[myhackingtosh_ws]

I came across this article from Bhikkhu Bodhi. Its one of his "rebirth must be" essays you see from time to time


I decided to post it however since this part struck me



Rebirth - Bhikkhu Bodhi

The question of human destiny after death is probably one of the most critical questions we can raise. Nowadays it has become fashionable to dismiss this question as unimportant. But if we reflect on the extent to which our views influence our action we will see that it is quite essential to gain some understanding of the complete context in which our lives unfold. Moreover our views on the afterlife will determine what we regard as important in this present life.

Three positions of human destiny after death
There are three possible positions that can be taken on human destiny after death. One position, the outlook of materialism. It simply denies that there is an afterlife. It holds that the human being consists of organic matter. It regards mind as a byproduct of organic matter, and after death, with the break up of the physical body, all consciousness comes to an end and the life process is completely extinguished.

The second alternative is the view held in Western theistic religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam in their orthodox forms. They believe in an eternal afterlife. According to these religions, we live a single life on earth and after death we live eternally in some state of existence determined by our present beliefs and conduct.

Then there is a third view, a view which prevails in the religions of the East, Hinduism and Buddhism. This is the idea of rebirth. According to this, the present life is only a simple link in a chain of lives that extends back into the past and forward into the future. This chain of lives is called samsara.
http://www.beyondthenet.net/dhamma/rebirth.htm


It struck me because the Buddha taught that Dukkha and its cessation were what is important and not questions about ultimate reality, afterlife etc


The second part I also find lacking since Bodhi appears to be stuck in views. "its either this or must be that" kinda thinking



any comments?


metta

[WhiliaStelt]

Just as a comment:
In Zen there is no urgency about afterlife issue, not because there isn't, but because the "here and now" practice embrace past, present and future in a single moment. There is no need to take extreme postures such as "there is or there is not". We just do our practice with deep devotion and discipline... and let life do the rest by itself.

Namaste

[buyviagraonlineusatoday]

It struck me because the Buddha taught that Dukkha and its cessation were what is important and not questions about ultimate reality, afterlife etc


The second part I also find lacking since Bodhi appears to be stuck in views. "its either this or must be that" kinda thinking

I agree. I also don't interpret 'samsara' as a 'chain of lives' but rather as one's delusions in the present life.

[VyacheslaV]

Precisely


Buddhadhamma is about what is directly verifiable


The problem is dukkha and its cessation, this is the "critical question" to a Buddhist, not if my kamma is so good that I will be a deva in heaven or burn in a hell



I admire Bodhi for his work in translating the Cannon and making more accessible to a wider audience, however some of his teachings I find contrary to Buddhadhamma understanding





metta

[Eromereorybig]

Sounds to me like the quibble is with the Buddha, not Venerable Bodhi.

Strikes me that the Buddha would not teach that which is not important. The Pali Canon is filled with teachings emphasising rebirth. Back then there were differing opinions of what happened after death - still today there are differing understandings of what happens after death. It was important then to the Buddha to teach about it or he would not have. It was Right Speech then and it is Right Speech now.

If it is not important to you - why quibble with the Venerable? Just let it be.

Views or understandings are important enough to be one of the main parts of the Eight Fold path - and there is a time and place to be "stuck on views". I'm "stuck" to the Path until the end is reached.

To teach a view or understanding as presented by the Buddha is not a fault.

By your standards - Nibbana must not be a part of Buddhadhamma - or do you wish to announce to all your direct verification? Should kamma and dependent origination be dropped from all Buddhist teachings because most of us cannot directly verify them? These are important Buddhist views and we are remiss in neglecting them.

Metta

[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....

[dosugxxx]

Sounds to me like the quibble is with the Buddha, not Venerable Bodhi.

"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


It is Bodhi who quibbles with the Buddha, and twists the Buddha's teachings to suit his own Brahmin worldview.


Kindly cite a sutta in which the phrase "three lives" crosses the Buddha's lips. Or one in which the Buddha teaches that "consciousness" is the gandhabba, or one in which the Buddha teaches "stream of consciousness transmigrates from life to life", or one in which the phrase "stream of consciousness" crosses the Buddha's lips. I'll be waiting right here for your citations.

The Pali Canon is filled with teachings emphasising rebirth.

There are teachings addressed to folks who believe in such things, and they are tailored to make sense to one who has such beliefs. The Buddha's own liberative teachings are reincarnation/"rebirth"-free.

Back then there were differing opinions of what happened after death - still today there are differing understandings of what happens after death.

Yes, the Buddha called them all a "wilderness of views, a thicket of views, a canker, an arrow".

It was Right Speech then and it is Right Speech now.

Actually, it is "right view with defilements" -- meaning, a view that is based in superstition, in ignorance, in clinging to sensuality and self-view, but which nonetheless leads one to moral behaviour. The Buddha distinguished this sort of view from his own liberative teachings.

If it is not important to you - why quibble with the Venerable? Just let it be.

It speaks to the question of whether we are practising "Buddhism" here -- meaning the teachings of the Buddha -- or Brahminism and Hinduism in a Buddha suit, like Bodhi is.

Views or understandings are important enough to be one of the main parts of the Eight Fold path - and there is a time and place to be "stuck on views".

The Buddha's "Noble Right View" is based entirely in discernment, defined in terms of discernment, and has nothing to do with superstitions like "rebirth". Its ethics is defined clearly in the Veludvareyya Suttas, and is an ethics of reciprocity, rather than carrot-and-stick superstition.

I'm "stuck"...

I would not be the one to argue against your complaint of being stuck. You have my most heartfelt sympathies.

To teach a view or understanding as presented by the Buddha is not a fault.

Glad we agree on that point. However, the Buddha called misrepresenting his teachings -- like Bodhi does here and elsewhere -- "Slandering the Tathagata."

By your standards - Nibbana must not be a part of Buddhadhamma

WTF are you talking about? Nibbana is the extinguishment of suffering, here and now. Perhaps you are thinking of the annihilationist "nirvana" of the tibetan religions and should be posting in that forum instead....?

or do you wish to announce to all your direct verification?

I can directly verify that with the extinguishment of ignorance comes the extinguishment of suffering, here and now. You can't????

Should kamma and dependent origination be dropped from all Buddhist teachings because most of us cannot directly verify them?

Whose version of kamma are you talking about, Kimosabe? Hindu-karma? Sure. Intention, as the Buddha defined it? Of course not!

-- But really, we would hate to see you advocating dropping paticcasamuppada from the Buddha's teachings, because paticcasamuppada is the Buddha's teachings. Sorry to hear that you cannot directly verify intention or paticcasamuppada. It is actually quite easy. Perhaps you just don't understand them enough to do so.

we are remiss in neglecting them.

Well, its never too late for you to make a fresh start at it.

[Niiinioa]

If it is not important to you - why quibble with the Venerable? Just let it be.

Hi Lee and welcome to the group.

Personally I think it's fine for us to discuss, question, and sometimes disagree with the articles, essays and spoken teachings of monks, priests, lamas and teachers. It's a mistake to think that everything they say must be automatically right and 'holy' and should never be criticised. If we are never allowed to question anything then there's always a danger of fundamentalism and cult-like attitudes developing and we've all seen the direction in which that kind of mindset has gone in other religions.

It's also wise to examine and contemplate for ourselves what Buddha actually said in the Pali Canon, as well as the different translations of the words used there.

Kind regards,

Aloka-D

[dxpfmP0l]

Sounds to me like the quibble is with the Buddha, not Venerable Bodhi. Not at all, what would be the point in being a Buddhist if I denied what Buddha taught

Strikes me that the Buddha would not teach that which is not important. Correct, he taught a "handful of leaves". He only taught Dukkha and its nirodha. Thats it

The Pali Canon is filled with teachings emphasising rebirth. No they emphasies dukkha and its cessation. They emphasies the Four Noble Truths. Reincarnation wast taught to some because

MN 68
"So, Anuruddha, it is not for the purpose of scheming to deceive people or for the purpose of flattering people or for the purpose of gain, honour, and renown, or with the thought " let people know me to be thus", that when a disciple has died, the Tathagata declares his reappearance thus "so-and-so has reappeared in such-and-such a place" Rather, it is because there are faithful clansmen inspired and gladdened by what is lofty, who when they hear that, direct their minds to such a state, and that leads to their welfare and happiness for a long time"


lofty
Adjective
[loftier, loftiest]
1. of majestic or imposing height
2. morally admirable: lofty ideals
3. unpleasantly superior: a lofty contempt
Such aspiration helps lead people to be moral, which helps them to progress to the Buddhas own teachings, the 4 noble truths[/quote]

Back then there were differing opinions of what happened after death - still today there are differing understandings of what happens after death. Which are all speculative views. Views, which BTW, are bound to dukkha

"And how is there the yoke of views? There is the case where a certain person does not discern, as it actually is present, the origination, the passing away, the allure, the drawbacks, & the escape from views. When he does not discern, as it actually is present, the origination, the passing away, the allure, the drawbacks, & the escape from views, then — with regard to views — he is obsessed with view-passion, view-delight, view-attraction, view-infatuation, view-thirst, view-fever, view-fascination, view-craving. This is the yoke of sensuality, the yoke of becoming, & the yoke of views. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....010.than.html


Such views come to be via clinging to the aggregates, hence they are tied up with dukkha and vexation


It was important then to the Buddha to teach about it or he would not have. It was Right Speech then and it is Right Speech now. This was addressed above

If it is not important to you - why quibble with the Venerable? Just let it be. same reason why I disagree and debate people who say that Buddha taught about and eternal Self or Atman. I do it because its not so

Views or understandings are important enough to be one of the main parts of the Eight Fold path - and there is a time and place to be "stuck on views". I'm "stuck" to the Path until the end is reached. The Buddha made use of some views as they lead to wholesome states. This then means those people live in some degree of peace. They can then progress onto the Buddhas own teachings


"And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents [asava], siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]; and there is noble right view, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.

"And what is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are priests & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions.

"And what is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for Awakening, the path factor of right view of one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is free from effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.

"One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort, & right mindfulness — run & circle around right view.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....117.than.html


Rebirth view helps one develop wholesome states, however it is tainted and bound to dukkha. There can never be nibbana if one holds to it

The Buddhas own teachings are seperate from rebirth view. There is no specualtive views in them


However some make a mistake here and jump straight into another speculative view - "There is no rebirth, all is meaningless, there are no morals" etc

This is a wrong view as it leads to unwholesome states and is also bound with dukkha




To teach a view or understanding as presented by the Buddha is not a fault. Correct however people who do are usually challenged, banned or ignored by "Buddhists" all the time

By your standards - Nibbana must not be a part of Buddhadhamma Nibbana is the burning out of the fires of Greed, Hatred and Deulision that burn in the mind. Its not some mystical state



Should kamma and dependent origination be dropped from all Buddhist teachings because most of us cannot directly verify them? These are important Buddhist views and we are remiss in neglecting them.
Dukkha addressed kamma above


however as to D.O. the Buddha said it is directly obervable


He seeing a form with the eye becomes greedy for a pleasant form, or averse to a disagreeable form. Abides with mindfulness of the body not established and with a limited mind. Not knowing the release of mind nor the release through wisdom as it really is, where thoughts of demerit cease completely (*11). He falls to the path of agreeing and disagreeing and feels whatever feeling, pleasant, unpleasant, or neither unpleasant nor pleasant. Delighted and pleased with those feelings he appropriates them. To him delighted, pleased and appropriating those feelings arises interest. That interest for feelings is the holding (* 12) To him holding, there is being, from being arises birth, from birth decay and death, grief, lament, unpleasantness, displeasure and distress, thus arises the complete mass of unpleasantness. Hearing a sound with the ear, cognising a smell with the nose, cognising a taste with the tongue, cognising a touch with the body, cognising an idea with the mind, becomes greedy for a pleasant idea. Becomes averse to a disagreeable idea. Abides with mindfulness of the body not established and with a limited mind. Not knowing the release of mind nor the release through wisdom as it really is. Not knowing how thoughts of demerit cease completely. He falls to the path of agreeing and disagreeing and feels whatever feeling, pleasant, unpleasant, or neither unpleasant nor pleasant. Delighted and pleased with those feelings, appropriates them. To him delighted, pleased and appropriating those feelings arise interest. That interest for feelings is the holding (*12) To him holding, there is being, from being arises birth, from birth decay and death, grief, lament, unpleasantness, displeasure and distress, thus arises the complete mass of unpleasntness.
and


Bhikkhus, when one dwells contemplating gratification in things that can fetter, there is a descent of name-and-form. With name-and-form as a condition, the six sense bases [come to be]...such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.

Suppose, bhikkhus, there was a great tree and all its roots going downwards and across would send sap upwards. Sustained by that sap, nourished by it, that great tree would stand for a very long time. So too, when one lives contemplating gratification in things that can fetter, there is descent of name-and-form...such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.

Bhikkhus, when one dwells contemplating danger in things that can fetter, there is no descent of name-and-form. With the cessation of name-and-form comes the cessation of the six sense bases [come to be]...such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.
You see D.O. is a teaching of how dukkha comes to be. Dukkha happens in the hear and now all the time, therefore D.O. happens in the here and now, as shown by the above suttas.


Dependent Origination was not taught as occuring over "Three lives"


The Buddha did not teach it as a metaphysical model of how "rebirth" happens


metta

[Phighicle]

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.

Sums it up quite nicely I think


To me it seems that wanting to know what happens after death is craving for being

[KneefeZes]

However some make a mistake here and jump straight into another speculative view - "There is no rebirth, all is meaningless, there are no morals" etc

This is a wrong view as it leads to unwholesome states and is also bound with dukkha

And of course many believers, stuck in a thicket of views, tend to mistake (and often misrepresent) the Buddha's Right View of No Speculative Views as "There is no rebirth, all is meaningless, there are no morals", and point the finger of Nihilism and Annihilationism at those who understand and take the Buddha's view. Eternalists tried to hang that on the Buddha back in his time, too.

One can correct an eternalist on that point only so many times. Often, once the difference is shown, it turns into an accusation of "Eel-Wriggling", which is another epithet eternalists threw at the Buddha. But past a certain point, the persistence of the accusation can be shown to be the product of the eternalist's refusal to put reason over clinging to superstition. Then it is time to walk away -- there is no reasoning in a person who sees only what he or she wants to see, and believes what he or she wanna-believes.

Such a person only sees and believes what consists with his or her own prejudices and illusions. Such a person is incapable of reasoning or being reasoned with.

To me it seems that wanting to know what happens after death is craving for being

-- which is why the Buddha calls such beliefs "asava: -- defiled: They are based in craving for being and becoming (illusions of status and ownership), in ignorance (superstition), speculative view (now, through clinging, craving, and lack of discernment, turned into superstitious beliefs), and craving for sensuality (delighting in the idea of wanting to be reborn into, say, a deva realm, like Buddhaghosa did, and fear of being reborn as an intestinal parasite). The problem with basing an ethics on such beliefs -- like primitive religions do -- is that if one finally come to ones senses and realizes that such beliefs are unfounded in reality, ones ethics comes into danger as well. The Buddha's teachings and those of other modern religions do not base their ethics in such houses of cards, they tend to use an ethics of reciprocity: the "Golden Rule", which is based entirely in rationality and discernment. Much stronger foundation.

[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.

[ddwayspd]

Buddhadhamma is about what is directly verifiable

Agreed

[twinaircant]

Seems to me that questions about the afterlife can only arise in one who is working with the assumption that a person is a discrete, singular entity with a single, fixed identity that persists through a lifetime, and that there is some sort of temporally-persistent identity in the first place. 'Samsara' can also be interpreted as 'process'. What people routinely misconstrue as a singular entity is a collection of processes, not a true being in the conventional sense. It's not nothing, but neither is it the thing we conceive it to be. Processes continue whether we consider them to be personal or impersonal. Personhood is the first illusion that must be overcome. Once that is accomplished, the question of what rebirth is obvious, if not trivial. In conventional terms, it's an impersonal universe. Persons, as conventionally conceived, don't really exist, even momentarily. Persons are convenient fictions overlaid upon never-ending processes.

Or I could be wrong.

[sasaderesada]

"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."

Golly, that made me laugh, with Bodhi's name inserted!!!

[Marlboro-oroblraM]

Seems to me that questions about the afterlife can only arise in one who is working with the assumption that a person is a discrete, singular entity with a single, fixed identity that persists through a lifetime, and that there is some sort of temporally-persistent identity in the first place.

Nice to see you posting again, FBM !


Kind regards,

Aloka

[siklop]

Hi, Aloka! Real life is keeping me hopping these days. This trimester will be done in a couple of weeks, though. I should be around more after that.

[Kristoferson]

I should be around more after that.

Excellent ! I'll look forward to that

[onlineslotetes]

Many apologies to all for the interruption to the topic, please continue ...