tiltbillings wrote:For all of that, dhamma-follower still does not by necessity of any argument you have put forth need to buy that label of realism,
If a mind moment can't be objectively established, yet one still insists that there is indeed such a real entity then they are subscribing to a worldview that is based on the notion of truth as constituted by a correspondence between our concepts and statements, on the one hand, and the features of an independent, determinate reality, on the other hand.
Who says there is a real entity?
There is nothing esoteric, mysterious, or hidden about impermanence. Later accretions like the theory of momentariness only muddy the waters.
There is nothing esoteric, mysterious, hidden about impermanence, indeed. Yet there are different levels of understanding it: from listening or reading, from reflection and from direct experience. The direct experience of it can happen when we walk, sit, feel, think, listen if sati-sampajana is cultivated sufficiently.... I don't see how the explanation of momentariness makes it muddy, as on the contrary it makes it clearer to understand what is direct insight.
All of this, is of course a domain of personal understanding and is subject to change when our understanding changes. Even the reading of the same sutta is not the same for everyone. Some Venerable say this, others say the opposite, all seem to know so well what they talk about...So, again let the Kalama sutta be our guiding principle...