Is causation (hetu) in SN 22.82 different to conditions (paccaya) in Dependent Origination?

SN 22.82 appears to be about 'paññāpanāya', namely, how the aggregates manifest or come to be known. Therefore it uses the word 'hetu', which means preceding 'cause'.

SN 12.2 (dependent origination) is about 'samudhaya', namely, the origination of suffering, which is about how the aggregates found multiples times within the multiple conditions (paccaya) are tainted by ignorance leading to suffering.

Therefore, the two teachings (SN 22.82 & SN 12.2) appear completely different & unrelated to each other.

SN 22.82, in particular, shows how dependent origination (SN 12.2) is not about the reincarnation, come into existence &/or knowing (paññāpanāya) of the aggregates but about how the aggregates are tainted by ignorance & leading to suffering.

Each reality has many aspects in self because it is arised by many causes, except nibbāna. Also, those, many aspects of each reality, are the answers that why it, each reality, makes many effects, too.

Buddha taught just some aspect or some paccaya of an effect, because of the ability of listener. It doesn't mean an effect has just that paccaya in that sutta. Buddha can not teach everything to low ability people. Buddha choose some part of reality and sammuti, that proper for specific listener, then author each sutta to make that listener access to insight 4 noble truths to enlighten. If too much the listener may bored, but if too less the listener may doubt.

But in the full ability such as sāriputta, buddha teach him full causes and effects. So commentary said that abhidhamma, that is very advance in detail of realities (causes and effect), was learned by sāriputta.

This topic is the reason that why buddha taught abhidhamma to sāriputta, and why commentaries often said that abhidhamma is vipassanā's object. Also, the answer that why Mun Bhuridatta often carries abhidhammatthasaṅgaha pocket book with himself.

The Answer

Rupa caused (hetu) by elements vs rupa conditioned (paccaya) by consciousness.

4 great matters, 24 matters' elements and some consciousnesses are causes for each other in the same time by sahajātapaccaya.

See: Palileyyakasuttaṃ, anupadasuttaṃ and mahātaṇhakkhayasutta.

Sankhara caused (hetu) by contact vs sankhara conditioned (paccaya) by ignorance. Feeling, perception & intention caused (hetu) by contact vs contact conditioned (paccaya) by sense media conditioned (paccaya) by feeling, perception & intention (nāma). Consciousness caused (hetu) by namarupa vs namarupa conditioned (paccaya) by consciousness.

Vedanā/saññā/sankhara-khandha (akusala[included avijjā], kusala, and āneñja-kusala) caused by contact (phassa), that caused by 18 dhātū (eye-color-eye consciousness,...). 6 āyatana (in 18 dhātu) caused by nāma-rūpa because of sahajāta-paccaya (see the first answer). Nāma-rūpa caused by consciousness because of mano pubbaṅgamādhammā (indriya-paccaya). Indriya-paccaya is one part of sahajāta-paccaya. Consciousness caused by saṅkhāra because of mano pubbaṅgamādhammā, too.

VS

sankhara-paṭiccasamuppāda is apuññā[included avijjā]/puññā/ānañjābhisaṅkhāra that caused by contact (phassa), also. Loop.

See: use pali, that I gave, to search yourself, such as kusalasaññā, domanassā pāpakā akusalā (for vedanā), etc.

You must recite tipitaka to understand this answers. Also, you must notice the real life, too. This topic is about life, not just alphabet. For the example "can phassa arise without vedanā?", "Has or not self cakkhu-samphassajāvedanā, without color&consciousness?", etc.

It's a sublime Dharma, hard to understand, so let's examine some analogies.

Modern physics says that there are electromagnetic waves, such as radio waves and visible light. We can imagine them as some surface where waves spread from the center:

We can understand them by analogy with ocean waves:

But there is a big difference: waves in the ocean have water beneath and wind above. So the surface is "material".

Electromagnetic waves, however, don't have anything beneath and anything above. It's an imaginary surface.

Now let us examine what is consciousness. We often imagine it as a result of contact of two things:

• an organ of perception
• and something that influences that organ of perception.

Thus we can say that consciousness is a result of contact.

It looks like ocean waves: there is something beneath (water, an organ of perception) and something above (wind, perceived object).

We can say that consciousness doesn't exist if there is no contact of organ of perception and object of perception.

Usually we imagine consciousness as some space that exists independently of everything else; when things appear in that space, they become perceived.

But Dharma asks us: are we sure that there is that immutable, metaphysical space called Consciousness?

We only know directly that consciousness appears when there is contact of organ and object. Does consciousness really exist apart from that?

If we examine that question, we can conclude that there is no actual reason to claim that consciousness exists constantly and independently; it's just our mental model.

Though we can speak about the reality as Only Consciousness (and sometimes it's useful), that is just our modeling; in direct perception Consciousness doesn't really exist (as something absolute or independent).

That helps to realize emptiness - no self - of all things and objects.

Actually all objects are our mental models we create from fluid momentary appearances.

Objects do not exist in themselves. They are only our way to associate individual sense data.

Then we can make another step and say that "objects of perception" and "organs of perception" are in fact our mental models.

The primary phenomena are momentary appearances. "Waves of consciousness".

It's like there are waves, like electromagnetic waves, but we imagine them as ocean waves, with something beneath and something above. In fact, for direct observation something appears. And then we build some mental models on top of that - adding there dualities, like "object" and "organ", or "mind" and "matter".

Consider this: looking at sea, we see waves, and we conclude that there is water beneath and wind above.

Likewise, from "consciousness" we conclude there are forms and mentations of them (rupa & nama).

So various explanations are possible: that from nama-rupa consciousness appears, and that from consciousness nama-rupa appear.

In both cases we talk about the process of creation of mental models.

Awakening and liberation from delusion means we drop thinking of mental models as real things.

It's very sublime Dharma, very hard to understand without direct contemplation.

When you have questions of this kind, it is good to refer to the next two levels of Dhamma. One can always find the correct meanings to the key words that come up in reading the Sutta Pitaka in other two levels of Dhamma. They are the Vibhanga (The Book of Divisions) of the Abhidamma Pitaka, and the Pattäna Dhamma.

In the Suttas what you normally find is the most basic of the given key word, or theme, or concept. It is only in the other two levels that we get to find the deeper meaning. In reading these, one will see that what is meant by hetu is the root causes, and not just other superficial causes.

Paccaya means condition / conditions. There are 24 “paccaya” or “conditions” that can actually cause an effect to materialize; these are called “Pattäna Dhamma". Three such paccaya, are “hetu paccaya", “annantara samanantara paccaya”, and “annamanna paccaya”.

Hetu, or Root causes, are three if you take it as raga, dosa, and, moha. It is of six type if taken as lobha, dosa, and, moha (for akusala kamma), and alobha, adosa, and amoha (for kusala kamma). Then there are other Conditions.

Lets take the germination of a seed to understand the role of conditions or paccaya. The root condition to bring into existence a tree is embedded in a seed; this is called annantara paccaya. But suitable conditions for that seed to germinate are in fertile soil with adequate sunlight and water; this is called samanantara paccaya. Therefore, both annantara and samanantara paccaya must be satisfied to bring a tree to existence.

Since PS describes the “cause and effect” in Buddha Dhamma, most people think “avijja paccaya sankhara” means “avijja causes sankhara”, or that “sankhara paccaya vinnana” means “sankhara causes vinnana”. Any effect must have a cause. But there can be possible causes without leading to any effects.

The causes for bringing up a new tree are embedded in a seed. But just because a seed is there, a tree is not going to appear. If the seed is kept in a cool, dry place, one could keep it that way for a long time. Or one could burn or crush the seed, and it will not bring up a tree.

In order for causes to bring about corresponding effects, suitable conditions must be present. That is what paccaya means. When such suitable conditions are present, causes will bring about corresponding effects. Thus when some effect is brought about, it is called “paccuppanna“, i.e., born (“uppanna“) via suitable conditions (“paccaya“); of course if the root causes must be there to begin with).

In the above example, if one plants that seed (cause) in a the ground and provides water, nutrients, and sun light (suitable conditions), then the seed could germinate and grow to a tree (effect or the result).