Impermanence, Suffering and No-self Response to Human Cloning: A Buddhist View

Today we live in a scientific age in which almost every aspect of our lives has been affected by science. Since the scientific revolution during the seventeenth century, science has continued to have a vast influence on what we think and do. Modern scientific thought is closer to the ancient beliefs of Buddhism, which holds to an infinite universe, with no beginning and no end. As K. N. Jayatilleke states, the early Buddhists' conception of the cosmos is in essence, similar to the modern conception of the universe.[1] Whenever, we step into a new age or new geographical area we ask ourselves, "How can we put Buddhist principles into practice to face the present situation?" This question is based on the presumption that the Buddhist principles should be changed from place to place and time to time. K. Sri Dhammananda mentioned, religion without science is crippled, while science without religion is blind.[2] To be sure, Buddhism does not deny modern scientific progress, but it tries to describe the truths of the universal phenomenon. The scientific spirit can be found in the Buddha's approach to spiritual truth. The Buddha's method for discovering and testing spirit is very similar to that of the scientist. A scientist observes the external world objectively, and will only establish a scientific theory after conducting many successful practical experiments.

The Buddhist explanation for the origin of life is based on the doctrine of dependent origination. As for the right to identity, Buddhism advocates the three universal characteristics of existence are the characteristics of impermanence, suffering, and no-self (which denies any sort of unitary, permanent, or unchangeable), and hence can interpret and understand such issues more validly.

What is cloning? In short, the reproduction of a living being genetically identical to another living being by the insertion of the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) from any body cell or from an early embryo into an ovum from which the DNA has been removed. Such a clone would be the same as an identical twin of the original except for the difference in age. Human cloning is currently almost universally prohibited.[3] Cloning human beings would involve removing the nucleus of the fertilized egg cell (which contains the hereditary genetic material) and replacing it with the nucleus of a cell taken from the adult whom it is wished to clone. The resulting embryo would be the 'identical twin' of the adult from whom the replacement cell nucleus was obtained. It would exactly replicate the genetic make-up of the adult and so its tissue and organs would be 'customized' to whatever stage was appropriate for development of the tissue or organs required (or potentially required for) for it to be the adult twin.[4]

On February 23, 1997, the public learned that Dr. Ian Wilmut, a Scottish scientist, and his colleagues at the Roslin Institute successfully used a technique called somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) to create a clone of a sheep; the cloned sheep was named Dolly. SCNT involves transferring the nucleus of an adult sheep somatic cell, into a sheep egg from which the nucleus had been removed. After nearly 300 attempts, the cloned sheep known as Dolly was born to a surrogate sheep mother. SCNT is not reproduction since a sperm is not used with the technique, but rather it is an extension of technology used not only in research but also used to produce medically relevant cellular products such as cartilage cells for knees, as well as gene therapy products.

On February 28, 1997, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a comprehensive plan for the regulation of cell and tissue based therapies that incorporated the legal authorities described in the FDA's 1993 guidance, Proposed Approach to Regulation of Cellular and Tissue-Based Products.

On March 7, 1997 then, President Clinton issued a memorandum that stated: "Recent accounts of advances in cloning technology, including the first successful cloning of an adult sheep, raise important questions. They potentially represent enormous scientific breakthroughs that could offer benefits in such areas as medicine and agriculture. But the new technology also raises profound ethical issues, particularly with respect to its possible use to clone humans."[5]

A research team from the University of Hawaii produced a clone from a male mouse. In Korea Woo-Suk Hwang at Seoul National University cloned both a milk-cow and a Korean meat-cow with favorable heredity. What makes matters more complicated is Hwang's statement on another occasion that he fails to see that a cloned human embryo should be acknowledged as human life at all: "That requires the egg from a woman and the sperm from a man," he said. "We used no sperm."[6] And he concludes: "Nothing in Buddhist teachings raises precise ethical questions about the next step–inserting that cloned embryo from a test tube into a women's womb to clone an infant."[7]

Undoubtedly, Buddhist scriptures do not discuss whether a human embryo can be used to benefit other sentient beings. As we consider new forms of biotechnology that did not exist during the Buddha's time such as human-assisted reproduction, cloning, and embryo stem cell research, we may find new divisions to "life." For instance, cellular life as opposed to human life, embryo as opposed to pre-embryo, and (as a result of in-vitro fertilization procedures) embryos in a laboratory dish as opposed to embryos in a womb. Buddhists need to discuss such issues in relation to the precepts, and taking into consideration legal regulations, establish norms and criteria so that a balance can be struck between "protecting life" and "improving life" when these values conflict.[8] Anyhow, if Hwang had a serious interest in advancing or even applying Buddhist ethical reasoning to human cloning research, he would have made sure that the audience got a clear picture of his idea of human life. Or, at least, of what he sees as the moment from which human life must be protected. Hwang never mentions that Buddhist texts contain quite clear definitions of the beginnings of human life, and, moreover, most of them argue, generally speaking, that to kill embryonic life is an unwholesome act.[9]

A parallel to Hwang's disregard can be found in some of the articles that zealously adopted his attitude in all respects as an example of the 'Buddhist' attitude as such. Actually, Korean Buddhist critics of cloning-for-research play an important role in the movement "People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy", a fact seldom mentioned in Western reports.[10] And the specific teachings of Buddhism are based on the ideal of helping others, out of compassion, with special regard to their suffering. Damien Keown states that cloning, if "it is ever perfected in human beings, would show only that there are a variety of ways in which life can be generated. It would not cast doubt on whether the host from which the clone was taken, or the clones itself, were ontological individuals."[11] According to Somparn Promta, Buddhism has little against reproductive cloning, since it is aimed at producing a human being, not killing it. However, when the process involves a lot of killing (as when many embryos have to be destroyed), the process can become objectionable.[12] However, if cloning human beings can be practiced, to be sure, abortion also can be acceptable, because there will no difference between destroying embryos than in killing their fetus. Edward Conze emphasized what is expected of a Buddhist is that he should do no violence to others by imposing his views upon them. Non-interference with the dignity of others thus becomes a prime consideration in the presentation of a doctrine.[13] On the other hand, P. D. Premasiri points out; the, "golden rule"[14] must be applied to the question of cloning. He argued: "But if there is any objection, it has to be on consideration of other facts like: If we produce cloned human beings, are there likely to be certain problems, emotional problems? Under normal conditions we have parents that care, parental relationships which are connected with the emotional development of the present; now, without these will a person, produced in this artificial manner, become a misfit, have emotional problems which could result in disastrous consequences later on?"[15]

Buddhist scholars generally agree that the process by which children are born into the world makes no difference. "Individuals can begin their lives in many ways," including but not limited to human sexual generation. Cloning is thereby understood as an alternative method of generating new human life, in principle continuous with other methods (Keown). The Buddha's warning to his followers that speculation about metaphysical issues was futile because the human problems of birth, old age, death, and sorrow remain regardless. However, basic Buddhist teachings present an ethic of responsibility, centered on the values of non-injury and the relief of suffering of sentient beings, compassion, the "no-self," the moral authority of intuition, and reincarnation. These values offer some elements of a Buddhist response to reproductive and genetic technologies, including cloning. According to Buddhism the principle of doctrine is given in a short formula of four lines. In the Majjhima-Nikaya, the Buddha says,
When this is, that is (Imasmim sati idam hoti);
This arising, that arises (Imassuppada idam uppajjati);
When this is not, that is not (Imasmim asati idam na hoti);
This ceasing, that ceases (Imassa nirodha idam nirujjhati).

[16]

On this principle of conditionality, relativity and interdependence, the whole existence and continuity of life and its cessation are explained in detail in what is called "Dependent Origination" Paticca-samuppada. In the Samyutta-Nikaya, the Buddha explained the origin and the cessation of suffering: And what, bhikkhus, is dependent origination? With ignorance as condition, volitional formations (come to be); with volitional formations as condition, consciousness; with consciousness as condition, name-and-form; with name-and-form as condition, the six sense bases; with the six sense bases as condition, contact; with contact as condition, feeling; with feeling as condition, craving; with craving as condition, clinging; with clinging as condition, existence(recheck this with your source or reference because something is missing or not in the correct order, I would check it later!) as condition, birth; with birth as condition, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. This, bhikkhus, is called dependent origination.

But with the remainder-less fading away and cessation of ignorance comes cessation of volitional formations; with the cessation of volitional formations,……aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure and despair cease. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.

[17]

Ven. W. Rahula points out that the doctrine of "No-self" is the natural result of, or the corollary to, the analysis of the teaching of "dependent origination." He further states, dependent origination should be considered as a circle, and not as a chain.[18] Dependent origination is not something invented or created by Buddha. As the Buddha himself has claimed "whether the Buddhas were to exist or to not exist this nature of reality is there, namely, the conditionality."[19] Ven. Nyanatiloka points out, dependent origination, is the doctrine of the conditionality of all physical and physical phenomena, a doctrine, which, together with that of 'no-self' forms the indispensable condition for the real understanding and realization of the teachings of the Buddha.[20] Whereas, Th. Stcherbatsky maintains, Buddhism never denied the existence of a personality, or soul, in the empirical sense, he only maintained that it was not the ultimate reality.[21]

This remark states that since everything is impermanent, there is nothing that has a permanent, abiding identity that could be called a "self." We look at our bodies and we say, "Well, this is I right here. Look at me! I'm quite solid." But if we trace our life back to its beginning, we had no "body" at that point. Our bodies have been absorbed from food we have eaten, life consumed. In this view, at what point does the physical body become 'me'? Buddhism states that all the things we associate with a 'self', our bodies, our feelings, our thoughts, our consciousness are aggregates of other things, all impermanent by nature. In this view, all are with regard to one another; it is impossible to discuss one without also including the other two. The Majjhima-Nikaya clarifies this point with a discussion between the Buddha and his students:
What do you think, monks, is the body permanent or impermanent?
Impermanent, Sir.
Are the sensations, perceptions, mental phenomena, is consciousness, permanent or impermanent?
Impermanent, Sir.
That which is impermanent, is it sorrowful or joyful?
Sorrowful, sir.
Is it right then to regard that which is impermanent, sorrowful, subject to the law of decay, as "This is mine, this I am, this is my Self?"
Surely not, sir.

[22]

Definitely the Buddha never discussed the ethics or theoretical aspects of cloning technology, but it does not mean a discussion of cloning based in Buddhist teachings cannot take place. In the final deathbed urgings of the Buddha to his followers, he encouraged them to seek out the truth from their own experiences. Buddhist teachings indicate that the Buddha provided a four-fold decision-making method for his followers should they encounter unanticipated questions. The four steps involve recourse to (1) original Buddhist texts; (2) derivation of rules in 'consonance' with the original texts; (3) the views of respected teachers; (4) the exercise of personal judgment, discretion, and opinion. As regards to cloning, modern scholars have followed this invocation, offering different ethical interpretations-from Buddhist perspectives-of cloning. Damien Keown, a Buddhist ethicist, asserts that fertility technology is in accord with the basic good of creating life and opportunities for rebirth. As for cloning, he ventures that the clone would undoubtedly be an individual from an ontological point of view and, based on Buddhist teachings, should be granted full moral respect and protection.[23]

While cloning might be permissible under some understandings of Buddhism, the scientific research necessary to build up to cloning encounters difficulties. Part of the "Noble Eightfold Path" promulgated by the Buddha prohibits infliction of violence or harm on sentient beings. This would seem to permit research on human pre-embryos, but the primacy Buddhism places on birth as a human being as a necessary condition of enlightenment can restrict such research. Buddhism holds that a new being comes into existence shortly after fertilization. Moreover, especially where the research process is very inefficient and causes loss of life, both embryo research and animal research would be especially problematic. Any Buddhist account would ask of cloning research or human cloning: "How does this serve all sentient beings?"[24] Some Buddhist scholars have raised objections to applications of cloning, particularly commercial or social agendas that may support cloning for reasons contrary to the interest of the clone. These agendas may include pressure on scientists for continual progress and discovery or for commercial gain from pharmaceuticals or organ harvesting. In this respect, there would be greater suspicion within Buddhism about private-sponsored cloning research without public oversight.[25] Whatsoever, both Courtney Campbell and Damien Keown, a renowned expert on Buddhism, agree that the faith may approve of human cloning as a potential step toward self-understanding through scientific research. However, the religion does not condone the harmful effects produced by cloning research (such as the destruction of cells). In this case, the ends are desirable, but the means are not.[26]

In my conclusion I would like to say the quality of life should be reducing and eradicating our greed, hatred and delusion, not by manipulating our Cloning, DNA and so forth, because all things are impermanent, mutable, and so forth. Not only because of that, finally, there will be a lot of problems, and as P. D. Premasiri suggested, under normal conditions, we have parents that care, parental relationships which are connected with the emotional development of the present; now, without these will a person, produced in this artificial manner become a misfit, have emotional problems that could result in disastrous consequences later on. However, Buddhism does not teach that life is a wretched experience, just that the pleasures we do get from objects or people are impermanent and thus the end of pleasure is suffering. This is considered to be such a fundamental truth in Buddhism that it is the first of the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism. Suffering in life includes birth, aging, illness, death, separation from loved ones, association with unpleasant persons, the frustration of one's desires, and the suffering caused by the five aggregates.

All conditions of the bodies are unavoidable as long as one has a physical body. All these various forms of suffering are experienced when facing the different situations that have caused them. Some critics argue that Buddhism is pathological and cynical, hovering on the dark and shadowy side of life, an enemy of harmless pleasures, and an unfeeling trample on the innocent joys of life. They see Buddhism as being pessimistic; tending to an attitude of hopelessness towards life, as encouraging a vague, general feeling that pain and evil predominate in human affairs. These critics base their views on the First Noble Truth that all conditioned things are in a state of suffering. They seem to have forgotten that not only had the Buddha taught the cause and end of Suffering, but he had taught the way to ‘End’ Suffering. Buddha says, "I teach one thing and one thing only. Suffering and the end of suffering."

Finally, is cloning good or bad? To answer this, as I mentioned in the foregoing that the three universal characteristics of existence are the characteristics of impermanence, suffering, and no-self. In this point, that is why, the Buddha has intimation to his devotee that consideration about metaphysical issues was ineffective because the human problems of birth, old age, death, and sorrow remain, regardless. Therefore, Buddhist teachings present an ethic of responsibility, centered on the values of non-injury and the relief of suffering of sentient beings, compassion, the 'no-self,' the moral authority of intuition, and reincarnation. These values offer some elements of a Buddhist response to reproductive and genetic technologies, including human cloning. Modern science, which is seeking to displace metaphysics and religious dogma, attempts to transform society by effecting changes in the material conditions of living. The scientific world-view attaches no significance to the importance of morality. Modern science does not provide us with the knowledge of what is morally right or wrong, good or bad. When human beings are not concerned with such knowledge, and do not care to pursue the principles of a morally good life, social interaction among humans is not likely to become very different from that among brutes. As a result, I strongly recommend, with no hesitation, that Buddhism deny the ideas of so-called human cloning, embryo stem cells, and so forth.

References:

- Bhikkhu Bodhi. (2000) The Connection Discourses of The Buddha. Vol.I. Boston: Wisdom Publications.

- Campbell, Courtney S. The Buddhist View of Human Cloning. http://www.tomwmiller.com/tcsnwebpage_073.htm.

- Conze, Edward. (2002) Buddhist Thought in India. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers.

- Falls, Evelyn. et el. The Koan of Cloning: A Buddhist Perspective on the Ethics of Human Cloning Technology. http://www.parkridgecenter.org.

- Harris, John. (1985) The Value of Life: An Introduction to Medical Ethics. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

- Horner, I. B. (1954) The Collection of the Middle Length Saying (Majjhima-Nikaya). London: Pali Text Society.

- Jayatilleke K. N. (2000) The Message of the Buddha. Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society.

- Keown, Damien. (1995) Buddhism and Bioethics. New York: Palgrave Publishing.

- Lita, Ana. Cloning: Where Do the Major Religions Stand? http://www.humaniststudies.org.

- Malalasekera, G. P. (2004) Encyclopaedia of Buddhism. Vol. VII. fascicle 2. Sri Lanka: The Department of Buddhist Affairs.

- Promta, Somparn. Buddhism and Human Genetic Research. http://them.polylog.org/6/fps-en.htm.

- Radhakrishnan, S. (2003) The Dhammapada. UK: Oxford University Press.

- Schlieter, Jens. Some Observations on Buddhist Thoughts on Human Cloning. http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/kbe/Buddhists%20on%20Cloning.pdf.

- Th. Stcherbatsky. (2003) The Central Conception of Buddhism and the Meaning of the Word “Dharma”. New Delhi: Asian Educational Services.

- The U. S. Food and Drug Administration. Use of Cloning Technology to Clone a Human Being. http://www.fda.gov/cber/genetherapy/clone.htm.

- Ven. Hui min. (2002) “Buddhist Bioethics: The Case of Human Cloning and Embryo Stem Cell Research.” Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal. No. 15, pp. 457～470.

- Ven. K. Sri Dhammananda. (1998) What Buddhists Believe. Malaysia: Buddhist Missionary Society.

- Ven. Rahula, W. (1956) What the Buddha Taught. England: The Gordon Fraser Gallery Limited Bedford.

- Youngson, Robert. (2001) The Royal Society of Medicine Health Encyclopedia. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Notes:
[1] The Message of the Buddha. pp.90～98.
[2] What Buddhists Believe. p.269.
[3] The Royal Society of Medicine Health Encyclopedia.
[4] The Value of Life: An Introduction to Medical Ethics. p.124.
[5] Use of Cloning Technology to Clone a Human Being. http://www.fda.gov/cber/genetherapy/clone.htm.
[6] Some Observations on Buddhist Thoughts on Human Cloning. http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/kbe/Buddhists%20on%20Cloning.pdf.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Buddhist Bioethics: The Case of Human Cloning and Embryo Stem Cell Research. p.470.
[9] Some Observations on Buddhist Thoughts on Human Cloning.
http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/kbe/Buddhists%20on%20Cloning.pdf.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Buddhism and Bioethics. p.90.
[12] Buddhism and Human Genetic Research. http://them.polylog.org/6/fps-en.htm.
[13] Buddhist Thought in India. p. 213.
[14] The principle can be found in Buddhist scriptures too, e.g., the well-known Dhammapada, "All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill." p.129 ff. (S. Radhakrishnan 2003) or Cf. Dhammika Sutra: "He should not kill a living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should he incite another to kill. Do not injure any being, either strong or weak, in the world."
[15] Some Observations on Buddhist Thoughts on Human Cloning.
http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/kbe/Buddhists%20on%20Cloning.pdf.
[16] M.III. p.63.
[17] The Connection Discourses of the Buddha. pp.533～534.
[18] What the Buddha Taught. pp.52～54.
[19] Samyutta-Nikaya. II. p.25.
[20] Encyclopedia of Buddhism. Vol.VII. fascicle 2, p.342.
[21] The Central Conception of Buddhism and the Meaning of the Word 'Dharma' p.22.
[22] MN. I, 178.
[23] The Koan of Cloning: A Buddhist Perspective on the Ethics of Human Cloning Technology. http://www.parkridgecenter.org.
[24] The Buddhist View of Human Cloning. http://www.tomwmiller.com/tcsnwebpage_073.htm.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Cloning: Where Do the Major Religions Stand? http://www.humaniststudies.org.