So this is a note on Ñāṇavīra’s ‘A Note On Paṭiccasamuppāda’. The note in itself is quite long, it’s about twenty-five paragraphs. It gets very technical, so I think I’d rather speak about the principle of paṭiccasamuppāda. And then people can dwell on, reflect, keep in mind, and then when they read Ñāṇavīra’s ‘A Note On Paṭiccasamuppāda’, it can sort of give more of a context. Rather than dealing with every particular point that Ñāṇavīra himself raises in his notes. Because the points are self-explanatory, really. The refutation of the traditional interpretation and so on, it’s all in there. But I thought maybe just to contribute to the general perspective on the principle of paṭiccasamuppāda, and also practical application. That can then result in freedom from ownership, that then results in freedom from suffering. That if you’re not seeing, you’re with the grain of it, as the Suttas describe. Which means ignorance is the cause for your outlook towards the world, simultaneously, right there and then. If you’re seeing it, then you’re against the grain of it. Which means the principle still remains there, but it’s the direction of it that has changed.
So his insistence on paṭiccasamuppāda being the ‘one-life interpretation’, it’s not really an interpretation in the sense of, there can be different interpretations. His insistence was ultimate, in a sense of, this is the principle that cannot be diluted or compromised. So sometimes people say ‘oh yes, some other teachers also are teaching that paṭiccasamuppāda is a present principle’. But when you look at it, how their interpretation of it, how their view of it goes, it comes down to, it’s still the commentarial type of outlook. As in, it’s still taken to be an explanation, just instead of spreading it over three lifetimes they concentrate it, and it’s all in this one, or in one moment, or something. But it isn’t, it’s not even momentary, so to speak. It’s a simultaneous principle that, as such, it’s timeless, it’s akālika. And that’s the principle of simultaneous presence of two different things that cannot be examined or taken apart individually, without the other one being implied. That’s why paṭiccasamuppāda and the principle of saṅkhāra are basically the same thing.
So we should probably address, but I think that has to be a separate video, the whole phenomenon of saṅkhāra, of determinations, because most people’s ideas about determinations and paṭiccasamuppāda are along the lines of cause and effect, which is exactly what the traditional interpretation is. This is the cause, this is the result, then this is another cause, and then another result, and so on, and so on. And because of that, if it’s a cause and effect, it must involve time. And as such, it cannot be that fundamental principle that can make you understand the nature of action. The nature of ownership, and the nature of craving, and the nature of ignorance that takes you with that grain.
So whenever there is an involvement of time in the explanation of the principle, it means it is not as fundamental as paṭiccasamuppāda is. Because ‘with this, this is’, that’s how every paṭiccasamuppāda formulation—because there are a few different ones, and they would vary in the Suttas—but always it would start with ‘with this, this is’. With the presence of this, this is present. There are various translations of this as well, but the point is, that both sides of that statement are in the present tense. So it’s not ‘when this has arisen, having arisen and ceased, then this is the result that came after it’. Which is usually how people take paṭiccasamuppāda to be. It says ‘with this, this is’ or ‘with this, this comes to be’ or ‘with this, there is the being of this’. Two things, simultaneously present on two different levels.
That’s why it’s also so hard to see. Because it’s not something you can just observe, because it already includes your observation. The nature of your observation is already implied in it, like nāmarūpa-viññāṇa, viññāṇa-nāmarūpa. You look at one, it’s implied by the other. So the whole point of discernment of this principle is because it automatically disables you, basically, from any sense of ownership. Because you realise there is no place for the sense of self in the two equally, simultaneously, mutually determined things. If you look at one it’s determined by the other, if you look at the other it’s determined by the other one. Obviously, the way I’m describing it, you can’t even look at it like that. You can’t look at the one and then look at the other, because that would require you to step outside of your experience. And that’s not possible. So the actual principle of two simultaneous things, you are within those things. Your experience as a whole is within those things. So you can’t see them on equal footing, you can only see one, and then discern that it’s determined by the other. And that discernment is a valid thing if you know how to do it, if you know where to look for it. But if you expect to see the two simultaneous things present together, to an equal extent in front of you, means you’re the third thing. Which means these are not two fundamental things upon which your whole experience rests.
So the whole principle of paṭiccasamuppāda can be summed up into ‘with this, this is’. And even the scholars who endorse the traditional interpretation, even they could not negate the fact that this basic statement, very fundamental statement for every paṭiccasamuppāda formulation, always implies present present. So that’s why some of the more renowned ones try to reconcile this discrepancy, of the Buddha’s statement that paṭiccasamuppāda is ‘with the arising of this, this arises’ with the traditional view whereby having something else arisen, this is the result of it. So they try to reconcile it, basically, by dismissing it, by dismissing this most condensed formulation. They would say things like that the statement that ‘with this, this is’ is just an ‘abstract principle’ of paṭiccasamuppāda. But that’s quite a poor attempt, I suppose, at circumventing the problem. Because no matter how abstract the principle might be for you, if it’s a principle, it means that what is to follow, as a description of a principle, cannot be diametrically opposed to that principle. Which is, again, a belief that many of the famous scholars would have. Oh, this is a principle that states ‘with the arising of this, this is’, but then the actual explanation of the principle completely ignores the very principle of simultaneous presence. And then carries on in explaining to you a three-life interpretation of how this leads to that, and then this leads to that, and so on.
So even if we take it to be an abstract principle, as such, everything else that follows on account of it must be included within the principle. Otherwise, it’s not a principle. But the fact that those scholars themselves call it a principle means they understand the importance of it. And because that principle remains the same, that’s why every paṭiccasamuppāda formulation found in the Suttas was not always comprised of twelve factors. There are numerous occasions where saḷāyatana was omitted, then there was another occasion where he doesn’t even go into the whole determination of saṅkhāra to viññāṇa and avijjā to saṅkhāra. But it just comes to, nāmarūpa is determined by viññāṇa, and viññāṇa is determined by nāmarūpa. And that’s it. Or another one, in Dīgha Nikāya, where it stops after feeling and craving, and then taking up the rods, and fights, and quarrelling, and so on.
So you realise, human action is based on the principle of ignorance, and that’s exactly what paṭiccasamuppāda explains to you. And human action is always present. That’s why your present intentions determine your actions, and that’s why you’re fully bound by them. And those intentions always being present means there is always present ignorance in regard to those actions. So you remove the ignorance, means your actions are not determined by it any more. Which means your actions are then free from sense of self, conceit, ownership, and so on. Means there is no action of a puthujjana, there is no action that will perpetuate, that will maintain your persistence in the domain of saṃsāra.
And the whole idea of the three lives and rebirth, again, it’s based on the external projection, external view of yourself. Whereby there is this public world which we inhabit, and then for as long as I’m ignorant I will travel from this life to another life, to another life, to another life. But what those people fail to see, there is no such public world that can be known independently from your experience right here, right now. In other words, when you think about a public world, you’re thinking it privately, within your experience as a whole, and you’re fully enclosed within that. And again, that’s what it means, whatever you do stays with you. So the idea of rebirth being this travelling through this public world that we all inhabit, it’s completely mistaken. The idea of rebirth is closer to the persistence of your point of view that you have right here, right now. Now I’m not saying about persistence of your self awareness, that’s a different thing. But the point of view, the direction of your view, that’s what stays. And that’s why you can remember previous lives. Because it’s through this point of view, same as you remember yesterday, same as you remember ten days ago, ten years ago. If you develop your mind, some people have the ability to remember ten lifetimes ago. Not because they transcended these five aggregates, which is impossible. You still stay within it, but your view of it reaches further back. But the only reason it can reach further back is because it’s all within this same container of this experience as a whole.
And the Buddha said it himself, if a person remembers one lifetime, five lifetimes, five-hundred lifetimes, all they do remember is these five aggregates, or one among them. So the whole idea of rebirth being this travelling through this mysterious universe, and that paṭiccasamuppāda explains it, is completely based on this fallacy of the external world that you can experience objectively, independent of your point of view right here, right now. So that’s also another way, Ñāṇavīra doesn’t necessarily talk about that, but that’s another reason as to why regarding paṭiccasamuppāda as an explanation is wrong. Because there’s really nothing to explain. It’s either the point of view that you go with the grain, with ignorance, with craving, with lust and desire, or the point of view that has been fully purified and uprooted from any greed, aversion, or delusion.
So in practical terms, the principle of paṭiccasamuppāda, it’s not about understanding the connections between the twelve factors, or sixteen factors, or eight factors. It’s about seeing the principle for yourself, right here, right now. And that principle is, ‘with this, this is’. Which is exactly what a sotāpanna sees when he becomes a sotāpanna. Which is, ‘whatever has the nature of arising, has the nature to cease, because of that’. Simply because of that, because it has arisen, that’s why it will cease. So he doesn’t need to see the cessation in order to know impermanence. On the contrary, the impermanence, the cessation, is implied in the presence of things, presence on its own. It has arisen. Whatever has the nature of arising, because of that nature, it will have to cease. But usually people expect ‘I must see the destruction, disappearance of this thing, and oh yes, that’s impermanent—see how the thing got destroyed’. They fail to see that seeing the destruction has arisen for you. So that’s a manifestation. And the impermanence that the Buddha talks about is on the level of that presently enduring manifestation. Whatever that manifestation might be, whether it’s a manifestation of something being created, or a manifestation in your experience of something being destroyed. Either way, manifestation is there. Because it’s manifested, that’s why it’s impermanent. Because it’s manifested on its own, that’s why I can’t own it.
And that’s exactly what the principle of paṭiccasamuppāda is. Seeing that independence of the arisen phenomena, independence from your point of view, upon which your point of view must rest. Like, if this thing hadn’t arisen on its own, you would simply not exist. You would not even be able to conceive it as ‘mine’, let alone appropriate it further, and act out of it. So practically, you want to see the simultaneous presence of two things that determine your experience as a whole. There is nothing outside of it, because when you think outside, that’s your internal experience. So you can’t step outside of your five aggregates, and there is no need to. All you need to do is to see that the five aggregates are fully operating, fully self-sufficient, as they are, without any need of ownership or the master/agent that controls them. Furthermore, once you start seeing it, you realise it’s impossible to own them and it’s impossible to control them. Because that would require you to step outside of it and take possession of it, take the direction of it.
And it’s not incidental that attavāda, self-view, one of the first three fetters that a sotāpanna abandons, it’s not incidental that attavāda is that assumption of the ‘extra-temporal changeless self’, a self that’s independent of your experience as a whole. Like, all feeling, perception, all of this, but my self is this ultimate entity that’s beyond that. But if you start to see that your sense of self—which is real as such, it’s not an illusion—it’s real, as a mistake. Mistakes are real. They’re mistaken in their content, but phenomenologically, an arising of a mistake is manifested. And that mistake is human existence. That mistake is based on ignorance. And you’ll know there is a mistake if there is lust in your experience. You will know there is an existential mistake if there is ill-will in your experience. You will know there is an existential mistake if there is delusion, appropriation, conceit, sense of self, in your experience. So these are the symptoms of that existential discrepancy that you’re maintaining, that mistake. So first you need to acknowledge it, because if you just say ‘oh it’s not real, nothing’s real, there is no self, there’s nothing real there’ you’re dismissing the entire mistake. And you’re certainly not going to understand the principle of simultaneous dependence.
So, seeing it as a mistake, as a real, persisting mistake, is the first step. So I have a sense of self that I cannot deny. That’s not the issue, denying it is the issue. So you don’t deny it. Now look at it. Can that sense of self be there, continue existing, persist in its manifestation, without this random, living, operating body, this beating heart, breathing lungs, without this world persisting there, being unaffected? Without the great elements allowing it? Can I remain even for a second longer if something comes and just wipes away my entire body, just gone, disintegrates? It’s inconceivable. So it’s not about denying your sense of self, it’s about putting it in the right place. And that right place is second to the experience as a whole that is first. Second to the body, second to the form, feeling, perception, intentions, and second to the consciousness for that matter. So you don’t want to be denying it, you want to change the order. Or as the Suttas would say when somebody would understand what the Buddha was teaching them, ‘oh, it’s like correcting the order, putting first that which was second’. And that’s the whole point. You want to reset the order properly, because that’s the only way you can uproot that sense of self. Denying it still affirms it, indulging it affirms it, ignoring it maintains it, maintains its already-existing affirmation.
So what you can do though is see that it is dependent on that which cannot be your sense of self. Which is your body, for example. Your functioning heart, functioning brain. You have no say in those functions, but your whole life depends upon them. So it’s because people don’t think about these things sufficiently enough, that’s how you get to ignore the mistake of ownership and so on. If you start to think about it, then you’ll realise that even the most personal sense of self is still directly dependent upon the basis of this life, for which you have no say in. So then all you can truly say is ‘with the persistence of this, this persists’. With this, this is. Without this, this cannot be. There is no room for me in-between, or outside, or left or right from it. There never was. Not knowing there never was room in there for you, that’s how you place yourself in it.
Another quick practical take on it. Usually, people think ‘I am, because of that, things are mine’. Start reversing that view, and start regarding it as ‘no, it’s because I keep taking things as mine, that’s why I am’. But when you have been taking things as yours for so long, that’s how that sense of ‘I am’ starts taking priority. And then taking things as mine, which is really the cause, the fuel for the sense of ‘I am’, becomes second, and is seen as a result of ‘I am’. But again, if you deny ‘I am’, then you deny the whole problem. So there is a sense of self, and you don’t want to deny it, you want to regard it as not belonging to me. So my own sense of self is not actually mine. Why is it not mine? Because it depends upon, it’s fully determined by, its manifestation persists on account of things that I cannot own at the same time. So my sense of self depends upon that which cannot be mine. Thus, how can that sense of self belong to me? Because if it were truly mine, its origins, its control, would be within my power. But it isn’t. So I can say ‘this is mine, this obeys me’, until it’s taken away. Which means it was never really yours.
That’s why the Buddha compared the whole of existence, sensory existence, everything, to borrowed things. Borrowed jewellery, borrowed gold, sensuality and so on. You borrow it. If you have something borrowed, you’re using it as if it’s yours. That’s not necessarily a problem. The problem is when you forget that you’ve borrowed it, and that’s exactly what ignorance is. Because it’s too unpleasant to keep maintaining the perspective that this is not mine. My feelings are not mine, things that are dearest to me are only borrowed, I am nothing, basically. That’s quite frightening, if the mind hasn’t been used to thinking about it. So, the first port of call is to ignore it. That’s the easiest with-the-grain solution, just ‘I’ll ignore the fact that this is borrowed, that this will be taken away, and I cannot own it’. And because of that, just because of that ignorance, this whole mass of suffering arises. And that’s why an arahant who stops ignoring that, who can never ignore it again, still speaks, talks, uses, eats, walks, and so on. But he doesn’t, he cannot, mistake any of that for any ownership. He cannot conceive it, as the Suttas say, as mine, as belonging to me, as ‘I am’.
So it’s important to maintain these perspectives, because it’s simply through not dwelling on them, that’s how you perpetuate the existential mistake I’m talking about. By ignoring it, you’re fuelling it. So it’s not incidental that thinking about it is very unpleasant. That’s how Māra makes sure that nobody thinks about it voluntarily. It takes determination, effort, and repetitive strength and training. Because it’s completely against the whole nature of experience, which is to not think about it, and to go with what’s offered to you. The sense of ‘I am’ or ‘I am my own’ is because I take things to be mine. So the simultaneous presence of the assumed ownership is why there is a sense of ‘I am’. Without that basis being there persisting, there cannot be a sense of ‘I am’ persisting.
So how do you remove the basis that is necessary for your sense of self? Well, you can’t remove it, as in to prevent it from arising. Because that would imply that your sense of self is in control of it, and has a say as to what arises and what disappears. But you can stop regarding it as yours. How do you stop regarding it as yours? Well, by stopping gratuitously delighting in and welcoming sense pleasures. By stopping gratuitously trying to get rid of unpleasant feelings. It’s desire and lust in regard to your feelings, that’s how you maintain the ownership. Unquestioned desire, unquestioned lust, the ownership gets maintained. Unquestioned ownership, sense of self is fully established, having a grip over you. So, my sense of self does not belong to me. It’s there, as an arisen persistent phenomenon, but I cannot own it. Even if I want to.
Another way to think about it is, understand the nature of ownership. Just take the phenomenon of ownership, belonging. What is it determined by? If you say ‘this is mine’, what does that really mean to you? Does it mean you have a say in it? Does it mean you’re truly the owner? And you realise, if you start thinking about it, at most, a sense of ownership is on the level of entitlement. It cannot be more than that. It just cannot be more than that. Even if you made something, you created it yourself from scratch, the fact that all those scratches that you had, from which you were able to create these things, they were given to you beforehand. Which means, it doesn’t matter how far you exercise your creation, your sense of self, your ownership, your control. It’s always going to be secondary to that persisting basis of things having arisen beforehand, on their own. And you have no say in that.
And that’s why the Buddha would encourage thinking about the four great elements, which is, things arisen on their own, and you had no say in that. And when those four great elements change, nothing that has been depending upon them can remain standing unaffected. So sense of ownership, you could reflect on that. What is its necessary, presently enduring basis? Any sense of ownership, objects, people, doesn’t matter. If something is mine, if something is truly mine, let it endure. Don’t rush answering it, or defining it. Just, what does it mean to have things belong to me? What does it mean, being mine? And you realise that, as I said, it’s on the level of entitlement. But then you can also see that being mine means being pleasant. It means implying the prospect of pleasure. Would you gladly regard something as ‘mine’ if that thing is threatening to you? Would you be happy about having cancer? Or a disease, or something that can kill you? No, you’d want to get rid of it. ‘I don’t want this to be mine.’ So there is a common thread to everything that is regarded as mine, which is pleasure. And that’s why it’s not incidental when Ñāṇavīra talks about it, that the sense of ‘mastery over things’ is inherently bound to pleasure. Because if there is no pleasure, you would not want it. And you would certainly not be indulging the ideas of control and mastery over such things.
So, the sense of ‘mine’ is a sense of entitlement that is bound with a sense of pleasure. Which means then, the sense of ‘mine’ is basically a sense of entitlement towards pleasure. You feel like you have a right to experience pleasure. And just to that extent only, the view has already transgressed into a domain that doesn’t belong to it. The domain of the aggregate of feeling. You have no right to choose what you want to feel or not, but yet you feel entitled. Why is that? What is that entitlement rooted in? Oh, it’s rooted in me ignoring the fact that I have no right to choose what I feel. So simply through ignoring what’s right in front of you, you develop a sense of entitlement, which is a sense of ownership, which is a sense of my self, the master, the ego, everything else. The whole of suffering and the mess that comes from it comes from you ignoring the simple truths that are right in front of you. The universal truths. With the presence of this, this is present. With the presence of feelings, for example, my craving is there. Can I crave for pleasure if feeling is not there in the first place? No. Can I crave for pleasure when the feeling has disappeared? No. So it’s the persistence of the arisen pleasure that’s a necessary simultaneous basis for my craving of that pleasure. Towards or against it. And that’s paṭiccasamuppāda in a nutshell.
So, can I then not crave in the presence of pleasure? Yes, and that’s exactly the paṭiccasamuppāda that goes against the grain. So externally, so to speak, on the surface, nothing has changed. There is pleasure. Pleasure remains. The aggregates remain. But what has changed is the attitude of craving towards or against, and so on. The attitude of craving has disappeared. So now, there is no craving on the basis of pleasure. And the pleasure still arises. And the pain still arises. And the neutral feeling still arises. But the direction that was based on ignoring the nature of these things that arise on their own, the five aggregates, that direction is gone, because you’ve stopped ignoring it.
That’s why ignorance, in a way, it’s quite a good translation for avijjā. Because avijjā is not a metaphysical secret, a lack of information that you need to discover through some mystical practice that will be revealed to you, some truths that are hidden. It’s actually your very attitude towards your own feelings, your own perceptions, your own intentions. The attitude of ignoring the fact that you can’t own it, even if you want to. And you want to. But you realise that you want to only because you think you can own it. But you can’t. And if you stop ignoring that—and again, you can’t do that overnight. Because ignoring has been done for aeons and aeons and aeons and aeons. It’s been done for so long, it’s your starting point. That’s what the Buddha meant when he said avijjā has no discernible beginning, before which the mind wasn’t ignorant, and then it become ignorant. But, avijjā as ignorance shouldn’t be there, because it’s incompatible with the way things are. That’s why arahantship is irreversible. Once you fully realise that avijjā shouldn’t be there, it cannot be there. It ceases to be there. And that’s why the Buddha said that’s when he realised the mind was always pure and bright. The aggregates were always unpolluted by avijjā, by craving, because it cannot be in the aggregates. It’s not understanding the aggregates, that’s why it was there. Once you understand, that’s why it can never be there ever again. Irreversible. Parinibbāna.