The Atman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism

This book’s thesis is epoch-making. The Buddha denied the atman (the self), which is not disputed by anyone. But the question remains: Which atman? Buddhism has taken this to mean the universal atman, which is equivalent to brahman, according to modern understandings. The Buddha’s words, as they are recorded in Buddhist scriptures, do not denial any permanent self in ever-changing aggregates which make up a person. The Buddha had many chances to deny the universal impersonal atman over his decades of teaching. Kamaleswar Bhattacharya’s argument that the Buddha didn’t deny the universal Atman is a serious one. This question may be asked: Why did Buddhists throughout the ages believe he did? Answer: They did not believe this. This is evident from the writings of the authors that discredit the atman and teach no-self doctrine. After the eighth century C.E., the idea of the atman the universal impersonal atman was not dominant in India. The dominant view of the atman in India before then was the idea of a permanent, personal atman. Based on their writings, Indian Buddhist teachers Nagarjuna through Aryadeva and Vasubandhu were unanimous in their belief that Buddha’s anatman teachings were directed against a permanent individual atman.