How is the Buddhist concept of anicca any different from the Heraclitean theory that all is flux?

How is the Buddhist concept of anicca any different from the Heraclitean theory that all is flux? How is it safe from the same criticisms? I.e. "Yes, everything we experience is changing, but change is secondary to changelessness, and impermanence depends on permanence. You can't have change without there being a thing that is changing. A world where everything was change, and that was all there was to it, could not exist, as nothing would be anything, and something that is not something is nothing. So you are quite right that none of this world is permanent or remains the same, but you're wrong to say that this is a sufficient theory to explain reality." The Heraclitean view hasn't been a live option in the West for about 2500 years because it was so thoroughly debunked by Plato and Aristotle (Plato actually studied under the Heraclitean Cratylus in his youth btw). But I assume the Buddhists have an answer, because this is an easy objection and I know Buddhists aren't stupid, I'm just curious what their answer is, and how they differ from Heraclitus on this point. Looking around on google all I see are Buddhists saying "yup, Heraclitus was one of us, Siddhartha may have even referenced him in one of the suttas."

Terry Davis: They Glow, You Shine Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Terry Davis: They Glow, You Shine Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >How is the Buddhist concept of anicca any different from the Heraclitean theory that all is flux?
    Anicca is only applied to Saṅkhāra (conditioned things) and not to Nirvana which is considered to be an unconditioned dharma in Abhidharma and Theravada AFAIK, so they aren't really saying "absolutely everything is anicca" but they are saying that conditioned things are. The Vaibhāṣika Abhidharma further lists space as being one of several unconditioned dharmas as well.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Thanks man.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Any good dictionary book on pali?

      What's the meaning of Dhammapada 277-279?
      >Sabbe sankhara anicca
      >Sabbe sankhara dukkha
      >Sabbe dhammā anatta
      Why is anicca and dukkha is on "sankhara", but anatta is on "dhamma"?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Sabbe sankhara anicca
        all concoctions/fabrications are impermanent.
        >Sabbe sankhara dukkha
        all concoctions/fabrications are stressful/not thoroughy satisfactory
        >Sabbe dhammā anatta
        all phenomena cannot be regarded as self.
        > Why is anicca and dukkha is on "sankhara", but anatta is on "dhamma"?
        there is phenomena that is not fabricated, for example the raw, non discriminatory input of the senses, but that phenomena cannot be regarded as a self.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I dont know much about Pali

        The basic explanation of the first two statements applying to sankhara and not dhamma and the last statement applying to dhamma is that the first two are not inclusive of Nirvana while the third and last statement is inclusive of everything including Nirvana (For Buddhists, anything that has any sort of existence is a dhamma).

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >How is the Buddhist concept of anicca any different from the Heraclitean theory that all is flux?
    no difference.
    > How is it safe from the same criticisms?
    it elaborates the idea by adding anatta to the mix, and the sankharas.
    I don't know the theoretical basis of Heraclitus or the refutations to his proclamation, so I could elaborate on questions about Buddhism, if you care to explain what was the objective the Greek folks had in these discussions.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Sure I'd be interested to hear more. It's very neat how eastern thinkers ended up walking similar ground as did the Greeks, so they're in a sort of dialectic. But I don't have the time or inclination to study western and eastern thought together. Anatta=no soul, right? So it just follows naturally from anicca, if everything is changing, there is no stable self because the self, too, is changing. Sankhara I'm less familiar with but it sort of sounds like an explanation for how changing things interacting with each other create what we would call a reality, like we might call the mind a reality. It's not really real, but it's a real phenomenon that arises from interaction. That's just googling, correct my misunderstandings. If that is basically what Buddhists are saying, though, it is the same as Heracliteanism at least on these points.

      The objective of the Greek folks was the same as the objective of the Indians, to understand reality and how to live well. Heraclitus was reacting primarily against 1) Parmenides, who said that all was One and change was illusory. He argued that for a thing to change is for being to arise from not-being, and that this was not actually possible. 2) Pythagoreans, who were not monists or even necessarily idealists but thought the world could be explained on a mathematical basis and that all things were quite literally made of numbers. So Heraclitus said something like "no, this is stupid, things do change, things are not numbers, also not only do things change, but it is perfectly obvious that everything is changing in every way all the time, and nothing is stable." It was a powerful argument because it was either correct (Plato's view), or nearly correct (Aristotle's view). But neither Plato nor Aristotle thought it was sufficient. There are many arguments, but the central one is that given in the OP - "yes things are changing, but there must be a thing in order for change to be. So things can't be in flux entirely in every way. If x is changing such that it cannot be said to be anything, then it is nothing. So even if we admit that x is changing, we must admit that there is such a thing as x." So even if Socrates puts on weight, he is still Socrates. To maintain quite literally that everything is changing means that there is nothing that even can change, and the world isn't just a world of change, but a world of both change and identity. And it's trying to explain and understand that, that led to, say, Platonism.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        > Anatta=no soul, right?
        more than no soul, is no identification, but yeah no soul is sufficient.
        >...but a world of both change and identity.
        here is where, if one applies anatta correctly, one can see that identity is a mental construction, an elaboration imposed by the experiencer over reality as it is, a sankhara (fabrication, concoction).
        an argument against this is, if we extrapolate enough, we couldn't even communicate in any form, or eventually fall into nihilism. the objective of these concepts is to lead one into liberation, no more, no less. they have their place in the system, but trying to use these tools outside the objective they were conceived for can have not so good results.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          So if I could rephrase the argument in my own words - "Yes, nothing is stable and nothing has an identity. But this is not intended as a metaphysical theory per se, in the way that the Greeks you're talking about created metaphysical theories, but is more of a useful concept. It cannot be literally true, because the result would be nihilism. But where Heraclitus was trying to come up with a theory of nature, we Buddhists are more concerned with a way of living that will end suffering." Is that fair? And if that is what the Buddhists are saying, there's not necessarily any real disagreement at all. Plato, too, is constantly saying "this world is in flux and is unchanging and you shouldn't be attached to it, you shouldn't even be attached to your own desires and emotional states because these are part of your body and are just as in flux as anything else." I guess if I kept going down Plato's thinking, we'd reach a point where the Buddhists would say "no" (like his psychology and theology), but at least at the ground level of practice they seem very similar. I once met a serious Buddhist and we talked for a while and his conclusion was "we have the same ethics but different metaphysics."

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >is unchanging
            Meant, "is changing"

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >It cannot be literally true, because the result would be nihilism.
            it depends on what your definition of true, existence and reality is. the buddhist pov of the world is the senses and the mind. if one reduces reality to this, just the experiences through the senses, then buddhism can be empirically tested to be true, in a way identical to the scientific method.
            > But where Heraclitus was trying to come up with a theory of nature, we Buddhists are more concerned with a way of living that will end suffering.
            exactly. in the words of the Tathagata himself, he only teached what is suffering and how to cease it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >the buddhist pov of the world is the senses and the mind. if one reduces reality to this, just the experiences through the senses, then buddhism can be empirically tested to be true, in a way identical to the scientific method.

            That right there is where this could turn into an argument, I suppose, though I respect your point of view and arguments are tiresome. Plato would reject the idea that the world and the truth of the world either is, or at least is for us, simply what is in the mind/perception. But you've probably heard that line of thought before, and if not it's in the Theaetetus. Platonism is sort of like Buddhism because it's even more like Hinduism. The parallels with advaita vendata are downright eery, like they both love swans and take them as important symbols. And the Hindu gradation of reality from true being to imagination, images of images, is quite similar to that found in the Republic. Anyway, enjoyed the discussion, don't know enough about Buddhism to say anything else that would be interesting.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I enjoyed it too, thanks fren.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >you shouldn't even be attached to your own desires and emotional states because these are part of your body and are just as in flux as anything else." I guess if I kept going down Plato's thinking, we'd reach a point where the Buddhists would say "no" (like his psychology and theology), but at least at the ground level of practice they seem very similar.
            No the whole point is that the practice is completely different because the greeks don't have a practice at all, that's their big problem. The stoics have no user manual on how to ''stop desiring'', at best they have ''mindfulness of death'' and ''mindfulness of the body'' to try to kill desire and that's it. And it does work but for a few hours, and as soon as they see some alluring things, well desire pops up again, because it's not eradicated with this method. Greeks and all the Semites likes the Christians and Muslims suffer from the same problem. They don't have the buddhist insights which is what is required for enlightenment. Mindfulness doesn't get people enlightened, what i does is calming desire when mindfulness of repulsive things is done, and mindfulness of the breath is for calming the mind by generating pleasure, which is very useful for people who over think. And then after that the insights into the aggregates must be developed, and that's only when enlightenment happens.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I think you are right that Plato was overly rational, in the sense that he did not see any other path to happiness or ultimate liberation besides dialectic (preceded naturally by a few years of mathematics). I don't think that's the case either. And this is one way Christianity was a positive force in the west. As for the question of methods (meditation etc.) the Platonic method is dialectic, and it is similar to forms of meditation practiced in the east. It involves resolving and transcending mental concepts, ascending by a sort of ladder to the source of all, and could produce a state of henosis or union with the divine. That's probably more similar to Hindu meditation than Buddhist meditation? Anyway, it is not true that Platonists were concerned only with arguing, their outlook was thoroughly mystical, and they did not see mysticism and rational philosophy as opposed, rather the latter was a means to the former. Augustine and Plotinus are two Platonists who write extensively on henosis and ascent (for Augustine, De Trin is basically a long ladder in itself, and Plotinus discusses it passim). At the same time, no, they did not have a step-by-step guide to enlightenment, and as I understand it not everyone in the East accepts that mode of thinking either. They certainly did not think that you would reach a state of actual apatheia, i.e. your emotions just "go away" because of how smart and enlightened you are, but they describe a separation of the observing mind from everything else.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >it is not true that Platonists were concerned only with arguing, their outlook was thoroughly mystical, and they did not see mysticism and rational philosophy as opposed, rather the latter was a means to the former.
            well then they should have lots of positive results to show for their method and they should have a clear step by step manual for anybody to follow.

            >It involves resolving and transcending mental concepts, ascending by a sort of ladder to the source of all, and could produce a state of henosis or union with the divine. That's probably more similar to Hindu meditation than Buddhist meditation?
            yeah the hindus mahayanists vajrayanists allow the use of logic in their teaching, but even that can't go far.
            And the christians are also very bad at meditation for exactly the same reason: they over hype rationality and will power. It's the eastern christians who may have a chance of being good at it, but then their whole understanding is tainted by their theism and the best they can achieve is with their little rosary.
            Then they confuse the meditative pleasure with the merger with their israeli god, which is big no-no ever since their nicacea chism, and from the external observer they say it looks like orgasms, like the famous statue of nun therasa from avila. Simone weil tried to merge platonism with christianity and make sense of her ''religious experience'' and all she leaves is a confusing mess. You can read her stuff here
            https://archive.org/details/intimationsofchr0000weil/page/n5/mode/2up
            They have been trapped by their own prejudiced fantasies for thousands of years and the only way out for them is to accept they have been very wrong on everything and start from scratch.

            People on the other side of this (Hindus, Platonists, Catholics, etc) would say that you can't understand your mind without understanding the world. They'd say you can't throw in the towel and focus only on psychology and meditation and reject any metaphysics, because psychology is under metaphysics. Your mind is obviously not the absolute, I don't think you think that. And your mind can consider the world outside itself, not just in the sense of "what seems to reduce suffering" but in what it is. Also (and again I know this is not a fair criticism but it's how we feel when encountering Buddhist ideas), it seems nihilistic, and its nihilism would appear to follow directly from its rejection of metaphysics.

            what matters to understand is that the aggregates, so the real things that the rationalists care about, cannot be changed. Even a buddha cannot turn consciousness, feelings, sensations, forms into the opposite of what they are, ie turn those into something which last forever and that are pleasant and usable at will.
            What can be changed is the cravings for the aggregates. Cravings stems only from the ignorance of the 3 marks of the aggregates, ie that they are anicca dukkha anatta. Once the aggregates are seen as they really are, ie as fundamentally flawed for happiness, craving stops and there will never be a new birth. That's the entire teaching by the buddha and it has nothing to do with the countless mental masturbation by rationalists and it cannot be reconciled with it.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Anatta=no soul, right? So it just follows naturally from anicca, if everything is changing, there is no stable self because the self, too, is changing.
        the logic is what is fabricated is dukkha, what is dukkha is anatta
        https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.nymo.html

        "Bhikkhus, form is not-self. Were form self, then this form would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.' And since form is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.'

        "Bhikkhus, feeling is not-self...

        "Bhikkhus, perception is not-self...

        "Bhikkhus, determinations are not-self...

        "Bhikkhus, consciousness is not self. Were consciousness self, then this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.' And since consciousness is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.'

        "Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?" — "Painful, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."

        "Is feeling permanent or impermanent?...

        "Is perception permanent or impermanent?...

        "Are determinations permanent or impermanent?...

        "Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable sir." — "Now is what is impermanent pleasant or painful?" — "Painful, venerable sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."

        "So, bhikkhus any kind of form whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near, must with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not myself.'

        "Any kind of feeling whatever...

        "Any kind of perception whatever...

        "Any kind of determination whatever...

        "Any kind of consciousness whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.'

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          "Bhikkhus, when a noble follower who has heard (the truth) sees thus, he finds estrangement in form, he finds estrangement in feeling, he finds estrangement in perception, he finds estrangement in determinations, he finds estrangement in consciousness.

          "When he finds estrangement, passion fades out. With the fading of passion, he is liberated. When liberated, there is knowledge that he is liberated. He understands: 'Birth is exhausted, the holy life has been lived out, what can be done is done, of this there is no more beyond.'"

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >>The objective of the Greek folks was the same as the objective of the Indians, to understand reality and how to live well.
        The greeks were rationalists, so their goal was really to argue. The holy grail of the rationalists is to realize their dream of fining with the mind a method to segregate products of the mind, ie to separate the schizo thoughts from ''truth'' and ''knowledge''.
        Rationalists have been trying hard for thousands of years and they have no truth, no knowledge, no method to separate garbage ideas from allegedly non-garbage ideas and no method to communicate knowledge.
        The best those people came up with is another cretinous idea of ''justifiable knowledge'' as a huge cope for their failure.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Heraclitus had an atman that was called logos, so no.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah but it wasn't the individual soul.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It was individual to all things, but it's still a certain something that buddhists would deny existing, he did say it was within the soul, so if you follow later christian theology, heraclitus' logos is actually more profound and much deeper than the soul, because it's essentially the recognition of the soul's attachment to god, which would crush buddhists even more

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I don't know anything about no annica, I'm just a homie.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >as nothing would be anything
    Isnt this the case?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's not just that "nothing would be anything" in the sense that "nothing [in the sublunary world] is the same from moment to moment" - Plato would accept this tout court, but that on the Heraclitean theory it would actually be nothing and not exist whatsoever. So Heraclitus says "everything is changing", and Plato says "yes but-"; as he says in the Timaeus our world is constituted of a mixture of the same and the different.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        yeah and also in buddhism the world or the universe doesn't matter, beyond understanding its mechanism, ie karma.
        Buddhism focuses on the intimate experience, ie feelings and sensations, that's literally what the buddha calls the world.
        https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.044.than.html
        The Blessed One said: "And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is the origination of the world.

        "Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises ear-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises nose-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises tongue-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises body-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the intellect & mental qualities there arises intellect-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is the origination of the world.

        "And what is the ending of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. Now, from the remainderless cessation & fading away of that very craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering. This is the ending of the world.

        In buddhism the universe is really jsut the pre-buddhist cosmology, so all the suttas in DN where the buddha talks to brahmins like https://suttafriends.org/sutta/dn27/

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          People on the other side of this (Hindus, Platonists, Catholics, etc) would say that you can't understand your mind without understanding the world. They'd say you can't throw in the towel and focus only on psychology and meditation and reject any metaphysics, because psychology is under metaphysics. Your mind is obviously not the absolute, I don't think you think that. And your mind can consider the world outside itself, not just in the sense of "what seems to reduce suffering" but in what it is. Also (and again I know this is not a fair criticism but it's how we feel when encountering Buddhist ideas), it seems nihilistic, and its nihilism would appear to follow directly from its rejection of metaphysics.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The thing that is changing can be everthing itself.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >ummmm westerners have literally never and didn't even know how to meditate according to muh new age orientalist hippie guru
    >i need a step by step manual to meditate otherwise it's not real
    Just sit down, shut the frick up, and stop thinking, ya dumb homiez. That's all there is to it. Ya don't need to read a thousand suttas and jack off to abhidhamma.

    Also read the following:
    Hadot -- What is Ancient Philosophy? and Philosophy as a way of Life
    Uzdavinys -- Philosophy as a Rite of Rebirth and Philosophy and Theurgy in Late Antiquity
    Nussbaum -- Therapy of Desire
    Etc.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Buddhist impermanence/change is DISCONTINUOUS and not continuous (ie not continuous flux)
    There are constant mentions of things undergoing ‘alteration while remaining the same’ or ‘persistence while changing’.
    The ‘three characteristics’ are arising, ceasing, and PERSISTING WHILE CHANGING.
    A tree changes over the years as it grows and withers, while remaining the same tree throughout.
    This is not contradicted in Buddhism.
    The main unique quality is that absolutely nothing is exempt from discontinuous change, including the Self (or consciousness, things considered independently eternal/changeless/atemporal in other traditions), due to its existential contingency & inseparable dependence on the temporal.
    Ie - one doesn’t have to ‘see consciousness itself changing’ (or see the subject changing over time - an impossibility anyway since consciousness cannot be an object, and the subject can never be the object…
    but by thoroughly understanding the subject’s fundamental contingency upon the object, its independence (and its lofty ‘atemporal, changeless’ status) is undermined.
    Theories of ‘constant flux’ have no real place in Buddhism proper. Completely misleading. Buddhist anicca has nothing whatsoever to do with ‘constant flux’ or ‘constant change’

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Does logical truth like 1+1=2 also arise and pass away and change? If not, then the dhamma is flawed. Also the dhamma itself neither changes nor arose nor passes supposedly so that seems automatically self contradictory too.

      So basically there's a bunch of exceptions to the rules. And therefore really no reason to presume anatta is truth or without exception either. Also, can we even trust the experience of meditators? Seems like self hypnosis. Hindoos think they find God. Buddhists think they find nirvana. Mostly just seems like some sort of solipsistic onanism where you confirm your own beliefs.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Does logical truth like 1+1=2 also arise and pass away and change? If not, then the dhamma is flawed.
        your question falls outside the scope of buddhism.
        >Also, can we even trust the experience of meditators?
        no, that is why the buddha says come and see for yourself.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >see for yourself
          But then he tells you what to see, no? Why should I trust his insight over others? I took acid once and meditated and saw Jesus. Is this not as valid an argument as Buddha's?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >But then he tells you what to see, no?
            yep, specifically how to see.
            >Why should I trust his insight over others?
            see for yourself if the insights stand by themselves or not.
            > I took acid once and meditated and saw Jesus. Is this not as valid an argument as Buddha's?
            that is a you-problem, not the Buddha's problem.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >see if insights stand for themselves
            They do not. Altho buddhism may be the religion of choice for soulless bugmen, it is clear that it does not work for anyone. I do not believe the Buddha was enlightened. He was likely a conman. He knew no one would be able to prove or disprove his theses. And yet acted as if they were superior to his superiors.

            Literally show me 1 (one!) contemporary enlightened person.

            Even monks from asian countries rarely claim such outside of attempting to scam people by being a guru

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >it is clear that it does not work for anyone
            yep.
            >I do not believe the Buddha was enlightened.
            that's okay.
            >Literally show me 1 (one!) contemporary enlightened person.
            Ajahn Chah.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Ajahn Chah
            So you are not enlightened tho? Then how can you know this man is enlightened? This man seems a guru con artist as well. There is a reason the east is to this day a primitive backwater. Everything good of late there comes from the West.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Does logical truth like 1+1=2 also arise and pass away and change?
        That is a statement, not a dhamma, or phenomenon. There are four kinda of dhammas in Buddhist theory:
        >rūpa
        This is physical matter or form. Obviously a statement isn't material.
        >citta
        This is consciousness or mind, similar to Greek nous. Obviously a statement can't "know" anything either.
        >cetāsika
        These are the mental factors that relate rūpa and citta, including things like sensation, perception, feeling, etc. Again, a statement does not fit this category.
        >nibbāna
        This is the only dhamma that is just a dhamma, purely real and nothing else, for which reason it is called the unconditioned (asankhata). A statement is surely not unconditioned, so it is not nibbāna.
        So by process of elimination, a statement such as 1+1=2 is not any kind of dhamma, so it is not ultimately real. It has only conventional reality by virtue of human minds assenting to its truth. To ask whether it arises and passes away is a category error; it's the equivalent of the atheist canard "Can an all-powerful god create a stone he can't lift", basically trying to play games with definitions instead of examining reality as it really is.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Do you follow the eightfold path? Do you take refuge in triple gem? Or are you just a westerner who likes to throw around fancy words to defend yr cool oriental aesthetic philosophy?
          >meditation and philosophy on its own is not the path fyi

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Arguably, mathematical truths are either cetāsika that do not pass or somehow unconditioned like Nirvana.

          Also wrt:

          >But then he tells you what to see, no?
          yep, specifically how to see.
          >Why should I trust his insight over others?
          see for yourself if the insights stand by themselves or not.
          > I took acid once and meditated and saw Jesus. Is this not as valid an argument as Buddha's?
          that is a you-problem, not the Buddha's problem.

          >specifically how to see
          If how one sees affects what one sees then is this not confirmation bias?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Buddhist impermanence/change is DISCONTINUOUS and not continuous (ie not continuous flux)
      whats the difference? like, where's the practical import?

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Shame on anicca who try to run game on anicca

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Heraclitus said that change is changeless and that it's the tension between opposites that constitutes reality. Plato and Aristotle had to take refuge in the "law" of non-contradition to cope.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Gang dialectics/dialetheism/metaxology rise up wooooooo boizz

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Well the 3 marks of existence (annica annata dukkha) are in opposition to the unconditioned of nibbana. So in one sense yes literally every THING is annica- impermanent, in Flux, subject to change - but nibbana is not a thing, is unconditioned and permanent (well, timeless).

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *