Why Salayatana is ommitted in this mode of Dependent Origination?

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

It start at counter 5 and going till counter 10. Very short.
He did not give the Sutta reference.
There are 11 limbs in DO.
Then each limb has connection to every other limb. eg: Avijjaya Paccaya Sankhara, Avijaya Paccaya Vinnana etc. So it becomes 1111
Then it appears there are 21 type of ignorance. So it becomes 11
Then it has a relation to each senses 11
Then another five. he did not explain. 11112165=76230

Sorry I can’t help more than this however I understand it.
For example Dependent origination is to be understood with all six senses. So 11*6=66

Aren’t the Six Bases already implied by Contact? After all, Contact is the meeting of the internal base, external base and the corresponding consciousness.


It was Hume who first called attention to the lack of logical necessity in the succession of "causes and events."
Our mavens of logic, who appropriate the concept to their own aura, are certainly leading us again to a dead end, and an everlasting “beating around the issue” kind of journey.
A favorite game among some; wonder why?
The rationale is resumed here:

And now Ven Abhaya matrix logic!?!?

:cow: Holy flying cow! :cow:

Induction boiled down to the mere relation between words (information) - Hum!, why not? - At least that would be leading us to somewhere.
But would that be “necessary”? - Hum! - Maybe?

Well do you agree at least 11*6=66

Ie: Dependent origination is related to each six senses individually or collectively?


DO explains the causes/conditions and does not omit any crucial causes/conditions.


Seed needs soil,water,sunlight,firtiliser, then the tree, bees and many more to make the fruit.

However, I did not use the analogy. @mikenz66 used this analogy to infer there were causes/conditions for suffering the Buddha intentionally omitted.

Sure! - I am very “symbol minded”.

I have also this one on the eight Noble Truths. Do you see how related this is to the nine abodes of beings. And how if you always stay on the left side, the 12 nidanas appear (but for the first row)?

They (:eye:) would not say though, what are the three rows at the top.
A bit like your venerable and his #5. Would that represent the communication “Channel” to somewhere? - The vortex door?

Maybe we could spend more time on that. There is definitely a great deal of ignorance and moha to be pulled out of that.

Possibly, since it states:

‘With contact as condition there is feeling.’ How that is so, Ānanda, should be understood in this way: If there were absolutely and utterly no contact of any kind anywhere—that is, no eye-contact, ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, or mind-contact—then, in the complete absence of contact, with the cessation of contact, would feeling be discerned?”

However, DN 15 does not explain how nama-rupa results in/ is a requisite condition for say tongue contact.

In DN 15, nama-rupa seems to be:

qualities, traits, signs, and indicators through which there is a description of the mental body

qualities, traits, signs, and indicators through which there is a description of the material body

If this is true, how do ‘qualities, traits, signs, and indicators through which there is a description’ arise before contact?

Surely, there must be contact with the mental body & material body before qualities, traits, signs, indicators & description can occur.

DN 15 sounds like Genesis to me, where the mind is like a god naming its own creation rather than naming things that are pre-existing (sadhatu) external (bāhirāni) objects (ayatana). Therefore, in DN 15, naming seems to be occurring before contact.


And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. God named the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. God named the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

What are eight noble truths?

The position goes back to your insistence that hetu does not equate with paccaya, ventilated at -

I’m still waiting for a satisfactory explanation to the points I raise.

1 Like

Hi Sarath

Before I analyse the relevant provisions in DN 15, I’d like to bring up MN 38. This sutta is dear to me, as it gives the Buddha’s commentary on the Dependant Arising catechism in SN 12.1. It’s rather different from the analysis in SN 12.2, as that gives a word-analysis of the 12 nidānas. What MN 38 does is very different. Instead of analysing the meaning of the words for the nidānas, it is actually analysing the nature of the law governing the relationship between the nidānas.

It starts with a brief exposition of the first three Noble Truths -

Bhikkhus, do you see: ‘This has come to be’ (bhūtamidaṃ)?”—“Yes, venerable sir.”—“Bhikkhus, do you see: ‘Its origination occurs with that as nutriment’?”—“Yes, venerable sir.”—“Bhikkhus, do you see: ‘With the cessation of that nutriment, what has come to be is subject to cessation’?”—“Yes, venerable sir.”

Notice, that the past participle bhūta is used. It does not say “this comes to be” (bhavati). The First Noble Truth is framed in terms of a very real phenomenon/event that has happened, and not applied in an abstract fashion.

Next, comes the analysis -

So, bhikkhus, with ignorance as condition, formations come to be; with formations as condition, consciousness; with consciousness as condition, mentality-materiality; with mentality-materiality as condition, the sixfold base; with the sixfold base as condition, contact; with contact as condition, feeling; with feeling as condition, craving; with craving as condition, clinging; with clinging as condition, being; with being as condition, birth; with birth as condition, ageing and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.

“‘With birth as condition, ageing and death’: so it was said. Now, bhikkhus, do ageing and death have birth as condition or not, or how do you take it in this case?”

“Ageing and death have birth as condition, venerable sir. Thus we take it in this case: ‘With birth as condition, ageing and death.’”

“‘With being as condition, birth’: so it was said. Now, bhikkhus, does birth have being as condition or not, or how do you take it in this case?”
…etc etc

Notice how the Buddha first cites the short catechism of Dependant Arising from SN 12.1. Then, He proceeds to analyse it with a very specific modality -

From A, B comes to be. Does B have A as condition or not?

When you ask if B can come to be without A, in syllogistic logic that is asking “Is A a necessary condition for B to come to be?”

Are you with me so far?

If so, you can see how this is repeated in DN 15. The passage in question also starts with a recapitulation of the SN 12.1 catechism, and then proceeds to analyse the relationship of “condition-ness” -

It was said: ‘With birth as condition there is aging and death.’ How that is so, Ānanda, should be understood in this way: If there were absolutely and utterly no birth of any kind anywhere—that is, of gods into the state of gods, of celestials into the state of celestials, of spirits, demons, human beings, quadrupeds, winged creatures, and reptiles, each into their own state—if there were no birth of beings of any sort into any state, then, in the complete absence of birth, with the cessation of birth, would aging and death be discerned?”

“Certainly not, venerable sir.”

“Therefore, Ānanda, this is the cause, source, origin, and condition for aging and death, namely, birth.

I would like to draw your attention to the bit I have italicised. I think you will not disagree that this follows the MN 38 reasoning of using syllogistic logic to assert that birth is a necessary condition for aging and death. What makes it even more exceptional as a syllogism is how the bolded text is expressed in the Pali -

Sabbaso jātiyā asati jātinirodhā
in the complete absence of birth, with the cessation of birth

Jātiyā is the locative case of the noun jāti. Sati is the locative case of the present participle of atthi (exists). Together as one grammatical unit, it called a locative absolute. It forms the language of Stream Entry, when which one awakens to this Dhamma -

Imasmiṃ sati idaṃ hoti, imassuppādā idaṃ uppajjati.
Imasmiṃ asati idaṃ na hoti, imassa nirodhā idaṃ nirujjhati.

Among its several appearances, you find jātiyā asati appearing in SN 12.49-

Atha kho, bhikkhave, sutavato ariyasāvakassa aparappaccayā ñāṇamevettha hoti: ‘imasmiṃ asati idaṃ na hoti, imassa nirodhā idaṃ nirujjhati. Avijjāya asati saṅkhārā na honti; saṅkhāresu asati viññāṇaṃ na hoti
; viññāṇe asati nāmarūpaṃ na hoti; nāmarūpe asati saḷāyatanaṃ na hoti … pe … bhavo na hoti … jāti na hoti … jātiyā asati jarāmaraṇaṃ na hotī’ti. So evaṃ pajānāti: ‘evamayaṃ loko nirujjhatī’ti.

According to AN 3.61, this is the Third Noble Truth. Can you see that the Second Noble Truth is being “proved” by the Third Noble Truth?

What, therefore can you deduce from these?

  1. The Second Noble Truth is not applied in the abstract, but to “what has come to be” (bhūtamidaṃ) as part of the First Noble Truth;

  2. As such, the Second Noble Truth is not intended to predict what happens when A exists, but to explain that B must have A as a necessary condition to come to be.

Can you now see why it was unnecessary to discuss the Six Bases in DN 15?

Of course, you will find many traditional interpretations of the Second Noble Truth as an exercise in prediction, but all of these stem from the different Abhidharmas.


[quote=“Deeele, post:32, topic:4696”]
MikeNZ66: It says A is a necessary condition of B. Seeds are a necessary condition of fruit but there are many causes.

No. [/quote]
Sure, there are: Water, air, soil, sun.

There are a number of different versions in the suttas and other EBTs, presumably because the Buddha wanted to emphasise particular points to particular students.

Forget about that inappropriated rinky-dink Humean concept, forced into Buddhism. This useless demonstration is just another futile exercise of style, aimed at beating around a no less futile issue.

I suppose Buddha’s phenomenomogy is worth listening to; without the need to introduce the Humean “predictive” whatever factor into that!?!.
Faith in the former brings understanding. The use of the latter leads to a bottomless and quite superfluous knowledge.

Imasmiṃ sati >> idaṃ hoti

Sati/atthi (exist) >> hoti [fr. Sk bhavati (third singular present of √भू bhū (rise , come into being , happen - RV.) - In the Pali, ava contracts into o/drop the b] (come into being).

When this exists >> this comes into being.


Buddha never said about DO: “when that exists, “maybe” that might not come to be”. SN 12.20
But maybe our mavens of logic, will have us lose some more time and savvy, with their previous deep musing on the subject.

For me, it is Buddha’s phenomenological discoveries vs. Hume’s controversial and outdated induction theory.
Your choice.

As far as "why Salayatana is ommitted in this mode of Dependent Origination in DN 15?"
It is just because DN 15 looks to me (as I already said before) like a dubious late sutta.

I’m afraid I’m not a Pali expert, so I’ll leave it to @Sylvester and others to explain why the consensus among translators I trust seems to be that the Pali is giving a necessary condition, not a sufficient one (or to explain why I’ve misinterpreted them…).


The all mumbo-jumbo:

The start:

The rationale:

  1. Ignorance - formations, where DN 9 shows that even if one is not an arahat, a meditator is capable of not abhisaṅkharoti-ing.
  2. Six bases - contact, where MN 43 shows how the attainment of Cessation occurs even when the faculties are vippasanna (very clear). Ditto for AN 5.166.
  3. Feeling - craving, where MN 44, MN 148, SN 36.6 etc shows that it is possible to feel without the corresponding craving.

Problems - solutions & end of the matter - for some:
First let us assume that the following EBT(?) suttas have solid parallels, if any.

N°1. “Abhisaṅkharoti-ing” is as much of a formation as “not abhisaṅkharoti-ing”. The willingness to do the latter resides in the saṅkhāra nidāna; not in the ignorance nidāna. In other words, ignorance can’t decide by itself to un-abhisaṅkharot (if there is no abhisaṅkhara present). !?!?

N°2. Did not catch that one. But again, I won’'t spend more time on that either.

N°3. One has to consider wordly & cosmic khandhas. Not just the worldly (purely empiricist) ones.
In other words, what an arahant feels is a feeling that belongs to saṅkhāra nidāna [cosmic], not a feeling belonging to vedanā nidāna (aka the feeling clinging-aggregate) [worldly]. In the former case, there is no craving (thirst) involved at that level. I see no link between the saṅkhāra nidāna and Taṇhā there.

Should we continue this ludicrous and fruitless mumbo-jumbo, based on such rationale?
Why not?
Personally, I would not spend a minute more with that; (which I have done). But I guess empiricists might still go for it. Doubt usually spends more ink (or typing,) than certitude.
:blue_heart::purple_heart::heartpulse::heart::two_hearts::yellow_heart::green_heart: :tulip::cherry_blossom::hibiscus::sunflower::blossom: :heart_eyes::slight_smile::grin::relaxed::kissing_heart:

Hi Mike
Many variations of D.O is given in Abhidhamma, Vibhanga under D.O.

So we’ve had another flag raised.

It’s a good thing to have flags raised. Then we know stuff that we wouldn’t otherwise know.

I would like to encourage you all to be a little kinder. Only a little will suffice, just enough to refrain from snarky phrases and sarcasm.

I would also like to encourage you all to let people be wrong. Or, to qualify that, if you perceive someone is wrong and you’ve put your case forward, let’s say 3 times, and they’re not budging, just leave them be.

No “official warnings” yet, because the constant arguements have mostly been civil. But repetitive patterns that employ sarcasm etc. and are not in line with our guidelines will result in warnings being given to the individual or individuals concerned; 3 warnings and you’ll be suspended.

We do take the Kindness 1st thing rather seriously.