Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
My thoughts: If it were in the nature of things to change for the better, it wouldn’t matter if they were impermanent; a temporary existence in the deva loka would be succeeded by one in the rupa loka.
Before I discovered Buddha Dhamma, I smoked a pack of cigarettes a day. It didn’t matter to me that the value I derived from that experience was temporary, as I could simply light up another cigarette.
If someone were to claim that Anicca means impermanence, I would ask them what the significance of things being impermanent is. If you need to ask follow-up questions when a person describes Anicca, then that isn’t a definition they are describing; at best, it’s an attribute. I see this happen a lot when people explain Pali terms.
I could add more, but I need to go to work! I appreciate the thoughtful discussion, though.
2 users thanked author for this post.
No, because someone would feel ‘God’s love’ on account of taking the pancakkhanda as being of nicca, sukha, and atta nature. As such, they would also have micca ditthi. Therefore, expressing ‘God’s love’ to other beings, while moral in a conventional sense, would be lacking an understanding of the four ariya truths. A person could encourage others to live morally on the basis of thinking that doing so would result in salvation, and conduct themselves according to that principle. However, The Buddha taught that morality alone isn’t sufficient enough to address the fundamental issue with the world (i.e., sansara). So then, that wouldn’t constitute metta. By understanding that reality is characterised by anicca, dukkha, and anatta, that will inform how a person perceives others and subsequently engages with them.
To learn more about metta, you can read this article: https://puredhamma.net/bhavana-meditation/ariya-metta-bhavana/
3 users thanked author for this post.
I watched the portions of the videos that you provided. To preface my response, I’ve learned a lot from Jethavanarama’s videos over the years. In fact, they were instrumental in getting things to click into place for me. Having said that, these definitions that Amadassana Thero provides for the three characteristics of nature don’t grok for me.
One issue (among others) with translating anicca as impermanence is that it becomes necessary to ask a follow-up question; “What is the significance of things being impermanent?” or put more bluntly, “Okay, so what?”.
In a similar way, I can’t help but feel that the significance of the proposed definitions is buried.
To illustrate my point, suppose that you are drinking a liquid due to being thirsty. I then inform you that there is an issue with the liquid – it doesn’t have the capacity to quench your thirst. You would then think to yourself, “Huh. Well if that’s true, drinking this liquid is a complete waste of time”. This is to say that the relevance of that statement would be self-explanatory. Now, you might not believe my claim, but that would be a separate issue.
I’m willing to concede that I’m missing something and that I simply need to ruminate on it more. But this is how I see the matter currently.
Thanks for sharing that, Gad. One point that occurred to me, though, is that the body isn’t inherently repulsive. One’s perception of a thing is what determines whether or not they will be repulsed by it.
Excellent work, Jorg! In my experience, this will not only be useful for those reading your articles, but for yourself too. As I’m sure Lal can attest to, being able to clearly explain a topic (without regurgitating what you’ve heard someone else say) requires a thorough understanding of the subject. As such, you are able to identify areas that need to be reflected upon further. I just started reading your first post and am impressed by your thoughtful phrasing and choice of analogies. I look forward to reading more.
1 user thanked author for this post.
I don’t think normal people can recall the taste of ice cream as taste is a very difficult thing to recall. The same is true of smells and tactile sensations, which is why we value having physical bodies to the degree that we do; so we can make contact with those things. By contrast, you can recall sights and sounds, although, they will of course be distorted.
That quote seems a little too vague to me. After all, what a putthajana would feel joyful about would be as a consequence of being ignorant about its inherent Anicca nature. Therefore, that wouldn’t be something to rejoice in. It makes more sense that mudita would be rejoicing in others conducting themselves in such a way so as to increase the likelihood of them getting onto the path and/or progressing along it (i.e., cultivating the mundane and noble paths).
1 user thanked author for this post.
Hello Iodonyo,
Based upon what you’ve written, it’s difficult to assess where you feel you are (on the path). With that being said, the single most important thing is ensuring that you are in fact on the noble path. All efforts made should be to that end. I once heard Wallasmulle Thero liken it to having insurance; a) it’s much better to have it than not have it, and b) you want the best insurance you can get.
A mistake that can be made is believing that once on the path, one’s focus shifts to some more esoteric aspects of Dhamma. On the contrary – the fundamentals (The four noble truths, the three characteristics, etc) will always be one’s northern light.
The path is an iterative process; you go around and around with these fundamentals and appreciate their implications with greater depth and clarity. So regarding anicca, dukkha, anatta, and asubha, that might result in a sense of ‘complete disinterest’ right now, but contemplating this aspects will result in a resounding letting go.
I’d go as far to say that Anapanasati and Satipatthana provides everything an Ariya needs to ‘get the job done’.
Good luck and I hope you’re able to progress smoothly.
The more bandwidth we devote to wrong things (in any given moment), the less likely it will be that we’ll have insights, the likes of which are necessary to progress along the path.
Therefore, it’s in our interest to ensure that we don’t apply this bandwidth to the wrong things, and do apply it to the right things. In very broad brushstrokes, this seems to be what anapanasati and satipatthana are concerned with.
So then we can see that when this is done successfully, we will be getting closer and closer to Samma Samadhi. In other words, the closer we get to that, the more likely insights become.
You can observe this in your own immediate experience – let your mind run wild for a few minutes. Then, practice true mindfulness (as described at Pure Dhamma) and within moments, you’ll notice an increase in clarity. That trend will continue as you continue to successfully practice ‘mindfulness’. In so doing, you are walking the eightfold noble path in that moment.
I may be missing something here, but that’s how it seems to me so far.
Imagine if someone were to propose that 2+2=4.3. In support of their argument, they say “the professors who say that 2+2=4.3 graduated from Ivy League schools, have taught for decades, have done peer reviewed research and are published authors”.
Then in response, someone systematically goes through the maths problem, giving evidence that the value of 2 is in fact 2 and that therefore, the answer could only possibly be 4. Would the appropriate response be to take issue with their ‘strong views’? No. Sadly though, that’s what many Buddhist seem to do.
Getting onto and progressing along the path involves the opposite of cognitive dissonance; someone makes a claim that challenges your understanding. You then investigate the premises of their claim to see if it has any validity. If it does, you adjust your understanding accordingly. If their claim doesn’t have any merit to it, you’ll understand precisely why that’s case by having identified the contradictions and inconsistencies.
The suttas share countless examples in which The Buddha corrected people’s wrong views in this fashion. All of this is to say that I hope you don’t perceive this as an attack but rather, an opportunity. We’re all trying to achieve the same thing here.
Is Dhamma one or many? It is one. In other words, the world is a particular way and it is only that way. Therefore, either someone will have a correct understanding of Dhamma or they won’t. In the event that they have the correct understanding, they will be on the noble path and eventually attain Nibbana. If they don’t have an accurate understanding of Dhamma, it will not be possible for them to attain Nibbana (you can’t solve a problem if you don’t understand what the problem is).
As such, I can’t help but feel that discussions about specific traditions, lineages and teachers often miss this critical point. So as pedantic as this may sound, if a tradition or teacher claims their tradition or teachings can lead to Nibbana, strictly speaking, they are wrong – only an accurate understanding of Dhamma does that.
This isn’t to suggest that there will be no traditions with practitioners who are ariyas, rather, if they are, it’s because they’ve comprehended Dhamma.
