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

**AncewwewBus** · 06-25-2011, 07:28 AM

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".

I am not referring to dukkha here. I am referring to the characteristic of things, which includes their impermanence. My view is of course the "inherent" nature of things matters. If they were not inherently that way, there would be no need for the mind to realise their nature to facilitate letting go. My view is if there was no birth-aging-illness-death characteristic, the need for Dhamma would be reduced.

06-25-2011, 07:28 AM	#11
AncewwewBus Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 468 Senior Member	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". I am not referring to dukkha here. I am referring to the characteristic of things, which includes their impermanence. My view is of course the "inherent" nature of things matters. If they were not inherently that way, there would be no need for the mind to realise their nature to facilitate letting go. My view is if there was no birth-aging-illness-death characteristic, the need for Dhamma would be reduced.
	Quote