Hi Kirk,
As I said, we will probably never agree. But to me, however you want to label it, there is a very obvious difference between the conditioned physical/mental activities (i.e. khandhas) that anicca applies to (as in my above quote) and concepts such as "1+1=2" or "self". The "thinking about" those concepts rises, persists, and ceases. The concepts are just concepts.
It's very likely the labels that are the sticking point...
What I'm saying, is, of course basically standard Theravada doctrine, but I don't think one needs to drag in the whole baggage of paramattha dhammas and so on to appreciate these distinctions.
Some arguments against this view seem to be arguing that the khandhas are conditioned, so therefore are also "conceptual", so the distinction into "conceptual" and "non-conceptual" is useless. There is, of course, some fuzziness in any classification. However, I think that the argument glosses over some important and useful distinctions.
Mike
Everything is impermanent??
Re: Everything is impermanent??
Hi, Mike, Kirk, et al,mikenz66 wrote:Hi Kirk,
As I said, we will probably never agree. But to me, however you want to label it, there is a very obvious difference between the conditioned physical/mental activities (i.e. khandhas) that anicca applies to (as in my above quote) and concepts such as "1+1=2" or "self". The "thinking about" those concepts rises, persists, and ceases. The concepts are just concepts.
It's very likely the labels that are the sticking point...
Platonic idealism could creep in here, for good or ill. It could be argued that any given triangle, for instance, is impermanent but triangularity is permanent ...
Kim
Re: Everything is impermanent??
Yes, that's exactly the sort of error that I think one makes by assuming that anicca applies everywhere.Kim O'Hara wrote:[
Platonic idealism could creep in here, for good or ill. It could be argued that any given triangle, for instance, is impermanent but triangularity is permanent ...
It would be meaningless, and certainly not conducive to liberation, to try to discern the anicca-ness of triangularity.
Mike
Re: Everything is impermanent??
I wonder if part of the difference in perspective is a difference in what part of a "concept" is the most salient.
If we consider a concept in terms of what it represents in general as a single thing, we could say that anicca doesn't apply because that generalized nature of the concept is in fact, not something that actually exists out there somehow, it's just an abstraction. (intentionally avoiding a Platonic implication, here)
If we consider a concept in terms of the parts that comprise it, it might make sense to say that a concept is subject to anicca because all the actual mental pieces and events which make it up it can be seen to change over time. When I saw a green apple for the first time, my concept of "apple" gained a new association. I don't think it's too dangerous to say that at that point, my concept changed. And just as we learn new things, we forget, too.
I don't think either is really wrong but it depends how you look at it.
If we consider a concept in terms of what it represents in general as a single thing, we could say that anicca doesn't apply because that generalized nature of the concept is in fact, not something that actually exists out there somehow, it's just an abstraction. (intentionally avoiding a Platonic implication, here)
If we consider a concept in terms of the parts that comprise it, it might make sense to say that a concept is subject to anicca because all the actual mental pieces and events which make it up it can be seen to change over time. When I saw a green apple for the first time, my concept of "apple" gained a new association. I don't think it's too dangerous to say that at that point, my concept changed. And just as we learn new things, we forget, too.
I don't think either is really wrong but it depends how you look at it.