Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Dependent Origination - application to daily practice
Porpoise, obviously there aren't two interpretations to the core Buddhist teaching. There is only one. This is one doctrine which has one meaning.
This is your opinion Deshy and it smells a lot like fundamentalism.
The Buddha said
Just as the great ocean has one taste, the taste of salt, so also this Dhamma and Discipline has one taste, the taste of liberation. This is the sixth wonderful and marvellous quality in this Dhamma and Discipline...
Uposatha Sutta
There are different interpretations of dhamma, but it can be said that they all (most) have the same taste, just as if you take sea water from the atlantic, or the pacific, or from the depths, or from the beach; it will still taste like salt.
Step 4:
Consciousness is the condition for body and mind as in "tainted consciousness" is the condition for aggravated body and mind as explained by me. It has to be looked at that way. Don’t look at these 12 links literally.
Descriptions of DO in the suttas just refer to consciousness, not "tainted consciousness". They just refer to body and mind, not "aggravated body and mind". You seem to be adding in these qualifiers to justify your interpretation.
The Buddha said Uposatha Sutta
There are different interpretations of dhamma, but it can be said that they all (most) have the same taste, just as if you take sea water from the atlantic, or the pacific, or from the depths, or from the beach; it will still taste like salt.
Nios, thank you so very much for that sutta reference, it certainly tastes like salt.
If you take it literally like fabrications are the condition for consciousness then the Buddha would have lost his consciousness when he attained Nibbana.
The problem here is that you're using your own interpretations of fabrications and consciousness, not those of the traditional 3-lives model.
Deshy, you gave some sutta quotes earlier but I' struggling to see their relevance to our debate here.
For example, your quote from MN38:
"Exactly so, venerable sir. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is the same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirths, not another.”
“What is that consciousness, Sāti?”
“Venerable sir, it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here and there the result of good and bad actions.”
...Misguided man, have I not stated in many ways consciousness to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no origination of consciousness? But you, misguided man, have misrepresented us by your wrong grasp ..."
Sati thinks it's the same consciousness which runs through the round of rebirth. The Buddha reminds Sati that consciousness is dependently arisen - and therefore subject to anicca and anatta. I don't see how this is relevant to the debate.
Descriptions of DO in the suttas just refer to consciousness, not "tainted consciousness". They just refer to body and mind, not "aggravated body and mind". You seem to be adding in these qualifiers to justify your interpretation.
P
OK good. If that is the way you see it then please explain this to me. The Buddha eliminated delusion and attained Nibbana. By eliminating delusion he eliminated fabrications since the condition for fabrications is delusion.
The suttas refer to the second/third links as Fabrications condition consciousness. Since you say this cannot be read as fabrications is the condition for "tainted consciousness" then, when there are no fabrications, according to you there should be no consciousness. How does this happen?
A person who has no mental fabricators, who has right wisdom, should be unconscious? Please explain this to me
Deshy, you gave some sutta quotes earlier but I' struggling to see their relevance to our debate here.
For example, your quote from MN38:
"Exactly so, venerable sir. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is the same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirths, not another.”
“What is that consciousness, Sāti?”
“Venerable sir, it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here and there the result of good and bad actions.”
...Misguided man, have I not stated in many ways consciousness to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no origination of consciousness? But you, misguided man, have misrepresented us by your wrong grasp ..."
Sati thinks it's the same consciousness which runs through the round of rebirth. The Buddha reminds Sati that consciousness is dependently arisen - and therefore subject to anicca and anatta. I don't see how this is relevant to the debate.
P
The quote was given to justify my point why I refuse the three lifetime model. Please read more carefully again
There are different interpretations of dhamma, but it can be said that they all (most) have the same taste, just as if you take sea water from the atlantic, or the pacific, or from the depths, or from the beach; it will still taste like salt.
Nios.
Three lifetime model does not taste like here and now Nibbana. Could you explain to me how three lifetimes is relevant to the here and now please?
Three lifetime model does not taste like here and now Nibbana. Could you explain to me how three lifetimes is relevant to the here and now please?
That was not what I was refering to Deshy. I was refering to your suggestion that there is only one way to understand dhamma.
I do not get into the business of trying to explain nor refute rebirth, as the Buddha has advised.
That was not what I was refering to Deshy. I was refering to your suggestion that there is only one way to understand dhamma.
I didn't say there is only 1 way to understand something. What I said was not all understandings tally the way the Buddha meant it to be understood. Are there many flavors to the truth? Can there be 100 different ways that the Buddha explained the DO? If someone says he understands enlightenment as something other than the cessation of suffering is that right? Wouldn't you point out to him why he might be wrong because his "understanding" contradicts the suttas? Is it fundamentalism if you point it out?
I didn't say there is only 1 way to understand something. What I said was not all understandings tally the way the Buddha meant it to be understood. Are there many flavors to the truth? ....
I don't think you or I have the authority to say what is true and what is not. Wouldn't you agree? Therefore, wouldn't it be best not to tell people which way to interpret specific teachings?
We can give our opinion sure but, IMHO, it would be within right speech to make it clear that it is our opinion.
Which I did. Do you realize Nios that all I did was pointing out why the 3 lifetime model seems to be wrong according to the sutta? Anyone is most welcome to point me out why they think the here and now model is wrong if they think so without any risk of being called a fundamentalist. Why are you so sensitive to opposition?
Do you realize Nios that all I did was pointing out why the 3 lifetime model seems to be wrong according to the sutta?
Yes and others were disagreeing, which led to your post; "there aren't two interpretations to the core Buddhist teaching" which I replied to. Not to DO. I'm sorry if I've taken things off topic.
Yes and others were disagreeing, which led to your post; "there aren't two interpretations to the core Buddhist teaching"
Noone was disagreeing with me when I made that post Nios. What they were saying was something like "well that other thing can also be right but right now only this thing seems applicable so we will go by this for now but be open for the other thing also...". Which is why I said that I seriously don't think there are two ways to interpret a single doctrine.
Have you been following this thread properly or did you just jump in when you saw someone refusing the 3 lifetime model?
I'm not looking for an argument here, so I'll simply restate what I said previously;
I replied to your statement; "there aren't two interpretations to the core Buddhist teaching"
My post was, in no way, related to the 3 lifetimes as you continually suggest. Please point to me where I have tried to refute/proove or even talk about the 3 lifetimes...
I'm sorry if you think my intentions were in any way negative or derogative, but I can assure you, they weren't.
I'm not looking for an argument here, so I'll simply restate what I said previously;
I replied to your statement; "there aren't two interpretations to the core Buddhist teaching"
My post was, in no way, related to the 3 lifetimes as you continually suggest. Please point to me where I have tried to refute/proove or even talk about the 3 lifetimes...
I'm sorry if you think my intentions were in any way negative or derogative, but I can assure you, they weren't.
Nios.
Nios, my point is not that you refuse any model. My point is that it is fine to point out facts disputing one model. Why is it against right speech to say that "the Buddha probably didn't teach the DO in 2 different ways and this is why I think the other is probably wrong"???
I have seen over and over again in these forums where folks continuously get worked up over healthy debate. Why is it such a sensitive issue to point out contradictions in one model based on facts?
In short, why do you suggest that I should not disagree that the Buddha meant the DO to be interpreted in two ways?
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited July 2010
Is this just a back-and-forth discussion between you two guys, or is it a topic that has run its course?
Could this continue via PM, or do you wish to continue this here?
It does seem to have turned into a 2-person discussion.....
And frankly, I'm having some confusion trying to follow it. :crazy:
As this is the forum for experienced practitioners, is it appropriate to continue in this way?
Is this just a back-and-forth discussion between you two guys, or is it a topic that has run its course?
Could this continue via PM, or do you wish to continue this here?
It does seem to have turned into a 2-person discussion.....
And frankly, I'm having some confusion trying to follow it. :crazy:
As this is the forum for experienced practitioners, is it appropriate to continue in this way?
I'm just prompted to ask.....
Sorry about that Federica.
I hope the topic has not run its course though as I am waiting for porpoise's reply
The suttas refer to the second/third links as Fabrications condition consciousness. Since you say this cannot be read as fabrications is the condition for "tainted consciousness" then, when there are no fabrications, according to you there should be no consciousness. How does this happen?
Since you have rejected the 3-lives model I hope and assume that you are familiar with it and therefore don't need me to explain it to you?
Is this just a back-and-forth discussion between you two guys, or is it a topic that has run its course?
And frankly, I'm having some confusion trying to follow it. :crazy:
We've wandered into a rather technical debate about the different interpretations of DO, ie 3-lives v. psychological.
We could start a separate thread if that would help? My guess is that we'll end up agreeing to disagree.;)
I've read it a number of times and still don't see how you come to the conclusion you have, based on what the sutta actually says.
P
The three lifetime model talks about "rebirth-linking consciousness" which leaves this physical body and gets established in another physical base. It speaks about "rebirth-linking consciousness" as receiving kammic ramifications and gets reborn according to kamma. Sati makes a similar suggestion to the Buddha :
... consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirths
... speaks and feels and experiences here and there the result of good and bad actions
Which were refused by the Buddha. How can something which is dependently arising based on physical sense bases transmigrate to another birth?
Since you have rejected the 3-lives model I hope and assume that you are familiar with it and therefore don't need me to explain it to you?
P
P, you are not answering the question I asked. I gave you reasons why I reject the 3 lifetime model. I explained to you that the conditionality between consciousness and Fabricators is not to be taken literally like
Fabricators are the condition for Consciousness
But as
Fabricators are the condition for Tainted Consciousness
You continue to refuse that fabricators are the condition for "tainted consciousness". You say it is just consciousness, not tainted consciousness. So let me ask you again and yes I would like to hear your explanation to this.
If "Fabricators are the condition for Consciousness" then do you lose consciousness when you have eliminated ignorance? It’s simple. You eliminate ignorance therefore you eliminate mental fabricators and therefore, according to you, you should eliminate consciousness. How does that happen? Why do you avoid answering this?
The three lifetime model talks about "rebirth-linking consciousness" which leaves this physical body and gets established in another physical base. It speaks about "rebirth-linking consciousness" as receiving kammic ramifications and gets reborn according to kamma. Sati makes a similar suggestion to the Buddha :
Sati's error is thinking it's the same consciousness which continues on. The Buddha reminds Sati that it can't be the same consciousness because of dependent arising. The 3-lifetimes model describes how the consciousness of this life arises in dependence on the karma formations ( sankharas ) of the previous life - whether or not you or I believe this is another matter.
You continue to refuse that fabricators are the condition for "tainted consciousness". You say it is just consciousness, not tainted consciousness. So let me ask you again and yes I would like to hear your explanation to this.
The suttas just say consciousness, not "tainted consciousness". I've never heard of a reference to "tainted consciousness" and have no idea what it is.
If "Fabricators are the condition for Consciousness" then do you lose consciousness when you have eliminated ignorance? It’s simple. You eliminate ignorance therefore you eliminate mental fabricators and therefore, according to you, you should eliminate consciousness. How does that happen? Why do you avoid answering this?
Again you're setting up an artificial dilemna by imposing your definition of formations ( sankharas ) which you are calling "mental fabricators". The 3-lives model doesn't define sankharas in the way that you do.
Again you're setting up an artificial dilemna by imposing your definition of formations ( sankharas ) which you are calling "mental fabricators". The 3-lives model doesn't define sankharas in the way that you do.
P
The word Sankhara is tricky. It has so many meanings depending on the context. Perhaps you can explain to me how you understand this link :
Sati's error is thinking it's the same consciousness which continues on. The Buddha reminds Sati that it can't be the same consciousness because of dependent arising. The 3-lifetimes model describes how the consciousness of this life arises in dependence on the karma formations ( sankharas ) of the previous life - whether or not you or I believe this is another matter.
P
So you are saying consciousness arises in dependence to karma formations. But the suttas repeatedly state that consciousness arises based on the physical sense bases. As I said, the 3 lives model relies on a consciousness which exists independent of a physical body
"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.
"But what are bodily fabrications? What are verbal fabrications? What are mental fabrications?"
"In-&-out breaths are bodily fabrications. Directed thought & evaluation are verbal fabrications. Perceptions & feelings are mental fabrications."
"But why are in-&-out breaths bodily fabrications? Why are directed thought & evaluation verbal fabrications? Why are perceptions & feelings mental fabrications?"
"In-&-out breaths are bodily; these are things tied up with the body. That's why in-&-out breaths are bodily fabrications.
Having first directed one's thoughts and made an evaluation, one then breaks out into speech. That's why directed thought & evaluation are verbal fabrications.
Perceptions & feelings are mental; these are things tied up with the mind. That's why perceptions & feelings are mental fabrications."
Thus mental fabrications are Perceptions & feeling. Delusive perceptions taint the consciousness. When your eye makes contact with a form, according to your mental perceptions, the initial cognition (eye-consciousness) will be tainted. Wisdom is the condition for untainted consciousness. When you have wisdom and sees things with right mindfulness you do not have delusive perceptions and your initial cognition (eye-consciousness in this case) will not be tainted. Will not be biased. Will not be distorted. This is the link between the two.
As you observed previously sankhara has many meanings dependent on context. In the context of the 5 aggregates perception and feeling aren't included in the sankhara aggregate.
As a general observation I'm not entirely convinced by either the 3 lives or the psychological models of DO.
In practice I tend to focus on the second Noble Truth, which is the basis for DO anyway.
if you see the aggregates in the way as parts of a chariot, once the chariot is refuted its parts cannot exist either. The Lamrim Chenmo states exactly the way to meditate on this way of Right View. From the tibetian side its logic and practicality is awesome . For the limited space avail here i won't elaborate upon the method, but feel free to look it up.
Just a quibble, can we update this to a car? Chariots can be hard to picture.
In the context of the 5 aggregates perception and feeling aren't included in the sankhara aggregate.
"There are these five clinging-aggregates, friend Visakha: form as a clinging-aggregate, feeling as a clinging-aggregate, perception as a clinging-aggregate, fabrications as a clinging-aggregate, consciousness as a clinging-aggregate. These five clinging-aggregates are the self-identification described by the Blessed One."
MN 44
"And what are fabrications? These three are fabrications: bodily fabrications, verbal fabrications, mental fabrications. These are called fabrications.
"In-&-out breaths are bodily fabrications. Directed thought & evaluation are verbal fabrications. Perceptions & feelings are mental fabrications."
These six are classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, intellect-consciousness. This is called consciousness.
In the 3 lives model consciousness arises dependent on the karma formations. Could you explain it without using qualifiers?
P
I already explained to you the connection between sankhara and consciousness. And gave you the sutta references. You dispute them all but fail to explain the connection between these two links in the DO. You imply that the conditionality is such that by eliminating fabrications you eliminate consciousness yet fail to answer how the Buddha remained conscious while eliminating ignorance ... You seem to purposely force this conversation round in circles while ignoring the sutta quotes altogether. There is very little point in this discussion. It looks to me like you are trolling
Deshy, this is from MN9, the Sutta on Right View, and clearly supports the 3-lives model of DO rather than the psychological version:
Aging and Death
22. "And what is aging and death, what is the origin of aging and death, what is the cessation of aging and death, what is the way leading to the cessation of aging and death? The aging of beings in the various orders of beings, their old age, brokenness of teeth, grayness of hair, wrinkling of skin, decline of life, weakness of faculties — this is called aging. The passing of beings out of the various orders of beings, their passing away, dissolution, disappearance, dying, completion of time, dissolution of the aggregates, laying down of the body — this is called death.
Birth
26. "And what is birth, what is the origin of birth, what is the cessation of birth, what is the way leading to the cessation of birth? The birth of beings into the various orders of beings, their coming to birth, precipitation [in a womb], generation, manifestation of the aggregates, obtaining the bases for contact — this is called birth.
Being
<!-- bhava (becoming)-->30. "And what is being, what is the origin of being, what is the cessation of being, what is the way leading to the cessation of being? There are these three kinds of being: sense-sphere being, fine-material being and immaterial being."
Comments
This is your opinion Deshy and it smells a lot like fundamentalism.
The Buddha said Uposatha Sutta
There are different interpretations of dhamma, but it can be said that they all (most) have the same taste, just as if you take sea water from the atlantic, or the pacific, or from the depths, or from the beach; it will still taste like salt.
Nios.
Descriptions of DO in the suttas just refer to consciousness, not "tainted consciousness". They just refer to body and mind, not "aggravated body and mind". You seem to be adding in these qualifiers to justify your interpretation.
P
Nios, thank you so very much for that sutta reference, it certainly tastes like salt.
The problem here is that you're using your own interpretations of fabrications and consciousness, not those of the traditional 3-lives model.
P
For example, your quote from MN38:
"Exactly so, venerable sir. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is the same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirths, not another.”
“What is that consciousness, Sāti?”
“Venerable sir, it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here and there the result of good and bad actions.”
...Misguided man, have I not stated in many ways consciousness to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no origination of consciousness? But you, misguided man, have misrepresented us by your wrong grasp ..."
Sati thinks it's the same consciousness which runs through the round of rebirth. The Buddha reminds Sati that consciousness is dependently arisen - and therefore subject to anicca and anatta. I don't see how this is relevant to the debate.
P
OK good. If that is the way you see it then please explain this to me. The Buddha eliminated delusion and attained Nibbana. By eliminating delusion he eliminated fabrications since the condition for fabrications is delusion.
The suttas refer to the second/third links as Fabrications condition consciousness. Since you say this cannot be read as fabrications is the condition for "tainted consciousness" then, when there are no fabrications, according to you there should be no consciousness. How does this happen?
A person who has no mental fabricators, who has right wisdom, should be unconscious? Please explain this to me
The quote was given to justify my point why I refuse the three lifetime model. Please read more carefully again
Three lifetime model does not taste like here and now Nibbana. Could you explain to me how three lifetimes is relevant to the here and now please?
That was not what I was refering to Deshy. I was refering to your suggestion that there is only one way to understand dhamma.
I do not get into the business of trying to explain nor refute rebirth, as the Buddha has advised.
Nios.
I didn't say there is only 1 way to understand something. What I said was not all understandings tally the way the Buddha meant it to be understood. Are there many flavors to the truth? Can there be 100 different ways that the Buddha explained the DO? If someone says he understands enlightenment as something other than the cessation of suffering is that right? Wouldn't you point out to him why he might be wrong because his "understanding" contradicts the suttas? Is it fundamentalism if you point it out?
I don't refuse/accept rebirth.
I don't think you or I have the authority to say what is true and what is not. Wouldn't you agree? Therefore, wouldn't it be best not to tell people which way to interpret specific teachings?
We can give our opinion sure but, IMHO, it would be within right speech to make it clear that it is our opinion.
And yet you spend much of your time refuting it :hrm:
Nios.
Which I did. Do you realize Nios that all I did was pointing out why the 3 lifetime model seems to be wrong according to the sutta? Anyone is most welcome to point me out why they think the here and now model is wrong if they think so without any risk of being called a fundamentalist. Why are you so sensitive to opposition?
I spend time pointing out that rebirth is not relevant to Nibbana/core Buddhist teachings.
Apologies, it was not clear.
Yes and others were disagreeing, which led to your post; "there aren't two interpretations to the core Buddhist teaching" which I replied to. Not to DO. I'm sorry if I've taken things off topic.
Who said I dissagreed with your opinion of DO :-/
Nios.
Noone was disagreeing with me when I made that post Nios. What they were saying was something like "well that other thing can also be right but right now only this thing seems applicable so we will go by this for now but be open for the other thing also...". Which is why I said that I seriously don't think there are two ways to interpret a single doctrine.
Have you been following this thread properly or did you just jump in when you saw someone refusing the 3 lifetime model?
I'm not looking for an argument here, so I'll simply restate what I said previously;
I replied to your statement; "there aren't two interpretations to the core Buddhist teaching"
My post was, in no way, related to the 3 lifetimes as you continually suggest. Please point to me where I have tried to refute/proove or even talk about the 3 lifetimes...
I'm sorry if you think my intentions were in any way negative or derogative, but I can assure you, they weren't.
Nios.
Nios, my point is not that you refuse any model. My point is that it is fine to point out facts disputing one model. Why is it against right speech to say that "the Buddha probably didn't teach the DO in 2 different ways and this is why I think the other is probably wrong"???
I have seen over and over again in these forums where folks continuously get worked up over healthy debate. Why is it such a sensitive issue to point out contradictions in one model based on facts?
Nios.
There is no misunderstanding here. I am replying to your comments. Let me remind you which ones
:eek:
I agree this conversation is off-topic. Let me remind you that I didn't start this conversation
Could this continue via PM, or do you wish to continue this here?
It does seem to have turned into a 2-person discussion.....
And frankly, I'm having some confusion trying to follow it. :crazy:
As this is the forum for experienced practitioners, is it appropriate to continue in this way?
I'm just prompted to ask.....
I hope the topic has not run its course though as I am waiting for porpoise's reply
Since you have rejected the 3-lives model I hope and assume that you are familiar with it and therefore don't need me to explain it to you?
P
This is a red herring. We're comparing the 2 interpretations of DO, not discussing what teachings are relevant to here and now practice.
P
We've wandered into a rather technical debate about the different interpretations of DO, ie 3-lives v. psychological.
We could start a separate thread if that would help? My guess is that we'll end up agreeing to disagree.;)
P
I've read it a number of times and still don't see how you come to the conclusion you have, based on what the sutta actually says.
P
The three lifetime model talks about "rebirth-linking consciousness" which leaves this physical body and gets established in another physical base. It speaks about "rebirth-linking consciousness" as receiving kammic ramifications and gets reborn according to kamma. Sati makes a similar suggestion to the Buddha :
Which were refused by the Buddha. How can something which is dependently arising based on physical sense bases transmigrate to another birth?
I was answering Nios's comments according to the comments he made.
P, you are not answering the question I asked. I gave you reasons why I reject the 3 lifetime model. I explained to you that the conditionality between consciousness and Fabricators is not to be taken literally like
Fabricators are the condition for Consciousness
But as
Fabricators are the condition for Tainted Consciousness
You continue to refuse that fabricators are the condition for "tainted consciousness". You say it is just consciousness, not tainted consciousness. So let me ask you again and yes I would like to hear your explanation to this.
If "Fabricators are the condition for Consciousness" then do you lose consciousness when you have eliminated ignorance? It’s simple. You eliminate ignorance therefore you eliminate mental fabricators and therefore, according to you, you should eliminate consciousness. How does that happen? Why do you avoid answering this?
Sati's error is thinking it's the same consciousness which continues on. The Buddha reminds Sati that it can't be the same consciousness because of dependent arising. The 3-lifetimes model describes how the consciousness of this life arises in dependence on the karma formations ( sankharas ) of the previous life - whether or not you or I believe this is another matter.
P
The suttas just say consciousness, not "tainted consciousness". I've never heard of a reference to "tainted consciousness" and have no idea what it is.
P
Again you're setting up an artificial dilemna by imposing your definition of formations ( sankharas ) which you are calling "mental fabricators". The 3-lives model doesn't define sankharas in the way that you do.
P
The word Sankhara is tricky. It has so many meanings depending on the context. Perhaps you can explain to me how you understand this link :
Sankhara -> consciousness
:coffee:
So you are saying consciousness arises in dependence to karma formations. But the suttas repeatedly state that consciousness arises based on the physical sense bases. As I said, the 3 lives model relies on a consciousness which exists independent of a physical body
And what are the three types of fabrications the Buddha is referring to:
Delusion -> (Tainted) consciousness
Wisdom -> (Untainted) consciousness
In the 3 lives model consciousness arises dependent on the karma formations. Could you explain it without using qualifiers?
P
As you observed previously sankhara has many meanings dependent on context. In the context of the 5 aggregates perception and feeling aren't included in the sankhara aggregate.
P
I've never come across this idea of tainted consciousness in the suttas, and I don't see how consciousness is something that could be tainted.
Is this something somebody has made up?
P
Not in DO.:p
P
Or rather to your interpretation of what the suttas say.:p
P
In practice I tend to focus on the second Noble Truth, which is the basis for DO anyway.
P
Just a quibble, can we update this to a car?
But cars have a lot more parts.:p
P
I already explained to you the connection between sankhara and consciousness. And gave you the sutta references. You dispute them all but fail to explain the connection between these two links in the DO. You imply that the conditionality is such that by eliminating fabrications you eliminate consciousness yet fail to answer how the Buddha remained conscious while eliminating ignorance ... You seem to purposely force this conversation round in circles while ignoring the sutta quotes altogether. There is very little point in this discussion. It looks to me like you are trolling
No, I'm just disagreeing with you.
P
Aging and Death
22. "And what is aging and death, what is the origin of aging and death, what is the cessation of aging and death, what is the way leading to the cessation of aging and death? The aging of beings in the various orders of beings, their old age, brokenness of teeth, grayness of hair, wrinkling of skin, decline of life, weakness of faculties — this is called aging. The passing of beings out of the various orders of beings, their passing away, dissolution, disappearance, dying, completion of time, dissolution of the aggregates, laying down of the body — this is called death.
Birth
26. "And what is birth, what is the origin of birth, what is the cessation of birth, what is the way leading to the cessation of birth? The birth of beings into the various orders of beings, their coming to birth, precipitation [in a womb], generation, manifestation of the aggregates, obtaining the bases for contact — this is called birth.
Being
<!-- bhava (becoming)-->30. "And what is being, what is the origin of being, what is the cessation of being, what is the way leading to the cessation of being? There are these three kinds of being: sense-sphere being, fine-material being and immaterial being."