Book Title: Indian Logic Part 03
Author(s): Nagin J Shah
Publisher: Sanskrit Sanskriti Granthmala

Previous | Next

Page 127
________________ INDIAN LOGIC 116 of just earth even if water etc. play a role in its construction; in all probability, a submission of this sort has been made with a view. to sustaining the general supposition that a composite body cannot be made up of heterogeneous component parts. (2) Sense-organ The aphorist says that the five sense-organs nose, tongue, eye, skin, ear are made up of physical elements." By way of explaining Jayanta first submits that the visible body-parts nose, tongue etc. are not themselves the sense-organs in question but are the locus of these sense-organs which are themselves invisible.' To this it is added that the sense-organs cannot grasp their respective objects unless it be maintained that they are made up of the physical elements; the understanding is that the four sense-organs nose etc.. are made up of the four physical elements earth etc. while the sense-organ ear is of the form of sky confined within the ear-drum.' The point is made clear by way of refuting the Sankhya objection that the sense-organs are made up of aharhkära rather than the physical elements because in the latter' case a sense-organ like eye should not grasp a distant-lying object; the refutation consists in pointing out that the sense-organ eye is not the visible eye-spot but something invisible made up of fire which actually reacts up to the object grasped through eye. It is granted that a medicine applied to the eye-spot improves the efficiency of the sense-organ eye but the explanation is that that is so because the eye-spot is the locus. of the sense-organ eye. The suggestion that the sense-organ eye grasps its object without reacting up to this object is rejected on the ground that no sense-organ can grasp its object without coming in contact with this object." However, the Sankhya position that a sense-organ reacts up to its object because it is made up of ahamkara rather than a physical element is rejected on the ground that in that case nothing should distinguish one sense-organ from another.12 Essentially on the same ground is rejected an anonymous position according to which all sense-organs are of the form of skin, though different because of being located in different body-parts." Really, this seems to be a sensible enough position, in any case more sensible than the one defended by Jayanta who for some reasons is highly sarcastic in referring to this position calling its advocates 'gods in the form of men'. Lastly is criticised the Sänkhya

Loading...

Page Navigation
1 ... 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226