In sutta pitaka we can see “Cakkhuṃ ca paṭicca rūpe ca” in several places but NOT “Rūpam ca paṭicca Cakkhuṃ ca”
Any reason why?
Cakkhuñca paṭicca rūpe ca uppajjati cakkhuviññāṇaṃ.
‘Eye consciousness arises dependent on the eye and visual objects.’
If the order was changed I suppose the general sense would be the same, but an eye is needed to see visual objects.
2 Likes
Going more into pāli nerd territory…are you also asking about rūpe as an accusative plural?
Stephen, are you saying that rūpam can function either as a nominative or accusative singular (feasibly, in this stock phrase). I guess it’s a related question.
1 Like
I suppose so, as it’s neuter.
2 Likes
@stephen
Since it is under the law of dependent origination (the eye and the form [visual object]), I agree that it should be acceptable in both directions.
I’m just curious how the other direction (form to eye) works practically in the real world?"
1 Like
SN35.232 helped me to see this relation with the excellent simile of the Ox
Also, in SN14.3
Cakkhudhātuṁ, bhikkhave, paṭicca uppajjati cakkhusamphasso,
no cakkhusamphassaṁ paṭicca uppajjati cakkhudhātu
The eye-element gives rise to eye contact
Eye contact doesn’t give rise to the eye element
3 Likes
To me this a different context where it illustrates the diversity between elements (Dhātu) and contacts (Dhātunānattaṃ and Phassanānattaṃ)
What I was trying to understand is the relationship (dependent origination) between two conditioned phenomena (Saṃkhata) (i.e. eye and form).
Do you see any relation between these contexts?
BTW, do you mean to say eye contact is the form?
1 Like
As I understand it (Stephen can correct me if I’m wrong), the pali you have in the title is says is ‘an eye and forms (and)’. It could be ‘forms and an eye (and)’, that wouldn’t really matter. The order they are in the Pali you quoted isn’t about direction.
Eye +
Forms +
Eye consciousness
= eye contact
In this excellent discussion on Dependent Origination Ajahn Brahmali explains that the 6 sense bases can be synonymous with nāma-rŪpa and can sometimes be skipped. So it can be nāma-rūpa > phassa > vedana.
There is impact-contact and naming-contact. The naming contact is conditioned by our understanding of the world and dictates our vedana/experience of it.
Ajahn Brahmali explain it in more detail in the link above.
He also talks about the mutual conditionality such as in DN15.3.1
I hope this is more in the direction of what you are asking.
5 Likes
Myabe MN28 can be helpful?
“If, friends, internally the eye is intact but no external forms come into its range, and there is no corresponding conscious engagement, then there is no manifestation of the corresponding section of consciousness. If internally the eye is intact and external forms come into its range, but there is no corresponding conscious engagement, then there is no manifestation of the corresponding section of consciousness. But when internally the eye is intact and external forms come into its range and there is the corresponding conscious engagement, then there is the manifestation of the corresponding section of consciousness.
“The material form in what has thus come to be is included in the material form aggregate affected by clinging. The feeling in what has thus come to be is included in the feeling aggregate affected by clinging. The perception in what has thus come to be is included in the perception aggregate affected by clinging. The formations in what has thus come to be are included in the formations aggregate affected by clinging. The consciousness in what has thus come to be is included in the consciousness aggregate affected by clinging. He understands thus: ‘This, indeed, is how there comes to be the inclusion, gathering, and amassing of things into these five aggregates affected by clinging. Now this has been said by the Blessed One: “One who sees dependent origination sees the Dhamma; one who sees the Dhamma sees dependent origination.” And these five aggregates affected by clinging are dependently arisen. The desire, indulgence, inclination, and holding based on these five aggregates affected by clinging is the origin of suffering. The removal of desire and lust, the abandonment of desire and lust for these five aggregates affected by clinging is the cessation of suffering.’ At that point too, friends, much has been done by that bhikkhu.
It seems: the eye vinnana only manifest (i think this means establishes) when there is an element of engagement too. Only the presence of external forms in the range of the eye does not seem to be sufficient condition for eye vinnana to manifest.
This sutta also seems to imply that any vinnana, vedana, rupa, sanna sankhara that comes to be this way, also is a upadanakhandha.
The element of engagement in this sutta is described as: an element of desire, indulgence, inclination, and holding
I have always learned that it is not per change that ones eye are caught by something seen, or the ear…mind. Some element of interest is awakened in the mind and that starts to function as a support for vinnana to establish, just like at passing away (SN12.38).
I also feel, but maybe this is questionable, that this sutta shows that one must not think of vinnana as something neutral. Almost always it manifest because there is an element of desire, inclination, indulgence etc.
The moment a sense vinnana establishes that means there is already that element of engagement (SN22.53). It cannot establish without.
Or, at least, i feel, one must distinguish a situation in which vinnana arises or also establishes. Vinnana establising is very different from vinnana arising.
In a pure mind vinnanas merely arise and they never manifest or establish because there is no element of engagement that functions as support for vinnana to establish.
I think words here are very important because an established vinnana is very different from a vinnana that arises but does not establish. Just like the rebirth linking vinnana requires an an element of engagement to establish again and grow (SN12.38) so also vinnanas in this very life do.
I feel this is also an very important fragment:
"He understands thus: ‘This, indeed, is how there comes to be the inclusion, gathering, and amassing of things into these five aggregates affected by clinging.
I understand this as: It is only this element of desire, indulgence, inclination, and holding that causes this. There is not this amassing of things into these five aggregates affected by clinging without this element of engagement.
This why there is an escape. Without this element of desire etc, there is no amassing.
What does this mean in practice? I believe, without an element of engagement, mind remains empty, desiresless, uninclined, peaceful, not agitated. Nibbana is arrived at.
By the way @Erika_ODonnell here is also an example of how dependend arising is understood in a momentary context, and one sees the Dhamma.
2 Likes
The meaning would be the same, but the reason is that the suttas always list things in a standard order. Think of the five aggregates, for example, where form is always first and consciousness last, in whatever teaching. Likewise, the sense faculty (e.g. “eye”) always comes before the object (e.g. “forms”).
It’s a memory device, making it easier to remember.
If you look at the Saḷāyatanasaṁyutta, you’ll also see that it starts with suttas on the “internal” (eye) before moving on to the “external” (forms).
5 Likes
Thank you, Ven. Pasanna, for teeing up the video to the exact location where Ven. Brahmali explains this relationship between nāma-rūpa and phassa 
. That’s such a succinct, relatable teaching.
Moreover, now I see Ven. Sunyo for the first time!
Thanks for your original post as it made me think through the pāli 
with Stephen’s comments. Now I know that rūpe and cakkhuṃ are in the same declension (accusative), so grammatically of course they are joined by ca…
Your question as you clarified it is whether the phrase in question is a serial phrase, i.e., directional. Grammatically there’s no clue.
Ven. Brahmali’s short teaching on this explains how it’s a serial phrase – decidedly directional – from a more soteriological (my word) view.
As an aside, I’ve been studying Jayatilleke (Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge):
The Buddhist account gives a strictly causal explanation of the origin of sense-cognition without recourse to any of the Upanishadic metaphysical concepts. Visual cognition, for example, results from the presence of three conditions: (1) an unimpaired internal sense-organ of sight… (2) external visible forms entering into the field of vision…, and (3) an appropriate act of attention on the part of the mind
… All this is in accordance with the Buddhist causal theory but nevertheless the elements of the above hypothesis are traceable to the Upanishads … [in the] Kaushitaki Upanishad
Here’s the relevant section in this particular Upanishad:
Now, then, we will explain how all beings become one with this intelligence.
III-5. Speech is one portion taken out of it. Name is its externally correlated object element. Breath is one portion taken out of it. Odour is its externally correlated object element. The eye is one portion taken out of it. Form is its externally correlated object element…
Jayatilleke goes to great length demonstrating the lack of reference to DO in pre-Buddhist thought (thus the Buddha’s innovation). Still, he cites this one example above to show a shadow of the formula internal > external.
Bhante Sujato explains in one of his notes that, for all intents and purposes, the distinction between internal and external relative to the Buddha’s teaching on DO is not crucial (I can’t find it right now). Still, it’s interesting to note the formula and explore its potential origins related to perception.
1 Like
From the perspective of dependent origination, we have the eye and form (Saṅkhataṃ), and Paccayā which normally come in the middle. Do you think all three elements in this example are being generated at the same time?
I answered this question here: Etymology of sandiṭṭhikā? - #8 by Dunlop . The Dhamma is about what is to be directly seen (sanditthika) therefore the Dhamma starts with the eye rather than with forms because the practitioner has eyes which can see.
The law of dependent origination starts with ignorance. Ignorance directly affects the eye rather than the form. This is why the eye is mentioned first, such as in MN 148.
Dependent origination is about the origination of suffering rather than about relationships unrelated to suffering. The eye & form are included in dependent origination because the eye is affected by ignorance & when so can cause the mind to suffer over forms. Apart from this, that an eye meets a form is not dependent origination. A tree being dependent upon water & sunlight is not dependent origination.
SN 12.2 which analysises dependent origination does not separate the eye & form. It includes both sense organ & sense object in saḷāyatana. The prefix ‘sal’ means ‘six’. The Buddha included the prefix ‘sal’ (‘six’) in saḷāyatanaṁ but did not include the prefix ‘sal’ when describing āyatanānaṁ paṭilābho in jati. This is because the etymology by the Buddha intentionally leads to a completely different meaning. When Warder & others dismiss the etymology I must assume they misunderstood the Buddha because of lacking sanditthika. Each of the twelve conditions of dependent origination is saṅkhataṃ, as explained in SN 12.20. The three examples are not generated at the same time because when a Buddha is meditating, the physical eyes of the Buddha exist but they are closed. Therefore, the closed eyes of a Buddha do not meet any forms when the Buddha is in jhana. Also, because the Buddha has no ignorance, when the Buddha’s eyes meet a form, this is not dependent origination, as explained in suttas such as SN 12.44. When there is no ignorance & no craving arising, there is no dependent origination.
In my view, dependent origination is self-explanatory (origination) and serves as the heart of everything.
AN10.92
When this exists, that is; due to the arising of this, that arises
Iti imasmiṃ sati idaṃ hoti, imassuppādā idaṃ uppajjati, imasmiṃ asati idaṃ na hoti, imassa nirodhā idaṃ nirujjhati
With above statement, to explain something you don’t have to go to something else .
In that sense Avijjaṃ paccayā saṅkhārā is encompassed by dependent origination. If we consider ignorance as the starting point then it is leading to oneness, this concept is rejected by the Buddha.
When the subtleties of language are not respected, false self-affirming views arise. The above is not dependent origination. Dependent origination is literally below. The Buddha cannot be more literal than below.
And what is dependent origination? Ignorance is a condition for choices. Choices are a condition for consciousness. Consciousness is a condition for name and form. Name and form are conditions for the six sense fields. The six sense fields are conditions for contact. Contact is a condition for feeling. Feeling is a condition for craving. Craving is a condition for grasping. Grasping is a condition for continued existence. Continued existence is a condition for birth. birth is a condition for old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress to come to be. That is how this entire mass of suffering originates. This is called dependent origination.
SN 12.1
Ignorance is the starting point, as taught by the Buddha. SN 45.1. AN 10.61
The quote above is called idappaccayatā. Dependent origination is one of many examples of idappaccayatā. Dependent origination is the idappaccayatā of suffering. Dependent origination is not the idappaccayatā of trees, chemical compounds & sense contact. Everyone who has studied correctly, with respect for the subtle nuances of the Buddha’s Dhamma, knows the distinction between idappaccayatā & paṭiccasamuppāda.
A Realized One understands this and comprehends it,
Taṁ tathāgato abhisambujjhati abhisameti.
then he explains, teaches, asserts, establishes, clarifies, analyzes, and reveals it.
Abhisambujjhitvā abhisametvā ācikkhati deseti paññāpeti paṭṭhapeti vivarati vibhajati uttānīkaroti.
‘Look,’ he says,
‘Passathā’ti cāha:
‘Ignorance is a condition for choices.’
‘avijjāpaccayā, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā’.
So the fact that this is real, not unreal, not otherwise; the specific conditionality of it:
Iti kho, bhikkhave, yā tatra tathatā avitathatā anaññathatā idappaccayatā—
this is called dependent origination.
ayaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, paṭiccasamuppādo.
And what are the dependently originated phenomena?
Katame ca, bhikkhave, paṭiccasamuppannā dhammā?
Old age and death are impermanent, conditioned, dependently originated, liable to end, vanish, fade away, and cease.
Jarāmaraṇaṁ, bhikkhave, aniccaṁ saṅkhataṁ paṭiccasamuppannaṁ khayadhammaṁ vayadhammaṁ virāgadhammaṁ nirodhadhammaṁ.
SN 12.20
Cakkhuṃ ca paṭicca rūpe ca alone is not dependent origination. Many suttas confirm this fact or truth.
And what is the ending of the world?
Katamo ca, bhikkhave, lokassa atthaṅgamo?
Eye consciousness arises dependent on the eye and sights. The meeting of the three is contact.
Cakkhuñca paṭicca rūpe ca uppajjati cakkhuviññāṇaṁ. Tiṇṇaṁ saṅgati phasso.
Contact is a condition for feeling.
Phassapaccayā vedanā;
Feeling is a condition for craving.
vedanāpaccayā taṇhā.
When that craving fades away and ceases with nothing left over, grasping ceases.
Tassāyeva taṇhāya asesavirāganirodhā upādānanirodho;
When grasping ceases, continued existence ceases. …
upādānanirodhā bhavanirodho …pe…
That is how this entire mass of suffering ceases.
evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa nirodho hoti.
This is the ending of the world.
Ayaṁ kho, bhikkhave, lokassa atthaṅgamo.
SN 12.44
I believe this refers to: Mind is always the forerunner. Meaning, our intentions, choices, tendencies, plans, verbal deeds, physical deeds arise from a certain understanding of things perceived. Things are known in a certain way at a certain moment. And that determines all. That is why view is first factor of the Path.
That understanding can be distorted and that can be undistorted, with or without delusion. When our understanding of things perceived is distorted, that leads to suffering. That is what PS expresses, i feel. Suffering is connected to wrong understanding, delusion. And that even starts in a subconscious way, as tendencies.
To end suffering we must uproot all what distorts mind, or understanding.
In the core all that is not a bare awareness of something perceived, is distorted. In the seen, heard, felt, known is something more then only that. For example there is also an emotional attitude towards it, notions of me and mine, conceit and conceiving, identity views etc. This is all part of distorted knowing and causes suffering.
I do not believe PS wants to suggest that ignorance is a first nidana’s but it expresses that from a deluded mind arises suffering. It is always view, or how we understand things, that basically determines the outcome of actions (AN1.314 and AN1.315). Or, it is the combination of view and deeds. For example: The combination of good intention and wrong view does not lead to happiness.
Avijja as first nidana refers to an avijja-mind, i believe. Meaning, a distorted understanding of things. The whole of PS arises from this distorted understanding. I believe in this sense avijja precedes all unwholesomeness.
Distorted understanding in former lifes have become ingrained as avijja-anusaya.
So in this life, and many before, we are and were inclined to a distorted understanding. We do not have to do anything for this 
And when acting with a wrong understanding in this life, we again, feed this avijja-anusaya. And by that we are even more inclined to act from a wrong understanding in this and next life. This cycle is what PS describes. Difficult to escape this cyclic pattern. This way we cannot escape suffering. We must break with the avijja mind, a distorted understanding.
Avijja does not exist on its own as first nidana. Nothing does in PS. It refers to avijja- mind.
It is not 100% on topic but the conversation took this Path toward PS and i felt this might be helpful.
I also feel that MN28 is important. It is not like this that when there is some thing in the visual field of the eye, that now eye vinnana’s manifest. Do not know why this seems to be so ignored.
1 Like
AN 10.61 reads as ignorance precedes these things. AN 10.61 reads to be about ‘nutriment’ (‘ahara’) rather than ‘cause’. I try to not get confused about ‘ahara’ vs ‘cause’. I suggest to review Dependent Origination, which says:
- Ignorance is first
- From ignorance arise citta sankhara (perception & feeling)
- From citta sankhara arises consciousness
- From these arises nama-rupa, which includes the first mention of ‘intention’ (cetana = ‘choices’)
Sankhara in Dependent Origination only means ‘choices’ in the Commentary and Visuddhimagga traditions. In Early Buddhism, sankhara reads to be kaya, vaci & citta sankhara, as described in SN 41.6.
Ignorance is one of the tendencies, which reads to produce ‘asava’. One of the ‘asava’ is also ignorance. I suggest to study the final parts of MN 9.
I do not recall reading the Buddha taught bare awareness, i.e., an awareness without wisdom.
Bare awareness cannot exist. I read in MN 43 when there is no perception & no feeling, awareness ends and the life form resembles a corpse.
I am sure there cannot be any “bare awareness” in the Buddha’s Teaching.
I read the Bahiya Sutta is explained detailed an SN 35.95. Its good to study rather than get stuck on small phrases from obscure suttas taught to wanderers.
Interesting speculative view however it must start with ignorance, as AN 10.61 says. If there are former lives of a self 
that former life must remain unawakened due to ignorance as the first cause.
I read Dependent Origination first mention identity views at the 9th condition.
These read to be brief general suttas. They do not read to describe the detail of Dependent Origination. The 2nd condition of Dependent Origination does not read to be “choices” or “intentions”. “Choices” is mentioned at the 4th condition as “cetena”. Please keep in mind the Buddha said:
This dependent origination is deep and appears deep. It is because of not understanding and not penetrating this teaching that this population has become tangled like string, knotted like a ball of thread, and matted like rushes and reed
DN 15
Avijja is not a mind. That is obviously why the Buddha never used the term ‘avijja-mind’ in Dependent Origination. I suggest to read AN 1.49–50
Your mind can believe whatever it makes the choices to believe but PS literally says ignorance is the first nidana.
This may be true however it must begin with avijja-anusaya causing acting with a wrong understanding. I suggest to read MN 64. I must repeat, AN 10.61 refers to “ahara” or “food”. Ahara does not read to mean “cause”. Ahara cannot be substituted for “paccaya” (SN 12.2) or “samudhaya” (MN 9) in Dependent Origination.
AN 10.61 reads to say: “no condition (paccaya) before ignorance can be found. The Five hindrances feed or nourish this pre-existing ignorance. Wrong action feeds or nourishes the five hindrances… etc”.
SN 12.2 reads to say: Ignorance causes sankhara… causes wrong intention at nama-rupa… causes craving… causes self-view at upadana… . causes kamma at bhava… etc
Please do not confuse “ahara” (“food”) and “cause”. “Ahara” or “food” maintains things. Ahara does not cause or create things. I read in MN 38:
Mendicants, there are these four foods (ahara). They maintain beings that have been born and help those that are about to be born. What four? Solid food, whether solid or subtle; contact is the second, mental intention the third, and consciousness the fourth.
Avijja is explained on its own in Dependent Origination (SN 12.2). MN 9 reads to say avijja is caused by avijja-asava (similar to anusaya) and avijja-asava is caused by avijja. I am gaining the impression what you are calling “mind” might infer a “self” (“atman” in Hinduism) that has reincarnated over countless lifetimes. I read in MN 115 the Buddha describe ignorance as only an element (dhatu). Avijja is not a mind. That is obviously why the Buddha never used the term ‘avijja-mind’ in Dependent Origination. I suggest to read AN 1.49–50
I personally did not find this jumbling of dhammas as helpful.
I feel SN 46.55 is important. SN 46.55 says when the mind is free from the five hindrances it can comprehend the scriptures it reads. Best wishes.
Why speak of choices if there is not even yet vinnana?
If you study abhidhamma you will see that sankhara in PS refer to three kinds of abhisankhara. And abhisankhara are also not just sankharas!
Sankharas are not perse karmically loaded but abhisankhara are.
So, this step of avijja-sankhara, i believe, means that karmically active volitional formations arise with avijja as condition. Not without. These karmically active formations carry a load and they start to function as a support for vinnana to establish. Load is a way to speak of dukkha. Karmically active formations bring a load to the mind.
In the seen is merely the seen, in the heard if merely the heard, in the felt merely the felt, in the known merely the known…that is the way the suttas express the presence of a bare awareness. An awareness without me and mine making, without a tendency to give rise to views, conceit and conceiving upon what is seen, heard etc.
This dispassionate awareness is a bare awareness.
It is presented as first because this is Buddhas way to make us see that suffering arises and keep arising from a wrong understanding. A mind in which avijja is established. Avijja precedes all unwholesomeness. It does not mean that avijja is literally a first cause.
Good point. I have said before i feel it is better to see PS as a Wheel. A cyclic and not linear process. And ahara is what keeps this wheel turning. Like the fuel of samsara.
I am not saying sankhara is intention.
Abhidhamma has no relevance to Sutta and Abhidhamma is wrong because in Sutta the word sankhara is plural and in Abhidhamma the word sankhara is singular.
In my reading the Buddha did not use any word than means volitional formations (cetana-sankhara). The view that sankhara in DO is volition reads as Abhidhamma and not Early Buddhism. The suttas (SN 12.2) literally say the three sankhara of DO are kaya, vaci & citta sankhara, which are only defined in SN 41.6 & MN 44.
I read in the suttas (SN 22.53) there can be no arising of consciousness without the other aggregates. The idea that consciousness must exist first reads to be Proto-Hinduism.
The suttas do not read to say sankhara is kamma (action). The closest i read in MN 9 is avijja includes bhava-asava, which would be related to old kamma. But kamma is intention (AN 6.63). Intention is at nama-rupa in the suttas (SN 12.2). The sankhara (thoughts) arising from bhava-asava is not volition. If a thought arises in my mind today based on an action or kamma I performed yesterday, this thought (sankhara) is not kamma. It is the result (vipaka) of kamma. I do not mix up kamma vs vipaka. Thanks
Dukkha is upadana (SN 56.11). No dukkha is occurring in DO until upadana (9th condition). 
The suttas (plural) do not say this. This phrase is from a brief sutta explained in detail in SN 35.95. There is no mindfulness in Early Buddhism without wisdom. There is no "bare awareness’ in the Early Buddhism. Thanks.
Dispassionate awareness is awareness with dispassion. Therefore this awareness is not “bare”. Dispassion occurs due to wisdom. Refer to SN 22.59. There is no bare wisdomless dispassionless awareness in Early Buddhism.
Avijja is the first cause, which is why the suttas say:
When IGNORANCE fades away and ceases with nothing left over, sankharas cease. When sankharas cease, consciousness ceases. … That is how this entire mass of suffering ceases.”
SN 12.2.
When the 1st cause ceases, all of the other conditions cease.
Ahara may keep the wheel going but the wheel stops not with stopping ahara but stopping the 1st cause. AN 10.61 literally says the ahara of ignorance is the five hindrances. But when the five hindrances cease, this is only the 1st jhana at best. Its not yet the cessation of ignorance. It is not yet Nibbana. In fact, the five hindrances can end & the ignorant mind clings to the 1st jhana, which is rupabhava (10th condition) and the mind believes it is a class a gods (11th condition) 
and later reborn in hell (AN 4.123).
To end, there are views on this topic that just sound like the Visuddhimagga of Buddhaghosa. if I want to read that stuff, I can read the Visuddhimagga
My attitude towards the texts is: If we want to understand what buddhist concepts really mean in the teachings of the Buddha, sure, i believe we must really consult the suttas. We cannot fabricate our own meanings of these concepts. But after that we must consult our own mind/life, right? And leave definitions behind and try to develop an experiential understanding of these concepts, right?
What are sankhara’s in an experiential way? What is sanna…what is tanha, what is cetana etc. Agreed?
I feel you are not doing this. You only seem to be interested in texts knowledge and making a war on this. I certaintly appreciate texts knowledge but i also know and see that it is all open to interpretation.
If you want to believe there is no bare awareness in buddha’s teachings, oke, that is your choice. If you want to see avijja as first cause…fine. that is your choice. I will never do this. All nidana’s in PS are based upon avijja, not only the second nidana.
PS is not like 12 billiard balls hitting eachother. For example, the phassa is also an avijja phassa etc. And ofcourse, avijja that precedes all unwholesomeness, refers to a mind with a wrong understanding. Avijja does never exist apart from mind.
Your understanding of cetana also seems to be limited to intention. But cetana is described in the cetana suttas and is clearly not limited to intentions only.
Also rebirth does not even depend on being conscious, let alone conscious intentions and plans. If a a rebirth vinnana would only establish on conscious intentions and plans, then it would be enough to die unconsciouly not to be reborn.
Yes the relation between avijja and the hindrances is that when the hindrances actually arise they cause a distorted perception, a wrong understanding arise too, avijja become established now in the mind.
I hope there comes a time you are more able to reflect on your behavior.
I also feel it is quit shocking that @moderators or other participants do not flagg your clearly offensive way of communication.
2 Likes