What does anicca really mean?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
rowyourboat
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:29 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: What does anicca really mean?

Post by rowyourboat »

Funny, we can write a book on the different understandings of anicca- all of it would be valid as long as it leads to even an iota of letting go- giving up craving. But sometimes we can cling to our understanding of anicca and become defensive when another proposes his. More clinging.

the point of understanding anicca is to feel the change as it is happening and this sense that there is no point in all/any of it. :shrug: no point trying to cling to anything, as all things are impermanant- unsatisfactory. this is the vipassana perspective. This leads to true letting go.
With Metta

Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4531
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: What does anicca really mean?

Post by Dan74 »

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.

_/|\_
_/|\_
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: What does anicca really mean?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Vincent,
vinasp wrote:So does the process of generating ever-new cravings end completely at some point?
Yes, upon attaining arahanthood, through the permanent destruction of ignorance.

Think here of the twelve-nidanas of dependent arising. If you don't get past ignorance, you don't get to craving.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
seanpdx
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:56 am

Re: What does anicca really mean?

Post by seanpdx »

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.

_/|\_
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.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: What does anicca really mean?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Sean,
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.
I think it's important to be able to see things both in a conventional and momentary sense, and to be able to distinguish between the two. I think it is difficult to overstate this point.

The truth of reality is that it is momentary, so ignoring momentariness is a risk too.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
seanpdx
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:56 am

Re: What does anicca really mean?

Post by seanpdx »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Sean,
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.
I think it's important to be able to see things both in a conventional and momentary sense, and to be able to distinguish between the two. I think it is difficult to overstate this point.

The truth of reality is that it is momentary, so ignoring momentariness is a risk too.

Metta,
Retro. :)
I'm not so sure about this. I think it's easily, and perhaps often, overstated. I see too much confusion as a result of this artificial delineation between "conventional reality" and "momentariness" (or perhaps I should say "abhidhammic reality"?). Reality just "is". We can't view reality as being momentary in such a way that we fail to see how the moments come together to create our conventional view reality. The disdain that some people place on the view of "conventional reality" is ludicrous.

All the quantum theory in the world doesn't negate the fact that there is a can of mtn dew on my desk. It's a really real can. With really real (and... umm... old =) mtn dew in it. We do not experience the world on a quantum level, so having an understanding of the quantum level only benefits us to a limited degree. Likewise, we do not experience the world on a "momentary" level, so having an understanding of momentariness only benefits us to a limited degree. When we fail to see the "real can", the "real person", or anything else that is made up of the continuous stream of moments, then we fail miserably in our attempts to both understand and experience real reality.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: What does anicca really mean?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Sean,
seanpdx wrote:I'm not so sure about this. I think it's easily, and perhaps often, overstated. I see too much confusion as a result of this artificial delineation between "conventional reality" and "momentariness" (or perhaps I should say "abhidhammic reality"?). Reality just "is". We can't view reality as being momentary in such a way that we fail to see how the moments come together to create our conventional view reality. The disdain that some people place on the view of "conventional reality" is ludicrous.
When perceptions are conditioned by ignorance we will (by default) be thinking and perceiving in conventional terms. There will be an illusion of some degree of permanence and essence, when in reality there is none. Therefore I agree with you that any disdain or aversion towards the conventional is detrimental, because it effectively closes the door to the development of wisdom, when perceiving in conventional terms.

However, when perception is conditioned by wisdom rather than ignorance, we will be perceiving in terms of momentariness without imputing "things" over-the-top of that... and if things are imputed, it will be known that they are imputed, and not taken as an inherent characteristic of that "thing". Consider the Buddha's advice to Bahiya...

Ud 1.10: Bahiya Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."
If we wish to develop the profound wisdom that Buddha prompted Bahiya to comprehend, we need to be able to differentiate between raw sensory inputs and the conceptual layers we superimpose over the top of them. This differentiation simply does not exist in the "conventional", as it is taken as granted that they both point to the same "thing". That is the point where the binding takes place.

Therefore, I think they're both important and that it's necessary to understand aniccata in each context... starting with the conventional as it is easiest to understand conceptually, but then going on to understand it in terms of momentariness, and how it touches upon sunnata.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
seanpdx
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:56 am

Re: What does anicca really mean?

Post by seanpdx »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Sean,
seanpdx wrote:I'm not so sure about this. I think it's easily, and perhaps often, overstated. I see too much confusion as a result of this artificial delineation between "conventional reality" and "momentariness" (or perhaps I should say "abhidhammic reality"?). Reality just "is". We can't view reality as being momentary in such a way that we fail to see how the moments come together to create our conventional view reality. The disdain that some people place on the view of "conventional reality" is ludicrous.
When perceptions are conditioned by ignorance we will (by default) be thinking and perceiving in conventional terms. There will be an illusion of some degree of permanence and essence, when in reality there is none. Therefore I agree with you that any disdain or aversion towards the conventional is detrimental, because it effectively closes the door to the development of wisdom, when perceiving in conventional terms.

However, when perception is conditioned by wisdom rather than ignorance, we will be perceiving in terms of momentariness without imputing "things" over-the-top of that... and if things are imputed, it will be known that they are imputed, and not taken as an inherent characteristic of that "thing". Consider the Buddha's advice to Bahiya...
I don't think it's detrimental due to closing the door to the development of wisdom... I think it's detrimental because it separates us from reality. I also don't think that perception being conditioned by wisdom necessitates perceiving in terms of momentariness, though I think we might (?) agree on this point. Denying conventional reality, which is the reality that we actually experience, is just plain silly. And not in a good way.

If I talk about myself... me, as a person... I really have no interest in hearing (reading?) people talk about how there is no self, no inherent thing-ness in me. Great, I'm a psycho-physical process. Not terribly difficult to understand. That's the self. That's the "me". The process is me, and I am that process. The process is the thing-ness.

There is the reality that we experience, and the reality underneath what we experience. Both are real, but in very different ways and in very different contexts.
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: What does anicca really mean?

Post by vinasp »

Hi everyone,

So, we all agree that craving ceases completely (vanishes) ? But ... wait a moment ... does not clinging depend on craving?
Does not 'existence' depend on clinging? Does not 'birth' depend on existence? Does not 'old-age and death' depend on birth?

How many things cease completely (vanish) ?

Does not craving depend on feeling, and cease when feeling ceases? Does not feeling depend on contact and cease when contact ceases? Does not ... (you get the idea).

Does impermanent have two meanings?

1. Can or will vanish.
2. Is subject to change.

And does this mean that cessation has two meanings also? Temporary and non-temporary?

Best wishes, Vincent.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: What does anicca really mean?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Vincent,
vinasp wrote:So, we all agree that craving ceases completely (vanishes) ? But ... wait a moment ... does not clinging depend on craving?
Does not 'existence' depend on clinging? Does not 'birth' depend on existence? Does not 'old-age and death' depend on birth?
Oh Vincent, your way of thinking hurts my head. :tongue:
vinasp wrote:How many things cease completely (vanish) ?
If you accept that "conditioned by ignorance" is inherent to each of them, then upon arahantship, they all cease.
Does impermanent have two meanings?

1. Can or will vanish.
2. Is subject to change.
That's two different angles by which to approach anicca, but it's not an exhaustive list.
And does this mean that cessation has two meanings also? Temporary and non-temporary?
I would have used the words momentary and permanent - but yes, I believe it does.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm

Re: What does anicca really mean?

Post by BlackBird »

I have to ask Vincent, with all these theories, are you any closer to realization?

:thinking:

metta
Jack
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: What does anicca really mean?

Post by vinasp »

Hi everyone,

"Bhikkhus, what do you think? Is material form permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, venerable sir." "Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?"
"Suffering, venerable sir." "Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?" "No, venerable sir."
Bhikkhu Bodhi - Middle Length Discourses - page 232 [ MN 22. 26 ]

"Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change, fit to be regarded ..."

What does 'impermanent' mean here? Obviously not 'subject to change' or the Buddha would be repeating the same idea twice in the question.

The monks have to understand that 'what has arisen' or 'what has come to be' (over many years) is capable of vanishing (is just a mental construction). Also, that 'what has arisen' is just suffering. If they have seen and understood these two things - for themselves - then the next question can be asked. "Why do you regard that as your self?"

Best wishes, Vincent.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: What does anicca really mean?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Vincent,

Firstly, I'd encourage you to remember that these are English translations of Pali originals. If you want to do a deeper analysis on the difference between "impermanent" and "subject to change" you're going to need to go back to the Pali, find out what words were actually used, and then look into the definitions of those words. Attempting to undertake this analysis in English without referring back the Pali is too blunt a tool by which to conduct such an analysis, and is going to subjected to the mode of translation.
...the next question can be asked. "Why do you regard that as your self?"
I actually read a good explanation for that this morning...

Extract from The Five Illusionists - Dhammavuddho Thera
http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books ... onists.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The first aggregate is form/body (rūpa). Rūpa literally means
picture or image because it is the object of eye-consciousness
(cakkhuviññāna). Common translations of rūpa include form
and body. Every one of us has a body. If the body is short,
you say, “I am short.” If the body is beautiful you say, “I am
beautiful.” If the body is sick, you say, “I am sick.” So you
can see how easily we associate the body with the ‘self.’
The second aggregate is feeling (vedanā). When happy
feeling arises, you say, “I am feeling happy.” When angry
feeling arises, you say, “I am angry.” And when sorrowful
feeling arises, you say, “I suffer, I grieve.” So, again we
easily associate feeling with the ‘self.’
The third aggregate is perception (sañña). Perception
means you have a certain conception of something. In the
suttas the Buddha mentioned that you may have the
perception that this is yellow or some other colour. But
somebody else may not perceive this to be yellow. He (or she)
may have a different opinion from you, more so if he is
colour blind. Also, if you were to wear dark glasses, you will
swear this is a certain colour. It is only when you remove
your dark glasses, then you realize it’s a different colour. So
perceptions are not very reliable. You may perceive that a
certain person is very handsome or beautiful, but somebody
else may not have the same perception. Or you have the
perception that somebody is a very nice person, but he will
not appear nice to his enemy. These are examples of how
‘my perception’ arises.
The fourth aggregate is volition (sa5khāra). Dependent
on sense object and sense organ, consciousness arises. The
meeting of the three is contact. This is followed by feeling,
perception, thoughts and volition. For example, you might see
a beautiful girl or handsome man, and a pleasant feeling
arises. This is followed by a perception that this is a very
attractive person, and the thought of it gives rise to a
decision/volition “I like to be his/her friend.” So volition –––
to do or not to do this or that ––– is again easily associated
with the ‘self.’
The fifth aggregate is consciousness (viññāna).
Consciousness means seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touch
and thinking consciousness. When consciousness arises you
say, “I see” or “I hear,” etc. ––– in this way, ‘I’ arises with
the normal consciousness.
It is only with arahantship that the tendency (anusaya) to conceive in terms of a self is completely eradicated.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: What does anicca really mean?

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Vincent,
vinasp wrote: "Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change, fit to be regarded ..."

What does 'impermanent' mean here? Obviously not 'subject to change' or the Buddha would be repeating the same idea twice in the question.
I'm sure some of our experts could elaborate, but it's actually quite common for these lists to contain synonyms, or near-synonyms for emphasis:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nymo.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
... such ideas he sees as impermanent, as liable to suffering, as a disease, as a cancer, as a barb, as a calamity, as an affliction, as alien, as being worn away, as void, as not-self.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It's to this extent that many, many men — heedless, their hearts defiled — opposing one another, create conflicts, murder, bondage, calamity, loss, grief, & lamentation.
It's not really a good argument that all the things in a list are supposed to be particularly distinct. This is an oral tradition that relies on repetition.

Metta
Mike
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: What does anicca really mean?

Post by acinteyyo »

vinasp wrote:Hi everyone,

"Bhikkhus, what do you think? Is material form permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, venerable sir." "Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?"
"Suffering, venerable sir." "Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?" "No, venerable sir."
Bhikkhu Bodhi - Middle Length Discourses - page 232 [ MN 22. 26 ]

"Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change, fit to be regarded ..."

What does 'impermanent' mean here? Obviously not 'subject to change' or the Buddha would be repeating the same idea twice in the question.
Hi all,

"impermanent" means it is not permanent, it does not exist permanently, once arisen it has to cease, it will not last forever.

"subject to change" means after it arose it does not stay the way it is until it finally has ceased.
AN 3.47 by Ven. Ñanavira wrote:There are, monks, these three determined-characteristics of what is determined. Which are the three? Arising (appearance) is manifest; disappearance is manifest; change while standing is manifest. These, monks, are the three determined-characteristics of what is determined.
Alternative translation by Thanissaro Bhikkhu
AN 3.47 wrote:"Monks, these three are fabricated characteristics of what is fabricated. Which three? Arising is discernible, passing away is discernible, alteration (literally, other-ness) while staying is discernible.
"These are three fabricated characteristics of what is fabricated.
Please mind the phrasing "change while standing" or "alteration (other-ness) while staying", this means "subject to change". A particular dhamma (here sankhāra) is subject to change while this particular dhamma is still existing as this particular dhamma or in other words is still discernible as this particular dhamma.
From the point when it is, it changes until the point when it is not.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
Post Reply