Dear Johnny,

"dukkhasamudaya.m ariyasacca" ... let's drop 'ariya-sacca', which
simply means noble truth.

'dukkha-samudaya' can be understood as the cause of dukkha, where
dukkha means "suffering and dissatisfaction".

samudaya and nidaana are synonyms of each other, except that nidaana
has a wider usage than samudaya.

In the sentence "Lobho kammaana.m samudayaaya nidaana.m hoti", greed
is the cause for the rise of action. It means that lobha (greed) gives
rise to action. We can also say "Metta.m kammaana.m samudayaaya
nidaana.m hoti", metta (loving kindness) gives rise to action. Since
kamma is semantically neutral, both sentences are equally valid.

The first two noble truths form a simple linear "cause>effect"
relationship. This relationship can be expanded into a cyclical model
by applying the concept of paticca-samuppada. The same applies to the
second pair of noble truths.

metta,
Yong Peng.

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, johnny pruitt wrote:

> I had an insight that I thought I would share. Not sure if it is
just pa~nca or not. In the Anguttara Nikaya, as presented in the New
Course In Reading Pali lesson 2, the Buddha gives a discourse stating
Lobho nidaana.m kammaana.m samudayaaya, doso pe ,moho
nidaana.m kammaana.m samudayaaya which I translate as Covetousness
is the origin for the arising of action, Aversion is the origin for
the arising of action, Delusion is the origin for the arising of action.
> In this context samudaya seems to imply the "arising" of kamma.
Because nidaana implies origin or place.
> The Second Noble Truth uses the phrase Dukkhasamudaya.m
ariyasacha.m in this phrase samudaya is used in the sense of
origin instead of nidaana. Also the Buddha in elaborating on the
Second Noble Truth states that covetousness is the origin of suffering
> At first I thought that this altering of the meaning for samdaya,
namely, samudaya changing from arising to origin, was just a matter of
interchangeability. However, as I thought about it I had the notion
that maybe in the Second Noble Truth lord Buddha was implying the
doctrine of the Twelve Linked Chain of Dependent Arising and that
covetousness is only what CONDITIONS suffering instead of the origin.
Thus the Second Noble Truth could be restated as the Arising-condition
of suffering instead of the flat out Origin Of Suffering. Also in the
Twelve Linked Chain of Dependent Origination Avijja is the greatest
conditional dhamma of the chain of suffering and can be conditioned by
suffering also. The Ta.nhaa and Upadanaa are farther in the list and
must have a more minor role in the cause of suffering.
>
> The general idea behind this is weather Lord Buddha actually was
implying the Dependent Origination or not in the second noble truth by
using the word samudaya rather than nidaana.. Usually the dependent
origination falls under the Nirodhagaminii pa.tipadaa Ariyasacha.m in
the fist of the eight fold path yatthaayida.m sammadi.t.thi