In the vast tapestry of Buddhist philosophy, one thread stands out – the belief that we all have lived countless past lives in the ceaseless cycle of births. This leads to the compelling Buddhist teaching that at various points in time, all beings have been our mothers, as taught by Buddha in the Matta Sutta.

• From our Sister Youtube Channel True Rebirth (@TrueRebirth) — please subscribe to support our volunteers: https://www.youtube.com/@truerebirth

In the vast tapestry of Buddhist philosophy, one thread stands out – the belief that we all have lived countless past lives in the ceaseless cycle of births. This leads to the compelling Buddhist teaching that at various points in time, all beings have been our mothers, as taught by Buddha in the Matta Sutta.

This notion that might seem outlandish at first glance, but stay with me. Buddhism, with its intricate web of reincarnation and karma, suggests that our souls are on a never-ending journey, constantly reincarnating into different forms. This cycle, known as Samsara, is influenced by our actions, our karma, and it carries on until we reach Nirvana, a state of liberation and ultimate bliss, free from the cycle of birth and death.

Now, let’s take a detour from Buddhism and venture into other faiths. Many spiritual paths entertain the concept of rebirth, albeit in different forms and interpretations. From the ancient Egyptians and their belief in the afterlife, to Cathar and esoteric Christians, Jainists, and many Hindus, the concept of rebirth is a common thread that weaves through the tapestry of human spirituality.

But what about science, the realm of the empirical and the quantifiable? Does it entertain such metaphysical concepts? The answer, surprisingly, is yes. Enter Thomas Campbell, a NASA physicist, who challenges our understanding of reality. According to Campbell, our conventional notions of time and space are illusions.

He posits, “There is no time. There is no space. Everything is one.” In essence, we’re all experiencing everything, all at once.”

Sounds mind-boggling, doesn’t it? But consider this: you are not only you, but also the neighbor, the dog, the child on the skateboard, the grumpy man in the corner store. You are me, the Dalai Lama, Leonardo DaVinci, Isaac Newton, Joan of Arc. You are everyone, all at once, in all points of time, and all points of space. The catch? You’re focused on seeing and experiencing reality through your perspective only, at this moment.

To summarize, the concept of rebirth and interconnectedness is as vast as it is profound. From the Buddhist belief in the endless cycle of births, to other spiritual paths that hold rebirth in high regard, and finally to the scientific explanation that challenges our perception of reality, we’re led to a startling conclusion: we are all one. We are all interconnected, and in a mind-blowing twist, we are all experiencing everything, all at once. So, next time you meet someone new, remember: they might just have been your mother in a past life. And who knows, they could be you in another reality. Quite the concept, isn’t it? Now, take a moment to let that sink in. True Rebirth would love to hear your  comments and opinions on this provocative “probability” below. Until next time, keep questioning, keep exploring!

In modern times, what are we to make of rebirth, past lives and reincarnation? While it seems less “fanciful” than other concepts of the afterlife (such as various heavens and hells), it can be a difficult concept for newer Buddhists.

People born and raised in a Buddhist environment usually accept the notion without question, but secular Buddhists and modern practitioners tend to avoid or even deny the possibility of rebirth. Adding to the complexity, reincarnation and rebirths are similar, but not the same. And, it’s also worth remembering, that this is a worldwide, transcending spiritual path.

Facts: Reincarnation statistics, PEW research

• 76% of Indian adults believe in karma and 38% believe in reincarnation [1]
• 33% of all U.S. Adults believe in reincarnation (similar to India) and 72% of U.S. adults believe in near-death experiences and spirit. NOTE: This 33% are not all Buddhists, but a wide cross section of Americans.

Video from @TrueRebirth:

• At Buddha Weekly, we’ve covered this topic extensively>>
• Please subscribe to our sister Youtube channel True Rebirth: https://youtube.com/@truerebirth

True Rebirth — fresh perspectives on the cycle of reincarnation

Step in True Rebirth, our new “sister” Youtube Channel. Rebirth and reincarnation and past lives tend to be difficult subjects. Rather than avoid the topic, True Rebirth faces it head-on — but with a dash of humor (so we hope, anyway!)

Since, past lives is a broad-based belief in many traditions — with many Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, esoteric Christians, and modern-day eclectic spiritual paths holding a belief in the cycle of rebirth. Pew Research’s data shows a sizable proportion of Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Jainists, new-agers and even atheists or agnostics tend to have a belief in some form of reincarnation. Some of True Rebirth’s early topics are fascinating, and fun:

• Was your son your grandpa? and other true stories
• Tibetan Book of the Dead, Rebirth in Buddhism and other Buddhist topics
• Famous People who believed in reincarnation: Benjamin Franklin, General Patton, George Harrison, and many others
• What do dreams of past lives mean? What about Deja Vu?
• The science of reincarnation — what evidence is there?
• Karma — and why do bad things happen to good people?

Here are some of our sister Youtube Channel’s videos — currently several, and growing with daily shorts planned

It’s easy for modern-day people to shrug it off, even if they are devoted to Buddhism, as “metaphorical” or “unimportant.” Since it is wrapped up in the important concept of karma, which is fundamental to Buddhist methods to overcome the cycle of suffering, it’s really not a discussion we should “shelve.” So — we moved it to its own channel, for wider discussion among all audiences. Many Christians, agnostics and even athiests do believe some form of rebirth is possible.

At True Rebirth, our sister Youtube Channel, we’ll explore the evidence, the discussions, the case studies, the science, the traditional beliefs — and we’ll have a little fun at the same time. Come along for the ride! Please check out our first few videos (below and on our channel) and please consider subscribing as we have a long list of fascinating topics to cover!

• True Rebirth Youtube (new!): https://youtube.com/@truerebirth Please help our new channel by subscribing if you enjoy the content!
• We also occassionally cover this topic on Buddha Weekly Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@BuddhaWeekly

NOTES

[1] Belief in Karma and Reincarnation in India>> https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/06/29/religious-beliefs-2/

[2] Belief in Reincarnation among U.S. adults: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/11/23/views-on-the-afterlife/

Nothing inspires more debate amongst Buddhists, than the notion of rebirth. There’s no doubt the Buddha spoke often about rebirth, Samsara, suffering, karma and escaping the cycle. Many modern Buddhists tend to avoid or ignore the topic on the basis of modern sensibilities, rationalization and logic. After all, Buddha didn’t teach us how to stay in the cycle of rebirth — but to escape it.

• For more on Rebirth, Reincarnation and Karma — with many fun and educational videos — visit our sister Youtube Channel TrueRebirth @truerebirth

Yet, escaping rebirth and Samsara, and breaking the cycle of Karma is not the same thing as denying it. In other words, Rebirth, Samsara and Karma are all obstacles and problems to be solved — and Buddha prescirbed the cure for our malady. But, that’s not the same as saying “rebirth isn’t important” or denying its possibility.

Modern day cause and effect

Yes, today, modern Buddhists think of Karma as “cause and effect” in our present lives. We use mindfulness to stay aware of cause and effect and prevent negative karma. But, many of the teachings of the Buddha dealt with overcoming karma imprints from previous lives. One of the early recording teachings were on the topic of Buddha’s previous lives. Obviously, it was an accepted concept. In the time of Buddha — and for most Buddhist’s today — rebirth and karma and samsara are very real.

Of course, many modern, rational and secular Buddhist just ignore it, even though there is certainly a body of anecdotal evidence for rebirth and previous lives. No, we’re not saying science has firmly come done on the side of — objectively proven! However, there is a solid body of very credible evidence — enough so that notable scientists, phsycisists, quantum physicists, psychiatrists and others remain receptively open to the possibility. Some are swayed by the body of anecdotal evidence. It’s certainly not going to stand up to peer-reviewed publication, but it’s convincing, never the less.

To hundreds of millions of people, rebirth, or reincarnation, is a powerful, widely accepted belief. (They’re not the same thing, but more on this later.)  In many parts of the “East” it’s just accepted as fact; meanwhile, in the “west” Buddhist teachings on rebirth are often described as a “metaphor”, a skillful means designed to simplify teachings. (Many westerners do not have a belief or notion of rebirth.)

Is there evidence or rebirth or reincarnation — one, or both? It was, and remains today, a belief widely accepted by hundreds of millions of people worldwide. Why does it persist as a belief, in this age of science and logic?

Video with Oprah Winfrey “Reincarnation Proved”:

In part, it persists because there is some scientific anecdotal evidence of Rebirth—and no absolute proof that it doesn’t exist. Why does it even matter, especially when the Buddha taught a way to “escape” the cycle of suffering and rebirth? Because, as long as there is suffering, rebirth as a belief will persist, in part as an “explanation” of our suffering.

Why is There Suffering?

“Have you ever wondered why some people in the world are born so poor? And, on the other hand, some people are born so rich? Have you ever wondered why some babies are born with illness and others are fine? Do you ever wonder why life seems so unfair?”

To many people, there is a logical reason behind it—and some science to support it. It’s called Rebirth or Reincarnation. Hundreds of millions of people in the world—Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Gnostic faiths (including early Christians) and many others—believe in reincarnation or rebirth. But is there proof that of reincarnation/rebirth? Some noted psychiatrists and scientists claim that there is, some of which were widely published in Journals.

Ian Stevenson Collected “Irrefutable Evidence”

The best known evidence is the work of Ian Stevenson, who spent fifteen years collecting data from over 4500 people who spontaneously recalled past lives. According to Dr. Robert Almeder of Georgia State University, “This was important research, empirical research and I could not think of any alternative explanation as plausible for the data as that some people reincarnate.”

Video featuring Dr. Ian Stevenson’s theories and evidence:

It is Irrational to Disbelieve Reincarnation?

Dr. Almeder continues: “As a matter of a fact, some people, after reading the data… said “look, it’s not unreasonable to believe in reincarnation”…. My reaction was stronger. My reaction to the data was that it’s irrational to disbelieve it. A lot of people thought that went over the top, that it was too strong a claim. I meant it in a very simple way, that if you have a very commanding argument that you can’t refute, not to accept the argument is to act irrationally. ” He goes on to say that there’s a very strong argument in Stevenson’s data that has not been refuted.

Dr. Stevenson himself said, “It’s not unreasonable to believe, because this is the best fit on the data.” One of the reasons why the data is not refutable is the presentation of supporting historical facts: the spontaneous memories of children 2-4 years old. These children had no exposure to past live history information, yet unfailingly gave details of past lives that were verifiable.

Some Children Had Birthmarks Supporting Claims

In Dr. Stevenson’s studies “some people had birthmarks or birth defects that corresponded to the injury in their past lives, said Dr. Phang Cheng Kar, a noted psychiatrist. These injuries or birthmarks were supported with medical or autopsy reports. “It’s very convincing.”

Almeder goes on to say “[This means] by implication that human beings are more than their bodies, that a personality, in the end, is not reducible to a statement about biochemical states, brain states, biological properties produced by brain states.”

Reincarnation is the concept where the mind or spirit is reborn after the physical body has died. The mind can be reborn as a new human being or into various other states, depending on the causes created by the previous life. Hence the disparity in our various states of being. Reincarnation is not the same as rebirth. Reincarnation tends to involve a belief in the soul (atman) reincarnating (typically a Hindu belief), while rebirth considers the aggregates of consciousness, energy or mind stream (as it’s expressed in Buddhism).

Absence of Proof is not Proof of Non-Existence

Most science is built around the notions of proof. However, where there is an absence of proof (for example, “does God exist” or “are we reborn?”), it is not correct for scientists to say it doesn’t exist. They can, properly, say, they don’t believe it, or do believe it based on their own beliefs or experience, but they cannot say absolutely, by evidence, that God or rebirth don’t exist. Even the “theory of Evolution” is a theory (despite a preponderance of evidence.) That leaves probabilities. A scientist might believe it’s probable or improbable there is rebirth, but not that there is or there isn’t (as a fact, not a belief.)

In absence of absolute evidence of rebirth we must then consider the preponderance of evidence — which anecdotally points to the existence of rebirth. It is more likely, than not, if one looks at the evidence, rather than one’s own feelings on the matter.

Quantum Physics and Rebirth

Interestingly, rebirth is somewhat supportable by modern day Quantum Physics — again, theoretically. Roger Ebert, in his article “The Quantum Theory of Reincarnation” stated it well from a “layman” point of view:

“Everything, consists of quantum particles. These particles can as well be in one place as another, even at the same time. We, ourselves, consist entirely in and of this material. Our identities, our names, our personalities, our beliefs, opinions, senses of humor–indeed, what we think of as our minds. We consist of one-dimensional bits of the cosmic total. And we might just as well be different bits–elsewhere–because the “self” is essentially an organizing principle which we have imposed upon this chaos…”

Mr Ebert’s succinct and clarifying statement fits both the scientific view of the universe, and, shockingly, a very Buddhist perspective. The references to “self” as an organizing principle, is very nearly the plunge into the heart of the Heart Sutra. 

“Therefore, our identities were assembled from this quantum material…”Mr. Ebert continues, “by the organizing principle of our conception of ourselves. We bring ourselves into being. Our consciousness is the gravitation. We came from whirling nothing, we return to whirling nothing. The dust we came from and the dust to which we return are not really there, but thinking makes it so… But the puzzle is, what reality does Everything have, apart from my thinking of it?” 

Mr. Ebert’s musings are not only unsettlingly sharp and thought-provoking, they strike at the “soul” of the rebirth argument. We’re all made of quantum particles (or stardust as we romantically referred to it a few years back), so what is there that dies? Is it simply a re-“organizing principle imposed on chaos”? Is it just our conception of ourselves changing?

If those arguments all sound too theoretical and mind-bending, we can return, at least, to the concrete world of Doctor Stevenson, or perhaps to more “everyday” physics, such as Einstein’s law of relativity E=MC2.

Basically, matter in the universe simply cannot be destroyed. You could think of it as recycling. Converting. Changing. But it never extinguishes. Scientists now theorize that the Great Bang at the beginning of the Universe was not a beginning but rather a “restart” or the rebirth of the Universe, a cycle that repeats over and over throughout eternity.

Rebirth Fits the Model of Physics

Matter becomes energy. Energy becomes matter. Mindstream, in Buddhist thought, (referred to with different terms/descriptions) is basically energy. Science does tend to support, at least partially, the notion that mind is perhaps a field of energy rather than brain matter. (See Buddha Weekly’s feature How is the Mind Different from the Brain? Science May Support the Duality of Separate Mind and Brain) If the mind is energy—a concept gaining scientific acceptance—it is more reasonable to assume rebirth is possible, than the reverse, especially when you consider the work of Doctor Stevenson. In absence of contrary evidence, rebirth fits the model of physics. Extinction does not. While there may not be clear scientific proof of rebirth—yet—conceptually, rebirth is a better fit with science than extinction. As Dr. Stevenson said, “It’s not unreasonable to believe, because this is the best fit on the data.”

Scientific Proof

Is there scientific proof of reincarnation? Proof, no. Theoretical support, certainly in part. The models we accept today for how the universe works are a better fit with rebirth than oblivion of life. And the extensive evidence collected by people like Doctor Stevenson makes it easier to believe than not.

Dr. Phang Cheung Kar (M.D.): “In studies on reincarnation by a the psychiatrist, the late Dr. Ian Stevenson from University of Virginia, Dr. Stevenson has collected more than 4,500 cases of spontaneous previous life recall. When I say spontaneous, I mean people who spontaneously, not through dreams, not through hypnosis, not through other methods, simply recall a past life. A typical case would be children around 2-4 who just make statements about their past life. They say things like “you’re not my mom, you’re not my dad” and they make statements referring to their past lives.”

Our Series on Rebirth and Reincarnation continues in part 2>>

It is true, that Buddhism denies an unchanging ego or soul — but that’s not denying existence. The nature of existence is change. What we are today, is already extinguished tomorrow. We are not the same this year, as we were ten years ago. Buddha taught that this ego, the way we understand ourselves is incorrect — not that we don’t exist or that we’ll cease to exist — rather, that we never existed as we understood existence.

It’s clear that Buddha understood, not only our world but the complexity of existence:

“Since there actually is another world, one who holds the view ‘there is no other world’ has wrong view…”

— Buddha, Majjhima Nikaya i.402, Apannaka Sutta, translated by Peter Harvey

The misunderstanding begins here

One of the key misunderstandings is “what” is reborn. In Buddhism, the doctrine of impermanence denies the possibility of a permanent, unchanging “soul” — but this is a language limitation. Because we’re always changing, there is no “permanent.” In many Suttas, it is a continuity of consciousness that “migrates” through our current life and any future lives. In Bhayabherava Sutta (MN 4) Buddha is shown as having a recollection of his past lives.

In fact, Rebirth is described as critical to Right View — one of initial teachings of Buddha in the Eightfold Path — in the MN 117: Mahācattārīsakasuttam.

• For a series of features focused on Rebirth, see>>

In other words, it’s not that Buddha didn’t believe in rebirth, multiple worlds and past lives — only that ultimately, they are not important to the person seeking the Holy Life.

Famously, Buddha refused to answer the question “Does Buddha exist after death?” Why didn’t he answer this question on death and life after death that “stresses” so many beings? In the Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta (MN 63), Buddha says:

And why are they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life.

Of course, since beings are prone to stress and worry — our various attachments, including attachments to body — we could misunderstand Buddha’s non-answer. One of Buddha’s followers, Yamaka, misunderstood the teaching, taking the view that Buddha taught nothing will “exist after death.” In Yamaka Sutra, this dangerous misunderstanding is corrected. [Full Sutra discourse below, translated to English.]

In many Suttas rebirth is explicitly described

It is clear, from early Suttas on,  that Rebirth is accepted as part of the doctrine of Dependent Arising — birth is specifically mentioned . The Jatakla Tales — the previous lives of the Buddha — explicitly describe Buddha’s memories of previous lives.

In older suttas, rebirth is described with various terms, including Punagamana, Punavasa, Punanivattati, Abhinibbatti. The Suttas that specifically discuss rebirth as a real phenomenon, are: Mahakammavibhanga Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya “MN” 136), Upali Sutta (MN 56); Kukkuravatika Sutta (MN 57); Moliyasivaka Sutta (Samyutta Nikaya “SN” 36.21); and Sankha Sutta (SN 42.8).

Yamaka Sutra — correcting misunderstandings on Death

Yamaka is a profoundly important Sutra. Even Buddhists often misunderstand the Buddhist Dharma when it comes to what constitutes life and death. Since our perceptions of the world and our lives are at the heart of Dharma teaching — our craving and attachments cause our suffering. Fear of death and illness is one such “suffering.”

In the Yamaka Sutta, the monk Yamaka is quickly corrected:

“Don’t say that, friend Yamaka. Don’t misrepresent the Blessed One. It’s not good to misrepresent the Blessed One, for the Blessed One would not say, ‘A monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, and does not exist after death.’

Vacchagotta on Fire — “doing away with convictions”

In the Middle Discourses 72 “With Vacchagotta on Fire” we see that even the most dedicated Dharma disciples of Buddha were confused:

“The Realized One has done away with convictions. For the Realized One has seen: ‘Such is form, such is the origin of form, such is the ending of form. Such is feeling, such is the origin of feeling, such is the ending of feeling. Such is perception, such is the origin of perception, such is the ending of perception. Such are choices, such is the origin of choices, such is the ending of choices. Such is consciousness, such is the origin of consciousness, such is the ending of consciousness.’ That’s why the Realized One is freed with the ending, fading away, cessation, giving up, and letting go of all identifying, all worries, and all ego, possessiveness, or underlying tendency to conceit, I say.”

“But Master Gotama, when a mendicant’s mind is freed like this, where are they reborn?”

“‘They’re reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.”

“Well then, are they not reborn?”

“‘They’re not reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.”

“Well then, are they both reborn and not reborn?”

“‘They’re both reborn and not reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.”

“Well then, are they neither reborn nor not reborn?”

“‘They’re neither reborn nor not reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.”

Later in the Sutta, Buddha explains to the lay follower by way of the analogy of the fire:

What do you think, Vaccha? Suppose a fire was burning in front of you. Would you know: ‘This fire is burning in front of me’?”

“Yes, I would, Master Gotama.”

“But Vaccha, suppose they were to ask you: ‘This fire burning in front of you: what does it depend on to burn?’ How would you answer?”

“I would answer like this: ‘This fire burning in front of me burns in dependence on grass and logs as fuel.’”

“Suppose that fire burning in front of you was extinguished. Would you know: ‘This fire in front of me is extinguished’?”

“Yes, I would, Master Gotama.”

“But Vaccha, suppose they were to ask you: ‘This fire in front of you that is extinguished: in what direction did it go—east, south, west, or north?’ How would you answer?”

“It doesn’t apply, Master Gotama. The fire depended on grass and logs as fuel. When that runs out, and no more fuel is added, the fire is reckoned to have become extinguished due to lack of fuel.”

“In the same way, Vaccha, any form by which a Realized One might be described has been cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, obliterated, and unable to arise in the future. A Realized One is freed from reckoning in terms of form. They’re deep, immeasurable, and hard to fathom, like the ocean. ‘They’re reborn’, ‘they’re not reborn’, ‘they’re both reborn and not reborn’, ‘they’re neither reborn nor not reborn’—none of these apply.

Any feeling … perception … choices … consciousness by which a Realized One might be described has been cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, obliterated, and unable to arise in the future. A Realized One is freed from reckoning in terms of consciousness. They’re deep, immeasurable, and hard to fathom, like the ocean. ‘They’re reborn’, ‘they’re not reborn’, ‘they’re both reborn and not reborn’, ‘they’re neither reborn nor not reborn’—none of these apply.”

Yamaka Sutta

I have heard that on one occasion Ven. Shariputra was staying near Savatthi at Jeta’s Grove, Anathapindika’s monastery. Now, at that time this evil supposition had arisen to Ven. Yamaka: “As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more (mental) effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, and does not exist after death.”

A large number of monks heard, “They say that this evil supposition has arisen to Ven. Yamaka: ‘As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, and does not exist after death.'”

So they went to Ven. Yamaka and on arrival exchanged courteous greetings. After an exchange of friendly greetings and courtesies, they sat to one side. As they were sitting there, they said to Ven. Yamaka, “Is it true, friend Yamaka, that this evil supposition has arisen to you: ‘As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, and does not exist after death.’

“Yes, friends. As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, and does not exist after death.”

“Don’t say that, friend Yamaka. Don’t misrepresent the Blessed One. It’s not good to misrepresent the Blessed One, for the Blessed One would not say, ‘A monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, and does not exist after death.'”

But even though Ven. Yamaka was thus rebuked by those monks, he — from stubbornness and attachment — maintained his adherence to that evil supposition: ‘As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, and does not exist after death.’

When those monks could not pry Ven. Yamaka loose from his evil supposition, they got up from their seats and went to Ven. Shariputra. On arrival they said to him: “Friend Shariputra, this evil supposition has arisen to Ven. Yamaka: ‘As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, and does not exist after death.’ It would be good if you would go to Ven. Yamaka out of sympathy for his sake.”

Ven. Shariputra consented by remaining silent.

Then in the evening Ven. Shariputra left his seclusion, went to Ven. Yamaka, and on arrival exchanged courteous greetings. After an exchange of friendly greetings and courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to Ven. Yamaka, “Is it true, my friend Yamaka, that this evil supposition has arisen to you: ‘As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, and does not exist after death.’

“Yes, my friend Shariputra. As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, and does not exist after death.”

“How do you construe this, my friend Yamaka: Is form constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, my friend.”

“And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?”

“Stressful, my friend.”

“And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”

“No, my friend.”

“Is feeling constant or inconstant?” “Inconstant, my friend.”…

“Is perception constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, my friend.”…

“Are fabrications constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, my friend.”…

“Is consciousness constant or inconstant?

“Inconstant, my friend.”

“And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?”

“Stressful, my friend.”

“And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”

“No, my friend.”

“How do you construe this: Do you regard form as the Tathágata?”

“No, my friend.”

“Do you regard feeling as the Tathágata?”

“No, my friend.”

“Do you regard perception as the Tathágata?”

“No, my friend.”

“Do you regard fabrications as the Tathágata?”

“No, my friend.”

“Do you regard consciousness as the Tathágata?” “No, my friend.”

“How do you construe this: Do you regard the Tathágata as being in form… Elsewhere than form… In feeling… Elsewhere than feeling… In perception… Elsewhere than perception… In fabrications… Elsewhere than fabrications… In consciousness… Elsewhere than consciousness?”

“No, my friend.”

“How do you construe this: Do you regard the Tathágata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?”

“No, my friend.”

“Do you regard the Tathágata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?”

“No, my friend.”

“And so, my friend Yamaka — when you can’t pin down the Tathágata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, ‘As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, and does not exist after death’?

“Previously, my friend Shariputra, I did foolishly hold that evil supposition. But now, having heard your explanation of the Dhamma, I have abandoned that evil supposition, and have broken through to the Dhamma.

“Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: A monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the break-up of the body, after death?

“Thus asked, I would answer, ‘Form is inconstant… Feeling… Perception… Fabrications… Consciousness is inconstant. That which is inconstant is stressful. That which is stressful has ceased and gone to its end.”

“Very good, my friend Yamaka. Very good. In that case I will give you an analogy for the sake of taking your understanding of this point even further. Suppose there were a householder or householder’s son — rich, wealthy, with many possessions — who was thoroughly well guarded. Then suppose there came along a certain man, desiring what was not his benefit, desiring what was not his welfare, desiring his loss of security, desiring to kill him. The thought would occur to this man: ‘It would not be easy to kill this person by force. What if I were to sneak in and then kill him?’

“So he would go to the householder or householder’s son and say, ‘May you take me on as a servant, lord.’ With that, the householder or householder’s son would take the man on as a servant.

“Having been taken on as a servant, the man would rise in the morning before his master, go to bed in the evening only after his master, doing whatever his master ordered, always acting to please him, speaking politely to him. Then the householder or householder’s son would come to regard him as a friend and companion, and would fall into his trust. When the man realizes, ‘This householder or householder’s son trusts me,’ then encountering him in a solitary place, he would kill him with a sharp knife.

“Now what do you think, my friend Yamaka? When that man went to the householder or householder’s son and said, ‘May you take me on as a servant, lord’: wasn’t he even then a murderer? And yet although he was a murderer, the householder or householder’s son did not know him as ‘my murderer.’ And when, taken on as a servant, he would rise in the morning before his master, go to bed in the evening only after his master, doing whatever his master ordered, always acting to please him, speaking politely to him: wasn’t he even then a murderer? And yet although he was a murderer, the householder or householder’s son did not know him as ‘my murderer.’ And when he encountered him in a solitary place and killed him with a sharp knife: wasn’t he even then a murderer? And yet although he was a murderer, the householder or householder’s son did not know him as ‘my murderer.'”

“Yes, my friend.”

“In the same way, an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

“He assumes feeling to be the self…
“He assumes perception to be the self…
“He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self…

“He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.

“He does not discern inconstant form, as it actually is present, as ‘inconstant form.’ He does not discern inconstant feeling, as it actually is present, as ‘inconstant feeling.’ He does not discern inconstant perception… He does not discern inconstant fabrications… He does not discern inconstant consciousness, as it actually is present, as ‘inconstant consciousness.’

“He does not discern stressful form, as it actually is present, as ‘stressful form.’ He does not discern stressful feeling… He does not discern stressful perception… He does not discern stressful fabrications… He does not discern stressful consciousness, as it actually is present, as ‘stressful consciousness.’

“He does not discern not-self form, as it actually is present, as ‘not-self form.’ He does not discern not-self feeling… He does not discern not-self perception… He does not discern not-self fabrications… He does not discern not-self consciousness, as it actually is present, as ‘not-self consciousness.’

“He does not discern fabricated form, as it actually is present, as ‘fabricated form.’ He does not discern fabricated feeling… He does not discern fabricated perception… He does not discern fabricated fabrications… He does not discern fabricated consciousness, as it actually is present, as ‘fabricated consciousness.’

“He does not discern murderous form, as it actually is present, as ‘murderous form.’ He does not discern murderous feeling… He does not discern murderous perception… He does not discern murderous fabrications… He does not discern murderous consciousness, as it actually is present, as ‘murderous consciousness.’

“He gets attached to form, clings to form, and determines it to be ‘my self.’ He gets attached to feeling… He gets attached to perception… He gets attached to fabrications… He gets attached to consciousness, clings to consciousness, and determines it to be ‘my self.’ These five clinging-aggregates — attached to, clung to — lead to his long-term loss and suffering.

“Now, the well-instructed, disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed and disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed and disciplined in their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

“He does not assume feeling to be the self…
“He does not assume perception to be the self… “He does not assume fabrications to be the self…

“He does not assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.

“He discerns inconstant form, as it actually is present, as ‘inconstant form.’ He discerns inconstant feeling… He discerns inconstant perception… He discerns inconstant fabrications… He discerns inconstant consciousness, as it actually is present, as ‘inconstant consciousness.’

“He discerns stressful form, as it actually is present, as ‘stressful form.’ He discerns stressful feeling… He discerns stressful perception… He discerns stressful fabrications… He discerns stressful consciousness, as it actually is present, as ‘stressful consciousness.’

“He discerns not-self form, as it actually is present, as ‘not-self form.’ He discerns not-self feeling… He discerns not-self perception… He discerns not-self fabrications… He discerns not- self consciousness, as it actually is present, as ‘not-self consciousness.’

“He discerns fabricated form, as it actually is present, as ‘fabricated form.’ He discerns fabricated feeling… He discerns fabricated perception… He discerns fabricated fabrications… He discerns fabricated consciousness, as it actually is present, as ‘fabricated consciousness.’

“He discerns murderous form, as it actually is present, as ‘murderous form.’ He discerns murderous feeling… He discerns murderous perception… He discerns murderous fabrications… He discerns murderous consciousness, as it actually is present, as ‘murderous consciousness.’

“He does not get attached to form, does not cling to form, does not determine it to be ‘my self.’ He does not get attached to feeling… He does not get attached to perception… He does not get attached to fabrications… He does not get attached to consciousness, does not cling to consciousness, does not determine it to be ‘my self.’ These five clinging-aggregates — not attached to, not clung to — lead to his long-term happiness and well-being.”

“Even so, my friend Shariputra, are those who have people like you as their fellows in the holy life, teaching them, admonishing them out of sympathy, desiring their welfare. For now that I have heard this explanation of the Dhamma from you, my mind — through lack of clinging/sustenance — has been released from the effluents.”

One way of viewing Karma is as an aggregate of all of our actions, thoughts, words, dreams, desires into a user-controlled version of fate — that is you control your fate instead of some invisible higher being.

Another concept of karma, aligned to both mystical sciences and scientific mysticism (Quantum Physics), is that karma are the empowering energy connections that bind us to the universe through all of time and space. Then, there is the simplified notion of karma: every deed has a consequence. Even the most basic karmic concepts still align well with basic physics: for every action there will be an equal and opposite reaction.

Buddhist belief in karma is rooted deeply in teachings on Samsara, the Buddhist Wheel of Life and the important concept of attachment as a root cause of suffering. You don’t have to literally believe in rebirth, the principal of cause and effect influencing future suffering, to appreciate the elegance of karma as a concept. This is beautiful illustrated in various stunning and frightening depictions of the wheel of suffering (top image.)

Why Karma is actually empowering

Karma is an empowering concept, unlike the belief in fate that grew out of ancient Greece, or the Biblical belief story of Job that illustrates how helpless man is against the will of God. With Karma, we are in the “driver’s seat” not a god or some whimsical “fates” playing around with our destiny. The formula is an easy one. Good deeds and merits bring auspicious consequences; negative deeds result in negative outcomes — in the end.  The “result” is rarely immediate, but it is certain. The good news — we can control our own outcomes.

Buddhism teaches Karmic consequences. Buddhism also has remedies. For example, mindfulness can be a remedy for negative karmic actions — if we are mindful, we will not trigger negative actions. Mindfulness, or staying in the present, is a remedy for clinging. If we don’t dwell on happy or sad memories, what is there to adhere to? If we don’t hope and dream about a better future, what is there to be worried about? Understanding karma, likewise helps us move past attachment to ourselves, and generates a genuine compassion for everyone else.

Karma is not fate

If you believe in fate, you believe we are helpless. This is not a Buddhist concept. Buddhism, ultimately is a very practical, and also individual-centric practice in the sense that we all have the potentiality to be Buddhas or Bodhisattvas. And, we achieve that through adhering to various precepts which also help us overcome both clinging and karmic consequences. If we follow the precepts, karmic consequences are positive.

Buddha, ultimately, taught a self-help path to Enlightenment. Understanding karma, we can develop many important insights. Living mindfully with Karma, we can rapidly move along the self-path to Enlightenment.  Siddartha Gautama Buddha showed us that understanding karma is empowering. Buddha gives us hope that no matter what negative karma we have accumulated in this, and previous, lives, it can be overcome.

The EightFold Path and Four Noble Truths

The Eightfold Path is Buddha’s prescription for an end to suffering. Shakyamuni Buddha taught the “middle way”, avoiding extremes, based on the Four Noble Truths:

1. Life is suffering.
2. The origin of suffering is wrong knowledge, which results in misunderstanding (ignorance), attachment (craving), and aversion.
3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.
4. The Eightfold Path leads to the cessation of suffering.

The Eightfold Path, bound up in the important concept of karma, teaches two wisdom, three ethical and three mental development methods for generating positive karma and escaping the Wheel of Suffering:

• Right View
• Right Intention
• Right Speech
• Right Action
• Right Livelihood
• Right Effort
• Right Mindfulness
• Right Concentration

Types of Karma

Although there are slightly different interpretations of karmic types, varying somewhat from Vedic belief to Buddhist, the overall concept is similar across most people who practice with karma. Depending on your teacher or belief system there are basically four types of karma:

• Sanchita Karma, which is the aggregate total of all of our action karma in previous lifetimes, which set the stage for our condition in the current life.
• Praradha Karma, our past karmic consequences in the past actions of our current lifetime. Some practices, such as mantra practice, Vajrayana practice, and other advanced practices can actually help mitigate this karma, even though traditionally it is said that we can’t do much to alter events as a consequence of Praradha karma. Good deeds or positive karma can also help offset negative past karma.
• Agami Karma are the actions in our present lifetime that will affect our future lives or incarnations — the Christian concept of “as you sow, so shall you reap” but advanced across future lives. Positive actions, following the precepts, charity, compassion, and practice all accumulate for optimum karma in future incarnations.
• Kriyamana Karma is the most intense form of karma, the one we see in our daily lives, where our current actions (good and bad) result in immediate consequences. Negative actions may result in retribution. Positive actions may, in this lifetime, be returned in kind. It is also know as immediate karma.

Working with Karma

The very concept of karma is encouraging, positive and uplifting, even if you come to realize you’ve accumulated negative karma. The very nature of karma shows us the remedy, both in this life and future lives. Truly repentant people who accumulate merit and good deeds without clinging to pride of accomplishment, can very well take charge of their positive future karmic outcome.

A mantra practice, which also helps create focused mindfulness, can be a positive practice in remedying negative karma. Vajrasattva purification mantras, or any Yidam mantra, can be most effective if mindfully practiced. Compassionate acts, charity, avoiding killing (including the practice of eating meat, and mindfully avoiding killing insects) all help move karma from the deficit column, gradually but genuinely, into the asset column.

Unlike fate, karma gives us hope, in this lifetime, and almost immediately, of a better life and lives for everyone.

Ultimately, karma is empowering and inspiring.

In almost any “Buddhist” philosophical argument — for instance, “why should I meditate?” or “Is there a soul?” or “what happens after death?” or even, “what is the true nature of self?” — the impeccable logic of Dependent Co-Arising is the “go-to” Dharma teaching.

Buddha said:

“Whoever sees Dependent Co-Arising, he sees Dhamma;
Whoever sees Dhamma, he sees Dependent Co-Arising.”

Virtually all Buddhist understanding and teachings arise (pun intended) from the comprehension of Pratītyasamutpāda — Dependent Co-Arising (or more specifically, Interdependent Co-Arising), which is defined by the great Zen teacher Thich Nhat Hanh as:

“The general or universal definition of pratityasamutpada (or “dependent origination” or “dependent arising” or “interdependent co-arising”) is that everything arises in dependence upon multiple causes and conditions; nothing exists as a singular, independent entity.”

It’s not as simple as that. When Ananada, believing he understood the teaching intellectually, said, “It’s amazing, lord, it’s astounding, how deep this Dependent Co-Arising… and yet to me it seems as clear as can be.”

Buddha immediately challenged him:

“Don’t say that, Ananda. Don’t say that. Deep is this Dependent Co-Arising, and deep its appearance. It’s because of not understanding and not penetrating this Dhamma that this generation is like a tangled skein[4], a knotted ball of string, like matted rushes and reeds, and does not go beyond transmigration, beyond the planes of deprivation, woe, and bad destinations.” [1]

In saying this, Buddha was, at least in part, pointing to the importance of practice, rather than simply understanding intellectually. It is through practising Dharma (the Eightfold Path, notably “right mindfulness, right concentration”) we comprehend Dependent Co-Arising. It is through comprehension of Dependent Co-Arising we ourselves Awake to Dharma. (Dhamma in Pali, Dharma in Sanskrit.) 

The cyclical links of Dependent Co-Arising

In Sutra, the most commonly cited “definition” of Dependent Co-Arising is:

“If this exists, that exists; if this ceases to exist, that also ceases to exist.”

Yet, Buddha went far beyond the scope of this simple statement, teaching us the great Twelve Links of Dependent Co-Arising (see section below) that clearly illustrate the interwoven complexity of interdependence. None of these twelve links has its own “independence” or nature and they are all interdependent and cyclical. The twelfth link circles back to the first.

They are, briefly: ignorance, mental formation, consciousness, form, six senses, contact, feeling, grasping, clinging, becoming, ageing and death (which links back to ignorance at the beginning).

Ignorance leads to mental formation which leads to consciousness, which leads to name and form, which leads to the six senses, which leads to contact, which leads to feeling, which leads to grasping (desire), which leads to clinging, which leads to becoming, which leads to  birth, which leads to aging and death, which circles back to the first link — ignorance.

When Gotama, the Shakyamuni Buddha, attained Enlightenment (Anuttara-Samyak-Sambodhi: Supreme Perfect Enlightenment), he freed Himself from these links. Without ignorance, there was no more name, grasping, clinging, birth, aging, and death. Buddha, the Enlightened One, in his teachings pointed us to the same path to freedom — a path that requires daily practice.

Buddha and Modern Science Align

Many of Buddha’s ancient teachings align well with modern science (align, rather than agree, since Scientists have various opinions and theories). [See this recent feature The bridge between science and Buddhism>>]

One reason Scientists and intellectuals tend to be drawn to Buddhism is the flawlessly logical teachings of the Buddha. He taught cause and effect centuries before Newton’s Law was developed (albeit conditioned causality rather than phenomenal causality) and Dependent Co-Arising long before Max Planck and Quantum Physicists developed the concept of “matter originates and exists by virtue of consciousness.” [2]

It’s interesting to compare modern science’s view (not necessarily a universal one, but a currently top of mind one) with the Buddha’s:

Physicist John Wheeler: “Useful as it is under ordinary circumstances to say that the world exists ‘out there’ independent of us, that view can no longer be upheld.” [See BW for source>>]

Albert Einstein said: “Our separation of each other is an optical illusion of consciousness.”

Cognitive Scientists Professor Hoffman: “I call it conscious realism: Objective reality is just conscious agents, just points of view.” [See BW for source>>]

The Buddha’s teaching in its simplest form (which is vastly more elaborate in the full Maha-nidana Sutta below this feature — full English translation): “if this exists, that exists”

Thich Nhat Hanh, the great Zen master explains that it is easy to assume that Depedent Co-Arising is a teaching on cause-and-effect: “that can be misleading, because we usually think of cause and effect as separate entities, with cause always preceding effect, and one cause leading to one effect. According to the teaching of Interdependent Co-Arising, cause and effect co-arise (samutpada) and everything is a result of multiple causes and conditions…”

As an example of the intricacy of Buddha’s teaching (in which he explores all the links of Dependent Co-Arising), Buddha taught:

“Thus, Ananda, from name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form. From name-and-form as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging. From clinging as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, aging, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, and despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress.”

Dependent Co-Arising the foundation of most teachings

Thanissaro Bhikkhu, who translated the Maha-nidana Sutta to English (from Pali) described it as

“One of the most profound discourses in the Pali canon. It gives an extended treatment of the teachings of Dependent Co-Arising (paticca samuppada) and not-self (anatta) in an outlined context of how these teachings function in practice.” [3]

Although one can basically benefit from and live the teachings of the Buddha, such as the Eightfold Path, without an understanding of Depedent Co-Arising, to really benefit from practice (especially “right mindfulness, right concentration”), it is vital to be familiar with the principle of the twelve links.

Note: From here-on, we’ll standardize on Dependent Co-Arising, even though Interdependent Co-Arising is closer to the true meaning, and Dependent Arising is most often used in translation. We capitalize to underscore it’s importance as a core teaching.

The Twelve Links of Dependent Co-Arising

With flawless logic, arising from Enlightened insight, which in turn can be used to elaborate on other teachings — such as the Four Noble Truths (and profound teachings such as Shunyata or “Emptiness”) — Buddha taught the twelve links of Dependent Co-Arising:

1. Ignorance (avijja) — the condition for the arising of mental formation.
2. Mental Formation (Volitional Formations) (sankhara) — the condition for arising of consciousness.
3. Consciousness (vinnana) — the condition for the arising of name (labels) and form.
4. Name and Form (nama-rupa) — (sometimes translated as mind/body) the condition for the arising of the six senses (perception).
5. The Six Senses (salayatana) — the condition for arising of contact or interactions (the psychological process whereby we interact)
6. Contact (or interaction) (phassa) — the condition for the arising of feeling.
7. Feeling (vedana) — the condition for arising of grasping (wanting)
8. Grasping (wanting or craving) (tanha) — the condition for the arising of “clinging”
9. Clinging (upadana): the condition for the arising of “becoming”.
10. Becoming (bhava) — the condition for the arising of birth.
11. Birth (jati) — the condition for the arising of aging and death.
12. Aging and death (jara-marana) — the condition for arising of ignorance (back to 1)

Why it’s important: The Dalai Lama explains

The Dalai Lama explained (Oct 15, 2014) why Dependent Co-Arising is important to our success in practice:

“Following on from this, Buddha stated that the presence of fundamental ignorance leads to karma, or action. Our undesirable experiences of suffering, such as pain, fear, and death, are all basically effects produced by corresponding causes. So in order to put an end to these sufferings, we have to put an end to the relevant sequence of causes and effects. Buddha explained how, within the framework of the twelve links of dependent origination, the earlier elements in the causal sequence give rise to the later elements. He also explained the process of reversing the twelve links of dependent origination. In other words, by putting an end to the earlier elements, we can eliminate the later elements. So, by completely cutting the causal root—eliminating our fundamental ignorance—we will finally come to experience total freedom from all suffering and its origin.”

The Cycle of links

Often, the links are described in terms of three groupings:

• Defilements (klesha): in this group ignorance, grasping and clinging
• Actions (karma): in this group mental formation and becoming
• Suffering (dhukka): in this group all the rest, consciousness, name form, the senses, contact, feeling, birth, aging and death.

The cycling theme is famously depicted in the Tibetan “Wheel of Life” or “Wheel of Suffering tangkas. These ferocious-looking images feature a great Samsaric beast biting into a wheel. The wheel, on the outside perimeter, has symbolic, pictorial representations of the 12 links:

1. Blind woman: first link of ignorance (top of tangka just under the beast’s mouth): blindness represents “ignorance.”
2. Potter: second link of mental formations, because the potter forms a shape out of clay (karma) setting into motion.
3. Monkey: the third link of consciousness: the monkey is often associated with the mind in Buddhism (monkey mind = unsettled mind), and here represents primitive consciousness forming
4. People sailing in a boat: fourth link of the form: the boat represents form and the people represent mental aggregates
5. House with six windows: the six windows represent the six senses: eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch, and mind.
6. Embracing couple: an amorous pair stands in as a very intimate symbol for “contact” (or interaction). This pleasurable contact leads to “feeling”
7. Eye pierced by an arrow: “Feeling” is most graphically represented by a person sitting in pain, holding her eye which has been penetrated by a single arrow. Although all feelings are encompassed in the 7th link, they ultimately all lead to clinging, craving, and pain.
8. Drinking alcohol: a person drinks beer, clinging to the pleasures and addictions of “Craving” which arose as a result of “feeling.”
9. Monkey reaching for fruit: the monkey again, this time grasping for yummy fruit, representing “Grasping” or “wanting.”
10. A pregnant woman: represents “becoming” as she is just about to give birth.
11. A mother with child: a naked woman nursing a child, graphically stands in for “Birth”, which ultimately, in a short time, leads to aging and dying and death.
12. A dying person slumped on a rock: the loneliness of dying and death. Ultimately, in death, ignorance is reborn, and the cycle beings again.

Video animation of Dependent arising that maps out the interdependencies of the links:

Maha-nidana Sutta: The Great Causes Discourse

Dependent Co-arising

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was living among the Kurus. Now, the Kurus have a town named Kammasadhamma. There Ven. Ananda approached the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to the Blessed One, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: “It’s amazing, lord, it’s astounding, how deep this dependent co-arising is, and how deep its appearance, and yet to me it seems as clear as clear can be.”

[The Buddha:] “Don’t say that, Ananda. Don’t say that. Deep is this dependent co-arising, and deep its appearance. It’s because of not understanding and not penetrating this Dhamma that this generation is like a tangled skein, a knotted ball of string, like matted rushes and reeds, and does not go beyond transmigration, beyond the planes of deprivation, woe, and bad destinations.

“If one is asked, ‘Is there a demonstrable requisite condition for aging and death?’ one should answer, ‘There is.’

“If one is asked, ‘From what requisite condition do aging and death come?’ one should say, ‘Aging and death come from birth as their requisite condition.’

“If one is asked, ‘Is there a demonstrable requisite condition for birth?’ one should answer, ‘There is.’

“If one is asked, ‘From what requisite condition does birth come?’ one should say, ‘Birth comes from becoming as its requisite condition.’

“If one is asked, ‘Is there a demonstrable requisite condition for becoming?’ one should answer, ‘There is.’

“If one is asked, ‘From what requisite condition does becoming come?’ one should say, ‘Becoming comes from clinging as its requisite condition.’

“If one is asked, ‘Is there a demonstrable requisite condition for clinging?’ one should answer, ‘There is.’

“If one is asked, ‘From what requisite condition does clinging come?’ one should say, ‘Clinging comes from craving as its requisite condition.’

“If one is asked, ‘Is there a demonstrable requisite condition for craving?’ one should answer, ‘There is.’

“If one is asked, ‘From what requisite condition does craving come?’ one should say, ‘Craving comes from feeling as its requisite condition.’

“If one is asked, ‘Is there a demonstrable requisite condition for feeling?’ one should answer, ‘There is.’

“If one is asked, ‘From what requisite condition does feeling come?’ one should say, ‘Feeling comes from contact as its requisite condition.’

“If one is asked, ‘Is there a demonstrable requisite condition for contact?’ one should answer, ‘There is.’

“If one is asked, ‘From what requisite condition does contact come?’ one should say, ‘Contact comes from name-and-form as its requisite condition.’

“If one is asked, ‘Is there a demonstrable requisite condition for name-and-form?’ one should answer, ‘There is.’

“If one is asked, ‘From what requisite condition does name-and-form come?’ one should say, ‘Name-and-form comes from consciousness as its requisite condition.’

“If one is asked, ‘Is there a demonstrable requisite condition for consciousness?’ one should answer, ‘There is.’

“If one is asked, ‘From what requisite condition does consciousness come?’ one should say, ‘Consciousness comes from name-and-form as its requisite condition.’

“Thus, Ananda, from name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form. From name-and-form as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging. From clinging as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, aging, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, and despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress.

Aging and Death

“‘From birth as a requisite condition come aging and death.’ Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from birth as a requisite condition come aging and death. If there were no birth at all, in any way, of anything anywhere — i.e., of devas in the state of devas, of celestials in the state of celestials, of spirits in the state of spirits, of demons in the state of demons, of human beings in the human state, of quadrupeds in the state of quadrupeds, of birds in the state of birds, of snakes in the state of snakes, or of any being in its own state — in the utter absence of birth, from the cessation of birth, would aging and death be discerned?”

“No, lord.”

“Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for aging and death, i.e., birth.

Birth

“‘From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth.’ Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. If there were no becoming at all, in any way, of anything anywhere — i.e., sensual becoming, form becoming, or formless becoming — in the utter absence of becoming, from the cessation of becoming, would birth be discerned?”

“No, lord.”

“Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for birth, i.e., becoming.

Becoming

“‘From clinging as a requisite condition comes becoming.’ Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from clinging as a requisite condition comes becoming. If there were no clinging at all, in any way, of anything anywhere — i.e., clinging to sensuality, clinging to precepts and practices, clinging to views, or clinging to doctrines of the self — in the utter absence of clinging, from the cessation of clinging, would becoming be discerned?”

“No, lord.”

“Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for becoming, i.e., clinging.

Clinging

“‘From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging.’ Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from craving as a requisite condition comes clinging. If there were no craving at all, in any way, of anything anywhere — i.e., craving for sensuality, craving for becoming, craving for no becoming — in the utter absence of craving, from the cessation of craving, would clinging be discerned?”

“No, lord.”

“Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for clinging, i.e., craving.

Craving

“‘From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving.’ Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. If there were no feeling at all, in any way, of anything anywhere — i.e., feeling born of contact at the eye, feeling born of contact at the ear, feeling born of contact at the nose, feeling born of contact at the tongue, feeling born of contact at the body, or feeling born of contact at the intellect — in the utter absence of feeling, from the cessation of feeling, would craving be discerned?”

“No, lord.”

“Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for craving, i.e., feeling.

Dependent on Craving

“Now, craving is dependent on feeling, seeking is dependent on craving, acquisition is dependent on seeking, ascertainment is dependent on acquisition, desire and passion is dependent on ascertainment, attachment is dependent on desire and passion, possessiveness is dependent on attachment, stinginess is dependent on possessiveness, defensiveness is dependent on stinginess, and because of defensiveness, dependent on defensiveness, various evil, unskillful phenomena come into play: the taking up of sticks and knives; conflicts, quarrels, and disputes; accusations, divisive speech, and lies.

“And this is the way to understand how it is that because of defensiveness various evil, unskillful phenomena come into play: the taking up of sticks and knives; conflicts, quarrels, and disputes; accusations, divisive speech, and lies. If there were no defensiveness at all, in any way, of anything anywhere, in the utter absence of defensiveness, from the cessation of defensiveness, would various evil, unskillful phenomena — the taking up of sticks and knives; conflicts, quarrels, and disputes; accusations, divisive speech, and lies — come into play?”

“No, lord.”

“Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for the coming-into-play of various evil, unskillful phenomena — the taking up of sticks and knives; conflicts, quarrels, and disputes; accusations, divisive speech, and lies — i.e., defensiveness.

“‘Defensiveness is dependent on stinginess.’ Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how defensiveness is dependent on stinginess. If there were no stinginess at all, in any way, of anything anywhere, in the utter absence of stinginess, from the cessation of stinginess, would defensiveness be discerned?”

“No, lord.”

“Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for defensiveness, i.e., stinginess.

(Similarly back through the chain of conditions: stinginess, attachment, possessiveness, desire and passion, ascertainment, acquisition, and seeking.)

“‘Seeking is dependent on craving.’ Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how seeking is dependent on craving. If there were no craving at all, in any way, of anything anywhere — i.e., craving for sensuality, craving for becoming, craving for no becoming — in the utter absence of craving, from the cessation of craving, would seeking be discerned?”

“No, lord.”

“Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for seeking, i.e., craving. Thus, Ananda, these two phenomena [the chain of conditions leading from craving to birth, aging, and death, and the chain of conditions leading from craving to quarrels, etc.], as a duality, flow back into one place at feeling.

Feeling

“‘From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling.’ Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. If there were no contact at all, in any way, of anything anywhere — i.e., contact at the eye, contact at the ear, contact at the nose, contact at the tongue, contact at the body, or contact at the intellect — in the utter absence of contact, from the cessation of contact, would feeling be discerned?”

“No, lord.”

“Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for feeling, i.e., contact.

Contact

“‘From name-&-form as a requisite condition comes contact. Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes contact. If the qualities, traits, themes, & indicators by which there is a description of name-group (mental activity) were all absent, would designation-contact with regard to the form-group (the physical properties) be discerned?”

“No, lord.”

“If the permutations, signs, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of form-group were all absent, would resistance-contact with regard to the name-group be discerned?”

“No, lord.”

“If the permutations, signs, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of name-group and form-group were all absent, would designation-contact or resistance-contact be discerned?”

“No, lord.”

“Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for contact, i.e., name-and-form.

Name-and-form

“‘From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form.’ Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form. If consciousness were not to descend into the mother’s womb, would name-and-form take shape in the womb?”

“No, lord.”

“If, after descending into the womb, consciousness were to depart, would name-and-form be produced for this world?”

“No, lord.”

“If the consciousness of the young boy or girl were to be cut off, would name-and-form ripen, grow, and reach maturity?”

“No, lord.”

“Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for name-and-form, i.e., consciousness.”

Consciousness

“‘From name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness.’ Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness. If consciousness were not to gain a foothold in name-and-form, would a coming-into-play of the origination of birth, aging, death, and stress in the future be discerned?

“No, lord.”

“Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for consciousness, i.e., name-and-form.

“This is the extent to which there is birth, aging, death, passing away, and re-arising. This is the extent to which there are means of designation, expression, and delineation. This is the extent to which the sphere of discernment extends, the extent to which the cycle revolves for the manifesting (discernibility) of this world — i.e., name-and-form together with consciousness.

Delineations of a Self

“To what extent, Ananda, does one delineate when delineating a self? Either delineating a self possessed of form and finite, one delineates that ‘My self is possessed of form and finite.’ Or, delineating a self possessed of form and infinite, one delineates that ‘My self is possessed of form and infinite.’ Or, delineating a self formless and finite, one delineates that ‘My self is formless and finite.’ Or, delineating a self formless and infinite, one delineates that ‘My self is formless and infinite.’

“Now, the one who, when delineating a self, delineates it as possessed of form and finite, either delineates it as possessed of form and finite in the present, or of such a nature that it will [naturally] become possessed of form and finite [in the future/after death], or he believes that ‘Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.’ This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self possessed of form and finite obsesses him.

“The one who, when delineating a self, delineates it as possessed of form and infinite, either delineates it as possessed of form and infinite in the present, or of such a nature that it will [naturally] become possessed of form and infinite [in the future/after death], or he believes that ‘Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.’ This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self possessed of form and infinite obsesses him.

“The one who, when delineating a self, delineates it as formless and finite, either delineates it as formless and finite in the present, or of such a nature that it will [naturally] become formless and finite [in the future/after death], or he believes that ‘Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.’ This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self formless and finite obsesses him.

“The one who, when delineating a self, delineates it as formless and infinite, either delineates it as formless and infinite in the present, or of such a nature that it will [naturally] become formless and infinite [in the future/after death], or he believes that ‘Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.’ This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self formless and infinite obsesses him.

Non-Delineations of a Self

“To what extent, Ananda, does one not delineate when not delineating a self? Either not delineating a self possessed of form and finite, one does not delineate that ‘My self is possessed of form and finite.’ Or, not delineating a self possessed of form and infinite, one does not delineate that ‘My self is possessed of form and infinite.’ Or, not delineating a self formless and finite, one does not delineate that ‘My self is formless and finite.’ Or, not delineating a self formless and infinite, one does not delineate that ‘My self is formless and infinite.’

“Now, the one who, when not delineating a self, does not delineate it as possessed of form and finite, does not delineate it as possessed of form and finite in the present, nor does he delineate it as of such a nature that it will [naturally] become possessed of form and finite [in the future/after death], nor does he believe that ‘Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.’ This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self possessed of form and finite does not obsess him.

“The one who, when not delineating a self, does not delineate it as possessed of form and infinite, does not delineate it as possessed of form and infinite in the present, nor does he delineate it as of such a nature that it will [naturally] become possessed of form and infinite [in the future/after death], nor does he believe that ‘Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.’ This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self possessed of form and infinite does not obsess him.

“The one who, when not delineating a self, does not delineate it as formless and finite, does not delineate it as formless and finite in the present, nor does he delineate it as of such a nature that it will [naturally] become formless and finite [in the future/after death], nor does he believe that ‘Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.’ This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self formless and finite does not obsess him.

“The one who, when not delineating a self, does not delineate it as formless and infinite, does not delineate it as formless and infinite in the present, nor does he delineate it as of such a nature that it will [naturally] become formless and infinite [in the future/after death], nor does he believe that ‘Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.’ This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self formless and infinite does not obsess him.

Assumptions of a Self

“To what extent, Ananda, does one assume when assuming a self? Assuming feeling to be the self, one assumes that ‘Feeling is my self’ [or] ‘Feeling is not my self: My self is oblivious [to feeling]’ [or] ‘Neither is feeling my self, nor is my self oblivious to feeling, but rather my self feels, in that my self is subject to feeling.’

“Now, one who says, ‘Feeling is my self,’ should be addressed as follows: ‘There are thesethree feelings, my friend — feelings of pleasure, feelings of pain, and feelings of neither pleasure nor pain. Which of these three feelings do you assume to be the self?’ At a moment when a feeling of pleasure is sensed, no feeling of pain or of neither pleasure nor pain is sensed. Only a feeling of pleasure is sensed at that moment. At a moment when a feeling of pain is sensed, no feeling of pleasure or of neither pleasure nor pain is sensed. Only a feeling of pain is sensed at that moment. At a moment when a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain is sensed, no feeling of pleasure or of pain is sensed. Only a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain is sensed at that moment.

“Now, a feeling of pleasure is inconstant, fabricated, dependent on conditions, subject to passing away, dissolution, fading, and cessation. A feeling of pain is inconstant, fabricated, dependent on conditions, subject to passing away, dissolution, fading, and cessation. A feeling of neither pleasure nor pain is inconstant, fabricated, dependent on conditions, subject to passing away, dissolution, fading, and cessation. Having sensed a feeling of pleasure as ‘my self,’ then with the cessation of one’s very own feeling of pleasure, ‘my self’ has perished. Having sensed a feeling of pain as ‘my self,’ then with the cessation of one’s very own feeling of pain, ‘my self’ has perished. Having sensed a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain as ‘my self,’ then with the cessation of one’s very own feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, ‘my self’ has perished.

“Thus he assumes, assuming in the immediate present a self inconstant, entangled in pleasure and pain, subject to arising and passing away, he who says, ‘Feeling is my self.’ Thus in this manner, Ananda, one does not see fit to assume feeling to be the self.

“As for the person who says, ‘Feeling is not the self: My self is oblivious [to feeling],’ he should be addressed as follows: ‘My friend, where nothing whatsoever is sensed (experienced) at all, would there be the thought, “I am”?'”

“No, lord.”

“Thus in this manner, Ananda, one does not see fit to assume that ‘Feeling is not my self: My self is oblivious [to feeling].’

“As for the person who says, ‘Neither is feeling my self, nor is my self oblivious [to feeling], but rather my self feels, in that my self is subject to feeling,’ he should be addressed as follows: ‘My friend, should feelings altogether and every way stop without remainder, then with feeling completely not existing, owing to the cessation of feeling, would there be the thought, “I am”?'”

“No, lord.”

“Thus in this manner, Ananda, one does not see fit to assume that ‘Neither is feeling my self, nor is my self oblivious [to feeling], but rather my self feels, in that my self is subject to feeling.’

“Now, Ananda, in as far as a monk does not assume feeling to be the self, nor the self as oblivious, nor that ‘My self feels, in that my self is subject to feeling,’ then, not assuming in this way, he is not sustained by anything (does not cling to anything) in the world. Unsustained, he is not agitated. Unagitated, he is totally unbound right within. He discerns that ‘Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.’

“If anyone were to say with regard to a monk whose mind is thus released that ‘The Tathagata exists after death,’ is his view, that would be mistaken; that ‘The Tathagata does not exist after death’… that ‘The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death’… that ‘The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death’ is his view, that would be mistaken. Why? Having directly known the extent of designation and the extent of the objects of designation, the extent of expression and the extent of the objects of expression, the extent of description and the extent of the objects of description, the extent of discernment and the extent of the objects of discernment, the extent to which the cycle revolves: Having directly known that, the monk is released. [To say that,] ‘The monk released, having directly known that, does not see, does not know is his opinion,’ that would be mistaken. [1]

Seven Stations of Consciousness

“Ananda, there are these seven stations of consciousness and two spheres. Which seven?

“There are beings with diversity of body and diversity of perception, such as human beings, some devas, and some beings in the lower realms. This is the first station of consciousness.

“There are beings with diversity of body and singularity of perception, such as the devas of the Brahma hosts generated by the first [jhana] and some beings in the four realms of deprivation. This is the second station of consciousness. [2]

“There are beings with singularity of body and diversity of perception, such as the Radiant Devas. This is the third station of consciousness.

“There are beings with singularity of body and singularity of perception, such as the Beautifully Lustrous Devas. This is the fourth station of consciousness.

“There are beings who,with the complete transcending of perceptions of [physical] form, with the disappearance of perceptions of resistance, and not heeding perceptions of diversity, [perceiving,] ‘Infinite space,’ arrive at the dimension of the infinitude of space. This is the fifth station of consciousness.

“There are beings who, with the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of space, [perceiving,] ‘Infinite consciousness,’ arrive at the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness. This is the sixth station of consciousness.

“There are beings who, with the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, [perceiving,] ‘There is nothing,’ arrive at the dimension of nothingness. This is the seventh station of consciousness.

“The dimension of non-percipient beings and, second, the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. [These are the two spheres.]

“Now, as for the first station of consciousness — beings with diversity of body and diversity of perception, such as human beings, some devas, and some beings in the lower realms: If one discerns that [station of consciousness], discerns its origination, discerns its passing away, discerns its allure, discerns its drawbacks, discerns the escape from it, would it be proper, by means of that [discernment] to take delight there?”

“No, lord.”

(Similarly with each of the remaining stations of consciousness and two spheres.)

“Ananda, when knowing — as they actually are — the origination, passing away, allure, drawbacks of — and escape from — these seven stations of consciousness and two spheres, a monk is released through lack of clinging, he is said to be a monk released through discernment.

Eight Emancipations

“Ananda, there are these eight emancipations. Which eight?

“Possessed of form, one sees forms. This is the first emancipation.

“Not percipient of form internally, one sees forms externally. This is the second emancipation.

“One is intent only on the beautiful. This is the third emancipation.

“With the complete transcending of perceptions of [physical] form, with the disappearance of perceptions of resistance, and not heeding perceptions of diversity, [perceiving,] ‘Infinite space,’ one enters and remains in the dimension of the infinitude of space. This is the fourth emancipation.

“With the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of space, [perceiving,] ‘Infinite consciousness,’ one enters and remains in the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness. This is the fifth emancipation.

“With the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, [perceiving,] ‘There is nothing,’ one enters and remains in the dimension of nothingness. This is the sixth emancipation.

“With the complete transcending of the dimension of nothingness, one enters and remains in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. This is the seventh emancipation.

“With the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, one enters and remains in the cessation of perception and feeling. This is the eighth emancipation.

“Now, when a monk attains these eight emancipations in forward order, in reverse order, in forward and reverse order, when he attains them and emerges from them wherever he wants, however he wants, and for as long as he wants, when through the ending of the mental fermentations he enters and remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release and discernment-release, having directly known it and realized it in the here and now, he is said to be a monk released in both ways. And as for another release in both ways, higher or more sublime than this, there is none.”

That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, Ven. Ananda delighted in the Blessed One’s words.

NOTES

[1] Maha-nidana Sutta: The Great Causes Discourse (in its entirety above.)Max Planck, 1944; Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech at Florence, Italy (1944) (from Archiv

[2] Max Planck, 1944; Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech at Florence, Italy (1944) (from Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, Nr. 1797)

[3] “Maha-nidana Sutta: The Great Causes Discourse” (DN 15), translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight (Legacy Edition), 30 November 2013

[4] A “skein” is a length of thread or yarn, loosely coiled and knotted, commonly meant to mean a tangled or complicated arrangement, state, or situation.

SaveSaveSaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSaveSaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

In Buddhism, Rebirth is a different concept than Reincarnation — since Buddhism does not have a belief in the eternal soul — but rather, the concept of Buddha Nature [Subtle differences alert! For a feature on Buddha Nature, see>>]. This does lead to some angst among devoted Buddhists who wonder why we are reborn, life after life, compelled by the forces of karma.

• Read the fascinating story of mass murderer Angulimala who killed 999 people before becoming a monk >>
• Feature on Karma: Karma is not fate, and why it is empowering>>

A Reader Asks About “What” is Actually Reborn

In this week’s “A Reader Asks” we try to answer reader K. D’s question. [Full question inset below.] K.D. questions the logic of the laws of karma — the repercussions of negative and positive actions on our future lifetimes — especially when Buddhism teaches there is no “self” or ego to be reborn. (This may come down to labels and language — or not — since Buddha never actually denied “self” — see Sutta references below.)

It’s a very profound, well stated and difficult question to answer, but we’ll do our best…

This is an advanced topic that is discussed in numerous sutras (suttas), but it is always a difficult concept. As always, in Buddhism, it comes down to discussions on language, labels, and perceptions.

The biggest misunderstanding here, is in the doctrine of No-Self — which does not mean any existence. We’ve cited the two most prominent Sutra references on this below. But, there’s a lot of nuance to this sophisticated question that goes beyond “no-self” doctrine.

• Feature on the doctrine of No-Self and the Nadi Sutta>>

Ultimate (no language) and Relative (labeled)

To help understand it, teachers often answer on two levels: ultimate and relative. Buddha often used Similes — notably in this case the water snake similes and the raft simile (both below.) At the “relative level” what is reborn is similar to a soul, although that “Buddha Nature” is “boundless” and inseparable from all. At an ultimate level, there is no distinct “me” to be reborn; but at the relative level — where most of us “exist” there is “self.”

Before we begin, we should apologize to K.D. — there won’t be direct, simple answer. And, a lot is opinion. However, the key to the question lies in the definition of “I” or “we” which is never an easy one — and for that, we can only quote the Buddha (see below, Sutta references.)

• Full Feature on Buddha Nature (as distinct from the concept of soul)>>

The bottom line, though, is that by clinging to “me” or “I” we remain attached to the suffering of Samsara. However, by negating the “I” and “other” we were embracing “boundlessness” or “fullness” rather than “singleness” that is subjected to clinging — but that’s not the same as saying we don’t exist. We certainly exist — it’s just a lot less lonely (joking). As always, in Buddhism, this comes down to perceptions.

“I have no self” and “I have self”

As teacher Thanissaro Bhikkhu wrote in a commentary to the Alagaddupama Sutta [English translation below]:

“Thus the view “I have no self” is just as much a doctrine of self as the view “I have a self.” Because the act of clinging involves what the Buddha calls “I-making” — the creation of a sense of self — if one were to cling to the view that there is no self, one would be creating a very subtle sense of self around that view (see AN 4.24). But, as he says, the Dhamma is taught for “the elimination of all view-positions, determinations, biases, inclinations, & obsessions; for the stilling of all fabrications; for the relinquishing of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.”

Thus it is important to focus on how the Dhamma is taught: Even in his most thoroughgoing teachings about not-self, the Buddha never recommends replacing the assumption that there is a self with the assumption that there is no self. Instead, he only goes so far as to point out the drawbacks of various ways of conceiving the self and then recommends dropping them.

Reader’s Full Question: Very Specific Concern

K. D.’s Reader Question: “I have a very specific question I’d like to ask that has been bothering me for a while and is beginning to cause me doubt. No one can seem to answer it to satisfaction. Maybe you can answer it, or maybe you know someone who can. Or maybe you know a book that explains it. Any information to help me with this question would be appreciated. The question is this: My understanding of rebirth is that only a karmically-fueled psychological remnant is reborn in the next life. It’s not ‘We’ who are reborn, but our karmic tendencies that are reborn into a different body with brand new aggregates unrelated to the aggregates that we now possess. So, if it isn’t ‘We’ who is reborn, it is another entity that is merely a continuum of us, but not us, then how does Karma work in the next life? It doesn’t seem logical that one’s personal karma would affect a separate entity in the next life any more than it makes sense that someone else in this life would suffer karmically if we robbed a bank. Since one’s karma cannot be ‘transferred’ to another being, how does karma work in the next life? A person’s bad karma in this life should not logically affect a separate entity in another life. That’s not how karma works. We are all ‘heirs’ of our own karma the Buddha said. But if it’s not ‘We’ who is reborn, then how are ‘We’ heirs to some past entities Karma, and how is some future entity heir to our karma? Thanks in advance for your response.”

We apologize, in advance, that we cannot directly answer such an in-depth question with certainty.

Buddha Answers: “Let Go of Views”

The best answer, of course, is to quote the Buddha, although, in truth, his words should be contextual (and for that reason we append the entire referenced Sutta below):

Buddha: “Just as a person would cross a river on a raft and then leave it behind once he had reached the other shore, so too a person who sees the Dhamma should let go of views.”

Remember — We Don’t Always Remember

Before we  answer with more Sutta and Discourse quotes below, of course, it’s worth discussing the impermanance of memories. If we self-identify with our happy or sad past memories, we are clinging. If we live, as Buddha taught, a virtuous life of positive activities (karma) we have a purpose. If we are born into a new life without memory of the  “me” that was,  and memories from previous lives, we should still celebrate.

In this life, most of us have memories in this life we suppress. We bury bad memories. We have forgotten childhood memories. We rarely remember our dreams — unless we engage in a conscious attempt to remember them. Many unpleasant — and often traumatic events — in this very life, we forget. This is, in part, a natural defense mechanism of “mind.”

The fact that we don’t remember clearly that we broke our leg when we were two, doesn’t mean we didn’t. We may, in fact, feel long term pain in our joints as we age. Not having a memory, doesn’t mean we don’t bear the consequence. A “criminal” who claims amnesia, can’t escape punishment for that reason.

If it is not “We” or “Me” who is reborn — why care?

In fact, as shown by the story of Buddha’s own Enlightenment, once we attain nirvana, all memories of past lives are revealed to us. These are expressed, for example, in the Jataka Tales. So, while we may not have a memory of past lives in each succeeding life — more or less to protect us from the additional burden of fear, painful memories and burdens — we do bear the consequences of our actions. Karma is a universal truth that cannot be extinguished. It can only be managed. By removed the causes of negative karmas, we can work, step by step, in life to life, towards our own ultimate Enlightenment.

So, why care? Because, just as we don’t remember childhood trauma — until, perhaps later — we likewise, in our journey through lives, will, like the Buddha, ultimately remember all of our past lives.

In fact, there are psychologists who engage in “past life regression” therapy to try to uncover past causes of trauma that may help us heal in this life. Imagine the size of the “chip” on our shoulders if we were born with full memories as a baby. We would never be able to progress and grow.

A Past Life Therapist’s View

Irina Nola, a past life therapist explains: “You do not remember past live consciously, however you do have those memories deep in your subconscious mind. There are plenty of things you do not remember in THIS life – your pre-natal existence, birth, early childhood, and plenty of day-by-day memories which just float to the bottom of your subconscious mind. You do not remember dreams usually, unless you train yourself in dream recall. You might not remember unpleasant events, as psychological defense mechanisms block them from conscious mind. And all of this affect your decisions and emotions without any conscious knowing.” [1]

In terms of the “reason” or logic for not remembering past lives: “If we remembered our past lives – it would be quite difficult for us to deal with current life…”

Buddha Discussed the Fear of Destruction of Self

In the Alagaddupama Sutta, the Buddha describes how some individuals feared his teaching because they believe that their self would be destroyed if they followed it. He describes this as an anxiety caused by the false belief in an unchanging, everlasting self. All things are subject to change and taking any impermanent phenomena to be a self causes suffering. Nonetheless, his critics called him a nihilist who teaches the annihilation and extermination of an existing being. The Buddha’s response was that he only teaches the cessation of suffering. When an individual has given up craving and the conceit of ‘I am’ their mind is liberated, they no longer come into any state of ‘being‘ and are no longer born again.

The Nature of Existence: Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta

The Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta records a conversation between the Buddha and an individual named Vaccha that further elaborates on existence. In the sutta, Vaccha asks the Buddha to confirm one of the following, with respect to the existence of the Buddha after death:^[40]

• After death a Buddha reappears somewhere else
• After death a Buddha does not reappear
• After death a Buddha both does and does not reappear
• After death a Buddha neither does nor does not reappear.

The Buddha refused to answer any of these, stating that they were all matters of speculation. He explained that no one knows what happens after death and that it is best to focus on the here and now. In this way, one can work towards liberation rather than becoming preoccupied with unanswerable questions about the afterlife.

Karma, a handcuff?

In Buddha’s teachings, he focused on conduct in the hear-and-now and purification and other methods designed to help release us from the wheel of suffering — or Samsara. Until we are ultimately released, we are still “relatively” bound by Karma.

In fact, we could say, Karma is the handcuff that binds us to the wheel of suffering. (There were no handcuffs in Buddha’s time; feel free to think in terms of “binding” or “rope.”)

All well in good, you say, but what about a more practical answer that takes into account that most of us reading this are not likely ready to attain Enlightenment — at least not right now? (Time being relative, of course!)

Ultimate vs Relative Answers

To put context on this question, it’s important to realize that Buddhism recognizes that — until we attain Enlightenment — we are still bound to karma, which implies we are still bound to incorrect notions of “self.”

Extinguishing the self has nothing to do with Extinguishing existence. In the doctrine of Shunyata — a “boundless” full concept rather than an “empty” one — it is clear that all designations, all assertions about reality are only relatively true. So “self” and “other” are also only relatively true.

The simile of the flame and the light

This is a difficult concept to understand and it is often explained in terms of the relationship between a flame and its light. The flame is one entity but the light appears and disappears. In the same way, our Buddha Nature is one understanding, but the appearances of “other” are due to karmic conditioning. It is the “other” we think of as “self.” It is this “self” that craves, angers, hates, and is bound to karma and samsara.

From an ultimate perspective, there is no self or other, just the ceaseless flow of phenomena.

In the Alagaddupama Sutta he describes how

“All things are subject to change and taking any impermanent phenomena to be a self causes suffering.”

Karma and Rebirth in this Context

So how does karma work in the next life? In terms of rebirth, we could say that the “self” that is reborn is not the same self that was experiencing this life. It is another entity, but it’s still a continuum of us. This is why conduct in this life is so important — because it determines the kind of experience we will have in the next life.

Yet, this is the very fear — the extinguishing of “self” that led to Buddha’s discussion in Alagaddupama Sutta . People were afraid that if there is no self, then what happens to their good deeds and bad deeds? Who receives the rewards and punishment? (The very question our reader asks).

The Buddha’s answer was that it is another entity that is reborn, but not the same self. This other entity is still conditioned by our karma from this life. So good deeds result in a better rebirth and bad deeds result in a worse rebirth.

However, it’s important to realize that the karmic consequences of our actions are not just for this life, but for many lives to come. This is because the “self” that is reborn is conditioned by our karma from many past lives.

So, in answer to our reader’s question, we could say that the karmic consequences of our actions are not just for this life, but for many lives to come. Yet, this isn’t the actual logic from his question. K.D. asked:

“It doesn’t seem logical that one’s personal karma would affect a separate entity in the next life any more than it makes sense that someone else in this life would suffer karmically if we robbed a bank. Since one’s karma cannot be ‘transferred’ to another being, how does karma work in the next life?”

Conditional Rebirth

This is a difficult question to answer, but one way to think about it is that the “self” that is reborn is conditioned by our karma from this life. Since the cause of suffering is clinging to self, we tend to “forget” our past lives — it’s almost a self-defence. Imagine the horror of being born as a baby with memories of the worst horrors of dozens of previous lives. This “forgetfulness) is rooted in modern-day psychology (see below.)

The consequences carry forward, but the “baggage” of the self that suffered in the past life is mostly suppressed — just as we tend to suppress unhappy childhood memories in this life.

Or, to use a modern computer metaphor, the memories have been erased, but the hard drive (or flash drive, or cloud drive) still contains the information. It could be recovered. It is probably for the best, that we do not recover “past lives” memories, since that would create significant opportunities for additional clinging, attachments, and suffering. We’d be born with hates and prejudices.

In other words, we bear the responsibility for our past attachments, hates, poisons — but we start off with the advantage of a “fresh start” in the memory department. To use a different metaphor, even though we wake up in a new “prison” we have an opportunity to serve our “sentence” without the guilt, and to ultimately — potentially — earn our “release.” If on the other hand, we follow Buddha’s advice in “this lifetime” we have the potential to be reborn into a better life — a kinder prison.

Wrong views and six views

In the Alagaddupama Sutta (full Sutta below), Buddha said,

“Bhikkhus, the ordinary man who has not seen the noble ones and Great Beings, not clever in their Teaching, and not trained in their Teaching Sees matter: that is me, I am that, that is my self. Sees feelings,; that is me, I am that, that is my self. Sees determinations: that is me, I am that, that is my self. Whatever seen, heard, tasted, smelt and bodily felt, cognized, attained, sought after, and reflected in the mind: that is me, I am that, that is my self The world, the self, I will be in the future, permanent, not changing, an eternal thing.; that is me, I am that, that is my self.”

This was only one of the six “views” Buddha described in the Sutta. What becomes clear, though, by the fact there are six views, is that from life to life, depending on our “obscurations” we will likely hold one of the six views. The entire Sutta, in fact, as explained by Thanissaro Bhikkhu in a commentary,

“This is a discourse about clinging to views (ditthi). Its central message is conveyed in two similes, among the most famous in the Canon: the simile of the water-snake and the simile of the raft. Taken together, these similes focus on the skill needed to grasp right view properly as a means of leading to the cessation of suffering, rather than an object of clinging, and then letting it go when it has done its job.”

In the first simile, the Buddha said that “just as a water-snake, thrown onto dry land, would struggle until it died,” so too does the person who clings to views. In the second, he compares views to a raft: “just as a person would cross a river on a raft and then leave it behind once he had reached the other shore, so too a person who sees the Dhamma should let go of views.”

In other words, clinging to any view — including the view that there is an eternal self — only leads to bondage and suffering. The good news is that we can “let go” of views, and in fact, this is the very aim of the Buddhist path.

Karma in the next life?

So, how does Karma work in the next life? Rebirth is a complex process that is not easily reducible to a single answer. As explained by Thanissaro Bhikkhu,

“The principle of karma is simple: intentional actions lead to consequences. However, the results of those actions are not always predictable, because they hinge not just on our own actions but also on the intentions and actions of other beings. The principle applies both to good and bad actions. Good actions lead to favorable consequences, bad actions to unfavorable ones. But the consequences can be mitigated by many factors, including our own efforts to offset them and the goodwill of other beings.”

In short, it is difficult to say exactly how Karma works in the next life, since there are so many factors at play. However, what we can say is that the principle of Karma is fair and just, and that ultimately, it leads to happiness and liberation.

Our Readers Question and Arittha

K.D.’s question is similar to the one asked in the Sutta by Arittha, “that just because an idea can be logically inferred from the Dhamma does not mean that the idea is valid or useful. The Buddha himself makes the same point in AN 2.25:

“He who explains a discourse whose meaning needs to be inferred as one whose meaning has already been fully drawn out. And he who explains a discourse whose meaning has already been fully drawn out as one whose meaning needs to be inferred…”

Thanissaro Bhikkhu continues his commentary: “The second mistaken inference is that, given the thoroughness with which the Buddha teaches not-self, one should draw the inference that there is no self..”

With Self and “Me” Come Views

We try to reorganize our thinking away from “me” and “self” as a method. As with most things in Buddhism, Buddha taught “method.” The logic of Karma was not established by Buddha. Instead, he tried to help us deal with it. Buddha, as recorded in MN 2, said:

“I have a self… I have no self… It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self… It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self… It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self… or… This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good and bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, and despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering and stress.”

Sorry K.D. no simple, clear answers — and I’m afraid we didn’t really answer you precisely (simply because we probably can’t.) This very topic is at the heart of many Sutta discourses, starting with the Alagagadduupama Sutta and the Simile of the Snake:

Alagagadduupama Sutta and the Simile of the Snake

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying in Savatthi, at Jeta’s Grove, Anathapindika’s park. Now on that occasion this pernicious viewpoint (ditthigata) had arisen in the monk Arittha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers: “As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those acts the Blessed One says are obstructive, when indulged in, are not genuine obstructions.” A large number of monks heard, “They say that this pernicious viewpoint has arisen in the monk Arittha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers: ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those acts the Blessed One says are obstructive, when indulged in, are not genuine obstructions.'” So they went to the monk Arittha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers and on arrival said to him, “Is it true, friend Arittha, that this pernicious viewpoint has arisen in you — ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those acts the Blessed One says are obstructive, when indulged in, are not genuine obstructions’?”

“Yes, indeed, friends. I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, and those acts the Blessed One says are obstructive, when indulged in are not genuine obstructions.”

Then those monks, desiring to pry the monk Arittha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers away from that pernicious viewpoint, quizzed him back and forth and rebuked him, saying, “Don’t say that, friend Arittha. Don’t misrepresent the Blessed One, for it is not good to misrepresent the Blessed One. The Blessed One would not say anything like that. In many ways, friend, the Blessed One has described obstructive acts, and when indulged in they are genuine obstructions. The Blessed One has said that sensual pleasures are of little satisfaction, much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks. The Blessed One has compared sensual pleasures to a chain of bones: of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks. The Blessed One has compared sensual pleasures to a lump of flesh… a grass torch… a pit of glowing embers… a dream… borrowed goods… the fruits of a tree… a butcher’s ax and chopping block… swords and spears… a snake’s head: of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks.” [1] And yet even though he was quizzed back & forth and rebuked by those monks, the monk Arittha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers, through stubbornness and attachment to that very same pernicious viewpoint, continued to insist, “Yes, indeed, friends. I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, and those acts the Blessed One says are obstructive, when indulged in are not genuine obstructions.”

So when the monks were unable to pry the monk Arittha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers away from that pernicious viewpoint, they went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As they were sitting there, they [told him what had happened.]

So the Blessed One told a certain monk, “Come, monk. In my name, call the monk Arittha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers, saying, ‘The Teacher calls you, friend Arittha.'”

“As you say, lord,” the monk answered and, having gone to the monk Arittha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers, on arrival he said, “The Teacher calls you, friend Arittha.”

“As you say, my friend,” the monk Arittha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers replied. Then he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him, “Is it true, Arittha, that this pernicious viewpoint has arisen in you — ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those acts the Blessed One says are obstructive, when indulged in, are not genuine obstructions’?”

“Yes, indeed, lord. I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, and those acts the Blessed One says are obstructive, when indulged in are not genuine obstructions.”

“Worthless man, from whom have you understood that Dhamma taught by me in such a way? Worthless man, haven’t I in many ways described obstructive acts? And when indulged in they are genuine obstructions. I have said that sensual pleasures are of little satisfaction, much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks. I have compared sensual pleasures to a chain of bones: of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks. I have compared sensual pleasures to a lump of flesh… a grass torch… a pit of glowing embers… a dream… borrowed goods… the fruits of a tree… a butcher’s ax and chopping block… swords and spears… a snake’s head: of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks. But you, worthless man, through your own wrong grasp [of the Dhamma], have both misrepresented us as well as injuring yourself and accumulating much demerit for yourself, for that will lead to your long-term harm & suffering.”[2]

Then the Blessed One said to the monks, “What do you think, monks? Is this monk Arittha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers even warm [3] in this Doctrine & Discipline?”

“How could he be, lord? No, lord.”

When this was said, the monk Arittha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers sat silent, abashed, his shoulders drooping, his head down, brooding, at a loss for words.

Then the Blessed One, seeing that the monk Arittha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers was sitting silent, abashed, his shoulders drooping, his head down, brooding, at a loss for words, said to him, “Worthless man, you will be recognized for your own pernicious viewpoint. I will cross-examine the monks on this matter.”

Then the Blessed One addressed the monks, “Monks, do you, too, understand the Dhamma as taught by me in the same way that the monk Arittha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers does when, through his own wrong grasp, both misrepresents us as well as injuring himself and accumulating much demerit for himself?”

“No, lord, for in many ways the Blessed One has described obstructive acts to us, and when indulged in they are genuine obstructions. The Blessed One has said that sensual pleasures are of little satisfaction, much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks. The Blessed One has compared sensual pleasures to a chain of bones: of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks. The Blessed One has compared sensual pleasures to a lump of flesh… a grass torch… a pit of glowing embers… a dream… borrowed goods… the fruits of a tree… a butcher’s ax and chopping block… swords and spears… a snake’s head: of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks.”

“It’s good, monks, that you understand the Dhamma taught by me in this way, for in many ways I have described obstructive acts to you, and when indulged in they are genuine obstructions. I have said that sensual pleasures are of little satisfaction, much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks. I have compared sensual pleasures to a chain of bones: of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks. I have compared sensual pleasures to a lump of flesh… a grass torch… a pit of glowing embers… a dream… borrowed goods… the fruits of a tree… a butcher’s ax and chopping block… swords and spears… a snake’s head: of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks. But this monk Arittha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers, through his own wrong grasp [of the Dhamma], has both misrepresented us as well as injuring himself and accumulating much demerit for himself, and that will lead to this worthless man’s long-term harm & suffering. For a person to indulge in sensual pleasures without sensual passion, without sensual perception, without sensual thinking: That isn’t possible. [4]

The Water-Snake Simile

“Monks, there is the case where some worthless men study the Dhamma: dialogues, narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question & answer sessions [the earliest classifications of the Buddha’s teachings]. Having studied the Dhamma, they don’t ascertain the meaning (or: the purpose) of those Dhammas [5] with their discernment. Not having ascertained the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment, they don’t come to an agreement through pondering. They study the Dhamma both for attacking others and for defending themselves in debate. They don’t reach the goal for which [people] study the Dhamma. Their wrong grasp of those Dhammas will lead to their long-term harm & suffering. Why is that? Because of the wrong-graspedness of the Dhammas.

“Suppose there were a man needing a water-snake, seeking a water-snake, wandering in search of a water-snake. He would see a large water-snake and grasp it by the coils or by the tail. The water-snake, turning around, would bite him on the hand, on the arm, or on one of his limbs, and from that cause he would suffer death or death-like suffering. Why is that? Because of the wrong-graspedness of the water-snake. In the same way, there is the case where some worthless men study the Dhamma… Having studied the Dhamma, they don’t ascertain the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment. Not having ascertained the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment, they don’t come to an agreement through pondering. They study the Dhamma both for attacking others and for defending themselves in debate. They don’t reach the goal for which [people] study the Dhamma. Their wrong grasp of those Dhammas will lead to their long-term harm & suffering. Why is that? Because of the wrong-graspedness of the Dhammas.

“But then there is the case where some clansmen study the Dhamma… Having studied the Dhamma, they ascertain the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment. Having ascertained the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment, they come to an agreement through pondering. They don’t study the Dhamma either for attacking others or for defending themselves in debate. They reach the goal for which people study the Dhamma. Their right grasp of those Dhammas will lead to their long-term welfare & happiness. Why is that? Because of the right-graspedness of the Dhammas.

“Suppose there were a man needing a water-snake, seeking a water-snake, wandering in search of a water-snake. He would see a large water-snake and pin it down firmly with a cleft stick. Having pinned it down firmly with a forked stick, he would grasp it firmly by the neck. Then no matter how much the water-snake might wrap its coils around his hand, his arm, or any of his limbs, he would not from that cause suffer death or death-like suffering. Why is that? Because of the right-graspedness of the water-snake. In the same way, there is the case where some clansmen study the Dhamma… Having studied the Dhamma, they ascertain the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment. Having ascertained the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment, they come to an agreement through pondering. They don’t study the Dhamma either for attacking others or for defending themselves in debate. They reach the goal for which people study the Dhamma. Their right grasp of those Dhammas will lead to their long-term welfare & happiness. Why is that? Because of the right-graspedness of the Dhammas. [6]

“Therefore, monks, when you understand the meaning of any statement of mine, that is how you should remember it. But when you don’t understand the meaning of any statement of mine, then right there you should cross-question me or the experienced monks.

The Raft Simile

“Monks, I will teach you the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak.”

“As you say, lord,” the monks responded to the Blessed One.

The Blessed One said: “Suppose a man were traveling along a path. He would see a great expanse of water, with the near shore dubious & risky, the further shore secure & free from risk, but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from this shore to the other. The thought would occur to him, ‘Here is this great expanse of water, with the near shore dubious & risky, the further shore secure & free from risk, but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from this shore to the other. What if I were to gather grass, twigs, branches, & leaves and, having bound them together to make a raft, were to cross over to safety on the other shore in dependence on the raft, making an effort with my hands & feet?’ Then the man, having gathered grass, twigs, branches, & leaves, having bound them together to make a raft, would cross over to safety on the other shore in dependence on the raft, making an effort with his hands & feet. [7] Having crossed over to the further shore, he might think, ‘How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don’t I, having hoisted it on my head or carrying it on my back, go wherever I like?’ What do you think, monks: Would the man, in doing that, be doing what should be done with the raft?”

“No, lord.”

“And what should the man do in order to be doing what should be done with the raft? There is the case where the man, having crossed over, would think, ‘How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don’t I, having dragged it on dry land or sinking it in the water, go wherever I like?’ In doing this, he would be doing what should be done with the raft. In the same way, monks, I have taught the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas.”

Six View-Positions

“Monks, there are these six view-positions (ditthitthana). Which six? There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes about form: ‘This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.’

“He assumes about feeling: ‘This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.’

“He assumes about perception: ‘This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.’

“He assumes about fabrications: ‘This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.’

“He assumes about what seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: ‘This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.’

“He assumes about the view-position — ‘This cosmos is the self. [8] After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity’: ‘This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.’

“Then there is the case where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma assumes about form: ‘This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.’

“He assumes about feeling: ‘This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.’

“He assumes about perception: ‘This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.’

“He assumes about fabrications: ‘This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.’

“He assumes about what seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: ‘This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.’

“He assumes about the view-position — ‘This cosmos is the self. After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity’: ‘This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.’

“Seeing thus, he is not agitated over what is not present.” [9]

When this was said, a certain monk said to the Blessed One, “Lord, might there be agitation over what is externally not present?”

“There might, monk,” the Blessed One said. “There is the case where someone thinks, ‘O, it was mine! O, what was mine is not! O, may it be mine! O, I don’t obtain it!’ He grieves & is tormented, weeps, beats his breast, & grows delirious. It’s thus that there is agitation over what is externally not present.”

“But, lord, might there be non-agitation over what is externally not present?”

“There might, monk,” the Blessed One said. “There is the case where someone doesn’t think, ‘O, it was mine! O, what was mine is not! O, may it be mine! O, I don’t obtain it!’ He doesn’t grieve, isn’t tormented, doesn’t weep, beat his breast, or grow delirious. It’s thus that there is non-agitation over what is externally not present.”

Agitation & Non-Agitation

“But, lord, might there be agitation over what is internally not present?”

“There might, monk,” the Blessed One said. “There is the case where someone has this view: ‘This cosmos is the self. After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity.’ He hears a Tathagata or a Tathagata’s disciple teaching the Dhamma for the elimination of all view-positions, determinations, biases, inclinations, & obsessions; for the stilling of all fabrications; for the relinquishing of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding. The thought occurs to him, ‘So it might be that I will be annihilated! So it might be that I will perish! So it might be that I will not exist!’ He grieves & is tormented, weeps, beats his breast, & grows delirious. It’s thus that there is agitation over what is internally not present.”

“But, lord, might there be non-agitation over what is internally not present?”

“There might, monk,” the Blessed One said. “There is the case where someone doesn’t have this view: ‘This cosmos is the self. After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity.’ He hears a Tathagata or a Tathagata’s disciple teaching the Dhamma for the elimination of all view-positions, determinations, biases, inclinations, & obsessions; for the stilling of all fabrications; for the relinquishing of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding. The thought doesn’t occur to him, ‘So it might be that I will be annihilated! So it might be that I will perish! So it might be that I will not exist!’ He doesn’t grieve, isn’t tormented, doesn’t weep, beat his breast, or grow delirious. It’s thus that there is non-agitation over what is internally not present.”

Abandoning Possessions & Views

“Monks, you would do well to possess that possession, the possession of which would be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change, that would stay just like that for an eternity. But do you see that possession, the possession of which would be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change, that would stay just like that for an eternity?”

“No, lord.”

“Very good, monks. I, too, do not envision a possession, the possession of which would be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change, that would stay just like that for an eternity.

“Monks, you would do well to cling to that clinging to a doctrine of self, clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair. But do you see a clinging to a doctrine of self, clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair?”

“No, lord.”

“Very good, monks. I, too, do not envision a clinging to a doctrine of self, clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair.

“Monks, you would do well to depend on a view-dependency (ditthi-nissaya), depending on which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair. But do you see a view-dependency, depending on which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair?”

“No, lord.”

“Very good, monks. I, too, do not envision a view-dependency, depending on which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair.

“Monks, where there is a self, would there be [the thought,] ‘belonging to my self’?”

“Yes, lord.”

“Or, monks, where there is what belongs to self, would there be [the thought,] ‘my self’?”

“Yes, lord.”

“Monks, where a self or what belongs to self are not pinned down as a truth or reality, then the view-position — ‘This cosmos is the self. After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity’ — Isn’t it utterly & completely a fool’s teaching?”

“What else could it be, lord? It’s utterly & completely a fool’s teaching.”

“What do you think, monks — Is form constant or inconstant?” “Inconstant, lord.” “And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?” “Stressful, lord.” “And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”

“No, lord.”

“…Is feeling constant or inconstant?” “Inconstant, lord.”…

“…Is perception constant or inconstant?” “Inconstant, lord.”…

“…Are fabrications constant or inconstant?” “Inconstant, lord.”…

“What do you think, monks — Is consciousness constant or inconstant?” “Inconstant, lord.” “And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?” “Stressful, lord.” “And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”

“No, lord.”

“Thus, monks, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: ‘This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.’

“Any feeling whatsoever…

“Any perception whatsoever…

“Any fabrications whatsoever…

“Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: ‘This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.’

“Seeing thus, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, ‘Fully released.’ He discerns that ‘Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.’

“This, monks, is called a monk whose cross-bar is thrown off, [10] whose moat is filled in, whose pillar is pulled out, whose bolt is withdrawn, a noble one with banner lowered, burden placed down, unfettered.

“And how is a monk one whose cross-bar is thrown off? There is the case where a monk’s ignorance is abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. This is how a monk is one whose cross-bar is thrown off.

“And how is a monk one whose moat is filled in? There is the case where a monk’s wandering-on to birth, leading on to further-becoming, is abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. This is how a monk is one whose moat is filled in.

“And how is a monk one whose pillar is pulled out? There is the case where a monk’s craving is abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. This is how a monk is one whose pillar is pulled out.

“And how is a monk one whose bolt is withdrawn? There is the case where a monk’s five lower fetters are abandoned, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. This is how a monk is one whose bolt is withdrawn.

“And how is a monk a noble one with banner lowered, burden placed down, unfettered? There is the case where a monk’s conceit ‘I am’ is abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. This is how a monk is a noble one with banner lowered, burden placed down, unfettered.

“And when the devas, together with Indra, the Brahmas, & Pajapati, search for the monk whose mind is thus released, they cannot find that ‘The consciousness of the one truly gone (tathagata) [11] is dependent on this.’ Why is that? The one truly gone is untraceable even in the here & now. [12]

“Speaking in this way, teaching in this way, I have been erroneously, vainly, falsely, unfactually misrepresented by some brahmans and contemplatives [who say], ‘Gotama the contemplative is one who misleads. He declares the annihilation, destruction, extermination of the existing being.’ But as I am not that, as I do not say that, so I have been erroneously, vainly, falsely, unfactually misrepresented by those venerable brahmans and contemplatives [who say], ‘Gotama the contemplative is one who misleads. He declares the annihilation, destruction, extermination of the existing being.’ [13]

“Both formerly and now, monks, I declare only stress and the cessation of stress. [14] And if others insult, abuse, taunt, bother, & harass the Tathagata for that, he feels no hatred, no resentment, no dissatisfaction of heart because of that. And if others honor, respect, revere, & venerate the Tathagata for that, he feels no joy, no happiness, no elation of heart because of that. And if others honor, respect, revere, & venerate the Tathagata for that, he thinks, ‘They do me such service at this that has already been comprehended.’ [15]

“Therefore, monks, if others insult, abuse, taunt, bother, & harass you as well, you should feel no hatred, no resentment, no dissatisfaction of heart because of that. And if others honor, respect, revere, & venerate you as well, you should feel no joy, no gladness, no elation of heart because of that. And if others honor, respect, revere, & venerate you, you should think, ‘They do us [16] such service at this that has already been comprehended.’

“Therefore, monks, whatever isn’t yours: Let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term welfare & happiness. And what isn’t yours? Form (body) isn’t yours: Let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term welfare & happiness. Feeling isn’t yours… Perception… Thought fabrications… Consciousness isn’t yours: Let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term welfare & happiness.

“What do you think, monks: If a person were to gather or burn or do as he likes with the grass, twigs, branches & leaves here in Jeta’s Grove, would the thought occur to you, ‘It’s us that this person is gathering, burning, or doing with as he likes’?”

“No, lord. Why is that? Because those things are not our self, nor do they belong to our self.”

“Even so, monks, whatever isn’t yours: Let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term welfare & happiness. And what isn’t yours? Form isn’t yours… Feeling isn’t yours… Perception… Thought fabrications… Consciousness isn’t yours: Let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term welfare & happiness.

The Well-Proclaimed Dhamma

“The Dhamma thus well-proclaimed by me is clear, open, evident, stripped of rags. In the Dhamma thus well-proclaimed by me — clear, open, evident, stripped of rags — there is for those monks who are arahants — whose mental effluents are ended, who have reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who are released through right gnosis — no (future) cycle for manifestation. This is how the Dhamma well-proclaimed by me is clear, open, evident, stripped of rags. [17]

“In the Dhamma thus well-proclaimed by me — clear, open, evident, stripped of rags — those monks who have abandoned the five lower fetters are all due to be reborn [in the Pure Abodes], there to be totally unbound, never again to return from that world. This is how the Dhamma well-proclaimed by me is clear, open, evident, stripped of rags.

“In the Dhamma thus well-proclaimed by me — clear, open, evident, stripped of rags — those monks who have abandoned the three fetters, with the attenuation of passion, aversion, & delusion, are all once-returners who, on returning only one more time to this world, will make an ending to stress. This is how the Dhamma well-proclaimed by me is clear, open, evident, stripped of rags.

“In the Dhamma thus well-proclaimed by me — clear, open, evident, stripped of rags — those monks who have abandoned the three fetters, are all stream-winners, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening. This is how the Dhamma well-proclaimed by me is clear, open, evident, stripped of rags.

“In the Dhamma thus well-proclaimed by me — clear, open, evident, stripped of rags — those monks who are Dhamma-followers and conviction-followers [18] are all headed for self-awakening. This is how the Dhamma well-proclaimed by me is clear, open, evident, stripped of rags.

“In the Dhamma thus well-proclaimed by me — clear, open, evident, stripped of rags — those monks who have a [sufficient] measure of conviction in me, a [sufficient] measure of love for me, are all headed for heaven. This is how the Dhamma well-proclaimed by me is clear, open, evident, stripped of rags.”

That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the monks delighted in the Blessed One’s words. [2]

NOTES

[1] Irina Nola, Past Life Therapist>>

[2] Citation “Alagaddupama Sutta: The Water-Snake Simile” (MN 22), translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight (BCBS Edition), 17 December 2013, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html .

The great teacher Thich Nhat Hanh, who passed away at 00:00hrs on 22nd January, 2022, at the age of 95, often wrote about impermanence, with an optimistic take on death:

“When you look a cloud… and then later the cloud is not there. But, if you look deeply, you can see the cloud in the rain, and that is why it’s impossible for a cloud to die. A cloud can become rain, or snow, or ice, but a cloud cannot become nothing. And that is why the notion of death cannot be applied to reality. There is a transformation, there is a continuation, but you cannot say that there is death. Because in your mind, to die, means you suddenly become nothing. From someone, you suddenly become no one… When you can remove these notions, you are free and you have no fear.” [Source video embedded below.]

The Venerable monk also said, “The Buddha did not die. The Buddha only continued. By His Sangha, by His Dharma, you can touch Buddha in the here and the now.”

“Learning how to live”

Leonardo da Vinci is credited as saying, “While I thought that I was learning how to live, I have been learning how to die.” This may be a discouraging thought for some, but Buddhists view end-of-life meditation as an uplifting and powerful practice.

“Analysis of death is not for the sake of becoming fearful but to appreciate this precious lifetime.” — Dalai Lama [2]

Recently, at Gaden Choling Toronto, in a broad-ranging interview on many topics [1], I asked the most Venerable Zasep Tulku Rinpoche “Why do Buddhists meditate on death?” This led to a spirited and helpful teaching, especially as I had recently experienced the passing of several family members in one year — long, lingering and painful passings.

Zasep Rinpoche’s answer encouraged me to research what other eminent teachers have to say about death meditation. I’ve brought together some teachings from the Buddha, the Dalai Lama, Stephen and Ondrea Levine, Thich Nhat Hanh, Ribur Rinpoche, and also some helpful guidelines from the Journal of Palliative Care.

[For helpful suggestions for Palliative end-of-life caregivers specific to Buddhists, see the last half of this article.]

Life Without Boundaries — Thich Nhat Hanh

The great Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh’s gave us amazing translations of Sutra to help us contemplate the nature of impermanence. For example [12]:

This body is not me, I am not caught in this body.
I am life without boundaries. I have never been born,
and I shall never die.
Look at the ocean and the sky filled with stars,
manifestations of my wondrous true mind.
Since before time, I have been free.
birth and death are only doors through which we
pass, sacred thresholds on our journey.
birth and death are just a game of hide and seek.
So laugh with me,
hold my hand,
let us say goodbye,
say goodbye, to meet again soon.
We meet today.
We will meet again tomorrow.
We will meet at the source at every moment.
We meet each other in all forms of life.

“So do not be afraid of death. Death is just a continuation, and so is birth. At every moment, death is happening in your body—some cells are dying so other cells can come to life. Death is indispensable to life. If there is no death, there is no birth, just as there can be no left if there is no right. Don’t hold out hope that life will be possible without death. You must accept both of them—birth and death.

If you practice well, you can gain deep insight into the ultimate dimension while remaining in touch with the historical, or relative, dimension. And when you are deeply in touch with the historical dimension, you also touch the ultimate dimension, and you see that your true nature is no-birth and no-death.

Living is a joy. Dying in order to begin again is also a joy. Starting over is a wonderful thing, and we are starting over constantly. beginning anew is one of our main practices at Plum Village, and we must die every day in order to renew ourselves, in order to make a fresh start. Learning to die is a very profound practice.” [12]

Zasep Tulku Rinpoche: “Death can happen at any time… meditating on death is very helpful.”

“Meditating on death and dying is very important,” Zasep Rinpoche said. “Meditating on death and dying helps motivate Dharma practice. Life is too short. Death can happen at any time, you don’t know.”

“I’ve got maybe ten years, fifteen years, maybe twenty years. So, the time goes fast, but death’s going to happen sooner or later. So, meditating on death is very helpful to motivate Dharma practice.”

Rinpoche added that “meditating on death and dying is helpful for other people. For instance, you know someone is dying, like family members — or, maybe you work around people who are dying, like a palliative nurse or doctor — so it’s good to know more about how to be helpful in these times.” [The full transcript of the 2 hour interview with Zasep Rinpoche is featured here>>]

This brought to mind, the memorable words of Chagdud Rinpoche, a Tibetan lama:

“When you have to go to the bathroom, it’s too late to build a latrine.” [6]

Preparing to die, it could be said, is a key meditation and concept in Buddhism.

Stephen Levine: “We are all going to die… live as if the present year was our last”

Stephen and Ondrea Levine became well known for their book, A Year to Live, [3] “which explores the practice of living the present year as if it were our last.” Stephen famously wrote,

“Death is just a change of lifestyles.”

Although Stephen has since passed away,  so profound was his message, that he inspired many people to meditate and practice as if they had one year to live. In an interview in Tricycle Magazine [4] — in answer to the question ” Why is it important for us to think about dying?” — he replied:

“Because we are all going to die. If we could bring that reality into our heart, that would be a practice unto itself. The last time Ondrea and I spoke with the Dalai Lama, he asked us what were working on. I told him we were writing a book called A Year To Live, which explores the practice of living as if the present year were our last. He wondered whether people who started this practice would run amok. In other words, if they imagined the end was coming, wouldn’t they just grab a lady or a guy and a bottle of tequila and head for the beach? And that’s what we thought as well. But the truth is, when people know they are going to die, that last year is often the most loving, most conscious, and most caring — even under conditions of poor concentration, the side effects of medication, and so on. So don’t wait to die until you die. Start practicing now.”

Dalai Lama: “Facing Death and Dying Well”

As with everything, the Dalai Lama teaches out of an abundance of compassion. He also manages to sneak in a laugh, even on a talk about death. “Many people just want to forget about death, and then try to seek protection in alcohol.” (See Video “His Holiness the Dalai Lama talks about “Facing Death in a peaceful manner” Meridian Trust, embedded below.)

“There are two ways to deal with suffering and problems. The one, is simply to avoid the problem. That’s one way… The other way is, they look directly at the problem and analyze. And make it familiar to oneself.”

He explained that sickness and dying “are just a part of nature ­— a fact of life… There’s birth. So, logically, there’s death. So, that is part of our life, whether we like it or not.”

His Holiness explained that “sometimes through difficult experiences, sometimes life becomes more meaningful…” Facing and accepting death is one of these difficult experiences. “I notice that the elder generations, those people who lived through the second world war, that these people, their mental attitude becomes much stronger.” He described some suffering as “good lessons.”

“I think of my own experience. In one way, I lost my own country… and there is a lot of unhappiness and a lot of suffering… But through that I had an opportunity to meet different people… so, I think that experience enriched… those tragic experiences, also had good affect.”

Dalai Lama: “Be Mindful of Death”

In his book Advice on Dying, the Dalai Lama wrote: “It is crucial to be mindful of death — to contemplate that you will not remain long in this life. If you are not aware of death, you will fail to take advantage of this special human life that you have already attained. It is meaningful since, based on it, important effects can be accomplished.

“Analysis of death is not for the sake of becoming fearful but to appreciate this precious lifetime during which you can perform many important practices. Rather than being frightened, you need to reflect that when death comes, you will lose this good opportunity for practice. In this way contemplation of death will bring more energy to your practice.” [2]

Zasep Tulku Rinpoche: “Think about what is more important… more worthwhile”

The purpose, then, of death meditation is to inspire an “energy to practice” — even if just for ten minutes a day. In our interview with Zasep Rinpoche, he helpfully suggested: “So, think about what is more important for you. What is more worthwhile? Making another ten-minute phone call, or sending text messages, or meditating? Just schedule ten minutes in the morning, ten minutes in the evening, or fit in some mindfulness meditation during the day. Or, you can do walking meditation, standing meditation. Yes, there are some things you have to do. You have to talk on the phone and do text messages. But, you don’t have to be so busy that you can’t find time to meditate for ten minutes.

“Just last week I was on the street car and I saw this man, in his car, sending text messages, and smoking a cigarette, and also sipping on coffee. He was doing four things at the same time, driving, texting, smoking and drinking coffee. I thought to myself, Why? Isn’t that a bit stressful, trying to do four things at once? (laughs) I could see he was stressed out, that’s why he was smoking. Tired, that’s why he was drinking coffee.” Meditation on impermanence, on death, can help us reset our priorities.

Einstein: “Past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”

Einstein had a similar concept of “transformation” rather than “extinction.” After the death of a close friend, he wrote, in 1955:

“Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”

He later elaborated on this notion. ““Space and time are not conditions in which we live, they are modes in which we think.”

Einstein famously wrote, in The World As I See It (1933): “Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvelous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavor to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature.”

All carbon based life is made up of recycled material. Every atom in the universe is recycled. Nothing is every destroyed. Energy becomes matter becomes energy in an endless cycle. Of course that’s not the same as saying our “consciousness” continues after death, but it’s one reason scientists such as Einstein were supportive of many Buddhist concepts — and not fearful of their own deaths. The analysis of death, as suggested by the Dalai Lama, removes that fear.

Venerable Ribur Rinpoche: “people in the west don’t want to hear about impermanence and death “

One reason many Buddhist live fearlessly is a firm belief in the logical doctrine of rebirth, as partially described by Thich Nhat Hanh in his cloud analogy. Ribur Rinpoche — who, himself, lived day-by-day under threat of death under oppression in his Tibetan homeland for 23 years — explained why he thinks Westerners tend to fear death:

“In general people in the west don’t want to hear about impermanence and death… This is wrong. This is very wrong. At the time of death we don’t want to be sad… It is now, while we are alive, that we have to think about it. In this way, we have to think about it correctly, and to make the right preparation…”

[“Death and Rebirth” embedded video below]

He explained the importance of this understanding. “If you don’t understand impermanence, you won’t be practicing anyway. You’ll think, oh yes, I have to practice Dharma, but I can do it tomorrow. Or day after tomorrow. Or next year. As Lama Tsongkhapa said ‘In this way, I say I can do it later, I can do it later, and then your whole life goes by.’ You won’t achieve anything. Therefore, you won’t be able to abandon the fantasies related to this life… Your mind will be trapped within the eight worldly dharmas.”

“There are no methods that will prevent me from dying. Definitely, I’m going to die. That is certain…” He explained that without an understanding of impermanence, karma and rebirth, there is no encouragement to practice morality.

Ondrea Levine: “I think our fear on dying is a loss of control… Those thoughts are your conditioning.”

In their book, A Year to Live Stephen and Ondrea Levine wrote extensively about the key benefit of meditating on death from a palliative point-of-view. Stephen himself recently passed, and Ondrea has cancer, so they speak with authority.

“There’s a great deal of fear of death,” Ondrea said in a LevineTalks Video (embedded below). “People think they can get rid of it… Of course there’s fear of death. I’m not really afraid of death and what comes after. Because of my practice, I know this body will die… but, I do have fear around the process of dying.”

“No one wants to be in pain. No one wants to lose control. I think our fear on dying is a loss of control. This is natural. This is a normal fear… because death is the unknown.” She spoke about how we can rely on our teachers, such as the Buddha, and gain comfort, but that ultimately we have to experience, in our own practice, something “larger than our own little minds. So, whatever your practice is, you have to practice to work on your fears.” She illustrated with mindfulness practice.

She emphasized that those fears, “those thoughts are not you. Those thoughts are your conditioning.” She suggested mindfulness as a helpful method. “Become mindful of the situation. Become mindful.” She illustrated with a trip to her own doctor for test results. “I just examine my body. I try to slow my breath down. I’m sitting in the waiting room, instead of distracting myself by reading magazines… Slow the breath down. In slowing it down, it calms the whole body.” Analyzing your own body and your own fears is “a skillful means of being open to the unpleasant.”

Deathbed Wishes: “I wish I had played… more.”

In an interview in Trycicle Magazine, Ondrea Levine said, “I think the greatest benefit of the year-to-live practice is the opportunity it provides to reassess our priorities. When we worked with people on their deathbed, we would often hear the following three complaints: I wish I had gotten divorced earlier; I wish I had taken a job for love of the work, not money; I wish I had played and enjoyed myself more. So the beauty of the practice is that we can evaluate our lives even before we are on our deathbed. If we are not living the life we wish to live, how can we change that now, while there is still time?

“I can say this, because I have cancer. And I know that once you get that diagnosis, no matter how much you already know, something happens, everything becomes much more real. Ironically, it brings greater permission to be fully alive. I find it very exciting.”

Journal of Hospice and Palliative Nursing: Caring for End-of-Life Buddhists

“Tibetan Buddhism is one of the fastest growing religions in the United States,” wrote Marilyn Smith-Stoner, PhD, RN in her helpful article on Palliative care for Buddhists in the Journal of Hospice and Palliative Nursing. She adds: “The care they request at the end of life is different in many aspects from traditional end-of-life care.”

This helpful guide, specifically written for Palliative caregivers, gave helpful insights for non-Buddhists who might be caring for a Buddhist: “In all Buddhist traditions, four fundamental contemplations compose the foundation of understanding and meditation: first, that a human rebirth is extremely precious and should be used to its highest spiritual potential; second, that all compounded phenomena are impermanent, and whoever is born is bound to die; third, that beings experience relative reality as compared to ultimate nature that arises interdependently with their own actions; fourth, that all beings suffer, and human beings suffer particularly from birth, sickness, old age, and death.”

Buddha: The Story of Krisha Gotami and the Mustard Seeds

In this helpful guide for Palliative caregivers, the author uses the commonly cited story of the Mustard Seeds:

“In all Buddhist traditions, four fundamental contemplations compose the foundation of understanding and meditation:[2] first, that a human rebirth is extremely precious and should be used to its highest spiritual potential; second, that all compounded phenomena are impermanent, and whoever is born is bound to die; third, that beings experience relative reality as compared to ultimate nature that arises interdependently with their own actions; fourth, that all beings suffer, and human beings suffer particularly from birth, sickness, old age, and death.”

From the Sacred Text “The Mustard Seed”:

Kisa Gotami repaired to the Buddha and cried: “Lord and Master, give me the medicine that will cure my boy.” The Buddha answered: “I want a handful of mustard-seed.” And when the girl in her joy promised to procure it, the Buddha added: “The mustard-seed must be taken from a house where no one has lost a child, husband, parent, or friend.” Poor Kisa Gotami now went from house to house, and the people pitied her and said: “Here is mustard-seed; take it!” But when she asked Did a son or daughter, a father or mother, die in your family?” They answered her: “Alas the living are few, but the dead are many. Do not remind us of our deepest grief.” And there was no house but some beloved one had died in it.

Kisa Gotami became weary and hopeless, and sat down at the wayside, watching the lights of the city, as they flickered up and were extinguished again. At last the darkness of the night reigned everywhere. And she considered the fate of men, that their lives flicker up and are extinguished. And she thought to herself: “How selfish am I in my grief! Death is common to all; yet in this valley of desolation there is a path that leads him to immortality who has surrendered all selfishness.” [10]

Tibetan Book of the Dead: “Describes the dying process in detail”

The Journal article cites the importance of palliative workers being familiar with the Tibetan Book of the Dead, and then goes on to summarize high-level understandings that might be comforting to the Buddhist facing end-of-life. Important, especially, is the definition of death, which in various traditions of Buddhism is quite different from the medical definition. Robert Thurman, the respected Tibetan Buddhist teacher, said the Tibetan Book of the Dead “organizes the experiences of the between—(Tibetan, bar-do) usually referring to the state between death and rebirth.” [11]

Leonard Cohen Narrates a Film on The Tibetan Book of the Dead (video):

The author instructs care-professionals from a Tibetan Buddhist point of view, “it is believed that the nexus of consciousness—at its most subtle level of cognizance and movement—can remain in the body for up to 3 days or longer, depending on the circumstances of death. If the body dies by accident or violence, if the body is undisturbed, or if certain rituals are performed to liberate it from the body, the consciousness may exit immediately. In these cases, the body is merely a corpse and nothing unusual needs to be considered. But, after a peaceful death, Tibetan Buddhists are exceptionally concerned about what happens to the body in the moments and days after death, and they try to ensure that the consciousness exits from the crown of the head.”

Helpfully, the article instructs care-givers to inquire who the patient’s teacher may be and cautions the teacher may live far away. The guide also mentions the practice of P’howa, which means “transference of consciousness” as part of the ongoing spiritual training. P’howa prayers may be recited for years prior to the actual time of death.”

Zasep Tulku Rinpoche: “You can do non-traditional Powa … for other people.”

In our extensive interview with Venerable Zasep Rinpoche we did have an opportunity to ask about Powa or P’howa. I asked, “Is Powa practice helpful for the dying (Transferring the Consciousness)?”

Zasep Rinpoche replied, helpfully: “Powa is a Tibetan word, it means “transferring the consciousness.” I usually say, not everybody should practice this. I don’t want to give people the wrong idea. We do Powa practice as a training. When you know you have some illness or you are dying, if you think death come soon, then it’s a good time to practice. But Powa requires instructions. In traditional Powa practice you have visualize chakras and channels and so on.”

Power Meditation guided by H.E. Zasep Rinpoche:

For caregivers, however, Rinpoche had some special advice: “But, you can do a non-traditional Powa—mild Powa, a simple kind of Powa—for other people. Sort of guiding. I call it Powa for the West. For instance if you’re a family member, or in palliative care, and you talk to the patient, you might say as they are dying: ‘You know you are dying now. Let it go. You should go peacefully. As you go, imagine you are going to the Pure Land, or going into the Light, or into Eternal Bliss or Nirvana.’ You could call this kind of help, Powa for the West. It’s not traditional Powa.”

The Zen Master and the Cake

Rinpoche told a story—  illustrating the importance of a peaceful death — during the interview:

“I’ll tell you a story of a Zen Master. He was dying. And he told his attendant ‘Bring me my favorite cake!’ Rice cake. While he was munching the rice cake, his consciousness slipped away. He slipped away while enjoying his rice cake. In a way, this was a kind of Powa. He enjoyed his rice cake peacefully, and no sign of struggling, fear, worry, just passing the consciousness peacefully, happily.”

Venerable Thanissaro Bhikkhu: When dying, “meditation is the one thing that won’t abandon you”

Dying is the one thing we all will face. Buddhists are usually taught to spend their practice hours in one form or another of meditation: mindfulness, analytical mediation (such as on Death), and visualization.

When the time comes to die, explains Venerable Thanissaro Bhikku, meditation is the one thing that will not abandon you:

“What all this boils down to is that, as long as you are able to survive, meditation will improve the quality of your life, so that you can view pain and illness with equanimity and learn from them. When the time comes to go, when the doctors have to throw up their hands in helplessness, the skill you have been developing in your meditation is the one thing that won’t abandon you. It will enable you to handle your death with finesse. Even though we don’t like to think about it, death is going to come no matter what, so we should learn how to stare it down. Remember that a death well handled is one of the surest signs of a life well lived.” [9]

On a more optimistic note, the Venerable teacher told the story of how meditation help keep a woman with cancer alive:

“You should be very clear on one point: The purpose of meditation is to find happiness and well-being within the mind, independent of the body or other things going on outside. Your aim is to find something solid within that you can depend on no matter what happens to the body. If it so happens that through your meditation you are able to effect a physical cure, that’s all fine and good, and there have been many cases where meditation can have a remarkable effect on the body. My teacher had a student – a woman in her fifties – who was diagnosed with cancer more than 15 years ago. The doctors at the time gave her only a few months to live, and yet through her practice of meditation she is still alive today. She focused her practice on the theme that, ‘although her body may be sick, her mind doesn’t have to be.’ A few years ago I visited her in the hospital the day after she had had a kidney removed. She was sitting up in bed, bright and aware, as if nothing happened at all. I asked her if there was any pain, and she said yes, 24 hours a day, but that she didn’t let it make inroads on her mind.”

The Five Powers: Thought Transformation for a Happy Successful Death

Of course no one wants to die. Without question, we will die. In Buddhism, dying without fear, with peace, with a sense of “happiness” is a key teaching. To that end, the teaching on the Five Powers —similar to the Four Powers widely used in Purification practice — can be helpful. These are:

• The Power of Purification
• The Power of Intention
• The Power of Remorse
• The Power of Prayer
• The Power of Familiarity.

For Tibetan Buddhists, this will immediately resonate. Vajrasattva purification practice encompasses similar steps. In fact, daily Vajrasattva practice, keeps the practicing Vajaryana Buddhist ready for a fearless death (even a sudden, accidental or traumatic death.)

1. The First Power, the Power of Purificaiton is basically purification practice (whether focused on Vajrasattva or not.) These are “the 4 powers of regret, reliance, remedy and resolution; give up attachment to your possessions and make offerings of them; meditate upon refuge in the 3 Jewels, give rise to positive thoughts such as Bodhicitta; reaffirm your commitment to whatever spiritual goals and values you cultivated during your life.” [7]
2. The Second Power, The Power of Intention This power is mirrored in the Palliative Care Suggestions from the Journal of Hospice and Palliative Nursing article. The key is developing a strong resolution not to let your mind come under the sway of disturbing emotions, even in the face of pain and suffering, and remaining focused on altruism and Bodhichitta.
3. The Third Power: The Power or Remorse By meditating on these disturbing emotions, as with all focused meditation, we can make ourselves ready for them to “protect yourself from being overwhelmed by them.”
4. The Fourth Power: the Power of Prayer Making strong aspirations and reaffirming commitments not to become separated from the Dharma, Bodhichitta and the prayer to obtain fortunate rebirth in a situation suitable to continue practicing the Dharma.
5. The Fifth Power: the Power of Familiarity P’howa practice is one method to become “familiar” and practice for the time of death. “Taking and Giving” practice is also powerful, where we visualize and meditate on “taking on the suffering of other beings” and “giving our blessings” to other beings. For those not trained by a teacher in these methods, meditation on samsara, compassion, impermanence, and Emptiness.

Buddha: Palliative Care as Taught by the Buddha

“He who attends on the sick attends on me,” said the Blessed One, the Buddha. [8]

The Buddha taught extensively on nursing and caring for the sick and dying. On many occasions, Buddha personally cleaned and tended to dying people, personally washing out their puss and wounds, and staying with them, speaking the Dharma, as they passed.

“The Buddha has enumerated the qualities that should be present in a good nurse. He should be competent to administer the medicine, he should know what is agreeable to the patient and what is not. He should keep away what is disagreeable and give only what is agreeable to the patient. He should be benevolent and kind-hearted, he should perform his duties out of a sense of service and not just for the sake of remuneration (mettacitto gilanam upatthati no amisantaro). He should not feel repulsion towards saliva, phlegm, urine, stools, sores, etc. He should be capable of exhorting and stimulating the patient with noble ideas, with Dhamma talk (A.iii,144).” [8] 

For Care-Givers: Palliative Care Suggestions for Buddhist at End of Life

In the helpful care-givers article from the Journal of Hospice and Palliative Nursing, several useful suggestions are made. [Please see the full article, cited in our notes, for full details.]

In informing caregivers about the importance of a “peaceful” passing, suggestions included:

• Allow for uninterrupted periods for religious practice, and consider playing meditative audio recordings that are reassuring to the patient, such as mantra or sutra recitation where appropriate.
• Provide an altar with religious photos and relics and keep it in the line of vision of the patient.
• “Specifying who the patient would like to be present at the time of death. The preference may be for no one to be present, especially if family and friends are very emotional or unsupportive of the religious practices.”
• Importance of the attitude of caregivers and visitors: peaceful visits, turn phones off, be relaxed and peaceful.

The article emphasizes the importance of a peaceful environment several times and notes that managing disruptive or upset visitors might be important. During the dying process, the article suggests:

• Do not disturb the patient
• For Tibetan Buddhists especially, leave the body undisturbed for as long as practically possible after death. “Buddhists believe the dying process continues for 3–4 days after what is usually accepted as “dead.” Although many laws do not allow for the body to remain in a natural state for 3–4 days, remain mindful of this to be supportive as the family is approached about the death.”
• “You may want to help the patient sit up in order to practice, or to lie on the right side, which was the position of the Buddha at his death deceased has sometimes been reported as 100 days; however, in the Vajrayana.”

Of special note the author wrote: “the period for special rituals and prayers for the tradition, the period is generally 49 days. Although this may seem like a subtle difference, it is highly relevant in the provision of individualized bereavement services in hospice.”

NOTES

[1] Two hour interview with Venerable Zasep Tulku Rinpoche at Gaden Choling, fall teaching session 2015, full interview to be published in Buddha Weekly.

[2] Advice on Dying: And Living a Better Life, Dalai Lama

[3] A Year to Live: How to Live This Year as If It Were Your Last, Publisher: Harmony; 1st edition (April 14 1998), ISBN-10: 0609801945, ISBN-13: 978-0609801949

[4] Tricycle Magazine: Interview with Stephen Levine

[5] Levine Talks website.

[6] Journal of Hospice and Palliative Nursing article: “End-of-Life Needs of Patients Who Practice Tibetan Buddhism”

[7] “A Buddhist Guide to Death, Dying and Suffering” — Urban Dharma.

[8] “Ministering to the Sick and Terminally Ill” by Lily de Silva, Urban Dharma

[9] “Using Meditation to Deal with Pain, Illness and Death” Venerable Thanissaro Bhikku, Urban Dharma.

[10] Sacred Text “The Mustard Seed”

[11] Open Culture “Leonard Cohen Narrates Film on The Tibetan Book of the Dead”

[12] Cited from “Thich Nhat Hanh on Dying” — Shambala

” The eightfold path is often represented as a wheel with eight spokes. Pick a wheel with just one or two and it won’t take you very far.” — Mark Vernon [13]

“Some traditional Buddhist teachers tend to serve “Dharma-Lite” like “Coca-Cola Lite,” rather than “the Real Thing” Dharma,” said Alexander Berzin in June 2000 talk. [1] He was referring to “lite” motivations in modern, westernized Buddhism, where teachers avoid the topic of rebirth or other core beliefs— to make teachings more suitable to the western psyche.

For the purposes of this feature, I’m going to call it “Designer Dharma” — picking and choosing which core beliefs to subscribe to—based on personal belief, culture, “laziness” or preference. A separate issue is more systemized cultural “modern revisionism”.

Often cited in support of this notion of “pick and choose” and “revisionism” is the Kalama Sutta, sometimes referred to as “the Buddha’s charter of free inquiry”—an regularly mistranslated and poorly interpreted sutta. [11] (See more on Kalama Sutta below). Since I, myself, often pick and choose, and have difficulty with some doctrines such as rebirth, I thought I’d research “What the teachers say.”

Zasep Tulku Rinpoche: “You can be a Buddhist without believing in reincarnation.”

In a recent interview with Venerable Zasep Tulku Rinpoche, I mentioned the difficulty some westerners have with some Buddhist doctrines such as reincarnation. Rinpoche replied,

“You can be a Buddhist without believing in reincarnation. Don’t worry about the past. The future is a dream. Stay in the now. The most important thing is to watch your body, speech and mind, and if you cultivate merit, and practice loving kindness, then you are a good Buddhist.”

[10 Interview at Gaden Choling, Fall 2015]

However, it’s important to note that Rinpoche was not advocating “Designer Dharma” but rather, reassuring those who might have difficulty with a specific belief not to be discouraged but to continue practicing.

The most common advice from teachers of western students is best summarized in this quote from Thanissaro Bhikko: “You don’t have to believe in rebirth, you just have to take it as a working hypothesis.” [9]

Designer Dharma: pick-and-choose Buddhism

Many westernized Buddhists, myself included, tend to pick and choose Buddhist teachings, particularly with relation to difficult topics such as rebirth or reincarnation that might not to resonate with western culture and rational scientific minds. Many of my Buddhist friends merrily avoid these topics, rather than confront them. If pushed, some will say, “I’m a Buddhist, but I don’t believe in X.” The biggest “X” tends to be “rebirth” I’ve found.

Core beliefs in Buddhism—which might, or might not become part of a Buddhist’s “Designer Dharma”—almost invariably include:

• the Four Noble Truths
• Dependent Origination
• the Eightfold Path
• the Three Characteristics of Existence
• the Three Jewels
• Five Precepts
• Karma
• Rebirth
• Nirvana

Some of my Buddhist friends definitely “subscribe” to the Four Noble Truths and Eightfold Path, but can’t bring themselves to accept rebirth. Others, like myself, accept the core beliefs, but need constant reinforcement on rebirth and karma.

Agnostic Buddhism: “Teachers… use the idea of rebirth metaphorically”

“Many contemporary forms of Buddhism in the West—especially Zen and vipassana—seem to pay little attention to the doctrine of rebirth,” writes teacher Stephen Batchelor. [8] “Teachers in these traditions often use the idea of rebirth metaphorically to describe the moment-to-moment process of “dying” and being “reborn.” However appealing, psychologically astute, and didactically skillful such interpretations may be, they can give rise to the misleading impression that in traditional Zen or Theravadan cultures the doctrine of rebirth is likewise not taken literally.”

“Rebirth has always been a central teaching in the Buddhist tradition,” writes Thanissaro Bhikkhu of Metta Forest Monastery. “The earliest records in the Pali Canon indicate that the Buddha, prior to his awakening, searched for a happiness not subject to the vagaries of repeated birth… On the night of his awakening, two of the three knowledges leading to his release from suffering focused on the topic of rebirth.” [7]

Even some westernized Tibetan Buddhists tend to practice “Dharma-Lite” when it comes to rebirth—this despite the fact that His Holiness the Dalai Lama is accepted by them to be the 14th incarnation. Certainly, in Mahayana Buddhism, the belief in bodhisattvas who continue “taking birth as long as there are living beings in the world that need to be saved from suffering,” makes rebirth an unavoidable core belief. [8]

Mark Vernon: “Half-baked” western cultural Buddhism?

In a very interesting feature on “Buddhism and the dangers of pick’n’mix religion”, Mark Vernon makes several key swipes at what he calls pick’n’mix religion. Understandably, he writes at length about the notable efforts of Stephen Batchelor, known for his somewhat controversial Buddhism Without Beliefs [14]—himself an ex-monk “heavily engaged in bringing Buddhism into the west.” He points out that Batchelor is “courting trouble along the way” because “he knows that if Buddhism is truly to address the human condition as manifest with modernity, it must resist the temptations of the quick sell.”

“When Buddhism appeared in Japan, it took three centuries for its Zen manifestation to emerge. Buddhism has been a part of western culture for about half that time, since philosophers like Schopenhauer first encountered it; which perhaps explains why it can appear a little half-baked.” [13]

Dalai Lama Teaches on Reincarnation: “…accept the existence of past and future lives”

“In order to accept reincarnation or the reality of the Tulkus, we need to accept the existence of past and future lives,” wrote the Dalai Lama from Dharamsala in September, 2011. [6] “Sentient beings come to this present life from their previous lives and take rebirth again after death. This kind of continuous rebirth is accepted by all the ancient Indian spiritual traditions and schools of philosophy, except the Charvakas, who were a materialist movement. Some modern thinkers deny past and future lives on the premise that we cannot see them. Others do not draw such clear cut conclusions on this basis.”

The Dalai Lama explains the arguments for rebirth: “There are many different logical arguments given in the words of the Buddha and subsequent commentaries to prove the existence of past and future lives. In brief, they come down to four points: the logic that things are preceded by things of a similar type, the logic that things are preceded by a substantial cause, the logic that the mind has gained familiarity with things in the past, and the logic of having gained experience of things in the past.” He adds that there are many people “who can remember their immediate past life.”

Science: Anecdotal evidence, but no verifiable corroboration

Never-the-less, logic aside, such teachings require faith, as there’s no verifiable corroboration from science — even if many scientists are willing to remain open to the concept due to some anecdotal evidence. [3] Most commonly cited is extensive anecdotal evidence from Dr. Ian Stevenson, who collected data from 4500 people who spontaneously recalled past lives. There are dozens of other anecdotal studies supporting “past lives” with credibility, but not carrying the weight of proven science.

Often tossed about are pseudo-scientific theories that attempt to “prove” rebirth is possible, drawing heavily on quantum physics and Einstein. Or, using the often cited example of the “five-year body”—based on the biological fact that all cells in the body are replaced fully every five years (See Thich Nhat Hanh below). These are reinforcing inferences rather than evidence.

Nevertheless, the majority of western Buddhists—myself included—tend to bypass our discomfort with the notion of rebirth, by practicing as if we believed in it. Western teachers often coach their students just to practice, and that wisdom will come eventually. In other words, we don’t “pick and choose” but rather give the “benefit of the doubt” because we trust the wisdom of our teachers, and the ultimate wisdom of the Buddha.

Thich Nhat Hanh: “Nothing Remains the same in two consecutive moments.”

Many Zen Buddhists avoid the topic, and when they discuss it, rebirth is often presented in terms which would be palatable to westerners.

The illustrious teacher Thich Nhat Hanh, whose books are inevitable bestsellers, describes rebirth in very western terms: “When you grow very old, you are no longer the same as when you were five. When you are five, or you are ten, you are neither the same, nor a different person.” He cautions against the views of Eternalism (where a soul survives forever, returning life after life) and Nihilism (where there is nothing). “Everything is impermanence. Nothing can remain exactly the same in two consecutive moments… Birth and death are like waves, and you are riding on the waves…” (from video “Rebirth in Zen Buddhism” (see video below).

Alexander Berzin: “Rebirth… central to Buddhism.”

Alexander Berzin cautioned: “rebirth [is] a topic that is central to Buddhism. I think it’s very important to acknowledge that.” Certainly, in Mahayana Buddhism it’s central. In the lam-rim “the graduated path to enlightenment… it speaks about the pathway minds of three levels of motivation. The first level motivation is to aim for fortunate rebirth.” To be motivated by rebirth, of course, we have to believe in it. “The second level is to aim for liberation. Liberation from what? Liberation from uncontrollably recurring rebirth, which is what samsara is referring to.”

He continues by describing how important belief in rebirth is to other key Buddhist teachings on karma, compassion, the nature of our minds. Rebirth contextualizes the teachings on karma and compassion.

Four Noble Truths and Eightfold path.

The four noble truths, taught by the Buddha, were designed to free us from the cycle of samsara. He taught the path as the “eight fold path” as the remedy for “Dukkha” or suffering. Buddha clearly taught in the context of belief in multiple lives. Rebirth was commonly accepted in Buddha’s lifetime. Buddha spoke of having many previously lives.

In the west, we tend to accept concepts such as karma more as a “moral imperative” rather than a metaphysical concept, since often westerners have trouble with the concept of karmic seeds. Thus, stories such as the Jataka Tales: The Previous Lives of the Buddha—believed to be “pearls of wisdom” from the mouth of the Buddha himself [5]—tend to be soft-pedaled as “children’s fables” to illustrate morality, rather than literal stories of Buddha’s previous lives. Whether the stories were meant to be fables or literal stories is irrelevant; what’s clear is that the Buddha Himself clearly believed in rebirth.

For the modern Buddhist, we often side-step rebirth and rationalize Dhukka as “suffering in this life.” Yet, however much we wish to avoid or rationalize, rebirth is not an avoidable issue that can be side-stepped, given sutra and traditional lineage teachings.

Can We Pick and Choose What to Believe?

Teachings on reincarnation, hell realms and karma are recurrent and prominent in both sutra and tantric teachings—in Pali cannon as much as Mahayana sutra. Yet, they tend to be actively avoided in western teachings. I’ll admit I’m amongst those who has difficultly with seriously contemplating such notions, especially such things as hell realms. There might be some rational foundation for rebirth, but hell realms? (Of course, hell realms, in the west, are often described as psychological hells, rather than “actual” hells.)

The question, then, is can we “pick and choose?” Of course, in the modern world, we are free to believe anything we wish, and we’re certainly free to pick and choose. But, does picking and choosing create obstacles to our progress on the path to ultimate Enlightenment? And, did Buddha encourage or discourage the practice of “Designer Dharma”?

Kalama Sutta: “carte blanche for following one’s own sense of right and wrong”

In The Kalama Sutta, most often cited in relation to the concept of “picking an choosing”, translator Thanissari Bhikkhu is quick to point out: “Although this discourse is often cited as the Buddha’s carte blanche ford following one’s own sense of right and wrong, it actually says something much more rigorous than that. Traditions are not to be followed simply because they are traditions. Reports (such as historical accounts or news) are not to be followed simply because the source seems reliable. One’s own preferences are not to be followed simply because they seem logical or resonate with one’s feelings.”

From the Kalama Sutta, Buddha says: “When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born. So in this case, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering’ — then you should abandon them.” [12]

Rebirth, No Rebirth? Was it a Critical Doctrine?

On the surface, the answer is “probably” since “the theme of rebirth is woven inextricably throughout the Buddha’s teachings. And freedom from rebirth has been a central feature of the Buddhist goal from the very beginning of the tradition.” [7]

Venerable Thich Nguyen Tang, a Vietnamese Buddhist monk, teaches: “To Buddhists, however, death is not the end of life, it is merely the end of the body we inhabit in this life, but our spirit will still remain and seek out through the need of attachment, attachment to a new body and new life. Where they will be born is a result of the past and the accumulation of positive and negative action, and the resultant karma (cause and effect) is a result of ones past actions.” [2]

In most paths of Buddhism, our teachers advise us to meditate on impermanence and death. In part, this is to give a sense of urgency to our practice, or to encourage compassion, or simply to help us focus on the very nature of impermanence. But underpinning these meditations, particularly in lineage-inspired guided meditations, is the cycle of rebirth across endless lives. Vajrayana meditations often focus on the bardo experience — which is the experience between lives. There can be no bardo, without rebirth.

Thanissaro Bhikku: “Annihalationism… those who denied rebirth”

In an interesting article in Tricycle, Thai forest monk Thanissaro Bhikku made the point that “scholars—who should know better—keep repeating the idea that the Buddha lived in a time when everyone took for granted two principles: (1) that rebirth happened and (2) that karma had an effect on how rebirth happened.” He explained that the Pali Canon gives “clear evidence to the contrary.” His key point was that Buddha didn’t believe in rebirth because of cultural/religious norms—the Buddha argued for it. If the Buddha argued for rebirth, it follows that it’s important.

“The Buddha frequently referred to the two extremes of wrong view that blocked progress on the path: externalism and annihilationism. ‘Annihalationism’ is the term he used to describe those who denied rebirth.” He gave a compelling argument for the issue of whether karma and rebirth were mainstream in Buddha’s time. Buddha taught, however, that “if you assume that karma has results, you will act skillfully. And when you act skillfully you gain four assurances in the here and now.” [9]

Modern Revisionism: “Wow… I’m concerned others will actually think that’s Buddha’s view”

In response to an idea making the rounds on the internet, that “reincarnation is a non-Buddhist idea grafted on to Buddhism later,” a Dogen scholar associated with the San Francisco Zen Centre argued: ” I appreciate what you say about how we can’t know what happens after death, and therefore Zen doesn’t emphasize that teaching. However you also say that Dogen was very adamant that there is no reincarnation, that the idea of reincarnation is a non-Buddhist idea that was grafted onto Buddhism later on and isn’t originally part of Buddhism.’ Wow. I am concerned that others will actually think that is Dogen’s and Buddha’s view. As you probably know, there are many, many early Pali Suttas in which the Buddha talks about rebirth.” [10]

To which, a clever commenter posted, “I haven’t believed in rebirth for several lifetimes now.”

Lama Surya Das: “All traditional Buddhist teachers believe in rebirth.”

In his book, Awakening the Buddha Within, Lama Surya Das makes the strong claim, “The more classical Tibetan texts and teachers stress that to be considered a Buddhist you must: take refuge in the Three Jewels (Buddha, Dharma, Sangha); seek liberation from suffering (samsara); and believe in karma and rebirth. They say it is meaningless to seek liberation if you don’t accept karma and its implication of continuity.”

However, he continues, in the very next sentence with: “Many current Western teachers including myself agree that traditional belief in rebirth is not necessary to be a genuine Buddhist, and that an agnostic position on rebirth teachings is fine until one discovers certainty within oneself. I personally feel the most important criteria or characteristic of Buddhist spirituality is a sincere commitment to the possibility of spiritual awakening and enlightenment, combined with an open heart, an inquiring mind, and daily awareness practice based on ethics, meditation and wisdom.”

Designer Dharma: “Four Kinds of Rebirth”

In his book “Awakening the Buddha Within”, Lama Surya Das, describes four ways you can interpret rebirth, leaving it broad enough for even the most agnostic Buddhist to accept one of them:

1. “Life to life … I die, I am reborn
2. Intentional rebirth in linear time (…reincarnate lamas like the Dalai Lama vow intentionally to keep coming back… to liberate all beings til the end of samsara…)
3. Spiritual rebirth (Total renewal and personal transformation in this very life.)
4. Moment-to-moment rebirth in the timeless present… Every moment there is a new you… science tells us that almost every cell in your body changes every seven years… You are not the same person you were yesterday…”

Final Word: “The Truth of Rebirth and Why it Matters for Buddhist Practice”

There is no question that Buddha taught the cycle or rebirth. His teachings were based in his own Enlightened experience as described in various sutras such as   Majjhima Nikaya (Pali Buddhist text). We can take rebirth as a “working hypothesis” rather than a doctrinal fact, as western teachers often advise to “doubtful” western students. To this, perhaps it’s best to let Thanissaro Bhikku have the last word:

“So we’re faced with a choice. If we’re sincere about wanting to end suffering and to give the Buddha’s teachings a fair test, then — instead of assuming that he was a prisoner of his own time and place, unable to question his cultural assumptions — we have to examine the extent to which, in adhering to our own cultural assumptions, we’re imprisoning ourselves. If we don’t want to drop our self-imposed restrictions, we can still benefit from any of the Buddha’s teachings that fit within those limitations, but we’ll have to accept the consequences: that the results we’ll get will be limited as well. Only if we’re willing to submit to the test of appropriate attention, abandoning the presuppositions that distort our thinking about issues like karma and rebirth, will we be able to make full use of the Canon’s tools for gaining total release.” [7]

NOTES

[1] “The Buddhist Explanation of Rebirth“, Alexander Berzin in Morelia Mexico, June 2000. 

[2] “Buddhist View on Death and Rebirth“, Venerable Thich Nguyen Tang 

[3] For a broader discussion of the evidence supporting rebirth, see our previous two features in Buddha Weekly: “Rebirth, Part 1: Is There Evidence of Rebirth or Reincarnation?”   

[4] Coward, Harold (ed.), 1997, Life after Death in World Religions, Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.

[5] “The Jatakas: Stories of Buddha’s Previous Births.” 

[6] “Reincarnation” Dalai Lama 

[7] “The Truth of Rebirth: And Why it Matters for Buddhist Practice”, by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight (Legacy Edition), 30 November 2013, 

[8] “Rebirth: A Case for Buddhist Agnosticism” Stephen Batchelor 

[9] “The Buddha didn’t just believe in rebirth, he argued for it.” Thanissaro Bhikku guest feature in Tricycle, Sept 2011 

[10] “What Should We Think About Death“, Brad, Hardcore Zen 

[11] “A Look at the Kalama Sutta“, Bhikkhu Bodhi 

[12] “Kalama Sutta: To the Kalamas“, translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikku

[13] “Buddhism and the dangers of pick’n’mix relgion.” the guardian, Mark Vernon 

[14] Buddhism Without Beliefs, Stephen Batchelor, Riverhead Books, ISBN-10: 1573226564, ISBN-13: 978-1573226561   

[15] “Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it” Fake Buddhist Quotes website.

 Yet, some of us do capture fragments of past lives in dreams, or under hypnosis. Or, as shown in the research of Dr. Ian Stevenson [referenced below], children often remember past lives. As we grow into adults, we not only forget past lives, but even much of what happened to us as children.

A trauma as a child — a forgotten memory — might cause psychological problems for us as adults; whereas, a happy childhood with wonderful parents might result in a bountiful, unburdened life. In Buddhist philosophy, it is thought that a past life trauma — and past life good deeds — effects us negatively or positively in our current lives. In both cases, we don’t necessarily remember the cause — but we live the result. There is a saying in Korea, “I must have saved the country in a past life” — referring to good luck being a result of ripening past-life karma.

In the West, we tend to struggle with the concept of rebirth — especially given the important doctrine of Anatman (no self, no soul). Even practicing Buddhists — despite countless references to rebirth in the Suttas (Sutras) — reject the rebirth doctrine. Yet, it is a central aspiration of Buddhism to escape the cycle of rebirths, of Samsaric suffering. Our Bodhisattva vow, to cherish all beings as it they were our mothers — comes from the Sutta references to the cycle of rebirth where it states “all beings at one time have been our mother.”

Even in the oldest Pali Suttas, we refer to the “stages” or “fruits” of our practice: to aspire to be a “once-returner”, a “non-returner” or a “arahant” (no rebirth). What are we returning to, if we do not achieve these goals? Samsaric rebirth.

Time changes things

Rebirth is conceptual, since current theoretical physics hypothesizes that time does NOT exist. Time, is relative to the observer — in the same way that Quantum Physics suggests there is no existence without the observer. “The flow of time is just a convenient illusion,” wrote theoretical phycisist Lee Smolin of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics. [1] Likewise, our apparent “reality”, in Buddhist terms “is just a convenient illusion.” In Buddhism we refer to “relative reality” and “ultimate reality.” We try to glimpse ultimate reality in our meditations — Emptiness and the clear light of bliss.

From this point of view of time, rebirth, as seen by Buddha, is entirely possible in theory. Thomas Campbell, a NASA scientist and physicist, described it this way [source here>>]:

There is no time. There is no space. Everything is one. Hence, we are all experiencing everything all at once. That means you are you, you are the neighbor, the dog (yes animals may reincarnate as well), the kid on the skateboard, the grouchy guy in the corner store, you are me, the Dalai Lama, Jesus, Hitler, Joan of Arc. You are everyone, all at once, in all points of time, and all points of space. However … you are focused on seeing and experiencing reality through your perspective only at this time.”

Is there any logic in the concept of rebirth?

To many, rebirth is a more feasible possibility than suggested in concepts of heavens and hells.  Even if we put aside the “time argument” of Thomas Campbell, the first law of thermodynamics in physics indicates that matter can neither be destroyed nor created (that’s not exactly what the law states, but it’s close enough for this feature).  In fact, our own bodies, right this very minute are undergoing constant rebirth; cells in the body are constantly being “reborn.” Even though we appear unchanged from yesterday, or a week ago, every atom and molecule of our body is changing constantly.

It may seem difficult to reconcile the notions of “No Self” (Anatman) and rebirth — where some kind of “self” continues as a mindstream from birth-to-birth. In Buddhism, there is no concept of a soul. Instead of a “soul” reincarnating from life to life, the term “mind stream” is more commonly used. Buddha, himself, actually, only spoke of aggregates. In Buddhism, we aspire to remove attachments, and free ourselves from the endless cycle of suffering — but not in a nihilistic way. The goal is not extinction, but rather union or oneness with the universe — Emptiness, or Clear Light.

Science and rebirth?

There may not be any way to prove rebirth, but modern science at least has no contradictory evidence. In fact, Quantum Physics suggests ways in which science and “rebirth” can be reconciled:

• Entangled particles, in quantum physics, where particles remain connected even when separated by great distance — what Albert Einstein called, “spooky action at a distance” — in Buddhist philosophy, at the ultimate level of understanding, all is oneness.
• Quantum Physics posits there is no existence without the observer. Fritjof Capra, The Tao of Phsyics, writes: “The human observer constitute the final link in the chain of observational processes, and the properties of any atomic object can be understood only in terms of the object’s interaction with the observer.” In sutras on Emptiness a similar concept is taught.
• Interestingly, Albert Einstein used similar language to the Buddha when describing Big Bang and Big Crunch theory. Buddha, in Maha-Saccaka Sutta said: “When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of recollecting my past lives. I recollected my manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two… five, ten… fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand, many eons of cosmic contraction, many eons of cosmic expansion, many eons of cosmic contraction & expansion.”

The endless “nots”

In science we often challenge existence with “not” logic. If we can’t describe what something actually is, in real, concrete terms, we start by describing what it is not. This becomes particularly apparent when scientists study “time.” We have conveniently created “units” of time, yet that isn’t the same thing as explaining what time is. Time is a continuum, right?

“Understanding the nature of time is the single most important problem facing science,” said theoretical phycisist Lee Smolin of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics. [1] This is, he explains, because without understanding time, we can’t understand reality itself.

Proving mindstream from life-to-life

Proving continuity of consciousness or “mind stream” — the mindstream continuum that continues rebirth to rebirth in Buddhist belief — is impossible with current science.  It is also impossible to disprove it. Rationalists can say “rubbish” all they like, but they can’t come up with concrete evidence proving we exist only in this one lifetime. Neither can the “believers” conclusively prove rebirth — although there is compelling research from Dr. Ian Stevenson. The concept that our minds are all “entangled” or  “connected” and that “mind is not brain” is supported by science. Complicating the notion of linear past lives is the theory in science that time actually doesn’t exist.

“We don’t know what consciousness is, or what it does,” said Rupert Sheldrake, Ph.D. in his lecture The Mind is Not the Brain “There’s no known, obvious reason, why we should be conscious at all, or exactly how the mind works.” His conclusion, based on significant research, was:  “…The mind is field-like. That it’s not constrained to the inside of the head.” [For more on Mind is not Brain, see our feature>>]

Nobel prize winning neuroscience Professor Eccles echoed the sentiment that mind cannot be “reduced down to brain cell processes. If, in fact, mind is “field-like” and not limited to brain cell processes, it suggests “mind continium”, as described in Buddhism, is, at least, possible.

In a well-researched article, Steps Towards Solving the Mystery of Consciousness, the concept of consciousness surviving apparent brain death is highlighted.  “Consciousness appears to be present in 10-20 percent of those who are in cardiac arrest.” The author explained, “brain cells need to communicate using electrical pulses… How is it then that we have a clinical scenario in which there is severe brain dysfunction, the worst possible type, with an absence of electrical activity in the brain, but somehow thought processes, with reasoning, memory formation and consciousness continue and are even heightened?” [Also refer to our in-depth feature, citing more research on mind/brain/consciousness>>] 

It’s clear, from the suttas, that Buddha understood rebirth to be a fact. Our goal, in part, as Buddhists is to escape the Samsaric cycle of rebirth and suffering through various lives.

Western Buddhists will often put aside this notion, contextually re-aligning those references with “suffering in this lifetime” — although that clearly wasn’t the only suffering Buddha referenced. Not only that, it was commonly accepted that our current conditions in life are a result of karma from previous lives.

Evidence of Rebirth?

The best known evidence is the work of Ian Stevenson, who spent fifteen years collecting data from over 4500 people who spontaneously recalled past lives. According to Dr. Robert Almeder of Georgia State University, “This was important research, empirical research and I could not think of any alternative explanation as plausible for the data as that some people reincarnate.” We explored that more fully in these two features:

• Rebirth, Part 1: Is There Evidence for Reincarnation>>
• Rebirth, Part 2>>

NOTES

[1] Science Focus “The incredible truth about time”

• Part 1 of Rebirth Series: Is There Scientific Evidence of Rebirth is here>>

Reincarnation and rebirth are mainly eastern concepts and form the basic tenets of the three major eastern religions of Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism. However, Hinduism and Jainism talk mostly about reincarnation of the soul, or Atman, Buddhism focuses on rebirth of consciousness.

The doctrine of Buddhism discounts the existence of a soul or Atman. According to ancient Buddhist texts, there is no permanent self which moves from one life to another. Instead, it is the consciousness or the stream of consciousness which, upon the end of one life, joins another, much like a flame which is transferred from one candle to another. There is a certain relationship between the past and the present lives, neither are they identical, nor completely distinct.

Such transmigration of consciousness is the effect of Karma, and this process of rebirth continues until the consciousness attains Nirvana, or complete independence of material wants and desires. Only then, can the “self” be free.

What Does Science Say?

Please see Part 1 of Rebirth Series: Is There Scientific Evidence of Rebirth is here>>

In our present world, driven with science and rationality, the opinion is divided about the existence of the phenomenon of reincarnation. However, scientists have routinely been presented with evidence to at least partially support the notion of rebirth. Reincarnation or rebirth serve as the only conceivable explanation for children as young as three years of age, having detailed knowledge of their past lives, where they stayed, what they did, even how they dies. Other evidence of reincarnation includes xenoglossy, or ability to speak in a language with a person has never learnt and existence of matching scars and birthmarks.

What Constitutes Proof of Rebirth?

In science, generally, to refute a theory, you only need one refuting piece of evidence. At least, that’s the standard used when refuting theories. In other words, science cannot unequivocally state there is no rebirth or reincarnation as long as there is one instance of rebirth. Professor Ian Stephenson’s landmark work, widely accepted in the scientific community as valid, presents multiple instances of children with memories of previous lives. To read more about his work, see part one of this series>>

The Body is Reborn Every Second?

In theory, the human body is constantly being reborn. Cells in the body are constantly reborn. Even though we might hold  the illusion that we are unchanging, in fact we are a different physical human being now, than we were one month ago. The same is true of the Universe. Of every atom and molecule in the Universe. We are constantly recycling, even within our “one lifetime.” It is, perhaps, for the more science-oriented, easier to accept the notion of some form or rebirth. It’s easier to accept recycling of energy and matter, certainly, than extinction.

Quantum Theory

The landmark work of Fritjof Capra, The Tao of Phsyics, still best introduces the parallels between modern physics and eastern philosophical thought: “Quantum theory thus reveals a basic oneness of the universe. It shows that we cannot decompose the world into independently existing smallest units. As we penetrate into matter, nature does not show us any isolated “building blocks,” but rather appears as a complicated web of relations between the various parts of the whole. These relations always include the observer in an essential way. The human observer constitute the final link in the chain of observational processes, and the properties of any atomic object can be understood only in terms of the object’s interaction with the observer”

The concepts of basic oneness, “cannot decompose”, and observational processes could interchangeably be used when discussing Quantum Theory or Buddhist Teachings. Mr. Capra wrote: “If physics leads us today to a world view which is essentially mystical, it returns, in a way, to its beginning, 2,500 years ago. … This time, however, it is not only based on intuition, but also on experiments of great precision and sophistication, and on a rigorous and consistent mathematical formalism.”

Nasa Scientist and Physicist Thomas Campbell

Thomas Campbell, and eminent scientist, believes in reincarnation. In a review on a video featuring Dr. Campbell, the site Beyond the Psychic Veil summarized the argument this way:

“There is no time. There is no space. Everything is one. Hence, we are all experiencing everything all at once. That means you are you, you are the neighbor, the dog (yes animals may reincarnate as well), the kid on the skateboard, the grouchy guy in the corner store, you are me, the Dalai Lama, Jesus, Hitler, Joan of Arc. You are everyone, all at once, in all points of time, and all points of space. However … you are focused on seeing and experiencing reality through your perspective only at this time.”

This isn’t evidence of rebirth, certainly, but the arguments are a fit with current Quantum theory. If, in fact, it’s a matter of perspective, rebirth becomes an easy notion to accept. The arguments are also very inline with Buddhist concepts of existence, emptiness, and self.

Past Life Regression

Putting aside physics, other types of evidence—albeit not accepted by everyone—is past life regression. Past life regression is a method by which a patient is put in a trance and guided by a series of questions into her past life. This can lead to the answers of many questions in an individual’s present life, for example, someone’s irrational fear of insects could be accounted to a trauma suffered in one’s past life.

Although many scientists have heavily criticized some pieces of evidence which prove the existence of reincarnation, some scientists are skeptical. The events which have occurred have no other rational explanation except reincarnation or rebirth. The field of science is heavily divided on this issue, although nothing in science contradicts the possibility of rebirth, and many scientists argue there is substantial suggestive evidence that rebirth is more than just a mystical concept.