A central concept in the Buddhist tradition that all things (X) arise in dependence upon multiple causes and conditions (C).

Does this imply a certain causality or order ( C -> X ) or does it mean that the conditions might also dependant on a or all things (C <-> X)?

The question arose in a comment to the question if "Axioms are non-empty?", saying that "Axioms are basically constructed for theorems. So they are still created things, and thus dependent. "

I always wondered if the dependance concept also works the other way round...

  • 1
    like circular dependency? yes. Someone asked Ven Sariputta , he said similar to two planks (or two piles ) of wood leaning up against each other. they stay up because of each other. Take one down and the other will fall. I will look up reference for you. Maybe someone here can help me. I found it from tipitaka King Siam version K.S. II:80-81. Buddha said many times, vinnana ends when namarupa is ended; and namarupa ends when vinnana is ended.
    – user5056
    Sep 30, 2015 at 19:48
  • @DeanAlkas I think that people sometimes translate it into English as "co-dependent arising" or "dependent co-arising" -- where the "co-" implies that it's mutual.
    – ChrisW
    Oct 1, 2015 at 14:18

1 Answer 1


Quate from ~ NO INNER CORE ~ An Introduction to the Doctrine of Anatta by Sayadaw U Sãlànanda pg-26

Furthermore, we must remember that nàma-råpa or khandhas are merely abstract classifications made by the Buddha, and, as such, they have no real existence as groups. That is, there is never the functioning of an entire entity or group known as corporeality or feeling or perception or mental formations or consciousness, but only the functioning of individual representatives of these groups.

For example, with one unit of consciousness, only one single kind of feeling can be associated. Two different units of perception cannot arise at the same moment, and only one kind of consciousness,
For example seeing consciousness, can arise at one time. A smaller or larger number of mental formations can arise with every state of consciousness. The groups never arise as a totality; only constituents or bits from a certain group can arise depending on conditions.

There are no integrally functioning groups which can be called a self or a mind.

My Story,

The conditions might also dependent on a or all things (C <-> X).

Consider a group of ants. willingness to talk each other the group emerge (Pali:"Uppaggathi").

What is group?
(each ant is not the group, the group is not the collection of ants, without ants also no group, group is not a separate thing from ants, ......).

What is reality?
Actually there is no group( according to our view only ants), but according the view of ants there is a group.("Avijja")

Due to communication, The group behave it's own will.(Consciousness -Intelligent/Madness)

What is the madness?
I am a Group. (My name is 'G'). I have my ants...and getting the feelings of pride, satisfaction...lost, die, decay, feel bad etc..

What is the intelligent?
Get understand the reason for the process. Find the way to stop this suffering.

What is Nibbana?
realize How it create and process. Hence escape from suffering.

(c <-> x)
c = Group's Consciousness.
x = Group Concept( with ants).


Exsample 2. "Players change but Team continues"

By considering a team the players always join and replace. but the team has its popularity glory etc continues to generations.

Is there a team? we can't say 'yes' or 'no'.

1).If some one is considering the team then the team is.
2).If anybody considering the players then no team.

we can't say both is correct, or wrong.
3). The team is relative to the viewers.(May be players or audience)

Like wise what we believe the "Soul" or "person(personality)" is a "Thing". But it is relative to the perception(subject) and precept(object).

So, We cant say there is something in every process. Also we cannot say there is nothing in any process. To be a process there should be a process viewer. again the viewer is also a process. That is Interdependent.

c = players, x = team, so (c<->x)

  • If you could clarify your post a bit, your story would be clearer, but I think I start to get what you want to tell...
    – draks ...
    Oct 1, 2015 at 10:55
  • @draks... If this ex.2 is not clears so much, we can try another.
    – Shrawaka
    Oct 1, 2015 at 12:21
  • What do you mean by: What is the intelligent? How? Why? Is there?..... What is Nibbana? If the group realize itself (what group is )("Sunya")(0).
    – draks ...
    Oct 1, 2015 at 13:03
  • @draks...I like to know what are the other conflicts in this scenario.
    – Shrawaka
    Oct 1, 2015 at 14:06

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.