In the teaching of dependent origination, ignorance is presented as the initial condition from which the entire cycle of birth, suffering, and death unfolds. This raises a subtle but profound question: why is ignorance placed at the very beginning of this chain? Does this imply an absolute beginning in time, or is it pointing to a structural relationship in how suffering arises? In exploring this question, it may also be worth considering whether ignorance is simply a lack of knowledge, or if it refers to a deeper mis-perception of reality that underlies all conditioned experience. Clarification on how early Buddhist texts and later traditions understand this foundational role of ignorance would be appreciated.

How would one explain when Buddha said in Mahānidāna Sutta, that "rūpakāye adhivacanasamphasso" and "nāmakāye paṭighasamphasso". The meaning of this?

In MN 38, a monk named Sati The Fisherman's Son has some wrong views about 'samsara', as follows: > “tathāhaṁ bhagavatā dhammaṁ desitaṁ ājānāmi yathā tadevidaṁ viññāṇaṁ > sandhāvati **saṁsara**ti anaññan”ti. > > “As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, it is this very same > consciousness that roams and transmigrates, not another.” (Sujato translation) > > “As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirths, not another.” (Bodhi translation) > > As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is this very consciousness which wanders in Saṁsāra, and nothing else. ([Suddhāso](https://suttacentral.net/mn38/en/suddhaso?lang=en&reference=none&highlight=false) translation) > > As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on [from birth to birth], not another. (Thanissaro translation) The translation of [MN 38 by Sujato](https://suttacentral.net/mn38/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=linebyline&reference=none¬es=sidenotes&highlight=false&script=latin) includes a footnote asserting the view "*the primary locus of transmigration is consciousness (viññāṇa)*": > Sāti attributes three teachings to the Buddha. First, that there is a > “transmigration” (saṁsāra) from one life to another. Second, that **the > primary locus of transmigration is “consciousness” (viññāṇa)**. And > thirdly, that the consciousness that transmigrates remains “this very > same” (tadevidaṁ), not another (anaññaṁ); in other words, it retains > its self-same identity through the process of rebirth. **The Buddha did > in fact teach the first two of these ideas**, but not the third, as he > will explain below. | The Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad says that as death > approaches, the senses and vital energies withdraw into the heart > (hṛdaya), from the top of which the self departs. That same > consciousness proceeds to a new body (4.4.2: savijñāno bhavati, > savijñānamevānvavakrāmati). This core Upaniṣadic chapter on rebirth > reflects Sāti’s wording as well as his meaning. Sāti asserts emphatic > identity using doubled demonstrative pronouns conjoined with (e)va > (tadevidaṁ), and identical constructions are found throughout the > Bṛhadāraṇyaka chapter: sa vā ayam (4.4.5), sa vā eṣa (4.4.22, 4.4.24, > 4.4.25); see also tameva (4.4.17). For anaññaṁ we find the inverse anya for the “other” body (4.4.3, 4.4.4). For the Pali verbs > sandhāvati saṁsarati we have instead avakrāmati (4.4.1, 4.4.2). But > the connection with saṁsarati is made in the Brahmanical tradition > itself, for it says below, “That self is indeed divinity, made of > consciousness” (sa vā ayamātmā brahma vijñānamayo; 4.4.5, see too > 4.4.22), which the commentator Śaṅkara explains as “the transmigrating self” (saṁsaratyātmā) Here, does the footnote asserting "*the primary locus of transmigration (samsara) is consciousness*" have the same wrong view as Sati The Fisherman's Son? In other words, in the Pali Suttas, did the Buddha really teach the primary locus of samsara is “consciousness” (viññāṇa)?

I have often seen the [Anguttara Nikaya 4.77](https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.077.than.html) being quoted as in [this post](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/49150/causes-of-specific-illnesses-death) against pondering on the precise workings of karma. **My question:** is there a misunderstanding of the Buddha’s words thus misconstruing his intentions. My understanding on the Buddha’s caution on karma (in AN 4.77) is that we should not try to figure out its exact/precise/detailed workings if 1) we don’t have the tools (i.e. divine eye faculty or recollection of past lives) and 2) we don’t have the discernment or wisdom to see anicca and anatta in the process. The danger is that we may draw the wrong conclusion as was the case with [certain mentioned recluse](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html#fnt-5) in Brahmajala sutta. But the Buddha did not prevent anyone from having a deep understanding of paticca-samuppada (dependent-arising or conditionality) which is the basis of karma. And through the insights on conditionality, have a deeper understanding of karma; why it works in general. I believe a deeper understanding of karma is within our abilities as ordinary humans as we have the ability to observe, recall and analyse conditions and events in our lives. For example, if I am staring at the ceiling at 2 a.m. in the morning, unable to sleep and I tried to recall what I did to cause this, I may then remember giving in to temptation and drinking a nice cup of coffee after dinner. So, there was an unskillful craving involving certain pleasure and a bad consequence. This is observing karma-in-action and anyone can do it. Incidentally, I have friends who claimed to be able to drink coffee or tea just before hitting the bed and still sleep like a log. One common theme is that they don’t experience the caffeine-high like I do. Although I always find it strange why people drink coffee if they don’t get any pleasures from it. Whether we talk about karma or the other four niyamas, conditionality is their foundation. Millions of scientists, researchers and engineers all over the world are working hard daily, trying to tease out the conditioned causes that govern the phenomena of the world we lived in, from climate change to superconductivity. They are trying to harness their understanding to improve the lot of humanity. We should also deepen our understanding of karma for our own long-lasting well-being and happiness. If one is not in samsara, they need not bother with the rule of the game i.e. karma. But what choice do we have? Surely, the Buddha understand this and would want us to have a better grasp of karma to improve our own lives. ### Addendum: ### *Suppose we assume the Buddha intended for us to investigate the workings of karma through proper verification by keen observation, analysis and even experimenting on ourselves and not by mere speculation. Furthermore, if we assume this is possible because not all karmic fruits are from our or others’ past lives, many are the results of this life. Would we be doing an injustice to the Buddha by quoting him out-of-context with AN 4.77? Also, wouldn’t discouraging investigations into the workings of karma be totally inconsistent with the entire teachings of the Buddha?* *If we postulate the above is correct, how can we quote AN 4.77 in the right context without giving the wrong impression that the Buddha discouraged investigating and understanding the workings of karma?*

Is there a compelling reason, those that draw diagrams for visualization of pratityasamutpada (dependent origination), don't want to include anusaya/asava, obviously not to misrepresent Dhamma? Because from my search, only MN9 details these hidden layers of anusaya/asava as conditioning ignorance, vice-versa? > Ignorance originates from defilement. Ignorance ceases when defilement > ceases. The practice that leads to the cessation of ignorance is > simply this noble eightfold path …” > Defilement originates from ignorance. Defilement ceases when ignorance > ceases. The practice that leads to the cessation of defilement is > simply this noble eightfold path,

According to this law, every phenomenon owes its origin to another phenomenon prior to it. It may simply be expressed as “depending on this, this originates”. An example of Dependent Origination in nature is given below: There being clouds in the sky it rains. It having rained, the road becomes slippery. The road becoming slippery, a man falls down. The man having fallen down becomes injured. Here a shower of rain depends on the clouds in the sky. The road becoming slippery depends on the rain. The fall of the man depends on the road becoming slippery. The injury of the man depends upon his fall: Conversely: If there were no clouds in the sky, it would not have rained. Then the road would not have become slippery. Then the man would not have fallen. Then he would not have become injured. So this is understandable and clear to anyone. So can anyone explain (in simplified way)dependent origination step by step with practical examples?

If I am not mistaken, Tenzen Gyatzo HHDL is translated by Tupten Jinpa in quoting ‘another Amado Master’ as stating “Emptiness does not mean the absence of functionality”. Meaning, that although the phenomenon we experience in our ordinary human existence does not have inherent existence, but evolves in and out of existence, because of many causes and conditions (dependent origination), that does not imply that the reality that we experience is not real in the human sense. This insight is fundamentally important in the liberation from suffering, and in this context, the attainment of the direct experiential knowledge of emptiness is facilitated by syllogistic reasoning. This post was stated as a question because I wanted to earn reputation points in order to respond to another question on the nature of emptiness.

In the book *The Meaning of Life from a Buddhist Perspective* links eight, nine, ten of dependent origination , *pratityasamutpada *, are mentioned as attachment, grasping, existence. I am accustomed to seeing eight, nine, ten, as craving (desire), clinging (attachment), becoming, respectively. What are the ramifications of the swap - if I might infer it that way? On a side note, along with the mentioning of the above, there is the mention of "multiple rounds of dependent-arising occurring simultaneously"

i read this on a website: "...Nama is the appearance of Rupa, 'what it looks like' and not 'how it is',.." is it correctly said?

I ask a similar question here , but why is it that dependent origination is not part of the Satipathanasutta ? There are a few references to the origin of the body in section 1 (considering the body) but not section 4 (teachings & techniques)...would it be useful if it were?

In SN 35.93 quoted below, it reads intellect-consciousness arises in dependence on the intellect and ideas, but if this consciousness is also a thinking about the work of intellect on ideas then it in itself is an intellect. and if so we have to look for another consciousness which higher and the search continues ad-infinitum. This, of course, is not my own though it's a classic platonic thinkers response to Descartes's misguided saying Cogito ergo sum ( I think, therefore I am), quoted below is from Plotinos Ennead Book Nine explaining the relation of intellect and consciousness. ---------- SN 35.93 Dvaya Sutta: A Pair > "In dependence on the intellect & ideas, there arises > intellect-consciousness. The intellect is inconstant, changeable, of a > nature to become otherwise. Ideas are inconstant, changeable, of a > nature to become otherwise. Thus this pair is both wavering & > fluctuating — inconstant, changeable, of a nature to become otherwise. ---------- *PLOTINOS: - SECOND ENNEAD, BOOK NINE.* > Though there be a difference between thinking, and thinking that one > thinks, these two nevertheless constitute a single intuitive > consciousness of its actualizations. It would be ridiculous to deny > such a consciousness to veritable Intelligence. It is, therefore, the > same Intelligence that thinks, and that thinks that it thinks. > Otherwise, there would be two principles, of which the one would have > thought, and the other consciousness of thought. The second would > doubtless differ from the first, but would not be the real thinking > principle. A mere logical distinction between thought and > consciousness of thought would not establish the (actual) differences > between two . Further, we shall have to > consider whether it be possible to conceive of an Intelligence which > would exclusively think, without any accompanying consciousness of its > thought. If we ourselves who are entirely devoted to practical > activity and discursive reason were in such a condition, we would, > even if otherwise considered sensible, be insane. But as true > Intelligence thinks itself in its thoughts, and as the > intelligible, far from being outside of Intelligence, is Intelligence > itself, Intelligence, by thinking, possesses itself, and necessarily > sees itself. When Intelligence sees itself, it does not see itself > as unintelligent, but as intelligent. Therefore in the first > actualization of thought, Intelligence has the thought and > consciousness of thought, two things that form but a single one; not > even logically is this a duality. If Intelligence always thinks what > it is, is there any reason to separate, even by a simple logical > distinction, thought from the consciousness of thought? The absurdity > of the doctrine we are controverting will be still more evident if we > suppose that a third intelligence is conscious that the second > intelligence is conscious of the thought of the first; we might thus > go on to infinity

**Do we feel because we perceive? Or do we perceive because we feel?** As per mahā-vedallasutta(MN43) > Yaṁ vedeti taṁ sañjānāti, yaṁ sañjānāti taṁ vijānāti. > so vedanā -> sañjānāti -> vijānāti But shouldn't this order be in reverse? Because first, we cognise (vijānāti), then recognise (sañjānāti) and then we feel, isn't it so? Goenka also confirms this sequence. vijānāti->sañjānāti->vedeti. Or is there a different between viññanā and vijānāti as well saññā and sañjānāti? Nibbedhikasutta(AN 6.63) says > Phassa is nidānasambhavo for vedanā/saññā/sankhārā. as if vedanā, saññā and sankhārā co-arise. but are they independent of each other? **Note**: (Adding comments of @blue_ego) consider this question as non sequential. When I say first it means second is dependent on first. Take any meditation practice. we just practice to change perception, and feeling changes accordingly. but vice versa is not true.

Can emptiness due to dependent origination be logically connected to the "vast emptiness" of Bodhidharma and Huineng?
A possible connection is that "vast emptiness" of space is the ultimate source of everything that happens into it, which is insignificant relative to its vast and empty support (container).
In this way emptiness is something vastly more substantial than the little substantialities we perceive as such using our ordinary mind, including seemingly grandiose ideas like the cyclical ever-recurring universe or the self-referential ability of the mind that results in the ego consciousness.
So is this the main point of dependent origination? That it ultimately leads to vast empty space as the source of everything?

I am reading into and thinking about https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Twelve_links_of_dependent_origination and the first 3 in particular, which basically is a _derivation of consciousness from nothing_! A few questions about this: 1. The first one, "Ignorance", is said of an **individual** misinterpreting reality, unaware of its true nature. So it **acts** out of ignorance. But there are two things in there (at least): the individuals, actions, and awareness. Where does the individual come from? As well, where can I find more information on what Buddhism says about the origin of action itself? Because the cycle assumes action and individuals as preexisting, where do they come from? 2. The second one, "Formations", is where the individual performs actions (mental or physical), avoiding the negative and desiring the positive, with an ignorance about true nature. This leads to a flow of experiences which leads to consciousness? How exactly does consciousness arise out of "unconsciousness" (or whatever the opposite of consciousness is)? I can imagine like a magnet repelling some things and being attracted to others. This slowly accumulates weight around the magnet, which is consciousness? I dunno, doesn't quite click with me yet. 3. The third is "Consciousness", the result of the actions compelling the individual into existence. Can you explain that more? I can kind of see it, but how does consciousness not exist earlier, during steps one or two? Thank you for your help.

Given that awakening is accomplished by the destruction of the āsava, understanding what precisely the āsava are (and what they are not) is a key to unraveling the mystery of the Buddha's teaching. At the 13:29 mark of this talk, 2016-11-16: Ajahn Sucitto: Asava and Careful Attention Ajahn Sucitto made the following claim: > The āsava are the saṅkhāra that are encoded with ignorance [avijjā] IMHO, this simple statement is profound. It places the āsava here: **paṭiloma-paṭiccasamuppāda:** 1: avijjā 2: saṅkhāra ** knowledge** I am 99% convinced that this interpretation is correct. It just fits. However, if possible, I would like some evidence from the suttas to corroborate this interpretation. Does such evidence exist? Ajahn Sucitto kindly responded to my request for information on this matter, thusly: > “'Avjijja paccaya sankhāra’ is the frequently reiterated beginning of > the paticcasamuppada (dependent origination) sequence. If you google > this you’ll find many sutta references. This means: ‘with ignorance as > a condition, formative energies arise’. These sankhara formulate > consciousness - the outward-looking intelligence that formulates data > in terms of labels and forms (nāma-rupa). The motivation behind this > formulating is to generate a substantial and enduring reality out of > them. This is the asava of ‘existence/becoming’ (bhava). There is also > the motivation towards stimulation; this is ‘sensuality’ (kāma). > Ignorance as the other of the three asava is the motivation to ignore > the others and just keep adding more proliferation to the mix. This > conclusion has arisen through prolonged study and practice."

In the twelve nidanas in the dependent origination it is said that through ignorance arises constructive activities (Sankskara). I do understand that. But the fact that I am still having trouble understanding is how Sankara causes the consciousness to arise and how consciousness cause the name and form to arise. I do understand that cause of name-form the consciousness arises as these two are very interdependent. But my question is as the above. 1. How does Sankskara cause consciousness to arise? 2. How does consciousness cause the name-form to arise?

According to dependent origination , ignorance is at the root of suffering. What are the various ways in which we can get rid of ignorance?

The doctrine of [pratītyasamutpāda](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da) states that: > **all dharmas (phenomena) arise in dependence upon other dharmas**: "if this exists, that exists; if this ceases to exist, that also ceases to exist". **The basic principle is that all things (dharmas, phenomena, principles) arise in dependence upon other things.** However, on the [Wikipedia page on Nirvana](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_(Buddhism)) , it is stated: > According to Dhammapala, **nibbana is an objective reality** which is the opposite of samsara. **Nibbana has its own nature (sabhava) which is unlike all conditioned phenomena.** From this, I'm curious to know the following inter-related ideas: a) Is all there is to reality these conditioned Dharma and if yes, where does Dhammapala's idea of nibbana fit into this if its a non-conditioned phenomena which an intrinsic essence/nature? b) In the view of Dhammapala, are all conditioned phenomena ultimately dependent on this Absolute and Objective Reality which has an intrinsic nature? Does nibbana originate anything itself or is it merely like a principle? Just as an idea, perhaps the doctrine of the Two Truths is related to this, with nibbana belonging or being identical to the Ultimate Truth.

How does craving (taṇhā) manifest with respect to neutral feelings? In Dependent Origination (or dependent co-arising, however you'd like to call it), it is said that Craving (taṇhā) follows on the heels of Feeling (vedanā). Feeling, in general, is of 3 main types: pleasant, unpleasant, neutral. I do see how craving/aversion manifests with respect to both pleasant and unpleasant feeling. But how does it relate to neutral feeling? How is it that I either lust after or try to avoid something that is truly neutral?

Dependent Origination says, given the consciousness, name and form arises. But in SN12.65 it says name-form is condition for consciousness: >When consciousness exists there are name and form. Consciousness is a condition for name and form.’ ‘viññāṇe kho sati nāmarūpaṁ hoti, viññāṇapaccayā nāmarūpan’ti. > >Then it occurred to me: Tassa mayhaṁ, bhikkhave, etadahosi: > >‘When what exists is there consciousness? What is a condition for consciousness?’ ‘kimhi nu kho sati viññāṇaṁ hoti, kiṁpaccayā viññāṇan’ti? > >Then, through rational application of mind, I comprehended with wisdom: Tassa mayhaṁ, bhikkhave, yoniso manasikārā ahu paññāya abhisamayo: > >‘When name and form exist there’s consciousness. **Name and form are a condition for consciousness.**’ ‘nāmarūpe kho sati viññāṇaṁ hoti, nāmarūpapaccayā viññāṇan’ti. My question is : Is there a circular reasoning in dependent origination of name-form and consciousness?