Search This Blog

Translate to your language

Wednesday, November 18, 2020

(B06)- Ancient Indian Atomic theorists




Did you know that there existed atomic theorists in India more than 2000 years before Dalton and others developed our modern atomic theory? 

You may not find their theories as elaborate as the atomic theories of today. But the fact is that they did come up with such a theory thousands of years ago! And without any sophisticated gadgets that we have today. They did not even have an ordinary microscope for that matter. Isn’t that amazing?

What is more interesting is that they did not develop these theories to build atom bombs but as a way to put an end to miseries in the world. They said “if you understand the world completely, you will be freed from all the miseries!”

The father of ancient Indian atomic theory was sage Kanada. Apparently, his name was not really Kanada. It was a derogatory title given to him by some of his opponents to ridicule his theory. The word Kanada means “one who eats Kana or particles!”. Why this name? You will know as we go.

His theory was called Vaisheshika. Some form of his theory is available even today as a book titled Vaisheshika Sutra. This composition is at least 1200+ years old. The well known Advaita philosopher Sankara refers to some of the Sutras in this book during his debate where he pulls down this theory as wrong.

What was their theory?

The claim of the Vaisheshikas was that the entire world is made up of fine particles called Paramanus. These Paramanus are invisible, can not be further divided, and have no dimensions. These Paramanus combine with each other both in variable numbers as well as in various spatial arrangements, to form larger composites or compounds.

As these paramanus combine with each other, the compound so formed attains mass and dimension and at some stage they become visible to our eyes. These complex compounds also inherit some basic property of the underlying paramanu. Anything material is made up of these compounds that have some paramanu at its core.

These atomic theorists also posit that there are different types of paramanus. Each type has specific properties. These properties get carried upwards when a compound gets formed from minutest paramanus. Does it sound like of our modern chemistry?

These atomists claim that ‘in the beginning’ there were only paramanus and the souls and nothing else. These paramanus are insentient and the souls are sentient. These paramanus combined with each other and formed the material world. Gradually, various bodies that housed the souls came into being. That is how various living beings came into existence. Like the Samkhyas, Vaisheshikas also did not find the necessity of any God to explain the creation of this world.

Fantastic theory! Why should anyone have any objections to this theory?

But the Brahma supporters reject this theory. As we saw in the previous episode, their view was that this world is not something separate from Brahma. The Brahma was the cause as well as the material that underlies this world. There is only Brahma and nothing else. They cannot accept any separate entities like atoms, souls etc. Theirs was a unified view.

What was the basis of their rejection of the Vaisheshika theory? They have to substantiate their stand either by showing why they are correct or at least by showing that all their opponents are wrong 😉 That is the debate we have been discussing. Let us see how this debate goes.


The Brahma supporters were just relaxing after their victory over the Samkhyan opponents don't consider the Vaisheshikas as any serious contenders. They just brush them aside by saying that whatever they have already said to the Samkhya applies to them as well. So, their theories also get automatically refuted.

Vaisheshika:

“You can’t dismiss us like that. Explain to us how your Brahma, which you claim as sentient, can create a world that is by nature insentient? This question is important since you say that this Brahma itself took the form as the world. How can a sentient entity get transformed into an insentient entity? The effect should inherit the qualities of the cause and cannot be totally different.

For example, if you weave a cloth using white threads, the resulting cloth also will be white in color and not some other color. You can’t make a black cloth by weaving white threads. As the threads so the cloth. So, if you say that your Brahma took the form of the material world, and also that this Brahma is sentient, then the material world also should have been sentient. But that is not the case. This material world is insentient.

So, your theory is wrong. In reality, this material world came out of paramanus which are insentient. That is why the material world is also insentient like its constituent parts. That is what our theory says. What do you have to say?”

The Brahma supporters don’t take these Vaisheshikas seriously. Badarayana does not spend many Sutras pinning these weak opponents down. Nor does Sankara and other defenders of Brahma theory. They just keep punching holes in the Vaisheshika theory to show how hollow their theory was. They quote verses from their own scripture, namely Vaisheshika Sutra to show how they are mutually contradictory. That is another way of demolishing the opponent. – tell them “Put your own house in order before attacking us!”. Instead of winning them by your own strength, take advantage of their vulnerabilities. That I don’t think is a nice thing to do. But debate allows that!

Let us see some of their arguments in the next episode.

Start            Previous          Next
 
A series on ancient Indian composition Brahma Sutra. © Dr. King, Swami Satyapriya 2020-21

No comments:

Post a Comment