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

[Vicente]

Stephen wrote:

SH> I am merely talking about what the Pali texts present.  If you look at all
SH> the accounts of dependent arising, you will see that there are a number of
SH> variants to the formula which strongly suggest that the 12 nidana system is
SH> a later innovation.  These variants all seem to be the traces of earlier
SH> schemata.  This is old news, but you could have a look at "Conditioned
SH> Arising" by Roderick Bucknell [Journal of the International Association of
SH> Buddhist Studies 22:311-42 (1999)].

yes!. There are variations when reading this in the different nikayas.
I had never ask myself why. Many thanks for the reference.

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

well, I don't remember of some cite in the Nikayas with an explicit
reference of two processes. 
I wonder if it is only a pedagogical tool of the commentators.


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

I agree with the repetition. Neither I talk about a circular
mechanism. However, I understand that there is only one process, not
two. 

I ignore if my previous simile with the car is enough. When we are
seeing a car running, we cannot perceive any circular mechanism
among his parts. Just we are able to see that they are working
together, therefore that they are dependent. No more.


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

I agree that we cannot establish the causality in seeing this. As when
in front of that car in movement, we cannot establish a causal
relation between wheels and combustion. We would need before to see
a car starting from the previous immobility to check the causality.

Although, despite this, I think that also we should to admit that
there is not dependence without a causal relation. It is not possible!

It is a problem of the nature of our knowledge. When we are checking
any dependence, it is the consequence of our knowledge knowing a
causal relation between elements.


best regards.