nirodh27 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 12:07 pm
And SA55 translated from indonesian (Which is usually very correct since it is translated from a professional translation of modern indonesian)
At that time the Gracious One said to the monks: "I will now teach you the aggregates and the clinging aggregates. What is the aggregates? Whatever bodily form, whether past, future or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, beautiful or repulsive, far or near, all these together are called the bodily form aggregate. "Likewise, whatever feeling ... perception ... formations ... consciousness is also like this. All of them together are called the feeling ... perception ... formations ... consciousness aggregate. This is called the aggregates of life.
"What is the clinging aggregates? It is if bodily form is together with the influxes and there is clinging, if in regard to that bodily form-whether it is past, future, or present- one gives rise to craving, hatred, delusion, and also various other types of additional suffering that become objects of the mind. Feeling ... perception ... formations ... consciousness is also like this. This is called the clinging aggregates.
This says that when there is craving etc then there is
additional suffering. Elsewhere the Buddha says that the aggregates
are suffering. They are a disease, a boil, a dart, an affliction. The aggregates are dependently originated, which means they are suffering.
Based on my research and on what was collected here, passages about Anicca (that are not simply the linkage of impermanence = Dukkha that are everywhere) are not very frequent in the suttas, but what can be gathered is that momentariness is not there except on very few (one?) passage and that btw pairs well with the analysis of Analayo that says that momentariness is a later idea (if helpful of not, it is another matter).
Anicca is something that arises, persist for an indefinite amount with an indefinite amount of change and then ends. For the 4-mind aggregates, the time which they persists is very brief, while the body is seen to arise, persist, degrate and end in a lifetime. For what is worth to us (the five aggregates) the one that persists the most is the body and that is certainly interesting in various ways, to counter the magic-trick of consciousness as an enduring-thing for example.
In 22.38 we see a more momentary view of things
‘Whatever form has passed, ceased, and perished, its arising, vanishing, and change while persisting were evident. Whatever feeling … perception … choices … consciousness has passed, ceased, and perished, its arising, vanishing, and change while persisting were evident. These the things for which arising, vanishing, and change while persisting were evident.
Whatever form is not yet born, and has not yet appeared, its arising, vanishing, and change while persisting will be evident. Whatever feeling … perception … choices … consciousness is not yet born, and has not yet appeared, its arising, vanishing, and change while persisting will be evident. These are the things for which arising, vanishing, and change while persisting will be evident.
Whatever form has been born, and has appeared, its arising, vanishing, and change while persisting is evident. Whatever feeling … perception … choices … consciousness has been born, and has appeared, its arising, vanishing, and change while persisting are evident. These are the things for which arising is evident, vanishing is evident, and change while persisting is evident.’ That’s how I’d answer such a question.”
One sees in the moment the arising, ceasing and change whilst persisting of form. In Sn 22.97 we are told that visible form etc, conciousness, contact and so on are all changing and becoming other. This too suggests a momentary view of things
Eye consciousness arises dependent on the eye and sights. The eye is impermanent, perishing, and changing. Sights are impermanent, perishing, and changing. So this duality is tottering and toppling; it’s impermanent, perishing, and changing. Eye consciousness is impermanent, perishing, and changing. And the causes and conditions that give rise to eye consciousness are also impermanent, perishing, and changing. But since eye consciousness has arisen dependent on conditions that are impermanent, how could it be permanent?
It's parallel frames it in terms of
“Monks, these have the nature of birth, ageing, death, ceasing, and rebirth. Monks, all compounded things are as an illusion, a flame, ceasing in an instant; being not real they come (arise) and go (cease).
We also see in SN 22.97 a support for momentariness
Then the Blessed One took up a little bit of soil in his fingernail and said to that bhikkhu: “Bhikkhu, there is not even this much form that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and that will remain the same just like eternity itself. If there was this much form that was permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, this living of the holy life for the complete destruction of suffering could not be discerned. But because there is not even this much form that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, this living of the holy life for the complete destruction of suffering is discerned.
There is not even a small amount of form which stable. The picture we get from these suttas is that form, as well as mind, constantly arises and ceases. Notice that it also escalates in view. One starts from the view of permanency in experience, which then becomes a stable and enduring thing. This then proliferates further into an eternal thing free of change that always is. The error starts with permanence. One then has to see that things are not permanent. They are subject to change. How pots are subject to change, but then one goes further than this so that one does not even perceive things which endure and then change.
Anicca is something that arises, persist for an indefinite amount with an indefinite amount of change and then ends. For the 4-mind aggregates, the time which they persists is very brief, while the body is seen to arise, persist, degrate and end in a lifetime. For what is worth to us (the five aggregates) the one that persists the most is the body and that is certainly interesting in various ways, to counter the magic-trick of consciousness as an enduring-thing for example.
Just as there are degrees of Dukkha (Dukkha can be minor or major) so it so for anicca that is diverse in duration and stability, because there are things that persist more (for what interest to us, persist more as pleasant), that are more stable and reliable and others that are way less stable. Jhanas being the more stable and reliable of all that we can imagine bar Nibbana.
When Buddhists were debating Brahmins, such as those who followed Nyāya, it was the Brahmins who argued that there were things which persist and change over time. They did so, because if taken quite literally it means there are enduring substances in the world. Do you think these later Brahmins had a better understanding of Dhamma than the Buddha's own followers did? If things arise dependently, how can they endure?
Analayo is very wise in his analysis and I suggest this reading to everyone:
This isn't really anything new. You find the same presentation in the Visuddhimagga.