I often hear Buddhists talk about “the unconditioned,” and I’m extremely skeptical of this term. I find it misleading because it makes Enlightenment seem like something far-off and mystical. It becomes a sort of enigmatic realm, often referred to as “the Absolute.”
This skepticism began when I discovered a well-known Buddhist teaching on suffering. This teaching outlines three types of suffering: inevitable physical suffering (the first arrow), suffering caused by our reactions to the initial suffering (the second arrow), and the suffering that occurs when we chase pleasure to avoid these other forms of suffering (the third arrow).
My own teacher, Sangharakshita, made what I consider a serious mistake by saying, “there is conditioned reality and Unconditioned reality – or more simply, there is the conditioned and the Unconditioned.” But there cannot be two realities. There is only one reality, though it can be viewed in different ways, which might be what he meant.
The habit of capitalizing “Unconditioned” reinforces the idea that it’s something special and abstract. If you say “in reality,” it’s straightforward. However, “in Reality” implies something else entirely, making us wonder about this “Reality.”
One key place “the unconditioned” appears is in translations of a famous Udāna verse. Several other scriptures also mention this phrase. This passage often gets interpreted in a metaphysical way, as if the Buddha is talking about different worlds. Terms like “not-born,” “not-brought-to-being,” and “not-made” sound mystical, suggesting anotherworldly realms.
Remember, Pāli doesn’t have direct or indirect articles. It simply states “there is not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned,” which sounds quite different already. These are synonyms, so “not-conditioned” means the same as “not-made.” In this context, it simply means something hasn’t come into being or no longer exists.
In the Saṁyutta Nikāya, the Buddha explains “uncreated” as the destruction of lust, hatred, and delusion. So, “not-born,” “not-brought-to-being,” “not-made,” and “not-created” are states of mind. The Buddha is practically saying that suffering and its causes can be created or not created. If we can create suffering, we can also uncreate it.
When we let go of mental states like craving or hatred through practice, they stop being created. They become “not-born,” “not-brought-to-being,” “not-made,” and “not-created.” This state is called nibbāna, which means the “burning out” of suffering. When the fuel for suffering is gone, the suffering itself burns out or is “not-created.”
So, “the Unconditioned” isn’t a thing or an “absolute” reality. It’s about not creating things that would otherwise be created, specifically the non-production of suffering and its causes.
All this metaphysical stuff about “the Unconditioned” is far removed from how the Buddha taught and thought. I want to understand the Buddha’s mind and see things his way. A goal that diverges from the Buddha’s isn’t helpful; it’s a distraction. Making the Buddha’s teaching metaphysical leads us into vague speculation, taking us away from our direct experience and actual practice.
We don’t need to strive for some mystical state called “the unconditioned.” Instead, we should work on letting go of greed, hatred, and delusion until they are no longer created within us. We stop creating these negative states and destroy them instead.