A few weeks ago, I discussed the concept of multiple truths as opposed to a single reality, a perspective we refer to as adopting subjective ontology as opposed to the conventional objectivist viewpoint. The pervasive influence of belief systems, particularly rooted in religion, has emerged as a significant impediment to the coexistence of human beings. This is evident in historical instances such as civil conflicts and imperialistic wars, and continues to manifest in contemporary events, exemplified by recent conflicts like the ongoing war in Ukraine, and conflicts in Gaza and Jerusalem.

Turning our attention to the populace in this part of the world, it’s noteworthy that both pre-Buddhist Indian traditions and Buddhism converge on the shared belief in the cyclical nature of existence. Central to their teachings is the notion that life doesn’t culminate with physical death; rather, individuals are believed to undergo rebirth, transitioning into new forms.

In Pre-Buddhist Indian traditions (PBIT), the soul or atman is often seen as an eternal, unchanging essence that undergoes various births until it achieves liberation (moksha) and reunites with the ultimate reality (Brahman), but Buddha preached anatta (no soul), emphasis on the impermanence (anicca) of all things. Buddhism often describes the continuity of consciousness (Vinnana), conditioned by karma and mental factors, without positing a permanent soul. Therefore, the theory of rebirth (punabbhava) neither related to external authority (God) nor to internal ātma (soul).

Karma Bija or Vinnana Bija (deed seed or consciousness seed)

There is a thing disagreement on the explaining feature of the causes and the process of rebirth in the context of karma/kamma (intentions/deeds/results of an intention), consciousness (vinnana), ignorance (avijja) and craving/longing/desire (tanha) in pre-Buddhist Indian traditions and in Buddhism. This difference can be articulated as follows;

Pre-Indian traditional version: Rebirth occurs with the karma seeds (karma bija) germinating in the field of ignorance (avijja) with the moisture of desire/craving (tanha).

Buddhist-Tripitaka version: Rebirth occurs with the consciousness seeds (vinnana bija) in the field of karma with the moisture of craving (tanha).

In these two premises, both believers agree the tanha supplies the essential moisture for the seeds to germinate. Among the three crucial elements of becoming or rebirth, Buddhism identifies tanha as the more potentially eliminable component. Consequently, the emphasis lies in eliminating tanha to halt the cycle of rebirth. However, proponents of Pre-Buddhist Indian Thought (PBITs) assign greater significance to karma, asserting that fate is unalterable due to the unchangeable repercussions of one’s karma.

In Bhava sutta, Ven. Ānanda asks, “Lord, this word, to what extent is there becoming?”, the Buddha answered “The consciousness of living beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving is established in/tuned to a refined property.

” Thus, kamma is the field, consciousness the seed, and craving the moisture” (Bhava Sutta: AN 3:77)

In various belief systems/religions, smaller groups or cults interpret their guru’s teachings differently. In Sri Lanka, certain “Buddhist” groups replace Vinnana bija, (the Bhava Sutta interpretation), with Karma bija, likely influenced by Pre-Buddhist Indian traditions, which places greater emphasis on Karma (Deeds/intentions) over Vinnana (Consciousness).

Nevertheless, Buddha maintained a skeptical stance on the concept of life after death. The ambiguity lies in whether samsara unfolds within the cycle of a single lifetime or spans across multiple life cycles. Scholars in Buddhism, including David J. Kalupahana and K. N. Jayatilleke, have extensively examined this matter. However, the conclusions drawn are inconclusive, except for the acknowledgment that rebirth establishes connections with other Buddhist concepts like paticca-samuppada.

The theory of bhavaṅga (ground of becoming or condition for existence) viewed rebirth as a mental process that influences the succeeding mental process, and it doesn’t physically travel between lives. Therefore, the interpretations are significantly influenced by the concept of Bhava (becoming), which can refer to an entire lifetime or an instantaneous ‘becomings’ (Bhavas) within the same lifespan.

The Tripitaka does not provide a definitive answer, as illustrated in the following famous examples.

Example 1: The Khema Sutra in the Samyukta Nikaya provides an example, where King Pasenadi Kosol inquired about which being comes back to life after death. Buddha responded as follows;

It’s inappropriate to say it will rise after death (No).

It’s inappropriate to say there is no resurrection (not-No).

It’s inappropriate to speculate on the existence of an afterlife (neither No nor not-No).

It’s inappropriate to assert the absence of an afterlife (Both No and not-No).

Example 2: The Kālāma Sutta also not definite on the concept of rebirth;

If another world exists, and the consequences of good and bad deeds are real, then it’s possible that after death, my rebirth will be in a good place, like a heavenly world.

Even if there is no other world, and there are no consequences of good and bad deeds, I can still maintain happiness in this current life without enmity or ill will, free from troubles.

Therefore, it was scholars after Buddha, for example,

Theravāda scholar Buddhaghosa, develop various theories to understand bhava such as ‘rebirth-linking’ (patisandhi). In this theory, as one dies, the senses gradually fade away, leaving only consciousness. The last moment of consciousness at death conditions the first moment of consciousness in the next life, happening at conception. In the traditional Theravāda perspective, there is no actual transmigration.

No seed

Contrary to these theories, the majority of the world’s population does not subscribe to the notion of a seed theory (or life after death) that germinates to create a being, whether human or otherwise. World religious beliefs can be depicted through the proportions illustrated in Figure 1. At least 80% of the world population does not believe in rebirth unless reappearing in another realm of existence.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the debate over the nature of existence and rebirth involves diverse perspectives, revealing a complex interplay of belief systems. The concept of multiple truths, seen through subjective ontology, highlights the challenge of coexistence due to the influential role of religious beliefs. Historical conflicts and contemporary events, such as those in Ukraine, Gaza, and Jerusalem, underscore the impact of these differing perspectives.

Examining the beliefs of both pre-Buddhist Indian thought and Buddhism, there is a shared conviction in the cyclical nature of existence, whether it occurs between different lives or within the confines of the same life span.

However, they diverge in their interpretations of key elements, particularly the role of karma and consciousness, with Buddhism rejecting the idea of an eternal soul.

The disagreement extends to the interpreting features of rebirth in PBIT and Buddhism, focusing on karma bija and vinnana bija. While both agree on the crucial role of craving (tanha) in the process, they differ in whether karma or consciousness is the primary determinant of rebirth.

Buddha’s skeptical stance on life after death adds another layer of complexity. The concept of bhavaṅga, viewing rebirth as a mental process without physical transmigration, introduces further nuances to the debate.

The Tripitaka’s lack of a definitive answer is exemplified in famous examples like the Khema Sutra and the Kālāma Sutta, where Buddha’s responses leave room for multiple interpretations. Additionally, post-Buddha scholars like Buddhaghosa introduced theories like “rebirth-linking” to understand the concept of bhava.

Contrary to these intricate theories, a significant portion of the global population does not subscribe to the idea of a seed theory or life after death. This skepticism is reflected in Figure 1, where approximately 80% of the world’s population does not believe in rebirth unless reappearing in another realm of existence. The debate thus remains multifaceted, reflecting the diversity and complexity of human perspectives on existence and rebirth.

(The writer, a senior Chartered Accountant and professional banker, is Professor at SLIIT University, Malabe. He is also the author of the “Doing Social Research and Publishing Results”, a Springer publication (Singapore), and “Samaja Gaveshakaya (in Sinhala). The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the institution he works for. He can be contacted at saliya.a@sliit.lk and www.researcher.com)