[Buddha-l] Dependent arising variants

[Robert Morrison]

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!)
<<

Lance:

>citing:

>>  [D ii. 57ff]

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

Actually, I was referring to the 'Quarrels and Disputes' sutta from the
Sutta Nipaata that is on Stephen's list. I should have made that clear.  
'Without doubt' is me just being lazy.  I should have said: 'Given what I've
read and based on my understanding and practice of Buddhism, it is most
plausible that in this sutta we find the earliest record we possess of an
attempt to communicate what came to be known as "conditioned-arising".'  As
I've been led to this opinion over a period of time, I can't recall at the
moment all the factors that have led me to this view. But my considered view
both as an academic and as a Buddhist is that the Buddha had a profound
insight into the nature of existence.  That insight is a 'seeing' [dassana].
When the Buddha wanted to communicate what he had seen and apply it to life
as a means to help others see what he saw, he chose the notion of
conditioned arising, although he no doubt settled on this notion after a few
attempts to communicate what he saw.  

What we see in the 'Quarrels and Disputes' sutta is an early attempt to
communicate this (before he gave expression to the notion of
'dependent-arising') in a response to certain questions. As well as this
sutta's form, it earliness is suggested by the terms used.  In answer to
'Whence arise quarrels, disputes' etc. the condition given is 'what is dear
[piyaa]'.  The condition for the arising of 'what is dear', etc. is 'desire'
[chanda], and the condition for the arising of chanda is 'dependence upon
what they call "pleasant" [saata] "unpleasant" [asaata].  Only then do we
came across two familiar terms, as the condition for the arising of saata
and asaata is contact [phassa], the condition for the arising of phassa is
naama-ruupa.  Then when [naama-]ruupa does not exist, contact does not
arise, etc.  In all the other versions that contain some or all of the
standard 12 nidaanas, none of these what I take to be earlier terms are
mentioned, but are replaced with what I consider later settled terminolgy,
i.e. saata and asaata are replaced with vedanaa, chanda by ta.nhaa. Yet the
term ta.haa is used numerous times in other suttas of this vagga in other
contexts. There is also the fact that this sutta is reckoned by philologists
and the Theravada tradition itself as early.  

We find here none of the familiar formulae such as the four Noble Truths,
etc. - these themselves being formulated applications based upon the
principle of conditioned-arising that, none being mentioned here, are likely
to be later. I would also add that this principle can be seen to underpin
practically all mainstream Buddhist doctrine (apart from some questionable
doctrines like the sarva-asti, some forms of the tathagatagarbha, etc.).
This is only what one would expect if conditioned-arising best expresses the
Buddha's insight into the state of things.  For the Buddhist practitioner,
the aim is to reverse this 'emanation' from the Buddha's insight down to its
practical applications, by starting with the basic applications and
practices and start heading 'up stream'. 


>>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.
<

You must be reading the wrong sutta!  Here's the list:

What is it to know and see the destruction of the aasavas? ... ‘With
spiritual ignorance as proximate cause [upanisaa], karmic formations [come
to be], 
 viññaa.na 
 naamaruupa – sa.laayatana - phasso - vedanaa – ta.nhaa
- upaadaana - bhava - jaati – dukkha [replacing the usual ‘old-age and
death’] - saddhaa - paamojja - piiti - passaddhi - sukha - samaadhi -
yathaa-bhuuta-ñaa.na-dassana - nibbidaa - viraago - vimutti - khaye ñaa.na
[of the aasavas]'.

>>
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. 
<

If only.  

<
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.
<

Buddhaghosa does not mention the above list, so how could it have been 'well
known'.

>
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.
<

Whenever conditioned-arising is mentioned, it seems to have become almost a
accepted habit, both within the tradition and in modern books on Buddhism by
scholars, to trot out the standard 12 nidaana sequence.  Even when
variations are mentioned, they are usually confined to shorter variations of
this standard list. Two very disparate examples come to mind.  One in the
"Saalistambha suutra, and another in the Mahaayaana Parinirvaa.na Suutra (as
translatede by Yamamoto, revisede by Tony Page).  When the question of what
conditioned arising is, they just trot out the standard 12fold list.  And in
my reading I come across this again, and again (apart from a couple of
journal articles that do mention some variations, but even they miss some
very important ones, such as the 23 nidaana list above). 

Given that the Dharma as formulated teaching and practice is underpinned by
the principle of cvonditioned-arising, the more variations one has,
especially of the more direct formulations, the better the chance we have of
understanding it, given that we are told it is very deep [gambiira], subtle
[nipuna], and beyond the reach of ratiocination [atakkavacara].

Cheers,

Robert Morrison (who has changed his views since he was Thomas Reid, and
will change them again in the light of any further understanding!)