Talk:Pratītyasamutpāda/Archive 1

Archive 1

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Suffering

A thought on Suffering: Reading these articles on Buddhism, I am abhored by the assumption that suffering is the default state of life and that it is caused by desires and attachments. Wouldn't anyone favor a more egocentric model? According to the line of thinking of individualism and objectivism, suffering is a state resulting from the failure of an individual to develop the ego through expression of the individual's own passions. Hence birth and living are not suffering themselves, but humans enter the world operating without suffering and begin to experience it only if they are unable to develope their egos and manifest their identities. Look at an infant baby: they are the manifestation of happiness, curiosity and creativity - anything but suffering. I appreciate any responses to these thoughts. Simiam Ghan

Buddhism does not say that suffering is the "default state of life", but it does say that we tend to suffer and that it is caused by desire, or trishna (to thirst, to crave. someone needs to update and disambiguate the wiki page...). This in turn, if satisfied, causes one to clutch and hang on to something, this clutching is called Upadana. But you must analyze it further and ask, "Clutching to what?" Well, to anything, when you say for example, "I *must* survive", that is an example of clutching, or "I *must* win this race". The idea is that if you live life in earnest, trying to make something permanent out of an impermanent and constantly changing world (Buddhist doctrine of Anicca), life will be a drag and you will be bound to be disappointed. Then Buddhism goes further and says that trishna is caused by Avidya, or ignorance. In other words, we clutch to thinks because we do not realize the truth, that everything in the world is impermanent, that the world isn't "serious", that you are not an ego isolated in a bag of skin, trapped in an alien world, and finally that the ego is ultimately unreal. Hope that helps! Itistoday 15:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

But listen to an infant baby and the first thing heard is protest at what must be suffering. -- cuddlyable3

AS OF 7-12-2006: the link "Digital Dictionary of Buddhism (log in with userID "guest")" takes the reader to a 404 error page.

I think what really needs to be clarifed is the distinction between legitimate, healthy pain that needs to be attended to as much as we would attend joy, and senseless pain or suffering; neurosis.

dukka is basically existencial suffering, pain is sensory stimuli, dukka is how we react to all sensory stimuli (in Buddhism, "senses" includes "thoughts"). You're refering to hedonism as ideal, which honestly doesn't stand to even basic argumentations. You want "unsatiable thirst" (tr.s.n.a) as ideal, good luck with that!--Esteban Barahona (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Vasubandhu

Sylvain, could you give the quotes you are using in these edits: [1]? In the work cited Vasubandhu is not speaking for any currently extant Buddhist school, and I'm also concerned that the understanding of the twelve nidana cycle happening on short time scales should be properly represented. Mitsube (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Vasubandhu is still the authoritative voice on Abhidharma for all but the Theravadin tradition, and their views are also in accord with his on this matter. The Theravadin tradition relies on the the Visuddhimagga for an explanation, and the Visuddhimagga provides the 3 lives model in chapter XVII. As Bhikkhu Bodhi writes, “The Nikayas themselves do not give any systematic explanation of dependent origination the way one might expect a college textbook to do. Thus, for a clear explanation, we must rely on the commentaries and expository treatises that have come down from the Early Buddhist schools. Despite minor differences in details, these concur on the general meaning of this ancient formula . . . [describes three lifetime model] From the above, we can see that the commentarial interpretation treats the twelve factors as spread out over a span of three lives” (In the Buddhas Words, pgs 313-314)

The Abhidharmakosha remains the authoritative work studied by all non-Theravadin who still study abhidharma.

The Kosha passage I cited, in part:

"The series of skandhas develops in three existences, 20a. Pratityasamutpada or dependent origination has twelve parts in three sections or time periods.152 The twelve parts of dependent origination are ignorance (avidya), the samskaras, the consciousness, namarupa, the six ayatanas, contact, sensation, desire, attachment, existence, birth, and old age and death. 20b. Two for the first, two for the third, and eight for the middle. Ignorance and the samskdras existed in a past existence, birth and old age and death will exist in a future existence, and the eight other parts exist in the present existence."

After discussing this normative interpretation at length, he mentions the momentary interpretation and describes it briefly over the course of a paragraph at the end of the section. As Bhikku Bodhi states, the commentarial traditions of all schools have always considered the three lifetime model definitive. Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Mitsube (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem! It's common for teachers nowadays to teach the momentary version, and there is some basis for it in the commentarial tradition (the Kosha, at least, I'm not sure about the Visuddhimagga). But it was never traditionally seen as an alternative, more like a supplement.Sylvain1972 (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be good if we could source this regarding modern teachers. Also does your source say that the interpretation is "tertiary" for Vasubandhu? Mitsube (talk) 04:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The momentary interpretation is found in the Pali canon, in the Vibhanga. Peter jackson (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

In the abhidhamma section. I don't know of any scholar who mentions this, but there may well be one. The separate lives interpretation is also canonical, in the Patisambhida, though detail was only worked out explicitly later. Note that there's a difference between 3-lives interpretations. AK makes all 12 links temporally successive, while VM groups some as simultaneous. Peter jackson (talk) 10:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This is discussed in Noa Ronkin's book. I'm going to add it in in the next few days. Also there are statements in the suttas which broaden the meaning of the word "jati" considerably in this context and I will add that in as well, from another source. Mitsube (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Quote from Bhikku Bodhi

I would like it if someone could include any or all of this quote from bhikku bodhi in his book, 'In the Buddha's Words'. It is about dependent origination, but it pertains to this same self vs. not-self argument:

'Several suttas hold up dependent origination as a "teaching by the middle". It is a "teaching by the middle" because it transcends two extreme views that polarize philosophical reflection on the human condition. One extreme, the meta-physical thesis of eternalism, asserts that the core of human identity is an indestructible and eternal self, whether individual or universal. It also asserts that the world is created and maintained by a permanent entity, a God or some other metaphysical reality. The other extreme, annihilationism, holds that at death the person is utterly annihilated. There is no spiritual dimension to human existence and thus no personal survival of any sort. For the Buddha, both extremes pose insuperable problems. Eternalism encourages an obstinate clinging to the five aggregates(skhandas), which are really impermanent and devoid of a substantial self; annihilationism threatens to undermine ethics and to make suffering the product of chance.

Dependent origination offers a radically different perspective that transcends the two extremes. It shows that individual existence is constituted by a current of conditioned phenomena devoid of a metaphysical self yet continuing on from birth to birth as long as the causes that sustain it remain effective. Dependent origination thereby offers a cogent explanation of the problem of suffering that on the one hand avoids the philosophical dilemmas posed by the hypothesis of a permanent self, and on the other avoids the dangers of ethical anarchy to which annihilationism eventually leads.' --Bhikku Bodhi

If someone could include some or all of this, if they feel it is pertinent, that would be a great help, as i do not feel yet comfortable editing articles.

--24.12.229.163 (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Two-truths

Nothing in the enlightenment account of the Buddha refers to two-truths. It refers to three knowledges. Mitsube (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The Buddha was not concerned with ontology. He put it aside. He was not interested in arguing about it. Mitsube (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sure you agree that Pratītyasamutpāda is an article on Buddhism, not just Buddha. The Buddhist movement includes many innovative interpretations of Lord Buddha's activities and speech, many of which may be questionable, but it doesn't stop them from being Buddhist. See WP:RNPOV. However, and more to the point, the reference given for the statement (n the article) "The Buddha actualized that there were two truths; the conventional truth and the ultimate truth." is unfounded. Garfield says nothing like that on p297. On the other hand, the two truths formulation is central to all Mahayana schools; for all Mahayanists, Buddha did (either directly or indirectly) teach the two truths. Indeed, the basis of the two truths is not much different from the distinction between the world being obscured by Anatta and the world as it appears to those who are free from such obscurations, so the Mahayanists may have a point. Also, and I consider this to be very important regarding the balance of the Pratītyasamutpāda article, Pratītyasamutpāda is absolutely central to the Mahayana 'middle way' / Madhyamaka tradition; so many individuals who are wishing to learn more about the term are likely to be investigating works by (or derived from) Nagarjuna's tradition. MMK 24.18 epitomises this. I shall modify the article accordingly. (20040302 (talk) 11:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC))

Sounds good. The two-truths idea may be consistent with what the Buddha was teaching, but it isn't particularly useful outside of an intellectual context. These ideas arose later with professor-monks. Mitsube (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Dependent_origination needs rewrite

Having looked at both the current Dependent_origination section and past one, I see that both of them are really not very good. The current section more or less completely ignores any views other than those of the Mahayana, and is strongly biased towards a rather loose interpretation of the Madhyamikas. Some of the citations are likewise incorrect, or misapplied.

The original section went on about the great web of things, missing the 'normal' point of Pratītyasamutpāda, which is that it is the mechanism by how ignorance keeps us locked into samsara. At least the current section succeeds in this, however it is written using concepts that are solely applicable to the Mahayana schools, which isn't really acceptable for a general article about Pratītyasamutpāda Secondly, if we were to acknowledge it as a Mahayana / Madhyamaka view of Pratītyasamutpāda, then it is completely weird and unacceptable not to include MMK 24.18, and then to explain something about how different interpretations of just this one verse has had such a strong effect on the various Mahayana traditions, or at least to indicate how the Madhyamaka (following Nagarjuna) use Pratītyasamutpāda to demonstrate Anatta. Moreover, to be complete, it would be good to talk about the links with dependant origination and dependant designation. (20040302 (talk) 12:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC))

I strongly agree, except one thing, which is about anatta. The Buddha said to hold the view "I have no self" is a mistake. Anatta only means that no phenomenon is really "I" or "mine". That's it. The philosophical use of the word is later and may be at odds with what the Buddha was actually teaching, namely "Suffering and its ending". Mitsube (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It is also a mistake (and more to the point, meaningless) to hold the view "I have no self" regarding the Madhyamaka tradition. Your interpretation of Anatta, however, is provocative and appears contradictory: If no phenomenon is really "I", then you are saying that there is nothing which is really "I", and therefore "I" does not really exist. If you accept that objects are divided into things that exist (eg a pot) and things that don't exist (eg unicorns, or mermaids, or Santa) then the "I", according to you, does not exist and you would be a nihilist; whereas if you are saying that "I" exists, then you are a positivist. A lot of what you may call 'philosophy' was really much more to do with finding a way to communicate ideas carefully; I believe that the purpose of Nagarjuna and his followers was to deliver a non-philosophical - even anti-philosophical - explanation for anatta, albeit written in a language understood by philosophers of their time. Understanding the nature of Anatta is essential to the path of awakening.

If we examine the ending of suffering which, as you rightly say, is the teaching of Lord Buddha in accordance with the four noble truths then we see he taught us the path to the ending of suffering (the fourth noble truth). The path that he disclosed was, essentially, the eightfold path, which is often (especially in the Mahayana) categorised into the three higher trainings of Śīla, Samādhi, Paññā. Meditating on Paññā is, basically, developing insight into the three marks of existence (in the Pali canon, Buddha tells us: “All these aggregates are anicca, dukkha and anatta.”) which tie us to Samsara due to the twelve Nidānas of Pratitya-samutpada. Therefore Anatta, as one of the three marks of existence, is central to Buddhism, Buddha's teachings, and Buddhist practice. The problem that Nagarjuna faced in his day was that there were many followers of Buddha, and teachers of Buddha's path, whose views of Anatta fell into nihilism or positivism. What he wanted to do was to demonstrate that Buddha's word was truth, and that it was unambiguously true.

When we look at the path, specifically of meditating on, for instance, impermanence, it's important to know how to meditate on them in a manner that will make a difference. So, if we just sit there without thinking, we are not engaging with the object (impermanence); we need to think about our experience of impermanence, the ramifications of impermanence, the nature of impermanence, and the pervasiveness of impermanence. By familiarising ourselves with impermanence we are gradually able to overcome our engagement with the world as if things within it were permanent; there will be a direct effect; what starts off as an intellectual idea will become a part of our reality - especially if we strengthen the basis of our meditation through sila and samadhi. For me, there is no mystery, magic, philosophy, or complexity in that. But for it to be efficacious, it is imperative that we understand just exactly what impermanence means. If, for instance, we think that impermanence only implies change (such as a river changes) but no ending, then our view of impermanence is not complete. Likewise if we believe that impermanence only implies ending but no change, the our view of impermanence is also not complete. So it is important for us to understand what these things mean in a precise and very clear manner. We need to think about something and study it in order to understand it; we then need to continually familiarise ourselves with it in order to know it, or realise (make it real for us) it.

In the Pali canon Lord Buddha does not directly speak much about Anatta, but he speaks enough for us to understand what he means. What Nagarjuna and his followers did was to uncover the precise meaning of Anatta without falling into nihilism or positivism, using language to cut through language, using philosophy to cut through all philosophies without anxiety, confusion, or ambiguity. To accuse Nagarjuna of being a philosopher monk as opposed to, say, a meditator monk is to completely mistake him. (20040302 (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC))

I do not except that "objects" are divided into "things that exist" and "things that don't exist". The statement is full of reification. Self is a process. It neither exists in the way we think of existence nor doesn't exist in that same way. As the Buddha says in the Kaccaanagotta Sutta, to one who sees the world with discernment, "exists" and "doesn't exist" do not occur. The Buddha does not discuss objects, but processes. He refers specifically to "I-making". As we closely examine any phenomenon, we realize that it is not really intrinsic to the self we continuously construct. That is what anatta means. It is taught so that one can grow dispassionate and liberate the mind. Upon the destruction of craving and clinging, the mind has been cleansed of the skandhas. Pure awareness arises that is separate from them; they continue to operate properly in their own sphere. This awareness is free of all duality, including self and not-self. Nibbana is never said to be either self or not-self in the early texts. Nagarjuna's work may be a useful antidote to certain highly intellectual theories but beyond that it is a hindrance, in my view. Also the division of the path into sila samadhi and pannya is done in Theravada circles too. Are you going to address the problems you have rightly pointed out? Mitsube (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

We better agree to disagree about Nagarjuna. Suffice to say that for Buddhism, Nagarjuna is a central and important historical figure.

I apologise for conflating the term 'object' with 'phenomenon' - mainly because I object to the latter term due to it's being extensively used by Kant, and generally used solely in a philosophical context. I am not sure how you distinguish between these terms. (20040302 (talk))

Regarding the change, I am not sure that I am qualified or experienced enough to be able to succinctly delineate the meaning of Pratītyasamutpāda in a manner that successfully covers every tradition of Buddhism without dispute. Maybe you and I could begin to work on it together? (20040302 (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC))

Can you just remove the things you disagree with? Mitsube (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Also regarding dependent origination and anatta I believe they were different teachings. Equating the two was done in a different place and time in a different philosophical milieu. Mitsube (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I am unable to remove what I disagree with without removing the entire section, which I believe is counter-productive. Secondly, our beliefs are not relevant to WP. What is uncontroversial is that Lord Buddha taught dependent origination and anatta; likewise it is indisputable that the Mahayanists, such as Nagarjuna (who is a central and important historical figure in Buddhism), definitively equated pratītyasamutpāda with Anatta. MMK24:18 famously says "Whatever is dependently co-arisen / That is explained to be emptiness. That, being a dependent designation, / Is itself the middle way." (Garfield's translation).

Dr Rahula has been published saying: "Some people think that Voidness or Sunyata discussed by Nagarjuna is purely a Mahayana teaching. It is based on the idea of Anatta or non-self, on the Paticcasamuppada or the Dependent Origination, found in the original Theravada Pali texts". I am no scholar of Pali, or Theravada; who am I to argue against Dr Rahula here? Rahula is strongly suggesting that equating anatta with pratītyasamutpāda predates Nagarjuna and the Mahayana traditions. If you wish to dispute this, can you find suitable published references? (20040302 (talk) 09:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC))

Anatta is always used with reference to a person, i.e. that is not me or mine. This passage is typical: "Whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated, that is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stress. Whatever is stress is not me, is not what I am, is not my self. Having seen this well with right discernment as it has come to be, I also discern the higher escape from it as it has come to be." AN 10:93. The term "svabhava" (or the Pali version of it) doesn't occur in the early texts. It was a concept from a later time. There isn't a discussion, as far as I know, of "things out there" being "empty" of their own "self". In fact, I think that that analysis doesn't really work, because the "things our there" are in fact entwined with our experience of them. I believe this is actually mentioned in a sutta in the MN. I will try to add it. I do have something in a secondary source about anatta being different from dependent origination and I will try to find it. Mitsube (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Continued....

"This passage is typical: "Whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated, that is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stress. Whatever is stress is not me, is not what I am, is not my self. Having seen this well with right discernment as it has come to be, I also discern the higher escape from it as it has come to be." AN 10:93.". Well, as I understand that citation, it may read as "whatever is ... dependently originated ... is not me, is not what I am, is not my self." which would follow very closely to Nagarjuna's assertion, as well as Dr Rahula's remark. Therefore it should be quite safe to say that the equation of Anatta with Pratītyasamutpāda is a Buddhist one, not just a Madhyamaka Buddhist one. Also, if you accept the gist (if not the term itself) of the two truths as being Buddha's teaching, then maybe we can keep the salient passage, but merely de-emphasise the term as a specific point. E.g. "Buddha taught that due to ignorance, the way in which we normally see the world does not make it easy for us to perceive it as Pratītyasamutpāda, which leaves us grasping at suffering and it's causes. But by training ourselves to perceive it, we are able to free ourselves completely from the endless cycle of suffering." That seems okay to me. Thoughts? 20040302 (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we may characterize the Buddha as being concerned only with phenomena (things that appear to the mind) and opposed to speculation regarding existence or non-existence of noumena (things as they exist "from their own side"). Anatta is about phenomena from the perspective of the perceiving subject, but it seems to me that Nagarjuna applies it to noumena "from their own side" as well, and I think that is a dangerous move because noumena are never clearly understood, being just fuzzy concepts. But if Kalupahana reads him correctly, he was only attacking specific notions of noumena that had arisen among heterodox professor-monk Buddhists, and so in that he was doing a useful service. The Buddha told people to view (meditative) experience in terms of the four noble truths; how is there stress in my mind, what is causing it, how could it be ended, how can I make that happen. Viewing things in terms of not being truly existent "from their own side" is quite different. It lacks the immediacy, the intuitive and emotional approach that is needed, I would think.

Regarding dependent origination, I am not quite sure how to present it. It seems to me that the twelve-factors comprise all of the Buddha's teachings on dependent origination. He repeatedly gives the twelve factors as a definition of dependent origination, and they are explained as the causal process behind the whole mass of stress. So if I am correct in this, the Buddha was only concerned with the dependent co-arising of stress. He was not at all concerned with ontology, only phenomenology. Even the Kaccaanagotta Sutta makes this point; to one who sees the world with right view (and is in the proper frame of mind), existence and non-existence would not occur; one categorizes experience rather in terms of the four noble truths. Relevant here is also sannya (naming khandha), called equivalent to papanca (making manifold, proliferation). We get raw incoming sense data, then fashion things out of it, and then cling to them. Whether or not the raw sense data corresponds to noumena is irrelevant. Mitsube (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

See below regarding the terminology of phenomena/noumena. I just think it's a bad idea to use that terminology on a talk page unrelated to Kant. Western philosophy has moved on quite a bit since Kant, and the dichotomy plays no part in modern Western philosophy or Buddhism either. I am not convinced that Buddha was concerned with either ontology or phenomenology; I believe his concern was about eliminating suffering. I would guess that any emphasis on mental constituents in Buddha's teaching is primarily because consciousness is a one of the three bases of suffering (along with ignorance and karma). (20040302 (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC))

'Phenomena' has to go

'phenomena' as a term is far too suggestive of Kantian ontologies/metaphysics, and, in light of early kantian misinterpretations of Pratītyasamutpāda, is more likely to reinforce that relationship than to be accepted as merely meaning something that appears to the mind, which itself has dangerous connotations of idealism. The last thing that we want is people coming away from the article thinking that Buddhism offers nothig more than some form of proto-Kantian doctrine, with implications of noumena or idealism (as I understand it, Buddha rejects the idealism/materialism debate). If Buddha talked in normal language, then so should we. I would also assert that the word 'object' isn't a good alternative as it tends to imply a Cartesian subject-object dichotomy which is just as likely to cause more confusion. 'Thing' is not so bad, except it is occasionally interpreted solely within the scope of form alone. 'Dharma' would only be understood by well taught Buddhists; at the moment, I prefer 'thing' as it is a commonly used word with benign connotations. --20040302 (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, non-technical words are best. "Things as they appear to the mind" or "things that appear to the mind" sounds good. Also we can't dismiss subject-object dichotomy out of hand, because it plays an important role on the path. Good edit to the intro. Mitsube (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder why you feel a need to qualify 'as they appear to the mind' to 'thing'; first of all, the mind is a dharma just like any other. Likewise, we are talking about the complete domain of every and any constituent of the entire material and mental world. As I said earlier, I do not think that Lord Buddha was interested in any idealism/materialism debate, and likewise I doubt he was interested in debates, philosophies or metaphysics concerning subject/object or phenomenon/noumenon dichotomies either. --20040302 (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about the mind being a dharma. Dharma often means object of mental consciousness. I think we are in agreement that the Buddha was not interested in philosophical debates. My point is that Nagarjuna was interested in that and so to equate his thinking with the Buddha's is not accurate. "As they appear to the mind" indicates a certain fuzziness, which is appropriate. Mitsube (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I would be very interested if you can find any reference in any of Lord Buddha's teachings that suggest that dharmas do not include the mind. My reading is that he does his best to say that there's nothing special about the mind - consciousness merely arises due to contact. Secondly, I do not consider fuzziness a desirable or appropriate thing when it comes to the teachings of Lord Buddha. Do you feel that it was his purpose to be fuzzy? I do not. --20040302 (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

on dependent origination

In the book, A Simple Path, His Holiness the Dalai Lama explains the concept of dependent origination quite well (among other things). I think that would be a very good reference for someone having the time to add such material to this article. --Neptunerover (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I also have great faith in His Holiness, but we must be able to demonstrate that the concept that he delineates belongs to Buddhism in general, and not only that, but that it is demonstrably so.--20040302 (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

My problem is that I tend not to delineate the differences between this truth and that truth. I forget that there are different streams of Buddhism who see themselves as different. I therefore may have misplaced my suggestion. My search for DO led me to this article where the information seemed overly complicated as far as the specifics I was after (I'm always after the simple path). I see that I'm probably looking in the wrong spot in Buddhism. Luckily my ignorance is not of the type to attempt rewriting an article because of something I perceive. Thanks. --Neptunerover (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Contributions made by User:202.63.53.199

I am not convinced that the contributions to Pratītyasamutpāda made by user:202.63.53.199 are any better than what was originally there. It is important to bear in mind that the article must represent all the different schools and traditions of Buddhism, and likewise it must be well cited.

The idea that Pratītyasamutpāda is a rephrasing of the idea that "Everything is interconnected" is somewhat reductive, and is not demonstrated by the quote that was taken from the S.N. Nidana Samyutta - which itself only asserts causality. Pratītyasamutpāda most normally refers to the construction of the Twelve Nidānas, which is generally undisputed by all schools.

The section itself is still in a very poor form. But random submissions don't equate to progress. (20040302 (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC))

(I have slightly modified my argument, but it still stands) 20040302 (talk)

Agreed. I've reverted the changes for now, but we should reflect on them and consider improving the section. /ninly^(talk) 22:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent addition by User:202.63.53.199

Everything is interconnected. Everything affects everything else. Everything that is, is because other things are. This is the teaching of panicca-samuppada. No beings or phenomena exist independently of other beings and phenomena. All beings and phenomena are caused to exist by other beings and phenomena. Further, the beings and phenomena thus caused to exist cause other beings and phenomena to exist. Things and beings perpetually arise and perpetually cease because other things and beings perpetually arise and perpetually cease. All this arising and being and ceasing go on in one vast field or nexus of beingness. Same arguments as above apply. (20040302 (talk))

Definition

Hello Mitsube I think we do need to look at these important sentences again.

Just so we know what we're talking about:

06:42, 22 February 2010 edit: Common to all schools of Buddhism, it is the name for the mechanism by which beings are tied to samsara.

03:21, 22 February 2010 edit: Common to all schools of Buddhism, it states that phenomena arise together in a mutually interdependent web of cause and effect. It commonly refers in particular to the mechanism by which beings are tied to samsara.

First, I think we can leave that it is common to all schools of Buddhism. This point is made when we say that it is a cardinal doctrine.

Secondly, I agree with your emphasis that it is a name, but I disagree with your acceptance of the previous version which states that it is the means 'by which beings are tied to samsara'.

Consider this: We can't say that the illusions of a magician are the means by which the audience is deluded - because then it implies that the magician must be deluded. We can say that the audience is deluded because they do not realize the nature of the illusion they are witnessing - as soon as a member of the audience realizes the true nature, they cease to be deluded.

As in the Sunyatasaptati 'Conceiving as real the things
That are taught by the Teacher to be ignorance
It is from this that the twelve links arise.'

Samsara operates according to the laws of cause and effect. But as to the observer, he is still able to realize the delusory nature of samsara. If this were not the case, there could be no liberation for beings.

Your edit has removed the crucial point that phenomena are dependent on one another for their arising. We can't simply talk about the soteriological implications of this doctrine. That's jumping too far ahead. We need to describe its nature.

"It is a name given by the historical Buddha to the arising of samsaric phenomena in mutual dependence on one another."

Note that I've used the indefinite article 'a' - there are many names for this truth.

I'm not sure I want to risk expanding on this further, if it is even necessary. Subsequent sections have a lot to say on the subject.

I hope you find my proposal acceptable and that it addresses your original concerns. I think it should float for any school of Buddhist thought. I appreciate all efforts to provide a better definition. Aero13792468 (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit and your thoughts, but I disagree. I have reverted it until we can come to a consensus. I explain why.

You disagree with It is the mechanism by which beings are tied to Samsara. I am assuming that is because you are unfamiliar with the idea that Pratītyasamutpāda is the name for the what is described in the Twelve Nidānas. We read on that article The Twelve Nidānas reveal the origins of phenomena, and the feedback loop of conditioning and causation that leads to suffering in current and future lives. Teachings on 12N make it clear that there are three underlying pins to the suffering of all beings: Karma, Consciousness, and Ignorance. We cannot cease the stream of consciousness, we cannot break the universal law of Karma, but we can destroy ignorance, and so therefore there is a Path (The 4th Noble Truth). This is why it is both meaningful and uncontentious to state that Pratītyasamutpāda is the mechanism which ties all beings to samsara.

You assert The arising of samsaric phenomena in mutual dependence on one another. What this does not state is the underlying message of causality, which is simple and straightforward. Even more important is that Pratītyasamutpāda is not about physics, it's about liberation. Buddha's interest is to liberate us from suffering - so he describes the mechanism by which we are tied to Samsara.

I am yet to find a classical source for the assertion that (outside of causality, and the 12N) Pratītyasamutpāda asserts the idea of the interconnectedness of all things, which is what you appear to be trying to get towards. You are not alone in thinking this. I am already involved in a discussion with User talk:81.106.115.153 (remember that that is a user page) on the issue.

Okay, now I want to point out why I am convinced that It is the mechanism by which beings are tied to Samsara is not only correct, but it is necessary. When we talk in general about Buddhism, it's going to be very difficult to reach any assertion which covers every school of Buddhism across every culture and timeline. Therefore, it's necessary for us to make early statements about these things which are completely uncontentious. The fact that the 12N are called Prat. is uncontentious, and there isn't any school that deny the 12N or Prat. (though the importance of such may be diminished). Also, the whole point if the 12N is that it shows how we are tied to samsara.

On a doctrinal note, we know that Lord Buddha was not interested in metaphysics or philosophy. He was interested in liberating us from suffering. (recall the metaphor of Buddha as a doctor on the battlefield pulling an arrow out of a wounded soldier). He was not interested in whether or not the world is all internconnected (and neither was Nagarjuna or the Madhaymaka movement - who do some pretty amazing things with demonstrating that Pratītyasamutpāda entails Sünyata, and vice versa). (20040302 (talk))

We need to be specific in our arguments. If you say it is a 'mechanism' you need to show that it is a mechanism. If you say it concerns 'beings' you need to show that it concerns beings. If you say 'tied' you need to show that 'beings' are 'tied' to 'samsara' by this 'mechanism'. I know it sounds ridiculous for those who haven't undergone formal study, but this is the only way to reach scholarly consensus on something of this profundity. Yes, the message may get a bit lost under this tower of pedantry, but it would not lose its meaning. I understand your concerns, but this is just one of those subjects in Buddhism that will either stay brief, cute and perhaps a little obscure, or it will expand into a monster. As you have aligned yourself to the wiki manifesto not to support a socio-political agenda, these are the only options available.

Now then. In the Nidanasamyutta, Buddha speaks about conditions. "Bhikkhus, I will teach you dependent origination and dependently arisen phenomena. Listen and attend closely, I will speak."

He then describes the former, ending with the words "Thus, bhikkhus, the actuality (tathatA) in this, the inerrancy (avitathatA), the nototherwiseness (anan~n~athatA), specific conditionality (idappaccayatA): this is called dependent origination" (The meanings of these are explained briefly in the commentary.) Buddha then goes on to describe the latter - dependently arisen phenomena. Buddha enumerates the twelve nidanas in both cases, but it is in the second that he specifically says "These, bhikkhus, are called the dependently arisen phenomena."

Here we see the difference between the principle and the gross manifestations. It is here that Ananda in the Mahanidana Sutta forgets himself, because he presumes that his understanding of the manifestations is enough.

"Do not say that, Ananda, do not say that! This dependent origination is profound and appears profound. It is through not understanding, not penetrating this doctrine that this generation has become like a tangled ball of string..."

Note that it is not dependent origination per se which binds, but a lack of understanding.

With this supporting argument I submit the same definition. Please revert only those changes you disagree with.Aero13792468 (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Aero, I am not going to revert the entire text, not because you are right, but because this has become a double revert, and therefore we need to reach a consensus before we consider editing it further. Instead, I will move the article back to something that neither of us find contentious. The part that is commented out is "in mutual dependence on one another". You and I both wish to arrive at consensus. We will not arrive at it by mud-flinging.

Regarding the methods of arriving at consensus, I suggest that you have a swift (re-)read of the policy documents here. Most especially Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Original Research and Wikipedia:Cite_sources#How_to_present_citations). I agree that I did not source my tex, but neither did you, and that's why we are here.

'With this supporting argument I submit the same definition. Please revert only those changes you disagree with.

Aero, I am not going to revert the entire text, not because you are right, but because this has become a revert-cycle (aka edit war), and therefore we need to reach a consensus before we consider editing it further. Instead, I will move the article back to something that neither of us find contentious. The part that is commented out is "in mutual dependence on one another". You and I both wish to arrive at consensus. We will not arrive at it by mud-flinging.

Regarding the methods of arriving at consensus, I suggest that you have a swift (re-)read of the policy documents here. Most especially Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Original Research and Wikipedia:Cite_sources#How_to_present_citations). I agree that I did not source my tex, but neither did you, and that's why we are discussing this. In general, as you may know, citation from sutra is not considered ideal as a source in Wikipedia (They are primary sources). I will endeavour to provide scholarly sources that state something reasonably meaningful for the opening paragraph.

My primary contention is that the phrase in mutual dependence on one another implies some sort of strong interconnectedness which is not found in the sutra that you cite. I have no disagreement with the idea of dependant arising indicating that all products arise from causes and conditions, but as far as I am aware:

• The idea that causes are dependant upon their effects belong only to Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka movement, and therefore does not pervade all of Buddhism.
• The idea that there is interdependance between my finger and alpha centauri is not established in Buddhism, but is too easily read from that phrase. (20040302 (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC))

You are saying that "...the sequence of factors should not be regarded as a linear causal process in which each preceding factor gives rise to its successor through the simple exercise of efficient causality. The relationship among the factors is always one of complex conditionality rather than linear causations as mutuality (when two factors mutually support each other), necessary antecedence (when on factor must be present for another to arise), distal efficiency (as when a remotely past volitional formation generates consciousness in a new life), etc." to quote Bhikkhu Bodhi. And I agree. But we need to state that there is a dependence. An inherent reciprocity is not, I concede, a teaching of the 1st turning of the wheel. Let's leave it out.

I've replaced 'samsaric' with the more contextually edifying descriptor 'conditioned'.

'Giving a name to' is what you do to babies. This doesn't seem to fit the pre-eminence Lord Buddha attaches to the doctrine when he says that 'whether there is an arising of Tathagatas or no arising of Tathagatas, that element still persists, the stableness of the Dhamma, the fixed course of the Dhamma, specific conditionality." 'A term used to describe' is perhaps more appropriate.

So: "It is a term used by the historical Buddha to describe the arising of conditioned phenomena in dependence on one another." Aero13792468 (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not happy. It's really amazing how it defies any attempt at reducing its scope. The 12 nidanas even appear as a gross overstatement of the atomistic 'when this exists, that comes to be, with the arises of this, that arises...'

The magic is that he doesn't say what 'this' or 'that' is. Its left completely open. As his teaching to Ananda shows, Lord Buddha recommended contemplating the 12 nidanas as a way to teach dependent origination by example. But the principle is always superior to the phenomena it rules. So in places we find 12 transcendent nidanas, or 10 nidanas, or we find cause and effect, or subject and object etc etc - whatever example best suits the context. For some beings there is no gestation, so the teaching on 12 nidanas would not help. If we look even further it appears the Dharmadhatu acts as a unary nidana, being the source (nidana) of all phenomena.

Anyway. I'm guessing for most Bhikkhus the doctrine of nidanas was the most appropriate way to present and give form to the teaching.

I did find the words of the Buddha Vipassi in DN,ii36 which read 'the conditioned nature of things, or dependent origination'.

So shall we start with "It is a term used by the Buddha to describe the conditioned nature of things." We can hardly go wrong with this. Here we can avoid the error of restricting the phenomenal domain of its influence.

Finally, you could still say that we should qualify the speaker as 'Buddha Vipassi' since it would not be right to take this primary source and extrapolate it as the words of Shakyamuni Buddha, since he was only quoting Buddha Vipassi. Well, quite honestly, I'm not going to do that. It would just be too obscure. This article is the work of the people who put it together, whatever sources we choose to use and however close we may get to the ideal/idol of NPOV. Aero13792468 (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologies if this was addressed above and I've missed it, but do we really need the "used by the [historical] Buddha" part at all? Whether or not this may be true (and I'm not addressing the Buddha's or scriptural historicity here), it's a term used much more broadly than that – it's used in much of Buddhist discourse, practice, and beyond. "It is a term used to describe the conditioned nature of things" seems to me sufficient and perhaps superior. Stuff about scriptural origin and provenance should go, to my mind, to a more specialized section ("Origin of the term" or some such).

I do like the "conditioned nature" phrasing, but it may require a bit more clarification. /ninly_(talk) 23:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The only value in us saying anything at all is in pointing out the dependent connections. So our use of the term is dependent on its origination from the Buddha. If you cut the scriptural authority off, it becomes like so much hot air. The statement would fall into the extreme of eternalism - "It is". Scriptural authority is as important in wiki or the OED as it is in Buddhist scholarship.Aero13792468 (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Scriptural authority is only important in a Buddhist context, which Wikipedia is not. Yet I would not accept "It is" either. Wikipedia's purpose here is to describe Buddhist ideas from a neutral point of view which, while not necessarily discounting scriptural authority, cannot subscribe to it, either. Essentially, for the purpose of an article like this one, it doesn't matter what the historical Buddha said – and anyway we cannot assert (according to WP's standards of verifiability) whether the sutras accurately reflect the historical Buddha's words. What is important is that this doctrine comes from such-and-such a sutra or sutras, which are accepted by Buddhist adherents as authoritative. /ninly_(talk) 15:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I am in general agreement with the changes. I have amended the actual article text to say "arise and disappear through processes of cause and effect", as this is what the reference is actually cited as saying, and I believe that arise together in a mutually interdependent web of cause and effect is an (WP:OR) interpretation that is not cognate with the phrase found in the text. I remain unconvinced that we should abandon the 12N in the first paragraph - I believe that there is a strong link between the two which should not be evaded, even if we agree (and I would) that the usage of Pratītyasamutpāda extends beyond the 12N in eg the Madhyamaka. (20040302 (talk) 08:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC))

Sorry but that doesn't follow. The citation explains that phenomena are interdependent (word present in citation) within a web of causation (phrase present in citation) in which they have no discrete independent identity. It is mutual interdependence which is behind the reality of non-identity (anatta) and in turn emptiness (sunyata). Your re-rendering does not reflect the citation's meaning at all and misses entirely the technical basis for the philosophical corollaries. 81.106.115.153 (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I hear you. I have amended the article only to remove the term "mutually" which is the specific word that I find contentious (and therefore OR) without scholarly citation, and it is not found in the citation given. (20040302 (talk))

This citation - I have some issues with it. Firstly, the speaker contradicts wikipedia rules of weasel words. 'Buddhist Ontology points out that' is meaningless. Who is 'Buddhist Ontology'? We're already losing definition in talking about 'Buddhist schools'. Does every school have a spokesperson? I don't think so. We should be citing individuals and works that cite individuals with as few translations in-between as possible.

The web / net nomenclature (also introduced in the text) is Mahayana only.

The "Wise human beings" do such and such 'voice of God' style of writing is not appropriate for wiki articles, and the wholesale replacement of major portions of text without reason I feel is unacceptable. I'm reverting all edits by 81.106.115.153. I'm sorry 20040302 but this means yours too. Please consider the edits that have transpired before adding your own.Aero13792468 (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "the usage of Pratītyasamutpāda extends beyond the 12N", of course. In the early texts the Buddha says that all things that have come to be are dependently originated. And the idea that the "cause" is dependent upon its "effect" is obvious; it's only a "cause" because there is an "effect". Mitsube (talk) 04:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Mitsube, thank-you for this. I have been fighting a few too many fires to give this the attention it warranted. I totally agree with your points. (20040302 (talk) 09:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC))

And in my opinion, the Heart Sutra only makes sense if you put quotation marks around most of the nouns in it. It is a warning against conceptual realism, like in the Vajira Sutta (and other places). In order to make sense of the Vajira Sutta one has to also read the Satta Sutta. Mitsube (talk) 09:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Unclear

Beeblebrox added an unclear template, and it's true – I think this article would be unhelpful at best and confusing/discouraging at worst to someone without knowledge of jargon and technicalities of Buddhist philosophy. Approaching this one word at a time, starting with the intro:

1. I think Mitsube's suggestion above might help. Start with English and a short section after the TOC break with information about the Sanskrit word and its form in other languages would go a long way toward clearing up the intro for more introductory material. This is not parallel with some other terms, but since there's little doubt what the translation (whichever we use) refers to, I think it's appropriate here to use one of the more common English translations.
2. The word samsaric is likely opaque to many readers, and I think it's unnecessary in this context. It may not be 100% accurate, but something like worldly or perceived might be better for the introduction. Intricacies can be worked out later.

Just initial thoughts to start a discussion. Please provide your own! /ninly_(talk) 21:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I took an initial stab at reorganizing the first two sections after the intro. I cut a lot, but tried to leave the references in appropriate places, as I'm not sure exactly what supported what. Please feel free to expand or restore text where you feel it necessary (or take out what isn't), but I thought way too much of the article was about 4NT and N8P, trying to "set up" a grand rhetorical introduction to the article's actual subject, which could probably be addressed a lot more directly. Again, just trying to be bold, while leaving us something to work with. Response or differing attempts are welcome. /ninly_(talk) 21:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Overview section

The overview needed a lot of rewriting. I have separated the earlier text of the Overview to "Theory" and will edit it later, and have given a detailed separate explanation of the principle from basics to show the relevance of this topic to everyone.

User:BalajiRamasubramanian 20:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Theory section

The following lines in this section don't make any clear sense

The illuminated mind, on the contrary, does not apply the conceptual categories of "being" and "non-being" to the things of experience. All things in the conventional reality arise, remain and cease in relation to other things

They reduce the articles's readability.

AutoInquiry (talk) 05:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Move

I think we should move this article to an English title. Dependent arising or dependent origination would be best, I think. Mitsube (talk) 09:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

My first impression is to agree with you. /ninly_(talk) 21:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I, too, agree. It should be moved to "Dependent Origination". 94.66.40.216 (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Any idea how to pronounce this word? — goethean ॐ 18:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There is consensus above to move it to "Dependent origination". Could someone do this? Mitsube (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure three editors constitute consensus, but unless someone objects in the next few days I'll give it a try, and we can gauge the reaction. I'm not sure about correct pronunciation, by the way. /ninly_(talk) 23:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn – no indications of desire for a move. /ninly_(talk) 04:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Pratītyasamutpāda → Dependent origination

• This is a move over redirect request, in order to use a common English name. The article intro has been recast to fit with the target name. /ninly_(talk) 16:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Leave it as Sanskrit or Pali, as it seems to be Buddhism-specific. English "dependent origination" is too general: the origins of very many things depend on other things, in religions and science and technology etc. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• I am *very* new to Buddhism, and came hunting for an explanation of the term "dependent arising" as used in the book "Buddhism For Busy People" by David Michie. On the one hand I guess I found the Sanskrit/Pali title a bit off-putting, but on the other I had no problem in finding the page via a Google search for "dependent arising". And since one of the first things I encountered was the fact that "dependent arising" is merely one of several possible English translation, I guess I'd vote to leave the Sanskrit/Pali title as-is since it's not too obscure and exposes the fact that this is not necessarily a simple topic. (That said, the initial paragraph contains the usual Wikipedia blast of newbie-discouraging technical names, so it might be worth cleaning *that* up a bit if the title stays as it is). Thomask0 (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge request

Does anyone have thoughts on merging Twelve Nidanas with this article? The IP user who suggested the merge has not provided any supporting discussion that I have found. There was discussion at Talk:Twelve Nidanas a few years back about keeping that article distinct, but I don't know what kind of consensus that notion had.

I don't feel very strongly either way (although I think both articles need improvement), but if it's not going to be discussed at all I will remove the merge-request tags.

Relatedly, I'm not too crazy about way the articles now suggest that most interpretations of the twelve nidanas are an essential misinterpretation of the Mahanidana Sutra. It's not an uninteresting suggestion, but it strikes me as a non-neutral POV, and the quoted reference looks a blog – not a scholarly or other reliable source. The same material is contained, pretty much verbatim, at Twelve Nidanas. /ninly_(talk) 23:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If Buddha said "Now monks, I will teach you dependent origination' and then the same for the nidanas, then I say go for it. Aero13792468 (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You're correct that a better published source should trump a blog... but if there is no better published source available, you should give due consideration to a blog that so extensively proves its case through primary sources (and, indeed, enough secondary sources to keep you entertained). In terms of the huge bulk of material in these articles (to be merged) that is now duly flagged as having no cited source at all (and needing one!) it certainly seems unreasonable to marginalize a semi-published source of this kind. While you're correct to complain that a blog isn't a "real" publication... the other "interpretations" being quoted here often do not come from "real" publications, either (certainly not scholarly ones). Ninly, You had a look at this article, raised in the wikipedia articles mentioned (and now slated to merge), but did you take the time to read it? http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2011/01/27/unpopular-facts-about-one-of-buddhist-philosophys-most-popular-doctrines/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.82.253.185 (talk) 05:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want your work to be taken seriously you need to publish it in a peer-reviewed journal. Once someone of standing gives their opinion on your work, then the Wikipedia editors will see that its not just a lot of nonsense, and the controversies could be added to the page. Registering with Wikipedia will also help your case. Aero13792468 (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? Seriously, five seconds of google-work reveals that the same author has got peer-reviewed publications, although this one the article links to isn't one of them: https://profiles.google.com/118222702679452306115/about

(The problem with peer-reviewed publications is that they're harder to read than material that's dumped onto the internet for free download... perhaps that's why Wikipedia articles are so rarely influenced by them?)

Seriously? Who can take this wikipedia article seriously? Looks like both the articles on Pratītyasamutpāda and the separate one on Twelve Nidānas (that is separate for no clear reason) have been revised to minimize this source. Like it or not, the source is really clearly based on primary source texts, whereas most of the material in this Wikipedia artice isn't.

Seriously? If you go through and delete all of the material that is now flagged as either original research or citation needed think about how little would remain of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.32.233.111 (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the Eisel Mazard article is a valid source. However, there is a very good reason for keeping the two articles separate: in Mahayana traditions the scope of pratītyasamutpāda encompasses more than just the 12 nidanas. It held to be the etiology of all of the phenomenal world, at the level of samvrti. Mazard is discussing only the Pali sources, so he does not address this.Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

As Sylvain states, the scope of pratītyasamutpāda is far greater than merely the 12 nidanas. The wisdom focus of Gelukpa, Sakya and most Kargyu academic study and literature concerns Madhyamaka and is (and has been for at least 700 years, with a vast corpus of associated literature) the examination of pratītyasamutpāda as a proof of establishing emptiness, based on the commentarial works of Candrakirti et al. Moreover the distinctions between (and development of) dependant arising and dependant designation would be hard to make if we conflated pratītyasamutpāda with the 12 nidana alone. OTOH I certainly agree that the 12 Nidana interpretation of pratītyasamutpāda is indeed unnecessarily redundant. If this article were to become a disambiguation page, (which is more or less what it is, with additional materials), then the interplay between the Pali and later Mahayana commentaries would be less prominent. One of the challenges for the editors of the Mahayana sections is the immense amount of literature available that discusses such areas as Pratītyasamutpāda and the many historical and deeply complex debates that have engaged Tibetan scholars for centuries. (20040302 (talk))

I also agree with Sylvain. These are definitely separate topics. The twelve nidanas are one method for understanding interdependent arising (pratītyasamutpāda) but there are other methods as well, such as contemplating on the four extremes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorje108 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

For further clarification, the Dalai Lama (Jeffrey Hopkins translator) identifies different levels of understanding of dependent arising:

Thus, there is one level of dependent-arising that is concerned with causality, in this case the twelve branches, or links, of dependent arising of life in cyclic existence... Then there is a second, deeper level of dependent arising that applies to all objects; this is the establishment of phenomena dependent upon their parts... There is a third, even deeper level, which is the fact that phenomena are merely imputed by terms and conceptuality in dependence upon their basis of imputation. (Dalai Lama (1992). The Meaning of Life, translated and edited by Jeffrey Hopkins. Wisdom. p. 36)

I think it is clear from all of the above comments that the merge request should be removed from the Twelve nidanas article. _ Dorje108 (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Note on terminology

I've noticed that some Theravada-based texts use the term paticcasamuppāda to refer specifically to the twelve nidanas. For example:

• Walpola Sri Rahula (1974). What the Buddha Taught. Grove Press. Kindle Location 791.

  Even this ‘thirst’, taṇhā, which is considered as the cause or origin of dukkha, depends for its arising (samudaya) on something else, which is sensation (vedanā), and sensation arises depending on contact (phassa), and so on and so forth goes on the circle which is known as Conditioned Genesis (Paṭicca-samuppāda)...

• Sucitto, Ajahn (2010-09-14). Turning the Wheel of Truth: Commentary on the Buddha's First Teaching (p. 65). Shambhala Publications. Kindle Edition.

  The sequence of dependent origination works in two directions: when ignorance arises and we act on that, suffering follows; when ignorance ends, so does craving and every kind of inner pain, shadow, and stress.

In contrast, in the Mahayana tradition, the term typically refers to the broader topic of interdependence and emptiness. I assume that the term can also be used in a broader context in the Theravada tradition, as well. But in any case, some clarification of this terminology will be needed within both articles (i.e. Pratītyasamutpāda and Twelve nidanas). - Dorje108 (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Double table

I removed the second table, because it contains the same chain as the larger table. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I put back the short table, and moved the long table to the Twelve Nidanas article. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Dzogchen section

To clarify this section, note that the following quote is from the root verses of the Dzogchen text "Gold Refined from Ore," by Mañjusrimitra, as translated in the book Primordial Experience: An Introduction to rDzogs-chen Meditation (pp. 60-61):

[One says], "all these (configurations of events and meanings) come about and disappear according to dependent origination." But, like a burnt seed, since a nonexistent (result) does not come about from a nonexistent (cause), cause and effect do not exist.

Being obsessed with entities, one's experiencing itself [sems, citta], which discriminates each cause and effect, appears as if it were cause and condition.

The following quote is from The Crystal and the Way of Light (p. 101):

What appears as a world of apparently external phenomena is the energy of the individual him or herself, as perceived by his or her senses. In truth, there is nothing external to, or separate from, the individual, and all that manifests in the individual's field of experience is a continuum, fundamentally free from duality and multiplicity: this is precisely the `Great Perfection' that is discovered in Dzogchen. --- Chogyal Namkhai Norbu. The Crystal and the Way of Light: Sutra, Tantra and Dzogchen (p. 101). Kindle Edition.

I'll comment more on this later. - Dorje108 (talk) 23:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Quotes, references and sources corrected. --Klimov (talk) 21:12, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Klimov. That you for the correction. However there are still some problems with using the above quotes.

The first quote (from the book "Primordial Experience") is an original text, or what is considered a primary source in Wikipedia. Use of a primary source is discouraged unless it is being used to support content from a reliable secondary source. Drawing conclusions from a primary source is considered to be "original research"--since different editor often draw different conclusions from the same source.

he second quote (from "The Crystal and the Way of Light") does not directly address the view of dependent arising within Dzogchen.

For the reasons stated above, I am going to re-write the section using two sources (Anyen Rinpoche and Sogyal Rinpoche) that directly address the issue. -- Regards, Dorje108 (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dorje108,

The following is from the policy:

A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. Wikipedia:No_original_research

So, your interpretation of the policy seems to be not precisely relevant. It seems that much further work is needed on the Dzogchen subsection.--Klimov (talk) 12:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

More to the point. Dorje108 has implicitly distinguished the DzongChen view from the Madhyamaka, which is particularly strange. Teachers such as the HH 14th Dalai Lama and Chogyal Namkhai Norbu have strongly asserted many times that the emptiness (and Pratītyasamutpāda) view in Dzog chen is not distinct from Madhyamaka. The emphasis in DC is special, but this is not relevant here as it's not a divergence of view, but of approach. (20040302 (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)).

Specific sources would be helpful. It is also my understanding that the view in Dzogchen is considered to be the same as that of Madhyamaka (Prasingika), but I haven't found relevant sources yet. Dorje108 (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Please rely on academic sources

Please rely on academic sources rather than popular teachers.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that academics know more than Buddhist teachers who are leading scholars in the field? The Dalai Lama and Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh are distinguished scholars. The fact that they are out there engaged in practice is a fundamental of Buddhism. It's not a body of knowledge, much less an academic discipline. It is a practice. For this reason, its leading scholars are not to be found within western institutions.

You are perhaps bringing a western value system that privileges knowing [about] things into an inappropriate area.

Rconroy (talk) 07:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: is not "suggesting" that "academics know more than Buddhist teachers"; he's reminding editors of a Wiki-policy: academic sources are to be preferred. There probably are more problems to this article. Not only poor sourcing, but also [[W{:QUOTEFARM]], and I expect to find some WP:SYNTHESIS as well. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Metaphysics?

Hi all, thank you for the great work you are doing on these Buddhist articles.

The term "metaphysics" makes me pause and I'd like to hear your thoughts:

It is fundamental to any Buddhist outlook ... that one of the root delusions that afflicts all non-buddhas is the innate tendency to reify. But that tendency is raised to high art by metaphysics. Nagarjuna intends his attack to strike both at the prereflective delusion and at its more sophisticated philosophical counterpart. But in doing so, he is not denying, and is in fact explaining, the nonmetaphysical part of our commonsense framework -- that part that enables us to act and to communicate and, especially for Nagarjuna, to practice the Buddhist path." - Jay Garfield, "The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way," page 314.

Kalupahana (difficult read, more scholastic!) also stresses Nagarjuna's empirical approach -- "essence is nowhere evident, cannot be located, etc." -- and I don't think we would call empiricism metaphysical, would we?

Maybe the problem is that "metaphysical" has multiple meanings,

http://www.websyte.com/alan/metamul.htm

and I am reacting from the more common interpretation which makes your sentence suggest that Buddhism is new-agey or magical. But everything I read in these Nagarjuna studies emphasizes that dependent co-origination (aka emptiness) was the primary tool in undoing existing metaphysical notions of inherent existence -- reification -- in all its myriad forms.

Anyway, that's what struck me on an initial read. Dav1d 20:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Dictionary.com defines metaphysics as follows:

1. the branch of philosophy that treats of first principles, includes ontology and cosmology, and is intimately connected with epistemology.

2. philosophy, esp. in its more abstruse branches.

3. the underlying theoretical principles of a subject or field of inquiry.

The quote from Garfield indicates that Nagarjuna has issues with metaphysics that indulges the tendency to reify. Garfield also states:

"We are now in a position to characterize explicitly the emptiness of causation, and the way this doctrine is identical with the doctrine of dependent origination from conditions adumbrated in this chapter. It is best to offer this characterization using the via media formulation most consonant with Nagarjuna's philosophical school. We will locate the doctrine as a midpoint between two extreme philosophical views. That midpoint is achieved by taking conventions as the foundation of ontology. . . . And so the claim that dependent arising itself is empty will turn out to be the claim that the emptiness of phenomena is itself empty - the central and deepest claim of Madhyamika ontology." Ontology is one of the principle concerns of metaphysics by definition. It need not be positivist. Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I also believe that the word is incorrect, but it is sourced. Mitsube (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Anything can be sourced on Wikipedia. The question then shifts to whether the material is relevant, accurate, timely, and reliable/authoritative. Sylvain1972 has not explained this addition to the lead section or how it is supposed to summarize the currrent article. I have asked this user to do so multiple times, and I see nothing but quotes and personal interpretations and observations. If I may ask again, Sylvain1972, could you please explain, using your own words, why you added this material to the lead section, and what part of the article it summarizes? Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Just by chance today I was reading "Buddhists, Brahmans, and Belief," by Dan Arnold, a Buddhologist at Columbia University, and discovered the book has a subchapter called "MMK 24.18 and Chandrakirti's Metaphysical Claim: 'Relative Indication' as an Example of Dependent Origination." Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Chandrakirti's interpretations of Nagarjuna's interpretations of the Buddha may be dominant in Tibetan Buddhism, but that's all one can say about that. Mitsube (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Great. Now can you, in your own words, explain why you added it to the lead? What part of the article does it summarize? I think you know very well that what you are doing is extremely controversial, and I have questioned your motivations for doing it. What are you trying to achieve with your addition? The source does not even say the doctrine is metaphysical; It proposes the idea that it could be depending on how one defines the term, metaphysics. Why is this in the article? From where I stand, it appears you are engaging in a subtle form of POV pushing. Viriditas (talk) 11:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the material again. At least three editors in this section have expressed legitimate concerns. Please do not add it back into the article without obtaining consensus first. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 12:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Since the material was added back in again without discussion, I have now tagged the article. To recap:

1. The lead section is a summary of the main points of the article. It is not the place to introduce new information.

2. The sources used to support the addition of "metaphysics" to the lead section do not actually support this material, and appear to be the opinion and the interpretation of the editor who is adding them. If they were to appear in the lead section, they would have to reflect some kind of treatment in the body of the article.

3. Sylvain1972's interpretation of the Garfield material is just that, an interpretation, and that is essentially original research. Viriditas (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

4. I have yet to see a single source that supports the statement "it is an important part of metaphysics" nor do I see how or why that statement is relevant to the lead section or to this topic. Viriditas (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing controversial about describing pratītyasamutpāda as Buddhist metaphysics. I've provided three sources already, and will now add another. As I mentioned above, "Buddhists, Brahmans, and Belief," by Dan Arnold, a Buddhologist at Columbia University, has a subchapter called "MMK 24.18 and Chandrakirti's Metaphysical Claim: 'Relative Indication' as an Example of Dependent Origination." As the title would suggest, he uses the term metaphysics throughout to discuss Chandrakirti (and Nagarjuna's) treatment of dependent origination. This is mainstream scholarship by a leading scholar. I'm restoring the phrase.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It is extremely controversial, as pratītyasamutpāda is not considered a metaphysical concept in Buddhism. Please stop trying to force your own POV into the article. Furthermore, the sources do not say what you think they say, and you are interpreting them and cherry picking them to promote a particular POV. Use the talk page to persuade and convince others, and try to form a consensus. That is how Wikipedia works. It does not work through edit warring and POV pushing. If you continue to do this, this issue will be escalated to the highest levels. Viriditas (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not my personal POV. As the source I just included indicates, this is a view held my the most respected Buddhologists. As Arnold writes, "What is significant for the reconstruction of Chandrakirti's as transcendental arguments is that, understood as a properly metaphysical claim, this pint is such as to require his rejection of Dignana's demands for a specifically a posterori justification. That is, Candrakirti's characteristically Madhyamika claim is in the end (and most bascially) a claim simply to the effect that things exist only in relationship." It is not necessary to form consensus to add material that is clearly and properly cited, as the example I have just provided is. Even if the prior citations were not definitive (although I would argue that they are sufficient), the example I have just provided is.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

What you have writtten above is simply not true and I cannot imagine what is behind your reasoning. Sylvain1972, you were asked in three separate instances to explain your edits. You failed to do so. In three separate instances you have pushed a POV into this article without consensus insisting on promoting a POV that is not supported by the sources you cite. I must ask you again, why are you doing this? What is your motivation? What idea are you trying to get across? I have repeatedly explained to you that unique concepts do not go into the lead section. The lead section is a summary of the article. It is not for people to edit war their chosen POV and use as a trophy case. I simply do not understand what could possibly motivate you to do this. What can it possibly be? How can I support your position when you refuse to explain it? How can I support your proposal when you haven't proposed it? How can you possibly expect me or anyone else to support your additions when you refuse to discuss them? Saying this is "mainstream scholarship by a leading scholar" does not lend any support or weight to your non-existent argument, and the sources do not support your claims. Please take a break from edit warring and understand that in order for your material to stay in the article, you need to work with other editors and form a consensus. Currently, Mitsube and I are in agreement that the metaphysical concept does not belong in the lead section. In my opinion, if you were to actually develop a well sourced section that explored this concept, it just might find its way into the lead section. But right now, I do not understand why you are doing this or what is motivating you. It's almost like you lack the ability to control your behavior. Can you please explain? Inclusion is not determined merely because you think you are right. You have to work with other editors. This is not Sylvain-pedia. This is Wikipedia, and you must not continue to push your POV here. Viriditas (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

As the record here indicates, I have consistently supported my edits on the talk page here with reasoned explanations. I just provided an additional valid source, with a quotation from it.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"Views held my the most respected Buddhologists" is not a valid argument. It is your opinion that we must accept what you are saying because you claim the highest authorities in Buddhism are saying it is true. Not only is that completely false to begin with, but it directly contradicts the Buddha himself, which is even more ironic. I don't know what to make of you, Sylvain1972, but perhaps ignoring you for a bit is the best answer, as I cannot believe a word you say right now. Pratītyasamutpāda is most certainly not a metaphysical concept, and I challenge you to prove otherwise. Forcing your opinion into the article against the protestations of others is not a valid "proof". Viriditas (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have provided a new source, the Arnold book, and described it clearly with a quotation. You don't have to take my opinion on the matter, because you have the source that I have provided which clearly supports the edit. Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You gave an incomplete quote, leaving out the fact that the author was defining the word "metaphysical" in a way specific to his paper: [2]. Also in your new attempt you are ignoring my statement above, that a metaphysical claim of Chandrakirti (who misinterprets Nagarjuna, see for example Lusthaus' Buddhist Phenomenology, page 272, also extensive discussion in Kalupahana's work on the MMK) is not definitive. To top it off you are now ignoring the opposing reliable source I found, which states that the idea is not metaphysical. Now that these new facts have come to light, the word does not belong in the introduction. Mitsube (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not see a new source from you, as you did not introduce it in talk. As far as Chandrakirti goes, it is Lusthaus who is very much in the minority opinion on this and other issues. Chandrakirti is the definitive interpreter of Nagarjuna in the Tibetan tradition, which is the only extant tradition that still studies his work. As your source indicates, pratītyasamutpāda in not metaphysics "in the sense that it does not affirm or deny some super-sensible entities or realities"--but that is a very specific definition of metaphysics. Mirriam-Webster defines metaphysics as "a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology." This fits the description of pratītyasamutpāda perfectly. It is true that metaphysics is sometimes defined otherwise, but those other definitions are not normative. I believe the evidence supports a qualified use of the term in the introduction, with a section added to disambiguate the issue based on various sources. That seems to me a reasonable compromise. Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not true that Lusthaus is in the minority opinion on this in scholarship (or on anything else). Lusthaus and Kalupahana agree, and though you can probably find Garfield supporting the dogmatic Tibetan line. In any case, Tibetan Buddhists form a small minority of Buddhists. It is not true that the Tibetan tradition is the only extant one which studies Nagarjuna's work. There are East Asian commentaries as well. Regarding your own original research linking a definition of metaphysics to the concept, that is your own research. My opinion is that there cannot properly be an ontology or a metaphysics if there is no acceptance of a concept of "being." The problem seems to be that the word "metaphysics" comes from the context of Western philosophy, and its appropriateness in the context of dependent arising is disputed. While I agree that a section to disambiguate the issue would not be inappropriate, as it stands now I do not believe that the introduction should link the terms "dependent arising" and "metaphysics." Mitsube (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Lusthaus is of the minority opinion in saying that Chandrakirti distorts Nagarjuna. I have not submitted original research, I submitted a perfectly legitimate source for my claim - the Arnold book. I have provided you with the word for word definition of metaphysics straight from the dictionary - if you choose to define it differently, then you are the one submitting original research. You have the Arnold reference and quote, and I could certainly provide more, and this merits the inclusion of this view in the article.

A second fine source for this view is "Early Buddhist Metaphysics: Making Of A Philosophical Tradition" by Noa Ronkin. As the title suggests, Ronkin considers pratītyasamutpāda a metaphysics. I can provide ample support from this book as well. Ronkin is an Oxford-educated scholar who teaches Buddhist Studies at Stamford University. Her background is in Theravada Buddhism, so it demonstrates that this view is not limited to Tibetans. Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ronkin's book is about Theravadin Abhidhamma, which could accurately be called metaphysical, but which is also specific to one sect and does not fall under "dependent arising" as laid out in the nikayas/agamas. About Lusthaus the page I mentioned contains only a repudiation of Chandrakirti's interpretation of one line; Chandrakirti gives an absolutist interpretation of it. Lusthaus says that he won't take a stand on Kalupahana's repudiation of Chandrakirti as a whole. Mitsube (talk) 05:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The Abhidhamma does indeed discuss "dependent arising" as laid out in the sutras--our last conversation was about precisely that. The Sarvastivadin Abhidharma, which was inherited by the Tibetan tradition, treats it similarly. For both of these schools the Abhidharma is considered the primary interpretation of the sutric materials it covers. In any case, I have presented ample evidence that many scholars consider pratītyasamutpāda a metaphysics.Sylvain1972 (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:LEAD does not require everything in the lead to be elaborated later in the article. "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic." I don't understand why this mention of metaphysics has generated such heat here, but Sylvain1972 has been working reasonably here, and the personal attacks directed against him are unmerited. Bertport (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, "some argue" does not constitute weasel words when citations are provided that show who argues. In that case, "some argue" serves a useful function of qualifying the statement with the implication that not everyone would argue the same way. Bertport (talk) 01:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

As I have indicated in my edit summaries, if the word were an accurate description it would be appropriate in the lead regardless of the body, but it is not appropriate. Mitsube (talk) 05:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have presented evidence that a number of scholars disagree with you on this point.Sylvain1972 (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

---

The mention of metaphysics is heated here because people normally consider metaphysics to refer to something beyond the normal direct experience (as in the literal meaning of metaphysics - "beyond physics"). If by "metaphysics" one means to think of supernatural, speculation of being, non-being, absolutism, and other cosmological, theological and philosophical positions, that would not apply to Paticcasamuppada.

But metaphysics also deals with the question of determinism and free will. Are all phenomena a result of a causal chain of events or other phenomena, perfectly deterministic without any interference from anything at all? If the universe is deterministic, (based on natural laws without bending) then do beings have a free will to act as they wish at different moments, or is their will also a causal consequence of other natural phenomena? This question has puzzled philosophers for ever and while it may seem confusing, it is quite possible for both free will and deterministic laws to exist at the same time, in the framework of paticcasamuppada.

Paticcasamuppada cannot be considered to be entirely empirical, because it is something that is not known by secondary means (such as external measuring instruments), but only by the mind. In other words, if empirical knowledge can consist of knowledge directly known through the mind as a primary source of knowledge, paticcasamuppada can be considered a set of empirical laws governing the nature of dukkha. User:BalajiRamasubramanian 20:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

---

In response to BalajiRamasubramanian regarding paticcasamuppada allowing determinism and free will to exist at the same time... what exactly do you mean by free will? Technically, to most folks, free will means the ability of an agent which exists (at least a bit) apart from conditions, to make decisions not based (entirely) upon conditions. Which is logically impossible. Paticcasamuppada shows that there is no such thing as an independent agent, and thus there is no such thing as free will. Nihilists are illogical folks who think that because there is no free will, nothing you do matters. In fact, a bit of contemplation will make it clear that the opposite is the case: because there is no free will (i.e. everything happens due to conditions), what "you" do now is quite important, as it in part determines future conditions. Thus the path to nibbana exists within samsara, and nibbana itself is nothing more than samsara itself without self-view/center/background/reification.

Joelrosenblum (talk) 06:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pratītyasamutpāda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100709231112/http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/whatbudbeliev/297.htm to http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/whatbudbeliev/297.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Pratītyasamutpāda - Etymology

Google Books search on Pratitya etymology gives

1. Jeffrey Hopkins, Emptiness Yoga: The Tibetan Middle Way
2. Jin Y. Park, Buddhisms and Deconstructions: "For the etymology of pratitya-samutpada, see Jeffrey Hopkins, Meditation on Emptiness (Boston: Wisdom Publications, 1996), 161-173"
3. Jeffrey Hopkins, Meditation on Emptiness

Looks promising. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Pratītyasamutpāda(Sinhala-පටිච්ච සමුප්පාදය) in short, is law of Determinism ( Psychic Determinism). everything that happens in the world happens only when the necessary conditions are present. The word patichcha samupada means that when the conditions are present it comes to be. when the conditions are absent it ceases to be. ,in physics it is known as cause-and-effect. The things are determined by prier state.--RsEkanayake 04:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Lead Paragraphs

The leading section was not worded well enough to present the subject appropriately. It was ambiguous and confusing, making it seem to be an obscure concept or theory in Buddhism. It is important to specifically mention what Dependent origination does not mean, precisely because different people interpret it in entirely different ways, confusing the subject beyond its real scope. For a philosophy like Buddhism, it is necessary to have a clear, precise explanation of doctrine, that is rigorously consistent with the Buddha's teachings.

It is incorrect to assume that all theories regarding Paticcasamuppada can be given equal authenticity - they are all theories about something specific that the Buddha taught. It is therefore essential to correctly represent the Buddha's explanation according to the Pali Canon and Theravada first, and then give alternative presentations and speculations by later Buddhists like the Mahayana and Tibetan Buddhists.

The lead paragraph had references to the question of whether it can considered Buddhist metaphysics or not, but does not present the scholarly opinions along with the primary sources on Buddhism. Scholarly opinions count, but only as a secondary means to understand the context of the primary sources, and since different scholars can have differing opinions on the same matter, it is imperative to understand the import of the primary source first and then the scholarly opinions.

That said, the question of metaphysics is relevant to this topic in so far as paticcasamuppada resolves a dichotomy between determinism and free will, (see articles on Compatibilism, Libertarianism (metaphysics)). But it is clearly not a speculative philosophy of beings, supernatural, cosmology or complex theories of self, life, purpose etc. So this distinction needs to be made clear to the readers.

Above all, the lead paragraph should mention the relevance of this topic to Buddhists and any other readers alike.

User:BalajiRamasubramanian 20:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

== Conditioned Causality, not Newtonian Causality ==

I have to agree with BalajiRamasubramanian, this article is a mess and does not really explain what dependent origination means. In fact it seems to obscure the meaning more than anything. If we simply leave it at "everything happens due to conditions," to me that is quite clear and unarguable. But then we have this section trying to contrast D.O. with Newtonian causality, yet no contrast is actually made, only an inferred contrast. I tracked down the source cited (by Rupert Gethin) and Gethin seems like one of these free-will apologists who think that D.O. is some type of middle ground between determinism and free will. On p.154-155 of "The Foundations of Buddhism," Gethin states: ""Buddhist thought sees causal conditioning as involving the interaction of certain fixed or determined effects and certain free or unpredictable causes."

Where does Gethin get this notion that D.O. (aka Buddhist thought) involves an interaction between determined effects and free/"unpredictable" causes? Seems he just pulled that out of thin air. And what he is clearly alluding to but does not state directly (in his example of the killer who can still decide not to kill), is that there is some type of free will beyond conditioning. This type of illogical reasoning violates the D.O. principle of everything happening due to conditions.

The reason Buddha did not specifically reject free will is because it would have led to nihilism. Not because he actually believed free will fit into D.O. When I tell people everything happens due to conditions, the first thing they say is "so then nothing matters! I could just do anything!" That's nihilism. It results from them thinking that "Everything happens due to random noise" rather than what I actually said which is "Everything happens due to conditions." Then I have to explain to them that if everything happens due to conditions, that means what they do matters... in the sense that it conditions future conditions. It's all just common sense that everyone already basically understands in a functional, practical way. We know we have to work out to get stronger. We know that we have to put our pants on for them to be on. What we do not understand (or do not understand deeply) is that our desires come from prior conditions, and thus our desires are never independent aka free aka free will.

Then, once people realize that free will is illogical (and yes, even compatibilist philosophers like Dennett will tell you this), they get stuck in the idea that "they" are trapped as a witness in this automatic universe. From there, people begin to question what this witness actually is. Where is it really located and what are its boundaries? Feels like it's behind the eyes in the head, but when investigated it can't be pinpointed. Buddha explained that this sense of a witness is a "knot" of perceptions... that's all. Just beginningless ignorance or binding up of perceptions into this knot. When the knot is untied, as in the Bahiya sutta, "in the seen, there will be only the seen" and "in the heard, there will be only the heard" etc. Compare this to Advaita vedanta where the knot is amplified such that everything in the universe becomes One Mind or True Self.

I don't want to go on and on. I'd like to edit this article to make it clear from the beginning, but I have a feeling whatever edit I do will be reversed quickly. It's true that there is a ton of confusion even within Buddhism today on what D.O. is about, what free will has to do with it, and so forth, and it's sad that this article must(?) represent the confusion rather than attempt to cut thru it.

Am I wrong to think I should not edit it? I want to entirely remove this ridiculous, unsupported section about Newtonian determinism being different from D.O., first of all. Any objections?

Joelrosenblum (talk) 05:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The section is completely referenced. You may not agree with the conclusions, but Wikipedia is about verifiability and not truth. Your argument seems to boil down to a great deal of original research which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Dharmalion76 (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Merge Twelve Nidānas into Pratītyasamutpāda: substantial overlap. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support, per above. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment, you are right, there is substantial overlap. It may be possible to merge these articles but 12 nidanas may be nevertheless a notable topic (?). About 130 readers per day search for 12 nidanas. JimRenge (talk) 19:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@JimRenge: would a redirect suffice, for those who search for 12 nidanasa? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support, avoid WP:CFork issues. I would recommend keeping this article, merge in all the recent additional improvements by JJ in the 12N article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support, the Twelve Nidānas are essentially a part of Pratītyasamutpāda, and there isn't really a benefit to having a "main" page on the Twelve Nidānas since it currently all fits within Pratītyasamutpāda without the page being excessively large anyways. Wikiman5676 (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fractured English

While the original source material may use terms that strictly transcribe into the English terms used, in English it Make No Sense. It's like some translator has just plucked semi-random words out of a dictionary and thought - meh, that'll do, but that results in the translation just being meaningless sounds, it becomes a cargo cult. You can't understand concepts if the words used to describe them make no sense. There must be better translations of the concepts used, you talk about bus arrivals not bus arrivings, etc. In proofreading I have to fight my brain and fingers that from long practice slip effortlessly into well-formed English and almost feel pain forcing them to deliberately mangle their writings. 208.127.199.222 (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

This is kind of a mess

The organization and presentation of the content in this article is a big mess. The article repeats the same content various times. It has two sections on "interpretation" where some of the same information is repeated differently. The section which talks about the development of the 12 links repeats content that appears in other parts of the article including the leade (the idea that the 12 links is a composite list is repeated about three times in the entire article). The addition of the tables throughout the section doesn't seem to add much, as the basic ideas that are being communicated can easily just be listed in the prose itself (or indeed, in the previous section which mentions the various alternative lists of dependent origination). Also the way the tables are organized can be somewhat confusing. There are not enough citations from traditional sources as well, such as the early Buddhist texts and the classic Mahayana philosophers and the Mahavibhasa etc. There also does not seem to be a clear discussion of how there is a general principle of dependent origination, and various individual lists in the early sources. Indeed, there's a bit too much of a focus on the 12 linked list and not enough on the general principle. There are just some of the issues I see from a cursory reading. I will be trying to improve this article in the coming weeks. Hopefully I can make it a more reasonable explanation of what Dependent origination means. ☸Javierfv1212☸

Totally disagree that it is a mess. I put a lot of time and effort in explaining a topic that has a complicared history, so I'd appreciate it to have some discussion when trying to change the contents. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, this wasn't meant as a personal attack, just my observation at the time (perhaps i should not have said big mess, but parts of it were not that easy to understand). In the past few days I've been making some pretty substantive edits and reworking the content in my sandbox. I just made a bold edit and changed a lot of the article as well as adding a lot of new content. See below for what was changed. Let me know what you have issues with, I haven't removed any information, just tightened up the exposition of what was there in a new way.☸Javierfv1212☸ 03:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

While I agree that the article could be improved to tighten up the exposition, calling it a "big mess" seems excessive. I agree that it needs to be beefed up regarding the general principle of dependent origination and that this needs to come before all of the historical and interpretative detail. Teishin (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

If necessary, we can split the article and move a lot of info to Twelve nidanas. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

List of major changes in recent bold edit

The following changes have been made in my attempt to rework this article into a better version.

• A section has been added which includes passages from ebts that focuses on the general principle of DO.
• Further alternative lists of DO (both forward and transcendental) have been added.
• The section on DO nidana lists and DO alternative lists has been edited so as to be an exposition of the basic information and their sources. I have moved most passages of interpretative and historicist nature and said passages on the ideas of certain scholars on historical development have been moved to one section of the article. I think it makes much more sense to have a basic exposition of the facts (what are the major lists, which are their sources) in one section and place the historical interpretations in another section (including proposed ur-lists or "ancestor versions" by certain scholars, as such I have removed that from the main list of 12 links).
• Transcendental DO now gets it own major section, as these passages are clearly their own unique presentations of DO.
• "Development of the twelve nidanas" section has been cleaned up. I removed all the tables that were in there and either explained the main ideas in the prose or placed the actual sutta passages in the section on the various alternative lists of DO (indeed, the tables were repeating a lot of the information already contained there so they are not necessary and they were also not that easy to grasp).
• Furthermore, there was a "Comparison of lists" table that I also removed, as it further repeated information already contained in the article. It was also arbitrarily comparing different kinds of lists given by different sources and scholars (the same 12 link chain, a vedic list, a "reconstructed ancestor" given by Bucknell, Boisvert's mapping of the skandhas on the 12 links etc.) In my opinion, this table adds to the confusion in this article, since it is not clear where these lists are coming from and does not specify that many of these mappings are the speculations of one scholar or another. It is best to just discuss each scholar's thesis under their own sub-section and leave it at that in my opinion. We could fill the article with tables if we wanted to after all, there are hundreds of different DO lists...
• There is now only one major section called "Interpretations" where all major interpretations of DO are discussed. Previously these were scattered in the article in different places. Further info has been added from previously undiscussed sources, especially more traditional interpretations. Previous information has been cleaned up and edited as well.

☸Javierfv1212☸ 03:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I find your version confusing to read; more like a meandering exegesis than a to-the-point encycloprdic treatment. Lumping together all 'interpretations', scholarly and Buddhist, does not help. First give basic meanings perceived by scholars, later on give the interpretations per tradition. Removing the little tables from the development-section is not helpfull; the authors themselves use graphics to explain the development of the twelve nidana's. And I strongly object against removing the overview-table. It's not an arbitrary overview, but a comparison of all the scholarly material available.

As I wrote before, the article could be split between pratityasamutpada proper, and the twelve nidana's. That would already makes a difference, and would give room for a further explanation of pratityasamutpada proper. Note, though, that Twelve Nidānas was merged into Pratītyasamutpāda per Talk:Pratītyasamutpāda/Archive 1#Merger proposal.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I've added a header "Interpretation of Pratītyasamutpāda," and moved that section upwards; this should already make a difference, and give room to the additions you made. Which are, if I figure out correctly:

• editing the lead, which added:

Dependent origination has traditionally been seen by Buddhists throughout history as especially profound and difficult to understand and it remains a topic of discussion to this day throughout the Buddhist world. According to Analayo "the doctrine of dependent arising stands at the heart of early Buddhist doctrine."

References

If that is to be added, then not there: instead of a concise definition of the topic, you gave a 'quality' of the topic, namely "difficult to understand." That's not a definition.

• Twelve nidanas: adding a whole new section on the basic principle of DO

I think this is too much. At least, it needs more sunstructuring, delineating the various sub-topics.

• Interpretation of the twelve nidanas: new section made for transcendent DO

Consider splitting this off to a new article, akin to Idappaccayatā.

• Interpretation of the twelve nidanas: reworked and improved this section

As I noted before, you lump everything together here; it's confusing. You probably added new information here, but I can't figure so fast what is new (I vaguely recall having asked this before, but could you please make incremental changes, and not such large-amounts-at-once edits?)

I'll go through these edits (work is waiting to start...), as I have no intention to reject all of your edits and additions; you know a lot, and your edits on the Sarvastivada background of Ch'an still stickk out in my mind. But this is too much; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an exegetical manual.

Addentum: your "Basic Principle" and "Transcendental Dependent Origination" could be added together as "In the Pali canon" or something similar; "The natural law of conditionality" may be better off as "basic principle of conditionality (idappaccayatā)." To understand what you added with Interpretation of the twelve nidanas: reworked and improved this section, I really have to take time to take a loser look. And again, we can also consider splitting-off the twelve nidana's to a separate article. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

You say "First give basic meanings perceived by scholars, later on give the interpretations per tradition.", so you would privilege western scholars over (asian) others at the beginning of the article? That does not seem right here. IMO, first we should present the earliest definitions and basic statements from the earliest sources, which is what I did in the "basic principle" section. I do not think it is too big, in comparison to how large the "interpretation of the 12 nidanas" section is bringing in the speculative work of several scholars. Maybe It could be pared down, but you should not have deleted it. Likewise, you say we should give basic meaning first then interpretations, but this is not a real distinction. The ideas being discussed in the "meaning" sub section and the "interpretation" section are the same kind of interpretations. Perhaps the interpretation section could be edited more and made clearer, with more sub-sections, but it makes no sense to have two separate sections discussing the same stuff. Now that is confusing.

I strongly disagree that we should have scholarly interpretations of the evolution of the 12 nidanas in the leade, and to categorically state that they developed later. Not all scholar agree. The section which says they are a "mockery" of Vedism (different scholars disagree on this interpretation of it as a "mockery", others say its just a reference to it etc) and they developed later should not be there (its already stated in the development section). Indeed, not everyone agrees it developed later (if you had read my edit in full, you would have seen Choong rejects this and Wayman).

We can leave the tables, but I reject the "the overview-table" (I won't delete it yet, but I really suggest it). Its not a comparison of all the material available, its a comparison of only certain material, from certain sources. The material in that table doesn't make sense being lumped all together: its using material from widely disparate sources. Instead of say, comparing DO formulas from one source (SN/SA) or from different Buddhist sources, its making a comparison from a Vedic source (which has been compared to the beginning of DO but is not the same as DO), from a speculative hypothetical list by Bucknell, and one mapping of the skandhas into by another scholar (etc.) As such, that table needs to go, I stand by that. The information in that table is already in the prose! Why make a confusing table?? Please consider removing.

The section on transcendent DO is fine having its own section. If regular forward order DO gets its own section, so should transcendent DO. They are both presented in the earliest canons and discussed by numerous scholars. There was no need delete it and my edit to the forward order DO section (previously named 12 nidanas, which is a mistake, since 12 nidanas is only one application or listing of forward order DO). There was a lot of important info there about varied listings.

"12 Nidanas" section should be called something else because not all forward order DO formulas are 12 nidanas, and it should show how there are different chains as I added before.

This goes back to one of the main issues with this article, you can't separate the interpretation of the 12 nidanas from the interpretation of DO in general. They are both talking about the same thing so it makes no sense to have separate "interpretations" and "meaning" sections. It just ends up being repetitive if you do that. This is why we need to bring all this together, it will make the article much more manageable to read.

I don't think we should split off the article. 12 nidanas is the principle of DO worked out in various elements, and their relationships are DO. It makes no sense to split. It would just create further confusion in a difficult topic. We have to accept this article will be big, like the article on God or some other difficult philosophical topic. The only thing is that there's a lot of material from different scholars, so if anything, the article might require some further pruning to make the exposition shorter for each scholar's point of view. But in that sense, you should leave my changes and then prune the prose further. Its ok I think for this article to be a bit big, given that its such a huge topic. What should be done is to prune some of the later sections a bit, like Phyrronism and so on.☸Javierfv1212☸ 09:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I have to read your response in detail, but remember that Wikipedia gives an overview of what scholarly sources say about a topic, not what the primary sources say. I find the way you're organizing the article now less clear. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The way I organize it is not arbitrary, but it is very much based on the way Harvey and Choong write their expositions. They begin with the early sources in much the same way I have organized the section on the basic principle. Check out their books.☸Javierfv1212☸ 10:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

See: Choong (2000), chapter 6 and Harvey, Peter. The Conditioned Co-arising of Mental and Bodily Processes within Life and Between Lives, in Steven M. Emmanuel (ed) (2013). "A Companion to Buddhist Philosophy", pp. 46-69. John Wiley & Sons.

The Development of the 12 nidanas section

This is to discuss the section on the development of the twelve nidanas. There are various issues I had with the section which for me was the most problematic, I will discuss below. Please discuss! ☸Javierfv1212☸ 14:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the Development-section gives a much needed overview of the development of this synthetical scheme; removing info will lead to a poorer section. You've ripped things apart, and put them in one long, overloaded section; it's just too much. But here too, I'm just too exhausted to pay close attention to it now. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

And it should give such an overview, but in a restructured way which places each claim in its own proper section. As such, everything is all under the sub-section titled "synthesis of older versions", but the scholars cited and the ideas discussed do not all support this claim. As such, it is confusing and misleading.

I propose the following structure:

• Vedic sources (Jurewicz and Gombrich), this should be first because it discusses pre-Buddhist ideas that form the backdrop for Buddhism.
• Synthesis of older lists

• Synthesis by the Buddha (Frauwallner's idea that the Buddha synthesized the list later in his career)
• As a later synthesis by monks (other scholars who think the synthesis happened later)
• Bucknell's thesis (there's a lot of content about this so place this in its own section for organization reasons)

• The 12 nidānas as an early list

☸Javierfv1212☸ 19:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I went through the Interpretations-section; let's dicuss this part. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

By Wikipedia standards this article is huge. Should we consider splitting off the 12 nidanas as a separate article? Teishin (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with that, they're two aspects of the same idea. I think we should focus on pruning and tightening the prose and remove excess things that are already covered in other articles (for example, explanations of Tibetan Madhyamaka etc). I am working on it. Also, I would add, there are much larger articles on wiki for other topics. I mean, if Trump can get 421,429 bytes, I think we can spare 150k bytes poor old dependent origination. ☸Javierfv1212☸ 11:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

No alternative view

There are scholars who disagree with the idea 12 nidanas is a later synthetic list, their views should be included in a sub-section of this. I had done that, but it was reverted. ☸Javierfv1212☸ 14:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Which scholars; what did you add? I just can't tell, from the sheer amount of text you added. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Found it, and moved it upwards. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

This is fine, thanks. ☸Javierfv1212☸ 18:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Vedic sources

The analysis of how the beginning of the chain draws on Vedic cosmogony is a separate discussion from whether the 12 links are late. Jurewicz herself does not say it is late and says the Buddha composed it by drawing on Vedic themes. This should be made clear by having separate sub-sections on this. ☸Javierfv1212☸ 14:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

What's the discussion here? You have a problem with the fact that the twelve nidana's are a late synthesis? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The issue that these are two different ideas being communicated, Jurewicz is just explaining how the ideas in 12 link chain are can be seen in Vedic sources. She is not talking about how the entire list of the nidanas developed structurally, like, say Bucknell (or at what time they arose). The article as it stands places her ideas under "synthesis of old versions" There are further issues with that sub-section btw, such as that large list of types of Vedic causality in the middle of the text (I had placed it on a note instead). BTW I don't have an issue with the idea that the 12 nidanas might be a late synthesis. They very well may be. Let's stick to the facts and our reasoning without accusing each other of biases. ☸Javierfv1212☸ 18:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The tables

I've agreed to keep the main tables, but as I said above, I think the comparison table should be edited. Please discuss my above points. ☸Javierfv1212☸ 14:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

No, I don't think so; it gives a neat overview. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

You have not addressed my concerns (listed above) with this list other than to say it is "neat". I've tried to address your concerns. ☸Javierfv1212☸ 18:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Boisvert/Five Skandhas

This section brings in Boisvert, but Boisvert is not really making a claim that the 12 links developed later in the source cited (not that I could find when I read it). As such, his comments are more of a general interpretation of the 12 links vis a vis the skandhas. It should thus not be in the "development" section, it should be in the interpretation section as I've already placed it there with comments by Analayo etc. Schumann should stay here then, because he is making the claim that by studying the skandas + 12 links, you can show the 12 links developed later. Leaving Boisvert in here is making it seem like he supports this thesis himself, but I haven't found where he does (can you cite it if so??). ☸Javierfv1212☸ 14:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, you're problematising the date of the synthesizing of the twelve nidana's; but the section is about the development. It gives an overview of the development, not just the dating. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I took a closer look; I'd keep Bosivert in the development-section; it further explains the structure of the 12 nidana's,a nd it's at odds with the rest of the Interpretations-section (Conditionality - Ontological principle - Rebirth - Epistemological principle). Otherwiae, it would fit better at the end of the "Lists of nidanas"-section. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, but I'm not so strongly wedded with the idea of moving Boisvert. Let's see what others say. Also, the issue I have is not with dating per se, but with whether the content here actually discusses how the list of the 12 nidanas developed (and note, this requires change, in time, so its not totally separate from dating). As such, Boisvert is not really discussing this, but how the concepts in the list relates to the skandhas. This is more of an interpretation of the list than a discussion of its historical and structural development (though it could be related to it, as Schumann does, but Boisvert doesn't - and that's my claim here). ☸Javierfv1212☸ 18:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I really think this sentence is not helpful in that section:

According to Mathieu Boisvert, nidana 3-10 correlate with the five skandhas. Boisvert notes that while sañña, "perception," is not found in the twelvefold chain, it does play a role in the processes described by the chain, particularly between feeling and the arising of samskaras. Likewise, Waldron notes that the anusaya, "underlying tendencies, are the link between the cognitive processes of phassa ("contact") and vedana (feeling), and the afflictive responses of tanha ("craving") and upadana ("grasping").

All it adds is that Boisvert and Waldron thinks the nidanas can be correlated with the skandhas, which Schumann also states. However, this is a standard idea and is not adding much to the whole argument by Schumann about how the nidanas developed. So maybe we can just say "Boisvert and Waldron have also correlated the skandhas with the 12 nidanas." if you want to give support to how this can be done? But since this is already being discussed elsewhere in the article, I just think we can delete this honestly. Since we are trying to make the article less bulky, each extraneous passage we can remove counts. ☸Javierfv1212☸ 11:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Four noble truths

Not sure why this is here, as this section is about how 12 links developed through time (or if it did at all), whereas this passage about the four noble truths is more of a general comment about the relationship between them and the 12 links. This belongs in the section above about the general principle, and indeed, I have already added a passage which is basically this same one. As such, it should be removed. ☸Javierfv1212☸ 14:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I can't recall either; no idea if I added that. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Mazard's comments

This is already in the interpretation section. As with other sub-sections, this is not about development, its just an interpretation. ☸Javierfv1212☸ 14:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Idem. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Structure

Here's the structure I think should be put on this section to help it make better sense:

• Vedic sources (this should obviously go first since it discusses pre-Buddhist ideas). Alternatively, this could get its own section since the source of where some of the nidana ideas may have come from is a somewhat different question then the actual development of the nidana lists themselves (I'm ok with either).
  • Wayman's thesis
  • Jurewicz thesis (Gombrich views also go here since he is directly supporting Jurewicz)
• Synthesis of older versions
  • Early synthesis by the Buddha (Frauwallner's view, since he held the Buddha created the 12 nidanas)
  • As a later synthesis by monks (Schumann, Nakamura, Gombrich)
  • Bucknell's thesis
• The 12 nidānas as an early list (Wayman and Choong's views, p.s. I added this back)

☸Javierfv1212☸ 14:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Merging of "meaning", "interpretation" sections

The following sections have been merged again: "meanings" of "interpretation pratityasamutpada" and "interpretation of 12 nidanas". There are various reasons why it makes no sense to separate these sections:

1. The meaning and interpretation of the basic principle of DO and the nidana lists cannot be separate from each other. One can talk about the two ideas separately (and thus, there are two sections for both). But when one starts to interpret what it means (is it an ontology? is it a phenomenology? etc) these discussions all blur together.
2. Because of #1, this means that if we make different sections like this, there will be much repetition of ideas, concepts and so on.
3. This is a waste of space and attention for the reader, already taxed with a difficult topic. It is simpler to include all various interpretations from different sources in one section.
4. It is unfair to have a section on "meaning" in the beginning with what are just interpretations of DO from certain scholars (in the old article it was just interpretations from western scholars, showing a bias to white western men). This makes it seem like their view is objective, while the other (often traditional, asian) interpretations are "religious" and secondary.

I also pruned some of the quotes and the prose a bit. Let me know what you think. I am looking forward continuing our discussion Joshua. I realize this is a difficult much debated topic and there are strong opinions on both sides here. I am just doing by best to create what I believe to be a more readable article here that presents the different ideas and views fairly and thoroughly.

The "development" section is still left to be discussed. Alas, I have to leave this work aside for now and start my day. I don't think you'll object to much of the changes I made in the prose (though perhaps the organization should be better I agree, with more subsections). Maybe look through the edit that was deleted before when you get a chance. Like I said, I agree with leaving the tables, but not the comparison table. That will have to be a discussion for another time however. ☸Javierfv1212☸ 10:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think about, perhaps we can keep the comparison table, but it should have some different content. For example, the branched and looped version of the lists, instead of Bucknell's "hypothetical reconstruction," and Boisvert's mapping of the skandhas (his peculiar interpretation). ☸Javierfv1212☸ 11:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I've rolled back your edits for now per WP:BOLD and WP:STATUS QUO; I don't think I'm inherently opposed to the., but tbe way you lumped everything together at the Interpretations-sectiin is too much. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

You also rolled back my edits, too. I had just edited the lede and the etymology sections, mostly just copyediting. I found the lede to be disorganized.Teishin (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I've self-reverted; I'll take a closer look later. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

You're going to have to give better reasons than "it's too much" Joshua. I think I've given perfectly reasonable explanations for the way these sections were merged into one interpretation section. The content that was contained in the previous 3 sections has been kept, I just edited the prose and merged. Furthermore, I also added the ideas of various other scholars and cited traditional texts. Fully reverting would remove those as well (don't throw out the baby!). Please look through it first. Tell me, what is the issue you have with it that you consider it a mess? Do you think the topics are not divided properly? Of course we can reorganize the section, I am not attached to the way it is organized now. I just think all interpretations of the term should be in one place. How would you organize them? Also, can someone else weigh in please? Teishin what do you think about all the interpretations being contained in one section vs being placed at three different sections in the beginning and later in the article?☸Javierfv1212☸ 13:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree here with Joshua Jonathan's comment, "But this is too much; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an exegetical manual." We need to consider the capabilities of our users and the fact that Wikipedia is a generalist, not a specialist resource. There are a lot of big changes here, all at once. It's going to take time to go through them all. I've not gotten any farther than what I did earlier today, and I need another chunk of time to continue my review. Teishin (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

But that does not answer my main question above. Let me add that I am not asking whether or not the interpretation section could use some pruning, editing and so on (I agree with this in fact and support this, and would be willing do the work). I am asking a structural question about whether the ideas discussed in the interpretation section deserve to be in one place or in different sections as it was before. This is a different issue than the amount of content that is there. We can discuss separately what should be pruned, edited down, and so forth. When you read through it, go ahead and let me know (I already think the Tibetan Madhyamaka section and the Phyrronism section below could do with some pruning).☸Javierfv1212☸ 15:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll take a closer look later; I'm just to exhausted from work now. But the Interpretations-section does indeed need re-structuring. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Sigh... so, I am taking a closer look anyway; I'm starting to understand your structure; seriously, some sub-subheaders would have been usefull. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree, subsections would be good ☸Javierfv1212☸ 18:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Comparing the former "Meaning" section with the new "Dependent origination" section it seems to me that the new version is even more over the heads of our readers than the old version. This is not an objection to this content, though. What concerns me is that we're getting the reader in too deep, too fast. The former "Meaning" section was not as bad in this regard. I'm thinking that what we may need is something like an Overview section where we go into more detail than in the lede, and we prepare the reader to encounter the more complex interpretive content that comes next. Teishin (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd go with that, maybe two or three short paragraphs outlining the main idea as an "overview" ☸Javierfv1212☸ 18:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I was just about to write the same as Teishin. The former "Meaning"-section provided an overview. I understand the integration with the (Theravada) interpretations section, but I also see another problem: thsi general overview of the meaning of pratityasamutpada interfereres with the Theravada-interpretations, whereas Mahayana has a clear subsection. That's inconsistent. So, I prefer to restore the former "Meanings-section," and the Theravada interpretations section, with eventual additions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by interferes, do you mean it might overlap with it? This not need be the case of course if the overview is written in a general enough way. Theravada and Mahayana should not get their own entire interpretation sections. Why? Because they actually share many of the same conceptual schemas and interpretations. For example, Mahayana shares the Sarvastivada texts and they share the three lives interpretation found therein. Maybe you can have a section that has interpretations which are common to all schools and shared by them and then a Mahayana section for unique Mahayana views? You could go with that. I guess i'm not against that actually...☸Javierfv1212☸ 19:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

While I agree that the former Meaning section provided somewhat of an overview, it seems to me that it is too complicated. We need something more elementary here. This article goes way over the heads of most of our users. Teishin (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Let me see what I can write up.☸Javierfv1212☸ 12:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Causality

Joshua Jonathan In one of your edits you removed "causality" from the title of a sub-section and said "no, *not* causality; don't kill the dharma". Care to explain your reasoning here and provide somekind of support for it from scholarly sources? The early sources do not make a strict separate between hetu (cause) and paccaya (condition). For example, ye dharma hetu. Many sources in this article use "cause" and "causality" to refer to DO. Bhikkhu Bodhi is one example. The Dalai Lama and other Tibetan lamas use cause and effect. Choong titles his chapter on DO "causal condition" in Fundamental Teaching of Early Buddhism. Also, was it really necessary to say someone is "killing the dharma"? I appreciate you have religious convictions, but lets stick to the facts here ok. ☸Javierfv1212☸ 11:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of this topic, I've coincidentally noticed that this closely related article sure could use some work Causality#Buddhist_philosophy. It sites Pratītyasamutpāda as the main article on the subject, but the two do not correspond well. Teishin (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Interesting! I've definitely wanted to go through some of the non-Buddhist related articles that have references to Buddhist thought and fix up some of the major issues they have. I will look at it when I get a chance. Almost every important article on philosophical topics on Wikipedia is biased towards Western philosophy. So this would be quite a mission. But at least I can look at this one entry for now. ☸Javierfv1212☸ 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

As I've pointed out before, I don't think we have a good intermediate explanation of dependent origination between the bare definition of the lede and the great detail of the rest of the article. The current Meaning section tries, but is inadequate for this purpose. It may well be worth addressing Causality#Buddhist_philosophy now, as what should be said there likely would be much the same as the intermediate level of detail that I think should be added to this article. Teishin (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

In the Meanings-section, you changed the nuanced explanation of conditionality ("If this exists, that exists," etc.) into a straightforward "causality"; that's not what the alinea originally said, nor what those sources say. This sentence from the lead expresses it neatly: "all things (dharmas, phenomena, principles) arise in dependence upon other things." Arise. Not cause, but arise. Nothing stands on its own, but exists in dependence on other factors. "Causality" automatically invokes a western way of thinking, linear and instrumental, while conditionality invokes a systems-way of thinking, as in interdependence and sunyata. By changing "conditionality" into "causality," this mind-changing - liberating! - way of 'looking' at reality is lost. It's an impoverishment. That's what I mean with "killing the dharma."

I think that the original Meanings-section was better. You're so insistent on adding a lot of detail, but meanwhile lose sight on structure and comprehensibility. Writing an article is more than gathering together a lot of info; you also have to provide a structure to that info, and convey the intended meaning and "function" of that info. Providing an introduction is p[roviding structure; lumping introduction and interpretations together in one big section may look like structure, but is an inaccesible chunk of text. The Meanings-section gave an introduction; you didn't see that, and mixed it with the various Buddhist interpretations. Starting your rework with the qualification "big mess" was not helpfull in that respect; it sets a high standard to be measured by, and is an explicit disqualification of previous editors. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

You need to take a moment. I was not attacking you personally. I apologize for saying it was a big mess, but I definitely saw a lot of problems with this article (and indeed, the article had a lot of problems!). Now, my changes were not perfect, and like Teishin said, it needed a simpler explanation/overview (which he has provided). Now that is taken care of, we can look at the rest of the article. Regarding your claim that merely using the term "causality" involves a western way of thinking, I'm not sure where you are getting this idea from? Numerous sources use the term causality/causation etc, including well known Buddhist teachers. Like I mentioned above, cause is the main translation of hetu. Your claim that the idea of conditionality and the idea of causality are completely different ones has no basis in the sources. Also, there are many different ideas of causality, even in Western thought, not all of them are "linear and instrumental" (honestly, do you even know what you are talking about here? I'm not attacking you, I am just asking. Have you looked at the literature?). Anyways, just using the term causality is not a problem at all, and numerous people use it, like Bodhi, Choong, the Dalai Lama, etc. This is a weird hobby horse of yours for sure. But unless you can back it up with some sources, you're just making baseless claims. ☸Javierfv1212☸ 13:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Addentum: going through the structure now (despite my intention no tot do so): look, you really added a lot of very good, very interesting, very helpfull information. As so often before, I'm learning new things. But really, just as the four satipathhanas, the way you structure your info is not always very accessible. When I go through it, I can pick-out several subthemes, and restructure it. It's all there, actually it's quite good, but just this structuring and ordering of info... Sorry for my harsh comments, but this is something I'm good at, I think; I don't want to wade through a lot of text before I can pick-out the essentials; first hand-out the essentials, then explain the details. At least, that's what I think. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that either the current or the former Meaning sections successfully bridge the reader from the lede to the deep detail provided in the article. Part of the problem is that they are both so "nuanced" that one has to already have an understanding of the subject to understand them. I've taken a stab at this and will put it in the article. Teishin (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Teishin, I think that's even better than my attempt. Its simpler and conveys the basic ideas. Joshua, leave it alone, don't put the meanings back like you did before. If you think it needs some additions to clarify lets discuss. ☸Javierfv1212☸ 13:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with Teishin's summary, but "leave it alone" could have been expressed more eloquently. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I just see this: I was not attacking you personally. I apologize for saying it was a big mess. Thanks, and sorry. I've had a rough working-week; I'm mentally a little bit overfilled at the moment

You and me both (I have toddler too!). I think we are coming to an understanding. And the article is looking so much better. Thank you for all your work. ☸Javierfv1212☸ 14:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Idappaccayatā

The section on Idappaccayatā does not seem properly integrated into the article. There's no explanation about why this term is being introduced. As there is also a main article on the term, we should consider what content about the concept can be moved from this article to that one. Teishin (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

As Choong notes, Idappaccayatā is unique to the Pali suttas, an equivalent term is not found in the Agamas. As such, maybe its best to not use this term per se, but just indicate how there is a basic or general principle of conditionality that is described with the general phrase "when this is...etc". ☸Javierfv1212☸ 20:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Thinking about this some more, it seems to me that the whole section on Dependent Origination lacks narrative structure. It bounces from topic to topic without connecting the topics. Teishin (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

a variety of philosophical implications.

While there is some meat to this section, there does seem to be a lack of sources regarding the division into the list of implications. (20040302 (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC))

I also agree with Teishin - this article could be much tidier. 20040302 (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)