Can a being be reincarnated as multiple beings which exist simultaneously?

Question

After a sentient being dies, it is said that it gets reincarnated in one of the realms as a human, god, animal, hungry ghost, etc. Always it is implied that one being is reincarnated as one being.

Why would it not be possible for one being to be reincarnated as two or more beings (existing simultaneously). My thinking is, if form is emptiness, then there is not much difference between one body and two bodies. Then, there does not seem to be much difference between reincarnation in one body vs two bodies. In addition, if there is no such thing as the self, it seems there is no singular object (the self) which must transmigrate to a single body.

Answer 1

It is not really a person that gets reincarnated, you are seeing it from a point of view that is clinging to an inherently existing self. You or I as in the form of our human name, when this life ceases, so too does that person, that form, cease. What "carries on" is karma. In this case the proclivity to cling to a self. As well as the proclivities to do X actions, seek desire, seek sensuality, and also results of what actions were created in this form or previous forms, will arise again to "decide" as to where a new form will arise in relation to the previous actions and proclivities.

Now the question you want to be asking as to answer your question is when in the past or in past forms has desire been created and/or has actions been performed where in relation two forms will arise simultaneously. It is a conundrum, but we can see in some way that things like multiple forms resulting from pervious karma can be possible if only to look at things like twins or multiples human babies being born in tandem. (or other animals that have litters of children) Or look at people with multiple personality disorder, which could be a result of either multiple forms existing in one human form, or just simply a broken mind with mental formations that are not stable (I know too little of the phenomena to make a biased judgement)

The real wisdom in this is that the Buddha himself would not explain the intricacies of karma simply because it will lead one to ruin. It is unable to be knows. It is one of the 4 imponderables. So anyone claiming that they Know the answer to your question would be fabricating it of their own as this would have never been taught by the Buddha.

What is and should be more prevalent to you is as to not create causes for future unfortunate rebirth into such a horrid state as well as to create causes for a more positive rebirth and current scenario.

Being overly concerned as to where "I" will end up after the human death experience is just a form of strong clinging, the clinging that is described and explained as the second of the four noble truths, the clinging that brings suffering with it as they are intertwined.

There are specifically 4 (technically 8) milestones where one can say with conviction that you will know where your next rebirth will take you.

Firstly if you committed any of the 5 heinous actions in this life, you will know for sure you will be reborn in a hellish state.

If you reached the state of the fruit of sotapanna, after your experience of nibbana you will know for sure you will be reborn in a form conducive towards leading to liberation.

If you reached the state of anagami, you will know for sure you will be reborn in a pure realm and never have to come back to a human form.

If you reached the state of arhant you will know that there will be no more rebirth for you at all, as there is no you to be reborn and no more causes created that will cause a rebirth.

Answer 2

Correct, it doesn't have to be one to one. In fact, I knew a Tibetan Lama who was considered one of the three reincarnations of a previous Lama.

According to the Tibetan tradition, great teachers produce multiple emanations in subsequent lives, as to help as many students as possible.

Answer 3

Is one being reborn into one being or is one being reborn into many beings?

How many beings are there?

The following suttas describe the deeper understanding into this.

Then Mara the Evil One, desiring to arouse fear, trepidation, and terror in the bhikkhuni Vajira, desiring to make her fall away from concentration, approached her and addressed her in verse:

By whom has this being been created?
Where is the maker of the being?
Where has the being arisen?
Where does the being cease?

Then it occurred to the bhikkhuni Vajira: "Now who is this that recited the verse — a human being or a non-human being?" Then it occurred to her: "This is Mara the Evil One, who has recited the verse desiring to arouse fear, trepidation, and terror in me, desiring to make me fall away from concentration."

Then the bhikkhuni Vajira, having understood, "This is Mara the Evil One," replied to him in verses:

Why now do you assume 'a being'?
Mara, have you grasped a view?
This is a heap of sheer constructions:
Here no being is found.

Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'

It's only suffering that comes to be,
Suffering that stands and falls away.
Nothing but suffering comes to be,
Nothing but suffering ceases.

Then Mara the Evil One, realizing, "The bhikkhuni Vajira knows me," sad and disappointed, disappeared right there.
Vajira Sutta (SN 5.10)

"How do you construe this, my friend Yamaka: Do you regard form as the Tathagata?"

"No, my friend."

"Do you regard feeling as the Tathagata?"

"No, my friend."

"Do you regard perception as the Tathagata?"

"No, my friend."

"Do you regard fabrications as the Tathagata?"

"No, my friend."

"Do you regard consciousness as the Tathagata?"

"No, my friend."

"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?... Elsewhere than consciousness?"

"No, my friend."

"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"

"No, my friend."

"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"

"No, my friend."

"And so, my friend Yamaka — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death'?"

"Previously, my friend Sariputta, I did foolishly hold that evil supposition. But now, having heard your explanation of the Dhamma, I have abandoned that evil supposition, and have broken through to the Dhamma."
Yamaka Sutta (SN 22.85)