tiltbillings wrote: Agrees with you? Not at all. I realize that English is not your first language, which would then require that you take especial care in reading what is written. This text is not saying that nibbana is -- as you are suggesting -- some sort of buddhanature type ground upon which all "all sankharas and dhammas are based.' If that were the case, that notion would be common and fundamental throughout the suttas. It is not. You might want to give some thought as to what "ground" here means. Context is everything.
It's my third language, Also speak russian and french. ...the holy life is lived with Nibbana as its ground
The question is, is "holy life" dhamma, or not.
If it is, why this dhamma have Nibbana as its ground, but not others dhammas?
Etymologicaly, the word dhamma, is actualy "fenomena+Nibbana".
Why dhammas have this noun?
If you say that dhammas have not Nibbana at its ground, it would mean that The Dhamma have nothink to do with Nibbana, that it's complitely differents, absolutely devided fenomenas. Yes, fenomenas, But Nibbana is not any fenomena, it not rise and not decay, it's have no beggining and have no and, it's infinity, so why, even logicaly, you think that this infinity have no dhammas?
Infinity is somethink that was not created, Buddha said that Nibbana is not-created, so automaticaly, by using very simple logic, without any experiance, we can understand that infinity is INFINITY, so all impermanent fenomenas have Nibbana as its ground.
So, even logicaly, without any personal experiance, we can understand that Nibbana is "the part" of all dhammas, wich have Nibbana at is ground.
So is "holy life" a dhamma? If it's not, why it is not?
Also we must ask some one who is an expert in pali, who can say us, if the word "dhamma" means "fenomena+Nibbana"
And also for understand all, we must ask, if The Dhamma mean Nibbana.
We have to get a constructive disscution, and not distructive.
PS now it's the time to give my blood, so i will return after that.