Review Study on Concept of Aatma in Aastik Darshan

Abstract

Ayurveda is a long-established Science along with enormous philosophical concepts as a base, experience of practice through keen interpretation for prognosis and treatment, research, logical thinking and all these are passed on for generations; hence is experienced based science with its own concepts and methods of exploration. The living body is responsible performance by the Purusha or Jeevatma. Acharya Charaka mention that Sattva (Mind), Aatma (Soul) and Sharir (Body) as Tridand Sharir in first chapter of Sutrasthan. These are the tripod of human body in which all the universal factors along with Jeevatma (omnipresent observer) is present. These three are like a tripod; the world is sustained by their combination. They constitute the substratum for everything. According to Hindu philosophy, the systems of philosophy are divided into two main classes, namely, Aastik (Atheist) philosophy and Nastik philosophy. Buddhist, Jain, and Charvaka these 3 are Nastik philosophy which has been not accepted Veda as fundamental consideration. The follower of Sanatan Dharma is divided into the 6 branches as Sankhya, Yoga, Vedanta, Mimansa, Nyaya and Vaisheshika. This is commonly known as Shada Darshan. The views of all these philosophers regarding the Aatma are mentioned here.

Introduction

I. INTRODUCTION

The Vedic sages had occasionally thought about life. Aatma, reincarnation, karma-fruits were found in the Vedas among the ideas. The Aatma is a different element from the body and after the end of this life it goes to the next world, this principle is definitely found in the Vedic hymns, but the Aatma in the world The Vedic sages did not act in search of why there is movement. The worldly life with all its limitations was dear to the Vedic sages. The eagerness to leave the beloved and move towards the credit arose during the time of the Upanishadaa, then the householder life in front of salvation began to vain and when people instead of enjoying life turn their backs on it .Who has created the universe? Which other deity should we worship? There the sages of the Upanishada decided on some principles regarding the creation of the universe and also found out the truth which is the wide authority of worship. The old narrative of Vedic religion is the Vedas and the new narrative is known as Upanishada."

“The term Aatma is one of the important concepts (ideas) of Indian philosophy. It is the Aatma which is the fundamental subject matter of the Upanishada. It refers to the fundamental essence inherent in the individual. He is the eternal element and even after death which it is not destroyed. There are different concepts of Aatma in different philosophical schools of Indian philosophy. According to Vaisheshika philosophy it is Anu (Atom), according to Nyaya it is the carrier of Karma (action). In Upanishada it has been called "Anoraniyana Mahato Mahiyana”. In AdvaitaVedanta" It is Sachchidananda and in separable from Brahma.

A. Aastik darshan

Aastika Darshan, is a Indian philosophy of orthodox school of thought, defined as one that accepts the authority of the Veda (sacred scriptures of ancient India); The six orthodox philosophic systems are Sankhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Mimansa and Vedanta. The term Aastika comes from the Sanskrit Asti, which means “there is.” Contrasted to the Aastika systems are the Nastika (Sanskrit: from na asti, “there is not”), the individuals and schools that do not accept the authority of the Veda, the system of the four classes, and the superiority of the Brahmin. Included among the Nastika schools are the Buddhists, Jain, the ascetic Ajivika, and the materialistic Charvaka.

B. Sankhya Darshan

"The Sankhya Darshan is also based on the Upanishadaa. In that also the plurality of the soul is propounded. According to this view, Purusha is many. That Purusha element is Chit and Sat. He is pure consciousness. There is prestige in faith. To be related to nature is to be bonded and liberated, to become neutral, and to be moksha. Consciousness has nothing to do with any quality or religion. There is no expansion of inhibition in consciousness." 

There is the existence of the Purusha separate from the Avyakta etc., because all the associations (object-community) are for someone else. The association of avyakt etc. is because in them there is happiness, sorrow and delusion."Therefore, because of the fear of disorder, on this, that is, considering the person as different from the union, he will have to consider him as immaterial, non-objective, abnormal, conscious and infallible, because the trinity, etc. The meaning of Acharya saying Trigunadiviparyaat is that there is something other than Trigunadi, which is not the form of union and that is the Purusha or Aatma. The existence of the Purusha is also proved, because whatever happiness and sorrow is enticing, it is all seen to be inspired by some other, like place. Since this intellect, etc. is also enticing pleasure and pain, by the Aatma. Therefore all of them must also be established or inspired by some other and that person is separate from all other things. The existence of the Purusha is proved even if the enjoyer is expected. By being an enjoyer, the subject of enjoyment, happiness, sorrow etc. is indicated because the pleasures, sorrows, etc., to be experienced by everyone as favorable is good and unfavorable is bad. Therefore, there will be someone else to be made 'favorable' means happy and unfavorable means sad by them. That is why the one who himself is not of the form of happiness, sorrow etc., he is going to be happy or sad and he is a man. Birth, death and the arrangement of the senses together, due to the absence of tendency and the distinction of qualities, the plurality of the Purusha is proved. "Purush distinction is also proved because of Triguna distinction.

C. Yoga Darshan

Acharya Patanjali has told the nature of the Aatma from the advance sutra that the seeing consciousness is the power of seeing only, yet being pure, and immutable, it is the one who sees according to the attitudes. Aatma Tattva is pure conscious form, only conscious element can see the conscious form. It should be said that the Aatma Tattva is only the mind-power; only the conscious form does not require any other auxiliary adjective to make it conscious. The knowledge of external things comes to him directly through the means of intellect. All other senses perform complete their business in this Aatma Tattva. When the external sense is related to its object, that object is related to the Mana, as it is reflected, reaches to the Buddhi (intellect) through the Ahankara (Ego). This process is called process of Karana. The Buddhi (intellect) has a direct contact with the Aatma; it has the knowledge of the desires reflected up to the intellect. Having knowledge is the dharma of the Aatma (conscious), it is always conscious, always the form of knowledge, it is its eternal form. Knowledge of external subjects is knowledge in nature. That knowledge is acquired through the Vritti (process) of Karana.

That is why he is instrumental, impermanent. All experiences can only happen to the conscious element, because that is in the form of feeling. Intelligence is only a means; experience can never happen to the intellect. The religion of the intellect is only instinct. When knowledge is attained through Vritti, it is only to the Purusha consciousness.

Knowledge of various external subjects does not create any kind of disorder in a Aatma. Happiness and unhappiness are also favorable and unfavorable experiences. Feeling is the nature of Aatma, then how can one imagine the disorder in him from these different experiences? Feeling influenced by any subject, it does not leave its form. If he becomes vicious and leaves the form, then it will be impossible to experience happiness and sorrow. It is said that due to the fear of getting disorder in the soul, happiness and pain etc. knowledge and experience should be accepted by the intellect but this idea is discarded from being contrary to the classical tradition and the basic principles of the scriptures. Being of nature is considered as the basic principle of Shastra. But in the above belief, where the intellect is said to be the real experience of happiness and sorrow - the presence of the conscious person is used to produce the power of cognition in the intellect being root.

It means that the intellect was used for the fulfillment of the purpose of the Aatma, rather than for the fulfillment of the purpose of the man's intellect. Seeing the seriousness of all these circumstances, the sutrakar said – Shuddha: Pratyayanupashyah. The conscious soul is never distorted by the experience of happiness and sorrow etc., it is pure in nature, always pure, immutable – unrestrained. The realization of the state of the Aatma is possible only when there is knowledge, perception or experience, does one come to know that the Aatma is located here. Apart from this, the conscious soul is able to know only that external object, which is presented by the intellect. It means that one is the seer according to the suffixes (Vritti) of the intellect. Even though Aatma is pure, he is able to get knowledge with the help of intellect.

The conscious Aatma is not the same thing as the intellect. The intellect is inert, consequential, visible, impermanent, the only means, while the soul is Chetan (conscious), Aparinaami, the Drashta (observer), Nitya (Permanent) the enjoyer. Hence the question of their similarity does not arise. But in spite of being deformed, the Aatma receives the cooperation of the Buddhi (intellect) in a dense form for external knowledge, so the necessary closeness of them cannot be denied. This proximity is fully helpful in fulfilling the enjoyment and upgrading of the soul.  

D. Nyaay Darshan-

 "According to Nyaay Darshankar Aatma (Soul) is the shelter of Ichha (Desire), Dwesha (Hatred), Sukha (Happiness), Dukhah (Sorrow) and Gyaan (Knowledge). Annabhatta have called the shelter of knowledge as the soul. Only soul is the shelter of knowledge from samavaya relationship. Although Disha (Direction) and Kaal (Time) are also shelters of knowledge, but here (in the eyes of the Naiyaayika) it is implied to be the shelter of knowledge from the samvay relationship, according to the Naiyaayika, the soul is of two types, Ishvara or Paramatma and the Jeevatma (soul), among them God is one while Jeevatma (soul) are Many, Paramatma is Sarvgya (omniscient) while ??the soul is Alpaghya (less-knowledgeable) and both are eternal permissible. Although due to some fundamental differences like unity and diversity etc., arguments can be given to consider the Paramatma and Jeevaatma as separate substances, but in the form of knowledge of the Naiyaayika, both have been accepted as one substance. Since the soul is not visible, therefore Naiyaayika told its Siddhi by the following inference process. The actions of Indriya are nothing but the actions of jeevaatma and not of itself, because the Indriya are only Sadhana (means). Like the action of axe is associated with the doer. Kanad has also said that the senses are the means of knowledge. Senses and the fame of the subject of knowledge are different from the Jeevaatma. Naiyaayika does not accept Dehatma Vaad, they gives some real facts against it as follows-

• If the body is considered to be a soul, then when the body is destroyed, the sins and virtues committed by it will also have to be considered as annihilation, so the body is not a soul.
• In the absence of sin-virtue, there should not be a feeling of happiness and sorrow in the newborn child. If the body is considered as a soul, then power of sin-virtue has been not possible in the newborn body. Therefore the body is not the soul.
• We can’t see Aatma (consciousness) in the dead body so the body cannot be considered as a soul.
• If the body is considered to be a soul, then the destruction of the body's parts, hands, feet, etc., will have to be considered as the destruction of the soul but it is not happen.
• The body is changing every moment, so it will not be possible to remember the subject seen in childhood in youth. It cannot be assumed that the body of childhood and youth is the same, because at the time of puberty, the body of childhood has been destroyed. So the difference in the size of the body is the proof in this. Because of the past knowledge (guna) will be a transition in work, it cannot even be believed that the child in the womb felt by other mother, it will be necessary to remember the child after that. Therefore, the body cannot be considered as the soul.
• By considering the body as a soul, the karma of ones body will have consumed by others body.

1. Aatma as "I"(oneself)-

 "It shows that the word ‘I’ does not give any sense of Panchabhuta (Prithwi, Aap etc.), neither Disha nor kaal or mind.we says my body, my senses, my mind which confirm that the ‘I’ is separate from the body, senses and the mind. In this way all the things get seprated except the Aatma. So the word ‘I’ has to be considered as the Aatma (soul). The precepts that are used with ‘I’ are applied in the soul itself. I am happy, I know that, I desire - by such experiments, one realizes that ‘I’ is the synonymous with the soul. No one says that ‘I’ am water or ‘I’ am sky. It means the word ‘I’ means the conscious substance (soul) which is the basis of the qualities of Knowledge, Desire, Happiness, and Sorrow etc.

E. Vaisheshik Darshan

Under the Vaisheshik philosophy, the proof of the existence of the soul has been presented, features of soul, Anekatmak Vaad and the idea of ??the soul and the body have been described.

1. Proof of existence of soul

In order to prove the existence of the soul, Kanad has been state that the subjects (forms, tastes etc.) of the senses are well known. Now the question to be considered is who is to receive or enjoy these objects through the senses. The senses themselves are just instruments. There must be someone else using them. Just as the weapon does not move automatically, but it is operated by someone, similarly the senses do not work automatically. Someone else is there to inspire them. So the author says that the question can be raised that why the body should not be considered as the governing body of the senses? In its answer, Kanad told that the actions which are done through the senses are Chaitanya specific in nature, but the fundamental elements of the body (parmaanu of Prithvi, Aap etc.) that are lack of Chaitanya (inert matter). The qualities which has been not of cause, it cannot be part of action either. The qualities which are present in work must be a reason for that too. Therefore, the body cannot be cosidered as conscious. Chaitanya Dharma is dependent on some other substance. This Aatma is the originator of the senses and the knower of their objects, is different from the body. Knowledge indicates the existence of the knower (Aatma). Shankar Mishra says in his Vaisheshik Sutrapaskar that the knowledge generated by the different senses has the same basis, and it is indicated by word ‘I’.

I am touching the thing and I saw the thing only one person is responsible for both conditions.The word ‘I’ alone is the blazing symbol of the soul's power. That's why the Vaisheshikakar says" that the existence of the soul is also proved by the proofs other than the Agama Pramana. Knowledge indicates the existence of the knower (soul).

• The knowledge of work is proven, so above conjecture cannot be false.
• Knowledge is not in conflict with the soul, so this conjecture is not against.
• Knowledge is not found in things beyond the Aatma. Therefore this conjecture cannot be said to be unequaled either. After describing these hypotheses, the author says that the knowledgeable soul is estimated by looking at the work from the knowledge. He is devoid of the aforesaid threefold defect, and therefore is honorable.

2. Lakshana (Signs) of the Aatma

Maharishi Kanad told the signs of the Aatma  that whatever processes happens in the living body, such as breathing, action of eyelids, falling and rising, the working of the mind,  development of the senses, the experiences of pleasure, pain, desire, hatred, effort, etc., all of them are due to the soul. All those businesses get stop when the body loses connection of the soul.

a. Prana-Apan

Air is naturally inclined (moving oblique). Its upward movement (Prana) and downfall (Apan) is the aspect of the manifestation of the Aatma itself. Efforts which are made with will are called worthy efforts. But there are many efforts of the soul which have become natural to save life. Such effort is called life-saving effort. 

• ???????Nimesh-Umesh: Nimesh means drop of eyelid Unmesh means lifting of eyelid. These two functions keep on being equal. Who is its originator? At whose command do the eyelids dance like a puppet? If there is no operator of the body machine, then it is impossible for that body parts keep on doing regular work on theirself.
• Jeevan (liveness): The functions of life are indicated for the growth of muscles, repair of physical damages, etc. Just as the house owner keeps on renovating the house, in the same way the Dehadhishthata keeps on nourishing and growing the body through food etc. When something enters in the eye, he immediately sends the hand there for help. When any part gets burnt, it makes up for it by giving new flesh and skin from within. The soul should be considered as the Gaurdian of the house of the body.
• Manogati (Attitude): It is the Aatma that inspires the mind. Just as a boy takes a ball and throws it here and there, in the same way the soul also moves the mind runs here and there as per his will.
• Sense disorders: Mouth gets watery at the sight of citrus fruits like tamarind etc. What is the reason for this? Along with the first form-special, you have had the experience of rasa-special. When that form is visible again somewhere, then the same rasa is allowed. Permission does not exist without pervasiveness. The knowledge is attained through the Smriti Sanskar, and that sanskar is formed by the earthly vision. It is only after the first several times that the rasa is experienced with the form-accompanied rasa, and there a disorder of the Rasanendriya through the Chakshurendriya. This indicates that the master of all the senses is the same called as Aatma
• Sukh( Pleasure), Dukhah (Sorrow), Ichha (Desire), Dwesha (Hatred), Prayatna (Effort): All these emotions are also indicative of the Aatma. Happiness, sadness, desire, etc. have qualities. And Guna (virtue) does not remain Nirashrayi (independant). He is dependent on some basis. That base matter cannot be the body, because the body is the panchabhautik which is without consciousness.The Aatma is an eternal substance. Vaisheshikakar says that just as the air atomic touch is material by virtue of being quality, and being eternal by being inanimate, similarly the soul is also matter by being the basis of qualities like knowledge, happiness, desire etc. And being incorporeal is eternal.

b. Anekant Vaad

Is the soul one or many? In answer to this question, Kanad says it is seen that some people are happy, some are unhappy; one is scholar while other is a fool. This proves that different bodies have different Aatma. Here it can be doubted that we found difference of stages exists even in the same body. Different states of the body come to be seen with the distinction of childhood, youth, old age etc. Then why should not many Aatma has been considered in the same body? The solution is that different states of the body take place in different times - not in the same time. But happy and sad creatures are found contemporaneous. At the same time Chaitra is happy while Maitra is sad. Two opposite religions cannot exist in the same body at the same time. Therefore, the multiplicity of the Aatma (soul) is indicated by the Yogapadya of the opposite religions. What is the proof that there is a soul in the body of another? The author gives the answer that “by observing tendencies (efforts to attain self-interest) and Nivritti (efforts to avoid harm) it is known that like us, they also have desire and hatred, because tendency and Retirement arises from desire and aversion respectively.

The existence of soul in them is also proved by the feeling of desire and aversion. The multiplicity of souls is also proved from scriptures. In Shruti the verses indicate the plurality of the soul. Therefore, there is evidence in polytheism as well. That's why Vaisheshikar say about the Anekant Vaad

3. Aatma and Sharir (Soul and Body)

The soul is eternal and pervasive. But when it is united with the body, its knowledge, chirsha and efforts are limited. Through the mind's co-ordinated senses, it gets knowledge of external objects and through the mind alone it gets knowledge of its qualities. The soul does not have knowledge of the subject when it loses contact with the body. In the Mokshaavastha (state of salvation), the soul becomes devoid of all experiences of happiness, sorrow etc.

F. Mimamsa Philosophy

"The Mimamsak believe in the existence of the Aatma, that is, the soul, different from the body, the senses, etc. It is a substance. It is eternal. It does not perish. In fact, it is the 'doer' and the 'bhokta'. It exists everywhere in the form of observer (ego-observable). It is the form of pure knowledge and is untouched by space and time. This is the knower. It leaves one body and enters into another. Due to different experiences everybody has different Aatma and it is different from the soul residing in another body. Therefore, there are so many Jeevtma. Only by believing in many Jeevtma, there can be a system of conditioned and liberated, otherwise if one gets to be free, everyone has to be considered free. He is also Swaanubhavgamya (self-perceivable); hence he is called Manapratyakshagamya (psychic-observable). Kumaril and Prabhakar are unanimous in the diversity of the soul. Both consider the soul to be the shelter of knowledge.

G. Aatma in Vedanta Darshan

In Vedanta Darshan different philosophers have presented their views in different forms from different perspectives considering the Supreme Self, “Aatma”. The main ones are Adi Shankaracharya, Ramanuj Aacharya, Madhvacharya, and Vallabh Acharya and NimbarkAcharya.

Shankaracharya

According to Advaita Vedanta, there is one Supreme Being which is called Brahmatattva or Aatma ntattva. Therefore, the planet and the soul are two names of the same Supreme Being; there is no difference between the two. This Supreme Being is Paramatma. The distinction between the jeev and the soul is practical. There is no difference between the Jeev, Aatma and the Brahma. In fact, there is no difference between the Jeev, Aatma and Paramatma. The soul, which has slept for a long time in the deep sleep of the eternal future, when awakened by the knowledge of the Tatnvamasi, then it is realized beyond the title of the body, the senses and the intellect, the non-duality soul. According to Ramanuja, Chit, Achit and Ishvara these three are Mooltatva (basic elements). In these, Ishvara is the main part and Chit and Achit are its two adjectives that are why this view is called Vishisht Advaita Vaad. According to Ramanuj Acharya, Chit-Tattva is the Jeevatma (Soul). Madhva Acharya is a dualist, he sys that the state of the Jeevatma (living being) is empirically sensitive, not mere logical. The concept of ego proves its power. This is a permanent truth that is why in the Upanishada it has been called Anuchitti Dharma. According to the Madhva Acharya, the Jeevatma (Soul) and the Ahankara (Ego) are inseparable

II. DISCUSSION

All these philosophies whether Aastik (Theist) or Nastik (Atheist) are mutually related and they have adjacent place one after the other. There is an absolute expectation of every philosophy to reach the supreme position and all these Darshan are bound in one thread. One cannot support their existence without the other. Each philosophy is in sync with the other philosophy. There is no real opposition to all this. These philosophies complement each other. The followers of the Charvaka philosophy, not considering the former separate existence of the 'soul', some consider the gross body, some subtle senses from them, some even more subtle prana and some consider the mind as the soul. Along with the gradual development of knowledge, the Jigyaasu (seekers) is not satisfied with the theory of Charvaka, he believes that consciousness is an independent special quality of the soul. The soul is a separate independent substance. Those who render this level are called Naiyayika and Vaisheshika. The seeker of the Supreme Being is not satisfied with the above principles. On getting full knowledge of the true nature of these elements, there is a doubt in their mind that without any reason no work is done. If consciousness is not naturally present in the soul and the mind, then consciousness cannot arise even by the combination of these two.

Then, as soon as there is a union of the soul and the mind, it is necessary to find from where the consciousness comes in the soul. To find this out the seeker has to take the help of subtle vision. No one can come to know about it through external organs.

Through the subtle vision, the inquisitor enters the intellectual world. There he clearly sees that what till now, i.e. in Nyaya-Vaishesika-bhoomi, he used to consider as a soul, is actually a disorder of the Sattva quality of nature, which is called 'intellect' or 'Mahat'. It is very pure hence the 'reflection of Chaitanya', which Comes from the Supreme Being, is evident on it and by its influence the 'intellect' appears like consciousness. In fact, Chaitanya is a different substance, which is called Purusha. It is transcendent and detached. In fact, this Chaitanya can be called 'soul' and 'intellect', which is considered as 'soul' by gross eyes, is only a Sattvik disorder of nature and is inert. This is the field of Sankhya philosophy; this is also the belief of Yoga philosophy. In Mimamsa doctrine the soul is immortal. It is neither created nor destroyed. It is different from the intellect and the senses. The soul is eternal whereas the intellect and the senses are impermanent. Spirit is also different from science. Shankaracharya considers the soul to be self-siding. Huh. Argument is not needed to prove it. When one says 'I am' or I am not' then both the statements reveal the existence of the soul. Shankaracharya is the originator of Advaita. According to them, the Supreme Being is one. This is called Brahma or soul. According to Ramanuja there are two parts of Brahman or Ishvara - Achit and Chit. Chitu is the self or the Jeevatma (Soul). The soul is a part of God. This body, mind is different. Its power is dependent on God and its director and senses are God. This soul is the doer and the enjoyer of the fruits of action. According to Nimbark's opinion, living molecules is not a Vibhu, even in his liberated state, he is a Jeeva. The only difference between a Mukta Aatma (liberated soul) and a Baddha Jeevatma (conditioned soul) is that in Baddha Jeevatma the soul cannot attain the form of Brahma. He continues to achieve oneness with the visible world. But in the liberated state, Jeeva can get the real experience of the form of Brahma. In this way, this sequence of philosophical reaction and development is going on till date. This sequence is a sign of the dynamism, development-oriented and freedom of thought of the Indian image.

Similarly, Swami Vivekananda, Mahaatma Gandhi is a Socialist Philosopher of the contemporary era who were followers the thought of Aastik Darshana. The Contemporary Indian philosophers have presented their own views regarding the soul from their own point of view, which I have mentioned in the previous chapters. Swami Vivekananda considers the soul to be pure and complete. Sat, Chit, Anand is the nature of the soul, its birthright. All the manifestations we see in the world are just different forms of the Self. Birth-death, decay-growth, progress-degradation, everything is different manifestations of that one eternal being. The soul is absolutely past the causal relationship. That is why that immortality and its bliss form are the direct result of its free nature. If the soul itself is not liberated or free, then no one can make it free or free. It is the definite opinion of Swami Vivekananda that the soul is not bound, but is eternally free. Not only this, but thinking of oneself as conditioned is also inauspicious. Whenever someone thought that I was conditioned, weak, helpless, his misfortune started. He put shackles on his feet.

Mahatma Gandhi cannot be called a philosopher in the definitional sense. He himself writes in the preface of his autobiography that some such things must be known to him only by the soul, which gets absorbed in the soul itself. But to give such a thing, it is beyond my power. In my experiments, spirituality means moral, religion means policy, religion is the policy adopted from the point of view of the soul. His main ideal is truth and non-violence. Mahatma Gandhi has laid great emphasis on self-purification. He has shed a good light on this at the end of his autobiography. Self-purification is very difficult. For complete purity Mana, Vacha and Karmana has to be free from attachment,

Yet all philosophers accept the soul as a supreme being which is not the body but something more than that. In this way, there is some similarity and some differences in self-views of both the sides (socialist thinkers and modern philosophical thinkers) of contemporary Indian philosophers. Fear, anger, laziness, excessive sleep, excessive awakening, excess feeding, excess fasting are poison for a devotee of Parmatma. As much as the object is minute, so much is it Vyapak.  Jala is minute than Prithvi, Agni from Jala, Vayu from Agni, Akash from Vayu, and so are more Vyapak than each other. Same way Ishvara is minutest, so is present everywhere as hotness is felt more near gas burner, coldness near water, Ishvar is felt where there is truth, Vivek, piousness, Kartavyapalan etc. Ishvariya Guna are present in relatively higher proportion. So to achieve the Param Lakshya Moksh with blessings of him, one must include these Ishvariya Guna in himself. So to live with reality, that is we are Aatma and body, mind etc. are our tools only, we have to involve Aatma  Tatva enhancing habits [food habits, living habits, etc]in our life. Aachar Vichar, Aahar, Vihar, loving god more than ourselves, reading good literature and all the other deeds which make us to come nearer to God. Everything is unique, has its own role. None of us are superior to other. We all are Jeevatma having same qualities. Due to combination with Prakriti the differential come into existence. The superior most is only Parmatma. So we have not to deny anyone. Sattva has its own role and Tama have its own. If we think that all worlds is for man only, whole universe including the Sun, Moon and nature is for the well being of man only, then man starts doing works that harms our nature like environmental pollution which results in severe hazards to human being.

But if we think that we are a servant and part of that god (which is actually present in the form of this whole universe), then we cannot harm any more this universe because every human being and everything in this universe is our non separable part. By harming and disturbing anyone we are harming ourselves

Conclusion

The follower of Sanatan Dharma is divided into the 6 branches as Sankhya, Yoga, Vedanta, Mimansa, Nyaya and Vaisheshika. This is commonly known as Shada Darshan The Aatma is a rider, body is chariot, the intellect is the charioteer and the Mind is a rope which controls the horse. The sense organs which always benefit to soul associated with the Mind are the horses and the sense objects are the pathways for those horses which move to and forth. The Veda is considered of highest importance in the Indian philosophy, roots of which can be traced back to Veda. The Vedic tradition is divided into two sections- Gnana Kanda and Karma Kanda. The latter has been developed by the Brahmana scriptures while the former by Aranyaka and the Upanishada. Indian philosophy is multi dimensional and multi-visional. It is religious and secular, theistic and atheistic, materialistic and idealistic, pro and anti Vedic or Aastik and Nastik. The Indian philosophical system has been divided into two classes as Aastik and Nastik. The word Aastik literally means theist or a believer in God while the word Nastik means an atheist or one who does not believe in God. However, in Indian philosophy these words represent concept of believer and non believer respectively in the testimony of the Veda. Aastik here does not mean one who believes in rebirth since even the Nastik systems of Jaina and Buddha believe in rebirth. As mentioned, Aastik system of Indian philosophy believes in the testimony of Veda. This class includes six systems of Indian philosophy which are collectively known as Shad Darshan. These are Mimamsa, Vedanta, Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya and Vaisheshika. Mimamsa focuses on the ritualistic aspect of the Veda and Vedanta on the knowledge aspect. Since they are directly based upon the Veda, both these types are sometimes called Mimamsa. All these philosophies whether Aastik (Theist) or Nastik (Atheist) are mutually related and they have adjacent place one after the other. There is an absolute expectation of every philosophy to reach the supreme position and all these Darshan are bound in one thread. One cannot support their existence without the other. Each philosophy is in sync with the other philosophy.

References

[1] Sushruta Samhita With “ Nibandha Samgraha”, Commentary Of Shri Dalhanacharya And “Nyayachandrika Panjika” Of Shri Gayadas Acharya On Nidanasthana, Chaukhambha Orientalia, Varanasi, 2005 [2] Charaka Samhita (text with English translation and critical exposition based on cakrapani datta?s Ayurveda dipika) by: R. K. Sharma & bhagwan dash, chowkambha sanskrita series office, Varanasi. Edi., 1st 2001. [3] Nyaya Darshana–byAcharya Gautamwith Vatsyayana Comm. And Hindi translation by Thakur Udaya narayana Singh, Chaukhamba Sanskrit SansthanaVaranasi. [4] Patanjala’s Yoga Sutras with the commentary of Vyasa and gloss of Vachaspati Mishra; Translated by RamaPrasada; [5] RigVeda Samhita – Translated by A. B. Keith, Harward University Oriental Series, Cambridge (1920). [6] Samkya Karika–By Ishvar Krishna with Samkhya Prakasha Sanskrit Hindi Comm. By Dr. Srikrishna Tripathi, Chaukhambha Surabharati, Varanasi. [7] Srimad Bhagavad Geeta Tattvavivechani (English Commentary)–Jayadayal Goyandaka, Published by Govind Bhavan Karyalaya, GeetaPress, Gorakhapur. [8] Tarka Sangraha – With Deepika Sanskrit Hindi Comm. By Shesha Raj Sharma, Chaukhambha Surabharati, Varanasi. [9] Yoga and Ayurveda–Dr. Satyendra Prasad Mishra, Pub, By ChaukhambaSanskrit SansthanaVaranasi. [10] History of Indian Philosophy Part-1. Dasgupta SN Publisher - Rajasthan Hindi Granth [11] Indian Philosophy, Mahamahopadhyay Dr. Umesh Mishra Publisher - Dr. Sachchidanand Pathak, 2003, pp. 107-111 [12] Interpretation of Sankhya Tatva Kaumudi Prabha Ishwar Krishna by Sankhyakarika and Vachaspati Mixed by Tatva Kaumudi by Interpreter - Dr. Adya Prasad Mishra, Publisher Akshayavat [13] Patanjali Yogdarsanam, Shastri Udayaveer Vijayaku 90 117-119 \'Govindaram Hasananda. [14] Introduction to Indian Philosophy (Second Volume) Vaisheshik Darshan Jha Professor Harimohan, [15] History of Indian Philosophy (Part-1) Dasgupta S.N., Publisher-Rajasthan Hindi Granth Academy, Translator- Kamal Nath Shastri Sudhir Kumar, 2011 20335-336 [16] Bharatiya Darshan Mahamahopadhyaya Dr. Umesh Mishra, Publisher - Dr. Sachchidananda Pathak, 2003 [17] Bharatiya Darshan Mahamahopadhyaya, Dr. Umesh Mishra, Publisher, Dr. Sachidananda Pathak, 2003, East 421 Indian Philosophy (Vol. 2). [18] Shri Arvind Sahitya (Vol-16), Letters of Sri Arvind (Part One). Translator-Chandradeep Tripathi, Publisher-Sri Arvind Society Pondicherry-2 1974, [19] Rebirth and Evolution, Shri Arvind Translated by Shyam Sundar Jhunjhunwala, Published by Shri Arvind Society, Pondicherry-2, First Edition, 1972. [20] Reincarnation and Evolution Shri Arvind Translator- Shyam Sundar Jhunjhunwala, Publisher Shri Arvind Society, Pondicherry-2. First Edition, 1972 pp. 288-290. [21] Kaushik et al. Concept Of Atma In Ayurveda: A Review European Journal of Pharmaceutical and Medical Research, ISSN 2394-3211, 2019,6(2), 307-310. [22] Kamath Nagaraj et al.: Concept Of Atma (Soul) In Ayurveda: A Review IAMJ: Volume 3; Issue 1; January – 2015 [23] Devanand Upadhaya, conceptual Review of Adhyatma In Ayurveda, International Journal Of Ayurvedic & Herbal Medicine 3(6) Nov-Dec. 2013(1404-1408)

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Dr. Lahange Sandeep Madhukar, Dr. Sunil Kumar Yadav, Dr. Vikash Bhatnagar, Dr. Bhangare Archana Nivrutti. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.