ok,"Material form monks, is impermanent. Whatever is impermanent, that is unsatisfactory.
What is unsatisfactory, that is not self. What is not self, should be regarded, 'This is not
mine, I am not this, this is not my self.' One should discern it as it really is through perfect
wisdom." - S.iii.21
- "Material form monks, is impermanent"
I understand that.
- "Whatever is impermanent, that is unsatisfactory"
This also.
- "What is not self, should be regarded, 'This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self"
I think I understand that as well,
but the statement "What is unsatisfactory, that is not self", that I cannot understand.
Does it mean that if there was a self, then that would be satisfactory, or,
if there was something satisfactory, then that could be self ?
How can he go from a to b, meaning that anything that is unsatisfactory, that is not self?
Is there any logical or empirical explanation to reach that conclusion ?
I cannot really understand that statement. I hope somebody can shed some light.
Thank you.
George.