English
But that sentient organ which is there bound inherent, derived from the four great principles (mahabhutas) — this is the visual sense." (Att. Sal. quoted R.D. trans. Dh. San., 173.) And so it is with the other sense organs, the matter of the five indriyas being quite different from the other kinds of matter. Sometimes the sense organs proper are called the principal indriya, while the sense orifices (e.g. the physical eye) are called the auxiliary indriya. All accounts agree that the particles constituting the five indriyas are incredibly minute. Concerning their shape and their position we find the following statement : — 1. The Eye Indriya. — Regarding this the commentators quote the following verse : — " The visual sense by which he beholds forms, Is small and delicate, comparable to the louse's head." (op. cit.) Vasubandhu adds that the atoms of the caksur-indriya are diffused over the surface of the eye. f: Just as the particles COSMIC ANALYSIS 121 of flour poured over the surface of the water would scatter on the surface of the water, so do the atoms composing the caksur- indriya spread over the pupil of the eye" (cf. A.K. 2, 19). 2. The Sound Organ. — Buddhaghosa says that the units of the sound organ are situated within the cavity of the physical ear, and are well furnished with fine reddish hairs. They are in shape like a little finger-stall (? anguli-thanaka), or a finger covered with rings (op. cit. 178). Vasubandhu, on the other hand, states that they are screwed up just as the bark of a cherry-tree rolls up as soon as it is detached from the trunk (A.K. 2-19a). 3. The Smell Organ. — Buddhaghosa says that these particles are inside the nostrils, and in appearance are like a goat's hoofs. Vasubandhu (op. cit. 196) adds that they are like claws whose points face downwards. 4. The Taste Organ. — Buddhaghosa says that these particles are above the middle of the tongue, and in shape are like the upper part of the leaf of a lotus. Vasubandhu says they are in shape like a half -moon. It is interesting to note that the tongue and not the palate was considered the basis of the organ of taste. 5. The Touch Organ. — Regarding these particles, the commentators merely say that they are scattered all over the body. Vasubandhu states that the number of kaya indriya atoms is equal to those of the body proper, or more correctly that every molecule of the body contains at least one touch organ atom. He further tells us that the shape of these minute particles is not the same for men and women. In this connexion one or two additional points call for consideration. 1. The later Buddhists distinguish between the eye and ear on one hand, and the nose, tongue, and body on the other. The latter can sense only that which is in immediate contact with them, while the former can sense that which is at a distance. The distinction does not seem to be met with in the original Sthaviravadin Abhidharma works, and among the 122 MANUAL OF BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY Southern Buddhists the distinction is found for the first time in Buddhaghosa. S. Z. Aung is mistaken, however, when he tells us (C.P. 160) that the distinction began with Buddhaghosa, as it is insisted upon by the Sarvastivadins both in the Mahavibhasa and the Abhidharma Kosa (M.V. 13-76 and A.K. 2-7). Vasubandhu tells us, moreover, that the scope of the eye is even greater than that of the ear. It is to be regretted that the Buddhists did not tell us more concerning the nature of the medium between the sense organ and the sense object. 2. The Sarvastivadins draw a distinction between the eye and ear on the one hand and the nose, tongue, and body, on the other, from another point of view. The former are able to sense any number of paramanus at the same time, as when we see either a mountain or a flea (A.K. 2-19a). The latter class of sense organs, however, can at any one moment sense only the same number of objective atoms as their own. If a certain sense object contains a greater number of atoms than the sense organ atoms with which they come into contact, the sense organs only sense at one moment the equivalent number of sense object atoms, and then sense the remaining fraction a moment later, the interval between the two periods being so small and the process of double sensation so rapid that we usually consider the whole affair simultaneous. (ii) The Sense Objects We have already seen how the Buddhists, in their rejection of the doctrine of substance, were forced to deny that what we experience are various qualities inherent in an external and unified object, but rather that when e.g. we perceive " red ", there is really a separate atom of redness impingeing on the caksur-indriya, and that this atom is a co-existing but independent atom in a molecule of objective matter. This doctrine was carried to its logical extreme no matter how strange the conclusions may seem to us. Thus, they COSMIC ANALYSIS 123 claimed that there were atoms of shape as well as colour (though this was denied by the Sautrantikas, A.K. 13-6), and that when we experience with the eye the sensation round, it is because there is an atom of roundness in the impingeing molecule. This can be seen from the discussion carried on in the first Chuan of the Abhidharma Kosa : " Some teachers say that some objects are possessed of both shape and colour. . . How can this be ? (Attempted answer) : Because we can see therein both (shape and colour). (Objection) : This sensation refers to our cognition, and not to the external object." (A.K. l-7a.) Consequently, when we see something that is both long and white, in reality we are sensing two separate atoms, and their unity is purely subjective. Most of our complex notions are thus reduced to a subjective compounding of a few simple external factors. Needless to say, this philosophy, once accepted, led to a careful examination of just what things are ultimately objective and distinct. The final enumerations were only reached after considerable thought and controversy ranging over a long period of time, beginning with the crude and hesitating categories found in the Dhamma Sangani (which consequently had more or less to be followed by all the later Sthaviravadins) down to the logical lists of the later Sarvastivadins. The Sarvastivadins had, in fact, a much more definite list of categories than the Yogacarins, for, inasmuch as the latter thought that all matter is the product of the mind, the problem of the ultimate units of the objective universe was not for them an urgent one. In the present instance, therefore, we may rest content with quoting Vasubandhu's 1 enumeration of the divisions of each sense object which represent the Sarvastivadin opinion on the subject, referring the curious to the other original authorities 2 : — 1 A.K., f. 1, first half. Also M. Vyu., p. 195. 2 For Str. Shan-Sang, tr., p. 183 ff. For Yog. Ahh. Sam. San., 1-26 ff. 124 MANUAL OF BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY 1. Types of Sight Objects. — (a) There are eight kinds of Samsthana rupa, or shape objects : — 1. Dirgha, or long. 2. Hrasva, or short. 3. Vrtta, or square. 4. Parimandala, or round. 5. Unnata, or high. 6. Avanata, or low. 7. Sata, or even. 8. Visata, or uneven. (b) There are twelve kinds of varna rupa, or colour objects, of which four are primitive and eight derivative : — 1. Nila, or blue. 2. Pita, or yellow. 3. Lohita, or red. 4. Avadata, or white. 5. Abhra, or cloud colour. 6. Dhuma, or smoke colour. 7. Rajas, or dust colour. 8. Mahika, or must colour. 9. Chaya, or shadow (where objects can be seen). 10. Atapa, or (dazzling) brightness (like sun). 11. Aloka, or light colour (like moon stars). 12. Andhakara, or darkness (objects invisible). 2. Types of Sound Objects. — These are of eight varieties, obtained by dividing sound in two different ways : (1) according to the nature of the sound and the object which emits the sound ; (2) according to the nature of the sound as judged by its effect upon the auditors. The first division is that between (1) Upatta-mahabhuta- hetuka, or sound produced by objects which have the power of perception, i.e. sentient agents ; and (2) Anupatta- mahabhuta-hetuka, or sound produced by objects not having the power of perception, i.e. non-sentient agents. These classes are divided into (a) articulate sound, and (b) inarticulate COSMIC ANALYSIS 125 sound.