 |
| I love you so much, son! - Mom, I wanna become a monk. - What? No! Go to your room! |
.
Readers of an English-language newspaper in [Sri Lanka] have recently been following with interest a controversy that has flared up on the issue of whether or not the Buddha taught rebirth.
To a Buddhist it must be a matter of astonishment that such a dispute could arise — not because rebirth is a [rock solid belief] of Buddhism but because without it, Buddhism itself would have no meaning.
The Buddha taught the Dharma for making an end of all suffering. If suffering automatically comes to an end with the dissolution of the physical body, it is pointless to commit oneself to a rigorous system of self-discipline and purification, as Buddhism calls for, in order to free oneself from suffering.
Such a course would serve no purpose but to add more suffering to life. For it is nonsense to pretend that the Buddhist path of purification — or any spiritual system of self-improvement — is an easy path to follow. Much easier is the way of the world, which is no way to get to nirvana.
.
An argument might be made for the social utility of having everyone follow the Five Precepts [to refrain from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, and consuming intoxicants] regardless of karmic results. But who would inflict on oneself the pains of the first attempts at meditation if there were no higher goal in sight?
If everything ends with death, the entire teaching of karma and vipáka, volitional actions and their results, goes by the wayside. It is a matter of common observation that even the most evil deeds do not always bring their comeuppance in this life, nor good ones their reward.
This, in fact, is the chief argument of Buddhism (as it is of the rationalist) against the belief in a just and benevolent God. It is precisely this teaching of a moral law (karma) operating from life to life that forms the greater part of the Buddha’s instruction both to monastics and laypersons.
All the other doctrines of Buddhism revolve around it, even that of the means by which nirvana is attained. For what is nirvana but the cessation of the beginningless round of rebirths (samsara), linked with actions (karma) and their results (vipaka and phala, mental resultants and karmic fruit)?
The Stages of Enlightenment
Moreover, the Buddha again and again described in unmistakable terms the process which we call rebirth. The idea of rebirth, and of the necessity of bringing it to a final end if we are to make an end of all suffering, is interwoven throughout the fabric of the Dharma. It permeates the whole of Buddhism, from beginning to end.
Thus the stream-winner (sotápanna, the first stage of enlightenment), if s/he does not attain any higher stage in this current life, is assured of having to face no more than seven rebirths at most before gaining complete release (nirvana).
The once-returner (sakadágámi, the second stage) returns but once to the five-sense world.
The non-returner (anāgāmi) does not return at all to this world, but passes into nirvana (nibbana) from the Brahma-world when that lengthy lifespan there is ended.
The arhat experiences nirvana here and now and when passing away makes a final end of all rebirth as no remnant of clinging remains. [It would be incorrect to say that this person "dies" because death always implies rebirth, and when one has made an end of rebirth, one has made an end of death.]
 |
| I was reborn, and I'm not a Buddhist. I was a pilot. I remember. |
If the Buddha did not teach rebirth, what is the meaning of all this? And what of all the other references to past lives and rebirth scattered as plentiful as tree leaves throughout the Threefold Collection (Tipitaka) of sacred texts?
To maintain that the Buddha did not teach rebirth is surely the most curious aberration that has ever appeared in Buddhism. It places upon one who holds it the burden of proof that most of the statements attributed to the Buddha were not made by him at all.
This is equivalent to saying that the major part of the texts is a fraud. For a non-Buddhist to declare that he or she cannot believe in rebirth is, from that person's point of view, reasonable and honest. The Buddhist will concede that that person is entitled to his opinion, be it Annihilationist (ucchedavádi) or Eternalist (sassatavádi).
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Dogmatic religious views tend to maintain that there is a soul that survives death and lives on eternally, or the opposite view that there is no soul that survives, but rather it (a self) is annihilated at death. (The first tends to be promoted by faithful religionists, the second by materialists, "scientific" types, and hopeless skeptics). The Buddha shows that both views are in error. Buddhism is not a belief system, although it may seem to be. It is a practice, a path of insight to realize what is and is not true so that one is liberated from delusion and views. It is ultimately true that things are impersonal. There is no self, so it cannot live on eternally. What we regard as "self" (the composite of the Five Aggregates -- body, feelings, perceptions, formations, and consciousness) is passing away at every moment. There is no self, so it cannot be annihilated. The process will survive death, and rebirth will take place, as it has innumerable times. And unless it is stopped, suffering (misery, disappointment, lack of fulfillment) will continue indefinitely, because it is constantly getting new fuel. Buddhist practice is aimed at realization, but most of us don't want to realize something we think is to our detriment. We cannot see how it is to our great benefit, so we scoff at it in ignorance. Conventionally, of course, there is a self. We talk about it all the time. We conceive in terms of it. We would never question its existence if a fully awakened being did not arise and teach this unique doctrine (anatta) essential to awakening. What does it matter that there is no self? It matters because directly realizing this truth is essential for winning the first stage of enlightenment and gaining liberation from all suffering.]
But for one claiming to be a Buddhist to maintain that the Buddha did not teach rebirth is intellectual dishonesty of the worst kind. It would be better for such a person to state, as the non-Buddhist does, that one believes the Buddha to have been mistaken. In so saying, the Eternalist or Annihilationist is at least being true to one's own convictions, erroneous though they are, and some credit is due for that.
Better is honest doubt or sheer disbelief than perverting the Enlightened One’s clear teaching on this matter. The sincere doubter is always open to conviction, but one who has willfully perverted the Buddha’s words and meaning has a rather miserable future — the future of one who has deliberately cut him or herself off from the Truth.
This is the case because even if the doctrine of rebirth were not true, it is true that the Buddha taught it. The denial of that fact constitutes a lie. It is intellectual dishonesty of this kind that represents the greatest danger to Buddhism today.
The Dharma can stand up against any criticism from those of other religions or of none. But there is little defense against the calculated confusion of ideas that works destruction from within. This is the most subtle and effective form of anti-Buddhist propaganda.
Unfortunately, little is being done to check it. Buddhism has no central authority "for the preservation of doctrine," and anyone in saffron robes or layperson’s dress can put forward whatever travesty of the Dharma one cares to propagate.
Did the Buddha teach rebirth?
 |
| The ultimate Truth is true regardless of whether we ever know it. Find it, for it sets us free. |
.
 |
| Oh no, renewed becoming again and again... |
This offers a curious paradox. At a time when more and more people all over the world are beginning to take rebirth seriously as a possible explanation of life’s enigmas — as evidenced by such books as
Reincarnation: An East-West Anthology, and by the fact that even some Christian churches are beginning to pave the way towards an acceptance of rebirth as not contrary to Christian doctrine [in fact it was originally part of Jesus' teachings removed at the Council of Nicea by Emperor Constantine] — some self-styled “advanced” Buddhists are trying to discard it [perhaps to appear more in line with science].
To anyone who understands their mentality the explanation is quite plain: These advocates of what they consider a “modern” Buddhism are simply out of date. They belong to the late 19th century, with which they have just caught up. Their attitude pleases them for one of two reasons, either because it deludes them with a feeling of intellectual superiority, or else because it is part of their identification with the materialism which they fondly imagine to be the latest development of human thought.
They could be dismissed as negligible cranks, except for the influence they wield over less mature minds.
What exactly are the facts of the matter? They are, first and foremost, that the Buddha rejected both extremes, Eternalism, the belief that the self/soul is eternal, and Annihilationalism, the belief that there is no continuity of the life process after death.
Now “continuity of the life process” is not the same as postulating the transmigration (traveling of an eternal soul through many lifetimes) of a self.
More
