On early Buddhism

[josephzizys]

@Dhabba

My position is the Tetralemma.

This unequivocally the position of the ebt, including SN, and it is only possible to maintain the “a fictional self permenently cease when the aggregates cease and there is therfore a difference bwtween nibanna and parinibanna” fallacy by selectivly ignoring the tetralemma.

“My person is an illusion and there are only aggregates that arise and cease” is wrong view.

“Aggregates are an illusion and there is a real person” is wrong view.

“There are both aggregates and persons” is wrong view.

“There are niether aggregates nor persons” is wrong view.

What is right view?

While there is still greed, hatred, and delusion there is still a person

Having uprooted greed hatred and delusion, that person cannot be understood in terms of life or death, existence or non existence, etc etc. “they are freed I say”

For the basic rundown of the argument see

DN1 DN2 DN9 MN72 and my other thread

TO BE OR NOT TO BE, the undeclared points in the 4 principle Nikayas:

TO BE OR NOT TO BE (or both, or neither) The undeclared points in the 4 principle Nikayas. The undeclared points are a number of questions, typically ten, but sometimes as few as two, as at SN44.10, and sometimes as many as 11, as at AN10.95, and often 4, as at SN12.17. This essay focuses on the standard set of ten, and looks at the differing explanations given for the Buddha’s silence in the different suttas. We first see the undeclared points introduced at DN1 and DN2, where they are used to…

Note especially the SN suttas about kamma and the undeclared for an example of how the reasoning is used and note especially that by implication in those suttas if people are not real then niether is suffering.