Rebirth Without Metaphysics in Buddhist Philosophy

The concept of rebirth can be described in a useful and productive way without relying on metaphysics. Rebirth as it relates to the not-self, and to impermanence can become part of our daily practice of Buddhism.

The concept of rebirth as described in Buddhist Philosophy: A Historical Perspective, David J. Kalupahana (page 32) is accepted by faith in many Buddhist traditions. "The process of rebirth is explained as the combining of the two factors, consciousness (vinnana) and the psychophysical personality (namarupa). The psychophysical personality referred to here is the foetus formed in the mother's womb and which represents the beginning of a new life span. Consciousness surviving from the past is said to become infused in this new personality, and thus a continuity is maintained between the two lives." Accepted as linear "birth to death to birth" this involves a consciousness that is separate from the mind-body, an "entity" that exists after life ceases and can enter a developing fetus. Belief in this description of rebirth would require a belief in the metaphysical.

It is said that the Buddha spoke on the matter of rebirth as it related to his first enlightenment experience. At that time he acquired three varieties of knowledge, the first being detailed knowledge of his past lives. The Buddha could remember the conditions of those lives, what his names had been, what his works had been; he could recall those existences. The Buddha's closest disciples, as well as Buddhist saints, scholars and meditators also make this claim.

Contemporary translations show that early Buddhism rejected metaphysics, replacing it with real world experience, and quoting Kalupahana again, "Still, they differ (here he writes of comparison with the Madhyamika school) with regard to the manner in which metaphysics was rejected. While early Buddhism appealed to experience in order to eliminate metaphysics."

NOTE: The Madhyamika school was founded by Nagarjuna and held that the Buddha accepted the existence of an Ultimate or Absolute Reality that could not be described. The Pali Nikayas, as well as the Chinese Agamas both show that the Buddha did not hold a belief in the Ultimate or Absolute as they could not be possible given the reality of a causal world.

The Buddha's disciples and the lay-people of his culture and time knew only the Hindi religion and what they had been taught by Brahman. Naturally when the Buddha spoke of rebirth their inclination would be toward the Hindu concept. Rather than "butt-heads" with their worldview perhaps the Buddha felt that over time they would come to realize a more causal view of rebirth. Setting aside the metaphysical, the "past lives" the Buddha spoke of were his time as a child, a teenager, a warrior, a prince, an ascetic, a yogi, and all the other paths Siddhartha had taken, each one being the "death" of one view and the "birth" of another.

There is much in Buddhist writings (sutras and commentaries) that seem contradictory. That is why it is important to look to contemporary scholars and translators like Kalupahana and his teacher, Jayatilleke whose translations and commentaries on the Pali Nikayas put the Buddha's teachings into historical and cultural perspective. In my training as a Pragmatic Buddhist I also learned to add another important factor to scholarship; creative re-description.

I readily admit to an agnostic view of the metaphysical concept of rebirth. Might it be real, in a metaphysical sense? Absolutely, but I have no proof of it; so, it has no bearing on how I live and relate to life. As far as I know through experiential verification this is only life I'll have so that makes it my responsibility to do my best with it. Should there be verifiable evidence then I'll reconsider.

Now for the meat of this creative re-description of rebirth. It is accepted that the Buddha taught that there was no permanent, unchanging self (anatman) no matter how deeply one looked. Each experience we have results in a causal change to the self, or causes a rebirth of that self. This is logical to me because I have experiential verification that I was in a sense "reborn", and Christians use the term frequently to describe someone who has accepted Jesus as their savior.

For years I checked Buddhist as my religion on official forms and if someone asked, "What religion are you?", I answered, "Buddhist". I could talk about Buddhism and I found that my personal beliefs paralleled what I read about Buddhist philosophy. That was "my self" until the moment I encountered a teacher who made me realize that talking wasn't being a Buddhist, acting was being a Buddhist. Right then I experienced rebirth.

Now I realize that this happens often just to varying degrees each moment. There is the death of one self and the rebirth of another. This a dramatic example, but one that I bet has happened to many others.

It is consciousness being "infused in this new personality". It just isn't in a new body; it's in a new version of the self. There is "death of the old" and there is "continuity" it is just in the same mind-body. The not-self is impermanent with the potential for positive change. Each experience, each moment causes change in that self. There is the opportunity in each moment for rebirth into a new self. It is up to us to realize this, and with that realization take the responsibility to make that a more positive, more engaged self.

Engaging Our Practice

Believing that we can make positive changes and engaging ourselves to make them are actions of the bodymind. Realizing that right now we can undergo a "rebirth" from who we are to who we want to be is an empowering thing. By engaging in positive activities we can become more positive. By engaging with like-minded people we can support each other.