Indian Atomism Part II
By J. C. Sikdar
Summary
The second part of J.C. Sikdar’s study “Indian Atomism” situates the Jaina conception of the atom (paramāṇu) within a broader spectrum of Indian and Greco‑Western theories of matter. He first summarises the Nyāya‑Vaiśeṣika view, according to which the physical world is made up of eternal atoms of earth, water, fire and air. Each type of atom has distinctive qualities—earth atoms possess colour, taste, smell and touch; water atoms have colour, taste and touch; fire atoms have colour and touch; air atoms only touch. Atoms are indivisible and imperceptible; they are inert and motionless until set in motion by an unseen agency (adṛṣṭa) or by God. When God imparts motion, atoms vibrate (parispanda) and form dyads, triads and larger aggregates in a geometrical progression. This process is responsible for creation, while destruction occurs when these combinations dissolve. Throughout the cosmic cycle atoms themselves remain unchanged; the theory implies a conservation of matter. The author notes that Buddhist momentariness (kṣaṇa) treats reality as series of point‑instants which lack duration and substance, whereas Vaiśeṣika atoms are enduring substances carrying qualities and universals. Sikdar then contrasts this with the Jain theory. Like Vaiśeṣika philosophers, Jain thinkers regard atoms as ultimate, indivisible and eternal. However, they hold that every atom inherently possesses four qualities—colour, taste, smell and touch—and that atoms are homogeneous; there are no different kinds of atoms corresponding to the elements. Qualitative differences among substances arise not from intrinsic differences among atoms but from various combinations and modes of vibration. Because all atoms share the same essential properties, Jaina philosophers do not postulate special atoms for earth, water, fire and air. Sikdar emphasises that this homogeneous atomism aligns with the Jain doctrine of anekāntavāda (multiplicity of viewpoints), which allows for complex compounds to arise from simple, uniform constituents. The article also highlights that Jain cosmology does not require a creator god to set atoms in motion; instead, movement (dharma) and rest (adharma) are treated as cosmological substances, and karmic forces are sufficient to account for the behaviour of matter. By comparing Jaina atomism with Vaiśeṣika and Buddhist theories as well as with Greek atomism, the article argues that Indian philosophers developed sophisticated explanations of physical change that combined metaphysical commitments with empirical observations. Sikdar also notes that the Jain theory anticipates aspects of modern conservation laws, since atoms remain unchanged across creation and destruction.
Summary reviewed by a volunteer editor.
Conclusion
Sikdar’s survey shows that Indian atomistic theories were diverse and philosophically nuanced. The Jaina view posits homogeneous, eternal atoms each endowed with colour, taste, smell and touch, which combine in varied ways to form all material substances. This contrasts with the Nyāya‑Vaiśeṣika view of four different kinds of inert atoms that require divine intervention to move and combine. By juxtaposing these models with Buddhist momentariness and Greek theories, the article underlines the richness of Indian physics and its continuing relevance to metaphysics and the philosophy of science.