Hmm. If things continue due to other things (other conditions) then they have a beginning, when the conditions came together. so they will also have an end, when the conditions fall apart. So the Buddha suggested ‘all conditioned things are impermanent’ for contemplation, so we can see in our direct experience whether this is true or not.
I believe the Buddha would not say: ‘all things are impermanent’, or ‘all things are permanent’ or ‘the universe is impermanent’ or ‘the universe is permanent’ because those statements call for belief or rejection. They do not call us to investigate or contemplate, they are not sandiṭṭhiko, akāliko, or ehipassiko.
I believe an Arahant would still have likes and dislikes, but would not get caught by them and be led to over-indulge.
Likes and dislikes are often based on needs of the body, e.g. we might like sweet things because we have a high metabolism. A person stuck in the sense pleasures might then become addicted to chocolate and eat too much and feel sick. An Arahant, I believe, might eat chocolate, but would know when the body’s need was satisfied and stop. He would not have the suffering of over-eating and feeling sick, only the benefit of supplying the energy need of the body.
Sorry, I left off the quotes, it should be:
all conditioned things are impermanent Pāli: sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā, not ‘all things are impermanent’, i.e. not ‘the universe is impermanent’
‘all things are impermanent’ or ‘the universe is impermanent’ is a thought (or question) that obscures the path.
Certainly not! It is when we ask or think the universe or all things are impermanent or permanent, that, I believe and have found, is an obstruction, because those ideas cannot be tested in immediate personal (everyday) experience, if we accept the teaching of the Buddha.
Those who follow other teachers (even without knowing it) would not accept this idea. Certain altered (formless) states of consciousness experienced through meditation, such as ‘perception of infinite space’, combined with ‘identity view’, gives the idea ‘I am one with the universe’. The next ‘perception of infinite consciousness’ combined with ‘identity view’, gives the idea ‘I know the universe’. They cling to this experience as permanent and develop the philosophy, that even though they are not experiencing it in the present moment (everyday life with form), it is the underlying nature of reality. There are some qualities of the experience that can be developed in everyday life, such as relaxed connectivity (to one’s body/sensations).
Now this sutta, would seem to come close to the Buddha saying ‘the universe is impermanent’ SuttaCentral, but you can see the encouragement is to see the Five (Clinging) Aggregates (direct experience) is impermanent.
In SuttaCentral I think we can see it quite clear and the principle can be extended from ‘world’ to ‘universe’. In those times, not many may have had the idea of ‘universe’.
(The story of the devas and asuras in that sutta seems quite strange, but it could be understood as, a thought exists and is real, but that does not mean what we thought of exists in the external world. Thus, I think it’s quite absurd to argue whether ‘God or gods exist or not’, if it/they are beyond the five senses. They certainly exist -to some people- as thoughts. The Buddha is said to teach ‘there is no God’ but I have found that he teaches against the idea of a creator god only, as a wrong view and would not argue either way the external existence of a God/gods. For people that believed in non-creator gods them, he used the idea to help them on the path.)
For me, these questions also are obstructions to the path and part of the path is learning the useful extent of logic. We can develop a blind faith in logic and get stuck in philosophising and not actually act to end suffering.
It seems to me we do have form and we cling to it and clinging to it is suffering, if we believe the Buddha. So focussing on our clinging and the why of that, why we cling to form (the second noble truth), would be beneficial.
Clung to form, for me, is suffering. When I stopped clinging to form the first time, I found I did not ask those kind of questions any more. Once you understand the Buddha’s meaning of ‘form’ and ‘clinging’ you can test immediately if clinging to it is suffering or not.
Thanks for your answer. I do not know why asking those questions are osbtructions to the path since they are very practical to me.
Let make some simple practical examples:
Suppose I have a wife (or a mother), she is “form, feeling, perception, volitional formations and consciousness”. I do not cling to her but she is clinging to me. She wants me to be this or that. She is sick, demanding and troublesome. Even though I do not cling to her, will I be free from dukkha when I am with her?
Or if there is a girl, she is very troublesome and demanding. I do not cling to her at all. However, if she is not dukkha then I should be able to have her without any trouble. Is this true? Can I have her as my possession and be free from dukkha?
I understand clinging to form, feeling, perception, volitional formations and consciousness will lead to dukkha. However, I am asking if form, feeling, perception, volitional formations and consciousness are not dukkha (as your conclusion), can we have them without dukkha? I think this is a very straight, simple and practical question.
Do you take all things and the universe as equivalent ? I mean the meaning .
What about if you listen to the sounds of thunder , for example , the sound don’t last , isn’t that impermanent ?
If you look at the rainbow , it will slowly dissappear from the sights , isn’t that impermanent ?
Do you refer to buddhist monks or some other religions ?
Do you refer it/this experience to be synonymous with Atman philosophy or even the Buddha Nature in Mahayana teachings ? or the Tathagata-Garbha concept ?
What if they do experience it in the present moment with form such as the Buddha Nature ? This state were not consider to be equivalent to the formless jhāna states by Mahayana / vajrayana .
What Do you mean by world and universe ?
So , asuras and devas is just a “thought” ?
They don’t actually existed as something externally ? Just like realm of animals /hells /ghosts ?
Do you think or regards the peoples /trees /cars /environment etc as external world ?
Not six senses ? Isn’t that gods such as 6 classes gods of kama Loka , Brahma gods of the rupa Loka was mentioned constantly by the Buddha in the suttas just like the formless realms ?
There were many things existed externally beyond our normal senses , such as atom particles , dark matter/ black hole etc , right ?
You say:
-‘she is “form, feeling, perception, volitional formations and consciousness”’.
-‘She is sick, demanding and troublesome.’
To me, these are just identity view based on the conceit ‘I am’ which is the basis for labelling others ‘he/she is…’ and is itself an example of clinging. As long as you label her like that (positive or negative), I do not believe you can be with her without clinging.
Even the label ‘she is my wife’, still is an attempt to define her as a person. In that situation I would train myself to think/say: ‘I am married to her’ which defines a relationship, not a person.
This is how I see the question/s, or way/s of thinking is obstructive to the path, i.e. is a way of thinking with clinging.
No. I don’t believe anyone can ‘have’ any adult person and be free from dukkha, but I believe anyone can have children, animals and inanimate possessions and be free from it. In that regard the ‘having’ is defining the relationship of care or responsibility for.
I would not say they ‘lead to’ dukkha, but that the clung-to aggregates are dukkha. Dhamma, for me, is timeless.
If the five aggregates within us (that is, our direct experience) are not clung to, then we would be free of dukkha.
If the five aggregates outside of us (which is not our personal direct experience) are not clung to by the owners, we may have dukkha or not.
I would say, we receive information about others through our five senses and we make judgements about them (sixth sense - thinking). As (partially or fully) unenlightened people, our suffering interferes with those judgements (thoughts) and distorts what we think we see/hear etc. We cling to the input as the truth and cannot recognise the distortion = ignorance.
You ask along the lines of ‘does this exist or not externally’. I try my best not to make dogmatic statements about if things exist externally or not, because I see how suffering pollutes how I interpret the input of my six senses.
I believe many things exist externally beyond our normal senses , such as atom particles , dark matter/ black hole etc. I follow the training the Buddha gave to express one’s belief as such and not to make dogmatic statements.
I am not interested in continuing a conversation that seeks such statements and makes them to me, such as: ‘There are many things that exist externally beyond our normal senses , such as atom particles , dark matter, a black hole etc. right?’
To be dogmatic is to follow a
doctrine relating to morals
and faith, a set of beliefs
that is passed down and never questioned. It also refers
to arrogant opinions based
on unproven theories or
even despite facts.
It seems you are using the
words “universe” , “external” ,
so I am just trying to understand
what you said ! It also seems
you choose to believe some
part of the sutta , or adopt
part of it, although the suttas
did mentioned deva , asura etc.
in which you don’t accept .
If one does not see the danger, the disadvantages, the drawback of form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, consciousness, one will not develop dispassion to them. If one does not have dispassion, one will not relinquish them. If one does not relinquish them, they will not come to cessation and one will eventually cling to them and dukkha will come.
Just as a fish does not see any danger from the bait, it will eventually get hooked and get killed.
What I meant is if we develop clinging to form, feeling, perception, volitional formations and consciousness then dukkha will arise. You can see this if you understand DO.
To you, which aggregate is not clung-to aggregate?
This is the limitation of language. That is the only way for me to show that the five aggregates represents a person. However, I think you do not understand identity view (Sorry if this may offend you).
I quote this to show that you do not understand identity view. An arahant has no identity view. He does not see that likes and dislikes as his feeling; therefore, he does not have that feeling. If he is no where to be found, how can he still have likes and dislikes? This is why we cannot say the arahant feels this or that…
You think “an Arahant would still have likes and dislikes, but would not get caught by them” because you see him through you self-view (or identity view). Only pleasant feeling arose, pleasant feeling ceased, unpleasant feeling arose, unpleasant feeling ceased. “The arahant” does not see I have pleasant feeling or I have unpleasant feeling. That feeling does not belong to “him”. I put those in quotes to show that “arahant”, “him” does not relate to a person.
You think “an Arahant would still have likes and dislikes, but would not get caught by them” because you see the arahant as a person through your self-view.
This shows to me that you do not understand why birth, old age, sickness, death are dukkha in the first noble truth (that’s why you rejected it) and why monks do not have children and possession. If anyone can have children , animals and inanimate possessions and be free from it then monks should be able to have children and possession and be free from dukkha by your logic. Is this Buddha’s Dhamma? (Theravada?)
With your above understanding, you will not develop dispassion towards possession, you will not develop dispassion towards birth, old age, sickness, death… Without dispassion and relinquishment how can you cut off craving?
I think you have given enough answers to my questions. Even though I do not agree with your view, I will not continue questioning it since you are quite fixed with your view and my view is not compatible with yours.
Thanks for your answers to my questions. If my view may offend you, please forgive me since I have good intention of trying to show you different view.
Unfortunately I do not follow that line of thought. I follow the line from the First Noble Truth that the Five clung-to Aggregates are the things to be seen having danger, disadvantage, drawbacks and one will then develop dispassion for them, relinquish them and they come to cessation.
For me our lines of thought are not compatible and I choose not to continue this kind of conversation.
Hi , just for sharing .
Never mind the universe etc.
You mentioned the cause of suffering is ignorant , this i would agree .
But , you also said you have to choose in between craving/clinging and ignorant , so , you chose ignorant .
However , I would suggest both since in the dependent origination , the primary cause is ignorant and follow by craving / clinging .
Yes, the Second Noble Truth, for me, is addressing the primary cause, with the question, ‘what is the cause of suffering?’ When it comes to primary causes, then I have to choose ignorance over desire. Desire is a secondary cause, thus it is in DO later down the chain and for me, it is only desire that is based on ignorance the primary cause, that is a cause for suffering, that is unwholesome desire.
We find the Buddha teaching, it is not all action that he teaches to end, only unwholesome action. (ref?) Desire is a mental action, in the Buddha’s teaching, as I understand it.
PS I don’t interchange desire and clinging. Clinging would only be with unwholesome desire.
This is all a difference between the Buddha’s teaching and common advanced philosophy, imo.
I would say doing a ‘good’ deed is based on ignorance and is unwholesome. What ignorance? The ignorance that ‘good and bad’ is very different from ‘right and wrong’. The latter for me, is the same as ‘wholesome and unwholesome’ or ‘skilful and unskilful’ or ‘healthy and unhealthy’.
‘Good’ and ‘bad’, for me are culturally conditioned and therefore not Dhamma. What is ‘bad’ in one culture could be ‘good’ in another, or could be ‘neutral’. E.g. pointing one’s feet at a respected thing, is ‘bad’ in Thai culture, but it is ‘neutral’ in Australian culture. If it were done intentionally to disrespect Thai culture, e.g. knowing their culture, one does it in ‘their’ space (e.g. at a Thai event), then it would be ‘unwholesome’ as well as ‘bad’ imo. If one did it not knowing their culture, it could be ‘bad’ but ‘wholesome’.
Good deeds may have good physical results, e.g. you may become respected amongst Thais, but I believe they will not help you on the path. Thinking they will, is part of clinging to rules and rituals, to me.
Are we here refer ignorant according to DO dhamma , ie unwise attention ?
I’m referring to the ignorance of not looking at things as it is , which is
unwise attention .
Therefore , whether wholesome or unwholesome , it is still ignorant .
