Concepts don't exist and therefore cannot be Anicca or Dukkha.

[Ceisiwr]

See intersubjectivity.

I don’t see how this helps?

Conventions are pragmatically useful.

That didn’t address what I said.

[AlexBrains92]

See intersubjectivity.

I don’t see how this helps?

You need more than few minutes in order to see. Take your time.

Conventions are pragmatically useful.

That didn’t address what I said.

I mean, it makes sense because it can be useful. What sense are you looking for? Why are you looking for a sense?

[Goofaholix]

The Buddha said some thing are real and others are not. That some things exist and others do not. We have to make use of the self concept in the everyday, but ultimately it is not.

The point is discussing or speculating whether it is real/exists or not is asking the wrong question.

Instead we should investigate and understand its true nature, the fact that there is something to discuss or speculate about creates if nothing else a concept. Then discussing whether it is real/exists or not gives the concept ongoing continuity, for the past hour at least the concept "unicorn" has existed, I have evidence on this thread.

[Ceisiwr]

You need more than few minutes in order to see. Take your time.

Intersubjectivity requires an external referent, so how does that support what you are trying to say?

I mean, it makes sense because it can be useful. What sense are you looking for? Why are you looking for a sense?

The point I was making was that we can only agree on conventions only if there is something external to us which we are trying to conceptualise. If everything were merely conventional, how would we both agree that a round red thing is a red ball? To agree that a round red thing is a red ball there needs to be two minds that both cognise an external round and red thing, which we agree is called “a ball”. This isn’t a strictly Theravadin argument, but it’s a start.

[Ceisiwr]

The Buddha said some thing are real and others are not. That some things exist and others do not. We have to make use of the self concept in the everyday, but ultimately it is not.

The point is discussing or speculating whether it is real/exists or not is asking the wrong question.

Instead we should investigate and understand its true nature, the fact that there is something to discuss or speculate about creates if nothing else a concept. Then discussing whether it is real/exists or not gives the concept ongoing continuity, for the past hour at least the concept "unicorn" has existed, I have evidence on this thread.

According to this logic the Buddha pops in and out of existence all the time.

[Goofaholix]

According to this logic the Buddha pops in and out of existence all the time.

Not at all, for this to happen everyone who currently has a working understanding of the concept "Buddha" would need to forget it.

[Ceisiwr]

According to this logic the Buddha pops in and out of existence all the time.

Not at all, for this to happen everyone who currently has a working understanding of the concept "Buddha" would need to forget it.

And when they do, the Buddha ceases.

[Goofaholix]

And when they do, the Buddha ceases.

He did suggest something along the lines of one day his teaching would be lost for a time, until rediscovered by someone else.

[Ceisiwr]

And when they do, the Buddha ceases.

He did suggest something along the lines of one day his teaching would be lost for a time, until rediscovered by someone else.

That isn’t relevant to what you were saying.

[AlexBrains92]

You need more than few minutes in order to see. Take your time.

Intersubjectivity requires an external referent, so how does that support what you are trying to say?

Intersubjectivity is not objectivity, and we have no reason to believe that the former was a reflection of the latter.

I mean, it makes sense because it can be useful. What sense are you looking for? Why are you looking for a sense?

The point I was making was that we can only agree on conventions only if there is something external to us which we are trying to conceptualise. If everything were merely conventional, how would we both agree that a round red thing is a ball? To agree that a round red thing is a ball there needs to be two minds that both cognise an external round and red thing, which we agree is called “a ball”. This isn’t a strictly Theravadin argument, but it’s a start.

Again: I'm not denying what is beyond concepts. I'm just saying that concepts don't reflect "ultimately real things", because what you call "the referent" is still arbitrarily delimited in time and space... by us, of course. Only silence could describe an ultimate reality.

[Goofaholix]

That isn’t relevant to what you were saying.

Probably, but it is relevant to your response to what I was saying, which is kind of how threads work.

[Ceisiwr]

That isn’t relevant to what you were saying.

Probably, but it is relevant to your response to what I was saying, which is kind of how threads work.

That the Dhamma will be forgotten doesn’t then mean the Buddha ceases.

[Goofaholix]

That the Dhamma will be forgotten doesn’t then mean the Buddha ceases.

Perhaps, the concept Buddha could be perpetuated in history books I suppose, but how would one explain the concept Buddha without reference to the teaching? I guess history could refer to a Sakyan prince but that doesn't seem all that interesting.

[Ceisiwr]

That the Dhamma will be forgotten doesn’t then mean the Buddha ceases.

Perhaps, the concept Buddha could be perpetuated in history books I suppose, but how would one explain the concept Buddha without reference to the teaching? I guess history could refer to a Sakyan prince but that doesn't seem all that interesting.

What I’m trying to say is that Buddhas do not arise nor cease.

[Ceisiwr]

Intersubjectivity is not objectivity, and we have no reason to believe that the former was a reflection of the latter.

The whole theory requires the existence of external minds, and minds according to Theravada are real.

Again: I'm not denying what is beyond concepts. I'm just saying that concepts don't reflect "ultimately real things", because what you call "the referent" is still arbitrarily delimited in time and space... by us, of course. Only silence could describe an ultimate reality.

If there weren’t real things we couldn’t be having this conversation.