Indriya Vichar - Book Summary | JainGPT

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Indriya Vichar" by Sukhlal Sanghavi, focusing on the key points discussed regarding the senses:

The book "Indriya Vichar" by Sukhlal Sanghavi, found within "Z_Darshan_aur_Chintan_Part_1_2_002661.pdf" from Jain Education International, delves into the philosophical examination of the senses (indriyas) within Jainism and other Indian philosophical traditions. The text primarily focuses on the etymology of the term "indriya," the causes and number of senses, their objects, their forms, their interrelationships, their types, and the distinction between grasping the substance (dravya) versus the quality (guna) of an object.

Etymology of "Indriya": The oldest recorded etymology of "indriya" is found in Panini's grammatical sutras. While no commentary on this specific sutra exists in Patanjali's Mahabhasya, it's likely that earlier interpretations of Panini's works discussed it. The author suggests that the etymology found in ancient Buddhist and Jain texts likely originated from the study of Panini's grammar. This Paninian etymology was later adopted and elaborated upon by prominent Buddhist scholars like Buddhaghosa in texts like "Vishuddhimagga" and Jain scholars like Pujyapada and Acharya Hemchandra in texts like "Tattvartha-bhashya" and "Shabdānushasana" respectively.

Key Observations on Etymology:

Buddhist and Jain Adoption: Both Buddhist and Jain grammarians, and independent scholars like Hemchandra, extensively discussed this etymology.
Exclusivity to Buddhist-Jain Traditions: This specific etymology is rarely found in Vedic philosophical texts, except in very late interpretative works. The author posits that this verbal etymology, once adopted by Buddhist and Jain philosophies, became a subject of philosophical contemplation.
Vedic Divergence: Vedic texts, like "Matharavritti," offer different and unique etymologies for "indriya."
Creative Etymologies: In ancient times, explaining the derivation of words was considered essential, and authors freely used their imagination in these explanations, not just for Prakrit and Pali words but also for Sanskrit words. The etymology of "indriya" is presented as an example of this.

Philosophical Interpretation of "Indriya": The author highlights how the philosophical traditions imprinted their own meanings onto the etymology of "indriya."

Buddhist Interpretation: Buddhaghosa, while accepting most of the Paninian etymology, interprets "Indra" as "Sugata" (Buddha) to align the etymology with his philosophy.
Jain Interpretation: Jain Acharyas generally interpret "Indra" as "Jiva" or "Atman" (soul) in a general sense, unlike Buddhaghosa who specifically links it to the Tirthankara.
Potential Vedic Interpretation: The author speculates that if a scholar from a Vedic tradition like Nyaya-Vaisheshika, which believes in God's causality, had discussed this etymology, they might have interpreted "Indra" as God.

Causes and Types of Senses:

Samkhya: According to Samkhya, the material cause (upadana karana) of the senses is "abhimana" (ego-sense), a subtle substance derived from Prakriti. Vedanta also accepts this view.
Nyaya-Vaisheshika: This school considers the five gross elements (earth, water, fire, air, ether) as the cause of the senses, which are inert substances. Purva Mimamsa also subscribes to this view.
Buddhism: The five commonly recognized senses are considered forms of "rupa" (form), which is a specific type of inert substance, as they are form-derived.
Jainism: Jain philosophy identifies a specific type of "pudgala" (matter) as the cause of the material or gross senses (dravya-indriyas).

Distinction between Sense Organs and Sense Capacities:

Gross Forms: The physical structures like the earlobe, eyeball, nose, tongue, and skin, which ordinary people refer to as ear, eye, nose, tongue, and skin senses respectively, are considered "indriya-adhishthana" (seats of the senses) by all philosophical schools, not the senses themselves.
Subtle Capacities: The actual senses are considered the imperceptible (atindriya) entities residing within these physical forms, whether they are material or ego-related.
Jainism's View: Jainism refers to these material supports as "dravya-indriyas," indicating that the support itself is not the sense. According to Jainism, the true senses are "bhavendriyas" (sense capacities or mental senses), which are not material or ego-related inert substances but rather specific forms of conscious power.

Number of Senses:

Common Understanding: The mind (manas) is considered the sixth sense by all philosophical traditions, functioning as an inner organ or "antahkaran." Thus, the six cognitive senses are common to all.
Samkhya Exception: Only Samkhya considers the five organs of action (karmendriyas) like speech, hands, feet, etc., as senses, bringing the total to eleven.
Rejection of Karmendriyas: Just as Vachaspati Mishra and Jayanta argued against considering karmendriyas as senses, Acharya Hemchandra also rejected their sense status, following the tradition of earlier Jain Acharyas like Pujyapada.

Unaddressed Buddhist Classification: The author raises a point about why ancient Jain Acharyas and other scholars, who strongly refuted the Samkhya's eleven senses, did not address or refute the twenty-two senses mentioned in Buddhist Abhidharma. The text speculates that this is because Buddhist Abhidharma generally uses the term "indriya" to refer to any mental faculty, and thus, the Jain scholars may have considered this broad usage of the term and did not feel the need to specifically refute it.

Objects of the Senses:

Universal Agreement: All philosophical schools agree that the six senses have specific objects like sound, form, smell, taste, and touch.
Nyaya-Vaisheshika Difference: Nyaya-Vaisheshika differs from all others regarding whether senses grasp the substance (dravya) or the quality (guna).
Other Schools: Other schools consider senses as graspers of qualities. However, due to the non-difference between quality and substance, they also consider the senses to grasp substances.
Nyaya-Vaisheshika and Purva Mimamsa Stance: These schools believe only the eye, touch, and mind grasp substances, not the others. Acharya Hemchandra, by explaining the derivative meanings of words like "sparsha" (touch), reflects this view and follows his predecessors.

Unity vs. Plurality of Senses:

Ancient Debate: The debate about whether senses are one or many is ancient. Some believe senses are one entity performing various functions through different locations, while others refute this and advocate for the plurality of senses.
Jain Synthesis: Acharya Hemchandra, employing the Jain principle of "anekanta" (non-absolutism), harmonizes the views of unity and plurality of senses, following ancient Jain Acharyas and resolving the contradictions presented by each absolute viewpoint.

Ownership of Senses:

Jain Emphasis: The concept of the "ownership" or "lordship" of senses is a significant topic in philosophy, with Jainism offering the most extensive and detailed discussion compared to other traditions. Buddhist philosophy also discusses this, but to a lesser extent than Jainism.
Hemchandra's Exposition: Acharya Hemchandra presents the entire Jain perspective on the ownership of senses by verbatim quoting from the "Tattvartha-sutra" and its commentary, which is based on the eleven fundamental principles.

In essence, "Indriya Vichar" provides a detailed comparative analysis of the concept of senses across various Indian philosophical schools, with a particular focus on the Jain perspective, highlighting its unique etymological interpretations, causal explanations, classifications, and philosophical nuances regarding the nature and function of sensory perception.