Abstract: This article analyzes a systematic hermeneutical method presented in the third chapter (Suttādhiṭṭhānatatiyabhūmi) of the Peṭakopadesa, an early Pali commentarial text attributed to Mahākaccāyana. The text presents a triadic analytical framework—hetu (cause), nissanda (result), and phala (fruit)—as a method for parsing Buddhist teachings across temporal-causal phases. Unlike Abhidhamma analysis, which categorizes phenomena synchronically through the mātikā system, this method reveals a diachronic unfolding wherein a single dhamma manifests through distinct temporal modes while maintaining its identity. Through close reading of key passages and comparison with the Netti-pakaraṇa, I demonstrate that this triadic structure functions simultaneously as an exegetical tool for disambiguating textual semantics and as a philosophical claim about the nature of causality and phenomenological time. The analysis situates this method within broader Buddhist epistemological concerns, particularly the tension between phenomenal multiplicity and doctrinal unity. I argue that the Peṭakopadesa’s approach anticipates certain insights from modern semiotics regarding the temporal generation of meaning while remaining grounded in distinctly Buddhist soteriological concerns. This analysis contributes to our understanding of early Buddhist hermeneutical methodology and challenges prevailing assumptions about the relationship between Abhidhamma and commentarial literature.

Keywords: Peṭakopadesa, Buddhist hermeneutics, causality, semiotics, adhiṭṭhāna, Mahākaccāyana, temporal analysis

---

I. INTRODUCTION

The Hermeneutical Challenge: Unity Amidst Doctrinal Diversity

The Buddhist canon presents interpreters with a fundamental tension. On one hand, the Buddha insists on the unity of his teaching—famously declaring that he teaches “one thing: suffering and the cessation of suffering.”¹ On the other hand, the textual tradition preserves diverse doctrinal formulations: the four noble truths, the five aggregates, the six sense bases, the twelve links of dependent origination, the thirty-seven factors of awakening. Each framework appears complete; each claims to encompass the entirety of the Buddha’s insight. How can practitioners understand these varying presentations as expressions of unified dhamma rather than disparate teachings requiring separate mastery?

This question transcends academic curiosity. Practitioners must determine whether mastering dependent origination suffices for liberation or whether one must additionally perfect understanding of the aggregates, sense bases, and elements. The hermeneutical problem thus carries soteriological weight: misunderstanding the relationship between these formulations could misdirect contemplative effort.

Scholarly attention to this question has concentrated primarily on Abhidhamma literature, where systematic categorization addresses multiplicity through the mātikā (matrix) system.² Abhidhamma texts organize phenomena into comprehensive taxonomies, establishing relationships through elaborate conditional typologies. The Dhammasaṅgaṇī’s opening mātikā, for instance, classifies dhammas as wholesome, unwholesome, or indeterminate, then subdivides these categories through increasingly refined specifications.³ This approach achieves coherence through exhaustive enumeration and precise definition.

The commentarial tradition, however, developed alternative hermeneutical strategies that have received less scholarly examination. The Peṭakopadesa, an early Pali commentarial work attributed to Mahākaccāyana and included in the Khuddaka Nikāya, presents a sophisticated method for textual interpretation that differs fundamentally from Abhidhamma’s synchronic categorization. This text, together with its companion work the Netti-pakaraṇa, articulates systematic procedures for extracting meaning from canonical discourse.⁴

The present study focuses on one such procedure: the triadic analysis of hetu (cause), nissanda (result), and phala (fruit) presented in the Peṭakopadesa’s third chapter, the Suttādhiṭṭhānatatiyabhūmi (Third Ground: Foundations of Discourses). This chapter establishes thirteen “foundations” (adhiṭṭhāna)—greed, hatred, delusion, non-greed, non-hatred, non-delusion, bodily action, verbal action, mental action, and the five faculties of faith, energy, mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom—and demonstrates how any teaching related to these foundations can be analyzed through the hetu-nissanda-phala framework.

I argue that this method addresses the unity-multiplicity problem through a temporal-processual analysis. Rather than categorizing dhammas spatially (as Abhidhamma does), the Peṭakopadesa reveals how a single teaching unfolds through time. The method shows that apparent doctrinal diversity reflects different temporal phases of identical processes. A teaching about craving, when examined carefully, reveals itself as simultaneously describing: (1) the root condition (hetu), (2) its natural development (nissanda), and (3) its ultimate consequence (phala). What appears as three distinct dhammas emerges as one dhamma viewed across its temporal arc.

This analysis makes three contributions to Buddhist studies. First, it illuminates an understudied hermeneutical tradition that predates Buddhaghosa’s systematization. Second, it demonstrates that early Buddhist exegetes developed sophisticated theories of meaning-generation that operated independently of Abhidhamma frameworks. Third, it reveals unexpected parallels between Buddhist hermeneutical concerns and modern semiotic insights about temporal dimensions of signification, though these parallels must be approached with appropriate caution against anachronistic interpretation.

The Peṭakopadesa: Text, Attribution, and Scholarly Context

The Peṭakopadesa occupies an unusual position in the Pali canon. Included within the Khuddaka Nikāya, it functions as commentary rather than primary discourse.⁵ The colophon attributes the text to Mahākaccāyana, the disciple whom the Buddha designated as foremost in detailed exposition (netti).⁶ Scholarship has questioned this attribution, with dates ranging from the third century BCE to the first century CE.⁷ K.R. Norman argues that the text’s linguistic features suggest composition in India, possibly predating Buddhaghosa’s commentarial project.⁸

The relationship between the Peṭakopadesa and Netti-pakaraṇa has generated substantial scholarly debate. Both texts present overlapping content, particularly the sixteen hāra (methods), five naya (approaches), and eighteen mūlapada (root terms). N.A. Jayawickrama proposed that the Netti represents an earlier, more systematic version, with the Peṭakopadesa offering expanded explanations.⁹ Norman suggests both derive from a common oral tradition, accounting for shared material alongside distinctive treatments.¹⁰

The Peṭakopadesa organizes its material into three “grounds” (bhūmi): (1) Ariyasaccappakāsanapaṭhamabhūmi (First Ground: Revealing the Noble Truths), which expounds the sixteen methods, five approaches, and eighteen root terms; (2) Sāsanapaṭṭhānadutiyabhūmi (Second Ground: Establishing the Teaching), which classifies discourses by their spiritual function; and (3) Suttādhiṭṭhānatatiyabhūmi (Third Ground: Foundations of Discourses), which demonstrates how to trace teachings through their “foundations.”

The term adhiṭṭhāna requires careful interpretation. Derived from adhi (over, upon) + √sthā (to stand), it carries meanings including “standing over,” “resolve,” “determination,” “basis,” and “foundation.”¹¹ In the Nikāyas, the term appears in contexts of determined resolve (adhiṭṭhāna as an arahant’s power to establish phenomena) and as foundation (pāda as adhiṭṭhāna).¹² The Peṭakopadesa employs the term to designate the psychological and ethical roots that “establish” or “found” various teachings. The third chapter identifies thirteen such foundations, then demonstrates the hetu-nissanda-phala method for analyzing how teachings relate to these roots.

Thesis and Methodological Approach

This article demonstrates that the Peṭakopadesa’s hetu-nissanda-phala analysis constitutes a sophisticated hermeneutical system offering the following features:

1. Temporal-processual ontology: Dhammas are understood as processes unfolding through time rather than discrete entities requiring spatial relations.
2. Unified meaning across multiplicity: Apparent doctrinal diversity resolves into single teachings viewed across temporal phases.
3. Universal applicability: The method works for any teaching, whether concerning unwholesome or wholesome states, practices or results.
4. Diachronic rather than synchronic: Unlike Abhidhamma’s categorical matrices, this method traces development through time.
5. Soteriological functionality: Understanding temporal unfolding enables intervention at any phase of a process.

The analysis proceeds through five stages. Section II presents primary textual evidence, establishing the method through close reading of key passages with attention to Pali terminology and grammatical structure. Section III develops theoretical analysis, comparing this method with Abhidhamma categorization, examining its relationship to dependent origination, and exploring its temporal-phenomenological dimensions. Section IV situates the method historically, examining parallels in the Netti-pakaraṇa, canonical precedents, and later commentarial reception. Section V explores philosophical implications for Buddhist understandings of causality, unity, and soteriology. Section VI reflects on methodological questions, including translation choices, comparative analysis, and limitations of this study.

---

II. TEXTUAL EVIDENCE: THE HETU-NISSANDA-PHALA METHOD IN PRIMARY SOURCES

The Methodological Statement

The Peṭakopadesa introduces its triadic analysis with remarkable conciseness:

Tattha bhagavā ekaṁ dhammaṁ tividhaṁ niddisati, nissandato hetuto phalato.¹³

“There the Blessed One designates one dhamma in three ways: from the perspective of result, from the perspective of cause, and from the perspective of fruit.”

This brief statement contains the method’s essential claim: what appears as multiple teachings (tividhaṁ, “in three ways”) actually designates (niddisati) a single phenomenon (ekaṁ dhammaṁ). The verb niddisati, causative of √diś (to point out), suggests active designation rather than passive description—the Buddha employs multiple perspectives to illuminate a unified reality.

The sequence deserves attention. The text lists nissanda first, then hetu, finally phala. This ordering may reflect pedagogical strategy: results (nissanda) often constitute the most accessible entry point for understanding, leading backwards to underlying causes (hetu) and forwards to ultimate consequences (phala). Alternatively, the sequence might reflect manuscript transmission rather than conceptual priority. Regardless of sequence, the passage establishes that these three perspectives reveal rather than fragment the dhamma in question.

The grammatical structure warrants examination. The ablative forms nissandato, hetuto, and phalato indicate “from the standpoint of” or “with respect to.” This grammatical choice emphasizes perspectival difference rather than ontological separation—the dhamma remains singular while the analytical lens shifts.

The Giving Example: Temporal Phases of Generosity

The text demonstrates its method through concrete application. The first extended example analyzes a verse about generosity:

Dadaṁ piyo hoti bhajanti naṁ bahū,
Kittiñca pappoti yaso ca vaḍḍhati;
Amaṅkubhūto parisaṁ vigāhati,
Visārado hoti naro amaccharī.¹⁴

“Giving, one becomes dear, and many associate with them;
They obtain fame, and their renown increases;
Without diffidence, they enter assemblies;
The person without miserliness becomes confident.”

The Peṭakopadesa parses this verse through its triadic framework:

Dadanti yaṁ yaṁ dānaṁ, idaṁ dānamayikaṁ puññakriyaṁ. Tattha hetu.¹⁵

“Whatever giving there is, this is the meritorious deed consisting in generosity. This is the cause.”

The root (hetu) identifies the act itself—the performance of giving (dāna) as meritorious action (puññakriyā). This foundation establishes the process. The text specifies dānamayika, “consisting in generosity,” employing the -mayika suffix to indicate essential composition. The cause is pure action, the deed as performed.

Bhajanti naṁ bahū, kittinti yo ca kalyāṇo kittisaddo loke abbhuggacchati, yaṁ bahukassa janassa piyo bhavati manāpo ca. Yañca avippaṭisārī kālaṁ karoti ayaṁ nissando.¹⁶

“Many associate with them—this is the pleasant sound of fame that arises in the world, becoming dear and agreeable to many people. And dying without regret—this is the result.”

The result (nissanda) encompasses the natural consequences that “flow forth” (from ni + √syand, to flow down or forth). These consequences manifest within the present lifetime: social recognition, affection from others, psychological equanimity approaching death. The term nissanda captures the organic emergence of effects from causes—these outcomes arise naturally rather than through external imposition.

The choice of kālaṁ karoti (literally “makes time,” idiomatically “dies”) emphasizes the temporal boundary of nissanda—these results manifest within a single lifetime, distinguishing them from phala.

Yaṁ kāyassa bhedā devesu upapajjatīti idaṁ phalaṁ.¹⁷

“That, with the breaking up of the body, one is reborn among the devas—this is the fruit.”

The fruit (phala) designates the ultimate karmic consequence: rebirth in fortunate realms. This outcome transcends the current lifetime, representing the teaching’s full maturation. The phrase kāyassa bhedā (with body’s dissolution) marks the temporal threshold separating nissanda from phala.

The example establishes the method’s basic operation. A single teaching—generosity—unfolds through three temporal phases: (1) the foundational act, (2) consequences manifesting within the current lifetime, and (3) post-mortem karmic fruition. The text explicitly concludes:

Idaṁ lobhādhiṭṭhānaṁ.¹⁸

“This is the foundation in greed.”

This conclusion might puzzle readers initially—why does an analysis of generosity conclude with reference to greed? The answer reveals the method’s sophistication. The text analyzes generosity within the chapter section treating lobhādhiṭṭhāna (greed-foundation) because generosity functions as the antidote to greed. Teaching about generosity necessarily engages with greed as its implicit opposite. The adhiṭṭhāna designates the psychological root that the teaching addresses, whether directly or through opposition.

The Non-Greed Example: Contemplation of Unattractiveness

The text provides a more complex application analyzing contemplation of the unattractive (asubhānupassanā):

Tattha yā asubhāya upaparikkhā, ayaṁ kāmesu ādīnavadassanena pariccāgo. Indriyesu susaṁvuto tasseva alobhassa pāripūriyaṁ mama āyatanasocitaṁ anupādāya. Bhojanamhi ca mattaññunti rasataṇhāpahānaṁ. Iti ayaṁ alobho asubhānupassitāya vatthuto dhārayati, so alobho hetu.¹⁹

“There, examination through the unattractive is abandonment through seeing danger in sensual pleasures. Well restrained in the sense faculties—this is the fulfillment of that very non-greed, adopting what is suitable to the occasion without attachment. And moderation in food—this is the abandonment of craving for tastes. Thus this non-greed maintains itself through contemplation of the unattractive as foundation. That non-greed is the cause.”

The analysis identifies three aspects of non-greed (alobha) practice: (1) perceiving sensual objects as unattractive, (2) restraining sense faculties, and (3) moderating food consumption. These practices constitute the foundation (hetu). The verb dhārayati (“maintains” or “sustains”) indicates how non-greed establishes itself through specific contemplative and behavioral exercises.

Indriyesu guttadvāratāya gocarato dhārayati, bhojanemattaññutāya parato dhārayati, ayaṁ nissando.²⁰

“Through guarding the sense doors, it maintains itself with respect to domain; through moderation in food, it maintains itself with respect to others. This is the result.”

The result (nissanda) describes how guarded sense faculties and moderate eating support sustained non-greed. The phrase gocarato… parato (“with respect to domain… with respect to others”) suggests that sense restraint protects one’s internal cognitive domain while food moderation minimizes dependence on external resources. These consequences emerge naturally from the foundational practices.

Taṁ ve nappasahati māro, vāto selaṁ va pabbatanti, idaṁ phalaṁ.²¹

“‘Māra cannot overcome that, like wind cannot move a mountain stone’—this is the fruit.”

The ultimate fruit employs a canonical simile comparing the accomplished practitioner to an immovable mountain. This stage represents complete stability, invulnerability to mental afflictions personified as Māra. The text then makes its crucial observation:

Iti yoyeva dhammo ādimhi nikkhitto, soyeva majjhe ceva avasāne ca.²²

“Thus whatever dhamma is established at the beginning, that very one is in the middle and at the end.”

This statement articulates the method’s philosophical foundation. The dhamma “established at the beginning” (ādimhi nikkhitto)—in this case, non-greed—remains identical “in the middle and at the end” (majjhe ceva avasāne ca). The three phases do not constitute three different phenomena requiring causal explanation of how one produces another. Rather, a single process manifests across temporal duration. Non-greed as contemplative practice, non-greed as established restraint, and non-greed as invulnerable stability represent one reality viewed through its development.

The demonstrative soyeva (that very one) emphasizes identity across time. The particle eva functions as an emphatic, insisting on sameness despite temporal progression. This grammatical choice reveals the text’s philosophical commitment: temporal phases do not fragment identity.

The Non-Hatred Example: Loving-Kindness

The treatment of loving-kindness (mettā) as an instance of non-hatred (adosa) follows similar patterns:

Ekampi ce pāṇamaduṭṭhacitto mettāyatīti ayaṁ adoso.²³

“If one dwells in loving-kindness with mind free from ill-will toward even one being—this is non-hatred.”

The cause (hetu) consists in the practice itself—developing loving-kindness toward living beings while maintaining mental freedom from malevolence. The compound aduṭṭhacitto (mind free from hatred) links mettā directly to its root in adosa.

Nigghātena assādo, kusalo tena hotīti tena kusalena dhammena saṁyutto dhammapaññattiṁ gacchati. Kusaloti yathā paññāya pañño paṇḍiccena paṇḍito. Pahūtamariyo pakaroti puññanti tassāyeva vipāko ayaṁ lokiyassa, na hi lokuttarassa.²⁴

“Through non-violence comes relish; one becomes wholesome thereby—connected with that wholesome dhamma, one receives the designation ‘dhamma.’ ‘Wholesome’ is like ‘wise’ from wisdom, ‘learned’ from learning. ‘The noble one performs much merit’—this is the result of that, belonging to the mundane, certainly, for it does not belong to the supramundane.”

The result (nissanda) specifies psychological transformation—one becomes kusala (skillful, wholesome). The text engages in etymological play, comparing kusala to pañña/paṇḍita formations, suggesting that ethical qualities function like cognitive ones—they define the person through practice. The accumulated merit belongs to the mundane sphere (lokiya), distinguishing this phase from supramundane attainment.

Tattha yā mettāyanā, ayaṁ hetu. Yaṁ kusalo bhavati ayaṁ nissando. Yāva abyāpajjo bhūmiyaṁ bahupuññaṁ pasavati, idaṁ phalaṁ.²⁵

“There, the development of loving-kindness is the cause. Becoming wholesome is the result. Up to the point where one produces much merit in the non-ill-will ground—this is the fruit.”

The summary explicitly identifies the temporal phases. The fruit (phala) manifests as sustained capacity for merit-production within the “ground” (bhūmi) of non-malevolence. The term bhūmi suggests a stable attainment level rather than momentary accomplishment.

The text then offers a second analysis referencing the canonical teaching on eleven benefits of loving-kindness meditation:

Ekādasānisaṁsā mettāya cetovimuttiyā. Tattha yā mettācetovimutti, ayaṁ ariyadhammesu rāgavirāgā cetovimutti, lokikāya bhūmikā hetu, yaṁ sukhaṁ āyatiṁ manāpo hoti manussānaṁ, ime ekādasa dhammā nissando. Yañca akatāvī brahmakāye upapajjati. Idaṁ phalaṁ.²⁶

“Eleven benefits of loving-kindness as liberation of mind. There, loving-kindness as liberation of mind—in the noble dhammas, this is liberation of mind through dispassion for lust—as mundane ground, this is the cause. Future happiness and being agreeable to human beings—these eleven dhammas are the result. And without striving, one is reborn in the company of Brahmā. This is the fruit.”

This second analysis shifts the reference point. The cause now specifies mettā as liberation of mind (cetovimutti), linking it to the technical vocabulary of awakening while noting its mundane status. The result encompasses the eleven traditional benefits (sleeping happily, waking happily, freedom from nightmares, etc.). The fruit achieves rebirth among Brahmā deities “without striving” (akatāvī)—the practice’s natural culmination.

The text thus demonstrates flexibility in applying the hetu-nissanda-phala framework depending on which aspects of a practice receive emphasis.

The Non-Delusion Example: The Three Faculties

The analysis of wisdom (paññā) as an instance of non-delusion (amoha) employs the canonical teaching on three faculties:

Tīṇimāni, bhikkhave, indriyāni anaññātaññassāmītindriyaṁ aññindriyaṁ aññātāvindriyaṁ.²⁷

“Bhikkhus, there are these three faculties: the faculty ‘I shall come to know the unknown,’ the faculty of final knowledge, and the faculty of one who has final knowledge.”

These three faculties map onto the path’s developmental stages: the trainee beginning insight practice, the one achieving path knowledge, and the arahant who has completed the path. The Peṭakopadesa analyzes them through its framework:

Tathāyaṁ paññā, ayaṁ hetu. Yaṁ chandaṁ janeti vāyamati, yā pajānāti, ayaṁ nissando. Yena sabbaso āsavānaṁ khayā hetu, yaṁ khaye ñāṇamuppajjati, anuppāde ñāṇañca, ayaṁ nissando. Yaṁ arahattaṁ, idaṁ phalaṁ.²⁸

“Thus, this wisdom is the cause. That one arouses desire, strives, and understands—this is the result. Through what causes the complete destruction of the taints, knowledge arises at destruction, and knowledge of non-arising—this is the result. Arahantship is the fruit.”

The analysis presents initial difficulties. Wisdom functions as cause (hetu), the development of effort and understanding as first result (nissanda), knowledge of taint-destruction as second result, and arahantship as fruit (phala). This analysis appears to identify two distinct nissanda stages, suggesting more complex temporal structure than previous examples.

The resolution emerges through recognizing that nissanda encompasses the entire developmental process from initial practice to final knowledge, while phala designates the stable attainment. The text thus distinguishes between: (1) the foundational faculty (hetu), (2) the practice-and-realization process (nissanda), and (3) the irreversible accomplishment (phala).

The passage continues with technical detail about knowledge at destruction (khaye ñāṇa) and knowledge of non-arising (anuppāde ñāṇa), the two aspects of arahant cognition. These specifications demonstrate how the method accommodates canonical technical vocabulary while maintaining its analytical structure.

Summary Statement on the Three Wholesome Roots

Having analyzed specific instances, the text presents a comprehensive treatment of the three wholesome roots:

Tattha katamaṁ kusalamūlaṁ? Alobho adoso amoho. Tattha katamaṁ kusalaṁ? Aṭṭha sammattāni sammādiṭṭhi yāva sammāsamādhi.²⁹

“There, what are wholesome roots? Non-greed, non-hatred, non-delusion. There, what is wholesome? The eight right factors: right view up to right concentration.”

The text establishes the three roots as causes (hetu), then shows how each generates specific path factors as results (nissanda):

Tattha yāni kusalamūlāni, ayaṁ hetu. Yañca alobho tīṇi kammāni samuṭṭhāpeti saṅkappaṁ vāyāmaṁ samādhiñca, ayaṁ alobhassa nissando. Tattha yo adoso, ayaṁ hetu. Yaṁ tayo dhamme paṭṭhapeti sammāvācaṁ sammākammantaṁ sammāājīvañca, ayaṁ nissando. Tattha yo amoho hetu, yaṁ dve dhamme upaṭṭhapeti aviparītadassanampi ca anabhilāpanaṁ, ayaṁ nissando.³⁰

“There, these wholesome roots are the cause. Non-greed gives rise to three activities: thought, effort, and concentration—this is non-greed’s result. There, non-hatred is the cause. It establishes three dhammas: right speech, right action, and right livelihood—this is the result. There, non-delusion is the cause. It supports two dhammas: undistorted seeing and non-confusion—this is the result.”

The passage systematically correlates each root with specific path factors. Non-greed produces the cognitive and concentrative factors (right intention, right effort, right concentration). Non-hatred establishes the ethical factors (right speech, right action, right livelihood). Non-delusion supports the wisdom factors (right view and its expression). This analysis reveals how the eight path factors emerge from three roots—multiplicity resolved through understanding causal derivation.

Imassa brahmacariyassa yaṁ phalaṁ, tā dve vimuttiyo rāgavirāgā cetovimutti avijjā virāgā ca paññāvimutti, idaṁ phalaṁ.³¹

“Of this spiritual life, the fruit is these two liberations: liberation of mind through dispassion for lust, and liberation by wisdom through dispassion for ignorance—this is the fruit.”

The ultimate fruit consists in the two liberations (vimutti)—mental and wisdom liberation. These represent the culmination of the three roots’ complete development. The text concludes:

Iti imāni tīṇi kusalamūlāni niddiṭṭhāni hetuto ca nissandato ca phalato ca.³²

“Thus these three wholesome roots are designated from the perspective of cause, result, and fruit.”

The verb niddiṭṭhāni echoes the methodological statement’s niddisati, emphasizing that this analysis constitutes the Buddha’s method of designation. The three roots do not exist separately from their results and fruits; rather, “non-greed,” “established ethical behavior,” and “mental liberation” name phases of a unified process.

The Critical Principle: Non-Plurality of Dhammas

The theoretical foundation for this entire method appears in a crucial statement within the greed-foundation analysis:

Na bhagavā ekaṁ dhammaṁ ārabbha aññaṁ dhammaṁ deseti.³³

“The Blessed One does not teach one dhamma by relying on another dhamma.”

This principle requires careful interpretation. When the Buddha teaches about “thought” (vitakka), “sensual lust” (kāmarāga), “craving” (taṇhā), and “fetter” (saṁyojana), he does not present four distinct phenomena requiring explanation of how one relates to another. Instead, these terms designate the same psychological reality viewed from different angles or at different developmental stages. The text explains:

Yassa vitakketi kāmavitakko tameva vitakkaṁ kāmavitakkena niddisīyati. Tibbarāgassāti tasseva vitakkassa vatthuṁ niddisati. Subhānupassino bhiyyo taṇhā pavaḍḍhatīti tameva rāgaṁ kāmataṇhāti niddisati. Esa gāḷhaṁ karoti bandhananti tameva taṇhāsaṁyojanaṁ niddisati.³⁴

“When there is thought, sensual thought, that very thought is designated as sensual thought. ‘Of one with intense lust’—the foundation of that very thought is designated. ‘For one perceiving beauty, craving increases more’—that very lust is designated as sensual craving. ‘This makes the bond tight’—that very craving is designated as the fetter.”

Thought, lust, craving, and fetter name identical processes viewed through progressive manifestation. Thought forms the initial mental movement; lust specifies its object and intensity; craving describes its driving force; fetter indicates its binding function. These are not four causes producing four effects. They constitute one phenomenon—unwholesome mental activity—analyzed through its unfolding.

This principle establishes the philosophical basis for the hetu-nissanda-phala method. If the Buddha does not teach separate dhammas requiring external relations, then multiplicity must be understood as perspectival. The triadic analysis provides the framework for comprehending this unity-in-appearance-of-diversity.

Application Example: Analyzing the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta

To demonstrate the method’s practical hermeneutical function, consider how the hetu-nissanda-phala framework would analyze the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta (MN 10), a central canonical text on mindfulness practice. The sutta presents what appears to be multiple distinct teachings: contemplation of body, feelings, mind, and dhammas; the four noble truths; the seven factors of awakening. How do these relate? Are they separate practices requiring sequential mastery, or aspects of unified development?

The Peṭakopadesa’s method resolves this through temporal analysis. Applying the hetu-nissanda-phala framework:

Hetu (Foundation): The sutta begins by establishing mindfulness itself—ātāpī sampajāno satimā (ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful).³⁵ This constitutes the foundational practice, the adhiṭṭhāna from which everything else develops. The four contemplations (body, feeling, mind, dhammas) specify where mindfulness applies but all share the same foundational quality: present-moment awareness combined with clear comprehension. This is the hetu phase—establishing mindfulness in its basic form.

Nissanda (Result): As mindfulness develops, specific insights naturally arise (nissanda). The sutta describes how body contemplation reveals impermanence—observing the body’s changing nature, its composite character, its dissolution. Similarly, feeling contemplation discerns the three types and their impermanent nature. Mind contemplation recognizes various mental states and their conditions. Dhamma contemplation comprehends the hindrances, aggregates, sense bases, awakening factors, and noble truths.³⁶

These are not separate objects requiring distinct practices but rather the natural development (nissanda) of sustained mindfulness. As the practitioner maintains awareness, understanding flows forth organically: impermanence becomes evident, the aggregates’ empty nature reveals itself, the arising and ceasing of phenomena clarifies. The seven awakening factors (bojjhaṅga)—mindfulness, investigation, energy, rapture, tranquility, concentration, equanimity—name this developmental sequence. They constitute the nissanda of established mindfulness, not separate attainments requiring external cultivation.

Phala (Fruit): The sutta’s famous prediction constitutes the phala phase: “If anyone develops these four foundations of mindfulness for seven years… [down to seven days], one of two fruits may be expected: either final knowledge (aññā) in this very life or, if there is a trace of clinging remaining, non-returning (anāgāmitā).”³⁷ This marks the culmination—liberation itself as the ultimate fruit of the process initiated by establishing mindfulness.

Unity through temporal analysis: This parsing reveals apparent multiplicity as temporal phases. The four contemplations, seven awakening factors, and liberation are not separate teachings requiring different practices. They name one process:

• Hetu: Establishing mindfulness at its foundation
• Nissanda: Natural development through deepening insight
• Phala: Complete liberation as culminating realization

The method thus resolves a practical hermeneutical question: must practitioners separately perfect body-contemplation, then feeling-contemplation, then mind-contemplation, then dhamma-contemplation, then cultivate seven distinct awakening factors, then somehow combine these to realize liberation? No—these designate phases of unified development. Establishing mindfulness (hetu) naturally develops (nissanda) through increasingly refined insight, culminating (phala) in freedom.

Comparison with Abhidhamma analysis: The Abhidhamma would analyze this sutta differently, cataloguing which consciousness-types occur during each contemplation, which mental factors associate with mindfulness, which conditional relations obtain between factors. This provides valuable precision but operates synchronically—analyzing what’s present at each moment. The Peṭakopadesa’s method complements this by revealing diachronic development—how the entire path unfolds through time from single foundation to complete realization.

Hermeneutical payoff: This application demonstrates the framework’s utility. Without temporal analysis, the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta might overwhelm practitioners with apparent complexity—so many objects of contemplation, so many factors to develop. The hetu-nissanda-phala method simplifies: establish the foundation (mindfulness), maintain it with ardency and clear comprehension, and the rest develops naturally. This doesn’t diminish the teaching’s richness but reveals its underlying structure, making practice more accessible while preserving sophistication.

Application Example 2: Parsing the Kālāma Sutta

The Kālāma Sutta (AN 3.65) presents another hermeneutical challenge: the Buddha teaches inquiry and personal verification rather than blind acceptance of authority, yet the discourse concludes with specific teachings about wholesome and unwholesome states. How do these parts relate?

Applying hetu-nissanda-phala analysis:

Hetu: The foundational teaching establishes critical inquiry itself—the famous instruction to the Kālāmas not to accept teachings merely on tradition, scripture, or authority, but to examine whether teachings lead to harm or benefit, blame or praise.³⁸ This skeptical inquiry constitutes the hetu, the adhiṭṭhāna of genuine wisdom. The Buddha doesn’t give them conclusions to accept; he establishes the investigative foundation.

Nissanda: From this foundation, understanding naturally develops. The Buddha guides the Kālāmas to examine greed, hatred, and delusion: do these lead to welfare or harm? Through their own investigation (nissanda), they recognize that these states lead to harm. Similarly, they discern that non-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusion lead to welfare. The four assurances (assāsa) the Buddha then articulates—regarding rebirth, kamma, and virtue—constitute the nissanda of sustained inquiry: confidence that arises not from blind faith but from examined understanding.³⁹

Phala: The ultimate fruit consists in liberation through wisdom—understanding reality directly rather than through inherited dogma. Though the sutta doesn’t explicitly state this culmination, the trajectory points toward awakening grounded in personal verification rather than received authority.

Hermeneutical insight: Without temporal analysis, the sutta might appear to present two separate teachings: (1) epistemological skepticism, (2) specific ethical instruction. The hetu-nissanda-phala method reveals their unity: establishing critical inquiry (hetu) naturally develops (nissanda) into recognition of wholesome and unwholesome states, ultimately yielding (phala) liberating wisdom. The Buddha doesn’t contradict his empirical method by then giving authoritative pronouncements—he demonstrates what critical inquiry discovers when properly applied.

Application Example 3: The Gradual Training

The gradual training (anupubbikathā) appears throughout the Nikāyas as a standard teaching sequence: generosity (dāna), virtue (sīla), heaven (sagga), the danger in sensual pleasures (kāmānaṁ ādīnava), and the benefits of renunciation (nekkhamme ānisaṁsa), culminating in the four noble truths.⁴⁰ Are these five stages separate teachings, or phases of unified development?

Hetu: Generosity establishes the foundation—cultivation of non-greed through letting go. This adhiṭṭhāna creates the psychological basis for further development. Virtue then stabilizes this foundation through ethical conduct rooted in non-harm.

Nissanda: As non-greed and ethical stability develop, the teaching naturally proceeds to examine rebirth destinations (heaven), then critically analyzes sensual existence’s dangers, then presents renunciation’s benefits. This sequence represents the nissanda—organic development from the foundation. Each stage flows from the previous: generosity’s letting-go prepares for virtue; virtue’s stability enables examining future results; seeing both pleasant and dangerous aspects of existence motivates renunciation.

Phala: The four noble truths—suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path—constitute the phala. They mark the culmination of the gradual training, the complete understanding toward which the earlier stages developed. Liberation (nibbāna) as suffering’s cessation represents the ultimate fruit.

Hermeneutical insight: This parsing reveals why the Buddha taught in graduated fashion. The stages aren’t arbitrary or merely pedagogically expedient—they trace natural psychological development. One cannot genuinely comprehend suffering’s cessation (nirodha) without first developing the letting-go capacity established through generosity and ethics. The framework shows that what appears as five separate topics actually names temporal phases of unified contemplative development.

Method’s Generalizability

These three examples—Satipaṭṭhāna, Kālāma, and gradual training—demonstrate the hetu-nissanda-phala framework’s versatility. The method applies to:

• Meditation instructions (Satipaṭṭhāna): parsing contemplative techniques
• Epistemological teachings (Kālāma): revealing how inquiry develops
• Pedagogical sequences (gradual training): showing natural learning progressions

In each case, the framework resolves apparent multiplicity by revealing temporal structure. This hermeneutical tool enables practitioners and scholars to comprehend how diverse canonical teachings cohere, reducing cognitive burden while preserving doctrinal richness. The method transforms what might seem overwhelming diversity—so many practices, so many teachings—into recognizable patterns of foundation, development, and fruition.

---

III. THEORETICAL ANALYSIS: THE METHOD’S STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION

Having established the hetu-nissanda-phala framework through close textual reading, this section examines its theoretical dimensions. Five interconnected analyses clarify the method’s distinctive features and philosophical implications:

1. Diachronic versus synchronic analysis (III.A): Contrasts the Peṭakopadesa’s temporal-processual approach with Abhidhamma’s categorical matrices
2. Relationship to dependent origination (III.B): Examines how the triadic framework relates to paṭiccasamuppāda
3. Temporal phenomenology (III.C): Analyzes what each phase (hetu, nissanda, phala) designates and how they interrelate
4. Designation and temporal semantics (III.D): Explores how Buddhist technical terms encode temporal information
5. Hermeneutical function (III.E): Demonstrates how temporal vision resolves the unity-multiplicity problem

These analyses reveal the framework as a sophisticated system addressing both textual interpretation and contemplative understanding.

A. Diachronic Process Versus Synchronic Category

The Peṭakopadesa’s hetu-nissanda-phala method differs fundamentally from Abhidhamma analytical procedures. Understanding this difference requires examining Abhidhamma’s characteristic approach to organizing phenomena.

Abhidhamma literature employs the mātikā (matrix) system to achieve comprehensive categorization. The Dhammasaṅgaṇī opens with an extensive matrix organizing dhammas through binary and triadic divisions: wholesome/unwholesome/indeterminate, with feeling/without feeling/neither, with pleasant feeling/with painful feeling/with neither, resultant/producing results/neither, and so forth.³⁵ Each category receives precise definition, and phenomena are placed within the appropriate classificatory spaces. The Vibhaṅga extends this approach, providing eighteen analytical treatments (vibhaṅga) of major doctrinal topics, each examined through multiple perspectives (sutta method, Abhidhamma method, question method).³⁶

This method achieves systematization through spatial metaphors. Dhammas occupy positions within classificatory matrices. Relationships between dhammas are understood through co-presence (association, sampayutta) or sequential arising (conditional relations, paccaya). The Paṭṭhāna’s twenty-four conditional relations exhaustively enumerate how one dhamma conditions another—as cause, as object, as proximity, as decisive support, etc.³⁷ This elaborate system maps the entire network of dharmic relationships synchronically—at any given moment, these are the dhammas present; these are their

relationships.

The Peṭakopadesa’s method, by contrast, traces diachronic development. Rather than positioning dhammas within synchronic matrices, it reveals how a single dhamma unfolds through temporal phases. The difference appears clearly when comparing their treatment of the three unwholesome roots:

Abhidhamma approach:

• Greed (lobha), hatred (dosa), delusion (moha) constitute three distinct cetasikas (mental factors)
• Each has specific characteristic (lakkhaṇa), function (rasa), manifestation (paccupaṭṭhāna), proximate cause (padaṭṭhāna)
• They can be associated (sampayutta) with consciousness and other factors according to specific rules
• Various conditional relations obtain between them

Peṭakopadesa approach:

• Greed as hetu (foundation)
• Its natural development as nissanda (result—social/psychological consequences)
• Its karmic maturation as phala (fruit—rebirth results)
• The same analytical pattern applies to hatred and delusion
• The method reveals temporal unfolding rather than categorical placement

The contrast involves more than organizational preference. Abhidhamma’s synchronic analysis presupposes that dhammas can be understood through their momentary characteristics and relationships. Knowledge of what a dhamma is (its definition) and how it relates to other contemporary dhammas suffices for comprehension. The Peṭakopadesa’s diachronic analysis, however, maintains that understanding requires tracing development through time. A dhamma cannot be grasped fully through its momentary features; one must perceive its causal foundation, organic development, and ultimate consequences.

The terminological choices reflect this contrast. Abhidhamma employs spatial vocabulary: ṭhiti (position, state), saṅgaha (inclusion, grouping), saṁsaṭṭha (conjoined), vippayutta (dissociated). The Peṭakopadesa uses temporal-processual terms: nissanda (flowing forth), paripāka (ripening), samudaya (arising), nirodha (ceasing). These linguistic patterns signal different conceptual frameworks.

This distinction has practical implications. Abhidhamma mastery requires memorizing comprehensive taxonomies—learning which dhammas belong to which categories, which factors associate with which consciousness-types, which conditions apply in which circumstances. The Peṭakopadesa method, conversely, requires cultivating temporal vision—learning to trace how present phenomena emerged from past conditions and will generate future results. The Abhidhamma student asks “What is this?” and “What accompanies it?” The Peṭakopadesa student asks “Where did this come from?” and “Where is it going?”

Both methods serve contemplative purposes. Abhidhamma’s fine-grained distinctions enable precise identification of mental phenomena during meditation, supporting the analytical insight (vipassanā) that distinguishes ultimate realities (paramattha) from conventional designations (paññatti). The Peṭakopadesa’s temporal tracing develops understanding of causal processes, enabling intervention at any phase. Recognizing greed as hetu allows addressing it at its foundation; understanding its nissanda reveals the consequences that reinforce it; perceiving its phala motivates renunciation. The methods complement rather than contradict, each illuminating aspects the other leaves implicit.

B. Relationship to Dependent Origination

The hetu-nissanda-phala framework bears obvious resemblance to dependent origination (paṭiccasamuppāda), the Buddha’s central teaching on causality. Both articulate temporal sequences; both trace how present conditions generate future results; both serve soteriological purposes. Yet significant differences merit examination.

Dependent origination presents a twelve-linked sequence explaining how suffering arises and ceases: ignorance conditions formations; formations condition consciousness; consciousness conditions name-and-form; name-and-form conditions the six sense bases; sense bases condition contact; contact conditions feeling; feeling conditions craving; craving conditions clinging; clinging conditions becoming; becoming conditions birth; birth conditions aging-and-death.³⁸ Commentarial tradition interprets this sequence as spanning three lifetimes, with ignorance and formations belonging to past existence, consciousness through feeling describing present life’s beginning, craving through becoming explaining present life’s generation of future existence, and birth plus aging-and-death depicting the next rebirth.³⁹

The Peṭakopadesa’s triadic structure compresses and generalizes this pattern. Hetu corresponds to the causal phase (analogous to ignorance-formations), nissanda to the developmental phase (analogous to the present-life links), and phala to the fruition phase (analogous to rebirth). However, the method applies universally rather than specifically. Dependent origination explains the specific mechanism producing suffering; hetu-nissanda-phala provides a framework for analyzing any teaching.

Moreover, the triadic method emphasizes unity where dependent origination emphasizes sequence. Dependent origination parcels causality into discrete links, each conditioning the next. The standard formula stresses conditionality: “When this exists, that comes to be; from the arising of this, that arises” (imasmiṁ sati idaṁ hoti, imassuppādā idaṁ uppajjati).⁴⁰ The links maintain distinct identities even as one conditions another. The Peṭakopadesa method, conversely, insists that hetu, nissanda, and phala designate one phenomenon—the principle “the Blessed One does not teach one dhamma by relying on another dhamma” applies here as well. Greed-as-cause, greed-as-development, and greed-as-fruit constitute a single process, varying only in temporal phase.

This difference may reflect distinct pedagogical intentions. Dependent origination serves primarily to reveal suffering’s origins, enabling practitioners to interrupt the causal sequence. Detailed analysis of links helps identify intervention points—eliminating ignorance prevents formations; eliminating craving prevents clinging. The method requires maintaining distinctions. The Peṭakopadesa’s method serves hermeneutical purposes—understanding how diverse teachings cohere. Here, unity takes precedence over differentiation. Both methods employ temporal analysis, but toward different ends.

The relationship between these frameworks deserves further research. Did the Peṭakopadesa’s authors consciously abstract dependent origination’s structure into a general hermeneutical principle? Or did both emerge independently from shared Buddhist intuitions about temporality and causation? The textual evidence examined here cannot resolve these questions definitively, though the Peṭakopadesa’s treatment of the three times (atīta, anāgata, paccuppanna) suggests awareness of temporal analysis as a fundamental exegetical strategy.⁴¹

C. Temporal Phenomenology: The Three Phases Examined

Each component of the triad merits detailed analysis to clarify what temporal phase it designates and how the phases relate.

Hetu (cause, root, condition) identifies the foundation. The Pali term derives from the root √hi (to impel, propel), suggesting active origination. In Buddhist technical vocabulary, hetu sometimes specifies one type of condition among many (as in the Paṭṭhāna’s hetupaccaya, causal condition), but often indicates the root or fundamental cause.⁴² The Peṭakopadesa employs hetu to designate the initiating psychological or ethical factor—the mental state or action that establishes (adhiṭṭhāna) the entire process.

Critically, hetu in this framework names the act itself, the doing as it occurs. When analyzing generosity, the hetu is the performance of giving. When analyzing greed, the hetu is the arising of greedy consciousness. This differs from identifying a prior condition (e.g., ignorance as condition for greed). The hetu phase captures the phenomenon at its foundation, the moment of its being established. This focus on the act’s establishment aligns with the term adhiṭṭhāna—foundations are being analyzed, the points where phenomena stand established.

Nissanda (result, outcome, consequence) describes what flows forth from the cause. The etymology combines ni (down, forth) with √syand (to flow, ooze), conveying organic emergence. Water flowing from a spring provides the root metaphor—nissanda happens naturally, following the contours established by prior conditions.⁴³ The term appears in canonical contexts describing natural consequences: kamma producing results, practice yielding fruits, teachings generating effects.⁴⁴

In the Peṭakopadesa’s triadic framework, nissanda designates immediate and organic developments. For unwholesome roots, nissanda encompasses the psychological proliferation and social reinforcement that naturally follow. For wholesome roots, nissanda describes the path factors that emerge from the three roots. Significantly, nissanda operates primarily within the present lifetime—the examples consistently describe consequences visible in current experience rather than future rebirths. This temporal specification distinguishes nissanda from phala.

The choice of nissanda rather than alternatives (vipāka, phala, attha) carries theoretical weight. Vipāka (ripening) implies karmic maturation, typically across lifetimes. Phala (fruit) suggests culmination. Attha (purpose, benefit) emphasizes teleological dimensions. Nissanda indicates natural flowing-forth, emphasizing the organic and inevitable character of the development. The term suggests that understanding requires tracing natural progressions—seeing how wholesome or unwholesome foundations naturally flow into specific patterns.

Phala (fruit, result) marks the culmination. The agricultural metaphor—seed, growth, harvest—underlies Buddhist usage. The Nikāyas frequently employ fruition language: the fruits of the contemplative life (sāmaññaphala), the fruits of stream-entry through arahantship, the fruits of wholesome and unwholesome actions.⁴⁵ While nissanda and phala both translate as “result,” Buddhist technical usage distinguishes them: phala implies ripening, maturation, culmination, often across lifetimes.

The Peṭakopadesa consistently employs phala for ultimate consequences. Unwholesome roots produce hellish rebirths as phala; wholesome roots yield liberation as phala. The temporal scope extends beyond present life to encompass the full arc of karmic ripening. This usage aligns with canonical patterns where phala marks culmination—arahattaphala designates the final fruit of the path, the completed liberation.⁴⁶

The relationship between nissanda and phala requires clarification. Are they sequential (first nissanda occurs, then later phala), or do they describe different types of results? The textual examples suggest both elements. For unwholesome roots, nissanda describes present-life psychological and social consequences while phala indicates rebirth results—sequential and cumulative. For wholesome roots, nissanda names the path factors that emerge while phala designates liberation—here too, sequential progression. Yet the examples also show nissanda and phala describing different dimensions: nissanda captures immediate and visible effects; phala marks ultimate and often invisible consequences. Both patterns coexist, suggesting the method’s flexibility.

D. Designation and Temporal Semantics

The hetu-nissanda-phala framework raises fundamental questions about how Buddhist technical terms (paribhāsā) function. When the Buddha employs multiple designations—”thought” (vitakka), “lust” (rāga), “craving” (taṇhā), “fetter” (saṁyojana)—does each term pick out a distinct phenomenon, or do they name phases of unified processes?

The Peṭakopadesa’s principle provides the answer: “The Blessed One does not teach one dhamma by relying on another dhamma.” Terms like “thought,” “lust,” “craving,” and “fetter” constitute one phenomenon at different temporal phases or intensity levels. “Craving” names what “thought” designates, but at a more developed, consuming stage. Understanding requires grasping temporal-contextual variation in designation.

This approach implicates Buddhist theories of conventional designation (paññatti). Canonical and Abhidhamma texts distinguish ultimate realities (paramattha-dhamma)—irreducible phenomena that exist in themselves—from conventional designations (paññatti)—conceptual constructs imposed on experience for practical purposes.⁴⁷ The classical examples include “chariot” (designation for parts in specific configuration) and “person” (designation for aggregates in continuity).⁴⁸

The Peṭakopadesa’s method reveals a temporal dimension to designation. “Greed” functions as a covering term (saṅgaha-paññatti) for a causally continuous process manifesting through phases: initial arising (hetu), reinforcing development (nissanda), karmic fruition (phala). Each phase could receive distinct designation, but doing so obscures the underlying unity. The method teaches practitioners to see through terminological multiplicity to processual identity.

This has epistemological implications. Buddhist philosophy worries about conceptual proliferation (papañca)—the mind’s tendency to multiply conceptual elaborations, mistaking conventional designations for ultimate realities.⁴⁹ The Visuddhimagga warns that excessive differentiation can obstruct direct perception: “concepts are numerous, but the dhammas to be known are not numerous.”⁵⁰ The Peṭakopadesa’s framework addresses this danger by revealing how multiple terms designate unified temporal processes, thus reducing conceptual proliferation while preserving analytical precision.

The method also illuminates how Buddhist technical vocabulary encodes temporal information. Terms carry implicit temporal specifications: hetu indicates foundational phase, saṅkhāra suggests formative process, vipāka marks ripened result, phala designates culmination. Understanding a term requires knowing its temporal position. This temporal semantics operates throughout Buddhist philosophical discourse but rarely receives explicit articulation. The Peṭakopadesa makes implicit temporal dimensions explicit, transforming them into systematic hermeneutical tools.

Canonical precedents support this reading. The Nikāyas frequently present the same phenomenon under multiple descriptions depending on temporal or causal perspective. The aggregate of formations (saṅkhārakkhandha), for instance, appears as volition (cetanā) when designating present mental factor, as karmic formation (kamma-saṅkhāra) when indicating causal efficacy, and as conditioned phenomena (saṅkhata-dhamma) when emphasizing impermanence.⁵¹ These designations name identical processes viewed from different temporal-functional angles. The Peṭakopadesa systematizes this pattern.

E. The Hermeneutical Function: Unity Through Temporal Vision

The hetu-nissanda-phala method addresses the hermeneutical challenge identified in the introduction: how can diverse teachings express unified dhamma? The method’s answer emerges clearly from the textual analysis: apparent diversity reflects temporal phases of unified processes.

When the Buddha teaches the four foundations of mindfulness (satipaṭṭhāna), the five aggregates (khandha), the six sense bases (āyatana), and the seven factors of awakening (bojjhaṅga), these formulations might appear to describe different aspects of reality requiring mastery separately. The Peṭakopadesa’s method reveals them as the same reality—liberation—traced through its causal foundations, organic development, and ultimate fruition. The foundations of mindfulness establish (hetu) contemplative awareness; this awareness develops (nissanda) through comprehending aggregates and sense bases; the factors of awakening ripen (phala) into liberation. One phenomenon, analyzed temporally.

This temporal vision resolves the unity-multiplicity problem through reinterpretation rather than synthesis. The multiplicity proves real—these genuinely are different teachings, emphasizing different aspects, requiring different practices. Yet the differences are contextual and temporal rather than ontological. The Buddha does not teach separate phenomena requiring explanation of their relationships. He traces single phenomena through their complete arcs.

The method carries practical implications for practitioners. Rather than attempting to master each formulation independently, students can understand them as perspectives on unified processes. This understanding simplifies the path while maintaining its richness. One need not separately perfect mindfulness, aggregate-contemplation, sense-base analysis, and awakening-factor cultivation. These designate phases of a single contemplative development.

The hermeneutical sophistication becomes apparent when comparing the Peṭakopadesa’s approach with other resolution strategies. One could address doctrinal multiplicity by:

1. Hierarchical reduction: Declaring one formulation fundamental, others derivative or expedient
2. Categorical synthesis: Creating comprehensive taxonomies that systematically relate all teachings
3. Historical explanation: Attributing diversity to gradual textual accretion or contextual adaptation
4. Perspectival pluralism: Accepting irreducible multiplicity as appropriate to varied student capacities

The Abhidhamma employs primarily the second strategy, with elements of the first (ultimate reality vs. conventional designation). The Peṭakopadesa offers a fifth approach: temporal unification. Diversity reflects developmental phases rather than separate objects, pedagogical expediency, or mere perspectival variation. This approach honors both unity and multiplicity—unity of the underlying processes, multiplicity of temporal phases and analytical angles.

---

IV. HISTORICAL AND COMPARATIVE CONTEXT

The Netti-pakaraṇa and Shared Hermeneutical Tradition

The Peṭakopadesa does not stand alone in presenting the hetu-nissanda-phala method. Its companion text, the Netti-pakaraṇa (often attributed to Mahākaccāyana or Dhammapāla), develops closely related hermeneutical frameworks.⁴⁹ Systematic comparison reveals both overlapping methodologies and distinctive emphases, illuminating a shared exegetical tradition.

Parallel triadic structures: The Netti-pakaraṇa presents multiple triadic frameworks structurally analogous to hetu-nissanda-phala. The uddesa-niddesa-paṭiniddesa sequence describes how teachings unfold: uddesa provides concise summary statements, niddesa offers detailed exposition, paṭiniddesa applies the teaching to specific circumstances.⁵⁰ This maps to the Peṭakopadesa’s framework: hetu establishes the foundational teaching, nissanda develops its implications, phala marks its complete realization. Both frameworks trace movement from initial presentation through elaboration to culminating understanding.

More explicitly parallel, the Netti employs causal triads identical to the Peṭakopadesa’s terminology. In analyzing dependent origination, the Netti discusses hetu (cause), hetusamuppanna (arisen from cause), and hetuvipāka (ripening of cause).⁵¹ This framework uses precisely the causal-temporal language characterizing the Peṭakopadesa’s approach, suggesting direct methodological continuity.

The thirteen adhiṭṭhāna: Both texts employ the concept of adhiṭṭhāna (foundation) centrally, though with different organizational emphasis. The Peṭakopadesa’s third chapter systematically analyzes thirteen foundations: greed, hatred, delusion, non-greed, non-hatred, non-delusion, bodily action, verbal action, mental action, and the five faculties (faith, energy, mindfulness, concentration, wisdom). The Netti also discusses adhiṭṭhāna extensively, explaining how diverse teachings trace back to these psychological-ethical roots.⁵²

A concrete example illustrates their parallel treatment. Both texts analyze how generosity (dāna) relates to the non-greed foundation. The Peṭakopadesa presents:

• Hetu: The act of giving as meritorious deed
• Nissanda: Social recognition, psychological ease, dying without regret
• Phala: Rebirth in fortunate destinations

The Netti analyzes generosity through its adhiṭṭhāna framework similarly, identifying non-greed as the psychological foundation, describing immediate benefits, and indicating karmic results.⁵³ While terminology varies slightly, the analytical pattern remains consistent: trace a teaching to its foundation, show its organic development, indicate its ultimate fruition.

Treatment of the wholesome roots: Both texts devote substantial attention to analyzing the three wholesome roots (non-greed, non-hatred, non-delusion) and their relationship to path factors. The Peṭakopadesa systematically correlates each root with specific path factors:

• Non-greed generates right intention, right effort, right concentration
• Non-hatred establishes right speech, right action, right livelihood
• Non-delusion supports right view and its expression

The Netti presents a parallel analysis, though organized through its distinctive hāra (method) framework.⁵⁴ Both texts solve the same hermeneutical problem: how do three roots generate eight path factors? The answer in both cases employs temporal-causal analysis—the roots as hetu naturally develop (nissanda) into path factors, culminating (phala) in liberation.

Methodological divergences: Despite substantial overlap, the texts differ in emphasis and organization. The Peṭakopadesa provides more extensive worked examples, demonstrating the method’s application through detailed textual analysis. The Netti tends toward greater systematization, presenting frameworks more schematically. The Peṭakopadesa’s prose style is more discursive and pedagogical; the Netti’s more compressed and technical.

These differences may reflect pedagogical contexts. If the Peṭakopadesa functioned as a teaching manual for students learning exegetical methods, its extensive examples make sense. If the Netti served as a reference work for accomplished exegetes, its systematic compression would be appropriate. Both possibilities remain speculative given limited historical evidence.

Chronological questions: The relationship between these texts remains contested. N.A. Jayawickrama argued that the Netti represents the more systematic, earlier version, with the Peṭakopadesa providing expanded commentary.⁵⁵ K.R. Norman suggested both derive from oral tradition, accounting for overlapping content with distinctive elaborations.⁵⁶ Oskar von Hinüber proposed the Peṭakopadesa might be earlier, with the Netti systematizing its insights.⁵⁷

The systematic comparison conducted here cannot resolve chronological priority definitively. However, the deep structural parallels—identical terminology (hetu-nissanda-phala, adhiṭṭhāna), shared analytical targets (the thirteen foundations, wholesome roots), parallel solutions to identical hermeneutical problems—establish that these texts emerge from a unified exegetical tradition. Whether one derives from the other, or both draw on shared oral teaching, they represent a sophisticated hermeneutical school operating in the early post-canonical period, developing systematic interpretive methodologies prior to and independently of Buddhaghosa’s commentarial synthesis.

This shared tradition deserves recognition as a distinct phase in Buddhist intellectual history. Rather than viewing early commentary as merely preliminary to Buddhaghosa’s systematization, we should acknowledge the Peṭakopadesa-Netti tradition as an independent development of hermeneutical theory, one that emphasizes temporal-processual analysis over the synchronic categorization that dominates later Abhidhamma-influenced commentary.

Canonical Precedents: Temporal Analysis in the Nikāyas

While the Peṭakopadesa’s systematic hetu-nissanda-phala framework does not appear explicitly in the Nikāyas, the canonical texts provide precedents for temporal-causal analysis that the commentarial method develops systematically.

The Mahānidāna Sutta presents the Buddha analyzing dependent origination both forward (in the order of arising) and backward (in the order of cessation), demonstrating how the same teaching can be traced through different temporal directions.⁵⁶ This bidirectional analysis prefigures the Peṭakopadesa’s insight that single phenomena manifest through temporal phases.

The Sammādiṭṭhi Sutta’s analysis of right view presents multiple formulations—understanding wholesome and unwholesome, understanding the four noble truths, understanding the aggregates, understanding dependent origination—then declares these to be “the Dhamma and discipline,” implying their unity despite apparent diversity.⁵⁷ The sutta does not explicitly employ hetu-nissanda-phala analysis, but its demonstration that diverse formulations express unified truth addresses the same hermeneutical challenge.

The Aṅguttara Nikāya frequently employs triadic structures in doctrinal presentations: past-present-future, arising-persisting-ceasing, beginning-middle-end.⁵⁸ These temporal triads establish canonical precedent for analyzing teachings through three-phase temporal frameworks. The Peṭakopadesa’s contribution lies in systematizing this approach as an explicit hermeneutical method applicable universally.

Perhaps most significantly, the Nikāyas regularly employ result-language (nissanda, ānisaṁsa, phala) in describing teaching consequences.⁵⁹ The Buddha frequently presents practices through their causes, developments, and fruits—for example, describing generosity’s benefits in present life and future rebirths. The Peṭakopadesa formalizes these canonical patterns into an explicit interpretive framework, transforming implicit temporal analysis into systematic hermeneutical method.

Reception in Later Commentarial Literature

Buddhaghosa’s extensive commentaries, composed in the fifth century CE, represent the most influential systematization of Pali exegetical tradition.⁶⁰ Examining his treatment of causal and temporal analysis reveals both continuities with and departures from the Peṭakopadesa’s method.

Buddhaghosa employs hetu-nissanda language throughout his commentaries. The Samantapāsādikā (Vinaya commentary) uses nissanda to describe the natural consequences of precepts.⁶¹ The Sumaṅgalavilāsinī (Dīgha Nikāya commentary) applies result-analysis to describe how practices mature.⁶² However, Buddhaghosa does not systematically develop the hetu-nissanda-phala triad as an explicit hermeneutical method comparable to the Peṭakopadesa’s framework.

Buddhaghosa’s Visuddhimagga (Path of Purification), the most comprehensive meditation manual in Theravāda tradition, organizes material around virtue-concentration-wisdom (sīla-samādhi-paññā) and detailed Abhidhamma analysis.⁶³ The text employs temporal analysis in specific contexts—for instance, tracing insight knowledge through its progressive stages—but primarily operates within the Abhidhamma’s synchronic categorical framework rather than the Peṭakopadesa’s diachronic processual approach.

This difference may reflect Buddhaghosa’s project. The Visuddhimagga aims to systematize the path to liberation, requiring comprehensive treatment of all relevant factors at each stage. Abhidhamma’s categorical precision suits this purpose. The Peṭakopadesa addresses a different problem: how to understand diverse teachings as coherent expressions of unified truth. Temporal-processual analysis serves this hermeneutical goal.

Later sub-commentaries (ṭīkās) occasionally reference the Peṭakopadesa and Netti, though neither text became as central to Theravāda scholastic tradition as Buddhaghosa’s works.⁶⁴ The Sāratthadīpanī (Dhammapāla’s sub-commentary on the Netti) demonstrates continued engagement with this hermeneutical tradition into the sixth century.⁶⁵ However, mainstream Theravāda commentarial practice increasingly emphasized Abhidhamma frameworks, with the Peṭakopadesa’s distinctive approaches remaining somewhat marginal.

This historical development raises questions for future research. Did Buddhaghosa consciously set aside the Peṭakopadesa’s diachronic method in favor of Abhidhamma categorization? Or did he simply pursue different goals, with both methods remaining valid for their respective purposes? Did regional differences contribute—perhaps the Peṭakopadesa represents an Indian exegetical tradition that Lankan scholasticism partially displaced? The textual evidence examined here cannot definitively resolve these questions, though they merit investigation.

---

V. PHILOSOPHICAL IMPLICATIONS

Causality: Temporal Process Versus Conditional Relations

The Peṭakopadesa’s hetu-nissanda-phala framework embodies a specific understanding of causality that differs from the elaborate conditional typologies in Abhidhamma’s Paṭṭhāna. Examining this difference illuminates Buddhist philosophical diversity regarding causal explanation.

The Paṭṭhāna systematizes causality through twenty-four conditional relations (paccaya): root-condition (hetupaccaya), object-condition (ārammaṇapaccaya), predominance-condition (adhipatipaccaya), proximity-condition (anantarapaccaya), contiguity-condition (samanantarapaccaya), co-nascence-condition (sahajātapaccaya), and so forth through nutriment, faculty, jhāna, path, association, dissociation, presence, absence, disappearance, and non-disappearance conditions.⁶⁶ This exhaustive typology maps the complete network of possible causal relationships. Understanding a phenomenon requires identifying which conditions operate: does factor X condition factor Y as object, as support, as decisive influence, through association, through sequential arising, or through some combination of these relations?

This approach achieves remarkable analytical precision. The Paṭṭhāna’s commentarial tradition demonstrates its application, showing how each mental state arises through specific conditional networks.⁶⁷ The method enables fine-grained contemplative discrimination, supporting the insight that distinguishes genuine causes from mere concomitants or sequential neighbors. However, the system’s complexity presents challenges: mastering twenty-four conditional types and their countless combinations requires extensive study.

The Peṭakopadesa offers a simpler causal model centered on temporal development. Phenomena unfold through three phases: establishment (hetu), organic development (nissanda), culminating maturation (phala). This model does not enumerate conditional types but rather traces natural progression. Causality operates through temporal unfolding—what is planted grows and yields harvest; what is initiated develops and reaches completion.

The philosophical difference concerns whether causality requires external relations or inheres in temporal process. The Paṭṭhāna presupposes that understanding how Y arises from X requires specifying their conditional relationship—X must condition Y in one or more of the twenty-four ways. Causality consists in these relational patterns. The Peṭakopadesa, conversely, presents causality as internal to temporal processes—Y is not separate from X but rather X’s temporal development. Causality is unfolding rather than external relating.

This difference connects to the critical principle examined earlier: “the Blessed One does not teach one dhamma by relying on another dhamma.” If the Buddha does not present separate dhammas requiring external conditional relations, then causality cannot fundamentally consist in how distinct factors condition each other. Instead, causality must involve how single processes develop temporally. The Peṭakopadesa’s framework embodies this vision.

Both models serve contemplative purposes. The Paṭṭhāna’s precision supports analytical meditation (vipassanā) that discriminates ultimate realities. The Peṭakopadesa’s temporal tracing enables understanding whole processes, supporting integrated comprehension. The models complement rather than contradict—precision and integration both contribute to awakening. However, recognizing their philosophical differences clarifies options within Buddhist thought regarding causal explanation’s fundamental nature.

Identity Through Time: The Problem of Personal Continuity

The hetu-nissanda-phala framework’s assertion that one phenomenon manifests through three temporal phases raises philosophical questions about identity across time. If present result (nissanda) and past cause (hetu) designate the “same” dhamma, what constitutes this identity? This question parallels Buddhism’s central philosophical problem: how personal continuity obtains without a permanent self (anattā).

Buddhist canonical texts famously reject substance-views of personal identity. The Milindapañha’s chariot analogy demonstrates how the person constitutes a conventional designation for a collection of aggregates rather than a unitary essence.⁶⁸ Similarly, the Questions of King Milinda analyzes how causality operates between momentary phenomena without requiring substantial identity—the flame at one moment causes but differs from the flame at the next.⁶⁹

The Peṭakopadesa’s framework navigates this philosophical terrain carefully. On one hand, the text insists that hetu, nissanda, and phala designate “one dhamma” (ekaṁ dhammaṁ). This unity grounds the entire hermeneutical method—if these were truly separate phenomena, the Buddha would be “teaching one dhamma by relying on another dhamma,” which the text explicitly denies. On the other hand, Buddhist doctrine rejects substantial identity. How can the method maintain unity without essentializing?

The answer lies in causality itself. Buddhist philosophy consistently distinguishes numerical identity from causal continuity. The Visuddhimagga analyzes how past action and present result relate: “Neither the same (na ca so) nor different (na ca añño)”—the result is neither numerically identical to the cause nor wholly separate from it.⁷⁰ Causal continuity establishes sufficient connection for ethical and soteriological purposes without requiring metaphysical identity.

The Peṭakopadesa’s triadic framework applies this principle hermeneutically. The term “greed” designates a causally continuous process: the arising of greedy consciousness (hetu), its psychological and social reinforcement (nissanda), its karmic maturation in rebirth (phala). These phases maintain causal continuity—the result flows from the cause, the fruit ripens from the seed—without requiring substantial identity. The designation “one dhamma” reflects this continuity rather than positing an essence that persists unchanged through time.

This resolution requires examining how processual continuity coheres with the doctrine of momentariness (khaṇavāda). Abhidhamma philosophy maintains that phenomena arise and cease within momentary durations, undergoing three sub-moments: arising (uppāda), presence (ṭhiti), and dissolution (bhaṅga).⁷¹ Each consciousness moment perishes immediately upon arising; even material phenomena last only seventeen thought-moments.⁷² This radical impermanence seems to preclude the extended temporal processes the Peṭakopadesa describes.

The resolution lies in distinguishing analytical levels. Momentariness analysis operates at the level of ultimate phenomena (paramattha-dhamma)—individual consciousness moments, specific mental factors, irreducible material elements. The Peṭakopadesa’s temporal analysis operates at the level of causal processes (santati)—streams of momentary phenomena bound by causal relations. A “greed process” consists of countless momentary greedy consciousness instances, each arising and ceasing, yet maintaining causal continuity through habitual tendency (āsaya) and karmic potential (kamma-bīja).

The Paṭisambhidāmagga addresses this relationship explicitly. Discussing how past action produces present result, it states: “Past action is past, ceased, dissolved. Present result arises. The action does not transmigrate to the result, yet without the action, the result would not arise.”⁷³ Action and result are numerically distinct—the action-moment has ceased before the result-moment arises. Yet causal efficacy persists through karmic potential, establishing functional continuity without substantial identity.

This distinction parallels the difference between the person (puggala) as momentary aggregate-collection and personal continuity (santāna) across lifetimes. Each moment presents a new configuration of aggregates, yet karmic and memorial continuity creates personal identity sufficient for ethical responsibility and soteriological progress.⁷⁴ Similarly, greed-as-hetu consists of specific momentary mental states, while greed-as-process spans extended temporal arcs through causal connections.

The Peṭakopadesa’s framework thus operates at the level of causal streams (santati) rather than ultimate momentary phenomena. This is appropriate for hermeneutical purposes—canonical teachings address practitioners’ experiences of extended processes (craving developing over time, practice maturing toward liberation) rather than momentary phenomena accessible only through advanced analytical meditation. The method enables understanding conventional temporal processes while remaining compatible with ultimate momentariness.

This multilevel analysis reflects broader patterns in Buddhist philosophy. The Kathāvatthu’s treatment of the pudgala (person) concept employs similar strategies: denying substantial selfhood while affirming conventional personal continuity.⁷⁵ The Abhidhamma commentaries distinguish “ultimate” analysis revealing momentary phenomena from “conventional” analysis addressing ordinary experience.⁷⁶ The Peṭakopadesa’s temporal framework belongs to this conventional level—it analyzes how teachings describe processes as practitioners experience them, preparing for ultimate insight.

This resolution has contemplative implications. Practitioners initially apprehend impermanence through observing extended processes: craving arising, intensifying, eventually subsiding; wholesome states developing through cultivation. As insight deepens, perception becomes more refined, eventually discerning momentary arising-and-ceasing. The Peṭakopadesa’s framework supports the initial stages—understanding causal processes—while remaining compatible with deeper realization of momentariness. The temporal and momentary perspectives complement rather than contradict, addressing different phases of contemplative development.

Soteriology: Liberation Through Temporal Understanding

The hetu-nissanda-phala method ultimately serves liberation (vimutti). Examining how temporal understanding contributes to awakening clarifies the framework’s soteriological dimension.

Buddhist soteriology centers on eliminating ignorance (avijjā) through understanding reality’s true nature. The canonical formula identifies ignorance as misunderstanding the four noble truths—not knowing suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path.⁷¹ Liberation arises from direct perception of impermanence (aniccā), suffering (dukkha), and not-self (anattā) in all phenomena.⁷²

How does temporal analysis contribute to these realizations? The Peṭakopadesa’s framework enables several contemplative insights:

Intervention capacity: Understanding phenomena’s temporal structure reveals intervention opportunities. Recognizing greed at its foundation (hetu) allows addressing it before it develops into reinforced patterns (nissanda) and karmic consequences (phala). This knowledge transforms contemplative practice from reactive to proactive—rather than struggling with established patterns, practitioners can recognize and abandon unwholesome states at their arising.

Causal comprehension: The framework develops understanding of dependent origination’s operation. Tracing how present conditions inevitably generate future results cultivates the wisdom (paññā) that perceives causal patterns. This comprehension supports renunciation—seeing clearly that sensual indulgence produces future suffering motivates present restraint.

Temporal continuity perception: Understanding how phenomena unfold across time reveals their impermanent, constructed nature. What appears solid and enduring emerges as process—constantly flowing, developing, transforming. This direct perception of temporal flux supports aniccā insight. The framework thus functions as a contemplative tool, directing attention to temporal dimensions often obscured by the mind’s tendency to reify and solidify experience.

Integrated understanding: Perhaps most significantly, the method cultivates holistic comprehension. Rather than fragmenting experience into isolated elements, temporal analysis reveals integrated processes. This supports the wisdom that perceives phenomena’s conditioned nature (paṭiccasamuppanna) without reifying either phenomena or their conditions. The practitioner understands how wholesome states develop, enabling cultivation; how unwholesome states develop, enabling abandonment; how suffering arises, enabling cessation.

The Peṭakopadesa presents this soteriological function explicitly in its analysis of wholesome roots. The three roots (alobha, adosa, amoha) as hetu generate path factors (sammādiṭṭhi, etc.) as nissanda, yielding liberation (vimutti) as phala. This analysis does not merely describe the path intellectually; it provides a contemplative framework. Practitioners cultivate the roots, observe their development into path factors, and realize liberation—understanding the temporal process enables enacting it.

This soteriological dimension distinguishes Buddhist hermeneutics from purely academic textual interpretation. The Peṭakopadesa does not analyze teachings merely to resolve philosophical puzzles or achieve intellectual systematization. The method aims at awakening. Understanding how teachings cohere as expressions of unified truth supports confidence (saddhā) in the Buddha’s teaching, motivates practice, and cultivates the integrated comprehension that constitutes liberating wisdom.

---

VI. METHODOLOGICAL REFLECTIONS

Philological Challenges and Translation Choices

Analyzing the Peṭakopadesa presents significant philological challenges that affect interpretation. Several key terms require careful handling.

Adhiṭṭhāna: The term’s semantic range—resolve, determination, basis, foundation, standing-over—creates translation difficulties. This study employs “foundation,” emphasizing the sense of establishing or grounding. However, alternative translations would shift interpretive emphasis. “Resolve” would highlight psychological determination; “basis” would stress logical grounding. The Peṭakopadesa’s usage suggests multiple semantic layers operate simultaneously: these are foundations in that they ground phenomena psychologically and ethically; they are established in that they stand firm as causal bases; they are resolutions in that mental determination fixes them. English lacks a single term capturing this semantic richness, requiring interpretive choice.

Nissanda: As noted in the textual analysis, this term designates “flowing forth” or “result.” Translation options include “result,” “consequence,” “outcome,” “flowing forth,” or “effusion.” This study employs “result” for readability while noting the term’s metaphorical associations with flowing. Translating as “flowing forth” preserves the etymology but sacrifices comprehensibility. “Result” risks obscuring the natural, organic quality that nissanda conveys—water flowing from a spring rather than mechanical cause-producing-effect. The translation choice affects how readers understand the causal relationship the term designates.

Phala: “Fruit” preserves the agricultural metaphor but risks sounding archaic or strange to modern readers. “Result” provides clarity but obscures the metaphor and loses the distinction from nissanda. This study uses “fruit” to maintain differentiation from nissanda and preserve the metaphor’s contemplative associations—practitioners cultivate roots to harvest fruits.

Niddisati: Rendered here as “designate,” this causative verb could alternatively translate as “point out,” “indicate,” “teach,” or “expound.” “Designate” emphasizes the active naming dimension—the Buddha applies names to phenomena. “Point out” would stress demonstrative showing; “teach” would emphasize pedagogical function. The choice affects interpretation: does the Buddha merely label pre-existing distinctions, or does his designation actively structure how phenomena are understood? The term’s causative form suggests active structuring, supporting “designate.”

These philological decisions unavoidably shape analysis. Alternative translations would produce somewhat different readings. This study attempts transparency by noting translation choices and their implications, enabling readers to assess interpretations critically.

Comparative Analysis: Opportunities and Risks

The analysis above employs comparative references to modern semiotics, phenomenology, and temporal semantics. This methodological approach offers insights but requires careful limitations.

Benefits: Comparative analysis illuminates otherwise invisible features. Buddhist scholars immersed in traditional frameworks may not recognize the Peṭakopadesa’s temporal-processual approach as distinctive because it seems obvious within Buddhist thought. Comparison with Abhidhamma’s synchronic method reveals the distinctiveness. Similarly, noting parallels with Peircean semiotics clarifies the Peṭakopadesa’s implicit theory of meaning-generation through temporal development. Cross-cultural comparison can defamiliarize taken-for-granted features, enabling fresh recognition of a tradition’s sophistication.

Risks: Anachronistic interpretation constitutes the primary danger. The Peṭakopadesa did not emerge from engagement with modern semiotics or phenomenology. Peirce’s concerns (logic, pragmatism, scientific method) differ profoundly from Buddhist soteriological aims. Suggesting “influence” or claiming “equivalence” would be historically false and philosophically misleading. The similarities noted reflect potentially universal features of temporal meaning-generation rather than historical connection or conceptual identity.

Methodological safeguards: Several practices minimize risks while preserving benefits. First, comparison must be explicitly framed as heuristic rather than historical—these are parallel developments useful for mutual illumination, not evidence of influence. Second, differences merit equal attention to similarities—noting where frameworks diverge prevents false equations. Third, comparative insights must be tested against primary textual evidence—if comparison suggests an interpretation unsupported by Pali sources, the interpretation should be questioned. Fourth, Buddhist concepts must be understood first within their own frameworks before comparison—imposing external categories prematurely distorts understanding.

This study attempts to navigate these challenges by: (1) grounding analysis primarily in close reading of Pali texts; (2) introducing comparative material only after establishing the Peṭakopadesa’s framework from internal evidence; (3) explicitly noting where comparisons illuminate versus where they mislead; (4) acknowledging interpretive limitations and areas requiring further research.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

This analysis focuses on the hetu-nissanda-phala framework as presented in the Peṭakopadesa’s third chapter. Several important areas remain unexplored, suggesting future research directions.

Relationship to other Peṭakopadesa methods: The text presents multiple hermeneutical frameworks—the sixteen hāra, five naya, eighteen mūlapada—and examines their relationships with the hetu-nissanda-phala framework would illuminate the Peṭakopadesa’s comprehensive exegetical system. Do these methods complement each other, or do they represent alternative approaches? How do practitioners integrate multiple frameworks in actual interpretation?

Comparative analysis with Netti-pakaraṇa: While this study notes parallels, detailed comparison would clarify the relationship between these texts and the broader hermeneutical tradition they represent. Systematic examination of overlapping versus distinctive content would advance understanding of early Buddhist exegesis.

Reception history: This analysis briefly surveys later commentarial treatment, but comprehensive study of how Buddhist traditions employed (or neglected) this framework would reveal its practical impact. Did meditation manuals incorporate temporal analysis? Did debate traditions engage with these hermeneutical questions? How did regional variations affect reception?

Practical application: The framework presumably functioned in concrete interpretive practice—monks and scholars analyzing canonical discourses through these methods. Historical evidence of such application would clarify the method’s actual usage versus its theoretical presentation.

Philosophical development: The temporal-processual understanding of causality presented here merits comparison with broader Buddhist philosophical developments, particularly Mahāyāna treatments of emptiness (śūnyatā), momentariness, and causal continuity. How do different Buddhist schools address similar philosophical challenges?

These limitations should not diminish the present study’s contributions but rather indicate that the Peṭakopadesa’s sophisticated hermeneutics reward continued scholarly attention.

---

VII. CONCLUSION

This analysis demonstrates that the Peṭakopadesa’s hetu-nissanda-phala framework constitutes a sophisticated hermeneutical system addressing fundamental questions about how diverse Buddhist teachings cohere as expressions of unified truth. The method resolves the unity-multiplicity problem through temporal-processual analysis: apparent doctrinal diversity reflects different temporal phases of identical phenomena rather than separate teachings requiring external relations.

The triadic structure—cause (hetu), result (nissanda), fruit (phala)—enables practitioners to understand how any teaching unfolds across time. Unwholesome roots develop into psychological patterns and produce karmic consequences; wholesome roots generate path factors and mature into liberation; actions yield immediate results and ultimate fruits. What appears as multiple dhammas emerges as unified processes traced through temporal arcs.

This approach differs fundamentally from Abhidhamma’s synchronic categorization. While Abhidhamma organizes phenomena spatially through elaborate matrices and conditional typologies, the Peṭakopadesa reveals diachronic unfolding. Both methods serve contemplative purposes: Abhidhamma’s precision enables fine-grained discrimination; the Peṭakopadesa’s temporal tracing cultivates integrated understanding. The methods complement rather than contradict, representing different dimensions of Buddhist hermeneutical and contemplative wisdom.

The analysis situates this framework within early Buddhist exegetical tradition, examining canonical precedents, parallels in the Netti-pakaraṇa, and later commentarial reception. The method emerges from distinctly Buddhist concerns—understanding how the Buddha’s teaching maintains unity despite diverse formulations, enabling intervention in causal processes, cultivating temporal insight that supports liberation. However, comparison with modern semiotics and temporal phenomenology illuminates the framework’s sophistication regarding meaning-generation through temporal development, demonstrating that contemplative traditions can independently discover insights that philosophical traditions articulate through different vocabularies.

The soteriological dimension remains central. The Peṭakopadesa presents this framework as a tool for awakening. Understanding temporal unfolding enables recognizing unwholesome states at their foundation, comprehending causal inevitability that motivates renunciation, perceiving impermanence directly, and cultivating wholesome states systematically. The hermeneutical method thus serves liberating wisdom—textual interpretation and contemplative realization merge in the integrated understanding that constitutes awakening.

This study contributes to Buddhist studies by recovering an understudied hermeneutical tradition, demonstrating early Buddhist exegetes’ theoretical sophistication, and revealing alternatives to prevailing Abhidhamma frameworks. The Peṭakopadesa deserves recognition not merely as an early commentary but as an independent development of systematic interpretive methodology embodying distinctive philosophical commitments about temporality, causality, and meaning.

Future research should examine the Peṭakopadesa’s other hermeneutical frameworks, trace its reception history more comprehensively, compare its approaches with the Netti-pakaraṇa and later commentarial literature systematically, and explore philosophical implications more fully. The text rewards continued scholarly attention and offers resources for contemporary Buddhist practice—its temporal-processual methods remain applicable to understanding canonical teachings and cultivating liberating wisdom.

The fundamental insight endures: apparent multiplicity need not fragment understanding when temporal vision reveals unified processes unfolding through phases. The Buddha’s teaching maintains coherence not despite its diversity but through it—different formulations illuminating the same path from foundation through development to liberation. This hermeneutical wisdom, articulated systematically in the Peṭakopadesa’s triadic framework, constitutes an enduring contribution to Buddhist interpretive tradition.

---

NOTES

1. Majjhima Nikāya I.140: ekaṁ dhammaṁ, bhikkhave, desessāmi—dukkhaṁ ceva dukkhanirodhañca.
2. For comprehensive treatment of Abhidhamma mātikā system, see Bhikkhu Bodhi, A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma (Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1993), 1-24.
3. Dhammasaṅgaṇī, ed. E. Müller, PTS (London: Pali Text Society, 1885), 1-4.
4. For general introduction to Peṭakopadesa and Netti, see K.R. Norman, Pāli Literature (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1983), 112-116.
5. G.P. Malalasekera, Dictionary of Pāli Proper Names, vol. 2 (London: Luzac, 1960), 264-265.
6. Aṅguttara Nikāya I.24: etadaggaṁ bhikkhave mama sāvakānaṁ bhikkhūnaṁ vitthārena dhammaṁ bhāsantānaṁ yadidaṁ mahākaccāno.
7. For dating discussions, see Oskar von Hinüber, A Handbook of Pāli Literature (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1996), 95-97.
8. Norman, Pāli Literature, 114.
9. N.A. Jayawickrama, introduction to The Inception of Discipline and the Vinaya Nidāna (London: Luzac, 1962), xxvi-xxxii.
10. Norman, Pāli Literature, 115.
11. T.W. Rhys Davids and William Stede, Pali-English Dictionary (London: Pali Text Society, 1921-25), 29.
12. For adhiṭṭhāna in Nikāyas, see Aṅguttara Nikāya II.17-18 (four bases of success as adhiṭṭhāna); Majjhima Nikāya III.120 (arahant’s determining power).
13. Peṭakopadesa, ed. Arnold C. Taylor (London: Pali Text Society, 1979), 114. [Line references adjusted to specific edition]
14. Source: This verse appears to be from the Peṭakopadesa’s example material. Complete canonical reference requires further verification.
15. Peṭakopadesa, Taylor ed., 114.
16. Peṭakopadesa, Taylor ed., 114-115.
17. Peṭakopadesa, Taylor ed., 115.
18. Rhys Davids and Stede, Pali-English Dictionary, 370 (nissanda).
19. Peṭakopadesa, Taylor ed., 115.
20. For rebirth destinations based on kamma, see Majjhima Nikāya III.202-206 (Cūḷakammavibhaṅga Sutta).
21. Peṭakopadesa, Taylor ed., 116.
22. For paṭigha and byāpāda, see Dīgha Nikāya III.215, 269; Aṅguttara Nikāya V.144-148.
23. Peṭakopadesa, Taylor ed., 116-117.
24. Peṭakopadesa, Taylor ed., 117.
25. For asubha meditation, see Visuddhimagga VI (Bhikkhu Ñāṇamoli, trans., The Path of Purification [Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1975], 173-198).
26. Peṭakopadesa, Taylor ed., 117.
27. For mettā practice and benefits, see Karaṇīya Mettā Sutta (Sutta Nipāta 143-152); Aṅguttara Nikāya IV.151, VIII.1.
28. Peṭakopadesa, Taylor ed., 118.
29. Peṭakopadesa, Taylor ed., 119.
30. Peṭakopadesa, Taylor ed., 119-120.
31. Peṭakopadesa, Taylor ed., 120.
32. Peṭakopadesa, Taylor ed., 120.
33. Peṭakopadesa, Taylor ed., 116.
34. Peṭakopadesa, Taylor ed., 116.
35. Dhammasaṅgaṇī, Müller ed., 1-4.
36. Vibhaṅga, ed. C.A.F. Rhys Davids (London: Pali Text Society, 1904), introduction.
37. For Paṭṭhāna’s twenty-four conditions, see U Narada Maha Thera, trans., Conditional Relations (Paṭṭhāna), vols. 1-2 (London: Pali Text Society, 1969, 1981).
38. Dīgha Nikāya II.55-71 (Mahānidāna Sutta); Saṁyutta Nikāya II.1-133 (Nidāna-saṁyutta).
39. Visuddhimagga XVII (Ñāṇamoli, Path of Purification, 517-586).
40. Majjhima Nikāya I.262-264.
41. For Peṭakopadesa’s treatment of three times, see Taylor ed., 89-94.
42. Rhys Davids and Stede, Pali-English Dictionary, 731 (hetu).
43. Rhys Davids and Stede, Pali-English Dictionary, 370 (nissanda).
44. For nissanda in Nikāyas, see Aṅguttara Nikāya I.85, III.42-43.
45. For phala usage, see Dīgha Nikāya I.47-86 (Sāmaññaphala Sutta); Saṁyutta Nikāya V.410-432 (Magga-saṁyutta).
46. For path-and-fruit structure, see Visuddhimagga XXII (Ñāṇamoli, Path of Purification, 657-793).
47. Charles Sanders Peirce, Collected Papers, vols. 1-6, ed. Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1931-1935), esp. vol. 2, sections 227-308.
48. For aspect theory, see Bernard Comrie, Aspect (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976).
49. Netti-pakaraṇa, ed. E. Hardy (London: Pali Text Society, 1902).
50. Netti-pakaraṇa, Hardy ed., 14-18.
51. Netti-pakaraṇa, Hardy ed., 45-52.
52. Netti-pakaraṇa, Hardy ed., 73-89.
53. Jayawickrama, Inception of Discipline, xxvi-xxxii.
54. Norman, Pāli Literature, 115.
55. von Hinüber, Handbook of Pāli Literature, 97.
56. Dīgha Nikāya II.55-71.
57. Majjhima Nikāya I.46-55.
58. For triadic structures, see Aṅguttara Nikāya passim (organized numerically, with extensive three-fold doctrinal lists).
59. For result-language, see Aṅguttara Nikāya I.85 (nissanda), III.42 (ānisaṁsa), IV.62 (phala).
60. For Buddhaghosa’s life and works, see G.P. Malalasekera, Dictionary of Pāli Proper Names, vol. 2, 319-324.
61. Samantapāsādikā, ed. J. Takakusu and M. Nagai, 7 vols. (London: Pali Text Society, 1924-1947).
62. Sumaṅgalavilāsinī, ed. T.W. Rhys Davids and J.E. Carpenter, 3 vols. (London: Pali Text Society, 1886-1932).
63. Visuddhimagga (Ñāṇamoli translation).
64. For sub-commentarial literature, see von Hinüber, Handbook, 171-189.
65. Sāratthadīpanī, ed. A.P. Buddhadatta (London: Pali Text Society, 1939).
66. U Narada Maha Thera, Conditional Relations, vol. 1, 1-15.
67. For applied analysis, see Ledi Sayādaw, The Manuals of Buddhism (Rangoon: Union Buddha Sāsana Council, 1965), treating Paṭṭhāna application.
68. Milindapañha, ed. V. Trenckner (London: Pali Text Society, 1880), 25-28.
69. Milindapañha, 40-46 (flame continuity example).
70. Visuddhimagga XVII.185 (Ñāṇamoli, Path of Purification, 554).
71. Saṁyutta Nikāya V.431.
72. Saṁyutta Nikāya III.66-68, IV.28-30.

---

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

Aṅguttara Nikāya. Edited by Richard Morris and E. Hardy. 5 vols. London: Pali Text Society, 1885-1900.

Dhammasaṅgaṇī. Edited by E. Müller. London: Pali Text Society, 1885.

Dīgha Nikāya. Edited by T.W. Rhys Davids and J.E. Carpenter. 3 vols. London: Pali Text Society, 1890-1911.

Majjhima Nikāya. Edited by V. Trenckner and R. Chalmers. 3 vols. London: Pali Text Society, 1888-1899.

Milindapañha. Edited by V. Trenckner. London: Pali Text Society, 1880.

Netti-pakaraṇa. Edited by E. Hardy. London: Pali Text Society, 1902.

Paṭṭhāna. Edited in 5 vols. London: Pali Text Society, 1906-1923.

Peṭakopadesa. Edited by Arnold C. Taylor. London: Pali Text Society, 1979.

Samantapāsādikā. Edited by J. Takakusu and M. Nagai. 7 vols. London: Pali Text Society, 1924-1947.

Saṁyutta Nikāya. Edited by M. Léon Feer. 5 vols. London: Pali Text Society, 1884-1898.

Sāratthadīpanī. Edited by A.P. Buddhadatta. London: Pali Text Society, 1939.

Sumaṅgalavilāsinī. Edited by T.W. Rhys Davids and J.E. Carpenter. 3 vols. London: Pali Text Society, 1886-1932.

Vibhaṅga. Edited by C.A.F. Rhys Davids. London: Pali Text Society, 1904.

Visuddhimagga. Edited by C.A.F. Rhys Davids. 2 vols. London: Pali Text Society, 1920-1921.

Translations

Bodhi, Bhikkhu, trans. The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Saṁyutta Nikāya. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2000.

———. The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Aṅguttara Nikāya. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2012.

Ñāṇamoli, Bhikkhu, trans. The Path of Purification (Visuddhimagga). Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1975.

Ñāṇamoli, Bhikkhu, and Bhikkhu Bodhi, trans. The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Majjhima Nikāya. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 1995.

Walshe, Maurice, trans. The Long Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Dīgha Nikāya. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 1995.

Secondary Literature

Bodhi, Bhikkhu. A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma. Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1993.

Comrie, Bernard. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.

Gethin, Rupert. The Foundations of Buddhism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Hinüber, Oskar von. A Handbook of Pāli Literature. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1996.

Jayawickrama, N.A. The Inception of Discipline and the Vinaya Nidāna. London: Luzac, 1962.

Ledi Sayādaw. The Manuals of Buddhism. Rangoon: Union Buddha Sāsana Council, 1965.

Malalasekera, G.P. Dictionary of Pāli Proper Names. 2 vols. London: Luzac, 1960.

Narada Maha Thera, U, trans. Conditional Relations (Paṭṭhāna). 2 vols. London: Pali Text Society, 1969, 1981.

Norman, K.R. Pāli Literature. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1983.

Peirce, Charles Sanders. Collected Papers. Vols. 1-6. Edited by Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1931-1935.

Rhys Davids, T.W., and William Stede. Pali-English Dictionary. London: Pali Text Society, 1921-25.

---

Final Word Count: ~15,200 words