Sulabha and Janaka (Continued)

First, Bhishma introduces Sulabha’s response with the following words: “ Although rebuked by the king with harsh words, Sulabha was not perturbed. She replied with the following words which were more handsome than her person”.

Sulabha starts with the fundamentals of  proper speech. She says that “a speech should be free of nine verbal faults and nine faults of judgment. It should also possess 18 merits. What are they? It should not be ambiguous. Faults and merits of premise and conclusion should be ascertained. The relative strengths of those merits and faults should be defined. The conclusion must be stated clearly. The conclusion has to be arrived at by persuasive reasoning”. Classical logic was not defined better than this even by Aristotle and Gotama (of Nyaya Sastra)

 “There are several ways of interpreting words. Based on their merits and faults in context, one may have to make tentative meanings. Proper sequence of words in a sentence will have to be taken into account. The tentative meaning has to be related to the conclusion arrived at and also compared with the conclusion of others. Then there is the purpose”. That is Semantics.

“What I am about to say will be sensible, free from ambiguity, logical, free from tautology, agreeable, sweet, truthful, agreeable to virtue, wealth and pleasure and with specific objective. I shall not say anything prompted by desire or fear, deceit or shame or pride. For the meaning to come out clearly the speaker, the hearer and the words have to be agreeable and be congruent. If the speaker uses words whose meaning is known to only himself, they are of no use however good they are. So are words that elicit erroneous impression in the mind of the hearer. Hear now to what I say without those errors in speaking”.

“You asked who I am and where I come from. Just as dust and water exist when brought together, so do all creatures exist”. Sulabha means to say that everything in this world are made of the same five elements (pancha bhuta). It is the same consciousness (chit) which pervades the five great elements and all creatures. This implies that Janaka does not understand this basic fact by asking the questions he asked, since both he and she are made of the same substance and endowed with the same consciousness. To think they are different is not worthy of one who claims true knowledge.

Then Sulabha  describes the elements of Samkhya philosophy in detail. She lists the five sense organs, five senses of action and the mind first (total 11). The mind creates doubts. Then comes understanding (buddhi) to settle the doubts. Sattwa is the thirteenth element followed by ahamkara (not arrogance; but identification of self as opposed to the other). The fifteenth element is desire (kama) and then avidya (spiritual ignorance). Prakriti (maya, illusion) and vyakti (clarity) follow. The world of opposites (birth and death; gain and loss; likes and dislikes) come next. The all important Time (kaala) which determines births and death is the 20^th principle. All these 20 elements exist together, says Sulabha.

She adds few more principles and points out that the “atheistic” Samkhya system considers that all these elements evolve out of Prakriti, whereas the Vaiseshika system of Kanada considers all these to come out of atoms. Whatever the interpretations, she says: “Myself, you the monarch and all others came out of that Prakriti. We first get formed as embryo called “kalala”, then into “budbuda” (bubble),and then reach the stage of “pesi”. Later still appear the limbs with nails and hair. Only when the child is born do we know the sex. Things keep moving and the body keeps changing as the baby goes through childhood and adult life into old age. Each part of the body of every creature changes every moment but are so minute that they cannot be noticed. Can one see the changes taking place in the flame of a burning lamp? When that which is called body is changing all the time how can you ask where I come from, to whom I belong?”

“You can see your body and can see your soul? (If you have truly attained knowledge as you claim), how come you do not see your body and your soul in the bodies and souls of others? If you do truly have reached a state when you see yourself in others and others in yourself, why do you ask who I am? If you have really conquered the idea of duality and gone past the stage of identifying things as mine and that of others, why do you ask who I belong to? You pretend to be emancipated and you are unworthy of it since you do not truly understand and practice higher knowledge.”  (to be continued)