The peculiarity of Vaisheshika is that he does not confine philosophy to the question of liberation or enlightenment, but dares to systematically classify the world into whatever kinds of entities are perceived. For this reason, Vaisheshika is a very important realist tradition in Indian metaphysics. Its core questions are why materialism is made up of basic types of objects, qualities, actions, and relationships, and how to understand permanence in the midst of change. 10.1 Kanada and Vaisheshika Sutras The Vaisheshika Sūtra is traditionally associated with the name of Kanada, but the dating of the text is disputed. Because of the long edit- history of the available text, it is not appropriate to consider its ideas as being of the same moment. In the early Vaisheshikas, the substance, quality, and karma take on a special significance; later commentators take the systematic form of a list of six substances, including ksha and samasya, common to the prasadapada tradition. The later Nyaya- Vaisheshika tradition also develops a tendency to accept scarcity as an independent substance. This evolution leads to a methodological lesson: philosophical classification is not a static lexicon but a conceptual framework evolving under the pressure of problems. 10.2 Matter: The Basis of Properties and Action Vaisheshika considers nine types of matter: earth, water, fire, air, space, time, direction, country, soul, and mind. In this list, the physical elements, space-time, conscious soul and subtle mind fall under the same metaphysical category śramaṇa, because matter can be a host of qualities and karmas, and some types of actions have a common cause. This list is not an alphabetical list of modern sciences. Earthworms are a category of metaphysical entities, similar to modern chemical substances. Parallel philosophy makes this distinction clear when making comparisons. 10.3 Atomism Vaisheshika 's famous contribution is the atomistic natural philosophy. The atoms of earth, water, and air are thought to be indivisible and eternal. visible physical objects are created and destroyed by the combination of atoms. The soul and mind are not thought to be made up of physical atoms in the sense that the sky is time. To say that this atomism is the precursor of modern nuclear science would be attractive but misleading. Modern atomic experiments are the result of mathematical physics and empirical observation.Vaisheshika atomism is a system of metaphysical and logical inference. However, both can be put into dialogue as both scenes raise the question of the microstructure behind complex objects. Problem-structural comparisons, not historical parallels, are appropriate. 10.4 Virtue and Karma The quality depends on the substance, but not on the substance itself. Many qualities such as form, taste, smell, touch, number, magnitude, separation, association, division, intelligence, happiness, sorrow, desire, hatred, and effort were analyzed in the Vaisheshika-Nyaya tradition. Karma is the range of motion or range of action. The philosophical significance of this distinction is that the three questions of what a thing is and what a thing possesses and what a thing does are not the same. The language often tends to confuse these levels. For example, the relationship between red and yellow objects is not the same entity. walking and moving objects also require analysis. 10.5 General and special cases Common is the basis by which several individual things are identified as belonging to the same species or variety. Examples are given in the tradition as singing within many cows, singing within many components. Special is a concept used to describe the ultimate differences between particular substances. Here Vaisheshika raises the problem of universality and individuality. Whether the commonality of things is merely a classification of our mind or whether there is also a common element in reality. In modern metaphysics it is possible to compare universals with the disputes over properties and particulars, but it is necessary to set aside the historical meaning of the terms. 10.6 Consensus: The Problem of the Unbreakable Relationship Composition is a very specific concept in rhetoric. Virtue and substance, element and non-element, the ordinary and the individual, etc., are relations which are not ordinary external coincidences. The same relation between fabrics and fibres and their properties cannot be said to hold only in relation to two independent things. Consanguinity gives a metaphysical place to this inextricable link. But here arises the famous difficulty: if a concordance is required to connect the qualities with the substance, how can the concord be connected with the substance itself? Is there a need for a second agreement? The traditional North regards kinship as a distinct, continuous, and self-reliant relationship. This has been called into question by rival traditions. 10.7 Absence: The Existence of Absence Subsequent ideas of justiciability developed into detailed analyses of deprivation. There is no book on the table: knowledge of the same sentence is not only knowledge of the table and the book, but also knowledge of the absence of the book. Is absence merely a linguistic negation; is there an objective basis for it? Nyaya-Vaisheshika makes this question a serious metaphysical one. The modern significance of this discussion is clear. Data-analysis, juridical evidence, nothing found in medicine and history, when does evidence itself become evidence? Evidence of absence is stronger when the object not being present was expected to be found at a proper checkup. Thus ancient criticism opens up useful dialogues with modern empiricism. 10.8 Causality: A different path from Samkhya According to Samkhya positivism, karma presupposes a priori causation. The Vaisheshika-Nyaya tradition generally takes the direction of primitivism or non-functionalism: karma does not exist in that karma form before creation; new karma arises from cause-composition. In the example of formation from clay, Samkhya would say that work develops an analysis of the transformation of cause-and-effect into a new macro-energy. The fundamental question in this debate is: does change mean the appearance of an already existing form; does it really mean the origin of new things? 10.9 The Soul and the Mind and Knowledge Vaisheshika-jñāya realism considers not only the external world but also the soul to be real matter. The mind is considered to be extremely subtle and one for each body; limited mental contact at a time is explained by this mind. Knowledge, happiness, sorrow, and desire are considered to be the qualities of the soul. This view differs from that of the Samkhya, the pure conscious male. In Samkhya, intelligence is a part of nature; in Purusha Shuddha Sakshi or Nyaya-Vaisheshika, knowledge is a quality of the soul. Keeping this distinction clear reveals the true plurality of Indian self-views. 10.10 Vaisheshika and Nyaya: Proximity but not complete equality In later periods of history, Nyaya and Vaisheshika became closely associated, and the term Nyaya-Vaisheshika came to denote a form of composite tradition. Nyaya was particularly developed in the systems of proof, argument, and argumentation. in the metaphysical classification of Vaisheshi. Later writers consolidated the two sources into one. It is not advisable, however, to read the early history retrospectively. Parallel philosophy preserves textual distinctions and traditional distinctions through evolution. 10.11 Previous: Why do we need to accept so many categories? The objection may be that the world is filled with unnecessary number of entities, assuming the properties of matter to be ordinary and independent elements such as particularity and non-existence. The Buddhist nihilism or transientist view is particularly critical of permanent matter and the universe. Uttarapakṣa (Response): In the latter case, Vaisheshika may say that a separate category is necessary for a proper explanation of the actual differences in language and experience. I would not be able to tell the real difference if the traits and individuals considered similarities and relationships were the same kind of entity. But the number of categories is not the only convention; each category adds a criterion parallel to the other to prove its explanatory function. 10.12 The text of the Parallel Philosophy There are three main takeaways from Vaisheshika. First, the classification of reality itself is a philosophical task; categories should not be taken to be natural and self-evident. The second is the right to assume a microcosm when it has a clear explanatory role. Third, problem- structuring dialogues are more productive than drawing historical parallels with modern science. Chapter Conclusion Vaisheshika is a powerful realistic metaphysics of Indian philosophy. It asks what kind of being is to be considered in the world and how to understand their interrelationships, especially through the discussion of karma, the quality of matter, and karma. Its atomism is not modern science but a historical example of philosophical speculation on the microscopic structure of the natural world. Parallel philosophy reads Vaisheshika as a school of conceptual rigour rather than a story of glory. Chapter Bibliography Kanada is located at Vysheeshika-sūtra. Praśastapāda — Padārthadharmasaṃgraha. Bimal Krishna Matilal — Perception; Logic, Language and Reality. Karl H. Potter (ed.) — Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies: Indian Metaphysics and Epistemology. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy — “Substance”. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy — “Naturalism in Classical Indian Philosophy”.