You misunderstand me. I am presenting no such thing. The whole point of this thread is to present classical Theravada counter arguments to the non-classical view that there is consciousness outside the aggregates.ToVincent wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:57 amYou might call me friend if you want to.zan wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 4:45 amCalm down friend, we're on the same side I think. I'm on the Abhidhamma/commentary side here. No rivers to cry.
You might think that we are "on the same side", if you want to.
But one thing for sure is that there is nothing like an emergent property of consciousness from satta, in early Buddhism - (might it be Theravada, Sarvāstivāda, Puggalavada, or whatever early (prohibited) schism there was at the time; after Buddha's death).
"Consciousness is not yours", said Buddha.
Let's be clear about that.
Every single one of my statements are in defense of the Abhidhamma and commentarial position.
Perhaps you read my op too quickly?
Wait, are you just playing along with these instructions from the op and pretending I'm an eternalist? If so then good job! It is technically what I asked for ha ha!
What is the Classical Theravada argument against consciousness outside the aggregates?
The Abhidhamma categorically rules it out. This is not debatable.
My question is: What arguments does the school as a tradition or even what do individuals use to refute this idea?
Or, put another way, imagine I'm an eternalist who uses ambiguities in the suttas, and lack of extremely specific statements ruling out exactly what I'm claiming, to support the view that there's consciousness outside the aggregates and that this allows for eternal life or a god or self, etc. etc., whatever I want to use it for. How would a classical Theravadin argue to prove me wrong in believing the suttas support consciosuness outside the aggregates.
If not then I can only clarify that the op was presenting a hypothetical position to be argued with in favor of the Abhidhamma and commentary view.
The goal of this thread is to support the view that, if I'm not mistaken, you are presenting.