Use
sanskrit new fonts for viewing
The
vaisheShika sUtras and the science of the ancient Hindus.
Philosophical thought of the Indo-Aryans underwent considerable diversification in the Indian subcontinent towards the end of the vedic period and the periods that followed it. The rough temporal span of this development can be taken to be from 1000 BC to 850 AD and accompanied the political unification of greater India under various indigenous dynasties. Six principal spheres of thought or darshanas originating in this period are followed amidst the mainstream Hindus and include nyAya, vaisheShika, sAMkhya, yoga, mImAmsa and vedanta. In addition to these, there were more heterodox philosophical systems such as jaina, bauddha and charvAka that were excluded from mainstream Hindu thought due to lack of firm affliations to the classic vedic texts. The principle six claimed to be based on the vedas but strikingly differed from each other due to differential interpretation of the vedic texts. Of these systems nyAya and vaisheShika developed the atomic theory of matter and represent some of the most advanced sections Hindu thought. Below, I briefly consider the development of the ideas on nature of matter that are expounded in the vaisheShika sUtras of kaNAda.
All the classic lines of hindu philosophy claim their origins in the vedas and true enough the beginings of hindu atomic thought can be seen in the vedas. For example in the ancient chants from the R^igveda authored by dirghatamA of the clan of the gotamas and the kANva medhAthiti one can see primary references of the construction of universe by atoms:
#d< iv:[uivR c³me Çexa in dxe pdm!,
smUFmSy pa<sure. RV
1.22.17
iv:[aenuR k< vIyaRi[ à vaec< y>
paiwRvain ivmmerja<is,
yae ASk-ayÊÄr< sxSw<
ivc³ma[ôexaeégay>. RV 1.154.1
Here in the three striding viShNu is said to collect the atoms together or measure out the world by means of atoms. Similarly in the taittriya saMhitA rudra is invoked as being present in the atoms and particles of the world. This atomic doctrine, with its beginnings in the vedas, had a long lasting life in the Indo-Aryan philosophical traditions as is attested by a very similar thought was voiced in the much later shakta tantric literature:
tnIya<s< pa<su< tv cr[ pNke
éh-v<, ivriÂ> s<icNvn! ivrcyit laekanivkl<,
vhTyen< zaEir> kwm=ip shöe[ izrsa<, hr>
s<]u_y @n< -jit -istaEςln ivixm!. SL 2
This
mantra from the saundaryalahari talks about the elementary particles (pAMsu)
emerging from the feet of the primary shakti. Brahma generates the world with these,
while viShNu with his 1000 heads holds them in place and rudra destroys the
combinations and sets them free. These
examples point out that the concept of particular construction (vaisheShika) of
the universe was an integral part of Indian cosmogony.
The
general esteem for the hindu vaisheShika principles even in the heterodox
schools generally illustrates its central position amidst the coeval
philosophies. RAjashekhara the jaina scholar mentions one of the founders of
vaisheShika- ulUka as being an ancient scholar who had discovered fundamental
truths of the universe. Similarly, there is a vaisheShika text along with a sAMkhya
treatise in the Chinese version
of the buddhist tripITaka that probably originated as a result of the
scholastic tradition of kumArajIva. VaisheShika also prominently figures in the
list of things learned by the Indo-greek king Menander, in course of his
explorations of philosophy, in the text-“The questions of Menander”. Thus, we
get a glimpse of the fact that vaisheShika, rather than being a watershed of
Indian thought as imagined by many, was one of the principal philosophies of
the Indians.
Traditionally
the first sUtras vaisheShika are supposed to have been founded by ulUka
probably as early as 800 years before gautama buddha as mentioned in the vAyu
purANna. This is independently attested by rajAshekhara in his nyAya kandalI
and in the central Asian text of kumArajiva’s school. However, none of his
works appear to survived to this date. He is supposed to have been followed by
pa~nchashikha of one of the a~ngirasa clans who developed his works further.
These developments can be gleaned from the teachings of his female student
sulabhA of the vasishhTha family in the court of the maithila ruler
dharmadhyaja. The Sanskrit version of a central Asian text in Chinese
translation- the dashapadArtha shAstra of chandramati that explains
pa~ncashikha’s work unfortunately does not exist thus pointing to lacunae in
the extant vaisheShika traditions. Another early scholar of vaisheShika was a
certain rAvaNa whose work while mentioned periodically does not appear to
survive in complete form. The mention of the aNu/aNava- the small basic
particle and space in the brahmasUtra stemming from the vyAsa-pArasharya-
jaimini’s school may show that these concepts were well developed at a rather
ancient date before 1000 BCE. The first
of the well preserved texts of the vaisheShika dating to between 700-600 BCE
schools comprise of kaNAda the kAshyapa’s celebrated sUtras. These represent
the most remarkable work of vaisheShika both in terms of their antiquity and
the originality of thoughts they contain. The sUtras of KaNAda follow the
traditional Indian aphoristic style with short sentences and some degree of
purposeful ellipsis. KaNAda was followed by a brilliant, long tradition of
vaisheShika-vAdins who composed both original works and some commentaries. This tradition includes the following major
names: 1) kaNAda 2) prashastapAda- who composed the padArtha dharma saMgraha
that developed the theory of atomic combinations. 3) udayana 4) shrIdhara 5)
vyomashiva 6) vardhamAna 7) shankara-mishra 8) shivAditya. Parallel to this
line of vaisheShika exponents the other line of Indian atomic philosophers
beginning from akshapAda the gotama developed their own apparatus- nyAya with
many common principles. NyAya while developing a complex system of inference
and argument had a less than robust theory of chemical transformation and it
eventually fused with vaisheShika to spawn the conjoint nyAya-vaisheShika vij~nana
vAdin school with pioneers such as gadAdhara. While the beginning in the form
of kAshyapa kaNAda’s sUtras is spectacular, the subsequent competition from the
irrational schools of buddhism and vedanta eclipsed vaisheShika by repulsing
Indian intellectual elite from its pursuit. Thus, this brilliant school poised
to develop into an advanced scientific venture met with near extinction in
India by the time Dalton was postulating
modern Atomism several thousand kilometers away.
The
vaisheshika sUtras when viewed in the true spirit of the vij~nanavAdins emerges
as a mature scientific treatise that covers a range of physical descriptions of
the world and the processes occuring therein. A number of physical laws are
plainly expressed within these aphorisms as well as explanations for processes.
The sUtras themselves show quite a haphazard arrangement, with prashastapAda’s
work doing much to re-order the material more systematically. Some of the
physical concepts covered in the text are to do with basic forces acting on
bodies. The text rather early on defines a force and proceeds to consider the
forces based on the changes related to matter:
s<yaegiv-agvegana< kmR smanm!, V.S 1.1.19
Force is
that which displaces, holds together or moves things apart.
n ÔVya[a< Vyitrekat!, V.S 1.1.20
In the
absence of a force, a particle of matter experiences no change.
%T]ep[m]ep[mak…ÁCn< àsar[< gmnimit kmaRi[, V.S 1.1.6
The forces
to be considered are an external force, gravity, that with causes attraction of
particles, that which causes repulsion of particles and the internal movements
of them in matter.
Thus,
vaisheShika aims at understanding a substance in terms of the effect of
external forces that act on it including gravity and the internal forces on its
particles that cause their attraction, repulsion and vibrations. Then the text makes a rather interesting
statement:
kayaRivraeix kmR, V.S 1.1.13
Action is opposed by an equivalent opposite reaction-
thus, here an echo of the Newton’s 3rd law of motion. Further, the role
of forces in different processes is elaborated in the sUtras describing the
motion of an arrow:
#;avyugpTs<yaegivze;a> kmaRNyTve
hetu>,
naednada*im;ae> kmR kmRkairta½
s<SkaraÊÄr< twaeÄrmuÄr< c,
s<Skara-ave guéTvaTptnm!, V.S 5.1.16-18
The diversities of the movement of an arrow are due to
the consecutive changes in the components of the acting forces. The stored
energy provides the propulsion to the arrow and this causes it move further to
a high point. This component keeps reducing while that of gravity increases
resulting in its fall. Thus kaNAda kAshyapa clearly recognized the trajectory
of an arrow as being dependent only on the two acting forces- one emerging from
the stored energy that causes the horizontal movement and gravity that effects
vertical movement. The concept of work
being done to counter gravity and in the absence of such work the tendency to
attain an energy minimum can be rather plainly gleaned from the following
sUtras:
guéTvàyÆs<yaeganamuT]ep[m!, V.S 1.1.27
The force on a body is the resultant of gravity and the
work done against it.
àyÆa-ave guéTvaTsuÞSy ptnm!, V.S 5.1.13
Once the work against gravity ceases then the body
reaches an energy-less state falling under gravity.
The importance of gravity is reiterated in the sUtra
that suggests that even in the absence of all other forces (saMyoga-bindings)
gravity exists thus suggesting it as a primary property matter:
s<yaega-ave guéTvaTptnm!, V.S 5.1.7
Finally, one of the sUtra’s perhaps hints at the
vectorial nature of force by saying that the “guna” of forces (direction)
prevents a magnitude from being obtained:
gu[ vExmRyat! n kmR[a< kmR, V.S.1.1.20a
Having laid out a basic physics KaNAda goes on to
explore the nature of physical changes in matter in terms of work being done on
the basic particles that constitute matter. For this he provides an
understanding of the states of matter in terms of their particles. He clearly
recognizes the “substantial nature” of air and that it is composed of
particles.
vayaevaRyus<mUCDRn< nanaTve ilNgm!, V.S 2.1.14
The particular nature of air is suggested by the mixing
of gases that occurs on their collision.
KaNAda goes on to say that despite of being made of
atoms and occupying space air fails show orderly movement so its form cannot be
perceived:
sTyip ÔVyTve mhTve
êps<Skara-avaÖayavnupliBx>, V.S 4.1.8
Explaining solids, he says that they occupy space and
assume form due to conglomeration of the constituent particles:
mhTynekÔVyvÅvaÇUpa½aePliBx>, V.S 4.1.6
A fairly clear understanding of the liquid state and its
transformation to gaseous or solids states - vaporization, melting and freezing
is seen in the vaisheShika sUtras.
tiÖze;e[a†òkairtm!,
ÔvTvaTSyNdnm!,
naf(a vayus<yaegadaraeh[m!,
naednaTpIfnaTs<yus<yaega½, V.S 5.2.4-5.2.7
The (fluid’s) particles possess energy. This causes them
to possess the property of fluidity. The heat bearing rays provide the
particles with energy to form a gas and rise. The heated particles of air
impact the vapor and with this energy it mixes with it.
KaNAda also explains freezing and melting of a liquid as
being a result of heat being taken up or given up by its particles:
Apa< s'œ"atae ivlyn tej>
s<yaegat!, V.S 5.2.9
He states that some apparently solid substances like
ghee, lac and wax are in reality liquids, as their particles are naturally
“heat-conjoined” or disorganized as in water. Other true solid substances such
as tin, lead, iron, silver and gold need their atoms to be supplied with
external heat to disorder them before they become a fluid:
sipRjRtumxUiCDòanami¶s<yaegadœÔvta=iÑ>
samaNym!,
ÇpusIslaehrjtsuv[aRna<
tEjsanami¶s<yaegadœ Ôvta=iÑ>, V.S 2.1.6-7
The depth of KaNAda’s understanding of natural processes
can be glimpsed in the fact that he was able to distinguish between the
physical changes that merely alter the substance’s state and the chemical
processes that result in new substances. Before proceeding to expound these
ideas he makes a remarkable statement that echos the law of conservation of
mass. This was the founding principle of the vaisheShika doctrine that was
further developed by prashastapAda in explaining how any body’s mass needs to
be wholly explained in terms of its constituent particles.
ÔVyai[ ÔVyaNtrmar-Nte,
gu[aí gu[aNtrm!,
V.S 1.1.8-9
A substance can only emerge from another substance and
not on its own eventhough its properties change from one to another.
A-Ut< naStITynwaRNtm!R, V.S 9.1.9
Nothing can be produced de novo but has to rise from
something.
Further, the fundamental particular entities are stated
as maintaining their individuality inspite of their combinations forming and
breaking under the influence of forces:
@kÔVymgu[< s<yaegiv-age:vnpe]<
kar[imit kmRl][m!, V.S
1.1.16
Any fundamental particular entity can be a constituent
multiple substances:
ÔVya[a< ÔVy< ky¡ samaNym!, V.S 1.1.22
Any substance comprising of two or more primary particle
types requires a chemical reaction to generate it- the conjoining and break up
of prexisting molecules:
iÖTvà-&tyí s<Oya> p&w®v<
s<yaegiv-agaí, V.S
1.1.23
The “molecules” are stated as emerging from combinations
between the fundamental entities:
s<yaegana< ÔVy<, V.S 1.1.25
Forces are necessary to bring about combination and
break up of molecules:
s<yaegiv-aga> kmR[am!, V.S 1.1.28
The combinations of particles to produce molecules
result in substances with states very different from those of the original
particles:
AnekÔVye[ ÔVye[ smvayaÔ‚pivze;a½aepliBx>, V.S 4.1.9
Thus in the vaisheShika sUtras we see the development of
an “atomic” theory of matter and also a theory for chemical reactions based on
interactions between these “atomic” particles. As the eternality or the
indestructability of the primary particles is explicity stated (inTy<
pirm{flm!, V.S7.1.26) it
is apparent that kaNAda was only allowing for integral combinations of his
particles. In the sUtra -V.S 1.1.23 (see above) he raises the point of
rejoining the primary particles in the formation of a particle of a new
substance.
In the true tradition of all Hindu epistemologies kaNAda
does not limit himself with this physical theory but proceeds to speculate on
other matters including the mind, space and time. He takes the stance that mind
has to be explained as being comprised of particles- a rather mature thought
for his period. Commenting on space and time he considers both of them to be
related and considers them as serving as a frame in which matter is
distributed. Space and time are also claimed to be particular in nature like a
gas and they are sums of their consitutent particles:
ApriSmNpr< yugpdyugpi½r< i]àimit
kalil¼ain,
ÔVyvinTyTv vayuna VyaOyate,
tÅv< -aven, V.S 2.2.6-2.2.8
We get a hint that kaNAda was aware of other phenomena
too- like for example he speaks of the force adR^isShTam as being responsible
for the movement of the needle and the bead. Was he refering to electricity/magnetism
here?
In the sUtras of kaNAda we see the origin of an
objective Indian philosophy and an attempt to explain nature in a realistic
manner. The early date of the text and acceptance of the view that vaisheShika
represents a scientific exploration raises two issues: 1) Was there an
empirical base for the sUtras 2) What
were the causes for the cessation of a physical interpretation of nature in the
periods of Indian history that followed the pinnacle of vaisheShika. With
regards to the first issue, the fact that in some cases kaNAda uses examples
such as the flight of the arrow suggests that in the least there had been an
effort to observe. As early as the yajur vedic period (eg Taittriya saMhitA
prapAThaKA 5) an understanding of metallurgy flourished across Greater India.
Further, the veda of the atharvAngirasa also suggests the knowledge of a range
of chemical operations. Thus between the vedic period to that of kaNAda one
would expect a considerable development of practical techniques related to chemistry
that could have provided kaNAda with the empirical observations necessary for
his sUtras. However, given the style of Indian aphoristic literature, there is
no reason to expect many of these empirical observations to occur explicitly in
the text.
With regards to the follow-up on kaNAda’s work we see
that in the early phase of development vaisheShika advanced rather rapidly with
prashastapAda expanding the theory of the “paramANu” and its derivatives. He
also thoroughly reorganizes the thoughts of kaNAda and provides sound
explanations for many of the sutras. Nevertheless, in the following centuries
vaisheShika was possibly being further distanced from its empirical roots and
faced the adversity of the lack of new observations on natural processes.
Simultaneously the rise of vedAnta after the 5th century CE dealt a
fatal blow to vaisheShika crippling any further intellectual developments in a
productive direction. Advaita amidsts the schools of vedanta was particularly
successful in driving the Indian mind away from the exploration of the universe
and thus it turned inwards to search the undefined “Atma”. Ironically, clash
between advaita vedAnta and vaisheShika was entirely superfluous in purely
logical terms. They were based on completely different axioms- advaita vedAnta
started out by denying the existence of the world as a real entity and decryed
its study as avidya while vaisheShika sought to study the world and pronounced
the lack of knowledge of the particles to be avidya.