Tracing the Buddha's path. My quest to a new understanding of dependent origination

The Watercooler
1

I am not sure where should I put this writing because I am not an experience teacher or scholar. Also, this is not a formal essay but it is quite long. I just want to share what I have found as a simple lay person who learns English as a second language, and hope that it may help some newcomers or someone who wants to find something new. If this is not the proper place to put this writing, please move it to some place else.

Introduction

After many ups and downs in trying to understand the Buddha’s Dhamma, I decided to revisit Dependent Origination. There are many explanations out there, but they are too vague and hard for me to understand.

English is not my language, so I will make many mistakes in words and grammar. I did not want to share this work because I cannot express my ideas very well. However, I feel that it may help someone, and that is the reason I released it.

This paper is for someone who has an open mind and wants to explore something new, or wants to challenge one’s current understanding. It is also for newcomers because that is where I started from in this adventure.

I am a normal layperson and I do not know much Pali, so I relied mainly on the available translations on SuttaCentral. However, if I cannot understand or am not satisfied with the translations, I will check their meanings from the available dictionary in SuttaCentral or by searching the web.

I started with SN12.10 translated by Bhikkhu Sujato since I do not have access to Bhikkhu Bodhi’s version, and I will use SN12.2 translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi’s translation since I can understand it better and it is also available in SuttaCentral.

I included the Pali texts from Bhikkhu Sujato’s version for someone who wants to check the original words because they are not available in Bhikkhu Bodhi’s version.

I hope that you can find something useful here.

Main suttas that I used:

• SN12.2: https://suttacentral.net/sn12.1/en/bodhi
• SN12.2 (translated by Sujato): https://suttacentral.net/sn12.2/en/sujato?layout=linebyline&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin
• SN12.2 (translated  by Thanissaro): https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html
• SN12.10: https://suttacentral.net/sn12.10/en/sujato?layout=linebyline&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin
• SN12.43: https://suttacentral.net/sn12.43/en/bodhi
• MN44: https://suttacentral.net/mn44/en/suddhaso
• SN45.29: https://suttacentral.net/sn45.29/en/bodhi

Jarāmaraṇa – Jāti (Aging-and-death – Birth)

I see that the Buddha starts with the problem of old age and death (SN12.10)

“Alas, this world has fallen into trouble. It’s born, grows old, dies, passes away, and is reborn yet it doesn’t understand how to escape from this suffering, from old age and death”

He then questions its cause (or condition).

“When what exists is there old age and death? What is a condition for old age and death?”
kimhi nu kho sati jarāmaraṇaṁ hoti, kiṁpaccayā jarāmaraṇan’ti?

Old age and death is the effect of its cause. Therefore, to understand how the effect arises, I will need to understand its cause.

The first terms to examine are old age and death or jarā and maraṇa. I can see that the Buddha limits the analysis to only old age and death. Therefore, he only defines old age and death (SN12.2):

• Old age: The aging of the various beings in the various orders of beings, their growing old, brokenness of teeth, greyness of hair, wrinkling of skin, decline of vitality, degeneration of the faculties: this is called aging
• Death: The passing away of the various beings from the various orders of beings, their perishing, breakup, disappearance, mortality, death, completion of time, the breakup of the aggregates, the laying down of the carcass: this is called death.
• Thus this aging and this death are together called aging-and-death.”

He then found that birth (jāti) is the condition for aging-and-death. First, I need to understand the definition of jāti defined in SN12.2

Birth: The birth of the various beings into the various orders of beings, their being born, descent into the womb, production, the manifestation of the aggregates, the obtaining of the sense bases. This is called birth.
Yā tesaṁ tesaṁ sattānaṁ tamhi tamhi sattanikāye jāti sañjāti okkanti abhinibbatti khandhānaṁ pātubhāvo āyatanānaṁ paṭilābho.

From the definition, I understand jāti is “a new birth of a being into an order”. Beings are born into different orders (like human to human’s order, bird to bird’s order…) and then eventually come to aging-and-death. Here, I appreciate the Buddha for combining these two terms together, so it could cover the case that a person can be born and die right away without going through the aging process. As I can see, if there is no birth then there is no death. If Mr. A wasn’t born, then we cannot say that he is just dead. Therefore, I accepted that birth is the condition for aging-and-death.

Jāti — Bhava (Birth– Existence)

He then continues tracing back the condition for birth (SN12.10)

“When what exists is there rebirth? continued existence …
kimhi nu kho sati jāti hoti …pe…? bhavo …”

The term to be examined is bhava. Bhikkhu Sujato translated it as “continued existence”, Bhikkhu Bodhi as existence and Ṭhānissaro as becoming.
From its definition in SN12.2

And what, bhikkhus, is existence? There are these three kinds of existence: sense-sphere existence, form-sphere existence, formless-sphere existence. This is called existence.”
“Katamo ca, bhikkhave, bhavo?Tayome, bhikkhave, bhavā: kāmabhavo, rūpabhavo, arūpabhavo.”

The question is “What caused birth?”

Again, from the definition of jāti, I can understand that jāti is the birth of a being into an order. “The birth of the various beings into the various orders of beings” (SN12.2). Human is born into human’s order, bird into bird’s,… Moreover, an order can also be divided into sub-orders…Each sub-order is also an order with different characters.

So, I need to find out what will cause a being to join an order? Of course, we normally join an order because we want to get something from it or do something with it, or because we like it or feel comfortable with it, or because we are attached to what it has, or are attracted by it, etc. I can see that the cause must be something that can attract or push the being to the new birth.

Now I need to look at the definition of bhavo: “kāmabhavo, rūpabhavo, arūpabhavo”. Bhikkhu Bodhi translated this as “sense-sphere existence, form-sphere existence, formless-sphere existence” (SN12.2). Bhikkhu Sujato translated this as “existence in the sensual realm, the realm of luminous form, and the formless realm”. However, these translations are referring to existence in a place or a place itself. Because I feel that aging-and-death and birth are about “state of being”, not a place or the existence itself. I prefer to see a translation close to that. Look at Bhikkhu Ṭhānissaro’s translation, I got “sensual becoming, form becoming, & formless becoming”. These terms are not also very clear to me even though they are closer to what I am looking for than the previous ones. Therefore, I look at the definition of bhava in SuttaCentral

bhava: “The state of existence”.

What existence? It comes to me that “the being”. The state of the being! So I guess that kāmabhavo is the state of a being who is attached to sensual experiences (the word kāma is also coincidentally attached to bhavo to be kāmabhavo!) The being can be happy or miserable with the experiences, but sensual experience is what attracted him or what he is following. Now I found that attraction in bhava.

Since bhava provides the attraction to kāma, rūpa and arūpa, being will follow that attraction to be born into the appropriate order. Therefore, I can see that bhava is the condition for jāti (birth).

Bhava – Upādāna (Existence – Clinging)

Continue with the Buddha’s step, I need to find out why upādāna (clinging) is the condition for bhava? To do this, I look at the definition of upādāna in SN12.2

And what, bhikkhus, is clinging? There are these four kinds of clinging: clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, clinging to rules and vows, clinging to a doctrine of self. This is called clinging.
Katamañca, bhikkhave, upādānaṁ? Cattārimāni, bhikkhave, upādānāni: kāmupādānaṁ, diṭṭhupādānaṁ, sīlabbatupādānaṁ, attavādupādānaṁ.

Why did the Buddha list 4 different clingings? How can they be mapped to the three types of bhava (kāmabhavo, rūpabhavo, arūpabhavo)?

First, I need to check definition of upādāna in the dictionary since the Buddha did not define the meaning of the word. Therefore, I think he used its common meaning.

Upādāna:
◦ taking as one’s own, laying hold of, grasping
◦ material support or cause, fuel; (it is often difficult to determine which meaning is intended; both reinforce each other: previous grasping produces fuel, which is itself then grasped)”

Look at clinging to sensual pleasures (kāmupādānaṁ). From the definition of upādāna, I can infer that if a being clings to sensual pleasures, the longer he clings to that, the harder for him to be released from sensual pleasures. In other words, the more fuels he provides to it, the stronger he will be sucked up by sensual pleasures.

We can easily see this in our normal life.

Example: The more we cling to a movie (since it is our favorite), the harder for us to interrupt it while we are watching it… We can find several more examples like that.

Now I need to see why clinging to sensual pleasures (kāmupādānaṁ) is the condition for kāmabhavo?

From the previous section, I understood that kāmabhavo is the state of a being who is attached to sensual experiences and kāmupādānaṁ actually changes the sensual state of that being stronger and stronger if he continue staying under its influence. Therefore, I can conlude that kāmupādānaṁ (clinging to sensual pleasures) is the condition for kāmabhavo (the state of the being who is attached to sensual experiences)

How about clinging to views (diṭṭhupādāna)?
Clinging to views is clinging to ideas, concepts, theories, opinions,…These things are objects of the mind-base which is also a sense base. Therefore, it will also change the sensual state of the being stronger if he continue clinging to it. So, it is the condition for kāmabhavo.

Now I come to “clinging to rules and vows”. The translation “rules and vows” makes me quite confuse. What is the problem with rules and vows? With this translation, it seems to me that it has some negative meaning to it. If it has negative effect, where should I link it to three types of bhava (kāmabhavo, rūpabhavo, arūpabhavo)?

To understand more, I check the original word: sīlabbatupādāna. Look at the dictionary I got:

sīlabbatupādāna: grasping after works and rites D ii.58; Dhs 1005, 1216; Vism 569; VbhA 181 sq. — The old form sīlavata still preserves the original good sense, as much as “observing the rules of good conduct ,” “being of virtuous behaviour .” Thus at Th 1, 12; Sn 212, 782 (expld in detail at Nd)

“Observing the rules of good conduct”, “being of virtuous behaviour” make much more sense to me. The word could mean clinging to perform rules of good conduct, clinging to be of virtuous behaviour. This could be a perfect candidate for rūpabhavo which is a heavenly state.”

Therefore, if a being who already renounced worldly sense pleasures, but still has sīlabbatupādāna then he obviously creates conditions for rūpabhavo since he must be a good and virtuous person. So, with that meaning, I can concluded that sīlabbatupādāna is the condition for rūpabhavo.

Note: If I take the negative meaning of sīlabbatupādāna such as: “The clinging to the view that through mere rules and ritual one may reach purification” then I will have trouble relating it to rūpabhavo since this is not guarantee that the person is good or not?

The last one is attavādupādānaṁ (clinging to a doctrine of self). The word itself contain “atta” which refers to a permanent, unchangeable, autonomous entity. Checking the dictionary from SuttaCentral:

attavādupādāna: grasping the theory of an (enduring) self or soul

I can see that there may be some contemplatives, ascetics who have overcome sense desires and no longer need to worry about virtue and good conduct since it is impossible for them to intentionally do any bad things (They are unable to intentionally do so).

Just think about a person who loves cat so much. Does he need to make sure that he will not intentionally harm or kill the cat for fun? Does he need to remind himself that he should not do so? No, because he is unable to intentionally do that; therefore, he never needs to worry about that virtue. This shows that one can overcomes sīlabbatupādāna but still be virtuous and good.

Moreover, since they understand the danger of sense pleasures, they already turned away from rūpabhavo. However, they may still cling to some permanent, unchangeable, autonomous entity (such as God or they may think that their souls are so, or maybe something that they don’t even know but still believe it is so…). Since they still believe in a permanent, unchangeable, autonomous entity, they are expecting existence in that order, they crave for that kind of existence. Therefore, they create condition for that existence.

Because they have overcome kāmupādānaṁ, diṭṭhupādānaṁ and sīlabbatupādānaṁ”, the only state of existence left for them is arūpa. Therefore, attavādupādānaṁ creates condition to build up their arūpa state. Now I can see that attavādupādānaṁ is the condition for arūpabhavo.

Upādāna – taṇhā (Clinging– Craving)

In this link, the Buddha suddenly shifted to the objects of the six senses when he defined taṇhā in SN12.2

And what, bhikkhus, is craving? There are these six classes of craving: craving for forms, craving for sounds, craving for odours, craving for tastes, craving for tactile objects, craving for mental phenomena. This is called craving.
Katamā ca, bhikkhave, taṇhā? Chayime, bhikkhave, taṇhākāyā: rūpataṇhā, saddataṇhā, gandhataṇhā, rasataṇhā, phoṭṭhabbataṇhā, dhammataṇhā. Ayaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, taṇhā.

I need to know how these six classes of cravings are related to the four types of clinging: kāmupādānaṁ, diṭṭhupādānaṁ, sīlabbatupādānaṁ, attavādupādānaṁ?

Forms, sounds, odours, tastes, tactile objects, mental phenomena are objects of the six senses. Therefore, craving for them will increase the sense desires. That means they will provide more sense pleasures (fuels) to the state of the being. So, all of these six cravings are the conditions for kāmupādānaṁ (clinging to sensual pleasures).

We crave for ideas or theories because we like them, or because we are hunger for what we are missing. Otherwise, we do not crave for them. Craving for ideas, theories that we like will provide more fuels for that view. One will get more comfortable with that view. Since one is comfortable with that view, one will protect and hold on to it. Therefore, dhammataṇhā is the condition for diṭṭhupādānaṁ (clinging to views).

A person who is observing rules of good conduct will be very careful with his appearance, with what he should listen or view, careful with what he should eat or touch and what he should think or ponder. The more attention he put to them, the more he clings to them. Therefore the six types of craving are the causes of sīlabbatupādāna (cling to rules of good conduct).

Craving to see, to serve or to be (with) an unchangeable, autonomous entity. A person who craves for that will develop the belief of a permanent self and clings to it.

Therefore, dhammataṇhā is the condition for attavādupādānaṁ (clinging to a permanent self).

Now I can see that taṇhā is the condition for upādāna.

Taṇhā – Vedanā (Craving– Feeling)

Look at the definition of feeling in SN12.2:

And what, bhikkhus, is feeling? There are these six classes of feeling: feeling born of eye-contact, feeling born of ear-contact, feeling born of nose-contact, feeling born of tongue-contact, feeling born of body-contact, feeling born of mind-contact. This is called feeling.
Katamā ca, bhikkhave, vedanā? Chayime, bhikkhave, vedanākāyā: cakkhusamphassajā vedanā, sotasamphassajā vedanā, ghānasamphassajā vedanā, jivhāsamphassajā vedanā, kāyasamphassajā vedanā, manosamphassajā vedanā. Ayaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, vedanā.

The task now is to see why vedanā is the condition for taṇhā? Fortunately, they are a perfect match with all the elements of taṇhā. To understand why feeling causes craving I will need to know more about vedanā (feeling). Look at SN45.29

Bhikkhus, there are these three feelings. What three? Pleasant feeling, painful feeling, neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. These are the three feelings.

The more pleasant feeling we got, the more we crave for it. The more painful feeling we got, the faster we run away from it and the more we want a pleasant feeling to replace it. We will get bore with neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling and we will also start chasing a new pleasant feeling.

I can see that in my daily life. After eating a good noodle soup, I want to have it again. I even want to buy a lot more, so I can eat that again and again. When I am in pain, if the pain is increasing so much then I will run to get pain relief medicine. When I get bore, I will find something more interesting to do.

Therefore, I see that pleasant feeling, painful feeling, neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling will lead to the search of pleasant feeling.

Look at feeling born of eye-contact (cakkhusamphassajā), This feeling has contact in it, so I need to understand contact. Look at SN12.43, I see:

In dependence on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact

So contact is the meeting of eye, forms and eye-consciousness. Therefore, The feeling born of eye-contact must involve eye, forms and eye-consciousness. It must have consciousness since there is no feeling without consciousness. The feeling is about forms. Regardless of what type of feeling for that form, it will lead to the search for pleasant feeling. The more contacts, the more pleasant feeling it gets or searches for pleasant feeling . The more pleasant feelings it gets, the more it craves.

Now, I see that feeling born of eye-contact will create craving for forms (rūpataṇhā). Or, cakkhusamphassajā is the condition for rūpataṇhā (craving for forms).

Same for feeling born of ear-contact, feeling born of nose-contact, feeling born of tongue-contact, feeling born of body-contact, feeling born of mind-contact.

Vedanā — Phasso (Feeling– Contact)

And what, bhikkhus, is contact? There are these six classes of contact: eye-contact, ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, mind-contact. This is called contact.
Katamo ca, bhikkhave, phasso? Chayime, bhikkhave, phassakāyā: cakkhusamphasso, sotasamphasso, ghānasamphasso, jivhāsamphasso, kāyasamphasso, manosamphasso. Ayaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, phasso (SN12.2)

From the previous section, Eye contact is the meeting of eye, forms and eye-consciousness. In eye-contact, we can find eye-consciousness.

Checking in Pali’s dictionary, I see the meaning of this word is “cognizance by the sense-organ that is the eye” (cakkhuviññāṇaṁ)

This word involves viññāṇa. Therefore, I need to understand more about viññāṇa. Unfortunately, this is not an easy word to deal with!

In SN12.43, I can see that eye-consciousness depends on eye and forms. Without eye and form, there is no eye-consciousness. To understand more, I need to rely on science, so I searched for “how the eye work” to get some ideas from current science. What I found is:

First, light passes through the cornea (the clear front layer of the eye). The cornea is shaped like a dome and bends light to help the eye focus.
Some of this light enters the eye through an opening called the pupil (PYOO-pul). The iris (the colored part of the eye) controls how much light the pupil lets in.
Next, light passes through the lens (a clear inner part of the eye). The lens works together with the cornea to focus light correctly on the retina.
When light hits the retina (a light-sensitive layer of tissue at the back of the eye), special cells called photoreceptors turn the light into electrical signals.
These electrical signals travel from the retina through the optic nerve to the brain. Then the brain turns the signals into the images you see
How the Eyes Work | National Eye Institute

We can reject what science said, however, let’s accept it for now to see what it will lead us to? Will it lead us to any contradiction? If so, we will reject it.

“The brain turns the signals into the images you see.” Once we got the image, we say that we are conscious of it. Is this what we called “eye-consciousness”?

Moreover, I also see that “the image you see” depends on the electrical signals travel from the retina through the optic nerve to the brain. Each sense also has its own electrical signals to communicate with the brain. These electrical signals are the sources of images, sounds, ideas, colors,… that we cognized. Without these electrical signals, there is no image, no sound, no idea, no color presented to us. Therefore, we know nothing about the input, or we can say that we are not conscious of the input. So, these electrical signals are the conditions for what we called consciousness.

Is it what we called saṅkhārā? (Since saṅkhārā supposes to be the condition for consciousness)

Now back to the eye-consciousness. From SN12.43, In dependence on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises. Without form, there is no eye-consciousness. However, what we see is not the original form. It is the result of electrical signals converting process in the brain. The result will be presented to us, and it is what we called eye-consciousness.

In current science, the result image arises by some signal conversion processes after the eye met its form. In other word, the result depends on the eye and its form. Or we can say, In dependence on the eye and forms, the result of the signal conversion arises.

More than 2500 years ago, the Buddha said: “In dependence on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises”

Do we see the match? It seems to me that the Buddha was ahead of science for a long time!

Moreover, I can see that if there is no signal to the brain then there will be no feeling. Therefore, feeling depends on signals to the brain.

Eye-contact indicates the present of eye-consciousness. Eye-consciousness depends on the electrical signals. If there is no electrical signals, then there is no eye-consciousness. Without eye-consciousness, there is no eye-contact. Therefore, we can also say that without eye-contact, there is no feeling born of eye-contact (Since there is no signal present).

Eye-contact has its own electrical signals to the brain, nose-contact also has its own signals,…So, eye-contact is the condition for feeling born of eye-contact. (cakkhusamphasso is the condition for cakkhusamphassajā vedanā), and so on. In general, contact is the condition for feeling.

Maybe, it is easier to see this way: Without eye-contact, there will be no feeling born of eye-contact (since it is not there to give birth for anything).

Phasso-- Saḷāyatana (Contact – Six Sense Bases)

And what, bhikkhus, are the six sense bases? The eye base, the ear base, the nose base, the tongue base, the body base, the mind base. These are called the six sense bases. (SN12.2 )
Katamañca, bhikkhave, saḷāyatanaṁ? Cakkhāyatanaṁ, sotāyatanaṁ, ghānāyatanaṁ, jivhāyatanaṁ, kāyāyatanaṁ, manāyatanaṁ: idaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, saḷāyatanaṁ.

Again from SN12.43:

In dependence on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact.

Contact is the meeting of the (eye, ear , nose, tongue, body, mind), their objects, and their consciousnesses. Without the six senses bases, there will be no eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind then there will be no contact. Therefore, six sense bases are the conditions for contact.

Saḷāyatana – Nāmarūpa (Six sense bases – Name-and-Form)

And what, bhikkhus, is name-and-form? Feeling, perception, volition, contact, attention: this is called name. The four great elements and the form derived from the four great elements: this is called form. Thus this name and this form are together called name-and-form.(SN12.2)
Katamañca, bhikkhave, nāmarūpaṁ? Vedanā, saññā, cetanā, phasso, manasikāro idaṁ vuccati nāmaṁ. Cattāro ca mahābhūtā, catunnañca mahābhūtānaṁ upādāyarūpaṁ. Idaṁ vuccati rūpaṁ. Iti idañca nāmaṁ, idañca rūpaṁ. Idaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, nāmarūpaṁ.

Recall the six sense bases in SN12.2:

And what, bhikkhus, are the six sense bases? The eye base, the ear base, the nose base, the tongue base, the body base, the mind base. These are called the six sense bases.

I can see that the eye base, the ear base, the nose base, the tongue base, the body base are materials. Therefore, they will require the four great elements and their forms. Without the four great elements. They do not exist.

In reality, I can see the eye base, the ear base, the nose base, the tongue base, the body base, but the mind-base is a mystery to me. I can infer its function is to receive the mental objects. Since I do not know what it is made of, I have to check for all possible requirements that it will need. Therefore, if it is material then it will require the four great elements, if not, then it should be mental and it will require mental elements. In Buddhism, we only have four mental aggregates: feeling, perception, volition formation, consciousness. In nāma, I can find “ feeling, perception, volition, contact, attention”. I got the first three from nāma. How about consciousness?

Unfortunately, I cannot find consciousness in nāma except it is the requirement for contact in nāma. Since we must have consciousness before contact can arise in nāma, I can say that consciousness always arises together with name-and-form. Therefore, I got all four mental aggregrates required for the mind-base. Now I can say that name-and-form is the condition for six sense bases.

Nāmarūpa- Viññāṇa (Name-and-Form – Consciousness)

And what, bhikkhus, is consciousness? There are these six classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, mind-consciousness. This is called consciousness (SN12.2).
Katamañca, bhikkhave, viññāṇaṁ? Chayime, bhikkhave, viññāṇakāyā cakkhuviññāṇaṁ, sotaviññāṇaṁ, ghānaviññāṇaṁ, jivhāviññāṇaṁ, kāyaviññāṇaṁ, Idaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, viññāṇaṁ.

I can see that name (nāma) contains contact. By definition of contact, without consciousness, there is no contact; By definition of nāma, without contact, there is no name (nāma ). Without nāma, there is no name-and-form. So, consciousness is the condition for name-and-form.

Viññāṇa – Saṅkhārā (Consciousness-- Volitional formations)

And what, bhikkhus, are the volitional formations? There are these three kinds of volitional formations: the bodily volitional formation, the verbal volitional formation, the mental volitional formation. These are called the volitional formations. (SN12.2).
Katame ca, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā? Tayome, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā: kāyasaṅkhāro, vacīsaṅkhāro, cittasaṅkhāro. Ime vuccanti, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā.

The question is why these three kinds of volitional formations are the conditions for consciousness? Let’s recall what I discovered before in the previous feeling – contact link:

“The brain turns the signals into the images you see.” Once we got the image, we say that we are conscious of it. Is this what we called “eye-consciousness”?

In current science, the result image arises in the brain after the eye met its form. In other word, the result depends on the eye and its form. Or we can say: In dependence on the eye and forms, the result of the signal conversion arises.

More than 2500 years ago, the Buddha said: “In dependence on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises”

The result image depends on the eye and its form, eye-consciousness also depends on the eye and its form. Therefore, I am very confident that the so called “result image” is what we called eye-consciousness.

The signal conversion process depends on the electrical signals travel to the brain or the cells. Each sense has its own electrical signal to communicate with the brain. Without these electrical signals, we cannot see, hear, …or there is no sense-consciousness. Therefore, these electrical signals are the conditions for sense-consciousness.

Note that the eye-consciousness is the consciousness that depends on the physical eye-base. The ear-consciousness is the consciousness that depends on the physical ear-base,… When we have no eye-base, we cannot see through the eye-base, so we will not have that eye-consciousness. That means we cannot see what go through eye-base. However, this is not saying that without the eye-base, we will not be able to see at all. We may be able to see if we have other base that can do so. But this is out of our scope here.

I also see that these electrical signals suggest some kind of movements. Just like an electrical current in which electrons are moving along an electrical conductor. These electrical signals are also moving along the nerves. Therefore, it has a sense of doing. Moreover, the signals are moving together along the nerves. The signals are together doing something… Is this similar to the meaning of sankhara? Checking a Pali dictionary, I see that:

Sankhara : The word sankhara is derived from the prefix sam, meaning “together,” joined to the noun kara, "doing, making.”

I see that sankhara also has the meaning of “doing together” as its word’s meaning.

Therefore, I feel more confident that the electrical signals are called saṅkhārā. However, I will need to explain why the Buddha classified saṅkhārā into three different classes (kāyasaṅkhāro, vacīsaṅkhāro, cittasaṅkhāro)?

In MN44, the nun Dhammadinnā explains that breathing in and out is physical activity, thought and consideration is verbal activity, recognition and feeling is mental activity.

She also said:

breathing in and breathing out are bodily phenomena bound to the body; therefore breathing in and out is physical activity. Previously one thinks and considers, and afterwards one breaks into speech; therefore thought and examination is verbal activity. Recognition and feeling are mental phenomena bound to the mind; therefore recognition and feeling is mental activity.

It is very interesting if we can see that she is talking about three types of signal communication in our nerve system. The first one is the involuntary or autonomic way. We all know that breathing is normally an autonomic process. The signals are autonomically sent to and from the breathing process. We do not always control how we breath. The second one is about voluntary process. We think, consider and then we break into speech. The signals in this case are sent voluntarily. The last one is about how do we think. Thinking is a complex interactions among billions of neurons. Moreover, the interaction is also by signals.The signals communicate among special nerves will give us sensations or feeling.

It seems like the three types covers all types of signal communication. Therefore, I am very confident that the signals are what we called saṅkhārā.

Without these signals, we cannot know anything. So saṅkhārā is the condition or the condition for viññāṇa.

Saṅkhārā --avijjā (Volitional formations – Ignorance)

And what, bhikkhus, is ignorance? Not knowing suffering, not knowing the origin of suffering, not knowing the cessation of suffering, not knowing the way leading to the cessation of suffering. This is called ignorance.
Katamā ca, bhikkhave, avijjā?Yaṁ kho, bhikkhave, dukkhe aññāṇaṁ, dukkhasamudaye aññāṇaṁ, dukkhanirodhe aññāṇaṁ, dukkhanirodhagāminiyā paṭipadāya aññāṇaṁ.Ayaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, avijjā.

Since one does not know the four noble truths, one does not know that form, feeling, perception, mental volition and consciousness are sufferings (dukkha). Therefore, one craves for them. Craving for the form that one likes, one will search for that. When the eye met the form, the electrical signals will be sent to the brain and they are decoded using the information previously stored in the brain. If the information is sufficient then a visual map can be formed, and one recognizes the form. This new decoded information will also be added into the previous data, and it will provide better data for the next time. The more one sees the form, the more details one can get. Knowing more details of it, if one likes it, craving will arise and one will search for more… Same for other aggregates.

If one does not crave for the form, one will not search for it. If the eye met the form, the electrical signals will be sent to the brain and they are decoded using the information previously stored in the brain. However, since one knows that form is dukkha, one will not continue with it. One will disengage the eye from that form, and the electrical signals will be subsided. The new data will not be sufficiently stored in the brain, and over time, it will be lost. Therefore, if one again meets the form, one will not crave for it . One will see it just as it is at that moment.

Therefore, ignorance is the condition for saṅkhārā to arise. Without ignorance, one will make saṅkhārā to subside and be still.

Dependent Origination: The wrong way

By ignorance, one continues craving for what one likes or what one thinks they belong to oneself. Therefore, one will search for that.

When the sense meets the object that one craved, electrical signals (saṅkhārā) arises. These electrical signals will then be decoded and compared with the old stored data to determine the object. Since the object is the one that one craved for, one previously has already impressed and stored many information about it. Therefore, there will be sufficient data to form a detail output. One will easily recognize that output in detail (viññāṇa arises).

Since one craves for it, one will immediately pay attention to it. One will recognize its form, one will try to keep contact with it, feeling arises, perception arises, one will think more about it (volition formations arises), name-and-form arises. Craving for it, one will wide open all of one’s senses to it. Six senses arises. With the six senses are open to receive the object, contact is established. With contact is established to what one craved for, one will feel good (feeling arises). Feeling good with it, one wants more from it (craving arises). Want more, one clings to it. The longer one clings, the stronger one’s state of being will be. Therefore, one will want to join or be pulled to the order/community of the object or the one that fits to one’s state.(birth arises). Being there, one will get what the order can offer and pay what one must pay to the order, and eventually, one will get old, become sick and die.

After left the order, by ignorance, one will again be attracted or be pulled to another order that fits with one’s current state and joins it. In there, one will continue getting what that order can offer and paying what one must pay. By ignorance, one continue searching for what one craves and the cycle continues.

Dependent Origination: The right way

With the remainderless fading away and cessation of ignorance, one no longer craves for anything. Therefore, one will not chase after anything.

When the sense meets an object, electrical signals (saṅkhārā) arises and they will be decoded and compared with the old stored data to determine the object. Since the object is not what one craved for, there is not much information available about it to form a detail output. One will simply recognize it as it is without much further details.

Since one does not crave for it, one does not pay attention to it; therefore, one does not try to get contact with it. With no further contact, one is no longer conscious of it. With no consciousness, there is no feeling, no thinking, no pondering about it. Name-and-form ceased. One will not continue opening the door of the six senses to it. With the six senses cut off, the connection between one and the object is also cut off. Contact ceased. With no contact, no further feeling will arise for the object. With no feeling to the object, no craving for it. With no craving for the object, one does not cling to it. Since one does not cling to it, one does not wish to be with it. Therefore, one will not join its order. Since one is not in that order, one will not be affected by the order and its rules, and one does not need to pay or receive anything from the order. One is free from it.

After putting away the last body, with all that were sensed and craved in the last order that one joined, they all will grow cold in that order and one is unbounded. One will never search to join any new order, therefore, it is the last birth.

With this understanding, I can also see why the Buddha always accepted meal invitation in silence. The meal invitation is a sense pleasure object, and that is what he accepted. However, after recognized the invitation, he never goes on to say “ok” or “agree” or anything else. He recognized and accepted the invitation as it is without further detail. Since he did not crave for it, he did not continue paying attention to it. With no further attention to that invitation, he was no longer conscious of it. Therefore, he did not say anything related to it.

The consciousness that sees things as they are will not be bound or established to anything. It comes to recognize the object and immediately ceases after that. Since it does not bind to anything, it does not take the object or anything as “I, my, mine or myself”. It does not even take it as “I, me, myself”. It will not join any new order because there is no desire or attraction to do so, it is free and unbound.

Nothing can bind to this consciousness even itself, it does not favor or oppose anything; therefore, right or wrong has no meaning to it. With this consciousness, name-and-form is completely ceased.

3 Likes
2

Hi, I’m moving this to the Watercooler where it fits better.

Essays and analysis that treat the whole sutta, usually by experienced teachers…read more

This follows the model used in the traditional Theravadin commentaries, where the meaning of each sutta is “discussed” (aṭṭhakathā).

3

Thanks, I think this place is better.

4

It’s not necessary to know anything about DO to follow the practical path. To trace the Buddha’s path it would be more profitable to expend time studying MN 19, the sutta which gives an invaluable insight into the Buddha’s thought process prior to awakening. There is described how investigation of the second and third noble truths leads to direct experience.

“Thinking imbued with renunciation has arisen in me; and that leads neither to my own affliction, nor to the affliction of others, nor to the affliction of both. It fosters discernment, promotes lack of vexation, & leads to Unbinding.”

Ajahn Chah on the theoretical and irrelevant nature of DO:

DO exploits the human tendency to the exotic, and avoids the practicality of impermanence, just because something is popular doesn’t mean it’s right. A sense of proportion is necessary in reading the suttas to discern the Buddha’s intention, and DO occurs infrequently compared to the ubiquity of impermanence, therefore with little time available to the individual that is a guide clear thinking and to study.

5 Likes
5

The Buddha said:

Alas, this world has fallen into trouble. It’s born, grows old, dies, passes away, and is reborn yet it doesn’t understand how to escape from this suffering, from old age and death (SN12.10)

The problem is that we do not know why one is born then grows old, dies, passes away, and is reborn and continues to do so over and over. We do not know how to get out of that cycle, or do not see any problem with that cycle at all, or do not realize that we are in that cycle, or do not even believe there is a cycle.

Dependent Origination is like a map. If we understand it, we can understand why should we do this or that. To go to an unknown destination, without a clear map and clear directions, it is not easy.

If we understand Dependent Origination, we will understand where will the path that we are following lead us to? Looking around, many different paths have been created, many teachers expounded them. Unfortunately, they do not always agree with each others. Without understanding DO, we simply follow the teachers faithfully and hope that they are right.

If we understand Dependent Origination, we will know exactly what we should and should not do. We will better understand why the Suttas or the teachers said this or that? The only thing left is to walk the path. This is the most difficult. However, with the correct map in hand, we will have the chance to get to the right destination.

1 Like
6

From my understanding, DO is meant to break.
There are three possible outcomes:

  1. one could break DO at the early phases; so no more rebirths
  2. one could break DO at the later phases; one could have a happy life and reenter the cycle in upper realms including humanhood; or reenter the cycle for just a few times.
  3. one doesn’t break DO cycle; surely reenter the cycle but the fate/destiny of new existence is unknown as it will be decided by karma.

It is obvious that the most possible outcome among people is No.3.

regards,

1 Like
7

Nāma is a very interesting component in dependent origination. It is often overlooked. We may think it simply as “mind”, “mentality”. However, by its definition:

Feeling, perception, volition, contact, attention: this is called name.

In Buddhism, we normally see “mind” or “mentality” as “feeling, perception, volition and consciousness.” In nāma, we can find “feeling, perception, and volition.” To be consistent with “mind” or “mentality”, we will need consciousness.

Contact and attention in nāma are often overlooked. We do not pay much attention to them. However, they are the most important components of nāma. They are the keys of dependent origination, and they are what make nāma different from mind or mentality.

Contact is an interesting component in nāma, it provides consciousness to nāma. Without consciousness, there is no contact (by its definition.)So, if there is “contact” then we must already have consciousness. This also shows us why nāmarūpa always arises with consciousness. Therefore, nāma can function as “mind”. However, it is more than that. It also has “attention”, and “contact” is not simply about consciousness. It has its own function too. It is the connection between the subject and its object.

“Attention” is a component we often ignore in nāma. However, it is a very important factor in dependent origination. It is the driver of dependent origination. By ignorance, we keep putting our attention towards the object that we like, and try to establish contact to it. Once contact is established, feeling, perception, volition arise (or we can say nāmarūpa about the object arises). This is dependent origination in the wrong way. Without ignorance, we put our attention away from the objects that we like, and not try to make any more connection to it. This is dependent origination in the right way.

When attention is completely moved away from the object, contact to the object is cut off. Consciousness regarding to the object is ceased. Nāmarūpa associated with the object is ceased (We are no longer conscious of its form or any feelings, perceptions, thinking regarding to the object.) However, this does not mean that one is unconscious or knows nothing. One simply sees the object as it is. It has no effect to oneself. That is the end of all sufferings.

1 Like
8

Dependent origination is deep and hard to see. When I look deeper into the definition of nāma:

Vedanā, saññā, cetanā, phasso, manasikāro

Cetanā? Why is it here? What is it? Does it have any relation to saṅkhārā since both of them have a sense of “volition”?

Cetanā is translated as “volition” or “intention”. “Intention” gives me a sense of “voluntary volition”.

From my interpretation of dependent origination, saṅkhārā can operate in autonomic or voluntary mode: Breathing normally is in autonomic mode. Speech normally is in voluntary mode.

Saṅkhārā is the signal communication in the mind. It can be autonomic or voluntary; So, I think cetanā is the signal communication in voluntary mode. It is in voluntary mode because of craving. Therefore, I see that cetanā is actually saṅkhārā affected by craving.

Amazingly, I can see how precisely each component is defined in dependent origination. When nāmarūpa is ceased, the saṅkhārā that is ceased is actually the cetanā (or the saṅkhārā in voluntary, willful mode), while cetanā can act as saṅkhārā for nāma to function as an affected mind in nāmarūpa.

9

@paul1 that link brought me to an essay by Ven. Bodhi, did you mean to link a different one? I would like to read the Ajahn Chah one you mentioned.

10

My mistake, here is the correct link:

2 Likes
11

In nāma we found: volition, contact and attention(cetanā, phasso, manasikāro.)

Volition(cetanā) is the mental factor affected by craving that voluntarily drives the mind to its object, attention is the mental factor that takes notice of the object, and contact is defined as:

And what, bhikkhus, is contact? There are these six classes of contact: eye-contact, ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, mind-contact. This is called contact.

We noticed that the Buddha points contact to the six-senses which are the doors for the mind to meet its object. Therefore, we can see that by craving, we intent to meet and connect to the object that we craved. After the connection is established, perception and feeling about the object arise. The important point is that nāma is about “the mind and its object through the six senses”. What is that object? It is rūpa(form)!

The four great elements and the form derived from the four great elements: this is called form.

We can see that nāma connected to rūpa to form what we called nāmarūpa. Therefore, nāmarūpa is the “connection between the craving mind and its object.” Its object is obviously not limited to the body. Nāmarūpa is not about the mind or its object. It is about that connection! The cessation of nāmarūpa is the cessation of that connection. Not cessation of the mind or its object!

That connection is established by contact factor in nāma. From the definition of contact:

In dependence on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact

Without consciousness, there is no contact by its definition; therefore, there is no connection between the mind and its object, or we can say there is no nāmarūpa. (nāmarūpa depends on consciousness.)

Without nāmarūpa, there is no connection between the mind and its object through the six senses. Therefore, there is no consciousness about that object. (consciousness depends on nāmarūpa.)

Dependent origination is so deep and hard to see. The more we look into it, the more we can find so many interesting hidden meanings.

12

When I look deeper into consciousness (viññāṇa):

From SN12.2

And what, bhikkhus, is consciousness? There are these six classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, mind-consciousness. This is called consciousness

From SN12.43

In dependence on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises.

In short, consciousness must depend on the object of the senses. There is no consciousness that does not depend on the object of the senses.

In MN43

Wisdom and consciousness—are these things mixed or separate? And can we completely dissect them so as to describe the difference between them?

Wisdom and consciousness—these things are mixed, not separate. And you can never completely dissect them so as to describe the difference between them. For you understand what you cognize, and you cognize what you understand. That’s why these things are mixed, not separate. And you can never completely dissect them so as to describe the difference between them.”

Wisdom and consciousness—what is the difference between these things that are mixed, not separate?

The difference between these things is that wisdom should be developed, while consciousness should be completely understood.

Wisdom is not apart from consciousness, and consciousness is not apart from wisdom. “Wisdom should be developed, while consciousness should be completely understood.” What does this mean?

It seems to me that wisdom is consciousness that sees things as they are, or the consciousness without ignorance, while consciousness is the consciousness that is both affected by ignorance and that is not affected by ignorance. Therefore, we do not simply say, consciousness should be cut off, but we say consciousness should be completely understood. We should understand its mode of operation. We should develop the non-ignorance mode, and cut off the ignorance one. But we do not cut off consciousness! (This is the right effort).

Consciousness can grasp or not grasp its objects. With ignorance, it will grasp its objects and will grow. Without ignorance, it will not do so; therefore, it will cease after that.

Also from MN43

What can be known by purified mind consciousness released from the five senses?

Aware that ‘space is infinite’ it can know the dimension of infinite space. Aware that ‘consciousness is infinite’ it can know the dimension of infinite consciousness. Aware that ‘there is nothing at all’ it can know the dimension of nothingness.

How do you understand something that can be known?
You understand something that can be known with the eye of wisdom.

What is the purpose of wisdom?
The purpose of wisdom is direct knowledge, complete understanding, and giving up.

“Purified mind consciousness released from the five senses.” Interesting! It seems to me that the five senses depend on the body are the problems. The mysterious mind-consciousness can be purified and released from them!

What is this purified mind consciousness? It is the mind consciousness that sees things as they are. It sees the infiniteness of space as the dimension of infinite space, it sees the infiniteness of consciousness as the dimension of infinite consciousness, when it does not see anything, it sees that as the dimension of nothingness. However, it sees them with the eye of wisdom. Not for grasping, but for giving up.

Moreover, the objects of this released mind is limited to the infinity and nothingness. Its objects are not the objects of the five senses. The mind that is not purified and released will mainly grasp onto the objects of the five senses, and it is limited.

Here is another interesting conversation in MN43

Reverend, these five faculties have different scopes and different ranges, and don’t experience each others’ scope and range. That is, the faculties of the eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body. What do these five faculties, with their different scopes and ranges, have recourse to? What experiences their scopes and ranges?”

“These five faculties, with their different scopes and ranges, have recourse to the mind. And the mind experiences their scopes and ranges.”

“These five faculties depend on what to continue?”

“These five faculties depend on life to continue.”

“These five faculties, with their different scopes and ranges, have recourse to the mind. And the mind experiences their scopes and ranges.” The mind sense can experience all the objects of the other five senses. The five senses depends on the body or life. Without the body, there is no “five senses”.

If the mind consciousness can be released from the five senses, but it can operate as the five senses then it does not depend on the body. If it depends on the body then it cannot be released from the five senses because the body contains the five senses. Therefore, without the body, the mind sense can still see, hear, smell, taste and touch.

Another interesting components are “warmth” and “life (āyu)”. In MN43:

“But what does life depend on to continue?”
“Life depends on warmth to continue.”
“But what does warmth depend on to continue?”
“Warmth depends on life to continue.”

It seems to me that this “warmth and life” together is called life force (āyusaṅkhārā). The warmth is the force for life to continue, and life is the vehicle for warmth to operate. Does “warmth” relate to “energy”?

Life force is explained in MN43 as:

“Are the life forces the same things as the phenomena that are felt? Or are they different things?”

“The life forces are not the same things as the phenomena that are felt. For if the life forces and the phenomena that are felt were the same things, a mendicant who had attained the cessation of perception and feeling would not emerge from it. But because the life forces and the phenomena that are felt are different things, a mendicant who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling can emerge from it.

“The life forces are not the same things as the phenomena that are felt.” Similarly, the form that we see is not the form out there. It is done by light. Light brings the reflection of the form to our eyes, and light is a form of energy. Light involves in the signal communication (saṅkhārā) to bring us the image. Coincidently, we also see that the word for life force is āyusaṅkhārā!

How many things must this body lose before it lies forsaken, tossed aside like an insentient log?”

“This body must lose three things before it lies forsaken, tossed aside like an insentient log: vitality, warmth, and consciousness.” (MN43)

The death body must lose vitality (āyu), warmth, and consciousness. Or it must lose the life force and consciousness. Since energy cannot be lost, it must transform to something else.

We can see that light can carry information, sound wave can carry information. They are energy, so energy can carry information. In the six senses, the most mysterious base is the mind-base. The eye-base provided by the body, but what provides the mind-base? It seems to me that this life force energy is what provided the mind-base. The mind-consciousness can be released from the five senses. However, to function, it will need its base. Therefore, I think the life force will be released at death as the mind-base.

The mind-consciousness can function as the five senses. Therefore, after death, we still can see, hear, smell, taste and touch as usual. Moreover, it is no longer limited by the body. While the eye can only see, the ear can only hear,… The mind can do all, so it can even see sound, or hear the odors. It seems like we acquire more senses. This sounds crazy, but that how the logic is.

As we see in MN43, the mind consciousness can be purified and released. Its base is the life force energy which can carry information about the life of the being.

This mind consciousness is a conditioned consciousness. It depends on its mind-base and its objects. It is not a stand-alone one. It arises and ceases depends on the conditions.

In dependence on the mind-base and mind-objects, mind-consciousness arises, it then creates the connection between the “I” and its object. In other word, it creates the “I” and then connects that “I” to the object. Or we can say, it becomes the “I” (or the subject) and connects to its object.

However, the “I” is optional. There is no need for that “I” for the process to function. Putting the “I” in there and grasping onto it just simply to experience the feelings that will come out of that process, craving and clinging will be developed, birth will follow, and aging-and-death will come.

What released after death is just the mind-base or that life force energy. No “I”, no “consciousness” is released or migrated. What is purified is just that life force energy.

Energy has no beginning and no end, and it cannot be destroyed. It simply changes from this state to another state. The released mind dwells in the infinite and that nothingness, and enjoys its state of rest, untroubled and free from all sufferings.

Edit: Removed “of course, it can also enjoy the five senses if it needs to, but it never craves and clings to them” since the released purified mind’s objects are limited in the infinity and nothingness.

13

Wisdom is known through consciousness.
Consciousness’s true nature is known through wisdom.

14

Try to look the pali term of consciousness and mind in the Sutta that you mentions.

Maybe it will give you more insights.

15

I am very interested in the information you have given about the links—you have certainly done your homework! For me however, the real puzzle of conditioned arising comes between 3 and 4, in the leap from discriminative consciousness to mind-and-body. I don’t see how we can have 1-3 (ignorance, constructing activities, discriminative consciousness), before we have mind and body to house them. Theravadin tradition also finds this a problem, and traditionally the 12 links are supposed to describe the situation over the course of three lives. It doesn’t seem to me to be a simple, linear, historical, cause-to-effect listing.

16

If I understand your question, I think you are questioning about how can we have 1-3 (ignorance, constructing activities, discriminative consciousness) before we have 4 (name-and-form)?

This is a very good question. If you read all of my analysis above, you will see that name-and-form is not about a being. It is about the connection between the mind of the being and its objects.

Before death, the being has mind and body. Since the mind is in ignorance mode, it craves for its object. When the mind meets its object, volitional formations arise (communication signals send to the mind), it recognizes its object (consciousness arises). Recognized the object that it wants (recognizes the object’s form or pattern), it will pay attention to it, and intentionally make connection to that object. Once the connection is established, perception and feeling about the object arise. Here, we can see that all the factors of name-and-form are there (the object’s form, attention, intention, feeling, perception, contact); therefore, we can say that name-and-form arises (or the connection between the mind and its object is established and completed.)

Moreover, after death, the mind-base is released and carries all information about the being. It can act as a mind and the five senses(see my analysis above). Therefore, it is no less than a being. It can receive its objects. Since it is a mind, it can be ignorance, so it will crave for its objects, and the process is the same as above.

17

It seems like I forgot to response to you. Please see my response above.

18

Please excuse my careless initial reading of your essay. I find your account both original and compelling. And it makes sense that immediately after ignorance we would find a description of situations preceding perception, involving the subject-object dynamic. It rather reminds me of Fichte.

I don’t yet have the knowledge of Pali to say whether you are definitely correct, but your quotes support your assertions well. A fascinating analysis!

19

Thanks. I am glad that at least someone is interested in my writing. I understand that my analysis does not follow the current understanding, so it is not very easy for people to accept it. I hope that my writing will help someone to discover more.

I am not an expert, and I do not know Pali too. I just write what I understand after reading the texts.

20

Good presentation of your new understanding of DO.

If possible you may also compare the Pali version with its corresponding Chinese texts.

The following “Chapter 6. Causal condition” in the book, The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism by Choong Mun-keat, pp. 150-205, a comparative study of the Nidana Samyutta of SN and SA, may be of interest to you: