Lovely 1

Samuel Lovely

Professor Brown

PHILOS 2120

5 November 2018

Comparison Essay

Perhaps among the oldest philosophical traditions in the world, Hinduism and Buddhism

originated in India and serve as foundations for many Asian philosophies today. Indeed, both

traditions agree on a few ideas surrounding morality and the progression of life itself. However,

it is necessary to mention that many of the fundamental ideas in both traditions are quite

different, and that most of the instances where they agree are extrapolated into incredibly

different ideas. For example, Hinduism fosters the idea of samsara and one must go through

many cycles of samsara to achieve Moksha. In Buddhism, it is believed that reincarnation still

occurs but enlightenment can be achieved in one lifetime. Although both acknowledge and

embrace the idea of reincarnation, the ideas that stem from it are quite different and more

complex. Moreover, I will be analyzing the concept of self, describing how both philosophical

traditions embrace this idea, and providing evidence as to why Buddhism’s teachings of anatman

are more persuasive than Hinduism’s teachings of the atman.

First, it is essential to formerly establish each tradition’s view on the concept of self. In

Hinduism, the term for self is ‘atman’. Each person has an essence, or a soul, that identifies them

as the same person over time. The body is simply a vessel that contains the atman, and this

essence is reincarnated into another living thing through the process of samsara. Further,

brahmin is the divine essence loosely defined as the ‘world soul’. It is every living thing that
 Lovely 2

once was, every living thing that is, and every living thing that will be. The overall claim in

Hinduism is that atman is brahmin, or the individual soul is the world soul. The essence that

makes up the atman is exactly the same as the essence that makes up brahman, and both are

immortal. The goal is to perform activities geared towards reaching Moksha so that the atman

may become one with the brahmin. A common analogy is that Brahman is the ocean and the

atmans are the rivers leading to the ocean—the rivers dissolve and become a part of the sea much

like how the atmans eventually return to brahman. Also, Hinduism places emphasis on karma

and connects it to the soul. The actions of one’s Atman in the past can have an impact on their

current life, and the future as well. In contrast, Buddhism does not believe in the concept of

atman—in fact, the concept of ‘anatman’, or no soul, is embraced instead. There is a notion of

impermanence which implies that no personal identity that outlives the previous lifetime of the

body. Indeed, emphasis is placed on being mindful in the present and focusing on what is going

on at any particular moment. There are bundles of physical and mental things, but these things do

not constitute an individual. Despite the Buddha teaching anatman, he believed that there was

some sort of causal connection between the present life and the next. When one is reincarnated,

they are birthed by the mother’s egg, the father’s sperm, and survived by the karma created by

the living thing’s previous life. They will not be the same person as before, nor will they be

entirely different (O’Brien). One must simply focus on the present life and achieving nirvana

through selflessness and not worry about the value associated with each person.

These two viewpoints are drastically different from each other. One embraces the idea of

giving each living thing an identity connected to a much larger being, while the other rejects the

concept of self entirely. In my opinion, the most effective, realistic, and persuasive viewpoint is

Buddhism’s ideas surrounding anatman. One reason is simply because there is not enough
 Lovely 3

evidence to support the idea of an individual soul and a cosmic soul. It is understandable that

many would agree with the concept that everybody has a soul and each soul is a part of a much

larger cosmic eternal soul. Many people are oftentimes afraid of death, and believing that they

will someday end up in a state of permanent bliss for all of eternity is comforting. It is a form of

emotional appeal and provides solace to believe there is an afterlife. However, it is not a credible

viewpoint because, much similar to other traditions, it is based solely on faith. Spiritual

apprehension is not a form of proof, unfortunately, and there is no evidence for me to believe

that my individual essence is the same as everybody else in this world. Of course, I am not

denying the existence of such a thing, simply because I don’t have any proof against the

existence of atman or brahman. But, the proposed claim is that atman exists and atman is

brahman, and if the only evidence as to why is because there is no proof against the claim, then

the whole argument becomes inconclusive. Therefore, it is more reasonable and productive to

society to abstain from conceptualizing about ideas they are uncertain of, and instead focus on

the present and what is going on .

Further, another reason why Buddhism’s claims about anatman are more persuasive is

because they effectively describe the relationship between the body housing the atman and

karma. Hinduism’s teachings have some muddy implications about the atman and the actions of

the body occupied by the atman. Each person acts and thinks differently from one another and

has a mind and personality that causes them to act and think a certain way. Consequently, it is

reasonable to assume that the mind and personality are separate from the proposed atman.

However, this doesn’t seem to be the case. Karma is attached to not only the atman, but also the

actions of the individual—implying that there is some sort of connection to the vessel the atman

is occupying and the atman itself. This idea is rather unclear and does not affectively describe the
 Lovely 4

relationship between the actions of the individual and karma. Further, Buddhism states that the

energy of the karma we create is the sole thing that reincarnates during samsara, since there is no

soul to reincarnate. This implies that if a bad person is reincarnated and survived by their karma,

then their karmic bad habits and ignorance are reincarnated with them (O’Brien). Hence, this

new unethical person is not the same unethical person as before, and solely their own bad actions

will cause bad things to happen to them throughout their lifetime. Buddhism’s concept of

anatman provides more reasoning for the relationship between the actions of the individual, the

karma associated with those actions, and the effect it has on the individual throughout samsara.

Lastly, Buddhism’s teachings of anatman are more persuasive because memories are

nonexistent is evidence of impermanence. It should first be mentioned that impermanence in

itself implies there is no brahman. In Hinduism, it is believed that there is a past, present, and

future for each atman that describes what did happen or what will happen. In Buddhism, there is

no such thing as a moment that once existed, but rather a moment that temporarily existed and

has ceased to exist. When a memory arises in one’s mind, it is a concept that is formed in the

present artificially by one’s mind. It too is a moment that will exist and then vanish from

existence and once the memory is gone—there is no proof of existence. One may say that

pictures could be considered evidence. However, I disagree because a picture is simply a

collection of pixels on a screen fabricated by a device and at that point, it has as much credibility

as a memory. Moreover, how can one be sure that these memories are moments that once existed

and not simply an arbitrary construct fabricated by the mind? It is impossible to be sure and that

is why the concept of permanence cannot be proved.

In conclusion, Buddhism’s teachings of anatman are more persuasive than Hinduism’s

teachings of the atman. Through effective analysis, it has been discerned that the more plausible
 Lovely 5

approach to these ideas is to scrutinize the logic behind each tradition’s viewpoints. Of course, it

should be mentioned that many of the ideas surrounding the atman are somewhat plausible;

however, analyzing both notions thoroughly shows that anatman is a much more logical

approach.
 Lovely 6

Works Cited

O'Brien, Barbara. “Karma and Rebirth What's the Connection?” ThoughtCo,

www.thoughtco.com/karma-and-rebirth-449993.

O'Brien, Barbara. “The Buddhist Understanding of Karma: An Introduction.” ThoughtCo,

www.thoughtco.com/buddhism-and-karma-449992.