Buddhist Response to Euthanasia and Abortion: Ajahn Brahmavamso

compassionate_warrior

http://diydharma.org/buddhist-response-euthanasia-and-abortion-ajahn-brahmavamso
podcast

vinlyn

So this one monk speaks for all Buddhists?

Cinorjer

Almost an hours worth of lecture? I really don't have that kind of time to kill. What is this monk's stand on euthanasia and abortion? Can you summarize? I agree the title of the talk needs redone by the website. There is no "Buddhist" response to any social issue.

Mr_Serenity

I love Ajahn Brahm. I almost never disagree with him. I take his word over any other Buddhist speaker. He is one wise dude. Thanks for sharing I'll check it out later, but I do wish that someone would type out a summary for what he said.

compassionate_warrior

In sum, he advises that the precepts are guidelines, not set rules, therefore they can be broken in extenuating circumstances. Each situation needs to be considered on its individual merits, there are no hard-and-fast rules ("euthanasia is bad"). Before deciding to break a precept, consider carefully from the perspective of the Four Agates, and ask yourself, "Am I making this decision according to my own desire, ill will, fear or ignorance? Am I making the decision in the spirit of compassion and in the best interests of the principal individual(s) involved? Have I investigated the facts and explored alternatives adequately, and brushed aside my own interests?" If necessary, meditate on the question, listen to the heart. Intent is the moral yardstick.

On abortion he said life begins when an individual consciousness enters the fetus. This may occur days after conception, just before birth, or at any point in-between. (No citation to scripture given) Until the fetus acquires its own consciousness, it is part of the mother's body, like any of her organs; it's not a separate being. "It's no different than removing a tumor" if the fetus has no individual consciousness. If a conscious being is aborted, it will find a later opportunity to be reborn.

WallyB

In sum, he advises that the precepts are guidelines, not set rules, therefore they can be broken in extenuating circumstances.

nothing new here. buddha taught kamma is intention. this is the standard view for learned buddhists :coffee:

So this one monk speaks for all Buddhists?

are our idiosyncratic views actually "buddhist"? what makes one "buddhist"?

compassionate_warrior

buddha taught kamma is intention. nothing new here

Correct. Nothing new, except the idea that individual life begins when a new consciousness enters the fetus. I posted the talk as a compliment to the discussion on the abortion thread.

WallyB

the idea that individual life begins when a new consciousness enters the fetus.

argueable & contentious opinion. buddha himself did not teach this (despite the rather liberal interpretations of a certain sutta by some scholars)

buddha taught three things come together to make an fetus: (1) sexual intercourse (union of mother & father); (2) ovum (woman in season) and (3) the gandabba (seed; sperm)

At Savatthi. "Bhikkhus, I will teach you about the devas (gods) of the gandhabba order. Listen to that...."

"And what, bhikkhus, are the devas of the gandhabba order? There are, bhikkhus, devas dwelling in the fragrant roots, devas dwelling in the fragrant heartwood, devas dwelling in the fragrant softwood, devas dwelling in fragrant leaves, devas dwelling in fragrant flowers, devas dwelling in fragrant fruits, devas dwelling in fragrant sap and devas dwelling in fragrant scents."

SN 31.1

compassionate_warrior

argueable opinion. buddha himself did not teach this (despite the rather liberal interpretations of a certain sutta by some scholars)

Do you have that sutric reference to share with us? He did state vaguely that "the Buddha said this", which piqued my curiosity.

WallyB

Monks, the descent of the embryo occurs with the union of three things. There is the case where there is no union of the mother & father, the mother is not in her season, and a gandhabba is not present, nor is there a descent of an embryo. There is the case where there is a union of the mother & father, and the mother is in her season, but a gandhabba is not present, nor is there a descent of an embryo. But when there is a union of the mother & father, the mother is in her season, and a gandhabba is present, then with this union of three things the descent of the embryo occurs.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.038.than.html

"Gandhabba" usually means a low level of celestial deva. Devas on this level are frequently represented in the Canon as obsessed with sexual desire. However, the Commentary here notes that "gandhabba" here does not mean a being standing near, watching the couple have sexual intercourse. Rather, it means the being, driven by kamma, who will take birth on that occasion.

Bhikkhus, the conception of an embryo in a womb takes place through the union of three things. Here, there is the union of the mother and father, but it is not the mother’s season, and the gandhabba is not present - in this case there is no conception of an embryo in a womb. Here, there is the union of the mother and father, and it is the mother’s season, but the gandhabba is not present - in this case too there is no conception of an embryo in a womb. But when there is the union of the mother and father,
and it is the mother’s season, and the gandhabba is present, through the union of these three things the conception of an embryo in a womb takes place.

Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta Patrick Kearney [google PDF]

Bhikkhus, with the coming together of three things a descent to the womb comes about: Here the mother and father come together. It is not the season of the mother. The one to be born does not attend Then there is no descent to the womb. Here, mother and father come together. It is the season of the mother. The one to be born does not attend. Then there is no descent to the womb. Here mother and father come together. It is the season of the mother and the one to be born attends. Then there is a descent to the womb.

http://www.dhammatalks.net/Articles/Mahatanhasankhaya_sutta.htm

WallyB

the idea that individual life begins when a new consciousness enters the fetus.

however, the above view is found in the monk's vinaya, which derives its view from the scripture commentaries:

Object. The Vibhaṅga defines a human being as a person "from the time consciousness first becomes manifest in a mother's womb, up to its death-time." It follows from this that a bhikkhu who intentionally causes an abortion — by arranging for the operation, supplying the medicines or giving advice that results in an abortion — incurs a pārājika. A bhikkhu who encourages a woman to use a means of contraception that works after the point of conception would be guilty of a pārājika if she were to follow his advice.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/bmc1/bmc1.ch04.html

Pārājika
This term, according to the Parivāra, derives from a verb meaning to lose or be defeated. A bhikkhu who commits any of the four following offenses has surrendered to his own mental defilements to such an extent that he defeats the purpose of his having become a bhikkhu in the first place. The irrevocable nature of this defeat is illustrated in the Vibhaṅga with a number of similes: "as a man with his head cut off... as a withered leaf freed from its stem... as a flat stone that has been broken in half cannot be put together again... as a palmyra tree cut off at the crown is incapable of further growth." A bhikkhu who commits any of these offenses severs himself irrevocably from the life of the Saṅgha and is no longer considered a bhikkhu.

Jason

Interesting discussion. Reminds me of something I wrote a while back after a similar discussion we had here. I still find myself reviewing this topic every now and again, however; and truth be told, I'm not entirely satisfied with all of my arguments or my knowledge of the relevant source material.

Cinorjer

Interesting discussion. Reminds me of something I wrote a while back after a similar discussion we had here. I still find myself reviewing this topic every now and again, however; and truth be told, I'm not entirely satisfied with all of my arguments or my knowledge of the relevant source material.

I admired your writing. I do also get asked by people what the "Buddhist" stance is on abortion and such. It simply mystifies people that there is no simple answer to a complex issue.

And in my case, I along with many Buddhists absolutely refuse to consider a thousand year old sutra an authority on when consciousness first develops in an embryo. It's the same reason I don't consider the sutras authoratative when they try to explain why some babies are born dark skinned, or with a birthmark, or crippled, and claim it's past life karma. The monks did the best they could, but they did not have knowledge of genetics or know life was composed of cells or know about cell division or how environment effects gestation or embrionic development. So they tried to fit reality into their belief system and sometimes just didn't have sufficient knowledge.

The sutras are an authority on suffering, its cause and elimination.

vinlyn

Interesting discussion. Reminds me of something I wrote a while back after a similar discussion we had here. I still find myself reviewing this topic every now and again, however; and truth be told, I'm not entirely satisfied with all of my arguments or my knowledge of the relevant source material.

I admired your writing. I do also get asked by people what the "Buddhist" stance is on abortion and such. It simply mystifies people that there is no simple answer to a complex issue.

And in my case, I along with many Buddhists absolutely refuse to consider a thousand year old sutra an authority on when consciousness first develops in an embryo. It's the same reason I don't consider the sutras authoratative when they try to explain why some babies are born dark skinned, or with a birthmark, or crippled, and claim it's past life karma. The monks did the best they could, but they did not have knowledge of genetics or know life was composed of cells or know about cell division or how environment effects gestation or embrionic development. So they tried to fit reality into their belief system and sometimes just didn't have sufficient knowledge.

The sutras are an authority on suffering, its cause and elimination.

Thank you for this post.

compassionate_warrior

Thank you for your helpful posts, WallyB.

I do also get asked by people what the "Buddhist" stance is on abortion and such. It simply mystifies people that there is no simple answer to a complex issue.

Buddhism requires its followers to think, and reflect. Most people are used to their religion telling them what to do. Ajahn Brahm's talk does a good job of explaining this, and fleshing out the reflection process.

Daozen

I've just given my view on abortion on this thread. (Essentially - horrible choice to have to make, but should be legal). But I wanted to say something about this:

On abortion he said life begins when an individual consciousness enters the fetus. This may occur days after conception, just before birth, or at any point in-between. (No citation to scripture given)

Scientifically speaking, this is a profoundly ignorant thing to say.

Until the fetus acquires its own consciousness, it is part of the mother's body, like any of her organs; it's not a separate being. "It's no different than removing a tumor"

Comparing an unborn person to a tumour is one of the most disturbing metaphors I have ever heard. That it came from a Buddhist monk makes it even more shocking.

Namaste

vinlyn

Comparing an unborn person to a tumour is one of the most disturbing metaphors I have ever heard. That it came from a Buddhist monk makes it even more shocking.

And from my perspective negates the validity of anything else he said on the topic.

I can imagine what we would be saying it that statement had come out of the mouth of Rick Santorum or Newt Gingritch.

compassionate_warrior

Comparing an unborn person to a tumour is one of the most disturbing metaphors I have ever heard. That it came from a Buddhist monk makes it even more shocking. Namaste

I was waiting for someone to notice that, and comment. Congratulations, Daozen, you win the "Alert Readers" award, lol!

Also notice that he doesn't address the matter of how someone contemplating an abortion is to determine whether consciousness has entered the fetus already, or not. He implies an abortion does not qualify as taking a life as long as the fetus isn't "conscious". Then he adds that even if a life is terminated, that specific consciousness will find another opportunity to be reborn. This reasoning, undoubtedly, would be comforting to women who have chosen abortion, but as a moral teaching, the "it's all good" approach might raise a few eyebrows.

Jason

Comparing an unborn person to a tumour is one of the most disturbing metaphors I have ever heard. That it came from a Buddhist monk makes it even more shocking. Namaste

I was waiting for someone to notice that, and comment. Congratulations, Daozen, you win the "Alert Readers" award, lol!

Well, from a medical standpoint, I can sort of understand the comparison seeing as early stage embryos and tumors are both just a collection of cells. Where the comparison breaks down, however, is the type of cells and what those growing collection of cells can potentially turn into.

Also notice that he doesn't address the matter of how someone contemplating an abortion is to determine whether consciousness has entered the fetus already, or not. He implies an abortion does not qualify as taking a life as long as the fetus isn't "conscious". Then he adds that even if a life is terminated, that specific consciousness will find another opportunity to be reborn. This reasoning, undoubtedly, would be comforting to women who have chosen abortion, but as a moral teaching, the "it's all good" approach might raise a few eyebrows.

Personally, I think women who have chosen to terminate a pregnancy need all the comfort and support they can get. It's more often than not a very difficult and/or traumatic decision.

federica

also, tumours are foreign bodies which the system recognises as something to eliminate....and surprising as it may be, so is the embryo.....

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_4_116/ai_n19187208/