What is a "Classical" text? What does the word "Classical" mean?
How can what is contrary to the Buddha's Teaching be "exemplary"?representing an exemplary standard within a traditional and long-established form or style. "classical ballet"
What is a "Classical" text? What does the word "Classical" mean?
How can what is contrary to the Buddha's Teaching be "exemplary"?representing an exemplary standard within a traditional and long-established form or style. "classical ballet"
i'm riding on the back of a unicorn right now.
The empires like Roman, Mongol, Japanese, Third Reich etc are concepts, are they not?"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Herein, "existence (atthi)" means permanent-existence which is eternality (sassata).pegembara wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 1:50 am"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
If they were real, then they are concepts of real, as explained by analysis.
They are objects of the mind. So they are included in Dhamma-arammana.
And how does one suppose to contemplate non real concept !Eko Care wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 6:42 am
If they were real, then they are concepts of real, as explained by analysis.
If they were not real, then they are concepts of non-real.
They are objects of the mind. So they are included in Dhamma-arammana.
All the dhammas are contemplated as Anatta. (Sabbe dhamma anatta)
Though it non-real, mind perceives it.
Is it necessary to acknowledge it as non real concept , why not just concept . When we speaks of Turtle hairs we already know it doesnt exists but a kind of made up idea , so to contemplate it as non real idea appear pointless .
Good question. I'm not seeing the practical use of the technical distinction being made in this thread.
Aren't all mind objects characterised by the three marks?
No.Spiny Norman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:02 am Aren't all mind objects characterised by the three marks?
From what we see concepts are illysionised or virtual objects. For cakkuvignana one sees colours and the seer forms a form or a figure stored in the mind, That is when the person who has the eye is hoodwinked say like by a magician . Only one with a knowledge that a magician is the presenter can realise the illusion. See madupindupama sutta. We then only see a mirage instead of the real object . Further we form geometrical figures from colours sent from an object. Mano vingnana plays a big role here like in a dream. Only by getting awake we realise that perhaps the fear caused in a dream is not mine. feeling of Me and mine fooling .Spiny Norman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 7:59 amGood question. I'm not seeing the practical use of the technical distinction being made in this thread.
Spiny Norman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 7:59 amGood question. I'm not seeing the practical use of the technical distinction being made in this thread.