________________
VEDA AND JAIN TEXTS
95
In the course of debate with Indrabhūti Mahāvīra tells him that there are many Jivas (Jiva ätman). Indrabhuti points out to him that according to the Vedanta philosophy atman or soul is really one and in support of this statement he cites four Vedic/Upanisadic passages. One of them is the sentence under discussion. It occurs at Rgveda 10.90.2 as well as Svetāśvatara 3.15. It means:
"The Person is truly this whole world, whatever has been and whatever will be. He is also the lord of immortality, and whatever grows up by food." Now, you say there are many jivas or ätmans which goes against the Vedic passageVedic authority.
Mahāvīra replies that if the soul were one then it cannot at all be called, being all pervading like ākāśa (space), a doer, an enjoyer, a thinker or a samsärin (a mundane being). Further, if atman were one there would be no possibility of happiness. So it follows that there are many atmans and not only
one.
Elsewhere Mahāvīra explains this sentence in another way: "The purusa is praised here by resorting to atiśayokti-making an exaggerated statement not meant to be taken literally. Non-duality of purușa does not mean that there is no other thing in this world like karma (We have in the Bṛhadaranyaka, 4. 4.5, the following sentence: Punyah punyena karmaṇā bhavati, papaḥ päpena, i.e. one becomes virtuous by virtuous action, bad by bad action;-this proves the existence of karma outside Purusa who is described as one and only one pervading the entire world). He also adds:
The real purport of this Vedic sentence is: 'All ätmans are exactly alike. So one should not take pride in one's birth as Brähmana, etc., and should not look down upon others'.
Quite a few more sentences from the Upanisads are cited in the course of discussion and debate as authority by Acarya Jinabhadra. It would seem that he falls apart from other Jain writers in this respect.
To conclude, various Jain works both in Prakrit and Sanskrit attack the Veda and Vedic sacrifices. They even fabricate stories to discredit revered ancient sages like Pippalada and the Atharvaveda with its black magic. The Jain criticism against Vedic sacrifices involving slaughter of animals is fair and just, no doubt but very often they make misleading statements regarding Vedic sacrifices as very ably shown by Handiqui in his great work (Yaśastilaka And Indian Culture, Chapter XIV, especially). Acarya Jinabhadra, however, is, it would seem, a rare exception. He quotes Vedic (rather Upanisadic) passages to support the Jain
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
Jain Education International
