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

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:

Thanks, I will take a look.

This may very well be the explanation for cycles of life and death. Considering that Dhamma is meant to be directly visible and immediately effective, we may also contemplate our mind in the present like the following.

When one has passion in certain thing, which may be an object or idea, one becomes aware of it.

Now when the mind continues to circle around the object or idea due to the influence of desire, then the mind gets bounded.

In this way, desire causes consciousness to be established in namarupa.

When contact occurs, the mind will be inclined towards the way it was bounded. In this way, a new existence arises out of the previous bondage.

See SN12.64 Atthirāgasutta

I will try to make dependent origination as simple as possible for many people to understand it. However, if you believed death is the end, then this writing is not for you.

Dependent origination is like a map with its instructions. It shows how beings are stuck in samsara, and how to get out of it. In other word, it addresses the problem of rebirth.

Beings are stuck in the cycle of birth and aging-and-death. To get out of this cycle, we will need to end the connection between aging-and-death to birth.

Here, I will try to show that map:

image

Birth: physical birth, a birth of a being into an order.

Aging-and-Death: physical aging and death.

Ignorance Path: Ignorance → Volition Formations-> Consciousness->Name-and-Form

->Six senses->Contact->Feeling->Craving->Clinging->Becoming (State of being).

Wisdom path: Dispassion->Relinquishment->Cessation.

Nibbana: The ultimate happiness, free from all sufferings.

The path that we will take after death will be strongly influenced by our state of being. Our state of being will push us into the path that fits to it. Most of the time, it is so strong that we cannot control it. Therefore, the practice before death is very important. We need to build our state of being to be compatible with the path that we want it to follow after death.

To reach nibbana, we must follow the wisdom path. Seeing the dangers of the All (the five aggregates), seeing the impermanence of all things, we develop dispassion to them. By dispassion, we eventually relinquish them. At the end, they will all be gone without any remainder. Our state of being will lean to nibbana, and after death, we will be attracted to that wisdom path and will reach nibbana.

By following the ignorance path, we will build up our desires, and our state of being will be so. Therefore, after death, we will be attracted to the ignorance path and continue the cycle of birth and aging-and-death. This path will lead us around samsara, and we will have a very big chance to fall into terrible sufferings since our desire, grasping and hatred are normally very strong that may lead to many wrong doings to satisfy our desire. Moreover, the longer we travel the samsara, the more tears we will shed for our love ones.

Aging-and-death connects to Birth through Ignorance Path. To end the connection between birth and aging-and-death, we will need to end or cut off the Ignorance Path, and follow the wisdom path.

To cut off the ignorance path, we must end our cravings, and develop the wisdom path.

The theory is simple. However, the practice is not that simple because it will go against everything that we normally wish to be, to have or to keep.

That is dependent origination in general terms without going into many details. For more details, please see my previous explanations. Hope that this may benefit as many people as possible.

Notes:

Why is rebirth the problem?

In SN12.4 to SN12.10, the following exclamation is repeated by several Buddhas in the past:

Alas, this world has fallen into trouble, in that it is born, ages, and dies, it passes away and is reborn, yet it does not understand the escape from this suffering headed by aging-and-death. When now will an escape be discerned from this suffering headed by aging-and-death?’ (SN12.4)

The Suttas reserved the whole chapter for the problem of rebirth in SN15.1 to SN15.10:

In SN15.3:

“Mendicants, transmigration has no known beginning. No first point is found of sentient beings roaming and transmigrating, hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving. What do you think? Which is more: the flow of tears you’ve shed while roaming and transmigrating for such a very long time—weeping and wailing from being united with the unloved and separated from the loved—or the water in the four oceans?”

“As we understand the Buddha’s teaching, the flow of tears we’ve shed while roaming and transmigrating is more than the water in the four oceans.”

Then the Buddha concluded:

Why is that? Transmigration has no known beginning. … This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed regarding all conditions.”

From my previous investigation, I found:

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

In MN43, I see that the purified mind-consciousness does not depend on the body, and can be released from the body. Moreover, it can function as the five senses without the body.

It seems to me that the purification process is a gradual process. It goes from the heaviest to the lightest rupa. First, it will shed the earth, which corresponds to the heaviest rupa. The being still has the other rupa (water, air, fire). Therefore, the being will still have a body (water body), and it will be much lighter. The senses will be more sensitive. Then after a while, the being will continue shedding the next layer, which is water. Now he/she will only have air and fire for his/her body (air body). He/she is much lighter, and the senses will be much more sensitive. Next, he/she will shed the air body, and he/she will only carry the fire body. When he/she can shed the last layer (fire body), then the mind is completely free from the body and the five senses.

From that understanding, I can infer that a normal person after death will shed the earthly body, but he/she still carries the water body. This water body is no different from the earthly body, but it is much lighter and much more sensitive. Some may call this an astral body. The being will live with this body until he/she sheds it again (or he/she may be reborn at this stage). After shedding the water body, he/she will live with the air body. The air body may be called the mental or mind-made body. The process will continue (or he/she may be reborn at this stage). By shedding the mental body, he/she will remain with the fire body. The fire body is the light body (or causal body). Even in this stage, the mind is still not completely free from the body. Therefore, it is not completely free from the five senses.

So, right after death, the being still has a body which is similar to what he/she currently has, but it is much lighter and more sensitive. It is much easier to be attracted to some forces. So, his/her state of being will be a very important factor for his/her future destination.

I think the process of rebirth can start at any body’s stage (water, air, fire). However, it will be the reversed process.

What will be reborn to earthly life is just that being. It will need to restore all the missing layers until it reaches the water body (or the astral body) before entering the womb. Therefore, the mysterious “gandharva” or " gandhabbā" could simply be the being in his/her water or astral body. Taking ownership of the fetus will provide the being with its final earthly layer of the body. Now he/she will have the completed set for the body to be able to function on earth. There is no consciousness or stream of consciousness that goes on to the next life. It is simply that being with his/her new body.

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.

1 Like

Thanks for your feedback. First, I never claim that I am Buddhist or not Buddhist. I am just a simple lay person. Therefore, if my writings do not fit with your understanding then they are not for you. However, it is good that we should not make any judgment too soon. It is not good if we make wrong judgment. We all should keep right speech all the time no matter if we agree or disagree with others.

I do not expect many people will accept what I wrote. However, I think there maybe someone who may understand what I said, and can expand them even more than me, so I shared my writings to them.

You have your understanding, and I have mine. Unfortunately, we are not in the same page. I respect your understanding, but that how I understood dependent origination. You have the right to disagree with it. If you do not think I am a Buddhist, then let it be that way. I never claim I am anybody. Since you have very strong opinions, I think I cannot explain any further.

By the way, thanks for reading my writings.

1 Like

you don’t need to become a Buddhist in order to love the buddha, practice the teaching and supporting the sangha

Another view is We can call it "volition descending to the womb or “ignorance descending to the womb”

But I still think that consciousness as different from volition or ignorance like how h20 or water is different from o and h2 even though there is no water without h2 and o binding so the condition for water are 3 these are h2 ,o and the binding process itself , the process itself is the condition for water

So the condition for consciousness is not only volition but ignorance too is the condition, ignorance don’t transform into volition when ignorance creates volition it still exist, it doesn’t vanish like how the sun Conditions rain but the sun don’t vanish when rain happens

So consciousness is quite different from its creators or conditioners like how curd is different from milk but there’s no curd without milk, milk is the creator of curd

So Buddha really mean it when he said consciousness descends to the womb, the conditions are 3, sperm, egg and consciousness which is simply a function to cognize, this means Buddha is a dualist not a materialist or monist like what advaita is

The sperm and egg is part of the form in the name-form link of the dependent origination , and name-form is conditioned by consciousness what this means is consciousness is the first in the womb waiting for the sperm and egg to come, the consciousness guides the egg and sperm to meet

If you ask whether the consciousness which creates the sperm and egg is same with the one helping both to meet I say it’s different because the volition is different

Consciousness is really cool, it is suffering, it’s magic, it’s illusion but abiogenesis happened due to consciousness, the first living being was actually a composite of matters which was guided by consciousness to bind, you can’t create a living being from matter without consciousness guiding it as the scientist who do the experiment is consciousness too

Now in case of birth there are 3 consciousnesses ,the first consciousness creates the sperm, the second creates the egg and the third one waiting in the womb guiding the meeting

The first consciousness is conditioned by past kamma since Buddha calls kamma as intention or volition then volition = intention = kamma = mental kamma, this intention is created by the father in the past since no man can regulate the creation of its sperm it’s not present kamma but past kamma, you choose suffering and you blame others

So the father’s volition or kamma creates the first kind of consciousness which creates sperm, the mother’s volition creates the second volition which creates the consciousness which creates the egg cell and the unborn’s volition to born creates the third consciousness which waits in the womb guiding the sperm and egg cell to meet so the unborn really choose the parent through its own volition and consciousness

Now these 3 consciousnesses are different because the 3 base volitions are different but they could interact with each others

I have a different understanding than you.

To me, the consciousness in dependent origination is not simply like H2O, or milk to curd.

In your examples, after Hydrogen combined with Oxygen, you have a stand-alone water. After milk transformed to curd, you have a stand-alone curd. No more milk needed to support that curd. Without additional milk, the curd will stay there by itself. For water, no need to have more hydrogen or oxygen to support that water after it formed. The water can stay there without support from hydrogen and oxygen.

However, as I understand, consciousness in dependent origination is like the light of a candle’s flame. The light depends on the flame to arise. With the flame of that candle, light arises. However, if we remove the flame then the light will cease. There is no candle’s light without the present of the flame of the candle. The candle’s light is not a stand-alone entity. It always needs the present of the flame.

In SN12.67

If, friend, one were to remove one of those sheaves of reeds, the other would fall, and if one were to remove the other sheaf, the first would fall. So too, with the cessation of name-and-form comes cessation of consciousness; with the cessation of consciousness comes cessation of name-and-form.

The Buddha said, the Dhamma is good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end (AN3.30). Therefore, any Dhamma’s concept must be consistent throughout the Cannon. If it creates conflicts here and there, then it is not a true Dhamma.

If you can see that consciousness depends on name-and-form, and name-and-form depends on consciousness. Without consciousness, there is no name-and-form. Without name-and-form, there is no consciousness. So, if there is a stand-alone consciousness that can run around to find name-and-form, then while it is running around to find name-and-form, name-and-form obviously is not available for it at that time. Therefore, it contradicts to the dependency between consciousness and name-and-form.

Moreover, by definition of consciousness (SN12.43):

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

We can see that consciousness depends on the sense bases and their objects. Without the sense-bases and their objects, there is no consciousness. When the eye sees a cat, you recognize the cat. If there is no cat, then that consciousness ceased. It does not go somewhere to look for another cat.

A fire that burns dependent on logs is reckoned as a log fire. When there is no more log to burn, where will the log fire go? I am sure that we do not assume that it is running around to find another log!

I do not recall any Sutta in the EBT’s Cannon mentions about “sperm, egg and consciousness”. If you can find one, I am happy to see it. Therefore, I do not know where do these ideas come from?

Not all the words in the Cannon belong to the Buddha. To me, some Suttas are polluted; therefore, I only take the Dhamma that is consistent throughout the Cannon. If I found a suspicious idea that is conflicting with many other Suttas, and it does not make sense then I will not use it.

As I understand, the Buddha only defines six classes of 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).”

I have no idea where do your three consciousnesses come from? Therefore, you should back them up by the Suttas, not by someone else’s ideas. People can have wild speculations, so I only trust the Suttas because I can verify the information from the Suttas.

I see some people get stuck with name-and-form (namarupa). They tried to explain how consciousness depends on name-and-form and name-and-form depend on consciousness. They think namarupa is a new partial being, or a form with a name, or a form with its mental aspects except consciousness. Therefore, they tried to find a way to put the consciousness into that namarupa to form a complete being. However, by doing so, they get in trouble in explaining the condition of a living aharant or a living Buddha.

By dependent cessation, when there is no ignorance, volitional formations must cease. When volitional formations ceased, consciousness must cease. When consciousness ceased, name-and-form must ceased. Therefore, the living Buddha or the arahant must die by their logic if name-and-form is the being. So, they created many theories to explain this dilemma. However, I do not find any theories that can solve that dilemma. Moreover, since they take namarupa as a new birth, then they will have trouble explaining jati (birth). Some tried to call this as rebirth. So, we have two births in dependent origination! One birth leads to six senses, and one birth (jati) leads to aging-and-death. Trying to explain, they created countless of theories, but I could not find any reasonable explanation. Therefore, I investigated the problem myself without relying on any of those theories.

If you have read all of my previous writings above, you will see that I already addressed this problem. To solve the dilemma, we need to step out of the box. Put aside all that we think we know, and start from scratch. Doing so, I found that name-and-form (namarupa) is NOT the being. It is the connection between the mind and its objects (See my previous writings). It connects nama to rupa. That why we called nama-rupa. With this new understanding, I can see the role of consciousness there. Consciousness enables that connection. With consciousness, the mind (nama) can connect to its objects (rupa) and we can recognize the object. Without consciousness, the mind will be disconnected from its objects, or that connection ceased. Since that connection is namarupa then we can say namarupa ceased.

We can see the connection requires consciousness to function. Therefore, we can say namarupa depends on consciousness.

Without nāmarūpa, there is no connection between the mind and its object through the six senses. When the mind is not connected to the object, we do not recognize the object, or we can say there is no consciousness about that object. To recognize the object, we must have that connection (namarupa). Therefore, consciousness depends on nāmarūpa.

When ignorance ceased, namarupa will cease. With this new understanding, only the connection between the mind and its objects ceased. The being is no longer conscious of the object. The being is still there, the object is still there. Only the connection between them is cut off. This solved the dilemma of the living arahant, and solved the two births issue.

Many of readers in this forum are extremely smart and well verse. If they found errors in my writings, they will refute them. If you do not believe in what I said, you can check and discuss with them.

If you want to know what will be reborn if there is no consciousness to do so, you can explore the mysterious term “gandhabbā” in Suttas, or read my previous writing.

I am not a teacher or I want to teach anybody. I simply want to share what I found because I believe the Dhamma does not belong to me. It belongs to everybody.

1 Like

That’s no problem, it’s actually good imo as it promotes discussion

I always see difference of opinion as a positive thing but it would be cool though if we could agree on something

Yes I think you are right here while I am wrong

Yes I think you are right here while I am wrong

Thanks, this is new knowledge to me previously I thought 6 senses consciousness are different from DO consciousness

Yes name and form includes consciousness too as by “name” Buddha refers to the four mental aggregates which includes consciousness

That’s cool to know, I follow the sutta, atthakatha and tika

Yes I think you are right while I am wrong there

past life ignorance conditioned current life suffering and current life ignorance conditions future life suffering so if ignorance ceases it doesn’t mean arahant’s current life body will vanish but arahant’s future life body will vanish since there’s no future body suffering ceases and never arises again

I don’t know about this, thanks for pointing out

Since I follow the Tika the sub commentary written by ven dhammapala, a south indian arahant at 600 CE I will just quote it here,
Now ven dhammapala wrote 3 sub commentaries or tikas each to digha, mahajima and samyutta nikaya but I will quote paramatthamanjusa instead of these 3 tikas since paramatthamanjusa which is well known as visudhimagga mahatika or visudhimagga samvanana is the essence of all these 3 tikas, ven dhammapala wrote paramatthamanjusa before he wrote the 3 tikas, and 3 tikas heavily referenced and quoted paramatthamanjusa this means all general teachings are in paramatthamanjusa while the 3 tikas only provide specific context to the atthakatha, the paramatthamanjusa is called visuddhimagga mahatika because it’s the largest commentary to visuddhimagga

note that the italic words are visuddhimagga words that ven dhammaphala comment to, the non italic words are ven dhammaphala commentaries to that specific word

if there is a pali word that word is the pali equivalent of the english word before it

Commentary on detailed explanation of
the clause ‘With consciousness as condition, the mentality-materiality’(yinhanapaccaydnamarupapadavitthdrakathavannand’)

By analysis of mind and matter (vibhaga namarupanam) :
by classification (pabhedato) of mind and matter. Then by the teacher who shows firstly the classification of mind, it is said, “Because of inclining on to the object it is the three aggregates, such as, feeling, etc.” in order to show the cause and effect without mixture, even though consciousness also is mind only. But here in the explanation of rounds of existence as nibbana has no condition and as it has not got the sense of inclining, there is no contingency at all with regard to nibbana. For it is mind in the sense of making [citta and cetasika] bend (namanatthena) to itself and not in the sense of inclining (namanatthena’).

Their analysis (tesam vibhago): analysis of mind and matter as
pleasant, etc. and as earth, etc.

[Expecting] one abode of beings (ekam sattavasam) :
abode of non-percipient beings.

In the five (pahcasu):
in the first four and in the abode of non-percipient beings.

By mentioning of womb-lying beings (gabbhaseyya), womb-bom (jalabuja) beings are included. Therefore it is said *“and in the case of the egg-born(andajananca)”.*In the case of the egg-born beings who are sexless - in this way it should be construed.

Heads of continuity (santatislsani): basic processes of material group. Even though there are no mutable material phenomena at the moment of rebirth-linking, there are characteristic of material phenomena and space element. Thus they are, in ultimate sense, non-concretely produced matters. Hence removing it, it is said “as concrete matter (ruparupato)”.

It is said, “twenty-three states (tevisati dhamma)” bringing touch, etc. in formation aggregate as unity.

Canceling (apanetva):
not taking the earth, etc. belonging to another material groups owing to same characteristic.

Of them (tesam):
of these Brahmas.

In detail (vittharena):
without making abbreviation of matters in the four heads of continuities also.

Of the remaining kinds of apparitionally born beings in the sense-sphere becoming (kamabhave pana yasma sesaopapatikanam):
here there are not apparitionally born beings said in the sense-sphere becoming, so that the mentioning of the word ‘remaining’ may be meaningful, but apparitionally-bom and moisture bom beings are the remaining from egg-born and womb-born beings. Therefore the word ‘remaining’ is mentioned -in this way it should be understood. Or optionally “of the remaining kinds of apparitionally born beings (sesaopapatikanam)” is said with reference to the remaining from the apparitionally born beings of Brahma, etc. But they are immaterial also.
Thus it is said*, “in sense-sphere becoming (kamabhave)”.* It is possible to know mind and matter of those whose sense-bases are immatured through enumeration of states in the way stated in the description of rupamissakavihhana (consciousness mixed with matter) as appropriate. Therefore it is not stated -thus it should be known.

Due to temperature that occurred together with rebirth-linking consciousness* (patisandhicittena saha pavattaututo):.*
due to fire element of matters arisen together with rebirth-linking consciousness. Because of weakness of physical basis (vatthudubbalata) of rebirth-linking consciousness as heart-basis has arisen at that moment.
The bare octad originated by nutriment appears as soon as their body is suffused
by nutriment -in this way it is to be construe.

One hidden (tiro):
one beyond the reach of sight due to lying in the womb of the mother. At the least there are the two bare octads originated by temperature and consciousness. Thus with reference to the time at which sound becomes manifest, it is said, “at most, of the two [sound] enneads (ukkamsato dvinnam navakanam)”

formerly (pubbe):
the matter of which beginning is two continuities, of which an end is seven groups is mentioned previously: and that matter is said as just arising of each consciousness in three moments here [in the expression, ‘with consciousness as condition there arise mind and matter’]. Therefore it is said, “with the already mentioned seventy kamma-originated material groups that arise three times in each conscious moment (pubbe … pe … sattatividham)".

That is twofold also (duvidhampi tarn)':
the sound is twofold also as originated from temperature and originated from consciousness.

In order to carry on (santhatum):
in order to stand a long period, but it only stands merely in its moment.

Separately placed in the four directions (catuddisa vavatthapita):
separately placed in the four directions at feet, by joining their heads.

Like boats with broken floats (bhinnavahanika viya):
standing by embracing mutually.

And in the course of existence in the five constituent becoming (pahcavokdrabhave ca pavattiyam):
it is told with reference to the time of occurrence of five consciousnesses produced by kamma that doesn’t produce matter and to the condition of consciousness which is co-born. For at that time from consciousness there arises the mind only. But it can be said that with kamma consciousness as condition, there arise both mind and matter; and with post-nascent consciousness as condition matter is supported. The sentence, beginning with, ‘ the non-percipient being (asahhesu)’ is composed with reference to condition of kamma consciousness.

And in the course of existence in the five constituent becoming (pahcavokdrabhave ca
pavattiyam):

it is proper to say that it is said with reference to the time of appearance of matter from kamma other than kamma that produces life-continuum, etc. and to another time than the time of arising of life-continuum, etc. For it can be said that matter arising through kamma that produces life-continuum at the time of arising of life-continuum and the resultant, [namely, life-continuum] have condition of kamma consciousness. For mind and matter arising through kamma in the course of existence, which don’t depend on condition of co-nascent consciousness, don’t depend on condition of kamma
consciousness.

In both cases (sabbattha):
at the time of rebirth-linking and in the course of existence. Mind-and-matter through condition of co-born consciousness and mind- and-matter through the condition of kamma consciousness should be applied as appropriate.

Mind and matter and mind-matter (namahca rupahca namarupanca):
here the word namarupa (mind-matter) is similar to the word nama (mind) through the word nama which is one part, and similar to the word rupa (matter) through the word rupa which is one part. Therefore there is the remainder of one of its kind. Thus it is ekadesasarupekasesa (keeping any one part to represent the rest of its kind). The
meaning is that the remainder of the word namarupa and omission of the other word namarupa.

Not-resultant (avipakam): consciousness other than the resultant. When it is known as twofold, then this word is correctly said -thus it should be applied.

At the time of profitable or any other consciousness (kusaladicittakkhane):
it should be understood that by the word etc. (adi) those (matters) originated by kamma that doesn’t produce the result even at the moment of resultant consciousness just like at the moment of unprofitable consciousness and functional consciousness, are included.
But at the moment of the resultant consciousness, both mind and matter are obtained by the way stated before through the condition of kamma formation consciousness.
Therefore to remove the moment of such resultant consciousness, it is said, “at the time of profitable or any other consciousness”.

According to Suttanta method (suttantikapariyayato):
it is said because in Patthana, decisive-support condition for matters is not stated. But in Suttanta when this exists, that exists, and when this doesn’t, that also doesn’t; that [condition] is the decisive support, the origin, the cause and the source for that [effect]. Therefore the state of decisive-support of consciousness for the matter is said as follows: “Mind-and matter has consciousness as its cause.” In Vanapatthapariyaya discourse dwellings
are described as postures which depend on forest, village, market town, town, district, person: and gaining of requisites for the life, such as, robe from that place with difficulty and with ease. And the forest, etc, don’t reach the state of object-decisive- support, etc. for postures and for gaining robe, etc. Therefore non-existence without [some condition] should be understood as the state of decisive-support. Kamma-formation consciousness is for mind only object condition at the time of rebirth-linking,
of which object is kamma. Therefore there is nothing to be said. The state of condition as one kind for matter only is stated according to Suttanta method. For when it is said that this consciousness is a condition for matter which is suspected, it is a condition for mind. Therefore there is nothing to be told.
There is the sentence, beginning with, “but how is it (katham panetam)”'. it
questions on [mentality-materiality of] rebirth-linking which is not clear, because its course of existence is clear. Mind is to be known that it has consciousness as condition according to sutta‘, matter is according to logic. The teacher said, “for the kamma-originated also (kammasamutthanassapi hi)”, etc. to make it confirm through sutta, having established according to logic.

Only for the consciousness-originated (cittasamutthanasseva):
like in the case of the consciousness-originated [matter (cittasamutthanassaiyiya)) Here because for the wise men who examine, mere mentality-materiality is seen as appearing in ultimate sense, there is
neither being nor soul. Therefore, announcing that, “Mentality-materiality has consciousness as condition”, the highest wheel of the righteousness - that was not moved forth by any one - was inaugurated by the Blessed One. For inaugurating of the wheel of the righteousness is presentation of emptiness. Or optionally through the word of mere mentality-materiality, the truth of suffering in the round of existence (samsara) is stated. And by presentation of truth of suffering, its origin and its cessation, and the way leading to cessation are explained only. Due to absence of suffering which has no
cause and due to absence of [any effect] not ceased because of cessation of cause,
cessation can not be attained without means. Thus inaugurating of the wheel of
righteousness which is the presentation of the four truths should be explained

1 Like

As I understand dependent origination, ignorance is the condition of volitional formations. I do not see any Suttas say that past life ignorance conditioned current life suffering and current life ignorance conditions future life suffering. Moreover, if past life ignorance conditioned current life suffering, then it seems to me that nobody can escape suffering in this life since we cannot change the past, but we see many living arahants in the Buddha’s time. Therefore, I cannot conclude the statement is valid.

I never use commentary so I do not know this writing. My references are from Suttas, not from commentaries. Therefore, we are in different view points.

I cannot comment on this commentary too much because I have not yet read through that 581 pages. However, base on what you extracted from the commentary, I will give some of my opinions.

Even though I do not study Abhidhamma and Visuddhimagga, but after I read your extracted texts, I feel like it has an Abhidhamma’s style. I am not saying that it is good or bad. However, this is just my personal perception.

If the writing is based on Abhidhamma and Visuddhimagga, then I should leave this writing to Abhidhamma and Visuddhimagga’s experts to comment it since I cannot verify them in the Suttas.

After reading the extracted texts, I feel that there is an attempt to explain how consciousness conditioned name-and-form. The dilemma here is how consciousness is a condition for matter? How consciousness can create matter? This is mind–body problem. I think if this is the question, it is based on the assumption that name-and-form is mind-and-body or mind and matter.

The text is vague for me, and I do not find a satisfied answer to the above question in the text, so I better leave this to the experts.

Thanks for your interest in my writings. I love your style of learning.

1 Like

To understand DO/DC doesn’t have to wait for death to verify. Anyone with knowledge can verify it here and now by looking inward.

Only the perfected (arahant) can completely cut off the Avijja. All others still have Avijja path including non returner, once returner, stream enterer, and of course putthujana (common folks).

Common folks need to start cut DO at source of dukkha, which is Tanha. Then need to know what is dukkha. Hence understanding and penetrating SN 56.11 is important.

Even cutting each components is different for stream enterer, once returner and non returner. For example, stream enterer just has understanding of DO. But non returner has cut vibhava tanha, kama tanha, and other components in DO.

So, to start understand DO is to have a right view first. Having a right view is a 180deg change in personality.

Then, from there one can start progress up to Avijja. But one needs to look at each component of the DO explanation in SN 12.2, and cut each components. Otherwise, let just say there will be a leak of Avijja. Your mind will still flow through your senses.

To understand DO is complex, because one needs to verify again and again to make sure it is completely cease to reach the ultimate state. It is not only reading or contemplate, it is also a real practice of 24 hours a day.

For example, let just say someone scold or hit you, will you get angry or not? Will you scold back and/or kill the other person etc? Or will you completely have Upekkha (equanimity) to understand and act completely cool with the situation.

i think my wording is bad, what I mean is past life ignorance conditioned past life volition and present life consciousness, present life ignorance conditions present life volition and future life consciousness

since arahants don’t have present life ignorance they won’t have future life consciousness

I also think dependent origination makes more sense if you see it from the cessation perspective, you could annihilate craving only if you anihhilate either ignorance or volition or consciousness or name and form or sense base or sense contact or sense feeling, either way is correct

now arahant have ceased present life ignorance and volition, the current life consciousness,name and form,sense contact and sense feeling they currently have are the result of past life ignorance and volition, they have ceased craving because they have ceased volition, because they have ceased craving they have no grasping

you could cease grasping by annihilating atleast one dependent factor above it and arahant have done exactly that

1 Like

You are a very good learner. It is not easy to accept one’s mistakes and be open to new ideas. Keep up your good works and keep exploring. I love your style of learning. Open, wild and not afraid of change.

1 Like

I assume you are not confused anymore if you still are please let me know

Yes, to see DO is to clearly see where does craving lead us to? Unfortunately, many people see it as their happiness.

But one needs to be careful with this statement, because many people try to let go all desire/craving at once. This is not possible, one needs to progress from courser desires to finer desires, then completely abandon all once all drawbacks have been understood.

Please look at SN 51.15.

… “This being the case, Master Ānanda, the path is endless, not finite. For it’s not possible to give up desire by means of desire.”

“Well then, brahmin, I’ll ask you about this in return, and you can answer as you like. What do you think, brahmin? Have you ever had a desire to walk to the park, but when you arrived at the park, the corresponding desire faded away?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Have you ever had the energy to walk to the park, but when you arrived at the park, the corresponding energy faded away?”

“In the same way, take a mendicant who is perfected—with defilements ended, who has completed the spiritual journey, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, achieved their own true goal, utterly ended the fetters of rebirth, and is rightly freed through enlightenment. They formerly had the desire to attain perfection, but when they attained perfection the corresponding desire faded away.

For example, a Stream Enterer abandons the desire to do bad things due to his right view. Hence his desire only lead to happiness in sensual realms (Human and 6 Deva realm). Once, he has abandoned the desire of sensual realms due to understanding of sensual realms drawbacks. Then, his mind will gear toward desire of happy feeling (Pity and Sukha) then he has become Non Returner. Once he has abandoned this finer feeling. He has become perfected (arahant), the whole desires will wear off over time.

There are 2 different kind of desires: desire to get more, and desire to let go.

The normal desire is the desire to get more. The desire to attain perfection is the desire to let go.

If we desire to get more then we will build up our craving, and we want more than what we currently have. If we have 1 then we want 2, if we have 2 then we want 3, and so on. But the number can increase to infinity; therefore, this path is endless.

If we desire to let go then we will lessen our craving, and we will want less than what we currently have. If we have 10 then we want 9, if we have 9 then we want 8, and so on. The number will eventually reach zero. This path will end by itself when it reached zero demand since it has nothing else to let go. It is satisfied and no longer demand anything else.

The reason we want to get more is because we think it will provide happiness, or we think that craving is our happiness.

The desire to attain perfection is not the desire to become anything. Desire to become this or that is the desire to get more than what we currently have. When one reaches “arahant”, one will want to be “Buddha”, once one reaches “Buddha”, one will want to be “Super Buddha”, and so on. However, that is not what “arahant” or “Buddha” is about.

I think you get it.

There is no desires for Selfless one, Awaken one. Buddha is also an Arahant (perfected). They are contented with what they have. Eat to survive only, wear robes to cover private part, have a place to stay to prevent heat and cold, having inward happiness (piti, sukha with jhana). Just wait for their time (i.e. this body to die whenever that is).

But not easy to get there. It is simple to say, but in practice it is hard. :sweat_smile:

Hence the sutta/discourse look simple, but they are very deep to fully understand the meaning. Even to understand SN 56.11 is not easy.

One more thing, one who know the pros and cons will let go one by one. When one let go coarser desires, then the finer desires will arise automatically due to the understanding. There is no need to seek new desire, it is already there.

So only each individual knows where there are at. One needs to look inward individually, then one can progress.

For example, if you are working, do you still have desire to get more money? Or are you perfectly fine with the current situation, whatever that is.

How about when you see rich person, do you want to get richer (greed)? How about looking at homeless person what is your thoughts? Etc.

Also how about when you see a beautiful women, do you have desires to have her? Do you perfectly fine with current situation? Etc.

How about lying? Do you lie when you dont know something even a white lie?

So the teaching of Buddha is practical, it is 24 hours practice. It is like using the dhamma as a mirror to reflect day in and day out.

This is the starting of mind proliferation. Then one will suffer more instead, because they can’t get what they want. Hence this is what Buddha called dukkha (suffering). Moving a goal post will never reach happiness.

So start reflecting from bottom to top (Tanha to Avijja), instead of looking from top to bottom (avijja to tanha).

What coarser cravings/desires that you have that you can let go? Maybe from the morality first (kill, steal, lie, sexual misconduct).

Hope this help.