If bardo is a state of consciousness, then apparently consciousness is still arising, when it is in bardo state, not "between death and rebirth".rachmiel wrote:What about bardo:Kaccāni wrote:There is no between death and rebirth, particularly not time and space, as time and space only exist between rebirth and death.
A state of existence between death and rebirth, varying in length according to a person's conduct in life and manner of, or age at, death.
?
Bardo is a state that is debatable, not all schools will agree that it exists. From a shravaka perspective, it is pointless, a later invention. Nevertheless, it does not make any difference with regard to the problem.
You're thinking of rebirth of a "physical body", when the sperm meets the egg or when "the baby is delivered". That's neither the rebirth of consciousness nor the samsaric rebirth that has been adressed earlier. The only thing that appears to be is, that a notion of a body must be there, if you want as a secondary means (following dzogchen), or as a necessary precondition (following Theravada), for consciousness to express. You may say that when sperm, egg and consciousness meet, that it then will regain the possibility to express itself, and conventionally call that rebirth too. But what's the point in that? If counsciousness is there, it is there, if it is not, then "it is not". Where is consciousness in deep sleep? Nowhere.
The problem here appears to be, that it is difficult to imagine "nothing". The same question arises in science when people start to ask "what was before the big bang"?, not realizing, that if in that theory the big bang unfolds space time, there is no "before". You may only ask "why" did it happen. Why does consciousness arise again. The quantum scientist says: Because there is probability. The Buddhist says: Because of karma. Rather think of how it works that a certain kind of consciousness arises and don't be so obsessed with bodies
Best wishes
Kc