Bharatiya Darshan Me Aatmavad - Book Summary

Here is a comprehensive summary in English of the provided Jain text, "Bharatiya Darshan me Aatmavad" by Sadhvi Nirmalashreeji:

The book "Bharatiya Darshan me Aatmavad" (The concept of Soul in Indian Philosophy) by Sadhvi Nirmalashreeji, explores the fundamental philosophical concept of the soul (Atman/Jiva) as understood within various schools of Indian thought, with a particular focus on the Jain perspective.

Introduction to Philosophy and the Soul:

The author begins by stating that human nature is contemplative, and philosophy's domain is the "quest for truth." Quoting Lord Mahavir, she emphasizes that "Truth is indeed the essence in the world." The term "Darshan" (philosophy) is initially understood as ideas related to the soul, encompassing concepts like the soul, karma, the afterlife, and liberation. Philosophy is defined as a "philosophical method" or "theory of reality." The soul is considered the most important element, as "He who knows the soul knows everything." Many people grapple with fundamental questions like "Who am I?", "Where have I come from?", "Where will I go?", and "Will I be reborn?" Philosophy arises from such curiosity, with the soul as its foundational concept.

Survey of Different Indian Philosophical Schools on the Soul:

The book then systematically examines the views on the soul held by various prominent Indian philosophical traditions:

Charvaka Philosophy: This materialist school asserts that perception is the only valid means of knowledge. Therefore, they deny the existence of heaven, hell, soul, and the afterlife. The world is limited to what is observable. They believe the material world is composed of four elements. Consciousness arises from the combination of these elements, much like how a reddish color appears from the combination of betel leaf, lime, and catechu, or intoxication from spirits. The body, as a manifestation of these elements, is considered the conscious entity and the doer and enjoyer. They find no proof for a soul distinct from the body. Some Charvakas considered senses, vital breath (prana), or mind as the soul, and others posited that consciousness is the soul, and the body is inert.
Buddhist Philosophy: The Buddha's primary aim was to explain the mysteries of the Upanishadic soul. He attributed all evils to the belief in a permanent soul and rejected the existence of a separate, permanent soul. While Buddha's views on the path to liberation largely aligned with the Upanishads, his disagreement with them centered on the soul. Upanishads believed liberation came through self-knowledge, whereas Buddha felt that knowledge of the soul, rather than leading to liberation, was the cause of bondage. As long as the concept of "I" and "mine" exists, one cannot be free. The Buddhist concept of the soul is a stream of consciousness (vijnana-pravaha), which is impermanent as it perishes moment by moment. However, the continuity of consciousness from one moment to the next explains mental experiences and memory. Despite being an-atmatists (deniers of a permanent soul), Buddhists accept karma and rebirth. The author notes the apparent contradiction between Buddha's rejection of a permanent soul and his acceptance of rebirth, explaining it through concepts like Pratītyasamutpāda (dependent origination) and Parinamavada (theory of transformation). Life is seen as a flow of different states with cause-and-effect relationships, making the entire life appear as a unified whole, like a flame that is constantly changing yet appears continuous. Buddha was a proponent of the Middle Path, avoiding the extremes of eternalism (believing in a permanent soul) and annihilationism (believing in complete destruction). He stated that if he affirmed the soul, people would become eternalists, and if he denied it, they would become annihilationists. Some scholars suggest that Buddha did not believe in a permanent soul but accepted rebirth.
Jain Perspective on Buddhist Anatmavada: The author highlights that Buddhism, in its Madhyamika school, views the soul as an illusion in the empirical world, with its ultimate nature being emptiness.
Nyaya-Vaisheshika Philosophy: According to these schools, the soul (Jiva) is eternal, unchanging (kutashtha-nitya), all-pervading (vibhu), and plural. It possesses qualities like intellect (buddhi), knowledge, happiness, sorrow, attachment, aversion, desire, and effort. These are not qualities of the material world, so they must belong to a substance distinct from inert matter, which they call the soul. Maharshi Kanada lists breath, inhalation-exhalation, life, movement of the mind, and other sensory functions as characteristics of the soul. The soul is the controller of the senses and the body, and that which causes action requires an agent. They hold a realist view. Vaisheshika argues for the unity of the soul based on similarities in happiness and sorrow, but for the distinction of the soul in each body from an organizational perspective.
Samkhya Philosophy: Samkhya posits two fundamental principles: Prakriti (primordial matter) and Purusha (soul). Prakriti is one, inert, while Purusha is conscious and manifold. Samkhya considers the soul to be eternal and inactive. Acharya Hemachandra, in 'Syadvada Manjari', describes the soul (Purusha) as "immaterial, conscious, enjoyer, eternal, all-pervading, actionless, non-doer, without attributes, and subtle." Samkhya does not consider the soul to be the doer, but rather an apparent doer and enjoyer. The power of action resides in Prakriti. The existence of the soul is considered undeniable through the perception of "I am," "This is mine." The soul reflects the consciousness of the intellect and considers itself identical, leading to the experience of being happy or sad. The book quotes from 'Vadāmahārṇava' stating that the reflection of objects in the intellect, falling into the mirror-like soul, is the soul's experience.
Mimamsa Philosophy: According to Mimamsa, the soul is the doer and enjoyer. It is all-pervading and distinct in each body. Qualities like knowledge, happiness, sorrow, and desire are inherent in it. The soul is not itself knowledge or happiness. Bhatt Mimamsakas consider the soul to be partly knowledge and partly inert. They believe the soul is conscious and inert, and also accepts the existence of action in the soul, considering it an eternal substance even though it is transformative. The soul attains every knowledge through its conscious aspect and undergoes transformation through its inert aspect. Kumarila considers the soul to be not consciousness itself, but endowed with consciousness. Consciousness arises in the soul through its contact with the body and objects, but in dreams, without contact with objects, consciousness is absent. Prabhakara does not accept action in the soul. The Mimamsa school believes that contemplating the soul leads to self-consciousness ("I am"). Prabhakara rejects the idea of "self-consciousness" as the object of knowledge, as the same soul cannot be both the knower and the known simultaneously.
Vedanta Philosophy: Shankaracharya's philosophy is purely Advaita (non-dualistic). He believes that by nature, the soul is one and all-pervading, but appears manifold due to limiting adjuncts like the body. Differences between objects, the known and the knower, and the soul and Brahman are all creations of Maya (illusion). Shankaracharya fully supports the Upanishadic oneness of the soul and Brahman. He states that the soul is the basis of all empirical dealings, including knowledge derived from valid means of cognition, and its existence is established even before these dealings. The soul cannot be negated; only adventitious elements can be negated, not its inherent nature. Though humans appear to be a combination of body and soul, the perceived body is an illusion, like other material objects. Once this is realized, there is no difference between the soul and Brahman. The Upanishadic statement "Tat tvam asi" (That thou art) signifies the non-difference between the individual soul and Brahman.
- Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita: Ramanuja's philosophy posits three realities: Chit (consciousness/souls), Achit (inert matter), and Ishvara (God). The Upanishadic statements of oneness between Ishvara and the soul do not indicate absolute identity. Brahman is qualified by both Chit and Achit, hence it is saguna (with attributes), not nirguna (without attributes). While Chit and Achit are distinct, Brahman is one, qualified by them. These elements remain in their seed form within Brahman. In dissolution, even though souls and material objects perish, Brahman remains, qualified by pure Chit (souls without bodies) and unmanifest Achit. This is called causal Brahman. During creation, Brahman manifests as embodied souls and material objects, which is causal Brahman. Brahman is an infinite reservoir of qualities, omniscient and omnipotent. In Shankar's view, Brahman, through the adjunct of Maya, is called Ishvara, and through the adjunct of Avidya, it is called the soul, with the material world being merely apparent. Therefore, there is only one reality. In Ramanuja's view, Brahman is Ishvara, and the souls and the world, which are its body, are distinct from it and eternal. Thus, there are three substances, not one. Souls are atomic in size but infinite, and entirely separate from each other.
Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita: According to these texts, the soul is eternal, never dies, and is free from defects. The soul is distinct from the body, different from the mind, all-pervading, and unchanging. It is beyond the reach of speech. Its nature is described through negation ("neti, neti" - not this, not this). The Upanishads use two types of statements: those with specific characteristics and those with non-specific characteristics.

Jain Perspective on the Soul:

The Jain perspective, as presented in the book, views the soul (Jiva) as distinct from matter and of the nature of consciousness. It is identified with the 'Purusha' of Samkhya, the 'vijnana-pravaha' of Buddhism, the 'chaitanya-vishishta deha' of Charvaka, and the 'Atman' of Nyaya-Vaisheshika and Vedanta. However, the Jain understanding of the soul is considered independent of other philosophies.

According to "Dravya Samgraha" and "Panchastikaya," the soul is described as:

Possessing upayoga (consciousness/activity).
Immaterial (amurta).
The doer (karta).
Of the size of its own body (swadeh-pariman).
The enjoyer (bhokta).
In the cycle of transmigration (samsarasth).
Attaining liberation (siddha).
Naturally having an upward movement (urdhvagati).
Possessing existence, consciousness, and upayoga.
Lordly (prabhu), doer, enjoyer, of the body's size, not material, and connected with karma.

Acharya Vadideva Suriji, in "Pramanayanatattvalokalankara," elaborates on the worldly soul, stating it is proven by direct and indirect means of knowledge, is of the nature of consciousness, is transformative, the doer, the direct enjoyer, of its own body's size, distinct in each body, and possesses karmic merit/demerit (poudgalika adrushtavan).

The author emphasizes that the soul is transformative (parinaami). Just as gold remains gold when fashioned into a crown or earrings, the soul remains the soul even as its modes change through the four states of existence (birth, death, etc.). This contrasts with Nyaya-Vaisheshika, Samkhya, and others who consider the soul to be eternally unchanging and motionless.

The soul is also the doer and direct enjoyer (karta and sākṣādbhōktā). Like a blacksmith who works and enjoys the fruits of his labor, the worldly soul creates good and bad karma through its actions and directly experiences their results. This differentiates it from Samkhya, which considers Prakriti the doer and Purusha an imputed enjoyer without the power of action.

The soul's size is relative to its own body (swadeh-pariman). Its contraction and expansion are dependent on the karmic body (karmic-sharir). In a karmic state, souls are bound within the limits of a body, so their transformation is not independent. The soul residing in an elephant's body can also exist in a tiny ant's body due to its capacity for contraction and expansion. This contrasts with Nyaya-Vaisheshika, Advaita Vedanta, and Samkhya, who consider the soul to be all-pervading.

A key Jain tenet is that the soul is distinct in each body (pratikṣetre bhinna). This aligns with Samkhya, Nyaya, and Vishishtadvaita, but differs from Advaita, which posits the soul is essentially one, appearing manifold due to adjuncts.

The soul is also connected with matter (poudgalika adrushtavan), meaning it is bound by karma. The union of the soul and karma is as beginningless as the union of gold and clay. Just as ingested food transforms into different bodily tissues, karmic matter accepted by the soul transforms into karma. This view differentiates Jainism from Nyaya-Vaisheshika and Vedanta. Charvakas deny the existence of adrushta (karma). Nyaya-Vaisheshika consider adrushta (merit and demerit) as an attribute of the soul, while Vedantins consider it Maya and deny its existence.

In Summary:

The Jain philosophy, as elucidated in this text, defines the soul as:

Conscious in nature (chaitanya-swarup).
Eternal, but transformative (parinami, not kutashtha nitya).
The doer of good and bad karma and the enjoyer of its fruits (shubhashubha karma-karta tatha phal ka bhokta).
Of the size of its own body (swadeh-pariman).
Neither atomic nor all-pervading, but of medium size.
Distinct in each body (pratikṣetre bhinna).
Bound by karmic matter (poudgalika adrushtavan).