Concept of Person in the Buddhist School of Thought

Words are quite inadequate in communicating the Reality or Truth (Tathata), as Truth is incomprehensible by Thought and inexpressible through words. Yet, humanity does not know of any other better means of expression than words. Therefore, it is our compulsion to employ words in communication or discussion of Truth. Even in conventional matters identical words are subscribe to unidentical meanings by various speakers. More confusion and misunderstanding are caused when people commonly use words with uncommon conceptions in their minds.
The author of the present small essay is no exception and he too is not sure what would communicate exactly when he borrows words from the English Vocabulary. In view of this predicament Sanskrit words are used or given in brackets to minimize misconnotation. Hitherto the Sanskrit terms may be taken purely in the sense of Buddhist traditional usage.

Genearal Concept
Most of the traditional Indian Schools of thoughts are of view that liberation (Moksa) is the ultimate or real goal (purusartha) of the person. As such, the endurance or achievement of moksa became the prime subjects of consideration for all rational-minded (prariksavan) persons. It had been the commonly held notion that inclusion upon “I” self Atmais the main springboard of bondage and eradication of ignorance upon self is the only way to liberation. The difference in postulates of different systems related to definition of ignorance (avidya): the conception of independently existent-self (svabhava-siddha atma) is ignorance and realization of selflessness (nairatmya) is ignorance and realization of the “self” is wisdom. This eventually led to the two specific schools of the anatma-vadi andatma-vadi.

Buddhist being categorized as “anatmavid”, in common view, is how a Buddhist could accept the theories of rebirth (punarbhava) cause and effect theory (karmaphala-Siddhanta) and above all, the continuum of person from the beginningless to endless state or upto residueless liberation (Nirapadhisesa-Nirvana) in absence of self (Atma). But this delusion is simply based on the ignorance of the distinction between the ‘Atma’ which is to be negated upon the ‘Pudgala’ and after negation of the ‘Pudgalatma’ what remains as the ‘Pudgala’. Right from Vastuvadins to the Prasangika achool of thought no Buddhist School would negate the existence of ‘Pudgala’ or existence of ‘dharma’.

In accoradance with the numerous diversities of the human attitudes the Buddha taught numerous concepts which apparently having sharp differences from each other. But those diverse thought cannot be classed in to non-Buddhistic system for the simple reason of their inconsistence with any other Buddhist stream of thought. There are three or four distinct demarcating lines by which the dichotomy of the Buddhist and non-Buddhsit systems of thought could be differentiated. They are
1. Impermanence of all products (Sarva-samskara-anityata)
2. Misery of all contaminated things (Sarva-nasrava-dhukhata)
3. Selflessness of all phenoenna (Sarva-dharma-nairatmyata)
4. Liberation is the only Peace (Nirvana-Santa). As such, no school of thought accepting the opposites of any of the four premises can be categorized as a Buddhist concept. No Buddhist school would accept any kind of ‘Atma’, yet every Buddhist accepts a continuum of ‘Pudugala’ which comes from beginningless existence, takes birth and rebirth, accculates ‘Karma’ and experiences the ‘Karmaphala’ and who practices the path ‘Marga’ and attain liberation (Nirvana). This continuum can never be termed as ‘Atma’. If this distinction is properly understood the question of the contradiction between existence of person and the conception of ‘Nairatmya’ would not arise.

Opposed to the above view, few Buddhist scholars accept the existence of a sutra (Buddha-Vacana) in which the ‘Pudugala-Atma’ is mentioned. And there is a tiny minority of the ‘vatsiputryas’ who conceive ‘Pudugala-Atma’. Therefore, the simple ‘sarva-dharma-nairatmya’ cannot be a line of demarcation should be negation of ‘nitya’, ‘Kaivalya’ ‘Svatantra’ and Atma. Other view is that the ‘vatsiputryas’ who accept the ‘Pudgala-Atma’ are not Buddhist by ‘siddhanta’ but they are Buddhist only by taking refuge (Saranagamana). Yet, others contend that the Vatsiputriyas also do not accept any ‘Pudgala’ which is unexpressible (Anirvacaniya) in the categories of one with the aggregates or separate from them or permanent or impermanent. This concept should not be construed to be a concept of ‘Atma’.

A person in Buddhist conception, not withstanding adherence to particular school of thought must necessarily be in permanent, miserable in as long as he is not freed of contamination, is selfless and is endowed with inherent potential of achieving liberation or such state in which he is already liberated.

While defining the person, the Sutra’s statement: “Just as chariot is nominated (Prajnapta) on the basis of constituted parts of Chariot, conventional person is nominated on the basis of constituted aggregates (Skandhas)” is quoted by every Buddhist school and the notion of nominating person on the constituted aggregates is a common perception. Nominated as ‘purusa’ based on any of the five aggregates as the definition of Pudgala is also acceptable to all the Buddhist schools.

Pursa, Prani, Sattva, etc. are the terms invariably usede for person in different Buddhist traditions and are synonymous to ‘Pudgala’, except where context assigns some other meaning. A ‘Pudgala’ must possess the qualities of
1. Continuum from the beginningless and goes endlessly or upto non-residual-liberation ,
2. Basis of all patencies (Vasanas)
3. Accumulator of ‘Karma’ and
4. Experience of the fruit of accumulated ‘Karma’.
The Vastuvadins conceived the cessation of ‘Pudgala’ at the stage of non-residual liberation like extinguishment of a lamp. But most of the rest Buddhist schools do not accept the cessation of “Pudgala’ at any stage. After the attainment of non-residual-liberation or the Buddha-hood the person rests in bliss. Thus the continuum of person from beginningless is commonly accepted by all buddhistic schools. But whether it ceases at the non-residual liberation or goes unendingly differ between the different tenets.

Person has two personalities viz:
1. Pervasive continuum which comes from beginningless and goes to the end or endlessly and                 2. Specified person of particular life which could be specified as a man or Brahmin or Devadatta or Yajnadatta and so forth. This specification can further be pluralized as the child, the youth or the old etc. by stages of a age or the teacher, the father, the husband etc. by social behavior. All these specified personalities constitute parts of the pervasive personality. Like the rush, swift, rough, steady, narrow and wide such are intergral parts of the total flow of a river. Many western and modern thinkers might consider the conception of ‘person’ essentially different from the conception of ‘self’ but I could not find any such distinctive disposition between self and person in Buddhist tradition. They always consider the self ‘Sva’ and the person (pudgala) as synonymous.

CONCEPT OF SPECIFIC SCHOOLS

Vaibhasika
Among the Vaibhasikas as mentioned earlier some of the Vatsiputras conceive the Pudgal an inexpressible subject (anirvacaniya). It is neither one with the aggregates nor separate from them nor permanent nor impermanent. It is not one with the aggregate because the ‘Pudgal’ does not perish when the aggregates perish. It is not separate from the aggregates because it is not found independent of aggregates on search; it is not permanent as it keeps on changing and it is not impermanent as it never ceases its continuum till it reaches the non-residual –liberation. Still the inexpressible ‘Pudgal’ is nominated on the congregation of the aggregates and the position appears to be of imputed phenomenon (Prajnapta sat) but not substantial phenomenon (dravyasaat). Chandrakirti’s accusation in his Madyamikavatara of Vatsiputras accepting the substantial (dravyasat) ‘Pudgal’ is not standing the real state of the Vatsiputras but it was from the Prasangika Madhyamika’s view point that the acceptance of the inexpressible would ultimately amount to the exceptence of substantial (dravyasat) ‘Pudgal’. Some other Sammitiya Nikayas conceive that the mind aggregate is the ‘Pudgala’. The rest of the Vaibhasikas conceive that the ‘Pudgala’ is only imputed phenomenon upon the continuum (Santati) of congregation of aggregates and they accept the continuum of aggregates going from life to life like the continuum of the flame from lamp to lamp.

Sautrantika
The conception of ‘Pudgal’ of the Agamanuyayi Sautrantikas are not different from the Vaibhasikas. The Yukti-anuyayi Sautrantikas accept a substantial person (dravyasat pudgala) as they accept the sixth mental –consciousness (Sasth Manovijnana) in accordance to Dharmakirti and others.

Vijnanavada
The Agama anuyayi Vijnanavadi has a very pecular conception of Store-consciouness (Alayavijnana). As such in this school the person at the stage of unenlightened period and enlightened period are of different nature although in one continuum (Santati). The nature of alayavijnana is a primary mind (Pradhana citta) in the nature of unspecified (avyakrata) and nondeflicting whose continuum is very stable and the basis of all the latencies (Vasana). As such this alayavijnana ceases its existence at the stage of Arhatahood and Budhahood. The alayavijnana is of very subtle and complex subject which I do not wish to discuss is here further. All the Vaibhasikas, Sautrantikas and Agam-anuyayi-Vijnanavadin are in agreement to the concept of ceassation of Pudgal when it enters into non-residual –liberation (Nirupadhisesa Nirvana). They theorise to accept the three ultimate Yanas abd basic difference in gotras of different person for liberation such as ‘Sravak gotra, Pratyekabuddha gotra and Buddha gotra. This implies that the concept of qualitative inequality among the sentient beings can not be ruled out in these schools.

Madhyamika
Among the Madhyamikas there are two schools viz; (1) Svatantrik and (2)Prasangika. The Svatantrikas themselves are devided into two schools: Sautrantika Svatantrika and Yogacari Svatantrika. Under former school Acarya Bhavaviveka and other conceive the consciousness (Vijnana) as ‘Pudgala’. The consciousness is that which takes birth, accumulates ‘Karma’, experiences the fruit of the ‘Karma’. The latter’s Acarya Arya Vimukti Sena and Acarya Haribhadra etc. Instead of consciousness the continuum of consciousness is accepted as ‘Pudgala,’ because of the logic that the consciousness is not going from present to unending future. But they also conceive both of a imputed (Prajnapta) and substantial (dravyasat) person.

Right from Vaibhasika to Svatantrika Madhyamika each school of thought conceive that every phenomenon whatever is categorized as existent (Jneya) must have an entity ascertainable when it is searched though anlalytical process otherwise the existence of the phenomenon cannot be established. As such, in the case of ‘Pudgal’ too whether it is conceived as imputed or substantial it must be found as a result of analytical search. Thus all the schools with slight variation they all tend to behold on the sixth mental consciousness and something aliked is to be the ‘Pudgala’.

Yukti annuyayi Vijnanavadin and all the branches of Madhyamikas do not accept cessation of consciousness (Vijnana) at any stage therefore they do not accept plurality of ultimate ‘yanas’. The Sravak-arhants and the Pratyek-Buddhas also enter into the Boddhisattva yana after certain period of rest in their respective bliss. As such, the gotra of all sentient beings are in the view of their ultimate liberation are same and equal. The persons having ‘Sravakyana gotras’ also inherit the potentiality of Buddha nature (Tathagatagarbha).

Prasangika Madhyamika
The Prasangika Madhyamika takes no position in substantial existence as a result of analytical search. Every phenomenon is established mere nominally designated. Everything exists as an interdependently originated which does not need to be found through analytical search. Thus the ‘Pudgal’ too is mere nominally designated as ‘Pudgal’ upon interdependently congregation of aggregates like reflection in the mirror. The concept of continuum also differs from the rest of the other schools as result of the total negation of existence by its own characteristics (svalaksana). As such, a very distinctive conception is that, the imperishment of a ‘thing’ still remains a ‘thing’. Thus, the sequence of casual effect is also not common in all the other schools, thereby the dilemma between the pervasive person and specific persons are solved by the theory of mere nominal designation. The self is possible only in the realm of relative truth or in conventional level. The self (sva) is existent only in relation with others (para) and vice-versa.

Sum Up
Apart from philosophical subtle differences between the various tenets of Buddhism, the common view about the person is that the potentiality of liberation and creativity are the principal inherent qualities of person. Person is identified with all sentient beings. Having the potentiality of liberation, the basic nature, of person is unstained. The difilements (avaranas) are of temporary nature. Persons, unlike any external object, has the capacity of infinite growth and transcendence.
Person can be classified into six realms by nature of birth, into three domains by physical states and into three ‘Purusas’ by their outlook for objective (purusartha):
1. The inferior person (adhama purusa) is one who cares only for well being of his next birth and is desirious of higher realms (abhyudaya),
2. The medium person (madhyama purusa) is one who endures for self liberation (Arhat and Pratyeka Buddha-nirvana) by realization of all contaminated things as misery and impermanence,
3. The superior person (uttama-purusa) is one whose aim is enlightment (buddhatava) for the service of all sentient beings and readiness for undertaking all the difficult ‘Bodhisattva-caryas’ in the practice of the six ‘Paramitas’.
Thus, the ideal person in Buddhist’s conception is the one who possesses the capacity of “Loving all” (Bodhicitta).