Sorry. I obviously meant to say faith is caused by suffering; suffering is caused by birth and birth is caused by ignorance. Therefore, as I posted, if SN 12.23 is about “dependent origination”, then if ignorance ceases then faith must also cease. Let me remind you DO follows the basic principle of idappaccayatā, namely:
When this exists, that is; due to the arising of this, that arises.
When this doesn’t exist, that is not; due to the cessation of this, that ceases.
Therefore, following the above principle, as I posted, if faith arises due to suffering, faith must cease when suffering ceases. As soon as ignorance ceases, faith must cease, liberation must cease, knowledge of destruction must cease.
If SN 12.23 follows the principle of dependent origination then it seems all 24 dhammas in SN 12.23 must cease when ignorance ceases.
Respectfully, the impression is you have become so accustomed to reciting/repeating SN 12.23 that in this current query by my good self and Martin you are falling back upon what you have become accustomed to, thus are preventing the arising of critical thinking (yoniso manasikara).
My post was quite detailed & clear. It seems SN 12.23 may not be an excellent example of dependent origination.
Both Martin & I questioned you about SN 12.23. It seems both Martin & I saw the elephant in the room
. Both Martin & I asked the question: “In SN 12.23, what is the significance of the phrase “proximate cause (upanisa)”?”
I don’t disagree with SN 12.23, which is about "upanisa”. In case it was missed, the specific sutta is called ‘Upanisa Sutta’. However, I disagree with your insistence it is about the principle of DO. I apologise if my post was too linguistically complex and any differences between terms such as "upanisa”, “samudaya”, “sambhava”, “paṭiccasamuppannaṁ”, “nirodha”, “pahoti”, etc, were not discernable. Buddhadasa Bhikkhu called the twenty-four dhammas in SN 12.23 “the Radiant Wheel of Dependent Origination”. It seems this is questionable. It seems very questionable Liberation & Knowledge of The Destruction of the Cankers are “dependently originated”.
Yes, the gain of liberation was supported by effort. However, the term “dependent origination” seems not applicable to this example of cause & effect. If we refer to the explicit definition of Dependent Origination in the suttas, it says:
“And what, bhikkhus, is dependent origination? With ignorance as condition, volitional formations come to be; with volitional formations as condition, consciousness; with consciousness as condition, name-and-form; with name-and-form as condition, the six sense bases; with the six sense bases as condition, contact; with contact as condition, feeling; with feeling as condition, craving; with craving as condition, clinging; with clinging as condition, existence; with existence as condition, birth; with birth as condition, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. This, bhikkhus, is called dependent origination.
SN 12.1
Or:
“And what, bhikkhus, is the wrong way? With ignorance as condition, volitional formations come to be; with volitional formations as condition, consciousness…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. This, bhikkhus, is called the wrong way.
SN 12.3
SN 12.3 seems to say quite explicitly that “dependent origination is the wrong way” . Yet you appear to be saying faith as an “upanisa” for the destruction of the cankers (asava) is “the wrong way”; just as Buddhadasa Bhikkhu seemed to call “the wrong way” a “Radiant Wheel”. Obviously, dependent origination is a Dark Mara Wheel rather than a Radiant Wheel.