MN146 Nandakovāda Sutta: Advice from Nandaka.
The venerable Nandaka gives the nuns a discourse on impermanence.
1:
2:
3:
“But if it’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, is it fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?”
“No, sir.”
In the video this is part 1, 14:30 and 21:39.
I don’t quite understand the logic of why something impermanent, suffering, and perishable cannot be considered mine, me etc. Granted, I might not like the fact that I’m perishable but that’s a different topic; wanting something to be true doesn’t necessarily make it so. A guy with a rusty vehicle might agree that it’s impermanent but, at least in the eyes of the law, it’s “his/hers” (albeit for a limited period of time). A marathon runners legs may well be suffering, but they’re still considered “his/hers” when they cross the finish line.
I likely agree with the conclusion (makes me think of Dido ‘Nothing I have is truly mine’), I just don’t necessarily understand the Buddhist reasoning. Any clues? Somewhere I read a Sutta saying I should question from time to time if I don’t understand.
Greetings @Radius ,
It just so happens that exactly this question was discussed a few days ago here
Have a look and see if it makes things any clearer
with metta
3 Likes