The three marks of existence: impermanence, suffering (or stressfulness), and no-self. No ātman.
Yet, what actually is the ātman that Buddha denied? By default, most people automatically deny, because of this, the soul. Yet, is it? Some people will go a little further and try to understand the ātman of modern Hinduism, and say, “It must be denying that, and that sounds like the soul”. This, however, is modern Hinduism. Is it fair to say this is an accurate representation of the thing that Buddha denied?
I don’t think so. It is true that Buddhism disputes and denies the existence of an eternal, unchanging self - but what is this self? Pre-Buddhist Upanishads link the ātman of the time to the feeling of “I am” [Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upanishad 1.4.1], and “I am this” [Chandogya Upanishad 8.11.1]. This is not, however, the same as the way the ātman is seen as within modern Hindu philosophy. Post-Buddhist Upanishads have a much different view as to what the ātman is: it is only the defiled individual ego that believes itself to be “I am” or “This is me”, as opposed to the Universal Self [Maitrī Upanishad], which does not have this belief. The distinction in this one, is between “self” and “Self”, that is, ego and soul: one thinks it is who the person is, the other is beyond such trivial things.
However, there is another religion which has a concept of ātman: one that is often overlooked. That religion is Jainism; a small but incredibly influential religion, at least that was the case historically. I am not sure about how influential it is in the modern society of the twenty-first century. Mohandās Karamchand Gāndhi, also called Mahātmā Gāndhi, is one of the influential people of the early twentieth century who was strongly influenced by Jain traditions.
It is widely believed by many, including myself, that there is every possibility that the Buddha spent his time an ascetic with practitioners of Jainism. Indeed, Buddha was probably a contemporary of Mahāvīra, the last Jain Tirthankara.
So what does Jainism say about the ātman, the self? How do Jainism and Hinduism differ, and how are they similar?
Jainism sees the ātman as the “living-essence”, yet something separate to the body. It witnesses birth and death, but is neither born nor created in reality; death and birth are merely moving from one body to another and the ātman does not experience anything in truth, only the temporal experiences of time, matter, and other things.
Jainism’s ātman is more similar to the soul than anything, however, there is a major difference: the soul is effectively a witness of events, going from room to room. It is eternal, and although it witnesses, it is not affected by the things. It does not grow or develop. It just is - and always is - the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow; it just witnesses things.
So the Jain soul is like a diamond, that is covered in mud - one’s fruit of karma. Jainism’s path to liberation is destroying all karma - because if anything happens, good or bad, it must bear fruit - and that fruit ripens into us living another life of existence, which in turn allows for more accumulation of karma.
Therefore, we have at least two forms of ātman around at the Buddha’s time with major prominence: the Pre-Buddhist Upanishadic Hindu, and the Jain. Both of them had a somewhat mystical idea, but they were often different to one another. They were also both dualistic, there was something about them that was inherent, eternal, and separate. Buddha denied these qualities - but did he really deny the soul?
Not necessarily. In the Samyutta Nikaya 4.400, Buddha is asked if there is no soul (nathatta). Buddha replied with: “Both formerly and now, I’ve never been a nihilist ("vinayika"), never been one who teaches the annihilation of a being, rather taught only the source of suffering, and its ending.” Traditionally this is seen as “any idea of self, even no-self, is tied up in a self”, but in my opinion it that Buddha did not deny the soul, but tried to get the idea of soul out of the “I am”-ness that Hinduism and Jainism had and to shift the focus on it: instead of being something separate from everything, the soul was something with everything: dependent origination builds our lives as we live them, but the aspect that makes us who we are is not illusionary, but beyond the idea of the mundane and ordinary fleeting world, instead of saṃsāric, it is Nirvāṇic instead.
This is my interpretation, anyway.
Yet, what actually is the ātman that Buddha denied? By default, most people automatically deny, because of this, the soul. Yet, is it? Some people will go a little further and try to understand the ātman of modern Hinduism, and say, “It must be denying that, and that sounds like the soul”. This, however, is modern Hinduism. Is it fair to say this is an accurate representation of the thing that Buddha denied?
I don’t think so. It is true that Buddhism disputes and denies the existence of an eternal, unchanging self - but what is this self? Pre-Buddhist Upanishads link the ātman of the time to the feeling of “I am” [Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upanishad 1.4.1], and “I am this” [Chandogya Upanishad 8.11.1]. This is not, however, the same as the way the ātman is seen as within modern Hindu philosophy. Post-Buddhist Upanishads have a much different view as to what the ātman is: it is only the defiled individual ego that believes itself to be “I am” or “This is me”, as opposed to the Universal Self [Maitrī Upanishad], which does not have this belief. The distinction in this one, is between “self” and “Self”, that is, ego and soul: one thinks it is who the person is, the other is beyond such trivial things.
However, there is another religion which has a concept of ātman: one that is often overlooked. That religion is Jainism; a small but incredibly influential religion, at least that was the case historically. I am not sure about how influential it is in the modern society of the twenty-first century. Mohandās Karamchand Gāndhi, also called Mahātmā Gāndhi, is one of the influential people of the early twentieth century who was strongly influenced by Jain traditions.
It is widely believed by many, including myself, that there is every possibility that the Buddha spent his time an ascetic with practitioners of Jainism. Indeed, Buddha was probably a contemporary of Mahāvīra, the last Jain Tirthankara.
So what does Jainism say about the ātman, the self? How do Jainism and Hinduism differ, and how are they similar?
Jainism sees the ātman as the “living-essence”, yet something separate to the body. It witnesses birth and death, but is neither born nor created in reality; death and birth are merely moving from one body to another and the ātman does not experience anything in truth, only the temporal experiences of time, matter, and other things.
Jainism’s ātman is more similar to the soul than anything, however, there is a major difference: the soul is effectively a witness of events, going from room to room. It is eternal, and although it witnesses, it is not affected by the things. It does not grow or develop. It just is - and always is - the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow; it just witnesses things.
So the Jain soul is like a diamond, that is covered in mud - one’s fruit of karma. Jainism’s path to liberation is destroying all karma - because if anything happens, good or bad, it must bear fruit - and that fruit ripens into us living another life of existence, which in turn allows for more accumulation of karma.
Therefore, we have at least two forms of ātman around at the Buddha’s time with major prominence: the Pre-Buddhist Upanishadic Hindu, and the Jain. Both of them had a somewhat mystical idea, but they were often different to one another. They were also both dualistic, there was something about them that was inherent, eternal, and separate. Buddha denied these qualities - but did he really deny the soul?
Not necessarily. In the Samyutta Nikaya 4.400, Buddha is asked if there is no soul (nathatta). Buddha replied with: “Both formerly and now, I’ve never been a nihilist ("vinayika"), never been one who teaches the annihilation of a being, rather taught only the source of suffering, and its ending.” Traditionally this is seen as “any idea of self, even no-self, is tied up in a self”, but in my opinion it that Buddha did not deny the soul, but tried to get the idea of soul out of the “I am”-ness that Hinduism and Jainism had and to shift the focus on it: instead of being something separate from everything, the soul was something with everything: dependent origination builds our lives as we live them, but the aspect that makes us who we are is not illusionary, but beyond the idea of the mundane and ordinary fleeting world, instead of saṃsāric, it is Nirvāṇic instead.
This is my interpretation, anyway.
Good post. I agree, btw.
ReplyDelete