Chapter 17

(Tape 35 / Ps: 1-20)

The next chapter is about the Dependent Origination. First the PÈÄi word for Dependent Origination, please look at these sheets and I will explain to you. Then we will read the book. We cannot do away with the PÈÄi words. The word is PaÔiccasamuppÈda. In this book PaÔiccasamuppÈda is said to mean states that are conditions. That means causes. States that are conditions which are, namely, ignorance and so on. Before we explain this I want you to be familiar with the formula for Dependent Origination. Depending upon ignorance there are formations. Depending upon formations there is consciousness and so on. In the formula there are ignorance, formations, consciousness, mentality-materiality, six bases, contact, feeling, craving, clinging, becoming, birth, old age and death. This sequence you have to be familiar with.

What does the word ‘PaÔiccasamuppÈda’ mean? ‘PaÔiccasamuppÈda’ means the states that are conditions. That is according to this Commentary. Then there is another word, ‘paÔiccasamuppanna’. ‘PaÔiccasamuppanna’ means states that are conditioned. So they are results or fruits. JarÈ, maraÓa are examples. In reality all dhammas mentioned in PaÔiccasamuppÈda are included in both. They are both paÔiccasamuppÈda and paÔiccasamuppanna. Only the first indicates conditions and the second the conditioned. All those mentioned in PaÔiccasamuppÈda are interdependent. First you should understand this. Then you may read paragraph 4.

Please go to the bottom of the handout. In the word ‘PaÔiccasamuppÈda’ we have the word ‘uppÈda’. The word ‘uppÈda’ has three meanings. One is that which arises. The second meaning is that which causes others to arise. This is the causative sense. And the third meaning is just arising. It’s an action. We call it a verbal noun. So the word ‘uppÈda’ has three meanings. But with regard to the word ‘PaÔiccasamuppÈda’ only the first two meanings are accepted and the last meaning is rejected in the Visuddhi Magga. That rejection you can read about in paragraphs 8-13.

Then let us look at the meaning of PaÔiccasamuppÈda. There are four meanings given for PaÔiccasamuppÈda. The first meaning is that which is to be arrived at (or known). That is the meaning of paÔicca here. And it is that which arises together and rightly. I put the colors to correspond with the meanings of ‘sam’ and ‘uppÈda’. The word ‘samuppÈda’ is composed of ‘sam’ and ‘uppÈda’. ‘Sam’ is made to mean together and rightly here. ‘UppÈda’ is made to mean that which arises. ‘SamuppÈda’ means that which arises together and rightly. ‘Together’ means not singly - not formations only, not consciousness only, because when consciousness arises mental factors also arise. And at the same time there arise material properties. ‘Together’ means not singly, not one by one. ‘Rightly’ means not without cause. ‘Rightly’ means they arise with their respective causes, not without causes. By this definition the conditioned states are called ‘PaÔiccasamuppÈda’. By this definition the results are called ‘PaÔiccasamuppÈda’.

The second meaning is that which depending upon the convergence of conditions (That is the meaning of paÔicca.) arises together. Here ‘sam’ has only one meaning, together, and ‘uppÈda’ has the meaning of that which arises. ‘PaÔicca’ means having depended upon or depending upon. By this definition too the conditioned states (the fruits) are meant.

If you look at the first line you see that ‘PaÔiccasamuppÈda’ means states that are conditions, but here according to the first and second meanings, ‘PaÔiccasamuppÈda’ means results and not causes. The Commentator, Venerable Buddhaghosa, is very persistent in making us accept that ‘PaÔiccasamuppÈda’ means the conditions or causes and not the effects, not the fruits. How does he explain that with these definitions given by himself? The first and second definitions mean the results and not the causes. So he has to conjure up something.

Although by definitions #1 and #2 ‘PaÔiccasamuppÈda’ means conditioned states, we are here to understand it in a figurative sense, so that it means states that are conditions. Actually we must take it that the conditions are meant by PaÔiccasamuppÈda even though we follow these two definitions. How? That is explained in paragraph 16. Sometimes even in the Texts there are sayings which are to be taken figuratively. There is a statement for example in the Dhammapada which says “The appearance of the Buddhas is bliss.” The appearance of the Buddhas is not bliss actually. It is the cause of bliss because when Buddhas appear, people become enlightened and so there is bliss for them. So the appearance of the Buddha is not bliss, but the cause of bliss. But it just says “The appearance of the Buddha is bliss.” Or it is like saying diabetes is sugar. Diabetes is not sugar, but it is caused by sugar. We might say diabetes is sugar. It is something like that. Although the word ‘PaÔiccasamuppÈda’ means conditioned things or results, we must understand that it means the conditions or causes and not the results. That is explained in paragraph 16.

Now let us look at the third meaning. PaÔiccasamuppÈda is that which is to be gone towards and which originates states together. Here the word ‘uppÈda’ means that which causes to arise, that which produces and ‘sam’ means together. So that which produces things together, things that arise together. ‘That which is to be gone towards’, that is the meaning of the word ‘paÔicca’. ‘Which is to be gone towards’ really means - in Buddhism the theory of causation is: On account of many causes, there are many results. We will come to that later, not today. There is not one cause and one effect. There is not one cause and many effects, nor many causes and one effect, but there are many causes and many effects. That is what is accepted by Buddhism. So here ‘which is to be gone towards’ means the conditions, two or three conditions must meet together in order to produce a result. It is like three sticks put together. They must come together and depend upon each other in order to produce something. That is why they are called here ‘which is to be gone towards’. When they produce states, they produce states together, not one state only. The obvious example is relinking. When kamma produces its effects, there is relinking. ‘Relinking’ means what? At the same moment there is consciousness, there are mental factors, and there are material properties born of kamma. They arise together. So ‘PaÔiccasamuppÈda’ means here that which is to be gone towards and which originates states together. By this definition what is meant? Causes. That is because they originate or produce other states.

Then the fourth meaning is that which depending upon one another originates evenly and together. It is more or less the same as the third meaning. Here ‘sam’ is made to mean two things - evenly and together. In the book it is translated as ‘equally’. ‘Evenly’ means not piecemeal, not one and then the next one, and then the next one, but two or three things together, so not piecemeal. And ‘together’ means not one after the other. Whether the product or the result is consciousness or material properties, it arises with other things too. When consciousness arises there are mental factors too. When material properties are produced, they are produced in what are called ‘kalapas’ or ‘groups’. They arise in groups. So they are together. They are not produced one at a time. If there are eight properties in a kalapa, they are produced at the same moment. They are produced evenly and they are produced together. By this definition too the conditions are meant. So definitions #3 and #4 tell us that ‘PaÔiccasamuppÈda’ means conditions. Here we don’t have to use the recourse of figurative usage. Here directly the word ‘PaÔiccasamuppÈda’ means conditions.

In all these definitions you see the word ‘that’. ‘That’ means group of conditions or group of states that are conditioned. The singular number is used here although actually it means a multiplicity of conditions and a multiplicity of states that are conditioned.

What about PaÔiccasamuppÈda as a doctrine? Here ‘PaÔiccasamuppÈda’ means not a doctrine but causes or effects, but we call this PaÔiccasamuppÈda a doctrine. As a doctrine what should we call it in English? It is translated as Dependent Origination, Dependent Arising, Dependent Co-Arising. Dependent Co-Arising is the direct translation because there is ‘together’. But I have one fear of using co-arising. Somebody might take it that cause and effect arise together. It does not necessarily mean that the cause and effect arise together. ‘Together’ just means the effects arising together in a group, not cause and effect arising together. There is cause and there is effect. Effect consists of more than one thing. That is what is meant by ‘together’ in these definitions.

Student: Doesn’t using the term ‘dependent’ make it clear?

Teacher: Dependent Co-Arising.

Student: We often say ‘co-origination’. Is that any better?

Teacher: I don’t think so, because you know two meanings are given for the word ‘uppÈda’ here. In English we cannot have one word which means these two things. So we have to choose ‘arising’ or ‘origination’.

Student: Don’t we say clinging arises from craving? That’s not a causal relationship? You are saying that is not a causal relationship?

Teacher: There is a causal relationship between these, but sometimes - There are links - ignorance and formations, formations and consciousness and so on. Some relations are as producer and produced. Most of the relationships are like arising together and helping each other. So ‘co-arising’ can mean cause and effect arising together, but not always.

Student: You mean that sometimes they arise separately?

Teacher: That’s right. Yes. Let’s say that we take the relationship between mental formations and consciousness. ‘Mental formations’ here means kamma. ‘Consciousness’ means resultant consciousness. They belong to different times. So they do not arise together. They are related as cause and effect. Consciousness and nÈma-r|pa (mentality-materiality) arise together. Consciousness and mentality-materiality arise together. Their relationship is not one of producer and the produced. It is a relationship of helping each other. That is why it is important to understand the PaÔiccasamuppÈda with reference to the PaÔÔhÈna. That is why PaÔÔhÈna is given in this book. We will come to this later. Only when you understand with reference to PaÔÔhÈna, do you really understand PaÔiccasamuppÈda. Otherwise there may be something missing in your knowledge or understanding of PaÔiccasamuppÈda.

We think when we say when there is ignorance, there are formations; when there are formations there is consciousness, we normally think that one is caused by the other, but it is not the case with every link. Some links are related as cause and effect. Some are not related as cause and effect, but just support each other. It is like a group of people doing the same work. They help each other. They support each other and do the work. Those relationships are to be understood with reference to PaÔÔhÈna, the 24 causal relations given in this chapter. This is the background understanding. Then we can go to the chapter itself.

In paragraphs #16, #17, #18 and so on if it is difficult to understand, come back here (to the handout). There are so many parentheses, brackets, PÈÄi words that it is difficult to read. We will continue next week.

Student: The 24 conditions?

Teacher: We may not reach the 24 conditions next week. But you can find them beginning with paragraph 66.

SÈdhu! SÈdhu! SÈdhu!

(Tape 36 / Ps: 1-76)

We will start from the beginning of this chapter again. I will go over briefly the topics here. Paragraph 2 states what is meant by the PÈÄi word ‘PaÔiccasamuppÈda (Dependent Origination)’. Here it says that the word ‘PaÔiccasamuppÈda’ means ignorance and so on, the causes or conditions. Then paragraph 3 states that the PÈÄi word ‘paÔiccasamuppanna’ means the conditioned states or the results beginning with aging and death, and then again ignorance and so on. Both just mean ignorance and the others mentioned in the formula. The word ‘Dependent Origination’ means the causes and the word ‘dependently originated states’ means the conditioned states. In paragraph 4 it is re-stated that ‘Dependent Origination (PaÔiccasamuppÈda)’ means the conditions and that ‘PaÔiccasamuppÈda’ means the conditioned states. And then paragraph 5 gives the scriptural proof for taking Dependent Origination as conditions and dependently originated states as the conditioned states.

Towards the end of paragraph 5 the second quotation “So, bhikkhus, that herein which is reality, not unreality, not otherness, specific conditionality: that is called ‘Dependent Origination’.” In describing Dependent Origination Buddha used these words - reality, not unreality, not otherness, specific conditionality. These words are explained in paragraph 6. “Because particular states are produced by particular conditions, neither less nor more, it is called ‘reality’ (suchness)” and so on, not unreality, not otherness. The last one is specific conditionality. The word ‘total’ in this paragraph means a group or a multitude of conditions.

Paragraph 7 explains the word ‘idappaccayatÈ’. It is very difficult to understand if you don’t know PÈÄi or if you don’t read the original PÈÄi passage. In the word ‘idappaccayatÈ’ there are two words - ‘ida’ and ‘paccayÈ’. ‘Ida’ means this. ‘PaccayÈ’ means condition. ‘Ida’ here means of these and ‘paccayÈ’ means conditions. So we get conditions of these or conditions for these. That is the literal meaning of the word ‘idappaccayÈ’, condition for those. Actually ‘ida’ means these, not those. If you know PÈÄi, you will understand. Then there is ‘tÈ’ at the end of the word. That ‘tÈ’ is first explained to have no specific meaning and second to have the meaning of total or multitude. So idappaccayÈ and idappaccayatÈ have the same meaning according to the first explanation. In the second explanation ‘idappaccayÈ’ means conditions for those and ‘idappaccayatÈ’ means a total of or a multitude of conditions for those. The suffix ‘tÈ’ at the end of the word has two meanings. One is no specific meaning. The other is a group, or a total, or a multitude. The first sentence in paragraph 8 “The characteristic must be sought from grammar” should be at the end of paragraph 7. Here ‘characteristic’ just means the grammatical rule. The rule should be sought from grammar because he was saying the suffix ‘tÈ’ has no meaning or it has the meaning of multitude. It needs to be explained with reference to grammar. So if you want to understand clearly with reference to grammar, you go to grammar books and find the characteristic, that is find that grammatical rule. So this sentence should be at the end of the seventh paragraph, not at the beginning of the eighth paragraph.

Then in paragraph 8 “Some, in fact, say” and so on - I think we should say ‘however’ instead of ‘in fact’. “Some, however, say.” In this paragraph the author refutes the opinion of other teachers that the word ‘PaÔiccasamuppÈda’ means just arising, not conditions or conditioned things, but just arising. Some teachers take this word to just mean arising. The author takes it to mean the conditioning things. That is the difference. That opinion is refuted. The author gives four reasons for refuting that opinion. The word ‘PaÔiccasamuppÈda’ does not mean just arising, but it also means some states that arise and some states that cause to arise. Actually some states that cause to arise is what is ultimately taken here.

There are four reasons given. “There is no such Sutta.” That means it has no support in the Suttas. There is no Sutta to support the statement that PaÔiccasamuppÈda is just arising. There is no Sutta to support it. That is the first reason. The second is: “It contradicts Suttas.” Then the details will come later. If one takes PaÔiccasamuppÈda to just mean arising, there is contradiction with some Suttas. The third reason is: “It admits of no profound treatment.” If one says that PaÔiccasamuppÈda is just arising, then it would not be profound. The fourth is: “It is ungrammatical.” According to PÈÄi grammar you cannot take it to mean just arising. These four reasons are given.

Now the detailed explanation follows. “(1) No Sutta describes the Dependent Origination as simple arising. (2) Anyone who asserts that Dependent Origination is of that kind involves himself in conflict with the PadesavihÈra Sutta.” Actually in the Suttas we do not find the PadesavihÈra Sutta. “Then in the first watch of the night the Blessed One brought to mind the Dependent Origination, in direct and reverse order.” Immediately after his enlightenment the Buddha stayed under the Bodhi Tree. When staying under the Bodhi Tree, he reflected upon Dependent Origination in direct order and reverse order. “Now ‘Padesa-vihÈra’ is the abiding in one part of that, according as it is said, ‘Bhikkhus, I abode in a part of the abiding in which I abode when I was newly enlightened’ and there he abode in the vision of structure of conditions ( ‘Structure of conditions’ means PaÔiccasamuppÈda.) not in the vision of simple arising, according as it is said, ‘So O understood feeling with wrong view as its condition, and feeling with right view as its condition, and feeling with wrong thinking as its condition..’ all of which should be quoted in full.” It is, called ‘padesa’. ‘Padesa’ means ‘in part’, not ‘in full’. ‘VihÈra’ means abiding. So we get abiding in part. It is called ‘abiding in part’ because if you look at the quotation “So I understand feeling with wrong view” and so on, Buddha dwelt on feeling only here, not on the whole of PaÔiccasamuppÈda. That is why it is called ‘abiding in part’. It is reflection in part, not reflection on the whole of PaÔiccasamuppÈda. He reflected on only one part of PaÔiccasamuppÈda. That is why it is called PÈÄi ‘padesa-vihÈra’. It is said here that Buddha did not reflect upon just arising, but upon the things that arise. That is why it contradicts the Sutta if we take ‘PaÔiccasamuppÈda’ to mean just mere arising.

“There is likewise contradiction of the KaccÈna Sutta.” This Sutta is found in SaÑyutta NikÈya. “When a man sees correctly with right understanding the origin (not origination) of the world, KaccÈna, he does not say of the world that it is not.” It is origin of the world, not origination, not arising. The word used there is lokasamudaya. ‘Samudaya’ can mean origination as well as something that originates. Here what is meant is something that originates. So it is understanding of the origin of the world. If we take the translation ‘origination’ as correct, then it accords with what other teachers say. ‘Understanding the origination of the world’ means understanding the arising of the world. So here it should be understanding the origin of the world or that which causes the world to arise. That is lobha. There would be contradiction with this Sutta too, if we take ‘PaÔiccasamuppÈda’ to just mean arising. “And there it is Dependent Origination in forward order, not simple arising, that, as the origin (not origination) of the world and as the conditions of the world (not from its conditions), is set forth in order to eliminate the annihilation view.” This Sutta is set forth in order to eliminate the view that everything is annihilated at death. “For the annihilation view is not eliminated by seeing simple arising.” You cannot get rid of the annihilation view just by seeing simple arising. “But it is eliminated by seeing the chain of conditions (That means one condition after another arising and then the things that are conditioned. ‘Chain of conditions’ really means uninteruptedness of conditions) “as a chain of fruits following on a chain of conditions. So anyone who asserts that the Dependent Origination is simple arising involves himself in contradiction of the KaccÈna Sutta.” You will contradict the KaccÈna Sutta if you take it that ‘PaÔiccasamuppÈda’ means just simple arising.

The next one is: “ (3) It admits of no profound treatment.” Just to see arising is not difficult, but to see that there are conditions and that these conditions give rise to conditioned states, that is difficult. Just to see the arising is not difficult and not profound. Buddha said to Œnanda in the MahÈ ParinibbÈna Sutta “This Dependent Origination is profound, Œnanda, and profound it appears.”

“And the profundity is fourfold as we shall explain below (That is towards the end of the chapter.); but there is none of that in simple arising. And this Dependent Origination is explained [by the teachers] as adorned with the fourfold method; but there is no [need of] any such tetrad of methods in simple arising. So Dependent Origination is not simple arising since that admits of no profound treatment.”

The fourth reason is: “It is ungrammatical.” In order to understand this you have to understand PÈÄi grammar. PaÔicca is a gerund, so it means having depended upon. Then ‘samuppÈda’ means arising, or that which arises, or that which causes to arise. When there is a gerund like paÔicca, having done something, then because a gerund is a verbal noun, there must be two verbs in such a sentence. Here ‘having depended upon’ is one verb and there must be another verb, the principal verb. So there are two verbs, the principal verb and the secondary verb. These two verbs must have one and the same subject. That is what the author is saying here. “This word ‘paÔicca (literally ‘having depended’, freely ‘due to’, ‘dependent’), [being a gerund] establishes a meaning [in a formula of establishment by verb] when it is construed as past with the same subject.” ‘Past’ means it shows the past time. Let us say that you say “Having come here, I study.” Your coming is past. It happens before your study takes place. The secondary verb signifies a time in the past. The principal verb may signify any time. Sometimes it is past, sometimes it is the present and so on. “When it is construed as past with the same subject [as that of the principal verb], as in the sentence ‘Having depended on the eye and visible objects, eye consciousness arises’.” Having depended upon eye and visible objects, eye consciousness arises - here eye is subject of both ‘arises’ and ‘having depended upon’. “But if it is construed here with the word ‘uppÈda’ (arising), [which is a noun], in a formula of establishment by noun, there is a breach of grammar, because there is no shared subject (or one and the sane subject) [as there is in the above quoted sentence], and so it does not establish any meaning at all.” If you take ‘uppÈda’ to mean just arising, then ‘having depended upon there is arising’ or ‘having depended upon arising’ - so there is the subject ‘arising’ and the verb ‘having depended upon’, but no principal verb. So it is against the rules of PÈÄi grammar or Sanskrit grammar to say just ‘PaÔiccasamuppÈda’. ‘Having depended upon arising’ makes no sense. That is why it says that it does not establish any meaning at all. “So the Dependent Origination is not simple arising because that is ungrammatical.”

Now there are some words in this paragraph to be discussed. In brackets we have “in a formula of establishment by verb.” Do you understand that? ‘In a formula of establishment by verb’ just means a verbal noun. SamuppÈda is a verbal noun. A verbal noun signifies the action rather than the actor or agent. According to the view of the author samuppÈda is that which arises or which causes to arise, but the other teachers take it to mean just arising, the action of arising. That is called in PÈÄi ‘bhÈvasÈdhana’ (in a formula of establishment by verb). I think it is just called a verbal noun or gerund. It is words like going, coming, studying, writing. Let’s call it a verbal noun. The word ‘samuppÈda’, the other teachers take it to be a verbal noun. So it means just arising according to them. But the author takes to be not a verbal noun, but a noun denoting an agent, denoting something that arises or something that causes to arise. That is the difference between the two opinions. So it is ungrammatical. So ‘PaticcasamuppÈda’ as having depended upon arising makes no sense.

Then in paragraph 13 the others said what if we were to add the words ‘come to be’ at the end, in PÈÄi ‘paÔicca, samuppÈdo hoti’. ‘Hoti’ means ‘comes to be’. Hoti is now the principal verb. Now there is hoti as the principal verb. UppÈda is the common subject. “Now it is all right” they said. The author said “That will not do. Why not? Because there is no instance in which it has been added.” That means there is no instance where ‘come to be (hoti)’ is added. The author will give the quotation below. There is no instance where it is added. So there is no possibility of adding that word. “For in such passages as ‘PaÔiccasamuppÈdaÑ vo bhikkhave desessÈme. Katamo ca bhikkhave paÔiccasamuppÈdo..AyaÑ vuccati bhikkhave paÔiccasamuppÈdo (I shall teach you the Dependent Origination, bhikkhus. And what is the Dependent Origination? ..This is called the Dependent Origination, bhikkhus’, the words ‘come to be (hoti) are not added in a single instance.” So you cannot add the expression ‘hoti’ there. “And there is no [such expression as] ‘arising comes to be’: if there were, it would be tantamount to saying that arising itself had an arising too.” Arising arise. Arising comes to be. Arising arises. So that is rejected.

Then there are other people. “And those are wrong who imagine that specific conditionality is the specific conditions’ [abstract] essence.” You saw this word ‘idappaccayatÈ’ in paragraph #6 and especially paragraph #7. There the author explains that the word ‘idappaccayatÈ’ means conditions or group of conditions. But here the other teachers say what if we take ‘idappaccayatÈ’ to mean the abstract essence of things, not group of conditions, not just conditions, but their particular mode, their particular mode in causing other states to arise. That is what the other people would say.

“And those are wrong who imagine that specific conditionality (idappaccayatÈ) is the specific conditions’ [abstract] essence - what is called ‘abstract essence’ being a [particular] mode in ignorance, etc., that acts as cause in the manifestation of formations, etc. (or in making formations, etc. appear) - and that the term ‘Dependent Origination’ is used for that particular mode in formations.” I want to say just that. “That the term ‘Dependent Origination’ is used for that particular mode in formations.” It means just the mode and not the formations themselves.

Then the author says that they are wrong. “Why are they wrong? Because it is ignorance, etc., themselves that are called causes. For in the following passage it is ignorance, etc., themselves, not their alteration (‘Alteration’ means particular mode.) so their particular mode, that are called the causes [of these states].” Then he gives a quotation. In this quotation ignorance, etc., are called ‘causes’, not ‘their particular mode’. So to say that ‘idappaccayatÈ’ means particular mode also is not correct.

From paragraph 15 onwards we have the word meaning of PaÔiccasamuppÈda. “If any notion arises in the guise of a literal interpretation” - that means just taking the appearance of the word. The word ‘samuppÈda’ seems to mean just ‘arising’. If you take the appearance of that word to be your interpretation, then it is wrong. “If any notion arises in the guise of a literal interpretation of the term ‘Dependent Origination (PaÔiccasamuppÈda)’ to the effect that it is only arising that is stated, it should be got rid of.” If you still have the opinion that ‘PaÔiccasamuppÈda’ just means arising, depending upon the appearance of the word ‘samuppÈda’ (because words such as samuppÈda must mean actions rather than actors or rather than agents). So if you cannot still get rid of that opinion that ‘PaÔiccasamuppÈda’ means arising, then read further, read on.

Four meanings of the word ‘PaÔiccasamuppÈda’ are given in the coming paragraphs. I think that I have explained them to you following this sheet. So I will not repeat them now. In paragraph 16 you find the first and second meaning of PaÔiccasamuppÈda. Directly according to these two meanings the conditioned states are meant as PaÔiccasamuppÈda, but we are to understand that the conditioning states are meant here according to the figurative sense. That means something like sugar has diabetes, salt is high blood pressure and so on. Here although the direct meaning is the conditioned states, we are to understand that they mean the conditioning states.

In paragraph 18 we have the third meaning. According to that the states that are conditions are meant. Then the fourth meaning is given in paragraph 20. According to that too the conditions are meant, not the states that are conditioned. So there are four meanings of PaÔiccasamuppÈda according to Venerable Buddhaghosa.

Then he explained that there are two parts - paÔicca and samuppÈda (dependent upon and that which arises). By the word ‘paÔicca’ the belief in eternalism and others are destroyed. By the word ‘samuppÈda’ the belief in annihilation and so on is destroyed. By the word ‘paÔicca’ belief in eternalism is destroyed and by the word ‘samuppÈda’ the belief in annihilation is destroyed. By the whole word ‘PaÔiccasamuppÈda’ the Middle Path is shown. You may remember that in the first sermon the Buddha said: “Not approaching to either extreme I have discovered the Middle Path.” Here also PaÔiccasamuppÈda is the Middle Path. The extremes are eternalism on the one hand and annihilationism on the other.

In paragraph 25 we find the preamble. Here the author states that PaÔiccasamuppÈda is difficult to understand, difficult to talk about or to teach. “Its meaning should be commented on by one who keeps within the circle of the VibhajjavÈdins (That means TheravÈda Buddhists.), who does not misrepresent the teacher, who does not advertise his own standpoint.” I do not think it is correct. ‘Who does not overstep his own tradition’ is better, it is not ‘advertise his own standpoint’. The PÈÄi word here is avokamantena. That means not going out of one’s own tradition. “Who does not quarrel with the standpoint of others, who does not distort the Suttas, who is in agreement with the Vinaya, who looks to the Principal Authorities (MahÈpadesa)” - they are very famous in the teachings of the Buddha. You find these MahÈpadesa in two places. One place is the DÊgha NikÈya. That is the MahÈparinibbÈna Sutta. In the English translation the page number is 133, in Dialogues of the Buddha, volume 2. There is another set of MahÈpadesa in Vinaya. If you are interested I can give you the reference, Book of Discipline, part 4, page 347. These two sets are different. They are not the same ones. They are different sets of Principal Authorities. “Who illustrates the law, who takes up the meaning, repeatedly reverting to that same meaning, describing it in various different ways” and so on - then he quotes the ancient saying that there are four things which are difficult to see and that are also difficult to teach. They are the Four Noble Truths, about a being, about rebirth, and about PaÔiccasamuppÈda (the structure of conditions).

“Therefore, considering that to comment on the Dependent Origination is impossible except for those who are expert in the texts.” There is something missing here. The PÈÄi word used here is Ègamadhigamapatahi. ‘Œgama’ means learning and ‘adhigama’ means enlightenment. So that is those who have learning and also those who are enlightened. Only those can understand and explain PaÔiccasamuppÈda fully. So we should add some words here. “Therefore, considering that to comment on the Dependent Origination is impossible except for those who are expert in the Texts and who have gained enlightenment.”

Then the author said he could not find a footing for support in the ocean of PaÔiccasamuppÈda. So he almost gave up actually. He almost gave up commenting on PaÔiccasamuppÈda. Then he said:

“However, many modes of teaching

Grace the Dispensation here,

And still the former Teachers’ way

I handed down unbrokenly,

Therefore on both of these relying

For my support, I now begin

Its meaning to elucidate.”

So I will comment upon this relying on the former Teachers’ way handed down unbrokenly and also relying on the teachings of the Buddha. Then we come to the brief exposition.

There are different ways of teaching. Buddha taught PaÔiccasamuppÈda in different ways. In what ways? Sometimes from the beginning. The Buddha would teach ignorance and then go to formations, consciousness and so on. Sometimes he taught from the middle up to the end. He would start in the middle and go to the end. Sometimes he taught from the end back to the beginning. And sometimes he taught from the middle down to the beginning. Let’s say ‘up’ to the beginning. Buddha taught in different ways this PaÔiccasamuppÈda. Then the quotations are given how taught them.

In paragraph 29 “So, bhikkhus, with ignorance as condition there are formations; .. with birth as condition aging and death.” That is the normal sequence of teaching. Then the second one “When he is delighted with, welcomes remains committed to, that feeling, then delight arises in him.” He picks up feeling here. “Delight in feelings is clinging. With his clinging as condition there is becoming; with becoming as condition, birth.” He picks up feeling and then goes to the end. In the third “ ‘With birth as condition, aging and death’”, so it is said. But is there aging and death with birth as condition, or not, or how is it here? - There is aging and death with birth, as condition, so we think, venerable sir. ‘With becoming as condition, birth’, and so on.” So he picks up something at the end and then goes back to the beginning. The fourth is to pick up something up in the middle and going to the end.

“Craving: what is its source? Feeling. What is its source? Contact. What is its source? The sixfold bases” and so on. In different ways the Buddha taught this Doctrine of PaÔiccasamuppÈda. If you read the Suttas, you will find these.

“Why does he teach it thus? Because the Dependent Origination is wholly beneficial (I think the word is something like gracious, not beneficial.) because it is gracious in all aspects and because Buddha himself has acquired elegance in instruction or teaching.” These are the two reasons that he taught in this way. “For the Dependent Origination is entirely gracious (not beneficial); starting from any one of the four starting points, it leads only to the penetration of the proper way.” That means it really leads to the proper penetration of the way. “And the Blessed One has acquired elegance in instructing: it is because he has done so through possession of the four kinds of perfect confidence and the four discriminations and by achieving the fourfold profundity that he teaches the Law by various methods.” He taught by various methods because he has elegance in instructing. He was very expert in teaching.

“But it should be recognized, in particular, that when he sees that people susceptible of teaching are confused about the analysis of the causes of the process [of becoming], he employs his teaching of it forwards starting from the beginning” and so on. This is the detailed explanation of the elegance in teaching.

Paragraph 36 “But why is ignorance stated as the beginning here?” In the formula for Dependent Origination ignorance is the first one, right? So why is ignorance stated at the beginning here? “How then is it the causeless root-cause of the world like the Primordial Essence of those who assert the existence of a Primordial Essence?” I think the words ‘how then’ are not good here. I would say “Is ignorance also the causeless root-cause of the world like the Primordial Essence” and so on. It is stated at the beginning of the formula. So that means that ignorance is the first cause? The Primordial Essence comes from the Samkhya philosophy of Hinduism.

“It is not causeless. For a cause of ignorance is stated thus ‘With the arising of cankers there is the arising of ignorance’.” So ignorance also has its cause. It is put at the beginning of PaÔiccasamuppÈda because it is the outstanding cause of kamma. We will find that in paragraph 38. Although ignorance is put at the beginning of the formula, it is not a first cause or is not without a cause.

“But why does the Blessed One give the exposition of the round with those two things as starting points?” When Buddha taught PaÔiccasamuppÈda, he took two things, two dhammas, as the outstanding causes of kamma. One is ignorance (avijjÈ) and the other is craving (taÓhÈ). “Because they are the outstanding causes of kamma that leads to happy and unhappy destinies.” Because of ignorance you do something wrong or you do something good, and that leads to jÈti or rebirth. Also because of craving we want to be reborn in a better world, thinking that a good destiny is a good place to go to although according to the Buddha it is full of suffering. Because of the craving for a better life we do something good. As a result of that we will be reborn there. After rebirth there, there is aging, death, suffering and so on. These are the two main or outstanding causes of kamma. So the Buddha gave the exposition of the round of rebirth with these as the starting points. There are times when he begins with ignorance and sometimes he begins with craving. Sometimes the Buddha taught ignorance as the condition for the round of rebirth and sometimes craving.

Then in paragraph 43 we have as to meaning. Here comes some strange explanations of the word. “As to the meaning of the words ‘ignorance’ and so on. Bodily misconduct, etc., for example” - I think ‘for example’ is not good here. We may say ‘namely’. “Bodily misconduct, etc., are called those that ‘ought not to be found’ (or that ought not be acquired), in the sense of being unfit to be carried out (unfit to practice); the meaning is that it should not be permitted (It should not be acquired, it should not be got.).” Here you see the PÈÄi word ‘avindiya’. ‘Vindiya’ means to obtain, to acquire, to get. So ‘avindiya’ means not to get, not to obtain, not to acquire. He is explaining the word ‘avijjÈ’ in PÈÄi. “It finds (vindati) what ought not to be found, thus it is ignorance. Conversely, good bodily conduct, etc..are called that which ought to be found (that ought to be acquired). It does not find what ought to be found, thus it is ignorance. I think this is just a play on words. AvijjÈ is here derived from the root ‘vid’. “Conversely, good bodily conduct, etc., are called those that ‘ought to be found’. It does not find what ought to be found, thus it is ignorance. Also it prevents knowing the meaning of collection in the aggregates, the meaning of actuating in the bases, the meaning of voidness in the elements, the meaning of predominance in the faculties, the meaning of reality in the truths, thus it is ignorance.” Here the root is made to mean ‘to know’.

“Also it prevents knowing the meaning of suffering, etc., described in four ways as ‘oppression’, etc., thus it is ignorance. Through all the kinds of generations, destinies, becoming, stations of consciousness, and abodes of beings in the endless round of rebirths it drives beings on (Anta VIrahite saÑsÈre JAvÈpeti).” This is something like an acronym. The word ‘avijjÈ’ is an acronym. We take the capitol letters and get AVIJA. Sometimes the Commentators are very fond of explaining words in this way. “Thus it is ignorance. Amongst women, men, etc., which are in the ultimate sense non-existent, it hurries on (paramatthato AVIJjamÈnesu itthi-purisÈdisu JAvati), and amongst the aggregates, etc., which are existent, it does not hurry on (VIjjamÈnesu pi khandhÈdisu nA JAvati). I think ‘VI’ should be in capitol letters, and in ‘na’ the letter ‘A’ should be a capitol letter, and in ‘javati’ ‘JA’ should be capitol letters. So here you have to transpose. We have VI-A-JA. You put the ‘A’ at the beginning and there is AVIJA. “Thus it is ignorance. Furthermore, it is ignorance because it conceals the physical bases and objects of eye consciousness, etc., and the Dependent Origination and dependently originated states.” The last one is just the meaning of the word ‘avijjÈ’, and I think that is quite enough. The others are just showing off.

Now we come to the word ‘paccaya’. “That due to which fruit comes is a condition.” Paccaya is defined as that. “ ‘Due to (paÔicca)’ = ‘not without that’; the meaning is, not dispensing with it. ‘Comes (eti)’ means both ‘arises’ and ‘occurs’. What do you understand by ‘arises’ and ‘occurs’? ‘Arises’ means arises and ‘occurs’ means continues to exist, not occurring actually. ‘Comes’ means both ‘arises’ and ‘continues to exist for some time’. That is what is meant by the PÈÄi word ‘pavatta’. They seem to mean the same thing here in English. It is ‘arises’ and ‘continues to exist’.

“Furthermore the meaning of ‘condition’ is the meaning of ‘help’.” ‘Paccaya’ means help. “It is ignorance and that is a condition, thus it is ‘ignorance as condition’.” This is giving the meaning of the PÈÄi word ‘avijjÈpaccayÈ’. ‘AvijjÈpaccayÈ’ means ‘with ignorance as condition’, whence the phrase ‘with ignorance as condition’. This is the explanation of the PÈÄi word ‘avijjÈ’.

Next is the explanation of the word ‘sa~khÈra’. Here sa~khÈra is said to have divisions. The three divisions are formations of merit, formations of demerit and formations of the imperturbable. This is one set of three. Another set of three is the bodily formations, the verbal formations and the mental formations. All together there are six. These six are formations with ignorance as condition. When we see the word ‘sa~khÈra’, we have to understand whether this is sa~khÈra with ignorance as condition or sa~khÈra given in the Texts, formations with the word ‘sa~khÈra’.” All these are simply mundane profitable and unprofitable volition. “These, all six, just mean cetanÈ (volition), mundane kusala or akusala.

“But these four, namely, (1) the formation consisting of the formed (sa~khata-sa~khÈra), (2) the formation consisting of the kamma-formed (abhisa~khata-sa~khÈra), (3) the formation consisting in the act of kamma-forming (‘Kamma-forming’ means formed by kamma or caused by kamma - abhisa~kharaÓa-sa~khÈra), and (4) the formation consisting in momentum (That means ‘consisting in engaging’ or ‘consisting in effort’ - payogÈbhisa~khÈra) are the kinds of formations that have come in the Texts with the word ‘formations’.” There are different kinds of formations that are explained here. Basically there are two kinds of sa~khÈras. The first kind of sa~khÈra you find with the word ‘avijjÈpaccayÈ sa~khÈrÈ’. Then the other kind of sa~khÈra is whenever else you find the word ‘sa~khÈra’. So you have to find out which sa~khÈra is meant. There are many kinds of sa~khÈra - sa~khata-sa~khÈra, abhisa~khata-sa~khÈra, abhisa~kharaÓa-sa~khÈra, payogÈbhisa~khÈra.

“(1) All states with conditions, given in such passages as ‘Formations are impermanent’, are formations consisting of the formed.” That means all conditioned things, mental as well as physical. “(2) In the Commentaries material and immaterial states of the three planes generated by kamma are called ‘formations consisting of the kamma-formed’.” That means those conditioned by kamma, those caused by kamma, both material and immaterial states. They are called ‘sa~khÈras’ in the Commentaries. “These are also included in the passage ‘Formations are impermanent’.” When the Buddha said that formations are impermanent, these are also meant. “But there is no instance in the Texts where they are found separately.” In the Texts or in the Suttas they are not mentioned separately. That means there is no instance in the Texts of sa~khÈra meaning them only. When you find the word ‘saÓkhÈra’ it will means these things as well as other conditioned states. “(3) Profitable and unprofitable volition of the three planes is called ‘the formation consisting in the act of kamma-forming’.” That just means kamma, profitable and unprofitable cetanÈ. “It is found in the Texts in such passages as ‘Bhikkhus, this man in his ignorance forms the ‘formation of merit’. (4) But it is bodily and mental energy that is called ‘the formation consisting in momentum. This is given in the Texts in such passages as ‘The wheel having gone as far as the impetus carried it, stood as though it were fixed’.” Bodily and mental energy - the PÈÄi word ‘viriya’ always means mental energy. Viriya is one of the 52 cetasikas. But here bodily and mental energy, bodily viriya and mental viriya - what is bodily viriya? The Sub-Commentary explains that ‘bodily viriya (bodily energy, bodily effort)’ means the mental effort which causes bodily effort. Sometimes mental effort may not cause bodily effort. So here ‘bodily effort’ actually means mental effort (viriya) which causes bodily actions to arise. So there are different kinds of sa~khÈras to be understood.

“And not only these, but many other kinds of formations are given in the Texts” and so on. Whenever you find the word ‘sa~khÈra’, you have to be very careful. In this quotation the words used are ‘verbal formation’, ‘bodily formation’, and ‘mental formation’. They are not the same as the formations given in paragraph 45. They are different. These 6 formations given in paragraph 44 and paragraph 45, the details about them we will find in paragraph 61. So the verbal, bodily and mental formations in paragraph 47 are different that those in paragraphs 44 and 45. Here in paragraph 47 ‘verbal formation’ means vitakka and vicÈra. ‘Bodily formation’ means breathing. ‘Mental formation’ means cetasikas.

Then the other words are explained beginning with paragraph 48 - viÒÒÈÓa, nÈma, r|pa and so on. At the very end of paragraph 48 “Great misery is despair.” Please note that there are two words in PÈÄi ÈyÈsa and upÈyÈsa. ‘ŒyÈsa’ means misery and ‘upÈyÈsa’ means great misery. ‘Upa’ intensifies or means great. Great misery is despair. Bhuso ÈyÈso upÈyÈsa. ‘Bhuso’ means great or it intensifies. I tell you this because we will find a reference to this later on. “ ‘There is’ means ‘is generated’.” Beginning with paragraph 51 the characteristic and others are given for each factor. “Ignorance has the characteristic of unknowing. Its function is to confuse. It is manifested as concealing. Its proximate cause is cankers” and so on. “Formations have the characteristic of forming. Their function is to accumulate. They are manifested as volition. Their proximate cause is ignorance.” Then there is a footnote. I think the #7 should not be there. “Consciousness has the characteristic of cognizing. Its function is to go before. It manifests itself as rebirth-linking. Its proximate cause is formations; or its proximate cause is the physical-basis-cum-object. Mentality has the characteristic of bending (towards the object). Its function is to associate. It is manifested as inseparability of its components, (‘NÈma’ here means vedanÈ, saÒÒÈ and sa~khÈra. They always arise together.). Its proximate cause is consciousness. Materiality has the characteristic of being molested. Its function is to be dispersed. It is manifested as [morally] indeterminate.” The #7 should be there.

Now let us look at the footnote. The footnote is the translation of the ®ÊkÈ. He left out one important sentence. I don’t know why. He left out the last sentence. Here it is said that it is manifested as morally indeterminate. Its manifestation is mostly indeterminate (abyÈkata). In Abhidhamma there are three terms - kusala, akusala, and abyÈkata. ‘Kusala’ means kusala consciousness and cetasikas. ‘Akusala’ means akusala consciousness and cetasikas. ‘AbyÈkata’ means those that remain including r|pa and NibbÈna. R|pa (materiality) is one of the indeterminates. Here its manifestation is ‘indeterminateness’. It is called ‘indeterminate’ to distinguish it from mentality, which is profitable, etc., at different times.” NÈma is sometimes kusala (profitable) and sometimes akusala (unprofitable). R|pa is always abyÈkata. It is never kusala or akusala. It is always abyÈkata.

Then the ®ÊkÈ explains in a different way the word ‘indeterminate’ here. ‘Indeterminate’ according to ®ÊkÈ means ‘not cognizing’, ‘not taking an object’. ‘Not taking an object’ is one kind of indeterminateness of r|pa. I tell you this because when you practice meditation and you concentrate on some r|pa, then sometimes you may see that, oh, it does not cognize. R|pa does not cognize. It has no faculty of cognition. When you see that way, that means you are seeing r|pa with reference to its manifestation. It is very common among yogis to see r|pa as that and not just as indeterminate. That is because if you have no knowledge of Abhidhamma, you will not know that r|pa is abyÈkata. If you practice meditation, you will see that r|pa or matter has no ability to cognize. If you see or understand in that way, then you are said to be seeing the manifestation of r|pa or you are seeing r|pa with reference to its manifestation. This is an important sentence in the ®ÊkÈ.

Paragraph 52 second line “It is twofold as ‘no theory’ and ‘wrong theory’. ‘No theory’ means not understanding and ‘wrong theory’ means wrong understanding. Ignorance or avijjÈ has two meanings - not understanding or wrongly understanding. If you do not understand at all, that is ignorance. If you understand something in the wrong way, that is also avijjÈ (ignorance). If you understand the impermanent as permanent, that is also avijjÈ (ignorance). You have understanding but your understanding is clouded with moha. That is also avijjÈ. There are two kinds of avijjÈ - not knowing, not understanding and understanding wrongly.

Let us look at paragraph 57, defining of the factors. How many factors are there in Dependent Origination? 12. What about sorrow and so on? They are also mentioned in the formula. They are not taken as separate factors because they are not definite. That means they may or they may not arise in a certain realm. For example in the realm of the BrahmÈs there can be no sorrow, lamentation and so on. So it is not an inevitable result of rebirth. When there is rebirth as BrahmÈs, there can be no sorrow and so on. That’s why they are not taken as separate factors.

Now we come to the detailed exposition paragraph 58. So we have avijjÈ (ignorance) according to Sutta and according to Abhidhamma. According to the Sutta method it is unknowing about the four instances beginning with suffering, that is ignorance of the Four Noble Truths. According to Abhidhamma it is unknowing of the Four Noble Truths plus the past aggregates, the future aggregates, both past and future aggregates and PaÔiccasamuppÈda.

Paragraph 60 “Formations are the six mentioned in brief above thus ‘the three, namely, formations of merit, etc., and the three, namely, the bodily formation, etc.’; but in detail here the [first] three formations are 29 volitions (You know the 29.) that is to say, the formation of merit consisting of 13 volitions, counting the 8 sense-sphere profitable volitions that occur in giving, in virtue, etc., and the 5 fine material profitable volitions that occur in development [of meditation]: then the formation of demerit consisting of the 12 unprofitable volitions that occur in killing living things, etc.; then the formation of the imperturbable consisting in the profitable volitions associated with the immaterial sphere, which occur in development [of those meditations].” You know the kusala and akusala cittas. There are 12 akusala, 8 kÈmÈvacara kusala, 5 r|pÈvacara kusala and 4 ar|pÈvacara kusala.

“As regards the other three, the bodily formation is bodily volition, the verbal formation is verbal volition, and the mental formation is mental volition.” So this is different. “This triad is mentioned in order to show that at the moment of the kamma the formations of merit, etc., occur in these [three] doors of kamma (body, speech and mind). For the 8 sense-sphere profitable and 12 unprofitable volitions, making 20 are the bodily formation when they occur in the body door and produce bodily intimation (kusala and akusala). The same volitions are called verbal formation when they occur in the speech door (through speech) and produce verbal intimation. But volition connected with direct-knowledge is not included here.” ‘Direct-knowledge’ means abhiÒÒÈ. AbhiÒÒÈ volition does not give any results, any results in the future. And also volition connected with agitation (That means volition connected with uddhacca.), the last of the akusala cittas, does not give any results. You may remember the fifth chapter of Abhidhamma. There it is said that uddhacca volition does not give results at the moment of rebirth. Direct-knowledge also cannot give results.

Paragraph 62 “How can it be known that these formations have ignorance as their condition?” The answer I think is not so convincing. “By the fact that they exist when ignorance exists.” Why are they caused by ignorance? Because when there is ignorance, there are these formations. And then the explanation of these is not difficult to understand.

Ultimately we come to the 24 conditions, the 24 conditions taught in the last book of Abhidhamma. They are important because we have to understand the Dependent Origination with reference to these conditions. Only then will we understand Dependent Origination fully. Otherwise our understanding of Dependent Origination will not be complete. So we have to understand Dependent Origination against the background of these 24 conditions. This book explains these conditions together with the Dependent Origination. So it is very helpful. In the Manual of Abhidhamma they are separated. Dependent Origination is not explained with reference to PaÔÔhÈna. Maybe it is too complicated for beginners. In order to really understand PaÔiccasamuppÈda you have to understand PaÔÔhÈna also. These are the 24 conditions.

The first one is root condition (hetu). There are 6 roots - lobha, dosa, moha, and then alobha, adosa, amoha. These 6 roots are called ‘root-cause condition’. The word ‘hetu’ is explained in paragraph 67. “Herein, ‘cause (hetu)’ is a term for a part of a syllogism.” In an Indian syllogism there are 5 parts. One part is called ‘hetu’. It is like an example I gave earlier. There is fire on the mountain. I am making an inference. We do not really see the fire on the mountain. I see smoke on the mountain. So I say that there is fire on the mountain. That is called ‘proposition’. Then I give you the reason because there is smoke on the mountain. ‘Because there is smoke on the mountain’ is called ‘hetu’ in Indian syllogism. This is just the meanings of the word ‘hetu’.

The first meaning is a part of syllogism. The second meaning is a reason. The third meaning is a root. Here ‘root’ is taken to mean hetu. ‘Hetu condition’ means root condition or root-cause condition. And that really means the 6 mental factors called ‘roots (lobha, dosa, moha, alobha, adosa, amoha)’.

Then the word ‘paccaya’ is explained. In the explanation I want you to pay attention to the words ‘another state’s presence or arising’. When a state is indispensable to another state’s presence or arising, the former is a condition for the latter. But as to characteristic, a condition has the characteristic of assisting; for any given state that assists the presence or arising.” The PÈÄi word ‘paccaya’ can mean producing cause as well as supporting, so here presence or arising. ‘Presence’ means supporting and ‘arising’ means producing. So the word ‘paccaya’ can mean producing cause or just supporting cause. Sometimes both can be taken for one condition. Sometimes only one can be taken. Paragraph 69 is the intention of some teachers. We can skip that.

Then there is object condition. Under object condition everything is included. Everything is the object condition - cittas, cetasikas, r|pa, NibbÈna, all. There is nothing which is not an object of the mind. So everything comes under the heading of object condition.

The next one is predominance condition. In paragraph 72 about a third of the way down “It is the four states called zeal, [purity of] consciousness, energy and inquiry.” Abhidhamma students will remember that there are four kinds of predominance) (adhipati). The first is zeal (chanda). The second is consciousness (citta). The third is energy (viriya). The fourth is inquiry. ‘Inquiry’ really means paÒÒÈ. I don’t know where he got the words ‘purity of’ in the brackets. Do you agree with that? What about akusala cittas? There can be predominance of akusala citta. So they must go. It is just consciousness, either pure or impure. Sometimes lobha can predominate, right?

Paragraph 73 there are two conditions - proximity condition and contiguity condition. They are the same. Just the words or letters are different. The meaning is the same. This condition is like giving opportunity to others. In order for you to sit on this chair I vacate this chair. It is something like that. In order for the next consciousness to arise the previous consciousness must disappear because there can only be one consciousness at a time. Suppose there are a series of consciousness - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. At one moment there is only one consciousness. When #1 disappears #2 arises. When #2 disappears #3 arises. When #3 disappears #4 arises and so on. #1 is said to be the condition for the arising of #2. Actually the disappearance of #2 is said to be the condition for the arising of #3 and so on. So this is not producing condition but just supporting condition. In order for that citta to arise the previous citta must disappear. It is like giving your seat to another person. It is something like that.

Some teachers try to find a difference between these two. Paragraph 75 “The opinion of [certain] teachers is that proximity condition refers to proximity of aim (fruit) and contiguity condition refers to proximity of time.” ‘Aim (fruit)’ is the wrong translation. The PÈÄi word is ‘attha’ ‘Attha’ can mean a substance or a thing. Here it means a phenomenon or in PÈÄi a dhamma. So proximity of phenomenon and contiguity of time - that means no interval of dhammas and no interval of time. When there is no interval of dhamma, it is proximity and when there is no interval of time it is contiguity. That is what the other teachers say.

“But that is contradicted by such statements as ‘The profitable [consciousness] belonging to the base consisting of neither perception nor non-perception in one who emerges from cessation is a condition, as contiguity condition, for Fruition attainment [consciousness]’.” So it contradicts this passage from PaÔÔhÈna. You may not understand it.

An AnÈgÈmi and an Arahant can enter into what is called ‘the attainment of cessation’. In this attainment there is the temporary suspension of mental activity. When a person is in that samÈpatti (attainment), there is no activity of mind. There is only the physical body. As soon as the person emerges from that attainment, Fruition consciousness arises. If the person is a Non-Returner, Non-Returner Fruition consciousness arises. If the person is an Arahant, Arahant Fruit consciousness arises. It is said in this passage that the fourth ar|pÈvacara citta that arises before that attainment is a condition for that Fruition consciousness by way of contiguity. But there may be 7 days interval between these 2 because a person can be in that attainment up to 7 days intervening in time. So it contradicts with that opinion. According to them there should be no intervening of time between the conditioning and the conditioned. In this case there can be a long, long time. If it is a brahmÈ, it maybe years between the fourth ar|pÈvacara consciousness and the Fruition consciousness. This opinion is untenable and contradicted. Then there are some more arguments. They are also rejected. Please go over these at home.

In paragraph 80 “But just as great misery is despair, so great support is decisive support.” This you may not understand unless you have the PÈÄi words in mind. “Just as great misery is despair.” I just told you to make a note of ÈyÈsa and upÈyÈsa, right? Great ÈyÈsa is upÈyÈsa. So here also great support is great support or decisive support. The PÈÄi word for support is nissaya. The PÈÄi word for decisive support is upanissaya. The word ‘upa’ is there like in the word ‘upÈyÈsa’. ŒyÈsa is intensified by the prefix ‘upa’. The word ‘nissaya’ is also intensified by the prefix ‘upa’. That is what he is saying here. But if you do not have the PÈÄi words in mind, you may not really understand what he is saying here. “This is a term for a cogent reason (a very strong reason). Consequently a state that assists by being a cogent reason should be understood as a decisive condition.”

Then the varieties of decisive support are given - objective decisive support, proximate decisive support and natural decisive support. We have run out of time. Please bring these sheets next week or when you study PaÔiccasamuppÈda keep them handy so you can look at them.

SÈdhu! SÈdhu! SÈdhu!

(Tape 37 / Ps: 101 – 185)

Last week we finished the 24 conditions. So today we begin with paragraph 101, how ignorance is a condition for formations. These paragraphs describe in what way ignorance is related to different formations. It is the application of the 24 conditions to the Doctrine of Dependent Origination.

I think you remember that there are different kinds of formations - formations of merit, formations of demerit and formations of the imperturbable. At least these three you should remember. If you do not remember, go back to paragraph 60. ‘Formations of merit’ means cetanÈ (volition) concomitant with kusala. ‘Formations of demerit’ means cetanÈ concomitant with akusala. ‘Formations of the imperturbable’ means cetanÈ concomitant with the four formless jhÈnas (ar|pÈvacara).

So ignorance is a condition for formations of merit in how many ways? Formations of demerit in how many ways? Formations of the imperturbable in how many ways? “Herein, for those of merit ignorance is a condition in two ways: it is a condition in two ways, namely, as object condition and as decisive support condition (not as support condition).” It is #9, not #8. “For ignorance is a condition, as object condition, for formations of merit of the sense-sphere at the time of comprehending [by means of insight] ignorance as liable to destruction and fall; and it is likewise for those of the fine material sphere (ar|pÈvacara) at the time of knowing a confused mind by means of direct-knowledge consciousness (abhiÒÒÈ) [through penetrating others’ minds and so on]. But it is a condition, as decisive support condition, in two cases, that is to say, [for the sense-sphere formations] in one who, for the purpose of surmounting ignorance, fulfills the various instances of sense-sphere merit making consisting in giving, etc., and [for the fine material sphere formations] in one who arouses the fine material jhÈnas [for the same purpose]. Likewise in one who effects the merit while aspiring to the delight if sense-sphere becoming and fine material becoming because he is confused by ignorance.”

Ignorance is unwholesome (akusala). So how is it related to kusala, formations of merit? They cannot arise at the same time. Ignorance is a condition, as object condition, for the formations of merit. That means when the kusala cittas arise, they take ignorance as an object. It is also a decisive support condition of kusala cittas. The decisive support condition is very wide. If you cannot think of any other condition, you can say that they are related by decisive support condition. You will almost always be right. Ignorance is related to formations of merit by two conditions, as an object and as decisive support.

The next paragraph concerns the condition for demerit (akusala), how ignorance is related to akusala. Ignorance itself is akusala. So there we have what conditions? Let’s see. “As object condition at the time of the arising of greed, etc., contingent upon ignorance” - ignorance can be the object of akusala consciousness. “As object predominance and object decisive support respectively at the times of giving importance [to ignorance and enjoying it]” - that means taking ignorance firmly and enjoying it. “As decisive support in one who, being confused by ignorance and unaware of danger, kills living things, etc.” And then what? “As proximity, contiguity, proximity decisive support, repetition, absence and disappearance, for the second impulsion and those that follow.” You know that there are seven javana moments in a thought process. Ignorance concomitant with the first javana moment is a condition for the second javana. Then that concomitant with the second javana is a condition for the third and so on as proximity, contiguity, proximity decisive support ( That is a variety of decisive support.), repetition, absence and disappearance. One javana is related to another javana by proximity, contiguity and so on, and also repetition because they belong to the same genus, akusala here. “As root cause, conascence, mutuality, support, association, presence, and non-disappearance, in one doing anything unprofitable” - that means that they arise at the same time. Ignorance is related to the cetanÈ arising together with it by way of conascence, arising together-mutuality, support and so on. Ignorance is a condition for formations of demerit in many ways.

In this chart they are given. The first column is the conditioning. The second column is the conditioned. The third column is the conditions. If you look at it, you will understand easily.

Ignorance is a condition for formations of merit by #2 (ÈrammaÓa) and #9 (upanissaya). You will have to refer to the other sheet to find out what the numbers refer to. Then ignorance is a condition for formations of demerit by #2 (ÈrammaÓa), ÈrammaÓadhipati (That is a variety of #3, adhipati.), object decisive support (ÈrammaÓa|panissaya which is a variety #9 upanissaya), then #9 (upanissaya), #4 (anantara), #5 (samanantara) anantara|panissaya (a variety of upanissaya), #12 (asevana), #22 (natthi), #23 (vigata). Ignorance is a condition for formations of the imperturbable by #9 (upanissaya) only. Ignorance is a condition for formations of demerit by #1 (hetu) also. The paragraphs in the Visuddhi Magga are given in brackets on the handout. So you can easily go back to The Path of Purification. You read the book. Then you read the chart and go back and forth. So for the imperturbable there is only the decisive support condition. The conditioning factor is ignorance and the conditioned states are the formless jhÈna cittas or formless jhÈna cetanÈ (volition). It can only be through decisive support that ignorance conditions the formless jhÈnas because they do not arise together. There can be no root cause, conascence, mutuality and others. This is how we apply the 24 conditions to Dependent Origination.

Only when we apply the 24 conditions to Dependent Origination do we really understand it. Otherwise our understanding is not complete. Here we know how the conditioning factors and the conditioned factors are related by way of any of these 24 conditions. When we see the conditions, we know whether the conditioning and the conditioned factors arise at the same time or at different times. If they arise at the same time, there can be conascence condition, mutuality condition and so on. In the links of Dependent Origination the relationship between them is not always one of cause and effect, producer and produced. Sometimes it is a relationship of helping one another, supporting one another at the same time. Sometimes the conditioning and conditioned factors arise together and sometimes they do not.

Next paragraph 105 there is no single fruit from a single cause. In the formula it is said depending on avijjÈ there are formations; depending on formations there is consciousness. Only ignorance is mentioned at the beginning. So the question is: Is ignorance the only condition for the formations or are there other conditions? “If it is only one, there follows the assertion of a single cause.” This is rejected in Buddhism. Buddhism accepts multiple results from multiple causes. If one asserts that ignorance is the only condition for formations, then one is asserting that there is only one cause, a single cause. That is not accepted. “If there are others, the description of it as a single cause..is incorrect.” If there are other causes, why did the Buddha just say ‘avijjÈ’? The answer it that it is not incorrect. “Why not? Here is the reason.”

“Here there is no single or multiple fruit of any kind from a single cause, nor a single fruit from multiple causes, but only multiple fruit from multiple causes.” This is the Buddhist standpoint. From many causes there are many fruits.

“From multiple causes (I think we can leave out ‘so’.), in other words, from temperature, earth, seed, and moisture, is seen to arise a multiple fruit, in other words, the shoot which has visible form, odor, taste and so on.” This explains the previous sentence. So from multiple causes arise multiple results.

“But one representative cause and fruit given in this way ‘With ignorance as conditioning there are formations; with formations as condition consciousness’ have a meaning and a use.” He always translates ‘attha’ as meaning. I think we should say here that they have a kind of benefit and a purpose. Although there are many causes, the Buddha only mentioned one cause. There is some purpose, some benefit to be had from mentioning just one. “For the Blessed One employs one representative cause and fruit when it is suitable for the sake of elegance in instruction and to suit the idiosyncrasies of those susceptible of being taught.” These are the two reasons we always have recourse to when we cannot give any other reason. Why did Buddha say depending on avijjÈ there are sa~khÈras and not depending on avijjÈ and others there are sa~khÈras? Then our answer is that is because of the elegance of instruction, because the Buddha was Lord of the Dhamma and he had many ways of teaching. And also it is to suit the likes and dislikes of the listeners. These are the two reasons. Here the susceptibility of beings to be taught is pointed to. Listeners are familiar with different terms and they have different likes and dislikes. In order to suit them the Buddha sometimes only taught one cause or two causes and so on.

What is important is the next sentence. “And he does so in some instances because it is a basic factor.” Sometimes he gave only one cause although there are many causes because it is a basic factor, a basic cause. “And in some instances because it is the most obvious (cause), and in some instances because it is not common to all. (It is peculiar to that only.)”

Then the next paragraph explains that in detail, pointing out examples in the Texts, in the Suttas. “In the passage ‘with contact as condition feeling’ he mentions a single cause and fruit because they are basic factors. For contact is the basic cause of feeling since the kinds of feeling are defined according to the kinds of contact [as ‘eye-contact-born feeling’ and so on] and feeling is contact’s basic fruit since contact is defined according to the kinds of feeling [that it produces].” That is one point.

“He mentions a single cause in the passage ‘Disease due to phlegm’ because that is the most obvious.” There are other causes too like kamma. “For here what is obvious is the phlegm, not the kamma, etc., [mentioned later in the same Sutta].”

“He mentioned a single cause in the passage ‘Bhikkhus, any states whatever that are unprofitable are all rooted in unwise attention because it is not common to all.” Here unwise attention is given as a cause or as the root of what is unprofitable (akusala). Unwise attention is given here because it is not common to all. It is peculiar to akusala only. So the next sentence does not give that meaning. “For unwise attention to unprofitable things is not common to all [states] in the way that, say, physical basis and object are common to all.” Actually what it means is that unwise attention is an uncommon cause for unprofitable states or is a peculiar cause for unprofitable states. When unprofitable states arise, they arise due to unwise attention. They also arise depending upon the objects and depending upon the senses. Objects and the senses are also conditions for akusala to arise. However they are not peculiar to akusala only. You see something and you have eye consciousness. That is not akusala. Even though you see something, later on at the javana moments you may have kusala. So the objects and the senses are not peculiar causes for the eye consciousness or consciousness to arise. They are common, but unwise attention is the peculiar cause for akusala to arise. So if we have unwise attention, we will have akusala javanas. If we have wise attention, we will have kusala javanas. We see something and sometimes we have kusala or akusala. That depends upon whether we have wise attention or unwise attention. So here “For unwise attention is the uncommon cause for unprofitable states.” We should say like that, not ‘unwise attention to unprofitable things’. Buddha said here that all unprofitable are rooted in unwise attention. They are caused by unwise attention although they need other conditions - physical basis and object. Physical basis and object are common causes for both kusala and akusala. Unwise attention is the cause for akusala only. “Consequently although other causes of formations such as physical basis and object, conascent states, etc., are actually existent, still ignorance may be understood as the representative cause of formations [firstly] because it is the basic factor.” This is the application to the present topic. So ignorance is mentioned alone because “it is the basic factor as the cause of other causes of formations such as craving, etc., as it is said ‘Craving increases in one who dwells seeing enjoyment’ and ‘With the arising of ignorance there is the arising of cankers’, and again because it is the most obvious, ‘Not knowing, bhikkhus, in ignorance, he forms the formation of merit’, and lastly because it is not common to all. So the use of one representative cause and fruit should in each instance be understood according to this explanation of it.” Ignorance (avijjÈ) is mentioned alone because it is the representative cause of formations and because it is the most obvious, and because it is uncommon.

You see in the footnote 18 this explanation of it. The PÈÄi word is ‘parihÈra’. The translation of this word given is explanation. Actually ‘parihÈra’ means literally doing away with the question or avoidance of the question. It is not running away from it, but doing away with it. When you give answer, you are getting rid of the question. Simply it may mean a reply or an answer, not explanation actually. In a debate when someone says something, you have to avoid it or you have to get away from it by giving answer or reply. So it is this answer or reply.

“Here it may be asked: We admit that (what was said above) - But ignorance is reprehensible and has entirely undesirable fruit. How then can it rightly be a condition for the formations of merit and of the imperturbable? Sugar cane does not grow from [bitter] nimba seeds. Why should it not be right?” Do you know what ‘nimba’ is? It is not an English word. It is a kind of tree. I haven’t seen that tree in this country. It grows in tropical countries. It is small with long leaves. Their taste, the leaves as well as the fruit, is bitter. Also the branches or wood is bitter. In the East monks use the branches of that tree as a tooth brush or as a tooth stick. Have you seen the tooth sticks that monks use? Mostly those are made of that tree. Since it is bitter and a little hard, it may have some medicinal properties. People use it to protect their teeth from decaying. In Hindi it is called ‘neem’. The PÈÄi word is ‘nimba’ and the Sanskrit word is ‘nimba’, but in Hindi it is ‘neem’ which comes from nimba. There is some kind of soap made from the essence of that tree. Whenever something bitter is to be pointed out, the Commentators use nimba. So sugar cane does not grow from nimba seeds.

The answer is that the conditioning and conditioned or cause and result are sometimes opposed to each other, or they may be unopposed, or they may be like or unlike.

“Both as opposed and unopposed

A state’s conditions may be found,

And both as like and unlike too:

That does not make it their results.”

Actually it should be “That does not make it their results only.” That means those that are conditioned are not results only. In order to understand you must understand the PÈÄi word used for results here. The PÈÄi word is ‘vipÈka’. ‘VipÈka (result)’ means the product of kamma in the form of cittas and cetasikas, not r|pas, just cittas and cetasikas. You know the vipÈka cittas (resultant consciousness). There are 37 or 52 resultant consciousness in the 89 or 121 types of consciousness. They alone are called ‘vipÈka’. So here in the verse in paragraph 109 “That does not make it their results only” or “They are not results only.” That means they are not vipÈka only. Some are vipÈka and some are not vipÈka, but they are conditioned.

“It is established in the world that when states have a condition, it may be opposed or unopposed to them as to presence, individual essence, function, and so on. For a preceding consciousness is a condition, opposed as to presence, for the succeeding consciousness.” #1 consciousness is a condition for #2 consciousness. It is opposed to #2 as to presence. That means when #2 arises, #1 is no longer there. So one is absent and one is present. So they are opposed as to presence.

“And the preceding training is a condition likewise for the plying of crafts, etc., which take place subsequently.” You learn something now and you get the results later. “Kamma is a condition, opposed as to individual essence, for materiality.” There are some material properties caused by kamma. They are cause and effect or condition and effect, but they are opposed as to individual essence. That is because kamma is nÈma and materiality is r|pa. Their individual essence is different. “And so are milk, etc., for curds and so on.”

“Light is a condition, opposed as to function, for eye consciousness.” Light is one condition for the arising of eye consciousness or seeing consciousness. Without light you cannot see. So light is a condition, but as to function light and eye consciousness are different. Light has the function of dispelling darkness. Eye consciousness has the function of knowing the object. Their functions are different.

“But eye-cum-visible-data, etc., are respectively a condition unopposed as to presence, for eye consciousness and so on. And the first impulsion (the first javana), and those that follow, are a condition, unopposed as to individual essence and function, for the impulsions that follow them.” There are conditions and those that are conditioned which are sometimes opposed and sometimes not opposed and which are sometimes like and sometimes unlike. They are not vipÈkas always. Some are vipÈkas and some are not.

“Materiality - for example temperature and nutriment - is a condition for materiality: the like for the like. And so are paddy seeds, etc., for the paddy crops, and so on. The material is a condition for the immaterial, and so is the immaterial for the material: the unlike for the like.

“And so are ox hair and ram’s hair, horns, curd, and sesamum flour, etc., respectively for dubba (It should be dubba, not dabba) grass, reeds, bh|tiÓaka grass and so on.” Then we have footnote 19. At the end of the footnote Venerable ©ÈÓamoli said: “Except for the last mentioned, it seems problematical why these things, if rightly interpreted, should be conditions for the things mentioned.” Maybe they believed that way then. We don’t really know. Here ox hair and ram’s hair is one unit. Horns are the second unit. Curd and sesamum flour is the third unit. They are connected respectively with dubba grass and one grass is missing here. So we should say ‘respectively for dubba grass, arrow grass and bh|tiÓaka grass’. We don’t need the word ‘reeds’. We have to strike it out. So we should have ‘respectively for dubba grass, arrow grass and bh|tiÓaka’. Maybe where there is ox hair and ram’s hair the dubba grass grows abundantly. The second one is arrow grass. I don’t know what ‘arrow grass’ means. All these are difficult to understand. Bh|tiÓaka grass is translated into Burmese as fragrant grass. It is grass with some good smell. Those are conditions for those kinds of grass. When there are horns, the arrow grass grows. When there is sesamum flour, the bh|tiÓaka grass and so on.

“And those states for which these are the opposed and unopposed, like and unlike, conditions are not the results (not the vipÈkas) of these states as well.” They are not the vipÈkas, but they are conditioned by the others. “So although this ignorance has entirely undesirable fruit for its result and is reprehensible in its individual essence, yet it should be understood as a condition, opposed or unopposed and like or unlike as the case may be, as to presence, function, and individual essence, for all these formations of merit and so on.” Ignorance can be the condition for formations of merit, formations of demerit, and for the formations of the imperturbable.

Then paragraph 112 “Moreover there is this way of explanation as well.” The explanation is that if you are ignorant or do not know correctly about death and reappearance (That is paÔisandhi.) or rebirth, and the round of rebirth and Dependent Origination, then you do these formations. Because of ignorance, because of ignorance of death, because of ignorance of reappearance or rebirth, you do at times good formations and at times you do some bad formations.

“Firstly when he is confused about death, instead of taking death thus, ‘Death in every case is break-up of aggregates’, he figures that it is a [lasting] being that dies, that it is a [lasting] being’s transmigration to another incarnation, and so on. When he is confused about reappearance (paÔisandhi), instead of taking rebirth thus, ‘Birth in every case is manifestation of aggregates, he figures that it is a lasting being’s manifestation in a new body.” If you have ignorance about death, reappearance, the round of rebirths, the characteristics of formations, dependently arisen states, then you do kusala and akusala formations.

The verse given in paragraph 115 is often quoted when you want to explain what saÑsÈra is. SaÑsÈra is:

“The endless chain of aggregates,

Of elements, of bases too,

That carries on unbrokenly,

Is what is called the round of births.”

This is the definition of saÑsÈra. SaÑsÈra is just the endless chain of or the endless arising and disappearing of aggregates, bases, elements and others.

Paragraph 116 “When he is confused about the characteristic of formations, instead of apprehending their specific and general characteristics, he figures that formations are self” and so on. There are two kinds of characteristics, specific and general. An example of specific characteristic would be that matter has the characteristic of being molested or the characteristic of change. That is a specific characteristic. Feeling has the characteristic of enjoying the object or experiencing the object fully. That is its specific characteristic. What are their general characteristics? Impermanence, suffering and no soul. ‘General characteristic’ means characteristic common to all phenomena. Specific characteristic is the individual essence of each phenomenon. If you are ignorant about the characteristic of formations, you take things to be self, to belong to a self, to be lasting, to be pleasant, to be beautiful. “When he is confused about dependently arisen states (That is Dependent Origination.), instead of taking the occurrence of formations to be due to ignorance, etc., he figures that it is a self that knows or does not know, that acts and causes action” and so on. Blinded by ignorance we do different sorts of things, good formations and bad formations.

Due to formations there is consciousness. There are 32 kinds of mundane resultant consciousness. In the chart please look at #2. Conditioned by formations consciousness arises. ‘Consciousness’ means the 32 lokiya vipÈka cittas (32 mundane resultant consciousness). They are mentioned in paragraph 120. There are a lot of numbers here. The author says “See table 2 for bracketed numbers that follow.” You may look at table 2 at the end of the book. In brief they are just the resultant consciousness belonging to the mundane sphere. You can look at the chart and figure out what types of consciousness these are.

Paragraph 121 “Here it may be asked: But how is it to be known that this consciousness of the kind stated actually has formations as its condition?” The answer is: “Because there is no kamma-result when there is no stored-up kamma.” It is not very convincing, but it is the way the Commentator tried to explain.

Paragraph 122 “But which kind of consciousness has which kind of formations as its condition?” There are formations and there are types of consciousness. So which kind of formation causes which kind of consciousness?

Then the resultant kinds of consciousness are given here. “The following 16 kinds arise with the sense-sphere formations of merit as condition” - I think you can find them out on the chart. Paragraph 122 is for kÈmÈvacara. Paragraph 123 is for r|pÈvacara (fine material sphere). Paragraph 124 is for demerit (akusala). And then paragraph 125 is for four ar|pÈvacara.

Then we have the occurrence of resultant consciousness. “Now this resultant consciousness all occurs in two ways, namely, (a) in the course of an individual existence (or continuity), and (b) at the rebirth-linking [moment].” First is what? In the course of an individual existence or continuity and then ‘b’ is at rebirth-linking. The very moment of rebirth-linking is taken as rebirth-linking here. After that moment the whole life is called ‘continuity’. When kamma gives results, it gives results at the moment of relinking and also during life. When we examine the results of kamma, we have to understand what kind of result is given at relinking and what kind of result is given during the course of life. There are two kinds of results.

Do you know what ‘A’ and ‘B’ in this paragraph and later ‘D’-‘H’ represent? Do you remember them? In paragraph 126 we have ‘A’ and ‘B’ and in paragraph 127 we have ‘D’-‘H’. And in paragraph 128 we have ‘I’. In paragraph 129 we have ‘J’, ‘B’, ‘M’. What are they? Go back to chapter 14 paragraph 110. What do you find there? Names of functions corresponding to those letters. He is referring to those. It is very helpful if you know what they mean. It is difficult to know what type of consciousness is referred to. When we study Abhidhamma, we study The Manual of Abhidhamma. So we are familiar with terns given in that book. In the Commentary the names are different than what we are familiar with. So sometimes we are at a loss to know what type of consciousness is meant by these words. For example something like the profitable resultant mind element may seem difficult. The numbers are given so you may go easily to the chart and find out.

Paragraph 129 “Then next to the profitable resultant mind element, the root-cause-less mind consciousness element accompanied by joy” - here root-cause-less is ahetuka, mind consciousness is manoviÒÒÈÓa and element is dhÈtu. What does that mean? That means santÊraÓa (investigation). In the middle of the paragraph there is a saying. I think that I have not told you about this even in my Abhidhamma classes. Registration (tadÈrammaÓa) arises how many times? Two or never. They arise two times or they do not arise at all. What do you find here? “By occurring either once or twice as registration.” So according to some teachers registration can arise once. The common opinion is that registration does not arise once. When it arises, it arises twice. Here ‘Majjhima Commentary’ does not mean the Commentary we now have. It is an old Sinhalese Commentary, now lost. “But in the Abhidhamma Commentary two turns of consciousness have been handed down with respect to registration.” In the Abhidhamma Commentary it is said that registration occurs or arises two times. “This consciousness has two names, ‘registration’ (tadÈrammaÓa - literally having that object that the preceding impulsions had) and ‘aftermath life-continuum’ (piÔÔhi bhava~ga).” ‘PiÔÔhi’ means back, so back bhava~ga. The other paragraphs are like that explaining the consciousness with reference to the functions, that is in the course of an existence (pavatti).

Now we have at rebirth-linking. “But what was said above, namely, ‘as to the remaining 19, there is none that does not occur as a rebirth-linking appropriate to it’.” There are 19 types of consciousness which have the function of rebirth. “It is hard to understand since it is too brief. Hence in order to show the details it may be asked” - there are given details of so many things here.

Let me tell you one thing about this chart. The second link, formations of merit, cetanÈ in kÈmÈvacara kusala 8 are the conditioning. The conditioned is in kÈmasugati, the mahÈvipÈka 8, the upekkhÈ santÊraÓa. Then there are the letters ‘pt’. I did not explain this on the sheet. ‘Pt’ means at rebirth, at relinking. The letters ‘pv’ on the sheet mean during the course of a life. that means after rebirth.

Just above paragraph 135 “(4) Briefly rebirth-linking [consciousness] has three kinds of objects, namely, ‘past’, ‘present’, and ‘not-so-classifiable’.” What is that? That means concepts (paÒÒatti). PaÒÒatti are said to be without time, out of time. So they cannot be classified as past, or present, or future. ‘Not-so-classifiable’ means paÒÒatti. “Non-percipient rebirth-linking has no object.” ‘Non-percipient rebirth-linking’ what does that mean? SaÒÒin, those reborn without mind. You know there are beings who have only physical bodies, no mind. They are brahmÈs. They practiced jhÈnas. They are those who hate mind because they think that because there is mind, we suffer. We know that this is suffering, this is pain. If there were no mind, we would be very happy or very blissful. They practice jhÈna and as a result of their jhÈnas they are reborn as brahmÈs without mind or mental activity. They are like statues. They stay like statues for say like 500 eons and then they come back. For their relinking there is no object since there is no relinking consciousness. At the moment of their arising there are only material properties. Whenever you see ‘not-so-classifiable’, take it to mean paÒÒatti.

In paragraph 136 it says ‘for example’. I think ‘for example’ is not correct. ‘For example’ means you only state a part, like part of a list or something, not all. But here the PÈÄi word is ‘seyyathÊdaÑ’ means what are they or something like that. That means I am going to give you all the details. So it should be something like ‘namely’ or ‘that is’. These paragraphs are to be read slowly, not going fast as we do now because they are a very important part of Abhidhamma showing the process of death and rebirth.

From happy to unhappy destiny - that means how a person is reborn from a happy realm an unhappy realm. That means how a person dies as a human being for example and is reborn in hell or is reborn as an animal and so on. They are described here from happy to unhappy destiny. Next unhappy to happy destiny is described. And then from happy destiny to happy destiny is described.

In paragraph 140 next to the 550 in brackets “But in the case of one who has stored up kamma of the exalted spheres.” ‘Exalted spheres’ means mahaggata. ‘mahaggata’ means r|pÈvacara and ar|pÈvacara. “The sign of kamma comes into focus” and so on.

Here the three kinds of objects for relinking (paÔisandhi), bhava~ga and cuti are given. A sign of a happy destiny, in other words, the appearance of the mother’s womb in the human world” - so sometimes kamma appears to the mind of the person that is about to die. Sometimes the sign of kamma appears and sometimes the sign of destiny appears. The sign of destiny is always taken as to be present. The sign of kamma may be present or past. Kamma is always past.

“His rebirth-linking consciousness arises next to the death consciousness in the order shown for the sign of an unhappy destiny.” That refers to paragraph 137.

“In another’s case, relatives present [objects to him] at the five sense doors, such as a visible datum as object, perhaps flowers, garlands, flags, banners, etc., saying ‘This is being offered to the Blessed One for your sake, dear, set your mind at rest’.”

“How kamma is a condition. Up to this point there has been shown the occurrence of the nineteenfold consciousness as rebirth-linking. Also all this [is further classified; for]

While it occurs in linking thus,

It has a double class beside

Through kamma, and as mixed and not,

And is still further classified.”

Paragraph 146 and 147 show how kamma is a condition. Then paragraph 148 and the following show the classification of kamma. That is double class, mixed and unmixed and other classifications. “It should be understood that when it occurs thus, its double class, etc., is mixed and not, and it is still further classified.”

“For example: though this [type of consciousness] occurs in one way only as rebirth-linking, still it is twofold as divided into mixed and unmixed with materiality.” Rebirth-linking consciousness arises not mixed with materiality when it is an ar|pÈvacara paÔisandhi. “It is threefold as divided according to sense-desire, fine material, and immaterial becoming; it is fourfold as egg-born, womb-born, putrescence-(moisture) born, and of apparitional generation.” You have to remember this because it will be mentioned again and again. There are four kinds paÔisandhi - egg-born, womb-born, moisture-born, and apparitional generation. The word ‘generation’ is used here. ‘Generation’ here means birth. It is not like this generation, next generation. “It is fivefold according to destiny.” There are five kinds of destiny. They are to be found in Majjhima NikÈya. “It is sevenfold according to the stations of consciousness, and it is eightfold according to the abodes of beings.” This is not concerning kamma, but it is about paÔisandhi (relinking). Relinking can be only one. It can be two, three, four, five, seven or eight. At least the fivefold destiny you should understand.

“The mixed is double sexed and not.” ‘Double’ means sexed and not sexed. Some are born with masculinity or femininity, but there are other beings are born without masculinity or femininity. They are without sex, something like a eunuch.

Student: There are also things like amoebas that don’t have sex.

Teacher: Yes. “The least decads the first has got, respectively three or two” - here the material properties arising with the rebirth-linking are mentioned as to decads. You have to understand the sixth chapter of The Manual of Abhidhamma.

Paragraph 153 “Herein, how the different kinds of generation come about may be understood according to the kind of destiny. For as regards these,

No first three generations are

In hell, or with the deities, also (We should insert ‘also’)

Save those of earth; all four are found

In the three other destinies.”

Once again we will need to insert ‘also’. “Herein, by the words also, with deities also it should be understood.” The PÈÄi particle ‘cha’ is used. Sometimes it means ‘something more’. It is like the word ‘also’ in English. ‘Deities also’ means deities and others. By the word ‘also’ we should understand something else other than deities. “Herein, by the words also with deities also it should be understood that, as in hell and among deities - excepting earth deities -, so also among the ghosts consumed with thirst.” We should take it that ghosts consumed with thirst are represented by the word ‘also’. “The first three kinds of generation are not found; for they are apparitional only. But in the remaining three kinds of destiny, in other words, among animals, ghosts and human beings, and among the earth deities excepted above there are all four kinds of generation.” There are five kinds of destiny. How many do we find here? Hell is one destiny. Deities is another destiny. Ghosts consumed with thirst is another destiny. What else? Human world is one destiny. We have to differentiate two kinds of deities, earth deities and other deities. For hell there is only one generation, I mean birth. That is apparitional birth. The first three kinds of generation are not found in hell, for deities except earth deities, and for ghosts consumed with thirst. But in the remaining three kinds of destiny, that is with regard to other kinds of hungry ghosts, human beings, animals, and earth deities excepted above, there are all four kinds of generation. There can be egg-born, womb-born, moisture-born and apparitional birth. There can be all four kinds of generation.

Next there is the explanation of how many kinds of material properties arise in the fine material gods and so on. “Firstly, among the fine material brahmÈs of apparitional generation there arise together with rebirth-linking consciousness 30 and also 9 material instances with the 4 groups, namely, the decads of the eye, ear, and physical basis (That is the heart base.), and the ennead of life.” ‘Ennead’ is a group of nine - the eight inseparables and jÊvita. Further down “Now the group of material states comprising the ten material instances, namely, color, odor, flavor, nutritive essence, and the four primary elements, with eye sensitivity and life is (not ‘are’) called the ‘eye decad’”, ear decad and so on. A group of material states is called the ‘eye decad’. The components of that decad are color, odor, flavor, nutritive essence, the four primaries, eye sensitivity and life. These ten are the eye decad. “The remaining [groups of material states] should be understood in the same way.” That is the ear decad, nose decad and so on.

Paragraph 158 the second line of the verse “Under aggregates, object, cause” - we should correct it to ‘root’. It is not ‘cause’. You may say ‘root-cause’, not just ‘cause’.

Paragraph 161 - this is very good.

“A mere state that has got its conditions

Ushers in the ensuing existence;

While it does not migrate from the past,

With no cause in the past it is not.”

Nothing from this life migrates to the other life, but it is reborn there not without the cause here. This is how we understand rebirth. Buddhists accept anatta. There is no attÈ. There is no permanent entity. They accept rebirth. Sometimes it seems incompatible. You do not believe in anything which is permanent or in any soul or whatever. Then you are saying there is rebirth in another state. The answer is: “A mere state that has got its conditions ushers in the ensuing existence.” It arises there conditioned by something here, something in the past. “While it does not migrate from the past” - it does not go from the past to the present or from the present to the future. “With no cause in the past it is not.” That is the cause of it. “So it is a mere material and immaterial state arising when it has obtained its conditions, that is spoken of, saying that it comes into the next becoming; it is not a lasting being, not a soul. And it has neither transmigrated from the past becoming nor yet is it manifested here without cause from that.”

“We shall explain this by the normal process of human death and rebirth-linking.” That means the obvious process of human death, relinking and so on. On the next page illustrations are given such as the echo, a light and so on. An echo, a light, a seal impression, a looking-glass image are given to explain rebirth. “And here let the illustration of this consciousness be such things as an echo, a light, a seal impression, a looking-glass image, for the fact of its not coming here from the previous becoming and for the fact that it arises owing to causes that are included in past becomings. For just as an echo, a light, a seal impression, and a shadow, have respectively sound etc., as their cause and come into being without going elsewhere, so also this consciousness.”

“And with a stream of continuity there is neither identity nor otherness. For if there were absolute identity in a stream of continuity, there would be no forming of curd from milk. And yet if there were absolute otherness, the curd would not be derived from the milk. And so too with all causally arisen things. And if that were so there would be an end to all wordly usage, which is hardly desirable. So neither absolute identity nor absolute otherness should be assumed here.”

“If no transmigration is manifested, then after the cessation of the aggregates in this human person, that fruit could be another person’s or due to other [kamma], since the kamma that is the condition for the fruit does not pass on there [to where the fruit is]? And whose is the fruit since there is no experiencer? Therefore this formulation seems to be unsatisfactory.” So it is like one person does the kamma and the other person gets the result. The answer is that it is through continuity, like seeds and so on. What we cal an ‘experiencer’ is just the arising of results. Actually there is no experiencer.

In paragraph 174 about the middle “For just as in the world when someone becomes an agent with the aim of completing some business or other, and he buys goods, say, or obtains a loan, it is simply the fact of his performing the transaction that is the condition for completing that business,” and so on. Now it is not simply an agent. It is someone who promises to pay debt, something like a guarantor. You guarantee something. And also ‘completing some business’ is very vague. The PÈÄi word used here is ‘niyyÈtana’. Although PÈÄi language is a religious language, some words are taken from Sanskrit which have to do with worldly things. So niyyÈtana is a business PÈÄi word. ‘NiyyÈtana’ means ‘paying back’, not transacting business. So we get ‘the aim of paying back what has been promised’ or ‘the aim of discharging the obligation’.

Paragraph 175 and so on explain the relationship according to PaÔÔhÈna. You have to read this with reference to the chart. With the chart you understand easily. There is one thing worthy of note at the bottom of paragraph 180. “Then it is a condition for [brahmÈs] seeing undesirable visible data and hearing undesirable sounds that are in the sense-sphere: there are no undesirable visible data, etc., in the BrahmÈ World itself.” In the BrahmÈ Worlds there are no undesirable sights or sounds. But they can see undesirable sights and hear undesirable sounds from the sense-sphere. When they look down to the sense-sphere, they may see undesirable objects. In the BrahmÈ World itself there are no undesirable visible sights nor undesirable sounds. “And likewise in the divine world of the sense-sphere” - in the Devaloka also there are no undesirable objects (no aniÔÔjÈrammaÓa) because everything there is beautiful. But when they look down at the human world, they may see a lot of undesirable objects. OK.

I think this is the end of the second link, the second link between formations and consciousness. This is the longest explanation of links given in the Visuddhi Magga. There is a lot of information about paÔsandhi, death and rebirth, and also kamma and its results. So read it slowly. And maybe reading The Manual of Abhidhamma can help you here. It goes both ways. Those who have studied Abhidhamma may note that here are the explanations for The Manual of Abhidhamma.

Student: What chapter should we read?

Teacher: For kamma and results you need to read the fifth chapter. Also death and rebirth are in the fifth chapter.

SÈdhu! SÈdhu! SÈdhu!

(Tape 38 / Ps: 186 – 314)

It is almost a month sine we had our last class. I think that we are on paragraph 186. The word ‘nÈma’ generally means cittas, cetasikas and sometimes also NibbÈna. But here in this formula depending upon consciousness, nÈma-r|pa arises. ‘NÈma’ means what? The three aggregates, that is feeling, perception and formations aggregate. Here ‘nÈma’ means only the cetasikas. Feeling is one cetasika. Perception is another cetasika. Formations are the remaining 50 cetasikas. So all 52 cetasikas are covered by nÈma here. They are called ‘nÈma’ because of their bending on to the object. The root is ‘nam’. ‘Nam’ means to incline towards or to bend towards. So that which inclines towards the object is called ‘nÈma’. These three are called ‘nÈma’ here. In other places, mostly in the Suttas, when the Buddha said nÈma and r|pa, he meant citta and cetasikas together. So here consciousness or citta is the conditioning factor and nÈma and r|pa are the conditioned factors. Here ‘nÈma’ means only the three aggregates, the three immaterial or mental aggregates (feeling, perception and formations).

“Matter is the four great elements and the materiality derived [by clinging] from the four great primaries.” It is not by clinging. There is no occasion for clinging here. The PÈÄi word used is upÈdayar|paÑ. That means ‘depending upon’. So it should be “the materiality dependent upon the four great primaries”. There are 28 material properties. Four are called the ‘great primaries’ and 24 are called the ‘dependent ones’. That is because these 24 depend upon the four great primaries for their arising. The four great primaries are the elements of earth, water, fire and air. Their analysis is given in the Description of Aggregates in chapter 14.

“By occurrence in becoming etc.: excepting one abode of beings, [that is, the non-percipient], mentality occurs in all the kinds of becoming, generation, destiny and station of consciousness, and in the remaining abodes of beings.” You can find mind everywhere, except in the realm of mindless beings. ‘Non-percipient’ means the realm of mindless beings. There is one realm among the 31 planes of existence where there are beings without minds. They are just like statues. Mind can be found in all realms except the realm of mindless beings.

“Materiality occurs in two kinds of becoming, four kinds of generation, five destinies, the first four stations of consciousness, and the first five abodes of beings.” So materiality can be found I think everywhere except for the four ar|pÈvacara realms.

“Now when this mentality-materiality occurs thus, then in the case of sexless embryos and the egg-born, at the moment of their rebirth-linking there are manifested as materiality two organic continuities, that is, the two decads of physical basis and body, and also the three immaterial aggregates.” At the moment of rebirth-linking if a person is a sexless person, then there arise at the moment of relinking two decads, the decad of physical basis and the decad of body and the three immaterial aggregates. That means the aggregates of feeling, perception, and mental formations. Actually four immaterial aggregates arise there, but consciousness is taken as the cause here. So only three mental aggregates are taken here.

“So in their case there are in detail these 23 states, namely, 20 states as concrete matter and three immaterial aggregates, which should be understood as ‘mentality-materiality with consciousness as condition’. But omitting repetitions, and so canceling nine material instances from one of the organic continuities, 14 states remain.” Do you know what these are? I will explain only this passage. For the others I will refer you to The Manual of Abhidhamma. The material properties are treated in groups. There are different groups. Sometimes a group of eight material properties, sometimes nine, sometimes ten and so on. There are eight material properties which are inseparable. Wherever there is matter we find these eight. There are four great primaries, color, smell, taste and nutrition. These eight are called ‘inseparables’. They are the basis for the groups. If we add life faculty to it, we get nine material properties. If we add eye sensitivity, we get the eye decad. If instead of eye sensitivity we add ear sensitivity, we get the ear decad and so on. Here two decads are mentioned. The ‘heart base decad’ means the eight inseparables, life principle and heart base. There are ten. I think if you write them down, you can see more clearly. They are the eight inseparables, life faculty, and heart base. And then there is the body decad. It is the same thing, eight inseparables, life faculty and body sensitivity. And then we have three mental aggregates. How many do you get all together? Ten plus ten plus three, so 23. Therefore it says “There are in detail these 23 states, namely 20 states as concrete matter (That means the two decads.) and three immaterial aggregates, which should be understood as ‘mentality-materiality with consciousness as condition’. But omitting repetitions” - that means taking only what has not been taken before. Then we get how many? 14. That means from the second decad we have to omit the eight inseparables and life faculty because they are repeated. So we get 14. “Omitting repetitions and so canceling nine material instances from one of the organic continuities, 14 states remain.”

The others are to be understood according to the forming of decads. To understand the other paragraphs first you must read The Manual of Abhidhamma on the groups of matter. At relinking if the being is a sexless being there are these two decads. But if the being is with sex, we have to add one more decad. So there are 33, but omitting repetitions there are 15. Although one decad is added, we add only one more, masculine sex or feminine sex.

“At the moment of rebirth-linking of those Brahma’s Retinue among apparitionally born beings (That means those who don’t have to stay in the womb of the mother.), four organic continuities are manifested as materiality, that is, the decads of eye (10), ear (10), physical basis (10), and the ennead of the life faculty (9 - 8 inseparables and life principle or life faculty), and three immateriality aggregates. So in their case in detail these 42 states, namely, 39 as concrete materiality and 3 immaterial aggregates, should be understood as ‘mentality-materiality with consciousness as condition’. But omitting repetitions and so canceling 27 instances of materiality, [9 each], from 3 of the organic continuities, 15 states remain.” This is how they arise in a certain realm or in a certain life. That is at relinking. And also in the course of an existence (That means life after relinking.) also mentality and materiality are manifested.

One thing to note is that rebirth-linking consciousness does not originate materiality. There are 4 causes of matter - kamma, consciousness, temperature and food. Generally speaking mind produces material properties. Not every type of consciousness however can originate materiality. Here in paragraph 193 “Rebirth-linking consciousness does not originate materiality. For, just as a man who is falling into a chasm cannot support another, so it, too, is unable to originate materiality because of its weakness, which is due to the weakness of the physical basis.” It has just arisen in a new existence, so it is still weak. At that time there is only the physical heart base and that heart base is also very weak at that very moment. So the mind or that consciousness which depends on that weak physical basis cannot produce matter. Rebirth-linking consciousness does not originate materiality.

Paragraph 197 “By inclusion: now there is the simple mentality with consciousness as condition in both the course of an existence and rebirth-linking in the immaterial sphere, and in the course of an existence in the five-constituent becoming.” There are five-constituent becoming, four-constituent becoming and one-constituent becoming. They will be explained in this chapter in paragraph 254. Actually ‘five-constituent becoming’ means a realm where there are 5 khandhas. There are 5 aggregate beings, 4 aggregate beings and 1 aggregate beings. Human beings are 5 aggregate beings. Mindless beings are 1 aggregate beings. Formless sphere beings are 4 aggregate beings because they have only 4 immaterial aggregates (feeling, perception, formations and consciousness).

“The simple materiality with consciousness as condition in both cases among the non-percipient (That means mindless beings.), and in the course of an existence in the five-constituent becoming, and the [combined] mentality-materiality with consciousness as condition in both cases in the five-constituent becoming. All that mentality and materiality and mentality-materiality should be understood as ‘mentality-materiality with consciousness as condition’ including them under mentality-materiality according to the method that allows any one part to represent any remaining one of its kind.” This is explaining the word ‘nÈma-r|pa’ to mean more than it apparently stands for. ‘NÈma-r|pa’ can mean just mentality-materiality. But sometimes there is only nÈma or sometimes there is only r|pa. And sometimes there is both nÈma and r|pa. So actually it is depending on consciousness nÈma arises, r|pa arises, nÈma-r|pa arises. The Buddha just said that nÈma-r|pa arises, but we must understand that the word ‘nÈma-r|pa’ stands for nÈma, r|pa and nÈma-r|pa.

Some of the words are elided or are not mentioned. It is just like we say ‘fathers’ in PÈÄi. When we say ‘fathers’, we mean parents, not fathers only, but both fathers and mothers. In PÈÄi it is called ‘ekasesa’. ‘Eka’ means one. ‘Sesa’ means remaining. That means remaining one word representing both the remaining word and other elided ones. Let us say instead of saying fathers and mothers, we just say ‘fathers’. That means we elide the word ‘mothers’. The word ‘fathers’ represents both fathers and mothers. That is called ‘ekasesa’ in PÈÄi. Footnote 38 the expression ‘ekadesasar|pekasesa’ is a grammatical term. ‘Ekadesa’ means part, not whole, part. ‘Sar|pa’ means some form. ‘Ekasesa’ means one remaining. So nÈma-r|pa has the same form. The remaining is just a part remaining, not a whole. The resemblance is just in part, not in whole. One word is nÈma, the other word is r|pa, and the third is nÈma-r|pa.

In the realms of ar|pÈvacara there are only nÈma aggregates. So in that case depending on consciousness, nÈma arises, no r|pa. At the relinking moment of mindless beings, only r|pa arises, no nÈma. So in the case we say depending on consciousness, r|pa arises. For 5 aggregate beings both nÈma and r|pa arise at the moment of relinking. For them we say depending on consciousness, nÈma and r|pa arise. We have to take it in that way. That is what the Commentator is explaining here. In the formula depending on consciousness as a condition, there is nÈma-r|pa. That means there is nÈma, there is r|pa, there is nÈma-r|pa. If you look at the notes on page 2 in small print you will see viÒÒÈÓa paccaya nÈma-r|pa. Conditioned by consciousness nÈma, r|pa, and nÈma-r|pa arise. The PÈÄi word is only nÈma-r|pa, but we have to take it to mean sometimes nÈma, sometimes r|pa and sometimes both nÈma and r|pa. So as I said with regard to relinking in formless beings, there is only nÈma. So depending on consciousness, nÈma arises. For mindless beings only r|pa arises. For 5 aggregate beings both nÈma and r|pa arise.

Then paragraph 200 by manner of condition - that means how they are related. Paragraph 201 “Rebirth-relinking or some other kind of resultant consciousness is a condition in 9 ways, as conascence, mutuality, support, association, kamma-result, nutriment, faculty, presence and non-disappearance conditions, either at rebirth-linking or in the course of an existence, for that mentality called resultant, whether mixed with materiality or not.” Now the notes I think I have explained before. I followed the explanations here and gave them in diagram form. The conditioning ones are vipÈka consciousness. That means resultant consciousness. The conditioned are vipÈka nÈma, resultant nÈma. That means the resultant mental aggregates. The ‘pt’ means at relinking and ‘pv’ means during the course of life. That means after relinking. The numbers 6, 7, 8 and so on refer to this list of the 24 conditions. What is #6? Conascence. What is #7? Mutuality. #8 is support. #14 is kamma-result. #15 is nutriment. #16 is faculty. #19 is association. #21 is presence. #24 is non-disappearance. They are related in this way. VipÈka consciousness, this is citta and vipÈka nÈma, this is cetasikas. VipÈka consciousness and vipÈka nÈma arise together or at the same time. They arise together at the same time and they support each other actually. That is why we have #6, #7, #8 and so on. From this we understand that not all the links are to be interpreted as cause and result. They are just conditioning and conditioned. They arise together and they support each other. Sometimes they belong to different times. Sometimes they arise at the same time. We have to understand this according to the explanations given in the Commentary. Here vipÈka consciousness (That means some kind of relinking consciousness.) is related to vipÈka nÈma (That means cetasikas arising together with it.). They are related by way of conascence and so on. They arise together, they disappear together and so on. Then there is relation of vipÈka consciousness to heart base. At the moment of relinking the heart base and vipÈka consciousness arise together. They can be related by way of conascence, mutuality and so on. The numbers of the conditions are given and the paragraph numbers in the Visuddhi Magga are given in the square brackets. This is how PaÔÔhÈna is applied to PaÔicca SamuppÈda. This is how we should understand Dependent Origination with reference to the 24 modes of causality or causal relationships. Only then do we really understand the relationship between the different links. Ordinarily people may think these are very simple links, one causing the other. Actually it is not that way. It would be very easy, but it is not that way. We have to understand with reference to PaÔÔhÈna so that we understand clearly and correctly.

Then sometimes the Commentary explains also why it is said that conditioned by consciousness nÈma, r|pa and nÈma-r|pa arises. Some of them may not be very convincing. Still this is the reason given by the Commentaries. How do we know that nÈma, r|pa, and nÈma-r|pa are conditioned by consciousness. Then the answer given here is according to the Sutta passages and also according to logic.

Student: What conditions consciousness?

Teacher: Sa~khÈra. There the relationship between formations and consciousness is cause and effect. Most other links are not real cause and effect. Supporting each other is also called condition, like here consciousness and mental factors. They arise at the same time. So we cannot say that consciousness causes the mental factors. They arise at the same time and they support each other. One is called conditioning and the others are called conditioned.

The next link is nÈma-r|pa to the six sense bases. Here ‘nÈma’ means what? Cetasikas. ‘R|pa’ means the four great primaries (here in paragraph 204) six physical bases (That means eye sensitivity, ear sensitivity and so on.) and mentality (That means the three aggregates beginning with feeling.). Here ‘nÈma’ means the three mental aggregates and ‘r|pa’ means the four primaries, six bases and one more jÊvita (life faculty). Here we also must understand nÈma-r|pa as meaning nÈma, r|pa, and nÈma-r|pa. The same method is used here.

The word ‘salÈyatana’ means six bases. Here we must understand that sometimes it means sixth base and sometimes six bases. We have only the word ‘salÈyatana’, but we must understand that sometimes it means sixth base, sometimes six bases or one of the six bases.

In the notes nÈma is given as the 52 cetasikas. R|pa is given as four primaries, six base matters (That means eye sensitivity and so on.), jÊvita and ÈhÈra. The six bases are eye base, ear base, nose base, tongue base, body base, and mind base. That means eye sensitivity, ear sensitivity and so on.

Paragraph 207 how they are conditioned at relinking and later during the course of life is given. “Here at rebirth-linking mentality is a condition in seven ways at the minimum, as conascence, mutuality, support, association, kamma-result, presence and non-disappearance, conditions, for the sixth base.” Sixth base - what is the sixth base? It is mind base. Here ‘mentality’ means the three mental aggregates (That means cetasikas.). So cetasikas concomitant with first ar|pÈvacara are a condition for the sixth base which is mind by #6, #7, #8 and so on. Here also they arise together. The relationship is cetasikas to citta here. In the third link above it is citta to cetasikas. Here it is cetasikas to citta. ‘NÈma’ here means cetasikas. Among the six bases the sixth base is mind. You know there are six internal bases and six external bases. All together there are 12 bases - visible object, audible object, odorous object, sapid object, tangible object, and the other objects (dhamma objects). Those are the external objects. They are called ‘external bases’. The internal bases are eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind. Here ‘nÈma’ means cetasikas. So in the ar|pÈvacara realms nÈma relates to sixth base only because there is no other base in the immaterial or formless beings. They have only mind and no physical body. For them the cetasikas concomitant with ar|pÈvacara relinking is the condition for the relinking consciousness itself, manÈyatana, the sixth base by way of conascence, mutuality, and so on. Here also we have to take nÈma-r|pa to mean nÈma, r|pa, and nÈma-r|pa. And the six bases may mean the sixth base only and sometimes six bases. Their relationship is given in detail in the Visuddhi Magga.

There are three kinds of conditions - mentality as condition, materiality as condition, and mentality-materiality as condition and then how they are related to the bases. You have to read the passages with the help of these notes. The first relationship is easy, cetasikas to citta. The second one vipÈka nÈma is the same relationship to manÈyatana during the life. ‘Pv’ means during the course of life. On the handout I said ‘same as above all’ because they arise at the same time and support each other. The relationship between nÈma-r|pa and the six bases is not as cause and result, or cause and fruit, but just as supporting each other. We have to go quickly now.

Then contact - depending on six bases, there is contact. There are six kinds of contacts given as eye contact, ear contact and so on. When you see something, there is seeing consciousness. With seeing consciousness there is contact. That contact is called ‘eye contact’.

Student: Does that consciousness have mental factors with it?

Teacher: Yes. When you see something, there is seeing consciousness. With seeing consciousness those mental factors there is what is called ‘contact’. That contact when it is associated with seeing is called ‘eye contact’. If it is associated with hearing, it is called ‘ear contact’ and so on.

Contact is not just the coming together of the object and eye sensitivity. It is something which arises when the three conditions come together. The three conditions are the visible object, the eye and eye consciousness. That PÈÄi word is very much misunderstood because as it stands in the Sutta it may be interpreted as the coming together of the three is contact. In the Commentaries it is explained that we are not to take it in that sense. We are to take it that because of the coming together of the three is contact. Sometimes language is very misleading. With the fluidity of language you can interpret this way or that way. In that passage it means because of the coming together of the three there is contact. Contact is not just the meeting together of the three, but because of the coming together of the three there arises something and that is contact. It is something like when you strike a match. Because of the stick and the match coming together there is fire. It is something like that. There are six kinds of contact - eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind contact. In detail there are said to be 32. That means the 32 types of resultant consciousness. Contact concomitant with these 32 is taken as 32 types of contact. In brief there are six kinds of contact and in detail there are 32. Those 32 are those concomitant with resultant consciousness. How many resultant consciousness are there excluding the supramundane? 32.

Let us see how they are related. Eye base, etc. (5) are related to eye contact, etc. (5) by way of #8, #10 and so on. ‘Eye base’ means eye sensitivity. ‘Eye contact’ means contact concomitant with seeing consciousness. They are related by way of #8, #10 and so on. What is 38? Support. We do not get conascence here because they do not arise together although they may arise at the same time. What we see has already arisen when we see it actually. They are present at the moment, but they do not arise at the same time or they do not arise together, but they exist at the same time.

Let us suppose that we see something. Before coming to the moment of seeing, there are some moments past. Matter is said to have a life of 17 thought moments. When some visible object strikes at our mind, then the life continuum (bhava~ga) is disturbed and it vibrates. One moment is past. Then the bhava~ga vibrates for two moments. So there are three moments before we are aware of seeing the visible object. The fourth moment is just the mind turning to that object. The fifth moment is the moment that we see. So there are four moments past. So with regard to seeing consciousness and visible object we cannot say that they arise at the same time. So there are four moments past. So with regard to seeing consciousness and visible object we cannot say that they arise at the same time. We cannot say they arise together. The visible object may be outside of ourselves. It may be our hands, our feet or anything. So they do not arise at the same time and they do not arise together. They are present at the moment that they are related to each other. This is why we cannot have conascence, and when there is no conascence, there can be no mutuality. There is support. What is #10? Prenascence. ‘Prenascence’ means the visible object arises just before the seeing consciousness arises. When seeing consciousness arises, the object has already existed. VipÈka manÈyatana (That means vipÈka consciousness.) relates to vipÈka mind contact (That means contact.). They arise together. Therefore there can be conascence, mutuality and so on. It is like that.

Let’s go to the next one. That is feeling, right? There are six kind of feeling. What are they? Feeling born of eye contact. That really means feeling concomitant with eye contact. You see something and there is seeing consciousness. Along with seeing consciousness there is feeling. That feeling is called ‘feeling born of eye contact’. Then there is feeling born of ear contact, born of nose contact and so on. There are six kinds of feeling here.

Paragraph 230 in the verse it is said:

“But from the nine and eighty feelings

Thirty-two, no more, appear

Associated with result.

And only those are mentioned here.”

By feeling is meant here the mental factor feeling which is concomitant with 32 types of resultant consciousness only. Feeling accompanies every type of consciousness. There are 89 types of consciousness. So we can say there are 89 feelings, but only those feelings concomitant with the 32 resultant consciousness are meant here. We have to take only those 32.

Please look at the handout. Conditioned by contact, feeling arises. So feeling is feeling born of eye contact, etc. Feeling here is feeling concomitant with 32 resultant consciousness. That is to be taken. Eye contact is related to feeling (vedanÈ) dependent on eye base by way of #6, #7, #8 and so on. When you see something, there is seeing consciousness. With seeing consciousness there is contact and there is feeling. They arise at the same time. Therefore contact conditions feeling by way of conascence, mutuality and so on. That is because they arise at the same time and they support each other. This we have to understand.

Mind contact relates to feeling concomitant with tadÈrammaÓa kÈmÈvacara vipÈka. It is technical here. If you look at the list of conditions, you see #6, #7 and so on. When you see #6, #7, you can safely say that they arise at the same time. They are not real cause and effect.

The next one is craving. How many kinds of craving are there? First there are six kinds of craving - craving for visible objects, for sound, for smell and so on. There are six kinds of craving. That is by way of objects. The cravings are for visible data, for sound, for odor, for flavor, for tangible data and for dhamma data.

In paragraph 235 we have the explanation of three kinds of craving - sense-desire craving, and then it is commonly translated as craving for existence and craving for annihilation. We must understand according to this explanation. It is very important because these three words appear in the first sermon also. When Buddha defines the Second Noble Truth he said: It is just this craving which causes rebirth and which takes delight in this life, in that life and so on. The first one is in PÈÄi kÈmÈtaÓhÈ. It is craving for sense desires. The second one is called ‘vibhavataÓhÈ’. It is craving for becoming. In fact ‘craving for becoming’ means craving that is concomitant with the wrong view that things are eternal. That is craving for becoming. It is not simply craving for becoming in reality. It is craving for becoming that is accompanied by the view that things are eternal. The next one is craving for annihilation. That means craving accompanies by the view that everything is annihilated at death. There is no other being. There is no arising as rebirth. This is another division of craving. The first is craving for six objects. Then each of these six can be divided into three, craving for sense desire, craving concomitant with eternalist view, craving concomitant with annihilationist view. These are the three kinds of craving and these are mentioned in the first sermon. Six multiplied by three is 18. Then these 18 can be multiplied by two, internal and external. So we get 36. Then these 36 can belong to the past, to the future, to the present. So 36 plus 36 plus 36, we get 108 kinds of craving. You should be familiar with this because in some Suttas the 108 kinds of craving are mentioned.

How are feeling and craving related? “In one way: it is a condition as decisive support condition only.” They are related by condition as decisive support only. Decisive support condition is the widest of the 24 conditions. If you cannot explain by way of any other condition, you can say they are related by way of decisive support condition. Feeling is a condition for craving by way of decisive support. Decisive support means that they do not arise at the same time.

Then there is another way of explaining. “Or alternatively,

A man in pain for pleasure longs,

And finding pleasure, longs for more;

The peace of equanimity

Is counted pleasure too; therefore

The Greatest Sage announced the law

‘With feeling as condition, craving’

Since all three feelings thus can be

Conditions for all kinds of craving.

Though feeling is condition, still

Without Inherent-tendency

No craving can arise, and so

From this the perfect saint is free.”

Another way of explaining is that when you are in pain, you long for pleasure. You long for pleasant feeling. So feeling can be a condition for craving. You have pain here, and you are attached to pleasant feeling. So pain can cause craving for pleasant feeling. A man finding pleasure, longs for more. If you have a pleasant feeling, you want to keep it. You don’t want it to disappear. There also craving is conditioned by feeling. Then what about neutral feeling? “The peace of equanimity is counted pleasure too.” So it is included in pleasurable feeling if we divide feeling into pleasurable and displeasurable. Since equanimity is included in pleasurable feeling, you may be attached to it. So again feeling is a condition for craving. All these kinds of feelings may be a condition for craving. This is another way of explaining.

Here feeling is a condition for craving means when there is inherent tendency. That means if you do not have inherent tendencies in your mind, even though you have feeling, you do not have craving. For example in the minds of Buddhas and Arahants there is feeling, but they do not have craving. There are no anusaya (inherent tendencies). They have eradicated the liability to get craving.

Here we have to understand the meaning of this link, this phrase. Depending on feeling, there is craving. It does not mean that there is always craving when there is feeling. When there is feeling, there may or there may not be craving. In footnote 40 “Or alternatively, it may be recognized that this condition is accompanied by inherent tendency because it follows upon the words ‘With ignorance as condition’. And with words ‘With feeling as condition, craving’, and not ‘with feeling as condition there is always (not ‘only’) craving’.” We are not to understand that with feeling as condition, there is always craving. There may not be craving.

What about us? We are not Arahants. With mindfulness meditation we can avoid having craving for feelings. Even though we have painful feeling or pleasant feeling, we are mindful of it, and so we do not have craving. This is the only place where we can cut the round of Dependent Origination. The other links we cannot do anything about them. When there is ignorance, there will always be kamma formations. Where there are kamma formations, there will always be consciousness and so on. Here although there is feeling, we can avoid having craving. When this is broken, the other links are also broken. When we practice meditation, we are cutting this wheel of existence at this place.

Student: So craving does not arise?

Teacher: Right. We are mindful. We are saying “pain, pain, pain” or “pleasant, pleasant, pleasant”. But we need strong mindfulness, not just superficial awareness.

Next is clinging. There are four kinds of clinging - sense desire clinging, false view clinging, rite and ritual clinging, and self doctrine clinging. The first one is just sense desire. It is called clinging. The second one is wrong view. The third one is also wrong view, taking rites and rituals as leading to attainment of enlightenment. The self doctrine is the view that there is a self that there is something which lasts forever.

With regard to rite and ritual clinging what is mentioned in our books is in paragraph 241 “for ox asceticism, ox vows, etc., are themselves kinds of clinging, too.” The PÈÄi word here is sÊlabbata. It is translated as rites and rituals. The real meaning in the Suttas and in the explanations given in the Commentaries is not just rites and rituals, but it is called here ‘ox asceticism’. That means behaving like an ox or it may be behaving like a dog. By behaving like an ox, these people believed that they could get rid of craving; they could get rid of attachment and so on. Or behaving like a dog they could get rid of desires and wants. So they adopted such behavior. There were two persons during the time of the Buddha who practiced like this. One was a follower of ox asceticism. The other followed dog asceticism. They went to the Buddha and asked whether their practice was right or wrong. Buddha said “Don’t ask me.” They persisted. In the end the Buddha said that now that you have asked me, so I have to answer. Those who follow dog asceticism will be reborn as dogs. Taking just those as a means to emancipation is what is called ‘rite and ritual clinging’. We can extend that to mean other things. We do chanting, right? All Buddhists do chanting. If we take chanting to be the real way to emancipation, it may be a rite and ritual wrong view. We do chanting. That is for our calmness of mind. But we do not take it to be the only way for emancipation. We bow down before the Buddha. We chant. We even keep precepts. These are something like basic practices for emancipation. But they cannot directly lead us to enlightenment. For enlightenment we have to practice meditation. SatipaÔÔhÈna meditation is said by the Buddha to be the only way to enlightenment. If we take bowing down before the Buddha as the way to enlightenment without practicing meditation, then we may be having this kind of clinging to wrong view. Doing these rites and rituals if they are not carried too far is all right because they make us calm. Our minds can be tranquil so that we can practice meditation. But if we do not practice meditation and just do chanting, and just keep sÊla and so on, then it may be a wrong view. There are these four kinds of craving.

Student: Would you say this is some sort of critique of Confucianism?

Teacher: I don’t know what they practice. The correct view according to the Buddha or the interpretation of the Commentators is that the only way to NibbÈna is satipaÔÔhÈna. It is expressly said at the beginning of the Sutta that this is the only way for the purification of beings and so on. This is the real, correct way to the attainment of enlightenment. If we take others to be the way to the attainment of enlightenment, then we have that wrong view. That is the view that they alone can lead us to enlightenment. For example if we believe sÊla alone can lead us to enlightenment and we do not have to do any meditation, that is a wrong view according to this interpretation.

Let’s go to becoming. There are two kinds of becoming to understand here. In PÈÄi they are called kamma-becoming and bhava-becoming. Paragraph 250 “It becomes, thus it is becoming. That is twofold as kamma-process becoming and rebirth-process becoming.” In this phrase ‘depending upon clinging, birth arises’, here we must understand that becoming means two things. One is kamma-process becoming and the other is rebirth-process becoming. ‘Kamma-process becoming’ simply means kamma. So it is the same as sa~khÈra (mental formations). ‘Rebirth-process becoming’ means rebirth. Because of clinging both can arise. It is explained in detail in this book. Because of clinging sometimes we do good kamma, sometimes we do bad kamma. We want to be reborn in a better world. We think that it is good to be reborn in a better world. So we do meritorious deeds. Or sometimes we may be misdirected. We may kill an animal as a t sacrifice with the belief that we will be reborn in a better existence. Clinging can be a condition for our good or bad actions, our good or bad deeds. That is kamma. As a result of clinging and also as a result of kamma we will be reborn in a better existence or in a worse existence. That is in another becoming. In this link between clinging and becoming we can take it that both kinds of becoming are meant here. Because of clinging there is kamma-becoming and there is also rebirth-becoming. Mental formations and kamma-becoming are the same. They are mental volition (cetanÈ). But the mental formations (sa~khÈra) belong to the past time and here the kamma-process or kamma-becoming belongs to the present time. The time is different. There is a slight difference mentioned in the Visuddhi Magga too.

There are nine kamma becomings given in paragraph #253, #254. In paragraph #261 there is a saying. “For the ordinary man is like a madman.” That is a very famous phrase used in our country. ‘Ordinary man’ means a puthujjana. A puthujjana is like a madman. This phrase is quoted by people very often. If you want to say something about people doing some crazy things, you say “Oh, a puthujjana is like a madman.”

Next is the link between becoming and rebirth. There becoming means just what? Kamma-process becoming. We cannot take becoming to mean rebirth there because it is a condition for rebirth. In the link between clinging and becoming we must take becoming to mean both, kamma-becoming and rebirth-becoming. In the link between becoming and rebirth, becoming is the same as rebirth. That is the difference.

Depending upon rebirth, sorrow, lamentation and so on also arise. They are not explained here because they have been explained in the chapter on the Noble Truths. Next comes the wheel of becoming. So it is explained as a wheel. Ignorance is put at the beginning of this teaching. It is not the beginning of the round of rebirth. It is just the beginning of the teaching. Old age and death are put at the end of this teaching. That does not mean that it is the end of the round of rebirth. That is because when there is old age and death and also sorrow and lamentation and so on, there is also ignorance. If there is no ignorance, there can be no sorrow, lamentation and so on. When we are sorry and we lament for something and are experiencing mental anguish, there is also ignorance. And when there is ignorance, there are mental formations and so on. This wheel of rebirth goes on and on like this. That is why this teaching is called the wheel of rebirth, the wheel of becoming.

There are some things to be understood with regard to this teaching. They are given on another sheet. I don’t know whether you brought those sheets with you. With regard to these twelve links we have to understand the three times or periods, the 12 factors, 20 modes, 3 connections, 4 divisions, 3 rounds, 2 roots. Some of the English words may be different from The Path of Purification. Please write down the paragraphs. For 3 periods it is paragraph #287, for 20 modes it is #293, for 3 connections it is #289, for 4 divisions it is #290, for 3 rounds #298, and for 2 roots it is #285. And then there are four kinds of profundity and four methods with regard to which Dependent Origination is to be understood. These four methods are more important than the four profundities. The Dependent Origination is profound in its meaning, in its teaching and so on. In the kinds of profundity in paragraph #304 profundity of meaning is profundity as to fruit. ‘Meaning’ does not mean the meaning of words, but here the fruit or the results. ‘Profundity of law’ means profundity of causes. Profundity of teaching and profundity of penetration are the same. PaÔicca SamuppÈda is profound as to fruit, as to causes, as to teaching, and also as to penetration. It is very important to penetrate into the essence of each factor in this teaching.

There are four methods of treating the meaning here. That is very good. We have to understand with reference to these four methods. The first is the method of identity. The second is the method of diversity. The third is the method of uninterest. The fourth is the method of ineluctable regularity. These are the four methods by which we must understand the Dependent Origination. The method of identity means there is something like a continuity going on. It is not just disconnected bits. They are connected bits. There is some kind of continuity. Then there is the method of diversity. Although they are a continuity, each one is different from the other. They are actually diverse from one another. The ‘method of uninterest’ means unconcern. AvijjÈ has no concern that it must condition mental formations. And mental formations have no concern that they must produce consciousness and so on. That is called the method of uninterest. The method of ineluctable regularity means that mental formations are only conditioned by ignorance, not by other factors, not by other things. I have had difficulty with this word ‘ineluctable regularity’. I gave talks on PaÔicca SamuppÈda at my retreats and there was not a single dictionary at that place. There were a lot of books, religious books, but no dictionary. So I asked the yogis to tell me the meaning of this. Three people offered me meanings they thought were correct, but they did not have dictionaries either. All of them gave me the wrong meaning. They thought ‘ineleuctable’ was unknowable or something like that. In the dictionary it is said ‘not to be avoided or overcome or inevitable’, so inevitable regularity. That means mental formations can be conditioned by avijjÈ only and so on. These are the four methods.

Actually the first two methods are the most important because we must understand how to explain things. Although we say a being is reborn there, we do not mean that it is identical or that something from one life goes to another life. We have to understand Dependent Origination with at least reference to these two methods, the methods of identity and diversity. So we have to combine these two and understand them. If we take only one, we will fall into one kind of wrong view. These four methods are very important. So we have come to the end of Dependent Origination.