Issues in Indian Philosophy #1

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends in Philosophy:

 

I would like to take a new approach to the issues that I

had outlined earlier for discussion. Instead of approaching

issues in the " bare two yards " (just VishiShTAdvaita & Dvaita)

way, let us look at a thing in its " whole nine yards " (i.e.

from the perspective of ALL systems of Indian thought on a

given issue). This way there is more room for discussion and

perhaps less room for animosity (which I myself am guilty of).

 

So here is the first issue (an epistemology issue)

 

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.

 

This is the cadence of the views of the Indian Philosophical

systems on this issue:

 

1. Jainism: The visual organ alone is aprApyakAri while the

remaining 4 sense-organs are prApyakAri. Even here, touching &

tasting are gross (sthUla) while smelling & hearing are subtle

(sUkShma).

 

2. Buddhism: The visual and auditory organs are aprApyakAri,

while the remaining 3 are prApyakAri.

 

3. NyAya-VaisheShika: All 5 sense-organs are prApyakAri. But

while visual organ alone " goes out " to meet its object, the

other 4 senses come into contact with their objects while

" remaining in their seats " (AdhiSThAna sannikarSha).

 

4. SAnkhya-Yoga: All 5 sense-organs are prApyakAri. Both the

visual and auditory organs " go out " to meet their objects. The

other 3 senses " remain in their seats " .

 

5. Both schools of MImAmsA: All 5 sense-organs are prApyakAri.

Agree with the NyAya-VaisheShika view.

 

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

prApyakAri. Agree with the SAnkhya-Yoga view.

 

 

I invite and request one and ALL that are interested to offer

their comments, observations, criticisms etc. on the above.

Should the above issue which is largely " worldly " (unlike

karma, mokSha etc.) be abandoned in favor of the modern

scientific view (if there is any one proven one in the first

place) or should these continue to be shAstraic and

sAmpradAyic? In that case, why would the VedAntic view be the

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?

 

regards,

Hari-vAyu smaraNa

B.N.Hebbar