text:
Daily life is dukkha
When I wake in the morning I have noticed that in that first moment when I realise I am conscious I feel this kind of yuckiness or sinking feeling. I'm not sure quite how to describe it. I guess it's dukkha? It's a daily realisation about where I am and the effort and discomfort that entails.  I don't want to face the daily struggle to survive life.  When I'm on retreat I wake up fresh and light with a sense of joyous wonder about what is ahead. I am completely different person. The person I want to be. I suppose retreat isn't really reality. It's like a bubble frozen in time, buffered from external stress.   But I want to feel like this in my daily life. I want to wake up and feel like I'm glad to be alive but I don't. I feel more like a slave or a pawn trapped in a shitty capitalist system, being used to prop up the greedy and powerful. I don't feel free in any way. I feel weighed down.  what advice can you give me about this? Do I need to try and change how I'm seeing things and if so how?  How do I have more of the energised joyous wonder??

The main principle of happiness and freedom, especially emphasized in Mahayana Buddhism, is unselfishness:
(1) We feel concerns about ourselves, and about various conditions which also focus into ourselves.
These concerns are created by fixations on good and bad - as they exist from our point of view.
For example, I see the modern human world as cruel, unjust, full of stupidity, destroying the life on Earth, doomed.
But that view comes from my particular perspective. If I take into account that in the past millions of people in Europe died from plague and famine, and many were burned alive for their views, I could understand that some progress actually happened.
We can conduct an experiment: think about the same ugly things when we are in a good mood. Then probably negative thoughts would not stay for so long, they would not occupy our mind.
That experiment shows that habitual thoughts accompany our emotional state. In an easy state we would have more optimistic view on the same problems.
Therefore,
(2) We can drop our self-centered concerns, and shift our attention to caring about others.
You might say it looks like too simple idea to really work well, but then let me ask: have you tried?
Mahayana has thoroughly developed system, called the way of perfections (paramitas). Most often we speak about Six paramitas (they are the main core of the path).

Giving selflessly drops our egoistic burden. Every time we give without egoistic concerns, we return a step back to our original unconstrained and natural feeling.
Discipline means to keep our wholeness despite habits and distractions which try to carry us away from our natural heart.
Patience is an art of remaining relaxed. We have habits to be dissatisfied, to rush somewhere else rather than to be just here. Patience means we want to live every moment in complete wholesome manner. Not wasting our life in chasing feverish desires, not escaping this moment to self-compressed heat of constraint.
Enthusiasm comes from understanding that if we remain passive then our energy dissipates, and we live in dull, gray world.
Concentration is all the previous perfections together:

Selflessness.
Wholeness.
Relaxed presence.
Energy of joyful deeds.

Moreover, concentration means gathering of all our abilities, experience and knowledge, all our skills and open vision in the focus of being completely now.
It means we are able to control our mind, because it's not scattered; distractions can't catch it so easily.
Finally,

Wisdom.

It means prajna - the ability to see everything as it is. It guides our practice of all the other five paramitas. And these five paramitas in turn create open, clean mind, which means the mind of wisdom.
That way we actually drop oppositions and concerns. We have no burden anymore. We naturally are doing something to make the world more beautifil, but we definitely understand that doing that we don't need to make ourselves suffer.

PS. Several practical tips
1. Take the responsibility
Ordinary attitude is: "The world is so bad that my life is in misery, and I can't do anything about it".
Better attitude is: "Whatever be the world, I wish to use my life for the benefit of all beings".
Reasoning:
Letting conditions make me waste my life has no sense. So regardless of conditions I decide to use my life wisely.
With that in mind, make a resolution to be responsible for your life and death by yourself, not letting adverse conditions make you useless.
2. Drop inner oppositions
Ordinary attitude is: "I should force myself to be a decent, effective person".
Better attitude is: "Whatever qualities I manifest, it's a resource and a field of exploration".
Reasoning:
Trying to force themselves, people divide in themselves, try to manipulate with themselves and act against themselves. That leads to wasting efforts in struggles and creating inner resistance to our own endeavors.
With that in mind, you decide to accept whatever manifests in your mental continuum as a resource and a field of exploration - not struggling with that, but dissolving oppositions.

These two decisions can transfer you from a position of a victim to a function of explorer and scientist who studies how to improve human life for the benefit of all sentient beings.

I appreciate your comments but it comes across as idealistic and simplistic. This is all just a bunch of concepts and words.  This is what I find problematic about some aspects of Buddhisms. It's presented as this simple thing like "oh you just need to do this and then you'll become enlightened"   but life is not like that. I still wake up with this yuck heavy feeling, still drag myself out of bed to my meaningless job to make money to continue to pay my way through this rut/rat race. I can't just snap out of it because you present me a list of nice concepts.

You also seem to be saying that the problem is me. That if I just wasn't as selfish or self centred then I would be happy.  I don't buy it.

@Arturia, see, I predicted your reaction. I said: "You might say it looks like too simple idea to really work", and you did exactly that, saying: "This is all just a bunch of concepts and words". This proves that I see your condition. Actually most people who feel like you feel, have basically the same problem. Habits. Whatever wise words you get you reply: "Oh, my life is much harder than you imagine, your recipe doesn't work". Of course it doesn't work, because you never tried. Actually recipes aren't very complicated. Using them is harder. But still possible. I know that from my experience!

I have actually tried. I've tried a lot. I have meditated every day for over 6 years, I have been on silent retreat and seen first hand during that time how I can see things differently and feel happy, I have attended Buddhist sanghas, I've read a lot of Buddhist books and listened to many talks. So you cannot say I haven't tried. I realise that my conditioning holds me back. I have entrenched habits and thinking patterns, many of which are unhealthy and not helping me towards better way of life but I feel stuck except for when I'm on retreat. I don't like life in this system. It's depressing

@Arturia, the system of Six Perfections actually works; it might be just a bit hard to see how you can really use it in your life, but indeed it's well working general method. I can't provide much guidance in that brief answer, because in order to sort out your hindrances, you might need to use several approaches. So if you wish my advice, let's talk in chat, or contact me through my e-mail web form: http://zen-do.ru/write

@Arturia - (this is in no sense a dig) - there were 12x"I" in your last comment. Have another look at everything in your sentence from other perspectives. Consider the verbs, the actor and the acted upon. If I is getting nothing out of Buddhism, maybe I is the problem. Is Buddhism a quick fix? You'll notice that the jhanas progressively wean you off attachment. The eightfold path is represented as a wheel. You go round and round looking for things to get rid of, then maybe one day the wheel itself is discarded.

(This is in no sense a dig) but its called language and they're called pronouns. We need to use them to communicate effectively.

@Arturia, I added a couple of practical tips to my answer. Use them to find the path.

You can leave the shitty capitalist system; which is often an inhumane daily struggle to survive life. Permanent retreat is an alternate reality, such as here: http://www.wbd.org.au/

Otherwise, try to find a job you enjoy, which can be difficult. It is important to enjoy our work.
While reflecting positively & gratefully towards work is the right method; in the modern world often work is contrary to our personal ethics, which is what makes it hard, difficult to enjoy & appreciate.

youre suggesting I become a monk???  So those are my two choices? Shitty rat race struggle or ascetic life in robes. Now I'm even more depressed.

Lol. I was suggesting to spend an extended period in a monastery as a lay man (that is, if it won't harm your worldly situation, such as if you must quit a job and will struggle to get a new job).

Ok yeah maybe could be helpful. I'm feeling more and more desperate every day to change something

I feel this kind of yuckiness or sinking feeling.>

This is a different facet of anger.
That is what Dukkha mean.
Once you eliminate Dukkha (anger), you will not have this kind of feeling. You will face the world with equanimity and enthusiasm.

Yes I know what to do I just don't know how. You can tell me till you're blue in the face but unless I actually understand how to do it then I just go around in circles at the bottom of the mountain.

@Arturia. The Noble Eightfold Path explicitly explains what to do. Maybe you can look there for knowledge?

@Arturia I agree with what Lanka said. Start observing five precepts and practicing some meditation,

SarathW you need to read a bit more before you place your comments. If you did you'd realise how flippant and simplistic your answer is.

@arturia Sorry, If I misunderstood you.

Your question made me think of this - https://youtu.be/1zdjYmhrA-A .  Frankly, I don't think it would hurt to start by having a sense of humor about your situation.  It will give you some perspective and help you distance yourself from the more oppressive aspects.  As Zen writer Katsuki Sekida says, laughter truly is "the safety valve of the world."
What really stood out in your question, however, was this comment - "I don't feel free in any way."  Of course you don't.  Because you're not.  Right now, your vision of reality is trapping you between the way you think things ought to be and the way they actually are.  The relief you find on retreat is really only a temporary vacation.  I think you'd be just as well served if you spent a week sipping cocktails in the Bahamas.  It's really a fantasy to believe that there is some place in the world or some potential situation that will afford you some sort of perennial happiness.  After all, retreats end, the girl serving your drinks in a pineapple gets old, and hell, the beach itself will probably be under thirty feet of water in a couple of years.
Fundamentally, you have to change your mind.  This can't be arrived at through any amount of convincing or revelatory words.  The only way to do that is through the sweat and tears that come with consistent practice.  You need to find a sangha and a teacher.  You need to sit regularly.  You need to have faith in the process.  No matter how low you sink, no matter how hopeless things become, you have to take up the jewels as your refuge and keep going.  Things will get better.


text:
Once ignorance is removed ,is the cessation of suffering automatic?
As per my understanding the only effort I have to make for the cessation of suffering is to realize the Truth as it removes the ignorance. Once I have removed the ignorance rest of the things happen automatically.
With cessation of ignorance comes the automatic cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the automatic cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the automatic cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the automatic cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the automatic cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the automatic cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the automatic cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the automatic cessation of clinging/ sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the automatic cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the automatic cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging-&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, and despair all cease automatically.
Are there any other choices(other than realizing the Truth) I will have to make for the cessation of suffering?
Because as per my understanding cessations are happening automatically once I have realized the Truth.
If anyone is conscious then does it mean he has not realized the Truth? Because realizing the Truth would mean automatic cessation of Consciousness.
Have you met anyone who has realized the Truth but has no intellect consciousness ?
Here is the definition of consciousness :

"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.

Ignorance does not cause consciousness. In your studies of Buddhism, please avoid this materialistic error many Buddhists have. As a beginning student, it is important to learn the right way, from the beginning. The suttas (SN 22.82) say consciousness is caused (hetu) by the mind-body (nama-rupa).
In reality, dependent origination is describing how ignorance pollutes consciousness, similar to how dirt pollutes pure water or how dust covers a mirror. SN 46.55 provides some good analogies.
This is why there are many suttas that describe how a Buddha has no ignorance but remains conscious, such as SN 22.53, Iti 44 and the end of MN 38.
When ignorance ceases, what occurs to consciousness is it become pure. In other words, what ceases is 'ignorant-consciousness' or ignorant-sense-contact (called avijjāsamphassajena).

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. SN 22.53

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

@Lanka, as I said, this answer is incorrect, and I provided sutta quotation and reference. That comment definitely shouldn't be hidden in chat. Also, do you realize that this answer calls Buddha's words "materialistic error"? (Without any reasoning). I think such unfounded criticism of Buddha's words is not allowed on this site. BTW, calling my comment, as usual without reasoning, "misunderstanding, confusion, materialism & unverifiable superstition" is inappropriate, so I expect such comment should be deleted, not hidden in chat.

@To both of you. This is a Q/A-site, not a discussion-site. Use the Chat Rooms for discussions. If disagreements about Q/A-posts arise use the vote-button. Please remember that this is a site about Buddhism, meaning all affiliations are welcome. Take great care not offend each other, since this is not the purpose of our site - learning and development in the Dhamma is. Also, refer to our Be-nice Policy and Inter-school Communication.

I would say that it is not automatic, only the illusions cease.  Once the illusions cease, you know how to alleviate the suffering.  It is assumed that one is compassionate.

Are there any other choices (other than realizing the Truth) I will have to make for the cessation of suffering?

As long as we use many fabrications to build our reality, we may benefit from making certain choices, e.g. how to deal with those fabrications.
All these choices can lead to the same goal of realizing the Truth. (E.g. certain choices can help us in cleaning our mind from the processes which recreate illusions).
However it's possible indeed to make no other choices than the choice to realize the Truth, and come to the cessation of suffering.

cessations are happening automatically once I have realized the Truth.

Yes, that is so. No ignorance (no limited perception) means no fabrications and so on. But we should understand correctly: it means
no fabrications as "real", "solid" things.
No consciousness as "real thing",
etc. The cessation of ignorance means that the illusory nature of all "real things" is realized.
So they don't limit anything with "walls" of fabrications,
the consciousness doesn't jump from fruit to fruit, etc.
It is said that in awakening six kinds of consciousnesses turn into six kinds of wisdom.
It means that there is no consciousness as something real and existing, but the function of phenomena to be conscious manifest.

If anyone is conscious then does it mean he has not realized the Truth?

When we say "someone is conscious" we speak in terms of existing human being who is conscious. Buddha may appear to us as such being.
To Buddha, however, it may appear that there are no human beings, and no one is conscious. For example, Buddha may see instead of human beings an immense field of intertwined causes and effects.
PS. See some detailed explanations here: Is causation (hetu) in SN 22.82 different to conditions (paccaya) in Dependent Origination?

As mentioned yesterday, comment section is not for extended discussion. This goes for both of you. Discussions are useful, but not on the main site, please use our Chat Room; this conversation has been moved to chat.

@Lanka, how can I move comments to chat? I only know that if a thread becomes long enough it moves to chat automatically. Can usual users, not moderators, move offtopic comments to their answers to chat?

Only mod's have permission to manually move comments to chat. If there is anything you need help with, feel free to ask me or ChrisW.

The following image comes from this website depicting the twelve links of dependent origination.
What's also nice is that the twelve links have been marked as "past causes", "present effects", "present causes" and "future effects".
According to the third noble truth laid out in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta:

"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the cessation of stress: the
  remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment,
  release, & letting go of that very craving.

So based on the image below, when craving is ceased, the rest of the "present causes" are terminated, resulting in the "future effects" also being terminated.
However, the "present effects" still persist as long as the Arahant is still alive in the current life.

I suppose this is one of possible interpretations, Buddha didn't actually teach that.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
How did the suffering of Gautama Buddha arise or co-arise?
As per my understanding during his lifetime, Gautama Buddha, had attained Nibbana with residue. And after death he attained Parinibbana (or Nibbana with no residue).
Nibbana with residue is defined as following :

What, bhikkhus, is the Nibbana-element with residue left? Here a
  bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life
  fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden,
  attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released
  through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties remain
  unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and
  disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of
  attachment, hate, and delusion in him that is called the
  Nibbana-element with residue left.

During his last days Gautama Buddha felt sharp pain and illness which he suppressed. In other words Gautama Buddha suffered because he was yet to reach his final Nibbana (Nibbana with no residue).

And soon after the Blessed One had eaten the meal provided by Cunda
  the metalworker, a dire sickness fell upon him, even dysentery, and he
  suffered sharp and deadly pains. But the Blessed One endured them
  mindfully, clearly comprehending and unperturbed.

We describe all sufferings using dependent co-arising.But dependent co-arising of suffering of Gautama Buddha is only possible if Gautama Buddha had failed to achieve the complete cessation of ignorance. Because if he had completely destroyed the ignorance at the very beginning then suffering would have ceased automatically.

From the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes
  the cessation of fabrications.  From the cessation of fabrications
  comes the cessation of consciousness.  From the cessation of
  consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form.  From the cessation
  of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media.  From the
  cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact.  From
  the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling.  From the
  cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving.  From the
  cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance.  From
  the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming.
  From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth.  From the
  cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress, & despair all cease.  Such is the cessation of this entire
  mass of stress & suffering

My question is: How did the suffering of Gautama Buddha(no matter how small) arise or co-arise?
My guess is that with incomplete cessation of ignorance came incomplete cessation of fabrications. From incomplete cessation of fabrications came incomplete cessation of consciousness. From incomplete cessation of consciousness came incomplete cessation of name-form. From incomplete cessation of name-form came incomplete cessation of six sense media. From incomplete cessation of six sense media came incomplete cessation of contact. From incomplete cessation of contact came incomplete cessation of feeling. From incomplete cessation of feeling came incomplete craving. From incomplete cessation of craving came incomplete cessation of clinging/sustenance.  From incomplete cessation of clinging/sustenance came incomplete cessation of becoming. From incomplete cessation of becoming came incomplete cessation of birth. From incomplete cessation of birth came incomplete cessation of aging ,death ,sorrow,pain , distress.
I am not saying that Buddha was ignorant but that there is a possibility that there are levels of ignorance which one needs to transcend like the levels of jhanas.

You are doing well with your studies! Wishing Buddhahood for "you".

"What, bhikkhus, is the Nibbana-element with residue left? Here a
  bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life
  fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden,
  attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released
  through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties remain
  unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and
  disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of
  attachment, hate, and delusion in him that is called the
  Nibbana-element with residue left.

According to Itivuttaka 44 (above), an Arahant (including the Buddha) can still feel pleasure and pain.

And soon after the Blessed One had eaten the meal provided by Cunda
  the metalworker, a dire sickness fell upon him, even dysentery, and he
  suffered sharp and deadly pains. But the Blessed One endured them
  mindfully, clearly comprehending and unperturbed.

The suffering had indeed ended for the Buddha. That was why he was unperturbed by physical ailments. He feels pain but does not suffer from it.
In the Sivaka Sutta, the Buddha explains that not everything one feels is due to past karma becoming ripe:

"There are cases where some feelings arise based on
  bile. You yourself should know how some feelings arise based on bile.
  Even the world is agreed on how some feelings arise based on bile. So
  any brahmans & contemplatives who are of the doctrine & view that
  whatever an individual feels — pleasure, pain,
  neither-pleasure-nor-pain — is entirely caused by what was done before
  — slip past what they themselves know, slip past what is agreed on by
  the world. Therefore I say that those brahmans & contemplatives are
  wrong."
"There are cases where some feelings arise based on phlegm... based on
  internal winds... based on a combination of bodily humors... from the
  change of the seasons... from uneven care of the body... from harsh
  treatment... from the result of kamma. You yourself should know how
  some feelings arise from the result of kamma. Even the world is agreed
  on how some feelings arise from the result of kamma. So any brahmans
  & contemplatives who are of the doctrine & view that whatever an
  individual feels — pleasure, pain, neither pleasure-nor-pain — is
  entirely caused by what was done before — slip past what they
  themselves know, slip past what is agreed on by the world. Therefore I
  say that those brahmans & contemplatives are wrong."

In the story of Ven. Chakkhupala in Dhammapada 1, we find that it is possible for an Arahant to be blind due to past karma becoming ripe prior to Nibbana.
But since he was already blind, he does not suddenly become cured and starts to have vision because of Nibbana.

On one occasion, Thera Cakkhupala came to pay homage to the Buddha at
  the Jetavana monastery. One night, while pacing up and down in
  meditation, the thera accidentally stepped on some insects. In the
  morning, some bhikkhus visiting the thera found the dead insects. They
  thought ill of the thera and reported the matter to the Buddha. The
  Buddha asked them whether they had seen the thera killing the insects.
  When they answered in the negative, the Buddha said, "Just as you had
  not seen him killing, so also he had not seen those living insects.
  Besides, as the thera had already attained arahatship he could have no
  intention of killing and so was quite innocent." On being asked why
  Cakkhupala was blind although he was an arahat, the Buddha told the
  following story:
Cakkhupala was a physician in one of his past existences. Once, he had
  deliberately made a woman patient blind. That woman had promised him
  to become his slave, together with her children, if her eyes were
  completely cured. Fearing that she and her children would have to
  become slaves, she lied to the physician. She told him that her eyes
  were getting worse when, in fact, they were perfectly cured. The
  physician knew she was deceiving him, so in revenge, he gave her
  another ointment, which made her totally blind. As a result of this
  evil deed the physician lost his eyesight many times in his later
  existences.

So, we find that no new karma becomes ripe after Nibbana. But it is possible that the Arahant could feel pain due to other reasons.
At the same time, any chronic conditions caused by previous karma becoming ripe prior to Nibbana, do not suddenly disappear due to Nibbana.
But in all cases, the Arahant is unperturbed. He feels pain but does not suffer from it. That shows that the Arahant has risen above suffering.
In this resource about dependent origination, Mahasi Sayadaw says:

One who watches these present resultant processes effectively does not
  have craving that is rooted in feeling and so will put an end to the
  cycle of existence completely. In other words, the meditator watches
  every mental and physical phenomenon that occurs at the six
  sense-doors clearly in terms of its three characteristics. Through
  this effective practice of mindfulness, the meditator gains insight
  into the nature of the sense-objects and overcomes attachment to them
  there and then (tadaṅga), that is he or she overcomes it by opposing
  it with the knowledge that undercuts it. The cessation of attachment
  rules out the arising of the other phenomena, e.g. clinging, the
  process of becoming, birth, etc. After the this cessation through
  insight the meditator overcomes the latent attachment completely
  through cutting-off (samuccheda) when he or she attains the knowledge
  of the Noble Path. At this moment the other phenomena, e.g. clinging
  etc., also become totally extinct.
There is no teaching that says: “With the extinction of feeling, craving ceases to exist.” This is not surprising for even Arahants do
  not have any control over the feelings that arise from contact with
  the six senses.

In the Pali suttas, the word 'dukkha' is used in three contexts, namely:

Painful feelings (dukkha vedana)
Unsatisfactory characteristic (dukkha lakkhana) of impermanent things
Suffering of attachment to or taking the five aggregates as one's own (pañcupādānakkhandhā dukkhā).

Only the suffering of attachment is real dukkha. The suffering of attachment is the only dukkha a Buddha can overcome. Therefore, when the Buddha had the deadly illness with painful feelings, this was not suffering. There is the phrase: "Pain is inevitable, but suffering is optional".
Many many suttas explain this, such as MN 37, the end of MN 38, SN 22.1, AN 8.6 & SN 36.6.

On touching a tangible with the body,  he does not lust after it if it is pleasing; he does not dislike it if it is unpleasing. He abides
  with mindfulness of the body established, with an immeasurable mind,
  and he understands as it actually is the deliverance of mind and
  deliverance by wisdom wherein those evil unwholesome states cease
  without remainder. Having thus abandoned favouring and opposing,
  whatever feeling he feels, whether pleasant or painful or
  neither-painful-nor-pleasant, he does not delight in that feeling,
  welcome it or remain holding to it. As he does not do so, delight in
  feelings ceases in him. With the cessation of his delight comes
  cessation of clinging; with the cessation of clinging, cessation of
  being; with the cessation of being, cessation of birth; with the
  cessation of birth, ageing and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  grief and despair cease. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of
  suffering. MN 38

Therefore, when mere painful feelings arise from sense contact, it is not really correct to call this 'Dependent Origination' because 'Dependent Origination' is basically used for only the 12-condition formula.

Karma  action driven by intention which leads to future consequences.

Buddha had already achieved enlightenment what good was to stay any longer?
It was his time.Many people ask why the enlightenment one,did not see that the food was poisoned,simply that was his time,his karma,and he had no reason to stay.
He already had shown the way to end suffering,he achieved his purpose.Same as the others after him:Milarepa,Padmasambhava ect...
Now its up to us weather to follow them or not.

I think I have found one answer to the question in Manual of Buddhism by Hardy Spencer.
I quote from p.364:

The body of Budha was subject to pain and disease, and it was argued
  by the king of Sagal that on this account he could not be the
  all-wise. But Nagasena replied that there are various causes of
  disease, of which the karma of previous births is only one. All the
  pain felt by Budha was from some present cause, or from the
  contrivance of others. Thus the harvest may be poor, from the badness
  of the seed, without any fault whatever on the part of the husbandman.
  When a stone is thrown into the air, it falls on the ground, not from
  any previous karma, but naturally, from a cause then present. The
  purest vessel may have poison put within it. And when the earth is
  cleared and ploughed, it is not from any previous karma that it is
  thus lacerated, nor from any appointment of its own ; but from the
  will of another. In like manner, the pain felt by Budha was without
  any cause on his part ; it came naturally from some cause then
  present, or from the contrivance of some other person. {Milinda
  Prasna.)

Nagasena says that the pain felt by Budha was without any cause on his part. It came naturally from some cause then present or from the will of some other person.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Sacca-pabba Is the reason that commentary commented "Viññāṇa is Jāti and Paṭisandhi," right?
In saccapabba of mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta:

Jāti is "khandhānaṃ patubhāvo" and "āyatanānaṃ paṭilābho".
Khandhānaṃ patubhāvo included viññāṇa-khandha.

Viññāṇa-khandha is viññāṇa-paṭiccasamuppāda.
Rūpa-paṭiccasamuppāda is rūpa-khandha.
Nāma-paṭiccasamuppāda is vedanā-, saññā-, saṇkhāra-khandha (cetana, phassa, manasikāra; see: sammādiṭṭhisuttaṃ).

Those nāma- and rūpa-paṭiccasamuppāda are piyarūpa/sātarūpa.

60 piyarūpa/sātarūpa: 6 outer āyatana, 6 āyatana-paṭiccasamuppāda, 6 viññāṇa-paṭiccasamuppāda, and 42 nāma-paṭiccasamuppāda  (6 vedana-paṭiccasamuppāda, 6 saññā-khandha, 6x5 saṇkhāra-khandha [phassa-paṭiccasamuppāda, cetanā-paṭiccasamuppāda, vitakka, vicāra, taṇhā-paṭiccasamuppāda]).

So jāti-paṭiccasamuppāda is viññāna-paṭiccasamuppāda.
The difference is: Jāti-paṭiccasamuppāda is 5 khandha. So jāti is a conclusion of viññāna, nāma+rūpa, āyatana, phassa, vedanā, taṇhā, upādāna and bhavā-paṭiccasamuppāda. But viññāṇa-paṭiccasamuppāda is an explanation of jhāti.
So sacca-pabba is the reason that commentary commented "Viññāṇa Is Jāti And Paṭisandhi", right?

This might help to close the circle) if liking to find out "alone" or in certain ways. In regard of possible seeking explainings under the "poor", it might be good if Nyom Warapol adds useful english therm to the Pali. Of course just for the secound case. Clinging to illusions, like Jāti (Jeat), or other clinging to kind of "nationality" is a very hindrence for insight, nivarana.

This approach is much more helpful and loyal in all regards, it hurt mostly our self if we get loyal to jāti and give mānā to much rise.

What is sacca pabba? What does that mean?

SaccaPabba http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/digha/dn22.html#4E

So jāti-paṭiccasamuppāda is viññāna-paṭiccasamuppāda.

No, this is not a proper statement. jāti refers to conceptual birth of a satta, both in paṭiccasamuppāda and the sacca-pabba:

Katamā ca, bhikkhave, jāti? Yā tesaṃ tesaṃ sattānaṃ tamhi tamhi satta-nikāye jāti
The difference is: Jāti-paṭiccasamuppāda is 5 khandha.

jāti is the event of being born, it cannot be equated to the five khandha directly.

So jāti is a conclusion of viññāna, nāma+rūpa, āyatana, phassa, vedanā, taṇhā, upādāna and bhavā-paṭiccasamuppāda.

This is correct, of course.

But viññāṇa-paṭiccasamuppāda is an explanation of jāti.

viññāṇa is a part of the process of jāti, but paṭiccasamuppāda is not always taught in a way relating viññāṇa to jāti.

So sacca-pabba is the reason that commentary commented "Viññāṇa Is Jāti And Paṭisandhi", right?

What commentary is this? paṭisandhi is one important viññāṇa but not the only one being spoke of in paṭiccasamuppāda. I think you are over simplifying things.

That's correct, Bhante, but it is not proper for my target people. If I try to explain the same as everybody did, the anti-atthakatha-people still think same. I am not only try to explain Dhamma, but what I try is making people understand each other, such as Westerner students and commentary.  I give every possible dimensions of view of Tipitaka and Commentary to them for making them careful of decision the Canons.

They are thinking "commentary based on personal view" because the Atthakatha-lovers can't explain the Atthakatha's evidence from Pali directly, so they still don't trust Atthakatha. But if the Atthakatha-lovers recite and memorize Tipitaka professionally like NettiPakarana,  then they can explain Atthakatha's view by purely Sutta. That's the point of the unity between Atthakatha-lovers and Anti-Atthakatha-people. Don't just explain Dhamma, but look inside peoples' minds and takecare of them, make them understand each other

Another, what Bhante think is "So jāti is a conclusion of viññāna, nāma+rūpa, āyatana, phassa, vedanā, taṇhā, upādāna and bhavā-paṭiccasamuppāda." But the Anti-Atthakatha-people still struct at "viññāna is not rebirth", so the point is letting them understand why "viññāna is rebirth in Sutta" first, then we can go on Bhante's topic. So, I said "That's correct, Bhante, but it is not proper for my target people."

Anyway we shouldn't talk in this easy topic, Bhante. I start this topic for people who never memorize any pali, but we have something more important to talk together because we have reciting Sutta already.  So don't forget to recite Mahāsatipatthānasutta and KāyagatāsatiSutta every day and do follow NettiPakarana in every character while reciting. It's our topic...Do "and further", "again", in MahaSatipatthanasutta definitely mean "next step (aparam)"? https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/36780/10100

OMG! The materialism of the question, which believes the Buddha taught about biology. Ajahn Buddhadasa said:

People language is used by the ordinary people who don't
  understand Dhamma very well and by those worldly people who are so
  dense that they are blind to everything but material things.
No Religion

'Jati' is about the mental production (abhinibbatti) of views/ideas of "beings" ("sattanam") within a category of beings ("sattanikaye").
"Khandhānaṃ patubhāvo" means "appearance or manifestation of aggregates". For example, pictured below is the same basic aggregates manifesting in two different ways.
When ignorance sees the 1st manifestation, it produces "a being" called "sweet lovely girl".

When ignorance sees the 2nd manifestation, it produces "a being" called "evil horrible dragon".

"Ayatanānaṃ paṭilābho" is not "salayatana" ("six sense bases"). If it was, the Buddha would have said "salayatana paṭilābho".
There are many suttas that use the word "paṭilābho", both physically but mostly mentally, such as the "acquisition of wisdom".
"Ayatanānaṃ paṭilābho" is the sense spheres acquired by or attached to by the "beings" that are mentally produced in jati.
For example, in the 1st picture below, the girl's sense organs are devoted to the camera (the sense object) because her aggregates are "attention seeking" for fame. When ignorance sees the sense bases of this 1st manifestation, it produces "a being" called "sweet attractive girl".

In the 2nd picture below, the girl's sense spheres are focused & bent on destruction. When ignorance sees the crazed wild sense bases in this girl's 2nd manifestation, it produces "a being" called "crazy girl".

As for "paṭisandhi", the Buddha never taught it. The Buddhist clergy invented "Paṭisandhi Vinnana" -- the Buddha did not teach "Paṭisandhi Vinnana". It does not exist in reality. "Paṭisandhi Vinnana" is for Eternalists who are too scared to contemplate impermanence.

DD, how far does it help to reflect that persons are just mere aggregates and elements? Is reflection sufficient to at least reduce conceit, ignorance and craving, or must it be realized via mediation?

Probably some samadhi & samatha are helpful to provide a foundation of peace. We wouldn't want people going crazy trying to depersonalize "beings" into aggregates & elements. Above, I am merely explaining what teachings mean. I am not recommending it be practised if the practise is unsuitable. Obviously what I wrote is unsuitable for anyone that believes in "Paṭisandhi Vinnana".

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Sensual Desire and Guarding the Sense Doors
Sensual desire is a hindrance and thus it should be avoided and preferably eliminated (though I'm highly skeptical whether something in the brain can really be "eliminated" regarding emotions - I doubt it.)
But we humans have all day long sensual desires. Let it be for food, bodily comfort, music (sound), art (sight), sex, etc.
So should we remove all of them (ideally)?
Also what is meant by sense restraint? I cannot really fathom it. I doubt that it means to go out with closed eyes and ears, haha.
Does it simply mean to avoid certain triggers? (which would answer the first question simultaneously)
Thanks in advance

Sensual desire is like feeling thirst for something (Pali tanha, Sanskrit trishna).
If you feel cold and decide to put some clothes on, normally it has nothing to do with sensual desire. It's a normal act of regulating something.
If you develop thirst to possess some special clothes, that is developing sensual desire. When you see those clothes, your hands might start to tremble, your breathing might become heavy - because of that thirst.
It shows that sensual desire is developed by our own mental activity - with the attitude of unhealthy longing for something - and it generates vexations.
In that sense we can speak about guarding the sense doors:

observing what we perceive,
observing to stay natural, not developing unwholesome desires,
observing to dissolve unwholesome desires if they are already developed.

So that discipline relates not to hiding from original stimuli, but to how we react to them. For example, monks don't avoid seeing women, but they avoid looking at them with sexual passion. That's how they guard the sense doors: not allowing the thieves of vexations to steal our natural mind.

@Val, I described a case of heavy thirst to show the difference. The thirst may be strong or mild, the principle is the same. We could perceive and act naturally, not attaching, or we could develop "thirst" on top of it. That's the difference that creates suffering. - - - "What's awful if a monk has sexual desires?" - that's another question. Let's discuss it separately or use chat.

Sense Restraint
On seeing a form with the eye, he doesn't grasp at any theme (nimitta) or details by which — if he were to dwell without restraint over the
faculty of the eye — evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or
distress might assail him. On hearing a sound with the ear... On
smelling an aroma with the nose... On tasting a flavor with the
tongue... On touching a tactile sensation with the body... On
cognizing an idea with the intellect, he doesn't grasp at any theme or
details by which — if he were to dwell without restraint over the
faculty of the intellect — evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or
distress might assail him. Endowed with this noble restraint over the
sense faculties, he is inwardly sensitive to the pleasure of being
blameless.

For example:

Avoid the sign (nimitta) of the beautiful connected with passion; by meditating on the foul.
Snp 2.11

What is important above is "themes & details". What this means is if you are man and a voluptuous woman is walking towards you, you, for example:

Do not allow the mind to develop the idea of "beautiful" but instead bring to mind the undesirable qualities of a woman.

or:

End the idea of "woman" and instead bring to mind it is only a sense object of five aggregates & six elements.

or:

Generate metta-karuna (loving-kindness & compassion) by thinking the woman is not merely a sex-object but a human being wanting to be loved faithfully with commitment. The suttas say to view women as 'mothers', 'sisters' & 'daughters'.

Sensual desire means desire for pleasure. Acting out of desire for pleasure is wrong motivation. The right motivation is to act out of knowledge of  how things work, with clear understanding of the results and the alternatives. That's very different than acting for pleasure, that's informed, functional action.
In the example with food, we eat to sustain the body and spirit. In the example with clothes, we put them on to protect from cold, insects, for social reasons etc. See the difference? We act with a purpose, not for pleasure.
So it's not about eliminating desires, it's about changing your modus operandi from impulse driven, to deliberate.
Regarding sensual restraint, the idea is to protect yourself from influences that stimulate impulses and obsessions (e.g. advertising, erotic, hate-provoking influences etc). This is done by being selective about what you attend to, what you allow to enter into your stream of consciousness.
Another problem with obsessive desires (whether sensual or otherwise), is the resulting mismatch between "is" and "should" which generates dukkha, the mind of suffering.
Depending on the goal, this suffering may be a worthwhile price to pay for the motivation to get there, you just have to understand that mental suffering comes as inevitable side-effect. But certainly sensual pleasure is almost never the right goal and is not worth the suffering.

Your question can be answered by a detailed study of the Four Noble Truths.
A good overview can be found here and also here.
From the accesstoinsight.org website, you can also read this and this for details.

The first truth is that there is suffering.
The second truth is that suffering is caused by craving.
The third truth is that suffering can be ended by ending craving.
The fourth truth is that the path to end suffering is the Noble Eightfold Path.

The solution you proposed to end craving, is by extreme asceticism, which the Buddha found did not work. The other extreme end, which is extreme indulgence, also does not work.
So, he discovered the Middle Way of practice between extreme asceticism and extreme indulgence, known as the Noble Eightfold Path.
The main scriptural source for this, is the Discourse on the Setting of the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion.
Within the Noble Eightfold Path, there are 4 levels of training - lay follower of the teachings, the anagarika (sort of a pre-monk), the novice monk or nun, and the fully ordained monk or nun. Each of these 4 levels of training are increasing in degree of intensity but are still within the Middle Way and the Noble Eightfold Path. You can find some details in this answer.
The life of a fully ordained monk or nun is not considered to be one of extreme asceticism, because it does not deny them food, clothing, shelter and companionship.
Regarding guarding the sense doors, the answer comes from the Aparihani Sutta:

"And how does a monk guard the doors to his sense faculties? There is
  the case where a monk, on seeing a form with the eye, does not grasp
  at any theme or variations by which — if he were to dwell without
  restraint over the faculty of the eye — evil, unskillful qualities
  such as greed or distress might assail him. He practices with
  restraint. He guards the faculty of the eye. He achieves restraint
  with regard to the faculty of the eye.
"On hearing a sound with the ear...
"On smelling an aroma with the nose...
"On tasting a flavor with the tongue...
"On feeling a tactile sensation with the body...
"On cognizing an idea with the intellect, he does not grasp at any
  theme or variations by which — if he were to dwell without restraint
  over the faculty of the intellect — evil, unskillful qualities such as
  greed or distress might assail him. He practices with restraint. He
  guards the faculty of the intellect. He achieves restraint with regard
  to the faculty of the intellect. This is how a monk guards the doors
  to his sense faculties.

So then, since alot of monks do live kind if ascetic in that they are avoiding a lot of pleasures, their way is wrong then? (since it is an extreme)

Please see my updated answer.

The point in how to guard the senses isn't mentioned though?

Updated answer with quote from Aparihani Sutta.


text:
Is causation (hetu) in SN 22.82 different to conditions (paccaya) in Dependent Origination?
SN 22.82 and MN 109 state:

The four great elements, bhikkhu, are the cause (hetu) and condition (paccayo) for the manifestation (paññāpanāya) of the form (rupa) aggregate.
Contact is the cause and condition for the manifestation of the feeling aggregate.
Contact is the cause and condition for the manifestation of the perception aggregate.
Contact is the cause and condition for the manifestation of the formations (sankhara) aggregate.
Nāmarūpaṃ is the cause and condition for the manifestation of the consciousness aggregate.

Paññāpanāya: This might have been rendered "for the description of the form aggregate". Paññāpanā is literally "making known" and something is "made known" either by becoming manifest or by being described. Footnote: Bhikkhu Bodi

Dependent origination states:

And what is dependent co-arising? From ignorance as a requisite condition (paccaya) come formations (sankhara). From formations as
  a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a
  requisite condition comes nāmarūpaṃ. From nāmarūpaṃ as a requisite
  condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a
  requisite condition comes 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. From
  clinging 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. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress
  & suffering.

In addition, Dependent Origination defines nāmarūpaṃ as:

Feeling, perception, intention, contact and attention — these are called nāma. The four great elements and the material form derived
  from the four great elements — these are called rūpa.

Obviously, there appear to many contradictions between SN 22.82 and Dependant Origination, which include:

Rupa caused (hetu) by elements vs rupa conditioned (paccaya) by consciousness
Sankhara caused (hetu) by contact vs sankhara conditioned (paccaya) by ignorance.
Feeling, perception & intention caused (hetu) by contact vs contact conditioned (paccaya) by sense media conditioned (paccaya) by feeling, perception & intention (nāma).
Consciousness caused (hetu) by namarupa vs namarupa conditioned (paccaya) by consciousness.

Is there a contradiction here? Why is this so? How is this resolved?

i don't fully understand why you think there is a contradiction here, rather than different ways of describing something, like how a "tree" can also be "vegetation". maybe add more detail?.

The question is for the purpose of stop thinking dogmatically & robotically and to analyse & think deeply about the teachings. Regards

but i don't see how they can be contradictory, unless you are being dogmatic. best wishes

They are contradictory because the 1st is about both paññāpanāya & mere aggregates and the 2nd is about samudhaya (origination of suffering) & aggregates subject to clinging. This is also supported by SN 22.56.

I have a 2nd answer to my wonderful, insightful & important question.
In his SN, Bhikkhu Bodhi has made the footnote:

Paññāpanāya: This might have been rendered "for the description of the
  form aggregate". Paññāpanā is literally "making known" and something
  is "made known" either by becoming manifest or by being described.

This word 'paññāpanāya' is found in many suttas in relation to the teaching activity of the Buddha as 'declaration'. The Pali dictionaries say:

paññāpana neuter declaration; preparation; (of seats, etc.)
  paññāpana neuter disclosure, discovering MN.iii.17; SN.iii.59;
  declaration Dhs-a.11.   fr. paññāpeti   paññapeti pa + ñā + āpe
  regulates or make a rule; makes known; declares; prepares (a set,
  etc.).

SN 22.82 concludes with the verse:

These are the ten questions The bhikkhu came to ask: Two about the
  aggregates, Whether the same, can there be, Designation and the cause,
  Two about identity, One each on gratification And this body with
  consciousness.

It was the questioner who used the term "what is the cause for paññāpanāya" (ko hetu ko paccayo paññāpanāya).
Thanissaro explanation is non-sense, illogical & without conviction, as follows:

Delineation (paññapana) literally means, "making discernible." This
  apparently refers to the intentional aspect of perception, which takes
  the objective side of experience and fabricates it into discernible
  objects. In the case of the aggregates, the four great existents,
  contact, and name-&-form provide the objective basis for discerning
  them, while the process of fabrication takes the raw material provided
  by the objective basis and turns it into discernible instances of the
  aggregates. This process is described in slightly different terms in
  SN 22.79.

Importantly, this topic paragraph from SN 22.82 refers to the mere five aggregates rather than the five aggregates subject to clinging.
This is the same causality as SN 22.56, although SN 22.56 is about aggregates subject to clinging, which states:

And what is form? The four great existents and the form derived from
  them: this is called form. From the origination of nutriment comes the
  origination of form. From the cessation of nutriment comes the
  cessation of form.
And what is feeling? These six classes of feeling — feeling born of
  eye-contact, feeling born of ear-contact, feeling born of
  nose-contact, feeling born of tongue-contact, feeling born of
  body-contact, feeling born of intellect-contact: this is called
  feeling. From the origination of contact comes the origination of
  feeling. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling.
And what is perception? These six classes of perception — perception
  of form, perception of sound, perception of smell, perception of
  taste, perception of tactile sensation, perception of ideas: this is
  called perception. From the origination of contact comes the
  origination of perception. From the cessation of contact comes the
  cessation of perception.
And what are fabrications? These six classes of intention — intention
  with regard to form, intention with regard to sound, intention with
  regard to smell, intention with regard to taste, intention with regard
  to tactile sensation, intention with regard to ideas: these are called
  fabrications. [b][u]From the origination of contact comes the
  origination of fabrications[/u][/b]. From the cessation of contact
  comes the cessation of fabrications.
And what is consciousness? These six classes of consciousness —
  eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness,
  tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, intellect-consciousness:
  this is called consciousness. From the origination of name-&-form
  comes the origination of consciousness. From the cessation of
  name-&-form comes the cessation of consciousness.

I have come to the conclusion the term 'paññāpanāya' in SN 22.82 and MN 109 is idiosyncratic to the questioner rather than a term the Buddha would ideally use because the term is not used in SN 22.56, which is an unprompted discourse.
Also, at the end of SN 22.82, the Buddha did not say in the closing verse that the bhikkhu came to ask to about 'paññāpanāya'. Instead, the Buddha remarked the bhikkhu came to ask about 'the cause' (hetunā).
It seems the questioner asked about the cause of 'paññāpanāya' & the Buddha has given a slightly different answer about the mere cause (hetu) of the mere aggregates.
In conclusion, SN 22.82 is only about what causes the aggregates existentially. It is not about how the aggregates are affected by the Dependent Origination of ignorance.

It's a sublime Dharma, hard to understand, so let's examine some analogies.
Modern physics says that there are electromagnetic waves, such as radio waves and visible light. We can imagine them as some surface where waves spread from the center:

We can understand them by analogy with ocean waves:

But there is a big difference: waves in the ocean have water beneath and wind above. So the surface is "material".
Electromagnetic waves, however, don't have anything beneath and anything above. It's an imaginary surface.
Now let us examine what is consciousness. We often imagine it as a result of contact of two things:

an organ of perception
and something that influences that organ of perception.

Thus we can say that consciousness is a result of contact.
It looks like ocean waves: there is something beneath (water, an organ of perception) and something above (wind, perceived object).
We can say that consciousness doesn't exist if there is no contact of organ of perception and object of perception.
Usually we imagine consciousness as some space that exists independently of everything else; when things appear in that space, they become perceived.
But Dharma asks us: are we sure that there is that immutable, metaphysical space called Consciousness?
We only know directly that consciousness appears when there is contact of organ and object. Does consciousness really exist apart from that?
If we examine that question, we can conclude that there is no actual reason to claim that consciousness exists constantly and independently; it's just our mental model.
Though we can speak about the reality as Only Consciousness (and sometimes it's useful), that is just our modeling; in direct perception Consciousness doesn't really exist (as something absolute or independent).
That helps to realize emptiness - no self - of all things and objects.
Actually all objects are our mental models we create from fluid momentary appearances.
Objects do not exist in themselves. They are only our way to associate individual sense data.
Then we can make another step and say that "objects of perception" and "organs of perception" are in fact our mental models.
The primary phenomena are momentary appearances. "Waves of consciousness".
It's like there are waves, like electromagnetic waves, but we imagine them as ocean waves, with something beneath and something above. In fact, for direct observation something appears. And then we build some mental models on top of that - adding there dualities, like "object" and "organ", or "mind" and "matter".
Consider this: looking at sea, we see waves, and we conclude that there is water beneath and wind above.
Likewise, from "consciousness" we conclude there are forms and mentations of them (rupa & nama).
So various explanations are possible: that from nama-rupa consciousness appears, and that from consciousness nama-rupa appear.
In both cases we talk about the process of creation of mental models.
Awakening and liberation from delusion means we drop thinking of mental models as real things.
It's very sublime Dharma, very hard to understand without direct contemplation.

@Dhammadhatu, a mind entangled in prejudices usually can't understand anything outside of his scope of views. First of all it needs to be trained to refrain from judgments.

My answer explains that there's no contradiction in those Buddha's words. But there are many contradictions and misconceptions in deluded minds, so they misunderstand sublime Dharma and develop vexations rather than get benefit. Instead of engaging in theoretical stirring they should train in discipline.

Very good, I like this answer.

Liked a wrong answer based in wrong view? While this answer did not even address the whole question, I am confident this answer was refuted, here: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/22131/does-viewing-consciousness-as-real-thing-bring-suffering Why don't you attempt to answer the sutta question analytically & thoughtfully using the information in the question & sutta principles rather than falling back on conditioned dogma that is unrelated to the question. Thanks

I too think, that this is a very good answer. Upvoted.

I answered the question with a proper attempt, My view in my answer is what Chang Zhao attempted to explain is paññāpanāya, which relates to SN 22.82 but is not related to SN 12.2.

When you have questions of this kind, it is good to refer to the next two levels of Dhamma. One can always find the correct meanings to the key words that come up in reading the Sutta Pitaka in other two levels of Dhamma. They are the Vibhanga (The Book of Divisions) of the Abhidamma Pitaka, and the Pattäna Dhamma.
In the Suttas what you normally find is the most basic of the given key word, or theme, or concept. It is only in the other two levels that we get to find the deeper meaning. In reading these, one will see that what is meant by hetu is the root causes, and not just other  superficial causes.
Paccaya means  condition / conditions. There are 24 “paccaya” or “conditions” that can actually cause an effect to materialize; these are called “Pattäna Dhamma". Three such paccaya, are “hetu paccaya", “annantara samanantara paccaya”, and “annamanna paccaya”.
Hetu, or Root causes, are three if you take it as raga, dosa, and, moha. It is of six type if taken as lobha, dosa, and, moha (for akusala kamma), and alobha, adosa, and amoha (for kusala kamma). Then there are other Conditions.
Lets take the germination of a seed to understand the role of conditions or paccaya. The root condition to bring into existence a tree is embedded in a seed; this is called annantara paccaya. But suitable conditions for that seed to germinate are in fertile soil with adequate sunlight and water; this is called samanantara paccaya. Therefore, both annantara and samanantara paccaya must be satisfied to bring a tree to existence.
Since PS describes the “cause and effect” in Buddha Dhamma, most people think “avijja paccaya sankhara” means “avijja causes sankhara”, or that “sankhara paccaya vinnana” means “sankhara causes vinnana”. Any effect must have a cause. But there can be possible causes without leading to any effects.
The causes for bringing up a new tree are embedded in a seed. But just because a seed is there, a tree is not going to appear. If the seed is kept in a cool, dry place, one could keep it that way for a long time. Or one could burn or crush the seed, and it will not bring up a tree.
In order for causes to bring about corresponding effects, suitable conditions must be present. That is what paccaya means. When such suitable conditions are present, causes will bring about corresponding effects. Thus when some effect is brought about, it is called “paccuppanna“, i.e., born (“uppanna“) via suitable conditions (“paccaya“); of course if the root causes must be there to begin with).
In the above example, if one plants that seed (cause) in a the ground and provides water, nutrients, and sun light (suitable conditions), then the seed could germinate and grow to a tree (effect or the result).

The topic owner is buddhadāsa's student, anti abhidhammist. He also denied rebirth and try to cut it off tipitaka, too. So he can not understand your answer, at all. Even if I use just sutta's pali, to connect together, to answer him, he still denied.

I feel hugely sympathetic towards dhammadhatu as he has only the English translations of the Dhamma to go with. That is why he sees that there is only one Paticca samuppada (PS). If he sees that it is one of many PS, he would have named it as Akusala-Mula PS. For instance there is a  kusala-mula PS (Avyakruta PS) and it does not have Ignorance (avidya), Rupa [only has Nama], Salayatana [has Pattayatana instead], Craving, and Clinging. This is the PS of the Arahants (the Enlightened Ones)

Each reality has many aspects in self because it is arised by many causes, except nibbāna. Also, those, many aspects of each reality, are the answers that why it, each reality, makes many effects, too.
Buddha taught just some aspect or some paccaya of an effect, because of the ability of listener. It doesn't mean an effect has just that paccaya in that sutta. Buddha can not teach everything to low ability people. Buddha choose some part of reality and sammuti, that proper for specific listener, then author each sutta to make that listener access to insight 4 noble truths to enlighten. If too much the listener may bored, but if too less the listener may doubt.
But in the full ability such as sāriputta, buddha teach him full causes and effects. So commentary said that abhidhamma, that is very advance in detail of realities (causes and effect), was learned by sāriputta.
This topic is the reason that why buddha taught abhidhamma to sāriputta, and why commentaries often said that abhidhamma is vipassanā's object. Also, the answer that why Mun Bhuridatta often carries abhidhammatthasaṅgaha pocket book with himself.
The Answer

Rupa caused (hetu) by elements vs rupa conditioned (paccaya) by
  consciousness.

4 great matters, 24 matters' elements and some consciousnesses are causes for each other in the same time by sahajātapaccaya.
See: Palileyyakasuttaṃ, anupadasuttaṃ and mahātaṇhakkhayasutta.

Sankhara caused (hetu) by contact vs sankhara conditioned (paccaya) by
  ignorance. Feeling, perception & intention caused (hetu) by contact
  vs contact conditioned (paccaya) by sense media conditioned (paccaya)
  by feeling, perception & intention (nāma). Consciousness caused (hetu)
  by namarupa vs namarupa conditioned (paccaya) by consciousness.

Vedanā/saññā/sankhara-khandha (akusala[included avijjā], kusala, and āneñja-kusala) caused by contact (phassa), that caused by 18 dhātū (eye-color-eye consciousness,...). 6 āyatana (in 18 dhātu) caused by nāma-rūpa because of  sahajāta-paccaya (see the first answer). Nāma-rūpa caused by consciousness because of mano pubbaṅgamādhammā (indriya-paccaya). Indriya-paccaya is one part of sahajāta-paccaya. Consciousness caused by saṅkhāra because of mano pubbaṅgamādhammā, too.
VS
sankhara-paṭiccasamuppāda is apuññā[included avijjā]/puññā/ānañjābhisaṅkhāra that caused by contact (phassa), also. Loop.
See: use pali, that I gave, to search yourself, such as kusalasaññā, domanassā pāpakā akusalā (for vedanā), etc.

You must recite tipitaka to understand this answers. Also, you must notice the real life, too. This topic is about life, not just alphabet. For the example "can phassa arise without vedanā?", "Has or not self cakkhu-samphassajāvedanā, without color&consciousness?",  etc.

Mano is consciousness.  Buddha use the difference words in the same sutta, to avoid misunderstanding in  difference type of consciousness. But some many low quality students of thai, buddhadāsa and many bikkhu in his age, can't understand this high level pali study.  Because thai buddhism loose our ancient study system in colonized war. So, I have to learn this from burmar.

Every book has it's own method to read. It is the important job of the author to write the book's reading method. The writer, who have not done it, is not professional. And  he is Irresponsible.

No, thinking are manoviññāna.

You never read this pali, "manasāpi dhammaṃ vijānāti"? (khaṇasuttaṃ)

This phrase has no "saha" word, so can not translate as "with". Your translation is out of pali-rule.

SN 22.82 appears to be about 'paññāpanāya', namely, how the aggregates manifest or come to be known. Therefore it uses the word 'hetu', which means preceding 'cause'.
SN 12.2 (dependent origination) is about 'samudhaya', namely, the origination of suffering, which is about how the aggregates found multiples times within the multiple conditions (paccaya) are tainted by ignorance leading to suffering.
Therefore, the two teachings (SN 22.82 & SN 12.2) appear completely different & unrelated to each other.
SN 22.82, in particular, shows how dependent origination (SN 12.2) is not about the reincarnation, come into existence &/or knowing (paññāpanāya) of the aggregates but about how the aggregates are tainted by ignorance & leading to suffering.

Why do you ask a question, put a bounty on it, recieve 2 answers, one of which is actually a well-made answer, and then answers your own question, thereafter accepting it, so none of the other contributors will recieve the bounty? I think this is not good practice.

I sincerely thought both other answers were totally irrelevant. Neither answer made any reference to the respective suttas. Others are welcome to make an answer & receive the bounty (since the bounty is still open since I cannot give the bounty to myself). regards

My question is an excellent question. Resistance to the question reflects very poorly upon students who seem to want to cling to established dogma rather than reflect closely upon teachings.

So bias. You decide to disconnect sutta with sutta, although the pali words can connect together because you disagree with rebirth. Oh! my buddha, he is tipitaka cutter.

To vote my answer down is to dig a deep hole of bad kamma for oneself because it shows a complete disregard for the Dhamma teachings. My answer, while possibly wrong (although unlikely), shows a respectful analysis of the teaching given by the Buddha.

Until you using theravāda tipitaka, theravāda people can vote down you. Because at 1st saṅgāyanā, saṅgha made the unanimous decision to keep all rules without cut/add/modify buddha's paññatti. But you try to cut some part of buddha's paññatti off by disconnect the reference of sutta, so theravāda people can vote down you.


text:
Is consciousness a result of contact?
I read the following on the internet:

Thus we can say that consciousness is a result of contact.
It looks like ocean waves: there is something beneath (water, an organ of perception) and something above (wind, perceived object).
We can say that consciousness doesn't exist if there is no contact of organ of perception and object of perception.

Is consciousness a result of contact?
Or contact a result of consciousness?
What did the Lord Buddha, the Master, have to say about this?

From the Madhupindika Sutta (MN18):

"Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of
  the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is
  feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one
  perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies.
  Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of
  objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future
  forms cognizable via the eye.
"Dependent on ear & sounds, ear-consciousness arises...
"Dependent on nose & aromas, nose-consciousness arises...
"Dependent on tongue & flavors, tongue-consciousness arises...
"Dependent on body & tactile sensations, body-consciousness arises...
"Dependent on intellect & ideas, intellect-consciousness arises. The
  meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite
  condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in
  the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks
  about, one objectifies. Based on what a person objectifies, the
  perceptions & categories of objectification assail him/her with regard
  to past, present, & future ideas cognizable via the intellect.

So this appears to say contact is a result of consciousness, namely, dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact.

No eye-dhātu, on color-dhātu and no consciousness-dhātu are no contact, also no contact of those 3 dhātu is no consciousness-dhātu, too. Sahajāta-paccaya.

This answer from Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu is also helpful.

consciousness is a result of contact.

Of course not! That would be a totally materialistic explanation. Instead,
consciousness, or rather, experience (vijnana) arises when enough samskaras have been accumulated to allow for recognition of patterns. Recognition leads to arising of objects (nama-rupa) and experience of the world where objects exist (vijnana). Then based on experience of the world and objects, there comes experience of contact, from which comes the notion of outer and inner, which eventually matures into a self once the experience of contact is projected in future.
In other words, contact should be understood in terms of developmental phenomenology, not physics.

Buddha never talked about the beginning of the original consciousness (the first cause).
Vinnana and Nama-rupa are dependently originated.

Personally consiousness and the physical are inseparable the intangible and tangeble are as just as a necessity of everything else that's diametrically opposed. The physical does not exist without the spiritual to concieve of it and vice versa as far I can percieve. That thought though negates a ultimate source of consience ie god etc because that sentience would be incorporeal and be independent of the material.
I actually believe that realty is a product of every possibility and is without boundary a whole has limitless division similarly how we perceive the infinite of space our perception of it is limited by the scale of it ,a measurement we have like a Meter or inch is simply relative to our scale and the number it throws back is of no degree of the whole because of limitless division and no precise measurement. The whole exists and the path to knowledge is not in reduction of it but by studying it as it is.
Grasshopper lol

Consciousness is not a result of contact.
In conditional relation, consciousness and contact (mental formation) arise together by sahajata paccaya.

Western philosophy observes the object surrounds the subject and it cannot observe itself which is fundamental to there definition. But this definition is limited and is a consequence of a sequence of subjective observation and that subjects interpreting it's observation. Observing the subject is recognising and interpreting other object you consider to contain a subject but is a consequence of that sequence . To change the definition of subject or what appears to be would be that the subject never experience the object it's definition of its observations would not be able to be determined through a language which we use to describe the subjects observation and be uncommunicable since it would experience nothing. The language we use is a consequence of the sequence. A subject surrounding the object is a negation of language and a consequence of our natural emergence and it's sequence into the object from within. To observe the subject surrounding the object by negation would be to emerge not from within the object but without it and create the object within it, but all that reasoning is a consequence of sequence which is a product of time and being a prisoner off. I'll stop rambling now.

This is a specific case. Looking only at conciousness arising from contact. So what is this saying? Let me use an example
Lets say that there was a new material that was invented. Nobody had ever touched it before.
Would you know what it feels like? No
Not until you touch it would you be concious of what it feels like.
There would be no way to be concious of what the material feels like until you touch it.


text:
Attacking others with words such as they are weapons
Reference needed.  I remember reading a sutta where Buddha mentioned something like a stream enterer would no longer use words to attack others like weapons.  I would like to read that sutta in its entirety again.  Thanks.

There's a phrase like that Tittha Sutta: Sectarians (Ud 6.4):

And they kept on arguing, quarreling, & disputing, wounding one another with weapons of the mouth, saying,

"The Dhamma is like this, it's not like that. The Dhamma's not like that, it's like this."

This sutta contains the simile of the elephant.
The phrase is also in the next two suttas (Ud 6.5 and 6.6).

The sutta about "verbal daggers"? I can't remember it.
Oh! I found it:

When the Dhamma has been taught by me in such a way through different methods of exposition, it may be expected of those who will not
  concede, allow and approve of what is well stated and well spoken by
  others that they will become contentious and quarrelsome and engage in
  disputes, and that they will dwell stabbing each other with verbal
  daggers. But when the Dhamma has been taught by me in such a way
  through different methods of exposition, it may be expected of those
  who will concede, allow and approve of what is well stated and well
  spoken by others that they will live in concord, with mutual
  appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water,
  viewing each other with kindly eyes.
SN 36.19

I found it.  From MN48 Discourse at Kosambī

And what, monks, is that view which is ariyan, leading onwards, and which leads him who acts according to it to the complete destruction of anguish? Herein, monks, a monk who is forest-gone or gone to the root of a tree or gone to an empty place, reflects like this; ‘Now, have I a subjective obsession, not got rid of, owing to which I, if my mind were obsessed by it, could not know, could not see (things) as they really are?
  (1) If, monks, a monk is obsessed by addiction to sense-pleasures, to this extent is his mind obsessed. (2) If, monks, a monk is obsessed by malevolence, to this extent is his mind obsessed. (3) If, monks, a monk is obsessed by sloth and torpor, to this extent is his mind obsessed. (4) If, monks, a monk is obsessed by restlessness and worry, to this extent is his mind obsessed. (5) If, monks, a monk is obsessed by doubt, to this extent is his mind obsessed, to this extent is his mind obsessed. (6) If, monks, a monk centres his thought on this world, to this extent is his mind obsessed. (7) If, monks, a monk centres his thought on the world beyond, to this extent is his mind obsessed. (8) If, monks, a monk, disputatious, quarrelsome, contentious, lives wounding with the weapons of his tongue, to this extent is his mind obsessed. He comprehends thus: ‘I have no subjective obsession, not got rid of, owing to which I, if my mind were obsessed by it, could not know, could not see (things) as they really are; my thought is well directed towards awakening as to the truths.’ This is the first knowledge won by him, ariyan, transcendental, not in common with average men.

ps. thanks for the answers

There are already good answers (as for a part of the question, and not thought about the intent of the question), Nyom Dean, but we need to be careful to take this answers not as a weapon against those who deedly compassioned like to cut away our defilements which are claiming the talked in this Suttas by hard when they are attacted as means to let them survive. Many take the Dhamma as weapon against the three juwels and so was it even in the Buddhas time:

Abhaya Sutta: To Prince Abhaya - (On Right Speech)
..."Come now, prince. Go to Gotama the contemplative and on arrival say this: 'Lord, would the Tathagata say words that are unendearing & disagreeable to others?' If Gotama the contemplative, thus asked, answers, 'The Tathagata would say words that are unendearing & disagreeable to others,' then you should say, 'Then how is there any difference between you, lord, and run-of-the-mill people? For even run-of-the-mill people say words that are unendearing & disagreeable to others.' But if Gotama the contemplative, thus asked, answers, 'The Tathagata would not say words that are unendearing & disagreeable to others,' then you should say, 'Then how, lord, did you say of Devadatta that "Devadatta is headed for destitution, Devadatta is headed for hell, Devadatta will boil for an eon, Devadatta is incurable"? For Devadatta was upset & disgruntled at those words of yours.' When Gotama the contemplative is asked this two-pronged question by you, he won't be able to swallow it down or spit it up. Just as if a two-horned chestnut[1] were stuck in a man's throat: he would not be able to swallow it down or spit it up. In the same way, when Gotama the contemplative is asked this two-pronged question by you, he won't be able to swallow it down or spit it up."... read the whole about right Speech

The Buddha, like all other good teacher, are actually very skilled in use there weapon and there are many stories where they "brought" the "opposer" on the floor, "won over him" made his defilements neutal and even dis-manteled him in front of a big group, but not for any gain or to higher themselves, but to bring him in a situation where he can be talked the Dhamma, has no change to escape, or like in cases like in the above sutta, to bring his disciples again on the lain (or speak to them clear that somebody acts wrong).
A good sample in regard of one of the many fights we find in the teachings is: Cula-Saccaka Sutta: The Shorter Discourse to Saccaka
Many of the Suttas in MN may offer to see that it is not the most skillful to lay down the sword of skilled speech but show like in AN 4.100, that equanimity is not the highes skill:

"There are, Master Gotama, those four kinds of persons found existing in the world. Of those four, the one that seems to me the most excellent and sublime is the one who speaks dispraise of someone who deserves dispraise, and the dispraise is accurate, truthful, and timely; and who also speaks praise of someone who deserves praise, and the praise is accurate, truthful, and timely. For what reason? Because what excels, Master Gotama, is knowledge of the proper time to speak in any particular case.

(proper time is when possible and nessesary, sometimes also "just" for others if the certain doer is not capable to take.)
So to give the answer, "Does a stream-enter still uses the weapon of speech", the last Sutta and the samples of Buddha, his disciples, till good teachers of today, will show: "Yes (if wishing) he/she will use the weapon of even strong speech (yet still not with word of fools an outcasts), but not for gain, not to harm and simply out of compassion, less are able to receive.", and if a stream enter would have use it in affect in a wrong way (with akusala mind), maybe as defense (never for intended gain!), as a break of good conduct, he would suddenly confess his wrong doing. So it might aslo happen that a Noble One uses not nice word wrongly.
It's good to do not just pick up certain things from the teachings and use it as weapon. Most Dhamma-Dealer (those who make a livelihood in teaching, or gain, claim and sometimes even provide no defilement-cutting of speech, "peaceful, not opposing speech, ever lovely speech", because the costumers and fans like that, or better their defilements and so they are able to make more gain while simply slander and harm the Dhamma and lead people to fools. Why? Because what counts is the truth and not artifacted peace for nobodies benefit.
Take care to do not use this weapon Dhamma to kill youself off. That goes quick if grasping the head of the snake, walk a way of demand peace and metta (yet on fight and aversive your self), and if not willing to put oneself under good authority, its hard to get the right way.
Hope that this - surely at first - unpleasant answer reaches the worriors and warriors at the right time before theiy cut them off with an haft and incomplete weapon and reason to fight.
Many think "Oh I Won." Having make a visible strike. But the cut of the other war's so sharp that they still do not realice that the head has been seperated already and it's just a matter of time that he will fall down."

[1] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.
[2] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.
[3] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.
[4] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them.
[5] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them.
[6] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has sympathy for living beings."

What do you think? Is this a sample of a Monk you harms you? Heavily harmed your defilements? And/Or sharp words to stay on track and to keep you from serious wrongdoing? Deeply compassioned with some good wisdom, or the act of a fool? Think good and wise about it and its up to the wisdom of the receiver if a gift is taken or rejected. Meaning at least, only a Noble One would recognice another with secure. Just one who had seen will know if a reminder is right. Other need to think, test, observe and bring it to have seen by my self fist or have deep faith.
Anumodana!
A maybe extended answer and a possibility to ask further or/and discuss the topic can be found here.
(Note: this is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or any other wordily gain)


text:
Does viewing consciousness as "real thing" bring suffering?
I read the following on the internet:

No consciousness as "real thing". The cessation of ignorance means that the illusory nature of all "real things" is realized.

Yet when the Pali suttas describe liberation of mind (citta), this includes liberated consciousness, 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.'
Upaya Sutta

Since the Pali suttas describe the destruction of craving or passion as liberation & Nibbana, is it necessary to view consciousness as 'no consciousness' or 'not a real thing' for liberation?

May I share my research, by posting questions on this site and self-answering them?

OK. I hear you. I will try to make this the last one since it is so important to distinguish between impermanence & function. In SN 22.79 names things based on their function. Vedana is feeling because its feels. Vedana does not exist apart from when it feels. Vedana will always be feeling. Vedana can never be 'no feeling' just because it has causes. If everything was negated there would be no truth, no reality, no coherence, no lawfulness, no dhamma, nothing. Even nothing would not be nothing. I have observed conscious for many years. Despite its disappearance, it keep coming back to cognise.

Really? Both, mind (citta) and feeling (cetasikas) are paramattha-dhammās, since evident as long as there is an idea of self. What about questioning ideas, futureal as a way to get in touch with many, even to gain the base for real release. Ignoring and denying is no way to release.

The Pali suttas define 'consciousness' as 'cognition', as follows:

'Consciousness, consciousness': Thus is it said. To what extent, friend, is it said to be 'consciousness'?
'It cognizes, it cognizes': Thus, friend, it is said to be 'consciousness.' And what does it cognize? It cognizes 'pleasant.' It cognizes 'painful.' It cognizes 'neither painful nor pleasant.' 'It cognizes, it cognizes': Thus it is said to be 'consciousness.'
MN 43

Further, the Pali suttas state consciousness & wisdom (panna) are co-joined, as follows:

Discernment & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It's not possible, having separated them one from the other, to
delineate the difference between them. For what one discerns, that one
cognizes. What one cognizes, that one discerns. Therefore these
qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having
separated them one from another, to delineate the difference between
them.
MN 43

The Pali suttas also state consciousness is impermanent, namely, it arises, functions & ceases when the sense organs arise, function & cease, as follows:

If anyone were to say, 'The eye is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of the eye are discerned. And when
its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My
self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone
were to say, 'The eye is the self.' So the eye is not-self. If anyone
were to say, 'Forms are the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus
the eye is not-self and forms are not-self. If anyone were to say,
'Consciousness at the eye is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The
arising & falling away of eye consciousness is discerned.
MN 148

Therefore, every time consciousness functions, it is "real consciousness" because it performs the function of 'cognizing'. It does not not-cognize, it does not digest food, it does not walk, it does not speak. Consciousness only cognizes & discerns, which is why it is real consciousness.
The fact that the arising, existence & functioning of consciousness is dependent on causes & conditions, such as a mind & body (nama-rupa), sense organs & sense objects does not make consciousness not a real thing. Consciousness is a real thing because its reality is it cognizes and the only thing it does or is is cognising.
Importantly, real consciousness is an essential requirement for real wisdom or real insight. Therefore, real consciousness or real cognizing does not bring suffering. Instead, real consciousness brings true enlightenment.


text:
Why the first of the additional rules, put forward by lord Buddha, on Bikkhunis?
I've learned that Lord Buddha has put forward 7 rules on Bikkhunies when female were given the permission to enter the shasana as Bikkhunies. Maha Prajapathee devi & the other princesses were given the permission to be Bikkhunies after agreeing to live accordingly.
There is one rule which I really don't undersatnd why Lord Buddha chanted; "Bikkhunies should worship monks who even became a monk on that very day, even though the Bikkhuni is elder in Bikkuni life". As a great philosoper who said men to treat women equally, I really wonder why this rule is put forward by Lord Buddha. Monks are always asked to worship another monk based on the time period lived as a monk.
One day during a Dhamma deshana I heard a thero chanting that these rules were added later into Buddhism, by Brahmins, to show that Lord Buddha didn't give equal right to women, which was a practice in their community.
Can someone please clarify this to me?
May the noble triple gem bless you!


text:
Where can i find the original text of learning the jhanas
I want to find the cannon text on learning the jhanas. Is there a pdf or something in english i can download? Any help would be appreciated

the path to purification i think is canonical in theravada. it would be your best bet (exhaustive), if you want to practice in that tradition, imvho. i have a print copy...

In advance, the whole tipitaka is about jhāna, include sīla&vinaya.
For more focusing, see paṭisambhidāmagga.
For the summary, see Path of Purification (Visuddhimagga).
For more focusing, except 1st and 2nd chapter of Visuddhimagga, then all chapters, after that, is about jhāna, ārammaṇūpanijjhāna&lakkhaṇūpanijjhāna.

On this page, you can find quotes from the Pali Canon on jhanas together with their sources.
For further commentary on jhanas, please see this page.
This question may also help you.

How to reach jhana is explained in SN 48.10, in the last part about concentration.
Since jhana is a state of non-thinking, how can it be reached by reading, thinking, planning & wanting?

There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, making it his object to let go (vossagga), attains concentration, attains
  singleness of mind.


text:
Possible to attain happiness without support, through art?
Is it possible to attain happiness without support, through art, not overt meditation?
I'm not really an expert on any art, but take the question (somewhat) seriously.

maybe i should delete this already. chuffed with an idea =/= much

Working on your hobbies, advancing your career, developing a family, nurturing a child, going on vacations, increasing your wealth, raising your status in the world, attaining fame in society etc. could all make you happy.
Here, I'm guessing that art could be your hobby or career.
But the point is that these types of happiness would not last forever.
The goal of Buddhism is to find the sort of happiness that would be permanent.
On another note, please see this answer on why actors may go to hell and this answer which elaborates on the point that music and entertainment is not allowed for those undertaking the training of the eight precepts, ten precepts or ordination into monkhood.

Very good and precise answer.

As Ruben already told
Of course it is possible to gain happiness trough art but this kind of happiness has underlying suffering, at least because it is constructed and not lasting, is dependend and needs nurishment. The only way to gain freedom of suffering is the noble eigtfold path, and sensuallity is an obstacel to develop it, at least.
How ever, since art is a fine skill, it might be very usefull to have such, since the skill of a craftsman or artist is at it's heat the same like the path to develop the path. Buddha was very skilled in all kinds of arts and that not only gave him a good background in how to develop things, but also a understanding that things are done by deeds. Later he would use his talent to develope something that goes beyound oldage, sickness and death.
All the means to learn that skills have been brought as samples drawn from craft and art.
The Craft of heart, by Ajahn Lee might introduce you to the art of the Noble ones.
(Note: This answer is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial means or other wordly gains)