What is reborn after death?

[Red Spinifex]

Well high Red Spinifex ! Welcome to DharmaWheel.

Hi, Wayfarer! And thanks, tiger. Good to be here. Red

[Jampel]

That's a good question.
From Consciousness, Mind arises "as is", this is why all can be Buddhas. Mind "as is" would be the Subtle Mind. The Subtle Mind has an imprint, which can be altered through Wrong View, when it's altered you get the lower Realms. Mind and Consciousness deal with Quantum Physics. The Coarse Mind is the obstacle that becomes absorbed into the Dream. Reborn after death? nothing, for Consciousness is beyond "Life and Death", only when Samsara ends, does Consciousness end or if you become a Hungry Ghost. One has told a Tenzin that only the Dharma that deals with liberation should be taught, for it can be tested, as long as you test it, should not have to think about what is beyond life.

[Grigoris]

Being of the intermediate state is reborn. It is called "gandharva" or "gandhabba" in the Sravakayana sutras/suttas. It is mentioned in the sutras, but all of the early schools did not accept it.

What? A gandharva is a class of beings. Not all sentient beings arise as gandharva. Do you mean as an embryo (Amagarbha)?

[humble.student]

Being of the intermediate state is reborn. It is called "gandharva" or "gandhabba" in the Sravakayana sutras/suttas. It is mentioned in the sutras, but all of the early schools did not accept it.

What? A gandharva is a class of beings. Not all sentient beings arise as gandharva. Do you mean as an embryo (Amagarbha)?

I think antarabhāva is meant.

[Aemilius]

Being of the intermediate state is reborn. It is called "gandharva" or "gandhabba" in the Sravakayana sutras/suttas. It is mentioned in the sutras, but all of the early schools did not accept it.

What? A gandharva is a class of beings. Not all sentient beings arise as gandharva. Do you mean as an embryo (Amagarbha)?

A History of Indian Buddhism from Shakyamuni to Early Mahayana ( Hirakawa Akira & Paul Groner) on page 175 says: "During the period between death and the next birth, a being is said to exist as a spirit composed of subtle types of the five skandhas (aggregates). It is called a gandharva and must wander and search for the place of its next birth.
The Sarvastivadin School recognized the existence of the antarabhava; however, the majority of the schools of Nikaya Buddhism argued against the recognition of the state between lives."
Gandhabba is mentioned in this sense (of an intermediate state being) in the Assalayana sutta.

[Malcolm]

Being of the intermediate state is reborn. It is called "gandharva" or "gandhabba" in the Sravakayana sutras/suttas. It is mentioned in the sutras, but all of the early schools did not accept it.

What? A gandharva is a class of beings. Not all sentient beings arise as gandharva. Do you mean as an embryo (Amagarbha)?

A being in the bardo is also called a gandharva, not the same thing as the nonhuman beings called gandharvas.

[Grigoris]

Oh, I didn't know this. I thought it referred only to the class of beings. Thank you to both of you for the info.

[clyde]

"During the period between death and the next birth, a being is said to exist as a spirit composed of subtle types of the five skandhas (aggregates).

Did the Buddha give any teachings about “the period between death and the next birth” or about “a spirit composed of subtle types of the five skandhas (aggregates)”?

[amanitamusc]

"During the period between death and the next birth, a being is said to exist as a spirit composed of subtle types of the five skandhas (aggregates).

Did the Buddha give any teachings about “the period between death and the next birth” or about “a spirit composed of subtle types of the five skandhas (aggregates)”?

Well abhidharmakosa is part of the tripitaka,Buddhadharma.It covers the aggregates.

[clyde]

I’m asking whether there are suttas or sutras where it is reported that Gautama Buddha gave a teaching on “the period between death and the next birth” or about “a spirit composed of subtle types of the five skandhas (aggregates)”?

[Wayfarer]

Whether or not that idea is present in the nikayas, the book which Aemilius referred to is available almost in entirety in Google Books, and the specific page referred to can be found here. It seems a sound scholarly work. From a very quick perusal, what is being presented is the traditional Buddhist cosmology which contains a lot of detail that is not found in the suttas or sutras themselves. And it does note, at the foot of page 176, that not all the schools recognise the existence of an intermediate state, but that the Sarvastivadins did.

[clyde]

I’m not doubting their work. But they don’t offer any references to suttas. They say, “The description of Buddhist cosmology in the following pages is based on the “Chapter on the World” from the Abhidharmakosa.” (page 170)

No sutta/sutra?

I get that great Buddhist teachers followed Gautama Buddha and added to Buddhist teachings. But there is a distinction to a teaching in a sutta or sutra.

[WeiHan]

Buddhism teaches us about Anatta. But what reborns then, if there is no Atta? Conciousness (vijñāna-skandha)?

1)There being something that is reborn is the mistaken perception held by all unenlightened beings.
2)There being no birth for any phenomena, objects including self is the view that can be derived through thorough Madhyamika analysis.

why so?

The view of Madhyamika of all phenomena is something akin to the old type of tape based film show which comprise of stationary, unrelated scenes but when move through at a faster speed looks like same objects moving through and forming a stories.

Madhyamika in essence held that all phenomena are mere appearance due to the coming together of causes and conditions similar to the stationary moment in the tape of the old movie film. What follows is even more important which most people miss out mentioning. This mere appearance which appears through the coming of causes and conditions at that moment only "exist" at that moment. The "same object" that seems to continue to "exist" in the next moment is actually not the same object that "existed" in the prior moment. They are the mere appearances which appear due to the coming together of new set of causes and conditions at the later moment.

That, I think, is the gist of it but due to my language ability, I am not able to elaborate more.

[amanitamusc]

I’m not doubting their work. But they don’t offer any references to suttas. They say, “The description of Buddhist cosmology in the following pages is based on the “Chapter on the World” from the Abhidharmakosa.” (page 170)

No sutta/sutra?

I get that great Buddhist teachers followed Gautama Buddha and added to Buddhist teachings. But there is a distinction to a teaching in a sutta or sutra.

Do you believe Shakyamuni Buddha taught only sutra?

[Wayfarer]

Madhyamika in essence held that all phenomena are mere appearance.

Indeed, the word 'phenomena' actually means 'what appears'. I think you're heading in the right direction, but the difficulty is there are very many subtleties involved in the way the word 'exist' is used in this context. As you know, the 'two extreme views' are 'it is', on the one hand, and 'it is not', on the other. So whilst it's true that 'phenomena don't truly exist', it is also true that they are not simply non-existent. To say they are non-existent is the 'error of nihilism'. Neither truly is, nor truly is not. This provides the key to understanding the common response by Buddhists in answer to the question: 'who is re-born?' They will often reply 'are you the same person you were when you were five?' ('No'.) 'Then are you a different person?' ('No'.) 'It is like that', they will say.

I get that great Buddhist teachers followed Gautama Buddha and added to Buddhist teachings. But there is a distinction to a teaching in a sutta or sutra.

To my knowledge, there is not much written in the nikayas themselves (that is, recorded sayings and sutras) on the specifics of re-birth; the teachings themselves are very general (or 'high level' as we would say nowadays). It is in the commentarial tradition and the Abhidharma, and those kinds of texts, in which many of the detailed discussions are found.

[humble.student]

I’m asking whether there are suttas or sutras where it is reported that Gautama Buddha gave a teaching on “the period between death and the next birth” or about “a spirit composed of subtle types of the five skandhas (aggregates)”?

Yes, in the Garbhavakrantisutra, (the Sutra on entry into the womb).

[WeiHan]

Madhyamika in essence held that all phenomena are mere appearance.

Indeed, the word 'phenomena' actually means 'what appears'. I think you're heading in the right direction, but the difficulty is there are very many subtleties involved in the way the word 'exist' is used in this context. As you know, the 'two extreme views' are 'it is', on the one hand, and 'it is not', on the other. So whilst it's true that 'phenomena don't truly exist', it is also true that they are not simply non-existent. To say they are non-existent is the 'error of nihilism'. Neither truly is, nor truly is not. This provides the key to understanding the common response by Buddhists in answer to the question: 'who is re-born?' They will often reply 'are you the same person you were when you were five?' ('No'.) 'Then are you a different person?' ('No'.) 'It is like that', they will say.

The "mere appearance" which has no birth, no death, no coming, no going etc.. is not that difficult to understand by using the analogy of dream. In the dream, there may appear to be someone giving birth, someone dying, someone coming from this place to that place etc...but is there really birth taking place? a person moving from one place to another? a person dying? etc..when we wakeup, we know that these appearances just isn't there but yet we can't deny the experience..I think this is how this helps understand the view.

[Aemilius]

"During the period between death and the next birth, a being is said to exist as a spirit composed of subtle types of the five skandhas (aggregates).

Did the Buddha give any teachings about “the period between death and the next birth” or about “a spirit composed of subtle types of the five skandhas (aggregates)”?

The being of the intermediate state is mentioned more than ten times in Abhidharmakosha, and yes at least one sutra is referred to in this context, Saptabhava sutra, which must belong to the Agamas. Sravasti Dhammika mentions a sutta in the Nikayas which says that the attainment of nibbana is possible in the in-between state. ( In his Guide to Buddhism A2Z). So it seems quite evident that it was taught by the Tathgata.

[WeiHan]

The moment before can never give birth to the later moment because they can never "meet" (i.e meet meaning they appear together at the same time). At a moment ago, this moment has not existed yet, thus we can't talk about birth. Then, as explained above, the two moments can never have a chance to appear concurrently because it will be bizarre. Every possibility is impossible. Thus, there can never be birth taking place. we can't say nothing existed either. The only manner to understand is that the last and present moments are mere appearances based on differing causes and conditions that existed at the two moments separately.

[Admin_PC]

I’m asking whether there are suttas or sutras where it is reported that Gautama Buddha gave a teaching on “the period between death and the next birth” or about “a spirit composed of subtle types of the five skandhas (aggregates)”?

In addition to the Sūtra referenced by humble.student there’s also this one:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Particularly Birth & Growth of a Being section.