mjaviem wrote one of the most insightful comments I have read on DW.
There are people who understand in terms of beings and selves, and persons, and ask about who.
Reminds me of the teaching to Moliyaphagguna.
And there are other people who can start understanding differently. In case you are part of the second group I will say that there's no one craving, it's just craving.
Nicely said.
Also will ask you to consider the difference between the stars and suns you see up in the sky and the stars and suns you see up in the sky with desire, with interest, delighting or perhaps seeking delight but not finding it, or admiring or finding beautiful or unattractive,
In a way one can ask "the objects out there" do they come into existence, unless one's attention goes to them?
You wrote
Do you think that upon awakening the sky goes dark and the bone chilling cold of the night goes away or is it that perhaps as we can learn from the suttas it's all about not craving, not clinging and ceasing to be.
That is quite clever.
"ceasing to be" which pretty much means "not being" "not coming into being"
There is no "being" in the Arahant. Yet people think Buddha probably swore.
How little they understand the Buddha?
When asked "What happens to the Buddha upon death?" why did Buddha keep silent?
He must have got weary of being asked the same question by folks who failed to understand A, B, C of his teaching.
But this is a dilemma to the ordinary person.
mjaviem wrote
Do you think upon awakening there is still a world that is out there? An out and an in? A mine and a not mine? I encourage you to pay attention and study the suttas or keep doing it, I trust this is very beneficial to straigthen our understanding.
Good point, My Dear mjaviem. Keep at it, perhaps your simpler way of stating things will carry the day.
Good Night