Reconcliation of Buddhist and Vedantic Notion of Self

Author(s): Yajneshwar S Shastri
Publisher: Z_Aspect_of_Jainology_Part_3_Pundit_Dalsukh_Malvaniya_012017.pdf
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/250267/1

Page #1

RECONCILIATION OF BUDDHIST AND VEDANTIC
NOTION OF SELF
Y. S. Shastri
There is a general impression that Buddhism is opposed to the existence of Self or Ātman... Indeed many scholars of distinction maintained that this non-soul theory demarcates Buddhism from Vedāntic philosophy. The Hinayānists, the Mahāyānists, namely Sūnyavādins and Vijñānavādins explicity denied the existence of soul. In other words, this non-soul theory embraces entire Buddhist philosophical literature. Granted, all schools of Buddhism criticise the existence of Ātman; however, it is equally important to comprehend the notion of 'self' as they understood.
For this purpose, we must look through the arguments set forth by Buddhism against the existence of Atman, from the days of Buddha to the Mahāyānist thinkers. It seems that the word Ātman for Buddha is nothing but 'ego' i.e. notion of
l' and 'mine'. The notion of 'self' is here regarded as the cause of misery and bondage. The Buddhists call it 'sat-kāya dřsti'. When we take anything as a 'self! we get attached to it and dislike other things that are opposed to it. The notion of self is considered as ignorance (Avidyā) and from it proceed all passions. This notion of self is, for the Buddhists, the root cause of all kinds of attachment, and hence of misery and pain. This notion of self which is, the fountainhead of all misdeeds led Buddhists to deny the existence of Ātman. Following this limited concept of Ātman as an individual ego', Buddhism in all subsequent phases of its development criticises the existence of Ātman as a false notion of the Vedāntins.
Says Buddha : Anattā (Anātman) means 'non-ego, not-self' i. e. the fact that neither within these bodily and mental phenomena of existence nor outside them can be found anything that in the ultimate sense can be called as self-reliant real ego-entity or personality. "All are impermanent, body, sensation, perception, they are not self”. It is mentioned in the Samyukta-nikāya8 that self is nothing else but an aggregate of five skandhas, namely aggregate of body (rūpa) and four mental processes --feeling (vedanā), perception (samjñā), disposition (saṁskāra) and selfconsciousness (vijñāna). The five states of the five senses and the mind, the feeling that is related to mind, all these are void of self. There is no self or person or life principle which is permanent. No consciousness of any such permanent changeless entity or eternal principle obtains in man. In the Maijhima-nikāya, Buddha condemned the notion of self as an unreal thing imagined only by dull people.4 Early Buddhist literature reveals that Buddha admitted the states of consciousness but

Page #2

Reconciliation of Buddhist and Vedantic Notion of Self.
141
not the soul. According to him the union of mental and material qualities makes the 'individual'. The 'self' is nothing but an empirical aggregate. In the Alagaddüpana-sutta, it is said that there is no self or anything having the nature of self. Vidhusekhara Bhattacharya, quoting various references in support of the Buddhist denial of self, writes: "The existence of personal self or Atman as accepted in other systems was utterly denied by the Buddha, thereby pulling down the very foundation of desire where it can rest."
The same notion of 'self (non-ego)' is accepted by the later Buddhists and. further elaboration of existence of non-soul theory is solely responsible for the misconception that Buddhism is diametrically opposed to Vedantic thought.
In denying this notion of the self all the schools of Buddhism are unanimous. T. R. V. Murti rightly pointed out that "there is no Buddhist school of thought. which did not deny the Atman".
Immediately after Buddha, negative approach towards the existence of the soul reached its climax; especially, in Nagasena, we notice this negative attitude. Nagasena, like Hume, maintained that the so-called 'self' is nothing but a stream of ideas. It is psychologically impossible to believe in the existence of 'self'. He observes that when we analyse the idea of soul, we wrongly imagine a soul under-lying mental states. It is nothing else but a collection of certain qualities which exist together. The soul is a name for the sum total of the states which constitutes our mental existence. The soul or personality is like a stream of river; there is continuity, even though one movement is not the same as another. It is the view of all the Hinayānist schools.
For the Madhyamikas, 'self' is an unreal entity. Nagarjuna (c. 2nd cent. A.D.) declares that it is neither identical with, nor different from the five skandhas." When 'I' and 'mine' cease, the cycle of birth and death comes to a standstill. If the 'self' by the same as the skandhas, then it too, like them, will be subject to birth. and death and it cannot be known. Nägärjuna's followers like Aryadeva and Candrakirti also treated soul as unreal entity. According to Candrakirti, Atman is the root cause of all sufferings and demerits and he says that wise men (yogi) should deny its ultimate reality. Santideva also states similarly when he says that when we analyse the existence of 'self', nothing should be found ultimately. "Just as when one goes on taking off the layers of a plantain trunk or an onion nothing [ultimately] will remain, similarly, if one goes on analysing the so-called existence of self, ultimately it will be found to be nothing."10
In criticising the existence of 'self', the Vijñānavādins are not far behind the earlier Buddhists. They all took the notion of Atman as ego-entity and criticise it as a non-existent entity. Let us see how Asanga, the great Vijñānavädin criticises the notion of self as mere illusion in his major work, the Mahayanasütrālankära. He says that the concept of Atman is simply a 'pre-conception or an "illusory concept',

Page #3

Y. S. Shastri
Like Nagarjuna, he too asserts that it is neither a spiritual entity nor an aggregate of skandhas. Attacking the Vedantins indirectly, he says that the Vedantic comprehension of Atman is not by itself characterised by the correct notion of Atman. It is also mere misformation, identifying it with the aggregate of skandhas (duḥsamsthitata) which is originated from impurities and instability (klesa-daurbalya-prabhavitatvat). In other words, it is neither real nor unreal, but merely an illusion. Therefore, Atman does not exist.1 Thus, the liberation is also nothing else but destruction of this illusion or pre-conception.13
142
He strongly criticises the belief in the existence of the so called Atman and argues as to how is it that the world believing in the conception of 'self' which is simply an illusion, does not see the nature of pain which is constantly attached with the samskāras. In other words, the world, falsely believing in the existence of 'self' which is a non-existent entity, does not see the root cause of pain produced by samskaras (which are an operating factor).14
How deep rooted is this ignorance or darkness which causes the world to misinterpret the play of existence and to perceive the 'self' which is not? it is possible that obscurity prevents us from seeing what is, but does not make us see what is not. He expresses surprise as to what sort of ignorance is this which obscures the truth and makes the world to perceive what is not.15 He calls the notion of 'self' as baneful.16 He declared that all dharmas are without self, or are sans substance.17 All sorts of pain and sufferings are due to this imaginary notion of 'self'. The 'self', by its very nature, is characterised by pain. It is the root cause of all miseries and sufferings.18 Really speaking Atman, which (as a notion) is merely imaginary, does not exist.19 If Atman really existed, then there would be either liberation without effort or no liberation at all. Therefore, the imaginary soul does not exist. 20 Asanga denies the material existence of 'self'.1 If it materially exists, then it must be seen like other material things." If it is material. then it must be subject to destruction like other material things; in that case, it cannot be a permanent entity. If pudgala or Atman exists, then there would be either liberation of all without any effort or no liberation at all as There will be liberation of all without any effort because on seeing the material Atman, everyone will be liberated. Such, however, is not the case. By perceiving the Atman nobody becomes liberated.. Even those who have realised the highest truth do not accept the existence of Atman.24 In that case, they may not be able to attain liberation. By merely perceiving the material Atman nobody is liberated. Thus, there will be no liberation at all. Again, belief in the existence of atman is the root cause of miseries and 'I' and 'mine' considerations spring from it.25 This belief becomes the root cause of bondage rather than liberation. The Atman or pudgala does not exist in reality. When the pudgala or 'self' does not really exist, how can it be taken. as seer or a knower or liberator or doer or an enjoyer. 26 The notion of self is thus

?

Page #4

Reconciliation of Buddhist and Vedantic Notion of Self
143
purely imaginary and does not exist.27 It may be argued that, in some places Buddha himself has preached the pudgala or 'self'. But it must be kept in mind that Buddha had preached the existence of self' only to attract the simple minded and to encourage them to perform good, and to refrain from evil, deeds; without teaching pudgala, it is not possible to preach its consequences and pudgala-nairātmya. Excepting this, it has no other significance.28
For Vasubandhu, the follower of Asanga, too, the notion of 'self' is the root cause of suffering and it is an unreal entity. He avers that the individual self' depends on the ālaya and is accompanied by four kinds of suffering : self-notion, self-delusion, self-pride, and self-love.29 It ceases to function when the false notion of the self is destroyed and when the categories of intellect are transcended. Consciousness transcends the duality of the subject (pudgala-nairātmya) and the object (dharma-nairātmya) both of which ultimately are unreal. 30
Even for later vijñānavādins like Dharmakirti (active c. A. D. 620-550) and śāntarakṣita (c. A. D. 705-762), the notion of Ātman is the root cause of misery and attachment. As long as one is attached to the Ātman so long will one revolve in the cycle of birth and death. Sāntarakṣita clearly maintained that Ātman is nothing but consciousness associated with ego; ultimately it denotes nothing. 31
Thus, it is clear that the Buddhists, right from the Buddha to śāntarakṣita, severely criticise the notion of 'self' and it is generally understood in the sense of an individual ego, root cause of passion, misery and attachment and its ultimate existence is denied on that ground. It is variously called, Ātman, Pudgala and Satkāyadssti.
Let us, then, examine how far this non-soul theory is justifiable and how far Buddha and the Mahāyānists had understood the notion of Ātman of the Vedāntins.
The Hinayānists taking literal meaning of the word 'non-ego' or 'not-self' took a sort of materialist approach reducing Ātman to mere mind and body complex or component of certain elements. It logically derives that the destruction of misery follows the destruction of self or certain component parts. Now this is nothing but sheer materialism. The Mahāyānists adopting idealistic view criticise the existence of self saying that it is an unreal entity or merely an illusory idea. They misunderstood or only partially understood the notion of Ātman of the Upanişads and based their criticism on that limited understanding. It is already mentioned in the previous pages that, for the Hinayānists, 'self' is a mere aggregate of five skandhas. There is no permanent self which is the perceiver. Sankara rightly pointed out that without a permanent soul acts of perception and memory become impossible. If self is a mere aggregate of five skandhas (collection of bodily and mental processes),--these being unconscious, -how can they combine

Page #5

144
Y. S. Shastri
themselves with one another ?82 If there is no intelligent principle as a guide, how can the non-intelligent skandhas aggregate in a systematic way? Without permanent entity or soul, there will not be any aggregate and in their absence, there cannot exist the stream of mundane existence. 33 If avidyā and other members of the twelve-fold chain of causation can account for the formation of aggregate and mundane life, the insoluble problem is, how the avidyā and the like became the cause of aggregates which themselves come into existence subsisting in the aggregates or depend upon aggregates ?34 If mind is only successive percep. tions, there is nothing that perceives. Without perceiver there can not be consciousness of perception. Radhakrishnan rightly pointed out that the aggreate or bundle of impression could hold no beliefs, make no judgements, commit no errors, entertain no deceptive illusions.95 If there is no perceiver, memory will become impossible. These Buddhists wrongly compare the self with the stream of a river. They forgot that the stream of a river is always flowing and never comes back. If the analogy is correct, we cannot remember past experiences. In fact, past experiences are retained in memory and we can recall them. Sankara pointed out correctly that if the past is recognised in the present, the permanence of the percipient is necessary. Otherwise, it will become difficult to recognise the same man whom we saw yesterday.86 The Hinayānists accepted the difference between thoughts and objects (nāma and rūpa) but they failed to understand that thoughts can never be thinkers. The 'self' is the knower or subject (inātā) and cannot be identified with ‘Me' the mental contents of which are known (jñeya). Consciousness itself indicates existence of an agent which is conscious. The existence of 'self' cannot be brushed aside or dismissed merely by saying that there is a continuity or similarity of consciousness. The main question, then, is what is "my" abiding identical 'entity' or 'self'?
The notion of thinking and activity implies that there is an agent whose activity unifies the multiplicity of data or differences into a single whole. This is an order which gives the whole its distinctive and unitary character. This order or agent would have to be the same throughout otherwise it ceases to function as a unifying factor. This unifying permanent principle or agent is called ‘self by the Vedāntins. Without accepting the existence of this permanent principle or 'self', the problem of identity cannot be solved. There is no proper answer for all these objections in the Hinayānists' texts.
Even when accepting the absolutistic or an idealistic standpoint like Mahāyānists, it is not possible to deny the existence of 'self' at an empirical level. Every worldly knowledge is possible only when there is the subject or the knower and the object or the known. Ultimately, there is no subject-object duality but at the empirical level it must be accepted. Really speaking these Mahāyānists did not deny the existence of reality or the true self of the Vedāntins. Their understanding of the concept of Ātman of the Vedāntins is partial. This misunderstanding of

Page #6

Reconciliation of Buddhist and Vedantic Notion of Self
the word Atman of the Vedantins led them to criticise the existence of Atman. Buddha himself is responsible for this misunderstanding. When Buddha says that the self is the root cause of all sorts of misery and attachment, it is clear that he misunderstood the notion of Atman of the Upanisads. But his criticism is not against the true notion of Atman described by the Upanisads which is the pure self, pure consciousness and which is the only reality. Buddha and the Mahāyānists, in one sense or other, accepted Upanisadic reality. The Atman of the Upanisad is called not by the word Atman but by different terms. They used different terminologies instead of the word Atman. It is called Dharma, Bodhi, Prajñā, Citta, Tathata, Tathāgatagarbha, Dharmadhātu, etc. The Mahāyānists like Asanga explicitly call Reality as Buddhātman, Paramātman. The Mahāyānists understood the word Atman in the sense of individual ego or Jivätman which is the product of avidya and which is associated with the antaḥkarana or buddhi. Santarakṣita makes it clear when he says that citta or pure consciousness associated with ego or ahamkara is called Atman.81
145
In
Really speaking Buddha narrows down the meaning of Atman of the Upanisad taking it in the sense of ego which is the root cause of misery and attachment. the Brhadaranyaka it is said that it is not for the sake of everything that everything is dear but for the sake of the 'self' that everything is dear. Seemingly, by taking such types of statements of the Upanisads, Buddha wrongly understood the Atman in the sense of 'I' and the 'mine' which is the cause of suffering and bondage.
Before criticising Buddha's and the Mahäyänists' view, it is very important to keep in mind the notion of Atman described by the Upanisads. In the Upanisads, Atman is identified with the Absolute Reality or Brahman in the ultimate sense. From the subjective point of view the same reality is called Atman and as Brahman from the objective point of view. In the Vedanta, the word Atman is used as a synonym of Brahman or Noumenal Reality. The Brhadaranyaka clearly states that 'The self is indeed Brahman's. In other Upanisads also we find the same type of description. He is indeed just this Self, this Immortal, this Absolute, this All40. The self is indeed all this', 'It is existence, consciousness and bliss'49. It is non-dual's. It is absolute consciousness which is the parmanent background of all changing phenomena'44. 'There is no difference between Atman and Brahman'. That thou art'45, 'That thou art'45. All these passages clearly show that Atman is identified with Brahman.
It is important here to note that 'Dharma' the Ultimate Reality called by the Buddha is nothing else but the same Atman described by the Upanisads. 'Dharma' to him is Reality (satyam) itself in a dynamic form, regulating the course of nature like the Brahman or Atman of the Upanisads which is the basis of all. It is described by Buddha as an unborn, un-made, non-becoming and un-compounded 4. This is similar to the notion of Atman or Brahman described in the Kathopanisad, The self is never-born and never dies. It is unborn, eternal, everlasting. Like
19

Page #7

146
Y. S. Shastri
the Upanişadic seer he calls Reality as immortal or ampta. After attainment of sambodhi or enlightenment, Buddha revealed his experience to his five desciples (Pancavargiya Bhikṣu) as that of immortality declaring that thereby the gates of immortality are opened for all48.
The idea is the same as that of the Upanişads. In the Upanişad, Reality is called Ātman, Immortal, and Brahman;49 and in the Kenopanişad it is also mentioned that, when it is known through every conscious state, it is rightly known and one attains eternal life or immortality. Through his own knowledge he gains immortality 10
This immortality can be attained through effort. Buddha himself declared that : "even so, brethren, have I seen an ancient path, an ancient track traversed by the perfectly enlightened ones of former times”.61 His criticism is against the permanence of the empirical ego or Jiva which is separate from Ātman in the Vedānta. The Upanişadic notion of Ātman is misunderstood and misrepresented by Buddha and his followers. But in the ultimate sense he accepted the Ātman or the Absolute Reality. Instead of calling his conception of reality as Ātman, he calls it 'Dharma' or 'Bodhi' or 'Amsta', which in the ultimate analysis only represents a different jargon for the same entity. The Hinayānists taking the literal meaning of Buddha's statement about the self, embraced sheer materialism.
In the Mahāyānists works this misunderstanding of the notion of Ātman of the Vedāntins as individual ego, is explicitly noticeable. They accept the absolute Reality but criticise the existence of Ātman as mere illusion or unreal. Consciousness associated with ego is called Ātman by some of the later Vijñānavādins.
Ašvaghoşa's Tathatā (Suchness) or Bhūta-tathatā is nothing but Ātman of the Upanişads. He recognizes it as Absolute suchness, which, ultimately speaking, transcends everything. But tainted with ignorance it manifests itself as 'conditional suchness'. The subject-object duality is the result of this conditional suchness. When true knowledge dawns, we realise that we are no more finite things but absolute suchness. 53 This is the self-existent, Immortal Reality, calm and blissful, which must be realised.58 It is beyond the grasp of intellect. This 'thatness' or Tathatā has no attribute and it can only somehow be pointed in speech as 'thatness'. It is neither existence nor non-existence nor both nor neither. It is neither unity nor plurality, nor both nor neither. It is neither affirmation nor negation nor both nor neither. Similar statements are found in the Upanişads. The BỊhadāranyaka clearly states that Ātman is ungraspable; it can be expressed as not this, not this. 5$ In the Mandūkya, it is described as neither inwardly nor outwardly cognisant, nor on both sides together. It is unseen, ungraspable, indefinable, unthinkable, unpointable.56 Dasgupta rightly points out that Asvaghoşa being a learned Brāhmin in his early age, interpreted Buddhism in the light of the Upanişads.

Page #8

Reconciliation of Buddhist and Vedantic Notion of Self
147
Nāgārjuna, the great Madhyamika philosopher, also misunderstood the notion of Ātman and criticises it as an unreal entity. But his conception of Absolute Reality or non-dual Tattva or Śūnya is nothing else but Absolute consciousness or Ātman of the Upanişads which is indescribable. He defined reality as transcendental or beyond the reach of thought as non-relative, non-determinate, quiescent, nondiscrusive, non-dual.56 Even his conception of Sūnya is the indescribable Ātman or Brahman of the Vedāntins. "Absolute cannot be called void or non-void or both or neither, but, in order to indicate, it is called Sūnya'.57 Here the reality is described in negative terms. Reality which is unconditioned, indeterminate, and incapable of verbal elaboration is not apprehended by thought. Like Upanişadic thinkers, for Nāgārjuna language applies only to the finite or phenomenal world.
The same negative description of Ātman is given in the Upanişads. Nāgārjuna's definition of reality is similar to the description of Ātman given in the Mandūkyaupanişad. It is said that Ātman cannot be described, cannot be grasped, is beyond the reach of thought, cannot be designated.58 The Brhadāranyaka also describes Ātman in negative terms saying that Atman is not this, not this. 59 It also describes Ātman as the not gross and the not subtle, the not short and not long ... the speechless, the mindless".00 It is clear that Nāgārjuna accepts the existence of pure self or Atman of the Upanişads but only describes it by the negative term "Śūnya'.
Nāgārjuna's followers, Aryadeva and Candrakirti, accept the Absolute Reality. Aryadeva says that Reality is pure Citta or Consciousness. The Jewel of Self' is absolutely pure and self-luminous and appears to be impure only on account of ignorance, just as a white crystal appears coloured on account of coloured thing placed near it.61 Sāntideva's Bodhicitta or Pure Buddha is similar to the notion of Ātman of the Upanişads. Pure Citta or Pure Consciousness is the Absolute Reality for Santideva.
It is clear that Absolute or Śünya or non-dual Tattva (advayam tattvam) of Nāgārjuna, Pure Citta of Aryadeva, and Pure Buddha of śāntideva are nothing else but self-luminous Ātman of the Upanişads which is indescribable pure consciousness (cit-prajñānaghana). Let us examine the Vijñānavādins' view. Even though the Lankāvatāra-sütra teaches the two fold selflessness i.e. self-lessness of persons and the self-lessness of things, the reality defined by it is nothing but Vedāntic Ātman or Brahman. It identifies the reality with Tathāgatagarbha or Alayavijñāna. It says that Tathāgatagarbha or Alaya is indescribable and transcends all categories of thought.62 It tries to distinguish Tathāgatagarbha from Ātman of the Vedāntins on false ground. It says that it is not similar to the Ātman because it transcends all categories of finite thought (nir vikalpa) because it is neither affirmation nor negation nor both nor neither, and because it is to be directly realised by spiritual experience while the Ātman leads to eternalism

Page #9

148
Y. S. Shastri
because it clings to affirmation.' 3 Even at first sight, no student of Vedānta and Buddhism can fail to understand the superficial and fallacious distinction made by the Lankāvatāra-sūtra between Tathāgatag arbha and Ātman of the Vedānta.
The Atman of the Upanişads transcends all categories of thought. Ātman cannot be reached by speech and mind. 84 Atman is beyond the grasp of intellect and learning.86 It is ungraspable, indescribable, and indefinable.86 Ātman does not cling to the category of affirmation. In fact no category can adequately describe it. It is attributeless.67 That the Atman is pure existence (sat) does not mean clinging to affigmation. It means to indicate the self-luminous 'consciousness self' in limited terms. It is really beyond description of categories of thought. 'Neti, Neti', 'Not this, Not this' clearly indicates the indescribable nature of Ātman or Absolute Consciousness. It cannot be described, but it can be only experienced.
The Lankāvatāra-sūtra, however, speaks of self-realization. Suzuki points out that the idea of self realization is a special feature of the Lankāvatāra. If there is no self, no reality, no truth, then self realization would not have been preached. It says that: "All things are in their self nature, un-born; mahāmati, belongs to the realm of self-realization attained by noble wisdom and does not belong essentially to the realm of dualistic discrimination cherished by the ignorant and the simple-minded."68 It is also said that Reality is eternal. “The ancient road of Reality, on Mahāmati, has been here all the time, like gold, silver or pearl, preserved in the mine. Mahāmati, the Dharmadhātu, abides for ever, whether the Tathāgata appears in the world or not, as the Tathāgata eternally abides, so does the reason (Dharmatā) of all things, reality for ever abides; Reality keeps it in order, like the roads in an ancient city. 69
It may be noted here that even though Buddhists implicitly accepted the doctrine of Ātman of the Upanişads, they hesitated to use the word Ātman explicitly, simply because this terminology belonged to their opponents. Seemingly at the time of the composition of the Lankāvatāra-sútra, there was a trend to preach the Ātman theory explicitly.
For Asanga, Absolute is Pure Consciousness (Cittam). It is non-dual. It is beyond the purview of speech or expression and indeed, it is indescribable.10 It is neither existence nor non-existence, neither affirmation nor negation, neither production nor destruction, neither increasing nor diminishing, neither pure nor impure; it is a characteristic of Reality.?1
These descriptions of Asanga do not differ from Vedāntic description of Ātman or Brahman which is beyond the grasp of intellect, speech and which is pure consciousness. Asanga goes a step further than earlier Buddhists and calls Absolute Reality as Pure Ātman and even Paramātman. “Understanding the true meaning of the doctrine of Sūnya and Nairātmya, the enlightened ones (Buddha) transcend the

Page #10

Reconciliation of Buddhist and Vedantic Notion of Self
149
individual existence and realises the Pure Soul (Suddhātman) and thus, become one with the Universal Soul. 2 “When one realises this world to be merely a compo. site of samskāras (forces) and also realising the baneful existence of Ātman, he becomes one with Universal Soul.79 Here, when Asanga says that the notion of Ātman is baneful, it applies only to individual ego because Reality, according to him, is pure consciousness and which by its very nature is self-luminous. All impurities are adventitious.?4 Reality is styled in different terms by Asanga, like Visuddha-tathatā, Dharmadhātu, Suddha-citta and Anāsrava-dhātu. He declares that Reality 'is Pure Existence (Anāsrava-dhātu). It is pure Tathatā (Visuddhatathatā), Thatness which is Ātman for Buddhists. It is the highest soul or Paramātman for the Buddhists.76 Like the Vedāntins, he proclaims that different rivers merging in the ocean become one with it; similarly, the Buddhas or Bodhisattvas meriging in the Absoulte Reality (Buddhatva) became one with it.78 It is similar to the statement of the Chāndog ya which clearly states that : "as rivers which flow into the sea disappear in the mighty water (ocean) and lose their name and form, so does the wise soul become absorbed in the Transcendent Person and loses its name and form. When the souls are merged in the Real they cannot discriminate from which bodies they came.?? Similar statement is found in the Paśnopanişad also.78 It is clear that by not mentioning the word Ātman, Asanga indirectly accepted the Ātman of the Vedāntins which is pure consciousness and the only reality. He denied only individual ego and not pure consciousness, Ātman.
Vasubandhu, younger brother and follower of Asanga, also admitted Reality as Pure Consciousness which transcends subject object duality. Vijñapti-mātratā is Reality for Vasubandhu. It is self-luminous non-dual Reality. Later Vijñānavādins, like Dharmakirti and Sāntarakṣita (who are called Sautrāntika-Vijñānavādins by some writers) accepted that Reality is pure consciousness. Dharmakirti, clearly says that the Reality, which is pure consciousness, is beyond all words, names, and concepts.9 Sāntarakṣita, as has been earlier mentioned, criticises Ātman associated with ego or Ego-self (ahankārāśrita-cittam). Reality for him is one without a second. It is Citta which is self-luminous, consciousness and free from all impurities, impositions.80 Like later Vedāntins, he explioitly maintained that realisation of pure self is true knowledge. Even he uses the word selfrealisation i.e. visuddhātmadarśana.81
We can now draw the conclusion from all these Buddhist statements that Ātman of the Upanişads is generally misunderstood as Individual Ego or Buddhi or Jivātman as associated with ego, māyā or ignorance, and, on the other hand, the real Ātman or Brahman of the Vedāntins understood or called by different terms like Dharma, Bodhi, Tathatā, Dharmadhātu, Prajñapti-mātra, and Pure Citta. The ego (ahamkāra) is condemned not only by the Buddhists; in fact all the schools of Indian Philosophy condemned it as an obstacle in the path of selfrealisation. The conflict, between the Buddhists and the later Vedäntins originates

Page #11

150
Y. S. Shastri
from the misunderstanding of the word Atman by the Buddhists. One can easily make out from the critical survey of conception of non-sou! theory of the Buddhist texts, that Buddha himself is greatly responsible for this misunderstanding. Principally, there is no difference between the Ultimate Reality of the Vedantins and the Buddhists. Due to this misunderstanding created by Buddha, they sans raison fought with each other on the philosophical battle field. C.D. Sharma had rightly pointed out that: "had Buddha refrained from committing an error of commission in degrading the Upanisadic Atman to the level of the empirical ego and also an error of omission in not identifying his Bodhi or Prajñā with the Upanisadic Atman or Brahman, the age-old battle regarding the Nairatmyavāda fought without any reasonable ground by the Buddhists and the Vedantins on the soil of Indian philosopny would have been surely avoided."
Notes & References
1, T.R.V. Murti, The central Philosophy of Buddhism, p. 17. 2. Oldenberg, Buddha, p. 218.
3.
5.
6.
7.
8.
M.K. XVIII-4.
9. M.K. XVIII-7.
ܘ – ܚ
10.
Samyukta-Nikaya, p. 54.
Kevalo paripūro baladhammo, Majjhima Nikāya, I.1.2.
Basic conception of Buddhism, p. 7.
Bodhicaryavatara, IX-75.
Bhrama esa tu utpanno yeyamätma-drstiḥ, MSA, VI-2, Com.
Tasmännästyätma, MSA, VI-2, Com.
13. Na catmadṛṣṭiḥ svayamatmalakṣaṇā na capi duḥsamsthitata vilakṣaṇā. Dvayanna canyad bhrama esa täditaḥ tataśca mokṣo bhramamātra samkṣayaḥ. MSA VI-2.
12.
Murti, Central, p. 7.
M.K. X-15.
14.
Katham jano vibhramamäträśritaḥ paraiti duḥkhaprakṛtim na santatām. MSA, VI-3.
15. Katamoyamidṛśastamaḥ prakāro lokasya yadvidyamanan pratityasamutpadamavipasyannavidyamānamātmānam nirikṣate. Śakyam hi näma. tamasa vidyamänamadraṣṭum syänna tvavidyamänam draştḥumiti. MSA, VI-4, Comm.
16.
Anarthamayatmadṛṣṭiḥ. MSA, XIV-37.
17. Sarve dharma anātmānaḥ. MSA, XVIII-101.
18. Satkāyādṛṣṭiḥ kleśalakṣano hyeṣa saṁkleśo, yaduta aham mameti. MSA, XVIII-92. Comm.
19. Parikalpita ātmā nāsti. MSA, XVIII-81, Comm.
20.
Ayatnamokṣaḥ sarveṣām, na mokṣaḥ pudgalosti vā. MSA, XVIII-103,

Page #12

24.
Reconciliation of Buddhist and Vedantic Notion of Self
151 21. Dravyato nāstiti vaktavyah. MSA, XVIII-92, Comm. 22. Yadi dravyato asti tasya karmāpyupalabhyate. Yathā cakşurādinām
darsanādi laksanam ca rūpaprasādādi. Na caivam pudgalasya, Tasmānna so asti dravyataḥ. MSA, XVIII, 92.103. Comm. Ayatnamokṣaḥ sarveşām na mokṣaḥ pudgalo asti vā. MSA, XVIII-103. Tathā hi sarvesām na dřstasatyānām ātmadarśanam vidyate. MSA,
XVIII-103, Comm. 25. Sati cātmani avasyam ahamkāra mamakārăbhyām ātmatssnavā cānyaisca
tannidānaiḥ klešairbhavita vyamiti. Ato api mokṣo na syāt. MSA,
XVIII-103, Comm. 26. Nairarthakyāt ato drașțā yāvanbhoktā na yujyate. MSA, XVIII-96. 27. Sraddh nusāryādi pudgala vyavasthānata ityasati dravyato astitve
kasmāddesitaḥ ? MSA, XVIII-101. Comm. 28. Samkleśa vyavadāne ca avasthā chedabhinnake. Vștti santānabhedo hi
pudgalenopadarsitaḥ. MSA, XVIII-102. Comm. 29. Ātmadřstyātmamohātmamanātmasneha. TMS-6. 30. Tathā pudgala nairātmyapraveśo hyanyathā punaḥ. Dešanā dharma
nairātmya praveśaḥ kalpitātmana. VMS-10.
Ahamkārāśrayatvena cittamātmeti giyate. Tattvasamgrha. Vol. I, p. 304. 32. Samudāyinām acetanatvāt. (B. S. B. II 2-18). 33. Tasmāt samudāyānupapattiḥ. Samudāyānupapattau ca tadāśraya
lokayātrā lupyeta. (B. S. B. II-2-18.) 34. B. S. B. II-2-19. 35. History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. I. 36. B. S. B. II-2-25. 37. Ahamkārāśrayatvena cittamātmeti giyate.
Tattva-saṁgraha. Vol. I, p. 204. 38. Na vă are sarvasya kāmāya sarvas priyam bhavati, ātmanastu kāmāya
sarvam priyam bhavati, (Bșh. Up. II. IV. V.)
Ayamatmå brahma. Br. Up. II. 5.19 and Mānd. Up. 2. 40. Sayoyamātmā, idamamặtam, idam brahma, idam sarvam. (Br. Up. II.
V. 1-14.) 41. Ātmaivedam sarvam. (Chh. Up. u. XXV. 2.) 42. Satyam, Jñānam, anantam brahma. 43. Advaitam, (Mānd. Up. 7.) 44. Brahmaivedam viśvam. (Māņd. Up. II. 2. 11.) 45. Tattvamasi. Chh. Up. VI. XVI. 3.) 46. Ajātam, akstam, abhūtam, asamskstam. (Udāna.) 47. Na jāyate mriyate vā kadācit. (Kath. Up. I. II. 18.)
39.

Page #13

152
Y. S. Shastri
51.
48. Amộtamadhigatam uparuta tessas amptassadvārā.
-Vinayapițaka, Mahāvagga. I. 1.7. Comm. 49. Bșh. Up. II. V. 1-14. 50. Pratibodhaviditam matam amặtatvaṁ hi vindate, also vidyayā vindate
mytam (Kath. Up.).
Samyuktanikāya, “Nāgarasūtra", p. 36. 52. Sharma, C. D. : Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy, p. 85. 53. Šāntam, Sivam, kşaimapadam, acyutam tat,
--Saundarānanda, XVI, 26.27. 54. Neti, Neti, BỊh. Up. 4.5.15.
Nāntaḥ prajñam, na bahiḥ prajñam, nobhayataḥ prajñam..... .aděśyam, agrāhyam, alakṣaṇam, acintyam, avya padeśyam. (Māņd. Up. 7.) Apparapratyayam śāntam, prapancaiḥ aprapancatam, nirvikalpam
anānārtham etat tattvasya lakṣaṇam (M. K. XVIII-9.) 57. Śūnyamiti na vaktavyam aśūnyamiti vā bhavet. Ubhayam nobhayam ceti
prajñaptyartham tu kathyate. (M. K. XXII-11.) 58. Mānd Up. 7. 59. Neti neti. (Bph. Up. IV-IV-22, and IV-V-15.) 60. Bịh. Up. III-VIII-8. . Cittasuddhiprakarana, 27-28.
Suzuki : Lankāvatāra. p. 47-48.
Suzuki : Lankāvatāra, p. 77-78. 64. Naiva vācā na manasā prāptuṁ sakyaḥ. (Kath. Up. II-VI-12.) 65. Na medhayā na bahunā śrutena. (Kath. Up. I-II-22.) 66. Mānd. Up. 7. 67. Nirguṇaḥ. (Śvetāśvatara Up. VI-II.) 68 Suzuki : LAS, p. 56. 69. Suzuki : LAS, p. 124. 70. MSA. XI-13. 71. MSA. VI-1. . Sunyatayam visuddhāyām nairatmyằnmarga labhatah. Buddhāh suddha
tma lābhitvāt gatā ātmamahātmatām. MSA, IX-23. 73. Vihāya yānarthamayātmadrstiḥ mahātmadssțiṁ śrayate mahārthām.
MSA, XIV-39. Matam ca cittaṁ praksti prabhasvaram sadā tadagantukadoşadūşitam.
MSA, XIII-19. 75. Visuddhatathatā sa ca buddhānām ātma . . . Buddhānāṁ anāśravedhātau
paramātmā vyavasthāpyate. MSA, X-23, Com. 76. Samudraviştaśca bhavanti sarvāḥ ekāśrayā eka mahājalāśca... Buddhatva
vistāsca bhavanti sarve ekāśrayā ekamahāvabodhāḥ. MSA, IX-83, 85.
74. Mala

Page #14
Reconciliation of Buddhist and Vedantic Notion of Self 153 77. Imah saumya nadyah purastanprachah syandante pascat-pratycyastah Samudrat Samudrameva abhiyanti Samudra eva bhavati ta yatha tatra na Viduraymahamasmiti. 78. Pra. Up. VI-5 79. Pramanavartika, p. 88, 93. 80. Prakstya bhasvare citte. Tattvasamgraha Vol. II 35,38. 81. Tadeva hi. tajjoanam yadvisuddhatmadarsanam Tattva Sangraha, Vol. II 35-38