(B14)- You speak like a drunkard!

[Quick links]

 

I am sorry to use such harsh words. But they are not my words, nor they are addressed to you. That is how the Brahma supporters admonish their Jain opponents. 

 

Let us continue our debate between the Brahma supporters and the Jain philosophers that we started in the previous episode. 

 

The Jain philosophers have a totally non violent approach even when they debate. They use their AnEkaantha Vaada to accept even the opponent’s view as one of the possible views. They don’t disagree with anyone. That is nice. But the Brahma supporters have problem even with that approach. This is how they refute the Jain views.

 

Brahma supporters say: 

 

“We are happy that you accept the concept of soul as one of the possible views. Unlike the Buddhists you don’t insist that souls don’t exist. But at the same time, you imply that the souls are subject to change and are restricted to space. Can you explain why you say that?”  

 

Jain opponent:  

 

“Oh! You see, the soul resides inside the body. So, that way it occupies a restricted space. Since its existence is felt in the entire body, the soul should be as big as the body in which it resides – no less, no more. But what will happen when the body dies? The soul migrates to a new body. Supposing a man dies and gets reborn as an elephant. The body of an elephant is much bigger than a human body. So, the soul in an elephant’s body has to be proportionately bigger than what it was when it was in the human body. In the next birth, that is when the elephant also dies, the soul could enter an ant’s body. So, it has to shrink to the size of an ant’s body. That is why we say that the soul keeps changing in size to accommodate itself in the body it resides in.”  

 

The Brahma supporters interject:  

 

“Why talk about re-birth. Even in the very same birth, as a person grows, his body would take different shapes and sizes. Does it mean that the soul keeps changing in its size throughout the life span of the individual?  

 

Let us say, it does. Anything that changes in size, has to have different parts. If it is one single solid entity, then it cannot shrink or expand. Let us say that the soul is made up of parts. Now tell us what happens to those parts which are discarded when the soul shrinks. Where do those parts go? Similarly, when the soul expands, it has to get more parts. Where do those additional parts come from?  

 

Moreover, anything that is made up of parts has to finally disintegrate one day. It cannot be eternal. If you accept that, then in what way you are different from the Buddhists? They too say that nothing is eternal. Everything is perishable. That is why we say that the soul is without parts. It is not restricted to any space. It is all pervading. It is eternal.”  

 

The Jain opponent:  

 

“May be that is also true. Everything is a possibility you see. And we don’t refute any views.”  

 

The irritated Brahma Supporters hit back:  

 

“Just agreeing to everything as a possibility does not take us anywhere. The purpose of any discussion or quest is to know the truth. Saying that anything is possible, does not make any sense. And you flout your great theory of AnEkaantha Vaada, to dismiss your opponents without any logic or reasoning. What if I say that your theory of AnEkaantha Vaada itself is wrong? That is also a possibility, right? Where does that take you?  

 

My friend, is it also not a possibility that your preceptors were wrong completely? That is also a possible right view. In that case, why do you follow your preceptors? You are blabbering incoherently like a drunken fellow or an insane person. We don’t want to waste our time with people like you who have no clarity on what they think.”  

 

The Brahma supporters just dismiss the Jains as lunatics and confused. But if you think deeply, the Jains have a very valid way of looking at things. No one knows the complete truth. So, one needs to be open to all possibilities instead of being stuck with a view. But too much of openness also does not take us anywhere. That way, the Brahma supporters have a point. We need to strike a balance between openness and steadiness when we march on our expedition to know the reality. Too much of rigidity is bad. So also, fickleness. What do you say?  

 

We have seen the debate between the two sides all this time. Does Badarayana have any conclusive views that not only satisfy our intellect, but also have practical utility? Let us see that in the next episodes. 

 

Start            Previous          Next

 

A series on ancient Indian composition Brahma Sutra. © Dr. King, Swami Satyapriya 2020-21