You can learn more about the topic of rebirth and transmigration in any number of places, such as here: Rebirth (Buddhism) - Wikipedia. The article has a section on the various positions by early Buddhist schools regarding the “what” that’s reborn and the “how” it’s reborn. I don’t have a position on the matter. I merely mentioned that Theravadins at times seem to take the position that consciousness is reborn and that there are all sorts of positions that exist that have been found and discussed at length in other early Buddhist sources.
Now that I look at it more and remind myself of these positions, I see that Theravadins actually have multiple different positions and ideas scattered around their Tripitaka that ranges from asserting a gandhadda or bhavanga that is reborn, or a stream of consciousness. They initially were in the camp that denied an intermediate existence, but today Theravadins tend to accept it, apparently. It’s a good case study of how beliefs and ideas evolve over the centuries.
I merely stating that the statement claims that consciousness carries karma isnt supported by suttas / sutras and didnt say that is your position . Gandhabba , antarabhava / intermediate state isnt any of the 6 type of consciousness . Bhavanga too isnt anyone of the 6 type . And thats sums up all your replies didnt answer the question that consciousness carries the karma and that just about it . No worries , i am not agaisnt you or anything . This is just about dhamma thats all . Anyway if you find the post not in line with your thinking just ignore it .
no really, that’s just a product of different later times
At those later times people from different Schools were explaining different things around shared texts, with sealed words. The point is when inside these shared texts, the Suttas, the words are quite clear and are even natural. So the real question is, What were they doing with those texts?
The way to deal with the Time was taught by the Buddha in quite clear terms:
Whatever form is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: That is called the form aggregate.
"Whatever feeling is past, future, or present … that is called the feeling aggregate.
"Whatever perception is past, future, or present … That is called the perception aggregate…
SN 22.48
Let one not trace back the past
Or yearn for the future-yet-to-come.
That which is past is left behind
Unattained is the "yet-to-come.
MN 131
"Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: ‘This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.’
SN 22.79
and etcetera.
These words are clear showing the arising of Time like a subproduct of the ignorance of dependent origination. And basically, the Buddha taught to forget about the Time because it belongs to the delusion domain.
Therefore, What were doing all that later people engaged in those discussions?. Who were that people exactly?. What changes existed at those later centuries?
What scholars do is getting a preconceived idea about those Sarvastivada from centuries later like a reflection of philosophical trends and discussions existing in Ashoka times or even before. They use the developments from those first known Sarvastivada in Mathura, around 1st century. And they believe that it should also belongs to whatever past time.
However. that type of intellectual scholasticism in Buddhism requests of more factors that were not present in the Mauryan age. The more important of all them: a decadence .
It would need of a longer discussion with more things related with the historical paradigm created in colonial times and its fantasy narratives to explain that Past.
the issue of the gandhaba is a different thing. Dependent origination explain the arising of the being and birth at each instant. And in this process the last nidana is the decay which include also death. Decay and death are the same thing, are two words inside the same nidana.
We see the physical death like a concrete event, a phenomena arising in proper terms with space and time. Just imagine that constant dependent origination occurs, in example, in 1 milisecond. And then at each millisecond all the nidanas are fulfilled without stop.
If we go to the concrete phenomena of death and we apply 1 milisecond od DO for each instant of what we name death, it will become clear that death contains birth and death at each instant, without any space to claim there is death without claiming also birth at the same time.
So the issue of the gandhabba is different . This is similar to the Time issue, about how to explain the phenomena already objectivated in the delusion in the coarse terms of our common experience of Reality. “John is born”, “John has died”.
And then the question arise “What happens between death and a a new rebirth?”. Although this is like asking were I was myself last year when in fact we know that cannot escape from ourselves, and then the previous doubt about I was missed is absurd.
This is a type of doubt not really linked with clarifying the dependent origination and the real meaning of birth and death. Although these doubts arise while the proper Dhamma position in the Reality is lost. And then it can end in scholastic discussions or whatever thing.
This type of situation of decadence, of losing a right Dhamma position, is what is requested to explain those later discussions. And this is difficult to conceive in the most part of the previous Mauryan age because arhants existed in connection with those groups. Maybe other differences could arose in those groups but no of that type.
When there is connection with arhants that type of engagement cannot lasts because obvious reasons. This is what happens inside the Suttas, in where people finally asked to the Buddha. Without the Buddha later they asked to arhants.
And later without enough arhants to ask, then it is the proper time when philosophical discussions can be developed until exhaustion. That is, when decadence exists.
Also other factors existed like the competence of a new sophistication of the Brahmanism created after the Sramana movement. Although this is another consequence of a decadence because it is linked with the total destruction of the Buddhist India that scholars still bypass.
In short, this is a whole picture of decadence explaining those scholastic developments. Although they were very needed because the world simply was a different one.
yes, this is what happened at later times. The main necessity was to pacify the reason to defend the existence of the teaching. In later centuries, new sophisticated schools like the Nyaya existed and the Buddhist Religion was forced to look for the support of Abbhidhamma developments.
Kings and rulers opened discussions between opponents, and the winners were rewarded with elephants to go through the streets with clapping people around.
A different apology of the Reason than in our present times although also quite crazy, really.
Hi cd , i think there is a huge misunderstanding here . Again I think you and dogen and others get it wrong maybe due to my posts where English is my 3rd language therefore it could be of that you think i am debating with you but in my thinking was just trying to sort it out what the suttas truely says . Really . My initial statement was just to highlight that statement wasnt in the suttas thats all . But then after your replies i thought your answers strayed from focus directly on the question . Anyway , if you and others still thinking i am debating , nvm . Like i said to dogen , thats just subjective feeling and opinion . Best wìshes .
The five aggregates should be annihilated before death, not after death.
Aggregates are previous to the birth of the being, or these arise later like a product from birth?
Each person will start new set of five aggregates at rebirth.
The five aggregates happen in sequence, with the first to appear being the aggregate of RUPA.
How exactly does RUPA arise?
Saṃyukta Āgama 68
What is the arising of bodily form, the arising of feeling … perception … formations … consciousness? In dependence on eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises. With the coming together of the three, contact arises. In dependence on contact, feeling arises. In dependence on feeling, craving arises … up to … this entire great mass of dukkha arises. This is called the arising of bodily form (rupa).
“In the same way in dependence on ear … nose … tongue … body … the mind and mental objects, mind-consciousness arises. With the coming together of the three, contact arises. In dependence on contact, feeling arises. In dependence on feeling, craving arises … in the same way up to … this entire great mass of dukkha arises. This is called the arising of bodily form (rupa)… SuttaCentral
The aggregate of RUPA is triggered when you use the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and brain to see, hear, smell, taste, touch, and think respectively.
When the aggregate of RUPA is triggered, the other four aggregates of Vedana, Sanna, Sankhara and Vinnana will inevitably follow.
The following sutra says that we should train ourselves not to depend on the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and brain; when we no longer depend on the six faculties, we will not trigger the five aggregates.
(Through meditation training)
Middle Discourses 143
you should train like this: ‘I shall not grasp the eye, and there shall be no consciousness of mine dependent on the eye.’ That’s how you should train.
You should train like this: ‘I shall not grasp the ear, and there shall be no consciousness of mine dependent on the ear.’ …
‘I shall not grasp the nose, and there shall be no consciousness of mine dependent on the nose.’ …
‘I shall not grasp the tongue, and there shall be no consciousness of mine dependent on the tongue.’ …
‘I shall not grasp the body, and there shall be no consciousness of mine dependent on the body.’ …
‘I shall not grasp the mind, and there shall be no consciousness of mine dependent on the mind.’ That’s how you should train. SuttaCentral
The following sutra says that Bhagavat no longer relied on the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and brain to see, hear and think…, so HE wouldn’t trigger the five aggregates. This proves that Bhagavat ended the five aggregates before death, not after death.
(the scriptures has no English translation, only Pali)
– There was/is no inherent HE/Bhagavat to “trigger the five aggregates.” MN22
– Asito in MN143 relates to consciousness that is unattached to the senses and aggregates, not to the ending of them before the final death. The context of the sutta is important and is about fully letting go.
In this way the consciousness of an arahant is like the beam of light that lands nowhere, as it is free of all ignorance and craving. SN12.64
– The Buddha (as a conventional designation), was able to walk and navigate around obstacles, and felt foot pain. So: senses and aggregates present and functional. SN1.38
But there was no attachment or identification with them → no rebirth.
When talking about the cessation of the five aggregates, it refers to the state achieved through meditation.
After the five aggregates are extinguished, we can decide our own life and death, just as Sariputra can freely choose the time of his own death, even he is still very healthy.
Ordinary people must wait for their bodies to completely break down to die.
Ekottarāgama 26.9
舍利弗白 世尊言：「我今欲取滅度，唯願聽許。」
是時，世 尊默然不對。時舍利弗再三白世尊言：「我 今正是時，欲取般涅槃。」
是時，世尊告舍利 弗：「汝今何故不住一劫，乃過一劫？」
Sariputra said to the Bhagavān, “I now wish to attain parinibbāna. I only ask for your permission.”
The Bhagavān remained silent. Sariputra then repeatedly said to the Bhagavān, “Now is the right time for me to attain parinibbāna.”
The Bhagavān then told Sariputra, “Why do you not stay for a kalpa, but instead pass through a kalpa?” SuttaCentral
“cessation of the five aggregates” can only be achieved through meditation. By that I mean if you don’t practice meditation to perfection, it’s impossible to end the five aggregates permanently.
What needs to be done to eliminate the five aggregates?
Firstly, we need to eradicate our habit of using the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and brain.
Using the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and brain triggers RUPA aggregate; and the Rupa aggregate will inevitably trigger the other four aggregates to follow.
If we can perfect our technique of not using the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and brain during meditation, our wisdom eye will surface.
The wisdom eye can replace the functions of the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and brain. This is the realization of permanent cessation of the five aggregates.
Long Discourses 1
菩薩思惟：『苦陰滅時，生智、生 眼、生覺、生明、生通、生慧、生證。』
When the Bodhisattva contemplated the extinguishment of suffering, knowledge arose, EYE arose, awakening arose, insight arose, Abhijñā arose, wisdom arose, and realization arose.” SuttaCentral
The following scriptures say normally people should understand things with the eye of wisdom , (rather than with the brain.)
Using the brain is exercising the five aggregates; the same is true for using the eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body.
Majjhima Nikāya 43
“Neyyaṁ panāvuso, dhammaṁ kena pajānātī”ti?
“Neyyaṁ kho, āvuso, dhammaṁ paññācakkhunā pajānātī”ti.
“How do you understand something that can be known?”
“You understand something that can be known with the eye of wisdom.” SuttaCentral
Linked Discourses 56.63
… “Evameva kho, bhikkhave, appakā te sattā ye pana ariyena paññācakkhunā samannāgatā; atha kho eteva bahutarā sattā ye avijjāgatā sammuḷhā …pe….
“… the sentient beings who have the noble eye of wisdom are few, while those who are ignorant and confused are many. …” SuttaCentral
“cakkhuṁ udapādi”, “arose the eye” in the following scripture refers to the emergence of the eye of wisdom.
“Cakkhuṁ” cannot refer to the emergence of the physical eye, because the physical eye already exists.
Saṁyutta Nikāya 12.65
‘Nirodho, nirodho’ti kho me, bhikkhave, pubbe ananussutesu dhammesu cakkhuṁ udapādi ñāṇaṁ udapādi paññā udapādi vijjā udapādi āloko udapādi.
“‘Cessation, cessation’—thus, bhikkhus, in regard to things unheard before there arose the eye, knowledge, wisdom, clear insights, and light. SuttaCentral
Thanks very much for the sutta references and noting the Pali word paññācakkhunā for the eye of wisdom. The other translation is insight.
paññācakkhunā only occurs in less then a handful of suttas. In a context and manner that does not support the assertion that:
I wonder if that teaching derived from later schools involved in metaphysical pursuits?
If so it raises more questions. Firstly, if the Buddha did not teach this in the Pali Suttas is it worth pursuing and if not, is it harmful in terms of obstructing the actual opening of the dhamma eye
The following scripture confirms that the Buddha no longer relied on the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and brain. This implies that the Buddha was using something else to replace the functions of the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and brain.
Muni abandons reliance on craving, abandons reliance on views, does not rely on the eye, does not rely on the ear, does not rely on the nose, does not rely on the tongue, does not rely on the body, does not rely on the brain SuttaCentral
