Dear Mikemikenz66 wrote:As I read it, either denying or clinging to one's ideas of an objective reality would be an error:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;The Buddha wrote:"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. ...tiltbillings wrote:And how do we know the "objective universe?" By direct experience.
Direct experience is the only thing that actually matters in terms of Dhamma practice.
Mike
I'm loathe to take another potshot at the Not-Self "strategy" but can we be certain that the Buddha contemplated Atta to be part of the "Everything" discussed in SN 12.15? "Everything" in that sutta is "Sabba", which as Tilt pointed out from SN 35.24 is limited to phassa, and by inference, the Aggregates. In fact, other than "Sabba", SN 12.15 also uses its synonym "Loka", which the Rohitassa Suttas elucidate to be just this fathom-long body endowed its sanna and mano.
If someone were to assert that unicorns are part of Sabba/Loka, should we abstain from categorically denying the existence of unicorns?
The only utility I see to the strategy per se is that it perhaps prevents dogmatism based on faith alone, but I'm not sure if it has any other soteriological value.