Specific conditionality (Idappaccayatā)
When this is, that is.
From the arising of this comes the arising of that.
When this isn’t, that isn’t.
From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.
Rupert Gethin translates it as follows:
This existing, that exists;
this arising, that arises;
this not existing, that does not exist;
this ceasing, that ceases’.
And what, bhikkhus, is dependent origination? ‘With birth as condition, aging-and-death comes to be’: whether there is an arising of Tathagatas or no arising of Tathagatas, that element still persists, the stableness of the Dhamma, the fixed course of the Dhamma, specific conditionality. A Tathagata awakens to this and breaks through to it. Having done so, he explains it, teaches it, proclaims it, establishes it, discloses it, analyses it, elucidates it. And he says: ‘See! With birth as condition, bhikkhus, aging-and-death.’(SN12.20)
I think many of us including myself misunderstood this specific conditionality (Idappaccayatā).
With ignorance as condition, volitional formations…With birth as condition, aging-and-death. We normally think in the forward direction: ignorance-> volitional formations, … birth → aging-and-death. Therefore, we stuck in the question of necessary or sufficient condition? If it is necessary condition, then it will not guarantee the result, because it will need the presence of other conditions, and we do not know what are they or if they will come? If it is sufficient condition then the result must happen right away. But we all know that with the presence of birth, aging-and-death does not come right away!
If it is sufficient, why does it not happen right away? If water (H2O) reaches 100 degree Celsius, then boiling should occur right away. Do we need to wait?
If we say that birth is sufficient condition for aging-and-death, then if birth is true then aging-and-death must be true at the same time. However, this is odd because it implies that a newborn baby is an old man, or he is already dead!
If it is necessary but not sufficient then what else does it need? How can we guarantee that the effect will happen? The Buddha said: With feeling as condition, craving. Reading this way, it seems to me that if there is feeling, there is craving. Therefore, feeling should be sufficient. However, this contradicts to what we just said (necessary but not sufficient)! Moreover, the Buddha did not mention any other factors needed for feeling → craving, and same for all other links.
From my new understanding of dependent origination, it comes to me that I misunderstood this concept before too. Now I can understand it better.
Here is my new understanding:
For dependent origination, we need to read the dependently arisen phenomena of specific conditionality in reverse. Not in forward direction:
When this is, that is.
From the arising of this comes the arising of that
This existing, that exists;
this arising, that arises; (Rupert Gethin)
Ignorance-> volitional formations: We have volitional formations because of ignorance. This means volitional formations is not a stand-alone entity. It is the product of ignorance. It does not exist by itself. Volitional formations exists (When this is) because ignorance exist (that is). Volitional formations(saṅkhārā) is arising (this arising) because ignorance arises (that arises). Volitional formations is a dependently arisen phenomenon. It is not a stand-alone phenomenon.
Birth-> Aging-and-death: We have aging-and-death because of birth. This means aging-and-death is not a stand-alone entity. It is the product of birth. Aging-and-death does not exist by itself. Aging-and-death is a dependently arisen phenomenon. It is not a stand-alone phenomenon.
With volitional formation as condition, consciousness. We have consciousness because of volitional formations. Consciousness is not a stand-alone phenomenon or a stand-alone entity. It is a dependently arisen phenomenon. Therefore, by dependent origination, there is no stand-alone consciousness moving from this life to the next life. Without volitional formations and other conditions, we do not have that consciousness. So, stream of consciousness moves to the next life also does not make sense to me because if this consciousness ceased, how will the next consciousness arise without volitional formations and other conditions? However, this is a subject for debate.
For dependent cessation, we will need to read specific conditionality in forward mode:
When this isn’t, that isn’t.
From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.
This not existing, that does not exist;
This ceasing, that ceases’. (Rupert Gethin)
Ignorance ← volitional formations: When there is no ignorance, there is no volitional formations. From the cessation of ignorance, volitional formations will cease. Because ignorance is the condition of volitional formations. Without that condition or with no sufficient conditions, the product will not be formed or will not occurred.
Heat is the condition for boiling water. Without heat, there is no boiling water. If there is heat, but the temperature has not yet reached 100 degree Celsius then there is no boiling water.
With this new understanding, necessary or sufficient condition is no longer the problem. Idappaccayatā is about the dependency of the phenomenon. Not about the condition. It emphasizes the interconnection. It rejected the stand-alone phenomenon. Therefore, dependent origination rejects stand-alone atta as well as stand-alone consciousness regardless if it changed or not.
With this new understanding, consciousness arises because it has all sufficient conditions for it to do so. How many conditions? That is not the concern. Just that when consciousness arises, all the required conditions must be there already! If not, consciousness will not arise.
When death arises, birth and all other required conditions for that death must already be there. What are other conditions? Could be accident or sickness or old age or whatever…
Thanks to dependent origination, whenever I see “consciousness descend into the mother’s womb” or “consciousness were to depart” then I know that is not the Buddha’s words because it implies a stand-alone consciousness. This is the problem for Sati - Son of a fisherman.
Hope this writing may help somebody.