SurvivalandKarmaInBuddhistPerspective

by

K.N.Jayatilleke

M.A.(Cantab),Ph.D(London)ProfessorofPhilosophyUniversityofCeylon

BuddhistPublicationSocietyKandy•SriLanka

TheWheelPublicationNo.141/142/143Talksgivenin1968–1969attheBuddhistInformationBureau,Colombo

Copyright©1969BuddhistPublicationSociety.FirstImpression:1969SecondImpression:1980

BPSOnlineEdition©(2008)

2

DigitalTranscriptionSource:BPSTranscriptionProject

Forfreedistribution.Thisworkmayberepublished,reformatted,reprintedandredistributedinanymedium.However,anysuchrepublicationandredistributionistobemadeavailabletothepubliconafreeandunrestrictedbasis,andtranslationsandotherderivativeworksaretobeclearlymarkedassuch.

3

I

I.TheBuddhistViewofSurvival

nthistalkIwillstateandexaminetheBuddhistviewofsurvival.AtthesametimeIwishtostressthefactthatapartfrombrieflyexaminingthe

intelligibilityofthetheoryIdonotproposetoconsiderhereitstruth(orfalsity)inthelightofmodernevidence,whichIshalldoinalatertalk.

ItisnecessarytohaveaclearandauthenticformulationoftheBuddhistconceptionofsurvivalasfoundintheearlytextssincethereseemtobesomemisconceptionsaboutthis.Wemaybrieflystatesomeofthesemisconceptions.

Misconceptions

Accordingtooneview,theBuddhalivedinasocietyinwhichthedoctrineofrebirthwasuniversally(orwidely)takenforgrantedfromtimeimmemorial.TheBuddhahimselfsawnoreasontoquestionthisbeliefwhichheaccepteduncriticallyanddogmatically.

Anothersuchmisconceptionmaybestatedasfollows:The

4

Buddha’sdoctrineofanattāorno-soulwasadenialoftheexistenceofananimisticsoulwhichsurvivedthedeathofthebodyandtransmigrated.Sincenothingsurvivedthedeathofthebody,Buddhismisaformofmaterialism.TheBuddhautilisedthedoctrinesofrebirthandkarmaprevailinginthissociety(sotheysay)toimpartethicalteachingsbutdidnothimselfbelieveinthesedoctrines.

Thereisyetanothermisconception.Accordingtothisview,theBuddhawasnotinterestedinnorheldspecificviewsaboutthequestionofhumansurvivalorlifeafterdeath.Heroundlycondemnedspeculationaboutthepastorfuture(i.e.aboutpriorlivesorfuturelives)asunprofitableormistaken.Hewasonlyconcernedwithman’spresentstateofanxiety,sufferinganddissatisfactionandthesolutionforit.

ThesemisconceptionscanbeclearedonlybymakingacarefulstudyoftheauthenticearlytextsofBuddhism.WhenwedosowefindthattheBuddhadidassert(i)thecontinuitywithoutidentityofindividualityduetotheoperationofcausalfactors,(ii)thedoctrineofanattā,whichdeniedtheexistenceofaphysical,mental,psychophysicalorindependententitywithinorrelatedtothepsychophysicalaspectsofpersonalityand(iii)thatherejectedmeremetaphysicalspeculationaboutpriororfutureliveswhichdidnotresultintheverificationoffactsaboutthem.

5

HistoricalBackground

InordertounderstandtheBuddhistviewofsurvivalitisdesirabletohavesomeknowledgeoftheviewspresentedbypre-Buddhistthinkers,i.e.priortotheriseofBuddhismsincetheBuddhistconceptionswereoftenpresentedincontrasttothem.

Itisaremarkablefactthatinnootherageinthehistoryofthoughtwasasolutiontotheproblemofsurvivalsoughtwithsuchintensityasinthisperiodandnowhereelsecanwefindsuchavarietyofviewsputforward.

Logicallytherearefourpossiblepointsofviewthatwecanadoptwithregardtothequestionofsurvival.Wemaysay(i)thatwesurvivedeathintheformofdiscarnatespirits,i.e.asingleafter-lifetheory,(ii)thatweareannihilatedwithdeath,i.e.amaterialisttheory,(iii)thatweareunabletodiscoverasatisfactoryanswertothisquestionorthereisnosatisfactoryanswer,i.e.ascepticalorpositivisttheoryand(iv)thatwecomebacktosubsequentearth-livesorlivesonothersimilarplanets,i.e.arebirththeory.

TheBuddhisttextsrecordseveralvariantsofeachofthesefourtypesoftheories.Letustakethevariantsofsingleafter-lifetheoriesorone-life-after-deaththeories.

6

SingleAfter-lifeTheories

Therearethirty-twosingleafter-lifetheorieslistedintheBrahmajālaSutta.Accordingtowhatphilosophersorreligiousteacherswhoputforwardthesetheoriesassert,theyarebroadlyclassifiedintotheorieswhichpositthatthesoulafterdeathis(A)conscious(saññī),(B)unconscious(asaññī)and(C)super-conscious(nevasaññāsaññī).

Therearesixteenvariantsof(A)andeighteachof(B)and(C).Thesixteenvariantsof(A)aredueto:

I. Variationsregardingthematerialformofthesoul:i. hasasubtlematerialform

ii. hasnosuchform

iii. hasforsometimeasubtlematerialformandthenhasnosuchform

II. hasnosuchformbuthasthepowerofmanifestingone.i. Variationsregardingthedurationofthesoul:

ii. comestoanend

iii. iseternal

iv. changesitsstateaftersometimeandbecomeseternal

v. doesnotexistintime.

III. Variationsregardingthenatureandextentof

7

consciousness:i. isconsciousofunity

ii. isconsciousofdiversity

iii. isoflimitedconsciousness

iv. isofunlimitedconsciousness.

IV. Variationsregardingthehedonictoneoftheexperiences:i. isextremelyhappy

ii. isextremelyunhappy

iii. ispartlyhappyandpartlyunhappy

iv. doesnotexperiencehappinessorunhappiness,i.e.hasaneutralhedonictone.

OnlyvariationsI(i)–(iv)andII(i)–(iv)areconsideredapplicabletothosewhoholdthatthesoulis(B)unconsciousor(C)super-consciousafterdeath.

Theaboveclassificationappearstobeapurelylogicalonebutthefactthatmanyofthesetheoriescanbetracedtopre-Buddhistliteratureprovesthatitisnot.

ThusPrajāpatiheldonthebasisofrationalandmetaphysicalspeculationthatthesoulwas“consciousandhavingitsownformafterdeath”[1]—i.e.AI(i).Uddālakaheldthatthesoulwas“unconsciousandwithoutform”afterdeath—i.e.BI(ii).TheTaittirīyaUpaniṣadholdsthatthesoulhasasubtlematerialformforsometimeafterdeathandthenceasestohavesuchaform—i.e.AI(iii).

8

Yājñavalkyahastriedtoshowthatthesoulis“neitherconsciousnorunconsciousafterdeathandhasnoform”—i.e.CI(ii).TheBrāhmaṇasoftenspeakofa“seconddeath”afterpersonalsurvival—i.e.AII(i).

Theone-life-after-deaththeoriesheldbypeopleintheWestwhosubscribetodifferentformsoftheismorspiritualismarealsoclassifiableaspermutationsandcombinationsoftheabovealternatives.Thustheviewsheldbythosewhosubscribetothebeliefthatthesoulsurvivesasadiscarnatespiritforalleternityorthosewhosaythatthesoulgoestoheavenorhellforeternityafterdeathorthosewhomaintainthatthesoulsleepswiththebodytilladayofjudgementwhenitsstateischangedorthosewhobelievethatthesoulgoestopurgatorytilladayofjudgement—alltheseviewsareclassifiableundertheabovescheme.

Materialists

Insharpoppositiontothosewhohelddualisttheoriesofbody-and-soulandclaimedthattherewasonlyasinglelifeafterdeathweretheMaterialistswhodeniedalifeafterdeathaltogether.SevenschoolsofsuchmaterialistsarereferredtointheBrahmajālaSuttaandsomeoftheseareindependentlyreferredtointhenon-Buddhistliterature.

9

Themostextremeofthemheldthereisnomindorsoulapartfromthebodywhichwasentirelyahereditaryproductofone’sparents(mātāpettika-sambhavo)andthematerialelements.Whatwecall“mind”arethepatternsofmovementinourbodies,Themodernversionofthisiscalledcentralstatematerialism,[2]whichtriestodoawaywithphenomenalfactorssuchas“experience,”“consciousness”etc.Accordingtothistheorywhenwesaythatapersonishappy,itrefersnottoamentalstatebuttoaphysicalstatewhichhasamongitsconsequencesthatitcausesapersontobehaveinacharacteristicallyhappyway.

Anotherschoolheldthatthemindisanemergentproductwhichhasamaterialbasisanditsconditionisdeterminedbythefoodweeat.Theyarguedthatjustasmuchaswhenwemixupcertainchemicalsincertainproportions,thereemergestheintoxicatingpowerofliquor,evensothematerialparticlesofthebodyandthefoodweeatgotoformthemind,whichisanemergentby-product.Therewerealsoschoolsofmysticmaterialistswhobytheuseofdrugsclaimedthepossibilityofachievingexpansionsofconsciousness(calledmicchājhāna,wrongjhāna,inthetexts).

Alltheseschoolsofmaterialistswerecharacterisedbythefactthattheydidnotholdthatmindandbodyweretwodifferententitiesbutwereoneandthesameentity,eitherdenyingtherealityofmentalphenomenaaltogetherorassertingthattheywereepiphenomenaoraccompanimentsofthestateofbody.[3]

10

Skeptics

Thedialecticaloppositionbetweenthedualisticsoul-theoristswhoassertedtherealityofsurvivalandthemonisticmaterialists,whodeniedsurvival,hadalreadyresultedpriortoBuddhismintheriseofseveralscepticalschoolsofthought.TheKaṭhaUpaniṣadstates“Thisdoubtistherewithregardtoamandeceased—’heexists’saysome;’heexistsnot’sayothers.”[4]

ThefourschoolsofSceptics(amarāvikkhepikā)intheBrahmajālaSuttaadoptedscepticismonthebasisofvariousintellectualorpragmaticgrounds.Somemaintainedthatinholdingthevieweitherthat“thereissurvival”orthat“thereisnosurvival”thereresultsaninvolvementorentanglement(upādāna)inatheoryandthispromotesmentalunrest.Othersarguedthatinholdingordenyingthetheoryofsurvivaloneisledbyone’sprejudicesfor(chanda,rāga)oragainst(dosa,paṭigha)andthat,therefore,truthdemandsthatwedonotcometoanydefiniteconclusions.Yetothersavoidedmakingdefinitepronouncementsforfearofbeingengagedindebate.OthersagainlikeSañjayaarguedthatstatementsaboutanafter-life,aboutmoralresponsibilityorabouttranscendentexistencewerenotverifiableandthereforeitwasnotpossibletodiscovertheirtruthorfalsity.

Amongthosewhoheldadualisthypothesisandasserted

11

“theeternityview”(sassatadiṭṭhi)werenotonlythesingleafter-lifetheoristsbutthosewhoheldseveralvariantsofrebirth-theoriesaswell.ItisimportanttobearinmindthefactthatBuddhismwasopposedtoallthesetheories,includingtherebirth-theoriesthathadbeenpropounded.TheBuddhadidnotposittheexistenceofanunverifiable,unchangingentitytoaccountforhistheoryofre-becomingandrebirth.Nordidheholdthattheprocessofre-becomingwasstrictlydeterminedbypastkamma,bynaturalcauses,orbythewillofGod.Causalfactorswereoperativenodoubtbuttheywerenotdeterministic.Besides,somerebirththeoriesheldthatbeingscouldberebornevenas“riceandbarley,herbs,beans,sesameplantsandtrees.”[5]TheBuddhadidnotsubscribetosuchapointofview.InfactitisdoubtfulwhethertheBuddhaheldthattherewasrebirthatthelowestlevelsoflife.TheBuddhalaterrecountsasamistakenviewsomeofthebeliefsofJainism,whichheputtothetestpriortohisenlightenment.Inoneplacehesays,“Iusedtowalkupanddownconscientiouslyextendingmycompassioneventoadropofwater,prayingthatthedangerousbacteriainitmaynotcometoharm.”[6]

BuddhistSolution

Itisinthehistoricalcontextoutlinedabove,thattheBuddha

12

appearedonthesceneandsoughtasolutiontotheriddleoflife.Itisthereforenotcorrecttosay(asmanyscholarshavedone)thattheBuddhatookforgrantedthebeliefinrebirthcurrentinsocietyatthetime.AsisevidentfromtheBuddhistandthenon-Buddhistliterature,therewasavarietyofviewsonthequestionofsurvivalatthetimecoveringalmosteverypossibilitythatonecanthinkof.

Besides,thebeliefwasnotofverygreatantiquity.ItisabsentintheVedas,itismerelyhintedatintheBrāhmaṇas,andtheearlyUpaniṣadspresentavarietyofviews,someofwhichclearlyrejectrebirth.BythetimeoftheBuddha,thematerialistshadmadesuchanimpactonsocietythattheBuddhaclassifiestheprevalenttheoriesofhistimeasthoseoftheEternalistsandoftheMaterialists.Inaddition,scepticismwassorampantthattheelite(theviññūpurisā)didnotsubscribetoanyspecificbelief.TheywerenodoubtinterestedintheproblemandpeoplelikePāyāsievenperformedexperimentstotestthevalidityofthebeliefinsurvival.Oneoftheexperimentscarriedoutwasthatofweighingthebodyimmediatelybeforeandafterdeath.[7]Finally,anunquestioningacceptanceofthebeliefinrebirthishardlyconsistentwiththespiritoftheKālāmaSuttawheretheBuddhaaskspeopletoadoptacriticalattitudetowardstraditionalbeliefs.

TheBuddhisttheoryofsurvivalhasitsoriginintheEnlightenmentoftheBuddhaandnotinanytraditionalIndianbelief.ItissaidthatitwasonthenightofhisEnlightenmentthatheacquiredthecapacitytoknowhis

13

priorlives.Itwaswhenhismindwascomposed,clear,cleansedandwithoutblemish,freefromadventitiousdefilements,pliantandflexible,steadfastandunperturbed,thatheacquiredthiscapacitytorecallhundredsandthousandsofpriorlivesandtheprehistoryoftheuniverse,goingbackthroughtheimmenselylongperiodsoftheexpansionsandcontractionsoftheoscillatinguniverse.Thisis,infact,calledthefirstimportantitemofknowledge,whichbrokethroughtheveilofignorance(ayaṃpaṭhamāvijjā).

Thesecondimportantitemofknowledge(dutiyāvijjā)wasobtainedbytheexerciseofthefacultyofclairvoyance(dibba-cakkhu),withwhichtheBuddhawasabletoseeamongotherthingsthesurvivalofbeingsinvariousstatesofexistence,theoperationsofkarma,galacticsystems,clustersofgalacticsystemsandthevastcosmos.

TheFiveStatesofExistence

IntheMahāsīhanādaSuttathereisareferencetothefivestatesofexistence.Theyareasfollows:(1)thelowerworlds(duggati,vinipātaniraya),(2)theanimalkingdom(tiracchāna-yoni),(3)thespiritsphere(pettivisaya),(4)humanbeings(manussa)and(5)devasorhigherspirits.

14

Whilethe“lowerworlds”(vinipāta)arealsocalledniraya(hells),wemustnotforgetthat“hells”(pātāla)inthepopularsensearedenied.Itissaidthatthecommonmanbelievesthatthereisahellornetherworldinthebottomoftheocean,butBuddhasaysthatthisbeliefisfalseandstatesthat“hell”isatermforpainfulsensations.YetelsewherethereisareferencetoworldswhichtheBuddhaclaimstoseeinwhicheverythingonesensesisunpleasantandthethoughtsthatcometoone’smindaredisagreeableandfoul.Incontrast,itissaidthatthereareworldsinwhicheverythingonesensesorexperiencesispleasant.Abouttheexistenceofdevas,theBuddhasayswhenaskedthequestionastowhethertheyexistthatheknowsongoodgroundsthattheyexist.Whenfurtherquestionedastowhyheusedthequalification“ongoodgrounds,”hesaysthatitisbecauseitiscommonlytakenforgrantedthatdevasorhigherspiritsexist.[8]

Thefivestatesofexistencearegradedaccordingtotheamountordegreeofpainorpleasureexperiencedinthem.Accordingtothisdescription,thehumanworldisoneinwhichoneexperiences“morepleasantthanunpleasantexperiences.”[9]Inthespirit-sphereitismoreunpleasantthanpleasant.Intheanimalsphereitisunpleasantsinceanimalsaresupposedtoliveinastateofconstantfearwithstrongunsatisfiedinstinctivedesiressuchashungerandthirst.Inthe“lowerworlds”itissaidtobeveryunpleasant.Inthedevaworlds,ontheotherhand,itisextremelypleasant.[10]

15

Thepersonwhoispicturedasfaringoninthesestatesofexistenceisconceivedasonewhoisoppressedbytheheat,exhausted,afraid,andthirsty.Thelowerworldsarecomparedtoapitofcoalsintowhichhefalls,animalexistenceisapitfullofexcrement,existenceinthespirit-sphereislikecomingunderatreeinadesertwithoutmuchshade,humanlifeiscomparedtocomingunderalargeandshadytreewhilethedevaworldiscomparedtoawell-furnishedandbeautifulpalace.Incontrast,Nibbānaissaidtobeanalogoustotheabovepersonwhoisoppressedwithheat,exhaustedandthirstyreachingalakewherethewatersarecoolandclear,bathinginit,quenchinghisthirstandsittingorlyingdowninanadjoininggladeexperiencingextremehappiness.[11]

Fromthedescriptionsgivenintheearlytextstheusualtendencyisforapersontosurviveasadepartedspiritoradiscarnatespiritinthespirit-sphereandcomebacktoanearth-lifesincethenormalcharacterofhumanbeingsisamixtureofgoodandevilandthestageofevolutionofone’sconsciousnessisattunedtoexistenceintheseworlds.Butitispossibletoregresstoanimalorsub-humanformsofexistencebyneglectingthedevelopmentofone’spersonalityorcharacterandbecomingaslavetoone’spassions.Itisalsoexceptionallypossibletoattaintoexistenceinthedeva-worlds.IntheSaṅkhāruppattiSutta,[12]itissaidthatapersonwhoispossessedoffaith(saddhā),virtue(sīla),learning(suta),selflessness(cāga)andwisdom(paññā)canaspiretoandattainbetterstatesofexistence

16

amonghumanbeingsordevas.

IntelligibilityThewordusedtodescribetheprogressionfromexistencetoexistenceistheword“re-becoming”(punabbhava).Rebirthisonlyaspecialcaseofre-becomingwhenapersoncomesbacktoanearth-life.Rebirthinthissensetakesplaceuntilapersonattainsaspiritualstateof“Non-Returner”(anāgāmi)orArahant.Ifthereisanydoubtabouttheinterpretationofpunabbhavaasrebirthinthesecontexts,itmaybedispelledbyexaminingsimilarexpressionssuchas“hedoesnotcomebacktolieinthewomb,”[13]usedofanArahant.

Thequestionhasbeenraisedbysomephilosophersastowhetheraconceptionofsurvivalafterdeatheitherintheformofrebirthorasadiscarnatespiritisatallintelligible.Ifwepreservesomeone’sheartorkidneyinalivingconditionafterhisdeath,wewouldnotsayinrespectofsuchanorganthatsoandsoisnowalive.Itisthereforenecessarythatthereshouldbesomesenseinwhichthere-bornpersonordiscarnatespiritshouldbeabletoclaimidentitywiththedeadperson(whenhewasalive)eventhoughallthatcanbeestablishediscontinuityandnotidentityeveninthislife.Tosaythatbothhavethesamesoulwillnothelpbecausetheexistenceofsuchasoulasanunchangingagentorrecipientofactionsisunverifiable.

Thesolutiontothisproblemliesinthecriteriathatweemploytoclaimpersonalidentity.Inasinglehumanlifewe

17

normallyemploytwocriteria.Oneisthespatio-temporalcontinuityofthebody.Onthebasisofthiswecanclaimthatsoandsoisapersonwhoasachildwenttosuchandsuchaschoolalthoughtheremaybenothingincommonbetweenthetwobodiesasfarasshapeandcontentisconcerned.Theothercriterionismemoryonthebasisofwhichsomeonemayclaimthathewassuchandsuchtwentyyearsago.Whenonelifeisconcerned,thetwocriterianormallysupporteachother.

Inthecaseofthere-bornpersonordiscarnatespirititisthememorycriterionalonewhichcanestablishtheidentity.Inthiscasewhenthebodycriterionisemployed,wehavetosaythat“heisnotthesameperson”butwhenthememorycriterionisemployedwewouldhavetosay“heisnotanotherperson.”SoaccordingtoBuddhism“heisneitherthesamenoranother”(nacasonacaañño)whenwegiveastrictlyaccuratedescriptionalthoughincommonparlancewemaysaythatheisthesameperson.

ThelogicalpossibilityofsuchpersonalidentitywithoutasoulisgrantedbyProfessorA.J.AyerofOxford,alogicalanalystwhosays,“Ithinkthatitwouldbeopentoustoadmitthelogicalpossibilityofreincarnationmerelybylayingdowntherulethatifapersonwhoisphysicallyidentifiedaslivingatalatertimedoeshavetheostensiblememoriesandcharacterofapersonwhoisphysicallyidentifiedaslivingatanearliertime,theyaretobecountedasonepersonandnottwo.”[14]

18

Asfortheconceptofadiscarnatespirit,ProfessorH.H.Price,followingtheideasofsomeHinduandBuddhisttexts(asheadmits)hasgivenanintelligibleaccountofhowa“discarnatespirit”maybeconceivedof,consistentwithfindingsofmodernpsychologyandpsychicalresearch.[15]

Althoughthemajorityofmodernpsychologistsattempttoexplainthefunctioningofthebrainonmechanisticmodels,theyfinditdifficulttoexplainawaythefactandroleofconsciousness.Despitetheclaimofsomephilosophers[16]theghostfromthehumanmachinehasnotbeenexorcised.ProfessorSirJohnEccles,whohasbeendescribedbySirCyrilBurtas“themosteminentoflivingneurologistswhohavespecializedinthestudyofthebrain,”hasmadethefollowingstatementaboutthestructureandfunctionsofthebrain:“thestructureofthebrainsuggeststhatitisthesortofmachinethata“ghost”mightoperate”wheretheword“ghost”isused“todesignateanykindofagentthatdefiesdetectionbysuchapparatusasisusedtodetectphysicalagents.”[17]Wecandowithouttheconceptofapermanentsoul,butitisdoubtfulwhetherconsciousnesscanbeexplainedaway,whereitfunctionsasacausalfactorininitiatingplans,makingdecisionsetc.

TheBuddhadidnotsubscribetothedualisthypothesisthat“themindandbodyaredifferent”(aññaṃjīvaṃaññaṃsarīraṃ)nortotheidentityhypothesisthat“themindandbodyarethesame”(taṃjīvaṃ,taṃsarīraṃ)butfoundthattherewaspartialtruthinboth.Consciousnessispartlyformedbytheimpactoftheenvironmentonthelivingbody

19

butinturnitdeterminesbodilybehaviour.

Inrebirthandre-becomingthereiscontinuityofthestreamofconsciousness(viññāṇa-sota)withoutidentity(anaññaṃ)makingtherecallofpriorlivespotentiallypossible.Itis,however,notaself-identicalpermanentsubstance,whichisquiteindependentofthebodywithregardtoitsgrowthanddevelopment.

20

II.TheBuddhistDoctrineofKarma

InthistalkImerelyproposetogiveabriefaccountoftheBuddhistdoctrineofkarma,asitistaughtinthetexts.Idonotintendtoexaminethecasefororagainstitinthelightofevidence.Ishallundertakethisinalatertalk.

IrefertothisdoctrinespecificallyastheBuddhistdoctrineofkarmainordertodistinguishitfromtheothernon-Buddhistdoctrinesofkarma,whichweretaughtbynon-Buddhistthinkerspriorto,duringandevenafter,thetimeoftheBuddha.InthisrespectitisimportanttonotethesignificantdifferencesbetweentheBuddhistdoctrineofkarmaandthedoctrinesofkarmataughtinJainism,bycertainĀjīvikathinkersaswellastheBrahmins.

Misconceptions

ThisisparticularlynecessarysincetheBuddhistdoctrineisoftenconfusedwithandassumedtobethesameastheBrahmanicaldoctrineofkarma.Peopletendtospeakoforcriticisethedoctrineofkarmaasthoughtherewasonlyone

21

suchdoctrinecommontodifferentreligionssuchasHinduism,JainismandĀjīvikismdespitethefactthattheyprofessdifferentteachingsaboutthenature,operationsandattitudetotheallegedphenomenonofkarma.

AnothermisconceptionwhichispartlyconnectedwiththeabovemisunderstandingisthattheBuddhistdoctrineofkarmaconstitutesorimpliesafatalistattitudetolifeandnature,aviewputforwardbysome(notall)WesternscholarsandevensubscribedtobysomeSouthAsianintellectualsbothnon-BuddhistandevenBuddhist.

Yetanothersourceofmisunderstandingistheattemptonthepartofcertainscholarsandotherindividualstorationalise(quiteunnecessarily)thedoctrineofkarmabyinterpretingittomeanthesocialorbiologicalinheritanceofmanorboth,ignoringaltogetheranddistortingtheauthenticteachingsofthetextsoftheBuddhistCanon.

Meaning

Inthepre-Buddhistliteraturethewordkarmawasusedmainlyinthesenseofeitherreligiousritualsorthesocialfunctionsanddutiesofman.InthelattersensetheĪṣaUpaniṣadsays:“Letamanaspiretoliveahundredyears,performinghissocialduties”(kurvanneveḥakarmaṇi

22

jijīviṣecchataṃsamāḥ)(2).ThissensehassurvivedintheBuddhisttexts,wherethewordkarmaisusedinthepluraltodenotethedifferentprofessionsoroccupationsofmen.Thus,Buddhismrecommendspeopletoperform“morallyblamelessoccupations”(anavajjānikammāniī).

Asatechnicalterm,thewordkarmaisusedintheearlyBuddhisttextstodenotevolitionalactions.Theseactionsmaybemorallygood(kusala),morallyevil(akusala)ormorallyneutral(avyākata).Theymaybeactionswhichfindexpressioninbodilybehaviour(kāyakamma),verbalbehaviour(vacī-kamma)andpsychologicalbehaviour(mano-kamma).

Themorallygoodandevilactionsaresaidtobeliabletogiverisetoconsequences,individualaswellassocial,pleasantandunpleasantonthewholeasthecasemaybe.Theindividualconsequencesmaybemanifestedinthislife,thenextlifeorthelivestocomeunlesstheirpotentialitiesgetextinguishedortheydonotfindanopportunityforfruition.

Consciousvolition(cetanā)isanecessaryconditionofsuchamorallygoodorevilorneutralact,butdoesnotconstitutethewholeofitexceptwhenithappenstobeapurelymentalact.Thus,wewouldnotbeguiltyofthecrimeofmurdermerelybecausewehadtheintentionofmurderingsomebody.AstheAtthasālinī(p.98)pointsout“therearefiveconstituentfactorsinanactofkilling:(i)theexistenceofalivingbeing,(ii)theawarenessoftheexistenceofsucha

23

livingbeing,(iii)theintentionofkilling,(iv)theeffortorthemeansemployedtokilland(v)theconsequentdeathofthelivingbeing.”

Theintentionisnecessarybutnotsufficienttoconstituteanactofkilling.AstheVinayarulespointout,wheretheintentionisabsentbutone’sactionsareinstrumentalincausingthedeathofaperson,onemaybeguiltyofanactofnegligencebutnotofmurder.

Sothewordkarmaisusedtodenotevolitionalactswhichfindexpressioninthought,speechorphysicaldeeds,whicharegoodoreviloramixtureofbothandareliabletogiverisetoconsequences,whichpartlydeterminethegoodnessorbadnessoftheseacts.

BasisforDoctrine

ItisoftenassumedthatthebasisforthedoctrineofkarmainBuddhismisarationalargumentimplicitintheCūḷakammavibhaṅgaSutta.ItistruethatinthisSuttatheBuddhaseemstosuggestpurelyrationalgroundsforbelievinginthedoctrineofkarma,butitwouldbemistakentobelievethatthedoctrineisacceptedastrueorasrepresentingthenatureofthingsastheyareonthesegrounds.

24

InthisSutta,aBrahminyouthmeetstheBuddhaandaskshimforanexplanationastowhyamonghumanbeingssomeareshort-livedwhileothersarelong-lived,somearesicklywhileothersarehealthy,someareuglytolookatwhileothersarehandsome,somehavelittlepowerorinfluencewhileothersareinfluential,somearepoorwhileothersarerich,someareofalowersocialstatuswhileothersareofahighersocialstatus.

Thequestionisposedintheform:“Whatisthereasonandthecausefortheinequality(hīnappaṇītatā)amonghumanbeingsdespitetheirbeinghuman?”TheBuddha’sreplyonthisoccasionwasasfollows:“Beingsinherittheirkarmaanditiskarmawhichdividesbeingsintermsoftheirinequalities.”

Wemayarguethatthisembodiesthefollowingrationalethicalargument,consistingofanempiricalandethicalpremise,viz.peopleareofunequalstatus;thoseofunequalstatusoughttobesuchonlybyvirtueoftheirownactions;therefore,sincethisisnotduetotheiractionsinthislife,itshouldbeduetotheiractionsinapriorlife.Thismeansthatbothkarmaandpre-existencearethecase.

Itisalsotruethatthiskindofrationalethicalargumenthasappealedtomanythinkers.MauriceMaeterlinck(1862–1949),poet,dramatistandessayistsays:“Letusreturntoreincarnation…fortherewasneveramorebeautiful,ajuster,apurer,amoremoral,fruitfulandconsoling,nor,toacertainpoint,amoreprobablecreedthantheirs.Italone,

25

withitsdoctrineofsuccessiveexpiationsandpurifications,accountsforallthephysicalandintellectualinequalities,allthesocialiniquities,allthehideousinjusticesoffate.”[18]ProfessorAllanG.Widgeryalsospeaksappreciativelyofsuchanargumentwhenhesays:“Foritaffirmsthatmenarenotbornequal…andthisaffirmationappearstobemoreinaccordancewiththefacts…Menareregardedasdifferentatbirth:thedifferencesbeingduetothemannerinwhichinpastlivestheyhavebuiltuptheirnaturethroughtheactionofthelawofkarma.”[19]

ButitwouldbemistakentoconsiderthepassageintheaboveSuttaaspresupposingarationalethicalargumentwithaconcealedethicalpremise.ItistrueasĀnandahassaidoftheBuddhathat“sofarasanythingcanbeattainedbyreasoning(takka),youhaveascertainedit”[20]butthedoctrineofkarmaisnotputforwardinBuddhismasaproductofmerespeculativereasoning(takka),whichisnotadequateforthediscoveryofthefactsofnatureastheBuddhahaselsewherepointedout.TheBuddha’sstatementseveninthisSuttaarebasedonclairvoyantobservationandreasoningandnotonmererationalspeculation.

ItisalsomistakentoassumeonthegroundoftherecognitionofthefactoftheknowninequalitiesamongmankindthatBuddhismacceptedthestatusquoofastaticconceptionofsocietyordeniedthedoctrineofwhatisknownas“theequalityofmankind.”

26

ForasweshallseewhenwecometothesocialandpoliticalphilosophyofBuddhism,Buddhismupholdsthebiological,socialandspiritualequalityofmankindandenvisagesatimeinthefuturewhenwiththeeconomic,moralandspiritualregenerationofmantherewouldcomeintobeingasocialorderinwhichpeoplewouldbehealthyandlong-livedandtheinequalitiesinpower,wealthandsocialstatuswouldbegreatlydiminished.

Inthiscontext,wemustnotforgetthatoneofthecentralteachingsofBuddhismrevolvesroundtheconceptionofthedestructionoreliminationoftheevileffectsofkarma(kammakkhaya)byeffectingachangeinthebasisofhumanmotivationfromthatofgreed(lobha),hate(dosa)andignorance(moha)toselflessness(cāga),compassion(karuṇā)andunderstanding(paññā).Eventhebettersocialorderofthefuturecanbesetuponlybypeoplewhobelieveinmoralandspiritualvaluesandhavetosomeextentcultivatedthequalitiesofselflessservice,kindnessandwisdom.

Verifiability

Aswehavesaidabove,thestatementsabouttheoperationsofkarmaaremadebytheBuddhaonthebasisofinferencesbasedonclairvoyantobservation.Theawarenessofthe

27

natureoftheoperationsofkarmaissaidtobetheseconditemofknowledge(dutiyavijjā)obtainedbytheBuddhaonthenightofhisenlightenment.

Itissaid:“Whenhismindisthuscomposed,clearandcleansedwithoutblemish,freefromadventitiousdefilements,pliantandflexible,steadfastandunperturbed,heturnsanddirectshismindtowardsanunderstandingofthedeathandrebirth(upapāta)ofbeings.Thenwithhispure,paranormal,clairvoyantvisionheseesbeings—thehighandthelow,thebeautifulandtheugly,thehappyandthewretched—dyingandbeingrebornaccordingtotheircharacter(kamma).”

Thethree-foldknowledge(tissovijjā)acquiredbytheBuddha,whichiscrucialfortheattainmentofenlightenmentconsistsoftheknowledgeofpre-existence,oftheoperationsofkarmaandofthecapacitytoeliminatetheinflowingimpulses(āsavakkhaya).ItisthesameknowledgeobtainedbytheArahantsattainingemancipationofmind(ceto-vimutti),andintheThera-andTherī-gāthā,theversesoftheeldermonksandnuns,weconstantlymeetwiththerefrain:“Ihaveattainedthethree-foldknowledge,IhavedonethebiddingoftheBuddha”(tissovijjāanupattā,kataṃBuddhassasāsanaṃ).

TheoperationsofkarmaarethereforepersonallyverifiedbytheBuddhaandhisdisciples.IntheMahāsīhanādaSutta,theBuddhareferstothewayhetestedthetheoryofkarmaasthoughhewastestingscientifichypothesis.

28

Itissaid:“Therearethesefivedestinies,Sāriputta.Whatfive?Thelowerworlds,theanimalkingdom,thespirit-sphere(petti-visaya),humanexistenceandthehigherworlds.Iknowtheselowerworlds,thepathwhichleadstothemorthekindofconductwhichtakesyoutothatstateofexistenceatdeath…Herein,Sāriputta,Icomprehendthemindofacertainindividualwithmymindasfollows:’Thisindividualissetonbehavinginsuchamannerandfollowssuchamodeofconductthatheislikelytobeborninoneofthelowerworldsatdeathonthedestructionofthebody.’Ithenobservehimatalatertimebymeansofclear,clairvoyant,paranormalperception—thesameindividualborninoneofthelowerworldsatdeathexperiencinggreatpain.Justasiftherewereapitofcoalsandamanweretocomealong,tiredandexhausted,takingapathleadingstraighttoitandamanpossessedofsightweretoobservehimandsaytohimself’Thismanissurelytakingapathwhichwilllandhiminapitofcoals’andlaterseeshimfalleninthatpitexperiencinggreatpain;evenso…theanimalworld…experiencingmuchunhappiness…Justasiftherewereacesspitandaman,tiredandexhausted,weretocomealong…;evenso…thespirit-sphere…experiencingmoreunpleasantthanpleasantsensations…Justasiftherewereatreeinaruggedplace,withsparsefoliageaffordingscantyshadeandamanweretocomealong,tiredandexhausted;evenso…thehumanworld…experiencingmorepleasantthanunpleasantsensations…Justasiftherewereatreewithdensefoliageinapleasantspotandamanwereto

29

comealong,tiredandexhausted…;evenso…inahigherworld…experiencingextremelypleasantsensations…Justasiftherewereapalacewithallthecomfortsandluxuriesandamanweretocomealong,tiredandexhausted….”

IntheMahākammavibhaṅgaSutta,theBuddhapointsoutthatcertainyoginswhohaveacquiredthecapacityforclairvoyantobservation,nevertheless,cametofalseconclusionsanddeniedthefactofkarmasincetheymadeinvalidinferencesfromtheobserveddata.Thisiswhathesays:“Hereinacertainyogin,asaresultofhiseffortsandapplication,attainsacertainstateoftrance,inwhichheseeswithhisclear,clairvoyant,paranormalvisionamanwhohasmisconductedhimselfbornatdeathonthedissolutionofhisbodyinahappierandbetterworld.Heconcludesasfollows:“Therearenoevilactions(kamma)andnoconsequenceofmisconduct,forIhaveobservedaman…”“Everyone,whetheronemisconductsoneselfinthislifeornot,isbornatdeathinahappierandbetterworld.”Idonotagree(saystheBuddha)withtheclaimofthisyoginthattherearenoevilactionsandnofutureconsequenceofmisconduct.Iampreparedtograntthatthisyoginhasobservedamanwhohasmisconductedhimselfinthislife,bornatdeathinahappierandbetterworld.ButIdonotagreewithhisconclusionthat,therefore,allpeople,whethertheymisconductthemselvesinthislifeornot,arebornatdeathinahappierandbetterworld.TheknowledgeoftheTranscendentOne(Tathāgata)withregardtooperationsofkarmaisdifferent…Ifapersonwhohasmisconducted

30

himselfinthislife,isbornatdeathinahappierandbetterworld,thenhehaseithersometimeinhispastdonegooddeeds,whichhaveresultedintheseexperiencesoratthetimeofhisdeath,haschangedhiswaysandadoptedtherightviewoflife.”

Themistakethattheseyoginsmade,accordingtotheBuddha,wastoformgeneralisationsonthebasisofoneorafewobservationswithoutobservingageneralityofcasesandseeingthattheapparentexceptionswereexplicableonotherterms.Theoperationsofkarma,itissaid,aresocomplexthattheyarenotfullycomprehensible(acinteyya,AII80)excepttothevisionandunderstandingofaBuddha.Evenwithregardtotheuniverse(loka-visaya),wenotedthattheBuddhacouldobserveclustersofgalaxiesandthevastcosmos,whileAnuruddha,thespecialistinclairvoyance,couldobserveonlyasinglegalaxy.

RelationtoCausalLaws

Theoperationoftheselawsofkarmawasonlyaspecialinstanceoftheoperationofcausallawsinnature,inwhichtherewerephysicallaws(utu-niyāma),biologicallaws(bīja-niyāma),psychologicallaws(citta-niyāma),karmiclaws(kamma-niyāma)pertainingtomoralactsandtheirconsequencesandlawspertainingtospiritualphenomena

31

(dhamma-niyāma).Butthepatternsofeventsinnature,accordingtoBuddhism,areneitherdeterministicnorindeterministic.

Karmiclaws,therefore,statetendenciesratherthaninevitableconsequences.SeveralofthesecorrelationsarestatedintheCūlakammavibhaṅgaSutta.Thegeneralprincipleisthatmorallygoodactstendtobefollowedbypleasantconsequencesandmorallyevilactsbyunpleasantconsequencesinthelongruntotheindividual.Sinceitisofthenatureofgoodactstopromotethematerialandspiritualwell-beingofmankind,itfollowsfromthisgeneralprinciplethatonecannotgainone’sownhappinessattheexpenseofothers.

Amongthespecificcorrelationsarethefollowing:Thosewhoharmandhurtlivingbeingstendtobesickly,whilethosewhoarecompassionatetowardsthemtendtobehealthy.Thosewhoareangryandirritable,scowlatandabusepeopletendtobeugly,whiletheotherswhoarenotso,tendtobebeautiful.Thosewhoareenviousandjealousofthegain,honourandrespectbestowedonotherstendtoloserespectwhiletheotherswouldtendtocommandrespect.

MedievalAnalysis

32

Inthemedievalperiodwefindkarmaclassified,firstlyaccordingtofunction(kicca)aswhatgivesbirth(janaka),whattendstosupportatendency(upatthambhaka),whattendstoobstructatendency(upapīḷaka)andwhatdestroys(upaghātaka).Secondly,accordingtothemannerinwhichtheycomeintofruition(pāka-dāna-pariyāya),theyareclassifiedasweighty(garuka),proximate(āsanna),habitual(āciṇṇa)andresidual(kaṭattā).Thirdly,accordingtothetimeoftakingeffect(pāka-kāla)therearefoursorts—whatis“experiencable”inthislife(diṭṭhadhamma-vedanīya),inthenextlife(upapajja-vedanīya),sometimeinthefuture(aparāpara-vedanīya)ornever(ahosi).Fourthly,accordingtothelocusinwhichtheeffectstakeplacethereisevilkarmafindingfruitionintheworldsofsense-gratification;similarlyitiswithgoodkarma;andthereisalsogoodkarmawhichbecomeseffectiveinthesubtlematerialworlds(rūpa-loka)andtheimmaterial,ideationalworlds(arūpa-loka).

Distinction

ItisnecessarytodistinguishtheBuddhisttheoryofkarmafromtheothernon-Buddhisttheories.Firstly,ithastobedistinguishedfromtheJaintheoryaccordingtowhichmancouldnotdevelopmorallyandspirituallywithout

33

undergoingalltheconsequencesofone’spreviousevilkarma.TheJainshopedtoachievethisbyindulginginasceticpractices,whichtheybelievedhelpedtowearawaytheevileffectsofpastkarma.Thevalueofamoralactlikewisedependedonitsphysicalexpressionratherthantheintention,unlikeinBuddhism.

TheBuddhisttheoryhasalsotobedistinguishedfromanĀjīvikatheorywhichassertedthatallpresentactionsandexperiencesarestrictlydeterminedbypreviouskarma.Karma,accordingtoBuddhism,whilebeingnon-deterministicwasonlyoneamongmanyfactorswhichconditionedthenatureoftheindividual’sexperiencesofpleasureandpain.Amongthemwerethephysiologicalstateofthebody,whichwaspartlyaproductofheredityorthebiologicallaws(bīja-niyāma)recognisedinBuddhism.Theotherfactorswerechangesinthephysicalenvironment(utu-pariṇāma),insocialvicissitudes(visama-parihāra),theintentionalactivityoftheindividual(opakkamika)andlastlykarma.Karma,itwouldappear,couldoperateseparatelyinapsychosomaticmannerorinco-operationwiththeotherfactors.

Sinceanumberoffactorsoperatedinconditioningman’sexperience,itwaswrongtosaythatpleasureandpainweredueentirelytoone’sownactions(sayaṃkataṃsukhadukkhaṃ).NorwasitduetotheactionofanexternalagentlikeGod(paraṃkataṃ),nortoacombinationofboth(sayaṃkataṃcaparaṃkataṃca),norwasitaccidental(adhicca-samuppanna).Pleasureandpainwerecausally

34

conditioned(paṭicca-samuppanna)andmanbyhisknowledgeofhimselfandnaturecouldunderstand,controlandmasterthem.

Fatalism,HeredityandKarma

Sincekarmiccorrelationswerenotdeterministic,karmawasonlyoneofmanyfactorsconditioningthenatureofexperienceandpastkarmawasextinguishableandmodifiableinthecontextofone’spresentactions,itneedhardlybepointedoutthattheBuddhistteachingofkarmawasnotfatalistic.Buddhism,itmaybenoted,wasopposedtoallformsofdeterminism,naturaldeterminism(sabhāva-vāda),theisticdeterminism(issara-kāraṇa-vāda),karmicdeterminism(pubba-kammavāda)oranycombinationofthem.AccordingtooneBrahmanicaltext,nature(prakṛti)compelsmantoactashedoes,whilenatureitselfisunderthecontrolorwillofGod.

AccordingtoBuddhism,manisconditionedbyhisheredity(bīja-niyāma),byhisenvironment,physical,socialandideological(saḷāyatana-paccayāphassoetc.),byhispsychologicalpast(citta-niyāma)includinghiskarmicheritage(kamma-niyāma)butheisnotdeterminedbyanyorallofthem.Hehasanelementoffreewill(atta-kāra)orpersonalendeavour(purisa-kāra)byexercisingwhichhecan

35

changehisownnatureaswellashisenvironment(byunderstandingit)forthegoodofhimselfaswellasofothers.Inthissensemanismasterofhisfate(attāhiattanonātho).

Thelawsofheredity,likewise,arenottobeconfusedwiththelawsofkarma.Buddhismacceptsboth.Asaresulttheremaybesituationsinwhichthecausallinesofkarmaandhereditycoincide.Apersonmayhaveacertaintraitbecauseheinheritsitfromoneofhisparentsandalsobecausehehasaparticularkarmicreasonoraffinityforit.

Sometimesinthecaseofmentaltraits,theoriginmaybekarmicratherthanhereditary.AsProfessorC.D.Broad(EmeritusProfessorofPhilosophy,UniversityofCambridge)hasstatedinhisexaminationofthephilosophyofthelateProfessorJohnMcTaggartofCambridgeUniversity,whourgedabeliefinrebirthandkarmaonphilosophicalgroundsinhisbooksTheNatureofExistenceandSomeDogmasofReligion:“McTaggartpointsoutthattheassumptionofselectiveaffinitybetweencertainkindsofmindandcertainkindsoforganismwouldexplainlikenessesinmentalcharacteristicsbetweenparentsandchildrenwhichareoftenascribedtothedirectinfluenceofheredity.Owingtoheredityaman’sorganismwillresemblethoseofhisdirectancestorsmorecloselythanthoseofotherpeople.Now,similarorganismswillbeadaptedtosimilarmindsandzygoteswhichwilldevelopintosimilarorganismsarelikelytoattractsimilarmindsandunitewiththematconception.”ProfessorBroadadds,“Ithinkitmust

36

beadmittedthatthistheoryisingeniousandplausible.”[21]Besidesitcanbeseenhowrebirthandkarmacanexplainthe(sometimesmarked)temperamentaldifferencesinidenticaltwins,whowhentheyhappentobe“Siamesetwins”haveanidenticalandacommonenvironment.

CentralTeaching

Itmust,however,notbeforgottenthatthecentralteachingofBuddhismisnotthatofcontinuingtoperformgoodkarmaforthesakeofrewardsincontinuedsaṃsāricexistence(whichcannotbeenjoyedwithoutthesubsequentsufferingfromtheevilwhichfindsfruition)buttheeliminationofanykarmic(i.e.rebirth-producing)action.

TheimmediateidealoftheBuddhistshouldthereforebethatofattainingthefirststageofspiritualdevelopment(sotāpanna)bytheeliminationofattachmenttonotionsofegoandego-centredviews(sakkāya-diṭṭhi),byeliminationofdoubtsregardingtheBuddhistaccountofthenatureanddestinyofmanintheuniverse(vicikicchā)throughexamination,inquiryintoandpartialverificationofthetruthoftheDhamma,andtherealisationthatreligionispartandparcelofone’sdailylivingandexperienceandnotofobsessionalattachmenttoritesandrituals(sīlabbataparāmāsa).Suchapersonis“notliabletofallbelow

37

thestatusofhumanexistence”(avinipātadhammo)andisdestinedtoachievethegoalofenlightenment(niyatosambodhiparāyano)beforelong.Thisisthepathleadingtothedestructionofkarmicbondage(kammakkhaya)inwhichthegoodlifeiscultivatedwiththegrowthofselflessness,loveandunderstandingforitsownintrinsicworthandnotforegoisticrewards.

38

III.TheCasefortheBuddhistTheory

ofSurvivalandKarma

AswepointedoutinthetalkontheBuddhistviewofsurvival,itwouldbeincorrecttorepresenttheBuddhistconceptionofsurvivalasbeingasimpledoctrineofrebirth.Ifweusetheword“rebirth”todenotetheviewthatimmediatelyorsometimeafterdeathwereturntoanearth-life,thensuchrebirthisonlyaspecialcaseofre-becoming.

AccordingtothisBuddhistdoctrineofre-becoming,therecouldbecontinuityofindividualityinvariousplanesofexistence.Wemaysurviveasadiscarnatespirit(Paligandhabba=Sanskritgandharva)inthespiritsphere(petti-visaya),asadenizenofasub-humanworldorasanangelicspiritinthecelestialplanesofexistence.Suchsurvival,astheKathāvatthuexplains,iseitherinthegrossmaterialworld(kāma-loka),thesubtlematerialworld(rūpa-loka),ortheimmaterialworld(arūpa-loka).Thereisnointermediateexistence(antarābhava)apartfromexistenceinoneofthesethreeplanesofbecoming.

Sincehumanexistenceisamixtureofgoodandevil,theusualpatternasthetextsmakeoutistosurviveasadiscarnatespiritandcomebacktoahumanexistence.ThepracticeofBuddhismbythecultivationoffaith(saddhā),

39

virtue(sīla),learning(suta),selflessness(cāga)andwisdom(paññā)makesitpossibleforapersontodeterminehisfuturebirthonthehumanorcelestialplanes.Apersonwhohasbecomeanon-returner(anāgāmi)neednotcomebacktoahumanexistenceandanArahantwillnotbebornagaininthespatio-temporallyandcausallyconditionedcosmos.

NovelTheory

Besides,theBuddhisttheoryofsurvival,aswehavealreadyshown,isanoveltheorywhichisnottobefoundinthepre-Buddhistliterature.Itwasadoctrineofsurvivalwithouttheconceptofaself-identicalsubstanceorsoul.Thephysicalform,perceptions,feeling,willorintellectwerenotthesoul,nordidthesoulownthem,norwasasoultobefoundwithinthemnoragainweretheytobelocatedinacosmicsoul.Therewasnoselfapartfromacomplexofpsychophysicalprocessesandmanwasdefinedasabundleofdispositions(suddha-saṅkhāra-puñja).Thoughtherewasnoself-identical(anaññaṃ)substance,therewasacontinuity(santati,santāna)ofindividuality,sometimesreferredtoasastreamofconsciousness(viññāṇa-sota)orastreamofbecoming(bhava-sota).Associatedwithaperson’spresentbodywerethedispositionswithpotentialitiesforre-becoming(ponobhavikabhavasaṅkhāra).

40

TheseplanesofexistenceandtheoperationsofkarmawereobservedbytheBuddhaonthenightofhisenlightenment.Hisknowledgeconsistingof“therecallofpriorlives”(pubbenivāsānussati-ñāṇa)isdescribedasfollows:

“Whenhismindisthuscomposed,clearandcleansedwithoutblemish,freefromadventitiousdefilements,pliantandflexible,steadfastandunperturbed,heturnsanddirectshismindtotherecollectionofhisformerlives,viz.onelife,twolives…tenlives…ahundredlives…throughevolvingeons,recallinginwhatplacehewasborn,hisnameandtitle,hissocialstatus,hisenvironment,experiencesandtermoflifeanddyingthere,inwhatplacehewasnextborn,andsoonuptohispresentexistenceheremembersthevariedstatesofhisformerlivesinalltheiraspectsanddetails.Justasamanwhohastravelledfromhisvillagetoanotherandfromthattoyetanother,whenhereturnstohisformervillagebythesameroute,remembershowhecamefromvillagetovillage,wherehestayedandrested,whathesaidandwhathedid;evenso,whenthemindiscomposed…”[22]

SincetheBuddhisttheoryofsurvivalisacompositetheory,thecaseinsupportofsuchatheoryshouldincludeatleasttheargumentsforsurvivalasdiscarnatespiritsaswellastheargumentsforrebirth.

Beforeweexaminesuchargumentsandtheevidence,we

41

havetomeettheobjectionthattheknownfactsofscienceconcerningbrain-mindphenomenasuggesttheimpossibilityofsurvival.

TwoViews

Therearetwoclassicalviewsregardingtherelationshipbetweenthemindandthebody.Oneistheidentityhypothesis,whicheitherdeniestherealityofmentalexperienceorholdsthatsuchexperiencesareinseparablefromaspectsofneuralorbrainphenomena.Theotherisdualism,whichholdsthatmentalandneuralphenomenainteract.

Theextremeformoftheidentityhypothesis,calledcentralstatematerialism,triestodoawaywithsuchfactorsas“experience”or“consciousness”andexplainspsychologicalbehaviourasbeingsolelythefunctioningofthecentralnervoussystem.Thisisapurelymechanistictheory.

Alessextremeview,whichisstillmonistic,isthepsychosomatictheoryaccordingtowhichpsychologicalexperienceandbrainphenomenaaremerelythetwoaspectsofonereality.Accordingtothistheorythebrain-mindcombinationdoesnotfunctioninapurelymechanicalmanner,butsincebrainandmindaretwoaspectsofthe

42

sameprocess,theybothceasetofunctionwiththedeathoftheperson.

Amodernformofthedualisttheorywouldbetheinstrumentalorthetransmissiontheory,accordingtowhichthebrainwouldfunctionastheinstrumentofthemind,beingitselfaffectedbyit.

Buddhism,whichdiscardsthemonisticandthedualistichypotheses,wouldholdthatthereissometruthineachwithoutsubscribingtoeither.ForBuddhismthehumanbeinginnormalconsciousnessisapsycho-physicalunit,inwhichthephysicalandpsychicalphenomenaareinastateofmutualdependence(aññamañña-paccaya).Yetatthesametimeaspectsofwillcancontrol,govern,andproducementalactivity.Also,whenthebodyisbroughtwithincontrolandisinastateofperfectcomposurewithitsactivitiesstilled(kāya-saṅkhāraniruddha),itcanexerciseitsextra-sensorypowersofperception.

Buddhism,therefore,whilerejectingtheidentityhypothesisthat“themindandthebodyarethesame”(taṃjīvaṃtamsarīraṃ)andthedualisthypothesisthat“themindandthebodyaredifferent”(aññaṃjīvaṃaññaṃsarīraṃ)findspartialtruthineachandthusputsforwardamiddleview.

Neurology

43

Theidealscientistinthefieldofneurologyisnotexpectedtosubscribetoanyparticularpointofview.AsDr.WilderPenfieldsaidin1957,“Anyscientistwholooksupfromhisworktodeclare,forexample,thatthetruthistobefoundinmonismordualism,orthatthereisamiddleground,ceasestobeascientist.”[23]

Thisdoesnot,however,meanthatthefindingsofscientistshavenobearingonthesetheories.Theadvancesmadeoverthelastfiftyyearsareduetonewelectro-physiologicaltechniqueswhichhavemadeitpossibletostimulatesinglenervefibresandrecordresponsesfromsinglenervecells;themeasurementoftheelectricalactivityofthebrain(EEGs);brainsurgery;andthestudyofthechemicalbasisofneuralphenomena.Theyhaveshownthatitispossibletoaltersomewhatthestateofthepersonalityorconsciousnessbyphysicalorchemicalmeans.

Consciousness,incidentally,cannotbearguedoranalysedawaytothesatisfactionoftheextrememonists,foritisabrutefactthatcertainphysiologicalprocessessuchasaspectsofbrainphenomenaareaccompaniedbyconsciousnessorself-consciousness,thoughitcouldhavebeenotherwise.

Memory

44

Atthesametime,thisresearchhasalsoshownthatthereisnoone-to-onecorrespondencebetweenbrainphenomenaandmentalexperienceasthepsychosomatictheorywouldliketomaintain.Thus,memoryisnotuniquelylocatedinparticularpointsofthebrain.Dr.H.O.Hebbstatedin1953that“itisverydifficulttoconceiveofmemoryasafunctionofalocalisedregion.”[24]

Dr.Penfieldrecordsthatwhenaspecificpointinthebrainofawomanpatientwastouched,sheheardamothercallingherlittleboy.Butelevenminuteslaterwhenthesamepointwastouchedwiththeelectrode,thepatientnolongerheardthemothercallingherlittleboybutinsteadheardthevoicesofpeoplecallingfrombuildingtobuilding.Inanothercase,thepatientheardthesamesongvividlywheneachoffourdifferentpointsinthebrainwasstimulated.LordBrainF.R.S.,theeminentneurologist,states,“Evidentlyinthebrain,memoryisnotaunitaryfunctionnoristhereanysinglepartofthenervoussysteminwhichallmemoriesarestored.”[25]

Thelackofspecificlocalisationisnotconfinedtomemorybutistobefoundinotherfunctionsaswell.In1912,Yerkesfoundthathabitsregisteredinonepartofthenervoussystemofanearthwormmightshiftlaterontoanotherpart,andasimilarversatilitywastobefoundinhumanbrainsrelativetotheeffectsofbraindamageinchildrenbyKlebanoff,SingerandWilenskyin1954.

Aseniorlecturerinzoology,workingmainlyonthebrains

45

ofrats,reportsasfollows:“Threeoftheprecedingsectionsareheadedrespectively’cortex,’’limbicsystem’and’reticularsystem,’butthisanatomicalarrangementdoesnotcorrespondtothefactsoffunction:thestudyofanyofthesesystemssoonbecomesmeaninglesswithoutreferencetotheothers.Duringeveryfewmilliseconds,inthewakingbrain,informationpassestoandfroinanetworkofcommunicationofwhichonlythelargerdetailsareyetcertainlyknown…Insuchaflux,wecannot,withourpresentknowledge,properlyspeakoflocalisationoffunctionbutonlyofthespecificeffectsofinjuryorstimulation…Asmallinjurycaninfluencebehaviourwhichcertainlydependsalsoonthefunctioningoftheotherparts;bycontrast,somesubstantialinjuriesleavebehaviourlargelyunaltered;andwhenbehaviourisdisturbedbylesions,theremaybesubsequentrecoverydue,evidently,tosomecompensatoryprocesselsewhere.Thesefactsatpresentdefyexplanation.Alltheydoistomakeaccountsofneuralfunctionintermsofreflexarcsasabsurdasinterpretationsoflearningintermsofconditionedreflexes.”[26]

InarecentBBCbroadcast,DrGreyWalterspeakingonMind,Matter,andMachines,confessedthelackofknowledgeaboutthenatureofmemory.Hesaid:“Nosketchofthecontemporaryworldofbrainresearchwouldbecompletewithoutahueofmysterybecausethisiswhatcatchesthemind’seye.Formetherearetwogreatobscuritiesinourpicture:memoryandsleep.”[27]Recently(April,1968)Dr.

46

Penfieldconfessedtothelimitationsofpresentscientificresearch.Hesaid:“Themorewelearnaboutthemechanismswithinthebrain,thecleareritbecomesthatsciencehasnotthrownanyreallightonthenatureofthemind…Theonlywaytheneurophysiologistworksistostudytheactionofthebrainononesideandthechangingstreamofmentalactivityontheother.Youcanseetheparallelismoftheactivitybutyoucannotunderstandtheinterrelationship.”[28]

Itissaidthatacircularstimulusfigurethatweobserveasacirclewillbefarfromcircularwhenitisprojectedintheoccipitallobeoftheobserver’scortex.Sowhatweperceiveasacircleisnotcircularinoutlineinthebrain.Thecaseissimilarwithourvisionofthree-dimensionalfigures.[29]

InstrumentalTheory

Thebrainfunctionsorismadetofunctionasawholeandthereisnoone-to-onepsychosomaticcorrespondencebetweenbrainphenomenaandtheconcomitantexperiences.Sodespitetherecentadvanceinbiochemistryandmicrobiology,mentalphenomenacannotbeconsideredtobejustoneaspectofasingleprocessinthebrain.

ProfessorSirJohnEccles,whohasbeendescribedbySir

47

CyrilBurtas“themosteminentoflivingneurologistswhohasspecialisedinthestudyofthebrain,”hasobservedthat“thestructureofthebrainsuggeststhatitisthesortofmachinethata’ghost’mightoperate”,wheretheword“ghost”isused“todesignateanykindofagentthatdefiesdetectionbysuchapparatusasusedtodetectphysicalagents.”[30]

Thissuggeststhataninstrumentaltheoryofthebraincannotbeexcludedinthelightofmodernfindings.Wemustnotforgetinthiscontextthatmanyphysiologicalchangesareinitiatedbytheoperationofaspectsofwill,andthatmanydiseasesnotonlyhaveapsychologicalorigin(withorwithoutadiscoverableorganiccondition)butarecurablebypurelypsychologicalmeans.Wemaynotethatphysicalpainwithanorganicbasiscanberelievedorremovedbychemicalmeans(i.e.drugs)orbythesuggestionsofhypnosis.

Wheninadditiontoallthis,wehavetotakeintoaccounttherealitiesofESP(extra-sensoryperception),theidentityhypothesisbecomesalmostuntenablealthoughtherewasmuchtobesaidinitsfavour.Mr.JohnBeloff,alecturerinPsychologyintheUniversityofEdinburgh,regardsthepara-psychologicalevidenceasconstitutingthemostdamagingobjectiontoanymaterialisttheoryofmindasenvisagedintheidentityhypothesis.

Thisiswhathesays:“This(i.e.para-psychologicalevidence),itseemstome,istheempiricalreefonwhichthe

48

identityhypothesisisdoomedtofounderevenifitcansurviveallotherhazards.Mostofitssupportersdoindeedrecognisethedanger,butlikeFeigl,pintheirfaithtotheabilityofsciencetoexplaintheESPphenomenaeventuallyalongmoreorlessconventionallines(obscurebrainfunctions,unsuspectedsourcesofenergyetc.).Suchfaith,thoughplausibleenoughtwentyorthirtyyearsago,isnowincreasinglyunrealistic.Thechoicethatconfrontsustoday,Isubmit,isaverydrasticone:eitherwemustblanklyrefusetocredittheevidenceorwemustbepreparedtoacceptaradicalrevisiontothewholecontemporaryscientificworldpictureonwhichmaterialismhastakenitsstand.”[31]

Thatthepara-psychologicalphenomenaconstitutingESPhavecometostayandareatpresentacceptedasvalidbyleadingscientists,psychologistsandphilosophersisevidentfromarecentpublication(1967)ofabookcalledScienceandESPintheInternationalLibraryofPhilosophy&ScientificMethod.

Thebrainmaybecomparedtoacomputer,andelectronicmachinescanbeconstructedtoperformcertainoperationsofabstractthinking(suchaslogicalandmathematicalcalculations)withagreaterspeed,precisionandaccuracythanthehumanmindiscapableof.Buthowevermuchsuchcomputersmaysimulatehumanbehaviour,theycannothavepsychologicalexperiences,expresspersonalbehaviourasopposedtomereimitation,andhavethedegreeofcreativityandspontaneitythatahumanmindiscapableofexhibiting.

49

Summinguprecentscientificfindingsonthebody-mindproblem,ProfessorHornellHartstates:“Tolookatthebody-mindproblemwithoutbias,itisessentialthatwerecognisetwopivotalfacts:(1)thatdamagetobrainstructuremayblockordistortwhatthe“I”-thinkerwantstotransmitand(2)thatthechemicalconditionofthebrainhasmarkedeffectsonthemoodsandattitudesofthe“I”-thinkerhimself…Whateveritisthatthinks“I”inanyoneofusisnotaconstant,unchangingreality.Norisitsomethingwhichprogressessmoothlyandconsistentlyalongaregulartrend.”[32]

BuddhistView

AllthisseemstosupporttheBuddhisttheoryofthemind,whichholdsthat“consciousmentalandcognitivephenomenafunctionindependenceontheirphysicalbasis,”[33]thatcertainaspectsofwillcandirect,governandproducementalactivityaswellasverbalandbodilybehaviourandthatwhenthebodyandthebrainarestilledwiththeattainmentofthefourthjhāna(andsometimesevenotherwise),themindcanexerciseitspowersofextra-sensoryperceptionwhicharepotentiallypresent.

Sononeofthemodernfindingswithregardtothemindanditsrelationtothebrain,ortheassertionsofmodernbrain

50

physiologists,inanywayprecludetheempiricalpossibilityofsurvivalafterdeath.Thisdoesnotmeanthatsurvivalafterdeathisafactbutthatitisanopenpossibilitytobeprovedordisprovedormadeprobableorimprobableinthelightofrelevantevidence.

OtherObjections

Thereareotherobjectionsthatareraisedspecificallyagainsttheconceptofrebirth.Theyfallintothreecategories:(i)thatrebirthisaself-contradictoryconcept,(ii)thatitcannotaccountfortheincreaseinthehumanpopulation,whichisafact,and(iii)thatbio-genesisorreproductionbyfissionatthelowestlevelsoflifeisinexplicableonthebasisoftherebirththeory.

Thefirstobjectionisthattheconceptofrebirthinvolvestheidentityoftwoormorepersons,oneofwhomlives.Itisheldthattheidentificationoftwoormorepersonsregardingthemasoneandthesamepersoniseithermeaninglessorself-contradictory.Thisisbasedonthebeliefthattheidentityofthepersonconsistsintheidentityofthebody,whichiscertainlythecaseinthelawcourts.Butasthephilosopher,JohnLocke,pointedoutwithspecificreferencetothecaseofrebirth,wealsoapplyamentalcriterioninouridentificationofpersons.

51

Ifsomeonesuffersfromanattackoftotalamnesia,whichinvolvesacompleteblack-outofhispastmemories,resultinginacompletechangeoflife,wewouldbeinclinedtosaythatheisnowanewperson,thatheisnotthesamepersonasbefore.Forexample,Dr.JekyllandMr.Hydewhohavethesamebodyareregardedastwodifferentpersons.Thismeansthatasregardstheidentityofpersons,wenormallyemploytwocriteria,thatofthecontinuityofthebodyandthatofthecontinuityofmemoryandmentaldispositions.Intherebirthcaseallthatisclaimedisthat,inasignificantsense,thereiscontinuity(santati)ofthemindoftheindividualfromoneearth-lifetoanother.

Thismakesitmeaningfultosaythattwopersons,historicallyremovedfromeachotherintime,areoneandthesameindividualbecausetheyhaveacontinuousmentalhistory.Themodernpositivistphilosopher,ProfessorA.J.AyerofOxford,grantingthemeaningfulnessandthelogicalpossibilityofrebirth,says:“Ithinkthatitwouldbeopentoustoadmitthelogicalpossibilityofreincarnationmerelybylayingdowntherulethatifapersonwhoisphysicallyidentifiedaslivingatalatertimedoeshavetheostensiblememoriesandcharacterofapersonwhoisphysicallyidentifiedaslivingatanearliertime,theyaretobecountedasonepersonandnottwo.”[34]Thelogicalobjectionis,therefore,untenable.

Thesecondobjectionisthatitcannotaccountfortheincreaseinhumanpopulation.Thisobjectionwouldbevalidifthetheoryrequiredthatanyhumanbirthatpresent

52

presupposesthedeathofapriorhumanbeingonthisearth.Suchatheorywouldalsomakeitimpossibleforhumanbeingstoevolveoutofanthropoidapessincethefirsthumanbeingstoevolvewouldnothavehadhumanancestors.[35]ButaccordingtotheearlyBuddhistviewofthecosmos,therearehundredsandthousandsofgalaxiesspreadoutinspace,containing“thousandsofsuns,moons,earthsandotherinhabitedspheres.”ItisalsothecaseaccordingtotheBuddhisttheoryofrebirththatthepriorlifeofahumanbeingmaybeanimal.Itis,therefore,possibleaccordingtothistheorytoaccountfortheincreasingnumberofpresenthumanbirthsintermsofthedeathsofhumanbeings,animalsornon-humanbeingsinthisaswellasonotherplanetsintheuniverse.

Asregardsthethirdobjectionfrombio-genesis,itcanhardlyaffecttheBuddhisttheory.AlthoughaccordingtosomeBrahmanicaltheories,rebirthispossibleevenatthelevelofplants,itappearstobethecaseaccordingtoBuddhismthatrebirthtakesplaceatahigherlevelofevolutionwhena“re-becomingmind”hasbeenformedwiththepersistenceofmemory.Afterhisenlightenment,theBuddhareferstosomeofhisJainpractices,asanaspiranttoBuddhahood,inthefollowingwords:“Iusedtowalkupanddownconscientiouslyextendingmycompassioneventoadropofwater,prayingthatthedangerousbacteriainit(khuddakepāṇevisamagate)maynotcometoharm.”[36]Thecontextseemstosuggestthatthiswasawasteoftime.

53

IV.TheCasefortheBuddhistTheory

ofSurvivalandKarma

InexaminingthecasefortheBuddhisttheoryofsurvivalandkarma,wetookupforconsiderationinthelasttalkcertainobjectionswhichmaybelevelledagainsttheBuddhistdoctrineofrebirth.Thefirstofthesewasthatmoderndiscoveriesaboutthenatureofmentalphenomenaandtherelationshipbetweenthebrainandthemindruledoutanypossibilityofasurvivalhypothesisbeingtrue.Wepointedout,onthecontrary,thatinthelightofmodernfindingsregardingthebrain-mindrelationshipandtheassertionsofleadingbrainphysiologists,theempiricalpossibilityofsurvivalafterdeathremainedanopenpossibility.

Body-MindProblem

ThecaseagainstthepossibilityofsurvivalinthelightofwhatweknowaboutthemindisfullystatedinabookbyDr.C.LamontcalledTheIllusionofImmortality.[37]Asound

54

criticismofitscontentsistobefoundinCh.XIIIofabookbyDr.C.J.Ducasse,EmeritusProfessorofPhilosophy,BrownUniversity,calledACriticalExaminationoftheBeliefinaLifeafterDeath.[38]

TheBuddhisttheoryoftherelationshipbetweenbodyandmindcanaccountforthebasicfactsstatedinLamont’sbookaswellasthecriticismsofDucasse.Lamont’scaseisbasedonthefollowingfacts:

a. that“thepowerandversatilityoflivingthingsincreaseconcomitantlywiththedevelopmentandcomplexityoftheirbodiesingeneralandtheirnervoussystemsinparticular.”

b. that“thegenesorotherfactorsfromthegermcellsoftheparentsdeterminetheindividual’sinherentphysicalcharacteristicsandinherentmentalcapacities.”

c. that,duringthecourseoflife“themindandthepersonalitygrowandchange,alwaysinconjunctionwithenvironmentalinfluences,asthebodygrowsandchanges.”

d. that“specificalterationsinthephysicalstructureandconditionofthebody,especiallyinthebrainandcerebralcortex,bringaboutspecificalterationsinthementalandemotionallifeofaman.”

e. that“conversely,specificalterationsinhismentalandemotionalliferesultinspecificalterationsinhisbodilycondition.”[39]

55

Ducasseshowsthat(e)contradictsLamont’scontentionsagainstdualism.Hefurthercitesthecaseofpsychosomaticdiseasetoshowthat,primarily,mentalstatescausephysicalchangesinthebody.Psychosomaticmedicine,forexample,todayrecognisesthefactthatmentalstatessuchasanxiety,tensionandworrysometimescausepainfulstomachulcers.

NowwhatistheBuddhisttheory?Buddhismclearlyholdsthatconsciousmentalandcognitiveexperiencesfunctionindependenceonaphysicalbasis.AstatementinthePaṭṭhānareadsasfollows:“Thatphysicalbasisindependenceonwhichthecategoryofmentalexperience(mano-dhātu)andthecategoryofcognitiveexperience(mano-viññāṇa-dhātu)function,thisphysicalbasisistothecategoryofmentalexperienceandthecategoryofcognitiveexperienceandtophenomenaassociatedwiththem,aconditionbywayofdependence”(nissaya-paccaya).

Becauseofthisdependenceitisnotsurprisingthat(a)istrueand(d)occurs,namelythealterationsinthephysicalbasisresultinginalterationsinthenatureofconsciousness.

Yetthedependenceisnotone-sided.AstheBuddhisttextselsewherestate,“themindfollowsinthewakeofthebody”(kāyanvayaṃcittaṃ)and“thebodyfollowsinthewakeofthemind”(cittanvayokāyo).Therelationbetweenthepsyche(viññāṇa)anditshereditarypsychophysicalbasis(nāmarūpa)isoneof“mutualdependence”(aññamañña-paccaya).Thewillandotherpsychologicalfactorscaninitiatesomeofthementalandphysicalchangesthattakeplaceassuggestedin

56

(e).

Again,sinceaccordingtoBuddhism,thepsychophysicalbasisofourbodiesispartlyduetowhatisderivedfrommotherandfatherand“biologicallaws”(bīja-niyāma)operate,itisnotsurprisingthat(b)ispartlytrue,namelythatgeneticfactorsconditionourphysicalandsomeofourmentalcharacteristics.

WhentheBuddhatoldSātithatitwaswrongtoholdthatconsciousnessfaresonfromlifetolifewithoutchangeofidentity(anaññaṃ),heillustratedthisbyshowingthatconsciousnesswascausallyconditioned.Itisconditionedbythestateofourbody,whichispartlyaproductofhereditaryfactors.Itisalsoconditionedbytheexternalenvironment.Onaccountoftheeyeandvisualphenomena,therearisesinusvisualconsciousness.Similarlyinrespectoftheothersenses,thereariseformsofconsciousnessassociatedwiththeirrespectivesenseobjects.

Likewise,itissaid,thatonaccountoftheimpactontheconsciousmind(manoviññāṇa)ofideas(dhamma),therearisevariousformsofconceptualconsciousness.Whentheseideasdonotcometousthroughlanguagefromoursocialandexternalideologicalenvironment,theyimpingeontheconsciousmindfromourownunconscious.Asaresultofthisourconsciousnesschangesandgrowsandthisinturnaffectsoursubsequentbehaviour.ThisishowtheBuddhaexplainstoSātithatthepsyche(viññāṇa)isnotanunchangingentitybutisinastateofdynamicgrowthand

57

becoming,incloseassociationwiththeconditioningofthebody.

Inthecaseofvisualstimulietc.,theyphysicallyaffectthesensesingivingrisetotheirrespectiveimpressions(paṭigha-samphassa),butinthecaseofideasthatariseinthemindinremembering,imagining,thinkingetc.,thecontactwiththeconsciousmindissaidtobeonlyconceptual(adhivacana-samphassa).

Itistheseimpressionsandideasandtheirby-productsthataccumulateinourmemoryandformpartofourmind.Sowhatisstatedin(c),namelythat“themindandpersonalitygrowandchangealwaysinconjunctionwithenvironmentalinfluencesasthebodygrowsandchanges,”ispartlytrue.Aswehaveseenabove,itisstatedintheBuddhisttextsthemselves.

SowhileBuddhismholdsthatthepersonisapsychophysicalunit(nāmarūpa),itdoesnotsubscribetotheidentityhypothesisthatthemindandthebodyareoneandthesameentity,nortothedualistichypothesisthatthemindandthebodyareentirelydifferent.Besides,Buddhismholdsthatifawareness(sati)canberetainedwhiletheimpressionsandideasthatimpingeontheconsciousmindareinhibited,theactivityofthebodyisgraduallystilledandtheemotionsofsensuousdesire(kāmacchanda)andhate(vyāpāda)subside,thenthemindbeingintrinsicallyresplendent(pabhassara)graduallyacquirescertainextra-sensorypowersofperception(abhiññā).

58

Whatweoutlinedearlierwastherelationshipoftheconsciousmind(manodhātu,manoviññāṇadhātu)toitsphysicalbasis,butwemustnotforgetthataccordingtotheBuddhisttheory,the“streamofconsciousness,”hastwocomponentswithoutasharpdivisionbetweenthem(ubhayatoabbocchinnaṃ),theconsciousmindandtheunconscious,inwhichaccumulatetheemotionallychargedexperiencesthatwehavehad,goingbackthroughchildhoodandbirthintopreviouslives.Besides,withtheexpansionanddevelopmentofconsciousness(vibhūta-saññi),itattainsaparanormalstate.

Howmuchofourmemoriesintheunconsciousareassociatedwiththebrain?Dotheyincludethememoriesofpriorlivesaswell?Whatisthenatureoftheassociationbetweenthepotentiallyparanormalmindandthebrain?Doestheparanormalmindfunctionatitsbestwhentheactivityofthebrainandthebodyisquiescent(kāyasaṅkhārāniruddhā)underitscontrol?Thetotalpsyche(viññāṇa)ofaperson,comprisingtheconsciousmind,thememoriesanddispositionsintheunconsciousandthepotentiallyparanormalmind,issaidtobe“associatedwithandlinkedtothebody”(etthacittaṃetthapaṭibaddhaṃ).Butitisnotclearhowcloseorhowloosetheassociationofitsseveralaspectsis.

TheBuddhisttextsspeakoftwoformsoftelepathy,directandindirect.Indirecttelepathy,itissaid,ishad“byattuningoneselfwiththethought-vibrationsofapersonashethinks”(vitakkayatovitakka-vipphāra-saddaṃsutvā).Direct

59

telepathydoesnotrequirethismediatingprocess.Istheactivityofthebrainrequiredforindirecttelepathywhileitisunnecessaryfordirecttelepathy?

Intheprevioustalkwetriedtoshowthatthemodernfindingsinregardtothemindanditsrelationtothebraindonotprecludethepossibilityofsurvivalafterdeath.WhilereiteratingthispointwetriedtogiveamoredetailedaccountoftheBuddhistsolutiontothebody-mindproblem.

Theargumentsofthecriticsfromthenatureofthemindanditsrelationtothebrain,ifvalid,wouldholdagainstanytheoryofsurvivalafterdeathincludingtheBuddhist.Theotherobjectionswhichwedealtwithintheprevioustalkcouldonlybelevelledagainstarebirththeory.Theywere,thatrebirthwasaself-contradictoryconceptinthatitclaimedthatmanypersonswereoneandthesameperson,thatitcouldnotaccountfortheincreaseinthehumanpopulationandthatbio-genesisorasexualreproductionatthelowestlevelsoflifewasinexplicableonthebasisofarebirththeory.

AnotherObjectionIfanyoftheaboveargumentswerevalid,theywouldhaveshownthatarebirththeorywasnotmerelyimprobablebutimpossible.ButwesawthattheargumentswerebasedonfalsepremisesanddidnotaffecttheBuddhisttheoryofrebirth.Wheretherewascontinuityofmindintheformofactualorpotentialmemoryandmentaldispositions,thenin

60

popularparlance,wecanspeakofthemanylivesofoneperson.Theincreaseofpopulationwouldnotpresentadifficultywherepre-existencecouldbeintheformofanimallivesorthoseofnon-humanbeingsinthisaswellasotherplanetsintheuniverse.Bio-genesisceasestobeaproblemifrebirthtakesplaceonlyatahigherlevelofbiologicalevolution.

Oneofthecommonestobjectionsagainstatheoryofrebirth,whichimpliespre-existence,isthatwedonotrememberourpastlives.Theobjectionmaytakethreedifferentforms.First,thatwedonothaveanymemoryofpriorlivesandthat,therefore,thereisnoevidenceofourhavinglivedinthepastpriortoourpresentbirth.Secondly,thatmemoryisindispensabletotheidentityofaperson.Thirdly,thatunlesswehavememory,rebirthistonopurpose,sincenomoralorotherlessonislearntintheprocess.

Wemayfirstdisposeofthethirdformofthisargument.Weareconcernedonlywiththequestionastowhetherre-becomingorrebirthisafactandnotwhetheritisagoodthingtobereborn.Wecannotarguefromwhatoughttobeorwhatisbest,towhatactuallyisthecase.Itisgenerallyadmittedthatsuchanargumenthasnobasisinfact,sinceifitistrue,theworldwouldbeverymuchdifferentfromwhatinfactitis.Besides,thereisavarietyofrebirththeoriesandthequestionastowhichoneistruecannotbemadeonthebasisoftheethicalconsiderationastowhichoneisthebesttobelievein.For,quiteapartfromdifferencesofopinionastowhatisbest(whether,forexample,itwould

61

bebettertorememberornottoremember),thereisnojustification,aswehaveshown,inarguingthatwhatisbestisinfactthecase.

Thesecondformoftheobjectionisthatmemoryisindispensabletotheidentityofaperson.Ifbythisismeantthatunlessapersonhasauthenticmemoriesofapastlife,wecannotbecertainatallthatheisthesameasonewholivedbefore,thereissomesubstancetothisobjection.Butitwouldnotbenecessarytoprovethatthiswassointhecaseofallpeople.

Ifasufficientnumberandvarietyofpeoplecanbeshowntohavesuchauthenticmemories,thenalthoughwemaynotbeabletoidentifythepriorlivesofotherhumanbeings,itwouldbeareasonablepresumptionthattheytoohadhadpriorlivesandarepotentiallycapableofrememberingthisatsometimeoranother.

Tocomebacktothefirstformoftheobjectionthatwehavenomemoryofhavinglivedbefore,then,ifrebirthisafact,itiscertainlynottrueofallhumanbeingsthattheydonotrecollecttheirpriorlives.For,thereareatleastafewwhodo,whilemanyotherscouldbeassistedtorecalltheirpreviouslives.

Itispossible,ofcourse,toarguethatthelackofmemoryregardingpriorlivesisnoproofthatwehavenotlivedbefore,justasthelackofmemoryregardingthefirstyearofourlivesonthepartofallormosthumanbeingsisnoproofthatwedidnotliveinthefirstyearofourlife.Itistruethat

62

mereabsenceofmemoryofacertaineventorphaseoflifeisnoproofthatsuchaneventdidnottakeplaceorthatwedidnotlivethroughsuchaphaseoflife.

Yetthisisanargumentfromsilence.Inthecaseofourpresentlife,wehaveanothercriteriontogoon,namely,thecriterionofbodilycontinuityandotherpeoplecantestifytothefactthatweexistedinthefirstyearofourlivesandlivedthroughcertainexperiences.Butinthecaseofrebirthwehavenoevidenceatallifwedonothaveactualorpotentialmemories.Memoryis,therefore,veryrelevanttotheproblemofrebirth.

However,itisnecessarytopointoutthattheword“memory”isusedintwosenses.Inasecondarysense,“havingamemory”isamatterofretainingaskillorcapacitythatweacquired.Ifsomeonelearnthowtoswimwhenhewasachildandcannowswimverywellwithouthavingtore-learnitandwithoutevenbeingabletorecallthathelearnttoswimasachild,westillsaythatheremembershowtoswimthoughhehasforgottenthathehadlearntitasachild.

Ifrebirthbethecase,isitnotlikelythatsomeofthecapacitiesorskillswehaveoracquirewithoutmuchdifficultyinthislifemaybeduetoourhavinglearnttheminapriorlife,especiallywheretheycannotbefullyaccountedforintermsofheredityorlearninginthislife?

Theexplanation,notonlyofcapacitiesandskillsbutofdifferencesoftemperamentor“weaknesses,”whichalsofall

63

intothiscategory,wouldhavetobethesame.Nowidenticaltwins(asopposedtofraternaltwins)aresaidtohavethesameheredity,andwhentheyhappentogrowupas“Siamesetwins”joinedtoeachother,theyhavemoreorlessacommonenvironment.Nowifindividualdifferencesandvariationsaredueentirelytothefactorsofheredityandenvironmentalone,thereshouldbeidentityoftemperamentandcharacteronthepartofthesetwins.Atleastthereshouldnotbemarkeddifferencesintheirdispositionsandtemperaments.Butthefactsareotherwise.

Dr.H.H.Newman,ProfessorofZoology,UniversityofChicago,whomadeaspecialiststudyoftwinning,sayswithregardtotheoriginal“Siamesetwins,”ChangandEng:“TheauthorofastudymadewhenthetwinswereinLondonwasimpressedwiththelackofanystrongresemblancebetweenChangandEng.Muchemphasiswasplacedontheirdifferentdispositionsandtemperaments.Changwasinclinedtodrunkenness,whileEngwasateetotaller.”[40]

Withregardtotheseidenticaltwins,ingeneral,hisobservationsareasfollows:“Indescribingseveralpairsofthesestrangetwins,writershavecommentedupontheirlackofclosesimilarity.Suchtwinshavebeenregardedastheonlykindoftwinsthatarebeyondquestionderivedfromasingleeggandthereforesurelyidenticalintheirhereditarymake-up.Onewouldexpectsuchtwins,sincetheyhavenotonlyacommonhereditybutacommonenvironment(fortheymustbeinthesameenvironmentall

64

thetime),tobeevenmorestrikinglysimilarthanpairsofseparatetwinsthatarenotsointimatelyassociated.Thefactis,however,thatSiamesetwinsarealmostwithoutexceptionmoredifferentinvariouswaysthananybutaveryfewpairsofseparateone-eggtwins.OneofthemostdifficultproblemsfacedbythetwinningspecialististhatofaccountingforthisunexpecteddissimilarityofthecomponentsofSiamesetwinpairs.”[41]

Couldthisdifferencenotbeduetoathirdfactorotherthanheredityandenvironment,namely,thepsychologicalpastofthetwoindividuals?Ifso,isitnotlikelythateveninotherindividualsaswelltherecouldbecapacities,skills,temperaments,weaknessesetc.,whicharedueto“memories”(inthesecondarysensedefinedabove)ofpriorlivesratherthantothefactorsofheredityandenvironment?Geniusesorchildprodigies,whoseextraordinaryaccomplishmentscannotbeaccountedforintermsofheredityorenvironment,wouldonlybespecialcasesofsuchacarry-overofskillsfromonelifetoanother.

Apartfromtheuseoftheword“memories”intheabovesecondarysense,weusethewordinitsprimarysensetodenotethe“recallofauthenticexperiencesofone’spast.”Inthissensetherearequiteafewwhohaveclaimedtohaverememberedexperiencesoftheirallegedpriorlives.Someofthemarespontaneouscasesofrecallwhileothersareduetotheinterventionofhypnotists,whohavecarriedoutage-regressionexperiments.Howauthenticarethesememoriesandwhatreasonhavewetobelievethattheyarepotentially

65

presentinmanyifnotallhumanbeings?Thesearequestionsthatweshallseektoanswerinthesubsequenttalksonthissubject.

66

V.TheCasefortheBuddhistTheory

ofSurvivalandKarma

Itmaybeusefultosummarizebrieflytheargumentsofar.

TheBuddhistdoctrineofre-becoming(punabbhava)wasanoveltheoryinsofarasitspokeofsurvivalwithoutaself-identicalsoulorsubstance.Therewascontinuity(santati)ofpersonalityafterdeath,andrebirthorthereturntoanearth-lifewasonlyaspecialcaseofsuchcontinuity.Thedoctrinewaspropoundedaftertakingintoaccountallthepossibletheoriesthatcouldbeadvancedwithregardtotheproblemofanafter-life.

TheBuddhistdoctrineofkarmamerelytaughtthattherewascorrelationbetweenmoralactsandtheirconsequences,withoutimplyinganysortoffatalism.Infact,itsimplicationsweretheveryoppositeoffatalisminthatmanbyhisunderstandingofhisownnaturecouldcontrolhispresentanddeterminehisownfuture.

Inthetwoprevioustalksweexaminedsomeoftheobjectionsthatcouldbelevelledagainstthisdoctrineofre-becoming.Weinvestigatedtheobjectionagainstanytheoryofsurvivalfromtheallegedstateofrelationshipthatexistsbetweenthebrainandthemind,andfoundthatthe

67

evidenceagainstthepossibilityofsurvivalwasbynomeanscrucial.Survivalisneitherprovednordisprovedinthelightofthemodernfindingsregardingthebrain-mind.Anytheoryofsurvival,therefore,standsorfallsonthebasisofindependentevidence.

Wealsoexaminedsomeoftheobjectionsraisedspecificallyagainstrebirth.Wefoundthattheobjectionthatrebirthwasaself-contradictoryconceptwasnotvalidsincewecanspeaksignificantlyofasingleindividualhavingmanyliveswherethereisacontinuityofmemoryandmentaldispositions.TheargumentfromtheincreaseinthehumanpopulationcouldnotbelevelledagainsttheBuddhisttheoryofrebirthsinceBuddhismentertainsthepossibilityofpriorlivesamonganimal,human,ornon-humanancestorsonthisorotherplanets.Theobjectionfrombio-geneticistsalsowasnotvalidsincerebirthtookplaceatahigherlevelofanimalevolution.

Theobjectionregardingthelackofmemoryofpriorliveswasfarfromvalid.“Memory”maybeusedinoneoftwosenses:(i)therecallofgenuineexperiencesofone’spastand(ii)thepresenceofcapacitiesandskillsacquiredinthepast.Inthesecondsensewefoundthattherewasevidencefortheexistenceofsuch“memories.“

Identicaltwinswhenjoinedtogether(called“Siamesetwins”)haveacommonheredityandcommonenvironment.Yetpsychologistsobservedthattheydifferincharacterandtemperament.Itislikely,therefore,thatthis

68

differencewasduetoathirdfactor(otherthanheredityandenvironment),namelythe“carryover”ofpastskillsandattitudesfrompriorlives.Geniusesorchildprodigies,whoseextraordinaryaccomplishmentscannotbeaccountedforintermsofheredityorenvironment,wouldonlybespecialcasesofsucha“carryover”ofskillsfromonelifetoanother.

Intheformersenseofmemory,namelyoftherecallofgenuineexperiencesinone’spast,itisclaimedthatthereisevidenceoftherecallofgenuineexperiencesfrompriorlives.Suchclaimshavetobecarefullyexamined.

UnsatisfactoryArguments

Yet,beforeweproceedtodoso,itisnecessarytodisposeofsomeunsatisfactoryargumentsthataresometimesadducedinsupportofthedoctrineofrebirth.Theymaytakemanyforms.

Thereisatendencytourgethatsomebeliefistruebecausealmosteverybodyholdsit.Yettheuniversalityofabeliefdoesnotentailitstruth.Noratthesametimedoesitentailitsfalsity.Itissometimesmaintainedthatmanyprimitivepeoplesoftheancientworldbelievedinsurvivalorthedoctrineofrebirth.Butthisdoesnotimplythatthebeliefis

69

eithertrueorfalse.Itstruthorfalsityhastobeestablishedindependently.

Therelevanceoftheuniversalityofthebeliefasevidenceofitstruthbecomesmoreinterestingwhenitisrealisedthateveryoneinastateofdeephypnosisgivesanaccountofexperiencesinallegedpriorlives,livedonearth,whatevertheirconsciousbeliefsmaybe.ThereisevidencethatMaterialistsandTheistsholdingavarietyofviewsonthesubjectofsurvivalafterdeath,withoutsubscribingtothedoctrineofrebirthorpre-existence,giveallegedaccountsofpriorlives,recountingdetailsoftheirexperiences.

Doesthisimplythetruthofthebelief?Notnecessarily,foritispossiblethatalloftheirbeliefscouldbeillusory,thoughtheuniversalityofsuchanillusionhastobeaccountedfor.Buttheexperiencestheyrecountcertainlyconstituteevidenceforthetruthorfalsityofthebeliefinrebirth.Weshallcarefullyexaminethisevidencelateron.

Anotherforminwhichanargumentforsurvivalispresentedisthatahumanneedorwantimpliestheexistenceofwhatisneededorwanted.Weneedorwant,forinstance,food.Therefore,itissuggested,theremustbefood.Manypeoplefeeltheneedforimmortalityoratleastsurvivalafterdeath.Therefore,itissuggested,theremustbesuchimmortalityorsurvival.

However,thisisanargumentthatcutsbothways.Forothersmayarguethatwebelieveinrebirthorsurvivalbecauseweneedtobelieveordesiretoentertainsucha

70

belief.Butwhatweliketobelieveisnotnecessarilytrueand,therefore,thisisnoevidenceofthetruthofthebelief.

FreudinhisworkcalledTheFutureofanIllusiontriestoshowthatpeopleentertaincertainreligiousbeliefs,likethebeliefintheexistenceofGod,forinstance,becausethereisadeepseatedcravinginusforsecurityamidsttheinsecurityoflifeandtheuncertaintyofthebeyond.AccordingtohimpeoplebelieveinGoddogmaticallybecauseofsuchadeep-seatedcraving.Itisanobjectofwish-fulfilment,and,inthisspecialcase,an’illusion.’

Thisdoesnot,however,necessarilymeanthatthebeliefisfalse.AsFreudhimselfpointedout,agirlmaybelieveintheexistenceofaPrinceCharmingwhomay,oneday,comeandproposetoher.Becauseshelikestobelievethis,itdoesnotnecessarilymeanthatsuchapersondoesnotexist.Sothedesiretobelieveinrebirthorsurvivaldoesnotnecessarilyshowthatthebeliefisfalse,justasthedesiretodisbelieveinrebirthdoesnotimplythatthecontrarybeliefisfalse.

TheBuddhistviewonthismaterialisbothrelevantandinteresting.Ourdesiresinfluenceorconditionourbeliefs,towhichwetenaciouslycling(taṇhāpaccayādiṭṭhūpādānaṃ),butthisdoesnotnecessarilymeanthatthesebeliefsarealwaysfalse,forwhentheyhappentobe“rightbeliefs”(sammādiṭṭhi),theyareinfacttrue.

Soalthoughdesiresaffectourbeliefs,thisfacthasnorelevancetothetruthorfalsityofthebeliefs.Wehave,

71

however,becauseofouremotionalinvolvementwiththesebeliefs,toweightheevidencefororagainsttheirtruthorfalsitywithoutprejudice.AsBuddhistswehavetoexaminethetruthevenofthebeliefinrebirthobjectivelywithoutbeingprejudicedfor—(chanda),oragainst—(dosa),orbeingaffectedbyfear(bhaya)evenifitbethefearofthebeyond,orbeingguidedbyourerroneousbeliefs(moha).Sothedesiretobelieveornottobelievedoesnotaffectthetruthorfalsityofthebelief,butwehavetoguardagainsttheprejudiceresultingfromthesedesiresinourquestfortruth.

AuthorityandRevelation

Anothersetofargumentsforsurvivalisbasedonauthority.Itmaybestatedthatmanypoetsandmystics,aswellasrationalthinkersbroughtupinatraditionwhichcondemnedthebelief,neverthelessprofessedthebelief.

TheclassiccaseisthatofGiordanoBruno,whoissaidtohavestatedinhisprofessionoffaithbeforetheInquisition:“Ihaveheld,andhold,soulstobeimmortal…SpeakingasaCatholic,theydonotpassfrombodytobody,butgotoParadise,PurgatoryorHell.ButIhavereasoneddeeply,and,speakingasaphilosopher,sincethesoulisnotfoundwithoutbodyandyetisnotbody,itmaybeinonebodyorinanother,andpassfrombodytobody.This,ifitbenot

72

(proved)true,seems,atleast,likely…”[42]Overtwohundredandfiftywell-knownpoets,philosophersandwritersoftheWesternworldhaveeitherheldorprofessedsomesortofbeliefinrebirth.

Allthatthisseemstosuggestisthatthebeliefisworthexamining,anditdoesnotinanywayimplythetruthofthebelief.

TheargumentfromrevelationisalsounacceptabletoscienceandBuddhism.ItistruethatcertaintextsintheVedictradition,particularlythemiddleandlateUpaniṣads,professabeliefinrebirth,butthereisavarietyofviewsonthesubjectofsurvivalintheVedictraditionitself.InoneoftheearlyUpaniṣadsrebirthisdenied.Itissaid:“…therearethesethreeworlds,theworldofmen,theworldofdepartedspirits,andtheworldofthegods.Theworldofmenisobtainedthroughasononly,notbyanyothermeans.”[43]

Whiletherearethesecontradictionswithinrevelationaltraditions,thedifferenttheisticrevelationsalsocontradictoneanotherontheproblemofsurvival.Sothedoctrineofrebirthcannotbeestablishedbyanargumentfromauthorityorrevelation,sinceauthorityandrevelationarenotacceptablemeansofknowledge.

MetaphysicalandEthical

73

Arguments

Themetaphysicalargumentsarenobetter.Apartfromthefactthattheymakeuseofunverifiableconceptslike“soul,”theargumentsareofdoubtfulvalueandaregenerallydiscreditedtoday.Oneofthetraditionalargumentsforsurvivalhasbeenthatthe“soulisasubstance,substancesareindestructible;thereforethesoulisindestructible,i.e.immortal.”Butapartfromthedifficultyoftheconceptofa“soul,”thenotionofanindestructiblesubstanceisdiscreditedtoday.

Withregardtorebirth,wehavealreadymetwithasampleofsuchametaphysicalargumentinthatofGiordanoBruno(seeabove).Sucharguments,basedonpurereasoning,intendedtoprovethetruthofrebirth,aretobemetwith,forexample,inaworkcalledSomeDogmasofReligion(Ch.IV)byProfessorJohnMcTaggartofCambridge.Buttheyhavelittleappealtodaysinceitisrecognisedthatmattersoffactcannotbeprovedbypurereasoning,(takka),astheBuddhahimselfpointedout(mātakka-hetu).

Theethicalargumenthasagreaterappeal,butthisissoonlyforthosewhoacceptitspresuppositions.WehavealreadystatedthisinthetalkontheBuddhistdoctrineofkarma.TherewepointedoutthataccordingtotheBuddhakarmawasoneofthepredominantfactorsresponsibleforhumaninequalities.

74

Thishasoftenbeenrepresentedasembodyingthefollowingrational,ethicalargumentconsistingofanempiricalandethicalpremise,viz.“peopleareofunequalstatus;thoseofunequalstatusoughttobesuchbyvirtueoftheirownactions—therefore,sincethisisnotduetotheiractionsinthislife,itshouldbeduetotheiractionsinpriorlives.Thismeansthatbothpre-existenceandkarmaarethecase.”

Thisisanargumentthathasappealedtomanythinkersdownthroughtheages,butmostmodernthinkerswouldnotacceptthesecondethicalpremise,namelythat“thoseofunequalstatusoughttobesuchbyvirtueoftheirownactions.“Thisisbecausemostpeoplebelievetodaythattheuniverseofnatureisamoral,andthereisnoethicalreasonwhyanythingshouldorshouldnotbeso.Ontheotherhandmanyholdthatethicalstatementsareneithertruenorfalse.Itisneverthelessafactthatmanypeoplebroughtupinabeliefintheinherentjusticeofnatureaskquestionsoftheform,“whyshouldso-and-sobebornhealthywhileIaminastateofill-healthfrombirthetc?”

ItisonlythemodernscholarswhohavemadeanargumentofthissincetheBuddhamerelystatedasanobservedfactthatthepredominantcauseoftheseinequalitieswaskarma.Thefactis,inprinciple,unverifiable,buttheargumentappealstoone’smoralsense,andisofvalueonlyifsuchamoralsenseisuniversallypresentandsharedbyallmankind.

75

TheEvidence

Theaboveargumentsare,therefore,foronereasonoranother,unsatisfactoryandhavelittleforceinprovingthetruthofrebirthorsurvival.Thetruthorfalsityofrebirth,therefore,restsontherelevantempiricalevidence.

Wemayclassifythemainevidenceintotwosorts:(i)experimentaland(ii)spontaneous.Theotherevidencemaybeconsideredseparately.

Theexperimentalevidenceisbasedonage-regression.Underhypnosisasubjectcanrecallorre-livehispastexperiences.Withregardtothislifewhenregressedtoagesix,forinstance,thesubjectwouldbehave,writeandtalkasheorshedidatthattimeandrecallthepastexperiences,whichitmaynotbepossibletorecallbynormalmeans.Thehandwritingandthememoriescouldbeindependentlychecked.Suchexperimentshaveconvincedpsychologistsandpsychiatriststodaythattheauthenticburiedmemoriesofone’schildhoodexperiences,whichcannotbecalledtomindvianormalconsciousness,canbeunearthedbyhypnosis.Itmaybeaskedwhetherthesubjectisnotjustrespondingtothesuggestionsofthehypnotistandismerelyplay-actingorshamming.Thatthisisnotsohasbeenprovedexperimentally.

Dr.H.J.Eysenckstatesthat“inonecaseitwasfoundthatwhenatwenty-year-oldgirlwasregressedtovariousages

76

shechangedthechalktoherlefthandatthesix-year-level;shehadstartedwritingwiththelefthand,buthadbeenforcedtochangeoverattheageofsix.”[44]

Inanothercaseathirty-year-oldwashypnotizedandregressedtoalevelofaboutoneyearofage,onachairarrangedinsuchawaythatwiththereleaseofalatchitwouldfallbackintoahorizontalposition.Whenthelatchwasreleasedthebehaviourelicitedwasnotthatofanadultbutofachild.Anadult,itissaid,wouldquiteinvoluntarilyextendbotharmsandlegsinanefforttomaintainbalance.Sincethesubjectmadenomovementofthelimbsbutscreamedinfrightandfellbackwardwiththechair,urinatingintheprocess,Eysenckcomments,“Itisunlikelythatsuchbehaviourissimplyduetoplay-acting.”[45]

Intelligenceandachievementtestshavebeenusedtoassessthenatureofthebehaviourofregressedsubjectsandithasbeenfoundthat“peopletendtobehaveontestsofthistypeinamannerroughlyappropriatetothegivenage.”Eysenck’sobservationswithregardtothepossibilityoffakingsuchbehaviourareasfollows:“Suchreactions,ofcourse,couldeasilybefaked,butithasbeenshownthatwhen,forinstancetheeyemovementsofsubjectsarephotographed,aconsiderablelackofocularco-ordinationandstabilityisfoundwhenregressiontoarelativelyyoungageoccurs.Suchphysiologicalphenomenaarecharacteristicofyoungchildrenandaredifficult,ifnotimpossible,toproducevoluntarily.”[46]

77

Aremarkablefactisthatthepsychologicalexperienceshad,whenthephysiologicalconditionofthebodywasdifferent,arere-enacted.ToquoteEysenckagain,“Evenmoreimpressiveisanothercaseofasubjectwhohadacolloidcystremovedfromthefloorofthethirdventricle.Priortothisremoval,thesubjecthadbeensufferingfromblindnessinthelefthalfoftherighteye:Aftertheoperation,visionhadbecomenormal,butwhenthesubjectwasregressedtoatimeshortlybeforetheoperationthevisualdefectagainre-appearedduringtheregression.”[47]Theexpectedphysiologicalreactionisnotonlyappropriatetotheagebutreflectsthephysiologicalconditionofthebodyatthetime.

InthelightoftheexperimentalevidenceEysenckconcludes:“Experimentssuchasthosedescribedinsomedetailaboveleavelittledoubtthatthereisasubstantialamountoftruthinthehypothesisthatageregressiondoes,infact,takeplace,andthatmemoriescanberecoveredwhichmostpeoplewouldthinkhadbeencompletelylost.”[48]Thisistheconsensusofopinionamongorthodoxpsychologiststoday.

Sogenuinememoriesnotaccessibletonormalrecallaregenerallyevokedortheexperiencesre-livedatthesuggestionofthehypnotistinage-regression.Soatleastasfarasthislifeisconcerned,tosaythatthememoriesrecalledunderage-regressionarehallucinatoryordelusiveisnotcorrect.Weshalltakeupforconsiderationlaterinthelightoftheexperimentaldata,thequestionastowhethertherecallofallegedexperiencesofpriorlivesunder

78

hypnoticregressionishallucinatory.

79

VI.TheCasefortheBuddhistTheory

ofSurvivalandKamma

Intheprecedingtalkwestatedthattheevidenceforthedoctrineofrebirthwasmainlyoftwosorts.Therewas(1)theexperimentalevidencefromage-regressionand(2)thespontaneousevidencebasedonahistoricalstudyofpeople,mainlychildren,fromdifferentpartsoftheworldwhoclaimedtorecalltheirallegedpriorlives.Thereisalsoacategoryofevidencewhichmaybeconsideredapartfromtheabovetwo.

Age-Regression

Theexperimentalevidenceisbasedonage-regression.Inthisexperimentthesubjectishypnotizedandgraduallytakenbackintimetothepast.Inthecourseofthisthesubjectrecallsandre-livespastexperiences.Muchoftheseexperiencescannotbeevokedbynormalmemory.Theseexperimentshaveprovedtothesatisfactionofmodernpsychologistsandpsychiatriststhatauthenticmemoriesof

80

thislife,whichcannotbecalledtomindinnormalconsciousness,canberecalledbythesemeans.

WequotedintheprevioustalktheviewofDr.H.J.Eysenck,whowasProfessorofPsychologyattheUniversityofLondon,namelythat“thereisasubstantialamountoftruthinthehypothesisthatage-regressiondoes,infacttakeplace,andthatmemoriescanberecoveredwhichmostpeoplewouldthinkhadbeencompletelylost.”Thisisinfacttheconsensusofopinionamongorthodoxpsychologiststodayonthebasisoftheexperimentalfindings.Dr.L.M.Wolbergobserves“Theconsensusatthepresenttimeisthat’regressionactuallydoesproduceearlybehaviourinawaythatobviatesallpossibilityofsimulation;’thisistheopinionofsuchauthoritiesasErickson,Estabrooks,Lindner,andSpiegel,ShorandFishman.Myownstudieshaveconvincedmeofthisfact,althoughtheregressionisneverstationary,constantlybeingalteredbytheintrusionofmentalfunctioningatotherlevels.’”[49]

Itisaremarkablefactthatinthecourseoftheseage-regressionseventhephysiologicalconditionofthebodyundergoeschangesappropriatetothepasttimeatwhichthesubjectishavingtheexperiencesconcerned,evenwhenthepresentstateofthebodyorthephysicalenvironmentcannotberesponsibleforthis.Drs.BrennanandGillreportacasewhereapatientsomemonthsafterbeingexposedtoaparticularsituationwasregressedbacktothattimehypnotically.Itisstatedthat“thesubjectspontaneouslybegantoperspireandcomplainoftheheat:Thiswasrather

81

surprisinginviewofthefactthatthisparticularphaseofthestudytookplaceinwinter.Theexperimentersthenrecalledthatonthedaytowhichthepatientwasnowregressed,Kansashadexperiencedoneofitshottestsummerdays.”[50]

PriorLives

Themajorityoftheseorthodoxpsychologistsandpsychiatrists,however,arereluctanttoconcedethattheaccountsgivenofandtheexperienceslivedthroughallegedpriorlivesaregenuine.Insuchcasestheytendtodismisstheseaccountsandexperiencesofpriorlivesasfantasyoraproductofdramatizationandroleplayingbasedonmaterialderivedfromtheexperiencesofthislife.Theyarepreparedtograntthatthesubject’sbehaviour“willgivetheappearanceofreincarnation,”[51]butdenythatthereincarnationistinterpretationisvalid.

Sothepositionisthatpracticallyallthemodernpsychologistsandpsychiatristsarepreparedtoconcedethefactthatunderage-regressionahypnotizedsubjectwillgivedetaileddescriptionsofanallegedpriorlife;butwouldnotagreewiththevalidityofareincarnationistinterpretationofthedata.

82

Themainreasonforthisseemstobethelogicalmethodologicaldifficultiesinvolvedinacceptinganexplanationintermsofthehypothesisofrebirthratherthanacarefulattemptonthepartofthesepsychologistsandpsychiatriststounderstandorexplainthedataitself.

Intheprevioustalkswehavetriedtoshowthatneithertheselogicalnormethodologicaldifficultiesarevalid.Wepointedoutthattheconceptofrebirthdoesnotleadtocontradictions.EvenapositivistphilosophersuchasProfessorA.J.AyerofOxfordhasstatedthattheconceptofrebirthwasmeaningful.Besides,thereisagrowingrealizationthatthephenomenonofconsciousnesscannotbeexplainedawaypurelyintermsofphysico-chemicalphenomena,whilethevalidityofextra-sensoryperceptionrequiresthatpsychologicalexplanationsbecontained(wherethedatarequiresthis)withinthenarrowandlimitingframeworkofmechanisticmaterialistassumptions.Thedatathereforerequiretobeexaminedwithanopenmind.

Therehavebeenhoweverafewpsychiatristswhohaveacceptedthereincarnationistexplanationasvalid.Dr.AlexanderCannonrefersto“onethousandthreehundredandeighty-tworeincarnationsittingstodate”inhisbookThePowerWithin.[52]Hisownreactionstotheseandthefinalconclusionhecametoaresummedupinthewords:“ForyearsthetheoryofreincarnationwasanightmaretomeandIdidmybesttodisproveitandevenarguedwithmytrancesubjectstotheeffectthattheyweretalking

83

nonsense,andyetastheyearswentbyonesubjectafteranothertoldmethesamestoryinspiteofdifferentandvariedconsciousbeliefsineffectuntilnow,welloverathousandcaseshavebeensoinvestigated,andIhavetoadmitthatthereissuchathingasreincarnation.”[53]

TheEvidence

All-importantisthenatureoftheevidenceanditsauthenticity,andthelegitimateconclusionsthatwecancometoinexplainingthisevidencewiththehelpofthevarioushypothesesthatmaybeadducedtoexplainit.Whenhypothesescannotbeacceptedorrejectedoutright,theymaybeheldwithvaryingdegreesofprobabilityaccordingtorelevantcriteria.

OneoftheearliestrecordedexperimentsofpsychologistswasthatofProfessorTheodoreFlournoy,ProfessorofPsychologyintheUniversityofGeneva,whoexperimentedwithoneofhissubjectsattheendofthelastcenturyandrecordedthedataandfindingsinabookpublishedin1899.[54]

OneofthepriorlivesofhisSwisssubjectwasasanArabchief’sdaughter,whomarriedaHinduprinceaboutfourcenturiesbefore.Thesubjectspokeandwroteinthe

84

language(ArabicandPrākrit),whichsheknewintheregressedstatebutnotinhernormallife,andgavedetailsofexperiencesinthislife,re-enactingandre-livingsomeofthescenes.Thefacsimilesofthewritingarereproducedatpages289and313ofFlournoy’sbook.

Beforeweexaminethiscase,wemayturnourattentiontoamorepopularworkpublishedin1942.Thiswouldenableustoseetheissuesinvolvedintheinterpretationofthedatamoreclearly.SinceBuddhistsareoroughttobeinterestedonlyinobjectivefactsorin“thingsastheyare”(yathābhūta)itisimportantthatweapproachthesubjectwithacriticalmindwithoutaninitialbiasfororagainstthetheoryofrebirth.

“ResearchesinReincarnationandBeyond”

TheworkisbyRev.A.R.Martin,anordainedpreacheroftheCopticChurch,andisentitledResearchesinReincarnationandBeyond,[55](Itisdedicatedto“allseekersfortruthwhetherornotitbeinaccordancewiththeirformerteachingsorpreconceivedideas.”[56]Thebookrecordstheallegedexperiencesofpeoplehypnotizedbyhimortrainedtorecalltheirpriorlives.

85

Hiscommentswithregardtotheevidenceandtherecordsareasfollows:“Thequestionsandtheiranswerstheretowerecarefullyrecorded,usuallyinshorthand,exactlyasgiven.Greatcarewastakentoasknoleadingquestions,therebyeliminatingthepossibilityofimplantingideasinthemindofthereviewer,thusmakingcertaintobringoutonlythatwhichwasrecordedinthereviewer’ssubconsciousmind.Thesecorrelationsofimportantpersonsandeventsoftenoccurringhundredsofyearsago,werecarefullycheckedinreferencebooks,histories,encyclopaediasetc.,andwerefoundcorrectasgivenbythereviewer.Thisinformationwasknowntocomesolelyfromtheknowledgealreadyinthereviewer’ssubconsciousmind,foritwasknownthatsuchknowledgewasnotcontainedinhisintellectualmindofthispresentlife.”[57]

Heclaimsthattheseexplorationsintothesubconsciousmindsofvariouspeople“workedoutthroughpowersofmind,absolutelywithouttheuseofanykindofdrug”wasattempted,afteragroupofabouttwelvepersonsofvariousageshadforyearsexaminedvariousconflictingteachingsofspeculativephilosophyonthesubjectofanafter-lifeandweredissatisfiedwiththem.

Theauthorlistsanumberofbeliefsaboutthenatureofanafter-lifeheldbypeopleintheWest.Thefirstwasthat“deathendsall…;”[58]thesecondthat“theconsciousness-souldiesandisburiedwiththebodyandremainsthereuntilatimecalledtheresurrectionwhenallpersonswhohaveeverlivedfromthebeginningofcreationtothetimeof

86

theresurrectionwillcomeforth,fromthelandortheseaorwherevertheymaybe,tobejudgedandsenteithertoaneternalheavenoraneternalhelloffireandbrimstonefromwhichthereisnoescape;”[59]thethirdwastheviewthatthereis“anintermediateplaceofpunishmentorremorsefromwhichthedeadcanbereleasedthroughprayer,andliberatedintoaneternalheaven…”[60]Severalothersuchviewsarelisted.Theauthorsaysthathe“haslivedallofhispresentlife(tothistime)intheUnitedStates,”[61]andwashimself“raisedtomanhoodundertheinstructionofthesecondbelief,”[62]andthatnoneofthesewhothusmetregularlytoinvestigatethesematters“even“leanedtowardsreincarnation.”[63]

Ifthisisso,thenconsideringparticularlythefactthatno“leadingquestions”wereasked,itisallthemoreremarkablethattheywereabletorecallpriorliveslivedonearth.Itisacuriousfact,whichcallsforanexplanationbyitself,thatthosewhointheirnormalconsciousexperiencearematerialistsortheists,whodonotbelieveinpre-existenceorrebirth,invariablygiveallegedaccountsofpriorlivesunderdeephypnosis.Wherethesubjectisaskedtoconcoctanaccountofanalleged“priorlife,”thismaybeattributedtothesuggestionofthehypnotistbutwheresuchpriorlivesaredescribedwithoutanyexpressinstructionsonthepartofthehypnotisttodoso,thisfactinitselfcallsforanexplanation.

InanarticleappearinginthemagazineTwoWorlds,[64]thewriterstates:

87

“Sometimesthesubjectduringwhatiscalled“wakefulstate”isnotareincarnationist,orevenhasneverheardaboutsuchanidea,orelse“belongstoacreedthatdeniesitemphatically.“

“Oneveryintelligentman,aProtestant,askedthehypnotistinadeep,booming,slowvoice,’Whydoyouasksuchaquestion?’Thequestionwasrepeated,’Wereyouorwereyounotbornforthefirsttime?’

“Hestillhesitated,asiftoconquerastronginneropposition,andthen,begantodescribehislifeacoupleofcenturiesagoinamonasterysomewhereinSpain.

“Whenheawokeslowlyandbyreversingtheage-regressionprocess,thetapewasplayedbacktohim.Hewasamazedbecausehedidnotknowaboutreincarnationandneverthoughtitpossible.

“Abright,beautiful,maturewomantalkedfreelyaboutreincarnationandotherrelatedsubjects.Whenshelistenedtotheplaybackshesaid,’Imustbecrazytosaysuchthings.’SheisadiehardRomanCatholic.”[65]

OriginofPhobias

88

Grantedthattheexperiencesrelatedintheabovementionedbookareauthenticandfactual,manyofourproblemsinthislifecanbeunderstoodintermsoftheircausaloriginsinapriorlife.

Thisisverymuchlikethemannerinwhichthesubmergedtraumaticexperiencesofthislife(asexplainedinFreudianpsychology)arethecausalfactorswhichaccountforsymptoms.

Dr.EysenckrecordsthecaseofaMrs.Smithwhosufferedfromrecurrentasthmaticattacks.Herworknecessitatedhergoingintovarioushospitalsbutindoingsosheexperiencedaverystrongfearreaction.Thesightofapairofhairyarms,orknives,alsoproducedsuchareaction.Underhypnoticage-regression,shewasabletorecallandre-livetheincidentswhichwereresponsibleforthiscondition.Itwastheshockcausedbyanoperationformastoiditisperformedonherattheageofsixteenmonths,whichshehadforgotten.Dr.Eysenckdescribesthesituationasfollows:“Duringaself-inducedtranceoneday,shewasregressedtoanearlyage,whensheexperiencedapreviouslycompletelyforgottenincidentwithunusualclarity.Sheseemedtobelyingonatableunderbrilliantlights.Amanwasstandingbesideherholdingasmallknife.Avague,threateningobjectwasdescendingfromaboveherheadandsettleddownoverherface.Shewasterror-strickenandtriedtorise,buttwohairyarmsgrabbedherandroughlyforcedherback.Shecontinuedtostrugglebutwasviolentlyshakenandslappedrepeatedlybysomeone.Finally,theobject

89

camedownoverherfaceandsmotheredher.Oninquiry,itwasfoundthatattheageofsixteenmonthsamastoidectomyhadbeenperformedonherandthatshehadbeenverysickafterwardswithcomplications,causedbysevereshock.”[66]

Theoriginofthisphobiawastracedtoachildhoodincidentinthislife.Butitisinterestingtocompareinthisconnectiononeoftheexperiencesrecordedinthebookmentionedabove,whichlocatestheoriginofaphobiainanincidentofanallegedpriorlife.Itisdescribedasfollows:“Amiddleagedwoman…whenridinginacardriventwentymilesanhourormore,themotionproducedsuchafearwithinherthatshewouldbecomeverynervousandreadytojumpoutofthecar.Asaresultshecouldrideonlyincarsdrivenaroundfifteenmilesanhour.Thisfearofspeedmadeitalmostimpossibleforhertotravelbytrain,busetc.Uponenteringuponapast-lifereview,shefoundherselftobeayounggirltravellingonatrainwithherparents,brothers,andsisters.Asthetrainpassedoveratrestlebridgeitwaswrecked,killingallthemembersofthefamilybutherself,alongwithmanyotherswhowereonthetrain.Herinjuriesweresoseverethatshewasbadlycrippledandrenderedaninvalidfortheremainderofthatlife.Thespeedhadbeensuchadominantfactorinthisaccidentanditsimpressionwassodeepthatthesubconsciousfixationout-manifestedinthislifeasintensefearwheneveranydegreeofmotionwasfeltbyher.”[67]

Wemayrecountsomeoftheobservationsofalikenature

90

madebyDr.Cannononthebasisofhiscase-studies.Hesays:“Themajorityofpeopledonotbenefitfrompsycho-analysisbecausethetraumaliesnotinthislifebutinapastlife.Letmegiveyouthreeexamples:Mr.A.isabusiness-gentlemanofundoubtedcapabilities,butallhislifehehassufferedfromaphobiaorfearofgoingdowninlifts.Heisacommon-sensedindividualandhasstudiedpsychologyandpsycho-pathologyquiteseriouslyandintelligently,andyetbehasgainednobenefitfromitandisatalosstoknowwhyhehasthisfearoftravellinginlifts.HypnoticexperimentsrevealthatsomecenturiesagohewasaChinesegeneralwhofellfromagreatheightandwasaccidentallykilled.Thishadresultedinthephobiaorfearofdescendingliftsinthislife.”[68]

Karma?

IftheexperiencesrecountedinRev.Martin’sbookResearchesinReincarnationandBeyondareauthenticandfactual,theyalsoappeartothrowsomelightontheoperationsofkarma.

Inonecasefivepreviouslivesofapersonarerecorded.“Inthefifthlifeprevioustothepresent,theperson’sfirstrecollectionwasthatofawakeningasawhitebabyinalogcabin.”[69]ThecabinwasattackedbyRedIndians,oneof

91

whomtookheralongandbroughtherupasaRedIndianmaiden.Eventually,shewastakenawaybyaBritishtrader“withwhomshelivedinasmallhut”untilhedecidedtoleaveherandcrossthemountainsinsearchofgold.HeofferedtotakeherbacktotheIndiantribe,butconsciousofherwhiteparentageandthecomingmotherhoodsherefused.Instead,facedwiththeprospectofbeingaloneinthehut,itissaidthatshecommittedsuicidebyshootingherselfon“therightsideofherface.”

Intheverynextbirth,sheisstatedtohavebeenbornasacrippledchildnamedSammy,whoseentirerightsidewasparalysed.ThesubsequentbirthissupposedtohavebeenasaU.S.soldieroftheSouthduringtheRevolution,whenhewasaccostedbyaBritishsubjectwhostabbedhimintherightsideoftheabdomen,causinghisdeath.

InthefollowingbirthshewasbornasagirlnamedNancy,whosemotherworkedforawealthyfamily.Asonofthisfamily,itissaid,fellinlovewiththisgirlandwantedtomarryherbuthisparentsobjectedandgothermarriedtoafarmhand.ShesubsequentlyjourneyedWestinacoveredwagonandsettledinIllinois,wheretwochildrenwereborn.Nancydiedattheageofthirtyasaresultofabdominaldisorders.Hernextlifewasasapersonwhobecamewell-knownasanoperaticsingercalled“MissNellie,”adaughterofawealthyfamilynearBaltimore,Maryland.Shewashappilymarriedbutbeforelongherhusbandwasshotdeadanditissaidthatshe“diedofabrokenheart.”Theauthordescribesandcommentsonpartofherpresentlifeas

92

follows:“Whenshewasfifteenyearsold,thefirstofthesenegativeconditionsresultedinaparalysisoftherightsideofthefaceandneck.Atthisagesheknewnothingofreincarnationoroftheinfluenceofpastlivesuponthepresent.Theovercomingoftheparalysis,slighttracesofwhicharestillapparent,wasaccomplishedinaperiodofsixtosevenyearsthroughrestandquiet.”[70]

Ifthefactsareasstated,arewetoattributeherbirthasachildparalysedontherightsideinherfourthpreviouslifeandherparalysisoftherightsideofthefaceandneckinthislifeaswellas,perhaps,herdeathsfromabdominalinjuriesordisorders,askarmicconsequencesofhersuicidewhilebeingwithchildinherfifthpreviouslife?

Takenliterallyiftheexperiencesrecountedhereareauthenticandtruerecordsofpriorlives,theyexemplifythetruthsofbothrebirthandkarma.Butwhatjustificationhaveweforacceptingtheseexperiencesattheirfacevalue?

NormalHypotheses

Apersonwithascepticalframeofmindmayverywellindulgeindoubtandclaimthatoneofseveralhypothesesotherthanrebirthcouldadequatelyaccountfortheallegedfacts.SomemayevendoubtwhetherthebookIreferto

93

evenexists,andwhetherallofthisisnotaconcoctionofmine!ThiswouldbetheextremehypothesisofFraud.Thereplytothisisthatthebookistobefoundinsomelibraries,e.g.thelibraryoftheUniversityofCeylon.Alessextremepositionthatonecouldtakewouldbetodoubtwhethertheauthorofthebookwasnotmerelytryingtobringoutasensationalistpublicationfromwhichhemightfinanciallybenefitandthattheentireaccountisaconcoctionofhis.Onewayofverifyingthiswouldbetocontacttheauthorandthroughhimthepeopleconcerned,astheauthorhimselfwantsthoseinterestedtodoso.Butthisisunnecessary,sincethiskindofevidencecanbemadeavailablewiththehelpofasuitablehypnotistandhypnotizablesubjects.

Onceitisestablishedthatthebookcontainsanaccountofauthenticexperiencesaccuratelyrecorded,wemaystilldoubttheassumptionthattheyaregenuinememoriesofpastlives.Wemaytrytoexplainthemasbeingduetotheroleplayingofthesubjectwhohasproceededtogivedramatizedaccountsofallegedpriorlivesthebasisofmaterialdrawnfromthislife.Wewouldthenresorttothehypothesisoffantasyorself-deception,unlesstheauthorcanprovetous,ashesayshecould,that“itwasknownthatsuchknowledgewasnotcontainedinhisintellectualmindofthispresentlife.”[71]Thishypothesiswouldbedifficulttoexcludeinthepresentcircumstanceunlessitcouldbeshownthatspecificitemsofknowledgelaterverifiedfromencyclopaediasetc.,werenotknowntothesubject(asthe

94

authorclaimstobethecase).However,thefactthatsomeoftheseallegedexperiencessolvedsomeofthepresentpsychologicalproblemsofsomeofthesesubjects,isafactortobetakenintoconsiderationinjudgingthegenuinenessoftheseexperiences,thoughthistestisbynomeansconclusive.

Another“normal”explanationwouldbetoassumethatsuch“experiences”canbederivedgeneticallyfromone’sancestors.Apartfromthefactthatthereisnoindependentevidenceofsuchhereditaryderivationofspecific“memoryexperiences”(leavingoutcapacitiesandaptitudes),thehypothesisrequiresanancestrallinkbetweenthetwopersonalities.ThisisveryunlikelyatleastinthosecasesinwhichthepriorlifeislocatedinsuchcountriesasPersiaorEgypt.

ParanormalHypotheses

Ifthenormalhypothesesfailtoaccountforthefacts,wehavetoresorttoparanormalhypothesestoexplaintheevidence.

Grantedthatthe“memories”correspondwithhistoricalfacts,andknowledgeofthemisnotderivedfromanyexperienceinthislife,itispossibletosuggestthattheyare

95

theproductofatelepathic,clairvoyantorretro-cognitivefacultyoperatingalongwithdramatizationandroleplaying.Onsuchahypothesis,thesepersonsdidnotactuallyliveinthepastbutacquiredinformationaboutpasteventsbyparanormalorextra-sensorymeansanddramatizedsuchapastlife.Suchahypothesisappearstobemoreextravagantthanasimplehypothesisof“rebirth.”For,apartfromnotexplainingallthedata(e.g.theclaimtoidentity,theserialnatureoftherecallinage-regressionetc.),thereislittleevidenceofsuchwideandpenetrativepowersoftelepathic,clairvoyantorretro-cognitiveperceptionexceptperhapsinafewextraordinaryindividuals.

Forsimilarreasons,thehypothesisofspirit-possessionappearstobelessplausibleinaccountingforthedata.For,inspirit-possessiontheallegedspiritcommunicatingthroughthemediumclaimstobeadifferentpersonfromthepersonalityassociatedwiththebody.Inthecasewhereaclaimtorebirthismade,thisisnotso.

Ifaparanormalexplanationistobepreferred,“rebirth”thereforeappearstobemoreplausiblethantheothers,thedatabeingwhattheyare.ButthedatapresentedinRev.Martin’sbookdonotclearlyruleoutthepossibilityofexplanationintermsoffantasyorself-deception,asdefinedabove,unlessitcanbeshownandnotmerelystatedthatspecificitemsofknowledgeregardingthepastwerenotavailabletothesubjectinthecourseofhispresentlife(forwhichinthisbookwehavemerelytotaketheauthor’sword).Thiscanbeshowntobethecaseinsomeofthe

96

better-documentedcasestudies,whichweshalltakeupinthenexttalk.

97

VII.TheCasefortheBuddhistTheory

ofSurvivalandKarma

Wehavehithertoexaminedsomeofthemajorproblemsinvolvedinpresentingthecaseforsurvival,rebirthandkarma.Wehavealsomentionedsomeoftheevidencesuggestiveofrebirth.Itisproposedinthistalktopresentsometypicalsamplesoftheauthenticevidenceavailableandtoindicatesomeoftheconclusionswemaydrawfromthem.

Aswesaidearlier,theevidenceforrebirth(whichisonlyaspecialcaseofre-becoming)fallsintothreecategories:(1)theexperimentalevidence,(2)thespontaneousevidenceand(3)theotherevidence.

TheExperimentalEvidence

Wehavealreadygivensamplesoftheexperimentalevidence.IntheprevioustalkwegaveabriefaccountoftheresearchesoftheRev.A.R.Martinwithhissubjects,[72]manyofwhom,itissaid,wereabletorecallspecificdetails

98

oftheirpriorlivesalthoughtheydidnotstartwithanypreconceptions,presumptionsorprejudicesaboutpre-existencebeingafact.

However,onemaycriticisetheseexperimentsasnot“beingconductedunderstrictlycontrolledconditions,”althoughtheauthormentionsseveralprecautionshehadtakentoeliminatesubjectivebias.

Letusnowtakeexampleswheretheexperimentalcontrolsappeartohavebeenmoresatisfactory.InthecaseinvestigatedbyProfessorTheodoreFlournoy,theaccountgivenreadsasfollows:

“ItappearedthatHeleneSmithhadtwicelivedupontheearthbeforeherpresentincarnation.Once,fivehundredyearsagoasanArabchief’sdaughter(Simandinibyname),shebecamethefavouritewifeofaHinduprince.Thisprince,Sivrouka,reignedoverthekingdomofKanara,andconstructed,in1401,thefortressofTchandragiri.Thisromancewasdevelopedwithawealthofdetail,andtheastonishingfeaturesofitwere,first,thatresearchinoldandlittle-knownbooksonIndianhistoryconfirmedsomeofthedetails,suchasthenamesofplacesandpersonsdescribed;secondly,thatSimandiniuttered(inthetranceautomatisms)manyHinduwordsandphrases,sometimesappropriatelyused,sometimesmingledwithotherwordswhichtheexpertsfailedtoidentify,andwrotealsosimilar

99

phrasesinArabicscript.Further,theentrancedmediumwouldacttheroleofSimandini,puttingothermembersofthecircleintothevacantplacesofthedrama.”[73]

IntheProfessor’sownwords:“Allthisvariousmimicryandthisexoticspeechhavesostronglythemarksoforiginality,ofease,ofnaturalness,thatoneaskswithstupefactionwhencecomestothisdaughterofLakeLeman,withoutartistictrainingandwithoutspecialknowledgeoftheOrient,aperfectionofartwhichthebestofactressesmightattainonlyatthecostofprolongedstudiesorbyresidenceonthebanksoftheGanges.”[74]

TheProfessorconfessesthathehasnotbeenabletoresolvethemystery,especiallytheHindulanguageandthehistoricalstatementsaboutthekingdomofKanara,whichwereverifiedinanoldandrarebooktowhichthesubjecthadhadnoaccess.Yetheconcludesthatthe“Hindudramawasasubconsciouslyelaboratedfantasy,incorporating,veryskilfully,fragmentsofknowledgepickedupinhaphazardfashion.”[75]

Hisexplanationisthestandardexplanationresortedtobymostorthodoxpsychologistswhenconfrontedwithevidenceofthissort,namely,thatherewegetonlydramatizationandrole-playingbasedonelementsofinformationpickedupinthislife.ProfessorFlournoyishoweverconstrainedto“admitthatsomeknowledgewasdisplayed,theacquisitionofwhichbynormalmeanswould

100

seemtohavebeenwell-nighimpossible.”[76]

Yet,thisdoesnotseemtoexplaintheease,thespontaneityandaccuracywithwhichshesangHindi(Prakritic)songsandwroteinaPrakriticscript.Nordoesitexplainthefactualinformationshegave,theclaimshemadethatshewasinfactthewifeofaHinduprinceinherpreviouslife,andtheserialaccountofthelifeandtheincidentsshegave.

Letustakeanothercase,thecaseofMrs.AnneBakerreportedbyDr.JonathanRodney.[77]Mrs.Baker,aLancashirehousewifewhohasneverstudiedFrenchorbeentoFranceandwhoseeducationwasveryordinary,spokeperfectFrenchunderhypnosis,referredtothedeathofMarieAntoinetteasifithadjusthappened,gavehernameasMariellePacasseandspokeofastreetnamedRuedeSt.PierreneartheNotreDameCathedral.

SubsequentinvestigationsrevealedthatthenameMarielleisrarenow,butitwasmuchinvogueabout1794,andalthoughtherewasnosuchstreetatpresent,therewasinfactastreetofthatnameinthatvicinityonehundredandseventyyearsback.[78]Hereagainanormalexplanationwouldnotdo.ApartfromtheknowledgeofFrench,onewouldhavetosaythattheknowledgeaboutthestreetsofParisabouttwocenturiesbackwasacquiredeitherclairvoyantlyortelepathicallyfromthedead.

Anexplanationintermsofspirit-possessionisalsopossiblethoughhighlyimprobable.OnecouldsaythatthediscarnatespiritofthedeadMariellePacassenowinhabits

101

thebodyofMrs.Baker.Normally,inthecaseofspirit-possession,thediscarnate-spiritclaimstobeaseparatepersonalityandpossessionisnotcontinuous,whereasinthiscasewheneverMrs.BakerwashypnotizedsheclaimedtobeMariellePacasseinherpreviouslife.Sotoaccountforallthefacts,“rebirth”isthesimpler,paranormalhypothesis.

Anothercasewhichcannotpassunnoticedisthefamous“BrideyMurphy”case.WhenMrs.VirginiaTighewashypnotizedonsixoccasionsbetweenNovember1952andAugust1953,sherecalledalifeasBrideyMurphyinIreland.Itcreatedawideinterestin“rebirth.”ItwillbeinterestingtoseeProfessorC.J.Ducasse’sassessmentofthecasewhenitfirstcameintothelimelightandlateraftercarefulreflectioninthelightoftheverifiedfacts.

InanopinionpublishedinTomorrowin1956[79]soonafterthecasebecameknown,ProfessorDucassesuggeststhreehypothesestoaccountforit:“Thattheformerisareincarnationofthelatterisonehypothesisthatwouldaccountfortheveridicalityofthosedetails.Asecondhypothesisthatwouldalsoaccountfortheirveridicalityisthatofillusionofmemorythatis,thehypothesisthatMrs.Tighe,inchildhoodorlater,heardorreadofthelifeofanIrishBrideyMurphyandthenforgotthis,andthat,underhypnosis,theideassoacquiredwererecalledbyMrs.Tighebutnotthemannerinwhichshehadacquiredthem;andhencethattheywereindistinguishablebyherfrommemoriesofeventsofalifeofherown.Athirdhypothesis,whichwouldalsoexplaintheveridicalityoftheverified

102

details,isthatwhileindeephypnosis,Mrs.Tigheexercisespowersofparanormalretro-cognitionlatentatothertimes,andvastlymorefar-reachingthanthosewhoserealityhasbeenexperimentallyprovedbyRhine,Soalandothers.”GoingontheassumptionthatMrs.Tighe’sknowledgeofIrelandwaserroneous(aswasthoughtatthetime),Ducassefavouredthesecondhypothesis.

Later,whenfurtherinvestigationvindicatedthetruthofMrs.Tighe’sstatementsandtheattemptsat“debunking”therebirththeorywereseentobemainlyinspiredbyreligiousprejudiceandbasedonfalseassertions,ProfessorDucassechangedhisviewsandfavouredthefirsthypothesis(i.e.rebirth)withoutrulingoutthepossibilityofthethird.Hedoessoinhisbook,“ACriticalExaminationoftheBeliefinaLifeAfterDeath.”[80]

HerehereferstotheitemsmentionedbyBridey,whichcouldnotbeeasilyexplainedaway.OneofthemostsignificantwasthatinherpreviouslifesheboughtfoodstuffsfromFarrsandJohnCarrigan.ExtensiveresearchonthepartofMr.JohnBebbington,BelfastChiefLibrarian,disclosedthefactthatthesetwogrocerswerefoundlistedinaBelfastcitydirectoryfor1865–66.Brideydiedin1864.Besides,theywere“theonlyindividualsofthosenamesengagedinthefoodstuffsbusinessthereatthetime.”

BrideyalsoreferredtoaropecompanyandatobaccohousewhichwereinoperationinBelfastatthetime,andthistoowasfoundtobecorrect.Anotherremarkablefactwasthat

103

Bridey’sstatements,whichaccordingtoexpertsonIrelandwereirreconcilablewithknownfacts,wereshownafterfurtherinvestigationnottobeso.Tensuchfactsarelisted.Totakeoneexample,oneofBridey’sstatementswastotheeffectthatherhusbandtaughtLawattheQueen’sUniversityinBelfast,sometimeafter1847.LifeMagazine,onthebasisofso-calledexpertopinion,attackedthisonthegroundthattherewasnolawschoolthereatthetime,noQueen’sCollegeuntil1849,andnoQueen’sUniversityuntil1908.However,furtherinvestigationsshowedthatthiswasincorrect.TherewasdocumentaryevidencetoshowthatonDecember19,1845,QueenVictoriaordainedthat“thereshallandmaybeerectedoneCollegeforstudentsinArts,Law,Physics…whichshallbecalledQueen’sCollege,Belfast.”[81]“TheQueen’sUniversityinIreland”wasfoundedbyheronAugust15,1850.[82]

Suchaccuracymaybedueeithertoextraordinaryclairvoyantpowersonthepartofthesubject,ortothesimplefactthattheseweregenuinememoriesofherpastlife.Sinceshedidnotdisplayanysuchclairvoyantpowersinotherrespectsduringhypnosis,thelatterappearstobethemoreplausibleexplanation.

SpontaneousEvidence

104

Thespontaneousevidenceconsistsofaccountsgivenbyindividuals,mostlychildren,oftheirallegedpriorlives,whichwhensubsequentlycheckedprovetobehistoricalandaccurateandcouldnothavebeenderivedfromanynormalsourceinthislife.

Thereareseveralsuchcasesfromallovertheworldandreportsofthemaretobefoundinnewspapersandmagazines.Butincomingtovalidconclusionsontheirbasisonehastorelyonthetrustworthy,verifiedaccountsofscientists.Theevidenceshouldbefirstrecordedwithoutbiasandoneshouldthenseewhattheorybestaccountsforthedata.

Inthisrespect,oneofthebeststudiessofaristhatofDr.IanStevenson,ProfessorofNeurologyandPsychiatry,SchoolofMedicine,UniversityofVirginia.Hemakesadetailedstudyandevaluationoftwentycasesinoneofhisbooks.[83]

LetusbrieflyreviewthecaseofImadElawar,asstudiedandreportedinthisbook.ImadwasbornonDecember21,1958atKornayelandtalkedofapreviouslifewhenhewasbetweenayearandhalfandtwoyearsold.Hementionedaconsiderablenumberofnamesofpeopleandsomeeventsinthispriorlife,aswellascertainitemsofpropertyheclaimedtohaveowned.HesaidhelivedinthevillageofKhribyandhadthenameBouhamzy.Hehadawoman(mistress)calledJamille,whowasbeautiful,andabrothercalledAmin,wholivedatTripoli,etc.

Thefather,however,discreditedthestoryandscoldedImad

105

fortalkingaboutanimaginarypastlife.Once,itissaid,heevenrecognizedaresident(SalimelAschkar)ofKhribyinthepresenceofhispaternalgrandmother.TheparentsattachedmoreimportancetoImad’sstatementsafterthis.ButnosystematicattemptstoverifytheauthenticityofImad’sstatementsweremadeuntilDr.IanStevensonundertooktoinvestigatethecase.

Khribywassituatedabout25milesawayfromImad’shome.TheroadfromKornayelwasanextremelywindingmountainroad.TheitemswerecarefullyrecordedpriortotheinvestigationsatKhriby.Itwasrevealedthatofthefifty-sevenitemsmentioned,fifty-onewerecorrect.InDr.Stevenson’sownwords,“Ofthefifty-sevenitemsinthefirsttabulationImadmadetenofthestatementsinthecaronthewaynearlyallonthefirstvisittoKhribybeforewereachedthatvillage;butoftheseten,threewereincorrect.Oftheremainingforty-sevenitems,Imadwaswrongononlythreeitems.Itseemsquitepossiblethatundertheexcitementofthejourney,andperhapssensingsomeexpectationofhearingmorestatementsonourpart,hemixedupimagesofthe“previouslife”andmemoriesofhis“presentlife.”Inanycase,his“score”forthisgroupofstatementsdefinitelyfellbelowthatforthefortysevenmadebeforeweleftKhriby.”[84]

Someoftheitemswereveryspecific,aswhenhesaidthattheywerebuildinganewgardenatthetimeofhisdeath,andthattherewerecherryandappletreesinit,andthathehadasmallyellowautomobile,abusetc.

106

Besidestheverificationoftheseitemsofinformation,thereweresignificantrecognitionsofpersonsandplaces,sixteenofwhicharelisted;forexample,wemaynotetherecognitionoftheplacewhereIbrahimBouhamzy(thepreviouspersonality)kepthisdogandhisgun.HealsorecognizedthesisterofIbrahim,namelyHuda,andtheportraitofIbrahim’sbrother,Fuad.Hewasalsoableitissaidtorecallhislastwordsbeforedeath,whichhissister,Mrs.HudaBouhamzyremembered,andwhichwere,“Huda,callFuad”.

Whenweconsidertheabove,aswellasthesimilarityinthecharactertraitsbetweenthepreviousandthepresentpersonalities,chanceorcoincidencehastobevirtuallyruledout.Sinceneitherfraudnorself-deceptionnorracialmemorycouldaccountfortheevidence,aparanormalexplanationiscalledfor.Andofallthedifferentparanormalexplanationssuchastelepathy-cum-clairvoyancepluspersonation,spirit-possessionetc.,rebirthappearstobethemostplausible.Thiswas,infact,Dr.Stevenson’sowngeneralconclusionafterstudyingseveralcasesofthistype.

Inthespontaneouscasethereisnohypnotisttoputanysuggestionsintothemindofthechild.Wemaysay,however,thatthechild’sbeliefsaboutapriorlifeareaproductofhisfantasy.Butsuchanexplanationceasestobeplausibleintheaboveinstancewhentheso-called“fantasies”turnouttobehistoricallytrueandwerenotderivedfromanysourceinthislife.

107

TheEvidence

Wehavealreadyreferredtootherevidenceforrebirthwhenwetriedtosuggestthattemperamentaldifferencesinidenticaltwins,whichcannotbeduetoheredityandenvironment,maybeaccountedforintermsoftheimpactofthepsychologicalpastoftheperson,whichgoesbackintopriorlives.Wehavealsoseenhowsomephobiasprevalentinthislifehavenotonlybeentracedtotraumaticexperiencesinpriorlives,buthavebeencuredbyre-livingtheexperienceanddiscoveringitsorigin.

Althoughitispossibletogiveotherexplanationsoftheso-calleddéjàvuexperiences,theexperienceoffeeling“Ihavebeenherebefore,”someofthematleastseemtopointtoorcallforanexplanationintermsofpre-existence.ThereisarecordedcaseofanAmericancouplewhofoundthatsomepartsofBombaywereextremelyfamiliartothem,despitethefactthattheywerevisitingtheplaceforthefirsttime.Totesttheirmemories,itissaid,theywenttoacertainspotwheretheyexceptedtoseeahouseandabanyantreeinthegarden.They,however,didnotfindthembutweretoldbyapolicemaninthevicinitythatherecalledhavingheardfromhisfatherthattheyhadbeenthere,whenthehousebelongedtoafamilynamedBhan.Curiously,thiscouplehadcalledtheirsonBhan,becausetheylikedthename.[85]Suchstoriesarehoweveranecdotalandonecannotattach

108

muchimportancetothem.Theyareofvalueonlywhenoneiscertainoftheirauthenticity.

Dr.RaynorC.Johnsonsuggeststhatcertainrecurrentdreamsmaybememoriesofexperiences“hadinpriorlives.”[86]Abriefexcerptfromanaccountofonesuchdreamreadsasfollows:

“ThedreamwasofbeingaprisonerinaplacethatIknewtobetheTowerofLondon.Ihadnotseenitinreallife,butIhadnodoubtwhereitwas.Itwasverycoldweather(inwakinglife,ahotsummer).IwasawarethatIhadbeencondemnedtodeath…ThisIusedtodreamoverandoveragainandafterbeinginthedreamavigorousman,towakeupandbealittlegirlfeltratherstrange.Atlastthedreamchanged,andIwasstandingonascaffoldwhichmusthavebeennewlyerectedasitsmeltofsawdust.Everythingwasdecorousanddecent.Theexecutionerkneltandapologizedforwhathewasabouttodo.Itooktheaxefromhishandandfeltit,andhandeditback,biddinghimdohisduty…WhenIwokeupImadeadrawingoftheaxe,whichwasofapeculiarshape.SometimeafterthisIaskedtobetakentotheTowerofLondon,andIexplainedtoafriendlygunsmiththatIwantedtowritehistorybutcouldnotunderstandthebattlesperfectlyuntilIunderstoodtheweapons.’Youareright,Missy,’hesaid,anddemonstratedtomethevarioususesoflance,crossbowetc.Ithenaskedhadheanaxethat

109

beheadedpeople.Hesaid,’YesthiscertainlybeheadedtheJacobiteLords,butitissupposedtobeverymucholder.’Somehow,Iwasnotsurprised,fortheaxeprovedtobetheexactshapeoftheaxeinmydream.”[87]

Hereagainwecansuggestthatthisisnottheonlyexplanationpossible,butwhenonehasreadaboutseveralsuchdreamsonebeginstowonderwhethertheyarenothangoversfromtheperson’spast-lifeexperiences

Wehavefurtherevidenceforrebirthfromclairvoyants.ThebestattestedcaseinthetwentiethcenturyisthatofMr.EdgarCayce.AgeneralaccountofhislifeanddoingsistobefoundinabookbyDr.GinaCerminara.[88]

ThereisgoodevidencethatCaycehadremarkableclairvoyantpowers,withwhichhesuccessfullydiagnosedillnessesevenwithoutactuallyseeingthepatient.Butwhatismoreremarkableisthathewentontogiveaccountsofthepriorlivesofsomeoftheseindividuals(someofwhichwerehistoricallyverified).Healsogavetheallegedkarmiccausesoftheirpresentillnesses.

Wehavealreadyseenhowsuicidehadcertainkarmiceffectsinsubsequentlives.Cayceinhisreadings(whicharestillpreservedandareavailableforstudyattheAssociationforResearchandEnlightenment,VirginiaBeach,U.S.A.)recordsthedifferentkindsofkarmiceffectsfollowinginthewakeofthedifferentkindsofactionsdoneinthepast.In

110

onecase,itsaid,apersonwasbornblindinthislifebecauseinhisthirdlifeprevioustothis,circa1000BCE,hewasborninPersiaas“amemberofabarbarictribewhosecustomwastoblinditsenemieswithred-hotirons,andithadinbeenhisofficetodotheblinding.”[89]

111

Notes

1. ChāndogyaUpaniṣad,8–12.

2. seeJ.J.C.Smart,PhilosophyandScientificRealism,RoutledgeandKeganPaul,1963.

3. formodernversionssee,“TheIdentityHypothesis:ACritique”inJ.R.Smythies,BrainandMind,Routledge&KeganPaul,London,1965.

4. KaṭhaUpaniṣad,I.20.

5. ChāndogyaUpanishad,5.136.

6. “yāvaudabindumhimedayāpaccupaṭṭhitāhoti:mā’haṃkhuddakepāṇevisamagatesaṅghātaṃāpādessanti,”MI78.

7. seeDN23.

8. MN100.42/MII131.

9. “sukhabahulāvedanāvediyamānaṃ,”MN12.40/MI75.

10. “ekanta-sukha-vedanāvediyamānaṃ,”ibid.

11. “ekanta-sukha-vedanāvediyamānaṃ,”ibid.

12. MN120.

13. “napunaretigabbhaseyyaṃ”Sn99.

14. TheConceptofaPerson,London,1963,p.127.

15. H.H.Price,“SurvivalandtheIdeaof’AnotherWorld’”inJ.R.Smythies,BrainandMind,InternationalLibraryof

112

Philosophy&ScientificMethod,London,1965,pp.1–33.

16. e.g.G.Ryle,TheConceptofMind.

17. TheNeurophysiologicalBasisofMind,London,OxfordUniversityPress,1953pp.278ff.

18. SeeReincarnation:AnEast-WestAnthology,ed.JosephHeadandS.L.Cranston,NewYork,1961,p.260.

19. Ibid.,p.117.

20. yāvatakaṃtakkāyapattabbaṃanuppattaṃtayā,SI56.

21. ExaminationofMcTaggart’sPhilosophy,Vol.II.PartII.CambridgeUniversityPress,1938,pp.614–15.

22. DI81.

23. QuotedfromProfessorHornell,TheEnigmaofSurvival,Rider&Co.,London,1959,pp.218–19.

24. BrainMechanismsandConsciousness:ASymposium,published1954.

25. “SomeAspectsoftheBrain-MindRelationship”inBrainandMind,InternationalLibraryofPhilosophyandScientificMethod,London,1965,p.69.

26. S.A.Barnett,AStudyinBehaviour,Methuen&Co.Ltd.,London,1963,p.238.

27. “FrontiersofKnowledge,”ModernWorldSeries,p.99.

28. NewsreportfromTorontoinTheTimesWeekender,Friday,April12th,1968.

113

29. W.RussellBrain,Mind,PerceptionandScience,Oxford,1951,pp.4–9.

30. TheNeurophysiologicalBasisofMind,London,OxfordUniversityPress,1953,pp.278ff.

31. BrainandMind,pp.50–51.

32. TheEnigmaofSurvival,p.219.

33. “yaṃrūpaṃnissāyamanodhātucamanoviññāṇadhātucavattati”—PaṭṭhānaI.2.

34. TheConceptofaPerson,London,1963,p.127.

35. Itisofcoursepossiblethattheirsaṃsāricancestorswerefromotherplanesofexistence.

36. MN12.47/MI78.

37. PhilosophicalLibrary,NewYork,1950.

38. Illinois,1961.

39. SeeDucasse,op.cit.,p.114.

40. MultipleHumanBirths,NewYork,1940,pp.64–65.

41. Op.cit.pp.67–68.

42. Reincarnation:AnEast-WestAnthology,Ed.,J.Head&S.L.Cranston,NewYork,1961.

43. BṛhadĀraṇyakaUpaniṣad,1.5.15.

44. SenseandNonsenseinPsychology,PelicanBooks,A385,Reprint1961,p.48.

114

45. Ibid.,p.49.

46. Ibid.

47. Ibid.

48. Ibid.,p.51.

49. MedicalHypnosis,Vol.I.

50. AScientificReporton’TheSearchforBrideyMurphy,’Ed.MiltonV.KlinePh.D.,TheJulianPressInc.,NewYork,1956,p.185.

51. F.L.Marcuse,Hypnosis:FactandFiction,PelicanBooks,A446,Reprint1961,p.184.

52. Rider&Co.,6thImpression,1950,p.183.

53. Op.cit.p.170.

54. DesIndesalaPlaneteMars,Geneva,1899.

55. Firsted.,Pennsylvania,1942.

56. p.11.

57. Ibid.,pp.7–8.

58. Ibid.,p.4.

59. Ibid.

60. Ibid.,pp.4–5.

61. Ibid.,p.3.

62. Ibid.,p.6.

63. Ibid.

115

64. H.C.Miranda,CanReincarnationbeprovedbyHypnotism?May1964,pp.247–49.

65. Ibid.,p.249.

66. SenseandNonsenseinPsychology,PelicanBook,Reprint,1961,pp.51–52.

67. Op.cit.,p.44.

68. Op.cit.,p.171.

69. Op.cit.,p.90.

70. Op.cit.,p.94.

71. Op.cit.,p.8.

72. ResearchesinReincarnationandBeyond,FirstEd.,Pennsylvania,1942

73. WilliamMcDougall,AnOutlineofAbnormalPsychology,reprint1952,p.511.

74. Ibid.,pp.511–512.

75. Ibid.,p.512.

76. Ibid.,p.515.

77. ExplorationsofaHypnotist,ElekBooks,London,1955.

78. seepp.165–66.

79. Vol.4,No4,pp.31–33.

80. Springfield,Illinois,1961.

81. op.cit.,p.286.

116

82. Ibid.

83. TwentyCasesSuggestiveofReincarnation,NewYork,1966.

84. op.cit.,pp.257–271.

85. W.C.White,“CruiseMemory,”BeyondtheFiveSenses,ed.E.J.Garrett,J.B.Lippincott,NewYork,1957,citedbyDr.Stevenson.

86. ReligiousOutlookforModernMan,HodderandSoughton,London,1963,pp.184ff.

87. Op.cit.,pp.184–185.

88. ManyMansions,William,SloaneAssociates,NewYork,TwelfthPrinting,1960,pp.304ff.

89. Op.cit.,pp.50–51.

117

THEBUDDHISTPUBLICATIONSOCIETY

TheBPSisanapprovedcharitydedicatedtomakingknowntheTeachingoftheBuddha,whichhasavitalmessageforallpeople.

Foundedin1958,theBPShaspublishedawidevarietyofbooksandbookletscoveringagreatrangeoftopics.ItspublicationsincludeaccurateannotatedtranslationsoftheBuddha’sdiscourses,standardreferenceworks,aswellasoriginalcontemporaryexpositionsofBuddhistthoughtandpractice.TheseworkspresentBuddhismasittrulyis—adynamicforcewhichhasinfluencedreceptivemindsforthepast2500yearsandisstillasrelevanttodayasitwaswhenitfirstarose.

FormoreinformationabouttheBPSandourpublications,pleasevisitourwebsite,orwriteane-mailoralettertothe:

AdministrativeSecretaryBuddhistPublicationSociety

P.O.Box61

54SangharajaMawathaKandy•SriLankaE-mail:bps@bps.lk

118

website:http://www.bps.lkTel:0094812237283•Fax:0094812223679

119

TableofContents

SurvivalandKarmaInBuddhistPerspective 2I.TheBuddhistViewofSurvival 4Misconceptions 4HistoricalBackground 6SingleAfter-lifeTheories 7Materialists 9Skeptics 11BuddhistSolution 12TheFiveStatesofExistence 14

Intelligibility 17II.TheBuddhistDoctrineofKarma 21Misconceptions 21Meaning 22BasisforDoctrine 24Verifiability 27RelationtoCausalLaws 31MedievalAnalysis 32Distinction 33Fatalism,HeredityandKarma 35CentralTeaching 37

III.TheCasefortheBuddhistTheoryofSurvivalandKarma 39

NovelTheory 40TwoViews 42

120

Neurology 43Memory 44InstrumentalTheory 47BuddhistView 50OtherObjections 51

IV.TheCasefortheBuddhistTheoryofSurvivalandKarma 54

Body-MindProblem 54AnotherObjection 60

V.TheCasefortheBuddhistTheoryofSurvivalandKarma 67

UnsatisfactoryArguments 69AuthorityandRevelation 72MetaphysicalandEthicalArguments 73TheEvidence 76

VI.TheCasefortheBuddhistTheoryofSurvivalandKamma 80

Age-Regression 80PriorLives 82TheEvidence 84“ResearchesinReincarnationandBeyond” 85OriginofPhobias 88Karma? 91NormalHypotheses 93ParanormalHypotheses 95

VII.TheCasefortheBuddhistTheoryofSurvivalandKarma 98

121

TheExperimentalEvidence 98SpontaneousEvidence 104TheEvidence 108

Notes 112

122