user17628: 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?

user10100: 
However, I am unable to make out how ‘Suffering’ forms the supporting condition for ’Faith’ to arise. Could this be clarified?

People trust in paṭicca-samuppāda and the  PaṭiccaSamuppāda-Blessed One because they feel suffering and want to get out of suffering. If they never been effected by the suffering, they will laugh without any trust when they hear even only a word "paṭicca-samuppāda".
You can see the explanation in upanissasutta's commentary too.

Lastly, why is the nidāna of jarā- maraṇa replaced by the more general term dukkha in the concept of lokuttara paṭicca-samuppāda?

I think it is because it is not supporting the context. The context is about the origin. The last origin is Jati. It is very long and make confuse, if the Buddha taught "'Rebirth is a condition for old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress to come to be. That is how this entire mass of suffering originates' cause Saddha".

user8157: The  Upanisā Sutta refers to suffering as the condition for faith because the Buddha has taught suffering experienced can be ended, for example, as follows from MN 38:

He [the person discussed above], hearing the Dhamma, gains conviction (faith)
in the Tathāgata and reflects: 'Household life is confining, a dusty
path. Life gone forth is the open air. It isn't easy, living at home,
to practice the holy life totally perfect, totally pure, a polished
shell. What if I, having shaved off my hair & beard and putting on the
ochre robe, were to go forth from the household life into
homelessness?

Keep in mind the 1st noble truth (SN 56.11) also says birth (jati; identity) is suffering. Since you (Sushil Fotedar) are Indian, you show know the word "jati" means "identity" (rather than physical birth from a mother's womb).
As for aging & death, SN 12.66 explains they are types of suffering, as follows:

As he explores he understands thus: ‘The many diverse kinds of
suffering that arise in the world headed by aging-and-death: this
suffering has acquisition as its source, acquisition as its origin; it
is born and produced from acquisition. When there is acquisition,
aging-and-death comes to be; when there is no acquisition,
aging-and-death does not come to be.

Aging & death do not refer to physical aging & death but refer to self-identification with physical aging & death, which is why SN 12.2 refers to the birth, aging & death of "beings in a category of beings". SN 23.2 & SN 5.10 define "a being" as a "self-view".
If we read the Vibhanga of the Abhidhamma, birth, aging & death are defined therein as the birth, aging & death of "things" ("dhammas"). Here we see the beginnings of the corruption & destruction of the Buddha's Teachings; which continues today in the world by the heretical self-proclaimed "Theravada" or "Elders".

user471: 
OP: why is the nidāna of jarā- maraṇa replaced by the more general term
dukkha in the concept of lokuttara paṭicca-samuppāda?

Suffering (stress) is a more general term while disease and death are specific forms of suffering.
This sutta uses the general form of dukkha, because that's the basis for connecting the lokiya paticcasamuppada to the lokuttara paticcasamuppada

Birth is stress, aging is stress, death is stress; sorrow,
lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stress; association with
the unbeloved is stress; separation from the loved is stress; not
getting what is wanted is stress. In short, the five
clinging-aggregates are stress.
AN 6.63


OP: However, I am unable to make out how ‘Suffering’ forms the
supporting condition for ’Faith’ to arise. Could this be clarified?

One learns of the Dhamma and grows to have faith in it, but only because he seeks an end to suffering. That's the connection of suffering to faith.
In the paper "The Spiral Path or Lokuttara Paṭicca-samuppāda" by Jayarava Attwood, he explains:

In  particular,  the Upanisā  Sutta begins  the sequence  with  faith
arising  from  suffering  as  a  precondition. Suffering  is  the
culmination of the nidānas, and replaces jarā-maraṇa in the usual
nidāna sequence. This requires some exegesis, and some assumptions
must be made about how saddhā arises out of dukkha. ...
He seems to be saying that as a result of our experience of dukkha we
develop faith in the possibility of liberation. However, it is
not clear that saddhā does develop directly from the experience of
dukkha, or Buddhism  would spontaneously  break out everywhere. In
his 1966 and 1967 lectures, however, Sangharakshita  filled  in  the
gaps a  little:  awareness of dukkha gives  rise  to  “restlessness”,
which sets us “searching for something  higher”, and once we contact
something higher then faith arises. Sangharakshita, in effect,
introduces three intermediate steps: restlessness, searching, and
contact with something higher.


OP: why is lokuttara paṭicca-samuppāda also called the ‘Spiral Path’ by > Bikśu Sangharakshita?

From the same paper, we see the suggestion that Sangharakshita called the lokuttara paticcasammupada the spiral path, to denote that it's a progressive path, as opposed to the lokiya paticcasammupada, which is the cyclic path, meaning repeating:

Dr  Beni  Barua  took  up  the  theme  in  his  lecture Buddhism  as
Personal  Religion,  published  in  the Mahabodhi  Society  Journal in
1944. It appears to be Barua who first used the terminology ‘cyclic’ and  ‘progressive’ of the two forms of conditionality;
a terminology popularised by Sangharakshita in his writing.
Barua presents a progressive sequence of steps, but attempts
to locate this precise sequence in the Canon have not found it, and
it seems Barua may have used poetic licence with canonical lists. ....
Sangharakshita also highlights the singular nature of the Upanisā
Sutta (SN  12.23)  in  combining  the  two  categories of
paṭicca-samuppāda (p.136). It  was  Sangharakshita  who  coined the
term  ‘Spiral  Path’ for this  sequence, to contrast it with the
cyclic nidānas. 40
40 Sangharakshita has always taught the traditional
‘three lifetimes’ interpretation of the twelve nidānas, and often
makes use of the bhavacakka


17628: <p>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.</p>
<p>I have some queries regarding this:</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.023.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Upanisā Sutta</a> 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?</p>
<p>The second query is why is lokuttara paṭicca-samuppāda also called the ‘Spiral Path’ by Bikśu Sangharakshita?</p>
<p>Lastly, why is the nidāna of jarā- maraṇa replaced by the more general term dukkha in the concept of lokuttara paṭicca-samuppāda?</p>
 10100: <blockquote>
<p>However, I am unable to make out how ‘Suffering’ forms the supporting condition for ’Faith’ to arise. Could this be clarified?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>People trust in paṭicca-samuppāda and the  PaṭiccaSamuppāda-Blessed One because they feel suffering and want to get out of suffering. If they never been effected by the suffering, they will laugh without any trust when they hear even only a word &quot;paṭicca-samuppāda&quot;.</p>
<p>You can see the explanation in <a href="https://84000.org/tipitaka/atthapali/read_rm.php?B=12&amp;A=1328&amp;modeTY=2&amp;h=Saddhati" rel="nofollow noreferrer">upanissasutta's commentary</a> too.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Lastly, why is the nidāna of jarā- maraṇa replaced by the more general term dukkha in the concept of lokuttara paṭicca-samuppāda?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I think it is because it is not supporting the context. The context is about the origin. The last origin is Jati. It is very long and make confuse, if the Buddha taught &quot;'Rebirth is a condition for old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress to come to be. That is how this entire mass of suffering originates' cause Saddha&quot;.</p>
 8157: <p>The  Upanisā Sutta refers to suffering as the condition for faith because the Buddha has taught suffering experienced can be ended, for example, as follows from MN 38:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>He [the person discussed above], hearing the Dhamma, gains conviction (faith)
in the Tathāgata and reflects: 'Household life is confining, a dusty
path. Life gone forth is the open air. It isn't easy, living at home,
to practice the holy life totally perfect, totally pure, a polished
shell. What if I, having shaved off my hair &amp; beard and putting on the
ochre robe, were to go forth from the household life into
homelessness?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Keep in mind the 1st noble truth (SN 56.11) also says birth (jati; identity) is suffering. Since you (Sushil Fotedar) are Indian, you show know the word &quot;jati&quot; means &quot;identity&quot; (rather than physical birth from a mother's womb).</p>
<p>As for aging &amp; death, SN 12.66 explains they are types of suffering, as follows:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>As he explores he understands thus: ‘The many diverse kinds of
suffering that arise in the world headed by aging-and-death: this
suffering has acquisition as its source, acquisition as its origin; it
is born and produced from acquisition. When there is acquisition,
aging-and-death comes to be; when there is no acquisition,
aging-and-death does not come to be.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Aging &amp; death do not refer to physical aging &amp; death but refer to self-identification with physical aging &amp; death, which is why SN 12.2 refers to the birth, aging &amp; death of &quot;beings in a category of beings&quot;. SN 23.2 &amp; SN 5.10 define &quot;a being&quot; as a &quot;self-view&quot;.</p>
<p>If we read the Vibhanga of the Abhidhamma, birth, aging &amp; death are defined therein as the birth, aging &amp; death of &quot;things&quot; (&quot;dhammas&quot;). Here we see the beginnings of the corruption &amp; destruction of the Buddha's Teachings; which continues today in the world by the heretical self-proclaimed &quot;Theravada&quot; or &quot;Elders&quot;.</p>
 471: <blockquote>
<p><strong>OP:</strong> why is the nidāna of jarā- maraṇa replaced by the more general term
dukkha in the concept of lokuttara paṭicca-samuppāda?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Suffering (stress) is a more general term while disease and death are specific forms of suffering.</p>
<p>This sutta uses the general form of dukkha, because that's the basis for connecting the lokiya paticcasamuppada to the lokuttara paticcasamuppada</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Birth is stress, aging is stress, death is stress; sorrow,
lamentation, pain, distress, &amp; despair are stress; association with
the unbeloved is stress; separation from the loved is stress; not
getting what is wanted is stress. In short, the five
clinging-aggregates are stress.<br />
<a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.063.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN 6.63</a></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>OP:</strong> However, I am unable to make out how ‘Suffering’ forms the
supporting condition for ’Faith’ to arise. Could this be clarified?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>One learns of the Dhamma and grows to have faith in it, but only because he seeks an end to suffering. That's the connection of suffering to faith.</p>
<p>In the paper &quot;<a href="https://thebuddhistcentre.com/system/files/groups/files/Jayarava-Spiral%20Path.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Spiral Path or Lokuttara Paṭicca-samuppāda</a>&quot; by Jayarava Attwood, he explains:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In  particular,  the Upanisā  Sutta begins  the sequence  with  faith
arising  from  suffering  as  a  precondition. Suffering  is  the
culmination of the <em>nidānas</em>, and replaces <em>jarā-maraṇa</em> in the usual
<em>nidāna</em> sequence. This requires some exegesis, and some assumptions
must be made about how <em>saddhā</em> arises out of <em>dukkha</em>. ...</p>
<p>He seems to be saying that as a result of our experience of <em>dukkha</em> we
develop faith in the possibility of liberation. However, it is
not clear that <em>saddhā</em> does develop directly from the experience of
<em>dukkha</em>, or Buddhism  would spontaneously  break out everywhere. In
his 1966 and 1967 lectures, however, Sangharakshita  filled  in  the
gaps a  little:  awareness of <em>dukkha</em> gives  rise  to  “restlessness”,
which sets us “searching for something  higher”, and once we contact
something higher then faith arises. Sangharakshita, in effect,
introduces three intermediate steps: restlessness, searching, and
contact with something higher.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>OP:</strong> why is lokuttara paṭicca-samuppāda also called the ‘Spiral Path’ by &gt; Bikśu Sangharakshita?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>From the same paper, we see the suggestion that Sangharakshita called the lokuttara paticcasammupada the spiral path, to denote that it's a progressive path, as opposed to the lokiya paticcasammupada, which is the cyclic path, meaning repeating:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Dr  Beni  Barua  took  up  the  theme  in  his  lecture Buddhism  as
Personal  Religion,  published  in  the Mahabodhi  Society  Journal in
1944. It appears to be Barua who first used the terminology ‘cyclic’ and  ‘progressive’ of the two forms of conditionality;
a terminology popularised by Sangharakshita in his writing.
Barua presents a progressive sequence of steps, but attempts
to locate this precise sequence in the Canon have not found it, and
it seems Barua may have used poetic licence with canonical lists. ....</p>
<p>Sangharakshita also highlights the singular nature of the Upanisā
Sutta (SN  12.23)  in  combining  the  two  categories of
<em>paṭicca-samuppāda</em> (p.136). It  was  Sangharakshita  who  coined the
term  ‘Spiral  Path’ for this  sequence, to contrast it with the
cyclic <em>nidānas</em>. <sup>40</sup></p>
<p><sub><sup>40</sup> Sangharakshita has always taught the traditional
‘three lifetimes’ interpretation of the twelve <em>nidānas</em>, and often
makes use of the <em>bhavacakka</em></sub></p>
</blockquote>
