Life from what period

[Sylvester]

Hi culaavuso

Can you infer the textual support from the standard DO requirement that contact is dependant of the 6 bases?

I don't intend to approach the suttas as a Bible literalist trying to appeal to the notion of the God of the Gaps. If current science suggests no workable sense faculty prior to the 8th week, how will DO be applied?

[culaavuso]

Can you infer the textual support from the standard DO requirement that contact is dependant of the 6 bases?

I don't intend to approach the suttas as a Bible literalist trying to appeal to the notion of the God of the Gaps. If current science suggests no workable sense faculty prior to the 8th week, how will DO be applied?

How can a scientific experiment conclude the presence or absence of sense faculties prior to the 8th week? It doesn't seem like a hypothesis either way is currently falsifiable. Assuming that the inability to test something means it isn't there led to conclusions such as the belief that babies can't feel pain. Occam's razor might suggest that assuming there is no workable sense faculty prior to the eighth week is reasonable, but that isn't a proof that it's true.

[Sylvester]

I don't think it fails Popper's test of falsifiability. I may not be a biologist, but I make a fairly good arm-chair version. If the papers I have been reading are not tainted by manipulation or bias, there is empirical evidence linking foetal sensate abilities to the development of the thalamus.

[culaavuso]

I don't think it fails Popper's test of falsifiability. I may not be a biologist, but I make a fairly good arm-chair version. If the papers I have been reading are not tainted by manipulation or bias, there is empirical evidence linking foetal sensate abilities to the development of the thalamus.

In these papers, what means of measurement determined the presence or absence of qualia? Such a technique would seem to resolve a number of open questions in neuroscience and philosophy.

[beeblebrox]

I'm quite prepared to listen to your argument concerning the nāmarūpa around "it", "it" presumably being intended to refer to the embryo.

Hi Sylvester,

I think you're asking me to overextend what's already been said... but here goes:

Namarupa (and its consciousness) is pervasive. There is nothing in one's world which is not namarupa... a person's consciousness is basically its equivalent.

That is my understanding of what namarupa is.

In embryo's case, the womb is its namarupa. That's why its consciousness was described to "descend into the womb." Also note that the embryo is always linked to its mother.

I gave you a hint on this pervasiveness of the namarupa/consciousness: if someone didn't think that a life was forming, then why would he/she ever think that an abortion was necessary?

An abortion is only performed when someone thinks that a life is forming. That is a consciousness of life.

[Sylvester]

Hi bb

I'm at a loss for words....

[beeblebrox]

I'm at a loss for words....

Welcome to samsara.

[waterchan]

In embryo's case, the womb is its namarupa.

And what is your source for this?

if someone didn't think that a life was forming, then why would he/she ever think that an abortion was necessary?

Because it's still forming, and not yet formed. It sounds like playing with semantics, but that is the crux of the argument.

[beeblebrox]

In embryo's case, the womb is its namarupa.

And what is your source for this?

Hi Waterchan,

As I've mentioned, I felt like what I wanted to say was being overextended.

There is no way for a person to try determine whether there was consciousness in the embryo or not, except through one's own namarupa (i.e., what he perceives to be the world)... there is no way around this.

To me, that effectively sets up the namarupa around the embryo.

if someone didn't think that a life was forming, then why would he/she ever think that an abortion was necessary?

Because it's still forming, and not yet formed. It sounds like playing with semantics, but that is the crux of the argument.

Right... at what point does the person begin to think that the embryo is alive? The answer for that changes... not just for the person, but in between people, too.

That is what creates the dukkha. This is the only thing I'm interested in, for my practice.

By the way, it doesn't seem like that the life is ever done with forming, not even after the embryo is born. It also doesn't even seem to stop when the person is finally dead, when there are many rebirths.