’s identity, it wouldn’t be a case of *samavāya*. Conjunction (*samyoga*) allows for separation; a pot can be broken, and the pieces (parts) can be separated. But the inherent qualities of a substance, like its color or taste, cannot be removed without altering the substance itself. Therefore, inseparability is a fundamental characteristic that *must* be present for *samavāya* to exist.

Is Inseparability a Sufficient Condition?

However, inseparability alone is not a sufficient condition for defining *samavāya*. Consider the relationship between the whole and its parts. A part is inseparable from the whole – you cannot have a hand without a body. But this relationship is often categorized as *samyoga* (conjunction) rather than *samavāya*. The key distinction lies in the nature of the relation. *Samavāya* is an intrinsic, inherent relation, while conjunction can be extrinsic. Simply being inseparable doesn’t automatically qualify a relation as *samavāya*. It requires the specific mode of ‘indwelling’ that characterizes inherent qualities.

Illustrative Example

Consider a piece of cloth and its thread. The thread is inseparable from the cloth – removing it destroys the cloth. However, this is a relation of conjunction, not *samavāya*. The thread *constitutes* the cloth, but it doesn’t *inherently* belong to it in the same way yellowness inherently belongs to a mango. The yellowness is a quality *of* the mango, while the thread is a component *of* the cloth.

Vaiśeşika Perspective

The Vaiśeşika school emphasizes that *samavāya* is a positive, intrinsic relation, not merely the absence of separability. It’s not enough to say something *cannot* be separated; we must understand *how* it is inherently connected. This inherent connection is what distinguishes *samavāya* from other relations, making inseparability a necessary but not sufficient condition.