Paṭic­ca­samup­pāda vs paṭic­ca­samup­panne? How do they differ?

Dear forum

SN 12.20 states:

Paṭic­ca­samup­pādañca vo, bhikkhave, desessāmi paṭic­ca­samup­panne ca dhamme. Taṃ suṇātha, sādhukaṃ manasi karotha, bhāsissāmī

At Savatthī. “Bhikkhus, I will teach you dependent origination and dependently arisen phenomena. Listen and attend closely, I will speak.”

SN 12.2 asks the question: “What is paṭic­ca­samup­pādo?” and answers with the 12 conditions.

However other suttas, when describing lesser causal relationships, such as MN 38, where it discusses consciousness & the sense spheres or SN 36.9, which discusses vedana, use the term paṭic­ca­samup­panne, as follows:

Aneka­pariyā­yena hi vo, bhikkhave, paṭic­ca­samup­pannaṃ viññāṇaṃ vuttaṃ mayā, aññatra paccayā natthi viññāṇassa sambhavo

For in many ways I have stated consciousness to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no origination of consciousness.

Yaṃ yadeva, bhikkhave, paccayaṃ paṭicca uppajjati viññāṇaṃ, tena teneva viññāṇantveva saṅkhyaṃ gacchati

Bhikkhus, consciousness is reckoned by the particular condition dependent upon which it arises.

MN 38

“The three kinds of feelings, O monks, are impermanent, compounded, dependently arisen (paṭicca samuppannā), liable to destruction, to evanescence, to fading away, to cessation — namely, pleasant feeling, painful feeling, and neutral feeling.” SN 36.9

My question or inquiry is:

  1. Does paṭic­ca­samup­pāda refer exclusively to the 12 (or less) condition formula that results in dukkha?

  2. If not, how do paṭic­ca­samup­pāda vs paṭic­ca­samup­panne differ?

Thank you :seedling:

1 Like

I think the difference between paṭic­ca­samup­pāda vs paṭic­ca­samup­panne is just case, conjugation or tense. Uppanne is “arisen”, uppāda is “arising”. “sam” is a prefix meaning “together with”, and the paticca is the “dependent”.

So a literal translation would be dependent-co-arising and dependently-co-arisen.
Or dependent-co-origination and dependent-co-originated(?). B.Bodhi mixed “origination” and “arisen” for the same word so maybe that’s adding to your confusion.

That’s what I think, but I’m no expert. Someone will most likely correct me if I’m wrong.

The answer to your first question I don’t know. I’d guess “probably”. I’ve asked questions similar to that in the past here and gotten no answers either, since that type of question is a lot harder to answer than something simple and straightforward as question 2.

You can try the yahoo groups pali list, or Dhammawheel pali forum, there are probably experts that hang out there but not here and vice versa.

2 Likes

Maybe as @frankk says, it’s just dependant arising and dependantly arisen, or dependant origination and dependantly originated, or co-arising and co-arisen.
Question: does paṭic­ca­samup­pāda account for all conditioned phenomena? I guess not. I mean a grain of sand or soap bubble can’t be said to arise by paṭic­ca­samup­pāda.

Hardness (patavi) element of material phenomena (Rupa).

Liquid (apo) element of material phenomena. :slight_smile:

That’s how I read it as well.

With metta

But hows does a soap bubble have consciousness, old age and sickness? In other words, PS (paṭic­ca­samup­pāda, 12 nidanas) might apply to our perception of material objects, but not to the ‘life cycle’ of material objects. The issue whether objects exist or not is a seperate matter. Whatever we chose to call the subjects of our perceptions (the conditioned phenomena, the grains of sand, the soap bubbles), they do not possess the 12 nidana such as consciousness etc.

Two different ways of viewing DO, the process of origination itself (paṭiccasamuppāda) or that which is originated ( paṭic­ca­samup­panne). I had a (brief) online dialogue here with Ven Sujato a while back that touches on the differences between framing DO as the process itself in the abstract (paṭiccasamuppāda) and describing DO via the dharmāḥ themselves that are arisen (paṭic­ca­samup­panne, which is how it is described in the āgama-parallel to SN 12.20, the Pāli sutta which I assume inspired this post, given its opening line).

3 Likes

Thank you, Frank. This sounds reasonable.

Indeed. Thus the reason for my question. [quote=“DaoYaoTao, post:5, topic:5215”]
But hows does a soap bubble have consciousness, old age and sickness? In other words, PS (paṭic­ca­samup­pāda, 12 nidanas) might apply to our perception of material objects, but not to the ‘life cycle’ of material objects.
[/quote]

Yes. Thus the reason for my question.

I once heard the opinion that term ‘idappaccayatā’ should be used for non-suffering causation, such as for a soap bubble, cloud or tree. I recall @Sylvester & I discussed this before (here).

OK. Thanks a lot. I will check it out.

Thank you, everyone. :buddha:

"And what is the earth property? The earth property can be either internal or external. What is the internal earth property? Anything internal, within oneself, that’s hard, solid, & sustained [by craving]: head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, membranes, spleen, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, contents of the stomach, feces, or anything else internal, within oneself, that’s hard, solid, and sustained: This is called the internal earth property. Now both the internal earth property & the external earth property are simply earth property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: ‘This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.’ When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the earth property and makes the earth property fade from the mind.

"And what is the liquid property? The liquid property may be either internal or external. What is the internal liquid property? Anything internal, belonging to oneself, that’s liquid, watery, & sustained: bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, oil, saliva, mucus, oil-of-the-joints, urine, or anything else internal, within oneself, that’s liquid, watery, & sustained: This is called the internal liquid property. Now both the internal liquid property & the external liquid property are simply liquid property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: ‘This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.’ When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the liquid property and makes the liquid property fade from the mind. MN140

This appears merely to be an interpretation (of upādinnaṃ), which is why the words ‘by craving’ are placed in brackets.

This could be a mistranslated.

The teaching might really be: “he makes craving towards the earth element fade from the mind”.

:seedling:

1 Like

It’s a very inept translation. In rendering pathavīdhātuyā cittaṃ virājeti as “[one] makes the earth property fade from the mind” the translator seems to have misconstrued all three words.

Virājeti is the causative of virajjati. It is a bitransitive verb: the object-agent that is made to do something will be in the accusative, while the patient acted upon by the object-agent will be in the locative. In the present case we can see that cittaṃ is the accusative object-agent and pathavīdhātuyā the locative patient. But Ajahn Thanissaro has treated cittaṃ as ablative, pathavīdhātuyā as accusative, and the verb as if it were monotransitive.

Bh. Bodhi’s rendering is better:

“[one] makes the mind dispassionate towards the earth element.”

Though I would personally prefer “with respect to…” rather than “towards…”

6 Likes

Yes, contextually that is correct, as disenchantment (nibbida) should lead to dispassion (virago). Also Nibbana is described here as ‘personally attained’, which I suspect mean while the aggregates are still arising and passing away, if I am not mistaken and not in the sense of attaining full cessation (or the ceasing permutation of the dependant origination).

When he is not agitated, he personally attains Nibbāna. MN140

I got the translation I previously quoted from, from here.

The Earth property can cease, for the living practitioner…

Then Ven. Ananda went to Ven. Sariputta and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to Ven. Sariputta, “Friend Sariputta, could a monk have an attainment of concentration such that he would neither be percipient of earth with regard to earth, nor of water with regard to water, nor of fire… wind… the dimension of the infinitude of space… the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness… the dimension of nothingness… the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception… this world… nor of the next world with regard to the next world, and yet he would still be percipient?” AN10.7

AN 10.7 seems to say the ‘perception’ of earth ceases (rather than the earth element itself).

DN 11 seems to say the idea that the element of earth ceases without remainder is an erroneous idea.

Now the question, monk, should not be asked as you have put it. Instead of asking where the four great elements, cease without remainder, you should have asked: ‘Where do earth, water, fire and air no footing find? DN 11

:seedling:

1 Like

‘Where do earth, water, fire and air no footing find?
Where are long and short, small and great, fair and foul -
Where are “name-and-form” brought to an end?’ DN11

The content of the verses suggest they are synonymous, IMO.

Ontological reality isn’t asserted in the Dhamma:

In what way, venerable sir, is there right view?”

“This world, Kaccana, for the most part depends upon a duality—upon the notion of existence and the notion of nonexistence. But for one who sees the origin of the world as it really is with correct wisdom, there is no notion of nonexistence in regard to the world. And for one who sees the cessation of the world as it really is with correct wisdom, there is no notion of existence in regard to the world.

“‘All exists’: Kaccana, this is one extreme. ‘All does not exist’: this is the second extreme. Without veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma by the middle: ‘With ignorance as condition, volitional formations come to be…[Dependant origination] SN12.15

with metta

It states “no footing” rather than ceased.

The meaning of name-&-form here might refer to the Brahmanistic meaning (of ‘naming-forms’) rather than the Buddhist meaning (of earth-wind-fire-&-water).

If not, the Buddha has certainly contradicted himself (which is unlikely).

Regards :seedling:

Sure. This is not the best place to look for Buddhist meanings, as we know.

with metta