In this kind of case, where we are clearly dealing with a very old
term, the etymology or the history of the word must be traced
through the texts older than the Nikayas, primarily the Vedas: this
tells us where the word is coming from (and as i mentioned, in this
case this is an exceedingly interesting story). Here the connection
is obviously with Vedic gandharva, and any etymology based on gam-,
etc., is spurious. The commentarial explanations tell us only where
the word is going. That has its interest, in that it shows us how
the schools fitted Vedic, pre-rational, mythic concepts into a
rationalist Buddhist understanding of rebirth.
----------------------------
Are you saying that if I am inventing a system or language and borrow
a concept from an earlier language or system but use a different word
for that concept that the etymology of my choice must be traced to
the concept in the external system?
----------------------------
Doesn't the idea of the intermediate state exist in the suttas in the
notion of the Non-returner who gains release without 'sankara'? SN MV
54:5 Fruit. Or in the stories of Yama Lord of Judgment? How could
there be a process of judgment resulting in being tossed into red-hot
Iron Cauldron #1 without an intermediate state? And this is putting
aside the idea of the Non-returner who gains release midway which it
is my belief is not an indication of attaining Nibbana midway through
the subsequent rebirth in the Pure Abodes.
On the other hand, if there is nothing there that is the self, I
cannot see how a state can be called beginning, middle or end...that
is, in terms of self all this is thinking in linear terms and
linear terms do not apply in this case. It is only us Time-bound
individuals who need to organize our worlds in such a way.
Imagine a sphere. Then imagine pointing to points on the sphere and
saying 'This is the beginning point of this sphere, this is the
middle point, this is the end point.' Idiotic except in terms useful
for reference to position on the sphere.
On the other other hand, it is a little crazy here when we are
speaking about the subjective experience of death and rebirth to be
speaking about intermediate states as not existing in that all
rebirths are intermediate states and there is no real reason to think
that individuals (maybe not all) might find themselves being 'reborn'
in what this discussion would class as an intermediate state...say as
a sort of deva that lives on scents and is awaiting rebirth in
another form.
As far as I understand it, the things of the world are essentially
limited only by imagination and the restrictions imposed on it by the
collective imagination (i.e., most beings here cannot do things that
our concensus 'science' does not think are possible).
My picture of the Non-returner without sankara is just such a one:
this body dies, the individual is of such mental development that he
is able to refrain from indentification with acting in body, speech
or mind with the intent of creating experience or in identifying with
any world that presents itself to him as 'his new birth.' Yet he is
not yet completely free (because these potential mistakes are still
nearby and retain their danger or at the least could be worrying).
Sounds like an intermediate state to me.
Finally, the whole notion of the three beings needs to be rethought
when it comes to rebirth in such forms as amoebas or other beings
that use asexual reproduction.