[enlinnyGoob]

Let us examine the Bhumija Sutta closely.

As the Bhumija Sutta does not make sense according to basic Dhamma principles, we can try to examine the Pali, albeit, with very limited knowledge. The Pali states:

''Kāye vā hānanda, sati kāyasañcetanāhetu uppajjati ajjhattaṃ sukhadukkhaṃ. Vācāya vā hānanda, sati vacīsañcetanāhetu uppajjati ajjhattaṃ sukhadukkhaṃ. Mane vā hānanda, sati manosañcetanāhetu uppajjati ajjhattaṃ sukhadukkhaṃ avijjāpaccayā ca.

''Sāmaṃ vā taṃ, ānanda, kāyasaṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharoti, yaṃpaccayāssa [yaṃpaccayāya (syā. kaṃ.), yaṃpaccayā yaṃ (ka.)] taṃ uppajjati ajjhattaṃ sukhadukkhaṃ. Pare vā taṃ [pare vāssa taṃ (sī. pī.), pare vāyataṃ (syā. kaṃ.)], ānanda, kāyasaṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharonti, yaṃpaccayāssa taṃ uppajjati ajjhattaṃ sukhadukkhaṃ. Sampajāno vā taṃ, ānanda, kāyasaṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharoti yaṃpaccayāssa taṃ uppajjati ajjhattaṃ sukhadukkhaṃ. Asampajāno vā taṃ, ānanda, kāyasaṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharoti yaṃpaccayāssa taṃ uppajjati ajjhattaṃ sukhadukkhaṃ.

''Sāmaṃ vā taṃ, ānanda, vacīsaṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharoti yaṃpaccayāssa taṃ uppajjati ajjhattaṃ sukhadukkhaṃ. Pare vā taṃ, ānanda, vacīsaṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharonti yaṃpaccayāssa taṃ uppajjati ajjhattaṃ sukhadukkhaṃ. Sampajāno vā taṃ, ānanda...pe... asampajāno vā taṃ, ānanda, vacīsaṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharoti yaṃpaccayāssa taṃ uppajjati ajjhattaṃ sukhadukkhaṃ.

''Sāmaṃ vā taṃ, ānanda, manosaṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharoti yaṃpaccayāssa taṃ uppajjati ajjhattaṃ sukhadukkhaṃ. Pare vā taṃ, ānanda, manosaṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharonti yaṃpaccayāssa taṃ uppajjati ajjhattaṃ sukhadukkhaṃ. Sampajāno vā taṃ, ānanda...pe... asampajāno vā taṃ, ānanda, manosaṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharoti yaṃpaccayāssa taṃ uppajjati ajjhattaṃ sukhadukkhaṃ.

''Imesu , ānanda, dhammesu avijjā anupatitā. Avijjāya tveva, ānanda, asesavirāganirodhā so kāyo na hoti yaṃpaccayāssa taṃ uppajjati ajjhattaṃ sukhadukkhaṃ. Sā vācā na hoti yaṃpaccayāssa taṃ uppajjati ajjhattaṃ sukhadukkhaṃ. So mano na hoti yaṃpaccayāssa taṃ uppajjati ajjhattaṃ sukhadukkhaṃ. Khettaṃ taṃ na hoti...pe... vatthu taṃ na hoti...pe... āyatanaṃ taṃ na hoti...pe... adhikaraṇaṃ taṃ na hoti yaṃpaccayāssa taṃ uppajjati ajjhattaṃ sukhadukkha''nti. The first thing that stands out is the word 'vedana' does not exist.

It follows, if the Buddha did speak the third section of the Bhumija Sutta, he was not referring to vedayitaṃ sukhaṃ vā dukkhaṃ vā adukkhamasukhaṃ, which arise after sense contact.

He was referring the pleasure and pain as the results of karma, that is, in putthujana language; as in found in the following sutta:

"There are priests & contemplatives who hold this teaching, hold this view: 'Whatever a person experiences — pleasant, painful or neither pleasant nor painful — that is all caused by what was done in the past.'

There are priests & contemplatives who hold this teaching, hold this view: 'Whatever a person experiences — pleasant, painful, or neither pleasant nor painful — that is all caused by a supreme being's act of creation.'

There are priests & contemplatives who hold this teaching, hold this view: 'Whatever a person experiences — pleasant, painful, or neither pleasant nor painful — that is all without cause & without condition.'

"Having approached the priests & contemplatives who hold that... 'Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by what was done in the past,' I said to them: 'Is it true that you hold that... "Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by what was done in the past?"'

Thus asked by me, they admitted, 'Yes.'

Then I said to them, 'Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of what was done in the past. A person is a thief... unchaste... a liar... a divisive speaker... a harsh speaker... an idle chatterer... greedy... malicious... a holder of wrong views because of what was done in the past.'

When one falls back on what was done in the past as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative. This was my first righteous refutation of those priests & contemplatives who hold to such teachings, such views.

Sectarians In brief, because he was a putthujana, the Buddha appears to have simply given Ananda a morality teaching in line with karma, about what leads to happiness and about what leads to unhappiness.