Page 1 of 2

Are Anicca, Dukkaha and Anatta pre-Buddhist teaching?

Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 12:46 am
by SarathW
To above question Lal Answered:
=============
1. SarathW said,

Thank you, Lal, in your opinion what is the salient difference in Buddha's teaching and another Brahmanical teaching?
Do you think Anatta is a pre-Buddha's teaching?


Only a Buddha can reveal the three words (anicca, dukkha, anatta) to the world.
“Attakkara theenapada Sambuddhena pakasitha, na hi sila vatan hotu uppajjatthi Tathagata“, which means, “a Buddha (Tathagata) is born NOT just to show how to live a moral life, but to reveal three words (theenapada) to the world” .

Anicca – that nothing in this world can bring a permanent happiness in the long run.
Dukkha – despite our struggles, we will be subjected to much more suffering than pleasures if we remain in the rebirth process. The truth about Dukkha is not the feeling of dukkha, but that dukkha arises because of craving for enjoyments.
Anatta – therefore, one is truly helpless in this struggle to attain “something of essence in this world”. The only refuge is in Nibbana.

So, there is no way to become a Sotapanna if one believes anicca is impermanence, dukkha is suffering (not the cause of suffering), and anatta is “no self”.

Here is an important point that needs to be given some thought for those who believe anatta means “no self” I am not saying this in a derogatory way, but just to emphasize the importance of it. The true meanings have been covered not due to intentional acts by anyone, as I have explained in the post: https://puredhamma.net/historical-backg ... retations/.

The Patama Adhamma Sutta in the Anguttara Nikaya (https://suttacentral.net/pi/an10.113) says:“Adhammo ca, bhikkhave, veditabbo anattho ca; dhammo ca veditabbo attho ca“.
 It means: “Bhikkhus, it is to be comprehended that adhamma leads to anattä (helplessness), and dhamma leads to attä (refuge in Nibbana)”.
 Furthermore, one should be able to clearly see that it leads to the foolish statement: “Bhikkhus, it is to be comprehended that adhamma leads to no-self, and dhamma leads to self“.

The Anatta Lakkhana Sutta (https://suttacentral.net/pi/sn22.59) says, "..Vedanā anattā. Vedanā ca hidaṃ, bhikkhave, attā abhavissa, nayidaṃ vedanā ābādhāya saṃvatteyya, labbhetha ca vedanāya: ‘evaṃ me vedanā hotu, evaṃ me vedanā mā ahosī’ti. Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, vedanā anattā,."
So, what is meant by "..vedana is no self"?
Same for sanna, sankhara, and vinnana. How can they be "no self"?

https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.p ... 00#p422999

Re: Are Anicca, Dukkaha and Anatta pre-Buddhist teaching?

Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 12:52 am
by SarathW
The Patama Adhamma Sutta in the Anguttara Nikaya (https://suttacentral.net/pi/an10.113) says:“Adhammo ca, bhikkhave, veditabbo anattho ca; dhammo ca veditabbo attho ca“.
 It means: “Bhikkhus, it is to be comprehended that adhamma leads to anattä (helplessness), and dhamma leads to attä (refuge in Nibbana)”.
 Furthermore, one should be able to clearly see that it leads to the foolish statement: “Bhikkhus, it is to be comprehended that adhamma leads to no-self, and dhamma leads to self“.
Agree, this is a very strong case to support your thesis.

Re: Are Anicca, Dukkaha and Anatta pre-Buddhist teaching?

Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:06 am
by SarathW
The Anatta Lakkhana Sutta (https://suttacentral.net/pi/sn22.59) says, "..Vedanā anattā. Vedanā ca hidaṃ, bhikkhave, attā abhavissa, nayidaṃ vedanā ābādhāya saṃvatteyya, labbhetha ca vedanāya: ‘evaṃ me vedanā hotu, evaṃ me vedanā mā ahosī’ti. Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, vedanā anattā,."
So, what is meant by "..vedana is no self"?
Same for sanna, sankhara, and vinnana. How can they be "no self"?
This is a weak case.
Many people take five aggregate as self.

Re: Are Anicca, Dukkaha and Anatta pre-Buddhist teaching?

Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:56 am
by davidbrainerd
SarathW wrote:
The Anatta Lakkhana Sutta (https://suttacentral.net/pi/sn22.59) says, "..Vedanā anattā. Vedanā ca hidaṃ, bhikkhave, attā abhavissa, nayidaṃ vedanā ābādhāya saṃvatteyya, labbhetha ca vedanāya: ‘evaṃ me vedanā hotu, evaṃ me vedanā mā ahosī’ti. Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, vedanā anattā,."
So, what is meant by "..vedana is no self"?
Same for sanna, sankhara, and vinnana. How can they be "no self"?
This is a weak case.
Many people take five aggregate as self.
Buddhists are more likely to take the five aggregates as the self than anyone else because they read Buddha backwards as not saying "you are not the five aggregates" but as saying "you are nothing but the five aggregates." How ironic.

Re: Are Anicca, Dukkaha and Anatta pre-Buddhist teaching?

Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 7:05 am
by form
davidbrainerd wrote:
SarathW wrote:
The Anatta Lakkhana Sutta (https://suttacentral.net/pi/sn22.59) says, "..Vedanā anattā. Vedanā ca hidaṃ, bhikkhave, attā abhavissa, nayidaṃ vedanā ābādhāya saṃvatteyya, labbhetha ca vedanāya: ‘evaṃ me vedanā hotu, evaṃ me vedanā mā ahosī’ti. Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, vedanā anattā,."
So, what is meant by "..vedana is no self"?
Same for sanna, sankhara, and vinnana. How can they be "no self"?
This is a weak case.
Many people take five aggregate as self.
Buddhists are more likely to take the five aggregates as the self than anyone else because they read Buddha backwards as not saying "you are not the five aggregates" but as saying "you are nothing but the five aggregates." How ironic.
Some people will put it this way, only when you experience it then you will understand what the Sutta say. More and more I believe what they say is true.

Re: Are Anicca, Dukkaha and Anatta pre-Buddhist teaching?

Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 9:28 am
by JiWe2
SarathW wrote:
The Patama Adhamma Sutta in the Anguttara Nikaya (https://suttacentral.net/pi/an10.113) says:“Adhammo ca, bhikkhave, veditabbo anattho ca; dhammo ca veditabbo attho ca“.
 It means: “Bhikkhus, it is to be comprehended that adhamma leads to anattä (helplessness), and dhamma leads to attä (refuge in Nibbana)”.
 Furthermore, one should be able to clearly see that it leads to the foolish statement: “Bhikkhus, it is to be comprehended that adhamma leads to no-self, and dhamma leads to self“.
Agree, this is a very strong case to support your thesis.
Adhammo ca, bhikkhave, veditabbo anattho ca; dhammo ca veditabbo attho ca. Adhammañca viditvā anatthañca, dhammañca viditvā atthañca yathā dhammo yathā attho tathā paṭi­pajji­tabbaṃ.
Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation:
Bhikkhus, what is non-Dhamma and harmful should be understood, and what is the Dhamma and beneficial should also be understood. Having understood what is non-Dhamma and harmful, and also what is the Dhamma and beneficial, one should practice in accordance with the Dhamma and with what is beneficial.

Re: Are Anicca, Dukkaha and Anatta pre-Buddhist teaching?

Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 10:01 am
by JiWe2
SarathW wrote:
The Anatta Lakkhana Sutta (https://suttacentral.net/pi/sn22.59) says, "..Vedanā anattā. Vedanā ca hidaṃ, bhikkhave, attā abhavissa, nayidaṃ vedanā ābādhāya saṃvatteyya, labbhetha ca vedanāya: ‘evaṃ me vedanā hotu, evaṃ me vedanā mā ahosī’ti. Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, vedanā anattā,."
So, what is meant by "..vedana is no self"?
Same for sanna, sankhara, and vinnana. How can they be "no self"?
This is a weak case.
Many people take five aggregate as self.
At the time of the Buddha, some of the Buddha's listeners might have thought that all kinds of things, or "the Whole", were their "self" or "essence", or parts of it, so perhaps it made some sense to teach that they are not "self", if that's what the Buddha realized.
"For the self (ātman) is the mind, the world is the mind, brahman is the mind! So, venerate the mind."

"Now, intention (saṃkalpa) is the point of convergence of all these things;
intention is their essence (ātman); and on intention they are based."

"Now, thought is the point of convergence of all these things; thought is their
essence (ātman); and on thought they are based."

-Chāndogya Upaniṣad, tr. Olivelle

"This earth is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of this earth.
The radiant and immortal person in the earth and, in the case of the body
(ātman), the radiant and immortal person residing in the physical body — they are
both one's self (ātman). It is the immortal; it is brahman; it is the Whole."

-Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, tr. Olivelle

etc....

Re: Are Anicca, Dukkaha and Anatta pre-Buddhist teaching?

Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:49 pm
by justindesilva
I would only say that the three words anicca dukka anatma are inter related and means the natural flow of life. It embraces the changing conscientiouness of beings based on merits and demerits of damma. Tries to analyse anicca dukka anatma by analysing the words will mean in understanding budda darma.
Further we have to be careful in the analyses of these words from sanskrit As the same word in two languages means two different explanations.
An snslyses of anicca dukka anatma without paticca samuppada and arya ashtangika margaya will be an effort in vain.

Re: Are Anicca, Dukkaha and Anatta pre-Buddhist teaching?

Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:35 pm
by cappuccino
Existence is forever empty, impermanent, and generally difficult.

Re: Are Anicca, Dukkaha and Anatta pre-Buddhist teaching?

Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 10:08 pm
by paul
Whether Perfect Ones appear in the world, or whether Perfect Ones do not appear in the world, it still remains a firm condition, an immutable fact and fixed law: that all formations are impermanent, that all formations are subject to suffering, that everything is without a self" ---AN: 3:134.

It is said numerous times that it is from the fact of impermanence that the other two characteristics are derived, for example SN 22:59.

Re: Are Anicca, Dukkaha and Anatta pre-Buddhist teaching?

Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 10:44 pm
by form
.
At the time of the Buddha, some of the Buddha's listeners might have thought that all kinds of things, or "the Whole", were their "self" or "essence", or parts of it, so perhaps it made some sense to teach that they are not "self", if that's what the Buddha realized.
This is not more prevalent during ancient time, but apply equally at modern time. It is a nature of existence.

Re: Are Anicca, Dukkaha and Anatta pre-Buddhist teaching?

Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:23 pm
by 2600htz
Hello:

When the Buddha talked about Anicca, Dukkha and Anatta he was really talking about dependent origination.
If thats not taken in consideration they just become words: used by many people, in many kinds of ways.

Regards.

Re: Are Anicca, Dukkaha and Anatta pre-Buddhist teaching?

Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:39 pm
by form
. If thats not taken in consideration they just become words
:thumbsup:

Re: Are Anicca, Dukkaha and Anatta pre-Buddhist teaching?

Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:56 pm
by aflatun
2600htz wrote:Hello:

When the Buddha talked about Anicca, Dukkha and Anatta he was really talking about dependent origination.
If thats not taken in consideration they just become words: used by many people, in many kinds of ways.

Regards.
Perfect, I love it :goodpost: :thumbsup:

Re: Are Anicca, Dukkaha and Anatta pre-Buddhist teaching?

Posted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:22 am
by cappuccino
He was really talking about existence, this is important, without mixing in dependent origination.