SN14.12 Sanidānasutta

Q & A
, ,
1

I’m readying SN 14.12 and I think I get the basic point:

Element / realm / world of [thing] (dhātu) → perception (saññā) → intention / thought (saṅkappa) → interest / desire / impulse (chanda) → fever / passion (pariḷāha) → seeking (pariyesanā) → behavior

But what the Buddha says he’s going to explain at the beginning of the verse are thoughts (vitakka) and vitakka is nowhere on that chain. My understanding that saṅkappa is similar, but not the same. Is saṅkappa being used as a substitute for vitakka here? If so, why isn’t saṅkappa at the end of the chain? (When I explain the processes that happen to make a thing I tend to put the thing I’m explaining at the end of the chain.) Am I overthinking this?

(I started asking these questions because Bodhi defined “element” as “thought” in footnote 234, which would mean that thoughts were causing thoughts, which certainly happens, but doesn’t seem to be what the sutta is trying to point to here?)

2

Thank you for sharing that sutta.

There are several of these “more granular (partial) dependent origination formulas” in the suttas. Here are a few more.

Dependent origination of conflict in the world: feeling (vedanā) → craving (taṇhā) → seeking (pariyesanā) → gaining (lābha) → evaluation (vinicchaya) → desire & lust (chandarāga) → attachment (ajjhosa)→ ownership (pariggaha) → stinginess/selfishness (macchariya) → safeguarding (ārakkho) → conflict (DN 15)

Concepts derived from conceptual proliferation (papañcasaññāsaṅkhā) → thought (vitakka) → desire (chanda) → the liked & disliked (piyāppiya) → jealousy & stinginess/selfishness (issāmacchariya) → beings not able to be free from enmity/hostility/hate even though they wish they could be (DN 21)

Diversities of … elements → contacts → feelings → perceptions → intentions → desires → passions → searches → gains (DN 34)

Contact (phassa) → feeling (vedanā) → perception (saññā) → thinking (vitakka) → proliferation (papañca) → identification and conceptualization based on proliferation (papañcasaññāsaṅkhā) (MN 18)

The one from DN 34 is pretty close to SN 14.12. Some formulas add more factors, some subtract. The point I’m making is that I wouldn’t read too much into the specific factors or specific formulas.

Ajahn Chah once said dependent origination is like falling off a tree. From another SuttaCentral forum post, quoting a translation of Ajahn Chah’s teachings:

So the Buddha taught us to contemplate these wavering conditions of the mind. Whenever the mind moves, it becomes unstable and impermanent (anicca), unsatisfactory (dukkha) and can not be taken as a self(anattā). These are the three universal characteristics of all conditioned phenomena. The Buddha taught us to observe and contemplate these movements of the mind.
It’s likewise with the teaching of dependent origination (paṭicca-sam uppāda): deluded understanding (avijjā) is the cause and condition for the arising of volitional kammic formations (saṅkhāra); which is the cause and condition for the arising of consciousness (viññāṇa); which is the cause and condition for the arising of mentality and materiality (nāma and rūpa), and so on, just as we’ve studied in the scriptures. The Buddha separated each link of the chain to make it easier to study. This is an accur ate description of reality, but when this process actually occurs in real life, the scholars aren’t able to keep up with what’s happening. It’s like falling from the top of a tree and crashing down to the ground below. We have no idea how many branches we’ve passed on the way down. Similarly, when the mind is suddenly hit by a mental impression, if it delights in it, then it flies off into a good mood. It considers it good without being aware of the chain of conditions that led there. The process takes place in accordance with what is outlined in the theory, but simultaneously it goes beyond the limits of that theory.
There’s nothing that announces, ‘This is delusion. These are volitional kammic formations, and that is consciousness.’ The process doesn’t give the scholars a chance to read out the list as it’s happening. Although the Buddha analysed and explained the sequence of mind moments in minute detail, to me it’s more like falling out of a tree. As we come crashing down there’s no opportunity to estimate how many feet and inches we’ve fallen. What we do know is that we’ve hit the ground with a thud and it hurts!
The mind is the same. When it falls for something, what we’re aware of is the pain. Where has all this suffering, pain, grief, and despair come from? It didn’t come from theory in a book. There isn’t anywhere where the details of our suffering are written down. Our pain won’t correspond exactly with the theory, but the two travel along the same road. So scholarship alone can’t keep pace with the reality. That’s why the Buddha taught us to cultivate clear knowing for ourselves. Whatever arises, arises in this knowing. When that which knows, knows in accordance with the truth, then the mind and its psychological factors are recognized as not ours. Ultimately all these phenomena are to be discarded and thrown away as if they were rubbish. We shouldn’t cling to or give them any meaning.

3

I’m totally on board for everything Ajahn Chah said. And even in moments where we can see the steps behind the creation of a thing more clearly, I would not expect abstract words used by someone else to exactly match my experience. To extend the tree analogy, I read the start of the sutta as the Buddha saying he was going to describe the branches of a “thoughts” tree, but instead he describe the branches of a “behavior” tree. To stretch this analogy even further, I guess what I’m asking is, am I dividing trees into two groups that aren’t separate (thought trees and behavior trees, when in fact all trees are thought and behavior trees or maybe thought trees are a special type of behavior tree), or did the Buddha say he was going to describe one thing and then actually describe something else.

4

It looks like he’s describing the “thoughts” tree if we define “thoughts” as movements of the mind that are not necessarily composed of words. All of those terms including the last one occur in the mental realm. Based on them, we act out in the physical realm where they manifest more grossly.