Rebirth is one of the core concepts of all religions that originated in India viz., Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and in modern times Sikhism. But this same concept is alien to the civilizations which are outside the periphery of Indus-Brahmaputra or not influenced by the Indian civilization. So, we can say the concept of Rebirth is civilization based rather than religion based. India has been the laboratory for philosophers of great acumen. The great Adi Shankracharya from Hinduism and the great Nagarjuna from Buddhism are two such philosophers from India, under their bright luminescence all the other philosophers of the world seem invisible. The natural question arises then what is the rational proof of the rebirth which is acceptable to all philosophers with ease and comes naturally to every Indian. I came across such rational arguments articulated as logical proof in the support of the theory of rebirth. This masterpiece is presented by none other than the great Swami Vivekananda.
In his lecture 'Life After Death' delivered in New York on January 26, 1896, he argues successfully in support of Rebirth. He calls it 'reincarnation of the soul'. All religions of the world believe that the soul of man lives even after death. But the religions not having the Rebirth concept believes there is no life of soul before birth. So, here comes the interesting belief that the soul does not exist before birth but it continues to exist after death. Swami Vivekananda hits this point first. He says, "theory that although they have come out of zero, they will be eternal ever afterwards. Those that come out of zero will certainly have to go back to zero. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone present, has come out of zero, nor will go back to zero". नासतो विद्यते भावो नाभावो विद्यते सतः from Gita (2.16). It means there is no presence for the 'non-existence' and there is no absence of 'existence'. Thus, Swami Vivekananda is explaining the axiom from the Gita. He roars in his well-known style, "we have been existing eternally, and will exist, and there is no power under the Sun or above the Sun which can undo your or my existence or send us back to zero".
Then he briefly mentions the application of believing in Rebirth. He said it's the most essential for the moral well-being of the human race. But he elaborated on this in the last part of his lecture. So, I'll also come to this point at the end of this article.
Next, he presented the arguments in the favor of Rebirth by considering objections against it and then answering those objections. The first objection he took was why do we not remember our past? To this objection, he replied, "it is unmitigated nonsense to say that our existence depends on our remembering it''. As we don't remember our childhood doesn't mean it did not exist. Then he explained the purpose of forgetting our past lives, "then all this thirst for enjoyment, this clinging on to life and this world will vanish forever; then the mind will see clearly as daylight how many times all these existed for you, how many millions of times you had fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, husbands and wives, relatives and friends, wealth and power. They came and went. How many times you were on the topmost crest of the wave, and how many times you were down at the bottom of despair!" This comes from Samkhya philosophy which says Prakriti (nature) provides bhoga (experience) and apavarga (freedom) to the Purusha (Soul). So, the experience of the world is not possible without forgetting past lives and freedom is not possible without remembering all those past lives.
Now, comes the next question. Are there any arguments, any rational proofs for this reincarnation of the soul? So he replies, "reincarnation accounts for the wide divergence that we find between man and man in their process to acquire knowledge. First, let us consider the process by means by which knowledge is acquired. Suppose I go into the street and see a dog. How do I know it is a dog because it coincides with impressions already there. When not finding the cognates of an impression, we become dissatisfied, this state of mind is called 'ignorance'; but when finding the cognates of an impression already existing, we become satisfied, this is called 'knowledge'. Now, we see that without a fund of already existing experience, any new experience would be impossible, for there would be nothing to which to refer the new impression."
He further explains, "child with tabula rasa would never attain any degree of intellectual power because he would have nothing to which to refer his new experiences. We see that the power of acquiring knowledge varies in each individual, and this shows that each one of us has come with his own fund of knowledge. Knowledge can only be got in one way, the way of experience; there is no other way to know. If we have not experienced it in this life, we must have experienced it in other lives. How is it that the fear of death is everywhere? There is an old explanation. It is called instinct. Let us study this phenomenon of instinct. A Child begins to play on a piano. At first, she must pay attention to every key she is fingering, and as she goes on and on for months and years, the playing becomes almost involuntary, instinctive. What was first done with conscious will does not require later on an effort of the will. What we now call instinct is degeneration of voluntary actions."
To elaborate on his point he refers to his other lecture on Macrocosm where he coined a new concept of involution as an antonym of evolution. He says, "applying the law we dwelt upon under macrocosm, that each involution presupposes evolution, and each evolution an involution, we see that instinct is involved reason. What we call instinct in men or animals, must therefore be involved, degenerated, voluntary actions and voluntary actions are impossible without experience... The experience started that knowledge, and that knowledge is there. The fear of death, duckling taking to the water, and all involuntary actions in the human being which has become instinctive, are the results of past experiences, and so far the latest science is with us."
Now, he takes the final objection. The objection made by modern science. He presents objection as: "they admit that each man and each animal is born with a fund of experience, and all this experience and that all these actions in the mind are the results of past experience. 'But what, they ask, 'is the use of saying that experience belongs to the soul? Why not say it belongs to the body and the body alone? Why not say, it is the hereditary transmission?' Why not say that all the experience with which I am born is the resultant effect of all the past experience of my ancestors?"
He replied to this final objection, "this question is very nice, and we admit some part of this hereditary transmission. How far? As far as furnishing the material. We, by our past actions, conform ourselves to a certain body, and the only suitable material for that body comes from parents who have made themselves fit to have that soul as their offspring. The simple hereditary theory takes for granted the most astonishing proposition without any proof, that mental experience can be recorded in the matter, that mental experience can be involved in the matter. We understand a physical impression remaining in the body. But what proof is there for assuming that the mental impression can remain in the body since the body goes to pieces? What carries it?"
Swami Vivekananda goes on destroying the scientific theory about life but I am not going to present it here because I think his arguments could be challenged now. The arguments he presented were true but were before the discovery of DNA. So, now a new challenge emerges against the theory of Rebirth i.e., the concept of DNA. However, I think the arguments of Swami Vivekananda still holds in the face of DNA too and the reason is with all its radical and revolutionary understanding brought by the study of DNA, we understand it stores information of the physical entity and until some biologist proves categorically that the DNA/RNA or any similar entity to be discovered in the future could store information of the mental experience, the arguments of Swami Vivekananda holds water.
Now, we come to the application of the Rebirth theory. This theory makes man unselfish and responsible for his deeds whereas non-believing in Rebirth makes a man selfish and immoral. Let's reflect upon it in the words of Swami Vivekananda. He says, "It is the theory that advances the freedom of the human soul. It is the one theory that does not lay the blame for all our weaknesses upon somebody else, which is a common human fallacy. We do not look at our own faults; the eyes do not see themselves, they see the eyes of everybody else. We human beings are very slow to recognize our own weaknesses, our own faults, so long as we can lay the blame upon somebody else. Men in general lay all the blame of life on their fellow men, or failing that, on God, or they conjure up a ghost and say it is fate. Where is fate, and who is fate? We reap what we sow. We are the makers of our own fate. None else has the blame, and none has the praise. We make our own destiny. Blame neither man, God, nor anyone in the world. When you find yourselves suffering, blame yourselves, and try to do better. Take the whole responsibility on your own shoulders, and know that you are the creator of your own destiny. All the strength and succour you want is within yourselves. Therefore, make your own future. 'Let the dead past bury its dead.' The infinite future is before you, and you must always remember that each word, thought, and deed, lays up a store for you and that as the bad thoughts and bad works are ready to spring upon you like tigers, so also there is the inspiring hope that the good thoughts and good deeds are ready with the power of a hundred thousand angels to defend you always and forever".
