[67Irralphaisa]

Maybe l'm being a little dense here ,but why is the argument"Ethics must have...." "demonstrably weak?"

It is weak because if one wakes up one morning and realizes, "hey, all that rebirth crap is just mumbo-jumbo", or "hey, all that God-crap is just a hokey tale", the ethics that the tale or the mumbo-jumbo supported comes tumbling down right along with it.

In catholicism, they call this a "crisis of faith".

Imo if we have a clear understanding of Anatta then we have a clear understanding that there is no self to become a "bodhisattva" no self to become enlightened,in fact no issue.

The Buddha's teaching of Anatta is not "There is no self".

If karmma does not have consequences why are we even discussing the matter.

Because so many people think, errantly, that the Buddha's teachings are all about karma and reincarnation. And they are constantly being told, errantly, that the Buddha's teachings are all about karma and reincarnation by monks who think, errantly, that the Buddha's teachings are all about karma and reincarnation, because they have been told, errantly, that the Buddha's teachings are all about karma and reincarnation. If they aren't shown otherwise, how are they going to discover the truth?

Why did Buddha make karmma such a issue.

He didn't, not in his own teachings. But a lot of other people believed in it, so they wanted to talk to him about his opinions of it. He called it "right view that based in the defilements", and distinguished it from his own teachings, which he called "Noble Right View that is without defilements, world-transcending ("world" having a very special, phenomenological meaning), a Factor of the Path".

In fact if karmma is of no consequence then the same could be said of Dependant Origination.

That does not follow at all. Dependent Origination is a "karma/reincarnation-free zone", and it can be demonstrated and seen here and now by anyone. For example:



An example of Dependent Origination in everyday life

Let us take a simple example of how the principle of Dependent Origination operates in everyday life. Suppose there are two school chums, named 'John' and 'Ian.' Whenever they meet at school they smile and say "Hello" to each other. One day John sees Ian, and approaches him with a friendly greeting ready, only to be answered with silence and a sour expression. John is peeved by this, and stops talking to Ian. In this case, the chain of reactions might proceed in the following way:

1. Ignorance (avijja): John is ignorant of the true reason for Ian's grim face and sullenness. He fails to reflect on the matter wisely and to ascertain the real reasons for Ian's behavior, which may have nothing at all to do with his feelings for John.

2. Volitional Impulses (sankhara): As a result, John proceeds to think and formulate theories in his mind, conditioned by his temperament, and these give rise to doubt, anger, and resentment, once again dependent on his particular temperament.

3. Consciousness (viññana): Under the influence of these defilements, John broods. He takes note of and interprets Ian's behavior and actions in accordance with those previous impressions; the more he thinks about it, the surer he gets; Ian's every gesture seems offensive.

4. Body and mind (namarupa): John's feelings, thoughts, moods, facial expressions and gestures, that is, the body and mind together, begin to take on the overall features of an angry or offended person, primed to function in accordance with that consciousness.

5. Sense bases (salayatana): John's sense organs are primed to receive information that is related to and conditioned by the body-mind organism's state of anger or hurt.

6. Contact (phassa): The impingement on the sense organs will be of the activities or attributes of Ian which seem particularly relative to the case, such as frowning expressions, unfriendly gestures, and so on.

7. Feeling (vedana): Feelings, conditioned by sense contact, are of the unpleasant kind.

8. Craving (tanha): Vibhavatanha, craving for non-being, arises, the dislike or aversion for that offensive image, the desire for it to go away or to be destroyed.

9. Clinging (upadana): Clinging and obsessive thinking in relation to Ian's behavior follows. Ian's behavior is interpreted as a direct challenge; he is seen as a disputant, and the whole situation demands some kind of remedial action.

10. Becoming (bhava): John's subsequent behavior falls under the influence of clinging and his actions become those of an antagonist.

11. Birth (jati): As the feeling of enmity becomes more distinct, it is assumed as an identity. The distinction between 'me' and 'him' becomes more distinct, and there is a self which is obliged to somehow respond to the situation.

12. Aging and death (jaramarana): This 'self,' or condition of enmity, exists and flourishes dependent on certain conditions, such as the desire to appear tough, to preserve honor and pride, and to be the victor, which all have their respective opposites, such as feelings of worthlessness, inferiority, and failure. As soon as that self arises, it is confronted with the absence of any guarantee of victory. Even if he does attain the victory he desires, there is no guarantee that John will be able to preserve his supremacy for any length of time. He may not, in fact, be the 'tough victor' he wants to be, but rather the loser, the weakling, the one who loses face. These possibilities of suffering play with John's moods and produce stress, insecurity, and worry. They in turn feed ignorance, thus beginning a new round of the cycle. Such negative states are like festering wounds which have not been treated, and so continue to release their 'poisoning' effect on John's consciousness, influencing all of his behavior, and causing problems both for himself and for others. In John's case, he may feel unhappy for the whole of that day, speaking gruffly to whoever he comes into contact with, and so increasing the likelihood of more unpleasant incidents.

In this case, if John were to practice correctly he would be advised to start off on the right foot. Seeing his friend's sullenness, he could use his intelligence (yoniso-manasikara: considering in accordance with causes and conditions) and reflect that Ian may have some problem on his mind -- he may have been scolded by his mother, he may be in need of money, or he may simply be depressed. If John reflected in this way no incident would arise, his mind would be untroubled, and he might even be moved toward compassionate action and understanding.

Once the negative chain of events has been set in motion, however, it can still be cut off with mindfulness at any point. For instance, if it had continued on up to sense contact, where Ian's actions were perceived in a negative way, John could still set up mindfulness right there: instead of falling under the power of craving for non-being, he could instead consider the facts of the situation and thereby gain a fresh understanding of Ian's behavior. He could then reflect wisely in regard to both his own and his friend's actions, so that his mind would no longer be weighed down by negative emotional reactions, but instead respond in a clearer and more positive way. Such reflection, in addition to causing no problems for himself, could also serve to encourage the arising of compassion.



-Phra Maha Prayudh Payutto, Dependent Origination: The Buddhist Law of Conditionality

http://www.buddhanet.net/cmdsg/coarise5.htm