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
|