Is this a misunderstanding?

Viewing 1 reply thread
  • Author
    • #42037

      Last night, I came across something that was mentioned. 

      The Three Basic Facts of Existence III. Egolessness (Anatta)

      “Aacariya Buddhagohosa’s definitions are as follows: “The characteristics of impermanence and suffering are known whether Buddhas arise or not; but that of not-self is not known unless there is a Buddha;… for the knowledge of it is the province of none but a Buddha” (Aayatana Vibhanga A./VbhA. 49-50). “The Blessed One in some instances shows not-self-ness through impermanence (as in M. 148 cited below), in some through suffering (as in S. XXII, 59 cited above), and in some through both (as in S. XXII, 76 or XXXV, 1 cited above). Why is that? While impermanence and suffering are both evident, not-self is unevident” (MA. ad M. 22/vol. ii, 113); for “the characteristic of not-self seems unevident, obscure, arcane, impenetrable, hard to illustrate and hard to describe” (VbhA, 49)”

      I would like to confirm my understanding of that it’s not correct / accurate / true what was stated in the bolded words quoted. 

      If one takes anicca to mean impermanence and dukkha as just suffering such as old age, sickness, death, etc . . . Then I can see how someone would hold such views of what was mentioned in the bolded words.

      But the thing is, impermanence is not anicca even though it plays a small part of it and the dukkha ariyasacca is not just about old age, sickness, death, etc that is evident. In fact the dukkha ariyasacca is about the dukkha that is hidden from us or that’s not evident, such as attaching / craving for the 5 aggregates which is the cause for our future suffering and keeping us in the rebirth process. 

      To me, what was stated in the bolded words in the quotation can not be correct / accurate / true. 

      The tilakkhana (all 3 characteristic) can only be taught or known to others  / world (besides PaccekaBuddha’s) when a SammasamBuddha appears in this world. 


    • #42040

      1. As I have explained in many posts, Four Noble Truths is the same as Paticca Samuppada. Those encompass Tilakkhana (anicca, dukkha, anatta.) None of those is known in the absence of a Buddha.

      2. It is a waste of time to read any document that translates anicca as impermanence and anatta as no-self.

      3. If a Tipitaka reference can be provided for the following statement, we can discuss that: “The characteristics of anicca and dukkha are known whether Buddhas arise or not.” There is no such reference!

      • Note the dukkha in the above statement cannot be taken as merely “suffering” either. Suffering is dukha. Since suffering is known to even animals, a Buddha is not needed to show us that “suffering exists.”
      • On the other hand, dukkha is “dukha + khaya.”  Without a Buddha, we will not know how to overcome that suffering, i.e., the Dukkha Sacca.



Viewing 1 reply thread
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.