-4

This article explains Anicca, Dukkha, and Anatta -- and in this question I'd like to ask about Anicca.

The article says that Anicca doesn't mean, or shouldn't be translated as, "impermanence":

  • Impermanence is a fact; see, “Grand Unified Theory of Dhamma“. But impermanence is NOT the MEANING of anicca.

It says,

A Buddha is not needed to show that "impermanence" is an inherent characteristic of our universe. Scientists are well aware of that, but they have not attained Nibbāna. Anicca is a deep concept that can be described in many different ways, and they are all related. Here are three ways to look at it:

  • “Anicca – Inability to Keep What We Like”

  • “Anicca – Repeated Arising/Destruction“.

  • “Anicca – Worthlessness of Worldly Things“.

Is that so -- is the article right about that?


It seems to me that this is more logical -- and it explains lots of points where we have doubt about.

As an example, when it says it's dukkha when something is Anicca -- how come loosing a tooth of a kid (to grow new one) makes no sorrow to his mum, but when some boy looses his tooth when he is 19 (adult tooth not kid) it makes the mother cry? it's not because of the impermanence but because the things didn't work out the way as expected.

So impermanence is not always cause to Dukkha -- but when the expected result is not met, that is always Dukkha.

And understanding this deeper make you wise, Not to expect things but to accept the situations as it is. Because things happens not because whether we like it or not but it's the way things are supposed to be.

If I explain with another example: a boy starts liking a girl, just because she has nice hair, nice eyes and nice voice (Attachment start with Avijja). And boy starts to date the girl and everything is going well . And they decided to marry, after the marriage, boy finds out that the girl can't be a mother, but boy wants to be a dad. Now there's a conflict and it normally result in sorrows (dukkha).

If we think about this, no matter whether they grow older and look bad here nothing is related to impermanence but it's not getting what the boy wanted. So initially boy get attached to the girl base on outer appearance (what ever noticeable) thinking he can achieve what he wanted with girl. When getting attached boy didn't ask her whether she is capable of having a baby or not, but the picture / model / image which is created in boy's mind (by himself) is capable of any of those. In other words, in boy's mind the picture of the girl is perfect, he expects what ever he needs from her as his model in the mind is capable of anything he wants. And when the boy understand that she is not capable of making his expectations a reality, the image / model / picture in his mind get clashed with reality and that drives to sorrow, dukkha.

Building these images/models/pictures is because of avijja -- we don't know how the world behaves, but we expect things from the attached world. What ever we are attached to, we build our own castles, on top of that in our mind because we don't understand the Anicca nature of the world. That's what the Buddhist (who has the Samma Ditti = Sothapanna) understand the true nature of the world, which means everything is Aniccha -- so don't expect to be happy by attaching to outside world things. Because what ever the joy you create are in your mind they are not because of the external world material. So attachment is dangerous as it creates Karma which will cause you later.


Above is how I've realized this. I expect the comments answers on this. Whether someone rejecting this view if so why? I'm not sticking to any of view, I'm whether this view on Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta is wrong?

  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – ChrisW Jul 13 at 12:41
0

The terms “Buddhism” and “Buddhist” were invented by the English, French, and German historians in the nineteenth century. Up to that time it was “Buddha Dhamma” or the “Dhamma or Teachings of the Buddha”. And a person who diligently followed the Path advised by the Buddha was called a “Bhauddhayä” (=bhava + uddha+yä= one who strives to stop the rebirth process, i.e., to stop suffering). I do not think that the members of this forum are aware of this fact.

Each person understands Buddha Dhamma differently, mainly based on the level of exposure to “correct Dhamma”. The phrase “Dhammo ha ve rakkati Dhammacari”, i.e., “Dhamma will guide and protect one who lives by Dhamma” is true, becomes a truism only if one is a Sotapanna (a Stream Entrant). But only a minute few will realize this truism. If one really starts becoming a Buddhist/Bhauddhaya, (=bhava + uddha+yä= one who strives to stop the rebirth process, i.e., to stop suffering), one will be able to see the changes in oneself as time goes by (others will start noticing after a bit longer). One’s likings and associations are the first to change.

Now coming to your question proper, just like beauty doesn't exist on its own but is created by observers, and is in the eye of the beholder, it is the same when it come to this question about “Anicca”. For almost all those who are part of this forum, the meaning of “Aniccä vatha sankhärä; Uppäda vaya dhamminö”… is “All things are impermanent; They arise and pass away; Having arisen they come to an end; . Their coming to peace is bliss.” But I am one of a very small group of people who take the meaning of it to be thus:

All beings of all worlds, are forever trying to entertain the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind. In this desire to satisfy our six senses we do six types of volitional formations in this endless sansaric journey. Yet we can never fully satisfy these six. They are fruitless, conceited, unproductive acts, that are done in vain. We do not realize that no matter what we do, it is not possible to maintain anything to our satisfaction in the long run. Thus… Anicca vata sankhara — "Alas, We can never maintain to our satisfaction, all such formations!”

Aniccä vatha sankhärä; Uppäda vaya dhamminö… all mind-made pleasures that arise from our ‘abhisankhara’ can never be maintain to our satisfaction, and thus come to pass, eroding our sublime qualities. All pleasures of the mind lead us right into Mara's death trap, eroding the sublime qualities of our hearts…. Uppäda vaya dhamminö… All things that arise, suffer change, and pass away. This is their nature.

Uuppajjitvä nirujjhanti; Te san vüpa samö sukhö….. whatever arises is bound to fade away and thus lead to sorrow. When this “San” or “piling up” is removed or “vüpa sama” or gotten rid of, we can reach the ultimate happiness or “Nibbana”, the Deathless.

Aniccä vatha sankhärä
Uppäda vaya dhamminö
Uuppajjitvä nirujjhanti
Te san vüpa samö sukhö

  • Sadhu, Upasaka, especialy for the introduction. For example the old Khmer transl. is "min diang", not control-able, not-bend-able. as common replacement. As right mentioned, sometimes impermanent is very welcome, thinking on those fearing boredom. – Samana Johann Jun 19 at 3:25
  • In summary, instead of translating "Anicca vata sankhara" as "impermanent alas [are] formations", you translate it as, "we can never maintain to our satisfaction, alas, formations". I think that meaning is implied by the Anattalakkhaṇasutta (SN 22.59), so maybe it's not only a minority view (held by "a very small group of people"). – ChrisW Jun 19 at 7:18
  • @Saptha, Thanks for replying here, I was about to leave this community like it was a waste spending time here. Only few people are open minded in this group (Including Rev. Samana Johann and ChrisW as well). Sadhu Sadhu 🙏 🙏 🙏 🙏 🙏 Wise person can be identified by another wise person only. (Anguttara Nikaya -> Chathukka Nipathaya -> Brahmana Vargaya -> Dvthiyavassakara Sutta) Yampi Iccan, Na Labathi Thampi Dukkhan – follower Jun 19 at 7:26
5

Anicca is not an+icca, rather it is a+nicca.

The Sanskrit equivalent is anitya, which is a+nitya.

Nicca according to wisdomlib means:

nicca : (adj.) constant; continuous; permanent.
(Source): BuddhaSasana: Concise Pali-English Dictionary

Anicca according to wisdomlib means:

anicca : (adj.) not stable; impermanent.
(Source): BuddhaSasana: Concise Pali-English Dictionary

From the AccessToInsight Glossary for A:

anicca: Inconstant; unsteady; impermanent.

This is elaborated by the Buddha in DN 17 (translated by Bhikkhu Sujato) so clearly, that you cannot mistaken it for something else:

See, Ānanda! All those conditioned phenomena have passed, ceased, and perished.
Passānanda,sabbete saṅkhārā atītā niruddhā vipariṇatā.

So impermanent are conditions,
Evaṃ aniccā kho, ānanda, saṅkhārā;

so unstable are conditions,
evaṃ addhuvā kho, ānanda, saṅkhārā;

so unreliable are conditions.
evaṃ anassāsikā kho, ānanda, saṅkhārā.

This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed regarding all conditions.
Yāvañcidaṃ, ānanda, alameva sabbasaṅkhāresu nibbindituṃ, alaṃ virajjituṃ, alaṃ vimuccituṃ.

You may be happy and confident today, based on your close-knit family, dependable friends, good looks, fantastic health, abundant wealth, productive career or business etc. But all these will not last forever. They are impermanent (aniccā), unstable (addhuvā) and unreliable (anassāsikā). To peg your happiness or sense of self to these things will bring suffering. That's the relationship of impermanence to suffering. Also see SN 22.93.

  • Can you explain below scenario, how the impermanence become Dukkha?: Imagine a girl in 16 years old get pregnant. Is she happy now? Is her parents, boy friend everyone is suffering right? Now think of a girl married in 22nd of her age and expecting a baby, but she can't be a mother due to some health issue. In this two scenarios, can you explain where the impermanence is? – follower Jun 19 at 15:51
  • For icca, nicca. Only thing I've to say, we are still using the word icca (which means, expectation, likeness ) in our vocabularies. So no matter who gives new definitions to it, we know what's the real meaning of icca as we still use it. – follower Jun 19 at 15:52
  • The pregnant 16 year-old girl - why is she suffering? What makes her unhappy? She may think that her reputation is ruined and people will look down at her. She may think her future and security is at risk. It's because she pegged her self-worth to these impermanent things, which when lost or at risk of being lost, makes her unhappy and agitated. Her parents may also be concerned about their reputation in society, and peg their self-worth to it. – ruben2020 Jun 19 at 16:08
  • Ok, so don't you feel like that you are changing the domains here. If I answer to this in different way, assume that when she get pregnant in 22nd, she is happy. As you said, its because her parents and the society is having a new, better view of her. So this is also impermanence, right ? but now she is happy – follower Jun 19 at 16:11
  • Yes, she is happy. Her reputation is good. She clings to the idea of her reputation. Now she wants to be a mother. She clings to the idea of motherhood. She is happy now with a child. What if her child suddenly dies? Wouldn't that make her unhappy? Or the child grows up and becomes undisciplined, disobedient and delinquent - wouldn't that make her unhappy? Suffering is due to things that make you happy (like the pleasures and ideas you cling to) being impermanent, and things that make you unhappy are not permanently avoidable (like disease and death). – ruben2020 Jun 19 at 16:16
2

What you describe about attachment to mental image creating dukkha is correct. But this is not what's called Anicca. This is closer to what we in Mahayana call Sunyata, emptiness (of all phenomena or mental images).

Anicca refers to constant change, like the clouds drifting continuously. Because everything is drifting, you can't build happiness on top of it. This is why it's dukkha (wrong, faulty).

  • According to this definition, it doesn’t talk about building happiness. What i talks about is when something is not the way you (or someone) want it to be that make you dukkha. Why? Because that’s the nature of the world which is Anicca (not the impermanence) – follower Jun 14 at 22:57
  • 2
    Yes, yes, I understand. This is right. Just don't call it Anicca. – Andrei Volkov Jun 15 at 0:49
  • But if you think about the word 'Anucca' = An + icca, where icca has the meaning of like, vote, expectation, etc. So with 'An' in front this makes the negative of it. The issue happened translating the word Anicca to sanscrit. They translated it as Anithya. That means impermanence. With that this confusion came. So the right word for the definition in tge question is Anicca while impermanence is Anithya. And in Sri Lankan canon its clrealy advised by buddha dhamma should not be translated to sanskrit if do it will run to issues. Thats exactly what we are facing today. With Metta – follower Jun 15 at 3:48
  • As you have understand Anicca (sorry which you asked not to say it). I'm sharing the below link which you can understand. ( see the link in the update section) its a personal experience of a forieng lady so its in english so u can understand. Like wise there are many experience in dhyana levels and day to day lives. Only thing we think was based anicca. Because thats the root cause for all these dukkha ans problems in the world. – follower Jun 15 at 4:12
1

I read the following quote:

A Buddha is not needed to show that "impermanence" is an inherent characteristic of our universe. Scientists are well aware of that, but they have not attained Nibbāna. Anicca is a deep concept that can be described in many different ways, and they are all related. Here are three ways to look at it:

“Anicca – Inability to Keep What We Like”

“Anicca – Repeated Arising/Destruction“.

“Anicca – Worthlessness of Worldly Things“.

The above quote is obviously wrong for the following reasons:

  1. Ordinary people are always acting & thinking under the assumption of "permanence", which is why they often suffer over & cannot accept loss & change. For example, it can take a person many years to recover from grief over the death of a loved one or it can take a person many years to accept their ex-spouse had the right to divorce them.

  2. The Buddha asked three questions to the five monks in his 2nd Sermon in SN 22.59, namely:

    i. Are the five aggregates "anicca"?

    ii. Are the anicca five aggregates "dukkha"?

    iii. Should the anicca & dukkha five aggregates be regarded as "self"?

The two notions of the "Inability to Keep What We Like” and the "Worthlessness of Worldly Things" is contained in the 2nd question of the Buddha about "dukkha". Given this is so, if these two notions were "Anicca", it would not have been necessary for the Buddha to ask the 2nd question.

In reality, many ordinary people understand things are impermanent yet they keep seeking happiness in impermanent things. They do not understand impermanent things are dukkha.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of Buddhists do not understand what "dukkha" means in terms of the 2nd question (2nd Characteristic) above. Most Buddhists confuse "dukkha" as the 2nd Characteristic with the "dukkha" as a Noble Truth.

The "dukkha" of the 2nd question or the 2nd Characteristic does not mean "suffering". It means the inability of impermanent things to bring happiness. This is made clear in MN 115:

“Here, Ānanda, a bhikkhu understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat any formation as permanent ― there is no such possibility.’ And he understands: ‘It is possible that an ordinary person might treat some formation as permanent ― there is such a possibility.’ He understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat any formation as pleasurable ― there is no such possibility.’ And he understands: ‘It is possible that an ordinary person might treat some formation as pleasurable ― there is such a possibility.’ He understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat anything as self ― there is no such possibility.’ And he understands: ‘It is possible that an ordinary person might treat something as self ― there is such a possibility.’

MN 115

"Anicca" does mean "Repeated Arising/Destruction" but it does not mean the other two notions. For example:

"If anyone were to say, 'The eye is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of the eye are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'The eye is the self.' So the eye is not-self.

MN 148

Or for example:

And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents? There is the case where a monk remains focused on arising & falling away with reference to the five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its passing away. Such is feeling, such its origination, such its passing away. Such is perception, such its origination, such its passing away. Such are fabrications, such their origination, such their passing away. Such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.' This is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents.

AN 4.41

I recommend to not trouble others with questions from the "Pure Dhamma" website.



Returning to what was discussed above about Buddhists not understanding the 2nd Characteristic of the Three Characteristics, the following idea from the question is wrong:

And when the boy understand that she is not capable of making his expectations a reality, the image / model / picture in his mind get clashed with reality and that drives to sorrow, dukkha.

The 2nd Characteristic called "dukkha" is not related to "sorrow". For example, a Buddha understands a girl is not capable of meeting any expectations for happiness. For a Buddha, a girl is "dukkha". But this does not cause a Buddha to "sorrow". It is the girl that is dukkha. It is not the Buddha's mind that is dukkha, as described as follows:

  1. "All conditioned things are impermanent" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

  2. "All conditioned things are unsatisfactory (dukkha)" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering (dukkha). This is the path to purification.

  3. "All things are not-self" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

Dhammapada

AN 3.136 (note the link translation is wrong) says conditioned things are "dukkha" even if there is no Buddha or no person aware of this.

In summary, the Buddha taught Three Characteristics, namely, anicca, dukkha & anatta. The 2nd Characteristic called "dukkha" is unrelated to the "dukkha" explained in the Four Noble Truths. The "dukkha" of the 2nd Characteristic is the inherent incapacity of any conditioned thing, such as a tree or rock or girl, to bring lasting true happiness. It does not mean "sorrow". It means "unsatisfactory". It is the thing, such as a rock or tree or girl, that is "unsatisfactory". The more the mind experiences "dukkha as the 2nd characteristic", the more the mind is free from the "dukkha of sorrow". A Buddha is always experiencing the "2nd characteristic of dukkha" but a Buddha never experiences the "noble truth of dukkha".

  • You are quoting the mistakenly translated things from the sites. You are not thinking with new definition of ‘Anicca’ and answered this question. And how you recommend that not to trouble others with questions from ‘pure dhamma’ site. What are you? Are you Arhanth, if so I would accept this, if not you are trying to bias this site’s perception to what you think is write. Please just don’t type or quote things as answer. Put your self in to the word Anicca as what defined then convert all the things for a second and think. With Metta – follower Jun 14 at 22:55
  • Anicca = (An + icca) what is icca? Icca is the consent to something, expecting something etc. meaning. And Anicca is not getting that nicca. – follower Jun 14 at 23:28
1

I think the terms (e.g. anicca and dukkha) are related.

And phrases like "Inability to Keep What We Like" seem to be quotes from scripture, so I don't want to say that the phrase is "wrong".

But the phrase seems to come from the second noble truth ...

Furthermore, bhikkhus, this is the dukkha ariya·sacca: jāti is dukkha, jarā is dukkha (sickness is dukkha) maraṇa is dukkha, association with what is disliked is dukkha, dissociation from what is liked is dukkha, not to get what one wants is dukkha; in short, the five upādāna'k'khandhas are dukkha.

... which is canonically part of the description of what's dukkha, isn't it.

If you start from the premise that "everything dukkha is anicca" and "everything anicca is dukkha" then perhaps -- because "dissociation from what is liked is dukkha" -- therefore, logically, "dissociation from what is liked is anicca" and "anicca is dissociation from what is liked". But then I wouldn't see the point of having a separate word for it.

The topic you were talking about -- i.e. things being created in the mind -- the word which describes that might be sankhara -- see e.g. Can anyone explain Sanskara / Sankara indepth? -- sankharas are described as being anicca and dukkha.

There are perhaps other kinds of sankhara too (i.e. other meanings of the word), and other words (e.g. "attachment") which could describe what you were referring to.

So words have more than one meaning, and there's more than one word which might describe an aspect of something. I don't think I'd want to say it's a "wrong translation" though.

  • “Logically, ‘dissociation from what is liked is anicca” this is wrong. Here what you should think is the ‘like’ part. That likeness has come because not knowing that is anicca. But he thinks it will be the way he wants it. Not to get what we want is dukkha is directly about anicca. The other things anicca is hidden in the attachment (like etc.) part – follower Jun 14 at 23:05
  • I’m not talking about Sankara. Anicca is not about sankara. Anicca is about the panchaupadanaskanda. Panchaupadanaskanda is anicca. Why because it is what you build in your mind. And also we build panchaupadanaskanda in our mind without knowing the panchaskanda in anicca. That’s why when someone realizes the anicca nature ( there are some other facts to understand as well ) he stop running after things which is the starting point of dropping sakkaya ditti (not the self view but thinking the world is worth) – follower Jun 14 at 23:43
  • Pati-icca-sama-uppada. When some overcome the paticcasamuppada he become arhanth as he is getting no more jathi. What is icca there? Its not knowing anicca, people getting to paticcasamuppada. All of these are bound when we think anicca with this definition. But it won’t happen because the buddhism is not accepted and understood by majority that’s the nature of it (this is told by buddha and also buddha said Only wise people get it) because the world is anicca whether we like it or not thats how it is – follower Jun 14 at 23:47
  • You seem to be trying to translate anicca as an+iccha -- so "not liked" or "not likeable" or "not something to wish for", or something like that. The usual translation or definition is as a+nicca -- so "not ongoing", "not constant". There seems to be overlap (between your definition and the conventional one) because we're taught we shouldn't wish for what's impermanent, that the impermanent isn't permanently satisfying. – ChrisW Jun 15 at 6:21
  • 1
    Yes, you are correct about anicca and nicca, I checked pali canon also. That's how its written. The meaning of these words are different any way. Thanks for the reference. With Metta! – follower Jul 10 at 17:20
0

Anicca is impermanence. Impermanence always ends in Dukka regardless of whether it is pleasant, unpleasant or neutral.

FEELINGS

Now, ayya, how many kinds of feelings are there?‖

Avuso Visākha, there are these 3 kinds of feelings:

  1. pleasant feeling, sukhā vedanā

  2. painful feeling, dukkhā vedanā

  3. neither pleasant nor painful [neutral] feeling. adukkham-asukhā vedanā

What now, ayya, are pleasant feeling, painful feeling, and neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling?

Whatever, avuso Visākha, is felt bodily or mentally as pleasant or agreeable—this is pleasant feeling.

Whatever, avuso Visākha, is felt bodily or mentally as painful or disagreeable—this is painful feeling.

Whatever, avuso Visākha, is felt bodily or mentally as being neither disagreeable nor agreeable—this is neither-pleasurable-nor-painful [neutral] [303] feeling.

“Now, ayya,

regarding pleasant feeling, what is pleasant, what is painful,?

regarding painful feeling, what is painful, what is pleasant?

regarding neutral feeling, what is pleasant, what is painful,

Avuso Visākha,

pleasant feeling is pleasant when it persists, painful when it changes;

painful feeling is painful when it persists, pleasant when it changes;

neutral feeling is pleasant when there is

knowledge of it, painful when there is no knowledge of it.

LATENT TENDENCIES (ANUSAYA)

Now, ayya,

what latent tendency lies in a pleasant feeling?

what latent tendency lies in a painful feeling?

what latent tendency lies in a neutral feeling?

Avuso Visākha,

The latent tendency of lust rāgânusaya lies in a pleasant feeling.

The latent tendency of aversion paṭighânusaya lies in a painful feeling.

The latent tendency of ignorance avijjā’nusaya lies in a neutral feeling.

...

Cūla Vedalla Sutta

Inability to Keep What We Like is not-self nature, i.e., one does not have control over one's experiences and the corporeal body.

0

Upasaka, interested,

There is nothing generally wrong with Upasaka Lal's approaches at large and they may give food for those caught in certain views to get release from them, might be helpful since people tend to give perceptions reality, holding them for nicca (real, lasting). How ever, once one takes on a stand which might help others to loosen their, people often tend to make it like wise. Actually he already maintains a firm household around his approaches which make them no more to something genuine and subject to be suspected being after honor and gain often missing to pay credits toward the Gems as well.

No refuge, not real, not lasting, nothing one can hold on... all that is anicca. In this perspective the wise lets his concentration grow right there and sees that sannas, perceptions, remembering, are not lasting as well. Taken on a stand, the stand is already gone, what ever concept is just that, anicca. But there are concepts which lead to nicca. Till one really faces anicca, anicca, as the other two "lakanas" are just perceptions and not as often told "qualities". To reach a level of seeing things as they are, again, the focus on the Noble Truth is very important, starting with the 1st. Householder naturally love those perceptions but seldom use them in conductive ways and since the tradition s becoming more and more just a stand-holder tradition, wrong approaches, serving stands, are beloved, yet as well subject to decay, but in a lost area without refuge and path.

Again, as most modern, westernized, have strong problem with ever meeting the first:

First Things First, by Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu

Whether in practice or in popularity approaches by emptiness, impermanence, and not-self are always the leading head lines but the author explains why the Sublime Buddha kept the dominance and concern of the Four Noble Truth more important, and why putting the first thing first supports conductive for success.

Btw. "not real" is a great transation and really troubles pada-parama type people, callanges them and possible helps them for short release.

(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks and entertainment but as a means toward escape from this wheel here)

  • Who is Lal? And about dukkha: in the example think if the girl gives the birth to a child now, boy thinks its the girl have what he wants and he attached to her more, this is the noble dukkha. He thinks its pleasure but its just a thought in his mind that the girl makes him happy. Since its something made up in the mind (the reality is whether he like or not she will give the birth) and he get cheated and attached more (upaadana) its the noble dukkha – follower Jun 15 at 3:13
  • 1
    Upasaka Lal is the author of the page Upasaka (@follower ) quoted and he is generally hard offended by those clinging on views everywhere, has no ease at all, attacked by householder and householders monks. Nyom can approach him personally here. Best greetings if meeting him. He would not go out of his castle, home. – Samana Johann Jun 15 at 3:22
  • Like some people here :) if you know what I mean. – follower Jun 15 at 3:23
  • 1
    Try to get ride by your own, Upasaka. No need to seek for siding, and stay along with wise (those who rebuke you toward kusala), seeing that they would not take side and go toward liberation, or are there. As told often, one is not wise if going to lands where wrong view domains to seek out what is near actually where one dwells. – Samana Johann Jun 15 at 3:25
  • 1
    If placing Dana outside the 5 proper places it always becomes not a pleasure for one, Nyom. If and just if feeling fine, Upasaka tends to scarifies toward the Gems he can always do such here but it's hard as requires to leave home, stand. Anicca as well, but headed toward nicca, dedicated only for that. – Samana Johann Jun 15 at 4:02

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.