This may some help.
Four nutriments of life.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel105.html
You could say that the consciousness is in some respect old because it is caused by an old sankhara if you think that the process of causality or conditionality implies there is something transmitted between the cause and effect: force, energy, qualities, causational factors, or something else, it doesn’t matter. Important is that an object may be called ‘partially old’ if there is a continuity between it and its cause or condition.
Alternative model of causality / conditionality would imply that there is nothing whatsoever transmitted between a cause and ist effect. In this case, an effect is always completely new. It emerges as it were out of nowhere, not taking over anything from its cause. The classical Abhidhammic philosophy with the theory of mind and matter moments and sabhava pretty much subscribes to this point of view.
Finally, another possibility is that what we think to be causation is merely an inductive fallacy confusing correlations of two events with causation(cf. the position of David Hume on causality). So, we think that we cannot go through a wall because it is solid. In reality the quantum physics says it is perfectly possible for a person to accidentally go through a solid wall, even though this event is so unlikely that it almost certainly hasn’t happened since the Big Bang. Importantly, this theory doesn’t say there is no causation whatsoever, it merely claims we cannot establish it with our own minds, ergo any speculations about whether an effect is ‘old’ or ‘new’ doesn’t make any sense.
I think it would help if you describe your position within this framework in several steps:
- Is it possible to rationally establish causation?
- Is there a continuity between a cause and its effect?
- If there is continuity, what does it consist in, what is transmitted between a cause / condition and their effect?
For the sake of clarity: as far as I know the Buddha did not make any Statement on the nature of the causation, so the choice is yours 
For the first, there is a feedback relationship:
vinnana ↔ namarupa
For the second:
external sense base + internal sense base + vinnana = contact
So, with any of the six senses, the sense that operates has a vinnana (let’s say eye-vinnana) that differs from any other, such as the ear. Furthermore, when the eye moves over a scene, or blinks, this is change-while-standing, and so too a given vinnana - arising & ceasing, changing in flowing ways (very quickly of course) - differs from previous occasions in each instance.
I will try to explain this using an example I have heard from somewhere.
Take the case of someone watching his favorite match on TV. The match lasts half an hour. He sits comfortably in his sofa. He has a bucket of pop corns to munch on. He has a cigarette which he pulls from time to time.
In this scenario he has his eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind engaged with form (TV), sound(TV), smell (cigarette), taste(pop corn), contact(sofa) and sense. In other words visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile and mental consciousnesses are in operation. The question now is whether all these six consciousnesses are occurring at the same time that is simultaneously. The answer is no. Because they occur momentarily but the ordinary person due to delusion does not know that each consciousness is a discreet moment.
So during the half an hour he watched the match six types of consciousnesses arose and vanished but they are still connected forming what is called continuum.
If I may take this example a little further, this is what happens throughout our life span and only by taking the way shown by the Buddha one can understand the real nature of what we call “I”. That is by applying yoniso manasikara that we can extricate ourselves from the journey in samsara. Because then we understand that there is no real monolithic “I” or soul but it is just a cause and effect relationship constantly arising and dissolving -samudaya vaya . Knowing this and taking necessary actions according to the way shown by the Buddha is eradicating ignorance which is the route cause of our suffering.
1 Like
[quote=“daverupa, post:14, topic:3081”]
SN 12.65…MN 148[/quote]
It appears the words ‘nutriment’ & ‘nutrified’ are not found in the above sutta. The Pali words ‘ahara’ (nutriment), ‘paccaya’ (condition), ‘hetu’ (cause) and ‘samudhaya’ (arising, origin, origination) may not necessarily be synonymous & interchangeable.
After the introduction in MN 38, where it states: “Bhikkhus, do you see: ‘This has come to be’…”, the word ‘this’ may not necessary refer to the previous subject matter, namely, consciousness.
Looks like we’ll need to audit the Pali - which I cannot do.
Otherwise, if I change the word ‘nutriment’, I think the point is still made.
1 Like
I like your example. Actually I was thinking about the same with a different example. That is a man going to a movie with his girl friend.
By the way can someone explain this by using re-birth.
What is happening in re-birth.
Is re-birth a complete new consciousness?
According to Buddhist teaching when a father and mother get together a Gandhabba descend to the mother’s womb.
1 Like
A reel of movie film is comprised of many single frames, thus the movie film is a ‘continuum’. Are you saying there is a continuum like a movie film somewhere that can be replayed frame by frame? Thanks
My understanding is pretty much so but this is a question to be better answered by scholars. However this is my understanding. Though it may not be identical in verbatim it must be something pretty similar because if such a continuum does not exist we are unable to remember our past like what we did or eat this morning, yesterday and so on. This is exactly why those who develop jhana are able to go back to previous lives ie retro-cognition.
As I said earlier a Venerable Bhante will be able to better clarify this.
If such a continuum is accessible by jhana, is it not related to memory rather than to consciousness?
This matter should be evaluated in the context of some people are capable of remembering past lives.
This is how I understand it.
If we take the same example of someone watching a match, even though he thinks he watched the match uninterruptedly for half an hour in reality he did not. His consciousness shifted from eye to ears to nose to tongue and so on. It is with lightning speed that consciousness shifts and therefore he does not observe this momentary change of consciousness.
So this is the delusion because what we call “I saw” for example is in fact how we express our experience in linguistic terms. We cannot express this experience without using the word “I”. So when we say “I saw” what has actually happened is eye and an external form have come together causing the eye consciousness to occur and within that split second too the form which we call “my body” too has changed though infinitesimally. The key point here is that the consciousness arose dependently and there was no seer.
Madhupindika Sutta says "Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about.” And so on.
From this illustration it should be clear that what actually happens is an impersonal process which is anatta and the momentary nature of this experience shows impermanence anicca and the resulting unsatisfactoriness dukkha of it all. Not realizing these three characteristics beings continue to indulge in pleasure, (greed) despise unpleasant experiences (hatred) and delusion continues. These three greed hatred and delusion constantly make beings to be clinging upadana which oblivion to them leads to becoming bhava due to their kammic potential.
Becoming bhava needs more explaining. The way I understand it is this. In the above illustration the being does not let go because he does not understand anicca dukkha and anata of his/her experience but tenaciously awaits the next moment (consciousness ) of pleasure (greed), shuns the next moment (consciousness) of unpleasantness (hatred) and again the delusion continues. In other words the being is constantly awaiting the next moment (consciousness) and does not think for a moment that the death will strike him unexpectedly. By the time the death actually comes the kammic potential of all actions (sanskara) done due to above ignorance (avijja) has accumulated and ready to accept the next moment (consciousness).
Now the death actually occurs but the consciousness due to having not let go (greed, hatred and delusion) accepts whatever experience is awaiting kammically. This is the new birth. So it is a new consciousness also caused by the meeting of mind and the new mental object which is the womb if it is a human rebirth. The term Ghandhabba is the name for this new consciousness.
I understand that the above is a rather crude interpretation and this is my humble understanding of it. It may differ from other expert opinions and I request you to use your own judgement.
With Metta
Well if memory is the storage place remembering is taking from there. So taking has to be the mind getting an object giving rise to consciousness.
The book " The Buddha and His Teachings" by Ven: Naradha Mahathera explains this process in detail (Chapter 28). It can be accessed here. http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf6/bteach.pdf
1 Like
From above link;
Just as the wheel rests on the ground only at one point, so, strictly
speaking, we live only for one thought-moment. We are always in the
present, and that present is ever slipping into the irrevocable past. Each
momentary consciousness of this ever-changing life-process, on passing
away, transmits its whole energy, all the indelibly recorded impressions
on it, to its successor. Every fresh consciousness, therefore, consists of
the potentialities of its predecessors together with something more. At
death, the consciousness perishes, as in truth it perishes every moment,
only to give birth to another in a rebirth. This renewed consciousness
inherits all past experiences. As all impressions are indelibly recorded in
the ever-changing palimpsest-like mind, and all potentialities are transmitted
from life to life, irrespective of temporary disintegration, thus
there may be reminiscence of past births or past incidents. Whereas if
memory depended solely on brain cells, such reminiscence would be
impossible.
You seem to be talking about sankhara, not vinnana. The point is that neither one remains unchanging, and therefore, vinnana is different at each experience, not the same under a different name, as you had said.
No; it is aware of sanna-vedana(-sankhara); modern science has repeatedly demonstrated that long-term memory is not exact - but it doesn’t matter because in either case it functions as part of the mind sense sphere, and knowing that is enough for Dhamma practice.
This assumes the conclusion (that there are past-life reminiscences rather than ‘mere’ brain effects); past-life recall has neurological explanations as well - but this is off-topic here.
|deleted some links | sorry about that | 
|
3 Likes
Please undertake the intention to forgive me @daverupa if I am in any way out of line here, but I must ask if permission has been granted to post this highly relevant chapter (which is copyrighted by Elsevier). As much as I yearn to read it, I stopped until this can be clarified, since I take seriously the precept not to take that which is not freely given.
I hope we can all enjoy this information without blame. Thanks in advance for your patience with one as new as I.
1 Like
Well, it was available on the internet without relevant trouble, so I felt its ease of access was an indication of its availability. I’m actually unsure how to go about checking this. Ugh.
Since I got rid of that, even though it’s a bit more difficult I can offer this (…I think?).
(It’s all off-topic anyway - tangential at best - so maybe the whole thing should go somewhere else, eh? Sigh.)
2 Likes
Ahh… yes!
Thank you, thank you, @daverupa (love that moniker, BTW). I was afraid I might embarrass. Please not to sweat this (ref. Your emoticon here). I perceive no ill intentions in your behavior. It is really our intentions that shape so much of our vipaka. I see your desire to share as a very good thing indeed. And you have shared something now I can read with no qualms at all. So thanks.
As for its relevance, I am clearly not skillful enough to judge, but I will share this. I have long believed that skillful behavior grows from human consciousness examining itself as carefully and honestly as possible – Ultimately seeking that wise knowledge which fosters intentional actions that are good in the beginning, good while they persists, and good at their ultimate transformation…
I see a Buddha as one who has taken such a journey as far as is humanly possible. To an ultimate conclusion. Hand, heart, and mind working through lifetimes of kilesas. Untangling all those tangles which are our heritage from unskillful past actions. Dissolving all that hides a radiant heartmind that, perhaps, resides deep within us all.
Were I a younger fellow, I would find the field of neurobiology very attractive. On one level it IS an example of consciousness examining itself with care and concern. The mind earnestly attending the mind… For me, this actually resonates with a very ancient human agenda – to reduce suffering through adding to a collective store of knowledge. Sound familiar?
But I ramble…
Again, thank you, @daverupa, for an article which I will read with considerable interest.
I didn’t see the other article you posted but I found this one about memory quite interesting, even if tangential. Thanks for posting it.