(2) About the theory of atman in Hinduism

 (2) About the theory of atman in Hinduism

 

 

Hinduism claims that all the phenomena in the whole universe are the creation of Brahma, and atman is the bodily manifestation of Brahma, and it thinks that atman is an everlasting atta or substantial self, or an ego-self. It expounds the doctrine that if anyone can reach the stage of the unification of atman with its creator Brahma through practice, he can attain enlightenment and enjoy everlasting happiness.

In Hinduism, atman is the basis of transmigration. However, it could not explain what exactly is the substance of transmigration and how it transmigrates. Atman is exactly the same as Brahma. Yet it is, at the same time, a separate self.

If atman is exactly the same as Brahma (the ultimate reality or substance of cosmos), there must be no way for atman to act or commit karma, because such actions are the pure consciousness, and naturally there is no way for atman to be the substance of its own transmigration. If so, what is then the substance of transmigration? And further more, what is the relation between atman and the substance of transmigration?

To solve this kind of problem, the Vedanta School argues about the transmigration of a tiny molecule. However, the concept of the body or substance of that tiny molecule (微細身) is also ambiguous and requires an additional explanation.

 

However, the substance of soul, the core or the main body of transmigration in Buddhism, has a clear concept and is very particular, and through explanations about the four substances of soul, we can explain and help one understand what is exactly the nucleus or main body of transmigration and how it transmigrates.

In fact, Hinduism was a high level religion that claimed the karma, transmigration, and enlightenment from early on. However, I want to point out a few more questions.

 

Hinduism claims that if anyone could realize that the atman which abides in one's own body is himself, he could be unified with Brahma and attain enlightenment. However, I want to point out that it is only the stage of realizing emptiness, which is quite different from attaining enlightenment. There also is no solid substance about the worlds of transmigration in the six realms of cosmic existence and the higher realm of enlightenment.

The Hindi culture of the four caste systems, which does not judge the people according to their karma but according to their birth, is also an unfair tradition, and the ritual sacrifice of animals also seems not right.

 

 

2) The Panadula argument between Buddhism and Christianity:

the parts concerning the substance of soul

 

 

I wish to make it clear beforehand that, "The Great Historical Argument of Buddhism and Christianity" by Seok O-jin, published in the Buddhist Journal, No. 38 (Spring, 2009) is the article I have consulted and quoted.

According to the above article, "The Great Historical Argument of Buddhism and Christianity," an open academic seminar called "the Panadula (파아나두라) argument" convened in Sri Lanka in 1873, was a great religious contention by the eminent scholars representing the two religions staking the beliefs and the prestige of their religions.

The debater on the Buddhist side was bhikku Mohottiwatte Gunananda, and on the Christian side on the first day was the Minister David De Silva, and on the second day was the missionary Sirimanna. The number of audience on the first day was estimated to be 5,000, and on the second day was more than 10,000.

The appraisement of the debate was turned out to be favorable for Buddhism, but it is not my intention to talk about the outcome of the debate. Through misleading interpretation of the Buddhist doctrine of 'non-self', this debate a kind of planted the idea in the mind of the people that there is no substance of soul in Buddhism. Naturally the debate was centered on this subject and the heated debate became a kind of silly dialogue.

The reason I am introducing the outcome of the debate, especially on the subject concerning the substance of soul, is for all the Buddhists to reflect upon themselves earnestly and establish the orthodox dharma and then spread it far and wide.

According to the materials of the debate, the Minister Silva raised the question that if there is no soul according to the doctrine of Buddhism, there will be no ground for the morals to stand.

To this question, the bhikku Gunananda retaliated with the argument that, as Christianity preaches, if an everlasting soul exists, it means there will be no problem even if someone commit killing a person, because, for example, as a result of killing a person, one may lose his physical body, yet his soul will stay forevermore because it is everlasting. It is exactly the opposite of the logic of Buddhism you just talked about.

It truly became a nonsensical debate. It was of course unjust to say that there is no soul. However, it is truly amazing to think that it is alright to kill a person on the ground of the existence of everlasting soul. The topmost crime of the four grave sins in the Buddhist precept is 'not killing'. If so, how a bhikku can say such an irresponsible thing?

What's more, this four grave sins are especially called 'the four types of baneful deeds' for the monks. If any bhikku violates these four types of baneful deeds, he will be punished as a grave sinner by disrobing the Buddhist robe.

 

If the Minister Silva on the Christian side had criticised many contradictions of non-existence of the soul relentlessly without mercy, the bhikku would have been in a bad situation. Any way, this debate reaffirmed the non-existence' of soul of the Buddhist doctrine. To set this misleading concept of 'non-existence' of soul right, we had to wait one hundred some years. However, this unhappy religious debate had a favorable side of selfless effort of the Buddhism in Sri Lanka.