LXNDR wrote:seems you took offense at an innocent opinion, i swear i didn't mean to undermine your self-esteem

that's funny

What makes you think that?

i'd prefer 'discernment' over 'foresight' since we're speaking of seeing into not the future but the nature of things Suit yourself, stick with what you prefer, I have no problem with that. We're? Are you speaking in behalf of a group? If not, maybe you should change that into "I am". :an...

daverupa wrote:

Sylvester wrote:...

Very nice; it's good to have more material for discussing how Buddhism isn't that guy saying "I don't say it exists, I don't say it doesn't exist, I don't say..."...

Indeed. It's good that you mention that, so that others don't think otherwise.

... I see. Again, thank you for your detailed assessment. So, as you've said before, you hold "There is no self". I won't argue with it since I don't hold that it exists (nor that it doesn't). So, with that said, I can only hope you don't get tied up in argumentation due to that view. It ...

In regards to the difference between those two, which I'd translate as "There is no self"\"self doesn't exist" ( natthi attā ) & "My self doesn't exist" ( natthi me attā ), I think the problem is not only the "my" in the second one, it is also the natthi ...

I did not say it was your claim, but good luck with not holding views. Until awakening, you are going to hold views whether you want to or not :anjali: The "you" was a meant to be generic "you," but I suppose I could have said: Until awakening, one is going to hold views whether...

Yoohoo :hello: I confess - I'm an adherent to the natthi attā (There is no self) camp, even if I don't have the direct vision into the Stream to explain continuity in terms of This-That Conditionality. For one, I think the natthi attā (There is no self) view is very different from the natthi me att...

tiltbillings wrote:I did not say it was your claim, but good luck with not holding views.

tiltbillings wrote:Until awakening, you are going to hold views whether you want to or not

tiltbillings wrote:Until awakening, you are going to hold views whether you want to or not.

That is your claim, not mine. As far as I know, holding views is over at sotāpanna. If you hold onto any, I just hope you won't suffer by them.

Just to chime in here on Tilt's reference to MA 62 - http://w3.cbeta.org/cgi-bin/goto.pl?linehead=T01n0026_p0497b02 The passage he cites says "無我, 空我" (no-self, empty of self). This does not appear to be a typo, since in the same sutra, anatta is indicated by the standard Agama idiom 非我 (...

... I'm sorry, I don't have anything further to add. All the lines of reasoning in which I have posted have finished. :anjali: I don't understand this statement. It means, the purpose for which I posted has completed it's course. I have nothing further to add. But answer at least one more question:...

tiltbillings wrote:...

I'm sorry, I don't have anything further to add. All the lines of reasoning in which I have posted have finished.

The point is that any notion of -- sense of -- self that we might have, as the Buddha clearly states, is derived from the khandhas. There is no independent, self existing permanent self to be found in our experience. Dhp: Sabbe dhammā anattā'. We can look at this greater detail if you wish. I agree...

If there is some sort of claim by the Buddha such as "There is no self" please reference it directly. I posted these texts here: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=20923&start=180#p295240 Bhikkhus, what exists by clinging to what, by adhering to what does view of self...

I thought I had studied and cited those references adequately. Yet all that you find in them is “Upanishads, Norman & Gombrich quotes, not suttas …” It is easy for ATI weenies to post suttas. Understanding the context and unpacking the meaning is quite another matter. I'm sorry you think that w...