Dr. N.L. Kachhara
Other Indian philosophies also accept the existence of soul, but the concept of soul in these philosophies is not the same as that in the Jain philosophy. Like Jain philosophy, the Samkhya-Yoga system accepts that each individual soul is endowed with beginning less and endless inherent consciousness, that the reality of consciousness is unchangeable permanent, eternal and all-pervading, and those souls are infinite. But it does not admit the soul’s capacity for contraction and expansion or that the soul is doer and enjoyer.
The Nyaya-Vaisesika system also conceives of beginning less and endless, infinite soul substances that are distinguished by their differences from the body. However, it does not accept soul as an intermediate dimension, as Jain metaphysics does; this system considers it to be all-pervasive, just like the Samkhya-Yoga system. It does not accept that there are inseparable, inherent, eternal capacities like consciousness in the soul substance; nevertheless, it does accept that knowledge, bliss, pain, desire, hatred, effort, merit and demerit, etc. are the qualities of soul, as its modes. Unlike Jain philosophy, Nyaya-Vaisesika accepts the doer and enjoyer concept in the physically embodied state, when there are inherent qualities like knowledge, desire, effort, etc., but not in the liberated state.
The Upanishads differ in the nature of the soul and the Brahman. Vadarayana composed the text Brahmasutra to establish his views on the soul. When Acarya Sankara wrote a commentary on the Brahmasutra, etc., and established the doctrine of Maya (Illusion), a reaction started. While others opposed this doctrine, all of them agreed on one point: that the soul has only an illusory existence. It is not real, but at the same time it is also real; the soul, having real existence, is distinct from the body and is permanent. Sankara, not conceding that there is any real existence except Brahman, explains the multiplicity of individual souls as an experience of illusion in practical life. This existence also is not independent of the Brahman. Hence, the distinction between the soul and the Brahman is not real. Madhvacharya maintained the opposite view, asserting that the soul is not imaginary but real, and that it is also distinct from the Brahman. He believed in the doctrine of infinite eternal souls. Bhaskara and all of the other Acharyas accept the reality of the soul, but only as a modification, an effect or a part of the Brahman. These modifications may be due to the power of the Brahman, but they are not at all illusory.
Lord Buddha denied the permanence of any entity or substance. According to Pali Pitaka, the soul is like the momentary combination of mutually undivided feelings, ideas, volitions and other faculties with the pure sensation of general consciousness; i.e. there is no soul apart from feelings, ideas, volitions, etc. However, there were four groups of the Buddhist order, and among them there were many advocates of the doctrine of the eternal soul. Nagarjuna established Sunyavada, the doctrine of essenceless-ness or void-ness of all appearances. The Yogachara School at last established the soul in the philosophy of Vijnanavada.
