[Lal]

Daniel’s description is good. The following post also describes how a “lifestream” evolves without a “soul.”
“What Reincarnates? – Concept of a Lifestream”

Raj wrote: “The Buddha had encountered Dipankara Buddha thousands of eons ago. After that as a Boddhisatta, he took many forms (including many animal forms, as per Jataka tales), and on the night of his enlightenment he could see all these forms. So there was a continuity, it was the same individual, from the time he saw Dipankara Buddha, till the time he got enlightened under the Bodhi tree. What was it which remained same throughout that period?”
– NOTHING remained the same during that whole period.
– Each subsequent life arose based on the causes accumulated in the past AND conditions prevailing at the moment of grasping a new existence. This is what is explained in Paticca Samuppada, and this is hard to comprehend issue for many people.

Raj asked: “Is it the same Gandhabba undergoing slight modifications but still the same.”
– It is NOT the same gandhabba. Each time a new existence (human, Deva, animal, hell-being, etc) a BRAND NEW gandhabba is created by kammic energy.
– This is essentially the difference between Vedi teachings and Buddha Dhamma.
– By the way, Vedic teachings originated with Buddha Kassapa who lived before Buddha Gotama. That is why there are some similarities. Vedas took the concept of gandhabba and turned it into an “indestructible atman/soul”. I have discussed this briefly in some posts. See, for example, #8 in “Arōgyā Paramā Lābhā..”

I know it is very hard to get rid of the perception of a “me”. In fact, even a Sotapanna has that PERCEPTION, but a Sotapanna has seen that there is NOTHING that migrates through adjacent lives. The perception of a “me” goes away only at the Anagami stage. Then there is still a trace of “me” left and that goes away completely at the Arahant stage.

[Lal]

Thank you, Raj, for your description.

So, as you wrote, “According to vedic scholars, the soul is 1/10000th the size of the tip of one’s hair. It cannot be cut, burnt or destroyed.” That means it is permanent.

That is similar to the concept of an eternal (permanent) soul in Christianity, Islam, etc. Of course, the details are different.
– As you wrote, in Vedic teachings, “Liberation is the state where one is freed from bondage and ego is given up (monistic schools) and one merges and become one with Parabrahman which is a state of unlimited joy, or the ego is purified (dualistic schools) and one exists eternally and serves God. In the monistic school individual identity is given up and one ceases to exist, in the dualistic school, the identity is maintained as an eternal servant of God.”

I was not aware of this part of your statement: “.. the soul is 1/10000th the size of the tip of one’s hair.”
– Anyway, the point is that Vedic teachings imply a soul that is permanent.

The difference in Buddhism is that there is nothing permanent that goes from life to life.
– There is an “entity” that would be even smaller than “1/10000th the size of the tip of one’s hair” created by kammic energy when a new existence is grasped. That is gandhabba in Buddha Dhamma.
– And that gandhabba is NOT permanent. If one goes from a human to animal existence, that gandhabba will change. That change happens according to Paticca Samuppada.
– The Buddha taught that suffering cannot be stopped until that process of transitioning from one gandhabba state to another is stopped. That is Nibbana.

That is of course only a summary. I don’t think I can explain any further in these exchanges. My recommendation would be to read the posts in the following link to understand how new existences arise due to one’s own actions:
“Paṭicca Samuppāda in Plain English“

[Lal]

Daniel and I had an exchange of emails based on the account of Jasbir on discussed by Ian Stevenson in his book “Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation”.
– It starts on p. 34 of Stevenson’s book.

A short summary: Jasbir was down with a serious illness. When he recovered his personality changed to that of Sobha Ram who died around the same time.
– So it appears that Jasbir’s gandhabba left Jasbir’s physical body, and Sobha Ram’s gandhabba took control of that physical body.

For that to happen, the “transition” must have happened quickly. A dead body starts decomposing quickly.

The following was my conclusion in my email to Daniel:

Jasbir’s and other witnesses’ accounts look good. But there is no real evidence of two personalities living in the same body or the same gandhabba living in two bodies SIMULTANEOUSLY.

That is because the dates/times of the death of Sobha Ram are not really known (May 23 or May 23, 1954.)
– Even more problematic is the uncertainty of the “change of personality” of Jasbir. Ref. 24 says it could have happened in April or May of 1954.
– Reference 24 on p. 35 has a summary of those events above.

So, Jasbir may have had the “change of personality” after the death of Sobha Ram, i.e., in principle the gandhabba that came out of the DEAD BODY of Sobha Ram MAY HAVE entered the DEAD BODY of Jasbir.
– In principle, that would be possible as long as that gandhabba entered the dead body of Jasbir IMMEDIATELY AFTER the original gandhabba that was in Jasbir’s body left.

Once a physical body dies, it starts decomposing right away. That is a critical issue.

To add to that: That applies to a zygote in a womb too. Sometimes, a gandhabba takes possession of a zygote but leaves (more like pulled out by kammic forces, due to possible mismatch) after a short while. Then it is possible for another gandhabba to take possession of that zygote (as directed by kammic forces) before the zygote is expelled from the womb.
“Buddhist Explanations of Conception, Abortion, and Contraception”

[Lal]

Raj asked: “my main quest is to understand if the concept of a soul was prevalent during the time of the Buddha”

– Yes. It was the concept of an “atman” (or “āthma“). You stated that you are familiar with Vedic teachings. What is the concept of an “atman” as you understand?

Once you answer that question, I will try to answer your other questions. I just need to figure out how to answer them so that you will be able to understand.

[Lal]

Let me add another “inviolable rule” to the set of rules that I posted earlier:

The following must hold:

1. A given gandhabba can be in only one body at a given time.
2. It is possible for a gandhabba to come out of a womb (detach from a zygote in the womb), and for another gandhabba to take possession of that zygote in the womb. A gandhabba getting hold of a “dead body” of a full-grown person or even a baby is dubious.
3. A gandhabba cannot decide to take hold of a zygote, a baby’s body, or an adult’s body. That is determined by nature (laws of kamma).

I think we should not get carried away by some of these accounts.

[Lal]

Normally they are written as nāmakāya and rūpakāya.

I did a search on Sutta Central for them and the search results:
“6 results for nāmakāya AND rūpakāya”

As you see, no suttas explain the terms. They are in the original commentaries.

Here is the relevant part in “1.3. Ānāpānassatikathā” (just below the middle of the page):
“Kathaṁ “sabbakāyapaṭisaṁvedī assasissāmī”ti sikkhati, “sabbakāyapaṭisaṁvedī passasissāmī”ti sikkhati? Kāyoti dve kāyā—nāmakāyo ca rūpakāyo ca. Katamo nāmakāyo? Vedanā, saññā, cetanā, phasso, manasikāro, nāmañca nāmakāyo ca, ye ca vuccanti cittasaṅkhārā—ayaṁ nāmakāyo. Katamo rūpakāyo? Cattāro ca mahābhūtā, catunnañca mahābhūtānaṁ upādāyarūpaṁ, assāso ca passāso ca, nimittañca upanibandhanā, ye ca vuccanti kāyasaṅkhārā—ayaṁ rūpakāyo.”

So, “nāmakāya” is basically vedana, sanna, sankhara, vinnana, or the four rupakkhandha.
And “rūpakāya” is rupakkhandha.

This section is in the description of “Ānāpānassati”.
– As you can see Ānāpānassati is not about breath!

I have tried to explain these ideas in simple terms in many posts:
“Search Results for: anapanasati”

[Lal]

Raj:
I have discussed this issue in, “Wrong View of Creationism (and Eternal Future Life) – Part 1”

If my presentation of Vedic/Hindu concepts is not accurate, you can point them out.
– As I understand Vedic/Hindu concept is a permanent atman that goes from life to life until the merge with Maha Brahma takes place.
– But the Buddha pointed that the realm of Maha Brahma is not permanent. Even the Maha Brahma will be born in a lower realm after that lifetime expires.

[Lal]

Your link in the above post did not work, Daniel.

I found the following, which could be the same:
“Split Incarnation or Parallel Lives: The Reincarnation Cases of Charles Parkhurst | Alice Cary | Penney Peirce”

Towards the end, it says: “Alice Cary, the earliest incarnation in this series of lives, was born in 1820 and died in 1871. Charles Parkhurst was born in 1842, at a time when Alice Cary was 22 years old. Alice Cary died in 1871 at the age of 51, at a time when Parkhurst was 29 years old. As such, the lifetimes of Cary and Parkhurst overlapped by 29 years.
– That is not possible. How can the same gandhabba live in two different bodies?

The above link provides a link to a study by Ian Stevenson on the same subject:”Past Life Story with Split Incarnation, Suicide, Karma & Past Life Ability: Reincarnation Case of Helmut Kohler | Ruprecht Schultz”
It has the following accounts:
“Helmut was devastated by his financial losses. On November 16, 1887, after attending a celebration for the festival day called the Day of Repentance and Prayer, Helmut went back to his office. He put a revolver to his temple and shot himself in the head. He died on November 23, 1887.” AND
“Ruprecht Schultz was born on October 19, 1887, in Berlin, Germany to Christian parents, five weeks before Helmut Kohler died. As such, if this reincarnation case is accepted, it represents a case of split incarnation, where a soul can inhabit more than one human body at a time. Consider that Ruprecht was in the womb for 8 months while Helmut was still alive.”

– That is also not acceptable because of the same problem mentioned above. One gandhabba CANNOT live in two physical bodies at the same time. That would defy logic.
– It also says, “Ian Stevenson noted that Ruprecht’s memories were vague at first, but over time, they became clearer and clearer.” That could be because Rupert came to know about Helmut Kohler’s connection and subconscuously tried to “match his events with the events of Helmut Kohler’s life.

By the way, this topic would have been more suited in the gandhabba forum. Please pay attention to the Forum/Topic.
– It would be easier to search for past comments/topics that way.

[Lal]

It is an interesting aspect, Daniel.

I would like to focus on one case study to save time. If you can recommend one, please do.

As a general comment, it is possible for something like this to happen. But the following must hold:

1. A given gandhabba can be in only one body at a given time.
2. It is possible for a gandhabba to come out of a womb, and for another gandhabba to take possession of that zygote in the womb.

[Lal]

“After her “dead” experience, she emerged practically Egyptian. Is this because during that experience anusaya from the life in Egypt surfaced and dominated the rest of her present life?”

Her head injury (accident) may have triggered something in her brain circuit to be able to recall the past.

As I have explained in the post, “Brain – Interface between Mind and Body” brain plays a huge role in getting the sensory inputs to the manomaya kaya (gandhabba).
– For example, visuals coming through the eyes are processed by the batin and sent to the cakkhu pasada rupa in the gandhabba.
– In the same way, “namagotta” or memories come in through the “mana indriya” in the brain and are passed on to the hadaya vatthu. Of course, science has not identified the mana indriya.
– However, we have some clues about the location of the mana indriya from the studies discussed in the post, “Patient H.M. – Different Roles of Brain in Memory”

Also, Jill Price started recalling detailed memories in the current life only after she got to a certain age: “Recent Evidence for Unbroken Memory Records (HSAM)”
– It is possible that something in her brain changed too.

[Lal]

Good question.

I have not seen a breakdown. But it could be the following.

Sama = “same”
atta = “truth” or “refuge” or “Nibbana” depending on the context
niyama = principle or law
When you put all that together it rhymes like “Sammattaniyāma.”

So, when someone gets to Sammattaniyāma one “starts taking refuge in Nibbana.”

[Lal]

Just updated the post, “Sōtapanna Anugāmi and a Sōtapanna“

[Lal]

Yes. They are equivalent.

The main requirements:

Sappurisasaṃsevo
saddhammassavanaṃ
yonisomanasikāro
dhammānudhammappaṭipatti

will fulfill Anuloma Khanti and Sammattaniyāma.

The key point is that while fulfilling those 4 conditions one must realize not only the fact that the rebirth process is filled with suffering but also the fact that Nibbana is the only solution.
See, “Sōtapanna Anugāmi and a Sōtapanna”

I should have mentioned this post. Thanks!

P.S. I need to update that older post. Hope to do it soon.

[Lal]

Daniel wrote: “But I heard something about Angels who are able to use a real human physical body sometimes to communicate with us.”
– Not in Buddha Dhamma.

Spontaneous birth of a human refers to the birth of a baby instantaneously, without starting with a zygote. Information on the zygote at, “Buddhist Explanations of Conception, Abortion, and Contraception,” one of the posts in the “Origin of Life” series.
– That happened at least once or twice during the time of the Buddha. I don’t remember the sutta. But there are no records of such birth in modern times.
– However, that is how the first set of human gandhabbas get hold of a “manussa kaya” or a “physical human body” after a human population is wiped out due to a natural disaster over a large region. Once enough humans are born in that geographic region, they multiply via the normal mode (womb-born.)

P.S. This is the solution to the “chicken and egg problem” discussed in many discussion forums. The question there is “which came first, the chicken or the egg”? The answer is that chicken came first via such “opapatika” or instantaneous births.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Jittananto

[Lal]

I watched the video and the evidence is compelling.

Daniel wrote: “Since we know from the Buddha’s Agañña Sutta, that the human gandhabba (or human bhava) is existing for much longer than a million years, because Brahmas and Devas are reborn in human bhava before being reborn as animals in the cycle of the solar system, I was wondering about an explanation of how homo sapiens sapiens came to be.

I had the following sketch:
In times, when there are extraordinary events affecting the planet, like solar flares or natural disasters, they could kill a big amount of species or embodied life, animals but also humans. Humans, over the millions of years, could also have had different forms of bodies, depending on the situation at that time. When such an event takes place, many beings will be living in the Gandhabba, because the nuclear radiations/solar flares/ floods have destroyed their bodies.”

That is a reasonable explanation.
– Another possibility for ‘mass extinction” over large geographical areas is the following. It is possible for even a whole continent to “flip”, just like a coconut floating in water can flip. This was briefly mentioned in one of Waharaka Thero’s desanas. The life would need to “re-emerge” in a fashion that SEEMS TO BE compatible with Darwin’s evolutionary theory.
– We know that most archeological studies have been done in Africa. If that whole continent flipped a billion years ago, it is possible that life gradually emerged starting with microbes, plants, etc. Of course, that is not really evolution, but more in line with Daniel’s rough sketch outlined there.
– That means gandhabbas of lower animals would be reborn with corresponding physical animal bodies first as CONDITIONS become right (meaning enough vegetation present, etc.). Then larger animals can be born higher-up in the food chain, etc.

Another point is that there are 4 modes of production of physical bodies of humans and animals.
These are described in the “Mahāsīhanāda Sutta (MN 12)”

English translation there: “The Greater Discourse on the Lion’s Roar”
“Four Kinds of Generation
“Sāriputta, there are these four kinds of generation. What are the four? Egg-born generation, womb-born generation, moisture-born generation, and spontaneous generation.

“What is egg-born generation? There are these beings born by breaking out of the shell of an egg; this is called egg-born generation. What is womb-born generation? There are these beings born by breaking out from the caul; this is called womb-born generation. What is moisture-born generation? There are these beings born in a rotten fish, in a rotten corpse, in rotten porridge, in a cesspit, or in a sewer; this is called moisture-born generation. What is spontaneous generation? There are gods and denizens of hell and certain human beings and some beings in the lower worlds; this is called spontaneous generation. These are the four kinds of generation.”

Even though humans are normally born via “womb-born generation” the other modes can be active especially in a situation like above. Here it is mostly the spontaneous generation.
– Same for animals.

One last point about “moisture-born generation.” This is when the correct chemical composition, like a zygote (which normally takes place in a womb) forms so that a gandhabba can start a physical body, can happen under the conditions given above, i.e., rotten meat, etc.
– That is in effect how ‘test-tube babies” (or Dolly the sheep) are born outside a womb.

I think I discussed some of these in the first few posts in the series on “Origin of Life”

Finally, I think there should be more archeological studies in India and Sri Lanka. It is unlikely that such a calamity happened in that region. We know, according to the Tipitaka, that teachings of Buddha Kassapa were transmitted (in a distorted form) via Vedic teachings. So, there seems to be an unbroken human timeline from Buddha Kassapa to Buddha Gotama.

Again, I don’t want to spend too much time researching these ideas. But my feeling is that such things could be uncovered by more archeological studies.

P.S. The relevant part in Pali in the above sutta:
“Catasso kho imā, sāriputta, yoniyo. Katamā catasso? Aṇḍajā yoni, jalābujā yoni, saṁsedajā yoni, opapātikā yoni.

Katamā ca, sāriputta, aṇḍajā yoni? Ye kho te, sāriputta, sattā aṇḍakosaṁ abhinibbhijja jāyanti—ayaṁ vuccati, sāriputta, aṇḍajā yoni. Katamā ca, sāriputta, jalābujā yoni? Ye kho te, sāriputta, sattā vatthikosaṁ abhinibbhijja jāyanti—ayaṁ vuccati, sāriputta, jalābujā yoni. Katamā ca, sāriputta, saṁsedajā yoni? Ye kho te, sāriputta, sattā pūtimacche vā jāyanti pūtikuṇape vā pūtikummāse vā candanikāye vā oḷigalle vā jāyanti—ayaṁ vuccati, sāriputta, saṁsedajā yoni. Katamā ca, sāriputta, opapātikā yoni? Devā, nerayikā, ekacce ca manussā, ekacce ca vinipātikā—ayaṁ vuccati, sāriputta, opapātikā yoni. Imā kho, sāriputta, catasso yoniyo.”

[Author]

Posts