In the vast expanse of spiritual and philosophical traditions, Vedic philosophy and Buddhism have often been pitted as distinct pillars. While western philosophers have often found these approaches to be contradictory, many adherents of Buddhism and Hinduism see them as echoing the same truths. This has created a philosophical and theological dilemma. Could there be a bridge between these spiritual narratives? Recently, as I revisited the pages of a book called The Fundamentals of Thought, a profound cognition dawned on me. My cognition, reminiscent of ideas expressed in various Indic texts, suggested that there might indeed be a bridge: envisioning the river of consciousness.

In the Vedic tradition, the “Ātman” (soul, the individual) is understood as the true self, which is eternal and unchanging.
The Upanishads, which are the concluding portions of the Vedas, present profound insights into the nature of the self or “Ātman.” Through hymns and dialogues, these scriptures explore the essence of individual existence and its relation to the cosmos.

A hymn from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad notably states:

“Ātmanam chet vijaniyat ayam asmi iti purushah”
(If a person realises the true nature of the Self, thinking ‘I am this’), he becomes the universal being.

This hymn underscores the idea that true realisation of one’s Ātman leads to a recognition of unity with the entire cosmos.

Another profound statement from the Taittiriya Upanishad goes:

“Satyam jnanam anantam brahma”
(Brahman is of the nature of truth, knowledge, and infinity).

This hymn emphasises the idea that the ultimate reality (Brahman) is infinite and eternal, and by implication, the Ātman, which is identified with Brahman, shares this eternal nature.
The famous declaration “Tat Tvam Asi” from the Chandogya Upanishad, translates to “That Thou Art.” (that you are). It serves as a direct pointer to this profound unity. The teacher in the Upanishad tells his disciple that the essence of the world (“That”) is the same as the essence of his being (“Thou”).

Thus, the Vedic teachings guide the seeker to the realisation that the true self, the Ātman, is beyond the transient physical and mental constructs. It is unchanging, eternal, and is one with Brahman, the ultimate reality. Recognizing this profound unity is the path to liberation, transcending the cycle of birth and death. This liberation is termed “moksha” in the Vedic tradition, signifying freedom from all illusions and the realisation of one’s true nature.

In contrast, the Buddha’s discourse in the Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta of the Pali Canon emphasises the principle “sabbe dhammā anattā”, which translates to ‘all phenomena are not-self. With the concept of “anatta” or “an~ātman” meaning the idea that there is no eternal, unchanging self or soul.
At a cursory glance, this may seem contradictory. One may ask, If there is no permanent, unchanging self (anatta or anatman), then who or what is it that experiences rebirth or eventually attains nirvana and transcends the cycle of samsara (birth, rebirth) as described in Buddhist literature?

This is explained in Buddhism through the concept of the “five aggregates” (skandhas) that make up a being:

• Form (rūpa): This refers to the physical body and its material elements.
• Feeling (vedanā): The sensations experienced as pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral.
• Perception (saññā): The recognition and identification of things.
• Mental formations (saṅkhārā): A broad category that includes volitional activities, emotions, and other mental processes.
• Consciousness (viññāṇa): Awareness of sensory experiences and mental phenomena.

These aggregates interact and depend on each other. They are in a state of constant change and flux. The sense of “self” arises when one mistakenly identifies with or clings to these aggregates as being “me” or “mine.” This clinging and misidentification lead to suffering.

According to Buddhist tradition, when discussing rebirth, it’s not a permanent self or soul that moves from one life to another. Instead, the thing that does is the continuation of the process driven by the interplay of the five aggregates and its karma (actions and their results).

The Vedic and Buddhist views may still appear contradictory, but consider the following analogy.

The Buddhist View is analogous to a river that flows: while the water molecules change constantly, the river’s movement and flow give it continuity.
The river, in its essence, is a flowing body of water. This continuous flow resonates with the Buddhist perspective that everything, including consciousness, is in perpetual flux. Just as water molecules, currents, and river characteristics change, so do the components of our consciousness. Nothing remains static; everything is subject to change.
Yet, there’s a consistency to a river. Despite its ever-changing contents, the river remains identifiable, it exists. This idea harmonises with the Vedic perspective that beneath our ever-evolving physical and mental experiences, there’s still an unchanging reality. The very existence of the river, its continuous flow and identity, could be seen as representing this eternal essence.

Expanding on this river analogy, we encounter the play between the manifest (clear or obvious to the eye or mind) and the unmanifest. In the Buddhist tradition, the transient nature of reality is exemplified by the concept of anicca or impermanence. The river, with its ever-shifting currents, embodies this principle. Every moment in the river presents a unique configuration of water molecules, just as our consciousness presents a unique configuration of experiences and sensations.

The Vedic tradition, on the other hand, delves deep into what lies beneath these shifting configurations. The concept of Brahmān (eternal cosmic order) in the Upanishads is described as the ultimate reality behind all phenomena. While the surface of the river is subject to the winds and currents, the deeper layers remain largely unaffected. This depth can be likened to the Vedic understanding of an eternal essence that underpins the ever-changing physical and mental realm.
Furthermore, the river’s course, shaped by the landscape, might be seen as our karma or accumulated actions, which determine the flow of our lives. Just as a river’s flow is influenced by both its immediate surroundings and distant geological events (like an earthquake), our life’s journey is shaped by both present circumstances and past actions.

Another commonality between the two traditions is their emphasis on the significance of direct experience. Philosophising about a river from a distance is one thing; immersing oneself in its waters is another. Whether through meditation, ritual, intellectual contemplation or any other form of spiritual advancement, both Vedic and Buddhist paths invite us to dive deep into the river of consciousness, to understand its depths, its currents, and its unchanging essence.

The river analogy is not meant to oversimplify or homogenise these profound traditions. Instead, it’s an invitation to look beyond surface differences, to find underlying unities. It underscores the beauty of metaphysical exploration, where diverse paths might converge towards the same truth. After all, while rivers might have various sources, routes, and tributaries, they all eventually meet the vastness of the ocean.

In our age of division and debate, perhaps there’s a lesson here. Rather than getting entangled in doctrinal differences, it might serve us better to find the confluences, the shared understandings, and the universal truths that have guided humanity for millennia. In that spirit of unity, the river of consciousness presents a philosophical bridge, beckoning us to ponder, reflect, and ultimately understand.