3 marks of existence vs N8FP

[PeterC86]

You're again resorting to 'the Buddha said'.

That's because this is a Buddhist discussion group, and that's what we discuss. For many of us, the discussion informs our practice, but discussing details of practice with random people on the Internet is not usually very productive - from my experience it requires an environment of trust, kindness , and common ground for such discussions to be worthwhile.


Mike

Yes but there has to be some sort of unification between the different aspects of, what is assumed to be, the Buddha's words, in order for them to be trustworthy enough to be regarded as a unified teaching pertaining to the cessation of suffering, instead of them being a mere belief both of the promised cessation of suffering and the words being that of Buddha. Else one might be inclined to follow a practice that couldn't lead to what is promised. And this unification has to come from some understanding, else it would be merely believed. And because the 3 marks of existence stand regardless of the N8FP, the expounded N8FP can be hold against the 3 marks.

Of course, we can all meet up somewhere, preferably close to where I live , drink some tee, sing a few songs around a campfire, and discuss it there.

Open-mindedness in discussion would be nice, but this is of course inhibited through clinging.

[PeterC86]

Here, it is argued that the act of "defining" is in-and-of-itself essentialism. There is no support put forward to defend this hasty and foolhardy stance. The OP has yet to substantiate any of his wild claims about the ramifications of anattā and the relation of anattā and essencelessness.

No, an argument has to be made for the existence, possibility of discernment, of phenomena, and until then, they cannot be said to exist or non-exist, both exist and non-exist, neither exist nor non-exist.

You're pretty free-wheeling with redefining your arguments and terms on the fly, sometimes to something that is completely contradictory to a previously-held view presented only a few posts ago. So where exactly did you supposedly argue for this "possibility" of discernment?

I am not arguing for this. I thought this would be pretty clear by now.

The burden of proof of unity lies with those who hold that they are unified.

In order for you to understand any proofs of that nature, you'll first have to actually learn what "anattā" means. Then we can start with anicca, etc. At present, you are still stumbling around "essences" while trying and failing to define anattā.

Well, because anatta transcends all dhammas, if anatta is understood, the Buddhadhamma is understood. So please shower us with your wisdom.

[Sam Vara]

Here is but one way to relate the three to the eight, and it is through the four. Three marks, an eightfold path, and four truths.

What is anicca is anattā, and is also dukkha. This is called "the three marks of existence." If this comes into contention, a sutta can easily be found. If some facile objection of "You are just playing 'Buddha says'" comes about, the three marks of existence, the eightfold path, and the noble truths all fall under the purview of "what the Buddha says" anyways.

Now, we just look at the four nobles truths. 1) Dukkha, 2) the origination of dukkha, 3) the cessation of dukkha, and 4) the path to the cessation of dukkha. What is the path to the cessation of dukkha? The eightfold path is. None of this business about the possibility or impossibility of defining, describing, imparting essences, or whatnot that has been brought up as objections to their mutual concord plays a part in this that I consider a relatively direct and uncontrived correspondence.

Well said, Coëmgenu.

[Spiny Norman]

No, an argument has to be made for the existence, possibility of discernment, of phenomena, and until then, they cannot be said to exist or non-exist, both exist and non-exist, neither exist nor non-exist.

You're pretty free-wheeling with redefining your arguments and terms on the fly, sometimes to something that is completely contradictory to a previously-held view presented only a few posts ago. So where exactly did you supposedly argue for this "possibility" of discernment?

I am not arguing for this. I thought this would be pretty clear by now.

The burden of proof of unity lies with those who hold that they are unified.

In order for you to understand any proofs of that nature, you'll first have to actually learn what "anattā" means. Then we can start with anicca, etc. At present, you are still stumbling around "essences" while trying and failing to define anattā.

Well, because anatta transcends all dhammas, if anatta is understood, the Buddhadhamma is understood. So please shower us with your wisdom.

Anatta doesn't transcend dhammas, it's the nature of dhammas.

[PeterC86]

Being able to describe something doesn't mean it has independent self-hood or "essence".
"Form is only emptiness" (Heart Sutra) doesn't mean we can't describe form, it means that form doesn't have independent existence - it's conditional.

Again, by describing something you give it essence. Cognitive dissonance is not easy to deal with.

[Spiny Norman]

Being able to describe something doesn't mean it has independent self-hood or "essence".
"Form is only emptiness" (Heart Sutra) doesn't mean we can't describe form, it means that form doesn't have independent existence - it's conditional.

Again, by describing something you give it essence. Cognitive dissonance is not easy to deal with.

What exactly is this "essence" you keep talking about? And what Buddhist term corresponds to it?

[PeterC86]

Do you think that the 3 marks of existence can be unified with the N8FP? If so, how?

Strange question. The attainment of N8FP depends on contemplation of the 3 marks according to doctrine.

According to doctrine yes.

[PeterC86]

Here is but one way to relate the three to the eight, and it is through the four. Three marks, an eightfold path, and four truths.

What is anicca is anattā, and is also dukkha. This is called "the three marks of existence." If this comes into contention, a sutta can easily be found. If some facile objection of "You are just playing 'Buddha says'" comes about, the three marks of existence, the eightfold path, and the noble truths all fall under the purview of "what the Buddha says" anyways.

Now, we just look at the four nobles truths. 1) Dukkha, 2) the origination of dukkha, 3) the cessation of dukkha, and 4) the path to the cessation of dukkha. What is the path to the cessation of dukkha? The eightfold path is. None of this business about the possibility or impossibility of defining, describing, imparting essences, or whatnot that has been brought up as objections to their mutual concord plays a part in this that I consider a relatively direct and uncontrived correspondence.

Please read this; viewtopic.php?p=682764#p682764

So you can say it to be so, but until it is understood, it is mere belief.

[Ontheway]

"3 marks" = The first Noble Truth

[PeterC86]

Why does someone need to be certained if N8FP is in unified with 3 marks ? That is totally unnnecessary . You just walk on the path , along the road you will find out for yourself whether it is so or not . Simple .

People can easily get caught up believing something based on assumptions, and the Buddhadhamma should be the opposite of that. So they can get stuck in a world of beliefs, expounded and believed by everyone in their environment, and this is not so easy to get out of. Part of those beliefs may be true, and part of them may be not, adding to the difficulty of realizing what they are following, and where it may lead to.

[PeterC86]

You're pretty free-wheeling with redefining your arguments and terms on the fly, sometimes to something that is completely contradictory to a previously-held view presented only a few posts ago. So where exactly did you supposedly argue for this "possibility" of discernment?

I am not arguing for this. I thought this would be pretty clear by now.

In order for you to understand any proofs of that nature, you'll first have to actually learn what "anattā" means. Then we can start with anicca, etc. At present, you are still stumbling around "essences" while trying and failing to define anattā.

Well, because anatta transcends all dhammas, if anatta is understood, the Buddhadhamma is understood. So please shower us with your wisdom.

Anatta doesn't transcend dhammas, it's the nature of dhammas.

If anatta is understood, dhammas are transcended, because then dhammas are understood to be anatta.

[Spiny Norman]

[PeterC86]

Being able to describe something doesn't mean it has independent self-hood or "essence".
"Form is only emptiness" (Heart Sutra) doesn't mean we can't describe form, it means that form doesn't have independent existence - it's conditional.

Again, by describing something you give it essence. Cognitive dissonance is not easy to deal with.

What exactly is this "essence" you keep talking about? And what Buddhist term corresponds to it?

It would be the opposite of anatta, and I am not saying that it exists, besides a conventional one through which we communicate. I am not going over this again, as I already discussed it with Ceisiwr, so I will refer to that discussion. I seems you're not ready to understand it yet, or not willing to understand it, which would be the same.

[PeterC86]

Thanks, very funny! Maybe you can apply it by reflecting on your first post in this thread.

[mikenz66]

You're again resorting to 'the Buddha said'.

That's because this is a Buddhist discussion group, and that's what we discuss. For many of us, the discussion informs our practice, but discussing details of practice with random people on the Internet is not usually very productive - from my experience it requires an environment of trust, kindness , and common ground for such discussions to be worthwhile.


Mike

Yes but there has to be some sort of unification between the different aspects of, what is assumed to be, the Buddha's words, in order for them to be trustworthy enough to be regarded as a unified teaching pertaining to the cessation of suffering, instead of them being a mere belief both of the promised cessation of suffering and the words being that of Buddha. Else one might be inclined to follow a practice that couldn't lead to what is promised. And this unification has to come from some understanding, else it would be merely believed. And because the 3 marks of existence stand regardless of the N8FP, the expounded N8FP can be hold against the 3 marks.

Of course, we can all meet up somewhere, preferably close to where I live , drink some tee, sing a few songs around a campfire, and discuss it there.

Open-mindedness in discussion would be nice, but this is of course inhibited through clinging.

Over the past few days I have been re-reading "Concept and Reality", Venerable Kaṭukurunde Ñāṇananda first publication from the early 1970s (his books are here: https://seeingthroughthenet.net/books/).

His discussion of Limitations of the Dialectical Approach may be relevant here:

Concepts, for all their
vicious potency to delude us, are not to be blamed per se, for they are
merely objectifications or projections of our own tanhā, māna and
ditthi—our cravings, our conceit, and our views. Hence, in the last
analysis, concepts have to be tackled at their source. They are not so
much to be demolished, as to be comprehended and transcended. The
attempt to dislodge concepts at the purely intellectual level leads to
infinite regress in thought, as will be evident from the following
dialogue between the Buddha and the wandering ascetic
Dîghanakha....

Mike