Forget about that inappropriated rinky-dink Humean concept, forced into Buddhism. This useless demonstration is just another futile exercise of style, aimed at beating around a no less futile issue.
I suppose Buddha’s phenomenomogy is worth listening to; without the need to introduce the Humean “predictive” whatever factor into that!?!.
Faith in the former brings understanding. The use of the latter leads to a bottomless and quite superfluous knowledge.
Imasmiṃ sati >> idaṃ hoti
Sati/atthi (exist) >> hoti [fr. Sk bhavati (third singular present of √भू bhū (rise , come into being , happen - RV.) - In the Pali, ava contracts into o/drop the b] (come into being).
When this exists >> this comes into being.
Period.
Buddha never said about DO: “when that exists, “maybe” that might not come to be”. SN 12.20
But maybe our mavens of logic, will have us lose some more time and savvy, with their previous deep musing on the subject.
For me, it is Buddha’s phenomenological discoveries vs. Hume’s controversial and outdated induction theory.
Your choice.
As far as “why Salayatana is ommitted in this mode of Dependent Origination in DN 15?”
It is just because DN 15 looks to me (as I already said before) like a dubious late sutta.
I’m afraid I’m not a Pali expert, so I’ll leave it to @Sylvester and others to explain why the consensus among translators I trust seems to be that the Pali is giving a necessary condition, not a sufficient one (or to explain why I’ve misinterpreted them…).
Ignorance - formations, where DN 9 shows that even if one is not an arahat, a meditator is capable of not abhisaṅkharoti-ing.
Six bases - contact, where MN 43 shows how the attainment of Cessation occurs even when the faculties are vippasanna (very clear). Ditto for AN 5.166.
Feeling - craving, where MN 44, MN 148, SN 36.6 etc shows that it is possible to feel without the corresponding craving.
Problems - solutions & end of the matter - for some: First let us assume that the following EBT(?) suttas have solid parallels, if any.
N°1. “Abhisaṅkharoti-ing” is as much of a formation as “not abhisaṅkharoti-ing”. The willingness to do the latter resides in the saṅkhāra nidāna; not in the ignorance nidāna. In other words, ignorance can’t decide by itself to un-abhisaṅkharot (if there is no abhisaṅkhara present). !?!?
N°2. Did not catch that one. But again, I won’'t spend more time on that either.
N°3. One has to consider wordly & cosmic khandhas. Not just the worldly (purely empiricist) ones.
In other words, what an arahant feels is a feeling that belongs to saṅkhāra nidāna [cosmic], not a feeling belonging to vedanā nidāna (aka the feeling clinging-aggregate) [worldly]. In the former case, there is no craving (thirst) involved at that level. I see no link between the saṅkhāra nidāna and Taṇhā there.
Should we continue this ludicrous and fruitless mumbo-jumbo, based on such rationale?
Why not?
Personally, I would not spend a minute more with that; (which I have done). But I guess empiricists might still go for it. Doubt usually spends more ink (or typing,) than certitude.
Elvis
It’s a good thing to have flags raised. Then we know stuff that we wouldn’t otherwise know.
I would like to encourage you all to be a little kinder. Only a little will suffice, just enough to refrain from snarky phrases and sarcasm.
I would also like to encourage you all to let people be wrong. Or, to qualify that, if you perceive someone is wrong and you’ve put your case forward, let’s say 3 times, and they’re not budging, just leave them be.
No “official warnings” yet, because the constant arguements have mostly been civil. But repetitive patterns that employ sarcasm etc. and are not in line with our guidelines will result in warnings being given to the individual or individuals concerned; 3 warnings and you’ll be suspended.
We do take the Kindness 1st thing rather seriously.
