________________
110
J. C. Sikdar
way that it is anuvādin (the advocate of the atomic dimension of soul) or deha-parimānavadin (the advocate of the doctrine of the dimension of Soul up to the extent of body). Nevertheless, it is stated in some places in the Buddhist works that 'Hadayavatthu' (heart-entity) is the seat of substratum of Citta or Vijñāna. From this fact it can be said that, though the Buddhists might not have made any genuine consideration of Citta or Jivatattva from the point of view of dimension, they still might have accepted the impact of consciousness in the form of feelings like pleasure, pain, etc., pervading the whole body.
It appears that, as the systems of thought like the Jaina, Sāṁkhya-Yoga, etc., admit the subtle body, moving from one place of birth to another, in order to explain the process of rebirth in their respective manners, so too the Buddhists might have accepted a similar process from the beginning. If anybody, having died, is just to be reborned at another place, then a Gandharva 98 waits up to seven days for a favourable occasion. On the basis of the conception of Gandharva, the discussion on the antarabhava-sarira (the body of intermediate stage of life) has been made by the Buddhists, and the view was supported by Vasubandhu and others.9While Buddhaghosa explained the utpatti (production or birth) of pratisandhi by giving some example, without accepting any such antara-bhava-sarira.
The Upanişadic view on the Nature of Soul
In regard to the nature of Soul and of the Brahman difference of conception and of thought is noticable in different early Upanişads and several times at different places of the same Upanişad. It can then be said that the voice of the entire Upanişads is not one and the same in this respect. For this reason, many separate developments of thought on the nature of Soul went on from the very start among the thinkers holding the basis of the concept of Soul in the Upanişads. Out of these developments Vādarāyaṇa composed the Brahmasutra for the establishment of his own cherished views and mentioned also some other views which previously were current. Many commentaries were being written on it, and the bud of thought, which was in existence from the beginning, blossomed forth in the form of further explanations, but these early commentaries today are not found just as they originally were.
As soon as Ācārya Sankara wrote a commentary on the Brahmasūtra, etc., and established the doctrine of Māyā (Illusion), a reaction started again. The thinkers to whom this Māyāvāda was not acceptable wrote commentaries on the Brahmasutra by opposing this doctrine, having followed the path of any one of the previous teachers. There is more or less mutual difference of views in their thoughts; some difference of views is found in the application of definition and example : Even then all of them are agreed upon one point that Sankara, says that such Soul has only the illusory (māyika) experience, not real, for it is also real, and this Soul having the real existence is also distinct by the difference of body and permanent. 96
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
