365bet娱乐

Regarding sense-organ Gautama says that nose, tongue, eye, skin and ear are the senses produced from elements. 53 Nose is the same nature as earth, tongue as water, eye as light, skin as air and ear as ether. He does not include mind as sixth sense-organ. According to him the mark of mind is that there do not arise (in the soul) more acts of knowledge than one at a time. 34 Again he argues that mind can not be the abode of knowledge, desire, aversion etc. It is soul as we have mentioned Knowledge, desire, aversion etc. abide in the soul through an intimate connection. Therefore, mind can not be a sense-organ. According to S.C.Vidyabhusana, 'it is impossible to perceive two things simultaneously. Perception does not arise merely from the contact of a sense-organ with its object, but it requires also a conjunction of the mind. The mind which is an atomic substance, can not be conjoined with more than one sense-organ at a time, hence there can not occur more acts of perception than one at one time Annambhatta says that sense-organ is a form of earth, a sub-division of earth. He does not offer any definition of 'indriya', but simply says that the earthly sense-organ is the cogniser (grahaka) of smell. In dipika, 'indriya' is 52. 53. atrapi hastadavativyaptivaranayantyavayaviti nivesyam. Sri Kesava Misra pranita Tarkabhasa p.125. ghrana-rasana-caksus-tvak-srotrani indriyani bhutebhyah//Nyayasutra 1.1.12. yuga pajjnananutpattih 'manaso lingam '// Ibid. 1.1.16. 54. 55. Sacred Books of Hindus Vol. VIII. p.8. }

181 defined as "that which being not-the-seat of a manifest specific quality other than sound, is the seat of that conjunction-with-manas which is a condition of cognition." "56 According to Kesava Misra, a sense-organ is in contact with the body and is the instrument of cognition and is unperceivable. 57 Then Kesava Misra explains the meanings of the words occurring in the definition of sense-organ. If only instrument of cognition which is unperceivable were the whole definition of sense organ, then the definition would be too wide to include epistemic relations of the sense-organs with the objects. By adding the definition 'contact with the body' the definition excludes the epistemic relations. If the whole definition were only 'contact with the body and instrument of cognition' then the definition of sense-organ would be too wide to include light. To avoid this, the additional property of unperceivability is given in the definition. Thus the whole definition of sense organ is correct. There are six sense-organs. Kesava Misra includes manas (mind) as in internal sense-organ over all the five. He again explains the nature and constitution of the sense-organs. He shows that only the sense- organ of touch pervades the whole body. It is of the nature of air. The sense-organ of hearing is the ear which is not a different substance, but it is akasa surrounded by the physical ear. The manas is the sense-organ of internal qualities like pleasure etc. It has 56. sabdetarodbhutavisesagunanasrayatve sati jnanakaranamanahsamyoga- srayatvam indriyatvam. Tarkasamgraha-dipika 10. 57. sarirasamyuktam jnanakaranamatindriyam indriyam. Tarkabhasa p.170.

182 the magnitude of an atom. Then Kesava Misra asks: what is the evidence of sense-organs like the eyes? He himself answers that the evidence is inference. The inference is the awareness of colour, etc., can only be due to an instrumental cause, because it is an action like cutting a piece of wood. It should be noted here that the sense organs produce cognition of objects by performing an action. This action is the operation of the sense organs and this operation is really the epistemic relation of the sense organs with their objects.