Dependent origination

What is the origin of delusion? Do we think of it as an impermanent sankhara but part of which khanda?

The hindrances are the basis for ignorance.

1 Like

Avijja is in SN12.20 indeed described as:…“impermanent, conditioned, dependently originated, liable to end, vanish, fade away, and cease”…all these factors of DO are called…“the dependently originated phenomena”.

Based upon MN9 and AN6.63 combined one can say that asava and avijja co-exist or are mutual dependend. If one arises the other arises. If one ceases the other ceases.

I feel asava is a bit difficult concept: There is kamasava, bhavasava, avijjasava and sometimes also
ditthasava is mentioned.

It looks like it refers to a kind of deep fermentationproces, welling up from deep and tending to hijack mind and wisdom. While the mind becomes fermented, disturbed by those impulses, those bubbles, agitated, under influence of those formations, its natural wisdom and sensitivity gets lost. Wisdom weakens. I think that is the idea of their mutual dependence.

I would think they are, while arising, part of sankhara khandha?

1 Like

AN 10.61 is also applicable to this question and uses the term ‘āhāra’ as a type of ‘paccayā’.

1 Like

“What is the cause, what is the reason why delusion arises and once arisen it increases and grows?’ Unradical attention.”-AN 3.68
It is an impermanent formation sankhara. It is not part of any aggregate khanda. But it arises as part of name nama along with form rupa. As part of name, it is called attention manasikāra. DN15.
With Metta

1 Like

I think we must investigate if avijja and moha can be seen and used as synonyms in DO.

“Unradical attention”.

Is this a typical translation choice? If so, it should probably be glossed with the Latin word ‘radix’ (root), otherwise it likely will be understood in somekind of political context. Like, ‘not-extreme’ attention.

thank you. how do I understand the translation unradical attention?

Translators have not unanimously agreed on this translation. But, afaik, ayoniso is the opposite of yoniso which is the root, source, beginning etc.,. In the context of attention, it means going to the root or the very beginning. And, in the context of name & form, it means knowing how name & form originate along with consciousness.
Ayoniso therefore means not knowing how name & form originate with consciousness as a result of which the aggregates are grasped with a sense of ownership as “This is mine, this I am, this is myself”. Not knowing is the delusion.
Radical, according to is “of or going to the root or origin” which closely matches with what the Pali word intends.
Hope this helps.
With Metta

1 Like

How should we treat yoniso manasi √kar? - Q & A - Discuss & Discover (
The above link by Bhante Sujato discusses this in detail.
With Metta

Yes, ‘yoniso’ is literally ‘from the womb’ (an ablative adverb form), with the sense being from the very root, to it’s base, as it really is.
This is why it is typically translated as ‘wise attention’.


Moha seems to be mostly tranlated as delusion.
Avijja as ignorance.

Moha is not mentioned in DO, avijja is.

Is there a difference in moha and avijja?

[quoMote=“Green, post:12, topic:25804”]
Is there a difference in moha and avijja?

Moha delusion as a not-knowing is what causes ignorance avijjha. Delusion is like darkness that makes things invisible. Not knowing the four noble truths or ignorance is similarly obscured by the darkness of delusion.
With Metta