Dear Ajahn Brahmali
Thank you so much for taking time to address my queries! I do apologise if I am unfamiliar with the functional buttons, so please excuse the inability to use the quotation boxes. I’ve instead bolded the parts of your reply which I hope to discuss.
(1) Do you mean that “with ABC as condition” is a better translation because it implies that ABC is a necessary condition for what follows, and that this necessity does not follow from the translation “conditioned by ABC”?
Yes, that was the general drift I was getting at. “Conditioned by ABC” does not make it evident that ABC was a necessary condition, and instead makes it appear that ABC might be a sufficient cause for the sequel.
Well, there are two aspects to kamma, one being the accumulated kamma from the past and the other kamma as an active force at any particular time. Kamma as an active force is equivalent to sankhāra, and as such it is both a necessary and sufficient condition for rebirth.
I have little difficulty accepting that sankhāra is a necessary condition for rebirth. However, it might appear from AN 3.76 that sankhāra alone does not suffice to bring about rebirth. Apparently, consciousness needs to be “established” (patiṭṭhita) in a particular bhava in order for rebirth to come about. I think this is perhaps related to your point that -
I believe this connection is evident in at least a couple of ways. The link between sankhāra and viññāṇa shows not only that the relationship between them is one of necessity, but also that the station of consciousness (viññāṇaṭṭhiti) in any particular life depends on the sankhāras of previous lives.
What I am looking at in terms of just a plain linguistic analysis of EACH nidāna in Dependant Origination is whether or not each nidāna exemplifies only a necessary condition, or whether each nidāna exemplifies both a necessary and sufficient condition. If we adopt the interpretation that sankhāra is a necessary and sufficient condition for rebirth, that is not so apparent from just the nidāna “saṅkhārapaccayā viññāṇaṃ”. One will actually need 2 nidānas (ie saṅkhārapaccayā viññāṇaṃ and bhavapaccayā jāti) to give rise to the certainty that intentions will act as a sufficient cause for rebirth.
Which is why I like very much the 2nd suggestion you offered -
But there is also a second way, I think, that this connection is made. In the linkage of upādāna and bhava, upādāna represents kamma being made through ethical choices. We take things up and hold on to them, and this constitutes ethical action. The result of this is that we exist in a certain way, which is how I understand bhava. Existence in a certain way implies habits and a certain way of doing things. Volition must be a part of this, that is, we make habitual kamma dependent on the upādāna in the previous link. (So both upādāna and bhava are kammically active.) But the fact that bhava is used to represent this link, instead of for instance cetanā, probably means that bhava has a broader meaning that also includes our experience, and especially its feeling tone. If this is correct, then dependent origination also establishes a link between kamma and results that are experienced in the same life.
This habituation of kamma (and of our experiences) is probably the closest to the idea of the establishment of consciousness or the station of consciousness, which I think must refer to bhava.
If we take the nidāna of “saṅkhārapaccayā viññāṇaṃ” as importing a necessary and sufficient condition, other nidānas in Dependant Origination would end up being somewhat irregular. Eg the nidāna “saḷāyatanapaccayā phasso” (since MN 28 suggests that attention is also needed for consciousness to arise). Likewise, the nidāna “vedanāpaccayā taṇhā” might be invariably true for worldlings, but Trainees who practise sense-retraint are able to arrest craving.
Thank you again for your time and patience!
With metta
S