SECTION CCXVIII
"Yudhishthira said, 'By following what conduct, O thou that art
conversant with all courses of conduct, did Janaka, the ruler of Mithila
versed in the religion of Emancipation, succeed in attaining to
Emancipation, after casting off all worldly enjoyments?'
"Bhishma said, 'In this connection is cited the following old narrative
of the particular conduct by which that ruler, thoroughly conversant with
all courses of conduct, succeeded in achieving the highest felicity.
There was a ruler in Mithila of the name of Janadeva of Janaka's race. He
was ever engaged in reflecting upon the courses of conduct that might
lead to the attainment of Brahma. A century of preceptors always used to
live in his palace, lecturing him upon the diverse courses of duty
followed by people who had betaken themselves to diverse modes of
life.[793] Given to the study of the Vedas, he was not very well
satisfied with the speculations of his instructors on the character of
the Soul, and in their doctrines of extinction upon the dissolution of
the body or of rebirth after death. Once upon a time a great ascetic of
the name of Panchasikha, the son of Kapila, having roamed over the whole
world, arrived at Mithila. Endued with correct conclusions in respect of
all speculations about the diverse duties connected with renunciation, he
was above all pairs of opposites (such as heat and cold, happiness and
misery), and of doubts he had none. He was regarded as the foremost of
Rishis. Dwelling wherever he pleased, he desired to place before the
reach of all men eternal felicity that is so difficult of attainment. It
seemed that he went about, amazing the world, having assumed the form of
none else than that great Rishi, that lord of creatures, whom the
followers of the Sankhya doctrine knew by the name of Kapila. He was the
foremost of all the disciples of Asuri and was called the undying. He had
performed a mental Sacrifice that had lasted for thousand years.[794] He
was firm in mind, and had completed all the rites and sacrifices that are
enjoined in the scriptures and that lead to the attainment of Brahma. He
was fully conversant with the five sheaths that cover the soul.[795] He
was devoted to the five acts connected with the adoration of Brahma, and
had the five qualities (of tranquillity, self-restraint, etc.). Known (as
already said) by the name of Panchasikha, he had approached one day a
large concourse of Rishis following the Sankhya doctrines and enquired of
them about the highest object of human acquisition, viz., the Unmanifest
or that upon which the five Purushas or sheaths (already named)
rest.[796] For the sake of obtaining a knowledge of the Soul, Asuri had
enquired of his preceptor. In consequence of the latter's instructions
and of his own penances, Asuri understood the distinction between the
body and the Soul and had acquired celestial vision.[797] In that
concourse of ascetics, Asuri made his exposition of the Immutable One,
and Indestructible Brahma which is seen in diverse forms. Panchasikha
became a disciple of Asuri. He lived on human milk. There was a certain
Brahmani of the name of Kapila. She was the wife of Asuri.[798]
Panchasikha was accepted by her as a son and he used to suck her breasts.
In consequence of this, he came to be known as the son of Kapila and his
understanding became fixed on Brahma. All this, about the circumstances
of his birth and those that led to his becoming the son of Kapila, was
said unto me by the divine Rishi.[799] The latter also told me about the
omniscience of Panchasikha. Conversant with all courses of duty,
Panchasikha, after having himself acquired high knowledge, (came to
Janaka) and knowing that that king had equal reverence for all his
preceptors, began to amaze that century of preceptors (by an exposition
of his doctrine fraught), with abundant reasons. Observing the talent of
Kapileya, Janaka became exceedingly attached to him, and abandoning his
hundred preceptors, began to follow him in particular. Then Kapileya
began to discourse unto Janaka, who had according to the ordinance bent
his head unto him (as a disciple should) and who was fully competent to
apprehend the sage's instructions, upon that high religion of
Emancipation which is explained in Sankhya treatises. Setting forth in
the first place the sorrows of birth, he spoke next of the sorrows of
(religious) acts. Having finished that topic he explained the sorrows of
all states of life ending even with that in the high region of the
Creator.[800] He also discoursed upon that Delusion for whose sake is the
practice of religion, and acts, and their fruits, and which is highly
untrustworthy, destructible, unsteady, and uncertain.[801] Sceptics say
that when death (of the body) is seen and is a matter of direct evidence
witnessed by all, they who maintain, in consequence of their faith in the
scriptures, that something distinct from the body, called the Soul,
exists are necessarily vanquished in argument. They also urge that one's
death means the extinction of one's Soul, and that sorrow, decrepitude,
and disease imply (partial) death of the Soul. He that maintains, owing
to error, that the Soul is distinct from the body and exists after the
loss of body, cherishes an opinion that is unreasonable.[802] If that be
regarded as existent which does not really exist in the world, then it
may be mentioned that the king, being regarded so, is really never liable
to decrepitude or death. But is he, on that account, to be really
believed to be above decrepitude and death?[803] When the question is
whether an object exists or does not exist, and when that whose existence
is asserted presents all the indications of non-existence, what is that
upon which ordinary people rely in settling the affairs of life? Direct
evidence is the root of both inference and the scriptures. The scriptures
are capable of being contradicted by direct evidence. As to inference,
its evidentiary effect is not much. Whatever be the topic, cease to
reason on inference alone. There is nothing else called jiva than this
body. In a banian seed is contained the capacity to produce leaves and
flowers and fruits and roots and bark. From the grass and water that is
taken by a cow are produced milk and butter, substances whose nature is
different from that of the producing causes. Substances of different
kinds when allowed to decompose in water for some time produce spirituous
liquors whose nature is quite different from that of those substances
that produce them. After the same manner, from the vital seed is produced
the body and its attributes, with the understanding, consciousness, mind,
and other possessions. Two pieces of wood, rubbed together, produce fire.
The stone called Suryakanta, coming in contact with the rays of the Sun,
produces fire. Any solid metallic substance, heated in fire, dries up
water when coming in contact with it. Similarly, the material body
produces the mind and its attributes of perception, memory, imagination,
etc. As the loadstone moves iron, similarly, the senses are controlled by
the mind.[804] 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
dissolution of the body. 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.'"
