mikenz66 wrote:As I said above, it's good that Ven Nanavira teases out the difference between "being" and "self". However, ...
Let's be precise, Ven Nanavira main point is not dialectic satta - atta, but rather dialectic on English word "person" which is used often by translators to cover meaning of two quite different Pali words puggala and sakkaya. From this arises verbal confusion which can be avoided by rendering puggala as an individual. When this is made we have state of dukkha - person or sakkaya, and state of nibbana - cessation of person, sakkaya nirodho; in the last case we have individual - puggala- without personality - sakkaya.
But one thing is to clarify verbal confusion, and another to see that with my absence as a person (sakkaya) body, feeling, perception, intentions and consciousness can still function. But since I cannot imagine my own absence as a person, as a self, Lord Buddha, by teaching:
all determinations are impermanent
all things are not self
shows me that I am a victim of wrong identification, and the only right way is desidentification with aggregates and see them: "This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self".
Teaching chess is quite easy, since there is objective ranking which shows to student that teacher is really professional one. From this comes attitude, that if I do not understand what chess trainer says, I prescribe this to my weakness, and try to increase effort in order to understated him better.
The same attitude should be apply in Dhamma, but since there is no objective field on the ground which people can check competency of the teacher, general tendency is that any doubtful points are explained as the weakness of the teacher.
In other words, only intelligent people really quite clearly understand that they do not understand, and are able to learn something new, which contradicts their present set of views and ideas.
The man who wants to avoid grotesque collapses should not look for anything to fulfill him in space and time.
Nicolás Gómez Dávila