1 | P a g e

Understanding the Buddhist Theory of Non-killing and Rebirth:In the View of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar

Bhante Mahanagaratna

Hitaya Sukhaya Dev-manussanam

P a g e | 2

Understanding the Buddhist Theory of Non-killingand Rebirth: In the View of Dr. BabasahebAmbedkar Preface

In the age of modernization thinking about Non-killing and Rebirth is a doubtful and bewilderingmatter. I have written this article for removingthe doubt from the mind of modern man,particularly those who have faith in Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar and his thoughts and whobelieve that he has disbelieve in the theory ofRebirth and encourage the force as the need ofkilling. In fact, this is a chapter of my book“Bodhisattva Dr. B. R. Ambedkar on Buddhism inIndia.” After discussing with Ven. BhanteBodhidhatu and Ven. Bhante Sugata, they agreedthat, “this should be publish as early aspossible for the sake of intelligent people sothat they will express it to the common people toremove mistaken views about these theories inBuddhism and the Babasaheb’s views over it.” Nowthis is ready to print. I hope it will help youto remove doubt from your mind to observe theNoble Eight Fold Path for the happy and morallife while living in human society. Developing the mind of loving-kindness toward allsentient beings and helping to those who are

Understanding the Buddhist Theory of Non-killing and Rebirth:In the View of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar

Bhante Mahanagaratna

P a g e | 3

living in Suffering, Misery and Poverty is thecore of Ahimsa. When someone is using his forceto develop righteousness, purity and virtues inothers life as a mother uses her anger to saveher child from danger is good but if it is nothappened then the force is violent andaggressive. For using the force as constructivelywe should have Right Understanding and RightAspiration what is taught by the Buddha. RightUnderstanding is the knowledge about the life asit is a matter of the Four Noble Truths. RightAspiration is the mental state of applicationthat directs the mind to Nibbana, eliminating theevil thoughts of sense-desires, ill-will andcruelty, by cultivating the good thoughts ofrenunciation, loving-kindness and harmlessness.If the Right Understanding and Aspiration is inour mind our speech and action would not beharmful and dangerous to others. For keeping itin action we should use our own wisdom accordingto the time, person and circumstances withoutbeing hateful to the objects as well as know theadverse effects of anger in one’s own life andothers. Conquering anger is the only way toreduce violence and conflict. Believing in Rebirth is an opportunity to developthe relationship between the men with the act offorgetting, forbearance and forgiveness, becausethe hatred does not appease by hatred but through

P a g e | 4

non-anger or love it will be appeased. It is notonly improving our relationship but it guides usnot to do bad deeds so that in future life wewill not get bad effects of it. If we want to behappy in future life we should do good deeds sothat in future we will get good effects of it.Today is tomorrow’s yesterday as well as today isyesterday’s tomorrow so we should live goodtoday, in this way our past and future will begood and prosperous. Rebirth theory is not amatter of imagination but is a matter of theUniversal Law of Cause and Effect andTransitoriness. In this small book I have tried to explore thesetwo theories according to the Buddhism and in theviews of Bodhisattva Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar.Reader should judge it as it is useful or not. Ifsomeone wants to give some suggestions on thissubject I would be grateful to him.I am so grateful to those who have helped me inthis noble work. May they realize the Four NobleTruths and attain Nibbana with the blessings ofthe Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha.

Bhavatu SabbaMangalam!

26th November, 2009Ven. Bhante Mahanagaratna

P a g e | 5

Bodhidnyana Buddhavihara124/283 Bhim-nagar,Near Shirke Co. Mundhawa,Pune-411036.

Cell- 09422986954Email – dhammacetiya@gmail.com

Section A – The Theory of Ahimsa (Non-killing)

The world knows very well that the Buddha is thegreatest compassionate one who gives the message ofcompassion and love to all sentient beings for happyand peaceful life on this Earth Planet. Non-killing isalso a part of it. In this part we are trying tounderstand the meaning and practice of the theory ofNon-killing what is taught by the Buddha in the View ofDr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. Dr. Babasaheb was the greatestHumanitarian in modern age; he developed the sense ofloving kindness toward those who were living in miseryas untouchables and struggled for their liberation fromcaste-based slavery through his life with morality andwisdom without shedding a drop of blood on the land ofCountry India. Dr. Babasaheb’s life struggle is thereal meaning and practice of the theory of Non-killingwhat is taught by his Master, the Buddha.

P a g e | 6

I am giving here some political, social and Buddhistaspects of Non-killing or Non-violence in the opinionof the Babasaheb. He had pointed out the question inhis Thesis in 1924 about Violence as a force of“Change,” that was “How was the government of thecountry to be carried on? By force or by consent, powerseldom commits suicide of its own accord. Rather, whenit fails to secure the willing compliance of thepeople, it resorts to force.” (The Evolution ofProvincial Finance in British India Dr. BAWS Vol-6Page-235) further he wrote down thus, “…But it was soonfound out that force was not the sure means of carrying on thegovernment of a country. The verdict of history was wellsummed up by Burke when he said: “The use of forcealone is but temporary. It may subdue for a moment, butit does not remove the necessity of subduing again; anation is not governed which is perpetually to beconquered. (The) next objection to force is itsuncertainty. Terror is not always the effect of force,and an armament is not a victory. If you do notsucceed, you are without resource; for conciliationfailing, force remains, but force failing, no furtherhope of reconciliation is left. Power and authority aresometimes brought by kindness, but they can never bebegged as alms by an impoverished and defeatedviolence. A further objection to force is, that youimpair the object by your very endeavours to preserveit. The thing you fought for (to win the loyalty of thepeople) is not the thing which you recover, but

P a g e | 7

depreciated, sunk, wasted and consumed in the contest…”(The Evolution of Provincial Finance in British IndiaDr. BAWS Vol.6 Page-236-37).

As well as the Babasaheb pointed out the observationsof Mr. Russell on the Philosophy of War, his opinionwas that, Mr. Russell is against the war but is not forQuietism. Quietism is another name for Death. Activityleads to growth. He suggests that to achieve anythingwe must use force; we must use it constructively asenergy not destructively as violence. Read thefollowing passage in the words of the Babasaheb.

“The gist of it all is that activity is the condition of growth.Mr. Russell, it must be emphasized, is against war butis not for quieticism; for, according to him, activityleads to growth and quieticism is but another name fordeath. To express it in the language of Professor Deweyhe is only against “force as violence” but is all for“force as energy.” It must be remembered by those whoare opposed to force that without the use of it allideals will remain empty just as without some ideal orpurpose (conscious or otherwise) all activity will beno more than mere fruitless fooling. Ends and means(=force in operation) are therefore concomitants andthe common adage that the end justifies the meanscontains a profound truth which is perverted simplybecause it is misunderstood. For if the end does notjustify the means what else will? The difficulty isthat we do not sufficiently control the operations of

P a g e | 8

the means once employed for the achieving of some end.For a means when once employed liberates many ends—afact scarcely recognized—and not the one only we wishit to produce. However, in our fanaticism forachievement we attach the article “the” to the end wecherish and pay no heed to the ends simultaneouslyliberated. Of course for the exigencies of an eminentlypractical life we must set an absolute value on someend. But in doing this we must take precaution that theother ends involved are not sacrificed. Thus, theproblem is that if we are to use force, as we must, toachieve something, we must see that while working forone end we do not destroy, in the process, other endsare equally worthy of maintenance. Applying this to thepresent war, no justification, I think, is needed forthe use of force. What needs to the justified is thedestructive violence. The justification must satisfythe world that ends given prominence to by one or otherof the combatants could not be achieved otherwise thanby violence; i. e., without involving the sacrifice ofother ends equally valuable for the stability of theworld. True enough that violence cannot always beavoided and non-resistance can be adopted only when itis a better way of resistance. But the responsibilityfor an intelligent control of force rests on us all. Inshort, the point is that to achieve anything we must use force; onlywe must use it constructively as energy and not destructively asviolence. (Mr. Russell and the Reconstruction of SocietyDr.BAWS Vol.I Page-485-86).

P a g e | 9

Using the force constructively as energy we need tothink about the war and its bad effects in our personaland national life. Following information will be givingus better understanding of this issue.

War is Wrong

1.It so happened that Ajatasatru, the King of Magadha,mustering an army of cavalry and infantry, invadedKasi, a part of the kingdom of king Pasenadi. AndPasenadi, hearing of the expedition, also mustered asimilar army and went to meet him.

2.The two fought with one another and Ajatasatrudefeated the king Pasenadi, who retreated to his owncapital Shravasti.

3.The Bhikkhus who were in Shravasti returning fromtheir alms round came and told the Exalted One of thebattle and the retreat.

4.“Almsmen, the king of Magadha, Ajatasatru, is afriend of whatever is evil. King Pasenadi is a friendof whatever is good. For the present, Pasenadi willpass the night in misery, a defeated man.

5.“Conquest endangers hate; the conquered lives inmisery. But whoso is at peace and passionless,happily doth he live; conquest hath he abandoned anddefeat.”

6. Again it so happened these two kings met in battle asecond time. But in that battle the Kosal kingPasenadi defeated Ajatasatru and captured him alive.Then kind Pasenadi thought: “Although the king

P a g e | 10

injures me who was not injuring him, yet is he mynephew. What if I were now to confiscate his entirearmy, elephants, horses, chariots and infantry andleave him only his life?” And he did so.

7.And Almsmen returning from their alms tour inShravasti brought word of this to the Exalted One.Thereupon the Exalted One said: “A man may spoilanother, just so far as it may serve his ends, butwhen he is spoiled by others, he, despoiled, spoilsyet again.

8.“So long as evil’s fruit is not matured, the fooldoth fancy ‘now’s the hour, the chance!’ but when thedeed bears fruit, he fareth ill.

9. “The slayer gets a slayer in his turn; the conquerorgets one who conquers him; the abuser wins abuse fromanother.

10. “Thus by the evolution of the deed, a man whospoils is spoiled in his turn.” (The Buddha and hisDhamma- Book-IV Part-IV Section-VI Chapter-4).

The Duty of the Victor Who has Won Peace

1.When the Victor in war has won the Peace he claimsthe right further to degrade the vanquished if not toenslave him. The Buddha had a totally different viewon the matter. In His view if Peace had any meaning it means thatthe Victor has a duty to use his victory for the service of the vanquished.This is what he said to the Bhikkhus on this subject:

P a g e | 11

2. “When Peace is won, the adept in warfare needs toprove an able, upright man, of gracious speech, kindmood, devoid of arrogance, an easy, grateful guest,no busybody wants but few sense disciplined, quick-witted, bluster-free, never importunate; and let himnever stoop to conduct mean or low, evoking graverebuke.

3.“May creatures all abound, in weal and peace; may allbe blessed with peace always, all creatures weak andstrong, all creatures great and small; creaturesunseen are seen dwelling afar or near, born orawaiting birth may all be blessed with peace!

4.“Let none cajole or flout his fellows anywhere; letnone wish others harm in dudgeon or in hate.

5.“Just as with her own life a mother shields from hurther own, her only child, let all embracing thoughtsfor all that lives be thine, an all-embracing lovefor all the universe in all its heights and depthsand breadths, unstinted love, unmarred by hatewithin, not rousing enmity.

6. “So, as you stand or walk, or sit, or lie, reflectwith all your might on this: ‘’Tis deemed a statedivine.’” (The Buddha and his Dhamma- Book-IV Part-IVSection-VI Chapter-5).

When we understand the importance of life there is noneed to kill any living being because the Buddha saysthat, “Having compared oneself with others, one should practiceloving-kindness towards all beings by realizing that everyone desires

P a g e | 12

happiness.” In following passages we can consider themeaning and practice of the theory of Non-killingwhat is taught by the Buddha and well illustrated bythe Babasaheb.

1. The different ways in which Ahimsa was interpretedand followed

1. Ahimsa or non-killing forms a very importantpart of the Buddha’s teachings.

2.It is intimately connected with Karuna and Maitri. 3.The question has, however, been raised whether His

Ahimsa was absolute in its obligation or onlyrelative. Was it only a principle? Or was it arule?

4.People who accept the Buddha’s teachings find itdifficult to accept Ahimsa as an absoluteobligation. They say that such a definition ofAhimsa involves the sacrifice of good for evil, thesacrifice of virtue for vice.

5.This question requires to be clarified. There is nosubject which is a matter of greater confusion thanthis subject of Ahimsa.

6.How have the people of Buddhist countriesunderstood and practiced Ahimsa?

7.This is an important question which must be takeninto account.

P a g e | 13

8.The monks of Ceylon fought against and asked thepeople of Ceylon to fight against the foreigninvaders.

9.On the other hand the monks of Burma refused tofight against the foreign invaders and asked theBurmese people not to fight.

10. The Burmese people eat eggs but not fish. 11. This is how Ahimsa is understood and followed. 12. Recently the German Buddhist Association passed

a resolution by which they accepted all the PanchSilas except the first which deals with Ahimsa.

13. This is the position about the Doctrine ofAhimsa. (The Buddha and his Dhamma- Book-IV Part-IISection-III Chapter-1).

2. True Meaning of Ahimsa

1.What does Ahimsa mean? 2.The Buddha has nowhere given any definition of

Ahimsa. In fact He was very seldom, if at all,referred to the subject in specific terms.

3.One has, therefore to spell out his intention fromcircumstantial evidence.

P a g e | 14

4.The first circumstantial evidence on the point isthat the Buddha had no objection to eating meat if itwas offered to him as part of his alms.

5.The monk can eat meat offered to him provided he wasnot a party to the killing of it.

6.He resisted the opposition of Devadatta who insistedthat the monks should be prohibited from eating meatgiven to them by way of alms.

7.The next piece of evidence on the point is that hewas only opposed to the killing of animals in Yajna(sacrifice). This he was himself said.

8.Ahimsa Paramo Dharma is an extreme Doctrine. It is aJain Doctrine. It is not a Buddhist Doctrine.

9. There is another piece of evidence which is moredirect than circumstantial which almost amounts to adefinition of Ahimsa. He has said: “Love all so that youmay not wish to kill any.” This is a positive way of statingthe principle of Ahimsa.

10. From this it appears that the doctrine of Ahimsadoes not say “Kill not. It says love all.”

11. In the light of these statements it is quite easyto have a clear understanding of what the Buddhameant by Ahimsa.

12. It is quite clear that Buddha meant to make adistinction between will to kill and need to kill.

13. He did not ban killing where there was need tokill.

14. What he banned was killing where there was nothingbut the will to kill.

P a g e | 15

15. So understood there is no confusion in the Buddhistdoctrine of Ahimsa.

16. It is a perfectly sound or moral doctrine whicheveryone must respect.

17. No doubt he leaves it to every individual to decidewhether the need to kill is there. But with whom elsecould it be left. Man has Pradnya and he must use it.

18. A moral man may be trusted to draw the line at theright point.

19. Brahmanism has in it the will to kill. 20. Jainism has in it the will never to kill. 21. The Buddha’s Ahimsa is quite in keeping with his

middle path. 22. To put it differently the Buddha made a distinction

between Principle and Rule. He did not make Ahimsa amatter of Rule. He enunciated it as a matter ofPrinciple or way of life.

23. It this he no doubt acted very wisely. 24. A principle leaves you freedom to act. A rule does

not. Rule either breaks you or you break the Rule. (The Buddhaand his Dhamma- Book-IV Part-II Section-III Chapter-2).

Thus Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar has explained theDoctrine of Ahimsa in Buddhism. As we know that thetheory of Ahimsa is also concerned with the view ofeating meat or not, I am giving a “Jivaka Sutta” from“Majjhima Nikaya” about the intention of Meat Eatingand the view of the Buddha on this Subject, that is:-

P a g e | 16

“THUS have I heard: At one time the Lord was stayingat Rajagaha in Jivaka Komarabhacca’s Mango Grove.Then Jivaka Komarabhacca approached the Lord; havingapproached, having greeted the Lord, he sat down at arespectful distance. As he was sitting down at arespectful distance, Jivaka Komarabhacca spoke thusto the Lord:“This is what I have heard, revered sir: that theykill living creatures on purpose for the recluseGotama, and that the recluse Gotama knowingly makesuse of meat killed on purpose and specially providedfor him. Those who speak thus, revered sir: “Theykill living creatures on purpose for the recluseGotama, and that the recluse Gotama knowingly makesuse of meat killed on purpose and specially providedfor him”—now, are these quoting the Lord’s own words,revered sir, not misrepresenting the Lord with whatis not fact, are they explaining in conformity withDhamma, and does not reasoned thesis give occasionfor contempt?”“Jivaka, those who speak thus: “They kill livingcreatures on purpose for the recluse Gotama, and thatthe recluse Gotama knowingly makes use of meat killedon purpose and specially provided for him”—these are notquoting my own words, but are misrepresenting me with what is nottrue, with what is not fact. I, Jivaka, say that in three cases meat may notbe used: if it is seen, heard, suspected (to have been killed on purposefor a monk). In these three cases I, Jivaka, say that

P a g e | 17

meat may not be used. But I, Jivaka, say that in three cases meatmay be used: if it is not seen, heard, suspected (to have been killed onpurpose for a monk). In these three cases I, Jivaka, saythat meat may be used. As to this, Jivaka, a monk lives depending on avillage or market town. He dwells having suffused thefirst quarter with a mind of friendliness, likewisethe second, likewise the third, likewise the fourth;just so above, below, across; he dwells havingsuffused the whole world everywhere, in every way,with a mind of friendliness that is far-reaching,wide-spread, immeasurable, without enmity, withoutmalevolence. A householder or a householder’s son,having approached him, invites him to a meal on themorrow. The monk accepts, Jivaka, if he so desires.At the end of that night, having dressed in the earlymorning, taking bowl and robe, he approaches thedwelling of that householder or householder’s son;having approached, he sits down on the appointedseat, and the householder or householder’s son waitson him with sumptuous alms food. It does not occur tohim: “Indeed it is good that a householder orhouseholder’s son waits on me with sumptuous almsfood. O may a householder or a householder’s son alsowaits on me in the future with similar sumptuous almsfood”—this does not occur to him. He makes use ofthat alms food without being ensnared, entranced orenthralled by it, but seeing the peril in it, wise asto the escape. What do you think about this, Jivaka?

P a g e | 18

Is that monk at that time striving for the hurt ofself or is he striving for the hurt of others or ishe striving for the hurt of both?” “Not this, revered sir.”“Is not that monk at that time, Jivaka, eating foodthat is blameless?”“Yes, revered sir. I had heard this, revered sir:Sublime is abiding in friendliness. The Lord is seenas my witness for this, revered sir, for the Lord isabiding in friendliness.” “Jivaka, that attachment, that aversion, thatconfusion through which there might be malevolence,these have been got rid of by the Tathagata, cut offat the root, made like a palm-tree stump that cancome to no further existence in the future. If thisis the meaning of what you said, Jivaka, I agree withyou.” “This is the exact meaning of what I said, reveredsir.” “As to this, Jivaka, a monk lives depending on avillage or market town. He dwells having suffused thefirst quarter with a mind of Compassion…..a mind ofSympathetic Joy……a mind of Equanimity, likewise thesecond, likewise the third, likewise the fourth; justso above, below, across; he dwells having suffusedthe whole world everywhere, in every way, with a mindof equanimity that is far-reaching, wide spread,immeasurable, without enmity, without malevolence. Ahouseholder or householder’s son, having approached

P a g e | 19

him, invites him to a meal on the morrow….(as above…_).Is that monk at that time striving for the hurt ofself or is he striving for the hurt of others or ishe striving for the hurt of both?”“Not this, revered sir.” “Is not that monk at that time, Jivaka, eating foodthat is blameless?”“Yes, revered sir. I had heard this, revered sir:Sublime is abiding equanimity. The Lord is seen as mywitness for this, revered sir, for the Lord isabiding in equanimity.” “Jivaka, that attachment, that aversion, thatconfusion through which there might be annoyance,through which there might be dislike, through whichthere might be repugnance, these have been got rid ofby the Tathagata, cut off at the root, made like apalm-tree stump that can come to no further existencein the future. If this is the meaning of what yousaid, Jivaka, I agree with you.” “This is the exact meaning of what I said, reveredsir.” “Jivaka, he who kills a living creature on purposefor a Tathagata or a Tathagata’s disciple stores upmuch demerit in five ways: In that, when he speaks thus: ‘Goand fetch such and such a living creature,’ in this first way he stores upmuch demerit. In that, while this living creature is being fetched itexperiences pain and distress because of the affliction to its throat—inthis second way he stores up much demerit. In that, when he speaksthus: ‘Go and kill that living creature’—in this third way he stores up

P a g e | 20

much demerit. In that, while this living creature is being killed itexperiences pain and distress, in this fourth way he stores up muchdemerit. In that, if he proffers to a Tathagata or a Tathagata’s disciplewhat is not allowable, in this fifth way he stores up much demerit. Hewho, Jivaka, kills a living creature on purpose for aTathagata or a Tathagata’s disciple stores up muchdemerit in these five ways.” When this had been said, Jivaka Komarabhacca spokethus to the Lord: “It is wonderful, revered sir, itis marvelous, revered sir. Indeed, revered sir, themonks eat food that is allowable; indeed, reveredsir, the monks eat food that is blameless. It isexcellent, revered sir, it is excellent, reveredsir…. May the Lord accept mw as a lay-disciple goingfor refuse from this day forth for as long as lifelasts.” (The Collection of the Middle Length Sayings(Majjhima Nikaya) Tr. By I. B. Horner Vol. II, 55.Discourse to Jivaka (Jivakasutta)).

Above discourse of the Buddha is giving rightunderstanding of the matter of “eating meat or not.”For observing the first precept (Panatipata veramani= Abstaining from the taking of life) of Panch Shilawe should know this very well for protectingourselves from storing demerits in our life. If we‘will’ to cease suffering from our present life weshould develop the “Noble-Eight-Fold-path” in themind and in conduct. It is taught in the Noble-Eight-Fold-Path that to keep Right Livelihood is necessary

P a g e | 21

to maintain life in human society. “The Buddhamentions five specific kinds of livelihood whichbring harm to others and are therefore to be avoided:dealing in weapons, in living beings (including raising animalsfor slaughter as well as slave trade and prostitution), in meatproduction and butchery, in poison and in intoxicants(Anguttara Nikaya 5:177). (The Noble Eightfold Path,Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi Page-63). He who accept such wronglivelihood as killing animals for his own sake it isnot possible to him to come out from suffering in hislife, because through this he stores demerits a lot.That’s why one who desires happiness he should makeothers happy. In Dhammapada the Buddha says that, “Hewho wishes his own happiness by causing pain to others is not releasedfrom hatred, being himself entangled in the tangles of hatred.”(Pakinnaka Vagga 291). For coming out from thetangles of hatred we should love to all means allliving beings, if the hatred is miserable for us. For observing first precept I am giving followinginformation to protect the mind from demerit andmisery. “The precept (Refraining from destroying livingcreatures) is broken whether the killing is donedirectly or indirectly (e.g. instructing another todo it) by oneself, but the following five conditionsmust be present for the killing to be grave enough togive rise to the possibility that the breaker of theprecept may be led to the Woeful States after Death:

P a g e | 22

1.A living being (not including bacteria and othermicro-organisms because it is unseen to open eyes).

2. Knowledge that it is a living being.3. A mind that thinks of killing. 4.The effort made to kill (including asking another

to do it). 5.The being dies through the effort.” (The importance

of keeping five Precepts, Ven. Aggacitto Page-10)

These five conditions are necessary to take intoconsideration to observe the first precept in the life.The third point is very important because the Buddhasays that “the intention is the Karma.” An intention is thedetermining factor of merit and demerit and also ‘willto kill’ and ‘need to kill’. That’s why it is said that“Mind is the forerunner of (all evil) states. Mind is chief; mind-made theyare. If one speaks or acts with wicked mind, because of that, sufferingfollows one, even as the wheel follows the hoof of the draught-ox.”(Dhammapda Yamaka Vagga 1). Therefore we should observethe loving-kindness toward all living beings so thatthe desire to kill will not rise in the mind. This isthe true meaning and practice of Ahimsa in the Buddhismwhat emphasized the Babasaheb through his writings. Isit not beneficial to all?

Section- B -The Theory of Rebirth (Punar-bhava)

“7. Herewith I write down this essay and utter these verses,And pray that I could see Thee, O Buddha, face to face.

P a g e | 23

8. And that I could, together with all my fellow-beings,Attain the birth in the Land of Bliss” (The Buddha and hisDhamma, Last Page)

The theory of Rebirth is a dilemma in the mind of manas to believe or not to believe in it. They who believe inRebirth are those people whose Religion has been taughtthem to believe in and in the circle of thesetraditional faith, they usually try to prove it out oftheir faith in that theory of Rebirth. On the otherhand, who are rational and think themselves as amaterialist and modern they do not want to believe inthe theory of Rebirth. However, who are working in thesubject of Hypnotism and Parapsychology they do believein the theory of Rebirth. Not only they believe in itbut prove it by the evidence of Regression Therapy andCase studies. In modern time “the famous psychiatristProfessor Ina Stevenson M.D. has scientifically proventhat reincarnation (Rebirth) is a fact. A number ofcase histories substantiate this claim. Some of thesehave come from children and adults who remembered theirPast Lives, their memories later having been proven tobe accurate. Others were retrieved by means ofRegression techniques. The interest in reincarnation isgrowing on yearly. Today we no longer need to believein it, since reincarnation has been scientificallyproven, just as the law of gravity was proven some timeago. What was until recently a belief for millions of people has now been

P a g e | 24

discovered to be the truth.”(30 Most Convincing Cases ofReincarnation, Trutz Hardo, In Intoduction.) In modern India, some Ambedkarite thinkers disbelievein the Rebirth Theory what is taught in Buddhism andfor denying it they use the Name of Dr. BabasahebAmbedkar as ‘He is denied the Rebirth Theory, that’swhy we are denying it because it is not a part ofBuddhism but it is a part of Hinduism and interpolatedit by Brahmins into the Buddhism’. This view is soprejudiced and mistaken. They who are setting suchwrong views on the name of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, theyshould know the statement of Babasaheb to remove suchmisunderstanding for knowing the theory of Rebirth whatis taught in Buddhism. “…The only thing he (Babasaheb)said, which has not been proved to have scientificbasis is rebirth. He said: “…I have full faith in the rebirth. Ican prove it to scientists that rebirth was logical. In my view, it is theelements that changed and not the man…” He was of the strongview that the scientific research must reveal the truthand underlying ideas about it.” (Little Known Facets ofDr. Ambedkar, Nanak Chand Rattu, Page-164—In his speechdelivered at Buddha Vihar, New Delhi on 05-02-1956) Rebirth is not a part of a religion but it is the reality of life and aninseparable part of the universal law of cause and effect. Followinginformation is giving right vision about Rebirth Theoryin Buddhism in the view of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, readit carefully. In fact, this subject is not for readingonly; the Buddha has taught us it because of to come

P a g e | 25

out from the vicious and miserable circle of Birth andDeath means Suffering by observing the right view about‘stream of consciousness’ and for keeping the Noble-Eight-Fold-Path to attain Nibbana, means Antima Jati (the last birth).

REBIRTH

1. Preliminary

1.What happens after death is a question often asked. 2.The contemporaries of the Buddha held two different

views. One set was called Eternalist and the otherwas called Annihilationist.

3.The Eternalist said that the soul knows no Death;therefore life is eternal. It is renewed by rebirth.

4.The thesis of the Annihilationist was summed up inone word, Ucchedvad, which meant that the Death is theend of everything. There is nothing left after death.

5.The Buddha was not an eternalist. For it involved abelief in the existence of a separate, immortal soulto which he was opposed.

6.Was the Buddha an annihilationist? With his belief inthe non-existence of the soul, the Buddha wouldnaturally be expected to be an annihilationist.

P a g e | 26

7.But in the Alagaddupama-Sutta the Buddha complains thathe is called an annihilationist when as a matter offact he is not.

8.This is what he says: “Though this is what I affirmand what I preach yet some recluses and Brahmins,wrongly, erroneously and falsely charge me indefiance of facts, with being an annihilationist andwith preaching the disintegration, destruction andextirpation of human beings.

9.“It is just what I am not, and what I do not affirm,that is wrongly, erroneously, and falsely chargedagainst me by these good people who would make me outto be an annihilationist.”

10. If this statement is a genuine one and is not aninterpolation by those who wanted to foist aBrahmanic doctrine on Buddhism the statement raises aserious dilemma.

11. How can the Buddha not believe in the existence ofthe soul and yet say that he is not anannihilationist?

12. This raises the question: Did the Buddha believein rebirth? (The Buddha and his Dhamma- Book-IV Part-II Section-I Chapter-1).

2. Rebirth of What?

1.Did the Buddha believe in rebirth? 2.The answer is in the affirmative.

P a g e | 27

3.It is better to split this question further into twoparts: (1) Rebirth of What and (2) Rebirth of Whom.

4. It is better to take each one of these two questionsseparately.

5.Here we may consider the first, Rebirth of what. 6.This question is almost always ignored. It is because

of the mixing of the two questions that so muchconfusion has arisen.

7.According to the Buddha there are four elements ofExistence which go to compose the body. They are (1)Prithvi; (2) Apa; (3) Tej; and (4) Vayu.

8.Question is when the human body dies what happens tothese four elements? Do they also die along with deadbody? Some say that they do.

9.The Buddha said no. they join the mass of similarelements floating in (Akash) space.

10. When the four elements from this floating mass jointogether a new birth take place.

11. This is what the Buddha meant by rebirth. 12. The elements need not and are not necessarily from

the same body which is dead. They may drawn fromdifferent dead bodies.

13. It must be noted that the body dies. But theelements are ever living.

14. This is the kind of rebirth in which the Buddhabelieved.

15. Great light is thrown upon the subject by Sariputtain his dialogue with Maha-Kotthita.

P a g e | 28

16. It is said that once when the Lord was staying atShravasti in Jeta’s Grove in Anathapindika’s Aram,the Maha-Kotthita rising up at even-tide from hismeditations, went to Sariputta and ask him toelucidate some of the questions which troubled him.

17. The following was one of them.18. Maha-Kotthita asked: “How many factors has the first

ecstasy (Dhyana) put from it and how many does itretain?”

19. Sariputta replied: “Five of each. Gone are lusts,malevolence, torpor, worry and doubt. Observation,reflection, zest, satisfaction and a focused heartpersist.”

20. Maha-Kotthita asked: “Take the five senses of sight,sound, smell, taste and touch,-- each with its ownparticular province and range of function, separateand mutually distinct. What ultimate bases have they?Who enjoys all their five provinces and ranges?”

21. Sariputta replied: “Mind (Mano)”. 22. Maha-Kotthita asked: “On what do these five faculties

of sense depend?” 23. Sariputta replied: “On vitality.”24. Maha-Kotthita asked: “On what does vitality depend?” 25. Sariputta : “On heat.” 26. Maha-Kotthita asked: “On what does heat depend?” 27. Sariputta replied: “On vitality.” 28. Maha-Kotthita asked: “You say that vitality depends

on heat, you also say that heat depends on vitality!

P a g e | 29

What precisely is the meaning to be attached tothis?”

29. Sariputta replied: “I will give you an illustration.Just as in the case of a lamp, the light reveals theflame and the flame the light, so vitality dependsupon heat and heat on vitality.”

30. Maha-Kotthita asked: “How many things must quit thebody before it is flung aside and cast away like asenseless log?”

31. Sariputta answered: “Vitality, heat and consciousness.” 32. Maha-Kotthita asked: “What is difference between a

lifeless corpse and an almsman in trance, in whomperception and feelings are stilled?”

33. Sariputta replied: “In the corpse not only are theplastic forces of the body and speech and mindstilled and quiescent but also vitality is exhausted,head is quenched and the faculties of sense brokenup; whereas in the almsman in trance vitalitypersist, heat abides, and the faculties are clear,although respiration, observation and perception andstilled and quiescent.”

34. This probably is the best and most completeexposition of Death or Annihilation.

35. There is only one lacuna in this dialogue. Maha-Kotthita should have asked Sariputta one question.What is heat?

36. What answer Sariputta would have given it is noteasy to imagine. But there can be no doubt that heatmeans energy.

P a g e | 30

37. Thus amplified, the real answer to the question:what happens when the body dies? Is: the body ceasesto produce energy.

38. But this is only a part of the answer. Becausedeath also means that whatever energy that hadescaped from the body joins the general mass ofenergy playing about in the Universe.

39. Annihilation has therefore a two-fold aspect. Inone of its aspects it means cession of production ofenergy. In another aspect it means a new addition tothe stock of general floating mass of energy.

40. It is probably because of this two-fold aspect ofannihilation that the Buddha said that he was not anabsolute annihilationist. He was an annihilationist so far assoul was concerned. He was not an annihilationist so far as matter wasconcerned.

41. So interpreted it is easy to understand why theBuddha said that he was not an annihilationist. Hebelieved in the regeneration of matter and not in the rebirth of the soul.

42. So interpreted, the Buddha’s view is consonancewith science.

43. It is only in this sense that the Buddha could besaid to have believe in rebirth.

44. Energy in never lost. That is what science affirms.Annihilation in the sense that after death nothing isleft would be contrary to science. For it would meanthat energy is not constant in volume.

P a g e | 31

45. This is the only way by which the dilemma couldbe solved. (The Buddha and his Dhamma- Book-IV Part-II Section-I Chapter-2).

1.Rebirth of Whom?

1.The most difficult question is Rebirth of Whom. 2.Does the same dead person take a new birth? 3.Did the Buddha believe in this thesis? The answer

is “Most improbable.” 4. The answer depends upon the elements of existence of the dead man

meeting together and forming a new body then the possibility of theRebirth of the same Sentient being is possible.

5. If a new body is formed after a mixture or the different elements ofthe different men who are dead then there is rebirth but not therebirth of the same sentient being.

6. This point has been well explained by sister Khemato King Prasenadi.

7.Once the Exalted One was staying near Shravasti atJeta Grove in Anathapindika’s Aram.

8.Now on that occasion the sister Khema, after goingher rounds among the Kosalana, took up her quartersat Toranavatthu, between Shravast6i and Saketa.

9.Now the Rajah Prasenadi of Kosala was journeyingfrom Saketa to Shravasti; and midway between Saketaand Shravasti he put up for one night atToranavatthu.

P a g e | 32

10. The Rajah Prasenadi of Kosala called a certainman and said: “Come thou, good fellow! Find outsome recluse of Brahmin such that I can wait uponhim today.”

11. “Even so, your Majesty,” said that man in replyto the Rajah Prasenadi of Kosala, and afterwandering through all Toranavatthu he saw not anyone, either recluse or Brahmin, on whom the RajahPrasenadi might wait.

12. Then that man saw the sister Khema, who hadcome to reside at Toranavatthu. And on seeing herhe went back to the Rajah Pasenadi of Kosal, andsaid: --

13. “Your Majesty, there is no recluse or Brahminin Toranavatthu such that your majesty can waitupon him. But, your majesty, there is a sisternamed Khema, a woman-disciple of that Exalted One.Now of this lady a lovely rumour has gone abroad,that she is sage, accomplished, shrewd, widelylearned, a brilliant talker, of goodly ready wit.Let your majesty wait upon her.”

14. So the Rajah Pasenadi of Kosala went to visitthe sister Khema, and on coming to her saluted andsat down at one side. So seated he said to her:-

15. “How say you, lady? Does the Tathagata exist afterDeath?”

16. “That also, maharajah is not revealed by the ExaltedOne.”

P a g e | 33

17. “How then, lady? When asked ‘Does the Tathagataexist after death?’ you reply, “That is notrevealed by the Exalted One,” and when I ask… theother questions, you make the same reply. Pray,lady, what is the reason, what is the cause, whythis thing is not revealed by the Exalted One?”

18. “Now in this matter, maharajah, I will questionyou. Do you reply as you think fit. Now how sayyou, maharajah? Have you some accountant, someready reckoner or calculator, able to count thesand in Ganges, thus: There are so many hundredgrains, or so many thousand grains, or so manyhundreds of thousands of grains of sand?”

19. “No, indeed, lady.”20. “Then have you some accountant, ready reckoner

or calculator able to reckon the water in themighty ocean, thus: There are so many gallons ofwater, so many hundreds, so many thousands, so manyhundreds of thousand gallons of water?”

21. “No, indeed, lady.” 22. “How is that?”23. “Mighty is the ocean, lady, deep, boundless,

unfathomable.” 24. “Even so, maharajah, if one should try to define the

Tathagata by his bodily form, that bodily form of the Tathagatais abandoned, cut down at the root, made like a palm-treestump, made something that is not, made of a nature not tospring up again in future time. Set free from reckoning as body,maharajah is the Tathagata. He is deep, boundless,

P a g e | 34

unfathomable, just like the mighty ocean. To say, ‘The Tathagataexists after death,’ does not apply. To say, ‘The Tathagata existsnot after death,’ does not apply. To say, ‘The Tathagata bothexists and exists not, neither exists nor not exists after death,’does not apply.

25. “If one should try to define Tathagata byfeeling,-- that feeling of the Tathagata is abandoned,cut down at the root…. Yet free from reckoning asfeeling is the Tathagata, maharajah, deep,boundless, unfathomable like the mighty ocean. Tosay, ‘The Tathagata exists after death…… exists notafter death,’ does not apply.

26. “So also if one should try to define theTathagata by perception, by the activities, byconsciousness…..set free from reckoning byconsciousness is the Tathagata, deep, boundless,unfathomable as the mighty ocean. To say, ‘TheTathagata exists after death…..exists not afterdeath,’ does not apply.

27. Then the Rajah Pasenadi of Kosal was delightedwith the words of the sister Khema, and tookpleasure therein. And he rose from his seat,saluted her by the right and went away.

28. Now on another occasion the Rajah went to visitthe Exalted One, and on coming to him saluted himand sat down at one side. So seated he said to theExalted One:

29. “Pray, Lord, does the Tathagata exist afterdeath?”

P a g e | 35

30. “Not revealed by me, maharajah is this matter.”31. “Then Lord, the Tathagata does not exist after

death.” 32. “That also, maharajah is not revealed by me.” 33. He then asks the other questions and get the

same reply. 34. “How then, Lord? When I asked the question,

‘Does the Tathagata exist?.....does he not existafter death?’ you reply, ‘It is not revealed byme.’ Pray, Lord, what is the reason, what is thecause why this thing not revealed by the ExaltedOne?”

35. “Now, maharajah, I will question you. Do youreply as you think fit. Now what say you,maharajah? Have you some accountant….(the rest isexactly as before).”

36. “Wonderful, Lord! Strange it is, Lord, how theexplanation both of Master and disciple, both inspirit and in letter, will agree, will harmonize,will not be inconsistent, that is, I my word aboutthe highest.

37. “On a certain occasion, Lord, I went to visitthe sister Khema, and asked her the meaning of thismatter, and she gave me the meaning in the verywords, in the very syllables used by the ExaltedOne. Wonderful, Lord! Strange it is, Lord, how theexplanation both of Master and disciple, both inspirit and in letter, will agree, will harmonize,

P a g e | 36

will not be inconsistent, that is, I my word aboutthe highest.

38. “Well, Lord, now we must be going. We are busyfolk. We have many things to do.

39. “Do now what you think it is time for,maharajah.”

40. Thereupon the Rajah Pasenadi of Kosala wasdelighted with the words of the Exalted One andwelcomed them. And he rose from his seat, salutedthe Exalted One by the right and went away. (TheBuddha and his Dhamma- Book-IV Part-II Section-IChapter-3).

Here ends the chapters on Rebirth in Buddhism whatis written by the Babasaheb in his Noble Book, ‘theBuddha and his Dhamma’. After reading abovediscourse about ‘the Tathagata exists or not existsafter death is not revealed by the Buddha himself’,reader might be misunderstood the statements whatis mentioned in the discussion, and he decides that‘there is no rebirth after death.’ Therefore thequestion ‘Rebirth of Whom?’ is yet unanswered orincomplete. For considering the ‘Rebirth of whom,’we should know very well that above discussion isabout ‘the Buddha’ not about ‘the ordinary man.’Read again this carefully that, “…If one should try todefine the Tathagata by his bodily form, (by feeling, by perception, bythe activities, by consciousness…..) that bodily form (feeling,perception, the activities and consciousness) of the Tathagata is

P a g e | 37

abandoned, cut down at the root, made like a palm-tree stump,made something that is not, made of a nature not to spring upagain in future time. Set free from reckoning as body, (feeling,perception, the activities and consciousness) maharajah is theTathagata. He is deep, boundless, and unfathomable, just like themighty ocean. To say, ‘The Tathagata exists after death,’ does notapply. To say, ‘The Tathagata exists not after death,’ does not apply.To say, ‘The Tathagata both exists and exists not, neither exists nornot exists after death,’ does not apply.”

The Tathagatas, the Arahatas have no attachment tothe five aggregates (body, feeling, perception,activities and consciousness) and they have nocovetousness, hatred and ignorance in their mind.They are free from all defilements of mind and ofaction (Karma). They have attained Nibbana, AntimaJati (the last birth). In this sense, there is noRebirth to them and therefore there is no need toreveal their existence after death. But what aboutthem who have attachment to the five aggregates andhave covetousness, hatred and ignorance in theirmind. They are not free from all defilements ofmind and of action (Karma). Do they free from Rebirthafter their Death? The answer is “No.” In the “Bhava Sutta” the Buddha has explained it tothe Venerable Ananda, following ‘Suttas’ are souseful to understand the Rebirth and its cause.Read thus:

P a g e | 38

Pathama Bhava Suttam (Becoming- 1)

“Now the Venerable Ananda went where the Blessedone was. Having approached and bowed down beforethe Lord, he sat down on one side. Sitting on oneside, the Venerable Ananda then said this to theBlessed One: “Most Venerable Sir, ‘becoming!’ ‘becoming!’ so itis said. Pray, Most Venerable Sir, in what way isthere ‘Becoming’?”“Ananda, if there were no action which ripens intothe element of existence in the sphere of desire,would the world of desire ever manifest?”“Indeed not, Most Venerable Sir.”“Thus it is, Ananda, that action is the field,consciousness the seed, and craving the moisture.When the consciousness of beings, who are bounded byignorance and fettered by craving, gets establishedin the lower element (of desire), it is then thatrebirth, becoming, in the future, takes place. Ananda, if there were no action which ripens intothe element of existence in the sphere of subtlematter of Brahma gods, would the Brahma world ofsubtle matter ever manifest?”“Indeed not, Most Venerable Sir.”“Thus it is, Ananda, that action is the field,consciousness the seed, and craving the moisture.When the consciousness of beings, who are bounded byignorance and fettered by craving, gets established

P a g e | 39

in the middle elements (of subtle matter), it isthen that rebirth, becoming, in the future, takesplace. Ananda, if there were no action which ripens intothe element of existence in the immaterial sphereof Brahma existence, would the world of immaterialBrahma gods, ever manifest.”“Indeed not, Most Venerable Sir.”“Thus it is, Ananda, that action is the field,consciousness the seed, and craving the moisture.When the consciousness of beings, who are bounded byignorance and fettered by craving, gets establishedin the higher elements (of pure mind), it is thenthat rebirth, becoming, in the future, takes place.In this way, Ananda, there is becoming.” (Sutta Sangaho: Selected Discourses of the Buddha,Part Two, Page- 284-286, Tr. By Ven. AcharyaBuddharakkhita)

Dutiya Bhava Suttam (Becoming- 2)

“Now the Venerable Ananda went where the Blessedone was. Having approached and after bowing downbefore the Lord, he sat down on one side. Sittingon one side, the Venerable Ananda then said this tothe Blessed One: “Most Venerable Sir, ‘becoming!’ ‘becoming!’ so itis said. Pray, Most Venerable Sir, in what way isthere ‘Becoming’?”

P a g e | 40

“Ananda, if there were no action which ripens intothe element of existence in the sphere of desire,would the world of desire ever manifest?”“Indeed not, Most Venerable Sir.”“Thus it is, Ananda, that action is the field,consciousness the seed, and craving the moisture.When the will and aspiration of beings, who are boundedby ignorance and fettered by craving, getsestablished in the lower element (of desire), it isthen that rebirth, becoming, in the future, takesplace. Ananda, if there were no action which ripens intothe element of existence in the sphere of subtlematter of Brahma gods, would the Brahma world ofsubtle matter ever manifest?”“Indeed not, Most Venerable Sir.”“Thus it is, Ananda, that action is the field,consciousness the seed, and craving the moisture.When the will and aspiration of beings, who are boundedby ignorance and fettered by craving, getsestablished in the middle elements (of subtlematter), it is then that rebirth, becoming, in thefuture, takes place. Ananda, if there were no action which ripens intothe element of existence in the immaterial sphereof Brahma existence, would the world of immaterialBrahma gods, ever manifest.”“Indeed not, Most Venerable Sir.”

P a g e | 41

“Thus it is, Ananda, that action is the field,consciousness the seed, and craving the moisture.When the will and aspiration of beings, who are boundedby ignorance and fettered by craving, getsestablished in the higher elements (of pure mind),it is then that rebirth, becoming, in the future,takes place. In this way, Ananda, there isbecoming.” (Sutta Sangaho: Selected Discourses of the Buddha,Part Two, Page-288-290, Tr. By Ven. AcharyaBuddharakkhita) After reading above ‘Suttas,’ I am giving thediscussion between Most Venerable Arahata BhikkhuNagasena Thera and the King Milinda about thesubject of Rebirth and the reason behind it. Readthus:

6.“The king said: ‘Nagasena, is there any one whoafter death is not reindividualised?’ ‘Some are so, and some not.’‘Who are they?’‘A sinful being is reindividualised, a sinless isnot.’ ‘Will you be reindividualised?’ ‘If when I die, I die with craving for existence in my heart, yes;but if not, no.’‘Very good, Nagasen!’”

P a g e | 42

(The Question of King Milind, Tr. By T. W. RhysDavids, Page- 50)

7.“The King said: ‘Will you, Nagasena, be reborn?’‘Nay, great king, what is the use of asking thatquestion again? Have I not already told you thatif, when I die, I die with craving in my heart, Ishall; but if not, not?’ ‘Give me an illustration.’ ‘Suppose, O king, a man were to render service tothe king; and the king, pleased with him, were tobestow an office upon him. And then that he, whileliving through that appointment, in the fullpossession and enjoyment of all the pleasures ofsense, should publicly declare that the king hadrepaid him naught. Now would that man, O king, beacting rightly?’ ‘Most certainly not.’ ‘Just so, great king, what is the use of askingthat question again? Have I not already told youthat if, when I die, I die with craving in myheart, I shall; and if not, not?’ ‘You are ready, Nagasena, in reply.’” (The Question of King Milind, Tr. By T. W. RhysDavids, Page-76)

Above information is providing the realunderstanding in the subject of Rebirth inBuddhism. The cause of Rebirth is ‘the craving for

P a g e | 43

existence’ and if a living being dies with it in itsheart, it would be reborn again certainly. But notthe same as it was and also not different as itwas, the stream of consciousness would be continuedwith the ‘changed’ elements of existence, it iscalled in Buddhism ‘the Nama-Rupa’ (Namely, Thebodily form, feeling, perception, activities orvolitional formation and consciousness). This iswell illustrated as below in the discussion of theKing Milinda with the most Venerable ArahataBhikkhu Nagasena Thera. Such as:

“The King said: ‘He who is born, Nagasena, does heremain the same or become another?’ ‘Neither the same nor another.’ ‘Give me an illustration.’‘Now what do you think, O king? You were once ababy, a tender thing, and small in size, lying flaton your back. Was that the same as you who are nowgrown up?’‘No. That child was one, I am another.’ ‘If you are not that child, it will follow that youhave had neither mother nor father, no! norteacher. You cannot have been taught eitherlearning, or behavior, or wisdom. What, great king!Is the mother of the embryo in the first stagedifferent from the mother of the embryo in thesecond stage, or the third, or the fourth? Is themother of the baby a different person from the

P a g e | 44

mother of the grown-up man? Is the person who goesto school one, and the same when he has finishedhis schooling another? Is it one who commits acrime, another who is punished by having his handsor feet cut off?’ ‘Certainly not. But what would you, Sir, say tothat?’ The Elder replied: ‘I should say that I am the sameperson, now I am grown-up, as I was when I was atender tiny baby, flat on my back. For all thesestates are included in one by means of this body.’ ‘Give me an illustration.’‘Suppose, a man, O king, were to light a lamp,would it burn the night through?’ ‘Yes, it might do so.’ ‘Now, is the same flame that burns in the firstwatch of the night, Sir, and in the second?’ ‘No.’ ‘Or the same that burns in the second watch and inthe third?’ ‘No.’‘Then is there one lamp in the first watch, andanother in the second, and another in the third?’ ‘No. the light comes from the same lamp all thenight through.’ ‘Just so, O king, is the continuity of a person orthing maintained. One comes into being, anotherpasses away; and the rebirth is, as it were,simultaneous. Thus neither as the same nor as

P a g e | 45

another does a man go on to the last phase of hisself-consciousness.’ ‘Give me a further illustration.’‘It is like milk, which once taken from the cow,turns, after a lapse of time, first to curds, andthen from curds to butter, and then from butter toghee. Now would it be right to say that the milkwas the same thing as the curds, or the butter, orthe ghee?’‘Certainly not; but they are produced out of it.’‘Just so, O king, is the continuity of a person orthing maintain. One comes into being, anotherpasses away; and the rebirth is, as it were,simultaneous. Thus neither as the same nor asanother does a man go on to the last phase of hisself-consciousness.’‘Well put, Nagasena!’ (The Question of King Milind, Tr. By T. W. RhysDavids, Page-64-65)

I am giving here an example of Rebirth about howdoes it take place. In this example we can identifythe cause (the craving for existence) of Rebirth and theprocess of changing elements very well. In Buddhismthe elements (five aggregates) are considerable not the bodily formof a sentient being. Attachment to these five aggregatesand the karma is responsible for rebirth; and thisprocess is going on because of the universal natureof cause and effect and impermanency. Following

P a g e | 46

story is taken from the “Dhammapada Atthakatha”about Venerable Bhikkhu Tissa Thera in Mala Vagga.Read as below:

One’s Evil Ruins One’s Own Self 18 (3) The Story of Venerable Tissa (Verse 240)

“While residing at the Jetavana Monastery, theBuddha spoke this verse, with reference toVenerable Tissa. The story goes that a certain youth of respectablefamily, who lived at Shravasthi, retired from theworld, became a monk, and made his full profession,becoming known as Venerable Tissa. Subsequently,while he was in residence at a monastery in thecountry, he received a coarse cloth eight cubits inlength. Having completed residence, he celebratedthe Terminal Festival and taking his cloth withhim, went home and placed it in the hands of hissister. Though his sister, “This rode-cloth is notsuited to my brother.” So with a sharp knife shecut it into strips, pounded them in a mortar,whipped and beat and cleaned the shoddy, and,spinning fine yarn, had it woven into a robe-cloth.The Venerable procure thread and needles, andassembling some young monks and novices who wereskilled makers of robes, went to his sister andsaid, “Give me that cloth; I will have a robe madeout of it.”

P a g e | 47

She took down the robe-cloth nine cubits in lengthand placed it in the hands of her youngest brother.He took it, spread it out, and said, “My robe-clothwas a coarse one, eight cubits long, but this is afine one, nine cubits long, this is not mine; it isyours. I don’t want it. Give me the same one I gaveyou.” “Venerable, this cloth is yours; take it.” Herefused to do so. Then his sister told himeverything she had done and gave him the clothagain, saying, “Venerable, this one is yours; takeit.” Finally, he took it, went to monastery and setthe robe-makers to work. His sister prepared rice-gruel, boiled rice and other provisions for therobe-makers, and on the day when the cloth wasfinished, gave them an extra allowance. Tissalooked at the robe and took a liking to it. Saidhe, “Tomorrow I will wear this robe as an upper garment.” Sohe folded it and laid it on the bamboo rack. During the night, unable to digest the food he hadeaten, he died, and was reborn as a louse in that very robe.When the monks had performed the funeral rites overhis body, they said, “Since there was no one toattend him in his sickness, this robe belongs tothe congregation of monks; let us divide it amongus.” Thereupon that louse screamed, “These monks areplundering my property!” and thus screaming, he ranthis way and that. The Buddha, even as he sat inthe Perfumed Chamber, heard that sound bySupernatural Audition, and said to Venerable

P a g e | 48

Ananda, “Ananda, tell them to lay aside Tissa’srobe for seven days.” The Venerable caused this tobe done. At the end of seven days that louse died and wasreborn in the Abode of the Tusita gods. On the eighth daythe Buddha issued the following order, “Let themonks now divide Tissa’s robe and take theirseveral portions.” The monk did so, and amongstthemselves, discussed as to why the Buddha hadcaused Tissa’s robes to be put aside for sevendays. When the Buddha was told of their discussion,he said, “Monks, Tissa was reborn as a louse in his own robe.When you set about to divide the robe among you, he screamed,‘They are plundering my property.’ Had you take his robe; hewould have cherished a grudge against you, and because of thissin would have been reborn in Hell. That is the reason why Idirected that the robe should be laid aside. But now he has beenreborn in the Abode of Tusita gods, and for this reason, I havepermitted you to take the robe and divide it among you.” TheBuddha continued, “Craving is, indeed a grievous matteramong living being here in the world. Even as rust which springsfrom iron eats away the iron and corrodes it and renders ituseless, so also this thing which is called craving, when it arisesamong living beings here in the world, causes these same livingbeings to be reborn in Hell and plunges them to ruin” (TheTreasury of Truth (Illustrated Dhammapada) Ch. 18Mala Vagga Page-515 By Ven. Weragoda Sarada Maha Thera) The story of Venerable Tissa is well described theanswer of the question ‘Rebirth of Whom’. Where the

P a g e | 49

cause of Rebirth there is Rebirth after death,according to his last thought of attachment to thesense objects and five aggregates but if there No causeof Rebirth there is No Rebirth. In India, the problem hasarisen in the subject of “Rebirth of Whom” isoriginated because of Hinduism. Hinduism accepts the existence of ‘soul’ what isseparate from the body and it transmigrates body tobody after death. We can see this in the “BhagwatGita” as below:

“Arjun, anyone, who understands, the eternal natureand everlasting character of the soul gets to knowthat neither can he kill nor get killed. (21)” “Just like, a man has to give up the old clotheswhen he undertakes to wear the new ones, in thesame way the soul relinquishes the old body and come into thenew one.(22)” (Bhagwat Gita, Tr. By Satish Kakri,Ch. 2, Verses 21-22, Page-9-10)

But in Buddhism, the rebirth is not concerned tothe transmigration of soul from body to body afterdeath, but it is concerned to the Universal law ofCause and Effect as cited above in the story of theVenerable Tissa. The confusion what is arisen inthe subject of ‘rebirth of whom’ is well explainedby the Babasaheb himself in his Noble Book asbelow:

P a g e | 50

Transmigration 1.The Blessed Lord preached that there was rebirth.

But the Blessed Lord also preached that there wasno transmigration.

2.There were not wanting people who criticized theLord for preaching what they regarded as two suchcontradictory doctrines.

3.How can there be rebirth unless there istransmigration? Asked the critics.

4.There is here a case of rebirth withouttransmigration, they said. Can this be?

5. There is no contradiction. There can be rebirthalthough there is no transmigration.

6.This has been well explained by Nagasena in hisreplies to the questions of King Milinda.

7.Milinda, King of Bacteria, asked Nagasena—“Did the Buddha believe in Rebirth(Transmigration)?”

8.His reply was “Yes.”9.“Is this not the contradiction?”10. Nagasena replied, “No.”11. “Can there be rebirth without a soul?” 12. Nagasena said, “Of course, yes, there can be.”13. “Explain how it can be.” 14. The king said: “Where there is no

transmigration, Nagasena, can there be rebirth?”

P a g e | 51

15. “Yes, there can.” 16. “But how can that be? Give me an illustration.”17. “Suppose a man, O king, were o light a lamp

from another lamp, can it be said that the onetransmigrates from, or to, the other?”

18. “Certainly not.” 19. “Just so, great king, is rebirth without

transmigration.”20. “Give me a further illustration.” 21. “Do you recollect, great king, having learnt,

when you were a boy, some verse or other fromyour teacher?”

22. “Yes, I recollect that.” 23. “Well then, did that verse transmigrate from

your teacher?”24. “Certainly not.”25. “Just so, great king, is rebirth without

transmigration.” 26. “Very good, Nagasena!”27. The king said: “Is there such a thing,

Nagasena, as the soul?” 28. “In the highest sense, O king, there no such

thing.”29. “Very good, Nagasena!” (The Buddha and his

Dhamma- Book-IV Part-II Section-IV).

Critics of the Theory of Soul and Rebirth

P a g e | 52

1.The Blessed lord preached that there was no Soul.The Blessed Lord also affirmed that there wasrebirth.

2. There were not wanting people who criticized theLord for preaching what they regarded as two suchcontradictory doctrines.

3. How can there be rebirth if there is no Soul, theyasked.

4. There no contradiction. There can be rebirth eventhough there is no Soul.

5. There is a mango stone. The stone gives rise to amango tree. The mango tree produces mangoes.

6.Here is rebirth of a mango.7. But there is no Soul.8.So there can be rebirth although there is no Soul.

(The Buddha and his Dhamma- Book-VI Part-IIIChapter 5)

Above passage can give us the right understanding inthe subject of rebirth. In Buddhism, rebirth is not amatter of transmigration of soul but the process ofgrouping, dissolution and regrouping of elements (fiveaggregates) through the Universal law of Cause andEffect (Paticca-samutpada). Here arises a questionthat, “what is the use of believing in rebirth afterdeath to a common man?” The answer is depending on theunderstanding of the life of a man. If he seems, ‘theBirth is the cause of his Decay, Death, Sorrow,Lamentation, Pain (Illness), Grief and Despair, inshort, the whole mass of suffering,’ he should try to

P a g e | 53

eradicate the ‘cause’ of Re-birth so that he would behappy in this world and hereafter. But if he does notseem so; he has no need to observe the right path ofconduct what is taught by the Buddha to remove theSuffering from the life. The Buddha has taught hisDhamma for getting happiness in this present life,hereafter and to attain Nibbana (Antima Jati),liberation from the Sea of Birth and Death. He who hasfear of wrong doing in his mind, certainly he would behappy in his future but who has no any fear of wrongdoing, he will be certainly unhappy in his future life.The life stream is going on through the Universal law of Cause and Effectnot through the ‘imagination’ of man. Believing in rebirth or notis not the matter, the important thing is to observethe Noble-Eight-Fold-Path to remove Suffering from thelife. If the cause of rebirth is remaining in the mind,nothing can be save a sentient being to be reborn againon the basis of his Karma (action).

Here I am giving the concluding statement of thischapter where the Buddha has described theconditions of rebirth and Nibbana in brief. The

Buddha says thus in Dhammapada:

Gabbham eke uppajjantiNirayam papakammino;Saggam sugatino yanti parinibbanti anasava.

P a g e | 54

“Some are born in a womb; evil doers (are born)in woeful states; the well-conducted go toblissful states; the Undefiled One pass away intoNibbana.” (Papa Vagga, Verse-126) ********************

Ven. Bhante Mahanagaratna