Vaisheshika Realism of Plural Substances. The Vaisheshika-sutras appeared
sometime around 100 c.e.; their roots were earlier, but their “orthodox”
interpretation as a coherent school occurred around 500 c.e. with Prashasta-
pada. The emergence of a distinctive position has been reconstructed as trav-
ersing the following phases: (1) an enumerative philosophy of nature; (2) a
theory of atoms in a mechanistic universe; (3) a more abstract doctrine of
ontological categories, arising from the effort to combine and coordinate
various lists of elements; (4) finally, the reorganization of the old philosophy
of nature under six categories, perhaps by Prashastapada himself (Frauwallner,
1953–56; Halbfass, 1992: 75–78). In the older layer of the Vaisheshika-sutra,
there seem to be only three categories: substances, qualities, and motions. To
this physical depiction of the universe were later added three more categories:
universals (or genus), particulars (species or universals of smaller scope), and
the relation of inherence. Presumably these latter categories arose in debates
over the nature of relationships among the earlier categories; inherence seems
to have been added to explain the relation between substances and their
attributes, or between substances and their universal genus. Under these cate-
gories are arranged further lists, such as 24 or so qualities, a style of arrange-
ment bearing an unmistakable similarity to the Buddhist Abhidharma.
A field of intellectual attention is constituted by a topic and a style of
argument. The field then divides into oppositions by substantive distinctions
within that space. Early Vaisheshika reified the qualities, and provoked Bud-
dhist and Jaina criticism as to how a substrate of bare, quality-less substances
could be the locus for certain qualities or universals rather than any others
(Halbfass, 1992: 94–99). Prashastapada attempted to evade the difficulties by
redefining substance as per se a possessor of attributes. His move did not cut
off subsequent critiques, but it opened new turf by separating the cosmological
from the logical dimensions of concepts. Prashastapada’s commentary over-
shadowed the original Vaisheshika-sutras, and became the main vehicle for
later commentaries which made up the lineage of the school. Vaisheshika
remained vulnerable to further attack, but by the same token it guaranteed its
prominence in the intellectual field by staking out an ultra-realist position, and
expanding it to meet a succession of opponents.
Samkhya Dualism. A rival category philosophy was elaborated as Samkhya,
a name which means enumeration or categorization.^46 Samkhya as a philo-
sophical position formed during the Upanishadic period as a grab bag of
heterogeneous concepts, part abstractions, part mythological personifications.
It gradually crystallized as a dualism of Prakriti and Purusha, the two world
substances, roughly matter and spirit, reminiscent of the mythology of world
production from the copulation of god and goddess.^47 Over many generations
234 • (^) Intellectual Communities: Asian Paths