Sunday, December 2, 2012

Relative Impermanence


Are all formations impermanent or relatively impermanent in Buddhism?

“Anguttara Nikaya, Book IV, Sutta 134. ...that all formations [nama and rupa] are impermanent, that all formations are subject to suffering, that everything is without a self"

iamgodofgods commented:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"that all formations [nama and rupa] are impermanent, that all formations are subject to suffering"

That translated statement is wrong (not Ehipassiko Buddhism), because permanence and impermanence are not intrinsic nature of all formations [nama and rupa]. Rather, permanence and impermanence are relative (relativity) in nature.

For example: suppose life cycle of a mosquito is 14 days and life cycle of a man is 60 years.
Man is permanent relative to mosquito.
Mosquito is impermanent relative to man.

Therefore, all formations are subject to suffering is based on relativity/comparative/gap to another.

Another example is: you grasp a sensory object using eye. Then you create a mental picture of that object. You see that the object is permanent relative to the mental picture.
If the object or mental picture changes, relative impermanence occur and that gap as a confusion (problem) is Dhukkha (suffering).

Buddhism is for the wise, not for religious loyalties who champion in memorizing.

Additional Details

Buddhists should be investigators, not dumb followers. There are many worldly misinterpretations in Buddhism.
Take for example: Jataka Stories are misinterpreted as mere fantasy fairy tales where animals talk to people. Where's the distinction between children and adults in Buddhism? All in state of child, including Buddhist monks. Listen to their Dhamma talks (bana) and see how worldly they are.

@No chance without Vipassana,
Can you define impermanence (anicca/anitya) as an absolute formation without comparing (relative/condition/logic) one state to another state?


No comments:

Post a Comment