Notez
April 24, 2024, 5:35pm
102
Don’t worry about it.
We have been talking about some of this while you were away.
Perhaps these posts clear it up
According to the texts, khandārinibbana is the end of the world.
When you say only body remains and not the mind. This is certainly not an end of the world you are describing.
This word ‘body’ of which you speak, can not be pinned down as true & real, it is a convention used in as far as the aggregates are present.
So when you say ‘there remains a body’ you are essentially saying ‘there khandas are present’.
And so you have to take note of this because if in describing khandāparinibbana yo…
I understand what you are talking about but these lines of reasoning are not based on the doctrine of dependent origination.
These lines of reasoning are based on the foremost cosmology or world-view, viz. ‘Everything truly exists’.
Having asserted that the world truly exists, one asserts that a fire burning in the world really exists. Having asserted that a fire burning in the world really exists, one asserts that the world is with fire. When the fire is extinguished one asserts that the worl…
In general the dichotomy of mind & body, if taken to replace name & form, wrecks the formulation of DO.
One must be very careful thinking in those terms about DO.
Neither the word ‘mind’ nor ‘body’ are used in the formulation of DO.
These words are, however, a basis for the cosmology of a puttujjhanā, who conceive of extinguishment incorrectly, because they have not understood it.
Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises ear-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact… Dependent on…
There are also some post by Ceisiwr around, which i think to illuminate the point
There isn’t a difference between his exegesis and the early texts, and we do see this talk there. For example, the first fetter to be given up is that of substantial existence.
On another note, if you think final Nibbana is total nothingness then you are engaging in the same kind of thought as that of self views. It’s only when you make something real that you can say such things. For the Annihilationist there really is something and then it is not. For the Eternalist there really is something…
How are they real, without succumbing to substance based or essence based thinking? The atta the Buddha was critiquing is a substance. It is something which has an independent existence, meaning ontologically real. Its not a product of the conceptualising mind, according to those who propose it. It really exists objectively. Notice what is happening here?
If dukkha wasn’t real, as experience, why did the Buddha seek liberation from it and teach the N8FP?
Before he was awakened he was unawak…
I know reading more is probably not what you want, when having read much already to no end, but don’t give up. Take your time to understand Ceisiwr if not me.
