Note On Concept Adrsta As Used In Vaisesika Sutra

This document is a scholarly analysis by A. Wezler concerning the concept of adrsta (meaning "unseen" or "invisible") as it appears in the Vaisesika Sutra (VS). Wezler delves into the scholarly debate surrounding the meaning and usage of this term, particularly highlighting the contrasting interpretations of E. Frauwallner and A. Thakur, and then presenting his own thesis supported by the work of W. Halbfass.

Here's a comprehensive summary of the key points:

1. The Controversial Nature of Adrsta:

• The meaning of "adrsta" in the Vaisesika Sutra is not settled and remains a subject of scholarly debate.
• Previously, scholars generally assumed an original conceptual unity for the term, but differed on its precise nature.

2. Frauwallner's Interpretation:

• Frauwallner views the introduction of "adrsta" as linked to the supplantation of an older atomistic-mechanistic worldview by new ideas, particularly the concept of karma (the power of good and bad deeds).
• He suggests that "adrsta" was used to represent the "invisible" results of these deeds, influencing not only the destiny of souls but also the physical world.
• Frauwallner implies "adrsta" served as a placeholder for inexplicable phenomena, discouraging deeper inquiry into the nature of things.
• Wezler questions Frauwallner's assumption that the karma theory predates the "categories" doctrine in Vaiseshika, pointing to the lack of textual evidence and the placement of certain sutras. He also notes that Frauwallner might be influenced by the age-old nature of the karma belief in India.

3. Thakur's Interpretation:

• Thakur doubts the historical reliability of later interpretations (like Prasastapada's) that equate "adrsta" with dharma (merit) and adharma (demerit).
• He proposes that "adrsta" in the VS primarily means "unknown" or "not perceived," dividing entities into known (drsta) and unknown (adrsta).
• Wezler finds Thakur's motivation to portray Kanada as a forerunner of modern scientists problematic, suggesting this leads to a biased interpretation.
• While acknowledging Thakur's semantic observation that "adrsta" means "not seen/cognized/known," Wezler suggests this requires critical re-examination and points out that both Frauwallner and Thakur seem to be influenced by prejudices (Frauwallner's being too negative, Thakur's too positive).

4. Halbfass's Contribution and Wezler's Agreement:

• Wezler finds Halbfass's studies particularly valuable for their rigor and problem-consciousness.
• Halbfass suggests that the conceptual unity in the usage of "adrsta" is not original but a result of attempts to reconcile disparate usages, likely from different historical layers of the VS.
• Halbfass identifies at least two distinct usages of "adrsta":
  • Physical/Cosmological: Explaining extraordinary natural phenomena (like magnetism or the upward movement of fire) where a "natural" cause cannot be found. In this usage, "adrsta" appears alongside other physical forces like gravity.
  • Ethical/Soteriological: Related to the unseen results and purposes of ritual and ethical activities (karma).
• Halbfass notes that the VS does not explicitly state whether these two usages of "adrsta" are identical or different, and that later commentators like Prasastapada took their identity for granted.
• Wezler strongly agrees with Halbfass's hypothesis of a dichotomy in the concept of "adrsta" in the VS. He believes "adrsta" might have originally been a "gap-filler" for inexplicable phenomena, later re-interpreted to incorporate dharmic and soteriological meanings.

5. Detailed Analysis of Specific Sutras (Focus on Inference):

• Wezler engages in a detailed textual analysis of specific sutras (VS 2.1.8-10, 2.1.15-17, 2.1.20, 3.2.4, 3.2.6-8) to explore the meaning of "drsta" (seen) and "adrsta" in the context of inference (anumana).
• VS 2.1.10: This sutra is central to the discussion. Wezler critiques the interpretation of N. Schuster, who argues for a technical term "adrsalingam" (unperceived mark).
  • Wezler argues against Schuster's interpretation of "adrsalingo vayuh" in VS 2.1.10, finding it grammatically improbable and leading to an untenable meaning. He believes Schuster's assumption of a technical term is highly problematic and not supported by evidence.
  • Wezler proposes his own interpretation of VS 2.1.10: "But (ca) since touch (or tangibility) is not a characteristic and conclusive mark] of [entities]" that are seen (i.e., perceived), that of which [this] conclusive mark (namely touch, or tangibility) (allows inference) is (an entity] not seen (.e., perceived), (namely] wind."
  • This interpretation suggests a distinction between marks of perceivable entities and marks of unperceivable entities.
• Dichotomy of Linga: Wezler concludes that VS 2.1.8-10 reflects an early stage in the Vaiseshika theory of inference, characterized by a lack of reflection on the true nature of logical reasoning. This is evident in the distinction between "drstam lingam" (perceived mark) and what Wezler interprets as "adrsalingo" (mark of something not seen/perceived).
• Influence of Samkhya and Buddhism: Wezler examines the possible influence of Samkhya philosophers like Vrsagana and Buddhist thinkers like Dignaga on the VS, particularly concerning their theories of inference. He finds Schuster's arguments for Vrsagana's influence on VS 2.1.8-10 unconvincing and argues that Frauwallner did not support such an influence. He also discusses how Buddhist objections might have inspired certain sutras.

6. Wezler's Core Argument and Conclusion:

• Wezler's central thesis is that the Vaisesika Sutra originally made a basic distinction between elements of reality that are in principle perceivable (drsta) and those that by their nature lie beyond the range of perception (adrsta).
• This distinction, he argues, is not initially connected with ethical or retributive conceptions.
• The later incorporation of dharma and adharma into the concept of "adrsta," as seen in later commentaries, represents a "soteriological re-orientation" of the Vaiseshika system, where "adrsta" became a broader term encompassing both physical inexplicability and moral consequences. This may have occurred due to "terminological interference" where the term was adopted without full critical vigilance.
• Wezler suggests that the original author(s) of the VS understood inference as presupposing perception but hadn't fully grasped the concept of the "invariable connection" (avinabhava or vyapti) between the mark (linga) and the marked (lingin).
• The presence of "adrsta" as dharma and adharma is largely confined to later sections of the VS (specifically the second ahnika of adhyaya VI), supporting the idea of later insertion and development.
• Wezler concludes that the conceptual unity in the term "adrsta" found in later texts is not original to the Vaisesika Sutra itself, but a result of historical development and commentary.

In essence, Wezler argues for a multi-layered and historically evolving understanding of "adrsta" within the Vaisesika Sutra, moving from a primarily epistemological distinction (perceivable vs. unperceivable) to a broader philosophical concept encompassing ethical and soteriological dimensions.