Ok, well you’re certainly entitled to your opinions.
But the references were chosen to show how they, in fact, do not clearly support a belief in a “timeless citta.” There are many posts on D&D in which they have been eludicated and discussed, in case you’re interested:
Also, regarding
from the Dhammapada – this is a line that points to cetanā, kammic choices, since the following lines refer to the consequences of skillful or unskillful choices. It’s not an ontological statement, and that’s likely why mano, generally associated with the more analytic, thoughtful aspects of mind is used rather than citta.
This “not landing” refers to:
" Regarding citta vs viññāna, SN47.42: Nāmarūpasamudayā cittassa samudayo; nāmarūpanirodhā cittassa atthaṅgamo.
The mind originates from name and form. When name and form cease, the mind ends."
Well, with respect, the sutta says what it says. It appears not to fit into your chosen belief system.
There are practitioners who believe in a “timeless, deathless consciousness/citta” and those who don’t.
With respect, all that’s being suggested here is that if we’re going to assert a position about doctrine, we ought to be able to cite sources in the suttas that clearly make and support the point.
No one debates about the truth and relevance of teachings like aniccā, for example. Why? Because, in addition to direct experience, there many clear-cut teachings about it in the suttas.
But “timeless citta”…
