THE PATH
OF PURIFICATION
(VISUDDHIMAGGA)
BY
BHADANTACARIYA BUDDHAGHOSA
Translated from the Pali
by
BHIKKHU NANAMOLI
FIFTH EDITION
BUDDHIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY
Kandy Sri Lanka
CHAPTER XVII
THE SOIL OF UNDERSTANDING—CONCLUSION:
DEPENDENT ORIGINATION
(Panna-bhumi-niddesa)
[SECTION A. DEFINITION OF DEPENDENT ORIGINATION / PATICCASAMUPPADA]
1. [517] The turn has now come for the exposition of the dependent
origination itself, and the dependently-originated states comprised by the
word 'etc.', since these still remain out of the states called the 'soil'
(bhumi), of which it was said above, 'The states classed as aggregates,
bases, elements, faculties, truths, and dependent origination, etc., are the
"soil" ' (Ch. XIV, §32).
2. Herein, firstly, it is the states beginning with ignorance that should
be understood as dependent origination. For this is said by the Blessed
One: 'And what is the dependent origination, bhikkhus? With ignorance
as condition there are [volitional] formations; with formations as condi-
tion, consciousness; with consciousness as condition, mentality-material-
ity; 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, becoming; with becoming as condition, birth;
with birth as condition there is ageing-and-death, and sorrow, lamenta-
tion, pain, grief, and despair; thus there is the arising of this whole mass
of suffering. This is called the dependent origination, bhikkhus' (S.ii,l).
3. Secondly, it is the states beginning with ageing-and-death that should
be understood as dependently-originated states. For this is said by the
Blessed One: 'And what are the dependently-originated states, bhikkhus?
Ageing-and-death is impermanent, bhikkhus, formed, dependency origi-
nated, subject to destruction, subject to fall, subject to fading away,
subject to cessation.
1
Birth is impermanent, bhikkhus, ... Becoming ...
Clinging ... Craving ... Feeling ... Contact ... The sixfold base ...
Mentality-materiality ... Consciousness ... Formations ... Ignorance is
impermanent, bhikkhus, formed, dependently originated, subject to de-
struction, subject to fall, subject to fading away, subject to cessation.
These are called the dependently-originated states, bhikkhus' (S.ii,26).
[518]
4. Here is a brief explanation. The states that are conditions should be
understood as the dependent origination. The states generated by such
and such conditions are dependently-originated states.
5. How is that to be known? By the Blessed One's word. For it is
precisely those states which are conditions, that with the synonyms be-
ginning with 'reality' have been called 'dependent origination' by the
Blessed One when teaching the dependent origination in the Sutta on the
Teaching of the Dependent Origination and Dependently-originated States
thus:
'And what is dependent origination, bhikkhus?
'With birth as condition, bhikkhus, there is ageing and death. Whether
Perfect Ones arise or do not arise, there yet remains that element, relat-
edness of states, regularity of states, specific conditionally. The Perfect
One discovers it, penetrates to it. Having discovered it, penetrated to it,
he announces it, teaches it, makes it known, establishes, exposes, ex-
pounds and explains it: "See", he says, "With birth as condition there is
ageing and death".
'With becoming as condition, bhikkhus, there is birth.... With igno-
rance as condition, bhikkhus, there are formations. Whether Perfect Ones
arise or do not arise, there yet remains that element, relatedness of states,
regularity of states, specific conditionally. The Perfect One discovers it,
penetrates to it. Having discovered it, penetrated to it, he announces it,
teaches it, makes it known, establishes, exposes, expounds and explains
it: "See", he says, "With ignorance as condition there are formations".
'So, bhikkhus, that herein which is reality, not unreality, not other-
ness, specific conditionality: that is called dependent origination'
Consequently, it should be understood that dependent origination
has the characteristic of being the conditions for the states beginning
with ageing-and-death. Its function is to continue [the process of] suffer-
ing. It is manifested as the wrong path.
6. Because particular states are produced by particular conditions, nei-
ther less nor more, it is called reality (suchness). Because once the
conditions have met in combination there is no non-producing, even for
an instant, of the states they generate, it is called not unreality (not
unsuchness). Because there is no arising of one state with another state's
conditions, it is called not otherness. Because there is a condition, or
because there is a total of conditions, for these states beginning with
ageing-and-death as already stated, it is called specific conditionality.
7. Here is the word meaning: idappaccaya (lit. that-conditions) = imesam
paccaya (conditions for those); idappaccaya (that-conditions) -
idappaccayata (that-conditionality, conditionality for those, specific con-
ditionality). Or alternatively, idappaccayata (that-conditionality) =
idappaccayanam samuho (the total of that-conditions, total specific con-
ditionality).
8. The characteristic must be sought from grammar. Some, in fact, [say
that the expression paticca samuppada (dependent origination) is char-
acterized thus:] 'having depended (paticca), a right (samma) arising
(uppada), [depending on causes rightly by] disregarding such causes
conjectured by sectarians as the Primordial Essence (Prakriti), World
Soul (Purusha), and so on'. So what they call dependent origination
(paticca samuppada) is a simple arising (uppada) [for they equate the
prefix sarh only with samma (rightly) and ignore sam (with, con-)]. That
is untenable. [519] Why? (1) There is no such sutta; (2) it contradicts
suttas; (3) it admits of no profound treatment; and (4) it is ungram-
matical.
9. (1) No sutta describes the dependent origination as simple arising.
(2) Anyone who asserts that dependent origination is of that kind
involves himself in conflict with the PadesavihAra Sutta. How? The Newly
Enlightened One's abiding (vihara) is the bringing of the dependent
origination to mind, because of these words of the Blessed One's: 'Then
in the first watch of the night the Blessed One brought to mind the
dependent origination in direct and reverse order' [as origination and
cessation] (Vin.i,l; Ud. 2). Now 'padesavihdra' is the abiding (vihdra)
in one part (desa) of that, according as it is said, 'Bhikkhus, I abode in a
part of the abiding in which I abode when I was newly enlightened'
(S.v,12; Ps.i,107). And there he abode in the vision of structure of condi-
tions, not in the vision of simple arising, according as it is said, 'So I
understood feeling with wrong view as its condition, and feeling with
right view as its condition, and feeling with wrong thinking as its condi-
tion ...' (S.v,12), all of which should be quoted in full. So anyone who
asserts that dependent origination is simple arising involves himself in
conflict with the PadesavihAra Sutta.
10. There is likewise contradiction of the Kaccana Sutta. For in the
KaccAna Sutta it is said, 'When a man sees correctly with right under-
standing the origination of the world, Kaccana, he does not say of the
world that it is not' (S.ii,17). And there it is the dependent origination in
forward order, not simple arising, that, as the origination of the world
from its conditions, is set forth in order to eliminate the annihilation
view. For the annihilation view is not eliminated by seeing simple aris-
ing; but it is eliminated by seeing the chain of conditions as a chain of
fruits following on a chain of conditions. So anyone who asserts that the
dependent origination is simple arising involves himself in contradiction
of the KaccAna Sutta.
11. (3) It admits of no profound treatment: this has been said by the
Blessed One, 'This dependent origination is profound, Ananda, and pro-
found it appears' (D.ii,55; S.ii,92). And the profundity is fourfold as we
shall explain below (Ch. XVII, §304f.); but there is none of that in
simple arising. And this dependent origination is explained [by the teach-
ers] as adorned with the fourfold method (Ch. XVII, §309); but there is
no [need of] any such tetrad of methods in simple arising. So dependent
origination is not simple arising, since that admits of no profound treat-
ment.
12. (4) It is ungrammatical: [520] this word paticca (lit. 'having de-
pended'; freely 'due to', 'dependent'), [being a gerund of the verb pan +
eti, to go back to], establishes a meaning [in a formula of establishment
by verb] when it is construed as past with the same subject [as that of the
principal verb], as in the sentence 'Having depended on (paticca = 'due
to') the eye and visible objects, eye-consciousness arises (uppajjatiy
(S.ii,72). But if it is construed here with the word uppdda (arising),
[which is a noun], in a formula of establishment by noun, there is a
breach of grammar, because there is no shared subject [as there is in the
above-quoted sentence], and so it does not establish any meaning at all.
So the dependent origination is not simple arising because that is un-
grammatical.
13. Here it might be [argued]: 'We shall add the words "comes to be"
(hoti) thus: "Having depended, arising comes to be" (paticca, samuppddo
hoti)\ That will not do. Why not? Because there is no instance in which
it has been added, and because the fallacy of the arising of an arising
follows. For in such passages as 'Paticca samuppadarh vo bhikkhave
desessdmi. Katamo ca bhikkhave paticca samuppddo ... Ay am vuccati
bhikkhave paticca samuppddo (I shall teach you the dependent origina-
tion, bhikkhus. And what is the dependent origination? ... This is called
the dependent origination, bhikkhus)' (S.ii,l), the words 'comes to be'
(hoti) are not added in any single instance. And there is no [such expres-
sion as] 'arising comes to be': if there were, it would be tantamount to
saying that arising itself had an arising too.
14. And those are wrong who imagine that specific conditionality (idap-
paccayata) is the specific conditions' [abstract] essence—what is called
'abstract essence' being a [particular] mode in ignorance, etc., that acts
as cause in the manifestation of formations, etc.—and that the term
'dependent origination' is used for an alteration in formations when
there is that [particular mode in the way of occurrence of ignorance].
Why are they wrong? Because it is ignorance, etc., themselves that are
called causes. For in the following passage it is ignorance, etc., them-
selves, not their alteration, that are called the causes [of these states]:
'Therefore, Ananda, just this is the cause, this is the source, this is the
origin, this is the condition, for ageing-and-death, that is to say, birth ...
for formations, that is to say, (ignorance)' (D.ii,57-63—the last clause is
not in the D. text). Therefore it is the actual states themselves as condi-
tions that should be understood as 'dependent origination'. So what was
said above (§4) can be understood as rightly said.
15. If any notion arises in the guise of a literal interpretation of the term
'dependent origination' (paticca samuppada) to the effect that it is only
arising that is stated, it should be got rid of by apprehending the meaning
of this expression in the following way. For:
In double form this term relates to a totality of states
Produced from a conditionally;
Hence the conditions for that sum
Through metaphor's device have come
To bear their fruits' name figuratively
In the Blessed One's exposition.
16. This term 'dependent origination', when applied to the total of states
produced from the [total] conditionality, must be taken in two ways.
[521] For that [total] ought to be arrived at (paticco—adj.),
2
since when
it is arrived at (patiyamano), it leads to [supramundane] welfare and
bliss and so the wise [regard] it as worthy to be arrived at (paccetum);
and then, when it arises (uppajjamano), it does so 'together with' (saha)
and 'rightly' (samma), not singly or causelessly, thus it is a co-arising
(samuppado). Consequently: it is to be arrived at (paticco) and it is a co-
arising (samuppado), thus it is dependent origination (paticca samuppada).
Again: it arises as a togetherness (saha), thus it is a co-arising
(samuppada); but it does so having depended (paticca—ger.) in combi-
nation with conditions, not regardless of them. Consequently: it, having
depended (paticca), is a co-arising (samuppada), thus in this way also it
is dependent origination (paticca samuppada). And the total of causes is
a condition for that [total of states produced from the conditionality], so,
because it is a condition for that, this [total of causes] is called, 'depend-
ent origination', using for it the term ordinarily used for its fruit just as
in the world molasses, which is a condition for phlegm, is spoken of
thus, 'Molasses is phlegm', or just as in the Dispensation the arising of
Buddhas, which is a condition for bliss, is spoken of thus, 'The arising of
Buddhas is bliss' (Dh. 194).
17. Or alternatively:
The sum of causes too they call
'Facing its counterpart', so all
Is in that sense 'dependent', as they tell;
This sum of causes too, as stated,
Gives fruits that rise associated,
So 'co-arising' it is called as well.
18. This total of causes—indicated severally under the heading of each
cause, beginning with ignorance—for the manifestation of formations,
etc., is called 'dependent' (paticco—adj.), taking it as 'facing, gone to,
its counterpart' (patimukham ito) owing to the mutual interdependence
of the factors in the combination, in the sense both that they produce
common fruit and that none can be dispensed with. And it is called a 'co-
arising' (samuppado) since it causes the states that occur in unresolved
mutual interdependence to arise associatedly. Consequently: it is de-
pendent (paticco) and a co-arising (samuppado), thus in this way also it
is dependent origination (paticca samuppada).
19. Another method:
This total conditionally, acting interdependently,
Arouses states together equally;
So this too is a reason here wherefore the Greatest Sage,
the Seer,
Gave to this term its form thus succinctly.
20. Among the conditions described under the headings of ignorance,
etc., the respective conditions that make the [conditionally-arisen] states
beginning with formations arise are incapable of making them arise when
not mutually dependent and when deficient. Therefore this conditionality
by depending (paticca—ger.) makes states arise (uppadeti) equally and
together (samam saha ca), not piecemeal and successively—so it has
been termed here thus by the Sage who is skilled in phraseology that
conforms to its meaning: it has been accurately termed 'dependent origi-
nation' (paticca samuppada), is the meaning.
21. And while so termed:
The first component will deny the false view of eternity
And so on, and the second will prevent
The nihilistic type of view and others like it, while the two
Together show the true way that is meant.
22. The first: the word 'dependent' (paticca) indicates the combination
of the conditions, [522] since states in the process of occurring exist in
dependence on the combining of their conditions; and it shows that they
are not eternal, etc., thus denying the various doctrines of eternalism, no-
cause, fictitious-cause, and power-wielder.
3
What purpose indeed would
the combining of conditions serve, if things were eternal, or if they
occurred without cause, and so on?
23. The second: the word 'origination' (samuppada) indicates the aris-
ing of the states, since these occur when their conditions combine, and it
shows how to prevent annihilationism, etc., thus preventing the various
doctrines of annihilation [of a soul], nihilism, ['there is no use in giving',
etc.,] and moral-inefficacy-of-action, ['there is no other world', etc.]; for
when states [are seen to] arise again and again, each conditioned by its
predecessor, how can the doctrines of annihilationism, nihilism, and moral-
inefficacy-of-action be maintained?
24. The two together: since any given states are produced without inter-
rupting the [cause-fruit] continuity of any given combination of condi-
tions, the whole expression 'dependent origination' {paticca samuppada)
represents the middle way, which rejects the doctrines, 'He who acts is
he who reaps' and 'One acts while another reaps' (S.ii,20), and which is
the proper way described thus, 'Not insisting on local language and not
overriding normal usage' (M.iii,234).
4
This in the first place is the meaning of the mere words 'dependent
origination' (paticca samuppada).
No comments:
Post a Comment