Now I see the problem. You are referring to the beginning of the sutta, where it says
When there is Form, by ‘taking up’ Form, by being inclined to Form, such a view arises: ‘This is me, this is my self, this is what I am’.
I was referring to the end of the sutta where it says
But without ‘taking up’ what is inconstant, suffering, subject to change, could such a view arise: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?
I think a proper modus ponens can be built in the latter case, but not in the former. I have created a new thread to discuss this point.
Indeed. A bit too radical for me. Which is in part why I think that modus tollens is not valid.
We agree on that. Can you point out what exactly I have said that directly contradicts this, and how? Of course, feel free to refuse, I don’t mean to sealion you.
Perhaps, but that is far from constituting hard evidence it is actually the case. It could very well be that ‘clinging’ arises and passes away constantly towards multiple objects at the same time, at a very fast pace and down to the deepest levels of the mind, far beyond the limit of an ordinary ability to see within oneself.
For example, it would imply that there is not the slightest trace of fear of death in such a state.