When Christians put the spirit and the flesh in contrast and advise us to “walk in the spirit” and not to “fulfil the lust of the flesh,” it must be said that they understand by the flesh our concrete, material existence whose characteristic is predominantly individual, and by the spirit, that which transcends particularity and egoism; for “love, joy, peace, long-suffering, faith, meekness, temperance,” and suchlike virtues are possible only when our egocentric, âtman-made desires are utterly abnegated. Buddhism is more intellectual than Christianity or Judaism and prefers philosophical terms which are better understood than popular language which leads often to confusion. Compared with the Buddhists’ conception of âtman, the “flesh” lacks in perspicuity and exactitude, not to speak of its dualistic tendency which is extremely offensive to the Buddhists.
The Vedantic Conception.
Though the doctrine of non-âtman is pre-eminently Buddhistic, other Hindu philosophers did not neglect to acknowledge its importance in our religious life. Having grown in the same soil under similar circumstances, the following passage which is taken from the Yogavâsistha (which is supposed to be a Vedantic work, Upaçama P., ch. LII, 31, 44) sounds almost like Buddhistic:
“I am absolute, I am the light of intelligence, I am free from the defilement of egoism. O thou that art unreal! I am not bound by thee, the seed of egoism.”[76]
The author then argues: Where shall we consider the ego-soul, so called, to be residing in this body of flesh and bones? and what does it look like? We move our limbs, but the movement is due to the vital airs (vâta). We think, but consciousness is a manifestation of the great mind (mahâcitta). We cease to exist, but extinction belongs to the body (kâya). Now, take apart what we imagine to constitute our personal existence. The flesh is one thing, the blood is another, and so on with mentation (bodha) and vitality (spanda). The ear hears, the tongue tastes, the eye sees, the mind thinks, but what and where is that which we call “ego”?
Then comes the conclusion: “In reality, there is no such thing as the ego-soul, nor is there any mine and thine, nor imagination. All this is nothing but the manifestation of the universal soul which is the light of pure intelligence.”[77]
Nâgârjuna on the Soul.
In conclusion, let me quote some passage bearing on the subject from Nâgârjuna’s Discourse on the Middle Path (chapter 9):[78] “Some say that there are seeing, hearing, feeling, etc., because there is something which exists even prior to those [manifestations]. For how could seeing, etc. come from that which does not exist? Therefore, it must be admitted that that being [i.e. soul] existed prior to those [manifestations].
“But [this hypothesis of the prior (pûrva) or independent existence of the soul is wrong, because] how could that being be known if it existed prior to seeing, feeling, etc.? If that being could exist without seeing, etc., the latter too could surely exist without that being. But how could a thing which could not be known by any sign exist before it is known? How could this exist without that, and how could that exist without this? [Are not all things relative and conditioning one another?]
“If that being called soul could not exist prior to all manifestations such as seeing, etc., how could it exist prior to each of them taken individually?