[Buddha-l] Dependent arising variants [was: Where does authority for "true" Buddhism come from ?]

[Stephen Hodge]

Vicente Gonzalez wrote:

> I hope not to be offensive but I think it is not in that way.
I am merely talking about what the Pali texts present.  If you look at all 
the accounts of dependent arising, you will see that there are a number of 
variants to the formula which strongly suggest that the 12 nidana system is 
a later innovation.  These variants all seem to be the traces of earlier 
schemata.  This is old news, but you could have a look at "Conditioned 
Arising" by Roderick Bucknell [Journal of the International Association of 
Buddhist Studies 22:311-42 (1999)].

> There are not two processes but just one deceptive thought.
Sorry, but there are.  Look at the Nikayas.  I'm pushed for time right now, 
but I can post a lengthy list of references if you like.

> 12 nidanas doesn't have a beginning or an end.
This seems to be a later interpretation based on a particular understanding 
of the 12 nidanas.  The two processes I mention are repetitive, but not 
necessarily circular.

> we cannot check the causal relation between one part and the previous one.
I do not understand the various chains of nidanas to be causal -- they 
describe dependent arising, not casual arising.

Best wishes,
Stephen Hodge