you can't negotiate with realityGermann wrote: Mathematically, Nibbana should have already been achieved.
instead, seeing the nature of reality is transformative
you can't negotiate with realityGermann wrote: Mathematically, Nibbana should have already been achieved.
Mathematics is an abstract language for describing all conceivable variants of the universe. Mathematically correct model may or may not correspond to some reality. Mathematically incorrect model does not correspond to any reality. The truth cannot be absurd.cappuccino wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2019 4:06 amyou can't negotiate with realityGermann wrote: Mathematically, Nibbana should have already been achieved.
instead, seeing the nature of reality is transformative
Attaining nibbana is not a regular or random event; I think that is the crux of the issue here. It is not a matter of rolling a trillion sided die and having it come up with some number that is nibbana.Germann wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2019 4:01 am They say that there is a free choice. But if satta does not exist, then whose free choice? Free choice of Lord Shiva? If there is no satta, there is no free choice, there are only regular or random events.
Mathematically, Nibbana should have already been achieved.
All events are either regular or random, or (to some extent) freely chosen. But if satta does not exist - whose is free choice? No satta - no freedom. There is freedom - one cannot deny the existence of satta. But Theravada denies: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=34767#p519606DNS wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2019 4:23 pmAttaining nibbana is not a regular or random event; I think that is the crux of the issue here. It is not a matter of rolling a trillion sided die and having it come up with some number that is nibbana.Germann wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2019 4:01 am They say that there is a free choice. But if satta does not exist, then whose free choice? Free choice of Lord Shiva? If there is no satta, there is no free choice, there are only regular or random events.
Mathematically, Nibbana should have already been achieved.
So, is it your conclusion / view that the issue is resolved if there is a satta, a self? Are you Hindu? (real question, not trying to be rhetorical)
Also, you appear to believe Mahayana has it correct? If so, you do realize that Mahayana accepts doctrine of anatta too? it's not just a Theravada doctrine.
Mahayana is very large, so it depends on which tradition within Mahayana you are referring to. I have seen some Mahayana and Vajrayana teachers take a very hard-core anatta view (if we want to see it as a spectrum from full satta view to no-self and then to nihilism). And then others that refer to a tathagatagarbha or some sort of true-self. The Madhyamaka refers to the 2 truths doctrine where there is the conventional language and ultimate language, just for convenience in language in discussing a perceived self, not a full blown real satta. All is sūnyatā (emptiness) according to Nagarjuna.
Easy.
The suttas say there is no dhamma which feels, there is just feeling.Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2019 10:36 amEasy.
If satta does not exit, who feels? The dhamma which feels feels.
If satta does not exit, who knows? The dhamma which knows knows.
...
...
If satta does not exist, who chooses? The dhamma which chooses chooses.
Needed no involvement of the good old satta.
InterestingDinsdale wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2019 11:42 amThe suttas say there is no dhamma which feels, there is just feeling.Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2019 10:36 amEasy.
If satta does not exit, who feels? The dhamma which feels feels.
If satta does not exit, who knows? The dhamma which knows knows.
...
...
If satta does not exist, who chooses? The dhamma which chooses chooses.
Needed no involvement of the good old satta.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
"Lord, who feels?"
"Not a valid question," the Blessed One said. "I don't say 'feels.' If I were to say 'feels,' then 'Who feels?' would be a valid question. But I don't say that. When I don't say that, the valid question is 'From what as a requisite condition comes feeling?' And the valid answer is, 'From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving.'"
Nobody making choices is the one I find tricky. Where do the choices" come from"? Presumably choices arise in dependence upon conditions, but those conditions result from previous choices.....Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2019 12:31 pmInterestingDinsdale wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2019 11:42 amThe suttas say there is no dhamma which feels, there is just feeling.Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: ↑Sun Jul 21, 2019 10:36 am
Easy.
If satta does not exit, who feels? The dhamma which feels feels.
If satta does not exit, who knows? The dhamma which knows knows.
...
...
If satta does not exist, who chooses? The dhamma which chooses chooses.
Needed no involvement of the good old satta.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
In that sense:
there is no dhamma which chooses, there is just choice . umm...
Edit:
Just read. Found this:"Lord, who feels?"
"Not a valid question," the Blessed One said. "I don't say 'feels.' If I were to say 'feels,' then 'Who feels?' would be a valid question. But I don't say that. When I don't say that, the valid question is 'From what as a requisite condition comes feeling?' And the valid answer is, 'From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving.'"
The point is ... 'Who' and 'dhamma' are so different.
Yep.