Thanks for answering.SteRo wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 4:45 am No I perfectly understood what you said but I committed the fault of deviating from theravada doctrine in the forum section dedicated to theravada doctrine through applying "not self" to goal-setting and affirmation of life which are two aspects inherent in theravada doctrine.
Therefore I have placed my response here in 'connections to other paths' because applying "not self" to theravada doctrine certainly amounts to a path other than theravada path because it's a non-path and the connection to theravada is the concept of "not self".
And I have placed my response in this thread because our new conversation turned out to be just a variant of the conversation we already had earlier in this thread.
For hedonists, buddha is a life killer, because he is sleeping on a lowly bed. Buddha knows another pleasure what is finer, hedonist doesn't know, the hedonist depends on loftiness. Comfortable, luxury bed is just a bed, but for hedonist it is the only bed.
If buddha wants to become a god, he will act like a god whereas he himself doesn't have asavas to become a god, he knows his mind is free of those asavas.
If i say that certain practices are pointless, because they are post birth. God is doing practices what god would do, human does practices what human would do etc.
I don't see where from your perspective lands the non-path, obviously you do still need use your body in daily life thus make kamma what will be experienced.
Other words you got to have something what destroys defilements what would make you to do the things you do, a'la arhant can't have sex.
I refuse to believe that the application of not self is that easy like you propose, Theravada doctrine is not self, Mahayana doctrine is not self, doing push ups is not self.