able to stand witness to their existence. If the absence of any living witness to our
ancestors proves their never having existed, then how is it possible that our father
came into existence? Is it possible for an effect to appear without a cause? If we
believe there can’t be an effect without a cause, then Kapil himself, were he sitting
right in front of me, could not exist because he denies the existence of his causes,
that is, his ancestors whom he has never seen. Is it proper to deny the evidence of
the senses? There is no answer. Even though we cannot see the cause, if there is
an indication, or logical evidence, that something exists, then even modern
scientists and intellectuals must accept it.
Once, in 1998, I met a group of American tourists on their way to Mt. Kailash.
They were skeptical about buddha-dharma, but most of them were interested in it.
Among them was John, who sat quietly, saying nothing, just sitting with his legs
stretched out. I asked him if he had any questions. He said straight away that he
did not believe in buddha-dharma. I told him that he ought to believe in it because
it dealt with the real nature of things. He said that religion maintains the truth of
previous and future lives and of karmic cause and effect and that he did not
believe in a future life because no one has been there and returned to tell the tale.
I told him, “Tomorrow you are going to Mt. Kailash, but who has seen tomorrow?
Just because no one in the world has seen tomorrow, not even your famous
president Bill Clinton, does that mean that there is no tomorrow? Your only
response can be that since there is a today, therefore the probability is that there
will be a tomorrow. Likewise, if there is a present life, isn’t it probable that there
will be a future life?” “Your answer is interesting,” John responded and clammed
up. “If there is an indication or reason for it, even though it cannot be seen or
heard, we should accept it as a possibility,” I continued. “Material objects may be
viewed in three ways—as form, as consciousness, or as neither form nor
consciousness—each dependent upon its own causal stream, just as a sprout of
barley comes from barley seed or a sprout of rice grows from the rice seed. There
is no doubt that a perception arises from a previous similar moment of
consciousness. So the previous life and the next life, karmic cause and effect, are
common sense, and their connection may be directly inferred.” Having listened to
me, John seemed satisfied. “Very interesting!” he said as he departed.
If we examine the egoist consciousness of the personality in the present
moment, by careful discrimination, dividing it into thousands of parts, we find
nothing. Even if thousands of scientists subject this body of flesh and blood to
dissection and microscopic analysis, they will not find any discrete consciousness,
only various substances composed of the four elements. Simply because they
cannot find consciousness, however, does not prove that it is nonexistent. To insist
that it is nonexistent is a denial of common sense and just nonsense! Consistent
with that, since there is a present life, so too there should be a next life. Because
today exists, we can reasonably presume that there is a tomorrow.
In The King of Samadhi Sutra, it is said,
Eyes, ear, and nose are undependable;
Tongue, body, and mind are unreliable:
If these senses were valid guides,