I do not know Pali, so I need help to decipher the meaning of this section since it does not make sense to me.
Section: Reverse Order Questionnaire on Arising (MN38)
Jātipaccayā jarāmaraṇanti iti kho panetaṁ vuttaṁ;
jātipaccayā nu kho, bhikkhave, jarāmaraṇaṁ, no vā, kathaṁ vā ettha hotī”ti? Variant: kathaṁ vā ettha → kathaṁ vo ettha (bj); kathaṁ vā vo ettha (?)
“Jātipaccayā, bhante, jarāmaraṇaṁ;
evaṁ no ettha hoti— Variant: evaṁ no ettha hoti → evaṁ no ettha hotīti (mr)
jātipaccayā jarāmaraṇan”ti.
Bhikkhu Sujato
Rebirth is a condition for old age and death.’ That’s what I said.
Is that how you see this or not?”
“That’s how we see it.”
Suddhāso Bhikkhu
“It was said: ‘Due to birth there is old age and dieing.’ Monks, is it due to birth that there is old age and dieing, or not? What is it in this case?” “Bhante, due to birth there is old age and dieing. That is what we think in this case: due to birth there is old age and dieing.”
I.B. Horner
It has been said: ‘Conditioned by birth is ageing and dying.’ Is there ageing and dying for you, monks, conditioned by birth, or how is it as to this?”
“Conditioned by birth, Lord, is ageing and dying. Thus it is for us as to this: ‘Conditioned by birth is ageing and dying.’”
Bhikkhu Bodhi
“‘With birth as condition, ageing and death’: so it was said. Now, bhikkhus, do ageing and death have birth as condition or not, or how do you take it in this case?”
“Ageing and death have birth as condition, venerable sir. Thus we take it in this case: ‘With birth as condition, ageing and death.’”
Problems:
Reading these translations, I am wondering why the Buddha needs to ask again what is already declared? Why does he think that the bhikkhus may have different ideas than his declaration? It does not make sense to me. What is the purpose here? To confirm what is already declared or something else?
Since I do not know Pali, I cannot decipher the Pali. However, if this is not about re-confirmation of what is already known. I think it may have different intention here.
What am I guessing?
I think this is about Specific conditionality (Idappaccayatā)
When this exists, that is; due to the arising of this, that arises. That is:
imasmiṁ sati idaṁ hoti, imassuppādā idaṁ uppajjati, yadidaṁ
To me, this statement is saying that if this exists then that also exists. If this is arising then that is already there. In other words, if aging-and-death exists then birth must already be there. If aging-and-death is arising then birth is already there.
Therefore, I guess this section could be like this:
With birth as condition, ageing and death: so it was said. Now, bhikkhus, do ageing and death have birth or not, or how do you take it in this case?”
Ageing and death have birth, venerable sir. Thus we take it in this case: ‘With birth as condition, ageing and death.’
This means that if we have aging-and-death, birth must be there without exception. We can have other conditions for aging-and-death such as accident, sickness… but they are not required like birth.
This is called specific conditionality. When there is an effect, the required cause must be there.
This is the reversed relation. That’s why it is in the section “Reverse Order Questionnaire on Arising” in Bhikkhu Bodhi’s translation.
Examples:
With milk as a condition, curd arises (Without milk, we cannot make curd).
However, we cannot say that if we have curd now, we must also have milk now. (We can have curd, but we ran out of milk now). This is not specific conditionality.
Now with this example:
With the candle’s flame as condition, candle’s light arises.
Here we can say if we have candle’s light, we must also have candle’s flame. (Without candle’s flame, we do not have candle’s light). This is specific conditionality.
However, this is my guess. I want to confirm my thinking with what the Pali said.
