Introduction

According to the custom current among modern writers, it should be my duty here to deal with the date of the work here translated. But the most unfortunate thing is, as I have often said, that I have no faith in the methods of reasoning employed in fixing the dates of old writers. I shall therefore make no attempt at this uncongenial task. I might have supplied my readers with what other people have said on this subject. But this has been already done—and done in a manner very much better than I could ever do—by the learned translator of the Vaiśeṣika-Sūtras in the ‘Sacred Books of the Hindus’ series.

I shall therefore content myself with brief notes on some of the ideas that have struck me in course of my work on Praśastapāda’s Bhāṣya.

The first point to notice in this connection is the exact nature of the work. It is known, and has been known, as the ‘Bhāṣya’ on Kaṇāda’s Sūtras. But the name ‘Bhāṣya’ has been explained as:—

sūtrārtho varṇyate yatra padaiḥ sūtrānusāribhiḥ |
svapadāni ca varṇyante bhāṣyam bhāṣyavido viduḥ ||

‘The Bhāṣya is that which explains the meaning of the Sūtra by means of words in accordance with the Sūtra, and which also offers explanation of its own statements.’

Judged by the definition, Praśastapāda’s work is not entitled to the title of ‘Bhāṣya’. It does not explain the Sūtras at all; in fact it does not deal with the several subjects in the order of the Sūtras. It has the form of an independent manual; it re-arranges the whole system, and adopts its own arrangement of topics. And yet we find that it has always been regarded as ‘Bhāṣya’.

We find Vardhamāna Upādhyāya—who lived at least 500 years ago—in his Nyāyanibandha prakāśa, propounding the following definition of ‘Bhāṣya’.

sūtraṃ buddhisthīkṛtya tatpāṭhaniyamaṃ vinā tadvyākhyānambhāṣyam | ataeva sūtrapāṭhaṃ vinā'pi tadvivaraṇaṃ vaiśeṣike praśastakarācāryagrantho bhāṣyam | yadvā sūtravyākhyānāntaramanupajīvya tadvyākhyānambhāṣyam, vyākhyānāntaramupajīvya sūtravyākhyānaṃ vṛttiriti |

The Bhāṣya, according to this, is that which gathers the topics dealt with in the Sūtras and explains them, without taking into account the order of the Sūtras.— Or it may be defined as an explanation of the Sūtras not depending upon any other explanation; and thus differing from the ‘Vṛtti’ which is an explanation dependent upon another explanation.

Vardhamāna cites the name of Praśastakara, who is the same as our author Praśastapāda. And it is clear that Vardhamāna has propounded those definitions simply with a view to bring Praśastapāda’s work under the category. However that be, this quotation shows that at least 500 years ago, our author’s work was known as ‘Bhāṣya’.

One other point that has struck me in this work is the bold and confident manner in which the Bhāṣyakāra has propounded his explanation of the processes of Creation and Dissolution. Writers as a rule are either silent on these topics, or deal with them in a halting half-hearted manner.

We cannot do better than refer the reader to Sec. 40 of the translation for a graphic account of the processes of Dissolution and Creation.

Hindus have been taxed with postulating five ‘elements’. It seems that the charge is not well founded. People who make this charge apparently use the term ‘element’ in the chemical sense of a substance that cannot be further analysed. Are the ‘Earth, Water, Fire, Air and Ākāśa’ of the Vaiśeṣika such unanalysable substances? On referring to any Vaiśeṣika manual it will be clear that what is ordinarily known as ‘Earth’ is not regarded by the Vaiśeṣika to be an ‘element’ in the technical sense; if it were so regarded then alone could the Vaiśeṣika view be stigmatised as primitive and unscientific? The touch of 'Earth’ in its pure state is said to be ‘neither hot nor cold,’ so also the touch of ‘Air,’—and when asked why the ordinary Earth and ordinary Air are found to be very far from ‘neither hot nor cold’, the Vaiśeṣika explains that this is due to the Earth and Air being mixed up with particles of fire or water, which make them feel hot or cold. From this it is clear that what is regarded as ‘element’ is not the Earth &c, as we know and see them; but as they exist in their pristine and pure state, unmixed with any other substances; that is to say, in their atomic condition. Is it, then very unscientific to regard the atoms of Earth, Fire &c, to be ‘elements’? What is the ‘atom of Earth’ but an ultimate material substratum of odour? Can this be analysed further? Further the name that the Hindu gives to these substances is only ‘bhūta’; and it is not fair to translate as ‘element’ and then tax him with being unscientific. What the Vaiśeṣika means by saying that these are the ‘five bhūtas’ is that there are five states of matter—solid (Earth), liquid (Water), gaseous (Air), luminious (Fire) and Etheric (?) (Ākāśa). Is this division absolutely unscientific.

Having thus briefly indicated a few of the points that occurred to me in course of my study, I now record my gratitude towards my venerable Guru, Mahāmahopādhyāya Paṇḍita Śivakumāra Miśra of Benares without whose help readily accorded, the Bhāṣya, and still more the Nyāyakandalī would have remained unintelligible; and then to my friend Babu Govinda Dasa of Benares and to Paṇḍita Vindhyeśvarī Parsād Divivedin, who have done much, and are doing still more, towards bringing to light the long lost treasures of Indian philosophical literature; and last, but by no means least, to my late honoured colleague—Dr. G. Thibaut, at whose instance this translation was undertaken, and who, if alive, would have rejoiced at its completion.

One word of apology is due to the reader. The time that the printing has taken—more than 10 years—and the vicissitudes through which my health has passed during all these years-—have made it impossible for any careful revision of the work, either in manuscript or in course of proof-reading; and I am afraid the work abounds in many a crude and vague expression and endless inaccuracies, which could have been avoided with a little more care.

Ganganatha Jha

Muir College, Allahabad
December 24th, 1915