Ñāṇa wrote:Do you practice satipaṭṭhāna? Specifically, either mindfulness of breathing (ānāpānassati), or observation of feelings (vedanānupassanā), or observation of dhammas (dhammānupassanā) pertaining to the mind sensory sphere and mental phenomena sensory sphere?
Yes (but not anapanasati). I'm pretty sure that Ven. Ṭhānissaro does all of the above, though:
Ñāṇa wrote: beeblebrox wrote:
- In dependence on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The eye is inconstant, changeable, of a nature to become otherwise. Forms are inconstant, changeable, of a nature to become otherwise. Thus this pair is both wavering & fluctuating — inconstant, changeable, of a nature to become otherwise.
Why "changeable" and not "changing"? The latter would be more direct. Also why "of a nature to become otherwise"? This phrasing also seems pretty indirect.
The above excerpt is Ven. Ṭhānissaro's translation.
It seems like the confusion (in this thread) primarily comes from trying to equate either momentariness or flux, either one or other, with the concept of anicca itself. I view this as a fallacy.
Maybe the following analogy might help: (Just stay with it till the end... it is really relevant to understanding the topic at hand):
The Buddha: "O, Bhikkhus! This bread is impermanent, liable to become moldy, of a nature to become moldy."
Uninstructed Run-of-Mill Person #1 (even though he's already been instructed a million of times within the cycles of saṃsāra): "So, he's basically saying that we might as well say that the bread is always moldy?"
Trainee (a person who has maybe 7 years, at most, before he finally stops identifying himself with the bread): "No, he's not saying that."
The clueless Ascetic: "I've been practicing vipassana [sic] for years. I've honed my senses down to the point where I can see the mold growing on a loaf of bread the moment it comes out of the oven... so, it's true: The bread is always becoming moldy!"
The Buddha: "The Dhamma is subtle, and difficult to see."
Uninstructed Run-of-Mill Person #1: "No wonder I can't always see the mold."
The clueless Ascetic: "See! The mold itself (at times) is very subtle, and difficult to see. That is why you need to train in vipassana [sic]."
Now, some pointers about the above:
Anicca ≠ mold.
Anicca = impermanence.
Mold = a sign of impermanence (of something).
Bread = impermanent. Why? Because it gets moldy. This mold is a sign of impermanence, but not the concept of anicca itself.
So then it follows:
Anicca ≠ moments nor flux.
Anicca = impermanence.
Moments or flux = signs of impermanence.
Perceiving these moments or flux (via sañña) = impermanent. Why? Because the moments turn into flux, and the flux turn into moments. (Therefore the sañña is impermanent, neither perfect nor reliable, and not to be clung to as a self)... hope that clears up my position for some of you.