कणादः

मडत्तिल्-कार्त्तिकेय-लेखा

परिचयः

Did ṛṣi kaṇāda discover the laws of motion attributed to Newton? A popular WhatsApp forward claims he did. Here’s a look at the original work to see if that makes any sense.

ṛṣi kaṇāda composed the vaiśeṣika sutra, the core of the vaiśeṣika philosophy, which was based on a realist ontology, focusing on things seen in the here and now. This later merged with the nyāya school, which was based around a rational epistemology to form the nyāya-vaiśeṣika school, consolidating the realist-rationalist aspect of Indian thought. Other Indian schools, notably vedānta and purvamīmānsa adopted and enhanced the epistemological core of nyāya-vaiśeṣika as well as much of its ontology, while adding their own extensions and modifications. This led to the common sanskrit aphorism, काणादं पाणिनीयं च सर्वशास्त्रोपकारकम् - the systems of kaṇāda and pāṇini (ie, logic, realist ontology, and grammar) are useful for all other systems.

Ontology

Kaṇāda’s ontology is too big for a social media thread, so we will focus mostly on his theory of motion, and provide just as much background and detail as may be needed. The basic ontological categories of vaiśeṣika are dravya (things), guṇa (qualities), karma (motion), sāmanya, viśeṣa (generality/specificity), and samavāya (inherence). The navya-nyāya school later added abhāva (non-existence) as an ontological category.

Dravyas are enumerated as पृथ्व्याप्तेजो वायुराकाशं‌ कालो दिगात्मा मन इति द्रव्याणी (in passing, note the use of neuter as the grammatical gender of the compound with mixed grammatical genders) - earth, water, tejas (“fire”), air, ākāśa (“sky”), time, direction, self, mind.

उत्क्षेपणमवक्षेपणमाकुङ्चनं‌ प्रसारणं गमनमिति कर्माणि - the types of motion are motion up, down, contraction, expansion, and translation.

Proto-Laws

कर्म कर्मसाध्यं न विद्यते - motion cannot be the sole cause of motion.

द्रव्यगुणकर्माणां द्रव्यं‌ कारणं‌ समानम् । तथा च गुणः - dravya and guṇa are common causes of themselves as well as of karma. Therefore, all motion requires a dravya cause.

Now onto motion and its nature. First, kaṇāda explains a causal chain for motion of a pestle and uses it to state a general theory. He describes a pestle moving towards an object, striking it (presumably crushing it), causing recoil.

• आत्म-संयोग–प्रयत्नाभ्यां हस्ते कर्म । तथा हस्त-संयोगाद् मुसले कर्म । - Contact with and intention in the self causes the motion of the hand, the motion of the hand causes the motion of the pestle.
• अभिघातजे मुसलादौ कर्मणि व्यतिरेकाद् - अकारणं हस्त-संयोगः । तथात्म-संयोगो हस्त-कर्मणि - Contact with the hand cannot be the cause of the recoil of the pestle, as it is independent of it. Likewise, the recoil of the hand is independent of contact with the self.
• अभिघातान् मुसल-संयोगे हस्ते कर्म - recoil of the hand is due to contact with the recoiling pestle which strikes it.

Now we go onto the general idea of motion -

• सम्योगाभावे गुरुत्वात् पतनम् - In the absence of contact, mass causes motion downwards
• नोदन-विशेषाभावान् नोर्ध्वन् न तिर्यग् गमनम् - Without a specific force, motion upwards or sidewards is impossible.
• प्रयत्न-विशेषान् नोदन-विशेषः - By specific intention is caused specific force
• नोदन-विशेषाद् उदासन-विशेषः - By specific force is caused specific upward motion.

After some basic examples of conjuctions with dravya causing motion, he moves onto another interesting example, the arrow.

• ईषाव् अयुगपत् संयोग-विशेषाः कर्मान्यत्वे हेतुः - An arrow’s changing motion is explained by different contact at different points of time. (Archer’s paradox not referred to here. Rather, arrow going forth upon being shot. )
• नोदनाद् आद्यम् इषोः कर्म। तत्-कर्म-कारिताच् च संस्काराद् उत्तरं, तथोत्तरम् उत्तरञ् च - Initial motion of the arrow is caused by force. Internal modifications of the arrow caused by motion cause further motion.
• संस्काराभावाद् गुरुत्वात् पतनम् - When internal modifications caused by motion are exhausted, the arrow falls due to mass.

Debunking WhatsApp forward

Let us look at the specific claims made in the Whatsapp forward, that three verses in the vaiśeṣika sutra represent Newton’s laws.

• 1. सम्योगाभावे गुर्त्वात् पतनम् is claimed to be Newton’s 1st law. It is translated as “In the absence of contact with external forces, and object falls because of mass”. This is not quite right. Kaṇāda talks about contact with other objects, not forces here. And this is specifically about falling, not other motions.
• 2. नोदन-विशेषाभावान् नोर्ध्वन् न तिर्यग् गमनम् is claimed to be equivalent to Newton’s second law. It is translated as “If some external impulse is absent, an object cannot move sideways or upwards”. I would use “force” rather than “impulse”, but that’s a minor point. How this is equivalent to the second law is unclear. In fact, this is actually part of Kaṇāda’s equivalent of the first law, along with the previous sutra.
• 3. प्रयत्न-विशेषान् नोदन-विशेषः is claimed to be an equivalent of Newton’s third law. It is translated as “for a particular action, there is a particular reaction”. This is a bizarre translation - प्रयत्न is clearly “intention” as used by Kaṇāda (eg: यत्नाभावे प्रसुप्तस्य चलनम्). In fact, this plus the next sutra (नोदन-विशेषाद् उदासन-विशेषः) are closer to a statement of the second law (minus the mathematical proprtionality) than the third law.

Thus, the specific arguments in the claim are bad translations plus wishful thinking. Kaṇāda did however come up with a very interesting ontology of motion, and better arguments can be made in favour of it.

Summary credit

Vaiśeṣika ontology does include the basic ideas of what we call Newton’s Laws of motion, but not in the way the Whatsapp forward thinks it does

• 1. A force is needed for all motion (and mass for motion down). samksaras caused by motion cause further motion. (This is a fairly good summary of the first law including the idea of inertia, and tantalizingly close to gravity.)
• 2. Different forces cause different motion - this is a proto-second-law, but misses the mathematical relationship
• 3. The idea of recoil of the pestle due to contact with an object that it causes motion in is a pretty decent proto-third law, but does not include the mathematical relationship.

So, the ideas are nearly there, but the very important mathematical relationships aren’t. Vaiśeṣika ontology of motion is still remarkable enough for how close it got two thousand years before Newton. A more realistic understanding of it would be in the Vaiśeṣika spirit.