I find Buddhadasa's point of view appealing, but I have some difficulties wrapping my head around it. What is more, from reading his text I am left with the impression that he has developed a pronounced distaste for Buddhaghosa's interpretation, as he keeps bashing it on almost every page of the book. He writes like a philosopher who tries to out-argue another philosopher's views. I find this unnecessary, because the two interpretations complement rather than contradict each other. To my ears, the translation of the samuppada as "arising motion" is still quite removed from "occurring simultaneously", but I won't argue this any further since I lack knowledge of the Pali language. It appears that drawing an argument on account of this in favour of co-temporality of the arising of all nidanas is a bit of a stretch and I haven't yet come across any sutta that spells this out. Likewise, arguing that dependent origination cannot arise prenatally seems a bit of a stretch, since what we know about the developing baby in the uterus suggests otherwise, but I will leave it at that because these points are just incidental to the main argument. The principal difficulty for the momentary interpretation of dependent origination is to explain how the the nidanas no. 1, 3, 4 and 5 arise momentarily, that is ignorance (avijja), consciousness (vinnana), name-and-form (namarupa, psychophysicality), and the six sense gates (salayatana). I have no problems with a metaphorical understanding of the nidanas 10-13, namely becoming (bhava), birth (jati), and decay and death (jaramarana), as they can relate to the metaphorical birth and death of any phenomenon that we fancy conceptualising. I have also no problems with the other nidanas 2 and 6-9, namely mental formations (sankhara), contact (phassa), feeling (vedana), craving (tanha), and attachment (updana), because these can obviously arise spontaneously, although it could be argued that sankhara, tanha, and upadana tend to become persistent features of the mind that survive and exceed the moments of dukkha experiences. Perhaps it is useful to come back to the ball game example that you introduced. If you throw or hit a ball against the wall -say you have a tennis racket- it comes back and cycles between you and the wall until you end the game and walk away. If one attempts to analyse this in the style of dependent origination, one can point out a number of supporting conditions for this game, such as the wall, the racket, the swing of the racket, contact of the ball with the surfaces, gravity, elastic properties, mechanical forces, and so on. Obviously, some of the features of the ball game arise momentarily and are repeated over and over, such as contact of the ball with the wall, contact with the racket, the swing of the racket, and the mechanical forces acting on the ball. Other features, such as the wall, the floor, and the racket are of a more permanent nature. They do not arise spontaneously, but they stay in place between individual cycles of the ball game. Now, the outrageous claim in Buddhadasa's interpretation is that all conditions are of momentary nature and he makes no distinction between spontaneous and more permanent ones. He states that all twelve nidanas arise in a moment of dukkha. This is a bit like claiming that the wall comes into existence momentarily as the ball makes contact with it, or that the racket comes into existence only when it plays the ball. Just not very intuitive... Cheers, Putthujano