1

Vibhaga 23 April 2002 Patrick Kearney

EVA ME SUTTA
This is how I heard it
by Patrick Kearney
Week four: Vibhaga
Introduction
This is how I heard it. Once the Blessed One was living at Svatthi, at Jetas forest, Anthapiikas
park. There the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus: Bhikkhus. Bhante, they replied. The
Blessed One said, I will teach (desissmi) and analyse (vibhajissmi) dependent arising
(paiccasamuppda). Listen, attend thoroughly, and I will speak. Yes, bhante, the bhikkhus
replied.
Arising
The Blessed One said, What is dependent arising?
Ignorance (avijj) conditions formations; formations (sakhr) condition consciousness;
consciousness (via) conditions name-&-form; name-&-form (nma-rpa) conditions the six
sense fields; the six sense fields (sayatana) condition contact; contact (phassa) conditions feeling;
feeling (vedan) conditions craving; craving (tah) conditions clinging; clinging (updna)
conditions becoming; becoming (bhava) conditions birth; birth (jti) conditions ageing-&-death
(jarmaraa); sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair come into being. Thus is the arising of this
entire mass of suffering. This is called arising (samuppda).
Ageing-&-death
What is ageing-&-death (jarmaraa)? Whatever is ageing regarding any beings in any
classification of beings - old age, broken teeth, grey hair, wrinkled skin, decline of life, decay of the
faculties (indriyna paripko) - this is called ageing (jar).
Whatever is passing away regarding any beings in any classification of beings - separation,
disappearance, mortality, fulfilment of ones time, breaking up of the aggregates (khandhna
bhedo) and laying down the body - this is called death (maraa). Thus this ageing and this death are
together called ageing-&-death.
Birth
What is birth (jti)? Whatever is birth regarding any beings in any classification of beings - origin,
entry, production, appearance of the aggregates (khandhna ptubhvo) and taking up of the sense
spheres (yatanna pailbho) - this is called birth.
Becoming
What is becoming (bhava)? There are these three becomings: sensual becoming (kma-bhava);
material becoming (rpa-bhava); immaterial becoming (arpa-bhava) - this is called becoming.
2
Vibhaga 23 April 2002 Patrick Kearney
Clinging
What is clinging (updna)? There are these four clingings: clinging to sense desires (kmupdna),
clinging to views (dihupdna), clinging to precepts and practices (slabbatupdna), clinging to
belief in self (attavdupdna). This is called clinging.
Craving
What is craving (tah)? There are these six classifications of craving (tah-kya): craving for
forms, craving for sounds, craving for odours, craving for tastes, craving for tangible objects, craving
for phenomena. This is called craving.
Feeling
What is feeling (vedan)? There are these six classifications of feeling (vedan-kya): feeling
arising from eye contact; feeling arising from ear contact; feeling arising from nose contact; feeling
arising from tongue contact; feeling arising from body contact; feeling arising from mind contact.
This is called feeling.
Contact
What is contact (phassa)? There are these six classifications of contact (phassa-kya): eye contact;
ear contact; nose contact; tongue contact; body contact; and mind contact. This is called contact.
Six sense fields
What are the six sense fields (sayatana)? The eye sense field, ear sense field, nose sense field,
tongue sense field, body sense field, and mind sense field. These are called the six sense fields.
Name-&-form
What is name-&-form (nma-rpa)? Feeling (vedan), perception (sa), intention (cetan),
contact (phassa) and attention (manasikra): this is called name (nma). The four great things
(mahbhta) and the form derived from the four great things: this is called form (rpa). Thus this
name and this form are together called name-&-form.
Consciousness
What is consciousness (via)? There are these six classifications of consciousness (via-
kya): eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body
consciousness and mind consciousness. This is called consciousness.
Formations
What are formations (sakhr)? There are these three formations: body formation (kya-sakhr);
speech formation (vac-sakhr); mind formation (citta-sakhr). These are called formations.
Ignorance
What is ignorance (avijj)? That which is absence of understanding (aa) into dukkha, the
arising of dukkha, the cessation of dukkha, and the way leading to the cessation of dukkha. This is
called ignorance.
3
Vibhaga 23 April 2002 Patrick Kearney
Recapitulation
So ignorance conditions formations; formations condition consciousness; etc. (pe) Thus is the
arising of this entire mass of suffering. But from the complete fading away and cessation of
ignorance, formations cease; from the cessation of formations, consciousness ceases; etc. (pe) Thus is
the cessation of this entire mass of suffering. (S 2.2-4)
The twelvefold formula
The Blessed One said, What is dependent arising? When the Buddha asks and answers this
question, he does so with the twelvefold formula, often regarded as the standard version of
dependent arising (paiccasamuppda). This is the version we find portrayed in the Tibetan wheel
of becoming (bhava-cakka), or wheel of life, painting. This is also the version that is used by all
the Indo-Tibetan traditions to explain the mechanics of rebirth, interpreted as extending over three
lives. This week we will examine this version of dependent arising, and in particular questions
arising from the issue of causation over time and rebirth.
The question of rebirth poses problems for some western Buddhist practitioners, who simply do
not believe in it and find it irrelevant to their concerns in this life. The same scepticism can be
found among the emerging middle class in modernising Buddhist cultures such as Thailand
Bhikkhu Buddhadsa, one of the most influential teachers of Theravda Buddhism in
contemporary Thailand, encouraged this scepticism. His demythologising approach to Buddhist
teachings had a particular appeal for Westerners and for the Thai urban and intellectual middle
class, who are at the cutting edge of Thailand's transformation from a traditional Buddhist to a
modern secular culture.
For Buddhadsa, dependent arising is the essence of Buddhism, and it forms the subject matter of
most of his writings and talks. Yet he is uncompromising in his attacks on the classical
interpretation of dependent arising extending over three lives. His central objection to this
interpretation is that dependent arising that extends over three lives cannot be practised, and to
suggest that dependent arising extends beyond this life encourages belief in a permanent self who
is reborn and moves from life to life. It encourages the wrong view that was held by Bhikkhu Sti,
which we examined last week.
The same concern is echoed by other voices within contemporary Theravda. avra Thera was
an English bhikkhu who lived in Sri Lanka until his death in 1965. He made radical and
uncompromising attacks on Theravda orthodoxy, again with the three life interpretation of
dependent arising at the centre of his sights. His objection is essentially the same as that of
Bhikkhu Buddhadsa: dependent arising spread over three lives cannot be seen or realised now.
Strongly influenced by existentialism, avra argued that dhamma is concerned with the
problem of ones own existence in this life, and this problem can only be resolved in the present,
not in some imagined future life.
This week we will first examine the nidnas as they are presented in our text, and then focus on the
problem of rebirth. Our text is called Vibhaga, Analysis, and is the second sutta in Nidna
Sayutta, the Connected Discourses on Causation. The first sutta is Desan, Teaching. So at the
beginning of Nidna Sayutta we are presented with teaching followed by analysis, and this
is echoed in the Buddhas opening words in this discourse: I will teach (desissmi) and analyse
(vibhajissmi) dependent arising. Analysis (vibhaga) divides things up into their individual parts;
and this division precedes synthesis, which connects individual parts through their conditional
relationships with other parts.
4
Vibhaga 23 April 2002 Patrick Kearney
Ignorance
What is ignorance (avijj)? That which is absence of understanding (aa) into dukkha, the
arising of dukkha, the cessation of dukkha, and the way leading to the cessation of dukkha. (S 2.4)
Ignorance is ignorance of the nature of the human condition as we experience it in this moment,
and since the Buddha sees the human condition in terms of the four noble truths, ignorance is
simply ignorance of the four noble truths. The first noble truth asserts the truth of dukkha. Usually
translated as suffering or pain, dukkha is a technical term which points to the fact that no
experience is perfect; all experience is imperfect, and therefore unsatisfactory. Dukkha ranges from
the extremely gross to the extremely subtle. Extreme physical pain is dukkha; the knowledge
lurking at the back of the mind during the most blissful experience that this too will end is dukkha.
Dukkha is most accurately translated as unsatisfactoriness, but here I will follow the usual
convention and use suffering.
Suffering is a dependently arisen phenomenon (paiccasamupanna dhamma); it arises and ceases
through a cause. The second truth explains that suffering arises dependent upon the arising of
craving (tah), and the third truth explains that suffering ceases dependent upon the cessation of
craving. The second and third truths are about conditional relationship, and constitute a summary
of dependent arising. Last week we saw this relationship expanded in the Mahtahsankhaya
Sutta in a section that explains how sasra arises and ceases in the present:
On knowing a phenomenon (dhamma) with the mind, he is passionate for it if it is pleasing; he is
angry with it if it is displeasing. ... Engaged as he is in favouring and opposing, whatever feeling
he feels ... he delights in that feeling, welcomes it, and remains holding on to it. As he does so,
delight arises in him. Now delight in feelings is clinging. Becoming is conditioned by his
clinging; becoming conditions birth; birth conditions ageing-&-death; sorrow, lamentation, pain,
grief and despair come to be. Thus is the arising of this entire mass of suffering.
Passion (rga) and delight (nandi) indicate craving, as we see below; craving conditions
clinging; clinging conditions becoming; becoming conditions birth; and birth conditions suffering.
So we can see how dependent arising can be expressed in many formulas, and to say that
ignorance is ignorance of the four noble truths is another way of saying that it is ignorance of
dependent arising. The four noble truths are themselves another version of dependent arising.
Formations condition ignorance
Sakhras arise dependent on ignorance. Sakhra, a key technical term in Buddhist teaching, is
derived from the verb karoti (to build, make, produce, act, perform, do) and the prefix sa
(with, together). The verb sakharoti means to put together; to construct; to form.
Sakhras are all those things that are put together, constructed, compounded, formed; and they
are all those things which in turn put together, construct, compound and form other things.
For example, in one discourse the Buddha describes his life as King Mahsudassana in a previous
existence, and the power and wealth he enjoyed as Mahsudassana. The Buddha describes all
Mahsudassana's possessions - towns, people, cattle, clothing, jewels, and so on - as sakhras. The
Buddha concludes:
In this way, all of these sakhras of the past have vanished, have changed. So impermanent are
sakhras, so unfixed and unconsoling, that one is sure to be disenchanted with all sakhras,
sure to have one's passion fade, sure to be liberated. (S 3.146)
These possessions are impermanent and so ultimately futile. They are impermanent because they
are constructed or formed out of parts, so they must ultimately break up, fall apart. Further, they
in turn construct or form other sakhras. The owner of all these possessions was King
Mahsudassana, and it was these royal possessions which made him into King Mahsudassana.
5
Vibhaga 23 April 2002 Patrick Kearney
Mahsudassana's sense of himself, his identity (attabhva), comes from his position as king, which
in turn is produced by his immense wealth of goods, slaves and soldiers. Once these disappear, so
too does Mahsudassana.
The Buddha is saying that I do not exist independently, and I realise this when I see that my
sense of identity depends upon supports that are themselves impermanent. If what I depend upon
is impermanent, then I must be impermanent. Mahsudassana realised his identity depended
upon his possessions, and with the cessation of these possessions the thought I am King
Mahsudassana ceased. The possessions, therefore, are sakhras, because they create or form
something other than themselves.
Sakhras are dependently arisen phenomena, and in its broadest sense the word sakhra does
not refer to any particular thing or entity, but to the fact that the thing - any thing - is constructed,
put together, formed, and in turn constructs, puts together, forms. Sakhras are constructive
processes rather than things; the relationships between things rather than the things themselves.
Experience is endlessly changing: things turn into other things, which means things form other
things. Like dhammas, which refer to our relationship with things (our-experience-of-things),
sakhras refers to the relationships between things, the fact that things form other things, and
these other things (the formed - sakhata) are therefore dependent on them (the forming -
sakhra).
Formations condition consciousness;
Consciousness conditions name-&-form
Formations form consciousness, so consciousness is dependent on something other than itself for
its existence. As the Buddha explains in Mahtahsankhaya Sutta, consciousness is dependently
arisen, since without a condition consciousness does not come into being. But what is
consciousness?
In our text, consciousness is defined in terms of its location: There are these six classifications of
consciousness (via-kya): eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue
consciousness, body consciousness and mind consciousness. In Mahtahsankhaya Sutta, when
the Buddha wants to emphasise the conditionality of consciousness he also locates consciousness
within the sense fields: Consciousness is reckoned (sakh) by the particular condition (paccaya)
dependent upon which it arises. When consciousness arises dependent on eye and forms, it is
reckoned as eye-consciousness; ... when consciousness arises dependent on mind and phenomena
(dhammas), it is reckoned as mind-consciousness. However, there is another common definition
of consciousness which defines it in terms of its action:
Why does one say consciousness (via)? It knows (vijnti), therefore one says
consciousness (via). (S 3.87)
Consciousness is the knowing of an object. There is no consciousness without an object; there is no
such thing as pure consciousness. Consciousness is always consciousness of something; when we
know, we know something. So consciousness arises dependent upon something else, its object;
and in turn, the object of consciousness arises dependent upon consciousness, for without
consciousness the object could not be discerned. Consciousness is the presence of the
phenomenon, the object of consciousness. Hence its mutually dependent relationship with name-
&-form (nma-rpa), or the sentient body along with its world, which constitutes what is present.
The phenomenon and its presence together compose experience. Consciousness, having arisen
dependent upon formations, in turn gives rise to name-&-form, the sentient body along with its
world. We have examined the mutually dependent relationship between consciousness and name-
6
Vibhaga 23 April 2002 Patrick Kearney
&-form in Mahnidna Sutta in terms of the feedback loop of consciousness conditioning name-&-
form, and name-&-form conditioning consciousness.
Consciousness has depth, in terms of both emergence and time. Because of its depth, it is capable
of development. Undeveloped consciousness, consciousness which arises dependent upon
ignorance, is intimately bound up with suffering because we identify with it. For ordinary
untrained people, consciousness is not just the presence or knowing of the phenomenon, but, as
with Bhikkhu Sti, is identified with as the one who knows, the one to whom something is
present. Consciousness which arises dependent on ignorance is regarded as self (Pli: attan;
Sanskrit: tman). For the ordinary untrained person, This is present means This is present to
me; I am conscious of this. Identification with consciousness is always accompanied by a sense
of possession: This is mine; I am this; This is my self.
The arising of this view is the arising of name-&-form dependent on ignorance. I construct my self
by developing a sense of separate identity, which includes both the bundle of mental and
emotional processes we call the ego and a sense of identification with the ego - the conviction that
I am my ego. As an independent entity I am necessarily concerned with my life, my career, my
security, my relationships. The process of forming or constructing a self is formation (sakhra),
and it in turn confirms and develops my sense of identity, of ownership of experience: Ignorance
conditions formations; formations conditions consciousness. As consciousness is owned, so too
are the objects of consciousness, mental and physical phenomena, the sentient body along with its
world: Consciousness conditions name-&-form.
Name-&-form conditions six sense fields;
Six sense fields conditions contact
What are the six sense fields (sayatana)? The eye sense field, ear sense field, nose sense field,
tongue sense field, body sense field, and mind sense field. These are called the six sense fields.
The six sense fields (sa-yatana) are here inserted between name-&-form and contact, while in
Mahnidna Sutta they are not mentioned. Name-&-form implies the sense fields; or we could say
that the six sense fields provide another way of expressing the processes of perception contained
within name-&-form. Tracing a trajectory of specific conditionality (idappaccayat), lines of x-
conditions-y, we may include the six sense fields between name-&-form or not, depending on what
aspects of the process of perception we are talking about, from which perspective we are viewing
it.
yatana is derived from + yam, to stretch or spread out. It indicates the extent, reach or sphere
of the senses. The six sense fields are the six functioning sense organs (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body
and mind) and their appropriate objects (forms, sounds, scents, tastes, tangible things and
phenomena). A functioning sense organ, one capable of responding to sense stimuli, requires the
presence of an object of sense, a source of stimulus; and in turn, an object of sense is not present
without a functioning sense organ, an appropriate sensitivity. Experience arises from the
relationship between sense organ and sense object. The convergence or impact of functioning
sense organ, its appropriate sense object and its presence to consciousness is contact or stimulus
(phassa). Hence, the six sense fields condition contact.
What is contact (phassa)? There are these six classifications of contact: eye contact, ear contact;
nose contact; tongue contact; body contact; and mind contact. This is called contact.
Contact is the immediacy of experience, the communication between the psycho-physical person
or sentient body and the inner and outer world. As such, it cannot occur without functioning
sense organs, their objects of recognition, and the appropriate consciousness.
7
Vibhaga 23 April 2002 Patrick Kearney
Contact conditions feeling
Our text defines feeling (vedan) in terms of its location: feeling arising from eye contact ... feeling
arising from mind contact. But the Buddha also defines feeling in terms of its action.
Why do you say feeling (vedan)? It feels (vediyati), therefore it is called feeling. What does it
feel? It feels what is pleasant (sukha), painful (dukkha) and neither-pleasant-nor-painful (adukkha-
m-asukha). It feels, therefore it is called feeling. (S 3.86-87)
Vedan is the hedonic or affective aspect of all experience. The mind is deeply programmed to
automatically classify all experience as being either pleasant (sukha), painful (dukkha), or neither-
pleasant-nor-painful (adukkha-(m)-asukha), or neutral. This sense of the pleasantness or painfulness
of sensations is not the sensation itself, but something added to it. Sounds are physical experience;
but two people may experience the same sounds (a rock concert, for example) differently, one as
pleasant, the other as painful. The qualities of pleasantness or painfulness are not inherent in the
sounds themselves, but in our response to the sounds. This response is feeling. And remember
that feeling here does not mean emotion, although all emotion contains an element of vedan or
feeling. The natural result of feeling is a grasping after the pleasant, a pushing away of the painful,
and an ignoring of the neutral.
Feeling conditions craving;
Craving conditions clinging;
Clinging conditions becoming
Where there is experience, there is a sense of pleasure and pain, and therefore an automatic
tendency to turn toward and cultivate what gives pleasure, and turn away from and avoid what
gives pain. This is craving (tah), the restless desire for something else to happen, defined in the
Buddhas first discourse, Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta (Setting in Motion the Wheel of
Dhamma):
Craving (tah) leads to further becoming (pono-bhavika), is bound up with passion (rga) and
delight (nandi), and finds its delight now here, now there. That is, craving for sense pleasures,
craving for existence, and craving for non-existence. (Vin 1:10)
Craving is the restless desire for something else to happen. It is not just wanting, but wanting that
leads to further becoming, like the wanting that drives the characters in a soap opera. Each
desire leads to a problem, which generates a new desire to solve that problem. Satisfying that new
desire leads to another problem - and so on, forever. No matter how often we satisfy our wanting,
we always want something more, something extra to add to this situation right now, because this
situation right now is never completely satisfactory.
Delight (nandi) implies a quality of excitement, even panic, in the mind which is part of desire.
When we are standing in a queue boarding a bus, for example, and realise we might not be able to
get on, we feel agitated, and have an urge to shove the person in front out of our way. Passion
(rga) literally means colour. It indicates the colouring of the mind, like when we see red, and
implies obsession, the inability to see beyond something and so to let it go. More than just having
a good time, craving (tah) involves a state of emotional investment and obsession that is
characterised by an inability to let go of the search for a good, or bad, time. Passion and delight are
like the pleasure the alcoholic finds in his beer, or the insomniac in the thinking that keeps her
awake. So passion and delight are associated with lack of freedom, and with endless becoming in
new forms - sasra.
Finding delight now here, now there refers to the restlessness implied in the endless search for
satisfaction - like the restlessness of the characters in a soap opera. Without their restless search,
the story would end. This restlessness fuels the endless developments in the soap operas plot -
8
Vibhaga 23 April 2002 Patrick Kearney
sasra. When we watch our minds we find our thoughts restlessly moving from story to story,
sometimes replaying old tapes over and over again. This is finding delight now here, now there.
We cultivate our craving, and when cultivated it develops into clinging (updna) and becoming
(bhava). Craving is part of a continuous process of psychological development. My desires give me
my fundamental direction in life, and from desire I construct a life and an identity. This is the
maturing of a journey beginning with craving and proceeding through clinging. Its end result is
an identity defined by its desires for specific types of sense (including mental) satisfaction. As the
Buddha says, What one desires gives rise to its appropriate identity (attabhva), whether
favourable or unfavourable. (A 3.411)
Updna (clinging) is one of a number of terms from the same root which contain a complex of
related meanings. Updna can mean taking up, or that which is placed under, support. In
terms of its first meaning, updna means clinging. One takes up, clings to and develops simple
wants which are rooted in pleasurable and painful feelings. Sense experiences and personality
processes are taken up, collected and developed, and in this way a sense of identity is formed. One
becomes someone; clinging (updna) conditions becoming (bhava). This is an aspect of the depth
of consciousness, which develops by way of clinging into the presence to me of experience, the
owner of experience, the one who experiences.
In terms of its second meaning, updna can mean fuel, that which supports a fire. We saw how
this works in terms of the four nutriments (hra) in Mahtahsankhaya Sutta. The Buddha
likened the self-in-process to a great fire (aggi-khandha), fuelled by its experiences and the wanting
and aversion conditioned by them:
For example, if one was to light a great fire of ten, twenty, thirty or forty cartloads of wood, and
was, from time to time, to throw into it dry grass, dry cow-dung and dry sticks; such a great fire,
fed and supplied with fuel (updna), would burn for a long time. (S 2.85)
A fire is dependently arisen; it arises dependent on fuel (updna), and is inseparable from its fuel.
Its nature and identity is dependent on the nature of the fuel; so we call it a bush-fire, house-fire,
coal-fire, and so on. Dependent upon the fuel (updna), the fire comes into existence (bhava). Like
a fire, the self is a pattern of dynamic processes which maintains a shape while its substance
constantly changes. The type of identity arising from clinging depends on the type of clinging
cultivated.
What is clinging (updna)? There are these four classifications of clinging: clinging to sense
desires (kma-updna), clinging to views (dihi-updna), clinging to precepts and practices (sla-
[b]bata-updna), and clinging to belief in a self (atta-vda-updna). This is called clinging.
Clinging to sense desires, I can become a person addicted to certain pleasures or physical habits.
Clinging to views, I can become dogmatic and intolerant, obsessed with the correctness of my
chosen ideology. Clinging to precepts and practices, I can become fixated on specific moral codes
and spiritual practices, complacently convinced that merely by reproducing a certain practice or
technique my liberation will be assured.
However, for the Buddha, the fundamental form of clinging is atta-vda, the belief in oneself as a
separate entity; belief in independently existing things, rather than dependently arisen
phenomena. The becoming that is conditioned by clinging blossoms into the birth of a supposedly
separate, independent self, formed by craving and clinging. This self suffers because of the open-
ended nature of the desires that created him. No matter how much he satisfies his desires he will
not be finally contented, because the creation of new desires goes on apace - because he is his
desires. Further, his sense of separation creates its own anxiety. Faced with the other, he must
9
Vibhaga 23 April 2002 Patrick Kearney
defend himself and his possessions from a threatening world; having borders, he must defend his
borders.
Becoming conditions birth
Birth conditions ageing-&-death
What is birth (jti)? Whatever is birth regarding any beings in any classification of beings -
origin, entry, production, appearance of the aggregates (khandhna ptubhvo) and taking up of
sense spheres (yatanna pailbho) - this is called birth.
What is ageing-&-death (jarmaraa)? Whatever is ageing regarding any beings in any
classification of beings - old age, broken teeth, grey hair, wrinkled skin, decline of life (yuno
sahni), decay of the faculties (indriyna paripko) - this is called ageing (jar).
Whatever is passing away regarding any beings in any classification of beings - separation,
disappearance, mortality, fulfilment of ones time, breaking up of the aggregates (khandhna
bhedo) and laying down the body - this is called death (maraa). Thus this ageing and this death
are together called ageing-&-death.
These definitions use language in two ways, leading to two levels of meaning, conventional
(lokasammutiy) and ultimate (paramattha). So in the definition of birth, origin, entry, production
can refer to the birth of a being within a world at the beginning of a life; while appearance of the
aggregates and taking up of the sense spheres to the birth of any given phenomenon in this
present moment. Similarly, separation, disappearance, mortality, fulfilment of ones time can
refer to the death of a being in the world at the end of a life; while breaking up of the aggregates
to the death of any given phenomenon in this present moment. Old age, broken teeth, grey hair,
wrinkled skin, decline of life can refer to the ageing of a being in the world over many years; and
decay of the faculties to the decay of any given phenomenon in this present moment. The same
text can shift from conventional to ultimate and back again, depending on the viewpoint, the
perspective, being taken, and this perspective will determine the meaning of the event being
spoken of. Neither perspective denies or negates the other. Both are true; both work. In the
following text, for example, the Buddha speaks of birth in the ultimate sense:
Here an ordinary untrained person ... regards body as self, self as possessed by body, body in
self, self in body. He regards feeling ... perception ... formations ... consciousness as self, self as
possessed by consciousness, consciousness in self, self in consciousness.
This is how he regards it: it occurs to him, I am. When it occurs to him I am, then there is
the appearance of the five senses: seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching. There is mind,
there are phenomena, there is the sphere of ignorance.
To the untrained ordinary person touched by experience born of ignorant contact comes I am;
I am this; They will be; They will not be; ...
But in the case of the trained cultivated student, ignorance is abandoned, knowledge arises.
Because of the fading of ignorance and the arising of knowledge, for him there is no I am;
there is no I am not; ... (S 3.46-47)
The ordinary untrained person identifies with the five aggregates and therefore fabricates an I
which really does not exist. The I is clung to, protected and further developed. This fabrication
comes from experience born of ignorant contact, which is contact as part of a stream of
causation beginning with ignorance. Hence the five senses appear when we think I am. The
five senses appear when they appear to someone. In the same way, birth is the appearance of
the aggregates as my aggregates; death is the breaking up of the aggregates as my aggregates.
Birth, therefore, refers both to physical birth and to the birth of the I concept. Becoming is the
10
Vibhaga 23 April 2002 Patrick Kearney
sense I am; birth is the sense I am this. And where there is birth there is ageing and death,
which are painful.
Rebirth and consciousness
Does dependant arising extend beyond this life? Can it be used to explain rebirth? When we
looked at Mahnidna Sutta in week two, we saw how at the centre of this discourse is the
interdependent relationship of consciousness together with name-&-form, and how this shows the
universe arising and ceasing now, in this present moment. But we also saw how the relationship
between consciousness (via) and name-&-form (nma-rpa) is also used to explain conception,
birth, and the maturity of the person through life. Similarly, last week we saw in
Mahtahsankhaya Sutta how consciousness is one of the four nutriments (hra), and that these
are for the maintenance of beings that already have come to be and for the entry of those seeking
birth. So dependent arising does deal with beings who are born, mature over time, and die, and
then seek birth again.
The Buddha believed in and taught rebirth, which he had directly verified by means of his own
perception. The memory of his own rebirths was the first of the three vedas (knowledges) that
made up his awakening (M 1.247-48). The problem of rebirth is bound up with that of causation
over time, and particularly in the sense of personal continuity over time. This in turn is bound up
with the problem of identity, the identity of the beings who endure over time, beings who
experience the results of their actions and who are reborn from life to life. And these questions of
causation over time, personal continuity and identity are all bound up with the nature of
consciousness, and in particular the stream of consciousness (via-sota), which provides the
unbroken stream providing the link between one life and another (D 3.105), and between one
moment and another.
Who is reborn?
Remember Bhikkhu Stis wrong view, which was based on his determination to find something
which is reborn. Not surprisingly, he chose consciousness as the obvious candidate: As I
understand the dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness (via) that
runs (sandhvati) and wanders (sasarati), not another. In a text dealing with the four nutriments,
Venerable Moiya-Phagguna makes the same kind of mistake. The four nutriments, for the
maintenance of beings that already have come to be and for the entry of those seeking birth, are
physical food, contact, mental volition (manosacetan) and consciousness. Moiya-Phagguna asks,
Bhante, who consumes the nutriment consciousness?
The question is not relevant, the Blessed One said. I do not say One consumes; should I say
One consumes, the question Who consumes? would be relevant. But I do not say so. Not
saying so, one could ask me: What does consciousness nourish?; this is a relevant question. The
relevant answer is: The nutriment consciousness is the condition for further becoming and birth
in the future. When that comes to be, there are the six sense fields. The six sense fields are
dependent on contact.
Who contacts?
The question is not relevant ... contact is dependent on the six sense fields; feeling is dependent
on contact.
Who feels?
The question is not relevant ... feeling is dependent on contact; craving is dependent on
feeling. ... (S 2.13)
11
Vibhaga 23 April 2002 Patrick Kearney
The Buddha is extremely careful with language. The questions Who consumes?; Who
contacts?; Who feels? all assume the existence of someone, and whatever answer he gives will
leave that assumption unchallenged. So there are certain questions that are better not asked, for
they will not lead to useful answers. In place of Who does x?, the Buddha asks What conditions
x? What does x condition? He speaks in terms of conditional process, not identity, and he will
speak about rebirth in terms of conditional process. There is further becoming and birth in the
future; there is no-one who endures from past to future. Conditional relationships can and do
extend through time.
Time and consciousness
The issue of time is central to an understanding of the path of practice, as well as rebirth. The path
implies time: now I am deluded, and later I want to awaken. It is interesting that some western
commentators who are sceptical about rebirth are also sceptical about the real possibility of
awakening (bodhi), and this is not surprising when we reflect on our own experience. When, for
example, I am caught in an emotional trap I are familiar with from long experience, I am shocked
by how deeply I am caught in my habitual reactions, and I realise I can never complete this path in
just one lifetime. I need more time, and if that time is not available, awakening is not available.
We have seen in the texts we have studied that causation over time involves consciousness
(via). We have mentioned that consciousness has depth, in terms of both emergence and time.
In terms of time, we are always in some situation which is located now. We experience this
situation now as changing, and the experience of change entails time. In this situation now, we are
already moving from past to future. This situation now is dynamic, and its dynamism is linked to
change; and the knowing of change is the stream of consciousness. The tradition sees
consciousness and time as inextricably linked, as shown in this verse from Atthaslin, the
commentary to Dhammasaga:
Samaye niddisi citta
cittena samaya muni
By means of time the Sage described mind
And by means of mind described time.
Samaya means time in the sense of occasion. Each sutta begins with the phrase eva me suta
(This is how I heard it), followed by the phrase eka samaya, At one time, or On one
occasion. Whatever happens, happens at one time. That which knows what is happening is
mind (citta) or consciousness (via), and consciousness is both limited and described by time.
We have seen how consciousness always has an object, and its object is name-&-form, the self
within its world. Name-&-form is an infinitely complex collection of dependently arisen
phenomena, all those phenomena that together make up myself, in this world, now.
Consciousness is limited by time insofar as it lasts only as long as the particular combination of
dependently arisen phenomena that make up its object; and it is described by time in terms of the
time within which this particular combination of dependently arisen phenomena exists.
At this time, for example, I am speaking to you. You consist of a certain number of people
scattered about this room in a certain pattern. This experienced gestalt - I speaking to you, now -
is made up of innumerable dhammas. How long does this experienced gestalt last? Until one of
these dhammas changes, whereupon it becomes another gestalt - this one. For example, as soon as
one person moves, then this particular situation, made up of this particular combination of events,
has ceased. As soon as my attention shifts from one aspect of this situation to another, then this
particular situation, made up of this particular combination of events, has ceased. Because every
experienced event is complex, situations are constantly changing. How long does one unit of
consciousness last? It lasts as long as the entire collection of dependently arisen phenomena
12
Vibhaga 23 April 2002 Patrick Kearney
associated with name-&-form lasts unchanged. How do we describe this consciousness together
with name-&-form? We describe it as an occasion, as time. The boundaries of consciousness are
conditioned by the complexity of the dependently arisen dhammas that make up name-&-form, the
self within its world, as any change in any phenomenon changes the nature of the consciousness
that knows it.
We are always in this situation now, but this situation now has already changed from what it was
in the past, and is already changing into what it will be in the future. This situation now is
discerned and described in terms of consciousness together with name-&-form, arising and
ceasing in mutual dependence. We experience consciousness as a stream (via-sota), streaming
from the past through the present and into the future. Consciousness has depth; depth in time. It is
open to both past and future, and can be described and analysed in terms of time. We directly
experience change by means of the stream of consciousness, and from this infer the concept
time.
Consciousness has depth, insofar as it is open to past and future. While we can easily see how one
experienced event leads immediately to another experienced event, and so how one occasion of
consciousness leads immediately to another occasion of consciousness, we must also keep in mind
that the depth of consciousness is not exhausted by immediate succession. Events arise that are
conditioned by events in the distant past. They arise into the present when they are mature, and
when current circumstances (consciousness together with name-&-form) are suitable.
Action and its fruit
Here we get into questions of action (kamma) and its result. A common term in Pli for result is
phala, literally fruit. The Buddha uses the image of seeds maturing into fruit as a metaphor for
the ripening of actions. A seed of a particular type gives rise to a fruit of a corresponding type.
An apple seed ripens into an apple, not an orange; an orange seed ripens into an orange, not an
apple. In the same way, wholesome actions ripen into wholesome results; unwholesome actions
ripen into unwholesome results.
The seed-fruit metaphor also serves to bring in the time dimension. A seed does not produce its
fruit immediately, but over time - perhaps a very long time. In the same way, a dependently arisen
phenomenon might arise into consciousness a long time after its initial conditioning event. There
may be a long trajectory of specific conditionality between the initial event and the result. While
we can track this trajectory as a linear series of events immediately succeeding each other over
time - as a diachronic process - there is another dimension to this.
In one discourse the Buddha explains how seeds must be healthy, well planted in good soil, and
watered in order to bear fruit (S 3.54). If the seeds are damaged; or the soil is inadequate; or the
seeds are not properly planted; or water is lacking; then the seeds will not undergo increase,
growth and full development. When these conditions come together, then the seeds mature into
their fruit. In this metaphor we can see (diachronic) causation over time - the duration required for
seeds to mature into fruit-yielding trees - and the (synchronic) combination of particular
conditions at this time, now. The seeds mature slowly underground and unnoticed; but this
process is helped or hindered at any time in the growth process - at this time, now - by the
collection of conditions of earth, water and sun. At any moment - at this moment - there is a
collection of inherently unstable conditions that make up the single complex event which is the
condition of this garden now. The maturing of the fruit requires both favourable conditions now,
and a process of growth and development over time. In the same way, the maturing of
consciousness requires both favourable conditions now, and a process of growth and development
over time.
13
Vibhaga 23 April 2002 Patrick Kearney
Identity over time
Causation over time raises the question of identity. This is the problem faced by Bhikkhu Sti, who
was convinced of rebirth - the reality of life-after-life - and was looking for an answer to the
problem of identity, and therefore of moral responsibility. Who is responsible for my actions? If I
do unwholesome deeds today, and they give a result tomorrow, who is on the receiving end? If
its me, then I must survive unchanged over time; I must be permanent. If its not me, then
it must be something that survives - this same consciousness.
As I practise, I am assaulted by memories of the past that create a strong emotional response now -
perhaps shame, remorse, regret, anger, and so on. Before I began to practise I took this situation
for granted. After all, I underwent these past experiences, so it is not surprising that I, today,
am affected by them. But after practising vipassan meditation for many years, I know that I am
not the same person who did that or had that done to me all those years ago. I know only this
present moment is real, and that the only reality these memories have is their arising, now, in the
present. But then, why do they continue to have this impact? And it is the impact of these old
habitual emotions that convince me, despite all I know and understand to the contrary, that I am
permanent, after all. That I have a permanent identity.
Dependent arising must deal with this situation. It can only deal with it if it can handle the
question of causation - and identity - over time, and this, in classical Buddhism, means rebirth. For
the only difference between the movement from one moment to the next and the movement from
one life to the next, from the perspective of classical Buddhism, is depth - the depth of the stream
of consciousness expressed in terms of time. For us there is a difference. We can easily accept the
first, but not the second. Because of our cultural conditioning, we are convinced that the process of
cause and effect moment by moment can be blocked by death. But this conviction is just cultural
conditioning. For the Buddha and his students, it is obvious that movement from one life to
another is the same process as movement from one moment to another.
So we return to the question of moral responsibility, and its link with dependent arising and with
identity. If I dont receive the result of good and bad actions, who does? Lets begin with what
we have, the present. Right now, I am undergoing the results of choices I made in the past. I am
who I am now because of choices made in the past. But who made these choices? If I could go
back in time to the place where a choice was made that I now regret, would I make it? No, of
course not, because today I am not the kind of person who would do something so stupid. But
then, who did? Whoever that was, its not me. But there is a continuous stream of conditioning
between me now and him then, and at this point in the stream - here, now - suffering is
happening, and being identified with as This is mine; I am this; This is my self. In the same
way, who will inherit the results of my choices, now? Not me, surely; but whoever it is will be
directly downstream of the river of conditioning within which this choice now is being made. And
at that point, in the future, suffering will be happening, and being identified with as This is
mine; I am this; This is my self.
But when we step back, and look at all of this from the perspective of dependent arising, we can
see that asking who? is asking the wrong question and guaranteeing the wrong answer, as we
saw in the example of Moiya Phagguna. Dependent arising changes the very nature of the
enquiry. As we saw last week, dependent arising provides both method and language for practice.
Method: for any given experienced phenomenon y, look for x, that which is required for its
arising, and without which it would cease. Language: Do not speak in terms of identity (Who
experiences y?), but of dependent arising (What conditions y?). When we practise in accordance
with dependent arising, then the questions of identity we looked at above dissolve. In
Mahtahsankhaya Sutta the Buddha asks his students:
14
Vibhaga 23 April 2002 Patrick Kearney
Knowing (jnant) and seeing (passant) in this way, would you run back to the past: Were we in
the past? Were we not in the past? What were we in the past? How were we in the past? Having been
what, what did we become in the past?? No, bhante.
Knowing and seeing in this way, would you run forward to the future: Shall we be in the future?
Shall we not be in the future? What shall we be in the future? How shall we be in the future? Having
been what, what shall we become in the future?? No, bhante.
The question of identity over time cannot be answered, for the question itself is part of the
problem. Our very search for a solution of this problem is part of the problem, for our attempted
solution (Who?) presupposes the problem - the self, who is and who owns experience.
Dependent arising leaps clear of both the problem and its solution.
Returning to our problem: I am suddenly caught in an emotional trap I are familiar with from long
experience, and am easily convinced that it was always like this and will always be like this,
because I have always been like this and will always be like this. Caught in habitual patterns of
reaction, I identify with them precisely because they are habits. They solidify my sense of self, the
one who endures throughout time, who was there in the past and will be here for the future.
Sometimes I think of my self enduring without change - I will always be like this. Sometimes I
think of my self changing over time - One day, things will be better. But always the self remains
something projected from the past, through the present, and the future. This is the one who
experiences now the result of past actions; and who will experience later the result of present
actions.
Dependent arising it denies the self to begin with, cutting the ground out from under this entire
situation. We have often referred to the fact that the Buddhas teaching is a first person discourse.
It is always about the nature of experience from the perspective of the experiencing subject. The
experiencing subject is always located - here and now. From this perspective I see that now
something has arisen conditioned from the distant past. Now, it arises and ceases, and now I must
respond to it. This response is volitional action (kamma) or choice (cetan). I assume self, because I
am caught in habitual patterns of reaction; but these are patterns of conditional relationships,
arising and ceasing now. And these responses have already formed a stream of conditioning that
will give rise to a result in the future. Past is real; future is real; but always I am located here and
now, and only here and now. Anywhen else is projection.
Dependent arising over three lives
Both Buddhists and Hindus believe in life-after-life, and for the Hindus, believing as they do in an
eternal tman, explaining how this takes place is relatively straightforward. The tman moves from
life to life just as, for Bhikkhu Sti, consciousness moves from life to life. Over centuries of debate
with Hindu scholars Buddhists were faced with the very difficult task of explaining how there is
rebirth but no-one being born. They used the twelvefold formula of dependent arising, and spoke
in terms of the formula extending over three lives, as the following table shows:
15
Vibhaga 23 April 2002 Patrick Kearney
PAST Cause
(1) Ignorance; and
(2) formations
are what happened in the
past to bring about this
present situation. They are
past causes with present
effects.
PRESENT Result
(3) Consciousness; (4) name-
&-form; (5) six sense fields;
(6) contact; and (7) feeling
are what is given in this
present situation, the result
of the ignorance and
formations of the past.
Cause
(8) Craving; (9) clinging; and
(10) becoming
are presently occurring
actions which are forming
results for the future, which
are
FUTURE Result
(11) birth; and (12) ageing-&-
death,
the results in the future of
present craving, clinging and
becoming.
Why three lives? Why not two, or four? The purpose of the three life theory is to explain cause and
effect over time. When we consider time, we are necessarily faced with three times: past, present,
and future. The pattern of causation as described by dependent arising is the same whether the
unit of time be a moment, a day, a human life span, or whatever. The Buddha uses terms like
birth and death in different ways, depending on context. If we cling to the notion of a single
human life span the we will assume an entity who exists from physical birth to physical death, but
such an enduring entity is explicitly denied by dependent arising. Birth and death are taking place
with extraordinary rapidity every moment. Three lifetimes really means three consecutive
periods of time, regardless of the unit employed.
These three lifetimes - or rather, three times - are always experienced from the perspective of the
present. We are always located in the present, and from this time we look back into the past and
forward into the future. This is possible because of the depth of consciousness, its open-ended
boundaries that extend forward and backward into time.
In terms of the twelvefold formula, we are always situated at this moment (life two), where there
is consciousness, name-&-form, six sense fields, contact, feeling, craving, clinging and becoming.
For these phenomena (3 - 10) to exist now, there must have been ignorance and formations (1 - 2)
in the past; and since these phenomena (3 - 10) exist now, there will be birth, ageing and death (11
- 12) in the future. Structurally, the same is true for lives one and three. From the perspective of life
one, present ignorance and formations must give rise to all the other nidnas in the future; from the
perspective of life three, present craving, clinging and becoming must be based on all the other
nidnas in the past. For the three life interpretation to work, all twelve nidnas must be functioning
as a structural whole.
While dependent arising does not deny causation over time, its fundamental concern is with the
structure of the experienced present. However, one aspect of the experienced present is its flow
from past to future. Dependent arising can, therefore, be used to explain causation over time in
terms of the experience of continuity without the need to posit someone who continues. To the
16
Vibhaga 23 April 2002 Patrick Kearney
degree that dependent arising can explain continuity from one moment to the next, it can explain
continuity from one lifetime to the next, or one universe to the next. From the viewpoint of
dependent arising, there is no structural distinction between these units of time.
Further, this entire elaborate structure of causation over three times can be seen within the binary
of (active) cause and (passive) result. We are always acting purposefully, creating a situation. This
purposeful action is karma (Pli, kamma), volitional action, and is made up of ignorance,
formations, craving, clinging and becoming. This action creates a result, a given situation, which is
made up of consciousness, name-&-form, six sense fields, contact, feeling, birth and ageing-&-
death. This given situation is this situation right here and now; and it will be our situation
tomorrow, when we will experience it as this situation right here and now. But this given
situation must be actively created for it to exist, now, and we are actively creating it now, just as
we did in the past. And so we can see, in the unfolding of our lives, how we create our life from
moment to moment, and how we experience our life as given from moment to moment. Both are
true, and to deny one is to fail to see the totality of our lifes dynamic.