Can that which is constantly changing but never completely ceases be called impermanent and selfless?

Discussion
1

Hello. I had discussions with representatives of the Mahayana schools and they claimed that the understanding of the impermanent as something that completely ceases or can potentially cease is not correct. From their point of view, due to the fact that the stream of the mind consists of moments conditioned by past moments, then formally it is impermanent and impersonal. Due to the fact that an enlightened being has no clinging and does not accumulate negative karma, their “eternally changing” existence is not suffering. Since the roots of creation and dukkha are eliminated from the stream of the mind and there is nowhere for new roots to arise, and citta necessarily produces citta of the next moment, then such a mind eternally exists, is eternally changeable and invariably happy. From their point of view, the claim that this is the I, the self, is inapplicable to such a mind, since it is empty of self-existence and is constantly changing, consists of conditioned moments. Moreover, it cannot be said that it is permanent, since the impermanent is changeable, but not destroyed.

I would like to find some materials on variability. Contextual use of the word as complete destruction. Including not only a separate moment of the mind, but also the entire stream of the mind. Since it is possible to assert the destruction of a moment of the mind, but the constancy of the stream of the mind as a whole.

1 Like
2

Constantly changing things are entirely scholastic invention, and have nothing in common with the real experience as it is observed by consciousness. About impermanent things Buddha said only that you can observed its arising, disappearing and change while it is present. And this is precisely what you can observed in your own experience.

But impermanence in Dhamma is strictly connected with the problem of self - atta - and self-identification with things, Since notion of self is associated with perception of permanence, to see impermanence of the thing, means to see that is should not be taken as a self.

3

Regardless of what the suttas say - in real life we find two kinds of permanence.

The examples of the two kinds are mentioned in Advaita texts

The first type of permanence is the permanence of a stone mountain. It just stays immobile and perfectly still forever. Nothing ever happens to it (to be sure things happen to it, but here we are just conveying an idea of a constancy with this example)

The second type of permanence is the permanence of the river. All its water is forever moving and changing, and the river changes course constantly, but the river itself is perceived as existing forever although everything in it is changing always. Again you get the general picture of what the example is trying to convey.

So now getting back to our own observations, we see the permanence of the river ourselves - we see/understand that everything in the cosmos is changing but the cosmos itself has this everlasting change.

If constant change stops completely then it would result in the constancy of the stone mountain. Nothing thereafter happens to the cosmos and it stays like that forever.

So we get to this conundrum, this paradox in what we observe to be real.

What if both of the above types of constancies are false because of a deficiency in our capacity to observe reality? Advaita gives room for that too by proposing that all observed reality is limited by the limitations in our capacity to observe and grasp - so regardless of what we understand cosmic reality to be, it is almost always going to be incorrect as it will be imperfect by an order of magnitude. Therefore Shankara (the Advaita scholar) makes his dictum - Jagat mithyā i.e. “(our perception of) the changing world is unreal”. But as long as the perceived change exists, the perceiver (oneself) also exists, thus the ātman is alone taken to be real.

But some people say - “no the ātman ceases to exist at the point of death so there is a stopping of perception at death”. But we all perceive the world in broadly the same way so perceptions and perceivers never really die completely with the death of an individual. There are all sorts of beings that collectively continue to perceive indefinitely after we run out of our time.

So coming back to what the Suttas are to be understood as positing - the Mahāyāna viewpoint you mention is a very nuanced understanding of the EBTs.

4
5

The idea that citta produces automatically a citta of the next moment, i have never heard before in mahayana. To me this seems to deny the teachings on nutrition (ahara), fuel, food. How can things just continue??
Even samsara only continues due the fuel, not without. A fire does not continue without fuel. How can a citta just give rise to a next citta moment without fuel?

As far as i have heard and understood Mahayana distinguished how the mind appears to be fo someone with defilements and without. For someone with defilements, with grasping, mind appears as unstable, a stream, with different moods, in different spheres of existence (dark, light etc), not peaceful, burdened. It also appears as me, mine, my self.

But for the Enlightened Ones mind is something extremly subtle, like a combination of emptiness and clarity which boundaries cannot be found. It is not somewhere established. The subtle nature of mind, its ability to know, is peaceful, not an atta.
Most people have only an understanding of the nature of mind from the perspective of defilements. Meaning, this mind is always in a sphere of me, mine, my self, inclined directed, with passion. That blinds the understanding of what mind really is. A oneness. There are no endless minds. But there is avijja which takes mind to be personal, limited and established where I am. And that gives the impression that there are endless minds. This is all due to grasping. This pure nature of mind is not humane, deva-like, animal like, hell like, peta-like but transcends all existences. Total openess. Bhava nirodha is the nature of mind without grasping.

I believe in essence mahayana teaches that avijja has made us believe that mind is personal and established where I am. But when there is no grasping, mind cannot be established as here or there, blue or red, or in terms of time or in terms of eixistend or non-existend because such all relies on grasping, mental proliferation, conceiving.

Also saying that mind is a combination of emptiness and clarity is, i believe, also proliferating the unproliferated but it has the function to point to something.

How can we speak of what is free of grasping? Is such meaningless? I do not think so because it can open a door to the deathless. It can change our coarse understanding of what mind is.

Do they also teach that this citta that continues from moment to moment, still experiences or undergoes birth and death?

6

Mendicants, when what exists, because of grasping what and insisting on what, does the view arise: ‘A realized one still exists after death’?

When form exist, because of grasping form and insisting on form … consciousness, the view arises

SN24.15

The problem with philosophy is it relies on presupposed (ultimately circular) definitions rather than real life. The Buddha talked about impermanence not alone, but always in terms of it being a quality of something, most notably the 5 aggregates. Yes, permanent existent things can exist in imagination and in theory, but that’s not what is actually found.

What’s also found is nothing which is ever-changing does not also fully go away, and vice versa, there is nothing found which fully goes away which isn’t also ever-changing. Additionally, anything ever-changing and/or dying was also born. The ever-changingness is a reason it was born and will die. The death of something is reason it was born. Either all 3 are present, or none.

Mendicants, the conditioned has these three characteristics. What three? Arising is evident, vanishing is evident, and change while persisting is evident … The unconditioned has these three characteristics. What three? No arising is evident, no vanishing is evident, and no change while persisting is evident.

AN3.47-48

This dismisses the premise that “the realized one was ever changing with no possible final ending”. This also applies to death in general, but those can be reborn.

Also see: SN22.85

7

Yes, I understand what you mean. But I am opposed to this argument that although individual forms or states of mind arise and cease, but the flow itself, since it did not arise, has no origin-poin in the infinite past, then it will never cease.
The main thing for me is to find some clear descriptions of impermanence. The sutta you cited is in line with what I am looking for. I know it, and I am looking for similar ones. And also articles with an analysis of the terms of impermanence and their contextual use

1 Like
8

I was thinking of that, which is why I claimed

What I was thinking was, “the flow” is like saying “being” with emphasis on time. But why is it in a flow. Beings are born and die all the time. What birth and death mean is that this body, mind, the senses, perception, all parts of them completely cease, but are later reborn because of the condition of clinging. That change of the flow isn’t the ever changing nature of experience, it’s an instance of total ending, and then something new is potentially born later. In deep meditation, a similar thing happens where different parts of experience are actually fully cut out, rather than just being light; that’s a full ending, it isn’t anywhere to be found. But, the meditation ends, and they can come back. That’s what impermanence is about, not just ever-changing.

So, the flow overall didn’t arise / we can’t see that far back, but that’s because we aren’t talking about the “flow overall” with impermanence, we’re talking about an actual being subjected to such flow in its current life. The flow of samsara overall doesn’t really exist, but it’s a conclusion drawn from an observation over time. Similar to evolution or the economy, it only works if you consider things over considerable periods of time, but in the present moments, it’s very hard to notice that.

With the “tathāgata still exists after death…” tetrad, some Thai translations say it means “being still exists after death…” because they are implying this isn’t a kind of principle about death that is exclusive to the Buddha somehow. I think it was just a common question applied to him because people would scrupulate specifically him and because his death was different. He still really did die, but it was a fuller death where desire and karma couldn’t bring him back. However, all my phrasing is illogical if you don’t take it conventionally as implied by the death tetrad.

Nice. There are some more like that, I’ll collect some. These could be helpful:

→ You could try searching “Realized one still exists”
→ SN22 is important.

SN22.11 not-self in 3 times

Mendicants, form of the past and future is not-self, let alone the present.

Feeling… Perception… Choices… Consciousness…

Seeing this, a learned noble disciple doesn’t worry about past consciousness, doesn’t look forward to enjoying future consciousness, and they practice for the disillusionment, dispassion, and cessation regarding present consciousness.

SN12.12 four fuels

“Mendicants, there are these four fuels. They maintain sentient beings that have been born and help those that are about to be born. What four? Solid food, whether solid or subtle; contact is the second, mental intention the third, and consciousness the fourth. These are the four fuels that maintain sentient beings that have been born and help those that are about to be born.”

When he said this, Venerable Phagguna of the Top-Knot said to the Buddha, “But sir, who consumes the fuel for consciousness?”

“That’s not a fitting question,” said the Buddha.

“I don’t speak of one who consumes. If I were to speak of one who consumes, then it would be fitting to ask who consumes. But I don’t speak like that. Hence it would be fitting to ask: ‘Consciousness is a fuel for what?’ And a fitting answer to this would be: ‘Consciousness is a fuel that conditions rebirth into a new state of existence in the future. When that which has been reborn is present, there are the six sense fields. The six sense fields are a condition for contact.’”

“But sir, who contacts … feels … craves … grasps?”
…

SN12.17-18 who did and who experiences that deed

Suppose that the person who does the deed experiences the result. Then for one who has existed since the beginning, suffering is made by oneself. This statement leans toward eternalism. Suppose that one person does the deed and another experiences the result. Then for one stricken by feeling, suffering is made by another. This statement leans toward annihilationism. Avoiding these two extremes, the Realized One teaches by the middle way: ‘Ignorance is a condition for choices…’

Suppose that the feeling and the one who feels it are the same thing. Then for one who has existed since the beginning, pleasure and pain is made by oneself. I don’t say this. Suppose that the feeling is one thing and the one who feels it is another. Then for one stricken by feeling, pleasure and pain is made by another. I don’t say this. Avoiding these two extremes, the Realized One teaches by the middle way: ‘Ignorance is a condition for choices…’

SN12.35 whose death

“What are old age and death, sir, and who do they belong to?”

“That’s not a fitting question,” said the Buddha. “You might say, ‘What are old age and death, and who do they belong to?’ Or you might say, ‘Old age and death are one thing, who they belong to is another.’ But both of these mean the same thing, only the phrasing differs. Mendicant, if you have the view that the soul and the body are the same thing, there is no living of the spiritual life. If you have the view that the soul and the body are different things, there is no living of the spiritual life. Avoiding these two extremes, the Realized One teaches by the middle way: ‘Rebirth is a condition for old age and death.’”

“What is (re)birth … continued existence … … choices, sir, and who does it belong to?”
…

SN22.25 unable to arise in the future

Mendicants, give up desire and greed for form. Thus that form will be given up, cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, obliterated, and unable to arise in the future.

Give up desire and greed for feeling … perception … choices … consciousness. Thus that consciousness will be given up, cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, obliterated, and unable to arise in the future.

AN4.199 currents of craving

What are the eighteen currents of craving that derive from the interior? When there is the concept ‘I am’, there are the concepts ‘I am such’, ‘I am thus’, ‘I am otherwise’; ‘I am fleeting’, ‘I am lasting’; ‘mine’, ‘such is mine’, ‘thus is mine’, ‘otherwise is mine’; ‘also mine’, ‘such is also mine’, ‘thus is also mine’, ‘otherwise is also mine’; ‘I will be’, ‘I will be such’, ‘I will be thus’, ‘I will be otherwise’. These are the eighteen currents of craving that derive from the interior.

What are the eighteen currents of craving that derive from the exterior? When there is the concept ‘I am because of this’, there are the concepts ‘I am such because of this’, ‘I am thus because of this’, ‘I am otherwise because of this’; ‘I am fleeting because of this’, ‘I am lasting because of this’; ‘mine because of this’, ‘such is mine because of this’, ‘thus is mine because of this’, ‘otherwise is mine because of this’; ‘also mine because of this’, ‘such is also mine because of this’, ‘thus is also mine because of this’, ‘otherwise is also mine because of this’; ‘I will be because of this’, ‘I will be such because of this’, ‘I will be thus because of this’, ‘I will be otherwise because of this’. These are the eighteen currents of craving that derive from the exterior.

SN22.47 regard one or all aggregates as self

Mendicants, whatever ascetics and brahmins regard various kinds of things as self, all regard the five grasping aggregates, or one of them.
…
Struck by feelings born of contact with ignorance, an unlearned ordinary person thinks ‘I am’, ‘I am this’, ‘I will be’, ‘I will not be’, ‘I will have form’, ‘I will be formless’, ‘I will be percipient’, ‘I will not be percipient’, ‘I will be neither percipient nor non-percipient’.

The five faculties stay right where they are. But a learned noble disciple gives up ignorance about them and gives rise to knowledge.

SN22.82 10 finer questions

“But sir, is that grasping the exact same thing as the five grasping aggregates? Or is grasping one thing and the five grasping aggregates another?”

“Neither. Rather, the desire and greed for them is the grasping there.”
…

These deal with views: DN1, SN24, and MN102 The Five and Three

Mendicants, there are some ascetics and brahmins who speculate and theorize about the future, and assert various hypotheses concerning the future. Some propose this: ‘The self is percipient and free of disease after death.’ Some propose this: ‘The self is non-percipient and free of disease after death.’ Some propose this: ‘The self is neither percipient nor non-percipient and free of disease after death.’ But some assert the annihilation, eradication, and obliteration of an existing being, while others propose extinguishment in the present life. Thus they assert an existent self that is free of disease after death; or they assert the annihilation of an existing being; while some propose extinguishment in the present life. In this way five become three, and three become five.

These are about self. I know some about impermanence, but they are not philosophical and rather more relatable like how the mountains would eventually wear down. Tell me if that’s still helpful though.

1 Like
9

This is a “variation on a theme” of the philosophical problem of identity and change that is a logical paradox and to this day has never been solved.

10

If I understand correctly, this is a paradox, for example, of a ship and the change of its parts. Right? Nature shows that there has never been a ship that would last forever in this way. Even ships disappear, not just their parts. And why? Because a ship is kept afloat not by itself, but by the desire and activity of those who sail on it. That is, the supported identity has causes and conditions, these causes and conditions are also changeable and one day they can change so that they will no longer support this system, this identity. So logic suggests that although systems of identity are more stable, they are also fundamentally terminated with the cessation of the changeable forces that support them, or with the emergence of forces that destroy the system and block the conditions of support

1 Like
11

Yes, the Ship of Theseus - Wikipedia

Change in general, also the relationship of unity and multiplicity were the hot topics of Greek philosophy of the day (also the lifetime of the Buddha). cf Plato - Parmenides.

12

“That is not dead which can eternal lie;
And even with strange aeons even death may die” H.P. Lovecraft

With my fascination with Mahayana teachings, I diverge with them on that point that processes can permanently cease or not.

It makes more sense to me to view impermanence as impermanent, something that happens for a while, to be replaced with permanence.

Otherwise, it poignantly runs into the paradox of impermanence being permanent and thus something like an atman.

13

I am not sure that I draw the same conclusion as you from the same reasoning. But I also apply the same principle - impermanence is all-encompassing and the assumption of eternal prolongation of some process does not agree with the teaching of the Buddha.

But if everything was so simple and the stream of mind would cease simply because of simple impermanence and decay, the Buddha would teach primitive annihilationism. Everything is a little more complicated and anicca does not mean that the mind will be immediately destroyed. Buddha taught a middle view between spontaneous cessation and eternal prolongation without end. That is, the middle way - when there is a cause there is also an effect, when the cause changes/ceases, the effect also ceases. Effects are potentially terminated, due to the elimination of the cause, when the conditions are formed. And the conditions (i. e. N8fP) may not form for a long, long time.

And then a deeply rooted thought arises that in the stream there is some unchanging abstract essence that does not change, although the parts change. There is a need for artificial techniques, such as reducing the whole to parts and seeing the parts as empty, momentary, nominal. Also seeing the dependence of the whole on supporting conditions, the changeability of conditions, the potential cessation of the whole, that is, its emptiness from some lasting essence, etc.

That is, formally the flow continues to last, but through such considerations the conditionality of this duration is seen, as a result of which clinging is removed.

I am convinced that the idea that the effects have unchanging conditions - and the flow can therefore last forever - contradicts the word of the Buddha and leans towards the extreme of sasata-vada.

1 Like
14

I believe such ideas as impermanence and permanence are merely categories of thinking. A way to arrange things in our mind. Conceptual understanding.
Outside thinking such has no reality at all. It are concepts used to arrange our knowledge. Like gravity force of Newton. It cannot be found anywhere. Ofcourse it plays a role in something we observe, and we understand why it is introduced as word/concept, but it is still something that cannot be found anywhere.

I wonder, which mahayana school have you made contact with?

i believe it is more like this: A purified mind, without grasping at any arising formations, not involved in any rupa, sanna, sankhara, vedana, vinnana arising,is completely at ease, peaceful, stable, not wobble. That there is, as it were, a flow of vinnana’s, of feelings and perceptions arising and ceasing, does not mean that a mind without grasping is in that flow.

I agree with this, for what its worth

15

I think the most important part about his discussiion with annihilationists isn’t specifically the end result, but the assumptions that lead to that - that is, whether Nirvana, an absence of arising and ceasing and change, implies the destruction of a soul-like substance.

There isn’t a thing that is destroyed (annihilationist view), rather, a process that comes to cessation.

I think there definitely is absence of arising, cessation, change in the end of all this, as told in the Nikayas. Not just as an ontological conclusion but as an absence of karma, contact and experience.

1 Like
16

Yes, but another point of divergence with the annihilationists is that cessation in some cases occurs by itself, not by the dissolution of the conditions that support arising. As the sutta says: there is arising, so annihilationism does not apply.
Hence the denial of kamma and rebirth by nihilists. An important harmful conclusion of this teaching.

1 Like
17

According to the law of impermanence, such a mind and its foundations will also someday be changed and destroyed.

18

Thank you for the work you have done

1 Like
19

  1. I see it simply as things are conditioned - their arising is evident, cessation and change as well. (eg.: material things, even knowledge arises and is forgotten)

  2. Beings on the other hand are of an unconditioned element (spirit) with addition of grasping aggregates (soul?), citta (Bible too states citta is made), and optionally body (which are things as far as they are of conditioned nature).

Thus, if one stated “everything is impermanent,etc”, understood this way it would fall under point 1.
Thus let’s make a distinction between things and beings.

Can we find unconditioned element inside things?
Things are made of atoms, etc and those can change, so on that level the answer would be no. On quantum level or below? Who knows, but let’s assume the answer would be no.

If we cannot find unconditioned element inside things, then were exactly is this unconditioned element found?

  1. One can state there is no unconditioned element, directly contradicting the EBT, Bible and other spiritual teachings.
  2. One can state there is unconditioned element in beings (spirit).

Apart from these two explanations, can you find another explanation?

The unconditioned has these three characteristics. What three? No arising is evident, no vanishing is evident, and no change while persisting is evident.

20

Do you agree Buddha also taught asankhata?