Asaṅkhata = Deconstructed?

[Dogen]

This post was originally a reply to Bhante @Sunyo, but I thought it merited its own thread.

Regarding Asaṅkhata meaning “Unconditioned” in Bhante @Sujato’s translations:

@Sunyo

So asankhata refers to the ending of things, to the things that no longer exist after extinguishment. It is not a descriptor of nibbāna itself

But Bhante, isn’t it?

Yāvatā, bhikkhave, dhammā saṅkhatā vā asaṅkhatā vā, virāgo tesaṁ aggamakkhāyati, yadidaṁ madanimmadano pipāsavinayo ālayasamugghāto vaṭṭupacchedo taṇhākkhayo virāgo nirodho nibbānaṁ.

For the sense of “arrived through conditions”.

Sn 43.12 says:

Iti kho, bhikkhave, desitaṁ vo mayā asaṅkhataṁ, desito asaṅkhatagāmimaggo

And Sn 43.2 couldn’t be any more clear:

And what is the unconditioned?
Katamañca, bhikkhave, asaṅkhataṁ?
The ending of greed, hate, and delusion.
Yo, bhikkhave, rāgakkhayo dosakkhayo mohakkhayo

So, Asaṅkhata = Nibbāna.

@Sunyo

To get back to the initial topic, I think the Dhammapada verses also support these ideas. Once a house is demolished/deconstructed (visankhata), we don’t describe it as “unconstructed” or even “no longer constructed”.

But we do! Foe example, if someone’s behaving badly, we say “That’ll be the unmaking of you”. Or, for example, they’re completely unhinged (another such term!), we say “They’re unmade.” This is also used literally: Unmaking of this house, this house is unmade, etc.

Or, Unhinged = Person whose hinges are loose / removed, it doesn’t mean “having no hinges leading up to it”.

Therefore I think there’s absolutely the sense of Unconstructed meaning “The constructs having been removed”, and that’s literally what Nirvana is, the fire being put out.

I think a problem occurs because we associate “Conditioned” with “That which has conditions leading towards it” (like asaṅkhatagāmimaggo), but perhaps that’s a wrong way to go about it.

Conditioned is a loose term - it can mean both “has conditions leading to it” but also “bearing conditions”; and the word carries the ambiguity in its negative.

Since both asaṅkhata and saṅkhata have conditions leading up to it, perhaps the better distinction is to call them “Constructed / Deconstructed”.

But, still “Unconditioned” absolutely signified “[That which has] Conditions Removed”.

[Pasanna]

@Dogen

But, still “Unconditioned” absolutely signified “[That which has] Conditions Removed”.

Deconditioned?
Maybe not a word that my autocorrect knows, but it speaks to the process of removing all that greed, hate and delusion by using other skilful conditions.

[Madhu]

@Dogen

Conditioned is a loose term - it can mean both “has conditions leading to it” but also “bearing conditions”; and the word carries the ambiguity in its negative.

This seems to summarise the issue quite well, in my understanding…

[knigarian]

@Dogen

Since both asaṅkhata and saṅkhata have conditions leading up to it, perhaps the better distinction is to call them “Constructed / Deconstructed”.

Perhaps it is due to my weak English, but I think only what was constructed can be deconstructed. But asankhata dhatu wasn’t constructed. Only the way to realisation is determined. When sun isn’t seen due to clouds, one has to do something with clouds, but sun as such is there with or without clouds. Only obstacles to realisation of asankhata dhatu can be deconstructed.

@Dogen

So, Asaṅkhata = Nibbāna.

Unfortunately it isn’t always the case. “Whatever one feels counts as suffering” is stated regarding impermanence of sankharas. But there is also the way of removing all sankharas, by the gradual cessation of them, with final cessation of perception and feeling. It means that cessation of perception and feeling = realisation of asankhata dhatu. But we know that one who emerged from the cessation still can be non-returner. If asankhata dhatu was totally synonymous with nibbana, anyone who emerged from the cessation of perception and feeling should be the arahat.

But of course in the most cases asankhata dhatu stands for nibbana.

[Sunyo]

Hi!

I phrased myself clumsily, I suppose. I know that asankhata refers to nibbana. What I meant is, it describes what nibbana is not. It merely refers to the absence of “non-nibbana” things, we can say. It’s not some inherent quality of nibbana in its own right.

Anyway, my main issue is whether sankhata means ‘conditioned’ and/or ‘constructed’. These don’t mean the same.

I agree @knigarian that ‘deconstructed’ implies that nibbana was constructed before. So that doesn’t really work.