The Concept of Mind in Indian Thought with Special Reference to Jaina System

Summary

The paper surveys the concept of mind (manas) across Indian philosophical schools and contrasts it with Western views. In Indian thought, *manas* literally means “measuring” and is considered a subtle material substance that functions as an internal organfile:///home/oai/share/split_out/03_Concept_of_Mind_in_Indian_Thought_with_Special_Reference_to_Jaina_System.pdf#:~:text=The%20word%20manas%20or%20mind,all%20systems%20of%20Indian%20philo. Early Upanishads describe the mind as a sense-organ or instrument of knowledge with a physical basis, bridging gross matter and pure consciousnessfile:///home/oai/share/split_out/03_Concept_of_Mind_in_Indian_Thought_with_Special_Reference_to_Jaina_System.pdf#:~:text=Upanisad%2C%20we%20find%20manas%20treated,all%20systems%20of%20Indian%20philo. Western philosophers often equate the mind with the soul or consciousness and rarely distinguish between the twofile:///home/oai/share/split_out/03_Concept_of_Mind_in_Indian_Thought_with_Special_Reference_to_Jaina_System.pdf#:~:text=for%20the%20Easterner%20or%20the,an%20interpretation%20of%20these%20functions. Indian philosophers, in contrast, recognise mind as distinct from the self (ātman) while still sharing its nature through associationfile:///home/oai/share/split_out/03_Concept_of_Mind_in_Indian_Thought_with_Special_Reference_to_Jaina_System.pdf#:~:text=Indian%20philosophers%2C%20from%20the%20very,there%20are%20some%20common%20features. Thus, although there are commonalities in the functions of mind, there are substantial differences in ontological statusfile:///home/oai/share/split_out/03_Concept_of_Mind_in_Indian_Thought_with_Special_Reference_to_Jaina_System.pdf#:~:text=between%20what%20the%20Indian%20thinkers,of%20difference%20between%20the%20two. The essay analyses various Indian systems. Nyāya, Vaiśeṣika, Mīmāṃsā and Sāṃkhya treat *manas* as an internal organ required for the perception of pleasure, pain and other internal experiences; it is unconscious like other sensesfile:///home/oai/share/split_out/03_Concept_of_Mind_in_Indian_Thought_with_Special_Reference_to_Jaina_System.pdf#:~:text=In%20Indian%20philosophy%20the%20Naiyayikas%2C,by%20these%20systems%20as%20a. Knowledge arises when the senses and mind operate together, but consciousness belongs exclusively to the selffile:///home/oai/share/split_out/03_Concept_of_Mind_in_Indian_Thought_with_Special_Reference_to_Jaina_System.pdf#:~:text=In%20Indian%20philosophy%20the%20Naiyayikas%2C,to%20through%20the%20term%20%E2%80%98mind%E2%80%99. Upanishadic texts also emphasise that mind plays only a secondary role in knowledge, for the self is the true knowerfile:///home/oai/share/split_out/03_Concept_of_Mind_in_Indian_Thought_with_Special_Reference_to_Jaina_System.pdf#:~:text=activities%20of%20living%20being,a%20secondary%20role%20in%20knowledge. Opinions differ regarding whether mind itself is a sense organ; for example, Nyāya‑Vaiśeṣika authors argue that it is a non-physical atomic substance that allows internal and external perceptionfile:///home/oai/share/split_out/03_Concept_of_Mind_in_Indian_Thought_with_Special_Reference_to_Jaina_System.pdf#:~:text=On%20the%20other%20hand%2C%20Nyaya,15%20not%20extended%2C%20for%20at, whereas Vedānta writers debate its status as an instrumentfile:///home/oai/share/split_out/03_Concept_of_Mind_in_Indian_Thought_with_Special_Reference_to_Jaina_System.pdf#:~:text=The%20Vedantins%20accept%20the%20existence,referred%20to%20%E0%AA%A5%E0%AA%A1%20higher%20than. Buddhist philosophers deny a permanent self and thus reject the need for a separate organ of mindfile:///home/oai/share/split_out/03_Concept_of_Mind_in_Indian_Thought_with_Special_Reference_to_Jaina_System.pdf#:~:text=internal%20perception%20of%20pain%2C%20pleasure,the%20highest%20reality%20of%20consciousness. The paper then elaborates on the Jain view. While not presented in detail in the excerpt, Jains typically distinguish between the physical mind (dravya manas) and the non-physical (bhāva manas). Mind is not considered a sense organ and is neither eternal nor atomic; it serves as an internal instrument enabling the soul to experience and organise knowledge. Jains reject the Nyāya idea that contact between mind and object produces knowledge and oppose the Sāṃkhya view of mind as unconscious. For Jains, the mind’s capacity to reflect consciousness is essential for perception and for the operation of the five external senses. By examining these divergent perspectives, the author aims to synthesise a coherent understanding of mind in Indian philosophy.