Buddhists and Atheists deny the existence of the Soul. The Rishis wrote the six Darshanas as a response, in part, to cold criticisms leveled by Buddhists, Jains, and Atheists. Concerning the denial of the Soul’s existence, the arguments presented by the six Darshanas are compelling. Some of these arguments are:
- When we pick up and touch an orange, we initially cannot certify it’s an orange. We examine [see] it, smell it and eventually taste it. Based on what we read earlier about an orange and based on the evidence we gather now from the senses, we conclude that it’s an orange. In all of these sense operations, there is indisputably one agent deep within us that coordinates the acts of touching, seeing, smelling, and tasting. Who is this agent, and what is his name?
- Additionally, Yesterday I saw a yellow jar from afar, and today I am touching it. This statement would be meaningless if ‘I’ is not different from the eye [which cannot touch] and from skin [which cannot see].
- In examining whether a sense is or is not the Soul, I look at a pen with the left eye only. I then look at the same pen with the right eye only. I recognize the SAME pen with each eye separately. This would be impossible if the Soul were identical with both senses, the left eye and the right eye. The Truth is that there is a Soul distinct from both eyes. This Soul is the seat of perception and recognition.
- Again, we see mango and our tongue becomes watery. The sight causes taste to be excited. There must be an independent, distinct agent that coordinates sight with taste. It is the Soul that sees the mango and remembers its properties. The memory of mango properties, lodged in the Soul, causes the taste to be excited.
- About the senses and the objects they perceive, the Soul is different from them too. For example, we all see the sky with our eyes. No one doubts this. The fact that the sky is seen points to an agent different from both the eye and the sky.
- Further, when I say: My book, I am pointing to a relationship between the book and its owner. No one can sensibly say: I am the book, or I, the book, or This book is me. They say, My book. The possessive adjective, MY, points to the Soul.
- There is no need for any scripture to prove the existence of such a free agent who exists, thinks, speaks, acts, and owns.
- And, merely not seeing the Soul is not enough proof that it doesn’t exist. We don’t see our eye, but we know of the eye’s existence because we can see. Vedic Religion posits that the Soul is not the sum-total of the activities of the body, and therefore, does not cease to exist when death strikes the gross body.
- Responding to Chaarvaak’s arguments, if consciousness were indeed a quality of the body, this consciousness should continue to exist even after death, because the elements constituting the body are still present in the dead body. Since this does not happen, then we must conclude that consciousness is a quality of something other than the body – something that resides in the body. The seer is different from the seen. We see the body. We who see are different from the body that we see.
DR SATISH PRAKASH