Recently, I’ve written some articles concerning death and rebirth. The first one touched on the fate of an awakened one after the body dies, and the second one focused on past lives and reincarnation. I want to continue the discussion of rebirth and past lives today.
In my prior article, I took a position on past lives that caused quite a bit of disagreement. To be honest, what I was presenting wasn’t really what I believe about past lives or reincarnation because, to be honest, I don’t have the slightest idea what happens. And for the most part, I don’t think anyone really can know. But, you never know!
So, how about a counter point, one that is different from most of the ones I’ve heard? I was reading one of my favorite books the other night, I Am That by Nisargadatta Maharaj. If you’ve never read it, I suggest that you do. I know several people who have experienced the truth at a very profound level who feel that Nisargadatta express most clearly of anyone the perspective of an awakened one. I would tend to agree.
Nisargadatta’s views on death and rebirth were quite eye-opening. Let’s take a look:
The memory of the past, unfulfilled desires traps energy [the energy of the Absolute or Source], which manifests itself as a person. When its charge gets exhausted, the person dies. Unfulfilled desires are carried over into the next birth.
According to Nisargadatta, the entire cause of manifesting as a person is unfulfilled desires. And death occurs when the energy that is trapped with these desires exhausts itself. Remarkable. And guess what? Any desire unfulfilled during one lifetime is carried over into the next one. He continues:
Self-identification with the body creates ever fresh desires and there is no end to them, unless the mechanism of bondage is clearly seen. It is clarity that is liberating, for you cannot abandon desire, unless its cause and effects are clearly seen.
Here we have Nisargadatta’s whole take on liberation: clear seeing. Our problem again and again according to him is identification of who we are with bodies and minds, which we are not. And the cure is simple: clear seeing. Further, he points out that the attempts by so many spiritual people to rid themselves of desires is pointless, for you cannot do so. You can only see clearly the cause of desire and the effects of desire, and in the seeing clearly desire will drop away.
Now for the interesting part concerning past lives:
I do not say that the same person is reborn. It dies and dies for good. But its memories remain and their desires and fears. They supply the energy for the new person.
Interesting, very interesting! Let’s look at an example to see what Nisargadatta is saying. As I mentioned previously, I was once told by a psychic that I was one of Napoleon’s (short) generals in a past life. But from Nisargadatta’s perspective, there was a person who was a general for Napoleon. He died, and he is gone for good. Pas de general (no more general).
But his unfulfilled desires, his memories and fears remained in some form, and around these bits of mental-emotional energy coalesced a new person, presumably me. The general’s unfulfilled desires carry over into my psyche and my life, which must explain why I can never eat too many croissants or pains au chocalat. Delicieux!
As Nisargadatta would say, though, I was not one of Napoleon’s generals. A point that he made over and over again is that this “I” that we so often refer to does not exist. There is no “I” that carries over from lifetime to lifetime. Only, as he says, the energies from memories, desires and fears. That’s it.
The real takes no part in it, but makes it possible by giving it the light.
And finally, he let’s us know that the Absolute (the real) doesn’t do any of this. It occurs because the Absolute is the source of all, but it is not the cause. What is, you may ask? No way to know, at least not from what Nisargadatta has to say (nor, I think, from anything he has written).
Personally, I love his explanation of past lives and rebirth. If I had to believe in something, I would go with Nisargadatta. The picture he paints is one that I find myself liking. How about you?
Tom, personally, the part I liked best in this article was the expressed desire for croissants, never enough croissants. I can not only see them, taste them, hear their shell crackle, smell them, savor and feel the abundance, it comes with the thought that nothing should be this good! What an energetic legacy you leave the next body…and in turn I’m leaving the philosophical discussion to your most able-minded readers.
This agrees totally with the Buddhist doctrine of the skandhas: which are habits, usually formed by desire, and they are what reincarnates. They are one of the most important vehicles of karma.
Hi Tom,
The problem I have with reincarnation is the mechanism.
Philosophically – analysing the argument – I have problems too. If the person dies then the desires and so forth are separated from the person. So why should a person coalesce around these desires and so forth? If they are separate from the person they were part of, why should they form the core of another person?
For me, I haven’t had any memories of past lives (which I believe others have had). So it’s not a big concern of mine.
So I don’t know about reincarnation. The biggest question I have about it I guess is: how would I have more fun next time?
An interesting perspective! I like it, but I think it leaves out the human Soul … which in my perspective is the eternal, Divine aspect of ourselves that continues onward through each incarnation, and some fun stuff in between.
One thing I definitely agree with – the reason we come back! I don’t define that reason as “desire” necessarily. There are lessons to be learned here, but also Souls are compelled to come back to release negative influences they’ve incurred in past lives (which translates nicely to left-over desire, because that’s often what it looks like in “real” life). Negativity always creates separation from the Absolute …
But I also happen to know that Souls are pretty busy in between incarnations, which this theory doesn’t take into account.
Thanks for sharing this, it definitely provides food for thought!
Blessings,
Andrea
Evan – perhaps I can explain – the person, the idea of “Evan” as this body, etc dies. You were not called Evan last time. And you forget you are Evan when you sleep now. But the desires or drives you attribute to this person live on. They gather a form/new person with which to express those desires. Clear house of what drives your tendencies to have ‘bad’ experiences (the fears) and next time will be better (laughs)
The thing to understand here is the last quote. All of this takes place in the dream and the interactive field of karma. How that ‘dream’ is experienced thus varies by person.
Nisargadatta is obviously coming from an ‘impersonal’ stance. He saw the dream in its most fundamental form, the basic mechanics. Others will see a more personalized view, one that adds layers to those basics. Layers that may include a soul as Andrea perceives, or the thread I have described.
For myself, there is a thread of connection between the incarnations, one that collapses into a single soul with the collapse of time. There are also threads of connection to other soul lines which collapse as the threads of karma or desire release. All becomes one.
But that is a layer of experience in my story, overlaid on what he describes above. And that story was my vehicle for perceiving the collapse. Without that vehicle, it is not perceived and perception is my path.
In comments on Tom’s last post, I spoke of Maya changing from the illusion to the ladder. This is an example. It remains the dream but it is the dream of self-knowledge, of the Self’s drive to know Itself through experiences.
@Barbara I’m glad you like the croissants! I love them. All my trips to Paris have been a bit heavy on the baked goods. Oh la la.
@Evan I’m with you on the mechanism part. We can offer explanations for how it works. But it is interesting to note that rarely does anyone agree. *sigh* I love that Nisargadatta looks at it a lot more generically, without too many details.
@Andrea I believe we are just going to have to disagree again.
I’m pretty certain I don’t have a soul. Oh, well. Maybe I’m wrong. But all I ever find is one vast Emptiness shared by all. No soul. Just what Nisargadatta calls Reality. What in Zen they call the Absolute.
@Katinka Thanks for the comment! The Buddha was pretty adamant about the lack of a soul, of an incarnation that re-incarnates. Just the skandhas. I’ve been often impressed how Nisargadatta sounds so much like the Buddha, and yet coming from a clear Hindu/Advaita tradition.
I smiled when I read the first quote! And he’s absolutely right (of course). At one point in my own work/path, I came to see this exact same truth about reincarnation: that it is (only) karma that “reincarnates.” Karma being a manifestation of our selfish desires. If you are free from selfish desires, you will not re-incarnate (unless by choice, as the Dalai Lama claims for himself.)
But, this is not the same as saying that a “soul” is reincarnated. In truth, there is no (such thing as a) “soul.” And no one who is truly awakened one would ever posit the existence of a soul. The only thing that moves on, or keeps moving, as it might be better described, is karma, the nature of karma being selfish desire(s). (Of course, it takes a lot of work/effort and time to get to the point of being able to see this. This is not easy stuff.)
As for that first quote, am I right to understand that Nisargadatta’s words were translated into English from another language? I ask because using the word “unfulfilled” might give off the (false) impression that our desires are to be fulfilled before we can be free of them. Selfish desire, like a burning fire, cannot be fulfilled/satisfied. This is why I, personally, prefer to use the concept of “outgrowing” selfish desires (thereby no longer giving them the fuel to exist at all, just like a flame). We outgrow them and let them go, just like a stuffed animal, or security blanket, or a fad when we were young. Happiness (which I ultimately equate with Enlightenment) is not the satisfaction of selfish desire, but rather the absence of selfish desire, in the same way that one outgrows the “need”/desire for the stuffed animal, and thus the need-desire is simply no longer there.
BTW, I am not questioning Nisargadatta’s understanding, since he obviously knew what he was talking about. Rather, this is why I wonder if it was an issue of translation. In fact, this is a good example of why I consistently urge mindfulness when it comes to the words we use. For words can “create” (un)realities for us in the form of misguided conceptual frameworks/world views. This might seem a bit nitpicky, but that doesn’t mean it’s not important….
@rwalker Nice comments. I completely agree. And, Nisargadatta was born Maruti Shivrampant Kambli in Mumbai, India. He spoke some dialect of Hindi, I believe. So, yes, translation. It is clear from reading him that he did NOT mean you had to fulfill desires to be free of them. However, he would say that once fulfilled, a desire will “cease” only to arise again. Quite similar to the wheel of samsara.
One point, though: both he and Ramana would point out that desire naturally falls away as the source of all desire is dropped: identification as a self. Once the I-thought is let go of, desire naturally ceases.
It’s like they say: Ultimately, all (true) teachings will converge and agree. Why? Because they all come from the same place.
It matters less one’s spiritual or religious identifications than outgrowing the need for them.
This is absolutely true. Interestingly (as I found myself), once selfish desire is gone, the I-thought naturally disappears. It works the same way, the same “end” is attained.
I think that here in the “West,” where we are so conditioned (from a very young and impressionable age) to equate happiness with the satisfaction of desire, it can be wise to approach the process by first focusing on our selfish desires (and their nature) rather than trying to do away with the I-thought, which, I think makes more sense for those coming from an “Eastern” tradition. This is often the problem encountered by Westerners who focus mainly on a Zen meditation approach. Put simply, they still haven’t worked out their shit yet enough to truly do what Zen meditation is there to help us do. (This is, of course, not meant as a blanket statement, as there are always exceptions to any rule.)
Incidentally, this also touches upon why it doesn’t make sense for Westerners to put on Eastern/Buddhist costumes and act like Easterners—the path is awakening from the illusions of our conditioned existences, not someone else’s.
Robert – in your several comments, I agree with most everything. Well put. The cultures have different needs and releasing the roots of desire will clear them, not as Tom observed, by fulfilling them.
This is not to say fulfilling desires is wrong. That is why we are expressed. But seeking fulfillment through desires is the error.
I will disagree with one point though. Be very careful with absolute statements like “In truth there is no (such thing as a) “soul.” You then amplify that by suggesting no one truly awakened would suggest it. That’s right up there with ‘white boys can’t dance’.
The Vedas were written by the enlightened and are full of descriptions of the Jiva or soul. Like we discussed over on the last post, how we perceive that varies. But not perceiving it does not make it false.
This definition for example: “is distinct but inseparable from the unbounded self and awareness that is identical with Shiva.” Now, some do define jiva like the person that is manifested in each life, as described in the article above. Some even equate it with ego but if that were true, the body would cease on awakening.
But what of the continuity between lives? What I would call “soul” is that increment of wholeness that ‘remembers’, that holds those memories as described. The point of life force that drives our existence. Vasishta put it thus, on the subject of death: “That…particle which is possessed of these memories and tendencies is known as the jiva…”
The question I might ask is Why would a given set of desires stay together if there were not a container?
BTW – I have observed one thing about teachers like Ramana. They stay focused on the source alone and stay as general as possible. They don’t go into ideas like jiva or atman simply because such exploration creates concepts and concepts can be a barrier to progress if we hold to them.
So while they speak the truth, they do so without detail. But that does not mean the detail will not be there for some on the path. Just because a few people awaken straight into Oneness does not mean some of us don’t have a journey to get there.
I wholeheartedly agree. And, in fact, most of what I say/write is geared towards those who have just such a journey. In fact, I think most, if not all, people have a journey. A journey that is unique to their karma, but is also the same journey we all are taking, whether or not all of us realize that we are actually on such a journey.
Your question about desires staying together is a valid one. I do not think they stay together in the way we think of the idea of “things” “staying together.” This is the point of freeing ourselves from our illusions. I know it seems like avoidance to say so, but the fact is that we are strongly conditioned to be in the habit of letting our “grammar,” if you will, dictate our understanding of the world/reality. This is why I advocate deeply questioning our illusions—and especially the nature of our illusions. In the absence of illusion comes clarity, as I am sure you know.
But, I would say that it is not particular desires which “move on,” but desire itself. In the end, we all desire the same things. On the level that this kind of transition happens, I do not think that any language can truly suffice. Best for us to break down our own illusions, and when the time comes, see for ourselves, wouldn’t you agree?
As for “soul,” there is a point where it comes down to semantics, but I feel semantics can be important. When I speak of there not being a soul, I am referring to the notion of there being something (contained, if you will) which endures beyond death. I think that a true understanding of “karma” precludes this.
Robert – I agree, there is not “things” staying together. To me, it is more an impulse or particle of intention and purpose that has been stepping forward for many thousands of years. That intention draws certain experiences and desires which result in certain karmas that result in more of the same.
This is the play of experiences by which Self can know Itself.
But there is a distinct process and progress underway, a distinct progression. And it is moving towards a distinct end point.
Death is simply the end of a chapter. What’s important about ourselves endures.
For me, this is not a concept but rather the experience and one confirmed by some teachers I respect. I’ve seen it in my own life and that of a number of others.
The impulse is clearer when the vastness of time is known. As I’ve noted above, when time collapses into the moment and all lives become concurrent, it is the center. As all souls are increments of the One, when you are That, it is easy to step into another “man’s” shoes. It all plays out on time scales far greater than recorded history. The vastness of the dream is beyond imagining.
Does any of this matter? No. What matters is the essence, the silence, what Nisargadatta speaks about above. Just don’t be surprised if you find some continuity of purpose. They don’t say “old soul” for nothing.
Davidya — I do know what you’re saying, and do not disagree. I, too, intuit(?) something that might be seen as a “continuity of purpose,” as you say, though I am not happy with the idea of “purpose” here (too loaded a concept, in too many respects). And yet, I simply do not think that the human intellect can grasp this, let alone label it (always wrongly, as all labels are wrong) no matter how much it might want to.
To be honest, I wasn’t totally happy with my statement regarding “desire itself,” as I left out what you rightly point to. And yet, I still do not posit the idea of a “soul.” There is just too much misunderstanding attached to that word, mostly thanks to some misguided religious dogma (such as “the immortality of the soul,” and that kind of thing, which, ultimately, I think, stem from an unwillingness to truly and completely let go of identity). As such, it, too, is just too loaded. What you describe in your last comment is not something that I would call a soul. If one wants to call it that, they’re obviously free to, but I think it can be problematic.
And now I think I’ll step back and let some others have the floor.
Have a good one!
Thanks, Robert. Such discussion draws out fascinating aspects. You are quite right about the words. There are so few to describe key aspects and some of them are loaded. It took me a long time to be comfortable with using “God”, but even there, I often qualify it. Sometimes I use a Sanskrit term, but the same issue exists there. Karma has to be one of the worst for loaded meaning. Jiva is used loosely as mentioned above. And it’s a word less familiar in the west.
And your point about being able to grasp this inherent intention is entirely valid. Purpose is perhaps the wrong word. Yet it defines all major aspects of life and experience. It is our raison d’etre. Yet most of us don’t even see it.
Thanks again for all your thoughts.
Pingback: Back Again « In 2 Deep
This is from a recent conversation at an informal talk I gave in Tokyo. The topic floated through the neighborhood of life after death, and it may be fitting for this post.
Speaker:
Takuin:
I wonder if I’ll be asked back.
I’m behind on comments. Again!
@Robert Yes, it is so easy to spot the really awake ones because, at the root, they all sound alike! Once you get past the doctrinal stuff, it’s all about no-self and Oneness.
@davidya “The question I might ask is Why would a given set of desires stay together if there were not a container?”
Answer: who knows? Its all part of the great Mystery of Life. More fun that we can’t know! LOL
@Robert you and I really see eye to eye on the soul. Or lack thereof.
Thanks for the comments.
@Takuin Perfect!!! Absolutely perfect. And you will NOT be asked back. LOL
Thanks for the book recommendation, Tom. I just ordered a copy of “I Am That” and am looking forward to diving right in!
Fascinating stuff…first of all I am going to buy the book, but secondly I really enjoy the perspective on rebirth that has been brought up.
The Buddhist philosophy is that our past lives are like building blocks. We are not the same person, but we are built on the past lives, so that makes sense.
Just found your blog via ProBlogger I think? I’m glad I did.
@Padma Glad you found me. I like ProBlogger, he has lots of interesting tips for blogging.
Pingback: The Waking Dream « In 2 Deep
Past lives…. had some ‘past life’ recall when i was involved in Scientology many years ago..
Now I have lost interest to some degree,there are either past or future lives or not. I prefer to live in the moment, as past life stuff is guaranteed to set my OCD off big time. I feel its easier to assume that when we die that is it, sort of accepting a worse case scenario!