How does early Buddhism differ from Upanishadic Thought?

There are many important areas in which Buddhism and the Upanishads differ.

Firstly, in terms of cosmology, the Upanishads viewed the world and its origin as nothing other than Brahma, the universal or cosmic soul. To achieve liberation meant realising the truth of the world - that Atman (the individual soul as discovered through introspection) and Brahma are the same. For the Buddha, the concern is with man and liberation, which is internally driven rather than granted by an external God requiring prayer. This is why He was not concerned with the cosmos and it’s beginning, neither of which is relevant to reaching nibbana.

Secondly, concerning metaphysics, the Upanishads profess Monism. This philosophy can be summarised as “I am Brahman” (our own “Self” is the true Divinity), “The Self is Brahman” (all beings are identified with the Absolute Truth), “That art thou”(whatever we see or think about, we are That), “Knowledge is Brahman” (supreme intelligence is present inherently within us; our understanding of the truth is the Truth itself), “The whole universe is Brahman”, and “Here am I” (this identifies the Divinity in our Self in natural happenings, like breathing). In this philosophy, worldly appearances are illusory, since the apparent diversity is but one. Again, Buddhism is not concerned with metaphysical discussions of space, time and causality. Although Buddhism teaches such dhammas as samsara, kamma and nibbana, instead, these teachings are different from those in the Upanishads. On a number of occasions when asked some metaphysical questions concerning the world, the soul and the Tathāgata, the Buddha refocussed his questioners by reminding them of the need to delve more deeply into the realities of samsara (birth, illness, old age, death, etc).

In a third aspect, epistemology, or how we gain new knowledge, Upanishad philosophy states that knowledge comes when we realise that we and the Brahma are one so that the individual and cosmic souls merge. We cannot trust our senses and stimuli for knowledge, as they hide the Atman. Instead, since thinking is the basis for truth, so we must train our intellect and other mental faculties to interpret the world correctly. In Buddhism such debatable theories are considered not true. We are to develop our wisdom (pañña) so that we perceive the reality of the world, namely that all conditioned things are impermanent, unsatisfactory and without self.

Fourthly, from the ethical perspective, the writers of the Upanishads affirm that human life is a preparation for realising Brahma. To reach such spiritual perfection necessitates restraint of the senses, self-sacrifice and love for creation as the moral prerequisites.  In addition, study, honesty and even asceticism will permit the seeker of truth to attain bliss. The worldly perceptions of smell, taste, touch, hearing and sight which make one separate from the True Self must also be transcended. Buddhism also stresses living a virtuous life, but through a “middle way” avoiding extremes like asceticism. The method proposed is the Noble Eightfold Path which may be summarised as “not to do any evil, to cultivate good, to purify one’s mind”. 

To conclude, for the benefit of all mankind, unlike the Upanishads, Buddhist teachings are for everyone and offer practical, empirical guidance to the important questions of our liberation. 

(Written by Gregory Quinlivan for a course entitled 'Early Buddhism Basic Doctrines' in 2009 through the International Buddhist College, Thailand.)

Anatta or the concept of 'no-self'

Image by Bhikkhu Samahita on http://what-buddha-said.net

In your opinion, what would be the best way to explain the concept of “no-self” (anatta)?

Particularly in the West, people have been strongly influenced by Judeo-Christian teachings concerning the soul and its existence beyond this lifetime. This soul is the essence of the individual, created by a God, providing each with their uniqueness and subsequently going forth into eternity based on the state of the person at the time of death. According to this same “soul theory” while the individual and what constitutes them may change, the soul does not - it remains eternal and unchanged.

The grip of this idea of “self” or “soul” has been so strong, that Watson, a distinguished psychologist, stated: "No one has ever touched a soul or has seen one in a test tube or has in any way come into relationship with it as he has with the other objects of his daily experience. Nevertheless to doubt its existence is to become a heretic and once might possibly even had led to the loss of one's head."

These ideas are not unique to the era, but also formed part of the metaphysical teachings of the Upanishads dominant in India around the same time as the Buddha. According to them, the individual soul (Atman) was identical to the universal soul (Brahma) and final liberation meant merging the individual into the cosmic through meditation.

In stark contrast, the Buddha declared that clinging either to a notion of “self” or of “no self” leads to sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair. In other words, they are not conducive to liberation. When these views are finally dropped, one can be freed of agitation and unbound.

Buddhism does not deny the personality or individual. Rather it analyses them into various material and psychological aggregates (such as the five khandhas). However, each of these aggregates changes, so cannot be themselves be the unchanging “soul”. Further, there is no other unchanging substance (soul) to which the aggregates adhere or to which they relate, since such a substance would also need to constantly change. 

If such a “soul” were to exist it would need to be independent. According to the Paticca Samuppāda, nothing is independent or arises without causes and conditions. The Buddha includes here not only living beings, but also the cosmos as a whole, since there is nothing in the experience of the cosmos which is eternal or unchanging. Based on this empirical approach, (there is nothing within or without that can be called “I” or “me”) there can never be an independent soul.

Narada Thera explains it well (in “Buddhism in a Nutshell”) when he states that the Buddhist philosophical term for an individual is santana, that is, a flux or a continuity, which includes both their mental and physical elements. These elements are bound together by the kammic force of each individual. “This uninterrupted flux or continuity of psycho-physical phenomenon, which is conditioned by kamma, and not limited only to the present life, but having its source in the beginningless past and its continuation in the future — is the Buddhist substitute for the permanent ego or the immortal soul of other religions.”

So, as Narada Mahathera states (in “The Buddha and His Teachings”) it is more appropriate to think of the so-called “self” as a process, not an identity.

(Written by Gregory Quinlivan for a course entitled 'Early Buddhism Basic Doctrines' in 2009 through the International Buddhist College, Thailand.)