1052. If I have understood this verse correctly, the theory of perception
laid down is a sort of idealism which has not, perhaps, its counterpart
in European metaphysics. The senses are first said to be only
modifications of the understanding. The mind also is only a modification
of the same. A particular sense, say the eye, becomes subservient to the
understanding at a particular moment. As soon as this happens, the
understanding, though in reality it is only the eye, becomes united with
the eye, and entering the mind raises an image there, the consequence of
which is that that image is said to be seen. External world there is, of
course, as independent of mind and understanding. That which is called a
tree is only an idea or image created in the mind by the understanding
with the aid of the sense of vision.
1053. The speaker here combats the theory that the qualities of Sattwa,
Rajas, and Tamas inhere to the objects themselves of the senses. His own
view is that they inhere to the Mind, the Understanding, and
Consciousness. The qualities may be seen to exist with objects, but in
reality they follow objects in consequence of their permanent connection
with the mind, the understanding, and consciousness which have agency in
the production of objects. The commentator cites the instance of a wife's
beautiful and symmetrical limbs. These excite pleasure in the husband,
envy in a co-wife, and desire (mixed with pain at its not being
gratified) in a weak-hearted gazer.
Pages:
2861
2862
2863
2864
2865
2866
2867
2868
2869
2870
2871
2872
2873
2874
2875
2876
2877
2878
2879
2880
2881
2882
2883
2884
2885