DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.45392#0163
Samsara and Kamma
blind ? ” The Indian theory replies without hesitation,
this man.
Buddhism, however, does not explain in what way a
continuity of cause and effect is maintained as between
one life a and a subsequent life b, which are separated by
the fact of physical death; the thing is taken for granted.1
Brahmanical schools avoid this difficulty by postulating
an astral or subtle body (the linga-sarzra}, a material
complex, not the Atman, serving as the vehicle of mind
and character, and not disintegrated with the death of the
physical body. In other words, we have a group, of body,
soul, and spirit; where the two first are material, complex
and phenomenal, while the third is ‘ not so, not so.’
That which transmigrates, and carries over kamma from
one life a to another life b, is the soul or subtle body
(which the Vedanta entirely agrees with Gautama in
defining as non-Atman). It is this subtle body which
forms the basis of a new physical body, which it moulds
upon itself, effecting as it were a spiritualistic ‘mate-
rialization ’ which is maintained throughout life. The
principle is the same wherever the individual is reborn,
in heaven or purgatory or on earth.
In this view, though it is not mentioned by Buddhists,2
there is nothing contrary to Buddhist theory. The
validity of the dogma of non-eternal-soul remains un-
challenged by the death survival of personality; for that
survival could not prove that the personality constitutes
1 Vide T. W. Rhys Davids, Early Buddhism, p. 78.
2 Vide T. W. Rhys Davids, Ibid. p. 78. That the theory of the subtle
body is not mentioned accords with Gautama’s general objection
to the discussion of eschatology. It is, however, a tribute to the value
of Buddhist thought, that even the proof of the survival of the person
would not affect the central doctrine of the soul’s complexity and
phenomenal character.
IO9
blind ? ” The Indian theory replies without hesitation,
this man.
Buddhism, however, does not explain in what way a
continuity of cause and effect is maintained as between
one life a and a subsequent life b, which are separated by
the fact of physical death; the thing is taken for granted.1
Brahmanical schools avoid this difficulty by postulating
an astral or subtle body (the linga-sarzra}, a material
complex, not the Atman, serving as the vehicle of mind
and character, and not disintegrated with the death of the
physical body. In other words, we have a group, of body,
soul, and spirit; where the two first are material, complex
and phenomenal, while the third is ‘ not so, not so.’
That which transmigrates, and carries over kamma from
one life a to another life b, is the soul or subtle body
(which the Vedanta entirely agrees with Gautama in
defining as non-Atman). It is this subtle body which
forms the basis of a new physical body, which it moulds
upon itself, effecting as it were a spiritualistic ‘mate-
rialization ’ which is maintained throughout life. The
principle is the same wherever the individual is reborn,
in heaven or purgatory or on earth.
In this view, though it is not mentioned by Buddhists,2
there is nothing contrary to Buddhist theory. The
validity of the dogma of non-eternal-soul remains un-
challenged by the death survival of personality; for that
survival could not prove that the personality constitutes
1 Vide T. W. Rhys Davids, Early Buddhism, p. 78.
2 Vide T. W. Rhys Davids, Ibid. p. 78. That the theory of the subtle
body is not mentioned accords with Gautama’s general objection
to the discussion of eschatology. It is, however, a tribute to the value
of Buddhist thought, that even the proof of the survival of the person
would not affect the central doctrine of the soul’s complexity and
phenomenal character.
IO9