Indian Philosophy

Author(s): Sukhlal Sanghavi
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 86

78 The Upanisadic Thought-Current Regarding the Nature of Soul
nature of soul. On the basis of it one can say that not all the Upanisads speak with the same voice. Hence it is that among the thinkers basing themselves upon Upanisads there have been prevalent since the very beginning various trends of thought as to the nature of soul. With a view to establishing from among those trends the position acceptable to himself Badarāyaṇa composed his Brahmasutra and in it he also referred to a number of positions earlier current. Like Upanisads themselves Brahmasūtra too came to earn immense prestige. Hence so many commentaries composed on the latter and the trends of thought that had earlier come into existence again received development in the form of these commentaries on Brahmasutra; however, these old commentaries are no more available today in their original form.
were
Acarya Sankara wrote commentaries on the texts like Brahmasütara etc. and established the doctrine called mayavada; and as soon as he did so a reaction followed immediately. Thus advocates of the trends of thought which found māyāvāda to be unacceptable wrote anti-mayavada commentaries on Brahmasūta following the line laid down by some old master or other. Famous among these commentators are the masters like Bhaskara, Rāmānuja, Nimbarka etc. These masters differ more or less as to the line of consideration adopted-also as to the employment of technical terminologies and illustrations; yet they are all unanimous as to one thing-viz. in stressing that the existence of a soul is not illusory as is upheld by Sankarācārya and that the really existing souls too are different in different bodies and are eternal. All the masters like Sankara etc, chiefly depend on Upanisads in the course of corroborating their respective views and in so many cases they put different interpretations on one and the same Upanisadic text. Thus there are current a number of Unaniṣadic trends of thought, but if they are to be classified then one can say that Sankara constitutes one class, Madhva another while the rest of the masters the third.
Sankara treats as an ultimate real no other element besides Brahman and accounts for the practically experienced difference of souls by positing a capacity for illusion (=maya) or ignorance (avidya). Even this capacity is not something independent of Brahman. Hence according to Sankara neither a soul nor the mutual difference obtaing among souls is something real.42 Directly opposed to it is the position maintained by Madhva. Thus he says that a soul is not something imaginary but something real and that the mutual difference obtaining among souls too is something real; besides, a soul is different from Brahman as well. Thus Madhva's position is to be classed among those according to which souls are something real,
42 Jivo brahmaiva naparaḥ. -Brahmasiddhi p. 9. See Dr. C. D. Sharma's 'Bauddha Darsana aur Vedanta' p. 224.