Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Welcome viewers to this session. In this session, we will discuss in continuation to the first
class. The first class in the Vaisesika philosophy or in the first session of the Vaisesika philosophy,
what we had discussed I will just recap. I will just briefly recap for you. Initially
we said that, the Kanada was the founder of the Vaisesika system. Then, we said that apart
from Kanada, there are many other scholars contributed their theory to this course for
its own development and existence as a school among other schools in Indian philosophy.
There we had said that Nyaya-Vaisesika is considered as a pair in Indian philosophy
whereas, Nyaya talks about a theoretical approach and Vaisesika talks about in a practical approach.
So, therefore, Nyaya-Vaisesika together, these two schools considered as a pair among other
pairs, like you have Samkhya-Yoga. In the same way, it is a Nyaya-Vaisesika philosophy.
Then, we also discussed that how Nyaya and Vaisesika have their common opinion on what
are the issues. We said that, they have agreed on the opinion that we the human beings are
suffering in this earth because we are ignorant. So, ignorance is the root cause of all suffering.
Then, also they have commonly agreed that if an individual wishes to achieve the liberation
or wishes to attend the liberation while living in this earth is also possible for him or
her, if and only if he can do some kind of practice rituals and accept some kind of norms
and regulations in his or her life. Apart from their agreement, we find also some
kind of disagreements between Nyaya and Vaisesika philosophy. Their disagreement lies, when
they talk about the padarthas in the theory of knowledge. Nyaya said that, we require
four sources of knowledge to have a valid knowledge we require at least four sources.
And these are known as perception, inference, comparison and verbal testimony. On the other
hand, Vaisesika schools accepts that, there can be only two sources of knowledge or two
valid sources from which we can acquire the valid knowledge. One is perception, another
is inference. Vaisesika system rejects the other two pramana accepted by Nyayakans. Those
are upamana and verbal testimony because they believe that, this upamana and verbal testimony
can be reduced to perception and inference. Henceforth, in one hand, you find Nyayakans
accept four pramanas and on the other hand, Vaisesika philosophy accepts two pramanas
and these are perception and inference. Further, their disagreement lies when Nyayakans
accept 16 padarthas and Vaisesika accepted only 7 padarthas. So, their agreement and
disagreement we had clearly discussed. In addition to that we had also discussed what
they mean by padartha. What Vaisesikas mean by the padarthas? Padartha, they mean there
is an object of having a particular name. Padarthas stands for an object of having a
particular name. Further, we also said that Vaisesikas unlike Nyayakans said that there
are 9 kinds of substances, which we will be going to discuss in today’s class in elaborate
way. Substance for Vaisesika must satisfy 3 features.
One is that, that substance must have a uniqueness or distinctive feature that is called astitva.
The second feature is knowable about that object, can think about that object that is
knowability. Then, the third feature is nameability. We can also name that object, we can identify
that object with having so and so name. So, therefore, a substance must satisfy 3 features
or the 3 elements. One is astitva, the uniqueness. Then, knowability that we can think of that
object and nameability that also we had discussed, but our discussion stopped when we said that
unlike Buddhism, Vaisesika said that a substance is over and above of its constituent parts.
Here the point lies. Buddhism said that, Buddhism clearly said rather empirical express that
a substance is nothing, but the conglomeration of its constituent parts.
Vaisesika system defers from this argument and said that, a substance cannot be the conglomeration
of its constituent part. A substance is something over and above of its constituent parts and
this is the dispute you find between Vaisesika system and Buddhism. Thus, we will continue
our discussion on this issue. The last class what it remains that we said
that Vaisesika did not agree with the Buddhist explanation of substance. Now, once Vaisesika
said that what Buddhists are claiming about substance is completely rejected because a
substance though inherits the quality and actions in it, but it is not just the conglomeration
of qualities and action. Vaisesika clearly said that, the substance exist independent
in the first stage of its production. In the second stage, it inherits the qualities and
actions. So, therefore, though the substance is recognized with the help of quality and
action, but the quality and action put together cannot be able to constitute the substance.
Therefore, now we will discuss what Buddhists response towards the Vaisesika, how Buddhist
reacts to Vaisesika argument on substance. Buddhists said that, you the Vaisesika’s,
you said that substance exist independent of qualities and action in this production
in the first moment. In the second moment, immediately it inherits the quality and further,
you said that substance is something which can exist because it satisfies the 3 features.
One is astitva, second one is knowability and the third one is nameability.
Now, Buddhism here argues that whenever we think about a substance, do we really think
about the substance as we have explained which is something, which is divided of qualities
and action. Now, if I say that I am enjoying a mango. Let us say mango is a substance here,
where I say that I am enjoying a mango. What really I am enjoying, at what really I am
experiencing? As a cognizer here, I am enjoying the taste of that mango, the shape of that
mango, the smell of that mango. If this is so, then we identify the object or the substance
mango because of its qualities. Henceforth, how can you claim that substance exist independently
divide of qualities and you said that, qualities and actions inherit in the next moment. How
do we know that in which moment and what is the moment when the substance now possess
the qualities and actions and in which moment, now the substance does not possesses qualities
and actions in it. Therefore, the first argument that Buddhists
said is that there is nothing called substance, but only qualities exist. Our experience is
confined to sensible qualities alone, but not to the substance example as I said. He
said that because of the qualities I know that particular substance. If there is no
quality in a particular substance, we cannot identify the substance; we cannot identify
an object with having so and so name. The second point, they said no composite substance
is distinct from its parts and qualities. He said that when a substance is there, it
can be divided into different parts and each part having the same features as we find in
the whole as such, but is it the case that a whole has a different qualities, different
action and when you divide into parts, the constituent parts has different qualities
and different action. If it is not so, then how can you claim that a whole is something
above that, over and above than of its constituent parts a whole is something more than of its
constituent parts because the argument saying that, you the Vaisesika, you are saying that
a whole can be divided into different parts. You agree on that and further, you are also
agreeing the concept saying that the constituent parts of having certain qualities and the
same qualities, we find in the object before we divide into different parts. If this is
so, how can you claim that a whole is something different from it’s all the constituent
parts. This is the second argument. Now, the third argument they put forward that,
substance is a mental construction in relation to its parts and whole. What it means here
is that he is saying that, now there is a substance. Now, you divide the substance into
different parts. Once you divide the substance into different parts, you see the different
parts, you perceive the different parts, and you experience the different parts. Now, the
question arises, is it possible that an individual or a cognizer can be able to see all the parts
of an object at one time? I repeat the question what Buddhist ask to
Vaisesika. Is it possible for a cognizer to cognize an object of its different parts at
one time? This cannot be possible or this is not possible at any way. The reason behind,
whenever we look a table, we look from a different angle. Then, again we look to the same table
in different angle and certainly, our perception to the table from different angle might differ
from time to time. If it is so, then how can we constitute the
whole object is known as table because let us say, in the first instance, the cognizer
is cognizing the table of having say, first leg, second leg from the north side. In the
south side if you perceive, then you can perceive the other two legs. If that table is having
four legs, then the prior two legs certainly is different from the next experiences of
having two legs. If this is so, then on what basis the cognizer can claim about that whole
object is known as table and saying that a table is having four legs.
Here, Buddhism clearly emphasized that we observe, we experience the part of an object
and we observe different parts of that object. All our observation on that object is stored
in the form of impression in our mind, and it is the mind which helps to put together
all the impression. As a result, we could be able to cognize the object table as such.
So, therefore, they said that the whole part you cannot make discrimination. In that sense,
it is the mind who conceptualizes an object in its full form. If it is so, then one must
agree with the concept that a whole is consists of all of its parts and if you do not agree
with this, that means, you yourself is defeating what you are claiming as a substance.
Now, the next point they said that we identify an object because of its qualities, but not
by it substance. Again, you take any substance, for example, say tree. We identify the object
tree because of its qualities. If you do not know what are the qualities of a tree, in
any moment you cannot able to identify tree. Tree is a substance of having so and so name.
There might be possibility where you may not be able to know what is a plant and what is
a tree. You may not be knowing what is a tree and how it is different from grass. So, therefore,
it is because of the qualities we could be able to recognize an an object of having so
and so name. For example, say table. You recognize the
table; you identify a table because of so and so features. Its hardness, it is square
in size, it serves some of the purposes and so and so forth. So, therefore, you cannot
confuse a table with a chair. You cannot claim table as a chair because chair stands for
a particular object, table stands for another object. Henceforth, both the object has different
qualities all together and as a result, what Buddhists are claiming is that, we identify
an object because of its qualities, not because of its substance. If there will be no quality,
we may not be able to identify the object of having so and so name. If this is so, how
can one claim that like Vaisesikas a substance in its first production does not possess any
kind of qualities or action, but in the next moment, it inherits the qualities and action?
The last argument Buddhist put forward towards Vaisesikas stating that, it is logical error
to accept the whole independent of its parts. He is saying that how can you accept substance
as a whole, which is more than of its constituent parts? What is that more, how can we explain
something more about it? Is it something your imagination is talking about or is it something
real? Since, Buddhism are the realist, they said
that whenever you are talking about that a substance is consisting of more than of its
parts, then what is that more. If you could not able to explain, that means, you are now
in imagination. You are not talking about something realistic, which we find in our
day to day life. So, these are the arguments Buddhists are claiming towards the Vaisesika.
Now, we will see how Vaisesika’s reacts to these are the arguments made by Buddhism.
The first response Nyaya and Vaisesika together said to Buddhism saying that, say a substance
must have more than one quality in many contexts.
The same example you take, say mango. I am enjoying a mango. I am eating a mango here.
The taste of that mango, the smell of that mango, that shape and size of that mango,
all these matters for the cognizer to enjoy a fruit known as mango. If it is so, then
Nyaya-Vaisesika here clearly pointed out that, that taste, smell, all the qualities, shape,
size, all the quality you are imposing on a particular substance. If there is no substance,
how can you think that these are the qualities can exist in it.
Further, they claim that do you think qualities like taste and color can exist independent
of a substance? Do they exist independent of substance? If it is not so, then all the
quality that we see, that we perceive must imply that there is a object, there is a substance
exist and because of that, these are the qualities we find in that substance. It is true that
we identify a substance of having particular quality so and so forth. However, the substance
exists independent of it without needing these are the qualities. If you think that a substance
is nothing, but the amalgam of qualities and actions, then we have understood it in a wrong
way. The reason behind that is there are many qualities we find in a substance and if there
are no substance where these qualities reside and how the qualities really exist independent
of a substance. Now, the second argument they said in the
absence of the idea of a substance how can we account for the illusion like rope as a
snake in our day to day life many times we identify rope as a snake and snake as a rope
although here our cognition is not correct, but question arises here how can this illusion
appear what happens for a cognized as a result the cognized is not able to cognize the object
of having its correct nature of having its right nature.
What happens for a cognizer? As a result a cognized cannot be able to cognize a snake
as a snake and a rope as a rope. What happens here is Nyaya-Vaisesika claim that rope and
snake must have some commonality, some essence. Although, some of the features are overlapping
with each other and in some grounds, they differ with each other because of that essence,
because of that substance the cognizer is not able to cognize the object x as an x or
y as a y. Rather, the cognizer is cognizing x as a y and y as x, snake as a rope and rope
as a snake. He is saying that it is because of the substance,
not because of the quality because quality certainly is different in both the cases.
The qualities of a rope are certainly different from the qualities of a snake, but here it
is because of the substance, we find that rope and snakes are looking alike and here
all the qualities defer, but the substance remains same and because of the substance,
we the cognizer mistakenly cognize rope as a snake. Therefore, they said that something
what we are claiming that really seeks qualities and inherits in its next moment of its production.
That is nothing, but the substance. They said that qualities and action cannot exist independent
of substance in that sense because here, you can see there are two different qualities
and still a cognizer is unable to cognize x as x, y as y. Henceforth, we must admit
that there is a substance in it and because of that substance, we are able to find that
what are the qualities inside in it. Therefore, how we will identify that object with having
so and so name. The next claim they said, if the idea of substance
is denied, then how can we recognize an object of having the same name even after its destruction
where some of its qualities are also destroyed. This is an interesting counter argument Nyaya-Vaisesika
made against Buddhism. They said that let us assume the concept jar, a jar made of glass.
Now, that jar has a substance of having so and so qualities and it is used for so and
so purposes. Now, assume for a moment that the jar is broken into different pieces, and
when it is broken, it does not serve the same purposes as it was served when it was in jar
form. Now, in the broken pieces also, there are some qualities you find which was not
there in the jar when it was in a unbroken state and there are also many qualities missing
in the broken pieces, which you find when the jar was exist with a proper shape.
There are many qualities as such that we do not find in the broken pieces of the jar because
there are different reasons involved in, because now the qualities we really find that it is
very difficult to identify what are the qualities are there or not one of the qualities is that
protect tendency the jar when it serving a particular purpose, it was having protect
tendency. If you pour the water inside of it, it would not come out. Now, since it is
broken, you cannot pour the water. So, that quality now no longer exist, but still once
after it is broken also, we can claim that these pieces are from the jar. These pieces
are the broken jar or we can claim that this is the glass and these glasses that we find
when the jar was there. So, in this way, in the initial stage you
find there is a jar made up of glass. In the later stage, you find that the jar is now
broken into different pieces and here after broken also, we still find that this is a
glass and we claim that this is a broken jar made of glasses. What happens here, the qualities
also we find difference between the broken pieces and the jar. If this is the case, then
how can we claim that after its destruction, how can we claim that these pieces are the
broken jar pieces? We cannot claim. So, because these two substances are different now, because
their purposes are different, we cannot use these two objects jar in one hand and broken
jars or the pieces of jar on the other hand for the same purposes.
Therefore, something called substance, it is because of the substance after the jar
broken also we claim that these are broken pieces of that jar because qualities are changing,
notion is also, cognition, everything is changing. Because of the essence substance remains in
both the cases, we could be able to cognize these two substances of having a particular
name, say this is jar, this is a pure jar and this is a broken jar.
Now, the third argument they defense to Buddhism. The fourth argument. They said that, can qualities
be explained independent of substance? Whenever we talk about a quality, we must find that
where these qualities residing in, where these qualities exist, how can they exist? For their
existence, we require something and that something is nothing, but the substance. Therefore,
qualities require substance for its own existence. Henceforth, we cannot claim that qualities
are there in the substance and there is nothing called substance.
The next point he said that, how do we identify a quality? Is it possible without a substance
to identify a quality? See for example, take an apple, take an object or substance, say
apple. We identify some of the qualities of it. He is saying that how can you identify
a quality because quality cannot exist independent of it. It presupposes that qualities exist
in a substance and we identify that substance because of that quality. Hence, qualities
independent of substance has no existence. The last point Nyaya-Vaisesika said that,
substance exist independent of others at the first moment of its production and inherits
qualities in the next moment. Therefore, Buddhism claims that there are only qualities, but
not substances. This is rejected by Nyaya-Vaisesika system, very clearly argued and defended that
substance exist and exist independent of qualities and action in its production at the first
moment and the second moment, immediately it inherits the qualities and actions because
the strong argument, they put forward here is that the quality cannot exist independent
of substances.
Now, we will see how Vaisesika really explain the concept substances and what are the substances
that, we find in our day to day life. Now, according to Vaisesika system, there are 9
substances and 9 substances are broadly divided into eternal and non-eternal. Now, let us
discuss. According to the Vaisesikas, substance is
self-existent, unique and autonomous in character, because the first, they define what is substance,
what is padartha and based on that astitva, knowability and nameability, the three features
should satisfy to claim something as a substance. So, therefore, they said that it should be
self-existent, unique and autonomous in character, all types and varieties of things are known
as substances. Vaisesika systems are also believed to be
an atomistic realistic. Vaisesika systems are also known as atomistic pluralism because
they said that there are different things and beings exist in this earth and all these
are independent, all these exist independently from others, each atom is different from others
and there are different atoms. They said that beings and non-beings exist in this earth.
Being which have life in this earth starting with worm, insect, animal, life, plants, then
you have animals, birds, human beings so and so forth those who have life being and non-being
are those who do not have any life, like table, chair and all these.
Therefore, they believe that there are different objects exist in this earth and the different
objects made out of different atoms. Hence, they are called as atomistic pluralism because
they believe there are different things exist in this earth, both being and non-being and
they exist because they they constituent from the different atoms. There are 9 kinds of
substances mentioned by Vaisesikas. These are earth or prithvi, water or jala, air or
vayu, light or tejas, ether or akasa, space or dik, soul or atma, mind or manas. You can
say either earth or prithvi, water or jala. So, this right side prithvi, jala, vayu, tejas,
akasa, dik, atma, all these find in a Sanskrit term and it is a correct translation of it
you find in other side. So, there are 9 substances and out of these
9 substances, few are eternal and few are non-eternal substances. Eternal are those
which exist timelessly, which exist permanently, which cannot be destroyed, which neither can
be created because it is consisting of atoms and atoms. These are smallest particle. It
cannot be destroyed into different pieces because it is the last particle of a substance.
Therefore, they said that there are 9 substances and out of 9 substances, some are eternal
substances. For example, soul is an eternal substance, then you have space is an eternal
substance, mind is an eternal substance and others are non-eternal substances. Now, we
will see since all these are substances what are their qualities because Vaisesika said
that each substance inhere some quality we identify a substance because it inhere some
quality it has some quality and because of the uniqueness we identify that object of
having. So, and. So, name. Now, let us discuss what are these qualities
of these substances have. Now, you can see there are 9 substances. Earth, water, air,
light, ether, time, space, soul and mind. These are the 9 substances. Each of these
9 substances has some peculiar qualities. As I said to you broadly, these are divided
into two kinds. One is nitya, another is anitya. Nitya stands for eternal, anitya stands for
non-eternal. Now, non eternal substances I have listed
out. You can see earth, water, light, air, ether. The right side, you find the eternal
substances. Time, space, soul and mind. See earth has a quality. What is the quality?
Is a smell. Whenever we drink water, it has a smell, but if the water is mixed with some
kind of mud, it has a smell. The pure water does not smell anything. Anything that relates
with the component or elements of earth is smell. Therefore, smell is a quality of earth
or substratum of the substance earth. In the same way, you find taste is a quality of water,
color is a quality of light, touch is a quality of air and sound is a quality of ether. Here,
we cannot see the ether, we cannot see the akasa, we cannot perceive the akasa, but certainly
we can hear the sound. Because of the sound, we claim that the substance exist that is
ether.
The same thing Vaisesika said. Vaisesika said that substance we cannot perceive. What we
perceive, what we experience is the quality. Because of the qualities, we claim that there
is something exist which is known as substance because that substance inherits that particular
quality, which is unique to that substance. Here, ether or a base is a substance. It has
qualities. Sound we can hear. The sound through our sense organ, through our ear, but we cannot
perceive the akasa as whole. Therefore, by hearing the sound, we certainly claim that
something exist because we can hear the sound. Otherwise, how sound comes, from where sound
comes, from there must be a substance where the sound inherits in it. Based on that, they
claim that ether is a substance here and sound is of its quality.
Now, the right side time, space, soul and mind. Now, we will discuss all these things.
How eternal substances work and what the eternal substance are, how Vaisesikas have given their
opinion on the eternal substances, how they have explained eternal substances and further,
they said that these eternal substances are different from non-eternal substances.
Time is an eternal substance. It is the ground of our cognition of the past, present, future,
sooner, later etcetera. You say that 10 years back, you are a student. Now, after 10 years,
you might be a joining in some of the good organization. Then, after 10 years, you will
have a different lifestyle. As you know that child, then we have a tender age, young age,
then old age. All these stages are there in human beings. So, they therefore, they said
that it is the time which tells us. You said that before 20 hours, I was somewhere here.
There is a time involved. Because of the time, you can talk about your present, past, future
etcetera. So, therefore, you can see that how the time really helps for cognizing an
object. You say that was the past, this is the present and it will be future.
The same way, space is the ground of our cognition like here, there, near, far. You say that,
can you bring, if you request somebody can you bring my pen from there? There means,
you are identifying a particular space. Here we cannot perceive the space as such, but
because of this quality, because of our cognition here, there, near, far, we can think that
something exist known as space. Otherwise, how can you claim that this is nearer to me,
that is far away to me? Suppose, you are sitting nearer to table. You say that my hand is on
the table. So, therefore, my hands and the fingers are nearer to me, my pen is sitting
far away to me. Therefore, his fingers and his hands are certainly far away from me.
So, therefore, you can find here how time and space are the eternal substances.
Further, soul. Vaisesika talk about soul. Soul is also an eternal substances. They divide
soul into two kinds. One is individual soul, another is supreme soul. They said that individual
soul exists in all life, but the supreme soul is one which really stands as a cause for
the creation of the universe. Supreme soul is having all sorts of knowledge about each
and every objects, both being and non-being. On the other hand, when they talk about individual
soul, they say that each life has a soul and because of the soul, the life is moving and
the life starts doing something in action. Even plant grows because there is a life in
it, the animal grows because the life in it, we the human being, we grows from one stage
to another stage because there is a life in us. Therefore, they explain the individual
soul is nothing, but the life is as such. They further said that, when an individual
say that I am happy, I am pleased with that issue; I am now satisfied by eating so and
so food. Here, when you say that I am happy, I am sad; I am in pain, who is that I stands
for? Who is really getting pain? Who is really pleasing? Who is really happy? He is saying
that it is nothing, but the soul. Because of the soul, you claim that you are happy
and that is eternal. Otherwise, all your parts of the body it will die. Once you die, but
your soul remains alive. Therefore, they say that it is an eternal
substance. It would not destroy the soul and self, it would not die along with your human
body. Therefore, they said that we have a different individual soul and because of that
individual soul, we are doing some actions. We are involving ourselves to do some actions
and henceforth, they said that individual soul is different from the supreme soul. Unlike
the individual soul, supreme soul knows each and everything about the world and really
stands as a cause for the creation of the whole universe. He has designed the universe
with his own hope and desire. So, therefore, two kinds of soul Vaisesika systems is talking
about. Further, they said that the consciousness
is the essential attribute of that soul. If at all we are doing something, it is because
of our consciousness and it is the consciousness which resides in the soul. The same thing
I said in my slides. I said that soul is an eternal and all pervading substance. It is
the substratum of consciousness. Individual soul is different from supreme soul, and we
identify the individual soul is because of our mind. Mind helps us to say that, that
now here you can see this is the soul. Unless mind functions, we cannot be able to cognize
the object as it is. Unless our mind functions, we cannot claim that I am happy now, I am
pleased with so and so fact, I am in pain. He is saying that we identify the soul which
is a very subtle substance or eternal substance because of our mind.
Mind is a sixth sense organs which even helps us to compose all the different part of an
object and put together giving an impression about that full object as such. Because as
I said we as a human being, we perceive an object from its different angle and it is
the mind which helps to combine all the impressions that we have gathered. This mind puts together
and gives a picture about the whole object. Therefore, it is because of the mind, we cognize
the object, we identify the existence of soul within us within the life.
Now, it is capable, the soul is capable to perceive the internal qualities. Mind is the
internal sense organs of the individual soul. As I said now, it is capable. Mind is capable
to perceive the internal qualities like pleasure, pain and so and so forth. We claim that we
are happy. It is because of our soul and here, mind helps us to cognize that soul, even mind
is an eternal and atomic. Hence, we cannot be perceived, we cannot perceive our mind
because mind is unperceived, mind is an eternal substance.
In other side, if you find that earth, water, these can be destroyed, then water that you
see now, it may be diverse, it may be soluted in the next moment. Therefore, in one hand,
you find eternal substances which cannot be created, neither can be destroyed, but it
exist eternally, permanently. On the other hand, you find non-eternal substance which
can be created, which can be destroyed so and so forth. You already know now, what are
the qualities all the substances have in this regard. It is the part less, mind is the part
less. Therefore, it can neither produce nor destroyed. As i said that we cannot perceive
our mind because mind is susceptible, but we cannot ignore the fact equally saying that
because of the mind, we cognize an object, we cognize our happiness and pain, we cognize
our satisfaction on some of the issues. Further, they said that the soul attains the
objects through mind, but the difficulty here we find that, the difficulty that we all find
here is that how is it possible that in one sense, Vaisesika are claiming that substance
is applying to both tangible objects like glass, chair, etcetera and non-tangible objects
like space, time, soul. In one hand, how Vaisesikas are claiming that these are the substances,
tangible substances or perishable substances of having so and so quality. Further, they
are saying that we can also claim some of the substances, which are very subtle in character,
which are eternal. How is it possible? How can we claim that something which is subtle
and eternal, which we cannot perceive, still we can claim these are the things are substance?
On the other hand, we claim something non-tangible objects, which we can perceive it through
our experience. To resolve that conflict, Vaisesika argued that substance is one which
is felt that self-subsisting and something that exist in its own right. Substance can
be known by itself, but quality cannot be understood without substance. Therefore, Sridhar
is the scholar of Vaisesika system said that, that it is the substance. What we are claiming,
it exists independent of qualities and action, whether it is an eternal or non-eternal substances.
Further, they said that substance can be known by itself, but qualities cannot be understood
without the substance. Therefore, though qualities helps us to identify a substance; however,
substance has its own existence and which is independent of qualities and actions.
Now, this view is criticized by Cit-suk-charya in his Tattva-pradipika. His Tattva-pradipika
is a text. He criticizes, he said that what is meant by self-subsistence is we are talking
about that something exist without substratum. The third question he posed is that, can we
perceive a thing independent of its substratum? In this regard, Nyaya-Vaisesika again defined
saying that, that we can claim that a quality becomes a substance because quality does not
have any further qualities. What they are claiming is that, if you think that something
exist independent of substratum, then quality does not have further quality. In that case,
can we claim quality is also substance? We cannot do so.
Further, they said that space and time do not have qualities unlike table and chair,
other substances. Then, how can we make the similar concept saying that these are the
eternal substances, which is also equal to the tangible substances like table and chairs.
So, now we will see that how really Vaisesika response to Cit-suk-charya and said that,
that what is substance and what is qualities in the next class. Thank you.