Many thanks for your long and prompt response. I have to go slow. I'll take just one point at a time.
N: True, in the ultimate sense there is no person, no self. What we
take for a person is only: citta, cetasika and ruupa, dhammas that
arise and then fall away immediately.
----------------------------------------------
DC: What you say above is contrary to our experience. If there is no 'Nina', with whom am I carrying on this discussion? I did not respond to 'citta, cetasika, and ruupa'.
I responded to a 'human being'.
Nina citta, cetasika and ruupa are just words without a meaning!!!
To carry on a conversation, using a language, we need words and the meaning of words need to agreed (vohaara or sammuti).
Please give mea definition for the words you used above, which I can understand and then agree (or disagree).
What is your authority for saying: what we take for a person is only: citta, cetasika and ruupa, dhammas that
arise and then fall away immediately. I would be grateful to have the Sutta references; the Buddha's own words.
Thank you again for devoting so much time to explain dhamma to me.
With mettaa,
D. G. D. C. Wijeratna
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]