Are Anicca, Dukkaha and Anatta pre-Buddhist teaching?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Post Reply
SarathW
Posts: 8068
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Are Anicca, Dukkaha and Anatta pre-Buddhist teaching?

Post by SarathW » Fri Apr 21, 2017 12:46 am

To above question Lal Answered:
=============
1. SarathW said,

Thank you, Lal, in your opinion what is the salient difference in Buddha's teaching and another Brahmanical teaching?
Do you think Anatta is a pre-Buddha's teaching?


Only a Buddha can reveal the three words (anicca, dukkha, anatta) to the world.
“Attakkara theenapada Sambuddhena pakasitha, na hi sila vatan hotu uppajjatthi Tathagata“, which means, “a Buddha (Tathagata) is born NOT just to show how to live a moral life, but to reveal three words (theenapada) to the world” .

Anicca – that nothing in this world can bring a permanent happiness in the long run.
Dukkha – despite our struggles, we will be subjected to much more suffering than pleasures if we remain in the rebirth process. The truth about Dukkha is not the feeling of dukkha, but that dukkha arises because of craving for enjoyments.
Anatta – therefore, one is truly helpless in this struggle to attain “something of essence in this world”. The only refuge is in Nibbana.

So, there is no way to become a Sotapanna if one believes anicca is impermanence, dukkha is suffering (not the cause of suffering), and anatta is “no self”.

Here is an important point that needs to be given some thought for those who believe anatta means “no self” I am not saying this in a derogatory way, but just to emphasize the importance of it. The true meanings have been covered not due to intentional acts by anyone, as I have explained in the post: https://puredhamma.net/historical-backg ... retations/.

The Patama Adhamma Sutta in the Anguttara Nikaya (https://suttacentral.net/pi/an10.113) says:“Adhammo ca, bhikkhave, veditabbo anattho ca; dhammo ca veditabbo attho ca“.
 It means: “Bhikkhus, it is to be comprehended that adhamma leads to anattä (helplessness), and dhamma leads to attä (refuge in Nibbana)”.
 Furthermore, one should be able to clearly see that it leads to the foolish statement: “Bhikkhus, it is to be comprehended that adhamma leads to no-self, and dhamma leads to self“.

The Anatta Lakkhana Sutta (https://suttacentral.net/pi/sn22.59) says, "..Vedanā anattā. Vedanā ca hidaṃ, bhikkhave, attā abhavissa, nayidaṃ vedanā ābādhāya saṃvatteyya, labbhetha ca vedanāya: ‘evaṃ me vedanā hotu, evaṃ me vedanā mā ahosī’ti. Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, vedanā anattā,."
So, what is meant by "..vedana is no self"?
Same for sanna, sankhara, and vinnana. How can they be "no self"?

https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.p ... 00#p422999
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

SarathW
Posts: 8068
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Are Anicca, Dukkaha and Anatta pre-Buddhist teaching?

Post by SarathW » Fri Apr 21, 2017 12:52 am

The Patama Adhamma Sutta in the Anguttara Nikaya (https://suttacentral.net/pi/an10.113) says:“Adhammo ca, bhikkhave, veditabbo anattho ca; dhammo ca veditabbo attho ca“.
 It means: “Bhikkhus, it is to be comprehended that adhamma leads to anattä (helplessness), and dhamma leads to attä (refuge in Nibbana)”.
 Furthermore, one should be able to clearly see that it leads to the foolish statement: “Bhikkhus, it is to be comprehended that adhamma leads to no-self, and dhamma leads to self“.
Agree, this is a very strong case to support your thesis.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

SarathW
Posts: 8068
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Are Anicca, Dukkaha and Anatta pre-Buddhist teaching?

Post by SarathW » Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:06 am

The Anatta Lakkhana Sutta (https://suttacentral.net/pi/sn22.59) says, "..Vedanā anattā. Vedanā ca hidaṃ, bhikkhave, attā abhavissa, nayidaṃ vedanā ābādhāya saṃvatteyya, labbhetha ca vedanāya: ‘evaṃ me vedanā hotu, evaṃ me vedanā mā ahosī’ti. Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, vedanā anattā,."
So, what is meant by "..vedana is no self"?
Same for sanna, sankhara, and vinnana. How can they be "no self"?
This is a weak case.
Many people take five aggregate as self.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

davidbrainerd
Posts: 993
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Are Anicca, Dukkaha and Anatta pre-Buddhist teaching?

Post by davidbrainerd » Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:56 am

SarathW wrote:
The Anatta Lakkhana Sutta (https://suttacentral.net/pi/sn22.59) says, "..Vedanā anattā. Vedanā ca hidaṃ, bhikkhave, attā abhavissa, nayidaṃ vedanā ābādhāya saṃvatteyya, labbhetha ca vedanāya: ‘evaṃ me vedanā hotu, evaṃ me vedanā mā ahosī’ti. Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, vedanā anattā,."
So, what is meant by "..vedana is no self"?
Same for sanna, sankhara, and vinnana. How can they be "no self"?
This is a weak case.
Many people take five aggregate as self.
Buddhists are more likely to take the five aggregates as the self than anyone else because they read Buddha backwards as not saying "you are not the five aggregates" but as saying "you are nothing but the five aggregates." How ironic.

form
Posts: 612
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 3:23 am

Re: Are Anicca, Dukkaha and Anatta pre-Buddhist teaching?

Post by form » Fri Apr 21, 2017 7:05 am

davidbrainerd wrote:
SarathW wrote:
The Anatta Lakkhana Sutta (https://suttacentral.net/pi/sn22.59) says, "..Vedanā anattā. Vedanā ca hidaṃ, bhikkhave, attā abhavissa, nayidaṃ vedanā ābādhāya saṃvatteyya, labbhetha ca vedanāya: ‘evaṃ me vedanā hotu, evaṃ me vedanā mā ahosī’ti. Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, vedanā anattā,."
So, what is meant by "..vedana is no self"?
Same for sanna, sankhara, and vinnana. How can they be "no self"?
This is a weak case.
Many people take five aggregate as self.
Buddhists are more likely to take the five aggregates as the self than anyone else because they read Buddha backwards as not saying "you are not the five aggregates" but as saying "you are nothing but the five aggregates." How ironic.
Some people will put it this way, only when you experience it then you will understand what the Sutta say. More and more I believe what they say is true.

JiWe2
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 11:31 am

Re: Are Anicca, Dukkaha and Anatta pre-Buddhist teaching?

Post by JiWe2 » Fri Apr 21, 2017 9:28 am

SarathW wrote:
The Patama Adhamma Sutta in the Anguttara Nikaya (https://suttacentral.net/pi/an10.113) says:“Adhammo ca, bhikkhave, veditabbo anattho ca; dhammo ca veditabbo attho ca“.
 It means: “Bhikkhus, it is to be comprehended that adhamma leads to anattä (helplessness), and dhamma leads to attä (refuge in Nibbana)”.
 Furthermore, one should be able to clearly see that it leads to the foolish statement: “Bhikkhus, it is to be comprehended that adhamma leads to no-self, and dhamma leads to self“.
Agree, this is a very strong case to support your thesis.
Adhammo ca, bhikkhave, veditabbo anattho ca; dhammo ca veditabbo attho ca. Adhammañca viditvā anatthañca, dhammañca viditvā atthañca yathā dhammo yathā attho tathā paṭi­pajji­tabbaṃ.
Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation:
Bhikkhus, what is non-Dhamma and harmful should be understood, and what is the Dhamma and beneficial should also be understood. Having understood what is non-Dhamma and harmful, and also what is the Dhamma and beneficial, one should practice in accordance with the Dhamma and with what is beneficial.

JiWe2
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 11:31 am

Re: Are Anicca, Dukkaha and Anatta pre-Buddhist teaching?

Post by JiWe2 » Fri Apr 21, 2017 10:01 am

SarathW wrote:
The Anatta Lakkhana Sutta (https://suttacentral.net/pi/sn22.59) says, "..Vedanā anattā. Vedanā ca hidaṃ, bhikkhave, attā abhavissa, nayidaṃ vedanā ābādhāya saṃvatteyya, labbhetha ca vedanāya: ‘evaṃ me vedanā hotu, evaṃ me vedanā mā ahosī’ti. Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, vedanā anattā,."
So, what is meant by "..vedana is no self"?
Same for sanna, sankhara, and vinnana. How can they be "no self"?
This is a weak case.
Many people take five aggregate as self.
At the time of the Buddha, some of the Buddha's listeners might have thought that all kinds of things, or "the Whole", were their "self" or "essence", or parts of it, so perhaps it made some sense to teach that they are not "self", if that's what the Buddha realized.
"For the self (ātman) is the mind, the world is the mind, brahman is the mind! So, venerate the mind."

"Now, intention (saṃkalpa) is the point of convergence of all these things;
intention is their essence (ātman); and on intention they are based."

"Now, thought is the point of convergence of all these things; thought is their
essence (ātman); and on thought they are based."

-Chāndogya Upaniṣad, tr. Olivelle

"This earth is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of this earth.
The radiant and immortal person in the earth and, in the case of the body
(ātman), the radiant and immortal person residing in the physical body — they are
both one's self (ātman). It is the immortal; it is brahman; it is the Whole."

-Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, tr. Olivelle

etc....

justindesilva
Posts: 406
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 12:38 pm

Re: Are Anicca, Dukkaha and Anatta pre-Buddhist teaching?

Post by justindesilva » Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:49 pm

I would only say that the three words anicca dukka anatma are inter related and means the natural flow of life. It embraces the changing conscientiouness of beings based on merits and demerits of damma. Tries to analyse anicca dukka anatma by analysing the words will mean in understanding budda darma.
Further we have to be careful in the analyses of these words from sanskrit As the same word in two languages means two different explanations.
An snslyses of anicca dukka anatma without paticca samuppada and arya ashtangika margaya will be an effort in vain.

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 764
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Are Anicca, Dukkaha and Anatta pre-Buddhist teaching?

Post by cappuccino » Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:35 pm

Existence is forever empty, impermanent, and generally difficult.
Last edited by cappuccino on Sat Apr 22, 2017 4:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Blessed One would never say that on the dissolution of the body the saint who has lost all depravity is annihilated, perishes, and does not exist after death.
Yamaka Sutta

paul
Posts: 722
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 11:27 pm
Location: Vietnam

Re: Are Anicca, Dukkaha and Anatta pre-Buddhist teaching?

Post by paul » Fri Apr 21, 2017 10:08 pm

Whether Perfect Ones appear in the world, or whether Perfect Ones do not appear in the world, it still remains a firm condition, an immutable fact and fixed law: that all formations are impermanent, that all formations are subject to suffering, that everything is without a self" ---AN: 3:134.

It is said numerous times that it is from the fact of impermanence that the other two characteristics are derived, for example SN 22:59.

form
Posts: 612
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 3:23 am

Re: Are Anicca, Dukkaha and Anatta pre-Buddhist teaching?

Post by form » Fri Apr 21, 2017 10:44 pm

.
At the time of the Buddha, some of the Buddha's listeners might have thought that all kinds of things, or "the Whole", were their "self" or "essence", or parts of it, so perhaps it made some sense to teach that they are not "self", if that's what the Buddha realized.
This is not more prevalent during ancient time, but apply equally at modern time. It is a nature of existence.

2600htz
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 11:37 pm

Re: Are Anicca, Dukkaha and Anatta pre-Buddhist teaching?

Post by 2600htz » Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:23 pm

Hello:

When the Buddha talked about Anicca, Dukkha and Anatta he was really talking about dependent origination.
If thats not taken in consideration they just become words: used by many people, in many kinds of ways.

Regards.

form
Posts: 612
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 3:23 am

Re: Are Anicca, Dukkaha and Anatta pre-Buddhist teaching?

Post by form » Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:39 pm

. If thats not taken in consideration they just become words
:thumbsup:

User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 536
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Are Anicca, Dukkaha and Anatta pre-Buddhist teaching?

Post by aflatun » Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:56 pm

2600htz wrote:Hello:

When the Buddha talked about Anicca, Dukkha and Anatta he was really talking about dependent origination.
If thats not taken in consideration they just become words: used by many people, in many kinds of ways.

Regards.
Perfect, I love it :goodpost: :thumbsup:
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 764
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Are Anicca, Dukkaha and Anatta pre-Buddhist teaching?

Post by cappuccino » Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:22 am

He was really talking about existence, this is important, without mixing in dependent origination.
The Blessed One would never say that on the dissolution of the body the saint who has lost all depravity is annihilated, perishes, and does not exist after death.
Yamaka Sutta

form
Posts: 612
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 3:23 am

Re: Are Anicca, Dukkaha and Anatta pre-Buddhist teaching?

Post by form » Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:40 am

cappuccino wrote:He was really talking about existence, this is important, without mixing in dependent origination.
The whole dhamma is interconnected. The separations are due to limitations of language in expressing it, it cannot be expressed in a language.

User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 536
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Are Anicca, Dukkaha and Anatta pre-Buddhist teaching?

Post by aflatun » Sat Apr 22, 2017 1:00 am

cappuccino wrote:He was really talking about existence, this is important, without mixing in dependent origination.
Can you explain what you mean by this cappuccino?
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 764
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Are Anicca, Dukkaha and Anatta pre-Buddhist teaching?

Post by cappuccino » Sat Apr 22, 2017 2:05 am

http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh372-p.html
The Message of the Velama Sutta

But such wisdom was lost to the world in Velama’s time, as he lived during the empty aeons between the arising of two Buddhas.
The Blessed One would never say that on the dissolution of the body the saint who has lost all depravity is annihilated, perishes, and does not exist after death.
Yamaka Sutta

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: diligence, retrofuturist and 77 guests