Scribd
Upload
5 views

Text 4F3F 83FC 0C 0

Uploaded by

kanika
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
5 views

Text 4F3F 83FC 0C 0

Uploaded by

kanika
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Examine the views of the Self in various Indian Philosophical traditions as pointed

out by MatilaL

**Introduction**

Bimal Krishna Matilal, one of the most distinguished scholars of Indian philosophy,
offered extensive insights into the concept of the Self (Atman) as interpreted by
various Indian philosophical traditions. His work is notable for its clarity,
depth, and ability to bridge Eastern and Western philosophical perspectives. This
essay examines Matilal's analysis of the Self, focusing on the diverse
interpretations found in key Indian philosophical schools, including Advaita
Vedanta, Samkhya, Nyaya, Buddhism, and Jainism.

**Advaita Vedanta**

According to Matilal, Advaita Vedanta, a non-dualistic school founded by Adi


Shankaracharya, presents the Self (Atman) as the ultimate, unchanging reality.
Advaita Vedanta asserts that the true Self is identical with Brahman, the supreme,
formless, and infinite reality that underlies everything. Shankara argues that the
apparent multiplicity of the world and the individual self are illusions (maya).
The realization of the Self as Brahman leads to liberation (moksha), which is the
ultimate goal in Advaita Vedanta.

Matilal highlights Shankara's rigorous logical approach to establish the non-


duality of the Self. He explains how Shankara uses scriptural texts, reason, and
experience to argue that the individual self (jiva) and the universal Self
(Brahman) are one and the same. This realization, according to Shankara, dissolves
all distinctions and leads to a state of blissful liberation.

**Samkhya**

Matilal discusses the Samkhya school, which offers a dualistic interpretation of


reality. According to Samkhya, there are two fundamental principles: Purusha
(consciousness) and Prakriti (matter). The Self (Purusha) is pure consciousness,
distinct from the material world (Prakriti). Unlike Advaita Vedanta, which sees the
Self as non-dual and all-encompassing, Samkhya posits that there are multiple
selves, each corresponding to individual beings.

Samkhya's approach to the Self is analytical, distinguishing between the conscious


observer (Purusha) and the observed phenomena (Prakriti). Matilal explains that
liberation in Samkhya is achieved through discriminative knowledge (viveka) that
separates the Self from the material entanglements of Prakriti. This knowledge
leads to the realization that the Self is unaffected by the changes and sufferings
of the material world.

**Nyaya**

The Nyaya school, known for its emphasis on logic and epistemology, offers a
distinct perspective on the Self. Matilal notes that Nyaya philosophers, such as
Gautama and Udayana, argue for the existence of an enduring, individual self that
is the substratum of personal identity. The Self in Nyaya is a knowing subject,
responsible for cognition, emotions, and actions.

Nyaya employs a rigorous logical framework to establish the existence of the Self.
Matilal explains that Nyaya philosophers use inferential reasoning to argue that
consciousness and personal identity presuppose a stable, underlying self. For
Nyaya, the Self is not an abstract, universal entity but an individual substance
that persists through various experiences and states of consciousness. Liberation
in Nyaya involves the eradication of ignorance and the attainment of true
knowledge, leading to freedom from suffering and rebirth.

**Buddhism**

Matilal provides a detailed examination of the Buddhist perspective on the Self,


which stands in stark contrast to the views of other Indian philosophical schools.
Buddhism, particularly the early teachings of the Buddha and the Madhyamaka school
founded by Nagarjuna, denies the existence of an enduring, independent self
(anatman). Instead, Buddhism posits that what we call the self is merely a
collection of constantly changing physical and mental phenomena (skandhas).

Matilal explains that the Buddhist doctrine of anatman aims to eliminate attachment
and ignorance, which are seen as the roots of suffering. By understanding the self
as an impermanent and interdependent process, individuals can achieve a state of
non-attachment and insight, leading to nirvana. Buddhism's rejection of a permanent
self challenges the essentialist views of other traditions and emphasizes the
dynamic, interdependent nature of existence.

**Jainism**

Jainism presents yet another distinctive view of the Self. Matilal notes that Jain
philosophy posits the existence of an eternal, individual soul (jiva) that is
intrinsically pure but becomes entangled with karmic particles due to actions.
Unlike the non-dualistic Advaita Vedanta or the non-self doctrine of Buddhism,
Jainism maintains a pluralistic view, recognizing countless individual souls.

According to Jain philosophy, the Self is inherently blissful, conscious, and


omniscient, but its true nature is obscured by karma. Liberation (moksha) in
Jainism is achieved by purifying the soul through ethical conduct, meditation, and
ascetic practices, leading to the removal of karmic particles and the realization
of the soul's true nature.

Matilal highlights the rigorous ethical framework of Jainism, which emphasizes non-
violence (ahimsa), truthfulness (satya), and non-possessiveness (aparigraha) as
essential practices for the purification of the soul. This path of purification
leads to the soul's liberation from the cycle of birth and death (samsara).

**Matilal's Comparative Analysis**

Matilal's comparative analysis of these diverse perspectives on the Self reveals


both commonalities and profound differences. He emphasizes that while Advaita
Vedanta, Samkhya, and Nyaya affirm the existence of an enduring self, they differ
significantly in their metaphysical and epistemological frameworks. Advaita
Vedanta's non-dualism contrasts with Samkhya's dualism and Nyaya's logical realism.

Buddhism's rejection of a permanent self presents a radical departure from these


views, challenging the notion of a stable, unchanging essence. Jainism, with its
emphasis on the purification of an individual, eternal soul, offers yet another
unique approach, highlighting the ethical dimensions of self-realization.

Matilal underscores the importance of understanding these perspectives within their


broader philosophical and cultural contexts. He points out that the concept of the
Self is not merely an abstract metaphysical issue but is deeply connected to
ethical practices, paths of liberation, and the understanding of human existence
and suffering.

**Conclusion**

In conclusion, Bimal Krishna Matilal's exploration of the concept of the Self in


various Indian philosophical traditions provides a comprehensive and insightful
analysis. By examining the views of Advaita Vedanta, Samkhya, Nyaya, Buddhism, and
Jainism, Matilal reveals the rich diversity of Indian thought on the nature of the
Self. His comparative approach highlights both the common quest for understanding
human identity and liberation and the distinctive metaphysical, epistemological,
and ethical frameworks that characterize each tradition.

Matilal's work encourages a deeper appreciation of Indian philosophy's complexity


and its relevance to contemporary philosophical and spiritual inquiries. By
engaging with these diverse perspectives, we can gain a more holistic understanding
of the Self and its implications for our lives, ethical conduct, and pursuit of
liberation.

You might also like