Has the Buddha ever been challenged through the three marks of existance?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 6653
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Has the Buddha ever been challenged through the three marks of existance?

Post by Sam Vara »

Nicolas wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 7:29 pm
Bundokji wrote: [...]
"1+1=2" is a concept, which is not a phenomenon unless it occurs as a thought or within a thought in a mind.

When I think "1+1=2", then no longer think it, that thought/phenomenon is impermanent.
That doesn't mean that 1+1=2 is not always true, whether I think it or not.

Same goes with sabbe sankhara anicca, 4NT, etc.: The thought "all fabrications are impermanent" can come and go within a mind, that thought is impermanent, but it doesn't mean that "all fabrications are impermanent" isn't an always-true statement.
:goodpost: :thumbsup:

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 4190
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Has the Buddha ever been challenged through the three marks of existance?

Post by cappuccino »

:candle:
Last edited by cappuccino on Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:09 pm, edited 5 times in total.

Srilankaputra
Posts: 914
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:56 am
Location: Sri Lanka

Re: Has the Buddha ever been challenged through the three marks of existance?

Post by Srilankaputra »

Bundokji wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 7:50 pm

Well, to make the argument comprehensible to both of us and other readers, and as it is you who introduced this distinction implying its significance, then could you please provide two examples:

1- A sentence that resembles Sabbe sankhara anicca
2- A sentence that resembles Sabbe dhamma anatta
Are you asking a for a quote from the suttas?
Bundokji wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 7:50 pm
Or, alternatively, explain what is it that makes the word "phenomena" in the notion "all phenomena are impermanent" sankhara or dhamma.
I don't understand this part at all. Do you want me to explain my understanding of the two words?
How is that going to help me understand your argument?
O seeing one,we for refuge go to thee!
O mighty sage do thou our teacher be!

Paccuppannañca yo dhammaṃ,
Tattha tattha vipassati

“Yato yato mano nivāraye,
Na dukkhameti naṃ tato tato;
Sa sabbato mano nivāraye,
Sa sabbato dukkhā pamuccatī”ti.

User avatar
Bundokji
Posts: 2779
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Has the Buddha ever been challenged through the three marks of existance?

Post by Bundokji »

Srilankaputra wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 8:15 pm
I don't understand this part at all. Do you want me to explain my understanding of the two words?
How is that going to help me understand your argument?
To make sure that we are on the same page:

According to my understanding, the differentiator between sankhara and dhamma has to do with the nibbana element. The terms dhamma can be applied to the conditioned and unconditioned (both are anatta) while the term sankhara applies only to fabricated/conditioned phenomena hence anicca is only associated with sankhara as the nibbana element is not subject to change.

If you believe the above is true, and if this was the basis for you to introduce the distinction between dhamma and sankhara, i am still not sure how this has any effect on my argument. If we say: "all phenomena are impermanent" it is unclear what is it that makes the word "phenomena" sankhara or dhamma, nor it has any effect on whether the the notion "all phenomena is impermanent" is reliable or not.

Do you see the nibbana element in the notion "all phenomena are impermanent", and if so, can you point it out?
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.

User avatar
Nicolas
Posts: 1037
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

Re: Has the Buddha ever been challenged through the three marks of existance?

Post by Nicolas »

Bundokji wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 7:40 pm
1+1=2 is known to be true because it proves its reliability through time. The notion "all phenomenon are impermanent" disputes this reliability.

If 1+1 = 2 is always true whether i think of it or not and
If 1+1=2 is a phenomenon
Then, "all phenomenon are impermanent" cannot be true because the truthiness of 1+1=2 can be subject to change hence not always true
That's the thing, "1+1=2" is not a phenomenon (unless you consider it as the thought "1+1=2", a thought which can arise and pass away in a mind). "All phenomena are impermanent" is not a phenomenon. "All phenomena are impermanent" is only "impermanent" insofar as it arises and passes away as a thought or idea in a mind. The thought or the idea is impermanent, not the truthfulness of the statement.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 6653
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Has the Buddha ever been challenged through the three marks of existance?

Post by Sam Vara »

Nicolas wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 8:34 pm
Bundokji wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 7:40 pm
1+1=2 is known to be true because it proves its reliability through time. The notion "all phenomenon are impermanent" disputes this reliability.

If 1+1 = 2 is always true whether i think of it or not and
If 1+1=2 is a phenomenon
Then, "all phenomenon are impermanent" cannot be true because the truthiness of 1+1=2 can be subject to change hence not always true
That's the thing, "1+1=2" is not a phenomenon (unless you consider it as the thought "1+1=2", a thought which can arise and pass away in a mind). "All phenomena are impermanent" is not a phenomenon. "All phenomena are impermanent" is only "impermanent" insofar as it arises and passes away as a thought or idea in a mind. The thought or the idea is impermanent, not the truthfulness of the statement.
Indeed. If concepts were phenomena, and therefore subject to the three marks, then this could not be the case:
Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this regularity of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma, this this/that conditionality. The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, makes it plain, & says, 'Look.' From birth as a requisite condition comes aging & death.

"From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth...
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

Srilankaputra
Posts: 914
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:56 am
Location: Sri Lanka

Re: Has the Buddha ever been challenged through the three marks of existance?

Post by Srilankaputra »

Bundokji wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 8:28 pm
If you believe the above is true, and if this was the basis for you to introduce the distinction between dhamma and sankhara, i am still not sure how this has any effect on my argument.
Because the 'truth' of the statement 'sabbe sankhara anicca' is not a sankhara but a dhamma. So it does not implicate it self.

If the statement was 'sabbe dhamma anicca' then I would accept it is not a reliable statement.
O seeing one,we for refuge go to thee!
O mighty sage do thou our teacher be!

Paccuppannañca yo dhammaṃ,
Tattha tattha vipassati

“Yato yato mano nivāraye,
Na dukkhameti naṃ tato tato;
Sa sabbato mano nivāraye,
Sa sabbato dukkhā pamuccatī”ti.

User avatar
Bundokji
Posts: 2779
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Has the Buddha ever been challenged through the three marks of existance?

Post by Bundokji »

Nicolas wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 8:34 pm
That's the thing, "1+1=2" is not a phenomenon (unless you consider it as the thought "1+1=2", a thought which can arise and pass away in a mind). "All phenomena are impermanent" is not a phenomenon. "All phenomena are impermanent" is only "impermanent" insofar as it arises and passes away as a thought or idea in a mind. The thought or the idea is impermanent, not the truthfulness of the statement.
That's the thing. You are suggesting that the truthfulness of a statement is separable of its permanence by making a distinction between it as a phenomena (arising and passing away in the mind) and whether it is true or not. What i am saying is that such a distinction is untenable, because the statement is true to the extent that it endures the test of time. By emphasizing that all phenomena are impermanent, the reliability (and therefore the truthfulness) of the statement is disputed, hence its usually followed by describing it as unsatisfactory and not self.

If the notion (all phenomena are impermanent) is possibly reliable (pending testing its viability), then every other thought that arises and passes away can be equally reliable. But this is not what the Buddha did. He disputed its reliability because it arises and passes away (regardless of the accuracy of its content) hence meditation on impermanence focuses more on the arising and passing away than the content of the thought itself.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.

JohnK
Posts: 1112
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:06 pm
Location: Tetons, Wyoming, USA

Re: Has the Buddha ever been challenged through the three marks of existance?

Post by JohnK »

Bundokji wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 2:30 pm
...do you know of any sutta where the Buddha's utilization of the 3 marks were turned upon his own utterances? i.e whatever he says/teaches is anicca dukkha anatta...
This may be relevant.
Not the Buddha, but Anathapindika (who does get a "Well done" from the Buddha).
https://suttacentral.net/an10.93/en/thanissaro
Anathapindika's criticism of the various views expressed by wandering ascetics was turned against him.
His criticism of each view was "...this view has been brought into being, is fabricated...that is transient and uncertain...unsatisfactory."
So, they ask his view: "Whatever has been brought into being is fabricated,...that is transient and uncertain...unsatisfactory, does not belong to me, is not what I am, it is not my self."
They turn the tables on Anathapindika saying his view is subject to the same logic.
His answer is "Having understood this with true wisdom, as it actually is, I have also discerned the genuine means of transcendence of it."
Those who grasp at perceptions & views wander the internet creating friction. [based on Sn4:9,v.847]

User avatar
Bundokji
Posts: 2779
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Has the Buddha ever been challenged through the three marks of existance?

Post by Bundokji »

Srilankaputra wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 8:46 pm
Because the 'truth' of the statement 'sabbe sankhara anicca' is not a sankhara but a dhamma. So it does not implicate it self.
What is it that makes a dhamma, not sankhara (apart from you assertion)?

Or alternatively, what is it that makes something true except its endurance of the test of time?
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 6653
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Has the Buddha ever been challenged through the three marks of existance?

Post by Sam Vara »

Bundokji wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 8:53 pm
Nicolas wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 8:34 pm
That's the thing, "1+1=2" is not a phenomenon (unless you consider it as the thought "1+1=2", a thought which can arise and pass away in a mind). "All phenomena are impermanent" is not a phenomenon. "All phenomena are impermanent" is only "impermanent" insofar as it arises and passes away as a thought or idea in a mind. The thought or the idea is impermanent, not the truthfulness of the statement.
That's the thing. You are suggesting that the truthfulness of a statement is separable of its permanence by making a distinction between it as a phenomena (arising and passing away in the mind) and whether it is true or not. What i am saying is that such a distinction is untenable, because the statement is true to the extent that it endures the test of time. By emphasizing that all phenomena are impermanent, the reliability (and therefore the truthfulness) of the statement is disputed, hence its usually followed by describing it as unsatisfactory and not self.

If the notion (all phenomena are impermanent) is possibly reliable (pending testing its viability), then every other thought that arises and passes away can be equally reliable. But this is not what the Buddha did. He disputed its reliability because it arises and passes away (regardless of the accuracy of its content) hence meditation on impermanence focuses more on the arising and passing away than the content of the thought itself.
A neo-platonic approach. The reliability of the statement is to do with our grasping or understanding of it, which is indeed impermanent. We didn't always grasp it, it comes and goes, and one day we will be dead and unable to grasp it. The truthfulness of the statement is something else. (I'm tempted to call it its validity, which is closer to what I mean, but would probably set other hares running...) The truthfulness, which points to the way things are, is not a phenomenon, and is not impermanent.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 6653
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Has the Buddha ever been challenged through the three marks of existance?

Post by Sam Vara »

Bundokji wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:02 pm

Or alternatively, what is it that makes something true except its endurance of the test of time?
Truth must be something other than enduring the test of time. True statements and untrue statements all endure. The truth is that which differentiates them. Your idea of "reliability" doesn't do justice to the idea of "truth", because it merely means re-engaging with something, checking it again to see if it remains true. That process of checking and re-checking - whence reliability - is impermanent. Not the truth itself. To know whether something is true or not does not require re-checking for its on-going truthfulness.
Last edited by Sam Vara on Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Bundokji
Posts: 2779
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Has the Buddha ever been challenged through the three marks of existance?

Post by Bundokji »

JohnK wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 8:57 pm
Bundokji wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 2:30 pm
...do you know of any sutta where the Buddha's utilization of the 3 marks were turned upon his own utterances? i.e whatever he says/teaches is anicca dukkha anatta...
This may be relevant.
Not the Buddha, but Anathapindika (who does get a "Well done" from the Buddha).
https://suttacentral.net/an10.93/en/thanissaro
Anathapindika's criticism of the various views expressed by wandering ascetics was turned against him.
His criticism of each view was "...this view has been brought into being, is fabricated...that is transient and uncertain...unsatisfactory."
So, they ask his view: "Whatever has been brought into being is fabricated,...that is transient and uncertain...unsatisfactory, does not belong to me, is not what I am, it is not my self."
They turn the tables on Anathapindika saying his view is subject to the same logic.
His answer is "Having understood this with true wisdom, as it actually is, I have also discerned the genuine means of transcendence of it."
It is quite interesting Anathapindika got them to start first, probably knowing that if he begins, his arguments can be turned upon themselves:
“It wouldn’t be difficult for me to expound to you what views I have. But please let the venerable ones expound each in line with his position, and then it won’t be difficult for me to expound to you what views I have.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.

User avatar
Bundokji
Posts: 2779
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Has the Buddha ever been challenged through the three marks of existance?

Post by Bundokji »

Sam Vara wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:03 pm
A neo-platonic approach. The reliability of the statement is to do with our grasping or understanding of it, which is indeed impermanent. We didn't always grasp it, it comes and goes, and one day we will be dead and unable to grasp it. The truthfulness of the statement is something else. (I'm tempted to call it its validity, which is closer to what I mean, but would probably set other hares running...) The truthfulness, which points to the way things are, is not a phenomenon, and is not impermanent.
Separating concept from phenomena as a basis to distinguish the truth of a statement from its endurance is biased at best because it gives primacy to concept over experience.

It is unclear which comes first. Even the notion 1+1=2 has its root in the realm of experience and would not be comprehensible without it.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.

User avatar
Bundokji
Posts: 2779
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Has the Buddha ever been challenged through the three marks of existance?

Post by Bundokji »

Sam Vara wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:09 pm
Truth must be something other than enduring the test of time. True statements and untrue statements all endure. The truth is that which differentiates them. Your idea of "reliability" doesn't do justice to the idea of "truth", because it merely means re-engaging with something, checking it again to see if it remains true. That process of checking and re-checking - whence reliability - is impermanent. Not the truth itself. To know whether something is true or not does not require re-checking for its on-going truthfulness.
Without rechecking, how its ongoing truthfulness is known?

In relation to your reference to the Paccaya Sutta earlier, months ago, i opened a thread asking how the Buddha knew this property stands whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas and i did not get a satisfactory answer.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.

Post Reply