[Buddha-l] Dependent arising variants

[L.S. Cousins]

Robert Morrison writes:

>But there are others, including the one you missed in Stephen's list, which
>is without doubt the earliest attempt to formulate conditioned-arising.  For
>example, (close your eyes, Richard, I'm going to pull authority by quoting
>actual suttas!)

citing:

>  [D ii. 57ff]

Robert, how on earth can you know that this is "without doubt" the 
earliest attempt to formulate conditioned arising ?

>There is, for example, a 23 nidaana version at S ii. 31.

Not really. The additional eleven or twelve items describe the exact 
opposite of conditioned arising.

>I must confess that I am always rather shocked at the seemingly total
>ignorance within both the Buddhist tradition and the academic world of the
>extent of the various formulations of conditioned-arising, and the
>implications of this.  There, I said it!

I don't know why you think this. I was under the impression that the 
variations were rather well-known. Certainly, any monk who has 
studied the relevant chapter of the Visuddhimagga could hardly fail 
to be aware of them. But I agree that many would not share your 
apparent view as to the implications of the variations.

I don't know that I would go so far as to argue that the standard 12 
link version was necessarily dominant from the beginning (although it 
might have been). I do think that the Buddha (or whoever) is likely 
to have put forward both the explanation based upon ignorance and 
that based upon craving, just as he taught solutions to these based 
upon insight and calm. That is because I think that these ideas 
existed as separate traditions in pre-Buddhist teachings.

Lance