Soul and Rebirth

Many people question if there is a contradiction when Buddhism says there is no permanent or unchanging soul, but there is a continuous cycle of birth, life, death and rebirth until nibbana. The natural question that follows would be if there is rebirth what is being born again. Since the body perishes what persists from one life to the next.

In some philosophies and faiths, the answer to this is the soul that persists across lives as long the cycle of birth and death continues. Since the soul is imperceptible, this is an acceptable answer. However, in a faith like Buddhism that encourages seekers not to accept anything without questioning, it is difficult to ask seekers to accept or reject the concept of soul without providing any evidence.

Before we examine the concept of soul and rebirth, it is important to start from the core tenets of Buddhism.

Some people believe that Buddha found it difficult to explain the concept of rebirth while rejecting the concept of an unchanging essence like atman or soul, and hence developed the concept of Anatta or non-self. Buddha explained all concepts in the language of the common man and ensured that lay people understood the core concepts of Buddhism. Even complicated topics like Sunyata and Anatta and their need have been explained very clearly by the Buddha. So, it is difficult to accept that Buddha would have put forward a concept without having thought through about how to explain the concept to lay people.

For the purpose of explaining the contradiction between soul and rebirth, let us take the Four Noble Truths as the main core of Buddha's teachings. The four noble truths talk about suffering, the cause for suffering and path to be followed to overcome suffering. This path to overcome suffering is the Eight Fold Path which will lead to liberation or nibbana. This liberation should be taken as liberation from the sorrows of daily life. This is the core of Buddhism - to be free from sorrow of this day to day world or samsara.

It is important for an individual to first understand that every action has consequences in the real world. One does not have to accept the presence or absence of soul to practise right thought, right speech, and right conduct. Since a seeker would at some point be faced with the question of soul, would it be necessary to disturb the mind with the question of the presence of a soul or how the soul is connected to an individual or a higher truth or a higher power for us to follow the path of righteousness?

Would a seeker want to know if a soul exists or not or if there is rebirth or not once the seeker has overcome attachment and has followed the noble eight fold path? That is a question only a seeker can answer. If a seeker believes that the path to nibbana is by overcoming dukka, then it should not be necessary for them to accept or reject the concept of soul. If the seeker believes that the path to nibbana is different where he would need this question to be answered first, then it may not be possible to find a satisfactory answer to something that cannot be perceived very easily.

There are questions that cannot be answered with absolute certainty and these are termed as "acinteyya" that which are imponderable. These are questions that cannot be explained only on the basis of logic or reason to someone who has not attained that level of knowledge by themselves. It would be unwise to be trapped in trying to find an answer to such questions which have nothing to do with conducting oneself as per dhamma.

The cosmos is eternal.
The cosmos is not eternal.
The cosmos is infinite.
The cosmos is not infinite.
The soul and the body are the same.
The soul and the body are two separate entities.
The Tathagata (a perfectly enlightened being) exists after death.
The Tathagata does not exist after death.
The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death.
The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death.

The Buddha himself in the Four Noble Truths or the Noble Eightfold Path does not speak about rebirth and a cycle of birth, death and rebirth. The four noble truths are about "how things really are when they are seen correctly".

There is no contradiction when one goes to the core of the four noble truths. The questions of whether there is rebirth; if there is rebirth, what is reborn; if there is rebirth, then does the soul persist through births; is there a soul; do not need an answer to follow the path of righteousness?

The answers to the question of soul and rebirth in later Buddhist texts can be taken as answers provided by monks and scholars to reconcile doubts in the minds of lay persons. But these are ultimately questions a seeker may ask only once he or she attains enlightenment, and cannot be explained by others.

Buddha's Views on Caste or Varna

The Buddha has always said that morality and the Dhamma are more important than varna and lineage. The Buddha says anyone from any varna can become a monk and reach the state of Nirvana or Nibbana. Buddha himself said that even if he has said something, it should not be accepted as the truth blindly without verifying it. So, why are quotes attributed to the Buddha in later writings thought of his actual sayings even though it is directly contradictory to his own actions.

Among the ten chief disciples of the Buddha, one of them was Upali, a barber by profession and hence considered as a lower caste. Despite his lineage and his caste, the Buddha considered Upali to be foremost of his disciples when it came to Vinaya which refers to the rules and ethical precepts to be followed by monks and nuns. In every Buddhist school, it is widely acknowledged that Upali is the most knowledgeable of all monks in the rules of the monastic code, vinaya and patimokkha or pratimoksha. In the First Buddhist Council, it is recorded that it was Upali who recited the entire vinaya for monks and nuns. It was also Upali and his disciples who were entrusted with the responsibility of the safekeeping of the Vinaya through recitation and memorisation.

Sunita is another well disciple of the Buddha who was a sweeper/scavenger in the city of Sravasti. The caste that he belonged was considered outcaste and even his shadow was considered impure and he had to ensure that even his shadow would not fall on the upper caste people if they were walking on the streets. He was filled with sadness on account of how he was treated because of his work and his birth.

This incident is from the time when the Buddha was staying in Sravasti at the Jetavana monastery. One morning, when Sunita was sweeping a street, he saw the Buddha and his disciples walking on the same street and towards him. Since even his shadow was considered to be impure, he tried his best to move out of the way of the Buddha and not be seen. However, the Buddha walked straight towards him and asked him if he wanted to join the sangha and be his disciple.

The kindness with which the Buddha spoke to him overwhelmed Sunita who joined the sangha and finally became an arahant.

Sopaka was a boy who was born to a poor woman in a cemetery. He was considered a chandala which is an untouchable caste. Whether he was abandoned there from birth or later by his family, there are different versions as to how he ended up living in the graveyard. However, it was in the graveyard that the Buddha found him as a terrified child and brought him to the monastery to take care of him.

It is widely believed that Sopaka became an arahant at the tender age of seven.

All these incidents reflect that the Buddha did not give any importance to the caste or lineage of his monks. So, it is difficult to understand how and when the belief that the Buddha can only be from the Brahmin or the Kshatriya caste took root and entered the texts. It is not consistent with the actions or words of the Buddha.

Contradictions of Birth and Varna

There are many contradictions in how a seeker's varna or caste is relevant or otherwise in ancient texts. Such contradictions probably reflect the times in which those texts were written. One such contradiction is the difference between how Satyakama Jabala was treated and how Shambuka was treated.

The story of Satyakama Jabala, a Vedic sage, is narrated in the Chandogya Upanishad and is used to highlight that a person's character and commitment to truth is more important than lineage or birth or varna or caste.

Satyakama was the son of a maid by name, Jabala. He was eager for knowledge and keen to learn from the renowned sage, Haridrumata Gautama. He knew that if he was to be accepted as a disciple by the learned sage, he would need to inform the sage about his gotra or family lineage. So, he asked his mother about his father and his lineage. His mother who had served as a maid to many people was not aware of who the child's father was. She also knew that her son was eager to learn but did not want to lie to him. So, she told him the truth that she did not know who his father was, but all they had was each other. So she told him to tell the truth to the sage and tell the sage that his mother was Jabala and his name was Satyakama.

Satyakama went to the ashrama of the sage Gautama and sought his permission to be accepted as his disciple. The sage asked him his gotra or lineage. The innocent Satyakama told him the truth without hesitation. On hearing it, sage Gautama smiled and said that anyone who speaks with such honesty and does not deviate from the truth should be initiated and accepted him as his disciple.

Satyakama grew up to be a highly respected sage. The Jabala Upanishad which deals with the question of renunciation is named after him. Two things stand out in this deeply moving and spiritual tale. The first thing is that caste or varna did not stop sage Gautama from accepting Satyakama as his disciple and imparting knowledge to him. Second, from all accounts the Jabalopanishad was named after Satyakama. However, it was named specifically after only his mother, Jabala and was not named after Satyakama despite her vocation. This is a very noteworthy fact. The commitment of the mother and son to honesty and truth has been celebrated in the Upanishads itself.

This should be contrasted with the story of Shambuka from the Uttara Kanda in the Ramayana. The story goes that a five year child of an aged brahmin priest died an untimely death. The brahmin blamed Lord Rama for not being able to identify misdeeds in his kingdom which resulted in the death of his son. Rama was deeply distressed and found out that a shudra ascetic by name, Shambuka was performing severe penances and learning the vedas which was prohibited for shudras. This sin resulted in the death of the brahmin child and the only way to bring the child back to life was by punishing the shudra ascetic to death. Lord Rama beheads Shambuka and restores social order and brings the child back to life.

Many scholars say that this particular story was added to the Ramayana much later and should not be considered as part of the original scriptures. The Upanishads do not prohibit a seeker whose lineage is not known from learning about the ultimate truth. So, one has to wonder how this tragic story of Shambuka was accepted at a later date. Such contradictions can only mean that caste divisions that always existed in society became more pronounced later. Why they became so is not relevant here to understand this contradiction. The contradiction exists because divisions became entrenched.

How should believers and seekers resolve such contradictions? If the intention is to convince non-believers or sceptics, then it is either impossible or very difficult. If one wants to resolve the contradiction for oneself, then a seeker should delve more into the sources and look at how the original scriptures dealt with such issues. Indra appearing as a chandala to offer amrit to sage Uddalaka or the divine appearing as a chandala before Adi Sankara are but two examples of how caste has been treated by the learned in ancient Indian texts.