Examining Hetu and Paccaya in Relation to Paṭiccasamuppāda

[Deeele]

@Sylvester

This is obviously incorrect, going by the discussion of the 4 Great Properties and Dependant Origination -

Not so. Dependant Origination is about clinging & ‘rebirth’ and not about the four elements.

[Deeele]

@Sylvester

Thus, bhikkhus, the actuality in this, the inerrancy, the nototherwiseness, specific conditionality ( idappaccayatā ): this is called dependent origination.

This quote is fine. However, I am not sure the translation is correct. I take to state: "this specific [type of] conditionality which is called DO.

@Sylvester

Are you saying that “cause” (hetu) is the same as “root” (mūla)? Do elaborate and why you feel this is relevant to the discussion.

When SN 22.82 states: "These five aggregates subject to clinging, bhikkhu, are rooted in desire.”, it is stating desire is the cause of clinging, which is D.O, the same as MN 28.

@Sylvester

, each of these 2 suttas is taking one aspect of the whirlpool of consciousness with Name-Form.

No they do not. When SN 22.82 states nama-rupa is the cause of consciousness, it is not the whirlpool. If it was the whirlpool, it would say consciousness is the cause of nama-rupa together.

@Sylvester

Just as two sheaves of reeds might stand leaning against each other, so too, with name-and-form as condition, consciousness comes to be; with consciousness as condition, name-and-form comes to be.

Yes. This is fine. But this is not what SN 22.82 is saying in the section on ‘paccaya-hetu’.

@Sylvester

The fact that you’ve avoided my invitation to examine the evidence I have offered by way of MN 26, DN 15, the SN 12.37 pericope

You argument was defeated with AN 10.61. You have completely avoided this.

@Sylvester

We have not even graduated past the idappaccayatā / paṭiccasamuppāda issue, as you have declined to address the suttas I raised. SN 22.82 is relevant in the manner demonstrated above.

It is not really relevant because AN 10.61 defeated your argument the hetu (cause) is the same as paccaya (condition). Its over. Finished.

[Sylvester]

@Deeele

It is not really relevant because AN 10.61 defeated your argument. Its over. Finished.

How odd. I thought you were the one who decided to fall on the stake of Pali chauvinism by rejecting AN 10.61’s Agama parallels which use either hetu or hetu-pratyaya. It seems clear who engineered his own demise.

[Deeele]

@Sylvester

How odd. I thought you were the one who decided to fall on the stake of Pali chauvinism by rejecting AN 10.61’s Agama parallels which use either hetu or hetu-pratyaya. It seems clear who engineered his own demise.

Since when was not taking refuge in Chinese sutras a demise? If the Chinese sutras state the five hindrances are the cause (hetu) of ignorance they must be wrong since the cessation of the five hindrances does not end ignorance. Thus the term ‘nutriment’ (‘ahara’) was used.

[Sylvester]

There you go again. You have not proven that hetu in the early strata means something other than paccaya arranged according to the Waxing Syllables Principle, but insisted on Begging the question by distinguishing the 2. This goes against the consensus of scholars of EBT, eg Kalupahana, Karunadasa. You’re simply applying Abhidhamma, be it Theravadin, Sarvastivadin or Yogacarin.

[Deeele]

@Sylvester

There you go again. You have not proven that hetu in the early strata means something other than paccaya arranged according to the Waxing Syllables Principle, but insisted on Begging the question by distinguishing the 2. This goes against the consensus of scholars of EBT, eg Kalupahana, Karunadasa. You’re simply applying Abhidhamma, be it Theravadin, Sarvastivadin or Yogacarin.

To be honest, I do not really care. I use the teaching primarily for practice rather than for debate. I do not ‘self-identify’ with scholarship thus concoct it as a cause for aging-&-death.

I might investigate the ‘hetu’ usages another time, since I am busy now.

[Sylvester]

So it now boils down to the Appeal to Personal Preference?

[Deeele]

@Sylvester

So it now boils down to the Appeal to Personal Preference?

What ‘person’? There is no person.

That said, ‘paccaya’ makes sense. You need to prove why it was used in AN 10.61 and D.O. instead of ‘hetu’. Your whole obstacle is the Pali suttas are against your argument and they did exist well before the Chinese.

[Sylvester]

The standard explanation for usage of Waxing Syllables was that it increases the mnemonic value of a phrase.

[Deeele]

@Sylvester

The standard explanation for usage of Waxing Syllables was that it increases the mnemonic value of a phrase.

Why don’t you provide examples of the Pali where ‘hetu’ is used exclusively and we can work from there.

[Sylvester]

You are the one insisting that hetu is different from paccaya, and you expect me to do your work? Nice try

[Deeele]

@Sylvester

You are the one insisting that hetu is different from paccaya, and you expect me to do your work?

Well, I am not an accomplished ‘scholar’ like you. For each person, certain work comes naturally & much more easily. Thus, as Buddhists, we give generously according to our own capacity.

OK. I will offer the quotes below. Your turn next.

he conceives [things] coming out of earth, he conceives earth as ‘mine,’ he delights in earth. Why is that (Taṃ kissa hetu?)? Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.

Ko nu kho brāhmaṇa, hetu, ko paccayo, yaṃ tiṭṭhateva rājagahaṃ tiṭṭhati rājagahagāmī maggo, tiṭṭhati tvaṃ samādapetā.

What is the cause, good Gotama, what the reason that; since nibbana does exist, since the way leading to nibbana exists, since the good Gotama exists as adviser, some of the good Gotama’s disciples on being exhorted thus and instructed thus by the good Gotama, attain the unchanging goal — nibbana, but some do not attain it?" MN 107

Puna caparaṃ, sāriputta, tathāgato atītā­nāgata­pac­cup­pan­nā­naṃ kamma­sa­mādā­nā­naṃ ṭhānaso hetuso vipākaṃ yathābhūtaṃ pajānāti. Yampi, sāriputta, tathāgato atītā­nāgata­pac­cup­pan­nā­naṃ kamma­sa­mādā­nā­naṃ ṭhānaso hetuso vipākaṃ yathābhūtaṃ pajānāti, idampi, sāriputta, tathāgatassa tathāgatabalaṃ hoti yaṃ balaṃ āgamma tathāgato āsabhaṃ ṭhānaṃ paṭijānāti, parisāsu sīhanādaṃ nadati, brahmacakkaṃ pavatteti.

11. (2) "Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is the results of actions undertaken, past, future and present, with possibilities and with causes. That too is a Tathagata’s power… MN 12

Here is another one. How does it sound by substituting ‘hetu’ (‘cause’) instead of paccaya (‘support’)?

‘Cause’ for the sick versus ‘support for the sick’? Different meaning, it seems. Or is this not relevant?

Imehi ca pana, bhikkhave, tīhi puggalehi imassa puggalassa natthañño puggalo bahukāroti vadāmi. Imesaṃ pana, bhikkhave, tiṇṇaṃ puggalānaṃ iminā puggalena na suppatikāraṃ vadāmi, yadidaṃ abhi­vāda­na­pac­cuṭ­ṭhā­na­añjali­kamma­sāmīci­kamma­cīvara­piṇḍa­pāta­se­nāsa­na­gilāna pac­ca­ya ­bhesaj­ja­parik­khā­rā­nuppadā­nenā”ti.

I say, bhikkhus, that there is no one more helpful to another person than these three persons. I say, too, that it is not easy to repay these three persons by paying homage to them, by rising up for them, by reverential salutation, by proper conduct, and by presenting them with robes, almsfood, lodging, and medicines and provisions for the sick.”

[Sylvester]

@Deeele

Ko nu kho brāhmaṇa, hetu, ko paccayo, yaṃ tiṭṭhateva rājagahaṃ tiṭṭhati rājagahagāmī maggo, tiṭṭhati tvaṃ samādapetā.

You missed out the paccaya hidden right next to the hetu

Now, even if this passage omitted paccaya, the sutta makes it clear that not everyone will make it, a point i shall return to later with SN 12.61 below. As it stands, MN 107 which you cite does not support your interpretation of hetu.

@Deeele

11. (2) "Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is the results of actions undertaken, past, future and present, with possibilities and with causes. That too is a Tathagata’s power… MN 12

Your point being? Are you saying the kamma inevitably “causes” results in a deterministic manner? This to me looks like a statement that there is nothing experienced that is without a cause, bringing us right back to the necessity of paccaya.

@Deeele

he conceives [things] coming out of earth, he conceives earth as ‘mine,’ he delights in earth. Why is that (Taṃ kissa hetu?)? Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.

Now, this is a very common idiom for “why”. We see it employed in SN 12.61 as follows -

_ assutavā, bhikkhave, puthujjano imasmiṃ ­cātuma­hā­bhū­tikas­miṃ kāyasmiṃ nibbindeyyapi virajjeyyapi vimucceyyapi. Taṃ kissa hetu? Dissati, bhikkhave, imassa ­cātuma­hā­bhū­tikassa kāyassa ācayopi apacayopi ādānampi nikkhepanampi. Tasmā tatrāssutavā puthujjano nibbindeyyapi virajjeyyapi vimucceyyapi._

The 3 final verbs are all in the optative, indicating possibility but not certainty. How will the optative accomodate your theory of “cause”?

@Deeele

‘Cause’ for the sick versus ‘support for the sick’? Different meaning, it seems. Or is this not relevant?

Imehi ca pana, bhikkhave, tīhi puggalehi imassa puggalassa natthañño puggalo bahukāroti vadāmi. Imesaṃ pana, bhikkhave, tiṇṇaṃ puggalānaṃ iminā puggalena na suppatikāraṃ vadāmi, yadidaṃ abhi­vāda­na­pac­cuṭ­ṭhā­na­añjali­kamma­sāmīci­kamma­cīvara­piṇḍa­pāta­se­nāsa­na­gilāna pac­ca­ya ­bhesaj­ja­parik­khā­rā­nuppadā­nenā”ti.
I say, bhikkhus, that there is no one more helpful to another person than these three persons. I say, too, that it is not easy to repay these three persons by paying homage to them, by rising up for them, by reverential salutation, by proper conduct, and by presenting them with robes, almsfood, lodging, and medicines and provisions for the sick.”

Pls offer the sutta number in future. This can be found in ÀN 3.24. That whole phrase appears to be Vinaya in origin meaning “requisites for the sick”, preserving its connection to paccaya being a necessary condition.

[Deeele]

@Sylvester

You missed out the paccaya hidden right next to the hetu

I did not miss anything. If hetu & paccaya had the same meaning why would both words be used? The use of both words would merely show the context is appropriate for both hetu & paccaya.

@Sylvester

Your point being? Are you saying the kamma inevitably “causes” results in a deterministic manner?

Not really. It is more a ‘direct’ manner, i.e., ‘the primary cause’ rather than a ‘supporting condition’.

This was discussed many times. The body is a supporting condition for malaria but not the cause of malaria.

@Sylvester

This to me looks like a statement that there is nothing experienced that is without a cause, bringing us right back to the necessity of paccaya.

Not at all. While the general principle you have described is correct, it does not make hetu & paccaya synonymous in all contexts. I already posted new times that paccaya (condition) can certainly indicate cause (hetu) but hetu does not always indicate paccaya, such as in AN 10.61.

@Sylvester

Now, this is a very common idiom for “why”.

So why is paccaya not used as an idiom for ‘why’?

@Sylvester

This can be found in ÀN 3.24. That whole phrase appears to be Vinaya in origin meaning “requisites for the sick”, preserving its connection to paccaya being a necessary condition.

Its AN 3.24. “Supporting causes (hetu) for the sick”

@Sylvester

What might I mean by #2? Simply asserting that idappaccayatā is not paṭiccasamuppāda because of SN 22.82, and when pressed on SN 22.82, you assert that SN 22.82 cannot be about paṭiccasamuppāda because the relevant passage was discussing idappaccayatā and not paṭiccasamuppāda. Surely we can do better than this fallacy of petitio principii?

To end. I am concerned with what is true & beneficial rather than any personal opinions. If I considered your views on the substantive issues you discussed to be correct, namely, (i) ‘kaya’ in the final paragraph of SN 12.25; (ii) AN 10.61; (iii) ‘idappaccayatā’ in itself is paṭiccasamuppāda; & (iv) ‘hetu’ (‘cause’) is a synonymous with ‘paccaya’ (‘condition’), I would acknowledge it and thank you gratefully for your dhamma gift.

However, that is not the case. I think the very SN 22.82 you provided as the basis of your argument itself defeated your own argument.

I can only suggest you consider why ‘hetu’ was specifically added to & used in the part of SN 22.82 quote below? The reason probably is, as I pointed out, that the following paragraph is about not about paṭiccasamuppāda.

Saying, “Good, venerable sir,” that bhikkhu … asked the Blessed One a further question:

“What is the cause and condition, venerable sir, for the manifestation of the form aggregate? What is the cause and condition for the manifestation of the feeling aggregate?… for the manifestation of the perception aggregate?… for the manifestation of the volitional formations aggregate?… for the manifestation of the consciousness aggregate?” SN 22.82

The four great elements, bhikkhu, are the cause and condition for the manifestation of the form aggregate. Contact is the cause and condition for the manifestation of the feeling aggregate. Contact is the cause and condition for the manifestation of the perception aggregate. Contact is the cause and condition for the manifestation of the volitional formations aggregate. Name-and-form is the cause and condition for the manifestation of the consciousness aggregate.”

For example, the following verses from MN 26, Iti 44, AN 4.41 & MN 43 show how contact is the cause and condition for the manifestation of the feeling aggregate, contact is the cause and condition for the manifestation of the perception aggregate & contact is the cause and condition for the manifestation of the volitional formations aggregate. Yet the following verses from MN 26, Iti 44, AN 4.41 & MN 43 are certainly not about paṭiccasamuppāda, nor are they specifically about paṭiccasanirodha; but they are certainly about idappaccayatā (i.e. contact being the hetu for the mere cognitive process of feeling, perception & thinking).

Then, having understood Brahma’s invitation, out of compassion for beings, I surveyed the world with the eye of an Awakened One. As I did so, I saw beings with little dust in their eyes and those with much, those with keen faculties and those with dull, those with good attributes and those with bad, those easy to teach and those hard, some of them seeing disgrace & danger in the other world. MN 26

Here a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden, attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. Iti 44

And what is the development using concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness & clear comprehension? There is the case where feelings are known to the monk as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Perceptions are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Thoughts are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. AN 4.41

Discernment & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It’s not possible, having separated them one from the other, to delineate the difference between them. For what one discerns, that one cognizes. What one cognizes, that one discerns. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference between them. MN 43

That is my final post on this thread. We have reached no agreement & unlikely ever will . If you wish to believe the Buddha used the word ‘kaya’ in the place of ‘kāya­sañ­ceta­nā­hetukāya’ in the last paragraph of SN 12.25 despite the Buddha specifically using ‘kaya’, ‘kāya­sañ­ceta­nā­hetukāya’ & ‘kayasankhara’ elsewhere in the same sutta, you are free to.

Regards