Note: Throughout this essay, & in Ven. Nigel's writings generally,
words such as Existence, Karma, Desire, and Ignorance are
more often than not capitalised. The reason for this is that these
words indicate signal concepts in Buddhist psychology, & are not simply
employed as adjectives per se. Additionally, all spellings are in
UK English.
Perhaps a good way to approach this question is to first ask: "what
is it that dies?"
What all phenomena share in common is that they appear as a result
of the conditions that give rise to them, & that applies to ALL phenomena,
whether it be human beings, cats, motor-cars, clouds, fish, armchairs,
bottles of wine, pairs of jeans, loaves of bread, lipstick, wristwatches,
ANYTHING. What we call "our world" can also be described as a "field
of interrelated phenomena", & all these phenomena share a CONDITIONAL
RELATIONSHIP.
I stress the words "conditional relationship" because we are accustomed
to perceiving people & objects as separate entities; we also perceive
things appearing & disappearing through "causes". By virtue of the
way in which phenomena appear to us, we believe that they all occupy
their own space, are separate from each other, & enjoy an absolute
independence. Buddhism challenges this view.
Moreover, various schools of Buddhism have rather differing views
on all the more abstract considerations of Buddha's teaching, so when
we take up a certain line of reasoning & go searching in books for
further explanations, we often find contradictions or alternative
expositions arising. This is due to the varying schools of thought
that given authors are writing from. There are no exact & perfect
"answers" to these questions; there is only enquiry, reflection, contemplation
& comprehension. It's up to us to make what we can of these issues.
In a non-dogmatic teaching like Buddhism, that's the accepted position.
"What is it that dies?" - In the case of human beings, Buddhism
describes them as being made up of five elemental "groups" or "Skandhas".
The Skandhas are:
1. Bodily Form
2. Sensations
3. Perceptions
4. Mental Formations
5. Consciousness
Parents supply the first material for the formation of a human being,
but it is said that no human being actually exists until Consciousness
has entered the womb. In English translations of Buddhist texts, this
process is sometimes expressed as: "Consciousness DESCENDING into
a womb". I don't know what a more precise translation for this rather
puzzling proposition might be, but to suggest that Consciousness is
some kind of entity that is capable of "moving from one womb to another"
is to encourage a view of Consciousness that is at odds with Buddhist
understanding. Having said that, according to Tibetan teachings there
is nevertheless a 'subtle body' of Consciousness that carries over,
but the stress is on the word subtle, & should in no way be confused
with the gross "I" identity ordinarily defined as Consciousness.
When it is suggested by some that Consciousness might be like some
sort of "soul" that's floating about waiting to enter a womb, that's
to perceive Consciousness having some sort of form in its own right,
& although we speak of the five Skandhas in terms that suggest separateness,
there is in fact no way of dividing the Skandhas. If a human form
has existence, if it's alive, then it is so by virtue of all the Skandhas
interacting. To speak of any one Skandha is, in effect, to speak of
them all.
Although Consciousness cannot be evaluated as an entity in its own
right, if human material form lacks it, then there is no life, no
rebirth. To speak of Consciousness "descending" into a womb is less
accurate than to state that Consciousness is a condition of life.
As I stated before, parents supply an "initial material" which is
then nourished in the womb, but it's suggested in the teachings that
there's an initial period of material existence BEFORE the Consciousness
"enters", & only then if the conditions are conducive. This might
explain why it is that some babies are born dead, although upon examination
there appears to be nothing clinically wrong with the body, or why
it is that sometimes two people might be perfectly healthy, yet their
attempts to produce a child consistently come to nothing. For Buddhists,
"death" is the term given to the state that exists when the Skandhas
have dissolved - the groups came together, they subsisted for a number
of years, & then, through conditional factors, entered into dissolution.
After death - what happens next? There are numerous theories relating
to rebirth in circulation, & often these theories become confused
with the Buddhist interpretation. Buddhism doesn't subscribe to the
notion that "I" will "come back" when I die. In this life, "I" am
an Englishman called Nigel Edmonds, & that identity will exist for
as long as the Skandhas remain in interaction. Once the Skandhas dissolve,
that's it - no more "Nigel Edmonds", neither in body, thought, or
in any other way. Confusingly, Buddhism goes on to speak of the "migration
of Consciousness" but again this alludes to the subtle-body Consciousness.
We will be interpreting this phrase inaccurately if we suppose that
Consciousness makes a deliberate journey after "leaving" the body.
"Who" would be there to make the deliberation? The subtle consciousness
is not impelled through any force of will, but through Karma, through
the latent seeds sown in a previous life of action-intentions. Any
sense we have of "deliberation' still relates to an idea we have right
now of who we are & how we might think in this after-death state.
At death, everything dissolves, including the "I - Consciousness".
In the scriptures, it's mentioned that a certain monk called Sita
went about teaching that Consciousness exists in each rebirth rather
like a thread running through a string of beads. When The Buddha heard
about this, he took Sita to task, pointing out that this was definitely
NOT his teaching. According to The Buddha, lifetimes are NOT linked
through consciousness like beads on a string. However, they are not
entirely separate & wholly independent, either. So how DO they relate
& exist? The Buddha teaches that lifetimes relate CONDITIONALLY. This
whole premise of "conditional existence" is somewhat alien to the
Western mind. Westerners are very rooted in lineal ideas of cause
& effect, of beginnings, middles & ends. In classical Christianity,
practitioners are taught that they are "born", that they "live" &
then they "die". Life is seen in linear terms, a straight line from
birth to death. Rebirth is not considered.
For Christians, the only life that continues after the death of
the body is the life of the soul, & this soul continues to retain
the identity of the original "owner". The soul then comes into the
presence of God, "who" makes a judgement as to the realm in which
the soul ought to reside. Three options are offered - Heaven, Hell,
& Purgatory. Unlike the body, which is born & dies, the soul continues
eternally. Buddhism rejects all these notions, including the existence
of God. For Buddhists, life is a cyclical process, there's no delineable
"beginning" or "end".
Consciousness is not the "Buddhist equivalent" of a soul: there's
nothing contained in the Buddhist understanding of Consciousness that
equates in any way with this Christian concept. Consciousness is part
of a group of elements (Skandhas) that make up a human being, & those
elements exist conditionally. Each life that appears is a "rebirth",
& successive lives are likewise conditionally existent. In his book
"Buddhism: An Outline of Its Teachings and Schools" Prof. Hans Schumann
offers a model that he feels might help to make the principle clear,
although in the same book he admits that the example is "halting".
He suggests that on a pool table, one ball is struck with the cue.
That ball then advances down the table & strikes another ball. Has
the first ball "caused" the second ball to move? Has the first ball,
rolling down the table, somehow carried something called a "cause"
with it, which will then transfer to the second ball, thereby giving
the second ball ITS motion down the table? According to Schumann,
this is not the Buddhist interpretation. When the player first lines
up a shot with the cue, there is doubtless an intention that the second
ball SHOULD arrive at a prescribed position after the shot is completed.
That intention, however, fails to take into consideration every possible
condition that will arise once the shot is taken. In other words,
the will of the player is not absolute, it's not possible to eliminate
every condition that might give rise to a secondary range of possibilities
& leave only the immediate intention remaining. In this model, Schumann
is alluding to the way in which motive & action-intentions relate
to the principle of Karma.
The relationship between the pool balls is CONDITIONAL, not CAUSAL.
Yes, the movement of the first ball DOES have some relationship to
the movement of the second, but it is precisely a CONDITIONAL relationship,
within a varying range of possibilities. Certain dominating tendencies
will incline the ball more in one direction than another (motive,
action-intentions) but there's nothing that's contained within the
existence of the first ball that's actually "carried over" to the
second. Once the player has struck the first ball with the cue, to
all intents & purposes, the "shot" is over, there's nothing more that
the player can do to influence the following sequence of events, any
more than the first ball can actually influence the movement of the
second by transferring something of itself to the second ball.
It might be argued that if a "cause" isn't carried over to the second
ball, then perhaps something like "movement" is - When the first ball
strikes the second, the first ball stops in its track, there's no
more movement. It's the SECOND ball that now moves, & although the
movements of the first & second balls are RELATED, the movement of
the first is NOT the movement of the second, there is no transference
of movement. Notice that we can't speak of any transference of subtle-consciousness
in this example, because we are speaking of pool balls, not beings,
which is why Prof. Schumann described the example as "halting".
Let's look at the human example - Nigel Edmonds is a white male,
born in London England. According to the way he lives, the choices
he makes, the attitudes he grows up with, he will have some sort of
impact upon the world in which he lives. Nigel Edmonds' existence
will contribute to the existence of others; his life will be included
in the relative interaction of all the lives of those he comes into
personal contact with, & all those lives that continue outside of
his immediate acquaintance. How, you might ask, can my actions with
those I know also include effects upon those I DON'T know? - Because
those I know others & they know others, & so on.
Let's suppose I have a row with my wife & go to work in a foul mood.
I hail a taxi. I somehow end up in an argument with the taxi-driver.
The taxi-driver is then in a foul mood, & ends up arguing with the
next passenger he picks up who happens to run a shoe shop downtown.
The shoe shop owner has a lady working for her who has just been through
a terrible divorce, & as a result, is in a highly vulnerable, sensitive
state. The shoe shop owner, in a bad mood since her experience with
the taxi-driver, loses her temper with the lady during the day & fires
her. For the lady, it's the last straw. She leaves the shop in a deeply
depressed state & ends up spending all night in a bar drowning her
sorrows in gin. At 1 o'clock the in the morning, she stumbles out
of the bar. In her drunken state she attempts to cross the road -
She gets hit by a car, & dies. The lady & I had never met in our lives,
& none of the people she ever knew were known to me & vice-versa,
yet something contained within the conditions of my life were contained
within the conditions of hers, & exercised some measure of influence
upon the nature of her life & death. This pattern of relationship
is conditional, not causal. I didn't "cause" her death, anymore than
the movement of the first pool ball "caused" the second to move the
way it did, but just as the pool player has no further influence over
the ball once the shot has been taken, so I have no further influence
over what happens once I have chosen to act upon a certain impulse
- in this case, anger
People talk about "LOSING their temper", yet in actuality, we ESCALATE
anger through choice. I may be involved in a disagreement with somebody,
& as the argument progresses, I am constantly CHOOSING how to respond
in each sub-conflict as it arises in the disagreement. I could choose
to accept the other's point of view, be willing to abandon my own
heavily-defended position, or I could choose to take anger all the
way, explode, scream out, or - the most negative course of action
- hit them. I may not choose to acknowledge it, but in fact, I make
decisions about these things all along the line. Exasperated, I launch
the missiles of anger. Once they are launched, that's it - they MUST
then complete their journey, land & explode where they will. In the
previous example, the missiles of anger ended with a woman's death
on the road. Again, not because "I killed her" by being angry with
my wife, but because the Karma (action) flowing from my state of mind
will not be limited to the immediate situation of my wife & I.
This is why The Buddha constantly harps on about Right Action, it's
why it pays to cultivate an awareness of HOW we are perceiving things,
noticing the way in which we start building stories around feelings
& events, how far we believe in those stories, how far we are prepared
to ACT in support of that belief. In my example, the girl who lived
over the other side of the city got killed in a road accident. Something
about the way I was living my life over on this side had a bearing
on hers, formed part of the conditional elements in her life coming
to an end. How we live our lives on this planet affects others in
this life, & in future lives to come. These present & future lives
are not separate & independent, they exist in conditional relationship.
When we speak of "rebirth" in Buddhism, we're not saying that "Nigel"
comes back in any way, shape or form. "Nigel" is the term that was
used to designate THIS particular group of Skandhas, whilst they existed
in this lifespan - once they have dissolved, then all ideas about
"Nigel", all ego-identity attributed to that designation, dissolve
as well. Yet a new life arises that WILL bear a conditional relationship
to Nigel's - "I" will experience a more positive or negative rebirth
in the light of the tendencies lived out in this life.
If what is reborn isn't actually "Nigel", then how can I speak of
"I" being reborn? - There's a quality to living that we all share,
& yet which is wholly unique to each one of us - it's the awareness
of "I". What I mean is this: when I was a little boy, my mother would
tuck me up in bed & switch off the light. Often, I would lie there
in the dark, staring up at a ceiling I could barely see, & would ask
myself the same question, over & over again: "Why am I ME? - Why am
I not somebody else? - How is it that I live in a world where I can
see everybody but myself? - Why am I ME??"
This question would go deeper & deeper in my head, & I would find
myself spacing right out. If I didn't snap out of it, I used to become
afraid. As I grew older, I stopped getting into these states, yet
when I started to study Buddhism & considered the questions of Karma,
Rebirth & Consciousness, memory of those nocturnal reflections as
a child came back to me. What I'm trying to explain is that yes, in
some ways, it's possible to say: "I will live again", that the actions
I perform in this life will have a bearing upon the life I live in
the future, yet what I am NOT saying is that I, as "Nigel" will come
back again. "I", in that case, will be somebody else. This probably
sounds very confusing. It IS confusing when first trying to get our
head around the idea, but let me try & push it further----
I live as "Nigel" in this life - I can't live as "Traci" or "Clint".
Traci, Clint, & every other human being on this planet are people
that I can SEE in their entire forms, yet I cannot see myself in the
same way, nor can I think their thoughts. All I can see of myself
is the back of my hands, the front of my legs, various parts of my
body that I will see if I twist my head around enough, but there are
other parts of my body that I will NEVER see in eye-to-flesh contact.
I will never see my back, & I see virtually NOTHING of my head, which
is very interesting. No matter how well I might like to think I know
myself when I die, there's parts of my physical form that will ALWAYS
remain mysteries to me, so how much can I REALLY claim to know about
the more abstract aspects of my existence? That's interesting, too.
I can't "see" myself in a mirror, either. Mirrors don't count; that's
just a reflection, it's not eye-to-flesh contact. What's more, the
image of myself that I see is in REVERSE, yet that reversal I accept
as my appearance. To understand how distorted even THAT view is, take
a look at a friend's face in the mirror when you're standing next
to them. You will see that their face looks entirely different in
the reflection compared to how YOU see them in life, & yet THEY look
in the mirror & see their "normal" face. Funny, eh? - It's their REFLECTION
they're accustomed to seeing, that's all, & you have no means by which
to show them the difference, because to SEE that difference for themselves
they would have to be someone else, & that's not possible.
We move through this life largely unseen by ourselves, yet the sense
of "being me" is the strongest sense we have. We are quite obviously
US & no-one else; everything we suffer, WE suffer, every joy we know,
WE know. If we are rich in this life, then living in the gutter is
something OTHER people do; if we are poor, the rich seem like beings
living on another planet. We live & die as OURSELVES, & it's precisely
this sense of "me" that's reborn, the immediate sense of being "myself"
& no-one else. I'm NOT referring to the gross sense of "I" here, the
"I-as-Nigel", but to the sense of "not being anybody else" that we
all share, & which doesn't carry a specific designation.
I don't know if I'm making this very clear, I find it incredibly
difficult to try & explain, but what I'm pressing home is that it's
this initial sense of "being alive" that's reborn - this sense of
"being me & no-one else" that precedes all the latent, more gross
conditionings, such as receiving a name, being persuaded as to our
moral criteria & so on. The immediate, unique, "being oneself & no-one
else" experience is with us at birth, is active as our present-consciousness
BEFORE any other major input of conditioning. It is the closest link
we still maintain with a previous subtle-consciousness existence between
rebirths & which is very quickly killed-out with the inrush of post-natal
conditioning.
The story is repeated endlessly, through life after life. All those
moments that are known will return, & will be experienced as another
"ME" - not the Traci-me or the Clint-me, but as the person the "I"
is in the next life. That doesn't mean that when Clint dies & a black
farmer is born in Africa somewhere that the black farmer will say:
"Wow! - I used to be Clint, a white man in America!" It's not like
that according to Buddhism because in Buddhist teachings it's not
held that there's a transmigration of ego; as I said before, when
the Skandhas dissolve, everything dissolves with them, including the
consciousness that arose in the being designated as "Clint". This
process also unfolds in each SINGLE life as it's lived. In one life
we experience many deaths, many rebirths. We go through many "phases",
many "lives". In each phase we will be who we believe ourselves to
be at that stage of our development. Ram Dass warns that it's important
to be conscious of the actions we take in any one "life" that we are
living, because the Karmic effects of those actions might outlive
the current "life" when it dissolves & is reborn as another. In other
words, there is a subtle body of consciousness that transfers from
life to life even in the successive births of ONE life.
If this sounds confusing, I'll put it another way: When I was a
much younger man, I was friendly with a lady who was studying anthropology
at The University of London, England. She invited me to a faculty
party, & as I circulated among all the students who were eating, drinking,
dancing, & enjoying themselves in the ways that students do, I noticed
that lurking in various corners & drifting through the hall, were
young men who I realised were zonked-out on heroin. The thought that
struck me in those moments was: "Yes, this all seems very groovy to
you right now, being the 'elite few' who are seriously into narcotics
& probably enjoying the notoriety such activities bring - but one
day, your course at the University will come to an end - but will
your heroin addiction?"
The "groovy junkie" is, perhaps, reborn as the penniless wreck who
threw a brilliant career away. Bear in mind that I'm talking about
ONE LIFE here - yet the principle is the same. The penniless wreck
ISN'T the groovy student, yet the activities of the one bear a conditional
relationship to the other, there IS a subtle transference of consciousness.
But in the case of ONE life - isn't this person the same? - if we
are talking about ONE life, then Tom Smith the groovy junkie is STILL
Tom Smith, even if he's now a penniless wreck - right? No - "Consciousness
arises in a being if the conditions are conducive for it to do so"
The consciousness of the groovy junkie is NOT the consciousness of
the penniless wreck, although the groovy junkie carries latent Karmic
seeds that will come to fruition, either in a rebirth in THIS life,
or in a following rebirth.
Isn't there an argument for the fact that the groovy junkie Tom
Smith who loved van Gogh's paintings is still the same Tom Smith who
loves van Gogh's paintings as a penniless wreck? - Doesn't that prove
that they're STILL the same person? No. Groovy junkie Tom Smith appreciated
van Gogh's paintings. So does penniless wreck Tom Smith. The black
farmer in Africa appreciates sunsets, So did Clint. No gross identity
is carried over; the impact of arising Ignorance in any one life is
always sufficient to block out direct insight into a previous existence,
although choices & predilections will be present in every life & are
not totally separated from the same choices & predilections that arose
in a previous existence.
The answer to the question: "What happens when we die?" is that
we are reborn. Not the "I" that I am in this life, the "Nigel-I ",
but the immediate sense of "I" that is unique to each one of us in
each life, yet is commonly held in ALL human beings as they endlessly
arise, subsist, & pass away.
Confused? - You ought to be. Go & take a walk, come back, & read
this article again.
Copyright © 2004 by Nigel Edmonds. All rights reserved.
