Ease up lad. You're misinterpreting and misrepresenting what is being said. I repeat... Mahabhuta are the noumenic subset of dhātu, just like mahabhuta are the noumenic subset of rupa . That isn’t what you said at all. You made a distinction between the dhātu and the mahābhūta, defining the former ...

The noumenic subset of dhātu, yes. You just argued that the dhātu are not noumena. Seems like you will simply say anything to avoid being wrong at this point, even if you begin contradicting yourself. The Phena Sutta is talking about the five aggregates. As was mentioned recently to Coemgenu, aggre...

Ceisiwr, Can you answer the same question? Why does refuting the substantial existence of something outside of “the all” matter for ending dukkha? If someone isn’t clinging to substantial external matter then does that type of substance view still lead to dukkha? Or maybe you think that believing i...

Greetings Ceisiwr, It has been explained to you countless times, via MN 62 mostly, that there is both the property of hardness, and hard substances (E.g. bones) recognised in this Dhamma, and that both of these considered rupa and both are considered aspects of elemental properties. It is when only...

… The question is wrong not because the mahābhūtā are equated with the dhātu but because the questioner asked where they cease without remainder, but if you don’t like that sutta we also have this: “There might be change in the four primary elements—earth, water, fire, and air—but a noble disciple ...

I think I may have determined what it is that's caused you to be so confused about my position... I suspect you are conflating mahabhuta with dhatu. In doing so, you rightly recognise dhatu as phenomenal, and therefore wrongly transpose that quality onto mahabhuta. They are treated as synonyms. The...

False. As I just said to Alex, "The level of detail explained by the Buddha in MN62 and SN22.94 is adequate for our purposes. It's a fact. You are moving from direct experience to rationalist theories about matter. Namely, that there is some substance with qualities. MN 62 and SN 22.94 do not ...

Dhammanando wrote: ↑Mon Jul 12, 2021 12:17 pm

The whole objection is moot if the "mathematics" of "one in a hundred or a thousand" is just a figurative expression for "it's rare." :goodpost: I imagine Ven. Buddhaghosa based it on talking to the monks and nuns in Sri Lanka, and so it’s meant to stress how hard it i...

EXTENSION OF THE SIGN In order to perfect the development of consciousness he should besides extend the counterpart sign according as acquired. Now, there are two planes for extension, namely, access and absorption; for it is possible to extend it on reaching access and on reaching absorption. But ...

… The sutta is discussing a meditation where the earth element is perceived to be everywhere in a non-dual state. In the commentaries this is explained as being the nimitta. Being a samatha meditation the object is a concept and so it’s a meditation involving conventional reality rather than ultima...

… The sutta is discussing a meditation where the earth element is perceived to be everywhere in a non-dual state. In the commentaries this is explained as being the nimitta. Being a samatha meditation the object is a concept and so it’s a meditation involving conventional reality rather than ultima...

Ven. Anālayo, not an Ābhidhammika by any stretch of the imagination, reaches a similar conclusion: Contemplation of the four elements is the second spoke in the wheel of practice I am presenting here. Here are the relevant instructions from the Satipaṭṭhāna-sutta (MN 10): One examines this same body...

Almost as bad as eliminative materialism.

“Rāhula, the interior earth element is said to be anything that's solidity, solidified, and appropriated that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This includes: head hair, body hair, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, diaphragm, spleen, lungs, intesti...