(95) Section 4: The Rise and Fall of Polytheistic Civilization II

Chapter 1: The Indus

4-2 To Escape Reincarnation

　　　In the previous installment, I touch on the concept of Atman (self). Atman is the subject that perceives. It is imperceptible. As the ancient Indian philosopher Yajnavalkya put it, “You cannot see the seer of seeing.”
　　　So, then, what about the body? Under normal circumstances, we are aware of our own bodies; we can objectively perceive any number of elements of our bodies, from our height and weight to the color of our skin. That is to say, one’s body could not be Atman but is merely a vessel.
　　　You would assume, then, that Atman is the soul, but you’d be wrong. Many cultures, including the ancient Egyptians, have believed the soul to exist separately from the physical body, but because Atman is “imperceptible,” it cannot be considered the soul. It is this kind of thinking, Yajnavalkya fundamentally contends, that is epistemologically erroneous.

Indian Thought—Buddhism’s Profound Influencer

　　　Then there is the Upanishadic philosophy of Brahman. In it, Brahman is the origin of the universe, intellect, the influencer of all things. The myriad Hindu gods are also believed to be the work of Brahman. So far, I’ve treated Hinduism as a polytheistic religion, but there are those in India today who consider the faith to be a monotheistic tradition—and the reason is Brahman. They believe Brahman to be the one and only god. But deities such as Indra and Vishnu have also been referred to as gods, making the concept of a monotheistic Hinduism somewhat complicated. Proponents of the monotheistic Hinduism argue deities like Indra and Vishnu are nothing more than just a part (albeit a large one) of Brahman’s workings.
　　　Yajnavalkya expresses no doubt about Brahman’s existence itself. It isn’t philosophy; it’s believing in that which cannot be logically or scientifically proven. It’s what we call religion. From his logical arrival at Atman, he also concluded that Atman is naturally influenced by Brahman. Moreover, Atman is entirely different from all other things in that it is completely imperceptible. Even Indra and Vishnu can be perceived.
　　　It’s here that Yajnavalkya states that Brahman and Atman are essentially the same thing, and that realizing this fact, which is Tat Tvam Asi (“Thou art that”), is synonymous with the ultimate enlightenment and the attainment of freedom via a liberation from all suffering. This is because, Yajnavalkya believes, human suffering and sadness, even happiness, is merely an illusion before the laws that govern the universe, time, and space.
　　　But this reasoning also made a significant impact on later Indian philosophy, particularly Buddhism.

▲ Reclining buddha in Ajanta Caves, India　© yakthai

　　　The Indian epistemological tradition has another absolute premise like Brahman known as samsara or reincarnation. Oddly, no creator or discoverer of this idea is mentioned. It is told as an absolute truth.
　　　If this were Judaism, you can be almost certain there would be a theological basis for the teaching of samsara along the lines of “God has willed the human soul to reincarnation.” The samsara of ancient Indian thought has always existed as truth.
　　　Those of you familiar with Indian philosophy or Buddhism probably already noticed: emerging as the antithesis of Yajnavalkya’s Hindu fundamentals was Siddhartha Gautama’s Buddhism.
　　　Siddhartha had genuine doubts about the existence of Atman and such, but displayed no doubts whatsoever about samsara. This is extremely bizarre, especially when compared with other religions. How did samsara become absolutely assumed?
　　　Perhaps, it was a truth instinctively felt. Still today, in countries whose predominant religions do not believe in samsara, there are those who claim they have memories of a past life. Of course, some consider these claims to be simply a case of the mind playing tricks. But there are occasions when parts of these past-life memories actually coincide with fact. And we all know it’s a fact that scientifically inexplicable circumstances exist. Perhaps the ancients were more willing to accept the inexplicable. Perhaps this is why they considered samsara an unquestionable law.
　　　But there’s another oddity to be found in Indian philosophy. If samsara exists then, conversely, man must be immortal. The goal in both Christianity and Daoism is eternal life. The context for such a notion, of course, is that eternal life brings boundless benefits.
　　　But the ancient Indians wouldn’t have agreed. Instead, they saw eternal life as endless suffering and sought an escape from the cycle of samsara. That is, they sought everlasting death.
This is a concept common to both Hinduism and Buddhism. The escape from the cycle of samsara is referred to as “deliverance.”
　　　So how did renouncing life in favor of eternal death become the ultimate goal of a religion? From a Jewish, Christian, and Muslim point of view, it’s an incredibly difficult concept to understand. But liberation from the suffering of life was the Buddha’s main point of departure. And perhaps there is no better meditation on this mystery than the life of Buddha himself.

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　< Read the next installment February 15 >

Editor/ Noriko Knickerbocker , Aquarius Ltd.

Translator/ Matthew Hunter , Aquarius Ltd.

©Motohiko Izawa 2018-2019 All rights reserved. No reproduction or republication without written permission.