________________
My
Ganadhar came to Bhagavan Mahavir for the first time for discussion in philosophical aspects, he had a doubt in his mind whether soul and body are different entities or whether they are one and the same substance. Bhagavan Mahavir explains it logically and with his argumentative style This philosophical belief is known as 'Chaarvaak'. In Sutrakritang, this belief has been described in aphorism 1/1/1/12. Therein it is mentioned as under
"There is no auspicious deed. There is no inauspicious deed. There is no world other than this world with the end of the body, the soul also comes to an end."
(Its detailed discussions is in Sutrakrtang, Part 2, i.e. second Shrut Skandh.)
King Pradeshi says—“My grandfather was also of this philosophical thought." This description indicates that this school of thought-the nonbelief in soul, the Naastık school of thought had been in existence since ancient times During the presence of Bhagavan Mahavir, there were six other famous schools of thought. One of them was of Ajitkesh Kambal. His belief was also that there is no existence of soul without the body. In the Vritti (commentary) of second Shrut Skandh of Sutrakritang, many arguments in support of this philosophical belief have been mentioned. Some of the arguments mentioned therein are those that have been raised by king Pradeshi here. Ajitkesh Kambal says that “A sword can be taken out of the sheath and can be shown as two different things-Sword and Sheath. But there is no person who can take out soul from the body and show (like the above example) that soul and body are se entities."
Placing Amla-fruit on the palm of the hand, it can be pointed out that this is palm of the hand and that is the Amla-fruit. But there is no per who can in this fashion show that soul is different from the body. In Buddhist literature, in Deeghanıkaya (1/2/4/22), this school of thought of Ajitkesh Kambal has been discussed In aphorisms 253-254, king Pradeshi also presents this argument. He says that even by cutting body (of a living person) into pieces, he never found any substance different from it in that process. In aphorism 264, the argument of showing Amlafruit on hand-palm is also similar to that belief. In Deeghanıkaya, the arguments of Payaasi and Kumar Kaashyap Shraman is also based on identical logic. The clarification by Kumar Kaashyap is similar to the arguments of Keshi Kumar Shraman. All these facts indicate that 'soul
*
*
रायपसेणियसूत्र
(316)
Ral-paseniya Sutra
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
