I’ve often heard Buddhists mention “the unconditioned,” and I have a lot of skepticism about this concept. To me, it makes Enlightenment seem like something distant and almost mystical. People sometimes even call it “the Absolute.”
I started rethinking this when I revisited a well-known Buddhist teaching on suffering. Traditionally, suffering is categorized as ordinary pain, the suffering from loss or change, and the suffering linked to existing in conditioned existence. However, this teaching doesn’t actually say that. It describes three kinds of suffering: inevitable physical suffering (the first arrow), suffering we create by reacting to the first kind (the second arrow), and suffering that comes from seeking pleasure as an escape (the third arrow).
My teacher, Sangharakshita, made a significant mistake, in my opinion, by distinguishing between “conditioned reality” and “Unconditioned reality.” There can’t be two realities—at best, it’s one reality viewed from different angles.
Sangharakshita and others often capitalize “Unconditioned,” making it seem special and abstract. When you say “Reality” instead of “reality,” it implies something otherworldly. But if you just say “unconditioned” or “the unconditioned” (or worse, “the Unconditioned”), it changes the meaning.
We see this term in translations of a famous Buddha quote: “There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is a not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned.” This passage is often interpreted metaphysically, as if the Buddha is talking about different realms.
However, Pāli, the language of the text, has no definite or indefinite articles. The text reads more like “there is not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned,” which feels less mystical.
These terms are synonyms. So “not-conditioned” or “unconditioned” means something hasn’t come into being or no longer exists. In another scripture, the Buddha explains “not-created” as the destruction of lust, hatred, and delusion.
The Buddha’s statement is practical. He’s saying that suffering and the mental states causing it can be “de-created.” If we can create suffering, we can also “not create” suffering.
By previously creating mental states like craving or hatred and then letting them fade away through practice, they’re no longer “born, brought-to-being, made, created.” This state, called nibbāna, is literally the “burning out” of suffering. When suffering’s fuel burns out, suffering itself burns out, becoming “not-created.”
So, “the Unconditioned” isn’t a thing or a metaphysical state; it’s about not creating the causes of suffering. This interpretation is practical and aligns better with the Buddha’s teachings.
Metaphysical ideas about “the Unconditioned” distract from understanding the Buddha’s teachings and direct experience. We don’t need to chase a mystical state called “the unconditioned.” Instead, we should focus on reducing greed, hatred, and delusion.
By stopping the creation of these negative states and working to eliminate them, we can prevent suffering from arising within us. It’s a straightforward, practical path.