As I said above methapysics is the simple solution to these issues. In my view to say that all beings are anicca - not eternal - is quite correct and is proved by direct experience. What constitutes a problem is the physical ontology - i.e. to understand impermanence as a description of the mode of...

An important point is to understand that there are two different ways one can think ontology - there are two orders of ontology. (i) The first-order ontology is the one which answers to the question 'does this specific being exist or not?' You can call this first-order METAPHYSICS, as it deals with...

I found an interesting comparison, of Nāgārjuna and Parmenides. Although there are too many "a" letters to my taste

http://www.angelfire.com/nc/prannn/parmnag.html

(i) Objective side Originally what constituted a problem to me was the simple logical consideration (which someone here labeled as illogical) that 'difference implies identity'. It is logically (and linguistically) impossible to talk about a 'pure difference', because if really things were always d...

It seems im late to the game, but what an interesting subject this is :smile: (English is not my first language, so I apologise in advance for any errors) Fine, but who is the you of this sentence? How can you recognise that things around you are anicca (a) if this 'external' anicca is not contraste...

Buddhism can be explained via evolution on the same level as, music, philosophy and other effects of life having evolved to become self-aware. Buddhism is not an evolutionary stable meme, but you could say that of many of human activities. When a life form becomes as intelligent as us, it seems inev...

the disciple of the noble ones is endowed with virtues that are appealing to the noble ones: untorn, unbroken, unspotted, unsplattered, liberating, praised by the wise, untarnished, leading to concentration. This is the fourth bonanza of merit, bonanza of skillfulness, nourishment of bliss. Unsplat...

Intention here is compassion towards the wife (or another victim if preferred) the choice is to kill the thief or he kills his chosen victim (or so you are absolutely convinced) so you are killing the "wife" victim by inaction. This false dichotomy is why hypothetical situations of this s...

I would say it is safe to infer he could not, otherwise the teachings would be very different and that is very reassuring.

Hello atanavat, This previous thread may be of interest: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=3005 He wasn't Omniscient in the sense that he could know everything at once - but he was able to know anything he put his mind to. With metta, Chris Hmm - does that include foresight, or se...

Householder to thief, “Please wait a bit while I visit the Dhamma Wheel forum and check if it's OK to shoot you. If they say no, then you can rape my wife and steal my property before shooting us both.” Former Head of Corrections says that carrying out an execution is murder. Allen Ault: The day I ...

Thank you to all of you, very illuminating

1: You save the thief from the bad karma he will receive if he kills her (compassion). From what motivation? If this is done from a sense of aversion to loss and greed for what is dear then it seems unwise. It also results in dark kamma from intentionally killing another being, which is thus not co...

Thanx - but in this text, is seems Buddha is talking about someone, that is not himself, or is it read as he is the contemplative ?

What are your thoughts... (my question pertains to after his enlightenment, naturally)