________________
The pupil continues his arguments. After pointing out the invisibility of soul, he argues that if there is something that can be termed as soul, it should be the same as the body. We notice that a live body eats, drinks, walks, thinks, and undertakes other activities. Since all such activities are the signs of life, the pupil argues that the living body can be termed as soul. Then while thinking about the knowing capability he remembers that knowledge is gained by different sense organs. We touch by skin, taste by tongue, smell by nose, see with eyes, and hear through ears. These sense organs are therefore the channels for knowing. If any of them stops working, knowledge pertaining to that sense is blocked. For instance, if one loses eyesight, he is unable to see. The pupil therefore argues that the sense organs can be termed as soul.
Then the pupil's attention turns to breathing. Even if a man loses the vitality of every sense organ, he is still considered alive so long as respiration continues. The breath is thus an infallible sign of life. Therefore he suggests that respiration can be termed as soul. According to his arguments, the soul can therefore be equated with body or senses or breath. Since there appears no sign of soul apart from these three aspects, the pupil argues that it would be meaningless to talk of its existence as different from these three aspects.
Vali Jo Ätmä Hoy To, Janäy Te Nahi Kem? Janäy Jo Te Hoy To, Ghat Pat Ädi Jem.
Moreover, if there is a soul, why is it not noticed? If it is there, it should be noticed like a pot or cloth. (47)
Explanation & Discussion:
The pupil further elaborates his argument against the existence of soul. The existence is normally associated with tangibility. An object comes to our knowledge by virtue of its tangibility. In spiritual discussion pot and cloth are taken as representatives of tangible objects. The pupil makes use of that metaphor and argues that if the soul exists, we should be able to notice it like a pot or cloth.
This argument is based on visibility. Eye is an organ with which we can see everything that comes within the eyesight, and we believe what we see. We are so accustomed to the phenomenon of visibility that we hesitate to believe in something that is not visible to us. The pupil intends to pinpoint that when we can see even far off things, how come, we do not see the soul, which is so close to us? He forgets that the eye, which is capable of seeing distant objects, is not able to see those which are too close. For instance, it fails to see the ointment within the eye.
Our concept of visibility hardly permits us to think of an invisible object like soul. It would be interesting to cite one anecdote. Once a group of science students went to a learned man and asked him to provide the proof of soul. Their arguments were similar to those raised here by the pupil. The man told that the soul being formless and shapeless, it is invisible and intangible. As such it cannot be comprehended by sense organs. There are quite a few things that are beyond the capability of senses. One has therefore to keep faith in the words of enlightened persons in such respects.
