clw_uk wrote:I would say that I and mine arise together
Agreed. But "I am" is founded upon "mine", i.e. because things are "mine" "I am" rather than because "I am" things are "mine". When things cease to be "mine" "I am" ceases:
If it we not, it would not be mine; it will not be and it will not be mine. What exists, what has come to be, that I am abandoning." MN 106.
"I am" is founded upon the meeting of ignorance, contact and feeling
"There is Bhikkhus the mind, there are mental phenomena, there is the element of ignorance. When the uninstructed ... is contacted by a feeling born of ignorance-contact, "I am" occurs to him
SN III 47.5
So I would say "I am" arises in tangent with "mine", you cant separate them
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
SarathW wrote:I think "I" is internal and "mine" is external.
As I see it you've got it the wrong way around "mine' in internal, "I" is external. Asmi-māna is a determination (saṅkhāra): it determines " I am". "I am" because things are "mine".
"Dhammā=Ideas. This is the clue to much of the Buddha's teaching." ~ Ven. Ñanavira, Commonplace Book
clw_uk wrote:
So I would say "I am" arises in tangent with "mine", you cant separate them
Agreed, but things that are "mine" are more manifestly impermanent than "I am".
I would disagree
I would argue that one of the main aims of the NEFP is to see just how many trillions of "I am" we go through each second because of our reactions to feelings (through ignorance of the three marks)
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
What Happenes to an Arahant After Death? A Dialogue between Bhikkhu Bodhi and B. Alan Wallace
The relationship between nibbāna and consciousness was a topic of heated discussion among us Western monks in Sri Lanka, and our position in relation to this problem divided us into opposing camps. Though I have pondered the issue for long years, I have to admit I don’t have a clear solution to the problem. Perhaps the source of perplexity lies in Western modes of thinking. But maybe not. My teacher, Ven. Balangoda Ananda Maitreya, used to tell me how his own interpretation of nibbāna came close to the Advaita Vedantin understanding of brahman (with some differences), and in this respect, he said, he disagreed with those Sri Lankan scholar-monks who considered nibbāna to be mere cessation.
Do you perhaps have an alternative link or some other way to get the paper? Unfortunately this link does not work any more and it's not available on the website anymore either.
Would really love to read this dialogue so any help in getting access to it would be appreciated.
When one dog finish barking, where did sound go? It just cant be discerned. Sound concious also gone.. conciousness is process not entity... so its like that 5 aggregate and all process of that designated being ends without remindee
What Happenes to an Arahant After Death? A Dialogue between Bhikkhu Bodhi and B. Alan Wallace
The relationship between nibbāna and consciousness was a topic of heated discussion among us Western monks in Sri Lanka, and our position in relation to this problem divided us into opposing camps. Though I have pondered the issue for long years, I have to admit I don’t have a clear solution to the problem. Perhaps the source of perplexity lies in Western modes of thinking. But maybe not. My teacher, Ven. Balangoda Ananda Maitreya, used to tell me how his own interpretation of nibbāna came close to the Advaita Vedantin understanding of brahman (with some differences), and in this respect, he said, he disagreed with those Sri Lankan scholar-monks who considered nibbāna to be mere cessation.
marvdam01 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 04, 2022 3:52 pm
Though I have pondered the issue for long years, I have to admit I don’t have a clear solution to the problem. Perhaps the source of perplexity lies in Western modes of thinking. But maybe not.