Studies in Indian Philosophy

Author(s): Dalsukh Malvania, Nagin J Shah
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 51

Studies in Indian Philosophy
asserting that there was nothing behind the physical and mental elements that constitute the empirical individual'. Richard Gombrich, in his review of Bhattacharya's book L'Atman-Brahman dans le Bouddhisme Ancien, states that 'in his voluminous sermons [the Buddha] never mentions the world soul, either under one of its Upanisadic names or under any other', but as Choudhury stated, 'The meaning [in AS] is not clear if the word is not used as universal Self' 8
24
It is interesting at this point to indicate a close parallel to the rejection of the Upaniṣadic view in a Jain text. We find in Suyagadamga I.1.1. the following pair of verses :
(9) jaha ya puḍhavi-thubhe ege nāṇāhi disai evam bho kasiņe loe vinnā nāṇāhi disai. (10) evam ege tti jappanti mandā ārambha-nissiyā ege kicca sayam tivvam dukkham niyacchai.
'And as the mass of earth, with all its mainfold nature, is seen as one, so the whole world, with all its manifold nature, is seen as the intelligent principle. Some fools, intent upon their (bad) activities, say that it is so with the individual. (But) the individual who does an evil deed goes himself to a harsh misery'.
were
The Cties upon Suyagaḍamga call this view ekātmadvaita and ātmādvaitavada, and Jacobi explains1: 'If there but one atman common to all men, the fruit of works done by one man might accrue to another. For the atman is the substratum of merit and demerit'. Although it is expressed somewhat succinctly, it is clear that the last line is intended as a refutation of the idea set out in the first verse - that there is a world-atman (vinnū-ātman) which appears in different forms. The refutation follows the line that if this were so then every one who partook of the world-atman would be jointly responsible for any evil committed by any other portion of the world-atman, i.e. any other 'individual'. Our experience of the world, in which we see individuals being punished or rewarded for demerit or merit performed earlier, proves that this is not so.