3. Critical Study of the Doctrine Regarding Transmigration in the Buddhist Academic Field

 3. Critical Study of the Doctrine Regarding Transmigration in the Buddhist Academic Field

 

 

1) About the possibility of transmigration of 'non-self':

If we acknowledge the transmigration

of 'non-self', it is not Buddhism.

 

The theory of the feasibility of transmigration without a subject, nucleus, or the main constituent by the Buddhist sector of present time is wholly unacceptable. It is the same with the theory of transmigration of the mind and perception (心識). The Buddhist law of causality (因緣法) is the unsurpassed truth and the cosmic principle that Buddha had attained. It is also the fundamental truth of all the Buddhist thoughts and theories.

The theories of karma and transmigration are also based on the nature of law of causality or the cause and effect. To apply the law of causality, the following two basic conditions should be satisfied.

 

Firstly, there must be the doer, or the one who commits a karmic action. In other words, there must be the main constituent of the doer of an action or karma.

Secondly, the one who commits the karmic action and the recipient of retribution of the karma must be the same person. This is the law of "As one does one receives."

 

These two conditions must be applied as sharp and exact as the blade of a sword. Otherwise, that is not the cosmic law. This is not the nature of the law that can be applied ambiguously, unclearly, or obscurely. Therefore, I want to make it clear that the theory that transmigration can be established without a subject or a main constituent runs against the cosmic law and also is the heretic theory that degrades the Buddhist doctrine.

 

2) About the possibility of compatibility of the theory

of 'non-self' and transmigration.

 

In the present Buddhist sector, there are two mislead contradicting theories on the basis of 'non-self'. One is the possibility of the compatibility of 'non-self' and transmigration. The other is the impossibility of the compatibility of 'non-self‘ and transmigration.

However, in the phenomenal world, the theory 'non-self' is explained as 'non-self' or 'no-self', and in the realm of ultimate substance, it is explained as 'true-self'.

These two explanations of the dual nature of relative and absolute truth is very unique and higher level of concept which only Buddhism has, and it is absolutely right to acknowledge the subject or the main constituent of transmigration. I emphasize again that there is no contradiction in this theory at all.

As long as you understand the theory of 'non-self' reasonably, there is no contradiction between the theory of 'non-self' itself and the theory of transmigration. However, when you link the two words, 'non-self' and 'transmigration' when you use them, a great problem of "transmigration without a subject or the main constituent" arises as we have observed above.

 

If you set forth beforehand the wrong theory of 'non-self' that denies the entity of the realm of ultimate substance, you are absolutely right to claim that there is a contradiction in the theory of 'non-self' and the theory of transmigration.

In such a case, no compatibility of 'non-self' and transmigration could be established. In other words, this is the theory that claims impossibility of the compatibility of 'no subject' or nucleus and transmigration. I understand that there are diverse scholars in our country, and there seems to have a quite a number of different opinions among them. However, if anyone claims that one of the two theories of 'non-self' and the theory of transmigration must be abandoned, he could not be called a Buddhist.

 

When Professor Kim Jin claimed the contradiction of 'non-self' and transmigration, he was criticized by many scholars. After the incident, I understand that there have been many arguments among the scholars on this matter. The argument itself is desirable, I think, for the development of Buddhism.

However, Professor Kim's following argument is, I think, right: "The precondition for the justification of transmigration is the unification of self or ego, because without the precondition of the unification of self between the former life, the present life, and the life after death, the arguments on the theories on the morality and salvation is meaningless."

 

Professor Kim's argument about Immanuel Kant's theory of necessary requirement is not necessary in the case of Buddha. Please believe me that the teachings of Buddha who had attained enlightenment of the ultimate truth of cosmos do not require the condition of proposition, because it is the practical, experimental, and veritable truth of life. If we understand the doctrine of 'non-self' correctly, this kind of problem will be solved automatically.

 

 

3) Transmigration of mind, consciousness, and the theory of inheritance: consciousness cannot be a main body of transmigration.

 

We have observed the theories of Theravada Buddhism in connection with the main constituent of transmigration. They claim that it is not the fixed nucleus or main body of transmigration. Although there are a slight difference in the meaning of consciousness, yet all of them are some sort of mind-consciousness (心識), such as fundamental consciousness (根本識); bhavanga, or the consciousness which is the cause of rebirth (有分識); pudgala (補持伽羅); the continuous existence of a very subtle consciousness (一微蘊); the aggregate that lasts up to the end of samsara, or the aggregate that lasts throughout transmigration (窮生死蘊); the five skandhas (五蘊), etc.

What all these the mind-consciousness mean is that there is a slight difference among them. For example, we can say that pudgala has a stronger nature of nucleus than other mind-consciousness. Still, regardless of their slight differences, all mind-consciousness have a common characteristic in the idea of substance of life which continues from one life to the next, which can be called 'the inheritance theory of transmigration'.

However, when it comes to the Consciousness-only School (唯識學派) of Mahayana Buddhism, all these slight different concepts of mind-consciousness will be unified in a single mode of alaya-vijnana, or the storehouse of consciousness (阿賴耶識).

According to the opinions of the scholars in Korea, transmigration is sometimes regarded as a process of continuous flow by karma or by the principle of the law of causation, or an everlasting connection of momentary subsistent in the case of the five skandhas.

Therefore, we may summarize the ideas of the advocators in the present Buddhist sector, who claim the possibility of transmigration without a solid substance into two major groups. One group is the ones who claim the theory of the storehouse of consciousness as the main constituent of transmigration. Another is 'the inheritance theory of transmigration.' If this summation is not quite satisfactory, please give us an advice.

Now I am going to introduce the idea of the Yeongsan Buddhism. The storehouse consciousness could never be the nucleus of transmigration in any event. Others of the mind-consciousness we have observed above are the same.

 

Firstly, vijnana or consciousness has the function of distinguishing the object when our cognitive organs encounter an object of cognition. Therefore, we cannot think of independent consciousness apart from our cognitive organ.

If we explain according to the doctrine of the Original Buddhism, when our six sense organs or roots--eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind or thought--encounter their corresponding six objects of cognition--color or shape, sound, smell, taste, touch or sensation, and dharma--they form six aspects of consciousness or sense-data passing through the six roots or sense organ.

According to this system, apart from the six sense organs or roots, no six functions of cognition could arise. In other words, there must be a substance to form or establish consciousness. If so, does consciousness disappear completely when one dies? No! It does not. You must not limit the body or the six sense organs or roots to mean only the physical organs that could be seen or cognized.

 

In other words, the substance of our soul after our death is also our another body that possesses six roots or sense organs. When we die, all the consciousness our body had when we were alive will be transmitted to the No. 4 substance of soul.

This is the reason why the No. 4 substance of soul could not enter into the nether world and, instead, wander in the limbo as an intermediate state of the dead spirit between heaven and hell (中陰身). And while the dead spirit wanders in a kind of limbo as an wandering lonely spirit (無住孤魂) of the dead, it still keeps consciousness and responds when sorcerers or the psychic mediators call, and is able to speak or appeal to them the distresses it suffered when it was alive in the mundane world.

Such scenes of the dead spirits we sometimes watch on TV are those spirits that could not enter into the nether world. Of course, the great sages could exchange the dialogue with those lonely wandering spirits on the different level than the sorcerers.

 

Secondly, consciousness itself has no ability to think, judge, and take action. When we take some kind of action, we think and judge before taking the action. Such thinking and judgement could have some kind of connection with the moral values of good or evil, or just ordinary thinking or judgement with no connection with any kind of value.

This is a collaboration of the spiritual activity of our physical organ, including our brain, and the karma reflected on the substance of our soul. Therefore, our consciousness has no function of thinking, judging, and taking action all by itself. Accordingly, consciousness could not be the main constituent of any action. What it means is that it naturally could not be the main constituent of the retributory reward or retribution. In other words, we cannot ask the responsibility for some mistakes commited by consciousness. In the same vein, we cannot also grant the reward for something it did well.

Therefore, consciousness could neither get punishment in the hell nor could enjoy pleasure in the heavenly realm. If consciousness could receive the retributory reward, we can imagine a logic that the one who committed sin in the former life could take the consciousness off from its body and send it to hell to receive punishment so that the body could act freely outside the hell without any obstruction.

If it is possible, not only the theory of Buddhist transmigration in the six realms of karmic existence would crumble to the ground but there also is no reason for Buddhism to subsist. Therefore, consciousness could have a meaning only when there is a nucleus to hold it. The storehouse of consciousness is unable to transmigrate independently, and what is transmigrating is not the consciousness but the substance of soul which in fact is the master of the storehouse of consciousness.

 

Thirdly, about the idea of transmigration as karma or continuous flow by the principle of causal origination, and the idea of the theory of inheritance which sees transmigration as an infinite momentary interrelation such as five skandhas, they all must have a performer, and there also must have a precondition that the performer of karma and the receiver of the retribution must be the same as we have observed above.

However, the above two ideas about transmigration could not satisfy the conditions of such law of causality. The concepts of ego-self (自我) of five defilements, ego-self of karmic action, ego-self of transmigration are also, I think, very ambiguous, and unable to explain clearly the true meaning of transmigration and the problem of the main constituent of transmigration through the law of causality.

The theory of the inheritance of five skandhas also have many doubts. It says that all five skandhas scatter when a person dies. However, we cannot understand where the five skandhas were before and how they could get to gather again and form a different kind of five skandhas. We could not also imagine the concept that it is the continuance of momentary subsistence that receives the retribution of transmigration.

They talk about the intermediate state of the dead spirit between heaven and hell (中陰身) as a mediator. However, it is the No. 4 substance of soul that failed to enter the nether world. It is also curious that how the five skandhas that compose the physical body could enter the hell or the heavenly realm where there is no physical body at all.

That is not all. If the five skandhas vanish completely without any form when one attains enlightenment, where do we find the meaning of enlightenment? The theory of inheritance of the power of karma that the five skandhas leave behind is also unconvincing. We can say that the power of kama is the cause of transmigration and a potential power. Such potential power could only have the meaning of inheritance when some kind of refuge or a mediator has the same concept of nucleus.

 

If the power of karma creates a new subsistence every time as a retribution of karma, it could not be the concept of transmigration. And if one may attain enlightenment when the power of karma exhausts, does it then create anything or none? We have many things to ponder over.

The problems of self and transmigration are not the problems of the idea of either substantialism or anti-substantialism but the problem of substance. The substance of soul that belongs to the ultimate realm of substance is real, and transmigration is also undeniable fact and actuality.

The Lord Buddha attained the ultimate enlightenment and witnessed the afflictions of the six realms of reincarnation the human beings transmigrate. After attaining the ultimate enlightenment beyond transmigration, the Lord propagated the great teachings to solve the problem of afflictions of the sentient beings. This is Buddhism, and we all must believe in Buddha with all our heart and follow the Lord's teaching.