On Continuation of Consciousness

Disclaimer: this post is based on the Theravada school of Buddhism, and specifically the Pali Canon.  It is also based on modern English translations of >2000 year old teachings.  In other words, ‘This is what I heard.’

Reincarnation is an important concept in Buddhism.  Buddha describes the attainment of knowledge of his past lives as key to achieving Enlightenment.  He also frequently pronounces the nature of the next life of a recently deceased follower.  Buddha espoused the doctrine of “no-self,” stating that concepts like “I,” “me,” and “mine” should be abandoned.  A person is merely a collection of aggregates, none of which persist after death.  He specifically denied any continuation of consciousness from one life to the next.  If there is no self, and no continuation of consciousness, in what sense can a person be said to have a previous, or next, life?

Buddha describes the night of his Enlightenment, and the seven days of meditation leading up to it, as a guide for his followers to replicate his results.  He first gained knowledge of his own previous lives (“Thus with their aspects and particulars I recollected my many past lives”) before understanding the arising and passing away of all beings, and how their actions in one life created the conditions for the next (“I understood how beings pass on according to their actions”).  These realizations directly preceded his conceptualization of the Four Noble Truths, the foundations of Buddhist philosophy, and his final liberation from suffering (MN 4).

Much earlier on the path to Enlightenment is the abandoning of “identity view.”  Identity view is described as associating any phenomena with a “self”.  Buddhism views a person as being made of five aggregates: physical form, feelings, perceptions, thoughts, and consciousness.  To overcome identity view, a follower should consider how a self cannot be found in any of the aggregates, individually or in combination.  “All material form should be seen with proper wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self’” (MN 22), and so on for the other aggregates.  This ultimately leads to the proclamation “sabbe dhamma anatta,” “all dharmas are not-self” (MN 35).  The word “dharma” has many meanings in different contexts, but here it refers to phenomena, or more simply, “things.”  There is nothing that can be identified as a self.  As the nun Vajirā explains “Why now do you assume ‘a being’?  Is that your speculative view?  This is a heap of sheer formations: here no being is found” (SN 5).

Consciousness is merely one of the five aggregates, the awareness and function of the mind.  It is not above cause and effect, and therefore not permanent.  In one Sutra, a monk makes the mistake of thinking that consciousness continues from one life to the next, saying “as I understand the Dharma, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirths, not another.”  Buddha corrects him by explaining that consciousness originates dependent on the physical body, and does not exist independently.  As with all five aggregates, it arises and ceases as part of the process of the cycle of birth and death (MN 38).

So what links one life to the next, if no aspect of a person continues?  Only karma endures.  Karma is the action that causes an effect (or “bears fruit,” as described in the Sutras).  Actions taken in one life may have effects in others; the chain of causation is unbroken by the arising and passing away of beings.  In Buddhism, the karma generated in a person’s life determines the circumstances of their rebirth in the next.  Karma is a debt that must be paid.

Why would Buddha say “I recollected my many past lives,” if he teaches that there is nothing that can be considered “mine,” and nothing that can be pointed to as “I”?  Buddha describes engaging in linguistic conventions in order to make the teaching comprehensible.  When talking about his use of pronouns and describing the various kinds of self, he says “these are mere names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Tathāgata uses without misapprehending them” (DN 9).  “Tathāgata” itself is a convention, a title Buddha uses to avoid referring to himself (kind of an early take on TAFKAP: The Aggregates Formerly Known As Gautama).  Buddha might have said “this collection of aggregates gained knowledge of the previously existing collections of aggregates which took actions that created the conditions for this collection of aggregates to exist and arrive at this point.”  But “I recollected my many past lives” is not only more comprehensible, it was also in keeping with the common beliefs of his followers.

The teaching of karma is tied into morality, to solve the problem of good or bad actions not necessarily yielding a corresponding result.  Most religions suggest actions will have consequences after death, via some reward or punishment, and karma is no different.  This holds true even when karma is disassociated with continuation of consciousness.  The good or bad effects of karma must occur sometime, to someone.  But identifying with such things will leave one in the weeds, as Buddha describes when he is questioned by the wanderer Vacchagotta.  The wanderer asks if Master Gautama holds various views, such as “the world is eternal,” or “the world is not eternal,” or “the soul and the body are the same, or two different things,” or “does an enlightened being exist after death.”  Buddha replies that he does not hold any “speculative views” because “with the cessation of all conceivings, all I-making, all mine-making, the Tathāgata is liberated.”  When asked where he will reappear after death, Buddha says “the term ‘reappear’ does not apply,” like asking of an extinguished fire what direction it went (MN 72).

Notes:

Citations refer to the volumes of the Pali Cannon:

DN = Digha Nikaya, The Long Discourses

MN = Majjhima Nikaya, The Medium Length Discourses

SN = Samyutta Nikaya, The Connected Discourses

The number refers to the number of a Sutra within that volume.

Hollywood, Women, and Power - an examination of superhero films

Much has been made of the dearth of women led superhero films (or women superheroes in film to any degree).  This is the golden age of comic book movies, with studios now churning out at least seven new entries every year.  The lack of super-powered women is glaringly obvious.  What is perhaps less obvious is the way that the few women who do appear relate to their power.  Also overlooked is the fact that one of the only female driven superhero films is also one of the most successful films of all time: Disney’s 2013 film Frozen.

Frozen made $1.276 billion in worldwide box office - good enough for fifth highest grossing film of all time in the year of its release (link).  Among superhero films, it is surpassed only by the Avengers, the epic team ups of four superheroes teased out over years of development.  Frozen came out of nowhere, catching everyone (including Disney - link) completely by surprise.

In a way, the surprise is understandable; here is a film that breaks with the Disney Princess formula in radical ways.  The film features two female leads.  It features a female lead without a love interest.  It can be read as a coming out story (young Elsa literally grows up in a closet, after all).  But it is also a classic comic book superhero story.  Elsa’s ability to generate ice and create almost anything with it is similar to Iceman, one of the original X-Men, who debuted in the comics in 1963 (link).  Like many classic superheroes, her powers are completely unbounded.  She appears to be able to do almost anything, from bringing permanent winter to a whole country, to building a castle, sturdy as stone, to creating clothing, lighting, and anything else she likes.  She even has the power to create life, bringing Olaf and Marshmallow into the world and imbuing them with souls.  Elsa has god-like superpowers.

Elsa is not the only woman superhero to grace the silver screen.  There have been a smattering of others.  Most of them are found in the X-Men movies, whose ensemble nature makes it almost impossible to leave out women entirely.  One of the most prominent X-Women is Jean Grey, who has the powers of telekinesis and telepathy.  Similarly unbounded, she can use her power for anything from floating a small object across a room to destroying all life on Earth.  How does Jean Grey relate to her power in this series of films?

(so much easier than using your hands)

She can’t control her power.  The stronger she gets, the less control she has.  She begins inadvertently hearing the thoughts of everyone around her and causing equipment to malfunction, and eventually unintentionally kills her boyfriend.  Her power is dangerous, a threat to herself and others.  So dangerous, that her mentor, Professor X, puts up psychic barriers in her mind in an attempt to suppress her power.  Ultimately, her power is a threat to society as a whole, destroying everything around her.  She must give up her power.  When the psychic barriers prove insufficient, she finally begs Wolverine to kill her, lest she destroy the world.

(be afraid…  be very afraid...)

Rogue is one of Jean’s teammates, and another female lead in the X-Men series.  Her power is to drain and absorb the power of others, weakening or killing them in the process.  How does she relate to her power?  She is afraid of her power.  She can’t control it, accidentally killing her boyfriend at a young age.  Her power hurts people, preventing her from getting close to Iceman, another love interest.  Her power is a source of shame, and she longs to be rid of it.  Eventually, she gives up her power, voluntarily taking the mutant “cure”.  By surrendering her power, she is granted a chance at a normal life with her boyfriend.

(men seldom make passes at girls who can destroy all life as we know it)

The Marvel Cinematic Universe has had almost no women with super powers.  One of the few was Pepper Potts, Iron Man’s girlfriend.  At the end of Iron Man 3, she is exposed to the Extremis virus, which grants her some sort of heat-based power.  She is able to use this power to save Iron Man and defeat the villain.  Immediately following this, she confesses that she finds the power overwhelming.  It’s too much for her, she worries.  She asks Iron Man to take away her power, which he does.

(look familiar?  Women with power are scary!)

Marvel’s Agents of Shield television show introduced super powered characters in its second season, including Agent Skye.  Her power is an ability to cause earthquakes.  From the moment it first manifests, she is terrified of her power.  She can’t control her power, destroying buildings and endangering people’s lives.  She wishes her power could be taken away, and turns it on herself, shattering her bones, to avoid hurting anyone else.

In each individual case, these characterizations may be appropriate to a storyline or character arc.  Taken as a whole, the pattern is unmistakable, and the message clear: women with power are a threat to society, and should give up their power or have it taken from them.  By way of comparison, are there male superheroes with similar relation to their power?  There are certainly a lot more men in comic book movies overall, men with all sorts of power sets and story arcs.  But of the scores of men with super powers, only one fits this pattern: the Hulk.  An uncontrollable rage monster, whose emotional outbursts are a threat to everyone around him, he wanders the earth hoping to find a way to remove his power.  In the eyes of Hollywood, any woman with power is just a Hulk waiting to happen.

Except Elsa.  She is not afraid of her power, and she can easily control it.  It can be harmful, but no more than any kind of power.  It is society that fears her power, that tries to subdue it.  She goes along with this, trying to conform, for some time, before eventually making a break with society.  She feels no need to give up her power; it is not a problem for her, but for others (the cold never bothered her, anyway).  She uses her power as she sees fit, and finally it is society that must change.  This change is solidified by her becoming Queen - her super power and political power unified.

(Elsa restores Summer, but keeps her power)

Frozen seems entirely accidental.  Disney was so caught off guard that they still haven’t managed a sequel.  These days, sequels are in the works before the first in the series hits theaters.  Even two years later, Disney was completely unprepared for Rey, the superhero lead of the new Star Wars trilogy, to be the breakout star (to the point that they barely had any merchandise of her ready to sell - link).  And they are not alone.  Warner Bros, anxious to repeat the success of Fury Road, is pushing for a new series of Mad Max films - without Furiosa (link).  And Marvel is still years away from a woman led comic book film (link).  It’s enough to make one think they don’t like money.

Notes

1. This post was conceived in mid 2014.  Little has changed.
2. Storm (X-Men) does not fit the pattern.  She is also one of the only women of color featured in a superhero film.  She has never been damseled or fridged on screen.  So after three standalone Wolverine films, Fox is making a Gambit movie.
3. Sue Storm (Fantastic Four) doesn’t fit the pattern either.  But she’s literally The Invisible Woman.