Tadas Snuviškis

This paper examines the modern scholarly discourse on Vaiśeṣika philosophical interpretations from the early nineteenth century to the present. The range of interpretations is striking, stretching from dominant realist readings to more marginal idealist accounts. The paper traces key stages in this evolving discourse and highlights the most influential contributors. Early interpretations by Colebrooke, Müller, Chatterji, and others were shaped by the scientific and empiricist trends of their time, establishing a predominantly realist reading that has strongly influenced contemporary understandings. A new wave of studies, exemplified by Frauwallner and Shastri from the 1940s onward, introduced more philologically grounded and critical perspectives. More recently, alternative readings offered by scholars such as Gradinarov and Murakami have questioned the adequacy of the standard realist paradigm and emphasized other, often overlooked, dimensions of the system. Current research may be broadly grouped into four interpretive trends: a philological-textual school deriving from Frauwallner’s method; the Japanese exegetical tradition; the analytic-philosophical approach; and a neo-traditional strand represented by Indian scholars working within the classical framework. By charting these trajectories, the article argues that viewing Vaiśeṣika simply as “realist” is both historically and philosophically insufficient. In line with its broader aim, the study offers a balanced interpretive map, one that can serve as a resource for future scholarship and help navigate beyond reductive or one-dimensional readings.

Daśapadārthī is a text of Indian philosophy and the Vaiśeṣika school only preserved in the Chinese translation made by Xuánzàng 玄奘 in 648 BC. The translation was included in the catalogs of East Asian Buddhist texts and subsequently in the East Asian Buddhist Canons despite clearly being not a Buddhist text. Daśapadārthī is almost unquestionably assumed to be written by a Vaiśeṣika 勝者 Huiyue 慧月 in Sanskrit reconstructed as Candramati or Maticandra. But is that the case? The author argues that the original Sanskrit text was compiled by the Buddhists based on previously existing Vaiśeṣika texts for an exclusively Buddhist purpose and was not used by the followers of Vaiśeṣika. That would explain Xuanzang’s choice for the translation as well as the non-circulation of the text among Vaiśeṣikas.