Issue #1 Corollary #2

[Guest guest]

THE REACTION OF THE HINDU SYSTEMS AGAINST THE BUDDHIST

CRITICISM:

 

THE NYAAYA-VAISHESHHIKA REPLY:

 

Udayana in his NyAyakiraNAvalI rebuts the Buddhist criticism in

4 ways.

 

REBUTTAL #1

The visual organ is of the nature of light and hence light

goes out to the object in order to apprehend it. Hence the

visual organ is prApyakAri.

 

REBUTTAL #2

Light from the visual organ goes out and spreads out and

hence is able to apprehend objects vaster than itself.

 

REBUTTAL #3

The nearby tree and the far-off moon are NOT apprehended

simultaneously. There is a time-lag in the apprehension of the

two objects. Light being extremely swift, the actual time-lag

is not distinctly felt by us.

 

REBUTTAL #4

Glass, mica etc. are naturally transparent and hence allow the

passage of light. Hence the light of the visual organ can

penetrate them.

 

Hence the visual organ is indeed prApyakAri.

 

Comment: I am not a scientist, but I think modern physics

will throw out into the trash-can rebuttals 1, 2 & 4 of

Udayana. Only rebuttal 3 seems to have some merit. Please

correct me if I am wrong.

 

 

THE SAANKHYA-YOGA REPLY:

 

Aniruddha in his SAnkhyasUtravRtti makes a general defense of

the prApyakAri doctrine of the 5 sense-organs by saying that

if the visual and auditory organs were aprApyakAri, then they

should apprehend all things in the universe without any

distinctions whatsoever.

 

 

THE MIIMAAMSAA REPLY:

 

KumArila BhaTTa in his ShlokavArtikA says that if the auditory

organ is aprApyakAri then all sounds both far & near would be

equally audible. There would be no question of different

degrees of sound intensity.

 

 

The VedAntic tradition as a whole supports the SAnkhya-Yoga

view on this issue.

 

regards,

Hari-vAyu smaraNa,

B.N.Hebbar