The Buddhist doctrine
of re-becoming (punabbhava) was a novel theory in so far as it spoke
of survival without a self-identical soul or substance. There was
continuity (santali) of personality after death and rebirth or the
return to an earth-life was only a special case of such continuity.
The doctrine was propounded after taking into account all the possible
theories that could be advanced with regard to the problem of an after
life.
The Buddhist doctrine of karma merely taught that there was a correlation
between moral acts and their consequences without implying any sort
of fatalism. In fact, its implications were the very opposite of
fatalism in that man by his understanding of his own nature could
control his present and determine his own future.When we examine
some of the objections that could be levelled against this doctrine
of re-becoming, we investigated the objection against any theory
of survival from the alleged state of or relationship that exists
between the brain and the mind. The evidence against the possibility
of survival was by no means crucial. Survival is neither proved
nor disproved in the light of the modern findings regarding the
brain-mind. Any theory of survival therefore, stands or falls on
the basis of independent evidence.
When we also examined some of the objections raised specifically
against rebirth, we found that the objection that rebirth was a
self-contradictory concept was not valid since we can speak significantly
of a single individual having many lives where there is a continuity
of memory and mental dispositions. The argument from the increase
in the human population could not be levelled against the Buddhist
theory of rebirth since Buddha entertained the possibility of prior
lives among animal, human or non-human ancestors in this or other
planets. The objection from biogenesis was also not valid since
rebirth took place at a higher level of animal evolution.
The objection from the lack of memory of prior lives was far from
true. Memory may be used in one of two senses, (i) the recalled
genuine experiences of one's past, and (ii) presence of capacities
and skills acquired in past. In the second scene we found that there
was some evidence for the existence of such 'memories'.
Identical twins when joined together called 'Siamese twins' have
a common heredity and a common environment. Yet psychologists have
observed that they differ in character and temperament. It is likely,
therefore, that the difference is due to a third factor (other than
heredity and environment), namely the 'cast over' of past skills
and attitude from previous lives. Geniuses or child prodigies, whose
extra ordinary accomplishments cannot be accounted for in terms
of heredity or environment, would only be special cases of such
a "carry over' of skills from one life to another.
In the former sense of memory, namely of the recall of genuine
in one's past, it is claimed that there is evidence of the recall
of genuine experiences from prior lives. Such claims have to be
carefully examined.
Unsatisfactory Arguments
Yet, before we proceed to do so, it is necessary to dispose of some
unsatisfactory arguments that are sometimes adduced in support of
the doctrine of rebirth. They may take many forms. There is a tendency
to urge that some belief is true because almost everybody holds
it. Yet the universality belief does not entail its truth. Nor at
the same time does it entail its truth. It is sometimes maintained
that many primitive peoples of the ancient world believed in the
survival or the doctrine of rebirth. But this does not imply that
the belief is either true or false. Its truth or falsity has to
be established independently.
The relevance of the universality of the belief as evidence of
its truth becomes more interesting when it is realized that everyone
in a state of deep hypnosis gives an account of experiences in alleged
prior lives, lived on earth, whatever their conscious beliefs may
be. There is evidence that Materialists and Theists holding a variety
of views on the subject of survival after death without subscribing
to the doctrine of rebirth or preexistence, give alleged accounts
of prior lives, recounting details of their experience. Does this
imply the truth of the belief? Not necessarily. For it is possible
that all their beliefs could be illusory, though the universality
of such an illusion has to be accounted for. But the experiences
they recount certainly constitute evidence for the truth or falsity
of the belief in rebirth. We shall carefully examine this evidence
later on.
Another form in which an argument for survival is presented, is
that a human need or want, implies the existence of what is needed
or wanted. We need or want food. Therefore, it is suggested, there
must be such immortality or survival. However, this is an argument
that cuts both ways. For others may argue that, we believe in rebirth
or survival because we need to believe or desire to entertain such
a belief. But what we like to believe is not necessarily true and,
therefore, this is no evidence of the truth of the belief.
Freud in his work called The Future of an Illusion tries to show
that people entertain certain religious beliefs like the belief
in the existence of God, for instance, because there is a deep-seated
craving in us for security amidst the insecurity of life and the
uncertainty of the beyond. According to him, people believe in God
dogmatically, because of such a deep-seated craving. It is an object
of wish-fulfilment and in this specialized sense, an 'illusion'.
This does not, however, necessarily mean that the belief is false.
As Freud himself pointed out, a girl may believe in the existence
of a Prince Charming who may one day come and propose to her, because
she likes to believe this does not necessarily mean that, such a
person does not exist. So the desire to believe in rebirth or survival
does not necessarily show that the belief is false just as much
as the desire to disbelieve in rebirth does not imply that the contrary
belief is false. > |
