Body Text
If we make a comparison between the ancient nations, the Indians came closest to modern ideas of atomism, quantum physics, and other current theories. (1) India developed very early enduring atomist theories of matter. It was not at all a stray speculation, but a thoroughly discussed conclusion of the ancient Hindus. The Greek borrowed atomic theory from India possibly via the Persian civilization. (2) Teresi says, “The Rig Veda… is the first Indian literature to set down ideas resembling universal natural laws.”(3)
Traditionally, the western authors have been reluctant to accept ancient Indian achievements in science and hence they hold that Democritus was writing physics but the same thing if written by an Indian was metaphysics. (4) This prejudice has been so high that Park sums up, “The Upanishads refer to an imaginary symbolic cosmos. Democritus was talking about the way things really are or (better) might be. These are different worlds of discourse. They cannot be compared.”(5)
Democritus used a naïve logic that you cannot go on cutting something forever and therefore there must be atoms at the end, which you cannot cut any further. On the other hand, the Indians gave a much better logic, “Take a mountain and a molehill, they said. Which has more particles? The mountain, obviously. That means you cannot cut forever, that there is a finite, uncuttable particle. If the particles were infinitesimal, the mountain and the molehill would have equal number of particles, and they would lose any real meaning—again, an assumption but, in a way, more hard minded than Democritus’s guess. And the Indians, unlike Democritus, displayed a rudimentary understanding of infinite sets.” (6) Moreover Indian atomism was older than the Greek atomism, because there is evidence that Pakudha Katyayana, an older contemporary of Buddha taught atomic theory much before the earliest Greek atomic theory. (7)
The Greek philosopher Empedocles gave four elements, earth, air, fire and water in c. 460 B.C. (8), much later than the five elements had been given in India and possibly he borrowed it from the Hindus through Iranian intermediaries. The Greeks transmitted these four elements to the Muslim world later. Moreover, the Greeks could never comprehend the fifth element space, which permeates everything and everywhere.
The ancient Indians described that universe is constituted of air, water and earth—the three components of matter—plus energy (fire) and space. The air, water and earth are analogous to gas, liquid and solid of modern era. The gas, liquid and solid matter plus energy were composed of indivisible particles or atoms in ancient Indian physics as they are in the modern physics. The gas atom had the characteristic feature: motion. (9) Modern science also subscribes to this fact that the characteristic feature of gas molecules is their kinetic motion, and the theory is called the kinetic theory of gases. We know today that the solid and liquid molecules are bound together by intermolecular forces and cannot move freely, although, these also vibrate. The ancient Indians thought of atoms of energy (light and heat) as well, which modern physicists term photon. (10) They clearly said that space is not atomic. (11) They said that the matter (air, water and earth) and energy took part in combination and compound formation whereas space did not. (12) This again is a modern concept that energy was involved with matter in compound formation.
Consistent with modern physics, the Upanishads postulated that the first element was tejas (energy: fire, light) from which second element water (actually hydrogen) and then earth originated. (13) Air and space were other two elements. It was understood by the Vedic Hindus that light and heat and also sound are just different forms of the same thing--energy. Chandogya Upanishad says, “This is the light within the body of man. This light can be seen in as much as one has the perception of warmth when one touches the body. And the same light is heard when you close your ears and hear some bellowing sounds.” (14)
The Samkhya system expanded more on the subject of elements and atoms and postulated that the universe is composed of inactive matter (Prakriti) and active principle energy (Purusha). This is more like Newtonian physics. “Very modern and Western in its approach, the Samkhya asserted that matter could not come out of nothing but resulted from what was potentially present, that is, the unmanifest becomes manifest”. (15) They imagined two sets of elements, one subtle (tanmatra) and the other gross (mahabhuta). The elements of the Samkhya system develop from the primeval substance (Prakriti) and are not eternal themselves. (16) Earth Water and Air may be viewed as comprising all the elements or compounds in the solid, liquid and gaseous states respectively. According to Samkhya, the ultimate units called anu are made up of infra-atomic particles known as tanmatra-s. It admits that the property of each of the pancha-bhutas vary with the grouping of tanmatras in the atoms of each. In modern science tanmatras can be equated with sub-atomic particles, variations of which cause changes in the elements. It is surprising that the Samkhyas could propose something so modern about to 2000 years that. (17)
In the Jain atomic theory, matter is an eternal substance, consisting of atoms. Abhidharmakoshavyakhya and Tattvarthadhigama Sutra are the two Jain texts, which have gone into detail of the nature of matter. Atoms are porous and matter may increase or decrease in volume without addition or loss of particles. (18) On the other hand the first modern Western atomist Dalton thought atoms to be solid and hard. (19) The Jaina atomism postulated that under certain circumstances, material substances may coalesce into one substance and one substance may divide into many. In modern terminology, elements may combine into compounds and compounds may break into constituent elements. (20) Anu was the term for a single atom and skandha was the term for combination for atoms (molecules). (21) The Jainas believed that Anu is both cause and effect. The various compounds (Skandhas) named by the Jainas are dvyanuka or dvipradesh, ananant Anu etc. Every atom possesses an infra-sensible or potential taste, smell, and colour, and two infra-sensible tactile qualities-roughness or smoothness, dryness or moistness, hardness or softness, heaviness or lightness, heat or cold. A skandha however, posesses in addition the following physical characteristics: sound, atomic linking, dimension, shape and configuration, divisibility, opacity, and radiant heat and light. (22)
Everything in this universe, except souls and space is produced from matter (pudgala). All matter consists of atoms. The Jainist atom comes in two opposite kinds that are named snigdha (smooth or positive) and ruksha (rough or negative)—which could combine, an idea that foreshadowed the modern concept of ionic (electrovalent) bonding. (23) The simplest molecules consisted of two atoms. (24) Substances undergo modification while maintaining their primary nature. (25)
By the word anu, the Jainists probably also meant sub-atomic particles depending on the context. Hence the positive and negative could also mean protons and electrons. Hence when the Jain physics says that anus have “spin” (26), they are actually talking about a quality of particles not discovered until twentieth century. The anu was a point in space (or field) and ephemeral in relation to time. (27) We can appreciate that this character belongs more exactly to the subatomic particles and not to atom itself. Each anu occupied one point (pradesh) of space. Thus this anu was both porous and a point as well. (28) How can a point be porous? But this type of seemingly absurd concepts are actually very much modern and in vogue in advanced particle physics. A 10-dimensional or 11-dimensional computer generated model of elementary particles looks very much porous.
Today’s elementary particles are point-like with zero radius and they create ‘fields’. In the West, the concept of field created by points in space was given by Boscovich in 1760 which was ignored at that time but later Michael Faraday built up his theory on the basis of ‘fields’ in the 19th century, and fields surrounding a point is now of universal occurrence in modern physics. (29) Teresi writes, “The idea of (fundamental) particles being geometrical points with no dimension is very Indian, and is still counterintuitive to us today.” (30)
While the Indians comprehended space as a field of emptiness (shunya) with coordinates in three axes many thousand years ago (31), the European scientists could not grasp such an idea and continued to talk about ether, a thin substance filling space until Albert Michelson was awarded Nobel Prize in physics for casting doubts on existence of ether in 1907. James Clark Maxwell, highly accomplished physicist of the nineteenth century as well as Newton and all other physicists till 1907 subscribed to ether. Many physicists in the West continued to hold on to ether even after 1907 until Einstein finally rejected it (32).
The Jain model of atoms vibrated. It was said that different types of atoms took up vibrations with different intensities. (33) This again goes well with the modern concepts in physics. Not only are atomic and sub-atomic particles constantly vibrating themselves, but also the atoms release distinctive vibrations in space in the form of waves. (34)
The earlier Buddhist philosophies, the Vaibhasika and the Sautantrika schools did believe in atoms, although the later schools like Madhyamika (Mahayana) did not. The Buddhist atom was seen as transitory, continually going through phase changes (35) and thus was somewhat like quantum of Plank.(36) Science historian D.M. Bose says, the Buddhist atom was more of a force or energy present in all matter—that is an earthly matter-force of repulsion. They added further that all existence is momentary and stable matter is an illusion. (37) B.V. Subbarayappa writes, “What is ultimately real is instantaneous being. As things have momentary existence, i.e., they disappear as soon as they appear, the Buddhists do not consider motion with reference to matter at all. But as Shantirakshita says, the essence of reality is motion. Reality is indeed kinetic…the interdependence of moments following one another, evokes the illusion of stability of duration, but they are forces…flashing into existence without enduring any substance.” (38) It is more likely that the Buddhists referred to sub-atomic or elementary particles by anu, and in that case, the description of anu fits well in the description of elementary particles of the quantum mechanics of Max Plank. Thus some Buddhists conceived of the elementary particles not only as the minutest object capable of existing in space or field, but also as occupying the minutest possible duration of time. (39) Mahayana doctrine of emptiness (shunyata) assumed that true void was foundation of all existence. Everything comes out from void and ultimately returns to void. In Madhyamika School, reality is like a swatch of cloth, which appears solid from a distance but on close inspection is found to be just a loose assembly of threads. (40) Modern science also says the same thing. The solid structures surrounding us are in fact hollow, mostly empty space, interaction of particles in constant violent motion providing the illusion of stability and solidity.
Analogous to the modern electrical and magnetic fields, the Indians conceived of an all-pervading field of space, the etheric field, and infinite in extent. This has been studied in detail by John Maxson Stillman. (41) The Samkhya-Patanjala view thought of two modes of Akasha, one karanakasha was conceived of being a universal medium (avakasha, literally ‘recess’), whereas the grid-like atomic karyakasha was a derivative of the other akasha, and had the potential to vibrate. (42) This is very much in consistence with the latest grid-theory of space. The Vedanta philosophy also conceived of the same duality in akasha and named the atomic-space as vayuram kham and the non-atomic motionless, ubiquitous, primordial matter rudiment as puranam kham. (43) This again is very much consistent with the latest researches, which indicate that particles (matter) may be continuously originating out of mother-space (or void).
The Vaisheshika and Nyaya schools discussed at length physics and physical chemistry. Badarayana regarded atomism as the cardinal feature of the Vaisheshika system. (44) The Vaisheshika and Nyaya Sutras and the Nyaya Bhashya by Vatsyayana and the Prashastapada Bhashya of the Vaisheshika system are some of the texts, which discuss these topics in detail. In about 600 B.C. Kanada, the proponent of the Vaisheshika School, after applying his logic concluded that light and heat are two forms of the same substance. Similar relationships had been made earlier in the Upanishads also between heat, light and sound. Kanada said, “Light is coloured, and illumines other substances; and to the feel is hot: which is its distinguishing quality. It is defined as a substance hot to feel.” Heat of hot water is felt but not seen and moonshine is seen but not felt. Basing his reasoning on the sensory qualities of light, Kanada argued that light existed both in an actual and a potential state. (45) When wood is burnt, the potential state of light stored in wood is released by the act of burning. Fire was a process that released the stored light (energy) from material atoms. It was assumed that there was a bodily fire (jathara-agni) in human beings that released energy from the foodstuff we eat. We know now that light energy can stay as photons absorbed by electrons in an atomic orbital and stored as potential or chemical energy. Thus what the ancient Hindus had said thousands of years ago is being retold by modern science.
1. Teresi, Dick, Lost Discoveries, Simon and Schuster, New York, 2002. p. 210.
2. Bose, D.M., Sen, S.N., and Subbarayappa, B.V. (Eds.); A Concise History of Science in India, Indian National Science Academy, New Dehi, 1971. p. 448.
3. Teresi, op. cit., p. 210.
4. Ibid. p. 211.
5. Park wrote this in a letter to Dick Teresi in 2001. Teresi replies in the following words, “On the other hand, neither the ancient Indians nor Democritus derived their ideas from experiments, and in that sense, we could dismiss both as philosophy rather than science. Or we could be more catholic and accept that two different ancient cultures came to similar conclusions about the world.” ( Teresi, p. 211.)
6. Teresi, p. 211-12.
7. Basham, A.L.; The Wonder that was India, Part I, Rupa & Co., Bombay, 1999. p. 497.
8. Teresi, p. 212.
9. Jacobi, H.; Atomic Theory in Indian Thought, (First published in Encyclopaedia of Religion and ethics, ed. Hastings, J. and T.T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1908. Vol. ii, pp. 199-202). Reprinted in ‘Studies in the History of Science in India’, Vol. I, Ed. Chattopadhyaya, Debiprasad; Asha Jyoti, New Delhi, 1992. p. 30.
10. Jacobi, p. 30; also Basham, p. 497.
11. Jacobi, p. 30; also Basham, p. 497.
12. Jacobi, p. 26.
13. Chandogya Upanishad, 6.2.3-4. As per modern science energy condenses to form fundamental particles which lead to formation of hydrogen atom which later gave origin to other material substances. Hydrogen has been often referred to as water in ancient Indian cosmological vocabulary.
14. Chandogya Upanishad, 3.13.7.
15. Teresi, p. 212.
16. Jacobi, op. cit., p. 26.
17. Vyasa, Yoga-Bhashya, II.19; IV.14; Also see Vijnanabhikshu, Samkhya-pravachana-bhashya, I.62 and Yoga-vartika, III.40. Referred by Ray, Priyadaranjana, Chemistry in Ancient and Medieval India, in The Cultural Heritage of India, Vol. VI, op. cit., p. 138.
18. Jain, N.L., ‘Chemical Theories of the Jains’, in Henry M. Leicester (Ed.), Chymia: Annual Studies in the History of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1966. 11:13. p. 14-16.
19. Hill and Kolb, Chemistry for Changing Times, p. 48.
20. Jaicobi, H., op. cit. p. 24.
21. Jain, N.L., op. cit. p. 11-13.
22. Ray, Priyadaranjan, Chemistry in Ancient and Medieval India, op. cit. p. 141.
23. Teresi, p. 215.
24. Jain, N. L., op. cit. pp. 16-17.
25. Teresi, op. cit. p. 214.
26. Ibid. p. 309.
27. Bose, Sen and Subbarappa (Eds.), op. cit. pp.466-7.
28. Teresi, op. cit. p. 214-15.
29. Ibid. p. 215.
30. Ibid. p. 215.
31. Vachaspati Mishra discussed how location of a point in space can be described by the three axes. Discussed in Seal, B.N.; The Positive Sciences of the Ancient Hindus, Delhi, 1958. p. 129.
32. Teresi, p. 310.
33. Bose, Sen and Subbarappa (Eds.), op. cit. p. 467.
34. Teresi, op. cit., p. 215-16.
35. Bose, Sen and Subbarappa (Eds.), p. 468-9.
36. Basham, A.L., op. cit., p. 497.
37. Teresi, p. 216.
38. Bose, Sen and Subbarayappa (Eds.); p. 469.
39. Basham, A.L.; The Wonder that was India, Rupa & Co., New Delhi. 1999. p. 497.
40. Teresi, p. 217.
41. Stillman, The Story of Alchemy, pp. 105-111.
42. Vijnanabhikshu, Yoga-vartika, III.40.
43. Seal, B.; The Positive Sciences of the Ancient Hindus, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1958. p. 121.
44. Vedanta-sutra ii.2.11 ff, and Shankara’s remarks on ii.2.1.
45. Ray, P.C.; ‘A History of Hindu Chemistry from the Earliest Times to the Middle of Sixteenth Century A.D.’, Williams and Norgate, London, 1902-09. 1: p.7-9.
[Extracted from the book, ‘Zero is Not the Only Story’]
