________________
JIABS 21.
1
6
BRONKHORST
the light is reborn in an upper class family of wealthy warriors, Brahmans or citizens where there are all the luxuries of life, moreover the person is beautiful This person leads a good life with his body, his speech, and his thought and after
death he goes to the heavenly world. How is this passage supposed to establish VETTER's thesis to the extent that "according to ancient Buddhism good deeds lead to heaven and bad deeds to the underworld"? Sure, they can lead there, too, but personally I would be extremely hesitant to conclude from some such passage that they can only lead there. I find it very plausible that in such discussions particular forms of rebirth may be highlighted, occasionally even to the exclusion of other forms of rebirth, depending of the particular point this or that sermon is intended to make. Is there any other evidence in support of the thesis that heaven and the underworld are the only destinations at death?
VETTER continues on the same page 80 with the words: "Passages in the canon which mention the divine eye' are also grounds for assuming that in the earliest period the idea of karma was only connected with heaven and the underworld and not with a future human existence" (my emphasis, JB). Unfortunately for VETTER, the 'divine eye' passages do not prove much, and VETTER is honest enough to show into what quandary they get him. Consider the following passage from his book:
The divine eye is identical to the second of the two types of knowledge which in the detailed description of the dhyana path have been inserted between the attain ment of the fourth stage of dhyana and the realization of the four noble truths. This second type of knowledge is described (cf. e.g. MN 27. I p. 183) as follows (abridged):
"With (his) divine eye he sees creatures disappearing and reappearing, the lowly and the exalted, beautiful and ugly, with a blessed existence or a miserable existence. He understands that they return in accordance with their deeds. Some creatures do evil with their body, their speech and their thoughts. They condemn the noble (ariya), they have wrong views and conduct themselves (conformable to these) wrong views; after death they reappear in the underworld. But other creatures do good with their body. their speech and their thoughts. They do not condemn the noble, they have the right views and conduct themselves (conformable to these right views: after death they reappear in the heavenly world"
The theoreticians of the dhyana path thought that also a remembrance of one's former existences belonged to the enlightenment and release of the Buddha and his better disciples. But the formula of the remembrance of former existences which is perhaps also very old but comes from a different source, does not mention a heaven and an underworld, nor karmic retribution, it is only concerned with rebirth in the world of man. It states (c.g. in MNI p. 22, abridged):
"I remember one former existence, two, three... ten, twenty. thirty.... hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand, numerous acons in which the world approaches destruction, numerous acons in which the world expands ..There I had this name, belonged to this family, this caste, had this liveli hood, experienced this happiness and sorrow, lived so long, having disap
peared from there I reappeared here, had this name ..." What conclusions should one draw from this situation? Of two supposedly very old passages one only mentions the underworld and the heavenly world, the other one "is only concerned with rebirth in the world of man". VETTER's own comment is (p. 83): "The juxtaposition of the two formulas allowed persons to mentally combine them and read in them what they expected to find there, namely that the quality of human existence is also the effect of karma." But this avoids the issue. If we assume, with VETTER, that the two passages are in contradiction, the preference for one of the two as representing the position of ancient Buddhism, or even of the Buddha, is purely subjective. But there is no reason to see a contradiction between the two. The fact that one concentrates on heaven and the underworld, and the other on human existences, may indicate that the doctrine of rebirth was given interpretations that fitted the situation, or the mood of the speaker. But both passages fit in with a general concept of karma and rebirth which concerns existences both among human beings and in heaven and the underworld.16
The supposition that the doctrine of rebirth was given interpretations that fitted the situation, or the mood of the speaker, seems to find confirmation in the circumstance, emphasized by Lambert SCHMITHAUSEN (1992: 138), that "in the Asokan inscriptions, there is no mention of rebirth as an animal or preta nor even of a return to the world of men, nor is there any instance of rebirth or transmigration terminology. The only thing we find is that ... Asoka contrasts, with this world, the yonder
14. One is here reminded of the statement attributed to Satyayani in Jaiminiya
Upanisad Brahmana 3.5.9.5 (ed. B.R. SHARMA): "This world is much afflicted with disease. But they talk and exert themselves out of love for that other world)
(i.e., heaven). Who would do away with that other world) and come back here?" 15. VETTER 1988: 82-83.
16. Interestingly, Vetter ascribes this position to the later years of the Buddha (1988
83): "... some developments may be expected within the long lifetime of the Buddha, especially that differences in human existence are explained by karma... and that after death one does not always go to heaven or the underworld, bur that one becomes directly a human being if one has no extremely good or bad kann..
