While plenty of opportunities exist these days for cultural discussion, certain views remain incompatible or even outright conflicting. Because Confucianism portrays human nature as being inherently ‘good’, the idea of original sin as understood in Christianity for example remains elusive to most Chinese. Similarly, the idea of cyclic rebirth or samsāra that forms part of Eastern philosophies such as Hinduism and Buddhism, does not sit well with the Western scientific worldview.

Cultural difference or incompatibility also occurred in ancient China when the Buddhist idea of rebirth was first introduced to China. 1 Confucian scholar Fen-Chan (范縝AD. 450 ~ 515)keenly debated with Buddhist disciples, including a faithful Buddhist emperor Liang Wu Di (梁武帝AD. 464 ~ 549), about whether there is life after death. To Fen-Chan, life is like a sharp knife, and death is like a blunt knife. Just as there is no sharpness outside a knife, so too there is no life outside the body. Buddhism however holds that the rebirth process is like the transference of a flame from one candle to the other. Though one candle ceases to exist, the fire is never extinguished. The initial conflict and eventual consolidation between views of Buddhism and Confucianism (as well as Taoism) has played a significant role in the history of Chinese culture.2

In recent years, Western scholars have taken a keen interest in the concept of karma with some comparing karma and rebirth to Christian idea of evil,3 while others look for similarities in Western philosophy or discuss the plausibility of karma from a Western viewpoint; 4 yet others disavow rebirth while accepting karma.5

Naturalized karma is advocated mainly through the denial of rebirth. Much interest has arisen recently in naturalized Buddhist theories with Owen Flanagan’s book The Bodhisattva Brain being a case in point. Flanagan suggests that a naturalized or de-mythicized form of Buddhism can serve to spark interest into the subtle philosophical ideas of Buddhism and become worthy of attention by analytical philosophers and scientific naturalists because it is deep.6 Stephen Batchelor’s recent publications may also be viewed as avocations of Naturalistic Buddhism.7 Naturalistic interpretations of Buddhist thoughts such as severing rebirth from karma bring up interesting discussions, however antitheses point to the credibility of the theory of rebirth, providing not only textual testimony but also valid philosophical arguments to justify the legitimacy of rebirth.8

Since the concepts of rebirth and karma are so central to Buddhist theory and practice, I hope to offer a plausible perspective on these matters by way of analyzing arguments that aim to exclude rebirth from the Buddhist framework. To this end, I shall take a closer look at “Critical questions towards a naturalized concept of karma in Buddhism” by Dale Wright, a keynote paper presented at an on-line conference on the topic of “Revisioning Karma.”9 My intention is not merely to defend the plausibility of rebirth, but also to use the concept of rebirth as presented in the philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism in order to highlight the ways in which it can augment human ethical existence.

Is rebirth merely a supernatural concept in Buddhism?

We seem to have no choice but to turn to religion when faced with questions such as: Why was I born into this world? What is my purpose on earth? And what happens after death? In the Christian and Muslim framework, belief in God or Allah is what determines whether people will end up in hell or enjoy eternal afterlife in heaven. Eternal damnation is the destiny of the unbeliever. The Buddhist outlook is somewhat different in that each person’s actions shape his or her own future existence and ultimately determine into which of the six realms they will take rebirth following death. This means that people who do not believe in God but nonetheless do good deeds during their lives will not necessarily go to hell. The Buddhist theory of karma holds that you are what you do. Even those who don’t believe in the Buddha, will reap the rewards in a future life if they do good and avoid all harmful acts. Buddhist karma tells us that positive action results in beneficial reaction, whereas negative action results in unwanted reaction. This is why it is often said that karma follows a person like a shadow.

To some, the hypothesis of karma might seem more consistent with our intuition of moral justice than the theory of eternal salvation. Some therefore believe that the Buddhist theory of karma is more acceptable to contemporary ethical reflection.10 Contemporary scholars have however found certain supernatural elements of the theory troublesome. Dale Wright for example proposes a naturalized theory of Buddhist karma, claiming that karma needs to be disconnected from the metaphysics of rebirth in order to allow further development of Buddhist ethics.11 But is the concept of rebirth ‘supernatural’ from a Buddhist perspective?

The majority of Buddhists accept rebirth as an irrefutable truth, and moreover see it as an integral part of their belief system. This is particularly true in Asia.12 They would hardly assent to rebirth merely as a metaphysical speculation. Their firm belief in the actuality of rebirth is based on well-founded reasoning. For instance, the theory of rebirth, together with karma, explains why we are born differently in this world. It offers insights into the causes of inequality that exists among mankind, and furthermore offers an explanation of why the circumstances of identical twins who are physically alike, having inherited like genes and experienced the same upbringing, yet they may differ greatly in terms of temperament, intellectual capacity and moral disposition. Furthermore, karma and rebirth may account for phenomena such as that of child prodigies. Prior to attempting to separate the theory of rebirth from karma, it would be better to firstly examine those arguments that link the two concepts. In fact, it can perhaps be argued that one of the deficiencies of naturalists is their oversight of refuting views which support the theory of rebirth prior to developing a naturalized concept of karma.13

While ordinary human beings may have trouble judging from direct empirical evidence alone whether or not rebirth actually exists, our inability to perceive its workings cannot conclusively rule out the possibility of its existence. Moreover, our inability to discern something presently doesn’t mean that it is forever indiscernible. Empirical evidence may not be taken to serve as the only premise worthy of proving the existence of a certain phenomenon.14 Besides, we may not have physical evidence for the existence of rebirth, but inasmuch as it is conceivable, it implies that rebirth is more or less reasonable or logical. For example, it seems counterintuitive for the virtuous to die earlier or experience hardship while the wicked enjoy a prosperous life. For the principle of moral equilibrium to work, therefore, some type of survival beyond the present life should be conceivable. It can further be argued that although ordinary people may not have the perceptual faculties to experience the mechanism of rebirth, it does not necessarily mean that past and future incarnations are imperceptible to evolved beings such as the yogis of India who spend a great deal of their lives developing extraordinary faculties. The workings of a cellular phone may be beyond the comprehensions of a tiny ant on the ground, yet that does not mean cellular phones don’t exist or that such devices may not be perceived by and indeed utilized by more evolved beings. Non-experiential claims are not necessarily counter-experiential; that is, that one phenomenon goes beyond our experience doesn’t mean that it necessarily contradicts our experiences.15

The Dalai Lama likewise suggests the need to distinguish between what is negated through scientific method and what has not been observed through such a method.16 That means that ‘proving the non-existential’ is different from ‘current inability to prove the existential.17 Disputing rebirth should lie in the later rather than the former. Actually the reason why rebirth seems mystical to people is because we temporarily have no objective and direct method to access it or prove it, but this doesn’t imply it should be denied. Besides, the so-called ‘supernatural’ may be because of our narrow setting of the concept of nature. Rebirth is a concept that is not merely a physical one, but an axiological one similar to the concepts of good and beauty. Once we are able to embrace a wider concept of nature, the so-called ‘supernatural’ will very much be natural, and there would be no need for any kind of ‘naturalization’. It can in fact be argued that naturalization in itself is unnatural.

We all know that the Buddha declined to elaborate on certain metaphysical questions such as whether or not the world is eternal, or whether the world is finite or infinite. He discouraged his followers from wasting time and energy on idle speculation and encouraged them to focus instead on their spiritual progress and the actual development of virtue. The Buddhist simile of a man hit by a poisonous arrow illustrates this well.18 Now, the question we may want to ask is: was rebirth also seen as a metaphysical subject that the Buddha was reluctant to discuss? Indeed not so. On the contrary, the Buddhist canon contains large sections devoted to this particular topic and as such it is viewed as one of the core theories of Buddhism.19 That being so, just how plausible is a view of karma without rebirth?

Is the Buddhist concept of karma possible without rebirth?

As previously mentioned, naturalists hold that a naturalized concept of karma is better suited for contemporary ethical reflection. Before we delve into this matter however, it seems only sensible to first determine whether it is even possible to naturalize the Buddhist concept of karma. If karma is a doctrine to the effect that the worldly order has a moral order by which all affairs are conducted ethically, i.e. encouraging a fair distribution of punishments and rewards, could such an ethical order be reduced to a natural one?

In philosophy, naturalism is a theory which proposes that everything is a part of the natural world and that everything can indeed be explained within the context of the methodology of the natural sciences, including ethical theories. Naturalistic ethics, therefore, supposes that ‘good’ or ‘right’ can be defined through reference to a natural object. This approach aims to prove that ethical statements are empirical or positive and must be understood in terms of the natural propensities of human beings, without mysterious intuitions or divine help. But, some philosophers, such as G. E. Moore (1873 ~ 1958) in particular, accuse ethical naturalism of committing what he terms a “naturalistic fallacy.”20

About three centuries ago, David Hume (1711 ~ 1776) put forth the idea that “ought” is different from and indeed not derived from “is.”21 According to this notion, a firm distinction should be drawn between value and fact, between the ethical and the physical. And anyone who attempts to derive ethical statements from factual statements risks falling into the snare of the “naturalistic fallacy.” Ethical concepts, therefore, are not natural ones; that is, they are not scientifically observable and not subject to scientific explanation. In the quest for scientific investigations into rebirth from primarily an ethical perspective, naturalists seem to be blurring the distinction between factual description and moral evaluation. That is, natural science is only one method by which we may interpret our life and the universe at large, but it is not the only one way. Science has made undeniable contributions to modern life, yet it has its limitations, particularly with regard to interpreting axiological issues such as the meaning or purpose of life. Science contributes a lot to solve puzzles pertaining to the physical realm but its methods are not suitable for analyzing ethical value. Purely scientific approaches to the human condition are therefore not altogether reliable. We should therefore not look to science to prove or disprove rebirth.

From this viewpoint follows many more questions such as: is karma a natural kind or not; and is the word karma a natural term, an axiological term, or rather a metaphysical term with a supernatural reference? Does karma have non-natural properties? What is the relation between the laws of karma pertaining to morality and natural law? Assuming karma is relevant to the evaluation of a certain action as ‘good’ or ‘bad’, we may also wish to ask whether such an evaluation is a natural fact or event? Furthermore, is the pursuit of a naturalized concept of karma in Buddhism an attempt to define ethical terms by way of appealing to natural terms and thus committing the error of a naturalistic fallacy? In attempting to address these questions, the demarcation between fact and value is worthy of consideration prior to proposing a naturalized concept of Buddhist karma.

In Buddhist scripture, the Buddha clearly set forth the existence of both karma and rebirth. We could say in Buddhism, karma is the corollary of rebirth; while rebirth is the corollary of karma. If severed from the doctrine of rebirth, would it still be fitting to consider this new interpretation of karma to correspond with the Buddhist view on karma? It may very well be possible to formulate a naturalized concept of karma within non-Buddhist contexts, yet it remains doubtful whether such a concept could still be considered part of Buddhist theory.

It seems to me that the concept of karma without rebirth is easily tends toward the view of nihilism, and as such violates the very standpoint of the Middle-Way philosophy which is considered by many to be the core teaching of the Buddha. Just as an eternal view (Skt. nitya-dṛṣṭi, Pali sassata-diṭṭhi) holds that the soul exists independently of our mental and physical processes to continue after death indefinitely, so too the view of nihilism holds that nothing follows death. Both are mistaken views (Skt.uccheda-dṛṣṭi, Pali uccheda-diṭṭhi) to be abandoned by Buddhist practitioners.22 Since the theory of the Middle-Way opposes both eternalism and nihilism, rejecting rebirth would create a view of karma which is no longer compatible with the Buddha’s core teachings. Although a naturalized concept of karma might well inspire us to see karma in a purely ethical light, such a viewpoint can no longer be considered Buddhist.23 It is important to note that, apart from ethical concerns, the Buddhist doctrines of karma and rebirth have also to be understood within the context of spiritual awakening and liberation of suffering, which serves the overriding aim of Buddhism.24

Does rebirth have tension with the Buddhist theory of no self?

The idea of non-self (anātman) or the non-existence of self may sound counterintuitive to some, and it may seem even more bizarre that such a phenomenon can be reborn. For if there is no self, who or what is the entity that is reborn? Is rebirth consistent with the Buddhist theory of no self?25 This apparent contradiction is however only superficial and can be overcome by gaining a deeper understanding of rebirth.

While the Sanskrit or Pali term saṃsāra is often translated as ‘rebirth,’ these two terms are quite different and we need to be cautious not to confuse or blur the meaning behind these two terms. Saṃsāra actually translates more directly as “continuous flowing,” “continuous movement,” or “keeping going.”26 In Buddhism, it refers to a continuous cycle of birth (jāti), subsequent decay and death (jarāmaraṇa). This cycle entails continuous suffering (dukkha) and the only way to be liberated from it is through diligent spiritual practice. In cyclic existence, all things are subject to the laws of cause and effect, such that the quality of our actions (karma) determines a person’s future destiny. Nirvāṇa, which literally translates as “extinguishing” or “cessation,” is the antithesis of saṃsāra, and is the state where cause and effect no longer propels a person into a future rebirth beyond his or her control.

In traditional Brahmanism, ātman is seen to be the subject which exists in saṃsāra. The Buddha however categorically rejected the metaphysical assumption of a ‘soul’ or ‘self.’ Buddhism accounts for the process of saṃsāra by appeal to phenomenological or psychological constituents. The person is seen as a stream of evolving consciousness. Since saṃsāra doesn’t imply the transmigration of an essence or soul but instead follows the law of cause and effect, the transition from one life to another may be likened to the process where one billiard ball hits another billiard ball. The speed and direction of the second ball originates from the first. All things similarly arise from prior causes, and saṃsāra is uninterrupted cycle of birth and death. Strictly speaking, we can say that there is no rebirth but merely continuous births (and deaths).27

The seeming contradiction between rebirth and non-self can be solved by viewing the self as merely the temporary result of karmic formation. Think about the rise and fall of nations in history. For example, when the last Chinese empire – the Qing Dynasty – came to an end almost a century ago, the Republic of China was born. What is the relation between these two countries? Are they the same or are they entirely different? Is the Republic of China identical to the empire of Ching Dynasty? Or is it totally different from the empire?

We could say that the relation between a former nation and its current successor is analogous to a previous life and our current incarnation.28 We cannot say that they are exactly the same, nor can we claim them to be entirely different. Just as a sheet of paper is made from wood, we cannot claim the wood to be the paper, however there is a continuum that can be traced from the paper to the wood. Similarly boiled rice may have originated from uncooked rice, but it can neither be said to be entirely the same nor totally different to uncooked rice. Our existence within saṃsāra could perhaps be likened to these examples, whereby a mental continuum links one birth to the next. On the one hand, it would be incorrect to view a former life as being exactly identical to the present life, for that would entail an unchanging, permanent self or ‘soul’ which the Buddha rejected. Viewing them as two entirely separate entities on the other hand, would again cause one to fall into the trap of nihilism. It follows that a person who dies and is reborn elsewhere is neither the same person nor another. Although there is a continuum, which migrates from one life to the next, it is constantly changing and has no constant identity. Hence, no permanent self can be asserted. This, however, does not mean that karma is invalid because there is no self who will experience the fruits of previous actions. Every thought, word and deed leaves an imprint on our consciousness, and is carried over as potentials into the next life through a continuum. Hence the Buddhist concept of saṃsāra, distinguished from the theory of reincarnation or transmigration that insist on the existence of an eternal soul, doesn’t presuppose an unchanging and substantial being and thereby fall prey to the dangers of grasping an immortal self. With ignorance as the prime condition, the karma has come to be, and as long as the karmic force of ignorance survives, there will be “rebirth.” That is, it is the karmic energy inherent in the conditions that creates continuity. In this continuous process there is no complete identity or diversity, and in every phase of assimilation there is an irreducible remainder of diversity making for dissimilation, and in every phase of dissimilation there is an irreducible remainder of identity making for assimilation.29

The Buddhist theory of saṃsāra therefore excludes sameness of the ego-identity of a transmigrating soul and also eliminates absolute diversity between the former and the subsequent existences. Herein lies the essence of the Middle-Way and Dependent Origination: avoiding both the extremes of eternalism and nihilism while remaining on the middle path. The basic tenets of Buddhism, such as impermanence and selflessness, don’t run aground on the concept of rebirth/ saṃsāra. Within the frame of a proper understanding of the Buddhist doctrine of non-self and rebirth, it seems difficult to agree that rebirth encourages us to conceive of our lives in strictly individual terms and devoid of a collective destiny. In Buddhist theory, individual-karma (āveṇika-karma) is the karma belonging to a specific individual, while common-karma (sādhāraṇa-karma), is the karma shared through communal destiny. While karma can be conceived both individually and collectively, the Buddhist understanding of karma does not emphasize one over the other.30

In sum, saṃsāra is not only consistent with, but indeed follows from the Buddhist concept of selflessness and impermanence. While the naturalist views rebirth as violating elementary Buddhist doctrines such as non-self, I intend to show that an understanding of karma without rebirth as an inherent feature of saṃsāra, is incoherent with the core teachings of Buddhism.31

Could karma with rebirth discourage positive action?

Naturalists claim that the acceptance of rebirth encourages us to ignore issues of justice in this present life on the grounds of speculation about past and future lives and the view that the Buddhist theory of karma supports social passivity or acquiescence in the face of oppression.32 But it is in fact a false interpretation of Buddhism as merely a form of fatalism, pessimism, negativism or selfish egoism.

If we were to put aside the theory of compassion – one of the central teachings of the Mahayana tradition– and merely act out of self-interest, the Buddhist doctrine of karma and rebirth would still necessitate concern for beings who are experiencing suffering. Indeed, it is precisely because of cause and effect and the link between karma and rebirth that Buddhist practitioners strive to treat others with fairness. To take Wright’s child-abuse scenario as an example,33 if I don’t wish to be born into a family where I might be severely abused, I ought to save a child from such dire circumstances in this present life. Similarly, if I don’t wish to be poor in my future life, I should endeavor to better the condition of the poor and needy in my present life. On the other hand, if I currently happen to be poor, I will have to create the causes that will eventuate in wealth in order to change my fate. Therefore, although what we are is what we had been, we should remember what we will be is what we do now. According to the doctrines of karma and rebirth, we may know our past actions through examining our present condition, but we may also shape our future condition through our present action. The way to attain a better existence in future is through diligent practice in the present.

It is thus hard for one to believe that the teaching of rebirth encourages people to neglect justice and simply take a passive standpoint. Bramanic interpretation of rebirth may well discourage positive action and indoctrinate the legitimacy of ‘caste’ system. But this however, is not applicable to the Buddhist notion of rebirth. Sakyamuni Buddha criticized ‘caste’ as an institution and suggested that all human beings are equal. Thus a true Buddhist practitioner strives for justice and equality and very much emphasizes the development of deep concern for beings who experience suffering. If one were to merely watch on while another is being abused and defend one’s passivism by arguing that this sort of treatment is just retribution for past sins, it would be a fatalist standpoint rather than a Buddhist one. To the contrary, a Buddhist practitioner would very much be motivated by the teachings of karma and rebirth to act in such a way as to relieve the predicament of any being who is experiencing suffering.

On rebirth and the iIncentive of external rewards

One of the reasons why naturalists suggest that rebirth ought to be separated from karma is because they hold that rebirth encourages the pursuit of external rewards such as wealth and status in a future life, rather than on the development of character in the present life.34 Such a claim however neglects morality and the independent thoughts of those who believe in rebirth, by confining their concerns to external rewards. According to Lawrence Kohlberg’s (1927 ~ 1987) theory of moral development, the earliest stage in which a person becomes capable of moral consideration is childhood, which Kohlberg terms the “pre-conventional level.”35 One of the characteristics of this level of morality is defining ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ in terms of what results from actions in terms of rewards and punishments. Thus, parents often motivate their children to act in accordance with their wishes by proverbially ‘dangling the carrot before the donkey’.

Although external rewards may well in some cases motivate certain types of behavior in Buddhist culture, a blanket statement such as ‘all those who believe in karma and rebirth pursue external rewards’, simply does not hold true. In Mahayana Buddhism, the so-called “bodhisattvas” forsake benefit to self by devoting themselves to work for the well-being of all living beings life after life and to nurture a virtuous character over numerous lifetimes. A fortunate rebirth is not to be pursued as an end in itself, but as a means to enable a practitioner to engage in further virtue for the benefit of others. As such, the accumulation of positive potential through the practice of giving in this life for example, which could manifest in a future life as material welfare, is part of the selfless motivation to benefit others and is a necessary component of realizing Buddhahood.

According to Mahayana texts, great bodhisattvas always resolve to be reborn again and again and even vow to be reborn in hell so that they may continuously save beings until such time as the entire realm of hell has been emptied.36 So, instead of focusing all hope on external rewards in a future life, the main concern of a bodhisattva is always to lessen the suffering of beings. One of the key conditions for them to be able to pursue this ideal, is the notion of afterlives. That is, the ambition is too great to reach in the short space of a single lifetime. Rebirth is therefore a necessary precondition to perfect the aggregation of internal virtues and eliminate all faults in order to reach Buddhahood. Multiple lifetimes are therefore justified in the context of Mahayana Buddhism.

This shows that the development of inner virtues is very much in accordance with the doctrine of rebirth. Even if we accept, as Wright suggests, that the rewards internal to that act of kindness are directly related to the act and are not contingent on anything but the act,37 the doctrine of rebirth still holds and remains inseparable from karma. This is because the bodhisattva seeks to be reborn in order to liberate beings from suffering. Thus, the claim that a good or right act, instead of giving rise to external goods, gives rise to the transformation in character that makes us virtuous does not preclude the theory of rebirth. No inconsistency exists between cultivation of inner virtue and the doctrine of rebirth. On the contrary, from the viewpoint of Mahayana, the perfect cultivation of virtue has presupposed the existence of rebirth.38

It should also be noted that there is no sharp distinction between external and internal rewards. A virtuous person, who already holds virtue as his own reward, is inclined to have and should further pursue external rewards. Though often the reward is contingent, there is some measure of certainty involved. External rewards could be employed as a substantial aid in benefiting others. That is, if the pursuit of external rewards is helpful to spiritual practice and enables one to engage in further virtue by benefiting other, then such a pursuit is by no means contrary to the aims of one who is acting from a moral standpoint.39 What is of the essence here is the practitioner’s intent. If he were to pursue external rewards for his own gratification, his actions would not be virtuous. If, on the other hand, he pursues external rewards with the intention to utilize such gains in order to benefit others, the actions would be classified as virtuous and do not constitute a vice.

Although ordinary beings are motivated by external rewards, the doctrine of rebirth still has the function of edification as it encourages practitioners to pursue virtue and abandon wrongdoing. Just as parents may promise rewards or threaten with punishment to persuade a child to do one thing and abstain from another, so too practitioners of lesser capacity are encouraged to accumulate positive potential for their own benefit. The means itself is not the end, but may indeed lead to a good result. In this sense, rebirth has its function and is valuable for moral education or exhortation to urge virtuous behavior. The notion of temporary expedience (upāya) is also noteworthy as a means often employed by Buddhist teachers to develop the capacity of beginners on the path. Therefore, the Dalai Lama’s assertion that one will lack material wealth as a result of stealing, doesn’t mean, as Wright problematically asserts, that the Dalai Lama is primarily interested in external reward,40 because from the viewpoint of a certain scope of practitioner, awareness of the possible benefits or punishments related to our actions is an important component of spiritual development.

One way to distinguish external rewards from internal ones is by means of the difference between autonomy and heteronomy.41 Once an act is for the sake of pursuing external rewards, it is heteronomous and is to be discouraged, because only the autonomous acts are rewarded for internal goodness. All moral actions should, strictly speaking, be autonomous. Now the question arises whether or not the doctrine of rebirth compels us to act heteronomously. For some the answer is yes, for others no. It cannot be denied that some people may use Buddhist practices to achieve worldly aims, yet that does not take anything away from devoted practitioners with pure motivation who act autonomously and disregard personal reward. True bodhisattvas would never be concerned with their personal reward, whether such rewards be internal or external, for that would be contrary to their aims and as such would only serve to delay their spiritual progress. The Mahayana Buddhist’s practice of morality or virtue is for its own good, and once they perform good or right action for the sake of pursuing virtues, paradoxically those actions won’t be virtuous anymore.

How the Buddhist concept of rebirth could contribute to ethical reflection

While trying to articulate a naturalized concept of karma for contemporary ethics, a naturalist may doubt the advisability of linking up the doctrine of karma with rebirth by claiming that rebirth stands in the way of our understanding karma in purely ethical terms.42 But, is the concept of rebirth really irrelevant to contemporary ethics? Is the notion of rebirth entirely incompatible with common expectation or moral thinking?

Ancient Greek philosophers like Pythagoras (585 ~ 497 BC) and Plato (427 ~ 347 BC) already suggested the possibility of life after death and as well as transmigration or immortality.43 Immanuel Kant (1724 ~ 1804) similarly proposed a theory of the afterlife within the framework of ethics. Kant claimed that the consequence of our limitation of knowledge rules out virtually all the belief of the existence of God, the immortality of soul and the freedom of will. This implies neither one of these three can be resolved by any appeal to pure reason or possible experience, but can only be viewed as ‘postulates.’44 But, Kant’s ethics involves an ultimate end at which all action is directed. This end, defined as the “highest good”, provides the basis for his moral argument for God and immortality as postulates of practical reason. The basic idea is that, since a just apportionment of happiness to virtue is inconceivable according to the laws of nature, we are constrained to assume the reality of immortality and a noumenal ground, that is, God, as its guarantee. Here we can see the postulations, such as immortality, are not unacceptable in an ethical theory.45

The reasoning behind Kant’s three postulates can be said to correspond to the Buddhist viewpoint in the manner shown in Fig. 1 below.

Fig. 1 Parallels between Kant’s ethics and Buddhist ethics Full size image

Kant believes that we have the necessary free will to lead a conscientious life, even though we may not realize justice in this present life, the soul is immortal and we will receive due feedback in the future from God who acts as the arbitrator of fairness. Similarly, according to the basic mechanism of the Twelve Causal Links,46 mental consciousness deluded with ignorance, anger and greed causes the creation of undesirable karma through volition. Because this karma has to be experienced in future lives until it becomes exhausted, it leads to a continuous cycle of birth and death also known as samsāra.

As previously mentioned, Buddhism not only adopts rebirth on the grounds that we must assume a continuum of lives in order to account for the rewards of the virtuous and the punishments of the wicked, but also sees rebirth as necessary in order to conceive of the possibility of the attainment of the virtuous perfection which bodhisattvas strive for, yet may not be attainable in this present life. This is somewhat similar to Kant’s justification for the immortality of the soul. Kant asserts that for the sake of guaranteeing the moral perfection commanded by the “categorical imperative,” the soul has to be immortal. Furthermore, according to Kant’s ethics, God, immortality, and free will must be assumed as conditions of the full realization of the goals of morality, though he does not offer us an experiential proof but merely appeals to the principle of the “primacy of practical reason.”47 The Buddhist concept of rebirth is therefore not only plausible, but also very much relevant in reference to Kant’s moral philosophy and modern-day ethical reflection.

Also, to those who feel life may be too short to fulfill all hopes and realize all enjoyments, the idea of rebirth presents some hope. Bertrand Russell (1872 ~ 1970), for example noted in his autobiography the reasons he had lived for, and concluded:

This has been my life. I have found it worth living, and would gladly live it again if the chance were offered me. 48

Russell’s words may be more sentimental than logical, yet alludes to the thought that living merely one life does not enough. The thought of an afterlife, or more than one life, is therefore not an uncommon expectation.

In sum, a view of karma without rebirth may have a role to play in contemporary ethical reflection, yet this does not mean that rebirth presents an obstacle to understanding karma in purely ethical terms. Nor does it mean that we have to forsake rebirth in order to develop a naturalized concept of Buddhist karma so as to render it more relevant to contemporary ethical reflection. There may be two different frameworks to interpret karma in Buddhism, yet both approaches agree on the existence of rebirth. While the Theravadins place greater emphasis on their own liberation in present or future lives, practitioners of Mahayana Buddhism are more advanced in scope and thus have higher aims. Such practitioners take external rewards merely as a means to an end. The view of rebirth that the naturalists are opposed to pertains more to the Theravadin perspective, where individual destiny takes precedence over collective destiny. Within the Mahayana framework, numerous births offer the hope of achieving the ultimate goal in future, if unattainable in the present life. For those who strive to develop wisdom and compassion, the doctrine of rebirth has great import. Rebirth allows the bodhisattva to assume the heavy responsibility of liberating uncountable beings from suffering life after life. This is because the goal of a bodhisattva is not merely to treat others fairly, but to save all beings without exception from the ocean of suffering and lead them towards enlightenment.49