“That’s why this is the cause, source, origin, and reason of contact, namely name and form.
‘Consciousness is a condition for name and form’—that’s what I said. And this is a way to understand how this is so. If consciousness were not conceived in the mother’s womb, would name and form coagulate there?”
This has been cited by others to conclude that dependent origination must be about physical birth in all instances. But doesn’t such a strict reading also preclude non-physical birth in other realms spoken of in sutta? Does this mean non-mammals or even animals that reproduce without any analogous structure (salmon anyone?) are not conscious?
Hello. I think the sutta mentions the dependence of name and form in that way because the Blessed One was explaining the dependence within the framework of Bhante Ananda’s reference, that of a human being.
I think this is the case as well. I wonder if those who take a strict reading will believe that human consciousness cannot arise in an artificial womb in the future?
I don’t think it is a proper translation, perhaps my English isn’t good enough to appreciate it. But consciousness isn’t conceived it the womb, and for that matter anywhere else. Consciousness is dependently arisen, and as long as it is established on namarupa, there will be birth, old age and death. But these all are events in the field of consciousness.
I don’t think Consciousness necessarily ceases and arises on death/birth either. There is in-between lives stuff like the Bardo and much other to consider with regards to an ongoing reality. Consciousness, like water, can go down the waterfall of death then go down the river of Bardo until it reaches the ocean of new life. But then to get to the other shore we may seek Nibbana.
Then in Mahayana Buddhism the idea of Buddha-Nature gives rise to the idea that one can achieve Enlightenment at any stage of development, even in the Bardo or before birth. I hope this can convey the reality that all life is Sacred.