Just Like That: Around a bonfire, the eternal debate over rebirth
The counter view is that all this talk of rebirth is simply because human beings are unwilling to accept the finality of death.
On a crisp cold evening in Mussoorie recently, as we sat around a roaring bonfire, the conversation turned to the question of rebirth. There were those who were convinced that rebirth is an unquestioned reality. There were others who rejected the possibility outright. And, as always, there were the fence sitters, who either had no views, or were willing to go with both extremes.
The proponents of rebirth argue the theory of karma, which is a widespread belief, not only relevant in Hinduism but in some other faiths as well. Depending on your deeds in your past life, you reap the rewards in the present one; and as you act in this one, will determine how you will fare in the next one. They said that this human life, governed by certain definitions of good and bad, cannot be just a random happenstance. Someone is keeping an account, and will hand out the dividends, if not in your current incarnation, then in the next.
They also cited some cases where living people actually remembered accurate factual details of their past lives: who they were, where they were born, what they did, and in what circumstances they died. Their accounts, the believers said, were tested, by taking them to places and people who they vividly recalled, and they were proven right. None could cite more than one or two examples, and were unsure or hazy about names, but the stories as told sounded quite dramatic.
In the Hindu faith, the Bhagwad Gita says that death is but a transient experience, where the physical body perishes, but the soul survives, and moves on. The soul is eternal, imperishable, and indestructible. Like a person changing one set of clothes for another, rebirth is just another version of the same soul in a new form. But there is another interpretation of this well-known shloka from the Gita. In the Advaita school of Hindu philosophy, which is derived from the Upanishads, nothing exists except consciousness. The Upanishads call it Brahman. This consciousness pervades the cosmos. It is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and nirguna or attribute-less. It was never born, never dies, never was not, and never will not be. In us, this Brahman exists as our Atman. It is this Atman that does not die. After death it is merely released from the captivity of its physical body, and merges with the Brahman. Where then does the question of physical rebirth arise?
Of course, at the saguna-leela level of divinity, Hindus believe in reincarnation. Ram and Krishna were avatars of Vishnu. And, there are stories galore of similar avatars in our Puranas and mythology. But Shiva, supposed to be the very symbol of Brahman, is ajanman, unborn. He, like Brahman, always was, and will always be, beyond birth and rebirth.
Buddhism too is supposed to believe in karma and rebirth. But in my view, this is a human distortion of what the Buddha actually taught. Buddhism differs from Hindu philosophy by stating that there is nothing like an enduring Brahman or Atman. In this non-self (anatta), what exists is only the rupa (body) and the nama (mind). All is inherently nairatmaya (unsubstantial), and all experience is kshana bhanga vada (a series of impressions, conceived and extinguished in the same instance). Nirvana, is the realisation of the emptiness of the notion of self, a process of blowing out and extinguishing oneself from the shackles of the web of life: samsara. This Nirvana is to be achieved in this life, because after we die, we merge into the nothingness that we always were.
Christians believe in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ after his crucifixion on Good Friday. Two days later, occurred the Resurrection, celebrated as Easter. This seems to give validity to the theory of rebirth, and Christians widely believe that it is the truth. But whether it was applicable only to Christ, as God, or to ordinary human beings is a matter of debate among Christian theologians.
The counter view is that all this talk of rebirth is simply because human beings are unwilling to accept the finality of death. The human mind refuses to accept that this entire life, ‘told by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing’ — as Shakespeare so tellingly puts it — will just end one day, leaving nothing behind or after. Hence the strong desire to believe that something more must follow the end.
Perhaps then, the Charvaka Lokayatika school of Hindu philosophy has the most pragmatic and truthful answer. It argues that our only valid source of inference is pratyaksha, direct perception, and what cannot be perceived does not exist. The fact is that no one has seen a dead person again, at least in the same physical form. Brihaspati, who founded the Charvaka school around the 7th century BCE, was a proponent of materialism. He believed that, on the basis of the pratyaksha test, since we don’t know why we are born, and have no evidence of what happens to us after we die, the only thing that does exist is the present moment, which must be enjoyed to the full. To quote him:
While life is yours, live joyously
None can escape death’s searching eye;
When once this frame of ours they burn
How shall it e’er again return?
Pavan K Varma is author, diplomat, and former Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha). Just Like That is a weekly column where Varma shares nuggets from the world of history, culture, literature, and personal reminiscences. The views expressed are personal.
