One could perhaps interpret "There is no teaching that says: 'With the extinction of feeling, craving ceases to exist.'” three ways, 1) that it is not true that with the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving, 2) that there's no practice for the ordained that involves extinguishing...

Hello, as a new student , I am having great trouble understanding the concept of impermanence. I read passages " We will not struggle for fame, money, or lust anymore because we know that these things are temporary " -- Tich T. Tu. . I understand this concept perfectly, except when I appl...

I've recently read the Critique of pure Reason & the Critique of practical reason, and I am also fascinated by the closeness between various aspects of Transcendental idealism and Buddhist doctrine. Maybe I'm overly sympathetic, but I do think both the theoretical and the practical philosophy of...

Buddhas advice to a monk who admitted he could not remember all the rules of the ordained, was to give him one rule to remember: be mindful. In the end, rules are a means to an end. You would not require rules if your mindfulness was perfect at every moment. I believe it is true that we can intuitiv...

There are many valuable comments in this thread which I find useful, but the underlying paradox of why the not-self doctrine cannot be applied here remains for me. Basically, again: If, as you say, it is true to say: 1) "This nama-rupa (mind-body) is the owner of its actions." We know tha...

Sutta reference that equates the aggregates to 'I', a conventional being, “Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word ‘chariot’ is used, So, when the aggregates exist, There is the convention ‘ a being. ’ SN 5.10 This sutta equates the aggregates with "the convention 'a being'", not w...

Yes, "(3) I am not the owner of my actions" does make sense. You are not the owner of your actions because it too is dependent on conditions. Your choices, your supposedly "free will" is very much dependent and falls within the domain of this mass of conditional aggregates, whic...

If, as you say, Yes, "(3) I am not the owner of my actions" does make sense. You are not the owner of your actions because it too is dependent on conditions. then why is "I am the owner of my actions" recommended by the Buddha as skillful right-view? Just different perspectives....

If, as you say,

skandha wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 9:20 am
Yes, "(3) I am not the owner of my actions" does make sense. You are not the owner of your actions because it too is dependent on conditions.

then why is "I am the owner of my actions" recommended by the Buddha as skillful right-view?

If the reflection is changed as below, nothing really changes: This nama-rupa (mind-body) is the owner of its actions, heir of its actions, actions are the womb (from which its state has sprung), actions are its relations, actions are its protection. Whatever actions it will do, good or bad, of the...

Hi: Actually yes, "i am" is the owner of actions. "I am" is a mind with craving. When there is craving, there is owning. When there is owning there is suffering. Craving is the function of the mind thats making the impersonal personal. But does the "I am" which is the ...

"I am", it is just a conventional form of expression. Of the 'five remembrances' (Upajjhatthana Sutta) I am the owner of my actions, heir of my actions, actions are the womb (from which I have sprung), actions are my relations, actions are my protection. Whatever actions I do, good or bad...

Could someone clarify the meaning of the following excerpts: Of the 'five remembrances' (Upajjhatthana Sutta) I am the owner of my actions, heir of my actions, actions are the womb (from which I have sprung), actions are my relations, actions are my protection. Whatever actions I do, good or bad, of...