It seems that before descent into the womb there are no babies according to the pali canon.
yes. & descent into the womb occurs at conception
It is in the vinaya. (if you count that as a sutta)salayatananirodha wrote: ↑Sat Jul 07, 2018 2:21 amThere is this; it's not a sutta, but it's an āgama. https://suttacentral.net/ea21.3/en/huye ... b-pasadika
I don't think abortion is ever referred to in the suttas.
The usual definition for conception is the uniting of the egg and sperm which happens before the descent into the womb.
in the Majjhima Sutta verse 26 refers to abortion, basically the Buddha would not condone it.Will wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2013 3:55 pmI did not find a thread on this important topic. So here is a little from Harvey's Introduction to Buddhist Ethics (313) to start us off. The definition of a human being is clear.
Given the Buddhist view of embryonic life, it is not surprising that causing an abortion is seen as a serious act:
When a monk is ordained he should not intentionally deprive a living being of
life, even if it is only an ant. Whatever monk deprives a human being of life,
even (antamaso) down to destroying an embryo (gabbha-patanam·upadaya), he
becomes not a (true) renouncer, not a son of the Sakiyans.
The penalty for a monk intentionally causing an abortion is permanent expulsion from the Sangha:
Whatever monk should intentionally deprive a human being of life . . . he is also
one who is defeated [in the monastic life], he is not in communion . . . Human
being means: from the mind’s first arising, from (the time of) consciousness
becoming first manifest in a mother’s womb until the time of death, here meanwhile
he is called a human being.
I think you mean the Mahāsīla section of the Brahmajāla Sutta. Thomas Rhys Davids and Maurice Walshe understand viruddhagabbhakaraṇa as referring to the carrying out of abortions, but Bhikkhu Bodhi and the Thai translators follow the commentary which takes the (admittedly rather obscure) term as referring to an operation for preventing abortions. Anyhow, whichever it is, it's not something that a samaṇa should be doing to make a living, which is what the sutta's three sīla sections are concerned with.
‘Whereas some recluses and brahmins, while living on the food offered by the faithful, earn their living by a wrong means of livelihood, by such debased arts as:
- arranging auspicious dates for marriages, both those in which the bride is brought in (from another family) and those in which she is sent out (to another family);
- arranging auspicious dates for betrothals and divorces;
- arranging auspicious dates for the accumulation or expenditure of money;
- reciting charms to make people lucky or unlucky;
- rejuvenating the fetuses of abortive women;
- reciting spells to bind a man’s tongue, to paralyze his jaws, to make him lose control over his hands, to make him lose control over his jaw, or to bring on deafness;
- obtaining oracular answers to questions by means of a mirror, a girl, or a god;
- worshipping the sun;
- worshipping Mahābrahmā;
- bringing forth flames from the mouth;
- invoking the goddess of luck;
— the recluse Gotama abstains from such wrong means of livelihood, from such debased arts.’
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests