SuttaCentral
This is a good observation, and does make me slightly inclined to favor the view that there wasn’t originally a set form for dependent origination.
Perhaps it’s best to consider the nidanavaggasamyutta as a whole rather than just SN 12 when we work out the meaning of DO.
When I checked I think it was really just SN 12 and not even another Samyutta in that vagga.
The term “twelve nidanas” is found a handful of times in the Agamas, but not in that traditional way, that’s true. Instead, it appears as a conscious shorthand, like Ananda using the term “twelve nidanas” in the Mahanidana sutra when he muses about how profound it is.
This, I think, is a perfectly reasonable position. The 12 links seems to have been one application of the principle out of many, and later it became the application, while the others were mostly ignored.
However, I do not see any reason to posit it is a later application of DO (unlike Frauwallner, Bucknell, and so on). Indeed, the fact that it may contain a reference to Vedic cosmogony in the very beginning as Jurewicz notes in her influential paper, makes me think it is quite early.
Not only that but the match of the number 12 with the 12 rounds of the four noble truths is pretty interesting. And the very evidence that it was considered orthodox by all later traditions, including Mahasamghika (Salistamba sutra) and Nagarjuna (MMK).
The fact that its only in SN 12 is less bothersome than I initially thought because, well, of course the discourses that use 12 nidanas would all be placed in number 12!
Here are various options for counting:
I agree — I don’t see a good reason for assuming that the 12-links model is especially late. For me to become convinced that it’s late, I’d like to see an example of a version of the canon that completely excludes it. Yet even the EA, which is more divergent than the other versions, has it.
Yes. In another context, I believe this is the current explanation of how base-12 mathematics developed to allow for a cleaner way to represent circles and develop trigonometry in the ancient world. We still divide clocks into 12 because of that. One of the oldest traditions still in practical use.
The major part of SN/SA collection is full of different formulations/items of teaching, e.g. knowing the five aggregates in different formulations:
Page 36 from the-fundamental-teachings-of-early-buddhism_choong-mun-keat 2000.pdf (65.5 KB)
Do you also consider the list of the 7 items/formulations of the five aggregates is late?
See also p. 50 from Choong’s book about the findings of the different contexts different numbers of the seven items/things specified as needing to be known:
Page 50 from the-fundamental-teachings-of-early-buddhism_choong-mun-keat 2000.pdf (82.7 KB)
I think that saying something is “late” or “early” is too simplistic unless we have clear evidence of a doctrine developing in later literature. An example of that might be the change from defining liberation as ending the asavas to ending the anusayas in Abhidharma literature. For the Sarvastivadins, this was a major development as they created the theory of realizing the four truths in sixteen moments. So, when I see sutras in SA that talk about the anusayas instead of the asavas, I wonder if that’s not a later addition.
Beyond clear cases like that, we’re just guessing about these things. “Later” could mean a couple years after the Buddha’s Nirvana, which is not very “late” to me. Still, we shouldn’t ignore the fact that the Sarvastivadin Mahanidana Sutra has five links instead of twelve. They are usually pretty close to Theravadin texts, but in that case it’s quite different.
Could you link to the text? I was browsing through the different versions and I see more than 5?
They also have three links (SN 12.66 = SA 291): Pages 183-4 from the-fundamental-teachings-of-early-buddhism_choong-mun-keat 2000.pdf (137.3 KB)
You may read pp. 169-192 from Choong’s Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism on “5. Different numbers of factors of arising by causal condition”.
The conclusion of the chapter 6 on Nidana (pp. 150-205) is:
Pages 204-205 from the fundamental teachings of early buddhism Choong-Mun-keat 2000.pdf (118.5 KB)
But Choong also in The Notion of Emptiness in Early Buddhism (pp. 18-9) considers the five is the “most concise formula corresponds directly to two of the four noble truths”, but not the “older”.Pages 18-19 from The Notion of Emptiness in Early Buddhism by Choong Mun-keat 1999.pdf (1.0 MB)
For that we would require an Ur-canon, which of course we don’t have. All canons contain mixed material. However, Nakamura had a similar logic, who figured ‘let me take the reliably oldest part of the canon’ and thus worked with the Atthaka-vagga, i.e. Snp 4 (see post no.7). The Snp passage is great, but this approach is of course problematic, i.a. because the khandhas and other formulas also don’t appear in Snp 4 or 5.
The idea that the Atthaka-vagga is especially early is problematic IMO. I think Sujato discussed in his Authenticity.
The problem is that verse is different than prose, and naturally retains archaic features. This is not an indication that the actual text is earlier than the prose text in a collection.
BTW Nakamura thought the ur-list was: avidya, tanha, upadana, bhava, jaramarana
This is a excellent discussion examining the textual evolution of the 12 nidanas. Is anyone suggesting that there are questions of the doctrine of the 12 nidana model itself? After all, we’re not discussing the three lifetimes or single mind moment interpretations, just the number of links and which ones might be early or late. I don’t see any problems with the 12 links format.
The Chinese parallels to the Mahanidana sutta (DN 15) are T14 and MA 97 (~Sarvastivada), DA 13 (Dharmaguptaka), and T52 (|| Theravada?). That’s basically in chronological order with T14 translated in the 2nd c. and T52 during the 10 or 11th c. CE. MA and DA were translated during the 4-5th c. CE.
English translations of MA 97 and DA 13 are in the BDK publications. I’m planning to release a translation of DA 13 this month. It’s the next up to be drafted.
Thanks. Those were the ones i was looking at. I’m still somewhat confused since if we go with T14 I see the links traced back to nama-rupa and consciousness, which looks like are are in a reciprocal relationship, which makes it more than 5?
Just a couple of names who suggested that the 12 nidana list was a later synthesis of older lists: Frauwallner, Roderick Bucknell, Lambert Schmithausen, Richard Gombrich, Hajime Nakamura
All pretty big names in Buddhist studies
Read more here on the wikipedia article for DO, there is a sub-section about this topic
It does in the analysis of craving, yes. In fact, I stand corrected that T52 is the only one that agrees with DN15 on that point. It’s the closest parallel in that it has the full-blown list at the start.
T14 and MA 97 only present five links as the DO of old age and death. Then, later on, the DO of craving is analyzed, which traces back to consciousness and name and form. It’s pretty interesting. It’s like an intermediary step between a pair of older lists and the classic twelve links that begin with ignorance.
Well, I think there’s an interesting issue with whether the list originally began with namarupa or avijja. Beyond that, I think we’re really just talking about the history of how we ended up with this standard list of twelve links in later Buddhism. Which is largely academic. I don’t know that any of this would lead someone astray in their practice.