[Buddha-l] Dependent arising variants

[L.S. Cousins]

Robert,

I have just returned from  two days up in Sheffield, visiting my 
grandchildren. Hence the delay in replying.

It is clear that part of the issue here arises from a different 
understanding as regards the dating of the Suttanipaata (Sn). I do 
not myself believe that Sn contains some kind of early version of 
Buddhism. I am certainly not alone in that view.

Those who argue that Sn (i.e. the last two sections which clearly 
existed independently)  is indeed earlier than the Discourses 
contained in e.g.  the Diigha and Majjhima Nikaayas usually base 
their position on points such as the following:

a) the language of Sn (or parts of it) is more archaic;
b) some of the sections are mentioned by name in  particular places 
in the Nikaayas;
c) some portions of Sn may be referred to by Asoka;
d) Sn contains accounts of Buddhist doctrine which are inconsistent 
with what we find in the Nikaayas.

Addressing certain of these points:
a) Poetry tends to preserve archaic language. Moreover, if Sn is an 
anthology of later attempts to present teachings in an interesting 
form for a wider diffusion, then it would not have initially been 
part of the monastic heritage. So instead of being preserved by oral 
repetition it may well have been set to writing at a much earlier 
date than most of the four Nikaayas. This would have fixed the 
language at a more archaic stage than that we find in older works 
preserved orally until  a later date.
b) Other texts too are mentioned by name. For example, the Discourse 
on the Questions of Sakka in the Diighanikaaya. This describes the 
visit of the gods Sakka and Pa~ncasikha to see the Buddha and ask 
questions. So by this argument, the oldest parts of Sn should date 
from the same period  as this discourse.
c) Portions of other texts too are referred to by Asoka. In 
particular, one discourse now found in e.g. the Pali Majjhimanikaaya 
is mentioned by him. There can be no certainty  (as opposed to 
probability) that similar or identical names refer to the same text. 
But it is clear that to the extent that the evidence of Asoka can be 
used to support a third century date for some parts of Sn, it can be 
used to support a similar date for some parts of the 
Majjhimanikaaya. It is then useless  as evidence for relative dating.
d) To refute d) we would have to take each specific portion of Sn and 
analyze it on a  case by case basis. Suffice to say, I do not believe 
there is any validity to this argument, applied simplistically 
overall.

We should note also the argument put forward by J.W. de Jong against 
using Sn as evidence for the earliest Buddhist doctrines. He felt 
that many verses which derive from non-Buddhist sources have been 
included in Sn, verses  which were part of an ancient ascetic 
repertoire. This could clearly account both for some archaic elements 
and for inconsistencies.

>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.

I have dealt with the last point above. But note that the arising of 
ta.nhaa from piyaruupa and saataruupa occurs a number of times. An 
obvious example is the Satipa.t.thaanasutta. It is particularly 
frequent in the Abhidhamma literature. Also very frequent there is 
the use of saata and asaata to define pleasant and unpleasant feeling.

As regards chanda, it is rather frequent in the term kaamacchanda, 
normally used as a name for the first of the five hindrances. In the 
Saññaanaanattasutta(S II 143f.)  we see it in a type of conditioned 
arising:
dependent upon the visible object element arises labelling of visible 
objects, dependent upon that arises thinking based upon visible 
objects, dependent upon that arises chanda for visible objects, 
dependent upon that arises feverish concern about visible objects, 
dependent upon that arises searching for visible objects.
[The same is true for the other five kinds of object.]
Therefore it is due to the variety of kinds of object (of sense and 
mind) that the varieties of labelling, thinking, chanda, feverish 
concern and searching occur.

This particular discourse is part of a series of linked discourses 
(the Naanattavagga) which effectively constitute a presentation of an 
equivalent to links 3 to 9 of the common twelvefold version from 
various angles.

The sequence from feeling through craving and searching and 
ultimately ending in quarrels, disputes, etc. is partly also derived 
from the Mahaanidaanasutta.

Overall then, there is plenty of precedent, if we assume that this 
part of Sn is a relatively late development - whether we see that as 
occurring in the long life of the Buddha, in the following decades or 
in the following centuries.

In other words, it is religious poetry which deliberately varies the 
formulation a bit to give something a little unexpected.

>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'.

The texts themselves emphasize the need to learn both the form 
(dhamma) and its meaning/goal/purpose (attha).

>  >>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]'.

No, the latter part of the sequence i.e. the eleven/twelve links from 
dukkha/saddhaa to the knowledge of destruction is the process of 
conditioned cessation, not conditioned arising. In other words, the 
parallel to this is the frequent case in which conditioned cessation 
immediately follows 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. <
>
>If only.

Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote a Wheel Pamphlet on the long formula you cite above.

><
>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'.

Quite true. But he does refer to the various ways in which the Buddha 
approaches the subject with his famous simile of the four ways of 
removing creepers. So anyone who has read this particular chapter in 
Visuddhimagga (and also in the Vibhanga Commentary) would be familiar 
with the notion of multiple versions of conditioned arising.

>  >
>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.

Very true.

>  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).

See Rupert Gethin's _The Foundations of Buddhism_ (OUP, 1998) pp. 
149-159. My impression is that this has been fairly widely read.

>Given that the Dharma as formulated teaching and practice is underpinned by
>the principle of conditioned-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 [gambhiira], subtle
>[nipuna], and beyond the reach of ratiocination [atakkavacara].

That may be.

Lance