Book Title: Outlines of Indian Philosophy
Author(s): M Hiriyanna
Publisher: George Allen and Unwin Ltd

Previous | Next

Page 204
________________ 204 OUTLINES OF INDIAN PHILOSOPHY described as 'indeterminate (nirvikalpaka)," which we may perhaps regard as mere sensation. Here the mind is passive; but in the next stage of determinate perception it becomes active leading to a subjective elaboration of the svalaksana and the consequent blurring of it, to speak from the metaphysical standpoint. Thus common perceptual experience is true only so far as the sva-lakşaņa is concerned. Whatever is associated with it then-all the conceptual elements or sämänya-laksaņas as they are termed--whether a universal like cow-ness or an attribute like whiteness-is superposed by the mind (kalpanā) upon it and is not to be taken as an ontological fact. The particular alone is real, not the general. The latter is in fact as unrelated to the former as the name or verbal sign by which we refer to it. The general feature is nothing more than a working fiction, a convenient device in thinking. So the realism of the Vaibhāşika, as that of the Sautrāntika, does not indicate the being of anything except the sva-laksanas; but while the one admits that a sva-lakşaņa is directly cognized, the other views it as known indirectly. Both alike endow the perceiving mind with a constructive side on account of which reality becomes vastly transformed when it is experienced. The resemblance between such a view and Kant's will be obvious to the student of Western philosophy. The Buddhistic realist also, like Kant, assumes a thing-in-itself (svalaksana) and explains the actual content of perception as the result of the mind imposing its own forms3 upon it. But the two views are not identical, since the Buddhist assumes that the sva-laksana is known, whether directly or indirectly: and it is not, therefore, unknowable like Kant's 'thing-initself.' Reality is not only given but is also known. There is also the fact that the forms imposed by the mind upon it are not, as we shall see in the next section, exactly the same as they are in Kant's view. Buddhistic idealism also is of two types: The first of them These are respectively termed adhyavasaya and grahaņa (See SDS. p. 22), which names imply that the former is a judgment while the latter is bare sensation. Cf. NM. Pp. 93 and 303. 3 Kalpana hi buddhi-višeşah: SV. p. 306 (com.).

Loading...

Page Navigation
1 ... 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419