Life from what period

[mikenz66]

Robert,

I think this is an important and complex issue.

It would be helpful to discuss the vinaya and sutta references in Ajahn Brahm's article that I referenced here:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... ead#unread

http://www.dhammatalks.net/
When Does Human Life Begin?
http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books7/Ajahn ... _Begin.pdf

1. What Did the Buddha Say?

1a. “(Human life begins) when in the mother’s womb, the first citta
(‘mind’ or ‘thought’) arises, when the first consciousness
manifests”.1

1b. “Bhikkhus, the descent of the gabbha (misleadingly translated
as embryo by Bhikkhu Bodhi) takes place through the union of
3 things – the union of mother and father, the mother is in
season, and the gandhabba (stream of consciousness) is
present.”2

1c. “If viññāṇa (consciousness) were not to descend into the
mother’s womb, would nāma-rūpa take shape in the womb?
Certainly not, Venerable Sir.”3
Nāma-rūpa = feeling (vedana) perception (saññā) contact
(phasso) will (cetanā) attention (manasikāro) and material
form (rūpa ).

1d. Nāma-rūpa and consciousness are like two sheaves of reeds
standing leaning against each other. If one were to remove one
of those sheaves of reeds, the other would fall. So, with the
cessation of nāma-rūpa comes cessation of consciousness, and
with the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of
nāma-rūpa. 4

Notes
1 From Pārājika 3, the rule about deliberately killing a human being, repeated at Vinaya Mahāvagga 1.75.
2 From Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi’s translation of Sutta #38 of the Majjhima Nikāya..
3 Mahānidāna Sutta, DN15.
4 Abridged from Nidana Saṃyutta No. 67.

2. What Did the Buddha Mean?

2a. Human life begins when the stream of consciousness (s.o.c.)
enters the embryo-fetus and the first consciousness manifests
therein.

2b. Such an arising of consciousness is caused by the combination
of 3 conditions: parental union, fertility and an s.o.c. being
available.

2c. The above causal link is not necessarily instantaneous.
Buddhist causality includes results that appear a long time
after their cause. A prime example is “when there is birth,
there is old age, sickness and death.” It is a mistake to assume
that the s.o.c. descends into the mother’s womb at the very
moment of parental union. Such a belief would beg the
question into what does the s.o.c. descend? Into the lucky one
of the millions of sperm, or into an egg that might well remain
unfertilized? The Buddha meant that some time after
parental union, with the other two factors also being fulfilled,
there is descent of the s.o.c. into the mother’s womb.

2d. Point 1d, above, shows that there cannot be consciousness
without feeling + perception + contact + will + attention +
material form (nāma-rūpa). When one manifests, so does the
other, immediately.

There are another three sections...


Mike

[James the Giant]

Here is the rest of the article that MikeNZ posted the first part of. It has some very relevant sutta references although some of them are not related to abortion - they talk about IVF instead.

http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books7/Ajahn ... _Begin.pdf

3. When Does A New Human Life Begin?

3a. The embryo designates the unborn being in the first 8 weeks of
development, the fetus designates the unborn being after 8
weeks of development.

3b. A single embryo may split into 2 or more viable embryos after
a certain number of days. Prior to such an event, there cannot
be 2 s.o.cs. co-existing in a single embryo, nor can a single
s.o.c. split into two separate streams. Such propositions are
excluded by the Buddha’s doctrine of Paṭicca-Samuppāda.
Either a second s.o.c. enters one of the divided embryos after
the separation, or two karmically connected s.o.cs. enter the
twinned embryos at the same time shortly after division. In
either case, this shows that the s.o.c. can descend into the
mother’s womb several days after parental union.

3c. The Buddha consistently stated that human life in this body
begins when consciousness first manifests inside the mother’s
womb. The Pāli word here rendered as “manifest” is Pātubhūta,
which also means to be open, visible, apparent. To be precise,
human life in this body begins not when consciousness first
exists in the mother’s womb, but when it first shows its
existence in the mother’s womb (these two events, I believe,
are simultaneous).

How does consciousness first manifest its existence? Point 2d,
above, states that when consciousness first manifests then
nāma-rūpa also shows its first appearance. Two essential parts
of nāma-rūpa are vedana (feeling, the ability to distinguish
between painful or pleasurable or neutral sensations) and
cetanā (will, deliberate reactions to such sensations). So, when
vedana and will first manifest in the unborn being, then one
knows that nāma-rūpa has first manifested; and when nāmarūpa
has first manifested, then consciousness has first
manifested and human life has begun anew!
In conclusion, only when the embryo-fetus first shows
sensitivity to pleasure and pain (vedana) and first shows
will (such as by a purposeful shrinking away from a
painful stimulus) has consciousness and nāma-rūpa first
manifested and the new human life started.

4. Further Discussion

4a. Such a definition for the beginning of human life has been
argued tightly from the earliest teachings of Buddhism, those
as close as we can get to what the Buddha actually said. Thus
the definition has textual authority.

4b. Such a definition is pragmatic, because it gives us a discernible
measure by which we can know when a human life has begun
anew. Procedures such as the ultrasound scan can convince
neutral observers that the fetus at a certain stage of
development shows experience of pain and moves deliberately,
but before such a stage does not manifest feeling or will.
Neurologists can also confirm that prior to a certain stage of
development, the fetus’s nervous system is absent and
therefore pain and pleasure cannot be felt. Thus such a
definition is workable.

4c. When there is no sure-fire method of discerning the beginning
of a new human life, many will err on the safe side, meaning
they will push the beginning of human life impractically early,
even to the stage of parental union. The above definition
avoids such sloppiness based on fear.

4d. The ethical quality of karma has much to do with the happiness
or suffering that one deliberately inflicts upon another. When
the other is incapable of feeling pleasure or pain, such
considerations become irrelevant.
Indeed, there is a widespread revulsion at viewing a film of an
abortion where the fetus manifest pain during the procedure,
but such a revulsion is absent at the destruction of an embryo,
in a Petri dish, that does not manifest any feeling at all. The
above definition is in harmony with the ethical foundation of
such revulsion. In other words, many non-Buddhists, especially
those rationalists with no religious affiliations, would easily
support such a Buddhist definition of the beginning of human
life.

5. IVF.

5a. The above definition clarifies the ethics of destroying fertilized
human ova that are yet to be implanted into the mother, or
using them to begin a line of stem cells. Since these embryos
do not show feeling or will, then consciousness also has not
been manifested, and so it is not reckoned as human life.
Scientifically speaking, the nervous system has certainly not
developed yet and therefore such an embryo is incapable of
manifesting consciousness. Other ethical considerations may
be relevant here, but certainly not that concerned with
destroying a human life.

5b. A further clause in the Buddha’s consistent definition for the
beginning of a human life is the location of the manifested
consciousness – in the mother’s womb. Thus, there is a
strong logical argument that states that even if consciousness
did manifest somehow in an embryo in the lab, it still has not
appeared in the mother’s womb, and therefore does not fulfil
the Buddha’s definition of a human life. Only when that
embryo–with-consciousness has been implanted in the
mother’s womb, then can one say that consciousness has
appeared within the mother’s womb and human life begun.

5c. There are some skilful meditators who can remember their
past lives, and also those who can recall past lives through
other means. Those who recall the passage from their previous
life into their present existence are remarkably consistent in
their recollection of being drawn irresistibly into their future
mother’s womb. To them, it is implausible that one could be
drawn into a bunch of cells in a Petri dish in a laboratory. One
of the unstated but necessary ingredients for rebirth is the
sight of one’s future mother, which acts as a magnet to draw
the stream of consciousness in. Such an attractor would be
absent in a laboratory.

Conclusion: embryos outside of a mother’s womb are not
reckoned as human life, and thus the ethical considerations
specific to human beings do not apply.

[Mkoll]

I forget the reference, but the Buddha mentioned that killing a being we can't see (such as a tardigrade) is not an offense. It is about intention with the Dhamma.

An embryo or fetus cannot be seen, although the physician performing the abortion can see the embryo or fetus with the medical equipment and there is intention to kill. Definitely a difficult issue. I guess it can be focused down to when does a human (or animal) life begin?

I think your question is unanswerable right now. Perhaps technology will advance to the point where we can confirm the beginning of life in a fetus. But even then, one could still argue that the first indication of life as seen by an observer doesn't mean life wasn't already present before that indication manifested itself.

Really thorny issue.

[SarathW]

When the embryo is established (deposited) in the womb, there is a potential for life to grow.
The intention to stop that growth is killing.

As David said what matters is the intention.

All killings are not the same.
They have different effect depend on their weight.
Arahant will not do an abortion but run of the mill person might do it and face the consequences.

[Virgo]

Dear kevin
It would be great if you could dig out some references on this issue.

Of course.

"Now, this word birth (játi) has many meanings...

...In the passage, “His birth is due to the first consciousness arisen, the first cognition manifested, in the mother’s womb” (Vin I 93) it is rebirth-linking."

This obviously refers to rebirth-linking consciousness (patisandhi citta), which always directly follows the cuti citta (dying consciousness) as per the Abhidhamma.

And from the next section (Vsm XVI.33):

33. Here it should be regarded as the aggregates that occur from the time of
rebirth-linking up to the exit from the mother’s womb in the case of the wombborn,
and as only the aggregates of rebirth-linking in the case of the rest. But
this is only an indirect treatment. In the direct sense, however, it is the first
manifestation of any aggregates that are manifested in living beings when they
are born anywhere that is called “birth.”

Best,

Kevin

[robertk]

3c. The Buddha consistently stated that human life in this body
begins when consciousness first manifests inside the mother’s
womb. The Pāli word here rendered as “manifest” is Pātubhūta,
which also means to be open, visible, apparent. To be precise,
human life in this body begins not when consciousness first
exists in the mother’s womb, but when it first shows its
existence in the mother’s womb (these two events, I believe,
are simultaneous).

http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books7/Ajahn ... _Begin.pdf
How does consciousness first manifest its existence? Point 2d,
above, states that when consciousness first manifests then
nāma-rūpa also shows its first appearance. Two essential parts
of nāma-rūpa are vedana (feeling, the ability to distinguish
between painful or pleasurable or neutral sensations) and
cetanā (will, deliberate reactions to such sensations). So, when
vedana and will first manifest in the unborn being, then one
knows that nāma-rūpa has first manifested; and when nāmarūpa
has first manifested, then consciousness has first
manifested and human life has begun anew!
In conclusion, only when the embryo-fetus first shows
sensitivity to pleasure and pain (vedana) and first shows
will (such as by a purposeful shrinking away from a
painful stimulus) has consciousness and nāma-rūpa first
manifested and the new human life started

This idea from the article by teh venerable Bhikkhu
that consciousness only "manifests" or arises in an embryo when one can perceive the embryo reacting to pain "such as by a purposeful shrinking away from a
painful stimulus" is not supported by the texts .

The term Pātubhūta, manisfests , is just a way it say it appears or arises. We see in the quote given by Kevin that
Vsm (Visuddhimagga) Chapter XVI.32 wrote:

"Now, this word birth (játi) has many meanings...

...In the passage, “His birth is due to the first consciousness arisen, the first cognition manifested, in the mother’s womb” (Vin I 93) it is rebirth-linking."
In fact I seem to remember other passages note that in the early stages of life in the womb the being is mostly in bhavanga, deep sleep, and no reactions would be noticed at all. Also when the embryo is still very tiny would any reactions be easily seen by an outside observer.

[Sylvester]

Thanks Mike for the article by Ajahn Brahm.

The text in question is this -

Tiṇṇaṃ kho pana bhikkhave sannipātā gabbhassāvakkanti hoti: idha mātāpitaro sannipatitā honti, mātā ca na utunī hoti, gandhabbo ca na paccupaṭṭhito hoti, neva tāva gabbhassāvakkanti [PTS Page 266] [\q 266/] hoti. Idha mātāpitaro ca sannipatitā honti, mātā ca utunī hoti, gandhabbo ca na paccupaṭṭhito hoti, neva tāva gabbhassāvakkanti hoti. Yato ca kho bhikkhave mātāpitaro sannipatitā honti, mātā ca utunī hoti, gandhabbo ca paccupaṭṭhito hoti, evaṃ tiṇṇaṃ sannipātā gabbhassāvakkanti hoti.

Bhikkhus, the descent of the embryo takes place through the union of three things. Here, there is the union of the mother and father, but the mother is not in season, and the gandhabba is not present—in this case no descent of an embryo takes place. Here, there is the union of the mother and father, and the mother is in season, but the gandhabba is not present—in this case too no descent of the embryo takes place. But when there is the union of the mother and father, and the mother is in season, and the gandhabba is present, through the union of these three things the descent of the embryo takes place.

trans. BB, per MLDB

AB's gripe's is with BB's translation of gabbha. By itself, gabbha means womb, although when inflected into the genitive gabbhassa, it can mean that which pertains to the womb, ie the embryo. This appears to be the Ven T's understanding of the meaning of a similar passage in MN 93 -

Jānanti pana bhonto yathā gabbhassa avakkanti hotīti?

Do you know how there is the descent of an embryo?

But, we need to be very, very careful with the genitive inflection. It has absorbed the dative case into its form, so that gabbhassa avakkanti can also be correctly translated and mean "descent into the womb".

What descends into the womb, if not the stream of consciousness?

[TheNoBSBuddhist]

Isn't a nod to current knowledge appropriate?

What descends into the womb is the fertilised ovum.

The debate to me seems to hinge on when precisely that fertilised ovum gains Consciousness (in the "Awareness" sense).

[beeblebrox]

Hi all,

It seems like there's an assumption that the "first consciousness arisen" refers to the embryo's consciousness... but I think it also could easily mean the first consciousness which arose that there was an embryo.

During the Buddha's time, that could mean the awareness that the woman's period was missing... and today, this could mean a birth test which came out positive. There is an awareness that life is forming within the womb.

This is just an idea that occurred to me recently... I don't know how valid it is.

[TheNoBSBuddhist]

Hi all,

It seems like there's an assumption that the "first consciousness arisen" refers to the embryo's consciousness... but I think it also could easily mean the first consciousness which arose that there was an embryo.

During the Buddha's time, that could mean the awareness that the woman's period was missing... and today, this could mean a birth test which came out positive. There is an awareness that life is forming within the womb.

This is just an idea that occurred to me recently... I don't know how valid it is.

For my own ignorant part, I don't think that's a valid assumption; if you cannot be Consciousness for another being while they are an individual, I do not believe you can assume consciousness for an ovum in its embryonic stages while it's in the earliest stages of development....

At that stage, one embryo looks very much like any other from other mammals, too... that is to say, it is indiscernible as a human existent, as it is from a canine, or simian existent....

But you could be right.

I am no-one to say, really...

[beeblebrox]

Hi NoBSBuddhist,

My only interest in here is in the way that this is being interpreted from the commentaries and what the Buddha said, as per the guideline of this particular forum. I do it to gain a better understanding for the rest of his teachings.

I don't do it to get judgmental about what other people end up doing... that's not my place. So, please don't worry about that.

[ArkA]

I forget the reference, but the Buddha mentioned that killing a being we can't see (such as a tardigrade) is not an offense.

This idea of "killing a being we can't see (such as a tardigrade) is not an offence" doesn't come in the whole Vinaya Pitaka or Vinaya Commentary. But according to one of my Japanese Mahayana friend, Mahayana has this story of a monk who looked into the water by divine eye. The monk saw small beings in the water, and was hesitant to boil it. The Buddha told the monk, "I asked you to boil the water, not to look!" The Mahayana says that the beings in the water are the ones in antarabhava. My friend said this story is a later addition and has several interpretations.

An embryo or fetus cannot be seen, although the physician performing the abortion can see the embryo or fetus with the medical equipment and there is intention to kill. Definitely a difficult issue. I guess it can be focused down to when does a human (or animal) life begin?

Contrary to the modern days, in the time of the Buddha when the rules formulated, nobody saw the baby--whatever you call it--until the birth. Mother does an abortion because there is something to abort. When the signs like missing menstruation or morning sickness happening the mother knows that a new life began its journey in her womb. According to the 2nd fold of the Noble Eightfold Path, we should develop "ahinsa sankappa" (intention of non-violence).

I like to quote few paragraphs from Bhante Sujato's article about abortion.

There is clear support for this conclusion in the Vinaya. This states that a monk or nun should never, for the whole of their life, intentionally kill a human being, ‘even to the extent of causing an abortion’. Similarly, they should not have sexual intercourse ‘even to the depth of a sesame seed’. They should not steal ‘even as much as a blade of grass’. They should not lay claim to spiritual attainments ‘even by saying “I delight in an empty dwelling”’. So abortion is clearly regarded as intentional killing of a human being; yet it is the least serious act of this kind.

However we do not accept that it can be proved that the inception of consciousness takes place only after three or four months. This is an ethically arbitrary date which simply marks the present day limits of scientific knowledge, but tells us nothing about the moral status of the embryo. I would very much like to see a study of the effects of abortion on the emotional landscapes of women, and a comparison between women who decided to have an abortion and women who had unwanted pregnancies but decided to bear a child. How do they feel afterwards? Five years later? Ten years later? How many mothers would, when their child had grown up, say that they wished they had had an abortion?

- When Life Begins, Bhikkhu Sujato

Finally, this is all I have to say, as the tagline of the movie "Horton Hears a Who! (2008)":

After all, a person is a person, no matter how small.*


* I don't watch movies, this given by my sister.

[DNS]

I forget the reference, but the Buddha mentioned that killing a being we can't see (such as a tardigrade) is not an offense.

This idea of "killing a being we can't see (such as a tardigrade) is not an offence" doesn't come in the whole Vinaya Pitaka or Vinaya Commentary.

I believe it might be this reference:

pacittiya 61. Should any bhikkhu knowingly deprive an animal of life, it is to be confessed.
pacittiya 62. Should any bhikkhu knowingly make use of water with living beings in it, it is to be confessed.

"Deliberately killing an animal — or having it killed — is [an offence of Confession]."(Summary Paac. 61; BMC p.423)

'Animal' here is paano, literally 'having breath.' The Commentary explains that it includes living beings down to the size of a bedbug. Elsewhere the texts forbid the killing of "even an ant."

◊ One of the bhikkhu's requisites is a water filter. This is employed to prevent the killing of (visible) waterborne creatures when making use of water from a well or stream. Practically, this also leads bhikkhus to take extra care that they cover water jars or regularly change water so that mosquito larvae do not have opportunity to breed. This shows how the Vinaya Rule emphasizes care and forethought as 'preventive medicine.'

There are two rules concerned with bhikkhus and their use of water:

One of these offences was originally perpetrated by the notorious 'group-of-six' monks who used water that contained living beings. It can be summarized:
"Using water, knowing that it contains living beings that will die from one's use, is [an offence of Confession.]" (Paac. 62; BMC p.424)

In the second offence the monks of AA.lavii were doing repairs and 'sprinkled grass and clay' with water that they knew contained life. It is summarized:
"If a bhikkhu knows that water contains living beings but still pours it out onto grass or earth it is [an offence of Confession.] Also pouring — or having it poured — into such water anything that would kill the beings therein is [an offence of Confession.]" (Paac. 20; See BMC p.319)

Intention is an essential factor here. For example, if a bhikkhu only intends to sweep a path but accidentally kills ants in the process, there is no offence because it is not deliberate. However, ordering an animal to be killed (and it is) is an offence.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... guide.html

The water filter is to take out any visible forms of life, such as insects. And obviously there is no intention with any killing of unseen animals.

[TheNoBSBuddhist]

Oh dear....

I emptied my rainwater butt the other day because it had drainfly larvae in there.....

[ArkA]

As advised by the Buddha, this is the third advice I heard just after receiving my higher ordination, so does any bhikkhu.

"When a monk is ordained he should not intetionally deprive a living thing of life, even if it is only an ant. What ever monk deprives a human being of life even down to causing abortion, he becomes not a (true) recluse, not a son of the Sakyans. As a flat stone, broke, becomes (scmething) not to be put together again, even so a monk, having intentionally deprived a human being of life, becomes not a (true) recluse, not a son of the Sakyans. This is a thing not to be done by you as long as life lasts."

- Vinaya, Mahāvagga, 1. Mahā Khandhaka (The Book of Descipline IV, page 125)

I forget the reference, but the Buddha mentioned that killing a being we can't see (such as a tardigrade) is not an offense.

This idea of "killing a being we can't see (such as a tardigrade) is not an offence" doesn't come in the whole Vinaya Pitaka or Vinaya Commentary.

I believe it might be this reference:

pacittiya 61. Should any bhikkhu knowingly deprive an animal of life, it is to be confessed.
pacittiya 62. Should any bhikkhu knowingly make use of water with living beings in it, it is to be confessed
...

Let me quote the relevant passages straight from the Cannon, which clearly prove that it's not about see or not, but a case of "a living thing" and having the perception "that is a living thing". And for a bhiikhu, when there is a living thing, there is an offence even he doubt "whether it's a living thing or not."

"Whatever monk should intentionally deprive a living thing of life, there is an offence of expiation."

Intentionally means: a transgression committed knowingly, consciously, deliberately.

Living thing means: it is called a living thing that is an animal (tiracchānagatahaṇo).

Should deprive of life means: if he cuts off the faculty of life, destroys it, harms its duration, there is an offence
of expiation.

If he thinks that it is a living thing (pāṇasaññī) when it is a living thing, (and) deprives it of life, there is an offence of expiation.
If he is in doubt as to whether it is a living thing, (and) deprives it of life, there is an offence of wrong-doing.
If he thinks that it is not a living thing when it is a living thing, there is no offence.
If he thinks that it is a living thing when it is not a living thing, there is an offence of wrong-doing.
If he is in doubt as to whether it is not a living thing, there is an offence of wrong-doing.
If he thinks that it is not a living thing when it is not a living thing, there is no offence.

- Vinaya, Pācittiya 61 (The Book of Descipline II, page 1-2)

"Whatever monk should knowingly make use of water that contains living things, there is an offence of expiation."

He knows means: he knows by himself or others tell him.

That contains living thing means: if, knowing (this), he makes use of it knowing that "will die from (this) use," there is an offence of expiation.

If he thinks that it contains living things when it contains living things (and) makes use of it, there is an offence of expiation.
If he is in doubt as to whether it contains living things (and) makes use of it, there is an offence of wrong-doing.
If he thinks that it does not contain living things when it contains living things (and) makes use of it there is no offence.
If he thinks that it contains living things when it does not contain living things, there is an offence of wrong-doing.
If he is in doubt as to whether it does not contain living things, there is an offence of wrong-doing.
If he thinks that it does not contain living things when it does not contain living things, there is no offence.

- Vinaya, Pācittiya 62 (The Book of Descipline II, page 3)