Indriyas (Sense organs)

Among the twelve objects to be known, Indriyas or Sensual organs come next to Śarīra. Sāṅkhyas and Naiyāyikas hold different views regarding the origin of these sensual organs. The Sāṅkhyas say that the eye is born from ahaṃkāratattva (principle of ego) According to the Sāṅkhyas, Indriyas or sensual organs are born not from Prakṛti, the nature, directly. But they are born from ahaṃkāratattva^[1] . This invisible or of ahaṃkāra is said to have born from mahatattva or buddhi. All the eleven organs^[2] come in to force from ahaṃkāra.

According to the Naiyāyikas, the eye is bhautika, born of element. The eyeball, in its good condition, receives the form of objects. If the eyeball is damaged, nothing can be seen. From this phenomenon the, Naiyāyikas try to prove eye as born from an element.

The eye can see objects both near and far. At the same time, if the object is taken very close to the eye, it cannot be received by it. From this it can be assumed that the organ of eye has a tendency of spreading. Thus eye is having the quality called “Vyāpakatā”. All organs receive their concerned objects only by spreading over them. This property of spreading makes the Sāṅkhyas consider the eye as born from ahaṃkāra.

The Bauddhas, on the other hand, consider the eyeball itself as the organ of eye. This argument is tried to prove incorrect by depending on the argument of Sāṅkhyas. Eye can receive huge objects like trees and mountains. At the same time, it can receive very small objects like seeds, grains etc. This property of eye shows it not born from an element. Bhautika or objects born from elements can occupy only that much of space which is equal to their quantity. The objects other than bhautikas show the habit of spreading in more space than what they really occupy. The organ of eye since spreads more than this limited space, it can very well be said as born of ahaṃkāra. So the organ of eye cannot be said as the eyeball as is said by the Bauddhas.

According to the Naiyāyikas, the ability of eye to receive both big and small objects cannot prove the eye as not born from an element. All the objects are seen when they are in connection with the organ of eye. The rays coming from a lamp when unite with the objects, they become visible. The rays which are either of eye or of lamp fail to unite with an object in kept behind a curtain. The existence of rays is thus proved by anumāna (inference). The curtain which is hung between the object and light acts as a covering. The absence of such a curtain makes the lamp or eye capable of receiving the objects which are placed in front of them. Here it is to be noted that the contact between the ray and the object is common irrespective of the size of the objects. Thus the Nayāyikas try to prove that the phenomenon of seeing both big and small objects by the eye is not a proof for its abhautikatva, not being born from an element.

This argument of the Naiyāyikas is simply refuted by the opponents by saying that no such rays are spotted in the organ of eye. The element called tejas or fire is a support for two qualities namely colour and touch. The sufficient quantity and the clear form make an object visible. It happens when the rays an emitted from a lamp. But the eyes have no such rays. The above said arguments of the Naiyāyikas would come in to force only if the eye is having a row of rays of its own.

The Naiyāyikas are not ready to accept these views of Sāṅkhyas. They say that the existence of rays in eye is already proved by anumāna or inference. The covering objects like curtain act as a symbol to prove this fact. The existence of something cannot be denied simply because of its non appearance. The back portion of moon and the bottom of earth cannot be said none existing since they are not visible. This can be inferred and proved to be existing. The invisibility is not a proof of non existence.

Though the substances, Dravyas are the support for the qualities, Guṇas, the properties of these two are entirely different. In winter, the coolness of atmosphere can be felt by the organ of skin. But it cannot be perceived by eyes. Thus the seasons are severally known by the different types of feelings of the skin. When an object is perceived by eye, it can be noted that the object will be made up of several same parts of it which are related by the main object by the relation called samavāya. At the same time, the object should have a clear form. The lack of this clear form makes the coolness or heat not received by the organ of eye. The touch gives a specific knowledge of these two qualities. Since the ray of a lamp or sun is having a clear form, it becomes visible. But the ray in eye is not visible since it has no clear form. It is made clear by the sage Gautama when he presents the aphorism- anekadravyasamavāyatrūpaviśeṣaścarūpopalabtihi.^[3]

Clearness is a special quality of a figure. The substance having this becomes visible. It is the belief of all theistic thinkers that the God has created everything depending on the deeds of creatures. Each organ engages in its duty just to receive pleasure or pain according to the previous deed. Though the organ like nose, tongue, eye, skin and ear are considered as receiving the concerned objects, the Naiyāyikas believe that the real organs dwelling in these are very small and beyond our reach. The ray which is said as existing in the organ of eye is having neither a form any touch ability. But the presence of ray in the eye is inferred by the curtain hung between the eye and the object to be seen by the eye. Naiyāyikas consider this as an effective type of inference. The Indian belief that the act of charity and sins results in the attainment of pleasure and pain respectively is seen accepted by the logicians though they are famous for their rationalistic way of thinking.

Naiyāikas consider the organ of eye as made up of element. The rays of the eye are not obstructed when they come in contact with a crystal or jewel. When the eye is not capable of perceiving the object hidden by a curtain, it becomes clear that the rays of the eye are obstructed by the materials like curtain. At the same time, mere obstruction cannot be taken as a reason for proving the organ of eye as made up of element. The same rays of the eye are not obstructed when they go through the clouds; crystals etc. in reply to this, the Naiyāyikas say that there are different properties. To make it move clear, the ray of the sun is the substratum of both clear form and the touch of heat. Similarly sometimes a clear form and lack of touch ability is there on certain things like in a ray of a lamp. Sometimes there will be clear touch ability and lack of form in certain things like hot water. Though the touch of heat is there in hot water there is no clear figure. There are certain other things like a ray of an eye which lack both form and touch.

After a long discussion the Naiyāyikas seem to conclude the arguments in their customary way. Though people are having eyes, the power of it differs in each individual which is the result of its previous deed.

The morning star cannot be seen in the light of afternoon. Here the star though having a clear form loses its visibility due to the high light of afternoon. From this its becomes clear that though the reasons for making an object visible are present, the result goes un attained because of some other reasons. According to Nayāyikas the existence of ray in the eye is clear only by the mark of covering.

This argument of Nayāyikas is again questioned by the opponents. If it is accepted that the ray of the eye is not felt due to other reasons, it can also be said that the earthy sand is also having light and becomes invisible due to the light of afternoon sun. but this argument is denied by the Naiyāyikas by showing that the earthy sand is not visible during the night also.

The organ of eye perceives an object when there is light of either of sun or of any other bodies like lamp. It is because the eye cannot perceive objects in darkness. This view also is not accepted by the Naiyāyikas. When there is outward light and the touch of coolness, the object which is a base of that touch is not perceived by the eye. It shows that mere outward light is not at all enough to make something visible. There are several facts which act behind the perception of an object. The objects which become visible only because of outward light depend on a clear form to make them perceivable. In such cases there is no question of a light being disturbed by the other. At the same time the objects having light of their own and do not depend on outward light for their own and do not depend onward light for their presentation face the damage of invisibility due to the presence of high lights in the surroundings. In the same way, a ray of the eye depends on outward light. The invisibility of the ray of eye is due to the lack of its form. Here there is no question of a light being disturbed by a big one.

An object having a clear form becomes visible. Such objects do not wholly depend on the light of the sun for their visibility. Only such objects will be disturbed by the outward illumines objects. At the same time, the objects which do not have a clear form and do not depend on the outward light for their visibility could not be disturbed by any other object. In this way, the eye is proved to be having some sort of light.

In this context, another phenomenon is also shown in support of the above argument. There are, certain creatures like cat whose eyes have a shining during night. The ray in their eyes can be clearly seen. This leads prove that the other creatures like man are also having rays in their eyes. Here a doubt can be raised that different creatures may have different properties. The cat having rays in their eyes cannot be taken as a proof for the existence of rays in the eyes of man. But it is not correct like man; cat also cannot see the objects covered by a curtain. So basically there cannot be any difference between the eyes of man and those of other animals.

Sāṅkhyas differ with this view of Naiyāyikas. Never can it be said that the interaction between the organ and the object causes knowledge. Similarly though the eye cannot perceive an object covered by a curtain, it has no difficulty to see objects kept under some luminous objects like crystal. From this it is clear that all sensual organs like eye perceive things just because they pervade everywhere. No organ receives is knowledge by getting in to the concerned matter. So the receiving of knowledge by sensual organs is “ahaṃkārika’, provoked by the power of “I”. According to Sāṅkhyas, no sensual organ is made up of any element.

Naiyāyikas deny the above argument of Sāṅkhyas. Sāṅkhyas cannot find a reason for not receiving the objects covered by the curtain. The eye with its rays goes near the objects to see and the act of perception takes place. In the case of crystal, cloud, jewel etc, the rays of the eye are having a free movement. In these cases, the rays of the eye are not obstructed. So by all reasons, it can be decided that there are rays in the eye.

Sāṅkhyas are not satisfied with this reply of Naiyāyikas. The rays of the sun have no obstruction either in the case of a crystal or elsewhere. So the correct reason should be said why the rays are being obstructed by a curtain or wall, and why they are not obstructed in a crystal or jewel.

In reply to this, Naiyāyikas say that the water and a mirror are possessed of the nature of “clearness” by which the images are clearly seen. Likewise, we get the knowledge of things though covered by crystal or jewel. The nature of clearness has a property to catch the image of the object that comes before them. When a man looks in to a mirror the rays of his eyes get diverted after striking in the mirror. These diverted rays again unite with the eye and in this way reflection of his own face is seen in the mirror. All this happens due to the clearness of the mirror. This is a natural phenomenon that controls the nature of objects. So one cannot ask the reason why the rays of the eye are obstructed in a wall and not in crystal. One cannot ask why a form is not revealed by tongue. Or why the smell is not perceived by the eye. Thus the properties of the objects are so arranged that one cannot ask such stupid questions.

In this way Naiyāyikas, after a long discussion, conclude that all the sensual organs are made up of different elements. After examining the validity of sensual organs, the doubt is a raised regarding the number of organs. We see several objects like cloth, pot etc., existing in different places. At the same time, a pot or a cloth is seen a support of different parts of the same object. So the doubt is raised whether the sensual organs are several or there is one sensual organ namely skin in which all others exist.

According to some ancient scholars, there are no separate sensual organs. But there is only one namely skin depending on which all the other organs come in to existence^[4]. All the outward organs are covered with skin. Without skin no organ can exist and no knowledge can be received. So skin is the abode of all sensual organs and that helps the organs in the functioning of receiving knowledge.

This view is reflected on the ground that if skin is the only organ then the blind people can receive the knowledge of figures or colors though they do not have the organ of eyes to see. Since it does not happen, skin alone cannot be thought a single organ. But the opponents who find the skin alone as a single organ do not agree with this. There is a sort of the part of an organ in the eyes which cause melting when there is smoke. Similarly some sorts of parts of skin are capable of perceiving things. When they are damaged the man becomes blind and he cannot perceive things.

This view is also not found acceptable since there is contradictory in the two opinions. Those who find the skin as a single organ, are seen then to talk about different sorts of it, in support of their previous conclusion. In saying so they accept several organs without knowing. Not only by skin, but all the dwelling places of organs are covered by five great elements like, earth, water, light, air and ether. Without them no organs can exist and can receive any knowledge. So, though the organs are seen to be different they are not so. We have to accept one organ pervading the whole body. That can be named either skin or by any other name. If only one sensual organ capable of receiving all sorts of knowledge is accepted, all kinds of knowledge will arise at the same time.

According Naiyāyikas there is a process behind receiving each knowledge. At first, the soul unites with the mind, the mind unites with the sensual organs and the organ is united with all objects. So there is the danger of all kinds of knowledge produced simultaneously if a single sensual organ is accepted. Since we have no experience of receiving all kinds of knowledge at the same time, it can be decided that there is no single organ capable of receiving all sorts of knowledge. If a single organ can receive all sorts of knowledge, there will be no blind or deaf. Not only in the timing but there is difference in the process of receiving knowledge by the sensual organs. When we receive, the knowledge of an object by seeing, the organ of eyes does not reach the object to be seen. But at the same time, when we got the knowledge of heat or cold of an object by touch, the relation between the object to be touched and the organ that touches is inevitable. If there is only one organ doing different deeds there will be no difference in the process of receiving knowledge.

If can be argued that there is only one sensual organ though there are different processes of receiving knowledge. The knowledge received by the touch of objects comes in to force when the object and the organ are related to one another. But in the process of perceiving such a relation between the object and the eye is not required. But there is another problem in accepting this. There is difference in the process of perception itself depending on other facts. If the object to be perceived is covered by some curtain or wall the eye cannot reach the expected object to be perceived. If the eye can receive the knowledge of object irrespective of their distance, either far or near, the above said argument could have been accepted. But since there is difference in the process of receiving the knowledge by the same organ, there cannot be a single sensual organ.

The sensual organs produce five kinds of result. When something is known by touching and when that process fails to receive something by seeing, the existence of eye capable of perceiving is inferred. When something is known by touch and seeing and when these two processes fail to receive smell, the existence of nose capable of receiving smell is inferred. When the above said three processes fail to receive the taste, the tongue capable of receiving taste is inferred. All the four processes when find themselves incapable of receiving sound, the existence of ear capable of receiving sound is inferred. It is in this way that the five kinds of sensual organs come in to force.

The conception of five organs depending one five kinds of objects is again questioned. Those who face the question point out the fact that the number of objects cannot be limited to five since several are the objects felt by us. There are cool, hot and mediate objects which are known by touching. Similarly, the colors are different like white, green etc., in smell also there is difference like fragrance, foul smell etc,. The taste is of six types like sweaty, salty, acid, saline, pungent and astringent.^[5] Even the sound differs in the form of letter and mere sound. So the organs which are prepared to receive these several kinds of objects cannot be limited to five in number.

Naiyāyikas who accept Jāti as a property dwelling in each object face this objection with clear answers. Though the smell, etc., are different “gandhavatva’ (the state of being smell) is one. So the inner difference is not to be given much importance. Moreover each organ has its origin from each element. Each organ receives the special quality of the element from which the organ is formed. For instance the nose receives the smell which is the special quality of earth. So it is decided that the nose is born of earth. Similarly, all the organs are capable of receiving the special qualities of each element. The Naiyāyikas conclude that there are different kinds of sensual organs.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Āhamkārikatvaśruterna bhautikāni. 2.20, Sānkhyadarśana, p. 100

[2]:

karmendriyabuddhīndriyairāndaramekādaśakam. 2.19, Sānkhyadarśana, p.100

[3]:

.Nyāya Sūtra, 1.1.38,

[4]:

Tvagavyatirekāt 3.1.55, Nyāya Darśana, p.211

[5]:

rasanagrāhyoguṇorasaha. sā ca madhurāmlalavaṇakadukaṣāyatiktabhedāt śadvidhaha. Tarka Samgraha, p.56