________________
Matter
121
of inventors, they endeavoured to disguise by calling them instead of earth and fire and vapour, salt, sulphur and mercury to which they gave the canting title of hypostatical principles".
ELEMENTS IN INDIAN PHILOSOPHY
The orthodox schools of Indian Philosophy recognised Kṣiti, Ap, Tejas, Marut and Ākāśa, genrally translated as earth, water, fire, air and ether as five Bhuta's or ultimate elements. The Buddhists denied the reality of Ākāśa. We have already seen how according to the Buddhists, Ākāśa was simply the absence of Avaraṇa or resistance and no positive substance. The Jainas are opposed to this view of the Buddhists and contend that Akāśa is a substance. But although the Jaina's maintain that Ākāśa is a substance, they are opposed to the view of the Vedic school that Akāśa is a form of matter. The four material Bhuta's, admitted by the Çārvākas and the Buddhists are thus Kṣiti, Ap, Tejas and Marut. The Jainas call them Dhatus and look upon them as modifications of Pudgala and not as ultimate matterstuff.
It is needless to state that modern researches have established that the so-called elements, recognised by the ancients are really compounds and that there are about 64 elementary or simple substances which cannot be further separated into simpler elements. There is no gainsaying the fact that if the ancients meant that earth, water, air, etc. were ultimately simple substances which composed the gross bodies of our experience, then their doctrine of elements must be condemned as wrong. The question is whether the Indian doctrine of the Bhuta's must share the same fate.
INDIAN ELEMENTS AND GREEK ELEMENTS
We venture to think, however, that the Indian approach to the problem of the composition of things is not exactly the same as that of the ancient Greeks and other non-Indian thinkers, ancient or modern and as such, the Indian doctrine of the Bhuta's need not be identified with that of the elements.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org