A Comparative Study
by P.T. Mistlberger
The following writings will be an attempt at an analysis of the doctrines of resurrection and reincarnation, particularly how they have been understood via the Christian and Buddhist traditions, respectively. This of course is a lengthy issue, the surface of which can only be scratched here. I do not feign to proclaim my understanding of these issues as complete. However, my personal insight and experience has led me to overwhelmingly believe that the "truth" has been tarnished and sullied over the ages. What we have inherited with our organized religions is a body of teachings that have been welded to various political ideologies, and as such have not escaped the effects of institutionalization. It should also be said that although the ultimate truths behind Buddhist and Christian doctrine, i.e. what Jesus and Buddha were truly indicating, can be seen and understood by one who truly desires to see and understand, there is no escaping the fact that the two teachings, as presented in their outer, exoteric form, are not truly compatible, and are not saying the same thing. This, firstly, must be admitted. Is it any more miraculous to live twice, than it is to live once? Of major world faiths, only the three monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) outwardly reject reincarnation. All major Eastern religions embrace it (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Parsi, and Sikhism). In the Greek lineages, Pythagoras inherited reincarnation doctrine (known as metempsychosis or transmigration of the soul) most probably from Indian teachers. He himself passed it on to Plato and Empedocles. Plato in particular thought of "education" as the mere remembrance of what we had learned previously. Every soul comes into this world strengthened by the victories or weakened by the defects of the previous life. This seems like a clear endorsement of past lives, but some scholars claim that Origen was referring to only one previous existence, and that was in Heaven. At any rate, he was later branded a heretic by the orthodox Church, so his case is now academic only. To know your past lives, look at your present conditions. To know your future lives, look at your present actions. And such is the operation of the mechanical, impersonal law of karma, from which no one escapes, and to which no one is given special treatment. Karma equally applies to emperor or beggar. Life is a journey. Death is a return to the Earth. The universe is like an inn. The passing years are like dust. Thus, although he did teach that we move from life to life, from body to body, until fully Awakened, he also taught that what appears to be moving from life to life, from body to body, is only the dreaming state of identification. Like the actors on the stage, the costumes and characters were never real, only appearances. The true nature has never incarnated even once. For all the prophets and the law prophesied unto John [the Baptist]. And if ye will receive it, this was for Elijah, which was for to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. Later, after John the Baptist has been imprisoned and then executed by Herod, Jesus takes Peter, James, and John up a mountain, for the transfiguration scene. Elijah and Moses appear, commune with Jesus, and then depart. Confused, the disciples ask what Elijah is doing reappearing in a heavenly body, when according to Malachi he was supposed to come first in the flesh. Jesus answers (Matthew 17:12), ...Elijah is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of Man suffer of them. To which Peter, James, and John interpret (Matt. 17:13): Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist. The indication seems clear the Elijah was John the Baptist. Some reincarnationists claim this as evidence that Jesus taught Reincarnation. Interestingly, there has been much intellectual jostling and disputation by scholars to see through this one. One view has it that Jesus was suggesting that some may have the power to reincarnate, though not most. Another is that Elijah never died, but, as mentioned, was taken into Heaven on the fiery chariot. Thus, his reappearance as John the Baptist is simply another miraculous function of his exhalted stature, and does not imply reincarnation. This latter view was actually common to Jewish religion at that time, and many prophets were thought to have ascended to Heaven at death, and by God's Will, could easily return to Earth if necessary. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man's blood shall his blood be shed.
This is a teaching of pure karma. Contrast to Buddha's Dhammapada (9:125): No harm comes to him who does no harm. If you harm a pure and innocent person, you harm yourself, as dust thrown against the wind comes back to the thrower. The karmic link is seen by pro-reincarnationists as evidence for pre-existence of the soul, inasmuch as the requirements set forth by Jesus for salvation cannot be met in one lifetime for the majority of God's children on this Earth (as the majority are non-Christian). Thus, according to this line of reasoning, either a piece is missing in Christian theology as conventionally presented, or God has intentionally set up the conditions so that most must fail. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. and again (Matt. 13:9) Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. The former is in the context of referring to the return of the prophet Elijah, the latter in the seaside parable of the sower and the seeds, in a sermon given to "great multitudes" of people. In the latter case, the disciples later ask Jesus why he is speaking in parables, and Jesus answers (Matt. 13:11): Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them [the "multitudes"] it is not given. Jesus goes on to speak about the necessity of using parables -- allegories -- to make his point to those who do not understand. Thus, he is clearly indicating two levels of communication, and as a parable or allegory is a story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson, it is therefore clear that Jesus does in fact use symbolic languaging, and thus we are on solid ground in presupposing and critically analyzing resurrection from both literal and symbolic angles. ana al-haqq! which means, "I am the Truth!" His mystical awakening to union with Allah, in a process termed by Sufi mystics as fana, meaning "death of the self [or ego] that impedes knowledge of God", was no different in proclamation than Jesus' declaration of union with the Father. *****************
There is a critical, fundamental difference between what has been presented to humanity through these two religions and their respective teachings of the destiny and fate of a human being. Thus, although religious diplomats such as the Dalai Lama and exiled Vietnemese Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh have tried valiantly to bridge the two traditions, they are ultimately stopped short from proclaiming full uniformity. The Christian Pope, who is not really a "religious diplomat", makes no such attempt, and has simply dismissed Buddhism as "not the whole truth". For this, he has been soundly criticized by Thich Nhat Hanh and other Buddhist teachers, though it should be mentioned that the famous Christian mystic Thomas Merton once said that he had more in common with Thich Nhat Hanh than with most Christian priests.
The exoteric differences belie the esoteric Oneness, but it takes considerable study, and real-life experience, of many sorts, to truly see the underlying one Truth beneath the faces of religions. And, it takes guts. No person controlled by the primal and infantile fears of punishment or disapproval from the mythic Overseer of childhood or from religious authorities or fearing the opinions of social peer groups can walk the path of enlightenment.
Buddhism and Reincarnation
In new age circles in recent decades it has been something of a fad to be in the know of what "past lives" one has had, either through receiving information from supposed authoritative "sources" (generally trance mediums, or psychics, or occasionally spiritual gurus), or directly from inner revelation, generated by meditative practices, hypnotic regression, and occasionally prayer.
My own estimation is that a great deal of this information is bunk. For one thing, the "lives" that are spoken of generally are high profile lives, involving famed personages, or historic events of glory or import. Few seem ever to "recall" being a pauper or a petty crook. Mediocrity seems not to coincide with "memories" of who we once were. It's almost as if such mediocre people never existed, and only pivotally important people inhabited the bodies that walked on our planet of yore.
Psychologically, many who overly-identify with "past-lives" suffer from self-esteem issues in this life. It follows that self-doubt can be alleviated by the belief that one did in fact contribute in some significant fashion to the progress of the human race before. One may not be "getting it" very well this time around, but heck, this life may only be a "resting" life after the hard work previously done in an important past life (yes, I've heard that argument used).
On this note, most countries that have religious/cultural connections to reincarnation actually do move at a slower pace, perhaps due to the psychological conditioning of knowing that this is only one of many lives, and we have forever. If so, what's the hurry? (India in particular is a striking example of this. People there, on the most part, move very slowly, in a pedestrian, almost sleepy way that can be annoying for the average road-runner Westerner. On the other hand, they can also be wonderfully present and intuitive, without the attendant angst of always dashing to get somewhere, which is how many of them laughingly view Westerners).
Dispensing now with the psychological critique of the modern commonplace superficial treatment of reincarnation, we are left with looking at where the idea itself is coming from.
Surprisingly, though we typically associate reincarnation with Eastern traditions, much of Western intelligentsia has seriously considered the idea. Thinkers such as Voltaire, Goethe, Emerson, Huxley, Yeats, Wordsworth, Shelley, Franklin, Schopenhauer, Schiller and Jung are just a few of the many who either outright believed in it, or at least took the idea seriously enough to devote considerable thought to it. Voltaire perhaps said it most succinctly, when he wrote:
Gnostics, as well as the Muslim Sufi mystics, Celtic Druids and later Rosicrucians, and many of the unorthodox offshoots of the Western religions, all subscribed to varying degrees to Reincarnation.
The early Christian Church father Origen has been claimed as a reincarnationist by many, but actual critical analysis of his writings is inconclusive in this regard. In his De Principiis he wrote
Reincarnation perhaps was most developed as a teaching in India through Hinduism, known in Sanskrit as punar-janman ("rebirth"), and closely wedded to the concept of karma and gradual evolution of the soul. Owing to this, Hindu doctrine taught of transitory after-death states (including over twenty different Hell dimensions, all of which are merely remedial, and none of which is eternal). However, it was left to Buddhism to develop the most sophisticated (and at times confusing) treatment of reincarnation.
Buddhist cosmology describes six fundamental realms. These six realms are all impermanent, and part of the great wheel of samsara (the World). The object for a Buddhist is to awaken beyond the wheel, to nirvana (the Absolute), which is completely outside of the wheel. But in the meantime, one continues to reincarnate, life after life, until one achieves full enlightenment.
According to the surface teachings of the doctrine, the karma (deeds) of a given life determines the quality of the next life. If, for example, one is a murderer in one life, one may incarnate next life as one who is murdered. If one is greedy in one life, next life one may incarnate as a person in poverty. If one physically harms people in one life, one many incarnate next life in a body of poor health or appearance, etc., etc. The reverse merits are in store for one who performs good deeds.
The above is a completely simplified version of Buddhist teaching, but it has been most succinctly summarized by Buddhist masters as such:
Now, to the complex part. Buddha said that, in reality, reincarnation was both true, and false. That we do reincarnate, and we do not. From this explanation, many have been confused at what he was really saying, but the key has to do with his teaching of anatman (no-self). This term is the foundation and golden key to understanding his whole teaching.
Buddha taught that the "self" is, finally, of no solid existence. And, in truth, a simple experiment can be done by anyone to see what he was saying. Simply close your eyes, focus within, and try to locate the "I" that we normally understand to represent who we are. After much honest examination, nothing substantial will be found -- only thoughts, memories, and assumptions. If this practice is continued with diligence ongoingly, the "emptiness" of the self becomes very clear. Buddha called this emptiness shunyata, and understood it as the doorway to Truth.
Once shunyata is embraced and penetrated with full awareness, the deeper realization is had that our true nature is not defined by space or time. In fact, it is not even identified with the body we are inhabiting. It is only pure awareness and pure love, and understands that it is no more the body, than it is the personality, name, country, race, family, etc. All these are identities, and the process of falling into the dream of believing that they are our True nature is termed identification.
Thus, although we appear to move from life to life, in truth, our True Nature has never gone anywhere. It is no more truthfully our present body, then it is the previous bodies. The whole process of living -- whether one life or several -- is only a process of identification, and unconsciousness of our true nature. With these identifications, come limitations, and attendent suffering. And, the only reason we desire anything at all, is because we are fast asleep in the dream of these identifications.
It can be compared to watching an actor play several different characters on the stage of a theatre. Each character is different, each costume different, and yet once the stage lights come up, and the costumes taken off, it is clear that one never actually was any of those characters -- whether one, or many. Buddha put it poetically,
Possible Christian References to Reincarnation
The prophet Elijah was carried bodily into heaven by the "chariot of fire", around 900 BC, and his return prophesied as described at the end of the Old Testament, in Malachi 3:1, 4:5. Around the time of Jesus, Jewish Messianic belief generally had it that Elijah would return to herald the coming of the Messiah, and Judgment Day, as indicated by Malachi. And, Jesus himself points to such, in Matthew 11:13-15.
Another group of scholars backs the view that these particular sayings of Jesus were inserted by later authors, to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies and confirm Jesus as Messiah. If not, Malachi's prophecy remains unfulfilled, suggesting against Jesus being the Messiah. Hence, the crucial importance of demonstrating that Elijah has already returned as John the Baptist.
Catholic theologian Hans Kung has dismissed the whole Elijah/John the Baptist affair as "marginal to the gospel". Perhaps, but for those who consider the Bible as unerring and divinely literal, the issue cannot be dismissed. And, although common questions about the reasons for the form of his return (as John) are valid, though it could be argued, again, that this was simply the Will of God.
My conclusion is that speculations here on Elijah's status as "bodily removed" vs. "reincarnated" are inconclusive, and finally unimportant for one who seeks the deeper, spiritual significance of Christ.
One other link between Biblical scripture and possible reference to pre-existence is the bald proclamation of cause and effect in Genesis (9:6):
Concerning Judaism, the exoteric, orthodox form of it teaches One Life (though as we have seen, "pre-existence" is suggested in several places of the OT), but the esoteric school of Judaism -- Kabbalah -- does teach reincarnation, as transmitted through the Jewish sect known as the Hassids, founded by the 18th century Polish Rabbi Baal Shem Tov.
Christianity and Resurrection
Both teachings of resurrection and reincarnation are subject to two kinds of interpretations, the gross and the subtle. Gross interpretation is generally militantly literal, and usually carries the unpleasant addenda of requisite condemnation of those who perceive otherwise. This follows of necessity because to believe something literally, as opposed to symbolically, is to underscore its all-pervading reality for all, without room for anything else. This was why the Church had to martyr Giordano Bruno and others, and constrain Galileo, and why Copernicus did not publish his paper on planetary motion until on his deathbed, because the Church, in subscribing to the literal belief in a geocentric (Earth is center of universe) model, necessarily saw such a literal belief as a universal reality.
Interpretations notwithstanding, there remain two levels important to consider when looking at the Christian doctrine of resurrection, these being the outer and the inner. As Jesus himself said (Matt. 11:15)
Details concerning the resurrection in the New Testament are scant. Mark (16:9,14) describes Jesus as appearing first to Magdalene, and later to the 11 disciples.
Matthew (28:9,18) has Jesus first reappearing to Magdalene and "the other Mary", and then later to the 11 disciples.
Luke, in a long and mysterious passage, described Jesus first appearing in resurrected form to "two of them" (also referred to briefly by Mark), one named "Cleopas", in which these two do not recognize Jesus, but listen to Jesus talk at length about "all the scriptures concerning himself". Jesus actually sits "at meat" with them, though whether he eats is inconclusive, as the passage describes him as "he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave it to them". (Luke 24:30). He later appears again to the 11 disciples.
John (20:15) has Jesus first appearing to Magdalene, but she does not recognize him, thinking him to be a "gardner"! She soon recognizes him, but curiously, he says "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father". (John 20:17). She then leaves at his bidding to tell the disciples. Later in the day Jesus appears to the gathered disciples.
The John Gospel gives the most information on the resurrected Jesus, having him appear on a second occasion for the assembled disciples, this time with Thomas present who was absent at the first appearance, wherein a pithy moral lesson is given on the virtue of believing without seeing. John has Jesus appearing again later at the Sea of Tiberius, in front of Simon Peter, "Thomas called Didymus", Nathanael of Cana, and the "sons of Zebedee". They at first do not recognize Jesus, eventually do, and are then given a sermon by Jesus.
Resurrection is crucial to orthodox Christian doctrine, wherein the function of Christ as redeemer of humanity has no power if he has not actually conquered death -- literally, in the orthodox view. The apostolic Church was clearly based on resurrection, as well as the "apostolic succession", transmitting Christ's divine authority through the popes and bishops.
From the orthodox Christian view, resurrection implies the crucial merging of truth with power. Without resurrection, Christ's life work remains truthful, but lacks force. With resurrection, it carries the power needed to magnetize and convert souls.
In India, there is an ancient tradition of the Mahasiddhis (literally "great powers"), often attributed to saints and enlightened beings (including Buddha). The function of these miraculous powers is thought crucial to convince humans of the immanence and reality of divine levels of being -- and of the truth of God, or awakening.
Similarly, the function of Jesus' "miracles" throughout his ministry -- including perhaps the ultimate miracle of resurrection -- thus becomes as a powerful anchor for the many who cannot penetrate the veil of ignorance without something solidly and undeniably miraculous to hold on to. Otherwise, Jesus is not much different from any wise Greek philosopher, convincing in words, but not necessarily in action.
Thus, resurrection is triumph over death, and therefore is the ultimate evidence of God's power and reality. This is the outer, literalist interpretation.
Symbolically, resurrection can be seen to be intimately connected to the crucifixion, and hence the crucial importance of the cross as a symbol of divine power in Christianity. Without Jesuss death, there is no resurrection, and thus even the role of Judas can be seen as part of the divine Will and script.
Further, resurrection as a symbol of transcending death can be understood as the attainment of the wisdom that comes with full inner Awakening, wherein the ignorance of the presumed bodily separation from God is "crucified", such that the awakened self can rise and reveal its true nature as beyond all dimensions of space and time -- of which the defining paradigm is the dance between life and death. When death is defeated, eternal life is seen to be the true Reality, to which death in comparison is rendered as nothing.
Contrasting Resurrection and Reincarnation
As the doctrine of redemption is, literally and outwardly, based on the "factuality" of the risen Christ, then possibly the most crucially important passages in the whole Christian Bible are Luke 24:38-39, and 24:42-43, where Jesus convinces the stunned and terrified disciples that he is not a ghost, but has actually reconstituted his fleshly body. To prove it, he has them touch him, and then asks for something eat. They give him fish, and he eats it.
What manner of man is this? Clearly, no ghost would ever be thought able to eat fish in front of 11 witnesses. But in India and Tibet, comparatively miraculous stories are commonplace, particularly amongst the legends and lore of the great Himalayan yogis, avatars, and naljorpas -- though none of these, admittedly, ever resulted in the development of a religion that nominally claims, in present time, one-third of all souls on earth (2 out of 6 billion).
Likewise, the actual process of a man being executed for claiming to be "God" (or even a unique agent of God) is not unique either. In the year 922 AD, in Baghdad, the great Sufi Master Husayn ibn Mansur al-Hallaj, was killed in the most horrible fashion, being slowly dismembered, and eventually burned. His crime? He was declared a heretic by the ruling Islamic clergy in part for proclaiming,
However, no religious movement formed around al-Hallaj. Clearly, the resurrection of Jesus as a literal event is foundational to the process of salvation through redemption for one who "accepts" Christ and the agent of the Holy Spirit into their heart. Tertullian, the early Church Father, living over 150 years after the Crucifixion, thunderingly summarized it by declaring a heretic any who denies the actual physical resurrection of Christ, and a Christian as any who accepts it.
Gnostic Christians of the time understood the resurrection as one of symbolic importance primarily, and were unconcerned about the literal event, or any of the actual physical miracles. Similarly, with the later school of Mahayana Buddhism, legendary miraculous embellishments of Buddha's life flourished, many eschewed by the original Theravadin Buddhists, as the miracles were considered tangential to Buddha's essential teaching.
However, the doctrine of literal resurrection, in case of its implementation by the early Church Fathers, served a crucial political function. If resurrection was literally real, then the transmission of divine authority should depend, crucially, on who witnessed this resurrection, as this would signify the bestowal of succession. Christ's literal triumph over death -- and validation of eternal life -- would be given as a demonstration of proof only to those who were worthy of it.
This, in part, was the reasoning of the early Church Fathers. And, because for the first 150 years after the Crucifixion there was no clear doctrine of a "risen Christ" -- there were rather only several disconnected Jesus-communities -- it was essential, for whomever was to gain dominance over the others, that an extremely powerful claim be made. This claim was linked to the disciple Peter, as being the first to witness the resurrection, and thus being the actual inheriter, from Christ, of divine authority on Earth. From this grew the apostolic succession, and the eventual primacy of the office of Pope, who claims his mandate as successor of Peter, first of apostles, and first to witness the divine return of the Christ.
However, this is not actually supported even by a literal interpretation of Scripture. Mark, Matthew and John all have the Resurrected Christ fist appearing to Mary Magdalene (sometimes with the "other Mary"), and Luke has the first reappearance with the "two", one named "Cleopas". Luke has Peter enter the empty cave first, but he doesn't see Christ.
These problems were later ironed over by "authoritative" declarations that only certain "appearances" of the Resurrected Christ bestowed official transmission of divine authority, and Peter was seen as the chief leader of the post-Crucifixion disciples. In a stunning display of patriarchal sleight of hand, the legacy of Mary Magdalene, as the true first witness of the return of Christ (according to three of the Gospels), is simply ignored -- at least according to the logic of papal succession.
However, with this foundation, the basis of the early Church began to coalesce from amongst the multitudes of conflicting movements, all claiming to represent the "true" message of Jesus, in the first 200 years AD. Thus, literally resurrection was not just a spiritual teaching, it became a critically important political tool to ensure the survival of a particular spiritual lineage -- the lineage of Peter.
Gnostic Christians of the time were amused by all this maneuvering to gain power, and firmly held to the belief in the symbolic importance of Christ's message. They rejected the literal interpretation of resurrection, declaring it a childish understanding, and the "faith of fools". For them, excessive belief in literal Resurrection influenced people to stay stuck in the past, on one grand event, whereas they understood Jesus' teaching as a guidance to live in the present moment, in which experiencing Christ's presence was a moment to moment event of choosing spiritual vision over material vision.
Through this analysis we can see, at least, the fundamental political power of a doctrine such as literal resurrection. Such a claim, to represent One who has literally conquered death, and is both the ambassador and the embodiment of the One God, has enormous ramifications across the whole theatre of human life on Earth.
Reincarnation, comparatively, does not lend itself to political or social dominance, as it claims to make no one individual of paramount dominant stature. Given this, it is perhaps understandable that there are six times as many Christians as Buddhists on the planet, despite the fact that Buddha came over 500 years before Jesus.
Copyright 1999, by P.T. Mistlberger, All Rights Reserved
Over to:
Home