Suffering Has Conditions
If suffering simply happened, nothing could be done about it. The sayings on causation ask what it depends on, link by link, and what follows when one link gives way.
Conditioned by ignorance come activities, by activities consciousness, and so on through name-and-shape, the senses, contact, feeling, craving and grasping to birth, ageing and death; from the ceasing of ignorance comes the ceasing of all. Stripped to its bones the law reads: this being, that becomes, this not being, that becomes not. It is offered as a middle between 'everything exists' and 'nothing exists', and it makes the question 'who feels?' unfit: the fit question asks what feeling is conditioned by.
- dependent origination
- ignorance
- craving
- cessation
- suffering
- rebirth
- karma
- feeling
Enter a dialogue
- Someone feels trapped in a pattern that seems to have no beginning. Where in your chain of conditions could they break it?
- Asked who it is that feels, you call the question unfit and ask what feeling depends on instead. Does that leave suffering with no one who suffers?
- You set your account of causes in the middle, between "everything exists" and "nothing exists". What goes wrong at each of the two ends?
- You state your law of causes in one line: when this is, that arises, and when this ceases, that ceases. Why does that show suffering can end?
- Your chain ends in ageing and death, and their condition is birth. Why is being born, rather than dying, the thing to look at?