[dosakkhayo]

What Does “Paccayā” Mean in Paṭicca Samuppāda?

After reading this, I understood as follows.

“A paccaya B” means that B arise when there are A and paccaya. Paccaya is a situation that has an appropriate context for B to occur. If there is only A or only paccaya, B does not arise. Both ‘A’ and ‘paccaya’ are required for B to occur. Therefore ‘there is A’ does not connote ‘there is B’. For example, avijja paccaya sankhara does not mean one always acts foolishly, but when in a certain condition(like seeing a wallet on the street) he/she does some immoral things with avijja.

So the expression ‘A paccaya B’ is equal to those three sentences: (i) ‘A’ can cause ‘B’ if there is proper ‘paccaya’, (ii) the case ‘there is only A but no B’ can be defined”, and (iii) a possibility that paccaya is not suitable for ‘B’ to arise can be defined.

The problem was that this understanding of paccaya was hard to apply to the ‘phassa paccaya vedana’ step of Paticca Samuppada.

I can see that samphassa leads to samphassa ja vedana by reading Phassa paccayā Vēdanā….to Tanhā. <satisfied (i)>

But it was hard to imagine that there is only samphassa but not samphassa ja vedana. <unsatisfied (ii)>

I couldn’t see the situation in ‘phassa paccaya vedana’ either. <unsatisfied (iii)>

Because both phassa and vedana are the universal cetasika. They arise together at the same citta.

While I was thinking about this, I read Mūlapariyāya Sutta – The Root of All Things #11.

• In the next citta (Sam), the mind may attach to the “rupa created by the mind with the distorted saññā/viññāna.” Here, “sampaṭiccana” (“san” + “paṭicca“) means “attaching with “san.” Thus, this citta generates “sankappa” and is not only distorted but is defiled! This rupa is a “cakkhuviññeyyā rūpā” meaning it was “created (in mind) with a defiled cakkhu viññāna.” An Arahant‘s mind does not create this rupa. This is also the “samphassa” stage.
• That “samphassa” then leads to“samphassa-jā-vedanā” in the next citta (San.)

According to the post, samphassa arise at sampaṭiccana citta and samphassa-jā-vedanā at santirana citta.

This explanation solved one problem.  <satisfied (ii)>

But I still have a second problem I can not see the paccaya of ‘phassa paccaya vedana’.

Let me explain this problem a little bit more.

In the ‘sankhara paccaya vinnana’ step, the paccaya is the situation where abhisankhara seems to have solved the problem.

In that situation, stealing and eating bread(abhisankhara) can lead to the expectation(kamma vinnana) that ‘stealing bread solves hunger’ or ‘It is okay to think that stealing bread is a good solution’.

Such situations include that he was putting his hunger first before anything else, that he was praised by others for stealing bread, or that he decided to think it was okay for himself so as not to feel guilty.

So the paccaya in the ‘phassa paccaya vedana’ step is also a situation.

But if samphassa ja vedana has no choice but to come right after samphassa in the citta vithi, why does vedana need extra paccaya?

Or doesn’t ‘A paccaya B’ mean that ‘B needs an additional paccaya besides A to happen’?

[Lal]

Yes. “Paccaya” is a bit hard to put into words. I hope the following comments can help.

1. Dosakkhayo’s statement, ” For example, avijja paccaya sankhara does not mean one always acts foolishly, but when in a certain condition(like seeing a wallet on the street) he/she does some immoral things with avijja” conveys the right idea.

• Let me give another example. Suppose a weak person (X) is being harrassed/hit by a strong person (Y.) X could be thinking, “If I had a gun, I would shoot him right now.” But since X did not have a gun, he could not kill Y. The “avijja” mindset was there, but he did not have the necessary condition (a gun) to carry out what he wanted to do.
• Of course, X would accumulate kammic energy via “vaci kamma” (vitakka/vicara or “defiled thoughts with the intention to kill” running through his mind.) But that is not as strong as a “kaya kamma” (shooting and killing Y.)

 

2. Now, let us look at the second part:

“But I still have a second problem: I can not see the paccaya of ‘phassa paccaya vedana.’

Let me explain this problem a little bit more.

In the ‘sankhara paccaya vinnana’ step, the paccaya is the situation where abhisankhara seems to have solved the problem. In that situation, stealing and eating bread (abhisankhara) can lead to the expectation (kamma vinnana) that ‘stealing bread solves hunger’ or ‘It is okay to think that stealing bread is a good solution’.

Such situations include that he was putting his hunger first before anything else, that he was praised by others for stealing bread, or that he decided to think it was okay for himself so as not to feel guilty. So the paccaya in the ‘phassa paccaya vedana’ step is also a situation.

But if samphassa ja vedana has no choice but to come right after samphassa in the citta vithi, why does vedana need extra paccaya?

Or doesn’t ‘A paccaya B’ mean that ‘B needs an additional paccaya besides A to happen’?

• There are two types of “vedanā” involved. He felt huger, and that is one vedanā. That vedanā arose first with the sensation of hunger where only the “phassa” cetasika was involved.
• When the idea of “stealing bread” is established in the mind, that is a “samphassa” (contact with “san“) and NOT “phassa.” With “samphassa” a second type of vedanā arises: “samphassa-jā-vedanā.” 
• Note that in Paticca Samuppada, “phassa paccayā vēdanā” ALWAYS means “samphassa paccayā samphassa-jā-vedanā.”
• I have made a few revisions to the post “What Does “Paccayā” Mean in Paṭicca Samuppada?“

[dosakkhayo]

OK. So the paccaya can include not only whether a situation that has appropriate context is but also whether contamination of the mind is. Therefore, the paccaya in the ‘samphassa paccaya samphassa-jā-vedanā’ step is the certain types of anusaya or sangati corresponding to the given ārammaṇa. Is it okay to understand like this?

[Lal]

Yes. The critical point is that how one responds to a particular sensory input depends on (i) the types of samyojana/anusaya rooted in the mind and (ii) the conditions prevailing at that moment.

• Now, for an Arahant, the second part does not matter since all samyojana/anusaya have been removed (and, thus, the mind cannot get defiled with raga, dosa, moha, i.e., it is a pabhassara mind). Regardless of the situation, an Arahant will NEVER respond unwisely and move away from the pabhassara mind. If all the root causes have been removed, the Paticca Samuppada cycle cannot even start.
• At the other extreme of a puthujjana (with all samyojana/anusaya intact,) the conditions present at a particular moment play a huge role. If the sensory input is strong (and tempting), one can “get attached” to it; depending on the conditions present, one can respond in many possible ways. 

 

In the case of a puthujjana, there is “an attachment,” at least at a very subtle level for ANY sensory input. 

• That is because a puthujjana‘s mind always starts with a “distorted sanna” as we have discussed in recent posts: “Sotapanna Stage via Understanding Perception (Saññā).”
• But, in most cases, even a puthujjana would not take CONSCIOUS actions if the “attachment to that sensory input (arammana)” is not strong enough.  Javana cittas generating strong kammic energy (especially for rebirths) are associated only with conscious actions. Still, the mind of a puthujjana is contaminated from the beginning.

1 user thanked author for this post.

dosakkhayo

[Author]

Posts