Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 12:09 pm
The logic of this seems off. It’s like saying that because dukkha is universal to all, dukkha is therefore a basis for a self.
It seems the basis for yours.
Metta,
Paul.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
retrofuturist wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 9:44 am
Greetings Eko Care,
Eko Care wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 9:41 am
What is the problem with being universal?
We can see all the 52 cetasikas' three characteristics.
If it's common to all, it's absent from none - omnipresent. Perfect soil for the perception of self to hide. Got any other universals where self can hide?
Metta,
Paul.
The logic of this seems off. It’s like saying that because dukkha is universal to all, dukkha is therefore a basis for a self.
It actually might be, in the sense of being required for a sense of self to arise.
retrofuturist wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 9:44 am
If it's common to all, it's absent from none - omnipresent. Perfect soil for the perception of self to hide. Got any other universals where self can hide?
The logic of this seems off. It’s like saying that because dukkha is universal to all, dukkha is therefore a basis for a self.
It actually might be, in the sense of being required for a sense of self to arise.
Even the cittas of Arahants have Manasikara because it is universal.
Self can't hide anywhere in mind because it is an object of mind.
Also, Self can't hide anywhere in in this world because it doesn't exist.
Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sat Oct 01, 2022 12:09 pm
The logic of this seems off. It’s like saying that because dukkha is universal to all, dukkha is therefore a basis for a self.
It actually might be, in the sense of being required for a sense of self to arise.
Even the cittas of Arahants have Manasikara because it is universal.
Self can't hide anywhere in mind because it is an object of mind.
Also, Self can't hide anywhere in in this world because it doesn't exist.
retrofuturist wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 9:44 am
Greetings Eko Care,
If it's common to all, it's absent from none - omnipresent. Perfect soil for the perception of self to hide. Got any other universals where self can hide?
Metta,
Paul.
The logic of this seems off. It’s like saying that because dukkha is universal to all, dukkha is therefore a basis for a self.
It actually might be, in the sense of being required for a sense of self to arise.
Sorry, I don’t follow?
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
The logic of this seems off. It’s like saying that because dukkha is universal to all, dukkha is therefore a basis for a self.
It actually might be, in the sense of being required for a sense of self to arise.
Sorry, I don’t follow?
I was just idly musing, really, but here goes. If I had never experienced the slightest hint of dukkha - if my experiences had always been a smooth increase in happiness, never causing the slightest wish that things were otherwise - could I conceive of a "self"? Would I ever think of myself as a "being", or would there just be a continuous flow of happiness?