Book Title: Studies in Indian Philosophy
Author(s): Dalsukh Malvania, Nagin J Shah
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

View full book text
Previous | Next

Page 111
________________ 84 Studies in Indian Philosophy these two extremes. People use sentence such as (9c ), under stood to mean that this body is the self, but they also say (11) ' This is my body'. from which one understands ones body and oneself to be distinct related things. 12 In everyday life, the body and the self are not discriminated. No one grasps them as totally distinct objects. No one says, “This is the body, this is the self,' as though he had grasped the two as objects of fully discriminated cognitions. Thus, people are indeed confused concerniüg just what sort of thing this self is, 13 From examples such as (9), one can see that linguistic usage contributes to this confusion. Such sentences are acceptable. People see nothing strange in talking of themselves as physical beings with properties like colors. 14 Reasoning with anvaya and vyatireka in connection with the self serves in the first instance to show that certain things are not properly the self. As shown earlier, Śarkara refutes an argument of materialists by showing that (5a, b) do not hold in all instances. Sureśvara uses similar reasoning to demonstrate that certain entities should not be treated as being the self (anātman 'other than the self '). Consider two reasons he gives for concluding that the physical body is not the self.15 The first has to do with properties. It is taken for granted that people have no doubts concerning two extremes : Things like water pots are not the self, and whatever else the self may be, it is a perceiving entity.16 Now a pot has the property of being to be seen, of being an object of perception, but it is never an agent of perceiving. I addition, it must be granted that the physical body is no less susceptible of being seen than a pot, and by the same means. Suppose, then, one claimed the physical body to be the self. For this to be acceptable, it would have to be demonstrated that the body too has tbe property of being a perceiving agent. But of course it does not. In other words, (la, b) do not hold if the values of X and Y, respectively, are the physical Jain Education International For Private & Personal Use Only www.jainelibrary.org

Loading...

Page Navigation
1 ... 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352