Saṃsāra (Devanagari: संसार) is aSanskrit word that means "wandering"[1][2] as well as "world," wherein the term connotes "cyclic change"[3] or, less formally, "running around in circles."Saṃsāra is referred to with terms or phrases such astransmigration/reincarnation,karmic cycle, orPunarjanman, and "cycle of aimless drifting, wandering or mundane existence".[1][4][5] When related to the theory ofkarma, it is the cycle of death andrebirth.[1][4][6]
The "cyclicity of all life, matter, and existence" is a fundamental belief of mostIndian religions.[4][7][8] The concept ofsaṃsāra has roots in the post-Vedic literature; the theory is not discussed in theVedas themselves.[9][10] It appears in developed form, but without mechanistic details, in the earlyUpanishads.[4][11][12] The full exposition of thesaṃsāra doctrine is found inearly Buddhism andJainism, as well as in various schools ofHindu philosophy.[4][12][13] Thesaṃsāra doctrine is tied to thekarma theory ofHinduism, and the liberation fromsaṃsāra has been at the core of the spiritual quest of Indian traditions, as well as their internal disagreements.[4][14][15] The liberation fromsaṃsāra is calledMoksha,Nirvāṇa, Mukti, orKaivalya.[4][5][16][17]
Saṃsāra (Devanagari: संसार) means "wandering",[1][2] as well as "world" wherein the term connotes "cyclic change".[3] Saṃsāra, a fundamental concept in allIndian religions, is linked to thekarma theory and refers to the belief that all living beings cyclically go through births and rebirths. The term is related to phrases such as "the cycle of successive existence", "transmigration", "karmic cycle", "the wheel of life", and "cyclicality of all life, matter, existence".[1][6][18] Many scholarly texts spellsaṃsāra assamsara.[6][19]
According to Monier-Williams,saṃsāra is derived from the verbal rootsṛ with the prefixsaṃ,Saṃsṛ (संसृ), meaning "to go round, revolve, pass through a succession of states, to go towards or obtain, moving in a circuit".[20] The prefixsam meanssamyak, or well, andsar means to move.[21] A nominal derivative formed from this root appears in ancient texts assaṃsaraṇa, which means "going around through a succession of states, birth, rebirth of living beings and the world", without obstruction.[20] Another nominal derivative from the same root issaṃsāra, referring to the same concept: a "passage through successive states of mundane existence", transmigration,metempsychosis, a circuit of living where one repeats previous states, from one body to another, a worldly life of constant change, that is rebirth, growth, decay and redeath.[5][20][22]Saṃsāra is understood as opposite ofmoksha, also known asmukti,nirvāṇa,nibbāna orkaivalya, which refers to liberation from the cycle of birth and death.[5][20]
The wordsaṃsāra is related toSaṃsṛti, the latter referring to the "course of mundane existence, transmigration, flow, circuit or stream".[20]
The word literally means "wandering through, flowing on", states Stephen J. Laumakis, in the sense of "aimless and directionless wandering".[23] The concept ofsaṃsāra is closely associated with the belief that the person continues to be born and reborn in various realms and forms.[24]
The earliest layers of Vedic text incorporate the concept of life, followed by an afterlife in heaven and hell based on cumulative virtues (merit) or vices (demerit).[25] However, the ancient VedicRishis challenged this idea of afterlife as simplistic, because people do not live an equally moral or immoral life. Between generally virtuous lives, some are more virtuous; while evil too has degrees, and the texts assert that it would be unfair for godYama to judge and reward people with varying degrees of virtue or vices, in an "either or,” and disproportionate manner.[26][27][28] They introduced the idea of an afterlife in heaven or hell in proportion to one's merit, and when this runs out, one returns and is reborn.[26][13][29] This idea appears in ancient and medieval texts, as the cycle of life, death, rebirth and redeath, such as section 6:31 of theMahabharata and section 6.10 of theDevi Bhagavata Purana.[26][18][30]
The concept ofsaṃsāra developed in the post-Vedic times, and is traceable in theSamhita layers such as in sections 1.164, 4.55, 6.70 and 10.14 of theRigveda.[11][30][31] While the idea is mentioned in the Samhita layers of the Vedas, there is lack of clear exposition there, and the idea fully develops in the earlyUpanishads.[32][33] Damien Keown states that the notion of "cyclic birth and death" appears around 800 BC.[34] The wordsaṃsāra appears, along withMoksha, in severalPrincipal Upanishads such as in verse 1.3.7 of theKatha Upanishad,[35] verse 6.16 of theShvetashvatara Upanishad,[36] verses 1.4 and 6.34 of theMaitri Upanishad.[37][38]
The historical origins of the concept ofreincarnation, orPunarjanman, are obscure, but the idea appears in texts of both India and ancient Greece during the first millennium BCE.[39][40] The idea ofsaṃsāra is hinted in the late Vedic texts such as theRigveda, but the theory is absent.[11][41] According to Sayers, the earliest layers of the Vedic literature show ancestor worship and rites such as sraddha (offering food to the ancestors). The later Vedic texts such as theAranyakas and theUpanishads show a different soteriology based on reincarnation, they show little concern with ancestor rites, and they begin to philosophically interpret the earlier rituals, although the idea is not fully developed yet.[32] It is in the early Upanishads where these ideas are more fully developed, but there too the discussion does not provide specific mechanistic details.[32] The detailed doctrines flower with unique characteristics, starting around the mid 1st millennium BCE, in diverse traditions such as in Buddhism, Jainism and various schools ofHindu philosophy.[12][42][43][44] The evidence for who influenced whom in the ancient times, is slim and speculative, and the odds are the historic development of theSaṃsāra theories likely happened in parallel with mutual influences.[45]
Whilesaṃsāra is usually described as rebirth and reincarnation (Punarjanman) of living beings (Jiva), the chronological development of the idea over its history began with the questions on what is the true nature of human existence and whether people die only once. This led first to the concepts ofPunarmṛtyu ("redeath") andPunaravṛtti ("return").[22][46][47] These early theories asserted that the nature of human existence involves two realities, one unchanging absoluteAtman (Self) which is somehow connected to the ultimate unchanging immortal reality and bliss calledBrahman,[48][49] and that the rest is the always-changing subject (body) in a phenomenal world (Maya).[50][51][52] Redeath, in the Vedic theosophical speculations, reflected the end of "blissful years spent insvarga or heaven", and it was followed by rebirth back in the phenomenal world.[53]Saṃsāra developed into a foundational theory of the nature of existence, shared by all Indian religions.[54]
Rebirth as a human being, states John Bowker, was then presented as a "rare opportunity to break the sequence of rebirth, thus attaining Moksha, release".[49] Each Indian spiritual tradition developed its own assumptions and paths (marga oryoga) for this spiritual release,[49] with some developing the ideas ofJivanmukti (liberation and freedom in this life),[55][56][57] while the others content withVidehamukti (liberation and freedom in after-life).[58][59]
The First Truth
The first truth, suffering (Pali: dukkha; Sanskrit: duhkha), is characteristic of existence in the realm of rebirth, called samsara (literally “wandering”).
TheSramanas traditions (Buddhism and Jainism) added novel ideas, starting about the 6th century BC.[62] They emphasized human suffering in the larger context, placing rebirth, redeath and truth of pain at the center and the start of religious life.[63] Sramanas view saṃsāra as a beginningless cyclical process with each birth and death as punctuations in that process,[63] and spiritual liberation as freedom from rebirth and redeath.[64] The saṃsāric rebirth and redeath ideas are discussed in these religions with various terms, such asĀgatigati in many early Pali Suttas of Buddhism.[65]
Across different religions, differentsoteriology were emphasized as thesaṃsāra theories evolved in respective Indian traditions.[15] For example, in theirsaṃsāra theories, states Obeyesekere, the Hindu traditions acceptedĀtman orSelf exists and asserted it to be the unchanging essence of each living being, while Buddhist traditions denied such a soul exists and developed the concept ofAnattā.[54][15][66] Salvation (moksha, mukti) in the Hindu traditions was described using the concepts ofĀtman (self) andBrahman (universal reality),[67] while in Buddhism it (nirvāṇa, nibbāna) was described through the concept ofAnattā (no self) andŚūnyatā (emptiness).[68][69][70]
TheAjivika tradition combinedsaṃsāra with the premise that there is no free will, while the Jainism tradition accepted the concept of soul (calling it"jiva") with free will, but emphasizedasceticism and cessation of action as a means of liberation fromsaṃsāra it calls bondage.[71][72] The various sub-traditions of Hinduism, and of Buddhism, accepted free will, avoided asceticism, accepted renunciation and monastic life, and developed their own ideas on liberation through realization of the true nature of existence.[73]
InHinduism,saṃsāra is a journey of theĀtman.[74] The body dies but not theĀtman, which is eternal reality, indestructible, and bliss.[74] Everything and all existence is connected, cyclical, and composed of two things: the Self, orĀtman, and the body, ormatter.[19] This eternal Self calledĀtman never reincarnates, it does not change and cannot change in the Hindu belief.[19] In contrast, the body and personality, can change, constantly changes, is born and dies.[19] Currentkarma impacts the future circumstances in this life, as well as the future forms and realms of lives.[75][76] Good intent and actions lead to good future, bad intent and actions lead to bad future, in the Hindu view of life.[77] The journey of samsara allows the atman the opportunity to perform positive or negativekarmas throughout each birth and make spiritual efforts to attainmoksha.[78]
A virtuous life, actions consistent with dharma, are believed by Hindus to contribute to a better future, whether in this life or future lives.[79] The aim of spiritual pursuits, whether it be through the path ofbhakti (devotion),karma (work),jñāna (knowledge), orraja (meditation) is self-liberation (moksha) fromsaṃsāra.[79][80]
TheUpanishads, part of the scriptures of the Hindu traditions, primarily focus on self-liberation fromsaṃsāra.[81][82][83] TheBhagavad Gita discusses various paths to liberation.[74] The Upanishads, states Harold Coward, offer a "very optimistic view regarding the perfectibility of human nature", and the goal of human effort in these texts is a continuous journey to self-perfection and self-knowledge so as to endsaṃsāra.[84] The aim of spiritual quest in the Upanishadic traditions is to find the true self within and to know one's Self, a state that it believes leads to blissful state of freedom,moksha.[85]
All Hindu traditions share the concept ofsaṃsāra, but they differ in details and what they describe the state of liberation fromsaṃsāra to be.[86] The saṃsāra is viewed as the cycle of rebirth in a temporal world of always changing reality orMaya (appearance, illusive), Brahman is defined as that which never changes orSat (eternal truth, reality), and moksha as the realization of Brahman and freedom fromsaṃsāra.[67][87][88]
The dualistic devotional traditions such asMadhvacharya'sDvaita Vedanta tradition of Hinduism champion atheistic premise, assert the individual human Self and Brahman (Vishnu,Krishna) are two different realities, loving devotion to Vishnu is the means to release fromsaṃsāra, it is the grace of Vishnu which leads to moksha, and spiritual liberation is achievable only in after-life (videhamukti).[89] The nondualistic traditions such asAdi Shankara'sAdvaita Vedanta tradition of Hinduism champion amonistic premise, asserting that the individual Atman and Brahman are identical, and only ignorance, impulsiveness and inertia leads to suffering throughsaṃsāra. In reality they are no dualities, meditation and self-knowledge is the path to liberation, the realization that one's Ātman is identical to Brahman ismoksha, and spiritual liberation is achievable in this life (jivanmukti).[70][90]
Symbolic depiction of saṃsāra at Shri Mahaveerji temple of Jainism.
InJainism, thesaṃsāra and karma doctrine are central to its theological foundations, as evidenced by the extensive literature on it in the major sects of Jainism, and their pioneering ideas on karma andsaṃsāra from the earliest times of the Jaina tradition.[91][92]Saṃsāra in Jainism represents the worldly life characterized by continuous rebirths and suffering in various realms of existence.[93][92][94]
The conceptual framework of the saṃsāra doctrine differs between the Jainism traditions and other Indian religions. For instance, in Jaina traditions, soul (jiva) is accepted as a truth, as is assumed in the Hindu traditions, but not assumed in the Buddhist traditions. However, saṃsāra or the cycle of rebirths, has a definite beginning and end in Jainism.[95]
Souls begin their journey in a primordial state, and exist in a state of consciousness continuum that is constantly evolving throughsaṃsāra.[96] Some evolve to a higher state, while some regress, a movement that is driven by karma.[97] Further, Jaina traditions believe that there existĀbhāvya (incapable), or a class of souls that can never attainmoksha (liberation).[95][98] TheĀbhāvya state of soul is entered after an intentional and shockingly evil act.[99] Jainism considers souls as pluralistic each in a karma-saṃsāra cycle, and does not subscribe toAdvaita stylenondualism of Hinduism, orAdvaya style nondualism of Buddhism.[98]
The Jaina theosophy, like ancientAjivika, but unlike Hindu and Buddhist theosophies, asserts that each soul passes through 8,400,000 birth-situations, as they circle throughsaṃsāra.[100][101] As the soul cycles, states Padmanabh Jaini, Jainism traditions believe that it goes through five types of bodies: earth bodies, water bodies, fire bodies, air bodies and vegetable lives.[102] With all human and non-human activities, such as rainfall, agriculture, eating and even breathing, minuscule living beings are taking birth or dying, their souls are believed to be constantly changing bodies. Perturbing, harming or killing any life form, including any human being, is considered a sin in Jainism, with negative karmic effects.[103][94]
A liberated soul in Jainism is one who has gone beyondsaṃsāra, is at the apex, is omniscient, remains there eternally, and is known as aSiddha.[104] A male human being is considered closest to the apex with the potential to achieve liberation, particularly through asceticism. Women must gain karmic merit, to be reborn as man, and only then can they achieve spiritual liberation in Jainism, particularly in theDigambara sect of Jainism;[105][106] however, this view has been historically debated within Jainism and different Jaina sects have expressed different views, particularly the Shvetambara sect that believes that women too can achieve liberation fromsaṃsāra.[106][107]
In contrast to Buddhist texts which do not expressly or unambiguously condemn injuring or killing plants and minor life forms, Jaina texts do. Jainism considers it a bad karma to injure plants and minor life forms with negative impact on a soul'ssaṃsāra.[108] However, some texts in Buddhism and Hinduism do caution a person from injuring all life forms, including plants and seeds.[108][109][110]
Saṃsāra in Buddhism, states Jeff Wilson, is the "suffering-laden cycle of life, death, and rebirth, without beginning or end".[112] Also referred to as the wheel of existence (Bhavacakra), it is often mentioned in Buddhist texts with the termpunarbhava (rebirth, re-becoming); the liberation from this cycle of existence,Nirvāṇa, is the foundation and the most important purpose of Buddhism.[112][113][114]
Saṃsāra is considered permanent in Buddhism, just like other Indian religions. Karma drives this permanentsaṃsāra in Buddhist thought, states Paul Williams, and "short of attaining enlightenment, in each rebirth one is born and dies, to be reborn elsewhere in accordance with the completely impersonal causal nature of one's own karma; This endless cycle of birth, rebirth, and redeath issaṃsāra".[115] TheFour Noble Truths, accepted by all Buddhist traditions, are aimed at ending this saṃsāra-related re-becoming (rebirth) and associated cycles of suffering.[116][117][118]
Like Jainism, Buddhism developed its ownsaṃsāra theory, that evolved over time the mechanistic details on how the wheel of mundane existence works over the endless cycles of rebirth and redeath.[119][120] In early Buddhist traditions,saṃsāra cosmology consisted of five realms through which wheel of existence recycled.[112] This included hells (niraya), hungry ghosts (pretas), animals (tiryak), humans (manushya), and gods (devas, heavenly).[112][119][121] In latter traditions, this list grew to a list of six realms of rebirth, adding demi-gods (asuras), which were included in gods realm in earlier traditions.[112][122] The "hungry ghost, heavenly, hellish realms" respectively formulate the ritual, literary and moral spheres of many contemporary Buddhist traditions.[112][119]
Thesaṃsāra concept, in Buddhism, envisions that these six realms are interconnected, and everyone cycles life after life, and death is just a state for an afterlife, through these realms, because of a combination of ignorance, desires and purposeful karma, or ethical and unethical actions.[112][119]Nirvāṇa is typically described as the freedom from rebirth and the only alternative to suffering ofsaṃsāra, in Buddhism.[123][124] However, the Buddhist texts developed a more comprehensive theory of rebirth, states Steven Collins, from fears of redeath, calledamata (death-free), a state which is considered synonymous withNirvāṇa.[123][125]
Sikhism incorporates the concepts ofsaṃsāra (sometimes spelled asSaṅsāra in Sikh texts), karma and cyclical nature of time and existence.[126][127] Founded in the 15th century, its founderGuru Nanak incorporated the cyclical concept of ancient Indian religions and the cyclical concept of time, state Cole and Sambhi.[127][128] However, states Arvind-Pal Singh Mandair, there are important differences between theSaṅsāra concept in Sikhism from thesaṃsāra concept in many traditions within Hinduism.[126] The difference is that Sikhism firmly believes in the grace of God as the means to salvation, and its precepts encourage thebhakti of One Lord formukti (salvation).[126][129]
Sikhism, like the three ancient Indian traditions, believes that body is perishable, that there is a cycle of rebirth, and that there is suffering with each cycle of rebirth.[126][130] These features of Sikhism, along with its belief inSaṅsāra and the grace of God, are similar to some bhakti-oriented sub-traditions within Hinduism such as those found inVaishnavism.[131][132] Sikhism does not believe that ascetic life, as recommended in Jainism, is the path to liberation. Rather, it cherishes social engagement and householder's life combined with devotion to the One God as Guru, to be the path of liberation fromsaṅsāra.[133]
^Gavin D. Flood (1996), An Introduction to Hinduism, Cambridge University Press,ISBN978-0521438780, p. 86,Quote: "The origin and doctrine of Karma and Samsara are obscure. These concepts were certainly circulating amongst sramanas, and Jainism and Buddhism developed specific and sophisticated ideas about the process of transmigration. It is very possible that the karmas and reincarnation entered the mainstream brahmanical thought from the sramana or the renouncer traditions. Yet, on the other hand, although there is no clear doctrine of transmigration in the vedic hymns, there is the idea of redeath, that a person having died in this world, might die yet again in the next."
^Padmanabh S. Jaini 2001 "Collected Paper on Buddhist Studies" Motilal Banarsidass,ISBN81-208-1776-1, p. 51,Quote: "Yajnavalkya’s reluctance to discuss the doctrine of karma in public (...) can perhaps be explained by the assumption that it was, like that of the transmigration of Atman, of non-brahmanical origin. In view of the fact that this doctrine is emblazoned on almost every page of sramana scriptures, it is highly probable that it was derived from them."
^Govind Chandra Pande, (1994) Life and Thought of Sankaracarya, Motilal BanarsidassISBN81-208-1104-6, p. 135,Quote: (...) TheySramanas could have been connected with the Harappan Civilization which is itself enigmatic. It seems that some Upanishad thinkers like Yajnavalkya were acquainted with this kind [sramanic] thinking (...) and tried to incorporate these ideas of Karma, Samsara and Moksa into the traditional Vedic thought.
^Wendy Doniger (1980).Karma and Rebirth in Classical Indian Traditions. University of California Press. pp. xvii–xviii.ISBN978-0-520-03923-0.;Quote: "There was such constant interaction between Vedism and Buddhism in the early period that it is fruitless to attempt to sort out the earlier source of many doctrines, they lived in one another's pockets, like Picasso and Braque (who were, in later years, unable to say which of them had painted certain paintings from their earlier, shared period)."
^Klaus Klostermaier, Mokṣa and Critical Theory, Philosophy East and West, Vol. 35, No. 1 (Jan., 1985), pp. 61–71
^Norman E. Thomas (April 1988), Liberation for Life: A Hindu Liberation Philosophy, Missiology, Volume 16, Number 2, pp. 149–60
^Gerhard Oberhammer (1994), La Délivrance dès cette vie: Jivanmukti, Collège de France, Publications de l'Institut de Civilisation Indienne. Série in-8°, Fasc. 61, Édition–Diffusion de Boccard (Paris),ISBN978-2868030610, pp. 1–9
^M. von Brück (1986), Imitation or Identification?, Indian Theological Studies, Vol. 23, Issue 2, pp. 95–105
^[a]AnattaArchived 10 December 2015 at theWayback Machine, Encyclopædia Britannica (2013), Quote: "Anatta in Buddhism, the doctrine that there is in humans no permanent, underlying soul. The concept of anatta, or anatman, is a departure from the Hindu belief in atman (“the self”).";[b] Steven Collins (1994), Religion and Practical Reason (Editors: Frank Reynolds, David Tracy), State Univ of New York Press,ISBN978-0791422175, p. 64; "Central to Buddhist soteriology is the doctrine of not-self (Pali: anattā, Sanskrit: anātman, the opposed doctrine of ātman is central to Brahmanical thought). Put very briefly, this is the [Buddhist] doctrine that human beings have no soul, no self, no unchanging essence.";[c] Edward Roer (Translator),Shankara's Introduction, p. 2, atGoogle Books toBrihad Aranyaka Upanishad, pp. 2–4;[d] Katie Javanaud (2013),Is The Buddhist ‘No-Self’ Doctrine Compatible With Pursuing Nirvana?Archived 6 February 2015 at theWayback Machine, Philosophy Now;[e] David Loy (1982), Enlightenment in Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta: Are Nirvana and Moksha the Same?, International Philosophical Quarterly, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp. 65–74;[f] KN Jayatilleke (2010), Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge,ISBN978-8120806191, pp. 246–49, from note 385 onwards;
^abLoy, David (1982). "Enlightenment in Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta: Are Nirvana and Moksha the Same?".International Philosophical Quarterly.22 (1):65–74.doi:10.5840/ipq19822217.
^abLambert Schmithausen (1991),Buddhism and Nature, Studia Philologica Buddhica, The International Institute for Buddhist Studies, Tokyo Japan, pp. 6–7
^Rod Preece (1999), Animals and Nature: Cultural Myths, Cultural Realities,ISBN978-0-7748-0725-8, University of British Columbia Press, pp. 212–17
^Christopher Chapple (1990), Ecological Nonviolence and the Hindu Tradition, inPerspectives on Nonviolence, Springer,ISBN978-1-4612-4458-5, pp. 168–77; L. Alsdorf (1962),Beiträge zur Geschichte von Vegetarismus und Rinderverehrung in Indien, Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, F. Steiner Wiesbaden, pp. 592–93
^Peter Harvey (2015). Steven M. Emmanuel (ed.).A Companion to Buddhist Philosophy. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 26–44.ISBN978-1-119-14466-3.Quote: "the first features described as painful [dukkha] in the above DCPS [Dhamma-cakka-pavatana Sutta inVinaya Pitaka] quote are basic biological aspects of being alive, each of which can be traumatic. The dukkha of these is compounded by the rebirth perspective of Buddhism, for this involves repeated re-birth, re-aging, re-sickness, and re-death."
^abcdKevin Trainor (2004).Buddhism: The Illustrated Guide. Oxford University Press. pp. 62–63.ISBN978-0-19-517398-7.;Quote: "Buddhist doctrine holds that until they realize nirvana, beings are bound to undergo rebirth and redeath due to their having acted out of ignorance and desire, thereby producing the seeds of karma".
.jpg)
.svg)
