I think I’m starting to get it now, thanks to a piece of text I came across a bit by chance, when looking up the word assāmikato (ownerless). I found out that the opposite applies to nibbāna, which is the only thing that can truly be owned. Unfortunately I cannot find this passage anymore. In any ca...

The fact is that when it inevitably passes away, no amount of attempt at control can make it stay or return. However, what is left is the knowledge of this. Granted, that’s the Buddhist creed, but until you’re alive, this will only ever be a belief that can hardly be used as a basis for what is nev...

I’m not sure I follow. There's the common phrase "self-control" in the English language that could be used to clarify the point. Someone who has "self-control" would be able to control their emotions like desires, hatred, etc... They can choose to stop over-eating their favorite ...

For if form were self, it wouldn’t lead to affliction. And you could compel form: Rūpañca hidaṁ, bhikkhave, attā abhavissa, nayidaṁ rūpaṁ ābādhāya saṁvatteyya, labbhetha ca rūpe: ‘May my form be like this! May it not be like that!’ ‘evaṁ me rūpaṁ hotu, evaṁ me rūpaṁ mā ahosī’ti. But because form is...

Merriam-Webster: possession 1 a: the act of having or taking into control b: control or occupancy of property without regard to ownership c: OWNERSHIP d: control of the ball or puck also : an instance of having such control (as in football) scored on their first two possessions 2: something owned, ...

For if form were self, it wouldn’t lead to affliction. And you could compel form: Rūpañca hidaṁ, bhikkhave, attā abhavissa, nayidaṁ rūpaṁ ābādhāya saṁvatteyya, labbhetha ca rūpe: ‘May my form be like this! May it not be like that!’ ‘evaṁ me rūpaṁ hotu, evaṁ me rūpaṁ mā ahosī’ti. But because form is...

]Not exactly. It is a good point because there is no logical fallacy in the statement. If there is no one to own anything, then nothing can be owned. Does that follow? If there is no one to see the colour blue, then the colour blue cannot be seen? The absence of self would appear to have the same r...

Well that’s a very good point. Much better than trying to persuade people that they don’t own their body because they can do nothing against illness and old age. I am honestly quite suprised to be the only one having an issue with such an argument. Is it a good point because you accept that the con...

You have provisional ownership of your body, not permanent. Did you ever do a long sitting meditation and when you tried to get up found you had numb and 'dead' legs that made it hard to feel and move them? The body here shows its lack of true ownership even briefly. I disagree. Sometimes in winter...

But ownership can only be of a self, of which there are none. Well that’s a very good point. Much better than trying to persuade people that they don’t own their body because they can do nothing against illness and old age. I am honestly quite suprised to be the only one having an issue with such a...

... "to have something for oneself, at one’s disposal, and be able to use or enjoy it". ... it might well happen that circumstances change and it's not there for you any more. And it's not up to you. So do you really posess it or can this fact change on its own? Yes, when something you us...

Thanks everyone for your contributions. I still feel there is a linguistic issue here. The verb own, as a synonym of possess, means To have rightful possession of (property, goods or capital); to have legal title to; to acquire a property or asset. . It’s the same in my language (French) where possé...

I'm adding the quote for context: "If this body is really mine, it will obey my commands. when I say "don't get old" or "I forbid you from getting hurt!" does it listen to me? No! It doesn't care about my opinion at all. We are only tenants, not owners of this "house&qu...

Hello, I keep running into this statement in Ajahn Chah's teachings. I don't understand the logic. To me this sounds like a logical fallacy, because it doesn't matter what kind of thing you own, it just does not follow that said thing will 'obey your commands', especially if it's not even a being of...

Thank you all for your really helpful answers! It’s really nice to have such a group to turn to when things get confusing.