Paticcasamupadda - namarupa/name-and-form, vinnana/consciousness, and sankharas/fabrications

[DooDoot]

one model both points out a cause and explains consecutive origination of created phenomena whereas the other merely explains the universal origination of created phenomena.

For me, friend, I would explain the above as:

1. one model explains the causality of how consciousness & mind-&-body are tainted/polluted by ignorance

2. the other model merely explains meta-physical causality.

In other words, using the language of the commentaries, one model is Dhamma-Niyama (pertaining to dukkha & its cessation) and the other model is merely Citta-Niyama (pertaining to how the mind generically operates).

Anyway, the above is merely my opinion on the subject.

For example, the quotes below from the same sutta show how the causal arising of consciousness is "neutral" (citta nikaya) while the arising of dukkha follows another causal principle (Dhamma Niyama).

Red colour = citta niyama

Blue colour = Dhamma Niyama

Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there arises what is felt either as pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain. If, when touched by a feeling of pleasure, one relishes it, welcomes it, or remains fastened to it, then one's passion-obsession gets obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of pain, one sorrows, grieves, & laments, beats one's breast, becomes distraught, then one's resistance-obsession gets obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one does not discern, as it actually is present, the origination, passing away, allure, drawback, or escape from that feeling, then one's ignorance-obsession gets obsessed. That a person — without abandoning passion-obsession with regard to a feeling of pleasure, without abolishing resistance-obsession with regard to a feeling of pain, without uprooting ignorance-obsession with regard to a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, without abandoning ignorance and giving rise to clear knowing — would put an end to suffering & stress in the here & now: such a thing isn't possible.

Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there arises what is felt either as pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain. If, when touched by a feeling of pleasure, one does not relish it, welcome it, or remain fastened to it, then one's passion-obsession doesn't get obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of pain, one does not sorrow, grieve, or lament, beat one's breast or become distraught, then one's resistance obsession doesn't get obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one discerns, as it actually is present, the origination, passing away, allure, drawback, & escape from that feeling, then one's ignorance-obsession doesn't get obsessed. That a person — through abandoning passion-obsession with regard to a feeling of pleasure, through abolishing resistance-obsession with regard to a feeling of pain, through uprooting ignorance-obsession with regard to a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, through abandoning ignorance and giving rise to clear knowing — would put an end to suffering & stress in the here & now: such a thing is possible.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

[User1249x]

I can unpack it a bit;
The world is that which perceives and conceives of the world,
Ignorance is root of all ill,
Ignorance about formations in particular,
Beings are ignorant, World is formed,
Thus beings are essentially ignorant about the world,
No formations are permanent,
What is impermanent is to that extent unreliable,
What is unreliable is not to be regarded as me, mine and myself
Seeing it thus beings remove Ignorance
Being free from ignorance the root is cut
With the root cut they are disenchanted with the constructed
Having become disenchanted there is no fuel for consecutive arising of that which perceives and conceives of the world
There being no fuel for consecutive arising and with the breakup of that which perceives and conceives of the world all is brought to an end
That is the end of the world
That is the end of volitional formations
That is the end of ill

defintions;

"And what is name-&-form? Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention: This is called name. The four great elements, and the form dependent on the four great elements: This is called form. This name & this form are called name-&-form.

"And what is consciousness? These six are classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, intellect-consciousness. This is called consciousness.

"And what are fabrications? These three are fabrications: bodily fabrications, verbal fabrications, mental fabrications. These are called fabrications.

"And what is ignorance? Not knowing stress, not knowing the origination of stress, not knowing the cessation of stress, not knowing the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: This is called ignorance.

The Blessed One said: "And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is the origination of the world.

Whatever in the world through which you perceive the world and conceive the world is called the world in the training of the noble one. And through what in the world do you perceive the world and conceive the world? Through the eye in the world you perceive the world and conceive the world. Through the ear … nose … tongue … body … mind in the world you perceive the world and conceive the world.

"'Stress, stress,' it is said, my friend Sariputta. Which type of stress [are they referring to]?"

"There are these three forms of stressfulness, my friend: the stressfulness of pain, the stressfulness of fabrication, the stressfulness of change. These are the three forms of stressfulness."

"But is there a path, is there a practice for the full comprehension of these forms of stressfulness?"

"Yes, there is a path, there is a practice for the full comprehension of these forms of stressfulness."

"Then what is the path, what is the practice for the full comprehension of these forms of stressfulness?"

"Precisely this Noble Eightfold Path, my friend — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This is the path, this is the practice for the full comprehension of these forms of stressfulness."

"Monks, there are these three kinds of suffering.[1] What three? Suffering caused by pain,[2] suffering caused by the formations (or conditioned existence),[3] suffering due to change.[4] It is for the full comprehension, clear understanding, ending and abandonment of these three forms of suffering that the Noble Eightfold Path is to be cultivated..."

I used the term Ill for stress and suffering itt

The takeaway is that for us to talk about ignorance we postulate the existence of the [ignorant]beings and a "conceptual world" in which these beings exist.
However when talking about the origination of that which perceives and conceives of the world (namely; eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind) the postulation of the existence of a being is not necessary because the concept of a being is a conceptual notion produced by the ideation faculty and is a convention outside of all.

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

anyway i am not the teacher so it may be wrong

[DooDoot]

The takeaway is that for us to talk about ignorance we postulate the existence of the [ignorant] beings and a "conceptual world" in which these beings exist. However when talking about the origination of that which perceives and conceives of the world (namely; eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind) the postulation of the existence of a being is not necessary because the concept of a being is a conceptual notion produced by the ideation faculty and is a convention outside of all.

If the above says "beings" are mere "conceptual notions", it sounds cool.

[justindesilva]

In Sn 12.1 re paticca samuppada vingana is mentioned in general. But with 12.65 vingnana is partitioned through pancendriya and vingnana acts only with a single indriya as nose mouth eyes tongue or body in a single moment. Vingnana cognites with a single indriya out of the five at a moment.

[DooDoot]

Yet in SN 12.65...

It's because consciousness and name-form have a mutual dependency, which SN 12.67 gives further explanation using the simile of two sheaves of reeds leaning against each other. As far as the part where "consciousness turning back", it doesn't mean that it has no other prior conditions. Ven. Bodhi's note citing Comy.'s explanation to clarify the meaning of "turning back":

This consciousness turns back (paccudāvattati kho idaṃ viññāṇāṃ). Spk: What is the consciousness that turns back here? The rebirth-consciousness and the insight-consciousness. Rebirth-consciousness turns back from its condition, insight-consciousness from its object. Neither overcomes name-and-form, goes further than name-and-form.
Spk-pṭ: From its condition: Rebirth-consciousness turns back from volitional formations—the special cause for consciousness—which has not been mentioned; it does not turn back from all conditions, as name-and-form is stated as the condition for consciousness. From its object: from ignorance and volitional formations as object, or from the past existence as object.

If consciousness and name-form have a mutual dependency; how can there be "rebirth-consciousness"? How can consciousness separate itself from nama-rupa to be reincarnated into a new nama-rupa??

[santa100]

If consciousness and name-form have a mutual dependency; how can there be "rebirth-consciousness"? How can consciousness separate itself from nama-rupa to be reincarnated into a new nama-rupa??

Simple, you're confused between sense consciousness and rebirth-consciousness. They're not the same. Notice this and you won't have to ask how consciousness (sense consciousness) separates itself from nama-rupa.

[DooDoot]

Simple, you're confused between sense consciousness and rebirth-consciousness. They're not the same. Notice this and you won't have to ask how consciousness (sense consciousness) separates itself from nama-rupa.

OK. So where in the suttas did the Buddha teach about a (7th) "rebirth-consciousness" and is this "rebirth-consciousness" unconditioned? Did the Buddha lack mindfulness & leave out rebirth-consciousness in his teachings on D.O.?

"And what is consciousness? These six are classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, intellect-consciousness. This is called consciousness.

Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta: Analysis of Dependent Co-arising

Just as fire is classified simply by whatever requisite condition in dependence on which it burns — a fire that burns in dependence on wood is classified simply as a wood-fire, a fire that burns in dependence on wood-chips is classified simply as a wood-chip-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on grass is classified simply as a grass-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on cow-dung is classified simply as a cow-dung-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on chaff is classified simply as a chaff-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on rubbish is classified simply as a rubbish-fire — in the same way, consciousness is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which it arises.

MN 38

"Were someone to say, 'I will describe a coming, a going, a passing away, an arising, a growth, an increase, or a proliferation of consciousness apart from form, from feeling, from perception, from fabrications,' that would be impossible.

SN 22.53

[santa100]

OK. So where in the suttas did the Buddha teach about a (7th) "rebirth-consciousness" and is this "rebirth-consciousness" unconditioned? Did the Buddha leave out rebirth-consciousness in his teachings on D.O.?

"And what is consciousness? These six are classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, intellect-consciousness. This is called consciousness.

Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta: Analysis of Dependent Co-arising

Just as fire is classified simply by whatever requisite condition in dependence on which it burns — a fire that burns in dependence on wood is classified simply as a wood-fire, a fire that burns in dependence on wood-chips is classified simply as a wood-chip-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on grass is classified simply as a grass-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on cow-dung is classified simply as a cow-dung-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on chaff is classified simply as a chaff-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on rubbish is classified simply as a rubbish-fire — in the same way, consciousness is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which it arises.

MN 38

"Were someone to say, 'I will describe a coming, a going, a passing away, an arising, a growth, an increase, or a proliferation of consciousness apart from form, from feeling, from perception, from fabrications,' that would be impossible.

SN 22.53

Another absurd logic. Where did the Buddha say consciousness is "exclusively" just the sense consciousness?

[DooDoot]

Another absurd logic. Where did the Buddha say consciousness is "exclusively" just the sense consciousness?

This topic is about Dependent Origination and I quoted the Buddha's teaching in Dependent Origination about six types of consciousness. As for the teachings to unfaithful Brahma Gods in DN 11 and MN 49; I did not notice Dependent Origination taught to those Brahmas. I think common sense would conclude the Buddha was speaking to the Brahma Gods in DN 11 and MN 49 in the language of their own doctrine. Regardless, I did not notice "rebirth consciousness" taught in DN 11 and MN 49. So where else did the Buddha mention another type of consciousness beyond the six or seven? Was the 8th consciousness taught to the Naga who taught it to Mahayana?

[santa100]

This topic is about Dependent Origination and I quoted the Buddha's teaching in Dependent Origination about six types of consciousness. As for the teachings to unfaithful Brahma Gods in DN 11 and MN 49; I did not notice Dependent Origination taught to those Brahmas. I think common sense would conclude the Buddha was speaking to the Brahma Gods in DN 11 and MN 49 in the language of their own doctrine. So where else did the Buddha mention another type of consciousness beyond the six?

Have you read MN 49?

Consciousness non-manifesting,

Boundless, luminous all-round

that is not partaken of by the earthness of earth, that is not partaken of by the waterness of water…that is not partaken of by the allness of all.’

And you have not answered my question about where the Buddhas said that consciousness is exclusively just the sense consciousness?

[DooDoot]

Have you read MN 49?

I already mentioned this and, as I said, it doesn't sound like a "rebirth" consciousness. How could a "non-manifesting" consciousness manifest into "rebirth"?

Also, I recall the Venerable Dhammanando posted it does not have the meaning of another type of consciousness; that it merely refers to consciousness not getting concocted (or similar; not that I necessarily agree); as follows:

"If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no landing of consciousness. Consciousness, thus not having landed, not increasing, not concocting, is released. Owing to its release, it is steady. Owing to its steadiness, it is contented. Owing to its contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is totally unbound right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"

SN 22.53

[santa100]

Have you read MN 49?

I already mentioned this and, as I said, it doesn't sound like a "rebirth" consciousness. How could a "non-manifesting" consciousness manifest into "rebirth"?

Also, I recall the Venerable Dhammanando posted it does not have the meaning of another type of consciousness.

It's not rebirth consciousness, but it's the proof to your false conclusion that consciousness is exclusively sense consciouness. Now per DO: Avijja conditions Sankhara, then Sankhara conditions Vinnana; now if Vinnana is exclusively of the sense consciousness, then how can Vinnana exists before Nama-Rupa come into the picture?

[DooDoot]

It's not rebirth consciousness, but it's the proof to your false conclusion that consciousness is exclusively sense consciouness.

Not at all. I addressed this in my last post. No evidence it is a 7th consciousness. In short, it seems the only evidence we have is the Buddha taught six consciousnesses to Buddhists (since MN 49 was not spoken to Buddhists). Best wishes.

[santa100]

It's not rebirth consciousness, but it's the proof to your false conclusion that consciousness is exclusively sense consciouness.

Not at all. I addressed this in my last post. No evidence it is a 7th consciousness. In short, it seems the only evidence we have is the Buddha taught six consciousnesses to Buddhists (since MN 49 was not spoken to Buddhists). Best wishes.

Why do you keep advocating all this conspiracy theory nonsense in so many posts? I'll repeat my question:

Now per DO: Avijja conditions Sankhara, then Sankhara conditions Vinnana; now if Vinnana is exclusively of the sense consciousness, then how can Vinnana exists before Nama-Rupa come into the picture?

[DooDoot]

Why do you keep advocating all this conspiracy theory nonsense in so many posts? I'll repeat my question:

Now per DO: Avijja conditions Sankhara, then Sankhara conditions Vinnana; now if Vinnana is exclusively of the sense consciousness, then how can Vinnana exists before Nama-Rupa come into the picture?

I provided my opinion on this on this thread. Refer to my post. Regards