To be clearer: The Noble Path does not produce nirvana as a result; it removes the causes that prevent its realization. That’s a subtle but very important distinction.
Warm regards,
Peter
1 Like
First, one needs to know (jānāti) and see (passati)
phenomena (the five aggregates/sense objects) as they really are as anicca: sankhata
Next, one should also need to know and see phenomena as they really are as neither arising (existence) nor ceasing (non-existence): asankhata.
“The compounded ‘sankhata’ is arising, persisting, changing, passing away. The uncompounded ‘asankhata’ is not arisng, not persisting, not changing, not passing away” (p. 198 in The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism).
Cf.:
The noble Path is a Path of Purification. Of morals, of mind/heart, of knowledge and vision etc.
AN1.51 describes the principe. Defilements are always adventitious, like salt in water. This means that they can be removed from the water. One needs skillful means to do this. But if one has removed the salt, it is, of course, not like this that one has created or produced the natural qualities of pure water. It’s clearless, its coolness, etc.
The same with the Path. While the Path removes the defilements, the natural qualities of a pure mind/heart become apparant. Its coolness, its clarity, its subtlety, its peacefulness, its unburdeness, its pliantness etc.
What is caused in both cases? The removal of the defilements in an ultimate en definitive sense. In the texts this is the role of seeing with wisdom.
What is not caused in both cases? 1. The natural clear, cool qualities of purified water. 2. The natural clear, cool, peaceful, unburdened nature of purified mind/heart.
It is arrived at, or like @PeterC86 says: it is realised.
It is not that we as practioners produce or create the natural clarity of mind, for example. It is just minds nature. But adventitious defilements shroud this natural clarity like clouds the light of the sun. If the clouds are removed, one has not produced the light of the sun. It becomes apparant. Likewise, when defilements are progressively removed minds/hearts peaceful and clear nature becomes more and more apparant. I believe this means that the asankhata element becomes more apparant.
If defilements are not removed, those natural qualities remain also hidden. But that does not mean that we create or produce those qualities.
So, there is no contradiction in being engaged in the practise of purifying heart/mind and removal of adventitious defilements, AND not producing or creating the natural qualities of a purified mind/heart (its clearness, its subtlety, its pliantness, its coolness (extinguished nature), its unburdeness.
If a dentist removes plaque on some teeth he also does not really produce or create the natural whiteness and lustre of that teeth. He makes it apparant again.
Likewise, The Buddha did not create or produce the ultimate peace he sought (MN26) and realised. But he arrived at it by removal of defilements by wisdom.
Because most people suffer from defiled minds and hearts the cool, peaceful, extinguished nature remains hidden. That is why most people seek relief from this dukkha in something external and do not aim at removal of defilement to end suffering. They do not see that purifying mind and heart is the Path.
From the perspective of purification there is not really a problem in 1. being caused (removal of defilements must really happen) , and 2. the natural qualities of a purified heart/mind becoming more and more apparant. These natural qualities are not caused or produced by the removal of defilements. They become apparant.
Hope this helps.
1 Like
- Air that’s too hot is “conditioned” to be pleasant for humans.
- Hair that’s dry and stringy is “conditioned” to make it nice.
- Food that’s in a raw state is “processed” to make it edible.
It’s not that different.
3 Likes
Thanks Bhante 
I see your point. But then, is nibbana “unconditioned” in the same sense that air or hair is unconditioned? Is it something “unprocessed”?
Or does this meaning not apply in this case?
The other problem also remains, of course, that ‘conditioned’ can also mean ‘subject to conditions’.
(Sorry if I’m overly challenging. But it’s an important term that has been understood in various ways.)
2 Likes
Certainly quite different.
Nibbana is not something which hasn’t received enough conditioning.
If I don’t exercise enough I become un-conditioned, but I don’t get closer to Nibbana.
2 Likes
The last part of the sutta says: “ If a mendicant doesn’t approve, welcome, and keep clinging to them, their consciousness doesn’t have that as support and fuel for grasping. A mendicant free of grasping becomes extinguished. That’s the cause, that’s the reason why some sentient beings are fully extinguished in this very life.”
I see it like this:
The medicant without the three fires of lobha, dosa, moha is called extinguished (cooled). He/she has no consciousness with a support or fuel for grasping anymore. But still has consciousness. That consciousness is not his/her creation.
So, consciouness or knowing, can function in different ways according SN35.118. When it functions in a way that there is no support for grasping, that consciousness or knowing does not become emotionally, instinctively, habitually engaged with what is known. It is now said to be freed. Liberated. But we do not produce consciousness. The Path does not produce consciousness. It changes the way consciousness functions. We can change the way things are cognized. In the way things are cognised there is freedom or fettering.
Hope this is of use.
That consciousness is not his/her creation.
The Path does not produce consciousness. It changes the way consciousness functions.
I agree that consciousness is not “created” from nothing per se, but it is most certainly conditioned by willful decisions in the aggregates. The aggregate consciousness is impermanent and isn’t the N8FP all about change?
1 Like
I don’t see how your observation has anything to do with the topic of this thread – the translation of asaṅkhata.
Bhikkhu Sunyo builds a case which requires discussion of other pāli terms also translated as the past participle conditioned. It feels like your post is a digression into irrelevant speculations.
4 Likes
Hi, Ajahn! 
Thanks for the note.
I agree that (1) saṅkhata and kata are often synonyms, exactly as saṅkhāra and kamma are basically synonyms, and that (2) ‘conditioned’ doesn’t seem a very suitable translation choice when saṅkhata refers to the products of kamma. Maybe there are other contexts where ‘conditioned’ is suitable, but none come to mind.
You don’t ‘condition’ a house; you build one — as in the verse on the house-builder, for example. Same with food. In English, you don’t ‘condition’ food; you make it, cook it, fix it, prepare it.
I also think it makes the word much simpler and straightforward if we relate to it as just things that are produced or made (by craving/kamma, especially). This isn’t an argument that that’s the right meaning, but just one benefit over ‘conditioned,’ in my opinion.
4 Likes
Hello Bhante!
If I understand your arguments correctly, then we have a sense of “Produced / Destruction” kind of dichotomy for Sankhata/Asankhata. Sounds kind of counter intuitive but here it is:
Because:
Sankhata - these are the results of making, things that are made, hence produced
Asankhata - this is Nirvana. Nirvana isn’t something that once existed that is now destroyed - The fires and poisons are destroyed, but they are not the asankhata, and I don’t think they’re explained as such. So, the proper translation I think would be something like Destruction, the end result and state.
And again, what’s actually unconditioned (in the sense of de-conditioned) according to Bhante Sujato’s allegories would be the fires, the poisons, etc, which is not the case.
Something weird like Unconditioning / Unconditionment, referring to there being nothing conditioned things left. Or again, perhaps simply, “Destruction”. 
What do you think?
2 Likes
Hi! I think your point on ‘destruction’ being a better term than ‘destroyed’ seems true, but I’d lean towards the negative, like ‘without anything produced, without anything constructed’ or ‘the absence of what is constructed.’ I think ‘destruction’ may imply too much beyond the negation, but it could also work.
In broader terms, it seems the meaning is that Nibbāna is the ending of dependent arising, the absence of kamma-results. When the suttas say that the asaṅkhata is the ending of greed, hatred, & delusion, I take this to be a creative use of the word drawing on the fact that greed/hate/delusion are what make saṁsāra.
I don’t think ‘asaṅkhata’ means that Nibbāna is un-caused, despite that being the case or not. Whether Nibbāna is uncaused or not, I just don’t think that’s what the word refers to. It seems clear enough that saṅkhata refers to effects of dependent arising, the various aspect of a being that are constructed by kamma. Asaṅkhata, like ajāta, would be the absence of that. As you say:
Not sure if that exactly addresses your point. Apologies for no sutta references.
2 Likes
This bit from Ven. Nanavira’s short note on nibbāna can be helpful:
In the Asankhata Samyutta (i,1 & ii,23 <S.iv,359&371>) we read Yo bhikkhave rāgakkhayo dosakkhayo mohakkhayo, idam vuccati bhikkhave asankhatam/nibbānam; (‘The destruction, monks, of lust, of hate, of delusion—this, monks, is called (the) non-determined/extinction.’)
By opting for ‘non-determined’ we bypass the ambiguity problems with the word ‘conditioned’ .
3 Likes
I don’t find a problem with conditioned. Ignorance is the fundamental cause of suffering. It is ignorance that conditions or transforms/alters our experience.
As long as we are under this influence then everything we do - including practice of the path - is conditioned by ignorance.
But the result of the path - the cessation of ignorance - by definition cannot be conditioned (by ignorance). Unconditioned seems a reasonable term to me.
Am i missing something here?
Yes, see the discussion about the term earlier in this thread.
I don’t think it is really a problem, from Suttas it should be clear that the two elements, sankhata and asankhata refer unambiguously to what has arisen due to certain conditions therefore is determined, and to what is present, but since has no visible beginning, end and change, as un-determined is present eternally. So the problem is rather whether one is ready to acknowledge that such “thing” - give more suitable word is you wish – actually can be realised, that eternal peace of heart which goes beyond being/ not being dialectic is possible to attain.
If not, there is no reason to discuss more subtle linguistics points by these two camps, belivers and non- belivers, since they simply do belive in quite different ideas.
1 Like
In English, the words ‘conditioned’ and ‘conditioning’ have multiple meanings, hence the bulk of this thread. I wouldn’t describe it as “subtle linguistics,” but rather an attempt to convey a meaning of something very hard to understand. In fact, by discussing it we can hone our understanding.
I also don’t think it really has anything to do with “belivers and non-belivers.” By debating the rendering of a Pali word we are not disputing the goal of Buddhist practice.
It’s a case of a word being used in a new context to create a new meaning, but it obviously has strong connotations that are similar. I think that for Indian Buddhists, it was the opposite of creating a birth in the heavens by making merit. It’s a “natural” “unmade” kind of afterlife. The Western Buddhist interpretation of nirvana as “merely cessation” isn’t really supported by most of the ancient Buddhist tradition. It was clearly considered a kind of afterlife, but not a heavenly or karmically created one.
3 Likes
Thank you for your contribution!
I think this sort of highlights one of the main “issues” at stake here with translating this word (and also related words). Forgive me if I’m wrong, but even if I am, other people certainly do approach translating in this way. The approach you mentioned is a bit like this:
Step 1: What kind of metaphysical thing is Nibbāna?
Step 2: How does ‘asankhata’ express that?
So then we translate the word in order to express a pre-conceived idea of what philosophical baggage we want a single word to convey. So ‘asankhata’ becomes ‘that which is ever-present without change, beginning, or end’ and the translation choice is just trying to fit that idea into English terms that could be justified as translating ‘asankhata.’
I think that often a better approach is:
Step 1: What does the word mean?
Step 2: How can we best express that?
This is why I mentioned in my post above ‘whether Nibbāna is uncaused or not.’ Because whatever your view of the metaphysical nature of Nibbāna is, the word itself can carry many different meanings; and we should be fitting our understanding to what the Buddha said, rather than fitting what the Buddha said to our understanding.
Take the word ‘ajāta.’ Even if we don’t ascribe it a meaning like “unborn, eternal reality,” and we translate it instead as “the absence of anything born,” well that doesn’t exclude the first understanding. An eternal reality would still entail the absence of anything born. And the same goes for the people who don’t think Nibbāna is an eternal presence. So a less presumptuous translation leaves room for interpretation, but has a clear and direct meaning.
We could also make the case that we should try and opt for the translation which has the least extra philosophical baggage. So a term which is simple and straightforward, not putting the entirety of Buddhist philosophy on the shoulders of a tiny word. Now, we might not all agree to that approach, but I think it’s reasonable that we at least to consider what baggage we might be adding when reflecting on these words.
Of course, for people who actually do translation, you can’t so simply divide how you understand things from how you translate. But to the best of our ability, we should try to be listening to the text and investigating where we might be assuming something beyond what is meant if we want to offer accurate translations of the original message.
6 Likes
To boil this down, I think we can say- ‘are we translating the word ‘nibbana’ or ‘asankhata’ ‘?
1 Like