Indian Physics - an Early History

arXiv:physics/0310001v1 [physics.hist-ph] 30 Sep 2003

Indian Physics: Outline of Early History
Subhash Kak

February 2, 2008

1 Introduction
Historians of science are generally unaware of the contributions of Indians to
physics. The main reason for this is that very little research has been done
on the subject since Seal’s The Positive Sciences of the Hindus appeared in
1915, a consequence of the fact that there are few history of science depart-
ments in Indian universities. Work relevant to the history of Indian physics
has been done in philosophy departments but this is generally inaccessible
to historians of physics. Some other work concerning history of ideas in
physics has been published by historians of astronomy.
The objective of this paper is to present a preliminary outline of early
history of physics in India. The focus here are the schools of Vai´esikas .
and S¯mkhya that were interested in general principles of atomic theory
a.
and cosmology. Physical ideas in these and other schools were applied to
technology as we can see for a much later period in Dharampal’s book [4].
This paper should be read in conjunction with the papers on history
of early Indian science and astronomy by the author [14-18, 22, 23], where
the relevant Vedic ideas on cosmology are presented. To summarize this
background context, the Vedic texts present a tripartite and recursive world
view. The universe is viewed as three regions of earth, space, and sky which
in the human being are mirrored in the physical body, the breath, and
mind. The processes in the sky, on earth, and within the mind are taken to
be connected. The universe is mirrored in the cognitive system, leading to
the idea that introspection can yield knowledge.

2 On classficiation
The Vedic seers speak of rta, the laws underlying the univerese. They also
.
assert that all descriptions are limited, and outside their normal context
they lead to logical paradox. The notable features of this world view are:

• An infinitely old, cyclic universe

• An atomic world and the subject/object dichotomy

• Relativity of time and space

• Evolution of life

• A science of mind

• Computable laws

• Language theory

As one would expect, these conceptions of evolution of life, relativity of
space and time, and science of mind are not quite on the same lines as that
of contemporary science. But that is precisely what makes Indian science
especially interesting to the historian.
The first step in the development of any science is the naming of objects
and categories. Then come the questions of change and transformation and
the recognition that a certain essence of reality is unaffected by change.
Having named objects and events, one turns to the relationships between
them. The enumeration of categories in groups and their relationship with
other such groups comes later. The question of the nature of the cognitive
process by which the knowledge of the universe is obtained also comes at
the end.
During the Rgvedic period itself, it had come to be recognized that
.
although nature follows laws, a certain freedom characterizes human be-
haviour. The fundamental unity of reality is thus split into two distinct
categories related to innate nature and cognition. The universe not only
exists outside of ourselves, but a copy of it, howsoever imperfect, exists
within each one of us. The enumeration of categories as they arise in the
space of the mind is the concern of S¯mkhya. The stated objective is to
a.
obtain discriminative knowledge of the manifest (vyakta), the unmanifest
(avyakta) and the knower (purusa).1 On the other hand, Vaiés ika deals with
. s .

2

the goal attributed to Kanada, the mythical founder of the system, yad iha
.¯
bh¯var¯pam, tat sarvam may¯upasam khy¯tavyam, “I shall enumerate every-
a u . a . a
thing [in this world] that has the character of being.”
The two systems have differing focus. S¯mkhya addresses evolution at
a.
the cosmic and the psychological levels; Vaiés ika delves deeper into the na-
s .
ture of substances and its scope includes both physics as well as metaphysics.
The emphasis in Indian thought on knowing the outside through an
analysis of cognitive categories was far in advance of the concepts used by
historians of science until the rise of modern physics. As a result, the six
daránas were often misrepresented in the commentaries that were written
s
with the rise of Indian studies in the nineteenth century. These mistakes
have been repeated in more recent works because this commentatorial tradi-
tion still operates within the framework of reductionist physics and analysis.
With the rise of relativity and quantum mechanics, the subject has become
central in the understanding of the physical universe. The outer world ex-
ists because there is someone to perceive it; likewise the mind is character-
ized by the associations between various objects and processes of the outer
world.2 An examination of the physical world in terms of categories of the
mind or of “being” constitutes a perfectly legitimate way of approaching the
outer world, albeit it is different from the manner in which Western science
developed.
S¯mkhya and Vaiés ika are generally paired with Yoga and Ny¯ya, re-
a. s . a
spectively. The reason behind such a pairing is that the paired system
provides the student with the ability to make further progress in his un-
derstanding. The focus in S¯mkhya is the inner world and, therefore, an
a.
experiential or meditative attitude complements it. The insights of Yoga
validate the categories of S¯mkhya, indeed the two could proceed in a com-
a.
plementary fashion, which is why the two are considered the same system
sometimes. In Vaiésika, the focus is more on an enumeration of the cate-
s .
gories of being, perceived apart from oneself. Since the categories are very
many, the use of formal logic is essential to draw inferences, and in this
respect Ny¯ya is its sister system.
a
Actually, Ny¯ya (logic) provides the analytical basis for all Indian sci-
a
ences. Naiy¯yikas say astitva j˜eyatva abhidheyatva, “whatever exists, is
a n
knowable and nameable.” But it is also stated that speech has four forms,
of which one kind, the par¯, is unmanifest.3 So all description and analysis
a
is ultimately limited by paradox.
The categories of S¯mkhya and Vaiés ika describe the physical and the
a. s .
psychological worlds. A comprehensive theory, integrating the insentient

3

and the sentient, is offered.
We first provide a brief review of the the S¯mkhya and the Vaiésika
a. s .
categories and then examine the significance of their physical concepts. The
beginnings of these concepts can be traced back to the Vedic literature.

3 Overview and early development
We first begin with a few remarks on the chronology of the Indian texts. New
results in archaeology have shown that the Indian tradition can be traced
back in a series of unbroken phases to at least 8000 B.C.E. Archaeologists
and geologists also believe that the Sarasvat¯ the preeminent river of the
ı,
Rgvedic age, dried up around 1900 B.C.E., leading to the collapse of the
.
towns of the Harappan era that were primarily distributed in the Sarasvat¯ ı
region. There is increasing acceptance of the view that the Rgveda should
.
be earlier than 1900 B.C.E. The early Br¯hmanas and the Upanisads then
a . .
belong to the second millennium B.C.E.4
The Vedic hymns speak of ideas that are later described at greater length
in the daránas. Nature has an order that is expressed as rta.5 This order
s .
is behind the regularity in the movements of the planets, the seasons, and
cycles on earth. Rta defines an inflexible law of harmony which offers a
.
basis for its comprehension through the mind. The principle of order is
sometimes represented by the pillar (skambha) as in the Atharvaveda6 and
anthropomorphized as Brahmanaspati.7
.
The Rgvedic hymn 10.129 describes how prior to a separation between
.
the subject and the object neither space or time existed. It goes on to say:

In the beginning desire arose, born of the mind, it was the pri-
mal seed. The seers who have searched their hearts with wisdom
know the connection (bandhu) between being and non-being.

A cord stretched across them; what was above, and what was
below? Seminal powers made mighty forces, below was strength
and above was impulse.8

The connections (bandhu) between the outer and the inner are affirmed.
Next, there is mention of the dichotomy between purusa and prkrti, the
. .
impulse and the strength.
In Rgveda 10.90, purusa, is the cosmic person out of whose dismembered
. .
body the living and the inanimate worlds emerge. Here too a dichotomy,

4

expressed through the symbols of male and female, marks the paradoxical
beginning of empirical existence. Purusa is born out of vir¯j, “the shining
. a
one,” and she out of him. This marks a distinction between purusa as tran-
.
scendent reality and its manifestation in terms of individual consciousness.
Further on in the same hymn, several categories related to existence,
such as space, sky, earth, directions, wind, metres and so on are created.
Such an enumeration is described at greater length in the dialogue in the
Brhad¯ranyaka Upanisad between Y¯jãvalkya and Maitrey¯ where seven-
. a . . an ı
teen of the twenty-three categories of classical S¯mkhya are noted:
a.

As all waters find their goal in the sea, so all touches in the skin,
all smells in the nose, all taste in the tongue, all forms in the eye,
all sounds in the ear, all deliberations in the mind, all knowledge
in the intellect, all actions in the hands, all enjoyment in sex,
all elimination in the excretory organs, all movement in the feet,
and all the Vedas in speech.

As a mass of salt has neither inside nor outside, but is altogether
a mass of taste, thus indeed has that Self neither inside nor
outside, but is altogether a mass of knowledge; and having risen
from these elements, vanishes again in them.9

These include the five material elements, the five organs of sense, the five
organs of action, the buddhi, in the form of vijãna, ahamk¯ra,10 and mind.
n¯ . a
The only categories of the late S¯mkhya which are not explicitly mentioned
a.
in the Brhad¯ranyaka Upanisad are the tanm¯tras, but the bandhu between
. a . . a
the gross and the subtle, which is emphasized again and again in the Rgveda,
.
indicates the implicit recognition of the corresponding subtle tanm¯tra for
a
the five gross elements. This subtle representation of the outer in terms of
m¯tr¯ is described explicitly in the Kaus¯
a a . ıtaki Br¯hmana Upanisad where
a . .
the specific abstract correspondences for certain outer functions, such as
speech, breath, order, and so on, are listed in terms of bh¯tam¯tr¯.11 The
u a a
word m¯tr¯ here refers to the essence in the same manner as in the notion
a a
of tanm¯tra. Ahamk¯ra is described in the Chandogya Upanisad as the one
a . a .
who sees the universe.12
In other words, all the elements of S¯mkhya seem to be in place in the
a.
Vedic literature. We also have a proper scientific system with its cosmic
order and corresponding laws (rta), entities and relationships. Even the
.
workings of the human mind are subjected to logical analysis.

5

Ether Sound Bliss

Sky Visve Devah Air Touch Intellect

Space Indra Fire Form Mind

Earth Agni Water Taste Prana

Earth Smell Body

Figure 1: Five-layered universe

The Vedic system is a tripartite and recursive world view. At the most
basic level, the universe is viewed as three regions of earth, space, and sky
with the corresponding entities of Agni, Indra, and Vi´ve Devah (all gods).
s .
These three regions are represented in the Vedic ritual as three different
altars. There is a mapping of these regions within the human body as well.
The Ch¯ndogya Upanisad speaks of a tripartite manifestation of reality, ex-
a .
pressed as fire (red), water (white), and food (black) correlated with speech,
´ as
breath, and mind.13 Svet¯´vatara Upanisad also describes the red, white, and
.
¯
black aspects of the One.14 In Ayurveda, the three dosas (humours), v¯ta,
. a
pitta, and kapha, likewise define a tripartite model.
Counting separately the joining regions leads to a total of five categories
where, as we see in Figure 1, water separates earth and fire, and air separates
fire and ether.15 This counting in groups of five is seen in a variety of contexts
as in the five directions, five senses, five seasons, five metres, five chants, five
peoples, five breaths, and so on.

Although the processes in the sky, on earth, and within the mind are
connected, all descriptions of the universe lead to logical paradox. The one
category transcending all oppositions is brahman. Vedic ritual is a symbolic
representation of this world view.

6

The complementarity between the mind and the outer world is of funda-
mental significance. Knowledge is classified in two ways: the lower (apar¯)
a
or dual; and the higher (par¯) or unified. Knowledge is superficially dual
a
and paradoxical but at a deeper level it has a unity. The material and the
conscious are aspects of the same transcendental reality.
a . a ¯ .
In the Ch¯ndogya Upanisad, Udd¯laka Aruni describes the unity behind
the apparent duality as sadvidy¯. Being (sat) provides both the origin and
a
the unity:

In the beginning, my dear, this world was just Being, one only,
without a second. Others say: “In the beginning this world
was just Nonbeing (asat), one only, without a second; from that
Nonbeing Being was produced.” But, my dear, how could this
be? How from Nonbeing could Being be produced? No, my dear,
in the beginning this world was just Being, one only, without a
second.16

In the Taittir¯ Upanisad, the individual is represented in terms of five
ıya .
different sheaths or levels that enclose the individual’s self.17 This represents
another instance of expanded tripartite model. These levels, shown in an
ascending order, are:

• The physical body (annamaya koá)
s

• The energy sheath (pr¯namaya koá)
a. s

• The mental sheath (manomaya koá)
s

• The intellect sheath (vijãnamaya koá)
n¯ s

• The bliss sheath (¯nandamaya koá)
a s

These sheaths are defined at increasingly finer levels. At the highest
level, above the bliss sheath, is the self. Intellect is placed below bliss,
which is a recognition of the fact that eventually meaning is communicated
not by associations, but rather by a synthesizing vision expressed by the
notion of bliss.
Pr¯na is the energy coursing through the physical and mental processes.
a.
If one looked at the individual in the three fundamental levels, then at
the lowest level is the physical body, at the next higher level is the energy
systems at work, and at the next higher level are the thoughts. Since the

7

three levels are interrelated, the energy situation may be changed by inputs
either at the physical level or at the mental level.
The key notion is that each higher level represents characteristics that
are emergent on the ground of the previous level. In this theory mind is an
emergent entity, but this emergence requires the presence of the self.
The mind may be viewed in a five-fold way: manas, ahamk¯ra, citta,
. a
buddhi, and ¯tman. Again these categories parallel those of Figure 1.
a
The notions of enumeration and indivisibility are so pervasive in Vedic
thought that it is impossible to put a date on the rise of S¯mkhya and
a.
Vaiés ika. But there developed specific schools where a particular manner
s .
of defining the attributes was taken; these schools trace their lineage to
specific individuals, often starting with a mythical rsi.
..

Classical S¯mkhya
a.
The notions of S¯mkhya form a part of the earliest Vedic texts. As a sys-
a.
tem called by its formal name, it is described in the Moksadharma and the
.
Bhagavad G¯ a as well as in the Upanisads. Its legendary founder was the
ıt¯ .
sage Kapila who used to be dated to around 7th century B.C.E., but in light
of the new findings related to Indian antiquity, is likely to have lived much
earlier than that. The texts speak of at least twenty-six teachers including
Asuri, Pa˜caíkha, Vindhyav¯sa, V¯rsaganya, Jaig¯. avya, and ¯svarakrsna.
¯ n s a a . . ıs I´ .. .
By “classical S¯mkhya” we mean the S¯mkhya-K¯rik¯ (SK) of I´
a. a. a a ¯svarakrsna.
.. .
The S¯mkhya-K¯rik¯ claims to be the summary of an earlier, more compre-
a. a a
hensive treatise, the Sas. itantra.
. .t
According to S¯mkhya, reality is composed of a number of basic princi-
a.
ples (tattva), which are taken to be twenty-five in the classical system. But
since the heart of the system is its hierarchical framework, the exact num-
ber of the principles varies, especially in the earliest writings. But such a
variation is of no fundamental importance.
In the classical system, the first principle is (1) prakrti, which is taken to
.
be the cause of evolution. From prakrti develops (2) intelligence (buddhi, also
.
called mahat), and thereafter (3) self-consciousness (ahamk¯ra). From self-
. a
consciousness emerge the five subtle elements (tanm¯tra): (4) ether (¯k¯á),
a a as
(5) air, (6) light, (7) water, and (8) earth. From the subtle elements emerge
the five (9-13) material elements (mah¯bh¯ta). Next emerge the five or-
a u
gans of sense (jãnendriya): (14) hearing, (15) touch, (16) sight, (17) taste,
n¯
and (18) smell, and five organs of action (karmendriya): (19) speech, (20)
grasping, (21) walking, (22) evacuation, and (23) procreation.

8

purusa

manas

ahamkara buddhi

senses

tanmatra, mahabhuta

Figure 2: The cognitive system

Finally, self-consciousness produces the twenty-fourth of the basic ele-
ments: (24) mind (manas), which, as a sixth sense, mediates between the
ten organs and the outside world. The last, twenty-ﬁfth, tattva is (25)
purusa.
.

The emergence from prakrti of intelligence and, later, of subtle and gross
.
elements, mind and consciousness, appears to mirror the stages through
which a newly-conceived individual will pass. Here intelligence, as the second
tattva, is what endows the newly fertilized cell the ability to organize and
grow; self-consciousness represents the stage which allows the organism to
sense the environment, and so on. The thesis that the world is connected,
allows one to see the same process at the cosmic and the psychological levels.
The doctrine of the three constituent qualities (guna): sattva, rajas, and
.
tamas, plays a very important role in the S¯mkhya physics and metaphysics.
a.
These gunas are described in the Upanisads. In its undeveloped state, cosmic
. .

9

matter has these gunas in equilibrium. As the world evolves, one or the
.
other of these become preponderant in different objects or beings, giving
specific character to each. The quality of sattva, which stands for virtue
or transparence, inheres in all things tending to truth, wisdom, beauty or
goodness; the quality of rajas, or activity, energy or passion, is present in
all that is fierce, forceful or active; the quality of tamas, which stands for
inertia, is to be found in all that is stupid or dull. The gunas can be viewed
.
as the three constituent strands of materiality.
S¯mkhya can also be seen as having three basic dimensions:
a.

1. The constitutive (tattva) dimension, dealing with form (r¯pa), the
u
principle or the essential core (linga);
˙

2. The projective (bh¯va) dimension, concerning the projective or the in-
a
tentional (pravrtti), the predispositional, or cause-effect (naimittanaimit-
.
tika); and

3. The consequent (phala) dimension, dealing with what has come to pass
(bh¯ta) or the phenomenal creation (pratyayasarga).
u

They gunas can also be viewed as the threads that tie together the three
.
realms of the tattvas, the bh¯vas, and the bh¯tas.
a u

Vaiésika
s .
This school of “individual characteristics” is supposed to have been founded
by Kan¯da, the son of Ul¯ka. Other important sages associated with this tra-
.a u
dition include Candramati, Praástap¯da, Vyomaíva and Udayana. Kan¯da’s
s a s .a
Vaiés ika S¯tras (VS) describe a system of physics and metaphysics. Its
s . u
physics is an atomic theory of nature, where the atoms are distinct from
the soul, of which they are the instruments. Each element has individual
characteristics (viésas), which distinguish it from the other non-atomic sub-
s .
stances (dravyas): time, space, soul, and mind. The atoms are considered
to be eternal.
There are six fundamental categories (pad¯rtha) associated with reality:
a
substance (dravya), quality (guna), motion (karman), universal (s¯m¯nya),
. a a
particularity (viésa), and inherence (samav¯ya). The first three of these
s . a
have a real objective existence and the last three are products of intellectual
discrimination. Each of these categories is further subdivided as follows.

10

samavaya

padartha samanya visesa

dravya guna karman

manas

atman

earth air fire water
dravya

akasa space time

Figure 3: The categories of Vaisesika

There are nine classes of substances (dravya), some of which are nonatomic,
some atomic, and others all-pervasive. The nonatomic ground is provided
by the three substances ether (¯k¯á), space (di´), and time (k¯la), which are
a as s a
unitary and indestructible; a further four, earth (prthiv¯), water (¯pas), fire
. ı a
(tejas), and air (v¯yu) are atomic composed of indivisible, and indestructible
a
atoms (anu, param¯n u); self (¯tman), which is the eighth, is omnipresent
. a. a
and eternal; and, lastly, the ninth, is the mind (manas), which is also eternal
but of atomic dimensions, that is, infinitely small.

There are seventeen qualities (guna), listed in no particular order as
.
colour or form (r¯pa), taste (rasa), smell (gandha), and touch (spará);
u s
number (samkhy¯), size or dimension (parim¯n a), separateness (prthaktva),
. a a. .
conjunction (samyoga), and disjunction (vibh¯ga); remoteness (paratva) and
. a
nearness (aparatva); judgment (buddhi), pleasure (sukha), pain (duhkha),
.
desire (icch¯), aversion (dvesa), and effort (prayatna). These qualities are
a .
either physical or psychological. Remoteness and nearness are interpreted
in two different ways: temporally or spatially. This list is not taken to be

11

comprehensive because later sound is also described as a quality. But there
is a fundamental difference between sound and light. Sound is carried by the
non-atomic ¯k¯á, whereas light, implied by r¯pa, is carried by tejas atoms.
a as u
But even sound is sometimes seen as a specific characteristic of atoms.
There are five different types of motion (karman) that are associated with
material particles or the organs of the mind: ejection, falling (attraction),
contraction, expansion, and composite motion.
Universals (s¯m¯nya) are recurrent generic properties in substances,
a a
qualities, and motions. Particularities (viésa) reside exclusively in the eter-
s .
nal, non-composite substances, that is, in the individual atoms, souls, and
minds, and in the unitary substances ether, space, and time.
Inherence (samav¯ya) is the relationship between entities that occur at
a
the same time. This provides the binding that we see in the various cate-
gories so that we are able to synthesize our experience.
The Vaiésika atomic structure characterizes four of the five S¯mkhyan
s . a.
mah¯bh¯tas; the fifth, ether, is non-atomic and all-pervasive. Some of the
a u
Vaiés ika gunas correspond to the S¯mkhyan tanm¯tras. In S¯mkhya the
s . . a. a a.
tanm¯tras come first, in Vaiésika atoms are primary.
a s .
Each of the two schools has had a very long history.18 This included
many variations to the classical formulation given above. There has also
been considerable difference in interpretation. In the sections that follow,
I present an eclectic summary from this mass of material to communicate
their main physical ideas.

4 Physical concepts
The Vaiésika categories appear to provide a convenient starting point to
s .
examine the physical concepts inherent in these two systems.
The ground layer consists of indivisible, invisible and indestructible atoms
(anu, param¯n u). It is the aggregation of these atoms that give rise to differ-
. a.
ent destructible compound substances. These atoms are ideals, representing
unities of fundamental attributes. In this sense, they are quite similar to the
concept of such elementary particles of modern physics which are proposed
on theoretical grounds.
It is useful to consider the modern atomic doctrine for the sake of refer-
ence. Here the elementary particles are characterized by various attributes,
each of which has a numerical value. These attributes include mass, charge,
angular momentum, energy, and so on. The properties of bulk matter is, in

12

principle, obtainable from those of its constituents, but at each higher level
of aggregation of atoms, new properties emerge.
Philosophically, there are two main approaches, positivism and realism,
for the understanding of physics. According to the positivist, the only scien-
tific knowledge is the one that can be expressed in logical statements. Since
our logic and our language is a result of the observations of the world, this
presupposes that the observer is central to this knowledge. This is essen-
tially the same as the Ny¯ya position. The realist believes that there exists
a
an independent reality which is probed through observation and experiment.
Put differently, the positivists believe that knowledge is subjective, whereas
realists believe that it is objective.
A positivist accepts that there are elements of an empirical reality which
science uncovers, but points out that the realist view involves a logical con-
tradiction, since there is no way of observing an observer-independent reality
and hence we cannot verify that such a reality exists.
A weaker form of objectivity is sometimes identified with the positivist
position. Here we speak of an empirical reality which is not independent
of the observer, but is the same for all observers. Such weak objectivity
characterizes relativity theory.

Atoms and their combinations
According to the Vaiés ika S¯tras, “Earth possesses colour, taste, smell, and
s . u
touch. Waters possess colour, taste, and touch, and are fluid and viscid.
Fire possesses colour and touch. Air possesses touch. These (preceding
characteristics) are not in ether.”19 This indicates how the qualities are seen
as being built out of elementary entities. Such a unitary picture is even more
clearly spelt out for the atoms and the tanm¯tras. As mentioned before,
a
S¯mkhya provides a slightly different focus, where the abstract tanm¯tras
a. a
are considered to be the building blocks for the gross atoms.
The Vaiésika atomic substances are defined in a matrix of four non-
s .
atomic substances (dravyas)—time, space, soul and mind. In other words,
the physical universe has an objective existence and mind and soul do not
simply emerge from the material ground and disappear when the material
structure disintegrates.
The objective elements of the physical world are characterized by dravya,
guna, and karman, or substance, quality, and action. There is a further
.
characterization in terms of non-reactive and reactive properties.
Two atoms combine to form a binary molecule (dvyanuka). Two, three,
.

13

four or more dvyanukas combine into grosser molecules of tryanuka, caturanuka,
. . .
and so on. The other view is that atoms form dyads and triads directly to
form molecules fo different substances. Atoms possess an incessant vibratory
motion. The activity of the atoms and their combinations are not arbitrary
but according to laws that are expressed as the adrsta.
...
Molecules can also break up under the influence of heat (p¯kajotpatti).
a
In this doctrine of p¯lup¯ka (heating of atoms), the impact of heat particles
ı a
decomposes a molecule.
Heat and light rays are taken to consist of very small particles of high
velocity. Being particles, their velocity is finite. This is also apparent from
the fact that motion is contingent upon time as one of the dravyas. The
particles of heat and light can be endowed with different characteristics and
so heat and light can be of different kinds.
Elsewhere it is said that there is no difference between the atom of a
barley seed and paddy seed, since these are but atoms of earth. Under the
impact of heat particles, atoms can exhibit new characteristics.
A bh¯ta-atom evolves out of integration from the corresponding tanm¯tra.
u a
This indicates a primacy of the abstract over the material. On the other
hand, the atoms may be taken to be unitary objects and their combi-
nations seen as generating various tanm¯tras. One may further assume
a
that rudiment-matter (bh¯t¯di) leads to its more specific forms. Brajen-
ua
dranath Seal summarizes some views on the relationship between atoms
and tanm¯tras as follows:
a

The rudiment-matter (bh¯t¯di) acted on by rajas (energy) pro-
ua
duces the sound-potential (vibration-potential).

The vibration-potential, as a radicle, with accretion of atoms,
condensing and collocating, generates the touch-potential which
is impingent as well as vibratory.

The impact-potential, as a radicle, with a similar accretion of
atoms generates the heat-and-light-potential which radiates light
and heat in addition to being impingent as well as vibratory.

The light-and-heat-potential, as a radicle, with further accretion
of atoms generates the taste-potential.

14

The taste-potential, as a radicle, with further accretion of atoms,
generates the smell-potential.20

The order of the formation of the bh¯ta-param¯nu is seen according to
u a.
the following hierarchical scheme:

1. The sound-potential, subtile matter, with accretion of rudiment-matter
generates the ¯k¯á atom.
a as

2. The touch-potential combines with vibratory particles (sound-potential)
to generate the v¯yu atom.
a

3. The light-and-hear-potentials combine with touch and sound-potentials
to produce the tejas atom.

4. The taste-potential combines with the foregoing three to produce the
a
¯pas atom.

5. The smell-potential combines with the foregoing four to generate the
earth atom.21

In summary, all these views see matter as being of a unitary nature
which when excited to different states produces potential of different kinds
that correspond to the tanm¯tras and then constitutes different elements.
a
The Pad¯rthadharmasam graha of Praástap¯da deals with the question
a . s a
of ultimate substances. Earth, fire, water, and earth are here taken to be
the basic material substances. But their existence is taken to be contin-
gent on the presence of someone who knows of them, namely Brahman.
Praástap¯da’s commentary and exposition of the relevant s¯tras of VS,
s a u
with s¯tra numbers shown in parentheses, is as follows:
u

¯ as
Ak¯á (ether), time and space have no lower constituents. (VS
2.1.27, 29-31)
Of ¯k¯á the qualities are—sound, number, dimension, separate-
a as
ness, conjunction and disjunction. (VS 7.1.22)
Thus, then, being endowed with qualities, and not being located
in anything else, it is regarded as a substance. And in as much
as it has no cause, either homogeneous or heterogeneous, it is
eternal. (VS 2.1.18)
Time is the cause of the [relative] notions of “priority,” “poste-
riority,” or “simultaneity” and “succession,” and of “late” and

15

“soon.” In as much as there is no other cause or basis for these
notions, as appearing with regard to these objects,—notions
which differ in character from all notions described before,—we
conclude “time” to be the basis of these. (VS 2.2.6)
Time is the cause or basis of the production, persistence and
destruction (or cessation) of all produced things; as all these are
spoken of in terms of time... (VS 2.2.9)
Though from the uniformity of the distinguishing character of
time, time is directly by itself, one only, yet, it is indirectly, or
figuratively, spoken of as manifold, on account of the diversity
among the conditions afforded by the production, persistence
and cessation of all produced things...
Space is the cause of the notions of east, west, below and above,
and so on, with regard to one material object considered with
reference to another material object as the starting point or limit.
Specially so, as there is no other cause for these notions. (VS
.2.12; 2.1.31; 7.1.24; 7.2.22)22

The nature of sound
The underlying physical ideas of our systems are presented well in the dis-
cussion of sound. According to Praástap¯da:
s a
Sound is the quality of ¯k¯á, perceptible by the auditory organ.
a as
It is momentary. It can be produced by contact, by disjunction,
or by another sound. There are two kinds of sound: varna (syl-
.
lables) and dhvani. The production of the syllables is a result
of the contact of the internal organ and self when influenced by
memory. First, one desires to produce the sound and then makes
an effort. The moving air strikes the throat, producing a contact
with the ¯k¯á, and resulting in the sound. Sounds are always
a as
produced in a series, like a series of ripples in water and when
these waves reach the ear we hear them.23
Sound energy is viewed as a wave. The waves impinge on the hearing
organ and are recognized through associations. Praástap¯da’s dhvani is
s a
considered to be noise. But it appears that its role is similar to the dhvani
¯
defined by Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta as the power of suggestion
in its purest form that plays a significant part in the recall of the conscious
and unconscious associations.

16

Evolution
With the background of the bandhu between the outer and the inner in
mind, it is clear that the evolution of the tattvas can also be viewed as an
evolution of the universe. Buddhi or mahat arises before space and matter.
This presumes that with buddhi also emerges the cognition of time. And
further, that space and matter, which constitute the physical universe, are
contingent on the existence of intelligence. The working of the nature’s
intelligence is seen as soon as the notions of prior and posterior, related to
the change associated with a physical process, become real.
The S¯mkhya system also presupposes a universe which comes into be-
a.
ing and then is absorbed back in the ground-stuff of reality. This is what
we see in the Pur¯nic cyclic universe also. Within each cycle, a gradual
a.
development of intelligent life is assumed. It is postulated that the plants
arose first, followed by animals of various kinds, and lastly by man. Such a
creation and destruction may be viewed to be taking place at various levels,
including the psychological level related to the creation and destruction of
thoughts.

5 Analysis, causality
The choice of the basic categories in both S¯mkhya and Vaiés ika is dic-
a. s .
tated by considerations of economy. This parallels a similar emphasis on
economy in the Indian grammatical tradition. The fundamental bandhu be-
tween language, thought and empirical reality make it possible to analyze
the processes of nature.
The S¯mkhya K¯rik¯s present the question of pram¯na, the method of
a. a a a.
validation, thus:

Perception, inference, and reliable authority are considered the
three means for this purpose. Perception is the selective ascer-
tainment of particular sense-objects. Inference, which is of three
kinds, depends upon a characteristic mark and that which bears
that mark (association). Reliable authority is trustworthy ver-
bal testimony. The understanding of things beyond the senses is
inferred by analogy.24

The Vaiésika S¯tras also clearly present the principle of cause (k¯rana)
s . u a .
and effect (k¯rya).25 Praástap¯da describes time and space as nimittak¯ran a,
a s a a .

17

efficient cause, for all phenomena. This indicates position in space and
change in time are fundamental to all reality.
Causality is expressed in S¯mkhya as satk¯rya, “the doctrine of the ex-
a. a
istence of the effect (in the cause).”

The effect exists due to: (a) the non-productivity of non-being;
(b) the need for an appropriate material cause; (c) impossibility
of all things coming from all things; (d) things producing only
according to their nature; (e) the nature of the cause.26

There is no ex nihilo creation in the S¯mkhya but only a progressive
a.
manifestation.
The gunas provide the necessary ingredient for the universe (be it physi-
.
cal or psychological) to evolve. They make it possible to distinguish between
the prior and the posterior. The action of gunas is essential to the definition
.
of time and to the workings of causality.
But gunas are really not objective constituents of nature. Rather, they
.
represent a relative property. This is explained most clearly in Gaudap¯dabh¯s ya
. a a.
in the relativity inherent in “the beautiful and virtuous woman who is a
source of delight but cause of pain to her co-wives and of delusion in the
passionate.”27 In physical terms, one may speak of a separation between two
extremes by activity in the middle. Or, the gunas may be viewed as the po-
.
tential whose gradients set up the process of ceaseless change. The activity
in the middle, characterized by rajas, separates the two poles of purusa and
.
undifferentiated prakrti, or those of sattva and tamas.
.

6 How does the mind make sense?
The observer has become a part of physics since the advent of relativity and
quantum mechanics; the observer also plays a central role in Indian philo-
sophical systems. The question of observation in S¯mkhya and Vaiésika
a. s .
is considered at two levels: at the level of the mind, which is seen as an
instrument; and at the level of the awareness ground-stuff, purusa.
.
The S¯mkhya model of the mind was shown in Figure 2. In it intellect
a.
(buddhi), self-consciousness (ahamk¯ra) and mind (manas) are the three
˙ a
inner instruments that process the sense impressions.

Since the buddhi together with the other internal organs (ahamk¯ra
˙ a
and manas) comprehends every object; therefore, the three-fold

18

instrument is the doorkeeper and the remaining (ten) are the
doors.28

Memory is seen to arise due to associations and the traces let by past
cognitions; this involves a contact between the self and the internal organ.
The traces are stored by repetitions and by selective interest in the objects
of the past cognitions. A recalled memory may become the cause of recol-
lection of a part of the previous cognition, desire or aversion, and of further
association of ideas.29
Ordinary language is limited in its capacity to describe all nature, like-
wise memories are inadequate in their remembrance of the past. But ¯tman,
a
by virtue of its linkages with brahman, does have access to the hidden mem-
ories. This means that a part of the mind is unconscious, inaccessible to the
empirical self.
Praástap¯da calls memory as a form of true knowledge (vidy¯) but does
s a a
not count it as a pram¯na. The objection to memory being considered as
a.
true knowledge is that it is just a trace. A memory does not represent an
object completely; it leaves out some of the properties previously present
and adds others that were not initially there. In other words, memories are
reconstructions of reality.
Cognition cannot be taken to arise out of the sense-organs.

These (organs, namely, ahamk¯ra, manas and the ten senses)
˙ a
which are different from one another and which are distinct spec-
ifications of the gunas, present the whole to the buddhi, illumi-
.
nating it for the purusa like a lamp.30
.
The question of the seat of intelligence is analyzed::

In the cognitions of sound, etc, we infer a “cognizer.” This char-
acter cannot belong to the body, or to the sense-organs, or to the
mind; because all these are unintelligent or unconscious. Con-
sciousness cannot belong to the body, as it is a material product,
like the jar; and also as no consciousness is found in dead bodies.

Nor can consciousness belong to the sense-organs; because these
are mere instruments, and also because we have remembrances
of objects even after the sense-organ has been destroyed, and
even when the object is not in contact with the organ.

19

Nor can it belong to the mind; because if the mind be regarded
as functioning independently of the sense organs, then we would
have perception and remembrance simultaneously presenting them-
selves; and because the mind itself is a mere instrument.

And thus the only thing to which consciousness could belong is
the self, which thus is cognized by this consciousness.

As from the motion of the chariot we infer the existence of an
intelligent guiding agent in the shape of the charioteer, so also we
infer an intelligent guiding agent for the body, from the activity
appearing in the body, which have the capacity of acquiring the
desirable and avoiding the undesirable.31
Coming to the question of purusa, it is stated na prakrtir na vikrtih
. . . .
purusah, that it is neither prakrti (creative) not vikrti (created).32 Purusa
. . . . .
transcends vyakta and avyakta, it is discriminating, subjective, speciﬁc, con-
scious and non-productive.33 Purusa is a witness, free, indiﬀerent, watchful,
.
and inactive.34
The purusa, in this characterization, does not interfere with prakrti and
. .
its manifestations. It is transcendent and completely free (kaivalya).
What are the reasons that purusa must exist?
.
samgh¯tapar¯rthatv¯t
. a a a
trigunadiviparyay¯d adhis. h¯n¯t,
. ¯ a .t a a
puruso’sti bhoktrbh¯v¯t
. . a a
kaivaly¯rtham pravrtte´ ca.
a . . s

The purusa exists because aggregations exist for another; be-
.
cause there must be the opposite to the three gunas; because
.
there must be superintending power; because there must be an
enjoyer; because there is activity for the sake of freedom.35
We see that this conception of the “enjoyer” or “observer” parallels the
manner in which the observer enters the picture in modern physics.36 The
physical laws are immutable; nevertheless, the universe appears to require
that observers be present.
There is also the paradox that while corresponding to prakrti there exists
.
a single purusa, or a single root consciousness, in reality there are many
.
observers.

20

jananamaran akaranan¯m
. .¯ a.
pratiniyam¯d ayugapatpravr tte´ ca,
a . s
purusabahutvam siddham
. . .
traigunyaviparyay¯c cai’va.
. a

The plurality of purusas arises from: the diversity of births,
.
deaths, and faculties; actions or functions at different times; dif-
ference in the proportion of gunas in different individuals.37
.

The proximity between prakrti and purusa makes it appear that the
. .
unconscious is endowed with awareness.38
In other words, the language of the k¯rik¯s does acknowledge with great
a a
clarity, and in a manner perfectly consistent with modern insights, that the
question of consciousness represents a paradox. The mind is taken to operate
in a causal fashion, just as the physical world does. The sensory input is
transformed by the associations of different kinds that lie in the memory
and the predispositions (as determined by the gunas) to reach judgments.
.

7 Qualities, motions, universals
Kan¯da lists seventeen qualities and says there are more. Candramati, in
.a
Daápad¯rthaástra, adds the following seven to this list: mass (gurutva), flu-
s a s¯
idity (dravatva), viscidity (sneha), disposition (samsk¯ra), merit (dharma),
. a
demerit (adharma), and sound (ábda).
s
Mass inheres in earth and water and causes a substances to fall down.
Fluidity inheres in earth, water and fire and causes the flowing of a sub-
stance. Viscidity inheres in water and causes coherence with a substance
such as earth. Disposition can either be physical, in relation to a motion,
or mental. Merit and demerit are psychological qualities related to plea-
sure and pain. Merit is of two kinds, viz., activity (pravrtti) and inactivity
.
(nivrtti).
.
In physical terms, four states of matter are described: ¯k¯á or ether,
a as
which is non-atomic and, therefore, by itself represents vacuum; gas, as
in tejas; liquid, as in water; and solid, as in earth. Since the aggregate
substances have size, the question of the manner in which their qualities
inhere arises.
A distinction was made between qualities which pervade their loci and
those which do not. Candramati lists the following as locus-pervading:

21

color taste smell
touch number dimension
separateness farness nearness
contact disjunction fluidity
viscosity weight velocity
These are the ones of significance for physical objects. Sometimes, a few
additional qualities are said to be locus-pervading.
Praástap¯da describes qualities related to objects somewhat differently
s a
than Candramati. He offers weight, fluidity, viscidity and samsk¯ra (dispo-
. a
sition); this last quality is further subdivided into inertia (vega), elasticity
(sthitisth¯paka), and trace (bh¯van¯).39
a a a
Fluidity is of two varieties: natural and instrumental. It is a natural
quality of water and an instrumental quality of earth and fire. When water
freezes into ice, the natural fluidity of water is seen to be counteracted by
the fire of the sky, so that the atoms combine to form a solid. Water, earth,
and fire all have fluidity. However, water’s fluidity is held to be primary,
while that of the other two substances is secondary. Viscidity is responsible
for cohesion and smoothness.
Kan¯da defines motion into five varieties: ejection (utksepana), attrac-
.a . .
tion (avaksepana), contraction (¯ku˜cana), expansion (prasaran a), and com-
. . a n .
posite movement (gamana).40 In the case of gamana there is contact with
points of space in various directions, or there are many loci.41 Motion by
gravity is discussed. “Weight causes falling; it is imperceptible and known
by inference.”42 Motion is produced by mass, which is the same as a motion
due to gravitational attraction.43
Inertia is the quality of a moving object which is responsible for its
continuing in its motion. The Vaiésika position is that inertia is countered
s .
by other forces, leading to energy loss, which is why the moving object slowly
loses its speed.
That motion cannot take place instantaneously, was well understood.
Vyomaíva in his Vyomavat¯ speaks of how a motion has several parts that
s ı
will take increments of time. Likewise, motions produced in cooking will
take time to produce the new quality associated with the process, where
time, in this context, is equivalent to energy. This is a statement of the
empirical fact that a minimum energy needs to be expended before a state
change occurs. With water the temperature must reach the boiling point
before steam will be obtained. This observation expresses an understanding
of the quantum effect in daily processes.
It is stated that there are two kinds of universals: higher and lower.44 The

22

higher universal here is Being, which encompasses everything. Lower uni-
versals exclude as well as include. This means that the universals could be
defined in a hierarchical fashion. The higher universal is akin to a super-
position of all possibilities and so it anticipates the essence of the quantum
theory.

8 Cosmology, astronomy
We now consider how the ideas of S¯mkhya and Vaiésika are intertwined
a. s .
with the development of Indian science. Since S¯mkhya, in one of its many
a.
forms, has been a part of Indian thinking going back to the remotest times,
one may be certain that it played an important role. This is most easy to
see for astronomy for which the extant texts provide enough information in
terms of layers of material, and thereby allow us to see a gradual development
of various ideas. This evolution of astronomy may be taken to be a prototype
for the development of other sciences.
Ideal forms play a role in Vaiés ika. For example, sphericity (p¯rimandalya)
s . a ..
is considered a basic shape. Candramati speaks of two kinds of sphericity:
when it is minute, it resides in an atom, and when it is absolutely large
(infinite), it resides in ¯k¯á, time, place, and self. In between the very
a as
large (cosmos) and the very small (atom) are the objects of the observable
universe which will not conform to the ideal shape. So in astronomy, which
represents this middle ground, one must consider deviations from spherical
or circular shapes and orbits.
Since only the cosmos as a whole may be considered to be perfect, space
as a dravya will not have any absolute properties. This reasoning sets Indian
physical science apart from the tradition of Greek science which took space
to be absolute and the observer on the earth to have a privileged position.
In Indian physics, space and time are considered to be relative.
Considering Indian astronomy, it should be noted that its understand-
ing is undergoing a major shift. More than a hundred years ago, it was
believed45 that the Indians were the originators of many of the notions that
led to the Greek astronomical flowering. This view slowly lost support and
then it was believed that Indian astronomy was essentially derivative and
it owed all its basic ideas to the Babylonians and the Greeks. It was even
claimed that there was no tradition of reliable observational astronomy in
India.
Billard,46 using statistical analysis of the parameters used in the many

23

Siddh¯ntas, showed that these texts were based on precise observations and
a
so the theory that there was no observational tradition in India was wrong.
Seidenberg showed that the altars of the Br¯hmanas already knew consid-
a .
erable geometry. He saw the development of the mathematical ideas going
through the sequence of equivalence by number followed by an equivalence
by area.47 Further work showed that these altars represented astronomical
knowledge. Since then it has been found that the Vedic books are according
to an astronomical plan.48 The texts themselves mimic the tripartite connec-
tions of nature!

On the non-uniform motion in the sky
We first consider the sun. With respect to an observer on the earth, the sun
has two motions. First, is the daily motion across the sky. Second, is the
shifting of the rising and setting directions. It is this second motion which
defines the seasons. Its two extreme points are the solstices, and the points
where the sun’s orbit crosses the equator or when the nights equal the days
are the equinoxes.
The Aitareya Br¯hmana describes how the sun reaches the highest point
a .
on the day called visuvant and how it stays still for a total of 21 days with
.
the visuvant being the middle day of this period. In the Pa˜cavimá Br.
. n .s
several year-long rites are described where the visuvant day is preceded and
.
followed by three-day periods called svaras¯man days. This suggests that
a
the sun was now taken to be more or less still in the heavens for a total
period of 7 days. So it was clearly understood that the shifting of the rising
and the setting directions had an irregular motion.
The year-long rites list a total of 180 days before the solstice and another
180 days following the solstice. Since this is reckoning by solar days, it is
not clear stated how the remaining 4 or 5 days of the year were assigned.
But this can be easily inferred.
The two basic days in this count are the visuvant (summer solstice) and
.
the mah¯vrata day (winter solstice) which precedes it by 181 days in the
a
above counts. Therefore, even though the count of the latter part of the
year stops with an additional 180 days, it is clear that one needs another 4
or 5 days to reach the mah¯vrata day in the winter. This establishes that
a
the division of the year was in the two halves of 181 and 184 or 185 days.
Corroboration of this is suggested by evidence related to an altar design
´
from Satapatha Br¯hmana as shown in Fig 4. This figure shows that the
a .
four quarters of the year were not taken to be equal.49

24

N

W V E

S

Figure 4: The non-uniform circuit of the Sun

25

Likewise, the motions of the planets were known to be non-uniform. The
ideal orbits were considered to be circular. But the actual motion deviated
from the ideal, represented in terms of the struggle betweeen the devas and
the asuras of the Vedic mythology.50
By the time of the Siddh¯ntas, the planet orbits were represented with
a
¯
respect to the sun. Not only did Aryabhata (c. 500 C.E.) believe that the
.
earth rotates, but there are glimmerings in his system (and other similar
Indian systems) of a possible underlying theory in which the earth (and the
planets) orbits the sun, rather than the sun orbiting the earth. The evidence
is that the period provided is the ´¯
sıghrocca, which is the time taken by the
planet to orbit the sun relative to the sun. For the outer planets this is not
significant: both earth and sun are inside their orbits and so the time taken
to go round the earth and the time taken to go round the sun are the same.
But this becomes significant for the inner planets.

The motion of the earth
Only an ideal body will be at complete rest in the Vaiésika system. So it
s .
¯
is not surprising to see Aryabhata take the earth to rotate on its axis. It
.
appears that the rotation of the earth is inherent in the notion that the sun
never sets that we find in the Aitareya Br¯hmana:
a .

The [sun] never really sets or rises. In that they think of him
“He is setting,” having reached the end of the day, he inverts
himself; thus he makes evening below, day above. Again in that
they think of him “He is rising in the morning,” having reached
the end of the night he inverts himself; thus he makes day below,
night above. He never sets; indeed he never sets.51

One way to visualize it is to see the universe as the hollow of a sphere so
that the inversion of the sun now shines the light on the world above ours.
But this is impossible since the sun does move across the sky during the day
and if the sun doesn’t set or rise it doesn’t move either. Clearly, the idea of
“inversion” denotes nothing but a movement of the earth.
By our study of the early Vedic sources, we are are now able to under-
stand the stages of the development of the earliest astronomy. After the
Rgvedic stage comes the period of the Br¯hmanas. This is followed by La-
. a .
gadha’s astronomy. The last stage is early Siddh¯ntic and early Pur¯nic
a a.
astronomy.

26

Ancient Indian astronomy may be described in terms of three broad
stages which mirror the development of the corresponding philosophical
ideas.

• Stage 1. This is primarily Rgvedic astronomy. Here we speak of the
.
motion of the sun and the moon, naksatras, and the planets and their
.
orbits are not according to the ideal cyclic motions. We are not certain
when this period began but we have many references of astronomical
events in the mythology, like the destruction of the sacrifice of Daksa.
´
by Siva, which indicates the era of the fourth millennium B.C.E.,52 but
note that this story belongs to a later stratum of the Vedic myths.
The ritual of this period was done according to the Ved¯nga Jyotisa
a˙ .
of Lagadha (c. 1300 B.C.E.). Being the standard manual for deter-
mination of the Vedic rites, Lagadha’s work must have served as a
“living” book which is why the language of the extant text shows later
linguistic usage. The objective of the Ved¯nga Jyotisa is to do the as-
a˙ .
tronomical calculations for the daily rites. The calculations use forms
that may be unrelated to observational processes as in the case of the
mean positions of the sun and the moon. The day is defined with
respect to the risings of the sun, the stars, and the moon. This indi-
cates that the idea of relativity with respect to time processes was well
understood. The orbits of the sun and the moon are considered with
respect to their mean positions, suggesting the non-uniform nature of
their motions was well known.

• Stage 2. This is the astronomy of the Br¯hmanas associated with
a .
á . .
names like those of Y¯jãvalkya and S¯ndilya. Although the rites of
an
the Br¯hmanas appear to be very ancient, the texts appear to belong
a .
to the second millennium B.C.E. Their astronomy is represented by
means of geometric altars and deals with the non-uniform motion of
the sun and the moon and intercalation for the lunar year. There is
also the beginnings of an understanding of universal attraction in terms
of “strings of wind joined to the sun.” This astronomy corresponds to
the S¯mkhya of the Brhad¯ranyaka Upanisad.
a. . a . .
• Stage 3. This concerns mainly with the early Siddh¯ntic and Pur¯nic
a a.
´
periods. Here our main sources are the Sulbas¯tras, the Mah¯bh¯rata,
u a a
the early Pur¯nas, S¯ryasiddhanta and other texts. This stage saw the
a. u .
development of the ´¯sıghrocca and mandocca cycles and the concept of
the kalpa, the large period associated with creation at the cosmic level.

27

At the end of these stages stands the classical Siddh¯ntic period inau-
a
¯
gurated by Aryabhata. The concepts of the ´¯
. sıghrocca and mandocca cy-
cles indicate that the motion of the planets was taken to be fundamentally
around the sun, which, in turn, was taken to go around the earth. We can
see the development of these ideas as an explication of the notion of a non-
ideal motion in terms of several stages of underlying ideal motions. This is
analogous to how the ideal shapes of the atoms, when combined, lead to the
non-ideal shapes of the gross elements.
S¯rya Siddh¯nta describes a “mechanistic” model for the planetary mo-
u a
tions which is like the mechanistic physical models of the Vaiésika:
s .

Forms of time, of invisible shape, stationed in the zodaic, called
the ´¯
sıghrocca, mandocca, and node (p¯ta), are causes of the
a
motion of the planets. The planets, attached to these points by
cords of air, are drawn away by them, with the right and left
hand, forward or backward, according to nearness, toward their
own place. A wind, called pravaha, impels them toward their
own uccas, being drawn away forward and backward.53

The antecedents of this system can be seen in the earlier texts. Rgveda
.
speaks of the stars of the Ursa Major (the Seven Sages) having ropes of wind,
s a. ´
(munayo v¯ta raán¯h ).54 Satapatha Br. describes the sun as puskaram¯dityo,
a . a
“the lotus of the sky.” It also says:

tadas¯v¯ditya im¯mlok¯nts¯tre sam¯vayate, tadyattats¯tram v¯yuh..
a a a. a u a u . a .
The sun strings these worlds [the earth, the planets, the atmo-
sphere] to himself on a thread. This thread is the same as the
wind...55

This suggests a central role to the sun in defining the motions of the
planets and ideas such as these must have ultimately led to the theory of
the ´¯
sıghrocca and the mandocca cycles.
The sun’s central role implies that the basic functioning of gravitation
was understood. This action was visualized in terms of “ropes of wind,”
which, in modern terminology, would be called a field.

Relativity of time and space
To summarize, the first descriptions were non-uniform motions of “mean”
objects. Later models shift the centre from the earth, first by considering

28

that earth spins on its axis, and then representing the non-circular motion
of the planets with respect to the sun.
The parallel speculative thought in the Pur¯nas takes space and time to
a.
be relative in a variety of ways. Time can flow at different rates for different
observers. Time and space are not absolute. There exist countless universes
with their own Brahm¯, Visnu, and Mahesa.
a .. .
To appreciate the background for this thought, consider that in Vaiésika
s .
the universal is taken to be timeless and ubiquitous. Whatever can be
defined with respect to space and time cannot be a universal. The processes
that mark the passage of time on an object would thus be relative. It is
only the universals which are of the highest form, i.e. true for all time and
space, that are absolute. And the only such universal is the Being.
a. ¯
These ideas are elaborated in the Pur¯nas, the Agamic and the T¯ntric
a
literature, and in books like the Yoga-V¯sis tha.
a ..

9 Concluding remarks
We have shown that the physical concepts underlying S¯mkhya and Vaiésika
a. s .
represent a sophisticated materialist framework for the laws of nature. This
physics was based on general observations on the various physical processes.
Since an element of the two philosophical systems was metaphysical, the
reasoning was often validated based on psychological arguments. Both sys-
tems emphasized causality and so were capable of elucidating nature’s laws.
The basic categories are ideals and the modifications of these ideas provide
endless structure.
There is also a complementarity between S¯mkhya and Vaiésika. By
a. s .
considering the evolution of tattvas, S¯mkhya emphasizes genesis both at
a.
the cosmic as well as the psychological levels. More details related to the
constitution of the physical world are provided by Vaiésika. These struc-
s .
tures are paralleled in Indian grammatical philosophy with production based
on a small set of axioms.
There is also a recognition that new enumerative categories are needed in
the characterization of empirical world. It is recognized that the description
of the physical world requires categories that go beyond the basic 25 of the
S¯mkhya system. Some of them are described in Vaisesika, but there the
a. . .
emphasis is on atoms and their mutual relationships. For example, new
categories are necessary to characterize the motion of planets. Driven by
the requirement of reconciling the cyclic ideal motions of the planets to the

29

actual ones, more complex orbits were introduced. This complexity was seen
as being engendered by the workings of gravity-like forces.
Speaking of one of these philosophies, the historian of thought Karl Pot-
ter says:

Ny¯ya-Vaiés ika offers one of the most vigorous efforts at the con-
a s .
struction of a substantialist, realist ontology that the world has
ever seen. It provides an extended critique of event-ontologies
and idealist metaphysics. It starts from a unique basis for ontol-
ogy that incorporates several of the most recent Western insights
into the question of how to defend realism most successfully.
This ontology is “Platonistic” (it admits repeatable properties
as Plato’s did), realistic (it builds the world from “timeless” in-
dividuals as well as spatio-temporal points or events), but neither
exclusively physicalistic nor phenomenalistic (it admits as basic
individuals entities both directly known and inferred from sci-
entific investigations). Though the system has many quaint and
archaic features from a modern point of view, as a philosophi-
cal base for accommodating scientific insights it has advantages:
its authors developed an atomic theory, came to treat numbers
very much in the spirit of modern mathematics, argued for a
wave theory of sound transmission, and adapted an empiricist
view of causality to their own uses.56

In reality, the scope of S¯mkhya and Vaiés ika is even greater than this,
a. s .
because they reconcile the observer to the frame of a materialist physics,
leading to subtle insights that have been validated by modern physics. Con-
sider, for example, the notion that one may take the tanm¯tras to be com-
a
posed of bh¯t¯di or the other way round. The tanm¯tras are an abstract
ua a
potential whereas bh¯t¯di are the elementary atoms which is somewhat like
ua
the quantum wavefunction and material particles. S¯mkhya, where the ob-
a.
server is central, considers tanm¯tras to emerge first. On the other hand,
a
Vaiés ika. with its focus on atoms and their combinations, does not speak
s .
of tanm¯tras although some of the gunas are like the tanm¯tras. In other
a . a
words, we have something akin to the concept of wave-particle duality of
quantum physics.
The assumption that all observed world emerges out of prakrti implies
.
that the material substratum of all substances is the same. The qualities
of Vaiésika emerge as material atoms combine in different ways. These
s .

30

emergent properties are not limited to inanimate matter but also to the
instruments of cognition where actual cognition requires the self to be the
activating agent.
This paper presents only two of the many currents of the Indian physical
thought. One needs also to consider texts on architecture, astronomy as well
as the traditions related to crafts and military science for additional insight.

Abbreviations
AB Aitareya Br¯hmana
a .
AV Atharvaveda
BU Brhad¯ranyaka Upanisad
. a . .
CU Ch¯ndogya Upanisad
a .
KBU Kaus¯ . ıtaki Br¯hmana Upanisad
a . .
PP Pad¯rthadharmasamgraha of Pra´astap¯da
a . s a
RV Rgveda
.
´
SB ´
Satapatha Br¯hmana
a .
SK S¯mkhya K¯rik¯
a. a a
´
SU ´ as
Svet¯´vatara Upanisad .
TU Taittir¯ Upanisad
ıya .
VS Vai´esika S¯tra
s . u

Notes
1. SK 2.

2. Heisenberg [5], Kak [9,14,16-18,21].

3. RV 1.164.45.

4. See, for example, Kak [7,8,10-15,20].

5. RV 4.23; 10.85; 10.190.

6. AV 10.

7. RV 2.25; 10.121.

8. RV 10.129.4-5.

9. BU 4.5.12-13.

31

10. BU 1.4.1.

11. KBU 3.5.

12. CU 7.25.1.

13. CU 6.2-5.
´
14. SU 4.5.

15. TU 2.1.

16. CU 6.2.1-2.

17. TU 3.2-6.

18. See, for example, Dasgupta [3], Matilal [28], Potter [29], Hulin [6],
Larson [26], Larson and Bhattacharya [27].

19. VS 2.1

20. Seal [31], pages 37-38.

21. Seal [31], pages 38-39.

22. PP 5.41-3.

23. PP 137.

24. SK 4-7.

25. SK 7.

26. SK 9.

27. Gaudap¯dabh¯sya 9.
. a a.

28. SK 35.

29. PP 121.

30. SK 36.

31. PP 5.44s; see also VS 3.1.19.

32. SK 3.

32

33. SK 11.

34. SK 19.

35. SK 17.

36. Heisenberg [5], Kak [9].

37. SK 18.

38. SK 20.

39. PP 129-133.

40. VS 10.

41. PP 143.

42. PP 129.

43. PP 149.

44. PP 154.

45. Burgess [2].

46. Billard [1].

47. Seidenberg [32].

48. Kak [15-20,22-25].
´
49. The ﬁgure is from SB 8.5; see also Kak [15].

50. Kak [15].

51. AB 4.18.

52. Kramrisch [25], pages 42-43.

53. S¯rya Siddh¯nta 2.1-5.
u a

54. RV 10.136.2.
´
55. SB 8.7.3.10.

56. Potter [29], page 1.

33

Bibliography
1 R. Billard, L’Astronomie Indienne. Ecole Francaise d’Extreme Orient,
Paris, 1971.

2 E. Burgess, The S¯rya Siddh¯nta. Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1989 (1860).
u a

3 S. Dasgupta, A History of Indian Philosophy. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 1932.

4 Dharampal, Indian Science and Technology in the Eighteenth Century.
Impex India, Delhi, 1971.

5 W. Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy. Penguin, London, 1989.

6 M. Hulin, S¯mkhya Literature. Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, 1978.
a.

7 S. Kak, “The astronomy of the age of geometric altars,” Quarterly Journal
Royal Astronomical Society, 36, 385-396, 1995.

8 S. Kak, “Knowledge of planets in the third millennium BC,” Quarterly
Journal Royal Astronomical Society, 37, 709-715, 1996.

9 S. Kak, “On the science of consciousness in ancient India,” Indian Journal
of the History of Science, 32, 105-120, 1997a.

10 S. Kak, “Archaeoastronomy and literature,” Current Science, 73, 624-
627, 1997b.

11 S. Kak, “Speed of light and Puranic cosmology.” ArXiv: physics/9804020.

12 S.Kak, “Early theories on the distance to the sun.” Indian Journal of
History of Science, vol. 33, 1998, pp. 93-100. ArXiv: physics/9804021.

13 S. Kak, “The solar numbers in Angkor Wat.” Indian Journal of History
of Science, vol. 34, 1999, pp. 117-126. ArXiv: physics/9811040.

14 S. Kak, “Concepts of space, time, and consciousness in ancient India.”
ArXiv: physics/9903010.

15 S. Kak, The Astronomical Code of the Rgveda. Munshiram Manoharlal,
.
New Delhi, 2000.

34

16 S. Kak, “Birth and early development of Indian astronomy.” In a book
on Astronomy Across Cultures: The History of Non-Western Astron-
omy, Helaine Selin (editor), Kluwer Academic, Boston, 2000, pp. 303-
340. ArXiv: physics/0101063.

17 S. Kak, ‘Astronomy and its role in Vedic culture.” In Science and Civ-
ilization in India, Vol. 1: The Dawn of Indian Civilization, Part 1,
edited by G.C. Pande, ICPR/Centre for Studies in Civilizations, New
Delhi, 2000, pp. 507-524.

18 S. Kak, “Physical concepts in Samkhya and Vaisesika.” In Science and
Civilization in India, Vol. 1, Part 2, Life, Thought and Culture in In-
dia (from c 600 BC to c AD 300), edited by G.C. Pande, ICPR/Centre
for Studies in Civilizations, New Delhi, 2001, pp. 413-437.

19 S. Kak, On Aryabhata’s planetary constants. ArXiv: physics/0110029.

20 S. Kak, The Wishing Tree. Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi, 2001.

21 S. Kak, “The cyclic universe: some historical notes.” ArXiv: physics/0207026

22 S. Kak, “Greek and Indian cosmology: review of early history.” ArXiv:
physics/0303001.

23 S. Kak, “Babylonian and Indian astronomy: early connections.” ArXiv:
physics/0301078.

24 S. Kak, “Yajnavalkya and the origins of puranic cosmology.” Adyar Li-
brary Bulletin, vol 65, pp. 145-156, 2001. Also in ArXiv: physics/0101012.
´
25 S. Kramrisch, The Presence of Siva. Princeton University Press, Prince-
ton (1981), pages 42-43.

26 G.J. Larson, Classical S¯mkhya. Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1979.
a.

27 G.J. Larson and R.S. Bhattacharya (ed.). S¯mkhya: A Dualist Tradition
a.
in Indian PhilosophY. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1987.

28 B.K. Matilal, Ny¯ya-Vai´esika. Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, 1977.
a s .

29 K.H. Potter (ed.). Indian Metaphysics and Epistemology. Princeton
University Press, Princeton, 1977.

35

30 T.R.N. Rao and S. Kak (eds.). Computing Science in Ancient India.
Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi, 2000.

31 B. Seal, The Positive Sciences of the Hindus. Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi,
1985 (1915)

32 A. Seidenberg, “The origin of mathematics,” Archive for History of Ex-
act Sciences, 18, 301-342, 1978.

36

Indian Physics - an Early History

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to Indian Physics - an Early History (20)

More from Ajai Singh (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Indian Physics - an Early History