A is a requisite condition for B and B is a requisite condition for C => A is a requisite condition for C
3 Likes
Salayatana is the biggest problem of any mode of Dependent Origination.
For exapmple take the the standard formula:
Avjjyaya Paccaya Sankhara.
Before Avijja this Namarupa body with six senses is already there.
Say take example of me:
I have my Namarupa body with Salayathana.
I am ignorant of four noble truths.
So I accumulate kamma
As a result of my kamma it produce re-birth consciousness. (attachment and aversion)
Then I crate Nama-rupa (perhaps this is new Nama Rupa)
Then I make Salayatana.??? (this is a problem because I already have my body)
it wouldnt be a big problem if you died between sankharana and vinnana! 
2 Likes
The biggest problem (and the only one you can really do anything about) is ignorance. Everything else is conditioned by ignorance. Apart from cessation of ignorance there is absolutely nothing you can do about this entire mass of suffering. When the root condition falls, the rest falls.
3 Likes
True. But practically, if we think of this like a massive tree, cutting only the root wont work (unlike perhaps in real trees). The cutting starts at all levels from the tips of leaves, to the trunk to the root- what ever we can access using sila, samadhi and panna, as and when they present themselves, in the present.
with metta
This question is discussed by Bucknell in his Conditioned Arising Evolves: Variation and Change in Textual Accounts of the Paticca-samuppada Doctrine:
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/rebirth-consciousness-in-the-dependent-origination/3019/7
1 Like
i’d consider it just a compact formula, the six sense bases are implied within the name-and-form as its integral part, is it too simplistic an explanation?
2 Likes
Just to clarify, do you mean that internal and external sense bases are themselves forms? I believe such an interpretation is justified.
1 Like
well the reasons for my conclusion might be wrong, i meant six sense bases as one of the functions/processes which make up name-and-form or into which it can be broken down
‘Salayatana’ is probably omitted in this mode of Dependent Origination because this mode of Dependent Origination appears to be a later-day concoction for propagation to & conversion of Brahmans.
There have been a number of discussions on Sutta Central, which I recall included Ajahn Sujato’s agreement, that much of the DN, including DN 15, was probably composed for propagation to & conversion of Brahmans.
Thus, nama-rupa in DN 15 appears to have the Brahmanistic meaning. In other words, the ‘salayatana’, most specifically sense objects, are possibly included within ‘form’ (‘rupa’).
In Brahmanism, ‘nama’ was the naming of ‘forms’ (the sense world).
Nāmarūpa-vyākaraṇa (Sanskrit: नामरुपव्याकरण ), in Hindu philosophy, refers to the process of evolution of differentiation into names and forms i.e. to the unfolding of the primal state into the manifest world prior to which unfolding there was nothing that existed… In the Upanishads this term is used to indicate the self-willed manifestation of Brahman under visible and nameable aspects, to the said manifestation into the fictitious plurality of the phenomenal world…
The sage of the Chandogya Upanishad regarded the creation of the universe as a huge chest/egg from a Primeval Being existing as the undifferentiated whole, who alone existed without a second prior to the commencement of the process of creation which was the beginning of the differentiation of the undifferentiated. “The Primeval Being reflected, let me be many, let me produce; having bethought, thus to itself, it produced fire which produced water and from water was produced the Earth (food or matter)” (Chandogya Upanishad VI.ii.1-4). The doctrine of Trivritkarana, the prototype of the doctrine of Panchikarana that tells us how matter came unto existence originating from the primordial five subtle elements , belongs to this Upanishad. From the subtle elements were produced all gross elements, and all matter having names and forms that makes-up the entire universe.
Wikipedia
1 Like
Let me outline the way I see that this is to be understood. I’m going to be using the Suttanta definition of name & form where name is defined as contact, feeling, perception, intention, and attention, and form is defined as the four great elements.
Now first we need to understand the bi-directional relationship between consciousness and name & form. Let me give a concrete example that will make this relationship clear.
Consider the word “ANICCA”. In order for consciousness of the word “ANICCA” to arise, the name & form of all of the individual letters need to arise separately. A, N, I, C, C, and A are all distinct forms. Contact, feeling, perception, intention, and attention need to arise for each letter in the word separately to identify them. Consciousness of the compound “ANICCA” can only arise taking the (name & form)s of all the individual letters as a condition. So we see that name & form is a condition for consciousness. Similarly the name & form of each individual letter could not have been discerned if consciousness didn’t arise (separately) for each of them. Thus we see that consciousness is a condition for name & form.
Applying this principle to the sense bases: In order for consciousness of “the body” (or any other sense base) to arise, first name & form needs to arise separately for all the different minute parts the body consists of. Then and only then can a body (or any other sense base) be discerned.
This is how the interplay between consciousness and name & form gives rise to the six sense bases. This is how the delineation between the internal and the external is established.
1 Like
Hi Sarath,
This is only a problem if you mistake the links of Dependent Origination as a set of sufficient conditions and read them as a process (rather than a set of conditions).
There are two modes of DO in the suttas:
B arises with A as a necessary condition.
If A ceases B ceases.
Note that this does not guarantee that there is A there will be B, but it does guarantee that if A ceases B will definitely cease.
So if there is a sequence:
- A is a necessary condition for B
- B is a necessary condition for C
Then abbreviating it to: - A is a necessary condition for C
is not contradictory.
5 Likes
Thank you Mike
So without Salayatana what sort of contact they are talking here?
Penny did not drop as yet!
Isn’t it clear from my A B C example?
Leaving out one of the conditions does not affect the logic.
Perhaps you are expecting DO to be a description of every step of a process. I don’t think it is intended to be so detailed.
An extreme example of abbreviation is the second noble truth. Craving is a necessary condition for suffering.
1 Like
Thank you guys.
So you all are asking me to look at my own old post?
The extract from the book I read now.
There are any number of ways we can analyse our experience; there are a potentially infinite number of categories we can invent into which we can classify our experiences. What is important is that we remember the difference between category and experience, and avoid becoming lost in the category. Our tendency is to get lost in the categories, and in doing so, lose touch with experience. When we create a system of categories we freeze the process of living experience and create a solid something in which our experience must now conform. We now divide our experience into two basic divisions: those experiences which we can fit into our system of categories, and which is therefore valid, real and useful; and those experiences which we cannot fit into our system of categories. Of course, in the act of meditating, we put more attention to our valid, real and useful experiences than we do to the other type. In brief, we become stuck in attachment and aversion, and instead of investigating our experience, we revert to manipulating it. We take the practice of freedom and turn it into a prison. This is inevitably the case when we project reality into the categories of analysis - whatever system we use - and not into the actual, living, stream of experience. Hence we must treat this system with great caution. We must learn to use it, and not be used by it.
http://www.buddhanet.net/knowledg.htm
:reading:
Nice piece of logic but I doubt the Buddha would be so sloppy because there is no implicit conditionality between "permutations, signs, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of form-group " and sense contact, unless that sense contact is solely internal sense contact (mano phasso).
Its like saying seeds are the cause of fruit without mentioning trees. Fruit cannot occur without a tree growing from seed. Seed itself cannot produce fruit.
I think my answer is a good answer, namely, ‘rupa’ (‘form-group’) is synonymous with ‘rūpāyatanaṃ’ & the other āyatanaṃ (following Brahmanistic theory).
If you coukd point out where it is sloppy then that might be interesting.
Of course if you read DO as describing steps in a process rather than as conditionality then that is a different interpretation.
DO does not say “A is the cause of B”. It says A is a necessary condition of B.
Seeds are a necessary condition of fruit but there are many causes.
1 Like
It appears Dependent origination is a 4d matrix.
In the following video Ven Abhaya says the matrix is 111121*30=76230 permutations and combinations.
Could you give a simple explanation for those of us who niether understand the Sinhala language, nor have three hours to spend watching a video?
1 Like