Conventional Buddhism
Mark Neal
Terms such as conditionality, conditioned co-production, impermanence, interconnectedness and “this being, that becomes” are often encountered in Buddhist teachings today. However, how they are used in what might be called "conventional" Buddhism can differ substantially from how the Buddha intended them.
For example, conditionality is sometimes taken to mean that everything in and around us, and everything in the universe, arises based on causes and conditions: in this way, everything that exists is inherently “conditioned”. Another way this might be expressed is that things are of a component, composite or “confected” nature. This may be illustrated by considering that the seed of a tree, in combination with soil, water and sunshine, all contribute to the arising of a tree, which eventually decomposes and nourishes the next tree. In other words, the view is that the tree itself is inherently “conditioned” because it arises, changes and ceases based on certain causes and conditions.
The life cycle of a tree might also seen as an example of universal impermanence, and the affirmative fact that everything changes as “the way things really are” and "the true nature of existence". And if all conditioned things are impermanent, and everything we experience is conditioned, this can result in the logical shortcut that "everything is impermanent" as something of a mantra. In this, we too are things that exist, but as impermanent, changing and thus insubstantial beings who, like trees, can grow and blossom. And because we share energy and matter with trees and all else, this means that we are all interconnected: nothing exists in isolation.
With such a perspective, the cycles of life and death of a tree, of an idea, and even of ourselves are referred to as conditioned co-production (dependent origination, paticca-samuppada), and an illustration of “this being, that becomes…” specific conditionality. In other words, the phrase “this being, that becomes”, rather than being specific to the 12 Links and why we suffer as the Buddha used it, is instead applied to everything and everyone in the universe, from stars and galaxies right down to sub-atomic particles, because nothing stays still or lasts forever.
If the above is seen as what Buddhism is all about, as I was once taught, then our task is ostensibly to fully understand the principles of such impermanence and conditionality as the primary conceptual expression of the Buddha’s enlightenment, which may also be regarded as his view of existence as a whole. From this perspective, when the enlightened mind looks out at all of existence and at the whole of the phenomenal universe, the most obvious thing about the universe is that it is conditioned: it arises in dependence on conditions, and when those conditions cease it disappears. The urgent question then becomes: whatever arises - whatever comes into existence - must pass away, a fact that is so simple and straightforward you might think you knew it already, but do you, in fact, know? In other words, it is assumed that we are to awaken to the truth of universal conditionality, rather than from the burden of self-imposed conditionality.
As much as all this might make sense to us from where we start, having engaged with such an approach for a number of years, I can attest that it doesn’t lead to awakening, but can be more of a self-improvement program. For example, regarding the crucial first step on the path of seeing there is no “self” whatsoever, the suggested view was that it is not so much that we never have a self as that we always have a new self; by this, if each new self is a better one than the last, then we can say that spiritual progress is taking place. In doing so, one is to become continually aware and emotionally positive, continually responsible, sensitive, and creative; in other words, be continually creative of one's own self. While this initially sounded very attractive, it goes rather in the opposite direction of awakening.
Of course, determining “what the Buddha meant” in canonical literature is, to some degree, a matter of translation and interpretation. However, the litmus test is that the above sort of approach to Buddhism does not describe either the process or the eventual experience of awakening, which eventual experience is the same regardless of whether one is a Buddhist or not. Instead, it installs something of a “glass ceiling” for people who undertake this sort of path, since it leads not to awakening but to conceptual certainty based on how they already see themselves and the world.
Eventually, upon awakening, the illusion of looking out at all of "existence" and at the whole of the phenomenal universe drops away: such a perspective, which is a symptom of being conditioned, no longer arises. In other words, awakening involves dissolving conditioned experience, rather than affirming conditioned existence. It was only after having gone through the unfettering process that I was able to compare what Buddhist scriptures say to what I was taught, and realize the profound differences. Awakening or enlightenment does not result in seeing everything as being conditioned; it results in everything being no longer conditioned by which the seen is simply the seen.
For example, conditionality is sometimes taken to mean that everything in and around us, and everything in the universe, arises based on causes and conditions: in this way, everything that exists is inherently “conditioned”. Another way this might be expressed is that things are of a component, composite or “confected” nature. This may be illustrated by considering that the seed of a tree, in combination with soil, water and sunshine, all contribute to the arising of a tree, which eventually decomposes and nourishes the next tree. In other words, the view is that the tree itself is inherently “conditioned” because it arises, changes and ceases based on certain causes and conditions.
The life cycle of a tree might also seen as an example of universal impermanence, and the affirmative fact that everything changes as “the way things really are” and "the true nature of existence". And if all conditioned things are impermanent, and everything we experience is conditioned, this can result in the logical shortcut that "everything is impermanent" as something of a mantra. In this, we too are things that exist, but as impermanent, changing and thus insubstantial beings who, like trees, can grow and blossom. And because we share energy and matter with trees and all else, this means that we are all interconnected: nothing exists in isolation.
With such a perspective, the cycles of life and death of a tree, of an idea, and even of ourselves are referred to as conditioned co-production (dependent origination, paticca-samuppada), and an illustration of “this being, that becomes…” specific conditionality. In other words, the phrase “this being, that becomes”, rather than being specific to the 12 Links and why we suffer as the Buddha used it, is instead applied to everything and everyone in the universe, from stars and galaxies right down to sub-atomic particles, because nothing stays still or lasts forever.
If the above is seen as what Buddhism is all about, as I was once taught, then our task is ostensibly to fully understand the principles of such impermanence and conditionality as the primary conceptual expression of the Buddha’s enlightenment, which may also be regarded as his view of existence as a whole. From this perspective, when the enlightened mind looks out at all of existence and at the whole of the phenomenal universe, the most obvious thing about the universe is that it is conditioned: it arises in dependence on conditions, and when those conditions cease it disappears. The urgent question then becomes: whatever arises - whatever comes into existence - must pass away, a fact that is so simple and straightforward you might think you knew it already, but do you, in fact, know? In other words, it is assumed that we are to awaken to the truth of universal conditionality, rather than from the burden of self-imposed conditionality.
As much as all this might make sense to us from where we start, having engaged with such an approach for a number of years, I can attest that it doesn’t lead to awakening, but can be more of a self-improvement program. For example, regarding the crucial first step on the path of seeing there is no “self” whatsoever, the suggested view was that it is not so much that we never have a self as that we always have a new self; by this, if each new self is a better one than the last, then we can say that spiritual progress is taking place. In doing so, one is to become continually aware and emotionally positive, continually responsible, sensitive, and creative; in other words, be continually creative of one's own self. While this initially sounded very attractive, it goes rather in the opposite direction of awakening.
Of course, determining “what the Buddha meant” in canonical literature is, to some degree, a matter of translation and interpretation. However, the litmus test is that the above sort of approach to Buddhism does not describe either the process or the eventual experience of awakening, which eventual experience is the same regardless of whether one is a Buddhist or not. Instead, it installs something of a “glass ceiling” for people who undertake this sort of path, since it leads not to awakening but to conceptual certainty based on how they already see themselves and the world.
Eventually, upon awakening, the illusion of looking out at all of "existence" and at the whole of the phenomenal universe drops away: such a perspective, which is a symptom of being conditioned, no longer arises. In other words, awakening involves dissolving conditioned experience, rather than affirming conditioned existence. It was only after having gone through the unfettering process that I was able to compare what Buddhist scriptures say to what I was taught, and realize the profound differences. Awakening or enlightenment does not result in seeing everything as being conditioned; it results in everything being no longer conditioned by which the seen is simply the seen.
Bakr Magrabi
Avoiding the Pitfalls of Conditionality and Impermanence
Perhaps the biggest pitfall regarding terms like “conditionality” and “impermanence” is that they have an understandable meaning to us prior to awakening, though a meaning that is strictly limited by the way we currently experience ourselves and the world. For example, if the Buddha is quoted as saying “all phenomena are impermanent”, it is natural to assume we know what he meant: everything such as trees, humans and thoughts arises, changes and ceases based on causes and conditions - surely that is “impermanence”.
Even the signless abiding can potentially be (mis)understood in terms of conventional causality: that we sit down with an intention to meditate, the room is quiet, we have a certain experience of meditation, etc. are all causes and conditions by which the signless abiding “arises”. However, such a perspective is much different than limiting the term “all phenomena” to the manufactured versions of things we experience in our minds, and limiting the term “impermanent” to the fact that those versions don't persist if we don’t create them in the first place.
In fact, our initial understanding of impermanence and conditionality can be read into virtually every Buddhist scripture, and it will likely make sense to us. As an example, there are two ways in which the following passage regarding the five aggregates (khandas), which are seen as comprising the entirety of “existence”, can be interpreted:
"And what, Ananda, is contemplation of impermanence?
Herein, Ananda, a monk having gone to the forest or to
the foot of a tree or to an empty house contemplates thus:
'Matter (visible objects) is impermanent;
feeling or sensation is impermanent;
perception is impermanent;
formations are impermanent;
consciousness is impermanent.
Thus he dwells contemplating impermanence in these five aggregates.'
This, Ananda, is called contemplation of impermanence.
Our first inclination might be to reflect how each of these five aggregates, and we who are composed of them, are impermanent and change. This is encouraged by the fact that the translator chose the term contemplate (i.e., “to look thoughtfully for a long time at”) for the Pali term patisamcikkhati, perhaps relying upon the definition found in a standard dictionary or otherwise assuming that what is being described is a conceptual undertaking. This passage therefore describes a contemplative, thought-based practice that we are to undertake.
On the other hand, one can go through a meditation such as that described in the Shorter Discourse and fully realize (the more literal meaning of the term above) that these five aspects are not permanent, innate, internal or owned parts of our experience, because they are no longer experienced. In other words, the purpose of going to the forest or an empty house is not to think and conceptualize, but to actually experience that we aren’t what we think we are. Also, rather than describing a practice to undertake, this passage describes what we are to realize and see, namely that these five (or any other number of) things we identify with, which seem like permanent aspects of "our" experience, don't actually exist as we believe they do. Thus, while each of these two translations might seem plausible, they result in two entirely different inquiries and conclusions.
Of course, the everyday meanings of impermanence, interconnectedness and change, as we initially understand those terms, can be helpful up to a point. For example, if we reflect or conceptualize how there cannot be anything about us that stays the same, and we cannot have something permanent inside us somewhere (such as a soul) that makes us “who we are”, this sort of reasoning can start to loosen up our clinging to our identity. However, it seems that a spiritual “plateau” of sorts is inevitable with such an approach; in fact, it is perhaps just as likely that your “self” will be further validated and affirmed, because it can be described as something that exists, albeit in a conditioned, impermanent and interconnected way. To say that "everything is impermanent" means always affirming that there is something (and somone) that is impermanent.
Upon awakening, we see that one of our fundamental, pre-wired urges has been to try to know and explain what is going on in and around us. Because of this underlying urge or need, a tenet such as “everything is impermanent” might seem to be just what we have been looking for(!). And yet, we can’t know the true nature of reality or existence or “the way things really are”, nor do we need to know: awakening entails uprooting this underlying need. Also, as I can attest, regularly reflecting that “everything is impermanent” can so deeply implant this phrase as an “earworm” that it becomes an automatic thought, and it can be surprisingly difficult to stop thinking in this way even when the concept of impermanence loses all meaning. I can attest, based on my own experiences and in guiding others, that there can be a surprising amount of "unlearning" of past doctrine around conditionality and impermanence.
In the unfettering process, it isn’t until the seventh fetter is gone that we truly see and understand that we do not experience actual space, time or “somethings”, by which the conceptual notions of something existing, or rising, changing and falling in space and time, no longer makes any sense; we then have an experiential sense of what impermanence and conditionality mean. Whether through the unfettering process or other means, it is only at that point that we see the profound difference between the “impermanence of somethings” and the non-permanence of the versions of things we create in our minds. Unfortunately, any attempt to describe this shift and what "the world" looks like thereafter will inevitably fall short: it's something you have to see and experience for yourself.
As a result, and though it may contrast with some approaches to Buddhism, it may in fact be best to avoid relying upon terms like impermanence and conditionality, particularly when starting out on the Buddhist path, and wait until we are able to understand and use them in a more helpful way. Such terms could also be useful to those who are practicing under the guidance of someone who can make sure these terms are not misunderstood. If instead we use and apply these terms in light of how we currently understand and experience things, we will in all likelihood more deeply affirm that perspective, and thus go off in a much different direction than awakening. Please refer to this page for a summary of what I suggest be kept in mind regarding emptiness, conditionality and impermanence when engaging with Buddhist teachings.
As daunting as it might initially seem, we have to anticipate that how we experience ourselves and all else will completely change, and that our pre-awakening understanding of conditionality and impermanence will not be part of the eventual experience of awakening.
Perhaps the biggest pitfall regarding terms like “conditionality” and “impermanence” is that they have an understandable meaning to us prior to awakening, though a meaning that is strictly limited by the way we currently experience ourselves and the world. For example, if the Buddha is quoted as saying “all phenomena are impermanent”, it is natural to assume we know what he meant: everything such as trees, humans and thoughts arises, changes and ceases based on causes and conditions - surely that is “impermanence”.
Even the signless abiding can potentially be (mis)understood in terms of conventional causality: that we sit down with an intention to meditate, the room is quiet, we have a certain experience of meditation, etc. are all causes and conditions by which the signless abiding “arises”. However, such a perspective is much different than limiting the term “all phenomena” to the manufactured versions of things we experience in our minds, and limiting the term “impermanent” to the fact that those versions don't persist if we don’t create them in the first place.
In fact, our initial understanding of impermanence and conditionality can be read into virtually every Buddhist scripture, and it will likely make sense to us. As an example, there are two ways in which the following passage regarding the five aggregates (khandas), which are seen as comprising the entirety of “existence”, can be interpreted:
"And what, Ananda, is contemplation of impermanence?
Herein, Ananda, a monk having gone to the forest or to
the foot of a tree or to an empty house contemplates thus:
'Matter (visible objects) is impermanent;
feeling or sensation is impermanent;
perception is impermanent;
formations are impermanent;
consciousness is impermanent.
Thus he dwells contemplating impermanence in these five aggregates.'
This, Ananda, is called contemplation of impermanence.
Our first inclination might be to reflect how each of these five aggregates, and we who are composed of them, are impermanent and change. This is encouraged by the fact that the translator chose the term contemplate (i.e., “to look thoughtfully for a long time at”) for the Pali term patisamcikkhati, perhaps relying upon the definition found in a standard dictionary or otherwise assuming that what is being described is a conceptual undertaking. This passage therefore describes a contemplative, thought-based practice that we are to undertake.
On the other hand, one can go through a meditation such as that described in the Shorter Discourse and fully realize (the more literal meaning of the term above) that these five aspects are not permanent, innate, internal or owned parts of our experience, because they are no longer experienced. In other words, the purpose of going to the forest or an empty house is not to think and conceptualize, but to actually experience that we aren’t what we think we are. Also, rather than describing a practice to undertake, this passage describes what we are to realize and see, namely that these five (or any other number of) things we identify with, which seem like permanent aspects of "our" experience, don't actually exist as we believe they do. Thus, while each of these two translations might seem plausible, they result in two entirely different inquiries and conclusions.
Of course, the everyday meanings of impermanence, interconnectedness and change, as we initially understand those terms, can be helpful up to a point. For example, if we reflect or conceptualize how there cannot be anything about us that stays the same, and we cannot have something permanent inside us somewhere (such as a soul) that makes us “who we are”, this sort of reasoning can start to loosen up our clinging to our identity. However, it seems that a spiritual “plateau” of sorts is inevitable with such an approach; in fact, it is perhaps just as likely that your “self” will be further validated and affirmed, because it can be described as something that exists, albeit in a conditioned, impermanent and interconnected way. To say that "everything is impermanent" means always affirming that there is something (and somone) that is impermanent.
Upon awakening, we see that one of our fundamental, pre-wired urges has been to try to know and explain what is going on in and around us. Because of this underlying urge or need, a tenet such as “everything is impermanent” might seem to be just what we have been looking for(!). And yet, we can’t know the true nature of reality or existence or “the way things really are”, nor do we need to know: awakening entails uprooting this underlying need. Also, as I can attest, regularly reflecting that “everything is impermanent” can so deeply implant this phrase as an “earworm” that it becomes an automatic thought, and it can be surprisingly difficult to stop thinking in this way even when the concept of impermanence loses all meaning. I can attest, based on my own experiences and in guiding others, that there can be a surprising amount of "unlearning" of past doctrine around conditionality and impermanence.
In the unfettering process, it isn’t until the seventh fetter is gone that we truly see and understand that we do not experience actual space, time or “somethings”, by which the conceptual notions of something existing, or rising, changing and falling in space and time, no longer makes any sense; we then have an experiential sense of what impermanence and conditionality mean. Whether through the unfettering process or other means, it is only at that point that we see the profound difference between the “impermanence of somethings” and the non-permanence of the versions of things we create in our minds. Unfortunately, any attempt to describe this shift and what "the world" looks like thereafter will inevitably fall short: it's something you have to see and experience for yourself.
As a result, and though it may contrast with some approaches to Buddhism, it may in fact be best to avoid relying upon terms like impermanence and conditionality, particularly when starting out on the Buddhist path, and wait until we are able to understand and use them in a more helpful way. Such terms could also be useful to those who are practicing under the guidance of someone who can make sure these terms are not misunderstood. If instead we use and apply these terms in light of how we currently understand and experience things, we will in all likelihood more deeply affirm that perspective, and thus go off in a much different direction than awakening. Please refer to this page for a summary of what I suggest be kept in mind regarding emptiness, conditionality and impermanence when engaging with Buddhist teachings.
As daunting as it might initially seem, we have to anticipate that how we experience ourselves and all else will completely change, and that our pre-awakening understanding of conditionality and impermanence will not be part of the eventual experience of awakening.