DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**topcasinobonua** · 06-25-2011, 03:13 AM

I view this as an ontological statement, despite everyone's objections. The impermanence of leaves falling from trees or the forming of planets in other solar system is not dependent on mental cognition.

Their being not-self does not say anything about the nature of their existence, though. It simply tells us that things are not me, not mine. Conversely, it matters not whether things are "inherently existent" or " exist from their own side" or not. Either way, the Buddha's teaching that they are "not me, not mine". "Me" and "Mine" are the source of dukkha here, not some irrelevant speculative equivocation of "inherent existence - or -not".

06-25-2011, 03:13 AM	#8
topcasinobonua Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 502 Senior Member	I view this as an ontological statement, despite everyone's objections. The impermanence of leaves falling from trees or the forming of planets in other solar system is not dependent on mental cognition. Their being not-self does not say anything about the nature of their existence, though. It simply tells us that things are not me, not mine. Conversely, it matters not whether things are "inherently existent" or " exist from their own side" or not. Either way, the Buddha's teaching that they are "not me, not mine". "Me" and "Mine" are the source of dukkha here, not some irrelevant speculative equivocation of "inherent existence - or -not".
	Quote