Reincarnation and the No-Soul Paradox in Buddhism
         -------------------------------------------------

Oriental thought accepts reincarnation far more readily than the philosophies
of the West. one of the great religions of the East, Buddhism, is actually
based on the premise that the individual should strive to break free from the
eternal Wheel of birth, death and rebirth represented by the reincarnaton
process.
   For ceturies, Buddhists have diligently practised techniques designed to
help them reach Nirvana, that state of bliss and being from which it is no
longer necessary to be reborn. As Buddhism spread from its native India,
emphasis on reincarnation changed as the religion was modified to meet the
social and psychological conditions prevelant in the countries where it took
root.
   In Japan, for example, Zen Buddhism placed emphasis on sudden, dramatic
enlightenment, focused on the state of individual bneing here and now rather
than in past or future lives. Tibetan Buddhism, by contrast, emphasized
reincarnation almost more than any other aspect - to the extent of the
establishing of a reincarnatory monarchy and a legal system which permitted
debts contracted in this life to be repaid in the next.
   But for all the importance of reincarnation to Buddhism, the root-stock
of the religion contained a troublesome paradox. For amoung the Buddha's
original teachings was the anata doctrine which stated categorically that the
human soul - like so mnay other things viewed from the Buddhist viewpoint -
was an illusion.
   Within a religion founded on reincarnation, the no-soul doctrine has proven
a bewilderment for generations of Buddhists, especially those in the West
whose literal minds do not readily accept contradictions. While Buddhism
answers such important questions as 'What must I do to be free?' or 'How shall
I achieve salvation?,' it is silent on the vital problem of 'What reincarnates?'
Indeed, Zen masters in particular have long had a tendency to look blankly
at their pupils and insist 'Nothing Reincarnates'! If nothing reincarnates,
then why should I strive to break free from the Wheel of birth, death and
rebirth, the great cycle of reincarnation? In a Zen monestary, such a 
reasonable objection is likely to earn a whack about the head with a big stick.
   For the millions who accept the judgement of Guatama Buddha, reincarnation
research offers an interesting resolution of the paradox in that the concept
of a soul (in the generally accepted sense of that term) is not absolutely
necessary to a belief in reincarnation. The term soul can be interpeted in
the sense of an immaterial vehicle, like the astral body of esoteric doctrine,
or as the inner entity we experienced as personality. In either case, it is
plain that the soul does not long survive physical death. Far memory has
little to say about ghost bodies and tends to reveal chains of personalities
very different one from the other. Defined in these terms, the soul is thus
Maya or illusion, an imperanent thing, exactly as the Buddhists claim.
   What reincarnates is indeed nothing as the Zen masters affirm, for 
research tends to indicate it is wrong to view the process of reincarnation
as a soul flitting from body to body, like a butterfly fluttering between
flowers. Rather there seems to be a pre-existant entity which reaches into
incarnation from time to time, creating a series of subtle vehicles - 
including a personality - in order to do so.
   The viewpoint throws fresh light on the ancient doctrine of karma, which,
in its simplest forms, refelcts the Christian adage that you reap exactly
what you sow. In its orthodox exposition, karma requires a whole cosmic
machinery of justice to keep track of every individual's progress and
peccadilloes and redress the imbalances from life to life. It is a concept
difficult to accept, especially since the operation of cosmic justice is
conspicuois by its abscence in any individual experience or study of history.
But from the changed viewpoint, karma becomes personal rather than cosmic,
a sort of learning by experience which drives the evolution of the entity.
THere is consequently no real imbalance, certainly no punishment or reward,
but rather a continual movement towards greater and greater understanding,
a fumbling towards the light.
   Nothing reincarnates. We create certain temporary structures in order to
learn and experience, but the essence of our being remains always outside
incarnation. It is only from the limited viewpoint of such temporary vehicles
as the personality that we imagine reincarnation to exist at all. What we 
remember as past lives should more accurately be described as previous
experiences within an ongoing - and quite possibly eternal or timeless -
existance.
   As we grow to realize our true nature, as in Buddhist terms, enlightenment
is achieved, we are at long last presented with a fully conscious choice.
We may remain what we are, sufficient unto ourselves, enjoying the state of
pure being referred to in Buddhist scriptures as Nirvana, or we may elect
to experience incarnation again, but with a fuller realization of the nature
of the process. It is perhaps not so odd that the traditions of Buddhism
encompass this choice. there are, so the doctrine maintain, two types of
enlightenment - that of the Buddhas who accept the just reward of their efforts
and cease to incarnate, and that of the Buddhas who elect to continue to
incarnate in order to show the way to teh mass of suffering humanity.
   Certain insights are difficult to commnicate in that they are inevitably
filtered through the perceptions and preconceptions of the individual who
receives them. This may have been the situation with Buddhist doctrine. While
Guatama achieved enlightenment, his followers, almost by definition, are 
mereky working their way towards it. It was their viewpoint of reincarnation
which created the paradox of the anata doctrine, not the doctrine itself.
 
                            # 30 #