12 nidanas as 12 zoom levels

[Viach]

12 nidanas are 12 zoom levels (ignorance is a proto-level, and aging and death are the top). Just as subatomic particles make up the proto-level of physical objects, so ignorance is the proto-level of samsara.

[Grigoris]

12 nidanas are 12 zoom levels (ignorance is a proto-level, and aging and death are the top). Just as subatomic particles make up the proto-level of physical objects, so ignorance is the proto-level of samsara.

Care to expand? I really do not understand what you are trying to say here.

Are you saying that ignorance exists independently of the the nidana?

[SunWuKong]

My aversion arises when i see the glorification of Silicon Valley, the thing that destroyed my home state of California.

[Viach]

12 nidanas are 12 zoom levels (ignorance is a proto-level, and aging and death are the top). Just as subatomic particles make up the proto-level of physical objects, so ignorance is the proto-level of samsara.

precisely speaking:

The 12 nidanas are 3 levels of sentient being.
Nidanas 1 and 2 are the first (proto) level.
From 3 to 10 nidana - the second level.
Nidanas 11 and 12 are the third level. This is an ordinary level.

[Queequeg]

12 nidanas are 12 zoom levels (ignorance is a proto-level, and aging and death are the top). Just as subatomic particles make up the proto-level of physical objects, so ignorance is the proto-level of samsara.

precisely speaking:

The 12 nidanas are 3 levels of sentient being.
Nidanas 1 and 2 are the first (proto) level.
From 3 to 10 nidana - the second level.
Nidanas 11 and 12 are the third level. This is an ordinary level.

Is this your own theory or is there an authentic source?

[Viach]

12 nidanas are 12 zoom levels (ignorance is a proto-level, and aging and death are the top). Just as subatomic particles make up the proto-level of physical objects, so ignorance is the proto-level of samsara.

precisely speaking:

The 12 nidanas are 3 levels of sentient being.
Nidanas 1 and 2 are the first (proto) level.
From 3 to 10 nidana - the second level.
Nidanas 11 and 12 are the third level. This is an ordinary level.

Is this your own theory or is there an authentic source?

In the sutras, when explaining 12 nidanas, 3 lives are not mentioned, therefore one has to look for other models of explanation.

[Queequeg]

In the sutras, when explaining 12 nidanas, 3 lives are not mentioned, therefore one has to look for other models of explanation.

Why does one have to do that? What compels us to look for these models?

Can you please explain what problem you are addressing by proposing this.

[Viach]

In the sutras, when explaining 12 nidanas, 3 lives are not mentioned, therefore one has to look for other models of explanation.

Why does one have to do that? What compels us to look for these models?

Can you please explain what problem you are addressing by proposing this.

What is the point of writing questions under the answer?

[Queequeg]

That's doesn't answer why.

[Caoimhghín]

In the sutras, when explaining 12 nidanas, 3 lives are not mentioned, therefore one has to look for other models of explanation.

The so-called "three lives" model is not a peculiarity of the Theravāda, nor of Venerable Buddhaghoṣa. It is ubiquitous in the Śrāvaka Abhidharma traditions, including amongst the Sarvāstivādins:

Sanghabhadra expounded the Theory of Dependent Origination from the viewpoint of time. His exposition the psycho-physical interpretation of the Dependent Origination is based upon the causality of time. In addition to this, he proposed a new interpretation, based on the actuality of time. The actuality of time refers to a simultaneous relationship among the time divisions, and concerns the activity of living things in mutual relationship. Sanghabhadra also accepted the early interpretation of Dependent Origination into three time divisions, viz. past, present and future. This doctrine is described by the traditional Buddhists as the 'three lives divisions' [...]

(citation in a second, this is from a PDF on my phone)

[Caoimhghín]

On terms of the nidanāni as "zoom levels," I agree. Venerable Sujāto, to name one instance within the dispensation to the śrāvakas, has spoken of the 2nd link as something one can "see" with the eyes of the mind, the mind-base, so to speak, in deep meditation. I don't see why the first link would be any different.

Samādhi is the microscope with which we can "zoom" in on phenomena with, allegedly including the 12 link chain. I say supposedly because I myself have no insight regarding the 12 nidanāni, and rely on the words of others.

[Viach]

Is it not overly strange that the Buddha in his 45 years of preaching did not mention the 3 lives in the fundamental doctrine? This is too fantastic. Rather, not mentioning them indicates that they have nothing to do with 12 nidanas, otherwise Buddha certainly mentioned them.

[SteRo]

The 3 lives model is not even commonly agreed upon in the Theravada. To stick to this or that model of interpretation seems to reduce the 12 nidanas to an intellectual exercise. But maybe an experiential approach would be more appropriate?

[Viach]

The 3 lives model is not even commonly agreed upon in the Theravada.

Despite this, almost 100% of Mahayana teachers (especially Tibetan Buddhism) use this particular model.
Is it not strange?

[Simon E.]

And there you go again. You are not asking innocent questions. You do not require or even want an answer from a Mahayana perspective. You are just trolling.

[SteRo]

The 3 lives model is not even commonly agreed upon in the Theravada.

Despite this, almost 100% of Mahayana teachers (especially Tibetan Buddhism) use this particular model.
Is it not strange?

why "Despite this"? the Thervada views are not relevant for Mahayana views.
Also me saying "not even commonly agreed upon in the Theravada" does not exclude that it might be the major scholary interpretation in the Theravada, nevertheless.
From a teaching perspective the 3 lives model may be the easiest way to teach it to beginners. That may be one reason why it is the major model.

Don't get obsessed with intellectual models, practice!

[Viach]

From a teaching perspective the 3 lives model may be the easiest way to teach it to beginners. That may be one reason why it is the major model.

Pretending that the Buddha taught that he did not say is very bad. (simplicity of explanation cannot be an argument in favor of this model)

[SteRo]

From a teaching perspective the 3 lives model may be the easiest way to teach it to beginners. That may be one reason why it is the major model.

Pretending that the Buddha taught that he did not say is very bad. (simplicity of explanation cannot be an argument in favor of this model)

No. you have to differentiate between "explicitly said" and "implicitly meant". That the 3 lives model is the implicit meaning cannot be categorically denied.

[Simon E.]

From a teaching perspective the 3 lives model may be the easiest way to teach it to beginners. That may be one reason why it is the major model.

Pretending that the Buddha taught that he did not say is very bad. (simplicity of explanation cannot be an argument in favor of this model)

You have neither the verbal or conceptual vocabulary to make the point you are attempting to make. Neither do you have any real interest in any answers you are given. You are a troll and I am baffled by the largesse afforded you.

[Caoimhghín]

The 3 lives model is not even commonly agreed upon in the Theravada.

Despite this, almost 100% of Mahayana teachers (especially Tibetan Buddhism) use this particular model.
Is it not strange?

They are all drawing from a common tradition of exegesis. Venerables Buddhaghoṣa, Vasubandhu, and Saṅghabhadra don't have a lot in common, but all at one point or another use the 3 lives model, because they all learned it independently of each other, as oral teaching and/or Abhidharma.