Anatta is an actuality, correct, not a view.
Sakkāya-ditthi is a view, not an actuality.
Anatta is an actuality, correct, not a view.
One last question if i may: only views can be in opposite. If anatta is an actuality, then why it is often presented in opposite to Sakkāya-ditthi?
Only views can have opposites? If that's the case, then maybe opposite was the wrong term, which I used.
Yes, but that would be two different realms where the laws of nature behave differently.
Wherever there is mass.
It’s the same law.
Well, you could move to an area where a certain law is no longer applicable and still define nature in terms of law.
The first sentence seems to imply that the khandhas are static "things", that have some sort of constancy. Feeling, perception, etc, are dynamic processes.bkmudita wrote: ↑Sat May 28, 2022 2:15 pm your thought about Viññāṇa dependent on Saṅkhāra could be fine, just that I would say all four kandhas are dependent on the rupa kandha, that's why they are khandas, they kind of attach to rupa at time of birth. viññāṇa as a kandha and is also the knowing faculty, but not the knower. I think that's where the mistake is.
mikenz66 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2015 12:44 am Yes, that's what Ven Dhammanando said here: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 20#p328676See these entries in Sujato's Blog:Dhammanando wrote: It's uncontroversial that consciousness is involved with rebirth, just not in the way that Sāti thought it was. Bhante Sujato, as far as I know, doesn't subscribe to Sāti's view that one and same consciousness persists through time and undergoes rebirth. Quite the contrary in fact — in his blog he's at pains to repudiate the atman-like consciousness view that's so prevalent among monks in his tradition.
On the Radiant Mind
Nibbana is not viññāṇa. Really, it just isn’t.
See this elaboration: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 60#p329417
I'm not sure if it's useful to think of "sides". My impression is that some of the disagreements come from overinterpreting the language and terms.
Does that mean that a "developed mind" is some object that one can locate, like the engine in a Formula 1 car? I don't believe so, but then, like everyone else posting here, I'm obviously a long way from being an Arahant...A developed mind is very beneficial.”
Cittaṁ, bhikkhave, bhāvitaṁ mahato atthāya saṁvattatī”ti.
https://suttacentral.net/an1.21-30/en/s ... ript=latin
I read some comments, but i think that is lot of confusion on MN 38.Which consciousness, Sāti, is that?" [1]
"This speaker, this knower, lord, that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & evil actions."
Note: if one can reach n'eva-saññā-n'āsaññāyatana or sanna vedayita nirodha, there is no vinnana there. Only when one comeback and down to Ākiñcaññāyatana, then one can aware nothingness. Or other lower jhana than nothingness sphere.Birth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is no return to any state of existence/becoming.
Let's say I will my mind into your mind, I read your thoughts, I may imprint some thoughts into your mind to change your perception of the world or yourself, change your habits and so on. In this process, I perceive my mind and your kind as force fields, and of course can locate them. Consciousness is just energy. When the mind is more developed, it has more strengths, bala.mikenz66 wrote: ↑Sun May 29, 2022 2:56 am
I'm not sure if it's useful to think of "sides". My impression is that some of the disagreements come from overinterpreting the language and terms.
As I said I'm wary of turning terms that the Buddha used into "things". For example, the Buddha says:Does that mean that a "developed mind" is some object that one can locate, like the engine in a Formula 1 car? I don't believe so, but then, like everyone else posting here, I'm obviously a long way from being an Arahant...A developed mind is very beneficial.”
Cittaṁ, bhikkhave, bhāvitaṁ mahato atthāya saṁvattatī”ti.
https://suttacentral.net/an1.21-30/en/s ... ript=latin
Mike