What Did The Buddha Say About Karma, Consciousness And The Rebirth Process?

Dakini

How do our karmic seeds move from the death of one body to the birth of another? We seem to assume a lot about this, but what did the Buddha actually say? How does re-birth work? It seems like it would be useful to clarify this.

WallyB

nothing (which is why buddhists, since buddha, transformed Dependent Origination into a theory of the rebirth processs). buddha, himself, said nothing, except that 'karma' leads to 'rebirth' or 'again becoming'

Ananda, if there were no kamma ripening in the sensuality-property, would sensuality-becoming be discerned?

No, lord.

Thus kamma is the field, consciousness the seed and craving the moisture.

The intention & aspiration of living beings hindered by ignorance & fettered by craving is established in/tuned to a lower property [the sensuality element]. Thus there is the production of renewed becoming in the future.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.077.than.html

thus consciousness establishes (becomes absorbed) into sensuality due to craving-intention which leads to sensual becoming (such as "I feel sexy")

if there is no intention to sensual activity, there is no consciousness establishing itself in sensuality (such as watching TV) thus there is no sensual becoming (the sensual being)

not related to post-mortem rebirth

ClayTheScribe

Dakini, I think, from my other readings, realizing karma and re-birth fully requires finding enlightenment, at least according to Jack Kornfield, who said only the enlightened being can fully understand their karma and how it works. I'm content in that for now. I've heard re-birth described as us being one candle and our flame lighting another wick, so to speak. It's from the flame before, but it's not the same flame. I also take it the Buddha didn't speak about what's after death or God because he found it to be a distraction for us in living in the present moment which is where we can find all the answers we seek if we're properly tuned in. He said a lot of these questions can be answered by seeking within, not without. At least I'm going with that because I cannot understand karma either.

Jeffrey

So we have a person. And what is that person? Are they anything constant? What part of a person never changes?

Thus if that person is reborn then what can you say is reborn?

Their body?
Their feelings?
Their perceptions?
Their constructs?
Their mental continuum?

From the perspective of the idea of a mental continuum well that could continue somewhere else it could just somehow jump over much like the Heisenburg uncertainty pairs can reach across space faster than the speed of light.

So that could be a western idea of the 'subtle body'. And with that established whatever birth that consciousness comes from will have a setting.



However from my own teachers perspective the five skandas are merely ways of thinking of a being. They are thinking. And I feel what is meant by thinking is not to label as back to mental continuum. In this instance thinking means that those five skandas are approximations.

From Lama Shenpen's perspective as I understand, the five skandas are all the conditional part of self which is the non-self portion. The spark that is always there is the yielding living of the mind.

jll

buddha said 'if you think the one reborn is the same person,
that is wrong'
'if you think the one reborn is a different person, that is wrong'
it is in between.

Dakini

This, from Wikipedia:
Citta, the ideation consciousness (representing creativity, volition), referred to in the Yogacara School as the alaya vijnana, or causal consciousness or store-house consciousness, induces transmigration or rebirth, causing the origination of a new existence.

Storehouse consciousness receives impressions from all functions of the other consciousnesses (the sensory consciousnesses), and retains them as potential energy, "bija" or seeds, for their further manifestations and activities. Since it serves as the container for all experiential impressions, it is also called "seed consciousness" or "container consciousness".

According to eminent Pali Scholar Walpola Rahula (1907-1997), "citta", called alaya vijnana in the Mahayana tradition, represents the deepest, finest and subtlest aspect or layer of the aggregate of consciousness. It contains all traces or impressions of past actions and future possibilities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Consciousnesses#A.C4.81layavij.C3.B1.C4.81na
Thanks to @person for this link

WallyB

a problem arising here is buddha taught consciousness is sense awareness, i.e., seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching & mental cognition. "citta" is not a type of consciousness but, instead, is an object of consciousness

objects of consciousness are sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touches & mental objects that are citta. for example, a thought is citta. anger is citta. that which knows a thought or experiences anger is consciousness. anger is not consciousness. thought is not consciousness

buddha taught about five aggregates. thought is sankhara aggregate. anger is sankhara aggregate. consciousness is consciousness aggregate. thought is not consciousness aggregate; anger is not consciousness aggregate; citta is not conscious aggregate

Walpola Rahula may be a famous Pali scholar but his understanding of citta is tenuous

person

a problem arising here is buddha taught consciousness is sense awareness, i.e., seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching & mental cognition. "citta" is not a type of consciousness but, instead, is an object of consciousness

objects of consciousness are sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touches & mental objects that are citta. for example, a thought is citta. anger is citta. that which knows a thought or experiences anger is consciousness. anger is not consciousness. thought is not consciousness

buddha taught about five aggregates. thought is sankhara aggregate. anger is sankhara aggregate. consciousness is consciousness aggregate. thought is not consciousness aggregate; anger is not consciousness aggregate; citta is not conscious aggregate

Walpola Rahula may be a famous Pali scholar but his understanding of citta is tenuous

Thanks for this. In the Tibetan tradition the Yogacara school is taught but its not considered the best understanding. That belongs to Madhyamika taught by Nagarjuna so its nice to hear an explanation of why that might be, particularly from a Theravada perspective.