Did the Buddha teach literal rebirth? Part 2

 

Did the Buddha teach literal rebirth? Part 2[1]

In this post, I’ll provide other evidence that the Buddha, indeed, taught literal rebirth. In particular, the one of the main reason why he taught rebirth is that this teaching makes quite clear that our actions matter: there is no way that we can ‘escape’ the good or bad consequences of our good or bad actions. However, it should be noted that, according to the Buddha, it seems that merits and demerits do not lead to Liberation (we can’t ‘earn’ liberation). Only ‘insight’ can lead us to that.

The doctrine and the ‘recollection’ of karma

According to the ‘Pali suttas’ (the discourses preserved in the Theravada traditions), the Buddha taught that both lay and ordained disciples should contemplate about the topic of karma[2] (‘kamma’ in the Pali language) in this way:

“A woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth, should often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.’” (AN 5.57, bhikkhu Bodhi translation; source: https://suttacentral.net/an5.57/en/bodhi?lang=en&reference=none&highlight=false )

It should be noted that this is one of the five ‘themes’ that a Buddhist disciple should, according to the discourse, always recollect.

In another discourse, the Buddha is reported to have said:

“Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, and intellect.” (AN 6.63, bhikkhu Thanissaro translation; source: https://suttacentral.net/an6.63/en/thanissaro?lang=en&reference=none&highlight=false )

Clearly, if I have to think that “I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do”, I can’t think that death can stop me from experiencing the consequences of ‘good’ or ‘bad’ actions[3].

In one sutta, Ananda, one of the foremost disciple of the Buddha, is reported to have said:

““Here, Sandaka, some teacher’s theory and view is this: ‘There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed, no fruit or ripening of good and bad kammas, no this world, no other world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously born beings, no good and virtuous monks and divines that have themselves realized by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world. Man consists of four great elements. When he dies, earth returns and goes back to the body of earth, water returns and goes back to the body of water, fire returns and goes back to the body of fire, and air returns and goes back to the body of air, the faculties are transferred to space. Four men with the bier as fifth go with the corpse. The funeral orations last as far as the charnel ground. The bones whiten. Burnt offerings end with ashes. Giving is fools’ doctrine. When anyone makes the assertion that there is giving and the like, it is empty, false prating. Fools and wise men are alike cut off and annihilated with the dissolution of the body; after death they are not.’

“About this a wise man considers thus, ‘This good teacher has this theory and view: “There is nothing given… after death they are not”. Now if this good teacher’s words are true, then here in this teaching I have done my duty by not doing it, here I have lived the life divine by not living it; and both of us are exactly equal here in this teaching, both are arrived at equality. But what I do not say is that both of us are cut off and annihilated with the dissolution of the body, that after death we shall not be. But this good teacher’s nakedness, his shavenness, devotion to the squatting position and pulling out of hair and beard, are superfluous, since I, who live in a house crowded with children, using Benares sandalwood, wearing garlands, and unguents, accepting gold and silver, shall reap exactly the same destination as this good teacher. What do I know and see that I should lead the life divine under this teacher?’ So when he finds that this is no life divine, he consequently turns away and leaves it.” (MN 76, bhikkhu Nyanamoli translation; source: https://suttacentral.net/mn76/en/nyanamoli-thera?lang=en&reference=none&highlight=false )

If all will experience the same fate no matter what choices they do (and, indeed, this will be the case if there is no ‘afterlife’), then there is no ultimate motivation to live a life of renunciation.  

Hence, the Buddhist doctrine of (literal) rebirth is closely tied to the Buddhist doctrine of karma: the relation between actions and their consequences is something that should be considered as always valid (unless the cycle of samsara is finally stopped), therefore literal rebirth is required to make the ‘recollection’ of karma coherent.

Brief note about anatman

A Buddhist doctrine that sometimes is said to contradict the idea of literal rebirth is the doctrine of ‘anatman’ (Pali: ‘anatta’), the Buddhist doctrine that, in some sense, the ‘self’ is an illusion. If the self is an illusion, how can a literal rebirth happen?

I think I’ll expand on this topic in a future post. However, in my opinion, a traditional Buddhist answer would perhaps be the following two-step answer:

·       First: the doctrine doesn’t deny the continuity between, say, an infant ‘John Smith’ and an adult ‘John Smith’. Hence, if the doctrine is consistent with growth and changes in one lifetime, there is no reason to believe it can’t be consistent with the changes between successive lifetimes

·       Second: the doctrine of literal rebirth actually weakens the ‘reality’ of the self. If, indeed, the male human ‘John Smith’ in a future life can become (say) a female cow then all the qualities that make a sentient being a male, a female, a human, a cow and so on aren’t an essential property of some underlying ‘identity’. And, indeed, if there is ‘something fixed’ in an individual, we perhaps would think that this ‘fixed property’ would constrain the ‘variations’ that an individual can experience in the course of various lifetimes. Far from being in conflict with the doctrine of ‘anatman’, the traditional Buddhist doctrine of rebirth seems to be a confirmation of it. Far different, indeed, would be the case if there is only a lifetime. If ‘John Smith’ has only one life, in my opinion, ‘John Smith’ would probably be right to think that ‘being human’ (for instance) is an essential property of ‘who he is’.

 

 

 


[2] The noun ‘karma’ is a word that can mean both ‘action’ and ‘intent’. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma#Definition

[3] As mentioned, however, this ‘cycle’ of experiencing the consequences of good and bad ‘karma’ is insight. Nirvana is sometimes called also the ‘cessation of karma’.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ancient and Medieval witnesses of the presence of ‘universalism’ in Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia

Ancient and Medieval witnesses of the presence of ‘universalism’ [1] in  Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia Introduction In this text, witnesses of Theodore of Mopsuestia’s and Diodore of Tarsus’ eschatological ‘universalist’ views, are reported.  As shall we see (pages 2-10 in this document), the attestations of Diodore’s endorsement of a form of apokatastasis are always accompanied by an attestation of his disciple, Theodore, endorsing the same view. All these common testimonies are from Syriac sources, both Eastern-Syriac - Isaac of Nineveh (fl. 7 th century in his Second Part, 39.7-14; for Theodore only in his Second Part, 3.3.94 ), Solomon of Basra (fl. 13 th century in his book of the Bee, 60 ), Theodore bar Konai (fl. 8 th century in his Liber Scholiorum 2.63 ) - and Western-Syriac - John of Dara (fl. 9 th century in his On the Resurrection of Human Bodies 4.21 ). At page 8 there is a brief comparison of a passage in Isaac’s Third Part (discourse 6) about...
Read more

On the presence of universalism in East Syrian tradition

On the presence of universalism [1] in East Syrian tradition Warning: the present post is subject to revision East Syrian theologians were influenced by Diodore of Tarsus (fl. 4 th century), his disciple Theodore of Mopsuestia (fl. 4-5 th century) who is called the ‘Interpreter/Exegete/Expositor’ in the East Syrian church (also called ‘Church of the East’), and Evagrius Ponticus (fl. 4 th century) [2] .  The point of this text is to show that there a was significant prevalence of the idea in this tradition (this doesn’t necessarily mean that it was a majority view). For more details about Diodore and Theodore see my previous post: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/01/ancient-and-medieval-witnesses-of_28.html A testimony of an opponent: Babai the Great (fl. 6 th century): Let me start with the testimony of an opponent of ‘universalism’ in the East-Syrian Church. This testimony is particularly interesting because it provides evidence that ‘universalism’ was often...
Read more

On the historical reception of the eschatological views of the 'Cappadocians fathers (and mothers)'

   On the historical reception of the eschatological views  of the 'Cappadocians fathers (and mothers)' In what follows, I will make a list of references of both pre-modern and recent (20-21th centuries) witnesses of ‘universalist’ [1]  or ‘universalist-leaning’positions in the writings of the Cappadocian Christian philosophers (who lived in the fourth century): Basil of Caesarea, Macrina the Younger, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus.  The purpose of this text is to show that, while scant, there is evidence that in Ancient and Medieval times some have affirmed the presence of the doctrine in these figures – at least in the case of Gregory of Nyssa – or tried to explain it away by suggesting that the texts have been interpolated (which, in a way, is an admission of the presence of the doctrine in the texts themselves) and the latter strategy was probably popular among the later Greek fathers. It should be noted that there is no writing attributed to M...
Read more