tiltbillings wrote:So there is this dukkha element waiting in the wings for the correct conditions so that it can be experienced. This is what your language is suggesting.
Your own language, Tilt.
Before, you brought up "dukkha element" or "dukkha-dhatu" and "waiting" (in one of the many ill-considered questions above) in the first place.
There is impermanence, unstatisfactoriness (dukkha) and not-self.
tiltbillings wrote:That does not answer the question. You are saying '"Exists" ("there is") does not apply,' but then you talk about nibbana-dhatu not changing, which is language of existence
The Buddha taught "There are, Ananda, these two elements: the conditioned element and the unconditioned element. When he knows and sees these two elements, a monk can be called skilled in the elements." (M 115)
It does not say "skill in existence (bhava)".
tiltbillings wrote:I am not talking about viewing nibbana as "mine."
Actually you are, Tilt.
Talking about Nibbana as "mine", and constantly pulling up questions about "awakened individuals" and "where is Nibbana when one dies", amounts to the same: personality attachment view.
tiltbillings wrote:I don't drink or smoke funny stuff. And no, you really have not defined dhatu.
Good for you. However, I've defined dhatu several times already.
The worst drunkeness is drunken on untruthfulness, existence and personality attachment view.
tiltbillings wrote:nibbuti wrote:Dhatu has countless definitions depending on context. In this context I've defined it several times as "potential for experience"
The dhatu is not an element, which is a very poor English word to translate dhatu in that it suggests an existence, but that is not what is going on at all with either dukkha-dhatu or nibbana-dhatu. And it really become meaningless to talk about nibbana in terms other than its actual experience, which is terms of the arahant
Do you even read your own words?
tiltbillings wrote:Yes, I know. You have been less than clear.
Someone else can not remove the less than clear assumptions that eventually lead to the ill-considered questions about "awakened individuals" and locality of Nibbana.
If a stubborn child gets sick due to less then clear assumptions about the weather, a mother or friend can only give advise, but can not remove the less than clear assumptions.
tiltbillings wrote:We can use imperonal language, but it tends to be rather stilted and a bit more prolix than necessary, but the point will still be the same.
In this case, probably your questions will be the same.
There are times when personal language is appropriate, and those when impersonal language is appropriate.
If impersonal language always sounds "stilted" and "prolix" to you, you may ask yourself what is the cause of that.