"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.
"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications......... (dependent origination sequence)"
vinasp wrote:Hi everyone,
It seems that my understanding of impermanent (anicca) is different from some others on this forum. I thought it might be worth exploring these alternative ways of understanding impermanence.
So, what is my understanding? For me, impermanent means "capable of ceasing completely" or "vanishing". When applied to something like feelings which are continuously changing - it means the "complete ending of the process".
What are your thoughts?
Best wishes, Vincent.
vinasp wrote:I am struggling to understand your position.
vinasp wrote:I would rather base my understanding on the suttas not something written a thousand years later.
vinasp wrote:For me, anicca means 'capable of ceasing completely'. It is seeing that nirodha (cessation) applies to a particular mental construction (formation, sankhara).
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Vincent,vinasp wrote:I would rather base my understanding on the suttas not something written a thousand years later.
The above definitions are very transparent with regards to their origins, as to what is based on sutta, versus vinaya or commentary. Anything you or I write will be written about 2,500 years later!
If you don't like the common one-word definition of "impermanent", try "evanescent" or "transient" as these are apt too.
vinasp wrote:Hi everyone,
Answer one simple question. Does craving completely disappear or not?
Best wishes, Vincent.
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
But if we were to speak in a momentary (or dare I say Abhidhammic?) sense, craving ceases with the arising of wholesome mindstates. The "next craving" is a brand new craving. Each moment is a whole new moment, never repeated - even moments are inconstant.
Metta,
Retro.
no point trying to cling to anything, as all things are impermanant- unsatisfactory. this is the vipassana perspective. This leads to true letting go.seanpdx wrote:retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
But if we were to speak in a momentary (or dare I say Abhidhammic?) sense, craving ceases with the arising of wholesome mindstates. The "next craving" is a brand new craving. Each moment is a whole new moment, never repeated - even moments are inconstant.
Metta,
Retro.
Which is why abhidhammic systematisation, and its concept of momentariness, is such a load of poo-poo.
Look! I'm enlightened!
Woops -- now I'm not.
Look! I'm enlightened!
Woops -- now I'm not.
Look! I'm... oh, nevermind. =p
vinasp wrote:So does the process of generating ever-new cravings end completely at some point?
Dan74 wrote:seanpdx wrote:retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
But if we were to speak in a momentary (or dare I say Abhidhammic?) sense, craving ceases with the arising of wholesome mindstates. The "next craving" is a brand new craving. Each moment is a whole new moment, never repeated - even moments are inconstant.
Metta,
Retro.
Which is why abhidhammic systematisation, and its concept of momentariness, is such a load of poo-poo.
Look! I'm enlightened!
Woops -- now I'm not.
Look! I'm enlightened!
Woops -- now I'm not.
Look! I'm... oh, nevermind. =p
This is how some people read Dogen (the great Soto Zen master). I read it as saying pay attention to this moment and don't worry about permanent anything. In any case, craving is karmically conditioned, so the complete absence of craving (and roots of craving) in this moment cannot give rise to craving in the next moment. In other words, if this moment is completely enlightened (free of all defilements/attachments - present and latent) then so will the next one be.
Otherwise it really doesn't make sense. It's easy to be free of manifest defilements (say in meditation) this is not enlightenment and not what Dogen taught from what I understand.
_/|\_
seanpdx wrote:The problem I have with "momentariness" (I can say nothing about Dogen, sorry) is that it seems to be taken too far, and people start losing sight of the forest for the trees. Not that there is anything inherently wrong in it per se.
Registered users: Bakmoon, Bhikkhu_Samahita, Bing [Bot], Dan74, diptych4, EmptyShadow, fig tree, Google [Bot], inge, jadborn, Lazy_eye, lifefool, Mindstar, Modus.Ponens, polarbuddha101, reflection, skyway, Vern Stevens