How does one really know if an ineffable dhamma exists?

[Dhabba]

@PjYuktavadin

I guess it’s just a way of bringing in the concept of atman without explicitly saying so.

• When only Nibbāna is the uprooting of the conceit ”I am”?

Also, Nibbāna is ”beyond the scope of logic”.

Explain not only how AN 10.6 & AN 10.7 is not Nibbāna (I think you will link to a certain essay ) but more importantly, if it is truly not Nibbāna, where is it taking place?

All have avoided answering this simple question:

• In which plane of existence is the immersion mentioned in AN 10.6 & AN 10.7 taking place?

Still waiting for those you called on like @Jasudho, to reply to my posts regarding anatta in this thread.

The meaning of anattā in "rūpaṃ bhikkhave anattā" - a review

I read the theory/math/logic thread but might as well post here that one should never forget that buddhism is a meditative path. The views and conclusions regarding self & not-self all stem from advanced meditators who have all been around since the beginning of time. The conclusions are based on their meditative experiences or spiritual paths, be they eternalists, partial-eternalists or annihilationists. All their views are valid since they have no access to The Buddha’s Dhamma…

Also waiting for proof or an explanation regarding ”there is no self at all” in this thread.

"Existence" and "nonexistence" in the Kaccānagotta Sutta

Venerable @Sunyo But isn’t the whole point to neither affirm a self completely nor deny a self altogether? Do you still agree that: There is a self-doer in all the realms of existence? Kamma (as in one’s own intentional actions) is all initiated by the self-doer? To avoid eternalism & annihilationism, the result of actions (fruit of kamma), can be put aside. Whether the same expericenes the result or another experiences the result is not important - kamma is after all also o…