It matters on what kind of karmas, but l think the cause and effect applies as before nevertheless.

NO SELF IN VOLITION

Surely we would expect to find an “I” in an act of volition. Who decides to act? Who makes a choice? But if we look closely at a simple action, we see that a multitude of factors converge to bring it about. Let’s say we are sitting in a room feeling a bit chilly and we decide to draw a shawl over our lap. In a normal account, that is all there is to say: “I felt cold, so I put on a shawl.” But if we look more closely, with the eyes of meditative mindfulness, we see that there are more steps in the process.

First there is the recognition that one is sitting (mindfulness of body). Then at some point there is a sensation (contact) that we recognize as cold (perception). Cold is felt as unpleasant (feeling tone), and there is a reaction of aversion (volitional formation). Not seeing the reaction mindfully (delusion), we don’t pause to investigate the feeling tone or formation, but rather distract ourselves (beginning of proliferation) with the mildly complaining inner voice, “I’m starting to feel cold,” and perhaps we feel a little shiver (sensation). Perhaps some perception of “warm” then arises, either by feeling a part of the body that is well covered or by remembering how the room felt when we sat down. Based on the perception of warmth, a desire (formation) arises to experience being warm (sensation with pleasant feeling tone). Just as the earlier aversion was not seen mindfully as something to investigate, so also the desire for warmth is not seen mindfully or investigated. Based on desire for warmth and a touch of delusion (lack of mindful attention), a memory arises of the shawl lying on the sofa. Based on desire and memory, a volition arises and we turn our head to see the shawl on the end of the sofa (perception). Next the urge arises (volition) to reach for the shawl and cover our lap with it (action) — which we do.

In this entire chain of linked causes and effects, there is never a separate agent or self. Rather there is a back-and-forth dialogue between the body, perceptions, feeling tone, aversion, desire, volition, and action. Volition is just another factor of mind that arises based on prior causes and conditions. It then leads to action, in this case, of the body. It can be very tempting to identify with volition: “I decided to reach” or “I reached.” But when we see the momentary nature of all the factors arising and passing, we see there is no continuity to volition either. It too arises, does its work, and passes away.

Me: The same principle applies for the process of rebirth as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_(Buddhism)...

Karma and what gets reborn

An important question which was debated by Indian Buddhist thinkers was the question of what exactly gets reborn, and how this is different from the Indian concept of an attā (ātman, unchanging self), which Buddhism rejects. The early Buddhist texts sometimes speak of an "evolving consciousness" (Pali: samvattanika viññana, M.1.256)[54] or a "stream of consciousness" (Pali: viññana sotam, D.3.105) as that which transmigrates. However, according to Bruce Matthews, "there is no single major systematic exposition on this subject" in the Pali Canon.[55][56]

Some Buddhist scholars such as Buddhaghosa, held that the lack of an unchanging self (atman) does not mean that there is a lack of continuity in rebirth, since there is still a causal link between lives. The process of rebirth across different realms of existence was compared to how a flame is transferred from one candle to another.[57][58]

Various Indian Buddhist schools like the Sautrantika, Mahasamghika and the Mahasisaka held that the karmic link between lives could be explained by how karmic effects arose out of "seeds" which were deposited in a mental substratum.[59] The Sautrantika Elder Srilata defended the theory of a "subsidiary element" (anudhatu or *purvanudhatu) which corresponds to the seed theory.[60] The Sautrantika school held this was a "transmigrating substratum of consciousness".[61] It argued that each personal action "perfumes" the individual stream of consciousness and leads to the planting of a seed that would later germinate as a good or bad karmic result. This allowed them to explain what underwent the process of rebirth.[62]

The Sarvāstivāda-Vaibhāṣika school on the other hand did not make use of the seed theory, since they held an eternalist theory of time, which held that phenomena (dharmas) in the past, present and future exist. Because of this, they argued that after an action was done by a person, it still continued to exist, and to be in a state of "possession" (prāpti) vis a vis the mindstream (santana) of the person who performed the action. According to Vaibhāṣikas, it was this which guaranteed the capacity of past karma to produce an effect long after it had been performed.[63]

The seed theory was defended by the influential Buddhist philosopher Vasubandhu in his Abhidharmakosha.[60] It is also present in the Viniscayasamgrahani of the Yogacarabhumi.[64] The Sarvastivada Abhidharma master Saṃghabhadra states that the seed theory was referred to by different names including: subsidiary elements (anudhatu), impressions (vasana); capability (samarthya), non-disappearance (avipranasa), or accumulation (upacaya).[60]

The seed theory was adopted and further developed by the Yogacara school into their doctrine of the "container consciousness" (alaya-vijñana), which is a subliminal and constantly changing stream of consciousness that stores the seeds and undergoes rebirth.[62][53] Asanga's Mahāyānasaṃgraha equated the alaya-vijñana with similar teachings found in other Buddhist schools which indicates that the idea of a rebirth consciousness was widespread. He states that this is the same idea which is called "root-consciousness" (mula-vijñana) by the Mahasamghika schools and what the Sthavira schools call the bhavaṅga.[65]

According to Lobsang Dargyay, the Prāsaṇgika branch of the Madhyamaka school (which is exemplified by the philosopher Chandrakirti), attempted to refute every concept for a support or a storehouse of karmic information (including the alaya-vijñana). Instead, some Prāsaṇgika philosophers argue that a karmic action results in a potential which will ripen later. This potential is not a thing and does not need a support. However, other Madhyamaka thinkers (which are classified as "Svatantrikas" by Tibetans scholars), generally adopted the Sautrantika concept of tendencies stored in the stream of consciousness.[62]

The Theravāda school's doctrine of the bhavaṅga (Pali, "ground of becoming", "condition for existence") is another theory that was used to explain rebirth. It is seen as a mental process which conditions the next mental process at the moment of death and rebirth (though it does not actually travel in between lives, see below).[66]

The Pudgalavada school of early Buddhism accepted the core premise of Buddhism that there is no ātman, but asserted that there is a "personal entity" (pudgala, puggala) that retains karmic merit and undergoes rebirth. This personal entity was held to be neither different nor identical to the five aggregates (skandhas).[67] This concept was attacked by Theravada Buddhists in the early 1st millennium CE.[67] The personal entity concept was rejected by the mid-1st millennium CE Pali scholar Buddhaghosa, who attempted to explain rebirth mechanism with "rebirth-linking consciousness" (patisandhi-citta).[67][68] It was also criticized by northern Buddhist philosophers like Vasubandhu.