The Henri Van Zeyst Archive

.
.
.
About the Author

Henri van Zeyst was born in Utrecht, the Netherlands, in 1905. Educated throughout in Catholic schools and colleges, he spent his final years of studies in philosophy and theology. An intensive course of comparative religion brought him in contact with Buddhism. Within a year of his coming to Ceylon ( Sri Lanka ) he was ordained a Buddhist monk there in 1938 under the name of Bhikkhu Dhammapala.
.
____________________________________________________________________
.
.
Consciousness : Higher Self

By Henri Van Zeyst

The end of a long process of mental activity, not long perhaps as chronological time is involved, but long in a line of experiences and consequences, there comes consciousness.
It begins, if one may speak of a beginning anywhere at all, with a physical contact (phassa) with one of the six senses of perception (salayatana). This produces a sensation (vedana) which is the experiencing of a challenge. It is at this stage that the process tends to become mental, when the sensation is perceived (sanna).

This perception is usually a way of seizing (perception from capere, to grasp) of getting hold of the sensation for the sake of its effect, pleasurable or unsatisfactory. This seizure takes place because of the necessity of the self to continue the experience, for it is in continuation of experience that the self attempts to survive as an individual entity.

Without seizure there can be no continuation in memory and hence no survival of self. It is at this stage that the long chain of dependent origination can cease to become and continue, when sensations are experienced as mere responses to stimuli. But, when sensations are grasped at for the psychological survival of the experience, they will be seen as pleasurable or not; and in that gratification the self grows, establishes itself in memory, projects itself in ideals, and the chain of dependent origination (paticca samuppada) continues, when sensations become the source of desire (tanha) and clinging (upadana) leading to the becoming (bhava) of self-consciousness in which the 'I' continues.


In this process of conditioning (sankhara), the experience is no longer experienced, but its memory compared with earlier gathered experiences. Then when need has become greed. The stored or re-linking consciousness (patisandhi vinnana) can bring its idealized image up and project it for further action (bhava-kamma). This process of recognition and registration completes the process of thought, when out of decaying memory new thought and action are formulated to reform and restart the cycle of consciousness in ignorance. Only the perceiving of experiencing without thought of seizure can awaken the intelligence which can break the perpetual chain of rebirth of thought.

What is the difference between consciousness and awareness? Consciousness is thought; and thought is the result of thinking, which is a process of application of the mind with logic and memory, with volition and determination, with judgement and selection, with prejudice and ideals, with fear and hope.

Consciousness, in other words, is the 'I' in action which is reaction, because all thinking is the conditioned result of the entire past, not only of the individual past, but the accumulation throughout the ages of the struggles for survival, the interminal wars for emergence, the endless conflicts, with the ideas of the mind controlling the weapons of the pen and the sword. Consciousness is the past trying to become the future, without understanding the past, without knowing the future. Thus, consciousness or thinking is always in conflict; it cannot solve any problem, because it does not try to understand.

But awareness is not thinking, is not the memory of the past, is not desire, is not the longing for the future. It is just to be open and receptive to whatever is or happens. There is no approach to the present; the present is here already and we are facing it directly without fear of the past, without hope of the future. Awareness is seeing what is as it is, with openness and directness, without expectation of results, without fear of consequences, without reflection as to a self judging in prejudice. It is an immediate experiencing, in which there is no reference to self, and hence no thought, consciousness, reaction.

Unconditioned, there is no conflict, no opposition, no self. And where there is no self, there is no problem. Can the self become no-self ? Such question is obviously formulated in ignorance, for it is still the self that wants to become its ideal. Only in stilling all consciousness there can be awareness in which there is no striving for attainment of an ideal. And consciousness is still, when there is awareness of what 'is'.



Contentment

By Henri Van Zeyst

To be satisfied or to be content with something is to find a relationship based on exploitation. To find one's satisfaction with something or in somebody is a self-indulgence at the cost of the other. The other has become the means, which we try to separate from the end, our own pleasure. It may be that the otter does not mind so much to be exploited, as for instance in hired labour, when his conditions without being exploited would be perhaps even worse. And that is the usual relationship in present day society, which is certainly not based on contentment.

Contentment may be obtained through religious practices, but then religion is not the end; it is only a method. And in thus separating the means from the end for the sake of contentment, only conflict born of opposition can be the outcome. As long as contentment depends on relationship, there is only self-gratification.

But there is a contentment which is not the end of a search for satisfaction, but which is at the beginning of realization. This contentment is totally unconditioned and free. It is not born from desire, as an image discovered in memory. To be totally unconditioned, contentment cannot be brought about through possessions or through the renunciation thereof. It is not an acquisition through virtue or practice.

When in passive awareness the mind is still and silent in the understanding of the empty movements of thought through memory into ideal, - when thought is still and silence is perceived, there is contentment in the utter void of self, in the total absence of desire in self-projection, in the complete stillness of the absence of fear; - and in that contentment there is truth, the joy of contentment without the pleasure of satisfaction.

Satisfaction is always the fulfillment of a desire, which is but a thought in anticipation of acquisition. It is in acquisition that the 'I' can grow and become, and thus it is in satisfaction that there is a search for security and fulfillment of an ideal. But, contentment is in the present and has no dealing with satisfaction, with ideals, or with self; and thus it cannot be made or acquired, and is not subject to moods and methods. It is based on understanding and seeing things as they are.





Four Noble Truths 4 noble truths
( CHATURARYA SATYA in PALI)

The Four Noble Truths are thus:
1. Life means suffering
2. The origin of suffering is attachment.
3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.
4. The path to the cessation of suffering.

1. 4 noble truths To be born is to suffer

To be born into this world means to suffer. That's Buddha's first Noble Truth. This is because human life isn't perfect and neither are our surroundings. Our life in this world is subject to 4 noble truths suffering and physical pain due to sickness, old age, disease, injury and death. We undergo mental suffering and pain due to sadness, disappointment, poverty, lust, love, fear, frustration, greed, injustice and depression. 4 noble truths

Although suffering 4 noble truths has various degrees of manifestation, there also lies certain conditions in life that are perceived to be the opposite of suffering such as luxury, pleasure, sex, lust, wealth, status and power. However, life in its totality remains impermanent (Anicca)4 noble truths because this Universe is subject to impermanence. Everything in this Universe undergoes cycles of birth, growth, decay and death. That is the Universal law we have to accept whether we are 4 noble truths Buddhists or non-Buddhists.

What this means is, all that we strive for is subject to change. We can never hold onto anything be it life, beauty, 4 noble truths wealth or power. Just as happy moments flash by, we too and our loved ones will eventually pass away.

2. 4 noble truths The origin of suffering is attachment.

The origin of suffering is attachment to impermanence that's perceived to bring us happiness. This is the second Noble Truth. The transient illusions (wealth, lust, power, beauty) condition our mindset into believing their permanence, thus preventing our mind from overcoming ignorance. 4 noble truths We suffer because of our desire, passion, greed, pursue of wealth and status, by striving for fame and acceptance, or in other words - due to craving and attachment.

Due to the transient nature of what we cling onto, their loss, decay and death are natural. Thus sadness will follow happiness, old age will follow youth and death will surely follow life. 4 noble truths The notions of "self" or "I" are in reality delusions because there is no permanent "self." What we commonly refer to as "self" is a nonexistent entity - born in our ego which is a transient entity in the cycle of Samsara, or the ceaseless cycle of our Universe.


3. 4 noble truths The cessation of suffering is attainable.

This is the third Noble Truth in Buddhism. Thankfully!! Suffering CAN be eliminated through Nirodha. The meaning of Nirodha is elimination of sensual craving and worldly attachment.

The Buddha explicitly stated that attaining dispassion will eliminate suffering. Nirodha eliminates all forms of craving and attachment thus setting us off on our long journey towards ultimate salvation from suffering. What this means is that suffering can be eliminated though your own efforts independent of divine help.

Attaining dissipation is a mental process of many levels with the ultimate goal of seeking Nirvana. Nirvana basically means nonexistence in either physical or spiritual forms which frees one from suffering. However, Nirvana remains incomprehensible for those who have not attained it.

4. The path to the cessation of suffering.

The Noble Eightfold Path ( Ariya Ashtanga Marga ) explains the gradual path of self-improvement towards the cessation of rebirth and its resultant suffering. Lord Buddha described the Eightfold Path as the Middle Path as it avoids extremes of self-indulgence (such as hedonism) and excessive self-mortification (asceticism). This is the Path which leads to the end of Samsara, the cycle of rebirth.

The path to the end of suffering (Nirvana) can extend over many lifetimes, through eons in fact, throughout which every individual rebirth will be subject to karmic conditioning. However, by adhering to the Noble Eightfold Path, ignorance, delusion, craving and its resultant effects would gradually disappear as progress is made along the Path.



The Buddhist Doctrine of Annicca or Impermanence, and the Soul Theory

By Prof. Y. KARUNADASA Ph.D.
Courtesy - Vesak Lipi

The Buddhist doctrine of annicca, the transitoriness of all phenomena, finds classical expression in the oft-recurrent formula: Sabbe sankhara annicca and in the more popular statement: Annicca vata sankhara. Both these formulae amount to saying that all conditioned things or phenomenal processes, mental as well as material, that go to make up the samsaric plane of existence are transient or impermanent. This law of impermanence is not the result of any kind of metaphysical inquiry or of any mystical intuition. It is a straight forward judgement arrived at by investigation and analysis, and as such its basis is entirely empirical.

It is in fact for the purpose of showing the unsubstantially and impermanence of the world of experience that Buddhism analyses it into a multiplicity of basic factors. The earliest attempts at explaining this situation are represented in the analyses into five khandhas, twelve ayatanas, and eighteen dhatus. In the Abhidhamma we get the most detailed analysis into eighty one basic elements, which are introduced by the technical term, dhamma. These are the basic factors into which the empiric individuality in relation to the external world is ultimately analysed. They purport to show that there does not exist a "unity", "substance", "atta" or "jiva". In the ultimate analysis the so­called unity is a complex of factors, "one" is really "many". This applied to both mind and matter equally. In case of living beings there is no soul or self which is immortal, while in the case of things in general there is no essence which is ever-perduring.

What is revolutionary about the Buddhist doctrine of impermanence is that it is extended to include everything, including consciousness, which is usually taken to be permanent, as the soul or as one of its qualities. The Majjhimanikaya records how Bikkhu Sati misunderstood the Buddha's teaching to mean that consciousness is a permanent entity, which passes from one existence to another, like the nirasrayavijnana of Upanisads. This led Buddha to formulate the well known principle Annatra paccaya natthi vinnanassa sambhavo. There is no arising of consciousness without reference to a condition. This is further explained to mean that consciousness comes into being (sambhoti) in dependence on a duality. "What is that duality?" it is eye, which is impermanent, changing, becoming other, and visible objects, which are impermanent, changing and becoming other: such is the transient, fugative duality (of eye-cum visible objects), which is impermanent, changing and becoming other.Eye consciousness too is impermanent. For how could eye­consciousness arise by depending on an impermanent condition being permanent? The coincidence, concurrence and confluence of these three factors which is called contact and those other mental phenomena arising as a result are also impermanent." The same formula is applied to the other sense organs and the consciousness named after them. (XXXV 93-SAMYUTTA-NIKAYE) Because of its acceptance of this law of universal impermanence, Buddhism stands in direct opposition to sassatavada or eternalism, which usually goes hand in hand with atmavada, i.e. belief in some kind of immortal soul

The Brahmajala Sutta of the Digha Nikaya alone refers to more than ten varieties of eternalism, only to refute them as misconceptions of the true nature of the empirical world.But this refutation of eternalism does not lead to the acceptance, on the part of Buddhism, of the other extreme, namely ucchedavada or annihilationism, which usually goes hand in hand with materialism. The Buddhist refutation of both these extremes finds classical expression in the following words of the Buddha: "This world, 0 Kaccayana, generally proceeds on a duality, of the 'it is' and the 'it is not.' But 0 Kaccayana whoever perceives in truth and wisdom how things originate in the world, for him there is no 'it is not' in this world. Whoever, Kaccayana, perceives in truth and wisdom how things pass. away in the world, for him there is no 'it is' in this world." (11, 17-SAMYUTTANIKAYA).


This statement of the Buddha refers to the duality (divayata) of existence (atthita) and non-existence (natthita).According to Buddhism, everything is the product of the antecedent causes and therefore of dependant origination (paticcasamupanno). These causes themselves are not ever lasting and static, but simply antecedent aspects of the same ceaseless becoming. Every event is the result of a concatenation of dynamic processes (sankhara). Neither being nor non-being is the truth. There is only Becoming, happening by way of cause, continuing without identity, persistence without a persistent substance. "He who discerns origin by way of cause he discerns the Dhamma, he who discerns the Dhamma he discerns origin by way of cause."Thus by accepting the theory of causation and conditionality, Buddhism avoids the two extremes of sabbam natthi (everything is) and sabbam natthi (everything is not), and advocates "sabbam bhavati" "everything becomes" i.e. happens by way of cause and effect. It is also because of this theory that Buddhism could avoid the two extremes of niyativada (Determinism) and ahetu-appaccaya-vada (indeterminism). According to the former everything is absolutely pre-determined, according to the latter everything happens without reference to any cause or condition. According to both there is no room for free will and as such moral responsibility gets completely ruled out. By its theory of causation Buddhism avoids both extremes and establishes free will and moral responsibility.The second basic characteristic of the world of experience, namely dukkha (unsatisfactoriness) is but a logical corollary arising from this law of universal impermanence. For the impermanent nature of everything can but lead to one inescapable conclusion" as everything is impermanent, they cannot be made the basis of permanent happiness. Whatever is transient is by that very fact unsatisfactory - yad anniccam tarn dukkham. Since every form of samsaric existence is impermanent it is also characterized by unsatisfactoriness. Thus the premise: sabbe sankhara annicca, leads to the conclusion: sabbe sankhara dukkha.

As indicative of a general characteristic of all phenomena, the term dukkha should not be understood in a narrower sense to mean only pain, suffering, misery or sorrow. As a philosophical terms it has a wider connotation, as wide as that of the term anicca. In this wider sense, it includes deeper ideas such as imperfection, unrest, conflict, in short unsatisfactoriness. This is precisely why even the states of jhana, resulting from the practice of higher meditation and which are free from suffering as ordinarily understood, are also included in dukkha. This is also why the characterization, dukkha is extended even to matter (rupa). The Visuddhimagga of Buddhaghosa recognizes these wider implications of the term when it explains it as three fold, namely dukkha (dukkha as suffering), vi pari nama-dukkha (dukkha as change) and sankharadukkha (dukkha as conditioned state).As a direct and necessary corollary of this fact of dukkha, we come to the third basic characteristic of all phenomena, namely anatta, which finds expression in the well known statement: Sabbe dhamma anatta. For the unsatisfactory nature of everything should lead to this important conclusion: If everything is characterized by unsatisfactoriness, nothing can be identified as the self or as a permanent soul (atta). What is dukkha (by that very fact) is also anatta. What is not the self cannot be considered as I am (ahan ti) as mine (maman ti), or as I am that (asmi ti).


THE SOUL THEORY
According to Buddhism the idea of self or soul is not only a false and imaginary belief, with no corresponding objective reality, but is also harmful from an ethical point of view. For it produces such harmful thoughts of I, me and mine. Selfish desires, attachments and all other unwholesome states of mind (akusala dhamma). It could also be a misery in disguise to one who accepts it as true: Do you see, 0 Bhikkhus, such a soul-theory in the acceptance of which there would not arise grief, lamentation, suffering, distress and tribulation? Certainly not Sir," "Good, 0 Bhikkhus, I too 0 Bhikkhus, do not see a soul-theory, in acceptance of which there would not arise grief, lamentation, suffering, distress and tribulation" (I. 137 MAJJIMA NIKAYE). This brings into relief the close connection between the Buddhist doctrine of impermanence and Buddhist ethics: If the world of experience is impermanent, by that very fact it cannot be made the basis of permanent happiness. What is not permanent (annicca) and therefore what is characterized by unsatisfactoriness (dukkha) cannot be considered as the self (annatta). And what is not the self (atta) cannot be considered as one's own (saka) or as a haven of security (tana). For the things that one gets attached to are constantly changing. Hence attachment to them would only lead to unrest and sorrow. But when one knows things as they truly are (yathabutam) i.e., annicca, dukkha, and anatta, one ceased to get agitated by them, one ceases to take refuge in them. Just as attachment to things is to get fettered by them, even so detachment from them is to get freed from them. Thus in the context of Buddhist ethics, the perception of impermanence is only a preliminary step to the eradication of all cravings, which in turn has the attainment of Nibbana as its final goal.

It will thus be seen that the Buddhist doctrine of annicca, on which is also based the doctrine of dukkha and anatta, can rightly be called the very foundation of the whole edifice of Buddhist philosophy and ethics. This explains why the Buddha has declared that the very perception of this fact, namely that whatever comes to existence is also subject to dissolution (yam kinci samudayadhammam sabbam tamnirodh- dhammam) is indeed the very arising of the stainless Eye of the Doctrine (dhamnma­cakku).


THE THEORY OF MOMENTARINESS
The Buddhist doctrine of impermanence, as explained in the canonical texts, does really amount to a theory of momentariness, in the sense that everything is in a state of constant flux. This becomes clear from a passage in the Anguttaranikaya (I 152), where the three sankhata-Iakkhamas (the characteristic of that which is compounded are explained. Here it is said that which is Sankhata (compound) has three fundamental characteristics, namely uppada (origination), vaya (dissolution), and thitassa annathatta (otherwise of that which is existing). From this it followsthat the Buddhist doctrine of change should not be understood in the ordinary sense that something arises, exists for some time in a more or less static form, and dissolves. On the contrary, the third characteristic, i.e. thitassa annathatta shows that between its arising and cessation, a thing is all the time changing, with no static phase in between. Thus the Buddhist doctrine of change does really amount to a theory of universal flux.As far as the application of this theory of change is concerned, there is nothing to suggest that early Buddhism had made any distinction between mind and matter. However, some schools of Buddhism, notably the Mahasanghikas, Vatsiputriyas and Sammityas, while recognizing the momentary duration of mental elements, assigned a relative permanence to matter. Others such as Sarvastivadins, Mahasasakas and Sautranitkas objected to introducing any such distinction and declared that all elements of existence, mental as well as material, are of momentary duration of instantaneous being. (Article abridged)Introducing the writer: Prof. Y. Karunadasa Ph.D. is the Director of Buddhist Studies, Buddhist and Pali University Colombo. He is a well known academic and Pali Scholar.





The Mind and The Five Mental Hindrances

by Chandra Gunasekara

The Buddha as befits man gave pride of place to the mind. In the Cittavagga of the Dhammapada he states that the mind is pure at birth and it is the subsequent impact of adventitious thought born of sense stimuli that defiles it.
To attain Nibbana, one has to cleanse oneself of all these defilements. There are many obstacles however which impede and hinder the spiritual progress of the mind. Five hindrances in particular known as Pancha Nivarana are often cited , in the Buddhist scriptures. They are sensual desire (kamacchanda), ill will (vyapada), sloth and torpor (thina middha), excitement and worry (uddacca kukkucca), doubt , and perplexity (vicikicca). In the Samyutta Nikaya, the Buddha explains with the aid of water as a smilies how each of these cloud one's mental vision.

The mind at birth, the Buddha said is lustrous and pure. Its contact with the outer world that defiles and sets it a flutter like a fish thrown out of water Gasping and grappling in the throes of death.
The mind that for sense pleasures yearn
Is like a bowl of coloured water
In whose admix of red, blue or yellow
No true reflection of oneself can be seen.
The mind that seethes with anger,
Is like a pot of boiling water
In whose frenzy of making steam and vapour No true reflection of oneself can be seen.
The mind that's overcome with sloth and torpor,
Is like a pond that's overgrown with moss and weeds In whose dark and murky depths of water, No true reflection of oneself can be seen.
The mind to excitement and worry given,
Is like a sea of storm-tossed water
In whose constant motion of to and fro No true reflection of oneself can be.




The Non-Existence (Anatta) Doctrine

Individual existence, as well as the whole world, are in reality nothing but a process of everchanging phenomena which are all comprised in the five Groups of Existence. This process has gone on from time immemorial, before one's birth, and also after one's death it will continue for endless periods of time, as long, and as far, as there are conditions for it.

The Five Groups of Existences, either taken separately or combined, in no way constitute a real Ego-entity or subsisting personality, and outside of these Groups too, no self, soul or substance can be found as their "owner." In other words, the five Groups of Existence are 'not self (anatta), nor do they belong to a Self (anattaniya). ln view of the impermanence and conditionality of all existence, the belief in any form of Self must be regarded as an illusion.

Dust as that what we designate by the name of "chariot", had no existence apart from axle, wheels, shaft, carriage, and so forth; or, as the word "house" is merely a convenient designation for various materials put together after a cel1ain fashion, so as to enclose a portion of space, and there is no separate house entity in existence. In exactly the same way, that which we call a "being", or an "individual", or a "person", or by the name. "I", is nothing but a changing combination of physical and psychic phenomena, and has no real existance in itself.






Theravada Buddhism

By the book Theravada Buddhism is what was taught and practiced by the greatest Sage that India ever produced, Siddharta Gotama, the Buddha. Strictly speaking, it was not his teaching but the eternal truth rediscovered by him. Buddha is not the name of a person but a title meaning Awakened-One.

Some take Theravada Buddhism as a religion, others regard it as a philosophy. If we carefully examine the earliest records we would see that Theravada Buddhism should best be described as a psychology or even more appropriately, a psychotherapy. Theravada Buddhism does deal with religious as Buddist books well as philosophical, social and individual problems, yet it does so by first bringing them into the field of psychology and solves them as psychological problems. Buddhism Buy the book is also not a kind of mysterious mysticism as some understand it because even mystic states are understood in Buddhist psychology to be just different altered mental states.

Nirvana, the ultimate goal of Theravada Buddhism, is not a mystic state but a state in which the mind is buy the book purged and purified of all ego conceit and all traces of attachment, greed, aversion, hatred, and delusion.


Buddhist Holy Book
Buddhism offers its own critique of religion. Buddhist holy book In this, religion is not theocentric, centered around the idea of a creator, but rather seen as being centered around the interest of man. Religion is not something that has come down from heaven to fulfill a Buy the book divine purpose, but something that has grown up on earth to satisfy the deepest of human needs. It is not based on divine revelation - but on human discovery. Buddist books
Buddhism is not dependent on blind faith and worship but on the understanding of experience through the use of human intelligence. It is not based on history or a story Buy the book which if proved false would tumble down, but stands on the hard rock of direct personal experience. The practice of Theravada Buddhism is not based on the idea of punishment and reward but on selflessness and love. Buddist books

Theravada Buddhism does not regard man as a sinner who is incapable of anything better than appealing to the creator for forgiveness. It regards man as capable of rising above all human weaknesses and cultivating a divine mind through his own efforts. One cannot be saved by any external means but he has to save himself Buy the book through this own efforts and right technique developed by his mind. The Buddha is not a savior but a guide who teaches the technique of saving oneself after having tested it himself. The destiny Buddhist holy book of man is not controlled by the whims of a creator, but by the kind of life he leads, his thoughts, speech and actions in accordance with the law of cause and effect One's state of mind even determines the situation in which he is reborn.

The Buddha taught about rebirth in Theravada Buddhism but not in the reincarnation or the transmigration of permanent souls. The life after death is only a continuation of the present process of existence. The Buddha realized that our existence does not begin with this human life nor end with this life in some kind of eternal heaven Buddhist holy book or hell afterwards, out he beheld that we have been existing since beginningless time in countless numbers of various existences according to our accumulated Karma and will continue to do so until the whole process is understood and gradually brought to a standstill. Theravada Buddhism is a gradual path of mental evolution, where man transcends human weaknesses and attains perfection of mind and finally solves the problem of existence, attains Nirvana. next> Buddist books

All problems in life boil down to one psychological problem called Dukkha or suffering. Suffering is not just poverty, starvation and sickness and so forth which modern man commonly talks about. It is more related to mental suffering in the form of confusion, anxiety, depression, grief, worry, restlessness and so forth which are mainly psychological states. Normally these states of mind are considered to be the fault of circumstances. This is why these arc seen commonly as economic or social problems. Yet the Buddha points out that they are caused by our mental attitudes and reactions to circumstances, not by the objects or situations themselves. If we really check up inside our mind we will find this is true.






Buddha Dhamma -
The Case For The Buddhist Theory Of Survival And Kamma

in Theravada Buddhism

Professor K. N. Jayatilleke Ph. D. (Cantab) - Courtesy Vesak Lipi

The Buddhist doctrine of re-becoming (punabbhava) was a novel theory in so far as it spoke of survival without a self-identical soul or substance. There was continuity (santali) of personality after death and rebirth or the return to an earth-life was only a special case of such continuity. The doctrine was propounded after taking into account all the possible theories that could be advanced with regard to the problem of an after life.
The Buddhist doctrine of karma merely taught that there was a correlation between moral acts and their consequences without implying any sort of fatalism. In fact, its implications were the very opposite of fatalism in that man by his understanding of his own nature could control his present and determine his own future.When we examine some of the objections that could be levelled against this doctrine of re-becoming, we investigated the objection against any theory of survival from the alleged state of or relationship that exists between the brain and the mind. The evidence against the possibility of survival was by no means crucial. Survival is neither proved nor disproved in the light of the modern findings regarding the brain-mind. Any theory of survival therefore, stands or falls on the basis of independent evidence.

When we also examined some of the objections raised specifically against rebirth, we found that the objection that rebirth was a self-contradictory concept was not valid since we can speak significantly of a single individual having many lives where there is a continuity of memory and mental dispositions. The argument from the increase in the human population could not be levelled against the Buddhist theory of rebirth since Buddha entertained the possibility of prior lives among animal, human or non-human ancestors in this or other planets. The objection from biogenesis was also not valid since rebirth took place at a higher level of animal evolution.

The objection from the lack of memory of prior lives was far from true. Memory may be used in one of two senses, (i) the recalled genuine experiences of one's past, and (ii) presence of capacities and skills acquired in past. In the second scene we found that there was some evidence for the existence of such 'memories'.

Identical twins when joined together called 'Siamese twins' have a common heredity and a common environment. Yet psychologists have observed that they differ in character and temperament. It is likely, therefore, that the difference is due to a third factor (other than heredity and environment), namely the 'cast over' of past skills and attitude from previous lives. Geniuses or child prodigies, whose extra ordinary accomplishments cannot be accounted for in terms of heredity or environment, would only be special cases of such a "carry over' of skills from one life to another.

In the former sense of memory, namely of the recall of genuine in one's past, it is claimed that there is evidence of the recall of genuine experiences from prior lives. Such claims have to be carefully examined.

Unsatisfactory Arguments
Yet, before we proceed to do so, it is necessary to dispose of some unsatisfactory arguments that are sometimes adduced in support of the doctrine of rebirth. They may take many forms. There is a tendency to urge that some belief is true because almost everybody holds it. Yet the universality belief does not entail its truth. Nor at the same time does it entail its truth. It is sometimes maintained that many primitive peoples of the ancient world believed in the survival or the doctrine of rebirth. But this does not imply that the belief is either true or false. Its truth or falsity has to be established independently.

The relevance of the universality of the belief as evidence of its truth becomes more interesting when it is realized that everyone in a state of deep hypnosis gives an account of experiences in alleged prior lives, lived on earth, whatever their conscious beliefs may be. There is evidence that Materialists and Theists holding a variety of views on the subject of survival after death without subscribing to the doctrine of rebirth or preexistence, give alleged accounts of prior lives, recounting details of their experience. Does this imply the truth of the belief? Not necessarily. For it is possible that all their beliefs could be illusory, though the universality of such an illusion has to be accounted for. But the experiences they recount certainly constitute evidence for the truth or falsity of the belief in rebirth. We shall carefully examine this evidence later on.

Another form in which an argument for survival is presented, is that a human need or want, implies the existence of what is needed or wanted. We need or want food. Therefore, it is suggested, there must be such immortality or survival. However, this is an argument that cuts both ways. For others may argue that, we believe in rebirth or survival because we need to believe or desire to entertain such a belief. But what we like to believe is not necessarily true and, therefore, this is no evidence of the truth of the belief.

Freud in his work called The Future of an Illusion tries to show that people entertain certain religious beliefs like the belief in the existence of God, for instance, because there is a deep-seated craving in us for security amidst the insecurity of life and the uncertainty of the beyond. According to him, people believe in God dogmatically, because of such a deep-seated craving. It is an object of wish-fulfilment and in this specialized sense, an 'illusion'.

This does not, however, necessarily mean that the belief is false. As Freud himself pointed out, a girl may believe in the existence of a Prince Charming who may one day come and propose to her, because she likes to believe this does not necessarily mean that, such a person does not exist. So the desire to believe in rebirth or survival does not necessarily show that the belief is false just as much as the desire to disbelieve in rebirth does not imply that the contrary belief is false. >


Methaphysical and Ethical Arguments

The Buddhist view on this matter is both relevant and interesting. Our desire influence or condition our belief, to which we tenaciously cling (tapha paccaya dithupadanam) but this does not necessarily mean that, these beliefs are always false for when they happen to be 'right beliefs' (samma ditthi), they are in fact true.
So although desires affect our beliefs, this fact has no relevance to the truth or falsity of the beliefs. We have, however, because of our emotional involvement with these beliefs to weigh the evidence for against their truth or falsity without prejudice. As Buddhists, we have to examine the truth even of the belief in rebirth objectively without being prejudiced for (chanda) or against (dosa) or being affected by fear (bhaya) even if it be the fear of the beyond or being guided by our erroneous beliefs (moha). So the desire to believe or not to believe does not affect the truth or falsity of the belief but we have to guard against the prejudice resulting from the desire in our quest for truth.

Authority And Revelation
Another set of arguments for survival are based on authority. It may be stated that many poets and mystics as well as rational thinkers brought up in a tradition which condemned the belief, nevertheless, professed it.

The classic case is that of Giordano Bruno, who is said to have stated in his profession of faith before the Inquisition: 'I have held and hold souls to be immortal speaking as a Catholic, they do not pass from body to body, but go to Paradise, Purgatory or Hell. But I have reasoned deeply, and, speaking as a philosopher, since the soul is not found without body and yet is not body, it may be in one body or in another, and pass from body to body. This, if it be not (proved) true seems at least, likely.' (See, REINCARNATION an East-West Anthology, Ed. J. Head & S. L. Cranston, New York, 1961). Over two hundred and fifty well-known poets, philosophers and writers of the Western world have either held or professed some sort of belief in rebirth.

All that this seems to suggest is that the belief is worth examining and it does not in any way imply the truth of the belief.

The argument from revelation is also unacceptable to science and Buddhism. It is true that certain texts in the Vedic tradition, particularly the middle and late Upanishads profess a belief in rebirth but there is a variety of views on the subject of survival in the Vedic tradition, itself. In one of the early Upanishads rebirth is denied. It is said: 'there are these three worlds, the world of men, the world of departed spirits and the world of the gods. The world of men is obtained through a son only, not by any other means' (Bvhad Aranayaka Upanisad, 1.5, 15). While there are these contradictions within the revelational traditions, the different theistic revelations also contradict each other on the problem of survival. So the doctrine of rebirth cannot be established by an argument from authority or revelation, since authority and revelation are not acceptable means of knowledge.

Methaphysical And Ethical Arguments
The metaphysical (theoritical) arguments are no better. Apart from the fact that they make use of unverifiable concept like 'soul', the arguments are of doubtful value and are generally discredited today. One of the traditional arguments for survival has been that the 'soul is a substance, substances are indestructible, therefore the soul is indestructible, ie. Immortal.' But apart from the difficulty of the concept of a 'soul', the notion of an indestructible substance is discredited today.

With regard to rebirth, we have already met with a sample of such a metaphysical argument in that of Giordano Bruno. Such arguments, based on pure reasoning intended to prove the truth of rebirth are to be met with, for example, in a work by Professor John Me Taggart (Philosophy) of Cambridge, called 'Some Dogmas of Religion' (Ch.IV). But they have little appeal today since it is recognized that matters of fact cannot be proved by pure reasoning (takka) as the Buddha himself pointed out (Ma takka hetu).

The ethical argument has a greater appeal, but this is so only for those who accept its presuppositions. According to the Buddha, karma was one of the predominant factors responsible for human inequalities. This has often been represented as embodying the following rational ethical argument consisting of an empirical and ethical premiss viz.

¦people are of unequal status, those of unequal status ought to be such by virtue of their own actions - therefore, since this is not due to their actions in this life, it should be due to their actions in prior lives. This means that both pre-existence and karma are the case.This is an argument that has appealed to many thinkers down the ages, but most modern thinkers would not accept the second ethical premises namely that 'those of unequal status ought to be such by virtue of their own actions.' This is because most people believe today that the universe or nature is a moral and there is no ethical reason why anything should or should not be so. On the other hand, many hold that ethical statements are neither true or false. It is nevertheless a fact that many people brought up in a belief in the inherent justice of nature ask questions of the form, 'why should so and so be born healthy while I am in a state of ill-health from birth etc. >


It is only the modern scholars who have made an argument of this since the Buddha merely stated as an observed fact that, the predominant cause of these inequalities was karma. The fact is in principle's verifiable but the argument appeals to one's moral sense, and is of value only if such a moral sense is universally present and shared by all mankind.

The Evidence
The above arguments are, therefore, for one reason or another, unsatisfactory and have little force in proving the truth of rebirth or survival. The truth or falsity of rebirth, therefore, rests on the relevant empirical evidence, (ie deriving knowledge from experience alone)
We may classify the main evidence into two sorts, (i) experimental and (ii) spontaneous. The other evidence may be considered separately.

The experimental evidence is based on age-regression. Under hypnosis a subject can recall or relive his past experiences. With regard to this life when regressed to age six, for instance, the subject would behave, write and talk as he or she did at that time and recall the past experiences, which it may not be possible to recall by normal means. The handwriting and the memories could be independently checked. Such experiments have convinced psychologists and psychiatrists today that the authentic buried memories of one's childhood experiences, which cannot be called to mind in normal consciousness, can be unearthed by hypnosis.

It may be asked whether the subject is not just responding to the suggestion of the hypnotist and is merely play-acting or shamming. That this is not so has been proved experimentally. Dr. H. J. Eysenck, who was Professor of Psychology in the University of London and Director of the Psychological Department at the Institute of Psychiatry, Maudsley and Bethlehem Royal Hospitals, states that, 'in one case it was found that when a twenty-year old girl was regressed to various ages she changed the chalk to her left hand at the sixyear level; she had started writing with the left hand, but had been forced to change over at the age of six'.

In another case, a thirty year old was hypnotized and regressed to a level of about oneyear of age on a chair arranged in such a way that with the release of a latch it would fall back into a horizontal position. When the latch was released the behaviour elicited was not that of an adult but of a child. An adult, it is said, would quite involuntarily extend both arms and legs in an effort to maintain balance. Since the subject made no movement of the limbs but screamed in fright and fell backward with the chair, urinating in the process. Eysenck comments. 'It is unlikely that such behaviour is simply due to playacting'. Intelligence and achievements tests have been used to assess the nature of the behaviour of regressed subjects and it has been found that 'people tend to behave on tests of this type in a manner roughly appropriate to the given age.' Eysenck's observations with regard to the possibility of faking such behaviour, are as follows: 'Such reactions, of course, could easily be faked, but it has been shown that when, for instance, the eye movements of subjects are photographed, a considerable lack of ocular co-ordination and stability is found when regression to a relatively young age occurs. Such physiological phenomena are characteristic of young children and are difficult, if not impossible, to produce voluntarily.
A remarkable fact is that the psychological experiences had when the physiological condition of the body was different, are re-enacted.

To quote Eysenck again: Even more impressive is another case of a subject who had a colloid cyst removed from the floor of the third ventricle. Prior to this removal, the subject had been suffering from blindness in the left half of the right eye. After the operation, vision had become normal, but when the subject was regressed to a time shortly before the operation, the visual defect again reappeared during the regression. The expected physiological reaction is not only appropriate to the age but reflects the physiological condition of the body at the time.

In the light of the experimental evidence, Eysenck concludes: 'Experiments such as those described in some detail above, leave little doubt that there is a substantial amount of truth in the hypothesis that age regression does, in fact, take place, and that memories can be recovered which most people would think had been completely lost'. This is the consensus of opinion among orthodox psychologists today.

So genuine memories not accessible to normal recall are generally evoked or the experiences relived at the suggestion of the hypnotist in age-regression. So at least as far as this life is concerned, to say that the memories recalled under age regression are hallucinatory or delusive is not correct.

Introducing The Writer
The late Professor K. N. Jayatilleke Ph. D. (Cantab) was born in 1920; educated at Royal College, Colombo. He was learned in Pali, Sanskrit, Indian and Western Philosophy (Classical and Modern) Professor of Philosophy at the University of Ceylon, Peradeniya, and read papers on Buddhism at Oxford (1961), Havard USA and at Princeton University (1966). He passed away when only 50 years of age, in July 1970.





Few are the beings born again among men; more numerous are those born elsewhere than among men - Anguttara Nikaya I.

Universal Brotherhood by Henri Van Zeyst

Universal Brotherhood is a wonderful ideal, a marvelous concept. Yet, how little is it understood, and how often misapplied. The concept of brotherhood involves tolerance; but, tolerance is neither acceptance nor rejection; it is just a camouflage of conflict which results from the opposition between the 'I' and 'You'.

In the tolerance of brotherhood one believes in many facets of the truth, but one does not know what truth is. Then the idea of brotherhood is an invention of the mind which seeks the firm establishment of 'self through the united strength of others.

As long as the idea of brotherhood is a means to bring and keep together in faith and discipline what is essentially divided, it is a mere camouflage for hypocrisy, an escape from fear and doubt, a cover for exploitation and opposition.

Then, as soon as brotherhood does not serve the common interest in business or in politics, the individual resistance will break through in hate and cruelty.

And so, the concept of brotherhood is made use of for private ends; and that in itself already is the seed for conflict. Brotherhood as an institution to bring individuals together in striving for a common goal cannot bring about the change of heart and mind without which all striving is for self-interest and security, even when 'the other' is the moans thereto.

If this is truly understood, then there is no need for tolerance, because in love which is not possessiveness, there is no opposition. Without personal attachment there is freedom of understanding of need; and such understanding does not require a united brotherhood in tolerance, nor a united organization for political or religious ends. Only when there is opposition and hate and conflict, the idea of brotherhood arises.

This is article was donated by http://www.maithri.com/ - Online Buddhist Bookstore. You may republish this article in any form by crediting the source and author. © Copyright 2005 Maithri Publications


About the Author
Henri van Zeyst was born in Utrecht, the Netherlands, in 1905. Educated throughout in Catholic schools and colleges, he spent his final years of studies in philosophy and theology. An intensive course of comparative religion brought him in contact with Buddhism. Within a year of his coming to Ceylon he was ordained a Buddhist monk there in 1938 under the name of Bhikkhu Dhammapala.