identity with a mundane self which exists as a product of the 5 shandas.
melting of the individualistic isolated self into sameness.
replacement of any kind of identity with emptiness, complete dissolution of me and mine. vanishing of the 5 skhandas. is this the same as sunyatman.
complete dissolution of all that one is or was. total emptiness.
is speculation along these lines of any benefit? could the linguistic roots of these words be taken to all be relating to a state of self/selflessness?
Self is the object designated in dependence on the aggregates. In this sense the self exists conventionally but not inherently.
agreed, though for most people there is intuition of a self, the self is dependent upon the skhandas. perhaps there could be a breaking up of this intuition, its replacement with a certainty of emptiness. in other words an experience of the reality behind the skhandas. emptiness, or abscence rather than presence.
Sunyata of the person is just this: Negation of the inherent existence of the self.
Tmingyr, could you please clarify what you mean by inherent existence of the self. do you mean its intuitive (sentiment/feeling) presence as defined by the presence of five complete skhandas. not yet broken up. if this is what you mean. then negation of that intuition would mean the breaking up or dissolving of the five skhandas?
white lotus. x
TMingyur wrote:Self is the object designated in dependence on the aggregates. In this sense the self exists conventionally but not inherently. Sunyata of the person is just this: Negation of the inherent existence of the self.
If self exists it cannot be negated. All that can be negated are various ideas about self.
white lotus. x
what kind of trolls?!
rock trolls, marsh trolls, troublesome trolls or goodly trolls?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot], narhwal90, Yahoo [Bot] and 11 guests