How is the permanence/non-permanence of self explained in Dharmic religions?

Hinduism says the self is permanent, Buddhism says the self is impermanent. How are these doctrines explained in each religion?

A belief in an eternal, immortal soul is common to most “higher religions” (Hiriyanna 1975:170). In Hinduism the existence of a permanent self is explained by the doctrines of karma, samsara, and moksha. Karma is the idea that “the circumstances of one’s next life on earth are determined by one’s own actions in this life” (Converse 1993:80–81). The karma you acquire, positive or negative, during life determines which caste you will be born into in your next cycle. It is this cycle of birth, death, and rebirth, or samsara, that represents the ongoing journey of the permanent self, implying a self or atman that exists outside of the evident material world. This cycle continues until one attains moksha, release from samsara and liberation of the soul, which is the final of the “four great aims of human life” (Moore and Radhakrishnan 1957a:172).

Central to Buddhism is the doctrine of not-self, which rejects the idea of an immortal soul. This doctrine holds that there is no permanent self—indeed there is no thing which can be described as “self” at all. The Buddha demonstrates that a “substance self”, that is a self based on physical properties and sensations of the world, cannot exist (Moore and Radhakrishnan 1957b:281–284). What we experience as our “self” is a delusion based on an aggregation of “processes such as experiencing, remembering, imagining, feeling, desiring, thinking, acting” which creates an impression of self-awareness, but is not actually a distinct entity (Gowans 2003:71). This “process self” has only a dependent existence which is essentially constructed in our minds and is impermanent. Realising this is key to the Third Noble Truth, that cessation of suffering (dukkha) is possible (Fieser and Powers 2021:90).

As discussed above, the Hindu doctrine of moksha represents the possibility escape from the cycle of rebirth for the permanent self, and to realise the identity of this self with “everything”, universal reality or brahman. In this sense, the permanent self melts away and we are left somewhat closer to the Buddhist idea of not-self, or at least with no self that is distinct from brahman. According to Converse this idea came to Hindu doctrine via Jainism and Buddhism (1993:86) and while it is certainly not identical with the not-self doctrine of Buddhism (Gowans 2003:69), it is clear from this that the Buddha’s ideas were also influenced by existing Hindu and Vedic doctrine.

References

• Converse H (1993) ‘Classical and Medieval Hinduism’, in Byrnes JF and Bush RC (eds), The Religious world: communities of faith, Macmillan, New York:80–86.
• Fieser J and Powers J (eds) (2021) ‘The First Sermon’, in Scriptures of the world’s religions, McGraw-Hill, New York.
• Gowans CW (ed.) (2003) ‘An interpretation of the not-self doctrine’, in Philosophy of the Buddha, Routledge, London:63–75.
• Hiriyanna M (1975) ‘The doctrine of karma’, in Hiriyanna M (ed), Indian conception of values, Kavyalaya Publishers, Mysore:168–186.
• Moore C and Radhakrishnan S (1957a) ‘Extracts from ‘The Laws of Manu’’, in Radhakrishnan S and Moore CA (eds), A source book in Indian philosophy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.:175–189.
• Moore C and Radhakrishnan S (1957b) ‘The theory of no-soul [or self]’, in Radhakrishnan S and Moore CA (eds), A source book in Indian philosophy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.:280–289.