Bharatiya Darshan Me Atma Mimansa

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Bharatiya Darshan me Atma Mimansa" by Arunvijaymuni, focusing on the soul's inquiry in Indian philosophy:

The text begins by acknowledging the multitude of religions and philosophies in the world, highlighting Indian philosophies as paramount. It states that Indian philosophies delve deeply into both the seen and unseen aspects of all entities. Jainism is recognized as an independent and ancient philosophy, whose proponents and guides are the Tirthankaras or Arhatas. Thus, it is also called the Arhat philosophy. The Arhats, like Adinath and Mahavir Swami, are described as omniscient and all-seeing.

Jainism, like other Indian philosophies, thoroughly examines various entities such as the soul (Atma), the supreme soul (Paramatma), the universe (Lok-Alok), the afterlife, karma, dharma, and the seen and unseen. The central focus of most orthodox philosophies is the "soul." Due to the lack of direct perception of the soul, different philosophies hold varying viewpoints. This essay aims to discuss Jainism's soul-related principles in contrast to other philosophies.

The text emphasizes that self-knowledge leads to self-realization, and self-knowledge is the cause of liberation (Moksha). This knowledge is attainable through means of valid inference and other proofs. The ultimate support for this knowledge lies in the scriptures spoken by the omniscient Tirthankaras. Therefore, this essay presents an offering of words and worship to the Jinas, based on the teachings of the omniscient Arhats.

The Bhagwan Arhats have expounded the Nine Tattvas:

1. Jiva (Soul/Living Being)
2. Ajiva (Non-living Matter)
3. Punya (Merit/Virtue)
4. Papa (Demerit/Sin)
5. Ashrava (Influx of karmic particles)
6. Samvara (Cessation of karmic influx)
7. Nirjara (Shedding of karmic particles)
8. Bandha (Bondage of karma)
9. Moksha (Liberation)

Among these, Jiva and Ajiva are the two fundamental principles. The other principles are merely states or conditions arising from their combination or separation. Matter (Dravya) has infinite characteristics and is composed of qualities and modifications, possessing the nature of origination, decay, and permanence – as stated in the triplet: "It originates, it decays, it remains."

Critique of Charvaka (Materialism):

The Charvakas, who believe only in the existence of empirically perceived objects, deny the unseen. They consider non-sentient things (Ajiva) as empirically perceivable. Since they are fond of the perceptible and the soul is unseen, the Charvakas do not accept a soul separate from the body. They believe that consciousness arises from the four elements (earth, water, fire, air) and their specific chemical combinations. Therefore, the body itself is the soul, and there is no other soul.

This is likened to how various substances like honey ferment and produce intoxication. Similarly, consciousness arises from a specific combination of the four elements. Thus, consciousness is a property of the body, not the soul. Life continues from conception to death. Death occurs when the body's mechanism malfunctions, and consciousness ceases.

The text asserts that the materialist view of consciousness is the oldest historical viewpoint. It is mentioned as a counter-argument (Purvapaksha) in the Upanishads, Jain Agamas, and Buddhist Pitakas. Even a great logician like Jayanta Bhatta refers to it as the Charvaka doctrine. The concept of "that which is life is that body" is also found in Sutrakritanga, Visheshavasya Bhashya, and Majjhima Nikaya.

The Charvakas accept that elements are inert and believe consciousness arises from the inert. However, this is argued to be flawed by logical reasoning. If there is a cause-and-effect relationship between elements and consciousness, how can the variety of qualities in the cause lead to the effect? For instance, if the causes for a pot were present, a cloth would not be produced. Therefore, the notion of consciousness arising from the inert is deemed false.

Furthermore, it cannot be said that consciousness is the nature of the inert. To assume another substance for consciousness would be redundant (Gaurava). Thus, the materialist view of consciousness is not logically consistent.

They also argue that since consciousness is not seen, it is beyond sensory perception. Therefore, it should not be accepted. The text counters that there is no proof to establish that the unseen is non-existent. Without proof, the existence of the object of proof cannot be established.

However, the crucial point is that no entity is truly unseen. To claim something is non-existent like a "hare's horn" is baseless. When discussing the validity of sensory perception and other means of knowledge, the reality of the objects of knowledge must be accepted. The cause of perception in the soul-body-sense connection is the sense organ. If we ask what the sense organ is, it must be an extraordinary, unseen entity. Even in dead bodies, where the sense organs are present, there is an inability to perform actions. Therefore, it is necessary to accept an unseen entity that resides in the sense organs. If the unseen is not accepted, then the absence of proof will pervade everywhere, and the object of proof will never be established. The Naiyayikas believe that the mind is dependent on the senses. Therefore, the unseen sense organ is the basis of empirical transactions.

Through this reasoning, the Charvakas are thoroughly defeated. Thus, the Charvaka doctrine is considered insignificant for arriving at the ultimate truth.

Jain Definition of the Soul:

The Jain definition of the soul is: "It is of the nature of consciousness, undergoing modifications, a doer, a direct experiencer, of the size of the body, different in every body, and dependent on material karma (audrika)." This precise definition, given by the esteemed Sri Vadideva Suri Maharaja, refutes other philosophies and upholds the Arhat doctrine. Jain followers proclaim the soul's conscious nature.

Consciousness (Chetana) is a special power of the soul. Consciousness is the unique characteristic of the soul and the differentiator between the soul and non-soul. Hence, it is said, "The soul is characterized by consciousness." Consciousness is of the nature of use (Upayoga), which is both formless and with form, and it is of the nature of knowledge and perception. This definition refutes the Charvaka, Nyaya, and Vaisheshika schools.

Critique of Nyaya and Vaisheshika:

According to the Naiyayikas, the soul is inert (devoid of knowledge). They maintain a complete distinction between the soul and knowledge. However, they posit a relationship of 'samavaya' (inherence) between the soul and knowledge. If they were inseparable, then the destruction of knowledge would also imply the destruction of the soul. But they accept the soul as an eternal substance. Therefore, their acceptance of non-difference is illogical.

Furthermore, they believe that the gradual destruction of passion, aversion, delusion, and the cycle of birth and suffering would lead to the destruction of the soul's qualities, and ultimately, the soul itself.

To avoid the cessation of the soul's activity as a doer and knower, they do not accept the soul and knowledge as identical. The Arhats hold the view that "the soul is of the nature of knowledge," while the Naiyayikas believe "the soul is the substrate of knowledge."

It is illogical to consider the soul and knowledge as completely different. If knowledge were separate, one would not experience another's object of knowledge. Similarly, if one's knowledge were distinct from one's soul, one's own soul's knowledge would not be experienced. Just as we do not know through another's knowledge, we cannot know ourselves through our own knowledge, if they are different.

If knowledge resides in the soul through inherence (samavaya), then that same knowledge is capable of illuminating the object. Thus, even though it is connected to the soul through inherence, it is distinct. This resolves the contradiction.

However, this is against Nyaya principles. According to Nyaya, the soul is all-pervading and immutable. Inherence is also eternal and all-pervading. Therefore, the knowledge of one should lead to the knowledge of all. But this is not observed in practice. Just as the relationship of inherence exists between the pot and its form, if the form is destroyed, the pot itself is destroyed. Similarly, if the knowledge connected to the soul through inherence is destroyed, the existence of the soul itself would be in question. The question of permanence does not even arise.

If a connection other than inherence is imagined between the soul and knowledge, it leads to the fallacy of infinite regress.

The argument that the soul and knowledge are intrinsically connected, like a lamp illuminating itself and others, is also inconsistent. In Nyaya, the attribute and the possessor of the attribute are completely different. Therefore, the lamp analogy is not applicable. If there is absolute difference, how does the lamp itself exist? If the lamp's self-illumination is not established in Nyaya, how can inherence be established? Until inherence is proven, other hypotheses are baseless, like waves in the air.

Is the nature of self-illumination and illuminating others inherent to inherence, or is it different? In the first case, how can both be the nature of inherence? Without it, another inherence cannot be imagined. This leads to infinite regress. In the second case, if they are not different, only inherence remains, without any inherent nature.

If the knowledge of inherence arises independently in the inhering substances, then what is the need for inherence in the concept of "self-knowledge"? Therefore, knowledge is not entirely different from the soul. The soul and consciousness must be accepted as both different and non-different. All things are non-absolute. Neither completely different nor completely identical. If completely different, how can the reflection of "I am happy, I am sad, I know" arise? Similarly, if completely identical, the distinction between the soul and its nature of consciousness would vanish.

To prove the existence of the soul, consciousness is a permanent quality that causes knowledge. Without it, there is no proof. The soul is undergoing modifications (Parinami), moving through successive modifications at every moment, and this is its eternal nature.

Modification means moving from one state to another, not complete destruction or transformation. The goal of those who understand this is modification. The commentator on Patanjali states: "Modification is the origination of a new quality in a substance that is established."

With the adjective "Parinami" (undergoing modifications), the Nyaya concept of immutable permanence is refuted. The immutable-permanent Naiyayikas believe that in the eternal soul, agency, experiencer, birth, old age, and death are possible. For instance, through connection with knowledge, desire, etc., agency arises, and through separation from happiness and sorrow, birth and death occur.

However, this is illogical. The attainment of a subsequent state in the absence of a prior state is called connection. In the immutable-permanent view, how can connection be possible? Without connection, talk of agency and experiencing is meaningless. Accepting the origination of knowledge, etc., through connection without abandoning the prior state is like celebrating the birth of a barren son.

Furthermore, at the time of knowledge origination, the soul is conceived as being in a prior state. In the prior state, it was without specific distinguishing features, and in the subsequent state of knowledge origination, how can it become the distinguisher of objects?

The immutability of cause lies in its unchanging nature. If we consider the soul as the distinguisher of objects, then the one who was not a knower before now becomes the knower. How can immutability be possible? The soul's state changes as it moves through successive modifications. This quality is not found in inert matter, hence the soul is a modifier. The soul is a doer, a direct experiencer.

The combination of "doer" and "direct experiencer" distinguishes it from the Kapila school (Samkhya). According to the Kapilas, agency belongs to Prakriti (matter), not Purusha (soul). Purusha is described as: "Formless consciousness, enjoyer, eternal, all-pervading, inactive, Non-doer, without qualities, subtle, the soul in the Kapila view." The connection between Prakriti and Purusha is like that of a blind and a lame person. Consciousness is devoid of object-discrimination. Through the senses, pleasure and pain are transmitted to the intellect, which acts like a double mirror. Then, the power of consciousness is reflected in it. Hence, it is metaphorically said, "I am happy, I am sad." The soul is considered to be non-different from the intellect.

Patanjali states: "Even the pure Purusha sees the mental cognition. Seeing it, it appears as if it is of that nature." Due to the proximity of consciousness, even the non-conscious intellect appears conscious. The Maharnava states: "The reflection of the object transmitted to the mirror of the intellect is superimposed on the Purusha, who is like a second mirror. This is its experiencing, not a modification of the soul itself."

If the Purusha is without qualities and does not undergo modifications, how can liberation happen? Since the root 'muc' means to be freed from bondage, liberation must be of bondage. In the case of an unmodified soul, bondage cannot arise from the connection with desires, afflictions, and karma. Therefore, if the soul is inactive, the afterlife and transmigration also cannot occur.

The statement "consciousness exists, but it is devoid of object-discrimination" is contradictory. The root 'chit' is used for knowledge. Consciousness exists by which things are known. If this power is not self-illuminating or illuminating others, how can it be called consciousness, like a pot? The reflection of consciousness cannot be transmitted to the intellect, as it is a property of the manifest. Only manifest objects are reflected.

The experience of pleasure and pain in the soul is baseless, as there is no connection with them. If pleasure and pain are said to be generated by the intellect, that is also incorrect. According to Samkhya, the intellect is inert. If the intellect possesses the capacity to experience pleasure and pain, it leads to a contradiction. If the intellect is considered inert, then the objects of knowledge would be unknown.

If the soul is not a doer, how can it be an experiencer? Even in observed transactions, only the doer is the successful experiencer. How can another's action satisfy another? For example, Maitra is not satisfied by Chaitra's eating. An experience-doer relationship is observed. Experiencing is a subsequent effect, and doing is a prior cause. Just as for the existence of the pot's effect, the clay is the cause, similarly, doing follows experiencing. If experiencing is accepted, doing must also be accepted.

The statement "even the non-conscious intellect appears conscious due to the proximity of consciousness" also seems incorrect. Just as the mirror in which something is reflected also becomes imbued with consciousness, so too would the intellect. Since consciousness and non-consciousness are immutable in their nature, even Indra cannot change them. Moreover, by the word "like," the statement implies an imputation. Imputation is not capable of performing actions. Just as a boy, imputed with fire due to extreme anger, cannot perform the actions of burning and cooking like actual fire, similarly, consciousness can only be established by the soul's discrimination of objects, not by the inert intellect.

Therefore, the idea of the eight forms of Dharma (virtue) is merely verbal. Since virtues are qualities of the soul, ego (Ahankara) also cannot be generated by the intellect, as it is an act of identification, and an inert entity cannot produce a quality of the soul. Considering these thoughts, agency and direct experiencing appear logically consistent.

"Of the size of the body": This adjective refutes the soul's all-pervasiveness as conceived by the Naiyayikas, Vaisheshikas, Samkhyas, and others.

The philosophies of Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Samkhya, etc., accept the soul's omnipresence and ubiquity. Advaitavada proponents also accept the soul's oneness and ubiquity. They believe the soul exists everywhere, even outside the body, due to its all-pervasiveness.

However, if the soul is accepted as all-pervading, how can the existence of other entities be possible? If the soul is all-pervading, and in the state of "I am happy, I am sad, I know," then happiness, sorrow, etc., should be experienced equally by all souls. If one person eats, others should also be satisfied. But this is not observed in worldly transactions. Thus, the perception of pleasure and pain should be similar and simultaneous, due to the soul's all-pervasiveness. If the soul is omnipresent, then at a single point in time, it will be the knower of the existence and non-existence of pleasures and pains in human, animal, and infernal realms.

However, there is a disparity in pleasures and pains experienced in all realms. If one soul attains liberation, then all should also attain it. But this is not seen. All souls attain bondage and liberation according to the fruition of their own karma.

Thus, the theory of an all-pervading soul outside the body leads to great contradictions. What then is the difference between the soul and space? If the soul is all-pervading like space, how can action be possible in the soul? This negates the existence of transmigration. If the soul is all-pervading, then why do the proponents of the Ishvara (God) doctrine not accept the soul as the creator of the universe? Due to both being all-pervading. If the soul is God and God is the soul, then agency arises in the soul. Agency would then be of the same nature. Therefore, like sin and hell, it would be an unfortunate aspect of the soul-God.

The implication is that the soul is not all-pervading, as its qualities are not found everywhere. Anything whose qualities are not found everywhere is not all-pervading, like a pot. The soul is also like that. Therefore, unlike space, it is not all-pervading. By not being all-pervading, its qualities are found only where it exists, thus establishing its existence in proportion to the body.

In the Arhat tradition, there is an action called Samudghata. This is performed to equalize the subtle and gross karmic atoms. In the state of Kevala Samudghata, achieved in eight moments, the soul is considered all-pervading in a way, extending throughout the fourteen-rajus (the extent of the universe). However, this action is occasional and does not invalidate the soul's limited pervasiveness.

"Different in every body": This attribute discusses the soul's connection to the body. Due to the multitude of bodies seen, the existence of multiple souls must be accepted. Wherever there is an active body, there is a soul, like in kings and animals. The Jains, who are proponents of infinite souls, accept the existence of different souls in every body.

"In one body, there is one soul; in many, they are separate." In each soul's body, there is only one soul. Due to the soul's difference in every body, the doctrine of infinite souls is seen in Jainism. These are directly evident. Based on the body and the sensory transactions, many distinctions and sub-distinctions of souls are shown in Jain biology. Sri Madhvacharya has correctly explained this on the seventy-seventh page of Sarva Darshana Sangraha. Seekers should refer to it.

Since consciousness in an active body is an inferred experience, the independent existence of the soul in all bodies must be accepted. Therefore, the proof of difference from other bodies also proves the existence of multiple souls. Similar to how a single soul appears in various forms due to different limiting conditions, like the moon's reflection in water, this is also an issue in other philosophies. In all reflections, the experience of pleasure and pain is similar.

Furthermore, since there is no proof other than the Agamas (scriptures), many entities are proven by empirical evidence. These must be accepted. Thus, even the existence of Advaita (non-duality) cannot stand.

"Dependent on material (poudgalika) unseen qualities": This special attribute is given to refute the atheistic etc. The Charvakas, who are atheists, do not accept the unseen, stating it is not empirically perceived. If this is the case, then the non-existence of one's ancestors should be accepted, as they are not visible due to the passage of time. If they do not exist, then you also will not exist, just as a son does not exist without a father.

Furthermore, if the unseen is accepted as a cause other than the cause of the unseen, it leads to infinite regress.

The phrase "dependent on material unseen qualities" implies that the soul is dependent on the karmic matter that constitutes these unseen qualities. According to the Naiyayikas, the merits and demerits they accept as unseen are also discussed here as being material. The soul is the doer of karma (merit and demerit) which are of the nature of fullness and decay. As written by Haribhadra Suri in Shastra Varta Samucchaya: "He who is the doer of the different karmas, the experiencer of the fruits of karma, The binder, the liberated, such is the soul, not otherwise characterized." The soul is the doer of karmic actions, the binder of their various types, and the experiencer of the fruition of auspicious and inauspicious karmas. This is described as the soul's dependence on material karma, like shackles. It is due to the soul's inherent nature of passion and aversion that it binds itself with karmic matter.

The living being, bound by the results of past karma, performs violent actions like harming others due to passion and aversion.

"The actions of body, speech, and mind": Due to the soul's susceptibility to passions, it attracts the appropriate karmic particles. "Auspicious is for merit," "inaugural is for sin," and so on, are well-known proofs.

Just as a younger body is the cause of an older body, and a child's body is the cause of a youthful body, and before that, a fetal body is the cause. Then, what could be the cause of the fetal body? It is the karmic body from the previous birth, and no other. This karmic body is material, subtle, and created by the unseen. If the unseen is accepted in Jainism, then the afterlife and rebirth are also accepted. The material unseen is manifest and inert. How is the non-manifest soul bound by manifest karma? How do favor and harm occur? Just as the application of manifest sandalwood, etc., to the non-manifest sky does not cause favor, similarly, harm from sword strikes is also not possible.

In this context, your argument is not capable of proving your own viewpoint. Just as consuming manifest Brahmi liquor, etc., causes manifest intoxication, similarly, the non-manifest knowledge is directly experienced to be favored or harmed. According to Syadvada, the soul is not absolutely non-manifest, as it has undergone modifications due to the eternal continuity of karma. Just as iron heated by fire, or milk and water, are like the soul's connection with karma, the soul also appears so. Just as water appears like milk in milk. Therefore, due to being inseparable in some way with manifest karma (in the state of transmigration), the soul also appears in some way as manifest. Otherwise, it would be like space. Therefore, because of being absolutely non-manifest, space does not experience favor or harm from manifest things. Only due to being partially manifest and non-manifest is favor and harm possible to the soul from manifest karma. Therefore, the Arhats accept the material unseen.

Just as the Agamas state: "The soul is without beginning, without end, indestructible, eternal." The souls are eternal in time, meaning they have no origin or end. Souls are those whose origin is not there. "Without end" - End is death. That which has no death is without end. Death is a property of the body, not the soul. The separation of the soul and body is called death. Whatever has an origin also has an end. As stated in the Gita: "What is born is sure to die." Birth leads to the origin of the body, so its destruction is death. "Indestructible" - The soul is indestructible. It cannot be destroyed by any attack or counter-attack. It is not burnt by fire, not struck by lightning, not broken by mountains, and not cut by knives. Therefore, the soul in Jainism is of the nature of being uncuttable, unbreakable, etc. "Unperishable" - That whose decay is never, at any time, in any way, is the soul. "Eternal, permanent." Material things are momentary and have a nature of destruction. Only the soul is eternal. Thus, substances have the nature of origination, decay, and permanence. In its substance form, the soul is "eternal, permanent." In terms of qualities, it has the nature of origination, and in terms of modification, it has the nature of decay. This is the soul in Jain philosophy. The soul takes birth in humans, animals, and hell-dwellers. This state is called a modification. The acceptance of the soul principle also proves rebirth. The word "rebirth" consists of "punah" (again) and "janma" (birth). After birth, the body is consumed by fire. Therefore, if the soul is not accepted, the return of consciousness is not observed. Hence, rebirth must be accepted for the soul. Even in modern science laboratories, in the new method called "Cryobiology," efforts are being made to impart consciousness to dead bodies, but this will not happen.

The Arhats accept the soul's ability to expand and contract as a quality. Just as the flame of a lamp in a large room spreads out, and in a small room, the same lamp's flame remains within that smaller space, similarly, the soul has the capacity for contraction and expansion. Therefore, the soul residing in the body of an elephant can also reside in the bodies of insects and worms in another birth.

This concludes the discourse on the soul in Indian philosophy.