I think the most important context is what we experience. Just things like feelings, memories, intentions, plans, odours, visuals, smells, longings, kilesa’s etc. All those formations and also states of mind (like jhana) are anicca.
I think this was the primary concern of the Buddha with tilakkhana. That we see the inconstancy in them and our inability to possess those formations and states. Wanting to possess them is unwise. We cannot freeze reality. We cannot freeze body and mind and keep remaining it in a certain state we wish…yes…the only possibility is…total detachment. That is not a frozen state, but it is at least the one stable, reliable, refuge, an island. But we cannot freeze the happy mind, the enthousiastic mind, a healthy body, a young body, a optimistic mind etc. This is all inconstant.
The tilakkhana are especially about the nature of what we experience and about seeing this in a realistic way. Seeing what is wise and not wise. I fact, understanding tilakkhana is seeing the four noble truths too.
All conditioned existences are impermanent. They must change. That is the universal law. They are not suffering, they are what they are, but if we cling to them we do not want to lose them; therefore, when they changed to what we do not like, we will suffer.
If we cling to a lovely wife, when she dies, we will suffer.
We normally cling to something good, beauty, aggreable. However, they all are impermanent and they must change no matter if we like it or not. This is the universal law. Therefore, those good, beauty, aggreable will eventually ends up to something else that will cause us suffering. Even if we cling to something not good, not beauty, they also must change to something else or disappear from us. Because of that, we will end up to suffering.
Pain is impermanent, but if we cling to that pain, we want it to be there with us and we do not want to lose that pain. However, it will go away because it is impermanent. We suffer because we lost that pain, not because of the pain.
Impermanence → suffering means that if we cling to any impermanent existences, we will end up with suffering. As we all know, the cause of suffering is our cravings, not the object itself.
I think that in the EBTs it is different. Rather it is said that both consciousness and namarupa arise (and fall) together. Their arising is dukkha arising; their falling is dukkha falling.
“Well then, reverend, I shall give you a simile. For by means of a simile some sensible people understand the meaning of what is said. Suppose there were two bundles of reeds leaning up against each other.
In the same way, name and form are conditions for consciousness. Consciousness is a condition for name and form. Name and form are conditions for the six sense fields. The six sense fields are conditions for contact. … That is how this entire mass of suffering originates. If the first of those bundles of reeds were to be pulled away, the other would collapse. And if the other were to be pulled away, the first would collapse.
In the same way, when name and form cease, consciousness ceases. When consciousness ceases, name and form cease. When name and form cease, the six sense fields cease. When the six sense fields cease, contact ceases. … That is how this entire mass of suffering ceases.” sn12.67
Yes, i know that, and this way it makes sense, but the sutta’s always say…Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness? Suffering! They do not mention grasping and attachment and our longings.
It seems logic for monks that while rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnana is (anicca) , mostly translated as impermanence…it is also suffering. The way you explain this makes sense.
That’s why i belief anicca does not only mean impermanence, but it is all inconstant, subject to change and therefor not realiabe. (SN15.20).
What i mean is that our world consist of rupa loka and nama loka.
Ofcourse consciousness is also there for a Budddha and arahant. But that is just sense-consciousness (vipaka vinnana). There is not kammic consciousness (kamma-vinnana) anymore forming and also no rebirth consciousness will be formed at the last moment of life( Patisandhi-vinnana)
Without Rebirth consciousness no baby will develop in the womb according sutta’s.
I only know ‘rupa loka’ as one part of the tiloka (the other two being ‘kama loka’ and ‘arupa loka’). I don’t recognise the concept of ‘nama loka’. I wonder if you have a reference for this?
Since all conditioned dhammas are anicca, they all are subjected to change no matter if we like it or not. If we cling to them, we do not want to experience that change. We want them to be with us as long as we could wish for if not saying forever. However, they must change and nothing we can do about that. It is the universal law. Therefore, with the change, we will no longer be able to hold on to the old one that we clung to, so we experience dukkha.
If we are the one who is searching for true freedom and happiness and do not want dukkha, should we take that conditioned dhamma as “I, me, mine, myself”? Of course, we will not. Why? Because we know that conditioned dhamma is not “atta” which supposed to be free from dukkha. Therefore, we can conclude that it is anatta.
Impermanence is an universal law. This is something out of our control. You cannot maintain anything to your wish because of this universal law. This law is the cause of change, cease, inconstant… Without it, you may.
If we see this as 3 characteristics of a conditioned dhamma, we can say that:
All conditioned dhammas are impermanent. (This is the universal law)
All conditioned dhammas will lead us to dukkha if we cling to them.
All conditioned dhammas are not free from dukkha. In other words, they are not “atta” which supposed to be free from dukkha, or we can say they are anatta.
It’s a good start that at least you are partially satisfied with my answer.
Actually, you can apply my answer to anybody, for example, Mr. Groen as follow:
From sutta, the death body of other people (or cloud, tree, orange) is called external form.
Such external form is annica so it will eventually and indirectly give rise to something else that directly affect Mr. Groen’s aggregates, hence annica, and hence dukkha to Mr. Groen.
Such external form is annica so it will eventually and directly if conditions are met affect Mr. Groen’s aggregates, hence annica, and hence dukkha to Mr. Groen.
For Mr. Groen’s death body, due to karma and rebirth, it also gives rise to dukkha to Mr. Groen.
Because it can apply to anybody, not just me, it is a property of external form.
Your confusion comes from your understanding of the word “dukkha”. Let’s take example: Something brings poison is poisonous. Poisonous is a property of poison. So, people can simply says “cyanide is poisonous” without confusion. The one gets confused is the one who holds the view that poisonous is a not a property of cyanide but instead property of the mental domain.
Likewise with other properties such as: joyful, attractive, sensual, etc.
From my previous post, you can still agree that: external form brings suffer. So, we can simply say “external form is suffering”. You can prefer “suffer-ful” or “suffer-ous” or “suffer-ual” or “suffer-tive” instead of “suffering” but in the end, the meaning for dukkha is still: “bringing suffer”.
It makes perfect sense when you see that such property “brings suffer” is applicable to anybody so it’s really true that anything impermanent is suffering.
About your question “Why was this so evident for the monks?”, I think other monks (such as Ven. @sujato, @Sunyo, @NgXinZhao, @Khemarato.bhikkhu, etc.) can come in with compassion and explain this to you better than me.
Your question regarding “Pain is impermanent” and “happy when pain can end” is about internal feeling, not about external form.
Let’s take example: A patient with toothache so he got pain. ONLY BECAUSE his pain is impermanent so he can go to his dentist and his pain can end. Do you think that the happiness associated with the event “toothache pain ends” is permanent? The correct answer is no. So such happiness is also impermanent and also brings suffer. In other words, suffering is also a property of such happiness.
Now take another example with nibbāna: The difference here is, nibbāna, by definition, is the cessation of suffering so it’s not anicca. Are you not happy when pain (or suffering) can end indefinitely? The correct answer is yes.
So back to your question: “Are you not happy when pain can end?”. The answer is: Yes, if pain can end indefinitely. For all other cases, no.
About arahant: only the mental aggregates of the arahant can be free from suffering. The physical aggregate of the arahant still bears the suffering from external form with same reason as my previous post.
I just want to say that the Buddha taught the Four Noble Truth which involves dukkha very explicitly. By removing dukkha out of the chain annica → dukkha → anattā, you also definitely weaken the Four Noble Truths which is a very core teaching of the Buddha.
To me, anicca → anattā alone is not enough for me to let go. I don’t know about you, but maybe you like music, long series of movies? Are the music, movies anicca (inconstant) in every moment? But can you let go of them easily just because they are anicca?
As I see, there are many people passed away around the world everyday. However, this does not mean that Mr. Groen will suffer for each of the death. He only suffers if they are somehow connected to him, and he does not want that death happened.
Even if he knows the person, but if he does not like that person or does not care about that person, he will not suffer for the death of that person no matter what will happen to that external form.
Maybe you can find a way to scan all pali text on the search term “nama loka” for this? I once saw this possibility but i do not know anymore how and where.
By the way…are we only allowed here to use the narrative of EBT?
For the sake of all the new members of the forum (those posting and those silently observing) I feel that it is worth responding to a couple of things.
Firstly, the forum is not an academic journal, and is not run according to those conventions. According to the first paragraph of the forum guidelines, The Forum is rather run in the following manner;
Secondly, I am very sorry that you feel that using the conventions for addressing monastics is
Please know that no-one is demanding anything Also there are many diverse ways to perceive things around the use of ‘Ven’ as a title. For one example, I take it as an opportunity to practice recollection of the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha. There are many perceptions that one can cultivate
I use the opportunity, when taking that 1.5 seconds to type out ‘Ven’, to trigger a Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha nusatti. When I recall the incredible effort taken by so many monks and nuns over the past 2,500 years to preserve and disseminate the Dhamma, then I am filled with gratitude. This always turns to joy Free Joy! Yay! And then it has turned into a gift for all
It has nothing to do with stifling questioning and investigation of the Dhamma. The Buddha encouraged this - within the parameters of Right Speech.
But we all make the choices that we think are best
Thank you Viveka for your patient and reasoned response, I am really grateful that you have taken the time to address my concerns in such a thoughtful manner, and truth be told it’s probably even less than 1.5 seconds to type Ven
I take your point that this isnt an academic journal, but neither is it a temple, and I think that that analogy must surely be interpreted as encouraging civilised and kind hearted discourse as opposed to rowdy or uncouth rather than using specific terminology of a particular temple. I think that much of my argument stands - it is hard to know in all cases if a particular writer is a Ven or a Phra or an Ajahn or whatever, often I am coming across these names precisely in academic journals , and other written sources, also, I am not actually addressing them, formally or otherwise , I am talking about them, so being too concerned over a a form of address seems excessive to me. Where I to be speaking directly to a monk I would try an observe whatever conventions where appropriate.
I guess that is another point for me - I am quite bad at knowing when a social convention is operant and how to adopt them - so I might be a bit sensitive about them at times.
I like this very much and perhaps part of my non-joy was the irritation I was feeeling when I realised I had no idea how many darn ‘Ven’s I was going to have to type or even if I could find them all
Anyway, I will give some more thought to this based on what you said and in the meantime thank you for engaging in “right speech” with me around this issue!
I think we are in a strange situation as humans. On one hand we long for stability, for no-change, for constancy, but when nothing in our envirionment would change we would suffer more then ever. Always the same tree, always the same flowers, always the same unchanging persons, …blehh…
Impermanence also means happiness. It also means new possibilities that can arise. New changes. Hope. The happiness to see things changing, to see the flowers growing, to see people change for better, to see the sick become healthy, etc. Impermanence is not only connected to suffering.
The way I perceive the intent of those managing the Forum is that there is an aspiration to be more like an in-person meeting space (temples, meditation groups, academic conferences, etc) than the usual approach for an Internet forum, where anything goes as long as it’s not personally insulting or completely off topic. I actually find that quite refreshing, but I admit it may seem odd compared to other forums.
Yes but adopting the convention of surname/monastic name when referring to the positions of writers on a topic under technical discussion is hardly “anything goes”, it is a well established convention to facilitate identifying the sources of positions with regard to the topic. No one is using the convention as an excuse to use inappropriate forms of address in direct speech. So it’s not that I find it “odd compared to other forums” it is that I find it artificial and arbitrary, requiring those of us who do actually want to discuss the published ideas of writers about Buddhism to research their formal ecclesiastical titles or lack thereof before we can mention their work. In Ven Thannissaro’s case this is straightforward, but it is not so in every case, and the repeated suggestion that using this well established academic convention to identify the source of particular views and opinions around a topic is “lacking basic politeness” or somehow bordering on “personally insulting” is what I take issue with.
Once again, this is a widespread convention, one that is used by monastics themselves when they are writing about each others ideas in print rather than addressing each other in speech directly, as in the examples I gave in a previous post, there is nothing disrespectful or insulting about it, and even in in-person meetings it is absolutely acceptable to refer to ideas and writings in this manner. It is a way of identifying the source of an idea, not a form of address.
I absolutely support the moderators and managers of this forum in their wish to create an atmosphere of “right speech” and polite discourse, I just think it is misguided to imply that the people engaged in earnest and detailed discussion of the very ideas this forum purports to be about, in a manner that is widespread and common in polite discourse, and is, as in the examples i gave above, adopted by monastics themselves, are in fact being somehow uncouth or improper or impolite in what they are doing.
What I meant when I said that this forum isn’t a temple is that it is not the temple of any specific school of Buddhism, and that it would be inappropriate to enforce the particular conventions of say Theravadin practitioners on all the participants here. I am all for politeness and civil discussion, I just think that we need to be respectful not just of those who adopt particular religious conventions but also of those who adopt academic ones, we have our reasons too, as I alluded in a previous reply, the convention of omitting titles in academic discourse allows for a discussion of ideas on their merits without the possibility of coloring mattes with reputations.
To be fair to me, I only asked for a reference, not an EBT reference.
Because your understanding in this area doesn’t seem to fit with my experience of the world and was at apparent odds with the descriptions we find in the EBTs, I simply wanted to know if this was an EBT concept that I had missed or misunderstood? Or was it from some commentary? Or was it maybe a later teaching, maybe from Mahayana or Vajrayana? Or was it some very modern interpretation (I could only find the term that you used on the ‘pure dhamma’ website)? Or was it maybe something that you made up and you had a detailed definition somewhere else?
On the other hand, in general, I think if you are trying to understand things from the EBTs, such as:
then it’s probably a good idea to try to use concepts from the EBTs. To me (using the EBT concept that I gave from sn12.67), it seems completely sensible that any agitation (arising and falling) is dukkha, and the stilling of that agitation leads away from dukkha.
@stu , i have given you a reference in a private mail.
For me it is still not clear why anything impermanent would be suffering. But for me it is totally clear, without doubt, directly visible, that what you cannot maintain to your liking, (such as body and mind in a certain state) because it’s nature is change, unstable, inconstant, that this is suffering. Expacting or longing the impossible (freezing body and mind in a certain state: healthy, young, strong, nice, pleasant, happy, enthousiastic etc) is just a collision course with reality, and that is the dukkha aspect.
Anicca, for me, is the perception/the understanding/the vision, the realitycheck that condtioned reality as total cannot be froozen. Not body and mind, not other persons, not anything external.
The understanding that it is not under control of my wishes is anatta. There is no agent , or atta, who controlls body and mind or anything conditioned. If it would exist, why are we not happy and healthy always? We like to think we are in control, and it may seem so when everything goes according plans, but when you get old and sick the perception of not-in-control becomes more and more vivid.
Agitation
If arising and falling would be the same as agitation and dukkha, a Buddha can never ever realise the end of mental dukkha because sense-experiences, thoughts, still arise and fall in the mind. But that fact alone does not mean there is agitation, or one must definitely conclude that the freed mind, the detached mind of a Buddha is still mentally suffering, is still agitated. That is against the texts.
But because form is not-self, it leads to affliction. And you can’t compel form:
Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, rūpaṁ anattā, tasmā rūpaṁ ābādhāya saṁvattati, na ca labbhati rūpe:
‘May my form be like this! May it not be like that!’
‘evaṁ me rūpaṁ hotu, evaṁ me rūpaṁ mā ahosī’ti. SuttaCentral
In the context of contemplation-, how you perceive things actually-, anicca is the remedy for the distorted perception of nicca. Dukkha is the remedy for the distorted perception of sukha. Anatta the remedy for the distorted perception of atta. Asubha the remedy for the distorted perception of subha or beauty and attractiveness.
We all the time have those distorted perceptions which are signs to the mind. These distorted perceptions are related to the cause of suffering, tanha, because tanha arises because of this distorted perceptions.
Seeing things as dukkha in stead of sukha leads to disinterest, to dispassion. For example: liquer. Many people see it as sukha and subha, as happiness and as attractive. There is tanha involved. But this can change dramattically. One can start to see liquer more and more as dukkha and non-attractive anymore. One looses interest. One becomes totally dispassionate regarding liquer. This is just one example.
One does not need more to declare liberation and end of rebirth than dispassion, dispassion towards all conditioned things (SN12.70). Freed by wisdom.
So, these tilakkhana are about changing distorted (naieve) perception and becoming more and more realistic. That means dispassionate. That means unagitated. Peace.
