Is 'clinging' to the Aggregates a sufficient condition for Self-view?

[silence]

@Sylvester

Or are you saying that you were aware of the context of anupādā-vimutto but chose to ignore it?

No idea what you’re talking about. I mentioned the context of arahatta on my very first post.

@Sylvester

As I explained, if you want to talk about the Arahant’s state, that is better explained by the next link

I don’t see the point, really. And that doesn’t answer my question.

@Sylvester

The quote from DN 15 said “he does not cling to anything in the world”. I doubt a statement can be more unspecific.

You still have not indicated what sort of Clinging you’re referring to

What sort of clinging? To wards anything. Anything. Anything. Anything? Anything!

@Sylvester

And yet, SN 22.7

You are a conflating “agitation through clinging” with “clinging”, ignoring what is clearly explained at SN 24.2

@Sylvester

The clinging is specific

No, SN 24.2 speaks of clinging to the Aggregates, not to the view, and it certainly is so as well in SN 22.8, but nothing will ever stop you from assuming the opposite in spite of the evidence from SN 24.2.

@Sylvester

Now, may I ask why you have translated “eso me attā” as “this is what I am” above? In fact, your translation of the entire set of view seems all over the place. What happened? … I hope you’re not re-writing the suttas to help your case?

That’s hardly on topic, and playing the interlocutor, not his arguments on the topic. So, I did a quick translation that I qualified of “tentative” for the needs of said thread (I didn’t have all day, relied on other existing translations of similar passages) and hoping no one like you would come attack me on the details of the translation. I think that is how TB translates. It might not be 100% correct, but it generally served its purpose so please no ad hominems. But, yeah, you always like to claim that tiny little grammatical details change the whole understanding of everything. Not to say that never happens. But I doubt it does nearly as often as you claim.

@Sylvester

Well, I can do no better than to point out that you started this thread by alluding to my reliance on SN 12.20, and also that your thread is titled “Is ‘clinging’ to the Aggregates a sufficient condition for Self-view?”. Having elected to approach Self-view and clinging in these fashion, now you wish to move the goal post?

Did you not say

@Sylvester

something else that conforms to P ⇒ Q, ie clinging to the Aggregates is a sufficient condition for Self-view.

Does this thread’s title not read

Is ‘clinging’ to the Aggregates a sufficient condition for ‘Self-view’?

How am I misrepresenting you by quoting you verbatim?

You made a statement that may be interpreted in ways that you didn’t meant or foresaw. It’s still your statement, and it can be interpreted in any legitimate way. It’s not some kind of personal tribunal about what you think deep down inside. It’s about a statement that was made here online.

@Sylvester

How does a generic “clinging to the Aggregates” (if such exists) address my formulation of P and Q from the previous thread?

Maybe because I quoted you verbatim from that thread?

@Sylvester

How does a generic “clinging to the Aggregates” (if such exists) surmount the definition of “clinging to the Aggregates” given in SN 22.7 and SN 22.8?

No, again you are twisting the facts. These suttas never define “clinging to the Aggregates”, they define “agitation through clinging”, and jump straight to views without describing “clinging” per se. It’s because such views are consequences of clinging (as explained very clearly in SN 24.2).

@Sylvester

correctly points out that its occurrence in MN 10 makes non-clinging available to a “good putthujjana meditator”.

There is no evidence to back that up unequivocally. The sutta could also be speaking of an arahant. I highly doubt any “good putthujjana meditator” can afford to “not cling to anything in the world”. But, eh, it bolsters your case, so why not assume it’s true, right?

@Sylvester

I’ve argued against the sequence of " Ṭhitattā santusitaṃ. Santusitattā na paritassati" making its way into these suttas.

Yeah, that’s an easy way to wave off a difficult counter-argument. Claim the sutta is corrupt, even though it agrees with its Chinese counterpart (wasn’t your argument the assumption of the opposite in the first place?).

You see, this discussion would have made progress if you had answered this question:

@silence

Is the expression “clinging as appropriating something as a Soul” in your view synonymous with your “there is appropriation of the Aggregates as self”?

Because, as you perhaps correctly pointed out earlier:

@Sylvester

are we not talking past each other?

Sorry that no steps were taken to follow up on both this observation and my question above that was meant to figure out if that would not be the case.

Now, the forum app mentioned once again that I am replying to you too often, and I think that’s right. Moreover, this discussion has become bitter, unproductive and hardly consists in any kind of communication any more. Therefore, I am not going to engage further.

Another wiser person than me rapidly saw what discussing with you entailed and immediately offered you to agree to disagree. So am I offering you now, and will do so every time you insist on replying to my posts with your twisted theories. You may not agree even to that. In that case, I let you have the last word, it won’t mean I agree or have nothing to answer. Just that I have a life to live and more productive things to do.