[Buddha-l] Dependent arising variants

[Dan Lusthaus]

Mike,

Garfield seems to miss the point of these four conditions. They are not
really four different ways of describing the same event (lights on), but
each entails a different sphere of activity (though some events can involve
more than one of the four conditions).

Here is the verse (I've infelicitously inserted some hyphens to highlight
the main terms, violating all sorts of linguistic rules to do so)

Catvāraḥ pratyayā hetuśc-ālambanam-anantaraṃ /

Tathaiv-ādhipateyaṃ ca pratyayo nāsti pañcamaḥ //



So the four are:

1. hetu-pratyaya

2. ālambana-pratyaya

3. anantara-pratyaya

4. adhipati-pratyaya



Whether hetu pratyaya can be reduced to efficient causality depends on which
school of Buddhism one is looking at (my impression is that Dharmakirti, for
instance, pretty much reduces all causality to efficient causality -- 
Richard can correct me if that is wrong).



Alambana is concerned with cognitive conditions, not wiring.



Anantara basically involves a cause immediately preceding its effect,
without gap. This is a way of dealing with causal chains, sequential
occurrences, series, etc. This one Garfield seems to get right.

Adhipati-pratyaya usually involves a specific list of causal factors (heat,
life, male, female, etc.), most commonly a list of 22 such factors.

Have fun mixing and matching these four with Garfield's explanation.

cheers,
Dan

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Austin" <mike at lamrim.org.uk>
To: <buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 6:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Dependent arising variants


> When discussing these causes/conditions, it may be worthwhile to reflect
> on Nagarjuna's words in 'Examination of Conditions' verse 2 in the MMK:
>
> 2. There are four conditions: efficient condition;
>    Percept-object condition; immediate condition;
>    Dominant condition, just so.
>    There is no fifth condition.
>
> Garfield gives an example:
>
>  Suppose that you ask, "Why are the lights on?" I might reply as
>  follows: (1) "Because I flicked the switch." I have appealed to an
>  efficient condition. Or, (2) "Because the wires are in good working
>  order, the bulbs haven't burned out, and the electricity is flowing."
>  These are supporting conditions. Or, (3) "The light is the emission of
>  photons each of which is emitted in response to the bombardment of an
>  atom by an electron, and so forth." I have appealed to a chain of
>  immediate conditions. Or, (4) "So that we can see." This is the
>  dominant condition. Any of these would be a perfectly good answer to
>  the "Why?" question. But note that none of them makes reference to any
>  causal powers or necessitation.
>
> -- 
> Metta
> Mike Austin
> _______________________________________________
> buddha-l mailing list
> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l