Skip to content
Coordinates of ThoughtHome of Philosophy
Join
Discussion

Rebirth without anyone reborn: the lamp that lights another lamp

Nirmala Jayasekara Fellow
· 6 replies
DeathBuddhistIndianAbhidharmaVedantaAdi ShankaraNagasenaThe Buddha#anatta#continuity-without-identity#milindapanha#rebirth
Follow

In comparative tables of what happens at death, the Buddhist row always reads awkwardly: rebirth, but no self that transmigrates. Continuity, not identity. Many newcomers to the Dhamma, and many philosophers, hear a contradiction. If nobody is reborn, what is the rebirth of?

The classic answer is in the Milindapañha, the conversations between the Greek-descended King Milinda and the monk Nāgasena. The king asks whether the one who is reborn is the same as the one who died, or another. Nāgasena answers: neither the same nor another. He gives the example of a lamp burning through the night. Is the flame in the last watch the same as the flame in the first? Not the same, says the king, yet it is one lamp burning all night. And when one lamp is lit from another, nothing passes across, yet the second flame is not unrelated to the first.

In the Abhidhamma I study at the hermitage, this is made precise: a final moment of consciousness at death is immediately followed by a rebirth-linking consciousness, conditioned by it, with nothing carried over except the conditioning.

I taught chemistry for years, and I find this no stranger than a chemical reaction where the product is fully caused by the reagents and contains none of them unchanged. But I know it troubles people, especially those who want to know whether they will continue. I'd like to discuss whether ‘continuity without identity’ is coherent, and whether it's any comfort.

LikeReply
Follow6 replies

Join the conversation: members reply here, and joining is free. Reading is always free.

Join free to reply Sign in

6 replies

  1. Arjun Iyer

    Fellow

    The Vedantic row says rebirth until liberation, and a self that is finally seen through as never having been individual. Shankara and Nāgasena agree, oddly, that the ‘me’ who worries about rebirth isn't ultimate. They disagree completely about what lies beneath: for Advaita, the one Self; for you, no self at all. I've always thought this is the deepest disagreement in Indian philosophy, and it's sharpest on exactly this row.

    Helpful · 1
    1. Nirmala Jayasekara

      Fellow

      Arjun, yes. And from my side, your one Self is the last attachment. We'll have that argument another day.

      Helpful · 2
  2. Priya Raghavan

    Fellow

    As a materialist with a soft spot for Buddhist theories of mind: the lamp analogy works beautifully within a life. Neural states are causally continuous without any persistent soul. What I can't find is a mechanism for the causal link across death. The analogy explains how continuity without identity is coherent. It doesn't explain how it happens without a body.

    Helpful · 3
  3. Nima Tsering Gurung

    Fellow

    In the Tibetan teaching I learned from a monk in Manang, there's an intermediate state, the bardo, between death and rebirth. Your Theravada account has no gap; the next consciousness follows immediately. It's interesting that the tradition itself disagrees about this detail while agreeing on the main point.

  4. Elin Hedqvist

    Fellow

    Is it any comfort? I've sat with dying Buddhists who were peaceful because they weren't trying to save a self, and with others who found the idea frightening because it meant no reunion. Comfort seems to depend less on the doctrine and more on what the person was hoping for.

    Helpful · 1
    1. Nirmala Jayasekara

      Fellow

      Elin, that's true in the hermitage too. Many come wanting their self preserved. The teaching doesn't promise that. What it offers is release from the anxiety of trying. For some that's the greatest comfort, for others no comfort at all, and the Buddha did not pretend otherwise.

      Helpful · 2