Body (śarīra) [in Charaka philosophy]

The three main synonyms frequently used in Carakasaṃhitā to designate the body are: śarīra, kāya and deha. The term śarīra is derived from the root “śṛ”. Its meaning is that which gets destroyed by the passage of time.^[1] The word kāya is derived from the root “ciñ” and it means “to collect”. The term “to collect” here refers to the collection from food. The word kāya is also explained as a configuration of parts.^[2] “By implication, it follows that kāya takes in food, digests, absorbs and metabolizes it. In other words, the term kāya means the building up of the body with food”.^[3] The term deha is derived from the root “diḥ” which means to grow or to develop.^[4] By implication, the term deha conveys the idea of underlying anabolic processes. It will be seen from the foregoing descriptions that all these three terms are expressive of the various aspects of the body its transient nature, the constitutional aspect, and also the destructive and constructive process of metabolism that occurs with in the body.

Caraka says that the body is the site of the conscious self, which is formed by the transformation of the conglomeration of five gross physical elements.^[5] With the exception of the Nyāya-Vaiśeṣikas, almost all are of the same opinion. Suśruta also admits this.^[6] At the same time we see a modified definition of the body in both Suśruta and Aṣṭāṅgahṛdaya. Accordingly, the body is a constitution of the basic elements such as doṣa, dhātu, and mala.^[7] Actually these constituents refer to the physical elements transformed basically. The body and the mind together constitute the substrata of pain or diseases and pleasure or health^[8] which are in turn determined by the utilization of time, mental faculties, and objects of senses.^[9]

Kaṇāda classify the ephemeral physical world into three, namely body, sense organs, and objects. But he does not give a comprehensive definition of the body. At the same time Akṣapāda places the body as second in his enumeration of prameyas and defines it as the site of actions (ceśṭa), sense capacities, and objects.^[10] Annaṃbhaṭṭa defines the body as the field of the soul's experience.^[11] Srīdhara Bhaṭṭa also considers the body as the receptacle of the experiences of the self^[12] The Mīmāṃsakas also agree with this definition.^[13]

The conspicuous difference between Caraka and the Nyāya - Vaiśeṣika is that Caraka construes the body as a composition of all the five physical elements while the Nyāya-Vaiśeṣikas do not accept it. The Nyāya-Vaiśeṣikas not only decline to admit the pāñcabhautika nature of the body but also strongly refute the concept that the body is a combination of five physical elements. Kaṇāda argues that we will have to admit the fact that the body is imperceptible if the body is said to have been made up of five elements.^[14] He also denies further the possibility of the body as a product of three perceptible elements (earth, water and fire) which may, perhaps, be posited in order to avoid the imperceptibility.^[15] Another important thing to be noted in this connection is that Kaṇāda, even though refutes the pāñcabhautika nature of the body, does not make explicit the particular element with which the human body is made of. At the same time, the Nyāya-Sūtra and its commentator Vātsyāyana unambiguously affirm that the human body is a product of the earth, because it posseses the specific quality (smell) of the earth^[16] . Even though the penta-bhautic nature of the body is denied, they consider the earth as the substantial cause of the human body and the other four elements are regarded as instrumental causes (nimittakāraṇa).^[17] In support of the Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika's argument, there are certain Vedic utterances which hold that human body is a constitution of the earth alone.^[18]

The salient feature of Caraka's conception of the pāñcabhautika nature of the body is that it follows a sequence as in the case of the manifestation of the five physical elements in the cosmic evolution. That is, the soul which is invariably associated with the mind first unites with ākāśa. Then it combines with air. In the same way, it further unites with fire, water, and earth one by one in that order and thus develops the embryo. All this happens in a very short time.^[24]

The gross body comes into existence at the time of conception and goes out of existence at the time of death. The sentient body is the site and channel of the sense organs and mind.^[19] When alive, the body, mind, and the sense organs together form the receptacle of all experiences of the self.^[20] Though the body is spoken of as a conglomeration of the five physical elements, it implies all factors such as the seven dhātus that derive from it. When the dhātus like blood and flesh are normal, the body remains healthy and when they lose their normalcy disturbed by augmentation and diminution, it will result in the ill-health or destruction of the body.^[21] The chief determinant of health or ill-health is the ingested food for it is also constituted by the five physical elements. The body is after all an outcome of food ingested in a fourfold manner, namely eaten, drunk, licked up, and masticated. Health and disease arise as a result of wholesome and unwholesome diet respectively.^[22]

The gross body comprises of innumerable atomic parts.^[23] These atomic forms are not to be understood as the paramāṇus construed in the Vaiśeṣika philosophy, for there in the Vaiśeṣika philosophy they are eternal ultimate particles of each one of the physical elements. The atomic parts mentioned in Caraka refer only to the biological units formed of the five elements. These atoms are in a flux. Every moment they are destroyed, and new ones are produced in their place. Thus, it seems that the body is stable and intact whch is not real. It is constantly changing. Food is the material with which the reconstitution is done.

Subtle body:

Caraka speaks of a persistent detachable subtle body (ātivāhikaśarīra) constituted by four physical elements (air, fire, water and earth). The self, invariably associated with the mind and the subtle body, is capable of transmigration and rebirth. Being associated with the past actions, the self transmigrates from body to body due to the motion of the mind.{GL_NOTE::} Ākāśa is not referred to here in this group that constitutes the transmigrating subtle body because it is immobile.{GL_NOTE::} Though the subtle body transmigrates, the physical elements of the subtle body do not contribute to the essential features of the gross body.{GL_NOTE::} The factors that are responsible for the general features are (1) the mother's part-blood, (2) the father's part- semen, (3) the actions of the individual. The part played by the assimilated food juice of the mother need not be counted separately, as it is determined by the karma of the individual.{GL_NOTE::} The mental traits are determined by the state of the mind of the individual in the previous birth.{GL_NOTE::} When one dies, the self which is invariably associated with the mind and the subtle body invisibly enters into the womb due to its karma, and when it comes into contact with the combined semen and blood of father and mother, the foetus develops.

Even though semen and blood are the cause of the production of the body, they are able to operate only when they come into contact with the subtle body.{GL_NOTE::} But in the Suśrutasaṃhitā the concept of the subtle body is somewhat different and confusing. There it is stated that consciousness manifests itself when semen and blood combine with the subtle consciousness.{GL_NOTE::} Elsewhere, it is stated that the self comes into contact with the combined semen and blood along with the subtle body.{GL_NOTE::} In another place, it is further stated that the materials that contribute to the life of the developing foetus are agni, soma, sattva, rajas, and tamas, the five sense organs, and the bhūtātma. They are also called life (prāṇa).{GL_NOTE::} Thus, the first articulation seems to indicate that life is manifested due to the combination of semen and blood. The second articulation regards the contact of the self with its subtle body as something essential for evolving the semen-blood into life. The third one adds the five senses sattva, rajas, and tamas, and holds that the place of semen-blood is taken up by the origin of agni, and vāyu. The reason for these three different views cannot satisfactorily be explained, except for the supposition that Suśruta's work underwent three different revisions at three different times.{GL_NOTE::} However, the second statement is more reasonable and it shows close affinity with Caraka's account.

The reason for admitting the existance of a subtle body is to explain the phenomenon of birth and death on the basis of the karma theory. We infer from the “lived life” that life is not accidental but a continuation of a previous one and so, we arrive at the conclusion that birth and death is a cyclical process. Each one of the successive life is determined by the actions of the preceding life. Each one takes new birth to enjoy the fruit of the actions of the previous birth. But this is not possible unless a subtle body is admitted to exist, for the self, though eternal, is untainted. The untainted self that presides over the subtle body is invariably associated with the mind. One undergoes rebirth in accordance with the connection of the impressions of virtue, vice, and other defects and accomplishments which the mind carries. The coupling of the mind and the self is not possible without a supporting body. Thus, in the cycle of rebirth it is essential for the mind to have a supporting subtle body in the interval between one death and subsequent birth. The subtle body accompanies the self along with the mind and undergoes the cyclical process of transmigration till the final redemption (mokṣa) is attained.

The Sāṃkhyas also describe two types of bodies: (1) persistent and detacable subtle body capable of transmigration (liṅgaśarīra) and (2) an one time only gross body (sthūlaśarīra). The gross body, as in the case of the Carakasaṃhitā, comes into existence at the time of conception and gets destroyed by death. The subtle body is made up of consciousness, “I consciousness”, eleven sense organs, and five subtle elements (tanmātras).{GL_NOTE::}

Taking account of this, Cakrapāṇi says that this doctrine of a subtle body (ātivāhikaśarīra) is described in the agama and it implies Sāṃkhya āgama.{GL_NOTE::}

The Yoga view is that there is no need of such an intermediate subtle body. For the yogins, each self has a separate all pervading mind (citta). Each mind associates itself with a particular body by virtue of the fact that its manifestations (vṛtti) are seen in that body. So the manifestations of the all-pervading mind cease to appear in its dying body and become operative in a new body that is born. Thus, there is no need of admitting a subtle body.{GL_NOTE::}

The Nyāya-Vaiśeṣikas also do not accept such a subtle body. The Vedāntins also speak of a subtle body.Accordingly, the transmigrating subtle body (liṅgaśarīra) is constituted by the five sense capacities of action, the five sense capacities of cogntion, the fine particles of the five physical elements (apañcīkṛtabhūtas), the five divisions of the internal air (prāṇa, apāna, udāna, vyāna, and samāna), intellect, ignorance (avidā), desire, and action.{GL_NOTE::} Vijñānabhikṣu says that the subtle body is a tapering like thing no bigger than a thumb and that it pervades the whole body just like a flame that pervades the whole room.{GL_NOTE::}

Though the classical Sāṃkhyas and the Vedāntins accept a subtle body as Caraka, there is a difference in their conceptions. In Carakasaṃhitā, “I consciousness”, and the ten sense capacities are not recognized as constituents of the subtle body. But in the Sāṃkhya and the Vedānta philosophy they are also recognized as the constituents of the subtle body.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

śṛ-pratikṣaṇaṃ kṣīyamāṇe dehe, Śabdastoma Mahanidhi., p. 24; śīryate kālakarameṇeti śarīraṃ; "śṛhiṃsāyām', Vivṛti on Amarakośa., Vol.1, 2.6.70; p. 406.

[2]:

cīyate annādibhi, ciñ ghañ ni..., dehe, Śabdastoma Mahanidhi., p. 117. cīyate avayavairiti kāyaḥ,"ciñ cayane', Ibid., Śarīraṃ śṛṇateḥ śamnatervā, Nirukta, III. i, p. 23.

[3]:

IK, p.1.

[4]:

dih-san. sthūlasūkṣmakāryakāraṇarūpe śarīre, Śabdastoma Mahanidhi., p.223; dihyate annaraseneti dehaḥ. "dih upacaye' - Vivṛti on Amarakośa., Vol.1, 2. 6. 70

[5]:

tatra śarīraṃ nāma cetanādhiṣṭānabhūtaṃ pañcamahābhūtavikā rasamudāyātmakaṃ samayogavāhi, CS, Śārīra - sthāna, VI. 4.

[6]:

Loc. cit., F. Note, 28, p. 231; Kāśyapasaṃhitā of Vṛddhajīvaka. Śārīra - sthāna, p. 67.

[7]:

doṣadhātumalamūlaṃ hi śarīram, Suśrutasaṃhitā of Suśruta., Su, XV. 3; doṣadhātumalamūlo hi dehaḥ— Aṣṭāṅgasaṅgraha of Vāgbhaṭa., Su, XIX. p. 261;doṣadhātumalāmūlam sadā dehasya; taṃ calaḥ, Aṣṭāṅgahṛdaya of Vāgbhaṭa., Su. XI. 1; Aṣṭāṅgahṛdaya of Vāgbhaṭa., Śārīra - sthāna, III. 3-8.

[8]:

śarīraṃ sattvasaṃjñakaṃ ca vyādhīnāmāśrayo mataḥ tathā sukhānāṃ, CS, Su, I. 55.

[9]:

Ibid., 54.

[10]:

ceṣṭendriyārthāśrayaḥ śarīraṃ. Nyāyasūtra., I. i. 11.

[11]:

ātmano bhogāyatanaṃ śarīraṃ, Dīpikā, TSA, p.7. śarīratvaṃ.......ceṣṭāśrayatvaṃ, NSMK, p. 121.

[12]:

bhoktṛbhogyāyatanaṃ śarīraṃ. Praśastapādabhāṣya., p.82.

[13]:

ātmanaḥ bhogāyatanaṃ śarīraṃ. Mānameyodaya of Nārāyaṇa., p.153.

[14]:

pratyakṣāpratykṣāṇāṃ saṃyogasya apratyakṣatvāt pāñcabhautikaṃ na vidyate- Vaiśeṣikadarśana., IV. ii. 2.; also see Śaṅkaramiśra on ibid., Vaiśeṣikopaskāra of Śaṅkaramiśra., pp. 28586.

[15]:

guṇāntaraprādurbhāvācca na tryātmakaṃ.Vaiśeṣikadarśana., IV. ii. 3.

[16]:

pārthivaṃ guṇāntaropalabdheḥ, Nyāyasūtra., III. i. 28.

[17]:

aṇusaṃyogastvapratiṣiddhaḥ, Vaiśeṣikadarśana., IV. ii. 4; mithaḥ pañcānāṃ prasparamupaṣṭaṃbhakatayā saṃyogo na niṣidhyate, Śaṅkaramiśra, Vaiśeṣikopaskāra of Śaṅkaramiśra., p. 287; sati ca prakṛtibhāve bhūtanāṃ dharmopalabdhiḥ asati ca saṃyogapratiṣedhāt sannihitānāmiti, Vātsyāyana on Nyāyasūtra.. III. i. 28, Nyāya-Bhāṣya of Vātsyāyana., pp. 244-45; “......tena pārthivaśarīre jalādīnāṃ nimittatvamātraṃ bodhyaṃ”, NSMK. p. 121.

[18]:

sūryaṃ te cakṣuspṛṇomi .....pṛtivīm te śarīraṃ spṛṇomi. Ṛgveda-Saṃhitā, X.xvi. 3.

[19]:

tadvadindriyāṇāṃ punaḥ sattvādīnāṃ kevalaṃ cetanāvaccharīramayanabhūtamadhiṣṭānabhūtaṃ ca, CS, Vimāna - sthāna, V. 6.

[20]:

CS, Śārīra - sthāna, I. 136.

[21]:

yadā hyasmin śarīre dhātavo vaiṣamyamāpadyate tadā kleśaṃ vināśaṃ ca prāpnoti, CS, Śārīra - sthāna, VI. 4; See supra, pp. 139 - 40.

[22]:

hitāhāropayoga eka eva puruṣavṛddhikaro bhavati ahitāhāropayogaḥ punarvyādhinimittamiti, CS, Su, XXV. 31.

[23]:

śarīrāvayavāstu paramaṇubhedena aparisaṃkhyeyā bhavanti, CS, Śārīra-sthāna, VII. 17.

[24]:

yugapajjñānānutpattirmanaso liṅgaṃ, Nyāyasūtra., I. i. 16.