When we ask “what is the mind?” or “what is the self?”, we tend to assume there must be a clear, stable answer – some inner essence that makes us who we are. Ancient Indian philosophy, particularly Buddhist thought, challenged this assumption in ways that still provoke philosophers and scientists today. Long before the mind-body problem became a staple of Western philosophy, Indian thinkers had already developed intricate frameworks for understanding how mind and body relate – arriving at conclusions that are strikingly different from anything Descartes ever imagined.

The Indian philosophical backdrop: Ātman and its challengers
The Buddhist denial of a permanent self: Anattā
The five aggregates: What we are instead
Consciousness as a conditioned, formless process
Mind and body: Interconnected but not identical
How this differs from Western Cartesian dualism
The practical stakes of the Buddhist view
The Indian contrast: Ātman, anattā, and the ongoing debate

The Indian philosophical backdrop: Ātman and its challengers

To understand the Buddhist position on mind and body, it helps to first understand what Buddhism was reacting to. In the dominant Brahmanical tradition of ancient India, the concept of ātman – the permanent, unchanging self or soul – was central. In Hinduism, Ātman refers to the pure awareness at the core of every being, untouched by the body’s changes, unaffected by the ego, and ultimately identical to Brahman, the universal consciousness. The embodied personality may shift over a lifetime, but the ātman, according to this view, remains eternal and unchanged.

This conception gave Hindu philosophy a clear answer to the mind-body question: there is a real, permanent self, and it is fundamentally non-physical. The Samkhya school took a different route, separating consciousness (Purusha) from primordial matter (Prakriti), while interestingly classifying the mind itself as a refined form of matter – a position that, as the Stanford-cited analysis of Indian philosophical dualism notes, helped avoid some of the interaction problems that would later haunt Cartesian dualism in the West. But it was Buddhism that made the most radical departure from all these frameworks.

The Buddhist denial of a permanent self: Anattā

Buddhism’s doctrine of anattā (Pali) or anātman (Sanskrit) holds that there is no permanent, underlying substance in humans that can be called a soul. This is one of the Three Marks of Existence, alongside impermanence (anicca) and suffering (dukkha). The term itself is a compound: an (not) + attā (self-existent essence) – a direct linguistic negation of the ātman doctrine that preceded it.

It is important to understand what anattā does and does not claim. As the introductory philosophy anthology at 1000-Word Philosophy explains, anattā does not deny that there are human beings or that persons exist in a conventional sense. It denies that there is any persisting, unchanging thing – a soul, an essence, a continuous “I” – at the core of experience. What we call the self is, in Buddhist analysis, a stream of causally interconnected processes, not a thing.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy notes that the Buddha’s account of the human individual as a composite of various psychological and physical elements challenged the prevailing Upanishadic idea of an enduring, substantive self. Crucially, this aggregated view also explains how we come to mistakenly apprehend an unchanging self in what is actually a rapidly shifting flow of conditioned phenomena.

The five aggregates: What we are instead

If there is no permanent self, what exactly are we? Buddhism’s answer is the doctrine of the five aggregates (Sanskrit: skandhas; Pali: khandhas). According to Britannica, these five elements – matter or body (rūpa), sensations or feelings (vedanā), perceptions of sense objects (saṃjñā), mental formations (saṃskāras), and awareness or consciousness (vijñāna) – together sum up the whole of an individual’s mental and physical existence. Crucially, the self cannot be identified with any one of the parts, nor is it simply the total of the parts.

What makes this framework philosophically significant is how it treats mind and body. The first aggregate, rūpa, covers the physical body and all material form. The remaining four – feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness – constitute what Buddhism calls nāma, the mental dimension. These aggregates are not separate entities but interdependent processes that arise and cease in a continuous flow, conditioned by one another and by external factors, illustrating the Buddhist principle of paṭicca-samuppāda (dependent origination).

Consciousness as a conditioned, formless process

Consciousness (vijñāna or citta) holds a special place in Buddhist philosophy of mind. It is described as formless – you cannot point to it, locate it in space, or give it a shape. Yet it is not transcendent or independent. The Stanford Encyclopedia notes that consciousness is central to the Buddhist explanatory account, but crucially, it inhabits and is conditioned by the mental constituents that arise alongside it. In other words, consciousness is not a standalone metaphysical entity but a function that arises dependent on conditions.

A study published in the journal Contemporary Buddhism clarifies that in Theravāda Buddhism, consciousness never arises without the physical body (rūpa) and the mental aspect (nāma) as its basis. The fifth aggregate, consciousness, would not arise without the other four aggregates providing the necessary conditions. This makes Buddhist consciousness deeply relational and processual – the very opposite of a ghost in a machine.

Later Buddhist schools developed this further. The concept of bhavaṅga-citta (life-continuum mind) was introduced in Theravāda Abhidhamma to explain the continuity of mental activity between moments of active cognition. Yogācāra Buddhism introduced ālaya-vijñāna (repository consciousness), a kind of base-level store of karmic impressions. These developments were specifically designed to avoid the metaphysical implications of a permanent self, while still accounting for continuity across experience and rebirth – a major philosophical challenge if there is no enduring soul to carry the thread.

Mind and body: Interconnected but not identical

One of the most important clarifications to make about Buddhist philosophy is that it does not collapse mind into body or body into mind. It treats them as distinct but mutually dependent. The Buddhist distinction between mind and body is not absolute, but is employed as a communicative tool to aid the understanding of human beings in a holistic light – acknowledging a mind-body distinction only at a conventional level, not an ultimate ontological one.

This is perhaps best captured by the ancient formula of nāma-rūpa (name and form), which pairs the mental and physical dimensions of experience as two aspects of a single dependent process. In the form realm, consciousness arises together with form – the two function as mutual conditions for one another, described in the Pali Canon as like two sheaves of reeds leaning against each other: remove one, and the other falls. Mind and body are neither one thing nor two fully independent things. They condition each other in every moment of experience.

This is a position that resists easy categorization. Buddhism is not materialism, because it does not reduce mind to brain or body. But it is also not dualism in the Western sense, because it does not posit two independently existing substances. It is, in essence, a relational or process-based account of experience.

How this differs from Western Cartesian dualism

The contrast with Descartes is instructive. Descartes identified the mind with consciousness and self-awareness, distinguishing it sharply from the physical brain as the seat of intelligence. For Descartes, the mind was a “thinking thing” (res cogitans), a non-physical, non-spatial substance entirely separate from the extended, physical body (res extensa). These two substances were real, independent, and fundamentally different in nature – and their interaction was a problem Descartes never fully resolved.

Buddhist philosophy takes a different approach at nearly every level. As Buddhist monk and scientist Matthieu Ricard has observed, Buddhist conceptions of consciousness are radically different from Cartesian dualism, which postulates a truly existing solid material reality on one side and a completely immaterial consciousness on the other – with no real connection between them. Buddhism, by contrast, does not treat matter and mind as two separately existing substances. Both are regarded as conditioned, impermanent, and empty of intrinsic existence.

Where Descartes began from the certainty of a thinking self – the famous cogito ergo sum (“I think, therefore I am”) – Buddhism questions the very “I” that Descartes took as his starting point. In Buddhist analysis, what is generally referred to as “I”, “self”, or soul corresponds to what Descartes calls the cogito or res cogitans, while in Theravāda Buddhism this is called citta/viññāna. But unlike the Cartesian cogito – which is self-certifying and permanent – the Buddhist citta is impermanent, conditioned, and dependently originated. It is a process, not a substance.

Furthermore, Buddhist terms such as pañca-skandha and nāma-rūpa are merely convenient verbal conventions that carry no substantialistic or ontological implications – a sharp contrast to Descartes’ substances, which were metaphysically real and distinct in their nature. In this sense, the Buddhist view is less a rival dualism and more a rejection of the very framework in which the Western mind-body problem was formulated.

The practical stakes of the Buddhist view

This philosophical position is not merely abstract. For Buddhism, understanding the true nature of mind and body is directly connected to the problem of suffering. The Buddhist picture of reality – in which everything is impermanent, everything is composite, and the self does not really exist – is meant to address the mismatch between how we view reality and reality itself, which is the root cause of suffering.

The five aggregates are all interrelated processes that are constantly changing to create the experience of being “you” – but none is a self, and all are impermanent. When we cling to any of them as “me” or “mine” – whether to a body image, an emotional state, a cherished belief, or a sense of awareness – we set ourselves up for suffering, because all of these things will change. The Buddhist analysis of mind and body, then, is simultaneously a metaphysical claim and a therapeutic tool.

What is also notable is that this view anticipates some contemporary concerns in philosophy of mind. Some interpretations of Buddhist philosophy describe the mind and body as interdependent, treating consciousness as something that emerges from a mix of physical, cognitive, and environmental conditions – a view that resonates with modern notions of embodied cognition and the enactivist tradition in cognitive science.

The Indian contrast: Ātman, anattā, and the ongoing debate

Within ancient Indian philosophy itself, the Buddhist denial of ātman was deeply contested. The Nyāya school, for instance, argued that if there is no self, it becomes impossible to explain how memories persist or how karmic moral responsibility can be coherently assigned. Buddhism responded with sophisticated accounts of continuity – the stream of consciousness, karmic seeds, the bhavaṅga – that attempted to explain memory and moral responsibility without resorting to an enduring soul.

The Jain tradition, meanwhile, maintained a position closer to the ātman view, positing an eternal, individual soul (jīva) that accumulates karmic matter through action. This placed Jainism in a very different metaphysical space from Buddhism, despite both traditions rejecting the ultimate authority of the Vedas. The contrast between these positions illustrates just how rich and contested the ancient Indian debate about self, mind, and body actually was – a debate with no single winner, but with deeply consequential implications for ethics, meditation practice, and the theory of liberation.

The Buddha himself analyzed four main varieties of views of the self in the Upanishads: a finite and formed self, an infinite and formed self, a formless and finite self, and a formless and infinite self – and he rejected all four as inadequate frameworks for understanding human experience. This was not a casual dismissal but a carefully argued philosophical critique, carried out through the systematic analysis of experience into the five aggregates and the twelve sense bases.

What do you think? If mind and body are neither identical nor fully separate – but two aspects of a single dependent process – does that change how you understand experiences like pain, grief, or awareness itself? And does the Buddhist challenge to the notion of a permanent self seem like a philosophical problem to be solved, or a practical insight about how experience actually works?

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating / 5. Vote count:

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.

References

PDF 📄

Ancient Indian Philosophical Perspectives on Mind and Body

Share on Mastodon

Ancient Indian Philosophical Perspectives on Mind and Body

Table of Contents

The Indian philosophical backdrop: Ātman and its challengers 🔗

The Buddhist denial of a permanent self: Anattā 🔗

The five aggregates: What we are instead 🔗

Consciousness as a conditioned, formless process 🔗

Mind and body: Interconnected but not identical 🔗

How this differs from Western Cartesian dualism 🔗

The practical stakes of the Buddhist view 🔗

The Indian contrast: Ātman, anattā, and the ongoing debate 🔗