Buddhist and Hindu philosophies have several fundamental differences in their basic ideas. One major difference is on the entity called the “self”: Buddhists does not believe in the existence of an eternal “self,” while Hindus affirm the existence of a perpetual, indestructible “self.” In this paper, I will reconstruct the arguments on the “self” raised by three different texts: The Questions of King Milinda and The Bodhicaryavatara¸ Buddhist texts arguing that there is no self; and The Bhagavad-Gita, a Hindu text suggesting that there is an eternal and indestructible self. I will then draw concepts from the arguments presented in The Bhagavad-Gita’s notion of the self to counter-argue against the two Buddhist texts, and defend against a
…show more content…
The Bhagavad-Gita chronicles Krishna and Arjuna’s dialogue on Arjuna's confusion whether to do his varnadharma, his duties as a warrior and as a member of a particular caste; and his svadharma, his duties specifically proper to him as a person (i.e. familial obligations). In order to know the true self, Krishna advises Arjuna to “[b]e intent on action,/ not on the fruits of action;/ avoid attraction to the fruits/ and attachment to inaction!/ Perform actions, firm in discipline,/ relinquishing attachment;/ be impartial to failure and success-/ this equanimity is called discipline.” (Miller, 2.47-48, p.38) Krishna adds: “The senses, mind, and understanding/ are said to harbor desire;/ with these desire obscures knowledge/ and confounds the embodied self./ Therefore, first restrain/ your senses, Arjuna,/ then kill this evil/ that ruins knowledge and judgment.” (Miller, 3.40-41, p.48-49) These passages claim that beings can only see their true self if they discipline themselves, focus on the action and not on its results, and learn to isolate desires. In essence, Krishna is implying that there is actually no conflict between Arjuna’s varnadharma and svadharma, and that this perceived conflict is brought about by attachment …show more content…
The Buddhists argue that there is no real, perpetual self, but only “a mere empty sound,” a “generally understood term, the designation in common use.” (Davids, 1.1, p. 44) However, The Bhagavad-Gita argues that “[we] must learn to endure fleeting things [as] they come and go!” (Miller, 2.14, p.33) The Bhagavad-Gita also states that the self is “unborn, enduring,/ constant, and primordial/” (Miller, 2.20, p.34). We can infer from here that The Bhagavad-Gita suggests that since the Buddhists base their knowledge on the self on changing conventions, the Buddhists can never possibly know the real self as the real self can only be focused on when a being detaches himself from temporary things. The real self does not change, and that since the Buddhists base their selves on the changing textual designation of the self, they do not and cannot focus on their true self. The Bhagavad-Gita also presents a solution to the conflict between order and chaos, while the Buddhists do not. Krishna argued, as I have shown earlier, that those people who achieves the discipline of detaching from temporal things can be at peace and will be one with the universe. Thus, there will be order. Santideva, however, argues against the notion that following the true self leads to order and instead suggests that chaos comes from the pursuit of the notion of the self. In his words:
The Bhagavad-Gita chronicles Krishna and Arjuna’s dialogue on Arjuna's confusion whether to do his varnadharma, his duties as a warrior and as a member of a particular caste; and his svadharma, his duties specifically proper to him as a person (i.e. familial obligations). In order to know the true self, Krishna advises Arjuna to “[b]e intent on action,/ not on the fruits of action;/ avoid attraction to the fruits/ and attachment to inaction!/ Perform actions, firm in discipline,/ relinquishing attachment;/ be impartial to failure and success-/ this equanimity is called discipline.” (Miller, 2.47-48, p.38) Krishna adds: “The senses, mind, and understanding/ are said to harbor desire;/ with these desire obscures knowledge/ and confounds the embodied self./ Therefore, first restrain/ your senses, Arjuna,/ then kill this evil/ that ruins knowledge and judgment.” (Miller, 3.40-41, p.48-49) These passages claim that beings can only see their true self if they discipline themselves, focus on the action and not on its results, and learn to isolate desires. In essence, Krishna is implying that there is actually no conflict between Arjuna’s varnadharma and svadharma, and that this perceived conflict is brought about by attachment …show more content…
The Buddhists argue that there is no real, perpetual self, but only “a mere empty sound,” a “generally understood term, the designation in common use.” (Davids, 1.1, p. 44) However, The Bhagavad-Gita argues that “[we] must learn to endure fleeting things [as] they come and go!” (Miller, 2.14, p.33) The Bhagavad-Gita also states that the self is “unborn, enduring,/ constant, and primordial/” (Miller, 2.20, p.34). We can infer from here that The Bhagavad-Gita suggests that since the Buddhists base their knowledge on the self on changing conventions, the Buddhists can never possibly know the real self as the real self can only be focused on when a being detaches himself from temporary things. The real self does not change, and that since the Buddhists base their selves on the changing textual designation of the self, they do not and cannot focus on their true self. The Bhagavad-Gita also presents a solution to the conflict between order and chaos, while the Buddhists do not. Krishna argued, as I have shown earlier, that those people who achieves the discipline of detaching from temporal things can be at peace and will be one with the universe. Thus, there will be order. Santideva, however, argues against the notion that following the true self leads to order and instead suggests that chaos comes from the pursuit of the notion of the self. In his words: