On Term Antahsamjna

Author(s): A Wezler
Publisher: A Wezler

Page 11

WEZLER : On the term Antahed mjña
121
Since man in this state is, as is expressly stated, 49 not conceived of as being deprived of each and every form of consciousness, it might seem not unreasonable - in spite of the textual problem discussed in the foregoing — that he, or the puruşa, is said to “ have internal consciousness " then.
However, this theory is not easily connected with Medhātithi's second explanation of the term antahsamjnu. For this latter conspicuously lacks not only any reference to antallsamiña being used to characterize man when in deep sleep, but also all signs of an influence exercised on it by the / a Samkhya-Yoga theory of deep sleep. To do justice to it, it is sufficient to assume that the state of sleep, intoxication and swoon are pointed out primarily with the aim of exemplifying and thereby explaining the peculiar insensitiveness of plants by analogizing it to these states of consciousness, well known to every human being if not from his own experience then from observations in others.
The central question, still to be examined, is hence if Medhātithi by his second explanation as it stands really accomplishes what he claims to do, viz. to offer a convincing explanation for antaḥsamjna being used to refer to plants. The answer can, I think, only be to the negative. For, plants are always, i. e. by their very nature, antahsamgña, while man's consciousness is turned inwards or drawn back to the interior only when he is in deep sleep or a similar state; and this implies that the term was coined to characterize man when in one of these states and only thereafter transferred to plants also. For there is by far greater likelihood that what led to its coining in the first place was a particular state, palpably different from the normal' one, of that species of living beings to which consciousness in the fullest sense is intrinsic; and the idea of an “ interior", to which consciousness can be drawn back or (intermittently) confined, is ultimately intelligible only if it was conceived with regard to man. There is, however, not only no evidence whatsoever to warrant such an assumption, but the very nature of the available references also clearly points in the opposite direction, as has already been stated. It is hence not at all surprising that later commentators on the Manusmrti do not even mention Medhatithi's explanation.
2. 4. 3. That this explanation can thus be safely ruled out, does not, of course, mean that his first one bas by necessity to be accepted. But it has in any case to be examined next and should certainly be given full attention before I venture on my own on an altogether new explanation.
The concluding sentence, viz. anyuthāntar eva sarvaḥ puruşaś cetayate, refers clearly, though not necessarily intentionally, to a peculiar element of the
49. Cf. e. g. Vācaspatimigra's remark (1, c.): kasmāt punar niruddhakaivalyayor iva orttyabhāva eva na nidrety ata dha - 8à ca eam prabodhe prat yaramar fat ... pratyayanifesah 1. RGB...16