Dhammavamsa wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 12:52 pm
The book "Investigating the Dhamma: A Collection of Papers" by Bhikkhu Bodhi did addresses these question.
Reading it will help better understanding. Available online for free.
Browsing the above book, I found what i regard as the following errors by Bhikkhu Bodhi:
Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote:Before we go any further, we should point out that Ven.
Ñánavìra does not cite any suttas to support his understanding
of bhava, játi, and jarámaraóa, and in fact there are no suttas to be
found in the Páli Canon that explain the above terms in this way.
SN 23.2 & SN 5.10 defined "a being" as a "view" or "strong attachment". MN 86 says by becoming a monk, Angulimala was "born (jata) into the noble birth (jatiya)". SN 12.2 defines "birth" & "death" as occurring to "beings". Since "beings" are defined as self-views, it appears Nanavira's idea was correct
; even though Nanavira did not cite any suttas.
Also, since the suttas never say a Buddha or Arahant is subject to "death" ("marana"), it appears Nanavira was correct.
Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote:Moreover, on Ven. Ñáóavìra’s interpretation it may not even be
quite correct to say ‘játipaccayá jarámaraóaí’. On his view, it
seems, one would be obliged to say instead, ‘bhavapaccayá játi,
bhavapaccayá jarámaraóaí’.
The above sounds wrong & illogical. The above is like saying contact in D.O. contains no ignorance. This is obviously false because many suttas refer to contact with ignorance (SN 22.81; MN 38; MN 148; etc).
Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote:Since he regards the puthujjana’s
taking himself to be a self as the basis for his notions “my self
was born” and “my self will die,” it would follow that ‘being’
would be the condition for both ‘birth’ and ‘aging-and-death’.
But that is not what the Buddha himself asserts.
No. The Buddha exactly asserts the above.
Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote:In many suttas dealing with PS the Buddha defines the above
terms of the formula, and if we look at these texts we will see that
they are starkly different from Ven. Ñáóavìra’s explanation of
them. The definitions are standardized and can be found at DN
22/D II 305; MN 9/M I 49–50; SN 12:2/S II 2–3, etc.:
“And what, monks, is aging and death? The aging of beings in
the various orders of beings, their old age, brokenness of
teeth, greyness of hair, wrinkling of skin, decline of life,
weakness of faculties—this is called aging. The passing of
beings out of the various orders of beings, their passing away,
dissolution, disappearance, dying, completion of time,
dissolution of the aggregates, laying down of the body—this
is called death. So this aging and this death are (together)
called aging-and-death.
“And what, monks, is birth? The birth of beings into the
various orders of beings, their coming to birth, descent (into
a womb), production, manifestation of the aggregates,
obtaining the bases for contact—this is called birth.”
The above definitions, with their strings of synonyms and
concrete imagery, clearly indicate that ‘birth’ refers to biological
birth and ‘aging-and-death’ to biological aging and biological
death—not to the puthujjana’s notions “I was born; I will age and
No. If the suttas referred to biological birth & death, as the Abhidhamma literally does, the same as the Abhidhamma, the Suttas would not include the word "beings" or the phrase "beings in a class of beings" in its definition.
Also, since the suttas never say a Buddha or Arahant is subject to "death" ("marana"), it appears Nanavira was correct.
The opinion of Bhikkhu Bodhi is so wonderful to read because it is perfect for generating dispassion towards the world of worldlings.