________________
Reconciliation of Buddhist and Vedantic Notion of Self -
145
the word Ātman of the Vedāntins led them to criticise the existence of Ātman. 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 Ātman of the Upanişads. But his criticism is not against the true notion of Ātman described by the Upanişads which is the pure self, pure consciousness and which is the only reality. Buddha and the Mahāyānists, in one sense or other, accepted Upanişadic reality. The Ātman of the Upanişad is called not by the word Ātman but by different terms. They used different terminologies instead of the word Ātman. It is called Dharma, Bodhi, Prajñā, Citta, Tathatā, Tathāgatagarbha, Dharmadhātu, etc. The Mahāyānists like Asanga explicitly call Reality as Buddhātman, Paramātman. The Mahāyānists understood the word Ātman in the sense of individual ego or Jivātman which is the product of avidyā and which is associated with the antahkaranı or buddhi. śāntarakṣita makes it clear when he says that citta or pure consciousness associated with ego or ahamkāra is called Atman.87
Really speaking Buddha narrows down the meaning of Ātman of the Upanişad taking it in the sense of ego which is the root cause of misery and attachment. In 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 Upanişads, Buddha wrongly understood the Atman in the sense of l' and the ‘mine' which is the cause of suffering and bondage.
Before criticising Buddha's and the Mahāyānists' view, it is very important to keep in mind the notion of Ātman described by the Upanişads. In the Upanişads, Ātman is identified with the Absolute Reality or Brahman in the ultimate sense. From the subjective point of view the same reality is called Ātman 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'89. In other Upanișads also we find the same type of description. He is indeed just this Self, this Immortal, this Absolute, this All'40. “The self is indeed all this' l. 'It is existence, consciousness and bliss'ta. It is non-dual'48. It is absolute consciousness which is the parmanent background of all changing phenomena'!4. There is no difference between Ātman and Brahman'. '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 Ātman described by the Upanişads. “Dharma' to him is Reality (satyam) itself in a dynamic form, regulating the course of nature like the Brahman or Ātman of the Upanişads which is the basis of all. It is described by Buddha as an unborn, un-made, non-becoming and un-compounded 18. This is similar to the notion of Ātman or Brahman described in the Kathopanişad. The self is never-born and never dies. It is unborn, eternal, everlastingt?. Like
19 Jain Education International For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
