Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
The question 'what' or 'who' is exactly pointed out by Buddha to be
irrelevant, false from the beginning.
In other words -- the question cannot be asked that way, because to
say 'what' or 'who' presumes there must be an existent entity or
self behind rebirth, but in reality no such entity can be found. In
Buddhism, there is no such thing as an existing soul or atman that
'passes on' to the next life.
Rather, the Buddha say, it should be correctly asked 'Why', or
"With what as condition is there birth?'
And the answer for that is very simple. There is birth, i.e.
suffering, because of affliction and action. As long as the
aggregates are afflicted, afflicted aggregates will continue to be
appropriated.
And the primary affliction/delusion is the conceit of 'I am', and
this is the '7th Consciousness', and it is this conditioned by the
karmic propensities of the 8th Consciousness that drives
rebirth.
In Madhyamaka it is explained
there is birth because of the innate self-grasping "I am" appearing
to the afflicted mind. It is asserted that what appropriates birth
in a new series of aggregates is the mental habit "I am." That "I
am" is baseless, has no correspondence in the aggregates or
seperate from them or in any one of them, just as a car is not
found in its parts, seperate from them, or in any one of the parts.
Nevertheless, the imputation "car" allows us to use cars
effectively. Likewise, the mental habit "I am" is proper as both
the agent of action and the object upon which it ripens even though
it is basically unreal and has no basis in the aggregates, outside
the aggregates, or in any one of them, but allows us to treat the
aggreates as a nominally designated "person".
But to be more technical, the Buddha taught the 12 Dependent links
of Origination which is founded on the principle of Dependent
Arising.
Note how in each case the Buddha rejects the question of 'Who' or
'What' as an assumption that is fundamentally wrong, and insteads,
inform the questioner of what he ought to have asked: "With what as
condition...?" and finally "With what as condition is there birth?"
(note that birth = 'becoming' in Pali terms)
The full sutra is here:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.012.nypo.html
[b]Phagguna Sutta
"There are, O monks, four nutriments for the sustenance of beings
born, and for the support of beings seeking birth. What are the
four? Edible food, coarse and fine; secondly, sense-impression;
thirdly, volitional thought; fourthly, consciousness."
After these words, the venerable Moliya-Phagguna addressed the
Exalted One as follows:
"Who, O Lord, consumes1 the nutriment consciousness?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say
that 'he consumes.'2 If I had said so, then the question 'Who
consumes?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus,
the correct way to ask the question will be: 'For what is the
nutriment consciousness (the condition)?'3 And to that the correct
reply is: 'The nutriment consciousness4 is a condition for the
future arising of a renewed existence;5 when that has come into
being, there is (also) the sixfold sense-base; and conditioned by
the sixfold sense-base is sense-impression.'"6
"Who, O Lord, has a sense-impression?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One.
"I do not say that 'he has a sense-impression.' Had I said so, then
the question 'Who has a sense-impression?' would be appropriate.
But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question
will be 'What is the condition of sense-impression?' And to that
the correct reply is: 'The sixfold sense-base is a condition of
sense-impression, and sense-impression is the condition of
feeling.'"
"Who, O Lord, feels?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say
that 'he feels.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who feels?'
would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct
way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of feeling?'
And to that the correct reply is: 'sense-impression is the
condition of feeling; and feeling is the condition of
craving.'"
"Who, O Lord, craves?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say
that 'he craves.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who craves?'
would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct
way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of craving?'
And to that the correct reply is: 'Feeling is the condition of
craving, and craving is the condition of clinging.'"
"Who, O Lord, clings?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One, "I do not say
that 'he clings.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who clings?'
would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct
way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of
clinging?' And to that
the correct reply is: 'Craving is the condition of clinging; and
clinging is the condition of the process of becoming.' Such is the
origin of this entire mass of suffering.7
"Through the complete fading away and cessation of even these six
bases of sense-impression, sense-impression ceases;8 through the
cessation of sense-impression, feeling ceases; through the
cessation of feeling, craving ceases; through the cessation of
craving, clinging ceases; through the cessation of clinging, the
process of becoming ceases; through the cessation of the process of
becoming, birth ceases; through the cessation of birth, old age,
death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair cease. Such is
the cessation of this entire mass of suffering."[/b]
If you explain it like that, you are also saying that that the
aggregates combine to form essentially the "same" "being" that
exists as a composite... because you also say that the Karma of his
previous existence is carried forward....
