user13694: If we understand kamma-vipaka as the process of creation and perpetuation of habitual volitional deeds, we can see that, in a living being, there's a medium through which behavioral information is stored and expressed: the nervous-system and its constituents. Information is stored through the reinforcement of synaptical conections. If we agree on that, it seems that there's no need for additional explanations for the arising and ceasing of behaviors.
How does this happens after the break-up of the body? How is information transferred from the last moment before death to the newborn? Does that information waits until the formation of the brain? Is it stored in the DNA? 
Do the buddhist texts offer any clue to understand this process? Do you know something that could help me to understand this process? 
I know DNA and the role of the nervous system are recently known and understood (at least in part) phenomena. I'd be happy to learn about any hypothesis or tentative explanation for this process. 
I don't know if this question is a valid one for this site. If it's not, feel free to close it; I'd understand. 
Thanks for your time and patience!
Kind regards!

user43: Questions of King Milinda say, "it is nama-rupa that is reborn". When the King asks whether it is the same nama-rupa, Nagasena says, it is not the same, but this nama-rupa arises in causal continuity with the previous nama-rupa, and thus we talk about "rebirth".
Questions of King Milinda also compare rebirth to a memorized verse passing from one person to another, and to a flame passing from one lamp to another. It is clear that rebirth is about causal continuity and the passage of (some) information.
Japanese Zen patriarch Dogen explained that the underlying nature of mind is not separate from the underlying nature of the rest of material world. In numerous explanation in Zen and Vajrayana there is a rather clear consensus that the nature of mind are dynamically interacting relationships, both inside the person, and between the parts of the world.
So when we are talking about rebirth we are talking about continuity of interacting relationships implicitly "stored" or "encoded" in the fabric of activities happening in the world at large.
So the media that carries the karma after the break-up of the body is the world itself. People, things, activities, relationships carry the imprints of the previous existence into the next.
At least, this is my understanding. 

user254: I don't know but perhaps I read that later schools (i.e. early schools but later than the Pali suttas) developed the doctrine of "store-house consciousness" -- ālāyavijñāna in Sanskrit -- as an answer to this question (i.e. to explain the phenomenon):

... and finally the fundamental store-house consciousness (ālāyavijñāna), which is the basis of the other seven. This eighth consciousness is said to store the impressions (vāsanāḥ) of previous experiences, which form the seeds (bīja) of future karma in this life and in the next after rebirth.

Something like that has been mentioned a few times on this site: Posts containing 'alaya'
One of the comments to this question claimed that Buddhism is "exclusively an idealistic philosophy, and not materialistic at all" -- in any case I don't know how to understand "store-house consciousness" and whether it is or was seen as a physical/material "medium" (which your question was asking about).
I think the first five consciousnesses are involved in physicality, that the last three consciousness instead have the "mind" as their "cognitive sensor" -- the Wikipedia article translates the eighth as simply "memory", which perhaps isn't assumed to be entirely associated with one body or one person.
There's a book The Buddhist Unconscious: The Alaya-vijñana in the context of Indian Buddhist Thought. Skimming through it, I think it says that the Abhidhamma originally describes mental processes as being a series of moments (thought-moments), and as such it wasn't good at explaining how or what chains those moments together -- and it was for that purpose, i.e. to explain (or "model") that, for which one or two additional types of consciousness (translated as e.g. "memory") were added to Abhidhammic doctrine:

The text is claiming,
  in other words, that neither samsara nor Nirvana are explicable without the
  continuity of mind the alaya-vijñana epitomizes – explicating, in effect, the
  opening verse in MSg I.1:

“As this [alaya-vijñana] exists, so do all the destinies
    as well as the realization of Nirvana.”


And then

Karma, rebirth, and the alaya-vijñana
The sections called the action defilements (karma-sadkleka) (MSg I.33) and the
  birth defilements (janma-sadkleka) (MSg I.34–42) largely focus upon the
  processes of rebirth. These were conceptually problematic because the series of
  material dharmas is completely severed during these periods of transition from
  one lifetime to the next. The text addresses both such junctures within the traditional three-lifetime interpretation of the formula of dependent arising: those
  which occur between the karmic formations (sadskara) and vijñana, and
  between appropriation (upadana) and existence (bhava). Since vijñana was the
  only factor explicitly stated, in both the early Pali and Abhidharma traditions,
  to continue from one lifetime to the next, the continuities of all the factors that
  must “last as long as samsara” would have to persist in some kind of relationship
  with this ongoing stream of vijñana – at least at these crucial disjunctions. This
  much was shared by the various Abhidharma schools, though their explanations
  of the exact processes involved varied considerably.
MSg I.33, for its part, argues that this form of vijñana must be the
  alaya-vijñana:

I.33. For what reason would the defilements consisting of action (karmasadkleka) be impossible [if there were no alaya-vijñana]? Because there
    would be no consciousness conditioned by the sadskaras (sadskarapratyayam vijñanam). Without that [alaya-vijñana], existence (bhava)
    conditioned by appropriation (upadana) would also be impossible.
    (MSg I.33)


(The "MSg" being cited is the Mahayana-sadgraha)
I think that's saying there's rebirth from one moment to the next within a person's life,  then at a death the rebirth from one person to another.
I think previous questions on this site have been answered along the lines of, just that there isn't a law of nature which says that consciousness is bound to a specific body -- that saying so would be a materialist view.

13694: <p>If we understand <em>kamma-vipaka</em> as the process of creation and perpetuation of habitual volitional deeds, we can see that, in a living being, there's a medium through which behavioral information is stored and expressed: the nervous-system and its constituents. Information is stored through the reinforcement of synaptical conections. If we agree on that, it seems that there's no need for additional explanations for the arising and ceasing of behaviors.</p>

<p>How does this happens after the break-up of the body? How is information transferred from the last moment before death to the newborn? Does that information waits until the formation of the brain? Is it stored in the DNA? </p>

<p>Do the buddhist texts offer any clue to understand this process? Do you know something that could help me to understand this process? </p>

<p>I know DNA and the role of the nervous system are recently known and understood (at least in part) phenomena. I'd be happy to learn about any hypothesis or tentative explanation for this process. </p>

<p>I don't know if this question is a valid one for this site. If it's not, feel free to close it; I'd understand. </p>

<p>Thanks for your time and patience!</p>

<p>Kind regards!</p>
 43: <p>Questions of King Milinda say, "it is nama-rupa that is reborn". When the King asks whether it is the same nama-rupa, Nagasena says, it is not the same, but this nama-rupa arises in causal continuity with the previous nama-rupa, and thus we talk about "rebirth".</p>

<p>Questions of King Milinda also compare rebirth to a memorized verse passing from one person to another, and to a flame passing from one lamp to another. It is clear that rebirth is about causal continuity and the passage of (some) information.</p>

<p>Japanese Zen patriarch Dogen explained that the underlying nature of mind is not separate from the underlying nature of the rest of material world. In numerous explanation in Zen and Vajrayana there is a rather clear consensus that the nature of mind are dynamically interacting relationships, both inside the person, and between the parts of the world.</p>

<p>So when we are talking about rebirth we are talking about continuity of interacting relationships implicitly "stored" or "encoded" in the fabric of activities happening in the world at large.</p>

<p>So the media that carries the karma after the break-up of the body is the world itself. People, things, activities, relationships carry the imprints of the previous existence into the next.</p>

<p>At least, this is my understanding. </p>
 254: <p>I don't know but perhaps I read that later schools (i.e. early schools but later than the Pali suttas) developed the doctrine of "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Consciousnesses" rel="nofollow noreferrer">store-house consciousness</a>" -- <em>ālāyavijñāna</em> in Sanskrit -- as an answer to this question (i.e. to explain the phenomenon):</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>... and finally the fundamental store-house consciousness (ālāyavijñāna), which is the basis of the other seven. This eighth consciousness is said to store the impressions (vāsanāḥ) of previous experiences, which form the seeds (bīja) of future karma in this life and in the next after rebirth.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Something like that has been mentioned a few times on this site: <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/search?q=alaya">Posts containing 'alaya'</a></p>

<p>One of <a href="https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/99443/discussion-on-question-by-brian-diaz-flores-through-which-medium-does-kammic-inf">the comments</a> to this question claimed that Buddhism is "exclusively an idealistic philosophy, and not materialistic at all" -- in any case I don't know how to understand "store-house consciousness" and whether it is or was seen as a physical/material "medium" (which your question was asking about).</p>

<p>I think the first five consciousnesses are involved in physicality, that the last three consciousness instead have the "mind" as their "cognitive sensor" -- the Wikipedia article translates the eighth as simply "memory", which perhaps isn't assumed to be entirely associated with one body or one person.</p>

<p>There's a book <em>The Buddhist Unconscious: The Alaya-vijñana in the context of Indian Buddhist Thought</em>. Skimming through it, I think it says that the Abhidhamma originally describes mental processes as being a series of moments (thought-moments), and as such it wasn't good at explaining how or what chains those moments together -- and it was for that purpose, i.e. to explain (or "model") that, for which one or two additional types of consciousness (translated as e.g. "memory") were added to Abhidhammic doctrine:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The text is claiming,
  in other words, that neither samsara nor Nirvana are explicable without the
  continuity of mind the alaya-vijñana epitomizes – explicating, in effect, the
  opening verse in MSg I.1:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>“As this [alaya-vijñana] exists, so do all the destinies
    as well as the realization of Nirvana.”</p>
  </blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p>And then</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>Karma, rebirth, and the alaya-vijñana</strong></p>
  
  <p>The sections called the action defilements (karma-sadkleka) (MSg I.33) and the
  birth defilements (janma-sadkleka) (MSg I.34–42) largely focus upon the
  processes of rebirth. These were conceptually problematic because the series of
  material dharmas is completely severed during these periods of transition from
  one lifetime to the next. The text addresses both such junctures within the traditional three-lifetime interpretation of the formula of dependent arising: those
  which occur between the karmic formations (sadskara) and vijñana, and
  between appropriation (upadana) and existence (bhava). Since vijñana was the
  only factor explicitly stated, in both the early Pali and Abhidharma traditions,
  to continue from one lifetime to the next, the continuities of all the factors that
  must “last as long as samsara” would have to persist in some kind of relationship
  with this ongoing stream of vijñana – at least at these crucial disjunctions. This
  much was shared by the various Abhidharma schools, though their explanations
  of the exact processes involved varied considerably.</p>
  
  <p>MSg I.33, for its part, argues that this form of vijñana must be the
  alaya-vijñana:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>I.33. For what reason would the defilements consisting of action (karmasadkleka) be impossible [if there were no alaya-vijñana]? Because there
    would be no consciousness conditioned by the sadskaras (sadskarapratyayam vijñanam). Without that [alaya-vijñana], existence (bhava)
    conditioned by appropriation (upadana) would also be impossible.<br>
    (MSg I.33)</p>
  </blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p>(The "MSg" being cited is the <em>Mahayana-sadgraha</em>)</p>

<p>I think that's saying there's rebirth from one moment to the next within a person's life,  then at a death the rebirth from one person to another.</p>

<p>I think previous questions on this site have been answered along the lines of, just that there isn't a law of nature which says that consciousness is bound to a specific body -- that saying so would be a materialist view.</p>
