Actually, now that I remember, I used 'exist' in terms of bhava and not 'appearance' hence why recognition which comes with it is actually describing DO: viññāna-nāmarūpa <> nāmarūpa-viññāna.DooDoot wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 7:11 amthe Buddha Dhamma says ‘something’ exists even when there is no recognition of it - AN 3.136 & SN 12.20dicsoncandra wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 1:29 pm the Buddha Dhamma, and I hope not to misrepresent the Teaching in any way ... Firstly, we need to see that ‘something’ exists only when there is a presence of recognition of it, which implies that a phenomenon is present.
I forgot how I redefined the two terms (i.e., existence and appearance) since I'd been frantically re-reading the later paragraphs looking for the slightest fault.
With regard to the answer to the question: in my view, the Buddha did give one, which is as per your quote but he never promised that it was going to be satisfactory. Nevertheless, it is an answer that is real, and explaining how one arrives at the conclusion has some significance imo.
Edit: but I guess it wouldn't be fair to the average reader. I think the amendment can be better understood
2nd edit: actually now I'm not sure, I may want to retain the original definitions. you can tell me why it's wrong
3rd edit: also, in your case, instead of saying it 'exists' I would say it is 'present'. Even Bhante Sujato worded it as 'persists' and not 'exists'
Best,
Dicson