Which school holds that an indriya is not a physiological organ but a…

Concept

Indian philosophical schools distinguish the visible bodily organ from the faculty that makes perception possible. The term indriya can therefore denote a physical sense-base, a power (śakti), or a subtle substance, depending on the school.

To answer a classification question, identify which school equates indriya with the organ’s operative capacity rather than with the visible organ or an independent subtle substance.

Application

In the Mīmāṃsā account used here, an indriya is the distinctive power (śakti) of a bodily organ. The eye, for example, is the physiological seat, while its visual capacity is the indriya.

Contrast

• Buddhist traditions analyze indriyas through their own accounts of sensory faculties and sense bases; the quoted capacity definition is the Mīmāṃsā position used in this classification.

• Nyāya account: an indriya is an imperceptible, element-constituted substance inferred as the instrument of perception.

• Vedānta account: perception is explained through the sense faculties working with the internal organ (antaḥkaraṇa), rather than by this specific capacity definition.

Cross-check

The capacity formula maps exactly to Mīmāṃsā and not to the Buddhist or Nyāya alternatives above.

Result

Therefore, the required school is the Mīmāṃsakas.