Rebirth Without Transmigration: A Buddhist Perspective

A religion is a set of rules and statements that are supposed to be accepted and followed without doubting, its authenticity and legitimacy unquestioned. It is in human nature to dissect any philosophical or religious idea in an attempt to find logical underpinnings of such. The battle between logic and faith led to a present situation where the world's major religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, despite having hundreds of millions of followers, are not very popular with younger generations. There are many logical inconsistencies in their doctrines that have been revealed by scientific discoveries of the last three centuries. There is scientific proof that the world was not created only six thousand years ago, and there are arguments, philosophical as well as theological, about the nature of God and heaven among the three religions. Buddhism, with no ultimate deity and no notion of how and when the universe was created, appears to be the most logical of the world's religions. There are parts in it, however, that must be explained because they appear illogical to normal human understanding. One of them is the notion of transmigration when, according to Buddhist doctrine, there is no entity to transmigrate. Extant Buddhist texts offer logical explanations to this apparent paradox by masterfully employing allegories and applying other basic parts of the doctrine, such as the notion of Void, or Emptiness, as well as the belief that all things perceived are not whole but combinations of various components.

The composite nature of the individual, as claimed by Buddhists, is most eloquently explained in the text known as the Questions of King Menander. Monk Nagasena, who is questioned by Menander, employs similes to give logic to Buddhist teachings. Comparing himself to a chariot, Nagasena shows that he is just a composition of parts, none of which can be called Nagasena individually, but together constitute an individual. This way, atman cannot exist in a way the Upanishads describe it because it is no more than a part of an individual. Without other parts it is useless.

The same text, Milindapanha, presents the Buddhist view on continuity of body and mind. After King Menander is convinced every individual consists of parts, he wonders whether an individual changes as he grows. After all, it appears that the composite parts change in appearance when they grow larger. Nagasena answers that "through continuity of the body, all stages of life are included in a pragmatic unity."[1] In other words, even through the composite parts may change, the person remains the same individually. But, since composite parts are essential to the nature of individual, it cannot be said with absolute certainty whether an individual changes as time goes on. Nagasena achieves it by comparing human body an mind to a lamp that burns through the night. While the flame in the lamp changes through the night, the lamp itself remains the same. Similarly, according to Nagasena, "one person comes into existence, another passes away, and the sequence runs continuously without self-conscious existence, neither the same nor yet another."[2]

Apparently not satisfied with the explanation of no atman in terms of Buddhist teachings only, the Buddha attempts to disclaim the existence of a soul by methods of conventional logic. In Digha Nikaya, he challenges the nature of the soul as described by those who believe in the existence of atman. He gives three examples of descriptions of the soul: Sentient, non-sentient, and possessing sentience as a property. After that, the Buddha proceeds to show that none of these states of the soul is acceptable because there is always a particular set of circumstances under which the soul as described ceases to exist. The impermanence of the soul leads to a logical conclusion that there is really no soul, no atman, only an illusion of such. The realization of this is the essential requirement for a Buddhist to achieve a state of detachment, which is the way to Nirvana.

But, if atman does not exist, then what travels from one life into the next one in samsara? Buddhists claim there is nothing that transmigrates in this case. The only thing that an individual may implement into a rebirth from a previous life is the last thought. As the Buddha himself stated, "the first thought on rebirth arises from two causes - the last thought of the previous life as its governing principle, and the actions of the previous life as its basis."[3] That is why, according to the Buddhist teaching, it is very important to die with a happy or contemplative thought, preferably about Nirvana. This way, even if one if reborn into lower realms or as a lower life form, the first thought at rebirth, which is the last thought of the previous life, establishes the mindset of that individual and serves as a basis for accumulation of positive karma. The Buddha, however, does not leave it entirely to an individual to form the last thought in life. It is only logical because otherwise it appears the last thought is all that is needed for a better rebirth. The Buddha teaches that, when a person is near death, "his vitality is obstructed with the exhaustion of allotted span of years... and hence his previous actions form the object of the last thought of his mind as it disappears."[4]

But if the last thought establishes the way of future life, does this thought come from somewhere? How can Buddhists claim that nothing transmigrates if there appears to be an entity that influences the future rebirths? Here is where Sunyavada, or the doctrine of Void, comes in. Buddhist doctrine teaches that things that are perceived by humans are illusory because they are all produced by Emptiness and do not really exist. Emptiness is the only thing that is real. Only by realizing that all things in the world are merely an illusion can a Buddhist disciple achieve ultimate detachment that eventually leads to Enlightenment. In words of the Buddha, "the last thought, the karma, and the first thought, when they arise come from nowhere and when they cease go nowhere, for all are essentially defective, of themselves empty... In the whole process no one acts and no one experiences the results of action."[5] Therefore, atman does not exist not for some particular reason but simply because it is not real and cannot exist in the universe where the Void is the only real thing.

The question of those looking for logical explanation is then reversed. If there is nothing to transmigrate, how can Buddhist claim rebirth takes place at all? That is the question King Menander asks Monk Nagasena in Milindapanha. Nagasena once again uses the analogy of the lamp to show how rebirth is possible without any soul, substratum of personality, or other hypothetical entity that presumably passes from one body to the other: "Suppose a man lights one lamp from another - does the lamp transmigrate to the other?"[6] When Menander answers negatively, Nagasena announces that his point is thus proven.

It appears that one of the main reasons why Buddhism did not accept the existence of atman is because it was perceived by the followers of the Buddha as an entity of the physical world, something as surreal as any other physical object in the universe of Emptiness. Perhaps the reason for it lies in the fact that many people desired to believe in the existence of the soul because it gave them a certain feeling of security that some part of them would go on when they died. For Buddhists, however, every thing that invokes desire is a thing that leads a person deeper into samsara while being as unreal as anything else in the material universe is. Only karma appears to be able to influence future rebirths, but karma is not a physical entity, and it does not transmigrate. While innovative in terms of bringing the different castes of Indian society closer together, the notion of no atman was not intended to bring with it some radical changes. People were still trapped in samsara until through meritorious actions, complete detachment from desire, and meditation they were able to achieve Enlightenment.

WORK CITED

The Buddhist Tradition in India, China and Japan. William T. de Bary, ed. Vintage Books: New York, 1972.

[1]The Buddhist Tradition in India, China and Japan. William T. de Bary, ed., p. 24

[2] ibid.

[3]The Buddhist Tradition in India, China and Japan. p. 98

[4] ibid.

[5] ibid., p. 99

[6]The Buddhist Tradition in India, China and Japan. p. 25