PLATO’S TRANSMIGRATION OF THE SOUL

AND THE COMPLEMENTARY DOCTRINE ON SAMSARA

A Term Paper in PHPC 117 – Comparative Philosophy
December 2022

Vince Manuel L. Millona

Notre Dame of Marbel University
Koronadal City, Philippines
vince21millona@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

This paper aims to find a common ground between Plato and Buddhism’s varied notions
of reincarnation. In the dialogue between Western and Eastern traditions of philosophy, the
attempt for discovering the commensurability between two traditions becomes the center of
doing comparative philosophy.

This paper argues that there is an ethical and epistemic commensurability between the
notion of transmigration of the soul in Plato and the Samsara teaching in Buddhism. Plato’s two
(2) dialogues, namely, the Republic and Phaedo where the notion of transmigration of the soul
emanates were closely analyzed. The Buddhist teaching on Samsara that springs from the
Buddhist schools, namely, Theravada School and Mahayana School was also taken into account.

The paper finds that the Platonic concept of transmigration and the Buddhist doctrine on
Samsara differ on their teaching about the soul as the former holds that it is immortal while the
latter does not subscribe to such idea. On their ethical commensurability, both traditions
converge on their teaching about action which has consequences to man’s destiny. On their
epistemic commensurability, both traditions have the common ground that wisdom is what
grounds action and the way to live in the here and now.

Keywords: Transmigration, réincarnation, Samsara, Plato, Buddhism

INTRODUCTION

The human mind has been perplexed with the notion of ‘reincarnation’—the idea that an

aspect of an individual (i.e., soul, consciousness, or mind) persists after bodily death and takes on

flesh again (Gaur, 2022). This notion was discussed among Indian and Greek philosophical

traditions in the 6th century BC. Nagaraj, et al. (2015) notes that reincarnation, simply put, means

that the soul leaves one life and goes on into another (human, animal, or plant) for the purpose of

spiritual development and growth. The next form taken by the soul depends on the moral quality
of the acts of the past life (Nagaraj, et al., 2015). Moreover, reincarnation is also known as

‘rebirth’, ‘metempsychosis’ (Greek), ‘transmigration’, ‘disambiguation’, ‘palingenesis’, etc.

This paper compares the varied notions of the Western and Eastern traditions about

reincarnation. Specifically, it compares the notion of “Transmigration of Soul” (which can be

found in some of Plato’s dialogue) for the West, and the Doctrine of Samsara in Buddhism for

the East. Transmigration of soul appears in the Republic (specifically the Myth of Er) and in

Phaedo (specifically the myth on where the immortal soul goes after death). On the other hand,

the Buddhist doctrine of Samsara is found in the teachings of Theravada and Mahayana schools.

The Myth of Er is found in the concluding part of the Republic (Book X). It recounts the

story of Er, a man who came back to life in his funeral pyre and who narrated his experience in

the afterlife where transmigration of souls occurs. This myth closes the Republic “in a visionary

mode whose complexity tests the limits of understanding (Halliwell, 2007, p. 445).” The Phaedo

myth, on the other hand, presents an account for transmigration in the backdrop of a discourse on

the immortality of the soul. It presents an account for punishing the souls of impious ones via

being reincarnated after judgment has been passed.

Theravada’s teaching on samsara entails that man has been wandering in this cycle.

Samsara literally means ‘wandering on’ in both Pali and Sanskrit. The Buddha teaches that man

wanders on in this cycle of repeated birth and death. Moreover, samsara is not a specific plane of

existence, but it is a process which is fueled by ignorance, craving, and the volitional acts man

performs through which he continues from one existence to the next (Ubeysekara, 2018).

Mahayana’s teaching, on the other hand, quite differs from Theravada in the sense that samsara

is identified with nirvana, and that “nothing of samsara is different from nirvana, and nothing of

nirvana is different from samsara (Loy, 1983, p. 355).”

2
 This paper argues that there is an ethical and epistemic commensurability between the

notion of transmigration of the soul in Plato and the Samsara teaching in Buddhism. Ethical

commensurability entails the comparison of the two notions on their ethical dimension, that is,

their moral teachings with regard to reincarnation. On the other hand, epistemic

commensurability entails the comparison of the two notions on the epistemic ground of their

teachings.

I. TRANSMIGRATION OF SOUL IN PLATO

The notion of transmigration of soul is found in some of Plato’s dialogues. Two instances

of such notion appear in the Republic (The Myth of Er) and in Phaedo.

I.1. The Myth of Er (Republic Book X)

In Book X of the Republic, Plato through the character of Socrates recounts the story of

Er—a brave Pamphylian who, before his funeral, came back to life and narrated his experience

in the other world.

As Er died on the battlefield, he recounts that when his soul departed from his body, it

traveled with other souls as well. They reached a supernatural plane and found “two adjacent

openings in the earth and two in the heavens above and opposite them (Republic, Book X,

614c).” Between these doors, judges were seated who tell the just ones to go to the right door

which leads up to the heavens, and the unjust are told to go to the left door.

Moreover, there were souls who came out of the other one door from heavens and other

one door from the earth. These souls are those whose judgments have already passed. Er

described those that came from the opening in the earth as parched and dusty, and the ones

3
 from the heavens came down pure (614d). This is the description since the former experienced

suffering while the latter experienced happiness and saw beautiful sights in the heavens.

The description of Er about the souls imply that unjust souls have to pay the penalty for

every person they had wronged ten times over for each through suffering. The just ones, on the

other hand, receive commensurate awards (615b). After the souls’ judgments were passed,

these souls travel to Necessity (i.e., ‘Ananke’, the Greek goddess) and to her daughters, the

Fates. This next stop of the soul’s journey is for the “beginning of another death-bringing cycle

for mortal-kind (617d).” This is the part where the notion of transmigration of soul could be

found.

The soul in the story of Er is given the autonomy to choose which life they will live. The

‘spokesman’ of Necessity even stresses this: “Responsibility lies with the chooser, the god is

blameless (617e).” Before the soul are the various kinds of lives they might choose—animal or

human, a life of wealth or poverty, of ease or difficulty, etc.. Er recounts that some deceased

choose the life of an animal (e.g. Orpheus choosing a swan’s life; Thamyris a nightingale’s).

Other souls, however, especially those whose past life did not experience pain and suffering,

were rash in choosing and did not examine the kind of life they chose. This is caused by their

ignorance.

Socrates exhorts Glaucon that the phenomena recounted above calls for wisdom and a

sound mind. In choosing which life to live, the soul must ponder on which life will enable him

to learn which life is good or bad, to choose the better choice among all possibilities, and know

to choose the middle life and avoid the extremes because “this is how a human being becomes

happiest (619b).”

4
 I.2. Phaedo Myth (Phaedo)

In Phaedo, Plato recounts yet another eschatological myth on the soul’s destination after

death. In this dialogue, Socrates engages in dialogue with Cebes about the immortality of the

soul. The argument begins with the notion that soul brings life (Plato, 1951, p. 60), and that

which does not admit death. Since that which does not admit death is ‘deathless’ or immortal, so

the soul—which does not admit death—is immortal.

Additionally, that which is immortal is also imperishable. Hence, when a man dies, the

mortal part (i.e., his body) of his being perishes, but the immortal part (i.e., his soul) is unharmed

and undestroyed. The soul, then, after man’s death will exist somewhere in another world.

Socrates further exhorts an ethical teaching on the immortality of the soul. He notes that

the soul must be taken care of if it is immortal since neglect would lead to its endangerment. The

soul could be saved only by becoming good and wise. This is the case because the soul, as it

passes to the other world, takes with it its “education and nurture (p. 63)” which become the

basis for judgment.

As the soul reaches the place for its judgment, they are then judged and sentenced if they

have lived well and piously, or not. Those souls who have lived piously and well go to the

Acheron, and arrive at the Acherusian lake where they remain for an appointed time where they

will be purified (i.e., if they have any wrongdoings, they are to pay the penalty; for their good

deeds, they are rewarded). Afterwards they are sent back to be reborn into living beings (p. 69).

The souls who have not lived piously, on the other hand, are classified as either

‘incurable’ or ‘curable’. The former is those who have committed great evils and are

immediately sent to Tartarus where they never emerge. The latter, however, are also sent to the

5
same place but will only stay there for a year. After a year, they are sent back to the Acherusian

lake where they will “cry out and call on those whom they slew or outraged (p. 69)” and ask for

their mercy. If they prevail, they undergo the process of the pious souls; if not, they are sent back

to Tartarus for a year and back to the lake, and this goes on until they prevail. Those who have

prevailed the penalty move toward their “pure abode and dwell upon the earth (p. 70).”

Those who have lived purely— who duly purified themselves by philosophy—live

altogether without bodies and pass to a more beautiful abode “which is not easy to describe (p.

70).” Hence, Socrates argues that man has to do his best to acquire virtue and wisdom in life

because “the prize is fair and the hope great (p. 70).” Also, he ought to adorn his soul not with

alien ornaments but with proper ornaments such as self-restraint, justice, courage, freedom, and

truth (p.70). This entails that the human person must have the right qualities and virtues.

II. BUDDHISM’S DOCTRINE OF SAMSARA

Samsara refers to the Buddhist doctrine of the “cycle of existences” which entails a

sequence of rebirths that a being goes through the various modes of existence until liberation is

attained (Schuhmacher & Woerner, 1989, p. 298). It is different from the common conception of

samsara in the Indian tradition specifically that of Hinduism. If for Hinduism, samsara occurs

with the soul being embodied to another body (of a human or animal) after death, the same is not

the case for Buddhism. Since there is no concept of soul, spirit, or self in Buddhism, samsara

occurs as the rebirth of consciousness living lives which are linked (Nagaraj, et al., 2015).

In the following section, the doctrine of samsara is surveyed through presenting the

teachings of two great schools in Buddhism: Theravada and Mahayana.

6
 II.1. Theravada’s Teaching on Samsara

The Theravada (literally means “teaching of the elders of the order”) tradition considers

itself as the school closest to the original form of Buddhism (Schuhmacher & Woerner, 1989, p.

369). The doctrine of Samsara is taught by this school as the ongoing process of rebirth or

“perpetual wandering” of the soul. Gowans (2013) notes that samsara is presented as part of a

cosmology six planes of existence are arranged from lower to higher levels of being (with

humans placed below the gods and above animals and ghosts). The next plane to which man is

reborn depends on how he lives (Gowans, 2013, p. 435), and this is governed by the law of

karma.

Karma means action. It is an account of the consequences of an agent’s actions toward

himself. The kind of actions that one does determine their next kind of life. Theravada teaches

two pairs of terms which helps in determining the kind of act they do. The first pair is puñña

(purifying, meritorious, source of positive fortune) and apuñña (opposite of purifying and

meritorious; source of negative fortune). The second pair is kusala (wholesome, skillful, healthy)

and akusala (opposite of kusala). Furthermore, kusala is said to be rooted in dana (generosity),

metta (lovingkindness), and pañña (wisdom). Akusala, on the other hand, is rooted in lobha

(greed), dosa (hatred), and moha (delusion) (p. 435).

Puñña and kusala (morally good actions) results to a good rebirth, that is, a life with

wealth, good reputation, health, longevity, beauty, wisdom and happiness. On the contrary,

apuñña and akusala results to an unfortunate rebirth, that is, a life with the opposite negative

consequences. Moreover, Buddhism also teaches that cetana (‘volition’ or intention) is also

important in understanding actions that have karmic effect. One must have willed or intended to

7
do a specific act in order for it to be ‘credited’ as good or bad. Since not all acts are volitional,

not all acts, therefore, have karmic effects (Reasoner, 2010, p. 642).

As mentioned earlier, there are six planes of existence into which one is reborn in

samsara. Sarao (2017) states that this cosmological aspect of Buddhism consists of (1) devaloka,

(2) asuraloka, (3) manussaloka, (4) tiracchanaloka, (5) petaloka, and (6) niraya.

The devaloka or the realm of devas is where one may be reborn as a deva (‘deity’). The

devas live long lives with pleasure and abundance. Since they are overwhelmed with such

abundance, they become distracted and their good karma is exhausted where they will be reborn

to another plane.

The asuraloka is the plane of demigods where there is also pleasure and abundance,

however they suffer from envy and wars among themselves.

The manussaloka is the plane of humans, and it is the best realm to attain nirvana. This is

so because humans are able to follow the teachings of Buddha and are not easily distracted with

pleasures like the devas and asuras. They are also not suffering extremely like the beings in the

lower planes.

The tiracchanaloka is the plane of animals. Animals lead a life of constant fear since they

may be exploited by humans and may be attacked or eaten by other animals.

The petaloka is the plane of hungry ghosts. They suffer from extreme hunger and thirst.

Lastly, the niraya is the plane of hell where there are extreme forms of suffering for long

periods of time (Sarao, 2017, p. 1049).

Moreover, Keown (2000) as cited in Sarao (2017) describes karma as an elevator as it

takes one from a floor (plane) to another: “Good deeds result in an upward movement and bad

deeds in a downward one (Sarao, 2017, p. 1049).” This depiction of karma portrays the process

8
of samsara in which one ascends or descends in the different planes of existence upon death

based on one’s actions.

Aside from karma, the other factors for being stuck in samsara are avija (ignorance) and

tanha (craving). Avija points to not knowing or lacking proper understanding of the four Noble

Truths (i.e., truths of suffering, its cause, its cessation, and the path to its cessation). Tanha, on

the other hand, points to craving for pleasure and being greedy.

In order to be liberated from samsara, Ubeysekara (2018) argues that man ought to attain

nirvana (“enlightenment”). This is done by eliminating ignorance with wisdom. Also, the path to

liberation from samsara is the Noble Eightfold Path (i.e., right view, right intention, right speech,

right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration).

In sum, Theravada teaches that samsara has no evident beginning. The sentient beings

who have not attained nirvana continue to move from one plane of existence to another. One has

to be liberated from samsara via nirvana where there is no more birth, ageing, or suffering. And

it is done by following the Noble Eightfold Path (Ubeysekara, 2018). What this school teaches is

that one’s path to nirvana is a personal journey, hence it requires individual effort.

II.2. Mahayana’s Teaching on Samsara

Mahayana literally means ‘the Great Vehicle’ which regarded the Theravada school as

“the lesser vehicle” (Hinayana). The school regarded Theravada’s way to nirvana as selfish since

the lesser vehicle only advocates for personal enlightenment. In turn, Mahayana advocates for a

kind of path to nirvana which aims not for personal enlightenment, but for the enlightenment first

of all beings in the sentient reality (Mestre, 2005, p. 77). This entails that one must secure first

that all sentient beings achieve nirvana before oneself.

9
 With Mahayana’s extensive teaching about nirvana, the school identifies it with samsara,

i.e., there is no difference between the two. Garfield (1995) contends that differentiating the two

would be supposing that each had a different nature. However, nirvana and samsara are both

empty, so there can be no difference between the two. This is taught by the Mahayana’s

proponent in the name of Nagarjuna:

There is not the slightest difference between cyclic existence [samsara] and nirvana.
Whatever is the limit of nirvana that is the limit of cyclical existence. There is not even
the
slightest difference between them, or even the subtle thing (Garfield, 1995, p. 308).

Although their teaching on the process of samsara is not entirely different with that of

Theravada’s, Mahayana only deviates with their teaching on how one should be liberated from it.

If Theravada teaches that it should done by being a monk and thereby achieving nirvana, for

Mahayana it is by being a bodhisattva – a person who is already close at achieving

enlightenment, but postpones it in order to help others reach it. The key concept here is karuna

(compassion) as it is needed in order to liberate all beings in samsara (Mestre, 2005, p. 79). One

must be concerned of the suffering of others (i.e., being stuck in samsara), and this would move

the person to help others be enlightened before achieving nirvana himself/herself.

Moreover, avija or ignorance is also said to be the lack of understanding of reality: there

is no soul/self (anatman). Buddhists do not believe that there is a soul or a self. The Buddha

exhorts in the Majjhima Nikaya that “All things, conditioned or unconditioned, are anatta, are

void of self and soul (Walker, 2013).” This is so since soul entails permanence, and there is no

permanence in this world. Subscribing to such notion would lead to ignorance, desire, and

suffering.

III. ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON BETWEEN THE TWO NOTIONS

10
 The notions of Transmigration of Soul in Plato’s dialogues and Samsara in Buddhism

raise good points about how one conducts their life in the here and now. These teachings

particularly impart ideas about bettering oneself.

Plato utilized myths in teaching the notion of transmigration since they are able to

somehow capture his ideas which are “out-of-place vision of meaning and truth (Partenie,

2022).” The philosopher intends for his readers to think for themselves and to interpret his ‘out-

of-place’ ideas free from conventions. Also, one must bear in mind that these myths are not to be

taken in their literal sense. A metaphorical interpretation is appropriate in order to discern the

moral lessons to be learned in these accounts.

The myths found in the two dialogues presented above teach an invaluable moral lesson:

actions really do have consequences. In the Myth of Er, the judgment of a human being is based

on how they lived in their earthly existence. Doing and living good entails good consequences

while the contrary entails bad consequences. With regard to transmigration, the myth recounts

that those who lived a good life (i.e., with philosophy) are able to choose wisely the form of life

which they will be reborn to. Those who lived contrary to the good life (i.e., pleasure, tyranny,

ignorance) are unwise in choosing.

The same thing echoes reality. When people are blinded with their mundane concerns and

worldly allurements, the trajectory of their lives would deviate from the good path. The actions

in one’s life have drastic effects that will affect one’s future. This interpretation may also be

applied to the Phaedo myth. Socrates teaches that since the soul is immortal, one must care for it

because terrible consequences await if one does not. Both myths suggest that the proper way to

live (thereby caring for the soul, receive proper reward after death, or be reborn to a good life) is

by doing good and by cultivating the mind through philosophy. There are no other ways but this

11
since the human person is blinded by ignorance, and with ignorance comes evil. Evil harms the

soul.

On the other hand, the Buddhist doctrine of samsara also teaches that actions have

consequences. Action or karma plays an important role in the cycle of birth and rebirth. In fact, it

is the governing principle which perpetuates samsara. Doing good results to a good rebirth (i.e.,

as a god, demigod, or human), and doing the contrary results to an unfortunate rebirth (i.e., as an

animal, hungry ghost, or in hell). What can be surmised from this doctrine is that moral

responsibility is tied to samsara. It teaches one to be responsible of their actions.

Moreover, to escape from samsara is to overcome ignorance. As discussed, Buddhists

teach that ignorance entails not knowing the true nature of reality (anatman or no self/soul).

Being ignorant of such fact would lead to overemphasis of the self (i.e., being greedy, self-

preservation, etc.) which enables one to commit evil acts. Overcoming ignorance would mean

possessing wisdom, and all else (like proper action) would follow.

In tracing the ethical commensurability between the two, it could be noticed that the

differences lie on their way of exhorting their teaching and on their conception of the soul/self

while their parallelism lies on their emphasis on action and on wisdom. Plato’s utilization of

myth invites for a more metaphorical interpretation of the notion of transmigration. Theravada

and Mahayana schools, on the other hand, present the notion of samsara as a doctrine where a

guide may be followed in traversing the life of cyclic existence. Moreover, the Western notion

argues from the standpoint of the immortality of the soul, but the Eastern notion in Buddhism

does not subscribe to the notion of soul. The latter tradition holds that it is only consciousness

which traverses in samsara.

12
 Both notions seem to converge on their teachings about action and wisdom. Plato holds

that one’s actions are what defines the immortal soul’s future after the body ceases to be.

Buddhism teaches as well that karma is what governs the consciousness’ wandering in samsara.

What underlies action is wisdom. The myths in the Republic and Phaedo would encourage

people to engage in philosophy and be wise as good action necessarily follows it. The Buddhists

schools, too, would teach that the way to escape samsara is, first and foremost, to be acquainted

with the fact of anatman—one that is done through wisdom, the opposite of ignorance.

CONCLUSION

The Western notion of transmigration as found in the dialogues of Plato is ethically

commensurable with the Eastern notion of samsara in Buddhism. Their distinct paths converge

on their teaching about action and wisdom. Both traditions exhort people to be morally

responsible of their actions. Moreover, the teachings of Plato and the Buddha on wisdom connote

an understanding that the best way of living is grounded on philosophy. Despite the differing

notions on reincarnation, both traditions provide valuable and indispensable insights and lessons

in living in the here and now.

REFERENCES

Garfield, J. (1995). Examination of nirvana. The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way.
Oxford University Press. New York. 299-331.

Gaur, A. (2022, August 31). Reincarnation. Encyclopedia Britannica.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/reincarnation

Gowans, C. (2013). Ethical thought in Indian Buddhism. A Companion to Buddhist Philosophy

(ed. S. Emmanuel). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Chichester. 429-51

13
Halliwell, S. (2007). The life-and-death journey of the soul: Interpreting the myth of Er. The
Cambridge Companion to Plato’s Republic. Cambridge University Press. New York.
445-73.

Loy, D. (1983). The difference between samsara and nirvana. Philosophy East and West. 33(4):
355-65. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1398594

Mestre, R. (2005). The major schools of Buddhism. The Buddhism Primer: An Introduction to
Buddhism. 70-87.

Nagaraj, A., Nanjegowda, R., & Purushothama, S. (2015). The mystery of reincarnation. Indian
J Psychiatry. 57(4): 439. doi: 10.4103/0019-5545.105519

Partenie, C. (2022). Plato’s myths. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-myths/#PlaMyt

Plato. (1951). Plato’s Phaedo [trans. F.J. Church]. The Liberal Arts Press. New York.

Plato. (2012). Republic (Book X). A Plato Reader: Eight Essential Dialogues (ed. C.D.C.
Reeve). Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. Indianapolis. 545-73.

Reasoner, P. (2010). Reincarnation and karma. A Companion to Philosophy of Religion [2nd

Edition; ed. Taliaferro, C., Draper, P., Quinn, P.]. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Chichester.
639-47

Sarao, K. (2017). Samsara. Buddhism and Jainism. Springer. Netherlands. 1048-50.

Schuhmacher, S. & Woerner, G. (1989). The Encyclopedia of Eastern Philosophy and Religion.
Shambhala Publications, Inc. Boston.

Ubeysekara, A. (2018, April 25). Cycle of Birth and Death (samsara) in Theravada Buddhism.
Drarisworld. https://drarisworld.wordpress.com/2018/04/25/cycle-of-birth-and-death-
samsara-in-theravada-buddhism/

Walker, K. (2013 February 7). Buddhist doctrine challenges traditional concept of self. The
Ithacan. https://theithacan.org/opinion/commentary-buddhist-doctrine-challenges-
traditional-concept-of-self/

14