Modern Perspectives on the Self in Indian Philosophy

What is the self? Is it the brain firing neurons, a bundle of physical processes, or something that transcends matter entirely? This question sits at the heart of both modern neuroscience and ancient Indian philosophy – and the two traditions give strikingly different answers. Contemporary philosophy of mind is largely dominated by physicalism, the view that everything about a person, including consciousness and identity, arises from physical matter and its interactions. Classical Indian philosophy, by contrast, developed remarkably sophisticated non-physicalist accounts of the self long before the modern era. Today, scholars are actively bringing these two traditions into conversation – and the results are reshaping how we think about consciousness.

What physicalism actually claims 🔗

Physicalism, in its most basic form, holds that the human mind came about entirely through the rearrangement of physical particles and forces. There are several versions of this view: identity theory, functionalism, eliminativism, emergentism, and non-reductive physicalism, among others. What they share is the assumption that whatever consciousness is, it is ultimately made up of physical elements and their interactions. In the dominant framework of consciousness studies, ontological physicalism is generally accepted as true – meaning that mental life is assumed to be grounded entirely in the physical, even if some of its features are difficult to describe in purely scientific terms.

The most serious challenge to physicalism, however, comes from what philosopher David Chalmers called the “hard problem of consciousness.” The hard problem refers to science’s inability to explain what philosophers call qualia – the subjective, first-person quality of experience, such as the redness of red or the painfulness of pain. No matter how precisely neuroscience maps the brain, it cannot fully explain why any physical process should produce felt experience at all. As Chalmers himself noted, physical descriptions tell us what the brain does, not what it is like to be conscious.

The classical Indian landscape of the self 🔗

Classical Indian philosophy is not a single unified tradition but a rich set of competing schools, each with its own account of the self. What nearly all of them share – apart from one significant exception – is a refusal to reduce the self to matter.

The Upanishadic self: pure, eternal witness 🔗

The foundational conception in the Hindu tradition comes from the Upanishads. There, the self (ātman) is understood as a pure subject of experience – enduring, changeless, and entirely independent of mental and physical states. The self is the witness behind all experience, not an object within it. Hindu schools that build on this foundation defend what contemporary philosophers call a non-reductionist view of persons: the continued existence of the self is a deep fact that cannot be explained away by physical or psychological continuity alone.

Advaita Vedanta: consciousness as the ground of reality 🔗

Among the most influential Indian schools, Advaita Vedanta holds that Brahman – pure consciousness – is the sole reality, and that the individual self (ātman) is ultimately identical with it. In this view, consciousness is not a property of anything; it is the very nature of reality itself. What we ordinarily call the self – our thoughts, emotions, and bodily identity – is a superimposition on this pure awareness, made possible by māyā (illusion) and avidyā (ignorance).

This has direct implications for the hard problem. Scholars have argued that from the Advaita perspective, the hard problem dissolves rather than being solved, because qualia are not emergent properties of matter but intrinsic to the fundamental nature of reality. Consciousness, in this framework, does not arise from the brain – it is the ground in which the brain and all other phenomena appear. This is almost the precise inverse of the physicalist picture.

Sāṃkhya: a structured dualism 🔗

The Sāṃkhya school takes a different route. Rather than asserting non-dual consciousness, it posits two distinct and irreducible principles: puruṣa (pure consciousness) and prakṛti (matter, which includes the physical body and even the mind). From the Sāṃkhya perspective, when neuroscientists examine correlations between mental events and brain events, they are actually examining the correlations between two forms of materiality. Consciousness itself – puruṣa – remains entirely distinct from both, even though it provides the awareness within which all mental and physical activity occurs. This means that Sāṃkhya is, in a precise sense, both reductionist about the mind-body relationship and firmly non-physicalist about consciousness itself.

The Buddhist no-self: a subjectless consciousness 🔗

Buddhism takes yet another path. Rather than defending a substantial self, Buddhist philosophy uniformly rejected physicalism in favor of either a dualist or an idealist ontology. The Buddhist doctrine of anātman (no permanent self) means that what we call a “person” is really a constantly changing collection of aggregates – form, sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness. Nāgārjuna, the great Māhāyana philosopher, described mind and body as mutually dependent, arising together rather than as two separate substances. The Buddhist commitment to non-self means that consciousness must ultimately be understood without a fixed subject – a position that generates its own serious difficulties for any physicalist account.

Cārvāka: the Indian school closest to modern physicalism 🔗

One school stands apart from all of the above. The Cārvāka (also known as Lokāyata) is the most radical of the Indian philosophical systems, rejecting the existence of any immaterial soul, God, or afterlife. For the Cārvākas, reality is entirely physical, and the only valid source of knowledge is direct sensory perception (pratyakṣa). Their account of consciousness is strikingly close to modern emergentist physicalism: consciousness, they argued, is an emergent property of the four material elements (earth, water, fire and air) combined in the right proportion. Just as the intoxicating power of alcohol arises from fermenting ingredients that are not themselves intoxicating, so consciousness arises from the particular combination of physical elements that constitutes a living body. When the body dies, consciousness ceases entirely.

The Cārvākas also rejected the first-person pronoun as evidence for a soul. They accepted the reality of consciousness but considered it a byproduct of bodily matter, arising from the right combination of elements – not evidence of an immaterial soul or divine principle. Classical Indian Philosophy has compared the Cārvākas to emergentism in the philosophy of mind, which is itself a live position in contemporary debates. What makes the Cārvāka case philosophically interesting is not merely its antiquity but the fact that the other Indian schools developed their non-physicalist arguments specifically in response to it. Thinkers like Śaṅkara and Udayana devoted significant attention to refuting the Cārvāka view that consciousness is an epiphenomenon – a product that arises from and disappears with the material body.

Where the traditions clash: key points of contention 🔗

The debate between physicalist and non-physicalist accounts of the self is not merely ancient history. It maps onto active disputes in contemporary philosophy of mind.

The problem with reducing consciousness to matter 🔗

The Advaita and Sāṃkhya traditions both raise a version of the same objection that haunts modern physicalism: inert matter cannot, by its own nature, generate awareness. As one classical formulation puts it, the Sāṃkhya and Vedānta traditions hold that inert matter, as the cause, cannot generate consciousness as its effect, since consciousness is non-material. This is structurally similar to the contemporary “explanatory gap” – the persistent difficulty physicalism faces in explaining how any third-person physical description could ever account for first-person subjective experience.

The Nyāya challenge to Cārvāka reductionism 🔗

The Nyāya school pressed a linguistic and epistemological objection against reducing the self to the body. The Nyāya philosophers argued that the word “I” in any person’s mouth refers uniquely to that person, and cannot refer to the body – because physical characteristics of the body are insufficient to identify a unique person. Moreover, consciousness is not perceived in the way other material properties are. It is not touched, tasted, smelled, seen, or heard. If it were a material property of the body, it should be perceptible in the same way that other material qualities are. That it is not perceptible in this way suggests it is not material in the relevant sense.

What classical Indian philosophy offers contemporary consciousness studies 🔗

Scholars working at the intersection of Indian and Western philosophy have identified several concrete ways in which classical Indian frameworks can enrich current debates.

First, the Indian tradition offers a model in which consciousness is treated as fundamental rather than derivative. This aligns with emerging positions like panpsychism and Integrated Information Theory, both of which resist the idea that consciousness can be fully reduced to physical processes. IIT’s claim that consciousness is not emergent but fundamental shares a structural affinity with Vedantic views, even if the frameworks differ considerably in their metaphysical commitments.

Second, Indian philosophy provides rich conceptual tools for distinguishing between different aspects of mental life that physicalism tends to bundle together. The Sāṃkhya, Yoga, and Advaita Vedānta traditions developed sophisticated models of how consciousness, mind, and body interact – including accounts of self-awareness, subjectivity, and the structure of experience – that remain philosophically productive for addressing gaps in current theories.

Third, scholars like C. Ram-Prasad have shown that Indian philosophical material can be brought into conversation with physicalism even without accepting its soteriological commitments. One productive strategy is to bracket classical Indian soteriological concerns and investigate what the theories of self and consciousness in Indian philosophy offer to physicalist discussions of these concepts. This allows the conceptual content of the tradition to be evaluated on its philosophical merits rather than its religious framing.

Finally, the Buddhist tradition’s engagement with these issues adds another dimension. Buddhist philosophical resources have been used to sketch a proposed solution to the hard problem – exploring whether phenomenal consciousness might be illusory in a way that is compatible with physicalist commitments. The doctrine of dependent arising, for instance, offers a dynamic conception of causality that may have resources for explaining how consciousness-like features could arise from complex interdependent processes without requiring a soul substance.

The limits of physicalist interpretations 🔗

Despite the genuine contributions of the Cārvāka tradition and modern attempts to read Indian philosophy through a physicalist lens, the dominant classical Indian schools remain firmly resistant to full physicalist reinterpretation. The soteriological goal of liberation – freedom from material existence – is deeply embedded in the Vedantic, Sāṃkhya, and Buddhist frameworks. This goal is simply incompatible with the framework of physicalist consciousness studies, which has no place for transcendental concerns or the liberation of a self from matter.

Moreover, the physicalist reading risks distorting the tradition by stripping away precisely what makes it distinctive. The Cārvāka school, the one genuinely physicalist-leaning tradition within classical Indian thought, was consistently regarded as the most radical and marginal position – not a mainstream view but a target of sustained philosophical refutation. Treating physicalism as the natural or default interpretation of Indian philosophy would misrepresent its intellectual history.

What the contemporary discourse on the self reveals, then, is not that Indian philosophy was secretly physicalist all along. It reveals something more interesting: that across schools as diverse as Nyāya realists and Yogācāra idealists, Sāṃkhya dualists and Madhyamaka absolutists, there is a common central concern – consciousness. And it is precisely this shared concern that makes classical Indian philosophy a uniquely rich resource for contemporary philosophy of mind – not because it agrees with physicalism, but because it challenges it with arguments that remain philosophically sharp.

What do you think? If classical Indian philosophy is right that consciousness cannot be reduced to matter, does this mean physicalism needs to be fundamentally revised – or simply refined? And can ancient philosophical frameworks developed within soteriological traditions genuinely contribute to modern scientific debates about the mind, or does the difference in goals make that dialogue impossible?

References

1. https://academic.oup.com/book/40043/chapter/340491851
2. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/26556/pdf
3. https://medium.com/@atulsin/consciousness-science-and-vedanta-7ce91638177a
4. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/personhood-india/
5. https://iep.utm.edu/advaita-vedanta/
6. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351344275_Advaita_Vedanta_answer_to_the_hard_problem_of_consciousness_A_philosophical_review
7. https://indianphilosophyblog.org/2020/07/29/natural-and-artificial-intelligence-and-consciousness-part-i-jonathan-edelmann/
8. https://academic.oup.com/book/60496
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind
10. https://iep.utm.edu/indmat/
11. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Charvaka
12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charvaka
13. https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/essay/consciousness-in-mandukya-karika/d/doc1145101.html
14. https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202509.1721
15. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375694752_Mirror_of_Nature_Mirror_of_Self_Models_of_Consciousness_in_Samkhya_Yoga_and_Advaita_Vedanta
16. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42240-025-00227-x
17. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/393243519_Buddhist_Physicalism_Non-self_Metaphysics_and_Phenomenal_Consciousness
18. https://www.embodiedphilosophy.com/ancient-wisdom-modern-questions-vedantic-perspectives-in-consciousness-studies-2/