Chapter 5.1 - Comparative study of Non-Self

At any moment of own experience, ‘it has observed’ that we stumble upon some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. The common belief is that these sensations and thoughts do not stand by themselves but belong to an unchanging entity known as the self.

“Buddha admitted the transient sensations and thoughts alone and denied the self in the above sense as an unwarranted assumption.”^[1]

It is an aggregate or Sanghata (literally) [what is put together] of them; and Buddha declared to believe in anything apart from or implicated in it.^[2]

In the Expressive words of Mrs. Rhys Davids,

“There is in his view no “King Ego” holding a level of presentations. It is roughly mind and body, psycho-physical organism. Denial of Substratum is real.”^[3]

There is another description of this aggregate based upon a closer analysis of the physical factors constituting it. According to it, the self is conceived as five-fold, the five factors or Skandhas.^[4] “Of these, the first, rupa skandha, stands for the physical and the rest for the psychical elements in the self. It is the concept on anatma, and it is the conglomeration of five skandhas. This is the outstanding feature of the early Buddhism.”^[5]

Madhyamika Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta have several similarities in its in-depth analysis. At the same time, they have some apparent differences also. These differences make them and distinguish them in their religious and philosophical outlook. Buddha expands further eight kinds of acts calling them Yajna. Such interpretations are given by Manu as well.

Rhys Davids has said in his ‘American Lectures’ as

“The fact we should never forget is that Gautama was born and brought up and lived as a Hindu. He was regarded by the Hindus of that time as a Hindu. He was the greatest and wisest and best of the Hindus and thought his career, a characteristic Hindu…”^[6]

“Gautama’s teaching was a philosophy of life for the individual and it is not an organized religion to reach the goal, the further shore beyond the flood of life’s sorrow”.^[7]

Talking about the similarity in the concept of absolute phenomena, Madhyamika have two principles. They are Paramarthasatya and Samvritisatya. Samvriti is similar to vyavaharika of the Advaitins. But shunyata or void is the Supreme to Nagarjuna. Samvriti as it appears is similar to that of the appearances in the world of maya or non-reality.

In the ultimate sense

“Gaudapada worked out a philosophy, to some extent similar to Nagarjuna as far as absolute reality is concerned.”^[8]

Here the real argument is that Gaudapada’s Brahman as it is stated in the Upanishads and elaborated in his Mandukyakarika is nothing but the shunya or void of the Madhyamika Philosophy of Nagarjuna that is asserted in his Mula Madhyamika Karika. And both have the details of Shruti as their common source. The teachings of Buddha is the source of inspiration for Nagarjuna. Since Buddha being a product of Brahmanical Indian tradition he would have definitely been aware of the Advaitic way of analyzing–even though not in a systematic way of the later Advaitins–the Shruti passages and that must have reflected in his teachings, which shaped the Madhyamika philosophy later on.

In the Madhyamika, this causal relation of things and elements are happening in a dependent manner. In the empirical level, it is parinama or changing. In the metaphysical level, is Vivata or Vikalpa; there the duality arises. If we appreciate a creative relation due to maya, then there we can apply the vivartavada concept and the doctrine of mayavada. The metaphysical causation is equal to creation. The effect as dependence can be eternally, an ultimate one and therefore immutable.

In the Gaudapada’s system there is a non-empirical ego, the Atman. As far as the pure thoughts are concerned, it has not a creative relation with the images, which are produced through the action of maya. But such an unchangeable being is not available in our experience. In the empirical level, it is impossible to establish the beginning of the phenomena. Metaphysical doctrines accept the beginning and the first course a series of time also. And in the ultimate sense time is not applicable here. Gaudapada considers the problem of causality as an empirical one and he never takes the question of eternal creation. Thus, the vivartavada of Advaitins and the depending causation can be considered as the same in the appearances.^[9]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

M. Hiriyana, ‘Outlines of Indian Philosophy’, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 2001, p. 138

[2]:

Ibid. p. 145

[3]:

Rhys Davids, ‘Buddhist Psychology’, p. 98

[4]:

Skandhas are Rupa Skandha, Vijnana Skandha, Vedana Skandha, Sanja Skandha and Samskara Skandha

[5]:

M. Hiriyanna, Op. cit. p. 139

[6]:

Rhys Davids, ‘Buddhist Hindu Interactions: Sakyamuni to Shankaracarya’, Ajanta Publications, 1973, p. 116-117

[7]:

C.F. Allen, ‘The Buddha’s Philosophy Selections from the Pali Canon’, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London, 1959, p. 48

[8]:

G. Mishra, Op. cit. p. 104

[9]:

Cathorine Conio, ‘The Philosophy of Mandukya-karika’, Bharathiya Vidya Prakasham, Varanasi, 1971, p. 97-98