This/that conditionality in DO

[Spiny Norman]

I'm interested in exploring the practical difference(s) between the two modes of conditionality described in dependent origination:

"'When this is, that is. (1)
"'From the arising of this comes the arising of that. (2)
"'When this isn't, that isn't. (1)
"'From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that." (2)
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

Taking as an example the relationship between phassa ( contact ) and vedana ( feeling ):

"'When phassa is, vedana is.
"'From the arising of phassa comes the arising of vedana.
"'When phassa isn't, vedana isn't.
"'From the cessation of phassa comes the cessation of vedana."

What is the practical difference between these two modes of conditionality?

And does 'When phassa is, vedana is." mean "While phassa is present, then so is vedana"?

[Saengnapha]

I'm interested in exploring the practical difference(s) between the two modes of conditionality described in dependent origination:

"'When this is, that is. (1)
"'From the arising of this comes the arising of that. (2)
"'When this isn't, that isn't. (1)
"'From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that." (2)
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

Taking as an example the relationship between phassa ( contact ) and vedana ( feeling ):

"'When phassa is, vedana is.
"'From the arising of phassa comes the arising of vedana.
"'When phassa isn't, vedana isn't.
"'From the cessation of phassa comes the cessation of vedana."

What is the practical difference between these two modes of conditionality?

And does 'When phassa is, vedana is." mean "While phassa is present, then so is vedana"?

It sounds like you've answered all your own questions. The suttas also corroborate this. Where is there a question that arises in any of the quotes? Am I missing some correlation that you are trying to discern between these two 'modes'?

[chownah]

For me there is no difference I think. If you really want to find a difference I think the first step would be to see what words in the pali are being translated as "is" and "arise"......and figure out a difference based on that.....I guess....don't know for sure....
chownah

[aflatun]

Time...timeless...and a can of worms

Timeless

[Sam Vara]

You might want to take a look at Ajahn Thanissaro's take on this formula, as it forms the basis for his theme that present experience is conditioned both by past kamma, and also by the kamma which we generate in the present by our mode of receiving or grasping what arises. In your numbered version, he would call (1) synchronic, and (2) linear. The first connects objects and events in the present moment, and expresses the point that some things arise simultaneously. The second connects events over linear time, and expresses the fact that events have kammic reverberations later in time. His numbering of the idappaccayata elements is different from yours, but here is a brief summary from The Wings to Awakening:

The Buddha expressed this/that conditionality in a simple-looking formula:

(1) When this is, that is.
(2) From the arising of this comes the arising of that.
(3) When this isn't, that isn't.
(4) From the stopping of this comes the stopping of that.

— AN 10.92

There are many possible ways of interpreting this formula, but only one does justice both to the way the formula is worded and to the complex, fluid manner in which specific examples of causal relationships are described in the Canon. That way is to view the formula as the interplay of two causal principles, one linear and the other synchronic, that combine to form a non-linear pattern. The linear principle — taking (2) and (4) as a pair — connects events, rather than objects, over time; the synchronic principle — (1) and (3) — connects objects and events in the present moment. The two principles intersect, so that any given event is influenced by two sets of conditions: input acting from the past and input acting from the present. Although each principle seems simple, the fact that they interact makes their consequences very complex [§10].

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... index.html

To use your phassa/vedana example, sometimes feeling arises simultaneously with contact; but sometimes there is contact and the feeling caused arises later. (For example, we see or hear something, but there is a gap before we feel the feeling). The situation then becomes very complicated due to the fact that other things then arise on the basis of that feeling; hence Thanissaro's interest in "feedback loops". The ability to have input into what we are currently experiencing is how Thanissaro solves the issue of free will in a determined process. His introduction to MN 101 puts this clearly and concisely:

the Buddha points to one of the most distinctive features of his own teaching on kamma: that the present experience of pleasure and pain is a combined result of both past and present actions. This seemingly small addition to the notion of kamma plays an enormous role in allowing for the exercise of free will and the possibility of putting an end to suffering before the effects of all past actions have ripened. In other words, this addition is what makes Buddhist practice possible

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

[Spiny Norman]

It sounds like you've answered all your own questions. The suttas also corroborate this. Where is there a question that arises in any of the quotes? Am I missing some correlation that you are trying to discern between these two 'modes'?

I am interested in understanding the fundamental difference between these two modes. I think it is the difference between states and events.

[Spiny Norman]

Time...timeless...and a can of worms
Timeless

I had a look at that thread, but I don't really understand the idea of timeless conditionality.

The first mode "When this is, that is" means that the second thing is only present while the first thing is present - so there is a temporal dimension.

The second mode "When this arises, that arises" means that there is arising and ceasing, and these are events in time.

[Spiny Norman]

You might want to take a look at Ajahn Thanissaro's take on this formula, as it forms the basis for his theme that present experience is conditioned both by past kamma, and also by the kamma which we generate in the present by our mode of receiving or grasping what arises. In your numbered version, he would call (1) synchronic, and (2) linear. The first connects objects and events in the present moment, and expresses the point that some things arise simultaneously. The second connects events over linear time, and expresses the fact that events have kammic reverberations later in time. His numbering of the idappaccayata elements is different from yours, but here is a brief summary from The Wings to Awakening:

Thanks, that the sort of thing I was looking for. I read Wings to Awakening some time ago, but will have another look at it.

It seems that both modes can apply to phassa > vedana. Do you think that both modes apply to all the relationships in DO?

[Sam Vara]

Thanks, that the sort of thing I was looking for. I read Wings to Awakening some time ago, but will have another look at it.

It seems that both modes can apply to phassa > vedana. Do you think that both modes apply to all the relationships in DO?

It's worth looking at Thanissaro's The Shape of Suffering as well, as he goes into more detail regarding DO.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... fering.pdf

I would have thought that some of the relationships in DO could only be linear. For example, I would have difficulty in conceiving birth and death as arising together, except if we consider death as some sort of potentiality contained within birth.

[Spiny Norman]

I would have thought that some of the relationships in DO could only be linear. For example, I would have difficulty in conceiving birth and death as arising together, except if we consider death as some sort of potentiality contained within birth.

Sure. Birth and death look like events over a time-scale.

[Saengnapha]

I would have thought that some of the relationships in DO could only be linear. For example, I would have difficulty in conceiving birth and death as arising together, except if we consider death as some sort of potentiality contained within birth.

Sure. Birth and death look like events over a time-scale.

You come to that conclusion by being able to visualize, construct a mental image. It doesn't seem to work when asking the questions that you are asking. It seems to me that the Buddha could only ascertain how DO unfolds afterhe arose from nirodha samapatti, which is a death-like state where all activity has stopped. When he awoke from this, he reversed all the transcendental samadhis right back to the jhanas and he was able to finally see how the world, things, and the self are created.

I mention this because it seems apparent that knowing this information is useless to anyone who has not gone through the same thing that the Buddha did. It doesn't seem graspable by the intellect in any way. It can only be a 'hobby' like doing a crossword puzzle. Don't you get the feeling that wanting to know creates dissatisfaction?

[Spiny Norman]

I mention this because it seems apparent that knowing this information is useless to anyone who has not gone through the same thing that the Buddha did. It doesn't seem graspable by the intellect in any way. It can only be a 'hobby' like doing a crossword puzzle. Don't you get the feeling that wanting to know creates dissatisfaction?

On that basis most of the discussions here are pointless. But that is really another discussion.

Meanwhile, have you any relevant comment to make on the OP, ie about the practical difference between the modes of this/that conditionality in DO?

[freedom]

I'm interested in exploring the practical difference(s) between the two modes of conditionality described in dependent origination:

"'When this is, that is. (1)
"'From the arising of this comes the arising of that. (2)
"'When this isn't, that isn't. (1)
"'From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that." (2)
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

Taking as an example the relationship between phassa ( contact ) and vedana ( feeling ):

"'When phassa is, vedana is.
"'From the arising of phassa comes the arising of vedana.
"'When phassa isn't, vedana isn't.
"'From the cessation of phassa comes the cessation of vedana."

What is the practical difference between these two modes of conditionality?

And does 'When phassa is, vedana is." mean "While phassa is present, then so is vedana"?

I answered this question @SuttaCentral. Link

This is how I understand the statement: "When this exists, that comes to be. With the arising of this, that arises."

From SN 12.20

Thus, bhikkhus, the actuality in this, the inerrancy, the nototherwiseness, specific conditionality: this is called dependent origination.

Take feeling as an example:

When this exists, that comes to be

To me this statement means: when feeling exists, craving will come to be. Not clinging, birth or anything else... Must be craving. This statement emphasizes the actuality, the specific conditionality of DO.

With the arising of this, that arises

When feeling arises up to a level that can be used as condition, craving must arise with no exception. This statement emphasizes the inerrancy, the nototherwiseness of DO.

Same for the cessation.

[aflatun]

Time...timeless...and a can of worms
Timeless

I had a look at that thread, but I don't really understand the idea of timeless conditionality.

The first mode "When this is, that is" means that the second thing is only present while the first thing is present - so there is a temporal dimension.

The second mode "When this arises, that arises" means that there is arising and ceasing, and these are events in time.

Its complicated, but timeless conditionality is more or less unique to the reading of DO found in the writings of Nanavira (in contrast to temporal process models and three life models). I just thought you might be interested in that thread given your question. I have a hunch there are some older instances of a "timeless" reading of DO but I'm not in a position to substantiate this at the moment.

Sincere question: Are we certain these two modes are actually two modes? Or are they both an elaboration of the same thing?

[Spiny Norman]

Sincere question: Are we certain these two modes are actually two modes? Or are they both an elaboration of the same thing?

Possibly two aspects of the same principle? The first principle describes states, the second describes changes of state.

Eg When there are clouds the colour of the sky is grey (1), when clouds disappear the sky colour changes to blue (2).

In any case I find it very difficult to see how this kind of conditionality could be "timeless".