[Buddha-l] Dependent arising variants

[Franz Metcalf]

Gang,

Replying to my comments on p-s, Robert writes,

> Sorry to use your post as an example of what I've been getting at.
> To say that p-s is just samsaric is to miss the boat regarding p-s...
> the samsaric can be the condition [here, dukkha] for the arising the
> of what we can call the nirvanic... From what you say, it appears that
> Reynolds must identify p-s with samsara, which is simply a wrong-view
> according to the various lists of p-s as found in the Pali suttas.

Not to worry, the trouble is not with Frank Reynolds. The trouble was 
merely my very incomplete version of what the good Dr. Reynolds taught 
us about p-s. To (I hope) reassure Robert and the world, the other side 
to p-s's saṃsāric cosmogony is p-s's nibbānic eschatology. As the world 
arises through p-s, so can its conditions be cut off and it be ended. 
Indeed, while the other two cosmogonies in Buddhism (the rūpic and the 
dhammic) do have their own (non-nibbānic) eschatologies, those 
eschatologies give rise to new cosmogonies. The saṃsāric cosmogony of 
p-s does not--not for the arhant, anyway. It alone is truly liberative. 
In a sense, freedom is inherent in the very chains of p-s. We might 
extend that to say nibbāna is inherent in saṃsāra, and of course that 
makes me want to say that Mahāyāna is inherent in Theravāda. But I'd 
better not.

Cheers,

Franz