The names of sutras in which 12 nidanas are sorted for 3 lives

[mikenz66]

The previous post has the Vibhaṅga section of the Abhidhamma, which talks about a single-moment Dependent Origination.

Here is Paṭisambhidāmagga I.275 from Nanamoli's translation, which is here: https://tipitaka.fandom.com/wiki/Patisambhidamagga

This discusses past and future lives, along the same lines as the Visuddhimagga, e.g. XVII.34, XVII.58, XVII.287.


Mike

[Volo]

Here is the Vibhaṅga section:

What are unwholesome thoughts? At whatever time an unwholesome mind has arisen, connected with happiness, associated with the resort to (wrong) view, a form object, or a sound object, or a smell object, or a taste object, or a tangible object, or a thought object, or referring to whatever (thought), at that time with ignorance as condition there is a (volitional) process, with a (volitional) process as condition: consciousness, with consciousness as condition: mind, with mind as condition: the sixth sense sphere, with the sixth sense sphere as condition: contact, with contact as condition: feeling, with feeling as condition: craving, with craving as condition: attachment, with attachment as condition: continuation, with continuation as condition: birth, with birth as condition: ageing, death, and so there is an origination of this whole mass of suffering.
https://suttacentral.net/vb6/en/anandajoti#pts-cs248

Edit: See next post for the relevant section from the Paṭisambhidāmagga (which is in the Sutta Pitaka) that references multiple lives.

Yes, I'm aware of this passage from Vibhanga. But the links here are a bit different from the classical ones: it talks about nāma, instead of nāma-rūpa, and it has only the 6th sense base, not all 6 sense bases. If we talk about classical structure I don't see how we can make one or many lives out of it.

The quote from Ptsmb, you showed seems to present classical three lives interpretation.

[mikenz66]

Yes, I'm aware of this passage from Vibhanga. But the links here are a bit different from the classical ones: it talks about nāma, instead of nāma-rūpa, and it has only the 6th sense base, not all 6 sense bases. If we talk about classical structure I don't see how we can make one or many lives out of it.

Yes, I must admit it's a little obscure, and I don't quite see how to read it. Maybe I didn't find quite the right passage.
See also this post: viewtopic.php?t=20542#p287570


MIke

[Viachh]

What if we consider ignorance as genes (gene level), which determine the remaining links (levels)? Such a (level) model is suitable both for instant (vertical) interpretation and for hybrid (vertical-horizontal) one. The vertical interpretation as a level sweep is obvious. Vertical-horizontal: after all, genes (micro level) as a legacy of the past determine both the current (at the cellular level) moment and the future (at the macro level) one.

[one_awakening]

The DO suttas are somewhat ambiguous, and it's all a matter of interpretation. There is no consensus here, just a lot of competing theories - multiple lives, single life, multiple moments, etc.
I would be sceptical about anyone claiming to have the "right" answer, or anyone proselytising a particular interpretation.

Exactly. Unless we can ask The Buddha himself, we will never all agree.

[Volo]

What if we consider ignorance as genes (gene level), which determine the remaining links (levels)? Such a (level) model is suitable both for instant (vertical) interpretation and for hybrid (vertical-horizontal) one. The vertical interpretation as a level sweep is obvious. Vertical-horizontal: after all, genes (micro level) as a legacy of the past determine both the current (at the cellular level) moment and the future (at the macro level) one.

Genes? Then one would have to get gene mutation in order to become enlightened? Did the above geno-cellular interpretation makes more sense to you and seems to be more close to what the Buddha meant than classical three lives explanation?

[Dinsdale]

The DO suttas are somewhat ambiguous, and it's all a matter of interpretation. There is no consensus here, just a lot of competing theories - multiple lives, single life, multiple moments, etc.
I would be sceptical about anyone claiming to have the "right" answer, or anyone proselytising a particular interpretation.

Exactly. Unless we can ask The Buddha himself, we will never all agree.

Unfortunately that won't stop people coming up with new interpretations of DO, and having long-winded arguments about them.

[DooDoot]

Unfortunately that won't stop people coming up with new interpretations of DO, and having long-winded arguments about them.

So you appear to be saying it is pointless to have interpretations of DO that actually lead to actual knowable liberation?

[Viachh]

What if we consider ignorance as genes (gene level), which determine the remaining links (levels)? Such a (level) model is suitable both for instant (vertical) interpretation and for hybrid (vertical-horizontal) one. The vertical interpretation as a level sweep is obvious. Vertical-horizontal: after all, genes (micro level) as a legacy of the past determine both the current (at the cellular level) moment and the future (at the macro level) one.

Genes? Then one would have to get gene mutation in order to become enlightened? Did the above geno-cellular interpretation makes more sense to you and seems to be more close to what the Buddha meant than classical three lives explanation?

Any example does not describe the phenomenon he illustrates 100% (otherwise it would not be an example, but the phenomenon itself). In this case, genes only indicate the proto level. (You can take instead of them, for example, atoms (atomic level). This is not important.)

[one_awakening]

So you appear to be saying it is pointless to have interpretations of DO that actually lead to actual knowable liberation?

You can have a new interpretation, just be wary of posting it here. You'll probably get condemned for it.

[Dinsdale]

So you appear to be saying it is pointless to have interpretations of DO that actually lead to actual knowable liberation?

You can have a new interpretation, just be wary of posting it here. You'll probably get condemned for it.

People more often get "condemned" here for "old" interpretations. The more contemporary interpretations seem to be much more fashionable.

[Volo]

Any example does not describe the phenomenon he illustrates 100% (otherwise it would not be an example, but the phenomenon itself). In this case, genes only indicate the proto level. (You can take instead of them, for example, atoms (atomic level). This is not important.)

Whether it is genes or atoms it would still be only rūpa. This interpretation seems to ignore the role of nāma.

[Volo]

People more often get "condemned" here for "old" interpretations. The more contemporary interpretations seem to be much more fashionable.

[Viachh]

Any example does not describe the phenomenon he illustrates 100% (otherwise it would not be an example, but the phenomenon itself). In this case, genes only indicate the proto level. (You can take instead of them, for example, atoms (atomic level). This is not important.)

Whether it is genes or atoms it would still be only rūpa. This interpretation seems to ignore the role of nāma.

Any example does not describe the phenomenon it illustrates 100% (otherwise it would not be an example, but the phenomenon itself).

[Viachh]

People more often get "condemned" here for "old" interpretations. The more contemporary interpretations seem to be much more fashionable.

I don’t care about old or new explanations: if only these explanations would fulfill their function: to explain. (Otherwise, you can fall into dogmatism: a sort of Buddhist Taliban.)