Indian Philosophy

SR No.: 001545
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Sukhlal Sanghavi
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 1977
Total Pages: 128
Language: English
Classification: Book_English & Philosophy
File Size: 9 MB

Page 85

The Upanisadic Thought-Current Regarding the Nature of Soul 77
Whatever be the branch of the Buddhist tradition it attribtues to a different body a really different citta-series or soul as conceived by it. Even vijñānavādins (=those advocating that there exists cognition alone) who posit nothing real apart from cognition, when they maintain that the different cognition-series really differ form one another, in fact follow the view attributing a different soul to a different body;38 a view which constitutes a common trait of the Śramana-tradition.
As regards the size of a citta, cognition-series or soul the Buddhist tradition puts forth no particular view-on the basis whereof one might definitely assert that this size is atomic or one equal to that of the body concerned. Even then, it is occasionally said in the Buddhist texts that the seat of citta or vijñana is 'had ayavatthu.'39 On the basis of it one might generally say that even if the Buddhists bestowed no particular consideration on the question as to the size of the element citta or soul they must have been of the view that effects of the form of an experience of pleasure, pain etc. produced by congnition seated in badayavatthu are spread throughout the body concerned.
Just as with a view to accounting for rebirth in their respective manners the Jainas, Sankhya, Yoga etc. posited a subtle body that transfers from one place to another similarly was it posited by Buddhists too since the very beginning-that seems likely. In Dighanikaya there occurs the word 'gandharva' and it is explained by saying that in case one is to assume another birth after dying then for seven days does the gandharva concerned lie waiting for a suitable occasion. On the basis of this hypothesis of gandharva the texts like Kathavatthu spoke of a body called 'antarā. bhava.' Subsequently, the Vaibhaṣikas like Vasubandhu and others too posited an 'antarabhava' body and argued in support of the position.40 In this connection the only exception is the Theravadin Buddhaghoșa. For he, basing himself on certain illustrations, accounts for rebirth without positing anything like an antarabbava' body.41
The Upanisadic Thought-Current Regarding the Nature of Soul
Now is the occasion to say something about how the Upanisadic thought-current views the nature of soul. Thus in different old Upanisads and at times in the different parts of the same Upanisad there is visible difference as to suppositions and difference as to thoughts as regards the
38 With a view to vindicating this very tenet was composed by Dharmakirti the text entitled 'Santänäntarasiddhi'.
39 Visuddhimagga 14,60 and 17.163 etc.
40 See Abhidharma dipa, p. 142 along with notes and 'The Tibetan Book of the Dead', 41 Visuddhimagga, 17.163