sense bases disappear ?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Asahi,

Internal external differentiation is a conventional reality in which arahant still uses . This is probably why you are holding on to wrong interpretation . Buddha still teaches internal external dhammas .

He teaches lots of "things" (dhammas) that are the fabricated products of paticcasamuppada. That doesn't make them "real" things that he's teaching us... that makes them "delusional" things which we need to understand properly in order to eradicate avijja. The only "real" dhamma is that which is asankhata, unconditioned by ignorance - namely, nibbana.

But thanks for concluding that it's me who has the wrong interpretation here. How very generous of you.

Metta,
Paul.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Coemgenu,

This truth is directly related to both the truths of nirodha and samudāya.

Except you immediately go on to explain how it's not, in your very next sentence.

We feel neither the vedanā of the rūpa of other persons in the external world nor the rūpa of the insentient external world.

Therefore, not subject to samudāya (origination).

"In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have taught]. And why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have not taught them.

"And what have I taught? 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress': This is what I have taught. And why have I taught these things? Because they are connected with the goal, relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. This is why I have taught them.

"Therefore your duty is the contemplation, 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress.' Your duty is the contemplation, 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.'"

Metta,
Paul.

[Coëmgenu]

Unless you're a solipsist, the truth is related to the truths of at least suffering and the origin, I suppose I should have said.

[cappuccino]

surely in this life, consciousness still functioning, no?

Don’t believe in annihilation, it’s not Buddhist

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Coëmgenu,

Unless you're a solipsist, the truth is related to the truths of suffering and the origin, I suppose I should have said.

What does solipsism have to do with the matter, when the Buddha taught samudaya, nirdoha, and the path thereto, to individuals for their own liberation?

It's not a collective or overlapping communist path. This path too is fabricated and subject to arising (samudaya). In fact, the Buddha said that of all fabricated phenomena there are in the world, the highest is the Noble Eightfold Path.

Metta,
Paul.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Ceisiwr,

Interesting that you are also relying upon the Abhidhamma now. I did say you think like one

The problem with the Abhidhammic enterprise wasn't their analysis of causal relations per se... it was the insistence on pegging that endeavour to an extraneous foundation of momentariness (i.e. time) first, and in doing so, losing the (akaliko) ability to satisfactorily explain idappacayata, and therefore the inability to satisfactorily explain arising and cessation. I'm far to likely to find agreement with works that precede that particular error/development, but as I said earlier to Coemgenu, I'm never going to hold them in as high esteem as Buddhavacana either.

Metta,
Paul.

[asahi]

But some people appear to strongly held on to non dualism which they think are Buddha dhamma . What a pity .

[Coëmgenu]

Greetings Coëmgenu,

Unless you're a solipsist, the truth is related to the truths of suffering and the origin, I suppose I should have said.

What does solipsism have to do with the matter, when the Buddha taught samudaya, nirdoha, and the path thereto, to individuals for their own liberation?

It's not a collective or overlapping communist path.

"Communist was just a red herring," -Wadsworth

The fact that there are individuals who the Buddha taught the Dharma too, the fact that your karma isn't my karma, that there is no collective or overlapping karma, means that the truth that I spoke of previously is fundamental to, at the very least, suffering and the origin.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Asahi,

But some people appear to strongly held on to non dualism which they think are Buddha dhamma . What a pity .

"Non-dualism" is an English word. Usually, it's a lazy ill-informed way to slag something off as being Advaita, Hinduism or Mahayana. It's also why you'll not find an answer to your original question that satisfies you. I don't use the word personally because of the baggage added to it by others, and also, because it's unnecessary.

If you wish to find fault with the Buddha's instructions to Bahiya, or other teachings which speak against bifurcation of the sense base and object, at least make an effort to critique them rather than haphazardly drop buzzwords.

Metta,
Paul.

[Coëmgenu]

A solipsist is someone who, amongst other things, does not acknowledge that there are feelings and consciousness, etc., associated with external rūpas that are accompanied by consciousness that are, at the very least, distinct from the associated rūpa and nāman of "this body" of the solipsist in question.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Coëmgenu,

The fact that there are individuals who the Buddha taught the Dharma too, the fact that your karma isn't my karma, that there is no collective or overlapping karma, means that the truth that I spoke of previously is fundamental to, at the very least, suffering and the origin.

Perhaps fabrications pertaining to what you speak of gave rise to dukkha for you, but that's more for you to say than me. What I do know is that if they didn't arise, then they couldn't give rise to dukkha. Such a thing would not be possible.

Metta,
Paul.

[Coëmgenu]

This truth does not give rise to dukkha, as it is true inasmuch as it underlies the noble truths.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

This truth does not give rise to dukkha, as it is true inasmuch as it underlies the noble truths.

You're talking about a supposed "truth" necessarily disconnected from the Four Noble Truths of dukkha, samudaya, nirodha and magga.

Thus it underlies nothing, other than as a basis for view, the attachment to which may give rise to dukkha via phassa (per DN 1).

Metta,
Paul.

[Coëmgenu]

It is not so disconnected. That the Buddha's liberation did not liberate all of the people of the world indicates that the third noble truth is also so. One person's realization is not another's, just as one person's perception, ignorance, etc., is not another's, and this is because minds, like bodies, are distinct.

[cappuccino]

If you wish to find fault with the Buddha's instructions to Bahiya

You are using it to justify annihilation


That’s misunderstanding