Philosophy In Jain Agams: Pañcabhūtavāda

Analysis of Pañcabhūtavāda has been primarily been done in Sūtrakṛtāṅga. Some philosophers accept the Pañcamahābhūtavāda, that is, there are five basic elements - earth, water, fire, air and space and with their special combination a soul is produced. With the disintegration of these five elements the soul gets destroyed. This is their general opinion.^[1]

It has not been mentioned in Sūtrakṛtāṅga as to who propounded this doctrine of pañcabhūtavāda. In the present context, only by using 'the word 'egesiṃ^[2]', it is expressed that some philosophers have this belief. The Cūrṇīkāra has also accepted that the Pañcamahābhūtavādīs, are referred by the word 'egesiṃ^[3]' Shilanka has called this doctrine as Bṛhaspati's^[4] philosophy and Lokāyata^[5] belief. It is clear from this, that both the Lokayata and Bṛhaspati are synonymous for which the commentator has denoted as Pañcamahābhūtavādī.^[6] In the second Śrutaskandha of the Sūtrakṛtāṅga, they have been addressed as pañcamahābhūtavādī. Words like Bṛhaspati and Lokāyatika have not used there.

At present, the concept of Cārvaka or Bṛhaspati is available. The four elements namely earth, water, fire and air are mentioned there.^[7] In the āgama period, there were pañcabhūtavādīs were present. In the philosophical age, there is a description of four bhūtas (Elements), as accepted by Cārvaka^[8], but, until the time of Sūtrakṛtāṅga's commentary, there is a description of five elements (Pañcabhūta).^[9] The space has also been considered at that time as perceivable by sensory direct perception.^[10] In the course of time, when the direct perception of space was dismissed, probably then, Cārvaka became believers of the concept of four Bhūtas (elements) instead of five. The commentator has also explained at one place that some Lokāyatikas consider space as an element.^[11] In saying so, Bhūtapañcaka is not faulty. From this statement, it becomes clear that most of the Bhūtavādīs had been in favour of the four elements.

From the bhūtas, the consciousness is produced and with the disintegration of the bhūtas the conscious element vanishes. This is the general concept of Anātmavādī and it is a very ancient opinion. There is no independent existence of the soul apart from these five elements. Pt. Dalsukh Malvaniya has compared this Sūtrakṛtāṅga 's opinion to Ajitkeshakambala's opinion, as found in the Dīghanikāya.^[12] The soul is a product of the four mahābhūtas.^[13] Space is also considered to be a form of Bhūta by him.^[14] Whether a person is ignorant or a scholar (Pandita), both get decomposed with the destruction of the body.^[15]

Acharya Mahapragya has compared Ajitakeshakambala's principle with Tajjivataccharīravāda.^[16] In this context, he has presented Ajitakeshakambala's philosophical ideas in the second śrutaskandha of the Sūtrakṛtāṅga (2/1/13-22) which are available. There is no mention of any philosophers name in the second śrutaskandha, but, those ideas are of Ajitkeshkambala. This has been deduced by comparing these ideas with those of presented in the Dīghanikāya. These ideas are called Tajjivataccharīravāda in the Sūtrakṛtāṅga.^[17]

It has been said in Sūtrakṛtāṅga that by explaining the ideology of tajJīva-tacchariravāda, the soul of living being is stretched all the way from the foot upto the roots of the hair and thus the body is a living being. After burning it in fire it's bone turns grey in colour. After death, people take the dead body to the cremation ground, decompose it and come back.^[18]

The above mentioned description is also available in the Dīghanikāya.^[19]In the Sūtrakṛtāṅga's first Śrutaskandha's (1/11 hymn), it is written 'je bala, je ya paṇḍiya'. In the Dīghanikāya too while describing of Ajitkeśakambala principle- 'bale ca paṇḍite ca kāyassa bheda ucchijanti viṇassanti' is mentioned. There is a use of 'bala' (ignorant) and 'paṇḍita' (Scholar) words, in the literature of both Jain and Buddhist tradition. On the basis of these facts, this principle can be called 'Tajfivataccharīravāda'. However, it is not very clear as to what is the particular difference in the principle of Pañcamahābhutvādī and 'Tajfivataccharīravāda'. Both the principles appear to be similar though, in the Sūtrakṛtāṅga both are mentioned separately. Differences in their principle is still open for further analysis.

Pañcamahābhutavāda has been expressed as other's opinion in the Sūtrakṛtāṅga, so it makes it clear that according to the Jain Philosophy, the soul has an independent existence, distinct from these Pañcamahābhūtas.