Prostrations to Guru. Prostrations to All
Thathra yathaa thataakodhakam chidhrannirgathya kulyaathmanaa kedhaaraan pravishya thath vath eva chathushkonaadhi aakaaram bhavathi thathaa thaijasam anthah karanamapi chakshuraadhidvaaraa nirgathya ghataadhivishayadesham gatva ghataadhi vishaya akarena parinamathe sa eva parinaamo vrittih ithi uchyatheanumithyaadhisThale thu na anthah karanasya vahnyaadhi deshagamanam, vahnyaadheh chakshuraadhi asannikarshaath thaTha cha ‘ayam gatah’ ithyaadhi pratyakshasthale ghatadheh thath aakaara vritteshcha bahirekathra deshe samavadhaanaath thath ubhaya avachinnam chaitanyam ekameva; vbhaajakayorapi anthahkarana vritti ghataadhi vishayayor ekadeshasthatvena bhedha ajanakatvaath atha eva maTaantharvarthi ghata avachinnam aakaasho na mataa avachinna akashaadh bhidhyathe thaThaa cha ‘ayam ghatah’ ithi pratyakshasthale ghata akaara vritti ghata samyogithaya ghata avachinna chaithanyasya thath vritti avachinna chaitanyasya cha abhinnathayaa, thathra ghatajnaanasya ghata aakaaramshe pratyakshatvam sukhaadhi avachinna chaithanyasya thath vritti avachinna chaitanyasya cha niyamena ekadeshasthitha upaadhi avachinnatvaath niyamena “aham sukhee” ithiyaadhijnaanasya pratyakshatvam
Here, just as the water of a tank, going out through a hole and entering fields through channels, comes to have, even like those [fields], a quandrangular or other figure, similarly, the internal organ too, which is of the nature of light, going out through the sense of sight, etc. and reaching the locality of contents of pot, is transformed into the form of contents like pot. This same modification is called a psychosis (vritti). In the case, however, of inferential cognition, etc. there is no going out of the internal organ to the locality of [inferred] fire, etc., since the fire, etc. are not in contact with the sense of light, etc. And thus, in the case of perceptions like ‘This is a pot’, since for pot, etc. and the psychoses with those forms, there is existence in the same locality outside, the consciousness defined by both is but single; for, the psychosis of the internal organ and the content like pot, though capable of differentiating, do not generate difference [here] because of being present in the same locality. It is for the same reason that ether defined by a pot within a hall is not different from the hall-defined ether. And thus, in the case of perception, ‘This is pot’, the psychosis with the form of pot being in conjunction with pot, and hence pot-defined consciousness being non-different from consciousness defined by that [pot -] psychosis, there is for the pot-cognition perceptual character in regard to the aspect of the form of the pot. Again, since the Consciousness limited by the happiness etc. and the Consciousness limited by the mental state relating to them are invariably limited by the two limiting adjuncts that occupy the same space, the knowledge “I am happy”, is invariably a perception.
Dharmaraja raised a question that whether mind is a sense organ or not. As an answer to this question, he said that mind is not an organ and also dismissed the possible notion that direct perception depends on the sense organ. Then, another question is asked, what are actual criteria for perception? As an answer to this question, the author gives the criteria of perception from two stand point. One from the perceptual knowledge stand point and other is object of perception stand point. He starts his explanation on the first stand-point that is of perceptual knowledge stand point. He then defined three terms. Vishaya chaitanyam – Consciousness limited by the object, Pramana Chaitanyam – Consciousness limited by the vritti in internal organ and Pramatr Chaitanyam – Consciousness limited by Antah karanam which corresponds to the subject who is perceiving an object.
The author then explains on what is vritti. He explains this through a example. The water which is flowing through a channel, flows into the field through an opening and takes the shape of the field. If the field is rectangular, it takes rectangular shape and so on. In the same way, mind goes out through the openings of sense organs and takes the shape of the object. Mind is the one which illumines all the objects and also enlives the sense organs. The water is comparable to the mind, the opening into the field is comparable to the sense organ and the field is comparable to the object with respect to the example he quoted. When we see a pot, mind goes out through the openings of eyes and takes the form of the pot. This modification of mind in the form of pot is known as Vritti. So whatever object we see, the mind goes out through the eyes and takes the form of the object which is known as vritti.
Whenever we see the object through the eyes, the anthah karana vritti is formed taking the form of the object. When we see a smoke in a mountain, we infer that there is fire in the mountain. The eyes see only the smoke that is coming from the mountain and not the fire. Thus, smoke alone is perception as there is association of sense organs with the smoke and hence only for smoke the anthah karana vritti is formed taking the form of smoke. Thus, fire doesn’t come under the perceptual knowledge. In the case of the perception, “This is pot”, we have pot and we have vritti of the pot. But the consciousness qualified by both pot and vritti are one and the same. This is because the pot and the vritti of the pot occupy the same space outside the body. The consciousness limited by the vritti of the pot is not different from the consciousness limited by the pot both the vritti and the pot occupies the same space. Though it may seem that there are factors that can produce a difference between the pot and the vritti, still since they both occupy the same space, they both are same only. To make this clear, he uses an example to explain. The space inside a jar is not different from the space of the hall in which it is present though there seems to be a limiting adjunct in the form of the jar. In the same way, the Consciousness limited by the pot is not different from the Consciousness limited the vritti of the pot. From this vritti of the perceiver gets the knowledge that “This is pot”.
So, the first criterion for perceptual knowledge is, the object and the vritti of the object should occupy the same space. In the case of fire in the mountain example, the smoke coming from the mountain can be perceived through the eyes and there is vritti taking the form of smoke. Thus, we get the perceptual knowledge with respect to the smoke. In the case of fire, which is knowledge out of inference, eyes don’t perceive the fire and hence the object and the vritti of fire occupy different space and hence there is no perception.
After explaining about the perception of external objects like jar, he explains about the internal objects like happiness, sorrow etc. In the case of happiness, the Consciousness limited by happiness and the consciousness limited by the vritti of happiness occupy the same space. Thus, the knowledge that “I am happy” is perceptual knowledge only.
Dharmaraja gives few more criteria for knowledge to be perceptual, which we can in the next day.
Prostrations to All.