There are different versions of reincarnation such as reincarnation of Buddhism, reincarnation of Hinduism, and reincarnation of pop culture. In the reincarnation of pop culture, for example, humans reincarnate as humans only and karmic law plays no role in such reincarnation. This article, by Jerry Thomas, looks at the Hindu scriptures, to details the essential features of Hindu reincarnation, especially Vaishnava tradition, and then critiques the concept of reincarnation.
Hindu preachers often cite researchers such as Ian Stevenson’s work as evidence overlooking the fact that their research in fact violates the basic tenets of Hindu reincarnation. One can watch some of their arguments in this debate video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ2zL9QEdw8). In this article, hence, I will initially lay down the basics of reincarnation as per several Hindu scriptures and then critique the concept of reincarnation.
A: LISTING A FEW BASICS OF REINCARNATION AS PER HINDUISM
(1) Reincarnation is across all species and not limited to humans
Bhāgavata Purāṇa, which is one of the important scriptures, especially for Vaishnav Tradition, teaches that one can reincarnate as a vegetable, tree, animal, demigod or human beings etc.
Bhāgavata Purāṇa, Khandam 6: Adhaya 16, Sloka 4 (Translation: A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada) : By the mystic power of Nārada Muni, the living entity reentered his dead body for a short time and spoke in reply to Nārada Muni’s request. He said: According to the results of my fruitive activities, I, the living being, transmigrate from one body to another, sometimes going to the species of the demigods, sometimes to the species of lower animals, sometimes among the vegetables, and sometimes to the human species. Therefore, in which birth were these my mother and father? No one is actually my mother and father. How can I accept these two people as my parents?
This text, while it raises several questions including ethical questions, it unambiguously teaches that one can reincarnate across species. It is not that if one is a human, he or she will be born only as humans, but they can be born as rats or grass. If one assumes that reincarnation is become humans have consciousness, this text doesn’t agree with such ideas. Further, there are clear examples of human beings becoming animals and trees in Hinduism. As an illustration, two sons of Kubera were cursed to become trees in next life as they were standing naked like trees when Narada Muni appeared to them
Bhāgavata Purāṇa, Canto 10: Chapter 10, Slokas 20-22 (Translation: A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada): These two young men, Nalakūvara and Maṇigrīva, are by fortune the sons of the great demigod Kuvera, but because of false prestige and madness after drinking liquor, they are so fallen that they are naked but cannot understand that they are. Therefore, because they are living like trees (for trees are naked but are not conscious), these two young men should receive the bodies of trees. This will be proper punishment. Nonetheless, after they become trees and until they are released, by my mercy they will have remembrance of their past sinful activities. Moreover, by my special favor, after the expiry of one hundred years by the measurement of the demigods, they will be able to see the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Vāsudeva, face to face, and thus revive their real position as devotees.
This text also additionally teaches that reincarnation happens due to their past karmas (roughly translated as actions but not merely actions, it is varna (caste) based duties).
(2) Karma is the Law of Reincarnation, which allegedly even gods cannot change
Every birth, whether it is being born as Brahmin (highest varna of Hindus) or Shudra (lowest varna of Hindus) or whether being born as animal or insect or plant, is all due to the past karmas. Chandogya Upanishad, one of the earliest Hindu texts to teach reincarnation unambiguously states so.
Chandogya Upanishad 5: 10: 7-8 (Translation by S Radhakrishnan): 7. Those whose conduct here has been good will quickly attain a good birth (literally womb), the birth of a Brahmin, the birth of a Ksatriya or the birth of a Vaisya. But those whose conduct here has been evil, will quickly attain an evil birth, the birth of a dog, the birth of a hog or the birth of a Candala. 8. But on neither of these ways are those small creatures which are) continually revolving (those of whom it is said), be born and die. Their’s is a third state. By this (it comes about) that that world becomes fid. Therefore let one seek to guard himself. To this end, there is this verse.
In fact, in Bhāgavata Purāṇa, Sree Krishna in order to dissuade people from worshipping the supreme vedic god Indira puts forward the argument that karma alone matters to a person and worship does not make any difference.
Bhāgavata Purāṇa, Khandam 10: Adhaya 24, Slokas 12-15 (Translation: A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada): Śukadeva Gosvāmī said: When Lord Keśava [Kṛṣṇa] heard the statements of His father, Nanda, and other senior residents of Vraja, He addressed His father as follows, to arouse anger in Lord Indra. Lord Kṛṣṇa said: It is by the force of karma that a living entity takes birth, and it is by karma alone that he meets his destruction. His happiness, distress, fear and sense of security all arise as the effects of karma. Even if there is some supreme controller who awards all others the results of their activities, He must also depend upon a performer’s engaging in activity. After all, there is no question of being the bestower of fruitive results unless fruitive activities have actually been performed. Living beings in this world are forced to experience the consequences of their own particular previous work. Since Lord Indra cannot in any way change the destiny of human beings, which is born of their own nature, why should people worship him?
If karma is the law of reincarnation and karma is the duties of different varnas, does that mean all livings were once humans? Yes, as per Vaishnava Hindu scriptures.
(3) Reincarnation begins as humans and then goes to different species, demons or demigods
In his purport to Bhāgavata Purāṇa, Khandam 4, Adhaya 29, Sloka 4, A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada writes: “Originally the living entity is a spiritual being, but when he actually desires to enjoy this material world, he comes down. From this verse we can understand that the living entity first accepts a body that is human in form, but gradually, due to his degraded activities, he falls into lower forms of life—into the animal, plant and aquatic forms. By the gradual process of evolution, the living entity again attains the body of a human being and is given another chance to get out of the process of transmigration. If he again misses his chance in the human form to understand his position, he is again placed in the cycle of birth and death in various types of bodies.
Since karma is the law of reincarnation, and karma can be done only by humans, and since deities in Hinduism are also under the law of karma and reincarnation, all of them desire to be born as human beings.
Bhagavata Purāṇa, Khandam 3: Adhaya 15, Slokas 24 (Translation: A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada): Lord Brahmā said: My dear demigods, the human form of life is of such importance that we also desire to have such life, for in the human form one can attain perfect religious truth and knowledge. If one in this human form of life does not understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead and His abode, it is to be understood that he is very much affected by the influence of external nature.
(4) Reincarnation is presented as an explanation for injustice or sufferings in the world and thereby vindicating God
Adi Shankaracharya and Madhwacharya, founders of Advaita and Dvaita schools in Hindiusm, in their respective Bhasyas of Brahma Sutra, Adhaya 2, Pada 1, Sutras 34-36, said that inequalities and sufferings in the world are due to the karmas of each atmas in their previous births.
Brahma Sutra, Adhaya 2, Pada 1, Sloka 35, Commentary by Madhwacharya (Translation S Subba Rau, MA): “Partiality and mercilessness are not (in the Lord): for His dispensation is relative (to the Karmas of the souls); for the Sruti shows that.
As the Lord dispenses the fruits (to the souls) according to (karmas) their actions, He cannot be said to be partial or merciless. Accordingly, the sruti says, “The Lord leds the souls to happy regions in consideration of his (soul’s) good deeds, and leads (the soul) to the region of miseries (hell) on account of (his) sinful deeds (Pr. III.7).”
Brahma Sutra, Adhaya 2, Pada 1, Sloka 34 (Sankaracarya; Translated by Swami Gambhirananda. Brahma Sutra Bhasya (Kindle Locations 4392-4400). Kindle Edition.): Vedantin : To this we say, “No partiality or cruelty can be charged against God.” How can this be so? “Because of His taking other factors into consideration.” Had God created this erratic world by Himself, irrespective of other factors, He would be open to these charges of partiality and cruelty. But in His isolation (from these) He has no creatorship, for God makes this unequal creation by taking the help of other factors. What factors does He take into consideration? We say that these are merit and demerit. No fault attaches to God, since this unequal creation is brought about in conformity with the virtues and vices of the creatures that are about to be born. Rather, God is to be compared to rain. Just as rainfall is a common cause for the growth of paddy, barley, etc., the special reasons for the differences of paddy, barley, etc., being the individual potentiality of the respective seeds, similarly God is the common cause for the birth of gods, men, and others, while the individual fruits of works associated with the individual creatures are the uncommon causes for the creation of the differences among the gods, men, and others.
Reincarnation is not only presented as the explanation for the suffering and injustices in the world, modern preachers also claim that it provides unlimited opportunities for salvation to the atmas.
(5) Modern preachers argue that reincarnation provides unlimited opportunities for souls for salvation
- C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the founder of ISKCON, in his book “Coming Back: The Science of Reincarnation”, Chapter 6 The Logic of Reincarnation,argued that the concept reincarnation provides permanent opportunity or unlimited chances to all living beings to attain salvation. If you have not attained salvation in this birth, then there are plenty of future births where you get chances again and again.
Coming Back: The Science of Reincarnation”, Chapter 6 The Logic of Reincarnation, A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada: “Another common misconception dispelled by the clear logic of reincarnation concerns religious dogma claiming that everything rests on our performance in this one lifetime only, warning that if we lead a vicious or immoral life, we will be condemned to eternal damnation in the darkest regions of hell — without a prayer of emancipation. Understandably, sensitive, God-conscious people find such a system of ultimate justice more demoniac than divine.
The Vedic literatures repeatedly extol the magnanimous nature of God. Krsna is even merciful to those who openly despise Him, for He is situated within everyone’s heart and gives all living beings the opportunity to realize their dreams and ambitions. Actually, the Lord’s mercy knows no end; Krsna is unlimitedly merciful. And His mercy is also causeless. We may not be deserving, due to our sinful activities, but the Lord loves each and every living being so much that He repeatedly gives them opportunities to transcend the cycle of birth and death.”
With these basics and arguments in the background, we will now turn to critique the concept of reincarnation.
- CRITIQUE OF THE CONCEPT OF REINCARNATION IN HINDUISM
Having seen the some of the basic axioms of reincarnation, we will turn our attention to the critique of Hindu concept of reincarnation. In this section, we will see that Hindu reincarnation is based on absurd logic, makes salvation possible, hollows out God of His glory and makes Him ineffectual, criminalizes innocent victims, destroys the sanctity of all relationships and ends up annihilating the very identity of a person. Thus, reincarnation is not only logically absurd but theologically outrageous and humanly speaking a complete disaster. Let us begin.
In the last section, we have seen that reincarnation is across species and reincarnation begins with humans and then as per the varna duties (karma) performed by human beings as per their varna moves either to animal, plant, demigod or demon worlds.
(1) Karma and Reincarnation Cannot Explain the Origin of First Brahmin or Shudra
In Hinduism, there is no such things as one humanity but human beings were allegedly created into hierarchical varnas.
Rig Veda 10: 90: 12 (Translation by H H Wilson): “His mouth became the Brāhmaṇa, his arms became the Rājanya, his thighs became the Vaiśya; the Śūdra was born from his feet.”
However, as we said, this raises questions. What crime did the first Sudra do to be born as Sudra since there could not have been any bad karma done before his first birth? Or what merit did the first Brahmin do to be born as a Brahmin since there could not have been any good karma before his first birth?
Hinduism does not have a reasonable answer to this question. In the past, Hindu scholars have tried to answer this question by saying that karma and reincarnation series is without a beginning and hence such origin questions do not arise.
Madhwacharya wrote that series of karmas is eternal or Anaditva Samsara.
Brahma Sutra, Adhaya 2, Pada 1, Sloka 36, Bhashya of Madhvacharya (Translation: S Subba Rau, MA): “…for there being an antecedent Karma as the cause of everyone of the subsequent karmas which the Lord causes the soul to do, the series of karmas is eternal…”
Similarly, Adi Shankaracharya wrote:
Brahma Sutra, Adhaya 2, Pada 1, Sloka 36 (Bhashya of Sankaracarya; Translated by Swami Gambhirananda. Brahma Sutra Bhasya (Kindle Locations 4416-4419). Kindle Edition): “And it is logical for the transmigratory existence to have no beginning; for had it emerged capriciously all of a sudden, then there would have been the predicament of freed souls also being reborn here, as also the contingency of results accruing from non-existing causes, for the differences in happiness and misery would have no logical explanation. It has been pointed out already that God is not the cause of inequality, nor is ignorance by itself a source of this, it being homogeneous.”
However, this is not a satisfactory answer as the answer is a logical fallacy.
(2) Anaditva Samsara or beginningless karma and reincarnation series commits fallacy of infinite regress
Anaditva samsara or beginningless karma and reincarnation series leads to fallacy of infinite regress and hence it is logically absurd. Infinite series is a mathematical construct and even an infinite series has a first term.
In order to understand the logically absurdity of infinite series of temporal events, one can look at the Hilbert’s paradox of the Grand Hotel, a thought experiment by the Mathematician David Hilbert and recorded by George Garnow in “One two three …infinity: Facts & Speculations of Science, Chapter 1, Big Numbers:
In fact in the world of infinity a part may be equal to the whole! This is probably best illustrated by an example taken from one of the stories about the famous German mathematician David Hilbert. They say that in his lectures on infinity he put this paradoxical property of infinite numbers in the following words:
“Let us imagine a hotel with a finite number of rooms, and assume that all the rooms are occupied. A new guest arrives and asks for a room. ‘Sony says the proprietor but all the rooms are occupied/ Now let us imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms, and all the rooms are occupied. To this hotel, too, comes a new guest and asks for a room. “
“But of course!’ exclaims the proprietor, and he moves the person previously occupying room Nl into room N2, the person from room N2 into room N3, the person from room N3 into room N4, and so on. . . . And the new customer receives room Nl, which became free as the result of these transpositions.
“Let us imagine now a hotel with an infinite number of rooms, all taken up, and an infinite number of new guests who come in and ask for rooms. “Certainly, gentlemen/ says the proprietor, ‘just wait a minute/ “He moves the occupant of Nl into N2, the occupant of N2 into N4, the occupant of N3 into N6, and so on, and so on …”
The absurdity of infinite regress of temporal events can be understood by looking at the present time. If karma and reincarnation series is without beginning, we would have already lived infinite series of reincarnation to reach this life. But how can we already life infinite series of lives already?
In fact, it is not merely the logical absurdity but then salvation (mukthi) would be impossible in such a series and the entire karma and reincarnation series would be also purposeless.
(3) If we have failed in an infinite number of reincarnations in achieving salvation or moksha, how can anyone achieve salvation in this life?
To argue that karma and reincarnation series is without the beginning, is to argue that we had already lived infinite number of lives. In other words, we have already failed infinite number of lives in attaining mukthi or salvation. If we take frequentist probability, and consider infinite failures as data, then there is only zero probability of us achieving salvation in this life.
While the proponents of reincarnation argues (as we seen) that reincarnation provides unlimited opportunities for salvation, in reality, reincarnation provides zero probability of salvation. It is better to live one life with a real possibility of salvation than many lives with zero probability of salvation.
Further, if it is the karmic residue of the past life that led to the previous life, and the karmic residue of the previous life that led to this life, and if we had led such infinite series of lives, then as Adi Shankaracharya noted in another context, it is like blind leading the blind.
In Brahma Sutra, Adhaya 2, Pada 2, Sloka 37, while refuting the argument that universe was beginningless, Adi Shankaracharya points out that arguing for universe without origin leads to logical fallacies and is purposeless like blind leading the blind.
Brahma Sutra, Adhaya 2, Pada 2, Sloka 37 (Bhasya of Sankaracarya; Translated by Swami Gambhirananda. (Kindle Locations 5209-5212). Kindle Edition.)
“Opponent : This fault will not arise, since ‘creation is without beginning.
Veddntin : No, just as at present, so also in the past that defect of arguing in a circle is equally present; so that we are faced with the logic of the blind leading the blind (for both action and God are impelled, there being no impeller).”
It is interesting that the objection which Adi Shankaracharya raised in the infinite series of universe was overlooked by him when it came to infinite series of karma and reincarnation.
However, the idea that karma and reincarnation series without a beginning and all souls are eternal rather than vindicating the justice of God, hollows out God.
(4) Beginningless Karma and Reincarnation and Eternal Souls Hollows Out God of His Glory
One of the gravest consequences of accepting the axioms of reincarnation is that it hollows out God and assaults His glory.
We have read Bhagavad Gita 2: 12- 13 (Translation: A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada), that Sree Krishna says to Arjuna:
Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.
As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change.
Please note the phrase “any of us” in this sloka, which unambiguously teaches the plurality of eternal, uncreated, imperishable, individual souls/atmas.
Adi Shankarachyarya, chief proponent of Advita, who did not believe in the plurality of souls, tried to explain this away by interpreting “any of us” phrase as referring to physical bodies and not souls.
However, Srila Prabhupada in his commentary had rightly pointed out that since bodily conception of individual was already condemned in the previous slokas of Gita, this can only refer to atmas or souls in this sloka.
The Bhagavad Gita with the Commentary of Srila Prabhupada (2: 12- 13):“…The Mayavadi theory that after liberation the individual soul, separated by the covering of maya or illusion, will merge into the impersonal Brahman and lose its individual existence is not supported herein by Lord Krsna, the supreme authority…”
“…The Mayavadi argues that the plurality mentioned in this verse is conventional and that it refers to the body. But previous to this verse such a bodily conception is already condemned. After condemning the bodily conception of the living entities, how was it possible for Krsna to place a conventional proposition on the body again? Therefore, individuality is maintained on spiritual grounds and is thus confirmed by great acaryas like Sri Ramanuja and others…”
However, this idea, which allegedly is put forward to vindicate God of His justice is an assault on glory as the creator.
If atmas of all living beings are eternals, karma and reincarnation are also without beginning and thereby human beings are also without beginning, then what exactly did God create?
Why do anyone even need gods such Sree Krishna, Shiva or Devi since we individually and simultaneously existed as eternal, uncreated, indestructible beings along with them.
Why give such gods any credit even for karma and reincarnation, when karma and reincarnation itself is eternal? It is like calling one of the twins as the creator of other twin.
If God’s creation is limited to giving shapes to existing things, then his work and ours are of same category. We don’t need such gods. No wonder many of the Hindu darsanas are atheistic in nature.
In Indian Philosophy, Volume 1, Chapter 5, Hindu philosopher and former President of India S Radhakrishnan noted that Hindu philosophies such as Nyaya or Vaisheshika or even Purva Mimasa were originally atheistic or had atheistic sentiments.
Indian Philosophy, Volume 1, Chapter 5, Materialism, Page 281, by S Radhakrishnan: The Nyaya and the Vaisesika, Mr. Banerjee thinks, were originally atheistic, though their modern adherents have made of them theistic creeds. According to Kumarila, atheistic sentiments were common among the adherents of the Purva-mimamsa school.
In fact, as Swami Tapasyanada of Ramakrishna Mission noted in his book Bhakti Schools of Vedanta, Advita of Adi Shankarachyara has two levels vyavahara, a provisional level and then a paramartha level (final reality). All gods and theologies, including Christianity and Islam, are patronisingly accommodated at vyavahara, a provisional level but all gods are rejected at paramartha level. This patronising accommodation of all gods at provisional level is often presented to us to the great tolerance of Hinduism without telling that at paramartha level, all gods are rejected.
Provisional acceptance of gods and final rejection – what a grievous dishonour to the very name of God.
Even those who accept God at the ultimate level in Hinduism will have to answer how they can defend the glory of God with all such teachings as eternal souls, beginningless karma and reincarnations series etc.
(5) Hindu gods themselves are under karmic and reincarnation cycle making them ineffectual in saving anyone from karmic and reincarnation cycle leaving all living beings in hopelessness
We had initially noted that in order to dissuade people from worshipping the supreme Rig Vedic god Indira, Sree Krishna in Bhagavata Purana had argued that it is karma and karma alone that determines that birth and destiny of any being and hence worshipping Rig Vedic supreme god does not make any impact.
Bhāgavata Purāṇa, Khandam 10: Adhaya 24, Slokas 12-15 (Translation: A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada): Śukadeva Gosvāmī said: When Lord Keśava [Kṛṣṇa] heard the statements of His father, Nanda, and other senior residents of Vraja, He addressed His father as follows, to arouse anger in Lord Indra. Lord Kṛṣṇa said: It is by the force of karma that a living entity takes birth, and it is by karma alone that he meets his destruction. His happiness, distress, fear and sense of security all arise as the effects of karma. Even if there is some supreme controller who awards all others the results of their activities, He must also depend upon a performer’s engaging in activity. After all, there is no question of being the bestower of fruitive results unless fruitive activities have actually been performed. Living beings in this world are forced to experience the consequences of their own particular previous work. Since Lord Indra cannot in any way change the destiny of human beings, which is born of their own nature, why should people worship him?
However, Sree Krishna went on to argue that worshipping can provide salvation to human beings. For example, in Bhagavad Gita 8:5-8 (Translation: A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada), Sree Krishna says:
“Sloka 5: And whoever, at the end of his life, quits his body remembering Me alone at once attains My nature. Of this there is no doubt.
Sloka 6: Whatever state of being one remembers when he quits his body, O son of Kuntī, that state he will attain without fail…
…Sloka 8: He who meditates on Me as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, his mind constantly engaged in remembering Me, undeviated from the path, he, O Pārtha, is sure to reach Me.”
However, this raises the question whether Sree Krishna is exempt from curse? The answer as per Hindu Scriptures is a clear no. In Mahabharata, we can see that Krishna was cursed by Gandhair.
The Mahabharata, Book 11: Stri Parva, Stri-vilapa-parva, Section 25, Translation by Kisari Mohan Ganguli:
“Gandhari said, ‘The Pandavas and the Dhartarashtras, O Krishna, have both been burnt. Whilst they were thus being exterminated, O Janardana, why wert thou indifferent to them? Thou wert competent to prevent the slaughter, for thou hast a large number of followers and a vast force. Thou hadst eloquence, and thou hadst the power (for bringing about peace). Since deliberately, O slayer of Madhu, thou wert indifferent to this universal carnage, therefore, O mighty-armed one, thou shouldst reap the fruit of this act. By the little merit I have acquired through waiting dutifully on my husband, by that merit so difficult to attain, I shall curse thee, O wielder of the discus and the mace! Since thou wert indifferent to the Kurus and the Pandavas whilst they slew each other, therefore, O Govinda, thou shalt be the slayer of thy own kinsmen! In the thirty-sixth year from this, O slayer of Madhu, thou shalt, after causing the slaughter of thy kinsmen and friends and sons, perish by disgusting means in the wilderness. The ladies of thy race, deprived of sons, kinsmen, and friends, shall weep and cry even as these ladies of the Bharata race!’”
It is not just Krishna but Vishnu himself is under the karmic curse and one of the reasons for Vishnu’s reincarnation are due to his past karmic curse. We read that in Matsya Purana.
Matsya Purana, Chapter 47: 107 (English Translation by Board of Scholars, and Published by Parimal Publications)
“Then lord Vishnu in order to well establish the dharma and because of the curse pronounced by the sage Bhrgu on the gods and the demons, he incarnated on the earth in human form.”
We read about the curse on Vishnu in Valmiki Ramayana as well:
Ramayana of Valmiki, Book 7 – Uttara-kanda, Chapter 51 (Translation by Hari Prasad Shastri):
“Hearing the words of King Dasaratha, the highly effulgent Durvasa began to speak thus:—
“‘Learn, O King, what happened formerly during the conflict between the Devas and Asuras. The Daityas, whom the Suras threatened, took refuge with the consort of Bhrigu and she, having given them a haven, they dwelt there in safety. Seeing them thus succoured, the Chief of the Gods, enraged, with his sharp-edged discus severed the head of Bhrigu’s wife.
“‘Beholding the murder of his consort, Bhrigu, in his wrath, instantly cursed Vishnu, the destroyer of enemy hosts, saying:—
“‘“Since in thine insensate fury, you have slain my spouse, who should never have died thus, you shalt take birth in the world of men, O Janardana, and there you shalt live separated from your consort for many years.”
“‘Having pronounced this curse, Bhrigu was overcome with remorse and his merits being exhausted by the malediction he had uttered, he began to propitiate that God, paying homage to the One who delights in penance and protects his devotees. Thereafter that God spoke, saying, “For the good of the worlds, I will be subject to your curse.”
“‘This is how the illustrious Vishnu was cursed by Bhrigu in days of yore and descended on earth, becoming your son, O Foremost of Monarchs. Renowned in the Three Worlds under the name of Rama, he has to undergo the dire consequences of Bhrigu’s curse. He will reign in Ayodhya for a long time. Those who follow him will be happy and prosperous and, having reigned for eleven thousand years, Rama will go to Brahmaloka. Having performed many great sacrifices, distributing costly gifts, he, who may not be overcome by the most powerful beings, shall establish many dynasties and he will beget two sons by Sita.’
Srimad Devi Bhagavadam further elaborates this curse on Vishnu.
The S’rîmad Devî Bhâgawatam, Book 4, Chapter 12, Translation by Swami Vijñanananda
On Bhrigu’s curse and the dialogue between S’ukrâchârya and the Daityas
- Vyâsa said :– O king! On seeing Visnu killing his wife, and thus committing a dreadful atrocious act, the Bhagavân Bhrigu was very sorry and began to tremble with anger and addressed Madhusûdana thus.
- Bhrigu said :– O Visnu! You have done an extremely sinful act. O intelligent one! Knowing it, you have done so; what a great wonder! Nobody dreams of the murder of this Brâhman’s daughter; and you have committed it in deed, black and white.
- O Deva! The Mahârsis declare you to be Sâttvic, engaged in preservation; Brahmâ to be Râjasic (creator) and S’ambhu S’iva to be Tâmasic (destroyer). Why then is the contrary thing visible in this case?
- Why have you become Tâmasic? Why have you done this heinous crime? O Visnu! The females are never to be killed; this is a known fact; then why have you killed this woman without any fault.
5-6. You have done a very execrable act. What shall I do to you? It is mete that I would curse you. O Great Sinner! You have pained me very much and made me very weary. I will not curse Indra. You always assume a deceitful appearance and behave like a black cruel serpent; your mind is all full of wickedness; I will curse you.
- O Janârdana. Those Munis who call you Sâttvic are fools; I have seen today that your ways are exceptionally vicious and Tâmasic.
- O Visnu! I curse you now to take frequent births, suffer very frequently in different wombs, in the earth and thus suffer the pains of remaining in the wombs.
- O king! Therefore whenever religion subsides in the world, Bhagavân Visnu incarnates frequently in this human world, due to the curse of Bhrigu.
Summarizing all this Devi Bhagavatam points some important aspects:
Srimad Devi Bhagavtam, Book 6, Chapter 10 (Translation by Swami Vijñanananda):
When the Karma gets exhausted, then no more birth takes place. There is no doubt in this. Brahmâ, Visnu, Rudra, Indra and the other Devas, the Dânavas, Yaksas, Gandharbas, all are under the control of this Karma. O King! Were it not so, how could they get bodies that are the causes of the enjoyments of pains and pleasures of all the beings. Therefore, O King! Out of the Sañchita Karmas done in many previous births, some Karmas get ripe in due time and they manifest themselves; those manifested Sañchita Karmas are called Prârabdha Karmas (those that are being enjoyed by an individual in the present birth). Impelled by this Prârabdha Karma, the Devas and the human beings, all do meritorious acts as well as sinful acts. Thus Indra out of his past meritorious acts attained his Indraship, and, out of his past sinful acts, committed the sin Brahmahattyâ and so he was dislodged from his Indraship. What doubt can exist here? O King! So Nara and Nârâyana, the sons of Dharma, had to take births out of their previous Karmas; again Arjuna and Krisna were born out of their Karmic effects as part incarnations of this Nara and Nârâyana. The Munis describe this Karma as the basis of the Purânas.
If gods were not under the control of Karma, how could they get bodies that are the causes of the enjoyments of pains and pleasures of all beings? If they themselves have been under control and have not been able to save themselves, how will they save anyone?
So far, we have seen that karma and reincarnation does not have a logical response to the origin of shudras or brahmins; its axioms such as reincarnation is beginningless are not only logically absurd but renders people in a hopeless state; it hollows out God of His glory, and renders God as ineffectual in saving anyone. However, there are further problems. Instead of providing a robust and practical explanation for sufferings in this world, it ends up criminalizing innocent victims.
(6) Hindu Scriptures Teach that Some are Destined to be in the Reincarnation Cycle without Escape
In Chandogya Upanishad 5: 10:7- 8 – we are told about three groups travelling in three paths. One group is Brahmins, Kshtriays and Vaishyas, second group is dogs, pigs and outcastes (chandalas) and third group is small creatures such as insect etc.
About this third group, it says that they would ever continue in the cycle of birth and death.
Chandogya Upanishad 5: 10:8 (Translation: Dr S Radhakrishnan): But on neither of these ways are those small creatures (which are) continually revolving (those of whom it is said), be born and die. Their’s is a third state. By this (it comes about) that that world becomes full. Therefore let one seek to guard himself. To this end, there is this.
Since as per Chandogya Upanishad 5: 10:8, small creatures are condemned to continue in cycle of rebirth, how will those atmas ever attain salvation?
(7) Karma and Reincarnation Theory Criminalizes Innocent Victims
We had noted that Adi Shankaracharya and Madhwacharya in their respective Bhasyas of Brahma Sutra, Adhaya 2, Pada 1, Sutras 34-36, said that inequalities and sufferings in the world are due to the karmas of each atmas in their previous births.
Madhwacharya in the commentary of same sutras argued that since the inequality and sufferings are due karma and reincarnation, it absolves God of any accusation of partiality.
This explanation is provided by Sree Krishna himself when he claimed that he created varna system but according to karma and gunas.
Bhagavad Gita 4:13 (Translation by Narayana Gosvami), says: The fourfold system of varṇas (brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya and śūdra) was created by Me according to divisions of quality (guṇa) and work (karma). Although I am the creator of this system, you should know that I am the immutable non-doer.
In practical terms, karma and reincarnation did not provide any fruitful analysis of sufferings and inequality but served to justify and normalize every kind of discrimination
One has to read any of the dharma shastras to prove this point. For example:
As Chandogya Upanishad 5: 10: 7 clubbed Chandalas with dogs and pigs and said those are born as such due to their bad karma in previous life, Manusmriti 10:51 carried out the practical outworking of such karma and reincarnation theory by making Chandalas as outcasts whose dwelling should be outside the village.
Manusmriti 10: 51 (Translation by Ganganatha Jha): The dwelling of Caṇḍālas and Śvapacas shall be outside the village; they shall be made ‘Apapātra,’ and their wealth shall consist of dogs and donkeys.—(51)
Similarly as Rig Veda 10.90.12 taught that Shudras are born from the feet of Purusa, Manusmriti 8:413-417 carried out the practical outworking of such karma and reincarnation theory by saying says shudras job is to serve the Brahmins who were from the head and Shudras should not own any property. To call anyone shudra, then is to deny the basic rights.
Manusmriti 8: 413-417 (Translation by Ganganatha Jha):
But a Śūdra, whether bought or unbought, he shall make to do servile work; since it is for doing servile work for the Brāhmaṇa that he has been created by the self-born one.—(413).
Even though set free by the master, the Śūdra is not released from service; since that is innate in him, and who can release him from it?—(414)
….
The Brāhmaṇa may confidently have recourse to seizing the goods of the Śūdra; as the latter has no property, and his property is meant to be seized by the master.—(417)
Thus, karma and reincarnation theory blamed the victim and furthered the oppression.
Moreover, karma and reincarnation theory destroyed sanctity of all human relationships.
(8) Reincarnation annihilates the sanctity of all human relationships
If I had trillions of births and deaths as dog, cat, shudra, brahmin, devas and again now, I definitely cannot be identified by relationship. In other words, I am not the son of anyone nor the father or brother or anything.
In Bhāgavata Purāṇa, Khandam 6, Adhaya 14, 15 & 16, we have a very insightful story of King Citraketu and his only son. His only son died and grieved king with the help of Narada Muni brought the atama of the son back to his body for a brief period. The point that is important for us is the reply of this atama to the king.
Bhāgavata Purāṇa, Khandam 6: Adhaya 16, Sloka 4 (Translation: A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada) : He said: According to the results of my fruitive activities, I, the living being, transmigrate from one body to another, sometimes going to the species of the demigods, sometimes to the species of lower animals, sometimes among the vegetables, and sometimes to the human species. Therefore, in which birth were these my mother and father? No one is actually my mother and father. How can I accept these two people as my parents?
If you had trillions of births and deaths, sometimes as vegetables, at times as animals, or humans or demigods, you cannot be identified by your relationships. In fact, if one goes by the implication of this theory, one’s wife could have been his mother in the previous birth and all permutations and combinations in relationships could have already happened. What is the sanctity of relationships then?
Further, your parents and dear ones once dead and gone, could have been reborn as worms or dogs in neighbourhood. If so, why are Hindus doing rituals for dead ancestors?
(9) Hindu Rituals for Dead Ancestors Contradict Reincarnation Theory
As per Bhāgavata Purāṇa, Khandam 6: Adhaya 16, Sloka 4, we have seen above that no one can be called as father or mother since there were millions of births and death. However, this tragic situation is not accepted by Hindus themselves. The rituals that they do for their dead ones, parents etc are an illustration for the denial of this hopeless tragic.
In Rig Veda, we see offerings to the dead ancestors.
Rig Veda 10.15.1-3 (Translation: H. H. Wilson): “Let the lower, the upper, the intermediate Pitṛs, rise up, accepting the Soma libation; may those progenitors who, unlike wolves, acknowledging our offerings, have come to preserve our lives, protect us upon our invocations.”
“Let this our adoration be today addressed to those Pitṛs our predecessors, to those our successors, who have departed (to the world of the manes); to those who are seated in the terrestrial sphere, to those who are present among opulent people.”
“I have brought to my presence the Pitṛs who are well cognizant (of my worship), the infallibility, and food of the effused (Soma) with the sacrificial cake.”
Do dead ancestors exist as ancestors as per Rig Veda 10.15.1-3 or they cease to exist as ancestors as per Bhāgavata Purāṇa, Khandam 6: Adhaya 16, Sloka 4?
Similar is the Śrāddha ritual performed by Hindus for the dead.
Brahma Purana, Chapter 111: 15-33 (Translation: G P Bhatt): …If in the Śrāddha, the sacrificial food is offered to the Brahmins, the Pitṛs are fed for a month. If the flesh of a fish is offered, the Grandfathers are fed for two months. If a goat’s flesh is offered, the Pitṛs are fed for three months. If a hare’s flesh is offered, the Pitṛs are fed for four months. If a bird’s flesh is offered, the Pitṛs are fed for five months. If a hog’s flesh is offered, the Pitṛs are fed for six months. If a ram’s flesh is offered the Pitṛs are fed for seven months. If black deer’s flesh is offered the Pitṛs are fed for eight months. If ruru deer’s nine months; if cow’s for ten months; if ram’s for eleven months. If cow’s milk or rice cooked in cow’s milk for one year; if of rhinoceros or of rohita fish for endless period of time…
Grihya-sutras, Prapthaka 5, Kandika 4 (Translation: Herman Oldenberg): He then calls the Fathers (to his sacrifice) with (the verse), ‘Come hither, ye Fathers, who have drunk soma’ (ibid. 5).
If reincarnation is true, the ancestors would have already taken birth as other species. If so, whom are the Hindus calling to come?
It must be noted that reincarnation not only destroys the sanctity of all relationship but even mutilates the very identity of a human being?
(10) Karma and Reincarnation Mutilates the Body Soul Relationship and Thereby Destroys the Very Identity of Human Being
In Bhagavad Gita 2: 22 – Sree Krishna says:
Bhagavad Gita 2: 22 (Translation: A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada): As a person puts on new garments, giving up old ones, the soul similarly accepts new material bodies, giving up the old and useless ones.
Within the context of karma and reincarnation, body does not constitute the part of your identity and dress analogy can be read even somewhat literally.
Context is when Arjuna told to Sree Krishna that he does not want to kill his gurus and relatives in the war. Sree Krishna replied:
Bhagavad Gita 2 19: Neither he who thinks the living entity the slayer nor he who thinks it slain is in knowledge, for the self-slays not nor is slain.
In killing the body, you are actually killing no one.
In the Complete Works of Babasaheb Ambedkar, Volume 3, Chapter 13, Krishna and his Gita, Page 364, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, popularly known as father of Indian Constitution, asked whether this reasoning of Sree Krishna would be acceptable in any court of Law.
Once we mutilate the integrity of body and soul, then several questions arise about identity of atmas as well.
We are often known by our relationships. For example, someone is the son or daughter of someone. While one may grow old and change the appearance physically, this relationship never changes. It is the core part of our identity. However, if we had millions of fathers and mothers, who are we?
Further, what is the essential nature of atmas, if atmas can transmigrate between all kinds of living beings?
Moreover, if all atmas existed simultaneously and eternally, and are identical in nature, should they be even treated as separate entities? Was there any difference between one atmas and one another atmas eternally?
Or who is the one reincarnating? It must be noted that several sects of Buddhism rightly deny any self or atmas. But then it would become transmigration without transmigrator. Let us look at how a few of the Hindu scholars have responded to the question about the identity of atmas.
(11) Who is Reincarnating? Contradictory Responses Within Hinduism
If eternally atmas existed identical in nature, Adi Shankaracharya rightly concluded that then there is only who is existing and not two. A few Hindu scriptures seems to indicate so.
Chandogya Upanishad Part 6, Adhaya 2, 1-2 (Translation: Ganganatha Jha): “In the beginning, my dear, this Being only, one, without a second. – Some say that, in the beginning, this was Non-being, only one, without a second. From that Non-being sprang Being.”
However, this makes the entire reincarnation a convenient fiction. if only one exist, Brahman, and if Brahman is not subject to karma and reincarnation, then who is reincarnating? Isn’t reincarnation itself a convenient fiction?
Adi Shankarachyara clubbed it under avidya in his commentary Bhagavad Gita 13:2.
Bhagavad Gita 13:2 – Sankara Bhasya (Translation: Alladi Mahadeva Sastry): “No; for the Self cannot (really) exist in different states. – If bondage and liberation be states of the Self, they must be either simultaneous or successive. They cannot be simultaneous states of the Self as they are mutually opposed, just as motion and rest cannot be simultaneous states of one and same thing. If successive, they are either caused or uncaused by another. If uncaused by another, there can be no liberation. If caused by another, they cannot be inherent in the Self and cannot be therefore be real. And this is opposed to the hypothesis. Moreover, if we would determine the order of their occurrence, the state of bondage should come first, without a beginning, but having an end; and this is opposed to all evidence.”
Adi Shankarachyara has in fact summarized a few of the troubling issues with the concept of reincarnation.
However, to argue that only Brahman exists leads to saying Aham brahmasmi, a blasphemy under theistic perspective.
Here Madhwacharya, who believed that God is separate from rest of the atmas, came up with another solution.
Madhwacharya taught jiva atmas, souls of living beings, exist in three categories Mukti – Yogyas, one who are eligible for salvation, Nitya-samsaris, one who are ever in the cycle of reincarnation and tamo-yogyas, one who are meant for eternal damnation.
Madhwacharya’s Brahma Sutra commentary, Adhaya 3, Pada 4, 34 onwards one can see elaboration of this concept. While this idea helps in maintaining some distinction between atmas, it makes futile any attempt to receive mukthi or salvation making all efforts to attain salvation a vain action.
Brahma Sutra, Adhaya 3, Pada 4, Sloka 35 (Bhasya of Madhwacharya, Translation: S Subba Rau, MA): “35 (Scripture) shows also the immutability (of their nature). The following Sruti shows the unchangeableness of (essential) nature thus: “The gods attain to (develop) the divine nature and Asuras to the Asura (evil) nature; and of these two there is never a change in respect of their essential character; for nature does only continue to stand (assert itself).””
While this might help in retaining some identity to atmas, it destroys one of the Hindu axioms of reincarnation that one can transmigrate across species. It is not possible. One can migrate only within the species that contain the same essential nature since essential nature cannot be changed. This raises the question on the very purpose of transmigration itself. If the essential nature can never be changed, why transmigrate at all?
Hence, we conclude that reincarnation as taught in the Hindu scriptures are plagued with issues.
