The Vaisesika tradition, started by Kanada (about 400 BC), is pluralistic, realistic and theistic; it supplied metaphysical theories to the Nyaya and adopted its epistemological and logical theories. The two traditions differ from each other on very minor points, and in time became the hyphenated Nyaya- Vaisesika school. Prasastapada wrote a commentary on Kanada' s Vaisesika Aphorisms (Vaisesikasutras) and called it Padartha-dharma-sahgraha (Compilation of the Characteristics of the Categories), which was further commented upon and expounded. Just as the word nydya means logic, the word vaisesika means particularist. Visesas are the particulars. One should be careful in translating this word and also in interpreting its meaning. Kanada is accredited with the discovery of the particular (visesa), for according to his philosophy all particulars are independent of one another, are infinite in number, and cannot be reduced to anything in common. The Vaisesika philosophy is pluralistic and realistic.
METAPHYSICS
Just as Gautama claims that one who understands his sixteen categories will obtain salvation, Prasastapada announces that one who understands his seven categories will obtain salvation. Gautama lays stress upon understanding and its methods, whereas Kanada emphasizes the objects of that understanding. His categories are the categories of objects. The seven categories are: (1) substance (dravya); (2) quality (guna); (3) activity (karma); (4) universal (samanya); (5) particular (vi sesa) ; (6) inherence (samavaya); and (7) negation (abhava). The first six categories are positive and the seventh negative.
Substance is defined in two ways. First it is that in which qualities inhere. This is how substance is generally understood, it is the substrate (adhara) of qualities. Second, it is also defined as that which can come into the relation of contact (samyoga). It is only substances that come into contact, but not qualities etc. My pen, which is black in colour, can come into contact with my table, which is brown. The relation of contact can have effect on substances, but not upon qualities. We generally say that each substance has impact on the other. But qualities cannot have such impact on one another without the substances.
There are nine kinds of substances: earth, water, fire, air, ether, time, space, atman, and mind (manas).
The Five Elements
Of the nine categories, the first five are called elements (bhutas) and constitute the material world, and also the five senses. Earth possesses the property of smell and constitutes the corresponding sense, the nose. Water possesses the property of taste and constitutes the sense of taste. Fire possesses colours and constitutes the eye. To air are due the sense of touch and the qualities of touch. To ether are due the ear and sounds.
The Atomic Theory
Of the five elements — earth, water, fire, air, and ether - the first four only are perceivable. Ether is not perceivable at all. It must be inferred. Every sense-quality belongs, as a property, to a particular substance; sound also is a sense- quality; but it does not belong to the perceivable elements, earth, water, fire and air. So it must belong to a fifth substance, called ether. To be capable of being perceived, the object must have a limited and perceptible dimension, and also colour. Ether does not possess colour, nor has it a finite dimension. It cannot, therefore, be perceived. For the same reason, it is infinite and indivisible. Because colour was laid down as one of the conditions for being perceived, some followers of the Nyaya-Vaisesika thought that air could not be perceived, since it had no colour. But others held that it was not colour, but sense-contact that was necessary for perception; for them air could be perceived, but
not ether.
All the elements, except ether, are constituted of atoms (anus), Ether, being infinite and one, has no atoms. The atoms of the four elements have their specific qualities - the earth atoms have smell, the water atoms taste, the fire atoms colour, and the air atoms touch. The atoms are indivisible, indestructable, eternal, and imperceptible, and have to be inferred. The yogis can perceive them through their extraordinary perception, but we have to infer their existence. Whatever is indivisible and, therefore, indestructable, is eternal. The atoms are indivisible, because, if they are further divisible, then they will have parts, and each part will then be again divisible. Then both a Himalaya mountain and a mustard-seed will equally be infinitely divisible. In that case, there will be no difference between the sizes of the two, because each can have the same number of parts, i.e. an infinite number of parts. So divisibility must stop somewhere, and that is the atom. We can then say that the Himalaya contains more atoms than the mustard-seed, and is therefore bigger.
But then the Vaisesika reaches a difficult position, saying that the atom has no size. If they have size, they will be divisible. But they are not divisible. Two atoms come together and form a dyad. Even the dyad is not perceivable. Three dyads come together and form a triad. This triad is the minimum perceptible molecule. The Vaisesika does not, and cannot explain how out of sizeless atoms, size can be created. It is as if we would get the number i by combining six zeros. This problem could not be solved.
Time and Space
Time (kala) and space (diK) are two independent, eternal, indivisible, and all-pervading substances. Time is the cause of our knowledge of the distinction: past, present, and future. Similarly, space is the cause of our knowledge of distinctions like east, west, south, north, up, down, and so on. In reality, time and space are each a separate, single indivisible substance. But we draw the distinctions in them due to certain adventitious limiting conditions (upddhis), and think that the distinctions are parts.
Another definition of time is that it is the creator of everything that is born and is the container of all the worlds. This is a more dynamic definition than the earlier.
The Atman
The atman also is an eternal, all-pervading substance and is the substratum of the quality, consciousness. But this quality is not an essential and inseparable quality of the atman; it is only incidental and adventitious. The dtman by itself, without contact with mind, exists without consciousness. The atmans constitute an infinite plurality, and every one of them is different from the others and also from God. The reality of the atman is self-evident in all such experiences as 'I am', 'I know', 'I act', 'I am happy', and so on. The Nyaya-Vaisesika produces the usual arguments also to establish the reality of the atman. Desire, aversion, volition, knowing, ethical responsibility, etc. cannot be explained, if there is no atman. It is not the body, senses, mind, and the stream of consciousness that can know, desire, and enjoy. Even the mind works for someone else, and that other is the atman. Furthermore, they all need direction and guidance. I direct my body, senses, and mind in a particular way and I possess consciousness and I am conscious of my possessing consciousness. So I am different from all of them. And I am the atman.
God
God is not specially mentioned as a category, but is regarded as one of the dtmans, although He is the Supreme Atman (paramatman). While, for all the ordinary atmans, consciousness is only an adventitious and transient quality, for God it is an inseparable quality. The atmans obtain liberation after they are completely detached from consciousness, but God remains eternally conscious. He is omniscient, all-powerful and has all the perfections. He creates, sustains, and destroys the world and causes the cycles of creation and destruction. He does not create the world out of himself, but out of the eternal atoms, ether, time, space, and the atmans that are not liberated, and their minds (manas). These substances do not in any way limit his omnipotence.
God is, therefore, not the material cause of the world, but its efficient cause. The material cause is eternal, and does not need to be created. Creation means the building up of the world out of the eternal entities, so that the result can be the field of action (karma) for the dtmans. In creating the world, God is guided by the accumulated merits and demerits of the dtmans that are not yet liberated. Thus what is created becomes a moral world meant for moral action. Destruction means reducing the world to atoms and the other original substances.
The Nyaya-Vaisesika gives a number of arguments for the existence of God.
1. The first is the causal argument. The world is a combination of atoms and of the eternal, infinite substances. It consists of things that are made up of parts, and they are of intermediate magnitude. That is,
they are neither infinitesimal like the atoms, nor infinite like space, time, etc. Such things are compounds made up of parts. But every compound is an effect and needs a cause. And this cause must be intelligent, because it must direct the combinations according to fixed laws, and such a direction is possible, if the cause is intelligent. It must know also the ends which the compounds must serve. And it must be omniscient also, as, otherwise, it cannot bring together infinitesimals like atoms and infinites like time and space into relation with one another. And such a cause is God.
2. The second argument is based upon the principle of karma, or the principle of moral merit and demerit, which remain in the atmans in an unseen potential form (adrsta). The world has to be created in order to enable the atmans to work out their merit and demerit, which lies potentially in them, but unseen and unknown by them. Together, merit and demerit, it is said, form a kind of force. But this force by itself is not an intelligent, even if a creative agent, and needs intelligent direction. The atmans themselves do not know even its presence, nor will they like that their demerit should work out its consequences. An intelligent, impartial agent is needed to guide the processes of such an unseen force. Such an agent is God.
3. The third argument is based upon the authorship of the Vedas. The Vedas are absolutely true and authoritative. And they derive their truth and authoritativeness from God. who is their author. No one but God could have understood the nature of the seen and the unseen world, and also of the atomic and infinite substances, about which the Vedas impart knowledge.
4. The fourth argument is based upon the testimony of the Vedas. The Vedas teach only the truth and nothing but the truth. And they tell us that God exists. Therefore God exists.
Mind (Manas)
Mind is a substance and, as mentioned already, atomic in size. This size is postulated in order to make it swift without lapse of time. That is, it can be present at the same instant at any two different places. But by nature, it is unconscious, and can produce consciousness in the atman by coming into contact with it. It is also the sixth sense, with its own special type of objects like pleasure, pain and emotion.
The Nyaya has a very elaborate theory of perception, and analyses it from different points of view. First, there is the difference between ordinary and extra-ordinary perception. Ordinary perception is what we usually have, the perception of a pot, a pen, a flower, and so on. But the Nyaya recognizes three kinds of extra-ordinary perceptions, which are not due to the usual sense-contact with the objects and which have each a peculiar kind of contact. The first is called cognition obtained through contact with the universal (samanyalaksana). The second kind of perception is cognition due to cognitive association. Looking at a pigeon, I say 'That is soft', even without touching it. The third kind of extra-ordinary perception is due to Yoga. A yogi can even see atoms without the aid of his senses. He can see objects hundreds and thousands of miles away, and can look through the minds and thoughts of others.
Source: Philosophical Traditions of India, P. T. Raju |
|
|
