[slima]

(Continued)


Also Sprach Bhikkhu Bodhi:

The Buddha explains that there is a distinct set of causes underlying the rebirth process. It has a causal structure and this structure is set out in the teaching of Dependent Arising, "paticcasamupada".



And where in the Canon does the Buddha say "paticcasamuppada is an explanation of the 'rebirth process'"?



"Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two? He who explains what was not said or spoken by the Tathagata as said or spoken by the Tathagata. And he who explains what was said or spoken by the Tathagata as not said or spoken by the Tathagata. These are two who slander the Tathagata."

--AN 2.23 PTS: A i 59 (II,iii,3) Abhasita Sutta: What Was Not Said



Bodhi drones on about PS as if it were a reincarnation strategy, which it is not, so all of what follows is superfluous, but let's take a look at it anyway:

First, in this life there is present in us the most basic root of all becoming, namely ignorance.

Bodhi seems to single out "becoming" because he wants to emphasize the equivocation he is going to employ in order to twist PS into a reincarnation strategy.

Due to ignorance we perceive things in a distorted way. Due to these distortions or perversions things appear to us to be permanent, pleasurable, attractive and as our self.


It starts out looking sort of okay, but we already see some problems. It is true that when the influence of ignorance is present, we perceive things in a distorted way. But Bodhi is already jumping all round the PS formula, jumping straight from ignorance to becoming, and now from ignorance to contact and the arising of pleasant sensation (he leaves out unpleasant or neutral sensation, however). This is not how the Buddha taught PS. Bodhi also claims here that "things appear permanent, pleasurable, attractive and as our self." But do all things appear so? Of course not. There are plenty of things that obviously appear impermanent, unpleasant, unattractive, and not as our self, as well... And other things appear neutral, as well. And the Buddha doesn't talk about PS in terms of "things appearing as self".

Also, the Buddha describes our perceptions in terms of the sensory systems that give rise to them: the eye sees a form and there is the arising of eye-consciousness. The nexus of the three is called "eye-contact". A visual sensation arises that is either pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral. This description is repeated for the ear and sounds, the olfactory system and smells, the body and tactile sensations, the tongue (etc) and tastes, and the mental faculties and mental processes. The Buddha calls these the Six Sextets. Now, all of this happens whether there is ignorance (of the Four Noble Truths, and the Three Characteristics Bodhi describes above)or not. Now, if there is this ignorance present, there arises craving in response to the pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral sensation(s) that arise, or arises, in the process we have just covered. How is there craving for unpleasant experience? We need only look as far as the thread on marginalization and anger that arises in response to that marginalization to see how one craves for unpleasant sensation, in this case anger. There can be craving for unpleasant experience as much as there can be craving to be rid of unpleasant experience. But what does Bodhi say about craving? Something rather different, and not in PS:



Due to these distortions there arises in us craving, craving for sense pleasures, for existence, for sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touch sensations and ideas. Basically there is craving for pleasant feeling.


Craving certainly arises due to the influence of ignorance at contact and sensation, but in the Buddha's teaching of PS, that craving arises in response to the pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral sensation that arises in the moment. But look -- we have a bit of sleight of hand here: Bodhi slips in "craving for existence" here. This is necessary to support his agenda of portraying PS as a reincarnation strategy, but the Buddha does not teach "craving for existence" as part of PS -- he describes craving for the sight, sound, smell, taste, tactile sensation, or mental sensation. Six forms of sensation, six forms of craving -- the Buddha calls it the "Six Sextets", not the "Five Sextets and a Septet", does he? But don't believe me when I say this, let's see what the Buddha says:

The Blessed One said: "The six internal media should be known. The six external media should be known. The six classes of consciousness should be known. The six classes of contact should be known. The six classes of feeling should be known. The six classes of craving should be known.

--MN 148 PTS: M iii 280 Chachakka Sutta: The Six Sextets


In order to experience pleasant feeling we require agreeable objects such as agreeable sights, smells etc.


Bodhi is taking this little horse race somewhere. He starts jumping around again, from craving to sense objects now -- why? He is about to attempt a logical end run for PS as a reincarnation/"re-birth" strategy. Too bad he has no footing in the suttas for such a convolution:


In order to experience pleasant feeling we require agreeable objects such as agreeable sights, smells etc. In order to obtain the pleasure these objects can give, we have to make contact with these objects. To contact these objects we need sense faculties that can receive the sense objects. In other words, we need the six sense faculties, eg. the eye to receive sight, the ear to receive sound, etc. In order for the sense faculties to function we need the entire psycho-physical organism, the mind-body complex.



So, we have Bhikkhu Bodhi's version of paticcasamuppada that goes:



Ignorance -> distorted perception --> appearance of perm/attr/pleasant/self -->craving for pleasant feeling (sensations+existence) -->need for agreeable objects -->need for contact -->need for sense faculties --> need for psycho-physical organism (mind-body complex)


Um, that doesn't look at all like any version the Buddha taught.



OH, but here comes the punch line:



Thus on account of craving the mind holds on to this presently existing organism so long as it lives. But when death occurs the present organism can no longer provide the basis for obtaining pleasure through the sense faculties. However, there is still the craving for the world of sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touches and ideas. So due to this craving for existence, consciousness lets go of this body and grasps hold of a new body, a fertilized egg. It lodges itself in that fertilized egg, bringing a whole storage of accumulated impressions over with it into the new psycho-physical organism. Thus we say the new being is conceived.





Right.


SO, Bhikkhu Bodhi's version of paticcasamuppada goes like this:




Ignorance -> distorted perception --> appearance of perm/attr/pleasant/self -->craving for pleasant feeling (sensations+existence) -->need for agreeable objects -->need for contact -->need for sense faculties --> need for psycho-physical organism (mind-body complex) --> death --> continuation of craving for pleasure through the sense faculties --> craving for existence --> consciousness letting go of old body --> consciousness grasps fertilized egg --> consciousness lodges in egg, brings a whole storage of accumulated impressions over with it into the new psycho-physical organism (conception)



The Buddha does not teach anything like this convoluted, equivocal, contrived mess. This is particularly offensive:


So due to this craving for existence, consciousness lets go of this body and grasps hold of a new body, a fertilized egg. It lodges itself in that fertilized egg, bringing a whole storage of accumulated impressions over with it into the new psycho-physical organism.


Bodhi declares "consciousness" as an entity or agent -- an ATTA -- that transmigrates from one life to the next -- exactly the heresy that the Buddha absolutely humiliated Sati the Fisherman's son for claiming the Buddha taught, in MN 38:



Then the Blessed One said: "Sati, is it true, that such an pernicious view has arisen to you. ‘As I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else’?"

"Yes, venerable sir, as I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else."

"Sati, what is that consciousness?"

"Venerable sir, it is that which feels and experiences, that which reaps the results of good and evil actions done here and there."

"Foolish man, to whom do you know me having taught the Dhamma like this. Haven’t I 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 me, 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 Sati, son of a fisherman, learned anything from this dispensation?" "No, venerable sir."

When this was said the bhikkhu Sati became silent, unable to reply back, and sat with drooping shoulders and eyes turned down. Then the Blessed One, knowing that the bhikkhu Sati 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 Sati, 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.



But Bodhi further insists that this is so, trying to stuff it into the Buddha's mouth:

Hence the Buddha calls craving the 'seamstress'. Just as a seamstress sews together different pieces of cloth, so does craving sew together one life to another. It ties together the succession of lives. Craving is so powerful that it can bridge the gap created by death and rebuild the whole house of sentient existence again and again.



however, this notion of "Craving as the Seamstress" comes from the Tissa-metteyya-manava-puccha sutta: Tissa-metteyya's Questions, which clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with "re-birth":


[Tissa-metteyya:]
Who here in the world is contented? Who has no agitations? What thinker knowing both sides, doesn't adhere in between? Whom do you call a great person? Who here has gone past the seamstress: craving.

[The Buddha:]
He who in the midst of sensualities, follows the holy life, always mindful, craving-free; the monk who is — through fathoming things — Unbound: he has no agitations. He, the thinker knowing both sides, doesn't adhere in between. He I call a great person. He here has gone past the seamstress: craving.


This is a far cry from Bodhi's "Just as a seamstress sews together different pieces of cloth, so does craving sew together one life to another. It ties together the succession of lives. Craving is so powerful that it can bridge the gap created by death and rebuild the whole house of sentient existence again and again."


But Bodhi, instead of supporting this idea of "craving as seamstress tying rebirths together" -- because he can't -- Bodhi quotes the Dhammapada of all things, which of course the Buddha did not teach either:

Thro’ many a birth in Sansara wandered I,
Seeking but not finding, the builder of this house. Sorrowful is repeated birth.
O House-builder! you are seen. You shall build no house again.
All your rafters are broken, your ridge-pole is shattered.
To dissolution (Nibbana) goes my mind.
The End of Craving have I attained.

Dhammapada (154)


Of course Bodhi equivocates "samsara" as meaning the Hindu eternalistic idea of samsara as "endless rebirths" rather than the Buddha's mental samsara of habitual cycles of ignorance leading to suffering in the here and now.


WHAT IS IT THAT CAUSES REBIRTH IN A PARTICULAR FORM
Now we come to the next question. We see a tremendous variety among the living beings existing in the world. People and animals are of many different sorts. So we ask what is it that causes rebirth in a particular form? Does it happen through acccident, by chance, without any reason, or is there some principle behind it? The answer the Buddha gives to this question is the Pali word 'Kamma'. Kamma is the factor which determines the specific form of rebirth and it is Kamma again which determines a good number of the experiences we undergo in the course of our life. The word Kamma means literally action, deed or doing. But in Buddhism it means volitional action.


Bodhi mixes the Buddha's own definition of kamma within his own liberative teachings and the Brahmin/Hindu scorekeeper karma of "right view with defilements" that was not part of his own liberative teachings. The Buddha said that kamma is intention.




Now possibly the most bizarre aspect of Bodhi's writing, in which an essay using twisted logic in a failed attempt to claim that reincarnation superstitions have should be taken seriously in a scientific environment is used to support his own agenda of "Buddhist re-birth", which he has just been so careful to distinguish from Hindu "reincarnation":



Reincarnation is Now a Scientifically Acceptable Phenomenon - by Dr. Granville Dharmawardena, University of Colombo

(Based on a Scientific paper presented at the 52nd Annual Sessions of the Sri Lanka Association for the Advancement of Science, November 1996)







Dharmawardena's essay is a joke. If Bodhi actually included that garbage -- appealing for acceptance of superstition to the very scientific community that Bodhi loathes and vilifies elsewhere -- in with his own essay, as the format of presented at beyondthenet.net implies, then Bodhi is truly grabbing in desperation at straws here. It is embarrassing to watch.