Issues in Indian Philosophy #2

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends in Philosophy:

 

Issue #2 is also epistemological in content.

 

ISSUE: Are the 5 sense-organs though material, just purely

physical (bhautika) or psychical or " ego-produced " (ahankArika)?

 

Here is the line-up of the classical Indian systems on this

issue.

 

SENSE-ORGANS ARE PURELY BHAUTIKA:

1. Jainism

2. Buddhism

3. NyAya-VaisheShika

4. Both schools of MImAmsA

 

 

SENSE-ORGANS ARE AHANKAARIKA:

1. SAnkhya-Yoga

2. The 3 schools of VedAnta

 

 

regards,

Hari-vAyu smaraNa,

B.N.Hebbar

[Guest guest]

Dear shrI Krishna Kalale:

 

Thank you for your kind input. In SAnkhya-Yoga & VedAnta, you

are right in pointing out that ahankAra evolves from PrakRti.

But then, MUlaprakRti itself has two aspects to it, i.e. gross

matter that is not capable of reflecting the consciousness of

the soul (jIva) and the antaHkaraNa triad of buddhi, aham &

manas that are capable of reflecting the consciousness of the

soul tho' they themselves are non-conscious entities. The

apparent transference of consciousness (especially in

SAnkhya-yoga) is illustrated by the " wall-mirror " analogy, where

the wall is incapable of image reflection and the mirror (tho'

material also) is fully capable of reflecting an image.

 

The other camp consisting of Jainas, Bauddhas, NyAya-VaisheShika

& MImAmsA have no such entity called ahankAra evolving out of

MUlaprakRti. To them, Matter is essentially atomic (aNusvarUpa)

and the sense-organs are nothing more than atomic aggregates

(aNuskandhas) and hence purely physical.

 

The two camps reflecting the two trends in classical Indian

thought on this issue.

 

regards,

Hari-vAyu smaraNa

B.N.Hebbar

[Guest guest]

Dear shrI Kalale:

 

The Bimba-pratibimba bhAva is the " prototype-reflection " analogy.

According to this doctrine, we jIvAtmas are reflections of the

Lord (albeit in various grades & shades and NEVER EQUAL to

Him in whatsoever manner) of His saccidAnanda svarUpa. In

short, the Lord is saccidAnanda and so are we jIvas (as long

as it not understood in the Advaita sense).

 

In fact shrI Jaya TIrtha, AcArya Madhva's commentator par

excellence, looks upon one of the meanings of " tat tvam asi "

as per the Bimba-pratibimba bhAva doctrine. As you know, the

official Dvaita reading is " atat tvam asi " not " tat tvam asi " .

 

I hope this helps.

 

regards,

Hari-vAyu smaraNa

B.N.Hebbar

[Guest guest]

Dear shrI Vijayaraghavan:

 

Many of these issues are in a certain sense discrete issues

per se, yet there is an overall connectedness in that these

brilliant and enquiring ancestors of ours wanted to know all

they could with regard to the nature & function of the

sense-organs which are one of the sources of knowledge accepted

by all systems, including the LokAyatas.

 

We must also keep in mind that all this took place when

religion, philosophy & science were closely connected and not

as clearly demarcated as in our times. One can only wonder

what these brilliant men would have done had they the tools

that are available to the modern man. Yet in spirituality they

were far ahead of us.

 

Let me leave you with a quote from Sir William Jones, the

first British Sanskritist:

 

" It is a pity that such a wondrous and glorious heritage was

left behind by such worthy ancestors to such undeserving

descendents. "

 

regards,

Hari-vAyu smaraNa

B.N.Hebbar