Intermediary states

I’ve heard that Theravadins don’t believe in the intermediary states. Is it true? Is it supported by a certain sutta?

2 Likes

Some information from a previous discussion:

1 Like

Patticasamupada (Dependent Origination) explains the mechanism or cycle of all beings - Samsara.
“if this exists, that exists; if this ceases to exist, that also ceases to exist”.

Intermediatry states may exist in ordinary terms or understanding but when strictly following the Patticasamupada, all existences, however short those lifespan may be, are new Sankharas with new anicca, new dukkha and new anatta.

For example in Dhammapada, Queen Malinka reached the hell after death for 7 days due to interceptive karma at death.
But, as she did many wholesome deeds throughout her life, she arrived at heavenly abode after 7 days at the expiry of her unwholesome karma.

You may call those 7 days as an intermediary state; however, according to Patticasamupada, it is surely a new cycle of Samsara.

Thanks and regards,

1 Like

Theravada arguments denying the intermediate state can be found in the Kathavatthu:

Points of Controversy: 8.2. Of an Intermediate State

Theravada, Mahasamghika, and Mahisasaka denied the intermediate state. Sarvastivada, Mulasarvastivada, and others accepted the intermediate state. Sarvastivada texts and ideas popularly found their way into the extant Mahayana traditions, which is why they generally accept the intermediate state.

Bhante Sujato has also written a nice article that summarizes the arguments for and against the intermediate state, and why Theravada may have taken the position it did:

Rebirth and the In-between State in Early Buddhism

Reading the full article is recommended, but I’ll also include this bit here about popular belief in the intermediate state within modern Theravada Buddhism:

It should be noted that many mod­ern Theravādins do in fact ac­cept the in-between state, de­spite the fact that it’s ‘of­fi­cially’ hereti­cal. Popular be­lief is, so far as I know, on the side of the in-between state; so is the opin­ion of the for­est monks of Thailand, based on their med­i­ta­tive ex­pe­ri­ence; and so is the opin­ions of most monks and schol­ars I know, whose ideas are based on the Suttas.

2 Likes

I saw the article, and this workshop Bhante Sujato---Karma & Rebirth in Early Buddhism---Sydney 2015

While some interpretations mention Bhikkhu Bodhi - 4 - Dependent Origination{Paticca Samuppada} - YouTube clearly like its a flow Re-linking consciousness and bhavanga consciousness

And also referred in some sutta like SuttaCentral

‘Neither the one, O king; nor yet the other. But when his sleep has become light, and he is not yet fully conscious, in that interval it is that dreams are dreamt. When a man is in deep sleep, O king, his mind has returned home (has entered again into the Bhavaṅga), and a mind thus shut in does not act, and a mind hindered in its action knows not the evil and the good, and he who knows not has no dreams. It is when the mind is active that dreams are dreamt. just, O king, as in the darkness and gloom, where no light is, no shadow will fall even on the most burnished mirror, so when a man is in deep sleep his mind has returned into itself, and a mind shut in does not act, and a mind inactive knows not the evil and the good, and he who knows not does not dream. For it is when the mind is active that dreams are dreamt. As the mirror, O king, are you to regard the body, as the darkness sleep, as the light the mind. Or again, O king, just as the glory of a sun veiled in fog is imperceptible, as its rays, though they do exist, are unable to pierce through, and as when its rays act not there is no light, so when a man is in deep sleep his mind has returned into itself, and a mind shut in does not act, and a mind inactive knows not the evil and the good, and he who knows not does not dream.

From all above texts kind of get an outcome like there is something which exists but not which clearly defined, what kind of consciousness goes to next life and when , it kind of makes the understanding of DN15 clear but something like SN 12.1 is ambiguous then how to better understand this?

Avijjāpaccayā, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā;
Choices are a condition for consciousness.