Kanekal's input on Issue #1

[Guest guest]

What is the philosophical consequence of senses being

prAypakAri or aprAypakAri? I am afraid I do not

understand why the distinction is so important.

 

Mani

[Guest guest]

Mani:

 

Thanks for your inquiry. Firstly, it was just an integral part

of the pramANa vicAra shAstra. When one school of thought

enunciated its official opinion on a particular issue, it

became almost contingent on the rest to either agree with the

first view or come up with one of your own. It was almost

un-shAstraic NOT to do so. You find this happening over and

over again in the history of the Indian philosophical

enterprise.

 

Also, if the sense-organs were an important source of

knowledge, the philosopher wanted to know the entire " why " &

" how " of it in terms of their NATURE & FUNCTIONS. In other

words, if the senses are one of the avenues of true and

reliable information, the question then comes up about the

mechanics of the reception of that information. And as the

schools delved more and more into this, opinions started to

differ from one school to the next on this. Hence the debate

on this.

 

Finally, we must remember that in every system of thought, the

epistemology colors its metaphysics and that in turn its

ethics. After all, it is the " Right Knowledge (sadvidyA) of

Reality (Tattva) " that eventually leads to Salvation (mukti). So

the idea is to examine all aspects of an important

information-provider, i.e. the 5 sense-organs.

 

regards,

B.N.Hebbar