One of the biggest misunderstandings in Buddhist teachings is Buddha’s teachings on Death. He taught the Eightfold Path as a method to escape Samsara and suffering — which is why he often refused to speak on “life after death” as inconsequential to the “holy life” but that does not mean he denied the cycle of rebirth. In fact, he was trying to teach us how to escape the treadmill of suffering through countless rebirths.
It is true, that Buddhism denies an unchanging ego or soul — but that’s not denying existence. The nature of existence is change. What we are today, is already extinguished tomorrow. We are not the same this year, as we were ten years ago. Buddha taught that this ego, the way we understand ourselves is incorrect — not that we don’t exist or that we’ll cease to exist — rather, that we never existed as we understood existence.
It’s clear that Buddha understood, not only our world but the complexity of existence:
“Since there actually is another world, one who holds the view ‘there is no other world’ has wrong view…”
— Buddha, Majjhima Nikaya i.402, Apannaka Sutta, translated by Peter Harvey
Rebirth is a central concept in Buddhism.
The misunderstanding begins here
One of the key misunderstandings is “what” is reborn. In Buddhism, the doctrine of impermanence denies the possibility of a permanent, unchanging “soul” — but this is a language limitation. Because we’re always changing, there is no “permanent.” In many Suttas, it is a continuity of consciousness that “migrates” through our current life and any future lives. In Bhayabherava Sutta (MN 4) Buddha is shown as having a recollection of his past lives.
In fact, Rebirth is described as critical to Right View — one of initial teachings of Buddha in the Eightfold Path — in the MN 117: Mahācattārīsakasuttam.
Rebirth as a belief causes some difficulty for students new to Buddhism and Agnostic Buddhists.
In other words, it’s not that Buddha didn’t believe in rebirth, multiple worlds and past lives — only that ultimately, they are not important to the person seeking the Holy Life.
Famously, Buddha refused to answer the question “Does Buddha exist after death?” Why didn’t he answer this question on death and life after death that “stresses” so many beings? In the Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta (MN 63), Buddha says:
And why are they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life.
Of course, since beings are prone to stress and worry — our various attachments, including attachments to body — we could misunderstand Buddha’s non-answer. One of Buddha’s followers, Yamaka, misunderstood the teaching, taking the view that Buddha taught nothing will “exist after death.” In Yamaka Sutra, this dangerous misunderstanding is corrected. [Full Sutra discourse below, translated to English.]
Physics at least partially supports the notion or rebirth. Matter is never destroyed, it is converted to energy. All beings are born out of the same elemental soup—romantically thought of as “stardust.”
In many Suttas rebirth is explicitly described
It is clear, from early Suttas on, that Rebirth is accepted as part of the doctrine of Dependent Arising — birth is specifically mentioned . The Jatakla Tales — the previous lives of the Buddha — explicitly describe Buddha’s memories of previous lives.
In older suttas, rebirth is described with various terms, including Punagamana, Punavasa, Punanivattati, Abhinibbatti. The Suttas that specifically discuss rebirth as a real phenomenon, are: Mahakammavibhanga Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya “MN” 136), Upali Sutta (MN 56); Kukkuravatika Sutta (MN 57); Moliyasivaka Sutta (Samyutta Nikaya “SN” 36.21); and Sankha Sutta (SN 42.8).
The concept of clinging, suffering, and karma are bound up in the cycle of rebirth in Buddhism. In the wheel around the three animals is a depiction of the concept of death, and rebirths in a cycle. The three animals, the pig, snake and bird represent the three things that “trap” us in Samsara (suffering): ignorance, attachment, and aversion.
Yamaka Sutra — correcting misunderstandings on Death
Yamaka is a profoundly important Sutra. Even Buddhists often misunderstand the Buddhist Dharma when it comes to what constitutes life and death. Since our perceptions of the world and our lives are at the heart of Dharma teaching — our craving and attachments cause our suffering. Fear of death and illness is one such “suffering.”
In the Yamaka Sutta, the monk Yamaka is quickly corrected:
“Don’t say that, friend Yamaka. Don’t misrepresent the Blessed One. It’s not good to misrepresent the Blessed One, for the Blessed One would not say, ‘A monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, and does not exist after death.’
Vacchagotta on Fire — “doing away with convictions”
In the Middle Discourses 72 “With Vacchagotta on Fire” we see that even the most dedicated Dharma disciples of Buddha were confused:
Buddha teaching.
“The Realized One has done away with convictions. For the Realized One has seen: ‘Such is form, such is the origin of form, such is the ending of form. Such is feeling, such is the origin of feeling, such is the ending of feeling. Such is perception, such is the origin of perception, such is the ending of perception. Such are choices, such is the origin of choices, such is the ending of choices. Such is consciousness, such is the origin of consciousness, such is the ending of consciousness.’ That’s why the Realized One is freed with the ending, fading away, cessation, giving up, and letting go of all identifying, all worries, and all ego, possessiveness, or underlying tendency to conceit, I say.”
“But Master Gotama, when a mendicant’s mind is freed like this, where are they reborn?”
“‘They’re reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.”
“Well then, are they not reborn?”
“‘They’re not reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.”
“Well then, are they both reborn and not reborn?”
“‘They’re both reborn and not reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.”
“Well then, are they neither reborn nor not reborn?”
“‘They’re neither reborn nor not reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.”
Later in the Sutta, Buddha explains to the lay follower by way of the analogy of the fire:
What do you think, Vaccha Suppose a fire was burning in front of you. Would you know: ‘This fire is burning in front of me’?”
“Yes, I would, Master Gotama.”
“But Vaccha, suppose they were to ask you: ‘This fire burning in front of you: what does it depend on to burn?’ How would you answer?”
“I would answer like this: ‘This fire burning in front of me burns in dependence on grass and logs as fuel.’”
“Suppose that fire burning in front of you was extinguished. Would you know: ‘This fire in front of me is extinguished’?”
“Yes, I would, Master Gotama.”
“But Vaccha, suppose they were to ask you: ‘This fire in front of you that is extinguished: in what direction did it go—east, south, west, or north?’ How would you answer?”
“It doesn’t apply, Master Gotama. The fire depended on grass and logs as fuel. When that runs out, and no more fuel is added, the fire is reckoned to have become extinguished due to lack of fuel.”
“In the same way, Vaccha, any form by which a Realized One might be described has been cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, obliterated, and unable to arise in the future. A Realized One is freed from reckoning in terms of form. They’re deep, immeasurable, and hard to fathom, like the ocean. ‘They’re reborn’, ‘they’re not reborn’, ‘they’re both reborn and not reborn’, ‘they’re neither reborn nor not reborn’—none of these apply.
Any feeling … perception … choices … consciousness by which a Realized One might be described has been cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, obliterated, and unable to arise in the future. A Realized One is freed from reckoning in terms of consciousness. They’re deep, immeasurable, and hard to fathom, like the ocean. ‘They’re reborn’, ‘they’re not reborn’, ‘they’re both reborn and not reborn’, ‘they’re neither reborn nor not reborn’—none of these apply.”
Yamaka Sutta
I have heard that on one occasion Ven. Shariputra was staying near Savatthi at Jeta’s Grove, Anathapindika’s monastery. Now, at that time this evil supposition had arisen to Ven. Yamaka: “As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more (mental) effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, and does not exist after death.”
A large number of monks heard, “They say that this evil supposition has arisen to Ven. Yamaka: ‘As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, and does not exist after death.’”
So they went to Ven. Yamaka and on arrival exchanged courteous greetings. After an exchange of friendly greetings and courtesies, they sat to one side. As they were sitting there, they said to Ven. Yamaka, “Is it true, friend Yamaka, that this evil supposition has arisen to you: ‘As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, and does not exist after death.’
“Yes, friends. As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, and does not exist after death.”
“Don’t say that, friend Yamaka. Don’t misrepresent the Blessed One. It’s not good to misrepresent the Blessed One, for the Blessed One would not say, ‘A monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, and does not exist after death.’”
But even though Ven. Yamaka was thus rebuked by those monks, he — from stubbornness and attachment — maintained his adherence to that evil supposition: ‘As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, and does not exist after death.’
When those monks could not pry Ven. Yamaka loose from his evil supposition, they got up from their seats and went to Ven. Shariputra. On arrival they said to him: “Friend Shariputra, this evil supposition has arisen to Ven. Yamaka: ‘As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, and does not exist after death.’ It would be good if you would go to Ven. Yamaka out of sympathy for his sake.”
Ven. Shariputra consented by remaining silent.
Then in the evening Ven. Shariputra left his seclusion, went to Ven. Yamaka, and on arrival exchanged courteous greetings. After an exchange of friendly greetings and courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to Ven. Yamaka, “Is it true, my friend Yamaka, that this evil supposition has arisen to you: ‘As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, and does not exist after death.’
“Yes, my friend Shariputra. As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, and does not exist after death.”
“How do you construe this, my friend Yamaka: Is form constant or inconstant?”
“Inconstant, my friend.”
“And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?”
“Stressful, my friend.”
“And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”
“No, my friend.”
“Is feeling constant or inconstant?” “Inconstant, my friend.”…
“Is perception constant or inconstant?”
“Inconstant, my friend.”…
“Are fabrications constant or inconstant?”
“Inconstant, my friend.”…
“Is consciousness constant or inconstant?
“Inconstant, my friend.”
“And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?”
“Stressful, my friend.”
“And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”
“No, my friend.”
“How do you construe this: Do you regard form as the Tathágata”
“No, my friend.”
“Do you regard feeling as the Tathágata”
“No, my friend.”
“Do you regard perception as the Tathágata”
“No, my friend.”
“Do you regard fabrications as the Tathágata”
“No, my friend.”
“Do you regard consciousness as the Tathágata” “No, my friend.”
“How do you construe this: Do you regard the Tathágata as being in form… Elsewhere than form… In feeling… Elsewhere than feeling… In perception… Elsewhere than perception… In fabrications… Elsewhere than fabrications… In consciousness… Elsewhere than consciousness?”
“No, my friend.”
“How do you construe this: Do you regard the Tathágata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?”
“No, my friend.”
“Do you regard the Tathágata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?”
“No, my friend.”
“And so, my friend Yamaka — when you can’t pin down the Tathágata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, ‘As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, and does not exist after death’?
“Previously, my friend Shariputra, I did foolishly hold that evil supposition. But now, having heard your explanation of the Dhamma, I have abandoned that evil supposition, and have broken through to the Dhamma.
“Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: A monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the break-up of the body, after death?
“Thus asked, I would answer, ‘Form is inconstant… Feeling… Perception… Fabrications… Consciousness is inconstant. That which is inconstant is stressful. That which is stressful has ceased and gone to its end.”
“Very good, my friend Yamaka. Very good. In that case I will give you an analogy for the sake of taking your understanding of this point even further. Suppose there were a householder or householder’s son — rich, wealthy, with many possessions — who was thoroughly well guarded. Then suppose there came along a certain man, desiring what was not his benefit, desiring what was not his welfare, desiring his loss of security, desiring to kill him. The thought would occur to this man: ‘It would not be easy to kill this person by force. What if I were to sneak in and then kill him?’
“So he would go to the householder or householder’s son and say, ‘May you take me on as a servant, lord.’ With that, the householder or householder’s son would take the man on as a servant.
“Having been taken on as a servant, the man would rise in the morning before his master, go to bed in the evening only after his master, doing whatever his master ordered, always acting to please him, speaking politely to him. Then the householder or householder’s son would come to regard him as a friend and companion, and would fall into his trust. When the man realizes, ‘This householder or householder’s son trusts me,’ then encountering him in a solitary place, he would kill him with a sharp knife.
“Now what do you think, my friend Yamaka When that man went to the householder or householder’s son and said, ‘May you take me on as a servant, lord’: wasn’t he even then a murderer? And yet although he was a murderer, the householder or householder’s son did not know him as ‘my murderer.’ And when, taken on as a servant, he would rise in the morning before his master, go to bed in the evening only after his master, doing whatever his master ordered, always acting to please him, speaking politely to him: wasn’t he even then a murderer? And yet although he was a murderer, the householder or householder’s son did not know him as ‘my murderer.’ And when he encountered him in a solitary place and killed him with a sharp knife: wasn’t he even then a murderer? And yet although he was a murderer, the householder or householder’s son did not know him as ‘my murderer.’”
“Yes, my friend.”
“In the same way, an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.
“He assumes feeling to be the self…
“He assumes perception to be the self…
“He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self…
“He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.
“He does not discern inconstant form, as it actually is present, as ‘inconstant form.’ He does not discern inconstant feeling, as it actually is present, as ‘inconstant feeling.’ He does not discern inconstant perception… He does not discern inconstant fabrications… He does not discern inconstant consciousness, as it actually is present, as ‘inconstant consciousness.’
“He does not discern stressful form, as it actually is present, as ‘stressful form.’ He does not discern stressful feeling… He does not discern stressful perception… He does not discern stressful fabrications… He does not discern stressful consciousness, as it actually is present, as ‘stressful consciousness.’
“He does not discern not-self form, as it actually is present, as ‘not-self form.’ He does not discern not-self feeling… He does not discern not-self perception… He does not discern not-self fabrications… He does not discern not-self consciousness, as it actually is present, as ‘not-self consciousness.’
“He does not discern fabricated form, as it actually is present, as ‘fabricated form.’ He does not discern fabricated feeling… He does not discern fabricated perception… He does not discern fabricated fabrications… He does not discern fabricated consciousness, as it actually is present, as ‘fabricated consciousness.’
“He does not discern murderous form, as it actually is present, as ‘murderous form.’ He does not discern murderous feeling… He does not discern murderous perception… He does not discern murderous fabrications… He does not discern murderous consciousness, as it actually is present, as ‘murderous consciousness.’
“He gets attached to form, clings to form, and determines it to be ‘my self.’ He gets attached to feeling… He gets attached to perception… He gets attached to fabrications… He gets attached to consciousness, clings to consciousness, and determines it to be ‘my self.’ These five clinging-aggregates — attached to, clung to — lead to his long-term loss and suffering.
“Now, the well-instructed, disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed and disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed and disciplined in their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.
“He does not assume feeling to be the self…
“He does not assume perception to be the self… “He does not assume fabrications to be the self…
“He does not assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.
“He discerns inconstant form, as it actually is present, as ‘inconstant form.’ He discerns inconstant feeling… He discerns inconstant perception… He discerns inconstant fabrications… He discerns inconstant consciousness, as it actually is present, as ‘inconstant consciousness.’
“He discerns stressful form, as it actually is present, as ‘stressful form.’ He discerns stressful feeling… He discerns stressful perception… He discerns stressful fabrications… He discerns stressful consciousness, as it actually is present, as ‘stressful consciousness.’
“He discerns not-self form, as it actually is present, as ‘not-self form.’ He discerns not-self feeling… He discerns not-self perception… He discerns not-self fabrications… He discerns not- self consciousness, as it actually is present, as ‘not-self consciousness.’
“He discerns fabricated form, as it actually is present, as ‘fabricated form.’ He discerns fabricated feeling… He discerns fabricated perception… He discerns fabricated fabrications… He discerns fabricated consciousness, as it actually is present, as ‘fabricated consciousness.’
“He discerns murderous form, as it actually is present, as ‘murderous form.’ He discerns murderous feeling… He discerns murderous perception… He discerns murderous fabrications… He discerns murderous consciousness, as it actually is present, as ‘murderous consciousness.’
“He does not get attached to form, does not cling to form, does not determine it to be ‘my self.’ He does not get attached to feeling… He does not get attached to perception… He does not get attached to fabrications… He does not get attached to consciousness, does not cling to consciousness, does not determine it to be ‘my self.’ These five clinging-aggregates — not attached to, not clung to — lead to his long-term happiness and well-being.”
“Even so, my friend Shariputra, are those who have people like you as their fellows in the holy life, teaching them, admonishing them out of sympathy, desiring their welfare. For now that I have heard this explanation of the Dhamma from you, my mind — through lack of clinging/sustenance — has been released from the effluents.”