Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
After death
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Reincarnation seems to imply that after you die your eternally present soul is reincarnated in a new body.
While, traditionally at least, rebirth seems to be that after you die the momentary acts of consciousness that were already being born and dieing while you were alive continue. On account of craving the mind holds on to this presently existing organism so long as it lives. But when death occurs the present organism can no longer provide the basis for obtaining pleasure through the sense faculties. However, there is still the craving for the world of sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touches and ideas. So due to this craving for existence, consciousness (the mindstream) lets go of this body and grasps hold of a new body, a fertilized egg. Thats my limited understanding of it anyway.'
Keith
"In the mind of the dying person there takes place a final thought - moment called the "death consciousness", which signals the complete end of the life. Then, following the death consciousness, there arises the first citta of the next life which springs up with the newly formed physical organism as its basis. The first citta of the new life continues the stream of consciousness which has passed out of the deceased body. The stream of consciousness is not a single entity, but a process, and the process continues. When the stream of cittas passes on to the next life it carries the storage of impressions along with it."
The key that distinguished rebirth from reincarnation is this:
Reincarnation: a permanent soul, a conscious entity which transmigrates from one body to another
Rebirth: a stream of consciousness that is not a single entity, but a process, and the process continues from one body to another
Keith
""Only characteristics continue, because they continue in the human race.""
If you look closer at these sentences (below) there is a conflict between what you wrote and what Bikkhu Bodhi states.
""But when death occurs the present organism can no longer provide the basis for obtaining pleasure through the sense faculties... So due to this craving for existence, consciousness (the mindstream) lets go of this body and grasps hold of a new body, a fertilized egg.""
The contradiction isn't subtle.
As well Im curious what you think about this:
Reincarnation: a permanent soul, a conscious entity which transmigrates from one body to another
Rebirth: a stream of consciousness that is not a single entity, but a process, and the process continues from one body to another
and
a soul: a single, permanent entity
stream of consciousness: constantly changing process, comprised of a series of individual mental processes
These two concepts are completely opposite.
My understanding [which I'm sure that you'll disagree with] is that the Buddha was talking about two different things. The first form Right View [with fermentations] is needed for one to be lead to, and consequently realize, the second [without fermentation]. That's why he calls his Path a gradual path url=http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/khuddaka/udana/ud5-05.html]Ud V.5[/url. Also, if this wasn't [literally] true at all, why does the Buddha not simply reject "spontaneously reborn beings" as being a wrong view? Why is it considered among the two forms of Right View along with "there are priests & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves."?
If the first form of Right View [with fermentations] wasn't an important part of the Path, then he would not have included it as a part of Right View at all. That is very important in my opinion, because in his teaching on dependent origination he asserts that as long as there is avijja (ignorance) present, there will always be a continuation of this cyclic existence known as samara (cycle of existence/becoming). To me, this doesn't just apply to the present life, because if that were the case, at the time of death there would be nothing more--no more suffering, no rebirth, no existence whatsoever.
If there is nothing after death, why even practice then? What besides the doctrines of kamma and rebirth gives us any motivation, or even reason to follow such a Path? If at death there was nothing more to experience in any way, shape, or form, why wouldn't the Buddha simply teach that as a part of his doctrine? Clearly, in the Suttas, the Buddha does not teach this. He quite often mentions death, rebirth, beings spontaneously being reborn after death, destiniatons, states, realms, etc. If there is no such things as literal rebirth in the Buddha's Path, why did he speak of his own past lives, and the varied destinations of others that died?:
The Buddha did not seem like a simple secular materialist, humanist, eternalist, or annihilationist to me. There was definitely a specific purpose to his teachings, the elimination of dukkha, but his doctrine of rebirth also included dukkha in future lives as well [at the dissollution of the body, at death...]. And, as a result, it was only until the direct cause of this [avijja] was finally conquered and destroyed by wisdom that lasting peace was to be found [not simply at death itself].
I also wonder [due to this current train of thought], why would the Buddha not simply agree with the Jains if he did not teach literal rebirth? They would often starve themselves to death in the belief that they would produce no negative kamma in the act while ending their own suffering [at death]. [As ridiculous as it sounds to us today, back then it was a very common belief.] If there was no possiblitly of any further existence whatsoever, why condemn those that simple "ended their own suffering by taking their own lives"? The Buddha does not teach this, in fact he outrightly rejects their practices.
If there is no literal rebirth, then what does it matter what we do or how we do it? You might say that it affects others, but that is not always the case. If this were true, an orphan with no friends or family could simply kill himself to relieve his own suffering. Nobody would even know or care if he was gone. So, who would he be hurting? What makes this act not appropriate? In Buddhism [so I've been taught], the reason is rebirth. The cycle of becoming doesn't end until avijja is destroyed [i.e. at Enlightenement/Awakening], not even at death. That is why the Buddha speaks of countless lifetimes wandering in samsara, until the direct cause for this was removed. With avijja, there is always going to be a condition for birth--in this life, and the next, and the next, and so on.
One interesting reference I give for this is the Suttas in which the Buddha says to Sariputta:
The reason that the Buddha said Channa [who killed himself out of great physical pain] was faultless in his actions was that he had achieved the Goal prior to his decision. If he were to have ended his life before realizing the doctrine of anatta (not-self), he would have been characterized as blameworthy by the Buddha. [This is known because previously in this Sutta, Channa was thoroughly questioned about anatta, and upon answering correctly he was said to have "declared his faultlessness".]
I have a hundred more questions and references to add, but why don't we just focus on these first. Perhaps I can gain a better understanding of what you're trying to say, and the evidence that you are using to come to these conclusions. So, you may begin to tell me how incorrect I am [and please give us actually references for this as well, not just my own stupidity since this isn't a debate]...
Jason
The last paragraph has already been posted.
BUDDHISM AND HINDUISM COMPARED
The word "Samsara" means literally "continuing on", "wandering on". It signifies the repetitive cycle of birth, ageing, death and rebirth.
Now though Buddhism and Hinduism share the concept of rebirth, the Buddhist concept differs in details from the Hindu doctrine. The doctrine of rebirth as understood in Hinduism involves a permanent soul, a conscious entity which transmigrates from one body to another. The soul inhabits a given body and at death, the soul casts that body off and goes on to assume another body. The famous Hindu classic, the Bhagavad Gita, compares this to a man who might take off one suit of clothing and put on another. The man remains the same but the suits of clothing are different. In the same way the soul remains the same but the psycho-physical organism it takes up differs from life to life.
The Buddhist term for rebirth in Pali is "punabbhava" which means "again existence". Buddhism sees rebirth not as the transmigration of a conscious entity but as the repeated occurrence of the process of existence. There is a continuity, a transmission of influence, a causal connection between one life and another. But there is no soul, no permanent entity which transmigrates from one life to another.
I hope that I'm behaving better today.
I have had an ample amount of sleep.
Jason
Like a wheel within a wheel.
Never ending or beginning,
On an ever spinning wheel
Like a snowball down a mountain
Or a carnaval balloon
Like a carousell that's turning
Running rings around the moon
Like a clock whose hands are sweeping
Past the minutes on it's face
And the world is like an apple
Whirling silently in space
Like the circles that you find
In the windmills of your mind
Like a tunnel that you follow
To a tunnel of it's own
Down a hollow to a cavern
Where the sun has never shone
Like a door that keeps revolving
In a half forgotten dream
Or the ripples from a pebble
Someone tosses in a stream......"
Fede, what is this? I love it. I want to memorize it and use it whenever my brain goes spiraling.
Refractorist,
Thank you. I find this post, #109, most helpful.
""Rebirth: a stream of consciousness that is not a single entity, but a process, and the process continues from one body to another.""
This is ok as long as "not a single entity" is clearly percieved. The problem with the language is that "continues from one body to another" is easily misinterpreted as reincarnation.
IMO "stream of conciousness" is not the most skillful of terms. An exegesis will not be provided however because it's not the worst thing that has ever been heard.
http://g.msn.com/9SE/1?http://www.ladyjayes.com/windmills.html&&DI=293&IG=c098184a3b0c4b6589facf156a3adde9&POS=1&CM=WPU&CE=1&CS=AWP&SR=1
Yes, a casual connection between one life and another no soul, no permanent entity which transmigrates from one life to another. That is the Buddha's doctrine of rebirth, and it doesn't not say anywhere that eveything simply stops at death. You cannot use that quote to prove much of anything besides the absence of a permanent soul [which nobody here has even implied in the first place]. I wonder, and this is important albeit personal, have you actually ever soken to the Venerable Bhikkhu? Do you know what his teachings on rebirth are [besides this one reference]? Have you ever attended a Dhamma talk or lecture my him? What is being said here is quite vague, and quite possibly taking his words out of context. Just a thought, as I have heard a student of his describe him as being in favor of literal rebirth. I do not know myself, as I have not had the pleasure of meeting him.
Jason
Because they're not "wrong view." They're simply not "right view without fermentation," meaning that they do not lead to cessation of dukkha. They are not part of the path, as your own quote clearly stated.
Incidentally, you are in error, in the above, if you think that the "two forms of right view" are as you suggested there. The "two forms of right view" are with and without fermentations, and only the latter are stated to be part of the eightfold path.
My friend, that simply avoids the question. They are still counted among Right View. My question is, why are they there? Why are they specifically mentioned and counted among Right View at all? Please explain this to me.
Jason
I would love to here you explain and give references from the Buddha or other realized persons why a process does not and can not grasp.
Keith
Keith
But not as part of the path. Read it all again. It's very clear.
And the Blessed One having dwelt some time in Uruvela went forth to Rajagaha,
accompanied by a great number of bhikkhus, many of whom had been Jatilas before;
and the great Kassapa, chief of the Jatilas and formerly a fireworshipper, went with him. [1]
When the Magadha king, Seniya Bimbisara, heard of the arrival of Gotama Sakyamuni,
of whom the people said, "He is the Holy One, the blessed Buddha,
guiding men as a driver curbs bullocks, the teacher of high and low,"
he went out surrounded with his counsellors and generals
and came to the grove where the Blessed One was. [2]
There they saw the Blessed One in the company of Kassapa,
the great religious teacher of the Jatilas,
and they were astonished and thought:
"Has the great Sakyamuni placed himself under the spiritual direction of Kassapa,
or has Kassapa become a disciple of Gotama?" [3]
And the Tathagata, reading the thoughts of the people, said to Kassapa:
"What knowledge hast thou gained, O Kassapa,
and what has induced thee to renounce the sacred fire
and give up thine austere penances?" [4]
Kassapa said:
"The profit I derived from adoring the fire
was continuance in the wheel of individuality
with all its sorrows and vanities.
This service I have cast away,
and instead of continuing penances and sacrifices
I have gone in quest of the highest Nirvana.
Since I have seen the light of truth,
I have abandoned worshipping the fire." [5]
The Buddha, perceiving that the whole assembly
was ready as a vessel to receive the doctrine,
spoke thus to Bimbisara the king: [6]
"He who knows the nature of self
and understands how the senses act,
finds no room for selfishness,
and thus he will attain peace unending.
The world holds the thought of self,
and from this arises false apprehension. [7]
"Some say that the self endures after death, some say it perishes.
Both are wrong and their error is most grievous. [8]
"For if they say the self is perishable,
the fruit they strive for will perish too,
and at some time there will be no hereafter.
Good and evil would be indifferent.
This salvation from selfishness is without merit. [9]
"When some, on the other hand,
say the self will not perish,
then in the midst of all life and death
there is but one identity unborn and undying.
If such is their self,
then it is perfect and cannot be perfected by deeds.
The lasting, imperishable self could never be changed.
The self would be lord and master,
and there would be no use in perfecting the perfect;
moral aims and salvation would be unnecessary. [10]
"But now we see the marks of joy and sorrow.
Where is any constancy?
If there is no permanent self that does our deeds,
then there is no self;
there is no actor behind our actions,
no perceiver behind our perception,
no lord behind our deeds. [11]
Because the process IS grasping, that is what it is, not what it does.
Edit: See the "Sermon At Rajagha" above.
Does it or does it not?
Keith
Perhaps you also need to read this Sutta, in its entirety. For example, it also says:
Now, are you to tell my that being resolved on renunciation, on freedom from ill will, on harmlessness is not part of the Path? That would be silly now wouldn't it? If renunciation wasn't important to the Path, there would be no Sangha in the first place. The Buddha would have no order of renunciated monks to practice the Noble Eightfold Path. They are of two sorts, one mundane and the either supramundane, but both equally important. One is needed before the other can be realized. The becoming mentioned here is a skillful becoming that leads to the Noble factors of the Path. We don't simply start off "transcendent" and "without fermentation". That is the whole purpose of the Path.
Jason
Does it or does it not?""
"Only characteristic continue..." you can take that anyway you want it. I do not neccessarily see any disagreement.
"If there is no permanent, unchanging entity or substance like Self or Soul, what is it that can re-exist or be reborn after death? Before we go on to life after death, let us consider what this life is, and how it continues now. What we call life, as we have so often repeated, is the combination of the Five Aggregates, a combination of physical and mental energies. These are constantly changing; they do not remain the same for two consecutive moments. Every moment they are born and they die. 'When the Aggregates arise, decay and die, O bhikku, every moment you are born, decay and die.'* Thus, even now during this life time, every moment we are born and die, but we continue. If we can understand that in this life we can continue without a permanent, unchanging substance life Self or Soul, why can't we understand that those forces themselves can continue without a Self or Soul behind them after the non-funtioning of the body?
When this physical body is no more capable of funtioning, energies do not die with it, but continue to take some othe shape or form, which we call another life.
*This is a quote from the Paramattbajotika Commentary as the Buddha's own words."
Keith
"Helps" is hardly the word. Not only is this language easily misinterpreted as reincarnation but intellectual appreciation is just more suffering.
Keith
Understood, but while the "mundane" is preparatory to the path, it is not the path! It is to be let go of.
"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.
"The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones... discerns what ideas are fit for attention, and what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas unfit for attention, and attends [instead] to ideas fit for attention... He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at precepts & practices."
— MN 2
Or, as seen somewhere around here...
"Sabbe dhamma nalam abhinivesaya."
The heart of the Buddha's teachings can be summarized in this one statement.
"Nothing whatsoever should be clung to."
There is no point in arguing about this, all one needs to do is read some posts around here to see the confusion. And besides, intellectual appreciation has nothing to do with the cessation of suffering. This point is the only one that matters.
I never suggested that we should cling to anything.
I also never attended to any of those ideas that are unfit for attention my good isoptera. All I ever attended to was showing that the Buddha taught rebirth. I think I have shown that very well. I have given numerous discourses to prove my point. Find me one passage where the Buddha states that there is no rebirth, there is no sponataneously reborn beings, there are no other realms of existence [even though he taught about thirty-one*], or there is nothing awaiting a person after death except non-existence. What I have been saying and offering for review in regards to the doctrine of rebirth is the very same thing that the Venerable Walpola has stated in his book:
So, I believe that I have nothing further to add to this discussion. People may certainly take what is written in the Suttas and decide for themselves what they wish to practice, and what they wish to believe. It is not my intention to change that, it is only my intention to change the mistaken assumption that the Buddha's doctrine of rebirth was not taught. Have fun if you all wish to continue on with this discussion, I am off to be spontaneously reborn in the kama-loka of Cinema 9 to see Underworld: Evolution!
Jason
* For more, please see The Thirty-one Planes of Existence
I agree, I never intented to argue or debate about anything. I only wanted to see what you thought about this particular subject - I admit for purely intellectual curiousity (for what else can you hope to get from an internet discussion board). I find it very interesting to hear in detail what people believe about the world and especially what they think about the Dharma. So, in firm agreement with Jason, I too see the line of this discussion going nowhere else. With that, I bid you adeu.
Keith
Nor was it suggested that you suggested that.
The point is that if "mundane" Right View is a precursor to the path (and there's no argument about that), then those views are to be dropped in order to actually walk the path. Otherwise, one does "cling" to the "fermentations."
In the case of views of rebirth, the specific danger is the risk of clinging to the "thicket of views" of "self" as mentioned in MN 2.
Incidentally (or perhaps not so incidentally!), while this raving fool will argue firmly against the formation of concrete views regarding "rebirth," that is not to be taken as evidence of belief that rebirth is not a fact. Whether the Buddha taught rebirth or not, the fact of it, as discussed in your "Walpola" quote, can be readily observed to be true. In fact, it's inevitable, given the truths of anatta and karma.
It's been nice debating with you.
Martin.
I apologize, we did get kinda off topic didn't we? The only thing I can really say is that rebirth is a non-personal process of becoming. It is merely cause and effect. There is no "causer", just the actions that produce the effect. People simply mistake the mind's nature of awareness to be something more than it is. It’s always good to remember that just because the mind can be aware of things [be conscious of sensory experience] doesn't mean that the it is anything but cause and effect. It is simply the mind's nature to think and be aware, just like it is the nature of frozen water to be solid and cold.
In modern terms, kamma (intentional actions) are causes. Vipaka (results) are effects. So, we can safely say that causes have effects. This is a continuous process of causation. One thing happens to condition another thing to happen which conditions yet another thing to happen etc. No real beginning can be discerned, and no real ending [until the Buddha discovered one
Mind is immaterial, so it's not like you can "see" it or "measure" it. This makes it hard for people to believe that what the mind does has any real, tangible effect. Who knows what kinds of effects a mind can cause. How much impact can just a single thought truly have? This is where certain people just assume that it has none, while others explore the possibility that it may have more than we realize. In Buddhist thought, we [sentient being composed of mind and matter] are also a process, a process that continues on for as long as the conditions are present. Each action by body, speech, and mind carries its own momentum that continues this process--birth, ageing, sickness, dearth, birth, ageing, sickness, death, birth, etc. Round, and round, and round it goes, where it stops… some say death [annihilationism], some say never [eternalism], and some say until the causes are destroyed [Middle Way]!
The Buddha teaches that we can stop producing kamma [intentional action] and defeat the seemingly endless process of causation. This is where it gets a little confusing, though. We are so used to being this entity called a person that we have a false view of self attached to it. You may intellectually think "Oh, I known I'm not the body. I know it'll die one day.", but once you stub you toe you yell "Ow, I stubbed my toe!". You forget that you're not the body really quickly. This applies to every aspect of the mind/body. Avijja (ignorance) blinds us to what the truth really is. What truth? The truth that we are just a conditional phenomenon. We are not a soul wrapped up in a fleshy sac, we are not a mind harboring a body, we are not a body harboring a mind; in fact, there is no we at all. “We" are just a construct of mind/matter, various elements, aggregates, cells, atoms, or whatever you wish to break us down into. Each piece is a condition building upon another condition until you have a “human being” [or “animal”, or “devas”, or “whatever]. We are simply just that. Avijja, however, keeps us in the dark to this. Even if we hear the words that we are just like all other things [unsatisfactory, impermanent, and not-self] we will just nod our heads and continue on with living the lie.
We really play the part. We feel, think, and believe that we are “Jason”, or “Martin”, or a “man”, or a “person”, etc. We simply associate, and cling to those associations as a “self”. We are deluded into thinking, speaking, and acting with craving due to this false sense of self. Once this ignorance is removed and replaced with panna (wisdom), however, the cycle can be broken because it is seen for what really it is. The idea of self will be complete uprooted, and our actions will no longer be carried out under the momentum of craving. The intention part of the equation will have been removed, so the actions themselves do not produce any more effects towards becoming. The process of becoming is essentially ended.
I apologize once again if this doesn't make any sense, or shows a gross lack of knowledge about what the Buddha taught. Words are a poor substitute for direct knowledge and insight into this amazing doctrine, and my pathetic attempts hardly do it justice. However, I do hope that this attempt has at least helped to give you a small sense of the basic idea.
Jason
You're welcome! I feel the same way.
Now, as to the Buddhist belief that one's very last thought somehow creates the next lifetime, I suppose if that is one's belief, then rebirth would be different than reincarnation. But I had never heard of such a thing until about a year or so ago, and it appears to be strictly a Buddhist thing. However, as far as what continues from lifetime to lifetime, I think we're merely talking semantics when we speak of "soul" and "mindstream." At least, that's my take on it, for what it's worth, and not necessarily what Buddhists might think. :winkc:
What I have found surprising is how many Buddhists have not explored their past lives. And since "wisdom erases karma," I would think most Buddhists would want to explore their past lives in order to work through the karmic patterns they are dealing with in this lifetime. It's not that difficult to do. In fact, I used to be involved with group past life regressions back in the late '70s, and I found that to be especially interesting, since so much more could be verified that way.
I have not ever had spontaneous memory recall as some children have, and instead have had to use meditation and self-hypnosis. But I did have a friend whose little boy had spontaneous recall when he was about 5 years old. He was playing with his toys one day and telling his mother (my friend) about when he was a cowboy. He talked about being married and having kids, and then he paused and said, "But that was before I knew you, Mommy." Which of course freaked her out, since she didn't believe in reincarnation at all!
Trying to identitfy and label "who", "what", "when", "where", and "why" in regards to this process often causes a great deal of confusion. That is why I personally hate to even attempt to explain it. I tremble at the very mention of that aweful question, "Can you explain rebith?" Yikes!!!
*cue me running out of the room*
To tell you the truth, I also believed [and used in my explanations] that it was our consciousness that travelled or conditioned the next existence, but in a correct Buddhist view, saying this is absolutely incorrect. In the Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta*, the Buddha expressly refutes the assumption that it is simply consciousness that continues from lifetime to lifetime:
Unfortunately, in my own personal studies of Buddhism, I have found that semantics can play a very important role in the proper understanding of finer points of Dhamma. Wrong views can easily arise with one wrong word or phrase. That is why I always encourage others to take the time and read as many passages as they can in conjuntion with their meditation practice. In my opinion, it is the only proper way to explore and understand these profound teachings. Relying on others to interpret their meanings for you can cause a lot more vexation and stress than actual understanding.
Jason
* Note: When I first read this Sutta, I thought "Damn, every explanation I've ever used to explain rebirth had that in it... uh oh..." :sadc:
I think your explanation was the clearest I've ever read and has really helped me grasp the important finer points. You gotta keep doing what you're doing here. I receive it in gratitude.
I'm still ignorant of exactly what passes on to the next human body, whether it is "mindstream" and the effects of my actions, or whether the effects of my actions are imprinted on the "mindstream", or whether "consciousness" and effects are imprinted on "mindstream" or any combination thereof or something completely different. What I DO understand is that ego and personality (and perhaps most of the awareness of being "Brigid") do not. No, that's wrong as well. Because some people remember who and how they were in past lives. Maybe memory can be imprinted as well. Or maybe it's different for different people. Like some people being able to clearly recall their dreams while others can't. I don't know anything!!! LOL! O.K. Here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to continue to study this issue because I have a feeling of urgency that it may be important (Brigid, don't trust "feelings"!), continue to practice in order to gain experiential knowledge and simply live my life trying to be the most effective process I can be.
This is a disjointed post. Sorry. Not well thought out.
As to the hijacking, I understand now why debate in this forum is useless. It threw us off the path, distracted us and created divisiveness. Exactly what the Buddha told us NOT to do.
Brigid,
The psychological process of becoming and understanding of the fact that our intentions affect future generations is all that "rebirth" points to. Buddha wasn't trying to confuse you or anyone else.
TOPIC: After Death
OFF TOPIC: He said/she said/i'm smart/you're dumb/debate/semantics
Please keep this on topic.
I apologize. I wasn't trying to imply that you were wrong as much as I was just offering what I have recently learned in my own studies. I believe that the main point is not to even try and speculate "who", "what", "when", "where", and "why" in regards to this process. Any such idea is possibly a threat for us to be clung to as a subtle view of "self". That is why direct insight into the process itself [developed during meditation] is needed.
Brigid,
That is supposedly the big secret: Nothing passes on from one life to another.
Brian,
Excellect reminder that we all should be more mindful.
Jason
No problem, Jason. I was just worried I missed something somewhere and wanted to make sure I was clear on things!