In the cycle of paṭiccasamuppāda, if we start from avijjā, the next nidāna is that of saṅkhāra which in turn conditions the origin of viññāṇa, loosely termed as consciousness. This viññāṇa in turn conditions the appearance of nāmarūpa, followed by saḷāyatana, the six sense bases. This as all of us know is followed by phassa and then the rest of the twelve nidānas. Now my question is: what is the nature of this viññāṇa, this consciousness, that appears anterior to nāmarūpa, name and form, and, saḷāyatana, the six sense bases? As I understand this, the body and the mind as well as the six sense bases have not appeared as yet at this step of the cycle, and therefore, this viññāṇa cannot be said to be one of the six sense consciousnesses; then what is the content of this ‘primordial’ consciousness? Is it the saṅkhāra-generated bhavaṅga citta, or is it something else?

The doctrine of paṭicca-samuppāda, or dependent arising, forms one of the core teachings of the Buddha. The Theravāda commentarial text Nettipakaraṇa divides the applications of this doctrine into two major categories. The first category, ‘lokiya paṭicca-samuppāda’ is very well known, representing ‘worldly’ conditionality as a sequence of twelve nidānas. The second category, called ‘lokuttara paṭicca-samuppāda’, creates a model of the process of liberation from the same lokiya paṭicca-samuppāda at the point of ‘jarā- maraṇa’, a term that is curiously replaced by ‘dukkha’, suffering. Applications of the second category are also referred to as the ‘Spiral Path’ after the coinage of Sangharakshita, the pre-eminent modern exponent of this aspect of Buddhist doctrine. I have some queries regarding this: The Upanisā Sutta that deals with lokuttara paṭicca-samuppāda in detail, traces the chain of this transcendental conditionality step-by- step in a retrograde fashion from the ‘Destruction of the Cankers’ to ‘Faith’ and it is easy to understand how each such nidāna becomes the supporting condition of the next. However, I am unable to make out how ‘Suffering’ forms the supporting condition for ’Faith’ to arise. Could this be clarified? The second query is why is lokuttara paṭicca-samuppāda also called the ‘Spiral Path’ by Bikśu Sangharakshita? Lastly, why is the nidāna of jarā- maraṇa replaced by the more general term dukkha in the concept of lokuttara paṭicca-samuppāda?

While meditating on Dependent Origination, I have come to understand certain things that I hesitatingly put forth here: 1. Though the links in the chain of Dependent Origination are cyclical in nature, Avijjā is the one that can be said to be the root of deception and the primal cause of the infinite repetitions of the cycle. Also, it is present in each and every link all the time. So, as an example, though Avijjā gives rise to Saṅkhāras, it is Saṅkhāras (plus Avijjā), that gives rise to Viññāna and, in turn, it is Viññāna (plus Avijjā) that leads us to the next Nidāna, i.e., NāmaRūpa, and, so on and so forth. 2. The ‘self’, the deceptive ‘individual’, is present only in an incipient form till, I feel, up to the Nidāna of Phassa and starts getting organized, as it were, from the link of Vedanā, getting totally entrenched and almost ‘irreversibly solidified’ by the time the level of Upādāna is reached. 3. The weakest links are those of Vedanā, Taṇhā and Upādāna, and that is why it is possible to break the chain at these three places, the relatively easiest being the passage from Phassa to Vedanā and the most difficult that from Taṇhā to Upādāna. 4. Before Phassa, the ‘self’ is too vague and incipient and, therefore, quite weak to attempt its own break-up. 5. After the Nidāna of Upādāna, the ‘self’ is too deeply entrenched and solidified and, therefore, its break-up again becomes almost impossible. Is this right? Am I only partly right? Or, is it that I have got it all wrong? And yes, is it possible to have a profound insight directly into the primal link of Avijjā, so that the later interventions are not required at all?

From [Pratītyasamutpāda - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da#Twelve_Nidanas) : >dependent origination refers to nothing else but the process of mental conditioning as described by the twelve nidanas So to check if my understanding is correct, will dependent origination cease to exist if one doesn't have 12 nidanas? In my understanding, dependant origination is just an extended understanding of "condition". For example, if I say "plants need water, soil and light to grow", then water, soil and light are the originations. This doesn't seem to relate to the mental condition of the observer. So how do the two relate? And in general, how does one know that all dependent originations of a thing are "depleted"?

What is the difference between Tanha and Upadana? Why Buddha did not say Tanha Paccaya Bhava (instead of Upadana Paccaya Bhava)? And there are three kinds of Tanha in Sutta (Kama, Bhava, Vibhava): please explain how these three link to Upadana? --- I read the topic https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/17746/254 but that does not answer my question -- I want answers which specifically discuss this in line with three categories of Tanha with Upadana in Dependent Origination. Please give me a practical answer than a technical answer which are found in many places.

Example: I see something moving, there's **contact**. Then there's an unpleasant **feeling** and **perception** recognize it as a spider. **Mental formations** on how to deal with the "threat" of a spider arises. A new **consciousness** is born. Does it contain the mental formation that caused it to arise? Thank you

Jarāmaranam, Jāti, Bhava, Upādāna, Tanhā, Vedanā, Phassa, Salāyatana, Nāma-rūpa, Viññāna, Sankhārā, Avidya. I believe they operate inversely and wanted to see further how this inversion is illustrated in the Pali canon.

Is there an interpretation of the 12 nidanas (shown on the outside of the wheel below) that is compatible with a lack of belief in rebirth. For instance in the 12 nidanas there are the links > Becoming -> Birth -> Aging and Death So even though this explicitly names rebirth is there an interpretation of the cycle that occurs just over one lifetime (or reoccurs many times over one life). Or are the concepts of the nidanas so bound up with rebirth that they have no value or sense to practioners who are more agnostic about this.

I'm thinking that the presence itself, in sense objects, of ignorance, the first link, is never erased; that with final nirvana something has being, the absence of the 12 links. Can the absence of causation itself be present like sense objects are, in absolutely any Buddhist philosophy? Or is that silly, like saying that the there exists the non existence of a crow's teeth?

> The Twelve Nidānas are explained in detail in the Visuddhimagga of > Buddhaghosa, the central text of the Mahāvihāra commentarial > tradition. Buddhaghosa recounts four methods to interpret the Twelve > Nidanas: > > Working from "bottom to top", > Working from the "middle to the top", > Working from "top to bottom", > Working from the "middle to the source". Seems a bit like you might claim these four are *in turn* the four noble truths in turn > idam dukkham, "this is pain" > ayam dukkha-samudayo, "this is the origin of pain" > ayam dukkha-nirodha, "this is the cessation of pain" > ayam dukkha-nirodha-gamini patipada, "this is the path leading to the cessation of pain" Has anyone ever claimed this?

When the Buddha searched for truth in the world he used a method of empiricism. Empiricism is the precursor for modern science and although I believe that rebirth can be verified empirically I am not certain that is qualifies as a scientific theory. The exact theory I am referring to is that rebirth is a mental process which occurs during our life and continues after physical death. Although I do not think that rebirth is contrary to scientific evidence I do wonder if it is a theory which can be considered scientific. One requirement for theories in modern science is that they are falsifiable which means that if they are wrong then we can show that they are wrong. Usually theories predict things and we can test if those predictions are false, however, I cannot think of any predictions which can be tested in this life. This is assuming that one has a very still mind and can observe fundamental processes. I understand that this is related to the twelve nidanas and the stages when clinging leads to becoming which leads to birth. Is it possible for somebody to know what they should be seeing here before they see it?

I asked my teacher how somebody should see for themselves that rebirth occurs, he (a Theravadin monastic) said that with great samadhi one should watch the twelve nidanas (the process of dependant co-arising) to see the eleventh nidana (becoming leads to birth). I can accept that if one watches the nidanas then one would see that becoming leads to birth. However, seeing birth occurring during our (biological) life is separate from concluding that (re)birth occurs after physical death. I think that the most simple way to put this is that the process of becoming leading to birth is not dependent on the body. If one can see the eleventh nidana then how would they confirm that the eleventh nidana does not require form? Perhaps I am on the wrong track entirely and the proper action is to watch some other process to see that the mind (instead of just the nidanas) does not require a body to sustain it.

When reading through the Maha Nidana sutta I came across the three types of becoming: Sensual becoming, form becoming, and formless becoming. I am trying to understand what the different forms of becoming are. This sutta does not explain how they are different, it only says that birth occurs if any type of becoming occurs. To try to understand the differences I read the Bhava sutta ; this sutta says > "Ananda, if there were no kamma ripening in the sensuality-property, would sensuality-becoming be discerned?" > >"No, lord." > >"Thus kamma is the field, consciousness the seed, and craving the moisture. The consciousness of living beings hindered by ignorance & fettered by craving is established in/tuned to a lower property. Thus there is the production of renewed becoming in the future. This is repeated replacing "sensuality-property" and "sensuality-becoming" with "form-property" and "form-becoming", and likewise for formless property/becoming. Ven Thanissaro Bhikkhu mentions in his notes on the Bhava sutta that the Buddha never defines becoming, the Buddha just splits becoming into these three types. From these suttas it appears that knowing what sensuality-property, form-property, and formless-property mean is all there is to knowing the differences in the types of becoming but I haven't been able to find information on what they are.

Wikipedia's [Bhavacakra (Within the Theravada tradition)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhavacakra#Within_the_Theravada_tradition) article includes [this picture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhavacakra#/media/File:Paticca-Samuppada.JPG) of the wheel: From inner to outer, it has four rings: 1. Past, Present, Future 2. Active and Passive 3. ? 4. Twelve Nidanas My question is, what's the third ring? Assuming I know approximately what each word in the third ring means, why are those words in particular placed in those segment of the third ring? What's the relation between the third ring and the other rings? What is the lesson or advice, how is understanding this ring useful/usable towards enlightenment?

According to the 12 nidanas, perception ultimately arises out of ignorance. How can an arahant or the Buddha still experience sense contact when all ignorance is abandoned?

Considering the 12 nidanas as represented on the Tibetan wheel of life. I can understand how the previous links cause (or condition) the subsequent ones for instance sensation is a condition for craving. However as the wheel turns it does birth -> conditions -> death -> conditions -> ignorance In what way is death a condition for ignorance? I can't see a casual link there.

The [Twelve Nidanas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Nid%C4%81nas) state the cause for coming into birth. Suppose we take a look at a being with the name Robert. If we look at Robert and rewind time backwards to the time when Robert has not yet come into his first birth, can't we see how Robert came into his first birth? As I see it, the twelve nidanas state that the cause Robert came into his first birth was because he started doing volitional activities because of his ignorance. The first time he did a volitional activity he basically stepped in the circle of the twelve nidanas and destined himself to "never ending" births and deaths. Is this correct?

Considering the 12 nidanas 1. Ignorance 2. Mental Volitions 3. Consciousness 4. "Name" and "Form" 5. The six senses 6. Contact 7. Feelings 8. Craving 9. Clinging 10. Becoming 11. Birth 12. Suffering and Death What is the difference between craving and clinging? They seem very similar to me. It would be helpful if someone could reference the original Pali and draw out the nuances of these terms. Many Thanks

I think I remember reading that the an unborn child or fetus exemplifies the nidanas in a different way to children and adults. Am I right that for Buddhists life begins at conception, but this "life" isn't fully conscious, because nama-rupa has not yet developed and so the concomitant links likewise? Or is the difference between a fetus and a baby more like the difference between a child and an adult?

According to Buddhist teachings (of any school) at what point does a human life begin? Is it at conception, during a particular point during pregnancy, at birth or even after birth? Does it differ between schools and Buddhist cultures? I suspect the nidanas might be instructive on this point but I'm interested in answers that may or may not include them.