robertk wrote: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.
Hi robert and Kevin
Let's see what the Vinaya passage which Ajahn Brahm relies on really says -
Tena kho pana samayena āyasmā kumārakassapo gabbhavīso upasampanno ahosi. Atha kho āyasmato kumārakassapassa etadahosi – ‘‘bhagavatā paññattaṃ ‘na ūnavīsativasso puggalo upasampādetabbo’ti. Ahañcamhi gabbhavīso upasampanno. Upasampanno nu khomhi, nanu kho upasampanno’’ti? Bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ. Yaṃ, bhikkhave, mātukucchismiṃ paṭhamaṃ cittaṃ uppannaṃ, paṭhamaṃ viññāṇaṃ pātubhūtaṃ , tadupādāya sāvassa jāti. Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, gabbhavīsaṃ upasampādetunti.
Now at that time the venerable Kassapa the Boy* became ordained twenty years after his conception. Then it occurred to the venerable Kassapa the Boy :
"It is laid down by the Lord that an individual who is under twenty years of age should not be ordained,^ and I am twenty years from my conception. Now am I ordained ^ or am I not ordained ?"
They told this matter to the Lord. He said : " When in his mother's womb the first thought (citta) has arisen (uppanna), the first consciousness (viññāṇa) appeared (pātubhūta),' his birth is (to be reckoned as) from that time. I allow you, monks, to ordain one who is twenty years of age from his conception."
trans. Horner, Book of Discipline, Vol IV, pp.119 - 120.
I'm not sure why Ven Nanamoli rendered
tadupādāya sāvassa jāti as he did, when the function of
upādāya here is to show derivation, ie how birth is to be reckoned with reference to conception. I am not aware of any sutta or vinaya usage of
upādāya as carrying a causative sense as suggested by Ven Nanamoli's translation of the Vinaya passage.
I accept the concept of the rebirth-consciousness as being grounded in the suttas, principally DN 15 -
Viññāṇapaccayā nāmarūpanti iti kho panetaṃ [PTS Page 063] [\q 63/] vuttaṃ. Tadānanda iminā petaṃ pariyāyena veditabbaṃ. Yathā viññāṇapaccayā nāmarūpaṃ. Viññāṇaṃ ca hi ānanda mātukucchismiṃ na okkamissatha, api nu kho nāmarūpaṃ mātukucchismiṃ samuccissathāti"?
"No hetaṃ bhante. "
"Viññāṇaṃ ca hi ānanda mātukucchiṃ okkamitvā vokkamissatha, api nu kho nāmarūpaṃ itthattāya abhinibbattissathāti"?
"No hetaṃ bhante".
"Viññāṇaṃ ca hi ānanda daharasseva sato vocchijjissatha kumārakassa vā kumārikāya vā, api nu kho nāmarūpaṃ vuddhiṃ virūḷhiṃ vepullaṃ āpajjissathāti'?
"No hetaṃ bhante. "
'Tasmātihānanda eseva hetu etaṃ nidānaṃ. Esa samudayo esa paccayo nāmarūpassa yadidaṃ viññāṇaṃ. "
"'From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form.' Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form. If consciousness were not to descend into the mother's womb, would name-and-form take shape in the womb?"
"No, lord."
"If, after descending into the womb, consciousness were to depart, would name-and-form be produced for this world?"
"No, lord."
"If the consciousness of the young boy or girl were to be cut off, would name-and-form ripen, grow, and reach maturity?"
"No, lord."
"Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for name-and-form, i.e., consciousness."
trans, Ven T on ATI
And DN 15 is the elephant in the room that forms the backbone of Ajahn Brahm's argument that nobody has actually bothered to address.
Fundamentally, this boils down to the question - WHEN DOES THE REBIRTH CONSCIOUSNESS DESCEND INTO THE WOMB?
And for this, the next passage in DN 15 proposes this -
Nāmarūpapaccayā viññāṇanti iti kho panetaṃ vuttaṃ. Tadānanda imināpetaṃ pariyāyena veditabbaṃ. Yathā nāmarūpapaccayā viññāṇaṃ: viññāṇaṃ ca hi ānanda nāmarūpe patiṭṭhaṃ na labhissatha, api nu kho āyatiṃ jātijarāmaraṇaṃ dukkhasamudayasambhavo paññāyethāti"?
"No hetaṃ bhante. "
"Tasmātihānanda, eseva hetu etaṃ nidānaṃ esa samudayo esa paccayo viññāṇassa yadidaṃ nāmarūpaṃ. "
"Ettāvatā kho ānanda jāyetha vā jīyetha vā mīyetha vā cavetha vā upapajjetha vā...
'From name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness.' Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness. If consciousness were not to gain a foothold in name-and-form, would a coming-into-play of the origination of birth, aging, death, and stress in the future be discerned?
"No, lord."
"Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for consciousness, i.e., name-and-form.
"This is the extent to which there is birth, aging, death, passing away, and re-arising...
According to DN 15, there will be NO rebirth-consciousness, without the requisite
nāmarūpa. This is the crux of Ajahn Brahm's analysis - the stream of consciousness cannot descend into the womb (
gabbha) if the feeling component of
nāmarūpa is absent.
In fact, I would go even further than Ajahn Brahm and the Vsm to point out that the Vinaya determination of conception has 2 qualifications, ie -
1.
cittaṃ uppannaṃ (mind has arisen), AND
2.
viññāṇaṃ pātubhūtaṃ (consciousness has been manifested).
What if
citta were given its normal sense of mind as the emotional apparatus? What if there is only a "human being" when the foetus finally acquires its affective capacities?
PS - it should also be apparent from this, why Ajahn Brahm disagrees with BB's translation of
gabbhassa avakkanti as referring to the descent of the embryo, when the Vinaya discussion indicates that
gabbha is simply womb. This means that the -
assa ending carries a dative sense, ie descent into the womb,
not descent of the embryo.