සෝවාන් ඵලයට පමුණවන සතිපට්ඨානය හෙවත් යෝනිසෝමනසිකාරය

[ek_rosh]

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.

Well, a buddha's statement is content/knowledge.

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 know it's not the same. Let's talk about it in a bit.

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

First, this is not my interpretation or something. It is just what sutta says. Agree?

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.

At least one thing you got here correct - "paramaartha is not something we have any idea of".

You have been claiming, you can prove by logics, etc from the beginning. I wonder how you would prove something we have no idea of.

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

Nice move. We can talk about it in a different post. I'm still waiting for "Quote me where i did say "all others are wrong by default? ""

 

[MalSeven]

Well, a buddha's statement is content/knowledge.

It can be taken as knowledge but there isn’t any use of it as knowledge, it’s very little to do with the knowledge IMO. Is the knowledge of Saripuththa Thero same as Suneetha Thero? But they are same in rahath pala.

I know it's not the same. Let's talk about it in a bit.

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

First, this is not my interpretation or something. It is just what sutta says. Agree?

Agree, but depends on what do you mean by ‘අනිත්‍ය’, ‘දුක්’, ‘ආත්ම’ and ‘පෙරැළෙන’ in following sentence.

යමක් වනාහි අනිත්‍යද, දුක් ද, පෙරැළෙන සැහැවි ඇත් ද, “තෙලෙ මාගේ යැ, තෙලෙ මම වෙමි, තෙලෙ මාගේ ආත්ම” යි දක්නට සුදුසු ද? වහන්ස, තෙලෙ නො වේ මැ යි.

At least one thing you got here correct - "paramaartha is not something we have any idea of".

You have been claiming, you can prove by logics, etc from the beginning. I wonder how you would prove something we have no idea of.

I naver said that I was able to prove how මම cannot be defined as something, where did I say that? I said dhamma can be verified by life experience. That has nothing to do with proving ‘paramaartha’

Nice move. We can talk about it in a different post. I'm still waiting for "Quote me where i did say "all others are wrong by default? ""

Sure,

“all others are wrong by default?” is a question to you + an assumption, not a statement.

 

[Emios]

Sathek pudgalayek sanchaywak netuwa,loba dwesha netuwa spa ekak demoth mokada wenne.apaye yanawada?

 

[MalSeven]

Sathek pudgalayek sanchaywak netuwa,loba dwesha netuwa spa ekak demoth mokada wenne.apaye yanawada?

Naha

 

[Emios]

Naha

 

[MalSeven]

 

[ek_rosh]

It can be taken as knowledge but there isn’t any use of it as knowledge, it’s very little to do with the knowledge IMO. Is the knowledge of Saripuththa Thero same as Suneetha Thero? But they are same in rahath pala.

I think you are moving towards a different direction now. If buddha said such and such, it is a statement. Thats is content/knowledge. You can't generate a statement, or something though your experience or your ecosystem and say it was said by Buddha. No rocket science there.

Agree, but depends on what do you mean by ‘අනිත්‍ය’, ‘දුක්’, ‘ආත්ම’ and ‘පෙරැළෙන’ in following sentence.

යමක් වනාහි අනිත්‍යද, දුක් ද, පෙරැළෙන සැහැවි ඇත් ද, “තෙලෙ මාගේ යැ, තෙලෙ මම වෙමි, තෙලෙ මාගේ ආත්ම” යි දක්නට සුදුසු ද? වහන්ස, තෙලෙ නො වේ මැ යි.

OK, why is it not suitable to take as me or mine?

I naver said that I was able to prove how මම cannot be defined as something, where did I say that? I said dhamma can be verified by life experience. That has nothing to do with proving ‘paramaartha’

There is nothing such as proving 'paramatta'. You said, you can logically prove noble truths. No, take the 1st one. 5 clinging aggregates are dukka. What are 5 clinging aggregates? rupa CA, wedana CA,...etc. All are paramatta dharmas.

On the other hand you say 'we have no any idea about paramatta'.

Which means, you can logically prove something (which you have no any idea about) dukka... see the problem?

Sure,

“all others are wrong by default?” is a question to you + an assumption, not a statement.

OK, assumption again.

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

Now, show me your facts. Where did I say I am wiping them out as BS by default?

---

Sathek pudgalayek sanchaywak netuwa,loba dwesha netuwa spa ekak demoth mokada wenne.apaye yanawada?

Kawda dan apaaye yanne?
------ Post added on Mar 7, 2023 at 11:30 AM

 

[Emios]

---

Kawda dan apaaye yanne?
------ Post added on Mar 7, 2023 at 11:30 AM

Rahatek sathek maruwoth apaye yanne nedda?

 

[MalSeven]

I think you are moving towards a different direction now. If buddha said such and such, it is a statement. Thats is content/knowledge. You can't generate a statement, or something though your experience or your ecosystem and say it was said by Buddha. No rocket science there.

My point is, just knowing it as knowledge is not enough. As I said, the interpretations of it is the difference, not the knowledge you have. What matters most is how everything works together in a complete ecosystem with that interpretations. That’s why I am saying just putting information here will not going to help.

OK, why is it not suitable to take as me or mine?

That’s the million-dollar question, right? The simple answer and the one everyone know is “because skandhas are anichcha, dukkha and anaththa”.

That implies anything that is anichcha, dukkha and anaththa is not suitable to take as me, now my question to you is how did you come up with “there is nothing to be taken as me” from above?

There is nothing such as proving 'paramatta'. You said, you can logically prove noble truths. No, take the 1st one. 5 clinging aggregates are dukka. What are 5 clinging aggregates? rupa CA, wedana CA,...etc. All are paramatta dharmas.

On the other hand you say 'we have no any idea about paramatta'.

Which means, you can logically prove something (which you have no any idea about) dukka... see the problem?

As I told you many times before, we not proving those, we are proving the effects (things we can feel) That has nothing to do with paramatta, what we are working on is the world that appear around us due to those paramatta, those are two different things.

OK, assumption again.

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

Now, show me your facts. Where did I say I am wiping them out as BS by default?

---

You specifically said you don’t follow them and all they say is BS so it is fair to assume that you consider anything that came out of that clan is incorrect, irrespective of who the person is.

 

[Emios]

Dan eliye kawuruwath nattan mae okoma argue karagena tiyenne tama ekkamane

 

[MalSeven]

Dan eliye kawuruwath nattan mae okoma argue karagena tiyenne tama ekkamane

කවුරුවත් නැහැ කියල මම නම් කිව්වෙ නැහැ

 

[Emios]

කවුරුවත් නැහැ කියල මම නම් කිව්වෙ නැහැ

E unata okoma ape upadanane?

 

[MalSeven]

E unata okoma ape upadanane?

ඔව් මහත්තය, උපාදාන තියෙන තැන මම විද්‍යාමාන වෙනවනෙ

 

[Emios]

ඔව් මහත්තය, උපාදාන තියෙන තැන මම විද්‍යාමාන වෙනවනෙ

Itin eliye kawuruwath nane okoma upadanane

 

[MalSeven]

Itin eliye kawuruwath nane okoma upadanane

නැත කියන්න බැහැනෙ මහත්තය විද්‍යාමාන වෙනවනම්. ඇත කියන්නත් බැහැ.

 

[ek_rosh]

My point is, just knowing it as knowledge is not enough. As I said, the interpretations of it is the difference, not the knowledge you have. What matters most is how everything works together in a complete ecosystem with that interpretations. That’s why I am saying just putting information here will not going to help.

You are talking about something else. None of these matters. You can't simply assume something and say Buddha said that. It has nothing to do with ecosystem or whatever. I dont understand why you are beating around the bush.

That’s the million-dollar question, right? The simple answer and the one everyone know is “because skandhas are anichcha, dukkha and anaththa”.

That implies anything that is anichcha, dukkha and anaththa is not suitable to take as me, now my question to you is how did you come up with “there is nothing to be taken as me” from above?

OK, now why not suitable if something is anicca?

As I told you many times before, we not proving those, we are proving the effects (things we can feel) That has nothing to do with paramatta, what we are working on is the world that appear around us due to those paramatta, those are two different things.

Well, the question is how you prove the 3 marks through your effects. Also, these effects, world all are sammuthi. How do you prove something in paramatta thought sammuthi?

You specifically said you don’t follow them and all they say is BS so it is fair to assume that you consider anything that came out of that clan is incorrect, irrespective of who the person is.

"fair to assume that you consider"

Ok, "assuming" for the second time in the same context.

1. Not tell me, how did your assumption turn to a fact?

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

2. Also tell me where I said this

You specifically said you don’t follow them and all they say is BS

 

[MalSeven]

You are talking about something else. None of these matters. You can't simply assume something and say Buddha said that. It has nothing to do with ecosystem or whatever. I dont understand why you are beating around the bush.

So, you want to know if I know anything different to what you know from knowledge perspective, my answer is I don’t know anything different, I use the same book you use, only difference is I interpret that book different to way you interpret it.

Not beating around the bush, I will give you an example, I claim that:

• All 5 skandhas are actually one skandha,
• I can define that one skandha (above) as from of energy
• When a mind interacts with this energy, 5 skandhas appear
• 5 skandhas and this one skandha are in a cycle in the precense of avidaya, thrushna
• Out of the 5 skandhas that appear, roopa (roopa kalapa) has a TTL of 20 anthah kalpa and other 4 has maximum of 17 chiththakshana

Now isn’t this going to open can of worms with you because you have no context or full picture on what am I talking about?

Did I answer your question?

OK, now why not suitable if something is anicca?

That depends on what anicca is right? Anicca to me is the inseparable nature of things, so “මම” inherits this same nature, therefore, it is not suitable to take as a separate entity. Now tell me why you say there is nothing to take as “මම”?

Well, the question is how you prove the 3 marks through your effects. Also, these effects, world all are sammuthi. How do you prove something in paramatta thought sammuthi?

I have written that in an old post in high level, how we can prove patichchasammuppada by taking life experience. Please refer to that. Don't want to write same thing over and over.

"fair to assume that you consider"

Ok, "assuming" for the second time in the same context.

1. Not tell me, how did your assumption turn to a fact?

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

2. Also tell me where I said this

You specifically said you don’t follow them and all they say is BS

This is the fact: "I don’t follow them" them meaning “Whaharaka Monks” and the reason for this is according to your own statement because they say BS. Again, they mean “Whaharaka Monks” - this is your own statement

So, in fact this is not an assumption. Your statement clearly says All Whaharaka Monks say BS. There is not even an ambiguity here, I was being nice to use the word “assume” . My only assumption is that you are someone who doesn't like BS. or are you not?

 

[ek_rosh]

So, you want to know if I know anything different to what you know from knowledge perspective, my answer is I don’t know anything different, I use the same book you use, only difference is I interpret that book different to way you interpret it.

Not beating around the bush, I will give you an example, I claim that:

• All 5 skandhas are actually one skandha,
• I can define that one skandha (above) as from of energy
• When a mind interacts with this energy, 5 skandhas appear
• 5 skandhas and this one skandha are in a cycle in the precense of avidaya, thrushna
• Out of the 5 skandhas that appear, roopa (roopa kalapa) has a TTL of 20 anthah kalpa and other 4 has maximum of 17 chiththakshana

Now isn’t this going to open can of worms with you because you have no context or full picture on what am I talking about?

Did I answer your question?

OK, so although you said buddha said "මම ඇත්තෙත් නැහැ නැත්තෙත් නැහැ", which is not in the pitaka. You dont have another source to show either. So, I guess that is something you fabricated although you said buddha said it. No, more question on this.

That depends on what anicca is right? Anicca to me is the inseparable nature of things, so “මම” inherits this same nature, therefore, it is not suitable to take as a separate entity. Now tell me why you say there is nothing to take as “මම”?

1. Why is it not suitable to take something inseparable as "mama"?
2. What is suitable to take as "mama"?

I have written that in an old post in high level, how we can prove patichchasammuppada by taking life experience. Please refer to that. Don't want to write same thing over and over.

Dont remember logically proving 3 marks, which is the core for noble truths.

This is the fact: "I don’t follow them" them meaning “Whaharaka Monks” and the reason for this is according to your own statement because they say BS. Again, they mean “Whaharaka Monks” - this is your own statement

So, in fact this is not an assumption. Your statement clearly says All Whaharaka Monks say BS. There is not even an ambiguity here, I was being nice to use the word “assume” . My only assumption is that you are someone who doesn't like BS. or are you not?

Again facts, - "I don’t follow them", here you are singling them out as BS by default, who needs help?
You specifically said you don’t follow them and all they say is BS

Again, beating around the bush. You are omitting the key words to make it again as you want as usual. Let me ask directly.

1. Where did I say, "Im singling out as BS BY DEFAULT"?
2. I don't follow them and ALL THEY SAY IS BS?

No stories please, directly point them.

 

[MalSeven]

OK, so although you said buddha said "මම ඇත්තෙත් නැහැ නැත්තෙත් නැහැ", which is not in the pitaka. You dont have another source to show either. So, I guess that is something you fabricated although you said buddha said it. No, more question on this.

Ok no probs.
Yes, for you it is fabricated so let’s call it that.

1. Why is it not suitable to take something inseparable as "mama"?
2. What is suitable to take as "mama"?

1. Because ‘mama’ is an inseparable entity by definition (anicca)
2. If available, upadana skandhas are suitable to take as 'mama'

So. why are you saying there is nothing to take as “mama”?

Dont remember logically proving 3 marks, which is the core for noble truths.

I have done for ‘Samudaya Sathya” (patichchasamuppada) have a look, if its true for one, true for others by definition.

Again facts, - "I don’t follow them", here you are singling them out as BS by default, who needs help?
You specifically said you don’t follow them and all they say is BS

Again, beating around the bush. You are omitting the key words to make it again as you want as usual. Let me ask directly.

1. Where did I say, "Im singling out as BS BY DEFAULT"?
2. I don't follow them and ALL THEY SAY IS BS?

No stories please, directly point them.

Here it is:
You were replying to my question about Waharaka thero's sermons

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.

This is to me (and to any reasonable person) says that you take sermons from any Waharaka Thero and others from the clan as BS.
But sure, you can backpaddle as usual

 

[ek_rosh]

Ok no probs.
Yes, for you it is fabricated so let’s call it that.

If you dont have another source than the pitaka, and what you quoted was not in the pitaka either. It is pretty simple logic right? It doesn't have to be exclusive to me. Anyone can get it.

1. Because ‘mama’ is an inseparable entity by definition (anicca)
2. If available, upadana skandhas are suitable to take as 'mama'

So. why are you saying there is nothing to take as “mama”?

"Because ‘mama’ is an inseparable entity by definition (anicca)" Where did you get this definition from? Also, not sure what you mean exactly.

2. Can you elaborate it bit?. Not sure what you mean.

I have done for ‘Samudaya Sathya” (patichchasamuppada) have a look, if its true for one, true for others by definition.

I don't think they will prove 3 marks.

Here it is:
You were replying to my question about Waharaka thero's sermons

This is to me (and to any reasonable person) says that you take sermons from any Waharaka Thero and others from the clan as BS.
But sure, you can backpaddle as usual

"This is to me (and to any reasonable person) says" - Is this what you refer to be a fact? and do you even know what reasonable person say on this? lol. another assumption to cover previous one.

You still didn't answer:

1. Where did I say, "Im singling out as BS BY DEFAULT"?
2. I don't follow them and ALL THEY SAY IS BS?

Please highlight where i ve said them here:

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.