We have pleasure in presenting to readers this unique book which forms the collection of papers presented by eminent scientists and oriental pandits on Perception.
Of late there is a healthy tendency on the part of scientists all over the world to study and recognize the vast deep and original knowledge our traditional sastras contain. Therefore an effort was made to bring the scientists and pandits together to exchange their views and arrive at a consensus. This was a seminar arranged by the bengin blessings of their holinesses Sri Abhinava Vidyatheertha mahasanndhanam and Sri Bharathitheertha Sannidhanam the jagadgurus of sri Sharada peetam Sringeri.
The idea was conceived by Swami Paramananda bharathi a scientist in his purvasrama with deep understanding of both modern science and sastras. Under his able guidance authoritative and authentic views his able guidance authoritative and authentic views emerged from both the scientists and pandits. The Seminar revealed that many subtle points in sastras have remained under cover and the diverse philosophical systems in India might have much to contribute to our understanding of perception. This seminar on perception was held from August 15 to 18, 1985 at Sri Shankara Math Bangalore.
There was very good response from the public who attended the special lectures in the evenings in large numbers apart from a good number of elite attending the morning and afternoon sessions. This prompted us to present the papers in a book form which we expect will be received with acclaim.
We prostrate at the lotus feet of his holiness Sri Jagadguru Shankaracharya of Sri Sharada Peetham, Sringeri Sri Abhinava Vidyatheertha Mahasannidhanam who ahs graciously blessed our venture and has embellished this book with his benediction. We also offer our pranams at the holy feet of his holiness. Sir jagadguru Bharathitheertha Sannidhanam permanent trustee of our trust who benevolently permitted this book to be published by our trust.
Our pranams are due to Swami Paramananda Bharathi who has been the spirit behind the activities from organizing the seminar to publishing this book.
Editing a volume of this type was not an easy matter for the original papers were in three languages Sanskrit Kannada and English. A well knit group of scholars with command over all the three languages and the topic of the Seminar was present throughout the entire deliberations and rendered all papers discussions comments and views into English. Incorporating all this Prof. T.M. Srinivasan and Smt. B.G. Sreelakshmi have edited these proceedings. Their effort has been stupendous and we can not be adequately grateful to them.
The efforts put forth by the members of staff Sri Shankara Math for the Systematically and ably organized seminar are praiseworthy.
The director national Aeronautical Laboratory has lent us visual projection apparatus etc. we are thankful to him.
In conducting the seminar and compiling the papers the yeomen services rendered by a large number of volunteers deserve our gratitude.
Our thanks are also due to M/s Elgee Enterprises Bangalore for having printed the book excellently.
We consider that our efforts will be complete and successful if the readers can get an insight into our sastras and a quest begins in this direction with earnest.
Darsana Sastras are six: (1) Nyaya, (2) Vaisesika, (3)Samkhya, (4) Yoga, (5) Mimamsa and (6) Vedanta. Among these, only the vaisesika makes the study of nature as its main concern, though others also deal with it when necessary. However, one axiomatic thought common for all of them is the following:
The whole creation is ultimately intended for the experience of the Soul. (The word Soul is used in its popular meaning but will be clearly defined in the sequel). This is also the belief of modern physicists. Only they have not elevated it to the status of an axiom and derived its consequences as is done in the Sastras. The lead that the Sastras have taken over others because of this postulation will be envied even by the modern physicists. It is this: they were able to study the combined system, viz., the observed and the observer, even from the start. Here I am using the word observer with the same meaning as used by von Neumann[1]. It may be a measuring Instrument or more inwardly, the sense organs or the brain and so on. That is, as we go inwards, what was previously the observer later becomes the observed. philosophically this feature of the observed and the observer is of seminal importance. It may also be noted in another way: a length is measured by a scale which is only another length. The other length is an immutable length which does not undergo any changes due to either internal or external agencies. Similarly, a weight is measured only by another immutable weight and so on. Thus the observed cannot be of an entirely different category than the observer. If it were, it cannot be observed at all [2].
tatra yadyadatmakamindriyam visesat tattadatmakameva, artham anugrhanati tatsvabhavat
Further, the axiom of the Sastras mentioned above also leads to the conclusion that nature, as perceived through the senses, can have only the five divisions corresponding to the five senses. These are the five elements they speak of: akasa (ether), vayu (gas), agni (light), ap (liquid) and Prthvi (solid) for which the respective sense organs are ear, skin, eye, tongue and nose. The correspondence that is envisaged here is that the two members of each pair of the observed and the observer belong to the same category. This classification called Pancikarana is the basis of ancient Hindu Physics and is based on direct perception. It is in exact opposition to the methods of modern thought which goes on subdividing matter into molecules, then into atoms, then into nuclei, then into elementary particles and so on endlessly. Even after accepting this classification of Pancikarana somewhat similar effort has been made by the vaisesika school[3] without success[4]. Nature is already too complex and so it is better to try to understand it on the basis of the perceptible classification on Pancikarana rather than add to the complexity by contrived subdivisions. Such a 'divide to know' policy can yield only a time-dependent knowledge of nature, since it rests exclusively on the cleverness (or, sometimes even the authority!) of the scientists at that time[5].
Among these five sense perceptions, touch and taste are mediated by direct physical contact of the observed and the observer. of course, it is necessary that the manas (mind) be tuned to the information input coming from the sense organs. This tuning in of manas is referred to as its 'contact' with the sense organ. Only with this contact, manas takes the 'image' of the object and this experience is called perception. Actual verification of perception by direct contact of the objects with the sense organs of touch and taste, now enables the guess that other perceptions also need such a 'direct contact'. Working on this guess, the Sastras conclude that the smell of an object is mediated by molecules of the object[6]. Therefore it is also by 'direct contact'. When this guess is verified by experiment, 'perception by direct contact' is exalted to an axiom.
The next step would be to incorporate this 'direct contact' axiom in the case of auditory and visual perceptions. But before this, we need to know why it is necessary to incorporate it. A physicist would say that the scattered light from an object interacts with the eye with which mind is tuned and so the retinal image would lead to perception of the object. Similarly he would say the sound vibrations would impinge on the eardrum and its corresponding vibrations would give the auditory perception. But Sastras raise an objection to this explanation: they say that in this way, the observer should get the perception of the retinal image or the vibrations of the eardrum and not the external objects or external sounds! When one looks at a clock, it is not the case that he perceives the moving wheels and springs inside and not the moving hands outside. Therefore, visual and auditory perceptions must also be transacted with 'direct contact' of the mind with the object through the indriyas (sense organs)[7].
tatraikam sparsanamindriyanam indriyavyapakam Before analysing the nature of this 'direct contact' we consider another question. It is the following: From where the initiative should come for this contact? Is it from the object or the observer? It cannot be from the object, say the Sastras, since the objects are inert. Even by definition everyone knows that there is no inertia where initiative is and no initiative where inertia is. Initiative exists only in intelligence. So it can come from the observer and not from the object. The scattered light from an object may fall on the eyes, but still the object may not be seen. Only when mind takes the initiative and 'touches' the eye indriya the necessary process for perception starts. The pupillary aperture of the eye undergoes rapid oscillations, each configuration of the aperture being better suited to receive the image than the previous and the oscillations go on till the best image is obtained under the conditions. That is, the indriya processes the input information. This process is too fast and is not generally noticed. However, it can be observed with the help of appropriate instrumentation.
But is it not true that when the input signal is a bit strong, it provokes perception? So, can it not be said that the initiative is from the outside signal? No, it cannot be. Indeed, the strength of the signal is not even relevant here. Consider the situation when the signal is outside the range of normal perception.
Then the observer searches for it with refined instruments, if necessary. Moreover, if one is clinically unconscious, perception is impossible however strong, the input is. But normally, mind is outwardly and is ever ready to receive outside information[8].
Perception of the environment is necessary for the survival of living organisms. Even a single- celled amoeba reacts to stimuli, assimilates food from the environment and survives. A more complex organism has more complex processes that extend from its centre to periphery. A network of neurons, popularly called nerves, interconnects all portions of the periphery to the centre. As the periphery became complex during evolution, different specialised receptors evolved, some sensing the light energy, others respectively sound, touch, smell and taste. All these complex signals are carried to the brain which is the central station, through the spinal cord which is a bulky cable system. As the brain became complex, the number of neurons or nerve cells proliferated with tremendously large number of interconnections between themselves and with the periphery, making the brain larger and larger. The humans seem to have the largest-sized brain in comparison to the rest of the body. One may define the direction of evolution by considering the weight of the brain of different species in relation to their body weight. The humans by far outstrip all animals in this respect. The qualities of speech, mentation, idea generation, appreciation and interaction with the environment etc., seem to be in abundant measure in humans.
In all these interactions, perception plays a prominent role in conveying information from the environment to the person. Sensory perception provides an enormous amount of information to the brain of an individual during every moment of his/ her existence. The current theories in physiology are based on extensive research on animals and humans and many interesting details in this area are elucidated. However, it should be realized that many intriguing phenomena in perception have not been explained presently in modem science. We shall survey the current concepts in sensory perception, the psychology of perception and some of the outstanding problems that need elucidation. The papers that follow, summarize these ideas and suggest possible extensions of the theories necessary for understanding these phenomena. An introduction to these papers is provided below.
The first paper by Dr. Lord presents the various sensory modalities, the sense organs of sight, hearing, touch, smell and taste and the nerve connections to the brain. The external stimuli in the form of physio-chemical energies impinge on the body and stimulate the receptors which carry this information to the brain. A large number of specialized receptors cover the body surface, each one dedicated to a specific function. For example, there are different receptors for heat and cold, for pressure and for different taste sensations etc.
These raw signals are electro-chemical in nature and depending on the sensory mode, a certain amount of processing is carried out by the sensory organs themselves. This is true for the eyes and, to a certain extent, for the ears. The inputs are carried from the periphery to the brain by the nervous system through an intricate electro-chemical process whose details are well known presently. Specific areas in the brain are devoted to specific sensory appreciation. However, the integration of the sensory input which is ultimately responsible for the appreciation of the external world is still unexplained. How the brain interprets the upside- down image it receives from the retina of the eyes or how the brain appreciates different tonal qualities or fixes the position of the source of sound etc., is not fully known.
In the second paper, Sri N. Krishnaswamy deals with the details of visual perception and visual illusions. Being a vital sensory organ for survival, vision has come under intense study by many research groups. Unlike the ear which is also an organ of distant perception, the eyes are aware of the fields of view rather than just the vision of right and left sides of the person. In other words, the right eye may be thought of as consisting of two halves, the right half gathering information from the right field of view and the left half, from the left field of view. Similarly, the right half of the left eye is sensitive to the right field of view and the left half of the left eye is sensitive to the left field of view. These inputs are again combined in the brain in an unknown fashion to present the details of the external world to the person.
Also the psychology of perception is an unchartered territory. Several illusions abound, natural and man-made. Illusions arise because objective perception is prejudiced by our previous knowledge of the object. That is, the brain sees what it is used to and what it wants to see, rather than the actual details present in the object. Skewed images of rooms are not seen if an object of comparison is presented; rotating objects (such as windows, which in actual experience do not rotate) seem to open and close etc. Hence, sensory perception and appreciation have a strong component of previous experience and present reference frame in which perception takes place. The brain also fills the missing portions of an incomplete image based on its previous experience. Thus, for a complete experience, one has to take into account the psychological or mind-related processes also. Even emotions of anger, elation etc., playa vital role in the process of interpreting the raw sensory data.
In his paper, Dr. H.S. Subramanyam deals in detail with the psychology of perception bringing more ideas to bear on the mind-related experiences of perceptual information. Attention and motivation become very important factors in the perceptual process. As we go deeper into the psychological processes of perception, modern science is still vague and indefinite. The intricate processing that goes on in the brain, the 'tuning in' of the mind to brain processes, the extraction of information even in a very noisy environment, the 'filling in' of details by the brain of an incomplete image, the comparison of incoming data with already available information, total integration of all inputs resulting in an appropriate response of the entire organism to the input stimulus - are all still under investigation in the psycho-physiological laboratories round the world.
About the Book
This book is devoted to a critical analysis of the nature of the proof, perception in relation to the other two proofs, namely, Inference and Verbal Testimony, according to Advaita. The basic doctrine of Advaita, namely the Self is unseen and the scene is non-real is elucidated herein.
About the Author
Dr V.M. Ananthanarayanan, a specialist in Sahitya and Advaita Vedanta, is Associate Professor, Department of Sanskrit, National College, Tiruchirapalli. He has participated in a number of National and International Seminars and has published many papers in the philosophical journal, The Voice of Sankara, He has edited many texts in Sanskrit. His publications include: Anangavijayabhana of Jagannatha, Mallikamaruta of Uddanda and Ksatracudamani of Vadibhasimha.
Foreword
Dr V.M. Ananthanarayanan, Associate Professor in the Department of Sanskrit at National College, Tiruchirapalli, worked as apart-time Research Scholar from 1991 to 1999 in the Department of Sanskrit, University of Madras, and wrote his doctoral thesis On Perception. The thesis earned for him the Ph.D. Degree of the University of Madras in 1999. It is now published by the Adi Sankara Advaita Research Centre, Chennai.
The present work discusses the epistemological status of the proof, perception (pratyaksa) and its relation to the other two proofs, Inference (anumana) and the Verbal testimony (sabda). The discussion is most required and necessary in order to confirm the validity of the Advaita position that the world known through perception is non- real, and so the Self which is the ultimate reality is non-dual or free from any duality.
The Bthadaranyaka text, salila eko drasa advaitah (4.3.32) states that the Self is as clear as pellucid water (salilah) It is free from difference from objects of the same kind (ekah) and also from objects of dissimilar kind (advaitah); and it is self-luminous consciousness (drasta). The word “Advaita” belongs to a class of compounds in which component members designate something else. Accordingly it means “that wherein there is absence of duality” (na vidyate dvaitam yatra). The word “dvaita” signifies the state of being manifold and when applied to the world it suggests both numerousness and diversity in its forms, features, qualities, characters, and aspects. The negative particle “naft” negates the existence of” dvaita” or the world characterized by duality. The word “Advaita”, therefore, stands for the Self which is the substratum of the absence of the world.
Another text of the same Upanisad, neha nanasti kincana (4.4.19) conveys the absence of the world in general in the Self. Yet another text of the same Upanisad, na tadasnati kincana, na tadasnati kascana (3.8.8) affirms that the Self pervades nothing; nor is it pervaded by anything. When it is said that it pervades nothing, its relation to the world is negated. And when it is said that it is not pervaded by anything, the relation of the world to it is nagated. From this it could be gathered that the Self is supra-relational and non-dual. These texts imply that the world given in perception is non-real.
The Vedanta -sutra, tadananyatvam arambhanasabda- dibhyah. (2.1.14) describes the relation between the Self and the world as ananyatvam. Sankara explains the term as “non-existence apart from” (vyatrirekena abhavah). It means that the world has no independent existence apart from the Self. This may be stated in a generalized form that the effect does not exist apart from its material ‘cause. The world, being only a phenomenal appearance of the Self through avidya and not an actual emanation from it, is mithya or non-real.
The view that the world is non-real which is grounded on the Upanisads is substantiated by the Advaitin on the basis of inferential argument which is as follows:
The world is non-real;
it is because it possesses the characterestics
(i) of being manifested by the consciousness reflected in the mental state (drsyatva);
(ii) of being insentient (jadatva);
(iii) of being limited by time, space, and objects (paricchinnatva); and,
(iv) of being composite in nature (amsitva).
It may be objected that perception in forms like “The pot is real” (ghata san), etc., gives us the knowledge that the world comprising pot, etc., is real. And it invalidates the cognition arising from inference and verbal testimony that the world is non-real. The Advaitin, however, maintains that perception is less powerful than inference and verbal testimony and so the knowledge that the world is non-real which arises from these two proofs would deprive the validity of the perceptual cognition that the world is real.
Thus, according to Advaita, the world given in perception is non-real, and its existence would not impair the non-dual nature of the Self. So far the Advaita position.
Vyasatirtha (15th Century A.D.), the noteworthy preceptor of the Dvaita school, in his polemical work, Nyayamrta disproves the contention of the Advaitin that the proofs, inference and verbal testimony make known that the world is non-real and so the self is non-dual. He contends that the proof, perception, per se is more powerful than inference and verbal testimony; and, in forms like’ ‘The pot is real” (ghatah san), etc., it points to the reality of the objects of the world like pot, etc. And, the reality (sattva) that pertains to the objects of the world is the same as that which constitutes the essential nature of the Self according to Advaita (yadrsan brahmanah sattvam tadrsam syat jagatyapi, Nyayamrta, p.98).
Further, in support of his view that perception is more powerful .than inference and verbal testimony, Vyasatirtha adduces four maxims derived from the Purvamimamsa-sutras. And, they are: (i) Upakrama-prabalya-nyaya; [ii] Samanya -visesa - nyaya; (iii) Savakasa - nirvakasa - nyaya and, (iv) Bahubadha-nyaya. He points out that the view of the Advaitin that perception is less powerful than inference and verbal testimony is against these maxims.
Moreover, perception is the sustaining factor (upajivya) of the proofs, inference and verbal testimony. This is evident from the fact that both depend upon perception for their effective functioning. Inference which is the knowledge of invariable relation between the ground of inference (hetu) and the thing that is sought to be established (sadhya) is based upon the perceptual cognition of the relation between the hetu and the sadhya. In the same way, verbal testimony, that is, a sentence in order that it may convey its sense must come within the range of auditory perception. Thus perception, in view of its being the sustaining factor of both inference and verbal testimony, is more powerful than the latter two.
On the basis of the maxim Apaccheda-nyaya derived from the Purvamimamsa-sutras, the Advaitin explains, that the perceptual cognition that the world is real is sublated by the subsequent cognition arising from the major texts of the Upanisads and states that this shows the less powerful nature of perception. Vyasatirtha, however, explains the apaccheda-nyaya in such a way that it does not support the Advaitin’s view.
Thus Vyasatirtha argues that the view of the Advaitin that the perceptual cognition that the world is real is invalidated by the subsequent cognition that the world is non-real which arises from inference and verbal testimony is not valid. Perception is more powerful than the other two proofs. The world given in perception is, therefore, real; and, the Self cannot be viewed as non-dual.
Madhusudana Sarasvati (16th Century A.D.), in his magnum opus, the Advaita-Siddhi examines and disproves, point by point, the contentions of Vyasatirtha against the position of Advaita by revealing their falsity, erroneousness and invalidity. He defends the position of Advaita from his attacks by demonstrating the truth and validity of it on logical and scriptural grounds.
In this work, Dr Ananthanarayanan, after an intensive study of the relevant sections of the Nyayamrta and the Advaita-Siddhi presents with remarkable clarity the arguments of Vyasatirtha against the position of Advaita and Madhusudana Sarasvati’s critical evaluation of them. And, he explains in an accurate and authoritative manner the reasons and grounds adduced by Madhusudana Sarasvati in support of the position of Advaita.
This work is based on adequate knowledge of the primary sources and of the most important secondary material. It is comprehensive and scholarly and is well- documented. The style is clear and interesting. And, it is a significant contribution to the literature in English on Advaita.
The world of scholars will feel grateful to the authorities of the Adi Sankara Advaita Research Centre for bringing out the publication of this work.
I have immense pleasure in commending this work to serious students of Advaita.
Preface
The present thesis entitled “On Perception” represents the research work completed under the guidance of Dr S. Revathy, Professor in the Department of Sanskrit, University of Madras, for the Ph.D. Degree of the University of Madras.
The thesis limits itself to a close study and exposition of the nature of perception and its relation to inference, verbal testimony and subsequent sublating cognition as could be gleaned form the controversy between Madhusudana Sarasvati and Vyasatirtha which has given us the classic on Advaita Vedanta, the Advaita-Siddhi.
I am endlessly grateful to my Research Supervisor, Dr S. Revathy for her kind guidance at every stage.
To my Respected Teacher and my mentor Dr N. Veezhinathan, Former Professor and Head, Department of Sanskrit, University of Madras, I express my sincere gratitude for his kindness in having contributed a Fore- word to this work.
To the Authorities of the University of Madras, I am thankful for permitting me to work in the Department of Sanskrit for the Ph.D. Degree of the University of Madras.
To my friends, Professor V. Kamakoti, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, and J. Krishnan, Associate Professor, Department of Sanskrit, University of Pondicherry, I express my sense of gratitude for their constant encouragement and moral support.
To Shri K. Raghunathan, Secretary, The National College Management Committee, and to Dr K. Anbarasu, Principal, National College, Tiruchirapalli, I am extremely grateful for giving me their unfailing encouragement in regard to my academic activities.
To the President and other office- bearers of the Adi Sankara Advaita Research Centre, I am endlessly grateful for sponsoring the publication of this work under the auspices of the Centre.
I am thankful to Dr C. Murugan, Assistant Professor, Department of Saiva Siddhanta, University of Madras for typesetting this work, and to Sri M.S. Maniyavan of Elango Achukkoodam for his kind co-operation and neat execution of this work.
Introduction
An analysis of the nature of the world given in perception during the waking state has led the Advaitin to conclude that the objects of the world are mere appearances and they have no substance in them. Pot, for example, which may be taken as standing for the entire world, is noticed in ordinary experience to be the effect of a lump of clay. When subject to investigation whether it exists in its cause prior to its production or not, or whether it is different from its cause or identical with it, one does not have any irrefutable argument so convincing as to compel certitude regarding its precise nature.
To begin with, the Nyaya school argues that the effect-the pot cannot be considered to be present in the cause - the clay prior to its coming into existence. If it were present, then the causal operation of the efficient cause (nimittakarana), the potter would not be needed. Not only this. There would be the contingency of the manifestation of the pot in the clay even prior to the causal operation of the potter. It follows that the pot prior to coming into existence from the clay does not exist therein. In other words, there is the antecedent non-existence (pragabhava) of the pot in its cause - the clay prior to its production. By the causal operation of the potter, it comes into existence over and above the clay. It is a de novo creation. This theory is known as asat-karya-vada.
The Sankhya school is of the view that the effect - pot must be admitted to be existing in its cause - the clay even prior to its production on the following grounds:
(i) if there is the non-existence of pot prior to its production, then it is similar to a square circle (asat) and there is no possibility of its being produced at any point of time;
(ii) in the experience ‘The pot is originated’ (ghatah utpadyate), the meaning of the verbal root is the function known as origination. And, it must have a substratum which is technically termed karta (dhatvarthavyaparasrayah karta). If the pot were not existent prior to the moment of the origination, then it cannot be viewed as the substratum of origination; and, so the experience ‘The pot is originated’ would be contradicted. Further at the moment of its origination, the pot cannot have any relation to its cause. For, relation is always possible between two entities that are already existing. If not, even the square circle could be viewed to have relation to some cause; and,
(iii) if the effect - pot is non-existent in its cause prior to its production, then it means that it comes into existence from prior non-existence. In that case the non-existence of pot is present in every other factor besides clay and so there is every possibility of the origination of the pot from any other source. But it is not so.
On these grounds the Sankhya school argues that the view that the effect is not present in its cause prior to its production must be given up and it must be held that it exists in its cause prior to its production. If this position is held, the Sankhya school points out, the difficulties outlined above would be avoided. This view that the effect exists in its cause prior to its origination is known as snat-karya- vada.
The Nyaya school at this stage points out one difficulty with regard to the view of the Sankhya that the effect exists in its cause prior to its production. If the effect pre-exists in its cause, then as it is already existent, there is no need for causal operation of the potter to bring it into existence. The Sankhya school would reply that the effect exists in a latent form in the cause and the causal operation is necessary to bring it into a gross form. Origination means only the manifestation of what is latent into a gross form.
The Nyaya school would argue that manifestation of what is latent into a gross form consists in adding certain essential elements and in removing certain non-essential elements. Since according to the basic position of the Sankhya everything is existent, the essential elements as well as the non-essential ones are existent and so they can neither be added nor be removed. Hence the causal operation becomes futile even according to the view that the effect pre-exists in its cause. Thus the concept of manifestation by which is meant origination is a pseudo one.
Gaudapada while reviewing the points of the Sankhya and the Nyaya school in regard to the theory of origination states that the arguments put forward by each of the two schools against the other seem to be quite convincing. The rejection of each of the two views by the other leads us to conclude that there can be no real origination of any object whatsoever.
The Nyaya school which holds that the effect is a de novo creation maintains that the cause and the effect are totally distinct and not identical with each other. If the effect- the pot were viewed as identical with the cause - the clay, then the causal relation which involves the difference between the cause and the effect in the form ‘This one is the cause’, and ‘This one is the effect’ cannot be maintained. This is as it should be; for, one and the same thing cannot be maintained as the cause and the effect at the same time. Further if the cause and the effect are identical, then there would arise the unwelcome position of the absence of any difference in so far as their adaptability to practical needs of life is concerned. The pot is effective as the means to bring water while the clay is not so. Nor does the effect have the efficacy of the clay in bringing into existence the pot. Moreover, when the clay is in the lump form it must be perceived as pot if the clay - the cause and the pot - the effect are identical. This, however, is not the case. From this it follows that the pot and the clay - the effect and the cause are not identical with but different from one another.
The Sankhya school argues that the pot is only a specific configuration of the lump of clay and as such there is no difference between the clay - the cause and the pot- the effect. This is analogous to the cloth which is not different from its cause - the threads that are conjoined in a specific manner. Further, the causal relation that a particular factoris the cause and another, the effect can be had even if we admit the identity between the two. The one which has the effect in its latent form is the cause and the same in a gross form with a specific configuration is the effect. In the same way, the difference in the practical efficiency noticed in the case of the cause and of the effect can be maintained even when the two are identical. The clay in its lump form is suited for some specific purpose while the same clay in its form as pot is adapted to a different need. Thus the effect being present in the cause prior to its production is identical with the cause.
Contents
Forword
ix
xv
List of Abbreviations
xvii
Chapter - I Introduction
1
Chapter - II Perception - Its Nature
32
Chapter - III Perception And Inference
81
Chapter - IV Perception And Verbal Testimony
104
Chapter - V Perception And Subsequent Sublating Cognition
148
Chapter - VI Conclusion
178
Appendix:
Notes On Chapters
1-32
Select Bibliography
i-xiv
For privacy concerns, please view our Privacy Policy
Vedas (1273)
Upanishads (476)
Puranas (741)
Ramayana (893)
Mahabharata (329)
Dharmasastras (162)
Goddess (473)
Bhakti (242)
Saints (1286)
Gods (1279)
Shiva (333)
Journal (132)
Fiction (44)
Vedanta (322)
Send as free online greeting card
Email a Friend
Manage Wishlist