ground wrote:if - and only if - "labels in the mind" can be separated from "thinking" and separated from "objectifies" and if further "feeling" can be separated from "labels in the mind" and "thinking" and "objectifies" Dmytro may be compliant with Theravada exegesis but not be compliant with the 2nd of the suttas quoted above:
In other words, you know naught of what you speak.
What is spoken of is expression of knowledge by means of terms and terminology. But the words are not the knowledge and the ideas arising upon reading thse words are not the knowledge. There is no knowledge about what is seen in the sphere of "other aggregates" however because this sphere is not accessible.
tiltbillings wrote:The suttas you quoted do not support your position. What it looks like is that you really do not have a clue as to what papañca means and how it used in the suttas. Also, the "if - and only if" sentence shows you do not really know how the suttas talk about these things. I can suggest some reading for you to do so that you can get up to speed on these things rather than simply flailing about. It would make for a far better discussion.
There is no intention to discuss about in the sense of "is it this or is it that" because this way of approach is seen as faulty and as cultivation of exactly what is here described as "papanca". But the words aroused by own expression (by means of words) are - sometimes, not always - inspiring in that they help to better understand what is termed "Theravada" by some.