Reconcliation Of Buddhist And Vedantic Notion Of Self

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided text, "Reconciliation of Buddhist and Vedantic Notion of Self" by Y. S. Shastri, focusing on the core arguments and conclusions:

The article "Reconciliation of Buddhist and Vedantic Notion of Self" by Y. S. Shastri argues that the apparent opposition between Buddhist and Vedantic philosophies regarding the concept of self (Ātman) stems from a misunderstanding of what "self" meant in Buddhist discourse. Shastri contends that while all Buddhist schools deny the existence of an eternal, unchanging, independent self (Ātman) as understood in Vedanta, this denial is primarily directed against a specific, limited conception of self: the individual ego.

Key Arguments and Findings:

• Buddhist Rejection of Ātman (as Ego): The central theme of the article is that Buddhism, from the Buddha onwards, critiques the notion of Ātman as the "ego" or the sense of "I" and "mine." This ego-consciousness is identified as the root cause of suffering, bondage, attachment, and all wrong actions (avidyā).

  • Buddha's View: Buddha described the self as an aggregate of five skandhas (body, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness). He saw any notion of a permanent, self-reliant entity as an illusion and the source of misery.
  • Hinayāna Schools: Followers like Nagasena viewed the self as merely a stream of ideas or a collection of qualities, akin to a river that is continuously flowing but never the same. This perspective is characterized as leaning towards materialism.
  • Mahāyāna Schools (Madhyamikas and Vijñānavādins):
    • Madhyamikas (e.g., Nagarjuna, Aryadeva, Candrakirti): They considered the self as an unreal entity, neither identical with nor different from the skandhas. They asserted that denying the "I" and "mine" leads to the cessation of the cycle of birth and death.
    • Vijñānavādins (e.g., Asanga, Vasubandhu, Dharmakirti, Santarakshita): They also criticized Ātman as an illusory concept, a preconception, or consciousness associated with the ego (ahamkāra). They viewed it as neither truly real nor unreal, but an illusion whose destruction leads to liberation. Asanga even referred to the Ultimate Reality as Buddhātman or Paramātman.

• Misunderstanding of Vedantic Ātman: Shastri argues that Buddhist thinkers, including Buddha himself, largely misunderstood or partially understood the Vedantic concept of Ātman. They took passages emphasizing the ego-driven self and mistook that for the entirety of the Vedantic teaching on Ātman.

• The Vedantic Ātman: The article clearly defines the Vedantic Ātman as identified with the Absolute Reality, Brahman. It is described as pure consciousness, existence, bliss, non-dual, the permanent background of all changing phenomena, and the ultimate reality. Passages from the Upanishads are cited to support this view (e.g., "Atman is indeed Brahman," "That thou art").

• Reconciliation Through Shared Ultimate Reality: Shastri proposes that despite the different terminology, many Mahāyāna Buddhist concepts point to the same ultimate reality described in Vedanta.

  • Terms like Dharma, Bodhi, Prajñā, Citta, Tathatā, Dharmadhātu, and Sūnya (for Nagarjuna) are presented as different names or descriptions for the Upanishadic Ātman or Brahman.
  • For example, Āśvaghoṣa's Tathatā (Suchness) is seen as identical to the Upanishadic Ātman, representing an absolute reality beyond intellect. Nāgārjuna's Śūnya is also interpreted as the indescribable Ātman/Brahman. Aryadeva's Pure Citta and Śāntideva's Pure Buddha are likewise equated with the Vedantic Ātman.
  • The Vijñānavādin concept of Tathāgatagarbha or Ālayavijñāna is also identified with Vedantic Ātman, although the Lankāvatāra Sūtra attempts a distinction that Shastri deems superficial and fallacious.

• The Role of Buddha's Own Teachings: Shastri suggests that Buddha's criticism was primarily aimed at the empirical ego. He posits that if Buddha had not conflated the empirical ego with the Upanishadic Ātman, or if he had identified his concepts like Bodhi or Prajñā with the Upanishadic Ātman/Brahman, much of the philosophical conflict would have been avoided.

• Shared Criticism of Ego: It is noted that the condemnation of the ego (ahamkara) is not exclusive to Buddhism; all Indian philosophical schools see it as an obstacle to self-realization.

Conclusion:

The author concludes that the fundamental difference often perceived between Buddhist and Vedantic notions of self is largely due to a semantic and conceptual misunderstanding by the Buddhists of the Vedantic Ātman. The Buddhists' denial was directed at the ego-centric self, while the Vedantic concept of Ātman refers to the ultimate, undifferentiated consciousness. Many Mahāyāna Buddhist terms for ultimate reality can be seen as alternative expressions for the Vedantic Ātman, indicating an underlying agreement on the nature of ultimate reality, despite divergent terminology and emphasis on the rejection of the ego. The conflict, therefore, is argued to be largely a product of miscommunication and overemphasis on the negative aspect of the Buddhist critique.