Yes indeedPeter wrote:Nevertheless, there will always be people who keep insisting others try to give them that knowledge.
May the effort to give said knowledge persist even if it cannot be given.
Metta
Gabriel
Yes indeedPeter wrote:Nevertheless, there will always be people who keep insisting others try to give them that knowledge.
Yeah, but ...rowyourboat wrote:Best to resign to the fact that we cannot understand this using the usual tools but attempt to see it yourself using practice. That is when the conversation stops.
What is an example of a paññatti? What's the difference between "not real", "conventional reality", and paññatti?Dhammanando wrote: The arahant and the person of wrong view both resort to the term 'self', but whereas the one is misled by his concept, the other knows that dhammas are real but paññattis are not, and so is not misled.
Leaving aside consciousness, the 52 mental factors that arise with consciousness, the 28 material dhammas, and Nibbāna, everything else that can be denoted by a noun is a concept.elaine wrote:What is an example of a paññatti?
I would recommend that you read chapter viii of Narada's Manual of Abhidhamma:What's the difference between "not real", "conventional reality", and paññatti?
A human being is a concept (pannati). But Without the existence of a conceptual human being, what IS the meaning of these 52 mental factors? Imho, it will be meaningless, right? It doesn't matter whether they are ultimate or not, they have to "belong" to a human mind-made body, right?Dhammanando wrote:Leaving aside consciousness, the 52 mental factors that arise with consciousness, the 28 material dhammas, and Nibbāna, everything else that can be denoted by a noun is a concept.
Nathan said: 2. I would like to better understand the expressions of doctrine on how the three marks might be said to pertain or relate to nibbana. That nibbana is in no way atta is quite straightforward. How it is that the other two characteristics could applied or related to the featureless and condition-less dhamma is difficult to understand. It can be more easily seen that there is a conditionally dependent relationship to impermanence; in the arising of dependent conditions for inclination to relinquishment giving rise to nibbana, and also upon exiting cessation. I don't see that nibbana could be determined to be dukkha or related apart from the absence of conception or perception of dukkha, to describe dukkha as characteristic of nibbana seems contrary to the nature of both dukkha and nibbana.
Unquestionably. An - atta. One could say fully and indisputably anatta. Overcomingly anatta. It is only in relation to the conditions from which there can be temporary releases into cessation and re-arising into conditions of conscious perception after that it could be said there is impermanence. But it is not the nibbana that is impermanent, it is the conditions before and after which are impermanent. Nibbana has no direct relationship to impermanence, nibbana neither sustains nor is sustained by impermanence of any kind, right? Dukkha pertains to the impermanent only and so nibbana is not dukkha.Chris wrote:'All dhammas are without Self', there is no Self, no Atman, not only in the Five Aggregates, but nowhere else too outside them or apart from them."
metta
Chris
In Atthakatha there is the phrase 'yantam iva abhisankhatam' which means we/5khandas are formed like a machine.elaine wrote: ↑Sun Feb 01, 2009 12:49 am My understanding of 'atta' is, it is a solid permanent soul that travels from one life to another . Anatta mean that there is No permanent 'soul' that does this. I think, anatta does not mean that we are all pre-programmed action-and-reaction robot thingies that are 'beyond control' or totally out of control (but yea, some people are almost always out-of-control, e.g. me, sometimes). But I honestly believe that we can control ourselves, we just need a LOT of will-power! (But some people believe in no freewill/no control, they believe in some mysterious conditions that comes and goes naturally, but maybe that's the truth of the universe?).