Title: The Ontology of "Corporeal" - Nyaya-Vaisesika View Point

Title
The ontology of "Corporeal" - Nyaya-Vaisesika view point
Area of reasearch
Metaphysics
Presented by
Vaidya Ronak
M.A.- Sem - IV
Department of Education, Psychology and Philosophy,
Gujarat University,
Ahmedabad-380009
Gujarat
Outline
In this paper, I have attempted to define the term "Corporeal" i.e. what does it
mean to be in a physical state. I titled this paper as " The ontology of corporeal-
Nyaya view point" because my view, as would be clear to any scholar on Indian
Philosophy, clearly draws support from the hints and arguments presented in the
Nyaya-sutra. I have just attempted to put them in the contemporary context to
make the claim present herein readily accessible even to a reader for whom the
Indian Philosophy is a letter of Chinese.
Introduction of the theme
Let me ask a question : Every material and finite things that we perceive are
existing in the space (In Nyaya Akasa). Now the question is that "What is the
nature of this akasa?" Is it physical or non-physical?
we cannot pin point any particular region and show anybody that see, here is the
akasa. Moreover, we cannot claim it to be of finite magnitude, as if it is of finite
magnitude, then this space must be located within "something" and further leads
to the question : "where is this something and what is it's nature?" and so on.
Thus it leads to infinite regress and hence we must assume that space is of infinite
magnitude.
we cannot even claim it to be non-physical, as something non-physical cannot be

the substratum of something physical i.e. non-physical cannot provide any
support to something physical in nature.
to resolve this issue, we have to define the term "physical", what does it mean to
be in the physical state?
Main Theme
There are two normally held view regarding the definition of "being in the
physical state" :
1. Physical is that which can causally influence another physical object.

There is, however, some serious flaw with this definition. We know that our
mental processes such as feelings, desires, volition, etc. do influence our body to
act in a certain manner and if the above definition of "physical" is to be accepted,
then it would result in the absurdity of claiming these mental phenomena as
physical .
2.Physical is that which is extended.
Now, this is generally accepted view that every physical thing has extension.
However, upon analyzing the problem associated with this definition becomes
clear.
It is one thing to claim that every physical thing has extension and it is altogether
different thing to say that everything that has extension is physical.
To understand this point, we need to further probe the meaning of the term
"extension".
What does it mean to "have extension?"
Traditional view is that "being extended in akasa" means to say that the
substance is in contact with a particular region or akasa i.e. to occupy some akasa
in the sense that no other substance can occupy the same akasa at the same time
while the first one is there.
A question, however, arises here that if the above definition is to be accepted

then what kind of contact does the light have with the akasa? It is in the room and
yet it doesn't seem to prevent other objects to be in the same akasa at the same
time.
in the same manner akasa is ubiquitous i.e. it is all pervading, present

everywhere. It is in contact with all the substances and yet it doesn't mean to
obscure other substances.
Hence, we must define the term "to have extension" in broader terms as anything
that can be in contact with the other substances. This definition includes both
aspects :
To occupy the akasa obstructing other substance as well as not obstructing other
substance and staying at the same time in contact with the substance in space
(Thus also indirectly proving that any kind of contact presupposes the extension).
Characteristics of the substances such as Time, space, internal sense organs
(Manas) seem to be agreeing to this definition of extension, as they all are non-
physical entities and yet are considered to have extension as per Nyaya-Vaisesika
metaphysics. Thus, extension is not a defining property of being physical.
Now, the question once again emerges " Then what is the defining characteristic
of corporeal?" According to Nyaya, the defining property of being in a physical
state is to have an externally perceivable quality. Here, the term "external" is very
crucial, as with the inclusion of the term "external" we can weed out the
possibility of self being a physical entity, as although its qualities such as pleasure,
pain, cognition, etc. are directly perceived, they are not perceived through the
help of any external sense organ, rather through the help of manas i.e. an internal
sense organ.
Now, herein also prima-facie there seems to be a problem. If all the above
discussions done till now is to be accepted then what is stopping us from
accepting space as a non-physical entity? As we have already shown that contact
presupposes extension and even non-physical entities can have extension. Then
why cannot space be a non-physical entity? Well, If we can prove that space has
some externally perceivable quality then it settles the issue in favor of space being
a physical substance as a non-physical entity can never have externally
perceivable quality.
so the question remains : does the space have any such externally perceivable
quality? Nyaya here argues that space does have one such quality : sound. As in
this paper our main focus is on the ontology of "corporeal", we will not go into
detailed arguments how Nyaya proves the sound to be a quality of akasa. it would
however suffice to point that Nyaya proves sound as the quality of space by the
method of "sesavat anumana" and shows that since sound cannot belong to any
other substance, there has to be a substance i.e. akasa which is the substratum of
sound.
Some interesting points to be noted here are : Some Mimamsakas and sabdika
philosophers believe, just like modern scientists, that sound is the modification of
air and inheres in it. Nyaya however disagrees and argue that there is no
invariable concomittance between air and sound and some contemporary
scientists also forwards arguments which foster Nyaya argument to be valid, as
sound seem to travel through vaccum as well and Space is not simply vaccum as
has been understood till now.
References
1. Gotama, Nyaya Sutra with the commentaries of Vatsyayana, Chokhambha

oriental publishers, Benares 1968
2. Kanada, Vaisesika sutra, Chokhambha oriental publishers, Benares 1968
3. Prasastapada, Padarthadharmasamgraha, Chokhambha oriental
publishers, Benares 1973
4. Chakrabarti, K.K, Classical Indian philosophy of mind, MLBD publishers,
New Delhi 2003
5. Bhaduri,Sadananda, Studies in Nyaya-Vaisesika Metaphysics, Bhandarkar
Oriental research institute, Poona 1946

Title: The Ontology of "Corporeal" - Nyaya-Vaisesika View Point

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Title: The Ontology of "Corporeal" - Nyaya-Vaisesika View Point

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Title: The Ontology of "Corporeal" - Nyaya-Vaisesika View Point

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Title

The ontology of "Corporeal" - Nyaya-Vaisesika view point

Department of Education, Psychology and Philosophy,

Introduction of the theme

we cannot even claim it to be non-physical, as something non-physical cannot be

1. Physical is that which can causally influence another physical object.

2.Physical is that which is extended.

What does it mean to "have extension?"

A question, however, arises here that if the above definition is to be accepted

in the same manner akasa is ubiquitous i.e. it is all pervading, present

1. Gotama, Nyaya Sutra with the commentaries of Vatsyayana, Chokhambha

You might also like