[Buddha-l] Re: Core teachings

[Jamie Hubbard]

Regarding Bhikkhu Bodhi's article "Dhamma Without Rebirth?"

Richard P. Hayes wrote:

>Thank you. I have read that article several times, and I have had very
>cordial discussions with Bhikkhu Bodhi about it. We disagree with each
>other on a few details, but neither one of us regards the disagreement
>to be terribly important.
>  
>
Ah, Richard, methinks you underestimate the degree of the good Bhante's 
disagreement. I believe that his point is, in fact, not unlike Vincente, 
that without rebirth (and therefore the cessation of rebirth) the goal 
becomes "merely" the cessation of suffering. And that "merely," I 
believe, is a slippery slope that many Buddhists do not wish to get 
near. Indeed, as Bhikkhu Bodhi, Thurman, and others have made clear, 
they think it leads to the end of Buddhism. I think that they are right. 
, ,

It leads, I think, not simply to what some think of as "Buddhism Lite" 
(that is, a therapy model--a la your own "Psychotherapy and Religion" 
<http://home.comcast.net/%7Edayamati/therapy.html> -- or the "vipassana 
for stress reduction" model), but to lots of other interesting 
questions, the answers to most of which will make any reasonable person 
leave the cushion, the cave, and the temple alone, except for the 
pleasure it brings one, akin to leaving the really good bourbon 
alone--except for the pleasure that it brings one.

I mean really-- why spend all of that time and money or retreats when a 
shot of bourbon and a nap will suffice? As Steve Collins felicitously 
put it, "It is patently false, for Buddhists as for everyone except the 
pathologically depressed, that everything in life is suffering." 
("Nirvana and other Buddhist felicities," 140). Buddhism might be the 
answer to the fire of samsara, but hey! Who lit the match in the first 
place? Hint: he was born in ancient India to a royal family. . . with 
lots of presuppositions about the continuity of things (which I don't 
share) that required a *final* end to embodied existence in order to put 
an end to dukkha. As you note elsewhere, however, the promise of totally 
and forever eliminating all afflictions can lead to big headaches, that 
is, the fires of samsaric dukkha.

I think that all of this new cognitive science/buddhism stuff (Dan 
Goleman, Richard Davidson at UW-Madison, et. al.) also points to 
different answers about suffering, answers that are neuro-chemical and 
biological in nature, that will admit of much easier remedies than the 
Buddhist path. Its great that Davidson can measure actual changes to the 
brain effected by master meditators, but as my college anatomy teacher 
once asked us yogi/hippy types: "If I can have the same effect with a 
pill or a scalpel, why bother with all the hard work?" Indeed.

Without rebirth to worry about, and suffering exposed for the straw man 
that is (or whacked back with new advances from the cognitive 
science/pharmacological folks and/or David Nicoloson's 1843 Sour Mash), 
I think that we get to the interesting part of the Buddhist path that 
remains: ethical action and compassionate efforts to help others.

Maybe I'll start ranting about Republicans.

Jamie Hubbard