[Buddha-l] Dependent arising variants

[Robert Morrison]

Robert,

>>
Sorry Dan, but I was refering to a version mentioned by Stephan found in
The 'Chapter of the Eights' from the Sutta Nipata. It is certainly not a
variant of the standard 12 nidaanas.  Lance asks the same question about my
'without doubt', so I'll try and answer that in my reply to him - but that
will be tomorrow night (GMT) at the earliest.
<<

Dan:

>
Looking forward to your exposition of that (or Stephen's), since I'm unclear
exactly what section of Sn he is indicating. "Sn778-785 Very primitive
alternative version" does not correspond -- at least in the versions of Sn I
have on hand -- to anything related to p-s. Might the indication be to
Kalahavivaada sutta (vs. 862-877), which is a Q and A session in which
Buddha responds to specific questions with modified segments of p-s,
appropriate to the intent of the questions, which, like much of this part of
Sn, is concerned with the pernicious consequences of holding views, the
perils of disputation, etc. There are various "applied" versions of p-s in
Sn, so I'm not sure which one is at issue.
<

Yes, it is the Kalahavivaadasutta, vv. 882-877.  But why do you think this
contains 'modified segments of the p-s? See my response to Lance. I think
that it is the other way round, and so do others such as in the Nakamura
article I mentioned.  I can't imagine how one can intertpret it the other
way round. One simple fact being that this is regarded by philologist and
the tradition as earlier than the other suttas of the more worked-out (and
less interesting) p-s.


>>
My angle is that these 'frames' are much later stories invented to give
What is a dharmic teaching a context.
<<

>
As I mentioned, these are the first thing that philologists shear off when
they want to stratify the literature. This is, therefore, a very complicated
issue, since, on the one hand, tinkering with the frame templates did occur
(even moreso in Mahayana literature, in which they become very stereotypical
boilerplate). 
<

And that to me is exactly what the 12 nidana list is - a hacked out, over
used (but still useful), template.
 

>
But, on the other hand, to assume that always and everywhere
the frame can be safely ignored and discarded, is simply ridiculous, not
even primarily for historical reasons, but simply to make sense of what the
rest of the sutta is trying to present (whether one wishes to attribute the
motives and guiding hand to Ananda, redactors, or whomever). 
<

But here we are talking about lists. And I see no reason why the list
shouldn't preceed the context, that context being formed by perhaps the
bhaa.nakas to help put what is only a remembered list in an interesting
context for teaching purposes.  An example that comes to mind is the Sabhiya
sutta from the Sutta Nipaata (vv. begin at 510), and the corresponding
sanskrit version called 'The Questions of Sabhika' from the Mahavastu [vol.
iii].  While the verses are very similar, the contexts are very different.
For example, in the Sabhiya the Buddha is at Raajagaha, but in the Sabhika
he is at Benares. The Sabhiya intro (the context) is just over a page in
length, in the Sabhika it is more than five times longer, not to mention
that the stories are different.  There are other examples of this where we
have the Pali and the corresponding [hybrid]sanskrit version, or some other
'prakrit'. This gives us a clue how these texts were put together.    

>
I sometimes suspect that those eager to do such shearing -- aside from their
supposed philological motives (and philology on early Buddhist materials has
been strikingly unimpressive in its methods, perseverence, or results so
far) -- is simply a way for some people to do "Abhidhamma-light", i.e., pare
things down to modular doctrinal clusters devoid of context, but not for the
purpose of practicing dhamma, but rather simply as a way to avoid delving
seriously in the complex actual abhidhammic/abhidharmic materials
themselves.
<

I'm not a philologist - hated doing what sanskrit I did! In these matters
I'm just a Buddhist with an academic background trying to get to grips with
what the Dharma is in principle.     

>

If one doesn't want to give the tradition credit for transmitting Ananda's
recital, at least one might give the redactors some credit for intelligently
putting their materials together.
<

I see no reason to accept the 'story' of Ananda and the First Council.  But
I do apprecite and have gratitude for the continual efforts of redactors
down through the ages that have given the world these (at times) wonderful
texts for myself and others to try and get to grips with just what the
Buddha was on about.  My approach is to look for salient principle(s) and
use them as my guide.  And to me the root principle is expressed in the
various formulations of conditioned-arising, and that principle is best and
most clearly discerned when presented in as many varied formulations as
possible.  


>
Yes, I'm familiar with this, and the other pieces that have been mentioned
in this thread. To those I would add recommendations for

D.M. Williams, "Paticcasamuppada: A Developed Formula", Religious Studies
14, March 1978, 35-56 and
<

Yes, I have this article.

>
chapters 4-6 of Takeuchi Yoshinori's _The Heart of Buddhism_, tr. by James
Heisig, NY: Crossroad, 1983.
<

Thanks, I'll have to look that up.

>
As you can see from the dates of these pieces, this is not a new issue.
<

It may not be new, but (minus the Yoshinori) there is much that is still
left unmentioned.

>
Me, too, which is why I felt it necessary to devote a chapter to p-s in my
book, Buddhist Phenomenology.
<

Yes, I read it a couple of years ago.  Must have another peek.

>>
My present view is that this is a very important doctrine - even the root
doctrine - that has not in my experience received an intelligent and
thoughtful treatment.
<<

>
Most shocking to me is the number of supposed leading scholars of Buddhism
today who proudly proclaim that p-s has them baffled (they usually blame
that on the model itself, contending it makes no sense). The arrogance of
that -- since it tacitly asserts that all the Buddhists who held up this
model as the key to Buddha's enlightenment and Buddhism itself, is
tantamount to declaring that Buddhists through the ages have been morons for
not sharing these modern confusions. Talk about viparyasa! To not understand
p-s, at least to the extent that it is a meaningful model for explaining how
things really are, is simply to not have the first clue about Buddhism.
<

I agree. Mind you, it is no more baffling than the coming together of seed,
rain, soil, sun, etc. gives rise to a flower - that really is baffling, and
it is simply p-s.  So if a simple flower arising is a minor miricle, what
about us and what goes on with the mind?  So we just have to start with
"sruta-mayii praj~naa, and go from there.  But when the bhaavanaa-mayii
praj~naa bites in, I don't think it will be pleasing to our cherished
'selves'.  Then we will begin to know what p-s is!  (just to end on a
cheerful note!)

Cheers,

Robert