Dhammanando wrote: ↑
Tue Sep 11, 2018 1:26 am
And the second sermon might then be Khandhadhammaṭṭhitatā or Khandhadhammaniyāmatā Sutta.
How brilliant Venerable for pointing out the obvious to those that overreach. Just as if one were to place upright what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to show the way to one who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes could see forms, in the same way Venerable Dhammanando — through many lines of reasoning — made the Dhamma clear.
Kim OHara wrote: ↑
Mon Sep 10, 2018 11:51 am
A very simple point: SN 22.59 is not about the Three Marks but about one of them, anatta.
No, it does not appear to be a "simple point". As Venerable Dhammanando and my researched self have suggested; the title of SN 22.59 appears to have no basis in the language of the suttas. The title, namely, the Anattalakkhana Sutta, appears probably a later contrivance. Thus, I doubt it is beneficial to hold dogmatic opinions and assert them in such a unbending manner; particularly when those views appear to be without substantiation and appear tenuous.
In SN 22.59, it appears said the aggregates are anatta because they ultimately cannot be controlled and they cannot bring true/lasting happiness due to their impermanence (anicca
) & susceptibility to sickness (ābādhāya
). Thus, the reality of impermanence & decay appears inseparable from the reality of anatta. I suggest to read the sermon, thoroughly.
Kim OHara wrote: ↑
Mon Sep 10, 2018 11:51 am
As for the rest of your post, it's fine but (again) not entirely relevant to the OP. I will leave it at that.
Thanks but it appears by the tenuous views posted here than one might not be in a position to provide the above assessment. It seems the rest of my post is both fine & entirely relevant to the OP. Lets go over the OP to show the three marks written in the OP are related & relevant to eachother because they each bring the same result
277. "All conditioned things are impermanent" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.
278. "All conditioned things are unsatisfactory" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.
279. "All things are not-self" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .budd.html
SN 22.59 says for the mind that sees the three
marks in this way (evaṃ passaṃ
); dispassion and Nibbana are attained. Let's review it again rather than hold rebellious views:
"Now, what is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard it as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"
"Indeed, not that, O Lord."
"O monks, the well-instructed noble disciple, seeing thus, gets wearied of form, gets wearied of feeling, gets wearied of perception, gets wearied of mental formations, gets wearied of consciousness. Being wearied he becomes passion-free. In his freedom from passion, he is emancipated. Being emancipated, there is the knowledge that he is emancipated. He knows: 'birth is exhausted, lived is the holy life, what had to be done is done, there is nothing more of this becoming.'"
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .mend.html
Let us together, as potential heirs to Dhamma, reflect upon the above. If the aggregates were permanent & sukha (rather than dukkha) but where also not-self; could the realisation of not-self towards those aggregates bring weariness & dispassion?
Personally, I doubt it.
It appears for the realisation of anatta to bring disenchantment (wearniness & revulsion) and dispassion; those aggregates must also be "dukkha". It seems 'anatta' alone is not sufficient for the realisation of the goal.
Ajahn Buddhadasa explained 'dukkha' as follows:
A. Dukkha× as "Enduring Suffering": In the word dukkha×, many meanings can be inferred. It is composed of two components: du and kha (or kha×). If we take du to mean "difficult: and khama to mean "endure," then dukkha× means "difficult to endure." We will see this clearly when we observe that impermanence means jŒti, jŒra, and maraöa (birth, old age, and death). If there was permanence and no change, then how could there be birth, decrepitude, and death? The dukkha that arises through birth, old age, and death arises directly out of impermanence and change. Further forms of dukkha, such as sorrow, lamentation, grief, and despair are all due to the fact that things don't happen as we wish. We don't get the things that we desire, we experience things that we do not want, and we are always separated from the things we do want. The cause of this comes from the fact that all animals and all conditioned things are constantly changing according to their causes and conditions.
B. Dukkha× as "Disgusting to See" : If we take du to mean "ugly" or "evil" and kha (from ikkha) to mean "look," then this aspect has the meaning "once seen, it is ugly." When one really sees it, it's abhorrent and repulsive. The meaning of this aspect of dukkha× is that the more we observe it, the uglier it gets; the deeper we see, the more repulsive it becomes. No matter what group of sankhŒras is observed, it will grow more disgusting as we see more deeply into its impermanence, into the illusion of those sankhŒras. This feeling of hate or repulsion is one more side of dukkha×.
C. Dukkha× as "Uglily Void, Wickedly Empty": By separating the components of dukkha× and taking du to mean "ugly" and kha× to mean "void, empty," we arrive at the meaning "uglily void." The condition we call "wickedly empty" refers to the fact that all sankhŒras have nothing but impermanence, namely, swiftly flowing, endless spirals of change. We can go so far as to say that in these sankhŒras there is only impermanence and change, that is, the flow of change is itself these things. Besides this, we can't find any abiding substance within them. Consequently, all sankhŒras have only this condition of being "uglily empty." However, such a meaning of dukkha× as this broadens to include anattŒ. 15 Therefore, we will consider it in detail in connection with the fact that when impermanence is seen, then anattŒ must be seen.(To be discussed subsequently.) Here, we simply intend to point out that even this third meaning of dukkha× is included in the word "impermanence," because impermanence is thoroughly void. There is
only this change which stops for nothing.
https://www.dhammatalks.net/Books3/Budd ... _Tetra.pdf
Kim OHara wrote: ↑
Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:49 am
I'm not saying the three marks were not mentioned or discussed in the suttas, of course, because they obviously are; I'm saying they weren't seen or discussed as a group.
Sure, we can certainly say they weren't seen or discussed as a group. In a free world, free from censorship, we are free to say whatever we wish. If we wish to, we can say the three marks are in fact four marks and five marks. Without censorship & the crime of apostasy, we can say whatever we want. We will leave it at that.