( 30 ) Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies Vol. 46, No. 2, March 1998 Semen, Blood, and the Intermediate Existence Robert KRITZER The subject of the antarabhava, or the intermediate existence between the moment of death in one life and conception in the next, is a fascin- ating and intricate one, combining elements of mythology, cosmology, philosophy, embryology, and sexual psychology. The focus of this paper is the transition between the antarabhava and the embryo, particularly the disposition of the material constituents of the being, that is the stream of rupa. After all, although it is tempting to think of the antarabhava as a disembodied state in which the consciousness is some- how floating around waiting for reincarnation, the texts tell us that the antarabhava is provided with all five of the sense faculties. And, as we know, the sense faculties consist of matter, although in a subtle form. Furthermore, the sense faculties cannot exist without the support of gross matter (the mahabhutas), and so the antarabhava must also consist of gross matter, although itself in some sort of attenuated form, since the antarabhava is invisible to most other beings, it feeds on smell, etc. Complicating the question of how continuity is maintained between lifetimes are the biological facts of life. Whereas Buddhists have always been concerned with the karmic legacy of the past, which is essentially a matter of consciousness, people today, and not just scientists, focus on the transmission of genes, a material or physical process that is yet somehow not completely antithetical to Buddhist notions of karma. As for the Indian Buddhists, although they are not likely to have been accomplished geneticists, they clearly knew how babies are born; there- fore, the role in the rebirth process played by the semen and blood (i.e., the ovum), which we know to be the media of genetic transmission, came under scrutiny in abhidharma and early Yogacara texts (in fact, -1031- Semen, Blood, and the Intermediate Existence (R. KRITZER) ( 31 ) many of the features and functions attributed to the antarabhava appear in different guise in the Indian medical literature; see, for example, Caraka Samhita 4.2.31-36). How do the skandhas of the antarabhava, which carry over the balancer of karma from one life to the next, engage with the semen and the blood,, which begin as pure matter contributed by the parents, yet become the sentient inheritor of the karma from the past life via the antarabhava? In this paper, I shall examine what Vasubandhu says in the Abhidhar- makosabhasya about this problem.. First, we must look at Vasubandhu's explanation of how the antarabhava becomes involved in the moment of conception.. This passage from the Abhidharmakosabhasya is famous as "a Buddhist depiction of an Oedipal conflict: First the antarabhava observes the location of its future birth, where its future parents are having sex. If it is destined to be male, it will be consumed with lust for the mother and hatred for the father, if female, the opposite. Confused by these thoughts of lust and hatred, it wishes that it were the one having intercourse and establishes itself in the impurity in the womb, namely the semen and blood of the par- ents. At this point, its skandhas congeal and cease to exist. In this way, conception takes place (AKBh: 126-127; LVP 1971, v. 2:50-52). A very early description of the same scene can be pieced together from two passages from the Dharmaskandha. We can summarize the events described or implied in these two passages as follows: the aroused parents have sex in the presence of the gandharva; the gandharva dies; the embryo coagulates in the womb (Dietz 1984: 33-34; T. 1537:507c3-6, 8- 11; Kawamura 1981: 206) . As in the case of Dighanikaya 1 63, there is no mention of the semen and blood; the Dharmaskandha says that the embryo congeals, while in Dighanikaya, it is the namarupa, which Sch- mithausen suggests is equivalent to the embryo (Dighanikaya II 63 quoted in Schmithausen 1987: 301-302 n. 238). Vasubandhu's account in the Abhidharmakosabhasya can be traced more directly to the Vibhasa, which contains a description of the same se- quence of events very similar to his own (T. 1545: 363b17-c6; KIK Bidonbu- -1030- ( 32 ) Semen, Blood, and the Intermediate Existence (R. KRITZER) l0: 195). However, there are still some differences. In the Vibhasa, the semen and blood are emitted, the antarabhava becomes thick, the thick- ened antarabhava enters the womb, the antarabhavaskandhas perish, and the upapattibhavaskandhas arise. In Vasubandhu's account, the antarabhava first enters the mixture (as it must by now be) of the semen and blood, then thickens and perishes, and the new being is conceived. Although the Vibhasa may imply a merging of antarabhava with the semen and blood, it does not actually describe it. Vasubandhu, on the other hand, seems to state that the antarabhava enters into the semen and blood, at which point its mahabhutas, it woula appear, coincide with those of the semen and blood. Vasubandhu's reason for modifying the traditional account here is, I think, to clarify what is happening to the rupasantana during the transition between lifetimes. Vasubandhu next takes up the question of the basis of the faculties (indriya) of the new being; this is not, as far as I can tell, discussed in the Vibhdsa or other early abhidharma texts. Vasubandhu asks: do the mahabhutas of the semen and blood themselves become, by the force of karma, the basis for the faculties of the [new being] ? Or do other mahabhutas, supported by these [mahabhutas of semen and blood], arise as a result of actions? P' u-kuang provides a useful discussion of the issues raised by this question (T. 1821: 162b6-18; KIK Ronsho-bu 2:286-287). According to the first opinion, the semen and blood, which lack faculties, perish together with the antarabhava. Immediately thereafter, the kalala, which possesses faculties, appears in the way that a sprout arises after the destruction of the seed (For P' u-kuang' s explanation of the implications of this opinion, see T. 1821:162b18-28; KIK Ronsho-bu 2:287). According to the second opinion, other mahabhutas become the basis for the faculties of the new being, as in the case of worms, whose mahabhutas possess the nature of indriyas, on leaves, whose mahabhutas do not possess the nature of indriyas. P' ukuang's explanation of this opinion is somewhat unclear, but his point seems to be that the mahabhutas of the last moment of antara- -1029-- Semen, Blood, and the Intermediate Existence (R . KRITZER) ( 33 ) bhava depend on the semen and blood, but the mahabhittas of the first moment of upapattibhava depend on those of the last moment of antarab- hava, and not on the semen and blood, itself (T. 1821:162: 162b29-c13; KIK Ronsho-bu 2:287-288). While P'u-kuang gives a dispassionate account of the two opinions, Samghabhadra, who is quoted at the end of P' u-kuang's discussion of the second opinion, violently objects to the first opinion of the Abhid- harmakosabhasya. He maintains that this opinion results in a break in the continuity of rupa between the antarabhava and the upapattibhava, because the insensate mahabhutas of the semen and blood are interposed between the sensate mahabhutas of the antarabhava and the sensate ma- hdbhutas of the upapattibhava. He continues with an attack on the seed and sprout simile of the opinion: there is a difference, he says, between the production of the faculties and the way in which a sprout is pro- duced from a seed. It is illogical for something insensate [the semen and blood] to act as a seed. for something sensate [the upapattibhava] and give rise to it because their continuities are different. It is illogical to say that, after the two rupas of the sensate (the faculties of the antar- abhava) and the insensate (the semen and blood) perish together, when the rupa of the sensate (=the faculties of the upapattibhava) arises afterwards, the insensate (the semen and blood) is the cause, while the sensate (=the faculties of the antarabhava) is not the cause (T.1562 477c-478a; KIK Bidon-bu 28136-137). On the basis of the above, we can make the following observations: 1. Samghabhadra accepts the second opinion mentioned in the Abhi- dharmakosabhasya. 2. Because the first opinion employs the simile of seed and sprout, to which Vasubandhu often appeals and which is in line with the image of the series of rice, with which Vasubandhu begins his discussion of antarabhava, and because this opinion is attacked by Samghabhadra, we can assume that it represents Vasubandhu's position. 3. Both opinions attempt to maintain the continuity of the series of -1028- ( 34 ) Semen, Blood, and the Intermediate Existence (R. KRITZER) rupa. 4. The first opinion implies that the mahabhutas of the antarabhava merge with those of the semen and blood, thereby making them sensate and allowing them to be the direct cause of the mahabhutas of the faculties of the new being. 5. The second opinion states that the mahabhutas of the antarabhava remain distinct from the semen and blood, although they become de- pendent on them in the last moment of antarabhava. Therefore, it is those mahabhutas, and not the mahabhutas of the semen and blood, that are the cause of the mahabhutas of the faculties of the new being. The mahabhutas of the semen and blood are merely contributing factors. Up until this point, we have dealt with texts at least ostensibly in the Sarvastivadin abhidharma tradition.