Here’s an interesting article in the New York Times about the current trend of ‘I’ve done my own research’, or ‘D. Y. O. R enthusiasts’.
1 Like
I dont have an nyt subscription so i cant read the article, but in fairness to me I had to leave an undergraduate degree for personal reasons 1 capstone unit shy of graduation majoring in philosophy and religion stidies including two units of Buddhist Studies for which I recieved high distinctions, and have been a practicing buddhist for more than 30 years.
I have read plenty of Buddhist Studies papers and research, and my impression is that systematic stratification studies are very much out of vogue and that we still more or less have to go back to Rhys Davids, BC Law, Pande, Warder and Norman for the most part while the likes of Allon, choong mun-keat, Shullman etc provide some futhur specific ideas and positions as well, nothing much by way of broader systematics is put forward, then on the monastic side and our own @sujato , Bodhi and Analayo have provided much to chew on, but as I say I remain unconvinced by thier arguments for the most part. Gombrich seems to me also to veer somewhat to the credulous side of things and I find much of what Wynne has to say frankly wrong. I have read, carefully, a substantial portion of what the preceding scholars have to say about matters to do with stratification.
Very little is said that i can find that presents any coherant criticism of the methedology i am developing.
I havent read much Vetter, as unfortunately now that I am no longer a student I dontnhave access to jstor.
Perhpas if people think there are articles that might cure me of my ignorance and unreasonableness they could suggest them here or better yet PM me pdfs?
Metta.
I’m not sure if this has been addressed, but would you say a limitation to your method is that it doesn’t count for teachings that might have been marginal but yet still useful?
I would say that from the perspective of someone who wants to know what the historical buddha actually taught it is more or less completely silent, that is, the buddha might absolutely have taught the five aggregates, once or twice, to very senior monastics, but the bulk of the canon formed around very common teachings, and the aggregates teaching was almost lost, until the students of thise very senior monks close to the actual buddha, put it back so to speak.
So anything could have been a teaching by the buddha, evwn if it originally occured just once, but then spread widely later.
For example I am.comong round to thinking that the jhana pericope actually originates in the longer pericope of the sekkha, it might, for all its wide distribution, have been taught just once, almost incidentally, while the buddhas main focus might have been mindfulness, but because the jhana pericope was integral to the sekkha and because the sekkha appears integral to the narrative nikayas, we end up with the impression that the buddha taught the jahnas every other minute.
As i said in am earlier post, my interest is in the evolution of the texts themselves, a process that pretty much ce R ainly took place entirely after the byddhas death.
Metta.
1 Like
It’s probably because most scholars these days are bringing different approaches to Buddhist studies. It could mean that if you are genuinely interested you are going to have to slice into research differently to meet some of these newer approaches on their own ground. Many of them are interdisciplinary.
You may wish to simply retract and refract, wider, for instance, with something like this book
2 Likes
In addition to what @Meggers suggested, you might also consider using a method like Bayesian analysis. An excellent example of its use is “On the Historicity of Jesus” by Richard Carrier. Its a fascinating book BTW. That said, The data you have collected is great. It has got to be explained no matter what.
1 Like
Which scholars? A small handful? Are scholars such as Gombrich & Jurewicz, who seem to Veda the 12 Nidana, included among the “highly regarded”? It seems the notion of “peer review”, unlike in the physical sciences, experiment design or statistical data, does not apply to interpreters of faith-based religion who can have various agendas. I imagine its like “peers” studying the Bible to conclude “God is real”. It seems the notion of “peer review” was rebuked by the Buddha. 
Suppose there was a queue of blind men, each holding the one in front: the first one does not see, the middle one does not see, and the last one does not see. In the same way, it seems to me that the brahmins’ statement turns out to be like a queue of blind men: the first one does not see, the middle one does not see, and the last one does not see.
MN 95
Again, the Suttas contain the following principles:
“Aren’t you speaking only of what you have known and seen and realized for yourselves?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Good, mendicants! You have been guided by me with this teaching that’s visible in this very life, immediately effective, inviting inspection, relevant, so that sensible people can know it for themselves.
MN 38
I think doctrines that cannot be verified according to the principle of “sandiṭṭhiko akāliko ehipassiko opaneyyiko paccattaṁ veditabbo viññūhi” will be subject to trivialization. In other words, it seems expected the twelve nidana will become (bhava) a play thing when Dhamma principles are ignored. While defending the Suttas seems honorable, my impression is this idea of “early vs late”, “authentic vs inauthentic” was popularized by the associates of this very discussion board. This dialectic method seems to have moved the goal posts from the traditional way of viewing suttas in terms of “mundane” (“lokiya”) vs “supramundane” (“lokuttara”). Thus with the new dialectic, for example, self-appointed “Pali experts” employ the novel method of using mundane suttas to interpret supramundane suttas; which may have possibly accounted for the fervor in recent years to bring MN 117 into question. Regardless, my impression is if this genre of discussion did not occur here, this discussion board would be close to literally suñño (empty). 
1 Like
For the English readers in this forum who may want to read the following quotation in English, may I ask anyone here who is able to translate it into English.
In Chapter 10, Section 4, from the book The Formation of Early Buddhist Texts (原始佛教聖典之集成) by Ven. Yin Shun:
第四節 結說
經上來的比對研究，「四阿含」（「四部」）的成立，可得到幾點明確的認識。1.佛法的結集，起初是「修多羅」，次為「祇夜」、「記說」——「弟子所說」、「如來所說」。這三部分，為組成「雜阿含」（起初應泛稱「相應教」）的組成部分。「弟子所說」與「如來所說」，是附編於「蘊」、「處」、「因緣」、「菩提分法」——四類以下的。這是第一結集階段。
在「雜阿含」三部分的集成過程中，集成以後，都可能因經文的傳出而編入，文句也逐漸長起來了。
佛教界稟承佛法的宗本 —— 「修多羅」，經「弟子所說」的學風，而展開法義的分別、抉擇、闡發、論定，形成了好多經典。結集者結集起來，就是「中阿含」；這是以僧伽、比丘為重的，對內的。
將分別抉擇的成果，對外道、婆羅門，而表揚佛是正等覺者，法是善說者，適應天、魔、梵 —— 世俗的宗教意識，與「祇夜」精神相呼應的，集為「長阿含」。
「雜」、「中」、「長」，依文句的長短而得名。
以（弟子所說）「如來所說」為主，以增一法而進行類集，《如是語》與《本事經》的形成，成為「九分教」之一，還在「中」、「長」——二部成立以前。
但為了便於誦持，著重於一般信眾的教化，廢去「傳說」及「重頌」的形式，而進行擴大的「增壹阿含」的編集，應該比「長阿含」更遲一些。
以「雜阿含」為本而次第形成四部阿含，《瑜伽師地論》的傳說，不失為正確的說明！近代的研究者，過分重視巴利文（ Pāli）；依巴利文聖典，不能發見四部阿含集成的真相 。
即使以「雜阿含」的原形為最古，而不能理解為三部分（「修多羅」、「祇夜」、「記說」）的合成；不知三部分的特性，與三部阿含形成的關係，也就不能理解依「雜阿含」而次第形成四部的過程。
ChatGPT3.5 gives;
Section Four: Conclusion
Through a comparative study of the scriptures, we can derive several clear insights into the establishment of the “Four Agamas” (“Four Nikayas”). 1. The initial compilation of Buddha’s teachings began with the “Sutta Nipata,” followed by the “Khuddaka Nikaya” and “Suttanipata” — “Discourses by Disciples” and “Discourses by the Tathagata.” These three parts constitute the components of the “Samyutta Nikaya” (initially referred to as the “Connected Discourses”). “Discourses by Disciples” and “Discourses by the Tathagata” are supplementary to the “Aggregates,” “Sense Bases,” “Dependent Origination,” and “Facets of Enlightenment” — below the four categories. This marks the first phase of compilation.
In the process of integrating the three parts of the “Samyutta Nikaya” into a cohesive whole, after the integration, various texts may have been added due to the dissemination of the scriptures, and the sentences gradually became more elaborate.
The Buddhist community, inheriting the foundational teachings of the Buddha — the “Sutta Nipata” — cultivated a tradition of studying the “Discourses by Disciples.” This laid the groundwork for the differentiation, selection, elucidation, and classification of the Dharma, resulting in numerous scriptures. When these were compiled together, it became the “Majjhima Nikaya”; this is predominantly focused on the Sangha and monks, directed internally.
The outcomes of differentiation and selection, when presented to external sects and Brahmins, praised the Buddha as an awakened one and the Dharma as well-spoken. Adapting to the religious consciousness of the world, including gods, demons, and Brahma, in harmony with the spirit of “Khuddaka,” these were gathered into the “Digha Nikaya.”
“Khuddaka,” “Majjhima,” and “Digha” are named based on the length of the texts.
Taking “Discourses by Disciples” and “Discourses by the Tathagata” as the main elements, the process of classification with the addition of new teachings, leading to the formation of texts like “Thus Spoken” and “Original Discourses,” became one of the components of the “Ninefold Teachings,” predating the establishment of the “Majjhima” and “Digha” — the two parts.
However, for the convenience of recitation and emphasizing the instruction of the general laity, the extensive compilation of the “Ekottara Agama,” which focused on adding one more teaching, should be considered as later than the “Digha Nikaya.”
Based on the “Samyutta Nikaya” and sequentially forming the Four Agamas, the legend of the “Yogacarabhumi Sastra” is a correct explanation. Modern researchers, overly emphasizing Pali, cannot discover the true integration of the Four Agamas based on Pali scriptures alone.
Even if the original form of the “Samyutta Nikaya” is considered the oldest, it is not understood as the synthesis of three parts (“Sutta Nipata,” “Khuddaka,” “Suttanipata”). Without understanding the characteristics of these three parts and their relationship to the formation of the Four Agamas in sequence, the process of forming the Four Agamas based on the “Samyutta Nikaya” cannot be comprehended.
but I suspect a few of the terms are muddled, perhaps you could correct the errors @thomaslaw ?
It seems you completely do not read Chinese at all for Buddhist Studies. You may need to study some very basic Buddhist Chinese for studies in early Buddhism.
3 Likes
One thing I don’t understand about all these debates is there is no consensus on what should or not count as evidence for knowing. I have seen @josephzizys give a list of principles he believes should be used as a guide to knowing or suspecting what is early versus late. Others seem to disagree with this list of principles, but don’t offer their own alternative list of principles or at least I have not seen them set down anywhere and clearly spelled out. I have asked and apparently what is or is not “EBT” has generated lots of debate on this forum and that “EBT” is not anywhere defined.
How can any agreement take place about what is early versus what is late if the principles for knowing are not decided upon beforehand?
For instance one principle might be judging something as early versus late by the physical carbon dating of last extant copies of written suttas. By that principle, then the Mahayana perfection of wisdom suttas are older than anything on suttacentral, but no one here would agree that they early.
I have yet to find any clear set of principles or ways of knowing that could categorize what is early or what is late for users of this forum. The most I can see is some sort of argument from authority as “early” is defined by what some experts say is early and “late” is what some experts say is late. That is problematic because then how do we decide on what experts to believe as they disagree?
Older experts from the last centuries disagree with newer experts. Newer experts disagree with other newer experts. I don’t see what is skillful in this situation by claiming “early” or “late” for such a nebulous convention. Few seem to describe principles but rather use ad hoc reasoning that is not universally acknowledged and not consistently applied.
What is the purpose other than to reinforce strongly held views and ontological commitments for something to be early versus late?
Wouldn’t the Teacher advise against this endeavor? The true dhamma can only be known as true dhamma through practice and discovering it for oneself, right?
Yes, it would be wonderful to have complete confidence in what words were actually spoken by the Buddha in precisely what way and with precisely what meaning, but can we really have this conceit that applying ad hoc reasoning inconsistently with no underlying principles to become so-called experts on what is early and what is late can tell us this? The whole endeavor seems very unskillful unless accompanied with huge lumps of salt to dissolve ontological commitments. Accepting that we don’t know seems a better place to start to my mind.
The Pali canon was my first encounter with Buddha Dhamma in this lifetime and I have great reverence for it. I have no stress thinking it early or being described as early or as true Dhamma. I try hard not to fall into thinking some sutta is wrong or that it is late in order to discount it because I can’t understand it. Rather, if it is seems not beneficial I put it aside and accept the blame as perhaps I am not able to understand it. It has happened that I have come back to some sutta later and understand it in a whole new light. There are others I still struggle with, but again I try and put it aside but not disparage it as it might be exactly what is needed for someone else or to be understood later.
That’s my approach anyway, but the debates about early versus late gives me fear that others will be turned off to some sutta that may be beneficial for them and cause them to lose faith in dhamma. This thread seems devoted to figuring out if dependent arising itself is true dhamma. That does cause stress to my mind.
Ok, but engaging in conversation that questions authenticity is going to inevitably lead to this, right? Describing certain suttas as early if taken in a literal way to mean something about authenticity as opposed to other suttas is going to necessarily lead to disagreement. When I came on this forum I took ‘EBT’ to not describe authenticity but rather to describe the pali canon which I have much reverence for. But it seems that this is not what ‘EBT’ means, but rather some intend it to mean some parts of the pali canon that are deemed authentic in contrast to others.
It is one thing to have reverence for certain suttas as contributing to ones personal practice. But to then discount or disparage others is another thing entirely, right?
It seems inevitable to me that when we have an environment where some suttas authenticity is called into question as late or not authentic, then we will see threads like this pop up where dependent arising itself is called into question as true dhamma 
Rather debating about ‘early’ versus ‘late’, wouldn’t it be far better for us if we have a reservation about a particular sutta to state that it seems not beneficial for us and why having investigated it and tried ourselves to put it into practice? Then if others who do seem to find something beneficial for them in the sutta or something that is conducive to the spiritual path can communicate why it is beneficial for them?
That seems a far better communication to be having. For me, I can say wholeheartedly that studying and trying to understand dependent arising has been immensely beneficial for my mind and I do see it personally as conducive to the spiritual path. If others don’t see this or have not experienced this, then I welcome such communication otherwise and will try to understand what they are saying.
I have a pretty simple set of principles that can serve as a guide to the level of confidence one can have as to the likelihood of a particular trope or pericope being “early”. It doesn’t involve partial differential equations or telepathic remote viewing, it just involves looking first at doctrines that are clearly and frequently represented in all four of the recitations, and in tandem, looking carefully at the extant parallels and weighting ones credence in those that are clearly in agreement.
It really makes no difference if everyone or no one “agrees” to this, it’s simple common sense. As is very often the case simple common sense is the very last thing one should expect to be “universally acknowledged”.
The purpose is to understand the the texts. When I don’t understand something I don’t “set it aside”, I interrogate it. I study it. I compare all the available versions of it. I research it. I think about it. I argue and discuss it with people who share similar or different views a bout it. I meditate on it. I work at it. I study Buddhism because I want to understand it. You may imagine I have already got some “strongly held view” and “ontological commitment” that is motivating me, and that all the hours and years and decades of study are just an elaborate exercise in rationalizing what I already think I know, but that is in your head, not mine, maybe you should give that some thought.
This is anti-intellectual rubbish stuffed into the mouth of the Buddha to try and silence scholarship and it deserves nothing but contempt. If you don’t think you need to read or think about the texts then don’t, go off and meditate by all means. But spare me the pretension and condescension.
I don’t claim to be an expert, “so called” or otherwise, but the underlying principles are obvious and straightforward: texts that lack parrallels have less evidential force than ones that do. texts that have more uniform distribution across the recitation traditions have more evidential force than those that don’t, texts where the location and speaker are consistent across parallels have more evidential force than ones that don’t. Thinking these things is not “conceited”, it is, simply and straightforwardly, common sense, and denying the validity of critical thought because it upsets the dogmatic beliefs of religious authority figures is deeply telling.
well, if it doesn’t stress you out then it must be true right?
well anything that “stresses you out” should be ignored and set aside right? Shouldn’t you just follow your own advise and not read this thread by that logic?
My impression is that you haven’t even read whats being discussed here, no one is claiming that dependent arising is inauthentic, what is being debated is if the specifically 12 linked version is the earliest example or if it might be a composite of earlier, shorter lists. If you actually read the tread there is plenty of evidence to support such a conjecture.
Because not everyone here is a religious practitioner @yeshe.tenley , or rather, not everyone here is here for pastoral support. Some of us (although a seemingly ever diminishing number, sadly) are here to study the EBT, that means engaging in robust, critical, detailed discussion and scholarship, without prior commitments to religious conclusions or sectarian positions, but to actually understand what is going on with the evolution of this literature.
Religion is fine, I understand that many, if not now most, people on this forum are simply here to share their religious convictions and support one another’s religious practice, but some of us are not here for that, some of us are here to actually study the texts, not promote a religion.
Then have at it, you will find many like minded persons here for that kind of approach. Thankfully, from time to time, the approach of actual comparative study and genuine critical argument is still practiced here also, and for this reason I stick around.
The short answer is that it’s difficult to determine exactly which texts are EBTs and which are not because we lack objective evidence of what the Buddhist canon looked like originally. There’s some archeological evidence in the form of inscriptions that go back to Asoka, but beyond that there is basically no historical sources outside of a few sectarian histories written centuries after the events they describe. So, we end up chasing our tails with internal textual studies that rely on assumptions that are difficult to definitely confirm or rule out.
I think a very general definition of “EBT” is that the Sutra Pitakas of the sectarian schools are, as a genre, the EBTs. Abhidharma, commentaries, and the Vinaya Vibhangas are considered later creations. Mahayana sutras like the Prajnaparamita and Jataka literature are generally rejected as not being EBTs. They are usually considered to arise around the same time as Abhidharma or shortly afterward. Which makes sense when we look at their contents.
Those are the generalities. But the reality is that when we look at large numbers of individual texts, we get the impression that there are definitely older and newer texts inside each of these categories. There are sutras that are clearly influenced by Abhidharma. There are Abhidharma texts that are clearly older than others. Which is older, the Abhidharma-influenced sutras or the oldest Abhidharma? It’s impossible to tell with certainty. We end up making assumptions and trying to build a theory around them.
It’s similar situation with the relationship between the Vinaya Pitakas and the Sutra Pitakas. There are sutras like the Parinirvana Sutra that clearly have a relationship with the Vinaya. It could have been composed originally in the Vinaya and then pulled out and turned into a sutra. Or, it could have been imported into the Vinaya after being composed as a sutra. We don’t know which is the case. And the reality of having multiple Buddhist canons existing over many centuries and interacting with each other means that it isn’t an either/or proposition. It could have happened in both ways in different Buddhist traditions or at different times. We are talking about, at a minimum, several centuries of textual development. Altogether, the Agamas existed for around 8 or 9 centuries before being translated to Chinese. The Theravada canon has existed for something like 2,500 years. Alot can happen in such time spans.
The method of ruling out sutras that don’t have parallels isn’t a reliable way to determine which sutras are older, either. Why? Because most of the Tripitakas that ever existed are lost. We know very little about the Sutra Pitakas of the Mahasamghikas (who had multiple schools), the Mahisasakas, or the Sammitiyas. All three were very important schools in Buddhist history that had histories and literature that are largely lost. All we have for two or them is Chinese translations of their Vinayas. For the Sammitiyas, nothing but a couple doctrinal treatises in Chinese.
We have the Theravada Tripitaka, most of the Sarvastivada Tripitaka (cobbled together from at least a couple different canons of theirs), one Agama, the Vinaya, and Abhidharma of the Dharmaguptakas, an Ekottarika Agama from an unclear source, and dozens of Agama sutra translations that don’t have known sources. If a sutta in the Theravada Tripitaka lacks a parallel in extant sources, it can simply be that its parallels are lost to the mists of time. It doesn’t mean it was fabricated. But it could have been fabricated. We don’t know.
Now, all of this sounds pessimistic, but the truth is that Chinese sources are barely scratched yet in EBT studies. We had a flurry of interest about 10 years ago. That has died down, but there are Chinese sources crucial to EBT studies remain unstudied and untranslated. So, the takeaway is that we have alot of work to do that not many people are doing. There’s a big mismatch in skill sets in the community that’s interested in EBT studies and community that has the bulk of the material to be studied. I.e., it’s people who’ve learned Pali and/or Sanskrit who want to know what Chinese EBTs say. People who’ve learned Middle Chinese aren’t interested in the topic. I’m a rare exception. Or they are Japanese and people in the English speaking world can’t read what they are saying about it. Language barriers are the big hurdle, modern and ancient language barriers.
Basically, we need more people to learn Buddhist Chinese. Because it’ll take me 10 years to translate the Agamas. I’ve only translated 25% of the Four Agamas in the past four years. And then there are all the Vinayas and Abhidharma sources in Chinese. It’s just a vast amount of material.
7 Likes
The Japanese are carrying out some huge translation of the entire tripitaka in English, and I read somewhere that they anticipate it will take about 100 years.
1 Like
So just to briefly recap this thread for anyone who hasn’t actually read the arguments presented:
The examples are then given of several well known and respected academics who speculate that the list is composite and that earlier shorter lists predate it.
Discussion then ensues wherein some actual evidence is adduced:
PRO:
So to summarise, the actual 12 link list is
- rare in the Pali.
- mostly confined to SN12
- where it occurs in the Agamas most of the Pali parallels lack it
- in several versions of the Mahanidana, a shorter list, starting with craving, is given instead.
not really mentioned, but alluded to in passing the additional facts that;
- DN has only a 10 link DO and
- Snp has a 6 link DO
These FACTS about the texts we study cry out for explanation, and one conjectural solution is to posit that the 12 link DO is a later amalgam of earlier shorter lists.
This proposed solution is countered by:
CON:
Which (correct me if i am unfair) boils down to
- academic study is not buddhadhamma!
- the 12 links are all in SN12 because they where collected there
- the list is early because it resembles upanishaidic or vedic ideas
- there isn’t a canon extant from which they are completely absent
- the list was originally elastic and could contain a variable number of items but atrophied at 12
- Choong says it’s early.
I note that none of the responses actually really examine the textual evidence at all, i.e the presense of not-12 DO’s outside SN12, and mostly attack point 2 of the PRO camp.
Anyway, I will leave it at that for now, but I think that the conversation is at least intereting enough to warrant genuine thought rather than perfunctory dismissal.
This is a good paper. Not to sure about the translation of the Kalahavivādasutta, Snp 4.11 however. It seems much more interesting than what the English conveys.
Perhaps, but then you’ll find extremes in any field of study, whether it be skepticism or, on the other side, extreme faith. It’s up to us to decide what lines of reasoning we find credible.
Just FYI, I also think the twelve nidanas aren’t late. Perhaps they’re not the Buddha’s earliest formulation of the principle, but nevertheless still were formed by him.
You may want to read ‘Possible development of the twelvefold sequence’ here, including the references given in notes 39 and 45: Seeds, Paintings and a Beam of Light
1 Like
this is absolutely true, but it sort of begs the question. it may be that parallels have been lost, but in the case where there are parallels we can be more confident that the sutta is in fact pescetarian. So it is still the case that those suttas that have parallels have better evidential support for the claim that they are pre-sectarian than those that do not. It’s not conclusive, but surely we can all agree, for example, that if a parallel turned up for a sutta that currently has no known parallels, we would count that as an improvement in the evidence for it’s pre-sectarian-ness?
Of course, it’s entirely possible that even those suttas that do have parallels are late, and where simply copied form another sect by the sect who now possesses a parallel, so nothing is certain, but it remains the case that we can legitimately be more confident of suttas that have more parallels, as on the balance of probabilities it likely emanates from a common source.
for anyone interested, here is a machine translation of the relevant part of T14:
佛告阿難：「勿說是分明易知易見，深微妙。阿難！從有本，生死是。阿難！從本因緣生死，如有不知、不見、不解、不受，令是世間如織機躡撰往來，從是世後世，從後世是世，更苦世間居，令不得離世間。如是因緣，阿難！可知為深微妙。從有本生死，明亦微妙。若有問：『有老死因緣？』問是，便報：『有因緣。』『何因緣，阿難！老死？』便報：『生故。』若有問：『有生因緣？』問是，便報：『有因緣。』『何因緣生？』『有故為生。』若有問：『有因緣有？』便報：『有因緣有。』『何因緣有？』報：『受因緣有。』若有問：『有因緣受？』報：『有因緣受。』『何因緣受？』報：『為愛求因緣受。』如是，阿難！從愛求因緣受，從受因緣有，從有因緣生，從生因緣老、死、憂、悲、苦、不可意、惱生，如是為具足最苦陰。從是有習，生因緣，阿難！為老死，是故說，是為從是致有是，當從是，阿難！分明，為生因緣老死。若，阿難！無有生，為無有魚、魚種，無有飛鳥、飛鳥種，為無有蚊虻、蚊虻種，為無有龍、龍種，為無有神、神種，為無有鬼、鬼種，為無有人、人種。各各種若如有，如有生無有，亦無應有令有生。一切，阿難！無有生，為有老死不？」
The Buddha said to Ananda, "Do not say that it is clear, easy to understand, and easily seen, deep and subtle. Ananda, from the existence of a foundation, there is birth and death. Ananda, from the foundation of causes and conditions, there is birth and death. If there is ignorance, non-perception, non-understanding, and non-acceptance, it makes the world entangled in the cycle of existence, coming and going like a weaving machine, from this world to the next, from the next world to this world, dwelling more in the suffering of the world, unable to escape from the world. Ananda, in this way, the causes and conditions are deep and subtle. From the existence of a foundation, birth and death are also subtle.
If someone asks, ‘Is there a cause and condition for old age and death?’ If asked, then answer, ‘There is a cause and condition.’ ‘What is the cause and condition, Ananda, for old age and death?’ Then answer, ‘It is due to birth.’ If someone asks, ‘Is there a cause and condition for birth?’ If asked, then answer, ‘There is a cause and condition.’ ‘What is the cause and condition for birth?’ ‘There is existence, therefore there is birth.’ If someone asks, ‘Is there a cause and condition for existence?’ If asked, then answer, ‘There is a cause and condition.’ ‘What is the cause and condition for existence?’ Answer, ‘There is craving as the cause and condition for existence.’ In this way, Ananda, craving as the cause and condition for existence, existence as the cause and condition for birth, birth as the cause and condition for old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and agitation arise. In this way, it is the complete manifestation of the most painful condition.
Ananda, due to this habitual tendency, birth as the cause and condition, for old age and death, therefore it is said, it is from this that there is this. Ananda, you should understand this clearly: it is due to birth as the cause and condition for old age and death. If, Ananda, there is no birth, then there is no fish or fish species, no flying birds or flying bird species, no mosquitoes or mosquito species, no dragons or dragon species, no gods or god species, no ghosts or ghost species, no humans or human species. Ananda, if each species is as if it has existence, then with the absence of birth, there would be no cause for their existence. Ananda, in all respects, if there is no birth, can there be old age and death?"
And just on the 6DO alluded to in the thread as being relied on by Nakamura;
“Where do quarrels and disputes come from?
“Kutopahūtā kalahā vivādā,
And lamentation and sorrow, and stinginess?
Paridevasokā sahamaccharā ca;
What of conceit and arrogance, and slander too—
Mānātimānā sahapesuṇā ca,
tell me please, where do they come from?”
Kutopahūtā te tadiṅgha brūhi”.“Quarrels and disputes come from what we hold dear,
“Piyappahūtā kalahā vivādā,
as do lamentation and sorrow, stinginess,
Paridevasokā sahamaccharā ca;
conceit and arrogance.
Mānātimānā sahapesuṇā ca,
Quarrels and disputes are linked to stinginess,
Maccherayuttā kalahā vivādā;
and when disputes have arisen there is slander.”
Vivādajātesu ca pesuṇāni”.“So where do things held dear in the world spring from?
“Piyā su lokasmiṁ kutonidānā,
And the lusts that are loose in the world?
Ye cāpi lobhā vicaranti loke;
Where spring the hopes and aims
Āsā ca niṭṭhā ca kutonidānā,
a man has for the next life?”
Ye samparāyāya narassa honti”.“What we hold dear in the world spring from desire,
“Chandānidānāni piyāni loke,
as do the lusts that are loose in the world.
Ye cāpi lobhā vicaranti loke;
From there spring the hopes and aims
Āsā ca niṭṭhā ca itonidānā,
a man has for the next life.”
Ye samparāyāya narassa honti”.“So where does desire in the world spring from?
“Chando nu lokasmiṁ kutonidāno,
And evaluations, too, where do they come from?
Vinicchayā cāpi kutopahūtā;
And anger, lies, and doubt,
Kodho mosavajjañca kathaṅkathā ca,
and other things spoken of by the Ascetic?”
Ye vāpi dhammā samaṇena vuttā”.“What they call pleasure and pain in the world—
“Sātaṁ asātanti yamāhu loke,
based on that, desire comes about.
Tamūpanissāya pahoti chando;
Seeing the appearance and disappearance of forms,
Rūpesu disvā vibhavaṁ bhavañca,
a person makes evaluations in the world.
Vinicchayaṁ kubbati jantu loke.Anger, lies, and doubt—
Kodho mosavajjañca kathaṅkathā ca,
these things are, too, when that pair is present.
Etepi dhammā dvayameva sante;
One who has doubts should train in the path of knowledge;
Kathaṅkathī ñāṇapathāya sikkhe,
it is from knowledge that the Ascetic speaks of these things.”
Ñatvā pavuttā samaṇena dhammā”.“Where do pleasure and pain spring from?
“Sātaṁ asātañca kutonidānā,
When what is absent do these things not occur?
Kismiṁ asante na bhavanti hete;
And also, on the topic of appearance and disappearance—
Vibhavaṁ bhavañcāpi yametamatthaṁ,
tell me where they spring from.”
Etaṁ me pabrūhi yatonidānaṁ”.“Pleasure and pain spring from contact;
“Phassanidānaṁ sātaṁ asātaṁ,
when contact is absent they do not occur.
Phasse asante na bhavanti hete;
And on the topic of appearance and disappearance—
Vibhavaṁ bhavañcāpi yametamatthaṁ,
I tell you they spring from there.”
Etaṁ te pabrūmi itonidānaṁ”.“So where does contact in the world spring from?
“Phasso nu lokasmi kutonidāno,
And possessions, too, where do they come from?
Pariggahā cāpi kutopahūtā;
When what is absent is there no possessiveness?
Kismiṁ asante na mamattamatthi,
When what disappears do contacts not strike?”
Kismiṁ vibhūte na phusanti phassā”.“Name and form cause contact;
“Nāmañca rūpañca paṭicca phasso,
possessions spring from wishing;
Icchānidānāni pariggahāni;
when wishing is absent there is no possessiveness;
Icchāyasantyā na mamattamatthi,
when form disappears, contacts don’t strike.”
Rūpe vibhūte na phusanti phassā”.“Form disappears for one proceeding how?
“Kathaṁ sametassa vibhoti rūpaṁ,
And how do happiness and suffering disappear?
Sukhaṁ dukhañcāpi kathaṁ vibhoti;
Tell me how they disappear;
Etaṁ me pabrūhi yathā vibhoti,
I think we ought to know these things.”
Taṁ jāniyāmāti me mano ahu”.“Without normal perception or distorted perception;
“Na saññasaññī na visaññasaññī,
not lacking perception, nor perceiving what has disappeared.
Nopi asaññī na vibhūtasaññī;
Form disappears for one proceeding thus;
Evaṁ sametassa vibhoti rūpaṁ,
for judgements due to proliferation spring from perception.”
Saññānidānā hi papañcasaṅkhā”.
Snp4.11
seems to be commented on or referred to by DN15 as in;
So it is, Ānanda, that feeling is a cause of craving. Craving is a cause of seeking. Seeking is a cause of gaining material possessions. Gaining material possessions is a cause of evaluation. Evaluation is a cause of desire and lust. Desire and lust is a cause of attachment. Attachment is a cause of ownership. Ownership is a cause of stinginess. Stinginess is a cause of safeguarding.
Iti kho panetaṁ, ānanda, vedanaṁ paṭicca taṇhā, taṇhaṁ paṭicca pariyesanā, pariyesanaṁ paṭicca lābho, lābhaṁ paṭicca vinicchayo, vinicchayaṁ paṭicca chandarāgo, chandarāgaṁ paṭicca ajjhosānaṁ, ajjhosānaṁ paṭicca pariggaho, pariggahaṁ paṭicca macchariyaṁ, macchariyaṁ paṭicca ārakkho.
Owing to safeguarding, many bad, unskillful things come to be: taking up the rod and the sword, quarrels, arguments, and disputes, accusations, divisive speech, and lies.
Ārakkhādhikaraṇaṁ daṇḍādānasatthādānakalahaviggahavivādatuvaṁtuvaṁpesuññamusāvādā aneke pāpakā akusalā dhammā sambhavanti.‘Owing to safeguarding, many bad, unskillful things come to be: taking up the rod and the sword, quarrels, arguments, and disputes, accusations, divisive speech, and lies’—that’s what I said. And this is a way to understand how this is so.
‘Ārakkhādhikaraṇaṁ daṇḍādānasatthādānakalahaviggahavivādatuvaṁtuvaṁpesuññamusāvādā aneke pāpakā akusalā dhammā sambhavantī’ti iti kho panetaṁ vuttaṁ, tadānanda, imināpetaṁ pariyāyena veditabbaṁ, yathā ārakkhādhikaraṇaṁ daṇḍādānasatthādānakalahaviggahavivādatuvaṁtuvaṁpesuññamusāvādā aneke pāpakā akusalā dhammā sambhavanti.
again, DN seems here to refer to Snp4.11 and it seems SN refers to DN and Snp4 too, so we have a 6DO n the atthakavagga, then a 10DO in DN, then a 12DO in MN and SN…
couple this with the lack of even a 10DO in several of the chinese parallels, and you have reasonable evidence to make a conjecture about the evolution of this list.
I note that the only substantive critique of the actual picture put forward, that the 12DO is found in SN12 because it was collected there, does not address these discrepancies at all. (the 10DO is also given in SN12 btw, which also calls out for explanation.)