Kanekal's input on Issue #1

[Guest guest]

>Do the 5 sense-organs apprehend their objects only when they

>come into direct contact with them or not necessarily so? If

>the former, then the sense-organ is called prApyakAri. If the

>latter, then it is aprApyakAri.

>

 

Dear Balaji and Fips (Friends in Philosophy),

As far as I can tell modern science would be at variance with all

the

schools of Indian philosophy! Science would say that all senses are

aprApyakAri.

 

Let me illustrate first with the sense of sight.

What happens when " see " according to physics and biology is as

folllows:

Photons from a source are reflected off by an external object and

impinge

upon the retina where the cells known as rods and cones generate

electrical

impulses which travel along the optic nerve into the brain where

" seeing "

may be said to take place. Hence the eye is not in " direct contact with

the object " .

 

Similarly for sound - just replace the light waves by sound, the eye by

the

ear .. etc

 

Now smell - same thing except the sensations are produced by nerve

endings reacting to molecules. In this connection it is worth while to

remember that certain ocean going birds for example, can smell thier

" food "

as far away as several miles!

 

Finally touch: According to physics most of " material objects " are

" really "

empty space! At the submicroscopic level the hard " table " turns out to

be

collection of atoms with attractive forces holding the whole thing

together.

However other forces prevent the atoms from collapsing " one on top of

another "

.When we touch the atoms in our finger for example do not come in

contact with

the atoms of the table but " feel " a force that tends to push them

apart. That

is " touch " ; after the usual nerve transmission to the brain...etc.

 

The situation gets more complicated however with the fundamental

concepts

of quantum mechanics being still unsettled. Things like observer

participation

non-locality, collapse of the wave-function question the very notion of

an

" objective external reality " . This is a more modern approach. Einstein

however

believed strongly in the " objective external reality " . Modern Physics

may be

seen to be tackling some very very fundamental questions.

 

>6. All 3 principal schools of VedAnta: All 5 sense-organs are

>prApyakAri. Agree with the SAnkhya-Yoga view.

>

>best view (I am saying this, since we ALL consider ourselves

>to be VedAntins)? In short, how would one " defend the faith "

>on THIS issue?

 

I would " defend the faith " by appealing to such general statements such

as

" parIkshita pratyaksha is the final arbiter (for worldly matters

anyway) "

as Madhva says and see the attempts by our philosophers as steps along

the

" search for truth " . I do not know how the orthodoxy would react to such

" liberal " interpretations.

 

best regards,

Shri

 

 

 

======================================================================

Shri Kanekal phone: (301)286-6517

Code 696 FAX : (301)286-1648

Goddard Space Flight Center

Greenbelt Road

Greenbelt, MD 20771

======================================================================