7

Mind, Body, and Rebirth

BECAUSE OUR MIND is the ultimate source of our happiness and suffering and by transforming the mind we attain awakening, understanding the mind is essential. The topic of the mind and its potential was introduced in Approaching the Buddhist Path, the first volume of the Library of Wisdom and Compassion, and in this chapter we will explore the nature of the mind, its relationship with the brain, and rebirth more deeply.

Sentience, Mind, and Brain

The mind’s nature is clarity and cognizance. Clarity refers to the immateriality of the mind, the fact that it cannot be apprehended by our physical senses and is not made of atoms. Clarity also indicates the mirror-like quality of the mind, the fact that it can reflect objects. Dharmakīrti says (PV):

Therefore my own mind is clear

by virtue of its own nature of clarity;

by virtue of other (objects) being transferred and illuminated in it,

this makes it clear too.35

In addition, clarity means the fundamental nature of the mind is not affected by defilement (PV 2.208a–b):

The nature of mind is clear light.

The defilements are adventitious.³⁶

Cognizance refers to the mind’s ability to engage with its object. Together clarity and cognizance allow for the appearance of objects to arise and for objects to be known and experienced. The presence of a mind is the difference between a living being and a corpse. In his struggle to clarify how we know anything exists, Descartes said, “I can doubt the existence of the body, but I know I exist because I am conscious.” In short, the nature of consciousness is to be aware and to know objects (PV):

Consciousness apprehends objects,

apprehending them as they exist;

it arises in the nature of the objects,

it is generated by them as well.

A sentient being (sattva) is any being with a mind who is not a buddha. Everything that is biologically alive is not necessarily sentient. Bacteria and viruses are biologically alive, but we do not know whether they have mind, the presence of which is indicated by the ability to experience pain and pleasure. Most Buddhist thinkers believe they do not. Animals and insects, however, do. Computers may have artificial intelligence that enables them to respond like a human being, but they do not experience pain and pleasure and are not sentient beings. However, if one day computers become capable of being a physical support for consciousness and a sentient being creates the karma to be born in one, a computer could be a sentient being!

Some material substances, such as plants, may appear to have consciousness although they do not. A Venus flytrap — a flower that catches and ingests insects — is able to detect the presence of flies and moves to trap them. However, movement is not a sufficient indicator for the presence of mind. Some plants may grow better when people talk to them, but that too isn’t proof that they cognize phenomena and experience pleasure and pain as sentient beings do. Their growth could be due simply to biological functions, just as a sunflower turning toward the sun is explained through biological functions.

Some sūtras mention that in a few cases spirits are born in trees, rocks, or wood. These are the spirits’ homes, not their bodies. Still, those sentient beings may be disturbed if their home is damaged.

While the brain is material in nature, the mind is not. The mind lacks shape and color and cannot be perceived by scientific instruments. Like other produced phenomena, the mind is impermanent in that it changes moment by moment, although it is eternal in that it has no end. When it is obscured by afflictions and other defilements, it is said to be the mind of a sentient being; when all obscurations have been removed, it becomes the mind of a buddha.

Just as our body has many parts — arms, legs, internal organs — and diverse characteristics — hardness, fluidity, mobility, heat, and space — so too there are many types of mind: gross and subtle levels of mind, primary consciousnesses and the mental factors that accompany them, sense consciousnesses and the mental consciousness, and so forth. In the case of human beings, many of these types of mind depend on the body and brain, but some do not seem to. Our sense consciousnesses depend on the sense faculties, nervous system, and brain as well as on an external object. Due to the contact of a flower with a healthy eye faculty, a visual consciousness that sees its color and shape arises. If the eye faculty malfunctions or is absent, the visual consciousness cannot arise. Likewise, if the area of the brain that is related to visual consciousness is damaged, we cannot see. Here I speak generally, for as far as I know, scientists have not determined whether just one part of the brain facilitates sight or if other parts of the brain can assume that function if the first part is damaged. Buddhist science adds that the arising of visual consciousness also depends on a preceding moment of mind; physical elements alone cannot cause or constitute cognition.

Other mental states seem to arise through a different process. Memories of the past or imagination of the future often seem to pop into our mind without an external object stimulating them. Once we remember or imagine something, the brain responds. Here the mental function appears to come first and the effects on the brain and the body follow. The scientists I have spoken with affirm this sequence, but according to current scientific belief that the mind is an emergent property of the brain, it should not occur. Scientists are also baffled by the case of a forty-four-year-old French civil servant who is missing 90 percent of his brain but functions normally.37 This does not accord with their theory that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain.

In one study neuroscientists observed people’s brains before and after they were taught a certain meditation practice. They detected noticeable changes in their brains after doing the meditation practice for some time. Scientific studies have also shown that some aspects of the brains of experienced meditators differ from those of ordinary people. These findings demonstrate that just as changes in the brain may affect the mind, training the mind can effect changes in the brain. Causation can go both ways.

Distinctions between mental states cannot be made at the level of brain functions only. Experiments have demonstrated that the same area of the brain is activated when a person sees an object and when he mentally thinks about that object. Similarly, the pain centers in the brain are activated both when we actually experience pain and when we see someone else in pain. Clearly there is a real experiential difference between seeing something with our eyes and thinking about it, although the brain does not seem to distinguish the two. This indicates that brain functions alone are not responsible for everything about human experience and perception.

When a meditator practices one-pointed concentration and attains serenity (śamatha), she develops physical and mental pliancy and experiences a particular type of physical and mental bliss. Through this, she attains deep levels of meditative absorption, such that she does not hear a loud sound nearby. Although she did not make a special effort to change her brain, because her brain plays a role in the development of serenity, some changes may have taken place in its function and structure owing to the development of physical and mental pliancy and bliss. Using scientific instruments to investigate this would be intriguing.

Along this line, genes received from our parents may have some influence on our mental disposition. However, I do not believe that the diversity of human dispositions, interests, and attitudes is due principally to our genetic composition. The habitual thoughts, emotions, and actions of a person’s mind earlier in this life and in previous lives, as well as the imprints left on his mindstream, play a role. The vast majority of parents tell me that each of their children has a different personality and habits from birth. They say that babies are not blank slates conditioned only by their genes and the events of this lifetime.

Events at the time of death also make us question if the mind always depends on the brain. Within a few minutes of the breath stopping, brain functions also cease, and the person is pronounced clinically dead. However, I know of many cases in which consciousness is still present. In 2001 someone who appeared to be an ordinary monk died at Delek Hospital, just down the road from where I live in Dharamsala. After his breath stopped, there was no rigor mortis and seven days passed before his body began to decay. Only then did they realize that he was meditating during this time.

Tibetans have observed that experienced meditators may remain in meditation for several days without their body decaying. My senior tutor, Kyabje Ling Rinpoche, remained sitting upright in meditation for thirteen days after his breath, heart, and brain functions stopped. Once he had completed his meditation, his body slumped over and death occurred. I also saw a picture of an elderly Mongolian monk who stayed in meditation (T. thug dam) for twenty-five days after his breath ceased.

Buddhists attribute this to the existence of the subtlest mind, the mind of clear light, which can function separate from the brain and may remain in the body for some time after physical death. If the subtlest mind did not exist, it would be difficult to account for the fact that when one person’s vital signs cease, the body decays immediately and when another’s cease, it does not. It would be good for scientists to investigate this.

Some years ago, some scientists brought an instrument to Delek Hospital to observe the brain functioning of proficient meditators while they were dying and after their vital signs ceased. But as often happens, things do not turn out as planned, and no meditators died during the time the scientists were there!

However, one time they were successful. After some scientists set up equipment in a Tibetan hospital in India, a previous Ganden Tripa (head of the Geluk tradition) died. His body remained fresh without decaying for three weeks. During this time, scientists put electrodes on his head and recorded data about his brain functions. This made them think that a subtle “energy” that does not depend on the body might exist.

A few people have clear memories of previous lives and on occasion some have prescience of future events. These extraordinary events are beyond current scientific theories, but they support the Buddhist explanation that different types and levels of mind exist. Some are related to and dependent on the body, while some can function independently of the body and physical sense organs. This is because the mind and body have different continua: the body is material, whereas the mind is not.

Although science and Buddhism share many similarities, such as the investigative approach, some of their underlying premises differ. First, the source or foundation of cognitive processes is seen differently. Science believes that all mental processes derive from the physical organ of the brain, whereas highest yoga tantra asserts that all mental processes — sense perceptions, emotions, intellect, coarse as well as subtle mental functions — derive from the primordial mind of clear light, the subtlest mind that is independent of the brain.

This leads to a second difference. Buddhism doesn’t see the mind as limited to the body and accepts past and future lives. It believes that our actions (karma) in one life can affect our future circumstances, perceptions and emotions, and can influence which body, with its unique genetic makeup, we take in future lives. Science currently states that either the mind is the brain or it is an emergent property of the brain. Since the brain exists only in this life, most scientists have not considered investigating the possibility of the influence of past and future lives and focus only on what is noticeable in this life.38 If their basic assumptions were different, scientists might make unexpected discoveries.

The differences between Buddhism and science should not be points of contention, but rather areas in which we come together to do further research and investigation. Both Buddhism and science have the common aim to know the truth about how things exist and to conduct research that can be verified by experience. Both seek to benefit people, and neither follows blind belief.

Due to recent scientific discoveries of correlations between the body — especially our genes and brain — and the mind, there is a trend in society to think of mental and emotional difficulties as caused by these physical components. Although alcoholism and certain mental illnesses may correlate with particular genes or certain neurological functions, I (Chodron) believe that it could be damaging to assume that these are causal factors and minimize the social, mental, and emotional factors involved. An alcoholic could easily come to think, “It is hopeless to try to quit drinking because my alcoholism is due to my genetic makeup, which cannot be changed.” Someone who loses his temper and behaves violently could believe, “My brain is wired this way. There’s not much I can do to change until medical scientists make a pill that will alter my brain chemistry.”

Physical and mental disorders and their causes are multifaceted. The more we remain open to this, the more we will be successful in treating them. Genetic factors, biochemical processes, brain structure and functioning, as well as social, economic, dietary, mental, and emotional factors must all be factored in. Remedies, too, can be multifaceted. Such an approach, I believe, leads to more social and personal reflection and responsibility.

The Nature of Mind

While we may easily say the words, “the mind is mere clarity and cognizance,” it is difficult to actually have a notion of what the mind is — let alone to perceive its clear and cognizant nature. Although the clarity and cognizance of the mind are present in every moment of mental activity, we are not aware of them. What prevents this? A consciousness is usually identified in relation to its object — the visual consciousness perceiving blue or the mental consciousness thinking about a table. When a consciousness engages with its object, it appears in the aspect of that object.39 Because of the mind’s involvement with that object, it is obscured from perceiving the actual nature of the mind.

The mind is usually invaded by a host of constructive and destructive thoughts that concern external objects and people we have perceived or experienced. These cloud the clear and cognizant nature of the mind, preventing us from perceiving it. When the flow of thoughts slows down, it is possible to see into the depths of the mind — its clear and cognizant nature that is like a still pool of water. One technique for discovering the conventional nature of mind is to prevent the mind from arising in the aspect of those objects and to stop all conceptual thoughts regarding past and future events. To do this, first generate a strong determination not to let your mind be disturbed by sense perceptions such as sounds or thoughts. Let your mind rest without being overrun by sensory perceptions or ideas. At first it may seem that more thoughts than usual arise, but this is not the case. It is simply that in your daily life you do not pay much attention to how many thoughts there are!

Continuing to meditate in this way, you will gradually be able to keep the mind at a distance from sense objects, and the barrage of thoughts will diminish and eventually cease. By the mind not arising in the aspect of those objects, the clear nature of mind will become apparent. When you experience your mind in the absence of thoughts about the past and the future, you will have a sense of vacuity, which is the gap between the mind and those objects. This vacuity is not the ultimate nature of mind — the mind’s emptiness of inherent existence — nor is it nothingness as in blank-mind meditation.

Once you experience that vacuous state of mind, try to meditate or remain in it. Eventually you will have a feeling that the mind is something like a mirror with infinite dimensions. At that time, the nature of the mind itself is clear. Yet whenever the mind contacts an object, a reflection immediately arises. In this way, understand the mirror-like clarity of the mind. The mind remains clear by nature even though reflections of phenomena may appear in it.

In addition, practice being aware of the moment when you are just beginning to sleep and the moment just after waking up. At both these times, the cognitive faculties are not fully engaged. In the moment just after waking, sleep has ceased. Your mind is in a neutral state, not crowded with thoughts and emotions. If your physical condition is normal and fresh, you may have some feeling of the clarity of mind at that time. Try to remain in that state, although it is not easy. Experiment with this and see what happens. Some experience of the mind should come, perhaps even an experience of the grosser level of clear light.

Having some experience of the conventional nature of mind is valuable for knowing that mind exists, which helps you to understand the continuity of mind from one life to the next. It also gives you a better idea of what is meant when we say that Dharma practice is about working with our mind. Although meditating on the clear nature of the mind is not a unique Buddhist practice — it is common with Hindus and perhaps some other religious traditions as well — it is useful for showing us another aspect of our experience.

Some years back I did a one-month retreat in Ladakh, India. When I meditate, I usually have a statue of the Buddha in front of me. The Buddha is my “boss,” a very loving and gentle boss. This particular statue was painted gold, and while colorful areas in general are attractive and can stir up the mind, the gold had come off of one part of the statue. Initially I focused my attention at this more neutral area. Then I lowered my eyes, let go of memories of the past, and stopped imagining and planning the future. Eventually, a little experience of the clarity and cognizance of the mind came. This is an experience; we are not saying to ourselves in words, “The mind is clear and cognizant.” With that little glimpse, I was then able to be aware of when my mind began following a sound or chasing a thought. I could recognize where the mind was going and what was distracting it, as well as when it was at rest — clear and concentrated. But after that one-month retreat, I resumed my usual busy duties and came back to my original state! Nevertheless, this experience was valuable.

Rebirth: Past and Future Lives

The mind of each individual forms its own continuum with one moment of mind producing the next moment of mind. As an impermanent phenomenon, it is produced by causes that precede it. The substantial cause of one moment of mind — the main cause that actually transforms into the resultant next moment of mind — is the previous moment of mind in the same continuum. Although the gross body and gross mind influence each other, they cannot be the substantial cause of each other because they do not share the same nature. The body is material in nature, the mind is not. Dharmakīrti tells us (PV 2.165):

That which is not a consciousness itself

cannot be the substantial cause for another consciousness.

This can be understood by three principles of causality from Asaṅga’s Compendium of Knowledge:

1.An effect cannot arise without a cause, and every effect is preceded by its own cause. There is no absolute creator that is the original source of all existents because such a creator would not have a cause and would have arisen causelessly, which is impossible. This refutes causeless production.

2.An effect cannot arise from a permanent cause. Permanent phenomena do not change, and to produce an effect, change is necessary. The cause must cease for the effect to arise.

3.A cause must have the potential to produce a particular effect; an effect cannot arise from a discordant cause. Daisies cannot grow from tomato seeds. The substantial cause of form is previous moments of matter or energy, and the substantial cause of mind is previous moments of mind. These last two principles refute cases of impossible production: a permanent cause cannot produce a result, and a discordant cause — something that does not have the ability to produce a particular result — cannot produce that result.40

Applying these principles to the arising of consciousness, we find that the sperm and egg, which are the substantial cause of the body, are unsuitable to be the substantial cause of the mind, which is not form. The substantial cause of the sperm and egg can be traced back to the Big Bang (or to space particles if we use the Buddhist paradigm), in which case the Big Bang would also be the ultimate substantial cause of our mind. In this case, consciousness would have been present in the dense matter preceding the Big Bang. Since it was the ultimate cause of the entire physical universe, everything — rocks, water, fire, and so forth — should be conscious and would experience pleasure and pain. But we would feel quite strange accepting that each and every rock, water molecule, or carbon atom has consciousness and is a living being.

If we said instead that consciousness emerged from matter after a period of time, then did consciousness appear in all material particles? If not, what would make consciousness emerge from some particles but not others? Along this line, if scientists could construct a brain, would that brain be conscious? Would it be a person who experiences happiness and suffering?

If our mind came from our parents’ minds or if our mind were a collection of different parts of the minds of people who died before our birth, many logical inconsistencies would arise. Because each individual has his or her own mindstream or mental continuum, we can remember events from our past and will experience the results of our own actions, not those of another person. These would be impossible if our mind were composed of fragments of our parents’ or other peoples’ minds. Instead we should be able to remember their past. We should also have the knowledge they have accumulated thus far in their lives and our emotional makeup would closely resemble theirs. But we see that this is not the case.

If an external creator or prior intelligence created the universe, that creator would not have a cause because it would have preceded all existence. Without a cause, how could such a creator arise? If it did not arise due to a cause, it would be permanent and could not create effects, such as the universe and the beings in it. A permanent creator cannot change, and creation involves change. If we said the creator was both permanent and impermanent, that too is contradictory, for one thing cannot simultaneously possess opposite traits. If we said the creator or prior intelligence alternated being permanent and impermanent, that too would present problems: a permanent phenomenon would need a cause to become impermanent, and no such cause exists. Further questions also arise: why would a creator or prior intelligence create suffering?

Someone once asked me if neural pathways could be the means by which karma was imprinted on the mindstream, such that the deeds of one life would influence events in another life. This is not possible because brain activity ceases at death. The brain does not come with us into the next life.

Applying these principles of causality to matter and consciousness, rebirth can be established without having to resort to blind faith or reliance on scriptural authority. The only possible cause of our mind is a previous moment of mind, the mind of the person we were in our previous life.

REFLECTION

1.Everything that functions arises from a cause. Just as our body arose from a cause, so did our mind.

2.Consider the three principles of causality. The only cause that could produce a moment of mind is a previous moment of mind.

3.The mind that joined with the fertilized egg to create a living being must have been a mind from a living being who had lived before and had recently died.

Human beings have long discussed the beginning of the universe and of mind in particular. From a Buddhist perspective, there is no beginning to either of these because all functioning things arise from their causes. Those causes arise from their causes, and so on, back ad infinitum. Positing a first moment of consciousness is logically untenable. If there were a first moment, it would either arise without a cause or arise from a discordant cause. Neither of these is possible.

If we assert a beginning point before which nothing existed, we must say that sentient beings were born without cause. That is difficult to accept, for without causes producing effects, nothing could operate. Farmers would not have to plant seeds to grow a crop, children would not need to be educated, and we would not take medicine to cure our illnesses. Although we may not know all the causes and conditions of a particular thing or event, it definitely arose due to them.

Some people reject past and future lives, for the reason that they do not see them. However, not perceiving something does not negate its existence. Cats and birds see things and dogs smell odors that we do not. On the other hand, evidence exists for future lives. If we investigate the nature of mind, we understand that it is a continuity. Like all things, the mind exists because its causes exist. The continuity of a thing ceases only when its causes are exhausted or when a strong counteractive agent that can stop it is applied. In the case of a mindstream, neither of these is the case. No agent exists that can cease the continuity of mind. When it separates from this body, its continuity goes on to the next life. At the time of death, the coarser levels of mind, which depend on the physical body, dissolve. An extremely subtle consciousness — the primordial clear light mind — which can function apart from the coarse body, manifests, and this acts as the substantial cause for the mind of the next life. In the end, the only plausible explanation is the beginningless and endless continuity of moments of mind.

Another factor that supports the existence of rebirth is that people remember past lives. Although I have no clear memories of my previous lives, according to my mother and members of the search party who identified the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, when I was very young I spoke quite clearly about my past life. Sometimes I have had the same dreams; they are vague recollections of some previous lives — as a Tibetan, Indian, and on one occasion Egyptian. But then the memory faded.

Our not remembering previous lives does not refute their existence. I don’t think any of us remembers our experience in the mother’s womb, yet we were undoubtedly there. It is difficult to recall experiences from previous lives because memory is formed with the gross levels of consciousness, which are dependent on the body and brain. The latencies of memories going with our mental consciousness may not be very strong, and upon taking a new rebirth, our attention is directed toward the present life, not the previous one.

Nevertheless, the accounts of many people who remember their previous lives have been verified. I heard of an Indian girl who described her previous life. She was a young girl in that previous life and died suddenly, so the natural process of dissolution of the levels of consciousness did not take place, which may be a factor in her being able to remember her previous life. Being very young, her memory was clearer, whereas older children may not remember their previous life because their grosser-level mind is fully developed and their subtle mind has become inactive.

It is possible through meditation to make grosser-level minds inactive and to activate subtler levels of mind. I met a Kagyu lama who was a very nice monk. Although he was not learned, he was very sincere and jovial and we became close friends. One time he was very serious and told me stories about studying with his tutor as a child. Even though he would deceive his tutor and play tricks on him, after his tutor passed away he remembered him with gratitude. One time, he had such a strong experience when recalling his tutor’s tremendous kindness that he almost fainted. At the time of fainting, the coarser level of mind became inactive and a subtler mind arose. This mind then remembered his previous life.

We don’t need to prove the existence of previous lives to someone who is able to recollect past lives; for her they are evident phenomena. However, for people who do not have such recollection, the existence of previous lives is a slightly obscure phenomenon, which can be proven with reasoning. Dharmakīrti does this in chapter 2 of his Commentary on Reliable Cognition, based on the continuity of consciousness. This is the argument I made above.

For something to exist, it is not necessary that the majority of people know about it and agree on it. There may be certain species of plants and animals that only very few people on the planet know, but they exist. Similarly, not everyone needs to agree that rebirth exists in order for it to exist.

Even if you cannot ascertain the existence of future lives, you can tentatively accept it without any harm. Wishing to create the causes for fortunate future lives, you will endeavor to subdue your afflictions and cultivate your good qualities. This, in turn, will help you to be happier in the present because you will experience things freshly, without the confusion of attachment and anger. If you find it difficult to accept past and future lives, set the topic aside and focus on being a good person in this life. Do not create trouble for others, and use your life to bring calm and peace in your own mind and in the world. This is more important. If, at the time of death, you find there is no future life, nothing has been lost. But if you find there is, at least you have prepared for it by living a good life now. This is better than someone who accepts future lives but does not behave properly in his daily life and thus makes problems for himself and others.

The Kālāmas were a people confused by the claims of various teachers and unsure what to believe. The Buddha taught them meditation on the four immeasurables — love, compassion, joy, and equanimity. Once they experienced for themselves the immediate benefits of these, they were joyous. The Buddha then pointed out the benefits they accrue by cultivating positive states of mind, whether or not rebirth exists (AN 3.65):

This noble disciple, Kālāmas, whose mind is in this way without enmity, without ill will, undefiled and pure, has won four assurances in this very life . . . (1) If there is another world, and if there is the fruit and result of good and bad deeds, it is possible that with the breakup of the body, after death, I will be reborn in a good destination, in a heavenly world . . . (2) If there is no other world, and there is no fruit and result of good and bad deeds, still right here, in this very life, I maintain myself in happiness, without enmity and ill will, free of trouble . . . (3) Suppose evil [results] befall one who does evil. Then, when I have no evil intentions toward anyone, how can suffering afflict me, since I do no evil deed? . . . (4) Suppose evil [results] do not befall one who does evil. Then right here I see myself purified in both respects.

In essence, if there turns out to be no future lives, we do not have to worry that we have wasted our time cultivating beneficial mental states through practicing the Buddha’s teachings, because we have already experienced benefits in this life. Furthermore, if future lives exist, we have made good preparation for them and need not fear at the time of death.

REFLECTION

1.Tentatively accept the existence of past and future lives.

2.Do you see any disadvantages to doing this?

3.Does it help you to understand certain events, memories, or thoughts in your life?

The Buddha Responds to Questions about Rebirth

In the Sūtra Responding to a Query about What Happens after Death (Āyuṣpatti-yathākāra-paripṛcchā Sūtra), the Buddha responds to questions that his father, King Śuddhodana, poses about death, dying, and rebirth. The following is a summary of their exchange.41

After death, do we cease to exist like a fire that has burned out?

No, one life follows the next, just as the sun rises again after it has set and new plants grow in an area after a natural disaster. If there were no rebirth, all living beings would have been completely extinguished by now.

Will sentient beings be born in similar forms in their future lives, or can they be born in other forms that are different from their present ones?

Sentient beings are born according to the force of their virtuous and nonvirtuous actions. Depending on which karmic seeds ripen at the time of death, their next rebirth may be in any realm. Human beings whose virtuous karma ripens may be born as devas, while those whose nonvirtuous karma ripens at the time of death may be born as animals.

In their future lives, do sentient beings have the same family members as in this life?

No, we consider ourselves relatives and recognize each other based on our present bodies. When we pass away, we relinquish these bodies and take new ones. We will be unable to recognize each other and have no basis on which to consider ourselves relatives then.

Are people born in the same economic class with the same wealth or lack thereof as in this life?

Even within this one life, we see affluent people become poor and the poor become wealthy; our socioeconomic status is temporary and impermanent. Generosity is the cause of wealth, whereas miserliness and theft are the causes of poverty. Some people, both the rich and the poor, practice generosity continuously. Those whose financial status vacillates considerably may practice generosity sporadically or may regret their previous acts of giving. Persistent miserliness and stealing — including embezzling money, cheating others in business deals, and so forth — can result in poverty over many lifetimes. However, if someone regrets and purifies these actions, the results will not be experienced.

Sometimes people dream about their deceased relatives and friends. Are their relatives actually appearing and communicating with them in these dreams?

When we dream of deceased loved ones, it is just a case of past latencies being activated. The person we dream about is not present. He or she is not having the same dream, and even when alive, we don’t experience each other’s dreams. If someone dreams about us, we are not in his dream doing what he dreams we are doing. The dream is due to the ripening of latencies on his mindstream.

Suppose someone lives in a very luxurious house and later moves to another place. Her previous house is torn down to build another building. She may have a very clear dream of the house, so clear that she feels that she is actually in it. Yet this is just her dream; it is a product of activated latencies. Dreaming of the deceased is similar. That dear one no longer has his previous body; he has already taken rebirth in accordance with his karma. Our dream of him is simply the maturation of latencies on our mind.

Sometimes people offer and dedicate food and drink to their dead relatives so they will have these to consume for a long time. Does this help the deceased relatives?

It is not possible for the deceased to consume these things gradually over time for centuries and eons, since there is no cause that can make these things last that long. We may put food out in our home for people in distant lands who are hungry, but they do not receive it. It is even less likely for someone who is separated from their previous body to partake of the food and drink their living relatives dedicate to them.

Does that mean that all acts of dedicating useful items such as food, vehicles, clothes, and ornaments to the deceased are meaningless?

The best way to benefit deceased loved ones is to do virtuous activities and dedicate the merit for their good rebirth and progress on the path to awakening.

Sentient beings who commit nonvirtuous actions such as killing their parents are certain to experience horrible consequences of their actions. Is there a way for them to attain a happy rebirth?

If they genuinely believe in the law of karma and its effects and sincerely purify their wrongdoings, those nonvirtuous actions will be purified. At the time of death, if they regret their past unwholesome actions and generate genuine admiration and take refuge in the buddhas and bodhisattvas, the unwholesome actions will be purified and they could take rebirth in the higher realms.

Do not think that there are no future lives. Do not cling to worldly pleasures or anything in cyclic existence. When we transmigrate from one life to the next, there is nothing permanent that goes on to the next life. Nor does everything discontinue, becoming nonexistent. Our future rebirth is not the work of an external creator, it is not a whim of the self, and it does not occur without any cause. Rebirth takes place due to the coming together of causes and conditions, such as afflictions and the karma created by them.

How rebirth occurs without a permanent self or soul and without the work of an external creator is difficult to understand. It is also hard to comprehend that everything does not cease at death and that rebirth isn’t simply random and causeless. Please give some examples to help us understand.

Having some basic information about the rebirth process first will help you understand the examples:

•Everything about this life does not discontinue and cease altogether in order for rebirth to exist.

•No permanent entity transmigrates to the next life.

•Transmigration to another life occurs in dependence on this life.

•We are not born in this life because we wished for it.

•We are not born in this life because of having prayed to an external creator.

•We are not born due to wishing to be born wherever we like.

•We are not reborn due to wishing that causes and conditions don’t affect our rebirth.

•It is not the case that nothing remains after death when the physical and mental aggregates disintegrate.

•There is no “kingdom of death” in which people reside forever after death without taking rebirth.

•The consciousness of the next life is connected to the consciousness of the present life in that it is a continuation of that mind.

•The body of the present life and of the future life do not exist simultaneously. Neither do the mental aggregates of the two lives.

•We are not reborn with similar physical characteristics in one life after the next; someone who is beautiful in one life will not necessarily be beautiful in the next.

•We are not necessarily born in the same realm in the next life; a human being will not necessarily be reborn as a human being. The future life depends on the karma created in this life and the karma that ripens at the time of death.

•A virtuous action cannot propel an unfortunate rebirth, and a nonvirtuous action cannot propel a fortunate one.

•Many consciousnesses do not arise from a single consciousness.

•Someone cannot be born in a fortunate realm without having engaged in virtuous actions and cannot be born in an unfortunate state without having created nonvirtuous actions.

•A birth is not the handiwork of an independent, external creator.

Eight examples seen together will convey an idea of how rebirth occurs:

1.A student learning from her teacher’s lectures represents the next life being affected by the present one.

2.A lamp being lit from another lamp indicates that while a new life begins, nothing permanent is transmitted and that the next life depends on a cause.

3.A reflection in a mirror illustrates that the next life comes about due to the existence of the previous one. Although nothing is transferred from one life to the next, the next rebirth is assured.

4.Embossed impressions and designs emerging from stamps indicates that we are reborn according to the actions we have done.

5.Fire produced by a magnifying glass demonstrates that the next life could be in a realm different from this life, just as the fire is different from the magnifying glass.

6.Sprouts growing from seeds shows that one doesn’t disintegrate and cease to exist at death.

7.Salivating from the mention of something that tastes sour indicates taking rebirth by the force of our previous actions, not by choice, wish, or whim.

8.An echo illustrates that we take rebirth when conditions are ripe and no obstacles are present. Also, the future life is neither identical with nor completely different from the present one.

Although each example illustrates an important point about rebirth, there is the possibility that we misunderstand it. Therefore, one example acts to correct the possible misinterpretation of another:

1.From the example of a student learning from the lectures of a teacher, we may think that a being takes rebirth into the next life without its previous consciousness having ceased. To counteract this, the example of the seed shows that the cause must change to produce its result. Similarly, a permanent self or soul does not transmigrate from one life to the next. Rather the last moment of consciousness in this life must cease for the first moment of consciousness in the next life to arise.

2.From the example of both lamps being present when one is lit from the other, we may think that the same body and mind exist in both this and the next life. The example of the echo prevents this misunderstanding because an echo is neither produced without someone making a noise nor simultaneous with the noise. The initial noise is not the same as the echo of it.

3.From the example of a reflection in a mirror, we may think that we have the same physical characteristics in previous and subsequent lives. The fire being produced by the magnifying glass corrects this because the fire and the magnifying glass look quite different.

4.From the example of embossing stamps, we may think that we are born in the same realm after death. The example of the student learning from the lectures of a teacher remedies this because the teacher, who represents this life, and the student, who represents the next life, are not the same.

5.From the example of the magnifying glass, we may believe that a virtuous action could lead to birth in an unfortunate state and a nonvirtuous action to rebirth in a fortunate state. The example of one lamp being lit from another remedies this by showing that the result is concordant with the cause. Just as one light gives rise to another, virtuous and nonvirtuous actions propel results concordant with them, a fortunate or unfortunate rebirth, respectively.

6.From the example of the seed, we could infer that one consciousness could give rise to numerous consciousnesses. The example of an embossing stamp prevents this misinterpretation by showing that regardless of the design of a stamp, it impresses that very same design, not many other signs on the clay.

7.From the example of sour taste, we may think that someone could have a good rebirth even if he had not acted virtuously and someone could have an unfortunate rebirth without having acted nonvirtuously. The example of the mirror counteracts this by illustrating that the image in the mirror exactly reflects the object.

8.From the example of an echo, we may think that no one is born unless the creator wished it, just as an echo is not heard unless a person has made a noise. The example of the sour taste counteracts this because only someone who has eaten something sour before would salivate at the mention of sour food. Likewise, only someone who has earlier indulged in afflictions and created polluted karma would be subject to a conditioned birth, not others.

Having a basic understanding of rebirth, we see our present life as one among many — it is a product of our previous lives, and during it we create causes for our future lives, liberation, and awakening. We will now look at the great opportunity this present life presents us for spiritual practice.

REFLECTION

Contemplate each of these examples to get an accurate idea of how rebirth occurs, remembering that since they are examples, they do not correspond in all aspects with what they are exemplifying.