________________
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
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
