Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Encyclopedia of India–China Cultural Contacts v1.c7.s10.t8: Vaisheshika Sutra

Encyclopedia of India–China Cultural Contacts v1.c7.s10.t8

Language
English

Vaisheshika Sutra

v1.c7.s10.t8.1

As one of the major philosophical schools of Brahmanism, Vaiśeṣika, or the Vaisheshika school, was formed around 2^nd century BCE. With a significant philosophical influence in India, it spread to China along with Buddhism, where it attracted great attention from some of the major thinkers in ancient China.

v1.c7.s10.t8.2

**Theoretical Sources and Relevant Legends** The word “Vaiśeṣika”, which is the Sanskrit name for Vaisheshika, is derived from “Vishesa,” which means “distinction,” or “distinguishing feature,” or “particularity.” This school was also transliterated into “feishishijia” and “pishishi” in ancient China. In Chinese Buddhist scriptures, it is often referred to as “Sheng Zong” or “Shenglun Waidao”.

v1.c7.s10.t8.3

Some of the basic theories of the Vaisheshika school were covered by certain key philosophical treatises in ancient India such as the “Brāhmaṇa” and the “Upanishad”. However, what had contributed directly to the formation of this particular philosophical school were the thoughts and ideas of some Shramana thinkers active in ancient India.

v1.c7.s10.t8.4

It is generally acknowledged that this school was originally proposed by the sage Kaṇāda (or Kana-bhuk, literally, atom-eater) around 2nd century BCE, who was also extensively referred to as “Youloujia” in Chinese Buddhist records. Most of the information about him contained in existing records is of a legendary, even mythical, proportion. For instance, *Bailun Shu* (Commentary on the Shata Shastra) describes the legendary figure as “Uluka, aka immortal of barred owlet, having been born 800 years earlier than Śākyamuni” and “fond of lecturing during the day and travelling at night. If you want to keep one, you must feed it in the night and it will eat with its family dependents”.

v1.c7.s10.t8.5

**Historical Evolution and Foundational Text** - Widely considered the foundational text of the Vaiśeṣik (Vaisheshika) school of philosophy, the original version of the *Vaiśeṣika-sūtra* was created around 2^nd century BCE by Kaṇāda. Containing additional parts incorporated still later, the extant version of *Vaiśeṣika-sūtra* was created around 2^nd century CE. Having established some of the fundamental theories of Vaiśeṣik, the sutra laid the theoretical groundwork for the school.

v1.c7.s10.t8.6

Around 6^th century CE, there emerged a significant commentary on the *Vaiśeṣika-sūtra*, the *Padartha-dharma-samgraha* (commentary on Kanada’s Vaisesika sutra) by Prasastapada, which is the only extant Vaisheshika literature in India that offers a systematic exposition of the Vaisheshika school. Appearing much later than the sutra, it offers a clearer and richer picture of the theories of the Vaisheshika school and also proposes a more complete theoretical framework, having been widely recognised as the most representative extant Vaisheshika literature except the *Vaiśeṣika-sūtra*.

v1.c7.s10.t8.7

Around the same period, another important Vaisheshika work also appeared, which is the “*Daśapadārthaśāstra*” by Maticandra. The original text of the book has been lost, with the extant version being one Chinese translated by Hsuan Tsang. Created close to the “*Padartha-dharma-samgraha*” in time, this book contains descriptive information about the Vaisheshika system that differs substantially with that recorded in extant Sanskrit literature of the school, and has long been a subject of great interest among researchers and scholars.

v1.c7.s10.t8.8

After the 10ᵗʰ century CE, the Vaisheshika school began to merge with the Nyāya school, with a large body of significant new works emerging, including: the “*Kiranavali*” by Udayana (10th century CE), the “*Nyayakandali*” by Sridhara (10th century CE), the “*Saptapadarthi*” by Sivaditya (around 10ᵗʰ- 11ᵗʰ century CE), the “*Upaskara*” by Sankara Misra (15th century CE), the “*Tarka-Kaumudi*” by Laugaksi Bhaskara (17th century CE), and the “*Bhasapariccheda*” and “*Siddhanta-muktavali*” by Visvanatha (17th century CE).

v1.c7.s10.t8.9

Since its inception, the Vaisheshika school has been an important influence in the Indian philosophical scene, and figured largely in both Buddhism and the dominant philosophical schools of Brahmanism. Many Vedānta and Buddhist texts discuss or refute the theories of the Vaisheshika school, and therefore constitute valuable sources of information instrumental in helping people understand Vaiśeṣika and its philosophical system.

v1.c7.s10.t8.10

Major Philosophical Theories

v1.c7.s10.t8.11

The basic philosophical system of the Vaisheshika school is built around the concept of “Padartha”, which means “worldly matter corresponding to concepts”, with “Pada” meaning “words, speech, or concepts”, and “artha” meaning “things or objects”. Vaisesika is a system of pluralistic realism, which emphasises that reality consists in difference. It classifies all objects of experience or phenomena into several padartha, or categories. Different Vaisheshika works tend to adopt different padartha systems, with the two most widely known ones being the *Six Padartha theory* and the *Ten Padartha theory*. Most of the specific philosophical ideas of the school fall under the theoretical framework of “padartha”.

v1.c7.s10.t8.12

Six Padartha Theory

v1.c7.s10.t8.13

Major Vaisheshika works such as the *Vaiśeṣika-sūtra* and the *Padartha-dharma-samgraha* (commentary on Kanada’s *Vaisesika sutra*) proposed that there are six padarthas (categories): dravya (substance), guṇa (quality), karma (activity), sāmānya (generality), viśeṣa (particularity) and samavāya (inherence).

v1.c7.s10.t8.14

**Dravya:** It means substance or entity, and the substances are conceived as nine in number. They are, pṛthvī (earth), ap (water), tejas (fire), vāyu (air), ākaśa (ether), kāla (time), dik (space), ātman (self) and manas (mind). Earth, water, fire and air constitute material elements and are composed of atoms. Ether often means space (sometimes, elements too) according to the “Upanishad”, but in Vaisheshika it primarily refers to a particular element on which sound relies. Time is a real entity according to the Vaisheshika school and all activities, changes or modifications can be achieved only through time. Space is a real entity through which one perceives such directions as east, south, west, north, up and down. Atman (self) refers to the inner self or soul, whose existence can be confirmed by inference from the perception of feelings, breathing and desire. Manas (mind) is the real sense organ behind the five senses. When the five senses come in contact with the external world, perception can (or cannot) be achieved sometimes, This is the reason why manas exists.

v1.c7.s10.t8.15

**Guṇa** (quality): The *Vaiśeṣika-sūtra* mentions 17 guṇas (qualities), to which Praśastapāda added another seven. The original 17 guṇas (qualities) are, rūpa (colour), rasa (taste), gandha (smell), sparśa (touch), saṁkhyā (number), parimāṇa (size/dimension/quantity), pṛthaktva (individuality), saṁyoga (conjunction/accompaniments), vibhāga (disjunction), paratva (priority), aparatva (posteriority), buddhi (knowledge), sukha (pleasure), duḥkha (pain), icchā (desire), dveṣa (aversion) and prayatna (effort). To these, Praśastapāda added gurutva (heaviness), dravatva (fluidity), sneha (viscosity), dharma (merit), adharma (demerit), śabda (sound) and samkāsra (faculty). While a substance is capable of existing independently by itself, a guṇa (quality) cannot exist so.

v1.c7.s10.t8.16

**Karman** (action or motion): Motion is of five types – upward and downward motion, contraction and expansion, and locomotion.

v1.c7.s10.t8.17

**Samanya** (universal): It means is generality. It refers to nature for the existence of substances.

v1.c7.s10.t8.18

**Visesa** (ultimate particularity): It is the extreme opposite of the universal (samanya). It refers to the ultimate differences of substances.

v1.c7.s10.t8.19

**Samavaya** (inherence) is a relation by which types are held together while maintaining their own identities, often defined as the relation between cause and effect. Each padartha shall be distinguished from concept, however in fact, they should be unified in substance (reality). It is Samavaya that can produce this inseparable relationship between one's own identity and property.

v1.c7.s10.t8.20

Ten Padartha Theory

v1.c7.s10.t8.21

According to the "*Daśapadārthaśāstra*", there are 10 padarthas: dravya (substance), guṇa (quality), karma (activity), sāmānya (generality), viśeṣa (particularity), samavāya (inherence), “śakti”, “aśakti”, “sadrsya”, and “abhāva”. The first six padarthas are similar to those proposed by the *Vaiśeṣika-sūtra* and *Padartha-dharma-samgraha*, and the newly added four padarthas are defined as follows:

v1.c7.s10.t8.22

“Śakti” refers to a padartha wherein the innate inter-relationship among dravya, guṇa and karma enables them to collectively or individually give rise to particular results.

v1.c7.s10.t8.23

“Aśakti” refers to a padartha wherein the innate interrelationship among dravya, guṇa and karma enables them not to collectively or individually give rise to particular results.

v1.c7.s10.t8.24

“Sadrsya” specifically addresses objects’ relative universality and particularity. Sāmānya is limited to existence and viśeṣa is limited to ultimate differences, while other generalities and particularities shall constitute an independent padartha. *Vaiśeṣika-sūtra* and the “*Padartha-dharma-samgraha*” both believe that “universality” and “particularity” are only relative concepts, and tend to change depending on the specific perspective people take. Some concepts may be deemed as “universal” under certain circumstances, but might be considered “particular” under other circumstances. For example, for the concept of padartha, substance is considered as “particular” because it is a kind of padartha, but for earth, water, fire and air, it shall be considered as “universal” because the four elements are substances. This kind of relativity was never properly addressed in either the *Vaiśeṣika-sūtra* or the “*Padartha-dharma-samgraha*”. By contrast, the “*Daśapadārthaśāstra*” restricts viśeṣa (particularity) only to the ultimate differences between objects (“Bian Yi”), and sāmānya (generality) only to the existence of objects (“You”). In other words, the book singles out the relativity of viśeṣa (particularity) and sāmānya (generality) and makes it into a separate, independent padartha (ie “sadrsya”).

v1.c7.s10.t8.25

“Abhāva” refers to an objects’ state of nonexistence, and there are five types of “nonexistence”: antecedent non-existence (non-existence of objects that are yet to be created); subsequent non-existence (non-existence of objects that have been destroyed); reciprocal non-existence (non-existence of objects that, if in existence, will contradict existing ones); absolute non-existence (non-existence of objects that will never appear); and natural non-existence (non-existence of nature of one object in another).

v1.c7.s10.t8.26

Important theories proposed by the Vaisheshika school include: the atomic theory; “non-preexistence of effect in cause” theory; and the pramāṇa (means of valid knowledge) theory.

v1.c7.s10.t8.27

The Atomic Theory - Atom (Anu) is the smallest unit of matter postulated by some philosophers in ancient India. This concept exists in the theories of many Indian schools of thought, with the atomic theory espoused by the Vaisheshika school being the most representative. The Vaiśeṣikas attached great importance to “fundamental cause” for the creation of objects, but instead of the prevalent theory of “single cause”, upheld a “multiple causes” theory, positing that all objects in the world (the effect) don’t stem from any single cause, but multiple ones. It claimed that objects are all composed of small indivisible “atoms”. In dravya, four bhūtas, ie pṛthvī (earth), ap (water), tejas (fire) and vāyu (air) are made of indivisible atoms. The four bhūtas further fall under two categories: atoms as the smallest unit; and combination of atoms. All objects in the world are made of the four bhūtas in infinite combinations.

v1.c7.s10.t8.28

The Vaisheshika school believed that atoms exist and there is no smaller “cause” than the atoms; they cannot be destroyed for they are ever-present, permanent and eternal. All tangible objects that have forms are the “effect” composed of “atoms”. The existence of the “effect” is a mark indicating the existence of atoms as the “cause”. Effect exists only because of the existence of cause. Non-eternal is a special “opposite” of eternal.

v1.c7.s10.t8.29

The school also held that atoms are essentially of four kinds: Earth, Water, Fire and Air, the combination of which can form all kinds of objects in the world. Atoms are not created, but ever-present and eternal. There is nothing smaller than the atom. Indivisible and indestructible, it constitutes the “ultimate cause” for the creation of objects. It is spherical in shape and reflects the ultimate difference between objects. By contrast, objects formed through a combination of atoms can be created; they are non-eternal, degradable, destructible, and not spherical in shape, with no ultimate differences exhibited.

v1.c7.s10.t8.30

In addition, the Vaisheshika school also postulated an “invisible force (Adrsta)” theory in analysing the momentum in the material world and the occurrence of many natural phenomena. For instance, the literatures of Vaiśeṣika points out such phenomena as fire burning up, wind blowing sideways, sap circulating in trees and earthquakes striking can all be attributed to “invisible force”. Actually the Vaisheshika school tended to attribute all inexplicable natural phenomena at the time to “invisible force”. Invisible force (Adrsta) can be seen as a result of one’s own actions, evil or good, and in this sense is not unlike the Buddhist concept of Karma. The Vaisheshika school posited that it is always the invisible force that starts the atoms in motion.

v1.c7.s10.t8.31

The atomic theory of the Vaisheshika school served as an important approach in ancient India to understanding the occurrence and dynamics of natural phenomena, and as such, was once a highly influential theory that held considerable sway over other schools of thought, leading the latter to also form a habit of discussing this issue extensively. For instance, some works of the Vedānta school analysed the atomic theory and eventually “proved” it invalid. Many other Indian philosophical schools also expressed their views on the “atom” concept.

v1.c7.s10.t8.32

**“Non-pre-existence of Effect in Cause” Theory -** Like many schools of philosophy in ancient India, the Vaisheshika school also put a special emphasis on the theory of causationism, with the *Vaiśeṣika-sūtra* discussing it extensively. Vaisheshika school opposed the general view that cause and result are inseparable from each other. For instance, the sutra states, “there won’t be an effect without a cause, but there might be a cause without an effect”, setting out to emphasise that effect cannot exist without cause, but cause can exist without effect.” For instance, a table (the effect) cannot exist apart from wood (the cause), but we cannot say the wood does not exist if there is no table.

v1.c7.s10.t8.33

The Vaisheshika school once proved, “Non-preexistence of Effect in Cause” Theory, and they believed that there is a fundamental difference between cause and effect. According to literatures from other schools, the Vaisheshika school espoused the idea that “there is no effect in cause, and cause is different from effect” for the following seven reasons: firstly, cause and effect are easily perceived to be starkly distinct from each other: nobody would take the thread (the cause) to be the cloth (the effect), just as nobody would mistake the clay pot (the effect) for the clay (the cause). Secondly, cause and effect are named differently: nobody would call thread cloth, or call cloth thread. Thirdly, the same cause may give rise to different effects: thread can be used to make not just clothes, but other things too, like rope; fourthly, cause comes before effect at all times. Fifthly, cause and effect differ in form: clay (the cause) has a form of block while the clay pot (the effect) has a form of ampulla with a wide base. Sixthly, cause and effect differ in quantity: a single piece of cloth (the effect) is composed of many threads (the cause); and seventhly, if cause and effect are the same thing, then there shall be only one cause, ie there shall not be a lot of causes such as material constituting effect and maker manufacturing effect. Vaisheshika espoused the idea of “no effect in cause”, which may be attributed to its basic philosophical system. In explaining the creation of things in the world, this school upheld a “multiple causes” theory (anamabhavada), positing that all objects in the world (the effect) don’t stem from any single cause, but multiple ones. There won’t be any effect coming out of a single cause, only the combining of multiple causes can produce effect. The “cause” mentioned by the Vaisheshika school actually refers to the constituent parts that make up the whole, while the “effect” refers to the whole or the combined. Thus, the school held that the process of “generation” or “creation” means the combining of multiple elements (cause), and to consider cause and effect to be the same simply could not explain the creation of things. In their opinion, the process of “generation” must produce an effect distinct from the cause. In the theoretical system of Vaisheshika, all things are made of multiple elements, ie the formation of everything in the world is a process of forming one new thing through combining independent elements, and the created things (effect) never pre-exist in those elements (cause), hence the “no effect in cause” theory.

v1.c7.s10.t8.34

Bold and audacious, this theory made waves in the philosophical scene in ancient India, causing a lot of Vedānta and Buddhist thinkers to violently react to it.

v1.c7.s10.t8.35

Pratyaksha and Anumana

v1.c7.s10.t8.36

Thoughts of Vaisheshika school in epistemology are included in the theory of pratyaksha and anumana to a large extent.

v1.c7.s10.t8.37

Pratyaksha means sense perception. The *Vaiśeṣika-sūtra* further classified pratyaksha into two kinds: regular partyaksha; and Yogi-pratyaksha. They were also named as earthly pratyaksha and non-earthly pratyaksha by later generations. The former only covers the ordinary things in the world, while the latter covers such diverse metaphysical dimensions such as ego, emptiness, space, mind, etc. The *“Daśapadārthaśāstra”* doesn’t distinguish between regular partyaksha and Yogi-pratyaksha, but analyses the major factors contributing to the generation of perception, postulating that the generation of perception normally relies on four factors: “Jing”, literally means “environment”, referring to the surrounding objects that can be perceived by five senses; “Gen”, literally means “root”, referring to one’s five senses; “Yi”, literally means “mind”, referring to the link between five senses and “self”; and “Wo”, literally means “self”, referring to the one who perceives. And according to the book and other Vaisheshika works, the normal process of generation of perception can be described as follows: firstly, one’s “Gen” (five senses) come in contact with “Jing” (external environment), giving rising to impressions, which will soon be picked up by “Yi”, which is not an element of consciousness but a material one. It is extremely small in size, and can move very fast within the body. And when the information gathered by five senses is transmitted to “self”, perception occurs. However, according to the Vaisheshika school, for perception to occur, it is not necessary to have all four factors at once. Two, “Wo” and “Yi”, or three, “Wo”, “Gen”, “Yi”, of the four may be sufficient to generate perception.

v1.c7.s10.t8.38

Anumana mainly refers to inference. The *Vaiśeṣika-sūtra* specifies five circumstances of anumana: firstly to infer cause from effect, (e.g., fire can be deducted from seeing smoke); secondly to deduce effect from cause, (e.g., sound can be deducted by a deaf from special relation for drumsticks drumming). Thirdly, to infer one from the known other, provided that the two are in conjunction with each other (e.g., touch organ can be deducted from seeing an animal). Fourthly to infer one from the know other, provided that the two are in conflict with each other (e.g., food for snakes can be deducted behind the tree from restless performance of a snake); and to infer one from the known other, provided that one is inherent in the other (e.g., water can be deducted having been boiled from hot water).

v1.c7.s10.t8.39

Although Vaiśeṣika, traditionally recognised as a Brahman school, adopts the social class system of Brahmanism and believes too in reincarnation and deliverance, it is less adherent than the other “orthodox” schools of philosophy in ancient India. With its theoretical focus on natural philosophy, it deviates materially from the other mainstream Brahman schools dominant then.

v1.c7.s10.t8.40

Spread and Influence in China

v1.c7.s10.t8.41

The theories of the Vaisheshika school were also spread to ancient China, exerting a pervasive influence on the country’s philosophical scene.

v1.c7.s10.t8.42

One particular Vaiśeṣika work was translated into Chinese in its entirety in ancient China, ie the “*Daśapadārthaśāstra*” as translated by Hsuan-tsang. Different from the *Vaiśeṣika-sūtra*, the *Padartha-dharma-samgraha* (commentary on Kanada’s *Vaisesika sutra*) in a substantial way, the book proposes 10 Padarthas. Some of the Buddhist monks or scholars in ancient China noticed and discussed these differences. As a “heretical” work, the “*Daśapadārthaśāstra*” was incorporated in its entirety into the Chinese Dazangjing (“Great Treasury of Sūtras”), which was extremely rare throughout the long history of Buddhist literature compilation, indicating the high level of attention the Vaiśeṣika work had received in ancient China.

v1.c7.s10.t8.43

In relevant Buddhist scriptures, the theories of the Vaisheshika school were extensively criticised and decisively repudiated. And in refuting the Vaiśeṣika theories, Buddhist records also gave a brief account of Vaiśeṣika and quoted its representative thoughts, some of which were translated into Chinese when Buddhism spread to China. Some Buddhist monks in ancient China once expounded or analysed relevant thoughts or theories of the Vaisheshika school, as evidenced by relevant expositions widely present in Buddhist literature compiled in ancient China.

v1.c7.s10.t8.44

The “Vijñāptimātratāsiddhi” translated and compiled by Hsuan-tsang contains parts specifically dedicated to repudiating the Vaiśeṣika theories, arguing that the Padarthas considered “eternal and permanent” by Vaiśeṣika cannot be eternal and permanent if they can generate effect. For instance, if the atoms of earth, water, fire, and air in the Dravya-padārtha can be combined to create “effect”, they must be non-eternal and impermanent, because they have functions and therefore are subject to changes. As for those “eternal” Padarthas that don’t generate “effect”, such as kāla (time), dik (space), sāmānya (generality) and samavāya (inherence), they are like such non-existent things as rabbit horns, having no “prakriti” apart from consciousness. And those Padarthas considered “non-eternal and impermanent”, if blocked, will be like such things as armies and woods, having no “prakriti” whatsoever; and if unblocked, they will be like consciousness or manifestations thereof, having no concrete “vehicle” and thus, no “prakriti” apart from consciousness. In addition, the book also challenged the rationality of categorising pṛthvī (earth), ap (water) and tejas (fire) into Dravya (substance) and rūpa (colour) into Guṇa (quality), arguing that they are all subject to the control of body organs, and therefore should be put under the same category. The “Vijñāptimātratāsiddhi” also argued that there is no need for the sāmānya-padārtha as proposed by Vaiśeṣika, because according to the school’s own theory, the Dravya-padārtha shall exist of its own accord, without having to depending on the sāmānya-padārtha to verify its existence. For these reasons, the “Vijñāptimātratāsiddhi” concludes that the padārtha theory of the Vaisheshika school is self-contradictory, and therefore is not valid.

v1.c7.s10.t8.45

Kuiji also mentioned the Vaisheshika school in his “Commentary on Vijñāptimātratāsiddhi”, which contains descriptions like “Vaiśeṣika proposed the brilliant Six Padartha Theory, which is an unparalleled feat among its philosophical peers. Still later, a Vaiśeṣika disciple named Huiyue put forth a Ten Padartha Theory.”

v1.c7.s10.t8.46

Puguang also stated in volume 5 of his “Jushe Lunji” that “the Vaiśeṣika masters proposed six Padarthas, ie dravya (substance), guṇa (quality), karma (activity), sāmānya (generality), viśeṣa (particularity) and samavāya (inherence); later, a master named Huiyue proposed a Ten Padartha Theory”.

v1.c7.s10.t8.47

There are actually many such descriptions contained in Chinese Buddhist records (especially Mādhyamika commentaries), either recounting or repudiating the Vaiśeṣika thoughts.

v1.c7.s10.t8.48

In ancient China, many non-Buddhist thinkers also paid a fair amount of attention to the Vaisheshika school. For instance, Lv Cai, a thinker in China’s Tang Dynasty, was once attacked by his adversary for adopting in his philosophical thinking a certain theory rather similar to the atomic theory espoused by the Vaisheshika school.

v1.c7.s10.t8.49

In refuting his adversaries, Zhang Taiyan, a famous thinker in contemporary China, also cited the theory for earth, water, fire, air and the atomic theory of the Vaisheshika school.

v1.c7.s10.t8.50

The Vaiśeṣika theories also received a lot of scholarly attention in modern China, with the *Vaiśeṣika-sūtra* translated entirely into Chinese and the *Padartha-dharma-samgraha* partially translated into Chinese. In books published in contemporary China about Indian religious philosophy, there are dedicated chapters describing the evolution of the Vaisheshika school and its major theories. Quite many research papers on the Vaisheshika school have also been published in some Chinese scholarly journals.

v1.c7.s10.t8.51

On higher education front in China, quite some masters’ theses focussed on the “Daśapadārthaśāstra”, while many PhD dissertations mentioned the Vaiśeṣika theories.

v1.c7.s10.t8.52

Vaiśeṣika is also mentioned in the oriental philosophy courses offered in modern Chinese universities, with some courses focussing on the study of classic texts of the Vaisheshika school and others aiming to give an account of the evolution of the school and its basic theories. Among the scholars studying oriental culture in contemporary China, the Vaiśeṣika theories remain a familiar topic. Besides, in some professional conferences or symposiums held in China, the theories of the school or papers published on the school were also discussed with great interest.

v1.c7.s10.t8.53

(*Yao Weiqun*)

Cites (8)