Who is driving this chariot: Self or No-self?

In this essay I will compare the Hindu theory of atman with the Buddhist no-self theory, and establish a claim doctrine which is more complete than both.

Introduction

The Vedic Upanishads and Buddhism are two of the most influential bodies of philosophical work and practice of all time; the works of which have even strongly influenced the West, what to speak of their origin — the East. One of the most intriguing concepts discussed in Eastern philosophy and religion is the idea of the self. Given that Buddhism arose partly as a response to the preceding Upanishadic thought in India, it shares some ideas and processes with the Upanishads, but also differs greatly in its final conclusion — apparently. Both agree that material reality is an illusion that causes suffering and both utilise the processes of negation and contemplation to uncover the true self. But they disagree on the final conclusion of what the true self is exactly. Whereas the Upanishads see the self as factual, eternal, fundamental, and ultimately one, Buddhism sees the self as a product of processes, and ultimately an illusion. In this essay, using the chariot allegory from both doctrines, I argue that by following the middle way, we will find that the non-self of Buddhism and the Purusha-dependent self of the Upanishads, are actually the same conclusion.

The Upanishadic Self

The Self, according to the Upanishads, is eternal, imperishable, beyond time, and is the fundamental principle of life and reality. In the conditioned state, the Self is trapped in the world of illusion (maya)[1] and in the liberated state, the Self rejoices in the Supreme-Self (parabrahman) [2]. The Upanishads describe the Self in various ways including; prana (breath or life airs), brahman (universal fundamental principle), purusha (cosmic person or consciousness), jivātma (individual living entity sometimes referred to as just “jiva”), and the most common term — ātman (loosely translated as soul)[3]. The jivātma is said to be an individual manifestation of the supreme ātman [4] [5], and ātman is closely related to the universal principle brahman [6]. Although some strict dualism schools, such as the Dvaita school of Madhvacharya, state that the jivātma and the supreme ātman are eternally distinct and separate [7], the Upanishads, in general, teach that the jivātma and ātman are never separated completely; they are like “two birds in a tree” [8]. Various techniques for uncovering and freeing, or liberating, the Self from illusion are given; including jnana-yoga (acquiring knowledge), dhyana-yoga (meditation or concentration) and bhakti-yoga (actions in devotion towards God).

According to the Vedas, suffering is only due to the living entity being covered by maya — ignorance of one’s true Self [9]. Therefore, the main goal of the Vedas is to awaken the Self to its true nature [10]. The most common procedures given in the Upanishads for uncovering the Self are through jnana-yoga and dhyana-yoga techniques; specifically through negation and concentration. One example of this we find in the Kathopanishad, where the Self and its aspects are described in The Parable of the Chariot [11]. In this parable, the senses are likened to the horses being lead around by the sense objects, the mind is the reigns, the intelligence is the driver, and the Self is the ātmānam̐-rathitaṃ — the lord of the chariot. In this scheme, the jivātma is only the enjoyer of the processes that are aspects of the Unseen-seer (Purusha) [12]. It is said that proper discrimination and control of the mind with the intelligence is the difference between liberation or continuing samsara (suffering in the cycle of birth and death) [13].

The Self that is not

In Buddhism, the scheme for the Self puts the Upanishadic scheme almost entirely on its head; with the self being a product of processes rather than the fundamental cause. The result of the unique way that the Buddha formed his teachings, that is, partly as a rejection of the Brahmanism and asceticism of the time, is that Buddhism is strongly influenced by the Vedas intellectually [14]. The difference being that the Upanishads reveal a Substance-view of reality, whereas Buddhism’s “everything is in flux” reveals a Modal-view [15]. For this reason, Buddhism and the Vedas have much in common and can never truly be separated.

In order to understand the anatta (non-self) doctrine of Buddhism, we must first learn what is dependent arising (paṭiccasamuppāda). And, in order to understand what is dependent arising, we must first understand the five aggregates of grasping (pañcupādānakkhandhā)). The five aggregates which make up a self are: material form (rūpa), sensations (vedanā), perceptions (saññā), mental formations (saṃkhāra), and consciousness (viññāṇa) [16]. The first aggregate, rūpa, refers to the physical component, and the other four designate a variety of mental functions. Nothing even close to the Upanishadic self is included in the pañcupādānakkhandhā. But we do find different kinds of viññāṇa elucidated in Buddhism — in particular, ālāyavijñāna (All-encompassing-foundation-consciousness), from Mahayana Buddhism, certainly brings us close.

To understand the nature of the self in Buddhism, we are also taught the process of negation in the same way that the Upanishads do with “neti neti” [17]. But the final conclusion is the exact opposite — non-self instead of fundamentally Self [18]. Perhaps the best thought experiment to give one the understanding posited by Buddhism with regards to the self, is the Chariot Simile given by Nagasena in the Milindapanha [19]. In our quest to find the self, Nagasena wants us to think of a chariot in its parts, and find where exactly is the chariot. Once we pass over each part of the chariot — the wheels, the chassis, the flag — we see that no part of the chariot is the chariot itself; “Chariot” is the name we assign to the collection of parts. In the same way, “self” is the name that we assign to the collection of parts, physical and mental — the kandhas — which make up “us”. The arrival of the false idea of the self from the parts, which are all non-self, is dependent arising [20]. Once we understand that there is no self hiding in the five aggregates, we can accept that it is only our thirst (trsna), our desire or grasping (tanha), that is holding us together [21]. Buddha taught that all types of grasping are the cause of suffering, because nothing is permanent, and he, therefore, recommended the middle way to achieve nirvana — to become free from suffering [22].

The middle path synthesis

The problem with the non-self doctrine taken absolutely is that it makes any process for self-improvement or self-liberation obsolete because no change can be experienced — indeed no experience can be experienced — without a subject to experience it. Furthermore, without any transcendent self, nothing new can be put into the system — existence. Therefore, if we choose to accept it absolutely, we must also accept philosophical determinism. But the Buddha did not teach absolute non-self; he discovered that both grasping for eternity and grasping for annihilation were wrong effort, and lead to suffering [23]. There must be a thread holding it all together.

The ultimate foundation in Buddhism is śūnyatā (emptiness). It is the state one joins when they reach nirvana. But how can emptiness exist without form? When a potter makes a clay pot she must consider the space it will fill. Without space, there can be no pot. As the pot is created, the space to hold it comes into existence also [24].Therefore, without form, there can be no space and without space, there can be no form. Śūnyatā is the empty space for existence; the space for form, thoughts, and awareness of them. Śūnyatā and form are codependent.

Śūnyatā is the space for consciousness and also is conscious. One can never find the fountainhead of consciousness because whatever state is achieved in meditation is then being observed by another — deeper witness. Therefore śūnyatā and consciousness are constantly evolving together — awareness of emptiness.

Śūnyatā is like Sartre’s “consciousness is Nothingness” [25]; viññāṇa is Husserl’s ego [26], which feels it is the owner of things; and manas is Descartes’ “thinking” [27]. There is the ego, “I”, and then there is the emptiness in which the “I” floats. This is not a radical idea for Buddhism because even great Buddhist meditators recall that a “witness” is still there in the not-self experience [28].

My claim is that the emptiness which glues everything together, the śūnyatā of Buddhism, is the Un-manifest (paramavyaktamavyaktātpuruṣaḥ) from the Upanishads [29].

Behind the Un-manifest is the Purusha [30]. Why must there be a Purusha behind it all? Well because even according to Buddhism nothing exits without desire, therefore someone is desiring this whole thing to take place.

The relationship between Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta has been described with the analogy of a mirror, because of how well they match each other — but in reverse [31]. In order for a reflection to take place, there must be a reflective surface behind the empty glass; that reflective surface behind śūnyatā is the Supreme-Self — Purusha. Of course, this might come across as a grandiose claim, but the Buddha himself says in the Mahaparinirvanasutra, “The Self (ātman) is reality (tattva), the Self is permanent (nitya), the Self is virtue (guṇa), the Self is eternal (śāśvatā), the Self is stable (dhruva), and the Self is auspiciousness (śiva)” [32] [33].

Conclusion

The problem with the Upanishads — and with any teaching that puts forward a spiritual-self conclusion — is that we cannot find where spirit touches matter. This problem — pointed to nicely in Nagasena’s Chariot Simile — is known as the problem of dualism [34]. My claim is that ultimately nothing is material; everything is but aspects of Purusha. There is no independent, substantial, eternal self because the jivātmas are ever-dependent on the Supreme-Self. Just as we constantly generate new awareness, the Purusha is constantly regenerating Himself and us [35]. We don’t exist by our own merit; we are constantly being generated by Purusha. We drive the chariot — we engage with reality — with our desire only [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]. This is a superior model of dependent arising because it accounts for the philosophical weaknesses in Buddhism, yet also maintains its strong points.

Read more like this at essenceseekers.org

References

[1] P. Bilimoria, The Self And Its Destiny In Hinduism, Melbourne, 1990, p. 19–20.

[2] “Bhagavad Gita 5.21”, The Bhagavad Gita With Commentaries Of Ramanuja, Madhva, Shankara And Others, 2019, https://www.bhagavad-gita.us/bhagavad-gita-5-21/, accessed 16 Jan, 2019.

[3] P. Bilimoria, op. cit., p17–19.

[4] Ibid., p. 18.

[5] S. Collins, Soul: Buddhist Concepts, London, 1990, p. 443.

[6] P. Bilimoria, op. cit., p. 22.

[7] J. Fowler, Perspectives Of Reality, Brighton, 2002, p. 340–344.

[8] Svetasvatara Upanishad, 4.6.

[9] “Bhagavad Gita 3.38–40”, The Bhagavad Gita With Commentaries Of Ramanuja, Madhva, Shankara And Others, 2019, https://www.bhagavad-gita.us/bhagavad-gita/, accessed 16 Jan. 2019.

[10] Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, 1.4.10.

[11] Katha Upanishad, 1.3.3–4,9.

[12] Mundaka Upanishad, 3.1.1–3.

[13] Katha Upanishad, 1.3.9.

[14] S. Collins, Selfless Persons, Cambridge, 1990, p. 29.

[15] L. Davis, Advaita Vedānta And Zen Buddhism, New York, 2011, p. 33.

[16] “Buddha | Internet Encyclopedia Of Philosophy”, Iep.Utm.Edu, 2019, https://www.iep.utm.edu/buddha/#SH3f, (part c.), accessed 16 Jan. 2019.

[17] Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, 3.3.6.

[18] “Dhatu-Vibhanga Sutta: An Analysis Of The Properties”, Accesstoinsight.Org, 2019, https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.140.than.html, accessed 16 Jan. 2019.

[19] The Milinda Panha, book 2 lakkhana panha, chapter 1.

[20] “Buddha | Internet Encyclopedia Of Philosophy”, Iep.Utm.Edu, 2019, https://www.iep.utm.edu/buddha/#SH3f, part d., accessed 16 Jan. 2019.

[21]Ibid., part b., accessed 16 Jan. 2019.

[22] S. Collins, Selfless Persons, Cambridge, 1990, p. 84.

[23] S. Collins, Selfless Persons, Cambridge, 1990, p. 103–105.

[24] H. Guenther, C. Trungpa, and M. Kohn, The Dawn Of Tantra, Boston, 2001, Part Four.

[25] J. Sartre, Being And Nothingness: An Essay On Phenomenological Ontology, London, 1956, p. 44.

[26] “Transcendental Ego | Philosophy”, Encyclopedia Britannica, 2019, https://www.britannica.com/topic/transcendental-ego, accessed 16 Jan. 2019.

[27] “Cogito, Ergo Sum | Philosophy”, Encyclopedia Britannica, 2019, https://www.britannica.com/topic/cogito-ergo-sum, accessed 16 Jan. 2019.

[28] R. Wright, Why Buddhism Is True: The Science And Philosophy Of Meditation And Enlightenment, New York, 2018, p. 68.

[29] Katha Upanishad, 1.3.11.

[30] Ibid.

[31] L. Davis, op. cit., p. 4.

[32] “The True Self” as Revealed by the Buddha in theMahaparinirvana Sūtra” Lecture, SOAS, University of London, 2006, delivered by Dr. Tony Page,

“The Self (“Atman”)”, Nirvana Sutra, 2019, https://www.nirvanasutra.net/theselfatman.htm, accessed 16 Jan. 2019.

[33] “THE NIRVANA SUTRA (MAHĀPARINIRVĀṆA-SŪTRA) VOLUME I”, Bdkamerica.Org, 2019, p 179–180. https://www.bdkamerica.org/system/files/pdf/dBET_T0374_NirvanaSutra1_2013_0.pdf, accessed 16 Jan. 2019.

[34] T. William and R. Davids, The Milinda Panha, 2012, book 2, chapter 1.

[35] “Bhagavad Gita 5.21”, The Bhagavad Gita With Commentaries Of Ramanuja, Madhva, Shankara And Others, 2019, https://www.bhagavad-gita.us/bhagavad-gita-10-20/, accessed 16 Jan. 2019.

[36] “Bhagavad Gita 5.21”, The Bhagavad Gita With Commentaries Of Ramanuja, Madhva, Shankara And Others, 2019, https://www.bhagavad-gita.us/bhagavad-gita-18-14/, accessed 16 Jan. 2019.

[37] Praśna Upaniṣad, 4.9.

[38] Vedānta-sūtra, 2.3.18.

[39] kartā śāstrārthavattvāt, 2.3.33.

[40] PBS documentary on the life of Buddha transcript, http://www.pbs.org/thebuddha/teachings-part-3/, accessed 16 Jan. 2019.