Conditioned Arising (Paṭiccasamuppāda)
The standard description of conditioned arising with twelve links presented in forward sequence (anuloma) and reverse sequence (paṭiloma) is an illustration of the principle of specific conditionality (idappaccayatā). In practice, it is this principle which needs to be understood. Phenomena arise according to specific conditionality:
When this is, that is.
From the arising of this comes the arising of that.
Therefore, phenomena aren’t utterly non-existent.
Phenomena cease according to specific conditionality:
When this isn’t, that isn’t.
From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.
Therefore, phenomena aren’t ultimately existent.
Noble disciples (ariyasāvakas) have penetrated conditioned arising in both forward and reverse sequence. Having discerned conditioned arising in forward sequence they no longer cling to notions regarding non-existence (lit. “it is not”). Having discerned conditioned arising in reverse sequence they no longer cling to notions regarding existence (lit. “it is”). In this way they let go of adherence to any and all ontological views.1 SN 12.15 Kaccānagotta Sutta:
This world, Kaccāna, for the most part depends upon a duality — upon the notion of existence and the notion of non-existence. But for one who sees the origin of the world as it really is with correct discernment, there is no notion of non-existence with regard to the world. And for one who sees the cessation of the world as it really is with correct discernment, there is no notion of existence with regard to the world.
Ud 3.10 Loka Sutta:
Although becoming otherwise, the world is held by existence,
Afflicted by existence, yet delights in that very existence.
Where there is delight, there is fear.
What it fears is unsatisfactory.
This holy life is lived for the abandoning of that existence.
Whatever ascetics or brāhmaṇas say that emancipation from existence is by means of existence, all of them are not liberated from existence, I say.
And whatever ascetics or brāhmaṇas say that escape from existence is by means of non-existence, all of them have not escaped from existence, I say.
“Reality” is a relative notion, the value of which depends entirely upon the significance one ascribes to the objects, contents, or processes of perception.2 The forward sequence of conditioned arising beginning with ignorance is a diagnosis of deluded cognition, and an illustration of how such delusion is always associated with craving, clinging, and dissatisfaction. The Buddha exhorts us to see the delusion clearly for what it is, and in this way proceed to abandon all infatuation and distress regarding its manifold colorful and dramatic representations.
What most worldlings unquestioningly take to be “real,” due to ascribing significance to the contents of deluded cognition, is nothing more than deluded cognition. Learners and arahants have understood deluded cognition to be false and have abandoned it (or are in the process of abandoning it in the case of learners). In this way they develop a “measureless mind.” Seeing through the limitations of signs and symbols and language, they realize that there is no need — and no possible way — of trying to pin down this measureless freedom of absence by using signs and language. There is no point in attempting to construct and systematize a valid “reality.” They’ve done what was needed to be done. The teachings they offer diagnose the problems of deluded cognition and point out the ways to unravel and eventually abandon passion, aggression, and delusion.
Thoughts are just thoughts. Designations help to show the way leading to the cessation of unsatisfactoriness. But there is no need to create any sort of “world” out of these designations. Creating a “world” is part of the problem, not the solution. Sn 3.12 Dvayatānupassanā Sutta:
Entrenched in name and form,
They conceive that “This is true.”
In whatever way [worldlings] conceive it,
It turns out other than that.
For that is what is false about it.
Whatever is transitory certainly has a false nature.
But nibbāna does not have a false nature.
That the noble ones truly know.
Through fully comprehending the truth,
They are without hunger, quenched.
When the four noble truths are fully penetrated — when one has fully comprehended the truth of cessation — the entire deluded cognitive and conflicted affective edifice of the forward sequence of conditioned arising immediately falls like a house of cards. Thus, the arahant can’t be measured (na pamāṇameti). SN 35.188 Dutiyasamudda Sutta:
For whomever passion, aggression, and ignorance have faded away—
He has crossed over this ocean which is hard to cross
With its dangerous sharks, demons, and waves.
He has overcome attachment, conquered death, and is without acquisitions;
Has abandoned dissatisfaction, for the sake of no further existence.
“Gone,” he cannot be measured,
I say that he has bewildered the king of death.
Notes
- The philosophical realist may object, citing SN 22.94 in support of the notion that phenomena ultimately exist. The sutta in question opens up with:
“Monks, I do not dispute with the world; rather, it is the world that disputes with me. A proponent of the dhamma does not dispute with anyone in the world. Of that which the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, I too say that it does not exist. And of that which the wise in the world agree upon as existing, I too say that it exists.”
But worldly paṇḍitas (loka paṇḍitas) are not noble disciples (ariyasāvakas). There are wise khattiyas, wise brāhmaṇas, wise householders, and wise ascetics (khattiyapaṇḍitā, brāhmaṇapaṇḍitā, gahapatipaṇḍitā, samaṇapaṇḍitā) who haven’t penetrated conditioned arising in both forward and reverse sequence. An arahant uses worldly designations in order to teach the way to eliminate unsatisfactoriness. But these are merely designations (paññattimatta). They are not to be taken as “the given.” ↩ - It is vital to understand this point if one is to fully appreciate the early Pāḷi dhamma. Cf. Ven. Ñāṇananda, The Magic of the Mind:
“The question of ‘seeing what-is-shown,’ brings us to the relationship between sign and significance. Sense-perception at all levels relies largely on signs. This statement might even appear as a truism since the Pāli word saññā denotes perception as well as ‘sign,’ ‘symbol.’ ‘mark’ or ‘token.’ It is due to the processes of grasping and recognition implicit in sense-perception that the sign has come to play such an important part in it. Grasping — be it physical or mental — can at best be merely a symbolical affair. The actual point of contact is superficial and localized, but it somehow props up the conceit of grasping. Recognition too, is possible only within arbitrarily circumscribed limits. The law of impermanence is persistently undermining it, but still a conceit of recognition is maintained by progressively ignoring the fact of change....
“Furthermore, as the Suttas often make it clear, all percepts as such are to be regarded as mere signs (saññā, nimitta). Hence while the worldling says that he perceives ‘things’ with the help of signs, the Tathāgata says that all we perceive are mere signs. Sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touches and ideas are, all of them, signs which consciousness pursues. But still the question may be asked: ‘What do these signs signify?’ ‘Things, of course’ — the Tathāgata would reply. ‘Things,’ however, are not those that the worldling has in mind when he seeks an answer to this question. Lust, hatred and delusion are the ‘things’ which, according to the teaching of the Tathāgata, are signified by all sense-percepts. ‘Lust, friend, is a something; hatred is a something; delusion is a something.’ (M i 298, Mahāvedalla S.) ‘Lust, friends, is something significative, hatred is something significative, delusion is something significative’ (ibid).
“It is a fact often overlooked by the metaphysician that the reality attributed to sense-data is necessarily connected with their evocative power, that is, their ability to produce effects. The reality of a thing is usually registered in terms of its impact on the experiential side. This is the acid-test which an object is required to undergo to prove its existence in the Court of Reality. In the reference to materiality as ‘manifestative and offering resistance’ (D iii 217, Sangiti S.) the validity of this test seems to have been hinted at. Now, the ‘objects’ of sense which we grasp and recognize as existing out-there, derive their object-status from their impact or evocative power. Their ability to produce effects in the form of sense-reaction is generally taken to be the criterion of their reality. Sense-objects are therefore signs which have become significant in themselves owing to our ignorance that their significance depends on the psychological mainsprings of lust, hatred and delusion. This, in other words, is a result of reasoning from the wrong end (ayoniso manasikāra) which leads both the philosopher and the scientist alike into a topsy-turvydom of endless theorising.” ↩
<< back to contents next page >>