thuscomeone

Our dispute, I believe, lies in our different definitions of identity.

Right, sameness is purely conventional. It does not exist in actuality. One different detail from moment to moment destroys sameness. Perhaps I have been a bit extreme. I of course admit that things are similiar. But that absolutely does not make them the same. Sure things are similiar, but they are not similiar enough for our concepts to ultimately apply to them. That is my whole point. One thought and the next thought are similiar but not the same. The word "thought" creates the illusion that they are exactly the same. If the word "thought" could ultimately apply to thoughts, thoughts would have to all be the same. Thought changes from moment to moment. Therefore there is no fixed thing called "thought." Right, the shirt is only a shirt in context. Therefore it is not really a truly existing "shirt." If it were, it would never change. I already told you. Because of observation, logic, reasoning, etc.

The mind is able to compare two moments and discern their differences, if that is what you are trying to say. There is no "super awareness" apart from thoughts and sensations.

One must use the mind to go beyond the mind.

Your mind, logic, reasoning, common sense, etc.

"Similiar" does not = same. Say I have two black T shirts. One is plain black and other is black with red letters on it. The plain one has the tag cut off and the other doesn't. Are they similiar? Yes. Are they the same? No. If they were the same, then both would be plain black and have the tags cut off. Now think of two moments of consciousness; imagine one as the plain black shirt and the other as the black shirt with red letters and the tag cut off. Are the two moments similiar? Yes. Are they the same? No. If they were the same, the first moment of consciousness would continue forever. Further apply this to experience. One moment I'm sitting in a room by myself. Suddenly, someone bursts into my room. Are the two moments similiar? Sure. Are they the same? No. If sameness and continuity were true, I would be sitting in that room alone and everything would be in a fixed position around me forever. Relational identity is the only identity possible in a logical universe, but it is still not real identity. The point of all this is that the labels we slap on reality are far too simple in the face of its complexity. And even if we weren't arguing ontology, it would still be true that grasping at permanence results in the majority of suffering.

And relational identity is not real identity. True identity must be individual, unique, own being, distinct. If A gets its identity from B, then A does not have a real identity of its own. It only has a relative or conventional one. As said before, true identity would result in a completely absurd universe where nothing could change or interact. There would just be static entities floating around in space.

You are missing the point. Let me say this again, as it is most important. Let me put it this way. If your mind is changing all the time, what is it? It is different from one moment to the next, correct? So to take that concept "mind" and impute it onto those two different moments is obviously a deluded cognition. Obviously it is, because by calling both of these moments "mind", you are saying that they are the same. And the Buddha ultimately denied both causes and conditions and spontaneity. Let's not get into rebirth.

I told you already. Through conventional means. Are you aware of what an identity is? Impermanence means that there cannot possibly be an identity. Identity is sameness/continuity. Change is difference/discontinuity. Change allows all things to be. This is Buddhism 101. You are grasping at permanence. That way lies samsara. Let me put it this way. If your mind is changing all the time, what is it? It is different from one moment to the next, correct? So to take that concept "mind" and impute it onto those two different moments is obviously a deluded cognition. In the ultimate sphere, time does not exist. Time requires objects and measuring those objects. "Objects" are solid, enduring entities imputed by concepts. Impermanence ultimately means that there are no changing objects, only change. Hence there is no time.

Faster, slower -- it is still change. It doesn't matter. If there is change at all, there is no continuity possible. Period. Continuity is stability. Some-thing endures. As I said before, taking continuity to it's logical conclusion would result in an absurd universe. Impermanence is not nihilism. I proved that to you within what you labeled as "junk." But let me restate it again. Impermanence is not nihilism because it says there is not something, nor is there nothing, nor is there both, or neither.

Which is what? This is exactly the understanding of anicca taught by the Buddha. Not trying to argue from authority here, but if you have some other interpretation of it that is not supported by the canon, I'd like to know.

No, "my stuff" comes mostly from The Buddha and J. Krishnamurti (who I believe to have taught more of the Buddha's original teachings than most "Buddhists" today). There is no continuity in the looking. It is transient thought watching thought, not a permanent watcher. Not sure what you mean about "what realizes?" A duck looks like a transient phenomena that I have assigned a permanency creating label to either out of ignorance or for the sake of conventional truth. No, anatta is the absence of atta (permanence). Thought creates the illusion of atta. I never said that one is incapable of discernment anymore. You constantly conflate absolute and conventional truths. I mean no disrespect, but this is going no where and I have failed to convince you as you obviously continue to misunderstand me. I am going to have to bow out of this discussion.

You're trying to get me to admit some solidity. I see it. With conventional truth, judgements can be made, discernments can be made, points can be argued and we can come down on what is correct and incorrect. I know that because of correct conventional truth I.e., the finger pointing to the moon, reading the correct map, etc. Correct conventional truth is impermanence. For example, we start, as we always do, at the conventional level, by asking the question "what is reality?" We would start by saying that our reality is basically form, mind, perception, volition, and sensation -- the five aggregates in Buddhism. We wouldn't say that our reality is made up unicorns and fairies sprinkling magical dust on our heads, would we? No, that is obviously incorrect. Then we look at these aggregates and see that they are always changing. It would be incorrect to say that they endure forever, right? We then see that they are Changing so fast that they couldn't possibly have any stable identity to them (or any continuity). This is the realization of anicca. Then we look at our thoughts and see that they create the illusion of solidity. Then we see the disconnect between actuality (change) and our thoughts (stability). This is the realization of anatta. Then we stop projecting those thoughts onto our experience and our suffering ceases (well, not that easily). So you can see that there is such a thing as correct and incorrect conventional perception. Wrong conventional perception is belief in solidity. Right conventional perception is seeing that there is just impermanence. But when you really see that impermanence that the conventional has correctly pointed you to, you see that even the concept impermanence cannot apply to it. Because impermanence too is a thought which supposes continuity/solidity where there is none. So impermanence, permanence (and is, is not, both is and is not, neither is or is not as you say) are all dissolved in the face of ultimate truth. All views, speculations, rights and wrongs, judgements and discernments cease.

I'm sure it did at some point in my practice. I don't know, I've been through a lot of different, strange mindstates. I'm not really concerned with his "7 stages map" anymore, though. Has it arisen for you?

I don't have an aversion to thoughts... but yeah, good debating.

No, I don't believe in rebirth or non-rebirth. Any view is an attachment.

No, there is contradiction because the Buddha states that there is rebirth at certain times in the canon and refuses to answer the question at other times. Yes, I just said that they lead to suffering. Very well. You have misinterpreted a lot of what I have said, but it has been good arguing with you.

To be clear once again, I am not saying that there is a self or that there isn't a self.

Well he doesn't directly state that they should be abandonded in that quote. But seeing as how his whole teaching is about ending suffering and in that entire quoted section he talks about how views of self lead to suffering. Put 2 and 2 together and...

Because no-self still involves a self. no-SELF. No, it cannot be described. Stoppage, continuance -- they don't apply. Right in front of you, the Buddha is saying that views of self lead to suffering and should be abandonded. Rebirth involves a view of self. Ergo... Has the Buddha contradicted himself in the pali canon? You tell me.

No, I really am not missing it. It is quite simple. Any view which contains a "self" contains within it the seeds of suffering. Any view of rebirth contains a view of self. It is cautioning against the thicket of views that lead to suffering. It is not about finding the right view of self.

And what is the true state of affairs? True impermanence means exactly that -- discontinuity. Otherwise, well...you have continuity.

No. It is the opposite of continuity.