Why is consciousness not discussed as internal and external in the Dhathu-vibhanga sutta (MN 140)? > "And what is the space property? **The space property may be either internal or external.** What is the internal space property? Anything internal, belonging to oneself, that's space, spatial, & sustained: the holes of the ears, the nostrils, the mouth, the [passage] whereby what is eaten, drunk, consumed, & tasted gets swallowed, and where it collects, and whereby it is excreted from below, or anything else internal, within oneself, that's space, spatial, & sustained: This is called the internal space property. Now both the internal space property & the external space property are simply space property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the space property and makes the space property fade from the mind. > > "**There remains only consciousness: pure & bright.** What does one cognize with that consciousness? One cognizes 'pleasure.' One cognizes 'pain.' One cognizes 'neither pleasure nor pain.' In dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as pleasure, there arises a feeling of pleasure. When sensing a feeling of pleasure, one discerns that 'I am sensing a feeling of pleasure.' One discerns that 'With the cessation of that very sensory contact that is to be felt as pleasure, the concomitant feeling — the feeling of pleasure that has arisen in dependence on the sensory contact that is to be felt as pleasure — ceases, is stilled.' In dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as pain... In dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as neither pleasure nor pain, there arises a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain. When sensing a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one discerns that 'I am sensing a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain.' One discerns that 'With the cessation of that very sensory contact that is to be felt as neither pleasure nor pain, the concomitant feeling — the feeling of neither pleasure nor pain that has arisen in dependence on the sensory contact that is to be felt as neither pleasure nor pain — ceases, is stilled.' > > https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.140.than.html

In his video [The Different Accounts of Dependent Origination in the Mahatanha-sankhaya Sutta (MN 38)](https://youtu.be/4I3OUG5yycg?si=oZwl6JMmQCB2Aj8D) , some things Dr. Alexander Wynne says are: * Dependent origination explains continuity over lives without a soul (Atman). * There is also a focus on what is happening in the present to conquer your suffering. * MN 38 has three doctrines; three versions of dependent origination. * Sati understands Dhamma as Upanishadic essentialism; that this consciousness transmigrates. * Buddha puts Sati in place by explaining Dependent Origination. * **The core of MN 38 is Buddha explains the dependent origination of consciousness with fire similes.** MN 38 should/could end at this point. * There is a **mysterious hard to understand discussion about "what has come into being". The Buddha does not say what has come into being.** Later, Wynne says: "The Buddha is talking about consciousness that comes into being (bhuta; sambhava)" and says Buddhaghosa was wrong saying Buddha was referring to the five aggregates that comes into being. * It gets more difficult when four nutriments are discussed. This section jumps out away from present moment consciousness. Here, moved from the present moment focus to continuity over time. * Then there is a section where the "subject" of transmigration is named; an entity being reborn; the "gandhabba"; ordinarily a type of "god" in Vedic texts. * The closing of MN 38 saying "concise discourse"; yet the sutta is long therefore people over time added things due to its length. * How has the text been expanded? What has been added? Section 3 about the four nutriments has been added. Subtle conceptual difference. One tradition has been moved in from another tradition. Do we have any disagreements with Dr. Alexander Wynne? Which one's? Why?