[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....