Poor Bodhi! He is quite right in saying that our sense perceptions
are defective - he just hadn't figured on cool Dharma utilising his sense of smell rather than the sense of sight that us humans would use. Ok Bodhi gave the example of the quickness of the eye deceiving the hand but he didn't explicitly explain that sight was the only sense Dharma should use.

It is common to suppose that we are able, simultaneously, to both see and hear the same thing. Suppose you are standing on a corner of some street and a car goes by. You think you both see it, and hear it, at the same time, and possibly also mention smell it, if it has a smoky exhaust.

Buddhism teaches otherwise.

Buddhism teaches that we can be aware of only one thing at any given moment. But to understand this, we have to look a little more closely at how Buddhism approaches perception.

It is held that each individual's mind is naturally in a state of quiescence (bhavanga), but that this can be deflected into a moment of consciousness (cittakkhana) by some sensory impingement, always bearing in mind that Buddhism recognises six senses, with the mind itself being the sixth sense.

Generally speaking, when a sensory impingement deflects the mind into a moment of consciousness, there is an interval of upto 8 submoments, during which the mind stirs itself into action, before apperception (javana) takes place. Apperception of the object that had been responsible for the sensory impingement lasts a further 7 submoments, after which the mind lapses, following a further two submoments, back into quiescence, awaiting further impingement. A complete moment of consciousness therefore lasts for upto 17 submoments.

Buddhism also teaches that the mind can, in each apperception process, take only one thing as its object—that is, the object responsible for the sensory impingement. If that sensory impingement is visual, then the apperception process concerned has as its object a sight object. If it is aural, then the apperception process concerned has as its object a sound object. And so on.

It follows, therefore, that we can, at any given moment, perceive only one sense object, despite the fact that these various sensory impingements occur with such rapidly—indeed, many million times a second—that we fail to notice this. What really took place, when we say that we both saw and heard the car, was rather a series of sensory impingements somewhat like this:

seeingthe car seeing the car hearing the car thinking about the car worrying about something seeing the car smelling the car thinking about dinner seeing the car

and so on. All of these moments of consciousness follow upon each other with such rapidity that we think we are able to exercise more than one sense at the same time. But, in reality, this is not so.

We may complain, for instance, when sitting in a library, that someone eating a bag of crisps nearby is preventing us from concentrating (on the book). In reality, the things which our moments of conscious take as their objects alternate between the book and the noise. That is to say, we are all scatter-brained: we say we are unable to concentrate (on the book), when in reality we are concentrating on the noise rather than the book. We scatter our concentration onto a variety of things, and then blame some of those things for disturbing us.

A well-trained mind can ignore such distractions and achieve one-pointed concentration on whatever it wishes to: that is to say, it is able to maintain concentration on a single object.

Bodhi maintains that the hand is faster than the eye, but this is nonsense, for the eye (or rather the series of visual sensory impingements upon the mind) is infinitely faster than the hand. (Have you ever tried to catch a fly with your hand ?) The hand simply cannot move faster than a mind concentrated on a single sense-object.

Passing aside the possibility that cats may have a more acute sense of smell than do humans, it is quite possible either (a) that Dharma's own moments of consciousness are not so often interrupted by mental reflections on what he has just experienced as they are for humans; or (b) that he is able, like one with a well-trained mind, to concentrate, to the exclusion of all else, on those sensory impingements he chooses—in this case those involving only the sense of smell—and is, as a consequence, completely able to outwit Bodhi.  -- Peter Masefield

Poor Bodhi! Can he ever win? His idealism always seems to be defeated by Dharma's pragmatism.

But isn't this really how rules are determined in the arena of daily life far removed from the abstract remoteness of metaphysics. All of Dharma's actions are motivated by a kind of roguish pragmatism we all recognize because we all engage in at various times in order to achieve our goals. Of course, there is a limit to this. If we broke the rules all the time, then life would indeed be a state of distress.

But there is more. Bodhi tries to establish a universal rule regarding the fragility of the senses in providing knowledge capable of distinguishing what is true from what is false. Dharma discovers the truth - the location of the pea - by demonstrating the partial nature of Bodhi's truth. The point is that the senses do provide a standard of knowledge up to a certain point, beyond which - and this is where Bodhi's belief enters - their value is suspect. Bodhi still has to learn the difference between the universal and the particular.

Hinduism in its various forms offers many rules to live by, as do all religions. If we were to focus on the long ritual traditiion in Hinduism, going right back to Vedic literature dating to 1200BCE, we can easily find texts offering extensive rituals that were almost completely rule-governed. This was so because the "magical powers" unleashed by the sacrifice could be controlled only if there was no deviance from the rules controlling the production of the magical powers. Such was the complexity of these rules that only specialists could eventually perform the rituals and everyone else was required to be a spectator or perform simpler rituals.

However, not everyone wished to tie themselves up in such tight rules and so groups sprang up, sometime after 600BCE, that sought to break outside of this strait-jacket. These groups we know as the Buddhists and Jains, yet soon they too found it necessary to build up extensive sets of rules to be followed by their adherents as a means of strictly controlling their production of karma and for quenching the influence of the mental senses such that a contemplative lifestyle could be lived out to the fullest.

In many respects the large body of Hindus was excluded from both of these possibilities and fell back to the unfailing pathway of undistracted devotion to a deity. No matter what rules applied, if a person practised unwavering, and personal, devotion to the deity, to the limits of their capcity, that person would be spiritually liberated in some form or other. The Bhagavadgita lays great stress on devotion as a pathway to god available to everyone, and criticizes those who scrupulously perform empty-headed rituals paying no heed to the feeling that is always required to go into them. Empty adherence to ritual is no substitute for intense and heart-felt devotion. Of course, people are still required to follow the types of rules necessary for any society to hold together, but, ultimately, none of these are relevant once they place themselves in a devotional relationship with the god or goddess.

Still, none of this helps Bodhi. He simply has to realise that rules are there to guide the unenlightened in a way designed to set them on and hold them to a path until they have acquired the wisdom to access the results of this path through their own discipline. If the rules become an external frame to which one becomes attached, and thus become the essence of the path itself, then they can be as damaging for spiritual progress as constant deviation from the rules. Dharma cleverly demonstrates this when he cheats to win the game, revealing the necessary but limited values of rules in the search for enlightenment. -- Dr Greg Bailey

Bodhi is wondering why at all the rules need to be prescribed, and why they can't be left to man's natural impulses and reason without the foreign influences of religion and society; and why man cannot determine good or bad from his own perception of what happens around him.

Moreover what's the point in laying down the rules when they are not to be followed. Were there no rules, there would be no offences and no consequent punishments, and everybody would be free to pursue whatever he perceives to be appropriate and enjoyable. Given the human nature as it is, such a society is apt to become lawless, disturbed and tumultuous, and ruled by the law of the jungle---might is right.

But after introduction of law, law-breakers are punished, though they might regard the law as curse. On the other hand, for law-abiding people, lawlessness would be regarded nothing short of curse. With the introduction of law, whether by religion or by societies, certain rules prescribing do's and don'ts, come into play. Consequently, an individual's liberty is curtailed because of restraints imposed by the society.

The rights of an individual are always at odds with the interests of society which struggles to strengthen the social fabrics by enforcing discipline. Undue emphasis on individualism tends to weaken the traditional ties of home and society, leading to chaos, and disturbance of peace and tranquillity. On the other hand, too much emphasis laid on imposition of restraints on individuals harms the fundamental human rights. To strike a fair balance between the rights of an individual versus society is a delicate matter, deserving to be handled with care.

From the Islamic point of view, it is the prerogative of God to prescribe rules and they have not been left to the discretion or perception of individuals and societies. Nevertheless, man has been granted the faculty of volition, and therefore, he is free to follow the rules or reject them.

However, God's Law continuously operates, and produces the results of man's actions overtly and covertly. Had it not been so, man would not have been held responsible for his actions, nor could he deserve reward of his good actions, nor punishment for evil ones, which was necessary for the operation of the Law of Retribution.

Governments make rules, and set up police stations and courts to apprehend the offenders, but hardly anyone says what's the point in making rules, if people won't play by them. As a matter of fact, there is a struggle going on in nature everywhere, and prescription of rules, and freedom of their defiance / compliance, along with their consequences, are part of the overall Divine plan, which is beyond human approach. -- Khalid Saifullah

I have actually played this game with my dog Claudio (who is part dingo) who always wins because, like Dharma, he refuses to play by the rules and always brings his infallible sense of smell.

My husband once saw a bumper sticker that read “Witches Rule”. Of course it probably meant the obvious. Yet it is an odd phrase when you know that Witches pride themselves in not having any religious rules and no one theology to guide them.

Though while we do not have a common creed, we do have a minimalist shared spiritual ethic. These include the two most commonly quoted: “And it harm none, do what thou will, love is the law, love under will”, and “Whatever you do comes threefold back to you”.

Yet even these are discussed at length and sometimes modified. For example, some believe that the threefold law applies only to magic and conscious action – otherwise it just comes back once. “And it harm none” is a noble goal, but is impossible to do, at least in my experience.

As for Bodhi's challenge to Dhrma, a rule that you cannot use all of your senses in order to solve a puzzle is of course one of the silliest of rules. The society we share has many of these types of rules begging to be broken.

It is of greatest importance to employ as many of our senses as possible when we are walking on the edge of magic. Part of the process of personal transformation is to trust our own senses and to let go of other people’s version of what is real and not real. This opens the way to personal vision.

Rules pervade almost every aspect of life. Rules manifest themselves in the form of laws, morals, and etiquette. Why do we need rules? I don't think we do. Neither does Taoism.

Rules come about when one does not hold true to the natural path of things. How is it that Taoism views rules (laws, etiquette, morals) are unnecessary? Simple, these rules are merely a symptom of evil. Evil is from not following the Tao. Without lawbreakers, why have laws? Without rudeness why have etiquette? Without immoral people, why have morals?