Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The System of the Vedanta according to Badarayana's Brahma-Sutras and Cankara's Commentary c8.s4: XXV. Relation of the Soul to the Body

The System of the Vedânta according to Bâdarâyana's Brahma-Sûtras and Çankara's Commentary c8.s4

Language
English

Contents

XXV. Relation of the Soul to the Body

c8.s4.1

In the section 2, 3, 19-32, which we propose to analyse in the present chapter, the question raised by this heading is handled chiefly from the quantitative side, in so far as the enquiry into the size of the soul holds the foremost place. This leads however to discussions which are of considerable help to us in gaining in the sequel a clear idea (so far as this is possible) of the relation of the soul 1) to its organs (*Mukhya prâna*, *Manas*, and *Indriyas*), 2) to the subtle body which consists of the seed of the elements and shares in transmigration, 3) to the gross body which consists of the elements themselves.

c8.s4.2

A clear idea of the spacelessness of Being-in-itself is wanting in our system; in its place we find the doctrine of the infinite size (*vibhutvam*) or omnipresence (*sarvagatatvam*) of the soul; two other views are opposed to this; that according to which the soul is of minute size (*anu*), and the opinion of the Jainas, according to which the soul is of a certain, moderate size, *viz.* as large as the body. We begin with the discussion of the last view, which we take over from 2, 2, 34-36 to insert it here.

1. The opinion of the Jainas that the Soul is as large as the Body

c8.s4.t1.1

If the soul is, as the *Ârhatas* affirm, as large as the body, it is limited and therefore, like all limited things, not eternal (cf. note 43, above p. 68ff.). Moreover the size of the body changes. If, *e. g.* the human soul, as a fruit of works, enters into the body of an elephant, it cannot completely fill it; and if it enters the body of an ant, it has no room in it. The same objection may be raised in respect of the varying size of the body in youth and manhood (p. 587, 6).

c8.s4.t1.2

Or does the soul consist of an infinite number of corpuscules (*avayava*) which in a small body close up, and in a large one open out? Then there is a question whether these corpuscules possess impenetrability (*pratighâta*) or not. If they are impenetrable there is no room in a limited space for an infinite number of corpuscules; if they are not, they take all together no more room than one corpuscule, they cannot produce the [necessary] extension and the whole soul is of minute size (p. 587, 12).

c8.s4.t1.3

Or must we assume that with the increase and diminution of the body the soul gains new or loses old corpuscules? But then the soul is subject to change and perishable like the skin; and the doctrine [of the Jainas] of binding and liberation cannot hold good; the doctrine namely which asserts that the soul, clad in the eight kinds of its works and sunk in the ocean of Samsâra, rises like a gourd (*alâvu*) after the connection is broken (p. 588, 9). Moreover such changing corpuscules belong as little to the Self (*âtman*) as the body does; and if a part of him remain as soul, we cannot determine which (p. 588, 12). And where do the new parts come from and the old go to? Not from the elements and not back into them; for the soul does not consist of the elements; and another common receptacle of soul-corpuscules is not demonstrable (p. 589, 5).

c8.s4.t1.4

Or does the soul perhaps persist through all change of parts like a stream whose waters change? This is not admissible either; for if this continuity is not real, there is no soul at all; if it is real, the soul is subject to change (p. 590, 4).

c8.s4.t1.5

If the dimensions of the soul remain for ever, as the Jainas maintain, as they were at the moment of liberation, this final state is to be regarded as its real dimensions; and therefore a given body and not every former body is to be taken as its measure; but then it is not discoverable why it should not have just as much right to remain in every former state as in that final state (p. 590, 9). We come therefore to the conclusion that the soul is unchangeable, whether it is minute (*aṇu*) or large (*mahant*), but it cannot be taken to be of the (changing) size of the body, as the Jainas assert (p. 591, 2).

2. The Opinion that the Soul is of minute (aṇu) size

c8.s4.t2.1

Sûtras 2, 3, 19–28.

c8.s4.t2.2

¹ That the soul is as large as the body has been refuted in the examination of the doctrine of the Jainas (p. 651, 2). Therefore it is only possible to regard it as either very large (*i. e.* infinite, *vibhu*) or as minute (*aṇu*). The infinitely large cannot move (p. 651, 1), and we must assume of the soul that it moves because a passing (out of the body), a going (to the moon) and a return (to a new incarnation) are ascribed to it by the Scriptures (p. 650, 9). And even if the passing, so far as we regard it as a cessation of lordship over the body, could possibly be reconciled with immovability (p. 651, 5) a going and return could not; but they must certainly be recognized as motion (p. 651, 7) and we are thus compelled to regard this passing as a real going away (p. 651, 9). Since the soul, being mobile, cannot therefore be infinitely large, nor yet, as shown, of middle size, we must assume (p. 651, 8) that it is minute (*aṇu*).

c8.s4.t2.3

² The soul is, it is true, termed by the Scripture large, omnipresent, infinite, but these expressions refer only to the highest, not the individual soul (p. 652, 9); and when we read Bṛih. 4, 4, 22 (above p. 195): "Truly this great, unborn Self, is that among the life-organs which consists of knowledge" the individual soul is certainly termed "the great" but only so far as, in virtue of an innate power as seer, such as Vâmadeva had (Rigv. IV, 26, 1. 27, 1. Bṛih. 1, 4, 10. Ait. 2, 5; cf. above p. 180 and note 83) its identity with the highest soul is perceived (p. 653, 1). On the other hand in other passages the soul is expressly termed minute; *e.g.* Muṇḍ. 3, 1, 9 "the subtle Self" (*aṇur âtmâ*), Çvet. 5, 8 "large as the point of an awl," and Çvet. 5, 9 as large as the hundredth of a hundredth of the end of a hair.

c8.s4.t2.4

3. But if the soul is minute, it can only be at one place in the body; how comes it thus that it perceives throughout the body? For after a bath in the Ganges one feels the cold, and in summer one feels the heat all over one’s body (p. 653, 11).—We answer: just as a piece of sandalwood, even when it only touches the body at one spot, refreshes it all over (p. 654, 2) so the soul is only in one spot, *viz.*, as the Scripture teaches in many places, in the heart (p. 655, 5) and from here it feels throughout the body (p. 654, 3). This comes about by means of the sense of touch (*tvac*); the soul is connected with the sense of touch everywhere and the sense of touch pervades the whole body.¹¹¹ Or perhaps this power of the minute soul to feel throughout the body can be explained (p. 655, 10) from its spirituality (*caitanya-guṇa*) which here extends beyond the substance; just as we see in other cases in experience that the quality extends further than the substance, when *e.g.* the light of a jewel or of a lamp, which is only in one place in a room, extends from there through the whole room (p. 655, 11) or when we smell the scent of flowers without touching them (p. 656, 9). So too the Scripture teaches of the Soul, that though it is minute and dwells in the heart, by means of its quality of spirituality it penetrates the body (p. 658, 1) “to the hair and nails” (Kaush. 4, 20; cf. Bṛih. 1, 4, 7) and also in other passages (Kaush. 3, 6. Bṛih. 2, 1, 17) the soul is distinguished from the intellect (*prajñā, vijñānam*) with which it pervades the body (p. 658, 4).

c8.s4.t2.5

¹¹¹ p. 654, 5: *tvag-ātmano hi sambandhaḥ kṛtsnāyāṃ tvaci vartate, tvak ca kṛtsna-śarīra-vyāpinī*. As the soul according to this view is minute and dwells in the heart, the outer skin cannot possibly be understood [if the passage really belongs to the context in which it stands; p. 654, 14—655, 1 *aṇutvam* seems to be opposed to *tvak-sambandha*; it is true that in this enquiry there is in places terrible confusion] but only the Indriyam termed *tvac*; for by this *Manas* and by *Manas* the soul feels cold, heat, pain, pleasure, etc. in the whole body. At Death this *tvac* or more accurately the *tvagvṛtti* enters into the *Manas* and like all the *Indriyas* shares in transmigration.

3. The Soul is infinitely great (vibhu)

c8.s4.t3.1

The soul has not originated (chap. XXIII, 1) but depends only on the entrance of the highest Brahman into the elements (above p. 231); from this the identity of both follows; the individual soul is nothing but the highest Brahman himself (p. 658, 11). If this is so, the soul must be as large as Brahman and therefore all pervading (p. 658, 13) as is expressly asserted in the passage Bṛih. 4, 4, 22: "truly this great unborn "ledge" (p. 659, 1). To the arguments of the opponent we reply:

c8.s4.t3.2

(To 3.) If the soul were minute, it could not feel throughout the whole body. The connection with the sense of touch (*tvac*) does not suffice to explain this; the thorn too, on which one has trodden, is connected with the whole sense of feeling (p. 659, 5) and yet one feels the pain from it only in the sole of the foot and not in the whole body (p. 659, 6). That the quality extends beyond the substance, we do not admit; the flame of the lamp and its light are not related as substance and quality; on the contrary both are fiery substances, but in the flame the corpuscules (*avayava*) are drawn closer together, and in the light which radiates they are more widely separated (p. 656, 5). Just in the same way the perception of smell depends on the subtle atoms (*paramāṇu*) streaming out in all directions from the objects without diminishing their volume (p. 657, 1) and penetrating into the nasal cavity (p. 657, 4). If this is not admitted, because atoms are not perceptible by the senses (p. 657, 5), because not the objects but their odours are smelt (p. 657, 6), or because what is perhaps true of the sense of sight may not be transferred to the sense of smell (p. 657, 8)—we must dispute the assertion that smell is only a quality; for if it were, it could only disseminate itself from its own substance and from other substances to which it has been transferred (p. 659, 10). That this is so the sublime *Dvaipāyana* testifies when he (*Mahābhāratam* 12, 8518) says:

c8.s4.t3.3

"To water the unlearned folk ascribe,
"The odour which their senses show them there;
"But ever to the earth leads back its trace,
"And thence it goes to water and the air."

c8.s4.t3.4

If it were true therefore that the spirituality of the soul pervaded the whole body, the soul could not be minute, for spirituality is not related to it as a quality to its substance but is its very essence, as warmth and light are of the fire (p. 660, 3); and we have proved that the soul is not of the same size as the body: therefore it is only possible that it is infinitely great (p. 660, 5).

c8.s4.t3.5

(To 2.) But how can the soul be termed *aṇu* by the Scripture?—As answer to this serves the following: *because in the state of Saṃsâra it is the nucleus (sâra) of the qualities of the Buddhi.*¹¹² Such qualities of the Buddhi are: Love, hate, pleasure, pain, etc. (p. 660, 7). For we must distinguish the soul outside the state of Saṃsâra, which means that it is not acting, not suffering and eternally free, and the soul in the state of Saṃsâra, when it acts and suffers only through the qualities of the *Upâdhi* of Buddhi being transferred to it (p. 660, 10). In this state the soul has the dimensions of the Buddhi (p. 661, 1), is therefore (according to Çvet. 5, 9) as large as the ten thousandth part of the end of a hair, (p. 661, 4) or (according to Çvet. 5, 8) as large as the point of an awl (p. 661, 11) and dwells like the Buddhi in the heart (p. 662, 7). The minute size of the soul is therefore to be taken figuratively (*aupacârika*); from the point of view of the highest reality (*paramârtha*) it is infinitely great (p. 661, 7). We therefore find in the passages to which the opponent appeals (Çvet. 5, 8–9):

c8.s4.t3.6

¹¹² Under *Buddhi* (Intellect) *Manas* is to be understood from here to the end of the chapter, as will be evident further on.

c8.s4.t3.7

"Through qualities of Buddhi and the body,
"The other seems as large as an awl's point.
"Divide a hundred times a human hair, and take thereof the hundredth part,
"That know thou as dimension of the soul, and this enlarges to infinity."

c8.s4.t3.8

When on the contrary Muṇḍ. 3, 1, 9 the epithet *aṇu* (minute) is applied to the soul, this either does not imply its smallness but the difficulty of perceiving it which is possible only by the grace of knowledge (p. 661, 13) not by sensual perception, or it refers here also to the *Upādhis*.

c8.s4.t3.9

(To 1.) So too the passing, going and return of the soul only refer to it so far as it is connected with the *Upādhis* and therefore infinitely small (p. 662, 8); for in the same way for the purpose of worship the highest soul is represented in the *Saguṇa vidyāḥ* as connected with *Upādhis* and therefore (Chând. 3, 14, translated above p. 153) as "smaller than a grain of rice or barley" (p. 662, 13).

c8.s4.t3.10

—Our author's inconsistency in first disputing the possibility of a sense of feeling throughout the body for the minute soul, and then himself admitting the minute size of the soul in the state of Saṃsāra, is self-evident. An explanation of how the soul perceives the conditions of the body in the state of Saṃsāra can only be gathered from the arguments which he disputes. It is true he says on p. 715, 2: "The above mentioned *Prāṇas* [the *Manas* and the ten *Indriyas*] must be assumed to be minute (*aṇu*); but the minuteness in their case means subtlety (*saukshmyam*) and limitation (*pariccheda*) not atomic size (*paramāṇu-tulyatvam*) because [in that case] action that pervades the whole body is impossible." But in the passage which we have considered he disputed the possibility of bodily sensation not for the soul of atomic size (*paramāṇu-tulya*) but for the minute (*aṇu*) soul.—The fact is, arguments and counter-arguments are thrown together in such confusion that the assumption of a fusion of different texts is in the highest degree probable.

c8.s4.t3.11

4. Connection of the Soul with the Intellect (*buddhi*). Sūtras 2, 3, 30—32.

c8.s4.t3.12

The highest soul becomes the individual soul, as we have seen, by uniting itself with the *Upādhis* (which depend on Ignorance) and especially with the *Upādhi* of *Buddhi*; by this is to be understood here, as the sequel will show, on the one hand the intellect exclusive of the sense-organs (*Indriyas*) and on the other hand the "onlooking" soul (*Sākshin*), that is to say exactly what the System calls *Manas*.

c8.s4.t3.13

(a) Duration of this Connection.

c8.s4.t3.14

What becomes of the soul when it separates itself from the Buddhi? Is this separation a passing over into non-Being or an escape from Samsāra (p. 663, 3)?—To this the reply is: as long as the state of Samsāra is not removed by perfect knowledge, the connection endures; and as long as the connection endures, the individual soul as such endures (p. 663, 8). But from the standpoint of the highest reality it does not exist at all; for beyond the eternal, free, omniscient God there is no other spiritual element (p. 663, 12) as is proved by the passages: "there is no other seer besides him" (Bṛih. 3, 8, 11), "that art thou" (Chānd. 6, 8, 7), "I am Brahman" (Bṛih. 1, 4, 10). The continuance of the soul's connection with the Buddhi even after death and until liberation is taught firstly by the Scripture when it says (Bṛih. 4, 3, 7 translated above p. 189): "It is that among the organs of life which consists of knowledge and is the spirit which shines in the heart within. This spirit wanders unchanged through both worlds; it is as though it reflected, as though it moved unsteadily;"—"consisting of knowledge" means here "consisting of Buddhi;" that it wanders unchanged through both worlds proves that at death no separation from the Buddhi takes place; its thinking and moving are conditioned by the thinking and moving of the Buddhi; therefore it is said: "it is as though it reflected—moved"; in itself (*svatas*) it does not reflect and does not move (p. 664, 13).—Moreover the persistence of the connection follows from its dependence on false knowledge (*mithyā-jñānam*), for this can be removed by no other means than perfect knowledge (*samyag-jñānam*); therefore the connection must persist till the awakening of the consciousness of unity with Brahman (p. 664, 16), for only by this awakening can it be broken, as the Scripture also says (Çvet. 3, 8):

c8.s4.t3.15

"The mighty spirit out beyond the gloom,
"My eyes have seen with sunlike radiance glow;
"Who seeth him escapes a mortal's doom;
"There is for us no other way to go."

c8.s4.t3.16

(b) Potentiality and Actuality of the Connection.

c8.s4.t3.17

But how is it with this connection in the states of deep sleep and death, in which according to the Scripture (Chând. 6, 8 translated above p. 263) an entrance into Brahman takes place?—It is in these states potentially (*çakti-âtmanâ*) present, and becomes manifest (actual) by awakening and birth, just as the power of procreation is present as a germ (*vîja-âtmanâ*) in the child, but only becomes manifest when he becomes a man (p. 665, 8). A potential continuance of this sort must be assumed because nothing can arise without a given cause, for otherwise everything would arise out of everything (p. 665, 13).

c8.s4.t3.18

(c) Necessity of a connecting Organ of this Sort.

c8.s4.t3.19

The *Upâdhi* in question of the soul,—"whether it be called *Antahkarana*, *Manas*, *Buddhi*, *Vijnânam*, *Cittam*, or whether, "as some do, a distinction be drawn between *Manas* and *Buddhi*, "and the function of doubt assigned to the former and that of "resolution to the latter" (p. 666, 7)—is indispensable as a connecting link between the soul and organs of sense; for without it, if soul and senses suffice for perception, there would be continuous perception, or, if they do not suffice, no perception at all; for the soul is unchangeable and in the senses there is no reason why they should at one time be active and then again become inactive. Therefore a connecting link must be assumed between the two, by whose attention (*avadhânam*) and inattention arise apperception and non-apperception; this connecting link is *Manas* (mind). Therefore the Scripture says: "My mind was elsewhere, so I did not see, did not hear" and "one sees with his mind, hears with his mind" (Brih. 1, 5, 3); and as functions of the *Manas* it mentions (*loc. cit.*): "Wish, resolution, doubt, belief, disbelief, constancy, inconstancy, shame, thought and fear" (p. 666, 5—668, 3).

Linked texts (8)