Concepts don't exist and therefore cannot be Anicca or Dukkha.

[Ceisiwr]

Oh no ! Concept is an abstract idea . An idea is a mental impression . Therefore , an idea does exist as an sankhara which belongs to part of the five aggregates .

This is why I said it depends how you look at it. From one angle, arising and ceasing do not apply to pure concepts. Vampires for example do not arise and cease.

What do you mean by "pure concepts" here? Ideas or beliefs that don't correspond to the real world?

Yes, like unicorns or Santa Claus.

[asahi]

Vampires for example do not arise and cease.

Oh you do not know ! You havent met one .

[Sasha_A]

How Early Buddhism differs from Theravada: a checklist by Ven. Sujato

the two truths
...
When the term paramattha appears in the EBTs, it does not mean “ultimate meaning” or “ultimate reality” but “ultimate goal”, and is a word for Nibbana.

PARAMATTHA SACCA by Ven. Nanavira:

10. What, now, is the reason for this argument? Why has this notion of 'truth in the highest sense' been invented? We find the clue in the Visuddhimagga. This work (Ch. XVIII) quotes the last four lines (5, 6, 7, & 8) and then repeats in essence the argument of the Milindapañha, using the word satta as well as puggala. It goes on, however, to make clear what was only implicit in the Milindapañha, namely that the purpose of the argument is to remove the conceit '(I) am' (asmimāna): if it is seen that 'in the highest sense', paramatthato, no creature exists, there will be no ground for conceiving that I exist. This allows us to understand why the argument was felt to be necessary. The assutavā puthujjana identifies himself with the individual or the creature, which he proceeds to regard as 'self'. He learns, however, that the Buddha has said that 'actually and in truth neither self nor what belongs to self are to be found' (see the second Sutta passage in §4). Since he cannot conceive of the individual except in terms of 'self', he finds that in order to abolish 'self' he must abolish the individual; and he does it by this device. But the device, as we have seen, abolishes nothing. It is noteworthy that the passage in the Milindapañha makes no mention at all of 'self': the identification of 'self' with the individual is so much taken for granted that once it is established that 'in the highest sense there is no individual' no further discussion is thought to be necessary. Not the least of the dangers of the facile and fallacious notion 'truth in the highest sense' is its power to lull the unreflecting mind into a false sense of security. The unwary thinker comes to believe that he understands what, in fact, he does not understand, and thereby effectively blocks his own progress.

A Letter On Sankhāra by Sāmanera Bodhesako:

Appendix
Your views on sankhāra, if I understand them, involve two grammatical assumptions: (1) that it is necessary to carefully distinguish sankhāra and sankhāra, for they differ greatly from each other, and (2) that it is a mistake to distinguish between sankhāra and sankhata, for they differ only in nuance. On the face of it this appears to be a peculiar thesis, and investigation does not render it more plausible.
...

[Spiny Norman]

Vampires for example do not arise and cease.

Oh you do not know ! You havent met one .

Or you might have met one and not realised.

[justindesilva]

Over thinking, whereas you need to simplify

I believe in not overthinking , and for that fact the best is to grasp the basics.
In abhidamma the basic for thinking is explained as citta, cetasika, rupa, nibbana.
Citta being the mind cetasika are its concomitants . What we perceive from our five senses are rupa. Though what we perceive is always illusionised by the mind our karmic nature mismatch the real figure or rupa as sight, sound , or smell in identifying. Here is where we accept sammuti sacca, while comparing with past experienced objects recorded. This formation of illusions are the concepts, or sammuti sacca. On learning to clarify sammuti sacca along with citta and cetasika
we become abled to apply yonisomanasikara along with and free our minds from clinging to craving or desires and direct our mind towards nibbana.

[User13866]

Well, the notion of 'existence' is a concept, it is conception of the one who thinks about.
The etymology of concept is rooted in conception, a concept is something conceived.

conception

noun

1.

the action of conceiving a child or of one being conceived.

"an unfertilized egg before conception"

Similar:

inception of pregnancy

conceiving

fertilization

impregnation

insemination

fecundation

2.

the forming or devising of a plan or idea.

"the time between a product's conception and its launch"

Similar:

inception

genesis

origination

creation

formation

formulation

invention

beginning

origin

Therefore saying 'Concepts don't exist' is really an oxymoron as i see it. Conception is essentially a bringing of something into existence, a concept is something.

I understand why people would say 'concepts don't exist'. It's like 'justice' is not something tangible like 'an apple' and one would say in regards to this that 'an apple exists, whereas justice is merely a concept'.

This understanding is immature, needs to be further developed.

[Ceisiwr]

Therefore saying 'Concepts don't exist' is really an oxymoron as i see it. Conception is essentially a bringing of something into existence, a concept is something.

I understand why people would say 'concepts don't exist'. It's like 'justice' is not something tangible like 'an apple' and one would say in regards to this that 'an apple exists, whereas justice is merely a concept'.

This understanding is immature, needs to be further developed.

Unicorns really exist Also an oxymoron is two contradictory words placed together.

[User13866]

Therefore saying 'Concepts don't exist' is really an oxymoron as i see it. Conception is essentially a bringing of something into existence, a concept is something.

I understand why people would say 'concepts don't exist'. It's like 'justice' is not something tangible like 'an apple' and one would say in regards to this that 'an apple exists, whereas justice is merely a concept'.

This understanding is immature, needs to be further developed.

Unicorns really exist Also an oxymoron is two contradictory words placed together.

Don't speak to me more. I am here trying to explain words & their usage, and you come with these silly one liners. You can discuss whether things exist or not until your lifespan is exhausted...

"'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. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

[analysis]

In a sense this is right. Unicorns for example do not get born and do not die, because they do not exist. They are purely conceptual. That is one angle to look at it. From another angle, we do form concepts and so concept formation of a unicorn does arise and cease. The body does arise and cease. There is a concept of a body, and there is the reality of the body to which it relates.

Dear Ceisiwr,
In Theravada, Concept is an object (unreal object). It is not the Concept-formation of our mind.
Mind and mental factors that form a concept do arise and cease, but not the Concept.

I read a sutta with the number SN 22.81. It says:

Here, bhikkhus, the uninstructed worldling, who is not a seer of the noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who is not a seer of superior persons and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, regards form as self. That regarding, bhikkhus, is a formation. That formation—what is its source, what is its origin, from what is it born and produced? When the uninstructed worldling is contacted by a feeling born of ignorance-contact, craving arises: thence that formation is born. Thus, bhikkhus, that formation is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen

This sutta sounds like it has a view about unreal concepts this is the opposite to your theory. This sutta says the concept of 'self' is impermanent. What is your opinion about this? Is your theory right & is the sutta wrong? Or is the sutta right & is your theory wrong? Who is right? You or the Buddha?

Dear Alrac,
What Eko Care has said is correct according to the Classical texts.
The conceptualizing in mind is the impermanent one, but not the Conceptual-object of Conceptualizing-mind.
Pannatti is an object. This fake object is perceived by the impermanent mind.

Concepts are things that only exist in our minds, in our thoughts.

Dear pegembara,
Please see the above answers.

Concepts exist for as long as they can be conceptualized. Like a movie that’s projected on the screen is not real, but the screen and projector are both subject to change, and therefore makes the movie subject to anicca, and dukkha.

Dear Tl21G3lVl,
The colors that the eye sees are real, but not the concept of "movie".
What is fake is the Object pointed by the Idea of "movie".

[AlexBrains92]

Dear Tl21G3lVl,
The colors that the eye sees are real, but not the concept of "movie".
What is fake is the Object pointed by the Idea of "movie".

What about the concept of "red"?

[Ceisiwr]

Dear Tl21G3lVl,
The colors that the eye sees are real, but not the concept of "movie".
What is fake is the Object pointed by the Idea of "movie".

What about the concept of "red"?

That is a concept of the real.

[AlexBrains92]

Dear Tl21G3lVl,
The colors that the eye sees are real, but not the concept of "movie".
What is fake is the Object pointed by the Idea of "movie".

What about the concept of "red"?

That is a concept of the real.

In what sense red would be ultimately real?

[Ceisiwr]

What about the concept of "red"?

That is a concept of the real.

In what sense red would be ultimately real?

It’s a natural phenomenon. The concept has a referent. How is it just a concept?

[Goofaholix]

What's causes a concept... thought.
What causes thought... mind.

Mind experiences anicca, dukkha, anatta.

Your statement only makes sense if concepts can arise in a vacuum, I'm pretty sure they don't.

[Ceisiwr]

What's causes a concept... thought.
What causes thought... mind.

Mind experiences anicca, dukkha, anatta.

Your statement only makes sense if concepts can arise in a vacuum, I'm pretty sure they don't.

Do unicorns get born, age and die?