Lucky7Strikes

Of course, nothing is purely theoretical, as it must somehow be derived from an experience of reality. The extreme does exist in practice between those who see an objective reality to be theorized upon and not incorporating their subjective influence on experience. No, direct knowing is a simultaneousness of knowing and the evidence of that knowing in experience.

Ah ok. Good luck in your practice. _/\_. .

But I am curious since you've been a fan of Xabir's stuff. Has the direct realization of I AM arisen?

No not necessarily. This isn't really a progressive way of practice as it leads to an unconscious aversion to formulations of thoughts. Just observations...please don't take them too literally... it was fun debating with you

Well, that's a good attitude to have until one's meditation deepens to know directly I guess.

The grasping of self is one of the conditions for rebirth, so one should not cling to the views of a self existing before or after death without direct knowing, because then it becomes an attachment. Reincarnation is a core concept in Buddhist thought. If you do not believe in rebirth then you believe in anhilation, which is an extreme the Buddha cautioned against.

I was referring to philosophers who have views that are merely theoretical that do not apply it to their experience beyond putting it on paper. There is a difference in contemplative knowing and direct knowing, for instance the difference in theorizing the pressures one should apply to pedaling a bicycle and the actual pedaling.

In my interpretation there is no contradiction, only in yours. And views of no-self leads to suffering also. I think the discussion stops here. "Oh, it cannot be described" is more or less a dead end in these discussions.

And so why does the Buddha, in the same sentence, warn against views of no-self? But back to the point: Process of change is the opposite of continuity??? Which is stoppage? If you will say, as you do with the concept of change, there is nothing continuing, just continuance, how is this directly seen? Does continuance see continuance?

Reincarnation is not a thicket of views, it is a direct realization and one of the Buddha's abilities to know his former lives...as stated in the pali canons.

You're missing the whole point of this discourse. This discourse is on the negatives of ideological "views" even of "self or no self" etc. It's cautioning against meaningless intellectual contemplation without practice without true knowing, the error of philosophers.

What's that? Has the universe stopped...

And is process without things continuous?????

The pali canon is laden with references to reincarnation. Samsara is often described as cycle of rebirth. The 12 dependent origination is how birth is originated from delusion, etc.

Again, not necessarily so. I can have a thought of a cup, or a duck and know very well these things are impermanent and one day die or decay...

This doesn't negate reincarnation....anyway back to the: You say that things are impermanent, in fact that there are no "things." But then you say it is not continuous, there is only change! What is the experience of "just" change? Is it by any chance continuous?????

What does this mean? (sounds like a cop out if you don't really understand it) I edited the above post by the way, in case you miss it to clarify.

Reincarnation is not one of them!

You say that things are impermanent, in fact that there are no "things." But then you say it is not continuous, there is only change! What is the experience of "just" change? Is it by any chance continuous?????

The Buddha mentions rebirth and reincarnation many many times in the Pali canon...

And is water continuing? As in is there a continuity to this illusion of solidity?

Ah! So there is the nature of thought and the content of thought. Is the nature of something continuous? If we are to become aware of the nature of thought, is there a separation between the awareness of thought and the content of the thought?

Who said anything about human nature? As a side note, do you believe in reincarnation?

It seems like you are describing direct experience of things (in your sense, sensations) vs. descriptions of that direct experience. But aren't descriptive thoughts just as direct as sensations? You haven't address my original inquiry. What is the difference between the experience of the so called illusion of solidity in thought and the so called non-solidity of thought as you brought up?