සෝවාන් ඵලයට පමුණවන සතිපට්ඨානය හෙවත් යෝනිසෝමනසිකාරය

[ek_rosh]

How to know whether B is correct is subjective. One can just believe B based on his knowledge and what he says sounds right. Another such as myself wants B to prove his method through me (i.e. the reality I know), no matter how silly or irrational it looks like to a 3rd person. The way I see it is that if B can’t prove his method through me, then I consider him has wrong.

What if B says the same thing to you, i.e. your ecosystem is wrong because he can't prove yours though him? Now, who has the right ecosystem?

Don’t think you’ve got my point here; most Ayurveda doctors just follow the literature they don’t understand how the medicine works. That way the doctor can’t come up with a new medicine for an unknown disease.

Yes, dhamma is exactly like that, jut knowledge or literature is not going to help you, you need to know it through you, towards you. This is fully introverted. We don’t need to verify entire ecosystem the lord Buddha discovered that is just crazy, but we need to verify dhamma (four noble truths), the sub ecosystem to apply it to ourselves effectively.

This is exactly the point, as long as the doctor knows the problem and cure you just follow the instruction and you are done. Same thing goes with dharma, buddha has found the problem and the cure. We will just have to follow it. No need to find a new nirvana like finding a new disease and cure, where you need the introverted ecosystem you said.

This is what I am keep telling you, showing references from books or stating some mechanisms that you interpreted using your distorted mind sensor (not meant as a joke) is pointless, this is again you see these from an extraverted point of view.

Exactly my point, you pick up bunch of characteristics that matches your perception at each mind and name them as a thing, that thing is not same for everyone plus those characteristics keep changing while you are naming, so is there a thing to begin with?

Edit: In actual fact, you are calling a set of fabricated static characteristics (a thing) to slice of never ending process, this is what I meant by freezing the process.

Ok, I think kinda get what you mean by freezing. So, how does it relate to where we started from?

IMHO there is nothing to take as such is not correct, it should be more like, existence of ‘මම’ and non- existence of ‘මම‘ are both valid scenarios, one as convention and the other as objective. When you come to “nothing to take as such” end you won’t have anything to work with and end up in අසංඥ

 

[MalSeven]

What if B says the same thing to you, i.e. your ecosystem is wrong because he can't prove yours though him? Now, who has the right ecosystem?

That’s B’s problem isn’t it, remember again, this is introverted, if it works for me but doesn’t work for him is irrelevant.

This is exactly the point, as long as the doctor knows the problem and cure you just follow the instruction and you are done. Same thing goes with dharma, buddha has found the problem and the cure. We will just have to follow it. No need to find a new nirvana like finding a new disease and cure, where you need the introverted ecosystem you said.

Yes, nothing wrong with that, as long as you know the path you have taken is correct, only way for this is to see the dhamma through yourself. that is my point. Otherwise you are open to Interpretation.

Ok, I think kinda get what you mean by freezing. So, how does it relate to where we started from?

IMHO there is nothing to take as such is not correct, it should be more like, existence of ‘මම’ and non- existence of ‘මම‘ are both valid scenarios, one as convention and the other as objective. When you come to “nothing to take as such” end you won’t have anything to work with and end up in අසංඥ

What I am saying is that ‘මම’ is also a fruit of naming a bunch of such characteristics as something. So, from the fool’s perspective it exists.

Therefore, like I said in another thread, we should not put an observer (fool and wise one) in place when we talk about ‘මම’. Once we do, we fall in to the trap of the ‘wise one exists’ and he is exclusive. When you say ‘nothing to take as such’ that implies you are the wise one already. You are stating something that is out of your scope here. So better way to express is existence of ‘මම’ and non- existence of ‘මම‘ are both valid as Buddha said.
මම ඇත්තෙත් නැහැ නැත්තෙත් නැහැ,
or
මම ඇත යනු එක අන්තයකි, මම නැත යනු තවත් අන්තයකි

 

[ek_rosh]

That’s B’s problem isn’t it, remember again, this is introverted, if it works for me but doesn’t work for him is irrelevant.

There is one nirvana and one path. There are two ppl A and B, both have completely different introverted ecosystems which are completely correct for themselves. A's path is wrong for B. B's path is wrong for A, but nobody cares. Good, if there were 100 ppl, 100 working ecosystems, 100 working paths. Wonderful, very clear, no more questions on this. Thanks.

Yes, nothing wrong with that, as long as you know the path you have taken is correct, only way for this is to see the dhamma through yourself. that is my point. Otherwise you are open to Interpretation.

OfCourse, when do you see the dharma? at sowan stage. If you can see before? no worries, intervorted. I get it.

What I am saying is that ‘මම’ is also a fruit of naming a bunch of such characteristics as something. So, from the fool’s perspective it exists.

Therefore, like I said in another thread, we should not put an observer (fool and wise one) in place when we talk about ‘මම’. Once we do, we fall in to the trap of the ‘wise one exists’ and he is exclusive. When you say ‘nothing to take as such’ that implies you are the wise one already. You are stating something that is out of your scope here. So better way to express is existence of ‘මම’ and non- existence of ‘මම‘ are both valid as Buddha said.
මම ඇත්තෙත් නැහැ නැත්තෙත් නැහැ,
or
මම ඇත යනු එක අන්තයකි, මම නැත යනු තවත් අන්තයකි

If someone knows, what is "sammuthi" and what is "paramatta" there should not be any problem. The problem is when I say "wise" in sammuthi, the listener takes in paramatta.

I dont think buddha ever said "මම ඇත්තෙත් නැහැ නැත්තෙත් නැහැ,", where did you find this from? I ve heard waharaka thero says that though.

මම ඇත කිව්වත, මම නැත කිව්වත්, ඇත්තෙත් නැ කිව්වත්, නැත්තෙත් නැ කිව්වත් still "මම" exists.

 

[Emios]

Mama atheth ne natheth ne hinda ganja tikak gahamu ne

 

[ek_rosh]

Mama atheth ne natheth ne hinda ganja tikak gahamu ne

gahanna kalin kese wethath..gahuwata passe nam...mama aththeth na, naththeth na kiyala ath dhakiimenma prathyaksha karaganna puluwan wei.

 

[MalSeven]

There is one nirvana and one path. There are two ppl A and B, both have completely different introverted ecosystems which are completely correct for themselves. A's path is wrong for B. B's path is wrong for A, but nobody cares. Good, if there were 100 ppl, 100 working ecosystems, 100 working paths. Wonderful, very clear, no more questions on this. Thanks.

Haha , you can’t help it can you? You have to have the reference of the other person/s. That’s fine, I know you can’t get this concept just by reading a forum. At least know as a knowledge, there aren’t many ecosystems for nirvana, each person’s interpretation of it may be different, but the same thing. And you are welcome

OfCourse, when do you see the dharma? at sowan stage. If you can see before? no worries, intervorted. I get it.

It is kalyana mithra’s job to theoretically show it through you, but its fine if that’s not your take on this

If someone knows, what is "sammuthi" and what is "paramatta" there should not be any problem. The problem is when I say "wise" in sammuthi, the listener takes in paramatta.

I dont think buddha ever said "මම ඇත්තෙත් නැහැ නැත්තෙත් නැහැ,", where did you find this from? I ve heard waharaka thero says that though.

මම ඇත කිව්වත, මම නැත කිව්වත්, ඇත්තෙත් නැ කිව්වත්, නැත්තෙත් නැ කිව්වත් still "මම" exists.

Yes, you are right, Buddha hasn’t mentioned this as “මම” what he said is this:

සියල්ල ඇත යනු එක අන්තයකි, සියල්ල නැත යනු තවත් අන්තයකි.

People took this statement and applied to “මම”, which is fine because it is included in “සියල්ල”. What we can take from this is that Buddha also called these (සියල්ල.. මම…) as such. When you say “nothing to take as such” that is also not existing end (නැත අන්තය) that is what I am trying to point out. We have to be in the middle ground when we are talking abut this. That is all I am saying, not that you are incorrect from one end.
Edit: Not saying you are correct either, simply because we don't know the real nature when nothing is taken as such.

---

gahanna kalin kese wethath..gahuwata passe nam...mama aththeth na, naththeth na kiyala ath dhakiimenma prathyaksha karaganna puluwan wei.

ඔබතුමා කියන විදියට බැලුවොත් බුදු හාමුදුරුවොත් joint එකක් ගහල ඕක කියල තියෙන්නෙ

සියල්ල ඇත යනු එක අන්තයකි, සියල්ල නැත යනු තවත් අන්තයකි.

සියල්ල තිබිල
------ Post added on Mar 4, 2023 at 5:55 AM

 

[Emios]

Meka prathksyakda nattan meka buddha deshanawata sampurna patahenida?poddak ahala kiyanako

 

[ek_rosh]

Haha , you can’t help it can you? You have to have the reference of the other person/s. That’s fine, I know you can’t get this concept just by reading a forum. At least know as a knowledge, there aren’t many ecosystems for nirvana, each person’s interpretation of it may be different, but the same thing. And you are welcome

yup, "same thing", yet each one sees others ecosystem issues. Not sure, how one sees others ecosystem issues if they are the same.

It is kalyana mithra’s job to theoretically show it through you, but its fine if that’s not your take on this

Assuming, kalyana mitra knows what he is talking about and does his job properly.

Yes, you are right, Buddha hasn’t mentioned this as “මම” what he said is this:

සියල්ල ඇත යනු එක අන්තයකි, සියල්ල නැත යනු තවත් අන්තයකි.

People took this statement and applied to “මම”, which is fine because it is included in “සියල්ල”. What we can take from this is that Buddha also called these (සියල්ල.. මම…) as such. When you say “nothing to take as such” that is also not existing end (නැත අන්තය) that is what I am trying to point out. We have to be in the middle ground when we are talking abut this. That is all I am saying, not that you are incorrect from one end.
Edit: Not saying you are correct either, simply because we don't know the real nature when nothing is taken as such.

---

First, please dont quote something budhha has never said as if he said. You have been doing this multiple times, quoting something does not exist. So, please.

Second, hope you understand මම ඇත්තෙත් නැහැ නැත්තෙත් නැහැ and මම ඇත යනු එක අන්තයකි, මම නැත යනු තවත් අන්තයකි are completely two different things.

Third, "When you say “nothing to take as such” that is also not existing end (නැත අන්තය)"

The problem here is you are assuming not existing is as same as නැත අන්තය. They are two different things. You can only talk about either "atha" or "natha" only if there is an existence. In otherwards, both "atha" and "natha" are exitances. Hope you get it this time.

ඔබතුමා කියන විදියට බැලුවොත් බුදු හාමුදුරුවොත් joint එකක් ගහල ඕක කියල තියෙන්නෙ

සියල්ල ඇත යනු එක අන්තයකි, සියල්ල නැත යනු තවත් අන්තයකි.

සියල්ල තිබිල
------ Post added on Mar 4, 2023 at 5:55 AM

Again, like many times before, you assume what you want, not what I say. Can't help with that unfortunately.

 

[MalSeven]

yup, "same thing", yet each one sees others ecosystem issues. Not sure, how one sees others ecosystem issues if they are the same.

I guess this is too much for you to comprehend and I have no way of explaining any more about this in this medium. Wish I could though.

Assuming, kalyana mitra knows what he is talking about and does his job properly.

Again, it’s not just about kalyana mitra being correct it’s about kalyana mitra being part of the ecosystem.

First, please dont quote something budhha has never said as if he said. You have been doing this multiple times, quoting something does not exist. So, please.

Second, hope you understand මම ඇත්තෙත් නැහැ නැත්තෙත් නැහැ and මම ඇත යනු එක අන්තයකි, මම නැත යනු තවත් අන්තයකි are completely two different things.

Third, "When you say “nothing to take as such” that is also not existing end (නැත අන්තය)"

The problem here is you are assuming not existing is as same as නැත අන්තය. They are two different things. You can only talk about either "atha" or "natha" only if there is an existence. In otherwards, both "atha" and "natha" are exitances. Hope you get it this time.

Well, in fact you have no way of proving Buddha said any of that other than referring to literature. But sure, now on I will write things you can easily find from literature

[මම ඇත්තෙත් නැහැ නැත්තෙත් නැහැ and මම ඇත යනු එක අන්තයකි, මම නැත යනු තවත් අන්තයකි are completely two different things.]

That depend on how you interpret it, but none of this is our problem. The problem is you are saying “nothing to take as such (මම)”, where;

• You don’t know what sort of nature it is when nothing is taken as such, what if I tell you if there is something else there? Do you have a way to prove me wrong?
• Technically speaking, you are still referring to “මම” just replacing it with word ‘such’ means that you are still referring to it indirectly.

So, in my view nothing to take as such is simply incorrect. I think As පෘතක්ජන, best definition for us is මම ඇත යනු එක අන්තයකි, මම නැත යනු තවත් අන්තයකි (මම ඇත්තෙත් නැහැ නැත්තෙත් නැහැ)

But of course, you are free to take as you wish.

Again, like many times before, you assume what you want, not what I say. Can't help with that unfortunately.

Sure

 

[ek_rosh]

I guess this is too much for you to comprehend and I have no way of explaining any more about this in this medium. Wish I could though.

Again, it’s not just about kalyana mitra being correct it’s about kalyana mitra being part of the ecosystem.

No problem, I understand. Sometimes things can be difficult to explain when they fall apart even in obvious situations.

Well, in fact you have no way of proving Buddha said any of that other than referring to literature. But sure, now on I will write things you can easily find from literature

OfCourse, I can only refer the tripitaka. You also have no other way to bring a quote from buddha other than through pitaka. So, obviously when you say something that budda said, it has to come from pitaka, or you can assume/imagine something as if buddha said which you have been doing for a while.

[මම ඇත්තෙත් නැහැ නැත්තෙත් නැහැ and මම ඇත යනු එක අන්තයකි, මම නැත යනු තවත් අන්තයකි are completely two different things.]

That depend on how you interpret it, but none of this is our problem. The problem is you are saying “nothing to take as such (මම)”, where;

• You don’t know what sort of nature it is when nothing is taken as such, what if I tell you if there is something else there? Do you have a way to prove me wrong?

Well, if you can take "mama" from a group of impermanent, dependent sankaras, good for you. But, buddha has himself said these skandas/sakaras are not suitable to take as me or mine.

• Technically speaking, you are still referring to “මම” just replacing it with word ‘such’ means that you are still referring to it indirectly.

Yes, how am I supposed to convey the idea without words. I presume the listener is intelligent enough to get the whole idea instead of going behind the words.

So, in my view nothing to take as such is simply incorrect. I think As පෘතක්ජන, best definition for us is මම ඇත යනු එක අන්තයකි, මම නැත යනු තවත් අන්තයකි (මම ඇත්තෙත් නැහැ නැත්තෙත් නැහැ)

But of course, you are free to take as you wish.

Yes, you can take this waharaka interpretation as the best definition. But, for me? sorry no thanks.

 

[MalSeven]

No problem, I understand. Sometimes things can be difficult to explain when they fall apart even in obvious situations.

Thanks for understanding, just remember though, lord Buddha said to Angulimala “මම නැවතිලා, නුඹ නවතින්න” while he was walking, that’s also an obvious failing situation. I am in no way claiming that I said something as profound as what load Buddha said but I just want to point out that obviously failing doesn’t always mean it is wrong. You must be wise enough to grasp the underlying story.

OfCourse, I can only refer the tripitaka. You also have no other way to bring a quote from buddha other than through pitaka. So, obviously when you say something that budda said, it has to come from pitaka, or you can assume/imagine something as if buddha said which you have been doing for a while.

Yes, I know, you need it to come from the book and any interpretations need be limited by your way of thinking. Got it

Well, if you can take "mama" from a group of impermanent, dependent sankaras, good for you. But, buddha has himself said these skandas/sakaras are not suitable to take as me or mine.

I don’t claim there is anything as “මම”, at least not in this context, what I wanted to point out was, you have no way of proving whether there is something as “මම” or there is nothing as “මම”. “skandas/sakaras are not suitable to take as me or mine” is your interpretation and it still doesn’t prove there is nothing to take as මම. So simply saying there is “nothing to take as such” is just an obstacle to find the correct path because it preempts something that is way out of our reach.

Yes, how am I supposed to convey the idea without words. I presume the listener is intelligent enough to get the whole idea instead of going behind the words.

Guess the easiest way is to stop saying silly things like this , because the listener is not intelligent enough to get the whole idea unless he’s become sowan. So what’s the point?

Yes, you can take this waharaka interpretation as the best definition. But, for me? sorry no thanks.

I don’t listen to sermons of Waharaka thero, only listened to few. Seems like you have better grasp of his sermons.

As I said you are free to accept what you wish

 

[Emios]

 

[MalSeven]

Meka prathksyakda nattan meka buddha deshanawata sampurna patahenida?poddak ahala kiyanako

මම දන්නා හැටියටනම් පටහැනියි මහත්තය, සිතිවිලි අනිච්ච දුක්ඛ අනත්ත ලෙස ඇසුරු කිරීම සහ පහ කිරීම තමයි මම දන්න ආනාපාන සතිය.
නමුත් මෙහෙමත් අහල තියෙනව:
කෙනෙක්ට පුළුවන් අන්‍යතර චේතෝවිමුක්තියකින් (ලෞකික අනාපාන සතිය/හුලං භාවනා, කසින භාවනා යනාදියෙන් හතරවන ධ්‍යානයට පත්වෙල එතැන් සිට අනිච්ච දුක්ඛ අනත්ත ලෙස ඇසුරු කිරීම සහ පහ කිරීම සිද්ධ කරන්න. මේ ක්‍රමය චේතෝවිමුක්ත සූත්‍රයේ විස්තර කරල තියෙනව මගෙ හිතේ.

 

[ek_rosh]

Thanks for understanding, just remember though, lord Buddha said to Angulimala “මම නැවතිලා, නුඹ නවතින්න” while he was walking, that’s also an obvious failing situation. I am in no way claiming that I said something as profound as what load Buddha said but I just want to point out that obviously failing doesn’t always mean it is wrong. You must be wise enough to grasp the underlying story.

Remember, someone can be wise to grasp the issue of the underlying story as well.

Yes, I know, you need it to come from the book and any interpretations need be limited by your way of thinking. Got it

Yes, I can only quote from pitaka. I am limited to that. Do you have a different source to claim buddha said this or that? I would like to know.

I don’t claim there is anything as “මම”, at least not in this context, what I wanted to point out was, you have no way of proving whether there is something as “මම” or there is nothing as “මම”. “skandas/sakaras are not suitable to take as me or mine” is your interpretation and it still doesn’t prove there is nothing to take as මම. So simply saying there is “nothing to take as such” is just an obstacle to find the correct path because it preempts something that is way out of our reach.

“skandas/sakaras are not suitable to take as me or mine”

1.
“සොණය, කුමක් සිතන්නෙහිද? රූපය නිත්‍යද? අනිත්‍යද?”-“ස්වාමීනි, අනිත්‍යයි.”
“යමක් අනිත්‍ය නම් එය දුකද? සැපද?”-“ස්වාමීනි දුකය.”
“යමක් අනිත්‍ය නම්, දුක නම්, පෙරළෙන ස්වභාව නම්, ‘එය මාගේය. ඒ මම වෙමි. එය මාගේ ආත්මයයයි” දැකීම සුදුසුද?”-“ස්වාමීනි, එය එසේ නොවේය.”

2.
“මහණෙනි, නුඹලා කුමකැයි සිතන්නහුද? සංඥාව නිත්‍යය හෝ වෙයිද, අනිත්‍ය හෝ වෙයිද?” “ස්වාමීනි, අනිත්‍යයි.” “යමක් වනාහි අනිත්‍යය නම් එය දුක් හෝ වෙයිද, සැප හෝ වෙයිද?” “ස්වාමීනි, දුකය “යමක් වනාහි අනිත්‍යයද, දුක්ද පෙරලෙන සුලුද, ‘මෙය මාගේය. මෙය මම වෙමි. මෙය මාගේ ආත්මයයි’ දැකීමට සුදුසු වේද?” “ස්වාමීනි, එය නොවේමය.”

Guess the easiest way is to stop saying silly things like this , because the listener is not intelligent enough to get the whole idea unless he’s become sowan. So what’s the point?

As usual thats was your wrong interpretation on what I said. I said, when I show a man in a movie and say he is dumb, the listener should be wise enough not to go after the word "man" and try to find a real man in there.

I don’t listen to sermons of Waharaka thero, only listened to few. Seems like you have better grasp of his sermons.

As I said you are free to accept what you wish

Yes, I do, not only his but many others as well. Thats why I dont follow them and I know when someone is following that BS.

 

[Emios]

Tama rahat une nedda.man nan rahat

 

[MalSeven]

Tama rahat une nedda.man nan rahat

Almost there

---

Remember, someone can be wise to grasp the issue of the underlying story as well.

Totally agree, the question is whether that person is wise enough, just being wise isn’t going to cut it.

Yes, I can only quote from pitaka. I am limited to that. Do you have a different source to claim buddha said this or that? I would like to know.

Yes, I do, but I don’t want to open a can of worms here. As you know there are people allergic to change . Plus, it is not something that can be convoyed through an online forum.

“skandas/sakaras are not suitable to take as me or mine”

1.
“සොණය, කුමක් සිතන්නෙහිද? රූපය නිත්‍යද? අනිත්‍යද?”-“ස්වාමීනි, අනිත්‍යයි.”
“යමක් අනිත්‍ය නම් එය දුකද? සැපද?”-“ස්වාමීනි දුකය.”
“යමක් අනිත්‍ය නම්, දුක නම්, පෙරළෙන ස්වභාව නම්, ‘එය මාගේය. ඒ මම වෙමි. එය මාගේ ආත්මයයයි” දැකීම සුදුසුද?”-“ස්වාමීනි, එය එසේ නොවේය.”

2.
“මහණෙනි, නුඹලා කුමකැයි සිතන්නහුද? සංඥාව නිත්‍යය හෝ වෙයිද, අනිත්‍ය හෝ වෙයිද?” “ස්වාමීනි, අනිත්‍යයි.” “යමක් වනාහි අනිත්‍යය නම් එය දුක් හෝ වෙයිද, සැප හෝ වෙයිද?” “ස්වාමීනි, දුකය “යමක් වනාහි අනිත්‍යයද, දුක්ද පෙරලෙන සුලුද, ‘මෙය මාගේය. මෙය මම වෙමි. මෙය මාගේ ආත්මයයි’ දැකීමට සුදුසු වේද?” “ස්වාමීනි, එය නොවේමය.”

Sure, let’s say “skandas/sakaras are not suitable to take as me or mine”, how did you come up with “nothing to take as මම” from that?

As usual thats was your wrong interpretation on what I said. I said, when I show a man in a movie and say he is dumb, the listener should be wise enough not to go after the word "man" and try to find a real man in there.

Ok no problem, so what you are saying is you are not sowan yet but what you are saying can be understood by someone who’s sowan. All good!

Yes, I do, not only his but many others as well. Thats why I dont follow them and I know when someone is following that BS.

So, your dhamma should only come from certain group(s) of monks, all others are wrong by default? Good to know
------ Post added on Mar 7, 2023 at 4:10 AM

 

[ek_rosh]

Almost there

---

Totally agree, the question is whether that person is wise enough, just being wise isn’t going to cut it.

Yes, I do, but I don’t want to open a can of warms here. As you know there are people allergic to change . Plus, it is not something that can be convoyed through an online forum.

Well, if there is something available to show as buddha quotes, it should not be limited to yourself unless it is your or your teachers personal experience. Why not though a forum?

Sure, let’s say “skandas/sakaras are not suitable to take as me or mine”, how did you come up with “nothing to take as මම” from that?

“skandas/sakaras are not suitable to take as me or mine” is your interpretation"

Well, first of all, you see that it was not my interpretation like from my experience or from my teacher. It was literally in the pitaka.

Ok no problem, so what you are saying is you are not sowan yet but what you are saying can be understood by someone who’s sowan. All good!

Oh man, didnt say that either. Well, take it as how you want, coz it doesnt matter anyways you will take what you want, not what i say.

So, your dhamma should only come from certain group(s) of monks, all others are wrong by default? Good to know
------ Post added on Mar 7, 2023 at 4:10 AM

Nope, where did i say that?. Man, seriously you need some kind of help. You have a big problem.

 

[MalSeven]

Well, if there is something available to show as buddha quotes, it should not be limited to yourself unless it is your or your teachers personal experience. Why not though a forum?

First issue is, as I said before, it is part of an ecosystem so one has to first come to terms with it to at least see what I am talking about, second issue is there isn’t anything on the Internet (YouTube etc.) about it suitable to share. Even if I do share it, people like yourself call it nonsense, like you do now. Remember what happened to Einstein?

“skandas/sakaras are not suitable to take as me or mine” is your interpretation"

Well, first of all, you see that it was not my interpretation like from my experience or from my teacher. It was literally in the pitaka.

It is not literally in thripitaka, thripitaka simply says “skandas/sakaras are not suitable to take as me or mine” according to you, somehow you assume “not suitable “as “nothing”. Do you agree that “not suitable “ and “nothing” are two different things at least from the face value?

Oh man, didnt say that either. Well, take it as how you want, coz it doesnt matter anyways you will take what you want, not what i say.

• Earlier in a post you claimed that you are not yet sowan - fact
• listener should be wise enough to understand “nothing to take as මම” – anyone who can understand how මම cannot be defined as something should be sowan – fact

So, what am I missing here? You can be as hysterical as you want but those are facts

Nope, where did i say that?. Man, seriously you need some kind of help. You have a big problem.

"Yes, I do, not only his but many others as well. Thats why I dont follow them and I know when someone is following that BS."

Again facts, - "I don’t follow them", here you are singling them out as BS by default, who needs help?

 

[ek_rosh]

First issue is, as I said before, it is part of an ecosystem so one has to first come to terms with it to at least see what I am talking about, second issue is there isn’t anything on the Internet (YouTube etc.) about it suitable to share. Even if I do share it, people like yourself call it nonsense, like you do now. Remember what happened to Einstein?

Why need to be part of an ecosystem to see what buddha stated. Pitaka already has hundreds, no special subscription or terms needed. Some kind of exclusive content?

It is not literally in thripitaka, thripitaka simply says “skandas/sakaras are not suitable to take as me or mine” according to you, somehow you assume “not suitable “as “nothing”. Do you agree that “not suitable “ and “nothing” are two different things at least from the face value?

“සොණය, කුමක් සිතන්නෙහිද? රූපය නිත්‍යද? අනිත්‍යද?”-“ස්වාමීනි, අනිත්‍යයි.”
“යමක් අනිත්‍ය නම් එය දුකද? සැපද?”-“ස්වාමීනි දුකය.”
“යමක් අනිත්‍ය නම්, දුක නම්, පෙරළෙන ස්වභාව නම්, ‘එය මාගේය. ඒ මම වෙමි. එය මාගේ ආත්මයයයි” දැකීම සුදුසුද?”-“ස්වාමීනි, එය එසේ නොවේය.”

2.
“මහණෙනි, නුඹලා කුමකැයි සිතන්නහුද? සංඥාව නිත්‍යය හෝ වෙයිද, අනිත්‍ය හෝ වෙයිද?” “ස්වාමීනි, අනිත්‍යයි.” “යමක් වනාහි අනිත්‍යය නම් එය දුක් හෝ වෙයිද, සැප හෝ වෙයිද?” “ස්වාමීනි, දුකය “යමක් වනාහි අනිත්‍යයද, දුක්ද පෙරලෙන සුලුද, ‘මෙය මාගේය. මෙය මම වෙමි. මෙය මාගේ ආත්මයයි’ දැකීමට සුදුසු වේද?” “ස්වාමීනි, එය නොවේමය.”

First, what do these suttas say? skandas/sakaras are suitable to take as me or mine or not?

• Earlier in a post you claimed that you are not yet sowan - fact
• listener should be wise enough to understand “nothing to take as මම” – anyone who can understand how මම cannot be defined as something should be sowan – fact

So, what am I missing here? You can be as hysterical as you want but those are facts

I dont know what you are talking about. I was talking about the difference between "sammuthi" and "paramaartha". Someone should be wise enough not to mix these two up. Like the movie example. Not, sure where sowan or not is coming from.

"Yes, I do, not only his but many others as well. Thats why I dont follow them and I know when someone is following that BS."

Again facts, - "I don’t follow them", here you are singling them out as BS by default, who needs help?

I have listened to them; I saw the problem and then I dont follow. Quote me where i did say "all others are wrong by default? "

 

[MalSeven]

Why need to be part of an ecosystem to see what buddha stated. Pitaka already has hundreds, no special subscription or terms needed. Some kind of exclusive content?

See, again you are expecting something for your knowledge here. The point is that it is not just knowledge, so even if I just give some details and links to follow, I know for a fact that the whole thing will end up in your nonsense bucket. That will then stop you from following it in future (in this life or beyond) and I don’t won’t to be the person to do that .
Content wise it’s not exclusive but interpretation wise, it is.

“සොණය, කුමක් සිතන්නෙහිද? රූපය නිත්‍යද? අනිත්‍යද?”-“ස්වාමීනි, අනිත්‍යයි.”
“යමක් අනිත්‍ය නම් එය දුකද? සැපද?”-“ස්වාමීනි දුකය.”
“යමක් අනිත්‍ය නම්, දුක නම්, පෙරළෙන ස්වභාව නම්, ‘එය මාගේය. ඒ මම වෙමි. එය මාගේ ආත්මයයයි” දැකීම සුදුසුද?”-“ස්වාමීනි, එය එසේ නොවේය.”

2.
“මහණෙනි, නුඹලා කුමකැයි සිතන්නහුද? සංඥාව නිත්‍යය හෝ වෙයිද, අනිත්‍ය හෝ වෙයිද?” “ස්වාමීනි, අනිත්‍යයි.” “යමක් වනාහි අනිත්‍යය නම් එය දුක් හෝ වෙයිද, සැප හෝ වෙයිද?” “ස්වාමීනි, දුකය “යමක් වනාහි අනිත්‍යයද, දුක්ද පෙරලෙන සුලුද, ‘මෙය මාගේය. මෙය මම වෙමි. මෙය මාගේ ආත්මයයි’ දැකීමට සුදුසු වේද?” “ස්වාමීනි, එය නොවේමය.”

First, what do these suttas say? skandas/sakaras are suitable to take as me or mine or not?

Not suitable is one thing not possible is another, don’t you even see that difference? When you say “nothing to take as me” you have already come to the conclusion that it is not possible. Don’t you see that something can be taken as ‘me’ even if it is not suitable?

I dont know what you are talking about. I was talking about the difference between "sammuthi" and "paramaartha". Someone should be wise enough not to mix these two up. Like the movie example. Not, sure where sowan or not is coming from.

That’s my point, you are trying to explain “paramaartha” via “sammuthi”, paramaartha is not something we have any idea of… just saying things like “nothing to take as me” doesn’t mean you are talking “paramaartha”, you are just stating the sammuthi interpretation of what you think that paramaartha is. Most likely that can be far from the truth.

I have listened to them; I saw the problem and then I dont follow. Quote me where i did say "all others are wrong by default? "

To be clear, what do you have the problem with? Any sermon by a thero from Waharaka Clan? Or something else?