Problem with idea of impermanence - Discussion
Yes change depends on there being seperate objects, and separateness is not a reliable perception or state of being, seemingly for some people.
One would have to be in a state of non-separation always for this to be a timeless state. Yet no buddhist can deny the reality of the changing phenomenal world. They talk as if there is a changing phenomenal world - an old problem (that mangles people's minds) of why others people who have proclaimed an end to a sense of separate self talk as if they still have one.
If they do deny the changing phenomenal world, then they cannot make a claim of impermanence, as nothing changes.
But grant that one can enter into this paradox somewhere along the line, OK leave that aside for the moment.
There is a claim that mindfulness practice will reveal the impermanence of phenomena even to the unrealised student - that the mind is constantly changing, that phenomena are composed of scintillating fragments, sensory experience is vibrating - all that stuff.
But that judgement of impermanence definitely requires an accurate memory - a permanent record - with which to compare the state of things now with the state of how they were.
Or, alternatively, one cannot claim to have overcome the sense of seperate, changing objects until one has relinquished one's sense of separate existence and sense of multiple objects.
This is for the enlightened, not for the student on the path, hence students on the path cannot see the impermanence of phenomena, yet they are told they can.
Is it not jumping the gun to say that an unenlightened person practicing vipassana should be able to see into the impermanence of things ?
"(7) There is no other tool, knowledge of impermanence relies on memory
(8) Impermanence is unprovable"
"Now you've lost it again. Real knowledge of impermanence relies on incredibly more factors than just memory."
Lost it ? I don't agree. Knowledge of impermanence relies fundamentally on memory. Being in a thoughtless present awareness doesn't rely on memory, but thoughtless present awareness is freedom from the permanent/impermanent duality.... because memory is a form of thought.
Close your eyes, is your coffee mug exactly the same as it was five seconds ago ? You can assume so, but there is nothing empirically provable about that. And when you open your eyes all you have to go on is memory to tell you what your mug looked like.
It's a flaw in the buddhist teaching, as it is handed down anyway, it seems to me.
What would be a more credible claim is that there is no provable permanence. But by the same token there is no provable impermanence.
That's not going to be a popular statement
"Otherwise better write a treatise on the 'improvability of impermanence'."
Well, it's the thousands of treatises on the provability of impermanence that seem to be the problem. Might as well use them for fire lighters, they weren't going to be around forever anyway.
(8) Impermanence is unprovable"
"Now you've lost it again. Real knowledge of impermanence relies on incredibly more factors than just memory."
Lost it ? I don't agree. Knowledge of impermanence relies fundamentally on memory. Being in a thoughtless present awareness doesn't rely on memory, but thoughtless present awareness is freedom from the permanent/impermanent duality.... because memory is a form of thought.
Close your eyes, is your coffee mug exactly the same as it was five seconds ago ? You can assume so, but there is nothing empirically provable about that. And when you open your eyes all you have to go on is memory to tell you what your mug looked like.
It's a flaw in the buddhist teaching, as it is handed down anyway, it seems to me.
What would be a more credible claim is that there is no provable permanence. But by the same token there is no provable impermanence.
That's not going to be a popular statement
"Otherwise better write a treatise on the 'improvability of impermanence'."
Well, it's the thousands of treatises on the provability of impermanence that seem to be the problem. Might as well use them for fire lighters, they weren't going to be around forever anyway.
John:
It's a flaw in the buddhist teaching, as it is handed down anyway, it seems to me.
What would be a more credible claim is that there is no provable permanence. But by the same token there is no provable impermanence.
That's not going to be a popular statement
What would be a more credible claim is that there is no provable permanence. But by the same token there is no provable impermanence.
That's not going to be a popular statement
I find that closing my eyes and putting attention on present moment sensations provides ample experience (evidence) of impermanance, and that experience makes an impression on an impressionable brain and that's the whole ball of wax. Very very little capacity of memory required. Well, it's hard to 'remember' to keep attention where I was planning, but that what frikken practice is about.
"Very very little capacity of memory required."
"Well, it's hard to 'remember' to keep attention where I was planning, but that what frikken practice is about."
Impossible, even. Although, of course, the concept of "impossible" would also have to be impermanent, so "impossibilty" might become "possibility". But you would have to have a reliable memory of what used to be impossible to make that judgement, which is, as I have shown, problematic. But that problematicness might be impermanent too, there's no way to tell.
"Well, it's hard to 'remember' to keep attention where I was planning, but that what frikken practice is about."
Impossible, even. Although, of course, the concept of "impossible" would also have to be impermanent, so "impossibilty" might become "possibility". But you would have to have a reliable memory of what used to be impossible to make that judgement, which is, as I have shown, problematic. But that problematicness might be impermanent too, there's no way to tell.
OK, and the the argument for impermanence is ironclad if there is a permanent memory, which, as you say there isn't. At least, according to science - rewriting of memories, decay with time, emotional and social influences etc etc.
Hmm, now, what were the results of that memory experiment... let me think now I mean, I don't know what the implications of memory research are for the actual scientific method itself, and what sort of assumptions about memory underpin it. Sounds like a nice 10 week philosophy module would cover it.
Hmm, now, what were the results of that memory experiment... let me think now
I mean, I don't know what the implications of memory research are for the actual scientific method itself, and what sort of assumptions about memory underpin it. Sounds like a nice 10 week philosophy module would cover it.
"Ahhh, Wikipedia. So this...blah" "Look, you seem to think your intelligence is enough to....blah."
"...behaving or looking as though one thinks one is superior to others."a supercilious lady's maid""
God forbid that the buddha might have been fallible about something.
"...behaving or looking as though one thinks one is superior to others."a supercilious lady's maid""
God forbid that the buddha might have been fallible about something.
Rist Ei:
you can't say things are impermanet, but looking others you are able to see what you don't have so the knowledge of these things can arise. So yes you can't say or witness things are impermanent. Those things what arise are with poisons like greed, ignorance and delusion.
See, he gets it.
neko:
John, James said this:
Look, you seem to think your intelligence is enough to see through the insights of the Buddha and others without doing the work.
But you only saw this:
Look, you seem to think your intelligence is enough to see through the insights of the Buddha and others without doing the work.He's a big boy, I'm sure he can say that for himself.
But re: doing work
(1) Impermanence is a tenet given at the beginning of the path for people with no work under their belt.
(2) Literally millions of people have made a claim to agree with the tenet of impermance without ever reaching very far up the contemplative path, or just living a ritual form of buddhism - based on pure faith rather than reason or experience.
(3) it's not made clear at all whether (a) there is a point in the path upon which there is a way to really measure impermanence without referring to a permanent memory (b) my interlocuter has reached that point.
(4) No amount of meditation will change the meaning and conditions necessary for making a claim of permanence or impermanence - because those things lay in the dictionary, not in the length of time spent on retreats.
(5) Didn't Buddha say see for yourself and don't believe me ? Well, I don't.
Also, it's not the first time someone in this forum tells you that you philosophise too much, is it?
James M Corrigan:
Look, you seem to think your intelligence is enough to see through the insights of the Buddha and others without doing the work.
But you only saw this:
James M Corrigan:
Look, you seem to think your intelligence is enough to see through the insights of the Buddha and others without doing the work.
But re: doing work
(1) Impermanence is a tenet given at the beginning of the path for people with no work under their belt.
(2) Literally millions of people have made a claim to agree with the tenet of impermance without ever reaching very far up the contemplative path, or just living a ritual form of buddhism - based on pure faith rather than reason or experience.
(3) it's not made clear at all whether (a) there is a point in the path upon which there is a way to really measure impermanence without referring to a permanent memory (b) my interlocuter has reached that point.
(4) No amount of meditation will change the meaning and conditions necessary for making a claim of permanence or impermanence - because those things lay in the dictionary, not in the length of time spent on retreats.
(5) Didn't Buddha say see for yourself and don't believe me ? Well, I don't.
Also, it's not the first time someone in this forum tells you that you philosophise too much, is it?
If, as many have said here, someone meditates and heightens their attention so that they can see (for example) 40 internal phenomena per second, implicit in that knowledge is a sense of time passing, and a memory of how things were in a previous time, and that the memory should be unchanging. As memory fades, so does knowledge of whether that phenomenon is permanent or impermanent.
I don't know anything about the language the suttas are translated from into English, so it must be a translation error because I can't see that a lauded philosopher like Gautama would make such an obvious error as to make a claim of impermanence as a fundamental cosmic attribute, without his followers picking up on it. Or Heraclitus, for that matter.
John:
I can't see that a lauded philosopher like Gautama would make such an obvious error as to make a claim of impermanence as a fundamental cosmic attribute, without his followers picking up on it. Or Heraclitus, for that matter.
Gautama was not really a philospher, but foremost a practical men. He realized the time in this body on earth, along with it's pleasures, will definitely end. And wanted to get out of this mess. We cannot prove he accomplish what he had in mind (or rather, getting out of mind and matter; unless following his 8-fold path and prove it each to our self), but he most certainly died.
Infact, to claim impermanence of human life an obvious error is to deny that all humans before us on earth died. Show me just one of them merely beyond 120 years of age still alive. And I would believe you're not just in denial of the most painfull unavoidable fact in every human life.
You'll never be able to get around the fact that a claim on permanence and impermanence is a function of memory.
Ask a blind girl which colour the ball is, blue or green is meaningless because those categories are impossible without sight
Ask someone in an unthinking or undivided state whether something is permanent is just as meaningless. Yet people keep trying to give an answer, which is like saying the blind girl should be saying green all the time.
Blind - Green
- Blue
- no possible answer
Unthinking/undivided - permanent
- impermanent
- no possible answer
Honeslty gys, if was your teacher I would be striking your work through with red ink and relaxing in the knowledge that the world won't run out of janitors any time soon.
Ask a blind girl which colour the ball is, blue or green is meaningless because those categories are impossible without sight
Ask someone in an unthinking or undivided state whether something is permanent is just as meaningless. Yet people keep trying to give an answer, which is like saying the blind girl should be saying green all the time.
Blind - Green
- Blue
- no possible answer
Unthinking/undivided - permanent
- impermanent
- no possible answer
Honeslty gys, if was your teacher I would be striking your work through with red ink and relaxing in the knowledge that the world won't run out of janitors any time soon.
John:
Gautama was so totally a philosopher. Philo-sophy love-of-wisdom.
That's again merely your projection.
"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.' Because of this, I say, a Tathagata — with the ending, fading away, cessation, renunciation, & relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations, all I-making & mine-making & obsessions with conceit — is, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released."
pamojja:
John:
Gautama was so totally a philosopher. Philo-sophy love-of-wisdom.
That's again merely your projection.
Andrew K:
John:
Consider
(1) To know something is impermanent, you have a sense of change
(2) To have a sense of change, you have to have a memory to compare at least two different situations
(3) This memory has to be accurate and permanent for a comparison to be valid
(4) If memory is impermanent or inaccurate, change cannot be reliably demonstrated or known
(5) If change cannot be reliably demonstrated or known, impermanence cannot be proved
(6) If all things are imperpanent, then so is memory, hence it is an invalid tool for showing impermanence
(7) There is no other tool, knowledge of impermanence relies on memory
(8) Impermanence is unprovable
(1) To know something is impermanent, you have a sense of change
(2) To have a sense of change, you have to have a memory to compare at least two different situations
(3) This memory has to be accurate and permanent for a comparison to be valid
(4) If memory is impermanent or inaccurate, change cannot be reliably demonstrated or known
(5) If change cannot be reliably demonstrated or known, impermanence cannot be proved
(6) If all things are imperpanent, then so is memory, hence it is an invalid tool for showing impermanence
(7) There is no other tool, knowledge of impermanence relies on memory
(8) Impermanence is unprovable
1) Yes I think so
2) This is debatable (even without memory, I think one can perceive the sense of something changing in real-time observation. But its complex and so lets just agree that this is true for arguments sake)
---- Hmm, I think possibly this would be a different kind of memory than the explicit "mental images of the past" type memory. A very short term sense of flow. It's a good point, and I will have to look this up because I expect this has been studied and written about.
3) I disagree here. The memory might be inaccurate, but still there is a sense of change. Also the memory needn't be permanent at all, in fact, I think its impossible to find such a thing as a permanent memory, memory is very fickle and always changing. The memory only needs to last for the duration that the comparison is made, which can be a fraction of a second. So as long as your memory of the previous moment lasts long enough for you to see the next moment has changed, then that's all you need to see impermanence (again assuming .2 is true)
--- yeah that's a good point, an innacurate memory can also provide a sense of change. As far as I know memory research says that memories are re-written every time they are visited, and are only approximately accurate. But I don't see how you can make a real claim to impermanence without a permanent memory as a comparitor.
I have considered temporary memory, accurate for a period then forgotten, because that's how mine (at least) seems to work. Unless we are mnemonists then we can only remember a few digits - etc. It's a tricky one.
It assumes that reality presents itself in series of moments that can be captured and compared, with the last moment captured in it's entirety so that everything can be compared.
The capturing in the entirety also seems problematic to me. Even in-the-moment perception in entirety seems problematic unless one assumes that the entirety of existence is contained in one's current awareness - which is what the higher end of buddhist experience claims. But does that include a perfect, all encompassing memory to allow reflection ? What if one can only remember 50% of all perceptions ? So size of memory field is another obstacle to accepting impermance, seems to me.
If there is a moment to moment existence (and I know contemplatives and scientists of various stripes say this), is that the same thing as constant flow ?
I'd be interested to know if the buddhist world view is a digital one with a frame rate, or a constant one. Things written here on D.O. suggest a digital one. Does that even count as flow ?
The way our minds work is a kind of analogue fudge where we talk about constant curves and lines but these disappear, in the real world, when we look close enough at them, and only seem to really exist as mathematical convention. A la Plato.
So we talk about constant flow, but is it really moment by moment change of perfectly still slices ?
4) Impermanent or inaccurate memory shows impermanence!
----It shows impermanence and innacuracy of memory, but how do you know that it reflects non-memory reality ?
That would just mean that your memory is unreliable. Everything else could be eternally the same. I know some people pretty much say this.
(I'm not sure how memory researchers figure their own unreliable memories into their experimental setup. I guess they say that it's unreliable but good enough to not ruin their reliance on their experimental results. What if human memory was so faulty that all experiment was also faulty, but the faults could never be recognised ? It's a sort of "how do you know there isn't a gorilla behind you if you haven't got eyes in the back of your head?" question.)
5) Change can easily be demonstrated or known, indeed it seems impossible to avoid! Where is there anything permament? One could also state the other, more obvious side: If permanence cannot be reliably demonstrated or known, permanence cannot be proved, and there is nowhere you can look to find anything permanent at all. And I think this is one of the ways the Buddha suggested people understand impermanence, by looking clearly and sharply at experience for something permanent (and they are bound to fail, and see only change and impermanence...)
6) Seems to me that impermanent memory would be a useful tool to demonstrate impermanence!
---- But how do you prove it ? How many memories can you hold in attention at once to make the comparison ?
Have you ever perceived anything permanent?
---- I don't know.
Cheers.
John, if you like Nikoli's quote, you might like these too...
From Awareness Itself
by
Ajaan Fuang Jotiko
"§ A woman complained to Ajaan Fuang that she had been meditating for a long time but
still couldn't cut any of her defilements. He laughed and said, "You don't have to cut them.
Do you think you can? The defilements were part and parcel of this world long before you
came. You were the one who came looking for them. Whether or not you come, they exist
on their own. And who says that they're defilements? Have they ever told you their
names? They simply go their own way. So try to get acquainted with them. See both their
good and their bad sides."
"§ "The stages of the practice... Actually the different stages don't say what they are. We
simply make up names for them. As long as you stay stuck on these made-up names,
you'll never get free.""
I only quote these because they both have the "told you their names?"/"say what they are?" lines in them. The point is that there are lots of maps and models and theories and philosophies that the buddha used and others used. None of them stand are their own and The Answer to everything. The whole reason the "practical dharma" circle of meditators exists is to wisely use models and ideas but not dogmatic form allegances with something being The One Right Way.
By the way, just for fun... it's kind of easy to blow up your original list of statements by doing the classic "use it against itself" approach: the whole "you can't trust memory, therefore you can't believe in imperminance" also applies to that very statement as well -- if you can't trust memory then you can't trust logic, because logic is the maintenance of truth through sequential statements. If memory cannot be trusted, then we can't trust our ability to go through a list of narrative statements and determine that the statements lead logically to the next. Therefore, we cannot believe in your original post.
John, what is your original rationale for rejecting imperminance? I'm sure it wasn't just a concern about the nature of memory. Are you keying into something like the timeless present moment that doesn't really change, so the whole teaching on imperminance seems to tarnish the brightness of experience right now?
From Awareness Itself
by
Ajaan Fuang Jotiko
"§ A woman complained to Ajaan Fuang that she had been meditating for a long time but
still couldn't cut any of her defilements. He laughed and said, "You don't have to cut them.
Do you think you can? The defilements were part and parcel of this world long before you
came. You were the one who came looking for them. Whether or not you come, they exist
on their own. And who says that they're defilements? Have they ever told you their
names? They simply go their own way. So try to get acquainted with them. See both their
good and their bad sides."
"§ "The stages of the practice... Actually the different stages don't say what they are. We
simply make up names for them. As long as you stay stuck on these made-up names,
you'll never get free.""
I only quote these because they both have the "told you their names?"/"say what they are?" lines in them. The point is that there are lots of maps and models and theories and philosophies that the buddha used and others used. None of them stand are their own and The Answer to everything. The whole reason the "practical dharma" circle of meditators exists is to wisely use models and ideas but not dogmatic form allegances with something being The One Right Way.
By the way, just for fun... it's kind of easy to blow up your original list of statements by doing the classic "use it against itself" approach: the whole "you can't trust memory, therefore you can't believe in imperminance" also applies to that very statement as well -- if you can't trust memory then you can't trust logic, because logic is the maintenance of truth through sequential statements. If memory cannot be trusted, then we can't trust our ability to go through a list of narrative statements and determine that the statements lead logically to the next. Therefore, we cannot believe in your original post.
John, what is your original rationale for rejecting imperminance? I'm sure it wasn't just a concern about the nature of memory. Are you keying into something like the timeless present moment that doesn't really change, so the whole teaching on imperminance seems to tarnish the brightness of experience right now?
This is where it falls apart for me:
It appears to me that impermanence is actually the way things are constructed - "things" being our experience. Everything changes. Nothing stays the same forever. You can't change that using logic or sophistry. You can observe it and yes, you need to use your imperfect memory to do so. I'd also add that memory not being perfect isn't a very good reason that there can be no such thing as impermanence. Nothing is perfect, either, and close enough can be good enough, even in metaphysics. Insisting on some form of artificial permanence or perfection - that doesn't exist - is building your reality on a house of cards. Constructing these kind of rules and objects is something human beings are really, really good at, however, so it's no wonder we fall for them so often.
A serious meditation practice in which we observe the nature of our experience closely is a good way out of this conceptual box canyon.
(3) This memory has to be accurate and permanent for a comparison to be valid
It appears to me that impermanence is actually the way things are constructed - "things" being our experience. Everything changes. Nothing stays the same forever. You can't change that using logic or sophistry. You can observe it and yes, you need to use your imperfect memory to do so. I'd also add that memory not being perfect isn't a very good reason that there can be no such thing as impermanence. Nothing is perfect, either, and close enough can be good enough, even in metaphysics. Insisting on some form of artificial permanence or perfection - that doesn't exist - is building your reality on a house of cards. Constructing these kind of rules and objects is something human beings are really, really good at, however, so it's no wonder we fall for them so often.
A serious meditation practice in which we observe the nature of our experience closely is a good way out of this conceptual box canyon.
Hi ! This post is great
i dont want to answer something in particular, just add what i understand by impermanence in a Buddhist view;
- A cup ceases to be a cup as soon as there is no sentient being (humans here specifically) to cognize it, experience it;
- Time ceases to exist as soon as there is no "one" to experience it
Buddhism speak of impermanence, from materialistic all up to philosophic, of a "label", not necessarly a "materially mesurable quantifiable existing thing" only
Our senses gives rise to emotions and it is cognized and it should stop there, but "we" soon or later fall for permanence trick because we start reifying some past experience and fearing other past experience .. because of of memory .. instead of just letting go "on the fly".. which is what defines the buddhist meaning for using the word "now" .. being right now instead of daydreaming (which can be deep or shallow daydreaming, but nevertheless never here, now)
Nature is certainly not permanent , it is in constant change, to the molecular level and beneath
Interrestingly, scientifically too, we just recently now know that when you remember something, you are in fact remembering the last time you remembered the thing you experienced, in fact you are replaying a copy of a copy of a copy of a memory of a memory of experience that happened to you once, an emotional replay , which itself can get biased with time .. this is intrinsticaly impermanent.. down to physical death and decay and total neuronal pathways disappearance
and so this gives you then matter to think about all day long, all lfe long, which leads to memory of agregate of experience , then aggregates of aggregates etc.. up to today, adult, you think .. hmm i must not forget that meeting tommorow 7am, oh and ill try to fit a little walk to the shop just afterwoods, i need bananas for tomorrow afternoon whatever activity then this then that then oh i hope i'll get this, manage this, and im fat, im ugly, im cool, im on top .. oh and this.. etc etc .. past , futur.. thinking , thinking thinking, like a child in a candyshop, but never ever really just still, all senses wide open, and just perception , awarness, being here, now, with no urge to grasp onto anything or anythought
I is impermanent, clearly
i dont want to answer something in particular, just add what i understand by impermanence in a Buddhist view;
- A cup ceases to be a cup as soon as there is no sentient being (humans here specifically
) to cognize it, experience it;- Time ceases to exist as soon as there is no "one" to experience it
Buddhism speak of impermanence, from materialistic all up to philosophic, of a "label", not necessarly a "materially mesurable quantifiable existing thing" only
Our senses gives rise to emotions and it is cognized and it should stop there, but "we" soon or later fall for permanence trick because we start reifying some past experience and fearing other past experience .. because of of memory .. instead of just letting go "on the fly".. which is what defines the buddhist meaning for using the word "now" .. being right now instead of daydreaming (which can be deep or shallow daydreaming, but nevertheless never here, now)
Nature is certainly not permanent , it is in constant change, to the molecular level and beneath
Interrestingly, scientifically too, we just recently now know that when you remember something, you are in fact remembering the last time you remembered the thing you experienced, in fact you are replaying a copy of a copy of a copy of a memory of a memory of experience that happened to you once, an emotional replay , which itself can get biased with time .. this is intrinsticaly impermanent.. down to physical death and decay and total neuronal pathways disappearance
and so this gives you then matter to think about all day long, all lfe long, which leads to memory of agregate of experience , then aggregates of aggregates etc.. up to today, adult, you think .. hmm i must not forget that meeting tommorow 7am, oh and ill try to fit a little walk to the shop just afterwoods, i need bananas for tomorrow afternoon whatever activity then this then that then oh i hope i'll get this, manage this, and im fat, im ugly, im cool, im on top .. oh and this.. etc etc .. past , futur.. thinking , thinking thinking, like a child in a candyshop, but never ever really just still, all senses wide open, and just perception , awarness, being here, now, with no urge to grasp onto anything or anythought
I is impermanent, clearly