Talk:Twelve Nidānas

message: I reverted the Pali term associated with 'body and mind' back to 'namarupa' from 'skandhas'.  Couple reasons; first of all, because it is the term that is used in the modern translation of the Visuddhimagga.  Secondly, namarupa (lit. name and form, body and mind) is a much closer translation of body and mind than skandha (heap, aggregate, factor) is.  I know that the namarupa article is blank right now, but it is a significant enough term in both Hinduism and Buddhism that it's reasonable to think that it should be filled at some point. --Clay Collier 22:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Namarupa vs. Skandhas

message: In my quest for figuring out the possibility that early Buddhism did not include rebirth (see Talk:Rebirth (Buddhism)#Rejection of rebirth?), I've stumbled upon pratityasamutpada and the twelve nidanas. The perspectives given by Bucknell and Jurewicz are fascinating, providing an explanation of how the twelvefold chain developed from several older lists, integrating and somewhat chaning a couple of terms in an awkward way. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Also see K.R. Norman's A Philological Approach to Buddhism (1997), at least the first chapter. Highlights some of the reasons for discrepancies and other issues in interpreting Buddhist texts. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  We should clarify that the traditional interpretation is the commonest and reflects the majority in the Buddhism traditions. See Richard Gombrich's chapter 9, in What the Buddha Thought. The chapter starts on page 129. The discussion on pages 133-143 leading to "three corrections" and "anachronistic interpretations" is worth some reflection, then a short summary somewhere. Second source: Peter Harvey, An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices, page 65 onwards. There are many more RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Note, though, that Harvey himself is influenced by Theravada-orthodoxy. , doesn't even mention the alternate interpretation. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: JJ: Professor Peter Harvey books published by Cambridge Univ Press and other publishers are RS, though yes his background is in Theravada Buddhism. He does not need to mention the minority alternate views in his papers or a particular book, but we sure can per our community-consensus content guidelines. There are numerous additional sources we can cite for this 'commonest, majority" clarification. Let us work on this later, after you have improved these articles further. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

text: JJ: Gombrich is stating something else. Let us rely on the Gombrich RS directly, avoid the dhammawheel.com forum/blog. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: No rebirth?

message: Ancestor of standard version	Ancestor of standard version 	Ancestor of standard version                          	Ancestor of standard version
                            	                             	salayana(sixfold sense-base)+nama-rupa(name-and-form)↓	= phassa (contact)↓
avijja →(ignorance)         	sankhara →(volitional action)	vijanana(consciousness)                               	= phassa (contact)↓
                            	                             	                                                      	vedana (feeling)↓
                            	                             	                                                      	etc.
 in addition to our recent conversation about rebirth in Buddhism, this is a must-read: . Bucknell gives a convincing argument of how the present "standard list" was synthesised from other lists, explaining various discrepancies in the "standard list." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Also see K.R. Norman's A Philological Approach to Buddhism (1997), at least the first chapter. Highlights some of the reasons for discrepancies and other issues in interpreting Buddhist texts. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  We should clarify that the traditional interpretation is the commonest and reflects the majority in the Buddhism traditions. See Richard Gombrich's chapter 9, in What the Buddha Thought. The chapter starts on page 129. The discussion on pages 133-143 leading to "three corrections" and "anachronistic interpretations" is worth some reflection, then a short summary somewhere. Second source: Peter Harvey, An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices, page 65 onwards. There are many more RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Note, though, that Harvey himself is influenced by Theravada-orthodoxy. , doesn't even mention the alternate interpretation. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: JJ: Professor Peter Harvey books published by Cambridge Univ Press and other publishers are RS, though yes his background is in Theravada Buddhism. He does not need to mention the minority alternate views in his papers or a particular book, but we sure can per our community-consensus content guidelines. There are numerous additional sources we can cite for this 'commonest, majority" clarification. Let us work on this later, after you have improved these articles further. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development 

message: Mathieu Bosivert, A Study of the Five Aggregates in Theravada Buddhism: Their Order and Their Relation to the Doctrine of the Paticcasamuppada, relates the twelve nidanas to the five skandhas. Of course, I'd say; the correlation is quite obvious. I'll add this later.
Bhava has mulitiple meanings; not just "becoming" as in future life or existence, but also existence, state of being, identification with experiences and desires. With other words: craving and clinging setermine your state of mind and your self-identity. See the additions I've made.
And what if dukkha is not literal to be equated with birth, aging and death, but they are enumerations of what becomes dukkha when one is in a 'state of mind of dukkha'? To compare: when you're down, everything turns grey. When you're dukkha, everything is dukkha, out of order, not the way it should be. When you cling and crave, your mind-set is narrowed, and life becomes dukkha. Buddhadasa and Payuto have a strong argument, I think. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation with the five skandhas & the meaning of "bhava" 

message: Eviatar Shulman (2008), Early Meanings of Dependent-Origination, refers to Schmitthausen (2000), Zur Zwolfgliedrigen Formel des Entstehens in Abhangigkeit, in Horin: Vergleichende Studien zur Japanischen Kultur, 7, in note 14 and 19. Note 14 says "following Frauwallner"; I guess (hope) that this is the same as Frauwallner (1973), History of Indian Philosophy vol 1, as referenced by Dhivan Thomas Jones (2009), New Light on the Twelve Nidanas. See also Gombrich's comments, 'who argues in chapter 9 of his'What the Buddha Thought that the 12-step chain is the result of pasting together two chains, and that the first four links are a parody of Vedic Cosmogony'. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: JJ: Gombrich is stating something else. Let us rely on the Gombrich RS directly, avoid the dhammawheel.com forum/blog. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schmitthausen