[gnusnich]

Bhikkhu Bodhi should just uncover the red dot on his forehead and be done with it.



I have to laugh at his silly attempt to dismiss the issue of Reality vs. Superstition as "fashionable", as if it were a passing fad. Bodhi sorely underestimates the staying power of reality.


Speculations about "human destiny after death" is only "critical" for one who craves for superstitious stories about such things.

Wanna-believers just wanna-believe-in.



Bodhi claims there are only three possible positions to be taken. Yet he adds a fourth when he makes the split between Hindu reincarnation of an atta, and "Buddhist" reincarnation-that-is-not-reincarnation of an atta-that-is-not-an-atta. And the Hindu whose preposterous claim of "scientific basis for a reincarnation theory" sees only two positions to be taken. And both ignore the non-position of the Buddha's Noble teachings, which views all such such speculations as "a wilderness of views, a thicket of views, a canker, an arrow". And they also ignore that there are countless other irrelevant speculations.


So many preposterous things in such a short essay:


Buddhism sees rebirth not as the transmigration of a conscious entity but as the repeated occurrence of the process of existence.


Bodhi throws a bunch of words against the wall to see which ones will stick.


There is a continuity, a transmission of influence, a causal connection between one life and another. But there is no soul, no permanent entity which transmigrates from one life to another.


"Influence" as Atta. Very good.



The concept of rebirth without a transmigrating soul commonly raises the question: How can we speak of ourselves as having lived past lives if there is no soul, no single life going through these many lives? To answer this we have to understand the nature of individual identity in a single lifetime.


The Buddha refuted "individual identity." For a man who presumably has read the entire Canon, its simply astounding that Bodhi does not know this.



Each citta arises, breaks up and passes away. When it breaks up it does not leave any traces behind.


Now when each citta falls away it transmits to its successor whatever impression has been recorded on itself, whatever experience it has undergone.


This is nonsense. The two statements directly contradict each other:

Now when each citta falls away it transmits to its successor whatever impression has been recorded on itself, whatever experience it has undergone.

More traces that the citta "does not leave behind", according to the first of the two contradicting statements. Pure balderdash.


Now when each citta falls away it transmits to its successor whatever impression has been recorded on itself, whatever experience it has undergone.on [b]the onward flow of consciousness, on the "cittasantana", the continuum of mind. This transmission of influence, this causal continuity, gives us our continued identity. We remain the same person through the whole lifetime because of this continuity.
[/i]


The Buddha did not teach "continued identity". Backing up a step:


These mental acts are called in Pali "cittas". Each citta arises, breaks up and passes away. When it breaks up it does not leave any traces behind. It does not have any core or inner essence that remains. But as soon as the citta breaks up, immediately afterwards there arises another citta.



The Buddha does not teach anything remotely like this. The Buddha teaches that experience is dependently arisen. If there are no visual forms to see -- for instance, if it is pitch black, there is not eye-consciousness at all. If there is no thought impinging on the mental processes, there is no mind-consciousness at all. Bodhi is setting up to claim an ever-present "continuum of consciousness" that is not to be found in the Buddha's teachings.


The physical organism - the body - and the mental process - the stream of cittas - occur in close interconnection.



Now we have a "stream of cittas" that is about to morph into a full-blown Atta.


However, when the body breaks up at death, the succession of cittas does not draw to an end. In the mind of the dying person there takes place a final thought - moment called the "death consciousness",

The Buddha taught only six forms of consciousness, each associated with the senses and mental functions. "Death consciousness" was not one of them. This is a Brahmin teaching, not a teaching of the Buddha. We find such speculations in Brahmin works like the abhidhamma and the writings of the Brahmin Buddhaghosa, who wished out loud in writing the Vishuddhimagga that his ultimate hope was to be reborn into some deva realm.


The first citta of the new life continues the stream of consciousness which has passed out of the deceased body. The stream of consciousness is not a single entity, but a process, and the process continues. When the stream of cittas passes on to the next life it carries the storage of impressions along with it.


"Foolish man, to whom do you know teh Buddha having taught the Dhamma like this. Hasn't he taught, in various ways that consciousness is dependently arisen. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet you, foolish man, on account of your wrong view, you misrepresent the Buddha, as well as destroy yourself and accumulate much demerit, for which you will suffer for a long time."

Then the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus: "Bhikkhus, what do you think, has this this bhikkhu Bodhi, son of a fisherman, learned anything from this dispensation?" "No, venerable sir."

When this was said the bhikkhu Bodhi became silent, unable to reply back, and sat with drooping shoulders and eyes turned down. Then the Blessed One, knowing that the bhikkhu Bodhi had become silent, unable to reply back, and was sitting with drooping shoulders and with eyes turned down, told him: "Foolish man, you will be known on account of this pernicious view; now I will question the bhikkhus on this."

Then the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus: "Bhikkhus, do you too know of this Teaching, the wrong view of the bhikkhu Bodhi, the son of a fisherman, on account of which he misrepresents us and also destroys himself and accumulates much suffering?"

"No, venerable sir. In various ways we have been taught that consciousness arises dependently. Without a cause there is no arising of consciousness."

"Good, bhikkhus! Good that you know the Dhamma taught by me. In various ways I have taught that consciousness arises dependently. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet, this bhikkhu Sati, son of a fisherman, by holding to this wrong view, misrepresents us and destroys himself and accumulates much demerit, and it will be for his suffering for a long time.

"Bhikkhus, consciousness is reckoned by the condition dependent upon which it arises. If consciousness arises on account of eye and forms, it is reckoned as eye consciousness. If on account of ear and sounds it arises, it is reckoned as ear consciousness. If on account of nose and smells it arises, it is reckoned as nose consciousness. If on account of tongue and tastes it arises, it is reckoned as tongue consciousness. If on account of body and touch it arises, it is reckoned as body consciousness. If on account of mind and mind-objects it arises, it is reckoned as mind consciousness. Bhikkhus, just as a fire is reckoned based on whatever that fire burns - fire ablaze on sticks is a stick fire, fire ablaze on twigs is a twig fire, fire ablaze on grass is a grass fire, fire ablaze on cowdung is a cowdung fire, fire ablaze on grain thrash is a grain thrash fire, fire ablaze on rubbish is a rubbish fire - so too is consciousness reckoned by the condition dependent upon which it arises. In the same manner consciousness arisen on account is eye and forms is eye consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of ear and sounds is ear consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of nose and smells is nose consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of tongue and tastes is taste consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of body and touch is body consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of mind and mind-objects is mind consciousness.

"Bhikkhus, do you see, This has arisen?" "Yes, venerable sir". "Do you see it arises supported by That?" "Yes, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, Do you see if the support ceases, the arising too ceases?" "Yes, venerable sir."






CONCEPTION
The Buddha says there are three necessary conditions for conception. There has to be a union of the father and mother, the father to provide the sperm, the mother to provide the egg. Second, it must be the mother's proper season. If the mother isn't fertile, conception won't take place.



*******Third, there must be a stream of consciousness of the deceased person, the flow of mind that is ready and prepared to take rebirth. This third factor he calls the 'gandhabba'. Unless all these conditions are met conception does not take place.



The "gandhabba" as ATTA! "Gandhabba" = "stream of consciousness"! We are really stinking up the place now!


But wait, there's more -- it is time to put away this "gandhabba" crap for good. And, for our first witness, we shall call forth one Bhikkhu Bodhi, who explains in note 411 of MN 38 where he gets this description from, that "the exact import of the word gandhabba in relation to the rebirth process is not explained in the Nikayas, and theh word in this sense occurs only here and at 93.18."

STOP. Okay, what does 93.18 say?

Well, let's find out!:

What is happening in MN 83 -- hmmm-- the Buddha is debating Brahmins again, about their claim that they are "born from the mouth of Brahma", arguing about their artificial caste system that persists even today. And the Buddha has been asking these Brahmins things like, "can you be absolutely certain that your mama didn't boff the UPS Guy, and if you can't then how can you claim that you are a Brahmin according to the Brahmin bloodlines guidelines?"

And so here at MN 93.18, on page 769 of Nanamoli's translation of the Majjhima Nikaya that Bodhi stuck his name next to, the Buddha asks the Brahmins:

"But sirs, do you know how the descent of an embryo comes about?"

"'Sir, we know how the descent of an embryo comes about. [157] Here, there is the union of the mother and father, and the mother is in season, and the gandhabba is present. Thus the descent of the embryo comes about through the union of these three things'

"'Then, sirs, do you know for sure whether that gandhabba is a noble, or a brahmin, or a merchant, or a worker?'

"'Sir, we do not konw for sure whether that gandhabba is a noble, or a brahmin, or a merchant, or a worker.'

"'That being so, sirs, than what are you?"'

"'That being so, sir, we do not know what we are.'


The Buddha asks these Brahmins what their understanding of conception is, and they answer with the Brahmin explanation that Bodhi uses to claim that the Buddha proclaims a reincarnation process of a "stream of consciousness" as a function of paticcasamuppada.


Oh, and there's a Note there too! Let's see what it says -- #875 -- it says:

"As in MN 38.26. See n. 411. Note that the dialogue just below establishes the meaning of gandhabba as the deceased being about to be reborn.



Back to Note 410 of MN 38, Bodhi continues:

"DN 15/ii.63 speaks of consciousness as "descending into the mother's womb", this being a condition for rebirth to take place. Thus we might identify the gandhabba here as the stream of consciousness, conceived more animistically as coming over from the previous existence and bringing along its total accumulation of kammic tendencies andn personality traits. The fullest study of the concept of the gandhabba is Wijesekera, "Vedic Gandharva adn the Pali Gandhabba,", in Buddhist and Vedic Studies, pp 191-202."


I believe clw-uk has already taken apart this DN 15 thing, and I would only repeat Elements comment elsewhere that there is no Pali word for "womb" -- and we see Bodhi adding [in a womb] in brackets (meaning that it is not in the original text and that it his own addition), strategically in many places in his translations, in an attempt to skew our perception of the Buddha's teaching toward his Brahmin worldview.


I love the way Bodhi equivocates his into a position where he can say "thus we MIGHT identify the gandhabba as this...", and then takes that ball and runs full steam as if it were a given. This is the sort of mental process that drives pathological liars. Someone should tell him not to believe just anything he thinks.



More to come....