Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:05, 17 April 2021

Template:Vital article

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pratītyasamutpāda article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Buddhism Top‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Religion / Eastern This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophy of religion Eastern philosophy Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Systems This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is not associated with a particular field. Fields are listed on the template page.

Transcendental section

Thanks Kukku - that is better than my earlier hash. The transcendental section doesn't actually fit underneath the madhyamaka section very well, and though the facts may well be good, I am concerned about the interpretations- things like 'quanta' really seem out of place, even in metaphoric terms. (20040302 09:49, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC))

Edits to the last para. were made just to attempt to make it a bit more easy to read. I also replaced the elements of causality as rather than - please revert, edit, destroy as you see fit, Kukku. (20040302 11:49, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC))

Also, the Dualism article pertaining to 'eastern mysticism' needs to be edited! I had a quick hash of it, but it is still pretty dodgy. (20040302 11:52, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC))

I am concerned about the very western term: Transcendental, to me it reduces Buddhist philosophy to Platonic/Cartesian/Kantian ontologies and would bring all the baggage that rests with Transcendentalism onto the Buddhist doorstep. Is there no better term? Or can we cite the school/translation school who uses it? (20040302 22:50, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Hmm. Fair point. Actually, do you know what the hell that whole section is about? I've never heard of it, so I don't know how to fix it. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽

Okay, Google helped me out a bit on this front and I made some adjustments accordingly. See what you think. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 23:11, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Big cheesy grin. Great. (20040302 23:46, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC))

is it a "contribution to metaphysic" ? at least, the bramajala suta should be mentionned
what about the time : past-present-future in the dependant origination ? i think this interpretation is quite "modern" , i mean not at the beginning. Per exemple, the Buddhagosa 's Visuddhimagga does not mentions this version.
-buddho

Upadana

Hi, I've redirected Upadana here, because I think it is related. We're trying to take care of every article in Misplaced Pages:2004 Encyclopedia topics, and that was one. Can someone familiar, create a sentence or so in this article on Upadana? Thanks - Taxman 15:39, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

OK I take that back, there are more facets to upadana than just Buddhism. But if someone can help with it that would be great. - Taxman 15:45, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

I have made some additions to the page adding formula tables, additional formula references and some notes. There is more to be done before the article is balanced. I will add some further text soon.

First time I've added notes to a talk page. Don't know if I have done it correctly. We will see. stray 16:08:00, 2005-08-05 (UTC)

Also added some content to Upadana page. This needs more work before its acceptable. It's just a stub at the moment. Will work on that too in the next few days. stray 16:10:52, 2005-08-05 (UTC)

Pali expression for paticca-samuppada

I think right Pali expression for paticca-samuppada is paţicca samuppāda. Isn't it?

lt.wikipedia.user.Gyvas (jonvit@gmail.com) 2006-March-09

Anti-Mahayana polemic pulled from technical note

All notions of self are included here ranging from the then extant views contained in the Upanishads, to the later views. Even notions that the body or the ego are not the self and that there is a higher, more refined self, whether as the Supreme Self of Vedanta or as the womb of the Tathagata of the Mahayana are essentially notions of self that fall under one of these categories. For example, the Vedantic notion is that of a formless and infinite self. The Mahayana notion is that of a formless but finite self. Some Mahayana traditions don't explicitly consider the womb of the Tathagata to be a self, but nevertheless, they consider it a persisting entity in all beings and in this sense it therefore is a clinging to self-view (sakkaya ditthi).

This article is still written by people who are only experts of their own views. In the above text, which has been excised, there are no basic citations that demonstrate any support for the assertion that Mahayana traditions as a whole cling to some form of self-view. Actually, it reveals a lack of study regarding the Mahayana traditions, all of whom assert Pratītyasamutpāda, and all of whom have faith in the four noble truths. A qualifying counter-example to the text above is the Madhyamaka tradition, which denies the objective (essence-holding) self, as well as all other phenomena; the only self that exists is the one used to indicate the difference between 'me' and 'you' - a conventional, unphilosophical, nominal self. It is true that other traditions accuse the Madhyamaka of being nihilists, but that is because for them they believe that some form of essential existence is necessary in order for Karma to function.

IMO, a lot of the technical notes and the basic text has been written over the last two years with a rather narrow, and in some places bigoted, view without much in the way of references or background to contextualise it. Buddhism is vast, deep, and multi-faceted. (20040302 (talk))

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

1. Wayman, Alex. Buddhist Dependent Origination. History of Religions, Vol. 10, No. 3, (Feb., 1971), pp. 185-203. The University of Chicago Press.
2. Bhikkhu Anālayo 2020: “Dependent Arising”, Insight Journal,46:1–8

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; Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

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; Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not an exegetical manual." We need to consider the capabilities of our users and the fact that Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Buddhism articles
• Top-importance Buddhism articles
• C-Class Philosophy articles
• Unknown-importance Philosophy articles
• C-Class philosophy of religion articles
• Unknown-importance philosophy of religion articles
• Philosophy of religion task force articles
• C-Class Eastern philosophy articles
• Unknown-importance Eastern philosophy articles
• Eastern philosophy task force articles
• C-Class Religion articles
• Top-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• C-Class Systems articles
• Unknown-importance Systems articles
• Unassessed field Systems articles
• WikiProject Systems articles