[expabsPapsgag]

Continuing, Bodhi says:

The primary problem of dukkha with which the Buddha is concerned, in its most comprehensive and fundamental dimensions, is the problem of our bondage to sa.msaara -- the round of repeated birth, aging, and death.

Bodhi is trying to force a nexus here between reincarnation-belief and PS through an artificial connection of "the round of birth-and-death".

Occasionally, he mentions "aging"/decay as part of it, but his main concern is forcing PS to be a reincarnation strategy. Not surprisingly, he uses a good bit of equivocation to do so. For example, he consistently lumps the last two nidanas together as if they were one -- but not the whole two nidanas; it is actually an equivocation of one nidana and a small portion of another. He takes the nidana of "birth" (equivocated as the physical birth of a child) and lumps it in with "death" from the nidana of "the mass of suffering" as if they were a single nidana of their own, and for all intents and purposes completely ignores the fact that "death" is just one small part of "sorrow, lamentation, grief, pain, displeasure, despair; in short, the whole mass of suffering".

This equivocation is part of his strategy to support his claim that the Buddha's own, liberative teachings are concerned first and foremost with reincarnation, and that "liberation from suffering" is "liberation from reincarnation".

And, as I will show presently, these terms are intended quite literally as signifying biological birth, aging, and death, not our anxiety over being born, growing old, and dying.

...which brings up the point, "what, then, is really is so bad about birth, aging and death?"

The short answer is: exactly that fear and anxiety over them that Bodhi attempts to downplay here. There may be painful sensations associated with each one, but in the case of our own birth, we do not remember it, and it has not necessarily been shown to be an intrinsically unpleasant experience at all. Old age? There are certainly unpleasant physical sensations associated with it, physical ailments and such, but these are also mere physical ailments, just like any other unpleasant physical sensations. What is so difficult about aging is the fear of it. Which also brings us to death, which we have not yet experienced ourselves, and which generates the most fear and anxiety (and fear of aging is really just a part of fear of death as well). But again, what is so awful about our own death is exactly the fear of it, the fear of the unknown.

I do not remember my physical birth. I have not yet died. And growing older is really not so bad.

O, Death, where is thy sting? Only in fear: fear of its certainty, its finality, the uncertainty of its time and circumstances, and not knowing if there is something after it or not.



In so far as the Dhamma addresses the problem of our present suffering, it does so by situating that suffering in its larger context, our condition of sa.msaaric bondage. The present cannot be considered only in its vertical depths. It must also be viewed as the intersection of the past and future, shaped by our past experience and harbouring our future destiny in its womb.



Bodhi has the Dhamma entirely backwards here: He sees dukkha as being a by-product of reincarnation. But, again, the Buddha explains dukkha in terms of not getting what one wants, and getting what one does not want, which is something that occurs in the here-and-now. And again, the Buddha specifically explains that for one who sees PS, there is no running to the past or future. He also sees PS as an explanation of how this reincarnation happens, and he says so, and hangs his entire argument on the assumption that it is an explanation of the "mechanics" of the "samsaric bondage" of reincarnation:

If the Dhamma is to enable us to extricate ourselves from the dukkha of repeated birth and death, it must make known the chain of causes that holds us in bondage to this round of repeated birth and death, and it must also indicate what must be done to bring this cycle to a halt.

And this statement is true: if the Buddha's teachings are there to extricate us from the karma/reincarnation process he claims, then yes, the Buddha would very definitely have to explain how karma/reincarnation happens, and how his program of action would stop that karma/reincarnation process, if one were to even want that process to stop -- which is a whole different can of worms. Unfortunately for Bodhi's assumption, the Buddha points out that trying to explain such a process is useless, and very clearly points out that PS is a here-and-now teaching rather than a karma/reincarnation strategy. Again, the Buddha states unequivocably that one who understand PS has no need to "run to the past or future". Were PS a reincarnation strategy, the Buddha would have stated as such very clearly and at great length, just like any other teaching of his own.

Throughout the Suttas we can find only one basic statement of the causal structure of sa.msaara, one overarching formulation with many minor variations, and that is the twelvefold formula of dependent arising.

Too bad for Bodhi here, since the Buddha was very clear that PS is not an explanation of "samsara", or of a karma/reincarnation strategy, especially in MN 38. Also too bad for Bodhi, the Buddha humiliates Sati the Fisherman's Son for claiming that He taught that consciousness transmigrates from one life to another, since this is exactly what Bodhi also claims in his own explanations of PS -- a "stream of consciousness" that transmigrates form one life to another.


If one's aim in following the Dhamma is to gain release from existential anxiety, then the three-life interpretation of PS may seem unsatisfactory and one may turn to Ven. ~Naa.naviira's version as more adequate.

Another very important concession. The Buddha himself says over adn over that the aim of following the Dhamma is to gain release from dukkha in the here-and-now.

But the task which the Buddha sets before his disciples is of a different nature: namely, to gain liberation from the recurrent cycle of birth, old age, and death, that is, from bondage to sa.msaara.

And again, Bodhi simply has the Dhamma completely backwards here.

Once one accepts this task as one's own, one will then see that PS must be looked upon as a disclosure of the conditional structure of sa.msaara, showing us how our ignorance, craving, and volitional activity keep us chained to the round of existence and drive us from one life to the next.



And if one rightly sees that this is in fact not the case, then on can also clearly see that this idea of looking at PS as an elaborate karma/reincarnation strategy is simply a matter of superstitious wishful thinking.

More to come....

[ringtonesmannq]

Bodhi continues:

6. I now intend to take up for scrutiny what might be regarded as the two main planks of Ven. ~Naa.naviira's interpretation. The two planks to which I am referring are his attempts to explain the relationships between those conditions which, in the traditional interpretation, are held to extend over different lifetimes. These are: (i) the nexus of bhava, jaati, and jaraamara.na -- becoming ('being', in Ven. ~Naa.naviira's translation), birth, and aging-and-death; and (ii) the nexus of avijjaa, sa"nkhaaraa, and vi~n~naa.na -- ignorance, formations ('determinations'), and consciousness. I will show that Ven. ~Naa.naviira's explanations of both these groups of factors fail to draw support from the source that he himself regards as the supreme authority in interpretation of the Dhamma, namely, the Pali Suttas.

Bodhi has painted himself into a corner here. Although the burden of proof is upon him to both show the supremacy of "three-lives" and to refute PS in the here and now, he has already given up on the former responsibility and admitted that PS is for the quenching of dukkha here and now, and that there is plenty in the Suttas to support that. But now he asks us to forget that concession and and attempts to refute parts of paticcasamuppada in the here-and-now.

I will also show that, contra Ven. ~Naa.naviira, on both points the Suttas confirm the traditional interpretation, which regards these connections as involving a succession of lives.


Which would require showing the Buddha directly and explicitly explaining paticcasamuppada in a "three-lives" context, at great length and many, many times throughout the suttas, just as we see any other teaching the Buddha proclaimed. The Buddha does not teach paticcasamuppada in this way even once. Not once.


Before we go any further, we should point out that Ven. ~Naa.naviira does not cite any suttas to support his understanding of bhava, jaati, and jaraamara.na, and in fact there are no suttas to be found in the Pali Canon that explain the above terms in this way.

It is so funny to see Bodhi pointing that finger after failing to cite any suttas to support his assertion above in #5:

An unbiased and complete survey of the Nikaayas, however, would reveal that the problem of dukkha to which the Buddha's Teaching is addressed is not primarily existential anxiety, nor even the distorted sense of self of which such anxiety may be symptomatic. The primary problem of dukkha with which the Buddha is concerned, in its most comprehensive and fundamental dimensions, is the problem of our bondage to sa.msaara -- the round of repeated birth, aging, and death.


And, having nothing else to go on, Bodhi now erects a Straw Man:

Moreover, on Ven. ~Naa.naviira's interpretation it may not even be quite correct to say 'jaatipaccayaa jaraamara.na.m'. On his view, it seems, one would be obliged to say instead, 'bhavapaccayaa jaati, bhavapaccayaa jaraamara.na.m'.

...and argues against it:

Since he regards the puthujjana's taking himself to be a self as the basis for his notions "my self was born" and "my self will die," it would follow that 'being' would be the condition for both 'birth' and 'aging-and-death'. But that is not what the Buddha himself asserts.

Nor does Nanavira assert this.


More to come...

[neeclindy]

Thanks for this Stuka

[dayclaccikere]

Greetings,

Nanavira Thera is cool. 8)

Metta,
Retro.

[leadmoffer]

Greetings,

Nanavira Thera is cool. 8)

Metta,
Retro.

Indeed!

[Triiooman]

Stuka, it would have been easier to just post the URL don't you think I'm Claustrophobic

[!!Aaroncheg]

Stuka, it would have been easier to just post the URL don't you think I'm Claustrophobic

What URL, Deshy? The Bodhi polemic? It isn't exactly what you would call widely available on the net, is it?

So, no, I actually don't think so...

[LeviBrawn]

Thanks for posting this, stuka. I don't have time to read the whole thing, but it's great that there are people like Mettiko working to characterize the basis of this enduring conflict.

I only came across a reference to Nanavira recently, in Confession of a Buddhist Atheist

[enurihent]

You can read Nanavira's Notes on Dhamma and letters here. The letters are sometimes quite funny. The notes... not easy going at all.

[FBtquXT8]

Bodhi says:

Before we go any further, we should point out that Ven. ~Naa.naviira does not cite any suttas to support his understanding of bhava, jaati, and jaraamara.na, and in fact there are no suttas to be found in the Pali Canon that explain the above terms in this way.

But in fact Nanavira cites three suttas to support this understanding: Majjhima v,3 , Majjhima ii,1 (for tanha, which, through upadana supports bhava), and Kosala Samy. i,3 .

Bodhi misses the Buddha's distinction between right view for putthujjanas and Noble right view in the last sutta that Nanavira cites:

-- For one who is born, lord, is there anything other than ageing-&-death?—For one who is born, great king, there is nothing other than ageing-&-death. Those, great king, who are wealthy warriors... wealthy divines... wealthy householders...,—for them, too, being born, there is nothing other than ageing-&-death. Those monks, great king, who are worthy ones, destroyers of the cankers...,—for them, too, it is the nature of this body to break up, to be laid down.

The Buddha is giving an ariyo answer to this king about birth and death, He says that for such putthujjanas (one who is "born"), there is "aging and death", that aging and death are concerns that cause fear and clinging to life. But for one who is "not subject to birth", and arahant. that one realizes that it is the nature of the body to break up and be laid down. There is still the breakup of the body, but the idea of "death", and specifically of "my death" does not arise. And along with that notion of "my death", fear of death (and thus any dukkha that would arise for a putthujjana over the notion of death) is dismissed, as well.

Bodhi misses -- or ignores -- this point because it does not fir into his misapprehension of the Buddha's teaching as a reincarnation/"re-birth" strategy.

But let's take a closer look at Bodhi's Straw Man:

Moreover, on Ven. ~Naa.naviira's interpretation it may not even be quite correct to say 'jaatipaccayaa jaraamara.na.m'. On his view, it seems, one would be obliged to say instead, 'bhavapaccayaa jaati, bhavapaccayaa jaraamara.na.m'. Since he regards the puthujjana's taking himself to be a self as the basis for his notions "my self was born" and "my self will die," it would follow that 'being' would be the condition for both 'birth' and 'aging-and-death'. But that is not what the Buddha himself asserts.


So, Bodhi is charging Nanavira with re-arranging the order of the Buddha's teaching of paticcasamuppada to suit Nanavira's own proclivities. And he is further claiming that the Buddha does not assert that 'being' ('becoming') is 'the condition' for both 'birth' and 'aging-and-death'.

There are a number of things wrong with Bodhi's assertion here:

First, 'being', is a condition for 'birth', which is in turn a condition for 'decay, sickness, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair; in short, this whole mass of suffering'; which makes 'being' a condition for 'decay, sickness, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair; in short, this whole mass of suffering'.

In the absence of 'being', there is no 'mass of suffering'.

Second, Bodhi consistently ignores that the last nidana in the paticcasamuppada chain explicitly includes 'sickness, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair; in short, this whole mass of suffering'. This is clearly because these factors do not shoe-horn into the Bodhi/Abhidhamma/commentarial mumbo-jumbo version of paticcasamuppada. Nor does the rest of the paticcasamuppada/paticcanirodha formula, which the Bodhi/Abhidhammic/commentarial tradition ignores altogether. But careful examination will make it obvious that the Buddha's intent with respect to the last nidana is to elucidate "the whole mass of suffering" pursuant to a phenomenological psychology rather than Bodhi & Co's "physical death" pursuant to a reincarnation/"re-birth" strategy. The influence of gnorance can lead one to physical death, surely -- but that is not the only form of suffering that the influence of ignorance leads one to.

Third, it is patently ludicrous for Bhikkhu Bodhi to portray Nanavira's description as rearranging the nidanas to suit his own proclivities unsupported by the Buddha's assertions, given that Bodhi's (and the abhidhammic/commentarial tradition's) own vision of "three-life" paticcasamuppada, in its overall design and in its particulars, depends completely and entirely upon that very same sort of rearranging the nidanas to suit his own proclivities unsupported by the Buddha's assertions -- but on an order way beyond what he accuses Nanamoli of -- and without this sort of Dhamma cherry-picking, the entire "three-lives" convolution collapses into a sorry mess of equivocation and superstition.

Fourth, and in light of the third, Bodhi himself jumps from decay/"aging" to "death", ignoring the mention of "sickness" within the last nidana. For Bodhi, all he sees is "birth-and-death". The rest of it, with the exception of "decay/old age" when it suits his proclivities, is simply ignored as it does not fit into his scheme.

Fifth, as has been mentioned earlier in this thread, it is simply preposterous to assert that the other forms of suffering mentioned in the last nidana come after aging and death, as would be required by Bodhi's schema: "If that is the case, you [in our discussion, Bodhi and Co.] appear to be asserting when teenagers commit suicide this is not due to their mental suffering because teenagers do not experience brokenness of teeth, greyness of hair, wrinkling of skin, etc."


Bodhi goes on to cherry-pick definition of "death", again completely ignoring the metaphorical nature of the phrases "The passing of beings out of the various orders of beings, their passing away, dissolution, disappearance, dying, completion of time, dissolution of the aggregates", and, even worse, again completely ignoring the other factors that are part of "the whole mass of suffering": 'decay, sickness, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair; in short, this whole mass of suffering'.

Then he cites the Buddha's definitions of birth, not only citing his own skewed eisegetical translation ("in a womb"), but also completely missing that all of the Buddha's descriptions of "birth" according to his Dhamma here are metaphorical.

The above definitions, with their strings of synonyms and concrete imagery, clearly indicate that 'birth' refers to biological birth and 'aging-and-death' to biological aging and biological death -- not to the puthujjana's notions "I was born; I will age and die," or "My self was born; my self ages and dies." The textual definitions are perfectly staightforward and unambiguous in meaning, and give no hint that the Buddha had some other idea to convey about the significance of these terms.

If Bodhi keeps telling himself the above, he might even start to believe it himself. Again, he completely ignores -- and asks us to ignore for the purposes of self-deception -- the rest of the final nidana, and the fact that it represents "the whole mass of suffering" rather than the "just aging and death" of his eisegesis.

Bodhi goes on to beg the question by titling his next section "Bhava and Rebirth", presuming us to forget that he has already admitted that "Jati" does not mean "re-birth". But, again, we have not forgotten this. He also presumes that no one will notice that, even according to Bodhi's own interpretation of the Buddha's description of the meaning of the word "birth", there is nothing whatsoever there, explicit or implicit, that suggests a notion of a process of reincarnation or "re-birth". And had the Buddha intended for this "birth" to mean "reincarnation" or "re-birth", he would have made it perfectly clear and in no uncertain terms, just as he does everything else, right here in this definition of jati, "birth".



(More to come....)

[Rjvpicux]

Bodhi says:

"And what, monks, is birth? The birth of beings into the various orders of beings, their coming to birth, descent (into a womb), production, manifestation of the aggregates, obtaining the bases for contact -- this is called birth."


The above definitions, with their strings of synonyms and concrete imagery, clearly indicate that 'birth' refers to biological birth and 'aging-and-death' to biological aging and biological death -- not to the puthujjana's notions "I was born; I will age and die," or "My self was born; my self ages and dies."

The textual definitions are perfectly staightforward and unambiguous in meaning, and give no hint that the Buddha had some other idea to convey about the significance of these terms.


So, the Buddha is sitting around with his company of monks one full-moon night, and one of the monks asks him questions about the terms used in his teaching of paticcasamuppada, and one of the questions this monks directly asks the Buddha about paticcasamuppada is "What is the cause and condition, venerable sir, for the manifestation of the material form agregate? ...the manifestation of the feeling aggregate? ..the manifestation of the perception aggregate?...the manifestation of the formations (sankhara) aggregate? ...the manifestation of the consciousness aggregate?"

The Buddha's answer is that the Four Great Elements are the cause and condition for the manifestation of the material form aggregate, Contact is the cause and condition for the manifestation of the feeling (sensation) aggregate, Contact is the cause and condition for the manifestation of the perception aggregate, Contact is the cause and condition for the manifestation of the formations (sankhara) aggregate), and Nama-Rupa is the cause and condition for the manifestation of the consciousness aggregate.

This occurs in the Discourse on the Full Moon Night, MN 109 (9).


So here we have the Buddha describing the manifestation of the aggregates within the context and framework of paticcasamuppada as a function of contact, and as a function of of the already-existent body-mind, and as a function of the Four Great Elements. None of this has anything to do with "birth" as "biological birth of a child".

Element has pointed out in another post that the parenthetical "(into a womb)" that Bodhi constantly adds to this sequence is not to be found in the Pali. The "birth of beings into the various orders of beings" is, for example, when one feels an urge to steal, and the mind of a thief arises (bhava/becoming). Acting upon this, he is "born" (comes to birth) as a thief. This is being born into mental states as asuras or hungry ghosts, etc. We see other references, for example in the Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta MN 38, in which the Buddha talks about various nidanas "arising, taking birth, and develop[ing]", which is clearly not a reference to biological birth of a child.

Bodhi's claim that "The above definitions, with their strings of synonyms and concrete imagery, clearly indicate that 'birth' refers to biological birth and 'aging-and-death' to biological aging and biological death -- not to the puthujjana's notions 'I was born; I will age and die,' or 'My self was born; my self ages and dies.'" is without merit.


More to come...

[ArrereGarhync]

the manifestation of the material form agregate? ...the manifestation of the feeling aggregate? ..the manifestation of the perception aggregate?...the manifestation of the formations (sankhara) aggregate? ...the manifestation of the consciousness aggregate?"

It would be nice to know Pali. I investigated this quote and the word translated as "manifestation" is "paññāpanāya", which is rooted in the word panna, commonly known as "wisdom", but generically "cognition".

I tried to find some translations of this word but to no avail. However, it is found in the Mahanidana Sutta in an interesting way, as follows:
Ettāvatā[so far, to that extent, even by this much] adhivacana[designation, term, attribute, metaphor, metaphorical expression]patho[path, means, way],

ettāvatā nirutti[expln of words, grammatical analysis, etymological interpretation; pronunciation, dialect, way of speaking, expression]patho,

ettāvatā paññatti[making known, manifestation, description, designation, name, idea, notion, concept]patho,

ettāvatā paññāvacaraṃ [sphere of discernment],

ettāvatā vaṭṭaṃ vattati itthattaṃ paññāpanāya yadidaṃ nāmarūpaṃ saha viññāṇena aññamaññapaccayatā pavattati.

This is the extent to which there are means of designation, expression and delineation. This is the extent to which the sphere of discernment extends, the extent to which the cycle revolves for the manifesting (discernibility) of this world — i.e., name-and-form together with consciousness. [Thanissaro]

“...in so far only is there any pathway for verbal expression, in so far only is there any pathway for terminology, in so far only is there any pathway for designations, in so far only is there a whirling round for a designation of ’this-ness’ (ettāvatā vaṭṭaṃ vattati itthattaṃ paññāpanāya) that is to say, as far as name-and-form together with consciousness. [Bhikkhu Ñānananda] Whatever paññāpanāya means, it obviously is connected to mental cognition or mental manisfestation.

Kind regards

[iDzcs7TU]

This definition refers to the three planes of existence in the Buddhist cosmos, and the term 'bhava' thus would signify concrete individual existence in one or another of these three planes. For illumination as to how bhava functions in the PS series, our most helpful resource is the Bhava Sutta, a short exchange between the Buddha and the Venerable Aananda (AN 3:76/i, 223-24):

"It is said, lord, 'becoming, becoming.' In what way, lord, is there becoming?"

"if, Aananda, there were no kamma ripening in the sense realm, would sense-sphere becoming be discerned?"

"No, lord."

"Thus, Aananda, kamma is the field, consciousness is the seed, craving the moisture; for beings obstructed by ignorance and fettered to craving, consciousness becomes grounded in a low realm. Thus, Aananda, there is the production of re-becoming in the future. It is thus, Aananda, that there is becoming.

"If, Aananda, there were no kamma ripening in the fine-material realm, would fine-material becoming be discerned?"

"No, lord."

"Thus, Aananda, kamma is the field, consciousness is the seed, craving the moisture; for beings obstructed by ignorance and fettered to craving, consciousness becomes grounded in a middling realm. Thus, Aananda, there is the production of re-becoming in the future. It is thus, Aananda, that there is becoming.

"If, Aananda, there were no kamma ripening in the immaterial realm, would immaterial becoming be discerned?"

"No, lord."

"Thus, Aananda, kamma is the field, consciousness is the seed, craving the moisture; for beings obstructed by ignorance and fettered to craving, consciousness becomes grounded in a superior realm. Thus, Aananda, there is the production of re-becoming in the future. It is thus, Aananda, that there is becoming."

There is nothing in this sutta that signifies concrete individual existence.

The Pali is 'punabhava'. Puna = again. Bhava = becoming. Due to ignorance & craving, there will be becoming again in the future or for a length of time. Pali is 'āyatiṃ', which according to the dictionary is "future" or simply "length of time".

SN 23.3 is called the Bhavanettisuttaṃ. 'Netti' means 'guide, conductor, support, forerunner', translated by Bodhi as 'conduit'. It states:

"Radha, the desire, lust, delight, craving, engagement and clinging; mental standpoints, adherences and underlying tendencies regarding....this is called the conduit to bhava. Their cessation is the cessation of bhava". So how can bhava be something concrete?

[Kalobbis]

"If, Aananda, there were no kamma ripening in the fine-material realm, would fine-material becoming be discerned?"

Fine-material realm is delighting in materiality, such as delighting in material possessions such as money, property, etc.

Fine-material realm is also delighting in the material jhanas (1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th), which have their foundation in the calming of the physical body.

There are three kinds of becoming: sensual, material and immaterial.

How strange is Bhikkhu Bodhi to regard these are something concrete?

Which beings spend 100% of their time and life engaging in the sensual realm?

This would imply sensual pleasure could be sustained permanently.

[shanice]

"if, Aananda, there were no kamma ripening in the sense realm, would sense-sphere becoming be discerned?"

Also, becoming in the Pali is as follows:
‘‘Katamo ca, bhikkhave, bhavo? Tayo me, bhikkhave, bhavā – kāmabhavo, rūpabhavo, arūpabhavo. Ayaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, bhavo. Kāma = sensuality. It does not mean 'sense bases' or 'saḷāyatanaṃ'.

The sense realm or sense bases (saḷāyatanikaṃ) are part of the experience of Nibbana, as follows:

He discerns that 'This mode of perception is empty of the effluent of sensuality... becoming... ignorance. And there is just this non-emptiness: that connected with the six sensory spheres (saḷāyatanikaṃ), dependent on this very body with life as its condition.' Thus he regards it as empty of whatever is not there. Whatever remains, he discerns as present: 'There is this.' And so this, his entry into emptiness, accords with actuality, is undistorted in meaning, pure — superior & unsurpassed.

Cula-suññata Sutta

[Beedcardabeme]

...the term 'bhava' thus would signify concrete individual existence in

The Pali states 'bhava' is a mental tendency. So how can bhava be something concrete?

Tayome, āvuso, āsavā – kāmāsavo, bhavāsavo, avijjāsavo.

There are three taints: the taint of sensual desire, the taint of being and the taint of ignorance.

Sammaditthi Sutta ‘‘Sattime , bhikkhave, anusayā. Katame satta? Kāmarāgānusayo, paṭighānusayo , diṭṭhānusayo, vicikicchānusayo, mānānusayo, bhavarāgānusayo , avijjānusayo. Ime kho, bhikkhave, satta anusayā’’ti. Paṭhamaṃ.

"Monks, there are these seven underlying tendency. Which seven?

"(1) The tendency of sensual passion.

"(2) The tendency of resistance.

"(3) The tendency of views.

"(4) The tendency of uncertainty.

"(5) The tendency of conceit.

"(6) The tendency of passion for becoming.

"(7) The tendency of ignorance.

"These are the seven obsessions."

Anusaya Sutta

[pfcwlkxav]

This definition refers to the three planes of existence in the Buddhist cosmos, and the term 'bhava' thus would signify concrete individual existence in one or another of these three planes.

In short, what can be held trustworthy is what Bhikkhu Bodhi asserts does not accord with the Dhamma.

In countless suttas, a person, just like the Buddha himself, moves from the sphere of sensuality, to the sphere of materiality (jhana), to the sphere in immateriality (arupajhana) to Nibbana.

[sPncEjF7]

Bohi continues:

Bhava and Rebirth
8. The definition of bhava or becoming (Ven. ~Naa.naviira's 'being') offered in the Suttas dealing expressly with PS is nowhere near as transparent as the former definitions, the reason being that the definition of this term is set against the particular cosmology that underlies the Buddha's Teaching. Nevertheless, the Suttas provide no basis for Ven. ~Naa.naviira's claim that bhava means the puthujjana's taking himself to be a self.
In the suttas on PS, when the Buddha defines bhava, he does so merely by enumerating the three types of becoming:
"And what, monks, is becoming? There are these three types of becoming: sense-sphere becoming; fine-material-sphere becoming; immaterial-sphere becoming."
This definition refers to the three planes of existence in the Buddhist cosmos, and the term 'bhava' thus would signify concrete individual existence in one or another of these three planes.


What an interesting spin Bodhi puts on this translation in order to kick his cosmology into place in the Buddha's paticcasamupada!

The Pali terms in question are as follows: hīnāya dhātuyā, majjhimāya dhātuyā, paṇītāya dhātuyā -- Hinaya meaning lowly, majjhimaya meaning middle, and panitaya meaning higher realms. The Buddha is referring to mind states here: the mind of an animal arises due to craving and clinging, and we behave like an animal -- we experience an "animal birth". The mind of a "hungry ghost" arises, and we behave as a hungry ghost -- we experience a "hungry ghost birth".




For illumination as to how bhava functions in the PS series, our most helpful resource is the Bhava Sutta, a short exchange between the Buddha and the Venerable Aananda (AN 3:76/i, 223-24):

...


"Thus, Aananda, kamma is the field, consciousness is the seed, craving the moisture; for beings obstructed by ignorance and fettered to craving, consciousness becomes grounded in a low realm...in a middling realm...in a superior realm. Thus, Aananda, there is the production of re-becoming in the future. It is thus, Aananda, that there is becoming."



Bodhi neglects to mention that there is a nearly identical sutta, AN 3:77, uses the terms “volition” (cetanā) and “aspiration” (patthāna) in place of the word "consciousness" (viññāṇa). Which makes it:



"Thus, Aananda, kamma is the field, consciousness is the seed, craving the moisture; for beings obstructed by ignorance and fettered to craving, volition and aspiration becomes grounded in a low realm...in a middling realm...in a superior realm. Thus, Aananda, there is the production of re-becoming in the future. It is thus, Aananda, that there is becoming."

This in particular accords with the Buddha's teaching of paticcasamuppada in the here-and-now, and also illustrates that the "consciousness" the Buddha refers to in AN 3:76 is ones perceptions in the here-and now, and that these perceptions, under the inflouence of ignorance-induced craving and clinging, become grounded in lower, middle, or higher patterns of mentality, i.e., a mentality that one would associate with teh metaphorical model of an animal or a peta or a deva arises.


But at least he translates the references to the "realms" properly this time. He uses the term "re-becoming, though I have seen another (re-birthist) translation that translates it "further rebirth":

Thus, too, Ananda, karma is the field, consciousness is the seed, craving is the moisture,2 for
the consciousness the volition and the aspiration> of beings, hindered by ignorance and fettered
by craving, that is established in <a low realm> <a middling realm> <a subtle realm>.
Even so, Ananda, there is further rebirth. Even so, Ananda, there is existence.

The Pali goes:

Iti kho Ānanda kammaṁ khettaṁ viññāṇaṁ bījaṁ taṇhā sineho avijjā,nīvaraṇānaṁ sattānaṁ
taṇhā,saṁyojanānaṁ .

Evaṁ āyatiṁ puna-b,bhavâbhinibatti hoti. Evaṁ kho Ānanda bhavo hotî ti.


And our friend Element also provides this word-by-word translation of a similar passage:

Avijjā[ignorance]nīvaraṇānaṃ[hindered] sattānaṃ[beings] taṇhā[craving]saṃyojanānaṃ[fettered] majjhimāya[middling] dhātuyā[element of] viññāṇaṃ[consciousness] patiṭṭhitaṃ[established in] evaṃ[ in this way] āyatiṃ[length of time, future] puna[again]bbhav[becoming]abhi[?] nibbatti[product] hoti.


Bodhi continues:
Clearly, this sutta is offering a succinct statement of the same basic process described more extensively in the usual twelve-factored formula of pa.ticca-samuppaada: When there is avijjaa and ta.nhaa, ignorance and craving, then kamma -- the volitional action of a being -- effects the production of a new existence or 're-becoming in the future' (aayati.m punabbhava) in a realm that corresponds to the qualitative potential of that kamma.


Except the Buddha does not use the word "kamma" in paticcasamuppada at all. But clearly volition comes into play in the nidana of "becoming", and clearly it occurs in the moment: Ones intentions become those we would associate with the metaphorical model of an animal or a peta or a deva, and ones actions reflect that mindset. Thus we experience an "animal birth", a "peta birth", or a "deva birth" in the here and now.



Bodhi continues:
It is for this reason that the Commentaries interpret bhava in the usual PS formula as having two aspects that pertain to two different lives: one aspect called kammabhava, 'kammically active existence', which refers to the kamma with the potential of generating rebirth in one or another of the three realms; the other aspect called upapattibhava, 'rebirth existence', which refers to existence produced in one or another of the three realms. Although such a distinction is not explicitly drawn in the old Suttas, it seems to be implied by such passages as the one just quoted above.


Which means that it is an eisegesis perpetrated to force paticcasamuppada as a reincarnation model that it was clearly not.


More to come...

[UlceskLialels]

kamma is the field, consciousness is the seed, craving the moisture; for beings obstructed by ignorance and fettered to craving, consciousness becomes grounded in a low realm.

Also, what I find interesting is how rebirthers often tend to rely on the above quote.

This quote simply states due to craving & kamma, the mind gets caught up in and afflicted by a state of suffering.

"Should consciousness, when standing, stand attached to feeling, supported by feeling (as its object), landing on feeling, watered with delight, it would exhibit growth, increase & proliferation.

"If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off and there is no landing of consciousness. Consciousness, thus not having landed, not increasing, not concocted, is released. Owing to its release, it is steady. Owing to its steadiness, it is contented. Owing to its contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is totally unbound right within.

Upaya Sutta It has nothing to do with rebirth.

[yharmon6614]

Bodhi continues:

9. Ven. ~Naa.naviira claims that jaati does not mean rebirth (#9), and he is correct in so far as the word 'jaati' does not by itself convey the sense of 're-birth'.

Again Bodhi concedes that jaati means "birth", not "re-birth" or "reincarnation". But he turns right around and declares by fiat that it still means "re-birth":

Nevertheless, within the context of PS (and elsewhere in the Buddha's Teaching), jaati must be understood as implying rebirth.

And why must it? Simlpy because Bodhi says so. And he says so because his whole "three lives" scenario falls apart if it means anything else besides "physical birth of a child".



i]In so far as jaati, "the manifestation of the aggregates," etc., results from the formation of a new bhava "in the future" by the avijjaa, ta.nhaa, and kamma of the preceding existence,[/i]

And we have already shown that "manifestation of the aggregates" means something else. Also, as we have seen pointed out here in another post, Thanissaro glosses this "manifestation" as discernibility":

This is the extent to which there are means of designation, expression and delineation. This is the extent to which the sphere of discernment extends, the extent to which the cycle revolves for the manifesting (discernibility) of this world — i.e., name-and-form together with consciousness. [Thanissaro]


We have also previously addressed this passage that Bodhi again pulls from AN 3:76 and shown that it does not refer to physical birth of a child. But Bodhi is inviting us back into the dark waters of the Sati heresy:

.
...any instance of jaati is invariably a rebirth of the same continuum of consciousness: the stream of consciousness of the preceding life, "grounded" in a particular realm by reason of its kamma, springs up in that realm and comes to growth and full manifestation there.

And of course, Sati claimed that, according to the Buddha's teaching, "it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders". For which he was rightly and roundly humiliated by the Buddha. Has Bodhi never read the Maha Tanhasankaya Sutta?


Bodhi drones on:

Contrary to Ven. ~Naa.naviira, throughout the suttas we often find the word 'jaati' used in conjunction with the terms 'sa.msaara' and 'punabbhava' to underscore the fact that rebirth is intended. Take for instance the Buddha's famous "Hymn of Victory" from the Dhammapada (v.153):
"I wandered on pointlessly in this cycle (sa.msaara) of many births
Seeking the house-builder. Painful is birth again and again."
Anekajaatisa.msaara.m sandhaavissa.m anibbisa.m
Gahakaaraka.m gavesanto dukkhaa jaati punappuna.m.

And of course, Bodhi refuses to understand the Buddha's metaphorical use of the word samsara, denoting the habitual patterns of unskillful behavior and suffering we experience right here in this life. He only reads "samsara' to mean "the round of reincarnation/"re-birth". Further, he translates "punnabhava" as "re-birth", though neither "punna" (again) nor "bhava" (becoming) means "birth" or "re-birth".

AND he refers first and foremost to the Dhammapada, which the Buddha did not teach -- it is a cherry-picked derivation which is purported to be stitched together using various words that are supposed to have crossed the Buddha's lips at one point or another, but none of them all together. At the same time, Bodhi's citing this stanza here is clear proof that he simply refuses to see the metaphorical nature of the Buddha's use of the word "samsara".



Or: "A bhikkhu has abandoned the cycle of births with its re-becoming" (bhikkhuno ponobhaviko jaatisa.msaaro pahiino; MN 22/i,139).

Or the verse of Udaana 4:9:
"For the monk with a peaceful mind,
When he has cut off craving for becoming,
The wandering on in births is destroyed:
For him there is no re-becoming."

Ucchinnabhavata.nhassa santacittassa bhikkhuno
Vikkhii.no jaatisa.msaaro natthi tassa punabbhavo.

Again, he begs the question and refuses to see past his cosmological speculations. It seems so obvious to him. All anyone has to do to see it as he does is drink the Kool-Aid.


Again, consider the declaration of final knowledge uttered by the arahants: "This is my last birth; now there is no re-becoming" (ayam antimaa jaati, natthi daani punabbhavo; MN 26/i,167, 173).

And, again, Bodhi refuses to see, or even to look, at the metaphorical nature of this statement.


The above passages will show us, moreover, that the wedge that Ven. ~Naa.naviira tries to drive between jaati and punabbhavaabhinibbatti (in #10) is a spurious one. While in some passages the two are set in a conditional relationship to one another (the latter being a condition for the former -- see SN ii,65), they are so closely connected that their meanings almost overlap. In fact, the word 'abhinibbatti' is used as one of the synonyms of jaati in the standard definition of the latter.


Actually, they show that Bodhi's attempt to make them synonymous in order to shoehorn his cosmological speculations into the Buddha's teaching of paticcasamuppada is spurious. Being closely connected -- because one arises dependent upon the other -- does not make them the same. One has to love Bodhi's creeping pseudo-logic here. He can be constantly seen using this "these things are related, therefore their meanings almost overlap, therefore they are the same thing -- in fact, the standard eisegetical Abhidhamma/Commentary definition says they are the same" sort of Appeals to Creeping definitions in his arguments. One supposes that he thinks if he massages the definitions enough and repeats them enough, they might somehow magically turn into truths...watch it again:

Apparently, when abhinibbatti is included in jaati we should understand jaati as comprising both conception and physical birth, while when they are differentiated, abhinibbatti means conception and jaati is restricted to full emergence from the womb.


Apparently?!?!?! Bodhi is making up definitions as he goes along here, speculating out loud and inviting us all to drink the Kool-aid with him!

But Bodhi has even more tricks up his sleeve -- observe:

10. Now that we have adduced textual definitions of the terms 'aging and death', 'birth', and 'becoming', let us see how they link up in the formula of pa.ticca-samuppaada, as explained by the Buddha himself. The text which elucidates this matter most succinctly is the Mahaanidaana Sutta (DN 15/ii,57-58). To bring out the meaning I quote the relevant passage slightly simplified, without the catechistic format, and with the sequence of conditions stated in direct order rather than in reverse order:

In other words, to bring out the meaning he wants to see in this sutta, Bodhi is going to cherry-pick and re-arrange it how he would like to see it. Is he successful in his eisegesis? Let's see:

"If there were absolutely no clinging of any kind -- no clinging to sense pleasures, clinging to views, clinging to rules and observances, clinging to a doctrine of self -- then, in the complete absence of clinging, becoming would not be discerned: thus clinging is the condition for becoming."...


......Ven. ~Naa.naviira would read this passage to mean: Because the puthujjana clings to a belief in self, he goes on being a self (of one or another of the three types); and because he assumes that he is such a self, he thinks "my self was born" and "my self will grow old and die" (see Note, #10).




It is quite clear here that this is what is being said.


If, however, we read this passage in the light of the definitions of birth, aging, and death found in the Suttas, and in the light of the Bhava Sutta (AN 3:76)....

If we drink Bodhi's Kool-Aid of Creeping Definitions, that is... but the Buddha's definitions have already been clearly shown to be metaphorical and not literal.

a very different meaning would emerge, which might be formulated thus: Because of clinging of any kind (not only clinging to a doctrine of self), one engages in actions that have the potential to ripen in one or another of the three realms of becoming. These actions dispose consciousness towards these realms.

Sati! Sati! Sati the Fisherman's Son! -- and clinging to a "doctrine of self" -- of which a doctrine of reincarnation/"re-birth" and karma is an example -- is also "clinging to views" -- speculative views! And it also clinging to sense pleasures: the promise of reward or punishment that is part of such a doctrine. And it is also clinging to rules and rituals.

But, again, we are back to Bodhi's adoptino of Sati's Heresy:

At death, if clinging persists, the predominant kamma steers consciousness towards the appropriate realm, i.e. it grounds the "seed" of consciousness in that realm, and thereby generates a new existence.

Again we ask, has Bodhi never read the Maha Tanhasankhaya Sutta?


More to come....