You don't seem to understand. This is not a question of conventional language but a question of reality.Nicholas Weeks wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:09 pmTherefore the following use of "I" is also moved by conceit & is an ignorant assumption of Buddha's. (There are over 50 uses of the conventional "I" in this text.)SteRo wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:16 pmBut if the assumption "I am" would not be conceit then it should be in line with reality. However reality does not support the assumption "I am" and therefore Gautama taught that nothing supports the assumption "I am".Nicholas Weeks wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:03 pm
Unwarranted assumption that "I am" always has conceit as its root. Buddha used "I" in the conventional, ordinary sense also.
Therefore that aspiration is nothing but a manifestation of the ignorant assumption "I am".
222. He who checks rising anger as a charioteer checks a rolling chariot, him I call a true charioteer. Others only hold the reins.
This question applies equally for the aspiration of seeking only one's own benefit. And there is a sutta that praises those following the path for the benefit of others and own benefit and blames those following the path only for own benefit. What might be the reason for this other than merely skillful means?What is the remainder of that aspiration in case it is deprived of the conceit 'I am'?
So the question might also be expressed: What is the difference between these two aspirations in the face of reality that there isn't any support of 'I am' and therefore also no support for 'they are'?
When a sotapanna has caught a glimpse of reality there is certainty of liberation and any variant of aspiration might become useless due to that certainty. It is only the Mahayana that asserts that the two variants of aspirations entail different results. But according the teachings of Gotama it seems that a selfish aspiration might undermine or obstruct attaining a sotapanna's certainty of liberation which is why only one of the two aspirations has been praised. Thus from the perspective of ignorance the 'benefit of others' is supported because following that advice 'others' might also attain the sotapanna's certainty of liberation which actually is independent of ignorant 'I am' and ignorant 'they are' and independent of ignorant 'own benefit' and ignorant 'benefit of others'.
See? That's the difference. Clinging to the idea that the aspiration you are advocating is based on reality is advocating Mahayana doctrine. Accepting that it is only skillful means to support liberation is neither Mahayana nor Theravada. Why? Because this does not support Mahayana doctrine and accepting "skillful means" is accepting an idea alien to Theravada doctrine.
It would be interesting how Theravadins justify the praise of aspiration 'for own benefit and benefit of others' and the blame for 'only own benefit' without taking refuge to the idea of 'skillful means'.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html"Of two people who practice the Dhamma in line with the Dhamma, having a sense of Dhamma, having a sense of meaning — one who practices for both his own benefit and that of others, and one who practices for his own benefit but not that of others — the one who practices for his own benefit but not that of others is to be criticized for that reason, the one who practices for both his own benefit and that of others is, for that reason, to be praised."