Life from what period

[DNS]

Does this mean that conjoined twins have only a single stream of consciousness? If not, how is the situation different since both conjoined twins and a single embryo are a single connected multicellular mass of flesh? Does it matter if the conjoined twins share a heart? Or if they share a nervous system?

Good question; I would tend to think that there are 2 s.o.c. in the case of conjoined twins as RobertK noted. From a scientific-materialism perspective too, since there are two brains; thus, the potential for 2 sets of different thoughts and then different kamma-vipaka. However, I understand that it can't be put that s.o.c. = brain (scientific-atheist-materialism), so I defer to RobertK's post as the explanation.

[culaavuso]

Even if there was a case of conjoined twins that shared the same heart they could not share the heart base. The heart base is situated inside the physical heart and is an extremely tiny and subtle rupa that arises and falls away instantly (as with all rupas). It might appear that they had the same basis but it would a different one.

So does this same explanation allow two streams of consciousness in the same embryo, contrary to Ajahn Brahm's claim that such a situation is impossible? Ajahn Brahm seems to claim that the streams of consciousness must arise after twins have split, but this explanation seems to leave open the possibility that the twins might split after the two streams of consciousness arise.

[robertk]

The texts suggest that soon after the union of male and female, i.e conception, it is possible for patisandhi citta to arise in that rupa. The texts do not say it has to be exactly that very instant of the mixing of male seed with egg, although it might be.
If i venture to speculate It might be a few hours later, or even a day (or two?), on some occasions, so by then the egg has already split i think.

[Sylvester]

From what seems to be my current understanding (when this is translated as "descent into the womb" and not "descent of the embryo"), it still doesn't seem to support Ven. Brahm's argument anymore in using the embryo as a frame of reference for the existence (or non-existence) of consciousness.

It has nothing to do with the embryo initially, but the relationship in between consciousness and namarupa.

Precisely. This is Ajahn Brahm's argument!

If you look carefully at the Pali formula in MN 38, it says 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/into the womb 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/into the womb 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/into the womb 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/into the womb takes place.

MN 38, per MLDB (with my alternative in italics for gabbhassa as carrying the dative sense, even though inflected in the genitive)

Although Bhante Sujato had previously argued (http://santifm.org/santipada/2010/when-life-begins/) that this passage suggest contemporaneity of all three things, this does not agree with what Warder has to say about such periphrastric constructions -

Secondly hū as auxiliary is used in general statements or " eternal truths ” , in passages of didactic or philosophical direct
speech. Here the action referred to is such as would or may take place at any time given the conditions described, and we have
one of the regular uses of the present tense. This construction alternates with the optative in hypothetical descriptions or
analogies. Usually the passage where hū is used as auxiliary opens with the word idha, " in this connection/' which sets the
tone or aspect of the whole section of text—sometimes one of considerable length. Several such passages will be found in the
reading passage in Exercise 22, with the present tense (except for the " perfect ” āha, a form which in fact generally seems to
stand for present or indefinite (general) time). It would be possible in such contexts to translate idha as “ supposing ” or
" whenever M (introducing an example or hypothesis). Similar passages begin with tatra, " in this connection/' with hoti
itself (placed initially) or with the optative siyā :—

Intro to Pali, p.237

In Pali, you'd need to replace all of the hū verbs with the as verb to bring out the sense of contemporaneity. Hoti can be used to describe the past (nothwithstanding that it is a present tense verb) and more importantly, it can is used also to describe the future.

( A note of thanks to pulga who helped remind me to revise Lesson 24)

There are people who are unable to feel pain. ("Congenital Insensitivity to Pain," article here; and "People Who Feel No Pain Can't Smell, Either," article here.) Does that mean there is no consciousness for them, overall?

The article cited suggests that such subjects are capable of feeling other sensations.

I think in Early Buddhism, the range of the faculties through which pleasure, pain and neutral feelings can arise is much broader than just the tactility addressed in those articles.

[Virgo]

The Commentary explains further.

The sutta is straightforward enough that your comment in response to Sylvester was wrong. And the commentarial stuff adds little if anything other than show that Sylvester was correct in what he said.

So Tilt is it more like an immaterial or subtle material body that descends down into the womb from a bardo or from air or somewhere? Which plane of existence does it come from?

Kevin

[tiltbillings]

The Commentary explains further.

The sutta is straightforward enough that your comment in response to Sylvester was wrong. And the commentarial stuff adds little if anything other than show that Sylvester was correct in what he said.

So Tilt is it more like an immaterial or subtle material body that descends down into the womb from a bardo or from air or somewhere? Which plane of existence does it come from?

Kevin

Did I say anything remotely resembling what you are asking? Nope. I'll go with the suttas on this.

[beeblebrox]

From what seems to be my current understanding (when this is translated as "descent into the womb" and not "descent of the embryo"), it still doesn't seem to support Ven. Brahm's argument anymore in using the embryo as a frame of reference for the existence (or non-existence) of consciousness.

It has nothing to do with the embryo initially, but the relationship in between consciousness and namarupa.

Precisely. This is Ajahn Brahm's argument!

Hi Sylvester,

It seems like you missed the point that I wanted to make. In Ven. Brahm's argument, he's still focusing on the embryo to try determine whether there was consciousness or not. To me, he seems to be missing the namarupa around it.

Before I go further with this, I want to make clear again that I think abortion is still always a choice for those who might need it. It's not my intention to take that away from them.

It's just that I think the abortion needs to be seen with awareness, for what it is.

People don't do it when they think that there is no life. That doesn't make sense. They do it with the intention to prevent a life from forming. Whatever their reasons might be... and of course, that might be complex.

That's what samsara is!

We should face this with awareness. I think it's delusional to try view it otherwise, and also misleading to try influence others to try see it in any other way.

Again, I'm not against a person performing abortion... it's just that I think he/she should be aware of what they're doing (or even not doing), so that they could be prepared to deal with it, in a way that is realistic for them.

[Sylvester]

It seems like you missed the point that I wanted to make. In Ven. Brahm's argument, he's still focusing on the embryo to try determine whether there was consciousness or not. To me, he seems to be missing the namarupa around it.

Hi bb

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

The embryo is certainly endowed with form, but what of nāma? Whether you use the suttanta method or the Abhidhammic method to slice and dice nāma, you'll still need to account for -

- feeling,
- perception, and
- formations
- attention & contact (the Abhidhamma puts this in Formations)

Can you refer to any textual support that says that a fertilised egg (let's say of a week old) has nāma?

The problem with the interpretation of the MN 38 passage involving contemporaneity of the 3 events (ie mother's fertility, coitus and the descent into the womb) is twofold -

1. grammatically, the periphrastic structure on MN 38 does not entail contemporaneity of the 3 events; and
2. medically, fertilisation has a window within which to occur, that is determined by the viability of the gametes after the time of coitus. Secondly, your have Condic's opinion (among many) that the embryo does not feel until around the 8th week.

The most basic driver of kamma are the anusayas; they are the sub-conscious roots that drive emotional response that create the opening for rebirth: SN 12.38. But anusayas are dependant on feelings. Is it your position that newly fertilised eggs/embryos can feel and can therefore anuseti (lie with the feeling)?

[culaavuso]

The embryo is certainly endowed with form, but what of nāma? Whether you use the suttanta method or the Abhidhammic method to slice and dice nāma, you'll still need to account for -

- feeling,
- perception, and
- formations
- attention & contact (the Abhidhamma puts this in Formations)

Can you refer to any textual support that says that a fertilised egg (let's say of a week old) has nāma?

Is there textual support that says a zygote doesn't have associated nāma? Is there textual support explaining what configurations are necessary to support nāma? Is there textual support for the idea that nāma is only present if it is detectable by beings other than the consciousness experiencing it?

[tiltbillings]

The embryo is certainly endowed with form, but what of nāma? Whether you use the suttanta method or the Abhidhammic method to slice and dice nāma, you'll still need to account for -

- feeling,
- perception, and
- formations
- attention & contact (the Abhidhamma puts this in Formations)

Can you refer to any textual support that says that a fertilised egg (let's say of a week old) has nāma?

Is there textual support that says a zygote doesn't have associated nāma? Is there textual support explaining what configurations are necessary to support nāma? Is there textual support for the idea that nāma is only present if it is detectable by beings other than the consciousness experiencing it?

Can you provide textual support for the use of "zygote?" Or "egg?" The problems is that texts are not doing science.

[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.