I often hear Buddhists talking about “the unconditioned,” and I find this expression quite problematic. It makes Enlightenment seem like something that’s far out of reach, a kind of mystical or metaphysical entity sometimes referred to as “the Absolute.”
This perspective hit me when I realized that a well-known Buddhist teaching on suffering doesn’t actually say what many people think it does. The teaching outlines three kinds of suffering: inevitable physical suffering (the first arrow), suffering we create by how we respond to that physical pain (the second arrow), and the suffering that results when we immerse ourselves in pleasure to escape other sufferings (which I call “the third arrow”).
My teacher, Sangharakshita, made what I consider a significant error by suggesting there is both a conditioned reality and an Unconditioned reality. But there can’t be two separate realities. There’s only one reality, which can be viewed in different ways. Though perhaps that’s what he meant.
Sangharakshita, like many others, would capitalize “Unconditioned,” which makes it seem like it’s something very special and abstract. Saying “in reality” is straightforward, but “in Reality” implies something more profound and elusive, making us wonder where this “Reality” is.
Let’s examine the term “unconditioned” more closely. It’s often found in translations of a well-known Udāna verse that mentions a not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, and not-conditioned state. This passage is usually interpreted metaphysically, as if it’s talking about different worlds. The terms make it sound very mystical, like the Buddha was referring to some otherworldly realm.
It’s important to note that Pāli, the language of the text, doesn’t use articles like “a” or “the.” So, the text actually says “there is not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned,” which sounds quite different and less mystical.
These terms are synonyms, so “unconditioned” means the same as “not-made.” In the Saṁyutta Nikāya, the Buddha explains that “uncreated” refers to the destruction of lust, hatred, and delusion. So, “not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-created” are states of mind free from these negative influences.
The Buddha’s point is practical: suffering and its mental causes can be created and can also be “de-created.” If we can create suffering, we can also stop creating it. By letting go of mental states like craving or hatred, they stop being “born, brought-to-being, made, created,” and become “not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-created.” This is what nibbāna is — the “burning out” of suffering.
“The Unconditioned” isn’t a thing or some absolute reality. It’s not even correct to call it “the unconditioned” because it refers to the non-creation of things that would otherwise be created, particularly suffering and its causes.
This metaphysical interpretation of “the Unconditioned” strays far from how the Buddha taught and thought. It’s a distraction from understanding the mind of the Buddha and from practicing his teachings. Making his teachings metaphysical steers us into vague speculation, away from direct experience and practical application.
We don’t need to strive for a mystical state called “the unconditioned.” Instead, we should focus on letting greed, hatred, and delusion fade away. By stopping their creation within us, they will no longer be “born, brought-to-being, or made.” Simply put, we need to stop creating these negative states and focus on eliminating them instead.