So there can be two truths?

[auto]

These are the mind states. How would you call the living thing that exhibits these states of mind?

atta

[Ontheway]

These are the mind states. How would you call the living thing that exhibits these states of mind?

atta

Is that so? Wouldn't that contradict with the Sutta you posted just now?

“Rādha, when you cling, strongly cling, to desire, greed, relishing, and craving for form, then a being is spoken of."
“Rūpe kho, rādha, yo chando yo rāgo yā nandī yā taṇhā, tatra satto, tatra visatto, tasmā sattoti vuccati."

[auto]

.

I find it amusing you even write: these are your words.
I want to add that the sense of self and focusing upon oneself is not an idea only, it also can be done practically and results gotten as evidence it works. Also i think samadhi is union with the self/atta.

[Ceisiwr]

.

I find it amusing you even write: these are your words.
I want to add that the sense of self and focusing upon oneself is not an idea only, it also can be done practically and results gotten as evidence it works. Also i think samadhi is union with the self/atta.

So when I said you believe in a real atta, I wasn't getting things wrong.

[Ontheway]

.

I find it amusing you even write: these are your words.
I want to add that the sense of self and focusing upon oneself is not an idea only, it also can be done practically and results gotten as evidence it works. Also i think samadhi is union with the self/atta.

Isn't that Sanatan Dharma ?

[auto]

Is that so? Wouldn't that contradict with the Sutta you posted just now?

If there is no strong clinging then you can't speak of it or there is no self to speak of.

[auto]

Isn't that Sanatan Dharma ?

i don't know.

[Ontheway]

Is that so? Wouldn't that contradict with the Sutta you posted just now?

If there is no strong clinging then you can't speak of it or there is no self to speak of.

Well, in the Suttanta you posted, Buddha clearly mentioned the "Being" exhibits clinging. As long as there is clinging and conditions applied, then "Being" is used as designation for description purpose.

But the real question is, what clings? None other than the five aggregates.

If you are a Buddhist, I recommend you to read Thanissaro Bhikkhu's excellent essay on this matter.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/khandha.html


But if you are not Buddhist, maybe you can investigate more, because judging from your posts, it seems you believes that there is a real Self (which contradict all current schools of Buddhism), and similar to those Hindus.

Do you believe in God? If so, which God, or True "Purusha" or "AdiSakti" you believe in ? I think Shiva quite cool

[auto]

So when I said you believe in a real atta, I wasn't getting things wrong.

you were wrong when jumping in by not understanding that i was pointing out that the khandhas are not ultimately the self.

[Ceisiwr]

So when I said you believe in a real atta, I wasn't getting things wrong.

you were wrong when jumping in by not understanding that i was pointing out that the khandhas are not ultimately the self.

I simply described you as an atta believer, which is true. Anyways, as ever this is a waste of my time.

[auto]

So when I said you believe in a real atta, I wasn't getting things wrong.

you were wrong when jumping in by not understanding that i was pointing out that the khandhas are not ultimately the self.

I simply described you as an atta believer, which is true. Anyways, as ever this is a waste of my time.

yes you are wasting my time by making this subject meaningless.

[auto]

.

video unavailable. And don't bother, i get your dismissive attitude, after the reasoning i made in the first post here to you about your claim that ultimately khandas are the being. And secondly you took sakkaya is satta.

[Ontheway]

.

video unavailable. And don't bother, i get your dismissive attitude, after the reasoning i made in the first post here to you about your claim that ultimately khandas are the being. And secondly you took sakkaya is satta.

It is not a dismissive act, in fact what you posted here are all can be related to Hindu ideas such as "Purusha", "Universal Soul" or "Primordial Essence". I have no reason to believe that you are a Buddhist.

And you are twisting my posts to agree with your Atta belief.

Let me put down my conclusive view regarding this matter:

Now the "Being" here and now, be it human, animal, ghost, Deva or Brahma, or Hell denizen, such term "Being" was used to describe them in conventional purpose. After seeing this "Being" as they really are (Yathabhutam), the so-called "Being" is merely Five Aggregates affected by Clinging. What are the five aggregates?

The Five Aggregates are Rupa, Vedana, Sanna, Sankhara, and Vinnana. The combination of these is known conventionally as "Being". And these aggregates, all exhibit Tilakkhana. Since they are Anicca, therefore they are Dukkha. Since they are Anicca, subject to change (viparinama dhamma) and Dukkha, therefore not fitting to think of these aggregates as such: "This is mine, this is me, and this is my Self."

Seeing thus, a faithful and wise disciple will dwells disenchanted with these Five aggregates, relinquish the attachment towards them, removing the clinging towards them, by practising the Noble Eight Fold Paths as taught by the Sammasambuddha.

[asahi]

To assume that
there is a being is a view correct ?
Clinging craving to form etc is a being .
Being = view = clinging
But what can be found but are only five aggregates .
However there is no being
no being = no view



“Rādha, when you cling, strongly cling, to desire, greed, relishing, and craving for form, then a being is spoken of."
“Rūpe kho, rādha, yo chando yo rāgo yā nandī yā taṇhā, tatra satto, tatra visatto, tasmā sattoti vuccati."


Why now do you assume 'a being'?
Mara, have you grasped a view?
This is a heap of sheer constructions:
Here no being is found.

[Mr. Seek]

You know... I thought about it some more. Maybe what this two truths thing is about is... on one side, perceiving with avijja, and on the other side, perceiving without avijja, i.e. vijja. One looks at the world through ignorance, e.g. grasping at perceptions, objectifying, etc., while the other doesn't.