Philosophical and Moral Objections to
Reincarnation
THE OVERALL PURPOSE OF reincarnation is to work off all karma until the "sound of silence," that is, the primordial state of the universe, returns once more. There are two fundamental problems with this thesis. First, it assumes that things are getting better; second, when the end of the karmic phase is reached, it will begin all over again.
Toward the Sound of Silence
The assumption that good karma is increasing is a highly questionable notion, as illustrated in the previous chapter. Since most people live in "ignorance," pursuing self-gratification, bad karma would seemingly be generated at a faster rate than good karma. India bears tragic witness to the problems associated with this thesis; despite all her poverty, starvation, suffering and chaos, India is the land where reincarnation has been taught the longest and most systematically. Since most Indian religion aims at reversing the effects of bad karma, it would seem that the subcontinent should be well along the road of evolutionary progress
Page 94
and be a lighthouse for the world. Yet the exact opposite is true; India's problems are intractable and seemingly without cure.
Even Madame Blavatsky has admitted that karma does seem to be "absurd" and "unfair." She explains that only the Eastern sages have figured it out. But even though she concedes that karma spreads exponentially, she does not pursue the ramifications of her own statement: "Hurt a man by doing him bodily harm; you think that his pain and suffering cannot spread by any means to his neighbors, least of all to other nations. We affirm that it will, in good time" (Blavatsky's emphasis).1
Head and Cranston also address the problem: "Objectors to reincarnation nevertheless often ask: If all of us have lived thousands of lives, why are we not much further advanced? Such questions usually equate reincarnation with progress, whereas it only provides the opportunity for progress."2 Thus they admit that reincarnation does not guarantee progress. Just how the present syndrome of rapidly multiplying bad karma will ever be reversed to reach the equilibrium of the sound of silence is never adequately explained by any reincarnationist.
This leads to the second problem. Even if all evil and ignorance were eventually "burned off" and the universe reverted to its original equilibrium, the whole cycle would start all over again in the future. Karma is a permanent thing. At best it is only inactive for periods of time. All the gurus, and even Madame Blavatsky, would be reincarnated afresh with the next spasmodic lurch of the wounded cosmos.
This state of affairs gives rise to a rather fundamental question: Is it desirable to be born again? If the world is dominated by suffering and ignorance, as seems to be the case, would anyone of sound mind want to experience hundreds or thousands of human lives? The witness of history speaks tragically to this question. Most people down through the years have lived lives of anxiety, boredom, suffering or terror.
Page 95
True, not all people have suffered greatly, but most have lived lives of considerable struggle and hardship, especially by modern Western standards.
Of course, no one wants to believe that despair dominates human existence, and so hope is a persistent theme in human experience and is expressed in whatever context people find themselves.3 Ian Stevenson, writing in the introduction to Edward Ryall's book Born Twice, says, "Edward Ryall's case, like others of its type that I consider genuine, conveys something of which we all stand in need — hope . . . the idea of a second time around suggests both hope and an incentive to better conduct . . . If John Fletcher has become Edward Ryall in a new body, therein lies hope for the rest of us."4
This hope may sound reasonable to some people, but it fades in comparison to the Christian hope of the consummation of life through resurrection, with eternal fulfillment and the destruction of evil and suffering described in the book of Revelation: "Behold, the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself will be with them; he will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away" (21:3-4).
The Obliteration of Personality
Author John Weldon sums up another objection to the idea of reincarnation: "There is only one thing that makes a future life worthwhile — the preservation of the consciousness of personal identity and uniqueness. Yet, in reincarnation, personal identity and uniqueness are forever obliterated."5 Personality means little in the context of classic Eastern reincarnation. All personalities are ultimately interchangeable and therefore more or less synonymous when viewed over the course of thousands of reincarnations. The universe is one big interconnected unit, and
Page 96
everybody seemingly suffers for everything. Personal responsibility for one's own actions vanishes. Each person bears the allotment of karma that was generated by someone else, and the personality one gets in a particular life therefore seems to be dependent on a throw of the cosmic dice. If reincarnation is true, Adolf Hitler will never have to pay for his crimes, for he has ceased to exist. Instead, completely new, unknowing and innocent personalities inherit Hitler's karma. Likewise the righteous also cease to exists, never reaping the benefits of their good lives and self-sacrifice. Others reap the reward.
Ironically, many of the common people of India seem to understand this intuitively. I once asked a Christian pastor in West Bengal whether reincarnation posed any problem for him in his ministry. He replied, "No, because many Indians understand that in reincarnation your personality does not survive. It is destroyed and a new one created. So, in reincarnationist terms, at least, you don't have to worry that your deeds will follow you to the grave — or past it."
This is a shocking syncretistic twisting of Christianity. How is it possible to derive meaning for life from a stance which teaches obliteration of personality? For everything we are, everything we hope for, is to be found within the context of personal existence. To speak of humanity and of human fulfillment is to speak in terms of personality. This is especially true of spiritual salvation. To say that annihilation of personality is a soteriological end cuts across the grain of everything we hope for. Even if self-annihilation were the stated and desired goal, as it is in Buddhism, it is only through personal cognitive conceptualization that such a hope is formulated. To put it another way, "Without a thinker, the thought is nonexistent." Insisting that annihilation of personality is the highest good is simply an a posteriori argument of conceptual fantasy, put forth by people who are unhappy with life. As Carl Henry says, "A lapse of self-consciousness can only mean the surrender of any personal knowledge whatever."6
Page 97
Thus the truth of the matter is that death for the reincarnationist is not a great deal different from death for an atheist, since individual personality is obliterated. Reincarnation doctrine would suggest that there is no heaven, but only a series of vaguely related life sentences, and that salvation occurs not in an afterlife paradise but with a successful death. MacGregor seems to agree: "Between one life and the next, every single observable characteristic by which we identify people, and even by which we identify ourselves, undergoes a change. How then can we prove that we are really dealing with the same person? . . . For those who fear death as extinction, [reincarnation] gives little context and meaning to the idea of survival."7
If reincarnation has little regard for the individuality of persons who are mere bearers of karma from one birth to the next, it has even less regard for the flesh that bears it. A low regard for the physical creation has long been a basic presupposition of pantheist and gnostic philosophies. For example, the Hindu Upanishads state that "this body arises from sexual intercourse. It passes to development in darkness. Then it comes forth through the urinary opening. It is built up with bones; smeared over with flesh; covered with skin, filled with feces, urine, phlegm, marrow, fat, grease and also with many diseases."8 MacGregor, commenting on this text, says, "What a wretched hybrid must be that reincarnating self! It would seem to be . . . like an ugly blue-bottle hopping from one animal excrement to another."9
Past-Life Amnesia
In the previous section I have tried to show that the theory of obliteration of personality renders reincarnation unjust. This criticism demonstrates the internal inconsistency of reincarnation, for it purports to be a theory offering thorough justice, whereas in fact great injustice is done to every existing person — each of whom receives the "reward,"
Page 98
good or bad, of someone else because personality is obliterated at death.
The vacuous nature of the reincarnating self, however, poses a second problem with reincarnation: the inability to remember past lives. This is a practical problem that arises out of the very desire of reincarnationists to make the theory just. If reincarnation were true and we could remember past lives, then we would have to admit the justice of our present lot in life. So past-life recall is more than a fad to reincarnationists; it is an attempt to vindicate the theory's claim to justice. Thus the interest in past-life recall is twofold. First, if we can recall past lives, they must have been real; therefore reincarnation would be true. Second, if we can recall past lives, then we know we are fairly treated in life; therefore reincarnation would be just.
Not all reincarnationists cite memory of past lives as a proof of reincarnation, but since the inability to remember past lives is manifestly evident for the vast majority of the population, some reincarnationists are understandably defensive about it. Occult apologist Arthur Robson offers a standard reply: "The common objection to the theory of reincarnation is 'Why don't we remember our past lives?' It's true that ordinarily we cannot recall any part of our past lives, but in everything we do our past is plainly seen. Obvious examples are the natural inclinations of each of us . . . outstanding among them being great musicians, artists, mathematicians, etc."10
Here the writer avoids the question he has just asked, using words like plainly and obvious, expecting the reader to believe that the very existence of talented people proves reincarnation. Leoline Wright gives another reincarnationist answer: "The fact is that we do remember them." Her explanation is equally spurious, as she states that that individual has learned his or her lesson from past lives. "In this way we can say that character is memory."11
Page 99
By any accounting, however, not many of us (if any at all) remember past lives. Even Wright says that "John Smith and Mary Brown are not deathless beings. They are mere personalities, and as such do not reincarnate."12 If personality is obliterated at death, how can it be remembered and experienced in a future life? Those reincarnationists who firmly hold to the obliteration of personality do not look for recall experiences, believing the earlier incarnation to be gone — and all access to it, even by memory, to be gone as well. Madame Blavatsky finally admits as much: "It may be said that there is not a mental or physical suffering in the life of a mortal which is not the direct fruit and consequence of some sin in a preceding existence; on the other hand, he does not preserve the slightest recollection of it in his actual life."13
What are we to make of this? Each individual personality is supposedly responsible for his or her actions, but neither pays the penalty nor gets the reward, since the personality is extinguished. A totally different person is reborn, burdened with someone else's karma. The questions remain. Does this make sense? Is it just and fair? More important still, is reincarnation really true, or just the product of thousands of years of human speculation? Walter Martin comments on the problem:
It's very interesting that the reincarnationist tells us we go through cyclic rebirth and we suffer in various lives to atone for our sins. But it's very puzzling that nobody remembers his past life in enough detail to profit from it! So we don't know what we're being punished for. And if we don't know what we're being punished for, we're quite likely to repeat the offense. If reincarnation is really karma, or the law of justice (as you sow, so shall you reap"), why not protect the person? Why not give him a full vision of what he had been before, with all his flaws, so that the necessary corrections could be made?14
Page 100
Paternoster touches the heart of the matter when he says, "With rare exceptions, we seem to have no memory of previous existences. This is not only an argument against the truth of reincarnation, it is also an argument against its utility, if true".15
Moral Objections of Reincarnation
While philosophic matters and questions of internal logic raise serious doubts about the reality of reincarnation, it is just as important to look at the moral implications of reincarnation teachings.
One such consequence of reincarnation teachings is moral procrastination. Since one always gets "another chance" — whatever that may mean within the impersonal framework of reincarnation — moral imperatives are less urgent, reminding us of Augustine's preconversion prayer, "Give me chastity, but not yet." While a little procrastination may not seem too harmful, this attitude is intrinsically tied to a muted view of the reality of evil and suffering. Nothing is urgent since the cosmic drama of life must unfold according to predetermined karmic fate. People are perceived as merely "working out their karma," and many reincarnationists feel it is unwise to disturb the process. As a result, people who are suffering are left to their fate until their karma is exhausted. However one may mask this callous attitude by appealing to higher consciousness or karmic law, it ultimately is manifested as a low regard for individual life — which often sears both conscience and compassion.
This low regard for human life is well illustrated in the Bhagavad-Gita. Arjuna, a warrior by caste, finds himself in a genuine predicament. He must engage his kinsmen in war. Although he loves them, he realizes that it is his divine duty to fight because of his caste responsibility. As he anguishes on the battlefield, torn between duty and compassion, the god Krishna appears to him and says,
Page 101
Abandon this despicable weakness of thy heart and stand up . . . Thou grievest for those who may not be lamented . . . I myself was not, not thou, nor all the princes of the earth; nor shall we ever hereafter cease to be. As the Lord of this mortal frame experienceth therein infancy, youth and old age, so in future incarnations will it meet the same. One who is confirmed in this belief is not disturbed by anything that may come to pass.16
In other words, Krishna has just told Arjuna that he may feel free to kill his kinsmen in battle, for he is not really killing them; he is only destroying the "mortal frame," which is of no great importance since the soul will incarnate again.
This advice is based on the pivotal Hindu concept of dharma, which may be roughly translated as "the inevitability of what must be," or "doing what is set before you." "It is the dharma of fire to burn," as the Indian saying goes. The heart of the matter is that dharma is the unfolding of the divine plan, and therefore there is ultimately neither good nor evil. These categories are obliterated when one attains enlightenment and sees the perfection of all that exists. In Hindu thought, evil is an illusion, an attachment to the phenomenal world which is continually evolving and passing away. Good is therefore synonymous with enlightenment — specifically, that which serves to detach the soul from the worldly illusion of separate and individual existence. The truly enlightened soul realizes that he or she is only a mode of God's existence. Good and evil are not seen as absolute moral categories as they are in Christianity; they are merely different and complementary facets of the divine nature.
This aspect of monism is illustrated very well in the Hindu scripture, the Svetasvatara Upanishad, where we see the concept of enlightenment inextricably bound with reincarnation: "This vast universe is a wheel. Upon it are all creatures that are subject to birth, death and rebirth.
Page 102
Round and round it turns, and never stops. It is the wheel of Brahman, it revolves upon the wheel in bondage to the laws of birth, death and rebirth."17
Therefore, just as it is the dharma of fire to burn, each individual's dharma, or fate, is sealed by his karmic inheritance as it evolves its way slowly back to the Godhead. It is all part of the divine play, or lila, which goes as it must.
Consequently, dharma strongly implies a predeterminism which binds each soul to its respective load of karma. This is illustrated in the Bhagavad-Gita when Yudhishthira, older brother of the hero Arjuna, tries to get a straight answer about the problem of predetermined dharma from Krishna, the incarnation of Absolute Deity. Instead he gets only an evasive half-answer because his time for enlightenment has not yet arrived. R.C. Zaehner comments on the passage:
When the battle is over and won, he [Arjuna] asks Krishna whether he would be good enough to repeat them [the words of esoteric saving knowledge] since their purport has gone clear out of his head! Why, one wonders, did the Incarnate God elect to waste his words on Arjuna rather than on Yudhishthira who was athirst to hear them? . . . Yudhishthira's karma has not yet worked itself out: he must wait for it to "ripen" and only then will he attain to moksha [liberation]. To tell him the great secret prematurely would be to violate kharma itself, for the law of karma is inseparable from the eternal dharma and not even God can break it.18
In other words, Arjuna's karma, buried in previous lives, had somehow qualified him for Krishna's saving words; Yudhishthira, despite his desperate desire for truth, was spiritually hamstrung by unremembered karma from past lives, karma so binding and unremitting that not even Krishna, as God incarnate, could release him.
The Neo-Platonic philosopher Plotinus (A.D. 205-270) expresses
Page 103
similar sentiments as those found in the Gita:
It [death] comes to no more than the murder of one of the personages in a play; the actor alters his make-up and enters in a new role. The actor, of course, was not really killed; but if dying is but changing a body as the actor changes a costume, or even an exit from the body like the exit of an actor from the boards when he has no more to say or do, what is there so very dreadful in the transformation of living beings one into another? Murders, death in all its guises, the reduction and sacking of cities, all must be just a spectacle as the changing scenes in a play; all is but the varied incident of a plot, costume on and off, acted grief and lament . . . All this is the doing of man, knowing and never perceiving that in his weeping and in his graver doings alike, he is but at play.19
As might be expected, this view has some rather sinister outworkings. It negates not only absolute moral values, but even relative moral values. For instance, hypnotherapist Edith Fiore says, "The therapist should have a metaphysical background too. If she finds a patient murdered his sister in a past life, she has to help him understand that these incidents are just lessons. Just like the child in school who fails, the failure doesn't mean he's good or bad, just that he failed the lesson" (emphasis mine).20
A more blatant example is that uttered by one John-Roger, a Los Angeles "spiritual leader" who is head of the syncretist "Movement of Spiritual Inner Awareness" (MSIA):
Let's look at the Vietnamese people for the last 3,000 years of their existence. As a collective group, they may have gotten exactly what they created for themselves, and they may have balanced all of their karma. Now, is it bad for them to be karmically free of all that? Is that wrong? Perhaps that particular freedom didn't come about in a really popular way, in terms of what we all might have wanted it to be, but it came about in a way
Page 104
that was entirely perfect. There was no overkill; there was no underkill. The Americans that went over there and were caught up in it were part of the Vietnamese process thousands of years ago, and even though they were born in America this life, they were pulled back there to complete their karma, also. And those who went through the war unharmed were not part of the process and came home safely. So how can that action be judged as "wrong"?21
If we are to accept John-Roger's judgment, the war in Viet Nam was a cosmic necessity as it balanced a lot a karma. How much more fulfilling, then, was the holocaust of World War II, in which millions were tortured and roasted, their skins made into lampshades! If ever there were a notion more morally repugnant than this, it would be hard to find. The Scriptures testify:
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil,
who put darkness for light and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! (Isaiah 5:20)
If reincarnation is true, there is little reason for comforting one another when misfortune overtakes us. Imagine saying to a young couple with a deformed infant: "It's no problem. Look at it in the cosmic perspective. He must have been a horrible person in the past life, perhaps one of Stalin's executioners, a murderer, or even Attila the Hun." The response is not hard to imagine; and such ghoulish and tasteless speculation could be applied to every unfortunate situation of life. Little wonder that in the East misfortune is met with resignation.
Chapter Nine || Table of Contents
________________________
1. Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, The Key to Theosophy (New York: Theosophical Publ. House, 1889), pp. 46-47.
2. Head and Cranston, Phoenix Fire Mystery, p.13.
3. There is a notable dichotomy between the bare bones of Hindu-Buddhist philosophy and the way people actually live it out. Even gurus and Buddhist holy men hope—although the hope is for samadhi, nirvana or a better lot in the next life. They rarely if ever acknowledge the eternal cyclic despair that lies behind their beliefs.
4. Edward Ryall, Born Twice—Total Recall of a Seventeenth Century Life (New York: Harper & Row, 1974), p.3.
5. John Weldon, "Reincarnation: A Billion People's View of Reality" (manuscript prepared for Spiritual Counterfeits Project, Berkeley, 1979).
6. Henry, God Revelation and Authority, 4:71.
7. MacGregor, Reincarnation in Christianity, pp. 74-75.
8. The Thirteen Principal Upanishads (London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1921), Maitri Upanishad 3:4.
9. MacGregor, Reincarnation in Christianity, p. 73.
10. Arthur Robson, "Infinite Continuity in Multimillionfold Diversity," in Hanson, Karma, p.65.
11. Wright, Reincarnation, p. 21.
12. Ibid., p.7.
13. Blavatsky, "Original Programme," in Collected Writings, vol. 3 (Ostende, Belgium, 1886), p. 170.
14. Walter Martin, The Riddle of Reincarnation (Santa Ana, Calif.: Vision House, 1977), p.26.
15. Paternoster, "Reincarnation—A Christian Critique," p.126.
16. Quoted in Head and Cranston, Phoenix Fire Mystery, p.231.
17. The Upanishads, p.118.
18. Zaehner, Hinduism, p.86.
19. Quoted in Head and Cranston, Phoenix Fire Mystery, p.231.
20. Long Beach Independent-Press Telegram, 6 June 1980.
21. The Movement Newspaper, August 1980, pp. 22-23.
