But I still don't get why you seem to place so much emphasize on that while leaving out that impossible to explain equally doesn't mean that it exists. We can only speak of existence and non-existence with reference to something in range.Alex123 wrote:Impossible to explain does NOT mean that it doesn't exist.Acinteyyo wrote: In my eyes the phrase doesn't tell us anything more than it's impossible to explain anything about what lies beyond range, period.
I think to hold a speculative view about existence or non-existence with reference to what lies beyond range is of no use.
I tend to think that this oversimplifies the matter. I would say, of course implying that atta exists within the aggregates, within range is wrong view. But it's important not to neglect that implying that atta exists as well as implying that it doesn't exist beyond range is also wrong view because it would be an assumption without base.Alex123 wrote:Of course implying that Atta exists is wrong view.
best wishes, acinteyyo