Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Jonathan Duquette
Faculty of Theology and Sciences of Religion, University of Montreal
K. Ramasubramanian
Cell for Indian Science and Technology in Sanskrit, Department of Humanities and
Social Sciences, IIT Bombay, Mumbai
Introduction
From Antiquity to the present day, the concept of space has engaged the attention of
philosophers and scientists of every civilization. Space as a subject of philosophical
inquiry appears quite early in Greek philosophy, especially in the works of natural
philosophers such as Philolaus, Plato, and Aristotle.1 For about two thousand years,
Aristotle’s philosophy constituted the framework from which successive generations
of Western philosophers and scientists attempted to reason about space. This view
was shaken, however, with the publication of Newton’s Principia in 1687. In this
monumental work, Newton established the concept of absolute space as an entity
distinct and separate from material bodies, homogeneous, immobile, and causally
inert. Until the advent of Einstein’s theory of relativity (1905–1915), this concept
reigned supreme in classical physics. But with Einstein’s theory, a new way of reflect-
ing upon the notions of space, time, and gravitation was proposed. Not only did the
worldview set forth in this theory give rise to a whole new paradigm in the field of
theoretical physics, beyond what Newton had himself achieved with his theory, but
it also had a strong and vivifying impact on philosophy of science.2 Today, notwith-
standing the various advances in physics per se, philosophers of physics are strug-
gling to come up with an understanding of space that is in agreement with relativity
as well as with the new requirements of quantum physics. As there is no common
theoretical framework yet linking these two theories, there is no final agreement
among physicists and philosophers as to the nature of space.
In India, the concept of space has also been the subject of deep philosophical
inquiry. In ancient Vedic texts, in particular the R.gveda, space is more or less associ-
ated with the idea of a primeval openness in which the world extends and manifests
itself.3 In the later Brāhman.a s, Āran.yaka s, and Upanis.ad s, the emphasis is on the
nature of ākāśa, which emerges as a central concept especially in Upanis.adic cos-
mology. In these texts, ākāśa is endowed with a rich variety of meanings. In some
passages, it is considered one of the five “elements” (mahābhūtas), connected with
hearing and sound; in other places, it is conceived as the space containing all bodies,
or a subtle form of materiality; elsewhere, it is approximated, or even equated, to the
eternal Brahman, the creator and Being underlying the world. In more or less the
same way, this semantic ambiguity is also reflected in the later classical systems of
Philosophy East & West Volume 60, Number 4 October 2010 517–533 517
© 2010 by University of Hawai‘i Press
Indian philosophy (darśanas). In literature, we find a good deal of discussion and
debate on the concept of ākāśa, involving philosophers from the Nyāya-Vaiśes.ika,
Sām. khya, and Vedānta schools of thought, as well as Buddhist and Jainist philoso-
phers. The topics examined vary from the ontological status of ākāśa to its role in the
transmission of sound, or in the creation and manifestation of the world. Of course,
each school emphasized a particular aspect of ākāśa in consonance with its own
outlook on the world. In the Indian context also, philosophers were facing the diffi-
culty of defining with certainty the nature of space.4
It is the recognition of such a fact, namely that there is no fundamental and defi-
nite answer with regard to space both in modern philosophy of physics and Indian
philosophy, that has led to the present essay. It is indeed interesting, and certainly
enriching, to compare how both these traditions look differently at the concept and
deal with its many facets. In the process, we may also realize that both traditions are
faced with similar questions when trying to evolve a clear picture regarding the
nature and origin of space. In literature, we find only few comparative studies focus-
ing on this concept from the standpoint of Indian philosophy and physics.5 But as far
as our knowledge goes, there exists no comparative study taking into account both
the standpoint of Indian philosophy and philosophy of physics per se. It is our aim in
this short essay to provide the reader with a few reflections on the subject by taking
resource from both these disciplines. The question tackled here is one that was of
deep interest to classical Indian philosophers and is still debated today: is space cre-
ated? For the sake of simplicity, we have decided to restrict our attention to a particu-
lar adhikaran.a in Śan.kara’s Brahmasūtrabhās.ya (BSB), the viyadadhikaran.a (BSB
II.3.1–7), wherein the origin of ākāśa is questioned and discussed. This short analysis
will be preceded by a brief summary of the views adopted in Vaiśes.ika and Sāṃkhya.
We conclude this essay with a few reflections on the concept of space in the light of
modern philosophy of physics.
Together with Sāmkhya, the school of Vaiśes.ika probably offers the most significant
philosophical explanation of ākāśa as a physical element. Both of these systems pro-
vide an elaborate cosmological model, wherein a list of world constituents is given
together with an explanation of their arrangement. But while Vaiśes.ika divides the
world synchronically in terms of definite and distinct “categories” (padārthas) of real-
ity, Sām
. khya depicts the world in evolutionary terms, as successive stages of the
evolution of prakr.ti, the primary principle of materiality. In Vaiśes.ika, six basic
padārthas are accepted, which are considered to provide a complete inventory of the
kinds of things that one finds in the world: substance (dravya), quality (gun.a), action
(karma), the universal (sāmānya), particularity (viśes.a), and inherence (samavāya).6
Despite its pluralistic outlook on the world, this school also accepts certain structures
of dependence and subordination between categories, such as inherence and con-
junction (sam . yoga). As for Sām
. khya, it traces the whole physical world to a single
source (prakr.ti) rather than to a set of distinct categories. It admits that twenty-three
As in other schools, the concept of ākāśa has also engaged the attention of Advaitins.
As far as Śan.kara is concerned, we find short references to this concept in some of
his commentaries on the Upanis.ad s, as well as in a few adhikaran.as in the Brahmasū‑
trabhās.ya. The present adhikaran.a, called viyadadhikaran.a (BSB II.3.1–7), is the most
extensive one among them. Its main purport is to elucidate a possible doubt concern-
From that Brahman indeed, which is this Self, was produced space [ākāśa]. From space
emerged air. From air was born fire. From fire was created water. From water sprang up
earth. (Taittirı̄ya Upanis.ad II.1.1)
In the Chāndogya Upanis.ad (ChU), fire is said to be created first and succeeded by
water and earth, whereas in the Taittirı̄ya Upanis.ad (TU), fire comes in the third posi-
tion while ākāśa and air come before fire. If we agree with the ChU, ākāśa not being
mentioned, we may conclude that it does not originate and is thus eternal. On the
other hand, if we follow the TU, ākāśa must be considered a created element. Thus,
the śruti itself seems to diverge as to the origin of ākāśa. The present adhikaran.a care-
fully analyzes this question and tries to provide a solution that is both in agreement
with logical reasoning and śruti.
As one can see from the previous discussion, the origin of space was a matter of
much reflection and debate among Indian philosophers. In consonance with their
own metaphysics, they gave a different ontological status to space, and consequently
also had a different conception of its origin. While the proponents of Vaiśes.ika
thought of space as being eternal, those of Sām . khya and Advaita conceived space to
be a product of evolution, thus having an origin and a finite existence. It is fascinating
to see how, though we now know much more about the physical world than at any
previous time, the same pressing questions seem to inhabit physicists and philoso-
phers today. Is space created or not? Or is it the manifestation of something more
fundamental? Can we even talk about the “creation” of space? Such questions have
been dealt with extensively by physicists and philosophers of physics since the for-
mulation of Einstein’s theory of relativity. Before Einstein, space was but absolute
space, a vast and immutable container in which things and events were taking place.
But with the discovery that space and time are intimately related to each other, as
well as to gravity, a new way of reflecting upon space became necessary.
Another theory that challenged our conception of space is quantum physics.
Quantum theory is primarily used to describe phenomena at the atomic and sub-
atomic levels. In only three decades, starting with Planck’s quantum hypothesis in
1900, this theory completely shattered our understanding of the atomic world. What
it tells us is that the physical reality corresponding to atoms is radically different from
that of classical entities like particles and waves. Why and how this difference came
to exist has been the topic of many debates among the early quantum physicists, and
still is today. In the late 1920s, quantum field theory (QFT) emerged as a result of the
application of quantum theory to classical fields, an endeavor that eventually culmi-
nated in the elaboration of the standard model of particle physics in the early 1970s.
Quantum electrodynamics (QED) is the first quantum field theory, and also the
model for all subsequent ones as it is the most precise of all physical theories that
exist today. As we shall see, the worldview set forth in QFT also brought about a
significant change in our perception of space, especially regarding the nature of the
vacuum. In the last few decades, the major challenge has been to build a theory that
would explain how gravity behaves at the microscopic level, thereby unifying under
a single conceptual framework the four forces of nature. Such a theory that is also
experimentally verifiable is yet to be formulated.
In empty spacetime, the gravitational field alone constitutes the geometry, or metric,
of spacetime. When massive bodies are present, it is the gravitational field interacting
with matter that plays this role. Einstein’s theory of general relativity is thus primarily
a field theory.
Before Einstein, all objects were understood to dwell somehow in space and
time. After GR, we had to conceive of space and time as relative to and dependent
Unlike the Newtonian concept of absolute and eternal space, the space described in
GR is not absolute but depends on the gravitational field for its existence. According
to this theory, there is no empty space at all because the field always remains present
even when any massive bodies are absent. In QFT, “empty space” is conceived as
some sort of pre-substance, preceding and giving rise to all the constituents of the
world. Here also, the notion of empty space is rejected and replaced by the notion of
an all-pervading and dynamic field, called the quantum field. Yet, because GR and
QFT have not been reconciled up until now, we are unable to address the fundamen-
tal nature of the vacuum, or what underlies the gravitational field. Moreover, the Big
Bang model does not tell us how the laws of nature and constants of the universe got
defined at the beginning of the universe. It is thus impossible, in the present state of
understanding, to pinpoint with precision what underlies the vacuum and its poten-
tial for giving rise to substance, or what sustains the gravitational field of GR. Hence,
in only a few centuries, a major shift has taken place in our comprehension of space.
From the belief that space is something ultimate, beyond which nothing material
seems conceivable, we have moved toward the conception that there is something
beyond space, on which the latter depends for its existence.
Looking at the various discussions that took place among Indian philosophers on
the nature of ākāśa, one feels as though one is in a similar intellectual atmosphere.
That is not to say that the concept of ākāśa, as it unfolded among these philosophers,
is identical with the concept of vacuum in QFT, for instance. If some similarities can
perhaps be noted — for instance, both quantum vacuum and ākāśa are all-pervasive
and the loci for the creation and annihilation of other physical entities — they none-
theless belong to two different traditions, and have evolved in quite different historical
and conceptual environments. What can be noted, however, is that Indian philoso-
phers were also conceiving space in a variety of ways. We find that within each
school, space is endowed with more than one meaning. In Vaiśes.ika, ākāśa is first
taken as a reified element, connected with sound and hearing, and also described on
a par with immaterial and eternal substances. In Sām . khya, ākāśa is considered a
mere product of prakr.ti, also connected with sound, but with the revision made by
Vijñānabhiks.u, it becomes associated with the potential for change in prakr.ti. The
word ākāśa is also used in a variety of senses in Advaita literature. Besides being an
element endowed with sound as its quality, it is also taken as an entity presenting
deep affinities with Brahman, or Ātman. Each school thus presents an understanding
of space that differs considerably from the others, for each school has its own spe-
cific metaphysical and epistemological premises about the world. The richness of
ways in which space has been considered in the Indian tradition is something that
one also finds in contemporary philosophy of physics.
The second point to be noted is that despite the historical gap separating Indian
philosophers from philosophers of physics, both came to a similar conclusion with
reference to the origin of space. We have noticed already that in the last century the
crucial scientific discovery about space has been to realize that it depends on some-
Conclusion
It was noted that both Advaitins and physicists share the notion that space is the prod-
uct of something more fundamental. At the same time, they are both challenged in
describing the nature and origin of what is more fundamental. Somehow, in both
systems, space resides at the boundary of what is known and unknown: beyond, it is
terra incognita. However, the boundary in question has a different shape and con-
notation in both systems. For Advaitins, what lies beyond space is neither a pure
Unknown nor a Nothingness, but That which makes the world evident to the indi-
vidual, that is, the non-dual Brahman, the core Subject. The point here is that Brah-
man is not simply an object of thought that one can perceive and analyze, but is
something to be experienced, or discovered, through contemplation and the deep
understanding that there is “in reality” no duality whatsoever. Rational or logical
thinking ultimately does not lead to this understanding, as it presupposes a duality
between subject and object. In fact, it is such a duality that is the source of one’s
misunderstanding about Brahman, which is pure awareness. The boundary is thus
not between the known and the unknown, understood in a mere logical sense, but
between mithyā and satya, appearance and reality.
As far as physics is concerned, what is required is a “real” distinction between
subject and object, between observer and observed. What lies beyond space is not
pure awareness; rather what is expected is an “object” to be studied, analyzed, and
elucidated and that can be known through good insights and better resources. This is
an epistemological position that differs radically from that of the Advaitins. The
boundary here is not between appearance and reality but between what is unknown
through our present means of investigation and what we actually know about the
physical world. It is revealing to see how both systems envisage differently what is
beyond the boundary, and how they proceed in different ways to acquire this knowl-
Notes
1 – For a good historical survey of the concept of space from Antiquity to modern
times, the reader may refer to Max Jammer’s Concepts of Space: The History of
Theories of Space in Physics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1954).
2 – Several books have been published on the subject since then. To mention a
few: H. Reichenbach, The Philosophy of Space and Time (New York: Dover
Publications, 1957); L. Sklar, Space, Time and Spacetime (Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1977); M. Friedman, Foundations of Space-time Theories:
Relativistic Physics and Philosophy of Science (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1986); J. Earman, World Enough and Space-time: Absolute versus Rela-
tional Theories of Space and Time (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992); N. Hug-
gett, Space from Zeno to Einstein (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002).
3 – W. Halbfass, On Being and What There Is: Classical Vaiśes.ika and the History
of Indian Ontology (New Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications, 1992), pp. 29–31.
4 – In the last few decades, a number of Western and Indian scholars have under-
taken serious studies on ākāśa in Indian darśanas. The following are the most
complete papers on the subject: P. C. Divanji, “Brahman-Ākāśa Equation: Its
Origin and Development,” Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan (Bombay) 9 (1948): 148–
173; I. H. Jhaveri, “The Concept of Ākāśa in Indian Philosophy,” Annals of the
Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 37 (1956): 300–307; S. C. Chakrabarti,
“Ākāśa,” in B. Bäumer ed., Kalātattvakośa, vol. 3 (New Delhi: Indira Gandhi
National Centre for the Arts, 1996), pp. 103–141; V. Lysenko, “The Vaiśes.ika
Notions of Ākāśa and Diś from the Perspective of Indian Ideas of Space,”
Poznań Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities 59 (1997):
417–447; W. Halbfass, “Space or Matter? The Concept of Ākāśa in Indian
Thought,” in R. Nair ed., Mind, Matter and Mystery: Questions in Science and
Philosophy (New Delhi: Scientia, 2001).
5 – We are aware of only one serious study on the subject, which, however, tends
to overlook the differences between Indian philosophy and modern physics:
K. K. Mandal, A Comparative Study of the Concepts of Space and Time in Indian
Thought (Varanasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, 1968).
6 – However, the list of padārthas has been subject to many changes in the history
of Vaiśes.ika. As an example, the classification given by Praśastapāda largely