DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**aAaBecker** · 06-22-2012, 05:30 PM

Hello,

Thich Nhat Hanh is a very experienced Buddhist monk, but he believes that the three marks of existance should be Anicca, Anatta and Nibbana. I know that most Buddhist scholars agree that the three marks of existance are Anicca, Dukkha and Anatta, but there is no consensus. To think that the majority is what decide the truth is a logical fallacy.

Now that leaves us with the question: Do i have to view the world in such a negative way as "unsatisfactory" in order to get liberated? how about if i see the world as impermenant, yet satisfied with it as it is! Does that mean i am not wise?

If there is a contradiction between a 2500 years old translated text, and reality as i see it, which one should i believe? my eyes or the text?

Finally, can we say that the world is objectively unsatisfactory? Or to describe it as dukkha is a completely subjective?

06-22-2012, 05:30 PM	#34
aAaBecker Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 509 Senior Member	Hello, Thich Nhat Hanh is a very experienced Buddhist monk, but he believes that the three marks of existance should be Anicca, Anatta and Nibbana. I know that most Buddhist scholars agree that the three marks of existance are Anicca, Dukkha and Anatta, but there is no consensus. To think that the majority is what decide the truth is a logical fallacy. Now that leaves us with the question: Do i have to view the world in such a negative way as "unsatisfactory" in order to get liberated? how about if i see the world as impermenant, yet satisfied with it as it is! Does that mean i am not wise? If there is a contradiction between a 2500 years old translated text, and reality as i see it, which one should i believe? my eyes or the text? Finally, can we say that the world is objectively unsatisfactory? Or to describe it as dukkha is a completely subjective?
	Quote