Gandharavada

Author(s): Esther A Solomon
Publisher: Gujarat Vidyasabha

Page 53

of the body and so can exist only in the body and be of the same size as the body. It is capable of expansion or contraction in accordance with the body it occupies. I
Mahavira holds that there is a relation of bhedābheda (identity in difference) between the basic substance and its modes (paryāyas) or attributes (gunas) as against the Nyāya-Vaišeșika who regards the substance and attributes as absolutely distinct but joined together by the relation of inherence (samavāya). On account of this the Nyåya-Vaišeșika can afford to hold that the soul is eternally unchanging (kūtastha-nitya) even when qualities like knowledge, pleasure, pain, attachment, dislike, effort, merit, demerit are produced in it or are destroyed (dissociated). The Jainas, on the other hand, true to their belief in the threefold nature, viz utpäda-vyaya-dhrauvya, regard the soul as pariņāmi-nitya (eternal in the midst of change). New paryayas of knowledge, pleasure, pain etc. are created in it, and they also perish; accordingly from the point of view of these paryāyas, the soul can be said to be originated or destroyed, while from the point of view of the basic substance (dravya) it remains eternal. Thus there is a constant change in the soul and yet it remains eternal.
The Buddhist theory of the soul-principle invités comparison here. As said above, the Pāli Pițakas say that what others regards as a soul is but an ever-changing aggregate of nama-rūpa. It is beginingless and endless as a stream of changing point-instants, but is not a permanent entity. This view is known as Pudgala-nairātmyavāda (Doctrine of the essencelessness of the soul). The Buddhists were condemned as
• The Nyāya-Vaišeşika, the Samkhya-Yoga, and Sankara regard the soul as all-pervading. The Vedāntic teachers other than Sankara, regard the soul as atomic (anu), their argument being that the soul is sternal and so can be either atomic or all-pervading. But it cannot be all-pervading as that would involve much confusion. The Buddhists have not said anything precisely as to the size of the citta (mind) or vijñāna (consciousness), but the hadayavatthu (heart) is said to be its locus in some Buddhist works (Visuddhimagga, 14. 60; 17. 163, etc).