w> I presume that the passage is a reflection of the idea that it is in the
w> form of consciousness (viссе-a) that the individual exists when
w> transmigration takes place. Consciousness is always changing, but
w> nevertheless it is possible to talk about a continuum of consciousness,
w> because as one consciousness passes away it is instantaneously replaced by
w> a later consciousness, which has a connection with the earlier one.
It seems to me that this is a misconception. Term 'individual' does
not apply 'when transmigration takes place'. Consciousness is
dependently arisen.