Rebirth Without Transmigration: A Buddhist Perspective

A religion is a set of rules and statements that are supposed to be accepted and followed without doubting, its authenticity and legitimacy unquestioned. It is in human nature to dissect any philosophical or religious idea in an attempt to find logical underpinnings of such. The battle between logic and faith led to a present situation where the world's major religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, despite having hundreds of millions of followers, are not very popular with younger generations. There are many logical inconsistencies in their doctrines that have been revealed by scientific discoveries of the last three centuries. There is scientific proof that the world was not created only six thousand years ago, and there are arguments, philosophical as well as theological, about the nature of God and heaven among the three religions. Buddhism, with no ultimate deity and no notion of how and when the universe was created, appears to be the most logical of the world's religions. There are parts in it, however, that must be explained because they appear illogical to normal human understanding. One of them is the notion of transmigration when, according to Buddhist doctrine, there is no entity to transmigrate. Extant Buddhist texts offer logical explanations to this apparent paradox by masterfully employing allegories and applying other basic parts of the doctrine, such as the notion of Void, or Emptiness, as well as the belief that all things perceived are not whole but combinations of various components.

The composite nature of the individual, as claimed by Buddhists, is most eloquently explained in the text known as the Questions of King Menander. Monk Nagasena, who is questioned by Menander, employs similes to give logic to Buddhist teachings. Comparing himself to a chariot, Nagasena shows that he is just a composition of parts, none of which can be called Nagasena individually, but together constitute an individual. This way, atman cannot exist in a way the Upanishads describe it because it is no more than a part of an individual. Without other parts it is useless.