From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Also see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic)

"However, Vaisesika philosphy states that these interactions are driven by divine will, making this school of philosophy a theistic one."

Reading the most widely distributed translation by the Hare Krishna movement would make you think so, but the actual Sanskrit text is not religion based but rather a philosophical inquiry into the breakdown of matter. It provides a force that keeps the molecular particles together which can translate into either anti-matter or "God" according to those who want to use this text for theistic reasons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 14:27, October 28, 2004 (UTC)

Supreme Being?[edit]

In the actual sanskrit, the catalyst/preserver of this atomic grouping is not a persona. Though by the Bhakti movement that appeared long after the Vedas there is a possible view to a personality in the Brahman, in the Vaisheshika theory this energy is without form, limitations and there is not a hint of a 'being' here.

So to call it a "theistic" philosophy is really up to the interpreter. But this is not the only interpretation and so makes the article somewhat misleading. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 16:37, November 8, 2004 (UTC)


How does Vaishnavism fit into the schema of six schools mentioned in this article? --Blainster 21:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Poor Rhetoric?[edit]

Is the argument to prove atoms expressed in its best form?

As it is, there several gigantic logical fallacies involved.

First, if something could be divided into infinite pieces in theory, it would still be practically impossible to do so. Infinity is a theoretical concept, not achievable in such a limited system, and having properties which render the comparison of a mountain to a rock irrelevent. You might as well prove that multiplication does not exist by multiplying zero by infinity.

But, even more importantly, if we accept the flawed "infinity" argument, it does not prove that things are made of distinct atoms, only that there may be some finite smallness to which the (perhaps otherwise continuous) matter can be reduced. A sort of Planck's length of matter size. It could be purely smooth and continuous, but simply not break smaller than that. So there would only be dynamic, conditional "atoms" created by any effort to break matter up infinitely. They wouldn't represent atoms which pre-existed the effort, and atoms put back together might fuse into one truly continuous material, in whatever way they got into that continuous state before being broken down in the first place.

If the argument can be expressed in such a way as to address these issues, that should be done in the article. --Kaz 21:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

-- Also, the Banach-Tarski paradox is referenced, but there the surface (stone/mountain) may be partitioned into finitely many pieces. Thus there is no point mentioning it in this context: it applies assuming finite divisibility. Indeed, the only purpose it seems to serve is a deceptive one regarding the Vaisheshika views: it suggests some Vaisheshika approximation of the idea behind the B-T paradox: where is the evidence for that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this article misses the point[edit]

The discussion of Vaisesika in the article thus far suggests that the lasting significance of Vaisesika was solely in its theory of atoms. Yes, the Vaisesika sutra discusses atoms, but so do a lot of other schools of Indian philosophy, and I see no evidence that vaisesika was the originator of the theory. [Correct me if I am wrong, here.] It seems pretty clear to me that the lasting contribution of the Vaisesikas to Indian philosophy was their categories (padārtha). The vaisesika sutra and all of its commentaries organize the text around this framework. It was the categories that enabled Udayana to "defeat" the Buddhists in his famous discussions of the existence of the soul. Furthermore, Buddhist Abhidharma texts (most of which predate the earliest extant commentaries on the Vaisesika sutra) discuss atomic theory and discuss the vaisesikas The Abhidharmakosa credits the Vaiseskikas with inventing the categories but does not mention them regarding the theory of atoms. Someone ought to write about the categories. I will be happy to do so if I get the time. Joseph Walser


Also see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic) Wakari07 (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Article titles are selected by a criteria which includes WP:COMMONNAME. Indic naming conventions are not applicable for selecting article titles. However, articles titles can use diacritics etc. if such usage is more common in English language sources. That doesn't seem to be the case here. You can, of course, submit comparison, references etc. to prove your point. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 05:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)