Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Abortion and Buddhism
Dakini
Veteran
Is abortion killing? What are dharma women to do? I've seen dharma women ask a lama for a confession/purification ceremony for their "sin" of killing their fetus. What does that achieve, exactly? Are women more at risk of violating the precept against killing, even if they never kill another sentient being (fly, mosquito, ant, etc.)?
0
Comments
(OK, I see a discussion came up under "Killing". thx)
The Buddha taught the 'doer' of pain producing karma is ignorance or not-knowing (rather than "our self").
As for violating a precept, the Buddha said karma is intention. In respect to abortion, each individual woman, in her heart, knows her individual intention. It is not really our business, unless that woman wishes to share with us, due to needing our compassion & forgiveness.
As for 'dharma women', abiding by the third precept is much wiser than seeking forgiveness from a thousand lamas.
The Buddha or another said: "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure".
Kind regards
In the Samyutta Nikaya, there is an entire chapter with various suttas on gandhabba.
As for what is said in MN 38, this is only found in one other place in the suttas.
At the other place, the Buddha asks some laypeople about the gandhabba, so obviously it had a common meaning to ordinary people of that culture.
As for Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of DN 15, this is also dubious. The PTS Pali Dictionary translates this verse as "develops" in the womb (rather than descending out of the sky like a soul or atman).
Also, it is doubtful the Buddha spoke DN 15 anyway, because it has so many conflicts with the many discourses on Dependent Origination. DN 15 excludes the sense bases, which Buddha said in many places, such as AN 3.61 and MN 115, was one of his core teachings. It defines nama-rupa differently and, of course, defines consciousness differently. The other suttas define consciousness as the six kinds of sense consciousness.
So Bhikkhu Bodhi, as usual, is imagining things the Buddha did not actually teach.
to me, your train of thought here appears similar to Christian thought, which defines when a soul arises in an embryo
personally, i struggle to differentiate it
the Buddha himself defined consciousness as six kinds, namely, eye, ear, nose, tonge, body & mind consciousness
for example, eye consciousness arises dependent on the eye meeting a form
eyes & forms must exist for eye consciousness to arise
but your definition of consciousness, to me, appears as though it is a soul or a person
therefore, when an abortion occurs, a "person", "soul" or "previous life consciousness" is killed
Monks. I will teach you about the devas [creators] of the gandhabba order. Listen to this.
There are devas [creators] dwelling in fragrant roots... in fragrant heartwood... in fragrant softwood... in fragrant bark... in fragrant shoots... in fragrant leaves... in fragrant flowers... in fragrant fruits... in fragrant sap... in fragrant scents.
These, monks, are called the devas [creators] of the gandhabba order.
'traditional' means what the village people believe & talk about, which gets handed down generation after generation
'traditional' means, say, what the Catholic Church teaches, in comparison to what Jesus taught
the Buddha did not ever teach (apart from allegedly in DN 15) consciousness is reborn
the Buddha, with strong rebuke, made this empathically clear in MN 38 that he never taught consciousness is reborn
the Buddha taught rebirth occurs due to karma; for example, due to an unskilful action, a person is reborn in a painful state
if you study the history of politics & religion, how priests & monks often courted the sponsorship of kings & rulers, then it is easy to comprehend the Brahminisation of Buddhism
the Brahminisation of Buddhism occured to such a degree that Buddhism actually disappeared from India
i encourage you to read the Vissuddhimagga, which ends with Buddhagosa dedicating his efforts to his personal rebirth in Brahmin heaven
Abortion is a PERSONAL choice. Neither Government, nor Buddhism, have the right to approve or disapprove of it.
I have a lot of personal opinions on this issue, but it's best not to voice opinions on issues like these.
No one is here to stop you performing actions so its up to the individual.
Of course it's a personal choice, and that choice includes things such as how we as individuals choose to view embryos, how far we strive to observe the first precept, and the specific personal circumstances involved (which arguably matters the most). And I don't see anything wrong with discussing that as a community.
Of course there is nothing simple in trying to figure out the sentience of an embryo. Hell, we've had topic on the sentience of insects, micro-organisms and even plants. Oddly enough, the ability to feel pain seemed to be the main criteria there as well. I think it's an over-simplification of the issue.
I just think it's a dead end, that's all. There's no simple way to define sentience. It's not a simple boolean value, so each individual's perception of the level of sentience will be different. The political leaning, religious beliefs and many other factors will ultimately decide. It's hard to fault either choice. There's no rational consensus to reach other than that there's no definitive answer or reasoning either way.
Despite what is written in the Buddhist Sunday school link, the Buddha taught to only speak of Dependent Origination one has seen for oneself.
The Buddha did not teach about alaya consciousness.
However, the essense of alaya consciousness is when the consciousness is coloured or obscured by ignorance & associated mental hindrances.
If we carefully read the passage below, we can understand what is meant by alaya consciousness.
Pure nature never manufactures "self-identity", but it purely manufacturing self identity.
To be human is to have a past, not just our own individual past but also a species past which is around 100,000 years old. Homo sapiens did not miraculously emerge out of the primordal slime like some hominid blue-green algae, they emerged from billions of years evolution. Consequently trillions upon trillions of beings have lived and died so that trillions upon trillions could evolve into trillions upon trillions of beings that eventually evolved into humans. This human population propagated for hundreds of thousands of years (numbering over that time approximately 100 billion). The suffering of these past humans that have lead to our existence is immeasurable, let alone the suffering undergone by the countless trillions and trillions and trillions of creatures that lived and died so that our species could evolve. Put to that the fact that all these non-human creatures that are directly responsible for our existence actually existed in a state of total, absolute, blind ignorance. That is to say without self awareness, something us humans take for granted, despite the fact that it is without a doubt the single-most revered aspect of our being. But imagine living without it, imagine living, but not being consciously aware of the fact that not only "you are alive", but that "you are you and your alive and you know it", relishing isn't it. Not only have we the ability to know ourselves, but we can actually direct our own minds, thoughts and emotions and consequently our actions. We can evolve our characters, become better persons and decide what it is we want to do with our existence. Animals don't have that luxury, worse still, they don't even know they don't, since they exist in abject consciousness-darkness compared to humans. Since on the other hand, all the creatures that ever existed, that are directly responsible for our (YOUR) existence on this planet, lived in total consciousness-darkness and died without even knowing that they even existed in the way you know you exist. The fact that these creatures existed without any intention of being-for-our-sake is neither here nor there. The fact remains we are immeasurably indebted to them. If someone accidentally prevented your child from walking into an oncoming 20-ton truck, intentionally or not, you'd still have enormous gratitude towards that person simply because of the alternative if they hadn't. Consequently, "it ain't easy becoming human" is something of an understatement. Be grateful for what you've got and realise what's being thrown away as a result of abortion.
Sounds like you found your own personal solution to the question. Good for you!
Once a being has pain perception, it is evidence that their neurons are firing... which means that their brain is functioning at some level and, therefore, could be sentient. Whether or not they are still physically attached to their mother and inside of their womb. The first precept (if you subscribe to it) forbids the killing of sentient beings.
Panatipata veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
'Pana' means 'the breath'
My understanding is the first precept is a training rule for Buddhists who chose to undertake the training
Human potential only really begins at the point of conception, when the sperm enters the egg and that egg and sperm combine and transform into a cell-dividing
zygote. This is the instance of creation of a unique individual from the male and female counterparts of human fertilisation. Prior to this point sperm and egg are no different from a piece of skin, an eyeball or a muscle. These parts of a human body contain the same chromosomes and genetic material as does the egg (in a female) or a sperm (in a male). The zygote does not share the same set of chromosomes or genetic material as the mother in which it resides, therefore it is a separate individual. From this point onwards we have true human potential, prior to this point ejaculated sperm is no different, biologically, (though it may carry with it other moral/spiritual baggage due to the passions that lead to it's ejaculation) than blood or the underneath of a picked-off scab (since both of these contain living cells (I'd've included hair and nails too except these are for the most part dead material, particularly the bits we shed or cut) whereas sperm lives for a few hours after ejaculation, but again, the sperm shares the same chromosomes or genetic material as the father from which it originated. The point I'm trying to make here is that the zygote is a separate individual with a life of it's own.
Contraception that prevents sperm meeting egg or vice versa (i.e. condoms, the pill and the IUS (though these last two may have adverse effects on the woman and/or the environment since they rely on drugs (since they employ synthetic hormones))) is the same as allowing the sperm to die as it would if naturally absorbed by the body. The IUD or coil, well this is a contentious isue for some, but it seems pretty straightforward to me. IUDs can either prevent sperm & egg from joining (in which case it is contraception) or it can prevent the fertilized egg (i.e. a zygote) from attaching to the uterus wall (in which case it is an abortion). Now I know I make use of the term "uterus wall" but that is in relation to the stage at which many abortions take place, whereas with IUDs it takes place earlier than this, and I consider conception to be the point at which the egg and sperm join as a single organism, i.e. when it becomes a zygote, or a fertilised egg. Therefore the latter type of IUD employs abortion not contraception. Unfortunately, this point is often neglected in descriptions of IUD function, hence the contention. The morning after pill does pretty much the same as IUDs and therefore can be abortive. Masterbation only carries the risk of reduced spiritual (and even emotional) development depending on how one allows the passions to be inflamed, for me it has nothing to do with the taking of a life for the reasons given above (regarding ejaculation). There is one more point that I may as well make (since this has ended up being such a comprehensive post) and that is the issue of forced pregnancy, in what ever manner it occurred. This for me is a difficult issue, since it seems wrong to put someone under such a burden and against their will. No women should have to go through an unwanted pregnancy, that was forced upon her and without her will. Thus we have the welfare of the women in question and also the life of an wholly innocent potential human in question. Surely neither has a greater right to live than the other, however, the suffering of the women would surely be far the greatest. However depending on how the pregnancy came about, irresponsible decisions could have been the cause in which case, the decision would be on the basis of the women's conscience. I'm aware this last point may cause considerable controversy, but facts are facts, and people live responsible and irresponsible lives and make skillful judgments and poor judgements in life. This is the nature of existence, and I'd be negligent if I didn't point this out just because I didn't want to get flamed.