[Buddha-l] Dependent arising variants

[Joy Vriens]

Franz Metcalf wrote:

> I can only say, mea culpa. Well, okay, I'm not *proud* of it, but I've 
> had a cordial distaste for p-s from the get-go.

> I can at least claim the excuse that I'm into studying Buddhist 
> psychology and practice and that these have traditionally responded (as 
> I see it) directly to the 4NT/As and not to p-s, so I am merely and 
> respectfully continuing a tradition.

My excuse would be that I studied Buddhism under Buddhist teachers who 
weren't in favour of study (to put it mildly)   and encouraged one to 
"practice" (puja) and work (ora et labora), following the exemple of 
Milarepa who first had blisters on his hands before having callus on his 
behind. The p-s was rarely ever mentioned or taught. And I guess my 
teachers' excuse was Nagarjuna. After all he did say that p-s was 
nothing else than emptiness and emptiness was initially a much cooler 
and apparently simpler concept. One thing instead of twelve and no 
different varieties. You knew where you stood with emptiness. Goodbye 
polytheism, hello monotheism. So the general reasoning seemed to have 
been that there was need for p-s, since there now was emptiness. I 
expect they weren't the only Buddhists to think so.

> Ah, the shame! I shall never be free from it (nor likely even try to be),


Be free of shame, let Nagarjuna take the blame.

Joy