I saw this question on another site.
Milindapañha, Book III
(Questions for the Cutting Off of Perplexity)
Chapter: The Long Journey
(Addhānavagga / Addhānavaggo dutiyo)
Translation by U Pu
- QUESTION AS TO CONTINUING IDENTITY OF MENTAL AND PHYSICAL PHENOMENA
(nāmarūpaekattanānattapañha)
King Milinda said: “What is it, O Venerable Nāgasena, that is reborn?”
“Mental and Physical phenomena are the things, O King, that are reborn?” replied the Elder.
“Are the Mental and Physical phenomena of the present the things that are reborn?” asked the king.
“Mental and Physical phenomena of the present, O King, are not the things that are reborn. In fact, the Mental and Physical phenomena of the present perform meritorious or kammically wholesome deeds (kusala kamma) or de-meritorious or kammically unwholesome deeds (akusala kamma). As a result of those wholesome or unwholesome deeds another set of Mental and Physical phenomena is reborn,” replied the Elder.
“If, O Venerable One, the Mental and Physical phenomena of the present were not reborn would not such a man be released from the evil kamma-results?” asked the king.
“If such a man were not reborn, he would be released from the evil kamma-results. In fact, O King, he cannot escape the evil kamma-results because he is still subject to the laws of being reborn,” replied the Elder.
“Give me, O Venerable One, an illustration,” asked the king.
“Suppose, O King, a certain man were to steal a mango from another man, and the owner of the mango were to seize him and bring him before the king and say: ‘This man, O your Majesty, has stolen my mango.’ And the thief were to say: ‘Your Majesty, I have not stolen this man’s mango. The mangoes this man planted are different from the ones I took. I do not deserve to be punished.’ How then, O King? Would the thief be guilty?” asked the Elder.
“Certainly, O Venerable One, he would be guilty,” replied the king.
“But on what ground?”
“Because, O Venerable One, in spite of whatever he may say, he has not excluded the mango originally planted by the owner, and the mango that came out later was sufficient to warrant a conviction of that thief,” replied the king.
“Just so, O King, the deeds, kammically wholesome or unwholesome, are performed by the Mental and Physical phenomena of the present. As a result thereof another set of Mental and Physical phenomena is reborn. But that other is not thereby released from the evil kamma-results,” explained the Elder.
“Give me, O Venerable One, a further illustration,” asked the king.
“Suppose, O King, a certain man were to steal some rice from another man, and the owner of the rice were to seize him and bring him before the king and say: ‘This man, O your Majesty, has stolen my rice.’ And the thief were to say: ‘Your Majesty, I have not stolen this man’s rice. The rice this man planted is different from the rice I took. I do not deserve to be punished.’ How then, O King? Would the thief be guilty?” asked the Elder.
“Certainly, O Venerable One, he would be guilty,” replied the king.
“But on what ground?”
“Because, O Venerable One, in spite of whatever he may say, he has not excluded the rice originally planted by the owner, and the rice that came out later was sufficient to warrant a conviction of that thief,” replied the king.
“Just so, O King, the deeds, kammically wholesome or unwholesome, are performed by the Mental and Physical phenomena of the present. As a result thereof another set of Mental and Physical phenomena is reborn. But that other is not thereby released from the evil kamma-results,” explained the Elder.
“Give me, O Venerable One, a further illustration,” asked the king.
“Suppose, O King, a certain man were to steal some sugar-cane from another man, and the owner of the sugar-cane were to seize him and bring him before the king and say: ‘This man, O your Majesty, has stolen my sugar-cane.’ And the thief were to say: ‘Your Majesty, I have not stolen this man’s sugar-cane. The sugar-cane this man planted is different from the sugar-cane I took. I do not deserve to be punished.’ How then, O King? Would the thief be guilty?” asked the Elder.
“Certainly, O Venerable One, he would be guilty,” replied the king.
“But on what ground?”
“Because, O Venerable One, in spite of whatever he may say, he has not excluded the sugar-cane originally planted by the owner, and the sugar-cane that came out later was sufficient to warrant a conviction of that thief,” replied the king.
“Just so, O King, the deeds, kammically wholesome or unwholesome, are performed by the Mental and Physical phenomena of the present. As a result thereof another set of Mental and Physical phenomena is reborn. But that other is not thereby released from the evil kamma-results,” explained the Elder.
“Give me, O Venerable One, a further illustration,” asked the king.
“Suppose, O King, a certain man were to kindle a fire in the cold season and when he had warmed himself, leave the fire still burning, and go away. Suppose that the fire were to cross over to another man’s field and set it on fire and the owner of that field were to seize him, and bring him before the king and say: ‘Your Majesty! this man set my field on fire.’ And the man who warmed himself with fire said: ‘Your Majesty! I did not set this man’s field on fire. The fire I left burning was a different one from that which burnt his field. I am not guilty.’ Now would the man, O King, be guilty?” asked the Elder.
“Certainly, O Venerable One, he is guilty,” replied the king.
“But on what ground is he guilty?” asked the Elder.
“Because, O Venerable One, in spite of whatever he may say he has not excluded the original fire with which he warmed himself, and the subsequent fire was sufficient to warrant a conviction of the man who warmed himself with the fire,” replied the king.
“Just so, O King, the deeds, kammically wholesome or unwholesome, are performed by the Mental and Physical phenomena of the present. As a result thereof another set of Mental and Physical phenomena is reborn. But that other is not thereby released from the evil kamma-results,” explained the Elder.
“Give me, O Venerable One, a further illustration,” asked the king.
“Suppose, O King, a certain man were to take a lamp and go up into the top storey of the building with pinnacled roofs, and there eat his meal. And the lamp blazing up were to set the thatch-roof on fire, and from the thatch-roof catching fire, the house should catch fire, and that house having caught fire the whole village should be burnt. And the villagers should seize the man and ask: ‘What, you fellow, did you set our village on fire for?’ And he should reply: ‘I have not set your village on fire! The flame of the lamp, by the light of which I was eating, was one thing; the fire which burnt your village was another thing.’ Now if they, thus disputing, should go to law before you, O King, in whose favour would you decide the case?” asked the Elder.
“In the villagers’ favour, O Venerable One,” replied the king.
“But on what ground would you decide in favour of the villagers?” asked the Elder.
“Because, O Venerable One, in spite of whatever the owner of the lamp may say, the fire that burnt the whole village originated, in fact, from his (lamp) flame,” replied the king.
“Just so, O King, the set of Mental and Physical phenomena that has its end in death is, in fact, one thing and the set of Mental and Physical phenomena that is being reborn is, in fact, another. But the succeeding Mental and Physical phenomena owes its arising to the preceding Mental and Physical phenomena. So that other is not released from the evil kamma-results,” explained the Elder.
“Give me, O Venerable One, a further illustration,” asked the king.
“Suppose, O King, a certain man were to obtain consent to future marriage to a young girl by payment of marriage-endowment (earnest) money, and go away. Suppose the girl were later to arrive at a marriageable age. Then another man would come to pay a price for her and marry her. And when the first man has come back he should say: ‘Why, you fellow, have you carried off my wife?’ And the other were to reply: ‘It is not your wife I have carried off! The little girl, the mere child, whom you chose in marriage and paid a price for is one; the girl grown up to full age whom I chose in marriage and paid a price for, is another.’ Now if they, thus disputing, were to go to law about it before you, O King, in whose favour would you decide the case?” asked the Elder.
“I would decide, O Venerable One, in favour of the first man,” replied the king.
“But on what ground would you decide in favour of the first man?” asked the Elder.
“Because, O Venerable One, whatever the second man might say, that woman who had grown up and reached the marriageable age would have been derived from the other girl,” replied the king.
“Just so, O King, the Mental and Physical phenomena which has its end in death is, in fact, one thing and the Mental and Physical phenomena that is being is, in fact, another. But the succeeding Mental and Physical phenomena owes its arising to the preceding Mental and Physical phenomena. So the another is not released from the evil kamma-results,” explained the Elder.
“Very reasonable, O Venerable Nāgasena!” said King Milinda.
HERE ENDS THE SIXTH QUESTION AS TO CONTINUING IDENTITY OF MENTAL AND PHYSICAL PHENOMENA
(nāmarūpaekattanānattapañho chaṭṭho)