During a discussion about the unorthox views of Thai Forest Tradition, I noticed the following behavior of Sutta/EBT/Attanomati-vadins:
How can being in an unorthodox position, one use the orthodox position to invalidate another unorthodox position.SarathW wrote:Thank you, David. I did not expect such overwhelming support for my topic.DNS wrote: The Ajahn refers to a "permanent consciousness" which certainly is unorthodox, contrary to the Classical Theravada. Typically such unorthodox views refer to a permanent citta, since citta is not listed as one of the aggregates (Ajahns Boowa and Mun and perhaps some others).
However, consciousness is listed as one of the aggregates (viññāna) and the idea of it being permanent is refuted in MN 38 Sati, the fisherman's son.
https://suttacentral.net/mn38/en/sujato
Around the mid point of the video he refers to a universal consciousness, also at odds with the Classical view.
It may even be a more extreme view than the Pudgalavada school, since the Pudgalavada refers to something of an impermanent self, not a permanent one.
So his subconscious knows that orthodox Theravada is the true one.DNS wrote: The Ajahn refers to a "permanent consciousness" which certainly is unorthodox, contrary to the Classical Theravada.
Ok, it is a more extreme view >>but>> with reference to which position?DNS wrote: It may even be a more extreme view than the Pudgalavada school, since the Pudgalavada refers to something of an impermanent self, not a permanent one.
How can being in an unorthodox position, one use the orthodox position to invalidate another unorthodox position?
This is an evidence for the fact that "EBT-people don't have a base."