mikenz66 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 7:34 am
Dhammanando wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 7:43 am
As for the temporal issue, I suspect the ambiguous locative of the first and third lines was used advisedly, for some of the relations that follow, like consciousness and nāmarūpa, may be simultaneous, while others, like birth and death, cannot be so.
And there is also the question of the description found in in SN 12.67 (the Sheaves of Reeds):
SN 12.67 wrote:Kiṃ nu kho, āvuso sāriputta, sayaṅkatā jāti, paraṅkatā jāti, sayaṅkatā ca paraṅkatā ca jāti, udāhu asayaṅkārā aparaṅkārā adhiccasamuppannā jātī”ti?
“Na kho, āvuso koṭṭhika, sayaṅkatā jāti, na paraṅkatā jāti, na sayaṅkatā ca paraṅkatā ca jāti, nāpi asayaṅkārā aparaṅkārā adhiccasamuppannā jāti. Api ca bhavapaccayā jātī”ti.
“Kiṃ nu kho, āvuso sāriputta, sayaṅkato bhavo … pe … sayaṅkataṃ upādānaṃ … sayaṅkatā taṇhā … sayaṅkatā vedanā … sayaṅkato phasso … sayaṅkataṃ saḷāyatanaṃ … sayaṅkataṃ nāmarūpaṃ, paraṅkataṃ nāmarūpaṃ, sayaṅkatañca paraṅkatañca nāmarūpaṃ, udāhu asayaṅkāraṃ aparaṅkāraṃ adhiccasamuppannaṃ nāmarūpan”ti?
How is it, friend Sāriputta: Is birth created by oneself … Is existence … clinging … craving … feeling … contact … the six sense bases … name-and-form created by oneself, or is it created by another, or is it created both by oneself and by another, or has it arisen fortuitously, being created neither by oneself nor by another?”
“Name-and-form, friend Koṭṭhita, is not created by oneself, nor is it created by another, nor is it created both by oneself and by another, nor has it arisen fortuitously, being created neither by oneself nor by another; but rather, with consciousness as condition, name-and-form comes to be.”
What are we to make of "not created by another"? Does that mean another person or another thing? Is it possible this takes process and creation off the table completely?
Further down it seems to imply that the dependency is the same sort for each pair:
SN 12.67 wrote:Idāneva ca pana mayaṃ āyasmato sāriputtassa bhāsitaṃ evaṃ ājānāma: ‘na khvāvuso koṭṭhika, sayaṅkataṃ viññāṇaṃ, na paraṅkataṃ viññāṇaṃ, na sayaṅkatañca paraṅkatañca viññāṇaṃ, nāpi asayaṅkāraṃ aparaṅkāraṃ adhiccasamuppannaṃ viññāṇaṃ. Api ca nāmarūpapaccayā viññāṇan’ti.
Yathā kathaṃ panāvuso sāriputta, imassa bhāsitassa attho daṭṭhabbo”ti?
“Tenahāvuso, upamaṃ te karissāmi. Upamāyapidhekacce viññū purisā bhāsitassa atthaṃ jānanti. Seyyathāpi, āvuso, dve naḷakalāpiyo aññamaññaṃ nissāya tiṭṭheyyuṃ.
Evameva kho, āvuso, nāmarūpapaccayā viññāṇaṃ; viññāṇapaccayā nāmarūpaṃ; nāmarūpapaccayā saḷāyatanaṃ; saḷāyatanapaccayā phasso … pe … evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa samudayo hoti. Tāsañce, āvuso, naḷakalāpīnaṃ ekaṃ ākaḍḍheyya, ekā papateyya; aparañce ākaḍḍheyya, aparā papateyya.
Now we understand the Venerable Sāriputta’s statement thus: ‘Name-and-form, friend Koṭṭhita, is not created by oneself … but rather, with consciousness as condition, name-and-form comes to be.’ Now we also understand the Venerable Sāriputta’s other statement thus: ‘Consciousness, friend Koṭṭhita, is not created by oneself … but rather, with name-and-form as condition, consciousness comes to be.’ But how, friend Sāriputta, should the meaning of this statement be seen?”
“Well then, friend, I will make up a simile for you, for some intelligent people here understand the meaning of a statement by means of a simile. Just as two sheaves of reeds might stand leaning against each other, so too, with name-and-form as condition, consciousness comes to be; with consciousness as condition, name-and-form comes to be. With name-and-form as condition, the six sense bases come to be; with the six sense bases as condition, contact…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.
Yet there is clearly a uniqueness to the layer of vinnana/nama-rupa not found in the others:
SN 12.65 wrote:Tassa mayhaṃ, bhikkhave, etadahosi— paccudāvattati kho idaṃ viññāṇaṃ nāmarūpamhā na paraṃ gacchati. Ettāvatā jāyetha vā jīyetha vā mīyetha vā cavetha vā upapajjetha vā, yadidaṃ nāmarūpapaccayā viññāṇaṃ; viññāṇapaccayā nāmarūpaṃ; nāmarūpapaccayā saḷāyatanaṃ; saḷāyatanapaccayā phasso … pe … evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa samudayo hoti. ‘Samudayo, samudayo’ti kho me, bhikkhave, pubbe ananussutesu dhammesu cakkhuṃ udapādi ñāṇaṃ udapādi paññā udapādi vijjā udapādi āloko udapādi.
Tassa mayhaṃ, bhikkhave, etadahosi: ‘kimhi nu kho asati, jarāmaraṇaṃ na hoti; kissa nirodhā jarāmaraṇanirodho’ti? Tassa mayhaṃ, bhikkhave, yoniso manasikārā ahu paññāya abhisamayo: ‘jātiyā kho asati, jarāmaraṇaṃ na hoti; jātinirodhā jarāmaraṇanirodho’ti. Tassa mayhaṃ, bhikkhave, etadahosi: ‘kimhi nu kho asati jāti na hoti … pe … bhavo na hoti … upādānaṃ na hoti … taṇhā na hoti … vedanā na hoti … phasso na hoti … saḷāyatanaṃ na hoti … nāmarūpaṃ na hoti. Kissa nirodhā nāmarūpanirodho’ti? Tassa mayhaṃ, bhikkhave, yoniso manasikārā ahu paññāya abhisamayo: ‘viññāṇe kho asati, nāmarūpaṃ na hoti; viññāṇanirodhā nāmarūpanirodho’ti.
Then, bhikkhus, it occurred to me: ‘When what exists does consciousness come to be? By what is consciousness conditioned? ’ Then, bhikkhus, through careful attention, there took place in me a breakthrough by wisdom: ‘When there is name-and-form, consciousness comes to be; consciousness has name-and-form as its condition.’
5“Then, bhikkhus, it occurred to me: ‘This consciousness turns back; it does not go further than name-and-form. It is to this extent that one may be born and age and die, pass away and be reborn, that is, when there is consciousness with name-and-form as its condition, and name-and-form with consciousness as its condition. With name-and-form as condition, the six sense bases; with the six sense bases as condition, contact…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.’
I think this is quite a direct description of the fact that a separate thing cannot move about arrangement described. That is not to say the dependency is not discernable, but that it is not observable from an outside POV.
I wish I could offer more on the Pali, but my skills are far too soft at this point.