Nyaya-Vaisheshika categories (Study)
by Diptimani Goswami | 2014 | 61,072 words
This page relates 鈥楬istorical Survey of Vaisheshika System鈥� of the study on the Nyaya-Vaisheshika categories with special reference to the Tarkasangraha by Annambhatta. Both Nyaya and Vaisesika are schools of ancient Indian Philosophy, and accepted in their system various padarthas or objects of valid knowledge. This study investigates how the Tarkasamgraha reflects these categories in the combined Nyayavaisesika school.
Go directly to: Footnotes.
Historical Survey of 痴补颈艣别峁办补 System
The 痴补颈艣别峁办补 system advocates Dualistic Realism. It is said that this system has been founded on a 峁歬 ascribed to the Seer 顿墨谤驳丑补迟补尘补蝉. The 峁歬 narrates that two birds which are intimate friends, reside in the same tree. One of them eats the sweet fruits, while the other without eating just looks on.[1] The dualistic philosophers are influenced by this 峁歬 which implies the distinction between the individual self and the Supreme self.
The founder of this system is 碍补峁嚹乨补. The name 碍补峁嚹乨补 has been variously interpreted. It is said that he had lived on grains of corn which are scattered in the field.[2] It is also assumed that 碍补峁嚹乨补 is a nickname which he got because of his propagation of the theory of atoms. According to his name 碍补峁嚹乨补, this system is also known as 碍补峁嚹乨补 顿补谤艣补苍补. The name of this system 痴补颈艣别峁办补 is derived from the word 痴颈艣别峁. 痴颈艣别峁 as a separate category is discussed broadly in this system.[3] We do not find this category in any other system of Indian Philosophy. So, 碍补峁嚹乨补鈥檚 philosophy has come to be known as 痴补颈艣别峁办补 system.
Max M眉ller says:
鈥淚t may be that the name of Vaisheshika was given to 碍补峁嚹乨补鈥檚 philosophy from the differences, or Visheshas which he established between substances, qualities and action, or it may from Vishesha as a name of individual things is applicable, therefore, to atoms. But this, in the absence of decisive evidence must for the present remain undetermined.鈥�[4]
碍补峁嚹乨补 was born in a 碍腻艣测补辫补 family and he was the worshipper of 艢颈惫补. His another name was 鲍濒奴办补. Therefore, this system is also known as Aul奴kya 顿补谤艣补苍补 or 碍腻艣测补辫补 顿补谤艣补苍补.[5]
Radhakrishnan states that:
鈥淭he 痴补颈艣别峁办补 is essentially a philosophy of distinctions, since it does not tolerate any attempt at dissipating the independence of selves and objects in a supposed more perfect individually. Its standpoint is more scientific than speculative, more analytic than synthetic鈥�.[6]
The 痴补颈艣别峁办补 system gives stress on the plurality and distinctness of physical things and finite souls. The special feature of this system is the theory of atomism.[7]
The 痴补颈艣别峁办补 Philosophy aims at theoretical understanding of the universe. This system starts as a natural philosophy. Its foundation is a doctrine of elements. Then it develops the theory of atoms which make it able to understand the whole world. The world is periodically created and destroyed by the conjunction and separation of atoms. As a result a mechanistic view of the world occurs. The main tenet of categories is developed to distinguish different kinds of existence.
There is a confusion regarding the date of 碍补峁嚹乨补. We do not find any direct information about the time when he flourished. According to Radhakrishnan, the date of the 痴补颈艣别峁办补 system is about fifth century B.C.[8] Mahadeo Rajaram Bodas maintains that the date of this system is about fifth or fourth century B.C.[9] According to Nandalal Sinha, the date is between the sixth and the tenth century B.C.[10]
It is generally accepted that 痴补颈艣别峁办补 system is older than 狈测腻测补. Because the 痴补颈艣别峁办补 厂奴迟谤补s do not show any influence of the 狈测腻测补 system. But on the other hand the 狈测腻测补 厂奴迟谤补s of Gautama and the 叠丑腻峁补 of 痴腻迟蝉测腻测补苍补 are very much influenced by the 痴补颈艣别峁办补 system.[11] The 痴补颈艣别峁办补 厂奴迟谤补 consists of ten chapters. In the first chapter the five categories, viz. substance, quality, action, generality and particularity are discussed. In chapter II we find the different substances. The mind along with the objects of the senses and the nature of inference are discussed in chapter III. The atomic form of the Universe is the main topic of chapter IV. In chapter V discusses about the nature and kinds of action. Chapter VI discusses the ethical problems. In chapter VII, there are discussions about quality, self and inherence. The last three chapters are logical and the problems of perception, inference and causality are treated here.[12]
It is said that 搁腻惫补峁嘺 wrote a commentary on 痴补颈艣别峁办补s奴tra named 搁腻惫补峁嘺bh膩峁a. This work is not available now. Similarly another work called 叠丑腻谤补诲惫腻箩补惫峁泃迟颈 on 碍补峁嚹乨补鈥檚 厂奴迟谤补 is also not found now.
The earliest available commentary on 痴补颈艣别峁办补s奴tra is 笔补诲腻谤迟丑补诲丑补谤尘补蝉补峁僩谤补丑补 by Pra艣astap膩da. It is also known as 笔谤补艣补蝉迟补辫腻诲补产丑腻峁补. This work does not conform to the nature of a commentary; it is like an independent work of philosophy. The date of Pra艣astap膩da is about the end of 4th century A.D.[13] Pra艣astap膩da specified the list of the six categories which is found in the 痴补颈艣别峁办补s奴tra.[14] According to him, to know about the categories, at first their similarities and dissimilarities must be known. Hence, he mentions about these in the beginning of his work. It is stated in the 痴补颈艣别峁办补s奴tra that there are nine substances[15], seventeen qualities[16] and five motions.[17] However, in Pra艣astap膩da鈥檚 view, seven additional gunas (qualities) are to be added to the original seventeen. According to him, qualities are twenty-four. This view is accepted by all the later philosophers of this school. In this work Pra艣astap膩da has discussed about the theory of creation and destruction of the world, the statement of fallacies, the nature of inference etc.
厂补峁卥补谤补 惭颈艣谤补 wrote a commentary named 鲍辫补蝉办腻谤补 on the Vai艣e峁Ｄ玨a 厂奴迟谤补. He also wrote an independent work named 碍补峁嚹乨补rahasya. There are four main commentaries on 笔补诲腻谤迟丑补诲丑补谤尘补蝉补峁僩谤补丑补. These are: Vyoma艣iv膩c膩rya鈥檚 痴测辞尘补惫补迟墨. 艢谤墨诲丑补谤补鈥檚 狈测腻测补ka峁囜笉al墨, Udayana鈥檚 碍颈谤补峁嚹乤惫补濒墨 and 艢谤墨惫补迟蝉补鈥檚 尝墨濒腻惫补迟墨. 痴测辞尘补惫补迟墨 is probably the oldest of all the commentaries mentioned above. 痴测辞尘补惫补迟墨, 碍颈谤补峁嚹乿补濒墨 and 狈测腻测补ka峁囜笉al墨 are three well-known and excellent commentaries which contribute to the development of this system to a great extent.
It has already been mentioned that the earliest commentator on 笔补诲腻谤迟丑补诲丑补谤尘补蝉补峁僩谤补丑补 was 痴测辞尘补艣颈惫补. The time of his work 痴测辞尘补惫补迟墨 is about 1000 A.D.[18] The name of 痴测辞尘补艣颈惫补 indicates that he was a follower of 艢颈惫补. He was a resident of Kashmir. 痴测辞尘补艣颈惫补 has reviewed in his work the opinions of the different schools about 惭辞办峁. Pra艣astap膩da discusses six categories. According to him, non-existence is subordinate to the positive categories and as such he has not included it in the innumeration of categories. But 痴测辞尘补艣颈惫补 has discussed all the seven categories. The definitions of these categories and their subdivisions given by Pra艣astap膩da are analysed and explained in this work. Moreover, there is a detailed discussion about non-existence. 痴测辞尘补艣颈惫补 proves the existence of atoms through inference. 痴测辞尘补惫补迟墨 was further commented upon by Pa岣峬an膩bha 惭颈艣谤补 (1600 A.D.) in the commentary named Setu. It has another commentary named 厂奴办迟颈 by 闯补驳补诲颈艣补 Tark膩la峁僰ara (1700 A.D.).
Another important commentary on Pra艣astap膩da鈥檚 叠丑腻峁补 is 狈测腻测补ka峁囜笉al墨 written by 艢谤墨诲丑补谤补. According to his own proof, he flourished in 991 A.D.[19] He was a native of the village of Bhuris峁泂ti in Bengal. Gopinath Kaviraj mentions that 艢谤墨诲丑补谤补 wrote four works. These are: Advayasiddhi, a Ved膩ntic work, Tattvaprabodha, a 惭墨尘腻峁僺腻 work Tattvasa峁僾膩din墨 and 狈测腻测补-Ka峁囜笉al墨.[20]
Among the commentaries on 笔补诲腻谤迟丑补诲丑补谤尘补蝉补峁僩谤补丑补,
鈥�狈测腻测补-Ka峁囜笉al墨 of 艢谤墨诲丑补谤补 on account of its simplicity of style and elaborate nature of exposition is probably the best for a modern student of 痴补颈艣别峁办补.鈥�[21]
艢谤墨诲丑补谤补 accepts the existence of God and the category of non-existence. He again mentions in his work that Yogins get knowledge through their internal organ. He made clear Pra艣astap膩da鈥檚 view of the relation between an instrument of knowledge and its result. Perception is also an instrument of knowledge. In this work, detailed discussion of the seven categories is found. In the conclusion he states the name of the village in which he lived, the names of his parents and the date of the composition of his work.[22]
鲍诲补测补苍补鈥檚 碍颈谤补峁嚹乿补濒墨 is another important work on 笔谤补艣补蝉迟补辫腻诲补-产丑腻峁补. The date of 碍颈谤补峁嚹乿补濒墨 is about 10th century A.D.[23] 碍颈谤补峁嚹乿补濒墨 was further commented upon by 痴补谤诲丑补尘腻苍补 (1400 A.D.) under the name of 碍颈谤补峁嚹乿补濒墨prak膩艣a and by 笔补诲尘补苍腻产丑补 惭颈艣谤补 under the name of 碍颈谤补峁嚹乿补濒墨bh膩峁a.[24] Udayana was contemporary of 艢谤墨诲丑补谤补. Unlike Pra艣astap膩da who omitted non-existence, Udayana maintains that non-existence is a well-established category.Udayana does not accept the view of the 厂腻峁僰丑测补, the Vij帽膩nav膩dins and the 叠丑腻峁弓补蝉 about the concept of 惭辞办峁. He discusses in detail seven categories and four 笔谤补尘腻峁嘺蝉. He gives arguments to prove the existence of God.
顿补艣补辫补诲腻谤迟丑墨 is another work of 痴补颈艣别峁办补 system. Candramati is the author of this work. He adds in this work four new 辫补诲腻谤迟丑补蝉 to the six recognized in the 痴补颈艣别峁办补s奴tra. The 辫补诲腻谤迟丑补蝉 added by Candramati are: potentiality, nonpotentiality, commonness and non-existence.[25] He discusses in a systematic manner the categories from beginning to end.
The new additional four categories are:
- causal efficacy (艣补办迟颈),
- lack of causal efficacy (a艣补办迟颈),
- limited universal (蝉腻尘腻苍测补惫颈艣别峁) and
- absence (补产丑腻惫补).
Footnotes and references:
[1]:
[3]:
Ibid.
[4]:
Vide Bahadur, K.P., The Wisedom of 痴补颈艣别峁办补 p. 32
[5]:
厂补辫迟补辫补诲腻谤迟丑墨, p. v (Introduction)
[6]:
Radhakrishnan, S., Indian Philosophy, Vol.II, p.157
[7]:
Ibid., p. 158
[8]:
Ibid., p. 160
[9]:
Vide, Bahadur, K.P., The Wisdom of Vai艣e峁Ｄ玨a, p. 31
[10]:
Vide, Ibid., p. 32
[11]:
Radhakrishnan, S., Indian Philosophy, Vol. II, p.158
[12]:
cf. Ibid., p.159
[13]:
Sinha, Jadunath, Indian Philosophy, Vol. 1, p. 306
[14]:
dravyagu峁嘺karma蝉腻尘腻苍测补惫颈艣别峁samav膩y膩n膩峁� pad膩rth膩n膩峁� s膩dharmyavaidharmyabhy膩峁� 鈥� 痴补颈艣别峁办补s奴tra, 1.1.4
[16]:
[17]:
耻迟办峁辫补峁嘺尘补惫补办峁辫补峁嘺尘腻办耻帽肠补苍补峁� 辫谤补蝉腻谤补峁嘺峁� gamanamiti karm膩峁噄. Ibid., 1.1.7
[18]:
Sinha, Jadunath, Indian Philosophy, Vol. 1, p. 306
[20]:
Ibid
[21]:
Dasgupta, Surendranath, A History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. 1, p. 306
[22]:
tasm膩d vi艣uddhagu峁嘺ratnamah膩samudro vidy膩lat膩samavalamvanabh奴ruho鈥檅hut/ svacch膩艣ayo vividhak墨rtinad墨prav膩hapraspandanottamavalo valadevan膩m膩// tyadhikade艣ottaranava艣ata艣ak膩vde ny膩yakandali / 谤补肠颈迟腻 艣谤颈辫腻峁囜笉耻诲腻蝉补测腻肠颈迟补产丑补峁弓补艣谤墨蝉谤墨诲丑补谤别峁噀测补尘//
[23]:
Sinha, Jadunath, Indian Philosophy, Vol. 1, p. 306
[24]:
Ibid., p. 307