Thus reason the sceptics. The sceptics, however, are in error. For the disappearance (of only the animating force) upon the body becoming lifeless (and not the simultaneous extinction of the body upon the occurrence of that event) is the proof (of the truth that the body is not the Soul but that the Soul is something separate from the body and outlives it certainly. If, indeed, body and Soul had been the same thing, both would have disappeared at the same instant of time. Instead of this, the dead body may be seen for some time _after_ the occurrence of death. Death, therefore, means the flight from the body of something that is different from the body). The supplication of the deities by the very men who deny the separate existence of the Soul is another good argument for the proposition that the Soul is separate from the body or has existence that may be independent of a gross material case. The deities to whom these men pray are incapable of being seen or touched. They are believed to exist in subtile forms. (Really, if a belief in deities divested of gross material forms does no violence to their reason, why should the existence of an immaterial Soul alone do their reason such violence)? Another argument against the sceptic is that his proposition implies a destruction of acts (for if body and Soul die together, the acts also of this life would perish,–a conclusion which no man can possibly come to if he is to explain the inequalities or condition witnessed in the universe).[805]
These that have been mentioned, and that have material forms, cannot possibly be the causes (of the immaterial Soul and its immaterial accompaniments of perception, memory, and the like). The identity of immaterial existences with objects that are material cannot be comprehended. (Hence objects that are themselves material cannot by any means be causes for the production of things immaterial).–Some are of opinion that there is rebirth and that it is caused by Ignorance, the desire for acts, cupidity, heedlessness, and adherence to other faults. They say that Ignorance (Avidya) is the soul. Acts constitute the seed that is placed in that soil. Desire is the water that causes that seed to grow, in this way they explain rebirth. They maintain that that ignorance being ingrained in an imperceptible way, one mortal body being destroyed, another starts I up immediately from it; and that when it is burnt by the aid of knowledge, the destruction of existence itself follows or the person attains to what is called Nirvana. This opinion also is erroneous. [This is the doctrine of Buddhists]. It may be asked that when the being that is thus reborn is a different one in respect of its nature, birth, and purposes connected with virtue and vice why should I then be regarded to have any identity with the being that was? Indeed, the only inference that can be drawn is that the entire chain of existences of a particular being is not really a chain of connected links (but that existences in succession are unconnected with one another).[806]
Then, again if the being that is the result of a rebirth be really different from what it was in a previous phase of existence, it may be asked what satisfaction can arise to a person from the exercise of the virtue of charity, or from the acquisition of knowledge or of ascetic power, since the acts performed by one are to concentrate upon another person in another phase of existence (without the performer himself being existent to enjoy them?) Another result of the doctrine under refutation would be that one in this life may be rendered miserable by the acts of another in a previous life, or having become miserable may again be rendered happy. By seeing, however, what actually takes place in the world, a proper conclusion may be drawn with respect to the unseen.[807] The separate Consciousness that is the result of rebirth is (according to what may be inferred from the Buddhistic theory of life) different from the Consciousness that had preceded it in a previous life. The manner, however, in which the rise or appearance of that separate Consciousness is explained by that theory does not seem to be consistent or reasonable. The Consciousness (as it existed in the previous life) was the very reverse of eternal, being only transitory, extending as it did till
That which had an end cannot be taken as the cause for the production of a second Consciousness appearing after the occurrence of the end. If, again, the very loss of the previous Consciousness be regarded as the cause of the production of the second Consciousness, then upon the death of a human body being brought about by a heavy bludgeon, a second body would arise from the body that is thus deprived of animation.[808] Once more, their doctrine of extinction of life (or Nirvana or Sattwasankshaya) is exposed to the objection that that extinction will become a recurring phenomenon like that of the seasons, or the year, or the yuga, or heat, or cold, or objects that are agreeable or disagreeable.[809] If for the purpose of avoiding these objections, the followers of this doctrine assert the existence of a Soul that is permanent and unto which each new Consciousness attaches, they expose themselves to the new objection that that permanent substance, by being overcome with decrepitude, and with death that brings about destruction, may in time be itself weakened and destroyed. If the supports of a mansion are weakened by time, the mansion itself is sure to fall down at last.[810] The senses, the mind, wind, blood, flesh, bones (and all the constituents of the body), one after another, meet with destruction and enter each into its own productive cause.[811]
If again the existence of an eternal Soul be asserted that is immutable, that is the refuge of the understanding, consciousness, and other attributes of the usual kind, and that is dissociated from all these, such an assertion would be exposed to a serious objection, for then all that is usually done in the world would be unmeaning, especially with reference to the attainment of the fruits of the charity and other religious acts. All the declarations in the Srutis inciting to those acts, and all acts connected with the conduct of men in the world, would be equally unmeaning, for the Soul being dissociated from the understanding and the mind, there is no one to enjoy the fruits of good acts and Vedic rites.[812] Thus diverse kinds of speculations arise in the mind. Whether this opinion is right or that is right, there is no means of settling. Engaged in reflecting on those opinions, particular persons follow particular lines of speculation. The understandings of these, directed to particular theories, become wholly taken up with them and are at last entirely lost in them.
Thus all men are rendered miserable by pursuits, good or bad. The Vedas along, bringing them back to the right path, guide them along it, like grooms conducting their elephants.[813] Many men, with weakened minds, covet objects that are fraught with great happiness. These, however, have soon to meet with a much larger measure of sorrow, and then, forcibly torn from their coveted meat, they have to own the sway of death. What use has one, who is destined to destruction and whose life is unstable, with kinsmen and friends and wives and other possessions of this kind? He who encounters death after having cast off all these, passes easily out of the world and has never to return. Earth, space, water, heat and wind, always support and nourish the body. Reflecting upon this, how can one feel any affection for one’s body? Indeed, the body, which is subject to destruction, has no joy in it. Having heard these words of Panchasikha that were free from deception, unconnected with delusion (because discouraging sacrifices and other Vedic acts), highly salutary, and treating of the Soul, king Janadeva became filled with wonder, and prepared himself to address the Rishi once more.'”
SECTION CCXIX
“Bhishma said, ‘Janadeva of the race of Janaka, thus instructed by the great Rishi Panchasikha, once more asked him about the topic of existence or nonexistence after death.’
“Janadeva said, ‘O illustrious one, if no person retains any knowledge after departing from this state of being, if, indeed, this is true, where then is the difference between Ignorance and Knowledge? What do we gain then by knowledge and what do we lose by ignorance? Behold, O foremost of regenerate persons, that if Emancipation be: such, then all religious acts and vows end only in annihilation. Of what avail would then the distinction be between heedfulness and heedlessness? If Emancipation means dissociation from all objects of pleasurable enjoyment or an association with objects that are not lasting, for what then would men cherish a desire for action, or, having set themselves to action, continue to devise the necessary means for the accomplishment of desired ends? What then is the truth (in connection with this topic)?’
