This question is from Dr. Indraki B. Swamiji. Thank you for your insightful and easy-to-understand sermons. My question is related to your discourse on the Advaita philosophy and Buddhism. If Buddhism believes in reincarnation, then why does it not believe in an Atman? What is it that Buddhism believes is reincarnated if not the Atman? It is unlikely that Buddhism believes it is the mind-body that reincarnates. Please explain. The answer is in the question itself, the last part. The body doesn't reincarnate; the body dies. It goes to pieces, it is burned, cremated, buried, whatever you call it. Now, if we as Hindus say, they say, it is the Atman, which is reincarnated, the Self, the Buddhist will immediately ask, really, the Self is changeless? You yourself say so, the Hindus. How can a

changeless Self be incarnated and reincarnated? It's a kind of change, right? Atman must be steady beyond any change, beyond any coming and going. How can it be reincarnated? Rather, what the Buddhist proposes is, so the Buddhist will ask, well, first, the strategy is, and I'm quoting ancient debates, the strategy is first to attack the opponent's position. You are saying without a permanent Self, you cannot explain reincarnation. Oh, Buddhist, you believe in reincarnation. Then how can you reject the idea of a permanent Self? So, the Buddhist first says, can the idea of a permanent Self support reincarnation? And then he will show, in very logical steps, it can't. The idea of a permanent Self and the idea of being born and living and dying and being born again, again, they are not compatible. They don't go together. Physical body is dead. Then what is

going from body to body, lifetime to lifetime? It cannot be a permanent Self. Permanent Self cannot change. Reincarnation is change. Then the Hindu will say, okay, wise guy, tell me what's your solution? And the Buddhist will say, actually, our solution is logical. What it is like is not that some particular entity is being reincarnated. It's more like a process. Moment to moment, the subtle body, the Sukshma sharira, the sentient being is perishing and another exact copy is being created. That exists for a moment, and it perishes and another exact copy is being created. And those copies have retained the impression of the past copies. So, they all feel they are very similar. So, you give an illusion of continuity. It's like a good example is when you shake a rope, you see a wave going like this to the rope. It's not that the rope here is not going there. At every point, the rope comes up

and down. It's a wave being propagated. Similarly, the Buddhist says it's like a wave being propagated. A set of impressions, a set of characteristics. It goes forward once a physical body falls apart. The subtle body also. It's moment to moment arising and disappearing. And it brings with itself. You'll say no, no, consciousness is in the background. No, every moment it comes up with its own consciousness. Flashes of consciousness. In fact, the phrase stream of consciousness is very, it applies very well to the Buddhist idea. There's actually a Sanskrit word for ancient Sanskrit term for that. Kshanika vijnana dhara. The momentary stream of momentary consciousness. Flashes of consciousness and that takes up with, with, memories, thoughts. How are those memories and thoughts encoded? With matter, with the subtle matter which is being appropriated moment to moment. None of it is permanent. It's just an

impulse which is transmitted. And that takes up a new body which will live for a while, again disappear, die. It's like the waves in the ocean. So, that's the answer from the Buddhist side. So, there's no real science. There's no real solution from the Hindu dualist side. It's only the Advaitic answer which gives the right answer. The Vedantic Advaitic Brahman, existence consciousness bliss, you're right, it says to the Buddhist, that's not incarnated. That neither is born, nor does it die. And you're right. What is incarnated is continuously changing. It's that appearance of mind-body. The body dies moment, I mean, lifetime to lifetime to lifetime. And the mind is continuously changing. Mind is a stream of subtle matter, thoughts. The body is a stream of physical matter. It falls apart after some time. The subtle matter goes on. So, it's the, as the Buddhist said, there is this mind which

goes from lifetime to lifetime. In Sanskrit, it's called Sukshma sharia, subtle body. And that's always changing. That's a complex entity capable of change. And it survives physical death of the body. And it goes on from lifetime to lifetime. That embodies the Jiva, the sentient being. Now the danger, so the Buddhist position, the Vedic position is saying, no. Then the Buddhist, you see, what's the danger of making concessions to clever people? You've made a concession. That yes, you're right. Then the Buddhist will say, aha. So, if it is the subtle body which only goes from lifetime to lifetime to lifetime, that explains everything. Why do we need your Atman, Brahman consciousness? Get rid of it. Come to our camp. Welcome to the Buddhist camp. You Hindus have become Buddhist. And then there is the reply from the Advaitic side. If it is a series of, there are many

arguments, but if it's a series of flashes of consciousness, what's a flash? It's a beginning and an end. Right? Momentary. Then another one. It's a discrete series. One, two, three, four. Not continuous. There's a whole argument between continuous consciousness and discrete consciousness. Flashes of consciousness and continuous consciousness. If you argue in that way, the Buddhist would say, yes, what's the problem in flashes of consciousness? The problem is if it's a flash and the next flash, there's a gap between the two. How would you know there's a gap? If you don't know there's a gap, then say it's continuous. Why would you speak about a gap? If you know there is a gap, to know there must be consciousness. And that consciousness must be there in the gap. There's really no other way around this argument. And there are other arguments also. How about recognition? If every flash is discrete and separate, in that case, there

is no continuity. Who is in bondage and who attains nirvana? Who is the one who suffered? Who had the past karma and why should I suffer the results of this past karma? Because I'm not literally the one who did that karma. It sounds very weird. So, it falls apart if you push it a little further. There must be a unifying background.

Can the idea of changeless self be consistent with reincarnation? | Reincarnation and Stream of ...

Can the idea of changeless self be consistent with reincarnation? | Reincarnation and Stream of ...