Abstract

In the Tattvacintāmaṇi, the Nyāya stalwart Gaṅgeśa (14th century CE) engages in a debate with a Mīmāṃsaka, for whom the manas is ubiquitous while it is atomic for the Naiyāyika. Ubiquitous and atomic substances are both partless. Ubiquitous substances are actionless while atomic ones move. The Mīmāmsaka asks a question on action: if the manas is atomic, then the actions of the body would be absurdly restricted to a bodily region that is also atomic. Or, if it pervades the entire body, parts that have no intention to be acted upon would also act. They ask how we are able to move all our fingers and toes at the same time. Gaṅgeśa offers two related responses, one to introduce desire (cikīrṣa) as the regulator for movement within the body. Second, he says that effort is limited by where the effect of bodily action is seen. Phillips and Tatacharya (2009) have argued that Gaṅgeśa’s responce is unsatisfactory for his shift from manas to desire implies ambiguity in Gaṅgeśa’s reasoning. Picking from an objection Uddyotakara (6th century CE) raises on Pakṣilasvāmin Vātsyāyana’s (4th century CE) reading to Nyāya Sūtra 3.1.8-11, on whether the visual sense faculties are one or two, it will be argued that the atomic manas still plays a role in bodily actions. While Vātsyāyana argues that the sense organs are two, Uddyotakara points out that an atomic manas cannot come into contact with two visual faculties at once and concludes that it is one. I attempt to show the relation between the two debates and how the conceptual reconstruction answers some of Mīmāmsaka's questions.