user17628: In the cycle of paṭiccasamuppāda, if we start from avijjā, the next nidāna is that of saṅkhāra which in turn conditions the origin of viññāṇa, loosely termed as consciousness. This viññāṇa in turn conditions the appearance of nāmarūpa, followed by saḷāyatana, the six sense bases. This as all of us know is followed by phassa and then the rest of the twelve nidānas.
Now my question is: what is the nature of this viññāṇa, this consciousness, that appears anterior to nāmarūpa, name and form, and, saḷāyatana, the six sense bases? As I understand this, the body and the mind as well as the six sense bases have not appeared as yet at this step of the cycle, and therefore, this viññāṇa cannot be said to be one of the six sense consciousnesses; then what is the content of this ‘primordial’ consciousness? Is it the saṅkhāra-generated bhavaṅga citta, or is it something else?

user17652: Consciousness here refers to the six senses consciousnesses. Your confusion occurs because your mind wants to view paticcasamuppada within a linear trajectory. It is more accurately described as a mass, hence the various relevant suttas closing with...

"Such is the arising/origination of this entire mass of suffering.”


user-1: avijja is a mental element, has to do with that which is called mind, consciousness or intellect.
that which is called mind, consciousness or intellect arises as one thing and ceases as another and is implicated in contact.
when on has contact come into play, it isn't something that is thought to persist as the consciousness that is in the meeting of the three changes as it arises.
When we talk about a certain-consciousness being implicated in an instance of contact, that is consciousness 1 doing the meeting, as this changes as it arises it is associated with consequent consciousness 2 for a future and the preceding consciousness 0 for a past state.
Therefore Nama doesn't include vinnana but only that which is contact and born of contact on one end and the form implicated in contact on the other end, consciousness is in the middle and is associated with both as to that meeting of the three which is included in name as 'contact'.
It is said that the past is one end, future the other end and present in the middle.
It is also said that form is one end, name the other end and consciousness is in the middle.
If the two statements are superimposed then one would say that the past has form on one end, name on the other end and consciousness in the middle. That the present has form on one end... consciousness in the middle. That the future has form on one end... consciousness in the middle.
That is because contact has no temporal persistence as elements change as they arise.
It is also said “Contact, reverends, is one end. The origin of contact is the second end. The cessation of contact is the middle.
If one was to superimpose this on the first statement it would be: The past has contact on one end, the origin of contact on the other end and cessation of contact in the middle. The present... The future... cessation of contact in the middle.

“Monks, there are these three topics for discussion. Which three?
“One may talk about the past, saying, ‘Thus it was in the past.’ One may talk about the future, saying, ‘Thus it will be in the future.’ Or one may talk about now in the present, saying, ‘Thus it is now in the present.’ https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN3_68.html


“Bhikkhus, there are these three pathways of language, pathways of
designation, pathways of description, that are unmixed, that were
never mixed, that are not being mixed, that will not be mixed, that
are not rejected by wise ascetics and brahmins. What three?
“Whatever form, bhikkhus, has passed, ceased, changed: the term,
label, and description ‘was’ applies to it, not the term ‘is’ or the
term ‘will be.’
“Whatever feeling … Whatever perception … Whatever volitional
formations … Whatever consciousness has passed, ceased, changed: the
term, label, and description ‘was’ applies to it, not the term ‘is’ or
the term ‘will be.’
“Whatever form, bhikkhus, has not been born, has not become manifest:
the term, label, and description ‘will be’ applies to it, not the term
‘is’ or the term ‘was.’
“Whatever feeling … Whatever perception … Whatever volitional
formations … Whatever consciousness has not been born, has not become
manifest: the term, label, and description ‘will be’ applies to it,
not the term ‘is’ or the term ‘was.’
“Whatever form, bhikkhus, has been born, has become manifest: the
term, label, and description ‘is’ applies to it, not the term ‘was’ or
the term ‘will be.’
“Whatever feeling … Whatever perception … Whatever volitional
formations … Whatever consciousness has been born, has become
manifest: the term, label, and description ‘is’ applies to it, not the
term ‘was’ or the term ‘will be.’
“These, bhikkhus, are the three pathways of language, pathways of
designation, pathways of description, that are unmixed, that were
never mixed, that are not being mixed, that will not be mixed, that
are not rejected by wise ascetics and brahmins. http://buddhadust.net/dhamma-vinaya/wp/sn/03_kv/sn03.22.062.bodh.wp.htm


“The past, reverends, is one end. The future is the second end. The
present is the middle. And craving is the seamstress …
“Contact, reverends, is one end. The origin of contact is the second
end. The cessation of contact is the middle. And craving is the
seamstress... https://suttacentral.net/an6.61/en/sujato


what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by
night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey,
swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of
it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one.
Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's
called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night
arises as one thing and ceases as another. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.061.than.html

Consciousness is conjoined with perception & conception [genesis] because what one cognizes that one perceives and what one perceives that one conceives of.
Therefore Consciousness is conjoined with Sankhara.

Three aggregates are conjoined with consciousness. The aggregate of form is not conjoined with consciousness. The aggregate of consciousness should not be said to be, conjoined with consciousness or not conjoined with consciousness. Three aggregates are generated by consciousness. The aggregate of consciousness is not generated by consciousness. The aggregate of form sometimes is generated by consciousness; sometimes is not generated by consciousness. Three aggregates are co-existent with consciousness. The aggregate of consciousness is not co-existent with consciousness. The aggregate of form sometimes is co-existent with consciousness; sometimes is not co-existent with consciousness. https://suttacentral.net/vb1/en/thittila

One can say that the terms sankhara and consciousness are describing the same reality in different ways and can therefore not be separated beyond a delineation of difference.
The difference between Consciousness and Consciousness Aggregate is that Aggregated consciousness refers to classes of past, present & future consciousness and not one among them taken as a cause for another. In this sense the Aggregate Consciousness means plural consciousnesses whereas a particular consciousness is something one would think about as changing as it arises and thus associated with three ends.

user21029: Please don't assume this to be a linear progression.

“Now we understand the Venerable Sāriputta’s statement thus:
‘Name-and-form, friend Koṭṭhita, is not created by oneself … but
rather, with consciousness as condition, name-and-form comes to be.’
Now we also understand the Venerable Sāriputta’s other statement thus:
‘Consciousness, friend Koṭṭhita, is not created by oneself … but
rather, with name-and-form as condition, consciousness comes to be.’
But how, friend Sāriputta, should the meaning of this statement be
seen?”
“Well then, friend, I will make up a simile for you, for some
intelligent people here understand the meaning of a statement by means
of a simile. Just as two sheaves of reeds might stand leaning against
each other, so too, with name-and-form as condition, consciousness
comes to be; with consciousness as condition, name-and-form comes to
be. With name-and-form as condition, the six sense bases come to be;
with the six sense bases as condition, contact…. Such is the origin of
this whole mass of suffering.
“If, friend, one were to remove one of those sheaves of reeds, the
other would fall, and if one were to remove the other sheaf, the first
would fall. So too, with the cessation of name-and-form comes
cessation of consciousness; with the cessation of consciousness comes
cessation of name-and-form. With the cessation of name-and-form comes
cessation of the six sense bases; with the cessation of the six sense
bases, cessation of contact…. Such is the cessation of this whole mass
of suffering.”
The mutual interrelation between consciousness and name-and-form is
like that of two bundles of reeds, mutually supporting each other.
Having given this simile, Venerable Sāriputta goes on to mention the
other links of the pañicca samuppāda formula, as in the case of the
bodhisatta Vipassī’s insight. It runs: "Dependent on name-and-form,
the six sense-bases; dependent on the six sense-bases, contact;
dependent on contact, feelings" (and so on). And then the cessation
aspect of these links is also given. By way of illustration, let us
suppose that the consciousness bundle of reeds is standing on the left
side, and the name-and-form bundle is on the right. Then we have a
number of other bundles, such as the six sense-bases, contact and
feeling, all leaning on to the name-and-form bundle of reeds. These
are all dependent on the name-andform bundle. Now, as soon as the
consciousness bundle is drawn out, all the others on the right side
fall down immediately.
Nalakalapiyo Sutta


user16323: The nidanas are described in SN 12.2. Here vinnana is 6-fold sense-consciousness, which is the stock description in the suttas.
https://suttacentral.net/sn12.2/en/bodhi

17628: <p>In the cycle of paṭiccasamuppāda, if we start from avijjā, the next nidāna is that of saṅkhāra which in turn conditions the origin of viññāṇa, loosely termed as consciousness. This viññāṇa in turn conditions the appearance of nāmarūpa, followed by saḷāyatana, the six sense bases. This as all of us know is followed by phassa and then the rest of the twelve nidānas.</p>
<p>Now my question is: what is the nature of this viññāṇa, this consciousness, that appears anterior to nāmarūpa, name and form, and, saḷāyatana, the six sense bases? As I understand this, the body and the mind as well as the six sense bases have not appeared as yet at this step of the cycle, and therefore, this viññāṇa cannot be said to be one of the six sense consciousnesses; then what is the content of this ‘primordial’ consciousness? Is it the saṅkhāra-generated bhavaṅga citta, or is it something else?</p>
 17652: <p>Consciousness here refers to the six senses consciousnesses. Your confusion occurs because your mind wants to view paticcasamuppada within a linear trajectory. It is more accurately described as a mass, hence the various relevant suttas closing with...</p>
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;Such is the arising/origination of this entire mass of suffering.”</p>
</blockquote>
 -1: <p>avijja is a mental element, has to do with that which is called mind, consciousness or intellect.</p>
<p>that which is called mind, consciousness or intellect arises as one thing and ceases as another and is implicated in contact.</p>
<p>when on has contact come into play, it isn't something that is thought to persist as the consciousness that is in the meeting of the three changes as it arises.</p>
<p>When we talk about a certain-consciousness being implicated in an instance of contact, that is consciousness 1 doing the meeting, as this changes as it arises it is associated with consequent consciousness 2 for a future and the preceding consciousness 0 for a past state.</p>
<p>Therefore Nama doesn't include vinnana but only that which is contact and born of contact on one end and the form implicated in contact on the other end, consciousness is in the middle and is associated with both as to that meeting of the three which is included in name as 'contact'.</p>
<p>It is said that the past is one end, future the other end and present in the middle.</p>
<p>It is also said that form is one end, name the other end and consciousness is in the middle.</p>
<p>If the two statements are superimposed then one would say that the past has form on one end, name on the other end and consciousness in the middle. That the present has form on one end... consciousness in the middle. That the future has form on one end... consciousness in the middle.</p>
<p>That is because contact has no temporal persistence as elements change as they arise.</p>
<p>It is also said “Contact, reverends, is one end. The origin of contact is the second end. The cessation of contact is the middle.</p>
<p>If one was to superimpose this on the first statement it would be: The past has contact on one end, the origin of contact on the other end and cessation of contact in the middle. The present... The future... cessation of contact in the middle.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Monks, there are these three topics for discussion. Which three?</p>
<p>“One may talk about the past, saying, ‘Thus it was in the past.’ One may talk about the future, saying, ‘Thus it will be in the future.’ Or one may talk about now in the present, saying, ‘Thus it is now in the present.’ <a href="https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN3_68.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN3_68.html</a></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>“Bhikkhus, there are these three pathways of language, pathways of
designation, pathways of description, that are unmixed, that were
never mixed, that are not being mixed, that will not be mixed, that
are not rejected by wise ascetics and brahmins. What three?</p>
<p>“Whatever form, bhikkhus, has passed, ceased, changed: the term,
label, and description ‘was’ applies to it, not the term ‘is’ or the
term ‘will be.’</p>
<p>“Whatever feeling … Whatever perception … Whatever volitional
formations … Whatever consciousness has passed, ceased, changed: the
term, label, and description ‘was’ applies to it, not the term ‘is’ or
the term ‘will be.’</p>
<p>“Whatever form, bhikkhus, has not been born, has not become manifest:
the term, label, and description ‘will be’ applies to it, not the term
‘is’ or the term ‘was.’</p>
<p>“Whatever feeling … Whatever perception … Whatever volitional
formations … Whatever consciousness has not been born, has not become
manifest: the term, label, and description ‘will be’ applies to it,
not the term ‘is’ or the term ‘was.’</p>
<p>“Whatever form, bhikkhus, has been born, has become manifest: the
term, label, and description ‘is’ applies to it, not the term ‘was’ or
the term ‘will be.’</p>
<p>“Whatever feeling … Whatever perception … Whatever volitional
formations … Whatever consciousness has been born, has become
manifest: the term, label, and description ‘is’ applies to it, not the
term ‘was’ or the term ‘will be.’</p>
<p>“These, bhikkhus, are the three pathways of language, pathways of
designation, pathways of description, that are unmixed, that were
never mixed, that are not being mixed, that will not be mixed, that
are not rejected by wise ascetics and brahmins. <a href="http://buddhadust.net/dhamma-vinaya/wp/sn/03_kv/sn03.22.062.bodh.wp.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://buddhadust.net/dhamma-vinaya/wp/sn/03_kv/sn03.22.062.bodh.wp.htm</a></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>“The past, reverends, is one end. The future is the second end. The
present is the middle. And craving is the seamstress …</p>
<p>“Contact, reverends, is one end. The origin of contact is the second
end. The cessation of contact is the middle. And craving is the
seamstress... <a href="https://suttacentral.net/an6.61/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://suttacentral.net/an6.61/en/sujato</a></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by
night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey,
swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of
it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one.
Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's
called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night
arises as one thing and ceases as another. <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.061.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.061.than.html</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Consciousness is conjoined with perception &amp; conception [genesis] because what one cognizes that one perceives and what one perceives that one conceives of.</p>
<p>Therefore Consciousness is conjoined with Sankhara.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Three aggregates are conjoined with consciousness. The aggregate of form is not conjoined with consciousness. The aggregate of consciousness should not be said to be, conjoined with consciousness or not conjoined with consciousness. Three aggregates are generated by consciousness. The aggregate of consciousness is not generated by consciousness. The aggregate of form sometimes is generated by consciousness; sometimes is not generated by consciousness. Three aggregates are co-existent with consciousness. The aggregate of consciousness is not co-existent with consciousness. The aggregate of form sometimes is co-existent with consciousness; sometimes is not co-existent with consciousness. <a href="https://suttacentral.net/vb1/en/thittila" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://suttacentral.net/vb1/en/thittila</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>One can say that the terms sankhara and consciousness are describing the same reality in different ways and can therefore not be separated beyond a delineation of difference.</p>
<p>The difference between Consciousness and Consciousness Aggregate is that Aggregated consciousness refers to classes of past, present &amp; future consciousness and not one among them taken as a cause for another. In this sense the Aggregate Consciousness means plural consciousnesses whereas a particular consciousness is something one would think about as changing as it arises and thus associated with three ends.</p>
 21029: <p>Please don't assume this to be a linear progression.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Now we understand the Venerable Sāriputta’s statement thus:
‘Name-and-form, friend Koṭṭhita, is not created by oneself … but
rather, with consciousness as condition, name-and-form comes to be.’
Now we also understand the Venerable Sāriputta’s other statement thus:
‘Consciousness, friend Koṭṭhita, is not created by oneself … but
rather, with name-and-form as condition, consciousness comes to be.’
But how, friend Sāriputta, should the meaning of this statement be
seen?”</p>
<p>“Well then, friend, I will make up a simile for you, for some
intelligent people here understand the meaning of a statement by means
of a simile. <strong>Just as two sheaves of reeds might stand leaning against
each other, so too, with name-and-form as condition, consciousness
comes to be</strong>; with consciousness as condition, name-and-form comes to
be. With name-and-form as condition, the six sense bases come to be;
with the six sense bases as condition, contact…. Such is the origin of
this whole mass of suffering.</p>
<p>“If, friend, one were to remove one of those sheaves of reeds, the
other would fall, and if one were to remove the other sheaf, the first
would fall. So too, with the cessation of name-and-form comes
cessation of consciousness; with the cessation of consciousness comes
cessation of name-and-form. With the cessation of name-and-form comes
cessation of the six sense bases; with the cessation of the six sense
bases, cessation of contact…. Such is the cessation of this whole mass
of suffering.”</p>
<p>The mutual interrelation between consciousness and name-and-form is
like that of two bundles of reeds, mutually supporting each other.
Having given this simile, Venerable Sāriputta goes on to mention the
other links of the pañicca samuppāda formula, as in the case of the
bodhisatta Vipassī’s insight. It runs: &quot;Dependent on name-and-form,
the six sense-bases; dependent on the six sense-bases, contact;
dependent on contact, feelings&quot; (and so on). And then the cessation
aspect of these links is also given. By way of illustration, let us
suppose that the consciousness bundle of reeds is standing on the left
side, and the name-and-form bundle is on the right. Then we have a
number of other bundles, such as the six sense-bases, contact and
feeling, all leaning on to the name-and-form bundle of reeds. These
are all dependent on the name-andform bundle. Now, as soon as the
consciousness bundle is drawn out, all the others on the right side
fall down immediately.</p>
<p>Nalakalapiyo Sutta</p>
</blockquote>
 16323: <p>The nidanas are described in SN 12.2. Here vinnana is 6-fold sense-consciousness, which is the stock description in the suttas.</p>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/sn12.2/en/bodhi" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://suttacentral.net/sn12.2/en/bodhi</a></p>
