Studies of Nyayabhusana(10)
                Bhasarvajna's examination on the sixfold contact between
                              sense organ and object

                                                         Shodo    YAMAKAMI
                                  (Summary)

  Bhasarvajna defines "ayogipratyaksa" as follows : "prakasadesakaladharmadyanugrahad
indriyarthasambandhavisesena sthularthagrahakam". Commenting on the word of
"indriyarthasambandhavisesena", Bhasarvajna maintains that "sambandhavisesa"
implies the six varieties of the contact of sense organ and object.  NS simply
states that  perception  arises  from  the contact between sense organ and object,
and NV is the first to refer to the theory of sixfold contact, through which the
Naiyayikas can explain logically how the six catetories (padarthas) such as
substance (dravya) etc. are perceived. In this respect,  Bhasarvajna clearly
follows  the Nyaya tradition.
  However it may be worth noting that Bhasarvajna, in the course of discussion
on the perception of quality (guna), suggests some amendments to the Nyaya tradition.
Since the Nyaya School inherited its ontology from the Vaisesika School,  its
categorical ontology  based on six padarthas has been mainly unchanged. PBh
enumerates 24 qualities, but Bhasarvajna does not regard some of them as a distinct
quality. For example, according to him, the number (samkhya) such as one (eka)
etc. is not a distinct quality,  because one is synonymous  with  'being  non-
different' (abhinna) and many (aneka)  with  'being different' (bhinna).  Likewise,
separation (vibhaga) is no more than  absence of conjunction (samyoga), and the
dimension (parimana) of 'large' is dependent on that of 'small', and so on. Moreover,
to our surprise, he even states that motion (karman)is included in the category
of quality (guna).  These unique  views  do show us how free Bhasarvajna is from
the Nyaya tradition and how logicalway of thinking he has. This is suggested by
his answer against an opponent, who states that Bhasarvajna's  interpretations
are  inconsistent with VS. Bhasarvajna answers as follows :  Because 'sacred sages'
(rsis)such as Kanada and Aksapada are never supposed to utter wrong words, we can
not judge whether their opinions are correct or not. But if we find, thanks to
some commentators,  some discrepancy between their theories,  we should be on the
side of one who is logically correct, because we are acting in the Nyaya logics.
  It is also noteworthy that Bhasarvajna examines his own statement mentioned in
NSara, and sometimes even delcares his statement is not satisfying. As mentioned
above,  Bhasarvajna denies in NBhus that the number is a distinct quality.  But
in NSara it is stated that  the  universal (samanya) residing in the number is
perceived  through samyuktasamaveta-samavaya-samnikarsa,  which means the number
is regarded  as a distinct quality. Regarding this discrepancy, Bhasarvajna replies
that it is not important to decide whether the number is a quality or not. Crutial
for him is the logics which is the means for the highest good,  i.e. emancipation.
In NBhus it is stated that perception of inherence (samavaya) isknown through
logical reasoning. But in NSara Bhasarvajna describes that it is sometimes perceived.
With regard to this discrepancy,  he  states the view described in NSara may be
wrong,  because of its being only one of a section of the Naiyayikas. This fact
that Bhasravajna himself corrects in his NBhus his own statement of NSara makes
us infer that he started to work at the bulky commentary of NBhus some period of
time  afterhe completed the handbook of NSara.  Bhasarvajna, who, as stated above,
had a free way of thinking apart from the Nyaya tradition,  is believed to pick
up to examine the quality and the motion of the Vaisesika categories. It is not
unlikely that he notices some defect in his own description in NSara after examining
it in NBhus later on. It is already pointed out that NSara includes many unauthodox
opinions.  But here  comes across our mind the image of Bhasarvajna who makes  an
effort, at the last miniutes in stage of completing NBhus, to make the  Nyaya
system more logically consistent.

1. Conjunction (samyoga-samnikarsa) : Perception of substance [154.22 - 156.13]
 (1)Opponent's view that substance is perceived with quality [154.28 - 155.10]
 (2)Bhasarvajna's reply that substance is percieved alone as distinct from quality
   [155.10 - 156.13]
2. Inherence in the conjoined (samyuktasamavaya-samnikarsa) : Perception of
 qualities which inhere in substance [156.15 - 157.16]
 (1)Pleasure (sukha) etc. is not a cognition. [156.25 - 157.07]
 (2)Pleasure etc. is a quality of atman. [157.07 - 16]
3. Inherence in what inheres in the conjoined (samyuktasamavetasamavaya-samnikarsa)
   : Perception of the universal(samanya) etc. which inhere in quality  [157.17 - 165.09]　
 (1)Perception of qualityness (gunatva) [157.25 - 158.14]
 (2)Number (samkhya) [158.14 - 160.13]
  (i)Number is not a distinct quality. [158.14 - 159.22]
  (ii)Number is not an asamavayikarana. [159.23 - 160.13]
 (3)Dimension (parimana) is not a distinct quality. [160.15 - 21]
 (4)Separateness (prthaktva) is not a distinct quality. [160.23 - 29]
 (5)Disjunction (vibhaga) [161.02 - 162.07]
  (i)Disjunction is not a distinct quality. [161.02 - 13]
  (ii)Disjunction arising from disjunction (vibhagaja-vibhaga) [161.13 - 162.07]
 (6)Proximity (paratva) and remoteness (aparatva) are not a distinct quality. [162.09 - 17]
 (7)Velocity (vega) [162.19 - 163.26]
  (i)Velocity is not a distinct quality. [162.19 - 25]
  (ii)Discrepancy with VS [162.25 - 163.26]
 (8)Heaviness (gurutva) is not beyond the sense organs (atindriya). [163.26 - 164.03]
 (9)Fluidity (dravatva) is not a quality of luminous substance (taijasa).[164.03 - 09]
 (10)Viscidity (sneha) is not a quality of water alone. [164.11 - 165.09]
4. Inherence (samavaya-samnikarsa) : Perception of sound (sabda)
5. Inherence in what inheres (samavetasamavaya) : Perception of quality which inheres
   in sound  [165.11 - 167.17]
 (1)Sound is a quality of ether (akasa). [165.12 - 23]
 (2)Refutation against the old teacher (purvacarya) [165.23 - 166.05]
 (3)The reason why ether is the substratum of sound [166.07 - 25]
 (4)Ether itself is the auditory sense organ. [166.27 - 167.12]
 (5)'dik srotram' [167.12 - 16]
 (6)Contact of inherence [167.16 -17]
6. The qualifier-qualified relation (visesanavisesya-bhava) : Perception of absence
   (abhava) [167.19 - 170.17]
 (1)The sixfold contact is suggested by the author of NS. [167.22 - 168.09]
 (2)Perception of the absence through the qualifier-qualified relation [168.10 - 19]
 (3)The question the qualifier-qualified relation would be always possible is refuted.
    [168.20 - 28]
 (4)Perception of inherence is known through logical reasoning. [168.29 - 170.12]
 (5)The distinction between conjunction and inherence [170.13 - 17]

トップページに戻る