The Buddhist view on
this matter is both relevant and interesting. Our desire influence
or condition our belief, to which we tenaciously cling (tapha paccaya
dithupadanam) but this does not necessarily mean that, these beliefs
are always false for when they happen to be 'right beliefs' (samma
ditthi), they are in fact true.
So although desires affect our beliefs, this fact has no relevance
to the truth or falsity of the beliefs. We have, however, because
of our emotional involvement with these beliefs to weigh the evidence
for against their truth or falsity without prejudice. As Buddhists,
we have to examine the truth even of the belief in rebirth objectively
without being prejudiced for (chanda) or against (dosa) or being
affected by fear (bhaya) even if it be the fear of the beyond or
being guided by our erroneous beliefs (moha). So the desire to believe
or not to believe does not affect the truth or falsity of the belief
but we have to guard against the prejudice resulting from the desire
in our quest for truth.
Authority And Revelation
Another set of arguments for survival are based on authority. It
may be stated that many poets and mystics as well as rational thinkers
brought up in a tradition which condemned the belief, nevertheless,
professed it.
The classic case is that of Giordano Bruno, who is said to have
stated in his profession of faith before the Inquisition: 'I have
held and hold souls to be immortal speaking as a Catholic, they
do not pass from body to body, but go to Paradise, Purgatory or
Hell. But I have reasoned deeply, and, speaking as a philosopher,
since the soul is not found without body and yet is not body, it
may be in one body or in another, and pass from body to body. This,
if it be not (proved) true seems at least, likely.' (See, REINCARNATION
an East-West Anthology, Ed. J. Head & S. L. Cranston, New York,
1961). Over two hundred and fifty well-known poets, philosophers
and writers of the Western world have either held or professed some
sort of belief in rebirth.
All that this seems to suggest is that the belief is worth examining
and it does not in any way imply the truth of the belief.
The argument from revelation is also unacceptable to science and
Buddhism. It is true that certain texts in the Vedic tradition,
particularly the middle and late Upanishads profess a belief in
rebirth but there is a variety of views on the subject of survival
in the Vedic tradition, itself. In one of the early Upanishads rebirth
is denied. It is said: 'there are these three worlds, the world
of men, the world of departed spirits and the world of the gods.
The world of men is obtained through a son only, not by any other
means' (Bvhad Aranayaka Upanisad, 1.5, 15). While there are these
contradictions within the revelational traditions, the different
theistic revelations also contradict each other on the problem of
survival. So the doctrine of rebirth cannot be established by an
argument from authority or revelation, since authority and revelation
are not acceptable means of knowledge.
Methaphysical And Ethical Arguments
The metaphysical (theoritical) arguments are no better. Apart from
the fact that they make use of unverifiable concept like 'soul',
the arguments are of doubtful value and are generally discredited
today. One of the traditional arguments for survival has been that
the 'soul is a substance, substances are indestructible, therefore
the soul is indestructible, ie. Immortal.' But apart from the difficulty
of the concept of a 'soul', the notion of an indestructible substance
is discredited today.
With regard to rebirth, we have already met with a sample of such
a metaphysical argument in that of Giordano Bruno. Such arguments,
based on pure reasoning intended to prove the truth of rebirth are
to be met with, for example, in a work by Professor John Me Taggart
(Philosophy) of Cambridge, called 'Some Dogmas of Religion' (Ch.IV).
But they have little appeal today since it is recognized that matters
of fact cannot be proved by pure reasoning (takka) as the Buddha
himself pointed out (Ma takka hetu).
The ethical argument has a greater appeal, but this is so only for
those who accept its presuppositions. According to the Buddha, karma
was one of the predominant factors responsible for human inequalities.
This has often been represented as embodying the following rational
ethical argument consisting of an empirical and ethical premiss
viz.
¦people are of unequal status, those of unequal status ought
to be such by virtue of their own actions - therefore, since this
is not due to their actions in this life, it should be due to their
actions in prior lives. This means that both pre-existence and karma
are the case.This is an argument that has appealed to many thinkers
down the ages, but most modern thinkers would not accept the second
ethical premises namely that 'those of unequal status ought to be
such by virtue of their own actions.' This is because most people
believe today that the universe or nature is a moral and there is
no ethical reason why anything should or should not be so. On the
other hand, many hold that ethical statements are neither true or
false. It is nevertheless a fact that many people brought up in
a belief in the inherent justice of nature ask questions of the
form, 'why should so and so be born healthy while I am in a state
of ill-health from birth etc. >
|
