Could you clarify your argument? I am having a hard time trying to make sense of it. Is it this that you find redundant: "from the mind’s first appearance in a mother’s womb, from the first manifestation of consciousness"? If that is the case, there is a pretty simple explanation for such redundancy: explaining things in various ways makes them clearer, and this technique is used pretty often in the suttas.Bakmoon wrote:I find that understanding to be very unlikely because if you look in the Vinaya under the definitions under Parajika 3, it defines a human being as:Buddha Vacana wrote:Yes right from the beginning, although the exact moment is not described with hairsplitting precision. Don't hesitate to read the O.P.Bakmoon wrote:when does the gandhabba descend into the developing embryo or fetus. Do the texts give an answer to this question?
and if consciousness arises at the moment of conception, that would mean that the wording of the definition is redundant and superfluous. Why would the text specify that if it were unnecessary? The only way for the text to make sense is if consciousness arises some time after the meeting of the sperm and egg.from the mind’s first appearance in a mother’s womb, from the first manifestation of consciousness, until the time of death: in between these— this is called “a human being.”
https://suttacentral.net/en/pi-tv-bu-vb-pj3
Also, how does your argument even relate to your conclusion?
And even if your point is correct, it still doesn't invalidate the conclusion that is supported by "hard" textual evidence in the O.P. If fecundation and "conception" do not happen at the same time, the position that accords with the texts would be to consider that they are not very far apart in time.