Bhavaṅgacitta, antarābhava, pudgala and ālayavijñāna are here compared with the concepts of jīvitindriya, bīja and momentariness from synchronic and diachronic perspectives, and the background related to the transition of ideas from each source is examined. We found that life-sustaining jīvitindriya was accepted from non-Buddhists even in nirodhasamāpatti regardless of whether or not there was citta, and bhavaṅga and antarābhava, which were involved in the problems of saṃsāra after death, as well as pudgala, ālayavijñāna and bhavaṅgacitta, which were responsible for the intramundane process of karman and its maturation. In addition, the Yogācāras considered that they were able to establish ālayavijñāna as citta dharma in the form of supplementing the momentariness of the Sarvāstivādins, and that the Theravāda were able to put bhavaṅgacitta into the category of citta dharma by adopting relative momentariness.
