Ok, but that didn't really answer my question.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 10:06 pm Greetings,
I recognise what the Buddha taught, not what the Abhidhamma taught.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 10:04 pmSo you recognise universal characteristics, but not specific characteristics?retrofuturist wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 9:56 pm I do not believe the Buddha's intent was for us to break down, divide and dismantle experience into constituent components... I think it was to understand the universal characteristics of any and all arisen things so that we may become disenchanted by them.
Metta,
Paul.
Concepts don't exist and therefore cannot be Anicca or Dukkha.
Re: Concepts don't exist and therefore cannot be Anicca or Dukkha.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Concepts don't exist and therefore cannot be Anicca or Dukkha.
Greetings,
He shows that all things roll up to...
Metta,
Paul.
It did, because the Buddha does not differentiate between "universal characteristics" or "specific characteristics".Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 10:06 pmOk, but that didn't really answer my question.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 10:06 pm Greetings,
I recognise what the Buddha taught, not what the Abhidhamma taught.
Metta,
Paul.
He shows that all things roll up to...
He doesn't show how things break down into infinite complexity, because what he actually taught is "the path to purification", as above.Dhp 277-279 wrote:"All conditioned things are impermanent" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.
"All conditioned things are unsatisfactory" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.
"All things are not-self" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.
Metta,
Paul.
"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."
- Mahabrahma
- Posts: 2232
- Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2020 6:02 am
- Location: Krishnaloka :).
- Contact:
Re: Concepts don't exist and therefore cannot be Anicca or Dukkha.
There's a conscious force or directive behind most things. At some point things agree not to break down anymore.
That sage who has perfect insight,
at the summit of spiritual perfection:
that’s who I call a brahmin.
-Dhammapada.
at the summit of spiritual perfection:
that’s who I call a brahmin.
-Dhammapada.
Re: Concepts don't exist and therefore cannot be Anicca or Dukkha.
Well "all" would be universal and "impermanence" is a characteristic or "nature" as the suttas put it, so there we have universal characteristics. The universal characteristics of all conditioned dhammas are impermanence, dukkha and not-self. To what then do these characteristics apply? Houses? People? It's worth bearing in mind that in the history of early Indian thought, it was the likes of Nyāya who argued that there were things such as "pots" which persist and change over time, the characteristics of which we experience via the senses.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 10:13 pm Greetings,
It did, because the Buddha does not differentiate between "universal characteristics" or "specific characteristics".Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 10:06 pmOk, but that didn't really answer my question.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 10:06 pm Greetings,
I recognise what the Buddha taught, not what the Abhidhamma taught.
Metta,
Paul.
He shows that all things roll up to...
He doesn't show how things break down into infinite complexity, because what he actually taught is "the path to purification", as above.Dhp 277-279 wrote:"All conditioned things are impermanent" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.
"All conditioned things are unsatisfactory" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.
"All things are not-self" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.
Metta,
Paul.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Concepts don't exist and therefore cannot be Anicca or Dukkha.
Greetings,
Metta,
Paul.
The answer is there in the sutta above. All sankharas, all sankharas and all dhammas respectively.
Indians thought of lots of things - I see no point in getting distracted by that. The Buddha's words above are clear, precise and all-inclusive.
Metta,
Paul.
"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."
Re: Concepts don't exist and therefore cannot be Anicca or Dukkha.
.
Last edited by zan on Thu Feb 02, 2023 11:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.
"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
Re: Concepts don't exist and therefore cannot be Anicca or Dukkha.
Hmmmm. I see the issue, but it's one of over analysis of language. From a less overly analyzed view, we just need acknowledge that the concept of atta is unreal, and impermanent. It is a thought, which is temporary, like everything else. There's no conflict in that. There is a huge conflict in saying concepts are not impermanent, though, as that's not even possible. Everything but nibbana is anicca dukkha anatta, no exceptions.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 9:09 pmzan wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 4:59 pm
Finally, the problem with concepts/pannatti not being anicca is that this would mean that the pannatti that one falsely perceives as the eternal atta/self would, in fact, be eternal. I will admit that through a specific logical method, it is possible that pannatti may not be anicca, while still avoiding this, but, generally speaking, this is why all things but nibbana are anicca. Hence, concepts must be anicca, or they are eternal.
From a Theravādin POV to say concepts are impermanent is to say that something like the atta is impermanent, which would mean the atta is real.
The two truths muddy the water sometimes. Even from a paramattha perspective, we could still say concepts are ultimately mental dhammas, which are temporary. Splitting it into two truths seems supefluous.
And
Truth is one, there is no second about which a person who knows it would argue with one who knows it.
-Sn 4.12
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.
"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
- Mahabrahma
- Posts: 2232
- Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2020 6:02 am
- Location: Krishnaloka :).
- Contact:
Re: Concepts don't exist and therefore cannot be Anicca or Dukkha.
What about anuttara-samyak-sambodhi?
And why do you think Nibbana is the only cessation to craving and suffering? Did Buddha say that the Buddha Dhamma that was then taught was the only way to cessated suffering? That there is no other way? I am curious.
That sage who has perfect insight,
at the summit of spiritual perfection:
that’s who I call a brahmin.
-Dhammapada.
at the summit of spiritual perfection:
that’s who I call a brahmin.
-Dhammapada.
Re: Concepts don't exist and therefore cannot be Anicca or Dukkha.
Mahabrahma wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 12:12 am And why do you think Nibbana is the only cessation to craving and suffering? Did Buddha say that the Buddha Dhamma that was then taught was the only way to cessated suffering? That there is no other way? I am curious.
Mahāparinibbāna Sutta (DN 16) wrote:“In any doctrine & discipline where the noble eightfold path is not ascertained, no contemplative of the first… second… third… fourth order [stream-winner, once-returner, non-returner, or arahant] is ascertained. But in any doctrine & discipline where the noble eightfold path is ascertained, contemplatives of the first… second… third… fourth order are ascertained. The noble eightfold path is ascertained in this doctrine & discipline, and right here there are contemplatives of the first… second… third… fourth order. Other teachings are empty of knowledgeable contemplatives. And if the monks dwell rightly, this world will not be empty of arahants.
- Mahabrahma
- Posts: 2232
- Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2020 6:02 am
- Location: Krishnaloka :).
- Contact:
Re: Concepts don't exist and therefore cannot be Anicca or Dukkha.
Well that says it clearly enough. I'd rather not argue the point. Thank you for your time Nicholas.
That sage who has perfect insight,
at the summit of spiritual perfection:
that’s who I call a brahmin.
-Dhammapada.
at the summit of spiritual perfection:
that’s who I call a brahmin.
-Dhammapada.
Re: Concepts don't exist and therefore cannot be Anicca or Dukkha.
So sankharas have the universal characteristics of impermanence, dukkha and not-self. The question then follows, what are sankharas which have these universal characteristics?retrofuturist wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 10:21 pm
The answer is there in the sutta above. All sankharas, all sankharas and all dhammas respectively.
Ceisiwr wrote: It's worth bearing in mind that in the history of early Indian thought, it was the likes of Nyāya who argued that there were things such as "pots" which persist and change over time, the characteristics of which we experience via the senses.
retrofuturist wrote: Indians thought of lots of things - I see no point in getting distracted by that. The Buddha's words above are clear, precise and all-inclusive.
Yes they did, and it's worth knowing what kind of ideas the Buddha disagreed with. Substance theory being one of those things. That of enduring entities which bear characteristics.
But he did break things down. The aggregates, elements, āyatana and so on.I do not believe the Buddha's intent was for us to break down, divide and dismantle experience into constituent components... I think it was to understand the universal characteristics of any and all arisen things so that we may become disenchanted by them.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Concepts don't exist and therefore cannot be Anicca or Dukkha.
Greetings,
As for aggregates etc., what that is showing is that anything from which you might bundle or construct a sense of "me, myself or mine" that is not subject to those characteristics, is actually also subject to those same characteristics, and that therefore we should become dispassionate to it all, and release it. Notice the language and sentences that surround comments about anicca, anatta and dukkha in the Sutta Pitaka - it is said for the purposes of dispassion and release.
It is not done out of some sort of ancient scientific endeavour "to show what is really is". Such ontological pursuits are instead the domain of the Abhidhamma, and your earlier interpretation of the sport of football follows under such inspiration. Looking in that direction is looking wrong way, IMO, as it misses the point of the Dhamma and why the Buddha taught what he did, and why he didn't teach what he didn't. Even theoretically deconstructing everything in the mental and physical world down to some kind of atomic level will not bring enlightenment, otherwise scientists and logicians would be enlightened.
Rather, it is experience, and that which is experienceable, which must be understood... and that experience undeniably includes "concepts" (nama), as this doctrine isn't about the polarity of existence and non-existence. The Buddha makes all of this abundantly clear in SN 12.15, but unless one is willing to relinquish Abhidhamma thinking, they will apply their own caveats and restrictions to this sutta, rather than open-heartedly take it as was given, as it was said. So be it, that's none of my business.
Metta,
Paul.
That is where paticcasamuppada (not Abhidhamma IMO) comes into play.
retrofuturist wrote:I do not believe the Buddha's intent was for us to break down, divide and dismantle experience into constituent components... I think it was to understand the universal characteristics of any and all arisen things so that we may become disenchanted by them.
That's not breaking down experience though, is it? Experience is what is arisen and present.
As for aggregates etc., what that is showing is that anything from which you might bundle or construct a sense of "me, myself or mine" that is not subject to those characteristics, is actually also subject to those same characteristics, and that therefore we should become dispassionate to it all, and release it. Notice the language and sentences that surround comments about anicca, anatta and dukkha in the Sutta Pitaka - it is said for the purposes of dispassion and release.
It is not done out of some sort of ancient scientific endeavour "to show what is really is". Such ontological pursuits are instead the domain of the Abhidhamma, and your earlier interpretation of the sport of football follows under such inspiration. Looking in that direction is looking wrong way, IMO, as it misses the point of the Dhamma and why the Buddha taught what he did, and why he didn't teach what he didn't. Even theoretically deconstructing everything in the mental and physical world down to some kind of atomic level will not bring enlightenment, otherwise scientists and logicians would be enlightened.
Rather, it is experience, and that which is experienceable, which must be understood... and that experience undeniably includes "concepts" (nama), as this doctrine isn't about the polarity of existence and non-existence. The Buddha makes all of this abundantly clear in SN 12.15, but unless one is willing to relinquish Abhidhamma thinking, they will apply their own caveats and restrictions to this sutta, rather than open-heartedly take it as was given, as it was said. So be it, that's none of my business.
Metta,
Paul.
"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."
Re: Concepts don't exist and therefore cannot be Anicca or Dukkha.
Two person argue certain point of path without being on the path yet.
Both completely miss the point.
Without reaching the end, one can't say those things yet.
Indeed it can be confusing for folks.
Only on the path then one can see indeed Sutta is not contradicting, however certain condition shows different experience.
When someone say all is impermanence, dukkha and not-self. That means they see and know clearly. They have developed the complete path of N8FP. Alas, looks like that is not the case yet.
Indeed it is the wrong question to ask.
This is why indeed needs to practice precepts and hear true dhamma first. Forget about commentaries or opinions. Those things just misled people.
As Buddha said:
The world, your body, your mind are constantly changing, how can one pin point it as something.
Knowing all these, then one can turn the mind to Nibbana with complete path having been developed (including jhana/samma samadhi).
Both completely miss the point.
Without reaching the end, one can't say those things yet.
Indeed it can be confusing for folks.
Only on the path then one can see indeed Sutta is not contradicting, however certain condition shows different experience.
When someone say all is impermanence, dukkha and not-self. That means they see and know clearly. They have developed the complete path of N8FP. Alas, looks like that is not the case yet.
While this statement one is without in the path and try to analyze the path, it just become a big confusions.C wrote:To what then do these characteristics apply? Houses? People?
Indeed it is the wrong question to ask.
This is why indeed needs to practice precepts and hear true dhamma first. Forget about commentaries or opinions. Those things just misled people.
As Buddha said:
As the above example milk become curds, curds become butter etc. It is constantly changing under different condition. Can't say a milk when it already become curds etc.DN 9 wrote:Perception arises first and knowledge afterwards. The arising of perception leads to the arising of knowledge.
“Saññā kho, poṭṭhapāda, paṭhamaṁ uppajjati, pacchā ñāṇaṁ, saññuppādā ca pana ñāṇuppādo hoti.
They understand,
So evaṁ pajānāti:
‘My knowledge arose from a specific condition.’
‘idappaccayā kira me ñāṇaṁ udapādī’ti.
...
From a cow comes milk, from milk comes curds, from curds come butter, from butter comes ghee, and from ghee comes cream of ghee. And the cream of ghee is said to be the best of these.
While it’s milk, it’s not referred to as curds, butter, ghee, or cream of ghee.
The world, your body, your mind are constantly changing, how can one pin point it as something.
Knowing all these, then one can turn the mind to Nibbana with complete path having been developed (including jhana/samma samadhi).
Re: Concepts don't exist and therefore cannot be Anicca or Dukkha.
Existence doesn't exist, but nobody wants to accept that.
Re: Concepts don't exist and therefore cannot be Anicca or Dukkha.
So what are these sankharas which have universal characteristics?retrofuturist wrote: ↑Sat Feb 04, 2023 2:49 am
That is where paticcasamuppada (not Abhidhamma IMO) comes into play.
That's not breaking down experience though, is it? Experience is what is arisen and present.
I would say the 12 āyatana and subsequent processes is breaking down experience. There is a visible form, an eye-base (or vision if you prefer, doesn't matter which here), eye-conciousness, contact, feeling, perception, intention etc. That is breaking down seeing into various dhammas. On things being subject to impermanence, therefore not being self, do these things have specific characteristics or not? If not, how does anyone know them?As for aggregates etc., what that is showing is that anything from which you might bundle or construct a sense of "me, myself or mine" that is not subject to those characteristics, is actually also subject to those same characteristics, and that therefore we should become dispassionate to it all, and release it. Notice the language and sentences that surround comments about anicca, anatta and dukkha in the Sutta Pitaka - it is said for the purposes of dispassion and release.
Well I agree that the Dhamma isn't concerned with science, and I scratch my head somewhat when the Abhidhamma starts getting into proto-science. I scratch my head because the Abhidhamma starts of by talking about experience. It starts by talking about direct experience, about what we can actually know. What do we actually experience when we see a tree, or kick a ball? Just colour, just hardness, nothing more. No substance which bears those characteristics, there is just the raw experience itself. It would make sense for the Abhidhamma to speak like this, since one of the main concerns of the Abhidhamma has to do with meditation and what is actually experienced therein. As I say, where it gets a bit muddled, IMO, is when it branches off into saying these characteristics exist eternally, producing things and so on. That is to say, it makes absolute sense epistemologically but I struggle with it ontologically. Yes we only experience "hardness" when it comes to the earth element, but its strange to then say that "hardness" exists out there and gives rise to temperature etc. Still, in terms of meditation and epistemology the Abhidhamma, as I say, can be very good. You start with the suttas, then you see how there is no substance in the world and so all we can know are fleeting raw experiences, the characteristics, and then you can see how there is Emptiness, Signless and Desireless for if there are no substances, how can characteristics be said to be real or not real? Thus sense experience is also empty of signs (the characteristics, also known as the sabhāva-dhammas).It is not done out of some sort of ancient scientific endeavour "to show what is really is". Such ontological pursuits are instead the domain of the Abhidhamma, and your earlier interpretation of the sport of football follows under such inspiration. Looking in that direction is looking wrong way, IMO, as it misses the point of the Dhamma and why the Buddha taught what he did, and why he didn't teach what he didn't. Even theoretically deconstructing everything in the mental and physical world down to some kind of atomic level will not bring enlightenment, otherwise scientists and logicians would be enlightened.
Rather, it is experience, and that which is experienceable, which must be understood... and that experience undeniably includes "concepts" (nama), as this doctrine isn't about the polarity of existence and non-existence. The Buddha makes all of this abundantly clear in SN 12.15, but unless one is willing to relinquish Abhidhamma thinking, they will apply their own caveats and restrictions to this sutta, rather than open-heartedly take it as was given, as it was said. So be it, that's none of my business.
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Sat Feb 04, 2023 12:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”