Soulmates vs. mindstream-mates

Many westerners, especially people my age, are quite obsessed with the notion of finding true love, soul mates, etc. But to what extent could such a thing exist, and is finding it even desirable, from a Buddhist perspective, since Buddhism famously espouses the notion of anatman/anatta (literally, no aspect of the things perceived by people in this world constitute an essentially permanent/stable "self")?

First, about the status of soul in Buddhism. Though the Mahayana later transformed no-self into a more affirmative "emptiness" doctrine (see On wilderness and emptiness), in the early suttas, the no-self doctrine was merely a technique/trope for transforming one's perception of existence (Thanissaro, 1996). By negating the self-other distinction and replacing it with the Four Noble Truths -- which involves developing such things as virtue, concentration, and discernment -- one's perception of existence can supposedly be transformed into a state of freedom from the stress that clinging to inherently changing selves and others inevitably involves.

Nevertheless, philosophers have felt the need to create a more precise conceptual construct to describe the self-other condition in which humans find themselves. A recurrent idea in early Buddhism and Yogācāra was something called a "mindstream" (Sanskrit: Citta-saṃtāna), an idea that connected the distinctly Buddhist notion of the self-as-accumulated-mental/physical-aggregate with notions of the most basic form/substrate of consciousness, identified as the "ground of becoming" (Pali: bhavanga) in Theravada and as storehouse-consciousness (Sanskrit: ālaya-vijñāna) or Buddha Nature (Sanskrit: tathāgatagarbha) in various Mahayana schools. Though this essay will not explore these complex and controversial topics, as they are the foundation for various Buddhist traditions, it will identify what seems to be the general consensus, namely: there exists some basic type of consciousness, which never sleeps/stops/dies at least so long as a samsaric being (e.g., a human) exists, and which holds the karmic "imprints" made by that being and carries them across multiple moments of time. The idea is rather like potential energy in physics. For example, in middle and high school, I put a great deal of energy towards musical performance, which I let languish in favor of academic studies in college and grad school. My performance capabilities have faded over time, because I rarely practice, but there are still those potentials within "me", which I could re-kindle. But, if I neglect them long enough, I'm sure they will fade into such a small part of me that my musical abilities won't seem particularly remarkable/unusual when compared with most people. On the other hand, I have had perfect pitch since I was a child. Perhaps I've been a musician for longer than this present life.

Generally, the Theravada and Mahayana traditions disagree about the mindstream's relation to nirvana/nibbana. The Theravada thinks that, if one can either see one's bhavanga or return one's consciousness to that level, it is easy to see how to reach nibbana from there, though nibbana is a wholly different state of matter/existence (i.e., a state that is permanent, unconditioned, etc.). The Mahayana, I believe, think that attaining nirvana means seeing, and ultimately returning-to by means of karmically purifying, the substrate consciousness. That is, the substrate consciousness, when devoid of worldly karma, is the Buddha Nature that Mahayanists believe all existence shares. I wonder if this is why Mahayanists so often speak of nirvana as being just like this world, only without deluded perceptions.

In the West, the soul is usually believed to be created by God and not to substantially change over time (i.e., to be a person's essence, a stable consciousness behind the unstable body). Hence, people often speak of trying to "find themselves", find "who they really are", etc. The notion of soul mates or twin souls, mentioned in Plato's Symposium and perhaps having something to do with Adam and Eve, is that souls might have been created in pairs, and that, in addition to finding one's own true nature, there is also one other person in the world whose soul was cast in the same mould as one's own. Since souls don't change, to find that person is presumably to live happily ever after.

For Buddhists, not only does "soul/mindstream" evolve over a matter of decades and lifetimes -- gradually becoming something/someone else -- two people can "become together", can choose to karmically intertwine their mindstreams. And not only two people (though it probably does happen either in pairs or between one person and a team/group, because of the self-other duality). Karma is like a complex and ever-changing web/network. With some people, we are intertwined as colleagues, with others as family, as friends, as lovers, as compatriots or countrymen.... In terms of "true love", though it is possible that two people might have known each other and have become inextricably close over a long time -- such that reconnecting with that person is an ecstatic experience -- it is also possible to have different types of relationships, or to have developed a great love of solitude, nature, etc. Rather than the notion that God has put you, with a stable soul/self, into certain life circumstances, Buddhists think that people -- indeed people's very notions of themselves and others -- are complexly interdependent and have become that way over many lifetimes. Hence, the Buddha said, "...admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life: It is in dependence on me as an admirable friend that beings subject to birth have gained release from birth..." (Upaddha Sutta).

This has several implications for relationships of all kinds.

Choose your company with care, because you will gradually become like them and they will gradually become like you. As the Dhammapada says, "Should a seeker not find a companion who is better or equal, let him resolutely pursue a solitary course; there is no fellowship with the fool" (Dhp 61).

Maintaining long-term relationships has more to do with agreement and diligence than with essentialistic pairings. Though similar/compatible karma might have brought people together initially, staying together means choosing to "live the same life" together in some respect (see essay about samajivina). It is very likely that interest/attraction will occur with multiple people throughout one's life, because nearly everyone shares different aspects of their mindstreams with different people throughout history in very complex ways, and it is hard to say whether the peripheries of one's mindstream ever entirely vanish. Staying together involves a constant process of communicating, negotiating, and prioritizing... choicefully giving energy to certain aspects of oneself, and allowing another aspects to wither.

Desire for companionship lasts even long after one decides to abandon a samsaric life (i.e., to become a monastic). Craving for self-other relations of all kinds is something that fades gradually, as one becomes more practiced/habituated in virtue, concentration, and discernment. Though many monastics report flashes of insight after marathons of meditative effort (e.g., satori in Zen), transforming one's entire mindstream takes time. Each thread of the thick/aggregated rope must be dealt with. As the results of karma arise throughout life, creating new karma (by developing intentions, cravings, and actions) will only continue the mindstream. The traditions disagree on how much time it takes, though both agree that entirely escaping samsara takes a matter of lifetimes, not years. The Theravada tradition thinks that, with diligent effort, most people can see nibbana within three years, and that having seen it once will put one's mindstream on an intersection course with parinibbana (i.e., no more birth) within no more than seven lifetimes. I have read Mahayana texts that say it can take millions of years to attain parinibbana, though the Mahayanist Bodhisattva Vow complicates calculations, because Mahayanists are supposed to remain in the world until everyone attains nirvana together. (Early Buddhism and Theravada think that leaving behind the Dhamma and Sangha, as well as occasional incarnations/visits every few millenia by Bodhisattvas from a higher realm, is good enough for ensuring the eventual enlightenment of all beings. Much like physicists who say that the universe will expand forever into eventual darkness and silence, Theravadans sometimes speak of the "Final Quiescence" of this universe in the distant future.)

In conclusion, though the notion of "mindstream-mates" frees people from the idealism of having to feel like they are not "complete" until they have found their "other half", it situates relationships within the complicated context of perpetual striving and becoming. A person can only be so much at any given moment.