Transmigration constantly renews sentient existence in a countless succession of births and lives. Hence the polite form of the announcement of a death is that the deceased has “changed his state of existence,” that is, put off one existence and taken on another. This is not merely a polite form of speech, but more correctly embodies the popular belief than the mere statement that he has “died.” Moreover, in future births man may rise and fall in the scale of existences; and as human life and animal life are considered to be of the same nature, no difficulty is experienced in readily believing that a man may become an animal, or an animal may become a man in future births. Hence the scruple against taking any kind of animal life amongst the Burmans, extending even to vermin. Supposing transmigration to be true, it follows that if one kills any animal, large or small, even the smallest insect, he may be taking the life of his deceased grandfather, who has thus reappeared in the body. This universal belief of the Buddhists in transmigration was curiously illustrated quite recently in a court of justice in Burma. A mother and her son came one day to the magistrate of their district and expressed a desire to institute a suit. The case for the son, who was the plaintiff, was as follows. Some years before, a certain man, it was stated, had left in charge of the defendant some jewellery and a silk cloth for safe keeping. While engaged in repairing the roof of a house he fell off and died of the injury. The jewellery and cloth remained in the hands of the defendant, and the suit was now instituted to recover the same. What was the ground for this claim? Not that this boy or his mother were related to the deceased, but that the boy was that identical man in another birth. But how could he prove it? There was no difficulty in proving this, at least to the satisfaction of the Buddhists. The boy displayed upon his body certain marks, which those who knew the deceased said were precisely similar to marks he bore. The mother, by a comparison of, dates, sought to prove the date of the birth of the boy was just when it would be supposing his claim to be true. But the most convincing testimony of all was that the boy distinctly remembered the whole of the circumstances happening in his former existence! The defendant admitted receiving the silk cloth, but denied all knowledge of the jewellery. He admitted that he believed the boy was the very man who left the cloth with him, and was willing to return it if the boy paid a small debt of eight annas borrowed on it by the owner. The boy said he remembered the eight annas, but also insisted on the jewellery. Unfortunately for him his good memory did not avail him; it was a British court of justice, not a Burmese, and the magistrate had to dismiss the case as extending to matters beyond his jurisdiction.