The Indian Theory of the Five Elements
One knows that, in Hindu doctrine, the 'cosmologic' point of view is principally represented by Vaiśeșika, and also, under a different aspect, by Sāmkhya, the latter being able to be characterised as 'synthetic' and the former as 'analytic'. The name Vaiśeșika is derived from viśeṣa, which signifies 'distinctive character', and hence 'individual thing'; it, therefore, properly designates the branch of doctrine that applies to the knowledge of things in a distinct and individual mode. This point of view is the one that corresponds most exactly with the reservation of the differences necessarily brought by the modes of thought respective to the two peoples, to what the Greeks, particularly in the 'presocratic' period, called 'physical philosophy'. We prefer, however, to use the term 'cosmology' to avoid any ambiguity, and to mark better the profound difference that exists between what is in question and modern physics; and, moreover, it is just, thus, that 'cosmology' was understood in the Middle Ages in the West.
Understanding in its subject-matter what relates to sensible or corporeal things, which are of an eminently individual order, the Vaiśeșika has applied itself to the theory of the elements, which are the constituent principles, of bodies, in more detail than other branches of the doctrine could have done. One must point out,
however, that one is obliged to call upon these latter, and particularly upon the Sāmkhya, when it is a question of seeking out which are the most universal principles, from which the elements proceed. These elements number according to Hindu doctrine, five; in Sanskrit, they are called bhūtas, a word derived from the verbal root bhu, which means 'to be', but more exactly in the sense of 'to survive', that is to say something that designates the manifested being viewed in its, 'substantial' aspect (the 'essential' aspect being expressed by the root as). Thereafter, a certain idea of 'becoming' also attaches itself to this word, since it comes from the side of 'substance' which is the root of all 'becoming' in opposition to the immutability of 'essence'. And it is in this sense that prakrti or the 'universal substance' can be properly designated as 'native', a word which, just like its Greek equivalent phusis, above all precisely implies by its etymological derivation, this same idea of 'becoming'. The elements are, therefore, regarded as substantial determinations, or, in other words, as modifications of prakrti, modifications which only have, moreover, a purely accidental character in relation to the latter, since corporeal existence itself, being modality defined by a certain gathering of determined conditions is nothing more than a simple accident in relation to Universal Existence viewed in its wholeness.
If, now, one considers, the being, the 'essences' correlative to the 'substance', these two aspects being complementary to one another and corresponding to that which we call the two poles of universal manifestation, which is the same as saying that they are respective expressions of puruṣa and prakrti in this manifestation, it is necessary that these substantial determinations, which are the five elements, should correspond to an equal number of essential determinations, or of 'elementary essences', which are, one might say, the 'archetypes', the ideal or 'formal' principles in the Aristotelian sense of this latter word, and which belong, no longer to the corporeal domain, but to the domain of subtle manifestation.
Sāmkhya, thus, considers in this way five elementary essences, which have acquired the name tanmātras. This term literally signifies a 'measure' or an 'assignation' delimiting the proper domain of a certain quality or 'quiddity' in Universal Existence. It goes without saying that these tanmātras, by the very fact that they are of subtle order, are not at all perceptible to the senses, as are the corporeal elements and their combinations. They are only ideally 'conceptible', and they can only receive particular designations by analogy with the different orders of sensible qualities which correspond to them, since it is the quality that is here the contingent expression of essence. In fact, they are habitually designated by the very names of these qualities: auditive or sonorous (sabda), tangible (sparśa), visible (rūpa, with the double meaning of form and colour), palatable (rasa), olfactory (gandha). But we say that these designations must only be taken as analogical, for these qualities cannot be viewed here except in the principal state and in a certain way, 'non-developed', since it is, as we shall all, only through the bhūtas that they will be effectively manifested in the sensible order. The conception of the tanmātras is necessary when one wants to relate the notion of elements to the principles of Universal Existence, to which it is, moreover, still connected, but this time from the 'substantial' aspect, by another order of considerations of which we shall speak in the due course. But conversely, this conception clearly does not intervene when one confines oneself to the study of individual existences and sensible qualities as such; and that is why there is no question of this in the Vaiśesika, which, even by definition confines itself precisely to this last point of view.
We recall that the five elements admitted by Hindu doctrine are as follows: ākāśa, ether; vāyu, air; tejas, fire; ap, water; and prthvis, earth. This order is that of this development to their differentiation, starting from ether which is the primordial element. It is always in this order, they are enumerated in all the texts of the Veda where mention is made, notably in the passages of the
Chāndogya Upaniṣad and the Taittirīya Upaniṣad where their genesis is described. And their order of reabsorption, or their return to the undifferentiated state, is naturally inverse to the former. On the other hand, to each element there corresponds a sensible quality that is regarded as its proper quality, the one that manifests its essential nature and by which the latter is known to us. And the correspondence, thus, established between the five elements and the five senses is as follows: to ether, corresponds hearing (śrotra); to air, touch (tvac); to fire, sight (caksus); to water, taste (rasana); to earth, smell (ghrāna); the order of development of the senses being also that of the elements with which they are linked and on which they directly depend. And this order conforms, of course, to the one in which we have already enumerated the sensible qualities above, relating them principally to the tanmātras. Furthermore, every quality manifested in an element is equally so in the following, no longer as belonging to them exclusively in their own rights, but inasmuch as they proceed from the preceding elements. It would indeed be contradictory to suppose that the very process of development of manifestation, occurring, thus, gradually, might bring, in a further stage, a return to an un-manifested state of what has already been developed in the stages of least differentiation.
Before proceeding further, in what concerns the number of elements and their order of derivation, as well as their correspondence with the sensible qualities, we can note certain important differences with the theories of those Greek 'philosopher physicists' to whom we alluded at the start. First, the majority of the latter have only admitted four elements, not recognising ether as a distinct element; and in this, a strange enough fact, they agree with the Jainas and Buddhists, who are in opposition on this point, as on many others, to orthodox Hindu doctrine. Yet, one must make some exceptions, notably for Empedocles, who admitted the five elements, but developed in the following order: ether, fire, earth, water, and air, which seems difficult to justify.
And again according to some, [2] this philosopher would only have himself admitted four elements, which are then enumerated in a different order: earth, water, air, and fire. This last order is exactly the opposite to the one found in Plato. Thus, it is perhaps necessary to see there, no longer the order of production of the elements, but on the contrary their order of reabsorption into each other. According to various testimonies, the Ophics and the Phythagorians admitted the five elements, which is perfectly normal, given the properly traditional character of their doctrines. Later, moreover, Aristotle admitted them as well, but whatever the case, the role of ether has never been as important nor as clearly defined among the Greeks, at least in their exoteric schools, as among the Hindus. Despite certain texts of the Phedo and the Timacus, which are undoubtedly of Pythagorian inspiration, Plato generally envisages only four elements; for him, fire and earth are the extreme elements, air and water are the middle elements, and this order differs from the traditional order of the Hindus in that air and fire are inverted. One may wonder if there is not here a confusion between the order of production, if indeed this really is how Plato himself wished to understand it, and a distribution following what one might call the degrees of subtlety, which we will come back to presently. Plato is in agreement with Hindu doctrine by attributing visibility to fire as its proper quality, but he diverges from it by attributing tangibility to earth instead of attributing it to air. Moreover, it seems difficult enough to find among the Greeks a strictly vigorously established correspondence between the elements and the sensible qualities. And one easily understands why it should be so, for, in considering only four elements, one must immediately notice the lacuna in this correspondence, the number five being, incidentally, everywhere uniformly admitted as regards the senses.
In Aristotle, one finds considerations of a very different character, where it is also a matter of qualities, which, however, are definitely not sensible qualities, properly speaking. These
considerations are based, indeed, on the combinations of hot and cold, which are respectively principles of expansion and condensation, with dry and wet; fire is hot and dry, air is hot and wet, water cold and wet, earth cold and dry. The groupings of these four qualities, which confront each other in two pairs, only concern, therefore, the four ordinary elements, excluding ether, which, moreover, is justified by the remark that either, as primordial element, must contain the groups of opposing or complementary qualities, coexisting, thus, in the neutral state inasmuch as they balance each other there perfectly and previous to their differentiation, which may be regarded as resulting precisely from a rupture in this original equilibrium.
Ether must, therefore, be represented as situated at the point where oppositions do not yet exist, but through the leaving of which they are produced, that is, at the centre of the figure of the cross whose branches correspond to the four other elements. And this representation is effectively the one adopted by the Medieval Hermetics, who expressly admit ether by the name 'quintessence'
(quinta essentia), which, moreover, implies an enumeration of the elements in an ascending or 'regressive' order that is inverse of the order of their production, for otherwise ether would be the first element and not the fifth. One can note also that it is really a question of a 'substance' and not an 'essence', and, in this regard, the expression used shows a frequent confusion in medieval Latin terminology, where this distinction between 'essence' and 'substance', in the sense that we have indicated, appears never to have been made very clearly, as one can only too easily realise in scholastic philosophy. [3]
While we are with these comparisons, we must still, on the other hand, warn against a false assimilation to which Chinese doctrine sometimes gives rise, where one finds something that one also ordinarily designates as the 'five elements'. The latter are enumerated, thus; water, wood, fire, earth, metal, this order being considered, in this case also, as the order of production. Something that could mislead is that the number is the same in both cases, and that, out of five terms, three carry equivalent denominations. But to what can the two other ones correspond, and how to make the order indicated her coincide with the order in Hindu doctrine? [4] The truth is that, despite the apparent similarities, it is a question here of a very different point of view, which it would, moreover, be irrelevant to examine here; and to avoid all confusion, it would certainly be better to translate the Chinese term hing by something other than 'elements', by agents for example, as has been proposed, [5] which is at the same time closer to its real meaning.
Having made these remarks, we must now, if we wish to make precise the notion of elements, first of all set aside, though briefly, several erroneous opinions fairly commonly widespread on this subject in this day and age. In the first place, there is hardly any need to say that, if the elements are the constituent principles of bodies, it is in a very different sense than the one in which the chemists view the constitution of these bodies, when they consider them as resulting from the combination of certain 'simple elements' or some such. On the one hand, the multiplicity of elements called 'simple' is manifestly opposed to this assimilation, and, on the other, it is not at all proved that these elements really are simple, this name only being given, in fact, to those that the chemists don't know how to further decompose. In any case, other 'elements' are not chemical elements, even simple ones, but clearly substantial principles from which the latter are formed. One must not be deceived by the fact that they are designated by analogy with names which can be at the same time names of certain chemical elements, to which they are in no way identical for all that; each of the latter, whatever it be, proceeds in reality from the group of five elements, although there may be in its nature a certain predominance of one or other element.
One has also wished, more recently, to assimilate the elements to different physical states of matter as understood by modern physicists, that is in short to the different degrees of condensation that occur, emerging from ether: a primordial homogene, which fills all spaces, uniting together all the parts of the corporeal world. From this point of view, one makes the correspondence, going from the most dense to the most subtle, in an order inverse to the one that one admits for their differentiation, between the earth and the solid state, water and the liquid state, air and the gaseous state, and fire and a still more rarefied state, similar enough to what certain physicists have called the 'radiant state', and which must then be distinguished from the state of ether. One again finds there this useless preoccupation, so common in our day and age, to make traditional ideas agree with profane scientific conceptions, which is not, though to say that such a point of view cannot include some degree of truth, in the sense that one can admit that each of these physical states has certain more particular relationships with a definite element. But this is at best only a correspondence, and not an assimilation, which
would besides be incompatible with the constant coexistence of all the elements in a given body, in whatever state it presents itself, and it would be still less legitimate to wish to go further than to claim to identify the elements with the sensible qualities which, from another point of view, are connected to them much more directly. From another side, the order of growing condensation which is, thus, established between the elements is the same as the one we found in Plato: he places fire before air and immediately after ether, as if it were the first differentiating elements at the heart of this original cosmic environment. It is not, therefore, in this way that one can find the justification of the traditional order affirmed by Hindu doctrine. One must, moreover, take the greatest care to avoid holding too, exclusively to a systematic point of view, one that is too narrowly limited and particularised. And certainly, any effort to interpret in favour of an identification of these principles with the various physical states in question, under the pretext that it interposes principles of expansion and condensation, would alluredly be badly to misunderstand the theory we have indicated of Aristotle and the Hermetics.
If one absolutely insists on finding a point of comparison with physical theories, in the actual meaning of this word, it would be undoubtedly more correct to consider the elements, referring to their correspondence with the sensible qualities, as representing different vibratory modalities of matter, modalities under which matter is rendered preceptible successively to each of our senses. And, moreover, when we say successively, it must be clearly understood that it is a question here only of a purely logical succession. [6] But when one speaks, thus, of the vibratory modalities of matter, as well as when it is a question of physical states, there is a point that must be heeded: namely that, among the Hindus at least (and among the Greeks also, to a certain degree), one does not find the notion of matter in the sense used by modern physicists. The proof here is that, as we have already
pointed out, there exists in Sanskrit no word that may, even approximately, be translated as 'matter'. If, therefore, one is allowed to sometimes use this notion of matter to interpret the conception of the ancients, so as to be understood more easily, one must always do so with certain precautions. Still, it is possible to view vibratory states, for example, without making any necessarily appeal to the special properties the moderns attribute essentially to matter. Nonetheless, such an analogical conception seems to us much better able to indicate what that elements are, aided by a way of speaking which enforces a certain imagery, so to speak, than defining their true nature. And perhaps, basically, this is all, it is possible to do in the language presently at our disposal, owing to the oblivion into which traditional ideas have fallen in the Western world.
However, we shall add this too: the sensible qualities express, in relation to our human individuality, the conditions that characterise and determine corporeal existence, in the particular mode of Universal Existence, since it is by these qualities that we know bodies, to the exclusion of every other thing. We can, therefore, see in the elements expression of these same conditions of corporeal existence, no longer from the human, but from the cosmic point of view. It is not possible for us to develop this question as it deserves here. But at least through it can we easily see how the sensible qualities proceed from the elements, that is, as translation or 'microcosmic' reflexion of corresponding 'microcosmic' realities. We can also see how the bodies, being properly defined by the totality of conditions in question should by the same token be constituted as such by the elements in which they are 'substantialised'. And this, it would seem, is at once the most exact and the most general notion one may give of these same elements.
We shall pass, after this, to other considerations which will show better still how the conception of the elements is connected, not only to the conditions of existence of a more universal order.
but more precisely, to the very conditions of all manifestations. One knows what importance Hindu doctrine gives to the consideration of the three gunas: this term designates the qualities, or constituent and primordial attributes, of beings viewed in their different states of manifestation, and which they hold from the 'substantial' principle of their existence, for, from the universal point of view, they are inherent to prakrti, in which they are in perfect equilibrium in the 'indistinction' of pure undifferentiated potentiality. All manifestations or modifications of 'substance' represents a break in this equilibrium. Manifested beings partake, therefore, of the three gunas at various degrees, and these are not states, but general conditions which they are subject in their state, by which they are bound in a way, and which determine the actual tendency of their 'becoming'. We need't fit enter a complete expose, regarding the gunas, but only sufficient to see their application to the distinction of elements. We shall not even repeat the definition of each guna, already given on several occasions. We shall merely recall for this is what is most important here, that sattva is represented as an ascending tendency, tamas as a descending tendency, and rajas, which is intermediate between the two, as one expansion in the horizontal plane.
The three gunas must be found in each of the elements, as in everything that belongs to the domain of universal manifestation. But they occur therein different proportions, establishing between these elements a sort of hierarchy, which one may regard as analogous to that hierarchy which, from another incomparably more extensive point of view, is established similarly between the multiple states of Universal Existence, even though it is, here, only a question of simple modalities included inside one and the same state. In water and earth, but particularly in earth, it is tamas that predominates; physically speaking, this descending and compressive force corresponds to gravity or weight. Rajas predominates in air; that is way this element is regarded as endowed essentially with transversal movement. In fire, it is
sattva that predominates, for fire is the luminous element; the ascending force is symbolised by the tendency of the flame to rise up, and it is translated physically by the dilating power of heat, inasmuch as this power opposes the condensation of bodies.
To give a more precise interpretation of this, we can imagine the distinction of the elements as operating inside a sphere: in this sphere the two ascending and descending tendencies we have spoken of will operate following the two opposite directions taken on the same vertical axis, in opposite senses to one another, and going respectively to the two poles; as for the expansion in the horizontal sense, that marks an equilibrium between these two tendencies, it will take place naturally in the perpendicular plane in the middle of this vertical axis, that is the plane of the equator. If we consider now the elements as being distributed in this sphere following the tendencies that predominate in them, the earth, by virtue of the descending tendency of gravity, must occupy the lowest point, which is regarded as the region of obscurity, and which is at the same time the bottom of the waters, while the equator marks their surface, following a symbolism which is, moreover, common to all cosmogonic doctrines, to whatever traditional form they belong. Water occupies, therefore, the lower hemisphere, and if the descending tendency is still affirmed in the nature of this element, we cannot say that its action operates there is an exclusive fashion (or almost exclusive, the necessary coexistence of the three gunas in all things preventing the extreme ever being reached effectively in whatever mode of manifestation). For, if we consider a given point of the lower hemisphere other than the pole, the radius corresponding to this point has an oblique direction, intermediate between the descending vertical and the horizontal. We can, therefore, consider the tendency marked by such a direction as breaking down into two others, of which it is the resultant, and which will respectively be the action of tamas and of rajas. If we relate these two actions to the qualities of water, the vertical aspect, as function of tamas,
will correspond to the density, and the horizontal aspect, as function of rajas, to fluidity. The equator marks the intermediate region, which is that of air, the neutral element that keeps equilibrium between the two opposing tendencies, as rajas between tamas and sattva, to the point where these two tendencies neutralize each other, and which, spreading transversally on the surface of the water(s), separates and delimits the respective zones of water and fire. Indeed, the higher hemisphere is occupied by fire, in which the action of sattva predominates, but where that of rajas still operates, for the tendency at every point of this hemisphere, indicated as previously for the lower hemisphere, is intermediate this time between the horizontal and the ascending vertical: the horizontal aspect, as function of rajas, will correspond here to heat, and the vertical aspect, as function of sattva, to light, inasmuch as heat and light are viewed as two complementary terms that unite in the nature of the igneous element.
In all this, we have not yet spoken of ether: as it is the highest and most subtle of all the elements, we must place it at the highest point, that is at the higher pole, which is the region of pure light, in opposition to the lower pole, which is, as we have
said, the region of darkness. Thus, ether dominates the sphere of the other elements. But, at the same time, one must also consider it as enveloping and penetrating all these elements, whose principle it is, and this by reason of the state of indifferentiation that characterises it, and that allows it to realise a true 'omnipresence' in the corporeal world. As Śankarācārya says in Ātmabodha, 'ether is spread everywhere, and it penetrates at once outside and inside things.' We can, therefore, say that among the elements, ether alone reaches the point where the action of sattva operates at the highest degree. But we cannot localise it there exclusively, as we did for earth at the opposite point, and we must consider it as occupying at once the totality of the elementary domain, whatever, moreover, the geometric representation to be used to symbolise the entirety of this domain. If we have adopted the representation of a spherical figure, this is not only because it is the one that allows the easiest and cleanest interpretation, but also, and even primarily, because it agrees better than any other figure with the general principles of cosmogonic symbolism,
such as one can find in all traditions. There would be in this regard very interesting comparisons to be made, but we cannot enter here into such developments; which would lead too far from the subject of the present study.
Before leaving this part of our account, we have still one last remark to make: namely, if we take the elements in the order in which we have distributed them in their sphere, going from top to bottom, or from the most subtle to the densest, we find again precisely the order indicated by Plato. But here this order, that we may call hierarchical, is not identical with the order of production of the elements and must be carefully distinguished from it. In effect, air there occupies an intermediate rung between fire and water, and it is nonetheless produced before fire, and to tell the truth, the reason for these two different situations is basically the same: namely, that air is in someway a neutral element, and, thus, by this very fact, corresponds to a state of less differentiation than fire and water, because the two tendencies, ascending and descending, perfectly balance each other again. Conversely, this equilibrium is broken in fire to the advantage of the ascending tendency, and in water to the advantage of the descending tendency. And the manifested opinion between the respective qualities of these two elements clearly marks the state of the greatest differentiation to which they correspond. If one adopts the point of view of the production of the elements, it is necessary to regard their differentiation as operating from the centre of the sphere, a primordial point where we will then place ether inasmuch as it is their principle. From this we will have in the first place the horizontal expansion, corresponding to air, then the manifestation of the ascending tendency, corresponding to fire, and that of the descending tendency, corresponding to water first, and then to earth, the stopping point and final end through all elementary differentiations.
We must now enter into some detail on the properties of each of the five elements. And first, to establish that the first of them,
ākāśa or ether, is a real element, distinct from the others. Indeed, as we have already pointed out above, certain people, notably the Buddhists, do not recognise it as such, and on the pretext that it is nirüpa, or 'without form', by virtue of its homogeneity they regard it as a 'non-entity' and identify it with the void, for, to them the homogeneous cannot but be a pure void. The theory of the 'universal void' (sarva-sūnya) is presented here, moreover, as a direct and logical consequence of atomism, for, if there are only atoms in the corporeal world that have a positive existence, and if these atoms must move to conglomerate together and, thus, form all bodies, this movement can only happen in a void. However, this consequence is not accepted by the Kannada school, representative of Vaiśesika, yet heterodox precisely in that it admits Atomism, such that its 'cosmological' point of view is not, however, consistent with itself. Conversely, the Greek 'philosopher physicists' who do not count ether among the elements, are far from all being Atomists, and they rather appear to overlook it than to expressly reject it. Whatever the case, the opinion of the Buddhists is easily refuted by noting that there cannot be empty space, such a conception being contradictory: in the whole domain of universal manifestation, of which space is part, there can be no void because voidness, which can only be conceived negatively, is not a possibility of manifestation. Besides, this conception of an empty space would be of a container without a content, which is obviously nonsense. Ether is, therefore, that which occupies all spaces, but not for that to be confused with space itself. For space, being only a container, that is in short a condition of existence and not an independent entity, cannot, as such, be the substantial principle of bodies, nor give birth to other elements. Ether is, therefore, not space, but really the content of space viewed prior to all differentiations. In this state of primordial indifferentiation, which is a sort of image of 'indistinction' of prakrti relative to this special domain of manifestation that is the corporeal world, ether already encloses in its
power, not only all the elements, but also all bodies, and its homogeneity itself renders it fit to receive all forms in its modifications. Being the principle of corporeal things, it possesses quality, which is a fundamental attribute common to all bodies. Besides, it is considered as essentially simple, always by virtue of its homogeneity, and as impenetrable, because it itself penetrates everything.
Established in this way, the existence of ether is presented wholly otherwise than as a simple hypothesis, and this shows clearly the profound difference that separates tradition doctrine from all modern scientific theories. However, it is relevant to envisage yet another objection: ether is a real element, but this is not enough to prove that it is a distinct one; in other words, it could be that the element that is spread in all corporeal space (we mean by this the space capable of containing bodies) is none other than air, and then it is the latter that would in reality be the primordial element. The answer to this objection is that each of our senses allows us to know, as its proper object, a quality distinct from the ones made known by the other senses. Now, a quality can only exist in something to which it is related as an attribute is to its subject, and, as each sensible quality is, thus, attributed to an element whose characteristic property it is, it must necessarily be that to the five senses correspond five distinct elements.
The sensible quality that is related to ether is sound. This necessitates some explanation which will be easily understood if one envisages the mode of production of sound by the vibratory movement, which is far from being a recent discovery as certain people believe, for Kannada expressly declares that 'sound is propagated by undulations, wave after wave, or ripple after ripple, radiating in all directions, starting from a determined centre'. Such a movement is propagated around its point of departure by concentric ripples, uniformly distributed in all directions of space. This gives birth to the figure of an undefined and unclosed
spheroid. This is the least differentiated movement of all, by virtue of what we can call its 'isotropism', and that is why it can produce all the other movements, which will be distinguished from it inasmuch as they will no more operate in a uniform fashion in all directions. And similarly, all the more particularised forms will proceed from the original spherical form. Thus, the differentiation of primitively homogeneous ether, a differentiation that engenders the other elements, has its origin in an elementary movement produced in the way we have just described, starting from some initial point, in this undefined cosmic environment. But this elementary movement is nothing but the prototype of a sound wave. The auditory sensation is moreover the only one that makes us directly perceive a vibratory movement. Even if one admits, with the majority of modern physicists, that the other sensations result from a transformation of similar movements, it remains no less true that they are qualitatively different from it as sensations, which here is the only essential consideration. On the other hand, after what has just been said, though it is in ether that the cause of sound resides, it must be clearly understood that this cause must be distinguished from the various environments that can secondarily serve for the propagation of sound, and which contribute to making it perceptible to us by amplifying the elementary etheric vibrations, and this all the more so when these environments are more dense. Let us finally add, on this subject, that the sonorous quality is equally sensible in the four other elements, inasmuch as the latter all proceeds from ether. Besides these considerations, the attribution of the sonorous quality to ether, that is to the first of the elements, has yet another profound reason, that is connected to the doctrine of the primordiality and the perpetuity of sound; but this is a point to which we can here only make a simple allusion in passing.
The second element, the one that is differentiated in the first place starting from ether, is vāyu or air. The word vāyu, derived from the verbal root va which means 'to go' or 'to move', properly
designates breath or wind, and, thence, mobility is considered as the essential character of this element. More precisely, air is, as we have already said, regarded as endowed with transversal movement, movement in which all the directions of space no longer play the same role as in the spheroidal movement that we had to view previously, but which operates conversely following a certain particular direction. It is, therefore, in short, rectilinear movement, which is produced by the determination of this direction. This propagation of movement following certain definite directions implies a rupture in the homogeneity of the cosmic environment; and we have thereafter a complex movement, which, no longer being 'isotropic', must be constituted by a combination or coordination of elementary vibratory movements. Such a movement produces equally complex forms, and, as the form is what in the first place effects, touch, the tangible quality can be related to air as belonging properly to it, inasmuch as this element is, by its mobility, the principle of the differentiation of forms. It is, therefore, by the effect of mobility that air is made sensible to us. By analogy, moreover, atmospheric air becomes sensible to touch only by displacement, but, following the remark that we made above in a general way, one must be careful not to identify the element air with this atmospheric air, which is a body, as certain people have not failed to do in establishing certain parallels of this nature. It is, thus, that Kannada declares that air is colourless. And yet it is easy to understand how this must be so, without even referring to the properties of atmospheric air. For colour is a quality of fire, and fire is logically later than air in the order of the development of the elements; this quality is still not, therefore, manifested at the stage represented by air.
The third element is tejas or fire, which is manifested to our senses in two principal aspects, as light and as heat. The quality that belongs to it by its own right is visibility, and, in this regard, it is in its luminous aspect that fire must be viewed. This is too clear to need further explanation, for it is obviously through light
alone that bodies are made visible. According to Kannada. 'Light is coloured, and it is the principle of the coloration of bodies.' Colour is, therefore, a characteristic propriety of right: in light itself, it is white and resplendent; in the various bodies it is variable, and one may distinguish among its modifications simple colours and mixed or blended colours. Let us note that the Pythagoreans, as reported by Plutarch, affirmed equally that 'colours are nothing but a reflection of light, modified in different ways'. One would be greatly mistaken, therefore, to see here yet another discovery of modern science. On the other hand, in its caloric aspect, fire is sensible to touch, in which it produces the impression of temperature; air is neutral in this relation, since it is earlier than fire and heat is an aspect of the latter; and, as for cold, it is regarded as a characteristic property of water. Thus, with regard to temperature as well as in what concerns the action of the two ascending and descending tendencies that we defined previously, fire and water oppose each other, while air is found in a state of equilibrium between these two elements. Moreover, if one considers that cold increases the density of bodies by contracting them, while heat dilates and makes them subtle, one will perceive without difficulty that the correlation of heat and cold with fire and water respectively is included, as a particular application and simple consequence, in the general theory of the three gunas and their distribution in the entirety of the elementary domain.
The fourth element, ap or water, has as characteristic properties, besides the cold that we just spoke of, density or gravity, which is common to it and earth, and fluidity or viscosity, which is the quality which distinguishes it essentially from all the other elements. We have already pointed out the correlation of these two properties with the respective actions of tamas and rajas. On the other hand, the sensible quality that corresponds to water is taste; and one can incidentally remark, although there is no place have to attach too great an importance to considerations of this
sort, that this is found to agree with the opinion of modern physiologists who think that a body is only 'palatable' to the degree that if dissolves in saliva, in other worlds, taste, in anybody, is a consequence of fluidity.
Finally, the fifth and last element is prthvi or earth, which no longer possessing fluidity as does water, corresponds to the most condensed corporeal modality of all. That is why it is in this element that we find gravity, in its highest degree which is manifested in the descent or fall of bodies. The sensible quality that belongs to earth is smell; that is why this quality is regarded as residing in solid particles which, detaching themselves from bodies, enter into contact with the organ of smell. On this point still, there seems to be no disagreement with actual physiological theories; but, moreover, even if there were to be any disagreement, it would basically matter little, for the error must then be found, in any case, with profane science, and not with traditional doctrine.
To end, we will say a few words on the way in which Hindu doctrine views the organs of the senses in their relation to the elements. Since each sensible quality proceeds from an element in which it essentially resides, the organ by which this quality is perceived must conform to it, that is, must itself be of the nature of the corresponding element. It is, thus, that the true organs of the senses are constituted, and, one must distinguish them, conversely to the opinion held by Buddhists, from external organs, that is, from parts of the human body which are only their seats and their instruments. Thus, the true organ of hearing is not the auricle of the ear, but the portion of ether that is contained in the inner ear, and that goes into vibration under the influence of a sound wave; and Kannada observes that it is not at all the first wave, nor the intermediate waves that make us hear the sound, but the last wave that comes into contact with the organ of hearing. Similarly, the true organ of vision is not the ball of the eye, nor the pupil, not the retina, but a luminous principle that resides in the eye, and that enters into communication with the
light emanated by external objects or reflected by them. The luminosity of the eye is not ordinarily visible, but it can become so in certain circumstances, particularly among animals that see in the night. It must be noted besides that the luminous ray by which the visual perception operates, and which extends between the eye and the perceived object, can be considered in two ways, on the one hand, as going from the eye to reach the object, and on the other, reciprocally, as coming from the object to the pupil of the eye. One finds a similar theory of vision among the Pythagorians, and this agrees equally with the definition which Aristotle gives of sensation, conceived as, 'the common act of the perceiver and the perceived.' One may indulge in considerations of the same nature for the organs of each of the other senses; but we think, through these examples, to have given ample indications in this regard.
Such is, exposed in its broad outlines and interpreted as exactly as possible, the Hindu theory of the elements, which, besides the intrinsic interest it presents in itself, is capable of giving an understanding, in a more general way, of what the 'cosmologic' point of view is in traditional doctrines.