"More importantly, the Buddha proposes, does he not?, that perception of impermanence stands in an organic relationship with relinquishment (as does non-perception of impermanence to attachment). And leaving aside (for now) the question of whether flux is a valid concept in its own right we still must ask: In what way is this notion holistically connected to letting go? After all, an ordinary person, even were he to assent to the *doctrine of flux,* would not thereby see (even conceptually) a connection with the ideas of attachment and unhappiness. This is demonstrated by the many non-Buddhist thinkers, from Heraclitus to Henry Burlingame III who are in exactly this position. *Of course one can argue a connection. But the fact that an argument is needed is already evidence that the connection is more a matter of reasoning than of self-evidence.* And however reasonable the argument may seem it is still an argument. This is in striking contrast to the notion of conventional or “everyday” change. Even an ordinary person (let alone an enlightened one) can readily see how that notion is connected to attachment and woe. No argumentation is necessary (for who has not loved and lost?), albeit he might not thereby see the way to free himself from such attachment, or even wish to do so. To give a concrete example, if I accept that this concrete slab (which is dear to me) is changing “all the time” there is in that no arising of anxiety. My ownership is not thereby affected. Nor is there any a priori reason why this belief in (or even perception of) flux should induce in me an attitude of relinquishment. It could as well lead me to cling all the tighter. If, for instance, I were to choose to regard this concrete slab as “always changing” then that very “always” could lend it (in my eyes) a sort of backhanded permanence which discrete change would not. But suppose I see that my slab could be broken or stolen, that it must be polished and protected, and that in any case it will inevitably be destroyed like all concrete slabs before it. Then it is clear at once, to enlightened and unenlightened alike, that attachment to such a thing must lead to disappointment. And, on a subtler and more immediate level, the awareness that this is so must necessarily produce in me a present apprehension of that disappointment even though the concrete slab may now be undergoing no apparent (or even actual) change." -Samanera Bodhesako, Change, Part I
Thanks for your comment. Perhaps we could estimate that what Buddah actually said is forever a mystery, since nothing was written down at that time (his teachings were passed by word of mouth only and may have been altered/different from the originals)
I contend that a man can step into the same river twice. If he steps into the River Nile and then steps out, if he steps in, again, is he not stepping into the River Nile? He may not be stepping into the same water, but he does step into the same river. I also contend that he is the same man because he is not another man. He may have changed imperceptibly but he is still the same man with the same genetic makeup. Sorry, Heraclitus, you goofed.
Thankyou for the wonderful session.
Anyone here after upsc essay
Yess😄
😂😂
Xavier tum yaha bhi!
Yes me
"All things chance in a dynamic environment,your efforts to remain what you are is what limits you" Puppet Master
Ive learnt so much in this vid. Thank you!
Thank you for your comment ♥
You're welcome :)
excellent !
0:17 just like hiro said "You can't swim into the same river twice"
Really good video, thank you very much for uploading it , even if I come 4 years late to tell you so.
Many thanks for your comment ♥
Great video.
Very illuminating
"More importantly, the Buddha proposes, does he not?, that perception of impermanence stands in an organic relationship with relinquishment (as does non-perception of impermanence to attachment). And leaving aside (for now) the question of whether flux is a valid concept in its own right we still must ask: In what way is this notion holistically connected to letting go? After all, an ordinary person, even were he to assent to the *doctrine of flux,* would not thereby see (even conceptually) a connection with the ideas of attachment and unhappiness. This is demonstrated by the many non-Buddhist thinkers, from Heraclitus to Henry Burlingame III who are in exactly this position. *Of course one can argue a connection. But the fact that an argument is needed is already evidence that the connection is more a matter of reasoning than of self-evidence.* And however reasonable the argument may seem it is still an argument.
This is in striking contrast to the notion of conventional or “everyday” change. Even an ordinary person (let alone an enlightened one) can readily see how that notion is connected to attachment and woe. No argumentation is necessary (for who has not loved and lost?), albeit he might not thereby see the way to free himself from such attachment, or even wish to do so.
To give a concrete example, if I accept that this concrete slab (which is dear to me) is changing “all the time” there is in that no arising of anxiety. My ownership is not thereby affected. Nor is there any a priori reason why this belief in (or even perception of) flux should induce in me an attitude of relinquishment. It could as well lead me to cling all the tighter. If, for instance, I were to choose to regard this concrete slab as “always changing” then that very “always” could lend it (in my eyes) a sort of backhanded permanence which discrete change would not. But suppose I see that my slab could be broken or stolen, that it must be polished and protected, and that in any case it will inevitably be destroyed like all concrete slabs before it. Then it is clear at once, to enlightened and unenlightened alike, that attachment to such a thing must lead to disappointment. And, on a subtler and more immediate level, the awareness that this is so must necessarily produce in me a present apprehension of that disappointment even though the concrete slab may now be undergoing no apparent (or even actual) change."
-Samanera Bodhesako, Change, Part I
Buddha said it, thank you
Thanks for your comment.
Perhaps we could estimate that what Buddah actually said is forever a mystery, since nothing was written down at that time (his teachings were passed by word of mouth only and may have been altered/different from the originals)
♥️
Here After samay raina stream
I contend that a man can step into the same river twice. If he steps into the River Nile and then steps out, if he steps in, again, is he not stepping into the River Nile? He may not be stepping into the same water, but he does step into the same river. I also contend that he is the same man because he is not another man. He may have changed imperceptibly but he is still the same man with the same genetic makeup. Sorry, Heraclitus, you goofed.
Thanks for your comment - I wish you well ♥