| Philosophy and Religion / J. C. Chatterji: Hindu Realism |
Jagadish Chandra Chatterji
Hindu Realism
A—The Analytic Aspect
The Nine Realities
From the Creationist standpoint, that which we call the Universe consists, as stated before, of nine classes of ultimate factors, with their various properties and relations. In Vaisheshika they are called Dravyas. We may translate the term by Realities or Entities, but not by Substances, as has hitherto been done. The names of the nine classes of Realities are as follow:—
Enumeration of the Principles
(1) Four classes of minima of those things which are discrete and are perceived by the senses. Each of these minima is an eternal and changeless Reality which has absolutely no magnitude whatever and is called an Anu, a Parimandala, or a Paramanu1 We shall refer to these minima as Paramanus.2
Paramanus have been translated as atoms, which is most misleading.3 For atoms as conceived by Western chemistry are things with some magnitude, while Paramanus are absolutely without any magnitude whatever and non-spatial.
(2) An all-pervading Continuum, called Akasha, which may perhaps be translated as Ether although, from the Creationist point of view, it does not possess exactly the same properties as the Ether of which modern Western Science speaks.
(3) A Reality, Power or Force,4 having universal scope and operation; it relates things in regard to their activity, movement and change, as well as brings them into existence, urges them on, changes them, and finally destroys them. As it thus works change in things, it gives rise, in their percipients, to the notions of past, present, and future, of old and new. It is called Kala in Sanskrit.
(4) A Reality, Power, or Force, having equally universal scope and operation, and holding things in their relative positions even while they are being driven on—in Sanskrit, Dik.5
(5) An infinite number of Realities in general touch, and with possibilities of a special relation, with everything in the Universe.6 Each of these serves as the basis of consciousness and experience in an experiencing being. In Sanskrit these are called Atmans. We may perhaps translate the term as Self-Ultimates (not Souls).
(6) An infinite number of Realities, which are all without any magnitude whatever,7 and serve as the means by which the Atmans are brought into special relations with what the latter experience in succession. The technical name for one of these is Manas. There is no English word that I know of, which can express the exact technical meaning of this term. We might perhaps render it by Mind, but it would not be exact. I shall, therefore, leave the word untranslated. What it really and exactly means will be seen when we come to discuss the arguments that are advanced in support of its existence.
Reasoning in Support of the Principles.
The Realistic standard supports the existence of these Realities by its own line of reasoning, which will now be explained.
Footnotes
1. Nya. Su., IV. ii. 16. Vaish. Su., V. i. 13.; VII. i. 20. Nya.-Bhash., IV. ii. 23.; IV. ii. 14.
2. In regard to the Paramanus, the Nyaya-Vaisheshika holds the following ideas:—
A Paramanu is—
(a) absolutely without any magnitude. Its measure is anu, which is not the lowest degree of magnitude, i.e., a measure consisting of, length, breadth and thickness, however minute, but is of a totally opposite character. See Vaish. Su., VII. i. 10. (The reading of this Sutra in Ganga. is ‘ Mahato viparitam anu,’ the other reading being ‘Ato vipari., etc.’); Ki. Va. Pr., quoted in Ki. Va., p. 52; Roer, note on BhashaA Par. 14 (but marked 15); also Intro., pp. x-xi; Banerjea, Dial. Phil., 158-159, etc.,
(b) non-spatial. Nya. Var., IV. ii. 25, p. 522, line 3,
(c) has no inside or outside. Nya. Su., IV. ii. 20, with Bhash. and Var.,
(d) is super-sensible and can be conceived only by the mind. Nya. Var., p. 233, etc.; N. V. T. T., p. 271, line 7 from bottom, etc.
(e) The measure of the Paramanus, being added up, can not produce any magnitude or any other measure because they are absolutely without any magnitude. Upask., VII. ii. 9, etc., etc.; Sid. Mu. Va. on 14.
In these circumstances it is very misleading to call Paramanus ‘atoms’ as has hitherto been done. This rendering of Paramanus is responsible in no small degree for the almost contemptuous attitude with which some European scholars have looked upon the Vaisheshika.
What the Vaisheshika has emphasised is not so much the ‘uncutability’ of the Paramanus as their measure, which is the very opposite of magnitude. Anu means their measure, whereas whoever invented the name ‘atom’ had probably the idea of its indivisibility more than anything else in his mind.
The Paramanus are not unlike the ‘qualitative atoms’ of Herbart and his School, in so far as these latter are the bases of things material. But it is perhaps much better to leave the Sanskrit word untranslated.
3. See previous note.
4. On the use of the word Power or Force (Shakti) in this connection, note that: the word Power or Force as a translation of Shakti is meant to convey the idea of an independent Reality and not that of the capacity of a thing, such as the ‘capacity of fire to burn.’ Shakti in the latter sense is never regarded as an independent Reality by the Vaisheshika. But that Shakti can be used in the former sense will be seen from Cha. Ka., Vol. II, p. 151, where Atman is spoken of as a sort of Shakti. (Shaktivishesha.)
5. Infra.
6. Infra.
7. Infra.
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE
