Review Paramaanu of theory

[Veeranarayana Pandurangi]

Sarvebhyo namah.
Ramanavami good wishes to all the members of bvp.
I am searching for some realistic reveiws of paramaanu theory of nyayavaisheshika.
I think we (naiyayikas) should not be teaching old paramaanu theory if it is really untenable.

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

Mrinal Kanti Ganguly's work was coomprehensive and faithful to the Vaiseshika view.

I asked some Naiyayikas if the old theory could be reviewed in the light of modern discoveries. Every pandit was vehemently opposed to any reforrm of the Sastric point of view. Our traditional scholarship does not believe that anything could be beyond the knowledge of the omniscient rshis. It may be noted that the modern view that sound is a property of air and not of aakaa;sa was apprehended by some Miimaamsakas. Others did not accept it. The theory of the rotation of the earth was so much opposed by Aaryabhata's posterity (Varaahamihira, Bhaaskara, Brahmagupta, Appayya Dikshita) that the very text of the  Aaryabhatiiyam had been changed. bhvaavartta (earth's rotation) was changed to bhaavartta (rotation of the space globe).   

I suggest one thing. We may request the UGC that knowledge of the exact nature of the Vai;se.sika theory of atoms should be made compulsory for higher secondary students in science.   

Best

DB

From: Veeranarayana Pandurangi <veer...@gmail.com>
To: bvparishat <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 19 April 2013 11:57 AM
Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Review Paramaanu of theory

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
to subscribe go to the link below and put a request
https://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat/subscribe
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Narayanan E R]

Respected Professor Bhattacharya Sir,
Here we have a few of the Vaisheshikasutras of the sage Kanada dealing with अणु -
अणुसंयोगस्त्वप्रतिषिद्धः। ४-२.४। अणोर्महतश्चोपलब्ध्यनुपलब्धी नित्ये व्याख्याते। ७-१.८। अतो विपरीतमणु। ७-१.१०। अणु महदिति तस्मिन्विशेषभावाद्विशेषाभावाच्च। ७-१.११। अणुत्वमहत्त्वयोरणुत्वमहत्त्वाभावः कर्मगुणैर्व्याख्यातः। ७-१.१४। अणुत्वमहत्त्वाभ्यां कर्मगुणाश्च व्याख्याताः। ७-१.१६। तदभावादणु मनः। ७-१.२३। एकत्वैकपृथक्त्वयोरेकत्वैकपृथक्त्वाभावोऽणुत्वमहत्त्वाभ्यां व्याख्यातः। ७-२.३। कर्मभिः कर्माणि गुणैर्गुणा अणुत्वमहत्त्वाभ्यामिति। ७-२.१२। and परत्वापरत्वयोः परत्वापरत्वाभावोऽणुत्वमहत्त्वाभ्यां व्याख्यातः। ७-२.२३।
The concept of the minuteness or the atomicity and the concept of greatness, largeness, extensiveness or the advanced-ness are abridged applicable to multiple criteria of their natures of: conjunction, eternity regarding availability, absence and the presence of particularity, absence by action & quality and vice versa, minuteness of mind, singleness and the single-separate-ness are their absence and presence, actions by actions, qualities by qualities in terms of their atomicity and greatness, and the remoteness and nearness in terms of their atomicity and greatness.
My question is what the modern physics can claim the novelty or can refute what had been revealed to our ancient sages?
I request Professor Pandurangi to throw some lights on the Nyaya view point of view regarding this, if that system differ from Kanada in the concept atomicity and greatness of particles.
Regards,
Narayanan

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Dear Dr. Narayanan,

The paramanus (atoms) are indivisible and eternal, they can neither be created nor destroyed.Each paramanuu (atom) possesses its own distinct vishesa (individuality).

What Vaisheshikas believed were just the best empirical guesses they could have made at that time. One can easily find some faults in Vaisheshika theories. They believe atom cannot be destroyed, but actually it can be destroyed and we have no doubt about it now. They call akasha and space different and infinite, so how are they different? We cannot call mixture of space and air as a new ultimate substance and if they are referring to only atmosphere of earth as akasha then it's not infinite. Further they called fine dust particles as smallest particles therefore atom but dust particle is much much bigger than an individual atom.

So in my opinion they were great thinkers and proposed great theory  that could have been produced at that time, they mixed science and God which was great move but now their theory holds no good for us. Vaishesika atomism also differs from the atomic theory of modern science: according to the Vaishesikas, the functioning of atoms was guided or directed by the will of the Supreme Being. This is therefore a theistic form of atomism which no modern scientific theory or any physicists can accept.

All I can say is their guesses were best possible guesses according to their time. As time has changed the Vaisheshikas theory of atomicity is obsolete and irralvent to a modern thinker or scientist.

One can also refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomism. it is wiki article may be read with discretion

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

--

[V Subrahmanian]

Scholars can also bring to the fore the criticism of the atomic theory by the Vedanta darshana of Badarayana.  Then one would know the shortcomings of the ancient atomic theory even without considering, for the time being, the modern physicist's view of the atoms.

regards
subrahmanian.v

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

20 4 13

Dear dr narayanan,

I am no specialist in vaiśeṣika or nuclear theory, still my guru's words and school education make a few things certain for me.

The vaiśeṣika aṇu is a theoretical concept, it is the theoretically smallest possible physical particle. Whatever advancement one makes in discovering finer and finer particles the Vaiseshika atom will maintain its size that will be measured relatively that is to say in relation to the latest discovered smallest particle. The vaiseshika aṇu is beyond measure. It is smaller than the smallest measured. Hence there will never be a sub-aṇu or aṇutara (An inconsistency lies in the fact that the absolute size too has been stated which is incongruous with the above stand of the relative status of the aṇu. But that is a different story.)

The atom of modern physics, on the contrary, is of fixed quantity and divisible. Its components are called sub-atoms. These sub-atoms -- boson, photon, electron, proton, neutron etc are currently more important the atom of the nineteenth century. When further divisions are, hopefully, discovered they will become relatively unimportant. But the vaiśeṣika anu stands at the same place as it formerly belonged to, to the theoretically smallest possible measurement without a sub-aṇu..

Best

DB

 

--

[narayanan er]

Thank you Sir, for your valuable reply.

The terminology of aṇu and its concept may not be a modern atomic theory.

Etymologically minuteness will more be appropriate, I think, rather than atomic अणति सूक्ष्मत्वं गच्छति इति अणु (derivation the Sabdakalpadruma)। अण शब्दे। अण्+उः। 1-7 भृमृशीतॄचरित्सरितनिधनिमिमस्जिभ्य उ:। 1-8 अणश्च।

To Shri. Ajitji:

I also appreciate Shri. Ajitji for his view points too. But I would like to believe that the sages have acquired the knowledge, as the knowledge revealed to them, rather than they guess something. Guessing hypothesis can even be a common man job. In Kanada's sutras I failed to see any god, but dharma is well there. But Prasastapada brings the god to scene I am afraid.

Regards,

Narayanan

---

From: Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattach...@yahoo.com>
To: "drerna...@yahoo.com" <drerna...@yahoo.com>; "bvpar...@googlegroups.com" <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 20 April 2013 4:41 PM
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Review Paramaanu of theory

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Dear Dr. Narayanan,

Let me clarify if I was not clear in my earlier post.

For Vaisheshika, everything that exists is included in six categories: substance, quality, action, the general, the particular, and the inherent. Substance, which expresses the essence of a thing, is the main category. The nine substances (earth, water, light, air, ether, time, space, spirit, and mind), which are endowed with qualities (permanent characteristics) and actions (transient characteristics), make up the entire existing universe.

Vaisheshikas maintain an atomistic view, according to which the first four substances were combinations of atoms (anu) —invariable spherical material particles. Atoms were not created by anyone and exist eternally, they are passive: they start to move because of an invisible force, adrishta, and then enter into combinations under the direction of the world spirit Brahma, which subjects the material world to the eternal cyclical process of creation and destruction. The sensuously apprehended world exists in time, space, and ether and is governed by a special universal moral law (dharma).

They accept the existence of God called Ishwara or Maheshwara which is the Supreme Intelligent Being under whose will this world is created, sustained and dissolved. The starting point of the creation is the Will of God. The first product of the Will is Brahma. Brahma proceeds with further creation in accordance with the totality of the unseen merits and demerits of the individual souls by setting in motion the atoms to combine with one another causing the world. The process of dissolution is in the reverse order where Brahma gives up his body and Ishwara takes charge of the process of dissolution. The whole world is then reduced to the primary state of padarthas. This shows that Vasheshika system of philosophy was theistic in outlook.

Since in Vaishesika systems one has to face with the concept of Adrasta, Karmas of the individual jivas, the functioning of the atoms are controlled by divine will and soon its theory may not be tenable to physics or modern science

References,
Radhakrishnan, S. Indian Philosphy Vol 1 and Vol 2.
Keith, A. B. Indian Logic and Atomism: An Exposition of the Nyaya and Vaishesika Systems.
Mishra, U. Conception of Matter According to Nyaya-Vaishesika.
Please see http://www.city-data.com/forum/atheism-agnosticism/387105-vaiseshika-ancient-indian-atomic-theory.html
A interesting paper http://www.ece.lsu.edu/kak/roopa51.pdf

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

From: Ajit Gargeshwari <ajit.gar...@gmail.com>
To: narayanan er <drerna...@yahoo.com>
Cc: भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 20 April 2013 7:34 PM

Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Review Paramaanu of theory

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

20 4 13

<Atoms were not created by anyone and exist eternally, they are passive: they start to move because of an invisible force, adrishta, and then enter into combinations under the direction of the world spirit Brahma, which subjects the material world to the eternal cyclical process of creation and destruction. The sensuously apprehended world exists in time, space, and ether and is governed by a special universal moral law (dharma). >

This depiction is fine. But, Dr.Gargeshwari, do we find this graphic description before Udayanācārya? Dr. Chemparathi, Utrecht, originally a Syriac Christian who migrated from Kerala to the Netherlands drew the attention of scholars to this view of Udayana which, he thought, was closely similar to the Christian view of creation as found with Thomas Aquinas among others.

I think that the Mādhvas also have similar ideas.

Best

D.Bhattacharya

 

From: Ajit Gargeshwari <ajit.gar...@gmail.com>
To: narayanan er <drerna...@yahoo.com>

Cc: भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 20 April 2013 7:34 PM
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Review Paramaanu of theory

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Dear Prof. Bhattacharya,

This is my understanding.
Most important in the system of Vaisheshika is the understanding of the atomic nature of all the elements. This philosophy was originally realist and non theistic in orientation. Only later was the notion of God imputed to it. This is another view considering the interpretation of the sutras which are done in light of Prasthan pada Bhashyas.

Do we find this graphic description before Udayanācārya?
The generally naturalistic or atomic outlook of Vaishesika complimented the heuristic and syllogistic methods of Nyaya, and with Udayana the two schools merged into one.The school of Navya Nyaya,  that emerged in eastern India  was particularly sophisticated philosophically. Nyaya developed proofs of the existence of God (which are not found in the Vaisheshika), which compare quite well to those developed in Christian theology. Though Nyaya-Vaisheshika has very few adherents today, it developed philosophical tools that all the other Indian traditions used. They were particularly useful in refuting other schools of thought.

“Logic” or “Argumentation,”  is indeed the central thrust of the Nyaya tradition. Because it also had a strong realist bias, it was easily merged with the earlier Vaisheshika school. Whereas the focus of Vaisheshika was the nature of things and how to categorize them, the focus of Nyaya is on the method of argument, syllogism, and the reliable means for knowing.

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 6:22 PM, narayanan er <drerna...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Thank you Sir, for your valuable reply.

The terminology of aṇu and its concept may not be a modern atomic theory.

Etymologically minuteness will be more appropriate, I think, rather than atomic अणति सूक्ष्मत्वं गच्छति इति अणु (derivation the Sabdakalpadruma)।

Namaste

Thanks for that derivation.  I think the following instances of the use of the word 'aNu' could be considered in order that at least two meanings 1. subtleness and 2. minuteness/extremeIy small nature  are brought out.

For example akAsha is the most subtle, sUkShmatamaH (subtlemost) (not definitely minute/small) and pRthvi is grossest, sthUlatamaa.


In Kathopanishat we have this mantra:
अणोरणीयान् महतो महीयान्, आत्मास्य जन्तोर्निहितो गुहायाम्। तमक्रतुः पश्यति वीतशोको, धातुप्रसादान् महिमानमात्मनः॥ (कठोपनिषद् १/२/२०)

Here the word aNuH is commented as: अणोः सूक्ष्मादणीयाञ्श्यामाकादेरणुतरः । [Here I think the minuteness/small sizedness is brought out for the Self is being said to be 'smaller' / minuter than what are considered to be very tiny: mustard seeds, etc. and 'bigger' than whatever is considered big/huge in creation]

In the Kathopanishat we have this mantra:

देवैरत्रापि विचिकित्सितं पुरा ।
न हि सुज्ञेयम् अणुरेष धर्मः ॥ - काठकोपनिषत् १-१-२१

Here the shAnkara bhAShyam for the word 'aNuH' is: अणुः सूक्ष्म एष आत्माख्यो धर्मः... [Here the 'subtleness' meaning is brought out, for the Self, Atman, is spoken of. ]

That the Atman cannot be the minutest because of the other description we have of the Atman:

महान्तं विभुमात्मानं मत्वा धीरो न शोचति॥ [ - कठोपनिषद् १.२.२२]

Also there is this mundakopanishat mantra:
नित्यं विभुं सर्वगतं सुसूक्ष्मं तदव्ययं यद्भूतयोनिं परिपश्यन्ति धीराः (मुण्डक० उप०, १.१.६) where, if aNu is taken as minutest, then sarvagatatvam, mahattvam, vibhutvam, etc. cannot be.  

We have another example of 'aNu' being minute:

In mantra 1.2.8 of the Kathopanishat:

न नरेणावरेण प्रोक्त एष

सुविज्ञेयो बहुधा चिन्त्यमानः ।

अनन्यप्रोक्ते गतिरत्र नास्ति

अणीयान् ह्यतर्क्यमणुप्रमाणात् ॥८॥

Here the bhashyam is: ...इतरथा ह्यणीयानणुप्रमाणादपि सम्पद्यत आत्मा । अतर्क्यमतर्क्यः स्वबुद्ध्याभ्यूहेन केवलेन तर्केण । तर्क्यमाणेऽणुपरिमाणे केनचित् स्थापित आत्मनि, ततो ह्यणुतरम् अन्योऽभ्यूहति, ततोऽप्यणुतममिति न हि कुतर्कस्य निष्ठा क्वचिद्विद्यते । 

subrahmanian.v