It will make sense if you clearly establish yourself in understanding that you don’t understand the Noble Truths.
Again you don’t understand the second noble truth or dependent arising but than you take for granted that with ignorance as condition … consciousness is a description of temporal process. What about idea that to explain the second noble truth in this way is precisely an aspect of ignorance of which you don’t know?
In other words while samsara is indeed temporal, as temporal phenomenon it is nonsense to describe it in the terms of the three lives.
“Bhikkhus, this saṃsāra is without discoverable beginning. A first point is not discerned of beings roaming and wandering on hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving. What do you think, bhikkhus, which is more: the stream of blood that you have shed when you were beheaded as you roamed and wandered on through this long course—this or the water in the four great oceans?”
“As we understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, venerable sir, the stream of blood that we have shed when we were beheaded as we roamed and wandered on through this long course—this alone [188] is more than the water in the four great oceans.”
“Good, good, bhikkhus! It is good that you understand the Dhamma taught by me in such a way. The stream of blood that you have shed when you were beheaded as you roamed and wandered on through this long course—this alone is more than the water in the four great oceans. For a long time, bhikkhus, you have been cows, and when as cows you were beheaded, the stream of blood that you shed is greater than the waters in the four great oceans. For a long time you have been buffalo, sheep, goats, deer, chickens, and pigs…. For a long time you have been arrested as burglars, highwaymen, and adulterers, and when you were beheaded, the stream of blood that you shed is greater than the water in the four great oceans. For what reason? Because, bhikkhus, this saṃsāra is without discoverable beginning…. It is enough to be liberated from them.”
SN 15 : 13
The question is why we are born again and again?
“It is, bhikkhus, because of not understanding and not penetrating the noble truth of suffering that you and I have roamed and wandered through this long course of saṃsāra. It is because of not understanding and not penetrating the noble truth of the origin of suffering … the noble truth of the cessation of suffering … the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering that you and I have roamed and wandered through this long course of saṃsāra.
SN 56 : 21
I have never met a teacher who discussed the second noble truth in the terms of the three, two, one, existences, no as a momentary process. And quite rightly since Noble Truths are just descriptions, the first two describe the state of puthujjana the third descibes arahat …And yet the same teachers when the very same second noble truth is described in the terms of dependent arising suddenly start to teach us about the three, two one existence, and so on.
It is very unlikely that with such “help” one will escape from samsara.
Most important thing to understand is that puthujjana does not understand his own experience as much as that of arahat, in other terms he doesn’t see his own ignorance. So it is good to think about dependent arising as the mirror, offered by the Lord Buddha to puthujjana, so that for the first time in the beginningless samsara one can see one’s own ignorance.
And one’s own ignorance can be seen only here and now. Not only past and future are irrelevant to understanding one’s own ignorance, but simply introducing past and future makes seeing one’s present ignorance impossible.
But, Udāyi, let be the past, let be the future, I shall set you forth the Teaching: When there is this this is, with arising of this this arises; when there is not this this is not, with cessation of this this ceases. Majjhima viii,9 <M.ii,32>
“When, bhikkhus, a noble disciple has clearly seen with correct wisdom as it really is this dependent origination and these dependently arisen phenomena, it is impossible that he will run back into the past, thinking: ‘Did I exist in the past? Did I not exist in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what did I become in the past?’ Or that he will run forward into the future, thinking: ‘Will I exist in the future? Will I not exist in the future? What will I be in the future? How will I be in the future? Having been what, what will I become in the future?’ Or that he will now be inwardly confused about the present thus: ‘Do I exist? Do I not exist? What am I? How am I? This being—where has it come from, and where will it go?’
“For what reason [is this impossible]? Because, bhikkhus, the noble disciple has clearly seen with correct wisdom as it really is this dependent origination and these dependently arisen phenomena.” SN 12 : 20