Toh 308The Sūtra of Questions Regarding Death and Transmigration

Summary

Questions Regarding Death and Transmigration
contains explanations of Buddhist views on the nature of life and death, and a
number of philosophical arguments against non-Buddhist conceptions, notably some
based broadly on the Vedas. The sūtra is set in the town of Kapilavastu at the
time of the funeral of a young man of the Śākya clan. King Śuddhodana wonders
about the validity of the ritual offerings being made for the deceased by the
family and asks the Buddha seven questions about current beliefs on death and
the afterlife. The Buddha answers each of the questions in turn. After two
interlocutors interrupt to test the Buddha’s omniscience, the discourse
continues to present the Buddhist account of death and rebirth using a
set of eight analogies, each of which complements the others in a detailed explanation.

Acknowledgements

An initial draft translation of this sūtra was done by Four Reliances
Translations (David Rawson, Seth Davis, and Russell Shipman) of Sera Monastery
in South India. An unpublished paraphrase prepared by Geshé Damdul Namgyal was
a helpful resource. Tom Tillemans thoroughly retranslated the
sūtra in a seminar at the University of Vienna in 2014. He also wrote the
introduction, notes, and final version of the glossaries. James Gentry provided
valuable feedback.

The translation was completed under the patronage and supervision of 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha.

Introduction

Questions Regarding Death and Transmigration is
a short sūtra set in Kapilavastu that explains Buddhist views on death via a
dialogue between the Buddha and his father, King Śuddhodana. King Śuddhodana
observes the brahmanical funeral rites for a fellow member of the Śākya clan
called Nandaja. Wondering what benefit will be
derived from the various rituals and offerings that are being performed for
the deceased by the family, King Śuddhodana asks the Buddha a number of
pertinent questions: (1) Are beings consistently reborn as their own kind,
with humans being reborn as humans, and so on? (2) Do beings become utterly
nonexistent after death? (3) Do beings, after their death, accompany their
dead ancestors and relatives in a “world of Death”? (4)
Is wealth and poverty consistent from life to life, with the wealthy continuing
to be wealthy and the poor to be poor? (5) Is enjoyment of clothes, mounts,
and so on consistent from life to life, with people continuing to have the same
clothes, horses, and so forth? (6) Can one dedicate food and other offerings
to the deceased and thus assure their perpetual welfare and nourishment? (7)
Do the dead show themselves to their relatives just as they were when
alive?

To each of these seven questions, the Buddha’s answer is always “no.” Several
beliefs that must have been current in India at the time are thus taken up
and criticized, beginning with simple skepticism that anything can survive
after death at all. The main position being examined, however, seems to be
that the deceased survive in an afterlife which is essentially a
continuation of the present one, in the company of the same friends,
relatives, ancestors, and possessions. The deceased are sustained by the
offerings dedicated to them by their living relatives; they remain forever
in the “world of Death,” not taking rebirth in future
incarnations.

This is a broadly Vedic eschatology, a conception of death and the
afterlife that goes well back to the first millennium bce, in the Ṛgveda, especially in the Atharvaveda, as well as in the Brāhmaṇas. When the sūtra says that the
deceased are “befriended by their ancestors” after death, this is no doubt a
reference to the Vedic idea that the dead transition to the realm of
their ancestors, or their “fathers” (Skt. pitṛ). The dead person
also comes to be in the presence of a lineage of ancestors all the way back to an
“original ancestor” (Tib. mes po dang po),
which seems to be an allusion to the
idea of the pitṛ as including first ancestors, the founders of the human
race.

The brahmanical conception is that the family should present piṇḍa—balls of cooked rice
typically mixed with sesame seeds, milk, butter,
and honey—and other offerings to assure the transition of the newly dead
spirit (preta) from a type
of limbo to the more secure status of an ancestor in heaven, i.e., in
Yamaloka, the world presided over by Death, the god Yama. The brahmanical rites for Nandaja, the deceased person
mentioned at the start of the sūtra, seem to be śrāddha-rites, the ancestral offering rituals
incumbent upon householders. One of those śrāddha-rites,
the sapiṇḍīkaraṇa, is performed by
the deceased’s son and is the postcremation offering of piṇḍa to complete
his transition to the afterworld. More generally, in the Vedic conceptions of death and
the afterlife, rebirth as well as the closely related theories of karma and
liberation (mokṣa)
generally play no (or at most obscure) roles; significantly, the sūtra
states that rebirth does not figure at all in the afterlife as it is
imagined by the mourners of Nandaja.

The sūtra’s stance on the rites is complex, however, as offerings to
the dead are not just dismissed categorically as pointless. We find, for
example, the following passage allowing a nuanced acceptance:

The Great King then asked, “Blessed One, if that is the case,
then is it useless to offer deceased individuals the food, drink,
mounts, clothes, and ornaments that were beneficial to them in the
present world?”

The Blessed One replied, “O Great King, take the case where a
deceased person is being reborn in one of various different states of
being because actions he had done are ripening. And suppose people help
that person by dedicating to him all sorts of virtuous actions that will
constitute a collection of merit without any nonvirtue. In that case,
the person will be reborn in higher states, or attain liberation. On
the other hand, when someone has already taken rebirth, then if one aids
him through the dedication of a virtuous action that constitutes merit,
that will aid the already reborn person to gain wealth, have good crops,
more and more of the pleasures he wishes, as well as honor and respect
from all his other fellow beings. However, it is not so that the
deceased individual stays on in the ‘world of Death,’
without rebirth, and taking on food and drink,
mounts, clothing, and ornaments.” (

)

This seems to be a recognizable Buddhist position, one also found in
some Pāli texts. Indeed, as Sayers
shows, there are passages in texts like the
Aṅguttaranikāya that do acknowledge
brahmanical śrāddha-rites as having some efficacy. The approach of texts in the Pāli Canon is
typically to rationalize offerings and ancestor worship as a form of
gifting. The present sūtra also seems to follow
this broad approach in many respects: gifting leads to merit, which can
then be dedicated to the deceased and, in the capacity of dedicated
karmic merit, serve to benefit them. What is
being targeted, then, does not seem to be the efficacy of householders’
rites to benefit the dead in any way, but rather the efficacy
of the offerings to nourish the dead eternally in an everlasting realm of
ancestors. It is especially that conception of the afterlife
that is being rejected.

The argumentation against such a Vedic eschatology follows several
strategies. Sometimes it invokes the fully developed theory of karma
governing reincarnation, the worldview of moral causality and retribution
accepted in most post-Vedic Indian thought. For example, wealth, poverty,
and the like do not remain constant throughout one’s subsequent lives, as
they are karmic results that vary because of the ethical nature of actions
in those lives. At other times simple human common sense and observation is
invoked: for example, if beings, after their death, supposedly continued on
with their relatives and ancestors in a “world of Death,”
they would be unable to recognize one another, for their usual physical form
is obviously destroyed in cremation or in the grave. At still other times
the argument depends upon the supernatural. For example, dreams and
apparitions of the deceased turn out to be due to a very special type of
spirit that mimics the appearance of the deceased in order to trick the living
into making offerings that the spirits can then appropriate.

The sūtra itself hardly attempts to provide a positive proof for
rebirth. It is almost exclusively devoted to refuting what Buddhists
take to be wrong conceptions of death and the afterlife. After the Buddha’s
extensive refutation of the Vedic views, the renegade Devadatta challenges
the Buddha to prove the reliability and superiority of his own
understanding—he is asked to identify the different sorts of wood from which
various ashes come. The Buddha’s success in this and another test leads his
interlocutors to conclude that he has suprasensible knowledge enabling him
to directly understand all things, including the process of death and
rebirth in all its details. The closest thing to a positive argument for a
Buddhist eschatology is thus that its truth is assured by the Buddha’s
omniscience. A fortiori, one
finds no trace of the main Buddhist metaphysical argument for reincarnation,
the so-called paralokasādhana, or “proof of other lives,” that turns on
the nature of mind and was so important in the second chapter of the Pramāṇavārttika
of Dharmakīrti (sixth–seventh
century) and the Jātakamālā
of Āryaśūra
(fourth century).

The last part of the sūtra takes up the non-Buddhist idea that a
permanent entity survives and transmigrates. A series of eight analogies are
then presented in detail to show, among other things, that
reincarnation needs no such permanent entity. As
pointed out in Skilling (1997),
these eight analogies also figure in verse 5 of the Verses on the Essence of Dependent Origination (Pratītyasamutpādahṛdayakārikā
), a text
credibly attributed to Nāgārjuna.

It is by means of [the analogies of] a recitation, a lamp, a
stamp, a mirror, [echoing] sound, a magnifying glass, a seed, and a sour
taste that the wise should understand that aggregates take rebirth but
without transmigration (asaṃkrama) [of anything].

Indeed, it may well be, as Skilling opines, that Nāgārjuna’s own
verse was based on this sūtra: the eight analogies in the Pratītyasamutpādahṛdayakārikā are the same (and practically
in the same order) as those in the sūtra. Skilling’s historical point would be important, because it
would tell against interpreting Nāgārjuna’s own term asaṃkrama as somehow indicating
an unqualified rejection of transmigration. The sūtra, in its extensive
explanations of the eight analogies (

–

), makes it clear that “no transmigration” does
not mean that there is no transmigration or rebirth, but rather
that nothing actually transmigrates; there is no transmigration from one
life to another of any entity whatsoever, be it permanent or extinguished.

A brief word on the title. The key Tibetan term that figures in the
title, and repeatedly in the body of the text, is tshe ’pho ba, which literally means “shifting
lives.” Much like the English euphemism “passing on,”
tshe ’pho ba too can
have both the sense of “death” as well as “moving to another life” or
“transmigration.” In the sūtra most occurrences of the term can be
translated by “death” and “dying.” And elsewhere in Buddhist literature too
the term is generally used to mean simply “to die,” as we see in Mahāvyutpatti 230 where the Sanskrit for
tshe ’phos nas is given
as cyuta.
Nonetheless, in the final sections of the sūtra there are passages where the
term ’pho ba must be
understood as referring to transmigration to the next life or to the
afterlife. Taking this
dual usage into account we have hence translated the title as “Questions
Regarding Death and Transmigration.” At the end of the text in all Kangyurs
the title is given as ’chi ’pho ba ji ltar ’gyur ba bstan pa’i
mdo, with ’chi ’pho
ba (“death and transmigration”) replacing the
tshe ’pho ba in the title
given at the beginning of the text. Finally, it should be noted that the
Sanskrit in the title, i.e., āyuṣpatti (or āyuḥpatti), is not well attested. Indeed the usual complete
title Āyuṣpattiyathākāraparipṛcchā is
dubious and probably a back translation from the Tibetan.

The sūtra is not extant in Sanskrit, nor was it translated into
Chinese, and nor is there a Pāli counterpart. According to the colophon it
was translated into Tibetan during the earlier dissemination of the
teachings. Unusually, the colophon also states that the translation was not
modified with the “revised terminology” that we find in translations from the opening
decades of the ninth century on; nevertheless, the language does not seem to be
heavily reliant on so-called “ancient linguistic usage” either. No
translator is mentioned. This translation was clearly done outside the ninth century institutional
mainstream.

Although the important theme
of reincarnation is treated here with a sophisticated argumentation much
more typical of the Tengyur (bstan
’gyur) than the Kangyur (bka’ ’gyur) literature, the sūtra does not seem to have
attracted notable attention in India, apart from possibly figuring as
Nāgārjuna’s source for the eight analogies, and not much in Tibet, either. A global
search of the Tibetan text input on the site of the Buddhist Digital
Resource Center (www.tbrc.org) shows
only relatively few references to this text in indigenous Tibetan
scholarship. The Geluk scholastic writer Choné Drakpa Shedrup (co ne grags pa shes sgrub, 1675–1748) quotes
a large section of this sūtra in his lho sgo’i cho
ga’i rgyas ’grel gzhan phan nyi ’od, pp. 225–27 and pp. 243–44.
We have on occasion cited variants found in his text.

This sūtra is significant both philosophically as well as
historically, being a reliable witness to relatively early Indian
non-Buddhist views concerning death and the Buddhist polemics against them.
However, with its often long, convoluted sentences and involved
argumentation, the text was manifestly not an easy one for scribes, nor
probably for its anonymous Tibetan translators. We have not attempted a
critical edition, but have given the most significant variants that underlie
our understanding of the text. The Tibetan of the Degé Kangyur was our base text,
and its folio numbers appear in the translation. The versions in the Peking Kangxi,
Peking Yongle, Lithang, Narthang, Choné, Urga, and Lhasa Zhol Kangyurs were also consulted via the
Comparative Edition (dpe bsdur ma) of the Kangyur.
The Stok Palace and Shelkar (“London”) manuscript Kangyurs, as
representatives of the Thempangma (them spangs ma) line of
Kangyur transmission, provide invaluable alternative
readings, especially on the not infrequent occasions where the Comparative Edition has only implausible
variants.

The Translation

The Sūtra

Questions Regarding Death and Transmigration

Homage to all buddhas and bodhisattvas.

Thus did I hear at one time. The Blessed One, seeing that the time had
come to train all the various householders of the great city of Kapilavastu,
went there with a retinue of five hundred to cause them to generate
faith.

At that time, a man in the prime of his life called Śākya Nandaja,
who was cherished by all his relatives and praised by all, had died. In
front of his body his children, wife, relatives, and dependents had gathered
together his horses, elephants, clothes, and a variety of ornaments, gold
and silver, pearls, crystals, and other jewels, as well as a variety of
delicious and sweet food and drink. They offered them, wailing, “We give
these to Nandaja!”

This made King Śuddhodana wish to
ask the Blessed One what benefit
and good would ensue if, in such a fashion, offerings, food,
and honors to the deceased were presented according to the brahmins’
formulae. He approached the Blessed One, prostrated, and asked, “Blessed
One, would you allow me to ask some questions about what it is like for
sentient beings to die?”

The Great King Śuddhodana then asked the Blessed One, “Blessed One,
regarding the rebirths of beings who pass from this world to the next, are
gods reborn as gods? Likewise, are humans, animals, hungry ghosts, and hell-beings
also reborn consistently as their own kind, respectively, as humans,
animals, hungry ghosts, and hell-beings? Or is it the case, Blessed One,
that when gods pass from this life, they are
reborn as humans and other kinds of beings? Likewise, are humans, animals,
hungry ghosts, and hell-beings reborn as other kinds of beings, such as
gods and so forth, as well?

“Or, Blessed One, when they pass from this life do sentient beings
become utterly nonexistent, becoming like the ashes of a fire that has died
out, and not taking any rebirth at all?

“Blessed One, is it really as the worldly say it is? Do all
sentient beings live on after their deaths, befriending their kin in a beginningless lineage
including fathers, grandfathers, great-grandfathers, and more, not taking
rebirth in a future life but living just as they do in this life?

“Blessed One, do those who are wealthy and proud in this life go on
to be wealthy and proud in the hereafter too, and do
those who are poor and humble in this life go on to be poor and humble in
the next? Or do people simply switch back and forth between the two?

“Blessed One, is it really as the worldly say it is? Those who, in
this life, ride horses and elephants, wear fine clothes and ornaments, eat
food and drink, do they continue in their future lives to ride, dress, and eat in the
same way?

“Blessed One, is it really as the worldly say it is? When their
parents, siblings and cousins, children, and so forth give or dedicate small
portions of food or drink to someone who has passed from this world, is the
deceased then able to eat and drink inexhaustibly for many eons?

“Blessed One, is it really as the worldly say it is? When sentient
beings pass on from this world, do they later, after death, tell their
parents, siblings, children, and so forth the same things, such as stories and so
forth, that they had told them earlier before they died? And do they later
exhibit the same physical features to them as they had earlier before death?
Are they seen and heard to do this?”

After these queries, the Blessed One replied to the king Śuddhodana,
“O Great King, with regard to your question as to whether gods are reborn as gods
and so forth, the answer is ‘no.’ Suppose that when gods died they were reborn only as gods and not reborn as other types of beings, and the same for
humans and so forth. O Great King, initially humans come from gods, and the three lower realms come from humans’
engagement in nonvirtue. Therefore, those gods
and so forth who die are reborn in various other types
of migrations.

“O Great King, suppose, moreover, that the answer to this question
of yours were to be ‘yes.’ Then it would be logical that the quantities of
the six types of beings would always be the same as they are now. But
notice how the three lower realms are more numerously repopulated due to the preponderance
of humans’ engagement in nonvirtue! Moreover, O Great King, if the arhats
of today come from the ranks of humans, then it cannot be right that beings
are consistently reborn in their own types. What is more, it would be
impossible for anyone to obtain the fruit of being an arhat. Therefore, O
Great King, through virtuous and nonvirtuous actions beings are reborn as
different types, such as those in the heavens and those in the lower
realms.

“O Great King, regarding your question as to
whether gods that die are reborn as other types of beings,
such as humans and the like, the answer is ‘yes.’

“O Great King, regarding your question as to whether sentient
beings die and become utterly nonexistent, like the ashes of a fire that has
died out, and as to whether rebirth is utterly nonexistent, the answer is
‘no.’ O Great King, just as when you have a seed, a fruit will come forth,
so from the seed of this life the fruit of the next life comes about. O
Great King, just as the sun rises, slowly sets, becomes obscured, and then
rises again the following morning, so too one passes from this life and
takes rebirth. O Great King, sentient beings would become extinct species if
they died without any subsequent rebirth. O Great King, if we take the grass
and trees outside too, those that have withered will grow again through the
changing of the seasons. Likewise, sentient beings will be reborn and die
through actions and afflicted emotions, which are like the changing of the
seasons. So, O Great King, know that there are future lives.

“O Great King, you asked whether it is as the worldly say it is. You
asked whether all sentient beings after their deaths live on, befriending
their kin in a beginningless lineage, including parents, grandparents,
great-grandparents, and so forth, and not taking rebirth in a future life
but living just as they did in this life. O Great King, in this life, when a
parent or a child and the like see each other, it is one embodied being
seeing another, not one mind seeing another. If, in this life, the body
perishes and is gone, then in the hereafter how would one mind see another
and befriend it? Children, nephews, and nieces who are alive and have
physical forms cannot even see their deceased parents, grandparents, and
great-grandparents. Then how would disembodied deceased people see and
befriend their formless parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents?

“What is more, O Great King, in this life, when the many parents,
children, and other relatives get together, even then, it is only their
respective physical forms that appear. Unable to see even their own
minds, how could children and other relatives ever see each
other’s minds? How would they see them after death? How would they, in an
afterlife, first see the children, relatives, grandparents, and
great-grandparents and then befriend them?

“O Great King, let us suppose that an ancestor, one who had no one
before him at any point in beginningless time, and his presently existing
descendants were to befriend each other in a future life. Now, there are at
present many different clans, castes, factions, and parties, some of which
have become enemies of each other and whose places of residence, associates
of clan and caste, language, and style of dress are neither heard of nor
seen. Suppose that they too issued from the same original ancestor. How would you delineate which children and
relatives do or do not befriend present children, relatives, grandfathers,
and so forth? The offspring from this first ancestor, up to and including
the presently existing relatives and children, would
be alike in their respective affections [and antagonisms] for one another,
just like the presently existing children and relatives. If this is so, who
befriends whom and who fails to befriend whom?

“People who are now living each apprehend their own factions and parties,
saying, ‘So-and-so is our ancestor.’ And they determine the factions and
parties, saying, ‘We are children of the same father as so-and-so.’
Suppose, too, that they now each grasped as ‘our ancestors’
the lineage of all the fathers, grandfathers, great-grandfathers, and
great-great-grandfathers all the way down to the first ancestor—that is, the
lineage of all those who respectively apprehend each other as
‘ancestors.’ And suppose, following what the worldly
say, these ancestors did not take rebirth after passing from this world, but
instead befriended children and relatives in an afterlife. Then they would
have to befriend as one unified faction the presently different clans, castes, and
factions, as well as all those people that have become enemies, too.

“O Great King, in this life, although people appear as embodied
entities, nonetheless when they are in the dark or hidden they do not see
one another. Then, given that deceased beings do not have any bodies, how
could they see and thus befriend one another? O Great King, if embodied
sentient beings who are alive now cannot even make their bodies visible to
people in some other country or in the different places that they do not see,
then how could they ever make their bodies visible after death? O Great
King, you should not listen to worldly individuals who seek fame and
gain and thus
deceive others with the tales they tell.

“O Great King, you asked whether those who are wealthy and proud in
this life are also wealthy and proud in the hereafter, whether the poor and
humble in this life go on to be poor and humble in the next, or whether
people switch between the two. O Great King, just take sentient beings in
this life who have not yet died: some are wealthy and proud from the moment
of birth, but are then poor and humble from the age of fifty or sixty onward
into their old age; others are poor and humble from birth
and throughout their youth, but then, from the age of fifty or
sixty up until their old age, they are wealthy and proud. If that is
so, then it is all the more obvious that
people’s riches and poverty are impermanent when they are dead! O Great
King, to use an analogy, in this world when conditions like warmth and
moisture are present, grass, trees, and other plants grow leaves, but when
it is cold and dry they wither. Similarly, one becomes wealthy and proud
due to conditions such as generosity, but poor and humble from theft and
miserliness.

“O Great King, some people are wealthy and proud from life to life
because they have always been generous. Others are poor and humble in some
lives, or at the beginning or end of certain lives, because they were partial
or had regrets about giving. Some are poor and humble life after life
because they always stole or were miserly. Yet others are wealthy and proud
in some lives, or at the beginning or end of certain lives, because they
regretted their theft and miserliness. O Great King, being poor and humble
does not come about through generosity. Being wealthy and proud does not
come about through miserliness. One does not simply [arbitrarily] switch
between riches and poverty from one life to the next.

“O Great King, you asked whether what the worldly say is really
true. You asked whether those who, in this life, ride horses and
elephants and so forth, wear fine clothes and ornaments, and eat food and
drink, continue in future lives after their deaths to ride, dress,
eat, and drink in the same ways. O Great King, when humans die, they take
rebirth in the heavens or in the lower realms in line with how they had
practiced virtuous or nonvirtuous actions. O Great King, it is not as the
worldly say it is.

“What about an apparition of a deceased individual’s style of dress?
In the heavenly realm there exists an unfathomable, unimaginable, limitless
world of gandharvas. One type there is called
the gandharva who preys upon the minds of those on the verge
of death. In search of the food that
gandharvas eat, they create an illusion of the body, clothes, ornaments, and
style of dress of someone who lived previously. They thus create and display
illusions of the style of dress and the speech of a deceased person. But
there is more here, O Great King. Not only gandharvas, but other spirits,
such as yakṣas, piśācas, and bhūtas, also seek to trick the deceased
person’s father, sons, relatives, and so forth. Thus these demons use their
worldly magical powers to know the distinctive signs, final resting place,
and the history of the deceased individual, and then they use their demonic
influence so that parents and others see and dream of that individual.

“Furthermore, O Great King, consider the following. It is due also
to the maturation of habitual tendencies stemming from longstanding
association that one sees children and relatives and that they appear in
dreams. Suppose, for example, that a person dreamed of their own presently
undeceased parents, relatives, servants, or any others
who might befriend them, and as well dreamed of their pleasures coming from
various enjoyments, or their pleasures and pains from grappling with enemies
or thieves. If the parents, relatives, and servants they dreamed of, or any
others appearing in their dream, actually were to have the feelings in
question, just as that person dreamed they did, then that of which they
dreamed would have been real. But how could the parents, relatives, and
servants they dreamed of, or any others appearing in their dream, ever be
thought to be real? O Great King, even among living people, that
which one person dreams is never felt by another. Then how could what is
dreamed concerning a deceased person ever be that deceased person? What is
involved is the maturation of habitual tendencies.

“O Great King, there is yet another analogy for this being a matter of habitual
tendencies. Suppose that a person left whatever castles, houses, and cities
they had been in during an earlier part of their life, and that in the later
part of their life, when they lived elsewhere, the
city they knew previously was destroyed. This person dreams of the
shape and size of their house as they were when it was neither destroyed nor
scattered about, no different from before. If the city and the house
were to have mental natures, then the mental nature of that house might have
actually appeared to them. But since their house and city are earth and
stone, then why would what that person dreamed not be a
maturation of their habitual tendencies? Likewise, that which has the
distinctive signs of a now deceased person is comparable to the
undestroyed house of one’s dreams. And if the deceased individual’s mind too
had already taken rebirth in accordance with their previous actions, then
could they actually appear to anyone? We
conclude, O Great King, that it is through the maturation of habitual
tendencies that people see and dream of distinctive signs and styles of
dress of now deceased individuals. Likewise, the appearances and
occurrences in dreams of the deceased holding swords and other weapons,
wearing clothes and other ornaments, and riding their horses and elephants,
and so forth are also just appearances due to habitual tendencies. You
should understand them along the lines of the analogy of the house.

“O Great King, you asked whether it is as the worldly say it
is. You asked whether those who have passed on from this world can eat and
drink inexhaustibly for many eons the small portions of food and drink given
and dedicated to them by their parents, siblings and cousins, children, and
other relatives. O Great King, anywhere, be it on the four continents, in
the chiliocosms, the dichiliocosms, the trichiliocosms, or in the limitless,
unfathomable, unimaginable world systems, have you ever seen a sentient
being who consumes one small portion of food and drink all the time and over
many eons? Have you ever heard of such a sentient being? O Great King,
though the Cakravartin king has a wish-fulfilling gem that gives whatever he
might wish, it came to exist because of immeasurable
collections of merit collected earlier over numerous eons—it did not fall
from the sky or emerge accidentally. Is it then reasonable that this small
portion of food and drink would remain unexpended until the end of the
eon?

“O Great King, suppose that some living parents, children, siblings,
and cousins, who have a mutual relationship and wish to be of benefit to
one another, have not yet died and are still physically embodied. And suppose
one of them went off to another country. Although any of the parents, children,
siblings, or cousins might resolve to give and offer a lot of food and drink
to that person, none of that would appear to the person who had gone off
to the other country, even in their dreams—let alone food and drink
in reality. So why even mention food and drink dedicated to people who
have died and have no body? O Great King, how would those people, whose minds
have separated from their bodies after death, use their immaterial and formless
minds to take possession of the real items of food and drink provided to them
by their children, siblings, and the like? Why would this be a problem? The
answer is that eating and chewing depend on the workings of body parts. In that
case, are the workings of the parts of the body to be found present in the
mind?”

The Great King then asked, “Blessed One, if that is the case, then
is it useless to offer deceased individuals the food, drink, mounts,
clothes, and ornaments that were beneficial to them in the present
world?”

The Blessed One replied, “O Great King, take the case where a
deceased person is being reborn in one of various different states of being
because actions he had done are ripening. And suppose people help that person by [dedicating to him] all sorts of virtuous actions that will
constitute a collection of merit without any nonvirtue. In that case, the
person will be reborn in higher states, or attain liberation. On the
other hand, when someone has already taken rebirth, then if one aids him through [the dedication of] a virtuous action that constitutes
merit, that will aid the already reborn person to gain wealth, have good
crops, more and more of the pleasures he wishes, as well as honor and
respect from all his other fellow beings. However, it is not so that the
deceased individual stays on in the ‘world of
Death,’ without
rebirth, and taking on food and drink, mounts,
clothing, and ornaments.

“O Great King, suppose people say that things seen by the worldly
and dreamed of by parents and others are dedicated to the deceased, and that consequently the dead
person is satisfied with the food and drink, rides the mounts, and wears the clothes
and ornaments. While this might appear to be so, there are demons and
gandharvas who prey upon the minds of those on the verge of death, and who make
such apparitions manifest in that way and [make them seem to be] saying they
are unsatisfied with the food and drink, do not have the mounts, and do not wear
the clothes and ornaments.

“O Great King, the worldly say the following: whatever words
sentient beings say and stories they tell, and whatever physical
features they exhibit to their parents, siblings, and so forth when on the
verge of death, later, after death, they will tell the same stories and so
forth to their parents, siblings, and children that they had told earlier before
they died, and they will exhibit the same physical features to them later as
they had earlier before their death—such visions and exhibitions supposedly
exist. The Great King has asked whether what the worldly say is true or not.

“O Great King, take the case of speech. Speech depends upon the
vocal tract of an embodied person. So then, if the body of the dead person
is left behind in this world, how could their incorporeal mind ever speak?
Now, when we say that a dead person has a body, we mean that they have taken
rebirth, for which parents were required. So there is no ‘world of
Death’ either.

“O Great King, what the worldly call characteristics and distinctive
signs of the living
are things fabricated by a type of gandharva called the
pervader. The so-called vicana sorts of gandharvas, the talkative sorts of
yakṣas, and the inquisitive bar hi ni
ta sorts of bhūtas pervade the minds of all the dying, just
like a strong wind that instantly blows over the wide plains and
waters. They conjure up such
things. And then, in order to trick the worldly, these
demons tell stories in the same way the deceased people used to do earlier, and
exhibit their characteristic styles of dress.”

At that time Devadatta was present and, not believing what the Blessed One had said, he questioned him:
“Gautama, you have explained whatever distinctive signs there are, or are not,
in the afterlife that follows death. From whom did you first hear about them, Gautama?
When did you come to know about them? Who heard and knew about them along
with you?”

The Blessed One replied, “Devadatta, for countless eons I practiced
numerous sorts of austerities, such as sacrificing my body; I purified all
obstructions, perfectly accumulated a great collection of merit, and thus
attained omniscient wisdom. There is nothing I do not know concerning any
knowable matter before me in the past or in the limitless ten directions in
the present, or concerning all knowable matters that will occur in the
future.

“Just as when the sun shines here in Jambudvīpa, it does not shine
over things gradually or in stages, but shines clearly all at once, so too I
know, in one instant, everything that can be known. And thus it is said that
I possess the exalted wisdom that knows all aspects.”

Devadatta did not believe in these sorts of statements either. In
order to test whether the Blessed One actually did possess omniscience, he
cut samples of a vast number of different sorts of wood,
that is, of all the types of trees here on Jambudvīpa, including sandalwood,
waved-leaf fig trees, catechu, and so forth. He burnt them and made small
bags for the ashes of each one. So as not to be mistaken about which type of
wood each bag of ash came from, he labelled each bag of ash with the
appropriate name. He then went to the Blessed One and asked, “Blessed One
, if you possess omniscient wisdom, then which bag
of ash belongs to which tree?” And he showed him the small bags of ashes one
by one. For each small bag, the Blessed One explained unmistakenly which
tree the ash had come from, saying, “This one is sandalwood ash. This one is
waved-leaf fig tree ash. This one is catechu ash,” and so forth. Devadatta
thus came to believe that the Blessed One really did have omniscient wisdom.
Thinking that the Blessed One’s pronouncements on death were all true, he
praised him in the following terms:

“The Blessed One is omniscient;

What he has said about death must be true.

Without previously seeing them or hearing of them,

He recognizes these different varieties of ashes of wood.”

He thus praised him and was left at a loss for words.

At that time the Śākya Mahānāman was present, too. Not believing what the
Blessed One had said about death, he asked, “Blessed One, did you directly
perceive what you have explained about the death of beings, or did you hear
it from someone else?”

The Blessed One replied, “Mahānāman, there is nothing in the world
that my buddha-eye does not see. When a fresh gooseberry is placed in the
palm of the hand, all the features of the hand are conspicuous in it.
Likewise, there is no knowable thing whatsoever in the three times that I do
not see. I do not base myself on hearsay.”

In order to test whether the Buddha was truly omniscient or not,
Śākya Mahānāman then went to the great city of Kapilavastu. From each
household, he took a small bag of rice, and so that he would not mistake
whose rice was whose, he wrote down the name of every Śākya he took them
from and put these names inside the small bags. When the rice bags came to
be a full load for an elephant, he went to the Blessed
One and requested of him, “Blessed One, if your buddha-eye sees all, then please
recognize, without opening them, which Śākyas’ small bags of rice are
which.” And he put down the elephant’s load of small bags in front of the
Buddha.

The Blessed One held up each small bag in turn and said, “This one
belongs to Śākya Nandaka, this one belongs to Śākya Kaya, this one belongs
to Śākya Desire,” and so
forth, assigning the appropriate Śākya to each bag of rice and thus
unmistakenly, step by step, stating the names till they were finished. With
this, Śākya Mahānāman and the others were all convinced that the Blessed
One’s buddha-eye saw all things. They thought that the Blessed One’s
explanation about death was surely right and commended him as follows:

“With his buddha-eye, he sees all.

Unlike the worldly, he does not lie.

He unmistakenly knows the small bags of rice

Of everyone in Kapilavastu.

“The world lies about beings’ deaths

And how they appear in the beyond.

The Blessed One has spoken truly.

Praise and homage to you who sees all.”

They were at a loss for words after offering such praises, and thus
remained silent.

The father, the Great King, then spoke. “Blessed One, there are
sentient beings who have committed nonvirtues, such as the actions that bring
immediate retribution, on account of which they come to experience
the unbearable ripening of such actions. Please explain what sorts of things
they should do to attain happiness.”

The Blessed One replied, “O Great King, those sentient beings who
have committed nonvirtuous actions, like those actions that bring immediate
retribution, will become pure if they sincerely believe in
the ripening of the actions and confess them deeply. If, at
death, they regret the negative actions they committed earlier, pay homage,
and go for refuge to all the buddhas and bodhisattvas, their negativities
will become pure; such beings will also be reborn in high states. Do not
think that there are no future lives. Nor should you think that rebirth is
caused by God, arbitrarily, or through mere caprice and the like. Have no
attachment to any worldly happiness or cyclic existence.

“O Great King, when you pass from this world to the next and take
rebirth, it is not something permanent that transmigrates in this way, nor something
that is extinguished, halted, and hence nonexistent. It is neither uncaused,
nor arisen from something without a cause, nor made by an external agent. Understand
it to be produced by an aggregate of causes and conditions, that is, actions
and afflictive emotions.”

The Great King then asked, “Blessed One, if the transmigration and
rebirth of sentient beings is not the transmigration of something permanent,
nor of something extinguished, nor without a cause, nor made by an external agent,
and if, moreover, the established fact of rebirth in the world beyond is
difficult to understand, are there any analogies for it?”

The Blessed One replied, “O Great King, there are eight analogies
for rebirth: (1) the analogy of students learning that which is recited by
the teacher, (2) a lamp being lit from another lamp, (3) a reflection
occurring because of a mirror, (4) an impression and image coming from a
stamp, (5) fire coming from a magnifying glass, (6) a sprout arising from a
seed, (7) the production of saliva when someone says the word
‘sour,’ and (8) the sound of an echo. O Great King,
in these eight analogies, the fact that earlier things give rise to the
later ones illustrates how nothing permanent transmigrates. The fact that
later things arise from earlier ones illustrates how
transmigration and rebirth do not occur without a cause and that they are
not of something extinguished and halted.

“Furthermore, O Great King, all of these analogies are things that
come about when three conditions are gathered together. When there are
teachers, students, and sense faculties, we have recitation and language
learning. When there exist butter, wicks, and vessels, we have lamps. When
there are bright skies, faces, and mirrors, we have reflections. When there
are signets, lumps of clay, and human manual effort, we have impressions and
images from stamps. When there are crystals, sunlight, grass, and wood, we
get fire. When there are seeds, earth, and moisture, we get sprouts. When
there is salt, a previous experience of drinking salty water, and when the
word ‘sour’ is pronounced, people then begin to salivate.
When someone speaks, when there is no other loud sound, and when there is a
nearby mountain, then an echo will occur. These are all analogies showing
how sentient beings’ rebirths are not made by external agents, but are produced
through the causal conditions of actions and afflictive emotions.

“Furthermore, O Great King, the teacher illustrates this life; the
student illustrates future lives; recitation illustrates how consciousness
bridges the gap between lives. The earlier lamp illustrates this present
life; the later lamp illustrates future lives; though the later lamp arose
from the earlier lamp, the fact that the one existed before the other
illustrates how nothing permanent transmigrates. That the later one arose
from the earlier one illustrates how things do not occur without causes. The
mirror illustrates how future lives exist because present lives exist, how
nothing real transmigrates, and how future lives definitely do exist. The
stamp illustrates how one takes rebirth in a future life in accordance with
actions one has done in this life. The magnifying glass illustrates how one
exists as one type of being and is then reborn as another. The seed
illustrates how one does not cease and become nonexistent. The sour taste
illustrates how one takes rebirth due to actions one has experienced. The
echoing sound illustrates how one takes a rebirth
when causes and conditions are present without other annulling conditions;
it illustrates how a [reborn individual] is not the same as or different
[from that of the earlier life].

“O Great King, if I had not explained all eight analogies but had
taught only some of them, then those who maintain that rebirth is due to God,
arbitrary, due to mere caprice, or without any causes would use the Śramaṇa
Gautama’s analogy of recitation to say that consciousness will transmigrate
to the next life without losing the aggregates and consciousness of this
life. To refute those who might say this, I taught the remaining analogies.

“Some might use the analogy of the lamp to say that the aggregates
in both this life and the next exist at one and the same time. To refute
them I taught the remaining analogies.

“Some others might use the mirror analogy to say that the lame are
reborn lame and the fair are reborn fair because the mirror illustrates
similarity. To refute them I taught the remaining analogies.

“Others might use the analogy of the stamp to say that gods who have died are reborn as gods and that humans who have died are reborn as
humans. To refute them I taught the remaining analogies.

“Yet others might use the analogy of the magnifying glass to say
that from virtue come the lower realms and from nonvirtue comes high status
because a magnifying glass illustrates dissimilarity. To refute them I taught the remaining analogies.

“Some might use the analogy of the seed to say that one consciousness
grows to be many. To refute them I taught the remaining analogies.

“Some too might use the analogy of a sour taste, because it
illustrates experience, to say that those who have a history of rebirth as
gods will be reborn as gods even though they have not done virtuous deeds, and that
those who have a history of rebirth in the lower realms will be reborn in
the lower realms even though they have done no nonvirtuous deeds. To refute
them I taught the remaining analogies.

“Yet some others might use the analogy of the echoing sound to say
that rebirth does not come from causes and conditions, as they would
maintain that such an analogy illustrates agency. To refute them I taught
the remaining analogies. It is for these reasons that I taught all eight
analogies.

“O Great King, it is not the case that life ceases, with no rebirth
in the hereafter, and that it is extinguished and halted. Neither is this
life a permanent entity that transmigrates to the hereafter intact. People
cannot take rebirth in the hereafter without any dependence upon this life.
Nor do they have a rebirth by simply thinking that they will take such and such a rebirth. Rebirth does not occur because people
think that they rely on God and the like, and that they will thus be reborn
in the heavens. Nor do people take rebirth thinking that they will be reborn
wherever they wish, whether in the heavens or in the lower realms. And
rebirth does not occur because people think that they will in any case be
reborn, even without doing anything and irrespective of causes and
conditions.

“Nor can one say that one’s aggregates perish, one dies, and that
afterward there is nothing at all. One cannot say either that after death
in this world, people in the afterlife abide continuously in the
‘world of Death,’ and thus do whatever they did in
this life without taking rebirth. Nor can one say that consciousness takes
rebirth without any halt to the consciousness one has in the present life.
One cannot say that the aggregates of this life and the next exist at the
same time. Nor can one say that the lame are reborn lame, the fair are
reborn fair, and so forth. One cannot say that gods who have died are reborn as gods
and that humans who have died are reborn as humans. Nor can one say that
virtue leads to the lower realms and that nonvirtue leads to higher status.
Many consciousnesses do not develop from one. Beings are not reborn as gods without having practiced virtue, nor are they
reborn in the lower realms without having committed some nonvirtuous deeds.
Rebirth is not brought about through the actions of an external agent.

“Let us suppose someone asks why these things are not the case. Here
is what we would reply. Someone might say about the analogy of a recitation
that it shows that one takes rebirth in the next life without the
consciousness of this life perishing. To eliminate this misinterpretation we
put forth the analogy of the seed. Indeed, if a sprout were to be produced
without the seed being destroyed, then the positions of those who accept
real selves would be right. However, the sprout is produced upon the
destruction of the seed—that is, from something that has changed from what it
was earlier on.

“Someone might say about the analogy of the lamp that it shows that
the aggregates of this life and the next exist at one and the same time,
because when one lamp is lit from another they both exist at the same time. It
is in order to rule out this misinterpretation that we put forth the analogy
of echoing sound. An echo does not resound without a person having first
spoken and does not occur at the same time as that speech. So the aggregates
do not exist at the same time. .

“About the illustration of the mirror, it might be said that lame
people are born from lame people because of the similarity the mirror
illustrates. To refute such ideas we put forth the analogy of the magnifying
glass, for a magnifying glass gives rise to a fire from which it is
dissimilar.

“Someone might say that the analogy of the stamp shows that dead
gods are born as gods and dead people as people. To rule this out we put forth
the analogy of a recitation: what illustrates the present life is the
teacher and what illustrates the next life is the student; as they are
different, the teacher is not the student, nor the student the teacher.

“About the analogy of the magnifying glass, someone might say that
it is an illustration of dissimilarity and thus shows that virtue leads to
lower states and nonvirtue to higher states. To rule this out we put forth
the analogy of a lamp. A lamp does not give rise to something dissimilar to
a lamp, but rather to a lamp. Similarly, it is logical that virtue gives
rise to high status and nonvirtue to lower states.

“As for the analogy of the seed, someone might say that it shows
that [many different] consciousnesses develop. To rule this out we put forth
the analogy of the stamp, for the image produced in the lump of clay is not
other than that of the stamp.

“Because of the analogy of the sour taste, someone might say that
those who experience a history of birth as gods
will always be born as gods, in spite of doing no
virtue, and that those who experience a history of birth in the lower realms
will always be born in lower realms, though they have done no nonvirtue. To
refute this we put forth the illustration of the mirror, for just as a face
appears in a mirror as it is, so too the similar results of virtue and
nonvirtue would match [their respective causes] and it would thus be
contradictory to make them dissimilar.

“Some might say, with regard to the analogy of echoing sound, that
echoes do not come about unless they are made by an external agent—that is,
unless someone shouts. And analogously, so it might be said, beings are not
born unless made by an external agent. To rule out that misinterpretation
we put forth the illustration of the sour taste. The point is that it is
those who have previously had the experience of eating or drinking something
who will later salivate when it is described, and likewise, it is because of
previously engaging in actions and afflictions that one will later take
rebirth.

“O Great King, let it be known that such are the ways sentient
beings take birth, perish, and transmigrate from this life to the next.”

All the retinue then rejoiced and praised what
the Blessed One had said.

Thus ends “The Sūtra of the Teaching Regarding
Death and Transmigration.”

Colophon

The translation done at the time of the earlier dissemination of the
teaching has not been modified at all with revised terminology.

Notes

Abbreviations

A
Comparative Edition (dpe bsdur ma) of the Kangyur

BDRC
Buddhist Digital Resource Center (www.tbrc.org)

C
Choné (co ne) Kangyur

Cds

Choné Drakpa Shedrup, lho sgo’i cho ga’i
rgyas ’grel

D
Degé (sde dge) Kangyur

KY

Peking Yongle (g.yung lo) Kangyur

L
Shelkar (shel mkhar) or “London” manuscript Kangyur

Negi
J.S. Negi, Tibetan-Sanskrit Dictionary

S
Stok Palace manuscript (stog pho brang bris ma) Kangyur

Bibliography

Source Texts in Tibetan

Other Works