Buddhist Rebirth Refuted -- Part 1

Buddhist Rebirth Refuted

In this following essay, I will show that the Buddhist notion of rebirth in the Pali Canon is logically incoherent and under close scrutiny it fails rationally to make any sense.

The primary purpose of this essay is not to denigrate or ridicule the teachings of the Dhamma. I do believe in kamma and rebirth, but in a psychological sense of an individual in this very life.

The main problem of the Buddhist notion of rebirth is that, in my opinion, can result in people becoming attached to such ideas at the expense of the core teachings of the Buddha.

In many Buddhist countries, the laity get so immersed in the notion of rebirth that it leads to actions of making merit just to ensure a favorable rebirth. The laity ends up clinging to such notions as it a comforting thought that the individual will not meet its demise, but continue in the future. As such, instead of decreasing the notion of “I” or “me,” such beliefs can actually increase it.

These typical reactions prompted by rebirth are in direct contrast to what the Buddha was actually interested in. The Buddha was interested in reducing the notion of “I” and getting off of the wheel of samsara and not keeping on it and continually being reborn.

To summarize, I am attacking the notion of literal rebirth for it can be a great source of clinging and attachment that can lead one to be preoccupied with some distance future instead of motivating oneself to be free from suffering right now in this present life.

My main argument will consist of demonstrating the dubious explanations behind the mechanism of rebirth as described in the earliest Buddhist schools. By placing doubt in the connecting mechanism between the old life and the new, I place in doubt the whole notion of rebirth itself.

Dependent Origination and Rebirth

To understand why literal rebirth does not work, one must start with dependent origination. In the Maha-nidana Sutta (using Bikkhu Bodhi’s translation from www.accesstoinsight.org) we have the Buddha explaining the link of name and form (nama-rupa) and consciousness (vinnana):

Name-and-form

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

"No, lord."

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

"No, lord."

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

"No, lord."

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

Consciousness

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

"No, lord."

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

In this passage the Buddha explicitly explains that, “name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness,” and that, “from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form.” In other words, consciousness cannot exist without name-and-form (name-and-form representing the five khandhas that make up an individual), and name-and-form cannot exist without consciousness; they both mutually condition each other, and one cannot exist without the other.

The first problem in the maha-nidana sutta occurs in the sentence stating that “consciousness . . . descend[s] into the mother’s womb.” The notion of descending or entering posits a subject, in this case consciousness, moving from one place to another. But according to what the Buddha just said in the prior paragraph, this is not possible because consciousness must have a body to exist; there can be no time when consciousness is “apart” from the body. If consciousness could exist apart from the body, it would be attributed with an independent, permanent existence which is directly contrary to the notion of anatta (no Soul or no permanent entity that exists independently).

As Sue Hamilton states in Identity and Experience, “[this] might be considered to indicate that vinnana is some sort of enduring transmigrating entity” (84). To remedy this impasse, Hamilton goes on to point out, that key Pali word okkamissatha which can literally be translated as “enters” or “descends” should be translated figuratively to instead mean “arise” or “manifest” (85).

This new translation may then make the sutta more intelligible, but the important point to notice here is that by the very nature of dependent-co-origination there cannot be any entity that can exist independenantly of the other supporting conditions. Thus no body, no consciousness; no consciousness, no body.

If we agree that consciousness cannot have independent existence outside the body, then how does the changing consciousness in an individual link or condition the consciousness in the next entity? The answer, at least in the Theravada tradition, is that it happens instantaneously.