I’m trying to understand the precise distinction between nidanam and samudayo. Looking to the Sanskrit, the deepest root meanings (binding vs. aggregation) aren’t that helpful. The developed meanings suggest the former is more like the motive cause and the latter is more like the productive cause.
Is this correct? Could one make a helpful analogy with Aristotle’s Final Cause (the goal or intent) for the former and Efficient Cause (productive force or process) for the latter?
“samudaya” doesn’t mean “cause” at all.
In the Noble Truth, it means simply “arising.” The point is that suffering is not a primordial, all-pervasive, eternal fact of existence. Suffering is a conditioned phenomenon which has a definitive “origination.”
Hope that helps?
I’m looking at this passage, AM 3111
“Tīṇimāni, bhikkhave, nidānāni kammānaṁ samudayāya.Katamāni tīṇi?Lobho nidānaṁ kammānaṁ samudayāya, doso nidānaṁ kammānaṁ samudayāya, moho nidānaṁ kammānaṁ samudayāya.Yaṁ, bhikkhave, lobhapakataṁ kammaṁ lobhajaṁ lobhanidānaṁ lobhasamudayaṁ,
“Mendicants, there are these three sources that give rise to deeds.What three?Greed, hate, and delusion are sources that give rise to deeds.Any deed that emerges from greed, hate, or delusion—born, sourced, and originated . . .
the two terms here are translated as “sourced,and originated”. Of course “arising from” “sourced” and “originated” are pretty much synonymous in English. My question is, does
lobhanidānaṁ lobhasamudayaṁ
repeat the same idea in different words for emphasis, or do we have two different concepts?
Yeah, in that sentence it’s just an intensifier, using near synonyms to make the meaning really clear. That’s how I would read it at least
