Indian Philosophy v1.c9.s19.3

v1.c9.s19.3

In later Indian thought materialism naturally has come in for a good deal of severe and contemptuous treatment. The classic argument that it is impossible to evolve a subject from an object, since there is no object without a pre-existing subject, has been often repeated. Consciousness cannot be the result of natural forces. The theory that there is no self apart from body is criticised on the following grounds: (1) Our inability to realise consciousness apart from the body does not imply that consciousness is a property of the body, for the body may only be an auxiliary to the realisation of consciousness. Perception of light is not possible without light. But from this it does not follow that perception is light or a property thereof. (2) If consciousness were a property of the body, then there could be no consciousness of the body, for consciousness cannot be the property of that which one is conscious, but that which is conscious. In other words, the subject cannot be reduced to the object or its property. (3) If consciousness were a property of the body, then it must be capable of being perceived by others than the owner of the body, for we know that properties of material things could be perceived by others. But the consciousness of one person is his private property, and cannot be known by others in the same way as by the self. (4) Even the body which is of the nature of a contrivance implies some one who controls it. Consciousness belongs to that controller. The materialist position is found to be self-destructive. If man is a product of mere nature, it is inconceivable how he should come to form moral ideals of any kind. The theory that perception is the only source of knowledge is criticised by many schools of thought. We may give one example here from the *Sāṃkhyatattvakaumudī*. "When the materialist affirms that inference is not a means of knowledge, how is it that he can know that a man is ignorant or in doubt or in error? For ignorance, doubt and error cannot possibly be discovered in other men by sense perception. Accordingly, even by the materialist, ignorance, etc., in other men must be inferred from conduct and from speech, and therefore inference is recognised as a means of knowledge even against his will.” Nihilism and scepticism are the results of a consistent adoption of the perceptual theory of knowledge. Ideas which move the world cease to be real on this theory, because they cannot be measured by the tape. In spite of all these defects, which are too much on the surface, this school exercised a profound influence on the current beliefs and broke the fascination of the past. It applied to the main questions of philosophy a judgment free from the fancies of theology and the dictates of authority. When people begin to reflect with freedom from presuppositions and religious superstition they easily tend to the materialist belief, though deeper reflection takes them away from it. Materialism is the first answer to the question of how far our unassisted reason helps us in the difficulties of philosophy.