Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A Concise History of Science in India c13: 9 The Physical World: Views and Concepts

A Concise History of Science in India c13

Language
English

Contents

9 The Physical World: Views and Concepts

Introduction

c13.s1.1

In the perspective of history, the ancient inquiries concerning the nature of the physical world seem to have two characteristics, viz. (i) they had almost similar types of origins and patterns of development in more than one culture-area; and (ii) not a few of the ancient metaphysical concepts, though intuitive, appear to be near approximations to some of the modern physical ideas arrived at by methods of induction, deduction and experimentation. In different periods of history man, the thinker, very often turned his attention to that elusive problem—the problem of One in Many—in other words, to the plausible explanation of the maximum of phenomena by the minimum of postulates. That in this way the physical world is capable of human understanding has been the tacit premise of the ancient thinkers and men of modern science alike. In ancient times, nevertheless, the attempt was at a rational and knowable interpretation of the physical world and seldom at manipulating it towards the material benefits of man. This attitude manifested itself in different speculations or conceptual schemes and, in the evolution of the latter, logic and deduction played a dominant role. Even so, the world-view, as it may be called, of the ancient thinkers was not the one which was exclusive of man himself. The knower and the known, man and the world, the individual spirit and the cosmic spirit were integrated in some form or the other.

c13.s1.2

In its earlier phase this man-spirit-cosmos view, indeed a wider and richer view of the world which was prevalent in different culture-areas, was often mixed up with mythological elements. Gradually it became freed from its mythological shackles and acquired a rational or intellectual foundation. It was a struggle of *logos* against *mythos*, the former steadily gaining ground over the latter. In so emerging the world-view assumed another phase. It became intertwined with the philosophical system or systems of the culture-area. In addition, now and then in the Middle Ages, theological implications too made inroads into the otherwise rational world-view. In the history of science the views and concepts of the physical world coming to the fore, both intuitively and on logical grounds, should be understood in this light. To illustrate what has been stated above the two good examples are the speculative inquiries of the Indians and of the Greeks.

c13.s1.3

Let us consider the Greeks first.a, b The early Greek thinkers attempted for the first time to give a rational interpretation of the natural occurrences. Some of them tackled the problem of one in many, of finding the single 'principle', 'substance' or 'essence', which could explain all the observed phenomena. Thales of Miletus (*c.* 624–565 B.C.) thought that water was the 'substance' or primal matter which would remain unchanged amidst all observed modifications. Obviously he had observed how water would change, flow without any shape or colour and undergo a cycle of movement on earth and in air. He conjectured that there was a substance (water) 'from which all other things came to be, it being conserved'. That water was the primordial substance was known to the Babylonians. But they had imagined it in a mythological setting. But Thales of Miletus discarded the mythological element and tried to interpret the natural happenings in the universe of matter in terms of a single substance. In consequence he became the stimulator of a system of Greek philosophy and of attempts at formulating unitary conceptions.

c13.s1.4

Following on, another Milesian philosopher, Anaximander (*c.* 611–575 B.C.), speculated on the essential unity of matter and assumed, as the first principle, an unlimited substance (Infinite), a qualitatively undetermined eternal matter in motion (*apeiron*). Yet another Milesian philosopher, Anaximenes, specified the concept of Anaximander by saying that the first principle was 'air' (*pneuma*) with dynamic qualities (perpetual motion). Later Anaximenes, a contemporary of Anaximander, thought that the process of condensation or rarefaction caused transformations of the primary substance into various others. Heracleitus of Ephesus (*c.* 540–475 B.C.) regarded 'fire' as the fundamental principle in an ingenious way. He thought that the world was one and at the same time many. He held that the whole world was in a flux of change, and change alone was real. 'Fire' was representative of this change and so it was the fundamental principle. As against this Parmenides of Elea in South Italy regarded change as illusion and introduced the concept of One.

c13.s1.5

From these unitary conceptions, each of which had its inherent deficiencies to account for all the observed phenomena, a pluralistic presentation was put forward by the Sicilian philosopher Empedocles (*c.* 500–430 B.C.). Adding 'earth' as the fourth principle, Empedocles sought to explain the multiplicity of phenomena in terms of earth, water, air and fire. He called them the 'roots of the world'. He also introduced the idea of force eternally acting on these 'roots' in a speculative way, in terms of love and strife and held that they were responsible for all combinations and separations respectively. He went a step further and maintained that these ‘roots’ were causes of all occurrences even in macrocosm. Anaxagoras, a contemporary of Empedocles, assumed a number of infinitely small ‘seeds’ (Aristotle called them *homeomeres*) of infinite variety in infinite space, subject to the action of mind or breath (*nous*) which directed production, evolution and dissolution of the world. This type of speculation reached another stage when Leucippus (fl. *c.* 475 B.C.) and Democritus (*c.* 470–400 B.C.) postulated an atomic view of the substance and said that atoms were of the same substance, but of different sizes and shapes. The Greek atomism, needless to add, was one of intuition.

c13.s1.6

a Singer, pp. 8–26.

c13.s1.7

b Taton, pp. 180–98.

c13.s1.8

The author of the ‘Principle of Uncertainty’ in modern physics, Werner Heisenberg, in his observation on the foregoing Greek conceptions, remarks that ‘some statements of ancient philosophy are rather near to those of modern science. This simply shows how far one can get by combining the ordinary experience of nature that we have, without doing experiments with the untiring effort to get some logical order into this experience to understand from general principles’. According to Heisenberg, the ‘Fire’ of Heracleitus corresponds to the modern concept of energy, ‘for energy is a substance which moves and from which all things are made’. Further, he holds that as the atoms of Democritus are devoid of qualities, have extension in space, and motion, the ‘neutron’ of modern physics resembles the former. But he warns that ‘this comparison should not be misunderstood. It may seem at first sight that the Greek philosophers have by some kind of ingenious intuition came to the same or very similar conclusions as we have in modern times only after several centuries of hard labour with experiments and mathematics . . . There is an enormous difference between modern sciences and Greek Philosophy, and that is just the empiristic attitude of modern science’.a

c13.s1.9

In India, the first monistic principle expressed in the *Ṛgveda Saṃhitā*, the oldest literary record of the Vedic Age, is ‘water’. Later in the *Upaniṣads*, in a progressive way, the doctrine of five elements took shape. As this aspect of the Indian world-view is discussed in the following pages, details of the gradual unfolding of this doctrine are not presented here. There are, however, noticeable differences between the Empedoclean theory of four elements and the Indian doctrine of the five elements. What is important, nevertheless, is the notable commonness of attempt at reducing the knowable phenomena into the interplay of four or five elements respectively. In both, the fundamental principles like earth, water, etc., had not only their philosophical implications but also assumed a plural presentation. Like the Greeks, Indians also developed an atomic theory. The Indian atomic theory, from its simple beginnings, became a favourite frame of protracted discussion, as will be seen later, among the Indian speculative philosophers. Logic and causal considerations occupied a pride of place in these discussions. Similarly, Leucippus, the originator of the Greek atomic theory, is believed to have stated that ‘Nothing occurs by chance, for there is a *reason*, a necessity for everything’. Unwavering dependence on reason, on the relation between cause and effect shaped the speculative inquiries of both the Greek and the Indian thinkers.

c13.s1.10

a Heisenberg, pp. 58–70.

c13.s1.11

Such as they are, the speculative enquiries lay stress on one historically important factor, namely both India and Greece developed the most consistent and logical theories discernibly on parallel lines. Richard Garbe writes: ‘The historical possibility of the Grecian world of thought being influenced by India through the medium of Persia must unquestionably be granted, and with it the possibility of the above-mentioned ideas being transferred from India to Greece.’a However, other scholars like Max Müller and Paul Deussen suggest that the developments are independent. Even so the remarkable resemblances in the Indian and Greek theories of matter cannot be brushed aside.

c13.s1.12

In one respect the Indian speculative inquiry seems to have gone a step ahead. It relates to what is known as the conception of ‘substance’. In the ancient period, the conception of ‘substance’ was a part of the general inquiry into the intelligible reality. The two Greek thinkers, Plato (427–347 b.c.) and Aristotle (384-322 b.c.), inquired into this aspect, and each put forward a different conception of substance. Plato conceived of it as the Universal Idea which, he thought, existed apart from the things of the world. Aristotle imagined it as potentiality with no independent existence. He enunciated that matter was potential and form was actual. He thought that the Empedoclean ‘elements’ were different aspects of primary matter (*protyle*) in which all the knowable forms of matter were potentially contained.b The Aristotelian conception of substance, with some modifications, formed the basis for interpreting the phenomena even till the beginnings of modern science (about seventeenth century a.d.). The point worthy of noting is that both in medieval Europe which inherited Aristotelian philosophy and in India which developed on its own a number of systems of inquiry, the conception of substance received considerable attention.

c13.s1.13

Of special interest is the conception of substance of the *Vaiśeṣika*, one of the six orthodox systems of Indian thought. The *Vaiśeṣika* conception was elaborated later by the exponents of not only the *Vaiśeṣika* school but also by the followers of the *Nyāya*, another Indian orthodox system of thought. The *Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika* conception of substance seems to be unique. It includes the five elements (earth, water, fire, air and *ākāśa*), space and time, self and mind—nine in all. It is pluralistic presentation consisting of the material and the non-material, the finite and the ubiquitous, and the conscious self as well as mind in an ingenious way. The *Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika* system accepts the multiple character of reality and holds substance as one of the reals. Each of the nine, as mentioned above, is called substance again and thus there are nine substances. All the same, they are integrated with the generic conception of substance.

c13.s1.14

a Garbe (3), p. 38.

c13.s1.15

b Taton, p. 231.

c13.s1.16

The inclusion of space, time, self and mind in this generic conception of substance has a far greater import from the standpoint of the modern scientific epistemology. The latter which tries to throw light on the nature and structure of modern scientific knowledge, particularly about the physical world, is still unable to steer clear of the conceptual inadequacies concerning substance. What is substance? This question with its contestable character has remained still unsolved by modern scientific epistemologists. This is evidenced by the vicissitudes through which the problem of matter has passed as a result of scientific investigations in the last century and half, viz. the law of conservation of mass, the law of conservation of energy, the fundamental particles, wave nature of electron, energy-matter relationship and the like.

c13.s1.17

The scientific approach takes cognizance of the 'observables' and the associated causal mechanism; the unobservables are outside its province. The observational procedure deliberately excludes the observer; for the latter, the subjective element, is believed to run counter to the objective investigation based on the scientific methods of experimentation, induction and deduction. The exclusion of the subjective element (i.e. a complex mechanism involving the notion of 'I', mind, senses, nerve impulses and other determinants of observation) which is an integral part of the observational procedure seems to have come in the way of arriving at the conception of substance by the modern scientific epistemologists. The fact is that the observer *participates* in the methods of observation and necessarily the self and mind of the observer would also constitute the determinants of observation. If the observational procedure were to lead to the comprehension of substance or the *world-stuff*, it has of necessity to be inclusive of these determinants. In this respect the *Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika* conception of substance with its causal garment merits serious attention. The foregoing discussion, though brief, may be kept in mind while understanding the different speculative inquiries of the Indian thinkers, who have tried in their own way to present a view of the physical world, in the history of scientific ideas.

c13.s1.18

It must be noted that the Indian physical concepts, in their origin and ramification, have been an integral part of the Indian religio-philosophical systems, both orthodox and heterodox. For, within the confines of the respective philosophical positions alone the physical concepts attempt to explain the material world. The Indian thinkers believed that the special knowledge as contained in the different sciences was always relatively real and gave only the glimpse of the Absolute. Real knowledge, they thought, was necessary to realize the Absolute. Obviously towards this end they speculated on what may be called the interrelatedness of things and the thought processes associated with them.

Main Literary Sources

c13.s2.1

Even though the physical concepts of the Indian thinkers are in point of fact bold and imaginative, strangely there are no Indian texts which exclusively deal with them. Each system of Indian thought has built up its own physical and metaphysical views. One has to go through a voluminous literature to locate the origin and trace the evolution of the Indian physical concepts. The Vedic literature (the four *Saṃhitās*, *Brāhmaṇas*, *Āraṇyakas*, *Upaniṣads* and the *Vedāṅgas*); the *Purāṇas*, epics and *itihāsas*: the literature of the *Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika*, *Sāṃkhya*, *Yoga* and the *Mīmāṃsās*; the Buddhist and the Jaina texts; the tantrik literature; works on *Āyurveda* and astronomy are among the important literary sources which contain the fundamental as well as evolved physical ideas of Indians over a long period—perhaps stretching to about two thousand years. The literature is as varied as it is vast; for even in the works of a particular school of thinking the conceptual scheme relating to certain physical concepts like atomism, space and time, presents a wide spectrum of ideas. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to conclude that the speculations are an ensemble of dogmatic, complex assertions. On the other hand, they are refreshingly noted for their logical structure cast in a well conceived and rigorously balanced causal sequence. In essence, then, they are logical postulates.

c13.s2.2

Among the main literary sources those which expound one of the systems of Indian thought, viz. the *Vaiśeṣika*, are very important from the point of view of the physical concepts. The *Vaiśeṣika sūtra* of Kaṇāda and the *Padārthadharmasaṃgraha* of Praśastapāda are the two principal authorities of the *Vaiśeṣika* school. Though a gloss on the *Vaiśeṣika sūtra*, the *Padārthadharmasaṃgraha* has the characteristics of an original work. The *Vaiśeṣika* school is supposed to have been propounded by a sage called Kaṇāda. Kaṇāda, Kaṇabhuj or Kaṇabhakṣa, as he is differently referred to, means one who eats particle or grain, indicating probably the atomic particles; and this is attributed to the fact that Kaṇāda enunciated the essentials of an atomic theory.a The *Vaiśeṣika*, even in its *sūtra* form, is very old, possibly pre-Buddhistic.b However, the origins of the *Vaiśeṣika sūtras* are obscure. There are reasons to believe that the *Vaiśeṣika* school in its beginning was heterodox in position not taking shelter under the umbrella of orthodox Vedic views. Later it appears to have absorbed the Vedic concept of *dharma* and thus entered the orthodox fold.c Nevertheless, it is rather important to note that the *Vaiśeṣika* recognizes both perception and inference as means of acquiring knowledge and does not accord a pride of place to the authority of the Vedic tenets.

c13.s2.3

In its ten chapters the *Vaiśeṣika sūtra* of Kaṇāda deals with a number of physical concepts, the most important of which are those concerning substance, motion, attributes, space, time and atomism. These were developed later by a number of followers of the *Vaiśeṣika* and the *Nyāya* schools. By about the tenth century A.D. the two schools began to be recognized by a syncretic nomenclature, the *Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika*. The *Vaiśeṣika* and the *Nyāya* schools developed a theory of causation known as *ārambhavāda*. The two significant aspects of the *ārambhavāda* are: (i) that the cause and the effect are different and (ii) that there is a continuity (*sānvayata*) between the two. In this process of thinking the relation between the whole and its *parts* is rather interesting. The whole, when it comes into existence, is non-existent as separate parts; for as an effect it has a new beginning. Yet when the whole is destroyed the parts exist, and the parts have altogether a different significance. The important physical concepts of the *Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika* in general and the atomism in particular are based upon this theory of causation.a

c13.s2.4

a Ui, pp. 4 ff.

c13.s2.5

b Das Gupta (S. N.), I, pp. 281-82.

c13.s2.6

c Hiriyanna (2), pp. 39-40, 84.

c13.s2.7

Apart from the *Vaiśeṣika sūtra* and the *Padārthadharmasaṁgraha* of Praśastapāda, the other *Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika* texts which contain significant accounts of the Indian physical concepts and deserve special mention are: *Nyāya-sūtra* by Gautama (*c.* fourth century B.C.); *Nyāyabhāṣya* by Vātsyāyana (*c.* fourth century A.D.); *Nyāya-vārttika* by Udyotakara (seventh century A.D.); *Nyāyasāra* by Bhāsarvajña (eighth century A.D.); *Nyāyavārttika tātparyaṭīkā* by Vācaspati Miśra (ninth century A.D.); *Nyāyamañjarī* by Jayanta Bhaṭṭa (ninth century A.D.); *Vyomavatī* by Vyomaśivācārya (*c.* ninth century A.D.); *Kiraṇāvalī* by Udayana (tenth century A.D.); *Nyāyakandalī* by Śrīdhara (tenth century A.D.); *Saptapadārthī* by Śivāditya (eleventh century A.D.); *Nyāyalīlāvatī* by Vallabhācārya (twelfth century A.D.); *Nyāyasiddhāntadīpa* by Śaśadhara (twelfth century A.D.); *Tattvacintāmaṇi* by Gaṅgeśa Upādhyāya (thirteenth century A.D.); *Upaskāra* and *Kaṇādarahasya* by Śaṅkara Miśra (fifteenth century A.D.); *Padārthatattva nirūpaṇa* by Raghunātha Śiromaṇi (sixteenth century A.D.); and *Bhāṣāpariccheda* and *Nyāya-muktāvalī* by Viśvanātha (seventeenth century A.D.).b

c13.s2.8

Of the Jaina texts, Umāsvāti's *Tattvārthādhigamasūtra* (second century A.D.); *Bhagvatī Sūtra* (*c.* fourth to fifth centuries A.D.); Siddhasena Divākara's *Nyāyāvatāra* (sixth century A.D.); Nemicandra's *Dravyasaṁgraha* (twelfth century A.D.); Mallisena's *Syādvādamañjarī* (thirteenth century A.D.) are important. Among the noted Buddhist works are *Saṁyutta Nikāya*, *Dhammasaṅgaṇi*, Buddhaghoṣa's *Atthasālinī* and *Visudhimagga* (*c.* fifth century A.D.); Vasubandhu's *Abhidhammakośa* (fourth to sixth centuries A.D.); *Abhidhammatthasaṁgraha*; Diṅnāga's *Pramāṇasamuccaya* and *Nyāyapraveśa* (sixth century A.D.) and Dharmakīrtti's *Nyāyabindu* (seventh century A.D.).

c13.s2.9

In this short account an attempt is made only to present a bird's-eye view of the important physical concepts of the Indian thinkers as contained in the literary sources. Perhaps it would have been appropriate if a periodwise presentation of these concepts and conceptual schemes was attempted bringing to the fore at the same time their originators. In the present state of knowledge it is feared that such an attempt may result in historically tantalizing inaccuracies. In view of this, what follows is a broad historical outline of the significant views and concepts of the Indians concerning the physical world. Later, they are discussed under such heads as are relevant to our purpose.

c13.s2.10

a Bhaduri, 4 and 12.

c13.s2.11

b Gopinath, pp. 1–85.

c13.s2.12

*Indian Physical Concepts in Ancient and Medieval Periods* *(An Outline)*

c13.s2.13

*c.* 2000–1500 B.C. *Ṛgveda* Emergence of monistic ideas—*Viśvajyoti* (cosmic light) as principle of life, soul of all gods and the essence behind all manifestations; *ṛta* (natural law) as transcendental and unitary principle of all motions; *yajña* (sacrifice) as connective dynamic principle and nucleus of all evolution; and *ap* (primeval water) as the supra-sensible first cause.

c13.s2.14

*c.* 700 600 B.C. *Upaniṣadic literature* Step by step evolution of the doctrine of five elements (*pañcamahābhūtas*), concepts of space and time leading to a progressive understanding of Brahman as the Universal Spiritual Principle.

c13.s2.15

*The Vaiśeṣika school* Aphoristic conceptual presentation relating to substance, qualities and motion; the five elements, space and time among the reals; atomism; the *ārambhavāda* as a theory of causation to include phenomenal knowledge.

c13.s2.16

*c.* 600-200 B.C. *Buddhism and Jainism* New approach to the problem of matter and motion.

c13.s2.17

*The Cārvāka school* Direct perception as the only means of knowledge; acceptance of the theory of four elements (earth, fire, water and air).

c13.s2.18

*c.* 200 B.C.–A.D. 400 *Systematic formulations of the Vaiśeṣika, Nyāya, Mīmāṁsā and Sāṁkhya.* Integrated view of substance; examination of the means of knowledge; the real and the unreal about space, time and sound.

c13.s2.19

*The Jaina and the Bauddha literature* Atomism finding new adherents among the Jainas; the doctrine of momentariness of the Bauddhas and the problem of matter; atoms and qualities as force; space and time in relation to matter and atoms.

c13.s2.20

| *c.* A.D. 400–1200 | *Commentaries on orthodox and heterodox original works* Doctrine of elements finding newer interpretations; fresh ideas about atom, space and time according to some Bauddha and the Jaina schools; atoms-dyads-triads, motion, heat, light and sound finding elaborate expressions at the hands of commentators of the *Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika* and the *Mīmāmsā* schools within the meaning of the original notion; concepts of *pīlupāka* and *piṭharapāka*; sense-contact theory of perception of objects; views on production, destruction and eternality of sound. |
| *c.* A.D. 1200–1800 | *Rise and spread of neo-logic (navya nyāya) in eastern India* Physical concepts becoming intertwined with the theory of knowledge and kindred logical questions; new meanings of space, time and atomism in relation to the Supreme. |

Universal Conceptions

Cosmic Light, Ṛtam and Yajña

c13.s3.t1.1

To start with, it is rather necessary to make a brief reference to certain universal conceptions which are found in the Vedic literature. A striking feature of the *Ṛgveda* is its attempt to discover the essence or the power that is behind all manifestations.a In this respect the conception of cosmic energy or cosmic light as dealt with in the *Ṛgveda* deserves special mention. The unmanifested is cosmic energy, and the manifested is cosmic light. The latter is referred to as *Viśvajyoti*, which is a positive unitary principle, pure and sublime. In fact, the Vedic gods and their functional attributes are to be understood in terms of cosmic light. The *Ṛgveda* says that gods worship the cosmic light as the principle of life and longevity, and that the cosmic light is the 'soul of all gods' and the 'womb' of all created things.b *Aditi*, which means the boundless or the unbounded and which according to the *Ṛgveda* is the substratum (pure consciousness of infinite existence) of all that is here and beyond, is the Light-Infinite.c Gods who are born of *Aditi* are manifestations of the Infinite Light. Later in the *Upaniṣads*, Brahman is referred to as the Self-Luminous Light.d 'He is the light of lights and the whole world is illuminated with His light.' 'Thousands of Suns pale into nothingness before this Divine Light.'

c13.s3.t1.2

a Hiriyanna (1), p. 39.

c13.s3.t1.3

b *ṚV.*, I, 113.1.

c13.s3.t1.4

c Aurobindo, pp. 464 ff.

c13.s3.t1.5

d *Muṇḍ. Up.*, II, 20.10.

c13.s3.t1.6

In consonance with the conception of cosmic light is that of cosmic law, which is known as *ṛta*. The all-pervading light, *Āditya* or *Sūrya*, is extolled as the dweller in eternal (Law) and, eventually, the eternal law itself.a *Sūrya* sheds his light according to *ṛta* and he is the face of *ṛta*.b *Ṛta* means ‘the course of things’, order or law which is the primal principle, non-temporal and cohesive. It is a natural law which even the Vedic gods had to follow. Gods are often described in terms of ‘guardians of *ṛta*’ and ‘practisers of *ṛta*’.c Figuratively it is stated that ‘Gods chant the song of *ṛta*.d The natural phenomena, such as the flow of rivers, change of seasons, day and night, are stated to be in accordance with this natural law.e Symbolically *ṛta* was also conceived by the Ṛgvedic seers as *Varuṇa* who was supposed to have determined the laws of the physical universe. The *Ṛgveda* says that it is because of *ṛta*, Indra ‘lights up and energizes the whole world’, and that ‘the appearance of *ūṣas* and its illumination of the universe are in conformity with *ṛta*’.f In addition, all the phenomena which occur in cycles are stated to be controlled by *ṛta*. In short, *ṛta* is a unitary active principle present everywhere and in everything. As eternal order, it is transcendental signifying uniformity of nature or an ordered course in a cosmic sense. The Ṛgvedic seers were convinced that nature is not heterogeneous as it seems to us, and that all types of natural motions are traceable to *ṛta* which, according to them, is self-existent and ever extending.

c13.s3.t1.7

Whitehead rightly observes: ‘In the first place there can be no living science unless there is a widespread instinctive conviction in the existence of an order of things and in particular of an order of nature.’g The Vedic people had the instinctive conviction in the natural order. They thought of the external world as an ordered whole and that its dynamic or changing phenomena were regulated by *ṛta*. In the *Ṛgveda*, therefore, everything is extolled as beautiful and brilliant, for there is no place for chaos and ugliness in the orderly universe. Probably in no other contemporary literature of the Ṛgvedic time was there such a conception of natural law.

c13.s3.t1.8

Intimately connected with *ṛta* is another monistic principle of the *Ṛgveda*, viz. *yajña* or the act of sacrifice. *Yajña* is referred to as the navel of the universe (*viśvanābhi*) round which the latter turns, and as the unifying principle which expands and contracts in accordance with the happenings in the universe. For, the Ṛgvedic seers believed that *yajña* is the instrument for preserving the cycle of cosmic events in harmony. *Yajña* is praised as ‘*ṛtasya dhāma* and *ṛtasya sadana*’ (the abode of *ṛta*).h The act of *yajña* is for the protection of *ṛta*. *Yajña* has the connotation of dynamism, too, for it is ‘that which expands with the world, and dissolves with the world into the creator’. It is thus conceived as a connective dynamic principle in the manifested world, a nucleus (*nābhi*) of all evolution and thus the protector and nourisher of the universe.

c13.s3.t1.9

a *RV.*, IV, 40.5.

c13.s3.t1.10

b *RV.*, VI, 39.5; 51.1.

c13.s3.t1.11

c *RV.*, I, 23.5.

c13.s3.t1.12

d *RV.*, I, 147.1.

c13.s3.t1.13

e *RV.*, IV, 3.8–12; V, 80.1.

c13.s3.t1.14

f *RV.*, III, 61.7.

c13.s3.t1.15

g Whitehaed, p. 4.

c13.s3.t1.16

h *RV.*, I, 43.9.

c13.s3.t1.17

Perhaps the highest monistic level was reached by the Vedic thinkers when they thought of a unitary world-ground encompassing the being and the non-being, the living and the non-living. The famous hymn of creation, called the *Nāsadīya Sūkta* in the tenth *Maṇḍala* of the *Ṛgveda*,a speaks of *water* as the supra-sensible First Cause or the primeval world-ground; and water is the first ‘element’ to be conceived in this manner, without any mythological association. ‘Then there was neither Aught nor Nought, nor air nor sky beyond; what covered all? Where tested all? In watery gulf profound? ...The ONE breathed calmly, self-contained; nought else beyond it lay. Gloom hid in gloom existed first—One sea, eluding view.’

c13.s3.t1.18

The foregoing are among the important universal speculations concerning energy (*viśvajyoti*), motion (*ṛtam* and *yajña*) and the primordial stuff of the world (water), appearing in perhaps the most ancient literature of its type in the world. The fact of great significance is that these conceptions were the result of a desire to know the world as a whole—a desire so characteristic of the thinkers of the Vedic period as stated in the following Ṛgvedic *mantra*: ‘Give sight to our eyes, sight to our bodies so that they can see. May we see the world as a whole, may we see it in detail.’b

The Doctrine of Five Elements

c13.s3.t2.1

The universal conceptions, as mentioned above, laid the foundations for newer formulations, again wholistic in nature and structure. One such formulation was the doctrine of five elements to account for the apparently unordered, diverse world of matter and qualities. Known as *Pañcabhūtas* (*mahābhūtāni*), the five elements are: *pṛthvī*, *ap*, *tejas*, *vāyu* and *ākāśa*. These may, for purposes of understanding, be designated respectively as earth, water, fire, air and a non-material uniquitous substance. But it must be noted that the five elements have a wider connotation and significance than the familiar earth, water, fire or air. Moreover the corresponding words in English cannot be deemed as being the proper equivalents. It is, therefore, essential to bear in mind the Sanskrit terms wherever the seemingly corresponding words in English are used to denote them. Further, each element has to be understood in relation to the other four. In other words, the doctrine of five elements should be viewed in its totality.

c13.s3.t2.2

The fivefold character of the doctrine gradually assumed shape out of simpler conceptions. As stated before, primeval water is the first element in the Indian speculation. Later in the *Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad*,c it is stated: ‘In the beginning this world was just water.’ The *Chāndogya*,d gives an account of the World-stuff as follows: ‘It is just water solidified, that is the earth,—the atmosphere,—the sky,—the gods—and men,—beasts and birds,—grass and trees,—animals together with worms,—flies and ants; all these are just water solidified.’ In *Kauṣītakī*,a it is explicitly stated that ‘the waters, verily indeed are my (Brahma’s) world’. A clear and evolutionary development of the three elements in this order: water, fire, and *ākāśa*, occurs again in the *Chāndogya Upaniṣad*, in a series of assertions relating to a progressive understanding of Brahman as the Universal Soul which is the main current of the Upaniṣadic thought. The *Chāndogya* also states that ‘Brahman, desiring to be many, created *tejas* (fire), *ap* (water) and *kṣiti* (earth), and entered into these three’.

c13.s3.t2.3

a *ṚV.*, X, 129.

c13.s3.t2.4

b *ṚV.*, X, 158.4.

c13.s3.t2.5

c *Bṛh. Up.*, V, 5.1.

c13.s3.t2.6

d *Chānd. Up.*, VII, 10.

c13.s3.t2.7

Besides, there are a number of passages in the Upaniṣadic literature dealing with the elements step by step towards a unitary conception. The *Taittirīya* states: ‘From this Soul (*ātman*), verily, (*ākāśa*) arose; from *ākāśa*, wind (*vāyu*); from wind, fire (*agni*); from fire, water (*ap*); from water, the earth; from the earth, herbs; from herbs, food; from food, semen; from semen, the person (*puruṣa*)’b while the *Aitareya* thinks of the five elements in relation to Brahman, the concept of five elements occurs in the *Taittirīya*, *Aitareya* and *Maitrī Upaniṣads*. In the *Maitrī* it is explicitly stated that ‘the three-quartered Brahman has its root above, its branches are *ākāśa*, *vāyu*, *tejas*, *ap* and *pṛthvī*’.c

c13.s3.t2.8

The Indian doctrine of five elements, it must be emphasized, is a part of the philosophical ideas. In other words, it does not have an independent standing apart from its being an integrated component of the leading systems of Indian thought. Among the six orthodox systems (so-called because of their acceptance of the Vedic texts) the *Sāṃkhya*, *Nyāya* and the *Vaiśeṣika* have laid special emphasis on the five elements. The Jaina, Bauddha and the Cārvāka schools recognize only the first four elements.

c13.s3.t2.9

b *Taitt. Up.*, II, 2.1.

c13.s3.t2.10

*Sāṃkhya*

c13.s3.t2.11

The classical *Sāṃkhya* has the following enumeration:

c13.s3.t2.12

a *Kauṣ. Up.*, I, 7.

c13.s3.t2.13

c *Mait. Up.*, III, 1–2; VI, 4.

c13.s3.t2.15

In this enumeration of totality the five *tanmātras* and the corresponding five elements are of special significance. The *tanmātra* is considered to be invisible and eternal while the corresponding elements, the produced ones, are not eternal. It is rather difficult to define exactly the *tanmātras*. Perhaps they share the characteristics of both mind and matter, and they seem to represent the very core of the element in the finest state, possibly with the inherent power of affecting the respective senses.

c13.s3.t2.16

The origin of the concept of *tanmātra* can be found in some of the later Upaniṣads. In the *Praśna Upaniṣad*,a the subtle states are called *pṛthvī-mātra*, *apo-mātra* and the like. The *Maitrī Upaniṣad* mentions the word *tanmātra* in the same context. It can be conjectured that these Upaniṣadic ideas might have influenced the later exponents of the *Sāṃkhya* school to explain the evolution of the gross matter from the primary *tanmātras*.

c13.s3.t2.17

The generation of the gross matter (in terms of the five elements) out of the *tanmātras* is as follows:b

c13.s3.t2.18

From *śabda* (sound) *tanmātras* emerges *ākāśa*
From *śabda* and *sparśa* (touch) ,, ,, *vāyu* (air)
From *śabda*, *sparśa* and *rūpa* (colour) ,, ,, *tejas* (light)
From *śabda*, *sparśa*, *rūpa* and *rasa* (taste) ,, ,, *ap* (water)
From *śabda*, *sparśa*, *rūpa*, *rasa* and *gandha* (odour) ,, ,, *pṛthvī* (earth)

c13.s3.t2.19

The elements have the following attributes: *ākāśa* (sound); *vāyu* (sound and touch); *tejas* (sound, touch and odour); *ap* (sound, touch, colour and taste); and *pṛthvī* (sound, touch, colour, taste and odour). There are two noteworthy aspects in this scheme: (i) the attributes are based upon the five senses; and (ii) the five elements are thought of in relation to these attributes. This integrated concept, therefore, includes the sensorial and the gross. The subtle are the *tanmātras* which have potential power of affecting the sense and the gross are the five elements corresponding to the five senses. The subtle ones, presumably, have been conceived as the ground for the five gross forms.

c13.s3.t2.20

According to the *Sāṃkhya*, all gross things are formed by the grouping and regrouping of the five elements. The noticeable differences among substances are due to the different types of collocations or groupings. It may be noted that the *Sāṃkhya* holds that there can be no production of a thing which is non-existent previously, in tune with its theory of causation known as the *satkāryavāda*. In this view, the production means a change in the arrangement and that which is potentially present or the unmanifest becomes manifest—a sort of a ‘continual transformation (*pariṇāma*)’. The five elements play their role in this transformation.

c13.s3.t2.21

a *Praś. Up.*, IV, 8.

c13.s3.t2.22

b *SK.*, 38.

c13.s3.t2.23

The *Sāṃkhya* doctrine of the five elements did influence a great deal in the development of certain concepts of the *Āyurveda*, the principal Indian medical system. For, the *Āyurveda* has adopted the principles of *Sāṃkhya* with certain modifications, bestowing special importance on the five elements and their role even in the physiological processes.a

c13.s3.t2.24

According to the *Āyurveda*, the world consisting of the inorganic as well as the organic is formed out of the five elements. Even the substances which are used as medicines are, as a rule, composed of five elements. The *indriya* or the sensory organ has in it the five elements; only the particular *indriya* will have one element in greater proportion and the other four in relatively smaller proportions. The human body is considered as a combination of the five elements and soul.

c13.s3.t2.25

In the *Suśruta Saṃhitā*b there is a clear exposition of the way in which the five elements constitute a human body from its very conception. The embryo which has in it the energetic principles is separated into form by *vāyu*. The *tejas* transforms the embryo. The *ap bhūta* maintains its moist structure, while the *pṛthvī* tries to give shape and size to it, and keep it intact by contributing hardness to it. *Ākāśa* offers expanse to the embryo and develops it. Thus comes into play the body or *śarīra* on account of the five elements.

c13.s3.t2.26

The *Āyurveda* recognizes five types of substances, viz. *ākāśiyadravya*, *vāyavīyadravya*, *taijasadravya*, *āpydravya* and *pārthivadravya*.c It should be emphasized that, according to the *Āyurvedic* concept, each of the five types of gross bodies contains the particular element in greater proportion while the other four are also present in it, of course, in minute but different proportions.

c13.s3.t2.27

The five elements are also associated with the formation of the six *rasas*, viz. *madhura* (*pṛthvī*+*ap*); *amla* (*tejas*+*pṛthvī*); *lavaṇa* (*ap*+*tejas*); *tikta* (*ākāśa*+*vāyu*); *kaṭu* (*tejas*+*vāyu*); and *kaṣāya* (*pṛthvī*+*vāyu*).d Yet it should not be understood that the corresponding two elements alone constitute a particular *rasa*; only these two are predominant in it while the other three would also enter into its composition. Thus is maintained the wholistic nature of the doctrine of five elements.

c13.s3.t2.28

The *Sāṃkhya* enumeration of the five elements should be viewed in the light of the *Sāṃkhya* thought-structure itself. For, according to the *Sāṃkhya*, the material universe emanates out of *prakṛti* which is conceived to be the ‘rootless root of the universe’. It is believed to be unmanifest and in a state of equilibrium with respect to the three *guṇas*, viz. *sattva*, *rajas* and *tamas*. Thus, *prakṛti*, though single, is complex. As a result of interaction of *puruṣa*, *prakṛti* is imagined to unfold or evolve itself. In this process, matter first in the subtile form and later in the gross form, owes its origin to the three *guṇas*. The *guṇas* are the constituent principles of the universe, and matter is an offshoot of the intermingling of these three *guṇas*. The five elements are even recognized in terms of the three *guṇas* in different combinations. The *guṇas*, however, are not the qualities of *prakṛti*, nor of the elements. They are abstractions bordering on the conception of substance. *Sattva* is that which is light and fine, *rajas* that which is active, and *tamas* that which is gross and heavy. These postulations obviously are intended to account for the whole variety of the universe as the substratum of change. In this process of change the *guṇas* persist, only their modes become potent. It would appear that the *Sāṁkhya* believes in the indestructibility of matter and in the continual operation of force in terms of the modes of the perpetually active *guṇas*.

c13.s3.t2.29

a *SS. Śā.*, **1**, 4–6.

c13.s3.t2.30

b *SS. Śā.*, **5**, 2.

c13.s3.t2.31

c *SS. Sū.*, **41**, 3–7.

c13.s3.t2.32

d *SS. Sū.*, **42**, 3.

The Vaiśeṣika and the Nyāya

c13.s4.1

The *Vaiśeṣika* and the *Nyāya* systems have their own assessment of the five elements. They have given a concise and clear account of each of the five elements as follows:

c13.s4.2

*Pṛthvī (earth)*

c13.s4.3

It is of two kinds: eternal and evanescent, eternal in the form of atoms and evanescent in the form of products. The latter comprise many substances which are commonly perceived. The special quality of earth is odour. The earthy products are threefold: (i) in the form of body; (ii) the sense organ (olfactory); and (iii) objects of perception. The objects include rocks, minerals, various kinds of stones, gems, diamond, etc. on the one hand and vegetables, grasses, herbs, trees with their flowers and fruits, and other types of plants. Earth possesses fourteen qualities: colour, taste, odour, touch, number, dimension, distinctness, conjunction, disjunction, distance, proximity, gravity, fluidity and faculty.a

c13.s4.4

*Ap (water)*

c13.s4.5

Like earth, water is also of two kinds: eternal and non-eternal. It is eternal in the form of atoms and non-eternal as products. Its products are again threefold: (i) body; (ii) sense organ; and the (iii) object. The body is in the region of Varuṇa. The sense organ is that of taste. The objects exist as rivers, oceans, hails, moon and the like. The special quality of water is taste. Its colour is white. It has also fourteen qualities: colour, taste, touch, number, dimension, distinctness, conjunction, disjunction, distance, proximity, gravity, viscidity, fluidity and faculty.b

c13.s4.6

*Tejas (fire)*

c13.s4.7

Fire, regarded as white and brilliant, is of two kinds: eternal (atoms) and non-eternal (products). The products are also threefold: (i) body (which belongs to the region of the sun); (ii) sense organ (visual); and (iii) objects which are of four types: earthly, heavenly, stomachic and mineral. The earthly fire is that which is perceived ordinarily, such as wooden fire. The heavenly is the one observed as sun, lightning and the like. The stomachic fire is that which brings about the digestion of food. The mineral fire exists in the form of gold and other metals. Fire has colour as its special quality. It has in all eleven qualities: colour, touch, number, dimension, distinctness, conjunction, distance, disjunction, proximity, fluidity and faculty.a

c13.s4.8

a *PBh.*, pp. 70–71.

c13.s4.9

b *PBh.*, pp. 90–91.

c13.s4.10

*Vāyu (air)*

c13.s4.11

Air is also eternal (in the shape of atoms) and non-eternal (as products). The products are of four types: (i) body, existing in the region of the *Maruts* (atmospheric); (ii) sense organ, pervading all over the body (tactile); (iii) object (that which is actually perceived as air and is the sub-stratum of tactile sensation); and (iv) breath (air in the body which moves various fluids and secretions on account of its distinct functions). The qualities of air are touch, number, dimension, distinctness, conjunction, disjunction, proximity, distance and faculty. Air has motion and the motion is transversal (*tiryak*). It enables the clouds to keep at rest and also moves them from place to place. It also causes the showering of rains and does not let the weighty substances fall to the ground.b

c13.s4.12

*Ākāśa*

c13.s4.13

While earth, water, fire and air are considered material, the fifth element, *ākāśa*, is regarded as non-material, one and all-pervading. Its special quality is sound. The auditory organ is of *ākāśa* itself. Its general qualities are: sound, number, dimension, distinctness, conjunction and disjunction.c

c13.s4.14

It will be seen from the foregoing enumeration that all the knowable or sensorial objects are categorized with reference to these five elements. In fact, they are generic names signifying the respective atomic states, gross matter, senses, the different forms and even attributes. It is interesting to note that in the *Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika* classification of the five elements, there is a significant relation between the elements and the senses. The visual, gustatory, olfactory, tactual and auditory organs are respectively made of fire, water, earth, air and *ākāśa*. The principle governing this relation seems to be one of ‘like apprehending like’. The eye apprehends colour and colour is the specific attribute of fire element; hence eye must have in it the fire element. Likewise tongue apprehends taste and taste is the specific attribute of water; hence the element composing the tongue is water and so on. However, the principle of ‘like apprehending like’ seems to find its limitation with reference to the internal organ, namely *manas*. Though *manas* experiences qualities such as pleasure and pain, it is not made of any substance which possesses these qualities. The role of *manas* as a substance is discussed later.

c13.s4.15

a *PBh.*, pp. 97–99.

c13.s4.16

b *PBh.*, pp. 111–13.

c13.s4.17

c *PBh.*, pp. 143–44.

c13.s4.18

Of great importance is the fact that the *Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika* view of the five elements is a part of its concept of what is designated as *dravya* (substance). Substance is the first of the six categories. The other five are *guṇa* (attribute), *karma* (action), *sāmānya* (generality), *viśeṣa* (particularity) and *samavāya* (inherence).a These six categories, it is emphasized, are not subjective notions, nor are they necessities of thought. In the *Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika* scheme they are the reals, and a knowledge of them is the knowledge of reality.

c13.s4.19

Substance is considered to be the most important, as it is the substratum (*āśraya*) for the others. It is of nine types: (i) *pṛthvī* (earth); (ii) *ap* (water); (iii) *tejas* (fire); (iv) *vāyu* (air); (v) *ākāśa*; (vi) *diś* (space); (vii) *kāla* (time); (viii) *ātmā* (self); and *manas* (mind).b The salient features of the *Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika* conception of *substance* is shown on the following page. In this plural presentation, the finite and material (*pṛthvī*, *ap*, *tejas* and *vāyu*), the non-material and the ubiquitous (*ākāśa*, *diś* and *kāla*), and the conscious self (*ātmā*) as well as mind (*manas*) have been integrated in a rational way. The self is a generic title and includes the individual selves. It possesses all-pervasive character and hence has the highest dimension without any motion. Mind, the internal organ, is capable of bringing about cognition, pleasure, pain and the like. It aids self, of course, with the help of the sense organs. Mind is considered to be atomic without any specific quality and is believed to possess motion as it cognizes objects instantaneously. Both self and mind are essential for experience—one having consciousness and the notion of ‘I’, the other not having consciousness, yet nourishing the notion of ‘I’.

c13.s4.20

The foregoing nine substances of the *Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika* focus an integrated view on the world-stuff or substance in an ingenious way. It will be observed that this conception of substance is inclusive of the attributes also. For, it is stated that the attributes cannot exist apart from the substance; they inhere in the latter. Yet the substance is not identical with or togetherness of its qualities. In this respect the *Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika* differs from the *Sāṃkhya* and also the Buddhist view on matter.

Atomism

c13.s5.1

One of the most noteworthy Indian physical concepts is atomism. Perhaps it may not be proper to consider this concept chemical or physicochemical for the reason that the Indian atomism is one of speculation, based on causal consideration. When the atoms, the primordial stuff of the world, unite to form the gross bodies, the process seems to be a physical one strictly following a plausible causal mechanism. In this manner the *Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika*, the Jaina and the Bauddha schools have expounded

c13.s5.2

a *VS.*, 1, 1.7.

c13.s5.3

b *VS.*, 1, 1.4.

c13.s5.4

TABLE

c13.s5.5

*Different types of substances and their attributes*

c13.s5.6

| *pṛthvī* | *ap* | *tejas* | *vāyu* | *ākāśa* | *kāla* | *diś* | *ātman* | *manas* |
| eternal in atomic state corporeal principle of olfactory organ | eternal in atomic state corporeal principle of gustatory organ | eternal in atomic state corporeal principle of visual organ | eternal in atomic state corporeal principle of tactile organ | eternal and one ubiquitous principle of auditory organ (limited by the air-hole) | eternal and one ubiquitous — | eternal and one ubiquitous — | eternal and plural ubiquitous — | eternal and plural corporeal — |
| specific quality— odour | specific quality— taste | specific quality— colour | specific quality— touch | specific quality— sound | — | — | — | — |
| 14 qualities: colour, taste, odour, touch, number, dimension, distinctness, conjunction, disjunction, distance, proximity, gravity, fluidity and faculty | 14 qualities: colour, taste, touch, number, distinctness, dimension, conjunction, disjunction, distance, proximity, gravity, viscidity, fluidity and faculty | 11 qualities: colour, touch, number, dimension, distinctness, conjunction, disjunction, distance, proximity, fluidity and faculty | 9 qualities: touch, number, dimension, distinctness, conjunction, disjunction, proximity, distance and faculty | 6 qualities: sound, number, dimension, distinctness, conjunction and disjunction | 5 qualities: number, dimension, distinctness, conjunction and disjunction | 5 qualities: number, dimension, distinctness, conjunction and disjunction | 14 qualities: cognition, pleasure, pain, desire, aversion, effort, virtue, vice, faculty, number, dimension, distinctness, conjunction and disjunction | 8 qualities: number, dimension, distinctness, conjunction, disjunction, priority, posteriority and faculty |

c13.s5.7

(The five generic qualities: number, dimension, distinctness, conjunction and disjunction common to all the substances)

c13.s5.8

their atomic concepts. The word used for atom is *aṇu* or *paramāṇu*. Each school has conceived of *aṇu* or *paramāṇu* as a logical necessity to explain the physical world in furtherance of its own philosophical ideas.

The Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika Atomism

c13.s5.t1.1

The *Vaiśeṣika*, *Nyāya* and the later syncretic *Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika* exponents are noted for their logically-structured atomism.a,b,c The concept of *avayavin* (whole) and *avayava* (constituent part) has shaped the atomic theory of the *Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika*. As stated before, the substance is considered to be of nine types. Among them, the first four, viz. earth, water, fire and air, are considered to be atomic. The atom is indestructible (i.e. eternal), indivisible and without any magnitude. Each element has its own class of atoms with particular attributes. However, all the atoms are regarded as spherical. The four kinds of atoms possess specific attributes as follows: earthy atom has odour, airy atom—touch, watery atom—taste, and fiery atom—colour. By these particular attributes the atoms are capable of being differentiated, i.e. qualitatively.

First 116 of 732 passages. Read on

Cites (37)