Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion (Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta)

13»

Comments

  • TalismanTalisman Veteran
    I assume that none of the marks are applicable to Nirvana. If so, does that mean that Nirvana can not be described as "not-self?" Is nirvana beyond such context as self and not-self? I would assume that the purpose of achieving nirvana is to reach the shore beyond the 3 marks of impermanence, dukkha, and not-self. Is this correct?
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited June 2011
    3C is applicable to Nirvana but not 1C & 2C (see the Maggavagga, Dhammapada)

    i would say Nirvana is uneffected by the 3 marks rather than beyond them

    Nirvana comes from deep experience of the 3Cs

    the stronger the 3Cs are experienced, the stronger the Nirvana

    :)
  • TalismanTalisman Veteran
    the stronger the 3Cs are experienced, the stronger the Nirvana

    :)
    I thought there is only one nirvana. There are different "strengths" of nirvana?
  • SpinyNorman2SpinyNorman2
    DD is saying dukkha can be applied to a rock. The suttas state: "form is impermanent; that which is impermanent is dukkha; that which is dukkha is not-self"
    When talking about dukkha the Buddha was concerned with human experience, he wasn't making metaphysical statements.

    Spiny
  • SpinyNorman2SpinyNorman2
    The word 'dukkha' can be used in three ways: (1) physical pain (dukkha vedana); (2) unsatisfactoriness (dukkha lakkhana); and (3) mental torment (upadana)

    The 1NT is about mental torment (upadana) where as the 2C is about unsatisfactoriness.
    For sure, dukkha is described and classified in various ways in the suttas. But I still don't see any basis for your assertion that the First Noble Truth is only desribing a limited aspect of dukkha. On the contrary the First Noble Truth has the all-inclusive reference to the 5 aggregates affected by clinging.
  • SpinyNorman2SpinyNorman2
    Isn't Dukkha what is caused by attachment to that which is impermanent?

    That's how the Noble Truths and dependent origination explain it. The teaching of the 3 characteristics highlights the impermanence angle.

    Spiny
  • SpinyNorman2SpinyNorman2
    Your point last point here is countering or contradicting what you said earlier. Earlier you said sila, samadhi & panna come first. Now you are saying the 3Cs come first for there to be panna.
    Insight into the 3 characteristics is a method for developing panna.

    Spiny

  • SpinyNorman2SpinyNorman2
    Disregard my previous post, this quote from wikipedia helped clear it up for me:

    "Dukkha (Sanskrit duhkha) or dissatisfaction (or "dis-ease"; also often translated "suffering", though this is somewhat misleading). Nothing found in the physical world or even the psychological realm can bring lasting deep satisfaction. " So yes, a rock is Dukkha.
    But as this definition makes clear dukkha relates to the "psychological realm", ie human experience. A rock has the potential for dukkha if a human interacts with it. But if nobody interacts with the rock it's just a rock.

    Spiny
  • SpinyNorman2SpinyNorman2
    2ndC is an inherent characteristic of all things, including rocks. Where as the 1st NT is just psychological dukkha that occurs due to mental formations.
    I still don't see what basis you have for this assertion. It would make more sense to say that dukkha in the 3 characteristics is referring to viparinama-dukkha, the suffering caused by change. Which is one of the 3 types of dukkha.

    Spiny
  • BuckyGBuckyG
    Rocks can't meditate. :buck:
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited June 2011
    When talking about dukkha the Buddha was concerned with human experience, he wasn't making metaphysical statements.
    In AN 3.134, Budddha said all conditioned things (which includes rocks) are dukkha, whether this is realised or not by any human experience.

    Your view is refuted again. Each time your post disagrees with my post, your post will be refuted by the Buddha.

    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.134.than.html

  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited June 2011
    But I still don't see any basis for your assertion that the First Noble Truth is only desribing a limited aspect of dukkha. On the contrary the First Noble Truth has the all-inclusive reference to the 5 aggregates affected by clinging.
    1st noble truth is about mental torment, as I said. Clinging = mental torment

    Your view is refuted again. Each time your post disagrees with my post, your post will be refuted by the Buddha.

    :wtf:
    Ven. Sariputta said: "Now, how is one afflicted in body & afflicted in mind?

    "There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He is seized with the idea that 'I am form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his form changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair over its change & alteration.

    "And how is one afflicted in body but unafflicted in mind?

    There is the case where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He is not seized with the idea that 'I am form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is not seized with these ideas, his form changes & alters, but he does not fall into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair over its change & alteration.

    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.001.than.html
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    Insight into the 3 characteristics is a method for developing panna.
    Yes. But for the 2nd time, you originally said one must practise sila, samadhi & panna before understanding the 3 charactertistics. :orange:
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited June 2011
    A rock has the potential for dukkha if a human interacts with it. But if nobody interacts with the rock it's just a rock.
    A rock is unsatisfactory, due to its impermanence. Take some buildings. They are made of rocks but because of their impermanence, they can no longer be regarded as "buildings", that is, of sound structure and a shelter. They are not longer "buildings" but just "ruins".

    Or just like salty water cannot quench thirst or provide nourishment for plants, rocks cannot provide lasting happiness. Just as there is no permanence in a rock, there is no happiness or self in a rock also. The characteristic is within the rock, just like the incapacity to nurture life is within the salty water. The rock is unsatisfactory.

    The Buddha taught on countless occassions that which is impermanent is unsatisfactory. The three characteristics are inseparable. It follows your assertion is untenable because no human interaction with a rock does not affect its impermanence or its anatta.

    The sutta below refutes your post, again.

    :wtf:
    In that case I will give you an analogy for the sake of taking your understanding of this point even further.

    Suppose there were a householder or householder's son — rich, wealthy, with many possessions — who was thoroughly well-guarded. Then suppose there came along a certain man, desiring what was not his benefit, desiring what was not his welfare, desiring his loss of security, desiring to kill him. The thought would occur to this man: 'It would not be easy to kill this person by force. What if I were to sneak in and then kill him?'

    "So he would go to the householder or householder's son and say, 'May you take me on as a servant, lord.' With that, the householder or householder's son would take the man on as a servant.

    "Having been taken on as a servant, the man would rise in the morning before his master, go to bed in the evening only after his master, doing whatever his master ordered, always acting to please him, speaking politely to him. Then the householder or householder's son would come to regard him as a friend & companion, and would fall into his trust. When the man realizes, 'This householder or householder's son trusts me,' then encountering him in a solitary place, he would kill him with a sharp knife.

    "Now what do you think, my friend Yamaka? When that man went to the householder or householder's son and said, 'May you take me on as a servant, lord': wasn't he even then a murderer? And yet although he was a murderer, the householder or householder's son did not know him as 'my murderer.' And when, taken on as a servant, he would rise in the morning before his master, go to bed in the evening only after his master, doing whatever his master ordered, always acting to please him, speaking politely to him: wasn't he even then a murderer? And yet although he was a murderer, the householder or householder's son did not know him as 'my murderer.' And when he encountered him in a solitary place and killed him with a sharp knife: wasn't he even then a murderer? And yet although he was a murderer, the householder or householder's son did not know him as 'my murderer.'"

    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.085.than.html
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited June 2011
    I still don't see what basis you have for this assertion. It would make more sense to say that dukkha in the 3 characteristics is referring to viparinama-dukkha, the suffering caused by change. Which is one of the 3 types of dukkha.
    Change does not cause suffering. The Buddha experienced suffering but did not suffering about it. I already quoted the Nakulapita Sutta above (and again below), which states change does not cause suffering.

    Suffering is caused by ignorance, craving & attachment. "Viparinama-dukkha" means "suffering about change". Oh dear. The sutta below refutes your post, again.

    :-/
    "And how is one afflicted in body but unafflicted in mind?

    There is the case where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He is not seized with the idea that 'I am form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is not seized with these ideas, his form changes & alters, but he does not fall into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress or despair over its change & alteration.

    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.001.than.html
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited June 2011
    Rocks can't meditate. :buck:
    Looks like you have found fellowship & companionship with Spiny. Good for you! :clap:
    Should a seeker not find a companion who is better or equal, let him resolutely pursue a solitary course; there is no fellowship with the fool.

    :buck: :buck:

    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.05.budd.html

  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited June 2011
    Rocks can't meditate.
    :wtf:
    Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All sankhara are dukkha (unsatisfactory).

    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.134.than.html
    "What do you think of this, O monks? Is form permanent or impermanent?"

    "Impermanent, O Lord."

    "Now, that which is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"

    "Unsatisfactory, O Lord."

    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.mend.html
    The four great elements and the form dependent on the four great elements: This is called form.

    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited June 2011
    Ok, First of all this was originally posted in the Buddhism for beginners forum, and it's stayed there.
    The discussion has escalated to beyond that, so much so, that any beginner's eyes would probably be glazing over, at the moment...so that's scuppered that one...
    Secondly, this has obviously turned into an "My Dhamma's bigger than your Dhamma, so there" spat, and speech has become less discursive and more point-scoring.

    Again.

    You guys never learn, do you?

    I wish you'd create your own website, call it Buddha-Bitching, and quit using your considerable knowledge as a hitting stick here.
    What a waste.
This discussion has been closed.