What does avijja signify in terms of being a condition and what causes avijja?
I can think of two possible ways to understand avijja:
Avijja merely denotes absence of vijja, so it’s the primordial absence.
Avijja is a sankhara, signifying something more than mere absence.
Now, if 1. is true, then any and all empty spaces represent avijja in some sense, so why doesn’t everywhere burst into contact and six sense spheres, resulting in a permanent structure with no emptiness remaining?
In other words, why does sometimes absence result in contact & six sense sphere and sometimes it doesn’t?
On the other hand, if 2. is true (and avijja is something rather than mere absence of something else) then what causes avijja to come into being?
I’m sure that somewhere in the vast literature, similar questions have been raised and discussed, so I’d much appreciate if anyone can point me in such discussions (or if some teachers would like to tackle these questions and offer their insight).
Are these questions venturing into “No discernible beginning” territory?
And perhaps DO should solely be understood from the point of view of assuming saṁsara already exists. It’s a framework not interested in analysing how saṁsara has come into being, just how it’s thereafter reproduced.
I’ve understood avijja to be the default mode - i.e. not knowing about the fundamental characteristics of existence. So that would be in line with your Nr.1 theory. But maybe it’s both (or neither)
Discerning the beginning of avijja hasn’t been accomplished. But to back this up, I’d have to look for the references.
It occured to me that the 12 links could make sense in both the personal and “cosmic” level.
“Cosmic” avijja could then be interpreted as the ignorance of the Universe continually creating a flawed “bad eternity”, as in some of the ancient Gnostic systems (emanation).
However, the Ven. Bodhi in one of his recorded MN classes strongly discourages this view.
Thank you Jasudho. Yeah, it was an interesting foray, but I’m afraid it doesn’t quite answer my venture - or perhaps answering it by failing to provide an alternate answer, from your article:
(According to Vasabandhu) (…) avidya here is a blanket expression to refer to the group of defilements carried over from previous existence to the present existence.
(…)
The doctrine of avidya, divested of its sectarian meanings, simply states that knowledge begets freedom by destroying our avidya, our false beliefs, misconceptions and wrong convictions.
So again it aligns with what I’ve said about DO not being a doctrine about appearance of saṁsara - merely a framework to conceptualize how it’s reproduced (and how to stop it).
However, canon still doesn’t provide an answer to what is the condition for avijja to manifest, as far as I can tell.
Yeah, my views are more along the lines of your explanation. But for such convictions about cosmos, one needs to look at other traditions instead of Buddhadhamma. Which is why I think Venerable discourages such views.
I believe that there are certainly Suttas that seem to infer a cosmology similar to ancient Gnosticism/Neo-Platonism. The prime example ist MN49. And note that in MN25 even the enlightend beings are unable to go without Mara’s food completely.
The Ven Bodhi also mentioned a Pali commentary mentioning that Mara revolted and took command in the highest Deva level, very similar to an ignorant demiurge.
These similarities have been pointed out by philosphers and the Theosophic society. The question is if they represent an early layer of the teaching or a stage of later development under the influence of contemporary Greek thought.
I say that ignorance is fueled by something, it’s not unfueled.
Avijjampāhaṁ, bhikkhave, sāhāraṁ vadāmi, no anāhāraṁ.
And what is the fuel for ignorance?
Ko cāhāro avijjāya?
You should say: ‘The five hindrances.’
‘Pañca nīvaraṇā’tissa vacanīyaṁ.
At the same time there’s the famous declaration:
"“Mendicants, it is said that no first point of craving [or saṁsāra] for continued existence is evident, before which there was no craving for continued existence, and afterwards it came to be.
“Purimā, bhikkhave, koṭi na paññāyati bhavataṇhāya: ‘ito pubbe bhavataṇhā nāhosi, atha pacchā samabhavī’ti.
So ignorance arising/caused by defilements but at the same time no first point for any of it can be discerned.
Not sure if this aligns with your post – just offering …
Agree that DO doesn’t appear to deal with a cosmic level – otherwise the entire cosmos would have senses, feelings, and it’s own womb for the combining of consciousness and nāma-rūpa, as in DN15.
Plus the definitions of birth and death given by the Buddha in this sutta is clearly birth and death as we understand them in everyday life and not in a cosmic sense.
Maybe another perspective here is, we can look at this scenario about a mobile phone:
Regarding time, looking at the history of mobile phone, people of just 100 years ago will be in complete ignorance of such knowledge about mobile phone.
Regarding space, people in primitive tribes such as Amazon region are still in complete ignorance of such knowledge about mobile phone.
Likewise, the appearance of the Buddha is the cause for clearance of the ignorance for other beings who are not wise enough to dispel it by themselves. In other words, it is the contact with the Dhamma taught by the Buddha that helps to dispel ignorance. Otherwise, “in default mode”, beings are just simply of ignorance of many many things (like mobile phones, gravitational waves, artificial intelligence, etc. and more importantly - the Four Noble Truths).
So, instead of asking “What is the cause of ignorance? - in other words, why we did not know the Four Noble Truths in the far past?”, we can have a different approach angle with question like “Why did we have to know the Four Noble Truths in the far past? - What guaranteed such knowledge in the far past?”
Is there ever a birth that is unrelated to the cosmos?
The cosmos makes a thing as birth possible in the first place. And by not being Nothing it could be seen as the epitome of birth.
Ok, but that’s not the main point for DO, is it? The Buddha says DO outlines how dukkha arises for beings, (in this case humans) and never mentions the cosmos.
Furthermore, the teachings are about how dukkha ceases – and if it’s all about the cosmos how could dukkha end? How could one attain awakening and liberation in this life?
I just want to apologize for my tone to @Dogen and publicly say I was rude and will strive to do better. I have let some frustrations and anxieties get the better of me and it has been leading me to behave in a more aggressive and combative manner that is not fair on others here.
I hope this thread can get back on track and I am sorry for derailing it with my grumpiness, as I say, I will strive to do better.